|
Q u i c k Q u e s t i o n s
|
This Rock
Volume 5, Number 3
 March 1994 
|
|
|
WHY JWS OPPOSE BIRTHDAY PARTIES
Q: My wife is studying with Jehovah's Witnesses, and they
have convinced her that celebrating birthdays is a pagan custom and
not something Christians should do. She refuses to allow our children
to celebrate their birthdays. What should I do?
A: Birthday celebrations are mentioned only a few times in
Scripture, and nowhere are they condemned. Witnesses wrongly assume
that celebrating birthdays is evil because the only two explicit biblical
mentions of birthday celebrations are those in honor of a pagan, Pharaoh
(Gen. 40:20-22), and a wicked man, Herod Antipas (Mark 6:21; cf. Matt.
14:1-12). To compound the issue, King Herod's birthday festivities
were the occasion of sexual immorality involving the daughter of his
brother's wife, Herodias, and led to the murder of John the Baptist.
Witnesses wrongly reason that, because these biblical occurrences
depict the celebration of the birth of wicked men, celebrating anyone's
birthday is in itself sinful. You can demonstrate that this does not
logically follow by showing that the Bible says that the birthday
of John the Baptist would be the cause of "joy and gladness,
and many will rejoice at his birth for he will be great in the sight
of the Lord" (Luke 1:14-15). While this passage does not explicitly
mention an annual celebration of John the Baptist's birth, it certainly
allows for such an interpretation and at the very least demonstrates
that it is good to celebrate the birth of a holy person.
Q: Why won't Jehovah's Witnesses accept blood transfusions,
even when their lives are in jeopardy?
A: Mainly because their founder, Charles Taze Russell, scrambled
to come up with a unique set of doctrines that would stand out from
the pack. He didn't seem to care which biblical teachings he embraced
and which he rejected, so long as the resulting doctrinal pastiche
would be exotic. Rejecting blood transfusions on "biblical"
grounds is one of the odd tenets that make the Watchtower a truly
organization. Witnesses cite two verses as bases for their position:
"You shall eat no blood whatever, whether of fowl or of animal,
in any of your dwellings. Whoever eats any blood, that person shall
be cut off from his people" (Lev. 7:26-27); "For the life
of every creature is the blood of it; therefore I have said to the
people of Israel, You shall not eat the blood of any creature, for
the life of every creature is its blood; whoever eats it shall be
cut off" (Lev. 17:14).
Besides being inconsistent by retaining this particular Old Covenant
prohibition while ignoring others, such as circumcision (cf. Gen.
17:2-14) and kosher dietary laws (cf. Deut. 14:3-21), Witnesses misunderstand
what these passages are talking about. In both Leviticus 7 and 17
the prohibition is against the eating of blood, not reception
of blood through transfusions (a medical procedure which was developed
only within the last century). Witnesses ignore the fact that in a
single passage in Leviticus the Lord prohibits the eating of both
blood and fat: "It shall be a perpetual statute throughout your
generations, in all your dwelling places, that you eat neither fat
nor blood" (3:17). Yet the Watchtower does not condemn the eating
of fat, and no Jehovah's Witness would feel any moral compunction
against eating a bag of fried pork rinds or enjoying a nice, fatty
cut of prime rib. This is a good example of the Watchtower's selective
"theology."
Q: A tract about Our Lady of Fatima's peace plan states
that wars are a punishment from God for sin. Is this true? It doesn't
seem reasonable to suggest that he would ordain wars and disasters
on certain people for punishment of sin, of which we are all equally
guilty.
A: Sometimes wars are a punishment for sin. The Old
Testament explicitly links various invasions of Israel to the nation's
sin, especially the sin of idolatry (Jgs. 2:14-15, 5:8, 2 Kgs. 15:37,
1 Chr. 5:26). This principle is applied to Gentile nations as well.
The Pentateuch (the first five books of the Bible; Torah to
the Jews) teaches that the Canaanite people, who lived in the Promised
Land before Israel, were going to be judged by God for their sins.
