A. The Church does indeed still teach about purgatory. Many people think that the Second Vatican Council abolished the teaching on Purgatory, or at least that post-Vatican II theology has moved beyond it. These people may even see purgatory as an archaic concept, focusing too much on punishment and sin rather than on God’s love. However, Second Vatican Council actually affirmed the belief in Purgatory. In the seventh chapter of the Vatican II document Lumen Gentium (The Sacred Constitution on the Church), the Council states:

Until the Lord shall come in his majesty, and all the angels with him (cf. Mt 25:31) and death being destroyed, all things are subject to him (cf. 1Cor 15:26-27), some of his disciples are exiles on earth, some having died are purified, and others are in glory beholding ‘clearly God himself triune and one, as he is”; but all in various ways and degrees are in communion in the same charity of God and neighbor and all sing the same hymn of glory to our God (LG 49).

Fully conscious of this communion of the whole Mystical Body of Jesus Christ, the pilgrim Church from the very first ages of the Christian religion has cultivated with great piety the memory of the dead, and “because it is a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead that they may be loosed from their sins” (2Mc 12:46), also offering suffrages for them (LG 50).

Furthermore, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, instituted by Pope John Paul II in response to the Second Vatican Council’s call for a renewal in catechesis, explicitly teaches about Purgatory in articles 1030-1032 & 1472. The second edition includes the term “Purgatory” in its glossary, defining it as:

A state of final purification after death and before entrance into heaven for those who died in God’s friendship, but were only imperfectly purified; a final cleansing of human imperfection before one is able to enter the joy of heaven.

So why do some people believe that the Church no longer teaches about Purgatory? I believe that there are a couple points of confusion. The first point of confusion is between Purgatory and “Limbo.  The concept of Limbo is a theological theoretical construct to try to explain what happens to babies who die without the benefit of baptism. The concept of Limbo is an attempt to explain the apparent paradox between the necessity of baptism for salvation, as stated by Christ himself, and the great merciful love of God, which we find it hard to believe would allow him to condemn innocent but unbaptized babies to the eternal loneliness of hell. Limbo was thought to be a place of eternal bliss, where these unbaptized souls enjoy the goodness that comes to us through creation as a sign of God’s love, but are unable to fulfill their happiness by being in God’s presence in an intimate and personal way.This concept was never officially taught by the Church. It was a model used by theologians to account for both sides of the paradox. Therefore, people have always been free to accept or reject it (and as far as I know, people are still free to make this choice). This concept has fallen out of favor with theologians, and is rarely taught today. The truth is that we really don’t know much about God’s judgments – and the Church is always hesitant to define what specific people are in heaven or hell since only God can truly judge the heart. That is why the process of canonization of a saint, which declares that the saint is definitely in heaven, is so complex and careful. We do not know what happens to unbaptized babies. We can only speculate because this is not something that God has chosen to reveal to us. However, the Church does officially teach about Purgatory.

The second point of confusion is between the Church’s teaching about what Purgatory is and theological speculation about how Purgatory will be experienced. Sacred Scripture reveals to us that nothing that is imperfect can be in God’s presence. However, we also know that most of us will die somewhat short of perfection (did you catch the understatement?). Since the effects of grace include healing our sin-damaged nature and elevating it to perfection so that an intimate relationship with God is made possible, we believe that we will truly be perfect as we stand in God’s presence. If we die before the process of conversion to perfection is complete, we believe that God, in His mercy, will complete the process of perfection within us as long as we die in “friendship with God” – without mortal sin. This process of completion is what Purgatory is. Our belief in this act of Grace is validated by Sacred Scripture. The fact that the term Purgatory does not appear in the Bible is beside the point. The term is just a label the Church placed on this concept that is indeed found in the Bible (I’ll post the scripture verses here in the near future). What we do not know, and can only speculate on, is the experience of Purgatory. Purgatory used to be seen as a waiting room or a jail cell where the soul pays reparation for the “temporal punishment for sin” by “doing time.  In fact, some devotionals used to assign a specific number of years in Purgatory for each sin, and a certain number of years that could be taken off of our sentence in Purgatory for an act of indulgence. I do not know much about this practice, and if anyone knows more about it I would really appreciate if you could explain it more clearly by leaving a comment for this post. The vision of Purgatory as a waiting room or a jail cell has somewhat fallen out of favor among post-Vatican II theologians. One reason is the awareness that Purgatory is experienced before the resurrection of our bodies. Without a body, a soul does not experience time in the same way we do now.

One theory that I am personally attracted to is that perhaps Purgatory is actually the experience of the Beatific Vision before our souls are perfectly able to accept God’s love. The effect is like walking outside into the brilliance of a sunny day, especially in winter when the sun reflects off the snow (this happened to me just today). Until our eyes adjust, the light hurts our eyes and causes us pain. Once our eyes adjust, we are able to appreciate the beauty of the sunny day and we are hesitant to go back into the relative darkness of the house. In the same way, God’s glory burns into our imperfect soul and causes suffering because we are not perfectly oriented to receive God’s love. Once our imperfections are burned away, then we are able to enjoy the glory of God’s love. I like this theory because it seems to make sense within human relationships. God intended marriage to be a sign of His relationship with us. When I am not perfectly in tuned to my relationship with my wife (in other words, when I am loving her imperfectly), I sometimes find her love annoying. I cringe when she interrupts my activity and tries to talk with me. I balk when she asks me to do things that are good for me, such as not to forget to take something with me or to do something (and anyone who knows me knows that I need such reminders frequently). In other words, because I am not loving my wife perfectly, her love for me causes me suffering. Only when I focus on burning away the imperfections in my love for her am I able to fully appreciate the beauty of the love that she has for us. Since God’s love for us is infinitely more intense, it stands to reason that it would cause infinitely more suffering as it forces us to face the imperfections of our love for Him. However, this is not a suffering of evil, and it is not eternal suffering. It is a suffering that burns away our imperfections in the fires of love and drives us to attune ourselves to love Him more perfectly, and therefore to receive His love more perfectly. Once this process is done, our “time” in Purgatory is over and we are able to “enter into” the Beatific Vision and enjoy His glory. Keep in mind that this is just a theory to explain how we might experience Purgatory. The important thing is that what Purgatory is has been defined for us by the Church.

