|
Q u i c k Q u e s t i o n s
|
This Rock
Volume 4, Number 12
 December 1993 
|
|
|
BEWARE THE PERILS OF PAULINE PRIVILEGE!
Q: A couple I know wants to have their marriage ended by
the Church, and a priest told me that they should ask about the Pauline
Privilege. What is that, and how does it differ from an annulment?
A: A Pauline Privilege is the dissolution of a purely natural
marriage which had been contracted between two non-Christians, one
of whom has since become a Christian. The Pauline Privilege is so-named
because it is based upon the apostle Paul's words in 1 Corinthians
7:12-16.
In 1 Corinthians 7 Paul gives instructions concerning problem marriages.
In verses 10-11 he discusses sacramental marriages (marriages between
two baptized people) and indicates that they are indissoluble. It
is possible for a husband and a wife in a sacramental marriage to
separate, but they cannot remarry. They must remain separated and
not attempt to marry again, or they must reconcile with one other.
In verses 12-16 Paul gives instructions concerning the thornier case
of a couple who have only a natural marriage. A sacramental marriage,
one that communicates supernatural grace, requires that both partners
be baptized. If neither is or only one is, their union is only a natural
one. Sometimes one party to a natural marriage converts and becomes
a Christian, which can cause the marital problems that Christians
are expected to face (Luke 12:51-53, 18:29-30).
While natural marriages should be preserved if at all possible (1
Cor. 7:12-14, 16), they can be dissolved in some cases. Paul tells
us in verse 15 that if the unbelieving spouse refuses to live with
the Christian partner, the unbeliever can be allowed to withdraw from
the marriage, leaving the Christian partner unbound, free to remarry.
The Pauline Privilege thus may apply when the Church dissolves a natural
marriage after one partner has become Christian and there is a just
cause, such as the non-Catholic's refusal to live at peace with the
Christian partner.
The Pauline Privilege differs from an annulment because it dissolves
a real but natural marriage. An annulment is a declaration that there
never was a valid marriage to begin with.
The Pauline Privilege does not apply when two baptized people marry
and later one quits being Christian. These people had a sacramental
marriage forged between them, and this marriage is indissoluble, even
if one partner is failing to fulfill his marital responsibilities.
In that case 1 Corinthians 7:10-11, which concerns such problem marriages,
applies.
The Pauline Privilege also does not apply when a Christian has married
a non-Christian. In those cases, a natural marriage exists and can
be dissolved for a just cause, but by what is called the Petrine Privilege
rather than by the Pauline Privilege. The Petrine Privilege is so-named
because it is reserved to the Holy See, so only Rome can grant the
Petrine Privilege (which it seldom does).
A biblical precedent for the Petrine Privilege, where some of the
faithful marry unbelievers and then are permitted to divorce them,
is found in Ezra 10:1-14, where the Jews put away their foreign (pagan)
wives.
Q: A friend brought to my attention 1 Corinthians 12:8-10,
which, he said, proves that there are nine "gifts of the Spirit"
instead of seven, as Catholics claim. I need to answer my friend--what
I really need is a list containing all the gifts of the Spirit.
A: 1 Corinthians 12:8-10 lists nine gifts of the Spirit, but
there are other passages which list different numbers. The Catholic
tradition of referring to seven gifts of the Spirit is based on Isaiah
11:2,where, in the Greek version of the Old Testament, seven gifts
are listed (wisdom, understanding, counsel, fortitude, knowledge,
piety, and the fear of the Lord).
Because these are different kinds of gifts from those listed in 1
Corinthians 12 (speaking in tongues, interpretation of tongues, discernment
of spirits, prophecy, healings, miracles, faith, word of knowledge,
and word of wisdom), Catholics generally refer to the latter as "charisms
of the Spirit," based on the Greek word for gift (charisma).
They do this to distinguish the charisms from the gifts of the Spirit
listed in Isaiah 11:2.
Scripture gives other lists. Romans 12:6-8 lists seven gifts (prophecy,
service, teaching, exhortation, giving, leadership, and showing mercy).
