|
Q u i c k Q u e s t i o n s
|
This Rock
Volume 18, Number 1
 January 2007 
|
|
|
Who Can (and Can’t) Give a Homily?
Q: My understanding is that only a priest or deacon may give a homily, but my pastoral coordinator has stated it’s not so “black and white.” Can a lay pastoral coordinator give a homily?
A: This issue has been very clearly dealt with by Church authority. First, the Code of Canon Law states that the homily "is reserved to a priest or deacon" (CIC 767). The General Instruction of the Roman Missal goes further in its instruction to expressly exclude lay persons:
The homily should ordinarily be given by the priest celebrant himself. He may entrust it to a concelebrating priest or occasionally, according to circumstances, to the deacon, but never to a lay person. (GIRM 66, emphasis added)
Finally, the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, in its instructional document Redemptionis Sacramentum, specifically names "pastoral assistants" and those who assume that function, as well as any other lay person, as those prohibited from preaching the homily:
The prohibition of the admission of laypersons to preach within the Mass applies also to seminarians, students of theological disciplines, and those who have assumed the function of those known as “pastoral assistants” ; nor is there to be any exception for any other kind of layperson, or group, or community, or association. (RS 66, emphasis added). This issue looks "black and white" to me.
—Jim Blackburn
Q: A Jehovah’s Witness I know told me that Jehovah God would not burn his enemies in hell forever and ever, because it wouldn’t “fit the crime” of sin.
A: First of all, Scripture describes hell as fire in order to convey something of the intensity of suffering that it entails. Actually, it’s worse than fire. God doesn’t send people to hell; they themselves choose to go there by turning their backs on God. Hell is to spend eternity without God. Only by knowing how unspeakably good heaven is can one know how unspeakably evil its absence is. When we sin mortally, we act as God’s enemies. But when we repent, he forgives us. He spent three hours on the cross that we might spend eternity with him. But we can still reject him. If we do so, we have no one to blame but ourselves.
For the Son of God to suffer such an agonizing death should convey something of the extreme severity of offense that sin is before God’s infinite goodness. The punishment does indeed fit the crime.
—Fr. Vincent Serpa
Q: What is required for a valid marriage between a Catholic and a non-Catholic?
A: According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, under the law in force in the Latin Church, a mixed marriage (baptized Catholic and a baptized non-Catholic) needs the express permission of ecclesiastical authority for it to be licit. In case of disparity of cult (baptized Catholic and a non-baptized person) the marriage will be not only illicit but invalid unless a dispensation from this impediment is obtained. This permission or dispensation presupposes that both parties know and do not exclude the essential ends and properties of marriage and the obligations assumed by the Catholic party to do what is in his power to see to the baptism and education of the children in the Catholic Church (CCC 1633–1637).
—Peggy Frye
Q: Why were God’s commandments limited to ten? It seems that the additions of “Thou shall not rape,” “Thou shall not condone slavery,” and “Thou shall not abuse children” would all be appropriate additions to the list.
A: There are only ten commandments in the Old Testament because those commandments are a synthesis of the natural law. Other sins are classified by moral theologians under the existing Old Testament commandments. The additions you suggest would fit in various places under commandments 4–10, which deal with how to treat other people.
—Michelle Arnold
Q: I don’t understand the sin of presumption. Is it deciding to sin because one can always go to confession before the actual sin is committed and receive forgiveness? Or is it deciding to sin because it can be confessed later?
A: This is how the old Catholic Encyclopedia defines the sin of presumption:
It may be defined as the condition of a soul that, because of a badly regulated reliance on God’s mercy and power, hopes for salvation without doing anything to deserve it, or for pardon of his sins without repenting of them.
One wonders how sincere a person’s love for God is when he is so readily willing to sin simply because God is forgiving. God cannot be fooled. He reads hearts and knows our sincerity. To decide to sin is to offend God. To decide to sin because one knows that he can be forgiven is to sin twice. It is to use God, reducing him to a utility at the service of our whim. It is to laugh at his passion and death.