Lastly, I must mention that the Church also still teaches the concepts of “temporal punishment for sin” and “indulgences. Properly understanding what these things are is extremely important. To explain temporal punishment for sin, I give my students an analogy. Let’s say you are playing baseball with your friends in the back yard. Your parents have told you many times not to play baseball in the back yard because your yard is too small and you would be playing too close to the house. Sure enough, your disobedience results in the baseball breaking through one of the windows of the house. When your parents confront you with it, you are truly sorry for your disobedience and you beg their forgiveness. Despite their justified anger with you, your parents decide not to disown you. In other words, they forgive you. In fact, they may even be moved by your sincere tears to give you a hug and to bring you comfort in your obvious moral suffering. However, even though they forgive you, the consequences of your sin remain. There is still a broken window that needs to be paid for. A good parent is going to hold you accountable for these consequences, and make you pay for the window. More importantly, a good parent also realizes that the deeper issue than the broken window is that you have a tendency to disobedience. This tendency does not easily go away just because you “learned your lesson” this one time. In fact, without consequences for your disobedience this time, the tendency to disobey may actually increase. Therefore, you parents ground you for a month or two. Far from being a sign of unforgiveness, this punishment is an act of love that shows you that disobedience has consequences on your relationship with your parents. The punishment is intended to motivate you to change that relationship, to get rid of the tendency to disobedience.

These consequences of sin, the direct consequences, the consequence for our own nature and the consequences on our relationship with God, make up temporal punishment for sin. God tells us that we must pay restitution for our sins, and then he adds another punishment (somewhat mysterious in form) to motivate us to get rid of our sinful tendencies to selfishness and disobedience so that we can perfect our relationship with Him. This is the punishment that must be made up for in this world or in Purgatory after we die. How can we make up for this punishment in this life? That’s where indulgences come in. The historical stain on the term indulgences makes people think of them as a payment to the Church that paves our way to heaven. This was a very real abuse of the practice of indulgences that Martin Luther and other protestors (many who did not separate with the Church but worked from within the Church to make the change) were right to protest. However, the historical abuse of indulgences does not remove the validity of the use of indulgences in the Church. Indulgences are simply spiritual practices that are designed to train our hearts to unite ourselves to God and to the Church. These practices are efficacious (I love that term) in giving us extra grace to form our hearts to love and to erase our temporal punishment for sin.

Why do they give us more grace? This is the point that many of our Protestant and Evangelical friends will have trouble with. The truth is that every spiritual exercise (prayer, devotion, sacrifice, suffering, etc.) can be a path to grace thanks to God’s mercy. However, Christ made the apostles, and therefore the Church, the stewards of grace that comes from Christ: “Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven. Whatever you loosen on earth will be loosened in heaven.  Therefore, the Church has the ability to determine specific spiritual exercises to be especially efficacious in giving us grace.

Receiving these graces is very easy. The acts of indulgence are all explained in a little book called the Handbook of Indulgences. To receive the indulgence, one needs to:

• Go to the sacrament of Reconciliation (to gain forgiveness for your sins)
• Receive the Holy Eucharist (to be intimately united to Christ, the source of all grace)
• Pray the Creed (to reaffirm your faith in all that God has revealed about Himself)
• Pray for the intentions of the Holy Father (to unite yourself to the Church)
• Have no attraction to sin (while this phrase is a bit vague, in moral theology it typically means that you have fully chosen to renounce sin through an act of the will – even if your sense appetite is still attracted to it)
• Perform the act prescribed by the Church (the act is usually an act of prayer or devotion done in unity with the Church – for example, praying the Rosary in a Church building, going on a pilgrimage to a designated Church or cathedral)

That’s it! Christ’s grace is available to all so very easily! I hope you can see that the Church’s beliefs in Purgatory, Temporal Punishment, and Indulgences are not beliefs that dwell on sin and punishment. While it is important to be reminded of sin and its dangers and consequences, it is more important to move from an awareness of sin to an awareness of the Good News of God’s mercy and grace. These doctrines do just that. They are all about the abundance of God’s merciful love and healing grace.

Related Links

Catholics United for the Faith
Faith Facts: Purgatory

Catechism of the Catholic Church
The Final Purification, or Purgatory

A. What do people of the Jewish faith think about Roman Catholics? I have no idea. I can, however, tell you what at least one Jew thinks.

First things first. I am an Orthodox Jew (of the Chassidic flavor) who grew up in a New York City neighborhood in which all my little friends were Jewish, except for Mary Anne who I knew was “Catholic.” Now, I was not quite sure what this meant, but I did observe that the parents of my Jewish friends all served sweet butter in their houses, while Mary Anne’s parents used salted butter. It didn’t take me long to figure out that the majority of people in the world were Jewish, but that there was a small minority called “Catholics” and the difference was that they used salted butter. One day, my parents took me to a restaurant at which they served salted butter. I commented that it was “Catholic butter,” and I guess my parents found this so cute that they never corrected me. For years, salted butter was called “Catholic butter” in my house.

Well, the years have passed, and I now realize that there are some additional differences between us. I would like to address a few of these here, and I would like to be as open and honest as possible. I feel it necessary to recall that there are some rather unfortunate events in our collective history, but Pope John Paul II has addressed these issues with great courage and there is no need to discuss them here.

Let me begin by saying that on those occasions on which I found myself interacting with Roman Catholic clergy, I have felt a sense of kinship. I think this occurs because I find that both they and I are a bit out of the mass culture of mainstream America. For example: in the entertainment media today, it is impossible to get away with ridiculing at any ethnic group with one exception: religious people. You have all seen how Priests and Nuns are represented in sitcoms, and I cringe at Woody Allen’s portrayal of Rabbis. How many stand up comedians delight in blaming all their problems on the Nuns in their parochial school?

So I feel a closeness with the clergy since we are both a little bit on the outside, but there is also a positive attraction. We are outsiders because we stand for (or are trying to stand for) something. We agree that there is a purpose to this world, that it is not just about getting, spending, enjoying, and keeping up with the Joneses (or Cohens as the case may be). We jointly believe there is a G-d, and are trying to follow His will. We can appreciate both the external and internal challenges we go through in trying to do this.

So, to a large extent, our similarities are greater than our differences, but the differences are there. Let me talk about a few of them.

To begin with, there is the question of the Messiah. Jews believe that the Messiah has not yet come; Christians believe that he has. Our views of the Messiah differ also. To Christians, being the Messiah is to realize a metaphysical and spiritual state, to Jews it is a job description. We believe that there will be a person, in every way a man, who will establish G-d’s kingship on earth and lead the world to universal peace. Until this happens, we believe the prophecy of the Messiah has not been fulfilled.

This, then, is a major difference between us, but there is actually a much bigger one. I think our major difference lies in the whole concept of the nature of man.

To Christians (I hope I am correct here …), man is born with the taint of original sin, and is basically a sinner. Man cannot earn forgiveness for this sin. He must be granted forgiveness through “grace,” which is fundamentally unearned. (I think there is some difference between Catholics and Protestants on the value of “works” vs. faith, but I believe that all Christians hold that forgiveness is an unearned gift and that faith is necessary.)

The Jewish view is different. We believe that man is born neutral – neither a righteous person nor a sinner. The “fall” in the Garden of Eden made the world a more difficult place, but we are not born with original sin. Actually, we do not have a concept of “sin.” Instead, we use the Hebrew word “chait” which more closely means “to miss the mark.” Transgression is an error, and we all make errors since we are human.

