I use a dog because of my disability. A few people have expressed concerns about having a dog in church for Mass because it is a sacred space. Does this actually have a basis anywhere in Catholicism?
There is no official Catholic opinion or teaching regarding service animals. Certainly, guide dogs for the blind are ordinarily accepted in most public places, including churches. When the general public becomes more accustomed to service dogs being used for other forms of assistance, they will become more accepted as well.
— Fr. Vincent Serpa, O.P.
I recently made an office appointment with my priest for some counseling. After our meeting I requested confession. He heard my confession without wearing his stole. Was my confession valid?
Yes. While the priest should wear a stole when exercising his priestly office, it is not required for validity. After all, there are many situations where a priest is asked to hear a confession and he doesn’t have a stole (e.g., for just cause—anytime, any place; can. 964 §3). Then there are priests who always carry a stole with them for just such occasions.
But the stole by itself has no power. It’s a liturgical vestment that signifies the ministerial priesthood and immortality. It’s also a beautiful sign to both the priest and penitent of the authority and power vested in the priest by virtue of the sacrament of holy orders to forgive sins (CCC 1461).
What’s needed for validity of the sacrament is for the penitent to confess to a legitimate minister, express sorrow for the sins committed, resolve to sin no more, and receive absolution.
— Peggy Frye
Why is killing not considered intrinsically evil, such as self-defense? If you are protecting yourself with a gun, you generally know that you may kill the person. On the other hand, lying is considered intrinsically evil, even lying to save someone’s life is still using an immoral means, and the ends do not justify the means. I am really having trouble understanding why killing, even for a good reason, would not fall in to this category as well.
First of all, intrinsic means of or relating to the essential nature of a thing. A lie is intrinsically evil because God has identified himself as the Truth: “I am the way, the truth, and the life” (John 4:16). A lie is the opposite of truth and therefore opposed to God.
But the taking of human life cannot be intrinsically evil. As the author of life, God has the right to take a life that he has given. So the taking of life cannot be intrinsically evil, if God does it.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church states: “The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not” (CCC 2263).
For more on this principle of double effect, see: www.pages.drexel.edu/~cp28/docdble.htm
— Fr. Vincent Serpa, O.P.
How can I take the Bible seriously when Genesis 30 describes Jacob changing the genetics of cattle by having them mate in front of different-colored rods?
If we read further in Genesis we discover that it was God who miraculously intervened to change the color of the cattle, not wood with magical power over genetics. Under divine influence, animals that had particular color markings were induced to mate with one another. According to Scott Hahn and Curtis Mitch:
Ancient herdsmen believed that visual stimuli could affect the offspring of breeding animals. . . . Building on the previous narrative, which emphasizes the human element of Jacob’s cleverness (30:25-43), the story is retold to stress the divine element, stating that God is ultimately responsible for Jacob’s protection and prosperity during his years in Paddan-aram (31:5, 7, 9) (Hahn and Mitch, Genesis, 56-57).
This story only proves that nothing thwarts God’s will, including scheming uncles, common superstitious practices, or the laws of genetic inheritance. God can always intervene with a miracle to rescue his chosen people, and he can manifest that miracle any way he chooses—including through common cultural practices of the people to whom he has revealed himself.
— Trent Horn
Does a visiting priest need to get permission from the local bishop to hear confessions?
The Church used to require a priest to seek permission from the bishop of the diocese in which he intended to hear confessions to do so. This is no longer the law. The current law of the Church is that when the priest receives his faculty (permission) to hear confessions from his local bishop, he automatically has permission to hear confessions anywhere (see CIC 966.2, 969, 974.2).
However, a bishop does have the right to forbid a priest from hearing confessions or celebrating Mass in his diocese if he has sufficient reason to do so (see CIC 974.2).
— Karlo Broussard
For authors of fiction, how much may be considered too much in writing about Christianity and its history? Would there be a point at which what an author depicts in a book is sacrilege?
An author may depict a situation in which characters in his fiction act sacrilegiously, but that does not mean he has personally committed sacrilege. It would depend on whether or not he was intending to endorse what his characters were doing.
