In the ancient Church one usually entered the sanctuary through the baptistery and the custom of blessing oneself with the water naturally took up as a reminder of baptism. In later centuries as church buildings grew larger and doors multiplied, small fonts were placed near those doors and the tradition continued.
The practice of placing sand in the fonts for Lent is a tired aberration and not prescribed by any norms. At no point in the liturgical year is it appropriate to cease remembering our baptism. While a brief column such as this cannot possibly plumb the depths of the questions you raise, a few observations should be made.
First, it does not pertain to God to annihilate any rational creature he has made. Thus, angels and men have an immortality that pertains to their souls; and for humans, one day, to our bodies as well. Having given the gift of life, God never withdraws his gift. While it is true that demons, and the human souls in hell have definitively rejected his love, God does not thereby cancel the love he has extended to them. He continues to sustain the life even of his enemies, though they choose to live apart from him and what he values. Secondly, your question tends to put God within serial time, where time passes incrementally from future to present to past. And, thus, the question occurs to us, "Why would God at some time in the past, knowing what a person would do in the future, bring them into existence today?” But God does not live in or relate to time in this manner. For God, past, present and future are all equally present. And thus, while God's inner life is mysterious, it is clear to us that God does not deliberate in the manner we do. Time does not unfold for God like it does for us. So, to some degree, even the way we phrase our questions is invalid. God does not ponder “A”, look forward to “B”, and then do “C”. But let us for a moment assume God did act temporally in this way, and that at some point in the past, God, knowing that a person would do horrible things in the future, considers their existence today. Let us say, that seeing the bad things they would do, he simply vetoes their existence. But what does this do then to human freedom? In effect, it cancels it. Why? Because if in knowing that a person will choose badly, God preemptively vetoes their existence, then the whole process of choosing God and his kingdom values is “front‐loaded” and none of us who do exist are really free. Freedom would only be theoretical since no existing person actually can or ever did say “no.” If we are not free to say no, we are not really free to say yes to God and love Him. Many more things related to the questions you raise could be said. But for now, let it be enough for us to say that the answers are caught up in the mysteries of God's love, time, and human freedom. The practice of mixing water and wine was common in the ancient world. Wines were usually heavier than most modern vintages, and to dilute them a bit made them more palatable and less inebriating. People also drank more wine since water in the ancient world could not be purified easily as is done today. Thus, the wine used at Mass was mixed with water before the consecration in the usual manner of all wine.
Mystically it came to represent our inclusion into Christ's Body by our baptism. The priest says: "By the mystery of the water and wine, may we come to share in the divinity of Christ who humbled himself to share in our humanity". Though the practical reason to mix water and wine no longer is needed, it still remains a powerful symbol and so its practice remains. As you rightly point out, fornication (premarital sex) is a very serious sin, which has sadly received widespread acceptance in our culture. The related sin and trend of cohabitation makes matters even worse because of its public nature and capacity to give scandal. Scripture in many places describes the sin of fornication as a mortal sin, declaring that it excludes one from the kingdom of heaven (for example Ephesians 5:5, one Corinthians 6:9, Galatians 5:21, among others).
God consistently condemns fornication because of the harm it does the human person, the sacrament of holy matrimony, and children. Children conceived of fornication are at high risk for abortion since 85 % of abortions are performed on single women. If they survive this risk, they are still likely to be raised in irregular situations that are not best for them. This in turn leads to many other social ills. Consequently, fornicators not only sin against God's gifts of marriage and sexuality, but also sin against justice by engaging in behaviors that harm society and children. What then is a priest to do when he prepares couples for marriage who are often cohabiting? Of course there are many prudential factors involved. At least the couple is trying to set things right. Having them seek separate domiciles is best but not always feasible. But surely every priest ought to teach such couples of the seriousness of their sin and insist they live chastely and sleep in separate rooms. While he cannot enforce this, he ought to instill in them a holy reverence for God who sees all things. In order to avoid scandal that is easily given by cohabiters who cannot separate, many priests make some mention at the wedding of the fact that he instructed the couple to live chastely and was glad that they were willing to give heed to the holy instruction of God. He can be discrete but clear, and even use a little humor. But simply ignoring the issue altogether when a couple has publicly cohabited offends against the common good by giving the impression that such behavior is good or no big deal. Silent pulpits are a sadly common source of scandal. Since the early days of Christianity, wearing chapel veils has been a common practice among faithful women. Chapel veils, also commonly called mantillas, which comes from the word manta, meaning cape, are typically circular or triangular shaped pieces of black or white lace that are draped over a woman’s head when attending Mass, or in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament. Traditionally, the black veils were worn by married or widowed women, while the white veils were worn by young girls, or unmarried women.
