|
Q u i c k Q u e s t i o n s
|
This Rock
Volume 4, Number 6
 June 1993 
|
|
|
IS THE NEW CATECHISM ONLY FOR PRIESTS?
Q: Is it true the new universal catechism of the Catholic
Church is intended only for clergy and that lay people should not
bother to read it because it's too technical? That's what our associate
pastor said from the pulpit last Sunday. He made it clear he felt
lay people should ignore it and let the experts decide if it's worthwhile
or not.
A: Your priest is misinformed. The Church's new catechism
can and should be read by all Catholics (some might say especially
by associate pastors). The language is not at all technical and is
within the grasp of the average adult Catholic. Although the English
version is not yet available, lay Catholics throughout the world have
already begun studying the French, Spanish, and other editions.
The catechism is laid out in an orderly, systematic style with copious
citations to Scripture, to the Fathers of the Church, and to the ecumenical
councils. Of particular help are the summary statements at the end
of each section. The Church desires that all Catholics - especially
lay Catholics - study the new catechism as a means of growing in
knowledge of the faith.
Many Catholics are confused about what the Church really teaches because
they have received conflicting messages from priests, nuns, and others.
Perhaps one reason some are opposed to the promulgation of this catechism
is that they'll no longer be able to say the Church has "changed
its teachings" on issues such as purgatory or Marian doctrines,
or that there is no official teaching on issues such as contraception
and homosexuality. When the English edition is available, buy two
copies: one for yourself and one as a gift for your associate pastor.
Q: What are the Nag Hammadi writings, and do they reveal
anything we didn't already know about Christ or the Bible?
A: Discovered in 1945 near the village of Nag Hammadi in Upper
Egypt, they are fourth-century papyrus manuscripts that formed part
of a gnostic library. The writings are a valuable source of information
about gnostic beliefs and practices. From them we can see more clearly
the arguments and the theology the gnostics used in their attacks
on the Catholic Church.
Although some writings are fragmentary, enough are still intact that
a fairly clear picture of gnosticism emerges in the pseudo-gospels
and epistles. Included in the Nag Hammadi collection are such spurious
works as the Apocryphon of John, the Gospel of Philip,
the Apocalypse of Paul, and the Gospel of Mary.
Scholars were delighted to discover several works whose existence
was known in the early centuries of the Church but which were presumed
lost. Perhaps the best treatment in English of these writings is The
Nag Hammadi Library (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988).
Many Catholic theologians of the first several centuries devoted themselves
to refuting the gnostic arguments, in particular, Irenaeus of Lyons
(140-202), who wrote a devastating critique of gnosticism in his masterful
five-volume work, Detection and Overthrow of the Gnosis Falsely
So-Called, more commonly known as Against Heresies.
Q: Well that helps. Now I have an inkling of what the Nag
Hammadi writings are, but you still need to define gnosticism.
A: Gnosticism, which gets its name from the Greek word gnosis
("knowledge") was a religious movement beginning, possibly,
before the time of Christ and extending into the first few centuries
of the Christian era. Gnostics viewed themselves as "those who
know." Their heretical teachings varied from group to group and
can't be pinned down with specificity, but common gnostic beliefs
included these:
1. Although Christ appeared to be human, his humanity was merely an
illusion.
2. Christ appeared to die, but did not really die. The Crucifixion
was really a crucifiction.
3. Christ was not truly God, the second Person of the Trinity. He
was merely a created being who was the lowest of the aeons, a
group of semi-divine beings between God and man. Each lower aeon
was given power by a higher aeon. Christ, the aeon
furthest removed from God, created the world because God was too pure
to dirty himself with matter.
4. Matter is evil, so one can do anything one wants with one's body,
including killing it to release the soul from its imprisonment.
5. The God of the Old Testament is evil, as evidenced by the fact
that he created the material universe. He is not the same as the God
of the New Testament, who is the God of Love, as Jesus and his apostles
taught (1 John 4:8, 16).
6. People are saved by acquiring secret knowledge (gnosis),
which is imparted only to the initiated.
Gnosticism was similar in some ways to the modern New Age movement.
Like New Agers, gnostics used Christian terminology and symbols, but
placed them in an alien religious context that gutted the essential
teachings of Christ. It's unclear when gnosticism began. Many Church
Fathers thought gnosticism was founded by Simon Magus, the Samaritan
sorcerer who converted to Christianity (Acts 8:9-24). Some contemporary
scholars think gnosticism started a few centuries before Christianity
and then invaded it from the outside through the conversion to Christianity
of Jewish and Gentile gnostics. Other scholars believe gnosticism
started as a Christian heresy.
It seems clear, though, that the apostles themselves had to contend
with a form of gnosticism (Col. 2:8, 18, 1 John 4:1-3, Rev. 2:6,
15). Paul said, "Avoid profane babbling and the absurdities of
so-called knowledge [gnosis]. By professing it some people
have deviated from the faith" (1 Tim. 6:20-21).
Q: How should I respond to an atheist who denies creation,
claims there has been an infinite number of universes before this
one, and believes that the universe was made not by God but through
the "big bang," part of the universe's endless cycle of
expansion and contraction?
A: There are several points you could make. First note that
in order for the universe to fall back in on itself there would have
to be enough mass for gravity to overcome the outward force of the
expansion. But according to the best estimates scientists have, there
isn't enough matter to cause such a contraction. Consequently, if
the universe cannot contract, there could have been no previous big
bangs and no endless cycles. At most you could posit one big bang.
There is nothing that would cause the universe to expand again after
it had collapsed. If such a collapse occurred - a big crunch, so
to speak - the universe would remain in an unimaginably compressed
state, never capable of expanding again. The tremendous gravity exerted
by such a great mass would prevent any expansion. Black holes, which
are most probably collapsed stars, are an example of this phenomenon
on a much smaller scale. A black hole's gravitational pull is so strong
not even light is able to escape from it.
