|
Q u i c k Q u e s t i o n s
PRAISE GOD AND PASS THE AMMUNITION
Q: I have a seventeen-year-old son who is concerned about the coming chastisement (which may or may not be in his lifetime). He has read about the three days of darkness and is concerned that we are not properly preparing ourselves in case of war. He seems to think that we should go out and get all kinds of guns and weapons in order to prepare in case fighting should break out or there is chaos in our society. He gets upset when I tell him that death is not to be feared if our soul is ready to meet God. But he tells me that we have lived our life and he wants to live his. This really bothers him, our
not gathering guns for protection of the family. How do I get through to him? He thinks that we are all too ready to lay our lives down. He seems to have a conflict between martyrdom and defending oneself.
A: This seems to be, unfortunately, a good example of a young man being influenced by bad literature. He must have been reading articles or books or Internet sites that promote the notion that the end is just around the corner. This is not something the Church teaches. Certainly the Holy Father does not share this fear. He is preparing for the turn of the millennium not because he expects the end of the world, but because he expects an opportunity for spiritual renewal.
While Scripture refers to events that will presage the end of time, we have no good reason to think those events are occurring today, even given the sorry state of the world. Granted, they may be upon us, but that can be said at any point in history. All we know for certain is that we certainly won’t know when the end is about to come. "Neither the day nor the hour . . ."
If I were in your position, I would do everything possible not to give credence to your son’s worries. I would not stock up on weapons or emergency supplies (at least not beyond what one might need in the event of a fire, flood, or earthquake). I wouldn't talk about preparing to flee into the woods and fight like guerrillas. There is a kind of romance in all this, at least in a seventeen-year-old’s eyes, and that kind of romance can lead to infatuation with all sorts of kooky ideas and movements.
Your son is at a vulnerable age, one of intense passions, and he may be keeping the wrong company or may be not socializing enough with "normal" kids, whose interests turn to ball games and movies. Normally I wouldn’t counsel anyone to encourage frivolities in young people, but, in this case, a change of focus seems to be the first order of business.
Karl Keating
Q: My friend says that because the key phrase in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis—"the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women"—was written in the present tense it means the Church was not authorized to ordain women as of 1994 but that it could be authorized to do so later on. What do you say?
A: Let’s apply your friend’s logic elsewhere. If all statements made by the Church in the present tense are, ipso facto, mutable, this also means that the Church can authorize divorce! After all, the priest says, "I now pronounce you man and wife" (present tense). So who says the happy couple is still married five minutes from now? "This is my body" is spoken in the present tense. So there’s no guarantee it stays Christ’s body after the act of consecration. Going further, the whole Creed is up for grabs by your friend’s lights. After all, "we believe [present tense] in one God . . ." Who says the Church will believe that next year?
Indeed, if we accept your friend’s reasoning, atheism is now potentially compatible with Catholic belief! After all, God is I AM (present tense). Who knows if he will still exist five minutes from now?
Your friend’s is perhaps the weakest argument against the authority of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis I have ever encountered.
Mark P. Shea
Q: I’ve read that being "born again" or "born of water and the Spirit" (John 3:3, 5) refers to baptism. My problem is 1 Peter 1:23: "You have been born anew, not of imperishable seed but imperishable, through the living and abiding word of God." What is responsible for the new birth: the waters of baptism or the word of God?
A: That’s like asking which of your parents is responsible for your natural birth. Notice that John 3 mentions the new birth in the context of feminine or maternal imagery (the mother’s womb), whereas 1 Peter gives a masculine or paternal image (the "seed" of the word of God). The new birth is not water alone, nor the word alone, but the "washing of water with the word" (Eph. 5:26). They should be united, not pitted against one another. In fact, Peter’s readers had been led by hearing the word to embrace new birth in baptism. Their new birth in baptism was the result of the word being implanted earlier—a spiritual "conception" in more than one sense.
Even if the images did conflict, this would not invalidate one or the other. After all, Scripture sometimes uses the same image for different aspects of divine truth. The Church is said to be built on the foundation of Christ (1 Cor. 3:11), the apostles and prophets (Eph. 2:20, cf. Rev. 21:14), and Peter in particular (Matt. 16:18). The image of a lion is applied to both the Lord and the devil. There is no reason why birth imagery should not be applied to both water and the word. As it is, though, the happy complementarity of the two images—a paternal and a maternal one—powerfully brings out both aspects of the new birth.
Steven D. Greydanus
Q: In the Catechism of the Catholic Church 538, it states that Jesus was driven by the Spirit into the desert after his baptism by John. Why does it say Jesus was driven by the Spirit? That sounds like he was resisting.
A: The statement is an allusion to Mark’s Gospel, where the phrase is used (Mark 1:12). Matthew and Luke also mention Jesus’ sojourn in the desert, but without the dramatic phrasing. Luke states, "And Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit . . . was led by the Spirit for forty days in the wilderness." This emphasizes the positive cooperation of Jesus with the Spirit. Mark’s more dramatic phrasing is simply part of his style. Mark uses action words to convey to his Roman audience that Jesus was a man of action. Action impressed Romans more than philosophical reflection, which impressed Greeks. Thus Luke’s Gospel, written for a Greek, stresses Jesus’ reflective side more, while Mark, writing to Romans, stresses Jesus’ active side more.
