|
Q u i c k Q u e s t i o n s
|
This Rock
Volume 19, Number 8
 October 2008 
|
|
|
May Divorced Catholics Communicate or Not?
Q: May a person who is divorced but not remarried receive Communion?
A: While Church teaching recognizes the seriousness of divorce, it understands that:
1. There are situations in which civil divorce may be necessary: "If civil divorce remains the only possible way of ensuring certain legal rights, the care of the children, or the protection of inheritance, it can be tolerated and does not constitute a moral offense" (CCC 2383), and
2. Divorce may occur due to no fault of an innocent spouse:
It can happen that one of the spouses is the innocent victim of a divorce decreed by civil law; this spouse therefore has not contravened the moral law. There is a considerable difference between a spouse who has sincerely tried to be faithful to the sacrament of marriage and is unjustly abandoned, and one who through his own grave fault destroys a canonically valid marriage. (CCC 2386)
In such cases, divorce is not sinful for that person and he or she may continue to receive Communion. However, in other cases—as with all serious sin—a divorced person should go to confession immediately, prior to receiving Communion.
If a divorced person later remarries invalidly he or she would then be prohibited from receiving Communion as long as that situation persists or until he or she has gone to confession and committed to living chastely. The Catechism explains:
Today there are numerous Catholics in many countries who have recourse to civil divorce and contract new civil unions. In fidelity to the words of Jesus Christ—"Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery"—the Church maintains that a new union cannot be recognized as valid, if the first marriage was. If the divorced are remarried civilly, they find themselves in a situation that objectively contravenes God’s law. Consequently, they cannot receive eucharistic Communion as long as this situation persists. For the same reason, they cannot exercise certain ecclesial responsibilities. Reconciliation through the sacrament of penance can be granted only to those who have repented for having violated the sign of the covenant and of fidelity to Christ, and who are committed to living in complete continence. (CCC 1650) —Jim Blackburn
Q: Since we know that the only sin that is not forgiven is the sin against the Holy Spirit, could Judas Iscariot have sought forgiveness instead of falling into despair and hanging himself?
A: Yes, of course. Bishop Fulton Sheen, in his book Life of Christ, devoted a chapter to the betrayal by Judas, contrasting it with the betrayal by Peter—with which it was similar in some respects—and concluding that the tragedy of Judas’s life was that even after the betrayal he could have been St. Judas Iscariot if only he had repented instead of despaired.
The sin against the Holy Spirit, the one that cannot be forgiven, is the sin of final impenitence. God can forgive any repented sin, but man must repent of his sins before he can be forgiven. As only God can judge hearts, we cannot know whether Judas was impenitent to his very death, but we can know that he did not demonstrate the heroic virtue of Peter, who repented his betrayal of Christ rather than allow despair to consume him.
Q: I have felt drawn towards the religious life. If I am not understanding God’s calling and do not enter in to the religious life, then do I need to consider matrimony? I am very confused.
A: No one must get married and no one must enter religious life. To move in either direction simply because one does not feel called to the other is not a good enough reason. I too felt drawn to religious life since I was a child. As an adult I wanted to worship God with my life. I was drawn to the choral recitation of the Divine Office. I was drawn by the thought of the sacrifices involved. I liked everything about the order I was attracted to. To this day I cannot explain why—anymore than my father could explain why he wanted to marry my mother and not any number of other women. Ultimately, one’s vocation is a mystery because each one of us is a mystery.
—Fr. Vincent Serpa
Q: Last year our priest replaced the traditional Holy Thursday foot-washing with hand-washing. When I asked him about this he said he was permitted to do either one. Is this true?
A: Your priest is confused. Hand-washing on Holy Thursday is not part of the prescribed ritual, nor is it permitted by the liturgical norms. It is an invention. The Code of Canon Law states that "in celebrating the sacraments the liturgical books approved by competent authority are to be observed faithfully; accordingly, no one is to add, omit, or alter anything in them on one’s own authority" (CIC 846 §1). This ritual is symbolic of the command of Jesus in John 13:12-15 (Last Supper). Jesus didn’t wash the disciples’ hands.
When he had washed their feet, and taken his garments, and resumed his place, he said to them, "Do you know what I have done to you? You call me Teacher and Lord; and you are right, for so I am. If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet. For I have given you an example, that you also should do as I have done to you" (John 13:12-15).
