Catholic Hospitals that do not Follow Church Teaching

Father,

I’ve been listening a lot on KWKY about the HHS mandate and wondering how a Catholic hospital is currently able to administer contraceptives as well as perform sterilization procedures? 

Patti

Patti,

The short answer is that there is no way that a truly Catholic institution can justify administering contraceptives or performing sterilizations. They make varied arguments to justify their behavior but in the end there is no justification and to do so it is at odds with the constant moral Tradition of the Church and the Magisterium.

Fr. Pisut

Excommunitcation

I just read your reply to Terri regarding excommunication.  After reading it, I don’t understand why the bishops do not take action regarding excommunication in the areas where the political leaders say they are Catholic, but try to enact laws and stand by laws that are completely against the Church’s teaching.  If the bishops do not start the excommunication process with these people, is that a sin on their part?  Will they answer to God for their inaction?  Why don’t they excommunicate these types of Catholics?

Have a great day,

Kim 

Kim,

I can't speak as to why a specific bishop may not impose excommunication on any given politician but I can speak in generalities as to why it is not done. The argument is made that while some persons are not in the proper state to receive Holy Communion that is for them to discern and for God to judge. While some acts by themselves incur automatic excommunication the act of excommunication is itself a corrective punitive measure designed not so much as to punish but to bring people to repentance. Therefore, it is at the discretion of the bishop on when best to use it. Many bishops don't use it because they fear that it will not have the intended affect. Since there are many Catholics who disagree with many fundamental moral teachings of the Church and who dismiss what the Church teaches in regards to the proper interior disposition for the reception of sacraments it is felt that at best excommunication will make no difference and at worst it will garner support for the person in question by those who oppose the Church and thus have the opposite intended affect. While I see the point in the argument what is often overlooked is the bishops role as the custodian and guardian of the Eucharist and that they have an obligation to act when it concerns public figures and the risk of scandal. While each bishop has to weigh the merits of imposing excommunication, which is more severe than merely informing persons that that are not to present themselves for Holy Communion, in the end you are correct, they will be judged by God for how they acted, as we all will.

Fr. Pisut

Ask Father Pisut

Father

We sometimes hear about a person being excommunicated from the Catholic Church, but who actually determines that?  The local priest, the bishop of the diocese, or is it a papal decision?

Thanks,

Terri

Terri

In order to grasp what excommunication is one must first appreciate how the Catholic Church understands herself. While She recognizes that Christ may be operative in the faith of non-Catholic persons and organizations the Catholic Church believes herself to be the Church established by Christ. As such She is the means of salvation, the dispenser of God's grace and the salvific merits of Christ. Therefore, if one severely ruptures their relationship with that Faith and the Church (which is integral to the Faith) which is given to us by Christ the Church has the right and the obligation to take measures, not for the sake of punishment but as a corrective measure to alert the person of the gravity of their offense and the need to repent.

The excommunicated person, while still a member of the Church is, impeded from the reception of the sacraments and certain ecclesiastical acts. However, the person still remains subject to Church laws. excommunication is the most severe ecclesiastical penalty and thus should not be imposed lightly or taken lightly. Some excommunications occur automatically by the law itself by virtue of committing a specific act, latae sententiae. This is the case with abortion. In other cases the severity and extent of excommunication is increased by the official declaration of a latae sententiae excommunication or the imposition of an excommunication, ferendae sententiae. In the later case this is done when in the judgement of the bishop the person has persisted in certain beliefs and or actions which severely contradict and or harm the unity of the Faith. Excommunication is imposed by the bishop, which includes the Pope as a bishop and the Supreme Legislator. Removal of excommunication is done by the Pope, the bishop of the place or priests authorized by them.

Fr. Pisut

Ask Father Pisut

Dear Father Pisut,

I was recently reading about Father Sterano Gobbi, the founder of the Marian Movement of Priests.  Evidently he was blessed with messages from our Blessed Mother.

In 1979, Mary said to him, "The Church is deeple wounded by the multiplication of sacrilegious Communions.  The time has come when your heavenly Mother says: enough!"

Then in 1984 she said, " Too many sicrileges are committed...by those who go to Holy Communion in the stat of mortal sin withou and longer going to confession."

On August 8, 1986, she told him, "It can be said that there is no longer nay Eucharistic celebration where sacrilegious communions are not made.  If you only saw with my eyes how great this wound is which has contaminated the whole Church and paralyzes it, halts it, and makes it impure and so very sick!  If you only saw with my erys, you too would shed copious tears with me."

I have three questions.

1.  What is a sacrilegious Communion?

2.  Obviously abortion, artificial contraception and extramarital sex are serious sins, but can you give me more specific examples of sins we should be confessing?

3.  What did our Lady mean when she indicated that our individual sins have "contaminated this whole Church"?

Sincerely,

Patti

Patti,

 

A sacreligious communion occurs when someone is not in a state of grace as a result of committing a mortal (serious, grave) sin, not having confessed it and having it absolved. For someone to commit a mortal sin there has to be grave matter, the person has to be aware of the grave matter and consented to the act freely. While you listed some grave matter they only become grave sins when they are freely entered into with full knowledge and consent. Other grave matter would include, murder, serious physical abuse, any offenses against sexuality outside of marriage and not open to life, serious theft or lying that would cause grave harm. Despite the fact that the Church is pure and undefiled herself and we are all called to be holy the reality is that we all are sinners and that disconnect between how we are called to live and our sinful nature contaminates the Holy Church of Christ that was given to us for our salvation.

 

Fr. Pisut

Sanctuary Lamp and Crucifix

Dear Fr. Pisut,

We attended a Confirmation Mass at a parish outside of our diocese and noticed a couple of things that were either different or lacking altogether from the altar.

