I HAVE A QUESTION - FR. HUGH BARBOUR, O.PRAEM

Are there strings attatched?
How to go to confession, do canonized saints go to purgatory, and other questions from our readers.

Question: My grandmother, who was taught the Faith from the Baltimore Catechism, told me that there is no way that a baby who dies without baptism can go to Heaven. She said that such a baby goes to a place called "limbo" where it is happy, but only in a natural way and not by seeing God in the beatific vision like the saints. But I read in the new Catechism that we can hope that there is a way that they can go to heaven. Has the Church changed?

Answer: Here's what the Catechism says: "The Church does not know of any means other than baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude. As regards children who have died without baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them . . the great mercy of God allows us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without baptism." (CCC 1257-1261) This is not essentially different from the Baltimore Catechism your grandmother learned. In fact, the Roman Catechism of the Council of Trent did not even mention limbo or the question of the salvation of unbaptized infants, so the older catechisms in use when your grandmother was a child, and even the new Catechism, supplement Trent's teaching on the issue of salvation and baptism.

There have been, since the time of St. Augustine, various attempts to explain theologically the fate of unbaptized infants. St. Thomas and his followers held and taught the classical explanation of limbo, which you were taught. At the time of the Council of Trent, Cardinal Cajetan held the view that the desire of the parents to have their child baptized would be sufficient in the case of the child's death.

Although there are other explanations, here's the traditional and very consoling interpretation of the doctrine of limbo. First, remember that limbo is a doctrine very well developed and supported by theologians down through the centuries who have, in the words of the Catechism, "hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without baptism" (CCC 1261). In his book (published in French in 1959) The Salvific Will of God Towards Infants and Small Children, the great Swiss Cardinal, Charles Journet (A.D. 1891-1975), one of the few men made a cardinal because of his theological expertise, explained the doctrine of limbo in terms of salvation. According to Journet, children in limbo share in salvation because of the resurrection of Christ, in which it is absolutely certain they will share. Thus along with the natural happiness which is theirs because of their innocence, they will have the gifts of immortality and a happy social life with the rest of the human race, in particular with their parents. The fact that they don't share in the beatific vision does not deprive them of the other real and necessary elements of human happiness, or the happy association with those who do possess the beatific vision. Cardinal Journet says they will know and love Christ as the cause of their resurrection. Their resurrection will be their share in the salvation won by Christ for the human race of which they are a part. This view has the happy characteristics of being based only on dogmatic certainties: the resurrection of the dead, the necessity of baptism for supernatural life, and of emphasizing that our salvation consists not only in the supernatural beatific vision, even though this is its essential aspect, but also in the miraculous restoration of natural life, the survival of our person because of Christ's triumph over death.

Question: Here's a simple question that I think will stump you. Since marriage is a necessary, natural institution, it hardly seems necessary for it to be a sacrament. After all, marriage already existed before the sacraments. Why would Our Lord have to make marriage a sacrament?

Answer: Well, I'm afraid you didn't stump me, but you did give me the opportunity to explain an important issue. There are actually two points that need to be made in answering your question. One is about marriage, the other is about sacraments in general.

In a certain sense, marriage is the original sacrament. St. Paul said, "Husbands should love their wives as they do their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. No one ever hates his own body, but nourishes and fosters it, just as Christ does the Church, since we are members of his body. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife, 'and the two shall be as one flesh.' This is a great sacrament, I mean it regards Christ and the Church" (Eph. 5:28-32).

Marriage symbolizes the union between God and the human race, a unity that is the purpose for which we were created. That's why St. Paul cites Genesis 2 and relates the natural institution of marriage directly to the spousal relationship between Christ and the Church. This union was intended "from the beginning" to be realized in Christ the Incarnate Son of God, the Bridegroom of the Church, his mystical Body. St. Thomas Aquinas points out that the marriage of our first parents, Adam and Eve, was a sacrament signifying the union of Christ and the Church to be consummated in the glory of heaven (Summa Theologiae II-II, q.2, a.7). This means that marriage was already in a sense a "sacrament" pointing to Christ even before Adam and Eve, the first married couple, fell into sin.

