Indulgences -- An Historically Difficult Church Teaching

Catholics are often challenged for the history of the Church's teachings and practices regarding indulgences.  So, I thought I'd take a moment and attempt to present the Church's real position regarding this particular doctrine.

This certainly is a sensitive issue which, in the words of Pope St. John Paul II, has "suffered historical misunderstandings that have had a negative impact on communion between Christians".  (Papal address of September 19, 1999)

In Catholic theology, an indulgence is the remission of the temporal punishment due God as a result of personal sin.  Salvation is made possible through the remission of sin obtained by the merit of Jesus Christ, the Savior.  

Baptism remits both sin and the penalty of sin.  However, sins committed after Baptism incur penalties which have not been forgiven.  Mortal sins result in a complete and utter absence of Sanctifying Grace within the soul of the believer.  For those in the state of mortal sin, Sanctifying Grace must be restored through the Sacrament of Reconciliation or by an act of perfect contrition.  Yet, there remains a punishment due to God which is to be expiated in this life or after death.  While venial sins do not result in the total absence of Sanctifying Grace, they incur penalties as well.  

Indulgences remove some (partial indulgences) or all (plenary indulgences) of these penalties owed to God on account of personal sin.

In the words of Pope St. John Paul II:  "In this context, temporal punishment expresses the condition of suffering of those who, although reconciled with God, are still marked by those "remains" of sin which do not leave them totally open to Grace.  Precisely for the sake of complete healing, the sinner is called to undertake a journey of conversion toward the fullness of love."

Indulgences can be applied either for one's own sins or they can be applied to those who have died (the Poor Souls in Purgatory).  The Church prohibits a person attempting to obtain indulgences for another living person.

To legitimately obtain an indulgence for oneself or for a deceased person, one must be a baptized Catholic, not subject to excommunication, reconciled of any serious sin through the Sacrament of Penance, and willing to perform the work for which the indulgence is granted.

It would seem arrogant to think that a person could receive such a gift solely by performing some external act with no interior disposition of contrition or purpose of amendment.  On the contrary, indulgences are an expression of faith in the mercy of God as well as the union of Christ to His Bride, the Church.

So this is the classical teaching and understanding of indulgences.  To many today, this teaching seems outdated and out of touch with the personalist approach to sin as a tear in the fabric of relationship between the Lord and the sinner, a relationship which is re-established in act of admission of fault and an openness to the bountiful mercy of Christ.  The focus of this more modern approach to sin and forgiveness does not appear to open itself to considerations of penalties but rather a complete restoration of relationship.  That is why mention of indulgences from the pulpit are few and far between nowadays.

Whether or not one chooses to believe in indulgences or practice them is certainly a personal choice.  I find it reassuring to believe and hope that there may be something I can do to assist those who have died by obtaining indulgences for them to aid them in their experience of the Beatific Vision.  I can only hope that, at my death, there may be those who will remember me in prayer to God and pray to hasten my journey to His Divine Presence for all eternity.

A Moment of Moral Crisis -- Pope Francis Approves Norms for the Sacraments to Divorced and Remarried Catholics

(Let me say from the very beginning that I have spent a long time in study and prayer this past week reflecting upon recent developments affecting the manner in which the Church will minister to  divorced and remarried Catholics wishing to receive the Sacraments.  In offering this post, I wish the reader to know that I do so with humility as well as some trepidation over the impact which Pope Francis'  decisions will have for present and future generations of Catholic faithful.  And so, this post is more a work in progress than a full and complete consideration of this matter. I hope to continue to reflect on these issues and share those reflections in future posts.  I would ask the reader to please bear this in mind.)

This past week, Pope Francis replied to an interrogatory from the Argentine bishops offering his enthusiastic affirmation of their proposed norms for the implementation of the 8th Chapter of his Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia, the chapter which deals with the sacramental status of divorced Catholics living in second marriages.

In their interrogatory, the Argentine bishops proposed norms for dealing with cases in which Catholics, who are considered to be validly married, have divorced and entered into a subsequent marriage.  The bishops provide for instances in which these same Catholics may be admitted to the Eucharist even when they choose not to practice continence (sexual abstinence) in the second marriage.  The Argentine bishops suggest that, in some cases, abstention from sexual intercourse may damage the relationship involved in the second union or may be unrealistic.  Consequently, failures of continence would not be considered instances of sin for which a Catholic would be culpable.  Their reasoning seems to be in line with the moral implications of Footnote 329 of Amoris Laetitia which suggests that, when continence is practiced in some second marriages, "faithfulness is endangered and the good of the children suffers".

Pope Francis has considered the proposed norms of the Argentine bishops and offered his wholehearted support and affirmation of them.  In doing so, the Holy Father officially has encouraged the Church to make a giant leap from classical  theology to unprecedented moral teachings and practices.  The Pope's decisive action is a move that will not be without great controversy and division within the ranks of the College of Bishops as well as among the myriad numbers of Catholic faithful who themselves will be confused and divided in their acceptance of these revolutionary teachings and practices.

