|
Q u i c k Q u e s t i o n s
|
This Rock
Volume 20, Number 1
 January 2009 
|
|
|
What Should Be Done for Homosexuals?
Q: My diocese has a ministry to "lesbian and gay Catholics" that advances the call for acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle. What is the Church’s appropriate ministry to homosexuals? Also, is there a Catholic apostolate dedicated to helping homosexuals appreciate the Church’s teachings on the issue of homosexuality and the importance of living a chaste life?
A: Church ministries to homosexuals should be formed around the following teachings:
[T]he Church’s teaching today is in organic continuity with the scriptural perspective and with her own constant Tradition. Though today’s world is in many ways quite new, the Christian community senses the profound and lasting bonds which join us to those generations who have gone before us, "marked with the sign of faith."
Nevertheless, increasing numbers of people today, even within the Church, are bringing enormous pressure to bear on the Church to accept the homosexual condition as though it were not disordered and to condone homosexual activity. Those within the Church who argue in this fashion often have close ties with those with similar views outside it. These latter groups are guided by a vision opposed to the truth about the human person, which is fully disclosed in the mystery of Christ. They reflect, even if not entirely consciously, a materialistic ideology which denies the transcendent nature of the human person as well as the supernatural vocation of every individual.
The Church’s ministers must ensure that homosexual persons in their care will not be misled by this point of view, so profoundly opposed to the teaching of the Church. But the risk is great and there are many who seek to create confusion regarding the Church’s position, and then to use that confusion to their own advantage.
The movement within the Church, which takes the form of pressure groups of various names and sizes, attempts to give the impression that it represents all homosexual persons who are Catholics. As a matter of fact, its membership is by and large restricted to those who either ignore the teaching of the Church or seek somehow to undermine it. It brings together under the aegis of Catholicism homosexual persons who have no intention of abandoning their homosexual behavior. One tactic used is to protest that any and all criticism of or reservations about homosexual people, their activity and lifestyle, are simply diverse forms of unjust discrimination.
There is an effort in some countries to manipulate the Church by gaining the often well-intentioned support of her pastors with a view to changing civil statutes and laws. This is done in order to conform to these pressure groups’ concept that homosexuality is at least a completely harmless, if not an entirely good, thing. Even when the practice of homosexuality may seriously threaten the lives and well-being of a large number of people, its advocates remain undeterred and refuse to consider the magnitude of the risks involved.
The Church can never be so callous. It is true that her clear position cannot be revised by pressure from civil legislation or the trend of the moment. But she is really concerned about the many who are not represented by the pro-homosexual movement and about those who may have been tempted to believe its deceitful propaganda. She is also aware that the view that homosexual activity is equivalent to, or as acceptable as, the sexual expression of conjugal love has a direct impact on society’s understanding of the nature and rights of the family and puts them in jeopardy. (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, "On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons," 8-9; available at www.vatican.va)
One Catholic apostolate dedicated to ministering to those with same-sex attractions is Courage (www.couragerc.net). It is endorsed by the Pontifical Council for the Family.
For additional information, see "Catholic Language Regarding Homosexuality" at www.couragerc.net/CatholicLanguage.html.
—Peggy Frye
Q:An Eastern Orthodox friend sometimes attends Mass with me and receives Communion. Is this allowed?
A: The U.S. Bishops Conference’s Guidelines for the Reception of Communion states:
Members of the Orthodox churches, the Assyrian Church of the East, and the Polish National Catholic Church are urged to respect the discipline of their own churches. According to Roman Catholic discipline, the Code of Canon Law does not object to the reception of Communion by Christians of these churches. (canon 844 § 3)
Basically, this means that the Catholic Church does not object to reception of Catholic Communion by Eastern Orthodox Christians but urges those Christians to respect their own church’s sacramental discipline. To the best of my knowledge, Orthodox churches as a rule strongly object to their members receiving Communion in a Catholic church. A statement of this stance can be found on the Web site of the Orthodox Church in America (www.oca.org).
In short, if your friend considers himself an Eastern Orthodox Christian, ordinarily he should respect the sacramental discipline of his own church. If he wishes to receive Communion in a Catholic church, perhaps he should seriously consider entering the Catholic Church, possibly through one of its Eastern Catholic churches.
—Michelle Arnold
Q:What is the danger in using the enneagram?
A: The pontifical document Jesus Christ, The Bearer of the Water of Life: A Christian reflection on the "New Age" cautions us that the enneagram, "when used as a means of spiritual growth introduces an ambiguity in the doctrine and the life of the Christian faith" (1.4).
—Jim Blackburn
Q:Are we morally obliged to boycott businesses that support abortion or that grant same-sex benefits to employees?
A: You are under no moral obligation to boycott a business that offers morally good or morally neutral products and then spends its proceeds in a morally objectionable manner.