For example, if a writer depicts anti-Catholic characters in a novel set during the French Revolution as disinterring saints’ graves and tossing the remains into a common grave, the author is not committing sacrilege. Such a depiction would be in keeping with the recorded profanation of saints’ remains during that period. But if the author is presenting as historical fact something not historical, and does so to call into question Christian belief in what has been commonly accepted as historical fact and orthodox Christian dogma (e.g., Jesus depicted as married to Mary Magdalene in Dan Brown’s novel The Da Vinci Code), then, yes, a case could be made that the author has committed sacrilege.
— Michelle Arnold
I’m a cradle Catholic, and my fiancée was baptized Anglican as an adult then converted to Catholicism. Her parents are Pentecostal and value interfaith communion, but they understand that they may not receive the Eucharist at our wedding. This has created friction, especially since my entire family and all my friends would be allowed, thus creating an appearance of exclusion. I was hoping that our priest would help us quell the situation by offering the Eucharist only to me and her (after the other clergy and he partake), but he said, “It is theologically incorrect.” With all sincere and due respect to him and his excellent theological and liturgical training, is he correct? Is it permitted to administer the Eucharist only to the bride and groom if it is judged to be pastorally beneficial?
The Code of Canon Law forbids what you have requested: “Any baptized person who is not forbidden by law may and must be admitted to holy communion” (can. 912).
There is a reason for this law. Our blessed Lord came down to Earth to show us how much he loves us. He accomplished this in preferring nothing to us, as he demonstrated by dying on the cross and communicating the great gift of the Eucharist to us. Now it is for us to prefer nothing to him.
He is fully aware of how difficult this can be at times. He said that a man will be against his father and a daughter against her mother. A man’s foes will be those in his own household (see Luke 10:34-39). In other words, the nitty-gritty of daily family living will be affected by whether we prefer him to everything or not.
Do you really think that denying the Eucharist to your family in order to avoid a hassle is preferring him? You now have a great opportunity to witness to the value of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Ask him for the help you will need in order to step up to the plate. He will not fail you if you come humbly before Him.
— Fr. Vincent Serpa, O.P.
Is there an early reference to the Mass I can show my Evangelical friend so he can see it’s not something the Church invented in the Middle Ages?
In the second century, St. Justin Martyr spoke of the Mass and how the assembled “offer hearty prayers in common for ourselves and for the baptized [illuminated] person, and for all others in every place” and how after that they “salute one another with a kiss.” Then, the presider takes bread and wine and “gives praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and offers thanks at considerable length for our being counted worthy to receive these things at his hands. And when he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all the people present express their assent by saying Amen” (First Apology, 65).
This corresponds to the prayers of the faithful, the kiss of peace, the prayer of thanksgiving and the great Amen that are still said at Mass today. Justin goes on to say that the bread and wine at Mass are not mere symbols of Christ’s body and blood but are instead “the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.”
— Trent Horn
How do I respond to someone who says the miracles of Jesus were merely symbolic and that they didn’t really happen?
The first thing to do is ask this person, “What reasons do you have for believing the New Testament miracles are merely symbolic?” If the person says, “Well, because miracles are impossible,” then the problem would not be historical but philosophical. We would have to start from square one and demonstrate God’s existence in order to show that miracles are possible.
If the person says, “I don’t think they happened because the Gospels aren’t historically reliable,” then the issue is the trustworthiness of the Gospels. Generally speaking, we can trust the Gospels because they were written either by eyewitnesses (Matthew and John) or disciples who had direct access to eyewitnesses (Mark and Luke). Furthermore, some scholars, like Dr. Brant Pitre in his book The Case for Jesus, persuasively argue that Matthew, Mark, and Luke wrote before the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, putting their writings within forty years of the actual events. Historians consider such early testimony highly accurate for determining historical reliability.
A more specialized approach involves identifying various historical criteria historians use for determining historical reliability in each of the miracle stories. For example, the fact the apostles record Jesus being accused of casting out demons by the power of the devil (Mark 3:22) is an embarrassing detail. It’s improbable they would have made something up that could potentially undermine the reputation of Jesus. Moreover, Jesus cast demons out in a unique way: he doesn’t call on the power of God but does so in his own name (Mark 2:9). Historians see such dissimilarity as a clue for historicity.