Throughout the centuries, the use of the mantilla by women has had many purposes. The wearing of the mantilla is an act of veiling a woman's physical beauty (as a woman’s hair is traditionally considered her crowning beauty), so that the beauty of God may be glorified instead. It is also a way of emulating Mary, our mother, who is the archetype of purity and humility. Moreover, the mantilla, or chapel veil, signifies the role of women as a life-bearing vessel. Oftentimes, the chalice holding the blood of Christ is veiled until the Preparation of the Gifts, and the tabernacle is veiled between Masses. Both of these vessels hold the Eucharist – the very life of Christ. In a similar fashion, the woman was endowed by God with the special gift of bearing new human life. Because of this, women, as all things holy and sacred, are veiled. Before the Second Vatican Council, the wearing of chapel veils was required for a woman when attending Mass, as a symbol of her modesty and humility before God. Although this practice is no longer required, it is still very much supported and encouraged by the Church as a sign of reverence and piety while in the presence of God. In addition to being a long-standing and beautiful piece of our Catholic tradition, there are three great reasons to wear a mantilla: (1) veiling is a physical reminder that you are entering a Sacred space, (2) veiling is a sign of feminine dignity, and (3) veiling is half of a dual-tradition whereby a woman covers her head (by covering her hair with a veil), and a man uncovers his head (by removing his hat) when entering a church as a sign of humility and devotion. No, a man in the situation you describe could not continue to function as a permanent deacon. However, some distinctions are necessary so as to clarify the answer.
While celibacy is not required of a married man who becomes a permanent deacon, celibacy does apply to some permanent deacons. And this can happen in a couple of different ways. First of all, if an unmarried man becomes a permanent deacon, he is required to promise celibacy at his ordination, and to remain celibate for the rest of his life. Secondly, if the spouse of a permanent deacon dies, he is expected to live celibately from that point forward. He is not to date, or seek a new spouse. In the unfortunate situation you describe of a deacon who is divorced, he also would be expected to live celibately from that point forward. This would be true even if his marriage received a declaration of nullity from the Church. In the thankfully rare situation where permanent deacons become divorced, the local bishop usually permits such a deacon to continue ministering as a deacon. But the bishop also needs to ensure that the deacon did all he could to reasonably save his marriage, and did not casually cast aside his marital vows, which would be a scandal. Presuming this can be assured and that scandal can be avoided, the bishop can permit a divorced permanent deacon to continue ministering. But, as already stated, he must live celibately from that point forward. What if the Deacon were to refuse to follow Church law, either by flagrantly divorcing and remarrying, or by remarrying after the death of a spouse? In such cases, he would be suspended from practicing his ministry as a deacon, and likely be laicized. Since ordination confers a character, he would still "be" a deacon, but could not, in any way, perform the ministry of the diaconate. Two factors need to be kept in mind to understand the loss of Jesus. At age 12, Jesus would have been considered almost an adult in that culture at that time. Perhaps it would be like a 17‐year‐old in our culture. It does not pertain to parents to keep as close a watch on a much older child as with a very young child.
