Posts

Posted on

The Morality of Capital Punishment

Dear Fr. Leo:

     What does the Church teach about the morality of capital punishment? – G

Dear G:

     In Alaska, we do not have the death penalty, so the question is academic, but it is one well-worth asking.

     In looking at the morality of capital punishment it helps to first understand the purpose of any punishment in general, next to see how that plays out in the criminal justice system, and finally evaluate whether capital punishment makes sense within that framework.

     In general, punishment has three main goals.  First, to bring a cessation to the offending activity; second, to reform the offender, and third, to restore the moral order, i.e., to satisfy the demands of justice.

     Let’s take an example from family life. Melissa is a 16 year-old girl. She has a curfew of 12:00 Midnight, because as we all know, nothing good happens after midnight in this town.  One night Melissa comes in at 1:00 AM. Even though she tried to sneak in through the garage, Mom and Dad are waiting. She is busted big time. The next evening at a family meeting, her parents explain to her and the other kids the seriousness of the violation, why a curfew is important and to impose a suitable punishment.    Melissa is grounded for one day for every minute she was late, or sixty days. Melissa apologizes to the members of the family and accepts her punishment. At the end of this time, her parents meet with her to discuss the matter one last time and ask what she has learned as a result. Melissa responds that not long after she was grounded some of her friends went to a party where bad things happened and got into a car wreck at about 2:00 AM. In light of that, she states that she has come to appreciate the benefits of the curfew and will not break it again. 

     In this idyllic scenario, we see that all the goals of punishment have been achieved. The offending behavior has ceased, the offender is reformed, and by her being grounded for a fitting amount of time, the demands of justice have been met.

     You can see how these same principles apply to law enforcement and the criminal justice system. If someone commits a crime, law enforcement arrests them, and their guilt is determined by the court, either by admission or by trial. If they admit guilt or are found guilty, the judge has sentencing guidelines for various offenses given the circumstances under which they were committed.

     The death penalty is usually reserved for the most heinous of crimes, namely brutal murders.  Let’s see how it measures up. Regarding the first criteria, it is rather definitive.  One cannot murder again if one is dead. However, upon further reflection, it does not do so well with the second two criteria. Putting the offender to death simply removes the offender from society. There is no possibility of reform. Finally, there are serious questions about how well the death penalty serves the demands of justice.  There are three things (among others) to consider here. First, given the expense of legal appeals which can continue for decades, condemning someone to death costs society several times more than sentencing them to life in prison without parole.  We must ask ourselves if such a high cost to society is justified.  Second, it has been shown that the death penalty does not bring closure for friends and family members of the victim. Ironically, the results are often the opposite. Often families of the victim feel that the offender got the easy way out. They have to deal with the loss of their loved one for the rest of their lives, but the murderer does not. Finally, even now, society does not necessarily possess the means to ensure that an innocent person will not be executed. The recent examples of DNA testing exonerating a person on death row are too numerous to ignore.

      All practical arguments aside, for the Christian, capital punishment eliminates the possibility of the grace of repentance, forgiveness and reconciliation. We cannot ignore the example of Our Lord and the countless examples throughout history where those who have committed even the most heinous of crimes have come to faith and even reconciled with the families of their victims. One great example of this is the case between Colonel Herbert Kappler, the Nazi commander of the occupational forces in Rome and Msgr. Hugh O’Flaherty, whom he tried (unsuccessfully) to have assassinated multiple times. At the end of the war, for his many war crimes, Kappler was sentenced to life without parole in Regina Caeli Prison. For years he had only one visitor. Fourteen years later, Col. Kappler entered the Catholic Church and was baptized by none other than his sole visitor, Msgr. Hugh O’Flaherty. The film, The Scarlet and the Black, (1983) starring Christopher Plummer and Gregory Peck tells the story, as well as a number of books.

     Such Christian hope is reflected in the Catechism, #2267. While noting that in the past, the death penalty was seen as a legitimate means of protecting society, in these times more effective means of detention are available which ensure the due protection of citizens but, at the same time, do not definitively deprive the guilty of the possibility of redemption.

