Prayer is a spiritual art, so recommended prayer forms vary according to the artist. In Richard McBrien’s Encyclopedia of Catholicism, three general categories are listed: vocal, mental, and passive. Vocal prayer is defined as anything that uses words—spoken, recited, or sung. It can utilize composed or spontaneous prayers. The psalms and the liturgy of the Mass are two examples of vocal prayer. Mental prayer, by contrast, is a silent reflection involving the imagination and will. Ignatian guided imagery and the use of Scripture in meditation (lectio divina) are samples of mental prayers. Passive prayer is also known as contemplation. You don’t control or generate it: you relinquish all. In return, the mystical encounter awaits as pure gift of God. Passive prayer can be ecstatic, as Teresa of Avila experienced it. It can also be a source of intense suffering, as with John of the Cross.

Another way to envision prayer forms are two categories suggested by Richard Rohr: mental prayer and body prayer. Here “mental” describes that which involves the rational being: both vocal and mental forms outlined above would fit into this idea of mental prayer. Body prayer, by contrast, means “to pray from the clay”—the vessel of the self formed from clay and divine Breath. This could include spiritual activities as diverse as walking the labyrinth or Stations of the Cross, pilgrimage, or fingering rosary beads. Depending on your level of participation in passive prayer mentioned above, this could be a mental prayer or a full-body experience.

The Modern Catholic Encyclopedia (ed. Glazier/Hellwig) gets more explicit, listing 16 prayer forms. The first bunch are communal: public (shared prayer), Eucharist (the source and summit of our faith), Scripture (where God speaks), and the Divine Office (psalm-led prayer on behalf of humankind). Tre Ore, the least familiar on this list, is a Trinity prayer in which one hour is given to silent adoration, one to writing and reflection, and a third to group sharing.

The MCE list includes the familiar: personal prayer, spiritual reading, silent listening, recitation (rosaries, litanies), mental prayer, contemplation, the examination of conscience. It also explores the idea of recollection (bringing God to mind throughout the day), meditation (guiding the intellect and reason), affective prayer (involving the emotions and affections), and journaling as an interactive mapping of the spiritual journey. This is by no means a definitive list. Consider it a place to begin.

Scripture: Num 6:24-26; Psalms; Matthew 6:9-13; Luke 1:46-55, 68-79; 2:29-32

Online
• A downloadable “User’s guide on the ways to pray” by Linus Mundy
• “Find Your Spirituality Type” quiz by Roger O'Brien
• “What's the difference between saying ‘set’ prayers and prayers in my own words?” by Alice Camille
• “How is the Mass ‘prayer’”? by Alice Camille

Books: Prayer and Temperament: Different Prayer Forms for Different Personality Types, by C. Michael, M. Norrisey (Open Door, 1985)

The Breath of the Soul, by Joan Chittister (Twenty-Third Pub, 2009)

Reprinted with permission from PrepareTheWord.com. ©TrueQuest Communications.

The trouble with Pilate’s question—apart from his dubious sincerity—is that someone with a Greco-Roman bias is asking this of a Jewish teacher. To the philosophical mind, truth is a substance obtained through a rational process. You can then pin it to the wall and say: Ta da! That’s truth. To the biblically trained Jewish mind, however, truth is discovered through experience, which then gives rise to faith and promotes integrated behaviors. Pilate and Jesus weren’t in the same conversation.

The Semitic word for truth is aman, meaning “reliable, constant, secure.” It’s the root from the Hebrew word Amen derives. In this sense a person can be true, as well as a word, a law, or a way of life. God is Ultimate Truth to the biblical believer, which is why all earthly ribbons of truth should be pursued, according to the sages of the Wisdom tradition. God will prove to be at the journey’s end. The person devoted to truth can look forward to a mystical union of the earthly and the heavenly: “Love and truth will meet; justice and peace will kiss. Truth will spring from the earth; justice will look down from heaven.” (Psalm 89:11).

In Greek-speak, truth is an intellectually appreciated “known.” So Jesus is described as “a truthful man” by onlookers in our Greek New Testament. But to the Hebrew mindset, embracing truth leads to trust in its source. So those who believe that Jesus is “the way, the truth, and the life” have to put their trust in him and not just appreciate his teaching. One who finds Jesus trustworthy in this way would also have to commit to “doing” truth or living in it: “Children, let us love not in word or speech but in deed and truth.” (1 John 3:18)

Passionist scholar Paul Wadell notes that truth makes society possible. To live together we must trust each other. Living in the truth affirms trust and builds community. In a society of public lies, spin, and distortion, language becomes a disguise of meaning rather than authentic communication. We no longer trust our leaders—much less opponents, foreigners, or enemies!—because “You have my word” becomes an empty phrase. On the personal level, those who choose to live in self-serving fantasy rather than truth will reject reality and short-circuit social justice in favor of what works for them. A community without truth is a harrowing proposition. Say Amen, somebody!

Scripture: Ps. 12:2-3; 19:10; 119:142; Mark 12:14; John 8:31-32; 14:6; 17:17; 18:37; Romans 9:1; Gal 2:5; 1 Timothy 2:3-4; James 5:19-20

Books: Adult Faith: Growing in Wisdom and Understanding, by Diarmuid O’Murchu (Orbis, 2010)

What Is God: How to Think About God, by John F. Haught (Paulist Press, 1996)

Reprinted with permission from PrepareTheWord.com. ©TrueQuest Communications.

According to the church’s moral theologians, this is not true. The morality of using vaccines tested with fetal cell lines has been debated by theologians for years and has consistently been resolved in favor of vaccination. Many common vaccines we routinely give our children—including those for measles, mumps, rubella, and chicken pox—were developed and tested using the same cell lines utilized in the manufacture of the current vaccines for COVID-19. 

Here’s where your sister’s pastor finds matter for concern and confusion. In the U.S., cell lines used in lab research were originally cultivated from fetal tissue from abortions that occurred fifty years ago—before the moral debate on utilizing such tissue was engaged. It’s important to grasp that the fetal cell lines used in the production and testing of vaccines today are not the same fetal tissue from those abortions. Fetal cell lines are grown and reproduced in laboratories. They are thousands of generations removed from the original fetal tissue and are no longer capable of differentiating as human cells do.