What can be done, and what many pro-life people choose to do (they are not morally obliged to do so), is to band together with other like-minded consumers and refuse to buy from one particular business to encourage that business to stop supporting a morally objectionable practice. Boycotts, when done in a responsible manner by concerned consumers seeking social justice, can be meritorious actions. But people are not morally obligated to join them.
—Michelle Arnold
Q: As a lector, I was told by a new priest at our parish not to genuflect to the tabernacle, but to instead bow to the altar when I go up to read. Our tabernacle is off to one side , so I usually walk up that side, genuflect to the tabernacle, then go up to read. Am I being ridiculous?
A: Continue to do as you have been doing. If you saw Jesus standing there, you would not ignore him and then bow to the altar. Nowhere will you find any official Church document directing one to ignore the Presence of our Lord in the tabernacle. Sometimes we priests don’t see the forest for the trees.
—Fr. Vincent Serpa
Q: I receive the Eucharist every Sunday; however, should I do so if I have an unconfessed mortal sin on my conscience? A priest told me as long as I am actively trying to eliminate this sin from my life, the Eucharist is helpful, and I shouldn’t deprive myself of the grace present in the Eucharist. He said if I stop trying to eliminate this sin, then don’t present myself, but as long as I’m trying, don’t deny the Eucharist to myself. Is this good advice?
A: Three requirements must be met for sin to be mortal: grave matter, full knowledge, and deliberate consent. Since you say that you are "actively trying to eliminate this sin" from your life, your priest may believe that your action lacks deliberate consent and, therefore, does not qualify as mortal sin. If this is the case, the Eucharist may benefit you greatly. On the other hand, if your sin is indeed mortal sin, then you should not receive the Eucharist without first going to confession.
The Code of Canon Law is clear that a person conscious of mortal sin may only receive the Eucharist under grave circumstances:
A person who is conscious of grave sin is not to celebrate Mass or receive the body of the Lord without previous sacramental confession unless there is a grave reason and there is no opportunity to confess; in this case the person is to remember the obligation to make an act of perfect contrition which includes the resolution of confessing as soon as possible. (CIC 916)
The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains,
The Lord addresses an invitation to us, urging us to receive him in the sacrament of the Eucharist: "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." To respond to this invitation we must prepare ourselves for so great and so holy a moment. St. Paul urges us to examine our conscience: "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. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself." Anyone conscious of a grave sin must receive the sacrament of reconciliation before coming to Communion. (CCC 1384-1385)
I recommend that, after engaging in grave matter, you go to confession as soon as possible and then receive the Eucharist as often as possible. "By the same charity that it enkindles in us, the Eucharist preserves us from future mortal sins. The more we share the life of Christ and progress in his friendship, the more difficult it is to break away from him by mortal sin" (CCC 1395).
—Jim Blackburn
Q: I’m a practicing Catholic but can’t seem to knock a quick temperament. I can be praying one second and yelling the next. I beg God for grace to overcome my faults, but why is it so long in forthcoming?
A: Your quick temper is your way to heaven. It is the cross that you need. Our crosses do us the favor of continually reminding us that we need him. They humble us by showing us how self-centered we are. We need to live our lives on his terms—not ours.
I suggest that you spend some time daily going over in your mind all the ways he suffered for you on Good Friday and thank him. That God would allow himself to suffer to such a degree for people he created from nothing—and then die for them—is far more generosity than you and I can imagine. Nothing can bring us some perspective faster than this.
—Fr. Vincent Serpa
Q: When Jesus was on earth in human form, did he commit sins like other humans?
A: Jesus never sinned. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states,
Following the holy Fathers, we unanimously teach and confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ: the same perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity, the same truly God and truly man, composed of rational soul and body; consubstantial with the Father as to his divinity and consubstantial with us as to his humanity; "like us in all things but sin." (CCC 467)
So how did he, in his humanity, keep from sinning? He submitted his will completely to the will of his Father.
Christ possesses two wills and two natural operations, divine and human. They are not opposed to each other, but cooperate in such a way that the Word made flesh willed humanly in obedience to his Father all that he had decided divinely with the Father and the Holy Spirit for our salvation. Christ’s human will does not resist or oppose but rather submits to his divine and almighty will. (CCC 475)
—Jim Blackburn
Q: If Mary was born without original sin and did not sin during her life, then does that mean that she did not need to be saved by Jesus?
A: Christ’s death on the cross was an eternal event; as such, its graces could reach back in time, as well as forward. This means that the grace that Christ would win on Calvary could be applied to Mary in anticipation of Calvary. This was how she was saved from any stain of sin, both original and actual. Medieval theologians created the analogy of two people approaching a pit. If the first falls in and is rescued from the pit, and the second is prevented from falling into the pit, both are saved, and it even could be said that the one whose fall was prevented is saved far more completely than the one who was raised from the pit. (See also By the Book, This Rock, October 2007.)
