I Have a Question - Fr. Hugh Barbour, O.Praem.

A. It sounds like what you read was more of an "exercise in narcissism" than an "essay in theology." An authentic theologian is one who applies human reason to the consideration of revealed truths held by faith. He examines, explores, and ponders the Deposit of Faith, Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, the Fathers, etc. always in light of the Magisterium. Where the Church has not definitively taught on this or that issue, one is free to speculate as he will. In areas where a doctrine has been defined by the Magisterium, the theologians job is to elucidate that teaching and to draw further, deeper conclusions from it (always in harmony with the teaching itself, of course). The remarks in the column you refer to don't square well with the teachings of the Magisterium on the general subject of marriage and celibacy.

In 1563, the Council of Trent taught, "If anyone shall say that marriage is to be preferred to the state of virginity or celibacy, and denies that it is better and more blessed to remain in virginity or celibacy than to be joined in matrimony, let him be anathema" (Session 24, canon 10). This means that, even if we granted the notion that the gene pool is "damaged" by priestly celibacy, there must be an overriding, divine good in celibacy that takes precedence over the merely natural good of a "wide variety" gene pool.

In Matthew 19:12, Christ speaks of celibacy being chosen by some "for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven." St. Paul echoes this praise of consecrated celibacy at length in 1 Corinthians 7. Although first century writers knew nothing of DNA and genes, they did know that human traits are passed on by heredity. Christ and St. Paul meant that, in light of goods of the world to come, celibacy is a greater gift than the natural benefits of procreation. These are the basic premises a theologian should use when examining the law of priestly celibacy in the Latin Church. Unfortunately, some theologians succumb to a crassly materialistic, physicalistic form of reasoning, so typical of this centurys totalitarian systems. According to this flawed approach, the human good is principally a matter of physical qualities, bodily characteristics; not the moral and spiritual qualities men and women possess. In our era, the exaltation of genetics has led to horrifying crimes, all justified in the name of improving the quality of the human race; horrors such as genocide, infanticide, forced sterilization, forced breeding, and fetal tissue harvesting.

The ultimate goal of the human race is not the number and quality of persons on earth, but the number and quality of those who reach heaven. This is why we have the spiritual fatherhood and motherhood of the priestly and religious life (cf. 1 Cor. 4:14-16).

Ironically, it was the celibate St. John the Baptist who warned us not to trust in mere human heredity, but to repent. "Genetically challenged" theologians should heed his words: "You brood of vipers . . . bear fruits that befit repentance, and do not begin to say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father;' for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham."

Q. A nun recently told me its possible that we have more than one life on earth, through reincarnation. I showed her paragraph 1013 in the Catechism, which says there is no such thing as reincarnation. She shrugged and said that teaching is "non-infallible" and were free to hold other opinions. Is reincarnation compatible with the Catholic Faith?

A. The problem with reincarnation isnt' that a soul could be reunited with a body after death. After all, Christians believe in exactly that: the resurrection of the dead, in which our souls will be reunited with our bodies.

The problem is that reincarnation entails the notion that the body is not an essential aspect of the human person, but only a shell, or an instrument of the spiritual soul. The Church solemnly defined at the Council of Vienna in 1312 that the human soul is not only a spirit, but is per se and essentially the form of a body. The council taught that the contrary view was heretical. The Catechism (CCC #365) quotes this definition of the fifteenth ecumenical council. Our Catholic Faith presents death as a tragic consequence of sin, not as a natural passage from one state to another. Christ's death triumphs over the death brought about by sin by rising from the dead in His own identical body. So too our future resurrection will be the same body which we now are, materially reconstituted by the ministry of angels and reunited with the soul by the miraculous power of Christ. Resurrection in the same body means the re-uniting of body and soul (CCC #997), not the taking on of a new body not previously our own. Reincarnation has a tantalizing attraction for many since it satisfies their curiosity about themselves without coming to grips with the permanent, everlasting nature of our bodily individuality. Christianity believes so strongly that the body is an essential part of our makeup and happiness, that even God, to redeem us had to take on flesh, die, and rise again, and feed us with His own Body. The Fathers say "Christ did not redeem what He did not assume." The Incarnation and Resurrection are the Catholic responses to the error of reincarnation. Archbishop Christoph Scho‘nborn of Vienna (the main architect of the Catechism) has written a book on reincarnation, available from Ignatius Press of San Francisco.

Q. Has the Church changed her teaching on the relation of non-Catholic Christians to the Catholic Church? A friend of mine has given me some literature written by followers of the Society of St. Pius X which says that the teaching of Vatican II and especially of Pope John Paul II on Ecumenism plainly contradicts the previous teachings of the Church, most especially the encyclical letter of Pope Pius XI Mortalium Animos of 1928.

