|
Q u i c k Q u e s t i o n s
|
This Rock
Volume 12, Number 6
 July-August 2001 
|
|
|
Weekend in Las Vegas
Q: If I did not attempt to find a church while on vacation in Las Vegas to fulfill my Sunday obligation, should I confess this as a definite grave sin? Also, in future trips, if I'm not able to locate the church where I'm staying, is there a way I could honor my heavenly Father on that Sunday?
A: It is difficult to give a simple answer to the question posed about Las Vegas without more information, as there are other factors that could affect the situation. For example, if you had just completed a long plane flight or car trip and were greatly in need of sleep. Also, the distance, ease, and safety of going to a parish for Mass in a strange city are factors that need to be considered. These would be amplified even further if you were traveling with family members.
However, if you believed at the time that you were committing a grave sin, then you should definitely confess it. If you were unsure at the time whether you were committing a grave sin, you would still be well advised to bring it up in confession. If it didn't occur to you at the time to do this, then don't confess it.
Regarding future trips where you are unable to attend Mass, here is what the Code of Canon Law has to say: "If it is impossible to assist at a eucharistic celebration, either because no sacred minister is available or for some other grave reason, the faithful are strongly recommended to take part in a liturgy of the Word, if there be such in the parish church or some other sacred place, which is celebrated in accordance with the provisions laid down by the diocesan bishop; or to spend an appropriate time in prayer, whether personally or as a family or, as occasion presents, in a group of families" (CIC 1248, § 2).
Q: In Luke 1:36, Elizabeth is called Mary's cousin, yet the New Testament fails to distinguish Jesus' brethren as such. Why would the Bible call Elizabeth a cousin and mean a literal cousin, yet the Catholic position holds that when the Bible calls someone a sibling of Jesus, they really mean cousin?
A: "The Catholic position" does not hold that when the Bible refers to the brethren of Christ that they are his cousins. The Church holds only that Mary did not have any other children besides Christ. Who the brethren were is debatable-they might have been cousins (this is the most common view today), they might have been stepbrothers via Joseph (this was the common view before St. Jerome), or they might have been adoptive children.
The premise of the argument-that the New Testament says Elizabeth is Mary's cousin-is wrong. The translation being quoted does not accurately reflect the Greek.
The New Testament does not say that Elizabeth is Mary's cousin, the Greek word for which is anepsios. The word used in Luke 1:36 to describe Elizabeth is suggenes (pronounced su-gen-ace), which simply means kinswoman or relative. It tells us nothing about her exact relation within the extended family. All we can tell from the word suggenes is that Elizabeth was some kind of female relative of Mary's. But whether she was an aunt, a cousin, or a more distant relation cannot be determined from the word.
In a few places the New Testament does use anepsios, but this does little to argue that the brethren of the Lord were sons of Mary. Arguments from word choice (i.e., "Why this word instead of this other word?") are rarely decisive. New Testament word choice is especially difficult to build arguments from since it involves a mixture of Jewish and non-Jewish word preferences. The brethren of the Lord may have been brethren of a different kind (e.g., adoptive brothers or stepbrothers) without being half-brothers through Mary.
Q: I'm trying to understand the Passion of Our Lord better. What does it mean when Jesus sweated blood?
A: There is a known medical condition known as hematidrosis in which a person has blood or blood pigments present in his sweat. This happens when ruptures in the skin occur that allow blood or blood pigment to move from the capillaries into the sweat glands.
On the literal level, it would seem that Jesus, suffering the extreme stress of the Agony in the Garden, began to suffer from hematidrosis. On the spiritual level, this event foreshadows the shedding of his blood for us on the Cross.
On the apologetic level, the recording of this detail reveals Luke as the careful investigator and historian that he was. Hematidrosis is rare enough that-given the state of medical knowledge at the time-Luke (who was a doctor) may not have known about it, and so he recorded the detail. Though even if he did know about the condition, it still reveals his careful reporting of detail.
Q: Is the practice of reiki morally wrong? A relative is starting to become involved and I am concerned for her.