How, then does a person achieve forgiveness? Through a process called “tshuvah,” which literally means “return.” The person must regret what he or she has done, correct the situation to the best of his or her ability, ask anyone they have injured for forgiveness, and then ask forgiveness from G-d. (Notice that if I hurt another person, we believe G-d will not forgive me until I have received forgiveness from that person). To us, forgiveness is earned, not a gift via grace.

Having said this, I must say that one of the reasons I seem to relate well to Catholics is that both they and I do have a concept about there existing a definite right and a wrong, an idea that sometimes seems to be disappearing from our society.

And what about the details of what is right or wrong? How do we compare here?

According to Jewish law, abortion as a means of retroactive birth control, or because a woman has changed her mind, is definitely forbidden. We do recognize a woman’s right to make choices in her life, but this right is overridden when another person’s life is involved. While elective abortion is forbidden, however, we do not regard it as murder. I think the Catholic position differs here. We also differ on abortion to save the life of the mother. Jewish law requires abortion in this case, but, again, I think Catholics differ. I think we both agree, though, that Roe vs. Wade was a faulty decision on legal grounds alone. (I personally recommend that everyone read it to see what sloppy law looks like. It can be found on the web.)

Judaism is silent on homosexuality, meaning the state of desiring a member of the same sex. Jewish law, however, does unequivocally forbid homosexual activity. I believe that the Catholic Church takes the same position. Anyone who honestly reads the Bible will realize this; homosexual activity is called “an abomination.” To say otherwise is to be intellectually dishonest. What, then, of homosexuals? We welcome and love them, and empathize with the difficult challenge they face in dealing with desires that they may not fulfill. We oppose same sex “marriage,” of course, but we also oppose any sort of violence against homosexuals. We encourage research into the causes of their problems, and provide whatever aid and counsel we can.

Yes, it may indeed be true that for some people homosexuality is inborn, but this is also the case for some people who cannot control their emotions and become violent. Both are at risk of doing things that are morally wrong, but their psychological or biological states do not make such actions acceptable. In fact, we believe that all people are born with built in challenges that must be overcome (this is as close as we come to original sin!). In fact, I know of a number of internal problems I have, but I will not tell you mine, and I don’t expect you to tell me yours.

Regarding sexuality in general, Judaism applauds it – at the proper time and place. In fact, a man is required to marry and have a physical relationship with his wife, even if she is unable to bear children (for women, on the other hand, marriage is optional since they are regarded as spiritually complete on their own.) Outside of marriage, such physical relationships are regarded as morally wrong. In fact, when an Orthodox man and woman are dating (a process that occurs only for the purpose of finding a marriage partner), no physical contact of any sort is allowed. The couple will meet in public places so as not to be alone. By the way, it is very unusual for a Rabbi not to be married.

Personally, I find it strange that Catholic clergy do not marry. Aside from Jewish belief that this is necessary for emotional health (at least for men), I do not understand how a person who has never married can relate to what happens in a marriage so as to counsel people with problems. Yet – the track record of Catholic clergy in this area seems to be good. In addition, the idea of pre-marital counseling that the Church has introduced is excellent, and should be emulated in our society. In our surrounding culture, it sometimes seems that people give more thought to what car they are buying than to who they will spend the rest of their lives with. In Orthodox Jewish circles, similar counseling and guidance is done informally through friends, teachers, and Rabbis.

Roman Catholicism does not permit divorce. This certainly encourages (or, should encourage) people to think carefully about their choice in marriage. Judaism does permit divorce, but the divorce rate is much lower than that in secular society. When this unfortunate event occurs, we require a religious divorce (called a “Get”) in addition to the civil divorce proceedings.

From our viewpoint, the moral climate in this country is now abysmal, and I believe that Catholics would agree. As I wrote above, we both believe that there is a right and a wrong. We also agree about the source of ethics and morality: that these are Divinely given. To Catholics, the Church has the authority to decide matters of faith and practice. To Orthodox Jews, authority lies in the Torah (the Five Books of Moses), the Talmud (a massive commentary on the Torah) and the Code of Jewish Law (called the “Shuchan Aruch”). We choose different authorities, but we both respect and honor our authorities and (this is important) subordinate our own wills to them. This is certainly not popular in American culture today, and in fact I suspect that the reason religious people are often ridiculed in the entertainment media is that our acceptance of authority somehow threatens the world view of those people who would prefer the (illusory) freedom to do whatever they want.

This brings me to an issue that I suspect has caused pain to many Catholics. We will often read or hear criticism of the Catholic Church in the media. We will hear that Catholics “should” modernize and allow women to be priests, that Catholics “should” permit abortion, that Catholics “should” recognize homosexual marriage. I must say, this bothers me. What right do any people have to tell the Catholic Church what it “should” do? I think this is the ultimate in “chutzbah” (sorry, I cannot translate this …). If a person disagrees with the Catholic positions, let them choose not to be Catholic! After all, I disagree with many of the Church’s position, which is one of the reasons I am not a Catholic. But to ask the Church to change is disrespectful. It essentially asks it to stop being Catholic!

Orthodox Jews receive similar criticism, but not on the same scale. The simple fact is that there are many more Catholics, and hence the Church is a bigger target. There are critics, however, who say Orthodox Jews should stop following the Shuchan Aruch (the Code of Jewish Law). Well – one definition of an Orthodox Jew is a person who follows the Shuchan Aruch. This criticism actually asks us to give up our religious beliefs, and what right does another person have to do this?

All in all, I feel respect and kinship for Roman Catholics, as people who are trying to live a moral life in an amoral world. I admire the commitment of the Catholic clergy who sacrifice much to follow their vows. I admire the lay persons who go out into the world, and maintain their beliefs in the face of a painfully amoral or even immoral culture. We share a lot. And what of our differences? We must respect and understand each other as best we can, and delight in the differences that remain, for they provide us with a never ending supply of “priest and rabbi” jokes.

Related Links

Jewish Tribune article on JPII stamp

Dr. Andrew Goldfinger

Dr. Andrew Goldfinger has a Ph. D. in theoretical physics, and a Masters Degree in counseling. He currently works at the Applied Physics Laboratory of the Johns Hopkins University. He is past chairman of the Space Radar Working Group of the International Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, and past Director of Space Technology Training for the Republic of China. Dr. Goldfinger has lectured internationally for the Aish HaTorah Rabbinical College and for Gateway Seminars. He is also author of the book “Thinking About Creation: Eternal Torah and Modern Physics,” published by Jason Aronson.

Author’s URL
Thinking About Creation: Eternal Torah and Modern Physics

A. In 2002, the Netherlands enacted a law which allows euthanasia and assisted suicide. This law permits a very lose interpretation which tolerates not only the terminally ill to be killed, but anyone who is suffering. Doctors also take many liberties with patients who they feel are no longer a benefit to society. The legalization of these procedures has instilled fear in many in this cost conscious country. A law that is so contrary to the natural law must be a form of legal positivism and relativism. Through the exploration Pope John Paul II’s writings on the dignity of human life and the use of right reason, one can easily see that this law should be opposed and reversed.

