Reading the Bible is of course to be encouraged. The problem is not reading, it is interpreting. If in the past priests once encouraged the faithful to be cautious in reading the Bible, it was only to protect them from the Protestant tendency of private interpretation, which leads to a lot of divisions. That priests ever did discourage the faithful from reading the Bible is exaggerated in terms of its extent and severity. 
 
However, any such warnings ought to be seen in the light of what private interpretation has wrought: namely some 30,000 different denominations of Protestants all claiming biblical authority for their differing views. 
 
Today, Catholics are strongly encouraged to read and pray with their Bible, but to strive an conform their understanding of the text to Church teaching and norms of Catholic Biblical interpretation articulated in the Catechism.

I am unaware that Pope Francis has used this phrase. However, it is a rather common expression today among priests and theologians. It describes the unfortunately common reality of many Catholics in the pews who have received all their Sacraments, and may even faithfully attend Mass each Sunday and go to confession at least once a year, but they have never really met Jesus Christ or encountered his presence powerfully. 
 
Sadly, many Catholics, often due to poor catechesis, reduce the sacraments to rituals, rather than to living and real encounters with the Lord Jesus, who himself is the true celebrant of every Sacrament. The purpose of all the Sacraments is to sanctify us, and in particular ways, to lead us deeper and deeper into a life changing and transformative relationship with Jesus Christ. They are to put us in living, conscious contact with Jesus, so that we see our lives being changed. 
 
But the all-too-common experience of many Catholics is that Sacraments are only vaguely appreciated in this way. Many see them as tedious rituals, rather than transformative realities. Too many seek the shortest Mass almost as if it were more like a flu shot, a kind of “necessary evil,” to be dispensed with as quickly and painlessly as possible. Confession too is avoided. 
 
Very few Catholics come to Mass expecting to be transformed. In a way, people put more faith in Tylenol than the Eucharist since, when they take Tylenol, they expect something to happen, they expect the pain to go away and healing to be induced. But too many Catholics do NOT expect anything like this from the Holy Communion with Jesus. 
 
This is what is meant to be sacramentalized, but unevangelized. It is to be faithful to the pew and to the Sacraments but to lack the evangelical zeal, joy and transformation one would expect from a more fruitful reception of the Sacraments. It is to go through the motions but not really get anywhere. It is to receive Jesus but not really experience him in any meaningful manner. 
 
Pastors, parents and Catechists need to work to overcome what amounts to a lack of deep faith in, and experience of, Jesus. Far from denigrating the Sacraments, the phrase seeks to underscore the truer and fuller reality of the Sacraments, which are not mere rituals, but powerful realities if received fruitfully.

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.

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.