Ask Father

Q: What are we supposed to do with our hands when we say the “Our Father” at Mass? When I visited a parish in another diocese, the priest said we should all be doing the same thing. At our church, some people fold their hands; others have them uplifted; and others hold hands. I didn’t think we were supposed to hold hands, but what do I do if the person next to me wants to hold my hand?
A: This seems to be an increasing problem. As far as the liturgy of the Church goes, there is no prescribed way for the laity for the hands at this time.
The Bishops of the United States on their web site have stated that holding hands is not a good sign at this time. We are supposed to be addressing the Father (vertical) rather than emphasizing our community unity (horizontal).
Further, the gesture of extended or uplifted hands is not now appropriate, since this is a priestly gesture. It is the ancient priestly attitude of prayer. It is called the “orant” posture or “praying” posture from ancient depictions in the catacombs.
Perhaps some day this posture may be extended to the laity, but it is not appropriate now. The priest in the parish you visited has good advice: Everyone should be doing the same thing, and this should not be extended or uplifted hands or holding hands with one’s neighbor. It is a time to reflect on our preparation for Holy Communion by addressing our heavenly Father.
(2/10/06)

**Did God punish with hurricanes?

Ask Father

Q: After Hurricane Katrina, several ministers claimed that the Hurricane was God’s punishment for Mardi Gras. What is the Catholic Church’s teachings in this area?
A: The Bible is a record of a people’s experiences with its God. There is progress in our understanding of God and his will, and revelation was gradual and incomplete until its fullness in Jesus Christ. Even then, we do not always appreciate the fullness of God’s revelation.
In the Old Testament, God did seem to punish evil peoples with calamities. At least that is how the Hebrew peoples interpreted them. Thus the plagues of Egypt. Thus also the punishment of God’s people for their infidelity.
But in the New Covenant, Jesus said that “it rains on the just and the unjust.” In other words, the forces of nature are forces of nature. God does not use them to punish. After all, even in Genesis, he promised that there would never again be a flood to destroy the earth. The Catholic teaching is that God does not use the forces of nature to punish a people for their sins. He rarely interferes with the forces of nature, and then only for good and not for evil. Our God is not a “nature God” but a God who transcends nature.
Still, there are times when we hearken to a former time. Thus in Acts of Apostles, Ananias and his wife are struck dead for “holding out” on the Holy Spirit. Thus also we invoke saints against earthquakes and volcanoes.
In short, God does not use the forces of nature to punish. And, although he rarely intervenes in laws of nature, he can do so and, if so, only for good. Thus we pray for rain in these parched Plains states!
(2/03/06)

**Father explains indulgences and ‘attachment’ to sin

Ask Father

Q: What are the requirements for a plenary indulgence? What does it mean to have no “attachment to sin?” If I do have an “attachment to sin,” how much of an indulgence do I get?
A: The doctrine of indulgences is one of the most difﬁcult theological concepts. The Catechism of the Catholic Church gives the traditional deﬁnition of an indulgence: “A full or partial remission of temporal punishment due to sin.” But that doesn’t help much. We ﬁrst need to explain the punishment of sin. There are at least two aspects in every sin. The ﬁrst is the offense against God. I either turn away from God completely (mortal sin), or I cool my relationship with him (venial sin.) When my sin is forgiven, my relationship with God is restored. Once again I accept his loving kindness. Once again our “friendship” is restored. But there is a second aspect to every sin: I deserve punishment for sin, even when I apologize and return to God’s grace. For every sin there is punishment. For mortal sin, the punishment is hell. For venial sin, the punishment may be in suffering and pain in this life; we call the punishment “temporal.” I may satisfy for the punishments due to sin by a devout and holy life, by penitential works, by acts of charity, and so on. If I do not satisfy for all the punishments due to my sins in this life, then I shall satisfy them in the place of puriﬁcation, purgatory.
Here we need to add a caution: The value of my penitential works is nothing unless offered through, with, and in Jesus Christ. It is Christ who inﬁnitely redeemed us and inﬁnitely satisﬁed for all the sins of all people of all times. My penitential works are a sharing in his redemptive and saving life, death, and resurrection.
Now to indulgences. Perhaps a good image for indulgences would be a “bonus.” Every good work and penitential act is worthy of satisfaction when offered in and through Christ. But, in order to encourage certain speciﬁc prayers and works, the Church may give us a “bonus.” It attaches to the work or prayer an “indulgence.” In so doing, the Church is applying to my good work or prayer some of the inﬁnite satisfaction of Christ and his saints.
A “plenary” indulgence is the full remission of all temporal punishment due to my sins. The conditions for receiving a plenary indulgence are: 1) do the work to which the indulgence is attached, 2) Sacramental confession and absolution within one week of doing the work (either before or after), 3) Reception of Holy Communion within one week of doing the work (before or after). And, as the questioner says, “freedom from all attachment to sin.” This means that I am sorry for every one of my sins and have a ﬁrm purpose to avoid all sin of any type or degree for the future.
What if I am mostly but not entirely free from attachment to sin? God alone is the measure of this; he alone is our judge. We should not get into the measuring game. Rather, we should seek perfection and absolute freedom from all attachment to sin. If we truly receive a plenary indulgence, and if we die immediately, we are free from all purgatory and go straight to heaven.
But remember: Think of indulgences as “bonuses.” The important aspect of our spiritual life is to live as perfectly as possible in union with Christ, and to pray and live a life of charity as perfectly as possible. Then the “bonuses” will be there.
(1/13/06)

