Tag: Question Box

Q. Is there an appropriate time to announce birthdays or anniversaries during the liturgy?

A. Practices on this vary widely across parishes. We are trying to balance two goods here: (1) a respect for the integrity, solemnity and “noble simplicity” of the liturgy and (2) a polite and appropriate acknowledgment of members of the community, which can serve to foster a deeper sense of communion.

The “General Instruction of the Roman Missal” states that as part of the concluding rites (following the Prayer after Communion, which properly concludes the Communion Rite) “brief announcements” may be made “if necessary.” What “necessary” means is up to some interpretation. Mrs. McGilli­cuddy may think it is absolutely “necessary” that the lady’s spring bazaar be announced from the altar a full month in advance and every week following, even though it has been in the bulletin and flyers are up at the entrances. But I’m not sure this is what the instruction envisions.

My rule of thumb is the fewer, the rarer and the briefer the announcements the better. Having said that, I know I can easily fall into the trap of a laundry list of announcements at the end of Mass. My feeling is that if something is truly important and imminent, then an announcement is appropriate. If not, we publish it in the weekly bulletin.

So what about birthdays and anniversaries? The revised “Order of Celebrating Matrimony” offers a blessing for couples on the anniversary of marriage within Mass (as did the “Book of Blessings” before it). This is done following the homily, starting with a blessing of rings, followed by the Creed (if on a Sunday/Solemnity) and the Universal Prayer (“intercessions”). Following the pattern of the nuptial blessing at a wedding Mass, after the Our Father the prayer “Deliver us” is omitted. The priest then extends his hands in a special blessing over the couple. There can also be a three-part solemn blessing at the end of the Mass. Recognizing significant anniversaries of parishioners is, therefore, allowed within the liturgy and can be a beautiful way to highlight the vocation of marriage.

So, what about birthdays? There is a “Blessing on the Occasion of a Birthday” in the “Book of Blessings” but no option is given for doing that within Mass. Especially in smaller, more tightly knit communities, some public acknowledgment of birthdays can be an important pastoral practice.

At Sacred Heart Cathedral in Davenport, we publish birthdays in the bulletin monthly (without years, of course), and, when asked, I do announce significant birthdays at Mass. We do not announce everyone’s birthday every week or have people stand up or sing “Happy Birthday.” Personally, I do think that takes away from the liturgy. Also, there can be the danger of only announcing certain peoples’ birthday and then it looks like “Father has his favorites.” If birthdays are to be recognized, ideally, this may be best done in any announcements before Mass or during the usual announcement time at the end of Mass (especially if inviting parishioners to a celebration following in the parish hall, for example).

Q. Why do we bow during the Creed when we say the words “and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man?”

A. In fact, twice a year (at Christmas and on the Solemnity of the Annunciation, March 25) we don’t simply bow but genuflect (if able) at this part of the Creed. This is an ancient practice that shows special reverence for the mystery of the Incarnation, that God became man, the “Word became flesh.” Without that, we’re sunk!

(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: I have seen numerous comments regarding receiving the Eucharist on the tongue versus the hand, and how wrong American Catholics are for receiving in the hand. Could you please clear this up for us?

As you indicate, this can be a hot topic in some Catholic circles. A quick internet search will bring up all sorts of articles either defending or condemning the practice of receiving Com­munion in the hand. Some consider the practice, at best, disrespectful or careless and, at worst, the greatest form of sacrilege and everything that is wrong with the modern Church. I would suspect that for most American Catholics it is not a big deal. It has practically become the norm in many parishes, though even in my last 20 years of ordained ministry I have seen a lot of change, with more people receiving Communion on the tongue in recent years.

Historically, there is ancient precedent for receiving Communion in the hand. Most often cited is a passage from St. Cyril of Jerusalem’s 4th century Mystagogic Catechesis. He writes, “Coming up to receive, therefore, do not approach with your wrists extended or your fingers splayed, but making your left hand a throne for the right (for it is about to receive a King) and cupping your palm, so receive the body of Christ, and answer, ‘Amen.’”