The fear among those who reject the use of vaccines as immoral is that receiving the vaccine means materially cooperating with the sin of abortion. However, the distance from the source of the fetal cells and the laboratory process involved in growing and reproducing the cells is sufficient to remove all culpability, in the estimation of moral theologians.

All pronouncements from the Vatican and the USCCB conclude that inoculation with the anti-COVID-19 vaccine does not constitute material cooperation with abortion. Additionally, the immediate good of preventing infection and ending the pandemic is sufficient to offset the distant evil of abortion. It becomes a moral imperative for Catholics to be vaccinated: to participate in the moral good of protecting others from infection. Failure to do so could constitute a sin of omission.

In the words of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF): “All vaccinations recognized as clinically safe and effective can be used in good conscience with the certain knowledge that the use of such vaccines does not constitute formal cooperation with the abortion.” And “The morality of vaccination depends not only on the duty to protect one’s own health, but also on the duty to pursue the common good.”

Pertinent Documents:

—“Moral reflections on vaccines prepared from cells derived from aborted human fetuses” - The Pontifical Academy for Life (PAV) 2005

— Dignitas Personae (On Certain Bioethical Questions) - Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) 2008 

—“Clarifications on the medical and scientific nature of vaccination” - (PAV) 2017 

—“Note on the morality of using some anti-Covid-19 vaccines” - (CDF) December 2020 

—“Moral Considerations Regarding the New COVID-19 Vaccines” - (USCCB) Committees on Doctrine and Pro-Life Activities, December 2020

Reprinted with permission from PrepareTheWord.com. ©TrueQuest Communications.

Most of us equate faith healing with a miraculous resolution of a medical condition that can’t be explained by other means. In charismatic instances of faith healing, a sick person receives the laying on of hands, is prayed over often in an unintelligible language of tongues, and may experience being “slain in the Spirit”—falling to the ground involuntarily. In the movies, this is the moment when the person gets up, throws away the crutches, and walks away restored.

But let’s not be dismissive about the gift of healing. In the gospels, healing is frequently achieved by a touch or word from Jesus. In the early church, James exhorts the community to lay hands on the sick and pray for them—presuming a curative effect. Our Sacrament of the Sick today is an anointing with oil that seeks to restore the sick person to wholeness in body, mind, and spirit.

But what exactly are we praying for when we pray for healing? Theologian John Craghan distinguishes between seeking God’s intervention, and trying to assert mental control over the illness. Movements like Christian Science attempt the latter, while Catholic tradition invokes divine help. Craghan outlines four elements particular to Catholic teaching on healing: All healing is a gift from God. Sickness is not merely a result of incorrect thinking but a real condition. Medical help available through science cooperates with the goal of healing and should not be rejected as contrary to faith. And finally, the body isn’t the only place where sickness lodges and healing is needed; mind and spirit need restoration as well to achieve wholeness.

This understanding suggests it’s not enough to insist, “If it’s God’s will, I’ll get better”—denying a doctor’s recommendations or prescriptions. Likewise, those suffering from depression shouldn’t imagine that if only their faith were stronger, their condition would evaporate overnight. The loss of physical or mental health is distressing enough without the addition of unwarranted blame or guilt. 

The church has always invested in healing by means of the sacraments, as well as in caring for the sick by the construction of hospitals worldwide. Modern health care too often depersonalizes and dehumanizes the sick person in clinical settings and procedures. The Sacrament of the Sick restores the sick to the community of faith, and reveals them as a sign of Christ’s enduring suffering and compassion.

Scripture: Exodus 15:26; 1 Kings 17:17-24; Sirach 38:1-15; Mark 1:21-34; Matthew 14:13-14; 25:31-46; Luke 7:21-23; John 9:1-5; James 5:13-16

Books: Healing Through the Sacraments, by Michael Marsch (Liturgical Press, 1989)

Healing the Future: Personal Recovery from Societal Wounding, by Dennis, Sheila, and Matthew Linn (Paulist Press: 2012)

Reprinted with permission from PrepareTheWord.com. ©TrueQuest Communications.

As an adjective, being scrupulous describes a person who’s extremely attentive to details. Those who are scrupulous get the job done diligently and meticulously. When it comes to moral matters, the scrupulous are known for high-minded principles. If you hire a scrupulous employee, s/he can be trusted not to cut corners, cook the books, or take inkjet cartridges home from the office.

Pathological scrupulosity, however, manifests as a form of anxiety disorder. Then scrupulosity becomes a morbid fear of being in a sinful state. This condition isn’t about having a sensitive conscience: it would be terrific if more people did. The scrupulous person begins to manufacture occasions of sin, seeing the mirage of wrongdoing even where there isn’t any. The scrupulous start to worry that they’re about to sin; or have sinned without knowing it. 

“Don’t be a ‘scrupe,’” a confessor cautioned me when I was a somewhat pious teenager, already convinced that going to confession repetitively was a ladder to greater holiness. This priest was warning me that the road to spiritual scrupulosity often leads, not to the echelons of sanctity of medieval saints I secretly hoped to reach, but to an inability to judge the morality of any action with clarity. When the goal becomes rooting out every speck of potential personal sinfulness, the genuine ideal—of seeking the way of holy living—is obscured. Self-absorption is always a sign that the focus needs to be restored to God, and not to one’s own state of purity. In my case, the early warning got me off a road that could have led to great suffering.

Those who suffer from the mental illness of scrupulosity express anxiety about not going to confession often enough, not confessing adequately, or not performing their penance with sufficient contrition. They confess the same sins over and over, or repeat their penances trying to perfect their remorse. Even so, the scrupulous lose faith in the ability of absolution to do its work. They may come to believe they can’t be forgiven because the evil in them is too great. This, ironically, IS a matter of sin: to doubt the efficacy of divine forgiveness. It’s like saying that Jesus died on the cross in vain when it comes to you, since you personally are too bad to be saved. Those afflicted with scrupulosity should seek professional counseling, in addition to qualified spiritual direction.

