|
Q u i c k Q u e s t i o n s
Did the Church Kill Copernicus?
Q: How do I answer accusations that the Catholic Church wanted to have Copernicus killed?
A: Those who make this accusation are obliged to prove it, so you can insist politely that they furnish that proof. From the known record of Copernicus’s life, we see that he probably suffered a stroke and perhaps some form of dementia in his last days. There is no evidence of foul play (see "Nicolaus Copernicus" in the Catholic Encyclopedia). Proving murder would be a difficult task, particularly because Copernicus often worked in the service of the Church, and his last book, Six Books on the Revolutions of the Celestial Orbits, was dedicated to Pope Paul III with the Pope’s permission.
Q: Does the Catholic Church believe in tithing (giving 10 percent of our income to the Church), or should we give only what we are able to give?
A: Because tithing is an Old Testament precept not binding on Christians, the Church does not require the faithful to tithe a certain percentage of their income. What the Church does require is that Catholics support the Church in accord with their individual ability.
In discussing the precepts of the Church, the Catechism of the Catholic Church states:
The fifth precept ("You shall help to provide for the needs of the Church") means that the faithful are obliged to assist with the material needs of the Church, each according to his own ability (CCC 2043).
The Code of Canon Law also states:
The Christian faithful are obliged to assist with the needs of the Church so that the Church has what is necessary for divine worship, for apostolic works and works of charity, and for the decent sustenance of ministers. They are also obliged to promote social justice and, mindful of the precept of the Lord, to assist the poor from their own resources (CIC 222).
Q: I’m confused about the title "Your Grace." I thought archbishops were addressed the same way as a bishop ("Your Excellency"). But when a priest friend of mine took me to meet his archbishop, he said to call him "Your Grace." Can you clarify?
A: In the Anglican church it is customary to call an archbishop "Your Grace." Catholic dioceses in British and formerly British territories may have adopted that custom for Catholic archbishops in those countries, because that title is more familiar to them. There is nothing wrong with calling an archbishop "Your Grace."
That said, the general Roman Catholic custom is to call bishops and archbishops "Your Excellency." If a bishop or archbishop is also a cardinal, he is addressed as "Your Eminence." These days, though, a large number of bishops in America prefer to be called simply "Bishop" followed by their names.
Q: I’ve noticed that the Church gives the title "Saint" to certain angels (like Michael and Gabriel). I thought the term applied to Christians in general and canonized saints in particular, both of which are humans, not supernatural beings. Can you explain this?
A: Even though the New Testament often uses saints as a synonym for Christians, today it often is used to refer to Christians of great sanctity. The Catholic Church uses the term to refer to not only Christians who are in heaven but all who are in heaven, including the angels. The Catechism states: "‘Heaven’ refers to the saints and the ‘place’ of the spiritual creatures, the angels, who surround God" (CCC 326).
Q: Am I in mortal sin if I must make restitution but am unable to do so due to severe financial limitations?
A: So long as you have been absolved sacramentally of whatever sin you committed, your sin is forgiven. But you need to make restitution when you are able.
Q: What were Ember Days, and why do we no longer have them?
A: Ember Days were traditional periods of fast and abstinence during each of the four seasons of the calendar year. Observance of the Ember Days was intended to be a means to sanctify the seasons, and, by extension, to sanctify time. The Ember Days were observed on the Wednesday, Friday, and Saturday following St. Lucia Day (winter), Ash Wednesday (spring), Pentecost (summer), and the triumph of the cross (autumn).
Ember Days were removed from the Church calendar following the Second Vatican Council. The calendar was reformed in an effort to focus our attention more sharply on the life of Christ, his Mother, and the saints.
Q: Is it okay to use Xmas as an alternative spelling for Christmas?
A: The X in Xmas is shorthand for Christ because the X recalls the Greek letter chi, the first Greek letter in the word Christos or "Christ." Chi is also the X in the chi-rho symbol for Christ, the P representing the Greek letter rho that is the second Greek letter in Christ’s name. Understood in this way, there is nothing wrong with abbreviating the word Christmas to Xmas.
Q: Why did Satan try to tempt Christ if Christ is God? How could he have thought that God would give in to temptation?
A: Satan is not omniscient and cannot read minds, so at the time of the temptations Satan may not have known that Jesus of Nazareth was both God and man. He may have known only that this particular person was a special threat to his dominion. Indeed, the temptations appear designed to elicit information.
The first temptation asks Jesus to demonstrate divine power, the second temptation asks Jesus to demonstrate that he is specially protected by God, and the third temptation offers Jesus a shortcut to the earthly political reign commonly expected of the Messiah.
Jesus not only refused the temptations themselves, but he also refused to satisfy Satan’s apparent curiosity about the nature of the threat to Satan’s dominion. Satan left perhaps not knowing at that point whether he was dealing with a political Messiah, a divinely protected human being, or God himself.
Q: Why don’t some churches have holy water fonts?
A: Every Catholic church is expected to have a holy water font.
