Home | Contact Us | Subscribe/Renew | Register | Search | Site Map
by Father Francis Hoffman
Q. There is a small, wonderful church near me called "the Old Roman Catholic Church." The people are so nice, the service inspiring.
I talked to their bishop, and he says they are under the pope now, although years ago, they weren't. They come from Holland. He says I can go there without fear of heresy.
I called our bishop's office and was told by a lady that I am required to attend my diocesan church and support it weekly, then I could attend the other church at another time. My parish priest said no. Can you answer this for me?
Freida Smith, Pinellas Park, Fla.
A.Take your parish priest's advice. The "Old Roman Catholic Church" split from the Catholic Church after the First Vatican Council and remains separated by schism.
Moreover, in practice they deny fundamental teachings of the Catholic Church on the ordination of women, as well as the immorality of artificial contraception and homosexual behavior. Contrary to what they may claim, their teachings are heretical if they condone the ordination of women or approve artificial contraception.
Even if their ministers don beautiful traditional liturgical robes, even if they are nice to you, and even if the service is inspiring, you should avoid them, for they will gradually lead you astray. Remember the maxim of St. Ignatius of Antioch: ubi Petrus, ibi Ecclesia, which means, "where Peter is, there is the Church." The "Old Roman Catholic Church" is not united to the successor of the Roman pontiff, and he is the successor of St. Peter.
The "lady at the bishop's office" spoke correctly by requiring you to attend Mass at your parish and support it weekly, but was imprudent to suggest that you "attend the other Church at another time." You're either in the boat, or not, so stay put!
Q. I have an 8-year-old autistic grandson. My daughter can't get any help about what to do about his first Communion. Our religious education director doesn't know what to do.
Today, his classmates made their first Communion. She didn't go to church; she couldn't take it. And I am heartbroken. What is the Catholic answer?
Rose Frandrup, Roberts, Wis.
A. I understand why you are heartbroken, but there's no need to give up hope. God is good to all His creatures and especially concerned for His handicapped children.
The parish priest has the obligation to make sure that children who present themselves for first Communion "are properly prepared, able to distinguish the Body of Christ from ordinary food, and able to receive Communion with reverence."
Moreover, the child should make his first confession before his first Communion (see Canons 913-914).
Ultimately, it will be up to the parish priest to determine whether the child is ready and able to receive holy Communion, bearing in mind what is stipulated in canon law. Parents should aid the parish priest in this determination, since they are the primary educators of their children and know just how much the child is able to understand.
In some cases it would be fitting to allow an autistic child to receive holy Communion; in other cases, it might not be appropriate, all depending on whether the child is a high-, medium- or low-functioning autistic person.
You may want to inform yourself and your parish about the marvelous catechetical assistance offered by SPRED (Special Religious Development), an office of the Archdiocese of Chicago that has been assisting families such as yours for decades.
Some have argued that low-functioning autistic children, or low-functioning Down syndrome children, do not need the grace of the holy Eucharist because they are not responsible for the morality of their actions and therefore subjectively cannot sin.
Still, special children in these situations do have feelings and welcome love and acceptance, just as they feel hurt by isolation and exclusion. This alone could be a compelling reason to admit such special children of God to the holy Eucharist.
Q. Our pastor says the Requiem Mass for the dead instead of the Mass of the Resurrection for funerals. Is this something that he can do at his discretion? Can a parishioner request one or the other type of Mass to be said?
(I believe I'm saying this correctly. The one has the black vestments and the other has the white vestments, and, generally speaking, the one is more solemn and the other is more joyful in its liturgy.)
Also, our pastor does not allow flowers on the altar at a Funeral Mass. Is this customary? I had never seen these things done before moving into this parish.
Since the Second Vatican Council we've always had the Mass of the Resurrection for funerals, with flowers allowed on the altar, with the idea that the deceased was going home to be with the Lord -- a joyful event. Our pastor makes it seem very dour and forbidding, with the emphasis on grieving. Am I missing something here?
Sharon, via e-mail
A. If the pastor is following the ordinary form of the Catholic liturgy, as distinct from the extraordinary form (the old Latin Mass), he is to use the Order of Christian Funerals (1989) in English or the Ordo Exsequiarium if he celebrates the ordinary form in Latin.
According to the ordinary rite, there is no such thing as a "Mass of the Resurrection"; rather, it is called the "Funeral Mass."
In any case, the celebrant can wear white, violet or black vestments during the Funeral Mass in the ordinary rite, but uses only black vestments when celebrating the Funeral Mass according to the ancient extraordinary rite.
For the sake of argument, I will assume your pastor is celebrating the Mass according to the common ordinary rite.
