|
Q u i c k Q u e s t i o n s
|
This Rock
Volume 11, Number 9
 September 2000 
|
|
|
The End of the World as We Know It
Q: Is it wrong to want the end of the world to come sooner than later?—in other words, to just get it over with? I know it is dangerous to walk around thinking I will be saved, but, that aside, is it wrong to hope that God calls an end soon to the nasty lot we’ve created?
A: Scripture would not seem to suggest that there is anything wrong with wanting the world to end swiftly. It even speaks of us living in such a way that hastens the day of the Lord: "Since all these things are thus to be dissolved, what sort of persons ought you to be in lives of holiness and godliness, waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be kindled and dissolved, and the elements will melt with fire!" (2 Ptr. 3:11–12).
However, it is important that you should not allow your desire for the world’s swift end to disturb your spiritual life by focusing on the negative (e.g., desiring to see all sinners thrown into hell). An authentically Christian desire for the end would be based chiefly on the positives that will be introduced—the return of Christ, our final salvation, the new heaven and earth, and the perfection of the eternal order. God does not desire the damnation of anyone. As Paul says, he "desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth" (1 Tim. 2:4).
Q: If someone said that he loved me so much that he would kill his own son to prove it, I would call the police. Yet Christians claim God killed his own Son for identical reasons and are thrilled with the sacrifice and with God’s love.
A: God did not kill his own Son. Roman soldiers killed God’s Son. The Father and the Son merely allowed it to happen.
God didn’t allow it to happen just so that he could show his love for us. He allowed it so that the Son could save us from eternal damnation, which is the consequence of our sins.
This suggests another analogy: What would you think of a father who allowed his son to go on a wartime mission so dangerous that the son would certainly die, yet it would save an entire city? We would likely regard both the father and the son as heroes—the son because he was willing to lose his life in order to save others, the father because he was willing to make the ultimate parental sacrifice for a noble cause.
This example pales in comparison to what God the Father and God the Son did. It wasn’t just the physical lives of a city of people that were at stake but the eternal lives of every human being who has ever lived.
Most importantly, God is the author of life. All life is a gift from God, and it is his prerogative to determine how much of that gift anyone receives. He has not given us the right to decide when the innocent die (which is why you should call the police in your example), but he does have that right himself. Thus, it wasn’t wrong for him to determine how long the mortal life of his Son would be.
Q: Can your conscience tell you when you should do something to alleviate an ache, or is that something that we need to turn to God for?
A: Pain, whether physical or emotional, is a signal that something is wrong. God gives us the capacity to feel pain in order to motivate us to correct the situation so that the pain-inducing stimulus is removed. A properly formed conscience will tell you to act in accord with the motive that pain provides and seek to alleviate the pain.
Some ways to alleviate the pain may be moral or immoral. Your conscience, formed in keeping with Catholic moral teaching, will show you which methods of pain alleviation are immoral and thus must not be used. However, the basic motive of seeking to alleviate the pain will still be the general action your conscience guides you to.
There are exceptions to the above rule—cases in which your conscience would direct you not to alleviate the pain. These might include: when there is no practical way for the pain to be alleviated, when there is no moral way it can be alleviated, when alleviating the pain would cause worse problems that it cures, and when allowing the pain to remain will enable a greater good to come about (e.g., when we allow ourselves to feel pain so that we will learn our lesson or when we offer up our sufferings for the sake of others).
Since it is through our conscience and our sense of pain that God normally chooses to work in these matters, it is by following these that we turn to God.
Q: I’ve been told that a woman who was married, had children, and then got an annulment became a nun later in life. Is this possible?
A: Yes. And the same thing can happen with men becoming monks. It also sometimes happens that a religious order will accept an individual who is widowed rather than divorced. Such cases tend to happen only after the children are grown, since there is a grave moral obligation for parents to see to the support and education of their children. This makes such cases uncommon, since religious orders normally do not accept new members who are above a certain age. However, it is possible.
Q: I went through training to become Catholic. Then I had my family down on me because I became Catholic and not Pentecostal. I have been out of the Church for about a year and it hurts. I let down my Lord, my Church, and my faith. What steps do I need to take to come back?
A: If you were received into the Catholic Church, then to rectify your situation all you need do is go to confession, explain what happened, and receive absolution. If there are any further issues that need to be dealt with, the priest will explain them.
Incidentally, unless you defected from the Church by a formal act—such as officially joining (not just attending) another church—then you are still a Catholic. The Church welcomes you back with open arms.
Q: What is the official position of the Catholic Church with regard to in vitro fertilization (IVF)?
A: There is a whole mess of problems with IVF, and some techniques are worse than others. Some, for example, collect the germ cells from the wrong people (i.e., who are not married to each other) or collect them in a morally illicit manner. Some also produce large numbers of children who are either allowed to die or who are frozen indefinitely.
The least objectionable version would be homologous (married-couple) IVF where the germ cells are collected from married parents in a morally licit manner and everything is done to protect the life of the child or children thus conceived. However, even this form of IVF is immoral.
In its instruction Donum vitae, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) explains that "the Church remains opposed from the moral point of view to homologous in vitro fertilization. Such fertilization is in itself illicit and in opposition to the dignity of procreation and of the conjugal union, even when everything is done to avoid the death of the human embryo."
The CDF also notes, "Although the manner in which human conception is achieved with IVF and ET [embryo transplant] cannot be approved, every child who comes into the world must in any case be accepted as a living gift of the divine Goodness and must be brought up with love."
Q: As the parent of a newborn, I often must leave Mass to take him outside until he stops crying. Sometimes I leave during the first reading and don’t return until Communion. Am I still permitted to receive the Eucharist? What about those people who literally walk into church, receive, and leave again?
A: There is no requirement that you attend Mass in order to receive Communion, provided it is the first time you have received it that day. (If you chose to receive Communion a second time in a given day, there is a requirement that it be part of worshiping at a Mass.) Therefore, those who walk into a church, receive, and leave again are not breaking the law.
However, there is the issue of their Sunday obligation. Canon law does not specify how much or which parts of the Mass must be attended to satisfy the Sunday obligation. It is clear, though, that merely walking into a church, receiving Communion, and immediately leaving does not satisfy it.
In your case, matters are different. While canon law does not tell us how much of the Mass must be attended, it provides an exception for those who have a sufficient reason to be absent, such as the care of children. Therefore, if you did miss enough of the Mass that it would not normally fulfill the Sunday obligation, your situation would be covered, since you were absent in order to care for a child.
Bottom line: You did your part by showing up and participating as best you could. The Church understands that and does not expect you to go to any further lengths.
Q: A Southern Baptist coworker gives me a hard time about Catholics kneeling when we pray. He says that Catholics "invented" kneeling-in bible times the Jews didn't kneel but stood or sat when they prayed, and so "real Christians" don't kneel. What can I say to him?
A: Begin by asking what he thinks kneeling in prayer proves. That the Catholic religion is wrong? What if a Catholic never knelt in prayer or at Mass - would that somehow vindicate Catholicism?
If that line of reasoning doesn't work, try a few Bible verses:
"And he [Jesus] withdrew from them about a stone's throw, and knelt down and prayed" (Luke 22:41).
"But Peter put them all outside and knelt down and prayed" (Acts 9:40).
"And when he [Paul] had spoken thus, he knelt down and prayed with them" (Acts 20:36).
"They all, with wives and children, brought us on our way till we were outside the city; and kneeling down on the beach we prayed and bade one another farewell" (Acts 21:5).
Jesus, Peter, and Paul all lived in "Bible times," and they knelt when they prayed. Were they not "real Christians"?
|
