Blogger Priest

Questions & Answers About the Sacrifice of the Mass

Posted on August 16, 2010 by Father Joe

What do Catholics mean by the sacrifice of the Mass?

A sacrifice is the oblation of a sensible thing made by God through a lawful minister by a real change in the thing offered, testifying to God’s absolute authority over us and our complete dependence upon him.

Does God really want us to render sacrifice?

Yes, indeed, so much is this need ingrained in us that we find various forms of sacrifice in many world religions and in those of antiquity. It was because of a jealousy over the acceptance of a sacrifice that Cain killed Abel. Beginning with the Jews, sacrifice was properly directed toward the true God who had revealed himself. Noah, Abraham, and the Old Law enacted sacrifice to God. The sacrifices of the first people called by God would typify and foreshadow the sacrifice of the cross upon which Christ offered his body and blood to the Father for our redemption from sin and the devil. This same sacrifice is commemorated or made sacramentally present in the Mass. It is offered to God upon our altars for the living and the dead.

Does the Bible say anything about New Testament sacrifices?

The prophecy of Malachi states that the sacrifices of the old law would be abolished and supplanted by a new one offered for the entire world: “I have no pleasure in you, says the LORD of hosts, and I will not accept an offering from your hand. For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name is great among the nations, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure offering; for my name is great among the nations, says the LORD of hosts” (Malachi 1:10-11).

Was this prophecy fulfilled?

Yes, the Jewish sacrifices have utterly ceased. The new sacrifice is the saving death of Jesus Christ, which is renewed and made present in each Mass offered every day. Around the world and in countless places it is celebrated, from the rising of the sun to its setting.

Does this mean that, according to Catholics, Jesus must suffer and die over and over again?

No, Jesus does not suffer and die all over again. Christ has risen from the dead and can never more die. As if it were a time machine, the Mass connects us with his onetime passion and death– extended to us sacramentally so as to give us the opportunity to participate and to offer ourselves along with him. It is repeatedly offered to God the Father for the forgiveness of sins.

Does not this notion of repeated sacrifices clash with the warrant of New Testament testimony? After all, St. Paul states: “But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation) he entered once for all into the Holy Place, taking not the blood of goats and calves but his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption” (Hebrews 9:11-12) and later: “And just as it is appointed for men to die once, and after that comes judgment, so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.” (9:27-28). In 10:14, we read: “For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are sanctified.” It seems to be saying that the one sacrifice on the cross was enough and no other ones are needed.

The one sacrifice of the cross is enough for our redemption. However, it must be commemorated and applied to souls, just as Jesus commanded: “Do this in remembrance of me” (Luke 22:19). This is done daily in the Mass.

But if Christ has already died for our sins, and we are thus saved, why is the Mass necessary?

If all we had to do were to believe that Jesus had died for us and that we were then automatically saved, then there would be no need for the Mass. Of course, such a presumption would make preaching and the Church herself unnecessary. There would be no impetus to live a holy life. While proponents of such a view often speak a great deal about hell, it would largely make it inconsequential as well. Those who have committed the most grievous wrongs would be on the same footing as saints. However, our Lord, besides his death on the cross, has commanded other things of us if we are to be saved.

How can Catholics make such a claim contrary to St. Paul’s words? He writes: “For it was fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, blameless, unstained, separated from sinners, exalted above the heavens. He has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people; he did this once for all when he offered up himself” (Hebrews 7:26-27).

The context is being confused here. He is not talking about the Mass but about Jewish sacrifices and their high priests. Because of their imperfections, their sacrifices were no longer needed. Catholic priests do not offer a new sacrifice, but the same oblation of Jesus on the cross. The words of Jesus make it a command performance.

Does St. Paul say that ministers should do more than preach; they should also render sacrifices to God for their peoples’ sins?

Certainly, he says in Hebrews 5:1: “For every high priest chosen from among men is appointed to act on behalf of men in relation to God, to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins.”

If the sacrifice of the Mass were required, it would seem to imply that the sacrifice of the cross was insufficient to reconcile us with God; is this true?

No, it is not. The sacrifice of the cross was sufficient to reconcile us with almighty God, but Christ desired that his oblation of the cross should be commemorated in “living” memory of him. As with the memorial acclamation in the revised liturgy, St. Paul says: “For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes” (1 Cor. 11:26). As faithful adopted sons and daughters of God, our Father, we celebrate our redemption with an unbloody sacrifice (of the cross) to God for ourselves and for the good of the world.

For more such material, contact me about getting my book, CATHOLIC QUESTIONS & ANSWERS.

Filed under: Eucharist, Questions, Sacraments | Leave a comment »

Questions & Answers About the Real Presence in the Eucharist

Posted on August 15, 2010 by Father Joe

What is the main difference between the Holy Communion received by Catholics and that, which is implemented by non-Catholics?

While some may contend that there is some sort of weak “spiritual” presence, most non-Catholics reduce Communion to an “empty” sign, in other words, something that signifies a presence, which is absent, namely the historical Jesus. This reduces the communion elements simply to ordinary bread and wine. Of course, without a legitimate priesthood and Eucharistic liturgy, their communion is precisely such. On the other hand, Catholics believe that their Holy Communion conveys a sacramental and real presence of the risen Christ. The Eucharistic species have literally been transformed into our Lord. Possessing a valid priesthood, which celebrates a lawful Mass, the communicants eat the REAL body of Christ and drink the REAL blood of Christ.

Did Jesus really promise that he would give us his body to eat and his blood to drink?

Yes, most assuredly so. Jesus says in John 6:51: “I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.” His fellow Jews murmured in disagreement, seriously doubting that Jesus could do such a thing. He could not be serious, they thought. Maybe, he only meant it in a figurative fashion? Of course, even that was somewhat offensive to Jews, given their strict dietary laws. Jesus reiterates it to insure that there is no confusion: “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed” (John 6:53-55).

Later, did Jesus fulfill his promise and give his apostles his body to eat and his blood to drink?

Again, the answer is yes. We read in Matthew 26:26-28: “Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, ‘Take, eat; this is my body.’ And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, ‘Drink of it, all of you; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.’”

Is not the fact that many denominations stress the eating and drinking a sufficient indication of their belief in the body and blood of Jesus?

No, it is not. Indeed, many deny the Catholic understanding of “real presence” while making a big deal over the fact that often Holy Communion in the Catholic Church is reduced to the host. (Each particle of the host and every drop of the precious blood, not wine, is the complete Jesus, body and soul, humanity and divinity.) Certain Protestants get caught up in the mechanics and deny the very essence of the sacrament. Jesus himself was concerned that his followers might go through the motions of eating and drinking the sacred meal and lose sight of the underlining reality. He says: “For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed” (John 6:55). Further, he tells his people: “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you” (John 6:53). Acknowledging this truth, the apostles raised the “breaking of the bread” or Eucharist to the center of their lives and that of their faith communities.

But Christ seems to reverse himself when he says: “It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail” (John 6:63). How is this explained?

If it were not tragic, it would be amusing how numbers of Protestants often point to this sentence to refute the Catholic understanding of real presence. After all, it intimates that Jesus was in error or that he hastily revises his teaching when most of his followers abandon him over it. Such is far from the truth. Jesus does not suddenly suffer from amnesia regarding his earlier words; rather, he is talking about the spirit of God which makes faith possible, even in those things difficult to accept, like the graphic truth of his Eucharistic presence. Eating the flesh of Jesus without faith would profit nothing; eating it with faith gives life.

It has been offered that what Jesus meant to say at the Last Supper was, “This represents my body, this represents my blood.” Is this not more correct?

