|
B B S T r a n s c r i p t
When In Doubt, Find Out
By J. Michael Venditti
|
This Rock
Volume 5, Number 9
 September 1994 
|
|
|
Subj: Sin
Date: 94-07-12 18:17:02 EDT
From: Therese
Father,
If a person is asked to do something that he thinks may be sinful
but does it anyway though not totally convinced it isn't [sinful],
is he in the state of sin?
Thanks.
Therese
Dear Therese,
In teaching about conscience, the Church makes several distinctions,
one of which is the difference between a certain conscience (whether
correct or erroneous) and a doubtful conscience, the former being
when one believes himself to be certain regarding the morality of
an action (even if he is wrong about it--that is, he has been
misinformed), and the latter being when one is consciously doubtful
about the morality of an action.
If your state of mind is informed certitude, do not entertain fears
or scrupulous doubts. In such a case you need not hesitate to follow
your conscience. But if you are uncertain, you should do research
by reading books and asking competent spiritual advisors, such as
your confessor, for advice on a case-by-case basis.
Fr. M
Subj: "Father"?
Date: 94-07-14 01:18:23 EDT
From: Benjamen
Dear. Fr. M:
I am a Christian of the non-denominational persuasion. I attempt to
follow the teachings of Jesus Christ. There seem to be things about
the Catholic religion that are contrary to His teaching. However,
in the interest of Christian growth, I would like to ask you questions
from time to time, if you don't mind. I will remain non-confrontational
if you will. Maybe we can both learn something.
I suppose the first question, one that has bothered me for some time,
is this, Why do you guys get called "Father"? Christ said,
"And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your
Father, which is in heaven." Matthew 23:9. I did ask someone
this question. He said I may ask him anything I wanted about the Catholic
religion; I asked this question as my first question, he got mad,
and I have gone several years now without an answer.
If you don't like non-Catholics asking questions, just tell me and
I'll stop.
Ben
Dear Ben,
Welcome to the Ask Father folder. You should feel free to post whatever
questions you like.
One of the fundamental differences that exists between Catholic belief
and that of many Protestant groups is the understanding of the history
and the authority of the Sacred Scriptures, and their proper use in
the Church. How one views this depends on how one views the Holy Scriptures
and interprets them. That was the reason, in a post some time back,
that I mentioned how Catholics will refer to the teaching authority
of the Church--not to belittle the meaning of the Scriptures for
the individual, but because the Scriptures, having come out of the
Church, are a PART of the revelation of God to his people, Tradition
and the living Spirit of God working through the Church today being
the other "parts."
Let me give you a few examples.
Many Christians will use 1 Timothy 4:3 to show that the Catholic Church
in the West is wrong in requiring her priests to be celibate, but
without any reference to 1 Cor. 7:1. Like all literature, the Bible
can be made to mean just about anything, since the meanings of words,
in any language, are never exact. In this case, the Church guides
her faithful to understand that since no man is forced to be a priest,
she is forbidding marriage to no one.
In fact, she has never claimed that the reasons for celibacy are to
be found in Scripture alone. But that can't prevent an individual
from deciding, on his own, that Paul's words to Timothy mean something
else. So, naturally, a Christian who holds that everything believed
and done by Christians must be found explicitly in the Bible is going
to be confused by this practice.
Sometimes confusion results from a faulty translation of the original
into the vernacular language. Take, for example, Matthew 19:9, where
Jesus seems to allow for divorce on the grounds of marital infidelity.
How does one translate the Greek word "porneia"? Some scholars
will translate this to mean "sexual infidelity"; while others
say that it more probably means "unlawful cohabitation,"
and is a reference to a practice of some Greeks at the time who entered
into marital unions with their widowed parents, or even their siblings.
It's important because which meaning you choose will determine whether
a person can divorce his spouse on grounds of adultery.
For the Catholic it is not a difficulty because he knows, from the
writings of the sub-Apostolic Fathers and the Spirit-filled teaching
of the Church, that marriage is indissoluble; so, he knows that, whatever
the Lord means by the word "porneia," he does not mean that
you can divorce your wife if she's unfaithful. It's in this way that
God's revelation to man through Tradition and the living authority
of the Church can clarify the Word of God in Scripture. If one, however,
believes that Scripture must stand alone, as in Martin Luther's "sola
scriptura" theory, then there can never be a definitive answer,
and each individual will continue to interpret the passage as he sees
fit.
