Home | Contact Us | Subscribe/Renew | Register | Search | Site Map
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.
Mormons and the Bible
Q. Do Mormons accept the Christian Bible?
J.E., Dawsonville, Ga.
A. Mormons (that is, members of the “Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints”) have always accepted the Protestant version of the Bible (which of course excludes certain Old Testament books that are found in the Catholic Bible). They revere it as the Word of God.
However, they also accept as divinely inspired Scripture the “Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ.” Their nineteenth-century founder, Joseph Smith, claimed that an angel showed him where to locate certain golden tablets on which this book was inscribed. No one other than Smith was ever allowed to see the tablets.
Mormons also accept as Scripture two smaller volumes containing alleged private revelations given primarily to Smith. These are called “The Doctrine and Covenants” and “The Pearl of Great Price.”
The Catholic Church (as well as the Eastern Orthodox churches and Protestant denominations) reject the validity of Smith’s claims. In several essentials his teachings clearly contradict both Scripture and Tradition.
Seven Holy Founders?
Q. Who exactly are the “Seven Holy Founders of the Order of Servites”?
R.D., Cincinnati, Ohio
A. The memorial of the Seven Holy Founders is observed today.
In the years 1225 to 1227, seven young men from the patrician families of Florence, Italy, formed the Confraternity of the Blessed Virgin — popularly known as the Laudesi, or “Praisers” of Mary. Their names were Buonfiglio dei Monaldi (Bonfilius), Giovanni di Buonagiunta (Bonajuncta), Bartolomeo degli Amidei (Amideus), Ricovero dei Lippi-Ugguccioni (Hugh), Benedetto dell’ Antella (Manettus), Gherardino di Sostegno (Sosteneus) and Alessio de’ Falconieri (Alexius).
On the Feast of the Assumption in 1233, the Blessed Virgin appeared to them, asking them to withdraw from the world and devote themselves entirely to eternal things. They obeyed and established themselves close to a Franciscan convent in a suburb of Florence. Later, seeking a more strict seclusion from the world, they moved out to Monte Senario, eleven miles north of Florence.
Here, in April of the year 1240, Our Lady appeared to them once more, conferred on them a black habit, and then instructed them to follow the Rule of St. Augustine and found the order of her servants. From that time they were known as the “Servants of Mary,” of the “Servites.” The men chose a superior; took vows of obedience, chastity and poverty; and began admitting others to the order, which some years later was officially recognized by Rome.
The goal of the Order is to sanctify first its members, and then all people, through devotion to the Mother of God.
Bishop Williamson Controversy
Q. The lifting of the excommunication for the SSPX Bishop Richard Williamson, who is a Holocaust denier, has created a firestorm of controversy. Can you clarify this matter for me? Surely the Church, by taking this action, is not putting a stamp of approval on his views?
N.N., via email
A. I can assure you that this action does not constitute a “stamp of approval” by the Church for Bishop Williamson’s views about the horrific genocidal attempts made by the Nazis against the Jews in the years before and during World War II. Admittedly, given the public availability of information about Williamson’s claims about the Shoah (the Holocaust), the Roman Curia should not have been caught off guard by the matter, and it could have handled the situation better by making a “preemptive clarification” at the time the excommunication was announced.
In any case, I’ll let the Vatican speak for itself. Here’s an English translation of the text of an official “Note” from the Secretariat of State, published on February 4 and distributed by the Vatican Information Service (VIS):
“In the wake of reactions provoked by the recent Decree from the Congregation for Bishops lifting the excommunication on the four prelates of the Society of St. Pius X, and with reference to declarations denying and reducing the Shoah pronounced by Bishop Williamson, a member of that society, it is felt appropriate to clarify certain aspects of the issue:
1. Remission of the excommunication
“As has previously been explained, the Decree from the Congregation for Bishops, dated 21 January 2009, was an act by which the Holy Father benignly responded to repeated requests from the superior general of the Society of St. Pius X.
“His Holiness wished to remove an impediment that hindered the opening of a door to dialogue, and he now awaits a similar readiness to be expressed by the four bishops, in complete adherence to the doctrine and discipline of the Church.
“The extremely serious penalty of excommunication ‘latae sententiae,’ which these bishops incurred on 30 June 1988, formally announced on 1 July of the same year, was a consequence of their illegitimate ordination by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.
“The remission of the excommunication has freed the four bishops from a serious canonical penalty, but it has not altered the juridical position of the Society of St. Pius X which, at the present time, enjoys no canonical recognition within the Catholic Church. Even the four bishops, though released from excommunication, have no canonical function in the Church and cannot legally exercise a ministry within her.
2. Tradition, doctrine and Vatican Council II
“An indispensable condition for any future recognition of the Society of St. Pius X is their full recognition of Vatican Council II and of the Magisterium of Popes John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI.
“As already affirmed in the Decree of 21 January 2009, the Holy See will not fail, in ways considered most appropriate, to join the parties concerned in a profound examination of outstanding issues, so as to be able to reach a full and satisfactory solution to the problems that gave rise to this painful split.