I suggest adapting this prayer from the Divine Mercy Chaplet: "Eternal Father, I offer you the body and blood, soul and divinity of your dearly beloved Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, in atonement for our sins and for protection against this temptation. For the sake of his sorrowful passion, have mercy on me and on the whole world."
—Fr. Vincent Serpa
Q: A Protestant friend claims that the Catholic Church is Arminian rather than Calvinistic. Is this correct?
A: The Catholic Church cannot be said to be "Arminian" because it came before Arminianism and is not a product of that theology. Rather, it is better to say that Calvinism and Arminianism agree with Catholicism on some issues and disagree with it on others.
Calvinism was formulated by John Calvin in the sixteenth century. Calvin, in his Institutes of the Christian Religion, wove together a systematic theology that eventually would be remembered by the acronym TULIP. TULIP stands for total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, and perseverance of the saints.
Arminianism, named for its principal theologian, Jacobus Arminius, can be distilled to the five points it made that provoked a reaction from Calvinists, known as the Five Articles of the Remonstrants: apart from grace man cannot save himself or do anything truly good, conditional election, unlimited atonement, resistible grace, and the possibility of apostasy. (The first of these converges with Calvinism’s understanding of total depravity, though later Arminians and Calvinists have developed this idea differently.)
In some respects Catholicism and Calvinism agree (e.g., Catholic theologians from Thomas Aquinas to Robert Bellarmine have taught unconditional election) and in some they disagree (the Church does not teach that all believers are predestined to persevere in the faith). In some respects Catholicism and Arminianism agree (the Church teaches universal redemption) and in some they can disagree (the Church allows for the possibility of unconditional election).
—Michelle Arnold
Q: Can a woman who was divorced by her first husband (he left her and married again) receive Holy Communion?
A: Yes. If a divorced person has willfully destroyed a valid marriage, or if that person has entered into another romantic relationship, that person is barred from Communion until he has regularized his status in the Church through confession and/or an annulment. As neither of these circumstances apply in this case, the person is able to receive Communion, assuming she is otherwise in a state of grace. .
The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:
It can happen that one of the spouses is the innocent victim of a divorce decreed by civil law; this spouse therefore has not contravened the moral law. There is a considerable difference between a spouse who has sincerely tried to be faithful to the sacrament of marriage and is unjustly abandoned and one who through his own grave fault destroys a canonically valid marriage. (CCC 2386)
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in Concerning the Reception of Holy Communion by the Divorced and Remarried, has said that a divorced Catholic who has not remarried can receive Holy Communion after receiving the sacrament of confession and living in complete continence.
—Peggy Frye
Q: How are Catholics to view Protestant marriages?
A: Generally speaking, Protestants have two valid sacraments, baptism and marriage, although they usually do not consider marriage to be a sacrament. Assuming the husband and wife are both validly baptized and that there are no impediments to the marriage, the Church presumes Protestant marriages to be both valid and sacramental.
—Michelle Arnold
Q: Writing in the local diocesan paper, a parish priest took issue with Vatican over the preference for kneeling at Mass during the Eucharistic Prayer. He cited the First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea, Tertullian, St. Basil, and St. Hilary of Portiers to argue that kneeling was a construct of feudal relations coming directly from Byzantine court protocols. I’ve heard a number of excuses for standing at Mass, but this is the most elaborate to date. Your thoughts?
A: Even if kneeling were a construct of feudal relations, that would not change the fact that in our culture kneeling is an expression of humility. But the truth is that kneeling as an act of submission goes back far earlier than the Byzantine court. We find it both in the Old Testament and in the New. The old Catholic Encyclopedia states:
When the occasion was one of special solemnity, or the petition very urgent, or the prayer made with exceptional fervor, the Jewish suppliant knelt. Besides the many pictorial representations of kneeling prisoners and the like, left us by ancient art, Genesis 41:43 and Esther 3:2 may be quoted to show how universally in the East kneeling was accepted as the proper attitude of suppliants and dependents. Thus Solomon dedicating his temple "kneeling down in the presence of all the multitude of Israel, and lifting up his hands towards heaven." And: "Of Christ’s great prayer for his disciples and for his Church we are only told that ‘lifting up his eyes to heaven, he said,’" etc. (John 17:1); but of his agony in the garden of Gethsemane: "kneeling down, he prayed" (Luke 22:41). The lepers, beseeching the Savior to have mercy on them, kneel (Mark 1:40; cf. 10:17).