The first difference was the sanctuary candle was enclosed in white glass and not red as we are accustomed to seeing. Is there anything in the G.I.R.M. that dictates the color of the sanctuary lamp?

The second difference was the complete lacking of a crucifix on the altar or anywhere else in the sanctuary. This seems very unusual.

Any insight you can give to these questions is much appreciated.

Sincerely,

Gloria 

Gloria,

Paragraph 316 of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM) states: "In accordance with traditional custom, near the tabernacle a special lamp, fueled by oil or wax, should be kept alight to indicate and honor the presence of Christ." Traditionally, it is the curtain that used to be required to veil tabernacles that was the sign of the Real Presence. While the color of candle is not specified red is most likely the traditional color. Perhaps is symbolizes the red flame of Christ's love. Technically speaking, accordingly to the canonical language in the GIRM, it doesn't not even seem that it is strictly required to have a candle. The word "should" is the operative term. However, it is nevertheless a very strong affirmation of the practice and I would not recommend discontinuing it as it is strongly encouraged by the Church and a clear popular sign to people of the presence of Christ in the tabernacle.

In reference to your other question regarding the presence of a crucifix in the sanctuary paragraph 117 states: "Also on or close to the altar, there is to be a cross with a figure of Christ crucified." This can be the processional cross (crucifix). The word "is" is stronger than "should" and basically mandates the presence of a crucifix. The point of this is to remind us that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is a participation in the one sacrifice of Christ on the cross for our salvation. An image of the resurrected Christ, while not wrong in and of itself, is not to be the prominent image in the sanctuary but rather the crucifix. This was addressed in the 2004 document Redemptionis Sacramentum which deal with abuses in the liturgy.

Fr. Pisut

Divorce

Hello Father,

There are times I get into discussions with my friends about the Catholic faith.  A little while ago, we talked about the vows we take when we get married and how that would tie into "grounds" for divorce.  When we said "in good times and in bad", does that mean a person is obligated to stay with their spouse after he/she has been unfaithful in the marriage, or alcoholism, etc.  When is it "okay" to file for divorce when there are "bad times"?

--
Kim

Kim,
 
First of all we need to clarify terms. You speak of grounds for divorce. Divorce is the civil term for the dissolution of marriage. The Church does not recognize divorce as ending a marriage, though we respect it in the the annulment process. Sometimes a person make seek a divorce because the living situation is no longer tenable but they are still in fact married.  Secondly, in and of themselves such issues as infidelity or alcoholism are not grounds for an annulment. You are correct to an extent, therefore, when speak of "for better or for worse." The annulment process does not end marriages but examines them in order to ascertain if indeed there was a marriage to begin with. Marriage comes about from the consent that a man and women give to each other. Once a man and a woman freely give their consent it cannot be revoked. What an annulment does is determine if there were any pre-existing conditions which would prevent a marriage from truly occurring even though the parties in question may have gone through a ceremony, been married for years or had children. Sometimes there are conditions in persons upbringing and environment which inhibit their ability to firmly grasp or to commit a marriage. Sometimes people may have intentions that are opposed to what a true marriage is. So while infidelity or alcoholism in themselves may not be a reason for an annulment they may be indicative of a greater issue which limited a person's understanding of or ability to enter into and fulfill the obligations of marriage. If this is indeed the case when the Church grants an annulment it does not end a marriage but rather, after careful investigation, declares that a marriage never existed to begin with
 
Fr. Pisut

What is in a Name?

Fr. Pisut,

Why is the the Catholic faith called Roman Catholicism? Thanks!

Sam

Sam,

What is in a name? We become so accustomed to the names of groups and individuals around us that we often use their names without thinking much of their meanings or origins. Such is the case with the title Roman Catholicism. So let us examine the meaning and origin of the title. While all Catholics are Christian (though, sadly, there are those who would erroneously dispute this) not all Christians are Catholic. In the same way all Roman Catholics are Catholics but not all Catholics are Roman Catholics. The term Catholic comes from the Greek word katholikos and means general or universal. It was first used in reference to the corporate body of Christians under the leadership of the bishop. In the first century St. Ignatius of Antioch (37-107) writes in his letter to the Smyrnaeans, "Wheresoever the bishop shall appear, there let the people be, even as where Jesus is, there is the Catholic Church" (Smyr. 8:20). 

With the exceptions of a few bodies of Christians in North Africa and the Middle East the term Catholic referred to the Church as a whole, the entirety of Christendom, until the split with Eastern Christianity, the Orthodox Church, in 1054. The Catholic Church, however, which includes bodies of Christians who may reside in the traditional geographical realm of the Orthodox world, is made up of many different rites. The term rite refers to specific religious custom, usage or ceremony as well as theological traditions that express the Catholic faith and participates in its fullness within the realm of a legitimate diversity. These rites have their origin in geographical and cultural influences. In the Catholic Church there are nine rites: Latin or Roman, Byzantine, Armenian, Chaldean, Coptic, Ethiopian, Malabar, Maronite and Syrian. All these rites can trace their historical origins to the Apostolic succession of bishops who are connected to the Apostles by the laying on of hands (ordination) and the transmission of the Apostolic Faith. The largest of these is the Latin Rite which has its origins in the city of Rome in the first century. Because Catholics believe that Christ founded his Church upon St. Peter, who ultimately lived and died in Rome, the Latin Rite or Roman Catholic Church has come to shape and define Catholicism in the West. However, members of the other rites mentioned are fully Catholic as well.

Fr. Pisut 

Apparitions of Mary

Fr. Pisut,


Recently I was asked about the appearances of our Blessed Mother--It seems she only appeared to Catholics and very poor people--did she ever appear to any other religion or any other group of people? Thanks for your help.

