Category: Theology

Catholic Paranormal Investigations

These days, there are numerous ghost hunting and paranormal TV shows. A few examples include Ghost Hunters, Ghost Adventures, Kindred Spirits, Paranormal Lockdown, and Help! My House Is Haunted.

Frankly, these shows are silly. Shows like this are not taken seriously by competent paranormal investigators.

However, what is a Catholic to make of the subject of paranormal investigations itself?

What Does Paranormal Mean?

The term paranormal is a new one. It was coined around 1905, and it indicates something that is beyond the normal. In Greek, para means things like “beyond,” “beside,” and “alongside,” so paranormal experiences are those that go beyond or are beside normal experiences.

This only raises another question: What counts as “normal”? The answer—for purposes of this term—is those experiences our modern, Western culture considers normal.

In many other cultures, experiences that we would consider paranormal (e.g., having a ghost show up) would be considered entirely normal. Indeed, in our own culture’s history, ghost appearances were considered quite normal, even if they weren’t as common as other experiences.

But today, Western culture has decided that a whole bunch of experiences aren’t normal—e.g., experiences of visions, apparitions, ghosts, angels, demons, psychic abilities, UFOs, Bigfoot, and so on—so they all get lumped together as “paranormal.”

Catholics & the Paranormal

What attitude have Catholics traditionally taken toward these? They’ve actually been quite open.

The historic Christian understanding of ghosts is that most of them are souls in purgatory who are allowed to manifest to the living to take care of unfinished business, serve as warnings, or ask for prayers.

UFOs are new, but the Church has been quite open to the idea of aliens existing. In 1999, St. John Paul II reportedly was asked if there are any aliens, and he replied, “Always remember: They are children of God as we are” (Paul Thigpen, Extraterrestrial Intelligence and the Catholic Faith, p. 191).

Bigfoot is also new (at least to non-Native Americans), but we find Church Fathers open to the idea of strange, hairy, man-like creatures existing. St. Anthony and St. Jerome were both open to the idea of satyrs (in fact, St. Anthony reportedly met one; see Jerome, Life of Paul the Hermit 8).

When it comes to reported human abilities that today are classified as psychic—like precognition and psychokinesis—doctors of the Church including St. Augustine, Pope St. Gregory the Great, and St. Thomas Aquinas have weighed in on them. Augustine was open to precognition, and Gregory the Great and Aquinas positively believed in it, with Aquinas calling it “natural prophecy” to distinguish it from the supernatural prophecy that God gives.

Gregory also believed in psychokinesis (mind over matter) as a spiritual gift, and Aquinas held that it was a purely natural ability that could be used to injure another person (this was his explanation for the Evil Eye).

Beginning in the late 19th century, the modern science of parapsychology—which studies psychic functioning and life after death—was organized, and there have been respected Catholic parapsychologists like the English Jesuit Fr. Herbert Thurston (1856-1939) and the Austrian Cistercian abbot Fr. Alois Wiesinger (1885-1955).

Catholic Paranormal Investigations

When it comes to paranormal investigations themselves, a classic work dealing with the subject was written by Cardinal Prosper Lambertini (1675-1758), who reigned as Pope Benedict XIV from 1740 until his death.

The four-volume work, which is still used today, is titled Doctrina de servorum dei beatificatione et beatorum canonizatione (Latin, “Teaching on the Beatification of Servants of God and the Canonization of Blesseds”). The first three volumes of it have been translated into English under the title Heroic Virtue.

Meant to be used in the process of canonization, the work deals with subjects including how to evaluate private revelations and miracles—and how to determine whether reports of them have natural, paranormal, supernatural, or demonic causes.

Partially based on the principles it contains, the Church today has official procedures for conducting several types of paranormal investigations.

Apparitions & Private Revelations

The first is the investigation of private revelations. In 1978, the then-Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) published a set of guidelines for bishops on how to evaluate them. At first, this document was distributed only to bishops, but it leaked, and it was officially published by the CDF in 2011.

Summarizing the general thrust of the guidelines the Church uses, Benedict XVI stated, “The criterion for judging the truth of a private revelation is its orientation to Christ himself. If it leads us away from him, then it certainly does not come from the Holy Spirit, who guides us more deeply into the Gospel, and not away from it. Private revelation is an aid to this faith, and it demonstrates its credibility precisely because it refers back to the one public revelation” (Verbum Domini 14).

He also stated, “Ecclesiastical approval of a private revelation essentially means that its message contains nothing contrary to faith and morals; it is licit to make it public and the faithful are authorized to give to it their prudent adhesion. . . . It is a help which is proffered, but its use is not obligatory” (ibid.).

Miracle Investigations

A second type of paranormal investigation the Church conducts is miracle reports. This can happen—for example—when a Eucharistic miracle is reported in a parish, but it most normally happens in connection with causes for canonization.

The Dicastery for the Causes of Saints maintains a board of medical experts (not all of whom are Catholic)—known as the Consulta Medica—to examine healings that are proposed as miracles.

To conduct its work, the Consulta enlists physicians with expertise in particular medical conditions to determine if there is any scientific explanation for a healing.

“To ensure authenticity of medical miracles, the Consulta still follows the criteria established in 1734 by Cardinal Prospero Lambertini, the man who set down the foundational principles for judging modern sainthood causes. To begin with, the disease must be a serious one, considered difficult or impossible to cure. It must not be at a stage where it has run its course and spontaneous regression is possible. Pharmaceutical treatment should not have been used; if it has been, the medicine must be shown to have had no curative effect. The healing must be sudden and instantaneous. It must be complete, and not simply an improvement. It must not follow a physical crisis that could have precipitated a natural cure. Finally, there must be no relapse of the disease or associated infirmity” (John Thavis, The Vatican Prophecies, p. 189).

If these criteria are met and there is no scientific explanation for a healing, the matter is turned over to a panel of theological experts to consider its religious dimension and whether it can be confidently attributed to the intercession of a proposed saint.

Demonic Investigations

A third type of paranormal investigation the Church conducts involves reports of the demonic. There are a variety of ways that the demonic can manifest. Infestation occurs when one or more demons manifest in a specific location. Oppression occurs when they attack things in a person’s life. Vexation occurs when they attack his body. Obsession occurs when they attack his mind. And possession occurs when they take control of him.

As always, the Church applies critical thinking to these cases and does not just assume that a report actually involves the demonic.

Thus, for example, medical and psychological experts may be consulted to rule out the possibility of mental or physical illness being responsible for the report. There can be a variety of other natural causes, including imagination, misinterpretation, and hoax.

To exclude these as causes for a report of possession, something paranormal also needs to be happening. This might be displaying knowledge that the person should not have (e.g., speaking a language the person hasn’t studied or knowing that an object has been blessed) or performing a physical feat the person should not be capable of (e.g., superhuman strength or levitation).

However, just because something paranormal is happening doesn’t mean a demon is responsible. Speaking in tongues is a gift of the Holy Ghost, Samson was endowed with supernatural strength, and both St. Teresa of Avila and St. Joseph of Cupertino levitated.

Vatican exorcist Fr. Corrado Balducci (1923-2008) pointed out that cases of unusual knowledge could just be someone’s ESP (see his book The Devil), and Roman exorcist Fr. Gabriele Amorth (1925-2016) even used “sensitives” (what psychics are called in Italy) to help him investigate exorcism cases (see his book An Exorcist Explains the Demonic).

