Q. How does the priest make sure that no consecrated wine at all remains in the vessel after there are no more recipients of the Blood of Christ? There is almost always a drop of wine or so left in a wine bottle after it is said to be empty. — K.M., Nevada.
A. The priest pours water into the vessel that contained the Blood of Christ, drinks what remains in the vessel, and then wipes it clean so that no trace of Our Lord’s Blood is left. Here is the pertinent passage from the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (n. 279):
“The sacred vessels are purified by the priest, the deacon, or an instituted acolyte after Communion or after Mass, insofar as possible at the credence table. The purification of the chalice is done with water alone or with wine and water, which is then consumed by whoever does the purification. The paten is wiped clean as usual with the purificator.”
Q. Does a priest or deacon owe blind obedience to his own bishop if said bishop promotes heterodoxy and acts against the common good of the Catholic Church? What recourse does a subordinate in the Church hierarchy have to resist an abuse of authority by one who has jurisdiction over him? — A.G., Maryland.
A. Canon 273 says that “clerics are bound by a special obligation to show reverence and obedience to the Supreme Pontiff and to their own Ordinary.” But what if the bishop is promoting things contrary to Catholic teaching, such as giving Holy Communion to persons living publicly in adultery, or blessing a homosexual union? Does a priest have an obligation to follow his conscience and refuse a command from his bishop in these areas?
A priest we know asked several of his clerical colleagues what they thought. He said that “nobody seems to want to give a straight answer.
“If it’s a case like Belgium, where bishops are now issuing a blessing of same-sex unions, I think that rises to the level of open heresy. Such a bishop should be denounced from every pulpit. My question was, at that point, does a parish priest simply hunker down in his parish and refuse any orders from the heretical bishop? This is why bishops have to act now, especially in the absence of a Pope willing to do his job.”
Q. I heard Sharon Osbourne on the Fox News show Outnumbered say that “most of the Nazis were Catholics.” Is that true? — R.K., via e-mail.
A. No, it is not true. Here is the response of Bill Donohue of the Catholic League:
“She is wrong. Hitler drew most of his support from Protestants. In fact, Catholics provided the greatest resistance to him. Sociologist Richard F. Hamilton, author of Who Voted for Hitler, settled this matter decades ago. Hitler’s mother was Catholic, but his father thought religion was a scam. In his early years, Hitler turned strongly against Christianity, which he later sought to crush; he especially hated the Catholic Church. Moreover, as sociologists Samuel and Pearl Oliner found, no group risked their lives in greater number to save Jews than Catholics (see The Altruistic Personality).”
Donohue said that “it does not help when uninformed people poison the airwaves with libelous untruths about Catholics.”
Q. In reading about Satan’s three temptations of Jesus in Matthew’s Gospel, the Devil prefaces the temptations by saying to our Lord, “If you are the Son of God….” Did Satan not know who Jesus was? — S.I., Massachusetts.
A. We don’t know. His questions seem to indicate that he didn’t know. Or perhaps he wasn’t sure and asked the questions to draw Jesus out. He may have been at the Baptism of Christ in the Jordan River just a short time before and may have heard the voice of the Father say, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased” (Matt. 3:17). One thing we do know is that Satan was unsuccessful in trying to turn Jesus away from His mission by offering Him temptations to pleasure, pride, and power.
Matthew concludes his account of the temptations by saying that “then the devil left him, and behold, angels came and ministered to him” (Matt. 4:11). In his account of the same event, Luke says that “when the devil had finished every temptation, he departed from him for a time” (Luke 4:13). The phrase “for a time” suggests that Satan was not through with Jesus. While the Evil One is not specifically mentioned in the Garden of Gethsemane, he was surely there, again trying to divert the Lord from His mission. His malevolent presence was clearly evident in the movie The Passion of the Christ.
Q. Anger is one of the seven deadly sins, but aren’t there times when anger is justified? — P.R., via e-mail.
A. The glossary at the back of the Catechism defines anger as “an emotion which is not in itself wrong, but which, when it is not controlled by reason or hardens into resentment and hate, becomes one of the seven capital sins. Christ taught that anger is an offense against the Fifth Commandment.”
When Jesus chased the moneychangers out of the Temple (cf. John 2:13-22), He demonstrated a righteous indignation that was controlled by reason and was not motivated by hatred or a desire for revenge. St. Paul remarked on the distinction between righteous indignation and sinful anger when he said, “Be angry but do not sin” (Eph. 4:26). In other words, when there is a just reason for indignation, don’t go to the extreme of committing sin by becoming furious over small matters or by venting rage on a person. St. Paul offers this additional advice:
“Do not repay anyone evil for evil; be concerned for what is noble in the sight of all. If possible, on your part, live at peace with all. Beloved, do not look for revenge but leave room for the wrath; for it is written, ‘Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord’” (Romans 12:17-19).
We must remember, however, that there is a fine line between just and unjust anger, and we must be cautious not to cross that line. St. Francis de Sales gave some good advice when he was asked how he kept so calm in the face of hostility. “I have made an agreement with my tongue,” he said, “never to say a word while my heart is excited.” He is echoed by the late moral theologian Germain Grisez in his book Living a Christian Life:
“Someone feeling even justifiable anger should regain his or her composure before offering an admonition, so that it can be given humbly, gently, kindly, and peaceably — in a word, as a true work of mercy. Admonition need not always be done by words. Gestures, actions, or a manner that goads another’s conscience are sometimes more effective.
“Even when words are appropriate, questions should come before assertions:
“ ‘Question a friend; perhaps he did not do it; or if he did, so that he may not do it again. Question a neighbor; perhaps he did not say it; or if he said it, so that he may not repeat it’ (Sirach 19:12-13.)”
Powered by WPtouch Mobile Suite for WordPress