|
Q u i c k Q u e s t i o n s
|
This Rock
Volume 19, Number 5
 May-June 2008 
|
|
|
The Problem with Porn
Q: Why is pornography a sin?
A: The virtue to which we are called with regard to sexual relationships is called chastity. Through integrity and self control, the chaste person observes the true meaning and intimacy of sexual relations. Pornography is gravely offensive to this. The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains, "[pornography] perverts the conjugal act, the intimate giving of spouses to each other. It does grave injury to the dignity of its participants (actors, vendors, the public), since each one becomes an object of base pleasure and illicit profit for others. It immerses all who are involved in the illusion of a fantasy world" (CCC 2354).
Christopher West, in his book Good News About Sex and Marriage says this:
[Pornography] does nothing but foster in a man his fallen inclination to treat women as things for his own sexual gratification. A man who uses pornography, so long as he remains in its clutches, has incapacitated himself to love women properly . . . he cannot hope to have a healthy, pure relationship with a woman. He cannot hope to enter marriage honestly, fruitfully, and faithfully. Men who use pornography have emasculated themselves. (84) It is important to rely on God’s grace to escape the clutches of pornography so that one can love as God intended.
—Jim Blackburn
Q: I am married to an ex-Catholic, now a non-Christian. I have been told that I should not have children if my husband refuses to raise them Catholic. Is this true?
A: You have been misinformed. The Church does not expect you to close yourself to the possibility of children simply because your husband is not Christian. The Church expects you to do the best that you can to raise your children Catholic. If your husband was Catholic at the time of your marriage, then he should respect the fact that the two of you went into marriage with the agreement that the children would be raised Catholic. If he was not Catholic at the time of the marriage, then you took a chance that he would allow you to raise the children Catholic and would not interfere in their Catholic education. This is one reason the Church strongly discourages interfaith marriages (while providing for their validity if the couple insists on marrying each other).
Marriage includes the responsibility of being open to new life and open to building a family with your husband. You should not deny him the privilege of children of his own based on what you think he might do should they come along. Instead, you should sit down with him now, share your concerns, and seek to work out with him an agreement on how your children will be raised. If need be, a marital counselor can facilitate the discussion.
—Michelle Arnold
Q: What is the difference between adoring our Lord in the tabernacle and adoring him exposed on the altar other than the obvious (that we can see him in the monstrance)? Why is it necessary to have at least two people there?
A: The difference is that the Blessed Sacrament is under lock and key in the tabernacle. When it is exposed it is vulnerable to vandalism. So at least one person needs to be on guard there. It’s better to have two.
I spend my daily hour before the Blessed Sacrament in the tabernacle. It’s the same Lord who is present there.
—Fr. Vincent Serpa
Q: Can a Catholic attend an Anglican mass as a visitor?
A: Yes. However, because the Anglican church does not have valid holy orders, eucharistic intercommunion is not possible. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states the following:
Ecclesial communities derived from the Reformation and separated from the Catholic Church have not preserved the proper reality of the eucharistic mystery in its fullness, especially because of the absence of the sacrament of Holy Orders. It is for this reason that, for the Catholic Church, eucharistic intercommunion with these communities is not possible. (CCC 1400)
—Peggy Frye
Q: I was told that all the people who died prior to Jesus (including Moses and Abraham) went to hell. Is this true?
A: By his death and Resurrection, Jesus opened heaven (CCC 1026). Prior to that time all who died went to "hell"; however, the just went to a place in hell referred to as "the Bosom of Abraham," where they would be comforted. The parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31) seems to indicate that there were two parts of hell. Both Lazarus and the rich man died and went to hell, but Lazarus was comforted in the bosom of Abraham while the rich man was in a place of torment. A great chasm separated the two parts.
The Catechism explains,
Scripture calls the abode of the dead, to which the dead Christ went down, "hell"— Sheol in Hebrew or Hades in Greek—because those who are there are deprived of the vision of God. Such is the case for all the dead, whether evil or righteous, while they await the redeemer: which does not mean that their lot is identical, as Jesus shows through the parable of the poor man Lazarus who was received into "Abraham’s bosom": "It is precisely these holy souls, who awaited their Savior in Abraham’s bosom, whom Christ the Lord delivered when he descended into hell." Jesus did not descend into hell to deliver the damned, nor to destroy the hell of damnation, but to free the just who had gone before him. (CCC 633)
See "Hell? Yes! Part I," This Rock, October 2007.