Scripture: Joshua 1:9; 2 Chronicles 20:20; Psalms 9:10-11; 46:11; 56:3-5; 103:8-10; Proverbs 3:5; Isaiah 43:25; Matthew 21:22; Luke 1:37; 24:32; John 8:12; Ephesians 3:11-12; Philippians 4:13; Hebrews 13:8; Revelation 3:20-21

Website: https://scrupulousanonymous.org 

Books: Understanding Scrupulosity: Questions and Encouragement, by Thomas M. Santa, SSsR (Liguori Publications, 2017)

A Worrier’s Guide to the Bible: 50 Verses to Ease Anxieties, by Gary Zimak (Liguori Publications, 2012)

Reprinted with permission from PrepareTheWord.com. ©TrueQuest Communications.

Taizé is an ecumenical movement founded in 1952 by Swiss-born Roger Schütz-Marsauche to recover the fruits of monasticism for Protestants and to promote unity among Christians. Does it have the blessing of the Roman Catholic Church? Most surely, and then some. Taizé’s most recent annual meeting, held virtually, received messages of support from Pope Francis, the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, and the Patriarchate of Moscow. In addition, the Archbishop of Canterbury, representatives of the leadership of the World Council of Churches, the World Lutheran Federation, and other communions reaffirmed their support.

Why does Taizé enjoy such universal approval? The integrity of its founder certainly plays a large role. Brother Roger, as he was known, was the son of a Protestant minister and Huguenot mother. As a Presbyterian, Roger studied theology until contracting tuberculosis. During his convalescence, he became fascinated by monastic life. Yet his conscience was burdened by the horrors of war. In 1940, along with his sister Genevieve, he bought a property in Taizé, France, to shelter Jews and Christians persecuted by the Nazis. When the Gestapo learned of their efforts, they moved to Geneva. There, Roger joined an ecumenical community and became committed to the path of reconciliation.

After the war, Roger returned to Taizé to establish a quasi-monastic community open to all Christians. The Church of the Reconciliation, with its simple music and un-dogmatic ritual, attracted thousands of pilgrims weekly—and still does. Brother Roger urged young people to trust in God, remain connected to their local churches and to the common good of humanity. Taizé gatherings can be found in Africa, North and South America, Asia, and across Europe.

Brother Roger’s relationship to Catholicism is the source of much interest. A friend of Mother Teresa, he was known to attend daily Mass since 1972, receiving Eucharist from bishops and even two popes: John Paul II and Benedict XVI. It was rumored he’d become a Catholic, but in 1980 Brother Roger clarified: “I have found my own identity as a Christian by reconciling within myself the faith of my origins with the mystery of the Catholic faith, without breaking fellowship with anyone.” In 2005 at the age of 90, Brother Roger was murdered by a mentally ill woman during a Taizé service. A Catholic cardinal presided at his funeral.

Scripture: John 17:20-26; 1 Corinthians 12:12-31; Ephesians 4:1-6, 15-16 

Website: https://www.taize.fr/en 

Books: Brother Roger of Taizé: Essential Writings (Orbis Books,2006)

A Community Called Taizé: A Story of Prayer, Worship, and Reconciliation, by Jason Brian Santos (Inter-Varsity Press, 2008)

Reprinted with permission from PrepareTheWord.com. ©TrueQuest Communications.

Yes! But you might not know it from the amount of airtime they get in most biblical surveys. Many people are surprised to learn that at least 333 women appear in Scripture. I say at least, since sometimes we’re just told women are present; not who they are or how many they are.

Journalist Edith Deen made a fascinating study of these women in categories that are themselves illuminating as to the roles women play in our sacred story. First she considers the main female actors of Genesis: Eve, of course; but also wives, mothers, and sisters of the patriarchs. Next, Deen studies significant women in the time of Moses and the Judges. Then come bold women of the era of Kings, including a few shrewd Queens. Finally she turns her attention to resourceful women around Jesus and in the early church. In each survey section, both heroes and villains are featured.

While these portraits of the better-known players are interesting, what may be more intriguing is Deen’s alphabetical index of every named woman in Scripture: all 279, from Abi to Zipporah, offered with a helpful citation plus a quick description of their significance. This is followed by a chronicle of unnamed women: 40 daughters, 28 wives, 20 mothers, 8 widows, and 44 others known essentially by their relationships to men. 

This total of 333 stories in which a woman or group of women influences salvation history is both delightful and maddening. We’re delighted women feature relentlessly in the record. It’s also disturbing that so many of these stories are unfamiliar to us. They’re rarely proclaimed at Mass or taught in religious education. Ask the average churchgoer to list as many biblical women as they can. I’ve encountered many who draw a blank after Eve, Mary, and Mary Magdalene.

Because so many women in the biblical record—indeed, in the historical records of any civilization—are unnamed, we may need prodding to recall the Medium of Endor, the Wise Woman of Tekoa, and the Virtuous Wife of Proverbs. It takes a little jogging to consider those featured in parables like the Ten Wise and Foolish Bridesmaids, or the Woman with the Lost Coin. It’s a start, at least, to realize that there are 333 stories about women. But it’s more important to expand our personal list, so we recognize more than a handful of them.

Scripture: 1 Samuel 28:4-25; 2 Samuel 14:1-20; Proverbs 31:10-31; Matthew 25:1-13; Luke 15:8-10

Books: All of the Women of the Bible, by Edith Deen (HarperOne, 1988)

Women in the Old Testament, by Irene Nowell, OSB (Liturgical Press, 1997)

Women in the New Testament, by Mary Ann Getty-Sullivan (Liturgical Press, 2001)

Reprinted with permission from PrepareTheWord.com. ©TrueQuest Communications.

It’s a real boon to the lay church that we have the whole Cana movement. Before the Second Vatican Council, the notion of having a vocation to marriage was not well developed. Although great preparation surrounded the choice for vowed religious life or priesthood, virtually no formation was undergone for the Sacrament of Marriage. When a Jesuit priest John P. Delaney gave a retreat for married couples in New York in 1943, the concept was novel enough for a write-up in America magazine. 

This gave some Catholics in St. Louis the desire to try something similar, asking Jesuit Edward Dowling to create a program for them. Dowling’s retreat in 1944 was first called a Cana Conference—a reference to the wedding feast in John’s gospel at which Jesus performs his first miracle. These retreats quickly took on the aspect of a movement, became formalized into a program in Chicago under diocesan priest and justice activist John Egan. Egan also promoted Pre-Cana Conferences for engaged couples preparing for marriage.

