Tag: Question Box

Q: What do we know about the life of Jesus between the time he was found in the temple at the age of 12 and the beginning of his public ministry?

A: Isn’t that a wonderful thing to ponder? I have also often wondered about this “hidden life” of Jesus with his parents in Naz­ar­eth. Unfor­tunately, the Gospels don’t offer us much on this. For that matter, we don’t have much between Jesus’ birth and the incident in the temple at age 12, other than the flight into Egypt, and that is only mentioned in Matthew’s Gospel.

What can we guess? Obviously, by the time he was 12 he was already able to match wits with his elders in the temple: “After three days they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions, and all who heard him were astounded at his understanding and his answers” (Lk 2:46-47). This tells us that he had some learning even by then. He would have been instructed in reading, writing and in the law and the prophets.

Some may argue that because Jesus is the Son of God, and therefore fully God, that he came with infused knowledge, even in his humanity. I suppose that could be, but personally I don’t buy it. Why? It doesn’t square with his modus operandi in the Incarnation. What is more truly human than our need to learn and grow? Without denying in any way his full divinity, I don’t think Jesus took any shortcuts in his human education.

In the Constitution on the Church in the Modern World from the Second Vatican Council, Gaudium et Spes, we read: “By his Incarnation the Son of God has united himself in some fashion with every man [and woman]. He worked with human hands, he thought with a human mind, acted by human choice and loved with a human heart” (para. 22).

Following Jesus’ presentation in the temple 40 days after his birth, we read: “When they had fulfilled all the prescriptions of the law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee, to their own town of Nazareth. The child grew and became strong, filled with wisdom; and the favor of God was upon him” (Lk 2:39-40).

We can safely assume that after the age of 12, as before, Jesus continued to learn and grow. Luke’s Gospel simply recounts that after this episode he “went down with them and came to Nazareth, and was obedient to them; and his mother kept all these things in her heart,” as mothers do.

Isn’t it amazing to think of Jesus not just as a tiny baby in swaddling clothes or as a full grown adult, but as a toddler, a young child, a teenager, and a young adult? Even his response to his parents in the temple smacks a little of a surly tween: “Why were you looking for me? Did you not know that I must be in my Father’s house?” (Lk 2:49).

Other than that, it is a fair assumption that he would have learned the craft of his foster father, St. Joseph, who was a carpenter. In Matthew’s Gospel we read about the people’s astonishment at Jesus in his home synagogue: “Where did this man get such wisdom and mighty deeds? Is he not the carpenter’s son?” (Mt 54-55).

And how about living at home until he was 30? Like today, this was probably not the norm. Then again, it makes sense given that he did not marry. Perhaps the best we can say is that in these hidden years, Jesus took full advantage of the “school of Nazareth.”

(Father Thom Hennen serves as the pastor of Sacred Heart Cathedral in Davenport and vicar general for the Diocese of Davenport. Send questions to messenger@davenportdiocese.org)

By Fr. Thom Hennen
Question Box

Q. What obedience is owed to one’s parish priest?

A. While it is true that the Church is hierarchical, taking things too far can lead to the abuse of power by parish priests, bishops and even popes, all of whom are subject to the supreme law of Christ. They cannot place themselves above that, even as they strive to justly interpret and apply the laws that govern the Church.

All authority exercised in the Church must be guided by the words of Christ to his first bishops/priests: “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and the great ones make their authority over them felt. But it shall not be so among you. Rather, whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your slave” (Mt 20:25-27).

Clergy do have authority and rights but we can easily forget that we are servants first. One of my favorite titles of the pope is “Servant of the Servants of God,” first used by Pope St. Gregory the Great in the late 6th century. This can be applied, albeit on a smaller scale, for bishops and priests as well.

At the very least, I think the people should show respect and deference to their pastors, especially when it comes to what is rightly within their purview, such as liturgy and administrative decisions at the parish level. If a pastor is asking you to do something that is contrary to Catholic teaching or practice, then you have the right and the duty to disobey. If your pastor is regularly spouting off about his particular political beliefs, you need not accept it as Gospel truth but can respectfully disagree.