This was why God let the Israelites conquer the Canaanites (Lev. 18:24-28).
Sometimes wars may not be punishments for sin. Luke 13:1-5 establishes
a general principle for evaluating the cause of disaster. Christ tells
us that simply because a given group of people was stricken with disaster,
this does not mean they were worse sinners than those who were spared.
Christ teaches that all of us must repent or we too shall perish (Luke
13:5).
Nor does this mean that there are no differences between one man's
sins and another's. We are all sinners (1 John 1:8), but we are not
equally grievous sinners. Some sins are worse than others (1 John
5:16-17), and some people deserve more punishment than others (Luke
12:47-48).
Q: We sometimes hear people say that we cannot trust the
accuracy of the book of Genesis because of the "JEDP" theory.
What is that, and why is it supposed to disprove Genesis?
A: The JEDP theory claims that the Pentateuch, the five books
of Moses, were compiled from four sources or traditions, which are
respectively known as the Jahwist, Elohist, Priestly, and Deuterocanonical
sources (hence the abbreviation JEDP). This theory is also known under
other names, such as the Wellhausen hypothesis (named after Julius
Wellhausen, who pioneered the theory).
This theory states that a final editor or compositor (or a number
of them) drew upon these different traditions in assembling the Pentateuch
and that one can identify the source by noting certain clues in the
text. For example, the Jahwist source is supposed to favor the divine
name Yahweh "(I AM"), while the Elohist
source is supposed to favor the term Elohim or El ("God").
Three of the sources, J, E, and P, are thought to have gone into the
writing of Genesis. The reason many think this undermines the historicity
of Genesis is that all of these sources are considered inaccurate,
written centuries after the time of Moses.
In fact, the conclusion that they are inaccurate does not follow from
the idea that they are from a late date. Under the inspiration of
the Holy Spirit even late sources are infallible, just like early
sources. The conclusion that Moses did not edit or oversee the editing
of the Genesis is also not required. Even if J, E, D, and P were real
sources, Moses could have been the one who wove them together. There
are other problems with the JEDP theory. For example, many passages
in Genesis contain references to God using both divine names ("the
Lord God" or "Yahweh Elohim").
For an excellent discussion and critique of the JEDP theory, see Before
Abraham Was by Isaac Kikawada and Arthur Quinn (available from
Catholic Answers for $13.95 post paid).
At Catholic Answers, we prefer the GELND theory, which claims that
the Pentateuch is a compilation of five sources: Genesis, Exodus,
Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.
Q: How can I respond when people argue against the Church
by pointing to bad priests who are engaged in sexual misbehavior?
A: Tell them to read their Bible. In 1 Samuel 2 they will
read about the two sons of Eli, who were wicked priests. These priests
were known to be having intercourse with the women who worked at the
Tabernacle (1 Sam. 2:22-24). God punished them for their wickedness
(1 Sam. 2:25, 34, 4:11), but that did not disprove the religion of
Israel or that its priesthood was from God. Similarly, the fact that
there are bad priests today does not prove that the Catholic religion
is false or that its priesthood is not from God.
Bad priests have been around since the Old Testament, and if you had
judged the religion of Israel by the quality of some of its priests,
you would have missed out on the true religion. Ditto for Catholicism
today.
Q: How can I argue that the story of Bel and the Dragon
(Dan. 14) is true when a dragon, an imaginary creature, appears in
the story?
A: Daniel 14 records that some of the Babylonians around Daniel
worshipped a living creature as a god, and this creature is called
a drakon in the Greek version of Daniel 14. While the term
drakon is often translated into English as "dragon,"
this is not the only meaning of the term in the Septuagint Greek in
which Daniel 14 is written.