Blessings,
Kathy


Kathy,

True, the known Marian apparitions appear to be largely a Catholic phenomenon. I have heard of some Orthodox Christians receiving Marian apparitions which makes sense in as much as they are very close to us in faith and revere our Blessed Mother as we do. It would make sense that our Blessed Mother would appear to those who believe so fervently in her and her role in the economy of salvation which would explain while persons of other faiths have not been the recipients of her apparitions. How would one recognize her if at first she does not have a role in their life of faith I am not aware of the demographics of who she appears to but if it is only to the poor perhaps it could be due to our Lord's love for the poor. In the end only God and our Blessed Mother know why she appears to who she does. We should rejoice that she has blessed us and we have such important appearances as Guadalupe, Lourdes and Fatima

Fr. Pisut

Hermeneutic of Rupture

Father Pisut,

I recently read your response to the question posed to you about the ordination of women to the priesthood.  Thank you for that clarification.  It seems to me that the very need to respond to such a question — or any number of other questions that people mistakenly believe are yet unanswered by the Church — stems from a concept I've heard about in recent years called the Hermeneutic of Rupture. Its competing concept is called the Hermeneutic of Continuity.  These are big, confusing terms.  Just what do they mean; how do they relate to the aftermath of Vatican II; and why do many Catholics – and even non Catholics – believe that so many things are up in the air in the Church?

Rob

Rob,

Our Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI has used the expressions of the Hermeneutic of Rupture and Hermeneutic of Continuity to describe differing understandings of the Second Vatican Council. For most of the time following Vatican II the Hermeneutic of Rupture has held sway. In its most radical sense this vision claims that Vatican II was a new beginning for the Church. This was an outgrowth of the secularizing trends of the day that many perceived as a new Enlightenment. Just as society was undergoing radical change this same attitude of radical change found its way into the Church. This vision combined both the radical acceptance of the new morality of the day that jettisoned the traditional morality of both the Church and society. In addition there was also the impression that some of the changes in the Church, such as with the Mass, were a return to a more accurate reality of the Church in its primitive stage. In reality the response of many to the Second Vatican Council was more like a second Protestant Reformation in the Church. Just as many Protestant reformers felt that the Church was corrupt and they had to toss everything out and start new so did many Catholics in the Church. In addition, the hoped for return to the early purer Church, which of course is never possible, was also based in a hopeful vision of the past more rooted in 1960's idealism which more in depth study has shown to be inaccurate. In the end, while many proponents of the Rupture theory claim to speak in the "Spirit of Vatican II" in reality much of what they justify according to that "Spirit" is in direct opposition to what the council fathers taught as written in the documents.

The Hermeneutic of Continuity that Pope Benedict XVI speaks of asserts (and rightly so) that the Second Vatican Council must not be read in opposition to the history, Tradition and teaching authority of the Church but rather in continuity with it. The truth does not change, there may be development in or understanding that moves us forward but there can be no rupture. The objective moral order cannot change just because society says so. In terms of the Sacred Liturgy even though some changes were made they are not as extensive as many claim. When celebrating the new order of the Mass we should be informed by the Tradition as opposed to trying out novel ideas and creating our own Liturgy. In recent years some have responded to the reassertion of the moral teaching of the Church and a return to a more traditional way of celebrating the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass as "going backwards" or "turning the clock back." This is a misunderstanding caused by the Hermeneutic of Rupture. In reality the moral teaching of the Church and the tradition of the Liturgy have always been taught and supported but persons were taught otherwise or never encountered them. With the stronger presence of these elements where before they were lacking it is understandable how some may perceive it as going backward but this is actually a result of the sad misunderstandings and abuses of the past forty years. For instance the Second Vatican Council never prohibited Mass in Latin or required the vernacular but rather allowed the vernacular and kept Latin as the norm. One can debate the merits and shortcomings of either but that is a separate issue of what the council taught.

Ultimately, the Church gave us the Second Vatican Council and the Church alone has the right to interpret what that means. The Second Vatican Council taught that the Church should engage the modern world in order to bring it to Christ. Sadly, the Hermeneutic of Rupture led the Church to embrace the world and jettison its faith. By returning to a Hermeneutic of Continuity we retain the deposit of faith given to us by Christ and entrusted to the Church as well as benefitting from the wisdom and Tradition of the Church that brings us ever closer to Christ.

Fr. Pisut

Ask Father Pisut

Father,

Many Catholics believe that women can and should be ordained to the priesthood.  Would you explain the Church's teaching on the ordination of women?

Thanks,
Deacon Kunze

Deacon Kunze,

As you well know the topic of women's ordination is one of the hot-button issues in the Catholic Church today. The main argument given in favor of women's ordination is one of equality. If we are all equal in the sight of God and one in Jesus Christ then there is no reason why women can't be ordained. Admittedly, there are many faithful Catholics who otherwise agree with the Church who hold this view. However, there are other persons in the Church who feel the need for great change in the Church revolving around sexuality and what are commonly referred to as "women's issues" such as abortion and artificial contraception. This camp sees the issue of women's ordination not simply as an equality issue but also a power issue. If women could become priests, they could become bishops and even Pope and then would have the power to change the teachings of the Church to be more sensitive to these women's issues. However, to see the issue of women's ordination as one of equality and to see the priesthood as about power (though it can be abused to such ends) is to misunderstand both the issue of equality as well as the meaning of the priesthood.

