Main Menu

Catechesis

Unleashing the Power of Pentecost | A Regnum Christi Retreat Guide with Fr. John Bartunek, LC

Unleashing the Power of Pentecost: A Retreat Guide on the Holy Spirit

/ Retreat Guides

With Pentecost, a new liturgical season will begin. Every new liturgical season is a spiritual fresh start, a spiritual clean slate. God is already getting ready for it – preparing the graces he wants to give you and the work he wants you to accomplish for his Kingdom. Are you getting ready? This month’s Retreat Guide, Unleashing the Power of Pentecost: A Retreat Guide on the Holy Spirit, will help you do just that:

  • The First Meditation tours the gifts of the Holy Spirit that renew our mind in Christ.
  • The Second Meditation plugs you into the gifts of the Holy Spirit that strengthen and purify our interior freedom.
  • And the Conference gets practical, explaining four ways that each one of us can actively cooperate with the Holy Spirit on a day-to-day basis.

Text

Video

Audio

Unleashing the Power of Pentecost: A Retreat Guide on the Holy Spirit Read More »

Regnum Christi Spirituality Center Ask a Priest

“Ask a Priest: Can the Souls in Purgatory Be Tempted?”

/ Ask a Priest
Q: Do the souls in purgatory still experience temptation from the devil? Can they still be tormented by the devil in purgatory? If there are different levels in purgatory, does that mean the lowest level is nearest hell? If so, can the souls in the lowest level of purgatory feel or experience the anguish souls in hell experience? Thank you so much for all your work in helping us grow in our Catholic faith. -B.V.

Answered by Fr. Edward McIlmail, LC

A: The short answers to your three questions are: no. Souls in purgatory can no longer be tempted or tormented by the devil. As for your second and third queries: The pains of purgatory are purifying and thus at a totally different level from the pains of hell. There is no comparison between the two pains. The anguish of souls in hell is complete.

Two numbers are worth quoting from the Catechism here:

“1030 All who die in God’s grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.

“1031 The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned. The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on Purgatory especially at the Councils of Florence and Trent. The tradition of the Church, by reference to certain texts of Scripture, speaks of a cleansing fire:

“As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final Judgment, there is a purifying fire. He who is truth says that whoever utters blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will be pardoned neither in this age nor in the age to come. From this sentence we understand that certain offenses can be forgiven in this age, but certain others in the age to come.”

Notice that the eternal salvation of souls in purgatory is assured; this is what makes purgatory worlds apart from hell, where the souls have no hope, no chance at salvation.

To go a bit deeper into this topic, you might want to view our free Retreat Guide on purgatory and the Four Last Things: “Fire of Mercy”.

“Ask a Priest: Can the Souls in Purgatory Be Tempted?” Read More »

Regnum Christi Spirituality Center Ask a Priest

“Ask a Priest: Why Does It Seem As If Church Teaching Has Changed?”

/ Ask a Priest
Q: I have been in a state of involuntary doubt for years. My main problem revolves around the question of the inspiration of the Church, whether the Holy Spirit does, indeed, offer it guidance when formulating teachings. It is not so much present-day teachings that bother me — rather, teachings from the past become large stumbling blocks. For example, my understanding is that the Church used to teach that people who committed suicide simply went to hell. My understanding is also that the Church used to have a negative valuation of sex (following partially from Augustine) incorporated into its teaching. Neither of these teachings is taught today — in fact, the exact opposite is taught. This being the case, it doesn’t seem to me that the Holy Spirit could have been operating at both points in history. In fact, it simply seems that many people simply followed the Church into error. At the end of the day, I cannot at present go out into public in good conscience and state that I am Catholic, because to say so would be to give explicit assent to the notion that the Church receives such eternal guidance in faith and morals. The historical evidence does not seem to support that viewpoint. I would appreciate any thoughts you can provide on this issue. –M.L.

Answered by Fr. Edward McIlmail, LC

A: It’s good to make a few distinctions here.

First, I don’t think the Church ever taught that this person or that person ended up lost. It doesn’t even teach anything definitive about the fate of Judas.

The Church did, however, hold in early times (and still holds) that suicide is objectively a grave fault against the Fifth Commandment. To underline that teaching, in earlier times it even denied funeral Masses for such unfortunate people.