A Dutch law that permitted both euthanasia and assisted suicide went into effect on April 1, 2002 (International Task Force [ITF] 1). This law requires the “procedure be carried out in a medically appropriate fashion” meaning that a former crime can now be considered a medical treatment (ITF 1). Anyone aged 16 or older can prepare a “written statement containing a request for termination of life ” (ITF 1). A doctor may carry out this statement even if it had been written years before and the person s views may have changed. This law states: “Teenagers 16 to 18 years old may request and receive euthanasia or assisted suicide. A parent or guardian must “have been involved in [the] decision process, but need not agree or approve ” (IFT 1). Those aged 12 to 16 may also request and receive euthanasia or assisted suicide, but in this age group, a parent or guardian must consent (ITF 1). Under this Dutch law, to qualify for assisted suicide or euthanasia, a doctor must believe that the “patient ‘s suffering is lasting and unbearable” (IFT 1). This does not require that the ailment be physical or the patient be terminally ill. Perhaps the senior is bored with life, a teenager suffers from untreated depression, or one is suicidal. Also, doctors are not required to consult with psychologists before consenting to a patient’s desire to die.

According to recent polls, over 80% of the Dutch population is in favor of voluntary euthanasia  (Miniter 1). Of the 130,000 Dutchmen who died in 1990, some 11,800 were killed or helped to die by their doctors  (Miniter1). This statistic came 12 years before euthanasia and assisted suicide were legally sanctioned by this new law. Of this number, an estimated 5,891 people (an average of 16 per day) did not consent to be killed, but yet their doctors took this liberty (Miniter 1). This practice, known as termination without request or consent  is not even formally considered euthanasia by the statistics complied by the government (Smith 1). Because the Dutch officially define euthanasia as the ending of one s life due to request, they do not consider those who did not request death to have been euthanized. This means that approximately 4% of all Dutch deaths are due to involuntary  euthanasia and go unreported as such (Smith 1). These numbers still do not reflect those in other groups who are put to death involuntarily such as disabled infants, terminally ill children, and mental patients. According to a 1997 study, 8% of infants who die in the Netherlands are killed by their doctors (Miniter 2). According to a recent survey, which did not mention euthanasia, 10% of Dutch senior citizens admitted that they were afraid of being killed by their doctors without their consent (Miniter 2).

Before the 2002 law, over 50% of Dutch doctors admitted to practicing euthanasia. Only 60% of these doctors kept records of their euthanasia practices and only 29% filled out death certificates for euthanasia patients correctly (Dykxhoorn 1).

The Netherlands is a country of socialized medicine where doctors are constantly being lectured on keeping costs down. In some hospitals, signs are posted listing how much senior s treatments are costing (Miniter 2). Pressure to do away with the old is felt not only by doctors, but seniors alike. Many  voluntary  euthanasia cases may not be truly consensual  (Miniter 2). If a senior s children are pushing for euthanasia, the senior may not want to burden his or her children with the cost and time of remaining alive. In the last two decades, elderly suicides rates dropped 33% as euthanasia experienced an almost equal rise (Miniter 2). The Netherlands has few hospices so dignified methods of diminishing suffering are usually never considered or discussed with the patient.

In their nearly 30 years of euthanasia practice, Dutch doctors have gone from killing terminally kill patients who ask for it, to chronically ill patients who ask for it, to disabled patients who ask for it, to depressed patients who ask for it, to babies who cannot by definition ask for it, to thousands of patients without request or consent,  writes Wesley Smith (3).

This law is an example of legal positivism, the idea that a law is valid simply because it has been properly enacted. Legal positivism is based on relativism  the idea that no one can know what is truly right so it must be decided through the political process. By looking at the example of the Dutch euthanasia law, one can see that man has no intrinsic value in legal positivism. Doctors can legally kill patients in the Netherlands because a law has been enacted in the proper way not because it has been found to be an intrinsically good action.

Natural law theory is a contrasting way to look at the philosophy behind the law. Those that have faith in the theory of natural law believe there are objective rights and wrongs. If one subscribed to the idea of natural law, one would immediately see that euthanasia and assisted suicide are against the objective moral order that society should abide by. Every human has the fundamental right to life. Life is valuable regardless of its contribution to society. The law should take a special interest in protecting the rights of the vulnerable who can be easily exploited by society. The Dutch law specifically goes against this principle. It allows the weakest and most defenseless members of society  the young, the old, the handicapped  to be killed and often without their own consent.

Pope John Paul II writes:

Laws which authorize and promote euthanasia are therefore radically opposed not only to the good of the individual but also to the common good; as such they are completely lacking in authentic juridical validity. Disregard for the right to life, precisely because it leads to the killing of the person whom society exists to serve, is what most directly conflicts with the possibility of achieving the common good. Consequently, a civil law authorizing euthanasia ceases by that very fact to be a true, morally binding civil law (133).

Therefore, those believing in the natural law theory see the Dutch law as an intrinsically unjust law and as such oppose it. The real purpose of civil law is to guarantee an ordered social coexistence in true justice, so that all may lead a quiet and peaceable life, godly and respectful in every way,   writes the pontiff (130).

Laws, such as the Dutch law legalizing euthanasia and assisted suicide, that disregard man s fundamental right to life and follow the theory of legal positivism instead of natural law theory are wrong. They should be opposed and fought against. Laws such as these do not support the dignity of the human person or flow from the true source of law. The Netherlands should begin offering therapy and hospice to those seeking death to begin promoting a culture of life.

Sources

Dykxhoorn, Hermina. “Euthanasia in the Netherlands. ” Christian Renewal. 3 pp. Online. Internet. 3 Nov. 2003.
International Task Force on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide. “Holland’s Euthanasia Law.” International Task Force on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide. 2 pp. Online. Internet. 3 Nov. 2003.
Miniter, Richard. “The Dutch Way of Death.” Opinion Journal from The Wall Street Journal Editorial Page. (April 28, 2001): 3 pp. Online. Internet. 3 Nov. 2003.
Paul, Pope John II. The Gospel of Life. Trans. by Vatican. New York: Random House, 1995
Smith, Wesley J. “Going Dutch. ” Guest Comment. (December 18, 2000): 3 pp. Online. Internet. 3 Nov. 2003

Related Links

United States Council of Catholic Bishops
Assisted Suicide: What is at Stake?

International Task Force
on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide
Euthanasia in the Netherlands

A. There is good news and bad news for people with celiac disease.

First, the “bad” news is that a valid consecration requires a host made of wheat flour and water. The only variation for the matter of the Holy Eucharist is that the wheat bread may be leavened in some Eastern Churches and rites.