A. Anyone who reads Pope Pius XI on the ecumenical movement and then Vatican II and John Paul II on the same topic will surely notice a big difference, and perhaps an apparent contradiction. Faithful Catholics, however, will not be quick to judge that there is a real incompatibility between the two. There is a tremendous difference between the two approaches, but that does not mean there is a doctrinal contradiction. The Church can deal with various questions under different aspects. Ecumenism is one of those questions. The traditional approach to those who adhere to non-Catholic bodies was based on a constant, rigorous use of the terms heresy and schism in their full sense of an apparently deliberate, conscious dissent or doubt from Catholic dogma or communion with the Pope. Similar to this would be the way in which St. Paul states that "neither idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor revilers, nor robbers shall inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Cor 6:9-10). In this sense, there can be no dialogue or ecumenism with heresy or schism anymore than the Church could come to an agreement with stealing or drunkenness. But even though we accept St. Pauls words, we still refer to the Good Thief who inherited the Kingdom on Good Friday. And even though we accept, for example, the truth of the ringing words of Pope Boniface VIII in Unam Sanctam (A.D. 1302) denying membership in the Church and thus salvation those whom commit the sins of heresy and schism, still we call Protestants Christians and accept the possibility of a valid baptism administered by them. Thus it is that in current practice since Vatican II, the approach has been to assume not that non-Catholics are heretics and schismatics in the strict sense described above, but to assume that they are in good faith, raised in the profession of certain errors in matters of Catholic doctrine, and thus not real "formal" heretics or schismatics. With such as these, who are presumed to be without fault, there can be dialogue and even mutual prayer, as long as there is no doctrinal error in the prayers, just as one is free to associate charitably with those who hold moral errors in order to help them either to be converted or to avoid the sins to which they are prone, as long as one does not seem to approve of their misguided actions.

Even Christ at times dealt with doctrinal error in what seemed to be a contradictory way (though it was not really contradictory). For example, in speaking to the Pharisees, He warned, "He who is not with me is against me" (Matt. 12:30; Luke 11:23). In speaking of those who invoke His name without being His followers, He said, "He who is not against us is for us" (Mark 9:40). Some who profess errors are like the Pharisees, hardhearted, stubborn, deliberate heretics who deserve eternal damnation; they do not belong to Christ. Others, who unwittingly profess errors, through no fault of their own, and so are not "of our following" (ie. in full communion with us), are nonetheless on the road to heaven, calling on the Holy Name of Christ our Savior. Christ, and His Church, treat these two groups differently.

The question of whether it was wise to change the approach so quickly and dramatically from the strict and objective, to the pastoral and personal is another matter. We shouldn't be surprised if the approach changes, at least in regard to certain groups or circumstances, nor is it wrong for the faithful to suggest that changes should be made if the current approach is not contributing effectively to the evangelization of the world. If the followers of the Society of St. Pius X had done only that, making use of the freedom proper to clergy and lay faithful, there would be no problem. Sadly, they have not done their duty as Catholics to seek to understand and obey respectfully, even if they have criticisms on the practical level.

Q. In a previous answer, you said it's permissible to confess sins already confessed and absolved, as long as it's not done out of scrupulosity. I admit that it might be good to recall past sins in order to grow in gratitude for God's forgiveness, but how is it appropriate to confess them again?

A. In 1304, Pope Benedict XI, in the constitution Inter Cunctas Sollicitudines taught: "Even though it is not necessary to do so, we judge it spiritually helpful to confess the same sins over again on account of the contrition, which is a great part of this sacrament." The "matter" of the sacrament of penance is contrition for sin, the sin is only the necessary motive for the sorrow. Thus any confession which increases contrition, as well as our purpose of amendment, is helpful to the fruitful reception of the sacrament. As we grow in the love of God, reflecting on our past sins, even though they are forgiven, strengthens our resolve to avoid sin, it deepens our sorrow for our sins, and it can make our reception of the sacrament more effective in rooting out the remaining sources of sin in us.

Q. When I hear that the devil can tempt us, I am frightened. Is he able to get inside of us and make us sin? Can he force us to give in to his temptations?