—Fr. Vincent Serpa
Q: My fiancé and I want to live together for the next year to save money. My mom is upset about this and says this is wrong. But if we both honor our commitment to live chastely until marriage, why would it be wrong?
A: Even if you and your fiancé don’t have sexual relations for the entire time of your living together, your actions give scandal. The Catechism warns:
The person who gives scandal becomes his neighbor’s tempter. He damages virtue and integrity; he may even draw his brother into spiritual death. Scandal is a grave offense if by deed or omission another is deliberately led into a grave offense. (CCC 2284)
And remember Jesus’ warning in Luke 17:1: "Temptations to sin are sure to come; but woe to him by whom they come!"
Saving money for your future life together is commendable, but moving in with your fiancé is not the only way in which you can do so. You could also find a roommate of your own sex or move in with your parents until your wedding day.
Surely, saving a few bucks is not worth the dishonor your parents will suffer if you follow through with your decision. Nor is it worth sacrificing your commitment to live according to the teachings of Christ and his Church in your preparation for marriage. Trust God for his grace to see you through.
—Peggy Frye
Q: What is liberation theology?
A: Liberation theology was a theological movement that began in the late 1960s in Latin America. It emphasized that the gospel was meant to liberate the downtrodden from their earthly poverty and oppression, with little or no emphasis on spiritual liberation from sin. The main problem with this approach to the gospel is that while Jesus had concern for the poor and distributed alms to them (John 13:29), he was much more concerned about the spiritual welfare of all mankind, whom he had come to save from sin, not from destitution.
—Michelle Arnold
Q: Given that at the Last Judgment the world will end, why in the “Glory Be” do we say “world without end”?
A: "World without end" is an idiom that simply means "forever." It is used to emphasize the eternal nature of God.
—Jim Blackburn
Q: Can I attend the baptism service of my Lutheran friend?
A: Yes: According to the local situation and as occasion may arise, Catholics may, in common celebration with other Christians, commemorate the baptism which unites them, by renewing the engagement to undertake a full Christian life, which they have assumed in the promises of their baptism, and by pledging to cooperate with the grace of the Holy Spirit in striving to heal the divisions which exist among Christians. (Directory for the Application of Principles and Norm on Ecumenism)
—Peggy Frye
Q: When Paul tells us in Scripture to follow the traditions they have taught, does Tradition end there? Can traditions start after biblical times? If they can, how do we explain to others that we are not “making our own rules” if new traditions are started after biblical times and we are giving them the same reverence as Scripture and Tradition of biblical times?
A: We need to distinguish between traditions and Tradition with a capital "T." All churches have traditions. But sacred Tradition is a direct expression of the authority Jesus gave to the apostle Peter and his successors. For over a century there was no New Testament. What was taught was oral Tradition. The faithful, like us today, had to rely on the authority Jesus gave to the leaders of the Church and their successors. It was that authority that eventually compiled the New Testament, discerning which books to include and which not. Whatever the Church teaches, it is bound to fidelity to sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture. This is why it cannot sanction anything it chooses but only that which is in accord with what it has been given: e.g., prohibiting the use of anything but grape wine and wheat bread for the Eucharist.
—Fr. Vincent Serpa
Q: What is the meaning of the name “Fatima”? I read that Mohammed, founder of Islam, named his daughter Fatima.
A: The name Fatima means "the shining one" and is indeed the name of Mohammed’s favorite daughter, Fatima Zahra. In some Muslim circles, Fatima Zahra is in some ways considered a Muslim counterpart to Mary, Mother of Jesus, as the ideal model for all women. She is revered for her purity and for her motherhood of a Muslim martyr.
