Adultery, the death penalty, and other thorny issues.

Who are you and why are you answering questions this month?

Q I understand the Church’s position on divorce. However, there is a phrase in the Bible where it says clearly that divorce is never right “except in the case of adultery.” In different translations, the word is not adultery, but something similar. I know there are other places that state divorce is never acceptable, and no exceptions are mentioned in those passages. I tried to quote to friends that divorce is never acceptable; however, my cousin showed me in four different common biblical translations the statement about “except for adultery” in the same verse. I have still never received a satisfactory explanation, although I have asked several priests.

A The passage you refer to is found twice in Matthew: 5:32 and 19:9. Effectively, Protestant interpreters and the Orthodox Church generally think it means that divorce, and remarriage, is allowed if the other spouse has been guilty of adultery. Now, first of all, whatever it says about divorce, I can see no mention of remarriage here. St. Paul does, though, and he explicitly forbids it in very solemn fashion in 1 Corinthians 7:10-11: “To the married I give this ruling, and this is not mine, but the Lord’s: a wife must not be separated from her husband — or, if she has already left him, she must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband — and a husband must not divorce his wife” (New Jerusalem Bible, emphasis added). Contrast this with the next passage, where St. Paul gives “instructions [which] are my own, not the Lord’s” (v. 12).
Translators have always struggled with St. Matthew’s version, so though you have been shown four translations that say “except for adultery,” I could show you another five that render it differently: “except for unchastity” (RSV Catholic version and NRSV); “except for fornication” (Jerusalem Bible); “I am not speaking of an illicit marriage” (New Jerusalem Bible); “unless the marriage is unlawful” (New American Bible); “not in [the case of] an unlawful union” (The Alba House Gospels). Translation always includes interpretation.

“Except for fornication” might be the most literally accurate translation; the last three, though they constitute something of a paraphrase, best indicate what it means. In other words, “except in the case of concubinage.” The respected Jerome Biblical Commentary thinks this is the most convincing and probable meaning.

There are at least three strong points in favor of this interpretation, and I think they are hard to argue with. First of all, an “exception” would be completely at odds with Jesus’ argument: God has joined man and woman in marriage, so man may not undo that union. He would be supporting the very exception he was criticizing!

Second, the parallel texts in Mark (10:11) and Luke (16:18) make no such exception, nor does St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 7:10-11. They would hardly have ignored such an important exception, if it were one. Indeed, as we have seen, St. Paul explicitly contradicts it. Sacred Scripture is harmonious, and cannot contradict itself.

Third, the word used by Matthew (porneia) actually means “prostitution” or “unchastity” in a general sense. Though it could be translated “adultery,” this would be a very unlikely, awkward and rather nonsensical translation, since it would have Jesus saying that “he who dismisses his wife, except for adultery, makes her commit adultery.” In other words, as the Jerome Biblical Commentary puts it, He would be saying, “The divorced wife commits adultery unless she has already committed adultery.” Certainly wouldn’t get any style marks in Creative Writing 101.

Moreover, the specific term for adultery (moicheia) is used in the same passage (and everyone translates it “adultery”): “anyone who divorces his wife, except for porneia, commits moicheia” (Matt. 5:32). So you would have to say that “except for adultery” is actually the least likely translation.

Q I understand there has been a recent change in the Catholic Church’s teaching on capital punishment. Can you explain (1) the Catholic Church’s position up to John Paul II’s pontificate, (2) what the Pope and the bishops are currently teaching, and (3) why the change does not contradict papal infallibility regarding faith and morals?

A The 1891 Baltimore Catechism (Q. 1276) can serve as a representative of the Church’s teaching up to the time of Pope Paul VI: “Human life may be lawfully taken [b]y the lawful execution of a criminal, fairly tried and found guilty of a crime punishable by death when the preservation of law and order and the good of the community require such execution.” Pope Paul VI began to demonstrate a strong personal repugnance to the death penalty. Pope John Paul II has put it down in writing, so to speak.

