James J. Drummey, editor of the weekly “Catholic Replies” column that has appeared in The Wanderer newspaper since 1991, has been involved in the religious education field for more than 30 years. He is the author of two question-and-answer books, Catholic Replies and Catholic Replies 2, co-author of the five-volume Catholicism textbook series that is being used in hundreds of Catholic high schools and parish religion programs, and a popular speaker and defender of the Catholic Church. He can be reached at the website www.crpublications.com.


From March 15, 2007 Column

Q. In a recent column, you stated that Holy Orders now begin when a man is ordained a deacon and that Pope Paul VI abolished the order of subdeacon. However, the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter still ordains subdeacons. Thus, the answer to the question of whether there are any subdeacons still around is yes. -- C.K., Missouri
A. You are correct. We have been informed that not only the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, but also all of the Latin Mass groups have retained the minor orders and the major order of subdeacon. Thank you for the information.

Q. If there are multiple chalices with wine to be consecrated for distribution under both species, is the priest required to place a few drops of water in each chalice? Or is it enough for him to place a few drops in the main chalice of wine and not in the others? I believe that this would be sufficient, but I am not sure. -- R.R., Arizona

A. A call to the Bishops Committee on the Liturgy in Washington confirmed your belief. The issue is “debatable,” said a spokesman for the Committee, and there is no rubric, one-way or the other. But he said that adding a few drops of water to the main chalice would be sufficient for the consecration also of the wine in the other chalices.

From February 7, 2002 Column

Editor’s Note: Regarding the question of whether canon law forbids face-to-face Confession for women, we pointed out that no such provision exists in the 1983 Code of Canon Law. However, A.W.T. of Texas has called our attention to canon 910 of the 1917 Code, which said that  “the confessions of women should not be heard outside of a confessional seat except in cases of illness or other true necessity, and following the precautions that the local Ordinary decides are opportune” (English translation by Dr. Edward N. Peters and published by Ignatius Press).

While the current Code (n. 964) makes no distinction between men and women, C.J.D. of Massachusetts said that the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts, in a statement approved by Pope John Paul II and published in the July 13-14, 1998 issue of L’Osservatore Romano, declared that “for a just reason and excluding cases of necessity, the minister of the sacrament can legitimately decide, even in the event that the penitent asks otherwise, that sacramental Confession be received in a confessional equipped with a fixed grille.”
So while the option of face-to-face Confession still exists, says C.J.D., “the priest as well as the penitent each have the right to refuse that option. The old Code of Canon Law insisted on a grille between the priest and women to prevent scandal. The present ruling seems to be based on the same reasoning.”

From 2/14/02 Column

Q. A man and woman in a Catholic organization to which I belong have left their respective spouses and are now living together. One has gotten a divorce, and the other is waiting for one. Meanwhile, both are involved in the parish as choir members and soloists, even though their situation is known to the parish priest. A member of the woman’s family is getting married this weekend, and the woman is going to be the soloist at the wedding Mass. To me this is a public scandal, one that everyone, including the priest, is aware of. What do you think? – A.S., Michigan

A. Since we said in a recent column that persons living in an apparent state of adultery (in that case persons who had remarried after a divorce) should not be allowed to act as extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist because it would cause confusion among the faithful about Jesus’ condemnation of adultery, we would say the same thing about this man and woman who are living together. Like you, we don’t understand how a pastor can allow persons who seem to be in clear violation of the teachings of Christ and the Church to function as singers in church?
In his apostolic exhortation The Christian Family in the Modern World, Pope John Paul II criticized “de facto free unions,” which he defined as “unions without any publicly recognized institutional bond, either civil or religious” (n. 81). Although this had to do with single persons living together without benefit of marriage, his advice could just as well be applied to the persons in question since they are also living together without any publicly recognized institutional bond that unites them to each other.

After noting that these situations present the Church “with arduous pastoral problems, by reason of the serious consequences deriving from them, both religious and moral,” the Holy Father said
that pastors should  speak to such couples, “correct them charitably, and show them the witness of Christian family life in such a way as to smooth the path for them to regularize their situation.”

But above all, John Paul continued, “there must be a campaign of prevention, by fostering the sense of fidelity in the whole moral and religious training of the young, instructing them concerning the conditions and structures that favor such fidelity, without which there is no true freedom.” He said that these couples must be “helped to reach spiritual maturity and enabled to understand the rich human and supernatural reality of marriage as a sacrament” (n. 81).
If the situation is exactly as A.S. has described it, and the pastor is fully aware of it, then he is certainly not taking any of the steps recommended by the Holy Father and is allowing the continuation of a truly scandalous state of affairs.