Therefore, something more is needed to show that an apparent possession is genuinely diabolical, and that something is if the possessing personality displays a marked aversion to the holy. If it can’t stand the name of Jesus or an icon of Mary or the recitation of prayers, then that provides evidence it is actually a demon.

Thus, if you (1) have an alternative personality manifesting through a person and (2) this personality is capable of doing preternatural things and (3) is markedly averse to the holy, you have a plausible case of demonic possession.

A Sophisticated Approach

We thus see that the Church has a sophisticated approach to the paranormal. Unlike the superstitious, it does not believe that all reported experiences are genuinely paranormal. Unlike hardcore skeptics, it does not simply dismiss them. And unlike some, it does not interpret them all as demonic.

It has an openminded but critical approach to them, and it even conducts its own paranormal investigations (albeit ones that are vastly better than what you see on TV ghost hunting shows).

In short, it seeks to apply to a variety of different experiences the basic principle that St. Paul applied to prophecy: “Test everything; hold fast what is good” (1 Thess. 5:21).

By the way, if you’re interested in subjects like this, you should check out my podcast Jimmy Akin’s Mysterious World. It’s in all the standard podcast apps/directories. You can also listen to the audio at Mysterious.fm, and you can watch the video version of the podcast (and my other videos) at YouTube.com/JimmyAkin.

Is Judas in Hell?

One of the key events of Holy Week is the betrayal of Jesus by Judas Iscariot—something many Christians are convinced caused Judas to go to hell. I used to be one of them.

However, several times recently, Church officials have stated that—even though hell is a real possibility humans can choose—the Church does not teach that any particular person is in hell.

For example, in his 1994 interview book Crossing the Threshold of Hope, John Paul II discussed who will go to hell and wrote:

The Church has never made any pronouncement in this regard. This is a mystery, truly inscrutable, which embraces the holiness of God and the conscience of man. The silence of the Church is, therefore, the only appropriate position for Christian faith. Even when Jesus says of Judas, the traitor, “It would be better for that man if he had never been born” (Matt. 26:24), his words do not allude for certain to eternal damnation (p. 139).

Similarly, in a 2006 audience, Benedict XVI said:

Even though he went to hang himself (cf. Matt. 27:5), it is not up to us to judge his gesture, substituting ourselves for the infinitely merciful and just God (October 18, 2006).

Despite these statements, it has long been commonly held that Judas is, in fact, damned. So how can we understand the traditional opinion in light of the possibility of Judas’s salvation that John Paul II and Benedict XVI hold out?

One approach is to review the evidence we have for Judas being in hell and seeing how conclusive it is.

A first type of evidence is something that many people may not be aware of: Data from exorcism cases.

Christians are familiar with the concept of exorcism being used for possession by demons—that is, fallen angels. However, there are also occasional reports of spirit possession by human souls.

In Judaism, such spirits are referred to as dybbuks. A dybbuk is “a disembodied human spirit that, because of former sins, wanders restlessly until it finds a haven in the body of a living person” (Brittanica.com).

Although dybbuks are more commonly associated with popular Jewish belief, they are also sometimes reported in Christian contexts, and that includes Judas. Exorcists periodically report that—during the course of the rite—one of the possessing spirits will identify itself as a former human, typically a famous sinner such as the emperor Nero or Judas Iscariot.

If a possessing spirit identifies itself as Judas and speaks truthfully, then that would support the idea that Judas is a lost soul.

The difficulty is the “and speaks truthfully” part. Demons—and any human allies they have in the possession racket—are working for “the father of lies” (John 8:44), which means that you can’t trust anything they say.

Consequently, the 1614 rite of exorcism—which is still in use—warns that the exorcist must “be on his guard against the arts and subterfuges which the evil spirits are wont to use in deceiving the exorcist” (n. 5). Further, it specifically warns that “neither ought he to give any credence to the devil if the latter maintains that he is the spirit of . . . a deceased party” (n. 14).

The Church does not have a teaching on whether damned souls can ever possess the living, so this is an open question theologically. However, because of how untruthful possessing spirits are, their identity claims are not a reliable form of evidence, and the Church has warned us not to pay heed to such claims.

I thus don’t think that we can rely on evidence from these cases to prove Judas is in hell.

Another source of evidence is the common opinion itself that Judas is damned, including by many Church Fathers.

The Holy Spirit guides Christian opinion—including the views of the Fathers—on matters of faith, and so this also could count as evidence for Judas’s damnation.

However, for it to be conclusive, two conditions would have to be met: (1) Judas’s damnation would have to be a matter of the Faith, and (2) the relevant parties would have to agree that this is definitively the case, meaning that there is absolutely no possibility of disputing it.

Neither of these seem fulfilled. For an infallible definition to occur, the members of the Magisterium (bishops teaching in union with the pope) must—at some point in time—come to a position where they are “in agreement on one position as definitively to be held” (Lumen Gentium 25).

However, John Paul II and Benedict XVI indicate that they have not done this. When John Paul II says (above) that “the Church has never made any pronouncement” on individuals who are in hell, including Judas, then that means it doesn’t have a teaching on this position, much less a definitive one.

Individuals—including many of the Fathers—may hold the opinion that Judas is in hell, but opinions—no matter how common—are not infallible Church teachings. Consequently, we can’t appeal to this kind of evidence as conclusive of Judas’s damnation.

What about the idea that this might be a matter of the Faith? Here we come to the subject of what Scripture teaches. The reason that many in Catholic history have held Judas is damned is because of what Scripture says, so does this give us conclusive evidence?

John Paul II and Benedict XVI have already responded to the two passages in Scripture that one might appeal to.

John Paul II dealt with the passage where Jesus said, “Woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! It would have been better for that man if he had not been born” (Matt. 26:24; cf. Mark 14:21), and the pope said that Jesus’ words “do not allude for certain to eternal damnation.”

This is true. While the warning is reasonably taken as meaning that Judas will go to hell because of what he has done, it—like biblical warnings in general about the consequences of sin—presupposes one thing: That the person does not repent (Jer. 18:7-10).

So if Judas were to heed the call, “Repent therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be blotted out” (Acts 3:19), then his sins would be blotted out.

Now here’s the thing: Matthew’s Gospel—the same one where Jesus warns of Judas’s fate—goes on to say this:

When Judas, his betrayer, saw that he was condemned, he repented and brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders, saying, “I have sinned in betraying innocent blood” (Matt. 27:3-4).

Matthew says that Judas repented! He recognized that he sinned and that Jesus was innocent, and he sought to return the money. When the priests refused to take it back, he threw it into the temple (27:5a), so that he would not profit from his sin. That sounds like a sincere repentance!

But what about what Judas did next? He hanged himself (27:5b), and this is the second text one might appeal to for Judas’s damnation. Even if he repented of having betrayed Jesus, wouldn’t he still go to hell because of his suicide?

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

We should not despair of the eternal salvation of persons who have taken their own lives. By ways known to him alone, God can provide the opportunity for salutary repentance. The Church prays for persons who have taken their own lives (2283).

Suicide does not always result in hell because a person may not be fully responsible for his action due to lack of knowledge, or psychological factors, and because “in ways known to him alone,” God may help the person to repent—even in the act of committing suicide itself.

Judas thus may have been so grieved by his offense that he wasn’t fully responsible for his suicide, or he may have repented of taking his own life while he was still hanging from his neck.

As Pope Benedict said, “Even though he went to hang himself, it is not up to us to judge his gesture, substituting ourselves for the infinitely merciful and just God.”

