Catholic Replies
Q. It is my understanding that if a priest is removed from active service, the bishop continues to support him financially. Am I right? Is there a similar obligation if the priest is laicized? I would suppose there is no such obligation of support if the priest decides he doesn’t want to be a priest anymore and walks away.
Does the Church have an obligation to continue supporting a bishop or cardinal who is taken out of service? If former cardinal Theodore McCarrick is being housed in a monastery or similar institution, who foots the cost of that — the monastery or the Vatican? — S.J.S., Missouri.
A. According to canon law, “When clerics dedicate themselves to the ecclesiastical ministry, they deserve a remuneration which is consistent with their condition in accord with the nature of their responsibilities and with the conditions of time and place; this remuneration should enable them to provide for the needs of their own life and for the equitable payment of those whose services they need” (c. 281 §1).
The second paragraph of that canon says that “provision is likewise to be made so that they possess that social assistance by which their needs are suitably provided for if they suffer from illness, incapacity, or old age.”
Canon 290 says that while “sacred ordination never becomes invalid” once it has been validly received, a cleric can lose the clerical state “by the legitimate infliction of the penalty of dismissal” or “by a rescript of the Apostolic See which is granted by the Apostolic See to deacons only for serious reasons and to presbyters [priests] only for the most serious reasons.” Canon 292 says that “a cleric who loses the clerical state in accord with the norm of law also loses with it the rights which pertain to the clerical state.”
Thus, a cleric who is laicized can no longer claim financial support from the Church, although if he were truly rendered indigent, the bishop in charity is expected to provide care in the best way possible (cf. c. 1350 §2).
We don’t know who pays for the care of former cardinal McCarrick, but presumably it is the institution where he is housed.
Q. I have two questions about angels. (1) Did the angels prior to the “Big Fall” have free will, and do they still have it? (2) We don’t always understand the decisions of God, but why does He permit Lucifer and the bad angels to roam the Earth to tempt persons to commit sin? Isn’t it difficult enough to live a good life without the influence of the Prince of Darkness? — J.G., Minnesota.
A. (1) Yes, angels had free will in choosing to rebel against God and still have free will. They are locked into their fallen state, however, because of the irrevocable choice they made to disobey God in the first place. Unlike humans, whose moral choices can be influenced by darkened intellects, the bad angels saw clearly the evil of their actions, but carried them out anyway.
“The Church teaches,” says the Catechism of the Catholic Church (n. 391), “that Satan was at first a good angel, made by God. ‘The devil and other demons were indeed created naturally good by God, but they became evil by their own doing’” [Lateran Council IV (1215): DS 800].
The Catechism (n. 393) says that “it is the irrevocable character of their choice, and not a defect in the infinite divine mercy, that makes the angels’ sin unforgivable. ‘There is no repentance for the angels after their fall, just as there is no repentance for men after death’” [St. John Damascene, De Fide orth. 2, 4: PG 94, 877].
(2) As for why God permits the demons to roam through the world seeking the ruin of souls, Fr. John A. Hardon, SJ, offers this explanation in The Catholic Catechism:
“In the mysterious plan of Providence, evil spirits are meant to serve a distinctive function toward mankind. Yet immediately we must distinguish between the purpose that the devil has, and the purpose of God. The devil’s purpose is to seduce. He consciously and deliberately wants to lead people astray from their faithful service of the divine majesty. Consequently, his intention is always malicious. Everything he does with respect to man is wantonly evil. His purpose is to harm man, spiritually and supernaturally, and, if possible, eternally.
“God’s purpose, on the other hand, is always good. He permits the devil to tempt us but not to harm us; rather the divine intention is that, by resisting the evil spirit, we might draw closer to God. God allows us to be tempted in order to try our loyalty by giving us the opportunity to show our faith and trust in God; to test our virtue by giving us the chance to grow because of the struggle that this costs; and to prove our fidelity by resisting the devil’s blandishments and thus more generously serving God” (p. 88).
Satan is powerful, but as a creature his power is limited, says the Catechism of the Catholic Church (n. 395). “He cannot prevent the building up of God’s reign. Although Satan may act in the world out of hatred for God and his kingdom in Christ Jesus, and although his action may cause grave injuries — of a spiritual nature and, indirectly, even of a physical nature — to each man and to society, the action is permitted by Divine Providence which with strength and gentleness guides human and cosmic history. It is a great mystery that Providence should permit diabolical activity, but ‘we know that in everything God works for good with those who love him’” [Romans 8:28].
Q. I understand that Pope Francis has proposed a rewording of the Our Father. Might I be so bold as to suggest a personal opinion on the matter? Mind you, I am but a lay Catholic, a physician by profession, so please forgive my hubris if I should come across as arrogant and/or ignorant on this matter, which surely has engendered no end of commentary over the millennia.
Not knowing biblical Greek, but only the English as presented in the Gospels and in the Our Father itself, I have pondered and here put forth one interpretation of the problematic “lead us not into temptation” petition. My interpretation is that this petition is simply one against presumption. “Deliver us from evil” follows the “lead us not” petition, but I have often thought that these two clauses might better appear, in English, in reverse order, reworded slightly here not out of disrespect, but to make my point about this being a petition against presumption. “Deliver us from evil, but lead us not into the temptation of presuming that you will rescue us [i.e., ‘deliver us from evil’].”
Worded more expansively in English, it would be, “I know that You, Lord God, are all-powerful, and that you are never the origin or source of evil or temptation, and that You do not induce people to sin. But I do not take You for granted, presuming that you will rescue me when I throw myself into harm’s way by sinning, or by failing to avoid the near occasion of sin. I do ask, humbly, that you deliver me, but I take full responsibility for my sins of commission and omission, never presuming on Your mercy, and never presuming that You will rescue me, against or even with my own will, from sin or the occasion of sin [temptation] that I put myself into, or refuse to flee by my own hardness of heart.”
I don’t know if my viewpoint will be of any help to your readers. But I offer my personal thoughts, for what they are worth, at a time when Pope Francis himself seems to be a bit off point with this matter. — J.G.B., via e-mail.
A. Thank you for your thoughtful comments, but we would suggest that the confusion arises because temptation can mean two different things: an inducement or enticement to evil, or a trial or test of faith. Since the Lord would never steer us toward evil, it was surely the latter meaning that Jesus had in mind when He taught us the Our Father. This is illustrated in recent New American Bible translations of the Lord’s Prayer in Matt. 6:13 and Luke 11:4, both of which read, “Do not subject us to the final test.”
In his book Jesus of Nazareth, Pope Benedict XVI explained further that when we pray this petition, we are really saying to God:
“I know that I need trials so that my nature can be purified. When you decide to send me these trials, when you give evil some room to maneuver . . . then please remember that my strength only goes so far. Don’t overestimate my capacity. Don’t set too wide the boundaries within which I may be tempted, and be close to me with your protecting hand when it becomes too much for me” (p. 163).