     Consequently, the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that “the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person”, and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide.

Posted on

Advent – Hope and Joy!

You know, in my life as an Ecumenist, both on the theological and the practical side, I have worked with folks from every denomination and major world religion.  One of the side effects is that when one enters into dialogue with others, you gain a real appreciation for your own tradition.

…I really like being Catholic. 

One of the great things about being Catholic is that how we see every part of life as touched by Almighty God. We sanctify everything: people, places…and time. As we enter int Advent this week, I’m going to concentrate on how we sanctify time.

We have holy hours, holy days, (ergo the word “Holiday”), Holy Week, and holy seasons.   In many ways this makes us counter cultural. 

While secular America has just entered “the Holiday Season”, we enter into the Holy Season of Advent. For us Catholics and many protestants, the Christmas season proper does not begin until the Vigil Mass on Christmas Eve and continues until the Solemnity of the Baptism of the Lord. on January 12th.

But before we get there, we have this wonderful season of expectation, preparation, repentance, and hope. 

Most people may know that the Advent season focuses on expectation and think that it serves as an anticipation of Christ’s birth in the season leading up to Christmas. This is part of the story, but there’s so much more to Advent.

       The word “Advent” is derived from the Latin word adventus, meaning “coming,” which is a translation of the Greek word parousia (παρουσία). During the 4th and 5th centuries in Spain and Gaul, Advent was a season of preparation for the baptism of new Christians in January on the feast of the Epiphany, the manifestation of Christ’s humanity and divinity by the visit of the Magi to the child Jesus, his baptism in the Jordan River by John the Baptist, and his first miracle at Cana. During this season of preparation, sometimes called St. Martin’s Lent, since it began on November 11th, the Feast of St. Martin, early Christians would spend 40 days in penance, prayer, and fasting to prepare for this celebration.

       By the 6th century, however, the Church in Rome had tied Advent to the coming of Christ. Pope Gregory the Great in the late 6th/early 7th century composed many of the prayers, antiphons, and psalm responses. But the “coming” they had in mind was not Christ’s first coming in the manger in Bethlehem, but his second coming in glory at the end of the age. It was not until the Middle Ages that the Advent season was explicitly linked to Christ’s first coming at Christmas.

       These days, the first three weeks of Advent focus on our preparation for Christ’s second coming in glory. Then, in the last week of Advent, we shift the focus to our preparation for his first coming in humility.

       The readings each Sunday reinforce this. Today, we hear the prophet Jeremiah remind us that the days are coming when the Lord will fulfill his promise to send the Messiah

       Paul exhorts us to conduct ourselves in a way that is pleasing to God.

       And finally, Our Lord himself tells us that when he comes again in glory, we should stand erect and raise our head, for our redemption is at hand. Indeed, the trials and tribulations that he mentioned seem all too present sometimes. Thus, we need to remain vigilant so that we may recognize him at his coming. 

       And he may find us waiting in joyful hope.

How we keep the Holy Season of Advent not only helps us do so, but it can be a lot of fun.

Be counter cultural! 

This year, why not make Advent something special.  Here’s some ideas

  • Get an Advent Wreath. 
  • Celebrate the Sundays of Advent and the major saints and feasts:
  • St. Andew’s Christmas Novena
  • St. Nicholas Day, 6 December
  • Immaculate Conception, Holy Day Dec. 9th
  • Our Lady of Guadalupe, 12 December
  • St. Lucy Day, 13 Dec
  • Go to Confession!  Get your spiritual house in order.
  • Fun stuff to do in Advent
    • Advent Wreathes
    • Jesse Trees – an example in the Narthex
    • Advent Calendars
    • O Antiphons
  • Have the Wise Men travel across the living room a little each day, until they finally reach the manger on January 6th.
  • Once you’ve set up your Manger, (of Baby Jesus won’t go in there until Christmas), have a little pile of straw nearby. Every times someone in the house does a good deed, put a piece of straw in the manger so that Jesus may have a comfortable bed when he arrives .
  • Clean out your closet and give something to the Warm Clothing Drive.
  • Go to Formed.org for videos, podcasts and Advent resources.

