|
Q u i c k Q u e s t i o n s
|
This Rock
Volume 5, Number 6
 June 1994 
|
|
|
A Natural Response to Homosexuality
Q: It is easy to show Scripture condemns homosexuality. Can a case be made without referring to Scripture?
A: One way is by showing how homosexuality violates natural law. Many people have a basic ethical intuition that certain behaviors are wrong because they are "unnatural." For example, virtually everyone would agree that bestiality (sex with animals) is unnatural. We perceive intuitively that the natural sex partner of a human is another human, not some lower animal. If one can argue in this fashion, then one can also argue (drawing on the same intuition) that the natural sex partner of a man is a woman and of a woman, a man.
This is also supported by considering the nature of reproductive organs. It is clear that in nature some things have inherent functions (called teleologies by philosophers). In the human body the function of the heart is to pump blood, of the teeth to tear and grind substances (usually food). Reproductive organs also have teleologies which can be easily discerned. The physical design of each organ, as well as the process of human reproduction, is geared for this function. To violate this arrangement is to engage in an unnatural act--thereby offending God, the author of natural law.
Q: I was granted an annulment, and I've begun to wonder: Was I living in sin with my "spouse" during those years? Are our children considered illegitimate?
A: If by "living in sin" you mean fornication--a mortal sin--the answer is no. One requirement of mortal sin is full knowledge of the sin being committed. In a situation where the spouses are unaware of the invalidity of their union--what the Church calls a "putative marriage"--there is no sin of fornication, because this condition is not met.
The Church teaches that children born of a putative marriage (which exists when at least one spouse is convinced of the validity of a marriage and lasts until both are convinced of its invalidity) are considered legitimate, even if the marriage is later declared null (CIC 1137).
Illegitimacy is not a moral or spiritual state. It has no bearing on a child's soul or salvation. Historically, legitimacy impinged only upon canonical matters, being required for ordination or appointment as a prelate or abbot
Q: Someone in my parish told me about the prophesies of St. Malachy, which he claims, prove thaht we are nearing the end of times. What are these prophesies?
A: St. Malachy was an Irish bishop who lived in the twelfth century. By far the more famous of his prophecies concerns the sequence of popes.
The prophecy consist of 112 short Latin descriptions of future popes; the prophecies were discovered in 1590 and attributed to Malachy. Each description indicates one identifying trait for each future pope, beginning with Celestine II, who was elected in 1130. In some instances, the descriptions hit home in an uncanny way; they have led to centuries of speculation that the prophecy might be a real one.
For instance, the description of the future John XXII (1316-1334) is "de sutore osseo"--"from the bony shoemaker." This pope was the son of a shoemaker, and his family name was "Ossa," which means bone. In another example, "lilium et rosa" was the phrase used to describe the pope who would be Urban VIII (1623-1644), whose family coat-of-arms was covered with "lilies and roses."
Malachy's prophecy has been cast into doubt by the fact that the descriptions become vague from the sixteenth century on--about the time the prophecy was "discovered" in the Roman Archives. But there have been a few good matches in modern times. The phrase "pastor et nauta," meaning "shepherd and sailor," was attributed to John XXIII. This pope hailed from Venice, historically a city of sailors, and on the day he took office he indicated the goal of his pontificate was to be "a good shepherd."
There have been many more misses, though. Describing the popes to follow John XXIII are the phrases "flower of flowers" (Paul VI), "from a half-moon" (John Paul I), and "from the toil of the sun" (John Paul II), none of which is an obvious connection. After our current pope there are only two left in Malachy's prophecy, "the glory of the olive" and "Peter the Roman." The latter will supposedly lead the Church through many tribulations, concluding with the last judgment.
Is "Malachy's" prophecy legitimate? Probably not. The consensus among modern scholars is that it is a sixteenth-century forgery created for partisan political reasons.
Q: Who are the Rosicrucians, what do they believe, and why do they believe it?
A: The Rosicrucians are an occult sect originating in either the fifteenth or seventeenth century, depending on which account you accept. The latter is the more plausible and involves the 1610 publication by Johann Valentine Andrea of a work called Fama Fraternitatis, which purported to be a history of a society of mystical healers begun by the German scholar Christian Rosenkreuz. Though this "history" was later admitted to be a complete fabrication, the concept of a brotherhood of men interested in science, medicine, and occultism was a fashionable one at the time and took root in Germany; the Brotherhood of the Rosy Cross spread also to England.
The history of this movement becomes vague after the end of the seventeenth century, and little is known of it until 1866, when modern Rosicrucianism was organized as a branch of Freemasonry. It spread from England to the United States and then back to Continental Europe, and by the end of the nineteenth century Rosicrucians had established numerous lodges, colleges, and regional headquarters throughout the Western world.