Galatians 5:22-23 lists nine "fruits" of the Spirit (love,
joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness,
and self-control).
There are three reasons why it is difficult to produce a definitive
list of the gifts of the Spirit: (1) Since none of the lists is exhaustive,
it is hard to be certain that all of them together are; (2) Some items
on one list may appear on another list under a different name; for
example, is the gift of teaching mentioned in Romans 12 the same as
the word of knowledge mentioned in 1 Corinthians 12? (3) The lists
focus on different kinds of gifts, 1 Corinthians 12 on miraculous,
supernatural manifestations, Galatians 5 on moral beatitudes, and
Isaiah 11 on practical aids.
Q: When people talk about "the Lord," to whom
are they referring? Are they speaking of God the Father or God the
Son?
A: This simple question has a complicated answer. "Lord"
is often used as a substitute for "Yahweh," the name of
God. One can refer to God as "the Lord" in a generic way,
without differentiating between the three Persons of the Trinity.
On the other hand, since the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit
are each God, they are each Yahweh, and so can be referred to as "the
Lord" individually. Sometimes God the Father is spoken of as
"the Lord," sometimes God the Son is, and sometimes God
the Spirit is. When people refer to one of the members of the Trinity
as "the Lord," it most frequently will be the Father, next
most frequently the Son, and least frequently the Spirit.
Calling the Father and the Son "Lord" comes from the Bible.
In Matthew 11:25 we read, "At that time Jesus declared, `I thank
you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth . . . '" In John 21:12
we read that the disciples identified Jesus as the Lord: "Jesus
said to them, `Come and have breakfast.' Now none of the disciples
dared ask him, `Who are you?' They knew it was the Lord."
At times it can be difficult to tell from the context whether a given
use of "Lord" is a generic reference to God which does not
differentiate between the Persons of the Trinity or whether it is
a reference to one of the Persons in particular. Sometimes clues can
help us figure this out. For example, when we see the phrase "our
Lord" it is usually short for "our Lord Jesus Christ"
(God the Son).
Q: Doesn't the fact that religions contradict each other
imply that they are all wrong and that we should listen to none of
them?
A: Not at all. It merely proves that one of the claims of
Christianity is true: The world is a messed-up place.
This is a more important insight than it may appear at first glance.
The fact there are so many competing, contradictory religions is tragic.
It means that a great many people are believing falsehoods. But this
very thing gives us a clue about which religion is true: If the world
is so topsy-turvy that most people are in false religions, then the
true religion will recognize this. Any faith that says the world is
not mired in religious confusion can be eliminated from consideration;
it fails to give us a clear account of a basic and evident fact.
Q: Since there are so many religions in the world, the odds
of picking one at random and being right are very low. Shouldn't I
then refrain from picking any of them and just be an agnostic?
A: No. There are three problems with your argument. First,
it commits a logical fallacy. This fallacy can be seen in a well-known
puzzle in philosophy called the lottery paradox. Suppose there is
a lottery where the winner is drawn from a pool of a hundred tickets.
If you took the first ticket and assessed the odds it would be the
winner, they would be very low: one in one hundred. It probably would
not be picked. But the same can be said about the second ticket, and
the third, and all of the remaining tickets. Taken individually, the
odds are against any given ticket being drawn. But it is a logically
fallacy to conclude from this that no ticket will be drawn.
Someone has to have the winning ticket. The same logic applies
to the consideration of religions: Even if the odds are low that any
given religion, picked at random, is true, this does not mean that
no religion is true.
Second, by refusing to pick one of the established religions you are
still taking a religious stance: agnosticism. This is only one religious
option among many, and the odds that it is the correct one are no
better than the odds that any other religion, picked at random, is
the correct one. In fact, the odds are lower. Agnosticism, the religion
of no-religion, is the one option guaranteed not to give you the truth
about the world. Even atheism has a greater chance of giving you the
truth about the world than agnosticism, since the whole point of agnosticism
lies in not deciding the question!