This is not just a matter of the Church being stubborn and set in its ways. It has to do with the fact that Christ is truly present in the Eucharist when consecration is performed in the way that He prescribed it. The Church has the obligation to preserve the Traditions that Christ gave us to follow.

The use of any flour other than wheat flour, such as rice, barley, corn, or rye makes the bread invalid matter. If a priest said the words of consecration over such bread, there would be no consecration.

The same is true for the wine—it must be fermented grape wine. There could be no consecration if the wine were replaced with plain grape juice or with any other liquid.

However, the good news is that those who suffer from celiac disease can be accommodated in a couple of ways. I have heard about low-gluten hosts that are consumable by some people with celiac disease.

Those for whom these hosts are not available, or who can’t have even the slightest amount of gluten can receive communion through the chalice alone. Christ is fully present Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity in the Precious Blood, just as He is in the Sacred Body.

The key is to speak to your pastor to make arrangements. Your priest would be able to tell you what accommodations are available to you. One more piece of advice: if you are the only one except for the priest receiving the Precious Blood, a separate chalice may need to be set aside for you since the priest drops a piece of the host into the chalice from which he drinks.

Celiac Disease does not necessarily exclude one from receiving the Eucharist, but certain measures must be taken, through dialogue with the priest.

Related Links

Adoremus
Communion Bread and Celiac Disease

U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops
A Short Introduction to Holy Communion and Celiac Sprue Disease

Q. What are “Advance Directives for Health Care”?
Q. Living Will or Power of Attorney: Which Document is Preferable?
Q. Why Should You Sign a Life-Protective Document?
Q. How do you Choose your Agent?
Q. Upon What Moral Principles Should You Base Important Medical Treatment and Care Decisions?
Q. Is It Ever Morally Permissible to Refuse Food and Fluids?
Q. How Should a Conscientious Medical Professional Respond to a Patient’s Refusal of Ordinary/Morally Obligatory Treatment or Care?
Q. Is There a General Moral Guideline to Follow When Making Medial Decisions?

Q. What are “Advance Directives for Health Care”?

A. “Advance Directives” are legal documents which people use to express their wishes regarding medical treatment in the event they become incapable of making their own medical decisions. Many people think that advance planning about medical care is only for those who are very old or very ill. But anyone can be suddenly taken ill or badly injured. It is essential that every person 18 years old or older have an advance directive – but not just any type of advance directive.

The State of Wisconsin recognizes two types of advance directives: the Declaration to Physicians (Living Will) and the Power of Attorney for Health Care (POAHC). While there are specific forms that state agencies must distribute, other forms fulfilling legal requirements are recognized in Wisconsin. Once signed, these forms are legally binding documents.

Before signing any advance directive, it is important to ask yourself: Is this document compatible with the teaching of the Catholic Church? “We are stewards, not owners, of the life God has entrusted to us. It is not ours to dispose of.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2280)
Return to Top…

Q. Living Will or Power of Attorney: Which Document is Preferable?

A. By signing a Living Will, you authorize an “attending physician” to withhold or withdraw “life-sustaining procedures” under certain circumstances if you are no longer able to make health care decisions for yourself. The attending physician may be a stranger, unfamiliar with your moral principles and wishes, who may interpret your document in ways you did not intend. The law does not require an attending physician to consult your family before stopping treatment. Furthermore, a Living Will is a legal document in which you make medical decisions for some future (currently unknown) illness or injury. Unwittingly, you may “tie the hands” of a physician whose medical expertise could restore you to health.

The most protective and flexible document is a Power of Attorney for Health Care. Signing a POAHC ensures that a trusted family member or friend whom you have personally selected (your “agent”) will make health care decisions for you if you are ever unable to do so. Your agent will make decisions based on knowledge of your actual condition and treatment options, in light of your personal wishes and moral principles.

Both the Living Will form and the POAHC form provided by the State of Wisconsin permit euthanasia by omission. The Catholic Church teaches that “whatever its motives or means” euthanasia “is morally unacceptable” and “constitutes a murder.” The Church defines euthanasia as “an act or omission which, of itself or by intention, causes death in order to eliminate suffering.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2277) It is up to you to ensure that your advance directive does not permit euthanasia.

To meet this problem, a number of organizations that fully respect human life have prepared life-protective POAHC forms that are in accord with Catholic moral teaching. I recommend two such forms that are state-specific: the Protective Power of Attorney for Health Care¹ prepared by Pro-Life Wisconsin and the Wisconsin Protective Medical Decisions Document² prepared by the International Task Force on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide.

[1] Available (free) from Pro-Life Wisconsin, 1-877-GOD’S WILL (1-877-462-7945). You can view and download the POAHC here.
[2] Available ($10.00 donation suggested) from the International Task Force, P.O. Box 760, Steubenville, OH 43952; 1-740-282-3810
Return to Top…

Q. Why Should You Sign a Life-Protective Document?

A. Unfortunately, many in our society no longer see the difference between allowing a person to die when no treatment or care can sustain his/her life and intentionally killing a person by an omission or an action. Euthanasia by omission is already commonly practiced, and there is a movement underway to add euthanasia by lethal injection and assisted suicide (already legal in Oregon) to end-of-life choices. Therefore, it is important to make it unmistakably clear in your POAHC that you reject euthanasia and assisted suicide.

Every patient entering a health care facility is asked, “Have you signed a Living Will or Power of Attorney for Health Care?” This is because the federal Patient Self-Determination Act of 1990 requires hospitals and health care programs to give people information about advance directives. Consequently, you will most likely be given a Living Will or POAHC to sign during admission procedures, a time when most people are under stress and distracted by other paperwork. It is not a good time to be considering a legal document which may determine whether you live or die. Be prepared. Always bring along your completed life-protective POAHC.
Return to Top…

Q. How do you Choose your Agent?

A. Your Power of Attorney document is only as good as your health care agent. Therefore, it is of utmost importance that you appoint someone who:

• you know and trust to make decisions on your behalf
• understands and will defend your Catholic principles and corresponding personal wishes
• will not be intimidated by medical personnel or medical terminology
• will ask questions in order to base decisions on the best medical information and spiritual advice available
• will firmly protect your best interests

Be aware that Wisconsin law does not permit certain people to be named as your agent. If you are not using a state-specific form, consult the law.

You should discuss your wishes and moral principles in detail with your agent when you sign your document and periodically thereafter. Many people are not comfortable talking about aging, illness, and dying. However, as difficult as it may be to discuss such issues ahead of time, during a medical crisis it may be even more difficult.
Return to Top…

Q. Upon What Moral Principles Should You Base Important Medical Treatment and Care Decisions?

A. You are morally obligated to accept ordinary medical treatment and care that sustain life, maintain health, or cure or improve your condition. Ordinary medical means are those which are routine, available, and beneficial. Pain relief and comfort care also fall into the category of ordinary means which should be provided to all patients as needed.