"In the Septuagint drakon is used to translate a wide
variety of Hebrew words denoting various kinds of terrifying animals,
including terrestrial animals, such as the wolf (Micah 1:8), snake
(Ex. 32:33), and large reptiles (Job 40:20[25]), as well as marine
animals, such as actual sea creatures (Ps. 103[104]:26) . . . While
modern English translations still prefer to translate drakon in
our verse as `dragon' (with all the awesomeness, mystery, and eerie
nuances that word may have), it is nonetheless better to render it
as `snake,' since candidates for our sacred drakon must be
limited to the ranks of actual living creatures" (Carey A. Moore,
Daniel, Esther, and Jeremiah: The Additions [Anchor
Bible vol. 44], 141-142).
Some translators are now referring to the story of "Bel and the
Dragon" as "Bel and the Snake;" snake worship being
common in the ancient world.
Q: Secularists have the American Civil Liberties Union,
and Protestants have the Rutherford Foundation, but are there any
Catholic legal defense organizations to protect the legal and civil
rights of Catholics? Are there any organizations to make sure they
get their ecclesial rights within the Church?
A: Yes to both questions. For cases where Catholics are being
denied their rights in the secular world, contact the Catholic League
for Religious and Civil Rights, 1011 First Ave., New York, NY 10022,
phone (212) 371-3191. This organization exists to help defend the
rights of Catholics in American courts.
For cases where Catholics are being denied their ecclesial rights
within the Church, contact the St. Joseph Foundation, 4211 Gardendale,
Suite A-100, San Antonio, TX 78229, phone (210) 614-3673.
Q: Why does the Catholic Church claim (from Vatican I) that
its doctrines can be verified by the "universal and unanimous
consent of the Fathers" when it's so easy to prove that the Fathers
were not unanimous in their teachings? Catholic doctrines such as
purgatory, baptismal regeneration, and papal primacy were not "universally"
held in the early Church.
A: While the assembled bishops at Vatican I did invoke the
authority of the Fathers on the issue of papal primacy (cf. Sess.
4, ch. 4), they did not say that only those doctrines that enjoyed
universal and unanimous consent of the Fathers were to be believed.
In fact, Vatican I says nothing even remotely like that. It appeals
to the testimony of the Fathers only briefly, after having first given
a detailed elucidation from Scripture of the doctrines of papal primacy
and infallibility.
It's a matter of historical record that the Church Fathers disagreed
on various issues. Some, such as Origen and Tertullian (who are not
officially titled "Fathers," although they are ranked among
the major theological writers of the early Church), even lapsed into
heresy. The point is not that every Father agreed with every other
Father on every issue--that would constitute an absolute mathematical
unanimity, something which the Catholic Church does not claim. Rather,
there was a moral unanimity of teaching among the
Fathers. This means that doctrines such as the ones listed in your
question were universally held and taught by the Catholic Church.
Some Fathers wrote on these issues, to greater and lesser extents.
Some never mentioned certain doctrines at all (at least not in their
writings which have survived), and others can be seen to have held
erroneous opinions about other doctrines.
The Catholic Church never has claimed that every Church Father at
all times believed and taught every single Catholic doctrine in the
sense that the Church teaches it. It is the Church as a single organic
entity, the Body of Christ (cf. 1 Cor. 12:12-27) that always and everywhere
has faithfully guarded and proclaimed the apostolic deposit of faith--not
necessarily its individual members. This is true today. The Catholic
Church universally teaches, as it always has, the Real Presence of
Jesus in the Eucharist. But there are droves of "Catholics"
who, as a result of spiritual apathy or being poorly catechized, do
not believe this doctrine as taught by the Church. This in no way
contradicts the truth that the Church "universally" holds
this doctrine.
Purgatory, baptismal regeneration, and papal primacy were universally
taught in the early Church, as can be demonstrated by a study of patristic
writings. (For starters, consider the many quotations from the Fathers
on these issues in "The Fathers Know Best" department of
This Rock). The Fathers appealed not only to Scripture as
their doctrinal authority, but also to the Fathers who came before
them, to show the constant tradition of Catholic teaching on a given
subject.