Sometimes Father is wrong. When that is the case, then filial correction may be in order. Here we should defer to another principle taught to us by Christ: “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have won over your brother. If he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, so that ‘every fact may be established on the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church” (Mt 18:15-17a).

In my role as vicar general for the Diocese of Davenport, I often end up being the “Complaint Department” for the diocese. There are other more rewarding aspects of this assignment but a lot of it is dealing with peoples’ concerns — not fun, especially for someone who is, admittedly, a little conflict averse.

Often when following up on a complaint about a priest or parish concern, I will ask the person: “Have you spoken directly to Father about this?” About half the time, the answer is “Well … no.” In that case, I urge the person to start there. Of course, if it is something more egregious, that is another matter and may warrant skipping a few steps. Often, a person feels intimidated about approaching their pastor. In that case, I urge them to bring some others along. If that seems too daunting, then I ask them to at least put their concern in writing and send it to me, so that I have something more to go on when I call or meet with the priest.

When it comes to what the Church calls “matters of prudence,” about which good Catholics may disagree, one is not bound to obedience to their pastor or even the bishop or the pope. As clergy and lay faithful alike, we have to be careful about absolutizing our personal preferences and opinions. In short, obedience is a virtue, but it isn’t blind.

(Father Thom Hennen serves as the pastor of Sacred Heart Cathedral in Davenport and vicar general for the Diocese of Davenport. Send questions to messenger@davenportdiocese.org)

Q. When on vacation recently we went to a church that still had and used a Communion rail. Are Communion rails coming back?

A. For those who may be unfamiliar, many churches in the past had a low railing at the base of the steps to the sanctuary with an opening in the middle, whereby the priest and others assisting at Mass would enter.

During the Communion Rite, rather than coming up in a line, the faithful would come forward, find a place to kneel (or stand, if unable to kneel) along the Communion rail and the priest would distribute Communion typewriter-style (left to right and back again). This is still, typically, how Communion is administered in the pre-conciliar liturgy (“Traditional Latin Mass”) and in places where the Communion rail is still in use.

I suppose there may be some advantages to this. It might be slightly more efficient. Then again, efficiency is not exactly a liturgical virtue, at least not at the expense of reverence. Another advantage may be that only those who feel properly disposed to receive Communion would come forward. As it is done now, everyone feels pushed out of the pew in a kind of conga line and may even feel pressured to receive Communion, regardless of their circumstances. In general, perhaps an argument could be made for how the Communion rail facilitates a deeper sense of reverence for the Eucharist.

Of course, there are disadvantages as well. For one, it would not seem to allow for the distribution of the Precious Blood. People who tend to like Communion rails would probably say, “Exactly! What’s the problem?” But, as I have covered in a previous column, the offering of both species (the body and blood) of Christ is a value, at least in the conciliar liturgy.

Another disadvantage: the Communion rail may also take away from the sense of the Communion procession, the idea of the Church on pilgrimage in this communal act of receiving the Eucharist. It is not a “me and my Jesus” moment.

For some, the Communion rail is not only a physical barrier but a psychological and spiritual one as well. Again, one person’s disadvantage is another person’s advantage. Those who prefer Communion rails might say, “Amen! The sanctuary should be set apart as a sacred space.” Others would see it more as a wall to Communion than a gate. As with so many things, there are competing values and, therefore, competing preferences.

In some places, Communion rails never went away. Depending on the age and architecture of the church, it might not be uncommon to see them still. Though, in the years following Vatican II many places had them removed, often reincorporating the stone or wood elsewhere in the Church. Recently, I have heard of some churches putting them back in. My rule of thumb is not to fight with a building and try to make it something it was not intended to be, so I would probably neither remove nor put in a Communion rail.

A hybrid option that has popped up is setting out kneelers in the main aisle for those who wish to receive kneeling. My experience is that that those who wish to receive Communion kneeling will do so no matter what. To my mind, the placing of kneelers is a bit cumbersome if not an actual tripping hazard.

At the very least, we should be careful about “magical thinking” that says, “If we only put back (or removed) Communion rails, all the Church’s problems would be solved.” If only it were so simple.