**Will suicide bombers go to heaven?

Ask Father

Q: I was raised with the understanding that “intent” was a necessary ingredient when determining when an offense is actually a sin. Do the people who commit atrocities such as suicide bombings believing that they will go to heaven, actually go to heaven?
A: Several years ago, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) wrote a wonderful treatise on moral responsibility and the natural law. He addressed this same question. He said that every human being is subject to the basic principles of the moral law, and that they cannot excuse themselves from moral guilt by “believing what they are doing is right.” The Cardinal took up the case of the Nazi atrocities in World War II and other cases of genocide. Basically, every human being must know that it is wrong to take innocent human life. We must know that stealing is sin, as is lying, and so on. We cannot excuse ourselves on the theory that we were reared wrong or that we didn’t have good religious education. We are responsible.
In answer to your question, God alone is our judge. But no person can think he is innocent or doing a good thing when it is objectively wrong against the basic precepts of natural law. As far as secondary and tertiary principles of the natural law, there may be some debate. But no one is going to get to heaven for deliberately and knowingly killing an innocent human being in the act of suicide.
(12/16/05)

**Sign of peace doesn’t mean we have to shake hands

Ask Father

Q: What can we do when we don’t want to shake hands at the Sign of Peace because of potential sickness? (My wife has an auto immune disease. Colds and the ﬂu can be dangerous to older people.)
A: This is a good question! Although the “Sign of Peace” was restored to the liturgy and to the people after the Second Vatican Council, the church never said what “form” the sign would take. In this country, it has usually been the handshake. But that is not the only possible sign.
The ancient and venerable Roman sign in the liturgy was done in this way: The person giving the sign put his hands on the shoulders of the one receiving, and said, “Peace be with you.” (Pax tecum) The one receiving put his hands on the elbows of the one giving, and said, “And also with you” (Et cum spiritu tuo). This would obviate any possible communication of viruses or germs. In other cultures, the embrace is given, without hands touching.
The questioner is certainly right about the communication of germs. The dirtiest things in our society (germ-wise) are hands and money, with restroom door handles possibly coming in third.) I do not like to shake hands before a meal after I have washed my hands -- just for that reason. And I always want to wash my hands after handling the ﬁlthy lucre of money.
And, of course, we should wash hands scrupulously after sneezing or coughing (naturally, always covering our mouth and nose with a tissue or handkerchief held by hand.) Very likely, we could cut town considerably on the number of cases of colds and ﬂu and other communicable diseases by using good hygiene.
But we don’t always do it! Some pastors (and dioceses) cancel the “handshake of peace” during the ﬂu season. Maybe there is another alternative: How about each person (the one giving and the one receiving) folding his own hands, palm to palm. Then bow, and give the verbal greeting. This would seem to be a great solution. No touching, no risk of passing germs. Perhaps our reader might simply start this. I don’t think it would require any great edict or legislation.
While we are on the subject, recent instructions from the Vatican tell us that we are to give the greeting of peace only to those who are immediately adjacent to us. We don’t go throughout the entire area to give it. The Sign of Peace should not obscure the transcendent mystery of Communion which we soon celebrate. It is a sign of unity in the community and not a big show of hugging and kissing.

