Does the Catholic Church Allow Cremation?

The Catholic Church, deeply rooted in tradition and reverence for the sacredness of the human body, has historically advocated for the burial of the deceased. This preference is not merely ceremonial but deeply theological, reflecting the belief in the resurrection of the body, a fundamental tenet of Christian faith. The practice of burial, mirroring the burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ, serves as a powerful symbol of the Christian hope in eternal life and resurrection.

For centuries, cremation was prohibited within the Catholic Church. This prohibition was grounded in the Church's desire to distance Christian practice from non-Christian customs, particularly those that denied the resurrection of the body. The association of cremation with pagan practices and a denial of the Christian doctrine of resurrection contributed to the Church's longstanding opposition to the practice.

The Code of Canon Law of 1917 explicitly reflected this stance, underscoring the preference for burial as a manifestation of belief in the resurrection of the flesh. The Church's position was not only doctrinal but also pastoral, aiming to guide the faithful in practices that affirm their faith in the face of death.

While the 1983 Code of Canon Law and the instruction from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in 1963 marked a concession, allowing cremation under certain conditions, this should not be misconstrued as an endorsement of the practice. The permission granted for cremation comes with significant caveats, primarily that it must not be chosen for reasons contrary to Christian doctrine. The Church's allowance for cremation is a reluctant concession to changing societal circumstances, not a change in doctrinal understanding or an affirmation of the practice.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states, "The Church permits cremation, provided that it does not demonstrate a denial of faith in the resurrection of the body" (CCC, 2300). This statement, while acknowledging the allowance for cremation, implicitly reaffirms the Church's preference for burial. The conditional nature of this permission highlights the Church's ongoing concerns regarding the practice.

The 2016 instruction "Ad resurgendum cum Christo" further emphasizes the Church's cautious stance towards cremation, stipulating that ashes must be kept in a sacred place and not subjected to practices that could diminish their dignity or suggest a denial of Christian beliefs about the afterlife and resurrection. These guidelines reflect a broader concern for maintaining the sanctity and integrity of the faith in the context of funeral practices.

In advocating for burial over cremation, the Church upholds a practice that more clearly reflects and honors Christian beliefs about the body, death, and resurrection. Burial serves as a tangible expression of faith in the resurrection and the unity of the body and soul, destined for glorification in eternal life. While cremation is technically allowed, the Church's historical and doctrinal reservations about the practice underscore a clear preference for burial—a preference that honors the Christian understanding of the body as a temple of the Holy Spirit and a participant in the resurrection to come.

Scary Moments During Communion

Have you ever been to Mass during the distribution of Communion and been concerned about the worthy reception of the Eucharist? I know I have been on many occasions. I would like to recount an event which took place yesterday which I found very strange.

It was daily Mass and people were going up to receive communion as per usual. A gentleman came forward whom I have never seen. Instead of placing one hand under another and making a sort of "table" with his hands upon which to receive the sacred species, he instead took the host with his index finger and thumb. The strangest part was that upon receiving the Eucharist, he leaned over and for several seconds whispered something to the priest. I have no idea what he whispered. Perhaps I am somewhat imagining it, but the priest seemed concerned after that. The prayers at the end of Mass seemed a little more rushed than usual.

I believe he did consume the Eucharist, which is the main thing. After receiving, also strangely, this person walked down the middle aisle of the church (where no one was sitting). Later, when Mass was over, he stuck around and was taking photos of the church while others were leaving.

I have no idea who this person was. I cannot say anything about the state of his soul or whether or not he was a practicing Catholic. However, these situations give me pause and I wonder how they should be properly addressed.

I always have a concern about someone who may be unstable receiving communion and then doing something like desecrating it or treating it with irreverence. It got me to wondering: how should priests address such situations? I searched for the topic of denying communion and under what circumstances that should be done. I found some interesting things.

The main people to whom Eucharist should be denied are those in persistent obstinate sin. One of the prime examples of this is politicians who publicly campaign on behalf of immoral things such as abortion. It's important to note that the Church says denial is only to those in public, persistent, obstinate sin. It cannot simply be a person who the priest believes lives as sinful life or is in a state of mortal sin.

A priest does not have certainty that a person is in a state of mortal sin. Perhaps they confessed their sin to another priest. Even if the priest has inside information, he is told to err on the side of caution. In fact, if a priest denies communion to a person who is committing a private sin (not known publicly), the priest could be committing a form of scandal. This form of scandal involves exposing someone's sins unnecessarily.

