September 2005 – Page 7

Speaking At A Protestant Chapel

A reader writes:

I am a fauclty member at a private college associated with a Protestant church. I’m a convert to the Catholic Church.

There is a chapel service two days a week here and the opportunity has come up for me to speak at this service. Am I allowed to speak at a service like this?

Yes. Canon law does not prevent you from speaking if you are invited to do so.

If so is what are my obligations with regard to what I reveal to the assembled people?

You must not say anything contrary to the Catholic faith. Within that constraint, you should seek to deliver the kind of talk that your hosts expect. (E.g., if you are asked to speak on a particular topic or Scripture passage, you should do so.)

In addition, to the extent you can (without endangering your ability to make a living, for example) you should seek to introduce them to aspects of the truth (the Catholic faith) that they may not have considered. This may involve revealing the fact that you are a Catholic or it may not.

If you perceive that the topic you are asked to speak on could draw you into areas that would be problematic (e.g., if you couldn’t talk about the topic without getting into a subject that would cause you to lose your job) then you could ask for a different topic, a different day (i.e., one with a different planned topic), or simply decline the invitation to speak.

That’s about the best I can do with the limited information at hand (I don’t know, for example, whether people at the college would freak out upon learning that you are Catholic and demand your resignation or firing; that’s been known to happen at some Protestant schools, even when the administration is initially supportive of Catholic faculty members). The bottom line is: Do what good you can and be prudent as you do so.

Or as Our Lord put it: "Be wise as serpents and innocent as doves" (Matt. 10:16).

Holy Envy?

My wife has always been drawn to a particular genre of non-fiction in which people struggle against great difficulties, especially physical or mental disabilities. She has read dozens of books in which the main character wrestles with something like autism, Down syndrome, cerebral palsy, blindness or some other malady (though disasters, abuse and hard pioneer life count also).

I have read a number of the books she has around the house and have learned to really appreciate several, not just as interesting stories, but as good, well-written books.

One such book that I can recommend is called "Karen". It is the story of Karen Killilea, who was born with cerebral palsy. It was written by her mother, Marie Killlilea, in 1952. In the book we see how Karen fights both her physical disability and the sometimes callous response of the society around her. There is a bonus, in that the Killileas are a warmly devout Catholic family and the book touches on very relevent themes, such as the intrinsic value of all human life. The book is available at Amazon.com, and you can find more information about the Killileas HERE.

Lately I have wondered what it is about such stories that is so compelling. Everyone has enough trouble of their own, why read about people who have it so much worse than we do?

One good reason to is that these stories throw into sharp relief the virtues that we need to overcome the hard things in our own life. Our admiration for Anne Sullivan’s tenacity in teaching Helen Keller helps us to be a little more tenacious in pursuit of some worthy goal, etc…

Another reason is that we are often tempted to view our own lives as dull and prosaic. Our own struggles don’t seem quite as dramatic as those of people whom we perceive to be "in the trenches", and who struggle under great burdens. It is part of what G.K. Chesterton called the desire for "an active and imaginative life, picturesque and full of a poetical curiosity". In a sense, we envy these people, we covet their stark, tremendous struggles because we are tired of our own small and tepid ones. We don’t often see ourselves as heroes.

But not everyone might agree. It occurred to me that, in our daily battle against the World, the Flesh and the Devil, the angels may view us in a way that is similar to the way we see the heroes in these books; these people who contend with crushing misfortune, or constant deprivation. The fallen world we live in puts us "in the trenches" in a way that makes even our mundane troubles more vital and heroic.

The idea that our lives are dull and meaningless is a lie from the pits of hell. The truth is, every decision we make is of eternal importance.

Not that the angels would envy our place in the battle. If I understand my Bible, they are certainly in the thick of it themselves, and have no lack of excitement. But, if there could be such a thing as holy envy, the angels might envy our role as overcomers. Even in heaven, a scar may be a badge of honor.

An angel might say to me one day, "Tell us again how the grace of God helped you to overcome your sloth, thoughtlessness and all-around deficient faith!".

And I’ll tell them.

Bloogling

Google, the omnipresent search engine that allows a surfer to navigate the Internet, has announced that it has added a new function that will enable users to search web logs:

"Google Inc. has added to its menu of search alternatives the option to search through the ever-popular online journals called web logs, or blogs.

