Catholic Replies
Editor’s Note: Fr. George Rutler hit the nail on the head once again in his weekly column at the Church of St. Michael in New York City:
Materialism, fantasy, and false worship were the temptations Satan thrust at Christ, and he is tempting our nation the same way. These seductions are a formula for Socialism, which Winston Churchill in 1948 defined as “the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy.” A poorly educated generation succumbs to adolescent idealism, bereft of history, unaware that a cult of the state has been a consistent failure, costing countless millions of lives in modern times.
State worship was resisted by the earliest Christians, who refused to offer incense to Caesar. Socialism is simply Communism not yet in power, and its smiling face in the guise of “Democratic Socialism” quickly scowls once it has control. As the economist Ludwig von Mises showed in various ways, the essence of Socialism is coercion and manipulation. Pope John XXIII, quoting Pope Pius XI, taught in 1961: “No Catholic could subscribe even to moderate Socialism.” Socialism in the guise of benevolence exploits the naive. As a corollary, Yeats said: “The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.”
Lack of conviction moved appeasers to sign the Munich Agreement, and in present times it has ceded the Church’s integrity to the Chinese government. Naive people were scandalized by the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, but Stalin and Hitler were simply Socialists in different uniforms. Just as the National Socialist manifesto of 1920 tried to replace the Church with a pastiche of “Positive Christianity,” which was Christianity without Christ, so has the Chinese government ordered that images of Christ be replaced with images of Party leader Xi Jinping.
In 1931, Pope Pius XI denounced the exaltation of the state as “Idolatry.” He insisted that “Religious socialism, Christian socialism, are contradictory terms; no one can be at the same time a good Catholic and a true socialist.” From a conviction born of suffering under National Socialism and Soviet Socialism, Pope John Paul II maintained that “the fundamental error of Socialism is anthropological…[because it] considers the individual person simply as an element, a molecule within the social organism….”
As the Catholic Church is the largest charitable organization in the world, Catholics should note what a present candidate for his party’s presidential nomination, who calls himself a Democratic Socialist, said years ago: “I don’t believe in charities…government, rather than charity organizations, should take over responsibility for social programs.” But Pope Benedict XVI has said: “We do not need a State which regulates and controls everything, but a State which, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, generously acknowledges and supports initiatives arising from the different social forces. . . .”
The prophet Samuel warned the Israelites who wanted a king in charge of everything: “He will take the tenth of your flocks, and you shall be his slaves” (1 Samuel 8:17). That voice is louder now.
Q. I have heard fundamentalists say that when Jesus told the Scribes and Pharisees to “call no one on earth your father,” He was saying that it is wrong for us to call priests “father.” How can I respond to this? — T.S., via email.
A. If we consider the context of our Lord’s remarks, we see that He was denouncing the Pharisees not for using the titles of “rabbi” or “father” or “teacher,” but rather for building up a cult of superiority around themselves, for requiring the people to perform hard tasks while avoiding such works themselves. Instead of helping to lighten the burdens on the people, the Pharisees were busy seeking places of honor at banquets, in the synagogues, and in the marketplace.
So Jesus told them to avoid being called “‘Rabbi.’ You have but one teacher, and you are all brothers. Call no one on earth your father; you have but one Father in heaven. Do not be called ‘Master’; you have but one master, the Messiah” (Matt. 23:8-10). He told them that “the greatest among you must be your servant. Whoever exalts himself will be humbled; but whoever humbles himself will be exalted” (Matt. 23:11-12).
What our Lord was doing was using hyperbole, engaging in exaggerated speech to make a point. He was not ruling out the use of such titles (what else are we to call our male parent or the person who instructs our children in school?), but was criticizing the Pharisees for abusing the authority attached to these titles, for proudly setting up themselves, instead of God, as the ultimate authority.
That Christ was not forbidding the use of the title “father” on Earth is clear from its use by those in the early Church. For example, when Stephen was brought in before the Sanhedrin, he addressed the members of the ruling council as “my brothers and fathers” (Acts 7:2).
In his first letter, John said, “I am writing to you, fathers, because you know him who is from the beginning” (1 John 2:13). And Paul had no problem with being considered as a spiritual father to the people of Corinth: “I am writing you this not to shame you, but to admonish you as my beloved children. Even if you should have countless guides to Christ, yet you do not have many fathers, for I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel” (1 Cor. 4:14-15).
Q. According to some Catholic leaders, if you receive the Body and Blood of the Lord Jesus Christ on the tongue, both you and the priest or extraordinary minister will be in danger of getting the coronavirus. All I can say is, “O, ye of little faith.” What say you? — G.B., Florida.
A. We think that if there is any chance of getting the virus while receiving Holy Communion, it is more likely through the hand than on the tongue. The contact through placing the Host on the tongue is much less than placing the Host on a hand that has touched, among other things, the handles on the doors of the church, the bench on which one sits, the missalettes that one uses at Mass, and the money or envelopes touched during the collection.
It is our opinion, based on faith, that the Lord’s Body and Blood would never be the source or the carrier of any virus or disease. This was confirmed by a scientific study first published in 1943 in the Journal of Infectious Diseases. The study, entitled “Survival of Bacteria on the Silver Communion Cup” and prepared by William Burrows and Elizabeth Hemmens of the University of Chicago, said that wiping the chalice with a purificator after each use reduced the bacterial count on the chalice by more than 90 percent. The study came to this conclusion:
“Evidence is presented which indicates that bacteria swabbed on the polished surface of the silver chalice dies off rapidly. Experiments on the transmission of test organisms from one person to another by common use of the chalice showed that approximately 0.001 percent of the organisms are transferred even under the most favorable conditions; when conditions approximated those of actual use, no transmission could be detected.
“Only small numbers of bacteria from the normal mouth could be recovered from the chalice immediately after its use by four persons. It is concluded that in practice the silver communion cup is not an important vector of infectious disease.”
We also remember reading some years ago of scientific studies conducted at Lourdes, the shrine to Our Blessed Lady in France where thousands of people with all kinds of diseases bathe in the waters there. The studies showed that the waters were loaded with every kind of bacteria imaginable, but no one ever got sick. It is not unusual for stretcher-bearers and nurses, at the end of the day, to “scoop out a glass of water from the baths and drink it down as an act of faith,” said Ruth Cranston in her book The Miracle of Lourdes. “Maybe this will be too strong a ‘dose’ for the average reader — but at Lourdes it is an everyday fact” (p. 60).
She mentioned “the old Count de Beauchamp, president of the Hospitallers and now eighty-seven, [who] said, ‘I have drunk a whole hospital-full of microbes, but I have never yet been sick’” (ibid.).