An interesting example of denying communion to someone in persistent sin is someone wearing an emblem announcing their support for a sin, such as wearing a gay pride sash. This sash would be a symbol indicating this person's current and ongoing support of gay pride, thus support for homosexual actions which are contrary to Church teaching.

However, ordinarily, the priest could not use a person's private sin as a reason to exclude them from communion.

So, what about a case involving an erratic person or someone just behaving strangely? Should communion be denied that person? The answer is yes. In an article by Fr. Edward McNamara on EWTN.com, he writes:

There might be some other cases when a priest has to decide on the spur of the moment, for example, when a person is in an obviously altered state and is clearly not fully aware of what he is doing. Such cases have more to do with public order and respect for the Eucharistic species than making a judgment as to a person's interior state.

This would be a tough judgment call in many cases. A person acting a little strange would not necessary mean they are in an altered state or do not understand the Eucharist. In the story I gave above, was the person in an altered state? I have no idea. I think if a person is acting in a truly strange way, it would be a valid assumption to think the person may receive unworthily or perhaps even desecrate Our Lord in the Eucharist. That would be the worst case scenario.

Where I attend Mass, there was a guy who seemed a little "out there". I'm not judging him or whether he's in a state of grace, but his behavior was unusual. He would wave his arms, sometimes with great speed, during the Mass. However, when he went to receive communion, he did so very reverently. He would kneel down and put his hands up for the Eucharist to be placed there. He would then immediately consume the host.

A priest could not legitimately refuse communion to this man, even if he was acting a little differently during the Liturgy. His comportment during reception of communion would certainly qualify him, barring any publicly-known mortal sin, to receive Our Lord under the appearance of bread and wine.

Any time the Body, Blood, Soul, & Divinity of Our Lord is at risk, it is scary and concerning. We must pray for all who receive communion that they do so in a worthy way, as spoken of by St. Paul. I believe reception on the tongue is an added guarantee of worthy reception and hopefully it will return soon.

Pope's motu proprio concerning women lectors and acolytes big mistake in my opinion

Pope Francis changed canon law 230. Here are the details (from Vatican News article):

With the Motu proprio Spiritus Domini, which modifies the first paragraph of Canon 230 of the Code of Canon Law, Pope Francis, therefore, establishes that women can have access to these ministries and that this be recognized through a liturgical act formally instituting them as such.

As we all know, we've had women lectors and acolytes for quite some time. Lectors are people who read at Mass and acolytes are people who assist at the altar. The change that Pope Francis is making is to allow women to have these roles in a more permanent form, rather than in the current situation where they are seen as temporary by necessity.

In my humble opinion, this is a very imprudent move by the pope. Sadly, I feel most of his decisions are. I'm sure he is attempting to make the Church more welcoming or modern or to appeal to non-Catholics, but it is doing none of those things.

The problem comes in that we are living in a time of great confusion and heresy. Many Catholics still cling to hope that women will one day be allowed to become priests, something which Pope John Paul II pointed out is impossible. Doing so would be a violation of an infallible teaching of the Church since the time of the apostles.

Of course, that is not what Pope Francis is attempting to do here. However, in this time of confusion and uncertainty, doing something like this exacerbates the situation. To the average Catholic and non-Catholic alike, this represents a step towards women priests and bishops. It further creates division in the Church and does the opposite of solidify a Church doctrine.

In my opinion, allowing a permanent role of acolyte or lector for women in a different era might work. I don't know all the implications, but in a time without as much dissent and opposition, people would recognize the role for what it is and would not associate it with the priesthood. These days, because people are so poorly catechized, this is not clear. It undermines an important teaching.

Serving at the altar really should only be men. Christ chose 12 apostles who were all men despite having women whom he could have selected. This has never changed throughout all the centuries of the Church. Although not strictly prohibited, having women serve on the altar in a permanent way takes away from the understanding that Christ is a man who chose men as apostles and as sacramental priests.

On top of this, many boys who see holy men celebrating Mass are drawn to become men themselves and they explore their vocation because of this. Having various men and women on the altar does not emphasize the uniquely masculine role taking place.

In short, I think this is a bad idea particularly now.

Army of Mary excommunicated - Catholic Church reiterates that Mary is not divine.

The members of the Army of Mary have been excommunicated by the Pope because of their heretical beliefs. The following is a brief overview of what happened:

Calling it a "very grave situation," the Vatican has excommunicated members of a controversial Quebec Catholic movement, the Army of Mary, for their heretical beliefs that derive from the writings of Marie-Paule Giguère, an 86-year-old mystic who claims to be a reincarnation of the Virgin Mary.