Advent is a time of expectation, preparation, repentance, and hope. 

      For the first three weeks we prepare for his second coming in glory at the end of the age. In the last week, we shift our focus as we prepare to celebrate his first coming in humility. 

      Be counter cultural! Get ready!  Have fun! So that when Our Lord comes…

however he comes,

he may find us ready to welcome him

standing erect, with our heads held high,

filled with hope and joy.

Posted on

What Does a Do King Anyway?

     The feast of Christ the King is always a bit puzzling for us Americans. Since we do not have any practical experience of a king, our notions of royalty are principally governed by our observations of the British royal family, (a most puzzling institution), or from fairy tales. Thus, our perception (rightly and wrongly) is that it is either irrelevant or the stuff of fantasy. Either way, we are left wondering what this “king” thing is all about.

It helps to remember what kings and sovereignty are really all about. In the best sense, as sovereign, the king was a messiah, an anointed of God, ordained as steward over the land as well as everything and everyone on it. If he understood his vocation well, he understood that he was not an owner, but a steward. Thus, at the end of his life, he would be judged by whether the land and the people thrived or not. To carry out this duty, he was given authority. But just as in the Church, that authority only made sense if it was used in the context of service to those in his realm. To act in his own interest was to become a despot. It was an abuse of the gift of authority from God.

So when we speak of Christ, the King of the Universe, first we are saying that he has been given authority by God over all of creation. That means everything and everybody; and by his life, death, resurrection and ascension to the Father, where he makes intercession for us, he continues to be the ultimate steward and servant. Truly, he is the greatest among us because he is the servant of all. 

It’s a good reminder for us on many levels. Our Lord has our best interests in mind and will do all that he can for our salvation in this life and into the next. Should we allow him to reign in our hearts and lives, there is no limit to how much we can love him and others in return. May we have the grace and humility to make it so.  

Posted on

The End is Near! So what?!

I was amused to read that a study done by an independent think tank had determined that because of the culture of gun ownership, geographic isolation and a number of other factors, Alaska is considered to be most likely to survive a zombie apocalypse. Good to know.

I’ve never understood the popularity of the whole zombie phenom. Or rather, I understand it, I just think it is a sad and tragic commentary on the secular humanism that is so prevalent in our country.

Simply put, modern secular humanism has trouble dealing with the mystery of death. Still, because human beings are comprised of a body and a soul, every fiber of our being cries out for some sort of reality beyond this present one.  Rejecting any concept of life after death, and thus, the resurrection of the dead, inevitably leaves one bereft of hope. If all one can hope for in this life is what is before us, then the future is bleak indeed. As a result, any depiction of life after death becomes a caricature of the resurrection of the dead and life everlasting…reanimated tissue…the undead…zombies…ewwww!

Christ reveals a better destiny for humanity. For the Christian, while powerful in its unfolding, the end of the age is not a scary thing. Rather it is the fulfillment of all our hopes and deepest desires. To be a human being is a marvelous thing. We are body and soul. In the resurrection of the body and the life of the world to come, we become what God has created us to be — perfectly human, body and soul. In this light, St. Ambrose actually speaks of death as a remedy rather than a curse, for it is through dying that we are born to eternal life. Sin separated us from God, but for the righteous, death unites us with God forever. The resurrection of the body is the completion of this reality and the fulfillment of our ultimate destiny of perfect communion, body and soul, with God. 

The temptation is to see the resurrection as some distant future reality.  But in truth, it is a reality unfolding in the present moment of the life of every Christian. Even now we are growing in communion with Christ and one another; and so even now we are becoming what God has created us to be. Thus, the Kingdom of God is very much in our midst.

May we have the grace to be people of the resurrection now, so that others may come to know the grace of God in their lives and enter into that same communion of Grace.

