Q I have a friend who is resuming her walk with the Catholic Church after falling away from the Faith many years ago. She had a child a few years ago, and since she didn't want the hassle of going through a two-to-three-hour baptism ceremony and watching all the other babies get baptized, she decided to enlist the aid, thanks to the yellow pages, of one "Roman Catholic Bishop David Leon Cooper, O.M.M., M.S."

She showed me his website, "weddingpriestnohassle.com," and asked me if baptisms by him were valid. I told her that, assuming his apostolic lineage listed on his website was accurate and his authority had not been revoked by the Holy See, the baptism was, indeed, valid. On closer inspection of his website, I found that he performed other sacraments as well, although Confirmation wasn't listed.

My question: Who is this hired gun, and is he acting in accordance with the Catholic Church?

A 1. You would have a tough time trying to check the accuracy of someone's apostolic lineage! But all living bishops of the Catholic Church are listed in an official annual Vatican publication, the Annuario Pontificio.

2. According to this listing, there is no "Bishop David Cooper" in the Catholic Church.

3. His website address should have already alerted you to his credentials: The Catholic Church venerates marriage as a sacrament ; "no hassle" weddings belong to the secular culture of Las Vegas and the slot machine mentality.

4. Baptism can be conferred by anyone (even a non-Christian). If they "intend to do what the Church does" and use a Trinitarian formula ("I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit") while pouring water on the person being baptized, the baptism is valid - even if the individual who is baptizing does not himself believe in baptism or its effects. This could happen, for example, in the case of a Jewish or Muslim nurse in a hospital who knows Christian parents want their children baptized and, knowing how to do it, baptizes a newborn who will not survive.

5. In the case of this "Bishop Cooper," I would strongly advise your friend to contact her local Catholic parish and explain the case to the pastor so that he can determine whether the baby should be conditionally baptized. No one can be "baptized again," but there can and should be a conditional baptism ("If you have not been baptized, I baptize you . . .") of any person about whom there is real doubt.

Q How is it possible that Christ can be present in the Eucharist when He said, "If I do not go, the Paraclete will not come" (see John 16:7)? How can we have the Holy Spirit and Christ present here in the same moment of time, in the Eucharist and inspiring the Church today? Apologetically speaking, how would one defend this position?

A Jesus' statement refers specifically to His historical presence in the human form to which the apostles were accustomed. He was telling them that the Holy Spirit's coming at Pentecost would not take place until after Jesus' ascension into heaven. The presence of Christ in the Eucharist - and in the other ways He is present in His Church (see Catechism, par. 1373) - are not at odds with this statement.
Even Christians who deny Jesus' Real Presence in the Eucharist usually affirm that He is in some way still present with His believers today, just as the Holy Spirit is with us. "I am with you always," Christ promised, "to the close of the age" (Matt. 28:20).

Q I am a Residence Life Coordinator at a small women's college. In training, we met the college's chaplain, an ordained Presbyterian minister. During our conversation with her she mentioned that she had recently purchased something called a "labyrinth," which she described as a maze painted on a canvas that you can lay on the floor and then walk through.

She says that "Protestants want 'stuff' like the Catholics who have their Rosaries and candles." She also says it predates Christianity and was used by those too ill to make a pilgrimage. The chaplain would like to allow our program to use the "labyrinth" for a week, but since I am working with young, impressionable girls, I am wondering if this is something that I really want to put them in contact with.

A Thanks for an interesting question. It's encouraging to see someone who displays genuine care for the students, rather than treating them as guinea pigs on whom the latest fad can be tried out. They're fortunate to have you.

A labyrinth existed as far back as 2300 B.C. in Egypt, so it certainly predates Christianity. I'm not sure that this in itself renders it recommendable, as the college chaplain would appear to think. I find it curious that anything ancient from outside Christianity is a source of wonder and appreciation for some people, while quite frequently the same people discard certain Christian practices because they are old and outdated!

Anyway, back to your question. Some medieval cathedrals in France, such as Amiens, had a labyrinth design on the floor. Apparently no one quite knows why or what their significance was. My suggestion would be to give it a Christian significance. "Baptize" it, as Christians did in the early centuries and Middle Ages with many pre-Christian customs and symbols.

For example, it could represent the difficulty in finding your way through the labyrinth of life relying on the natural light of conscience alone, and how much easier it is if you have been given the key or received instructions along the way from One who knows, or indeed is, the Way - in other words, if you're Christian. I'm sure you can improve on that idea; it's just to get you going. If you invent something brilliant, maybe you can let us know about it!