It's on the basis of this kind of approach to Scripture that I can
satisfy myself that Jesus is not concerned that I am referred to as
Father, anymore than he is concerned that you call your own father
"Father." Or are we to suppose that it's O.K. to call your
father "Daddy" but not "Father" because of what
our Lord says? To me, as indeed to the Church, it seems incongruous
that the Lord would reveal himself to us in the gospel in order to
police our vocabulary. Surely his concern must be for something else,
such as not attributing to any man what truly belongs to the Lord
alone. And if I thought that any Catholic were thinking me to be God
because I am called Father, then I would have them call me something
else, to be sure.
Thanks for your question.
Fr. M.
Subj: "Father"?
Date: 94-07-16 22:40:35 EDT
From: Benjamen
Fr. M:
Having read several of your responses to several different issues,
I have come to the conclusion that you reply to all issues about the
same (issues concerning questions about how Catholics bend Scripture).
You simply say that Scripture is for the Church and we (non-Catholics)
can't understand it. Your very answer to me took a very simple question
about calling you father, you expanded it to include divorce and said
the Church does not believe a verse means it is OK. I can't understand
this because the Catholic Church gives so very many exceptions. (Maybe
you don't, not meant to be personal).
Anyway, I find fault with believing the Scripture is not meant to
be literal. And I do not believe any of you should be called "father."
Please believe that I have respect for your convictions. I just can't
believe they are correct.
In Christ,
Ben
Dear Ben,
Thanks again for posting.
On a message board such as Ask Father, it's very common for questions
to come up more than once, and when they do I try my best to be consistent,
often referring back to what I may have said in answering a similar
previous question. This is the reason that some of my answers may
seem familiar.
In considering your question regarding our Lord's admonition, "Call
no man your father," my intention was to point out that those
Christians who restrict our Lord's words to their absolute literal
interpretation have an understanding of Scripture which is very different
from that of Catholics; and, in citing the other passages I mentioned,
I was merely giving other examples of how this different understanding
relates to one's appreciation of the sacred texts in general.
I also attempted to show how different translators of the the Scriptures
can often give totally different meanings to the same passage, as
in the case of the passage from Matthew regarding divorce, and how
certain passages can be clarified by reading them in the original
languages rather than in an English translation. In many respects,
the fundamentalist who reads the Scriptures only in English is at
the mercy of whatever translator he is reading with regard to what
certain passages are saying.
The bottom line of my post was the notion that the Bible did not fall
from heaven bound in leather and in the King's English; rather, the
Holy Scriptures have a history in the Church, in which they developed
over time into the form they have today. Christ did not leave the
Church with a book; he left her with the Spirit, which remains alive
and active in her even today. It was that Spirit, working in and through
the Church, that guided the historical development of the written
Word of God into the Bible that we know today.
And according to a saying of the Fathers, sacred Scripture is written
principally in the Church's heart rather than in documents and records,
for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God's
Word, and it is the Holy Spirit who gives her the correct interpretation
of the Scripture. As St. Augustine said in the fourth century, "But
I would not believe in the Gospel, had not the authority of the Catholic
Church already moved me."
Naturally, it is recognized that the Fundamentalist approach to the
Bible is radically different from that taken by the Catholic Church,
which is why I began my last post by pointing out that it is in the
understanding of Scripture that the differences between Catholicism
and Fundamentalism are most acute.
Thanks again for posting, and feel free to write again.
Fr. M
Subj: Sin vs. Ignorance
Date: 94-07-04 23:04:32 EDT
From: Elijah
Hi Father M!
Your homily for this past Sunday brought to mind a question that I've
contemplated a long time.
Your homily talked about people who decide that they can do things
which the Church calls "sin" because of their own understanding
about the action. To avoid all the arguments about particular Church
laws, I'm not going to use any example: Just assume that there is
something which God truly considers a sin, and which the Church rightly
identifies as such.
I'm wondering about who is worse off, or more sinful: a person who
engages in the behavior knowing it is a sin but unable to make a better
choice for some reason (emotional problems, addiction, personality
defects) or someone who has developed the idea that it isn't really
a sin.