**What does the GIRM say?

The General Instruction of the Roman Missal says very little about the Sign of Peace.
The Conference of Bishops has left the development of specific modes of exchanging the sign of peace to local usage. Neither a specific form nor specific words are determined.
(12/09/05)

**How to keep our thoughts pure

Ask Father

Q: Sexual images are everywhere! What can we do to avoid impure thoughts?
A: We live in a sad world. Years ago, we had safeguards which prevented prurient images in the media. This is nolonger true. Our commercials hype the latest pill to enhance sexual pleasure. Everything from soap to real estate is sold with sexual imagery. Our television programs leave nothing to the imagination. So what do we do?
First of all, we can lock out certain channels which habitually offend. The V-chip which is primarily intended to control children’s televiewing may also be used to safeguard adult viewing.
Second, we must practice responsibility in our “custody of the eyes.” At the very ﬁrst instant of seeing a tempting image, turn your attention to something else. If it is on television, immediately turn to something else.
A big problem nowadays seems to be pornography on the net. We can rid ourselves of offending sites by proper software. And we are free: We can exercise responsibility in never clicking to an offending site.
The main thing, though, is to have a good heart and to be responsible: Develop a habit of keeping your eyes from seeing what is offensive. In dealing with impure thoughts, don’t try to get rid of the temptation directly. Rather, attempt to concentrate on something else, something that is good and noble.
We can’t think of two things at the same time. Substituting a good thought for an offensive one will get rid of the temptation. It may take effort to develop this habit if we have been lax in the past, but repeated attempts will gain success.
Have a question for Father? Send it to advancenews@cdowk.org. We may use it in a future column.
(11/25/05)

**Be better disposed to receive God’s grace

Ask Father

Q: Holy Communion is the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. But many Catholics go to Communion every Sunday and yet their lives don’t seem to change. Why isn’t there more evidence of grace?
A: Some Catholics seem to think that the sacraments are automatic. Not true! God’s grace is all-powerful, except he cannot overcome the human will! We can shut God out by our attitude. That attitude might be negative: We may wish to remain in our favorite sins.
Or it may simply be a case of indifference: We expect God to do all the work, while we sit back and do nothing. For the fruitful reception of the sacraments, we must be well-disposed. We must have faith. We must wish to be free of all sin. We must repent. We must desire with all our hearts to become the saints God wishes us to be. The “bare minimum” for the reception of a sacrament is to be free of mortal sin, to have faith, and to desire to receive the sacrament. But that is the minimum. A more fruitful reception of the sacraments requires much more.
Eight centuries ago, St. Thomas Aquinas composed the hymns for the Feast of Corpus Christi. In one of those hymns, the Lauda Sion, he observed that there are unequal effects of the sacrament. Unequal dispositions lead to unequal effects.
Put rather bluntly, even an animal might swallow the Eucharist, but there is no effect whatsoever. A human who is not well-disposed will not experience much change in his life, although grace is there.
The solution is a prayerful preparation for the Eucharist. This requires interior devotion and attention. It may mean reﬂection on the Scriptures of the day. It certainly means prayer that we may be converted completely to God’s ways.
(11/04/05)