He goes on to say the faithful should “hallow their eyes by the touch of the sacred body, and then partake, taking care to lose no part of it.” He writes, “Why, if you had been given gold dust, would not take the utmost care to hold it fast … How much more carefully, then, will you guard against losing so much as a crumb of that which is more precious than gold!”

This tells us two things. First, there was an ancient practice of receiving in the hand, but with the greatest reverence and care. Second, even St. Cyril seems to have witnessed or foreseen the potential for carelessness or abuse. It is probably for this reason that in time Communion on the tongue became the norm in the practice of the Church. Even today, Communion in the hand is allowed as something of an exception when approved in certain countries or dioceses, as it is in most (including our own).

Anthropologically, I think that Communion in the hand (again, when done reverently and carefully) makes sense. It is a very human act to raise food to our mouth and we do so as early as we are able. It is also hard to imagine Jesus at the Last Supper doing anything but taking the bread (which was undoubtedly more substantial than the neatly packaged, uniform hosts we use today), breaking it and handing it to his disciples, as he said, “This is my body.” At the same time, I don’t imagine it was a “Cookie Monster” scene with crumbs flying everywhere.

Anecdotally, I think most people who present themselves to receive Communion in the hand do so reverently. However, I have occasionally seen just one hand lazily put out or down low or someone coming up with their “pinchers” ready, as though to take rather than to receive Communion. Those who experience severe arthritis may have good reasons for doing so, if they are worried about dropping the host, but then perhaps Communion on the tongue would be the better option.

The bottom line is: Communion in the hand is allowed and there is historical precedent for it. However one receives Communion, the larger issue is one’s interior disposition toward the sacrament and how that is reflected in one’s reception of the Eucharist.

(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

Protestant Christians do not receive the Eucharist but they participate in communion periodically at their church. By not receiving the Eucharist, are they rejecting Christ?

This is an interesting question and one that requires me to step out of my Catholic brain for a moment. I do not usually think of the possibility that a Protestant might recognize Christ in the Eucharist, as the Catholic Church understands it, and yet not be willing to receive our Lord in that sacrament. Does this constitute a “rejection” of Christ?

A few clarifications at the beginning may be helpful. First, some Protestant traditions do have the same or at least a similar understanding of Christ’s presence in their communion, for example our Anglican/Episcopal and Lutheran brothers and sisters. This is not to say that the Catholic Church recognizes the validity of their communion. Rather, the Church recognizes that they do not see themselves as simply reenacting the Last Supper. They believe they are really receiving Christ in some way in this act. Other Protestant traditions do not believe this. For them it is a “symbolic” act. (The language of “symbol” in the Catholic tradition gets tricky, as “symbolic” does not necessarily mean “not real.”)

It seems to me that someone who does not believe in Christ’s presence in the Eucharist as celebrated by the Catholic Church can hardly be accused of willfully rejecting him in that sacrament. Perhaps that person has not been presented with an accurate understanding of what the Church actually teaches about the Eucharist.

However, if a Protestant (or anyone) came to me and said he or she absolutely believed what the Catholic Church believes about the Eucharist, then I would politely ask, “Then why aren’t you Catholic?” There may be other “hang ups” (for example, the papacy, Mary, the saints, confession, purgatory, etc.), but if someone has found his or her way clear to believing in this essential Catholic teaching about the Eucharist, I don’t know how they could stay away for long.

Something of this dynamic is going on in the sixth chapter of John’s Gospel, in the famous “Bread of Life Discourse.” Jesus speaks plainly when he says, “I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world” (John 6:51). I have often wondered how Protestants could so easily gloss over this or do all kinds of exegetical gymnastics to say that Christ did not literally mean this. If so, then what was so “hard” about this saying (John 6:60) and why did many walk away from him after this (John 6:66)?