Q. According to an article (“Who Has Abortions?”) in Forbes magazine, “Roman Catholics are more likely to abort than Protestants. They account for 31 percent of the population – and of the abortions.” Does this explain why our priests say nothing against abortion from the pulpit? – J.J.O., Florida

A. There is a major disconnect these days between Catholic teaching and Catholic practice. We mean those persons who call themselves Catholics, some of whom even go to church, but who pay little or no attention to what the Church teaches. They have been brainwashed to believe that they can make up their own minds about doctrinal and moral issues and that their opinion is on a par with that of the Magisterium of the Church.
Much of the blame for this disturbing trend falls on bishops and priests who have failed to educate their flocks about Church teaching and about how to form a correct conscience. To be sure, as J.J.O. suggests, some priests have avoided preaching against abortion lest they annoy or anger the pro-abortion women in the congregation. But others have simply failed in their prophetic duty of calling people to reform their lives and turn back to God.
This deplorable state of affairs won’t change until priests begin to present the entire message of Jesus and His Church and not just the part about being nice to everyone. Sunday homilies need to devote more time to specific violations of the moral code of Christ, especially those involving the fifth and sixth commandments.
It is long past time for homilies that emphasize the evil of abortion, euthanasia, drunkenness, drug abuse, hatred, anger, sterilization, and scandal – all of which contravene the Fifth Commandment, as well as contraception, adultery, fornication, homosexuality, masturbation, and pornography – all of which violate the Sixth Commandment.
As long as so many bishops and priests remain silent about these evils that plague our society, opinion polls will continue to show some who call themselves Catholics sounding very much like the people of ancient Rome, whom St. Paul described as “men without conscience, without loyalty, without affection, and without pity” (Romans 1:31).

From 2/21/02 Column

Q. Our parish bulletin lists a woman as “Pastoral Minister.” Is this title a bonafide, accepted term in the Catholic Church? Also, if a deacon is present or available for a Communion service, is it correct for a pastoral minister (usually female) to preside? – M.S., Minnesota
A. Since a deacon is an ordained member of the clergy, he should preside at a Communion service if he is present or available.

As for the title “Pastoral Minister,” which is usually held by a female, it would be better to use the title “Pastoral Associate” for this non-ordained member of the lay faithful so as not to cause confusion about this role and the role of the priest. In the 1997 Vatican instruction on Collaboration of Non-Ordained Faithful in Priests’ Sacred Ministry, eight Vatican offices noted that Pope John Paul has “emphasized the need to clarify and distinguish the various meanings which have accrued to the term ministry in theological and canonical language.” The instruction said that the terminology “becomes even more complex and delicate” and can obscure the essential difference “between the baptismal priesthood and the ordained priesthood” when the laity are officially given “certain functions more proper to clerics which nevertheless do not require the character of [Holy] Orders.”
Saying that the “temporary deputation” of the lay faithful for liturgical purposes “does not confer any special or permanent title on the non-ordained faithful,” the document declared that “it is unlawful for the non-ordained faithful to assume titles such as pastor, chaplain, coordinator, moderator, or other similar titles which can confuse their role and that of the pastor, who is always a bishop or priest.”

Q. While in the hospital, an extraordinary minister showed up to distribute Communion while I was in the middle of eating my breakfast. I told her that it would be disrespectful for me to receive at that time and suggested that she come back later, but she assured me that it would be all right since I was in the hospital. Are there guidelines for the distribution of Communion to those in the hospital? – J.S., Illinois

A  Yes, there are, and they permit reception of the Holy Eucharist in your situation, although you were certainly free to say no at that point and to ask the woman to bring you Communion later. For future reference, here is the Church’s rule as expressed in the document Holy Communion and Worship of the Eucharist Outside Mass (n. 24):

“The elderly and those suffering from any kind of infirmity, as well as those who take care of such persons, may receive the Eucharist even if they have taken something within the hour before Communion.”

Q. Would you please read the enclosed article from our diocesan paper regarding the statements of a theologian who spoke to our diocesan priests and comment on what he said? – J.H., California

A. The theologian quoted is Richard Gaillardetz, an associate professor of Systematic Theology at the University of St. Thomas in Houston and the author of several books. While there are several of his statements that we found troubling, let’s look at just one that appears to be typical of his thinking. After saying that the Church “recognizes a gradation in the authority of its teachings, from dogmatic pronouncements to less authoritatively recognized statements,” and that pastors must “understand the nuances because they are teaching the faithful,” Gaillardetz said:

“We don’t believe that the Pope and the bishops are given a repository of definitive truths, but that the Pope and bishops are given assistance by the Holy Spirit in witnessing and authenticating our shared faith.”

The Catholic Church, of course, does indeed have a repository of definitive truths (as expressed, for example, in the Catechism of the Catholic Church) to which all Catholics are to adhere. This was made clear by Pope John XXIII In his opening speech to the Second Vatican Council on October 11, 1962, when he said that “the greatest concern of the Ecumenical Council is this: that the sacred deposit of Christian doctrine should be guarded and taught more efficaciously.” He said that the Council “wishes to transmit the doctrine, pure and integral, without any attenuation or distortion, which throughout twenty centuries, notwithstanding difficulties and contrasts, has become the common patrimony of men.”
While urging a “renewed, serene, and tranquil adherence to all the teaching of the Church in its entirety and preciseness,” the Holy Father said that the Council was not called to discuss points of fundamental doctrine, but rather to find new ways of communicating ancient truths to the modern world. He said that “the substance of the ancient doctrine of the deposit of faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented is another. And it is the latter that must be taken into great consideration with patience, if necessary, everything being measured in the forms and proportions of a magisterium which is predominantly pastoral in character.”
Two years later, Vatican II promulgated its Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, which said, among other things, that “in matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent of soul” because the bishops can “proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly …. This infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed His Church to be endowed in defining a doctrine of faith and morals extends as far as extends the deposit of divine revelation, which must be religiously guarded and faithfully expounded” (n. 25).