What made these conferences unusual is that they didn’t stick to the narrow lane of an average retreat: all spiritual talk with little practical application. The Cana approach was to discuss real marital situations in the context of a life of faith. The atmosphere was relaxed and friendly, unlike the severe lecture style of most retreats of the period. Laypeople appreciated attention being paid to the all-important vocations of marriage, child-rearing, and community-building by their church. Before long, the Cana movement went nationwide, and diocesan offices to promote the ministry were assembled.

The success of Cana and Pre-Cana led to experiments with the format for other formerly unrecognized groups in the church. Those who’d lost a spouse could attend Naim Conferences: so-called after the story of the widowed woman of Naim who elicits the compassion of Jesus in Luke’s gospel.  Bethany Conferences, named for the presumably unmarried biblical siblings Martha, Mary, and Lazarus, were developed for single Catholics. These programs were all popular in the 1950s and 60s, but the Pre-Cana movement alone left an endurable mark on marriage formation preparation in the United States. Engaged Encounter, Marriage Encounter, and Second Marriage Preparation programs today owe some debt to Cana for focusing pastoral attention on the needs of families to be prepared for their great and singular work in the church and society.

Scripture: Cana John 2:1-11; Naim Luke 7: 11-17; Bethany Luke 10:38-42; John 11:1-44; 12:1-8

Books: The Cana Movement in the United States, by A. H. Clemens (Catholic University, 1953)

The Mission of Love: A Sacramental Journey to Marital Success, by John Curtis, Michael Day, et.al. (Dominican New Priory Press, 2018)

Reprinted with permission from PrepareTheWord.com. ©TrueQuest Communications.

The O Antiphons (also known as the Great Advent Antiphons or Great Os) are sung verses used in evening prayer during the last seven days of Advent (December 17-23) at the beginning and end of the Magnificat, a hymn of praise spoken by Mary. Rendered in order, in Latin and English, the O antiphons are: O Sapientia (O Wisdom), O Adonai (O Lord), O Radix Jesse (O Root of Jesse), O Clavis Davidica (O Key of David), O Oriens (O Radiant Dawn), O Rex Gentium (O King of Nations), and O Emmanuel (O God-with-us).

As an acrostic, the Latin version reads SARCORE, reversed as ero cras (“I will be tomorrow.”) As the Antiphons are traditionally chanted through 23, Jesus is literally born “tomorrow” at the chant's conclusion. Medieval writers loved acrostics. Hebrew psalmists used them in the Bible too.

The O Antiphons have been around at least since the 8th century. Early versions have as many as 12 antiphons, including some for Jerusalem, the Trinity, Gabriel, and the Virgin. When Pope Pius V standardized the liturgy after the Reformation, the O Antiphons were definitively set at seven.

Even if you don’t pray the Liturgy of the Hours, these Antiphons may sound familiar. This is because they were incorporated into one of the best-known hymns of the Advent season: “O Come, O Come Emmanuel.”

Scripture:

Books: The Everyday Catholic's Guide to the Liturgy of the Hours, by Daria Sockey (Franciscan Media, 2013)

Reprinted with permission from PrepareTheWord.com. ©TrueQuest Communications.

Like many liturgical practices, candle lighting began as a practical activity. It was how people turned the lights on before electricity. Early Christians illuminated the catacombs with candles. (In the same way, the lavabo—the ritual washing of the priest’s hands at the altar—was a pragmatic way to remove the residue of the people’s offering, which arrived in the sanctuary not as a basket of sanitary envelopes but as livestock and foodstuffs.)

Candles also had symbolic significance. They were placed on martyr’s graves or near saints’ images to testify that the light these holy ones bear still shines in eternity. A perpetual light at the altar acknowledges the constancy of the Real Presence. A light similarly burns near the Book of the Gospels. Votive lights at a shrine represent the prolongation of our prayer before God.

After electricity became standard, candlelight remained a fixture in both liturgy and devotions. The premiere candle in any church is also the largest: the paschal candle, blessed and lit from the new fire each year at the Easter Vigil. The paschal candle represents the light of Christ illuminating the hearts of the faithful. Five grains of incense embedded in the wax recall the wounds of Christ. As the deacon or priest carries the light forward in procession, the phrase “Light of Christ” is chanted three times, with the assembly’s reply: “Thanks be to God.” Individual candles dispersed through the assembly are lit from the paschal candle so testify that all share in the divine light.

The paschal candle is plunged into the baptismal font to bless the waters used for baptisms. Fire and water unite in this sign, reminding us of other Kingdom paradoxes: the last will be first, the poor will be blessed, and the dead will rise. At the celebration of every baptism, a candle is given to each baptismal candidate to acknowledge the light of Christ within them.

Advent, the season of light, is counted down with the violet- and rose-colored candles of the Advent wreath. Another liturgy in which candles hold a special place is the Presentation of the Lord, also called Candlemas (February 2nd). Candles were blessed on this feast which recalls the day the infant Jesus, the light of the world, was brought to the temple. This feast, honored since the 4th century, historically ended the Christmas cycle. On the following day, the memorial of St. Blaise, unlit candles are used to bless the throat and intercede for healing.

Scriptures: Genesis 1:3-5; Isaiah 9:1; Matthew 5:14-16; John 1:3-9; 3:19-21; 8:12; 9:5; 12:35-36; Ephesians 5:8-14; 1 Thessalonians 5:5; 1 John 1:5-7

Books: From the Beginning to Baptism: Scientific and Sacred Stories of Water, Oil, and Fire, by Linda Gilber, O.P. (Liturgical Press, 2010)

Signs and Symbols of the Liturgy: An Experience of Ritual and Catechesis, by Michael Ruzicki, et. al. (Liturgy Training Publications, 2018)

Reprinted with permission from PrepareTheWord.com. ©TrueQuest Communications.

You’ve identified the issue! The Pope isn’t infallible, precisely because he’s mortal like the rest of us. God alone is infallible. So why does the church talk about infallibility?

The issue arose as to how the church of Jesus Christ might express its authority on matters of faith and morals. The First Vatican Council ((1869-71) issued the constitution Pater Aeternus (“Eternal Pastor”), which describes “the infallible magisterium [teaching authority] of the Roman Pontiff.” Note: the Eternal Pastor is Jesus, not the pope. Also note, it’s the teaching authority exercised by the pope, not the man himself, which is described as error-free. The pope is neither infallible (immune from error) nor impeccable (immune from sin). A brief survey of the history of the papacy will demonstrate this.

