Sacraments – Page 3

My jaw dropped when I read the latest from Benedict XVI . . .

Since Benedict XVI resigned from the papacy and began his retirement in seclusion, he has said nothing publicly.

There’s a very good reason for that, and that’s why the most recent thing he’s written is so amazing.

He’s just publicly weighed in on Cardinal Kasper’s proposal to give Holy Communion to divorced and civilly remarried Catholics.

Here’s the story . . .

1) Why is Benedict XVI so silent these days?

To give his successor a free hand. If a pope emeritus continued to speak out and play a substantial role as a public figure, it could cause all kinds of problems for his successor.

If the two were perceived as being in opposition to each other, it could be extremely traumatic for the Church. Hypothetically, it could even create a schism.

That’s why, when St. Celestine V resigned, his successor kept him imprisoned in a castle until he died.

By choosing to live in a monastery at the Vatican and staying out of the public eye, Benedict is deliberately staying out of Francis’s way.

He’s also setting a precedent for future popes emeritus.

2) What has Benedict said since retirement?

Very little. We know that he has been writing letters. In one letter, he took an atheist mathematician to the woodshed, and the mathematician later published the letter.

He also wrote a speech that was read at a Roman university by his aide, Archbishop Georg Ganswein.

But, in general, he has written very little that has come to public light.

And none of what he has written has dealt with controversial issues in the Church.

Until now.

3) What does Benedict think of “the Kasper proposal”

Over the last year, the Church has been wracked by a revival of Cardinal Walter Kasper’s proposal to give Holy Communion to divorced and civilly remarried Catholics in some circumstances.

Cardinals have been publicly debating each other in the press.

We don’t need to rehash the whole, sad history of that here.

As we’ve watched that situation play out, I’ve repeatedly wondered what Benedict must be thinking—and doing.

Since Pope Francis allowed public discussion of this subject to continue, and since it’s a source of controversy in the Church, you wouldn’t expect him to speak out publicly on the subject.

That would be precisely the kind of interference in his successor’s affairs that he set out to avoid by going into seclusion.

But this issue is so important, with such high stakes, that it’s also precisely the kind of situation that would test that resolve.

I thought, perhaps, he would play a background role—giving advice to Pope Francis off the record at an opportune moment. We know that kind of thing happens.

But he’s now done much more than that.

He’s told us what he thinks.

And it happened through an unusual chain of events that seems providentially structured.

4) What happened?

Back in 1972, when he was still a theology professor, Joseph Ratzinger wrote an essay on the indissolubility of marriage in which he tentatively floated a variation of the Kasper proposal.

This was one of several ideas that Prof. Ratzinger tried out in the days of theological experimentation after the Council but later abandoned.

Indeed, he became a leader in the opposition to the idea that Holy Communion could be given to the divorced and civilly remarried.

Thus, when Cardinal Kasper and two other German bishops floated the proposal in 1993, Cardinal Ratzinger—as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith—wrote a paper forcefully rejecting the idea.

You can read it here.

But that 1972 essay was still out there, and when he revived his proposal last year, Cardinal Kasper started quoting it.

I can only imagine that this deeply displeased Benedict.

Nobody likes having his words thrown back in his face—particularly when they are words that one has disowned.

For Cardinal Kasper to publicly cite the 1972 essay in an effort to associate Benedict’s name with and thus promote a position that Benedict has rejected must really come across as twisting the knife.

And yet it would seem that Benedict’s hands were tied by his seclusion.

Only they weren’t.

5) Why not?

Because, for the last few years, there has been an effort underway to re-publish collected editions of all of Benedict’s theological writings. (His private ones, that is; not his magisterial documents.)

This effort has been led by Cardinal Gerhard Muller.

And now they’ve published—in German—a volume of Benedict’s writings that includes a revised version of the 1972 essay.

The publication of this series of volumes thus allowed Benedict, from one perspective, to yank the rug out from under Cardinal Kasper’s use of the 1972 essay.

From another perspective, it allowed him to weigh in on the present controversy without having to make a new, public statement that could be perceived as deliberately interfering in the affairs of his successor.

