| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
questions answered by wm. b. smith
Question: A lecturer in theology stated that there is a “magisterium of bishops” and a “magisterium of theologians.” He also insisted that this is the traditional understanding and, indeed, especially that of St. Thomas Aquinas. Is this so? Answer: The Magisterium of the Pope and the Bishops (“doctrinae magistri” [canon 375, #1]) is a “sacred source” of Sacred Theology, i.e., guaranteed by Jesus: “Whoever listens to you listens to me” (Luke 10:16; Matt. 10:40). On the other hand, the so-called magisterium of the doctors, scholars or theologians—never known to be a univocal voice—is not a “sacred source” in any sense. As for St. Thomas Aquinas, his reported last words before receiving Viaticum remain a model for all believers (degreed or un-degreed): “I have taught and written much on this most Holy Body and on the other sacraments, according to my faith in Christ and in the holy Roman Church, to whose judgment I submit all my teaching” (J. A. Weisheipl, Friar Thomas D’Aquino [1974] p. 326). It is slightly ludicrous and anachronistic to try to recycle St. Thomas as an early but closet “dissenter.” His conviction about theology and the Church was stated with great clarity in response to the contentious question about baptizing the children of unwilling believers. In reply, he taught: “. . . The very teaching of Catholic theologians gets its authority from the Church. Hence we should stand on the authority of the Church rather than on that of Augustine or Jerome or any other divine whatsoever” (Summa theologiae, II-II, q. 10, a. 12).
Question: I read from a print-out of Dr. L. Shettles that a combination of the timing of intercourse (before ovulation vs. at or after ovulation) together with different douches (acid vs. baking-soda) can achieve an 85 to 90% success rate in conceiving a child of your gender-choice. Is this moral? Answer: The world of science does not share Dr. Landrum Shettles’s great enthusiasm for this “method.” A sober review and assessment of this “method” can be found in John and Sheila Kippley’s, The Art of Natural Family Planning (4th ed. 1996) pp. 302-303, with documentation, p. 304. First, the Couple-To-Couple League responds correctly to the question with some hesitation because too much concern about “sex selection” can detract from seeing the child as a “gift” and lead instead to seeing the child as a “product” or “construction.” This concern and deficit is a valid one, cf. Donum Vitae (1987) and Evangelium Vitae (1994) nn. 22, 39, 63 et passim. The Shettles theory starts with facts but postulates answers that are either non-factual or simply unknown. The premise is that “Y” chromosomes are smaller, swim faster but don’t live as long as “X” chromosomes which are larger, slower but last longer. “The longer the theory is around, the more controversial it becomes, and some researchers claim it is totally wrong.” Concerning different kinds of douches—one supposedly killing male-bearing sperm, the other killing female-bearing sperm—this practice is to be discouraged. The objection is not primarily that it is partly or potentially contraceptive (since plenty of sperm are presumably unaffected), but douche-damaged sperm can cause birth-defects, a problem associated with spermicides in general. The process itself is morally ambiguous at best, since it raises questions about the limits of technological intervention and manipulation of the life processes. For these reasons, it is to be discouraged and avoided and simply does not belong in any presentation of natural family planning. I find that The Art of Natural Family Planning (1996) together with all the publications of the Couple-To-Couple League present clear explanations of the most technical questions and always with complete fidelity to formal Catholic moral teaching. The CCL is a good and reliable source.
Question: There are widespread abuses at concelebrated Masses with lay ministers at the altar sharing the large Host so that they and the priests receive at the same time. Recently, the bishop ministered the Chalice to the ministers before the concelebrants and the ministers distributed Communion to the congregation while all but two of the concelebrants sat down. Are there rubrics on this? Answer: Yes, but if the bishop himself is that badly confused, correct citation of the proper rubrics may not solve this situation. Msgr. P. J. Elliott’s book, Ceremonies of the Modern Roman Rite (Ignatius, 1995) conveniently summarizes the correction of the above abuses (cf. ##602-603, pp. 223-4). “. . . The ministers who give the Eucharist to God’s People are, in the first place, all bishops, priests and deacons who may give Holy Communion at any Mass in virtue of having received Sacred Orders” (cn. 919, #1). “Since the publication of the instruction Immensae Caritatis (1973), the Church has made it easier for people to have access to the Sacrament by authorizing some laity and religious to be extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist. ‘The extraordinary minister of Holy Communion is the acolyte, or another of Christ’s faithful deputed in accordance with cn. 230, #3.’ The acolyte gives Holy Communion in virtue of his institution, thus taking precedence over other laity and religious authorized to distribute the Eucharist. Extraordinary ministers assist only when they are needed in addition to ordained ministers. Therefore clergy are not to remain seated at a celebration while acolytes and extraordinary ministers distribute Communion. The auxiliary ministry of extraordinary ministers is of great value in certain situations, but the signs and symbol of ceremonial should convey a sound understanding of their role and their relationship to the ordinary ministers . . .” (p. 224). It is common among liturgists to talk much of sign and symbol, especially full sign value. Here, their “sign language” often gets mixed up with other agendas—the compulsion to be “inclusive” or expansive. Thus, while “sign and symbol” get much mention, the sign and symbol of ceremonial, as Msgr. Elliott correctly notes, gets smothered by other agendas or personal fads. One of the above abuses was the object of an official determination of the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts. The precise question posed to that Council was:
“Whether the extraordinary minister of Holy Communion, deputed in accordance with
cns. 910, #2 and 230, #3, can exercise his or her supplementary function even when
ordinary ministers, who are not in any way impeded, are present in the Church, though not
taking part in the Eucharistic celebration”? Response: Negative! September 23, 1988,
in AAS 80 (1988) p. 1373. This “Response” can be found in the Code of Canon Law
Annotated (1993) p. 1293. The commentary of the same publication re cn. 910 is both clear
and reliable (p. 585). |