That information came from the National Post in Canada.

The group should not be confused with the Army of the Immaculate founded by Maximilian Kolbe, who died in a concentration camp, which has a legitimate following of the Virgin Mary.

The teachings of the Quebec-based group went too far by proclaiming that Mary is divine, and that the foundress of the group is the reincarnation of Mary. This would be impossible according to Catholic theology, because Mary was assumed bodily into heaven where she continues to live. In order for Mary to appear, she would not come in the form of another person, because she is still alive.

Another obvious issue with this is to claim that Mary is divine. Neither Catholics or any other Christian group claims that Mary is divine. Although the greatest of creatures, she is still a creature, who owes all of her existence to God Almighty.

My suspicious is that they also have a misunderstanding of Mary's role as Co-Redemptrix. This theology which is not officially sanctioned by the Church does not mean that Christ and Mary work together for salvation, we believe that only Christ is responsible for salvation. Co-redemptrix is understood as Mary's obedience to God which allowed our Savior to come into the world. Her "yes" allowed Christ to come into the world so that we may attain salvation.

This story is sad in many ways because many of the ladies involved are quite aged, and reconciliation is something which must be sought for them. On the other hand, this story is good to show that the Church continues to exercise her authority over her people and to guide them into all truth, as is her mission with the help of God.

This group is also accused of ordaining priests, but these ordinations were done by other priests which is against Church, or Canon, Law. Therefore these ordinations are deemed invalid as are marriages which were attended by these priests, in other words they are null.

We must all pray for these people that they will rejoin Christ's True Church, Holy Mother Church, the Catholic Church.

Waiting for a new Archbishop

A couple of months ago in St. John's, Newfoundland, Canada, Archbishop Brendan O'Brien was sent to Kingston Ontario to be their new Archbishop. So, St. John's is waiting patiently for the arrival of a new Archbishop.

The following is information from the official archdiocesan website concerning this situation:

Father Francis Puddister Elected Archdiocesan Administrator (St. John's) The priests of the Archdiocese of St. John's of the Presbyteral Council which is also the Archdiocesan College of Consultors have elected Father Francis Puddister, Chancellor of the Archdiocese of St.John's and Parish Priest of Mary Queen of Peace Parish, Torbay Road, St.John's as the Archdiocesan Administrator for the Archdiocese of St.John's.

After Archbishop Brendan O'Brien took possession of the Archdiocese of Kingston on July 25, 2007 the College of Consultors was required by Canon Law to assume the administration of the Archdiocese and to elect a priest as Archdiocesan Administrator. Following a secret ballot, Father Francis Puddister was elected according to Canons 419 and 421.

Father Frank Puddister is originally from Bay Bulls. He received his elementary education at Sts. Peter and Paul Parish School, Bay Bulls. He later moved to St.John's where he attended St. Patrick's and later St. Bonaventure's College. He completed his high school studies at Brother Rice High School, St.John's.

He holds academic degrees from Memorial University of Newfoundland (B.A.,1971) and St. Paul's University of Ottawa (Bachelor of Theology, 1976; Licence and Master's in Canon Law, 1986).

He was ordained to the priesthood in 1977 by Archbishop Patrick James Skinner.

Since ordination he has served in a number of parishes throughout the Archdiocese of St.John's. In addition to being responsible for the pastoral administration of a number of parishes he has also been responsible for the Archdiocesan Marriage Tribunal (1982-1994, 2007 to the present) and has served as the Chancellor of the Archdiocese of St.John's since 2001.

Upon his election, as the Archdiocesan Administrator, Father Puddister assumes the administration of the diocese until a new archbishop is installed or takes possession of the diocese (Canon 430).

Until his installation in the Archdiocese of Kingston, Archbsihop O'Brien was mentioned in the usual way during the Eucharistic Prayer of the Mass. The name of the archbishop is now omitted until a new one is named by the Holy See. The Archdiocesan Liturgy Office suggests that prayers be offered from time to time for the Archdiocesan Administrator (Father Francis Puddister), and for all who work with him in Archdiocesan offices, in the Prayers of the Faithful of the Mass, of the Liturgy of the Hours and of the Liturgy of the Word.

May the Holy Spirit be active in the process of selecting our new archbishop. May he be a man of deep faith, integrity, fidelity and compassion. Let's pray daily!