Extraordinary medical treatment is non-obligatory, that is, you may accept or refuse it. It is medical treatment that is unduly burdensome or risky. The physician should discuss the risks and burdensomeness of a particular treatment with you/your agent. However, it must always be you or your agent who decides whether or not you want a particular treatment that is judged extraordinary. And it must be the particular treatment that is burdensome, not your life that is the burden to you or others. When in doubt, err on the side of life.

Consider this thought from a Catholic physician friend of mine:

Ordinary means are done to protect and preserve life. Extraordinary means are done because an extraordinary creature (person) has an extraordinary illness. When an effective extraordinary treatment is available, shouldn’t a patient get it in order to live the life span given to them by God?

For more information, consult the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraphs 2278 and 2279.
Return to Top…

Q. Is It Ever Morally Permissible to Refuse Food and Fluids?

A. Provision of Nutrition and Hydration is ordinary care, not medical treatment. Food and fluids do not become medical “treatment” simply because they are taken by tube any more than penicillin or Pepto-Bismol becomes “food” when taken by mouth. Food and fluids are generally morally obligatory.

When Archbishop Raymond L. Burke was the Bishop of La Crosse, he issued this statement in defense of a brain-damaged, but otherwise healthy woman’s life:

We presume in favor of nutrition and hydration because food and water are ordinary means of keeping anyone alive, even if this is done through a feeding tube. If Mrs. Schiavo were facing imminent death, or were unable to receive food and water without harm, then removing nutrition and hydration would be morally permissible. It is however never permissible to remove food and water to cause death. Food and water are basic human needs, and therefore basic human rights.

Archbishop Burke clearly and simply stated the basic guidelines for making moral decisions regarding nutrition and hydration. If you follow these guidelines, you will not go astray.

Unfortunately, both the Wisconsin Living Will form and POAHC form allow people to refuse a feeding tube when food and fluids would sustain their lives. This omission constitutes euthanasia or assisted suicide. Under Wisconsin law, if a patient has signed an advance directive that requires ending tube-feeding under specified circumstances, medical professionals would be expected to comply.
Return to Top…

Q. How Should a Conscientious Medical Professional Respond to a Patient’s Refusal of Ordinary/Morally Obligatory Treatment or Care?

A. If a patient or a patient’s agent decides to refuse ordinary treatment or care, there may, in some instances, be little that the medical professional can do to prevent this. However, there remains the duty to attempt to persuade the patient otherwise or, failing that, for the physician or other professional to remove himself/herself from the case so as not to be guilty of complicity in euthanasia or suicide.
Return to Top…

Q. Is There a General Moral Guideline to Follow When Making Medial Decisions?

A. Whenever a decision is made to withhold or withdraw a particular form of treatment or care, it is most important to examine intent. Is the intention to hasten or cause death? Then the action or omission is always wrong.

One final note: Spiritual preparation for death often is not given enough consideration. By spending so much space on medical decision-making, I do not wish to imply that this is more important than spiritual preparation for death. In fact, both are essential elements in preparing for death and for life after death. As Christians who trust in the promise of eternal life, we know that death does not have the final word.
Return to Top…

A. The first step to answering this question is to realize that the “Image of God” does not refer to a physical resemblance, or to appearance of any kind. God the Father does not have a physical body. Neither does God the Holy Spirit. God the Son did not have a body when human beings were created in God’s image.

This is no small point. The belief that the Image of God is a physical resemblance has the potential to lead to all sorts of problems. For example, which race is most completely in God’s Image? Are women less in God’s Image because we refer to God in male terms? Are people with physical disabilities less in the Image of God because they lack the completeness of physical health? The fact is that all of humanity is created in the Image of God. God’s Image is instilled within our very nature.

There are three basic elements of human nature that are specifically in God’s Image. Two of these elements are faculties, potentials for specific abilities that are endowed by virtue of the human soul. No matter how well these faculties are actuated through our physical bodies, they invariably exist within the soul of every human being.

The first such faculty is the intellect. The intellect is the human faculty to think in spiritual ways. The ability to think about abstract ideas, the ability to ponder mysteries of the spiritual world, and ultimately the ability to ponder the true essence of existence are all abilities that arise from the intellect. Before the Fall, when we lost the Likeness of God (but retained His Image), we were able learn easily and readily, without limit, all of God’s Truth. Such powers reflect the omniscience of God.

The second faculty given to us in the Image of God is the will. The will allows us to choose freely. This free choice gives us the power to create who we become. Our choices help to create our character, and ultimately our destinies. Before the Fall, our wills were perfectly free, meaning that we were able to unfailingly choose the best possible good in every situation. This power reflects God’s omnipotence.

Finally, humankind is meant to live in relationships of love with each other, in reflection of the relationship of Divine Love inherent in the Holy Trinity. Just as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit exist together in a unity of perfect self-giving to each other, human beings are meant to give themselves as gifts to one another. This is evident from the very beginning, in the book of Genesis. The only time God says that something is not good in the stories of creation is “It is not good that man should be alone.” Why is this not good? It’s not good, not only because Adam was lonely, but also because he was not a true Image of God by himself. God created Eve so that Adam could Image God’s Trinitarian love. This reflection of Trinitarian love is most completely seen in the marital relationship. However, Christ reveals definitively that our love is to be universal. We are to love our neighbor, and even our enemy. We are to love them as Christ loved us, being willing to give our very lives for them. Christ reaffirms the special character of marriage (and thus the Church receives marriage as a sacrament), but also calls all of us to share this love with everyone else.

Why is it so important that human beings be created in the Image of God? One answer is to make God’s full glory present to the physical, visible world. However, human beings are more than just art pieces expressing God’s presence. We are created to live in relationship with God. The Imago Dei (Latin for Image of God) is an inherent part of the original covenant. God’s entire creation is His gift to humanity – His love and beneficence given to us in ways that our nature as human beings can readily receive. The intellect and will are created in the Image of God precisely to allow us to receive the greatest gifts that God wants to offer us. God’s omniscience is not simply (as is commonly assumed) that God knows everything. It is much greater than that. What God “knows” actually becomes reality. God’s omniscience creates truth, which He offers to us. The human intellect is our ability to receive God’s truth. In the same way, God’s omnipotence is His power to create goodness. The human will is our ability to receive his goodness, to freely choose it. The Imago Dei is human nature’s ability to be the receivers of God’s love, truth, and goodness within the covenant.

God does not want us to be passive receivers of His love, truth, and goodness either. He wants us to use what He gives us in order to participate in His very life. God wants us to cooperate with Him. When we work, we receive God’s goodness, truth, and love, and cooperate with His power of creation to make part of our world better for others. God calls us to love our neighbor so that we can use the love He gives to us in order to cooperate with Him in showing His love to others.