It is a lie. If Jesus meant to say that the bread and wine only represented his body and blood, then he would have said so. However, he purposely said: “This is my body, this is my blood.” Lacking a “to be” verb, his expression is even more stark: “This–my body, this–my blood.” Some time prior to the Last Supper, our Lord promised his followers that he would give them his body and blood as food and drink. Jesus spoke plainly and made no attempt to mislead his listeners with ambiguous rhetoric. Christ’s Church has believed Jesus’ words in their literal sense for two thousand years. The apostles believed that the Eucharist was the real body of Christ. It is not ordinary bread. St. Paul goes so far as to emphasize that unworthy reception of this bread of life causes damnation.

How can God possibly give us his own body to eat and his blood to drink?

This question suffers from the intrusion of modern atheism, even when it emerges from fundamentalist Christians. How could God possibly take flesh at all? And yet, he did precisely this in the incarnation. How could he feed five thousand people with a mere five loaves of bread and two fishes? Nevertheless, he did.

If God could change rivers into blood, as he did in Egypt, could he not transform bread and wine as a sacrament for his followers? Sure he could! God is almighty and can do all things. Would we be so egotistical as to hold that just because we cannot envision something as possible that it is impossible for God?

When Jesus, and today the priest, breaks the consecrated bread, is he breaking the body of Christ?

No, only the outward form of bread is broken, not Christ’s body.

How can the complete and living Christ be present in each and every Holy Communion around the world and often at the same time?

He is God. This mystery of the real presence of Christ cannot be explained in a way sufficient for human understanding. Nevertheless, we know with God that all things are possible. The sun in the sky can shed its light and warmth upon many places at the same time, but there is still only one sun. This is a poor analogy, and yet it might help.

How can Catholics argue such a transformation when St. Paul merely called it BREAD, saying, “Whoever, therefore, eats the bread” (1 Corinthians 11:27)?

The apostle emphasizes “the bread” as something more than ordinary bread. Recall that in the same chapter he complains about those who fail to discern between this bread and the ordinary variety. He warns them that to eat this bread unworthily brings down judgment, making one guilty of the body and blood of Christ. Ordinary bread could not mandate such a punishment.

While it might be granted that Jesus gave his body and blood to his apostles, is it not too great a leap to suppose that priests can give this body and blood to others?

It is no stretch of credulity at all. The apostles were commanded by Jesus to repeat what he did. He gave them his body and blood so that they might have a share in his eternal life. If this power was not handed down to the priests, how could we eat the body of Christ and drink his blood? Jesus said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me” (Matthew 28:18); “As the Father has sent me, even so I send you” (John 20:21). The authority given the apostles is necessarily passed down to the bishops and priests.

Might the communion bread and wine be seen as a remembrance of Christ only?

No, this view is too narrow. The consecrated elements are indeed a remembrance of Christ, but they are also his body and blood. The stark words of institution make any other interpretation impossible. Further, the Hebrew view of memory is much different from our own. We tend to use remembrance in a nostalgic way, recalling something that is past and absent. The ancients saw the past coming alive again in the telling. Remembrance makes something present; it allows one to enter into the story. Regarding the Eucharist, this is not only figuratively true, but really so. The Mass allows us to visit and participate in the sacrifice of Christ on Calvary. Holy Communion is our encounter with our risen Lord, now made our saving food.

Can it be proven that the first Christians held such views about the Eucharist?

Yes, it can. St. Justin (150 AD) says, “The faithful receive communion not as an ordinary bread, or an ordinary drink, but we were instructed that it is the flesh and blood of Christ” (First Apology). St. Irenaeus (200 AD) writes regarding the Gnostic heretics, “They refuse to acknowledge that the bread in Communion is the body of their Lord and the chalice his blood” (Against Heresies). Other early authorities write similar testimonies, saying that Christ is joined with us in communion, not only through faith, but really and truly. It is said that just as water was changed into wine, so is the bread changed into the body of Christ. Others speak of adoration, an operation proper to God alone, as proper before the Blessed Sacrament. Extending back to apostolic times, this 16th century epiclesis illustrates this abiding belief: “Come, Holy Spirit, consecrate, change, transform by thy almighty power the bread and wine into the body of Jesus, born of the Virgin Mary, and in the blood which was shed for our salvation.” Even many of the early breakaway groups from the Catholic Church retained this central teaching in the real presence.

How could Jesus reasonably be present under the appearance of so many wafers and in so many churches at the same time?

Spatial and temporal limitations do not apply to God. We may not understand it, but Jesus, being God, is not locked exclusively into any one time or place. Such is the mystery of Christ after his resurrection and ascension.

What proof can be put forward in favor of the claim that Jesus remains in the hosts reserved in the Church tabernacle?

We have Jesus’ own words for this sacred trust. He says: “This is my body,” and he makes no move to turn the sacred elements back into bread. Therefore, as long as the appearances of bread are present, so is Jesus. In addition, we know that the first Christian believers carried the consecrated bread to the sick, to prisoners, and maintained it in valuable vases for later administration to those near death. This faith of the early Church is formative to what we have always maintained.

Does the body of Christ in Holy Communion suffer from human digestion?

No, only the outward appearances are subject to change. The body of Jesus is not touched.

Does the Bible say that Jesus will live in our hearts after communion?

Yes, we find the passage in St. John 6:56: “He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.”

Is it permissible only to believe that Jesus is somehow present in the bread, but not that it is actually transformed into his body?

No, it is not, if one wants to remain a true Catholic. Again, Jesus said: “This is my body.” We either believe in Jesus’ words or we do not. If it is not really changed into his body, then Jesus was lying to us. This would be absurd.

Is it idolatry to adore the communion bread?

If it were ordinary bread, adoration would indeed be idolatrous. However, since it is the body of Jesus, it is expected and proper.

Why do so many churches offer only the host and not the cup?

The pattern followed by the early Church is significant in that many received only the consecrated bread or only the precious blood. Further, the totality of Christ– body and blood, soul and divinity– is received whole and entire under either form. The practical consideration aside, which could be serious regarding excess consecrated wine, the priest’s communion of both species illustrates the unity of the host and the cup.

But, are not Catholics denying a direct command of Jesus in not drinking from the cup?

It should be said that many Catholic parishes do offer the precious blood to the congregation. However, large parishes often find it difficult. After all, unlike some of the Protestant parishes, our sensibilities about the real presence would cause a just anxiety about the use of hundreds of small thimble-sized cups. While Jesus did say “unless you eat my body . . . and unless you drink my blood”; he also said in the same chapter: “I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh” (John 6:51). Clearly, this means that eating this bread will give us a share in eternal life. This is elaborated by St. Paul: “Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord” (1 Cor. 11:27).

Is not every baptized believer a priest who can celebrate the Lord’s Supper?

No, baptismal priesthood and ministerial priesthood are quite different. The laity cannot consecrate the bread and wine. Only the apostles were commanded to do this by Jesus. Consequently, only their successors, the bishops and priests at Mass, are able to consecrate the bread and wine in the name of the people. As St. Paul tells us, the ministers are chosen by God to offer sacrifices for the people (Hebrews 5:1).

What are some of the practical reasons why the cup might not be offered?

The apostles themselves could not always administer it to the sick or imprisoned.
The danger of spillage is a real concern.
There is a great aversion to drinking from the same cup, especially with the sick.
Some places have difficulty procuring and preserving wine.
Alcoholics and certain others cannot drink it.
Because Jesus gave the Church authority to regulate such matters.

Filed under: Eucharist, Questions, Sacraments | Leave a comment »

Questions & Answers About the Reception of Communion

Posted on August 14, 2010 by Father Joe

Where do we receive Holy Communion?

Communion is usually distributed in church; however, the sick may receive it in the hospital or in their homes.

How is it administered in church?

