TCA Life

Sunday Shopping?

Q. Is it all right for an elderly person to do some shopping on Sundays because there is less traffic then and the person is unable to drive in heavier traffic?

Name withheld by request

A. As you describe the situation, it would be all right for an elderly person to do some shopping on Sunday. The Third Commandment obliges us to keep Sunday holy by attending Mass and by enjoying some rest if possible.

The Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church points out that we should "refrain from those activities which impede the worship of God and disturb the joy proper to the day of the Lord or the necessary relaxation of mind and body. Activities are allowed on the Sabbath which are bound up with family needs or with important social service, provided that they do not lead to habits prejudicial to the holiness of Sunday, to family life and to health" (No. 453).

Catechetical Directory?

Q. What is the liturgical authority of the Catechetical Directory?

Jan Hicks, Clinton, Tenn.

A. The General Catechetical Directory (GCD), promulgated by Pope Paul VI on April 11, 1971, was written by the Sacred Congregation for Clergy under the direction of Cardinal John Wright and reviewed by the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. It is not a document that is considered to have any "liturgical authority."

The final paragraphs of that document caused great concern because they allowed the possibility to experiment with delaying first confession until after first Communion, and in this sense you might argue that the GCD had some impact on liturgical practices. However, this experiment ended two years later with a declaration from the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments (Sanctus Pontifex, May 24, 1973).

Since then, the traditional practice of first confession before first Communion has been upheld consistently by the various congregations of the Holy See, the 1983 Code of Canon Law, the 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church and the 2005 Compendium of the Catechism.

Moreover, the GCD of 1971 has been superseded by the new General Catechetical Directory promulgated on Aug. 11, 1997, by Pope John Paul II. One would not expect a document from the Congregation for the Clergy to have any "liturgical authority." Such documents are produced by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments.

Currently, the documents with the most authority over the liturgy are the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM, 2002); the instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum (2004); the Code of Canon Law (1983); and the recent apostolic exhortation Sacramentum Caritatis (2007).

Plenary Indulgence

Q. How long do the effects of a plenary indulgence last? Can we ever have fulfilled all the requirements for gaining a plenary indulgence?

Name withheld by request

A. A plenary indulgence remits the whole of the temporal punishment incurred by a person's sin up to the point when it is granted (as opposed to a partial indulgence, which remits punishments only in part). But it doesn't remit the punishment of sins committed later.

Consequently, when the person who benefited from the indulgence goes on to commit other sins, he no longer has a "plenary" (full) remission of temporal punishment. He now has other sins with temporal punishments.

The holy souls in purgatory, on the other hand, can no longer commit sins. So if someone gains a plenary indulgence and applies it to a soul in purgatory, then that soul will be released from purga-tory and rise up to heaven to enjoy the Beatific Vision for eternity.

Only God knows for sure the state of a person's soul. So I don't think anyone can be absolutely certain that he has gained a ple-nary indulgence. But he could be morally certain. (Moral certainty is certainty beyond a reasonable doubt, sufficient as a guide to action.)

There are five requirements for gaining a plenary indulgence, and these are specified in the norms of the Indulgentiarum Doctrina (1967, No. 7):

"To acquire a plenary indulgence it is necessary to perform the work to which the indulgence is attached and to fulfill three conditions: sacramental confession, Eucharistic Communion and prayer for the intentions of the Supreme Pontiff.

"It is further required that all attachment to sin, even to venial sin, be absent. If this disposition is in any way less than complete, or if the prescribed three conditions are not fulfilled, the indulgence will be only partial."

So the five requirements are these: 1) perform the work; 2) go to confession; 3) receive Com-munion; 4) pray for the pope; 5) be detached from all sin.

Traditionally it is understood that you must go to confession, receive Communion and pray for the pope within one week (before or after) of performing the indulgenced work.

The question remains: How can we know whether we are completely detached from sin?

Some would suggest that it's practically impossible to be detached from all desire to sin. Others, more hopeful in God's mercy, would recognize such sentiments of detachment as a free gift from God that will not be lacking if you ask for it.

In my instruction to youngsters who are eager to gain a plenary indulgence, I recommend that they simply repeat the words of St. Dominic Savio on the day of his first Communion: "Lord Jesus, I love you. I would rather die than ever offend you."

Formal Cooperation?

Q. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states: "Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. 'A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae'" (No. 2272).

