|
Q u i c k Q u e s t i o n s
|
This Rock
Volume 11, Number 7-8
 July 2000 
|
|
|
Can You Baptize an Alien?
Q: Is the Catholic Church meant only for the human race? What if we encounter other intelligent beings in the universe at some point—are we to spread the Catholic faith to them?
A: It would probably require an ecumenical council to decide the answer to your questions. While the whole area is awfully speculative, here are some considerations you might find useful:
First, there would not seem to be anything wrong with sharing the Christian faith with aliens—that is, telling them what God did on our planet (e.g., becoming incarnate as Jesus of Nazareth). Conversely, there would seem to be nothing wrong with them sharing with us what God has done on their planet—though we would have to look to the (human) Catholic Church in determining the authenticity of their claims, since it is this Church that has our pastoral care.
Second, any species we encounter may not need the sacraments, since its members may never have fallen from grace. Or God may have simply made provisions for their salvation in another way. Or they may be psychologically configured the way angels are, such that if they fall they are incapable of repenting.
The big question is whether baptism—the gateway to the other sacraments and to membership in the Church—can be given to non-human rational beings. We haven’t had to face this question because on earth we are the only rational beings. Before arriving at a decision on this question—and in emergency situations only—the Church might allow conditional baptism. That is, if a dying alien professed belief in Christ and a desire to be baptized, one might use the formula, "If you are capable of receiving baptism, I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."
Q: A preacher from a Bible-only sect told me there were no female angels. I said that God made both male and female angels. He told me to find where in the Bible it was written and he would apologize. I don’t need his apology, but I’d like to know—are there female angels?
A: Actually, your preacher friend is right. Gender, while it has an impact on the mind, is something rooted in biology and in our physical bodies. Angels are spiritual beings with intellect and will but no physical form.
In order to relate to humans, angels do sometimes appear in the guise of human beings, and at those times they may appear male or female. But this is an illusion and does not reflect truly what the angel is. Though there may be nothing to prevent an angel from manifesting in a feminine form, the appearances of angels recorded in Scripture all involve appearing either as a man or with a non-human form.
Incidentally, we see many pictures of angels as humans with wings, but that isn’t found in the Bible, either. To the best of our ability to determine, that image comes from pre-Christian Etruscan artwork.
Q: Which translations of the Bible are authorized to be used as scriptural readings during Mass? In particular, which later editions of the New American Bible are not authorized for such use?
A: It depends on what country you’re in. In the United States, lectionaries may be used that are based on the 1970 edition of the New American Bible (NAB), the Revised Standard Version: Catholic Edition, and the Jerusalem Bible. At children’s Masses, the readings may come from the Contemporary English Version.
A new lectionary approved in 1998 is based on a patchwork of the Revised New American Bible (RNAB) and the original New American Bible. Since some elements of the RNAB were deemed by the Holy See to be unsuitable for liturgical use (hence the presence of the NAB in the lectionary), one may not simply pick up a RNAB and use it for the Mass readings.
The first volume of the new lectionary covering Sundays and holy days is now out and approved for use. When the second volume covering the other days of the year is released, it will probably become the mandatory lectionary, and permission to use the others mentioned—except, perhaps, at children’s Masses—will be revoked.
Q: With which pope was the term "pope" first used? My neighbor, a Presbyterian minister, claims that in the early Christian Church the heads of the church were termed "bishops" and there was no "pope."
A: The term "pope" began to be used as a title for ecclesiastical officials in the second century A.D. However, it was used differently than it is now. The term, papa, which simply means father, was often used for high-ranking ecclesiastics of various areas.
It was recognized, even in this early period, that the bishop of Rome had a special authority among the bishops of the world, and so eventually the title came to be restricted to him. He was the pope, the father of Christians on earth.
As far as when this happened, it was a process, and so it is not possible to specify a single individual with which the usage began.