There are two ways that the host is given at present in the Roman Rite: upon the tongue and in the hand. Various Eastern rites also have their own manner of distribution, including the spoon or a sacred tube. The priest holds up the host before the communicant and says, “The Body of Christ.” The communicant responds, “Amen,” thus acknowledging the real presence of Christ and the full authority and authenticity of the Catholic faith that makes this holy encounter possible. The unity here between the communicant, Christ and the Church is intensely intimate. It is for this reason that one who is not of our faith or who is in mortal sin should not receive the sacrament. It would turn the “Amen,” no less than a faith profession, into a lie. The person opens his mouth and puts out his tongue slightly. The minister places the host upon the tongue. The communicant immediately closes his mouth, signs himself with the cross and moves back to his place in the church. Those receiving in the hand make a throne of their left hand in their right for Christ the King. They do not put their hands side by side in the image of a bird. Nor should they pick at the host as an insect would with its pinchers. Fingers should be together and nothing should be carried. If a communicant has a rosary in the hand, a purse under the arm, or a baby held close — he or she should not receive in the hand but upon the tongue. Having received in the hand, we step aside but still facing the altar, pick up the host with the right hand and put it into the mouth. We make the sign of the cross, and then, and only then, we turn and walk back to our place. We do not walk away with the host in our hand. We do not make a hasty sign of the cross as we rush to our pew. The minister of the sacrament must be able to see the communicant put the host into the mouth.

Why is Holy Communion sometimes designated as Viaticum?

It applies to Holy Communion given to the sick as spiritual sustenance and as saving food. It helps to prepare them for the final leg of their pilgrimage into eternity.

Why are people sometimes blessed with the sacrament?

Benediction is offered with the Blessed Sacrament because it is really and truly Jesus. Thus, blessing people with the sacrament is quite literally Jesus blessing the people just as he did when he walked the earth.

How is such a benediction usually conducted?

While a hymn in honor of the Blessed Sacrament is sung, the priest, dressed in a cope and humeral veil, incenses the monstrance (a display container placed upon the altar). After this sign of adoration, he blesses the people with the Blessed Sacrament by making a sign of the cross with it over them.

Why have there been processions with the Blessed Sacrament?

It is a touching and solemn profession of our faith, giving adoration to our Savior in the consecrated host.

What is the meaning of the Vigil Light perpetually burning next to the tabernacle containing the consecrated hosts?

It is a visual reminder of the abiding presence of Jesus in the church and of our worship that is everywhere and always due him. The Lord has not abandoned us. One faithful critic claimed that it is not unlike one’s mother leaving a light burning in the window. Jesus is always there for us, ready to receive us back.

For more such material, contact me about getting my book, CATHOLIC QUESTIONS & ANSWERS.

Filed under: Eucharist, Questions, Sacraments | 2 Comments »

Questions & Answers About Confession

Posted on August 13, 2010 by Father Joe

Who can forgive sins?

Only God can forgive sins, and those to whom he has given the power to do so.

To whom did God give such a power?

The Scriptures reveal that Jesus gave this power to his apostles. We read in John 20:22-23: “And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.’” Our Lord says that all power in heaven and on earth has been given to him, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you” (John 20:21). Jesus was sent into the world to forgive sins, and so he similarly sent the apostles.

Instead of confession, maybe this meant that priests could forgive sins in baptism?

The Bible makes a clear distinction between the sins forgiven by baptism and those remitted afterwards. Regarding the former, we are told, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness [remission] of sins” (Acts 2:38); as for the latter, there is the charge, “If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained” (John 20:23).

Maybe Christ forgives sins, but not priests?

Jesus Christ does forgive our sins, provided that we confess them to a priest (particularly if we have the opportunity to do so).

The Scriptures assert that the forgiveness of sins shall be preached to all nations; if mercy is granted in preaching, why is confession necessary?

The proclamation of forgiveness points to the remission of sins through baptism, confession, or any other means instituted by the Lord.

Does not the biblical notion of forgiving sins apply to the excommunication of sinners or their restoration?

The apostles are given a two-fold power. First, they can forgive sins as our Lord makes clear. Second, they are given the authority to excommunicate. Jesus says, “Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (Matthew 18:18).

If Mary Magdalene can have her sins forgiven because she “loved much” then perhaps all sins are similarly forgiven (see Luke 7:47)?

Mary Magdalene’s outward display of great sorrow in her confession of Jesus brings about the forgiveness of her sins by Christ (who knew her sins). It is not the sentiment of love that is sufficient, but a practical love which results in sorrow, confession if possible, satisfaction and a firm resolve not to sin again. Few priests are given the supernatural power to read souls; thus, unlike Jesus, the priest cannot know what your sins are unless you tell him. This allows the priest to apply an appropriate penance and to give adequate counsel.

If confession is legitimate, why does the Bible remain silent about it?

It is not silent. We have already read Christ’s stipulation in its favor. The historical fact that the early Christians, indeed Catholics during the last two thousand years, have confessed their sins is proof that Christ taught the apostles that sins should be confessed.

But St. Paul said as proof of ourselves, “Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink the cup” (1 Corinthians 11:28). He did not say “Go to confession.” Is there not a real clash?

St. Paul meant that we should be proved according to the teaching of Christ. In other words, we are to prove and to examine our conscience. If we discover any sins, then we should confess them before “eating of this bread.” Certainly, St. Paul would not contradict Jesus who commanded the apostles to forgive sins.

As we say in the Lord’s Prayer, “Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us,” are we not forgiven by forgiving others?

It means that if we want our heavenly Father to forgive our sins, then we must forgive our neighbor. This is more than a precondition connected to human activity. God is not crudely bargaining with us. This line has everything to do with conversion or transformation into a new Christ. We are to imitate and to manifest the loving mercy of God in our very selves. By forgiving others, we become precisely the types of persons who are open to the graces of mercy. God can use us in ushering in his kingdom. We grow in holiness because we become revelatory to the face and presence of God. Ultimately, the Father will look upon us and see his Son living in us. He will give us a share in the eternal life that Christ merits on our behalf.

If sins can readily be forgiven, will it not entice people to easily relapse into sin?

No, because a good confession demands true sorrow for sin and a firm intention to avoid sin in the future. The more a sinner experiences and expresses his sorrow in confession, the less likely will he return to his sin. This sorrow is more than just “feeling” sorry. It reflects a real remorse over what our sins have accomplished. Our sins inhibit our transformation in Christ, deprive us of grace, and threaten us with the loss of heaven and the pains of hell. While fear of punishment illustrates imperfect contrition; we are all to strive for perfect contrition. This requires that we be conscious of the dishonor our sins bring upon God for whom we are created. They strike down our Savior upon Calvary (often imaged in the Sacred Heart devotion).

Can it be said that the apostles went to confession?

We certainly know that our Lord told his apostles to forgive sins; no doubt, if they committed any, they forgave each other’s sins.

Can a priest charge money for forgiving sins?

No, this would be a great crime called simony. Severe punishments would be inflicted upon any priest who would dare do something so offensive.

Can a priest forgive a thief who has no intention to return stolen goods?

No, the stolen property, if possible, must be restored to the lawful owner or at least a promise must be given that restoration will be made. Only then is the priest at liberty to absolve the sin.

Does the Bible distinguish any sins as mortal?

It most certainly does. The Bible tells us that some sins deserve death and that they exclude sinners from the kingdom of heaven. St. Paul states in Galatians 5:19-21: “Now the works of the flesh are plain: immorality, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, dissension, party spirit, envy, drunkenness, carousing, and the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.” St. Paul enumerates a number of serious or mortal sins in 1 Corinthians. Exclusion from the kingdom of God literally means damnation.

Does the Bible mention any sins as venial (more easily forgiven)?

Again, the answer is yes. “For a righteous man falls seven times, and rises again” (Proverbs 24:16). Evidently it is possible for a righteous or just man to commit certain sins and not forfeit his good status. However, if a person commits a mortal sin, he can no longer be considered righteous or just. [Also see James 3:2.]

Is there a clear biblical teaching that God punishes mortal sins with temporal and eternal punishments?