Prayer for the election of our new bishop

Almighty God, giver of every good gift: Look graciously on your Church, and so guide the minds of those who shall choose the new Archbishop for the Archdiocese of St. John's, that we may receive a faithful pastor, who will care for your people and equip us for our ministries. We ask this through Jesus Christ Our Lord. Amen.

Priest is attacked verbally on the air by so-called "Catholic"

Recently the president of Human Life International, Fr. Thomas Euteneuer, appeared on Fox television on the Colmes-Hannity show to speak with Hannity who openly expressed his beliefs about contraception which are contrary to Catholic belief. Fr. Euteneur was invited onto the show to speak with Hannity. Hannity showed absolutely no respect to this priest, and went on a tirade against him. Euteneur, however, remained calm. This article, taken from the Human Life International (the largest pro-life organization in the world), explains the situation, in the words of Fr. Euteneur himself:

“For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, and will turn away from listening to the truth.” (2 Tim 4:3-4)

Many Spirit and Life readers may know that after last Friday’s column (“Sean Hannity’s Gospel”) I was invited to defend my position on the Hannity and Colmes show that very night. It’s nice to know that my emails are being read in the hallowed halls of Fox News! I suspected, however, that Hannity wanted to defend his “devout Catholic” credentials, and I was not disabused of this notion when I went on the show. What the show did, above all, was to show not that the Church was wrong or incoherent, but that Hannity, like so many other cultural Catholics, is really a liberal when it comes to certain aspects of sexual morality.

The first point I have to straighten out is for those who were concerned that this was not handled first in private. Well, in fact, I did attempt to handle this matter in private with Mr. Hannity in 2004, but I never received a response to my letter asking him for a meeting. [See side bar item, “Fr. Euteneuer asks to meet with Hannity about birth control.”] As far as I am concerned, I did my due diligence before I went public with my complaint about his hypocrisy; but even if I had not, it was Mr. Hannity’s schedulers who called me to make an issue of it, not I who demanded to appear on his show! In this age of culpable clerical silence on many serious issues affecting people’s souls, do we now want a priest to keep silent about something so important? We can’t have it both ways.

Second, concerning the actual debate, what some are calling Sean’s “disrespect” for me as a member of the clergy was not of concern to me. In that sense, Sean is typical of his generation that has been taught that nobody has any special consecration (even if they technically do) and that everyone has to prove his mettle in the realm of public debate. No problem. I am a holder of this office, and I did not feel that his callous disregard for the priesthood did anything to diminish the sanctity of it, but I can see how it was an extra element of scandal for those who value the priestly office highly. Nor did I really care that he cut me off time and time again in the debate; he’s a known quantity—did you expect anything else from Hannity?

Just for the record, Sean Hannity really is a dissenting Catholic and a public scandal to the Faith. He should be rebuked by his pastor or bishop, not by me, but since that has not been forthcoming in his decade or so of public dissent on radio and TV, somebody in authority had to say something. Hannity, as we know, is shameless on birth control, and judging from the interview, he hasn’t even the vocabulary to rationally defend his position in the face of his Church’s clear teaching. Hannity is also clearly pro-choice on abortion in cases of rape, incest and life of the mother, and he is really cozy with the likes of Rudy Giuliani whose love for abortion and everything gay is hardly a secret. It has even been revealed that Hannity’s website, Hannity.com has a gay dating service that Sean knows about and apparently “has no problem with;” no different from his attitude in regard to birth control. So much for the “devout Catholic” Hannity. If that is devout, then Hugh Heffner is reverent.

The interview on Friday night was enlightening in many senses but mostly because it showed Hannity’s true liberal side. The “Judge not lest ye be judged” comment I have heard only and exclusively in debates with liberals and others with guilty consciences. It is the whine of the person who is doing something that he knows in his heart is wrong but can’t stand anyone pointing out. Hannity’s “judge not” rant can be summarized in one phrase which, if it were put this way, would have been much more identifiable as liberal claptrap: “How dare you question my choice!” Face it: Hannity is a liberal when it comes to sex. In his position next to Colmes, Hannity wears the conservative mantle, but when he comes face to face with the truth of his Church, which I as a priest am obliged to uphold faithfully, he is no more than a liberal relativist.