So there is no reason to think Jesus’ miracles are merely symbolic but good reason to think they are historical.
— Karlo Broussard
In order to make a moral decision, you must know to some extent the consequences of your actions. Science is the field of study that tells us about the effects our actions will have on other organisms and our physical environment. For example, it wouldn’t seem immoral to kill every last spider—they’re creepy, and many are poisonous and even dangerous to humans. However, knowing that the eradication of spiders would destroy entire ecosystems, that action becomes wrong. Another example: neuroscience has shown us that many animal species feel pain just as we do. In response to this, some inhumane and immoral methods of slaughtering animals for food have been changed for the better because of what science has shown us. There are many other examples, but my question is this: is it possible to be moral without science?
Science can help us by enhancing our knowledge of nature. But it is hardly the precursor to all morality. Moral questions were being raised and answered long before even primitive science came on the scene. The precursor to all morality is the freedom of choice that God gave Adam and Eve and us. Natural law is a far greater help to moral decisions than even modern science is.
— Fr. Vincent Serpa, O.P.
I just read the tract “Can Dogma Develop?” on your website and I am a bit confused. I was taught that dogmas are those teachings presented by a pope as ex cathedra, which are infallible. Are you implying that such texts (ex cathedra) can be changed over time? If so, then they were never infallible. Please, explain.
It’s true that dogma, which is a teaching the Church defines as part of divine revelation, can never change (e.g., we believe X, we no longer believe X). However, dogma can develop, which is a growth in our understanding of dogma and not a change (CCC 94). As the article you referenced points out, there are many things in the deposit of faith that are not clearly seen initially, but over time those things become more clear to the mind of the Church. The teachings have always been there, but the Church penetrates their meaning more deeply over time and grows in an understanding of how they relate to the life of the Church in her current state.
— Karlo Broussard
A deacon at my parish is being attacked on social media because he posted a meme in support of a controversial politician. People are saying that since he is a deacon he has no business posting his political views on social media. Isn’t he free to do this?
Deacons and other clergy have a human right to express their personal opinions, within limits, but it may not be prudent for them to enter into political arguments. Clergy act as the public face of the Church, and so it may be wise for them to avoid public action that could give the impression that their political opinion is endorsed by the universal Church (or even by the parish or diocese in which a clergyman ministers).
When he was the Archbishop of Buenos Aires, Pope Francis went so far as to refuse to vote for candidates for a political office. He said in the book On Heaven and Earth:
It is debatable if it is all right for me not to vote, but at the end of the day I am a father of all and I cannot be wrapped in a political flag. I realize that it is difficult to disentangle myself from the electoral climate when elections approach, above all when some come to beat down the door of the Archdiocese [of Buenos Aires] to say that they are the best. As a priest, before an election, I send the faithful to read the political platforms so that they can choose. In the pulpit I take care of myself rather well, I stick to asking people to look for the values and nothing else.
— Michelle Arnold
How can you say the Church is “holy” given its present scandals and past crimes?
The Church is holy not because of the perfection of its members but because of Christ, who “loved the Church as his Bride, giving himself up for her so as to sanctify her; he joined her to himself as his body and endowed her with the gift of the Holy Spirit for the glory of God. The Church, then, is ‘the holy People of God,’ and her members are called ‘saints’” (CCC 823).
Through Christ’s sanctification, all of the Church’s activities are ordered toward glorifying God, sanctifying men, and being the custodian of the deposit of faith that contains the fullness of salvation. There is therefore no contradiction in calling the Church holy on account of God’s sanctifying work in her while at the same time recognizing that the Church’s earthly members sin. The Catechism, quoting Pope Paul VI, says:
The Church is therefore holy, though having sinners in her midst, because she herself has no other life but the life of grace. If they live her life, her members are sanctified; if they move away from her life, they fall into sins and disorders that prevent the radiation of her sanctity. This is why she suffers and does penance for those offenses, of which she has the power to free her children through the blood of Christ and the gift of the Holy Spirit (CCC 827).