"The new search service, which went live on Wednesday, is in test, or beta, form, and can be accessed through a variety of Web addresses, including http://www.google.com/blogsearch and http://search.blogger.com/.

"’Google is a strong believer in the self-publishing phenomenon represented by blogging, and we hope Blog Search will help our users to explore the blogging universe more effectively, and perhaps inspire many to join the revolution themselves,’ a frequently-asked-questions (FAQ) page on the new service reads.

"The new service doesn’t limit its searches to Google’s own Blogger service, and the index is continually updated and includes blogs written in English and other languages, including French, Italian, German, Spanish, Chinese and Japanese, according to the FAQ."

GET THE STORY.

Dibs on the credit for describing searching web logs through Google as "bloogling."

Priest Interrupting Mass

A reader writes:

Please, please clarify for me. There is a priest who celebrates mass in our area who has been known to stop saying the mass until small children have been quietened down. Is this correct to do so?

It depends. If the kids are screaming bloody murder so that nobody in the congregation can hear him then a brief pause would be in order. On the other hand, if they aren’t being that loud then he should do the best he can to carry on until the children can be quieted down or taken outside or to the cry room. He should not dramatically halt the Mass at the first sign of a child outburst, as if to shame the parents. But if the kids are carrying on so loudly that he can’t be heard then it would not be out of place to pause.

I was always under the impression that once the liturgical act of the mass had begun the priest was obliged to continue, regardless of the interruption.

No, the priest can pause the celebration for a reasonable cause (e.g., an airplane going over) or even stop it entirely in cases of grave necessity (e.g., an earthquake causes the church to nearly collapse; gunmen burst into the sanctuary, as happened over at a parish in Pakistan a few years ago).

This same priest has also used the pulpit for a personal rant at certain people in the congregation on a subject that is completely irrelevant to the gospel and epistle – is this also acceptable?

Not as you’ve describe it. Priests shouldn’t be doing personal rants at all from the pulpit. The homily is not the priest’s personal rant time.

However, if the pastor is aware of important pastoral situations that the congregation as a whole needs to be warned about then it is legitimate for him to address them from the pulpit even if the pastoral problem does not occur at a time that makes it possible to link it to the readings. In doing such things, however, he should phrase himself so as to minimize embarrassment to particular members of the congregation to the greatest extent possible.

I would really appreciate your advice on this.

Beyond the above, I don’t know how much advice I have to give. If you’re one of the priest’s best buds (which it doesn’t sound like) then you could more easily and gently offer him advice or constructive criticism than if you only know him more distantly.

If you aren’t close to him, the best thing is likely to be to grit your teeth and bear it, praying for him when he acts up or you get annoyed at the thought of him doing so.

If you do talk to him, putting things to him–as gently as humanly possible–in terms of how his behavior makes you and others feel is probably the best way to go.

After all, you don’t want a rant directed against you next Sunday. (Though if there is one, it’s time to talk to the bishop.)

Catholic-Orthodox Sacramental Issues

A reader writes:

I have a friend who is Greek Orthodox. Our questions are about being a sponsor for a Baptism, a witness at a wedding and about receiving the Eucharist.

– Will the Roman Rite accept Baptism godparents or wedding witnesses who are Greek Orthodox, and vice versa?

Here’s what The Principles and Norms on Ecumenism say about Catholics and Orthodox serving as godparents at each others’ baptisms:

Because of the close communion between the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches, it is permissible for a just cause for an Eastern faithful to act as godparent; together with a Catholic godparent, at the baptism of a Catholic infant or adult, so long as there is provision for the Catholic education of the person being baptized, and it is clear that the godparent is a suitable one.

A Catholic is not forbidden to stand as godparent in an Eastern Orthodox Church, if heshe is so invited. In this case, the duty of providing for the Christian education binds in the first place the godparent who belongs to the Church in which the child is baptized [no. 98].

And here’s what the norms say about wedding witnesses:

136. Members of other Churches or ecclesial communities may be witnesses at the celebration of marriage in a Catholic church. Catholics may also be witnesses at marriages which are celebrated in other Churches or ecclesial communities.

When documents of this sort refer to "other churches," they have in mind churches with validly ordained bishops, which includes the Orthodox. "ecclesial communities" are those Christian communities without validly ordained bishops, which means (mostly) Protestants.