One of the fundamental moral tenets which the Church consistently has proclaimed is that no one is bound to the impossible.  The Church traditionally has this, from the time of the Apostolic Fathers to the Council of Trent. Grace makes it possible to order one's moral choices according to the precepts of the Lord and His Church, even when doing so presents the greatest of challenges and hardships.

 The Council Fathers at Trent gave this teaching the force of law when they stated:  "If anyone says that the commandments of God are, even for one that is justified and constituted in Grace, impossible to observe, let him be anathema (excommunicated and condemned)".  They went on to teach that "God does not demand impossibilities, but by commanding admonishes one to do what one can, to pray for what one cannot, and to be aided that one may be able".

The source of this consistent Church teaching can be found both in the Sacred Scriptures and in decrees proclaimed by acts of extraordinary magisterium (the pronouncements of  Popes and bishops gathered in ecumenical council, the highest teaching authority of the Church).  For this reason, these moral principles form part of the Deposit of Faith (Scripture and Tradition) which all Catholics of good faith must confess and obey.

Both Amoris Laetetia as well as the Argentine norms deviate from this clear magisterial teaching.  Now it appears that the the Christian faithful are no longer considered to be always free in their obligation to fulfill the moral law when it comes to adhering to the teachings and practices of the Church in the case of Holy Matrimony.  Somehow, the demands of marriage are so burdensome as to be impossible to observe.  So burdensome are the obligations of Holy Matrimony that those who divorce, remarry and choose not to observe continence are exculpated from even the possibility of sin.  Consequently, there is no sin which would bar them from continuing to receive the Sacraments.

Never before in the history of the Church has such a teaching been proclaimed and officially sanctioned by a Pope.  The Church finds itself in a new universe of moral and sacramental theology.

The dilemma is this:  the Apostolic Exhortation (Amoris Laetitia) and the Argentine norms approved by Pope Francis appear to contradict teachings which for centuries have been considered to be part of the Sacred Tradition of the Church.  Again, until this critical moment, both Sacred Scripture and Tradition have held that the commandments of God and His Church do not demand impossibilities of God's People.   Such moral precepts always were considered to be binding upon the human conscience.  The Church held that Grace and prayer were sufficient to strengthen and support even those who find the observance of such moral teachings and laws burdensome (or in the words of the Argentine norms "unrealistic").

With the promulgation of Amoris Laetitia and the Argentine norms now officially approved by the Supreme Pontiff, all has changed.

There have been some bishops who have questioned the binding authority of Francis' Apostolic Exhortation saying that it is a matter of Papal opinion and so is not part of the ordinary (and certainly not the extraordinary) magisterium of the Church.  These same bishops have gone even further in explaining that where the document agrees with magisterial teachings it does bind Catholics in conscience but, where it deviates from consistent magisterial pronouncements, it is does not.  Their arguments appear to be in keeping with the traditional Church teaching.

But now that Pope Francis has approved norms which are in conflict (if not in contradiction) to those teachings, bishops are confronting and attempting to respond to an unprecedented situation.  Some bishops have questioned whether the Holy Father has exceeded his authority by giving official sanction to a practice that is inconsistent with the teachings of both Sacred Scripture and Tradition.  Has he?

Thus far, the College of Bishops as a whole has been silent in the face this critical development.  No doubt, many of the bishops are stunned by the official approval which Francis has given to the Argentine norms.  How the overall College will respond is yet to be seen.  How the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony, Reconciliation and the Eucharist will be impacted has yet to be determined.

However, if the Church is not to suffer irreparable damage to its teaching authority, the Holy Father and the College of Bishops need to be unified in offering the faithful guidance and assistance in making the difficult decisions affecting their Catholic faith and practice with regard to these Sacraments.  It would be unfortunate and harmful for a question of this import to be left to individual bishops or conferences of bishops.  Morality by geography is neither instructive nor inspiring.

May the Holy Spirit guide the Pope and the bishops as together they address the desire to both protect the inviolable sanctity of Holy Matrimony and continue to minister to those divorced and remarried Catholics wishing to receive the Sacraments.  Let us pray that God's Grace will be with them and with all those entrusted to their pastoral care.

Infants Who Die Without Baptism

Recently, I was made aware of a friend whose grandchild was stillborn.  His grief for his daughter's loss and the personal loss of his grandson is without comfort.  Words fail to describe the depth of suffering those who lose infants and children to death experience.  We can only intercede for them to the Lord Jesus asking that He console them with His Grace and Love.  We mourn with them and keep close to them in spirit and prayer.

As I spoke to my friend, he asked me what the Church has to say about infants who die without ever having been baptized?  What happens to them?

The Lord Jesus tells us that we come into the world in a state of sin which requires us being "born again by water and the Holy Spirit" in order to enter the Kingdom of Heaven (John 3:5).  Saint Paul is quite explicit as he teaches about the necessity for sacramental rebirth since humanity is born being burdened by the sin of Adam (Romans 5: 12ff),

The Church teaches that the means of sacramental rebirth are not available after death.  Consequently, those who die without Baptism would seem to be eternally excluded from the supernatural happiness of the Beatific Vision (decrees from various Ecumenical Councils including the Council of Lyons II (1274 AD), the Council of Florence (1439 AD) and the Council of Trent (1563 AD).

