Q. I am certain that there are no inaccuracies in your recent reply about wholesale anointing of the sick. However, I would like to call your attention to an address by Pope Francis last February 26. According to the text reprinted in The Wanderer of March 6, the Holy Father said that “every elderly person, every person over the age of 65, can receive this sacrament.” Is this contrary to what you said? — J.C., via e-mail.
A. In our recent reply, we quoted from a 1982 document entitled Pastoral Care of the Sick: Rites of Anointing and Viaticum, which was published by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and approved by the Sacred Congregation for the Sacraments and Divine Worship. In addition to stating that “great care and concern should be taken to see that those of the faithful whose health is seriously impaired by sickness or old age receive this sacrament” (n. 8), the document also said that “the practice of indiscriminately anointing numbers of people on these occasions simply because they are ill or have reached an advanced age is to be avoided. Only those whose health is seriously impaired by sickness or old age are proper subjects for the sacrament” (n. 108).
In his address last February, Pope Francis did say the words you have quoted. However, he didn’t say that persons over the age of 65 should receive anointing, only that they can be anointed. So we don’t think that the Holy Father was advocating indiscriminate use of the sacrament, but rather that it be reserved to those whose health is seriously impaired by sickness or old age. Nor was he restricting anointing to those over 65, since we know that the sacrament can be given even to young people who are seriously ill or facing surgery. Thus, the document says that “sick children are to be anointed if they have sufficient use of reason to be strengthened by this sacrament” (n. 12).
Q. When we receive the Body and Blood of Jesus in Holy Communion, do we also receive God the Father and the Holy Spirit? — S.C., California.
A. Here is what the Catechism says (n. 1374) about whom we receive in Holy Communion:
“In the Most Blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist, ‘the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained’ [Council of Trent (1551): DS 1651]. ‘This presence is called “real” — by which is not intended to exclude the other types of presence as if they could not be “real” too, but because it is presence in the fullest sense: that is to say, it is a substantial presence by which Christ, God and man, makes himself wholly and entirely present’” [Paul VI, MF 39].
Q. A friend tells me that I should look at the person giving me Communion and not at the Host. What do you think? Also, should those giving out Communion say your name when they present the Host? — A.C., Florida.
A. If Jesus were standing next to the person giving out Communion as you approached the altar, would you look at Jesus or at the minister of Communion? The answer is obvious. So why when the Lord Himself is being presented to you at Communion time, and you are being told that the Host is “the Body of Christ,” why would you look at anything but the Host? Shouldn’t our focus be on Jesus and not on the person giving out Communion?
Second, the proper words to be used when administering Communion are “the Body of Christ” (or “the Blood of Christ”), not “the Body of Christ, Charlie.” This latter wording is wrong not only because it’s an abuse of the liturgical formula for distributing Communion, but also because it singles out for special treatment those whom the minister knows.
So when the person after Charlie approaches, how does he or she feel when their name is not used? If they do notice, do they go back to their bench thinking about just having received their Lord and God, or are they miffed at the slight? If the correct formula is used, there won’t be any annoyance on the part of those who are not recognized by name.
Q. What do you think about the reports coming out of the synod in Rome that there is support for permitting divorced and remarried Catholics to receive Communion? — K.R., Connecticut.
A. Now that the first phase of the synod is over, we can see that while there may have been support for this position by some participants in the synod, and it was their views that were widely reported in the media, these preliminary statements meant nothing since they contradicted long-held Church beliefs.
When the final synod document is approved and published in 2016, we will see that essential doctrines have not changed. Until then, says canon lawyer Dr. Edward Peters, we must abide by the “principle of non-contradiction,” which means that something cannot be and not be at the same time. Writing on his blog In the Light of the Law, Peters says:
“Either the Catechism of the Catholic Church 2384 is right, or it is wrong, to call remarriage after civil divorce ‘public and permanent adultery,’ and either Canon 915 is right, or it is wrong, to prohibit administration of Holy Communion to Catholics whose protracted public conduct is gravely at odds with fundamental Church teaching. Either the Sacrament of Confession requires of penitents a ‘firm purpose of amendment’ (that is, one’s casting off the sinful act), or it does not require such resolution for absolution (CCC 1451, CIC 959), and either Jesus’ frequent words against divorce and remarriage conveyed His meaning, a meaning which the Church in turn correctly understands, or not.
“But if the Catechism is right, if the Code is correct, if sacramental theology is sound, and if Jesus knew what He was saying and His Church has rightly understood Him, then, how does one countenance administration of Holy Communion to the typical divorced-and-remarried Catholic without at the very least disregarding the logical principle of non-contradiction?”
Q. A columnist in the Boston Herald has written that “Pope Francis, after meeting with Vatican bishops, suggests the Church should find more wiggle room in regards to homosexuality, unmarried couples, and same-sex unions.” Is this columnist correct? — T.L.H., Massachusetts.
A. No, the columnist is not correct in thinking that the Holy Father and the bishops who met recently in Rome are going to “find more wiggle room” in the Church’s teachings on sexuality. The Church has always taught, and will continue to teach until the end of time, that any sexual activity outside of marriage, whether involving heterosexuals or homosexuals, is seriously sinful. This is not just the teaching of the Church; it is the teaching of Jesus, of St. Paul, and of countless shepherds of the Church for 2,000 years.
To think that Pope Francis is going to water down that teaching is wishful thinking on the part of the media. There is no way that the Pope will ever countenance adultery, sodomy, or same-sex “marriage.” Just because the Pope calls for mercy for sinners, as the Church has always done, does not mean that he wants to abolish sin. Compassion for sinners, yes; compassion for sin, never. The media can only find “wiggle room” where there is none by quoting the Holy Father out of context.
As they did, for example, after his statement about homosexuals during a flight from World Youth Day in Rio de Janeiro in July 2013. When a reporter asked him about “the whole question of the gay lobby,” the Pontiff responded:
“One must distinguish the fact of being a gay person from the fact of doing a lobby, because not all lobbies are good. That’s bad. If a person is gay and seeks the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge him? The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains this in such a beautiful way. It says…‘these persons must not be marginalized because of this; they must be integrated in society.’ The problem isn’t having this tendency, no. We must be brothers….The problem is lobbying for this tendency: lobby of the avaricious, lobby of politicians, lobby of Masons, so many lobbies. This, for me, is the more serious problem.”
In other words, if a sinner is repentant, no matter what the sin, and truly seeks the Lord with the intention of changing his life, he deserves praise, not judgment.
Powered by WPtouch Mobile Suite for WordPress