This is the case. David was guilty of murder, which merited the pains of hell (2 Samuel 12:9). Nathan warned him of his mortal peril. David repents: “I have sinned against the Lord” (2 Samuel 12:13). Nathan responds as the voice of God: “The Lord has put away your sin,” (2 Samuel 12:13) that is, the eternal punishment of hell. Nathan continues: “You shall not die. Nevertheless, because by this deed you have utterly scorned the Lord, the child that is born to you shall die” (2 Samuel 12:13-14). This was clearly temporal punishment.

How is the Sacrament of Penance administered?

It is very simple. The ritual usually begins with the sign of the cross. The penitent will often ask for a blessing from the priest at the beginning. Next, he confesses his sins. The priest might offer some fatherly advice, a penance is imposed, and absolution is given.

What are the essential words of absolution?

“God, the Father of mercies, through the death and resurrection of his Son has reconciled the world to himself and sent the Holy Spirit among us for the forgiveness of sins; through the ministry of the Church, may God give you pardon and peace, and I ABSOLVE YOU FROM YOUR SINS IN THE NAME OF THE FATHER, AND OF THE SON, + AND OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. Amen.”

For more such material, contact me about getting my book, CATHOLIC QUESTIONS & ANSWERS.

Filed under: Confession, Questions, Sacraments | 10 Comments »

Questions & Answers About Confirmation

Posted on August 12, 2010 by Father Joe

How is confirmation administered?

While a priest usually has faculties to confirm converts, along with baptizing them and giving them first Holy Communion; usually the bishop is the minister of the sacrament. The bishop imposes his hands upon them and beseeches the Holy Spirit to descend with his sevenfold gifts. He anoints them with sacred chrism in the sign of the cross upon the forehead. This anointing points toward a spiritual character that is offered by the Spirit of God. The cross stands for our redemption and our willingness to enter into the passion, death and resurrection of Jesus. Accompanying the anointing are these words: “N., be sealed with the Gift of the Holy Spirit.” The candidate may choose to use his baptismal name or that of another patron saint.

What is the oil used?

It is a sacred chrism (possessing balm or a scent) blessed by the bishop during Holy Week, traditionally on Holy Thursday but nowadays often done earlier to ease schedules so that more priests can concelebrate the Mass and renew their priestly promises.

What does it signify?

The sweet fragrance signifies the sweetness of virtue, displacing the corruption of sin with the healing presence of Christ. It will strengthen the candidate for the struggle against the enemies of Christ and of the Church. As the older language would infer, we become an adult in the Church and a soldier for Christ.

Why is the sign of the cross made upon the head?

It is to emphasize that the Christian should never be ashamed of the cross, but to confess his faith in Christ crucified without regard to human opinion or persecution.

For more such material, contact me about getting my book, CATHOLIC QUESTIONS & ANSWERS.

Filed under: Confirmation, Questions, Sacraments | 1 Comment »

Questions & Answers About the Baptism of Children

Posted on August 11, 2010 by Father Joe

Why do we baptize children?

“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God” (John 3:5). Neither gender nor age is specified in this passage. Such a fact is important because the suggestion that this passage is a repudiation of infant baptism would be far from the mark. Indeed, given the necessity of baptism, it would point to the latter.

Nevertheless, accepting that the passage is addressed to those who have reached the age of reason, we can explore what it means, “to be born again.” Just as we receive biological life in the womb, so too can we receive supernatural life from the womb of Mother Church— focusing in a practical way upon the water of the baptismal font and the action of the Holy Spirit. We do not deny that adults need to be taught and to accept the faith prior to baptism. Jesus says as much in his commission to spread the Gospel: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you” (Matthew 28:19-20). However, in reference to children, the faith of parents and the believing community suffices. St. Paul was converted by God’s grace at a time when he did not believe in Christ and persecuted the Church. St. John the Baptizer was sanctified prior to his martyrdom, even though he knew little about the faith of Christ. Precedent for such an early initiation into the People of God can be found in the practice of the Jews, the first people called forth. Almighty God can wash children clean of original sin and give them a share in divine life, just as he presumed faith in the Jewish children circumcised on the eighth day as a step toward justification. Jesus would have none hinder the baptism of children. He said: “Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 19:14). While something of God’s mercy toward children who die while still in their innocence might be implied here, the main point is the inclusivity of God’s kingdom and Church. The gravity of baptism should not be dismissed. Jesus tells us that unless one is born again of water and of the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Do we actually believe that a little baby is infected by the sin of Adam and Eve and has consequently forfeited supernatural life?

Well, the Scriptures speak for themselves. St. Paul tells us: “Then as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men. For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man’s obedience many will be made righteous” (Romans 5:18-19). He also states: “For the love of Christ controls us, because we are convinced that one has died for all; therefore all have died. And he died for all, that those who live might live no longer for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised.” (1 Corinthians 6:14-15). As a testimony from the Old Testament, we read in Psalm 50, verse 5: “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.” Returning to Paul, he tells the Ephesians: “We were by nature children of wrath” (Ephesians 2:3). Original sin afflicts us, even upon the very day of our conception. Baptism restores supernatural life through Jesus Christ. As for what happens to a child who dies prior to baptism, we can take consolation in the fact that God’s justice to every soul is perfect and accompanied by a boundless mercy.

Does the Bible actually teach that all sins are forgiven by baptism and that a new life is given us?

St. Peter says: “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him” (Acts 2:38-39). This is prefigured in Ezekiel 36:25 when God states: “I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols. I will cleanse you.” As for regeneration, we read in Galatians 3, verse 25-27: “But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a custodian; for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” There can be no doubt about it in Titus 3:4-7: “But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit, which he poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that we might be justified by his grace and become heirs in hope of eternal life.”

Is there any evidence of the Apostles baptizing children?

Yes, they baptized whole households. We read in Acts 10:48 that they baptized the household of Cornelius and in Acts 16:15 that of Lydia. Also, do not forget Paul’s reception by Stephana, keeper of the prison. It is most probable that there were children in his home, too.

Were children baptized in the early post-Apostolic period?

Early authorities like Origen, Cyprian, and St. Augustine make clear that the baptism of children as soon as possible constituted a tradition handed down by the apostles themselves. The reasoning was that divine grace should not be withheld from anyone.

Is it wrong to presume faith in a small child or infant?

No, just as children can be made an heir of earthly property, long before they have the faculty of consenting to receive it, so too in baptism, infants can be made heirs of heaven.

For more such material, contact me about getting my book, CATHOLIC QUESTIONS & ANSWERS.

Filed under: Baptism, Catholic, Questions | 2 Comments »

Questions & Answers About Baptism (in General)

Posted on July 20, 2010 by Father Joe

What is the importance of the baptismal ritual?

The various rituals that surround and precede the baptism amplify and signify the whole meaning of the sacrament. The candidate is given a saint’s name so that he will have a special patron before God and a particular model of holiness. He is asked if he desires baptism to insure that such is his own choice and that the conversion is not coerced. There is a brief exorcism rite, especially if the person has been involved in New Age cults or various Eastern religions. Of course, given the perplexing times, it is also possible that a person has actively engaged in witchcraft and Satanic practices. The words of the priest and his very breath in saying them signify the protecting presence of the Holy Spirit against evil and anything diabolic. Any enslavement to Satan is broken. The sign of the cross, made many times in the ritual, and upon the head of the candidate, marks the person as the property of God and as a disciple of the crucified Christ. He is to nurture in his heart and practice in his life the dictates of the Christian calling.

The imposition of hands is a further symbol of divine protection. Retained, at least as an option for children, the priest touches the ears and mouth of the candidate with the words, “Be opened” or Ephpheta! After the example of Jesus with spittle in Mark 7:33, his eyes are given spiritual sight and his mouth and actions are opened to the truth of the Word of God.

The person being baptized proclaims the faith and renounces Satan and all his works. Unless accomplished earlier, as with the exorcism rites, the candidate is anointed with the oil of baptism, also called the oil of catechumens. A child is anointed upon the breast. An adult is anointed upon the palms of the hands. It is still another sign of protection. Just as one might use lotion to protect from the damaging rays of the sun, here the oil is to act like armor against the assault of the world, the flesh, and the devil.