Rosicrucian theology is vague and undefined. It has borrowed certain Christian concepts while rejecting others, viewing "all things as complicitly and ideally in God" and tending toward a kind of pantheism. Here there are similarities (unsurprisingly) with the occultic religion of upper-level Freemasonry. Despite their name, the Rosicrucians are not a Christian denomination, nor even a quasi-Christian sect; a Catholic should have nothing to do with them.
Q: Friends who belong to the Foursquare Gospel Church have invited me to attend a lecture, but I am hesitant to go since I know little about that denomination. Can you tell me more?
A: The Foursquare Gospel Church was founded earlier this century by Aimee Semple McPherson. Born Aimee Kennedy in Ontario, Canada in 1890, at seventeen she experienced a conversion under the preaching of evangelist Robert Semple. After marrying Semple, she went to work with him as a missionary in Hong Kong. In 1911, after his death, she returned to the United States with her infant daughter and began preaching. In Florida she married a grocer named Harold McPherson, but the two divorced. A third marriage, in 1931 to a member of her choir, lasted only four months.
In 1918 McPherson moved to Los Angeles, bringing along her daughter and new son. Once there she began to build a large auditorium (5,300 seats) named the Angelus Temple; it was dedicated January 1, 1923.
In 1921 McPherson was ordained as pastor of First Baptist Church in San Jose, California, but her association with this church was loose. She founded the Echo Park Evangelistic Association and L.I.F.E. Bible College. Eventually, she founded the denomination known as the Foursquare Gospel Church.
As understood by her, the "Foursquare Gospel" reflects four aspects of Christ's character in relationship to the Christian: Jesus Christ the Savior, the Healer, the Baptizer with the Holy Spirit, and the Coming King. Theologically the Foursquare Gospel Church is Pentecostal. It believes in Spirit baptism as a separate and distinct work of grace, subsequent to the believer's conversion. Those who experience Spirit baptism will give initial evidence of this by speaking in tongues. The Foursquare Gospel Church also places emphasis on faith healing, on the pre-millennial coming of Christ, and on Christian holiness.
McPherson was a very popular preacher in Los Angeles, though her flamboyant antics attracted criticism. Once, dressed as a policeman, she drove a motorcycle to the front of the sanctuary at Angelus Temple and shouted, "Stop! You're going to hell!" Another time she dressed in a football player's uniform and depicted the conflict between God and the devil as a football game.
McPherson's movement was rocked by sex scandal in 1926 when she suddenly disappeared. Later she claimed to have been kidnapped, but it was revealed that she had been on a "love retreat" with a man to whom she was not married.
Her movement also was jolted by financial scandals involving charges of misappropriation of funds. From 1927 to 1931 McPherson had to battle her mother for control of Angelus Temple; she ultimately won and retained control of the denomination until her death in 1944, when leadership was assumed by her son, Rolf.
Currently the Foursquare Gospel Church has 200,000 members in the United States, though due to emphasis on world missions, the world-wide membership is much larger, with 1.5 million members in sixty countries.
Q: I have the Collegeville Bible Commentary for the New American Bible, but it seems really technical. Is this a good commentary?
A: We are unable to recommend the Collegeville Bible Commentary. It is characterized by one-sided, liberal Bible scholarship and lack of fidelity to the Church's teachings.
A good example of this is the commentary on Romans 1:18-32. In that passage of the Bible Paul states that because pagans worshiped creatures rather than the Creator, "God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error" (Rom. 1:26-27).
The Collegeville Bible Commentary states "`natural' and `unnatural' should be more accurately translated `culturally approved' and `culturally disapproved.'" This is linguistic nonsense. The Greek word here for "natural" is the adjectival form of phusis, from which we get "physics." The term means "according to [a thing's] nature." It has nothing to do with society's approval or disapproval. In fact the phrase for "unnatural" (para phusin) was found in the Stoic philosophers before Paul's time and clearly indicated something that was out of accord with nature. Sickness, for instance, was said to be para phusin (cf. Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. 9, p. 265).
The fact that the Collegeville Bible Commentary would go so far as to say that the terms "should be more accurately translated" as "culturally approved" and "culturally disapproved" shows the lengths to which the authors of the commentary are willing to go to push their social agenda. (In the case cited the commentary gives what may be termed a pro-homosexualist interpretation.) This is not scholarship, but the antithesis of it, where a scholar's personal social or political views are allowed to dominate the data.
We have given only one example of this commentary's deficiencies, but we have found enough similar problems that we cannot recommend this as a trustworthy work.
Q: An answer in the February 1994 issue confused me. You stated that Church councils rejected 1 and 2 Esdras as non-canonical, yet my Douay-Rheims lists these two books. What's the story?
A: The confusion is caused by the fact that some of the books of the Bible and the apocrypha (those which do not belong in the Catholic Bible) have changed names over the last few centuries. You have put your finger on the most confusing name change there has been. Read carefully, because this is tricky.
There have been four books associated with the prophet Ezra (also spelled Esdras). In some circles these became known as 1, 2, 3, and 4 Esdras. In other circles, the first two of these (1 and 2 Esdras) became known as Ezra and Nehemiah, while the second two (3 and 4 Esdras) became known as 1 and 2 Esdras.