Posted on

Softball Questions

    I can’t wait for the election to be over. That being said, I once again remind you of your civic and moral obligation to vote an informed conscience.  That means becoming familiar with the seven pillars of Catholic Social Teaching, you inform yourself about where the candidates and ballot issues fall within that context and vote a well-informed conscience.

Watching candidate interviews can be helpful sometimes. Still I am amazed at the softball questions candidates will get from certain journalists.

Jesus never ran for office, but he did get some softball questions. In his exchange with the scribe in today’s gospel reading, he gets what appears to be a high, hanging curveball that any rabbi could knock out of the park: “Which is the first of all the commandments?” Any seven year old Jewish kid would have gotten this right. It’s like asking a Catholic kid, “What is the first line of the Our Father?”

Is the scribe just being easy on Jesus? Not really. It helps to understand the method of scholarship that was used in those  days. It was a simple process designed to help those involved delve more deeply into the meaning of the sacred texts. There were typically at least three stages. First, someone would ask a question that everyone knew so that they could locate themselves in the text. Next, the one who responded would take that text and provide an insight or connection to something else in the scriptures.  Then the one who initially asked would respond in a like manner.  The process continued until they felt they had exhausted the possibilities. 

This is exactly what the scribe and Jesus are doing. The unique thing is that Jesus connects the concept of the first text, love of God (Deut. 6), with the command to love one’s neighbor as yourself found in Leviticus 19:18. The latter is a pretty obscure text. By linking the two, Jesus shows that he knows the law better than just about anybody in the room. (Which, I suspect is why no one had the courage to ask more questions!)  He also gives us the Great Commandment for all time where love of God and love of neighbor as oneself can never be separated.  The scribe sees the wisdom of his answer. May we have the same grace and wisdom in our lives.

Hey, 60 trips around the sun! What fun. In Alaska, that means we get a permanent hunting/fishing license! Life is good.

Posted on

Ask Fr. Leo – Christians in the Military? Why only Pilate in the Creed?

Dear Fr. Leo,

     Can a Christian be in the military?  What about the fifth commandment?  – G

Dear G,

     The quick answer is, “Yes, but only for the right reasons.”  Christian soldiers do not wage war indiscriminately. Rather, they are the agents of peace in the maintenance of legitimate self-defense. 

     The question is one of the oldest moral conundrums in the Church. It came to the fore in the early 4th century soon after the emperor Constantine legalized Christianity in 313 A.D. By the beginning of the 5th century, Christianity was the official religion of the Empire. Things came to a head after the pagan armies sacked Rome in 410. Many had written on the subject before, but it was St. Augustine, in his classic work on religion and civil society, The City of God, who gave us the definitive articulation. Augustine said that Christians actually make the best soldiers because they only fight in just wars. Augustine’s articulation of what constitutes a just war still sets the context for public policy today. (See the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraphs 2302-2317, Safeguarding Peace.) The taking up of arms for legitimate self-defense is only justified if all of the following conditions are met:

– the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;

– all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
– there must be serious prospects of success;
– the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. the power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition. (CCC, par. 2309).  

The catechism goes on to say that only those with legitimate authority, namely, national governments have the responsibility of determining if these conditions are met. By the same token, governments may impose upon their citizens the obligations of defense. In times of national crisis, they can draft people into military service. In doing so, “Those who are sworn to serve their country in the armed forces are servants of the security and freedom of nations. If they carry out their duty honorably, they truly contribute to the common good of the nation and the maintenance of peace.” (CCC, par. 2310) 

     At the same time the Church is very clear that governments must also make allowances for those who in conscience cannot take up arms. However, “these are nonetheless obliged to serve the human community in some other way.” (CCC, par. 2311)

     In sum, Christians can and do serve honorably in the armed services, but they do so, not as “hawks” or aggressors, but under certain conditions and according to a strict moral code. Nations have a legitimate right to self-defense, but war is always the last resort when all other peaceful means of resolution of conflict have been exhausted. In the meantime, we all have an obligation to work actively to build up a more peaceful world, in our homes, in our parishes, our schools, and our communities so that armed conflict becomes not only unnecessary, but truly unthinkable. 