How is baptism performed?

There are several ways that water might be used: immersion, sprinkling, and pouring. Pouring is still the most common. The priest or deacon pours water over the head of the catechumen while saying: “I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”

What are some of the ceremonies that follow the act of baptism?

There is a second anointing, upon the forehead (upon the crown of the head for children). The oil used is a sacred chrism (slightly perfumed). The initiate is confirmed with this anointing, or if it is delayed, he is anointed priest, prophet, and king. He is the anointed of God, specially chosen to be among his elect. Such is our hope and the reasoning behind the white garment that might be used at this point. The book of Revelation asserts that the elect will be attired in gowns of white. It is a special sign of purity. We pray that they might bring it (figuratively) unstained before the judgment-seat of Christ. A lighted candle is presented to the person, or to a godparent in the case of children, lit from the Paschal or Easter Candle. Christ is the Light of the world and his is the fire that brings warmth to a world ever so cold. We pray that the one baptized into Christ will witness to this light and warmth. This is only made possible if one avoids sin, keeps the commandments, and loves both God and neighbor. If such is accomplished, then he can be confident in coming to the marriage banquet of heaven with all the saints. While the candle represents the newly baptized as a new Christ, the fire is the flame of everlasting life.

Why do we have sponsors or godparents?

They stand by the adult as supports and friends in the journey of faith. They stand by the child as one who professes faith and makes a solemn vow on the child’s behalf. They will support parents in raising the child in the Catholic faith. They will remain a model of Christian discipleship to the adult. We are a family. We do not come to God alone. A spiritual relationship is forged.

For more such material, contact me about getting my book, CATHOLIC QUESTIONS & ANSWERS.

Filed under: Baptism, Catholic, Questions, Uncategorized | 4 Comments »

Questions & Answers About Purgatory, Heaven & Hell

Posted on July 18, 2010 by Father Joe

Does the Bible say anything about purgatory?

The word as such is not mentioned; however, it does say that we should pray for the dead: “Therefore he made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin” (2 Maccabees 12:45). Obviously the souls in heaven do not require our prayers for atonement and the dead in hell are beyond redemption. It must mean the dead in a purgative condition.

What is purgatory?

It is a state where certain souls go to suffer for a while, having died with unremitted venial sins or with temporal punishment for sin yet to be expiated. When they have satisfied divine justice, they will be delivered into heaven.

Is this something the early Christians believed?

Uniform prayers for the dead were promulgated by counciliar decree in 253 AD. Later councils of the Church in 579 AD, in 827 AD, and at Trent, urged people to pray for the dead. This is ample evidence that the first Christians believed in a state of atonement after this life.

But do not some question the authenticity of 2 Maccabees?

Protestant reformers removed it about five hundred years ago. However, the Catholic Church from the earliest days had approved it as canonical and authentic.

But its author apologizes for its errors?

Yes, but he meant errors in style, not in doctrine.

Are there any other proofs for purgatory?

We read in the book of Revelation: “But nothing unclean shall enter it [heaven], nor anyone who practices abomination or falsehood, but only those who are written in the Lamb’s book of life” (Revelation 21:27). If nothing defiled can enter heaven, then it would seem that the millions upon millions who die in their venial sins are eternally lost. That is, they are lost unless there is a purgatory to offer final and complete spiritual healing. It is also written that God will render to each of us according to his works and that an accounting will be required for every idle word spoken. Many die with small faults in word and action; certainly a good God will not damn them eternally for minor transgressions. Purgatory is the place of atonement for little imperfections.

But, in light of Ephesians 1:7, “In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace which he lavished upon us,” purgatory would not seem necessary. Why would Catholics claim otherwise?

Such an interpretation against purgatory would eliminate the necessity for hell, too. Christ cleanses us from sin, as long as we use the means he has prescribed. If we neglect them, we will incur suffering because God rewards and punishes each of us according to our works.

The Bible asserts “in the place where the tree falls, there it will lie” (Ecclesiastes 11:3); thus, there is no other condition than that in heaven and hell, right?

Wrong, this would reduce to insignificance the justice of God. The text can only be used within this context in reference to our final orientation, toward heaven or hell. Every soul is destined for heaven, IF we accept and make sufficient use of the grace God gives us (see 2 Peter 3:9; Wisdom 11:27; Ezekiel 31:11; 1 Timothy 2:4).

But does not the Bible say that some people are predestined for heaven?

Certainly we all hope to be numbered among the elect. Some, like the apostles, martyrs, and other saints reveal such predestination by lives of extraordinary faith and loving witness to the Gospel. St. Augustine would talk about this mystery as a predestination to glory. This is quite different from the exaggerated Calvinistic view that sees signs of election (being saved) in our status and worldly success. Such a view would insinuate that the poor are abandoned, even by God. This notion is utterly reprehensible. God gives sufficient grace to all men and women to be saved. What we need is faith and cooperation in that grace.

Is it just to damn someone for all eternity?

The souls in hell chose by their own free will and understanding the bondage to sin over the freedom of the children of God. Like the fallen angels before them, they will never again change their minds and hearts. God will not drag a soul by force into heaven. We cannot know all the reasons why such souls were created in the first place; however, beyond this mystery, the affirmation of God’s justice and its support to Christian morality cannot be underestimated.

For more such material, contact me about getting my book, CATHOLIC QUESTIONS & ANSWERS.

Filed under: Bible, Catholic, Questions | 3 Comments »

Questions & Answers About Mary & the Saints

Posted on July 17, 2010 by Father Joe

Is it not wrong to honor saints and angels since the Bible says, “You shall adore the Lord your God, and him alone you shall serve” (see Lk 4:8; Mt 4:10)?

Certain critics misinterpret Catholic teaching on this matter. Catholics adore or worship God alone. He is the one we serve. The honor we show the saints is of a secondary order. It is no more an offense against God than the honor and respect we show our parents and friends.

How can Catholics rationalize such an attitude given the clear Scriptural prohibitions, as in Isaiah 42:8, “I am the LORD, that is my name; my glory I give to no other”?

There is no deep rationalization here, only common sense and courtesy. Of course, the mindset of those who have refashioned Christianity into a privatized sect, seeking a direct link with Christ while ignoring any semblance of a family of faith– living and dead– would have a hard time appreciating the communion of saints. As I said before, the highest honor and adoration goes to God alone; however, the very fact that we have natural bonds (with blood kin) and supernatural ones (in the family of the Church) demands some level of respect and affection.

What is the difference between showing honor and giving adoration?

Adoration is the term we properly use regarding the highest honor we show and this is directed to God. We recognize his Lordship over all creation. By honoring angels and saints we give glory to God who has worked wondrous deeds and has instilled divine virtues in them.

Does the Bible say that we should honor angels?

Most certainly, it does. Three angels appeared to Abraham. His response was to bow his face to the ground and to honor them (Genesis 18:2; 19:1). Similarly, Joshua raised his eyes and saw what he at first took to be a man, standing over against him, holding a drawn sword and proclaiming, I am “commander of the army of the LORD. . .” (Joshua 5:15). We read in Exodus 23:20-21, God saying: “Behold, I send an angel before you, to guard you on the way and to bring you to the place which I have prepared. Give heed to him and hearken to his voice, do not rebel against him, for he will not pardon your transgression; for my name is in him.”

But, does not St. Paul say, “To God alone is due honor and praise” (see 1 Timothy 1:17)?

The apostle means that the highest honor and praise is reserved to God. Note what he says in Romans 12:10: “Love one another with brotherly affection; outdo one another in showing honor.”

What does it really mean to pray to saints?

It is a particular kind of prayer. Ultimately, it is a prayer of supplication that finds its ultimate source in God, himself. We are asking the saints to pray for us and with us. Our prayers of adoration are reserved to God, all glory and praise is his.

Does the Bible say it is permissible to ask the saintsto pray for us?

