Tag: Question Box

By Father Thom Hennen
Question Box

What is the Church’s stance on extraterrestrials? Did Jesus only come to Earth?

I enjoy a good science fiction show. It is fascinating to see the mix of alien species and cultures, the amazing technology and breathtaking new worlds. Interestingly, religion rarely comes up in these shows. It is either ignored altogether, presented as something primitive we grew out of as we expanded into the universe or it is presented in a negative light. I have yet to see in a science fiction movie or show a serious treatment of how any existing world religion would deal with the discovery of sentient life on other planets.

As for the Catholic Church on Earth in the 21st century, there is no “stance” on extraterrestrials. This is probably because, at this point, this is a purely hypothetical question. The fact is we have no proof of such life anywhere in the universe. Granted, the universe is a very big place and we have only seen a sliver of it. It is interesting to me, however, that even in what we have discovered of the universe, we have yet to find a place other than Earth where life of any kind is possible. The closest we have come may be in the discovery earlier this year of an Earth-size planet (TOI 700 e) that exists in the “habitable zone” of its star. Either Earth won the cosmic lottery or something else is going on here.

So, did Jesus only come here to Earth? As far as we know, yes. He was incarnate of the Blessed Virgin Mary and became fully human, yet without losing anything of his divinity. He is true God and true man. Because we have no indication of life elsewhere in the universe, there would be no need for him to go there, much less to become incarnate as some other alien race.

However, this does raise some interesting theological questions. If we did discover sentient life somewhere else in the universe, what would be their relationship to Jesus and the saving events of his passion, death and resurrection? Would they be redeemed? Would they even need to be redeemed? If they exist, are they also created in the image and likeness of God?

My mind goes to those earliest debates about the humanity of Jesus and to the 4th century bishop St. Gregory of Nazianzus, who summarized it well in saying, “What is not assumed is not redeemed.” By this he meant that if our humanity was not truly and fully assumed by Christ, then we are not redeemed. It was a defense of Jesus’ humanity. Bending this some, we could say that the Son of God and second person of the Holy Trinity would not have assumed the nature of these newly discovered creatures and therefore (according to St. Gregory), they would not be redeemed.

At the same time, there is a sense that all of creation, all life, is “caught up” in the redemption won for us by Christ. Theologically, it would seem to me that any sentient life we discovered in the universe would also share in the benefits of what happened for us here on Earth.

In a way, our world has dealt with this question before. When the “new world” was discovered, explorers encountered new peoples, who were like them yet not like them. They looked different, had different customs, dress and languages. To the Europeans they must have seemed like a different species. And for those indigenous cultures, the arrival of these strangers must have seemed like an alien invasion. Whatever or whoever is out there, if anyone, I hope we handle it all a little better.

(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 Father Thom Hennen
Question Box

How should a parish welcome its new priest?

Given the recent shuffle of priests in our diocese and our focus on welcoming and belonging in this year following on our Synod process, this is an excellent and timely question!

First, while comparisons are inevitable, try to avoid saying, “Father (insert former priest’s name) used to….” It may be well meant but often what the priest hears is, “Why can’t we have Father (insert name) back?” At the same time, it is helpful to share past and current practices so that the new priest has some idea of how and why things are done in the parish. Instead, you might say something like, “In the past we have typically done this” or at least lead with, “I’m not saying you have to do it this way, but Father (insert name) found that….” This informs without creating expectation.

Second, and closely related to the first point, try not to say, “We have always done it this way.” That is probably not true. Always is a very long time and chances are that practices have changed many times over the years. Fairly or not, when something like this is said, what the priest hears is, “We may not even consider doing it another way.” It is a line in the sand. In the Catholic Church, we think if we do something once it is a “tradition” but sometimes there are new and, frankly, better ways of doing and looking at things. Your new priest will bring his gifts and insights. Hear him out. Most don’t intend to turn everything upside down. They do what they know or think best, unless shown otherwise.