It thus appears that we don’t have conclusive proof that Judas is in hell, and there is still a ray of hope for him.

This Holy Week, let us thank God for his mercy upon all of us. It is a mercy that—in principle—might extend even to Judas.

 

Being Precise About Church Teaching on Hell

Pope Francis recently sparked a discussion when he told an Italian television program, “What I am going to say is not a dogma of faith but my own personal view: I like to think of hell as empty; I hope it is.”

I was not surprised he would have this view. It is common in some ecclesiastical circles and was proposed by theologian Hans Urs von Balthasar in his book Dare We Hope That All Men Be Saved?

Given how Pope Francis’s comments often function as a lightning-rod, I was not surprised by the discussion that followed, and one contribution was a recent article by Ralph Martin.

Although framed as a piece about what the Church teaches on hell, Martin spent much of it arguing for his own view, which is the traditional one, that hell is both a real possibility and an actual reality for many people. He explores this further in his book Will Many Be Saved?

I wish Martin well in arguing his case—and arguing it vigorously. The thought that hell might be a real but unrealized possibility is a comforting one that can be attractive to many today. However, Scripture contains serious warnings about hell that do not sound hypothetical in nature.

As a result, the theological field should not simply be ceded to what we moderns find comfortable and reassuring. If there is to be any reassessment of the traditional view of hell as an actual reality for many, Scripture’s statements need to be taken seriously, and both sides need to be argued vigorously.

(I’d note, in particular, that in his book von Balthasar never even addresses Luke 13:23-24, where in response to the question, “Lord, will those who are saved be few?” Jesus responds, “Strive to enter by the narrow door; for many, I tell you, will seek to enter and will not be able.”)

My sympathies are thus with Martin, but I would refine a few things about his article.

First, in regard to Pope Francis’s statement that what he was about to say was “not a dogma of faith,” Martin offers a definition of dogma that could suggest it is essentially connected with salvation. I would point out, by contrast, that in current theological jargon, a dogma is a truth that the Catholic Church has infallibly defined to be divinely revealed, whether or not it has any direct connection with salvation. (Culpably rejecting a dogma is a mortal sin; but the truth itself doesn’t have to have a direct connection with salvation.)

Second, there is a passage where Martin conveys a misleading impression about the views of Cardinal Avery Dulles. First, he says that “the traditional interpretation . . . . by the Church’s greatest theologians is that it is very likely that many people go [to hell],” then he identifies Dulles as “perhaps the leading American theologian of the 20th century,” and then he cites a 2003 article that Dulles wrote in First Things.

The problem is that Martin quotes a part of the article in which Dulles refers to several passages of Scripture and says, “Taken in their obvious meaning, passages such as these give the impression that there is a hell, and that many go there; more in fact, than are saved.” The impression is thus that Dulles is firmly in the line of “the Church’s greatest theologians” who believe that “many go there; more in fact, than are saved.”

However, this is not Dulles’s view! Dulles noted the obvious interpretation of various Bible passages without asserting that the obvious one is the only possible one. In fact, he concludes:

The search for numbers in the demography of hell is futile. God in His wisdom has seen fit not to disclose any statistics. Several sayings of Jesus in the Gospels give the impression that the majority are lost. Paul, without denying the likelihood that some sinners will die without sufficient repentance, teaches that the grace of Christ is more powerful than sin: “Where sin increased, grace abounded all the more” (Romans 5:20). Passages such as these permit us to hope that very many, if not all, will be saved.

All told, it is good that God has left us without exact information. If we knew that virtually everybody would be damned, we would be tempted to despair. If we knew that all, or nearly all, are saved, we might become presumptuous. If we knew that some fixed percent, say fifty, would be saved, we would be caught in an unholy rivalry. We would rejoice in every sign that others were among the lost, since our own chances of election would thereby be increased. Such a competitive spirit would hardly be compatible with the gospel.

Martin’s article thus conveys a misleading impression of Dulles.

What does the Church actually teach? This is found in the Catechism, which says, in part, “The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell” (CCC 1035).

The Church thus teaches that hell is a real possibility. If you die in mortal sin, you go there. But does the Church leave room for the idea that God might rescue all from mortal sin—even at the last moment?

The Catechism states: “The Church prays that no one should be lost: ‘Lord, let me never be parted from you.’ If it is true that no one can save himself, it is also true that God ‘desires all men to be saved’ (1 Tim 2:4), and that for him ‘all things are possible’ (Mt 19:26)” (CCC 1058).

The Catechism thus seems open to the possibility that God—for whom “all things are possible”—might be able to rescue all from mortal sin and thus hell might be empty.

This view seems to be permitted on other grounds. After von Balthasar proposed it in Dare We Hope, John Paul II named him a cardinal—specifically for his theological contributions—though von Baltazar died before the consistory.

Further, as Dulles notes in his 2003 article, John Paul II seemed to have a change of view on this subject. Dulles notes that in his non-magisterial 1995 interview book Crossing the Threshold of Hope, the pope raised von Balthasar’s view and says, “yet the words of Christ are unequivocal. In Matthew’s Gospel he speaks clearly of those who will go to eternal punishment.”

However, in a magisterial text in 1999, Pope John Paul seemed to have shifted, saying, “Eternal damnation remains a possibility, but we are not granted, without special divine revelation, the knowledge of whether or which human beings are effectively involved in it” (Audience, July 28, 1999).

Based on what he said, the pontiff was open on the question of “whether” human beings actually go to hell, and Dulles concludes that “the Pope may have abandoned his criticism of Balthasar.”

It should be noted that in the version of the audience currently on the Vatican web site, the words “whether or” have been deleted. However, this does not alter what John Paul II apparently said, and we cannot know why the words were deleted or whether John Paul II gave his approval to this edit.

For his part, Benedict XVI also took an optimistic view regarding hell in his 2007 encyclical Spe Salvi. He states:

There can be people who have totally destroyed their desire for truth and readiness to love, people for whom everything has become a lie, people who have lived for hatred and have suppressed all love within themselves. This is a terrifying thought, but alarming profiles of this type can be seen in certain figures of our own history. In such people all would be beyond remedy and the destruction of good would be irrevocable: this is what we mean by the word Hell (n. 45).

He then contrasts these with people who are so pure they go straight to heaven and then concludes:

Yet we know from experience that neither case is normal in human life. For the great majority of people—we may suppose—there remains in the depths of their being an ultimate interior openness to truth, to love, to God (n. 46).

This latter category goes to purgatory to be purified. Pope Benedict thus thought that “we may suppose” that few go to hell, few go directly to heaven, and “the great majority of people” go to purgatory before heaven.

We thus see the three most recent popes taking optimistic views of hell, with the later John Paul II seemingly open to the idea it may be empty, Benedict holding that we may suppose those who go there are few, and Francis hoping that it is empty.

I’m firmly convinced of the value for theological discussion of vigorously arguing the traditional view that some and even many go to hell—and hearing what the optimists have to say in response. At the same time, when presenting the teaching of the Church, we should be aware of the flexibility that is being displayed on this matter, including by the recent popes.

What Does the Church Teach About Pet Euthanasia? (Dangerous Pets)

Mean little dog

A correspondent writes:

On what grounds may a pet be euthanized?

We have an adopted dog that is highly destructive, more than we are willing to support financially, and more than we can manage with our limited time and attention. We are afraid for our one-year-old child’s safety, as the dog plays rough and has injured both my wife and me. The dog is confined to a kennel most of the day, since we cannot supervise and control him to prevent damage. We do not feel we can provide a good quality of life for this animal.