—Jim Blackburn
Q: My son is dating a Lutheran girl who finds it hard to understand why we have a crucifix in every church. I explained that because of Christ’s love for us, he suffered and died on the cross for our sins and our salvation. She says Jesus’ Resurrection is what they focus on. Could you please explain further?
A: Jesus did not redeem us on Easter Sunday. He redeemed us on the cross on Good Friday. He also said that to be his disciple we must deny ourselves, take up our cross, and follow him (Matt.16:24-27). Nowhere in Scripture do we find him replacing such attention with Easter Sunday! To behold the image of Jesus hanging on the cross is to recognize the greatest event in history. It is to remember how incapable we are of fully appreciating what his infinite love is—and how infinitely fortunate we are to know such love (even though imperfectly) through the gift of faith.
—Fr. Vincent Serpa
Q: What makes us Catholic? Does dissent from the Church’s social teachings, for example, put one outside the Catholic faith?
A: Strictly speaking, a Catholic is a person who has been baptized in the Catholic Church or has been received into the Church after a valid non-Catholic baptism.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:
Fully incorporated into the society of the Church are those who, possessing the Spirit of Christ, accept all the means of salvation given to the Church together with her entire organization, and who—by the bonds constituted by the profession of faith, the sacraments, ecclesiastical government, and communion—are joined in the visible structure of the Church of Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. Even though incorporated into the Church, one who does not however persevere in charity is not saved. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but "in body" not "in heart." (CCC 837)
—Jim Blackburn
Q: When the Virgin Mary appeared at Fatima, she stated emphatically that there would not be world peace unless the pope consecrated Russia to her Immaculate Heart. Why won’t the pope do this?
A: The consecration took place on March 25, 1984 when Pope John Paul II, in union with the bishops of the world, consecrated the world and "in a special way . . . those individuals and nations which particularly need to be thus entrusted and consecrated" to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. Russia was named indirectly, probably for political and ecumenical reasons, but Sr. Lucia dos Santos, the last surviving Fatima seer, assured the papal nuncio to Portugal that our Lady’s request for the consecration had been fulfilled. A timeline of the consecration and related events can be found on the EWTN Web site (www.ewtn.com).
—Michelle Arnold
Q: I belong to a parish that regularly skips various parts of the Mass, depending on the liturgical season. The parish priest and the liturgy committee says that the rubrics allow for these variations—is that really so?
A: You are being sold a bill of goods. The Church does not allow such latitude regarding the liturgy. Ask them to show you documentation. They won’t be able to. I suggest that you read Mass Confusion by Jimmy Akin (available through shop.catholic.com).
—Fr. Vincent Serpa
Q: My friend, a Mormon, thinks John 10:34 means we will all be gods someday. I know this isn’t what it really means, but can you help me explain why?
A: When Jesus said, "Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, you are gods’?" he was referring to Psalm 82:6, in which God addressed the very mortal although powerful judges of Israel who, because of their high office, were entitled to be called "gods." The next verse of the psalm keeps this in perspective: "nevertheless, you shall die like men, and fall like any prince" (Ps. 82:7).
—Jim Blackburn
Q: My husband and I want another baby but were told by my doctor that because of my health problems we should use contraceptives for at least a year. Our priest agreed with the doctor and said the Church allows for the use of contraception when a pregnancy would seriously jeopardize a woman’s health. Somehow this doesn’t sound right. What does the Church teach?
A: Your priest is terribly misinformed. The deliberate use of contraception on the part of spouses to prevent a pregnancy is never licit (CCC 2399).
Humanae Vitae states:
Neither is it valid to argue, as a justification for sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive, that a lesser evil is to be preferred to a greater one, or that such intercourse would merge with procreative acts of past and future to form a single entity, and so be qualified by exactly the same moral goodness as these. Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good, it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it—in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general. Consequently, it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong. (HV 14)
—Peggy Frye
Q: What do people mean when they say that they have "swum the Tiber"?
