TCA Question & Answer of the Day

Each weekday, you'll find a new question and answer. Check back for the new question and scroll down to see previous day's entries! Let us know what you think - - or question! -- by emailing us at tcanswer@osv.com.

For the Week of February 2-6, 2009

---

Question of the Day for Friday, February 6, 2009

Marriage Before a Judge

Q. My question regards a marriage before a judge. My understanding is that it is not valid or recognized by the Church. If I am correct, then an individual who was married before a judge, then had the marriage legally annulled in court, would not be required to have that marriage annulled by the Church. Is this conclusion correct?

B.B., via email

A. Here’s a reply from TCA columnist Father Francis Hoffman, J.C.D.:

As you state it, ordinarily a Catholic who marries before a civil judge has not married validly because he failed to follow the canonical form, which ordinarily requires the presence of the parish priest and two witnesses (see Canon 1108). If the marriage before a judge was annulled by a civil court, the Catholic would not be required to have that marriage annulled by the Church.

However, if the Catholic wants to get married in the Church to a different person, the details of that first marriage would need to be explained to the competent Church authority in the course of a prenuptial questionnaire. If there were children from the first marriage, the Church would actively encourage the original spouses to reconcile and have their union blessed by the Church, since this would normally be the best for the children.

Question of the Day for Thursday, February 5, 2009

SSPX Bishops’ Excommunications Lifted?

Q. What’s this about the pope lifting the excommunications of the SSPX bishops? What does this mean for the future relations of that society with the Church?

 V.C., Tupelo, Miss.

A. The Congregation for Bishops published a decree signed by its prefect, Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re, and dated January 21, about the Holy Father’s remission of the excommunication pronounced on four bishops consecrated by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in 1988 without Rome’s approval. (They are all leaders in the Society of St. Pius X, or SSPX.)

Here’s the complete text of the decree:

“In a letter of 15 December 2008 addressed to Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos, president of the Pontifical Commission ‘Ecclesia Dei,’ Bishop Bernard Fellay once again requested — also in the name of the other three bishops consecrated on 30 June 1988 — the removal of the excommunication ‘latae sententiae’ formally pronounced by a decree of the prefect of this Congregation for Bishops on 1 July 1988. In that letter Bishop Fellay affirmed, among other things, that ‘we continue firmly resolute in our desire to remain Catholics and to put all our strength at the service of the Church of Our Lord Jesus Christ, which is the Roman Catholic Church. We accept her teachings in a filial spirit. We firmly believe in the Primacy of Peter and in its prerogatives, and for this reason the current situation causes us much suffering.’

“His Holiness Benedict XVI—in his paternal compassion for the spiritual discomfort expressed by the parties concerned, because of the excommunication, and trusting in the commitment they expressed in the aforesaid letter to spare no efforts in examining outstanding questions through the requisite discussions with the authorities of the Holy See in order to reach a prompt, full and satisfactory solution to the original problem—has decided to reconsider the canonical position of Bishops Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta, which arose following their episcopal consecration.

“With this act it is hoped to consolidate reciprocal relations of trust, and to intensify and stabilize the relations of the Fraternity [Society] of St. Pius X with this Holy See. This gift of peace, coming at the end of the Christmas celebrations, also wishes to be a sign to promote the Universal Church’s unity in charity, and to remove the scandal of division.

“It is hoped that this step will be followed by the prompt attainment of full communion with the Church by the entire Fraternity of St. Pius X, thus demonstrating true faithfulness and true recognition of the Magisterium and authority of Pope with the sign of visible unity.

“On the basis of the powers expressly granted to me by the Holy Father Benedict XVI, and by virtue of this decree, I remit the sentence of excommunication ‘latae sententiae’ declared by this congregation on 1 July 1988 against Bishops Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta. At the same time I declare that, as of today’s date, the decree then issued is devoid of juridical effect.”

What does it all mean? The excommunications are lifted, but the Church considers the SSPX to be still in schism. What happens next largely depends on how the members of the Society respond to this generous gesture on the part of Pope Benedict. The group’s theological differences with Rome, centered mostly on the teachings of the Second Vatican Council, remain a serious obstacle to a full restoration of communion.

Question of the Day for Wednesday, February 4, 2009

Gluten-Free Hosts?

Q. In reference to the letter about the child who can’t receive communion due to an allergy (click here ,Q & A January 28, 2009), there is a company that makes hosts which are gluten-free. I don’t have the name, but it’s probably on the Internet. 

K.H., via email

A. Yes, celiac disease involves an allergy to the gluten in wheat, and we should have mentioned in our reply that low-gluten (though not actually gluten-free) hosts are available. Some who suffer from celiac disease are able to tolerate these.