I emphasize that word “objectively.” In recent times, with the advance of psychology, we understand that people who commit suicide are often not totally in control mentally. Hence, subjectively their culpability might be lessened, if not eliminated. That is why the Church now allows funeral Masses in the case of suicides. It is not that the Church’s core teaching has changed — suicide remains objectively a grave error — but rather its pastoral application and the way it understands how suicides can stem from severe emotional or mental problems.

As far as the “negative valuation” of sex is concerned, you would need to cite something specific in a papal or conciliar document. It is one thing for the Church to be perceived as being negative about sex; it is another to point out a specific text that says the Church disdains sex.

There might have been a general downplaying of sex — it can, after all, be an extremely destruction of power if misused — which is understandable in cultures where the stability and dignity of family life was highly valued. The Church has always understood that procreation is a big part of the intent of marriage — and you can’t have babies without sex, obviously. And the Church, unlike any other group, has always revered marriage as a sacrament, an objective window of supernatural grace in the natural world. That seems to me to be a very positive view.

Early ages were probably more sensitive to the many deviations and misuses of sex that could trouble mankind. Many people in the Church reflected such thinking. Even prominent theologians sometimes emphasized marital intimacy as a “cure for concupiscence.” Their view, however, was not synonymous with Church doctrine. Theologians, even great theologians, espouse ideas that later are rejected. Augustine, for instance, believed that unbaptized babies were lost, yet the Church never officially accepted that view.

But even a possibly negative emphasis on sex in ages past doesn’t undercut the Church’s core teachings about marriage and sex. In recent times, of course, the theology of the body has gone deeper into the theological meaning of marital intimacy. But this doesn’t alter the core truths perennially taught by the Church.

So it might be good to distinguish between what is held by some theologians or groups within the Church, and what the Church officially teaches as doctrine.

Contrary to popular myth, the Church has a long history of encouraging debate and allowing theologians and philosophers and others to float a wide variety of ideas. Some of those ideas stand the test of time and eventually are incorporated into official teaching. Other ideas might take hold at a popular level, yet never be officially accepted by the Church.

I could only encourage you to study more deeply the teachings of the Church, beginning with the Catechism and the documents of Vatican II. I think you will see the underlying continuity of official doctrine.

“Ask a Priest: Why Does It Seem As If Church Teaching Has Changed?” Read More »

Regnum Christi Spirituality Center Ask a Priest

“Ask a Priest: What If Relatives Don’t Want to Attend Our Non-Catholic Wedding?”

/ Ask a Priest
Q: My fiancé and I are non-denominational Christians and are getting married in our church. Our families, however, are devout Catholics and are very uncomfortable with this. They do not think that a marriage such as ours will be considered valid or sacramental in the eyes of the Catholic Church. My fiancé’s parents and many other family members are threatening to not even attend our wedding because of this. What can we do in this situation to make everyone happy? –N.

Answered by Fr. Edward McIlmail, LC

A: It is admirable that you would like to make everyone happy. It won’t be easy in this case, however.

First off, it is good to remember that the Church sees marriage as a sacrament and thus something that brings a grace that can help the spouses grow in holiness. As such, the Church takes its responsibility very seriously to prepare its members well for marriage. That is why marriages involving Catholics ultimately need the approval of a bishop (usually relayed through a pastor).

Now, I can only surmise that you and your fiancé were baptized as Catholics — hence the opposition of your families to your marrying outside of the Catholic Church.

Permit me to give the canonical (legal) point of view here. Anyone baptized in the Church is considered to be under Church law. Thus, you and your fiancé, in order for the Church to recognize the marriage, would need to marry with Church approval.

Your relatives, as Catholics, understand that your marriage is not considered valid and sacramental in the eyes of the Church. Hence their unwillingness to attend the ceremony.

Now, permit me to give a pastoral take on the situation. You and your fiancé have chosen, for various reasons perhaps, not to practice your Catholic faith. You are content to have a wedding in a non-denominational setting. You are exercising your religious freedom. God alone knows your hearts.

Your relatives, too, are exercising their freedom, by trying to follow their Catholic beliefs, which include certain beliefs about marriage. The thing is, there is no clear way to reconcile your beliefs and theirs right now. The situation is at a standoff.

I’m sure they love you and your fiancé very much, which is one reason why they don’t want to compromise their faith. They want to witness to their beliefs, in part for your sake, even if it means not attending your wedding. (The Church, by the way, doesn’t issue hard-and-fast rules for attendance at this kind of ceremony.)

In a sense, you and your fiancé are simply experiencing a consequence of your own decision not to practice the Catholic faith. You have decided, for now at least, to travel a path different from your families’ path. It is just the way it is.