However, there is an absence of clear positive revelation either from the Scriptures or Sacred Tradition of the Church which addresses the question of what happens to those who die in infancy or before having attained the use of reason and so who are incapable of personal sinfulness.

Over the course of centuries, the Church taught that these particular souls would enjoy a state of perpetual natural happiness but forever would be deprived of the bliss of the Beatific Vision.  This is what the Church means when it refers to the "state of limbo".

In modern times, this teaching has undergone a number of theological and pastoral refinements.

In the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, the Council Fathers of Vatican II declare:  "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Pascal Mystery" (Gaudiam et Spes, Paragraph 5).  The Church teaches, therefore, that every person, who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and the Church but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accord with his personal understanding of it, can be saved (The Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 1260).  This teaching has commonly been referred to as "the baptism of desire".

As regards infants and those who have not attained the use of reason, the Church's contemporary teaching is contained in the following instruction:  "...the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them.  Indeed, the great mercy of God Who desires that all should be saved as well as Jesus' tenderness toward children allows us to hope that there is a way to salvation for children and infants who die without Baptism.  All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of Baptism" (The Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 1261).

In light of the fact that so many infants, particularly the millions of unborn children who are victims of abortion, have died without Baptism, this teaching is especially fitting and poignant.  We can pray and hope that Our Heavenly Father Who is Love will grant those unjustly or prematurely deprived of earthly life the opportunity of enjoying His Presence in eternity.

May the Lord receive their souls into Heaven and comfort the parents, family and friends who mourn their deaths with His Grace and Peace.

What Does the Church Teach About Gambling?

I read a news story about another new casino-hotel opening out here in the Southwest. It will be a multi-storied building with all the amenities of a luxury resort.  Over 15,000 square feet of gaming space.  Gourmet eateries.  Flashy, loud and glitzy.

What is remarkable to me is this:  the growth of the gambling industry, of lotteries both local and national, has been met with stunning silence on the part of the Bishops and Sacred Pastors.  I've searched a number of diocesan newspaper sites online to see what Bishops are saying about the gambling houses being operated in the particular churches entrusted to their care.  I have found precious little the Bishops are providing to the People of God about the morality of gambling.  I can't think of any weekday or weekend sermon I ever heard from a Parish Priest about the morality of gambling.

Mainline Protestant Churches have taken a hard stance against gambling of any kind.  This is well-known, if not universally observed among our separated brethren.  Catholics, however, have had a measured approach to gambling for the most part, although some parochial celebrations have been the source of scandal by the various games of chance in which they have indulged, all with the justification that "it's for a good cause".

Is there any "official" position the Church has taken on the morality of gambling?  I am glad to say there is and it is quite balanced and rather sensible.  Briefly, here is the Catholic position on gambling.

Gambling is to be understood to be the betting of money or other goods of value on a chance outcome of any kind.  Consequently, gain or loss is incurred upon an uncertain event.

The staking of money on games of skill is not be be considered any form of gambling, since the outcome depends not on chance but upon the expertise of the individuals involved.  Likewise, the placing of small and insignificant wagers upon a game of chance is not considered to be gambling.

In its moral considerations, gambling is understood to be the wagering of significant monies or goods on games of chance for the purpose of deriving substantial profit.  To the extent that such gambling may be excessive or give rise to scandal in others, gambling may be sinful.

In order for gambling to be morally acceptable, theologians commonly cite 4 conditions which must apply.

1)  The money or goods wagered must belong to the gambler and be at his free disposal.  It would be immoral therefore to wager monies or goods belonging to someone else, or to gamble with goods or income necessary to fulfill one's obligations to one's self or one's family.

2)  The gambler must act freely, not under the influence of force or fear.

3)  There must be no fraud in the game of chance.  Moreover, one is not permitted to "bet on a sure thing", that is, on a certain event not known to the other gambler.

4)  There is to be an equality of knowledge and experience between the parties.  It is immoral for a professional gambler to take advantage of a novice in a game of chance.

Moral theologians hold that, if there is a lack of ANY of these conditions, then the gambling would be morally unjustifiable.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches:  "Games of chance or wager are not in themselves contrary to justice.   They become morally offensive when they deprive someone of what is necessary to provide for his needs or the needs of others.  The passion for gambling risks becoming enslavement.  Unfair wagers and cheating at games constitute grave matter, unless the damages inflicted are so slight that the one who suffers it cannot reasonably consider it significant." (Paragraph 2413)

We should be cautious about gambling and the easy pathway it can become leading to a life of compulsion and personal destructiveness.  In many cases, it is especially the poor who are attracted to the lure of promised riches at the roll of the dice, the turn of a card or the spinning of a reel.  In other words, very often those who can least afford even small wagers risk what little they have with little hope of gain or profit.  So too, we should be especially concerned at the ever-growing number of Senior Citizens who wager their fixed incomes and, sometimes, their entire life savings at casinos and gambling halls.