 

Christians of all stripes will recognize that men and women are created equal in the sight of God. Yet in discerning equality we must recognize that there is a distinction to be made between equal and same. Many influenced by the modern secular understanding of equality will argue that all differences outside of the physical are conditioned by culture and that outside of the physical differences men and women are exactly the same and should, therefore, be treated the same. While a Christian anthropology understands that men and women are created in the image of God and are equal in his sight they also understand that this does not mean that men and women are the same but are rather complimentary. Instead of trying to explain away or ignore the physical differences between men and women a Christian anthropology embraces them.

 

For example, in the physical realm women can conceive life and give birth yet no one doubts that men are any less in the sight of God or are discriminated by God for not being able to have children. Being a physical mother, or a father for that matter, is not about power (though it too can be abused to such ends) but is rather about nurturing life according to their own particular fashion. Likewise, being a father in the spiritual realm is not about power nor does it mean that men are any more important then women but rather it is a spiritual dimension of a physical reality rooted in God's creation and revelation. We all have different roles in life and in the Church but we are all equal in the sight of God and must be faithful and will be judged according to the responsibilities of the roles that we have been given. 

 

Still, the question remains why does the Church only ordain men. Didn't Jesus have close female followers such as Martha and her sister Mary, Mary Magdalene and of course his own mother which the Church reveres so highly. This is true but despite this fact he did not call women in the same way or entrust them with the same roles that he did the apostles. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) 1577 tells us:

 

"Only a baptized man (vir) validly receives sacred ordination." The Lord Jesus chose men (viri) to form the college of the twelve apostles, and the apostles did the same when they chose collaborators to succeed them in their ministry. The college of bishops, with whom the priests are united in the priesthood, makes the college of the twelve an ever-present and ever-active reality until Christ's return. The Church recognizes herself to be bound by this choice made by the Lord himself. For this reason the ordination of women is not possible.

 

In recent decades, before the Catechism was written affirming the Church's constant practice on male-only ordination, some questioned the Tradition and urged the Church to re-examine the issue. The Church did examine the issue and came to the conclusion based upon the constant Tradition of the Church as rooted in the reasoning presented above that the Church did not have the power to ordain women since the Church is entrusted with passing on the constant teaching and practice of the Church as entrusted to her by Christ. Men can be physical fathers according to creation, they are spiritual fathers according to revelation.

 

In regards to seeing the priesthood in terms of power it is important to understand that the priesthood is a gift given to the Church. This gift, the priesthood of Jesus Christ, is not about power but is about service, the service made to us by Jesus Christ's sacrifice on the cross. All who are called to the priesthood are called to be faithful to that reality. At their ordination priests promise to be faithful to their bishop and their successors (the representative of Christ as chosen by Christ) and to faithfully pass on the fullness of truth entrusted to the Church by Jesus Christ himself. This is not something that one does for himself but for the Glory of God and the salvation of souls. This cannot be done if one sees the priesthood in terms of power.

 

Indeed, the priesthood is not about what I want and what can I achieve but what God wants. Along those same lines one cannot decide for themselves that they are to be a priest but must be called and faithfully respond to that call. The Church is ultimately responsibly for determining who is called to the priesthood. However, it is also important to point out that while the Church has determined that the call to priesthood does not apply to women as a whole the call also does not apply to most men. CCC1578 states:

 

 No one has the right to receive the sacrament of Holy Orders. Indeed, no one claims this office for himself; he is called to it by God. Anyone who thinks he recognizes the signs of God's call to the ordained ministry must humbly submit his desire to the authority of the Church, who has the responsibility and the right to call someone to receive orders. Like every grace this sacrament can be received only as an unmerited gift.

 

This reflects my own personal experience as well. While I felt called to the priesthood at a young age and would have said that I wanted to be a priest I was in reality responding to a call. Indeed, I fought that calling for many years. I applied to the diocese and attended the seminary to discern, with the help of the Church, if that call was real. Initially, I answered the call and, ultimately, I became a priest not because I wanted to, though I am happy that I did and I do see it as a gift, but because I felt I had no choice. I became a priest because God wanted me. 

 

As far as the specific issue of any further discussion of the subject of women's ordination some have accused the Church of "shutting down" dialogue on this issue and want it continued. On the contrary, the Church was open to examining the issue, came to a conclusion and reaffirmed its position. Dialogue cannot go on forever. It seems that the expressed desire by some for continued dialogue on the issue it not so much rooted in an a sincere attempt to come to a clearer understanding about the Church's teaching and embrace it as part of the deposit of faith but rather the belief and hope that if we "dialogue" about it enough women's ordination will becomes a reality.

 

Fr. Pisut

God's Mercy

Dear Father Pisut,

 

I came across your blog from blogger.com and have a few questions about the Roman Catholic faith. I come from a Evangelical Lutheran Church of America background, so I know a little about the connection between Protestantism and Roman Catholicism.  My questions primarily have to do with what we in the Protestant churches (I'm now part of the Free Evangelical Church of America, a small but mainline part of Protestantism) call Godly mercy, which I believe is closely related to your Divine Mercy.  I'm doing some private research about Christian concepts of mercy and am very interested in what Catholicism teaches about the subject.

 

I was reading your blog on Divine Mercy Novena and came across something about alleviating the suffering of Christ's Passion.  I don't understand how we as humans can alleviate the sufferings of Christ when we are human and therefore unholy or incomplete?  Most Protestants believe that Christ's suffering for our sins were completed when He said "it is finished".  After He descended into the land of the dead, He ascended into Heaven and that for most Protestant is proof positive that He no longer suffers, but is resting at the right hand of the Father.  Does teach Roman Catholicism Christ's sufferings on the Cross are still be propitiated in Heaven?