The first edition of the Catechism of the Catholic Church acknowledged that the traditional teaching of the Church did not exclude the death penalty “in cases of extreme gravity,” with the proviso that “if bloodless means are sufficient . . . public authority should limit itself to such means.” A couple of years after the Catechism was published, Pope John Paul II wrote the encyclical Evangelium Vitae. Cardinal Ratzinger stated then that the position taken by the Catechism had been further defined (in the direction of leaving practically no room for exceptions) by the Holy Father’s teaching in the encyclical, and that the “typical” (normative) edition to be published in Latin would have to be modified to take this into account. It was, and the section now reads, in full:
The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor. If, instead, bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor and to protect the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person. Today, in fact, given the means at the State’s disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender are very rare, if not practically non-existent. (Catechism par. 2266-67)

So, does this change contradict the Church’s infallibility? No, for two reasons. First, “Thou shalt not kill” — more precisely, “thou shalt not kill the innocent” — is clear and unchangeable. But I think it’s probable that the “exceptions” to this rule, such as capital punishment, have never been taught infallibly. And secondly, even if they have been, all that has changed is the application of the principle, not the principle itself. The change consists in the emphasis on the conditions that must be met, so that it is seen more clearly as absolutely a last resort — and one that, in the modern world and especially in countries with a developed penal system, is really never necessary anymore. And if it’s not necessary, it’s not just.

Change can come about in the Church’s defined teaching only in the sense of an evolution of her doctrine in a manner that builds upon and does not contradict previous teaching. It cannot change in the sense of saying the opposite of what was said before, or contradicting it. Nevertheless, the application of the Church’s principles to changed circumstances can lead to conclusions that are, in some sense, the opposite of what might have been concluded forty years ago.

The most powerful expression of this teaching may have been the Holy Father’s words in his homily in St. Louis, Missouri, on January 27, 1999: “The new evangelization calls for followers of Christ who are unconditionally pro-life: who will proclaim, celebrate and serve the Gospel of life in every situation. A sign of hope is the increasing recognition that the dignity of human life must never be taken away, even in the case of someone who has done great evil. Modern society has the means of protecting itself, without definitively denying criminals the chance to reform (cf. Evangelium Vitae, 27). I renew the appeal I made most recently at Christmas for a consensus to end the death penalty, which is both cruel and unnecessary.”

Q Ianpaisley.org, a virulently anti-Catholic website, makes the claim that a recently beatified Archbishop Alojzije Stepinac was responsible for the brutal murder and torture of Orthodox Christians and Protestants during WWII. The site includes graphic photos of people hanging by their necks and a picture of someone they say is Stepinac standing with the Gestapo. I’d like to be able to refute this; can you give me any suggestions?

A Well, you wouldn’t expect anything else from Ian Paisley, Northern Ireland’s leading anti-Catholic for decades. The unfortunate man is so bigoted that I believe Northern Ireland Catholics probably do novenas for his health and long life. He gives bigotry a bad name, even among other bigots!
Alojzije Stepinac was named Archbish-op of Zagreb in 1937, at thirty-nine years of age. In 1938 he founded “Action for Help to Refugees.” He was also the founder of Croatian Caritas, which helped Serbs among others.

A 1944 British Naval Intelligence report on Croatia indicates that “Roman Cath-olic clergy, following the ex-ample of Monsignor Stepinac, the Zagreb Archbishop, energetically protested against Ustasha persecutions of Serbs and Jews, as well as against government attempts of forced conversion to Roman Catholicism.” In fact, Archbishop Stepinac opposed religious conversions forced by the state; but when he could not prevent them, he gave the clergy confidential instructions to accept people into the Catholic Church in order to save their lives without any conditions whatsoever, because “when this time of insanity and barbarity passes, those who converted due to conviction will remain in our Church, while the others, when the danger passes, will return to their own.”

In his sermons during the war years he consistently and fiercely condemned racism, nationalism and injustice. “We have always publicly insisted on the principles of God’s eternal law, whether those involved are Croats, Serbs, Jews, Gypsies, Catholics, Muslims, Orthodox or anyone else” (“Sermon on the Feast of Christ the King,” 1943). “All people whatever their color are God’s children. All of them, without any discrimination whatsoever . . . are equally entitled to say ‘Our Father who art in heaven. . . .’ That is why the Catholic Church has always condemned and still condemns any injustice committed in the name of class, racial or nationalistic theories. Gypsies and Jews must not be exterminated in the name of a theory, which claims that they belong to an inferior race” (from a sermon delivered in Zagreb Cathedral on October 24, 1942).

