(This column is updated every Friday) Questions may be asked via email: mzia@benedictine.edu
Q&A for Friday, March 25
Why is today a solemnity, and does that mean that the laws of abstinence do not apply?
March 25 is a solemnity, meaning the highest level of feast on the liturgical calendar, of the same rank as a Sunday. We call today’s feast the Solemnity of the Annunciation, commemorating Mary’s “yes” to God to become the mother of God. The reason why this particular commemoration is ranked as a solemnity is because the occasion of the Annunciation is actually the moment that God became man, hence it is the feast of the Incarnation. We often think of Christmas as the feast of the Incarnation, but we must remember that before Jesus could be born (Christmas), he first had to be conceived, and his conception marks the moment that God truly became man. It was not Christmas, but on this day that the Second Person of the Trinity – the Eternal Word – united himself to a true human nature, taking flesh and blood from his mother, Mary.
Accordingly, solemnities are never days of fasting or abstinence, given the joy which pervades the celebration. This fact is communicated in Canon 1251 of the Code of Canon Law: “Abstinence from meat, or from some other food as determined by the Episcopal Conference, is to be observed on all Fridays, unless a solemnity should fall on a Friday.” The other example within Lent of this same principle is with the observance of the Solemnity of St. Joseph, which falls on March 19th each year.
Happy Feast!
ARCHIVES
Q&A for Friday, March 20
Does the Church allow cremation, and if so, if a Catholic gets cremated do you have to be buried or can you be sprinkled on consecrated ground, and if you’re sprinkled do you have to bury some ashes in consecrated ground? – D.K.
The Catholic Church allows cremation as long as the reason for it is not to defy the truth of the Resurrection of the body at the end of time (it used to be that cremation was banned because a number of people would opt for cremation as a way of illustrating their denial of the truth of the Resurrection of the body, which is the second to last teaching we profess in the Creed). It should be pointed out that Canon 1176 of the Code of Canon Law prefers that bodies be buried, but it does not forbid cremation as an alternative.
But there are restrictions, which include the fact that the ashes of the deceased person may not be scattered, since such a practice is interpreted as a violation of the dignity of the human body, a dignity that continues after death. All of the ashes are to be kept together, usually interred in the ground or in a niche within a mausoleum. Sprinkling them about is not an option.
Q&A for Friday, March 11
May infants receive ashes on Ash Wednesday? – M.C.
Sure! A baptized baby is as much a member of the Church as the rest of the faithful.
Are Sundays included as days of our Lenten fast? B.K.
No. The Catechism of the Catholic Church reminds us that Sunday is the “foremost holy day of obligation in the universal Church” (no. 2177), because it is the day of the Lord’s Resurrection. Therefore it would be inappropriate to fast on a Sunday. The same is true of two solemnities that are celebrated this Lent: The Solemnity of St. Joseph on March 19th (which is actually a holy day of obligation in the universal Church, although the US Bishops decided to remove the obligation to attend Mass – poor St. Joseph!) and the Solemnity of the Annunciation on March 25th
However, keep in mind that these Sundays still occur during the Lenten season, and recall that Jesus did not have a break from his intense period of fasting and praying while he was in the wilderness. I suggest that, on the one hand, one ought not fast on a Sunday for the reasons given above, but on the other, it would be good to make it a point to do some deliberate work of mercy/charity or engage in a deeper spirit of prayer during Sundays and solemnities of Lent so that we do not neglect the purpose of the Lenten season all together on these days.
Does the Church really teach “outside the Church there is no salvation? – J.Z.
Yes, however it is crucial that this teaching be understood according to how the Church herself understands it.
The Second Vatican Council in the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (Lumen gentium) reminds us that, on the one hand, “Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved” (no. 14), and yet on the other hand, “Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience” (no. 16).
The teaching that there is no salvation outside the Church points to the fact that anyone who is saved is saved through Jesus Christ, and it is the will of Jesus Christ that salvation come in and through the Church which he founded. Whether a person is Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, a noble pagan, etc, if that person is saved, it is only by Jesus Christ and through the Church.