 

In essence, could you please tell me what Catholics believe about mercy and Divine Mercy?  From my research on the subject, it seems to me that there are basically two types of mercy; the mercy humans give to themselves and to others, which is incomplete and therefore not perfect, and the mercy God gives, which is holy and complete.  God's mercy, from what I understand (I could be wrong) is holy and complete, it encompasses those who trust in Him as Savior and to a certain extent, those who haven't.  God's judgment could wipe us all out because we have rebelled, but His merciful nature is expressed in His forbearance and eventually love will be complete on earth during His reign, and especially after the final judgment of the wicked unrepentant.  Does the Roman Catholic Church have similar belief's, and what are the differences? 

 

I'm sorry to ramble on, but genuinely, I'm curious about God's mercy.  Thank you for your insights in this matter.  God Bless you.

Elizabeth

Hi again Father,

 

I've got more questions for you.  I'm not sure what this means:  "Oh, if you only knew the torments they suffer, you would continually offer for them the alms of the spirit and pay of their debt for My justice." What does "continually offer for them the alms of the spirit and pay of their debt for My justice" mean?  Is this in reference to indulgences?  How can mere mortals pay for the sins of those in purgatory, since we are imperfect, and cannot pay for our own sins?  I don't mean to be disrespectful in my questions, it's just that I'm curious in what the Roman Catholic Church believes. 

 

God Bless you.

Elizabeth

Elizabeth,

 

Thank you for your questions and your search to deepen your faith. I see by your reference to purgatory and indulgences that you are somewhat informed in regard to the Catholic faith. While I am a priest and, therefore, trained in theology, I am not a professional theologian. I will try to answer your questions to the best of my ability but if my response is lacking in any way it is my shortcoming and not that of the deep riches of the Church which I seek to present here. Before we begin to discuss your questions it should be mentioned that when we speak of "Divine Mercy" we are referring to what we in the Catholic Church call a devotion. Devotions are approved aides to worship which, while adding nothing to the deposit of faith nor being necessary to an individual's faith life can, nevertheless, be helpful for one's faith. Perhaps devotions could best be compared to differences in styles of prayer. The devotion of the "Divine Mercy" focuses on and draws one deeper into an understanding of God's Mercy. The term divine is merely an adjective which refers to God and so Godly Mercy and Divine Mercy are the same thing. The particular devotion of the "Divine Mercy" is in reference to revelations of our Lord in the 1930's to a Polish nun, St. Faustina Kowalska.

 

True, God's mercy is complete and perfect just as he is complete and perfect. Likewise, our mercy is incomplete and imperfect just as we are incomplete and imperfect. Yet, we as Christians believe that we can be perfected in Christ, not in this world but in the next, and so we strive for that. One way that we can do this is to participate in Christ's suffering on the cross, the perfect sacrifice for our redemption. Just as Christ was made perfect in weakness, we too, as Christians, follow his example so that we can be made perfect in weakness. This is where the long and strong tradition of "offering it up" comes from. This is called participating in Christ's suffering by connecting our suffering with his. Another way to refer to this is to make up for what is lacking in the sufferings of Christ. While Christ's suffering is sufficient for our redemption and, therefore, lacks nothing, we make up for what is lacking because he allows us to participate in that suffering. So when you ask how can we alleviate the suffering of Christ's Passion this is one way that we can, so to speak, alleviate his suffering much like Simon the Cyrene who helped Jesus to carry his cross. 

 

There are other ways that we can alleviate Christ's suffering but first let us address the nature of Christ's sacrifice on the cross. It is true that Jesus the Christ, the second person of the Holy Trinity, the Logos (Word) took flesh in time and died on the cross in a very real historical sense. This is something that he did for our redemption for the forgiveness of sins. We could not have done this. Both Protestants and Catholics believe that this is a one time event and that Christ then descended into Hell, ascended into Heaven and is now seated at the right hand of the Father. However, God also exists outside of time (for time is part of creation) and so he is not bound by the same sort of chronology that we know in this world.

 

At the Last Supper Christ instituted the memorial of his sacrifice for us. The term memorial here is not to be understood strictly in the sense of remembering an event but rather a participation in that event. Catholics believe that when we join in the celebration of Holy Mass we participate in that event, the sacrifice of Christ on the cross. Catholics believe, therefore, that the one sacrifice of Christ on the cross goes on throughout all eternity. In that sense Christ's suffering still goes on to atone for all our sins. Just as the reason Christ had to suffer for us was because of our sins each time we sin, therefore, it contributes to Christ's suffering. When we seek to live the Christian life and repent of our sin we help to alleviate his suffering. In addition, because Christ loves us it pains him to see us sin just as it pains a parent to see their children make mistakes. When a child straightens out their lives it alleviates a parent's suffering and so we too can alleviate Christ's suffering by not sinning. 

 

When it comes to God's judgment and mercy they are both essential parts of who God is and the reality of the fullness of faith. It has not been uncommon for one aspect to be emphasized over the other, which itself is a distortion of the Faith. To emphasize God's judgment without the mercy that has been revealed to us would lead us to despair for, short of being perfect, we could have no hope of redemption. Nevertheless, God's judgment is the proper response to how we have lived our lives. Yet for God's judgment to have any role in the life of faith we need an appreciation of sin. Because of modernity's distaste of the concept (reality) of sin God's judgment is not emphasized much today. After all, how can God judge us if we have done no wrong? As a result many persons today have the attitude that they will go to heaven no matter what they may do. This is often expressed as God will love me no matter what I may do. However, this expression is misleading since God always loves us but that is a separate issue from our judgment. Many people may speak of God's mercy but if one does not believe in sin than there is nothing to be merciful for. By default even though many may speak of a loving God without the appreciation of sin, the reality of God's judgment and the hope of his mercy what we end up with is not a loving God but an apathetic God who doesn't care what we do.