The Archbishop “paid with sufferings and trials of all kinds for his brave adherence to the Gospel,” Pope John Paul II said. He was — and has continued to be — maliciously attacked and calumniated, ironically by people who espouse, precisely, political theories of a racial and nationalistic stripe.
During his trial by the new Communist government in 1946, he himself wrote a note which states: “Some documents have been falsified: photographs showing me with my hand raised in a Fascist salute and participating at the farewell ceremony of the Croatian legion before its departure for the Black Sea — I was not present at that ceremony, nor did I raise my hands in Fascist salute.” An alleged letter of the former Royal Yugoslav diplomat Dr. Prvislav Grisogono to Archbishop Alojzije Stepinac in 1942, which describes horrendous crimes, is believed to have been forged. These may be the sources of the material you have seen.

His recent beatification was the result of an extremely rigorous and thorough process, leading to a truly informed judgment by the Church that we can have confidence in. Just for good measure, however, here is the judgment, in 1960, of a Moslem Croat writer, Alan Horic: “Centuries of self-denial and hardship have to pass before a nation can produce such an unblemished figure, a shining example to the entire world. Stepinac was the victim of his Croatian and Catholic convictions. . . . And we Muslims saw in him an example of religious consistency” (Hrvatski glas, Winnipeg, February 29, 1960).

“Quickie Q & A’s”

Q What is the church’s official position on someone “donating his or her body to science”? And if it is in the Catechism, where can I find it?

A “The bodies of the dead must be treated with respect and charity, in faith and hope of the Resurrection. . . . The free gift of organs after death is legitimate, and can be meritorious” (par. 2300-01).
Q Why do some dioceses permit general confession as the norm and other bishops prohibit the practice?

A Well, one hopes they don’t. If it’s “the norm,” it’s probably illicit the first time, and it’s not even valid on subsequent occasions, since Catholics must confess their serious sins individually (including those forgiven by general absolution) before receiving general absolution again. However, don’t confuse a communal celebration of the Sacrament of Penance, with individual confession, with general absolution. This can be done without restrictions.

Q As I understand it, the Body and Blood of Christ cannot be placed into breakable objects. Am I correct? I have seen glass used in two parishes.

A Actually, the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (no. 280), and the document Inaestimabile Donum (no. 16), require “solid” or “noble, durable” materials. Many liturgical commentators conclude that this rules out the use of glass. I’m personally not convinced it does. I think it would rule out very fragile glass that might shatter if knocked against by another solid object, but I wouldn’t be sure that one could not use a relatively robust piece of fine crystal. After all, when you give someone a gift of a nice piece of crystal, you do expect it to last, don’t you?

Q Why are innocent babies born with original sin?

A The “sin” in “original sin” is not the same as the “sin” that we confess in the Sacrament of Reconciliation. Innocent babies remain “innocent” inasmuch as they are not “guilty” of anything. Original sin is not a “thing”; in a certain sense it is nothing where there should be something — and that’s the “sin”! God gave Adam and Eve the immense gift of divine life to pass it on to all of us. By their personal sin, they lost it and, as it were, couldn’t pass it on. So we haven’t got the gift of divine life we ought to have, and so neither do we have the pledge of eternal life with God. This deprivation is what we call “original sin.” I recommend reading the whole section on the Fall in the Catechism, par. 385-410.

Q I have heard it said that due to original sin, man continues to sin. However, if at baptism we are cleansed of original sin, shouldn’t that take away our propensity to sin? Also, what is the difference between our Blessed Mother, who was born without original sin, and a newborn who has just been baptized? Are they both free of original sin in the same way?

A Baptism frees us from original sin, the absence of the divine life in us, but not from its “side-effects,” including what Catholic tradition has called “concupiscence” — which is, well, a propensity to sin. Since the Virgin Mary was preserved from original sin to begin with, Christian tradition has understood that she remained free from the inclination to sin also.

Q My parish recently removed the crucifix from the church and replaced it with a risen Christ woodcarving at Easter. I understand the symbolism behind the risen Christ, but I also understand that behind the crucifix. It doesn’t seem the same, however. Isn’t there a Church law stating that a corpus-bearing crucifix must be in each Catholic church? If so, can you provide me the rubrics, canon, or Catechism reference?

A The General Instruction of the Roman Missal, no. 270, requires a cross on or near the altar and “clearly visible to the congregation.” Other liturgical books assume that crosses used in the liturgy will in fact have a “corpus” or figure of the Lord on them. A risen Christ woodcarving is fine, as long as the cross is prominent too. And your ability to distinguish between the two, and their significance, is quite valid!

e