Significant restrictions apply on how infallibility is to be claimed. It’s only in effect when the pope speaks ex cathedra (“from the chair” or office of Peter). So nothing he says casually over breakfast is intended. Only when the pope “defines a doctrine of faith and morals that must be held by the Universal Church” are his words deemed empowered with “that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed to endow his Church.” 

Since the promulgation of Pater Aeternus, infallibility has been invoked explicitly once: in the declaration of the Assumption of Mary by Pope Pius XII in 1950. Belief in the Assumption was professed since the early centuries of the church and was not a novel revelation by Pius. Which is significant, since infallibility isn’t intended to grant popes the power to invent new doctrines. So don’t feel anxious about waking up some morning to discover some trending idea grafted onto Catholicism. 

Debate and discussion regarding infallibility, meanwhile, have been non-stop. Vatican II’s Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (Lumen Gentium) submitted that magisterial infallibility doesn’t necessarily attach to the pope but to the church. This means the college of bishops, in communion with the bishop of Rome, exercise infallibility. It’s a corporate endowment: your local bishop doesn’t get to speak infallibly as an individual.

Not everyone got on board with the infallibility clause. A dissenting group left the church to begin the “Old Catholic Church.” Some bishops felt the teaching was unnecessary, ambiguously stated, or seriously flawed. Theologians also warn of “creeping infallibility” undermining the need for teaching to evolve and church practice to reform. It helps to keep in mind that even infallibility has its limits.

Scriptures: Isaiah 22:22; Matthew 16:13-19; Luke 22:32; John 1:42; 17:20-21; 21:15-17

Books: Teaching with Authority: A Theology of the Magisterium of the Church, by Richard Galliardetz (Liturgical Press, 1997)

The Liminal Papacy of Pope Francis: Moving Toward Global Catholicity, by Massimo Faggioli (Orbis Books, 2020)

Reprinted with permission from PrepareTheWord.com. ©TrueQuest Communications.

Yes. The very common activity you’re describing is known as calumny. It’s a sin against the eighth commandment, which decries bearing false witness. The Catechism of the Catholic Church has an entire section on our mutual responsibility to uphold the truth (nos. 2464–2513). This is a special duty at a time when credible information is harder for well-meaning folks to discern.

God is the source of all truth. Jesus calls himself “the way, the truth, and the life.” Jesus also says “you shall know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” Peddling questionable information because it’s entertaining, or supports a position we favor, means participating in the shadow trade of falsehood. The Prince of Lies runs that operation and isn’t a spirit we want to encamp with.

Our obligation to truth prompts us to speak with candor: that is, with freedom from bias or malice. Traditionally, one’s word was one’s bond, which is why we still trust people in court to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth simply because they say they will. (And face a serious offense if they don’t.) We admire those whose word matches their deed. To act against one’s word is considered hypocrisy.

Martyrs aren’t defined as those who die in the name of religion. They’re witnesses to the truth who value it even above their own lives. Valuing the truth includes respecting the dignity of other people. The Catechism lists three errors against the truth concerning others. First, rash judgment: assuming the moral fault of a neighbor without sufficient evidence. Secondly, detraction: disclosing someone’s faults for no good reason. Calumny is last: harming another’s reputation by spreading misinformation. Both detraction and calumny are sins against charity and justice.

While lying is a direct offense against the truth, the Catechism also cautions against flattering, boasting, and malicious caricature. Some of our favorite comedians may be at fault lately with the latter. The ubiquity of social media muddles an already complex issue by presuming a right to the communication of all truth—which the Catechism teaches is not an unconditional right but must be considered with the precept of fraternal love. We must measure whether a divulgence ensures the common good or simply exposes the private lives of others—even if they are public figures. Gratuitous invasion into the privacy of others doesn’t serve the cause of truth or charity.

Scripture: Exodus 20:16; Deuteronomy 5:20; Matthew 5:33-37; John 1:14; 8:12-18, 32, 44; 12:46; 14:6; 18:37-38; Acts 24:16; Romans 3:4; 1 John 1:5-10;

Books: The Truth Will Make You Free: The New Evangelization for a Secular Age, by Robert F. Levitt, PSS (Liturgical Press, 2019) 

Paraclete: The Spirit of Truth in the Church, by Andrew Apostoli, CFR (Franciscan Media, 2005)

Reprinted with permission from PrepareTheWord.com. ©TrueQuest Communications.

Thanks for presuming Catholics should vote! I recently met a retired woman who proudly claimed her Catholic faith. And then even more proudly admitted she’d never voted in a single election: “My trust is in God, not in dirty politics.” 

If politics is dirty, it’s because people of good will aren’t engaged in public life. The U.S. Bishops (USCCB) affirm: “As Catholics, we bring the richness of our faith to the public square.” And also: “In the Catholic Tradition, responsible citizenship is a virtue, and participation in political life is a moral obligation.” (13) Both statements appear in Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship: A Call to Political Responsibility (Nov. 2019). This document on social responsibility has been edited and reissued every four years since the 1976 elections.

Regrettably, the latest edition came out before the pandemic, which would surely have shaped the content. Still, it underscores the timeless principles of church social justice doctrine: the dignity of the human person, subsidiarity, the common good, and solidarity. These four pillars should inform the Catholic conscience on any occasion.

Human dignity requires a passionate defense of the unborn. Yet “equally sacred,” Pope Francis insists, are the lives of the poor, the infirm, elderly, and children. Human dignity is threatened in many ways: indifference to immigrants and refugees, xenophobia, racism, torture, human trafficking, capital punishment, gun violence, global conflict, and the environmental crisis. All must be properly viewed as life issues. All are jeopardized by the “throwaway culture” that labels some lives expendable. 

The principal of subsidiarity involves a concern raised by Pope John Paul II: that “all structures of sin are rooted in personal sin… linked to the concrete acts of individuals.” A person may feel helpless to influence institutional evil. Yet Pope Benedict XVI noted that charity is vital not only in micro-relationships (friends, family members, small groups) but also in macro ones (social, economic, political). (9) The morality of groups matter, from the family to the corporation to the international community. Larger groups have responsibility to smaller ones.