**What about the ‘Norvus Ordo’ Mass?

Ask Father

Q: Has the Holy See determined whether “independent” Roman Catholic Churches are valid? They do not use the “Novus Ordo,’ and have Mass only in the traditional Tridentine Roman Catholic Mass as it was prior to Vatican II.
A: After the Second Vatican Council, Archbishop Marcel LeFebvre thought that the Mass promulgated by the Church was invalid. He and some priests who joined him said that the Mass of Pius V (from the Council of Trent) was the only valid and lawful Mass. He ordained priests from his headquarters in Switzerland.
Many Catholics were scandalized by the abuses which crept into the celebration of Mass after Vatican II, and some joined him. The Church has repeatedly tried for a reconciliation, but the sticking point is still the authority of the pope, the Second Vatican Council, and the validity of our present liturgy.
Archbishop LeFebvre was warned that he must not, under pain of excommunication, ordain bishops without the mandate of the Pope. But he ordained four bishops. Thereby he himself and those bishops were excommunicated. Those who knowingly and contumaciously (rebelliously) follow him may have incurred the same penalty.
Are those bishops true bishops? Yes. Are the priests they ordain true priests? Yes. Are their Masses and sacraments valid? Yes.
The validity of a sacrament, including Eucharist and Holy Orders, does not depend on the worthiness of the minister. But they are gravely illicit, for they have separated themselves from the authority of the Holy See and from the unity of the Church. Their schism is analogous to the case of the Eastern Schism of the 10th Century. We recognize that the Orthodox Churches have true sacraments, true bishops, and true priests. Unfortunately we have been separated from each other for a thousand years.
St. Paul, in his epistles (especially those to the Corinthians) considers schism or disunity to be among the chief sins. We pray for Christian unity according to the mind and heart of Christ. What kind of sin would it be to attend a schismatic Mass? It depends on the motive. If this is a denial of the authority of the pope and the validity of our present Mass, then the sin would be grave. To regularly attend such schismatic Masses would indicate such a state of mind. To attend out of curiosity without any danger of scandal or any thought of schism would be no sin at all.
Behind this question are some hidden assumptions and agenda: The questioner calls our Mass the “Novus Ordo,” which is the expression used by those who deny its validity. (It’s about like calling Catholics “papists.”) The assumption also is that our Mass since Vatican II is “new.” It is actually a restoration of the liturgy as it was before the Tridentine Mass! Mass in most ancient times was celebrated facing the people; it was in the vernacular; there was a distintion of roles; the rich fare of the entire Bible was presented throughout the liturgical year. Our present Mass can be badly celebrated; the music may be bland; the preaching may be dull. If so, let us work to reform our manner of celebration. But let us never say that the Mass is at fault.
(8/26/05)

**Should my husband get a new job?

Ask Father

Q: I recently saw a list of companies that donate to Planned Parenthood. My husband is employed by one of the companies. Does he need to find a new job? What if no more jobs are available in his field (aircraft)?
A: The answer to this question, and others like it, come under the theology of “cooperation.” Direct, proximate, and necessary cooperation in serious sin is a serious sin.
“Direct” means that the cooperation is intended or that we are a part of the sin itself. “Proximate” means that what we do is close to the sin itself. “Necessary” means that our involvement in the sin is required, such that, without us, there would be no sin.
A large company may contribute to many causes, some good, some bad, some indifferent. If you are just one of the workers who contributes nothing but your labor, your cooperation is certainly not direct. And it is also not “necessary,” for the company would contribute whether you were there or not. And your cooperation is remote.
Obviously, then, you do not need to hunt for another job. Of course, if another position comes along which has no ties to Planned Parenthood or any other evil, it would be better, all other things being equal (such as retirement, etc.) that you take that position. The fact that we can avoid any sin because our cooperation is remote does not relieve us of the general obligation to do good and avoid evil. If we have a realistic chance of changing policies which are wrong, we should try to do so.
But let us suppose that the case is of a small company, and we are involved in the policy making. There the cooperation might be proximate and necessary, and we would be obliged to seek employment elsewhere.
Have a question for Father? Send it to advancenews@cdowk.org. We may use it in a future column.
(8/05/05)