So what could you do? Perhaps you can take all this to prayer and see where the Holy Spirit is leading you. From what you describe, it seems unlikely that your families want to compromise their position. That is a decision that is to be respected.

They likely did not make this decision lightly. It might be as difficult a moment for them as it is for you. Perhaps they are concerned that everyone reaches heaven, and hence they fear that their presence at a wedding not approved by the Church would send the wrong signal.

Again, you and your fiancé might want to take all this to prayer. Perhaps this is a moment to examine why the Church teaches what it does about marriage. This website might help. You also might want to watch together our free Retreat Guide on marriage, “Three Hearts”.

“Ask a Priest: What If Relatives Don’t Want to Attend Our Non-Catholic Wedding?” Read More »

Regnum Christi Spirituality Center Ask a Priest

“Ask a Priest: How Do We Know the Compilers of the Bible Got It Right?”

/ Ask a Priest
Q: I came across a couple of things I wanted a Catholic perspective on. I couldn’t ask these questions from anyone in my parish or Catholic friends, for fear of judgment. Here are my questions: 1) How do we know the compilers of the Bible were right for excluding some books but including others? 2) “It doesn’t matter how depressing it is that there’s no God, or how sad/depressed atheists are … that doesn’t mean there’s actually a God.” Do you agree with this? Is religion only a “fairy tale for people afraid of the dark,” as one prominent scientist says? 3) Is God personal or impersonal? Why? 4) Can God change his nature? 5) Why do good people, devout Catholics even, get severe depression? If they are devout, shouldn’t the Holy Spirit bring them ultimate joy? One that overcomes depression? In that line of thinking, why, theologically, does severe depression even exist? -C.

Answered by Fr. Edward McIlmail, LC

A: You seem to be doing a lot of thinking lately! An answer to one of these questions could fill a book. But perhaps a few brief responses can point in the right direction.

1) We accept the Bible and its contents based on faith, and that is based on a belief that the Holy Spirit was guiding the whole process. For there is no way to prove that the compilers got it right. The Bible is too complex, and even contradictory in parts, to lend itself to “proofs.”

2) Some religions, indeed, might be little more than fairy tales. Christianity is not among them. There is too much in Christianity that goes way beyond the imagination of the people who first embraced it and preached it; in fact, it shows all the signs of being from Someone way above us. Simple humans wouldn’t have dreamt up the notion of the Trinity, for instance, which is the core mystery of the Christian faith. At any rate there seems to be something buried deep within each of us that looks for beauty, truth, love. We are restless until we find them. St. Augustine said that our hearts were made for God and that they are restless until they rest in him. And that is fitting, since God is ultimate beauty, truth, love.

3) God is personal all right. In fact, he is three Persons (or subsistent relations, in theological terms). But he is one God, one divine essence. We can think of God as a community of love between three divine Persons from all eternity.

4) God is infinitely perfect in himself. Change is impossible in God because change implies imperfection. God can’t change his nature because that would involve a contradiction.

5) Being a devout Catholic doesn’t necessarily spare anyone from pain and suffering. Even Jesus, who is God, suffered as a man. Theologically, depression, like physical illness, exists because we have a damaged human nature. This is a fallout of the sin of Adam. This, too, is a mystery, but one whose manifestations are plain to see.

Two books you might find helpful are Frank Sheed’s Theology and Sanity and Theology for Beginners, both available at Amazon and for Kindle.

“Ask a Priest: How Do We Know the Compilers of the Bible Got It Right?” Read More »

Regnum Christi Spirituality Center Ask a Priest

“Ask a Priest: Why Does St. Paul Seem so Sexist in 1 Timothy 2?”

/ Ask a Priest
Q: I came upon 1 Timothy 2:8-15 where it talks about women and men praying in church. It says, “Women should learn in silence and all humility. I do not allow them to teach or to have authority over men; they must keep quiet. For Adam was created first, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and broke God’s law. But a woman will be saved through having children, if she perseveres in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.” I have several questions about this segment. How come it details that women should learn in silence but not that men should? Why should women not teach or have authority over men? Yes, Eve broke God’s law, but then Adam broke God’s law too. Adam sinned just as Eve did, so why is it implying that Eve was the lone sinner and that Adam was innocent? If a woman does not have children, does that mean that she won’t be saved? Did Jesus endorse these verses, or are they solely Paul’s opinions? These verses are showing gender biases, which I thought Jesus had come to abolish. Why are such biased (sexist) things said in this segment? Thank you so much if you would reply, I appreciate your time! -R.R.