The common good is upheld when the basic unit of society, the family, is nurtured and protected. Children and women must be valued. Workers must earn a living wage. Food security, shelter, education, health care, employment, and freedom of religion must be guaranteed rights. The economy must serve people and not vice versa.

Finally, solidarity remains a Catholic value. Our relationships across society must have a “Eucharistic consistency,” with a preferential option for the poor and a welcome for the stranger. Support leaders and policies that affirm these truths.

Resource: 

Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship (USCCB, Nov. 2019)

https://www.usccb.org/resources/forming-consciences-for-faithful-citizenship.pdf

Reprinted with permission from PrepareTheWord.com. ©TrueQuest Communications.

This perception comes from a limited exposure to church teaching. Actually, the church is very positive about the body. What relates to the body also relates to the spirit, since in biblical understanding body and spirit comprise the human person. “To be holy is to be whole,” as theologian Colleen Griffith expresses it. The human body has a sacramental character to it, as the literal embodiment or incarnation of divine grace. 

Because the church takes this incarnation of divine grace seriously, Catholics take what pertains to the body just as seriously. What we do with our bodies and those of others matters. This is expressed in teachings about sexual morality which get the lion’s share of attention; but also much more. Our positivist stance on the body includes championing the rights to food, shelter, clothing, and protection for all God’s people. The unborn have our allegiance, but also the poor, the imprisoned, the sick, the dying, and the unwelcome. Every instance of injustice demands a Catholic response because injustice resides in tangible systems and affects children of God in the here and now. Since the body is an expression of our creatureliness, respect for the body is extended to the whole creation, mandating profound responsibility to the natural world in which we live and move and have our being.

Scripture has no preferred word for the body. In the Old Testament, the literary device of synecdoche is widely used; that is, a part represents the whole, as when a heart is proud, hunger affects many bellies, or flesh is described as grass. Clearly the entire person is intended, but only the part is mentioned. In Daniel the word used for the whole body translates as “that which is palpable.” In Hebrew understanding, the human person is comprised of body/spirit, and to lose either aspect is to lose what is palpably human.

Jesus preserves this integrated sense of the person in his teaching that one who perceives clearly brings light to the whole body. Yet he cautions that we must avoid the one who can kill the spirit at least as much as the one who visits violence on the body.

Paul opposes any purely mystical proposals about resurrection: it’s all or nothing, body and soul together. For this reason, we must regard our bodies as temples of the Holy Spirit, not spiritualizing matters of religion as if they existed apart from the daily palpable life of every body.

Scripture: Exodus 34:18-23; Psalm 51:12; Isaiah 10:18; Micah 6:14; Daniel 5:21; Matthew 6:25; 10:28-31; Luke 11:34-36; 12:4-7; 1 Corinthians 3:16-17; 6:15-20; 12:12-26; 15:1-58

Publication: "Spirituality and the Body," Reading in Moral Theology No. 17: Colleen M. Griffith.  (Paulist Press, 2014)

Books: Spirit, Soul, Body: Toward an Integral Christian Spirituality, Cyprian Consiglio, OSB Cam. (Liturgical Press, 2015)

A Body for Glory: Theology of the Body in the Papal Collections: the Ancients, Michelangelo, and John Paul II, Elizabeth Lev and José Granados (Paulist Press, 2017)

Reprinted with permission from PrepareTheWord.com. ©TrueQuest Communications.

It’s the power of the keys. Jesus hands to Peter “the keys of the kingdom”: a commission to “bind and loose” on earth what will be, in mirror fashion, bound and loosed in heaven. This language recalls the authority of Jewish scribes who interpret the Law of Moses. Peter, and by extension his successors on the Chair of Peter, have the power to interpret what flies and what doesn’t in church teaching.

The territory of this authority is subject to ongoing definition. The First Vatican Council (1869-70)—see essay: "What happened at Vatican I?"— determined that the holder of the keys speaks infallibly in definitive teachings on matters of faith and morals. To some, this sounded like an expansion of the papal footprint. To others, it merely made explicit what had been implicit in Jesus’ commission. 

The footprint seemed to shrink a little when Pope John Paul II insisted in an apostolic letter that "the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women.” (Ordinatio sacerdotalis, May 1994) Apparently there are some doors these keys cannot open. Some argue the teachings of Jesus are not subject to reinterpretation even by the key holder. Others point out that while Jesus initially chose twelve men to follow him, no teaching restricts the binding and loosing authority to males.

The Latin word from which authority emerges (auctoritas) means to grow or produce. One in authority governs communal growth and direction by persuading or dictating thought, opinion, and action. This invests a leader with great social power, not only over ideas and behaviors but also with the power of decision. The decider, it’s been said, gets to decide.

The Church acknowledges God as the source of all earthly authority. Jesus reminds Pontius Pilate of this during his trial: “You would have no power over me if it had not been given to you from above.” In turn, God subjects all worldly dominion to Christ Jesus, putting everything at his feet. Human beings, as Pilate is warned, participate in this authority by faithfully serving God’s will alone. Peter makes this point to the Sanhedrin: “Obedience to God comes before obedience to men.” 

In addition, church authority can be delegated, and is most certainly shared by the Spirit’s own choosing. Paul’s delineation of gifts—apostle, prophet, teacher, leader—conveys the bounty of authority bestowed on the church. Finally, all church authority imitates the service demonstrated by Jesus at the Last Supper, humbly washing the feet of others. 

Scriptures: Matthew 9:8; 16:17-19; John 13:13-17; 19:10-11; 20:22-23; Acts of the Apostles 4:19; 5:28-32; Romans 12:3-8; 1 Corinthians 12:1-31; 15:25-28; Philippians 2:5-11

Books: By What Authority? Foundations for Understanding Authority in the Church. Rev. Ed., Richard Gaillardetz (Liturgical Press, 2018)

Struggles for Power in Early Christianity: A Study of the First Letter to Timothy, Elsa Tamez (Orbis Books, 2007)

Reprinted with permission from PrepareTheWord.com. ©TrueQuest Communications.