Consider the following analogy: There is a large boat out at sea and a dangerous storm hits. One group of persons on the boat are sitting in the lower level, totally immune from the rains, winds, and the cold. Another group is on the main deck, but sitting under an area with a long overhang. They are protected from most of the rains, but they are still subjected to the winds and the cold. Yet another group is sitting in the middle of the main deck and are subjected to the force of all the elements thrown at them by the storm. A fourth group of people consists of person who are literally hanging off the boat clinging to the ladders on its side, lest they fall into the water. And the last group consists of those who are actually in the water, but are secured with a life raft that is connected to the boat with long ropes.
All of the people described above are ultimately saved from the storm, because they are all incorporated into the boat in some way. Those most protected in the lower deck are Catholics, who have the fullest means of salvation offered to them through the seven sacraments, governance by the Pope, and common faith. The next group which is mostly protected refers to Protestant Christians, who accept a number of the sacraments and profess faith in Christ. The group sitting in the middle of the deck are the Jewish people and Muslims, who accept the one God and seek to do his will. Those off the boat, clinging to the ladders are the followers of the various mystery religions. And the last group, those in the water, are those who do not believe in God due to reasons beyond their immediate control and who try to live good lives through following their informed consciences.
Q&A for Friday, March 4, 2011
There has been quite a debate about the methods of Lila Rose’s “sting” operations to expose the evilness of Planned Parenthood. Many people maintain that while it is a good thing that Lila Rose is trying to defeat the culture of death, the use of “lying” in these sting operations is evil. What is your moral assessment of this situation? – M.C.
There are faithful Catholics on both sides of this issue because it is not a black and white situation. It is a moral tightrope that requires prudential judgment.
The eighth commandment teaches, “you shall not bear false witness against your neighbor,” and the Catechism of the Catholic Church clearly teaches, “By its very nature, lying is to be condemned. It is a profanation of speech, whereas the purpose of speech is to communicate known truth to others” (CCC, 2485). And what, precisely, is a lie? The Catechism quotes the definition of St. Augustine: “A lie consists in speaking a falsehood with the intention of deceiving” (CCC, 2482). It goes on to add that “to lie is to speak or to act against the truth in order to lead someone into error” (CCC, 2483).
Many take these teachings as an open-and-shut case against lying for any reason, even if a great good would come from it. After all, a firm moral principle is that the ends can never justify the means, so if something is immoral in itself, then it may not be deliberately chosen as a vehicle to obtain a good end, no matter how great the good in proportion to the relatively small “white” lie.
But I do not think that the matter is settled. Let us consider a few points.
First, consider that the original edition of the Catechism taught, “Lying is the most direct offense against the truth. To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead into error someone who has the right to know the truth” (CCC 2483, emphasis added). The fact that the last part of this statement was removed in the Second Edition of the Catechism does not necessarily mean that it was wrong, but rather that it was considered prudential to leave it out. And even looking at the current edition of the Catechism, it teaches, “the right to the communication of truth is not unconditional. . . this requires us in concrete situations to judge whether or not it is appropriate to reveal the truth to someone who asks for it (CCC, 2488). If a person has no right to the truth of a certain matter (for example, the abortionists who require information for the sole purpose of perpetuating their grievous crimes), then I do not see how one would be “lying” by deceiving them.
Second, the Catechism teaches, “… confidential information given under the seal of secrecy must be kept, save in exceptional cases where keeping the secret is bound to cause very grave harm… and where the very grave harm can be avoided only by divulging the truth (CCC, 2491). Consider this example: a teenager confides in his counselor that he is seriously considering suicide. The counselor and the student already have the understanding that whatever they say will stay only between them in order to build mutual trust. But if the counselor does not tell the proper authorities about the teenager’s plans, the teenager could die. What does he do? In that case, the counselor would have a moral obligation to make known the teenager’s plans to the right person, thereby breaking his promise to keep everything confidential.
If lying by its very nature is to be condemned, and if the ends never justify the means, then how could the Catechism teach a principle that, when applied to this scenario, would mean that the counselor is allowed to “lie” to the teenager in the act of breaking his word that everything shared between them would be confidential? This line of reasoning only makes sense if the action of the counselor does not constitute lying. And why not? Because the counselor is not speaking with the intent to lead another into error (See CCC 2483).
