|
Q u i c k Q u e s t i o n s
|
This Rock
Volume 10, Number 6
 June 1999 
|
|
|
Was Jesus a Vegan?
Q: The group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) claims that Jesus was a vegetarian. Is this true? What is the biblical view of vegetarianism?
A: PETA's basic argument is this: "Jesus was compassionate, but slaughterhouses are cruel to animals. Thus, Jesus must have been a vegetarian. He opposed the animal sacrifices of the Jews, and he especially had compassion for fish, calling multiple fishermen away from their occupation of killing innocent animals."
What does Scripture actually say? The Old Testament describes numerous animal offerings commanded by God, including the Passover. Since Jesus was born under the Law, he participated in the Passover meal, which required a lamb to be slaughtered and consumed (Ex. 12). The Last Supper was one such meal (Luke 22:8, 15). But this was not Jesus' first taste of lamb, since he had celebrated Passover annually since childhood (Luke 2:41). If Jesus opposed the slaughter and consumption of animals, the New Testament tells nothing of it. Paul even warns against proposing such a doctrine of demons, requiring others to abstain from God-given food (1 Tim. 4:3).
Did Jesus call "multiple fishermen away from their occupation of killing animals?" Twice Jesus led disciples to a catch so large that the nets nearly broke (Luke 5:2–7, John 21:5–11). The risen Lord ate fish in front of the disciples (Luke 24:42, 34), guided them in another massive catch, and had them bring the fish to eat with him (John 21:9–12).
While it is clear that Jesus ate meat and did not condemn others for doing so, Christians must still treat animals with kindness. "God entrusted animals to the stewardship of those whom he created. . . . Hence, it is legitimate to use animals for food. . . . It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly . . . [but] one should not direct to them the affection due only to persons" (CCC 2417, 2418).
Jason Evert
Q: Catholics claim that the Jehovah's Witnesses are following a false religion because of changes the Watch Tower Society has made in its doctrines. Such refinements are nothing more than the Society moving closer to a proper understanding of Bible prophecies, as Proverbs 4:18 states. Besides, the Catholic Church itself has changed doctrines, but you would not label it a false religion, would you?
A: We need a closer look at the verses preceding Proverbs 4:18, which reads as follows in the Jehovah's Witnesses' New World Translation: "But the path of the righteous ones is like the bright light that is getting lighter and lighter until the day is firmly established."
An examination of the context shows that the passage is contrasting righteous people with wicked people. The "path" in this context refers to their respective lifestyles, not to the development of doctrine, as the Watch Tower Society (WTS) would have us believe.
The "bright light" represents the righteous person becoming increasingly obedient to God's commands and living a virtuous life. There is no warrant whatsoever for claiming this passage deals with an increased understanding of Bible prophecies.
What the WTS calls "refinements" or "adjustments" are in actuality instances of it having made false predictions or having taught false interpretations of Bible passages. When these blunders come to light (no pun intended), the WTS scrambles to disguise them, alleging that its understanding was not fully developed and thus needed an "increase of light." In other words, when the WTS changes a doctrine (by reversal, flip-flop, or outright elimination) or when it wants to slough off a false prophecy, it asserts that "new light" has been received and has enabled it to better "understand" a teaching or prophecy.
The former teaching ("old light") is then discarded, and the "new light," which is called a "refinement," supposedly brings the WTS to a fuller understanding of the prophecy or teaching in question. But truth neither changes nor contradicts itself. If a former teaching were true in the first place, there would have been no need for any changes. Truth does not grow "truer," and its essence does not change to something else. In the case of the WTS, we do see current teachings contradicting earlier teachings and doctrines going back and forth between opposite interpretations. This is not maturation but mutation.
The Catholic Church has never changed any defined doctrine. Disciplinary matters, such as priestly celibacy or abstaining from meat on Fridays in Lent, can and do change, but these items are not doctrines and do not come from the deposit of faith left by the apostles. Consequently, the Church may change or dispense such matters as it sees fit.
