|
Q u i c k Q u e s t i o n s
|
This Rock
Volume 14, Number 3
 March 2003 
|
|
|
Holy Water Wholly Valid
Q: My Fundamentalist sister says holy water is a superstition that has no basis in the Bible, and I can’t find a passage to refute her.
A: Look up Numbers 5:17, where a ritual is being described: "And the priest shall take the holy water in an earthen vessel and take some of the dust that is on the floor of the tabernacle and put it into the water."
This shows that holy water not only has a biblical basis, but that it has been around since the days of Moses. Holy water was used for numerous Old Testament ceremonies that involved ceremonial sprinklings and washings. Today we are not bound to perform those ceremonies, but the fact that holy water was used proves that it is not a superstitious or invalid practice.
Q: A priest told my fiancé that it is okay for my fiancé and me to touch intimately before we are married so long as we don’t engage in intercourse. I’m a little uneasy about this interpretation of chastity. Is he correct?
A: No. Jesus stated in Matthew 5:28 that a person can commit sins of sexual impurity even in his thoughts: "But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart." The same is true of fornication (premarital sex).
Looking at a woman (or man) to whom you are not married and indulging in lustful thoughts counts as committing fornication in your heart. If indulging yourself in mental lust for a man to whom you are not married counts as fornication, how much more so will intimate touching in which you partially act out the sexual desire you have for another?
Though some priests may not like to say so, fornication is a grave (mortal) sin. Paul says, "Now the works of the flesh are plain: fornication, impurity, licentiousness . . . and the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God" (Gal. 5:19-21). This is a severe teaching. It is one many unmarried people find hard to accept, but it is the clear teaching of Scripture, and we must hold to it.
Sometimes people rationalize extramarital sexual practices on the grounds that by committing a lesser sin one may avoid a greater one, such as fornication. There are two problems with this. First, as the Holy Father made clear in his encyclical Veritatis Splendor, one may never do something intrinsically wrong in order to avoid a problem. We cannot do evil that good may come of it.
Second, this strategy simply doesn’t work. If you find it difficult to restrain yourself sexually, following this priest’s advice will not make it easier to control yourself—quite the opposite.
By the way, you might want to ask this priest yourself and not rely on your fiancé to interpret the priest’s remarks.
Q: Catholic moral theologians talks about the natural law, and scientists talk about the laws of nature, but they don’t seem to be talking about the same thing. What is the difference between natural law and the laws of nature?
A: Pope John Paul answered this question nicely in his encyclical Veritatis Splendor. He said the natural law of moral theology "receives this name not because it refers to the nature of irrational things but because the reason which promulgates it is proper to human nature" (VS 42). The moral law is called natural law because it is based on our nature as rational beings. It is not based on the nature of irrational beings, such as animals, plants, or inanimate matter. When scientists refer to the laws of nature, they mean physical laws such as the law of gravity or the laws of thermodynamics.
Q: I read in a Protestant book recently that the Council of Trent was inconsistent because it accepted some “apocryphal” books—such as 1 and 2 Maccabees—as canonical but did not accept others, such as 1 and 2 Esdras. How do you respond?
A: Trent simply reaffirmed the historic canon of the Bible after it had been challenged by Protestants. The same books Trent affirmed had been affirmed by councils and popes prior to Trent. The first council recorded as dealing with the canon was the Council of Rome, which convened in A.D. 382 under Pope Damascus. Later councils, such as Hippo (393) and Carthage (397), and the ecumenical council of Florence (1438) reaffirmed the canon issued by the Council of Rome.
At all these councils the canon that was proclaimed included the seven deuterocanonical books—1 and 2 Maccabees, Tobit, Judith, Baruch, Wisdom, and Sirach—and rejected 1 and 2 Esdras. Far from being inconsistent; Trent reaffirmed what the Church had taught since the earliest centuries.
Q: I was told that devout Jews believe in purgatory. Is this true?