The fact that this set of volumes was underway, and that that particular essay had not yet been republished when Cardinal Kasper started using it for his own purposes, is a providential blessing.

And what Benedict said is extremely encouraging.

6) What did he say?

You can read the full text of the part of the essay that changed—and the 1972 original—at Sandro Magister’s site (ht: Fr.Z).

Of course, the initial variation of the Kasper proposal is gone. There is no trace of it.

Benedict says a number of very interesting things, and the section dealing with divorce, remarriage, and Holy Communion reads as follows:

The 1981 apostolic exhortation “Familiaris Consortio” of John Paul II . . . states: “Together with the Synod, I earnestly call upon pastors and the whole community of the faithful to help the divorced, and with solicitous care to make sure that they do not consider themselves as separated from the Church […] Let the Church pray for them, encourage them and show herself a merciful mother, and thus sustain them in faith and hope.”

This gives pastoral care an important task, which perhaps has not yet been sufficiently incorporated into the Church’s everyday life. Some details are indicated in the exhortation itself. There it is said that these persons, insofar as they are baptized, may participate in the Church’s life, which in fact they must do. The Christian activities that are possible and necessary for them are listed. Perhaps, however, it should be emphasized with greater clarity what the pastors and brethren in the faith can do so that they may truly feel the love of the Church. I think that they should be granted the possibility of participating in ecclesial associations and even of becoming godfathers or godmothers, something that the law does not provide for as of now.

There is another point of view that imposes itself on me. The impossibility of receiving the holy Eucharist is perceived as so painful not last of all because, currently, almost all who participate in the Mass also approach the table of the Lord. In this way the persons affected also appear publicly disqualified as Christians.

I maintain that Saint Paul’s warning about examining oneself and reflecting on the fact that what is at issue is the Body of the Lord should be taken seriously once again: “A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself” (1 Cor 11:28 f.). A serious self-examination, which might even lead to forgoing communion, would also help us to feel in a new way the greatness of the gift of the Eucharist and would furthermore represent a form of solidarity with divorced and remarried persons.

I would like to add another practical suggestion. In many countries it has become customary for persons who are not able to receive communion (for example, the members of other confessions) to approach the altar with their hands folded over their chests, making it clear that they are not receiving the sacrament but are asking for a blessing, which is given to them as a sign of the love of Christ and of the Church. This form could certainly be chosen also by persons who are living in a second marriage and therefore are not admitted to the Lord’s table. The fact that this would make possible an intense spiritual communion with the Lord, with his whole Body, with the Church, could be a spiritual experience that would strengthen and help them.

He thus proposes pastoral care for those in this situation and finding ways to further involve them in the life of the Church—including allowing them to serve in church associations and perhaps as godparents.

However, he recommends no change on the question of administering Holy Communion.

Instead, he asks us all to engage in serious self-examination and not to receive Communion unthinkingly.

And he recommends the custom of approaching the minister for a blessing when—as with the divorced and civilly remarried—one is not able to receive Communion.

7) How significant is this?

Benedict’s revision of his 1972 essay is extremely significant.

It makes the general lines of his thought publicly known, and this is bound to be a great encouragement for those who wish to see the Church’s traditional teaching and practice maintained.

It also makes it harder to use Benedict’s name in association with the contrary proposal—as Cardinal Kasper and others have been doing.

It’s a net gain. It’s a gift from God. And, with the former pope weighing in on the issue publicly, it may even be a game-changer.

The Law of Gradualness: 12 things to know and share

Most Catholics have never even heard of the “law of gradualness,” but it became big news this week at the Synod on the Family.

What is the law of gradualness, and what role does it play in Catholic thought?

Here are 12 things to know and share . . .

1) What is the law of gradualness?

It is a principle used in Catholic moral and pastoral theology, according to which people should be encouraged to grow closer to God and his plan for our lives in a step-by-step manner rather than expecting to jump from an initial conversion to perfection in a single step.

2) Is there a basis for this idea?

Yes. Human experience testifies that we are not made perfect upon our initial conversion. We must grow in various ways over time and we must continue to struggle against sin.

3) Does Scripture refer to this principle?