3. Declarations concerning the Shoah
“Msgr. Williamson’s views on the Shoah are absolutely unacceptable, and firmly rejected by the Holy Father as he himself said on 28 January when, referring to that brutal genocide, he reiterated his complete and indisputable solidarity with our Brothers and Sisters who received the First Covenant, affirming that the memory of that terrible event must ‘induce humankind to reflect upon the unpredictable power of evil when it conquers the heart of man,’ adding that the Shoah remains ‘an admonition for everyone against oblivion, negation and reductionism, because violence against a single human being is violence against all.’
“In order to be readmitted to episcopal functions within the Church, Bishop Williamson must absolutely, unequivocally and publicly distance himself from his views concerning the Shoah, which were unknown to the Holy Father at the moment he lifted the excommunication.
“The Holy Father asks all the faithful to accompany him in prayer, that the Lord may illuminate the path of the Church. May all pastors and faithful increase their commitment in support of the delicate and onerous mission of the Successor of the Apostle Peter, the ‘custodian of unity’ within the Church.”
Same-Sex-Oriented Son
Q. I have a same-sex-oriented son who has a relationship with another man. I disapprove of his sexual lifestyle, but I still have and want a close and warm relationship with him. I like his friend, and my husband and I are very cordial to him.
Though I give no outward disapproval, my son knows that I believe this lifestyle is not acceptable behavior. My son receives Holy Communion, and I don’t object. If I do speak out and act with disapproval, I will estrange myself from him.
This would be devastating to us both. I do believe it would be very damaging to my son almost more than to me! What are your thoughts?
A. Here’s a reply from TCA columnist Father Ray Ryland, Ph.D., J.D.:
From what you have written, I judge that you clearly distinguish, as we all must, between the sinner and the sin. No matter how much we deplore and object to things our children may do, we still love them. Indeed, it is because we love them that we must oppose behavior that we know is wrong and detrimental to their welfare.
The matter of your son’s receiving Holy Communion in his present state is serious. The Church teaches us that we must not receive Communion unless we are in a state of grace: no unconfessed mortal sin, no continuing attachment to venial sin.
Scripture gives clear warning about receiving Communion if one is not in a state of grace. “Whoever … 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.” Again: “For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.” (1 Cor 11:27, 29). “Discerning the body” means, among other things, coming to the Lord in true contrition and repentance.
In my opinion, it is your clear duty to warn your son that in his present state it is spiritually perilous for him to receive Communion. This is not to show disapproval of him as a person, but to point out the danger of his conduct.
In the process of raising him there must have been many occasions when you had to rescue him from what could have caused him harm, even great harm. That is exactly what you would be doing by urging him not to receive Communion. You can make it plain that you give him this warning only because you love him and want what’s best for him.
Finally, before you and your husband discuss this matter with him, pray earnestly for the Holy Spirit to speak through you in offering this guidance to your son. I am praying for all three of you.
Are Veils Required?
Q. It has been an ongoing debate in our church for a few years now whether ladies need to wear a head veil (mantilla) in church or not. Some say that wearing the veil has been the Church’s teaching since the beginning, but the whole Church has just been ignoring it, especially since Vatican II. They insist that, since the new code of canon law does not address the issue, this means the old law continues to exist.
In the New American Bible, I read about the custom of St. Paul’s day, when women were supposed to have long hair. The commentary we found about 1 Corinthian 12:3–16 was that Paul appealed to the sense of propriety of that time. Obviously we are interpreting this passage very differently. Would you clarify the Church teaching on women with veils in church?
A. Here’s a reply from TCA columnist Father Francis Hoffman, J.C.D.:
Wearing veils in Church is a venerable feminine tradition from apostolic times, and your reference to St. Paul’s letter to the Corinthians is correct. Yet I agree with you and do not think “our merciful God would condemn anyone based on their head veils.” Still, your friends raise an interesting point.
I was surprised to learn just how much has been written on this topic. Some authors still maintain that canon law requires women to wear veils in Church, but that conclusion is due to a misinterpretation of Church law. Women are no longer required to wear veils in Church, but if they wish to do so, they may.
The 1983 Code of Canon Law completely replaced the 1917 Code, and in doing so transferred liturgical regulations outside the Code. This was a process that had begun earlier with the Second Vatican Council’s document on the Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium, and the revision of the Code of Canon Law.
For the most part today, liturgical regulations are to be found in the “General Instruction of the Roman Missal” (2002) and other relevant documents coming from the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments. None of the documents currently in force regarding the Liturgy mandate that a woman wear a veil in Church.
Finally, it may be helpful to remember that “custom is the best interpreter of laws” (Canon 27). For the past thirty years, women have customarily not worn veils in Church and, to my knowledge, no competent ecclesiastical authority has objected to this practice. We can be confident that if the Church believed it is necessary for women to wear veils in Church, it would be stated clearly in some official document.
Page
Catholic Resources | For Catholic Parishes | Order OSV ProductsSearch | Catalog | Books | Periodicals | Parish Resources | Offering Envelopes | About Us | Contact UsSend comments or questions to webmaster@osv.com Click here for our site map.Copyright © 2009, Our Sunday Visitor, Inc. All rights reserved.