Having said this, pastors don’t do a “mind meld” with the previous pastor or get a “divine download” on day one with everything they need to know. Sharing information is not only important but kind. Still, there is a way to do it. Try not to hit him with the firehose of information on day one or even week one.

Third, give him time. It takes a while to get to know a priest, his personality, interests, likes and dislikes, sense of humor and leadership style. It is easier to see past certain faults once you have a sense that this guy is actually a good guy and a human being after all!

Fourth, focus on the gifts, not the deficits. Growing up, I never remember my parents saying anything really negative about any of our priests. The closest thing to this may have been when my Minnesota-born-and-raised father commented on a homily by saying, “That was different.” Those are strong words for a Minnesotan. I do remember my parents talking about the various contributions each priest made over the history of the parish. No one priest has it all. This is also a good reason not to be always parish shopping. Parishes are living things that will and should grow from but ultimately outlive any of their priests.

Fifth, don’t expect him to have learned everybody’s name by next week. Introduce yourself multiple times and try to make meaningful connections.

Lastly, bringing your new priest food or inviting him to dinner is great but space it out. Otherwise, he may end up with more than he can (or should) eat and a social calendar that is so full he barely has time to unpack.

For his part, your new priest also needs to be patient and prudent, listening to his people, learning from them, asking good questions (not to criticize but to gain knowledge), forming relationships and gaining the people’s trust.

Priests who are treated like people (because they are) and not like the “new sheriff” or like vending machines will be happier and more effective priests. They will love and be loved by the people and will gladly serve them.

(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 Thom Hennen
Question Box

The New Testament says that we don’t have to follow the Jewish law but there are many references to “the law.” Are these referring to the Ten Commandments? Please ex­plain.

It can be difficult to know what law is being referred to in the many passages about the “the law” in the New Test­ament. For this reason, knowing the context and background of the passage is important. A good study Bible or commentary can be helpful with this. Often when St. Paul is referring to “the law” he is in fact referencing the Jewish law, more specifically the hundreds of laws found in the Torah (the first five books of the Bible) in addition to the Ten Commandments. Many of these had to do with ritual or dietary laws and, indeed, are no longer binding from a Christian perspective.

Paul would have been very familiar with Jewish law. In the letter to the Philippians he offers his Jewish “credentials” and mentions that he was a Pharisee “in observance of the law” (Phil 3:5), and yet he becomes the great “Apostle to the Gentiles.” In the early dispute within the Church about continued observance of Jewish customs and practices (especially circumcision), Paul clearly comes down on the side of letting those pass. Paul never says that the many laws of the Torah are bad but that they are no longer necessary. This law has served its purpose, is fulfilled in Christ, and summed up in the supreme law of love of God and neighbor.

Jesus’ own approach to “the law” can be confusing at times. For example, early in the Sermon on the Mount he seems to have a very high regard for the law (Mt 5:17-19) and in his life and ministry he is an observant Jew, keeping the various feasts and following Jewish practice. Yet, Jesus also challenged what he saw as a merely external or superficial observance of the law by some, specifically the scribes and Pharisees. He says of them, “Do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example. For they preach but they do not practice” (Mt 23:3). It is clear that Jesus’ main issue with “the law” is not the law itself but hypocrisy. He often chides those who have forgotten the purpose of the law, namely, to draw God’s people into covenant relationship and to serve as sign of that covenant. Jesus is not a “rules guy” exactly (as in rules for their own sake) but neither is he some kind of anarchist who came to dismantle the law in favor of just being nice, as he is popularly presented. 

Some things in “the law” do change with Jesus. In Mark’s Gospel we find the justification for the undoing of Jewish dietary restrictions when Jesus says, “Do you not realize that everything that goes into a person from outside cannot defile, since it enters not the heart but the stomach and passes out into the latrine.” Then, interestingly, Mark offers his own parenthetical commentary within the passage by noting, “Thus he declared all foods clean” (Mk 7:18-19). This idea is picked up again in St. Peter’s vision in the Acts of the Apostles (Acts 10:9-16) and I for one am grateful, especially for bacon.

