Should I help this convert straighten out his beliefs?

Should I help this convert straighten out his beliefs?

Full Question

A few years ago a friend of mine came into the Church. He now informs me that he has taken "private vows" and has founded a religious order with a few members. He has also announced as one of his "ministries" being an apologist on the Internet where, among other things, he called for the abolition of Halloween. As one might imagine, this provoked a lot of Catholic-bashing. I urged him to put a disclaimer on his materials to the effect that he is not an official spokesman for the Church, but so far he has refused, citing Catholic Answers as an example. I don't know whether I should approach him on this again, but, if I do, I would appreciate some hard data before going ahead.

Answer

Let’s try to take your points in the order you presented them.

1. Congratulations on helping to bring someone into the Church. Having done so, though, you probably do have something more than an ordinary duty to correct a misguided soul, particularly if you accepted the role of sponsor at your friend’s baptism or confirmation (see canons 872 and 892).

2. Church law recognizes something called "private vows," but these are not private religious vows (see canons 1191–1198 on private vows, as distinguished from Canons 575 and 654 on religious vows). Almost certainly, the most your friend could have would be termed canonically private, simple vows (canon 1192), which, even though they might bind an individual in conscience to perform some specific good, confer on such individuals no ecclesiastical status, authority, power, or prerogatives.

3. The right of members of the faithful to come together in groups for certain ecclesiastical purposes is recognized in several canons, notably 215, 299, and 321. But only competent ecclesiastical authority, not individual persons, can establish "institutes of consecrated life," known popularly as religious orders (canons 576 and 589). By the way, the works in which religious engage as religious are generally referred to in canon law as "apostolates," not "ministries" (see canons 673–683). Your friend’s terminology here suggests confusion on the point.

4. While it is true that every member of the faithful is bound "to work . . . so that the divine message of salvation becomes known and accepted throughout the world" and that every lay person is bound "by a special duty to imbue and perfect the order of temporal affairs with the spirit of the Gospel" (canon 225), it is also true that "they are to avoid proposing their own opinion as the teaching of the Church in questions which are open to various opinions" (canon 227). Query, therefore, whether your friend crossed the line between personally calling for the abolition (whatever that means) of Halloween and claiming that the Church is calling for the abolition of Halloween. Catholic Answers, I might add, certainly accepts the value behind canon 227 and strives to live by it.

Answered by:  Edward Peters

Did Pope John Paul have his head anointed by a Hindu priestess?

Did Pope John Paul have his head anointed by a Hindu priestess?

Full Question

Someone in the schismatic group the Society of St. Pius X told me that when the pope was in India he had his forehead anointed by a Hindu "priestess of Shiva" and that there is a photo to prove it. Is this true?

Answer

There is a photo of the Pope having his forehead anointed by an Indian woman, but she was a Catholic, not a Hindu priestess! She was giving the Pope a traditional Indian form of greeting known as Aarti, which has no more religious significance than a handshake does in Western culture.

A letter dated November 22, 1994, from the Pontifical Council for Social Communications explains the custom and its role in Indian society:

Indian Catholics . . . use Aarti when a child returns home after receiving First Holy Communion and when a newly married couple are received by their respective families. Nowadays, Aarti is often performed to greet the principal celebrant at an important liturgical event, as it was on the occasion shown in the photograph. On such occasions, Aarti is usually offered by a Catholic married lady and certainly not by a "priestess of Shiva" as has been alleged.

The letter, by Archbishop John P. Foley, went on to note: "Use of the Aarti ceremonial by Indian Catholics is no more the worship of a heathen deity than is the decoration of a Christmas tree by American Christians a return to the pagan rituals of Northern Europe."

Your friend in the Society of St. Pius X should check his facts before spreading such malicious gossip about the Holy Father (cf. Acts 23:1-5). 

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff

Isn't gambling a sin?

Isn't gambling a sin? How can you Catholics justify playing bingo in church?

Full Question

Isn't gambling a sin? How then can you Catholics justify playing bingo?--and in church yet!

Answer

First of all, the stereotype of bingo-playing Catholics is really overblown. The vast majority of parishes don't even have a bingo night. Second, gambling is not in and of itself wrong. Read your Bible and you will not find gambling condemned anywhere in it.

The average gambler loses money, but the process is entertaining, so what gambling amounts to is paying money to be entertained, and there is nothing wrong with that.

Gambling becomes sinful only when one pays too much money for the entertainment. A person in a casino spending thousands of dollars that his family needs is committing a sin, and the Church is very firm about this (Catechism of the Catholic Church 2413). It would likewise be sinful for a person to spend thousands of dollars his family needed on other forms of entertainment, too, like limited edition books, movies, collector's items, or whatever.

However, if you can afford it, there is nothing wrong with spending a few dollars for an evening of entertainment, whether it is bingo, the movies, or something else. In fact, spending a few dollars on an evening playing bingo in a church basement with a bunch of fellow Christians is probably a more wholesome activity than spending the same amount of money going to see a typical movie--or for that matter staying home and watching TV for free.

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff

Is "liturgical dancing" permitted at Mass?

Is "liturgical dancing" permitted at Mass?

Full Question

Is "liturgical dancing" permitted at Mass? I've seen it once or twice, and it looks silly and irreverent to me, like some kind of pseudo-interpretive ballet in which one person gets up and slowly dances while everyone else just sits and stares, feeling uncomfortable.

