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

I Now Pronounce You E.T. and Wife
Could we marry aliens? And other questions from our readers.

Q If, as it says in the Bible, Jesus was "like us in all things except sin," how is it that the Church teaches He couldn't have sinned because He was God? I think it's more inspiring for us if He could have sinned, but didn't. How can He be an example for us if He wasn't even able to sin anyway?

A You're asking several related questions, which have a simple, but profound answer. Of course it is true that Our Lord could not sin because He was God, but it is also true that He did not sin because He was perfect Man. First let's see why Christ could not sin as God.

Sin, of course, is any state, thought, word, deed or omission which thwarts or hinders our possession of God the Supreme Good. Personal or actual sin is that sin for which the individual person is morally responsible. Our Lord is a Divine Person, God the Son, Who without ceasing to be Who He is, took to Himself a human nature. His Divinity means that He is in Person the Supreme Good, from which all other lesser goods flow. To ask the question whether God could sin is to ask whether Goodness itself, the very definition of goodness, if you will, could be bad.

If something is bad because it is not good, and if God could be bad, against what higher standard of goodness would His badness be judged as bad? There would have to be a higher standard of goodness than God, and so that standard would be the Supreme Good, and so God would not be the Supreme Good, and so He would not be God at all. God is Himself the ultimate standard and goal of every other good, and thus there is nothing in Him which could thwart or hinder the possession of the Supreme Good which is Himself. Since His person was the Supreme Good, Christ could have no personal sin. A God Who is the Supreme Good Who's capable of sinning is a logical contradiction, like a square circle or a one-ended stick.

But, you say, this God became a Man, and men are capable of sinning, so couldn't a God-Man sin? In answer to this we'll even insist that not only couldn't Our Lord sin in His human nature, but also that Our Lord couldn't sin because He was man, the most perfect, ideal, and fully human of men.

Sin is a possibility for human nature, but by its very definition, is not necessary for human nature. One is not "more human" because one sins or has sinned; rather, sin diminishes one's human dignity, and falsifies one's experience and judgement.

Even the ability to sin is not in itself a good thing for human nature. Human freedom is the power we have to choose the good which we desire, rather than it being determined by our nature, as is the case with mere animals, plants and inanimate things. The root of freedom is our rational nature, our power to know. Now, as long as we do not see the Supreme Good Itself, we have to pick and choose among the lower goods which we do know, freely choosing those good things that will lead us to know and possess the Supreme Good, and freely rejecting those good things which at this moment would not.

When we choose things that are good in themselves, which either slow or completely hinder our movement to the Supreme Good, then we have sinned. But this is due to the imperfection of our freedom. As long as our knowledge is not complete, that is, as long as we do not see God Who is Goodness Itself, then we can always "fool" ourselves into considering some lesser good to be better for us here and now under some aspect other than the Supreme Good. Sin is due to a limitation in our inner life, a sign of the imperfection of our freedom. The saints in heaven cannot sin because they see God face to face as He is in His very inner life and essence; they know the Supreme Good, and so cannot view any lesser good as preferable to Him, or be mistaken about how to be united to Him.

Even so, or even because of this, they are perfectly and humanly free, because they have chosen the Supreme Good due to the inner light of knowledge, the richest fulfillment of their human nature. As St. Irenaeus of Lyons said, "The life of Man is the vision of God," the full, free, unhindered enjoyment of all Man's faculties.

Now, in the words of the Catechism of the Catholic Church #473, Christ as a man had the "intimate and immediate knowledge. . . of His Father." In traditional Catholic theology, the immediate knowledge of God refers to that knowledge which is proper to the blessed in heaven; the knowledge of God as He is in Himself, the Supreme Good. The possession of this heavenly knowledge makes one as fully human as possible, since one's human nature has been perfected to the utmost, supremely free and so incapable of sin.

Christ possessed this knowledge throughout His earthly life. This has been reaffirmed by the magisterium of the Church several times in this century, by St. Pius X in Lamentabili, by Pius XII in Mystici Corporis, and by John Paul II in the Catechism, as well as in his christological catecheses at the Wednesday audiences. This doctrine is always affirmed and never denied by the Fathers of the Church who speak of it. Thus, due to the perfection of His humanity, in its knowledge of God, we can say that because Jesus was human, fully human, He could not sin.

This doesn't mean, however, that Our Lord did not need to experience our life in a human way. Quite the contrary. His becoming like us, enduring temptation and suffering, was to merit for us by enduring the penalty for our sins, not His own, and to give us an example to console and encourage us in our struggles: "For we have not a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tested as we are, yet without sinning" (Heb. 4:15). The Bible here gives the perfect answer to our questions. On the one hand, we could not have been saved by another sinner, but on the other hand, we need to be consoled by One Who has experienced our struggles.

Q In my Byzantine Catholic parish, we used to have daily Divine Liturgy, that is, daily Mass. Our pastor did away with it, saying that daily Liturgy was not traditional in Byzantine parishes, but was brought in under Latin influence. He also said our Liturgy must always be celebrated solemnly and that this isn't possible every day. So I've been going to the local Roman Rite parish for daily Mass. I think it's strange that a priest doesn't receive daily communion, and I, a laywoman do. What do you say about all this?

A Well, I could give your pastor some pointers from the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches where daily celebration of the Divine Liturgy is "eagerly encouraged" (#378), "praiseworthily celebrated on any day except those which are excluded (eg. Good Friday, certain days of Lent in some rites or jurisdictions) . . . " (#704), and is required in monasteries (#473).