Answered by Fr. Edward McIlmail, LC

A: That’s a good question! There is good reason to think that 1 Timothy 2 is a response to a rather particular cultural situation in parts of the Roman Empire during the first century, and is not meant to outline universal norms valid for today. Scholars have identified two situations particular to Paul’s era that can help explain why he wrote these instructions to the church in Ephesus, and why they don’t necessarily apply today.

The first was the “new women” movement. Ephesus, where Timothy lived, was a very rich city, and in the first century there was a movement among upper-class women called the “new women” movement. This movement in some ways was positive, promoting women’s role in the public sphere, for example. But most texts that we have about the movement emphasize that it promoted things such as abortion, sexual promiscuity and permissive clothing.

The movement came to be strongly associated in public opinion with promiscuity and licentiousness. The negative perception of the movement was widespread enough that the Roman Empire even legislated against the movement.

In 1 Timothy 2:9-10, Paul describes how women should “adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, but with what is proper for women who profess godliness – with good works.” This is the exact opposite of how the “new women” were seen in Roman society, and indicates that Paul’s instructions should be understood as a response to that movement. He doesn’t want the church in Ephesus to become associated with a movement that is widely thought to promote promiscuity and bad morals.

The second situation is the physical space of the churches of that time. 1 Corinthians 14:23 imagines an unbeliever simply walking in on a Christian worship service. That was because the worship services took place in the reception or atrium areas of larger homes, which were considered public areas open to all. In 1 Corinthians 14:23, Paul is worried about that someone will walk in on a worship service while a Christian is speaking in tongues and think that Christians are crazy. This could then make it more unlikely that person could come to know Christ. So, Paul tells the Corinthians to be careful to avoid these situations.

A similar worry might be present in 1 Timothy 2. In the particular situation of Roman society at that time, women speaking in public was associated with the “new women” movement. Paul is worried about given scandal and becoming associated with that movement. In a situation in which the church is still very small – very much “outsiders” – Paul knows that becoming associated with the “new women” movement might seriously damage the possibility of sharing the faith with others in Ephesus who could get the wrong impression about Christians.

While Paul’s indications were valid only for a specific historical and cultural moment, there is a deeper message that is valid for all times and places. It is expressed well by Paul when he says, “I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some.”

An analogous situation at times occurs today for Christians living in Muslim countries, where Christian women oftentimes wear the hijab because it is what is expected by women in their culture. Doing so doesn’t mean that they agree with it, but is rather a recognition that adapting to cultural norms is sometimes necessary – even if we might try to work to change them long-term. As long as what the cultural norm asks us to do is not evil, this can be permitted. [Answered by Father Devin Roza, L.C., author of Fulfilled in Christ: The Sacraments. A Guide to Symbols and Types in the Bible and Tradition].

“Ask a Priest: Why Does St. Paul Seem so Sexist in 1 Timothy 2?” Read More »

Regnum Christi Spirituality Center Ask a Priest

“Ask a Priest: Did Christianity Simply Borrow From Pagan Cults?”

/ Ask a Priest
Q: I have quite the theological question for you. In modern Christian dogma, a lot has been taken from older religions (Greek paganism mainly) and modified to fit into Christianity. Examples of this could be found in that Jehovah and Zeus look almost identical when depicted in Renaissance art. Angels and devils, when spoke of in the Bible (specifically in Revelation), are depicted as looking very similar to Greek monsters (griffins and the Hydra and stuff like that), and Catholic patron saints seem no different to me than lesser gods in pagan religions. I guess my point is, if I am to have no other gods, why does Christianity historically take from other religions? Am I viewing this from an incorrect perspective? Did the Greeks “almost” have it right because they knew more than we think, or is all of this stuff metaphors and not to be taken literally in the first place? Then on a related note, as Christianity spread and ultimately flourished in North Europe, why didn’t we historically see the faith taking from the old gods in that area? It seems odd to me to be taking from the Greeks and Romans, but not having any relations between the faiths of the Saxons, Vikings, Normans and other barbarians. -R.T.

Answered by Fr. Edward McIlmail, LC

A: Thanks for your theological question. Fittingly it deserves a theological answer — one much more complete than is possible in this short attempt. Nevertheless, the following might help.

