Q. Regarding a recent reply about the steps to be taken by a man who wanted to return to the Catholic Church after having been a Mormon, I have a similar question, and I wonder if your answer would be the same. Someone close to me, who was a practicing Catholic, now denies the existence of God. If this person were to return to the Catholic Church, what steps would be required? Furthermore, if a profession of faith is needed, would it be in a public setting or in the confessional? — E.G., Florida.
A. Yes, our answer would be the same, namely, that this person should speak to a reliable priest about his circumstances, go to Confession, take some remedial instruction in Catholicism, and make a profession of faith in the Catholic Church.
The profession of faith would not have to be in a public setting, although it could be if this person were part of a group that was being received into full communion with the Church. But he would not have to stand up by himself before a congregation unless he wanted to do so. Actually, this could be a teachable moment if those in attendance knew of his former estrangement from the Church.
Q. Could you please answer the following questions for me? I am an 81-year-old man who has been in prison for murder for 53 years. — M.M., Alabama .
A. We would be happy to try to answer the questions for you, and we will ask our readers to pray that you remain close to the Lord in your remaining years.
“In the Gospel of Luke (1:39-45), we read that when the Blessed Virgin Mary, pregnant with Jesus through the power of the Holy Spirit, entered the house of Elizabeth, John the Baptist leaped with joy in his mother’s womb upon recognizing the presence of Jesus, who was only a few days old, in Mary’s womb. Isn’t this proof that John was already a person and that mothers today also carry a person in their wombs right after conception?”
Yes, Scripture provides us with evidence of life in the womb in the days following conception, and the American Heritage Dictionary defines a person as “a living human being, especially as distinguished from an animal or thing.”
Supporters of abortion, however, including justices on the U.S. Supreme Court, refuse to recognize this new human life as a person since it would then come under the protection of the Constitution, specifically the 5th and 14th Amendments. Both of those amendments say that no “person” can be deprived of life “without due process of law.” But the Supreme Court said that “legal personhood does not exist prenatally.”
“Regarding the use of such abortifacients as the Pill, which causes an early abortion, is the woman who uses the Pill guilty of murder in God’s eyes? One taking a contraceptive is guilty of rejecting human life.”
The birth control Pill works in one of three ways: it inhibits ovulation so that no egg is released from the ovaries; it thickens the cervical mucus so that the sperm cannot reach the egg; it renders the wall of the uterus hostile to implantation by a tiny embryo and causes its death.
It is not likely that a woman using the Pill would be guilty of murder since only one of its three possible effects is abortifacient, and many women who take the Pill think that it only prevents conception. While such women may not be guilty of murder, they are guilty of an objective mortal sin of contraception, although many of them may be subjectively unaware of the moral evil of their actions.
“If there is any evidence of a human life after, say, a miscarriage in the toilet, should the woman attempt to baptize the child by pouring water and saying, ‘(Name), I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit’?”
Yes, if it appears that the child is alive and it is possible to do so. The child would have to be large enough to open the amniotic sac and pour the water. A very difficult proposition, to say the least.
“Is there any difference between ‘pro-choice’ Catholics and men and women on Death Row for taking innocent human life?”
Simply being “pro-choice” is not the same as being a murderer on Death Row. Doctors who perform abortions, however, including those who carefully kill the child so as not to harm its marketable organs, are hardly distinguishable from convicted killers in prison. In fact, these doctors may be worse since they murder hundreds and thousands of victims.
“What is the name of the ingredient or ingredients used in cosmetics (creams, shampoos, etc.) that come from aborted babies? Knowing the name of the ingredients can help us refuse to buy the product.”
Collagen can be found in many creams and shampoos, but Mary Kay Cosmetics says that it only uses animal collagen, not human collagen. Fetal skin cells have been used in anti-aging skin creams by another cosmetics company that calls the ingredient Processed Skin Cell Protein (PSP). Some companies use proteins obtained from postnatal placentas, which is morally acceptable.
With all the fetal body parts being offered for sale to researchers these days by Planned Parenthood, one can only imagine the immoral ways in which these baby parts will be used.
Q. Since John the Baptist was born within months of Christ, how is it that we read no reference of their meeting, except for the Baptism of Christ? Would they have not met and worked together as contemporaries? — J.P., via e-mail.
A. The Gospels are not all that clear on what John knew about Jesus and when he knew it. While Luke says that Jesus and John the Baptist were related, and that John’s mother, Elizabeth, recognized that Mary was “the mother of my Lord” (Luke 1:43), there is no indication that John and Jesus had any contact with each other as they were growing up. In The Life of Christ, Giuseppe Ricciotti explained why:
“The fact that John does not know Jesus [at the Jordan River] is not surprising if we remember his life. As a boy he had already left his father’s house to live in the desert, and there is nothing to indicate any periodic returns to visit his relatives during the twenty-odd years of his solitude. . . .
“Perhaps this is also the reason why he had not tried to know in person the mysterious son of Mary who had been born six months after him. He knew him spiritually, and for the rest his faith told him that God in his own good time would have him know him personally” (p. 271).
Ricciotti said that the Baptist had “a kind of premonition,” and the Gospel quotes him as saying, “I saw the Spirit come down like a dove from the sky and remain upon him. I did not know him, but the one who sent me to baptize with water told me, ‘On whomever you see the Spirit come down and remain, he is the one who will baptize with the Holy Spirit.’ Now I have seen and testified that he is the Son of God” (John 1:32-34).
It is puzzling, however, that some time later, after John had been imprisoned by Herod, he sent his disciples to Jesus to ask, “Are you the one who is to come, or should we look for another?” Jesus replied, “Go and tell John what you hear and see: the blind regain their sight, the lame walk, lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the poor have the good news proclaimed to them. And blessed is the one who takes no offense at me” (Matt. 11:2-6). Does this mean that John had some doubt about who Jesus was?
No, said Ricciotti, who rejected the notion that John was not sure whether Jesus was the Messiah.
He said that “this opinion is contradicted by John’s whole life up to this point. Many of the Fathers and numerous modern commentators consider John’s question merely an expedient to make his disciples go over to Jesus and convince them that he was the Messiah.
“This explanation is undoubtedly a true one, but it contains only part of the truth. Recent studies, which reveal with increasing clarity the gradual way in which Jesus manifested himself as the Messiah, particularly favor the explanation given above, which, while it in no way excludes John’s desire to make his disciples join Jesus, takes into account both the gradualness with which Jesus revealed himself as the Messiah and the anxiety which that gradualness excited in John” (p. 343 fn.).
Powered by WPtouch Mobile Suite for WordPress