|
Q u i c k Q u e s t i o n s
|
This Rock
Volume 13, Number 8
 October 2002 
|
|
|
If It's Done by a Medium, It's Not Well Done
Q: The other night, at the urging of a friend, I watched the John Edwards show on television. Supposedly Edwards communes with the dead. My friend says that he is a Catholic, and she says he does only good. I told her that if he is a medium, he is not a practicing Catholic. She is convinced that he is real. I see her being taken in by stuff that could hurt her faith.
A: Sacred Scripture and Church teaching are unequivocal that the kinds of activities John Edwards is involved in are dangerous and should be rejected. Satan can lure Catholics by using familiar things, like the rosary. Not that Edwards is Satan, but he is cooperating with the devil, even if Edwards is not aware of it.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church states, "All forms of divination are to be rejected: recourse to Satan or demons, conjuring up the dead or other practices falsely supposed to 'unveil' the future [cf. Deut. 18:10, Jer. 29:8]. Consulting horoscopes, astrology, palm reading, interpretation of omens and lots, the phenomena of clairvoyance, and recourse to mediums all conceal a desire for power over time, history, and, in the last analysis, other human beings, as well as a wish to conciliate hidden powers. They contradict the honor, respect, and loving fear that we owe to God alone" (CCC 2116).
You are correct in discouraging your friend from getting involved with John Edwards. Be persistent. She will not benefit from this involvement, and it could lead to serious spiritual dangers.
Q: I know that the Eastern Orthodox claim that they have the exact same faith as was present in the first, fifth, tenth, and fifteenth centuries. They say they don't believe in doctrinal development, as we Catholics do. They claim that it was invented to "cover over" the non-continuity of Catholic belief. How can I respond?
A: In the second century the Orthodox churches (which didn't exist as a separate communion then) did not believe in divorce. They especially did not allow one to have two of them. Now they allow up to two divorces and remarriages (i.e., three marriages total). That would have never been tolerated in the second century.
Without doctrinal development we would not have the first seven ecumenical councils, which the Eastern Orthodox accept. These councils found progressively more precise ways of formulating doctrine, such as of the nature of the Godhead and the Person of Christ. That's doctrinal development.
Q: I was a groomsman in a Methodist wedding this weekend. This experience raised a few questions. (1) Does the Catholic Church consider Protestant marriages valid? (2) If not, will the bride and groom be living in sin? (3) In addition, the minister or presider (I don't know her appropriate title) was a woman; since the priesthood is reserved for men, does this make things worse? (4) At the reception I was invited to another wedding in which the presider will be the groom's father, who's not even an active preacher any more; would this marriage be valid? (5) Lastly, did I do anything wrong by participating in the wedding?
A: Wow, a five-in-one quick question. Protestants are not under the same canonical requirements as Catholics to be married in the Church by a priest or deacon. Since they are baptized, the Catholic Church considers their marriages to be valid and sacramental, even though their own theology doesn't consider marriage a sacrament. It is the couple, not the minister, that confers the sacrament of matrimony. In a Catholic wedding, the minister is required as an official witness of the Church, but for non-Catholics the validity of the marriage is not affected by whether the wedding is in a house of prayer or a house of law, or whether the officiant is a man or woman or a minister or a justice of the peace.
Assuming that both the bride and the groom were Protestant and were otherwise free to marry, it was not wrong for you to participate in this wedding as an official witness, although if you thought it might be wrong you ought to have found out before the wedding. (Now that you know, you can feel free to accept the invitation to that second wedding, again assuming that both spouses-to-be are Protestant.)
If the bride or groom had been a Catholic marrying without permission outside of the Catholic Church, the wedding would not be valid and you would not be allowed to participate, because the Catholic partner is bound by what is called "form" (marriage regulations for Catholics).
For more information on this and the reasons behind the Church's teaching on marriage, consider Christopher West's book Good News About Sex and Marriage, available at most booksellers.