Yes, it does. The Bible tells us that there is a real value in requesting the prayers of people on earth and the prayers of the angels in heaven. This being the case, it is only logical that the saints, who reign with Christ in heaven and who are still a part of our family of faith, can pray and intercede for us. St. Paul makes this request: “I appeal to you, brethren, by our Lord Jesus Christ and by the love of the Spirit, to strive together with me in your prayers to God on my behalf” (Romans 15:30). He said similar things in Ephesians 6:18 and Thessalonians 5:25.

Does the Bible say anything about angels and saints praying for people who walk the earth?

There is evidence for this. Zechariah 1:12 documents an angel praying for the Jewish people: “O LORD of hosts, how long wilt thou have no mercy on Jerusalem and the cities of Judah, against which thou hast had indignation these seventy years?” God heard and responded to the angel’s prayer, noting that his words were “gracious and comforting” and that he would have mercy on Jerusalem. Note these words from the chief apostle (2 Peter 1:15):

“And I will endeavour that you frequently have after my decease whereby you may keep a memory of these things” (Douay-Rheims).

“And I will see to it that after my departure you may be able at any time to recall these things” (Revised Standard Version – Catholic Edition).

While the language sounds a bit convoluted, one might claim that the apostle is saying, “And I will do my endeavor that after my death also you may often have prayers whereby you may keep a memory of these things” (2 Peter 1:15).

St. Peter wished to pray for his friends even after his death. The clincher that the saints pray for us is in the Book of Revelation where St. John saw four and twenty ancients who “fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and with golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints” (Revelation 5:8).

But how can angels and saints be mediators when St. Paul tells us that “There is one mediator between God and men,” and his name is “Christ Jesus” (see 1 Timothy 2:5)?

Jesus is our Mediator. However, this does not rule out secondary intercessors that are assisted and used by Christ. Remember, St. Paul, himself, asked for prayers from his brethren.

Why not pray to God in a direct way, according to the fashion that Jesus taught us?

There are many instances where we do pray directly to God. However, we acknowledge that we do not come to God alone. Just as God called to himself a People of God in the Jewish nation, so too he summons a new people in the Church. We pray with and for one another. Death is no barrier to this solidarity. We beckon the saints to pray for our needs. There is a great humility in this form of prayer. We recognize our unworthiness and ask the saints to obtain for us that which may be just out of our grasp. Both prayer forms are recommended.

But if the dead are either asleep or too far off to hear us, then what use are our petitions?

The saints know rest in the Lord, but this does not mean that they have been relegated, even temporarily, to oblivion. Further, the ties that bind us, particularly our faith and love in Christ, transcend the barrier of death. There is a legitimate mystery here and yet we trust the Word of God, which testifies that angels and saints do, indeed, hear us. “Just so, I tell you, there is joy before the angels of God over one sinner who repents” (Luke 15:10). The saints have joined the angels of heaven. They hear our voices.

But does not Jeremiah 17:5 say, “Cursed is the man who trusts in man”?

The prophet only meant that trust in men should not displace trust in God. Note that God himself told us to observe and trust his angel (Exodus 23).

Do not Catholics go too far in calling various saints “our hope, our mercy,” etc.?

These are merely signs of affection and thankfulness to our special friends among the saints. Such expressions should not be interpreted crudely as denying the singular place of God and his operation in our lives.

Why do Catholics pay special and heightened honor to the Virgin Mary?

She was chosen by God to be the Mother of our Savior. Should we not honor the mother of the one who has saved the world? Sure we should.

The appearance and the words of the angel honored Mary with titles befitting her dignity: “Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee, blessed art thou among women.” Is it right to echo the salutation of a heavenly messenger? Certainly it is.

Jesus desired that we take notice of his mother and honor her, saying to John from the cross, “See your mother” (John 19:27). Are we obliged to carry out the last words of our crucified Lord? Without question, this is the case.

The first Christians honored Mary with a most intense and intimate love. Should we do the same as brothers and sisters to Christ, adopted children of the Father, and spiritual children to Mary? Yes, the pattern and connection is clear.

After God himself, Mary is the most perfect model of purity, justice, and holiness for us to imitate. If Mary is the queen of the saints, then is her spiritual perfection worthy of imitation? Quite so.

Those who have honored her have been wondrously rewarded by God; the lame walked, the blind regained their sight, the sick recovered, etc. Practically speaking, we would be fools to ignore such a person and the incredible manner that God continues to use her. In many ways, the miracles and messages attributed to her remind us that God is still very much aware and concerned about our plight.

Again, does it not defame God to give so many honors to a mere creature?

This honor we show her does not degrade God in the least. As a matter of fact, the respect and veneration we show Mary pleases God. We give glory to God in honoring the woman who was so wonderfully made free from sin and who said YES to God for all humanity.

Did the Virgin Mary have other children besides Jesus?

No, the Bible calls her “a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary” (Luke 1:27). The Scriptures also tell us that she remained a virgin up to the birth of Jesus (Matthew 1:25). Her perpetual virginity was an accepted fact in the early Church community, taught by the Nicene Creed and the early fathers as “the glorious EVER virgin Mary.”

But does this conflict with what the evangelist actually says, that Joseph “knew her not until she had borne a son; and he called his name Jesus” (Mt 1:25)?

There is no conflict, just a problem with language and translation. The wording, “until” or “not till” does not mean that her virginity ended at that point or at some time after. It merely stresses again that Jesus was specially conceived by divine intervention. Given that Mary was a sacred vessel for the presence of God, Joseph would do nothing to defile her. After the birth of Christ, and knowing full well the identity of his foster Son, Joseph and Mary lived a virginal marriage. The language here shares some similarity with Genesis 8:7: “. . . and sent forth a raven; and it went to and fro UNTIL the waters were dried up from the earth.” The raven did not return at all. As with the virginity of Mary, it was a perpetual status. The same expression is used in 1 Kings 15:30.

But if Jesus is called Mary’s FIRST BORN, does not this readily imply other children?

No, and again, language is a serious issue in biblical interpretation. The term “first born” was applied to the FIRST BORN of every Jewish woman, regardless of whether other children followed. A case in point is Joshua 17:1. The frequent mention of the brethren of Jesus finds several reliable explanations. There is evidence that in some cases it refers to cousins (especially when a woman other than Mary is mentioned as their mother) and in other instances it may simply be an extension of referring to his followers as his brethren.

Does the Bible say that Mary was always free from original sin?

We read in Genesis 3:15: “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.” The seed is interpreted as Christ Jesus, the woman is the Virgin Mary, and the serpent is Satan. Certain older Catholic renditions translated the last line here as “She shall crush your head.” Thus, in statuary and other imagery, she is often envisioned stepping upon a serpent. This translation peculiarity is fortuitous in that modern scholarship tells us that a more exact rendering would be, “They [all the descendants of the woman] will strike at your head.” The Mother of the Redeemer is now the Mother of the Redeemed. She is the image and model of the Church. The enmity between her sons and daughters against those in league with the devil is a perpetual one. Such an interpretation would not admit to even a momentary moment of reconciliation. She has always been, and always will be, the one made holy by Christ’s saving grace– a favor which reached from the cross backwards through history, to the very moment of her conception– all so that the divine and all-holy one might pass through a sinless vessel. The angel’s salutation affirms this truth, “Hail full of grace.” There is no space or vacuum in her for sin. The angel continues, “blessed art thou among women” (Luke 1:26,33). The holiness of Mary distinguishes her from all other women.

Are there any other reasons that might prove that Mary was free from original sin?

It would have been unbecoming of an infinitely pure God to be incarnated in a woman who was or had been under the dominion of sin, even if just for a moment.

Christ takes his flesh from the flesh of Mary; as God and as untouched by sin, he could not assume a sinful flesh.

The Holy Spirit has guided the Church on this matter and thus it can be trusted.

