|
Q u i c k Q u e s t i o n s
HOW DOES YOUR GARDEN GROW?
Q: Recently a Fundamentalist accused me (and Catholics in general) of idolatry because his mother-in-law (who is Catholic) put a statue of Mary in her garden to "help her flowers grow." What do I tell him?
A: Idolatry is worshiping a statue as a god. His mother-in-law is certainly not doing that. I don’t know how she explained it to him (she may have expressed herself badly or he may not have been listening), but based on the description of her explanation you have given, what she is doing at most would be superstitious, not idolatrous—unless she worships the statue as some kind of flower goddess (not likely!).
Bottom line: If she thinks the statue is a god, it’s idolatry; if she thinks it is not a god but has intrinsic power, it’s superstition; if she thinks the statue has no intrinsic power and by placing the statue she is asking Mary to pray that God will bless her garden, it’s prayer.
James Akin
Q: Do we really "eat Jesus"? Don’t the words of consecration call only for a symbolic interpretation of eating and drinking of Christ’s Body and Blood instead of a literal one?
A: Not according to the understanding of the Catholic or Orthodox Churches, and not according to the practice of Christianity for 1,500 years.
The New Testament Greek in Mark 14:22, Matthew 26:26, and Luke 22:19 reads this way—transliterated, of course, into English characters: " Touto estin to soma mou. " (The very earliest account of the words of consecration in 1 Corinthians 11:24 is slightly different. Paul has it as: " Touto mou estin to soma. " In either case, the translation (as opposed to transliteration) is "This is my body."
Philologists tell us that the verb estin can mean "is really" or "is figuratively." But Paul’s discussion of the Last Supper clearly reflects his belief that the Presence is real, not figurative. Paul’s discourse may antedate the earliest Gospels by as much as eight years. It is hardly likely, in view of that, that Matthew or Mark meant estin to be taken figuratively.
Furthermore, the Greek word for body used in John 6:52-58 is sarx, which means quite specifically and only "physical flesh." The Aramaic scholars I have spoken to tell me that sarx is as close as you can get in Greek to the Aramaic bisra, which Jesus himself used.
Even more evidence from the very earliest Church comes from Ignatius of Antioch. I had to go back to my Greek version of him—somewhat more tattered than it was in 1953 when I first got it. Ignatius wrote about A.D. 110, ten years or so after the death of John. He’s speaking here about "certain people" who were beginning to hold to "heterodox opinions" that he deemed "contrary to the mind of God"—strong language for the personal disciple of the last apostle. As nearly as I can come to it, Ignatius says: "These people abstain from the Eucharist as well as from prayer because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again from the dead" (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 6:2).
Ignatius was taught by John himself, and the apostolic succession in this case extends to more than the laying on of hands. I find it unlikely to the point of impossibility to believe that Ignatius would hold to a doctrine antithetical to what he had been taught by the Beloved Disciple.
Fr. Hal Stockert
Q: I am seventeen years old and about to enter the seminary. I just talked to my vocation director, and he told me that he does not believe in the sacrament of penance. I’m shocked! How could an orthodox Catholic priest, even a vocation director, say that? He said we could confess with our thoughts. Now, I don’t have a problem refuting his claims, but I just want to say I am so horrified at that. Should I switch dioceses? Can this priest still call himself a Catholic?
A: First, I hope you will be sure you have not simply misunderstood this priest. The Church teaches, as I’m sure you know, that venial sins may be remitted through an act of contrition. We are encouraged to express repentance, too, for mortal sins as soon as we can, even if we can’t receive the sacrament of penance immediately. So before making any decision that will affect your life profoundly, you should raise your questions clearly and charitably with the priest. If he does hold a view contrary to Church teaching, you have a responsibility to advise your bishop of it. If this priest is robbing the diocese of potential vocations by giving scandal, the bishop will want to correct the situation.
About changing dioceses: I would do this only as a last resort. Your ordinary may be unaware that his vocation director is giving false teaching (if he is). He and the other priests of the diocese may be completely loyal to the magisterium.
If your understanding of the priest’s views are accurate, I can well believe your shock. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, sections 2088 and 2089, deals with sins against the faith, violations of the First Commandment. A denial of the efficacy of the sacraments is to heresy, which is "the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith" (CIC 751).
Terrye Newkirk
Q: Sometimes when I am reading Catholic literature I see references like (CCC 540), (CIC 1250), (CCEO 14), and (DS 895). What do these mean?