We can definitely say that neither Jesus nor Paul advocate for any kind of abandonment of the Ten Commandments, that core of the law given to God’s people on Sinai. If anything, we would have to argue that Jesus intensifies the requirements of commandments, as we see also in the fifth chapter of Matthew’s Gospel (Matthew 5:21-48).

(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 Father Thom Hennen
Question Box

How many times may a person receive holy Communion in a day? How many times may a priest celebrate Mass in a day?

The first question comes up frequently. The Code of Canon Law states: “A person who has already received the Most Holy Eucharist can receive it a second time on the same day only within the

euchar­istic celebration in which the person participates” (Can. 917). Those who could have sworn it was only once a day were correct according to the 1917 Code, but this changed with the 1983 Code. There is no provision for a third time, however, viaticum (final Communion) may be administered at any time in danger of death (Can. 921).

As to the second question, Canon Law states: “A priest is not permitted to celebrate the Eucharist more than once a day except in cases where the law permits him to celebrate or concelebrate more than once on the same day” (Can. 905 §1). However, the second part of this same canon states: “If there is a shortage of priests, the local ordinary can allow priests to celebrate twice a day for a just cause, or if pastoral necessity requires it, even three times on Sundays and holy days of obligation.” An example of “where the law permits” a priest to offer more than one Mass would be All Souls’ Day, when a priest may say up to three Masses (even if it falls on a weekday) — one for a particular intention, another for all the faithful departed and a third for the intention of the pope.

In the Diocese of Davenport, the “local ordinary” (i.e. bishop) has granted the faculty to priests to celebrate Mass twice on a weekday, if there is pastoral need and three times on Sundays and holy days. Our priest wellness document further states: “The ideal to strive for is one Mass Monday-Friday with a Vigil on Saturday evening and two Sunday Masses.” This is pretty standard in most parishes across the diocese, though it can vary slightly depending on the need. What can complicate this ideal, especially on the weekdays, are funerals, nursing home Masses, school Masses and weddings on Saturday.

What is probably surprising to many about this is that the ideal is for a priest to celebrate only one Mass per day. Additional Masses are by exception in the law. This is not only or principally out of concern for the priest but also out of reverence for the proper celebration of the Eucharist.

As we face the reality of fewer priests and likely more parish clustering and consolidation, this will inevitably affect Mass times. There is an old joke that if a pastor had to choose between changing Mass times in his parish or nuclear holocaust, he would really have to think about it. It is always hard to change. We are creatures of habit and our spiritual habits are especially important and dear to us.

At the same time, I wonder if we haven’t become a little too casual and, frankly, entitled when it comes to our preferred Mass times. I think of those places in the world where the Church is still actively persecuted or where even fewer priests serve more remote areas. Catholics in these places may have to quietly gather for the Sunday Eucharist whenever it is possible and in some places the priest may only come to a village monthly or less often. It certainly puts things in perspective as we might grumble about a half-hour time change or having to go to the “other parish” a few miles down the road. Perhaps necessity will actually bind us more closely together and give us a deeper appreciation for the Eucharist.

(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 Father Thom Hennen
Question Box Column
Q. How do you respond to someone who starts railing against the Church about all the new charges of clergy sexual abuse in the news?

A. With the recent release of the Illinois Attorney General’s report, this has once again come up in a big way, especially for those of us on the eastern side of the diocese bordering Illi­nois. You might also recall the release of the Iowa Attorney General’s report in 2021 and before that the Pennsylvania Grand Jury’s report in 2018. This issue just will not go away, and it should not. I mean this in the sense that as a Church we can never turn our back on this or say, “Can’t we just move on?” There is nothing so basic to the Gospel as treating the most vulnerable with the dignity and compassion they are due as God’s beloved children.