Day-training and boarding-school are not feasible, since the dog cannot ride in a car. We are not willing to pay for an expensive in-home behaviorist. We don’t have the time or expertise to train him ourselves.

We have tried re-homing the dog for months now. The foster family we got him from will not take him back. The local shelters will not take him as they are all at full capacity. Family, friends, and coworkers will not take him. We posted him on a couple of re-homing websites, with no success. We believe his chances of re-adoption are low due to his behavior and a pre-existing health condition.

We regret our decision to adopt this dog. We do not want to have an otherwise healthy dog put to sleep. But we do not know what else to do. We do not believe we are acting out of frustration alone. We are trying to consider what is best for our family’s wellbeing. Above all, we want to do what is right in the sight of God. If we are about to do something evil, we want to know it. So far, we have not found any clear teaching from the Church.

Can you help us?

I believe that I can.

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

2415 The seventh commandment enjoins respect for the integrity of creation. Animals, like plants and inanimate beings, are by nature destined for the common good of past, present, and future humanity

2417 God entrusted animals to the stewardship of those whom he created in his own image. Hence it is legitimate to use animals for food and clothing. They may be domesticated to help man in his work and leisure.

2418 It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly. It is likewise unworthy to spend money on them that should as a priority go to the relief of human misery. One can love animals; one should not direct to them the affection due only to persons.

These passages do not directly address your question, but they do contain the principles that provide its solution.

Animals do not have rights the way humans do. Consequently, they are “by nature destined for the . . . good . . . of humanity” (2415).

“God entrusted animals to [our] stewardship. . . . Hence it is legitimate to use them for food” (2417), meaning it is legitimate to terminate their lives when human need requires it.

While “it is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly,” this is not the case when there is a human need requiring their death and it is “unworthy to spend money on them that should as a priority go to” human needs. Consequently, “one should not direct to them the affection due only to persons” (2418).

In your case, the animal is dangerous, it has already injured you and your wife, and you have a vulnerable child that it may injure. You have not been able to re-home it, and you do not have money to reasonably spend on alternative solutions (e.g., an animal behaviorist). At present, the dog is spending most of its time in a kennel for safety reasons, meaning it is not having a good quality of life, either.

In light of the principles and circumstances just described–and the lengths you’ve already gone to to try to find an alternative solution–Catholic moral theology would understand the decision to have the animal put to sleep. It would not be something evil. In light of the circumstances you describe, it sounds like it would be the best solution, even if it is a regrettable one.

For what it’s worth, a similar situation happened in my own family when I was a child. We adopted a dog that had been largely raised without human company, it was quite aggressive, and it attacked and harmed my little sister. My parents made the decision to have the dog put to sleep. This pained me as a child, but as an adult, I understand the decision they made.

Bottom line: We are not required to keep dangerous pets, and if there are no better solutions, they can be treated like other dangerous animals and put to sleep.

I hope this helps, and God bless you!

Why Isn’t the Bible More Explicitly Catholic?

Under the heading “Why isn’t the Bible more explicitly Catholic?” a Redditor asks:

For example, why didn’t Jesus just directly say “Peter, you and your successors will lead my Church as Vicar of Christ until I return.” Or why didn’t He say outright “priests are to bless ordinary bread and wine and through that it will become my body.”

Questions of this sort appear in a lot of forms, and on a lot of different topics—“Why aren’t people nicer to each other?” “Why don’t we have a cure for cancer?” “Why can’t I find my car keys when I want them?” “Why isn’t the existence of God more obvious?” and so on.

“Why not?” questions like this express a wish that for something and ask why this wish is not fulfilled.

Taken as a group, “Why not?” questions are all subcases of what philosophers and theologians call the problem of evil. The thing that we are wishing for is a good, and since we don’t have it, we are experiencing a deprivation of that good—an evil. The question is why the evil exists, and if the question is asked in a theological context, why God would allow the evil to exist.

We have partial answers to the problem of evil, and sometimes the answers to “Why not?” questions are straightforward: If you’re regularly having trouble finding your car keys, it’s likely because you haven’t established the habit of putting them in a single place so that you know where to find them.

But there is a limit to our knowledge, and some evils have an element of mystery that remains even when we’ve explained as much as we can. We know that God would not allow an evil if he weren’t going to bring about an equal or greater good from it (CCC 324). But we don’t see the big picture, and so—in this life—we don’t always know what that good is, and thus we don’t always know why God allows a particular evil.

What about the question of why the Bible isn’t more explicitly Catholic? Well, it’s already pretty darn Catholic.

Jesus declared Peter to be the rock on which he would build his Church (Matt. 16:18-19), which makes Peter the head of the Church once Jesus ascends. If he didn’t mention Peter’s successors reigning in later ages, it’s likely because it had not yet been revealed that there would be any later ages. The first generation of Christians tended to assume that Jesus would return in their own day (1 Thess. 4:15), and the fact that there would be a long period before the end of the world wasn’t revealed for some time (Rev. 20:1-6).

That much of the answer is easy, but why didn’t God reveal it sooner that the world would go on for so long? We can’t say for sure.

When it comes to a clearer statement on transubstantiation, the Gospels are already quite clear: Jesus takes ordinary bread and wine (Mark 14:22a, 23a) and says, “This is my body” and “This is my blood” (Mark 14:22b, 23b). He says, “unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you” and “my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed” (John 6:53, 55).

Could he have been even more explicit and given a technical statement of the doctrine of transubstantiation? Sure, but not without using the language of a later age of history, and as we’ve seen, the existence of later ages hadn’t yet been revealed.

Then there’s the issue of whether giving a fuller statement would actually solve the problem. Even if Jesus referred to successors of Peter, people could still find ways of denying their authority. And even if he’d been more explicit about transubstantiation, people could still say he was “speaking symbolically.”

Ultimately, we can’t be fully sure of why God has done everything the way he has. However, we can tell—from the way that the Bible is written in the language of a particular culture—that he wanted to use that culture’s language and modes of thought to communicate his message—not the styles of communication used by other, later cultures.

We also can tell that he didn’t want to make it too easy on us. He apparently wants us to learn by wrestling with the text. That’s the purpose of Jesus’ teachings in parables and of the prophets seeing symbols in their visions.

There is, apparently, a good to be gained by struggling with texts whose meaning isn’t immediately transparent, even if we can’t see all of the dimensions of this good until the next life.

Announcing Dreams (Unborn Children, Pre-Birth Communications, Related Experiences) – Jimmy Akin’s Mysterious World

Some mothers and fathers report having dreams before the birth or even conception of their baby in which they are told about the child or even talk to the baby himself. Jimmy Akin and Dom Bettinelli discuss the phenomena and what could be causing them.

The video will be available at noon Eastern on the day of release.

Help us continue to offer Jimmy Akin’s Mysterious World. Won’t you make a pledge at SQPN.com/give today?

Links for this episode:

This Episode is Brought to You By:
Jimmy Akin’s Mysterious World is brought to you in part through the generous support of Rosary Army. Featuring award-winning Catholic podcasts, Rosary resources, videos, and the School of Mary online community, prayer, and learning platform. Learn how to make them, pray them, and give them away while growing in your faith at RosaryArmy.com and SchoolOfMary.com

Deliver Contacts, offering honest pricing and reliable service for all your contact lens needs. See the difference at delivercontacts.com.

