Editor’s Note: Regarding the willingness of priests, bishops, and cardinals to give Holy Communion to militant pro-abortionists like President Biden, D.M. of Virginia puts the matter in perspective by offering the following analogy:
“Imagine in the middle of the nineteenth century a Catholic were elected President. Suppose that President professed personal opposition to slavery but was unwilling to impose his personal morality on others. Imagine further that this President also pledged to codify slavery and make it legal in all states, and he even promised to provide federal assistance to those who bought, sold, and/or owned slaves.
“I would like, then, to ask our current-day clergy, who favor giving Communion to our President, if they would have been willing to give Communion to a militant pro-slavery President and, if not, why not.”
Q. A recent Pew study found that many Catholics no longer believe in the Real Presence of Jesus on the altar at Mass. Could this be because we no longer receive the Eucharist on the tongue, which was much more reverential? Has receiving Communion in the hand led us to become too familiar, in an unhealthy way, with Holy Communion? If so, then allowing reception in the hand was a bad idea. — J.W., New Jersey.
A. Sure, the decision of the U.S. bishops in 1977 to permit reception of Communion in the hand has contributed to a diminished understanding and appreciation for the true Presence of our Lord in the Holy Eucharist. Just three years later, in 1980, Pope St. John Paul II noted the increase in “cases of a deplorable lack of respect toward the Eucharistic Species.” In his letter on the Eucharist (Dominicae Cenae), the Holy Father traced the blame for this situation “not only to the individuals guilty of such behavior, but also to the pastors of the Church who have not been vigilant enough regarding the attitude of the faithful toward the Eucharist” (n. 11).
We think that St. John Paul hit on the main reason for the Pew study results today, namely, the failure of priests and bishops to teach clearly, firmly, and frequently that Holy Communion is really the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ, the Son of God and Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, and to remind Catholics of what St. Paul said about receiving the Eucharist unworthily, that is, with serious sin on one’s soul.
When was the last time you heard a homily along those lines? Or when did you hear a priest at a wedding or funeral advise those who are not weekly churchgoers, or who might be in a state of sin, to refrain from receiving Communion? What good does it do on those occasions to tell the people not to come to Communion if they are not Catholics or if they are not worthy to receive, without explaining what it means to be unworthy? Sure, words to that effect would be politically incorrect and perhaps troubling to those who should be troubled by them, but better to be unpopular with the unworthy than with Jesus.
Reception in the hand can be done, as John Paul said, “with profound reverence and devotion,” but only if the faithful have been educated about the true meaning of the Eucharist.
Q. Is it true that whenever we pass up an opportunity to do a good work that we could reasonably do we commit at least a venial sin? — G.P., Florida.
A. Yes, there are sins of omission, which Fr. John Hardon, SJ, defines as “willful neglect or positive refusal to perform some good action that one’s conscience urges one to do. Such omission is morally culpable, and its gravity depends on the importance of what should have been done, on the person’s willfulness, and the circumstances of the situation” (Modern Catholic Dictionary, p. 389). Or as Jesus will say to those on His left at the Last Judgment:
“ ‘Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, a stranger and you gave me no welcome, naked and you gave me no clothing, ill and in prison, and you did not care for me.’ They then will answer and say, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or ill or in prison, and not minister to your needs?’ He will answer them, ‘Amen, I say to you, what you did not do for one of these least ones, you did not do for me.’ And these will go off to the eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life” (Matt. 25:41-46).
Q. The Prophet Jeremiah quotes the Lord as saying, “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I dedicated you, a prophet to the nations I appointed you” (Jer. 1:5-6). If God knew us before and after being in the womb, and knew that many people would not willfully honor and obey Him, nor ask for forgiveness for not following His teachings, and knew that such people would spend eternity in Hell, then why did He create them? This doesn’t sound like a merciful God. — J.J.B., Pennsylvania.
A. It is not for us to say that God should not have created certain persons knowing that they would wind up in Hell. Our inadequate human feelings are no match for the infinite wisdom of a God who says that “my thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are my ways your ways, says the Lord. As high as the heavens are above the earth, so high are my ways above your ways and my thoughts above your thoughts” (Isaiah 55:8-9). God sees the whole picture; we see only a few tiny details. God sees that the general good will outweigh the individual losses.
You are looking at this matter from a negative perspective. Look at it instead from a positive perspective and think of God bringing into the world persons who will ultimately embrace the Creator and deliberately choose an eternity in Heaven. That’s the true picture of God, the God who gave us free will to choose Him, the God who sent His only Son to die for us and to make it possible for us to get to Heaven, the God who knows that over the course of human history, no matter how many people lose their souls, good will outweigh evil. It’s a mistake to think primarily of those who will choose Hell, even though there is no need for them to do so. Let us think instead of the multitudes who will choose Heaven.
Or look at it this way. If you had a great-grandfather who lost his soul, that would be his own fault. There was no need for it to happen, but it was his decision to choose evil over a God who is all-good. And now he is suffering the consequences of his free choice. But that’s not the end of the story. Because your great-grandfather existed, your grandfather, your father, you yourself, and your children and grandchildren will all have the opportunity to save their souls. God knows the choices that we will make, whether for good or for evil, and He gives us free will to make those choices. He did not create a world of unthinking robots, but rather a race of people capable of thinking and reasoning, evaluating and deciding whether or not to do good and avoid evil.
God wants us to choose Him freely, and He gives us all the graces we will need to make the correct choices. Furthermore, He pursues us down through the years, like Francis Thompson’s “hound of Heaven,” never giving up on us, no matter what we do, and always reaching out to us, seeking our repentance and our return to His loving care.
That sounds like a merciful God to us.
Q. My question is sure to arouse the emotions of your readers who are caring and devoted pet owners, as am I. But I find it disrespectful and perhaps even sacrilegious when someone buries a pet in their backyard and then places a cross on the grave. The cross is a sacred symbol of Jesus’ suffering and death for our immortal souls, but animals do not have immortal souls. I do not feel placing crosses on the graves of pets is appropriate. — M.J.O., Maryland.
A. We agree that placing a cross on the grave of a pet sends a wrong message. As far as we know, the Church does not teach about the fate of animals after death. But the late Fr. Benedict Groeschel said in his book After This Life, that “it would seem to me that although animals can have no right to eternal life — as even human beings only receive this by grace — is it not reasonable to hope that an animal who has helped us along our way through life, and had a real share of our affections, may also be with us (recreated, so to speak) in our heavenly home? Some will laugh. Some will ridicule. But many will at least hope that they will find their animal friends, who have meant so much in this life, with them in the next” (p. 111).
Powered by WPtouch Mobile Suite for WordPress