Yes, sin and ignorance make our ability to reflect, receive, and cooperate with God’s love imperfect. However, the grace won for us by Christ’s death and resurrection makes it possible for us to exercise the Imago Dei. Christ’s grace also helps us to begin the healing process of our souls so that we can regain the likeness of God.

That means that the Imago Dei is not passive. We must live it out every day. Holiness means gaining that healing, striving toward that perfection, and cooperating with God so that the Imago Dei He placed in our souls can shine forth His glory.

Related Links

Catechism of the Catholic Church
Man: The Image of God

By Rev. Derek Sakowski
April 3, 2005

This past Friday and Saturday, as our Holy Father lay on his deathbed, I was giving a retreat to the candidates in our diocese’s lay formation program. I finished hearing the last bunch of Confessions literally minutes before Pope John Paul II breathed his last, at 9:37 PM, Rome time.

I was in my car, traveling back to Stevens Point, listening to Relevant Radio as they made the announcement: “The Pope is dead.”

I bowed my head and prayed. But sorrow was not the emotion that most filled me. I had long since prepared myself for this event. Mostly, I felt relief in knowing that the terrible final days of agony, which he so obediently and joyfully accepted, were at last over, and this saintly pope was now at peace.

Then, as Relevant Radio proceeded with live guests and audio clips, celebrating this great man’s legacy, I did indeed begin to cry. I almost had to pull the car over!

These were not tears of sorrow; these were tears of joy and gratitude and admiration. What a contribution this great pope made! “The almighty has done great things for him, and holy is his name!”

This is the man who became the Universal Shepherd, in 1978, of a Church filled with division, dissension, confusion, uncertainty, and growing infidelity to the Gospel. These last 26 1/2 years, he has blessed us with renewed unity, fidelity, stability, and moral and doctrinal clarity.

This is the great pope of unity, truly “presiding in love,” as St. Ignatius of Antioch said in 107 A.D. that every Bishop of Rome should do. No other pope has ever done so much to heal the wounds that divide Christians, and to promote greater harmony and understanding between us and non-Christians. With the Orthodox, the once distant dream of reuniting, while still a long way off, is now an inevitable likelihood rather than a possibility.

This is the man who became the leader of all Christians in the thick of the Cold War. He stared the Evil Empire in the face, heedless of the huge personal risk. He spoke out courageously in the midst of his fellow Poles (and armed Communist soldiers!), and saw to it that the Iron Curtain would come crashing down. Very likely his assassination attempt was a desperation act on the part of the Communists. Too bad for them. Today the Iron Curtain is but a distant memory for most of us. It’s almost hard to believe it once existed. We can thank John Paul for that.

This is the man who promoted freedom and dignity and human rights, not only in Eastern Europe, but throughout the world. He probably traveled more than all the other 263 popes put together, not only energizing the world’s Christians, but also putting an end to longstanding injustice and oppression in many of the places he visited.

This is the courageous herald of the “Gospel of Life.” His witness to the dignity of each human person will be a shining beacon for us in the rocky waters that lie ahead in the decades to come.

This is the pioneer of the “Theology of the Body.” Even 10 years before his papacy, it was probably his witness and clarity of thought that inspired Pope Paul VI to go against the grain and reaffirm the Church’s age-old teaching against contraception in Humanae Vitae (1968). It most certainly is John Paul and his personalism that has given to our generation and many more a beautiful vision of the gift of sexuality and the awesome responsibilities and joys that come with it.

This is the great philosopher-pope. His Fides et Ratio will never get the widespread attention of his other writings, but having taught an entire college course on the topic, I assure you that his plan for the renewal of philosophy is breathtaking. We can only hope that, years down the road, its beauty and relevance will be appreciated by the academy, whose ideas always have consequences in the lives of everyday people.

This is the great champion and friend of the youth. Time and again “JP2″ energized millions of young people from every part of the globe. This is the man who himself was energized, even in his old age, by those young people. I will never forget my experiences at World Youth Day, both in Rome (2000) and in Toronto (2002). The Pontiff, by then feeble and not even able to speak clearly, perked right up in the presence of the youth of the world, and found new energy and strength that most of the world never knew he could possibly still have.

This is the man who on his very deathbed probably drew more comfort from the serenading and praying throng of young people in St. Peter ‘s Square than he drew from any other human source. Hours before he died, he mumbled out words meant for them: “I have looked for you. Now you have come to me. And I thank you.”

This is the great son of Mary, who always ended his encyclicals by entrusting the Church and world to her motherly care. Totus Tuus –totally yours– is a motto all of us could learn from. John Paul had no doubt that Our Lady of Fatima, on May 13^th (her Feast day) guided the bullet that so narrowly missed his vital organs. He made four pilgrimages to Guadalupe in Mexico, showing his deep trust in the guidance that Mary promised St. Juan Diego she would give the entire American continent (South, Central, and North). And in the wake of 9-11, John Paul reminded us of the beautiful treasure of the Rosary. He even enriched and revolutionized this devotion with the Five Mysteries of Light.

This is a pope who was remarkably priestly. He loved all his priests dearly, as evidenced in the letters he wrote them every Holy Thursday. And he showed them how a true priest and shepherd is to live – by totally conforming himself to the Way of the Cross and pouring himself out in loving service of his people.

This is the Pope of the Eucharist. From Dominicae Cenae (1980) to Mirabile Donum (1984) to Ecclesia de Eucharistia (2003), he taught us the centrality of that Blessed Sacrament that is the “Source and Goal” of our entire Faith. He died during the very Year of the Eucharist, one of his last gifts to the Church in his earthly life.

Finally, this is the great mystic and saint, who felt a spiritual connection with the many holy men and women who have gone before us. He canonized far more saints than any other pope. This is the man who helped us all see that the 2^nd Sunday of Easter was always meant to be a celebration of the Divine Mercy. This is the man who died on the Vigil of that Feast of Mercy, with an utter and unshakeable confidence in it.

Upon his death, many Christians have been filled with sorrow. I’m sure John Paul understands our grief, but I really think his words to those in sorrow right now would be those words that Jesus spoke, “Weep not for me, but for yourselves and your children” (Luke 23:28).

He certainly did not fear or shy away from his death. Once it was obvious to him that this was the final agony, he insisted on staying at home, at St. Peter’s, in prayer with his people. He showed us the real meaning of the oft-misused phrase death with dignity.

Other Christians are filled with anxiety and fear right now. Who will be the next pope? How can we possibly replace John Paul II? What will happen to the Church and the world?

These fears and worries could not be further from the witness of John Paul II. From the very outset of his papacy, time and again, he has exhorted us, “Be not afraid!” In his mystical understanding and wisdom, I’m sure that he meant these words for us today, in the wake of his death. I’m sure he has known how much some of us would be tempted to fear and anxiety, which are never of God.