I think it may also be important to address what the act of receiving the Eucharist means for us in the Catholic tradition. It is more than a belief in the real, sacramental, substantial presence of Christ in that sacrament. It is also a kind of “oath.” In fact, that is what the Latin word “sacramentum” means. Each time we receive the Eucharist, we are also saying something about our relationship to the body of Christ, the Church. In other words, when we receive Communion, we are not only saying that we believe Christ is present in the Eucharist, but that we are in communion with him and with his body, the Church. For that reason, except under very specific circumstances, the Catholic Church does not allow for “open communion.” It is not out of a desire to exclude, but in fact a recognition of a person’s religious liberty.

Let us all pray for the day when Jesus’ prayer “that they may all be one” is fulfilled.

(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: I recently read that 80% of fallen-away Catholics never received the sacrament of confirmation. What if my child doesn’t want to be confirmed? Is it a parent’s responsibility to make sure their kids are confirmed?

A: I have not seen that particular statistic, but it would not surprise me. However, this could be for a number of reasons and so this statistic may point more to correlation than causation. It is not necessarily because kids are not confirmed that they fall away but that those who are less engaged in their faith are less likely to be confirmed or to continue living their faith beyond high school.

At any rate, this issue comes up frequently in parish ministry and can be a major point of friction within families. On the one hand, parents want what is best for their children and that means passing on the fullness of the faith to them. On the other hand, forcing it can have the opposite effect and end up pushing children further away. Too lax and the kids may think it doesn’t really matter; too hard and you’ve lost them. At best, they will just be “going through the motions,” and I am not sure that is good for either the young person or the Church. What is a parent to do?

A little context may be helpful. The sacraments of initiation are baptism, confirmation and Eucharist. Up until the 20th century, this was the order in which they were celebrated, with confirmation preceding one’s first holy Communion. In 1910, Pope St. Pius X issued a decree allowing children who are of the age of discretion (about 7 years of age) to receive their first Eucharist. Prior to that, children would receive their first holy Communion at around age 10 or older and only after having been confirmed. This effectively flip-flopped the order the sacraments of initiation to baptism, Eucharist (preceded by the sacrament of penance), and then confirmation.

Over time, this had the unintended consequence of making confirmation into a “coming of age” ritual or, worse, a “graduation” from faith formation. It also situated the sacrament of confirmation at a time in young people’s lives when they are naturally more questioning of everything and, especially, of “authority.” It takes an emotionally and spiritually mature young person to authentically desire this sacrament during this turbulent time of life, but I believe that many young people can and do rise to the occasion.

In one parish where I served, the confirmation program was a two-year process but the young person could choose to be confirmed anytime in high school. That meant if they wanted to be confirmed as a ninth-grader, they started the confirmation program in eighth grade. I liked the idea of the child having some agency in this decision and that this could account for differences in personal readiness. At the same time, I worried that it might needlessly delay the sacrament.

I think we have to be careful neither to set the bar too high, making this sacrament of initiation celebrated for centuries with children (even infants in some traditions) out of reach, nor too low, leading families and children not to take it seriously.

In the end, while I absolutely believe in the grace of the sacrament, I guess I would rather have a young person approach this decision seriously and maturely, even if it meant delaying it, than simply doing it out of fear of punishment or to placate their family. To this end, I would start with an open and loving conversation with your child about both your desires and their concerns.

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

By Father Thom Hennen
Queston Box

Could you please explain how a bishop is selected?

This is a timely question as we await the naming of a new bishop for the Diocese of Davenport. It is a process shrouded in mystery for most, though there is good information about how it works. For a more detailed and official explanation, I would direct you to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ website: usccb.org and search for “appointing bishops.”

Like so many processes in the Catholic Church, the process of selecting bishops is at once very human and yet, we believe, guided by the Holy Spirit. It starts with existing bishops submitting names of priests who they feel would be qualified to the archbishop of the province (in our case, the state of Iowa). At their provincial meeting, the bishops discuss the candidates and their qualifications. They vote on the names to forward and send them to the Apostolic Nuncio (the pope’s representative to a particular country). 