Yes, in a variety of passages. For example:

I, brethren, could not address you as spiritual men, but as men of the flesh, as babes in Christ. I fed you with milk, not solid food; for you were not ready for it; and even yet you are not ready, for you are still of the flesh [1 Cor. 3:1-3].
[We] take every thought captive to obey Christ, being ready to punish every disobedience, when your obedience is complete [2 Cor. 10:6].
For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need some one to teach you again the first principles of God’s word. You need milk, not solid food; for every one who lives on milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, for he is a child. But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their faculties trained by practice to distinguish good from evil [Heb. 5:12-14].

4) Has the idea of the law of gradualness been abused?

Yes. At the Synod of Bishops on the Family in 1980, some called for an application of the law of gradualness that would allow married couples which were contracepting to receive absolution and holy Communion on the condition that they have an intent to gradually stop using contraception.

5) Where was this declared an abuse?

St. John Paul II rejected it in the his apostolic exhortation Familiaris Consortio, saying:

[Married people] cannot however look on the law as merely an ideal to be achieved in the future: they must consider it as a command of Christ the Lord to overcome difficulties with constancy.

And so what is known as ‘the law of gradualness’ or step-by-step advance cannot be identified with ‘gradualness of the law,’ as if there were different degrees or forms of precept in God’s law for different individuals and situations.

In God’s plan, all husbands and wives are called in marriage to holiness, and this lofty vocation is fulfilled to the extent that the human person is able to respond to God’s command with serene confidence in God’s grace and in his or her own will.

On the same lines, it is part of the Church’s pedagogy that husbands and wives should first of all recognize clearly the teaching of Humanae vitae as indicating the norm for the exercise of their sexuality, and that they should endeavor to establish the conditions necessary for observing that norm [Familiaris Consortio 34].

6) Has the Church returned to this subject?

Yes. In 1997 the Pontifical Council for the Family issued a vademecum (i.e., handbook) for confessors in which it gave guidance to those hearing confessions about how to handle certain situations.

In particular, it warned confessors against the idea of thinking that repentance does not require a decisive break with sin, saying:

The pastoral “law of gradualness”, not to be confused with the “gradualness of the law” which would tend to diminish the demands it places on us, consists of requiring a decisive break with sin together with a progressive path towards total union with the will of God and with his loving demands [Vademecum for Confessors 3:9].

7) How is the concept being used at the present (2014) Synod of Bishops on the Family?

Today some seem to be proposing that those who have divorced and entered a subsequent, civil marriage (while the previous spouse is still alive and without an annulment and convalidation) should in some cases be allowed to receive absolution and holy Communion if they intend gradually to bring their situation in line with God’s law.

8) How do we know this?

On Monday, October 13, the Synod released a document called a Relatio post disceptationem (i.e., a report after discussion), which summarized the discussions held in the first week of the synod.

9) What did this document say regarding the law of gradualness?

It referred to the concept in several passages:

13. From the moment that the order of creation is determined by orientation towards Christ, it becomes necessary to distinguish without separating the various levels through which God communicates the grace of the covenant to humanity. Through the law of gradualness (cf. Familiaris Consortio, 34), typical of divine pedagogy, this means interpreting the nuptial covenant in terms of continuity and novelty, in the order of creation and in that of redemption.

14. Jesus Himself, referring to the primordial plan for the human couple, reaffirms the indissoluble union between man and woman, while understanding that “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning” (Mt 19,8). In this way, He shows how divine condescension always accompanies the path of humanity, directing it towards its new beginning, not without passing through the cross. . . .

17. In considering the principle of gradualness in the divine salvific plan, one asks what possibilities are given to married couples who experience the failure of their marriage, or rather how it is possible to offer them Christ’s help through the ministry of the Church. In this respect, a significant hermeneutic key comes from the teaching of Vatican Council II, which, while it affirms that “although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure … these elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward Catholic unity” (Lumen Gentium, 8).