Dear Fr. Leo:

     Why is only Pontius Pilate named for his role in Christ’s crucifixion in our creed?  Why are the elders, the chief priests, and the scribes who persecuted, plotted, and paid blood money for Christ’s crucifixion not named?  – T

Dear T,

     That’s a good question. In fact, we could even take it even a step further. Why not name all of us other sinners as well? If you think about, we all had a role to play in the sufferings of Christ. That being said, I like the distinction you make that it was the religious authorities at that time, and not the whole Jewish people, who had a central role in the Passion of Christ.

     But in point of fact, the wording of the Nicene Creed has less to do with what went on at the time of Jesus than what was going on at the time the Creed was written. When the bishops met at Nicaea in 325 A.D, they were faced with the first major dogmatic crisis in the Church. The priest, Arius, a good Greek well-versed in the Greek philosophers, could not get his head around the notion that Jesus was truly human and truly divine. As a result, he rejected the divinity of Christ. He gained quite a following and caused much confusion and conflict in the Church. To resolve the matter, the emperor called a Council. Long story short, with the help of St. Leo the Great, the council fathers affirmed that while truly human, Christ was at the same time “of the same substance” as the Father. Furthermore, it was the whole Christ, not just half of him, who redeemed us by his suffering on the Cross, and who glorified us by his resurrection. I suspect that since Pilate was the legitimate Roman authority who gave the order, he was named in the Creed as a way of including all those involved. And, if you think about it, all of us are included a little earlier in the Creed with the phrase “For us…and for our salvation, he came down from heaven.” Thanks for the question!

Posted on

To Serve

Here in Alaska, we are blessed every year by over 2.7M people who visit us every year.  The average stay is about eight and a half nights. Every one of us either has or knows somebody who has waited tables or tended bar, or worked in some aspect of the hospitality industry.  I think everybody should at some point. You learn a lot of good, subtle skills.

I’m reminded of the man from Wisconsin who walked into a bar. While he’s sitting there, he hears a little voice say, “Hey, I like your hair that way.” He looks around and sees no one. As the bartender brings him his drink, he hears the voice again, “Hey, that color looks really good on you.”  Puzzled, he asked bartender, “Are you speaking to me?”  The bartender says, “Oh no, that’s the peanuts.  Their complimentary.” 

Chris and the peanuts understand what Anthelme Brillat-Savarin, meant when in  1825 he said: To welcome a guest is to be answerable for his or her happiness so long as he is beneath your roof.

In short, it is a very profound, indeed a sacred thing to be at the service of another person.

And as we learn in the readings given us today, it is an essential part of being a follower of Jesus.  You cannot be a follower of Jesus without being a servant to others. 

We get a hint of this in the first reading where Joshua confronts the people at the end of their journey to the promised land.  There, with the people who have joined them, he essentially exhorts them, “Choose now! Whom will you serve?” 

This sense of service emphasizes the transcendence of God. The servant subordinates him- or herself  to the one being served.  In the context of Joshua and the people, it is a statement of faith, an acknowledgement that God is greater that we are and that our lives only make sense in service to him.  In short, it is an embrace of primary tenant of true religion:

       God is God…and you are not. 

Paul emphasizes this idea of subordination in his Letter to the Ephesians that we hear today. The first thing we hear him say is:  Be subordinate to one another out of reverence for Christ.

       Do you see the subtle shift here? 

       Q: Jesus Christ is Lord.  But how are we to serve the Lord?

       A: By being of service to one another. 

Paul then gives some examples of what that might look like in the culture of his day.

       For Paul, and for us, to be a Christian is to be one who serves others. 

Q: Where does Paul get this idea? 

       A: From Christ himself. 

Today we come to the conclusion of the Bread of Life Discourse.  It is a moment of decision, not unlike the one with Joshua and the people we heard earlier. 

Up to this point, having seen the miracles, having been fed by the loaves and the fishes, those in the crowd are great fans of Jesus, but they are not yet his followers. The teaching that Jesus has just given is hard. They don’t know what to make of it. But what an interesting question Jesus asks them: “ What if you saw the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?”