It seems to me as though the first person is in some ways "closer"
to God because s/he at least knows God's will and feels regret at
not being able to follow it, while the latter does not even really
attempt to know God's will.
But I've heard the argument made that the first person is willfully
disobeying while the second is not, and thus the second person is
somehow "less sinful."
Elijah
Dear Elijah,
The last point of view you mention is essentially the "ignorance
is bliss" argument; namely, that since one can't be guilty of
a sin if he is unaware the act is sinful, then he's better off not
knowing. The problem with it is that it denies that there is an intrinsic
goodness in the truth.
It is absolutely true that invincible ignorance excuses, or at least
severely mitigates, guilt. But the operative word here is "invincible."
In other words, only the individual knows whether he has exhausted
all the opportunities available to inform the conscience. I would
tend to agree with you that the person who knows the truth is better
off, since the door remains open for that person to make a change.
Yes, he is responsible for acting contrary to the truth, but no change
at all would be possible if he had no contact with it.
Subj: The Third Commandment
Date: 94-07-23 21:58:08 EDT
From: Josephus
Dear Father, I was just wondering, and this is not a trick question,
for I have a reputation of being somewhat of a rogue on AOL [America
Online]. The Third Commandment states, "Remember that thou keep
holy the sabbath day." My question is, if we call AOL on Sunday,
and I guess if we stay in the Catholic folders, it shouldn't be a
violation, but if we wander off to games or other non-religious folders,
are we in violation of the Third Commandment?
Thank you.
Josephus
Dear Josephus,
Thanks for your question, and please don't worry about your reputation.
Everyone is equal here at Ask Father. :)
The Catholic understanding of the Third Command begins with understanding
the replacement of the the Jewish sabbath with the weekly commemoration
of the Resurrection of our Lord. "The Catechism of the Catholic
Church" treats this subject in length, but it's not to the point
of your question here.
Assuming that we understand the meaning of the Sunday observance,
we then have to come to an understanding of how we are to interpret
the command to keep it holy. The New Testament clearly indicates what
this meant for the early Christians: The letter to the Hebrews admonishes
the brethren "not to neglect to meet together, as is the habit
of some, but to encourage one another" (Heb. 10:25).
An ancient Christian document, the "Didache," which is based
on the post-Resurrection preaching of the Apostles, indicates that
it was already understood in their lifetime that participation in
the Eucharist on the Lord's day was an obligation of every member
of the brotherhood of the Christians.
So the Catholic's understanding of the Third Commandment centers,
first and foremost, on the Mass, the paschal celebration of the Lord,
as it did for the early Christians. St. John Chrysostom, close after
the time of the Apostles, exhorted his people saying, "You cannot
pray at home as at Church, where there is a great multitude, where
exclamations are cried out to God as from one great heart, and where
there is something more: the union of minds, the accord of souls,
the bond of charity, the prayers of the priests" ("De incomprehensibili"
3, 6: PG 48, 725).
With regard to the idea of resting from work on Sunday, the Catholic
Church views the question in relation to the Eucharist as the center
of the Lord's day. In other words, that which would hinder us from
the worship owed to God on this day should be avoided.
The focus should be, in the words of the Catechism, "the worship
owed to God, the joy proper to the Lord's Day, the performance of
the works of mercy, and the appropriate relaxation of mind and body."
It then goes on to say that "Family needs or important social
service can legitimately excuse from the obligation of Sunday rest.
The faithful should see to it that legitimate excuses do not lead
to habits prejudicial to religion, family life, and health" (Art.
2185).
The Catechism goes on to say that those Christians who have leisure
should be mindful of those who, because of poverty or hardship, do
not; and should remember that Sunday is also a day given to good works,
service of the sick and the elderly, and family obligations.
So, the short answer to your question is that Sunday should be a day
dedicated first and foremost to the worship of God through the Eucharistic
celebration, and that whatever else we may do must not in any way
interfere with this. So playing games online or browsing other folders
can certainly be done on Sunday.
Sorry for making this so long, but I like to be as complete as possible
for those who like to read the posts and who may find something said
here helpful to them. Thanks again for your question.
Fr. M
Editor's note: Fr. J. Michael Venditti, a priest of the Diocese of Metuchen in New Jersey, moderates the "Ask Father" forum on America Online, where he is known as "Fr.M.".
|