 

God's judgment and mercy find their natural and logical complementarity and expression in the doctrine of purgatory. There is scriptural foundation for this in the Book of Maccabees (which Catholics accept as inspired) and by our Lord's own mouth. You can see a reference to this in the quote you ask about from what I think is St. Faustina's diary, "Oh if you only knew the torments they suffer, you would continually offer for them the alms of the spirit and pay of their debt." While I'm not an expert on the devotion of the "Divine Mercy" I while try to answer your question in regards to the line. If there is no purgatory persons either go directly to heaven or to hell. Many persons have a hard time imaging that someone could be condemned to Hell though our Lord surely spoke of the reality. Even though many persons tend to operate on the premise that they will go to heaven they have a hard time believing that someone like Hitler or Stalin could go to heaven. Yet we know that God's mercy is infinite and it is possible that if one had repentance at the last minute that salvation is possible. Yet does it seem just that a Mother Theresa and a Hitler could both have the same reward. While we know from the parable of the workers in the vineyard that God can and will distribute generously as he wills the doctrine of purgatory allows one to balance God's judgment and mercy, judgment and punishment in proportion to how we have lived our lives but still ultimate mercy. Though we we are imperfect we can continually implore God and our Lord tells us that he will hear us.

 

In reference to the alms offered for the debts of those suffering this can only be a reference to purgatory since those in heaven are not suffering and those in hell have nothing that can be done for them. If we ask people to pray for us in this earthly life and believe that it can make a difference why can we not pray for those in purgatory who can do nothing for themselves since they have passed from this world but who are, nevertheless, not condemned. They are after all still living for our God is a God of the living and not the dead. Here we can also offer up our sufferings and connect this with the sufferings of Christ for the good of the souls in purgatory so that the punishment for their sins will be remitted for God is a merciful God. We can't presume that he will do what we want but we do have a well founded Christian hope in his mercy if we are faithful.

 

Lastly, in regards to your reference to indulgences first let us address what they are. Indulgences are a remission of the temporal punishments due to us as a result of our sins. In order to gain these we must meet certain requirements of personal spiritual disposition and acts of devotion and prayer. The Church has the power to grant indulgences by the powers given to her by Christ. The more indulgences one gains for themselves in this life will take away from their time in purgatory, provided they don't go directly to heaven or to hell. One usually hears of praying for the poor souls in purgatory and though one typically gains indulgences for themselves I suppose it is possible that they may petition God that the indulgence that they have gained be applied to a soul in purgatory.

 

Fr. Pisut  

 

Follow up on the End of Life Question

Father Pisut,

I saw the answer to my question; however, I am still a little confused. You wrote: "However, if someone is terminally ill and their body is indeed shutting down then it would be permissible to discontinue their feeding tube if in fact that person dies not from the lack of sustenance but rather from their body ceasing to function." If it is permissible to discontinue their feeding tube, how do you know the person died from the illness or from no food or drink. If the person died from no food and drink, wouldn't the family member be taking their life instead of God (the illness).

Please clarify this for me.

Kim

Kim,

With the help of doctors one can determine the state of the person as regards to when their body is shutting down and how long that will be. This is measured in regards to a few hours or days. This is not the same as someone who is terminally ill yet months away from death. Because the time left is so short the lack of food or water would not be responsible for their death. Each case is of course unique and has to be evaluated based on the specifics.

Fr.

End of Life Issues

Hello Father,

I have a friend, whose father had a stroke. Then they found out he was filled with cancer, and would not be able to recover from either. They put him in hospice and was given the decision whether to give him a feeding tube. The doctors told them he would never be the same and didn't have long to live. After a family meeting, her mom decided to withhold a feeding tube. He died a week later. Could you explain to me what the church's position is on a feeding tube? I always thought that we should not withhold food and water from anyone at any time. In addition, my friend was upset with one priest who stopped into her father's room and questioned the decision. She told me other priests were in and out of there and none of them said anything. Why wouldn't they, if it is against church teachings?

Thanks,
Kim

Kim,

This is a very complicated issue. I will try to explain it as best as I understand it. Morally it is not permissible to do anything that would directly lead to ones death. However, we are not bound to pursue extraordinary means to preserve one's life especially if it will only prolong the inevitable reality of death. John Paul II declared that food and water, even by a feeding tube, were not extraordinary means of keeping one alive but were rather the most basic means of human care. Therefore, if someone is otherwise not in danger of death, such as in the Terri Schiavo case, it is morally wrong to discontinue their feeding tube. However, if someone is terminally ill and their body is indeed shutting down then it would be permissible to discontinue their feeding tube if in fact that person dies not from the lack of sustenance but rather from their body ceasing to function.

Fr. Pisut

Books of the Bible

Father Pisut,
I have been asked by some Protestants why several books of the Bible have been eliminated from theirs. Can you tell me which ones and why they were left out.

Thanks and blessings,
Kathy

Kathy,

There are seven books of the Old Testament not in the Protestant Bible: Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch and 1 and 2 Maccabees, as well as portions of Esther (10:4 to 16:24) and Daniel (3:24-90 and chapters 13 and 14). While Protestants call these books the Apocrypha Catholics call them deutero-canonical works.These were dropped for a couple of reasons. After the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD the Jewish community sought to distinguish itself from the growing Christian community. As part of this they rejected certain writings, though in common use, that were not originally written in Hebrew. These seven books were writted in Greek and are part of what is known as the Septuagint. Luther and other reformers used this as a rational for removing them as well as the fact that these books contained elements that conflicted with their theology. However, these books would have been known to Jesus and his followers and used by them. Ultimately, under the authority of the Catholic Church, which Christ established and which was guided by the Holy Spirit, these books were included in the Bible. This process of discerning which books would be in the Bible was a long one and was not complete until the 4th century. The canon of Sacred Scripture which contained these books and which we have today was confirmed by the Council of Trent in the 16th century in response to the Protestant Reformation.

