Ive been teaching classes for the archdiocese's catechists' certification program these past two weeks.
We're taking this week off for July 4th celebrations.
So. . .this is a good week to Ask the Friar Questions!
Go for it. . .
P.S. Ask them soon b/c the Master of the Order is visiting the priory on Friday. . .
___________________Follow HancAquam and visit the Kindle Wish List and the Books & Things Wish List
Click on St. Martin and donate to the Dominicans! ----->
After the Resurrection why was Mary Magdalene admonished against touching the Lord but He then invited Thomas to probe His wounds?
ReplyDeleteMary believed and Thomas didn't. That's my first thought. There may have been something about the resurrected body that wasn't "ready" for touching early on.
DeleteI have a difficult question. It relates to the marrital privilege. My confessor has made it clear that I am not to submit to anything immoral. If my husband practices a form of contraception even if it is in the middle of the act - I am not to submit. I am told I should know my husband is thinking of using contraceptive actions. It is true - I have serious doubts even when he promises me otherwise that once the act is consummated it won't end in contraception. I agree that we have serious reasons to avoid having more children. So I know up front the intent is not to have more children for which we use NFP but my husband still ensures there is no chance for God to act. My question is thus: all information considered am I justified - am I required- to insist on marital continence ? I I have believed for some time that the answer is yes. It seems to me that even NFP if it is intended to use permanently to avoid pregnancy is tantamount to contraception. It seems ro me that that is takes life giving love and reduces is to lust. But my husband hounds me, punishes me with silence and withdrawal of his friendship, withholds cash when I insist on continence. I need to know if I'm justified.
ReplyDeleteI'm assuming here that he's withdrawing. You have no control over your husband's actions. So long as you are not agreeing to sex using artificial means (condom, etc.), it seems to me that you're OK. As married couple you are required to be open to children. . .this doesn't mean that you must intend to have children every time you have sex. It just means that you are doing nothing artificial to prevent pregnancy. If he consistently refuses to be open to having children, then I think you are justified (i.e., not being sinful) in insisting on continence.
DeleteThank you from my humbled heart. I will pray for you.
DeleteWhy are so many Catholics susceptible to the siren's call of socialism when history shows unequivocably that it destroys free will and bankrupts nations? Isn't free will a gift from God? Shouldn't all Catholics be Patriots espousing Liberty?
ReplyDeleteReading Acts 2 should help with this. We are communitarian at our core--one Body. Within the Church, we are "socialists" of a sort. However, socialism as it has been practiced in secular contexts has always been an enemy of the Church. Marxism can be understood as a naturalized Christianity--all the social aspects of the faith w/o the supernatural elements. In the Europe, the history of church-state relations has been one of close cooperation. In Germany, for example, the gov't collects a tax for the admin of the Church! In the US, we've dropped this model and set up a Christianized constitutional republic based on liberal democratic notions of the individual freedom. The constant struggle for the Catholic is btw the temptations of American-style individualism and obedience to the Church. Most contemporary dissenters on the Left have wholly adopted the American model of freedom against the Catholic model of freedom. Catholics do espouse liberty. Just not the Enlightenment notion of liberty as "freedom from."
DeleteThank you. I have to disagree somewhat. Many seem to confuse what America is supposed to be. The 'notions' of individual freedom that you speak of were always said by the Founders to be tempered by a virtuous and educated people. It was never meant to be an every man for himself anarchy. I believe that this actually fits quite well into the teachings of Christ. Secondly, Marxism does not have the social aspects of Christianity. Karl Marx was borderline insane, he neglected his own children. Marxism is not about the people at all, that is the big lie of socialism. Marxism is about power, it is about the enlightened few dispensing the goods and capital among the many in exchange for submission. It is evil and has resulted in the deaths of millions. To compare in even a small way this ideological Hell to the Church is in fact quite offensive in my estimation. One of the modern lies of Socialism is that it just hasn't been done properly so if we try again but do it right it will work. Attempting equality on earth by spreading misery throughout is no match for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Respectfully.