Mary appeared at Lourdes in France and declared herself the IMMACULATE CONCEPTION. As verification of this message, healing water sprung mysteriously from the ground and as a lasting testimony thousands have been cured by it from all kinds of diseases.

Filed under: Bible, Catholic, God, Jesus, Mary, Questions | 6 Comments »

UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS VIOLATES ACADEMIC FREEDOM

Posted on July 13, 2010 by Father Joe

Dr. Kenneth Howell, an adjunct professor at the University of Illinois, Champaign, who taught classes on the Introduction to Catholicism and Modern Catholic Thought, was fired for teaching and explaining in an email to students the Catholic teaching on homosexuality. While the Catholic position is based upon the clear Scriptural prohibition, the meat or substance for our position is a reasoned stand applying Natural Law.

The universal catechism is very clear:

[CCC 2357] Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

The context of the current controversy was an upcoming test on the theory of utilitarianism. He contrasted it with the Catholic appreciation of natural law. Apparently, the university wanted him either to be silent regarding such Catholic teachings or to encourage dissent. Because he honestly taught what he was charged to teach, he was terminated. A friend of the student complained that the explanation he gave amounted to “hate speech.” This is precisely the kind of repercussion that we were told by liberals would not happen when legislation redefined such speech. Professor Howell has also suffered the loss of his position at the campus Catholic center. I suspect that the school will now seek out lapsed and/or bad Catholics to replace him. No “good” Catholic would take such a position since that school has unveiled its blatant anti-Catholic bias.

The professor wrote:

In short, to judge an action wrong is not to condemn a person. A person and his/her acts can be distinguished for the purposes of morality.
Natural Moral Law says that Morality must be a response to REALITY. In other words, sexual acts are only appropriate for people who are complementary, not the same.
Men and women are complementary in their anatomy, physiology, and psychology. Men and women are not interchangeable. So, a moral sexual act has to be between persons that are fitted for that act. Consent is important but there is more than consent needed.
One example applicable to homosexual acts illustrates the problem. To the best of my knowledge, in a sexual relationship between two men, one of them tends to act as the “woman” while the other acts as the “man.” In this scenario, homosexual men have been known to engage in certain types of actions for which their bodies are not fitted.
I don’t want to be too graphic so I won’t go into details but a physician has told me that these acts are deleterious to the health of one or possibly both of the men. Yet, if the morality of the act is judged only by mutual consent, then there are clearly homosexual acts which are injurious to their health but which are consented to. Why are they injurious? Because they violate the meaning, structure, and (sometimes) health of the human body.
Thus, people tend to think that we can use our bodies sexually in whatever ways we choose without regard to their actual structure and meaning. This is also what lies behind the idea of sex change operations. We can manipulate our bodies to be whatever we want them to be.
Natural Moral Theory says that if we are to have healthy sexual lives, we must return to a connection between procreation and sex. Why? Because that is what is REAL. It is based on human sexual anatomy and physiology. Human sexuality is inherently unitive and procreative. If we encourage sexual relations that violate this basic meaning, we will end up denying something essential about our humanity, about our feminine and masculine nature.
I know this doesn’t answer all the questions in many of your minds. All I ask as your teacher is that you approach these questions as a thinking adult. That implies questioning what you have heard around you. Unless you have done extensive research into homosexuality and are cognizant of the history of moral thought, you are not ready to make judgments about moral truth in this matter. All I encourage is to make informed decisions.

To read the complete email, go to: THE GAZETTE

This honest and good teacher taught for nine years at the University of Illinois. He told his students that they would be tested on their understanding of Catholic teaching, not judged upon their personal acceptance or beliefs.

The setting for the controversy was one of his lectures in the Introduction to Catholicism course. He wrote an email in May to his students in preparation for an exam regarding the application of natural law theory to a practical social issue, i.e. like judging the morality of homosexual acts. Despite acknowledging that many might disagree with Catholic doctrine, and the notion of natural law (like Supreme Court nominee, Elena Kagan), the good professor gave an accurate application to a pertinent issue from Catholic social teaching. Nevertheless, the school insisted that the teachings and email violated their standards of inclusivity.

Today, certain concerned administrators of the school have asked that the faculty committee determine whether or not academic freedom was violated. I suspect for many of us, even those unsympathetic to such views, would regard this as a no brainer. It seems obvious that a pro-homosexual litmus test usurped such freedom and an accurate, if offensive to some, Catholic teaching. Would he have also been fired for the application of natural law to the abortion question? Liberals hated Justice Clarence Thomas for his paper in such an application, drawing an analogy with the question of slavery and the violation of the innate dignity of human personhood.

It amazes me that a facility dedicated to open education could be so closed-minded. What are they saying to their students?

Truths are relative, unless they are liberal truths.

Judge no one but we can judge you.

All ideas are welcome, except those which are not politically correct.

Exercise your faith, unless you are a conservative Christian or Roman Catholic.

This professor was hired to teach Catholic thought. This university has not only wronged this man but sends the bigoted message that Catholic thinking is unacceptable on their campus. Perversion (my word, not that of the sensitive and gentle professor) is tolerated but no insinuation that such actions might be judged morally wrong. I suspect that this speaks ill both for the religious studies and the philosophy departments. If religious tenets and philosophical/ethical questions cannot be freely addressed, then any insistence of academic freedom becomes a hypocritical sham. Discussions about homosexuality, fornication, and abortion would be limited to the left or made taboo. The teacher gave a forthright answer. The students could have argued and disagreed with it. Instead, the professor was silenced. He attacked no one. He merely gave the Catholic position on a question of conduct.

Faithful Catholic students should complain that they are not really welcome to be fully engaged in the life of the school. Parents should consider sending their children elsewhere. I know one Catholic university which hired a renowned atheist philosophy instructor. The students and other faculty members often delighted in debating with him. They respected each other. But here is a case where a believer is punished precisely because he teaches views which non-believers or secular students will not tolerate. It is ironic that those who are the most fanatical about toleration are so often incredibly intolerant.

Dr. Kenneth Howell is an award winning educator (recognized by the university in 2009) and a convert to the Catholic faith. He has taught there for nine years. The word is out that even the local bishop is requesting his reinstatement. The professor was very careful to admit that he was a faithful practicing Catholic and thus he was sympathetic to the subject matter he was hired to teach. He slandered no one and even admitted that a critical eye to certain actions should not be interpreted as condemnation or hatred against others. Rather than a professional and academic debate, anonymous students and “politically correct” co-workers decided they would simply get rid of him. It reminds me of the spoiled child who takes his ball and runs home when he starts to lose in a game.

We are told that the university president, Michael Hogan, has received over 100 emails. Now he has asked that the matter be reviewed. Maybe more of us should say something about this as well?

UI President
uipres@uillinois.edu
http://www.uillinois.edu/president/

Executive Offices
http://www.uillinois.edu/administration/vps.cfm

Trustees
http://www.uillinois.edu/trustees/

Ethics Office
http://www.ethics.uillinois.edu/policies/index.cfm

My suggestion is that the professor be rehired or that the public school make it very clear that Catholic teachings are neither welcome in the classroom nor in regular discourse. If they do the latter, they should also forfeit tax dollars and public support. They can hang a sign on their doors, saying, “Catholics are only welcome if they shut up and compromise their faith and values!”

Further, if he is reinstated, I would recommend that those administrators, faculty members and students who violated his academic and personal rights face, themselves, some sort of disciplinary censure. They violated this man’s academic freedom, religious freedom and freedom of speech. Where he was open to rational discourse, they were not. He gave a coherent presentation of the subject matter he was charged to teach, Catholicism, without any foul language or attacks upon persons. Those who fired him were not so noble or magnanimous.

Is it not interesting that a liberal atheist professor at another university faced no reprimand when he urge the theft and desecration of the Eucharist while mockingly name-calling Christians and Catholics? However, when a Catholic professor who stresses respect for persons and freedom for intellectual inquiry, shares ideas which are found offensive by a radical minority over-sensitive about homosexual rights, he is quickly terminated.