Everyone ought to seriously consider and reflect upon the amount of time and money they are willing to put at risk in gambling.  In this context, even charitable raffles and bingos (especially those sponsored by the Church) could be morally unacceptable to those who can least afford even the modest wagers these involve.

In moderation, gambling is a morally indifferent act.  However, when it becomes the sole source of entertainment or the hope of financial security, then one may have crossed the moral line from what is harmless amusement to what is morally wrong.

As I reflect upon this teaching, I find it to be very rational and well-balanced in its approach to gambling.  My wonder more Bishops don't take the opportunity to voice this cogent advice to their dioceses and the general public as well.  We'd all be better off listening to such sage advice.  I'd bet you!

Confession: The Forgotten Sacrament

In 2005, the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate (CARA) reported on the results of a survey conducted to determine the frequency with which the Catholic faithful availed themselves of the Sacrament of Reconciliation.   The results of that survey were troubling indeed.

Some 42% of those surveyed responded that they never seek sacramental absolution of their sins by way of the confessional.  32% of those who did confess their sins to a priest did so just once a year.  Only 22% of American Catholics availed themselves of the Sacrament more frequently.

These figures are now over a decade old.  One can only imagine the fewer number of Catholics seeking sacramental absolution of their sins today.

History reveals that the ritual of sacramental absolution has evolved over the centuries.  The whole concept of seeking absolution from the Church's ordained ministers finds its Scriptural origin in the Gospels, specifially Matthew 16:19 and John 20:23.  At first, during the first two centuries, the bishops questioned whether a baptized person who had committed grave sins (apostasy, adultery, murder) could even be reconciled to the Christian community.  

It wasn't until the 3rd Century that reconciliation would take the form of a public act of penance.  Such an idea was proposed by Tertullian (a prolific Christian author and apologist who would later fall into heresy himself).  In his epic work, De paenitentia, Tertullian writes:  "Confession of sins is not conducted before the conscience alone, but is to be carried out by some external act.  Satisfaction for sin is arranged by confession, of confession repentance is born, and by repentance God is appeased."  Tertullian would go on to specify that the external act of penance would "command one to lie in sackcloth and ashes, to cover the body with mourning, to cast the spirit down in sorrow, to exchange the sins which have been committed for a demeanor of sorrow....to fast, to groan, to weep and wail day and night to the Lord; to bow before the presbyters and to beseech all the brethren for the embassy of their own supplication."  uch an act of confession and public penance to be a once in a lifetime event, administered by the bishop. The penitent would publicly proclaim oneself a sinner and receive the public penance.  Typically a person would receive the sacrament towards the end of his or her life.

However, the ritual which most Catholics would identify as the Sacrament of Reconciliation would not appear among the monastic communities of Ireland in the late 6th Century, when Celtic monks began to incorporate auricular confession (the confession of sins to a priest) as part of their spiritual counsel.  (A practical which I shall address at length in a future posting.)

This practice of the individual confessing of one's sins to a priest would continue and eventually become the norm.  In 1215, the Fathers at the Lateran Council IV promulgated what would eventually be known as the "Easter Duties" when they prescribed the following:  "All the faithful of either sex, after they have reached the age of discernment, should individually confess all their sins in a faithful manner to their own priest at least once a year, and let them take care to do what they can to perform the penance imposed on them. Let them reverently receive the sacrament of the eucharist at least at Easter unless they think, for a good reason and on the advice of their own priest, that they should abstain from receiving it for a time. Otherwise they shall be barred from entering a church during their lifetime and they shall be denied a Christian burial at death."

This precept would later be confirmed by the Council of Trent. (Sess XII, can. ix) 

In the 20th Century, Vatican Council II would place a greater emphasis on sin as an offense against both God and the community. The Council Fathers declared that the rites of the sacrament were to be revised so that they more clearly express both the nature and effect of this sacrament. They defined three forms of the rite, renamed the sacrament of reconciliation: first, for individual penitents; second, for several penitents with individual confession and absolution; third, for several penitents with general confession and absolution. In the wake of Vatican II, Catholics grew accustomed to seeing reconciliation rooms supplementing or replacing the old confessionals.

Without doubt, the Sacrament of Reconciliation has developed over the centuries.  But what has happened in just a few short decades since the end of Vatican II?  How did the Church move from regularly full and busy to empty confessionals?  The explanations and reasons are as numerous as the commentators and theologians who posit them.  

One thing is certain.  The Sacrament of Reconciliation has lost its place in the practice of the Catholic faithful as a meaningful and effective recourse to the merciful forgiveness of the Lord Jesus.  

