Q. In Matthew 8:21–22, it says that “another of the disciples said to him, ‘Lord, let me go first and bury my father.’ But Jesus answered him, ‘Follow me, and let the dead bury their dead.’” What does this mean? — G.P., Fla.
A. The Ignatius Catholic Study Bible explains the passage this way: “Discipleship is based on the imitation of Christ (11:29). Unlike the Apostles, who left their occupations and families (4:19, 22; 9:9), this would-be follower of Jesus is hesitant to embrace the demanding call (8:21). Bury their own dead: Burial was a sacred duty in ancient Judaism (Gen. 50:5; Tob. 4:3–4). Jesus singles out the custom to emphasize the greater importance of discipleship. Allegiance to Jesus must outweigh even family commitments (10:37; 19:29; Luke 14:26). Those who are spiritually dead (i.e., clinging to worldly concerns) can bury the physically dead. Jesus does not thereby undermine the propriety of burial but uses it as a stepping-stone to illustrate the higher demands of the Christian life.”
Q. Does Matthew 7:3–5 mean that only perfect people can speak out against injustice or discipline subordinates? — G.P., Fla.
A. No, that is not the meaning of the passage, which reads: “Why do you notice the splinter in your brother’s eye, but do not perceive the wooden beam in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me remove that splinter from your eye,’ while the wooden beam is in your [own] eye? You hypocrite, remove the wooden beam from your eye first; then you will see clearly to remove the splinter from your brother’s eye.”
A hypocrite is one who arrogantly passes judgment on others while ignoring his own guilt for the same or even worse faults. This is what Jesus was condemning, not the fraternal correction of others by those who know only too well that they are far from perfect themselves. Who better to call one back from the path of sin and destruction than one who once traveled that path himself? The correction, of course, must be offered with humility and love, not with the shameless arrogance that was typical of some Pharisees in Jesus’ time.
Q. (1) In regard to the Sacrament of the Sick, is Confession a requirement for the sacrament to be valid for someone near death? I’m thinking of a person, about 90, who has lived as a devout Catholic, but who in her youth may have had an abortion in another country and is not fully aware of its gravity. Is there any need of reminding her of that probably long-forgotten sin? (2) Regarding the sacrament of Baptism, should one insist on having a baby baptized in the Catholic Church when most likely the child will not be raised Catholic? Is it all right to attend the celebration of a baptism in another Christian church when the mother of the child was baptized Catholic but does not practice her faith? — S.F., N.Y.
A. On the first question, how do you know about this long-ago abortion? If the woman herself told you, then it must still be on her conscience and, if she has never confessed this sin, she should be reminded to do so now. If she is able, says the document Pastoral Care of the Sick, “it is preferable that the priest make himself available for this during a previous visit. If it is necessary to celebrate the sacrament of Penance during the rite of anointing, it takes the place of the penitential rite” (n. 101).
Confession is not required for the sacrament to be valid for one who is comatose or unable to confess one’s sins, says the document, explaining that “the sacrament of Anointing is to be conferred on sick people who, although they have lost consciousness or the use of reason, would, as Christian believers, have at least implicitly asked for it when they were in control of their faculties” (n. 15). The same paragraph also says that “the Anointing of the Sick is not to be conferred on anyone who remains obdurately in open and serious sin.”
On the second question, canon 868 says that for the licit baptism of an infant, there must be “a founded hope that the infant will be brought up in the Catholic religion; if such hope is altogether lacking, the baptism is to be put off according to the prescriptions of particular law and the parents are to be informed of the reason.” So you should not insist on having the baby baptized in the Catholic Church when it is most likely that the child will not be raised Catholic.
Should you attend a baptism of this child in another Christian church? We would say no since your presence would be saying that it doesn’t matter in what church the child is baptized, which is not your belief, and since your attendance would go against your conscience and your commitment to follow Christ and His Church.
Q. I have a 20-square-foot sign in front of my home that asks two questions: “Is there still mortal sin?” and “Is it still a mortal sin to deliberately miss Mass on Sunday?” It’s been many years since I have heard a homily on these two questions. The New Saint Joseph Baltimore Catechism talks about mortal and venial sins and what is necessary to make a sin mortal. But today Confession lines are a thing of the past with few exceptions. Has sin been abolished? — E.S., Pa.
A. Some people’s sense of sin, as Pope Pius XII noted some 80 years ago, may have virtually been abolished, but sin itself has definitely not, as one can see just by reading the newspapers or watching TV every day. One problem is that acts that were once considered unspeakable evils, such as abortion, for example, are now treated as rights guaranteed by the Constitution. But no amount of tortured legal reasoning can make the killing of the unborn moral. Another problem is that priests, with the pulpit available to them every Sunday have failed, for whatever reason, to call a sin a sin and to enlighten the consciences of their parishioners.
As we have noted from time to time in these columns, the Scripture readings at Sunday Mass offer plenty of opportunities for preaching on mortal and venial sins, the differences between them, and the three conditions necessary for a sin to be mortal. One does not have to go back to the Baltimore Catechism to get this information; it is spelled out in the Catechism of the Catholic Church and in the United States Catholic Catechism for Adults. In paragraph 1857 of the CCC, for example, it says that “for a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: ‘Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent’” [RP 17 § 12].
On page 370 of the USCCA, it says that “on Sundays and other holy days of obligation, the Catholic faithful are bound to participate in the Mass. A Catholic who deliberately fails to participate in Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation commits a serious sin.”
So the answer to both of your questions is yes, but the other question that needs to be asked of our priests is, “Why don’t you talk more about sin and about the serious sinfulness of deliberately staying away from Holy Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation?”
This failure always hits home to us at weddings and funerals when some of those going up to Communion obviously have not been in church in a while and have little clue about whom they are receiving. We know that priests are aware of this sacrilegious situation because we have heard them tell Catholics in the congregation to come up for Communion only if they are “properly prepared” to receive our Lord, but they never explain what it means to be properly prepared. They never say, for instance, that if this is the first time you have attended Mass in months or years, you shouldn’t come to Communion since deliberately missing Mass is a mortal sin, and one should not receive Jesus while in a state of serious sin.
Would such a statement cause some consternation in the congregation, and perhaps even make some people feel bad? We hope so, since one role of the priest is that of prophet, that is, to call sinners back to God, even if such a call might make Father unpopular. Better to be unpopular with the folks in the pews than with Jesus.