DeleteKDR, one of the central tenets of Marxism is taken from Act 2.42ff. . .to each according to his need, etc. I have no illusions about the evils of Marxism. I was a Marxist for many years. The system has many of the hallmarks of a Christian utopianism: communitarian ethos, eschatological outlook, need for temporary hierarchy before the eschaton, etc. Chesterton (?) said that Christianity has not been tried and found wanting but never really tried! Same can be said for Marxism, I think. Most of what comes out of Marxist theory is wonderful; however, it denies a basic truth of our faith: the falleness of human nature. . .in fact, it denies the existence of a "human nature" as such. This mistake makes Marxism into a fantasy.
DeleteThank you. That is interesting. I guess I am just repulsed by the 'collective salvation' attitude that pervades Marxism. I believe that we are all individuals and should be free to express our individual selves, reap the harvest of our individual labors and worship our God in our individual way which for me includes individual charity, not forced charity. Marx was completely against the individual; therefore it's difficult for me to embrace that 'what comes out of Marxist theory' is wonderful. I think the American Founders had a much better idea. It too has barely been tried! :-) Anyway, great discussion. Thanks and may God Bless.
DeleteKeith, "collective salvation" is found in the faith too. The Church is saved as a body. The whole "Me and Jesus" thing is very Protestant. The individualism you are describing is part and parcel of the Enlightenment co-option of the Catholic notion that every person is created in the imago Dei. For us, individuals are certainly important but we grow in holiness within a community of believers, serving one another. The American experiment in republican constitutionalism allows Catholics to believe and worship as we see fit. But within the Church, we are anything but autonomous individuals doing as we please. This is one of the reasons Catholics were seen as threat to the nation in the 19th c. and why are a threat to the Statists now.
DeleteIndeed sir. I apologize, my Protestant roots are showing! (Raised Southern Methodist) I understand that Christ admonishes us to love our brother and to assist the poor, but I always read it on an individual basis not community. Our salvation is based upon our personal acceptance of Christ as our Lord and saviour, not through our works, correct? Can you give me passages which support collective salvation or are you speaking more of a Catholic doctrine? I hope you don't think I am being too argumentative, I don't intend to be. I am a very curious person by nature. Thank you very much for your time.
DeleteJesus rarely addresses his teaching to an individual as an individual. In the Catholic tradition, we "accept Jesus Christ as our personal Lord and Savior" at baptism and again every time we participate in the Eucharist. Christ's redemption is certainly personal but it is also communal. Without individuals there is no community; however, without community, individuals are just free-floating souls. Paul is clearest on the notion of the Body of Christ--one Body, one Head of the Body. What Catholics mean by "Church" is not what Protestants mean by "denomination." The Church is not a denomination. The Church is the Body of Christ. . .so, if you are member of the Body, then, by definition, you are among the redeemed. Though that redemption may be lost in various ways.
DeleteNo apologies necessary!
Thank you sir. This has been very instructive. It has exposed an ignorance on my part into the differences between the Catholic church and the Protestants. I have always simply accepted it was a more structural and political split. After all, in my Methodist faith we always proclaim to believe in 'The Holy Roman Catholic Church'. I am still quite uncomfortable with the extent to which otherwise lovely people will embrace what is easily researched to be so destructive. To me a community is like minded people, all of whom have to some extent embraced their beliefs on a personal level (the church), as opposed to a group that has been indoctrinated to believe A, while B is obviously the truth (ideological groups such as Marxists). It seems to me that a large part of the problems world wide are people's propensity to accept instruction as opposed to researching as much as possible and coming to one's own conclusions. I do however, have great faith in humanity, to be both sinners but also capable of grand and wonderful kindess and resiliency. Thanks again for the discussion. May God Bless...
DeleteKeith, during my early teen years, my family attended a UMC. The expression of faith you refer to is part of the Nicene Creed: "one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church," catholic here refers to universal not Roman Catholic. I would love to hear a Methodist congregation say that it believes in the Holy Roman Catholic Church!