The numbering makes it sound like popes have convened only two councils in the church’s history. Actually, Vatican I was the 20th. Councils are named according to their location. In December of 1869, Vatican I was the first council at St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome. It was interrupted by war in September 1870 and never completed.

Pope Pius IX viewed the Council originally as “a remedy for present evils in Church and society” (Aeterni Patris). A few years earlier, he had published a Syllabus of Errors condemning pantheism, rationalism, indifferentism (the belief that any religion can lead to God), socialism, communism, secret societies, liberalism; as well as errors concerning the nature of the church, society, ethics, marriage, and papal authority. The pope hoped a council would offer solemn endorsement of his condemnations.

Over 50 draft documents were made, but only six were debated, and two adopted. The first adopted article is rarely mentioned, a theological treatise on faith and reason. The second is more familiar: the formal defining of papal infallibility. 

Papal infallibility was presumed by many Catholics and wouldn’t have been debated by most. The Ultramontane (“beyond the mountains”) movement described those who held that a strong papacy was the only defense against liberal ideas launched by politics, science, and philosophy. Most bishops supported strong papal authority but disagreed on its reach. Some theologians, among them British convert William George Ward, felt every pronouncement of the pope ought to be infallible. Many bishops insisted infallibility belonged to the church, not just to the pope; or that the pope enjoyed infallibility in certain situations but not all; or that infallibility was contingent on the pope speaking in harmony with past church teaching and his fellow bishops. Some leaders—including John Henry Newman of England, Archbishop Martin Spalding of Baltimore, and Archbishop Peter Richard Kenrick of St. Louis—believed defining infallibility was a mistake, obviously undone by examples from history. 

Oppositional factions grew among German, English, and French bishops. Dozens left the Council in protest before the final vote. Of the original 774 participants, only 433 were present to vote in favor of infallibility. Two bishops voted against the teaching, including an Italian and Bishop Edward Fitzgerald of Little Rock, Arkansas. Only two German church leaders refused to accept the teaching once it was passed. Both were excommunicated.

Books: Revered and Reviled: A Reexamination of Vatican Council I, John R. Quinn (Crossroad Publishing Co, 2017)

Vatican I: The Council and the Making of the Ultramontane Church, John W. O’Malley, SJ (Belknap Press/Harvard University Press, 2018)

Reprinted with permission from PrepareTheWord.com. ©TrueQuest Communications.

It’s not as easy as you think. Being a sinner isn’t enough, since that describes all of us. Size doesn’t matter: a grave sin doesn’t necessarily put you on the curb. However, when a publicly visible attitude or action “provokes a disturbance within the faith community,” the need to “protect the integrity of the community’s faith, communion, and service” may make an equally visible separation necessary, says canonist Thomas J. Green. This separation is achieved by censure of the stubbornly disobedient (“contumacious”) Catholic. Levels of censure may include excommunication, interdict, and suspension. 

Bottom line: A major criterion for censure is the public effect of an errant stance. The main objective of censure is medicinal: separation may restore the penitent to the church.

The Catechism calls excommunication “the most severe ecclesiastical penalty” [no. 1463], barring one from reception of the sacraments. Excommunicated clerics are also denied the capacity to minister, govern, hold office, or receive benefits. Excommunication doesn’t expel you from the church; it distances you from the community. Nor is it final: it can be lifted by pope, bishop, or authorized priest. In danger of death, any priest can hear the confession of an excommunicant. 

Interdict was historically applied to errant groups; personal interdict differs only slightly from excommunication. Suspension is applied only to clerics: bishops, priests, deacons. Depending on the offense, some or all liturgical and governing exercise may be denied.

Offenses that lead to automatic excommunication are grave and few. They include: 

—apostasy (renouncing your faith publicly)

—heresy (rejecting a church dogma like the divinity of Christ)

—schism (joining a group willfully separated from the church)

—profaning the Eucharist

—physical attack on the pope

—priestly absolution of an accomplice 

—unauthorized consecration of a bishop

—direct violation of the seal of confession by a confessor

—procuring an abortion

Excommunication may also be externally applied for the pretended celebration of the Mass or conferral of absolution by a non-priest, and for violation of the confessional seal by an interpreter or others. Mitigating factors like mental illness, intoxication, ignorance, fear, coercion, or lack of malice naturally affect the grounds of censure.

Scripture: Leviticus 19:17; Sirach 19:13-17; Matthew 7:1-5; 18:15-18; John 20:23; 1 Corinthians 5:1-13; Galatians 6:1; 1 Timothy 5:20

Books: The Code of Canon Law: A Text and Commentary, Ed. Thomas J. Green, et. al. (Paulist Press, 1985). See canons 1311-1399 and tables following.

Canon Law as Ministry: Freedom and Good Order for the Church, James Coriden (Paulist Press, 2000)

Reprinted with permission from PrepareTheWord.com. ©TrueQuest Communications.

The first week my parish reopened, I attended the Saturday Vigil. Normally I sing in the Sunday choir—but alas, singing’s now discouraged. Our music director was at the organ, and he played some pieces that didn’t even tempt us to hum under our breath. Those aerosol droplets that travel up to fourteen feet when singing didn’t stand a chance under these conditions.

I saw the new guidelines in force even before I arrived at the church. An appropriately distanced line formed at the doors. An usher, holding a clipboard, asked each of us if we were feeling well three different ways. I resisted the urge to clear my throat in responding. 

Once inside, I was greeted by a friend stationed at a table. She invited me to purify my hands with the supplied sanitizer. She offered masks to those who hadn’t brought one. Then I was handed off to another usher, who noted I was a “party of one.” He led me to a pew into which I was inserted, like a puzzle piece, into the rightly distanced space.

Our pastor, recently recovered from COVID-19, popped out of the sacristy in a mask. As a chaplain at the local hospital and former patient, he’s sensitive to modeling the right behavior. Contradicting liturgical protocols, my pastor wore his mask throughout the Mass. I won’t tell if you won’t.

Mass began with no procession. No servers or lectors were in the sanctuary. Father handled all the readings. The credence table had been moved to the sanctuary with the offertory gifts—which should not be overly handled at this time. Subtract singing, lector movements, offertory procession, and the collection, and Mass gets slimmer. Fear not about the collection: I failed to mention the ushers received our envelopes in a secure tube before we were seated. 