Also:
Jesus was asked by Simon Peter, "Master, are you going to wash my feet?" Jesus answered and said to him, "What I am doing, you do not understand now, but you will understand later." Peter said to him, "You will never wash my feet." Jesus answered him, "Unless I wash you, you will have no inheritance with me." Simon Peter said to him, "Master, then not only my feet, but my hands and head as well." Jesus said to him, "Whoever has bathed has no need except to have his feet washed, for he is clean all over; so you are clean, but not all." (John 13:6-10)
The directives for the Holy Thursday foot washing ceremony are contained in the document Paschales Solemnitatis: "The washing of the feet of chosen men [viri] which, according to tradition, is performed on this day, represents the service and charity of Christ, who came ‘not to be served, but to serve’ (Matt. 20:28). This tradition should be maintained, and its proper significance explained" (PS 51).
—Peggy Frye
Q: My cousin (who has been baptized and confirmed in the Catholic Church) and her fiancé (who has been baptized Catholic) plan to get married by a priest of an "independent catholic church." Will this be a valid, sacramental marriage? Will they excommunicate themselves?
A: Since both are Catholics, your cousin and her fiancé are bound by Church law to marry in the Church. The Code of Canon Law establishes the form of the celebration of marriage which generally "must be observed if at least one of the parties contracting marriage was baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it and has not defected from it by a formal act" (CIC 1117). Marrying in an "independent catholic church" will not satisfy this obligation and the resulting "marriage" will be invalid.
Although they will not incur excommunication for this, a conjugal relationship outside a valid marriage is grave matter and they should not receive the Eucharist until the matter is rectified and they have been to confession. You would do well to express your concerns and strongly encourage them to marry validly in the Church.
—Jim Blackburn
Q: If Jesus Christ is a union of human and divine natures, was his human nature co-eternal with God, or only his divine nature? John 1:14 ("and the Word was made flesh") seems to imply that the Incarnation took place later. That, in turn, suggests that Jesus Christ’s human nature "happened" later—it was not present at the beginning, not co-eternal with God (except, perhaps, as a potentiality).
If so, then can it be said that the joint human-divine nature of Jesus Christ is the second person of the Holy Trinity? Or is only the divine nature of Jesus Christ (the Logos) the Second Person? How could Jesus Christ’s human nature be part of the Trinity if it is not co-eternal with God?
A: Jesus is the Eternal Word, the Eternal Logos, who is eternally begotten of the Father and equal to the Father. When he became incarnate by the Holy Spirit in the womb of his blessed Mother, he took on a human nature and entered time. His human nature had a beginning. We don’t want to create a problem where there is none. The fact that Jesus took on a human nature in no way diminishes the Holy Trinity. One of the Persons of the Holy Trinity, since the Incarnation, simply has a human nature as well as a divine one. If we said that his human nature supplanted his divine nature, we would have a problem. But such is not the case and could never be.
—Fr. Vincent Serpa
Q: The Lord came down to see the tower of Babel and said "If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other." The Lord scattered them all over the earth. What was the big sin?
A: A Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture explains Genesis 11:1-9 as follows:
The inhabitants of the city started to build a great stage-tower zigguarat, which they raised to some considerable height and then were unable to complete. The massive remains were a visible reminder of the ineffectual attempt which tradition recorded to have been accompanied by discord and consequent migration of many of the population. This meager historical record explains why the sacred writer did not mention the nature of the sin which led to the frustration of the grandiose design. But his deep conviction of God’s overruling government of the world taught him that the attempt had been displeasing to God and the narrative suggests that the sin was one of overweening human pride and self-sufficiency.