Many Catholics forget that there have always been sacraments, instituted by God to express faith in Christ and the effects of faith in Him. All the rites and observances of the Old Covenant, circumcision, sacrifices, and so on, were "sacraments" of faith in the coming Savior and Messiah. These Old Testament "sacraments" symbolized and pointed toward the effects of His future coming. Yet all of these were established by God after the fall, and after the promise of a Redeemer from sin and death. But marriage is different. It preceded the Fall and was the original sacrament or sign of that union between God and Man. In fact, it was from the start intended by God to be an efficacious, that is "truly effective," cause of grace. If there had been no Fall of Adam, sanctifying grace would have been transmitted simply by natural generation, the union of husband and wife. The priesthood and worship would have been a family matter under the priesthood of the Father of the household. So when Our Lord made the marriage a sacrament of the New Covenant, He was only bringing to perfection an institution which had always been in some sense a sacrament of God's love for the human race. It's interesting to note that the sacrament of marriage is the only sacrament which is discussed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church in terms of the whole history of our race, from creation before the fall until Christ (CCC 1601-1617). Marriage is the primordial sacrament.

Now, in the light of all this you might ask, "So what's new and different about Christ's institution of marriage as a sacrament of the New Covenant?" Christ came into the world to overcome sin and death, things about which Adam and Eve were happily unaware on their "wedding day," and so marriage in Christ is not only a sign of God's union with humanity, but most particularly sign of the sacrificial love of the Cross. St. Thomas teaches that all the sacraments in some way indicate the power of Christ's suffering and death. In the mutual offering of their lives and bodies one to the other, man and woman in marriage share in the love of Christ on the Cross. The liturgy of the Roman Church shows this beautifully in the Mass for the Celebration of Marriage, when the special "nuptial blessing" of the couple is given after the Our Father as the Body and Blood of the Lord are lying in sacrifice on the altar. It is then that the Church prays for the fruitfulness and fidelity of their union, uniting the mutual offering of the man and woman with the offering of Christ's Body. As any faithful Catholic married couple will tell you, there is always some cross to bear in wedded life. The Holy Sacrament of Matrimony unites these to the Cross of Christ, the Bridegroom of his Church.

Question: I noticed a statue of Mary stepping on a snake. I asked the owner of the store to explain what this meant. She said that in Genesis 3:15 the Lord said that Mary would someday crush the serpent's head, the serpent being the devil. I checked this in my Bible (a Catholic version that I bought at the same shop). But Genesis 3:15 doesn't say that. It says that the seed of the woman would crush the serpent's head. I understand this to be Jesus Christ, not Mary. So, how can that statue of Mary with the serpent be justified?

Answer: In the Book of Genesis 3:15 God speaks to the serpent after the fall of Adam and Eve into sin, "I will put enmity between you and the woman, between your seed and her seed; He shall crush your head and you shall lie in wait for his heel." This is a correct translation of the original Hebrew text and the traditional text of the Septuagint, the Greek Old Testament. But two ancient translations, the Latin Vulgate (revised by St. Jerome) and the ancient Coptic version (Coptic is the Egyptian language used prior to the Arab Muslim invasions), read, "She shall crush your head." But current editions of the Bible in modern languages, translations from the original languages, all follow the translation "He shall crush."

Now, in order to understand why Our Lady is depicted crushing the serpent, you need to know that the whole of Christian tradition in any language of East or West interprets that passage as a prophecy of the coming of the Messiah or Savior, Jesus Christ, the "seed of the woman." He is the Second or New Adam, and His Mother Mary, because she was completely free from sin, both original and actual, is the new Eve, the only woman who has a perfect enmity with the devil. This passage, sometimes referred to as the Protoevangelium (Greek = "first Gospel") is the first announcement of the Good News of Salvation after the Bad News of Sin and Death. Many popes, including the Pope John Paul II, have repeatedly interpreted this passage in a prophetic sense, referring to Christ and Mary. Take a look, for example, at Pope John Paul II's Marian encyclical Redemptoris Mater. The Catechism's teaching on this passage is found in paragraphs 70, 410, and 411.

Some Scripture scholars deny that this passage refers to Jesus or Mary. They see the literal sense of this verse only as a popular folk tale, written as a way to explain why humans are afraid of snakes! (That's a slippery interpretation if there ever was one.)