Part of the key to your question is the word “taken.” In one sense Christianity didn’t take anything from anyone. Christianity, specifically the person of Jesus Christ, is the fullness of what God wanted to reveal to the world. And God didn’t need to “take” anything from the pagan cults. Christianity did, however, build on Judaism, but that is a different sort of dynamic.

So why some of the seeming similarities between Christianity and, say, the pagan cults of the Near East? A short answer could be this: There is something embedded in the human spirit that yearns for the transcendent, something that seeks to understand why the world is the way it is. Since we are all humans, it isn’t surprising that there are common elements in every expression of religion. Among these elements are the notions of sacred time, sacred space, etc. Christianity gave genuine expression to these elements.

Christianity is radically different from these pagan faiths, however. Monotheism itself differs radically from polytheism. In the latter, for instance, the gods seem to be just as bad as humans at times. The gods sometimes seem to come from somewhere else (a metadivine realm, in the phrase of some scholars). In Judeo-Christianity, by contrast, there is one God, and he simply is — he doesn’t come from anywhere.

In pagan cults the gods are often squabbling among themselves, and sometimes using or abusing humans at their whim. In Christianity, by contrast, we believe in an utterly transcendent God who marvelously cares for us and for our salvation, so much so that he sends his Son to suffer and die for us. This is worlds apart from the pagan cults of old.

That said, the Church in fact tries to tap into the best of what every culture and people has to offer. Thus the Church used Greek philosophy to help better understand and articulate the things revealed in Scripture and Tradition. One example could be in use of the notions of substance and accidents to help us understand and explain the Eucharist.

On the other hand, Christianity didn’t adopt the Greek practice of priestesses; that didn’t fit with Christ’s plan for the priesthood. So the ancient Greeks had some things of value (their pursuit of wisdom), but in other areas they were understandably groping in the dark.

Similarly the early Church adapted certain aspects of the Roman Empire’s administrative skills to help organize the work of evangelization, etc., but it didn’t adopt the pantheon of Roman gods.

As for the saints, they certainly were not and are not held up as gods. They are human beings who, with the grace of God, are recognized as having reached laudable levels of sanctity. They would be the first to attribute their gifts to the one, real God.

(For related reading on the roots of Christianity, see Mark Shea’s article.) I hope some of this helps.

“Ask a Priest: Did Christianity Simply Borrow From Pagan Cults?” Read More »

Facebook Twitter Youtube Instagram Flickr

Links of Interest

Contact Us

  • Regnum Christi North American Territorial Office
  • 855-556-6872
  • [email protected]
  • 525 Tribble Gap Rd. Suite 1466, Cumming, Ga, USA, 30028

Subscribe to Our Newsletters 

LEARN MORE

Copyright © 2025, Regnum Christi Federation, all rights reserved.

Privacy Notice     |     Safe Environments     |     Press Releases    |    LOG IN

Scroll to Top

Donate

Looking for another country?

RC Near You

News & Resources

Main Menu

News & Resources

The Regnum Christi Mission

The Regnum Christi Family

The Regnum Christi Identity

Alex Kucera

Atlanta

Alex Kucera has lived in Atlanta, GA, for the last 46 years. He is one of 9 children, married to his wife Karmen, and has 3 girls, one grandson, and a granddaughter on the way. Alex joined Regnum Christi in 2007. Out of the gate, he joined the Helping Hands Medical Missions apostolate and is still participating today with the Ghana Friendship Mission.

In 2009, Alex was asked to be the Atlanta RC Renewal Coordinator for the Atlanta Locality to help the RC members with the RC renewal process. Alex became a Group Leader in 2012 for four of the Atlanta Men’s Section Teams and continues today. Running in parallel, in 2013, Alex became a Team Leader and shepherded a large team of good men.

Alex was honored to be the Atlanta Mission Coordinator between 2010 to 2022 (12 years), coordinating 5-8 Holy Week Mission teams across Georgia. He also created and coordinated missions at a parish in Athens, GA, for 9 years. Alex continues to coordinate Holy Week Missions, Advent Missions, and Monthly missions at Good Shepherd Catholic Church in Cumming, GA.

From 2016 to 2022, Alex also served as the Men’s Section Assistant in Atlanta. He loved working with the Men’s Section Director, the Legionaries, Consecrated, and Women’s Section leadership teams.

Alex is exceptionally grateful to the Legionaries, Consecrated, and many RC members who he’s journeyed shoulder to shoulder, growing his relationship with Christ and others along the way. He knows that there is only one way, that’s Christ’s Way, with others!