Answer

You have put your finger on one of the key reasons why liturgical dance is not permitted during liturgies in the West.

In 1975, the Vatican's Congregation for the Sacraments and Divine Worship issued Dance in the Liturgy, which it declared is to be treated as "an authoritative point of reference for every discussion on the matter."

The document noted that although there are cultures in which dance retains a religious character and could be permitted in liturgy, the same criterion and judgment cannot be applied in the western culture. Here dancing is tied with love, with diversion, with profaneness, with unbridling of the senses. . . For that reason it cannot be introduced into liturgical celebrations of any kind whatever: That would be to inject into the liturgy one of the most desacralized and desacralizing elements, and so it would be equivalent to creating an atmosphere of profaneness which would easily recall to those present and to the participants in the celebration worldly places and situations.

The document went on to note concerning the pseudo-ballet you mention, "Neither can acceptance be had of the proposal to introduce into the liturgy the so-called artistic ballet because there would be presentation here also of a spectacle at which [only] one would assist, while in the liturgy one of the norms from which one cannot prescind is that of participation [by all]."

This remains the law today. In 1994 the same Vatican congregation ruled:

Among some peoples, singing is instinctively accompanied by hand-clapping, rhythmic swaying, and dance movements on the part of the participants. Such forms of external expression can have a place in the liturgical actions of these peoples on condition that they are always the expression of true communal prayer of adoration, praise, offering and supplication, and not simply a performance. (Instruction on Inculturation and the Roman Liturgy, 42; italics added)

What you are referring to was a performance, whether done by one or a few performers.

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff

What's the rule for fasting after Communion?

What's the rule for fasting after Communion?

Full Question

I was always taught to fast for one-half hour after receiving Communion, yet I see many parishioners heading for the coffee and doughnuts as soon as Mass is over. What is the rule?

Answer

Current canon law requires a one-hour fast before receiving Communion (canon 919): "One who is to receive the Most Holy Eucharist is to abstain from any food or drink, with the exception only of water and medicine, for at least the period of one hour before Holy Communion." The Eucharistic fast was mitigated by Pope Pius XII from a complete fast after midnight to a fast of three hours (1957); then Pope Paul VI further reduced the requirement to one hour (1964). These changes were intended to encourage Catholics to receive Communion more frequently.

There is no present requirement for fasting after Communion, but many books have recommended, as an act of reverence, not eating or drinking for 15 minutes after receiving -- about as long as the sacred Species remains intact. If one remains at Mass until the closing blessing, one likely observes this recommendation even without realizing it.

In some cultures, the faithful follow the pious practice of drinking a glass of plain water before taking any nourishment after Communion. Such acts, while praiseworthy expressions of reverence, are voluntary and are matters of custom, not legislation.

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff

Have the Jehovah's Witnesses changed their position on blood transfusions?

Have the Jehovah's Witnesses changed their position on blood transfusions?

Full Question

Is it true that the Watchtower Society, the parent organization for the Jehovah's Witnesses, has made a change in its long-standing policy on prohibiting blood transfusions?

Answer

Yes, and the implications for Jehovah's Witnesses (JW's) are staggering. For those who may not know, JW's believe that blood transfusions are expressly forbidden by God and that to receive one is akin to committing spiritual suicide. They would rather die--or even allow a family member to die--than receive one. Their belief comes from an erroneous understanding of the Old Testament prohibitions against eating blood (cf. Gn 9:4, Lv 17:10-14; notice that it's animal blood being spoken of) and the New Testament admonition to abstain from blood for the sake of not offending another's conscience (cf. Acts 15:29).

The policy change occurred in 1998 for JWs in Bulgaria, where their status as a religion was threatened because of their prohibition against transfusions. With an earlier law in mind, the Bulgarian government viewed this prohibition as a danger to public health and threatened to deny their status as a religion. The JWs reacted by taking the Bulgarian government before the European Human Rights Commission (EHRC). In a communique issued by the EHRC Secretary, the JW leadership in Bulgaria claimed that JWs have "free choice in the matter" and--more importantly--that there are "no religious sanctions for a Jehovah's Witness who chooses to accept blood transfusions" (emphasis added).

This alleged lack of sanctions is a 180-degree turn by the WTS, since its longstanding policy was articulated as follows:

According to the law of Moses, which set forth shadows of things to come, the receiver of a blood transfusion must be cut off from God's people by excommunication or disfellowshiping. . . As a rebellious opposer and unfaithful example to fellow members of the Christian congregation he must be cut off therefrom by disfellowshiping. (The Watchtower, January 15, 1961, p. 64)

It should be noted that disfellowshiping for a JW means a complete shunning by all other JW's, including family members. He or she effectively becomes totally cut off from all religious and even social ties, as the majority of a JW's friends and associates typically are fellow JW's.

As a result of this change in doctrine, one can only conclude that (a) the WTS has different standards for its members, depending on where they live (a similar change does not apply for JWs elsewhere), (b) the WTS intentionally misrepresented its policy to circumvent the difficulty with the Bulgarian government, or (c) this change is yet another example of mutating doctrines of the WTS. Any way you view it, this change is clearly problematic.

29 images of mother mary