Naturally in the Latin tradition, because of the translation "she shall crush," the passage has had a more vivid Marian meaning. That's where the tradition of depicting Mary crushing the head of the serpent arose. But it's a very apt and theologically precise image, nonetheless, since it's a perfect image of her Immaculate Conception, her lifelong immunity from sin, won for her by Christ's saving passion and death on the cross (cf. Luke 1:47). This is one reason why the new liturgy of the Roman Rite, promulgated at Vatican II, retains the reading "she will crush your head." It is part of the antiphon (a short thematic verse) used for Mass on the Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception. It's part of the Church's tradition, a witness to the Blessed Virgin Mary's special role in her Divine Son's plan of salvation.

Question: A couple of weeks ago in our parish Mass there was a large quantity of the Precious Blood remaining after a communion. Instead of drinking it, the leader of our squad of Eucharistic Ministers decided to pour it down a special sink in the sacristy which he said was made just for this purpose. Is this allowed? It seemed so irreverent to pour the Eucharist out like that.

Answer: Although the extraordinary minister of the Eucharist may have had good intentions, objectively to treat the Precious Blood in that way is a terrible sacrilege. The bishops of the United States have established norms recognized by the Holy See which are the minimum to be followed in the reverent treatment of the sacrament of the Precious Blood. Their Directory for the Celebration and Reception of Communion Under Both Kinds, promulgated in 1984, states: "Ministers shall always show the greatest reverence for the eucharistic species by their demeanor and in the manner in which they handle the consecrated bread or wine. Should there be any mishap, for example if the consecrated wine is spilled from the chalice, the area should be washed and the water poured into the sacrarium. After Communion, the eucharistic bread that remains is to be stored in the tabernacle. Care should be taken in regard to any fragments remaining on the corporal or in the sacred vessels. In those instances when there remains more consecrated wine than was necessary, the ministers shall consume it immediately at a side table before the Prayer After Communion, while the vessels themselves may be purified after Mass. The amount of wine to be consecrated should be carefully measured before the celebration so that none remains afterward . . . It is strictly prohibited to pour the Precious Blood into the ground or into the sacrarium (paragraphs 34-36, 38, emphases added).

The "sacrarium" is a special sink in the sacristy of most churches used for the disposal of sacred things that are no longer usable, for example, holy water, blessed ashes, and so on. The Blessed Sacrament is never "disposed" of. It must always be consumed (eaten or drunk) by a priest, deacon, an appointed minister, or one of the faithful.

In the introduction to the norms just quoted, the bishops give a clear and classical presentation of the Catholic dogma concerning the substantial and permanent presence of Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament. Perhaps if we priests were as eager to give instruction in the sublime mysteries of the Faith as we are to involve the laity in various liturgical ministries, such horrible practices wouldn't occur nearly as often as they do.

Question: If homosexuality were found to be a genetic trait, would the Church then be willing to change its teaching that homosexuality is "unnatural and sinful"? After all, a person can hardly be blamed for a drive that is innate.

Answer: No, the Church wouldn't change its teaching. Here's why. The Catechism explains that a great number of modern moral and social errors are based on a lack of an understanding of the fact that human beings have a fallen nature, caused by the inheritance of Original Sin (CCC 407). Modern-day errors and misconceptions about homosexuality stem from this same problem. Let's analyze the reasons why homosexuality is unnatural.

First, remember that human nature is a composite of body and soul. We're not purely spiritual or purely physical in our makeup. Every aspect of human experience is shaped by both of these elements of our nature. So, while science (in this case, genetic science) asserts that just about everything about us, positive or negative, is the result of some bodily, genetic trait, faith tells us that we must also take into account the spiritual dimension, the inheritance of Original Sin and its effects. This means we tend, in addition to our good and truly natural inclinations, to have a strong tendency toward evil, to excess in the fulfillment of our desires for pleasure, power, possessions, and reputation. The Catechism says, "As a result of original sin human nature is weakened in its powers subject to ignorance, suffering, and the domination of death; and inclined to sin . . . We therefore hold with the Council of Trent, that Original Sin is transmitted with human nature, 'by propagation, not by imitation' and that it is proper to each" (CCC 418-419). Obviously, Christian moral teaching doesn't justify sinning simply because we have an inherited tendency to sin! To use a physical analogy, no one would regard blindness or a deformity as "good" or "natural" just because a person is born with such a condition. A blind man isn't blamed for his blindness, but he's expected, nonetheless, to live in accordance with the reality of the visible world. This same principle is true in the area of moral "deformities." Even though we might be born with a certain physical, mental, or emotional handicap, we must always seek to struggle against our weaknesses and conform our behavior to the moral order God established.

