Catholic Replies
Q. In your October 23, 2014 column, you reviewed a difficult question about why John the Baptist appeared to have doubts about who Jesus was. Your answer is centered about the Messiah who has already arrived, but John’s question is clearly about another future event. St. Thomas Aquinas discusses this in Summa Theologica (Part II, Question 2, Article 7, Reply to Objection 2) and it might be a worthy addition to your commentary on Matt. 11:3. — R.F.B., via e-mail.
A. Our reply addressed the question of why John, who appeared to know who Jesus was when he called Him the “Lamb of God,” later sent his disciples to ask Jesus, “Are you he who is to come, or shall we look for another?” (Matt. 11:3). Here is what St. Thomas said:
“Reply to Objection 2. It was not through ignorance that John the Baptist inquired of Christ’s advent in the flesh, since he had clearly professed his belief therein, saying: ‘I saw, and I gave testimony, that this is the Son of God’ (John 1:34). Hence he did not say: ‘Art Thou He that hast come?’ but ‘Art Thou He that art to come?’ thus saying about the future, not about the past. Likewise it is not to be believed that he was ignorant of Christ’s future Passion, for he had already said (John 1:39): ‘Behold the Lamb of God, behold Him who taketh away the sins [Vulgate: “sin”] of the world,’ thus foretelling His future immolation; and since other prophets had foretold it, as may be seen especially in Isaias 53.
“We may therefore say with Gregory (Hom. xxvi in Evang.) that he asked this question, being in ignorance as to whether Christ would descend into hell in His own Person. But he did not ignore the fact that the power of Christ’s Passion would be extended to those who were detained in Limbo, according to Zechariah 9:11: ‘Thou also, by the blood of Thy testament hast sent forth Thy prisoners out of the pit, wherein there is no water’; nor was he bound to believe explicitly, before its fulfillment, that Christ was to descend thither Himself.
“It may also be replied that, as Ambrose observes in his commentary on Luke 7:19, he made this inquiry, not from doubt or ignorance but from devotion: or again, with Chrysostom (Hom. xxxvi in Matth.), that he inquired, not as though ignorant himself, but because he wished his disciples to be satisfied on that point, through Christ: hence the latter framed His answer so as to instruct the disciples, by pointing to the signs of His works.”
Q. My 39-year-old Catholic nephew plans to marry a non-Christian in a civil ceremony. They are planning to spend a week in his parents’ home (with other relatives) after the ceremony. Should they share a bed in their parents’ home? Why or why not? — M.P., Pennsylvania.
A. According to canon 1108 of the Code of Canon Law, a baptized Catholic who marries in a civil ceremony without a dispensation from his local bishop is not validly married. Therefore, any sexual relations between them constitute the sin of fornication. The Catechism of the Catholic Church says that “fornication is carnal union between an unmarried man and an unmarried woman. It is gravely contrary to the dignity of persons and of human sexuality which is naturally ordered to the good of spouses and generation and education of children. Moreover, it is a grave scandal when there is corruption of the young” (n. 2353).
If the parents of your nephew are concerned about the salvation of this couple, and if they are concerned about the “grave scandal” their conduct gives to others, especially young people, then they would not let them share a bed in their home. Of course, the parents would first have to boycott the so-called wedding, but how likely is that? Pray for this couple that they will come to understand the sacredness of marriage and will seek to have their union regularized in the Church.
Q. Our diocesan newspaper recently published a Catholic News Service article by Francis X. Rocca reporting on Pope Francis calling for abolition of the death penalty and life imprisonment. I understand that the death penalty serves three very important functions:
1) It declares the value that a culture or society places on life, saying in essence that life is so precious that anyone who willfully and wantonly destroys another’s life is required to forfeit their own life. 2) It protects society from the perpetrator. 3) It imposes on the offender an opportunity and urgent need to repent. Knowing the day and hour of one’s death should cause one to reflect on such matters as God and the hereafter. Similar to the thought that there are no atheists in foxholes. A life in prison penalty serves only the second function.
I of course am not informed about criminal systems around the world, but in this country I believe that the death penalty and life imprisonment serve important functions, are within traditional teaching of the Church, and should be maintained. What are your thoughts? — D.M., via e-mail.
A. The points you raise have long been used to justify the use of capital punishment, and there is some validity to them, particularly your statements that the death penalty would definitely deter the criminal executed from perpetrating any more crimes, and that the threat of death might steer the person toward repentance. Regarding your first point, Pope Pius XII said in 1952 that “even when it is a question of the execution of a man condemned to death, the state does not dispose of the individual’s right to live. Rather, it is reserved to the public authority to deprive the criminal of the benefit of life, when already by his crime he has deprived himself of the right to live.”
However, the Church’s teaching on capital punishment has evolved in recent decades to the point where the Catechism says that “the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor. If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity with the dignity of the human person” (n. 2267).
In the same paragraph, the Catechism says that “today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm — without definitively taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself — the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity ‘are very rare, if not practically nonexistent’.” The interior quotation is from Pope John Paul II’s encyclical on the Gospel of Life (Evangelium Vitae, n. 56).
So Pope Francis, who cited the Catechism in his October 23 talk to the International Association of Penal Law in Rome, reiterated recent Church teaching and then said that “all Christians and people of goodwill are thus called today to struggle not only for the abolition of the death penalty, whether it be legal or illegal, and all its forms, but also to improve prison conditions out of respect for the human dignity of persons deprived of their liberty. And this I connect with life imprisonment. Life imprisonment is a hidden death penalty.”
We don’t read these remarks as calling for abolition of life imprisonment, but rather as a call for improvement of prison conditions for those who are jailed for life since even those convicted of the most heinous crimes are still persons made in the image and likeness of God and deserving of respect for their human dignity, even though they did not respect the human dignity of their victims.
Taking this view is not easy when we are witnessing horrendous crimes being committed every day against innocent persons. But aren’t we supposed to love even our enemies, and pray for our persecutors (cf. Matt. 5:44)? Aren’t we supposed to forgive those who have harmed us or harmed someone else, as Jesus urged on the cross (cf. Luke 23:34)? This is a very high standard, to be sure, but we can achieve it with the grace of God.
Remember the Amish families in Pennsylvania, who quickly forgave the man who mercilessly slaughtered five of their children in 2006 before killing himself? They buried their anger before they buried their children. Not only did they forgive the killer, the Amish attended his funeral and gave some of the $4 million they had received from well-wishers to the family and children of the shooter. They have since traveled to other sites of mass killings in an effort to help other families achieve healing in the wake of tragedy.
The hurt will never go away, but the spirit of forgiveness will bring healing that is not possible when one is caught up in a desire for revenge.
