Q. I just want to ask what James J. Drummey’s qualifications are for answering the questions that subscribers ask. Does he have a title or does he consult with an authority on these issues? — K.C., via e-mail.
A. My qualifications for writing the Catholic Replies column for the past 25 years include reading, studying, pondering, praying, writing, speaking, and teaching about the Catholic faith for half a century. I have published nine books on Catholicism (for the titles and content of the books, see my website www.crpublications.com) and have an extensive library that allows me to access and quote the wisdom of Popes, saints, Church councils, catechisms, canon law, and numerous books by authors whose knowledge and understanding of religious and moral matters are considerable.
As longtime readers of the column can attest, I try to quote as many authoritative sources as I can in responding to questions so no one will think that the replies are just my opinion. I do not pretend to be an expert on religious topics, and have been happy to accept correction when I got something wrong, but generally speaking the replies offer reliable and truthful answers to the questions asked.
My title is editor of Catholic Replies, and I frequently consult persons who are more knowledgeable than I on the issues raised by readers of The Wanderer.
Q. In the prayer to St. Michael, we ask him to drive into Hell “Satan and all the other evil spirits” who roam through the world seeking the ruin of souls. Who or what are “all the evil spirits”? With all of the diabolical actions in the past century, it would seem that there are a vast number of evil spirits. Also, is it possible that a soul who attains Heaven could still be tempted to follow Satan? — J.P.H., Pennsylvania.
A. Answering the last question first, no, it is not possible for one who has reached heavenly glory ever to be tempted to do anything bad, and certainly not to follow Satan. Temptation is an attraction, either from outside or from within oneself, to commit a sin. While such temptations are part of our life on earth, there is no place for them in Heaven.
You are on the right track when you suggest that those who engaged in diabolical actions around the world in the past century would make good recruits for Satan’s army. Without knowing for certain who is in Hell, we can think of some likely candidates, such as Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao Tse-tung — in other words, those responsible for the deaths of hundreds of millions of innocent people. Add to them the doctors who have killed tens of millions of unborn babies, Islamic suicide bombers, and those who have slaughtered dozens on college campuses, military bases, and night clubs, and you have a legion of possible evil spirits seeking to lead others into Hell.
Recall, too, that the Book of Revelation says that the ancient dragon, i.e., the Devil or Satan, “swept away a third of the stars in the sky and hurled them down to the earth” (12:4). This is thought to mean that a third of all the angels created by God were cast out of Heaven along with Satan, which would provide a vast number of evil spirits to do Satan’s bidding.
This is why we ask St. Michael, who drove the bad angels from Heaven in the first place (cf. Rev. 12:7-9), to protect us against their influence and to drive them into Hell forever. If you don’t already say the St. Michael prayer several times a day, you should. Our beleaguered world is desperately in need of such heavenly intervention.
Q. I still have your answer about the two key verses, 26 and 27 of Romans, chapter 1, which were left out of the Mass readings. It refers to the degrading passions of females and males, giving up natural relations but burning with lust for one another. I guess it is the USCCB that removed or changed the wording. No wonder young people think it is okay.
I am confused as to how such changes to the Bible readings can be done. Wasn’t it St. Paul who said something to the effect that it would be anathema to anyone who would make such changes? Or am I wrong? Do our cardinals and bishops have the authority to change the Bible readings? I really would appreciate an answer because it really bothers me a lot. — K.V., via e-mail.
A. First of all, this was not a case of changing the Bible readings, but rather of leaving out what you and we consider to be important verses. Second, a couple of years ago, one of our readers, G.T.G. of Maine, brought this matter up with the U.S. Bishops’ Secretariat of Divine Worship and was told by Associate Director Fr. Dan Merz that the omission was the work of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments in Rome. Fr. Merz said that the revised introduction to the Lectionary published in 1981 included the following paragraph:
“77. The omission of verses in readings from Scripture has at times been the tradition of many liturgies, including the Roman liturgy. Admittedly such omissions may not be made lightly for fear of distorting the meaning of the text or the intent and style of Scripture. Yet on pastoral grounds it was decided to continue the traditional practice in the present Order of Readings, but at the same time to ensure that the essential meaning of the text remained intact. One reason for the decision is that otherwise some texts would have been unduly long. It would also have been necessary to omit completely certain readings of high spiritual value for the faithful because those readings include some verse that is pastorally less useful or that involves truly difficult questions.”
We don’t have a problem with this general principle, but we wonder who made the specific decision to omit verses 26 and 27. Like G.T.G., we fail to see how these verses would make the reading “unduly long,” and we agree with him that “it is absolutely necessary that vital instruction from the Scriptures on sexual purity not be omitted at Mass in these morally trying times,” especially when “we are facing a long march through the institutions of our culture by a militant, aggressive U.S. homosexual juggernaut.”
Q. If someone puts a parent in a nursing home, but hides the parent’s money in his house and tells me he did this, must I report this to the proper law officials? — J.L., Missouri.
A. We don’t see any obligation on your part to report this information to legal officials or to the nursing home. While the ethics of this arrangement are questionable, not to mention risky in leaving a significant amount of money lying around, the moral burden falls on the person’s caregivers, not on you.
On the larger question of deceiving a nursing home about the amount of one’s assets, moral theologian Germain Grisez, in his book Difficult Moral Questions, commented on a similar matter involving a man who transferred all of his savings to his granddaughter to avoid having them taken by the nursing home that he was about to enter.
While Grisez conceded that “just as taxpayers may take advantage of the loopholes provided by tax law, so one might conclude, people may arrange their affairs so as to minimize how much they must pay for long-term care . . . ,” he argued for a contrary view, namely, that the grandfather was engaged in “shifting to taxpayers as much of the burden of his care as he can. Even if that is in accord with the letter of the law, it seems to violate its intent — to provide care for people who cannot afford it” (p. 747).
We are sure that most of you reading this column are aware of the astronomical costs of long-term care in nursing facilities, and no one likes to see hard-earned savings or investment income swallowed up in a short time by the cost of nursing care. But is the moral answer to conceal one’s income and to place the burden for our care on one’s fellow citizens? Isn’t that why more and more money is deducted each week from working people for Medicare, and isn’t it going to get worse as the elderly population increases and the number of those working to support Medicare decreases due to a shrinking population?
A further moral consideration is that one will have to lie to keep one’s money and circumvent having it all go to a nursing home, and lying is a sin.
Powered by WPtouch Mobile Suite for WordPress