— Trent Horn
Can a person who is declared a saint be stripped of this status if, for example, it comes to light this person had serious moral and character defects?
Canonization is an exercise of papal infallibility, which assures us that the person who has been enrolled into the Church’s canon of saints (i.e., “canonized”) is indeed in heaven. The life of every candidate proposed for canonization is closely studied so as to ensure that any grave moral defects are brought to light before canonization. The miracles required for canonization are considered God’s assurance that the candidate is in heaven. But, we should keep in mind, the Church has never proposed that canonized saints have been sinless or without faults.
— Michelle Arnold
I was raised Catholic, but other than being raised in a nominally Catholic family, it has played no role in my life. I don’t believe in God, but neither do I hold any animosity toward the Church. I am marrying to a Catholic woman. She wants a Catholic Mass, which I am happy to do. But I feel that out of respect I should not take Communion. Neither my wife nor the priest is happy about this. The priest says if I don’t want to take Communion we have to do a wedding outside of the Mass, which my fiancée refuses to do. Is that correct?
I can understand the priest’s reluctance, since it is awkward to give the Eucharist to one and not the other. But it would be more than awkward to give the Eucharist to someone who does not believe and does not want it.
Usually, when it is a marriage of a Catholic and a non-Catholic (or non-believing lapsed Catholic), they have the Liturgy of the Word only, without the liturgy of the Eucharist. But you say that your bride wants a Mass. I suggest that you find another parish or another priest. You definitely should not receive the Eucharist if you don’t believe.
— Fr. Vincent Serpa, O.P.
What should I tell a friend who says that, unlike the Old Covenant; the New Covenant is about faith, and so babies should not be baptized?
St. Peter promised the Jewish people that the promise of baptismal repentance was not just for them but for their children as well (see Acts 2:38). The New Covenant in Christ is greater than the Old Covenant God had with Israel (see Hebrews 8:6), but the Old Covenant included babies (see Genesis 17:12). This means the New Covenant must also include babies or else it would be lesser, and not greater, than the Old Covenant that has passed away in Christ.
Denying babies sanctifying grace in baptism so that they can freely choose it as an adult would be like denying a baby medicine in hope that the child will take it when he grows up. Sin is too serious to leave in anyone’s soul, especially a child’s.
The Fathers of the Church said babies should be baptized as soon as possible since, especially in ancient times, children were at risk of dying soon after birth. In the third century, St. Cyprian said, “The mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born . . . no one is held back from baptism and grace, how much more, then, should an infant not be held back” (Letters 64:2).
— Trent Horn
When we receive the Holy Spirit in baptism, does that mean that the Holy Spirit is physically located inside of us?
There is a sense in which the Holy Spirit indwells us as embodied human persons, a sense in which he indwells one person but does not necessarily indwell another person. But this should not be understood to mean that the Holy Spirit is “inside” us in the same way that water can be inside a jar. The Holy Spirit is pure spirit. He does not occupy space in the way that physical objects do. Rather his presence is real but wholly spiritual.
— Michelle Arnold
In a past issue of your magazine, one of the Quick Questions asked, “In my parish, the wine is consecrated in a pitcher on the altar. Is this permissible, or must it be poured into chalices before it is consecrated?” You answered, “During Mass itself, the wine may be consecrated while it is in the flagons or pitchers. It is then poured into chalices during the fraction rite,” and then a document was quoted that “the consecrated wine is poured into enough chalices for use in the Rite of Communion (HLS 42).”
I have a friend who says the answer is incorrect. Has there been a change?
Your friend is correct. There has been a change. The answer to the question was written before the release of the 2004 document Redemptionis Sacramentum: On certain matters to be observed or to be avoided regarding the Most Holy Eucharist.
The new Instruction on this matter reads as follows:
The pouring of the Blood of Christ after the consecration from one vessel to another is completely to be avoided, lest anything should happen that would be to the detriment of so great a mystery. Never to be used for containing the Blood of the Lord are flagons, bowls, or other vessels that are not fully in accord with the established norms (106).
