Last week Tiger Woods won the Arnold Palmer Invitational and regained his title as the No. 1 golfer in the world, a title he had lost in 2010 after the consequences of his adulterous lifestyle caught up with him and affected his “game.” His faithful endorser Nike was quick to celebrate Woods’s return to the top with an ad stating, “Winning Takes Care of Everything” (pictured). Many PGA fans understood this message to mean that winning is all that really matters. Forget Tiger’s problems off the golf course; his game is back.

Tragically, today it seems that too many athletes, endorsers, and fans share this sentiment. Athletes are no longer held accountable as role models off the field as well as on it. Success in their respective sports reigns supreme. As long as they are winning, what they do in their personal lives is not important. This is tragic, because many fans look to them as role models—even in their personal lives—whether they like it or not. Pope John Paul II, an avid athlete himself, brought attention to this matter in an address to young athletes:

[P]eople tend to extol you as heroes, as human models who inspire ideals of life and action, especially among youth. And this fact places you at the center of a particular social and ethical problem. You are observed by many people and expected to be outstanding figures not only during athletic competitions but also when you are off the sport field. You are asked to be examples of human virtue, apart from your accomplishments of physical strength and endurance.

The main reason for this should be obvious. As role models, athletes are particularly susceptible to leading others astray in life. They are susceptible to giving scandal. The Catechism of the Catholic Churchexplains: “Scandal is an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil. The person who gives scandal becomes his neighbor’s tempter. He damages virtue and integrity; he may even draw his brother into spiritual death” (CCC 2284). Thus, athletes have a duty to their fans to lead lives of virtue because their fans may tend to emulate them. Being good examples to their fans is part of the loving care that is due them (cf. Matt. 19:19).

But even beyond a duty to their fans, athletes have a duty to themselves to not allow their successes to overshadow what is truly most important in their lives. There is a goal far greater than being the best at what they do in this temporal life, and that goal must always remain in focus. John Paul II went on to explain this in his address:

[T]here are certain values in your life which cannot be forgotten. These values will set you on that clear track which has to be followed in order for you to reach life’s ultimate goal.

Primary among them is the religious meaning of human existence. Sport, as you well know, is an activity that involves more than the movement of the body: it demands the use of intelligence and the disciplining of the will. It reveals, in other words, the wonderful structure of the human person created by God as a spiritual being, a unity of body and spirit. . . .

May this truth never be overlooked or set aside in the world of sport, but may it always shine forth clearly. For athletic activity is never separated from the activities of the spirit.

If athletes succeed at sports but overlook or set aside spiritual matters, where does that leave them? I’m reminded of Jesus’ words, “For what will it profit a man, if he gains the whole world and forfeits his life?” (Matt. 16:26). And where does that leave sports? John Paul II continued:

If sport is reduced to the cult of the human body, forgetting the primacy of the spirit, or if it were to hinder your moral and intellectual development, or result in your serving less than noble aims, then it would lose its true significance and, in the long run, it would become even harmful to your healthy and full growth as human persons. You are true athletes when you prepare yourselves not only by training your bodies but also by constantly engaging the spiritual dimensions of your person for a harmonious development of all your human talents.

Athletes like San Diego Chargers quarterback Philip Rivers seem to understand John Paul II’s message. We should pray for such understanding among all athletes because, in the long run, winning really doesn’t take care of everything.

A textbook used for confirmation preparation in a parish in California teaches students that the sacrament of confirmation “only came into existence in the third century” and that “there was no sacrament of penance in the early church”. I suppose such sacramental ignorance is not surprising given that a deacon who instructs catechists in the same diocese teaches that at one time there were only two sacraments and, at another time, twenty two.

The Church teaches very clearly that the seven sacraments administered by the Church today were instituted by Christ. Those seven “outward signs instituted by Christ to give grace” have been administered by the Church since the first century. There was never a time in Church history when there were twenty two sacraments nor was there ever a time when there were only two.

It could be that there was a time when the term sacrament was used so broadly that it referred to twenty two more generally defined signs, but only seven of those signs would have actually been sacraments as the term is used today. It could also be that there was a time when the term sacrament was used so narrowly that it referred to only two of the actual sacraments but that does not mean that the other five sacraments did not also exist referenced by different terminology.

The following quotations are from the Catechism of the Catholic Church(paragraph numbers in parentheses):

The Sacraments (1210):

Christ instituted the sacraments of the new law. There are seven: Baptism, Confirmation (or Chrismation), the Eucharist, Penance, the Anointing of the Sick, Holy Orders and Matrimony. The seven sacraments touch all the stages and all the important moments of Christian life: they give birth and increase, healing and mission to the Christian’s life of faith. There is thus a certain resemblance between the stages of natural life and the stages of the spiritual life.

Baptism (1226):

From the very day of Pentecost the Church has celebrated and administered holy Baptism. Indeed St. Peter declares to the crowd astounded by his preaching: “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” The apostles and their collaborators offer Baptism to anyone who believed in Jesus: Jews, the God-fearing, pagans. Always, Baptism is seen as connected with faith: “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household,” St. Paul declared to his jailer in Philippi. And the narrative continues, the jailer “was baptized at once, with all his family.”