(Father Thom Hennen serves as the pastor of Sacred Heart Cathedral in Davenport and vicar general for the Diocese of Davenport. Send questions to messenger@davenportdiocese.org)

By Fr. Thom Hennen
Question Box

Q: Can Catholic church buildings be renamed? What happens if a church is severely damaged or destroyed by fire or natural disaster?

Canon 1218 in the Code of Canon Law states: “Each church is to have its own title which cannot be changed after the church has been dedicated.”

Therefore, a pastor or even a bishop could not simply decide that a church building which was dedicated, for example, to St. Polycarp would now be called “St. Hedwig” because he happens to like St. Hedwig or because of a rise in popular devotion to that saint. (By the way, those are real and wonderful saints, if not among the most popular choices for confirmation names).

Renaming parishes is a different matter. Canonically, parishes are comprised of specific geographic areas. While people live and belong wherever they would like these days, these parish “zones” still exist. In fact, the Diocese of Davenport has recently been working on an updated map of all of our parish boundaries. This does not prevent someone from attending and registering in whatever parish they like, but it does give us a better sense of our “neighborhood” when it comes to our evangelization efforts.

While the name of a parish and a church building associated with it are usually the same, this need not be the case. As we have seen more consolidations of parishes in recent years, we have also seen several renamed parishes in the Diocese of Davenport: Divine Mercy Parish of Burlington-West Burlington; Jesus Christ, Prince of Peace Parish of Clinton; Holy Family Parish of Fort Madison; Ss. Mary & Mathias Parish of Muscatine;  Our Lady of the Holy Rosary Parish of Lost Nation and Holy Family Parish of Riverside (River­side, Wellman and Richmond).

Most recently, the parishes in Ottumwa (St. Mary of the Visitation and St. Patrick) are planning to merge and have chosen the name St. Joseph Parish. Ultimately, the naming of the parish is up to the bishop but, typically, the people are consulted.

In all of these cases a new parish entity is created but the individual church buildings retain their names. In the case of the Clinton parish, a new church was built.

Choosing names such as “Holy Family” or “Holy Trinity” when several parishes merge, rather than choosing one of the saints for whom the churches were named, may seem an easier choice. It avoids the appearance of “winners” and “losers” in the consolidation. Having said that, we have a wealth of newly canonized saints in the past few decades. Wouldn’t it be wonderful to have new or consolidated parishes named for Ss. Louis and Zelie Martin (St. Therese of Lisieux’ parents), St. John Paul II, St. Teresa of Calcutta, St. Katherine Drexel, St. Josephine Bakhita, or soon-to-be St. Carlos Acutis?

What about those churches that are no longer usable due to deterioration or disaster? In those cases, when a new church is built to replace an existing church, the church may be renamed.

Not very many people know that our first cathedral was named for St. Margaret of Scotland, as this was the church chosen as the cathedral by our first bishop, Bishop John McMullen in 1881. When the parish outgrew that space, it was decided to build the new cathedral next door and to name it for the Sacred Heart of Jesus, which was an increasingly popular devotion at the time. Rome allowed for the name change but insisted upon a St. Margaret Chapel, in honor of the original church building and first cathedral on the site.

In the end, what’s in a name? Would not a church by any other name be as beautiful?

(Father Thom Hennen serves as the pastor of Sacred Heart Cathedral in Davenport and vicar general for the Diocese of Davenport. Send questions to messenger@davenportdiocese.org)

By Fr. Thom Hennen
Question Box

Q: What does the Catholic Church teach about Artificial Intelligence?

A: As with many emerging technologies, the Church does not have and is not likely to make a blanket statement, positive or negative, on artificial intelligence (AI). The moral question is less about the existence of the technology, which is a testament to human ingenuity, and more about how the technology is applied.

So far, the closest thing we get to an official Church teaching on AI is in a document from the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith entitled “Antiqua et Nova [Ancient and New]: Note on the Relationship Between Artificial Intelligence and Human Intelligence” (01/25).

