Tag: Question Box

By Fr. Thom Hennen
Question Box

Q: Why does the Catholic Church make such a distinction between the clergy and laity? Aren’t we all on the same mission?

A: We are certainly on the same mission. We even share in the one priesthood of Jesus Christ by our baptism. Yet, we do make a distinction between the laity and the ordained in terms of calling, sacramental character and function within the body of Christ, the Church.

This distinction has at times been exaggerated and even exploited, as clergy were put up on pedestals and it was thought they could do no wrong. A short study of Church history should have quickly corrected that illusion. At any rate, as a universal Church we have more than once reaped the bitter fruits of this kind of thinking.

In recent times, though, I think we have seen a diminishment of the ordained ministry, not simply in numbers but also in terms of our understanding of the role of the ordained. We have made them business administrators or glorified social workers. Both of these are valuable professions and I am grateful for both, but this is not what bishops, priests and deacons, essentially, are called to be.

It can also happen that clergy are reduced to pastoral functionaries or sacramental vending machines. We wonder why with half as many priests we can’t have twice as many Masses, times for eucharistic adoration, confessions, as well as near universal availability for hospital calls, home visits, pastoral counseling and spiritual direction. Don’t get me wrong, most priests are very happy to do these things and will drop everything to respond to an emergency call. Yet, we are bound by the same limitations of time and space as anyone else.

The fact is, the clergy and the laity desperately need each other. We can truthfully say that there is no Church without the priesthood (which is the one priesthood of Jesus Christ). At the same time, there is no priesthood without the Church. We need to stop seeing these and other realities within the Church as being in “competition” and realize that all members of the body of Christ are meant to work in harmony for our common mission.

The Second Vatican Council in its “Dogmatic Constitution on the Church” (Lumen Gentium) notes: “Though they differ from one another in essence and not only in degree, the common priesthood of the faithful and the ministerial or hierarchical priesthood are nonetheless interrelated; each of them in its own special way is a participation in the one priesthood of Christ.”

In one of the sessions for priests at the recent Eucharistic Congress in Indianapolis, I heard perhaps the best definition of “clericalism” that I have come across. Bishop Andrew Cozzens said, “Clericalism is forgetting the connection between ordination and baptism.”

I took this to mean that when the ordained forget that they were called from the priesthood of the baptized in order to serve the priesthood of the baptized, things quickly go awry. A sense of privilege, general superiority and entitlement can creep in and we reverse the roles — expecting the people to serve us and not the other way around.

At the same time, an unhealthy kind of “clericalization” of the laity can arise, in which some feel entitled to the same roles, responsibilities and rights of the clergy in all things. Ironically, this too can be a form a clericalism, as it seeks control for its own sake.

St. Paul had it right when he wrote about the unity of the body of Christ (cf. 1 Corinthians 12).

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

By Father Thom Hennen
Question Box

Q: How many times a day can you attend Mass or receive Communion? Also, if I go to a wedding on a Saturday, does that fulfill my Sunday obligation?

A: You can attend Mass as many times in a day as you like. However, the Church does place some limitations on how often a person may receive Communion in a day. 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). This means a person may receive Communion twice in one day, provided the second time is within Mass. It could well be that the first reception of Communion that day was also at a Mass.

A common example might be if someone attends a funeral Mass on a Saturday morning and then goes to the anticipated (vigil) Mass later that Saturday to fulfill the Sunday obligation. A person may receive Communion at both Masses. Some people mistakenly assume this is because the prayers, texts and readings for these Masses are different, but that is irrelevant to the rule.

Canon 917 adds that this second reception is “without prejudice to the prescript of can. 921, §2,” which states: “Even if they have been nourished by holy communion on the same day, however, those in danger of death are strongly urged to receive communion again.” In danger of death, therefore, a person may receive Communion twice in the same day no matter what.

Okay, but why does the Church limit reception of Communion? If we believe, as we do, that Jesus Christ is truly present (body, blood, soul and divinity) in the Eucharist, why not receive as many times as possible? Out of reverence for the Eucharist, the Church places rules on and limits the number of times a person can receive. Otherwise, one might go from church to church getting their “vitamin Jesus” and this could become almost routine, mundane, even sloppy or from a place of entitlement.

The Church always wants us to see the relationship between receiving Communion and the Mass, which is what makes Communion possible. It is the celebration of the Eucharist, not the reception of Communion, that is the “source and summit” of our faith.

A Catholic could be in good standing with the Church, according to “Precepts of the Church” listed in the “Catechism of the Catholic Church” (paras. 2041-2043) and only receive the Eucharist once a year during the Easter season. The obligation on Sundays and holy days is to participate in Mass, not to receive Communion.