Q: I understand that God has a plan for each of us. What does Scripture and Catholic teachings tell about this? Aren’t we all subject to both happenstance and divine intervention? If so, does this make God’s plan for us more "macro" than "micro"?
A: It depends on your perspective. God’s sovereignty extends to even the smallest occurrences in the universe, so everything we experience is something that God at least chose to permit to happen. In that sense, God’s plan for us would seem to be quite detailed, or "micro" as you put it.
From another perspective, God has certain general or, as you put it, "macro," goals for us—pursuit of a vocation, growth in holiness, and attainment of heaven. However, God’s plan allows considerable flexibility in how these goals are pursued and whether they are even achieved.
God’s plan for us as individuals is affected by the choices we make. No matter what our decisions, God wants what is best for us—the best of the options that are open to us at any one point. This applies even when we have chosen wrongly. If, for example, a man with a vocation to the religious life gets married, then God wants him to fulfill his marital responsibilities to the best of his abilities.
So while God does sometimes intervene in our lives directly, his plan for us accommodates considerable room for free will and the choices we make.
Q: I was recently advised to seek a spiritual director. I really don’t know what that means but was embarrassed to ask. The priest advising me said to seek a nun or person in the laity or a "father confessor" to nurture my adult faith.
A: A spiritual director is a person—often a priest or nun, though regular lay people may do it, too—who is knowledgeable about moral and spiritual issues and can help guide you as you seek to build your relationship with God. It’s something like a religious counselor: He or she can help you solve difficult moral questions you are facing and help you find forms of spirituality, worship, and devotion that are suited to your personality.
Qualities to look for in a spiritual director include a firm knowledge of and adherence to the Church’s teachings and a willingness to tell you when you are wrong or when you are engaging in something sinful. Other good qualities to look for include humility, gentleness, and patience. Finally, a spiritual director needs to be someone whose judgment you trust completely.
Q: My brother, who is a "Bible-only" Christian, and I were discussing the creation story in Genesis 1–2. He said that God first created male and female to have dominion over creatures. Then my brother said that in Genesis 2, God created Adam and Eve after he created this other man and woman. Because Adam means "rosy" or "red" in Greek, my brother claimed that Adam and Eve were the first people of white flesh and that the people God created before them were possibly of different races. What do I say?
A: First, Adam does not mean "rosy" or "red" in Greek. Adam is a Hebrew word, not a Greek one. In Hebrew, Adam means "man."
Second, the etymology of the word adam in Hebrew is not clear. It may be derived either from a word meaning "red" or a word meaning "ground." Whichever is the case, etymology does not determine meaning, usage does. And in Genesis 1–2, the usage clearly connects the term adam with the word for ground, adama. It is thus the earthly origin of man, the fact that he is part of the physical creation, that the author of Genesis is trying to get across, not the color of the Adam’s skin.
Third, if adam did refer to Adam’s skin color, it is unclear why your brother would identify Adam and Eve as white people rather than red people.
Fourth, the move he’s trying to make by saying that Genesis 1 refers to the creation of other people won’t work because the same word—adam—is used in Genesis 1: "So God created man [adam] in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them [i.e., Adam and Eve]" (Gen. 1:27). The Genesis 2 narrative is meant to supplement the creation of man in Genesis 1, not describe another creation.
Q: Someone I know claims the Catholic Church divided from the "Christian Church" around A.D. 900. I know he is incorrect, but how do I explain this to him?
A: Tell him to go read a serious book on Church history. There is no basis whatsoever for what he is claiming. Not only were there no significant splits around A.D. 900, there were also no splits anywhere near this period that resulted in a surviving group that was called "the Christian Church."
The claim is so preposterous that one suspects something has been garbled somewhere along the line. If you really want to engage him on this subject, get more detail about what he is claiming. Insist that he give you a source that says this, then research the particular claims made by the source.
|
C A T H O L I C A N S W E R S :
[TOP]
of