The word "drove" does not mean that Jesus was resisting the Spirit. Instead, Mark is trying to show how powerfully God was operating in Jesus’ ministry. He stresses how Jesus was brought into the desert by Spirit. The idea is not of one Person driving and one Person resisting, but of one Person driving and the other cooperating.
James Akin
Q: God is all just, so God punished Adam and Eve for disobedience by removing them from the garden of Eden. But why did God punish all of their descendents by not allowing them to start their lives in the garden? It is not just to punish a child for the sins of a parent. A child has no control of the actions of a parent since we all have free will and since a parent can perform actions before its child even exists.
A: I think the best way to address this is by means of analogy. Suppose your grandfather inherited great wealth that he himself had not earned. Unfortunately, he also had an unhealthy interest in gambling. Before he died, he went to Las Vegas and lost every penny. You, as a grandson, would have been rich, but instead, your inheritance is reduced. This is the case with original sin. God gave Adam a gift he did not earn, Adam lost it, and so his descendants did not inherit it. But God is still fair to us because he offers us not just the exalted state in which Adam was created, but a much higher state of union with him through Christ. What we have to do is accept the offer.
Jason Evert
Q: I have heard a tomb is under the Vatican. Whose tomb is it?
A: There are many saints, popes, and martyrs buried under St. Peter’s Basilica. The most significant is Peter himself. Jesus was not kidding when he said that he would build his Church on Peter!
Jason Evert
Q: I saw a television program that said historians doubt Jesus was born at Bethlehem because "there is no record of a census at that time" and thus no reason for Joseph and Mary to go to Bethlehem. Is that true?
A: It is certainly true that some historians have doubts. Some historians have doubts about any historical event, and some are especially eager to disbelieve events recorded in Scripture. That doesn’t mean they have any evidence against what Scripture says. It is no surprise that there is no record of a census since there is no record of most events from this time. We don’t have Rome’s governmental archives. The historical records for things such as a census are spotty. (Of course, what your television show meant is "there is no record apart from Luke." Luke is a record, but they are discounting it, despite the fact that Luke’s book of Acts is the work of a fine historian.) In short, the argument from silence proves nothing.
Mark P. Shea
Q: According to theologian Rosemary Radford Ruether, infallibility of the pope is untenable because no human perception of truth can be stated in a manner that lacks error or inadequacy. All ideas must be open to revision. Besides, the Church has erred repeatedly. Example: slavery. (By the way, is this woman Catholic?)
A: No, she is not Catholic, but she still carries the label because it gives her legitimacy. She is about as extreme a feminist fanatic as I have ever heard about. (Other professors at Boston College note that she won't allow men to enroll in her classes.) Her first point really is silly. Ask any mathematician whether the truth of an equation contains "error or inadequacy." A correct equation is completely true, with no admixture of error. And if such truth is possible in math, it must be possible in other things. As to her "example," infallibility applies only to formal teachings on matters of faith and morals. The Church never taught that slavery was good, only, as Paul noted, that, in a society in which slavery is accepted, the slave should be obedient to his master.
Karl Keating
Q: Must a pall replace the flag at a funeral Mass?
A: A pall does need to replace a flag while the casket is in the church. However, flags can be placed on the casket before or after it is in the church. The Order of Christian Funerals states:
"38. If it is the custom in the local community, a pall may be placed over the coffin when it is received at the church. A reminder of the baptismal garment of the deceased, the pall is a sign of the Christian dignity of the person. The use of the pall also signifies that all are equal in the eyes of God (see James 2:1-9). . . . Only Christian symbols may rest on or be placed near the coffin during the funeral liturgy. Any other symbols, for example, national flags, or flags or insignia of associations, have no place in the funeral liturgy.
"132. Any national flags or the flags or insignia of associations to which the deceased belonged are to be removed from the coffin at the entrance to the church. They may be replaced after the coffin has been taken from the church."
This prohibition seems to be based on the fact that, in the Church and in death, we are Christians first and foremost and that we are all equal in God’s eyes. Thus our equality as Christians is represented by the pall as a token of our baptism. Any other affiliations we may have had—having belonged to the armed forces, having been members of a particular association, etc.—pale in comparison to our identity as Christians. The pall is appropriate because the funeral liturgy is sacramental in context, and the person’s reception of the sacrament of baptism will be mentioned during the liturgy.
Keeping national or association symbols out of the funeral liturgy also helps keep the Church from being politicized or being seen as endorsing a particular association or set of policies. Imagine what erroneous conclusions people might have jumped to if the Nazi flag had been present on coffins in churches during World War II. People might have thought that the Church endorsed the Nazi party or the German war effort, which it certainly did not. Indeed, it strongly opposed both.
Rather than putting priests in different countries in the difficult situation of having to say "yes" to some flags and symbols and "no" to others, it is simpler to keep them all out and to cut the Gordian knot by not having any symbols testifying to the person as anything but a Christian.
James Akin
|
C A T H O L I C A N S W E R S :
[TOP]
of