Consider the case of a receptionist who works in a health clinic and receives calls from women asking for a doctor who will give them a prescription for the [abortifacient] so-called morning after pill. Is the receptionist, by relaying the calls from these women, formally cooperating in abortions?

Father Frank Kriski, C.Ss.R., Kansas City, Mo.

A. Moral theologians and confessors, such as the great doctor of the Church St. Alphonsus Liguori, founder of the Redemptorists, distinguish between formal and material cooperation. A person would be guilty of formal cooperation in abortion if he or she condones it, whether or not he actually participates or cooperates in the action, either directly or indirectly.

A politician, for example, who votes in favor of permissive abortion legislation is formally cooperating in abortion even if he is not directly involved in the act.

As Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, wrote in a memorandum to Cardinal Theodore McCarrick in 2004:

"A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate's permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia.

"When a Catholic does not share a candidate's stand in favor of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons."

In the case you present, the receptionist could be formally cooperating in abortion if she approves of abortion. In that case, she would be subject to canonical penalties.

On the other hand, if she opposes abortion, then her cooperation would be probable indirect proximate material cooperation in abortion (that's a mouthful!) -- which might be licit in the presence of proportionate reasons.

I describe the situation this way for the following reasons:

1) It is probable because it is not certain that the request for the "morning after pill" is made by a woman who has actually conceived (either the receptionist is uncertain or the woman is uncertain of conception).

2) It is indirect because the receptionist does not participate in the actual mechanics of an abortion, whether by chemicals or invasive surgery.

3) It is proximate because her cooperation can be directly traced to the person involved.

4) Finally, it is material because the receptionist actually cooperates by handling the phone call and refers the caller to the doctor.

Given the gravity of the sin of abortion, only grave reasons would bear any resemblance to "proportionate reasons" that would make the action licit.

The only circumstance I could think of that mightpermit such cooperation would be her inability to find another job to support herself and her family. But with the national unemployment rate under 5 percent, it is likely she could find employment elsewhere.

I think it would be best for her either to oppose such cooperation or to find another job if possible. On the other hand, she could choose to make a stand by refusing to forward such phone calls (the principle of noncooperation based on conscientious objection) and actively work to change the minds of the callers and physicians by speaking up for life.

Communal Penance?

Q. Please explain communal penance with general absolution, where a penitent does not have to go to an individual priest to have his or her confession heard and sins absolved. Is communal penance with general absolution an acceptable practice in the United States?

Name withheld

A. "General absolution" without individual confession is like putting the cake in the oven and not turning the heat on. It is unfinishedbusiness. So much so, that if you had a mortal sin, you still have to make a personal confession of that sin as soon as possible.

For this reason, communal penance with general absolution is not an acceptable practice in the United States, unless specific and truly exceptional conditions exist. The Code of Canon Law specifies when "general absolution" is allowed:

"General absolution, without prior individual confession, cannot be given to a number of penitents together, unless

"1) danger of death threatens and there is not time for the priest or priests to hear the confessions of the individual penitents;

"2) there exists a grave neces-sity -- that is, given the number of penitents, there are not enough confessors available properly to hear the individual confessions within an appropriate time -- so that without fault of their own the penitents are deprived of the sacramental grace or of holy Communion for a lengthy period of time.

"A sufficient necessity is not, however, considered to exist when confessors cannot be available merely because of a great gathering of penitents, such as can occur on some major feast day or pilgrimage" (Canon 961.1).

In addition, "It is for the diocesan bishop to judge whether the conditions required in [No. 2 above] are present; mindful of the criteria agreed on with the other members of the bishops' conference, he can determine the cases of such necessity" (Canon 961.2).

In his motu proprio entitledMisericordia Dei ("The Mercy of God"), promulgated on Divine Mercy Sunday 2002, Pope John Paul II further specified:

"It [No. 2] refers to situations which are objectively exceptional, such as can occur in mission territories or in isolated communities of the faithful, where the priest can visit only once or very few times a year, or when war or weather conditions or similar factors permit" (No. 4).

Even if a person were to receive "general absolution" for his sins, that absolution would only be valid to the degree the penitent has contrition for his sins and is resolved to go to individual confession as soon as possible. Otherwise, the Sacrament of Reconciliation is emptied of its sacramental and psychological therapeutic and redeeming value. TCA