Q. Can you possibly provide the name and e-mail address of the bishop of the “renowned” Catholic Vice President Joe Biden? This latest mockery of his faith — officiating at the “marriage” of two men — cries for some type of action from the shepherd of his flock. I would like to be able to communicate my concern to the bishop concerning the scandal exhibited by his action or lack thereof. — J.N.B., via e-mail.
A. Vice President Biden, who brazenly boasted of his attempt to “marry” two male White House staffers, attends Mass in Washington, D.C., where Donald Cardinal Wuerl is the archbishop, and also falls under the jurisdiction of the Most Rev. Francis Malooly, the bishop in Wilmington, Del., his home state.
We are not aware of a statement specifically from Cardinal Wuerl, and Bishop Malooly sent a letter to the priests of the Wilmington Diocese, referring them to a statement from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. “Regarding the recent and disappointing public celebration of a same-sex union,” said Malooly, “I have spoken to and consulted with the leaders of our conference and completely concur with this statement. We join together in clarifying our Catholic teaching and upholding our beliefs.”
The prelate didn’t mention Biden by name, nor did he say whether he had spoken to the vice president or whether Biden would be denied Holy Communion the next time he approaches the altar. The grounds for such denial are spelled out in canon 915 of the Code of Canon Law, which says that those “who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to Holy Communion.”
The USCCB statement, which was signed by Archbishop Joseph Kurtz of Louisville, Ky., Bishop Richard Malone of Buffalo, N.Y., and Archbishop Thomas Wenski of Miami, Fla., said that “when a prominent Catholic politician publicly and voluntarily officiates at a ceremony to solemnize the relationship of two people of the same sex, confusion arises regarding Catholic teaching on marriage and the corresponding moral obligations of Catholics. What we see is a counterwitness, instead of a faithful one founded in the truth.”
Without mentioning Biden by name, the statement quoted Pope Francis, saying that when the Holy Father visited the United States last year, “he reminded us that all politicians ‘are called to defend and preserve the dignity of [their] fellow citizens in the tireless and demanding pursuit of the common good, for this is the chief aim of politics.’ Catholic politicians in particular are called to ‘a heroic commitment’ on behalf of the common good and to ‘recognize their grave responsibility in society to support laws shaped by these fundamental human values and oppose laws and policies that violate [them]’.”
Cardinal Wuerl can be reached by e-mail at chancery@adw.org. Bishop Malooly can be reached at www.cdow.org.
We politely remind our readers to be respectful when communicating with members of the hierarchy.
Q. If a bishop or priest gives Communion to someone who has been told not to present themselves for Communion until they publicly renounce their support for, say, abortion, is the bishop or priest guilty of desecration of the Holy Eucharist? If so, would any Masses they say after that be invalid until they publicly renounce their actions? — R.W., Nebraska.
A. A bishop or priest who deliberately gives Communion to a person known to him as a manifest public sinner (cf. canon 915) certainly cooperates in the desecration of the Holy Eucharist and would have to seek forgiveness for that action and the ensuing scandal caused by it. Such cooperation would not invalidate future Masses, however, since it is not the bishop or priest, but rather Christ Himself, who confects the Eucharist.
The validity of a sacrament, says the Catechism, is not impeded by the celebrant’s lack of faith or sanctity because “Christ himself is at work: it is he who baptizes, he who acts in his sacraments in order to communicate the grace that each sacrament signifies” (n. 1127). If the sacrament is celebrated in accordance with the intention of the Church, says the Catechism, “the power of Christ and his Spirit acts in it and through it, independently of the personal holiness of the minister” (n. 1128).
Q. Did the 1917 Code of Canon Law forbid reception of Holy Communion by a divorced person who was not remarried? As an Advocate with our local marriage tribunal, I have a Petitioner who said that in the 1950s, her grandmother was told by a priest that she was not allowed to receive because she was divorced. (Her ex-spouse had sexually abused their children, certainly a valid reason for the divorce.) She never remarried. I find this very difficult to believe, but I cannot find any helpful references. I told my Petitioner that the Church has never taught that, but am now considering that I might have been incorrect. — G.M.S., Arizona.
A. We have no expertise in canon law, but could not find anything in the 1917 Code that forbade reception of Holy Communion by a divorced person who had not remarried. Canon 1130 of the 1917 Code said only that “the innocent spouse, whether he leaves by judicial sentence or by his own legitimate authority, is never bound by the obligation of readmitting the adulterous spouse to the consortium of life; but he may admit or recall the other, unless with his consent the other has taken up a life contrary to the married state.”
Similar language can be found in the 1983 Code in canons 1152 and 1155. The commentary on the latter canon says that “although Catholics should obtain ecclesiastical permission to initiate civil divorce action, in fact a good number do not seek such a permission. If a divorce is obtained, the spouses are prohibited from a subsequent marriage since the marriage bond is presumed to perdure even though common life has been definitively terminated. On the other hand, they are neither excommunicated nor prohibited from receiving the sacraments or fully participating in the Church’s life.”
It’s entirely possible that the priest who spoke to the grandmother in the 1950s was mistaken about whether divorced people who have not remarried can receive Communion, just as some people even today think that the divorced are excommunicated, even though Pope Paul VI lifted that penalty in 1977. As far as we can tell, you were correct in what you told the Petitioner, but we don’t see much point in pursuing the matter further since it has no bearing on the case before your tribunal.
Q. According to the prefaces to the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke in the New American Bible, Matthew was written between 80-100 AD, Mark about 70 AD, and Luke about 75 AD. But according to the prefaces in the Douay Rheims Bible, Matthew was written about six years after the Ascension of Jesus, Mark ten years after that, and Luke about 25 years later. Which set of dates is correct? — G.P., Florida.
A. Up until the 20th century, Catholic Bible scholars favored the earlier order and dating of the Gospels, i.e., Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, and all Catholic Bibles still list the Gospels in that order. The historical evidence for this arrangement can be traced back to Against Heresies, the second-century work of St. Irenaeus, who was a pupil of St. Polycarp, who knew St. John, the apostle and author of the fourth Gospel.
In the past century or so, however, many Catholic Bible scholars have accepted the theory that Mark came first and was written around AD 70. They contend that Matthew and Luke are based on Mark and on a collection of Christ’s sayings known as the “Q” document (from the German word quelle, meaning “source”). But no one has ever seen this document, and there is no external evidence that it ever existed.
In more recent years, though, a few scholars have argued for a much earlier dating, i.e., before the fall of Jerusalem in 70. See, for example, such books as Redating the New Testament by John A.T. Robinson, The Hebrew Christ by Claude Tresmontant, The Birth of the Synoptics by Jean Carmignac, and Eyewitness to Jesus by Carston Peter Thiede and Matthew D’Ancona.
At a general audience on August 30, 2011, Pope Benedict XVI said that “the tradition of the ancient Church agrees in attributing to Matthew the paternity of the first Gospel. This had already begun with Bishop Papias of Heiropolis in Frisia in about the year 130. He writes: ‘Matthew set down the words (of the Lord) in the Hebrew tongue and everyone interpreted them as best he could’ (in Eusebius of Caesarea, Hist. Eccl. III, 39, 16).”
Powered by WPtouch Mobile Suite for WordPress