Tim Shevlin’s Personal Fitness training for Catholics. Providing spiritual and physical wellness programs and daily accountability check-ins. Strengthen yourself to help further God’s kingdom. Work out for the right reason with the right mindset. Learn more by visiting fitcatholics.com.

The Grady Group, a Catholic company bringing financial clarity to their clients across the United States. Using safe money options to produce reasonable rates of return for their clients. Learn more by visiting GradyGroupInc.com.

Great Lakes Customs Law, helping importers and individuals with seizures, penalties, and compliance with U.S. Customs matters throughout the United States. Visit GreatLakesCustomsLaw.com

Want to Sponsor A Show?
Support StarQuest’s mission to explore the intersection of faith and pop culture by becoming a named sponsor of the show of your choice on the StarQuest network. Click to get started or find out more.

Direct Link to the Episode.

Subscribe on iTunes. | Other Ways to Subscribe.

PlayPlay

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

5 Things to Know About the Pope, St. Vincent of Lérins and Doctrinal Development

In a recent interview, Pope Francis invoked St. Vincent of Lérins in relation to the concept of doctrinal development — especially as a remedy to what the Pope called indietrismo (an attitude of “being backward-looking”) among some Catholics. He has done so previously.

The linkage of doctrinal development to Vincent of Lérins may come as a surprise for two reasons. One is that the concept is commonly linked to St. John Henry Newman, and the other is that Vincent is most famous for a quotation that some might take as rejecting doctrinal development.

Here are five things to know and share.

1) Who was St. Vincent of Lérins?

Vincent of Lérins was a French monk who lived in the early 400s. He belonged to a monastery on the Island of St. Honorat, one of the Lérins Islands off the southern coast of France.

When Vincent was born is unknown. His death occurred sometime between A.D. 434 and 450.

One of the controversies of his time centered on questions of grace, free will, predestination and original sin. The two poles of this debate were the British monk Pelagius and the North African bishop St. Augustine. The former stressed free will and minimized the role of grace in the Christian life, while the latter did the reverse.

Many in this time were not fully satisfied with the positions proposed by either Pelagius or Augustine, and some advocated middle positions, some of which were later deemed heretical and referred to as “semi-Pelagianism.”

Like many in France at this time, Vincent has been regarded as a semi-Pelagian, but it is unclear what his exact position was. Further, since semi-Pelagianism had not been condemned in his day, he was not blocked from being regarded as a saint.

His feast day in the Roman Martyrology is May 24.

 

2) What is St. Vincent famous for writing?

We may have more than one work that Vincent penned, but the only one regarded as certainly by him is called the Commonitories (from a Latin term meaning “remembrances” or “warnings”).

He wrote it under the pen name Peregrinus (Latin, “the Pilgrim”), and he composed it about the year 434 — three years after the Council of Ephesus declared that the Blessed Virgin Mary can be referred to as the Theotokos (Greek, “God-Bearer” or “Mother of God”).

This title is not found in Scripture and arose from popular piety. As a result, some viewed it as an impermissible addition to Christian faith and practice.

Between the Theotokos controversy and the Pelagian-Augustinian controversy, the topic of whether developments of doctrine were legitimate or heretical was under discussion at the time.

It was in this context that Vincent wrote the Commonitories, and he set before himself the task of determining how to distinguish the true Catholic faith from heresies, writing:

With great zeal and full attention I often inquired from many men, outstanding in sanctity and doctrinal knowledge, how, in a concise and, so to speak, general and ordinary way, I might be able to discern the truth of the Catholic faith from the falsity of heretical corruption.

From almost all of them I always received the answer that if I or someone else wanted to expose the frauds of the heretics and escape their snares and remain sound in the integrity of faith, I had, with the help of the Lord, to fortify that faith in a twofold manner: first, by the authority of the divine Law; second, by the tradition of the Catholic Church.

Vincent thus appeals to both Scripture and Tradition, and the Commonitories has passages that have been cited both by those who are cautious about the idea of doctrinal development and by those who are enthusiastic about it.

3) What did Vincent write that those who are cautious about doctrinal development cite?

Vincent explains that, although Scripture is “more than sufficient in itself,” it is interpreted in different and heretical ways by some people, and so he explains that one must interpret it in light of how it has been read in the Church. He states:

In the Catholic Church itself, every care should be taken to hold fast to what has been believed everywhere, always and by all [quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus].

This is truly and properly ‘Catholic,’ as indicated by the force and etymology of the name itself, which comprises everything truly universal.

This general rule will be truly applied if we follow the principles of universality, antiquity and consent.

This is the most famous passage in St. Vincent. It is an expression of what has become known as the “Vincentian Canon” and — taken on its own — it could be read as putting a firm break on any doctrinal development.

If we must “hold fast to what has been believed everywhere, always and by all,” then that could seem to leave no room for development in Catholic teaching over time.

The passage thus has been cited by those who wish to deemphasize the possibility of doctrinal development.

However, this is not the only thing that Vincent has to say on the subject.

4) What did Vincent write that those who are enthusiastic about doctrinal development cite?

Later in the Commonitories, Vincent makes it clear that he believes in the idea of doctrinal development, which he refers to as “progress [profectus] of religion.” He writes:

Teach precisely what you have learned; do not say new things even if you say them in a new manner.

At this point, the question may be asked: If this is right, then is no progress of religion possible within the Church of Christ?

To be sure, there has to be progress, even exceedingly great progress.

You’ll notice that one of the things Vincent mentions is the possibility of teaching things one has learned in the past but saying them “in a new manner.”

This refers to the controversies the Church had gone through in which new vocabulary was introduced to express ideas handed down from the apostles — such as saying that Christ is homoousios (Greek, “consubstantial”) with the Father or that Mary is Theotokos.

This teaching of ancient things “in a new manner” thus refers to a form of what is today called doctrinal development. He later refers to this as “presenting in new words the old interpretation of the faith.”

To explain his idea of progress or development, Vincent states that:

It must be progress in the proper sense of the word, and not a change in faith.

Progress means that each thing grows within itself, whereas change implies that one thing is transformed into another.

Hence, it must be that understanding, knowledge and wisdom grow and advance mightily and strongly in individuals as well as in the community, in a single person as well as in the Church as a whole, and this gradually according to age and history.

Vincent then offers an analogy:

The growth of religion in the soul should be like the growth of the body, which in the course of years develops and unfolds, yet remains the same as it was.

Much happens between the prime of childhood and the maturity of old age.

But the old men of today who were the adolescents of yesterday, although the figure and appearance of one and the same person have changed, are identical.

There remains one and the same nature and one and the same person.

The limbs of infants are small, those of young men large — yet they are the same.

By contrast, he states:

If, on the other hand, the human form were turned into a shape of another kind, or if the number of members of the body were increased or decreased, then the whole body would necessarily perish, or become a monstrosity, or be in some way disabled.

In the same way, the dogma of the Christian religion ought to follow these laws of progress, so that it may be consolidated in the course of years, developed in the sequence of time, and sublimated by age [ut annis scilicet consolidetur, dilatetur tempore, sublimetur aetate] — yet remain incorrupt and unimpaired, complete and perfect in all the proportions of its parts and in all its essentials.

Finally, he states:

It is right that those ancient dogmas of heavenly philosophy should in the course of time be thoroughly cared for, filed and polished; but it is sinful to change them, sinful to behead them or mutilate them.

They may take on more evidence, clarity and distinctness, but it is absolutely necessary that they retain their plenitude, integrity and basic character.