Finally, I would urge other Catholic professors, students and those sensitive to matters of academic freedom, to take Dr. Howell’s email and to sign it themselves. At present, he is a man who stands largely alone. He did nothing wrong. This could be done online and with hard copies sent to the university. This should not be anonymous. That is the route of cowards, like the one who started this mess for the good professor. We should stand up and be counted.

We love our homosexual brothers and lesbian sisters.

However, Catholic teaching rightly stipulates that homosexual acts are disordered and a violation of our nature.

In any case, even if you disagree with Catholic teaching, given the public setting and the classes he was hired to teach, those who favor academic freedom should also support him.

DISCUSSION ON THIS POST

John

I heard about this on the radio the other day and could not believe it. Liberals are all about freedom of speech until you say something that they disagree with, and then they try to shut you down. Didn’t a professor out in CA teach a class on female masturbation with a [deleted]? I’m sure this was okay because of her freedom of speech. Simply amazing!

Ron D

I wrote the good UI President a three-letter email, “cut the crap.” Here is his reply, and mine:

Let me begin by thanking you for expressing your concerns. Academic freedom is at the core of our teaching and research missions. It’s vital to our ability to explore new ideas, educate our students, and promote the civil and free exchange of alternative viewpoints in a democracy.

I learned of this action on the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (UIUC) campus late last week and immediately asked Chancellor Robert Easter, who oversees the campus, to provide me with a briefing on the matter. I want to assure you that the University administration shares my commitment to the principles of academic freedom. At the same time, we do believe it’s important to fully investigate all of the details related to this situation. As I’m sure you’re aware, it is sometimes the case that public reports may convey only part of the story. I think it important to reserve judgment until I have all of the facts and I hope you’ll agree.

We have asked the UIUC Senate’s standing Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure to immediately review this action. This is the mechanism on the campus through which these matters should be vetted. We expect this review to be completed very soon. By using our channels of shared governance and review, we are in the best position to make informed decisions that afford a fair process for all.
Again, I’m grateful to have heard from you and others about this and I’m grateful for the opportunity to respond. It reaffirms the deep commitment that so many have to the University and public higher education and to ensuring that the University of Illinois continues to be a beacon of excellence, as it should be for the state, the nation, and the world.

Sincerely,
Mike

Michael J. Hogan
President
University of Illinois

Just remember what he’s teaching. CATHOLIC studies. He cannot lie about the position of the Church, that wouldn’t be education. Many Catholics will be following this. I hope you come to the proper conclusion.

WI Catholic

This is why I have missed you!! God bless you abundantly!

Aidan H

Oh my goodness, you are back!

I thought you were dead!

And look, you raise your puffy fat head out of the grave fighting!

What is with you anyway? You must really hate gay people! You attack them and their rights every chance you get!

This screwy professor had to be fired. Like you he was a hate-monger. The university was crazy to allow Catholic nonsense to be taught at a state school anyway! It is a violation of church and state! If religion has to be taught, it should pass a litmus test. Groups and cults which encourage racism, sexism, and discrimination because of sexual orientation have no place in the public forum. They should be ostracized and stamped out.

If I had my way I would force the Catholic church to ordain women and active homosexuals. Guys who like other men and women would not be chasing little boys!

Did the professor explain how Catholicism can excuse and promote child abuse and the protection of molesters? I doubt it, but gay men who love each other are always fair game… NOT!

The natural law is bunk. We control our destinies and make what we want out of life. If same-sex love was unnatural then people would not have such attractions. But there are homosexual people and animals. It does not result in children but not all heterosexual relationships do so either.

If you ask me, celibacy is far more questionable than homosexuality. Is it even possible to go through life without the intimacy of another person and his or her body? It is no wonder these priests go bonkers and start chasing kiddies. They are sick men and this professor was an apologist for their sickness!

I for one am telling the university, “Bravo!” It was about time and I hope more such homophobic bigots are shown the door in the near future.

Father J, you are the most hateful and hypocritical priest I know. Just when I thought we would be spared your spewing lies, you jump back on the scene. I for one hope that your heart is racing. How’s the blood pressure? You can pop a vein but I bet you never [deleted]!

Now, here again is my dare. Show my comment or prove you are a coward and fake! You can give it, but by your own admission, you just can’t take it! I hope I am too much for you and that you will go away for good!

Why can’t you be like most priests, lazy fools who keep their mouths closed? Mind your own business and leave the rest of us alone.

Shut up! Shut up! Shut up!

Father Joe

Aidan, some comments are so radical that they are their own rebuttal.

Arguing with you will probably be pointless.

I will keep you in prayer, instead.

John

Father Joe, I was thinking the same thing while reading Aidan’s remarks: no sense in even responding to this. My blood pressure did start rising as I read, but by the time I was finished, I actually felt sad for this person. It sounds like he may be a little bigoted himself. You are right, we can only pray for them.

Kind words, your comment Father Joe, indeed kind words.

Jeff

Father Joe,

Just a quick word of encouragement for you, as a convert to Catholicism in 1987 (from a completely non-religious upbringing, btw), I admire reasoned thought in the defense of the Catholic Church’s teachings. God gave humans the ability to not only love, but also to reason and self-analyze. I believe that is strongest foundation by which we can stand firm in our faith and in our public defense of it.
Keep up the good work!

Lady Godless

Father Joe said: “Is it not interesting that a liberal atheist professor at another university faced no reprimand when he urge the theft and desecration of the Eucharist while mockingly name-calling Christians and Catholics? However, when a Catholic professor who stresses respect for persons and freedom for intellectual inquiry, shares ideas which are found offensive by a radical minority over-sensitive about homosexual rights, he is quickly terminated.”

Are you referring to PZ Myers?

I believe that was about something that happened a couple of years ago. What did you advocate in that case?

Father Joe

I do think there are extremes which would force censure upon professors: inappropriate relationships with students, incompetence, belligerence and seeking to harm the institution for which one is employed, treating students unfairly or unjustly (as in biased grading and verbal abuse), constant foul and derogatory language, encouraging students to violence, a disregard for the civil laws and enticing students to violate them, etc.

Myers ridiculed believers and lacked basic human respect. I would expect all teachers to exhibit a certain tolerance and courtesy to others, even when they do not share their opinions or views. Further, he was hired to teach science; Howell was specifically hired to teach about Roman Catholicism.

Howell might be critical of atheism, other religious beliefs, and the brand of morality practiced by others; however, he seemed honest and approached such issues within the scope of his course, respect for his students and intellectual honesty. A science teacher may or may not believe in God, and he might even share his intellectual reasoning for such views; however, name-calling and deliberate blasphemy crosses the line (in my estimation). It is like using the “n” word to blacks and the “f” word to homosexuals. Polite or decent people should not devalue others, even when there are serious disagreements, either from prejudice or from a given perspective of the created order.

Lady Godless

Looks like Ken Howell has been temporarily reinstated, pending full review:

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2010-07-29/news/ct-met-u-of-i-catholic-professor-073020100729_1_reinstates-academic-freedom-associate-professor

Michele Johnson

I just discovered your blog, Father Joe. I find the discussions here fascinating but I can understand why you would need to limit your postings. The hatred in some of these comments is quite toxic.

What brought me to your blog was a search on how Catholics should react to Islam….which lead me to your article on Pope John Paul II kissing the Koran several years ago. Again, fascinating discussions and hoping I find some answers there.

I’ve recently been invited to attend a meeting to discuss a program for school children in our area. The program is “Operation Cooperation” and strives to bring understanding and cooperation among children of different faiths: Judaism, Catholicism, Islam and Christian Scientist.

I am praying for wisdom in this matter. I look forward to following your blog in the future.

May the Lord bless and keep you

Filed under: Anti-Catholicism, Catholic, Sexuality, Social Justice | Leave a comment »

« Previous Page — Next Page »