47. As regards the possibility of partaking of the sacraments of Penance and the Eucharist, some argued in favor of the present regulations because of their theological foundation, others were in favor of a greater opening on very precise conditions when dealing with situations that cannot be resolved without creating new injustices and suffering. For some, partaking of the sacraments might occur were it preceded by a penitential path – under the responsibility of the diocesan bishop –, and with a clear undertaking in favor of the children. This would not be a general possibility, but the fruit of a discernment applied on a case-by-case basis, according to a law of gradualness, that takes into consideration the distinction between state of sin, state of grace and the attenuating circumstances.

10) Is this same understanding of the law of gradualness present in Familiaris Consortio and the Vademecum for Confessors?

It does not appear so. At least from what has been said thus far, it appears more to reflect the “gradualness of law” that was warned against in those documents, according to which a decisive break with sin is not required before receiving absolution and holy Communion, and in which a different standard of what constitutes sin would be applied to some than is applied to others.

11) Does the Relatio change Church teaching regarding the law of gradualness?

No. The Relatio is a summary what various bishops proposed in discussions. It is not a document of the Magisterium.

The document accurately reports that one group of bishops proposed this—and that others opposed it—but it does nothing to change Church teaching.

12) What does this suggest for the future?

It suggests that this proposal will continue to be discussed. The first phase of that will occur this week, as the bishops discuss the Relatio in small groups.

They will then produce a new document at the end of the present Synod, which will be discussed in the forthcoming year.

The discussion will then be renewed at the forthcoming Synod of Bishops on the Family in 2015, and finally the pope will determine what is to be done with whatever recommendations are made to him.

There also may be involvement by other groups, including the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the International Theological Commission, the Pontifical Council for the Family, the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, and others.

There is a great deal more that can be said here, but this should serve as a basic introduction to the concept of the law of gradualness.

We will look at other aspects of the proposal in future posts.

Is a Clash Brewing Between Two Cardinals over Divorce and Remarriage? 12 things to know and share

Recently one of the most prominent cardinals in the world made remarks regarding the head of the Vatican’s doctrinal office that could be taken as insulting.

The issue was receiving Communion following divorce and civil remarriage.

This kind of situation is a very rare event. We don’t normally see cardinals seeming to publicly take apparent swipes at each other.

The two involved in this case are Cardinal Rodriguez and soon-to-be Cardinal Muller.

Here are 12 things to know and share . . .

1) Who is Cardinal Rodriguez?

His full name is Oscar Andres Rodriguez Maradiaga.

He is the Cardinal Archbishop of Tegucigalpa, Honduras.

He is also the coordinator of the group of eight cardinals that Pope Francis has gathered to help advise him on reforming the Roman Curia.

This makes him one of the most prominent cardinals in the world.

2) Who is (soon-to-be) Cardinal Muller?

His full name is Gerhard Ludwig Muller.

He is currently an Archbishop, and he was appointed by Pope Benedict XVI to head the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF). He was subsequently confirmed in office by Pope Francis.

Recently, as expected, it was announced that he would be created a cardinal by Pope Francis on February 22.

Once that happens, he will also be one of the most prominent cardinals in the world.

3) What is the background to this situation?

For some time there have been calls—particularly in Germany—for a change in the Church’s discipline regarding Communion for those Catholics who have been divorced and civilly remarried.

Apart from extremely unusual circumstances, the Church requires Catholics to observe the Catholic form of marriage or get a dispensation from it, in order to be validly married.

For a Catholic to go to city hall and get married will not result in a valid marriage.

Consequently, the Church does not recognize the marriages of Catholics who have done this, and it must consequently regard them as living in a state of sexual sin (unless they are living as brother and sister).

This means that they are ineligible to receive Communion.

What should happen is this: Catholics who have obtained a civil divorce and who wish to remarry should pursue the annulment process to determine whether their original marriage was valid. If it is found to have been invalid, then they are free to remarry, provided they observe the Catholic form of marriage.

The annulment process exists because Christ was very firm on the permanence of marriage: “What God has joined together, let no man put asunder.” He went so far as to say that those who divorce and remarry commit ongoing adultery against their first spouse.

Adultery is a grave sin, and so it makes one ineligible for Communion.

In response to calls for a change of the Church’s discipline on this point, Archbishop Muller published an article—first in a German-language publication and later in the Vatican newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano, defending and explaining the Church’s position.

You can read it online in English, here.