Vincent thus believes in a form of doctrinal development whereby what has been passed down from ancient times can be expressed in new words that provide greater clarity and distinctness but that leave its fundamental substance unaltered.

5) What should we make of St. Vincent’s discussion of these points?

It is clear that Vincent is aware the Catholic faith can be expressed (and has come to be expressed) in ways that were not used in the past, and thus that a form of doctrinal development occurs.

However, this is not a form of development without limits. For Vincent, something is only a genuine development if it preserves what was authoritatively handed down from the beginning — at least implicitly, similar to the way men may grow beards even though babies don’t have them.

Vincent thus seeks to strike a balance that acknowledges the necessity of doctrinal continuity with the past and the need for variability of expression with time in order to bring out ancient truths more clearly in the present.

This is essentially the form of doctrinal development endorsed by St. John Henry Newman and — more recently — by Benedict XVI.

In the Commonitories, Vincent has more to say about the application of the principles he describes — and applying the principles correctly is the real challenge.

However, it would be a mistake to focus on the Vincentian Canon to the exclusion of doctrinal development — as if all development is illegitimate — or to focus on his statements about doctrinal development to the exclusion of the Vincentian Canon — as if we could engage in a form of development untethered from the teaching of Christ and the apostles.

Vincent believed in both continuity and development.

Blessings: 7 Things to Know and Share

 

There is currently considerable discussion about whether it is possible to bless persons in same-sex unions.

In light of this, it can be useful to step back and take a look at the topic in general.

Here are 7 things to know and share about blessings.

 

1) What are blessings?

The English word bless is used to translate the Latin word benedicere and the Greek word eulogein. Both of these mean “to speak good.”

In Scripture, the terms have a variety of uses. For example, one may bless God by speaking good of God—i.e., praising him (Ps. 68:26, Jas. 3:9, etc.).

However, another prominent use of the term is speaking good about something other than God in hopes of bringing about good effects. Thus the patriarch Isaac intended to bless his son Esau to bring good things upon him, but through Rebekah’s intervention, this blessing was stolen by Jacob (Gen. 27).

To bless is the opposite of to curse (Latin, malidicere, “to speak evil”). When a person curses something, he speaks evil about it in order to bring about evil or bad effects. Thus the Moabite king Balak sought to have the prophet Balaam curse Israel to harm the nation, but through God’s intervention the curse was turned into a blessing (Num. 22-24).

Blessings and curses of this type are sometimes called invocative because they invoke either good or evil upon the person or thing.

Whether the blessing or curse ultimately achieves its effect depends on the will of God, who is the one being invoked and asked to help or harm someone.

Another kind of blessing has developed which involves permanently changing the status of someone or something by setting it apart for a holy purpose. This type of blessing is sometimes called constitutive because it constitutes the person or thing in its new, holy status. This form of blessing is also sometimes referred to as a consecration.

The Catechism states:

Certain blessings have a lasting importance because they consecrate persons to God, or reserve objects and places for liturgical use.

Among those blessings which are intended for persons—not to be confused with sacramental ordination—are the blessing of the abbot or abbess of a monastery, the consecration of virgins and widows, the rite of religious profession, and the blessing of certain ministries of the Church (readers, acolytes, catechists, etc.).

The dedication or blessing of a church or an altar, the blessing of holy oils, vessels, and vestments, bells, etc., can be mentioned as examples of blessings that concern objects (CCC 1672).

 

2) What can be blessed?

A wide variety of people and things can be blessed. The Catechism specifically mentions persons, meals, objects, and places (CCC 1671).

 

3) Who are the parties involved in a blessing?

There are several parties that can be involved in a blessing. They include:

    • The person being blessed (or those that are helped by a blessed object or thing)
    • The person who performs the blessing
    • The Church, which has authorized some blessings to be given in its name
    • God, who is the ultimate source of all blessing (Jas. 1:17)

The Church is not involved in all blessings but only those it has authorized. These may be considered official blessings. They involve the intercession of the Church, as expressed through the authorized person performing the blessing.

Other blessings—such as those performed by ordinary people (e.g., when we say “God bless you” to someone)—may be considered unofficial.

 

4) Do blessings take effect automatically?

The standard answer is no, but careful reflection suggests that the answer is more complex than that.

In the case of constitutive blessings—such as the blessing of an abbot or abbess or the blessing of a church or an altar—the answer would appear to be yes.

If the Church’s official rite of blessing has been used for an abbot or abbess, that person really has been consecrated or set aside for a holy office, even if the man or woman is personally unworthy. Similarly, if a church or altar has been consecrated, it really has been set apart for sacred use.

When it comes to invocative blessings, the matter is different. Blessings are not sacraments but sacramentals. In fact, the Catechism notes that “Among sacramentals blessings . . . come first” (CCC 1671).

Sacraments are rites instituted by Jesus that God has promised to use to distribute his grace—especially sanctifying grace—so long as the recipient does not put a barrier in the way of receiving it.

Sacramentals are rites instituted by the Church, and so God has not promised to distribute his grace on each and every occasion that they are performed. The 1907 Catholic Encyclopedia states:

Blessings are not sacraments; they are not of divine institution; they do not confer sanctifying grace; and they do not produce their effects in virtue of the rite itself, or ex opere operato. They are sacramentals.

Similarly, the Catechism states:

Sacramentals do not confer the grace of the Holy Spirit in the way that the sacraments do, but by the Church’s prayer, they prepare us to receive grace and dispose us to cooperate with it (CCC 1670).

In general, whether an invocative blessing has its intended effect will depend on the piety of the one receiving the blessing and whether it is God’s will for the person to receive the intended good.

 

5) What effects do blessings have?

The Catholic Encyclopedia states:

[T]hey produce the following specific effects:

        1. Excitation of pious emotions and affections of the heart and, by means of these, remission of venial sin and of the temporal punishment due to it;
        2. freedom from power of evil spirits;
        3. preservation and restoration of bodily health.
        4. various other benefits, temporal or spiritual.

All these effects are not necessarily inherent in any one blessing; some are caused by one formula, and others by another, according to the intentions of the Church.

The particular effects that a blessing involves will depend on the words used in the blessing—i.e., what does the blessing ask God to do?

One should consult The Book of Blessings for the words used in official blessings.

 

6) Who can perform blessings?

There has long been an association between blessings and the priesthood. Thus Numbers 6:22-27 states:

The Lord spoke to Moses, saying, “Speak to Aaron and his sons, saying, Thus you shall bless the people of Israel: you shall say to them,

‘The Lord bless you and keep you;

the Lord make his face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;

the Lord lift up his countenance upon you and give you peace.’

So shall they put my name upon the people of Israel, and I will bless them.”

However, blessings were not restricted to priests. In the Old Testament, the patriarchs gave blessings to their children, and various prophets (including Balaam) pronounced blessings also.

Also, Israel—like the Church—was called to be “a kingdom of priests” (Ex. 19:6, Rev. 1:6; cf. 1 Pet. 2:9). As a result, there are situations in which laity also can give blessings. The Catechism explains:

Sacramentals derive from the baptismal priesthood: every baptized person is called to be a “blessing,” and to bless.

Hence lay people may preside at certain blessings; the more a blessing concerns ecclesial and sacramental life, the more is its administration reserved to the ordained ministry (bishops, priests, or deacons) (CCC 1669).