In a way, AI has been all around us for a very long time. Human beings have been creating tools to make them more productive or to perform certain tasks practically since we were walking. I’m typing this on a computer that can store enough information and run enough programs to make cutting-edge technology used in the Apollo space program look like playing with tinker toys. Even the “computer” (i.e. cell phone) in my pocket is more powerful.

Consider this: What are writing and books? Technologies we invented to store large amounts of information without having to memorize everything. What are libraries but proto-supercomputers? Of course, it still takes a human being to organize, categorize, extract, interpret and apply the information found in books. What is “new” about AI is that we have created something sophisticated enough that it seems to be able to think and create on its own. However, as Pope Francis pointed out, even the term “intelligence,” applied in this way, is a bit of a misnomer.

As with any technology, AI can be used for good or evil, to enhance human flourishing or to hinder it, to speak the truth or to lie and deceive. Here are a few key statements I would highlight from the Vatican document issued earlier this year:

“The ends and the means used in a given application of AI, as well as the overall vision it incorporates, must all be evaluated to ensure they respect human dignity and promote the common good” (par. 42).

“The Church’s moral and social teaching provides resources to help ensure that AI is used in a way that preserves human agency… By exercising prudence, individuals and communities can discern ways to use AI to benefit humanity, while avoiding applications that could degrade human dignity or harm the environment” (par. 47).

The document goes on to consider specific questions on such topics as the environment, economy, labor, misinformation, privacy, warfare, healthcare and education.

In this era that our late Pope Francis called a time of “epochal change,” the Church is called to cultivate a “wisdom of heart” (par. 4). When it comes to AI, we cannot stick our heads in the sand. It is not a fad. It is here to stay. We can learn to master it or we may find ourselves mastered by it.

Like every technology that has come before it, we must figure out how to use AI for the good. In my opinion, the Church is the best poised to be a leader in this endeavor, as we not only consider questions of if but should, and given our integral vision of the human person and the world in relationship to God.

In the end, nothing we have created can match the supercomputer each of us has in our own skulls. Compared to the intelligence who created us in his image and likeness, even that pales in comparison.

(Father Thom Hennen serves as the pastor of Sacred Heart Cathedral in Davenport and vicar general for the Diocese of Davenport. Send questions to messenger@davenportdiocese.org)

By Fr. Thom Hennen
Question Box

Q: Which Marian apparitions has the Church approved? Do Catholics have to believe in them?

A: There have been 16 Marian apparitions approved by the Vatican after a rigorous process of investigation. The oldest of these is Our Lady of Guadalupe, the appearance of the Blessed Virgin Mary to St. Juan Diego in Mexico in 1531. The most recent is Our Lady of Kibeho in Rwanda in 1989. Other well-known apparitions include Our Lady of Lourdes (1858, France), Our Lady of Knock (1879, Ireland), and Our Lady of Fatima (1917, Portugal).

Obviously, the Church takes this very seriously. I always feel badly for the clergy and bishops in the stories of these apparitions, as they often are presented as the “villains” who do not want to believe. The fact is, they have a duty to do due diligence to ensure the faithful are not being deceived. The approval of these 16 apparitions means that every aspect of the accounts and every word of the messages was examined carefully. The apparitions were determined to have been of supernatural origin and that nothing contrary to the faith was presented in the messages.

Having said that, no Catholic is obligated to believe in any of these apparitions. Yes, that means one can be skeptical or even unbelieving in regard to any or all of these and still be a good Catholic.

However, when it comes to certain Marian dogmas, such as the Immaculate Conception, the perpetual virginity of Mary or her Assumption into heaven, these are not “optional” beliefs.  Because they pertain to the central truths of our faith and have been officially defined and declared by the Church, they are to be believed by all the faithful.

There have been other Marian apparitions that while not yet approved by the Vatican, have been at least initially approved by the local bishop. In the United States there is just one such apparition, Our Lady of Champion, Wisconsin in 1859. In 2009 Bishop David Ricken of the Diocese of Green Bay opened an investigation into the apparitions and in 2010 declared them “worthy of belief.”

A national shrine was designated by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops in 2016, making it the only national shrine in the United States with an approved Marian apparition.