How appropriate then that the Blessed Virgin Mary chose to appear in 1917 in Fatima, a town in Portugal dubbed such for a namesake of Fatima Zahra who converted from Islam to Christianity, and that the miracle given to confirm Mary’s appearances there was a miracle involving the sun. In his book on the Blessed Virgin entitled The World’s First Love, Fulton Sheen speculated that just as Judith, Esther, and other heroic women of the Old Testament were pre-Christian types of Mary, Fatima Zahra may well have been a post-Christian type of Mary.
—Michelle Arnold
Q: Our parish priest says the Church does not permit the exclusion of female altar servers. I thought a priest can choose whether or not to have girl altar servers. What’s the correct answer?
A: You are correct. The Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship has made it clear that while permission has been given to bishops to allow girls to serve at the altar, a bishop cannot force a priest in his diocese to admit women and girls to service at the altar.
—Peggy Frye
Q: If we are to believe that the earth wasn’t created in seven literal days but over millions of years, how do we reconcile the theology of death entering the world because of original sin? For example, how could animals such as dinosaurs (some carnivorous) have lived prior to the fall of man and then become extinct if death hadn’t entered into the world until the first man sinned?
A: Scripture is talking about human death. Nowhere does it suggest the notion that the animals were created to be immortal. Only humans were given immortal souls. When death entered creation as the result of the fall, it was human death. So the fact that animals may have died before the fall does not conflict with Scripture.
—Fr. Vincent Serpa
Q: Since the Church states that a person is human and endowed with a soul at conception, making abortion a moral evil, why do we not baptize the unborn?
A: The Code of Canon Law states, "Every person not yet baptized and only such a person is capable of baptism" (CIC 864). Therefore, a non-baptized person who is not yet born is theoretically capable of baptism.
The problem with such a baptism is how to do it. Given that water is the proper matter for baptism, is there a safe way apply it in utero? While the current (1983) Code does not prohibit the baptism of children in the womb, the 1917 Code stated, "No one should be baptized in the mother’s womb so long as there is a hope that he can be baptized correctly outside of it" (1917 CIC 746). This law is no longer in force, but the practical difficulty of safely baptizing the unborn remains.
—Jim Blackburn
Q: Pope Benedict XVI has stated that Muslims worship the same God as Christians do. Is this just his private opinion?
A: No. The Second Vatican Council taught that Muslims worship the one true God:
The Church regards with esteem also the Muslims. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in himself; merciful and all-powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth, who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even his inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God. (Nostra Aetate 3)
—Michelle Arnold
Q: I am having a hard time understanding the resurrected body. How old will we appear? If someone dies when he is ninety-five, will he forever look like he did at ninety-five? If he had severe deformities, will they be gone, or will they just not matter in the resurrected body?
A: The Church teaches that at the resurrection the bodies of the just will be re-modeled and transfigured to the pattern of the risen Christ. Like his body, our resurrected bodies will be those of a person in his prime. They will be incapable of suffering. They will have a spiritual nature—not that they will be pure spirit, but they will be like that of Jesus, who could penetrate closed doors after he had risen. They will have a new agility in that they will be able to obey the soul with great ease and speed—so that when the spirit is willing, the flesh will no longer be weak! Our bodies will be free from all deformity and will reflect God’s beauty to the degree that our souls do.
—Fr. Vincent Serpa
Q: I frequently hear the term “cafeteria Catholic.” Exactly what does this mean?
A: A cafeteria Catholic is typically defined as one who picks and chooses what Catholic teaching he wants to believe. Catholics are not free to choose which teachings (on faith and morals) to obey.
Even when the Church has not spoken on a matter of faith or morals definitively (infallibly), the faithful must give "a religious submission of the intellect and will" to its teachings (CIC 752).
—Peggy Frye
Q: My friends kneel at Mass for the consecration of the Eucharist even when that particular parish is not accustomed to doing so. The same applies with bowing before receiving the Eucharist. It is my understanding that all parishioners should assume the same posture as a sign of unity. Who is correct?
A: You are correct that a common posture during the Mass is a sign of unity, but it is your friends who are observing the correct posture (kneeling) during the consecration.
