Catholic Replies
Editor’s Note: Writing in his blog (http://johnkippley.com) about the long-term consequences of dissent from Pope Paul VI’s 1968 encyclical Humanae Vitae, John Kippley said that this dissent not only “entailed the rejection of the whole idea of natural law as the reasoned basis for Catholic moral teaching,” but it allowed Catholics to substitute personal preference for personal morality, which means that “‘anything goes’ if it’s mutually acceptable.” He went on to say:
“The point is this. The intellectual acceptance of contraception entails the acceptance of the idea that modern man and woman can take apart what God has put together. What do I mean? Ask anyone who believes in God these two questions: 1) Who put together in one act what we call ‘making love’ and ‘making babies’? The theist has to answer, ‘God Himself put together what we call making love and making babies.’ 2) What is contraception except the studied effort to take apart what God has put together in the marriage act? Well, what else is it?”
Kippley said that “in the universe of having the right to take apart what God has put together regarding sexuality, there is no logical stopping point. Morality becomes a matter of personal preference. Another big question: Do the promoters of dissent point this out? Do they tell parents who want to pick and choose that they are logically giving the same decision-making principles to their children?”
Q. We know that Christ fasted in the wilderness for forty days and forty nights and then was tempted by Satan. How do we know this if Jesus was alone in the desert? I don’t recall Him ever recounting His experience to His disciples. — T.S., via e-mail.
A. The fact that the temptation in the desert is described in great detail by Matthew and Luke means that Jesus must have provided this information to His disciples, just as He provided details about His Agony in the Garden to those who were asleep. There are a number of places in the Gospels (for example, Mark 8:27-33, 9:30-32, 10:32-34) where Jesus took the disciples aside to teach them privately, particularly about His coming Passion, death, and Resurrection. It was surely during these private conversations that the Lord explained many things to His closest followers, although it wasn’t until the coming of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost that they finally understood what Jesus had been telling them.
Q. Can a baptized, non-practicing Catholic woman who had three children out of wedlock and then was married by a justice of the peace, followed by divorce, now return to the Church and have a sacramental marriage without an annulment since she was never really married in the eyes of the Church? — C.S., Arizona.
A. Yes. A marriage by a baptized Catholic before a justice of the peace is not considered a valid marriage (unless a dispensation from the canonical form was granted by the local bishop) and does not need to go through a long annulment process. It can be taken care of by a diocesan tribunal procedure called “A Declaration of Nullity by Defect of Form,” which simply involves verifying and documenting the circumstances of the marriage before the justice of the peace.
Q. Given our Catholic belief in Baptism of Desire, aren’t people of goodwill actually members of the Mystical Body of Christ? — P.P., Massachusetts.
A. No. As Pope Pius XII said in his 1943 encyclical on the Mystical Body (Mystici Corporis Christi): “Only those are to be included as real members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith and have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the body or been excluded from it by legitimate authority for serious faults” (n. 29)
More than two decades later, Vatican II said that to be a fully incorporated member of the Mystical Body, one must be a member of the Catholic Church who accepts “her entire system and all the means of salvation given to her, and through union with her visible structure [is] joined to Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. This union is effected through the bonds of professed faith, of the sacraments, of ecclesiastical government, and of communion” (Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, n. 14).
In another document from the council (Decree on Eastern Catholic Churches, n. 2), the fathers of Vatican II also said:
“That Church, holy and catholic, which is the Mystical Body of Christ, is made up of the faithful who are organically united in the Holy Spirit through the same faith, the same sacraments, and the same government, and who, combining into various groups held together by a hierarchy, form separate churches or rites. Between these flourishes such an admirable brotherhood that this variety within the Church in no way harms her unity, but rather manifests it.”
Q. It has always been my belief that a sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit was forever unforgivable. But one of your columnists recently wrote that there “is no offense, however serious, that the Church cannot forgive.” Can you explain? — J.G., Illinois.
A. Our columnist Don Fier, who was quoting from the Catechism of the Catholic Church (n. 982), went on to say that “only impenitence, or man’s refusal to believe in and accept the gift of God’s mercy, can prevent the forgiveness of sins. As expressed by Dr. [Peter] Kreeft: ‘God never withholds His forgiveness, but we sometimes withhold our repentance’ (Catholic Christianity, p. 123).”
So while a person who is truly sorry for sin will always be pardoned, the person who does not even seek pardon and completely and finally rejects the assistance of the Holy Spirit cannot be forgiven since he does not even seek forgiveness.
In his encyclical On the Holy Spirit in the Life of the Church and the World (Dominum et Vivificantem), St. John Paul explained further:
“Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, then, is the sin committed by the person who claims to have a ‘right’ to persist in evil — in any sin at all — and who thus rejects redemption. One closes oneself up in sin, thus making impossible one’s conversion, and consequently the remission of sins, which one considers not essential or not important for one’s life.
“This is a state of spiritual ruin because blasphemy against the Holy Spirit does not allow one to escape from one’s self-imposed imprisonment and open oneself to the divine sources of the purification of consciences and of the remission of sins” (n. 46).
Q. Why don’t priests ask men and women [in Confession] about the collection of pornography and sloppy love novels? Those who read these stories and view porn pictures are likely to act upon them. This is the beginning of poisoned minds and horrible sins, like sodomy and abortion. If any of these items are in the possession of the penitent, absolution should be withheld until all porn and dirty books are destroyed. — A.S., North Dakota.
A. You are correct that collecting and viewing pornography, particularly by young men, is a serious sin that warps a person’s perception of the dignity of men and women and the beauty of human sexuality as designed by God. We are not privy to the manner in which priests handle this kind of sin in Confession, assuming that it is confessed, but we assume that they counsel the penitents to avoid pornography like the plague that it is.
Since one of the elements of the sacrament is the intention to avoid the sin in the future, we could see a priest refusing absolution if he determined that the penitent was not truly sorry for his sins and had no intention of tossing his porn collection away.
In addition to warning penitents against this evil, however, we would encourage all priests to warn against it in their Sunday homilies as well. When was the last time you heard a homily against pornography?