As to your question, my first piece of advice would simply be to listen. Those who may be “railing against the Church” are understandably angry. Let them be angry. Giving them the impression that they should not feel this way is a non-starter for sure. Now, if someone seems obsessed with this and is always fanning the flames of their anger, that is another matter but not likely one that you can help them with.

Second, acknowledge the reality. That doesn’t mean we “pile on” and launch into our own diatribe, but that we acknowledge the truth of the matter. This is the right thing to do and very often has a defusing effect. When someone screams, “This is wrong!” It’s hard for that person to respond negatively to someone who calmly replies, “You’re right.” Once the initial anger is vented, a deeper conversation might be possible.

Third, try to inform. Without being defensive or dismissive, it may be helpful to dispel some common myths. For example, many assume that clergy sexual abuse is higher among Catholic clergy as compared to clergy of other faiths or denominations or even as compared to other professions or the general population. This is not the case and good sources are out there to back this up. People may also think because it always seems to be in the news that new abuse is happening all the time. However, most of these reports are summarizing decades-old abuse. This does not excuse what happened in the past, but the Church today has many more measures in place to prevent abuse (and has largely done so in recent decades) and so should not be “painted with the same brush.” I found a good summary of these myths on the Archdiocese of Oklahoma City website (archokc.org/myths).

Lastly, give reason for your hope. Our Church is bigger than any one priest or even 10,000 priests. We are also greater than the amalgam of our past sins. I am not Catholic because every Catholic who ever lived was perfect, but because I believe the claims of Catholicism and that God continues to work in and through this Church, despite its past failings or faulty human structures. To put it another way, I stand with Jesus (and with Peter) despite Judas. While even one case of clergy sexual abuse is one too many, we do not abandon the mission entrusted to us.

I was in seminary in 2002 when the story broke about the scope and depth of the clergy sexual abuse crisis in the Archdiocese of Boston, which in turn caused a chain reaction of revelations in dioceses across the country, including Davenport. When the seminarians would discuss this among ourselves or when we were asked to do an interview, the question would often come up, “Does this shake your faith in the Catholic Church or make you not want to be a priest?” To a man, the answer was always a resounding “no.” If anything, it only strengthened our resolve to strive to be holy priests, conformed more perfectly to Christ the Good Shepherd and agents of his healing love. Throughout the Church’s history, when we have faced crises from within or without, saints have stepped up not out, and so must we!

(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 Father Thom Hennen
Question Box

Q. What does it mean in the Acts of the Apostles when it says that the disciples at Pentecost “began to speak in different tongues?”

A. We will hear this passage Sunday (Acts 2:1-11). Often when we think of “speaking in tongues” our minds go to someone at a Pentecostal or Catholic charismatic prayer service speaking in an

indecipherable language. If you have never heard this, it can be a little disturbing. I have to confess that I have never really understood it — not just the language, but the phenomenon itself. At the same time, I do not categorically deny the possibility of the Holy Spirit working in this way. But why? Especially if no one can understand it?

St. Paul writes about different gifts of the Spirit and lists among them both “varieties of tongues” and “interpretation of tongues” (1 Cor 12:10). Later, he differentiates between the gift of tongues and the gift of prophesy: “One who speaks in a tongue does not speak to human beings but to God … he utters mysteries in spirit” (1 Cor 14:2). He continues, “Whoever speaks in a tongue builds himself up, but whoever prophesies builds up the church. Now I should like all of you to speak in tongues, but even more to prophesy. One who prophesies is greater than one who speaks in tongues, unless he interprets, so that the church may be built up” (1 Cor 14:4-5). Therefore, even the gift of tongues (with interpretation) is meant for the building up of the Church.

In the passage from Acts it says they “were all filled with the holy Spirit and began to speak in different tongues [emphasis mine], as the Spirit enabled them to proclaim” (Acts 2:4). People from different parts of the Mediterranean world heard these Galileans “speaking in [their] own native tongues of the mighty acts of God” (Acts 2:7-11). The gift of tongues, then, might not have been some otherworldly, angelic or mystical language, but the gift of being able to speak spontaneously in a variety of existing human languages. This too was for the building up and unity of the Church, and so there is a kind of undoing of Babel here (see Gen 11:1-9).