Q: My agnostic friend has been asking me about this for a while: If an agnostic or an atheist lives a good, moral, and selfless life, can he still go to heaven?
A: Both positions are spiritually dangerous to hold. Atheism is a sin against the first commandment (Catechism of the Catholic Church 2140). To persist in grave sin until death without repentance results in damnation. For such a person, salvation is not possible.
Regarding agnosticism, the Catechism says, "Agnosticism can sometimes include a certain search for God, but it can equally express indifferentism, a flight from the ultimate question of existence, and a sluggish moral conscience. Agnosticism is all too often equivalent to practical atheism" (CCC 2128).
Jesus said from the cross, "Father forgive them, for they know not what they do." Committing a sinful act, but being innocently ignorant of the fact that it is sinful, makes someone non-culpable for that sin. For a person who is innocently ignorant but otherwise lives up to the grace he is given, salvation is possible. But if a person has a suspicion that something is sinful, then he is obliged to educate himself on the issue or bear the blame. If he knows that it is sinful and persists in the sin, the fault is his.
Being an atheist or agnostic is a dangerous belief to have. The negative consequences are eternal.
Q: I read recently that the Catholic Church had rejected Mormon baptism, since their view of Christ and the Trinity is so unusual. But I have to ask: Are Mormons considered separated brothers and sisters? While their views are strange to say the least, they are still separated, and we should reach out to them. If we view them as something other than separated, doesn't that exclude ecumenism? I know that many view them as a cult, but aren't cult members separated as well?
A: The reason Mormons are not considered separated brethren is not because they aren't "separated" from the Church-they are-but they aren't "brethren" in the sense required.
The phrase separated brethren refers to those who, though separated from full communion with the Catholic Church, have been justified through baptism and are thus brethren in Christ. The Decree on Ecumenism (Unitatis Redintegratio) of Vatican II teaches that "all who have been justified by faith in baptism are members of Christ's body, and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church."
Because Mormonism is polytheistic and rejects the Trinity, Mormon baptism is not valid, and Mormons are not considered separated brethren. For the same reason, outreach to them, while certainly a good thing, is not ecumenism, though it can include dialogue and social cooperation as well as efforts to evangelize them.
Q: How did we get from Peter, a simple fisherman, to today's pope, who lives in opulence? Priests take vows of poverty, yet it seems that the higher up the hierarchy you go, the richer you get. Did Christ live in a palace, surrounded by opulence and luxury? Did Christ wear expensive garments or travel on a 747 jet? I give money to the Maryknoll Sisters, and their most recent newsletter gave a detailed description of families living in a garbage dump in the Philippines. These people drink polluted water and live surrounded by filth. I wonder if they ever think about how the pope lives compared to how they live.
A: Only priests who belong to a religious institute (order) make a vow of poverty. Diocesan priests do not, although their vocation calls them to a simple lifestyle.
We got from Peter, a simple fisherman who became the first pope and leader of the Church at the command of our blessed Lord himself, through 2,000 years of history. These 20 centuries of war, martyrdom, glory, sin, pain, and great sanctity are all represented through various displays of Christian art at the Vatican. That the Holy Father lives there in no way means that he lives in luxury. His personal life is very simple indeed and is very much consumed with attention to others from early morning till late at night. He could just as well live in a monastery for how all the "opulence," as you call it, affects his lifestyle.
That he drinks water as clean as the water we drink does not liken him to royalty anymore than it does us. It is deplorable that there are people in the world living in subhuman standards. But the Catholic Church gives more assistance to the poor than any other nongovernmental organization in the world. No world leader stands up more for the world's poor and disenfranchised, including the unborn, than does the Holy Father.
As for air travel, how do we expect the Pope to travel in this day and age? Thank God he cares enough to visit his flock—even in old age and sickness and personal danger as well.
May the Lord protect him, and let us all appreciate what a treasure we have had in him before he leaves us.
|