From 2/28/02 Column

Q. When teenage barefoot dancing girls during the Sacrifice of the Mass raised its ugly head in our parish, my pastor said that it had been approved by the Church. Is this true and, if so, where can I get a copy of the implementing document? – J.F.E., Florida

A. No, the Church has not approved dancing girls during the celebration of Mass; in fact, such dancing is specifically forbidden. In its 1975 document Religious Dance: An Expression of Spiritual Joy, the Congregation for the Sacraments and Divine Worship said that while religious dance is permitted in some cultures where it is “still reflective of religious values and becomes a clear manifestation of them,” such is not the case in Western culture, where “dancing is tied with love, with diversion, with profaneness, with unbridling of the senses: Such dancing, in general, is not pure. For that reason, it cannot be introduced into liturgical celebrations of any kind whatsoever.”

If religious dancing is to be welcomed in the West, the document said, it must be found “outside of the liturgy, in assembly areas which are not strictly liturgical [i.e., away from the sanctuary or body of the church]. Moreover, the priests must always be excluded from the dance.”

This ban was reiterated by the Vatican in a 1994 document entitled Inculturation and the Roman Liturgy. This 24-page document is available for $3.50 from the U.S. Catholic Conference Publishing Services (ask for No. 823-1) by calling 800-235-8722. The other document, as far as we know, is out of print.

Q. The weekend before a Catholic-Lutheran prayer service, the Lutheran pastor and his wife came to Mass at our church. Our pastor gave both of them Communion. Is this against Church law, or was our pastor correct in doing it? If he was wrong, what can we do about it? – M.K., Michigan

A. What your pastor did was very much against Church law, notably canon 844 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law, and you should write to your bishop about this violation of Church law and ecumenical guidelines. If the people in your parish had weekly missals in the pews, they would have seen that what the pastor did was wrong by reading the following from the “Guidelines for the Reception of Communion,” which were promulgated in 1996 by the U.S. Catholic Conference:

“Because Catholics believe that the celebration of the Eucharist is a sign of the reality of the oneness of faith, life, and worship, members of those churches with whom we are not yet fully united are ordinarily not admitted to Holy Communion.”

Q. I have always believed that Mary intercedes for us, that she is “mediatrix of all graces.” My question is: As believing Catholics must we believe, in the words of Pope Leo XIII (Octobri Mense), that “as no one can approach the Father except through the Son, so also no one can approach Jesus except through Mary”? – K.M., Ohio

A. The Blessed Virgin Mary’s role of exercising what Pope John Paul has called “a special and exceptional mediation” of the graces won by her Son was spelled out in paragraph 62 of Vatican II’s Dogmatic Constitution on the Church. After noting that Mary’s maternity “in the order of grace” began with her faith at the Annunciation and was sustained with her steadfastness at the foot of the cross, the document said that her saving role continues in Heaven, explaining:

“By her maternal charity, Mary cares for the brethren of her Son who still journey on earth surrounded by dangers and difficulties, until they are led to their happy fatherland. Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked by the Church under the titles of Advocate, Auxiliatrix, Adjutrix, and Mediatrix. These, however, are to be so understood that they neither take away from nor add anything to the dignity and efficacy of Christ the one Mediator.
“For no creature could ever be classed with the Incarnate Word and Redeemer. But, just as the priesthood of Christ is shared in various ways both by sacred ministers and by the faithful, and as the one goodness of God in reality is communicated diversely to his creatures, so also the unique mediation of the Redeemer does not exclude but rather gives rise among creatures to a manifold cooperation which is but a sharing in this unique source.
“The Church does not hesitate to profess this subordinate role of Mary. She experiences it continuously and commends it to the hearts of the faithful, so that encouraged by this maternal help they may more closely adhere to the Mediator and Redeemer.”

In paragraph 60 of the same document, the Fathers of Vatican II discussed further this subordinate role of Mary when they said that “the maternal duty of Mary toward men in no way obscures or diminishes this unique mediation of Christ, but rather shows its power. For all the saving influences of the Blessed Virgin on men originate, not from some inner necessity, but from the divine pleasure. They flow forth from the superabundance of the merits of Christ, rest on his mediation, depend entirely on it, and draw all their power from it. In no way do they impede the immediate union of the faithful with Christ.  Rather, they foster this union.”
For more on this, see Pope John Paul’s encyclical Mother of the Redeemer, nn. 38-41.