A: The Tiber is a river that runs through the city of Rome. St. Peter’s is on one side. Those who have converted to the Catholic Church often say that they "swam the Tiber" to indicate metaphorically that they have crossed over to the Catholic side.
—Michelle Arnold
Q: At what point do the bread and wine become the true body and blood of Christ?
A: The bread becomes the body of Christ when the words of consecration complete the sentence, i.e., when the object "body" (modified by the adjective "my") completes the subject "This" and the verb or predicate, "is." Once the thought is articulated: "This is my body," the change takes place. The same goes for the wine becoming his blood. Sister told us that knowing the parts of speech would help us in the future—Sister scores again!
—Fr. Vincent Serpa
Q: A priest told me that John the Baptist was born without original sin because he was baptized when he encountered Jesus at the time of Mary’s visit to Elizabeth, while both were in their mothers’ wombs. True or false?
A: There is indeed a pious Christian speculation that John the Baptist was freed from sin when he was filled with the Holy Spirit in his mother’s womb (cf. Luke 1:15, 41-44), but this is not something the Church has declared to be doctrine. The Church certainly has not taught that John the Baptist was baptized in his mother’s womb, if by that is meant the kind of baptism that babies receive after birth.
—Michelle Arnold
Q: Are prenuptial agreements forbidden?
A: Although canon law does not mention the topic of prenuptial agreements, the Catholic Church teaches that marriage is the complete giving of the spouses to God through each other. Therefore, there can be no strings attached. A prenuptial agreement is a very big string!
—Fr. Vincent Serpa
Q: At Mass I always receive the Communion host but never drink from the cup. Is there any sin in this?
A: There is no sin in receiving the Eucharist under the species of bread alone. The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains, "Since Christ is sacramentally present under each of the species, communion under the species of bread alone makes it possible to receive all the fruit of Eucharistic grace" (CCC 1390).
Therefore, the General Instruction of the Roman Missal instructs, "Any of the faithful who wish to receive Holy Communion under the species of bread alone should be granted their wish" (GIRM 284).
—Jim Blackburn
Q: I was wondering about the possibility of becoming a priest. I am divorced (though the marriage was annulled), and I have a daughter who is almost 6. If it is possible, what barriers might I face, and how that would affect my daughter and my time with her?
A: The annulment would not be a problem. But you already have a vocation. You are a parent and your child deserves your full attention. When she is an adult and you still desire to be a priest, then that’s the time to consider it—not now! At the present she deserves your full attention.
—Fr. Vincent Serpa
Q: I have a pendant which contains the relics of two saints. Are there any rules governing relics? What should I do with them?
A: I recommend either holding on to the relics for veneration or giving them away.
One thing that you cannot do with the relics is sell them. The Code of Canon Law strictly prohibits the sale of relics: "It is absolutely forbidden to sell sacred relics" (CIC 1190 §1). This law pertains to all authentic relics of saints. The New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law explains that, "The prohibition against selling any sacred relic is expressed in the code’s strongest language, nefas est, meaning ‘it is absolutely forbidden.’ Relics may be given away by their owners, except for the second category of relics which may not be given away without permission of the Apostolic See" (1415).
The second category of relics referred to in the commentary are very significant or highly honored relics. The law treats these relics more strictly: "Relics of great significance and other relics honored with great reverence by the people cannot be alienated validly in any manner or transferred permanently without the permission of the Apostolic See" (CIC 1190 §2). The commentary explains relics of great significance: "A significant relic was defined in the previous code as a part of a saint’s body (arm, forearm, heart, tongue, leg) or the part of a martyr’s body that had suffered the wound that caused death, provided the part was entire and not too small" (1415).
—Jim Blackburn
Q: Why is it that Rome claims to be a "church" but says that other churches are "ecclesial communities"?
A: Magisterial documents use the term church for the Catholic Church and for Christian denominations that maintain valid apostolic lines of succession (e.g., Eastern Orthodoxy). Those Christian denominations that have not maintained valid apostolic succession are called ecclesial communities. The purpose is to distinguish between groups that have maintained historic ties to the original apostles through apostolic succession and those that have not. It is not intended to be derogatory toward non-apostolic Christian denominations.
—Michelle Arnold
|
Catholic Answers