It seems to me that in order for a “lie” to truly be a “lie” as condemned by the Church, two things must be present: 1) the person “lied” to must have the right to the truth which he was not given; and 2) the intention of the “liar” is to lead the other into error, which based on the context, would seem to be moral error in particular. If any of these is lacking, I don’t think a lie is committed.
Let us also consider what the Catechism identifies as some offenses against the truth: duplicity; dissimulation; hypocrisy; malice; guile; insincerity; envy; slander; injustice; rash judgment; detraction; calumny; flattery; adulation; boasting, etc. Tell me, which of these do I commit when I tell my young children that Santa (the historic St. Nicholas) lives in the North Pole?
My conscience does not trouble me that I tell my young kids about Santa living in the North Pole, and I have no need to go to confession about it or ask for forgiveness (after all, if it truly is a “lie,” then it is a venial sin). Similarly, I do not believe that Lila Rose is guilty of lying in the strict moral sense, and therefore I do not see a moral problem with her methods used thus far. I find it ironic that she is being accused of offending the truth when, in reality, she is serving the truth by bringing to light the evil of abortion and the falsehoods by which these clinics operate.
To sum up: It is clear that lying is always a sin, and therefore it may never be morally permitted, however the definition as to what constitutes lying is not clear at all, and it seems that essential aspects of the definition must include both an intent to lead another into moral error, as well as the presumption that the one “lied to” had the right to such knowledge in the first place.
Q&A for Friday, February 24, 2011
How is a priest, who has been ordained AFTER he has already been married (entered the Church as an Anglican priest, etc.) supposed to give his whole life to God through his priesthood? Isn’t his first obligation to his family? How is this allowed within the Church? - J.R.
I suggest changing your perspective on the issue, which may help clarify the solution. It is not the case that a married man gives his whole life to his family, and a priest gives his whole life to God, but rather that both the married man and the priest are to give their whole life to God in and through their respective ministries. The call to holiness is universal and of greatest importance. The married man gives himself 100% to God through the family, and the priest gives himself 100% to God through his “spiritual family” (after all, we do call him ‘Father’). As I mentioned in yesterday’s Sunday Gospel reflections on this blog, holiness is not something that is additional to the things we accomplish in daily life, but rather holiness is attained in and through our daily accomplishments in life. The Church allows the situation you describe precisely because they are not competing ends, but two distinct (and in this case, complementary) means of arriving at the single end of holiness.
Are the souls in Purgatory aware of others who are also making reparation for their sins in Purgatory, or are the souls in Purgatory isolated, and completely alone, thereby intensifying the suffering? – K.B.
I am not aware of any Church teaching that directly touches on this question, however here are my thoughts on it: Those in the condition of Purgatory remain part of the Communion of saints, and no member of the communion of saints is ever left alone. Also consider that the pains of Purgatory are joyfully and peacefully endured; they are accepted for the sake of the reward, as contrasted with the souls of the damned that are tormented against their will. Consider the example of a woman giving birth: her focus is not on the pain, as intense as it is, but on the joy and anticipation of her baby about to enter the world. Intense pain is not necessarily incompatible with joy.
Given the doctrine of the Communion of saints, and given the fact that those in purgatory joyfully suffer I think it is safe to conclude that those enduring the condition of Purgatory are mindful of others ‘in the same boat’.
Q&A for Friday, February 18, 2011
Q&A for Friday, February 11, 2011
The Q & A queue is empty; if you have a question you would like answered, send an email to the above address. Responses are posted each Friday.
Q&A for Friday, February 4, 2011
Is one Person in the Trinity thought to be the most active in people’s lives as opposed to the other Persons? – M.N.
Although there are indeed three persons of the Blessed Trinity, the three persons share the same divine essence, and therefore all three persons work together. Although we speak of the Son who Redeemed us, the Father and the Spirit equally participated in the work of Redemption. Likewise, the Father and Son equally participate with the Holy Spirit in the work on sanctification, and the Son and the Holy Spirit equally participate with the Father in the work of creation. One person of the Blessed Trinity does not work in isolation from the others, and therefore one person of the Trinity is not any more active in our lives than the others.
May I receive Holy Communion more than once in the same day – M.M.