DeleteWhat is the Church's rule about priests wearing civilian clothes instead of clerical garb?
ReplyDeleteNot sure about secular clergy. It seems to go diocese by diocese. For religious, our ordinary clothing is the habit (if we have one). This rule tends to go person by person. Religious of a Certain Generation are dedicated to the false notion that a religious habit marks them out as Odious Authority Figures Who Scare Folks Away and they refuse to wear the habit for any reason other than liturgical celebrations; IOW, the habit becomes a vestment for them. I've other lame excuses: It's clumsy; I get it dirty too easily; Nobody knows what it means. And my personal favorite from OP's: "People here in the South might think I'm a Klansman." My personal pet peeve is seeing OP's who serve in a parish wearing secular clerical suits.
DeleteRegarding the celebration of the Liturgy: are you a "say the black, do the red" kind of guy, or do you think ad-libbing is OK as long it is within the "spirit" of the guidelines? Why do you do what you do?
ReplyDeleteI'm shocked--SHOCKED, I say--that you need to ask this question! I'm not prissy about liturgy, but I do pray the black and do the red. I keep things solemn w/o being mechanical. When I see the younger guys with their hands steepled in front of the chests and their lips closed so tight that they're white, I think, "Here come the Mass Sharks!"
Delete"Here come the Mass Sharks" That's pretty funny!
DeleteWell, there is an ulterior motive at play in my question ;-) - and a follow up: Do you think there is a danger in being too casual about liturgy? Can this casualness translate into a certain lack of respect, and a watering down of some of the basic tenets of our faith?
(I have been working through these questions on my own, for Liturgy/Eucharist are very important to me, and I am occasionally disturbed at the direction things seem to go when liturgy is approached with too much of a casual attitude - certainly "Mass Sharks" could go too far the other way, too, but I've never actually seen that!)
The central problem with the Church in the last 40 yrs is the dumbing-down of the liturgy. We stopped expecting Catholics to stretch a bit on Sundays and everything else relaxed to the point of being useless. Too many priests think the Mass is all about them--their performance, their ego, their needs, their politics. The new translation was just one move by the Holy Father to move the liturgy back into the possession of the whole Church and take it away from the whims of Fr. Hollywood.
DeleteThanks - all I know is that when God hit me upside the head with a 2X4 three years ago and said "Get thyself back to Mass!" I was incredibly shocked with the change that had occurred in 20 years. All I could trace it to was the manner in which the liturgy was celebrated here - my sweet-home-Alabama parish was fairly conservative, even for the 70s/80s, and being a strange child I had taught myself Latin and confiscated my Mother's 1962 Missal by the time I was about 8 or 9 years old :-). I figured it could have just been me, too!
DeleteWhat are you serving Fr. Master for dinner?
ReplyDeleteChitlings with pork gravy.
DeleteActually, I don't know. Our chef hasn't revealed the menu yet.
A friend called: her brother wants to have his son baptized and for her to be the godmother. She's thrilled, but ... she asked what his wife thought and he said she's fine with him doing whatever he wants but she's going to raise him to also be a practicing Hindu. My friend pointed out you can't be both Hindu and Catholic and the brother asked why not.
ReplyDeleteWe're both having trouble getting past "WHY didn't you discuss this before you got married?" I believe they were married in a Hindu ceremony, but definitely not blessed in the church or any premarital Catholic counseling.
Can she even serve as a godparent in good conscience? Anything helpful she can read or suggest to her brother to read? I'm already praying for the little fellow; I have to remember to find out his name.
Marie
"You cannot serve two Masters." You're either a Catholic or a Hindu. It's possible to be a Hindu and something else, but you can't be Catholic and something else. The baptism liturgy requires the parents and godparents to vow to raise the child in the Church with the Catholic faith. This necessarily excludes teaching him to be a Hindu. If the parents weren't married in the Church, then why are they wanting to baptize the child in the Church?
DeleteI don't think she can serve as a godparent in good conscience. If she reads the text of the baptism liturgy, she'll see why.
