|
Q u i c k Q u e s t i o n s
|
This Rock
Volume 1, Number 10
 October 1990 
|
|
|
Time to repeal priestly celibacy?
Q: Don't the recent scandals indicate the Catholic Church's rule about celibacy ought to be repealed?
A: The failure of some priests to live celibately isn't an argument against celibacy any more than the failure of some Protestant ministers to be faithful to their wives is an argument against monogamy.
Q: I heard a priest give a talk on the Jesus Prayer. He said he found it useful in focusing himself on the Lord. A radio preacher I heard said this was wrong. He said the Jesus Prayer is part of Hinduism and the New Age movement. He also said it's an example of the biblically condemned idea of vainly repetitive prayers. What do you think?
A: Be careful not to throw out the baby with the bath water. By overdoing it when it comes to detecting error people sometimes fall into a kind of closedmindedness which can be as spiritually harmful as the dangers they warn against. The radio preacher you describe sounds like he may be heading in this direction.
The Jesus Prayer isn't New Age or Hinduism. It's an ancient devotion, especially used by Christians of the East, which consists of the words, "O Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me a sinner." Sometimes this prayer was accompanied by certain breathing procedures and bodily postures, but this, in and of itself, doesn't make the Jesus Prayer New Ageish or Hindu.
There's nothing wrong with using techniques to relax yourself or to help direct your attention to God, provided you don't get lost in the techniques or focus on your altered state of consciousness rather than on union with God.
The Jesus Prayer is not, as some have suggested, a Christian mantra, at least not in the pejorative sense. It doesn't involve recognizing one's Godhood or taking on "Christ consciousness," nor does it produce some new and higher spiritual state by the mere repetition of the prayer. Rather, it's an acknowledgement of sin and the need for Christ's mercy, which certainly isn't a New Age idea.
Can the Jesus Prayer involve vain repetition condemned by our Lord? Sure. As with any prayer, if you think the mere repetition of words, apart from proper interior dispositions, will get you a hearing from God, then you're being superstitious. Your repetition of the prayer is vain.
It's not the repetition that's the problem, though, but the superstitious attitude which can accompany it. Repetition as such isn't condemned in the Bible. In Revelation 4:8, for example, the four living creatures repeat, night and day, the prayer "Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God almighty, who was, and who is, and who is to come." You can't get more repetitive than that.
Is this repetitive prayer vain? Of course not. Neither is the Jesus Prayer, if done with the proper interior dispositions.
Q: I've got you! You claim that only the Church has the right to interpret the Bible, not the individual Christian. You use this argument against so-called Protestant private interpretation. Yet, you interpret the Bible when you argue against Protestants and other groups. This is inconsistent.
A: The Catholic Church doesn't say you can't interpret the Bible. After all, if you're going to read it and get something out of it, you have to be able to interpret it.
What is rejected is the idea that the individual believer can authoritatively and definitively interpret Scripture for himself or others. In other words, individual Christians can't demand that their fellow believers and the Church as a whole must submit to their own personal understanding of Holy Writ. The job of authoritatively interpreting Scripture rests with the magisterium of the Church, the Pope and the bishops teaching in union with him.
Q: There's a question which has long puzzled me. Some groups believe Jesus died only for the elect. Others say he died for all people. Which is it? A Baptist friend of mine cites John 10:15 as proof of a limited atonement.
A: Christ died for all. The idea that he died only for the elect, for the few, is from Calvinism. The Bible teaches that God desires the salvation of all men (1 Tim. 2:4-6). The notion of an atonement only for the elect suggests otherwise. Scripture also teaches that Christ's death is a propitiation "for our sins, but not ours alone but also for those of the whole world" (1 John 2:2).
Of course, it does not follow that, just because God has a universal salvific will, everyone necessarily will be saved. God permits people, using their free will, to reject his grace. While Christ redeemed the whole human race (objective redemption), his work needs to be applied to individuals (subjective redemption). It's this individual redemption which can be thwarted by man.
The Bible passage your friend cited, John 10:15, doesn't support the Calvinist doctrine of a limited atonement. It's true that Jesus died for his sheep, but this verse doesn't say he died only for his sheep or that he died to make the benefits of salvation available only to his sheep.
In dealing with this subject, special care has to be taken to determine what the Bible is actually asserting, rather than what the advocates of a limited atonement purport it's asserting. Look at the "Boy Scout" Bible verse, John 3:16. It says, "God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have eternal life." Notice this verse says God loves the world, not just the elect. You'd think this would knock a pretty big hole in the argument for a limited atonement, wouldn't you?
Proponents of a limited atonement point to the "whoever believes" part of the passage. They argue this refers to the elect. From this it's concluded God sent his Son into the world to save only the elect.
What's left out of this argument is the next verse: "For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through him" (John 3:17). So, according to the Bible, God sent his Son to make possible the salvation of the whole world, not merely a small subset of people, even though not all will avail themselves of the proffered redemption.
Q: Isn't it true that many Hispanic Catholics are leaving the Church because Fundamentalist sects create a sort of "Me and Jesus" mindset which Hispanics find attractive, to the detriment of the communal.aspects of faith?
A: Yes and no. Some Hispanic Catholics do leave Catholicism for other groups for this reason, but not all. Even in cases where the "Me and Jesus" mindset is operative, there are a number of ways to look at it. The "Me and Jesus" attitude can reflect an overemphasis on the experiential, personal side of faith. Sometimes people are so concerned about what they're going to get from God through the Church they lose sight of the equally important issue of what they're going to give.
Christianity is more than an experience. It involves believing truths, living a certain way, and worshiping God according to his will. All of these are involved in knowing him. The faith is much more than an experience someone may have at an altar call.
The "Me and Jesus" approach to Christianity can be attractive if one lacks the personal.aspect of the Christian faith. Someone may not have, as the Fundamentalists say, "a personal relationship with Jesus Christ" because he may not know who the Church says Jesus is or, knowing this, may not desire to follow him.
It's inaccurate to think a vague "community" is all Hispanics want when they leave the Church. What many want is to hear and see lived the truth of the gospel. Fundamen- talism offers an incomplete version of the gospel. Catholicism, when it's really taught and lived, offers the whole thing. This is the message we must help both Hispanic and non-Hispanic Catholics hear.
Q: If God knows today what I will do tomorrow, what happens to my free will?
A: Nothing at all. God's foreknowledge of something isn't the same as pre-ordaining it. In fact, it isn't really foreknowledge. What we call God's foreknowledge is merely knowledge of what is future for us. From the divine point of view, it's knowledge of the present. Remember, unlike us, God is outside of time. His existence isn't divvied up into compartments known as past, present, and future. He simply is. As a result, God sees what is past, present, and future for us as one grand Now and understands how it all fits together.
Think of it this way. You're traveling through the mountains along winding roads. You don't know what's ahead. A helicopter flies overhead. From his vantage point, the pilot sees miles beyond you. He knows where you've been, where you are now, and where you're going.
God is like the helicopter pilot. He sees the whole road of life, while we see only immediately ahead of us. His knowledge of where we're ultimately headed in no way diminishes our freedom.
|
Catholic Answers
