Not God’s Chastisement

Msgr. Charles Pope, the author of “There’s Biblical Precedent for Increased Violence” (In Depth, Dec. 27 issue) and “A ‘Dangerous’ Post on the Recent Terrorist Attacks,”(NCRegister.com, Dec. 6), suggested a “biblical theme” could apply today — that God might be permitting “increased violence ... as a kind of chastisement on the increasingly secular West for our unbelief.” The “biblical theme” involved only the relationship between God and Jews.

The Old Testament people lacked intimate knowledge of God. Even those who greatly loved God believed their problems were a punishment. In contrast, the New Covenant gave us God-made-man — Jesus Christ, the Son of God — a Savior who redeemed every human, offering all mankind God’s forgiveness and invitation to eternity in heaven. God made provision for all his children on earth, testifying to his infinite goodness, love and mercy.

God would not countenance violence, murder or terrorism for any reason. Punishment for sin is the loss of heaven — of God’s love. Christ was born at that particular time in preparation for future races and populations on earth. Moses and Elijah gave witness to Christ at the Transfiguration. Christianity alone represents and worships the blessed Trinity. No one can go to God except through Jesus Christ.

Christians were given the sacrament of reconciliation to obtain God’s forgiveness. It places responsibility for sin on the individual who commits it — making each individual responsible for his or her immortal soul. Roman Catholicism does not make guesses about the salvation of souls. God’s directives about sin are clear. “Individual responsibility” presupposes the sinner knows his or her sins without requiring an adjustment to the sacrament — making priests responsible for accommodating some sins. Only those who believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ may share in his redemption. The members of religions that are still waiting for a Savior should understand they cannot use the same gate to gain “rewards in heaven.”

Godless governments legalized four mortal sins — abortion, sodomy, euthanasia and same-sex “marriage.” East and West [cultures] — Catholicism is not collectively responsible for the godless deviance that dominates and victimizes — prevent human life through contraceptives, sodomy and same-sex relationships and kills through abortion and euthanasia. The resultant violence, random killings and terrorism are extended manifestations of the legalized deviance. It is not God’s chastisement. Our good and just God gave humanity his commandments and teaching in antiquity — to prevent the terrible consequences that human sin and error always produce.

         Ruth Ruhl-LaMusga

         Chico, California

 

Who Is the Pharisee?

Relevant to your coverage on the synod on marriage and the family (Nov. 1 issue): Since the synod, some bishops and theologians seem to be accusing others of being Pharisees and coldhearted legalists for insisting on the letter of the law in pastoral practice regarding the doctrine of the indissolubility of marriage.

But is it pharisaical to insist that Jesus’ command regarding marriage (Matthew 19) is non-negotiable? Or is it, rather, pharisaical to treat Jesus’ unambiguous command as an abstract “Church law” that can be finessed through casuistry to countermand precisely what Jesus commands?

Jesus accused the Pharisees of creating such moral loopholes in the law, of pitting the letter of the law against its spirit, in order to be able to disregard the law in practice while appearing to uphold it as doctrine. Thus, it seems it is the “Cardinal Kasper proposal” and initiatives like it that are pharisaical, and not the effort to uphold Jesus’ command as a unity of spirit and letter. Jesus has infinite compassion on our moral weakness. Yet he abrogated Moses’ law that accommodated our moral weakness regarding marriage and divorce. He reaffirmed God’s original, non-negotiable plan for marriage. Is Moses more “merciful” than Jesus? No. But Jesus, unlike Moses, does not balance mercy against God’s command for marriage.

Jesus’ mercy is intrinsic to his upholding of God’s command (Romans 3:25-26). And our appropriation of Jesus’ mercy requires we resolve to do the same in our lives: to uphold God’s command regarding marriage. People who desire full communion with the Church are capable of understanding why such communion cannot be unconditional.

The community of the Church is constituted by Christ, both present and received in the Eucharist. Receiving the Eucharist while remaining attached, even only objectively, to grave sin has real consequences, as Paul points out in 1 Corinthians. It is not only just, but merciful, for the Church to proscribe this. To enter a presumably invalid second marriage is not just a one-off personal sin. It is the establishment of structural sin, a kind of institutionalization of adultery. The grave sin I remain attached to, through my full involvement in this ongoing situation, can have no part in constituting the Church. Therefore, I cannot receive sacramental Communion. If I really want to be part of Christ’s community, why would I demand that he change the way he constitutes it?

          Karen Winterburn

          Glenview, Illinois