When we realize who Jesus is and when we understand what he has done, the implication here is inescapable and utterly stupefying.  Put simply, the second person of the Blessed Trinity, the Eternal Logos, he who is truly divine made himself subordinate to us. He came to serve, not to be served, so that we might have life and have it abundantly. 

It is fitting that the conclusion of the Bread of Life Discourse ends by reminding us that to be a follower of Christ means to be a man or woman who serves. 

Even today, Jesus has many fans but few followers. One can be a believer without being very believable. 

So many in our increasingly secular society see Jesus as a cosmic therapist who is there simply to make them feel better. 

Nothing could be further than the truth. 

To be a follower of Jesus is to serve the Lord by serving one another. In our Eucharist, which he left us as an everlasting memorial of his passion death and resurrection, we do four things. 

       We gather

       We share our stories

       We break and share the Bread of Life

       And we are sent into the world to be of service to the world

              And if not the whole world, then at least that little part of the world with which we will come into contact.

Let me conclude with the story of the Ten-Foot Chopsticks.

There was a man who died and went to the Pearly Gates. St. Peter greets him and says, “Hey, good to have you here! You are in. Would you like a look around?”

The man replies, “Sure, what is there to see?”

“Anything you want,” St. Peter replies.

“Well,” says the man, “I’m in right?”

“Sure,” says Pete.

“Uh…this may seem a bit strange, but do you mind if we see hell first? I’m just really curious.”

“No problem,” St. Peter replies, and off they go.

When they arrive in hell, the man is stunned to see a huge banquet table with every imaginable kind of food and delicacy heaped upon it in abundance. Yet around the table are thousands and thousands of damned souls. Everyone is emaciated and starving.

“This is awful!” the man says, “Why are they all starving?”

“Well,” explains St. Peter, “There is only one rule in the afterlife. You have to eat with ten-foot chopsticks.”

“I can’t take this anymore,” the man says, “Let’s get out of here.” And off they go.

When they arrive in heaven, the man is shocked to see that it is exactly the same setup. Again, there is a huge banquet table with every imaginable food and delicacy in abundance. But in heaven, everyone gathered around the table is well-fed and happy. People are chatting and laughing and generally having a great time.

“Oh, thank God!” the man says, “I’m sure glad that ten-foot chopstick thing doesn’t apply here.”

“No,” says St. Peter, “Actually it does. Same rule. Everyone in the afterlife has to eat with ten-foot chopsticks.”

“I don’t get it,” the man says.

St. Peter replies, “The difference is that here in heaven, we feed each other.”

May our thoughts, our words, our deeds show that we are not just fans of Jesus, but followers as we serve the Lord by serving one another.

Posted on

Ask Fr. Leo – What does is mean to say the Jesus “rose again.” / What if a pope becomes incapacitated?

Dear Fr. Leo:
In the Apostle’s Creed there is a phrase “rose again from the dead” and I was wondering about the word “again” in the phrase. Could you shed some light on that for me? – K

Dear K,

This is a puzzling question. As you know, in the Roman Rite, the official text is in Latin and what we are saying in English is a translation. The official translation of the Apostles Creed that you cite which reads, “rose again from the dead” is a traditional one that has been around for quite some time. It’s also the official one used in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, (Paragraph 638.) and in the Roman Missal. The same is true for the official translation of the Nicene Creed.


The puzzling thing is that when we go to the Latin, we see that it simply says: tertia die resurrexit a mortuis, “on the third day he rose from the dead.” The word for “again” (iterum) is simply not there.

What about looking at the Apostles Creed in Greek? Does that shed any light on the matter? Unfortunately, no. When we look at it: τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ ἀναστάντα ἀπὸ τῶν νεκρῶν, we see that the verb ἀναστάντα is the present participle. Thus, the phrase translates, “the third day rising from the dead.” No help there.

So, we are left with a conundrum. Neither the Latin, nor the Greek texts have the word, “again” in them and yet, there it is in the official translation. How did it end up in official the English translation? Quite frankly, I haven’t a clue.

