Q. Does the Catholic Church teach that no one knows who is in Hell? Well, it seems that goes against the Bible when Jesus says about Judas, “Woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed. Better for him if he had never been born” (Matt. 26:24). I cannot go against Jesus’ words in the Bible. Am I right that Judas is in Hell? — M.G., Alabama.
A. If you think that statement of Jesus bodes ill for Judas, consider what the Lord said about him at the Last Supper. Speaking to His Father about the apostles, Christ said, “When I was with them I protected them in your name that you gave me, and I guarded them, and none of them was lost except the son of destruction, in order that the scripture might be fulfilled” (John 17:12).
What Scripture was Jesus referring to? Perhaps Psalm 41:10, which says, “Even the friend who had my trust, who shared my table, has scorned me.”
So while these passages from Scripture, as well as Judas’ sins of betrayal, despair, and suicide, would seem to have put him on the road to Hell, we don’t know for certain that he is in Hell.
Q. I know that people were receiving our Lord in the hand as far back as the 1600s, but when did it become mandatory to receive on the tongue? What prompted this change? — R.E.G., Nevada.
A. According to the Vatican’s 1969 instruction (Memoriale Domini) on the manner of receiving Holy Communion, the faithful were allowed in the early centuries of the Church “to take this divine Food in their hands and to place it in their mouths themselves. It is also true that in very ancient times they were allowed to take the Blessed Sacrament with them from the place where the Holy Sacrifice was celebrated. This was principally so as to be able to give themselves Viaticum in case they had to face death for their faith.”
By the ninth or tenth centuries, however, the practice of receiving the Host on the tongue was mandated. This was partly because of abuses, the instruction says, and partly because “there came a greater feeling of reverence towards this sacrament and a deeper humility was felt to be demanded when receiving it. Thus the custom was established of the minister placing a particle of consecrated Bread on the tongue of the communicant.”
This method of receiving our Lord remained the norm until recent times, when certain countries began experimenting with Communion in the hand. Pope Paul VI wanted the traditional practice of receiving on the tongue continued, but he said that Communion in the hand could be permitted in countries where two-thirds of the bishops petitioned Rome for permission. Authorization for Communion in the hand in the United States was given in 1977.
Q. It is not true that murderers can generally be prevented from causing further harm by imprisoning them. A few years ago, in Massachusetts, a priest was sentenced to ten years in prison for child molestation. He was murdered in prison by a fellow inmate who had been convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life in prison. Also, it is common knowledge that murders are not only committed in prison by gang members, but that gang members in prisons are sometimes able to order murders to be committed by others outside of prisons. Naiveté sometimes has lethal consequences. Kindness to the wicked is not always wise. — B.F., via e-mail.
A. We agree.
Q. In a column a few months ago, you mentioned no more head coverings for women at Mass and then said: “The requirement that women wear head coverings in church, which was included in the 1917 Code of Canon Law, remained in effect until Pope John Paul II promulgated a new Code of Canon Law in 1983.”
My understanding was that not mentioning it in the 1983 Code did not change it, but that it was those feminists again who figured “men don’t have to wear head coverings in church, so neither do women.” If it was specifically stated in the code — “no head coverings for women” — would you please show that in your column? — M.M., Connecticut.
A. There was a provision in the 1917 Code requiring women to wear a veil or hat to cover their heads in church. It was based on St. Paul’s comments on the conduct of men and women at public worship services (cf. 1 Cor. 11:2-16), and may have reflected the fact that women wore hats at all public gatherings at the time that code was written. However, there is no such provision in the 1983 Code. A woman can still wear a head covering in the Real Presence of our Lord if she wishes, but there is no canon in the 1983 Code making it mandatory to do so.
Q. I am utterly convinced that the universe could not have come into existence without a First Cause (God) creating it, but what do you say to those who say that the universe has always existed? — G.P., Florida.
A. Those who insist that the universe has always existed must tell us how it came into existence. It is a fact that something cannot come from nothing, so where did the universe come from? There had to be something, or someone, who existed prior to the universe and who brought the universe into existence. That Someone we call God.
Q. My husband, who is almost 81, has discovered that his kidneys are slowly failing. He went on a kidney-friendly diet to slow the progression of his kidney failure, but the doctor said he would likely need dialysis in the next month or two if he wanted to live. My husband said that he’s had a full life and that he doesn’t want to have dialysis. Our son said that would be like “pulling the plug.”
Our pastor, after consulting with a fellow priest, said that there is no moral requirement to have dialysis.
My husband lives at home, goes to daily Mass, visits with friends, goes to his grandkids’ sporting events, keeps up on current events, etc. At which point is it no longer morally required to have dialysis? To me, it seems premature to “pull the plug” by not having dialysis. Is his age a factor, or the fact that he tires easily and has knee pain? I told him that if Medicare decided to “pull the plug” in cases like his, and no longer allowed dialysis, it would be like having a “death panel.” — Name and State Withheld.
A. We offer the following observations to help you make your decision. Kidney failure means that the toxic wastes once removed by the kidneys themselves must now be removed by dialysis, which usually involves treatments three times a week for four hours at a time that remove certain elements from the blood. Some consider this an ordinary way of preserving life in the face of kidney failure. That is, the means are beneficial to the patient, in common use (not experimental), and not a financial or psychological burden.
But problems associated with these treatments, according to the Encyclopedia and Dictionary of Medicine, Nursing, and Allied Health Care, can include fluid overload, electrolyte imbalance, alteration in blood components, management of prescribed medications, and infection. The longer the treatments go on, the greater the challenges to the patient himself, as well as to caregivers and family members.
Others consider dialysis to be extraordinary treatment due to the discomfort and inconvenience involved in going through the thrice-weekly treatments, which may go on for a long time depending on the age of the patient and the progress of the renal failure. Your husband apparently believes that the burdens of the treatment — physical, psychological, and financial — outweigh any reasonable benefits. Obviously, his feelings are important.
The Church teaches that while one may choose extraordinary care, one is not morally obliged to do so unless one is not reconciled with God or if the lives of others, young children for example, depend on the patient. To forgo extraordinary treatment, said Pope John Paul II, “is not the equivalent of suicide or euthanasia; it rather expresses acceptance of the human condition in the face of death” (Evangelium Vitae, n. 65).
Your husband seems to be currently living a full life and does not wish to begin a regimen that will significantly change things. You on the other hand want to keep him around as long as possible. We will ask our readers to pray that you and your husband will prudently consider all the factors involved and make the right decision for him and your family.
Powered by WPtouch Mobile Suite for WordPress