However, since at least the pontificate of Pope St. Pius X (1903-1914), the faithful have been encouraged to receive Communion on a more regular basis (provided they are disposed to do so), weekly or even daily if possible. Pius X also lowered the age of first Communion from 12 years old to roughly 7 years old (the “age of reason”). We should be neither flippant nor unnecessarily abstemious when it comes to the reception of this great gift.

As to weddings and the Sunday obligation, it depends. Most weddings in parishes in the United States are on Saturdays and before the vigil Mass for the Sunday celebration of Mass. The 1953 Apostolic Constitution Christus Dominus stipulates that the earliest the vigil Mass may be celebrated is 4 p.m. If a wedding Mass takes places after 4 p.m. (regardless of the prayers, texts or readings used), then this does “count” for one’s Sunday obligation to attend Mass.

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

By Father Thom Hennen
Question Box

Q: How are the beliefs of the Catholic Church determined? Can they change? If so, who decides?

A: One of the beautiful things about our Catholic Christian faith is that we didn’t just invent this stuff over a weekend. Rather, we have been handed something precious and trustworthy from those who came before us. We call this the “deposit of faith,” the body of truths that have been revealed through sacred Scripture and Tradition and passed on to us for our belief.

The “Catechism of the Catholic Church” puts it this way: “The apostles entrusted the ‘Sacred deposit’ of the faith (the depositum fidei), contained in Sacred Scripture and Tradition, to the whole of the Church. By adhering to [this heritage] the entire holy people, united to its pastors, remains always faithful to the teaching of the apostles … So, in maintaining, practicing, and professing the faith that has been handed on, there should be a remarkable harmony between the bishops and the faithful” (CCC, par. 84).

Our understanding and even our language about those things that we believe has certainly developed over the centuries. For example, we believed in one God in three divine persons — Father, Son and Holy Spirit — before we even had the word “Trinity” to describe this central mystery of our Christian faith. We believed that Jesus was truly God and truly human, without confusion or separation before we had the language of “nature” or “person” or “hypostatic union.” We believed in Christ’s real presence in the Eucharist, even before we used the expression “real presence” or the word “transubstantiation” to describe the change in the elements of bread and wine to become the true body and blood of Christ.

Regarding this “development of doctrine,” St. Vincent of Lérins wrote in the 5th century, “Is there to be no development of religion in the Church of Christ? Certainly, there is to be development and on the largest scale. Who can be so grudging to men, so full of hate for God, as to try to prevent it? But it must truly be development of the faith, not alteration of the faith. Development means that each thing expands to be itself, while alteration means that a thing is changed from one thing into another.” How we understand or even communicate those truths of our faith revealed through Scripture and Tradition may change, but the substance of our belief does not.

“But, Father, all sorts of things have changed in the Church,” you say. Yes, but we should further distinguish between doctrine/dogma and practice/discipline. Doctrines are essential teachings of the Church. The term “dogma” specifically refers to those teachings we believe to be in some sense directly revealed by God and formally defined by the Church. These things cannot and have not changed, even as our understanding and presentation of them has unfolded. But practices have changed and continue to change.

For example, the way and the languages in which we celebrate the liturgy have changed. New customs, pious practices and devotions occur in every age of the Church. The various disciplines of the Church have changed as the needs of the people have changed. What we believe may not change, but how we give expression to and celebrate what we believe can, does, has and may yet change.

As to which things go into which “bucket” —doctrine/dogma or practice/discipline — can lead to questions. Where there is confusion, the Magisterium (the “teaching office” of the Church exercised by the pope and the bishops in communion with him as successors of the Apostles) offers clarification when and as needed.

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

By Father Thom Hennen
Question Box

Q: What do the designations in priests’ titles mean? What is the difference between “Father” and “Monsignor,” “Reverend,” “Very Reverend,” “Right Reverend,” and “Most Reverend”?

A: We do love our titles and protocol in the Catholic Church, maybe a little too much. How­ever, all of these things mean something, even if they don’t mean much in the end.

Customarily, we call our priests “Father.” Why we do that when Jesus says, “Call no one on earth your father; you have but one Father in heaven” (Matthew 23:9) is a great question for another day. But when it comes to titles used for clergy on paper there is some long-established custom.

A priest is given the title “Reverend.” The title “Very Reverend” is given to vicars general (the bishop’s “second in command”), judicial vicars (the bishop’s chief canon lawyers), vicars forane (also called “deans,” the bishop’s representative within a territory of the diocese, called a “deanery” or “vicariate”), and episcopal vicars (who represent the bishop among certain groups or areas of ministry). Priests retain these titles as long as they retain the office. Bishops are called “Most Reverend,” and may more formally be addressed as “His Excellency.” Priests who write a regular column for their diocesan newspaper are called “Hardly Reverend.”