Translation is as much an art as a science. Every language is different and often what is readily apparent with a single word in one language will take several words in another to get the richness of the original meaning across. For example, Greek has different words for different kinds of love. Each one of those takes two or three words in English to get the meaning across. Philadelphos is translated “brotherly love.” Eros, can be translated as “erotic love” or “romantic love.” The context in which a particular word is used is also critical to accurate translation.

My best guess is that when our present translation was rendered, those who did so were attempting to convey the fullest meaning of the words in the Latin (and Greek) original. It makes sense in a way. The presence of “again” raises a subtle nuance. It brings to mind that Christ has passed from death to life. He was dead but has come to life again. He is “the Lamb once slain who lives forever.” (Preface III for Easter)

Dear Fr. Leo:
The pope is getting old. How long can he serve as pope? What happens if he is no longer able to perform his duties? On a side note, is there a mandatory retirement age for bishops? – H

Dear H,
To be precise, Pope Francis is 87 years old, and still going strong. We are truly blessed in this regard.

Canonically, the pope holds supreme executive, legislative and judicial authority in the Church. He can serve as long as he wants.

The venerable tradition has been for a pontiff to serve until death. In recent times we saw a beautiful example of this in Pope St. John Paul II who showed us the great dignity of one who serves even in the midst of great infirmity. However, a pope can also resign if he wants. Pope Benedict XVI gave us a great example of humility when, realizing that the Church would be better served by another in that office, graciously resigned in 2013. Although a pope can resign, it is quite rare. The last pope before Benedict to resign was Gregory XII, who stepped down in 1415.

But what if a pope becomes incapacitated? While there are canons that speak to succession of a bishop who has become incapacitated because of illness, captivity or exile, it is unclear if or how these can be applied to the Supreme Pontiff. Perhaps the best answer is to remember that the Holy Father is surrounded by the College of Cardinals and the Roman Curia who assist him in his ministry. This assistance takes on different forms at different times throughout his pontificate. As we saw with John Paul II, when his own physical faculties were diminishing the College of Cardinals and the Curia stepped up their game so that his ministry could continue to be grace-filled and fruitful right up to the moment of his death.

As for your final question, according to Canon 401. §1 A diocesan Bishop who has completed his seventy-fifth year of age is requested to offer his resignation from office to the Supreme Pontiff, who, taking all the circumstances into account, will make provision accordingly. In short, while a bishop is asked to offer his resignation at age 75, that resignation must still be accepted by the Roman Pontiff. More often that not these days, a bishop will serve well beyond his 75th birthday. At present in the United States, there are 22 bishops, including 9 archbishops, who are serving over the age of 75.

Posted on

Ask Fr. Leo – Christians in the Military?

Dear Fr. Leo,

     Can a Christian be in the military?  What about the fifth commandment?  – G

Dear G,

     The quick answer is, “Yes, but only for the right reasons.”  Christian soldiers do not wage war indiscriminately. Rather, they are the agents of peace in the maintenance of legitimate self-defense. 

     The question is one of the oldest moral conundrums in the Church. It came to the fore in the early 4th century soon after the emperor Constantine legalized Christianity in 313 A.D. By the beginning of the 5th century, Christianity was the official religion of the Empire. Things came to a head after the pagan armies sacked Rome in 410. Many had written on the subject before, but it was St. Augustine, in his classic work on religion and civil society, The City of God, who gave us the definitive articulation. Augustine said that Christians actually make the best soldiers because they only fight in just wars. Augustine’s articulation of what constitutes a just war still sets the context for public policy today. (See the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraphs 2302-2317, Safeguarding Peace.) The taking up of arms for legitimate self-defense is only justified if all of the following conditions are met:

– the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;

– all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
– there must be serious prospects of success;
– the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. the power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition. (CCC, par. 2309).  