I cannot encourage you enough to read and meditate on his beautiful letter Novo Millennio Ineunte, written on January 6, 2001, at the very beginning of the new millennium. In it he readily acknowledges the darkness and the challenges and threats that our Church and world face as we initiate this new millennium. But he reflects on the overabundance of God’s grace during the Jubilee Year of 2000, a year in which we deeply “contemplated the Face of Christ.” He exhorts us to continue to contemplate that Face, to draw strength and courage from it, and to “BE NOT AFRAID.” With fearless courage, he exhorts us, Duc in Altum “Put out into the deep” for a great catch, just as the Apostles did in Luke 5.

It is no surprise, and certainly no coincidence that his beautiful and glorious passing into heaven overlapped with the heinous death of Terri Schiavo. He long ago warned us of the strength and the danger of the Culture of Death in which our worth and dignity as a person are connected only with what we are able to do, and not who we are. But in the midst of this dark challenge, John Paul is also telling us now that we must not be fearful or anxious. We are to have every bit of confidence in the Divine Mercy. Jesus Christ is our Risen Lord. He has won the victory. He is the Lord of all life. We must put out into the deep for a catch, not fearful of the waves or the winds or the rocks that seem to threaten to sink us. The Church, the “Bark of Peter,” is an unsinkable ship.

Even if (God forbid) we are cursed with a series of unfaithful and unholy popes, the Church of Christ will march on, as she always has. Christ Himself has guaranteed as much. So we must not fear; we must not be sad; and we must not be anxious. We must have an unshakeable confidence in the grace and mercy of Jesus Christ. John Paul had that confidence without limit, and look what God did through him. He wants to do the same through each of us.

One final thought that struck me late last night, and again today. It didn’t dawn on me right away, but John Paul II, soon to be Saint John Paul the Great, is now an intercessor in heaven! I had been so overwhelmed with tears in reflecting on his contributions here on earth that I nearly forgot his new status as a saint!

I think I have already experienced this personally. In fact, that is what led me to this insight. Yesterday (Saturday) was one of those amazing priestly days in which, from start to finish, I was utterly and completely an instrument in the hands of Christ. Like the day of my Mass of Thanksgiving two years ago, yesterday is almost surreal in my memory. It was I who experienced it all, and yet it was a mystery beyond me. I heard almost five hours of Confessions over the course of the day, in addition to giving retreat talks and several other duties. Without getting into any detail, I can simply say that I have never felt so “used” (in the positive sense) by Christ in the Confessional. Typically, one can hear 20 or 30 fairly “routine” Confessions before getting an incredibly intense one. But last night, it was one intense encounter with the Lord after another. And again and again, I seemed to be inspired with just the right words and just the right insights. I barely felt tired or hungry, and the time simply flew by. Several times yesterday I actually found myself challenging and pushing people in the Confessional in a way that I normally would never dare to! But it was almost like I was impelled. I drove home from Divine Mercy devotions around 10 PM thinking to myself, “What just happened to me today?”

Then it hit me. Someone made a comment on Relevant Radio about John Paul, and it got me thinking, and a conviction welled up within me: it was John Paul’s intercession that led to such a string of powerful Confessions! It was his priestly prayers that led Christ to use me so many times in one day. I then felt John Paul’s presence, as I have (on rare occasions) felt the presence of the Sacred Heart or the Blessed Mother or one of the other saints. Saint John Paul the Great is already working miracles from heaven! I think the words of St. Therese (a favorite saint of his and mine) will apply to him just as fully as to her: “I want to spend my eternity doing good work here on earth.”

In other words, as utterly breathtaking as the legacy of this man is, I think we have only just begun to see his contribution. He is now a powerful intercessor for us, alive with the Lord in the kingdom of heaven. “Do not be afraid” to call upon his prayers! We will have to wait eagerly for his canonization to invoke his prayers officially within the liturgy, but we are more than welcome to do so in our private devotion in the meantime. Who knows which one of us might witness one of the miracles that will lead to his official sainthood?

Saint John Paul the Great, pray for us!

Fr. Derek Sakowski was the chaplain of Saint Peter Middle School and Pacelli High School in Stevens Point, WI and is currently studying in Rome. He is a native of Wisconsin Rapids, WI, and attended seminary at Catholic University of America and the Pontifical College Josephinum. He was ordained by Bishop Raymond L. Burke on June 28, 2003.

Fr. Sakowski (far right) and his fellow newly ordained, give priestly blessing to Bishop Raymond Burke during ordination ceremony, Cathedral of St. Joseph the Workman, La Crosse, WI.

Prayer for the Intercession of Pope John Paul II

O Blessed Trinity, we thank you for having graced the church with Pope John Paul II and for allowing the tenderness of your fatherly care, the glory of the cross of Christ, and the splendor of the Holy Spirit, to shine through him. Trusting fully in your infinite mercy and in the maternal intercession of Mary, he has given us a living image of Jesus the Good Shepherd, and has shown us that holiness is the necessary measure of ordinary Christian life and is the way of achieving eternal communion with you. Grant us, by his intercession, and according to your will, the graces we implore, hoping that he will soon be numbered among your saints. Amen.

Statue of St. Peter outside the Basilica of St. Peter.
Saint Peter’s Feast Days:

June 29 – Solemnity of Saint Peter

February 22 – Feast of the Chair of Saint Peter

November 18 – Feast of the dedication of the churches of Sts. Peter and Paul
The statue of St. Peter at the top of the reredos in St. Peter Catholic Church, Stevens Point.

“In liturgical art, he is depicted as an elderly man holding a key and a book. His symbols include an inverted cross, a boat, and the cock” (Catholic Online).

Patronage: against frenzy; bakers; Bath Abbey; Berchtesgaden Abbey; Bremen, Germany; bridge builders; butchers; diocese of Calbayog, Philippines; Chartres, France; clock makers; cobblers; Cologne, Germany; archdiocese of Davao, Philippines; Exeter College Oxford; Dunajská Streda, Slovakia; feet problems; fever; fishermen; foot problems; harvesters; diocese of Jackson, Mississippi; Köpenick, Germany; diocese of Las Vegas, Nevada; Lessines, Belgium; locksmiths; longevity; diocese of Maralal, Kenya; diocese of Marquette, Michigan; masons; Moissac, France; Naumburg, Germany; net makers; Obermarsberg, Germany; papacy; archdiocese of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Popes; Poznan Poland; diocese of Providence, Rhode Island; Regensburg, Germany; Rome; Saint Petersburg, Russia; diocese of Scranton, Pennsylvania; ship builders; shipwrights; shoemakers; Sint Pieters Rode, Belgium; stone masons; Toa Baja, Puerto Rico; Umbria, Italy; Universal Church; watch makers; Worms, Germany (from: New Advent)

This article was written by Philip A. Kosloski of Wisconsin Rapids, a former seminarian for the Diocese of La Crosse, Wisconsin.