Catholic Replies
Q. When saying the Chaplet of Divine Mercy, are we to think of the words of the Chaplet or of the Passion of Our Lord? — J.W., New Jersey.
A. Both. The prayer on each of the Hail Mary beads says, “For the sake of His sorrowful Passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world.” One ought to try meditating on the sufferings of our Lord during His Passion while asking for His mercy on us and on the whole world. It involves the same effort as when praying the sorrowful mysteries of the rosary.
Granted, keeping the events of the Passion uppermost in our minds with all the distractions around us is not easy, but the more we can focus on these sorrowful episodes in the life of Christ, the more graces will flow to us and to those for whom we are praying.
Q. How would you respond to those who attempt to excuse Planned Parenthood’s sale of the body parts of aborted babies by saying that the mothers of these babies gave their consent to the sale of the organs? — K.R., Connecticut.
A. Fr. Tad Pacholczyk, director of education at the National Catholic Bioethics Center, says that such consent is not valid because the mother seeking the abortion does not have the best interests of her child at heart.
He points out, for example, that when one acts as a proxy for a deceased person who wished to donate his kidneys (“based on my friendship with him and concern for him, I think he really would have wanted to donate his kidneys”), “the assumption is that as we cared for them in life, and had their best interests in mind while they were living, we can continue to exercise that ‘best interest’ decision-making capacity later when they are deceased.”
This is not true of the mother of an aborted child, he says, explaining that if that mother “were to sign the dotted line granting permission to utilize fetal cells and organs, that consent would necessarily be void because she would have already categorically demonstrated that she does not have the best interests of her child in mind, having arranged for the taking of that child’s life. From the ethical point of view, she has disqualified herself from being able to give valid informed consent on behalf of her now-deceased child.”
Fr. Pacholczyk goes on to say that “in the absence of informed consent, taking organs or tissues from the corpse would represent a further violation of the integrity of the child’s body and constitute a failure to respect the remains of the dead. Thus, the tissues and organs of the directly aborted child should not be utilized for research, transplantation, or the development of therapies, but instead should be given a proper and respectful burial.”
In the final analysis, he says, “maternal consent cannot provide moral clearance for researchers to utilize fetal remains from direct abortions in their research. Such permission from the mother is not, objectively speaking, an authentic form of consent, but is rather a type of ‘sham consent’ that secures the veneer of legitimacy for what is ultimately an unconscionable research practice.”
Q. Many saints, e.g., St. Jerome, St. Francis, St. Junipero Serra, practiced extreme penitence, such as self-flagellation, beating with rocks, and extreme cold. Did their end (love of God) justify such brutal means? — R.G., Iowa.
A. Self-flagellation, that is, the beating or whipping of the skin, usually on the back, and often drawing blood, has been practiced by various saints down through the centuries as a means not only of demonstrating love for God, but also of mortifying the flesh to show remorse for sin.
Some commentators think that St. Paul may have been referring to such a practice when he said that “I drive my body and train it, for fear that, after having preached to others, I myself should be disqualified” (1 Cor. 9:27).
Another translation has Paul saying that “I pommel my body and subdue it. . . .” Pommel is a variation of pummel, which means to pound or beat.
While such severe penances are usually associated with saints who lived long ago, although there are reports that St. John Paul II whipped himself, it is not known whether such practices are commonplace today. In any case, such painful external mortifications, while seeming excessive to many of us who have trouble even fasting from food and drink for an extended time, are not contrary to the will of God.
Nevertheless, it is hard to understand why Junipero Serra, for example, would feel the need to inflict such punishments on himself when you consider that he traveled nearly 25,000 miles on foot, with a painful leg injury, establishing missions along the California coast and performing countless baptisms. But that’s why he’s a saint.
Q. The recent Supreme Court decision has effectively overturned the traditional understanding of marriage and the family from time immemorial. The basic unit of society is once again being attacked, and the decision to recognize same-sex “marriage” is an attack on natural law and Church law.
Two Catholics, Justice Anthony Kennedy, who wrote the decision, and Justice Sonia Sotomayor, both voted with the five to overturn marriage. Can’t canon 915 be implemented to excommunicate Kennedy and Sotomayor for this public and grievous immoral act?
Why do the bishops continue to walk so timidly as morality and our civilization are being attacked? They have also effectively taken no action as so-called Catholic legislators continuously vote to support abortion. What’s next? — C.O., California.
A. Canon 915 of the Code of Canon Law says in part that those “who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to Holy Communion.” In his blog, canon lawyer Dr. Edward Peters says that “the Catholic Church teaches, through its ordinary Magisterium and with infallible certainty, that marriage exists only between one man and one woman. . . . There is no evidence of ecclesiastical authority ever supporting any other definition of marriage.”
Peters goes on to say that “Catholics who promote ‘same-sex marriage’ act contrary to canon 209 § 1 [‘The Christian faithful are bound by an obligation, even in their own patterns of activity, always to maintain communion with the Church’] and should not approach Holy Communion per canon 916 [‘A person who is conscious of grave sin is not to celebrate Mass or to receive the Body of the Lord without prior sacramental confession….’].
Depending on the facts of the case, they also risk having Holy Communion withheld from them under canon 915, being rebuked under canon 1339 § 2 [‘An Ordinary can likewise rebuke a person from whose behavior there arise scandal or serious disturbance of order in a manner accommodated to the special conditions of the person and the deed’], and/or being sanctioned under canon 1369 for gravely injuring good morals.”
Canon 1369 says that “a person who uses a public show or speech, published writings, or other media of social communication to blaspheme, seriously damage good morals, express wrongs against religion or against the Church, or stir up hatred or contempt against religion or the Church is to be punished with a just penalty.”
Peters further writes that “Catholics who assist others toward attempting a ‘same-sex marriage’ cooperate in the bad act of those others, which cooperation is liable to moral assessment in accord with the usual principles applicable to cooperation with evil and, under certain facts, according to the canonical principles applying to cooperation in crime per canon 1329 § 2 [‘Accomplices who are not named in a law or in a precept incur an automatic penalty (latae sententiae) attached to an offense if it would not have been committed without their efforts….’] and/or scandal per canon 1339 § 2, etc.”
As you can see, canon 915 has nothing to do with excommunication, only with denying Holy Communion to those “who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin.” It would be up to Justices Kennedy’s and Sotomayor’s bishops to meet with them and inform them that because of their support for “same-sex marriage,” a grave evil condemned by the Church, they should not present themselves for Holy Communion. We are not aware of their bishops having done so, or whether the two justices even practice the Catholic faith.
Although we have no expertise in canon law, it would seem that their promotion of “same-sex marriage,” which will lead others into sin, would be grounds for automatic excommunication, which is what latae sententiae means (cf. canon 1339 § 2).
