|
Q u i c k Q u e s t i o n s
|
This Rock
Volume 12, Number 1
 January 2001 
|
|
|
Do the Saints Know Our Thoughts?
Q: Do the saints know our thoughts?
A: It is generally held that the saints do not know our thoughts apart from certain circumstances. The human intellect is finite in nature and, though in a glorified state it is capable of processing vast amounts of information, it can’t know everything. Further, the great majority of the saints are in the "intermediate state" between death and resurrection. They thus lack the perceptive abilities that an embodied person would have and (it is commonly held) gain their information directly from God by virtue of the beatific vision.
Consistent with their state of beatitude, God would not withhold from them knowledge that was relevant to them, and if someone is asking for their intercession, that is relevant to them. Thus it is held that they are made aware by God of requests for their intercession (and other relevant information) but that they do not have unrestricted awareness of our thoughts and circumstances.
Q: Since the devil can gain ownership of a mortal’s soul by making a deal with him, is it possible for a mortal to do the same? If one mortal were to make a deal with another for his soul, would the first gain ownership of the second’s soul? If so, what would happen to the soul once the first mortal died
A: Souls are inalienable. Consequently, they cannot be sold, even to the devil. Any such putative deal would be invalid before God. It would be a mortal sin to attempt such a deal, but the deal would be invalid and would not result in the transfer of ownership of the soul. Thus the individual’s soul always remains his own, and, if he properly repents of such a deal before death, he no longer has the mortal sin either.
Q: Does the Catholic Church have a stand was on plastic surgery?
A: The Church has not dealt with this issue in magisterial documents. However, moral theology would seem to offer the following considerations:
Plastic surgery would seem to be warranted if it would provide a significant therapeutic benefit in some regard, either physical (e.g., reconstructive surgery to restore function or utility in cases of accident or birth defect) or psychological. This is provided that the procedure does not damage some other equal or greater good and provided that it is not intrinsically immoral.
Plastic surgery would seem to be permitted —even without significant therapeutic effect—provided that it did not damage a significant good and provided that the procedure is not intrinsically immoral.
Plastic surgery would seem to be impermissible if it damaged a good greater than that to be achieved, being venial if the difference in the goods were light and potentially mortal if the difference in the goods were grave.
Goods that could be damaged by undertaking plastic surgery are varied. They might involve harming oneself—one’s own physical, psychological, or spiritual health—or they might involve harming others, such as being financially unable to provide for one’s family in a proper and timely manner.
As always, if a medical procedure is intrinsically immoral—such as so-called trans-gendering surgeries—it cannot be performed.
Q: If a Catholic converts to another religion, will he attain heaven? The debate in our family is that the Lord will still accept the fact that he is practicing a religion even though he converted. My answer to them is that he will not attain heaven, although how can I judge?
A: Ultimately, you cannot judge since you do not know for certain the state of the person’s conscience. This does not mean, however, that you cannot or should not warn the individual against the gravely dangerous course of action he is undertaking.
The First Vatican Council pointed out that in addition to intellectual arguments for the truth of the Catholic faith, God "confirms by his grace those whom he has translated into his admirable light [i.e., of the Catholic faith], so that they may persevere in this light, not abandoning them unless he is first abandoned" (Decree on the Catholic Faith 3).
Those who have embraced the Catholic faith are thus in a special position because of the extra grace they are given in maintaining their faith. "The situation of those who, by the heavenly gift of faith, have embraced the Catholic truth is by no means the same as that of those who, led by human opinions, follow a false religion; for those who have accepted the faith under the guidance of the Church can never have any just cause for changing this faith or for calling it into question" (ibid.).
The bottom line is that for one who has embraced the Catholic faith and who has not lost the use of reason, God will always provide the grace and evidence necessary maintain his adherence to the Catholic faith.
If such a person does not maintain this adherence then either (a) he never embraced the Catholic faith, (b) he has since lost the use of reason (either generally or in relation to this subject), or (c) he abandoned the faith through his own fault, in which case he will bear the eternal consequence of doing so.
Which of these is the case in a particular instance is something that we in this life are unable to determine due to our inability to read consciences.
Q: Is there a patron saint for babies or children who have or had convulsions?
A: There are a number of patron saints for babies, including the Holy Innocents, Maximus, Nicholas of Tolentino, and Philip of Zell. The most likely category for patron saints of those with convulsions would be epilepsy, which has the patron saints Dymphna, Vitus, and Willibrord.
Q: A person said Pope John Paul II is trying to go back to the days before Vatican II. Please, how can I defend the Pope?
A: It is difficult to imagine any well-informed person making this charge. Through his pontificate, one of John Paul II’s overriding concerns has been the proper implementation of the Second Vatican Council.
The person that you have encountered is either being disingenuous, has a distorted understanding of what things were like before Vatican II, has a distorted view of what Vatican II and subsequent legislation did, has a distorted view of what John Paul II has been doing, or some combination thereof.
To mount a defense of the Holy Father’s actions in this regard, one might pose the following question: If John Paul II is "trying to go back to the days before Vatican II," what are some specific examples on this? What legitimately developed doctrines or disciples has he returned to the state they had before the Council?
If a person wants to make a generalized charge like the one under discussion, he will need to produce a large number of examples. A few examples of minor importance will not establish that the pontiff is attempting to undo the work of an ecumenical council. Of course, since the charge is preposterous on its face, the person will be unable to produce the kind of examples needed.
If he names a large number of examples, there will be something wrong with the great majority of them. For example, he may be spuriously reporting something that the Holy Father is rumored to want (rumors about what the pontiff does or doesn’t want or like are notoriously unreliable and should be avoided by parties on all sides). He may have in mind that the Holy Father did something that he did not in fact do. He may perceive an action of the pontiff as "reversing" a post-Vatican II "trend" that was never authorized to begin with and which—likely—was contrary to the wishes of the Council itself. Or he may have an erroneous notion of what the period before the Council was like and may perceive things as a "return" to that state which in fact are not.
Most likely the person you have encountered is simply fantasizing about what a post-Conciliar church should be like and then throwing brickbats at the Holy Father for adhering to the vision Vatican II in fact mapped out for the Church.
Q: Is heaven a meritocracy? That is, do the declared saints occupy a higher, happier place in heaven? If everyone is equally happy, how can extra works of charity, extra praying, and extra receiving of sacraments in this life do us any good? Or is it that the more souls there are in heaven, the happier it is, so the extra works of are not done in vain but make everyone in heaven more (but still equally) happy?
A: Souls will not be equal in beatitude in heaven, though whether one is a declared saint does not of itself make one more blessed in heaven. Neither does the number of other souls in heaven. Being declared a saint or sharing heaven with other souls might give souls more natural happiness, but they would only increase a soul’s beatitude—supernatural happiness—in that the soul recognizes them as things that please God.
The source of beatitude in heaven is God. Frequenting the sacraments and performing acts of charity lead to greater sanctifying grace, which leads to greater capacity to receive God’s beatitude, which leads to greater supernatural happiness in heaven.
Incidentally, the point you make about doing extra good was made in the fourth century by Jerome, who wrote: "It is our task, according to our different virtues, to prepare for ourselves different rewards. . . . If we were all going to be equal in heaven it would be useless for us to humble ourselves here in order to have a greater place there. . . . Why should virgins persevere? Why should widows toil? Why should married women be content? Let us all sin, and after we repent we shall be the same as the apostles are!" (Against Jovinian 2:32 [A.D. 393]).
|
