Catholic Replies
Editor’s Note: Commenting on the recent vote in Ireland, where more than 60 percent of those voting came out in favor of same-sex “marriage,” canon lawyer Dr. Edward Peters said that the outcome of the constitutional referendum “is a disaster.” He went on to say:
“‘Same-sex marriage’ has usually been imposed by activist judges; in Ireland, it won by popular vote. ‘Same-sex marriage’ is often insinuated into the legal landscape by blurring distinctions between it and ‘same-sex unions’; in Ireland marriage itself was expressly on the line. ‘Same-sex marriage’ in most places set in only after decades of relentless secular media promotion; in Ireland, it seems to have come about almost overnight.
“But as the Church now tries to figure out how, for the umpteenth time in her history, she must go about teaching people how to be human, she must also explain to Catholics what it means to be Catholic. Specifically, she must be clear that some public actions carry personal consequences for Catholics, especially when we are talking about Catholics who play a part in bringing about a repudiation of perennial natural law and a repudiation of irrefutable Catholic doctrine.
“Obviously — and without reading souls, but considering things objectively — degrees of personal culpability for such acts will vary depending on two main factors: the specific actions taken by individuals and their places in the social or ecclesiastical order.
“At the lower end of the responsibility scale are, I suppose, rank-and-file Catholics who cast a personal ballot securing not just passage of the amendment, but its passage by a higher margin than would have occurred without their vote. At the higher end of the responsibility scale are, of course, Catholics who, from positions of political, social, or ecclesiastical prestige, lent their influence to the cause of ‘same-sex marriage.’
“But any Catholic who directly helped to bring about Ireland’s decision to treat as marriage unions of two persons of the same sex has, at a minimum, arrayed himself against the infallible doctrine of the Church and, quite possibly, has committed an act of heresy….
“In either event, the technical term for such an action is ‘sin’; the consequences of sin are always spiritual and sometimes canonical, and the solution for sin is repentance and Confession. May all Catholics, whether contributing to this disaster or grieving it (even from afar), set ourselves to righting it as soon as possible.”
Q. In this morning’s Washington Post, of all places, Michael Gerson, a regular columnist, had a column titled, “The End of Casual Christianity.” I found an interesting quote in his column. He attributed the quote to historian George Marsden:
“Liberals have learned that it’s difficult for the church to survive if there’s nothing that makes the church distinct from culture.”
And our Church has in some respects blended in with the culture. I don’t always know if it’s by design or accident. Just look at the architecture of many modern churches as an example, and I’m an architect, by the way. — D.M., via e-mail.
A. Or just look at the vote in Ireland mentioned above. We have a friend from Ireland who was told by relatives there that their parish priest urged Catholics to vote in favor of “same-sex marriage.” The Church in Ireland, and in the United States, too, has more than blended in with the culture; the immoral culture of the world has come in full force through those windows that were allegedly opened after Vatican II.
Remember it was way back in 1972 when Pope Paul VI said that the confusion in the Church in the wake of Vatican II had given him the feeling that “the smoke of Satan has entered the temple of God.” Asked how this had come about, the Holy Father said:
“We believe that some preternatural power has come into the world to upset and stifle the fruits of the Ecumenical Council and to prevent the Church from breaking out into a hymn of joy for having regained a full awareness of itself. Precisely because of this, we would like to be able, now more than ever, to exercise the function assigned by God to St. Peter, namely, to confirm our brethren in the faith.”
During his brief pontificate, Pope Francis has several times warned against listening to the Devil. For example, in his Palm Sunday homily on March 3, 2013, the Holy Father said that Christians should “never give way to discouragement. Ours is not a joy of having many possessions, but from having encountered a Person: Jesus, in our midst. It is born from knowing that with Him we are never alone, even at difficult moments, even when our life’s journey comes up against problems and obstacles that seem insurmountable, and there are so many of them.
“And in this moment the enemy, the Devil, comes, often disguised as an angel, and slyly speaks his word to us. Do not listen to him! Let us follow Jesus!”
Several months later, while dedicating a statue of St. Michael the Archangel in the Vatican Gardens on July 5, 2013, Pope Francis said that “this sculpture reminds us therefore that evil is vanquished, the accuser is unmasked, his head is crushed because salvation was fulfilled once and for all by the blood of Christ. Even if the Devil is always trying to scratch the face of the Archangel and the face of man, God is stronger; His is the victory and His salvation is offered to every human being….
“In consecrating the Vatican City State to St. Michael the Archangel, let us ask him to defend us from the Evil One and cast him out.”
In 2010, three years before he ascended to the Chair of Peter, Jorge Cardinal Bergoglio of Argentina said that attempts in that country to legalize “same-sex marriage” were the work of the Devil. In a letter to four monasteries asking for their prayers in opposition to such a law, Bergoglio said that the proposed bill would “seriously damage the family.”
He said: “Let us not be naive: This is not simply a political struggle, but it is an attempt to destroy God’s plan. It is not just a bill (a mere instrument), but a ‘move’ of the Father of Lies who seeks to confuse and deceive the children of God.”
Q. By way of background, I am a priest, 77 years old, and recovering from major cancer surgery. I happened to notice the wine used for morning Mass. The label read: “Carlo Rossi — Rhine, Fine California Table Wine, 100 percent Grape Wine – Alc. 9 percent by Vol, contains sulfites.” Is this wine valid for use in celebrating Mass? I thought the rule was that altar wine must not have preservatives or additives. Can you provide me with the official regulations? Before I approach my superior, I want to be sure. — Name Withheld, Maryland.
A. You are correct that the wine used for Mass “must be natural wine of the grape and not corrupt” (canon 924 §3). The 1980 Vatican document Inaestimabile Donum said that “the wine for the Eucharistic celebration must be of ‘the fruit of the vine’ (Luke 22:18) and be natural and genuine, that is to say not mixed with other substances” (n. 8).
As for sulfites, we quote from a letter dated January 15, 1988 that was sent to all distributors, agents, and brokers of Mont La Salle altar wines by Brother Timothy Diener, FSC, vice president and cellar-master of the Christian Brothers Winery in St. Helena, Calif.:
“In answer to questions you may have about the sulfite statement you now find on wine labels, I can assure you that sulfites in wine are nothing new because yeast cells naturally produce a small amount of sulfites during fermentation. And, for many centuries, the better winemakers have made tiny additions of sulfite as an anti-oxidant and wild yeast inhibitor. This preserves the natural good condition of the wine and retards spoilage.
“For the information and protection of those few people who are extremely sensitive or allergic to sulfites, U.S. federal law now requires that wine containing 10 or more parts per million of sulfites be labeled ‘contains sulfites.’ The labeling is new, but the wines are the same as they were before such labeling was required.
“Substances that assist in making a sound wine and that remain in the wine in minute traces, such as sulfites, have been and are considered by canonists and theologians to be acceptable for the Eucharist. One such approval, as reported in the Sacramentary, was the Holy Office Decree of 2nd August, 1922.”