The catechism goes on to say that only those with legitimate authority, namely, national governments have the responsibility of determining if these conditions are met. By the same token, governments may impose upon their citizens the obligations of defense. In times of national crisis, they can draft people into military service. In doing so, “Those who are sworn to serve their country in the armed forces are servants of the security and freedom of nations. If they carry out their duty honorably, they truly contribute to the common good of the nation and the maintenance of peace.” (CCC, par. 2310) 

     At the same time the Church is very clear that governments must also make allowances for those who in conscience cannot take up arms. However, “these are nonetheless obliged to serve the human community in some other way.” (CCC, par. 2311)

     In sum, Christians can and do serve honorably in the armed services, but they do so, not as “hawks” or aggressors, but under certain conditions and according to a strict moral code. Nations have a legitimate right to self-defense, but war is always the last resort when all other peaceful means of resolution of conflict have been exhausted. In the meantime, we all have an obligation to work actively to build up a more peaceful world, in our homes, in our parishes, our schools, and our communities so that armed conflict becomes not only unnecessary, but truly unthinkable. 

Dear Fr. Leo:

     Why is only Pontius Pilate named for his role in Christ’s crucifixion in our creed?  Why are the elders, the chief priests, and the scribes who persecuted, plotted, and paid blood money for Christ’s crucifixion not named?  – T

Dear T,

     That’s a good question. In fact, we could even take it even a step further. Why not name all of us other sinners as well? If you think about, we all had a role to play in the sufferings of Christ. That being said, I like the distinction you make that it was the religious authorities at that time, and not the whole Jewish people, who had a central role in the Passion of Christ.

     But in point of fact, the wording of the Nicene Creed has less to do with what went on at the time of Jesus than what was going on at the time the Creed was written. When the bishops met at Nicaea in 325 A.D, they were faced with the first major dogmatic crisis in the Church. The priest, Arius, a good Greek well-versed in the Greek philosophers, could not get his head around the notion that Jesus was truly human and truly divine. As a result, he rejected the divinity of Christ. He gained quite a following and caused much confusion and conflict in the Church. To resolve the matter, the emperor called a Council. Long story short, with the help of St. Leo the Great, the council fathers affirmed that while truly human, Christ was at the same time “of the same substance” as the Father. Furthermore, it was the whole Christ, not just half of him, who redeemed us by his suffering on the Cross, and who glorified us by his resurrection. I suspect that since Pilate was the legitimate Roman authority who gave the order, he was named in the Creed as a way of including all those involved. And, if you think about it, all of are included a little earlier in the Creed with the phrase “For us…and for our salvation, he came down from heaven.” Thanks for the question!

Posted on

Who Touched Me?

One of the common topics in Christology is how much did Jesus know and when did he know it? Christ was truly divine and truly human.  How much divine wisdom and knowledge could fit in his little human brain or be articulated by our feeble human vocabulary?

We won’t know on this side of the veil, of course, but the question does come up when we read gospels like our passage from Mark 5:21ff about the woman with the hemorrhage. Did Jesus really not know who touched him or was he just saying that to get the woman to reveal herself so the miracle could be acknowledged? It could be a little of both.

But the question that is asked is a good one.  “Who touched me?” 

Anybody who has ever been involved in any kind of ministry in the Church, whether ordained ministry or as a catechist or as a lector, usher, eucharistic minister to the homebound, etc., can tell you. Sometimes reflecting on a visit to a home or washing someone’s feet at Brother Francis Shelter, one sometimes asks the question, “Just who was ministering to whom?” I can’t tell you how various people have touched my heart in a special way or inspired me or gave me hope or an amazing example of faith in my 30 years of priesthood. 

“Who touched me?” is a question worth asking often. It makes a great spiritual exercise at the end of the day. As you are kneeling or sitting or lying down at the end of the day reflecting on the day’s events, thanking God for the blessings of the day and learning from its mistakes, ask yourself, “Whom did I encounter that touched me in a particular way?”  As you do so, thank God for that person and say an Our Father, a Hail Mary and a Glory Be in thanksgiving. God sends certain people into our lives at certain times because we need them. Giving thanks for such a gift is a great way to end the day.

– Fr. Leo