Around 150 Irenaeus appealed to the traditional teachings of the Fathers
(Against Heresies 2:2-4) to show that Catholic teaching could
be established from both Scripture and Tradition. Tertullian appealed
to the moral unanimity of the Fathers who preceded him to show the
universality of Catholic doctrine: "[Is it plausible to imagine
that the Holy Spirit] neglected his office, permitting the churches
[dioceses] for a time to understand differently, and to believe differently,
what he himself was preaching by the apostles; is it likely that so
many churches, and they so great, should have gone astray into one
and the same faith? Error of doctrine in the churches must necessarily
have produced various issues [beliefs]. When, however, that which
is deposited among many is found to be one and the same, it is not
the result of error, but of tradition" (Praescripciones 28).
Basil of Caesarea appealed to the testimony of the Fathers: "Now
I accept no newer creed written for me by other men, nor do I venture
to propound the outcome of my own intelligence, lest I make the words
of true religion merely human words; but [only] what I have been taught
by the holy Fathers, that I announce to all who question me. In my
Church the creed written by the holy Fathers in synod at Nicaea is
in use" (Letter 140:2).
Vincent of Lerins summarized the issue: "Therefore, as soon as
the corruption of each mischievous error begins to break forth, and
to defend itself by filching certain passages of Scripture, and expounding
them fraudulently and deceitfully, forthwith the opinions of the ancients
in the interpretation of the canon are to be collected, whereby the
novelty . . . may be condemned. But the opinions of those Fathers
only are to be used for comparison who, living and teaching, holily,
wisely, and with constancy, in the Catholic faith and communion, were
counted worthy either to die in the faith of Christ or to suffer death
happily for Christ. Whom yet we are to believe on this condition,
that only is to be accounted indubitable, certain, established, which
either all or the most part have supported and confirmed manifestly,
frequently, persistently, in one and the same sense, forming, as it
were, a consentient council of doctors, all receiving, holding, handing
on the same doctrine. But whatsoever a teacher holds, be he a bishop,
be he a confessor, be he a martyr, let that be regarded as a private
fancy of his own, and [let it] be separated from the authority common,
public, general persuasion." (Commonitoria 28:72-23 [A.D.
434]).
Q: Our parish is abuzz over the book Joshua by Fr.
Joseph Girzone. Is this a good book to read?
A: We won't make a judgment on taste, but if it's orthodoxy
you're after, you may want to stay away from Joshua. The book
tells of a man by that name who begins to preach in an anonymous American
town. The implication is that Joshua is Jesus reincarnate on earth.
This Joshua gathers a following of people attracted to his goodness
and gentle spirituality. In a book written by a priest, you'd think
Joshua (Jesus) would send these followers straight up the steps of
the nearest Catholic Church, but he doesn't. He visits a Catholic
church (and is treated rather unkindly by the priest), as well as
a synagogue (where he impresses the congregation with his knowledge
of Hebrew) and a variety of Protestant assemblies, blessing them all
and giving special favor to none.
Joshua preaches a suspiciously simple gospel, one that emphasizes
social justice and inner spirituality over ceremony and dogma. He
speaks disparagingly of "religions" which "bind"
people in fear with laws and doctrines instead of teaching the simple
message of God's love. Sound familiar? Finally, in a most extraordinary
incident, he is called to Rome to answer for his actions to the all-seeing,
all-knowing authority: the pope, who, we are supposed to believe,
consider this small-time American holy man a threat to his dominion.
This is nonsense, of course, but it makes sense when you realize that
Fr. Girzone is a well-known dissenter from the "institutional"
Church, and in Joshua (and its sequels) has found a vessel
to spread his heterodox views.
