After the Second Vatican Council, the Church stated with regard to a few ancient saints that we don’t have sufficient historical evidence of their existence to continue keeping them on the “official list” of saints. It doesn’t mean they didn’t exist — just that we don’t have enough evidence.

Q Someone just advised me that a few years ago there were certain saints whose status as saints, once reviewed by the powers that be, were rescinded. A non-Catholic brought up the question about how people must have been praying to these saints for years. They don’t think you should be praying to saints to begin with, let alone “dethroned” saints. I’ve read Tim Staples’ position on praying to saints, but I’m not sure how to defend the Catholic position about why people were praying to people no longer considered worthy.

A The church has not “rescinded” any saints’ “status.” However, saints in the first millennium were so designated by “popular acclamation,” as it were — there was no formal process of canonization. After the Second Vatican Council, the Church stated with regard to a few ancient saints from this period (I’m only aware of two: St. Christopher and St. Philomena) that we don’t have sufficient historical evidence of their existence to continue keeping them on the “official list” of saints.
It doesn’t mean they didn’t exist — just that we don’t have enough evidence. All prayers ultimately go to God, so if someone were to pray to a non-existent saint for intercession, God would hear the prayer anyway.

Q A Protestant I know has claimed that the Council of Hippo did not have the book of Baruch on its canon list and therefore could not have been, as Catholics claim, the council defining the canon until the Council of Trent. Can you confirm or deny this?

A Maybe some Catholics make this claim, but I don’t think there is any such official claim on the part of the Church. The Council of Hippo was only a regional council of North African bishops. There was no definition of the canon of Scripture by an ecumenical council before Trent.

Q I am a cradle Protestant on the cusp of conversion. My question has to deal with mortal and venial sins. Specifically, what are the differences and why are they categorized as such anyway? Being Protestant, I have been taught in no uncertain terms that sin is sin and that there are no varying degrees.

A It’s the difference between murdering someone and insulting him, or perhaps just ignoring him. Mortal sin offends God to the point that our relationship with Him is interrupted. Venial sin weakens our love for God but does not deny it.

A couple of scriptural references should clarify that there are in fact varying degrees of sin and that some sins are mortal while others are not. In John 19:11, Jesus says to Pilate, “He who delivered Me to you has the greater sin.” In 1 John 5:16-17, we read: “There is sin which is mortal. . . . All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal.” (Some translations read “sin that leads to death.”)
For more specifics on the distinctions between mortal and venial sins, read the Catechism, paragraphs1854 through 1864.

Q I’ve been going through the program of Project Rachel, and the next step is sacramental confession. Do you have any tips on minimizing embarrassment? I haven’t gone in a long time, and I get embarrassed about sexual issues.

A I have no doubt that Our Lord is waiting to welcome you. He’s been waiting
for a long time, so don’t make him wait any longer!

As to avoiding embarrassment: First, be aware that while we must be clear and specific regarding grievous sins in confession, it’s not necessary, and indeed not desirable, to get into descriptions or details. The clarity has to be about what kind of sin it was (including any relevant circumstances that might make it more or less serious) and how frequent it was it. It would be sufficient, for example, to say, “I had a sexual relationship over the course of about five years with three different men, including intercourse quite often; and one of these men was married.” It doesn’t matter where or how you met them, or how old they were (unless, say, there was a seduction of a minor — a relevant circumstance); much less would any lurid descriptions be of help.

The circumstances of an abortion should be explained; for example, “I was pressured,” or “I was afraid,” or “I really had been convinced by friends that there wasn’t any life involved,” or “I was only fifteen,” or “I knew perfectly well that it was very wrong, but at the time I was just too selfish to care.” But this information should be brief, just enough to allow the priest to grasp the essence of the situation.

Second, you can ask the priest to help you, as much as you wish. You can say, “Father, it’s been a long time . . . and I have some very serious and embarrassing sins to confess. Please help me to do so.” I think any priest will be glad to assist you.

You can even write the worst of it down beforehand and say, “Father, I’m very ashamed of this, so I preferred to write it down. These are my most serious sins” — or something of the kind.

Third, be aware that though sexual sins are often viewed as if they were “the worst,” they aren’t. There are sins of pride, of violence, and of lack of charity that are much greater.

Fourth, remember that Christ knows all your sins already and the priest is just a “telephone” that connects you to Him. God is your Father, He really loves you, and He desperately wants to forgive you.

Fifth, the priest, besides being “just a telephone” — who will in fact do his best to forget it all — has heard it all before. You aren’t the first person to commit these sins, and sadly you won’t be the last. The priest himself is weak and a sinner.

Though this may surprise you, in confession he will see you at your best! Because in confession you come to say, “This was me, but this is not who I am any longer. I reject that kind of life. I choose now to love God, and others, more and better.”

So don’t worry. Go ahead. “There will be great joy in heaven.” And I can guarantee you there will be great joy on earth, too, in your heart.