If all the matter in the universe were compressed into a single black
hole or something like a black hole, the gravitational forces would
be incalculable, and it is hard to imagine anything that could overcome
them. If they couldn't be overcome, nothing could escape in the form
of another big bang.
Even if there were a mechanism to re-expand the universe, each cycle
of expansion and contraction would lose energy because of entropy,
the tendency to of matter run down, much as a spring-driven clock
runs down. The extent of the universe's expansion would diminish with
each cycle - consider how swings of a pendulum slowly diminish - and
eventually the universe would cease expanding entirely, its mass remaining
collapsed. There could never be an infinite number of successive expansions
and contractions.
Keep in mind that the idea that the universe came into existence as
a result of a cataclysmic explosion of highly compressed matter is
not inconsistent with the Catholic teaching that God created the universe.
A big bang could have been part of his method of creation.
But an atheist has a problem here. If there really was a big bang,
and if there could not have been an infinite series of big bangs before
the present one, then there are only two possibilities: Either God
created matter out of nothing and (arguably) set things going through
a big bang - this alternative destroys atheism - or matter existed
for an infinite amount of time in a primordial black hole state. But
if it existed that way for an infinite amount of time, it never could
have exploded in the big bang.
If an infinite amount of time passed without a big bang, then every
combination of protoplasmic matter and energy would have existed at
one time or another within that black hole, without any one combination
leading to the big bang. All the combinations would have been tried,
and none of them would have produced the explosion. (Remember, this
presumes an infinite amount of time.) If none of the combinations
could have produced a big bang, and if a big bang occurred anyway,
it could have arisen only from outside intervention, not from anything
inside the black hole.
Since the whole of the universe - all matter and energy, even space
Itself - was compressed into the black hole, "outside"
must imply a non-natural force, a force above nature, and that is
the definition of supernatural. No matter which alternative an atheist
takes, he ends up with God.
Q: What is a miracle? Is it a violation of a law of nature?
Didn't people in the past believe in miracles only because they didn't
know much about science?
A: A miracle may be defined as an event that occurs in nature
but that has a cause lying outside nature, that is, a supernatural
cause. Miracles are not violations of the laws of nature. The way
we know if an event is a miracle is by seeing if it could have been
caused by natural forces.
For example, when Jesus changed water to wine (John 2:1-11), it would
have been impossible for random movements or any other natural stimuli
to have effected this transubstantiation. If the water could not have
turned into wine by natural means, the change must have had a supernatural
cause. Since we know nature could not effect this change, we infer
that a miracle took place. In fact, it is precisely because of our
knowledge of science that we can identify miracles when they occur.
As C. S. Lewis pointed out, the Virgin Birth is only perceivable as
a miracle if one first knows the law of nature that virgins don't
normally give birth. Joseph understood this law of nature. When he
discovered Mary was pregnant, he initially suspected her of unfaithfulness
(Matt. 1:19). It took a visit from an angel of the Lord to convince
him of the miraculous nature of Mary's pregnancy.
To learn more about how eminently scientific it is to believe in miracles,
get hold of these books: Miracles, by C. S. Lewis, Miracles:
A Catholic View, by Ralph McInerny, Scaling the Secular City,
by J. P. Moreland, and That You May Believe and Miracles
and the Critical Mind, both by Colin Brown. Highly recommended
are the now out-of-print works of Catholic apologist Arnold Lunn,
Revolt Against Reason and And Yet So New.
Q: What is the Catholic Church's official position on Freemasonry?
Are Catholics free to become Freemasons?
A: Freemasonry is incompatible with the Catholic faith. Freemasonry
teaches a naturalistic religion that espouses indifferentism, the
position that a person can be equally pleasing to God while remaining
in any religion.
Masonry is a parallel religion to Christianity. The New Catholic
Encyclopedia states, "Freemasonry displays all the elements
of religion, and as such it becomes a rival to the religion of the
Gospel. It includes temples and altars, prayers, a moral code, worship,
vestments, feast days, the promise of reward or punishment in the
afterlife, a hierarchy, and initiation and burial rites" (vol.
6, p. 137).
Masonry is also a secret society. Its initiates subscribe to secret
blood oaths that are contrary to Christian morals. The prospective
Mason swears that if he ever reveals the secrets of Masonry - secrets
which are trivial and already well-known - he wills to be subject
to self-mutilation or to gruesome execution. (Most Masons, admittedly,
never would dream of carrying out these punishments on themselves
or on an errant member).
Historically, one of Masonry's primary objectives has been the destruction
of the Catholic Church; this is especially true of Freemasonry as
it has existed in certain European countries. In the United States,
Freemasonry is often little more than a social club, but it still
espouses a naturalistic religion that contradicts orthodox Christianity.
(Those interested in joining a men's club should consider the Knights
of Columbus instead.)
The Church has imposed the penalty of excommunication on Catholics
who become Freemasons. The penalty of excommunication for joining
the Masonic Lodge was explicit in the 1917 code of canon law (canon
2335), and it is implicit in the 1983 code (canon 1374).
Because the revised code of canon law is not explicit on this point,
some drew the mistaken conclusion that the Church's prohibition of
Freemasonry had been dropped. As a result of this confusion, shortly
before the 1983 code was promulgated, the Sacred Congregation for
the Doctrine of the Faith issued a statement indicating that the penalty
was still in force. This statement was dated November 26, 1983 and
may be found in Origins 13/27 (Nov. 15, 1983), 450.
|
C A T H O L I C A N S W E R S :
[TOP]
of