Yes, Canon 917 states , “A person who has already received the Most Holy Eucharist can receive it a second time on the same day only within the eucharistic celebration in which the person participates… ” This allowance marks a change from the ‘old days’ under the 1917 Code when it was forbidden to receive Communion again in the same day (unless one was in danger of death).
Is it acceptable to have only one sponsor for infant baptism?
Yes. Canons 872-73 state, “Insofar as possible one to be baptized is to be given a sponsor who is to assist an adult in Christian Initiation, or, together with the parents, to present an infant at the baptism. . . Only one male or one female sponsor or one of each sex is to be employed” (emphasis added by myself). Clearly one sponsor is sufficient, but two are not excluded.
Sponsors must be a Catholic at least 16 years of age who has received the sacrament of Confirmation, and who is not the parent of the child to be baptized.
Q&A for Friday, January 28, 2011
Is Allah the same as our God? If so, why do we see Him so differently from Muslims? – M.N.
Catholics acknowledge that both Christians and Muslims do worship the same God (see Vatican II’s Declaration on the Relation of the Church to non-Christian Religions, no. 3), however Muslims do not have as full an understanding of God as we do. The fact that there is one God in three divine persons is a matter of divinely revealed faith which the Muslims do not accept. There is truth in the religion of Islam, however it is incomplete and imperfect. Their partial understanding of God is one such example of this.
What (or where can I find what) does the Church say about end of life planning? Is it ok to choose not to receive fluids, nutrition, surgery, blood transfusions in your living will or are we obligated to sustain life as long as science allows? – S.H.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches the following: “Discontinuing medical procedures that are burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or disproportionate to the expected outcome can be legitimate; it is the refusal of “over-zealous” treatment. Here one does not will to cause death; one’s inability to impede it is merely accepted. The decisions should be made by the patient if he is competent and able or, if not, by those legally entitled to act for the patient, whose reasonable will and legitimate interests must always be respected… Even if death is thought imminent, the ordinary care owed to a sick person cannot be legitimately interrupted” (no. 2278-2279, underlining added by myself for emphasis).
The most misunderstood qualifier above is “extraordinary.” The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith officially clarified some misunderstandings of this in 2007. Below find its statements:
First question: Is the administration of food and water (whether by natural or artificial means) to a patient in a “vegetative state” morally obligatory except when they cannot be assimilated by the patient’s body or cannot be administered to the patient without causing significant physical discomfort?
Response: Yes. The administration of food and water even by artificial means is, in principle, an ordinary and proportionate means of preserving life. It is therefore obligatory to the extent to which, and for as long as, it is shown to accomplish its proper finality, which is the hydration and nourishment of the patient. In this way suffering and death by starvation and dehydration are prevented.
Second question: When nutrition and hydration are being supplied by artificial means to a patient in a “permanent vegetative state”, may they be discontinued when competent physicians judge with moral certainty that the patient will never recover consciousness?
Response: No. A patient in a “permanent vegetative state” is a person with fundamental human dignity and must, therefore, receive ordinary and proportionate care which includes, in principle, the administration of water and food even by artificial means.
How much is our choice as far as how we worship, how we dress, what music we use at Mass, and how much is laid out for us to obey? Is Latin better than English or is it just different. When we choose to celebrate Mass in English is it a less pure offering to God? Is it actually insulting to God to sing songs like “Table of Plenty?” – R.G.
In worship, we are to follow the norms laid out by Rome and regulated by the diocesan bishop; if there is an irreconcilable tension between these two, then the directives from Rome are to be followed (suggested reading on the body and worship: The Spirit of the Liturgy, by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger). As for dress, our outward appearance should reflect the sacredness of the celebration (and it may be helpful to know that there is a sign outside the Vatican banning entrance to those wearing shorts). No language is “better” than another in worship; rather the external prayers are meant to give voice to our spiritual prayer of participating in the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. So whether English is used, or Latin (which the Second Vatican Council teaches ought to be preserved – see no. 36 in the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy), or Chinese, one language is not ‘less pure’ than another. Regarding the liturgical songs, the Second Vatican Council taught that all hymns must conform to accurate theology, grounded in Scripture and Tradition (see The Constitution on Sacred Liturgy, no. 121). I am not directly familiar with the song you mention, but it would need to abide by the principles just laid out.