Q: I've heard that when a man leaves the priesthood, he
undergoes a process called "laicization," which takes away
his priestly powers, making him a regular layman. Is this correct?
A: It is only partly correct. Laicization is a process which
takes from a priest or other cleric the licit use of his powers, rights,
and authority. Laicization occurs automatically when a priest, deacon,
or monk marries or joins the military without permission. Major clerics
(priests and deacons) are directly laicized through their superiors
by the penalty of degradation. The Holy See also has the privilege
of laicizing major clerics.
Laicized clerics are forbidden to wear clerical dress or to perform
ceremonies or to administer the sacraments ordinary to their former
offices. Priests who are laicized are required to continue practicing
celibacy, although dispensations from this discipline are frequently
given. Otherwise, laicization renders a cleric for ecclesiastical
purposes the equivalent of a layman.
The supernatural mark of holy orders and the powers connected with
the sacrament (especially for the priest) remain even after laicization,
although they cannot be used licitly. A laicized priest has the power
to confect the Eucharist. Although to the world he may live as a layman,
in a sense "once a priest, always a priest."
Q: What can you tell me about the book Poem of the Man-God? Has
it been condemned by the Church?
A: Poem of the Man-God, a multi-volume work of prose
written by Maria Valtorta, purports to be a factual account of the
life of Christ as revealed by Jesus himself. Interest in the work
grew after one of the alleged seers from Medjugorje claimed that the
Virgin Mary okayed the reading of the book. The history of the book
leads one to question the credibility of this claim. In 1960 The
Poem of the Man-God, then a four-volume set, was placed on
the Index of Forbidden Books. The official Vatican newspaper, L'Osservatore
Romano, summarized the findings of the Holy Office in an article
titled "A Life of Jesus Badly Fictionalized." When the publishers
tried to get around this condemnation the next year by publishing
a new ten-volume set, the work again was condemned in the Vatican
paper which called it "a mountain of childishness, of fantasies,
and of historical and exegetical falsehoods, diluted in a subtly sensual
atmosphere."
In correspondence with Catholic Answers, the current Apostolic Nuncio,
Archbishop Agostino Cacciavillan, pointed out that, although the Index
was abolished in 1965, it still retains its moral force, and faithful
Catholics should heed the reservations and cautions expressed in it.
Q: Is it true that the Greek Orthodox Church believes in
infallibility, but not in the Catholic sense?
A: The members of the Greek Orthodox Church believe that the
only infallible authority is an ecumenical council of all the bishops
of the world. They believe that there were only seven such councils
held before Eastern Schism, when the Eastern churches split from Rome.
They say the charism of infallibility is now inoperative or non-existent
and will be until the Eastern churches are reunited with Rome. This
is in stark contrast to their predecessors at the Council of Chalcedon
in 451, who said "Peter has spoken through the mouth of Leo [the
then-reigning Pope Leo I].The matter is closed. Let him who will not
listen to Leo be anathema."
Q: Why didn't Jesus' preaching and miracles convince more
Jews to follow him? It seems that he should have been more successful
in influencing them.
A: It is a mistake to believe that Jesus wasn't successful
in influencing people to believe in him. The Pharisees and chief priests
who had him arrested and killed testify otherwise. When Jesus entered
triumphantly into Jerusalem, the Pharisees exclaimed, "Look,
the whole world has gone after him" (John 12:19). When the chief
priests and scribes were plotting a way to arrest and kill Jesus,
they said, "Not during the festival [Passover], for fear that
there may be a riot among the people" (Mark 14:2). The plotting
and arrest were done at night for fear that the people would revolt. He
was seized in Jerusalem where he had come for only a few short visits;
most of his preaching and miracles were done in Galilee. The original
Jewish converts lost their Jewish identity once they intermingled
with Gentile Christians. This, along with the fact that modern Jews
are descendants of those who rejected Jesus, gives us the mistaken
notion that few were influenced by him 2,000 years ago.
|
[TOP]