Then there are monsignors, an honorary title given to priests in certain positions within the diocese or the Roman Curia. One is not ordained a monsignor, but named such. We might say monsignor is to priest what cardinal is to bishop, in that both are honorary titles not distinct orders within the sacrament of holy orders. Though, one can also be named a cardinal without being a bishop. These are typically theologians or other priests who have made a significant contribution to the good of the Church.

Cardinals may be addressed as “His Eminence,” and the pope as “His Holiness.” One mystery I have never solved is why the title “Cardinal” is usually inserted in the middle of their name, rather than at the beginning, for example: Avery Cardinal Dulles (who, by the way, was the most recently named American non-bishop cardinal).

There are three “grades” of monsignor. From “highest” to “lowest” they are: (1) Protonotary Apostolic, (2) Prelate of Honor, and (3) Chaplain of His Holiness. The rules on who can be named a monsignor were updated by Pope Francis in 2013. Only priests working within the Roman Curia or Vatican diplomatic service are eligible for all three “ranks.” Diocesan priests are only eligible for the third (lowest) of these honors and only after age 65. Personally, I think this was a good move by Pope Francis. In the past, a priest was named a monsignor almost automatically if he served in certain positions in the diocese, regardless of age or experience. One of the priests on the faculty where I attended seminary liked to say that the biblical basis for monsignors can be found in Matthew 6:28-29. I will let you look that one up on your own for homework.

“Right Reverend” is for abbots of monasteries. Interestingly, they do retain this title even if no longer serving as abbot.

In addition to these various titles, you may have noticed the “alphabet soup” behind priests’ or bishops’ names. In some cases they might designate a religious order (ex. SJ for the “Society of Jesus” or the Jesuits). They might also designate a role (ex. VG for Vicar General, JV for Judicial Vicar, VF for Vicar Forane, EV for Episcopal Vicar). Lastly they could also be academic degrees.

What’s in a name? A cleric by any other name would smell as … never mind.

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

By Fr. Thom Hennen
Question Box

Q: Where did the tradition of religious sisters and brothers receiving new names come from?

A: What’s in a name? Names are highly significant. Before we consider this question about religious names, we might recap the importance of names in the Bible and in our tradition.

The Bible is full of wordplay, especially when it comes to names. A lot of this is lost on us when reading translations of the Bible from the original Hebrew or Greek. For example, the name “Adam” comes from the Hebrew word adamah, which means “earth” or “soil.” Fitting, given the story in Genesis of Adam being formed by God from the clay.

Abram is renamed by God “Abraham,” which literally means “father of many,” which he would become. Isaac means “one who laughs,” after the fact that Sarah laughed when she was told that she would conceive a son in her old age. The name of Isaac’s son, “Jacob,” comes from the root word to supplant or circumvent, as Jacob did in securing his (older) brother Esau’s birthright.

The name “Moses” means “drawn from water.” Again, this is appropriate, as Moses’ life was spared by his mother by placing him in a basket and floating him down the river, where Pharoah’s daughter discovered him.

The New Testament also has it’s share of significant names and name changes. For starters, the name Jesus (from Yeshua or Joshua) means “God saves.” Simon’s name is changed by Jesus to “Peter” (Petros in Greek, Petrus in Latin, Cephas in Aramaic), meaning “rock.” Saul becomes “Paul” after his conversion. Such name changes seem to accompany a radical change in a person’s life or mission.

One of my favorite name “puns” in the Bible is the name “Onesimus.” In the letter to Philemon, St. Paul writes, “I urge you on behalf of my child Onesimus, whose father I have become in my imprisonment, who was once useless to you but is now useful to both you and me” (Philemon 10-11). The name Onesimus literally means “useful.” If the wink emoji had been invented, Paul would have put it at the end of the sentence.

While not strictly required, those receiving the sacrament of confirmation in the Catholic Church are encouraged to choose a saint’s name. This is someone they connect with, look up to or want to imitate as they embrace more fully their Christian faith.

When a man is elected pope, he chooses a new name. The name he chooses is either a nod to his predecessors or signals the kind of style and priorities he might adopt as the successor of Peter.

So what about names of religious sisters and brothers? My understanding is that the change of names was much more widely practiced prior to Vatican II, though it is practiced by religious orders today. It may be assigned by the superior of the community or chosen by the sister or brother when they enter or upon making vows. If, when and how can vary among orders. I am sure the idea is that a “new life” is beginning for the person and, hence, a new name.

It was also not uncommon (as it is among some orders today) to give male names even to religious sisters. I don’t know that this was required, but I’m sure the idea was that the saints (and their virtues) belong to everyone.

Also, people may not realize that in some places and times it was common to give the name “Mary” as a middle name to boys. For example, St. John Marie Vianney and St. Josemaría Escrivá. And then there’s the famous song about a boy named “Sue” (insert wink emoji).

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

Q: Can you explain relics? If we are supposed to respect the body even after death, why do we allow for this practice with the bodies of saints?