I would suggest that the Council Fathers of Vatican II, while never intending such, provided a means by which members of the Church could regularly avail themselves of both the Sancitfying and Actual Graces of sacramental absolution.  The Church has taught that the Penitential Rite at the beginning of every Mass provides for the remission of venial sins.  Why not incorporate into the actual rubrics of the Mass the third form of reconciliation which the Council Fathers ratified?  At the moment of silence, the Priest would invite the faithful to examine their consciences and express genuine contrition for all of their sins -- the grave transgressions as well as the less serious sins -- and receive sacramental absolution with its healing and restorative graces.  Would this actual absolution not place each person assisting at Mass in the state of grace expected of those approaching Holy Communion?

Borrowing a concept from modern technology, perhaps the Sacraments should be a bit more "user friendly"?  If there are moral, psychological or social barriers which are standing in the way of people being touched by the healing grace of Sacramental absolution, why not provide an avenue for those obstacles to be overcome and the generous Mercy of Christ dispensed to His People?

History shows clearly that the Sacrament of Reconciliation has taken different forms and been celebrated by different rituals.  Why should its evolution be curtailed in a manner which places the Sacrament itself in danger of extinction?  And, if the Church exists to bring Christ's redemptive Grace to the world, why not do so in the most available and generous ways?

Pope Francis has declared this Liturgical Year 2016 to be the Year of Mercy.  If people are to belief in Christ's forgiveness, they must experience the peace which comes when the soul has relieved itself of the burdens of sinfulness and guilt and be cleansed by the Lord's forgiveness.  I suggest the Holy Father consider the remarkable opportunity and benefits which a rite of general confession and absolution during the Penitential Rite of Mass could afford the Catholic faithful.  A serious discussion and process of discernment by the Pope and the Bishops should begin in the hope of bringing such a possibility to fruition.

Just some thoughts I share with you as I recall the many times I sat in the confessional on a Saturday afternoon with so few, if any, seeking God's pardon by way of sacramental absolution of their sins.

More About Saints: Worship or Devotion?

I received a very interesting response in the form of a question/objection to the blog I wrote concerning the canonization of Mother Teresa of Calcutta which took place just this past Sunday.  A person who identifies himself as a life-long Protestant politely observes and resolutely objects to the Catholic devotion of the Saints as an improper form of worship of human beings.

Let me first welcome the writer and thank him for the opportunity he allows me to clarify the teaching of the Church regarding the practice of honoring the Saints.

It is important to make a fundamental distinction between what the Church refers to as latria, that is, the worship rightly due and offered to Almighty God and dulia, the recognition and honor given to the excellent virtue of a human being.

Certainly, there is nothing inappropriate to the adoration of God when proper honor and attention is given to those persons who excelled in giving witness to the Grace of God by the often heroic virtue with which they lived their lives.  Even in the secular world. we honor and recognize those who have achieved excellence in academics, science, sports and the like.

When Catholics properly honor the Saints, we honor the God who loved them and the God Whom they loved and with Whom they shared their lives so intimately and beautifully.  St. Thomas Aquinas rightly observed that homage which a person has to God's holy ones does not end with the Saint themselves, but always and ultimately reaches to God through their witness.

This is the true spirit with which the Church traditionally has reverenced the Saints.  They are marvelous examples to us of lives touched by the redeeming Grace of the Lord Jesus.

Very simply stated, Catholics do not adore or worship the Saints (including Mary, the Virgin Mother of God).

As far as the intercessions Catholics make to the Saints, the Church believes that, on account of their attainment of eternal bliss in the company of Almighty God and the Angels in Heaven, the Lord has granted Saints the privilege of interceding for those of us on earth who are attempting to follow in their example in the pursuit of personal sanctity.  This spirit of unity is at the heart of the Church's teaching regarding the Mystical Body of Christ as the Church militant (the Church on earth), the  Church Suffering (the Poor Souls in Purgatory) and the Church Glorious (the Saints in Heaven).

It is true that many Catholics unintentionally give scandal when they improperly venerate the Saints.   Sometimes, our overzealous devotion of the Saints causes us to overlook their humanity and make them so perfect that we can never hope to achieve their excellence of Christian witness.  Sometimes, too, there are those who suggest that the Saints attained their sanctity on their own merits and strength of will alone, apart from the redemptive Grace of Christ.  And there are many cases of superstitious practices and beliefs with regard to seeking the intercession of the Saints for protection as well as many other needs.

The key to understanding the Church's proper devotion to the Saints is this:  they were like us, sinful and fallible souls, who did their best in surrendering themselves to the Mercy of Christ and giving witness to this Divine Love by the quality of the lives they led.  They inspire us, encourage us and assist us as we seek to enhance our relationship with Our Heavenly Father.

May the Church's teaching and practice with regard to the veneration of the Saints always give greater honor and glory to God Who loves us so very much.