Q&A for Friday, January 21, 2011
How do I answer people who make statements about babies becoming angels after death? -A.M.H.
Catholic teaching on the matter involves a few dimensions. A baptized child who dies before he or she can exercise sufficient use of reason is guaranteed to go to heaven, because that person is not capable of committing a sin for which he or she would be culpable. Not until children understand the difference between virtue and sin, between good and evil, and are able to freely choose to sin is there a possibility of forfeiting heaven or needing to endure Purgatory. This may be what people are referring to when they speak about one’s “angel” in heaven, namely, that the soul of one’s child is in the state of heavenly glory.
Yet there is a “popular” viewpoint regarding angels, claiming that human persons who die may become angels, especially in the case of babies and young people. This understanding, popularized through television through the series “Highway to Heaven” and the movie “It’s a Wonderful Life” is indeed erroneous. Human person never become angels.
To defend a proper understanding, we reflect that angels by definition are purely incorporeal. They are purely spiritual persons, which is why they are invisible (see The Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 328). As persons, angels have an intellect and a will like we do, however their intellects are vastly more powerful than ours. Demons refer to those angels who sinned against God, and were cast out of heaven. Both angels and demons are pure spirits, with the angels serving God, and the demons serving Satan.
One may respond that upon death, we are a pure spirit as well, since only our immaterial soul survives, and so maybe an “angel” is referring to our state after death when the soul departs from the body. To this we respond that we never cease being who we are; upon death we don’t morph into another type of being, although we are in an incomplete state until the final Resurrection of the body at the end of time. Angels and humans are different types of beings, and to think of a human becoming an angel is more extreme than thinking of a cat becoming a human. It simply cannot and does not happen.
The existence of angels is known by faith; we cannot prove they exist using only reason, but the fact that they exist – and exist as separate beings from humans – is found strongly in both scripture and tradition.
Does a First Communion Mass count as fulfilling my Sunday obligation? – M.C.
Catholics are obligated to attend Mass on Sundays and holy days of obligation. According to Canon Law, “The precept of participating in the Mass is satisfied by assistance at a Mass which is celebrated anywhere in a Catholic rite either on the holy day or on the evening of the preceding day” (canon 1248). Note that there is no direct connection between the readings used (i.e. whether they were for Sunday or for a wedding, or funeral, or some other Mass) and the fulfillment of Sunday’s obligation. Therefore, whether it is a funeral, wedding, first communion, etc, if it is celebrated during the appropriate time period mentioned above, it fulfills one’s Sunday obligation, regardless of the type of Mass, or the readings used.
How do you judge literature, movies, art? Is it okay to read/watch/look at things that are not purely good? If we do, then we let evil into our lives, but if we don’t how can we relate to others/ understand evil that occurs in the world? What About Harry Potter, for example? – R.G.
In his Letter to Artists (April 4, 1999), Pope John Paul wrote the following: “In so far as it seeks the beautiful, fruit of an imagination which rises above the everyday, art is by its nature a kind of appeal to the mystery. Even when they explore the darkest depths of the soul or the most unsettling aspects of evil, artists give voice in a way to the universal desire for redemption” (no. 10). Reflecting on these words, it seems that it may be legitimate to read/watch/look at things which may not be purely good if the reason for doing so it to help us better appreciate truth and beauty. Here a properly informed conscience is key, as well as the exercise of the virtue of prudence.
Regarding Harry Potter: I have not seen the most recent movie, and there are strong opinions on both sides as to the whole collection of films being “harmless” all the way to it being “evil.” Here’s how I look at it: if people watching these films (or any similar) view them simply to entertain, then I don’t see a problem. If the film’s intention, however, is to motivate young people to explore magic / witchcraft / the dark arts (all of which are real), then the film is morally problematic. Insofar as it gets the viewer to reflect on issues of good and evil, and the ultimate victory of goodness, then it is not problematic. But the same film can have opposite effects on different people, so it really seems that there are no hard and fast rules on this, simply prudence and discretion.
*end*
Each Friday a few questions will be answered on this forum, with the remainder of the questions forwarded to the next week. Questions may be submitted via email: mzia@benedictine.edu