The tendency to homosexuality is a source of temptation to sin. As a temptation, it must be resisted, no matter what its origin. This is true for all people, regardless of whether they are heterosexual or homosexual. We could see this more clearly, perhaps, if scientists were to discover a gene which predisposes people to theft or violence. This might explain the person's heightened tendency to steal cars and punch people, but it doesn't thereby provide a license for that person to commit those acts.

Homosexuality appears to be caused by a multiplicity of factors: circumstance, experience, deliberate choice, and even, perhaps, a genetic trait. The Catechism points out that the absolute prohibition of homosexual acts is unrelated to the origin of the tendency or even the number of persons so afflicted (CCC 2357-2359).

Question: I guess it makes sense to visit the tombs of the saints, just like one would visit the graves of loved ones, but this business of dividing up the bodies of the saints to provide relics all around the world seems revolting and irreverent to me. Why does the Catholic Church permit the bodies of the saints to be cut up? Wouldn't it be more reverent to leave them intact?

Answer: I can understand your feelings, but this ancient practice is quite reverent. In The Martyrdom of Polycarp (A.D. 156), who was a disciple of St. John the Apostle and the teacher of St. Irenaeus, condemned to burn at the stake in witness to the true faith, we read, "Afterwards taking up his bones, which were more exquisite than the most precious gems and more pure than fire-tried gold, we deposited them fittingly. In which place each year the Lord will grant us, as we gather in exultation and joy, to celebrate the anniversary of his martyrdom." It was from such celebrations in honor of the martyrs that the practice of the veneration of relics began. Since the celebration of the Mass became part of the celebration of the anniversaries or "birthdays" of the martyrs, there grew up the practice of placing the altar at or over the martyr's grave, or even placing the martyr inside the altar. The Christians saw this practice as an earthly symbol of the heavenly worship described in the Book of Revelation 6:9: "I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God and for the testimony which they held." The holy souls of the martyrs were in heaven under the altar which is the body of the risen Christ; their bodies were on earth under the sacramental altar of Christ's sacrifice. St. Ambrose (A.D. 333-397) comments on this passage of Revelation as he speaks of the practice of placing the bodies of the martyrs under the altar in one of his letters, "Let the triumphant victims be placed at the spot where Christ is the victim. Yet He is placed over the altar because He suffered for all, they are under the altar, who were redeemed by His suffering" (Letter 22, 15). Naturally, as the Faith spread, Christians in places where no martyrs were buried wanted to have relics of the martyrs for their altars. Thus there began the custom of more ancient local churches giving a portion of the relics of the martyrs to other, newer communities for their altars. As the custom became more widespread, and the number of altars in churches increased, the relics became smaller and smaller. One has to understand the division of the bodies of the saints into such tiny portions in the light of this gradual development. This wasn't ghoulish or irreverent.

Eventually, the celebration of Holy Mass on the relics of the martyrs became a requirement of Church law in both the Latin and Greek Churches.

There is ample evidence for the veneration of the relics of the saints apart from the Mass and liturgy. Their bodies were temples of the Holy Spirit, and the intensity of the holiness of the saints makes their relics powerful reminders and even channels of the grace of Christ which we share with them in the communion of saints, the church and Body of Christ. If mere pieces of cloth which had been touched to the apostles had the power to heal the sick as we can read in Acts 19, 11-12, then we can expect great graces from the veneration of the bones of the saints, even the grace of the resurrection of the dead as we can read in the Old Testament in 2 Kings 13, 20-21. For someday these bodies, even though scattered, will rise gloriously in the likeness of the risen Christ. Thus relics are also the "places" of a future miracle which we know will occur with the certainty of faith. Our veneration of them is also a profession of faith in the resurrection of the body through the power of God, who is "wonderful in His saints" (Psalm 68, 26).

Send your questions to Fr. Hugh Barbour at: I Have A Question, Envoy Magazine, P.O. Box 640, Granville, OH 43023. E-mail to editor@envoymagazine.com.