A: Great question! Typically, we speak of three “classes” of relics, only one of which are parts of the body. First-class relics are indeed the physical remains (often bone or hair, etc.) of a canonized “saint” or “blessed” (someone who has been beatified, in the process of canonization). Second-class relics would be personal items that belonged to or were used frequently by a saint or blessed (clothing, rosary, prayer book, etc.). Third-class relics would be anything that touched either a first- or second-class relic.

Interestingly, in my research on this question I discovered that this three-tier classification of relics is more tradition (with a small “t”) than any official categorization by the Church. The 1917 Code of Canon Law simply refers to “important relics” as being “the body, head, arm, forearm, heart, tongue, hand, leg or other part of the body… provided it is intact and is not little” (can. 1281 §2).

The 2002 Directory on Popular Piety and the Liturgy from the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments notes: “The term ‘relics of the saints’ principally signifies the bodies — or notable parts of the bodies — of the saints…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” (par. 236). You can see how the three-tier system seems to be inferred here.

A 2017 document from the Congregation for the Causes of Saints 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.” It continues: “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.”

Still, why do we do this? It all seems a bit macabre. Because we are corporeal (bodily) creatures, we have an innate desire to hold onto things as a way of remembering. Certainly, our sacramental worship reflects this. We experience the unseen in the seen, the spiritual in the physical. It is all very incarnational and, in my opinion, richly Catholic.

I would be willing to bet that most anyone who has lost a loved one has kept some little memento of that person — hopefully not something like their head or other part of their body. That would indeed be a little creepy, but perhaps a favorite article of clothing, a letter, a piece of jewelry or even a lock of the person’s hair. This reminds us of the person, that they were real, that our love for them was real. While the Church clearly instructs that the bodies or remains of our deceased loved ones should be properly buried, I can understand why people would want keep some part of them.

We allow this, with careful restrictions, for saints and blesseds for a couple of reasons. First, it is a way of spreading devotion to them. The fact is, we have friends in heaven who once walked this earth and we need their prayers.

Second, it is easy to make saints into almost fictional “super heroes,” especially if they lived a long time ago in a far off place. It is good to be reminded that they were people of flesh and blood and bone.

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

What are we to make of the predictions in the Book of Revelation about the binding of Satan and the thousand-year reign of Christ?

In an earlier column I cautioned about taking a sola scriptura (“scripture alone”) approach to reading the Bible and the importance of good scholarship and the interpretative tradition of the Church. This is especially true when it comes to the apocalyptic literature of the Old Testament and the Book of Revelation in the New Testament. Rather than interpret these texts as literal guides to the end of days, from the Catholic perspective we have long seen these as cries of a suffering people. They are written more to make sense of what the people at the time were going through than to predict the future.

For that matter, often we think of the prophets as divinely commissioned “fortune tellers,” but this is not the case. I like to say that the prophets were not telling the future, but the present. That is, they were pointing out where the people had gone astray in their own time and calling them back to deeper fidelity to the covenant God had established with them.

The Book of Revelation speaks of the chaining of the “ancient serpent, which is the Devil or Satan” and a thousand-year reign of Christ with his holy ones until Satan is “released,” followed by the deceiving of the nations and a great battle (Revelation 20:1-10). Pretty gripping stuff, I’ll admit, but we should be careful.

The footnote in my Catholic Study Bible states: “Like the other numerical values in this book, the thousand years are not to be taken literally; they symbolize the long period of time between the chaining up of Satan (a symbol for Christ’s resurrection-victory over death and the forces of evil) and the end of the world. During this time God’s people share in the glorious reign of God that is present to them by virtue of their baptismal victory over death and sin.”

I should also note that we have a tendency to believe that our own time is the worst of times and that we are on the threshold of the end of all things. Maybe, but maybe not. There were some pretty awful things in the past too (plagues, wars, social upheaval, moral degradation, schisms, corruption within the Church, etc.), but we have endured one after another of these events.

The “Catechism of the Catholic Church” is clear in its condemnation of strict forms of this kind of “millennialist” interpretation of Scripture. It states, “The Antichrist’s deception already begins to take shape in the world every time the claim is made to realize within history that messianic hope which can only be realized beyond history through the eschatological judgment. The Church has rejected even modern forms of this falsification of the kingdom to come under the name of millenarianism, especially the ‘intrinsically perverse’ political form of a secular messianism” (par. 676).

Of the various positions on this, the Catholic position is best described as “amillenialist.” We do not believe in a literal thousand-year reign of Christ with his Church sometime in the future. We believe that this period has already begun with the first coming, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ and will culminate in his second coming and final judgment at the end of time. This is by no means a “modern” idea but goes back to the early Church fathers and is solidified especially in the writings of St. Augustine (4th century). This view is also shared with most mainline Protestant denominations.

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