In that case, the pastor has a number of options for the Funeral Mass, but first let's clear up some terminology. That rite is called the "Funeral Mass" and not the "Requiem Mass" nor even the "Mass of the Resurrection."
A parishioner can make any request he or she wants in terms of the music, the readings, the color of the vestments, the language of the service (English or Latin), and even -- some would argue -- the form of the rite: extraordinaryor ordinary.
If the priest is in a good mood, he will certainly try to accommodate the preferences and liturgical sensibilities of the deceased's loved ones.
As for flowers on the altar, the General Instruction of the Roman Missal states: "During Lent it is forbidden for the altar to be decorated with flowers. Floral decorations should always be done with moderation and placed around the altar rather than on its mensa."
So it appears that flowers are never to be placed on the altar, but there is no liturgical norm prohibiting the placing of flowers around the altar and in the sanctuary during a Funeral Mass.
Finally, it comes down to a question of emphasis during the funeral.
The principal reason for a Funeral Mass is to offer up the graces of that Mass for the repose of the soul of the deceased. Each funeral is unique, just as each human person is unique.
Those who die peacefully after a long, fruitful and holy life move us to rejoice because of God's goodness. Funerals for those special souls tend to be joyful.
On the other hand, those who die suddenly, tragically or at a young age cause us deep pain and mourning. Those funerals can be terribly sorrowful, and it would be disingenuous to act otherwise.
Rather, the Church always helps us to face truth and look death straight in the eye.
The Church, through her liturgical rites, offers us hope and consolation, but at the same time is wise in inviting us to pray for the eternal salvation of that soul. For until that person has been formally canonized as a saint, while in this life we cannot be certain he or she is in heaven.
Q. I am in need of some advice. I am 89 years old and am trying to get things in order for my 46-year-old daughter, an only child, as I know I have not long for this world anymore. I still have my mind.
My deceased husband (I'll call him George) was from a broken home. His parents were divorced while his mother was pregnant with him, about the year 1919. He obtained from the courthouse a copy of the divorce trial proceedings because he was curious as to what happened with his parents.
It is not a pretty picture. It seems his father was abusive and chased her out of the house and told her to leave -- said he'd kill her and wanted her to take turpentine to get rid of the unborn baby (George).
George kept the papers in our safety box. I have been thinking I should destroy them. My daughter knows (we've told her) that her grandfather didn't treat her grandmother well and they divorced, but she doesn't know the details.
My question is this: Our daughter has stated she'd like to read these papers (out of curiosity), but so far hasn't. Would I be committing a sin by letting her read the details? I'm thinking that this would be uncovering hidden faults without necessity, since those people have been gone for nearly 60 years.
I also think my daughter would probably be angry with me for destroying them. I'm sure that if I don't destroy them, when I'm gone and she goes through my things, she'll think of them.
I feel guilty for making her angry. I feel guilty either way. I don't know what I should do. I'll appreciate any help you can give me.
Name withheld
A.The answer to your question depends on whether there are grave and proportionate reasons for uncovering these hidden faults, since every person has a right to a good reputation.
The "Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church" states: "The Eighth Commandment forbids: rash judgment, slander, defamation and calumny which diminish or destroy the good reputation and honor to which every person has a right."
The Eighth Commandment also requires "respect for the truth accompanied by the discretion of charity in the field of communication and the imparting of information, where the personal and common good, the protection of privacy and the danger of scandal must all be taken into account; also professional secrets are to be kept, save in exceptional cases for grave and proportionate reasons" (see Compendium, Nos. 523-524).
In your case, I think the only grave and proportionate reason for sharing the defamatory details of the divorce-trial proceedings would be if such information could help your daughter work through any psychological trauma she may have had with her own father, George.
It is likely that your deceased husband had psychological wounds due to his rejection by his father, and it is also possible such trauma affected George's relationship with his own daughter.
If you prudently conclude that such knowledge might help your daughter get on with her own life, and understand her own upbringing better, and help her forgive any hurt caused by her father, then I think you have grave and proportionate reasons for divulging such information. Otherwise, destroy those papers as soon as possible.
Q. Are acts that are mortal sins for Catholics, such as missing church on Sunday or using contraception, also grave matter for non-Catholics? I don't believe that you could find a non-Catholic who thinks he is going to hell because he did not go to church last Sunday.
C.P., Frankfort, Ill.
A. The moral teachings of the Church are based on the natural law as well as God's revealed word expressed in the Ten Commandments.
All human beings -- by their very nature -- are called to keep the Sabbath Day holy (Third Commandment), just as all are prohibited from killing (Fifth Commandment) and committing adultery (Sixth Commandment).
Refusal to worship God for at least some time one day each week contradicts the natural law. Even if a person is not a Catholic, he should still worship God at least weekly, as he or she knows Him.