Moral Questions Surrounding Human Organ Donations

Organ and tissue donations are considered to be acts of heroic charity.  Pope St. John Paul II, in his encyclical letter Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life) declared:  A particularly praiseworthy example of such heroic acts is the donation of organs performed in an ethically acceptable manner." (Paragraph 86)

For their part, the National Conference of Catholic Bishops in the United States have stated in their document, Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services: "Catholic health care institutions should encourage and provide means whereby those who wish to do so may arrange for the donation of their organs and bodily tissue, for ethically legitimate purposes, so that they may be used for donation and research after death." (Paragraph 63)

In those same directives, the Bishops state: "Such organs should not be removed until it has been medically determined that the patient has died.  In order to prevent any conflict of interest, the physician who determines death should not be a member of the transplant team." (Paragraph 64)

Insisting upon the Church's teaching that every life is to be revered and respected, the Bishops echo the concern of Pope St. John Paul II that organ donors not have their lives interrupted prematurely.  In his address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in 1989, the saintly Pontiff asked that the Academy, composed of renowned scientists from various medical disciplines, examine the issue and make recommendations.

Modern medical technology makes it possible for a person's heart and lungs to be kept functioning artificially.  In earlier times, death had been defined as the cessation of the heartbeat and respiration.  In light of the new technical advancements, a determination of death demands a more precise definition.  In other words, how does one determine the clinical death of a person on a ventilator?  From this consideration, there has arisen the definition of so-called "brain death" as the determination that death has truly taken place, permitting the removal of organs or bodily tissues for donation.

The Pontifical Academy presented the results of its research and concluded that "death occurs when there has been an irreversible cessation of all brain functions, even if cardiac and respiratory functions which would have ceased have been maintained artificially."

Of course, the question still remains regarding the manner in which such "brain death" is pronounced.  In some legal jurisdictions in the United States, two independent physicians who have not treated the patient nor are members of a transplant team must be called upon for such a clinical finding.  Specific procedures outlined in the laws are to be followed and various tests conducted to determine that the brain no longer has the capacity to coordinate the physical and mental functions of the body.

Catholics who wish to be organ donors upon their deaths perform a noble and praiseworthy act of selfless love.  Moreover, Catholic physicians may employ brain death criteria in determining death so that organs and tissues may be ethically and morally harvested for donation.

Certainly, Catholics should consult expert medical and legal professionals of their choice who are knowledgeable of and attentive to the medical and ethical teachings of the Church in the process of assisting them in their desire to be organ and tissue donors.

The Moral Questions Surrounding Suicide

Monday, September 5, 2016, was not only the annual Labor Day holiday, but also the beginning of Suicide Prevention Week which recognizes the fact that suicide is not only a personal, family and social tragedy but also is preventable if the telltale signs of depression or anxiety are recognized and properly treated.

Suicide is actually a more critical problem than many people think.  Suicide ranks 8th as a cause of death in the United States.  The number of suicides is almost 54% higher than deaths by homicide.  Moreover, it seems that the suicide rate is highest among white males, 65 years of age or older who live alone.  The Surgeon General has reported that each year approximately 500,000 people require emergency room treatment as a result of attempted suicides.

The Church has consistently taught that Almighty God alone has dominion over life and death.  The Catechism of the Catholic Church proclaims: " Everyone is responsible for his life before God Who has given it to him.  It is God Who remains the sovereign master of life.  We are obliged to accept life gratefully and preserve it for His honor and the salvation of our souls.  We are stewards, not owners, of the life God has entrusted to us.  It is not ours to dispose of." (Paragraph 2280)

In considering the moral implications of suicide, the Church teaches:  "Suicide contradicts the natural inclination of the human being to preserve and perpetuate his life.  It is gravely contrary to the just love of self.  It, likewise, offends the love of neighbor because it unjustly breaks the ties of solidarity with family, nation and other human societies to which we continue to have obligations.  Suicide is contrary to love for the living God." (Paragraph 2281)

The history of the Church's treatment of those who have committed suicide is not without horrific stories of harsh judgment and condemnation.  Families who needed comfort and solace often were stigmatized by their fellow Catholics.  Ignorance of the causes of suicide very much was reflected in the insensitive and hurtful responses of pastors of souls.

Over time and with the advancement of the psychological sciences, the Church has come to recognize that suicide is often the last resort of those who are either physically infirm or psychologically distraught.   "Grave psychological disturbances, anguish, or great fear of hardship, suffering or torture can diminish the responsibility of the one who commits suicide."  (Paragraph 2282)

In offering consolation to those who mourn the loss  of a loved one to suicide, the Church's teaching has become more humane and considerate.  "We should not despair of the eternal salvation of persons who have taken their own lives.  By ways known to the Lord alone, God can provide the opportunity for salutary repentance." (Paragraph 2283)

In modern times, the Church has become aware that the moral responsibility for suicide very often is diminished or eliminated by the presence of profound psychological disorders present in the suicidal person.  This awareness has caused the Church to remove the language of "sin or condemnation" from the discussion of suicide, especially in the pastoral care of those traumatized by its effects, often stunned family members and friends.

Contemporary pastoral theology encourages the offering of the Catholic Funeral Liturgy and burial in Catholic cemeteries for those who have committed suicide.  The Church also mourns with those so overwhelmed and bereaved by the unexpected suddenness of such deaths.  Catholic pastoral practice, likewise, commends the souls of suicidal persons to the Mercy of God and asks the Lord to grant them the peace they so much desired in this life but were unable to find.