4) How did Cardinal Rodriguez get involved?

He was being interviewed by the German newspaper Kölner Stadt-Anzeiger.

You can read the full interview in German here.

During the course of the discussion, the interviewer alluded to Archbishop Muller’s article.

It was at this point that Cardinal Rodriguez made the remarks that raised eyebrows.

5) What did Cardinal Rodriguez say?

KEEP READING.

Did Pope Francis baptize a baby whose parents aren’t married? 12 things to know and share

Press reports are claiming that Pope Francis recently baptized the child whose parents were not married in the eyes of the Church.

Since many priests in America have refused to baptize such children, it raised some eyebrows.

What are the real facts in this case?

Here are 12 things to know and share . . .

1) What was the occasion of the baptism?

Every year the pope baptizes people on the commemoration of Christ’s baptism.

This takes place in the Sistine Chapel at St. Peter’s basilica.

This is an entirely normal practice.

For example, here’s a piece about Pope Benedict baptizing twenty babies on the Baptism of Our Lord in 2013.

2) What happened in this case?

According to Fr. Z’s translation of an Italian news story in La Stampa:

Among the baptized – according to the report in the daily “Il Tirreno” – there is also Giulia [i.e., Julia], caught of a couple married civilly but not in church.

And this is certainly a novelty. Not for Bergoglio, who as a priest, bishop and cardinal baptized babies of teen mothers or unmarried couples many times.

Giulia’s parents, last 25 September, had made their request to the Pope directly at the end of the Wednesday general audience.

“We were on the ‘sagrato’ (the ‘porch’ in front of the Basilica)”, Ivan Scardia recounted, the father of the baby, “when he passed by and we asked him if he could baptize our second child. He told us to get in touch with his collaborators and then they contacted us.”

When the time came to send in the documents there was a glitch: “We were married at city hall. But this problem was also overcome,” Giulia’s father said.

3) Why would this mean that the parents weren’t married in the Church’s eyes?

If someone is a Catholic then, apart from certain unusual circumstances, they are obliged to observe the Church’s form of marriage or get a dispensation from this form.

Otherwise, their marriages will not be valid.

Dispensations are sometimes granted, such as when a Catholic marries a non-Catholic and they wish to have a non-Catholic ceremony.

When two Catholics are marrying each other, however, such dispensations are not granted.

City halls, even in Italy, do not observe the Catholic form of marriage, and so for two Catholics to just head to city hall and attempt marriage would result in an invalid marriage from the Church’s perspective.

4) How reliable is this report?

KEEP READING.

Why was Jesus baptized?

This Sunday, the Church celebrates the baptism of Jesus Christ.

It’s an event that is recorded in all four gospels, so we know it’s important.

But there’s a question that has puzzled Christians all down through the ages.

It even puzzled John the Baptist, who performed the baptism.

Why was Jesus baptized?

The Problem

We all know what baptism does.

According to the Catechism:

The fruit of Baptism, or baptismal grace, is a rich reality that includes:

forgiveness of original sin and all personal sins,
birth into the new life by which man becomes an adoptive son of the Father, a member of Christ and a temple of the Holy Spirit.

By this very fact the person baptized is

incorporated into the Church, the Body of Christ, and
made a sharer in the priesthood of Christ [CCC 1279].

So, as you can see, it’s quite clear why Jesus would need to be baptized. He . . . hey, wait!

Jesus didn’t need to achieve any of those things!

Why, then, was he baptized?

Why did he insist on it, even when John the Baptist resisted?

The Answer

Here’s a short video to explain . . .

(Click here to watch the video on YouTube.)

What Now?

If you like the information I’ve presented here, you should join my Secret Information Club.

If you’re not familiar with it, the Secret Information Club is a free service that I operate by email.

I send out information on a variety of fascinating topics connected with the Catholic faith.

In fact, the very first thing you’ll get if you sign up is information about what Pope Benedict said about the book of Revelation.

He had a lot of interesting things to say!

If you’d like to find out what they are, just sign up at www.SecretInfoClub.com or use this handy sign-up form:

Just email me at jimmy@secretinfoclub.com if you have any difficulty.