Fr. Pisut

Catholics and the Bible

Father Pisut,

 

Recently I went to a conference where it was mentioned several times the Catholic Church before Vatican II did not want its memebers reading the Bible and actually discouraged it.  If this is true, why would the Church do this?

 

Thanks,

Jenny

 

Jenny,

 

I'm not sure if you went to a Catholic conference or a non-Catholic one but in any event the following information is still pertinent in order to properly understand the place of the Bible in the life of faith. The assertion that the Catholic Church was opposed to its members reading the Bible is a common one made by her detractors which is of course not true, or at least not true as is it is commonly understood. Several things need to be considered. The first thing to consider is that Catholics have a fundamentally different understanding of the role of the Bible in the faith as opposed to other Christians. Sadly, however, many Catholics have absorbed the Protestant understanding of the Bible. Catholics believe that Christ established the Church, it is the Church that guides us. The Catholic Church compiled the canon of scripture over several centuries and decided what made up the Bible. While the Bible is integral to the deposit of Faith and everything that it teaches us in regards to faith and morals is true it is, nevertheless, just part of the faith along with the Magisterium (teaching office) of the Church and Sacred Tradition. While other Christians revere the Bible they view it in a vacuum and use it (or rather claim to use it) as their sole authority. In fact the Bible as we know it did not exist at the time of Christ's death and it was the Church that passed on the Faith before the Bible was even composed. The Church gave life to the Bible which in turn gives life to the Church.

 

For centuries literacy was very low so most persons were unable to read the Bible. Even if they could read the Church, concerned with the salvation of souls, needed to make sure that they understood it properly. While the Protestant Reformation encouraged the reading of the Bible there is the inevitable and difficult reality of varying interpretations. Yet there can be only one truth.  The Church, guided by the Holy Spirit interprets the Bible for us. While the Church no doubt encourages persons to read the Bible more than they used to they never truly discouraged it but were concerned that persons had proper guidance. For a Catholic to read the Bible they must use an approved Catholic Bible with notes to help facilitate their understanding. Certain passages of the Bible, but not all, do have definitive interpretations that Catholics are bound to adhere to but outside of that Catholics are free to find spiritual solace as long as whatever meanings they may find do not conflict with the Catholic Faith. While Protestantism espouses a pesonal interpretation of the Bible and feels uncomfortable being told what to believe we inevitably have the problem of being presented with one truth or several truths, the latter of which is not possible. Ultimately, we must remember that Christ established the Catholic Church. The Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, gave us the Bible and has the authority and obligation to interpret its meaning for us for the salvation of our souls.

 

Fr. Pisut

 

Unbaptized Babies

Dear Father,

My Mother has lived in or near Chariton all of her life. She keeps asking me if I would ask you a question about our cemetery for her. She remembers as a Catholic youth in Chariton that babies who were not baptized and passed away were not allowed to be buried in the formal part of our cemetery, but were placed in the southwest corner of the cemetery and that as Catholics we believed that those babies did not go to heaven. Have you heard of this?

Thank you,

Sheri

Sheri,

The traditional understanding of the Church is that baptism is necessary for salvation and salvation is what leads to entrance into heaven. Inevitably, the question came about in regard to what happens to those babies who die without baptism. Unbaptized infants pose a different problem than unbaptized adults. Unbaptized adults would presumably have had the opportunity to accept baptism, at least where Christianity was present, and are also responsible for their own sins. Unbaptized children on the other hand, though stained with original sin from the fall of mankind, did nothing wrong. While they were not baptized and therefore could not go to heaven they had also done no wrong on their own and so it would seem unjust that they would be condemned to hell. In response to this issue theologians came up with the concept of limbo as a place where these infants would go. The concept of limbo was never an official teaching of the Church but was, nevertheless, widely accepted. Limbo is not to be confused with purgatory, which the Church does teach as rooted in scripture, as a place where those persons who are not condemned to hell go to be purified of their sins before entering into heaven. 

As regards the arrangement in the cemetery, my understanding is that the Catholic tradition was to have consecrated ground in which baptized persons could be buried. Unbaptized adults or those Catholics who died in a state of public mortal sin could not be buried in consecrated ground. Because unbaptized infants were in a special category they were most likely allowed to be buried in a Catholic cemetery but still set apart much as they were in the afterlife. 

The Church's understanding as regards to unbaptized persons has moderated somewhat. The Church still believes that baptism is the normal way to salvation. If one knows the truth about Jesus Christ and has the opportunity they are bound, therefore, to accept it by their baptism. However, the Church also recognizes that special situations exist such as those who have never heard of Christ yet strive to live a good life and those who desire baptism but are unable to receive it for some reason. We call this baptism by desire. In the case of unbaptized infants the Church says that while we can't truly know their fate we trust in the mercy of a loving God to look after those little ones who through no fault of their own died before they had a chance to be baptized. Therefore, it would not now be appropriate to bury them in a special part of the cemetery. The Church, though never officially endorsing limbo as a teaching of the faith, has recently come out and denied it existence.

Fr. Pisut

Chapel Veils

Father,

I have in the past wore a chapel veil to Mass.  My purpose in doing this was to give complete focus, respect and attention to God.  I have stopped wearing a veil because I feel like in doing so I am calling attention to myself.  There are so few of us women who wear veils that I think it has become a distraction. This was not my intention.  Can you give advice as to the purpose of wearing a veil and if it is still the correct think to do?