Third, who said we have to pick a religion at random? We have evidence
we can look at, weigh up, and use as a basis for our decisions. We
can look at the arguments for God's existence, the evidence that Christ
rose from the dead, and the reasons why the New Testament is historically
reliable.
As soon as we admit the first piece of evidence for consideration,
we are no longer picking at random, and the odds for and against given
religions change. They are no longer equally probable. Some are more
probable, some less. Thus the odds of choosing the right one increase.
Q: In one of your tapes on Mormonism you claim Mormons believe
God "cursed" certain people by giving them dark skin. Can
you give me the references?
A: The Book of Mormon says that the Lamanites and some Nephites (Jews
who are alleged to have migrated from Palestine to the New World around
600 B.C) were punished by God for their wickedness. The "punishment,"
inflicted in the form of a curse, was to turn them from white-skinned
Semites into dark-skinned Indians (cf. 1 Nephi 12:23; 2 Nephi 5:20-24;
Jacob 3:3-5; Alma 3:5-9; Mormon 5:15-18). The Book of Mormon adds
that those who receive the curse and later repent can have their skins
turned white again (Jacob 3:8; 3 Nephi 2:14-15; Alma 23:18).
Q: I'm interested in comparing the liturgy of the Early
Church with the Old Testament Temple liturgies and sacrifices. Any
recommendations on good books?
A: Start with Henri Daniel-Rops, Daily Life in the Time
of Christ (available from This Rock for $11.95, post-paid).
It's packed with information about Jewish culture in first-century
Palestine and includes excellent chapters on Temple liturgy and the
functions of the Levitical priests. For more advanced reading you
should acquire Alfred Edersheim's The Temple: It's Ministry and
Services (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990 ed.). This Anglican scholar's
masterful and trustworthy treatment of things pertaining to the Temple
and Temple worship is a must-read for those who want an in-depth understanding
of Jewish liturgy. In addition to his fascinating "you are there"
descriptions of ancient Jerusalem and Herod's Temple, Edersheim explains
everything there is to know about the liturgical prayers, vestments,
sacred vessels, sacrificial foods, and festival cycles.
Q: I was told by our associate pastor that the new Catechism
of the Catholic Church avoids the issue of purgatory and prayers
for the dead because the Church "did away" with those doctrines
after Vatican II. How much truth is there in this?
A: None. First, Vatican II did not do away with any Catholic
doctrine, and it did not change any doctrine. Although Vatican II
didn't discuss the doctrine of purgatory--that was discussed at
the Council of Trent--the conciliar and post-conciliar documents
refer often to purgatory (cf. Indulgentiarum Doctrina 3, 5).
The new universal catechism will be available soon in English, but
those who have read the French or Spanish editions already know that
purgatory is alive and well in its pages (cf. Section 1, ch. 3, art.
12, sect. 3).
Q: Why is Natural Family Planning accepted by the Church
while contraception is condemned? They both do the same thing--prevent
pregnancy.
A: Because you don't judge the morality of actions by their
effects or consequences. You judge their morality by what they essentially
are. Using contraceptives such as condoms or diaphrams may
accomplish the same end result as NFP, but the ways they go about
it are very different.
Humane Vitae defines contraception as "every action which,
in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or
in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether
as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" (14).
Such an action actively eliminates or witholds the procreative
good of the marital act. This is sinful because "every marriage
act must remain open to the transmission of life" (11). Since
one of the two ends of sexual intercourse is procreation (the other
being unity between husband and wife, 12), engaging in sex while deliberately
frustrating the procreative end is, as Pope John Paul II has repeatedly
called it, "a lie in the language of the body."
If practicing contraception is to lie in the language of the body,
to practice NFP is to take the Fifth. Natural Family Planning involves
restricting sexual relations to infertile periods in the woman's cycle.
Although intercourse during these times is less likely to produce
a conception, a couple always remains open to the possibility, having
taken no action to render it impossible; therein lies the difference
(see Humanae Vitae 16). During fertile periods abstinence
is practiced, a sacrifice which shows respect for God's gift of sex
and its proper ends. Conversely, practicing contraception during these
times displays a lack of respect for this gift and a focus instead
on selfish pleasure.