**Two Communion questions explained

Ask Father

Q: Must a person understand that they are receiving Communion in order to properly receive our Lord? What about the case of a person who has not been mentally or physically able to go to Confession for years?
A: The discipline of the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church gives the following requirements for receiving Holy Communion: Freedom from serious sin and from attachment to sin and realization of the difference between the Eucharist and ordinary bread (or wine.) Thus, for the Latin Rite, first Holy Communion is ministered at a very tender age, but at the age of reason when children can, at least, somehow know the difference between the Eucharistic presence of Christ and ordinary bread (or wine).
The discipline of the Eastern Catholic Churches (those in union with Rome) is different. In the Eastern Rites or Churches, a few drops of the Precious Blood are placed on the lips of an infant immediately after baptism, just as the same infants are also confirmed in infancy. Such infants thus make their first Holy Communion. And Communion in this way is ministered to them throughout infancy.
The underlying principle is that a person need not be conscious in order to receive the sacraments which confer God’s grace. To be sure, awareness and minimal faith is surely desired. It is even required in the Latin Rite. But what if such awareness is not present?
Following the analogy of the Eastern Catholic Church, if all danger of desecration and scandal is avoided, it would seem that a person who is not obviously aware might still be able to receive the Eucharist. If the person had been receiving Communion before the comatose state, one would presume that no Confession is necessary. There is, of course, the question of how the person would receive. Perhaps a few drops of the Precious Blood even if the person is unable to swallow solid food.
In all such cases, the priest should consult with the bishop before acting precipitously. We must never abuse the sacraments. And we must also never restrict God’s grace.
Have a question for Father? Send it to advancenews@cdowk.org. We may use it in a future column.
(6/17/05)

**What about donating organs, cremation?

Ask Father

Q: What is the Church’s teaching about donating organs? (Is the body returned for burial?) What is the teaching about cremation? Are the remains buried?
A: There are many Churches which need good organs, so donating a pipe organ is good. Sorry, just kidding! And we shouldn’t kid in serious matters!
The donation of bodily organs which will save other lives is noble and praiseworthy. But if such an organ is necessary for life, it may not be removed until after real death. In other words, surgeons may not remove a heart for a transplant since it is essential for life. The same is true of lungs.
On the other hand, we can function well with one healthy kidney, so a close relative may donate a kidney even while living. Bone marrow transplants are also good and praiseworthy.
There is, at present, a case of a murderer condemned to death. His sister needs a liver transplant. As I understand it, removal of his liver will mean his death. But if they wait till after he is executed, the liver organ will probably be contaminated.
This is a tough call, but I would say that, unfortunately, under these circumstances, the liver may not be removed. In all cases, the body of the organ donor must be given decent burial.
For centuries the Church condemned cremation. There was even an excommunication for a person who left an order that his/her body be cremated.
The reason was that cremation was almost universally seen as a denial of the resurrection of the body -- which is heresy. Of course, we knew that the resurrection of the body will take place even if the body be destroyed or burned beyond recognition. But the symbol of denial was the problem.
In our times, cremation is rarely seen as a denial of the resurrection.
For this reason, the Church permits cremation. Burial is still preferred, for burial is analogous to Christ’s entombment. It is a symbol of planting the seed in order that the seed will spring forth into life. It is a symbol of what we believe in baptism (“We are buried with Christ in baptism and we arise with him to newness of life.”)
If a person is cremated, the remains must be given Christian burial. It is absolutely forbidden to scatter them over the ocean or over a ﬁeld. It is forbidden to keep them on the mantle in the home. They must be given decent burial in a cemetery. Again, it is the symbolism of respect for the body which will rise in glory on the last day.
Have a question for Father? Send it to advancenews@cdowk.org. We may use it in a future column.
(6/10/05)