A: In essence, yes, though they do not call it purgatory. Jews do believe in a purification (a purgation) that takes place after death. When a Jewish person’s loved one dies, it is customary to pray on his behalf for 11 months using a prayer known as mourner’s kaddish (derived from the Hebrew word meaning holy). This prayer is used to ask God to hasten the purification of the loved one’s soul. The kaddish is prayed for only 11 months because it is thought to be an insult to imply that the loved one’s sins were so severe that he would require a full year of purification.
The practice of praying for the dead has been a part of the Jewish faith since before Christ. Remember that 2 Maccabees 12:39–46, on which Catholics base their observance of this practice, shows that, a century and a half before Christ, prayer for the dead was taken for granted. Unlike Protestantism, Catholicism has preserved this element of authentic Judeo-Christian faith.
Q: If I understand it correctly, Catholic teaching holds that if someone lives his entire life in a state of grace then commits one mortal sin and dies before he has a chance to confess it, God damns him to hell. Is this fair? Wouldn’t an entire life of virtue outweigh a single mortal sin?
A: It is incorrect to think of virtue and sin as outweighing each other, at least in the case of someone who dies in either a state of grace of a state of mortal sin. At death, your disposition toward God, whether friendship or rebellion, is fixed for eternity. You are unable to "change your mind." That’s why those damned to hell cannot repent and become God’s friends; likewise, the blessed in heaven cannot rebel against God and lose their salvation.
The question of fairness is irrelevant here. God is all-just and all-merciful. During our lives he extends his mercy to us as often as we need it, allowing us to repent and to turn from sin, thus shielding us from the eternal consequences of our sins. But at our death his justice demands that we be recompensed on the basis of our relationship with him.
One needs to understand the gravity of mortal sin. By committing mortal sin a man implicitly rejects God and the entire life of holiness he has led up to that point. By spurning that life he spurns the reward he would have gotten as a result of it. If he dies in a state of alienation from God and his reward, he has no one to blame but himself.
The situation you raise should at the least make us mindful of the overwhelming importance of frequent and sincere confession.
Q: I have encountered a modern Catholic scholar who suggests that angels are not personal beings but archetypes or symbols of cosmic principles. Is this a valid interpretation?
A: Nope. This notion is contrary to the official teaching of the Church. The Catechism states, "As purely spiritual creatures angels have intelligence and will: They are personal and immortal creatures, surpassing in perfection all visible creatures, as the splendor of their glory bears witness" (CCC 330).
Neither is anyone permitted to reduce the devil to an archetype or to impersonal status. "The Church teaches that Satan was at first a good angel, made by God: ‘The devil and the other demons were indeed created naturally good by God, but they became evil by their own doing’" (CCC 391, citing Lateran Council IV [1215]).
Q: Why did Mary Magdalene and the apostles have trouble recognizing Jesus when he appeared to them after the Resurrection? Will we too have trouble recognizing our loved ones after they have been resurrected?
A: Of the four Gospel accounts, only Luke and John mention anyone having difficulty recognizing Jesus after he had risen from the dead.
Luke recounts the episode of the two disciples on the road to the village of Emmaus on the day of the Resurrection (24:13–35). It wasn’t a case of them not recognizing Jesus because his appearance had somehow changed. We are told "their eyes were kept from recognizing him" until he had explained how the Old Testament prophecies concerning the Messiah were fulfilled by him.
In the gospel of John, the apostles have trouble recognizing Jesus when they are fishing near the Sea of Tiberias and Christ is standing on the shore (John 21:1-14). But we are told that the boat is at least a hundred yards offshore, so it is not surprising that they didn’t recognize him at once.
Similarly, Mary Magdalene did not recognize Jesus immediately outside the tomb until he called her by name (John 20:14–16). Perhaps in this instance also he was some distance away. More than likely she was so intent of finding Christ’s dead body that his risen body escaped her recognition. Mourning, she also may have not looked Jesus in the face until he said her name, and in any event her eyes were full of tears (20:13). Or she might have been supernaturally prevented from recognizing him, just as the disciples on the road to Emmaus had been.
As Thomas was able to identify Jesus’ body (John 20:24–29), and the rich man had no trouble recognizing Lazarus and Abraham even without their bodies (Luke 16:20–24), so we will have no trouble recognizing our loved ones—provided we all end up in the same place.
|