The Catechism states:
The gathering of the people of God begins with baptism; a church must have a place for the celebration of baptism (baptistry) and for fostering remembrance of the baptismal promises (holy water font) (CCC 1185).
What you may be encountering is that some churches place the baptismal font at the front of the church so it can serve both for performing baptisms and as a holy water font for the faithful to use in remembrance of their baptismal promises.
Q: Is the Summa Theologiae by Thomas Aquinas infallible?
A: No. The Summa Theologiae is a great accomplishment, but it is primarily a commentary on dogma; it is not a dogma itself and is not infallible. Certain things in the Summa are, in fact, incorrect. For example, because the dogma of the Immaculate Conception was not yet defined in his day, Aquinas’s treatment of it in the Summa is not entirely correct, although he did recognize that Mary never committed a personal sin.
Q: My theology professor posed this question to our class: "Why didn’t Jesus write a single, definitive Gospel, at least in his own words, before his Crucifixion? Jesus was God; wouldn’t God have thought of that?" Can you shed any light on this question?
A: The simple answer is that Jesus didn’t write a Gospel because he didn’t choose to do so. As it is not recorded why he chose not to do so, all we can do is speculate upon his reasons.
Throughout the Gospels we see Jesus forming his apostles and disciples to be witnesses to him. To his disciples Jesus said, "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me" (Luke 10:16). To the Father in his high priestly prayer, Jesus prayed: "Now they know that everything that thou hast given me is from thee; for I have given them the words which thou gavest me, and they have received them and know in truth that I came from thee; and they have believed that thou didst send me" (John 17:7–8).
While your professor’s question might be a difficult one for a Christian who believes in the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura, the Catholic response is easy: Jesus showed a marked preference for working through those he entrusted to carry forth his mission to the world. It is in keeping with such a view that Jesus would choose to have others write of him rather than leaving us his own written record.
Q: I often hear people talking about the Baltimore Catechism, both positively and negatively. What is it?
A: The Baltimore Catechism was issued in 1885 on the authority of the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore (1884) for use in religious education in the United States.
A catechism is a popular summary or compendium of Catholic doctrine about faith and morals designed for use in catechesis. There have been many catechisms issued during the life of the Church.
In the United States, many Catholics either are attached to or disdainful of the Baltimore Catechism because its question-and-answer format was the means by which several generations of Catholic children were taught the Catholic faith.
Q: Why did God create Satan, knowing what he’d do?
A: That same question could be applied to any sinner: Why did God create any of us, knowing what we would do? God creates as an act of love. He gives us free will as an act of love because he desires our free choice to love him.
God created the archangel Lucifer, just as he created the other archangels and angels. God allowed Lucifer to reject him because he gave the angels free will. But God also knew that, as terrible as the evil wreaked by Satan was, he could still bring good from it.
The Catechism states that the devil’s action in the world "is permitted by divine providence, which with strength and gentleness guides human and cosmic history. It is a great mystery that providence should permit diabolical activity, but ‘we know that in everything God works for good with those who love him’ (Rom. 8:28)" (CCC 395).
Q: Why are there two popes named John XXIII? Shouldn’t the last one be numbered John XXIV?
A: Before Angelo Cardinal Roncalli was validly elected pope in 1958, the last valid pope who used the name John was John XXII (reigned 1316–1334). In 1410, Baldassare Cardinal Cossa was crowned by cardinals who had deserted the rightful Pope Gregory XII. Cossa chose to be known by the name John XXIII, but he was not a valid pope.
In the twentieth century, when Roncalli chose the name of John, he was numbered John XXIII because he was the next valid pope with the name of John. Analogously, if a future pope chooses the name of Pius, he will be known as Pius XIII, even though an antipope claimed that name for himself.
Q: Is there room in the Catholic Church for a Christian who believes in a literal twenty-four-hour six-day creation?
A: To date, a Catholic is free to consider all of the possibilities regarding the amount of time surrounding creation, which include both the possibility of six twenty-four-hour days and the possibility that the six days are symbolic of a much longer time period. So far the Church has not given an authoritative interpretation of the six days in the first two chapters of Genesis, although the Church has been open in recent years to symbolic interpretations:
God himself created the visible world in all its richness, diversity, and order. Scripture presents the work of the Creator symbolically as a succession of six days of divine "work," concluded by the "rest" of the seventh day. On the subject of creation, the sacred text teaches the truths revealed by God for our salvation, permitting us to "recognize the inner nature, the value, and the ordering of the whole of creation to the praise of God" (CCC 337; cf. Lumen Gentium 36).
Q: If the souls in purgatory are destined for heaven, why do we pray for them? Does the Church teach that we should do this?
A: There is scriptural evidence that our prayers are beneficial to those in purgatory. Judas Maccabeus "made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin" (2 Macc. 12:45; cf. 1 Cor. 15:21–23; 2 Tim. 1:16–18). Whatever benefit is derived from our prayers, though, we know that these souls cannot enter heaven until their purification is complete: "Nothing unclean shall enter [heaven]" (Rev. 21:27).