**Two Communion questions explained

Ask Father

**Where do souls of unborn babies go?

Ask Father

Q: Our Confirmation candidates posed this question: Where to the souls of deceased unborn babies or aborted babies go?
A: This is basically the same question asked earlier: “Where do the souls of unbaptized babies go when they die before reaching the age of reason?” The answer is the same: We really don’t know much by faith on this question. There are three principles which come into play. The first principle is that grace is required for entrance into heaven.
Grace is a sharing in God’s life. The second principle is that the only way we know of receiving “first grace” for those who have not reached the use of reason is baptism. Through baptism we become sharers in God’s life (sanctifying grace), heirs of heaven, temples of the Holy Spirit, and member of Christ’s Body, the Church.
Those who know nothing of Christ or of baptism can come to grace through an act of faith and love. We don’t know exactly how this works. But at some time in a person’s life, he/she would choose to do good and avoid evil. This would equivalently be an act of love of God or perfect contrition. And such an act of “conversion” would confer grace.
Because infants cannot make such a conscious act, medieval theologians came up with the idea of limbo. Such infants, they said, could not be sent to hell, since they had never sinned against God. But since they did not have grace, they could not enter heaven, they said. Limbo, they said, was a place of perfect natural happiness where the souls of unbaptized infants would go.
But let us consider a third principle: The loving kindness and mercy of God. As a matter of fact, we know of at least one instance where unbaptized infants went to heaven: It is the case of the Holy Innocents - those children who were slaughtered by Herod at the birth of Jesus. We honor them as saints in heaven even though they were never baptized.
This case should be of great consolation for parents who have had a miscarriage. It might also apply to aborted infants. As Catholics, we are free to hold the traditional solution of theologians about limbo. But we are also free to hold that God, in his infinite mercy, can somehow give “first grace” to the innocent unborn who die without baptism.
But such a belief must never lead us to indifference. Since baptism is the only certain way for first grace, we must always seek the baptism of infants as soon as possible after birth. And in case of a miscarriage, parents must administer conditional baptism immediately. And our belief in the possibility of salvation for people who have never heard of Jesus -- such a belief must ever diminish our zeal for the missions.
We can never rest until the entire world comes to the knowledge and love of God and of Jesus Christ and his Church.
Have a question for Father? Send it to advancenews@cdowk.org. We may use it in a future column.
(5/13/05)

**Amen, the doxology and the Our Father

Ask father

Q: I’ve been praying the Lord’s Prayer for 60 years and recently began to wonder why the word “Amen” is not appended to it.
A: “Amen” means more than “So be it.”   It is a lot stronger.   It’s as if we say, “I am totally and completely dedicated to this.” Or perhaps “This is my absolute belief and commitment; I place my life on the line for it.”   It’s too bad that we just matter-of-factly and halfheartedly say this important Hebrew word.
The Gospels were originally written in Greek, but when the Gospel writers want to give the words of Jesus greater impact and emphasis, they preface Jesus’ words with “Amen, amen, I say to you....”    Since the beginning of the Christian era, “Amen” has been the people’s response to community and liturgical prayer.
In the Eucharistic Prayer, the “Great Amen” of the people is analogous to the words of consecration of the priest: It is the total and complete affirmation of the faithful to the Eucharistic Sacrifice.
The Amen is still the conclusion of the Lord’s Prayer except at Mass.   It does not conclude the Lord’s Prayer at Mass since the prayer following “...Deliver us, Lord, from every evil....” in considered to be part of the Lord’s Prayer and an extension of it.   The entire prayer concludes with the ancient doxology “For the kingdom, the power....”
This doxology takes the place of the Amen; the doxology is found in the oldest non-biblical Christian writing, the Didache, written around the same time as the Gospel according to John.
Q: Our Confirmation class discussed the article on tattoos.   Our youth came up with two more questions: Why do sponsors at Confirmation have to be Catholics? and Why are there two versions of the Apostles’ Creed?
A: Confirmation is the sacrament which completes our full initiation into the Body of Christ, the Church.   It is the sacrament to empower us to be active and professing Catholics who stand boldly for their faith.   Sponsors for Confirmation, as well as sponsors for baptism are affirming that they agree with all the Catholic Church believes and teaches.   They also affirm that they will assist the confirmand in his/her life of faith.   It is hard to see how a non-Catholic would conscientiously be able to act in this role.
There are two (and maybe more) English versions of the Apostles’s Creed, but only one Latin version.    The Latin version is the official one.   There are varieties of ways of translating foreign languages.
An old Italian saying goes something like this: “Tradutor e traditore”   It means “A translator is a traitor.”   And that means that it is almost impossible to translate every connotation and nuance of one language into another.
There are many different English translations of the Bible, and most of them are excellent.   But no one of them gives the full impact of the original Hebrew Old Testament and Greek New Testament.
In a similar way, there are slight differences in the English of the Apostles Creed.   In the old days, we said “descended into hell.”   But the original expression means simply “descended to the place where dead people go.” It was not the hell of the damned, but rather “limbo of the fathers.”
The version authorized by the United States bishops about forty years ago reads, “descended to the dead.”   Neither expression completely expresses the meaning of the Latin.   Both are good.
Have a question for Father? Send it to advancenews@cdowk.org. We may use it in a future column.
(4/22/05)