For all those who have lost loved ones to suicide, I offer my prayers  as I ask the Lord to receive their souls and grant them eternal bliss.  May Our Heavenly Father console those who mourn with faith and hope in the forgiveness of the Lord Jesus who remains Our Resurrection and Our Life.  May Suicide Prevention Week help make all of us more aware of those who are suffering and assist them with our love, our service and our counsel.

A Sin Not To Recycle?

Once again it seems as though the teaching authority of the Church has been called into question by Pope Francis' recent remarks.  In a message marking the Church's World Day of Prayer for the Care of Creation, the Holy Father called upon Catholics to "repent of sins" against the environment.

Was the Holy Father speaking literally or figuratively when he spoke of the "sinfulness" attached to using to much plastic or tin foil?  Was he decreeing that it is now an article of faith and morals that, in making an examination of conscience, one needs to add another commandment to the list:  Thou shalt not litter or fail to recyle?

Already, the Net has lit up with controversies and commentary surrounding these latest Papal utterances.

So, what is the authority and binding force of these latest Papal exhortations?

To find the answer to that question, it is help to refer to the Council Fathers of Vatican II.  In the Pastoral Constitution on the Church (Gaudiam et Spes, Paragraph 43) the Ecumenical Council declares:  "It is necessary for people to remember that no one is allowed (even Popes) to appropriate the Church's authority for his opinion."  As recently as the Pontificate of Pope Benedict XVI, this same wisdom was reiterated when, in 2011, the Pope stated:  "No one can claim to speak officially in the name of the entire lay faithful, or of all Catholics, in matters freely open to discussion."

Consequently, there are moral questions about which the Catholic faithful and all people of good will may legitimately differ with the opinions of the Pope, whoever he may be.  Not every moral question has been definitively defined by the Church.  While some actions by their very nature are opposed to the natural law and right reason and therefore to be avoided, the morality of other actions may be open to a legitimate difference of opinion among Catholics.

Some examples of legitimate differences of opinion would include comments of Popes about capital punishment, the waging of war, and medico-moral questions.  Thus, one could disagree with a Papal opinion and still consider oneself in full union with the Church and free to receive the Sacraments.

Should a Pope wish to bind the Catholic faithful to a particular moral teaching, he must use the appropriate means and instruments that are available to him and which leave little or no question that his teaching is supported and upheld by the full authority of the Papal Office.

In his recent remarks about the environment, Pope Francis chose to make earnest exhortations in the form a message to the faithful.  Some will laud his effort.  Some will ignore the hyperbole of his remarks.  Both are free to decide whether they agree with the Pope and choose to follow his admonitions or simply choose to do nothing.  Both are legitimate responses.

Personally, I think it's a great idea to recycle as much of our waste products as possible.  However, I can't envision ever personally confessing that I sinned because I didn't put my empty soda can into the right trash bin.  Lord knows, I have much greater failings to confess and for which I need ask His Generous Mercy.

Saint Mother Teresa of Calcutta: What It Means To Be A Canonized Saint Of The Church

 This coming Sunday, September 4, the canonization of Mother Teresa of Calcutta will be officially declared and celebrated by Pope Francis.

Surely, we pray and humbly hope that all those who have died are mercifully judged and have joined the vast company of souls who live in the eternal presence of Almighty God.

Yet, among those who have gone before us in faith, the Church officially declares that particular individuals have lived exemplary lives of Christian witness and do indeed enjoy the eternal state of heavenly bliss.  These particular individuals are known as the "canonized saints" of the Church.

The word "canonized" derives from the Greek word "kanon" which refers to a certain standard measure.  In the canonization process, the Church officially applies the "standard of holiness of life" to certain individuals who are judge to have given witness to an heroic example of sanctity.  This official proclamation is made after a lengthy and involved process.

The custom of canonization began in the early Church.  At first, saints were declared by popular acclamation with the Christian faithful interceding with their local bishop to declare this or that person a saint.  In the early centuries, local bishops enjoyed this authority.

However, since the 10th Century, the Latin Church has applied a complex and strict process of examination and study in the process of discerning and proclaiming that an individual or groups of individuals are indeed in the company of the angels and saints.  Contrary to the misconceptions of some, the Church does not "create" saints, but rather applies the standard of evangelical holiness to those whom God permits us to know are with Him eternally.  The primary evidence that the Church considers to affirm the presence of a person in Heaven is to examine the testimony regarding miracles which have taken place as a result of intercessions made to a particular person or group.

On September 12, 1997, the Holy See published the official procedure to be observed in the canonization process.  Briefly, the process is as follows.

1)  The procedures outlined in the Apostolic Constitution "Divinus Perfectionis Magister", promulgated by Pope St. John Paul II on January 25, 1983 are to be diligently observed.

2)  At least 5 years are to have passed since the death of the saintly candidate before any process is initiated.  This is to allow greater balance and objectivity in evaluating the case and let the emotions of the moment dissipate.