The Catechism teaches:
From the beginning the Church has honored the memory of the dead and offered prayers in suffrage for them, above all the eucharistic sacrifice, so that, thus purified, they may attain the beatific vision of God. The Church also commends almsgiving, indulgences, and works of penance undertaken on behalf of the dead: Let us help and commemorate them. If Job’s sons were purified by their father’s sacrifice, why would we doubt that our offerings for the dead bring them some consolation? Let us not hesitate to help those who have died and to offer our prayers for them (CCC 1032).
Q: In his book Women in the Priesthood, Manfred Hauke concludes that the "degree of theological certainty" regarding the Church’s teaching that only men may receive holy orders is "at least" that of sententia fidei proxima. Could you explain this phrase?
A: In his book Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Ludwig Ott defines sententia fidei proxima as follows: "A teaching proximate to faith (sententia fidei proxima) is a doctrine that is regarded by theologians as a truth of revelation but has not yet been finally promulgated as such by the Church."
Since the publication of Hauke’s Women in the Priesthood (1988) Pope John Paul II’s apostolic letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (1994) declared that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith stated in 1995 that the teaching proclaimed by John Paul "has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal magisterium."
Q: A person said to me, "Because John Paul II said the war in Iraq is immoral, all who die fighting in it are damned to hell." Is this true?
A: Despite a widespread misperception to the contrary, John Paul never actually said that the Iraq War was unjust. He did issue strong exhortations to find peaceful solutions and also cautioned against going to war apart from the conditions that render a war just. Whether those conditions were fulfilled or not in this case he did not say.
The Catechism indicates that whether a situation measures up to the conditions for a just war ultimately falls to the temporal leaders who have competence and responsibility in such matters. "The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good" (CCC 2309).
Catholics can be in favor of the war or against it without being condemned to hell for their stance on it.
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) noted in a 2004 memorandum:
If a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty (Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion 3).
It is categorically false to say that soldiers commit mortal sin by fighting in Iraq or that they are going to hell.
Q: I have strong convictions contrary to something the Catechism says that has not been defined infallibly. Because the Catechism is an example of the ordinary magisterium, is this an example of where I may privately and respectfully disagree with its teaching?
A: Simply because a particular Church teaching is a part of the ordinary magisterium does not mean that the teaching is "up for grabs," so to speak. It certainly does not mean that one can pick and choose what one will believe from the ordinary magisterial teaching of the Church, based on one’s private feelings.
We may not understand why the Church teaches as it does; our personal feelings may rebel against such an understanding and prompt us to disregard the Church’s teaching. But we must be obedient to ordinary Church teaching and give religious assent to it. The Catechism also teaches:
Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a "definitive manner," they propose in the exercise of the ordinary magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful "are to adhere to it with religious assent," which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it (CCC 892, emphasis added).
Q: When someone gets intoxicated and commits a sin that he normally would not do if he were sober, does the fact that he is drunk reduce his culpability?
A: If someone became drunk inadvertently—perhaps because he did not know his limit or the drink was stronger than he realized—his culpability for a sin he otherwise would not have committed may be lessened. But if he became intoxicated deliberately, thus purposely impairing his reasoning capacity, his culpability may actually increase.
The virtue of temperance disposes us to avoid every kind of excess: the abuse of food, alcohol, tobacco, or medicine. Those incur grave guilt who, by drunkenness or a love of speed, endanger their own and others’ safety on the road, at sea, or in the air (CCC 2290).
Q: A great many people seem to assume that Jesus’ teachings included pacifism. Is this true?
A: Jesus discouraged the use of unnecessary force (cf. Matt. 5:9, 26:52) but acknowledged that legitimate force was, at times, necessary (cf. Luke 14:31, 22:36). Indeed, as Jesus is God and God inspired both the Old and New Testaments, the Old Testament prescriptions for war (cf. Eccles. 3:1–3, 8) reflect Jesus’ position on the matter of war.
In short, Jesus encouraged his followers to pursue peace and warned them of the evils of war, but he did not teach that war is never permissible.
Q: In reading Story of a Soul by St. Therese of Lisieux, I was puzzled that after her First Communion, Therese asked permission to receive the Eucharist again and that she was allowed to receive Communion on all feast days. Why couldn’t she receive as often as she wanted, as we do today? Didn’t the Church always encourage reception of the Eucharist?
A: Yes, but in previous centuries the spiritual discipline of the day encouraged receiving the Eucharist on a much less frequent basis than is currently the custom in many countries. It was believed that receiving frequently could lead to rote reception, thus leading to sacrilegious receptions of Communion. To be certain of spiritual worthiness, people often sought permission from priests and spiritual directors for a more frequent reception than was considered customary.
Of course, there is a danger that frequent reception can lead to rote and even sacrilegious eucharistic reception. The solution, though, is not to deny oneself Communion; the solution is to examine one’s conscience before each reception and avail oneself of sacramental confession on a regular basis. Thus, the popes of the twentieth century, who encouraged frequent Communion, also encouraged the faithful to make sure that they are spiritually prepared for receiving it in a worthy manner.
|