But perhaps if he is suspicious of Roman influence on the Eastern Code, he could consider the practice which exists among the Eastern Orthodox. I had the occasion to see firsthand several different monasteries of Mount Athos in Greece, monasteries of different ethnic traditions, and of different kinds of observance, and there was always daily Divine Liturgy. In fact, there was usually more than one. The monasteries have a number of smaller chapels off the main church (Kathlicon), or within or around the monastery, say, in the cemetery. In response to the requests and donations of the faithful, the priest-monks also celebrate in these chapels in the morning after the main community Liturgy, which follows the night office. For these additional Liturgies, there is just a priest and a cantor. It is all sung, but very simply between the two, and it lasts only about forty minutes.

The Greek Orthodox in Greece even have a custom like the Roman Catholic practice of the Gregorian series of 30 Masses for the repose of the faithful departed, the "40 Liturgies," which are celebrated on 40 consecutive days by a married parish priest or a monk.

Monks on Athos who celebrated the Liturgy daily are highly esteemed. St. Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain, who compiled the Philokalia, wrote vigorously in defense of daily Liturgy and daily Holy Communion. The married Russian Orthodox parish priest St. John of Kronstadt, who was a sort of Eastern Orthodox St. John Vianney, celebrated every day in his parish and encouraged daily Communion, as did the famous St. Seraphim of Sarov.

How any Byzantine priest could downplay daily Liturgy and Communion as not "Eastern" or as only for monks, or as lacking the necessary solemnity, is beyond me. The most zealous and holy examples of the Orthodox world, as well as the Catholic Church's law for the Eastern Churches in union with Rome, all encourage the daily celebration of the Divine Liturgy. It is a shame that some Eastern Catholic clergy want to imitate not what is best among the Orthodox, but only those things that seem to them to be less "Latin" or "Roman." These are possibly just human traditions, or concessions to laxity or weakness, not the best of what the East has to offer. What unites the two rites is far greater than what makes them different.

Surely the Lord desires that all His brothers and sisters offer up and receive the "daily bread" of the Eucharist. I am sure that He is not impressed by formal, ritualistic excuses for not making His holy gifts readily available to all.

Q I'm a sci-fi buff. In a conversation with some friends who share my interest, a strange theoretical moral problem came up. If intelligent life were ever found on another planet, would humans from earth be morally able to marry them? What would the Church say about this?

A Well, this is sure one they didn't cover when I was studying for the priesthood, but I think that a few simple principles could provide a kind of general answer.

First, this answer does not at all imply that I think intelligent life will in fact ever be found in the universe outside of our planet. Nor does the answer deal with the question of the possibility of extra-terrestrial life from the viewpoint of biblical and traditional revelation. This answer gives only a theoretical answer to an admittedly interesting, or at least amusing, question.

Man is an intelligent being that also possesses a bodily nature, or in more precise terms, man is a rational animal. This is the classical definition of Aristotle, accepted by the Church's tradition, and in line with the description of human nature given in the Scriptures. If there were other rational animals on other planets, then they would be of the same species as we are from a philosophical and theological point of view.

The only moral question would then be whether rational animals from earth were physically or genetically capable of procreating with rational animals from another planet. If they were, then marriage would be possible morally. If procreative activity were impossible, then marriage would not be possible, though we would still be obliged to treat them with the respect due human persons.

Q I serve as a Eucharistic minister to the sick along with other members of my parish. We go out together in groups of two to four to serve the various hospitals and convalescent homes in our neighborhood. On our way to our destination, the practice is to chat casually and even listen to music or news in the car. This bothers me, since it seems irreverent, so I keep my talking to a minimum. Normally I'm pretty talkative, so everyone thinks I'm just being a pain. Should I just join in the talk so as to be more charitable?

A We should first remember, as Archbishop Justin Rigali of St. Louis has just reminded his diocese, that the proper term for lay ministers of the Eucharist is "Extraordinary Minister." In the Roman Rite, only a bishop, priest or deacon is properly a Eucharistic minister, and in most of the Eastern Rites, only the bishop or priest. Laypersons who administer the Eucharist do so as an exception to the Church's practice. To be sure, they perform a very noble and helpful service, but only in the absence of sufficient ordinary ministers. The Holy See has reiterated this in a document on the relation of lay ministries and the priesthood published at the beginning of November, calling the habitual use of extraordinary ministers when clergy are available an abuse.

Now to your question. Although the liturgical books currently do not discuss the behavior of the ministers, either ordinary or extraordinary, on their way to give communion, a living sense of the adoration due the Blessed Sacrament should lead the ministers instinctively to an attitude of quiet and prayer. In Catholic countries the priest used to be, and in some places still is, accompanied by a server with candle and bell, and even another who holds a silk umbrella over him as he walks with the Blessed Sacrament. The practice was to recite vocal prayers, the psalms or the rosary, en route.

I suggest that you suggest to your fellow extraordinary ministers to pray together on the way, silently or spontaneously or with the rosary, or to sing hymns, accompanying the Good Shepherd as He visits His sheep. This can be a great source of grace for all, and especially for those you are visiting. The rite for communion of the sick does mention that they should have some time for quiet prayer after they receive the Holy Eucharist. If the minister has the time, he or she can stay to pray with the sick person, but if not, a little suggestion to pray awhile in the Lord's presence would be a good thing.

Your fellow extraordinary ministers really have no excuse to keep up their chatter, if they consider what an awesome mystery they carry, and what a great and not-to-be-missed opportunity for grace they have.

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