The story has been widely understood to tell of a miraculous intervention by which different languages were introduced and the population thus became unable to understand one another. But it must be noted that the different groups among not only the Japhethites and Chamites, 10:5,20, but also among the Semites, 10:31, are already recorded to have had their various languages, and as the two former groups are already out of the story, the origin of languages is not recorded here. Moreover, the word for "languages" is lason which is that used in 10:5, 20, 31. In our passage this word is not found. That used is sapah, "lip," which also signifies "utterance." The natural meaning here is that the people at first in complete harmony "all saying the same thing" fell out among themselves and could not agree upon a common policy; and as a result of the discord (and possibly of fighting) there was a migration. Already in the fourth century St. Gregory of Nyssa was quite emphatic that God did not miraculously impose different languages on mankind. (192-193)
The Jerome Commentary on Genesis 11:1-9 says:
The evil is in their desire to "make a name" for themselves (cf. 12:2) rather than in the attempt to build a tower "with its top in the heavens" . . . Human smallness, not divine impotence, is emphasized in the Lord’s descent (vs. 5). The plural in verse 7 may reflect the concept of God’s royal court, an early idea in Israel. The punishment had been anticipated in verse 4. The name of the city, Babel, is here associated with the Hebrew root bll, "to confound." The great city and its (implied) defeat thus becomes synonymous with man’s revolt against God and its consequences. (17)
—Peggy Frye
Q: How did St. John the Baptist escape the murder of the babies directed by King Herod after the birth of Jesus?
A: Scripture does not say, but Herod apparently limited the murders to the region (Matt. 2:16) where he knew the Messiah was to be born (Matt. 2:1-6). So far as we know, St. John the Baptist and his parents did not live in Bethlehem or its immediate vicinity—otherwise Mary and Joseph could have stayed with them while in the area for the enrollment (Luke 2:4-7)—but in the hill country, in an unnamed city of Judah (Luke 1:39-40), which may have been distant enough from the attack directed by Herod to protect the infant John.
—Michelle Arnold
Q: How does the Church define coveting, and how does it apply in terms of how we make a living and the purchases we make?
A: The Ignatius Revised Standard Bible says: "Put to death therefore what is earthly in you: immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire and covetousness, which is idolatry." The New Jerusalem Bible says: "This is why you must kill everything in you that belongs only to earthly life: fornication, impurity, guilty passion, evil desires, and especially greed, which is the same thing as worshipping a false god" (Col. 3:5).
The second translation speaks of coveting as greed. This is how the Church sees coveting. It’s not a matter of enjoying the sight of things that one likes or would like to have. Coveting is an inordinate attachment to things. It is being obsessed with having. To be obsessed with something is to make a god of it. It becomes more important than anything else. St. Paul is saying that this is not acceptable for the follower of Christ. The Church agrees.
It is important that we purchase the things that we need. This does not mean that we can’t purchase some extras that are just for fun. But this has to be done with moderation and in the context of being generous to others and of putting God before all else. This is where we counter our culture. We set limits for ourselves because God matters more to us than anything.
—Fr. Vincent Serpa
Q: I have been looking for The Assumption of Moses to which Jude 9 refers. How may I get a copy of this manuscript?
A: The portion of The Assumption of Moses cited by Jude has been lost. The Catholic Encyclopedia article on "Apocrypha" explains,
Aside from a few . . . brief references in patristic literature, nothing more was known of this apocryphon until the Latin manuscript containing a long portion of it was discovered by Ceriani in the Ambrosian Library, at Milan, and published by him in 1861 . . . The manuscript breaks off abruptly at chapter xii, and the portion cited by Jude must have belonged to the lost conclusion.
—Jim Blackburn
Q: I have heard that the teaching on Mary as Mediatrix of All Graces is official Catholic doctrine but not a dogma of faith. I am not clear on the difference between doctrine and dogma. Can you clear it up for me?
A: In general, doctrine is all Church teaching in matters of faith and morals. Dogma is more narrowly defined as that part of doctrine which has been divinely revealed and which the Church has formally defined and declared to be believed as revealed.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains,
The Church’s magisterium exercises the authority it holds from Christ to the fullest extent when it defines dogmas, that is, when it proposes, in a form obliging the Christian people to an irrevocable adherence of faith, truths contained in divine Revelation or also when it proposes, in a definitive way, truths having a necessary connection with these. (CCC 88)
Concerning the Church’s teaching that Mary is the Mediatrix of All Graces, while this doctrine has been divinely revealed, it has not yet been—although could be—elevated to dogma. In Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Dr. Ludwig Ott explains, "The doctrine of Mary’s Universal Mediation of Grace based on her co-operation in the Incarnation is so definitely manifest in the sources of the faith, that nothing stands in the way of a dogmatic definition" (215).
—Jim Blackburn
|
Catholic Answers
