Without sacrificing the significance of the naturalistic practices of their neighbors, Israel transformed them by adding an historical meaning. For Yahweh is a personal God who transcends nature and its dynamism: He is the Father and Savior of Israel. Unless this historical dimension of Israelitic religion and the personal, transcendent character of Yahweh and His saving acts is understood, one cannot hope to appreciate the profound character of Israelitic sacrifice. WILLIAM J. O'ROURKE, S.J. Canisius College Answers to Questions SOME REQUIEM PROBLEMS Question 1: Is the celebrant supposed to kiss the altar after the Placeat at a Requiem Mass when the absolution is to follow? Answer 1: The new Ritus dispels earlier doubt on this point. It reads: "If the last Gospel is to be omitted, according to the rubrics, the celebrant, after giving the blessing, or even if the blessing is to be omitted, kisses the altar and leaves." Question 2: When a catafalque is used to represent the casket of a deceased priest, what position does the celebrant take for the absolution? Is the position different when a deceased layman is represented by the catafalque? Answer 2: If a catafalque is set up, the head of it is always in the direction of the altar, the foot toward the church door, for priests as well as for the laity. The celebrant always takes his place between the altar and the catafalque, the subdeacon and acolytes between the catafalque and the door. Question 3: When are five absolutions permitted? Answer 3: Five absolutions are allowed only at the funerals of the Holy Father, a Cardinal, the Metropolitan, the Ordinary, or heads of State, and they are permitted in Cathedral churches only. SPECIAL ANOINTING Question: Recently I was told of a priest who, at the end of a retreat for lay people, anointed them with oil at the close of the retreat. Is this allowed? What rite is it and what kind of oil would be used? Answer: A search through the various books available has brought no light on the ceremony you describe. Perhaps one or more of our readers may have some information that would help answer your questions. ORATIO IMPERATA Question: In our diocese there is an imperata de Spiritu Sancto. Can you see reasons for omitting this prayer on the occasion of a votive Mass of the mysteries of our Lord, e.g., on the First Friday, when we have the votive Mass of the Sacred Heart? My reasons for asking follow on analogies from canons §16, a; §317, and §355 of the new rubrics, along with the declaration of §388, a, 11 which reckons the votive Mass of the Holy Spirit as one of the mysteries of the Lord. Answer: Of the various canons of the new rubrics which you cite I believe the only one that raises a real obstacle in our present quandary is §308, a, 11. The heading of that canon, however ("The following may be celebrated as votive Masses of the mysteries of the Lord"), would seem to indicate that a little latitude is being granted; even so, one is surprised to find the Mass of the Holy Spirit listed there, in view of the emphasis found elsewhere on "the same Person" as a differentiating detail (e.g. §317). It may be that the Holy Spirit Mass is introduced into that list merely to make it available as a votive Mass and not to insist that this Mass is really a Mass of a mystery of our Lord. In §307 we are told that "A votive Mass may be: a) of the mysteries of the Lord; b) of the Blessed Virgin Mary; c) of the Angels; d) of the Saints; e) for various occasions and intentions." In view of this list, what would happen to the votive Mass of the Holy Spirit if it were not forced, so to speak, into the category of "mysteries of the Lord"? It seems to me, therefore, that the oratio imperata de Spiritu Sancto should be said on the occasion of a votive Mass of a mystery of our Lord, including the votive Mass of the Sacred Heart on First Fridays. SURPLICE FOR CONFESSION Question: I have heard that priests in the United States should wear surplices when they hear confessions? Is this true? Answer: The Rituale Romanum (Titulus III, Cap. 1, 10, ed. 1945) reads: "Superpelliceo, et stola violacei coloris utatur, prout tempus vel locorum feret consuetudo." In the United States, certainly in parish churches, the general custom is not to use the surplice. A priest remains free to follow the regulation set down in the Ritual. BISHOP'S ANNIVERSARY Question: I believe there have been some changes with regard to the commemoration of the Ordinary's anniversary of election and consecration. Could you kindly tell me what the changes are? Answer: In the old rubrics, a commemoration was made, throughout the diocese, of the election (or transferral to the new diocese) and of the consecration of the Ordinary. In the new rubrics, this commemoration is made only once a year, on the anniversary of the election (or transferral) or of the consecration; the choice is up to the Ordinary himself and will be indicated in the ordo or ordos in use in the diocese. This commemoration will be made in accordance with the rubrics (not in Masses for the dead nor on Christmas, Easter, Pentecost, the Sacred Triduum, Epiphany, Ascension, Most Holy Trinity, Corpus Christi, Sacred Heart or Christ the King). It is made under one conclusion with the collect of the Mass of the day. It should be noted that the Mass from which this commemoration is taken may never be said as a low votive Mass; the same holds true of the Mass of the election or coronation of the Pope. JOHN P. MCCORMICK, S.S. THE DESTRUCTION OF PORNOGRAPHY Question: Jim lends John a book to read, telling him that it contains a fine story. John starts to read the book but soon finds that the story is extremely obscene, calculated to fill the mind of the average reader with evil imaginations. John, a decent person, stops reading the book and wonders whether he is permitted to give the book back to Jim, who will probably hand it out to others, with sinful consequences. On the other hand, if he destroys the book, it would seem to be a violation of justice. What is to be said of this problem, which good people frequently encounter? Answer: I believe that per se John should return the book to Jim, and that if he destroys it, he will commit a sin against justice in volving the obligation of restitution. Of course, he will thus cooperate materially toward the sins that may later be committed by those who read the book; nevertheless, there is sufficient reason for such material co-operation in the fact that he must restore property to the owner. However, he should tell Jim definitely why he did not continue reading the book, and urge him to destroy it, or, at least, not to lend it to others. This, I believe, is John's obligation per se. Per accidens, John could be allowed to destroy the book in certain circumstances. First, if he had some jurisdiction over Jim-for example, if he were his father or teacher-he could destroy the book for the benefit of Jim. Second, if the book were of small value-for example, a paper-back book, costing only 35¢-he could destroy it because in such a case the obligation to protect the morals of those to whom the book might come would supersede the slight obligation of justice and the right of the owner to his pornography. CHEMICAL MEANS OF DIMINISHING PASSION Question: I have heard that some drug companies are making experiments to discover some chemical means of diminishing a man's sexual inclinations. What is to be said of the morality of using such a drug if it is ever discovered? Answer: A distinction must be made as to whether the man using such a drug is single or married. It would seem that a single man could lawfully use such a drug, so that he may more easily overcome the inclination to gratify his sex desires unlawfully. It must be understood, however, that he may not render himself impotent or sterile, even temporarily, since that would be a quasimutilation of the sex faculties without sufficient justification. The only licit result would have to be what the correspondent states, a lessening of the sexual inclinations. In the case of a married man, the solution is not so easy. Certainly, if the drug induced him to refuse his wife's reasonable requests for intercourse, or rendered him incapable of performing the marriage act, he would commit sin in taking it. Even if the drug rendered him less capable of giving her the satisfaction to which she has a right, he would not be allowed to take it, at least without her permission. There would seem to be no difficulty, |