|
Q u i c k Q u e s t i o n s
|
This Rock
Volume 14, Number 8
 October 2003 
|
|
|
Was Satan at Gethsemane?
Q: If Satan tempted Judas to betray Jesus, not knowing God’s redemptive plan, then why did Satan tempt Jesus in the garden of Gethsemane not to sacrifice himself for us?
A: Although dramatizations of the Gospel story sometimes depict Satan tempting Jesus in the garden of Gethsemane—thereby bookending Jesus’ earthly ministry with temptation scenes both at the beginning and at the end—in Scripture Satan is never mentioned in connection with the garden of Gethsemane.
That’s not to say that Satan couldn’t have tempted Jesus in Gethsemane. However much or little the tempter understood what was happening, he could still have been at work trying to prompt Jesus to put his natural feelings ahead of God’s will. Yet whatever efforts Satan may have made at any time to tempt our Lord, as true God and perfect man Jesus never even struggled with temptation, in either his human will or his divine will. In the case of Gethsemane, the anguish he suffered was due not to struggling with temptation, but to anticipation of the Passion.
Q: How can we know whether people are still in purgatory or are in heaven? If they are in heaven and we pray for them, what happens to our prayer? Or what if they went to hell?
A: The only people we know for sure are in heaven are canonized saints and the very young who die after baptism but before becoming capable of personal sin.
Similarly, we can’t be sure if someone is in purgatory, and thus in need of our prayers. For that matter, we can’t even be infallibly sure that someone is on earth, unless we happen to be looking straight at them. Whenever we pray for a loved one on earth who is absent from us at the moment, we do so without any certain knowledge that that person hasn’t just died suddenly in a state of perfect contrition (or mortal sin) and gone straight to heaven (or hell). So most of the time we can’t be certain that the people we pray for need our prayers. Yet we pray for them anyway.
Obviously, in the case of our deceased loved ones, we hope that the likelihood of their being in heaven is much greater. But that’s just the point: We hope that they are in heaven. When we hope that something is the case but we don’t know that it is, and there’s a chance that our prayers could help bring it about, we pray for it.
This element of uncertainty in no way means that there is any danger of our prayers somehow "going to waste." No prayer is ever wasted. At the general judgment, when all the effects of our good and bad deeds are revealed, we shall certainly have the gratitude—and the forgiveness—of many whom we helped or harmed without ever knowing. In some cases, we may meet saints who were helped by prayers we offered on behalf of another. When all is literally said and done, we will be just as happy that our prayers had the effect that they did.
Indeed, we will certainly receive spiritual benefits by praying for the souls of the departed, though our own benefit can never be our primary motive in offering such prayers. Merit is what happens when we act out of love for God and neighbor; it can’t be pursued as an end in itself. Yet the fact remains that it’s good for us to will good to others, since love is what we were created for. God is pleased when we pray and sacrifice for those who have died, and pleasing God—even more than helping the person—should be our primary motive. Offering prayers without knowing in advance how they will ultimately fit into the grand scheme of things is thus an act of faith as well as charity.
Q: How can we say that God answers prayers when in one case someone prays for healing and is healed, but in another case someone dies who has prayed just as hard?
A: It would indeed be wrong—and cruel—to suggest that the second person died because there was something wrong with his prayers or those offered on his behalf. That is the error of the health-and-wellness teaching.
Jesus himself prayed in the garden of Gethsemane for the cup of his suffering to pass from him, but this request was not granted. Likewise, Paul prayed repeatedly for his "thorn in the flesh" to be removed, but the Lord instead told him, "My grace is sufficient for you" (2 Cor. 12:9). So sometimes even the best petitioners are not given what they request.
However, this doesn’t mean that God doesn’t answer prayer. All prayer is answered, but not always in the way we hope or expect. A petitionary prayer is a request humbly made to our heavenly Father. For reasons known to divine wisdom alone, he may or may not grant what we ask. However, he always lovingly hears our prayers, and in all things works for good for those who love him (cf. Rom. 8:28).
Q: We Catholics say that the brethren of Jesus were really cousins, and that there is no Greek word for cousin—but then how could the angel Gabriel tell Mary "your cousin Elizabeth also has conceived"?