One further difference needs to be pointed out. Contraception is often
a practice of convenience, while NFP, to be licit, must be a practice
of necessity, requiring "serious motives to space out births,
which derive from the physical or psychological conditions of husband
and wife, or from external conditions" (16). Thus it is not,
as some have accused, "contraception Catholic style."
Q: Why do Catholics pray the Angelus? Not only is it repetitive,
but it seems to be totally focused on Mary, thus violating God's commandment
to worship him alone.
A: The Angelus is a prayer centered around the Annunciation
of the angel Gabriel to Mary. The words are taken almost exclusively
from the Gospels: "The angel of the Lord declared unto Mary"
paraphrases Luke 1:30; "Behold the handmaiden of the Lord; be
it done unto me according to thy word" is directly from Luke
1:38; "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us"
is John 1:14. The Angelus is nothing if not scriptural.
The Angelus is prayed both as a commemoration of and a meditation
on the Incarnation, the subject of which is Jesus and the glory for
which is God's. Protestants who accuse it of being "too Marian"
can't escape the vital role Mary played in allowing the Incarnation
to take place in her womb. To honor Mary's faithfulness to God is
to honor the mystery of God made man. By virtue of its Marian character,
the Angelus is ultimately a Christological prayer (as are, of course,
all prayers involving Christ's mother).
Another positive aspect of the Angelus is the regularity with which
it is prayed, traditionally at six A.M., noon, and six P.M.,
against a background of pealing bells. Here is one way the Church
weaves the deepest mysteries of the faith into the daily course of
life. We see this in the painting "The Angelus" by Jean
Francois Millet (1814-1875). This well-known work depicts two peasants,
simply dressed and working in a field, who have put down their farming
tools and harvest baskets for a few moments in the middle of the day
to bow their uncovered heads and to recall, once again, that God has
united himself with our human condition and to honor the woman who
let it be done.
Q: I never knew until recently that there are different
rites within the Catholic Church. Just how many are there, and what
distinguishes them?
A: There are six main rites within the Catholic Church, and
among them are many sub-distinctions. The most populous (comprising
98 percent of all Catholics) is the Roman or Western Rite. This includes
Roman rites in Latin, vernacular, and Slavonic languages, as well
as rites pertaining to specific dioceses: the Ambrosian Rite in Milan,
Italy, the Gallican Rite in Lyons, France, and the Mozarabic Rite
in Toledo, Spain.
The other five rites are known collectively as "Eastern."
These include the Antiochene Rite (comprising the Pure Syrian, Maronite
Syrian, and Malankarese rites), the Chaldean (Pure Chaldean and Malabarese
Rites), the Armenian Rite, the Alexandrian Rite (which is divided
into Egyptian and Ethiopian Rites), and the Byzantine Rite, the Catholic
counterpart to the Orthodox Churches, containing ten rites divided
mostly along national/ethnic lines. These rites are distinguished
mostly by language and liturgical tradition. All of them are in full
communion with the Catholic Church.
Q: I'd like to become an apologist, but don't know how to
start. Where I can find a good school of apologetics?
A: You can't, because there isn't one yet. Even the better
Catholic colleges offer few or no courses in apologetics per se,
and we're not aware of a single seminary offering such a course to
prospective priests. Although many dioceses have programs to train
evangelizers, we have not yet heard of a program that outfits students
with the knowledge and techniques needed to handle, say, door-to-door
missionaries.
In contrast, Fundamentalists have scores of "Bible colleges"
designed in part to train proselytizers, Mormons have their Missionary
Training Center, and Jehovah's Witnesses get regular training at Kingdom
Halls. Evangelical parachurch organizations, such as Campus Crusade,
train their evangelists well, and several "Bible Christian"
groups hold joint seminars on converting Catholics.
All this means we're behind, but we intend to catch up. At Catholic
Answers we have a long-range plan to establish a school of apologetics
and evangelization. Please keep this plan in your prayers.
|
C A T H O L I C A N S W E R S :
[TOP]
of