Confirmation (1288):

From [Pentecost] on the apostles, in fulfillment of Christ’s will, imparted to the newly baptized by the laying on of hands the gift of the Spirit that completes the grace of Baptism. For this reason in the Letter to the Hebrews the doctrine concerning Baptism and the laying on of hands is listed among the first elements of Christian instruction. The imposition of hands is rightly recognized by the Catholic tradition as the origin of the sacrament of Confirmation, which in a certain way perpetuates the grace of Pentecost in the Church.

Eucharist (1323):

At the Last Supper, on the night he was betrayed, our Savior instituted the Eucharistic sacrifice of his Body and Blood. This he did in order to perpetuate the sacrifice of the cross throughout the ages until he should come again, and so to entrust to his beloved Spouse, the Church, a memorial of his death and resurrection: a sacrament of love, a sign of unity, a bond of charity, a Paschal banquet “in which Christ is consumed, the mind is filled with grace, and a pledge of future glory is given to us.”

Penance (1446):

Christ instituted the sacrament of Penance for all sinful members of his Church: above all for those who, since Baptism, have fallen into grave sin, and have thus lost their baptismal grace and wounded ecclesial communion. It is to them that the sacrament of Penance offers a new possibility to convert and to recover the grace of justification. The Fathers of the Church present this sacrament as “the second plank [of salvation] after the shipwreck which is the loss of grace.”

Anointing of the Sick (1510):

 However, the apostolic Church has its own rite for the sick, attested to by St. James: “Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders [presbyters] of the Church and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven.” Tradition has recognized in this rite one of the seven sacraments.

Holy Orders (1555):

Amongst those various offices which have been exercised in the Church from the earliest times the chief place, according to the witness of tradition, is held by the function of those who, through their appointment to the dignity and responsibility of bishop, and in virtue consequently of the unbroken succession going back to the beginning, are regarded as transmitters of the apostolic line.

Matrimony (1601):

The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring; this covenant between baptized persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament.

I recently received a jury summons in the mail. As a citizen of the United States, serving on a jury is a civic duty. U.S. Code Title 28, Part V, Chapter 121 § 1861 states that all citizens have “an obligation to serve as jurors when summoned for that purpose”.

Commonly, the role of a juror is to decide whether or not a defendant’s conduct has been acceptable under the law. In other words, a juror must judge a defendant’s behavior. Every citizen has the obligation to do this. While many people may find excuses to get out of jury duty, everyone recognizes the necessity of jurors judging their peers’ behavior according to the law of the land.

Of course, there is a higher law than the civil law handed on by legislators: God’s law handed on by the Church. Civil law is primarily concerned with temporal matters, God’s law with the eternal. This being the case, since it is important to judge behavior under civil law, it must be immeasurably more important to judge behavior under God’s law. Why is it then, when it comes to the eternally significant laws of God, that so many Christians—even Catholics—shirk their responsibilities?

There is a nonsensical disconnect in this. People judge their peers’ behavior under civil law where a defendant’s temporal freedoms may be curtailed but when it comes to the potential loss of eternal life—what really matters most—they refuse to judge. (Actually, they unwittinglyjudge that the behavior of judging behavior is wrong!)

For example, during a recent exchange concerning homosexuality, I was berated by a Catholic woman who supported her cousin’s same-sex relationship. I judged, as the Church does, that her cousin’s behavior was immoral and that it should not be supported. I was labeled a bigot and a hater. She wrote, “I believe in God’s desire for us not to judge other people, but to accept them for what they are and love them all”. What a tragedy. Her cousin needed someone to tell her the truth, not coddle her in her destructive behavior! She needed fraternal correction; Christian love (i.e., charity) actually demanded it.

Now, I’m not suggesting that we judge another’sculpability in eternal matters as we do in temporal matters – that is God’s domain. But should we not judge the objective morality of our neighbor’s behavior for his own good and the good of others? I addressed this question from a biblical perspective in a magazine article I wrote some time ago. I invite you to read it and judge for yourself: Judge Not?

 I recently got a call at Catholic Answers from a woman who had fallen away from the Church many years ago but had recently come back home after watching EWTN and listening to Catholic Answers Live. Sadly, though, she had been told by a deacon at her parish that she could not receive the Eucharist or even go to confession because she had gotten remarried outside the Church after her first marriage ended in divorce. Before she could be fully reconciled with God and the Church, she would need to get an annulment and then have her second marriage convalidated. She was heartbroken to find out that the annulment process could take years to complete. I was happy to tell her that she had another option.

 

Tragically, the information the woman was given at her parish is the only information many people in her situation ever hear. She was told that she was living in the state of sin and that only an annulment and convalidation could fix that. What she wasn’t told is that she could return to the sacraments right away if she was sorry for her sins and was willing to stop sinning. I explained to her that if she would commit to abstaining from conjugal relations (e.g., live as brother and sister) until her marriage was convalidated  – and there is no guarantee that it ever will be – she could go to confession and receive the Eucharist today! I then read to her from the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1650):

Today there are numerous Catholics in many countries who have recourse to civil divorce and contract new civil unions. In fidelity to the words of Jesus Christ – “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery” – the Church maintains that a new union cannot be recognized as valid, if the first marriage was. If the divorced are remarried civilly, they find themselves in a situation that objectively contravenes God’s law. Consequently, they cannot receive Eucharistic communion as long as this situation persists. For the same reason, they cannot exercise certain ecclesial responsibilities. Reconciliation through the sacrament of Penance can be granted only to those who have repented for having violated the sign of the covenant and of fidelity to Christ, and who are committed to living in complete continence.