— Peggy Frye
My Catholic daughter is dating a non-Catholic man and they are beginning to talk about marriage. What can I say to her to make her aware of the challenges of marrying a non-Catholic?
While the Church permits a Catholic to marry a non-Catholic on condition the non-Catholic agrees to not interfere with raising the children in the Faith, it does not shy away from warning the couple about the difficulties:
Difference of confession between the spouses does not constitute an insurmountable obstacle for marriage, when they succeed in placing in common what they have received from their respective communities, and learn from each other the way in which each lives in fidelity to Christ. But the difficulties of mixed marriages must not be underestimated. They arise from the fact that the separation of Christians has not yet been overcome. The spouses risk experiencing the tragedy of Christian disunity even in the heart of their own home. Disparity of cult can further aggravate these difficulties. Differences about faith and the very notion of marriage, but also different religious mentalities, can become sources of tension in marriage, especially as regards the education of children. The temptation to religious indifference can then arise (CCC 1634).
As the Catechism states, such obstacles are not insurmountable. But they do give reason for Catholics to seriously consider whether they should enter into a marriage with a person of a different confession of faith.
— Karlo Broussard
Is hell a punishment inflicted by God for not following his will (i.e., “Do this or I will condemn you to hell”), or is it a natural consequence of not following his will (“Do this, otherwise you will end up in hell”)?
Hell is a choice. The individual person has turned away entirely from God and has no desire to spend eternity in God’s presence. God allows that person’s free choice against him to prevail. The Catechism of the Catholic Church defines hell as the “state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed” (1033).
— Michelle Arnold
What should I say to an atheist who says we value that which is rare, so eternal life would be worthless?
The idea that value comes from scarcity applies only in some contexts. It’s true that natural resources are valuable when they are scarce, because the demand for these resources outstrips their supply. But other things retain their value no matter their abundance. Virtues like love, courage, or compassion don’t become less valuable as more and more people practice them, for example. Would the atheist say that knowing everything about the universe, or the goal of science, would be worthless since it would not embody a “scarcity” of knowledge?
If something is intrinsically valuable, its value does not diminish with its increase. Since God is just and goodness and life with him represents the fulfillment of every good aspect in our own lives, then eternal life with God is not worthless but priceless, a gift of immeasurable quality.
— Trent Horn
I attended a lecture on sexual sins by a very well known and respected traditional monsignor. He said that because the Church has not explicitly forbidden Communion to people in the state of the sin of masturbation, he would advise those who fall into this sin to pray and continue to strive to overcome; but also, to not abstain from the great and abounding graces that the body and blood of Christ can grant to the receiver in order to gain the strength and virtues necessary to overcome masturbation.
Every statement I have encountered against receiving Communion with unconfessed masturbation is based on an interpretation of what the Catechism says about this sin, but there’s nothing that says something along the lines of “Mother Church teaches (or says) one should not receive Communion . . .” I would like to know what the exact answer is and see a concrete statement, not interpretations based on conjectures or assumptions.
The Church teaches that masturbation is the deliberate stimulation of the genitals to derive sexual pleasure and is an intrinsically disordered action. “The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose” (CCC 2352). And: “When the will sets itself upon something that is of its nature incompatible with the charity that orients man toward his ultimate end, then the sin is mortal by its very object” (CCC 1856).
The object of masturbation is certainly not charity or the attaining of union with God. Your respected, traditional monsignor is not traditional enough! The Church has always been clear about this. It has never taught that one need not be in the state of grace to receive Communion.
It can be very easy for one to slip into the habit of masturbation. Once this happens, it is difficult to stop, but not impossible! You can be sure that whenever you give yourself the slightest excuse or rationalization, you will fall every time. But if you will not let yourself “go there” in your mind, you can overcome such a habit with God’s help. God will help you if you really want to be faithful to him.
What you have to do, my friend, is be as faithful to him with your body as he was faithful to you with his. This means that you turn the focus of your life from yourself to him. He becomes your center. You are in my prayers.
— Fr. Vincent Serpa, O.P.