From there the process gets a little more mysterious, as the nuncio and his staff conduct their own thorough and confidential research on the candidates. Questionnaires are sent to various people regarding the diocese’s needs and asking them to suggest names. After narrowing the list, a more specific questionnaire is sent to as many as 20 to 30 people who know the specific candidates well. Those consulted need not be clergy. The questionnaires are under what is call the “pontifical secret,” which means those who receive a questionnaire are not to discuss it or their responses with anyone.

In an age when people demand greater transparency from the Church, this may seem antiquated. The reason for the secrecy is twofold: first, to ensure an impartial vetting of candidates and, second, to keep those whose names have been suggested from getting a big head or influencing the process themselves.

When the Apostolic Nuncio concludes his investigation, he prepares a “terna,” a list of three names with his preference indicated and the accompanying documentation from his investigation. He sends the terna to the Dicastery for Bishops in Rome, where, if the dicastery approves, it is presented to the Holy Father. The dicastery may choose another name from the terna (other than the one preferred by the nuncio) or request preparation of a new terna.

After the pope receives the terna, he takes out a gilded dartboard, used since at least the 14th century, and affixes the pictures of all three candidates to it. Then, taking the silver flechette of Antioch, believed to have been passed down from St. Peter himself, he lets it fly! Just kidding! But wouldn’t that be cool? Actually, this would not be totally unprecedented. Let’s remember that St. Matthias was chosen by lot to take the place of Judas as an apostle.

In all seriousness, presumably the Holy Father reads the dossier, prays about the candidates, and then personally chooses. He does not have to choose the one preferred by the Apostolic Nuncio or the Dicastery for Bishops. He too may ask for preparation of a new terna.

Once he makes his selection, he informs the nuncio, who calls the candidate to ask if he accepts. Yes, the candidate can refuse. If he accepts, then the wheels are set in motion for the announcement and the ordination and/or installation of the new bishop. If he refuses, the process starts over.

I hope this sheds some light on this highly secretive but very important process. May God soon send us a bishop whose vision is clear and whose heart is fixed on Jesus!

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

By Father Thom Hennen
Is it still considered a mortal sin to miss Mass on Sundays without a valid reason?

My experience has been that people tend to be either overly scrupulous or totally unscrupulous about this. Some feel that they will be damned for eternity if they ever miss Sunday Mass, even if they were in the hospital in a coma when there was a blizzard and Mass was canceled anyway. Others casually skip Mass Sunday after Sunday because it just doesn’t work in their schedule; the kids had a tournament, they felt like sleeping in, they were on vacation or their favorite team was playing. Hopefully, you can see how both of these attitudes are misguided.

Before we go further, it may be important to remind people of the distinction between “mortal” and “venial” sin. The scriptural basis for this comes from the first letter of John: “If anyone sees his brother sinning, if the sin is not deadly [i.e. mortal], he should pray to God and he will give him life. This is only for those whose sin is not deadly. There is such thing as deadly sin, about which I do not say that you should [simply] pray. All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin that is not deadly” (1 John 5:16-17).

The “Catechism of the Catholic Church” defines mortal sin as sin that “destroys charity in the heart of man by a grave violation of God’s law; it turns man away from God, who is his ultimate end and his beatitude, by preferring inferior goods to him.” Whereas, venial sin “allows charity to subsist, even though it offends and wounds it” (par. 1855).

The Catechism goes on to explain that for a sin to be considered mortal, three conditions must together be met: (1) the act itself must constitute “grave matter,” (i.e., a more serious or direct violation of the Ten Commandments); (2) the person must have full knowledge that this is, in fact, gravely sinful; and (3) the person must deliberately consent to the act (par. 1857-1859). In other words, “It was seriously wrong, I knew it was seriously wrong and I chose to do it anyway.”