**Confusion about Mass intentions

Ask Father

Q: I am confused about intentions at Mass. What is the difference between the priest’s intention and the intention of person in the pew? How many can I have at Mass? How do stipends work?
A: Since the Mass is a renewal of the entire redemptive life, death, and glorification of Jesus Christ, it is of infinite value. Jesus Christ offered himself (most perfectly in the sacrifice of the cross) to redeem all people of all times and places. He offered himself as the infinite intercessory prayer for all persons everywhere.
Therefore, one may have as many intentions as he desires at Mass, for we offer ourselves in union with Jesus Christ. Since we are human beings, however, we can’t think of too many things at the same time. We may have a long list of intentions, and that is well and good. But it may be well to focus on a couple of intentions for which we fervently wish to pray in a particular Mass.
We all share in the priesthood of Jesus Christ. But the ordained priest who celebrates Mass has a special share in that priesthood. He can direct his intention under a different “formality.” Like anyone else, he, too, may have many intentions at Mass. But the Church has restricted his primary intention to one. For that primary intention, he may accept a Mass stipend. And he may only accept one stipend for a particular Mass. The amount of the stipend is set by the diocese; in the Diocese of Wichita, the current offering or stipend for a Mass is $5.
Historically, offerings for Mass (stipends) and for other ministerial and sacramental services were the means of supporting the clergy. The offerings for baptisms, weddings, funerals, and the like are often called “stole fees.” Nowadays, in this country, the Church supports the clergy with a regular salary. (In this diocese, the salary for a priest is around $1,300.00 per month.) Stole fees go to the parish treasury unless the offerer intends them to go to the priest. (See Canon 531 and Canon 848)
In mission countries, the chief means of supporting the clergy is still the Mass stipend and the stole fee. There are always dangers in such a system: The obvious danger is that it will appear that there is a charge for offering a Mass. And, indeed, in some places, there is a regular schedule of charges for weddings, funerals, baptisms and the like. The Church condemns anything which smacks of simony (offering a material thing for a spiritual benefit). At the same time, poorer countries can’t pay salaries as we do in this country.
Even though priests receive regular salaries in this country, most dioceses still preserve the system of Mass stipends. In addition to giving the priest some monetary support, the Mass stipend makes us aware that we are offering something of ourselves in celebrating a Mass for a particular intention.
Have a question for Father? Send it to advancenews@cdowk.org. We may use it in a future column.
(3/11/05)

**Is it a sin to get a tattoo?

Ask Father

Q: Does the Catholic Church have an official position on tattooing? Leviticus 19:28 says “Do not tattoo yourselves.” Did they have special reasons for no tatoos back then?
A: Before I was ever a Catholic, I remember hearing that it was against the teaching of the Catholic Church for a person to get tatooed. But I have asked older and wiser priests, and they never heard any such thing. All of us agree that the excessive tatoos and weird disfiguring of the body is disgusting. But is it morally wrong?
The context of the passage in Leviticus refers to Canaanite superstitious practices. Strange as it may seem, people would often gash themselves as an act of religion (See I Kings 18:28).
When a person died, they were often afraid of being overcome by evil spirits, so they would disfigure themselves (tattoo themselves) in order not to be recognized by an evil spirit. So the basic context of the Leviticus passage is: Don’t be superstitious. (And sometimes some tattoos do seem as superstitious as they are outlandish. But not always or even often!)
Surely it is wrong to tattoo oneself with an evil message or with an advertisement for evil. Thus gang and cult tattoos.
But in itself, are tatoos morally wrong? The general principle of morality of the body is to treat the body as a temple of the Spirit, a member of Christ. Therefore, we must never do anything to dishonor or disfigure the body. And we must never mutilate the body.
But what about tattoos in moderation and in good taste? Perhaps the further question would be: Does this tattoo honor the body? Does it reflect the dignity of the body as a temple of the Holy Spirit?
Even on the practical level, tatoos are permanent: Fifteen or 20 years from now, a person might have an entirely different outlook, but the tatoo is permanent! Be very careful of doing something which will last until your dying breath.
Along with tattoos might come the question of piercing parts of the body. The same principles apply. It is hard to see how wearing a ring through the tongue, the nose, the belly-button, or other parts, could be considered an honor for the temple of the Holy Spirit. So use common sense, informed by grace and faith, and especially by the realization that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit and a member of Christ’s own Body.
(3/04/05)