The first two of the four books belong in the Bible and are accepted by both Catholics and Protestants as canonical. In older Catholic Bibles they were called 1 and 2 Esdras, but now they are more commonly called Ezra and Nehemiah. The second two of the four books (sometimes known as 3 and 4 Esdras, sometimes known as 1 and 2 Esdras) do not belong in the Bible at all and are not accepted by either Catholics or Protestants.
When we said that the Church councils did not accept 1 and 2 Esdras, we were using the modern system of book names and were referring to the two formerly known as 3 and 4 Esdras.
One final note to the confusion: While 3 and 4 Esdras are not accepted by Catholics or Protestants, some Eastern Orthodox accept one or the other of them.
Q: What is a good way to respond to door-to-door evangelists who ask if I've been "born again"?
A: Most Catholics are thrown off by this question and answer hesitantly at best. This leads Fundamentalists to assume that Catholics haven't been born again.
But they are wrong. All baptized Catholics have been born again, so you can answer "yes." Discussion no doubt will follow.
A good way to start is to admit the importance of being born again. Jesus commands it (John 3:3,7). To be born again implies a radical change in a person, an event as life-altering as the "first birth" out of your mother's womb. When you are born again, the Holy Spirit makes a change in your soul, cleanses you from sin, and gives you a new nature, planting supernatural love in your heart. Just as you were once born into an earthly family, when you are born again you become part of a spiritual family, with God as the head and all his people, on earth and in heaven, as your brothers and sisters.
Once in agreement on what "born again" means, proceed to the point of disagreement: how we are born again. Probably the Fundamentalist will posit some kind of spiritual experience, a moment of commitment to Jesus, an acceptance of him as "personal Lord and Savior." But Catholics use the biblical means of being born again: baptism.
Jesus told Nicodemus, "No one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit" (John 3:5). Paul spoke of God's gift of "the bath of rebirth and renewal of the Holy Spirit" (Titus 3:5). Paul told the Romans that "we who were baptize into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death . . . so that . . . we too might live in the newness of life" (Rom. 6:3-4). Water baptism is the physical sign of and instrument for bringing about the spiritual rebirth. In baptism we are regenerated into new life in Christ.
So answer door-to-door missionaries with a proud affirmative--if you have been baptized, you already have been saved the Bible way and in the way the first Christians understood "born again."
Q: The new Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that "justification includes the remission of sins, sanctification, and the renewal of the inner man" (CCC 2019)> Protestants deny that the last two of these are part of justification. What Bible verses can I use to show they are?
A: Look up Romans 6:7. All standard English translations render this verse as some variation on the statement "He who has died has been freed from sin." The topic here is one of sanctification, the making holy of the believer, or the freeing of him from sin.
What is significant about 6:7 is that when it says the one who has died has been freed from sin, the word for "freed" is actually the Greek word for "justified." What it literally said was "he who has died has been justified from sin," yet the context is so obviously sanctificational that all standard English translations of the Bible rendered "justified from sin" as "freed from sin." This shows that there is not a rigid wall between justification and sanctification in the apostle Paul's mind. The semantic ranges of the two terms overlap.
Q: I heard a radio preacher talk about the "biblical plan of salvation"--which, of course, he said the Catholic Church didn't obey. How does our Church understand the biblical plan of salvation?
A: The Church understands that we are all sinners in need of a savior (Rom. 5:12-21). We are inheritors of original sin and all its consequences, and by actual sin we distance ourselves from God. We can't save ourselves, but we don't need to: Jesus Christ has paid the price for our sins. The Catholic Church teaches that salvation comes through Jesus alone (Acts 4:12), since he is the "one mediator between God and man" (1 Tim. 2:5-6).
The saving grace won by Jesus is offered as a free gift to us, accessible through repentance, faith, and baptism. We turn away from our sins, we are sorry for them, and we believe in Jesus Christ and the gospel. Repentance shows our willingness to turn from things that keep us from God, and baptism renews us, filling us with the grace necessary to have faith and to live it. This belief is more than just "head knowledge." Even the demons have that (Jas. 2:19). It's more than just believing you're saved. Even the Pharisees had that (John 5:39). True, saving faith is one lived and exhibited daily: It is "faith working through love" (Gal. 5:6, cf. Jas 2:1-26).
Sometimes the Church is accused of teaching "salvation by works," but this is an empty accusation. This idea has been consistently condemned by the Church. Good works are required by God because he requires obedience to his commands (Matt. 6:1-21, 1 Cor. 3:8, 13-15) and promises to reward us with eternal life if we obey (Matt. 25:34-40, Rom. 2:6-7, Gal. 6:6-10, Jas. 1:12). But even our obedience is impossible without God's grace; even our good works are God's gift (Rom. 5:5, Phil. 2:13). This is the real biblical plan of salvation.
|
C A T H O L I C A N S W E R S :
[TOP]
of