The Church’s Book of Blessings notes who can perform which individual blessings. Sometimes this will be the bishop, sometimes a priest, sometimes a deacon, sometimes a lay person, and sometimes a combination of these.

Among others, laity are authorized to perform the blessing of an Advent wreath, a Christmas manger or Nativity scene, a Christmas tree, and throats on St. Blase’s Day (Feb. 3). They also are authorized to help with the distribution of ashes on Ash Wednesday, though the blessing of the ashes is reserved to a priest or deacon.

There are no limits to who may perform unofficial blessings. Any person can say, “God bless you” to another, bless a meal, or bless their children.

 

7) Where can I learn more?

The single most authoritative source on blessings is the Church’s Book of Blessings. It contains not only the texts used for individual, official blessings, it also contains introductions to the individual texts, as well as a general introduction to the subject of blessings.

Also helpful is Fr. Stephen J. Rossetti’s book The Priestly Blessing: Recovering the Gift. It contains a discussion of the history of blessings in light of Church teaching and the opinions of theologians.

Has the Church Abolished Third Class Relics?

Here is a traditional way of categorizing relics:

    • First class relics consist of the bodies or parts of the bodies of saints or blesseds.
    • Second class relics consist of clothing or other articles used by the saint or blesseds.
    • Third class relics consist of objects touched to a first class relic (or, according to some accounts, also to a second class relic).

These categories are familiar to many Catholics in the English-speaking world, but (at the time of writing), Wikipedia says something interesting in its article on relics:

In 2017, the Congregation for the Causes of Saints abolished the relics of the third degree, introducing a two-stage scale of classification of relics: significant (insigni) and non-significant (non insigni) relics.

Is this true? Has the Vatican changed the way relics are categorized? And have third class relics been abolished?

 

The Three-Fold System

To answer this question, we need to ask about the history of the three-fold system of classification.

Despite considerable searching, I have been unable to locate any official Church document that uses the terms “first class,” “second class,” and “third class” for relics.

Neither do the terms appear in scholarly sources where you might expect it to appear. For example, the article on relics in the 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia does not use these terms. Similarly, the terms are not used in the 1970 encyclopedia Sacramentum Mundi.

 

What Church Documents Say

What do we find in official Church documents when relics are discussed?

According to the 1917 Code of Canon Law:

The important [Latin, insignes] relics of saints or blesseds are the body, head, arm, forearm, heart, tongue, hand, leg, or other part of the body that suffered in a martyr, provided it is intact and is not little (can. 1281 §2).

Here we have only a definition of important relics, but the implication would be that there also are less important ones.

The parallel canon in the 1983 Code of Canon Law (can. 1190) does not provide a definition of important relics, but it does refer to “relics of great significance,” implying that there also are relics of lesser significance.

The 1977 rite for the Dedication of a Church and an Altar discusses placing relics beneath a church’s altar and notes:

Such relics should be of size sufficient for them to be recognized as parts of human bodies.

Hence excessively small relics of one or more saints must not be placed beneath the altar (II:5a).

The requirement that relics should be “of sufficient size . . . to be recognized as parts of human bodies” also corresponds to the 1917 Code’s requirement that an important relic be “intact” and “not little.”

Another discussion is found in the Congregation for Divine Worship’s 2002 Directory for Popular Piety and the Liturgy, which states:

The term “relics of the saints” principally signifies the bodies—or notable parts of the bodies—of the saints who, as distinguished members of Christ’s mystical body and as temples of the Holy Spirit (cf. 1 Cor 3, 16; 6, 19; 2 Cor 6, 16) in virtue of their heroic sanctity, now dwell in heaven, but who once lived on earth.

Objects which belonged to the saints, such as personal objects, clothes, and manuscripts are also considered relics, as are objects which have touched their bodies or tombs such as oils, cloths, and images (n. 236).

The Directory covers what the term relics “principally signifies”—i.e., “bodies—or notable parts of the bodies” of saints.

This largely corresponds to what the 1917 Code referred to as “important relics,” except that the latter named only eight body parts (head, arm, forearm, heart, tongue, hand, leg, or part that suffered in martyrdom).

The 2002 document extended this to any part of the body, provided it is “notable”—corresponding to the 1917 Code’s requirement, “provided [that] it is intact and is not little.”

The Directory also covers other things besides what the term “principally” means. It also includes things owned by the saints or touched to their bodies or tombs.

 

Evaluating the Three-Fold System

If you look at the discussion provided by the Directory for Popular Piety, it would be easy to read the first class/second class/third class system onto it:

    • First, the Directory mentions bodies and parts of them.
    • Second, it mentions things that belonged to the saints.
    • Third, it mentions objects touched to bodies.

However, there are some differences. One is that the Directory mentions “notable” parts of bodies—not very small ones—so the latter would not be within what the term relics “principally signifies.”

And second, the Directory refers to “objects which have touched their bodies” as relics. It does not discuss whether an object touched to just a part of the saint’s body is a relic. If you touch the object to the substantially intact body of the saint, it clearly would count, but if you just touched it to a saint’s finger (or something smaller), it might not.

Finally, the Directory also includes objects touch to the tombs of saints—not just their bodies—as relics.

Despite these differences, the three-fold classification system approximates what the Directory says, and it is a useful way of categorizing relics.

Yet it does not appear that the three-fold system is an official one. The fact that Church documents don’t use it and that it does not appear in various scholarly resources suggest that this is instead a popular system of categorization and that the terms “first class,” “second class,” and “third class” are non-official.

Each of the Church sources that we’ve looked at uses primarily a two-category system. Into the first category goes what the 1917 Code called “important relics,” what the 1977 rite of dedication considered relics suitable for putting under altars, and what the 2002 Directory said that the term relics “principally signifies.”

Into the second category goes everything else. By implication of the 1917 Code, this would include non-enumerated body parts or ones that are small or non-intact. By implication of the 1977 rite, it would include body parts that are too small to be recognized as parts of the human body. And according to the 2002 Directory, it would include non-notable body parts, objects that belonged to the saints, and objects touched to their bodies or tombs.

 

Introducing a Two-Stage System?

Now let’s look at what the Congregation for Divine Worship did recently. In 2017, it published an instruction titled Relics in the Church: Authenticity and Preservation. The introduction to this document states:

The body of the blesseds and of the saints or notable parts of the bodies themselves or the sum total of the ashes obtained by their cremation are traditionally considered significant relics [Italian, reliquie insigni]. . . .

Little fragments of the body of the blesseds and of the saints as well as objects that have come in direct contact with their person are considered non-significant relics [Italian, reliquie non insigni].

Here we see the same two-fold classification system we’ve seen in other Church documents: the important relics and everything else.

The English translation uses the term “significant,” but you’ll note that the Italian original uses the adjective insigni, which is a cognate of the Latin term insignes, which was used in the 1917 Code (quoted above). It also could be translated distinguished, eminent, great, or important.

But we’re talking about the same, two-fold classification system that Church documents have traditionally used.

Wikipedia is wrong in saying that the Congregation “introduce[ed] a two-stage scale of classification of relics.”

 

Abolishing Third Class Relics?

Did the Congregation abolish third class relics?

Clearly, it did not. Among the non-significant relics it included (1) “little fragments of the body” and (2) “objects that have come into direct contact with their person.”

The second of these two categories would include both what English-speakers commonly call second class relics (objects owned by the saints, since obviously they touched the things that belong to them) and third class relics (since the document does not say that the saint must have touched them during life).