Secondly, pilgrims making the journey from Galilee to Jerusalem and back, a walk of over 70 miles, often walked in fairly large groups. It was common for people to divide out, women walking with women, men with men. Older children might also walk together; the younger children would stay with their mothers. As an older child reaching adulthood it is easy to understand how Jesus might have walked with a group apart from his parents. And this would go unnoticed until the evening when families would reunite. Immediately upon noticing Jesus' absence and inquiring among other relatives, they rushed back to Jerusalem to find him. With these two factors in mind, they were not negligent. The temporary separation from him was understandable, and immediately upon noticing it they saw him out. As for Jesus’ reaction, it is mysterious. But we need to remember that we cannot hear his tone of voice. Further it could simply be that he was surprised in terms of his human knowledge at their wonderment in a genuine way, figuring they knew where he was. Should priests, organists, altar servers, and sacristans be paid for participating in a funeral?4/10/2024 It varies according to each. Priests are not “paid” for celebrating funerals. And while it is customary for many families to give the priest a donation or stipend, Church Law does not require such a donation. Such donations are generally small or tokenary since priests are well cared for by the parish already. And while priests can and do accept such donations, any notion that what they receive is a “fee” is to be avoided. Priests must be willing to celebrate liturgies and sacraments even when no stipend is offered. This is especially the case when working with and caring for the poor.
Organists and Church musicians are another story. They can and should be paid. They have spent years in preparation and practice, and the monies they receive are usually part of their livelihood. Often, they must leave other obligations to cover funerals and may have travel expenses. If families wish to engage their services, musicians and organists should be compensated. In cases where there is poverty and a family cannot afford to cover even basic music, the parish can help. But since elaborate music is not required for funerals, the requested help should be reasonable. As for servers and sacristans, the practice of donations is less common. In some places it is customary to give the servers a small donation; in other places not. Sacristans are seldom given donations. Servers and sacristans are generally presumed to be volunteers, and while a young server may appreciate a $20 dollar bill, it is generally not expected. This is even more the case with adult servers who would likely be embarrassed by receiving a donation. With Sacred Scripture, there are many levels of meaning at work. You are correct in observing that Jesus is quoting from Psalm 22. And many argue, with good merit, that quoting the first line of Psalm 22 Jesus intends the whole of Psalm 22 for himself, and us.
In Psalm 22, we are alerted to the many ways in which prophecies are being fulfilled. The Psalm speaks of an afflicted man who feels downcast, but also mentions others who divide his garments among them, and cast lots for his vesture; who pierce his hands and feet; and who ridicule him in his suffering. And all these prophecies are being fulfilled almost exactly as Jesus is on the cross. Psalm 22 is also an important catechism for us about suffering because, considered as a whole, it is not a Psalm of despair and grief, but also of trust and hope in God's deliverance. It recalls how God has delivered devout men and women in the past, and asserts that God never spurns those who cry out to him in their misery. The psalm writer confidently expects God’s help, and to be able, one day, to tell his descendants of the glorious things the Lord has done. And thus, while Psalm 22 surely gives voice to the pain and grief that we experience in our suffering, it also reminds us to call on the Lord and trust that he will deliver us. And so, we see, first of all, that Jesus, in quoting Psalm 22, is a great teacher, even from the pulpit of the cross. We are taught to revere prophecy, and also to trust God in our afflictions. And yet we ought not to wholly exclude that Jesus is also quoting the psalm for his own sake as well. Surely, as man, he suffered great anguish, both physical and mental, emotional and spiritual, on the cross. And thus he, for his own sake, has recourse to Psalm 22. Indeed, how often have many of us in our sufferings found in Scripture great consolation and vindication. Perhaps we will say, "This scripture text expresses exactly how I'm feeling!" In this there is a kind of consolation that God knows what I am experiencing and that others have endured similar trials. We also experience consolation as Scripture teaches us how God has delivered others and will in due time deliver us too. Surely, at the human level, Psalm 22 consoled Jesus in these and other ways. What is the Church's stance on artificial life support? May a Catholic be removed from it?3/13/2024 If, by artificial life support, you mean something such as a ventilator, the use of such machines is not required when they are no longer therapeutic, and the person is certainly dying. Neither is it required to revive a person who is approaching death each time their heart stops.
Allowing someone to die whom the Lord is certainly calling is morally very different from directly causing a person to die, which is what euthanasia advocates claim the right to do. One exception to the non‐required use of artificial means is that food and water, even if supplied by a tube, should still be administered to those who are approaching death. Only in rare cases, where the major organs of the body have already shut down and can no longer process food or fluids, can this treatment be discontinued. |
Author
"Building our Catholic faith one question at a time." Archives
July 2024
|