Also, while you may see certain differences and even changes within or between the teachings of individual theologians, but when the Church defines something as dogma, it doesn't change.
For developments in Catholic teaching to be grounds for accusations of false religion, these would have to involve reversals of defined doctrine. But this simply has never happened in the Church's entire history.
Joel S. Peters
Q: I heard that the current Mormon "prophet" gave an interview in which he waffled on the key teaching of Mormonism—that men can become gods. Is this true?
A: Yes, it is. Shortly after Easter 1997, the San Francisco Chronicle printed an interview with Gordon B. Hinckley, who has been the president and "prophet" of the Mormon church since 1995.
In the interview, he was asked: "[D]on't Mormons believe that God was once a man?"
"I wouldn't say that," the prophet responded. "There's a little couplet coined, 'As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become.' Now, that's more of a couplet than anything else. That gets into some pretty deep theology that we don't know very much about" ("Musings of the Main Mormon," April 13, 1997, 3/Z1).
There's something wrong here, as even Latter-day Saints admit. Hinckley appeared to dismiss the traditional Mormon belief that God was once a man by using the demeaning terms "little," "couplet," and "coined." What he failed to point out was that the couplet, coined in the late nineteenth century by previous Mormon president and prophet Lorenzo Snow, was a succinct summary of the doctrine taught by Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and the founding theologians of Mormonism (see Doctrine and Covenants 130:22).
When asked how he receives divine revelation, to which he is supposedly entitled as God's prophet on earth, Hinckley said, "[W]e have a great body of revelation, the vast majority of which came from the prophet Joseph Smith. We don't need much revelation. We need to pay more attention to the revelation we've already received."
Discussing abortion, Hinckley said his church permits it in several circumstances, including for the mother's health. This is a change to a more liberal, politically correct position than what Mormonism has held to this point.
When asked about euthanasia, Hinckley declared that "no, at this point at least, we haven't favored that" (emphasis added). Mormons may well wonder if this leaves the door cracked open to future divine permission to kill their sick and elderly.
Ultimately, the past doctrinal transformations of Mormonism give no confidence that there will not be equally drastic revisions to Mormon doctrine in the future. There may be more stages yet to come as Mormonism reinvents itself to fit the culture around it.
Isaiah Bennett
Q: I read in the press that the Vatican's new rules for dealing with controversial writings by theologians were only published to squelch public criticism about the Holy See's "secretiveness" and "unfair treatment" of authors in the past.
A: I suppose any number of "motives" for publishing the new norms might be asserted, but it might be more fruitful to look first at the norms themselves, whereupon Rome's reasons for releasing them could be more fairly assessed.
The "Regulations for Doctrinal Examinations" (approved May 30, 1997, released August 29, 1997) are not the first norms for theological investigations to be published by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF). Back in January 1971, Pope Paul VI and CDF released similar norms by which theological writings would be evaluated for their possible negative impact on the faith of the people (see Canon Law Digest VII:181–184). These norms contained many provisions by which the rights of authors who were suspected of producing materials damaging to faith and morals were protected during subsequent investigation.
Nevertheless, CDF itself observed that numerous criticisms had been voiced during the years these norms were in force, and doubtless at least some of these criticisms were from sources otherwise supportive of the Congregation's difficult work.
Whatever one makes of those criticisms, it is clear that 1997 norms contain some striking safeguards for both author's rights and for the right of the faithful to receive authentic teaching from theologians.
Henceforth, for example, the Congregation will appoint for authors being investigated an "author's presenter" (Art. 10) who, under both the 1971 and 1997 norms, presents the author's work to the Congregation in the best possible light. They will also enjoy the right to choose a personal advisor, presumably a canon lawyer, (Art. 17). The revised regulations recognize that this advisor may attend the sessions with his or her client and may take an active part in all discussions (Art. 18).