The General Instruction of the Roman Missal states:
A common posture, to be observed by all participants, is a sign of the unity of the members of the Christian community gathered for the sacred liturgy: It both expresses and fosters the intention and spiritual attitude of the participants. (GIRM 42)
To that end, the GIRM instructs that the faithful:
should kneel beginning after the singing or recitation of the Sanctus until after the Amen of the Eucharistic Prayer, except when prevented on occasion by reasons of health, lack of space, the large number of people present, or some other good reason. (GIRM 43)
Also, not for the sake of unity but out of reverence, the GIRM instructs, "When receiving Holy Communion, the communicant bows his or her head before the sacrament as a gesture of reverence" (GIRM 160).
—Jim Blackburn
Q: Can divorced individuals become godparents or sponsors for baptism and confirmation?
A: If the person in question is living a life in keeping with the Church’s expectations for someone in that situation, yes.
On the other hand, if the person does not have a Church annulment and is in a romantic relationship or has attempted remarriage outside the Church, then that person is not living "a life of faith that befits the role to be undertaken [i.e., baptismal or confirmation sponsor]," as required by canon law (CIC 874), and so another candidate for the role should be chosen.
—Michelle Arnold
Q: At Mass we proclaim, “Hosanna in the highest.” What does Hosanna mean?
A: "Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord! Hosanna in the highest!" (Matt. 21:9) was shouted by the crowds as Jesus entered Jerusalem. The word hosanna is associated with rejoicing. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia:
The general opinion is that of St. Jerome, that the word originated from two Hebrew words of Psalm cxvii (cxviii), 25. This psalm, " Confitemini Domino quoniam bonus," was recited by one of the priests every day during the procession round the altar, during the Feast of Tabernacles, when the people were commanded to "rejoice before the Lord" (Lev. 23:40); and on the seventh day it was recited each time during the seven processions. When the priest reached verses 25–26, the trumpet sounded, all the people, including boys, waved their branches of palms, myrtles, willows, etc., and shouted with the priest the words: O Domine, salvum (me) fac; o Domine, bene prosperare. Benedictus qui venit in nomine Domini! The Hebrew for salvum fac or serva nunc was hoshi’a na. This was repeated so frequently that it became abbreviated into "hosanna."
—Jim Blackburn
Q: If someone is told to deny Christ or acknowledge another religion or god under the threat of death, is it sinful to give in out of fear? I know modern culture doesn’t demand this kind of heroic virtue, but in Revelation 2:10, Jesus says, “Be faithful unto death.”
A: Such a scenario is currently quite likely. Just recently some Fox News employees in the Middle East were coerced into accepting Islam. To accept an ideology contrary to one’s own under duress renders such an acceptance null by most civilized societies. Nevertheless, we are called to never betray our loyalty to Christ and his Church even under pain of torture and/or death. But only God knows how morally culpable one is who does break under such duress.
—Fr. Vincent Serpa
Q: Is it a sin to divorce a spouse who is physically and emotionally abusive, after many attempts at resolving the behavior in couple’s therapy have failed?
A: No, it is not a sin to divorce such a husband. The Code of Canon Law states:
A spouse who occasions grave danger of soul or body to the other or to the children, or otherwise makes the common life unduly difficult, provides the other spouse with a reason to leave, either by a decree of the local ordinary [e.g., bishop] or, if there is danger in delay, even on his or her own authority. (CIC 1153)
The canon does go on to state that once such a danger has passed, common life should be restored, but given the unique difficulties of abuse cases (e.g., promises to reform are all too often broken), an abused spouse may wish to allow an independent specialist such as a priest or a psychologist to determine if and when it is safe to resume common life.
The Church considers civil divorce in such cases to be the ecclesial equivalent of a legal separation and tolerates civil divorce sought for just cause (such as to ensure personal safety and/or the safety of children) to settle estate and child custody arrangements. The divorced person is still considered validly married and may not remarry in the Church unless and until an annulment is granted.
—Michelle Arnold
Q: When St. John of the Cross spoke of the need for detachment from human beings, did he mean we should be detached from our spouses and children?
A: St. John of the Cross was concerned that we love God more than anyone else—not that we love God instead of anyone else. We need to detach ourselves from the times when we love the creature more than the Creator.
—Fr. Vincent Serpa
|
[TOP]