—Michelle Arnold
Q: The words of consecration state: ". . . which will be shed for all so that sins may be forgiven." A priest we know says: "sin (singular) may be forgiven." Is this valid?
A: While the priest’s habit of using the singular noun sin in place of the sins is illicit, it does not invalidate the consecration.
The [standard Roman rite] formula of consecration of the bread is: "This is my body which will be given up for you"; of the wine: "This is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting Covenant. It will be shed for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven." The words which precede these formulas in no way pertain to the validity of the formula. It is commonly taught today that the essential words of the formula of the Eucharist—and their omission would invalidate the form—are: "This is my body," "This is the cup of my blood." (Jimmy Akin, Mass Confusion, 119)
The document Redemptionis Sacramentum states:
Only those Eucharistic Prayers are to be used which are found in the Roman Missal or are legitimately approved by the Apostolic See, and according to the manner and the terms set forth by it. It is not to be tolerated that some priests take upon themselves the right to compose their own Eucharistic Prayers or to change the same texts approved by the Church, or to introduce others composed by private individuals. (RS 51)
I recommend you speak with your pastor about this problem.
—Peggy Frye
Q: I got into a discussion about truth, and I had the opinion that there is only one Truth and that is God. So what is truth? Is it something we believe in completely, body and soul? Or is it something God reveals to us? How do we know it’s something revealed? Are there many truths?
A: This is a vast subject. We will only consider truth as you have referred to it. I suppose the most basic definition of truth would be: the conformity of the intellect with what the thing perceived actually is. This would be objective truth.
In our culture many want to make such truth relative. "You have your truth and I have mine." Such is not truth. If one’s perception of something does not conform to what it actually is, then one is in error—no matter how convinced one is and certainly no matter how one feels about it. People who are colorblind are not seeing all the true colors before them.
Their perceptions are distorted, even though they are not aware of it.
When I make a statement about something that does indeed actually exist, then such a statement could be called a truth. Any statement that would contradict that statement would then be an untruth. If such an untrue statement is deliberately made in order to deceive, then that statement is called a lie. This is pretty basic stuff. Unfortunately, there is so much dishonesty in our society about the very nature of truth that many are confused. Since God is the source of all that is and knows his creation perfectly, he is the fullness of all truth.
—Fr. Vincent Serpa
Q: My Protestant cousin is marrying a Catholic woman in a Catholic church, but he is not willing to raise any children they may have as Catholics. Can you explain how any priest would agree to celebrate this marriage?
A: In addition to the requirement that she "declare that [she] is prepared to remove dangers of defecting from the faith," the Code of Canon Law requires your cousin’s bride-to-be to "make a sincere promise to do all in [her] power so that all offspring are baptized and brought up in the Catholic Church" (CIC 1125 §1). Your cousin, on the other hand, need only "be informed at an appropriate time about the promises which [she] is to make, in such a way that it is certain that [he] is truly aware of [her] promise and obligation" (CIC 1125 §2). He is not required to make the same promises. In fact, the marriage can go forward even if he is resistant to her promises.
The New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law explains,
Permission for a mixed marriage can be granted even when it is foreseen that the Catholic’s efforts to pass on the Catholic faith will probably be fruitless because of the resistance of the non-Catholic spouse. In these circumstances, the Catholic party can fulfill his or her obligation, at least in part, by playing an active part in contributing to the Christian atmosphere of the home; doing all that is possible by word and example to enable the other members of the family to appreciate the specific values of the Catholic tradition; taking whatever steps are necessary to be informed about his own faith so as to be able to explain and discuss it with them; praying with the family for the grace of Christian unity as the Lord wills it. Doing all that one can does not include so insisting on the Catholic formation of children that the stability of the marriage is threatened. What is necessary is a sincere promise by the Catholic to do all in his or her power to assure the Catholic formation of children. The sincerity of that promise is to be presumed, unless there is evidence to the contrary. (1346-1347)
—Jim Blackburn
Q: If we believe that life starts at conception, why do we wait for birth before baptizing children? Could one use amniotic fluid to baptize a baby who was in danger of miscarriage, followed by a traditional conditional baptism after birth?
A: Baptism is a physical act that bestows supernatural grace; someone cannot baptize by mere intention alone. That means that the minister of baptism must be able to sprinkle or pour water on the baby, or immerse the baby in water, which cannot be done with amniotic fluid (even if we suppose that amniotic fluid is valid matter for the baptism).
The search to stretch the means by which baptism can validly be bestowed was more understandable in a time when the common opinion of theologians was that unborn babies could not go to heaven without baptism. Now that it is better understood that God is not bound by the sacraments and that he can bestow sanctifying grace outside of the sacraments to those who are innocently incapable of receiving it in any other way, there is no need to try to stretch how baptism may be validly conferred. All that is necessary is that parents do all that they can to have their children baptized within the first few weeks after birth (cf. CIC 867 §1; CCC 1261).
—Michelle Arnold
|
Catholic Answers