The Benedictine Sisters of Clyde, Missouri, make low-gluten hosts. Here is their contact information: Congregation of Benedictine Sisters of Perpetual Adoration, Altar Breads Department, 31970 State Highway P, Clyde, Missouri 64432; Phone:1-800-223-2772; e-mail: altarbreads@benedictinesisters.org; Sr. Rita, OSB, Manager.

This issue has been raised before in this column. For more details, click here, for Q & A April 8, 2008.

 

Question of the Day for Tuesday, February 3, 2009

St. Francis Prayer?

Q. I recently read that the popular prayer usually attributed to St. Francis of Assisi, beginning with the words, “Lord, make me an instrument of Your peace,” did not actually originate with him. Is that true? If not, how did it come to be attributed to Francis?

 N.O., Albuquerque, N.M.

A. Though the prayer is typically attributed to St. Francis, it is almost certainly a modern creation. Historians came to this conclusion some time ago, but recently the Vatican’s newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano, raised the issue anew when it reported that the prayer first appeared in France at the start of the twentieth century and became popular during World War I.

The prayer was first published, in French, in a Catholic weekly newspaper in 1912. Also known as the “Simple Prayer,” it was then republished on the front page of the Vatican newspaper in 1916 at the request of Pope Benedict XV. The Holy Father especially liked it message of peace in the midst of World War I.

The actual author remains anonymous. So why was the prayer attributed to Francis?

Historians note that it’s inspired by Franciscan themes, but the language is not typical of 13th-century Italian, which Francis spoke. There doesn’t seem to have been any organized attempt by anyone to deceive people into believing that Francis was the author. Perhaps it was later attributed to him because it was made popular by a French Franciscan between the two World Wars, who printed it on cards with an image of Francis on the back.

Question of the Day for Monday, February 2, 2009

Early Church Practices?

Q. I just heard that during the early Church, celibacy was not a mandate for priests, and that baptism was administered to adults. Could you please explain the reason for the present celibacy requirement and why baptism was changed from adults to infants?

C. B., Mounds View, Minn.

A. Here’s a reply from TCA columnist Father Ray Ryland, Ph.D., J.D.:

It is true that in the earliest days of the Church, baptism was administered ordinarily to adults. Yet the New Testament speaks in at least four instances of the baptism of “households,” which presumably would include children (Acts 10; 16; 18; 1 Cor 1).

We should say, then, not that baptism was “changed,” but that in the Church it was soon “extended” to include children. By God’s design, a child is brought into a particular family without having to choose that family. Similarly, through baptism an infant or child is brought into the Mystical Body of Christ without having to choose that membership.

Perhaps you misunderstood what was said about the requirement of celibacy in the early Church. This is a vast subject about which we can only make a few comments in the present limitations of space.

Start with our great High Priest, Jesus Christ. Perfectly incarnating the will of the Father, He chose celibacy. So far as we know, the apostles were celibate after having been chosen by Christ.

Peter asked what would become of him and the other apostles. Jesus replied, “Truly, I say to you, there is no man who has left house or wife or brothers or parents or children, for the sake of the kingdom of God, who will not receive manifold more in this time, and in the age to come eternal life” (Lk 18:29-30, emphasis added).

In the early centuries, the Church did ordain men who had been married. The evidence is clear, however, that before those men were ordained, both they and their spouses were required to vow perpetual continence following ordination. As priests, of course, both previously married men and single men were under the solemn obligation of chastity.

The reason consistently given in the records of early Church councils for requiring celibacy was that ordination consecrated a man to Christ, setting him apart from ordinary life. All the earliest councils that dealt with celibacy (in the fourth and fifth centuries) affirmed the apostolic origin of celibacy.

Advocates of optional marriage for Catholic clergy point to Eastern Orthodox practice as a strong precedent. They argue that this, too, is apostolic and should be taken seriously. The argument falls flat in light of the facts of history.

Until the end of the seventh century, celibacy was the norm throughout the Church East and West. In 692, the eastern Council of Trullo changed the rules. It decreed that married men who were ordained could continue to live a conjugal life with their wives.

The Council did retain celibacy for bishops, but without explaining why. This is the origin of present Eastern Orthodox practice. By no means is it apostolic.

In recent decades numerous statements by synods and by the popes have declared the Church’s commitment to the discipline of celibacy. The present shortage of priests in some parts of the world is due not to the rule of celibacy, but to widespread dissent that confuses people and obscures calls to the priesthood and the religious life.

You can find a summary of the wide literature on this subject in “A Brief History of Celibacy,” a chapter I wrote for “Priestly Celibacy: Its Scriptural, Historical, Spiritual, and Psychological Roots” (Mt. Pocono, Pa.: Newman House Press, 2001), edited by Father Peter Stravinskas.