A: Reiki is not a Christian religious practice. It is from Japanese Buddhism and involves non-Christian religious principles (e.g., moving around one's life energy or ki-the ki in reiki). The practice of reiki is not consonant with Catholic spirituality.
Q: I saw on a recent Catholic program a gentleman discussing his near-death experience. He claims that when he asked Jesus what religion he should be, Jesus' answer was "Follow your conscience." Jesus told him to get to heaven one thing is required, and that is to love your neighbor. Why would Jesus not have told him to become a Catholic?
A: The story as you recount it does convey an impression of indifferentism-that it really doesn't matter what religion one is.
One explanation, of course, is that Jesus never appeared to him-that the man subconsciously or deliberately made up the story. On the other hand, in this life God often guides us to the Church indirectly. Many converts to Catholicism, after their reception into the Church, say that when they look back over their lives they can see God laying the principles that would later lead them to embrace the faith.
Part of the reason that God does this is that we are often not prepared to accept the full truth as God wants us to have it, and so he leads us into it slowly, as we become ready to receive it. As Jesus told the apostles, "I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now" (John 16:12). In cases of private revelation, what the seer experiences is conditioned by his or her situation and background. (See Cardinal Ratzinger's notes in his commentary that is part of The Message of Fatima.)
Given this, if the gentleman in question did have an encounter with Christ, it could be that he was not yet prepared to face the truth that he should be Catholic, and so he only received a principle that will later lead him into the Church. It could be that God wanted him to embark on a process by which he would struggle and grow in his faith, rather than telling him the easy answer.
However that may be, God often does not tell us the answers up front, even when he talks to us directly. Jesus told parables, and the Old Testament comments that God spoke in riddles even to the prophets.
Q: Is it okay for Catholics to use yoga as part of an exercise program? What about in physical education for children?
A: Two factors are relevant here: First, it depends on whether the yoga is being presented in a manner that is free of religious elements-i.e., purely as a system of physical exercise. If it is coupled with elements of Hindu spirituality (e.g., talk about moving kundalini, or energy, around your body), it is not appropriate for Catholics to use it as part of their exercise routine.
Children are not mature in their thinking, and while an adult who is firm in his faith might be able to go to an "iffy" yoga exercise class without danger of being attracted to Hindu spirituality, a child well might not. If a child is being put in danger of being attracted to Hindu spirituality-either now or in the future-by the program, then it is not appropriate.
Q: Many Protestants celebrate communion on occasion; Catholics celebrate it at every Mass as an integral part of their worship. If Christ's death atoned for all sins, why is it celebrated at each Mass?
A: The Mass holds the place it does in Catholic worship because becomes of the Real Presence of Christ in the Catholic Eucharist. When Jesus has deigned to become present in that manner, it automatically becomes the most important form of worship.
There are many forms of Catholic worship beside the Mass, and the celebration of the Eucharist is not the only part of the Mass. But it remains the case-and rightly so-that the Mass and the celebration of the Eucharist within the Mass are, as Vatican II put it, "the source and summit of the Christian life" (Lumen Gentium 11).
Q: What does the Catholic Church say about the practices and beliefs of Mormonism?
A: While individual Mormons may be persons of good conscience, Mormonism itself is a belief system that would reduce the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit from being the three Persons of the one, true, and infinite God to being three limited, finite deities among an uncounted multitude of deities, all of whom merely reshaped small parts of a preexisting cosmos.
Mormonism teaches that human beings may, by practicing the tenets of its faith, become gods and goddesses themselves, with their own planets full of people worshiping them.
While the Catholic Church would reject nothing that is true or good in Mormonism or any other world religion, Catholic theology would have to note that there is a tremendous amount in Mormonism that is neither true nor good. Further, because Mormonism presents itself as a form of Christianity yet is incompatible with the historic Christian faith, sound pastoral practice would need to warn the Christian faithful: Mormon theology is blasphemous, polytheistic, and cannot be considered on par with the theology of other Christian groups.
|