A: CCC is the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and the number is the section (paragraph) number. CIC is the code of canon law for the Latin Rite (the abbreviation of from the Latin title of the Code: Codex Iuris Canonici), and the number is the canon number. CCEO is the code of canon law for the Eastern Rites of the Church (abbreviating the title Corpus Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium) , and again the number is the canon in question. DS is a volume of excerpts from historic Church documents and is known as "Denzinger-Schönmetzer" (after its editors), but the actual title is Enchiridion Symbolorum, and the number in such citations is the excerpt number within the book. These volumes constitute four of the most important resources for Catholic doctrine, morals, and law, and so they get quoted (and abbreviated) often.
James Akin
Q: How many people has John Paul II excommunicated? A friend of mine is trying to portray him as a fanatic who is excommunicating people left and right.
A: John Paul II has never excommunicated anyone during his reign as pope. There have been people during his reign who have incurred what is called a latae sententiae or automatic excommunication, such as the radical modernist Fr. Tissa Balasuriya, who committed heresy, and the radical traditionalist Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who excommunicated himself by consecrating bishops without a papal mandate. Both of these offenses incur latae sententiae excommunication under canon law.
There has never been a case where John Paul II excommunicated anyone directly, but he has issued or approved notices that certain individuals, including the ones mentioned above, have themselves incurred latae sententiae excommunication by their actions.
James Akin
Q: With all the recent talk about cloning, I’ve got to know: Would a human clone have a soul?
A: Yes, since every living thing has a soul. Plants have vegetative souls (capable of life and growth), animals have sensitive souls (capable of life, growth, and feeling), and humans have rational souls (capable of life, growth, feeling, and rational thought). Only the last kind survives death since only it is made of spirit; souls of plants and animals are made of matter and die when they die.
Since a human clone would be alive, it would have a soul, and since a human clone would be rational and possess a human body, it would have the same sort of soul as every other human. The soul is created directly by God. The human soul is the substantial form and animating life principle of the human body. How you get that body, whether by natural generation, in vitro fertilization, or cloning is irrelevant. God still creates its soul. .
James Akin
Q: I sit in the first row at Mass because I am hearing-impaired. When visiting a church recently, the usher gestured for me to go up for Communion before I felt prepared. I accepted the Host in my hand and returned to the pew, where I continued my prayer before receiving. Now I am told that this is not permitted. Surely it would be irreverent to receive before one had prayed sufficiently?
A: It might be even more irreverent to ignore the instruction of the Church. The document Instruction on the Manner of Distributing Holy Communion, S.C.D.W., May 29, 1969, notes that "the communicant ought to consume the host before returning to his place" (no. 4).
Mike Harrison
Editor’s note: It is perfectly all right to remain in one’s pew, despite the usher’s wishes, and to go up for Communion later.
Q: My name is Christopher and I have been told there isn’t a St. Christopher anymore. As I am fairly new to the Church I really don’t know if this is true or not. Any help would be appreciated.
A: Welcome to the Church, Christopher! I’m glad you asked this question, because even many priests and religious educators don’t know the correct answer. St. Christopher is still a saint. What happened in the 1960s was that the Church revised its universal calendar, the schedule of celebrations that are observed by the worldwide Church. Some saints’ days were removed, others added. This did not mean that those removed were no longer saints—only that the Church no longer celebrated their feast days everywhere. Individual communities and Catholics are still free to honor these saints and choose them as patrons. In fact, only a tiny percentage of canonized or recognized saints appear in the universal calendar. Many saints of religious orders are honored only within that order, for example.
You can be proud to have a powerful patron, intercessor, and namesake in St. Christopher. We know little about him historically—only that he died about A.D. 251—but that is also true of many early martyrs. We know they are in heaven, nonetheless.
Terrye Newkirk
Q: Can you tell me what Catholic traditions are concerning Lent? My father goes without meat on Friday, my mother on Wednesday and Friday. Which one is right?
A: They both are. The Church nowadays requires abstinence from meat only on Fridays of Lent, so your father is obeying the current discipline. In the early centuries, Christians fasted and abstained on Wednesdays and Fridays—not only in Lent, but all year long. So your mother is honoring this ancient tradition.
The spirit of Lent is to do something more, something extra, to grow closer to Christ. The Church sets some guidelines as a minimum, but we are free to do more. Traditionally, the penances of Lent are fasting, prayer, and almsgiving. Each person, together with his confessor, decides on what practices will best prepare him for Easter.
Terrye Newkirk
Q: I’d like to help some friends who are having trouble with the faith, but I’m no expert and am afraid to get in over my head. What should I do?
A: Jump right in. The biggest mistake is to do nothing. You don’t need to be an expert, and you don’t need a degree in theology. Normally common sense and your personal testimony of the faith will be your best tools. If you’re asked a question you can’t answer, admit your ignorance. (The worst thing is to pretend you know the answer when you don’t.) Say you’ll have to get back to the inquirer—and then go to the library and look up the answer. At Catholic Answers we have to do this all the time, although in our case we have the library right here at our offices.
Karl Keating
|
Catholic Answers