Additionally, in most cases to be treated under the new regulations, authors will be allowed at least three months (instead of one as provided under the 1971 norms) to reply to the objections presented against them (Art. 17).
Most controversy over the new regulations focuses on Article 28 which, unlike the 1971 norms, specifies exactly what can happen if the writings under investigation are proven to be heretical: The author can be formally declared to have incurred automatic excommunication, and against this declaration no recourse is allowed.
Excommunication without benefit of appeal is the stuff of which media frenzies are made. But the apparently chilling phrase prohibiting recourse against excommunication needs to be understood in accord with canonical good sense.
First, nothing in the 1997 Regulations infringes on the right of all of the faithful to bring any cases whatsoever before the holy father (Canon 1417). Moreover, the 1997 Regulations themselves state that the roman pontiff is to be apprised of events during the process itself (Art. 15) and that he retains the final authority to pronounce his approval of the results (Art. 22). In reality, then, what is precluded by the "no-recourse" clause is that general canonical recourse that, in certain cases, could be lodged against CDF before, say, the Apostolic Signatura. Such recourse has a place, certainly, but in doctrinal cases dealt with by CDF under the 1997 Regulations it would amount to no more than a bureaucratic run-around. Finally, keeping in mind that the penalty imposed is that of excommunication, Canon 1358 protects the right of the condemned to have the penalty lifted promptly upon his or her withdrawal of contumacy. In other words, when the censure achieves its desired effect of personal reform, the offender merits, and will receive, a speedy reconciliation with the Church.
Of course, questions about the new procedures can and will be raised in the coming months and years. But these questions generally seem to concern matters best viewed in light of the experience of just officials reaching fair results in real cases.
To return finally to your question about Rome's motives for publishing these revised norms: Does the Church need a motive for taking steps designed to uphold a theologian's right of inquiry and the faithful's right to clear and reliable doctrine from our theologians? Does Rome need a motive for making improvements in existing procedures designed to uphold those two rights, and for publishing those improvement to the world? If it does, might we not at least assume one somewhat loftier than "bending to public pressure?" I would think so.
Dr. Edward Peters
Q: Catholic teaching holds that the millennium mentioned in Revelation 20:1-10 is going on now. What does the Catholic Church see as fulfilling the particular details of this prophecy?
A: There is no single mandated interpretation of all the details in this passage. However, one authentically Catholic interpretation of the passage might run as follows:
Early in the Christian age, Satan was bound (20:1–2) for "a thousand years," signifying a long but indefinite period (just as the assertion that God owns "the cattle on a thousand hills" means he own the cattle on all the hills—a large but indeterminate number).
Jesus himself had promised the binding of the devil—the "strong man"—as a precondition for the spreading of the gospel (Matt. 12:29 in context). In revelation, the devil is depicted as shut up and sealed in the abyss (v. 3a). Incorporeal spirits such as the devil do not actually occupy space and cannot be "shut up" in spatial reasons, so the meaning of this is that he can no more deceive the "nations" (or "gentiles"—the word is the same in Greek) until the thousand years is over (v. 3b).
The result is that the gospel can be preached and spread until that time. Afterwards, there will be an apostasy among the nations/gentiles, when the devil will be able to deceive them into turning against the true God (v. 3c).
In the meantime, God has set up the thrones of the saints in heaven (cf. 4:4)—especially those who had withstood the persecutions of the early Church and been beheaded under the pagan emperors. They spiritually came to life and reigned with Christ in heaven for the duration of the millennium (20:4). The dead as a whole, however, were not resurrected until after the millennium (v. 5a).
The spiritual resurrection experienced by the saints in heaven is known as "the first resurrection" (v. 5b), and it signifies that one will not be cast into hell to experience "the second death" (v. 6).
After the millennium, the devil, released from his bondage, is again able to deceive the nations/gentiles and gather them against God's people (vv. 7–8). But they are destroyed by Christ at the Second Coming and cast into hell (vv. 9–10).
James Akin
|
Catholic Answers