In the meantime, what do you think?

Are We Re-Crucifying Jesus in the Mass?

Are we re-crucifying Christ at every Mass?

Anti-Catholics often charge that Catholics “re-crucify” Jesus through the sacrifice of the Mass.

If we were, that would be a problem, because the Bible repeatedly indicates that Jesus suffered and died “once for all.”

What’s really going on here?

How should we understand the relationship of the Mass to the sacrifice of the Cross?

Question from a Reader

Some time ago, I got the following question from a reader:

You know the way non-Catholics always say we are re-doing the crucifixion at every Mass.

I want to say, “No, we’re re-doing the Last Supper (as He said to do).”

At the Last Supper, Christ is pre-presenting the Calvary sacrifice, so if they could participate in it ahead of time, why can’t we participate in it after that time?

So my question is: Is it accurate to say that the Mass is a re-enactment of the Last Supper, rather than of the crucifixion?

There’s a sense in which it’s a re-enactment of both, but I think the reader is on to something here. The way a current Mass re-enacts the two is not the same.

Last Supper, Crucifixion, Mass Today

To flesh out the idea, we need to consider the relationship between three events:

· The Last Supper (a.k.a. The First Mass)

· The Crucifixion

· Any particular Mass being held today

Obviously, all three of these are related to each other, but the nature of the relationship differs.

The Masses (the first one and contemporary ones) make present the sacrifice of the Cross in a special sense.

The Catechism Speaks

KEEP READING.

Is It Okay to Force a Woman You’ve Captured to Marry You?

Sabine_Women_01 — Suppose you've captured a woman in wartime. Is it okay to force her to marry you?

Sometimes atheists claim that God endorses rape because Deuteronomy says it’s okay to force women you’ve captured in wartime to marry you.

Is that true?

Let’s look at the issue . . .

Captive Brides

(NOTE: This post is part of a series on the “dark passages” of the Bible. Click here to see all of the posts in the series.)

Several years ago I was in an art museum with the children of a family I’m friends with.

We were in the classical art section when, suddenly, the four-year old at my knee asked, “Where are those men taking those women?”

I bent down to look at the painting that was oddly hung at her eye-level (!) and realized it was a depiction of an event from early Roman history, the Abduction of the Sabine Women.

Not knowing how to break this down in a chaste way for a four-year old, I said: “Uhh . . . to have fun.”

“Okay,” she said.

Of course, there was more to it than that.

Specifically, the early Romans who participated in the abduction were engaging in a practice that was somewhat common in the ancient world, and even in some parts of the world today: obtaining a bride by capturing one.

Wikipedia has an article on this, in case you’re interested. (There are even captive grooms, though that is much less common, unless you count old-fashioned “shotgun weddings.”)

What are we to make of this in a Judeo-Christian context?

KEEP READING.

Should Babies Be Denied Baptism Just Because It’s Advent?

infantbaptism — Should babies be denied baptism just because it's Advent?

You sometimes hear about people being asked to delay receiving the sacraments because they are not performed at certain times of year–like Advent or Lent or Holy Week or Good Friday or other days.

There are a few restrictions on the times when sacraments can be celebrated, but not as many as people think.

Recently I was asked whether it’s possible for babies to be baptized during Advent, which is almost upon us.

Here’s the story . . .

KEEP READING.

Can You Attend the Catholic Wedding of a Non-Practicing Catholic?

A reader writes:

I am caught in the odd–maybe not uncommon–situation of my Catholic godson getting married in the Church to a non-Catholic, yet, based on reasonable presumption, not living a Catholic life, not attending Mass, not having anything to with the Church practically, etc. and presumably having no intention of doing so in the future.

If my presumptions noted above are accurate, I find it distasteful to be “using” the sacraments this way.

Perhaps, my godson will even be engaged in receiving the Sacrament of Marriage in mortal sin, thereby sacrilegiously receiving it.

Yet, it appears, my godson is being faithful to the Church’s mind since he is bound to be married in the Church, and he is doing so.

Despite the fact the Church still requires him to be married in the Church, is there not something to be said for witnessing to the seriousness of what is taking place by deciding my godson is not at the point of taking it seriously enough and therefore not attending?