And in that matter, how different is his position on birth control from that of Planned Parenthood? They have “no problem” with birth control either. In fact it’s much more than a personal matter for them. It fuels their business. Yes, about 60% of women going into abortion clinics are doing it because of failed birth control and no amount of feigned pragmatism about stopping abortions with birth control is going to change the fact that birth control teaches people to be selfish and leads them down the garden path to the killing centers of this nation—or any nation for that matter. And by the way, for those who wanted me to object to both abortion and birth control as a solution to any problem, please go back and listen carefully to the clip—I did object to both! The Catholic Church’s teaching on sexual morality is the only coherent dissenting viewpoint from PP’s gospel of free sex and baby killing, and sadly, Hannity, the “devout Catholic,” just aids and abets those criminals.

Most surprising of all, however, was Hannity’s use of what I call the “argument from pedophilia;” namely, the tendency to fall back on the Church sex abuse scandal when you’re losing an argument with a priest and have to grab for something. I have had people do this to me in front of abortion clinics, at Da Vinci Code protests and in private conversations about Catholicism for the past several years. Let’s just say I didn’t expect it from Hannity! Was it me or did Sean just disconnect from reality at that moment? Where in the world did that come from? Well, it’s because Hannity’s really a closet liberal when pushed to the wall. True colors come out in the wash, and the birth control issue just has a greater tendency to touch the sensitive areas of people’s philosophies of life.

Hannity’s worldview is full of holes. He may have gone to seminary but, if that is the case, his seminary background and knowledge of Latin (!) gives him a greater responsibility to get it right when he wants to spout off about Church teaching in the public forum.

For your reading interest you can click on the side bar items to see some of the incredible feedback that we got on both sides of the debate. Of particular interest is the recent statement of Cardinal Bertone, Vatican Secretary of State, who has said that “dissident Catholics are more worrying than atheists.” Whew—words of warning for Hannity and O’Reilly and company. In the end, we all have to undergo our own “Judgment Day,” and it is the Church’s job to let people know ahead of time that God is not a moral relativist on the issue of birth control.

Sincerely Yours in Christ,
Rev. Thomas J. Euteneuer
President, Human Life International

The Process of Electing a New Pope

Anytime a Pope dies, or theoretically resigns, a new pope must be elected. There is a process which must be undertaken, many elements of which are quite secret. In this short essay, I will explore the process involved in electing a new Pope, and some interesting facts about it.

Around 12 to 15 days after a Pope dies, the cardinals of the church gather in Rome. Cardinals are bishops, who have been elevated to a special level of duty within the church. They sometimes advice the Pope on various issues, and play a special role in guiding people spiritually. They are called the Princes of the Church. You can tell they are cardinals because they wear distinctive red vestments. As a piece of trivia, the cardinal bird was named after Church Cardinals because their colour resembled the color of these churchmen.

Pope Paul VI changed some of the rules associated with electing a new Pope. One rule was that the cardinals electing the pope had to be less than 80. In the last election, about 118 out of the total 180 cardinals voted for the new pope. Some were too old and some were too ill to vote.

In order for a pope to be elected, two thirds of cardinals must be in agreement. John Paul II made a rule that if, after 7 votes, a pope is not chosen, a simple majority will do in electing the new Bishop of Rome.

Once a Pope is successfully elected, the public is informed of this by the emission of a smoke from the Sistine Chapel. If the smoke is black, no pope has been elected. If the smoke is white, a pope has been elected. The Sistine Chapel was designed by Michelangelo, and contains some very beautiful Biblical art. Also, large bells around the Vatican sound joyously.

Once the pope is elected, he is introduced to the public by the Senior Cardinal Deacon, who announces in Latin, "Habemus Papem", which means "We have a Pope!" This is accompanied by the applause of hundreds of thousands, as the new Earthly head of the Church is introduced.

Priestly Celibacy - Allowing Priests to Marry

The topic of priestly celibacy is one which is on the topical radar of a lot of people when it comes to the Catholic Church. Some view this as an important issue, while others view it as less serious, and concern themselves more with following Church doctrines and disciplines. Some ask whether allowing priests to marry would eliminate or reduce child sexual abuse among clergy, while others think a celibate clergy may be unncessary or at odds with the rest of society. Some even wonder if there is a Biblical basis for the practice of remaining celibate and unmarried. In this essay, I will address these concerns and see where the facts lie on the issue of priestly celibacy.

Priestly celibacy is considered a discipline of the church, as opposed to a dogma or doctrine. This means that it is something the teaching authority within the church has said is beneficial within the Church. Disciplines can and have in the past changed, and are not essential to our understanding of Christianity. Other disciplines include the previous ban on eating flesh meat on Fridays, or the Tridentine Mass, which was celebrated in Latin. Both of these disciplines were reviewed and changed during the Second Vatican Council. Therefore, it is possible that the rule of priestly celibacy could change, and the Pope would be fully within his role and rights to declare that it will no longer be necessary or may make it optional. It is important to note that any such decision would not affect current priests, who have already taken a vow of lifelong celibacy.