Thank you,
Joni

Joni,

According to canon 1262.2 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law women were required to cover their heads when assisting at sacred ceremonies and when approaching the table of the Lord. They were also required to dress modestly. These norms had their origins in St. Paul. However, this canon was left out of the 1983 Code of Canon Law. While the covering of one's head is no longer required modest dress is consistent with the Christian ethic of living and should be practiced always but especially in the context of Mass. Because the 1917 Code was in force before the reform of the Liturgy after Vatican II the old form of Mass, what we now officially call the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite, is often associated with women wearing veils. This is why many women who attend the older form of Mass wear a veil even though it is no longer required. In addition, for some who are very faithful to the Church and devoted to an authentic understanding of the liturgy the practice is not uncommon to wear veils as a connection to the liturgical tradition of the Church and a sign of modesty and devotion. While I understand your perception that the wearing of a veil may cause you to "stick out," even though that is not your intent, you really have no reason to be concerned with that. You should no more be concerned with what people think than if you choose to kneel to receive communion. Both are permitted. In addition, many persons dress very immodestly at Mass and they are far less concerned about that than those who wear veils. Unfortunately, this shows that that we tolerate or think nothing of something that shows disrespect for the human body and the gift of sexuality while at the same time being more concerned for something rooted in the tradition of the Church and a sign of someone's devotion. Nevertheless, if you cannot get past the feeling that you are "sticking out" to such an extent that it hinders a normative interior spiritual participation in the Mass then I would suggest that you don't wear a veil. After all you do not have to wear one. On the other hand there is nothing wrong with wearing a veil and the tradition of the Church as rooted in St. Paul is behind you. The choice is up to you and you should have no qualms if you choose to do so.

Fr. Pisut

The End of Lent

 

Father, 

 

This week I was talking about how we kept lent when I was young.  I remember we were told that lent was officially over at noon on Saturday.  I can remember that whatever we gave up or did for lent at our home was carried on until Easter day after Mass.  Could you tell me if Easter was over at noon and why would that have been?  This was in the 1940's.

 

Thanks and God bless,

 

Mary

 

Mary,

 

Lent used to end at noon on Holy Saturday. With Pius XII's restoration of Holy Week Services and the reforms of the Second Vatican Council, Lent now ends with Mass on Holy Thursday. The sacred Triduum of Holy Thursday, Good Friday and Holy Saturday is its own unique time. However, Easter does not begin until the conclusion of the Easter Vigil. Fast and abstinence still applies to Good Friday even though it is not technically Lent. It is good to maintain the practice of fast and abstinence through Holy Saturday if at all possible.

 

Fr. Pisut
 

Cremation

Father,

I keep hearing that the Church does not believe in cremation.  Is this true?  I have been to Catholic funerals that the person was cremated.  This is something that I do not want, but was wondering what the Church says.

Kathy

Kathy, 

The Catholic Church used to be completely opposed to the practice of cremation.  However, this is not entirely true today.  The reason for the Church's initial stance against cremation was that in the past some persons cremated bodies as a denial of our physical bodily resurrection.  Behind this was the thought that if the body is destroyed then how can it be physically resurrected.  Yet as the Church has discerned we believe that despite the fact that bodies decay and can be destroyed by other means we have faith that an all powerful God can still raise our bodies physically. Also, the Church recognizes that many people choose to cremate for practical rather than ideological reasons.  Foremost among these reasons would be cost and space.  What matters is the intention.  As long as cremation is not intended as a denial of the resurrection the Church is not opposed to the practice.  Even though the Church does allow cremation it is preferable that the funeral be done before cremation. Cremains should also be treated as you would a body. Therefore, it is not permitted to scatter ashes or keep them on your mantle. They should be buried or interred as you would with the body of the deceased. 

Fr. 

Moral Obligation to...?

Fr. Pisut,

I am teaching at a small Catholic school. It's so small that we run out of classrooms and the religion teacher teaches in any room that is open. 7th grade is taught in my classroom and I sit at my desk and work. Due to this, I hear what is being taught. Quite often I hear things that are no in accord with the teachings of the Church. For example: your body is simply a case for yours soul, sisters who wear habits are too conservative, and it is ok to call the Holy Spirit an it.
 
Since this is a coworker, the situation is kind of sensitive, but at the same time I think that I have an obligation to the students to correct the information.
 
The teacher does not have a degree in Theology (granted neither do I) and was kind of just put into the position because she has extra time in her schedule.
 
What am I morally obligated to do and what would be the best way to proceed?
 
In Christ and His Blessed Mother,
Danielle

Danielle,

We always have an obligation to witness to the truth. When we represent the Church, or any organization for that matter, we also have the ethical responsibility to be faithful to that which we represent. It is well known that many persons in Catholic education do not share or faithfully represent the Faith that they are called to hand on. Hopefully, your co-worker is simply misinformed rather than purposefully teaching against the Faith. You will have to do your best to discern which it is. Also, it is important to discern how grave the misinformation is. While what is being taught may truly not be the most accurate of information is it truly serious enough to merit a confrontation? If it is the question remains whether or not your co-worker will be receptive to guidance and/or correction. If this does not work you may have to take it to your superiors and the question remains whether they will be supportive. In any event, if you choose to pursue this you are bound to encounter some conflict which is never a pleasant experience. They reality of your situation, which unfortunately is far too common, is that you are limited in what if anything you may accomplish. Even those in charge in Catholic education often run up against a wall in their attempts to make Catholic education faithful to the Church. Whatever action you choose to pursue keep in mind that the best thing that you can do and that you have the most control over is the teaching that you do and your faithfulness to the teaching of the Church. In the end God will judge us for what we are truly responsible for and capable of influencing.

Fr. Pisut