Alternatively put, as godfather, might it be wrong or even sinful for me to be present and witness to my godson that he can act like a Catholic for this ceremony and then go on about his business as a non-practicing Catholic?

Thoughts on any or all of these fronts?

I take a strict line on attending weddings that are presumptively invalid. I never advise people to go to those because of the signal it will send to the participants–and others.

But if the marriage is presumptively valid, I don’t view it that way at all.

Who Else Is “Showing Up”?

After all, if God is willing to show up for the marriage (i.e., make it valid), and if the Church is willing to show up for the marriage (i.e., witness it, which is what the Church does, since the sacrament is performed by the parties themselves), then you should be able to as well.

I understand the distaste of a situation where the person may be celebrating a sacrament in a sacrilegious way (i.e., in a state of mortal sin). But the fact is that the sacrament will still be valid. God will still cause it to come into existence.

Big Trouble!

That’s a good thing because lots and lots of people are not in a state of grace at the time they get married.

That’s been the case since marriage between baptized persons was made a sacrament (and, frankly, it was the case even before marriage could be sacramental).

If not being in a state of grace invalidated marriage then we would be in big trouble.

So God has determined that, though it grieves him the parties are in a state of mortal sin, he is willing to go ahead and make their union a sacrament.

The Church’s Pastoral Judgment

The Church has also judged it pastorally prudent to go ahead and conduct such weddings, perhaps in part because it will help the people in question maintain contact with the Church and, though they aren’t leading a Catholic life now, the fact that the Church was willing ot marry them may help them return to the Catholic ife of faith later.

Marriages, like funerals and baptisms, are one of those moments in a person’s life that get really emotionally charged, and if they get alienated at that moment, it can do enormous–perhaps permanent and fatal–damage to their relationship with Christ’s Church.

As a result, the Church has judged it pastorally prudent to marry such people, even though the situation is not what it should be.

A Godfather’s Role

I would counsel you to do likewise. In other words, if you can reasonably go, go! Particularly in light of the fact you are the gentleman’s godfather. Like the priest or deacon who officiates at the wedding, you are also an official representative of the Church to this young man, and I would show the same attitude that the Church does.

In fact, staying away as a way of making a statement about the young man’s practice of his faith would send a mixed message that could appear to put you in opposition to the Church on this point. As a godfather to this young man, that’s a signal you don’t want to send.

I would also bear in mind that the young man may not be in mortal sin–or at least he may not incur a new mortal sin by getting married this way. If he is like many young people today, he may lack the knowledge needed to realize his situation, and thus one of the needed requirements for a mortal sin may be missing.

Ways to Help?

This is not to say that you might not be able to do things to help the young man.

Depending on your relationship with him (and this is always a judgment call), you might invite him to see this as an opportunity to renew and grow closer to his faith.

You might even mention going to confession before getting married, to make sure he’s right with God before undertaking this sacred step. (Though you might also check first to see if this is covered as part of his marriage prep, in which case you don’t need to bring it up).

If you yourself went to confession before getting married, you might speak of how it meant a lot to you to be able to approach the altar knowing that you were right with God–or whatever you think might best help him.

The Bottom Line

In any event, if you can reasonably go, I would say go–especially in view of the fact that you are his godfather.

If God and the Church are doing their parts to help him have a valid marriage, I think it would be a good idea for his godfather to do so as well, despite the understandable concerns and discomfort about the way the situation appears.

I hope this helps, and I encourage people to keep the young couple–and all in similar situations–in their prayers.

Can You Pour out the Precious Blood?

When the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ at Mass, the change is permanent. It remains so long as the appearances of bread and wine do.

This has implications for how we treat the consecrated elements after Mass is over. Hosts that remain are stored in a Tabernacle, but what about the Precious Blood?

It cannot normally be reserved (the only exception being when it will be taken to the sick, and then special precautions have to be taken to keep it from spilling).

If there is a quantity of the Precious Blood left and it cannot be reserved, what are you supposed to do?

Pouring the Precious Blood into a Sacrarium?

Some have suggested pouring it out–not out on the ground or down an ordinary drain but down a special kind of sink known as a sacrarium.