A. The only way that the devil can tempt us is, in principle, the way in which other human beings can tempt us. He can approach us only from the "outside," through our senses and sense imagination and memory. The devil cannot force our spiritual will or our immaterial intellect. He can only work on the aspects of our soul which are completely dependent on physical sensation. The difference with the devil is that, being by nature an angel (although a fallen one) he is able to "see" into our imagination and memory, even though we may not be expressing their contents by words or actions. This gives him a slight advantage, more ammunition, to use against us. However, he never is able to be sure we have really given in, because he can only guess whether we have given full consent or completely understand, or have reflected sufficiently that what we have done or want to do is sinful. This is because he cannot see our intellect or will. This can only be seen by God. This is why the earliest teachers on Christian prayer and spiritual discipline, the Fathers of the Desert, emphasize how important control of our imagination is in fighting the devil. By constant prayer, by short aspirations prayed inwardly or out loud as we go about our daily work, short prayers like "My Jesus, Mercy" or "Mary, Help," by thinking about the life of Our Lord, Our Lady, and the Saints, by avoiding useless words and images on TV and radio, we can clean up our imagination, and give the devil less to work on. We will recognize temptations more easily, and reject them more successfully, if we have a purer inner life. The best example of this is Our Lord and Our Lady. When the devil tempted Christ, he was not sure He was the Son of God and Messiah. This means that Our Lord had so complete a control of His imagination that nothing entered there which he did not want to, so the devil was perplexed at a man with an imagination and memory so pure and holy, so he was forced to come out into the open and ask. (What a humiliation for him, and a lesson for us!) In World War II, there were posters with sinking ships over the caption "somebody talked." If we can quiet our imagination by prayer and silence, we can avoid many an attack of the evil one. Lets remember the words of St. Peter: "Be sober and vigilant. Your opponent the devil is prowling around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour. Resist him, steadfast in faith, knowing that your fellow believers throughout the world undergo the same sufferings. The God of all grace who called you to His eternal glory through Christ will Himself restore, confirm, strengthen, and establish you after you have suffered a little" (1 Peter 5:8-10).

St. Ignatius of Antioch (A.D. 107) has these wonderful words about Our Lady's self-controlled, grace-filled imagination. He says, "Both the virginity of Mary and her giving birth escaped the notice of the prince of this age . . . mysteries wrought in the stillness of God" (Letter to the Ephesians 19). Lets ask Our Lady to help us to purify our imaginations, and thus overcome the power of the tempter, as did her Divine Son.

Q. I was recently given a "brown scapular" by a friend who has a great devotion to Mary. One of the ends has a picture of Mary with the Child Jesus, the other has the words printed: "Whosoever dies wearing this scapular shall not suffer eternal fire." How can wearing a piece of brown wool guarantee salvation? I could just imagine how a Protestant would react if he saw it. He would think it's Catholic doctrine.

A. First, lets consider the background. The scapular worn by the faithful is an abbreviated version of part of the habit worn in most of the ancient religious orders, a strip of cloth which goes over the shoulders (scapular from the Latin scapulae for shoulders) and hangs down in front and in back below the knees over the tunic of the habit. Lay people associated themselves with the religious, sharing in their prayers and good works, and receiving from them spiritual direction in a so called "third order." They also wore a shortened version of the habit over or under their secular clothing. According to the tradition of some orders, there was direction from heaven about their rule and habit, usually accompanied by a divine promise for those who were faithful in the following of the holy way of life symbolized by the habit. The first example of this is the apparition of an "angel of the Lord" to St. Pachomius the Great of Egypt, who was the first to establish communal monastic life in the Church on the model of the community of Jerusalem, as described in the Book of Acts. The angel appeared with the written rule of life and dressed in the religious habit. He said, "O Pachomius, all flesh can be saved by wearing this habit." St. Pachomius lived in the fourth century after Christ.

In the twelfth century, St. Norbert, founder of the Canons Regular of Premontre, called "Norbertines," is traditionally said to have received the white habit of his order from the hands of the Blessed Mother, and the holy rule from the hands of St. Augustine, who promised that those who followed it would stand "without fear before Christ on the terrible day of judgment." In the thirteenth century Our Lady appeared to St. Simon Stock, the master general of the Carmelites, giving him the brown scapular, and promising salvation to all Carmelites faithful in their love and obedience to Christ and in their devotion to her.

Two points can be drawn from all this. First, given the frequency of these apparitions, they should not be rashly rejected as mere pious legend, but taken seriously, as indications of the favor God shows to those who follow or esteem the spirit of religious life. Second, the "guarantee" of salvation is a promise of the graces necessary for salvation to those who undertake to follow the way of life symbolized by the habit or rule. This way of life is none other than the radical living out of Christ's call in the Gospel that we seek His Kingdom above all else, as members of religious orders have vowed to do. The blessed sacramentals of the Church, like the scapulars, are means of grace which help us and remind us in our practice of the Christian life. We can reason in this way: if someone wears the brown scapular, Our Lady is surely going to make use of it to move him or her to live a faithful, Catholic life, and so be saved.

Send your questions to Fr. Hugh Barbour at: "I Have a Question," Envoy Magazine, St. Michael's Abbey, 19292 El Toro Road, Silverado, CA 92676.