– I believe that I have heard that in the absence of a Catholic Church, the Roman Rite permits reception of the Eucharist at Orthodox churches, including the Greek Orthodox, but I am not sure. My friend does not know if the Greek Orthodox would permit him to attend a Roman Rite church in the absence of a Greek Orthodox church, in order to meet the Sunday obligation. Do you have some insight into this?

My understanding is that discipline on this question varies depending on which Eastern Orthodox church one is talking about. He would have to consult his own church to find out what their practice is.

For its part, the Catholic Church allows Eastern Orthodox to receive Communion in particular cases. The Code of Canon Law states:

Can. 844 §3. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments of
penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick licitly to members of Eastern
Churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church if they seek
such on their own accord and are properly disposed.

Saying that Catholic ministers administer these sacraments licity means that it is lawful (licit) for priests to do so on the indicated conditions.

"Properly disposed" means the usual conditions that one needs to fulfill in order to receive Communion, such as being in a state of grace and having fasted for an hour before Communion.

Hope this helps!

Bad Patch Job

Have you ever seen commercials for birth control devices? A series of commercials that particularly annoys me is the one that run for a contraceptive patch that a woman wears on her skin to prevent conception. The commercials that I’ve seen usually feature some hip young female doctor sagely counseling a young woman about the wonders of the patch. Of particular annoyance is the montage of shots of happy women who are delighted with life, presumably because they are customers of the patch. One shot in the montage is of two young girls who can’t be older than twelve.

All is not well in Contraceptive Wonderland, though. The maker of the Ortho Evra patch, Johnson & Johnson, is being sued by a woman who suffered a pulmonary embolism that she asserts was caused by using the patch for seven months.

"Johnson and Johnson’s Ortho-McNeil Pharmaceutical Inc. unit is being sued on behalf of a woman who had been using the company’s Ortho Evra contraceptive patch.

"The suit, filed by Parker & Waichman LLP, alleges the woman suffered a pulmonary embolism after using the patch for seven months.

"The law firm said Monday, after the financial markets had closed, that recent reports have indicated that the risk of developing blood clots, pulmonary embolism, heart attack and stroke may be significantly higher with the Ortho Evra patch than with oral-contraceptive use.

"The firm alleges that Ortho-McNeill was aware of the increased medical risk and failed to adequately warn patients.

"Ortho Evra was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in April 2002."

GET THE STORY.

Isn’t it interesting how the physical consequences of morally-problematic actions seem to "mirror" the morally-problematic action?

The Salvation Of Baptized Infants

Down yonder, a reader writes:

Infants cannot make a moral choice while on earth, as they have yet to achieve the faculties of reason. Yet, can someone enter the eternal presence of God unless they make a free act of the will to do so? Aren’t all creatures, humans and angels, subject to a test? It seems possible (or even likely) that babies are given, upon death, the faculties of reason, and are presented with the choice of the Angels: a once in a lifetime decision, God or self.

Hence, it seems they could choose hell, even if they were baptised. So we can’t know (not with absolute certainty, anyway) that they are in Heaven. We should still offer them to the mercy of God.

Agree? Disagree?

The Church teaches that God has promised to give his grace through the sacraments as long as the recipient does not place a barrier in the way of this (for example, receiving Communion in a state of mortal sin, going to confession when you have no intention of repenting of your sins). As long as one does not block the grace of the sacrament, one will receive it.

Consequently, infants receive God’s grace through baptism since they are incapable of rejecting it. This means that if they die in infancy, without having grown to the point that they can commit mortal sin, their salvation is assured.

It therefore follows that not all creatures must make a personal act of faith in God during life in order to be united with God in the afterlife. Only those who have the use of reason are required to do this. Since infants do not have the use of reason, this is not required of them.

Regarding infants who die without baptism, the Catechism states:

CCC 1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them," allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

Radio, Radio

There is a kind of archetypal image in American culture, of the young teenager, hidden in their room with a battery-powered transistor radio, listening to music that was very, very different from what they heard in their parent’s home. People who grew up in the fifties still recall how hearing Little Richard or Elvis opened up for them a new world (for good or ill).

I still have a vivid memory of hearing Paul McCartney and Wings’ "Jet" on a similar little radio and thinking that my life had changed forever. Having grown up on Hank Williams, church music and Broadway tunes, hearing the Beatles or Stevie Wonder simply was a whole ‘nother universe. It was much more than music, it was the common culture of my generation. Listening to American Top Forty on Sunday afternoons was like picking up a secret signal from Underground Command Central.