Readers will surely be happy to hear this questioner’s response: “I realized last week, with some help from others, that I needed to go [to confession] as soon as possible — ever since then, so much anxiety has disappeared! Thank you for your wonderful e-mail; I did come to the conclusions that you write about as I read other things, and it was really a beautiful experience. I pray for others who have the same trouble I did.”

Q I had a question and maybe you could direct me to some good literature to support my defense. In class two gentlemen said they had been reading books that supposedly give facts that Mary had children, Jesus had children, that Jesus never was crucified and moved to India. Yes, it sounds crazy, but these gentlemen I consider at least sensible. I could see that since it was in a book, they believed it. One book was titled The Bloodlineage of Jesus or The Bloodline of Jesus. Please help me refute these false accusations.

A Trust your first response — it’s as crazy as it sounds! I’ve seen people I used to think were sensible reading tabloid newspapers with headlines about three-legged aliens taking over a town in Idaho and masquerading as ordinary citizens. All one learns from such things is that some people are not as sensible as they seem!

Actually, some of these tall tales have been recycled for centuries. They first appeared in the teachings of the ancient heretical movements known as Gnosticism and, like those movements, they have repeatedly resurfaced whenever people are trying to persuade Christians to adopt Eastern religious ideas contrary to the Gospel (such as reincarnation, or the claim that the material world is only an illusion). The truth, however, is that we have no historical evidence for the veracity of any of these bizarre claims as we do for the reliability of the canonical Gospels. No serious scholar of ancient texts puts any stock in them; they’re being pushed by folks with a New Age or occult agenda. You should point all this out to the two men in your class.

Q I do hope you can help me. I have been an evangelical Protestant for ten years. About a year ago, I started looking into both Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholicism trying to find the true, historic, apostolic church. All the Orthodox sources I found state that Catholicism broke away from the historic apostolic church and all the Catholic sources I found state the opposite. I even sat down with an Orthodox priest and a Catholic priest (separately) to question them and was told the same. How can I know which is the true apostolic church? Can you suggest some resources that provide evidence that it is the Roman Catholic Church and not the Eastern Orthodox Church that is the one true Church?

AAll those who have been baptized are in a certain, though imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church. The communion of the Catholic Church with the Orthodox churches is so profound “that it lacks little to attain . . . fullness” (Catechism, par. 838). So you could say that although the Catholic Church has the fullness of the faith, the Orthodox Churches “almost” have it, too!
I think the principal thing they are lacking is simply acceptance of the successor of St. Peter (the Pope) as the principle of unity Christ willed for His Church. Some of the popes at the time of the break were probably not as tactful as they might have been in exercising their authority (and perhaps some of them were personally not very exemplary, to say the least). Nevertheless, the special role St. Peter has in the Gospels (he is mentioned far more than all the other apostles put together); Jesus’ promise that He would build His Church on the “Rock,” as he renamed him; and Jesus’ charge that St. Peter strengthen his brothers in the faith once the apostle himself had been strengthened by the prayer of Jesus for him, all indicate that Christ’s plan for the Church included this visible foundation that could hold us together and keep us from breaking up into a myriad of “churches,” all claiming to preach the true gospel.
The early Church Fathers understood — though not with the fully developed doctrine of today — that this was Jesus’ will. I think it comes down to this. You are in my prayers so that Our Lord will enlighten you.

Q A local radio station featured a member of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA ) who was advocating the position that Jesus was a vegetarian, and that God intends for people to be vegetarians. They have a website at http://jesusveg.com, and when I went to look at it, I thought that a lot of things on that site looked wrong. I’m seriously bothered by their assertions and was prompted in my heart to seek out someone who could present some answers and perhaps prevent people from becoming confused.

A I wouldn’t have time to refute all that, I’m afraid, but essentially all you have there are a series of gratuitous affirmations that are at best inexact and more often preposterous. When people are so loose with the truth and so far outside any accepted scholarship, refuting them would require you to start with a treatise on how to interpret Scripture and then go into every detail. It would be a lifetime job! It’s just not worth it. It doesn’t deserve to be taken seriously.
Meanwhile, regarding the particular claim that Jesus was a vegetarian — which has recently appeared on PETA-sponsored billboards around the country, prompting considerable discussion in the media — we need only note that the Scripture plainly says: (1) Jesus observed the Passover meal with His apostles, and according to Jewish Law, a lamb had to be sacrificed, served and consumed at this meal (see Exod. 12:21-27; 34:25; Deut. 16:1-5; Luke 22:7-16); (2) Jesus cooked and ate fish, and gave it to others to eat as well, on multiple occasions (see Mark 6:35-44; 8:7-8; Luke 24:36-43; John 21:9-13).

Have a question you’d like answered? Send it to Fr. Brian Wilson, L.C.,”I Have a Question,” 1453 E. California Blvd., Pasadena, CA 91106; or e-mail it to frwilson@familink.com.