Wikipedia is thus wrong (or at least its current article is). All the 2017 instruction did was repeat the same two-fold classification system that Church documents have traditionally employed, and it elaborated the same sub-categories that are evident from the 2002 Directory on Popular Piety.

The first class/second class/third class categorization is simply an unofficial system that overlaps with and approximates the official one.

Here is how the two systems compare:

Item Church System Unoffical System
Body Significant First Class
Notable body part Significant First Class
Small body part Non-significant First Class
Object owned by saint Non-significant Second Class
Object touched directly to saint or tomb Non-significant Third Class

 

What Counts as Valid Wine for the Eucharist?

Generated by IJG JPEG Library

In a disturbing story coming out of the Kansas City archdiocese, The Pillar reports:

“It has recently been reported by two priests, having served in three different parishes, that upon their appointment to these parishes they soon discovered the long-term use of wines that were in fact invalid matter for the confection of the Eucharist,” Archbishop Joseph Naumann noted in a May 31 letter obtained by The Pillar.

As a result, he wrote, in those parishes, “for any number of years all Masses were invalid and therefore the intentions for which those Masses were offered were not satisfied, including the obligation pastors have to offer Mass for the people.”

“This is a gravely serious situation for which we must now petition the Holy See for guidance on restorative matters.”

The article does not say what wines were being used or what made them invalid, but the faithful in other dioceses may be concerned about the wine used at the Masses they attend, so it’s worth looking at what kinds of wine can be validly used to consecrate the Eucharist.

According to the Code of Canon Law:

Can. 924 §1. The most holy eucharistic sacrifice must be offered with bread and with wine in which a little water must be mixed.

    • 2. The bread must be only wheat and recently made so that there is no danger of spoiling.
    • 3. The wine must be natural from the fruit of the vine and not spoiled.

“Fruit of the vine” means grapes, so wines that are based on other plants are not allowed (e.g., elderberry wine, strawberry wine, dandelion wine, rice wine). If any of the latter were being used in Kansas City, they would be understood to be invalid.

The elements required for the valid celebration of the Eucharist are based on what Jesus used on Holy Thursday: unleavened bread (cf. Matt. 26:17) and grape wine (Jesus references “fruit of the vine,” e.g., in Matt. 26:29).

However, bread and wine were made multiple different ways in the first century, and no detailed instructions were given about which specific types could be used in the Eucharist.

For example, during the festival of Unleavened Bread, Jews were forbidden to have leaven in their houses, so their bread during this period—which would have been made from wheat—was unleavened. But the lack of leaven was not required of Jews at other times of year, and it was not required at all of Gentiles.

Consequently, some early Christians celebrated the Eucharist using leavened bread. The Church determined that this valid matter, and today leavened bread is used in many Eastern Catholic churches.

Similarly, you might think that since the wine becomes Christ’s blood, the use of red wine might be mandatory at Mass, but it’s not. White wine is perfectly valid matter.

It’s also interesting that white wine doesn’t have to be made from white grapes. It is sometimes made from red grapes and the skins are removed during the fermentation process. Thus it appears that you do not have to use the entire grape in making wine for the Eucharist. It is sufficient that grapes—but not necessarily the whole grape—be used.

Given the lack of early, detailed instructions to the contrary and the flexibility that we have just seen, it would appear that anything that the first Christians would have considered wheat bread and grape wine would be valid matter for the Eucharist.

This is suggested by the Congregation for Divine Worship’s 2004 instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum, which states:

The bread used in the celebration of the Most Holy Eucharistic Sacrifice must be unleavened, purely of wheat, and recently made so that there is no danger of decomposition. It follows therefore that bread made from another substance, even if it is grain, or if it is mixed with another substance different from wheat to such an extent that it would not commonly be considered wheat bread, does not constitute valid matter for confecting the Sacrifice and the Eucharistic Sacrament (n. 48).

So only bread made from pure wheat is licit (lawful) to use, but it would still be valid matter if mixed with other substances, as long as it would “commonly be considered wheat bread.”

The same should be true of wine. It might be illicit (unlawful) to use if mixed with other things, but it would still be valid matter as long as it would commonly be considered grape wine.

In regard to both elements, this flexibility is good, and it is part of God’s general policy of making the sacraments hard to break, because humans are fallible and will break things if they can. The sacraments are not meant to be fragile and invalidated by the smallest deviation.

The smallest deviations may be illegal, but the sacrament will still be valid if a priest, sacristan, or other person makes a mistake. As long as you’ve got wheat bread and grape wine—even if they aren’t pure—the consecration will be valid.

What are the limits of valid matter? The Church has not provided us with a comprehensive answer to this question, but it has provided us with pieces of it.

For example, in 2003 the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued letter in which it authorized the use of mustum for priests who are alcohol intolerant or who suffer from alcoholism. It stated:

Mustum, which is grape juice that is either fresh or preserved by methods that suspend its fermentation without altering its nature (for example, freezing), is valid matter for the celebration of the Eucharist (n. A.3).

Fresh grape juice contains no alcohol, so the validity of mustum indicates that the alcohol content of Eucharistic wine can be as low as zero percent.

What about the other end of the spectrum? How much alcohol can the wine have?

In 1896, the Holy Office confirmed that it was licit to use wine that had been fortified up to 18% alcohol content (DH 3313), so up to at least that level is valid.

There is an interesting history about how such fortification can occur. In 1887, the Holy Office was asked whether it would be preferable to prevent wine from spoiling by adding a small quantity of brandy (which is made from distilled wine) or by heating it to 149 degrees Fahrenheit.

The Holy Office responded that the heating method was preferable, but it did not rule out adding brandy (DH 3198). This would indicate that the addition of a substance labelled something other than “wine” (i.e., brandy, even though it’s made from wine) could be used in principle.

In 1890, the Holy Office was asked whether you could simply add alcohol to the wine to make it more long-lasting, and the Holy Office said yes, as long as the alcohol was extracted from grape wine (DH 3264).

And in 1896, the Holy Office was asked whether you could add sugar from sugar cane during the fermentation process to raise the alcohol content. The Holy Office replied that alcohol made with grapes should be used instead (DH 3312), but it didn’t say that adding sugar would make the wine invalid.

In 2013, the Congregation for Divine Worship also stated that adding sulfites during the fermentation process and the use of genetically modified organisms would not affect validity (Letter, Dec. 9, 2013, Prot. N. 89/78—44897).

We thus see the competent Vatican dicasteries urging the use of products made from grapes (of any kind, red or white, and including genetically modified ones), but not excluding the use of brandy, sugar, alcohol (made from grapes), or sulfites as preservatives. For some of these, their use was recommended, but in no case did the Holy See say that their use would invalidate the wine.

This indicates that there is flexibility regarding what wine is licit to use, and what wines are valid to use will be even broader.

The Holy See has not tried to tell us what the limits of validity are. It is gravely sinful to use doubtful or clearly invalid wine, but there is more flexibility here than many might suppose.

My suspicion is that the principle used in the early Church is correct—i.e., a wine is valid if it would be considered grape wine in the common opinion of men, even if it has minor admixtures.

I don’t know what kind of wines were being used in the Archdiocese of Kansas City. If they were using wine made from elderberries, other fruit besides grapes, or other plants like dandelions or rice, then it would be clearly invalid. If they were using grape wines that had admixtures, the matter is not as clear.

Fortunately, Archbishop Naumann has indicated the archdiocese will seek guidance from Rome on how to deal with the situation, and Rome’s response may help clarify the limits of validity.