Q Is it permissible to receive Communion more than once a day? Say I went to daily Mass in the morning alone and received Communion, and then a friend asked me to go to Mass with her later in the day. Should I receive Communion again? Would it make a difference if the morning Mass were a daily Mass and the evening were a Vigil (that is, if this happened on a Saturday)?

A You can receive twice in one day in a circumstance such as you describe. It would be an abuse to go twice merely with the intention of receiving twice. But when the second occasion is unforeseen, or if there are two significant occasions in one day - say, a daughter's First Communion in the morning, and a friend's wedding in the afternoon - then even though you do in this case plan on going to two Masses, you may receive Communion both times. A Saturday morning Mass is liturgically on a different day from a Saturday evening vigil Mass, so receiving Communion at both is to be recommended.

Q I am a Catholic married to a non-Catholic. My husband doesn't believe in any faith. I have just found out he is using the Internet to get pornography. He doesn't know I have found out.

We have four young children, and I am worried they may see it when they log on the Internet. We have an Internet address just for them that has restrictions in place. But there are times we let them use my husband's Internet access for some things they want to look up that they can't get on their access.
One of us is supposed to be with them when they use his access. But I know the kids have sometimes used it without our permission.

I logged on his access and came across the pornography. I was shocked and hurt that he would do this. I thought we had a good marriage. I feel so violated. How do I handle this? I don't even know how to ask him about it. I hope you can help me with this.

A Your plight is unfortunately becoming more and more common, and sadly it's not limited to those who don't believe in God. Many men who have otherwise been good Christians and good husbands - at least up to this point - have become addicted to Internet pornography. It's all too easy to find and, once found, almost as easy to get hooked on.

In my experience, this doesn't mean that your husband doesn't love you - as yet. However, use of pornography inevitably begins to drain a marriage. You need to act now, before it does more damage.
You should trust that he still does love you and your children, and proceed on that basis. I think I would tell him that (a) you know about it, (b) you are very hurt, (c) you still believe he loves you, (d) you realize he probably fell into it in spite of himself, (e) you want to help him chuck the habit, and (f) you are very worried that the children will see it.

It's quite likely that he'll say, "I'm sorry," and promise, sincerely, to give it up. Assuming it's fairly clear to you that this was not a one-time thing, don't be content with that. "The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak."

You need to make him see that this trap is far too easy to fall into it. Since acknowledging this difficulty lessens the guilt, it's likely he'll concede the point. So he needs to adopt effective means that will make it very difficult for him to do it again.

An immediate and principal step is to get a new Internet provider that doesn't allow access to pornography. From what you say, the children's access must be very restricted, but there are filtered providers that allow access to just about anything anyone could reasonably need (unless they are professionally engaged in research on human depravity and extreme vulgarity!). Be absolutely firm on this. Simply do not take no for an answer. If he refuses he is, at the very least, fooling himself badly, and if he could look inside his will, he would see he has not really decided to give it up.

Do all this in the same "session" while he's still deeply embarrassed. That's a temporary motivation that will help him take the hard step. Don't give him time to start finding excuses and inventing ration-alizations.

Make clear that you believe your marriage cannot survive if he does not act. Whatever it is he needs to find so badly on the Internet, is it worth more than his life, his dignity, his marriage, and his children (not to mention his eternal salvation)?

Don't accept the solution of filtering software. Just as he can install it, he can disable it. Besides, new pages of pornography are appearing daily, and if the software isn't kept up to date it will soon be semi-useless.

Instead, use one of the available filtered Internet service providers with nation-wide access. I use one myself, and my priest friends do too. I use FamiLink (www.familink.com) and I've had no problems with access or anything else.

FamiLink features a filter that's updated every day, and as long as that's your only service provider, it's impossible to bypass the filter. Of course, it's true that there's no perfect filter - the computer should be in the family room or other well-used room in the house as added protection - but this is the best one I've found, and I've never come across a bad site in three years of using it.

The fact is, a lot of men in this country are basically in denial about their problems with Internet pornography, and it's about time their wives stood up to them and demanded they either cease using the Internet at all, or get a good filtered Internet service. That will help protect the children too, but the first ones who need protection are adult males. Be clear about the alternatives: either a filtered Internet service, or no Internet at all. And don't negotiate down. What's at stake is too important.

Have a question you'd like answered? Send it to
Fr. Brian Wilson, L.C. "I Have a Question," POB 640, Granville, OH 43023; or email frwilson@familink.com.