But The Rock and Roll became big business and listening to the radio inevitably became boring. ClearChannel is, for me, sure proof of the second law of thermodynamics; the universe is destined to dissipate and run down, becoming a thinly dispersed, dark cloud of matter at a uniform temperature just above absolute zero (unless Jesus comes back!).

So it was kind of cool to find myself delicately twiddling with the nobs on my radio tuner at home, the other day, patiently trying to pull in the weak signal of a new Catholic station in our area. It reminded me of how I had to finesse that old transistor to try and get my favorite AM station as a kid.

Relevant Radio is a growing network of Catholic stations across the U.S., carrying Catholic talk programming. Radio worth listening to! It’s like Underground Command Central all over again, but without the acne.

We are blessed to have a parishoner who leaped out in faith and got the station (KDUA – 96.5 FM) up and running. They broadcast from our parish hall (Rogers, Arkansas) and have only a few precious watts of signal power, but have plans to beef up in the future.

In the mean time, I get to hear faithful Catholic programs, including Fr. John "Tell It Like It Is" Corapi and Catholic Answers Live!, which frequently features our favorite apologist, Jimmy "Not Bad for a Texan" Akin. The static, for the time being, just adds to the counter-cultural thrill.

You can find out more about Relevant Radio at their WEBSITE, including broadcast schedules and locations.
Start praying! Maybe Relevant Radio will come to your area, too.

March Of The Red State Penguins

The Gray Lady, in an editorial inexplicably placed in the New York Times‘ Science section, is bemused over the success of the film documentary March of the Penguins, noting in wonder that political conservatives have taken a shine to the film’s affirmation of such traditional values as monogamy and pro-life commitment. After Michael Moore’s anti-America screed Fahrenheit 9/11, March of the Penguins has become the second highest-grossing documentary ever.

"[O]f all the reactions [March of the Penguins] has evoked, perhaps the most surprising is its appeal to conservatives. They are hardly its only audience; the film is the second highest grossing documentary of all time, behind Fahrenheit 9/11" [because, in the World According to the Gray Lady, there are not enough Red Staters to dance on the head of a pin, much less turn a film into a blockbuster].

"But conservative groups have turned its stirring depiction of the mating ordeals of emperor penguins into an unexpected battle anthem in the culture wars" [which liberals didn’t dream of doing with Fahreheit 9/11].

"March of the Penguins, the conservative film critic and radio host Michael Medved said in an interview, is ‘the motion picture this summer that most passionately affirms traditional norms like monogamy, sacrifice and child rearing.’

"Speaking of audiences who feel that movies ignore or belittle such themes, he added: ‘This is the first movie they’ve enjoyed since The Passion of the Christ. This is The "Passion of the Penguins".’ [Weirdly enough, there are sufficient numbers of Red State wackos to turn The Passion of the Christ into a record-breaking megahit — must have been since no one else would dream of contributing to that film’s success, right? — but the Red State wackos don’t have much to with the success of March of the Penguins because it has been too successful to depend on the money of Red State rubes, quoth the Gray Lady.]

"In part, the movie’s appeal to conservatives may lie in its soft-pedaling of topics like evolution and global warming. The filmmakers say they did not consciously avoid those topics — indeed, they say they are strong believers in evolutionary theory — but they add that they wanted to create a film that would reach as many people as possible." ["They wanted to create a film that would reach as many people as possible"? Wow, what a great idea for an industry that depends on audience appeal!]

GET THE STORY.

I haven’t yet seen March of the Penguins myself, but it sounds wonderful. I’ll have to send the Gray Lady a thank-you note for piquing my interest in this film by appealing to my Inner Conservative.

I Think I Made Him Mad

If so, I apologize, for that was not my intent.

I’m referring to Scott Richert of ChroniclesMagazine.Org, who has responded to my latest two posts in our exchange, HERE and HERE.

Mr. Richert appears not to wish to continue the exchange (he titles his second post "Final Thoughts in the Case of St. Thomas Aquinas, Leo XIII, Pius XI, et al. v. Jimmy Akin," and he refers to me "bring[ing] what remained of this conversation to a screeching halt").

Mr. Richert had requested that I do an analysis of the just price concept and how it compared to my own views, and in my previous post I did so. In his reply (the second link above), Mr. Richert does not engage my analysis on the merits but lodges a number of complaints against me as an author.

Continue reading “I Think I Made Him Mad”