A well-known alleged apparition is to several visionaries in Medjugorje, Bosnia-Herz­egovina beginning in 1981. While not yet approved by the local bishop, private pilgrims have been going to Medjugorje since the apparitions began. In 2024, Pope Francis granted approval to the devotion linked to Medjugorje in light of the many apparent spiritual fruits. Again, Catholics can believe what they want regarding these apparitions and messages. They will certainly merit further investigation prior to any more official approval.

I have been to Medjugorje. My personal assessment was that if this is a hoax, then it is a very elaborate one that has been ongoing for more than four decades. If it is deception of the evil one, then he “shot himself in the foot,” given the number of people returning to the practice of their faith. In the end, of course, I will accept whatever judgment the Church comes to on this.

I recognize that for some people such apparitions and maybe Marian devotion in general may stir up some natural skepticism. This is not all unhealthy. At the same time, an obstinate or categorical unwillingness to believe that such things can and have occurred seems equally unhealthy.

One thing we can say for sure: the last thing Mary wants to do is to get in the way of our relationship with Jesus.

(Father Thom Hennen serves as the pastor of Sacred Heart Cathedral in Davenport and vicar general for the Diocese of Davenport. Send questions to messenger@davenportdiocese.org)

Q: Who can be elected Pope?

A: Contrary to popular belief, you do not have to be a cardinal to be elected pope. In fact, you don’t even have to be a bishop, priest or deacon. You do have to be a baptized male. Canon Law states: “The Roman Pontiff obtains full and supreme power in the Church by his acceptance of legitimate election together with episcopal consecration. Therefore, a person elected to the supreme pontificate who is marked with episcopal character [i.e. is a bishop] obtains this power from the moment of acceptance. If the person elected lacks episcopal [i.e. is not a bishop], however, he is to be ordained a bishop immediately” (can. 332, §1). Implied in this, therefore, is that the person elected would need to be male and baptized, as required for ordination to any of the holy orders — deacon, priest or bishop — in the Catholic Church.

It has been a very long time since the election of someone other than a member of the College of Cardinals as pope. The last non-cardinal pope was Pope Urban VI, who reigned from 1378-1389, soon after the Avignon papacy. Though not a cardinal, he was a bishop (Archbishop of Bari) when he was elected pope.

The last pope who was not a bishop at the time of his election was Pope Gregory XVI, who reigned from 1831-1846. At the time of his election to the papacy, he was a monk and priest who had been created a cardinal. How does that work? You don’t have to be a bishop to be a cardinal, which is not an order or “rank” within the sacrament of holy orders. It is an honorary title given to some (usually bishops) in acknowledgement of their contribution to the Church. It also grants them certain privileges, chief among them to participate in the conclave to elect a pope, as long as they are under the age of 80.

Curiously, while the cardinal electors must be under the age of 80, they may elect someone over the age of 80 to be pope. I’m still scratching my head on that one. If they are worried about the mental faculties of the electors, why not those of the elected?

In 1962, Pope John XXIII established a rule that cardinals should be bishops and, therefore, if named a cardinal would be ordained bishop. However, this can be dispensed with, as is often the case for cardinal theologians. Recent examples would be Avery Cardinal Dulles and Henri Cardinal De Lubac, both influential 20th century theologians. Another famous example would be St. John Henry Cardinal Newman.

As an aside, why do we put the title “Cardinal” in the middle of their name instead of at the beginning? I don’t know. We have lots of weird rules. In all seriousness, the only article on that I could find said that it had to do with the custom of putting a person’s title after their first name (and before last names were common).

In early Church history, there were priests and deacons who were elected pope, for example Pope St. Callixtus I (218-222), who was a deacon at the time of his election. Even a few lay men (non-ordained) were elected pope and subsequently ordained.

As interesting as all this is, it is highly unlikely that anyone other than one of the cardinals will be elected to succeed Pope Francis, so no need to wait by your phone when you see the white smoke billowing from the Sistine Chapel.

(Father Thom Hennen serves as the pastor of Sacred Heart Cathedral in Davenport and vicar general for the Diocese of Davenport. Send questions to messenger@davenportdiocese.org)