This moral absolute applies to Catholics, Christians, Jews, Muslims and everyone.
For that reason we find evidence even in ancient pagan civilizations of times and places set apart for the worship of God. Even if the form of the worship and sacrifice was flawed, it corresponded to a perceived need of the human condition to render some sort of worship or sacrifice to the Almighty.
As for the practice of artificial contraception, that's wrong for everyone since it contradicts the very nature and end of the sexual act and in that way violates the Sixth Commandment.
Moreover, in the case of abortafacient pills, there is the added gravity of potential mortal injuries inflicted on tiny human beings, and that's a sin against the Fifth Commandment.
It's well to understand that the Church teaches something because it is true -- not the other way around, that it's true because the Church teaches it.
A final note: Both artificial contraception and the duty of weekly worship are grave matter for non-Catholics, even if they do not understand that. But for these infractions to be imputed as mortal sins, three conditions are necessary: (1) grave matter; (2) full advertence; and (3) full consent.
Weekly worship and artificial contraception are grave matter. In the case of non-Catholics, however, it is possible that the other two conditions are not present, and therefore the person would sin in a venial but not mortal way.
Q. Recently, I heard that if an old, sick person in a nursing home refuses to eat anymore, so to end his miserable life as soon as possible, that this is considered a suicide by the Catholic faith. Is this so?
Joseph Kovacic, Colonial Heights, Va.
A. In my experience, it is rare for an elderly sick person in a nursing home to refuse to eat anymore in order "to end his miserable life as soon as possible."
More common is the experience that an elderly person is tired of life, sick of being sick, tired of being lonely, and longs to see his Maker. Gradually, he or she loses the will to live, and as a consequence, loses any desire to eat. That's not suicide.
Q. Recently I was reading about excommunication when I came across a mention of "minor excommunication." There was then a footnote explaining that minor excommunication is no longer recognized by canon law.
My questions:
What is the difference between minor excommunication and excommunication?
What is the history of minor excommunication?
When did the Church do away with minor excommunication?
How would one have been minor excommunicated, and who would issue and lift a minor excommunication?
Damion John Leafey, Huntington, Pa.
A. You ask a technically complex question worthy of a 500-page doctoral thesis. Allow me to answer in the briefest terms.
"Minor excommunication" existed in canon law at least from the time of Pope Gregory IX (1227-1241) until 1869, when that penal category was abolished. Basically, minor excommunication applied to all who obstinately persisted in manifest grave sin.
Accordingly, until they had publicly repented and renounced their behavior, they were not to be admitted to Communion. Any priest with faculties to hear confessions and absolve sins could lift the minor excommunication.
The Church did away with the penalty of minor excommunication because it became both redundant and unwieldy to manage, similar to the Index Librorum Prohibitorum (List of Prohibited Books), which was abolished in 1966.
The moral principle of refraining from holy Communion while in a state of mortal sin still exists, just as the moral principle of refraining from reading books that are a danger to faith and morals still applies, even if the legal penalties have ceased.
Canon 915 of the current Code of Canon Law is the closest thing we have to minor excommunication, and some advocate its use for remediating the scandal caused by pro-abortion Catholic politicians who present themselves for holy Communion. It states:
"Those upon whom the penalty of excommunication or interdict has been imposed or declared, and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to holy Communion."
Today, the penalty of excommunication is reserved for the most serious ecclesiastical crimes. There are two types: automatic (latae sententiae) and those that have to be declared by the competent ecclesiastical authority (ferendae sententiae).
The crime of committing or participating in an abortion draws an automatic excommunication, and in most cases, any priest with faculties can absolve that sin and lift the sanction. Heresy, schism and apostasy also trigger automatic excommunication.
Note: Heresy is defined in canon law not simply as the holding of erroneous beliefs, but as the "obstinate denial or doubt, after baptism, of a truth which must be believed by divine and Catholic faith" (Canon 751).
Finally, some crimes are so serious that only the Roman pontiff can lift the penalty of automatic excommunication: 1) desecration of the holy Eucharist; 2) breaking the sacramental seal of confession; 3) absolution (by a priest) of an accomplice in a crime against the Sixth Commandment; 4) physical violence against the Roman pontiff; and 5) ordination of a bishop without pontifical mandate.
Additional questions from our readers are answered online in the "TCA Question of the Day" at www.osv.com. TCA
Page
Catholic Faith Resources | For Catholic Parishes | Order OSV Products Search | Catalog | Books | Periodicals | Parish Resources | Offertory Solutions | About Us | Contact Us Send comments or questions to webmaster@osv.com Click here for our site map. Copyright © 2010, Our Sunday Visitor, Inc. All rights reserved.