**Do churches have a dress code?

Ask Father

Q: Is there -- or should there be -- a dress code for Mass? I’ve heard that a person can’t go inside St. Peter’s in Rome without appropriate dress. Is it true that St. Padre Pio refused to hear the confession of a woman who came wearing pants? Why do some women wear veils and others do not?
A: The appropriate dress for Mass depends on the culture and the circumstances. There are no special rules in this diocese, but a general principle for Sunday Mass would be “Sunday best.” Years ago, “Sunday best” meant tie and coat for men even in the heat of summer. It also meant modest dress and hat (or veil) for women. Times change. There is no requirement now for women to cover their head in Church. Although tie and coat are rare for men at summer Sunday Mass, surely shorts are inappropriate at the usual parish Sunday liturgy. (I say “usual” -- if we are at a vacation resort, shorts are often quite appropriate, as they would be for youth at summer camp.) “Sunday best” in rural areas might simply mean the best pair of jeans and shirt. Surely “Sunday best” should mean something different from beach wear or athletic togs at parish Sunday Mass.
Circumstances differ also. Although tie and coat are not de rigeur at most parish Sunday liturgies, surely we would want to dress up for a special occasion, such as First Communion, Confirmation, visit of the Bishop, and other special days.
It is true that no one may enter St. Peter’s in Rome in shorts. It is also true that women’s shoulders must be covered or they will not be admitted. Most people know that appropriate dress is required, so it is no problem at the basilica.
There is another aspect of appropriate garb at liturgy: Modesty is the virtue by which we do not give offense or an occasion of sin to another person. Sometimes we are scandalized at the “short shorts” or short-short skirts of some teenage girls. And by the low slung hip huggers of boys. And by the off color slogans on T-shirts. Come, now: What are we in Church for? A word of caution: While we strive for “Sunday best,” it’s best not to judge others. Traveling sports teams sometimes can’t get to Mass except in their uniforms (soccer, baseball, etc.) We should be edified that they sacrifice to come to Mass rather than excuse themselves on the basis of “inappropriate dress.”
As for St. Padre Pio refusing to hear a confession, I don’t know. But even saints can be wrong.
Again, the general principle for Sunday parish Masses is to use reason and to wear “Sunday best.” Above all, remember why you come to Church.
(2/18/05)

**Catholic Diocese of Wichita home page

**Should modesty talks be a part of religion class?

**More reading

**Holding hands at Mass?

Ask Father

**Did God punish with hurricanes?

Ask Father

**Father explains indulgences and ‘attachment’ to sin

Ask Father

**Will suicide bombers go to heaven?

Ask Father

**Sign of peace doesn’t mean we have to shake hands

Ask Father

**What does the GIRM say?

**How to keep our thoughts pure

Ask Father

**Be better disposed to receive God’s grace

Ask Father

**What about the ‘Norvus Ordo’ Mass?

Ask Father

**Should my husband get a new job?

Ask Father

**Two Communion questions explained

Ask Father

**What about donating organs, cremation?

Ask Father

**Two Communion questions explained

Ask Father

**Where do souls of unborn babies go?

Ask Father

**Amen, the doxology and the Our Father

Ask father

**Confusion about Mass intentions

Ask Father

**Is it a sin to get a tattoo?

Ask Father

**Do churches have a dress code?

Ask Father