Incidentally, the Catechism also states, “Anyone who is aware of having committed a mortal sin must not receive Holy Communion, even if he experiences deep contrition, without having first received sacramental absolution, unless he has a grave reason for receiving Communion and there is no possibility of going to confession” (par. 1487). However, this does not mean the person is dispensed from the obligation of attending Mass.

Many Catholics equate “grave matter” with “mortal sin,” but this is not quite correct. We can more objectively judge what constitutes grave matter by looking at the Ten Commandments, and where there are questions about particular sins, often the Church will clarify. Such is the case for deliberately missing Mass without good reason on Sundays and other holy days of obligation unless excused for serious reason (for example, illness). The Catechism says, “Those who deliberately fail in this obligation commit a grave sin” (par. 2181).

What we cannot judge objectively for anyone but ourselves is whether or not a person had full knowledge that a sin was considered gravely sinful or to what degree (if at all) that they deliberately consented to an act. That is a matter of personal conscience, known only to God and to the person.

Given this, yes, it is still considered a grave matter to miss Sunday Mass, but it is not quite as simple as saying that it is always a mortal sin.

(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

How many ecumenical councils have there been? What is the difference between a Vatican council and an ecumenical council?

First, it may be helpful to explain what an ecumenical council is. The word “ecumenical” is taken from the Greek oikoumene, meaning universal or, more literally, “from the whole world.” An ecumenical council, therefore, is a gathering of the bishops (the successors of the Apostles) from throughout the world to discuss a matter of great importance for the universal Church.

There have been 21 ecumenical councils in the history of the Catholic Church. The Eastern Orthodox Churches recognize only the first seven. The first ecumenical council was the Council of Nicaea in the year 325, called by Emperor Constantine, and the most recent was the Second Vatican Council from 1962-1965, called by Pope Saint John XXIII, whose memorial we observed just last week on Oct. 11 (marking the anniversary of the opening of Vatican II).

All but the last ecumenical council were focused on doctrine, clarifying or further defining some matter of Church teaching, usually in response to some crisis or concern. The first several councils were especially about hammering out the language around our belief in the full divinity and full humanity of Jesus Christ. From the Council of Nicaea, for example, we get the term in Greek homoousios (“of the same being”) to describe the nature of Christ in relation to God the Father. This is rendered in the Latin as consubstantialem and in the current English translation of the Creed as “consubstantial” with the Father.

The Second Vatican Council was convoked specifically as a “pastoral council,” which is not to say that there was nothing doctrinal about it (the council’s documents are full of sound teaching). However, its focus was more on the pastoral application of the Church’s teaching for the modern world. It also called for an updating of some Church practices, which played out in the years following the council.

Both Vatican councils (Vatican I in 1869 and Vatican II in 1962) were ecumenical councils. They are called “Vatican” councils because they took place at the Vatican in Rome. The ecumenical councils are all named for where they took place. They couldn’t just call the Vatican councils the “councils of Rome” because five previous ecumenical councils took place in Rome, but were not at the Vatican. They were held instead at the Lateran Basilica (the Cathedral of Rome).

An ecumenical council does not need to have been called by the pope. As I mentioned, Emperor Constantine called the Council of Nicaea. The pope at the time, Pope Sylvester I, did not attend personally, but sent a legate to represent him. The same was true for many of the early councils. However, a council is considered “ecumenical” when its acts are confirmed or recognized by the pope, as the successor of Peter (see the “Catechism of the Catholic Church,” par. 884).

We should also be careful of some Catholic homophones. Some people confuse the ecumenical councils with the evangelical counsels. These are the Gospel callings of poverty, chastity and obedience, as embraced in religious life.

Also, a distinction should be made between the ecumenical councils and various synods that have taken place over the history of the Church. Synods are smaller gatherings of representative bishops. The present synod also includes a number of laity and religious among the voting members. Like councils, synods are convened to discuss specific topics and are often followed up by a “Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation” by the pope, in which he shares and comments on the findings of the synod.

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