Your answer confirms my friend's hunch.
Delete_They_ aren't wanting to baptize the poor boy. The dad wants to and the mom is willing to let him because she doesn't think it will harm the baby's Hindu faith.
My guess is the mom wasn't willing to be married in the Catholic church and dad didn't think it was a big deal as long as they were legally married. But just enough of his religion classes stuck that he knew he was supposed to have his kids baptized.
I understand you can't be both Hindu and Catholic - I'm not sure I could match each commandment to its number, but the 1st I certainly can. On the other hand, here's a father who wants to raise his son Catholic as best as he understands it - a chance (albeit a small one and at great cost to the child forced to chose and to the marriage as the parents compete for the child) to prevent the child from being Hindu - and we are saying to him you can't have him baptized under these conditions. Are the only circumstances in which the child could be baptized are the mom converts, the mom dies, the parents divorce, or the child grows up and requests it? That seems harsh.
I've already had one discussion with my own kids about the importance of discussing things before getting married. More are needed I'm sure - once is never enough for things to sink in.
Marie
Marie, the child shouldn't be deprived of baptism b/c the parents didn't do their due diligence in discussing their responsibilities. I took your question to be about whether or not your friend--in good conscience--could stand as godmother given these circumstances, not whether or not the child should be baptized. The trick is to change the circumstances! Of course, that's the parents' job. They need to be better informed about the faith and their obligations in raising a Catholic child. Ideally, they will find an orthodox priest who will lead them through the liturgy, explaining as he goes, what's required. We can charitably assume that most people don't relish the thought of standing in a sacred place and vowing to do something while at the same time having no intention of doing that something!
DeleteIf I were your friend, I'd sit down with the couple and carefully explain my dilemma. No accusations or finger-wagging. . .just a honest, heart-to-heart about the importance of integrity for Catholics asked to godparents. And then hope/pray that this witness is enough to bring the parents to conclude that a child baptized into the Church should be raised in the Church.
What are the proper actions to take if a Host is dropped or the Precious Blood gets spilled? I'd been raised that dropping a Host to the floor was just short of disastrous and to be avoided at all costs (isn't that why altar boys used to hold the plate under a communicant's chin?). Yet at my parish there have been several instances when this happened, all that was done was for the priest to walk over pick up and consume the Host after all parishoners had received and gone back to the pews. In a more recent incident some of the Precious Blood got slopped over the edge of the chalice at a weekday Mass. The response to this was for one of the regulars to get a towel and (very assiduously) mop the tiles. Is this an unacceptably lackadaisical response and how would I diplomatically bring it to the pastor's attention (he was the priest who walked over and consumed the Host off the floor at one Mass, so he's a part of the possible problem)?
ReplyDeleteSub, there's no proper procedure as such. If you drop the Host, you pick it up. If you spill the Blood, you wipe it up. The cloth used for wiping should be laundered like any other cloth used on the altar. I've dropped Hosts before. . .when my arm cramps and my hand starts shaking on the 500th "Body of Christ." There's no need to stop communion and cause a commotion.
DeleteOkay, thanks. Another myth perpetuated by Sister Mary Tarantula debunked. I'll rest easy now.
DeleteHey, friar, when the Master comes to visit, will you please tell him to stop wearing his habit so that the collar of his button-down shirt or his black turtleneck sticks out!?? Every pic of him has this affectation in it. Drives me nuts.
ReplyDeleteUmmmm. . .prolly not.
DeleteSome of these men like to let their secular shirt collars (and shirt cuffs, too, if long sleeved shirts are being worn) show to communicate that they don't really mean what the habit represents but it is a costume covering up their "real" clothing (secular clothing) because it seems to be expected of them at the moment.
DeleteDidn't think you would. So much for speaking Veritas to power :) But really, it's so 60's and tacky. Makes it seem as if his habit is costume over his real clothes.
ReplyDeleteYeah, I have no interest in setting up irrigation stations in the Sudan.
Delete