Sacraria are typically found in the sacristy of a church, and they differ from an ordinary sink in a crucial respect: Instead of draining into the local sewer system, they drain down into the earth.

Sacraria are used for a variety of purposes, including these:

To dispose of ashes from objects that have been blessed and then destroyed by fire
To dispose of the water that has been used to wash the altar linens
To dispose of water that has been used to dissolve small particles of the host
To dispose of water that has been used to clean up places where the Precious Blood has spilled

Except for the first example, which deals with the ashes of former blessed objects, the other examples cited deal with water that is known to have or may have come into contact with the consecrated elements (since small particles of the host might be on the altar linens).

Given that, can you use the sacrarium to dispose of the Precious Blood itself? After all, it’s not like you’re pouring it into the sewer. You would be pouring it into something specially intended to deal with the remains of sacred things, right? So can you do this?

No. You can’t.

Throwing Away the Consecrated Species

It’s one thing to pour water into the sacrarium, even if that water has been used to dissolve the consecrated species. In that case, the appearances of bread and wine no longer remain, and so the Real Presence does not remain, either. It is another thing entirely to use it to throw away the consecrated species themselves.

According to the Code of Canon Law,

Canon 1367 A person who throws away the consecrated species or who takes them or retains them for a sacrilegious purpose incurs an automatic (latae sententiae) excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See; if a cleric, he can be punished with another penalty including dismissal from the clerical state.

This offense is one of those graviora delicta (graver offenses) that is reserved to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, as noted in the instruction Redemptoinis Sacramentum, which provides:

[172.] Graviora delicta against the sanctity of the Most August Sacrifice and Sacrament of the Eucharist are to be handled in accordance with the ‘Norms concerning graviora delicta reserved to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’, namely:

a) taking away or retaining the consecrated species for sacrilegious ends, or the throwing them away;

Pouring the Precious Blood into a sacrarium counts as throwing away the consecrated species, and so it cannot be done.

It Is Explicitly Forbidden

Recently I was questioned on this point by a member of the Secret Information Club, who had gotten the communique I send to members on the worst liturgical abuses (the graviora delicta). Citing the section where I said one can’t pour the Precious Blood into a sacrarium, the member wrote:

I believe you may have an error regarding the pouring of the Precious Blood. It’s forbidden to pour it down the sewer system, not the other way around.

I understand that people have been given incorrect information on this in some parishes, and there is a difference between a sacrarium and a sink that drains into the sewer system, but the point remains. In fact, pouring the Precious Blood into a sacrarium is explicitly forbidden in Remptionis Sacramentum, which provides:

[107.] In accordance with what is laid down by the canons, “one who throws away the consecrated species or takes them away or keeps them for a sacrilegious purpose, incurs a latae sententiae [automatic] excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See; a cleric, moreover, may be punished by another penalty, not excluding dismissal from the clerical state”.

To be regarded as pertaining to this case is any action that is voluntarily and gravely disrespectful of the sacred species.

Anyone, therefore, who acts contrary to these norms, for example casting the sacred species into the sacrarium or in an unworthy place or on the ground, incurs the penalties laid down.

The good news, for anyone who has done this innocently not knowing that they shouldn’t, is that the excommunication does not apply to them (CIC 1323, no. 2).

But the rule remains: No pouring the Precious Blood down a sacrarium.

What You Are Supposed to Do

The actual answer is that any remaining amount of the Precious Blood should be consumed. Section 107 of Redemptionis Sacramentum continues:

Furthermore all will remember that once the distribution of Holy Communion during the celebration of Mass has been completed, the prescriptions of the Roman Missal are to be observed, and in particular, whatever may remain of the Blood of Christ must be entirely and immediately consumed by the Priest or by another minister, according to the norms, while the consecrated hosts that are left are to be consumed by the Priest at the altar or carried to the place for the reservation of the Eucharist.

Want to Learn More?

This is precisely the kind of thing I cover in my Secret Information Club mailings. If you’re not already a member, you can learn more at www.SecretInfoClub.com or sign up using this form:

Be sure to email me at jimmy@secretinfoclub.com if you have any trouble.