Where does the practice of priestly celibacy originate and what is its basis? The practice of celibacy is mentioned in the Bible by Jesus and Paul, who both describe it in favourable terms. Paul endorses celibacy when he says, "To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion" (1 Corinthians 7:8-9). So basically Paul says that if you CANNOT remain celibate, it is better to get married, but if you can, it is better to remain celibate.

Paul also says, "Are you free from a wife? Do not seek marriage. . . those who marry will have worldly troubles, and I would spare you that. . . . The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman or girl is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please her husband" (1 Corinthians 7:27-34).

The most convincing argument for marriage is by Jesus himself. In Matthew chapter 19, verses 11 and 12, Jesus says: ""Not all can accept this word, but only those to whom it is granted. Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of God. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it". Jesus says that anyone who can accept celibacy ought to.

As we can see from the Bible, celibacy is not only acceptable, but quite desirable, according to Jesus and Paul. But would allowing priests do to reduce or eliminate child sexual abuse?

There is absolutely no evidence that celibacy has an effect on sexual abuse cases, or that getting rid of it would reduce abuses. The following information is from Post-Gazette.com, which quotes Philip Jenkins, Professor of History and Religious Studies at Penn State University:

"My research of cases over the past 20 years indicates no evidence whatever that Catholic or other celibate clergy are any more likely to be involved in misconduct or abuse than clergy of any other denomination -- or indeed, than nonclergy. However determined news media may be to see this affair as a crisis of celibacy, the charge is just unsupported."

I will discuss the issue of clergy sexual abuse in a later blog.

Priestly celibacy has formed part of the Christian lifestyle for thousands of years. It allows priests to devote themselves fully to their spiritual tasks and spiritual fatherhood to billions of people worldwide. The Catholic Church has no intention of changing this practice, which is a powerful way of devoting one's life to Christ.

The Secret Cardinal

Cardinals play a very special role in the Roman Catholic Church. Cardinals, who are bishops with a special designation, are in charge of electing a new pope upon the current Pope's death. Traditionally they have chosen a pope from amongst their own ranks. In another blog posting, I will get into the process of electing a new Pope. In this blog, I will focus on the secret Cardinal.

A cardinal is selected by the Pope, as a special leader in the Church. This selection is accompanied by celebrations and festivities, as this sacred honor is bestowed upon a shepherd to the people. This man will guide his people spiritually in a special way, and play a part, along with the Holy Spirit, in protecting the Church against error, as her new Earthly leader is chosen. While this is the norm, sometimes circumstances call for a much different situation.

Not all countries are peaceful, some are openly hostile towards religion, and sometimes toward the Roman Catholic Church. China, for example, has tried to set up its own Church, so that people will join that instead of the true church, fearing those who join the Roman Catholic Church may have an authority outside China. Other countries are hostile toward Christianity in general, and the Roman Catholic Church in particular. Many of these regions are war-torn and violence is common. Practicing Catholics must sometimes hide or be quite secretive to avoid being punished. In such circumstances, the Church must be very careful.

Sometimes if a region is unstable and violence is very common, a pope will choose a Cardinal for that area, but will keep it a secret. Nobody knows the identity of the chosen cardinal, not even the cardinal himself, except for the Pope. These Cardinals are called Cardinals in pectore, which is Latin for in the breast. This symbolizes that they are hidden and only the Pope knows their identity. This situation is rare, but not non-existent.

If the Pope feels the situation has ameliorated enough to justify revealing the name of the cardinal, he may very well do so. The priest or bishop to whom this honor had been given may be surprised to know that he was in fact selected. It is also possible for the pope to write the name of the man in his will so that upon his death, the name of the cardinal would be revealed. This however, is unlikely, since the death of the pope does not seem to be a possible cause to improve the situation.

This is where the secret cardinal comes in. Upon the death of Pope John Paul II, on April 2, 2005, it was revealed that Pope John Paul II had named a cardinal in pectore. He had named a man to the Cardinalate sometime during his papacy, but could not reveal his name. He could have been living in a very violent or communist country which did not accept religion too well, or perhaps he was living in a country that did not accept Catholicism or Christianity in general. There are many possibilities. Yet, to this very day, we know not, and may never know, the identity of the man who was selected Cardinal!