Again, I would not rule out the possibility of the Spirit granting people the gift of natural languages previously unknown to them. However, another interpretation of this passage might be that the disciples spoke in whatever language and the people nonetheless heard them in their native language. In this case, the gift of tongues may have actually been the gift of ears, the gift of understanding poured out on those listening to the preaching of the disciples that day.

I have to point out verse 13. It says, “But others said, scoffing, ‘They have had too much new wine.’” I can’t say as I blame them for thinking this, as I also tend to be skeptical about this sort of thing, but it is interesting that even in the apostles’ time people sought to rationalize away any possible spiritual explanation. My experience is that wine only helps my language skills up to a point.

What exactly happened that day we may never know. I am reminded, though, of the famous saying of the character Sherlock Holmes: “When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”

Also, we should not ignore those more ordinary, but no less powerful gifts of the Spirit. The right use of any language to preach the Gospel for the building up and unity of the Church is surely a spiritual gift.

(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 Father Thom Hennen
Question Box Column

Q. Have you ever pictured Jesus smiling or even laughing?

A. Yes, many times! There is one instance in the Gospels in particular that stands out to me. Several years ago I was on retreat and was praying with the passage about the call of Simon (Luke 5:1-

11). Recall that Simon (Peter) had come in from a long night of fishing with nothing to show for it and was in the process of stowing his gear — probably thinking about breakfast and then bed. That is when the passage says Jesus got into Simon’s boat and asked him to “put out a short distance from the shore.” If I were Simon, I would have been very annoyed at this but have you ever wondered what the look on Jesus’ face might have been? In my prayer, I imagined him with a grin of mischief — not the sinful kind of mischief, mind you, but the playful kind.

Jesus then preaches to the crowds from the boat. By the way, this would have created a natural “sound system.” If  you have ever been on a still lake and noticed some fishermen out in a boat not too far from shore, you can practically hear their whole conversation because of the way the sound waves bounce off the water, but back to the story!

After the sermon, Simon probably was thinking, “Finally, we can go in!” But then Jesus says, “Put out into deep water and lower your nets for a catch.” Again, I imagined Simon doing the first-century equivalent of an eye roll and Jesus with that little smirk on his face again, as though thinking to himself, “They have no idea what’s about to happen.” Simon then says, “Dude, we’ve been at it all night and haven’t caught a thing, but whatever!” (my own very loose modern translation). When the nets quickly started filling up with fish and the boat started to tip, I imagined Simon and the others falling and fumbling (nothing like some good old physical comedy) to secure the nets and keep from ending up in the drink. I imagined Jesus in the bow of the boat, not only smiling, but full-on belly laughing.

A more serious moment follows back on the beach when Simon, realizing what has taken place, falls to his knees and says, “Depart from me, Lord, for I am a sinful man.” Jesus invites him instead to do another kind of fishing.

I don’t think a lot of Christians (and maybe even fewer Catholics) often think of Jesus smiling, much less laughing or telling a joke, and he is rarely depicted as such. But I think Jesus has a great sense of humor (as well as possessing the full range of human emotion by his incarnation) and he must have had an attractive, joyful presence. If not, how could he have drawn so many to follow him? In the same way today, if we are always so serious, how will others be drawn to the faith? Pope Francis has often commented on this, urging us not to be “sourpusses” (in an official papal document no less). Mirth with no message can also be deadly to the faith — what I call “cotton candy Catholicism” — but just as deadly can be a dour demeanor that hardly says, “Come, join us!”

I think there are actually many other hidden moments of humor in the Bible, if you look carefully. As Christians, we should absolutely take serious things seriously but we should also take light things lightly. It is a very healthy thing to be able to laugh at ourselves.

(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)