A: First of all, we do not say that the brethren of Jesus were necessarily cousins. Another possibility, and the first explanation found in early Christian tradition, is that they were stepbrothers, children of Joseph from an earlier marriage.
Second, there is a Greek word for "cousin" (anepsios). The language that lacks such a word is Aramaic, the language that Jesus and his disciples mostly used in their everyday discourse.
Third, although Greek does have a word for "cousin," the word St. Luke uses to translate Gabriel’s statement to Mary is not in fact the one for "cousin," but "relative" or "kin" (sungenis). By translating sungenis as "cousin," your Bible translation says more than the sacred writer implied. All we know for sure is that Elizabeth and Mary were related somehow.
Q:For years, Anglicans have been asserting the "Three Branch Theory," in which there is one Catholic Church with three distinct branches, Anglican, Roman, and Eastern (Orthodox). How do we as Catholic answer this?
A: The Anglican theory that the Catholic Church has three distinct branches, none of which is in communion with the other, misunderstands the nature of the Church. The true Church must be united in faith and sacraments, in communion with the pope. If one part breaks from that unity, then it is no longer part of the Church. Anglicans, in their desire to be recognized as part of the true Church, have come up with this new theory at the expense of unity.
If the Anglican church always constituted a distinct "branch" of the church, independent of the pope, then why did Henry VIII appeal to the bishop of Rome for permission to marry Catherine and then for permission to divorce her and marry Anne Boleyn? Why did he decide to settle for the authority of the archbishop of Canterbury only after getting turned down by the Pope?
Q: Since the Catholic Church does not recognize Anglican orders as being valid, would it be appropriate for a Catholic to call Anglican clergy "father" or "bishop"? Further, why are some Anglican clergy, who convert to Catholicism and seek ordination, ordained "conditionally," as if they might already be ordained?
A: It would be appropriate and a sign of courtesy to refer to non-Catholic clergy in the way they wish to be addressed, unless it would be likely to cause scandal.
Although Anglican orders per se are not valid, it is still possible for a particular priest in the Anglican communion to be validly ordained. Some are converts from Eastern Orthodoxy, or have received ordination from Orthodox bishops. If there is reason to reckon on the possibility of a particular Anglican priest having been validly ordained, then he would be eligible for conditional ordination in the Catholic Church.
Q: What’s the point of going to church or confession when the priests are just sinful men like us and sometimes much more so?
A: When we go to a doctor, we place our physical health in his care, not because he is necessarily the picture of health himself, but because he has access to knowledge and means to restore or maintain health. A necessary drug prescription that only a doctor can write is no less effective if the doctor happens to be obese or chain-smokes.
Similarly, when we go to a priest, we place our spiritual health in his care not because he is the picture of spiritual health himself, but because he has access to knowledge and means to restore or maintain our spiritual health. The sacraments that only a priest can confect are no less effective if the priest happens to be hypocritical or heterodox.
That’s not to say that the holiness of a priest doesn’t matter. It does. Certainly a Sunday homily from a holy and orthodox priest will do one more good than one from a hypocritical or heterodox one. But the effectiveness of the sacraments does not depend on the holiness of the priest.
Q: I met a Protestant who told me that the image of the Sacred Heart of Jesus is blasphemous because of the heart being exposed with thorns and a cut. Is there any scriptural basis for the Sacred Heart image?
A: The real question is: Is there any scriptural basis for the charge that it’s blasphemous? Besides, it’s Protestants, not us, who tout sola scriptura. So where in the Bible does it say that a depiction of Jesus’ heart wounded and crowned with thorns is blasphemous?
The Sacred Heart image is a symbol; it is not meant to depict physiological reality. If we say that someone "wears his heart on his sleeve," neither cardiologists nor tailors need throw up their hands in horror. Even if a cartoonist drew a caricature of a celebrity literally wearing his heart on his sleeve, the symbolic import of the metaphor would be obvious.
It’s the same with the image of the Sacred Heart. The heart is a well-known symbol of love. Jesus’ heart is exposed to emphasize the manifest reality of divine love "exposed" by Jesus before the world in his passion and death, represented by the crown of thorns and the wound.
|