The dismissal came quickly after the Eucharistic Prayer. Protocols encourage distributing communion after Mass is ended. Those who were not receiving departed with an usher escorting them out, one seating at a time. Those receiving were invited forward by seating, spaced apart. Communion was offered in cupcake papers pre-filled before Mass began, arranged on cookie sheets. A wastebasket ten feet away collected discarded papers.

Outside the church, many parishioners removed their masks and massed near the doors, greeting each other with enthusiasm after so long a separation. All the care that had gone into keeping us distanced and protected inside was undone in the parking lot.

Materials the USCCB recommends for preparing diocesan guidelines:

Road Map to Re-Opening Our Catholic Churches Safely – Ad Hoc Committee of Catholic Doctors (May 2020), 9 pp.

Reprinted with permission from PrepareTheWord.com. ©TrueQuest Communications.

Reopening a parish isn’t as simple as it may seem from the perspective of the pews. It’s more than opening the doors and firing up the organ. Health guidelines were prepared at the request of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB). Liturgical values were established by theologians as well. But the USCCB declined to set a national policy for when and how to reopen, leaving those decisions to regional bishops. Most bishops, in turn, delegated when and how to their trusted pastors. Your question is: why not just create a blueprint for the country or, indeed, for the Catholic world?

Regional distinctions are a huge factor in determining when to reopen. Is the virus controlled in your town and surrounding areas? Mass-goers don’t hail from one place. When a church reopens, Catholics may drive a distance to be there. If numbers are out of control the next town over, opening your church presents a more significant risk.

In addition to infection rates, a pastor must consider his community. One pastor reports how, each month since the pandemic began, parishioners have stomped into the parish office refusing to wear masks or maintain appropriate distancing, demanding that Mass be resumed. The pastor concludes his parishioners aren’t ready to assume responsibility for each other’s safety. Even if most observe the protocols, it would be contrary to the spirit of the Eucharist to forbid or remove others who won’t. Whether he refuses them a seat, or permits them to remain unmasked, it divides and endangers his assembly. 

In addition, the very meaning of a sacrament weighs heavily for some pastors. After reflection and prayer, they conclude that the reopening guidelines compromise the sign value of the very sacraments they seek to make accessible. Taking reservations, discouraging the elderly to attend, or turning people away at the door perplexes them. One pastor noted: “Jesus didn’t say, ‘Take this, some of you, and eat of it.’”  Another decided: “Until we can all assemble, none of us will assemble.” Community is challenged by sitting apart, forbidding touch, and denying any gathering after the service. The spirit of celebration is dampened without singing. Unity is threatened by the specter of fighting over protocols. It diminishes the sacraments to offer an unworthy expression of them, they conclude.

Only when local conditions, parish attitudes, and sacramental viability come together will a pastor be likely to reopen for worship.

Materials the USCCB recommends for preparing diocesan guidelines:

Road Map to Re-Opening Our Catholic Churches Safely – Ad Hoc Committee of Catholic Doctors (May 2020), 9 pp.

COVID-19: Guidelines on Sacraments and Pastoral Care – Working Group on Infectious Diseases Protocols for Sacraments and Pastoral Care, Version 1.2 (May 7, 2020), 24 pp.

Reprinted with permission from PrepareTheWord.com. ©TrueQuest Communications.

No absolute mandate will be issued from Rome to the universal Church, nor from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) to U.S. Catholics. Distinctions between large parishes and small, between cities greatly affected and rural towns outside of major contagion zones, are too significant for a one-size-fits-all rubric. 

Nonetheless, the USCCB has wisely assembled working guidelines encompassing both medical expertise and liturgical norms for each bishop to consider as he issues directives to his pastors. In turn, each pastor will consider his local area’s infection rate, state and city guidelines, as well as his own personnel and physical facility, and what can reasonably be implemented to keep his community safe.

These safeguards are recommended, not only for the safety of the individual congregants, but for those they encounter outside of church to help stem the tide of community spread of a highly contagious and deadly virus. As Pope Francis said in an April 2020 interview in Vida Nueva as reported in America, “for better or worse all our actions affect others because everything is connected in our common home."

These are some general guidelines your pastor is being asked to take into account as he plans to reopen your parish:

• Do everything that can be done with live-streaming or virtual media for the sake of the sick, elderly, those with underlying health conditions or in quarantine who should not congregate.
• Hold services outdoors if possible.
• Keep indoor services well ventilated.
• Common objects (i.e. missalettes, holy water fonts, literature, offertory baskets) are to be removed from pews.
• Aggressive cleaning of commonly touched surfaces must be practiced.
• Hand sanitizer should be available at entrances.
• Bathrooms must be rigorously cleaned, number of users limited, spacing marked.
• Those in the assembly should wear masks. The presider and sanctuary ministers will not be masked or gloved but will maintain physical distancing.
• Mark social distances with tape, signs, paint. Families/parties arriving together may sit together but apart from others by six feet.
• Number of participants will be limited. Participants may call or text ahead for reservations. Last name initial rotations may be used. Ticket services may be employed.
• Avoid singing by cantor or congregation, which spreads infectious droplets farther.
• Collection baskets will not be passed. Offerings may be collected at a stationary site.
• Processionals, recessionals, bringing up the gifts are discouraged. Receiving lines are to be eliminated. Entering and existing pews may be overseen by ushers. 
• Doors should be held open and their handles not commonly touched.
• Dismissal may be handled row by row. Parishioners are encouraged not to stand in groups on church grounds.

The distribution of Holy Communion is an issue sensitive and fraught with complications, with each diocese providing its own recommendations.

Materials the USCCB recommends for preparing diocesan guidelines:

Reopening: Guidance for Worship Services and Religious Gatherings – AIHA Guidance Document, Version 1 (May 15, 2020), 10 pp.  www.aiha.org 

Road Map to Re-Opening Our Catholic Churches Safely – Ad Hoc Committee of Catholic Doctors (May 2020), 9 pp.

COVID-19: Guidelines on Sacraments and Pastoral Care – Working Group on Infectious Diseases Protocols for Sacraments and Pastoral Care, Version 1.2 (May 7, 2020), 24 pp.

Reprinted with permission from PrepareTheWord.com. ©TrueQuest Communications.