3)  The bishop of the diocese where the candidate died is responsible for beginning the investigation. A "promoter group" consisting of members of the Christian faithful ask the bishop to present a petition to the Holy See.  Once the Vatican approves, the diocesan bishop forms a local tribunal at which witnesses are called to offer testimony of the candidate's virtue and the heroic nature of the candidates exercise of that virtue.  The testimony is gathered along with other pertinent evidence and presented to the Holy See.  At this point, the candidate is referred to as a "Servant of God".

4) This body of evidence is received by the Congregation for Causes of Saints.  A postulator prepares a summary which undergoes examination by nine theologians who give their vote.  If a majority vote positively, the cause is forwarded to the membership of the Congregation for further study.  If the Congregation judges favorably, the cause is presented to the Holy Father who gives his approval and authorized the Congregation to draft the decree of such.

5)  One often here's the term that a particular individual or group has been "beatified".  This means that in the process of examination, a miracle attributed to the candidate after his death has been proven by exhaustive examination of recognized experts.  A decree of proof is joined to the Papal theological decree and again forwarded to the Pope who then declares the candidate "beatified".  Sometimes, the interval between a declaration of beatification can be brief.  Sometimes, it can last centuries.  Sometimes, a cause never advances past this declaration.

6)  For canonization to be declared, another proven miracle is necessary.  The investigation of this additional miracle follows the same methodology as the first, including the issuing of a decree of proof.  The final body of evidence is then presented to the Pope for his discernment and pronouncement that this person is indeed a "Saint" who lives in the eternal company of the Divine Godhead.

The declaration that a particular individual or group is or are Saints is an exercise of the Papal charism of infallibility, that is, the Christian faithful are bound to give their assent of belief that this person or group of individuals are indeed eternally joined with Almighty God and deserve our respect and admiration.

It is noteworthy that Pope Benedict XVI waived the 5 year waiting period and allowed the canonization process to begin immediately for Pope St. John Paul II.

As Supreme Head of the Church, any Pope has the authority to make exceptions to this process which the Church uses to determine those who live in God's presence and who will be honored by the Body of Christ until the end of time.

Certainly, in her lifetime, Mother Teresa's example of humility and service inspired millions of people.  Now she is proclaimed a Saint and until Christ Himself comes again, her name and example will be remembered and be a continuing source of inspiration to the millions of Christian souls who succeed her in life and, please God, will one day join her forever in Heaven.

How To Properly Understand Papal Infallibility

The Church's teaching on Papal infallibility is generally misunderstood by non-Catholics and a goodly number of Catholics as well.

Oftentimes, "infallibility" is confused with the concept of "inpeccability".  Many non-Catholics believe the Church teaches that the Pope cannot sin.  Others find the teaching on infallibility to be related to the practice of the occult, thinking that the Pope utilizes some special or magical rituals when an infallible teaching is proclaimed.

Perhaps, it is helpful to explain that Papal infallibility is not the absence of sin or some magical utterance.  And, even though the Pope enjoys this special gift (charism) individually, infallibility does not belong to the Holy Father alone.  Infallibility also belongs to the College of Bishops (as a whole), whenever they profess a doctrine as true in union with the Pope himself.  

The source of the dogma of Papal infallibility is Scriptural.  Jesus promised the Apostles that He would be with them always and protect the Church from harm.  (Luke 10:16 and Matthew 18:18)

The Fathers of Vatican II gathered in ecumenical council (the supreme expression of Church infallibility) reinforced this teaching of the Scriptures and declared that, even though bishops individually are not infallible, they proclaim Christ's teaching infallibly as they teach in union with the Pope and in unity among themselves. (Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Paragraph 25)

However, infallibility belongs to the Pope individually in a special way as head of the College of Bishops .  Again, the Council Fathers specified that the Pope enjoys this special gift by virtue of his office as Vicar of Christ.  His teachings are true and without error not because the Bishops and the faithful agree or accept them as so.  Rather, the Pope teaches without error because the teaching in and of itself is pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, an assistance promised to the Pope as the Successor of Saint Peter.  (Matthew 16:17-19; John 21: 15-17; Luke 22: 32)

Some deride Papal infallibility asking how the Pope can teach without error, given the examples of some Popes who lived scandalous lives.  Papal infallibility is no assurance that an individual Pope will not sin or give scandal.  Others refer to the fact that Popes have sometimes disagreed with or reformed the practices of their predecessors.  It must be noted, however, that in no case have any reforms or disputes been based upon official teachings in matters of faith and morals, but only with regard to disciplinary decisions or unofficial comments regarding the practice of the faith.  

Pope's do have personal opinions.  These should be seriously considered and received with respect.  However, these opinions remain the personal judgments or insights of the Holy Father and are not infallible.  Only what the Pope solemnly defines as infallible teaching is to be considered an article of faith that is true and without the possibility of error.

It is the Holy Spirit who is the source of this truly blessed and sacred grace which guarantees that the Church and all who proclaim her teachings pass on the truths of the Lord Jesus free from defilement or error from generation to generation until He comes again.  Papal infallibly is yet another sign of how Jesus so beautifully provides for the members of His Body, the Church.