|
Q u i c k Q u e s t i o n s
|
This Rock
Volume 11, Number 4
 April 2000 
|
|
|
Q: In the Old Testament graven images are prohibited, yet the Church encourages crucifixes, images of the Sacred Heart, etc. I have always wondered about this. What can you tell me?
A: Many non-Catholic Christians use the passage you refer to, Exodus 21:4–5, to "prove" to Catholics that making "any graven images or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath" is detestable to God. But when this passage is read in context, it is not the making of images that is condemned but the worship of them.
In fact, five chapters later God commands the Israelites to make two golden statues of angels as part of the lid of the ark of the Covenant (Ex. 25:17–19). That’s an image of something from heaven. Then, in 1 Kings 6, God commands that graven images of flowers and palm trees be made, as well as fifteen-foot tall statues of cherubim. And in Numbers 21, God commands that a bronze serpent be made and uses it to heal the Israelites. It was preserved for 800 years and then destroyed when some began to worship it (2 Kgs. 18:4).
Catholics do not worship statues, because only God is deserving of adoration. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is adamant in affirming this (CCC 2112–2114). When a Catholic bows to a statue, he is not worshiping it any more than King Solomon worshiped Bathsheba when he bowed to her in 1 Kings 2:19. In other words, the honor given to images does not detract from the honor that is due to God. After all, if one member of the body is honored, the others should share in its joy (1 Cor. 12:26).
If someone enters your house, he should expect to find a picture of your mother. So, when someone walks into a Catholic Church—the household of God—he should not be surprised to find a picture of the mother of God, along with the rest of the heavenly family!
In giving the Israelites a beautiful temple strewn with images (1 Kgs. 6), God acknowledged the reason why he gave us our senses: to use them to worship him in spirit and truth.
Q: I am a candidate in the Catholic Church, and I would like to have my 4-year-old daughter baptized. There may be quite a length of time between my initiation and being accepted into full communion with the Church. Am I permitted to ask this of the Church? Are there time restraints or requirements that may apply?
A: You are permitted to request baptism for your child even if you are not yet a Catholic. The Code of Canon Law states, "For the licit baptism of an infant it is necessary that: 1° the parents or at least one of them or the person who lawfully takes their place gives consent; 2° there be a founded hope that the infant will be brought up in the Catholic religion; if such a hope is altogether lacking, the baptism is to be put off according to the prescriptions of particular law and the parents are to be informed of the reason" (CIC 868 §1).
Your consent and the presence of a founded hope that the child will be raised Catholic are what is necessary for the baptism to take place. To establish that there is a founded hope of the child’s being raised Catholic, the priest that you talk to will likely have a number of questions and, depending on what stage of the process of joining you are at, may feel that a waiting period is appropriate to ensure that you are serious about this.
Depending on when you are scheduled to be received into the Church, it may make sense to have the baptism done at the same time as your reception, though there is no legal reason why this need be. It is a good idea, however, to have the child baptized soon so that the child will have the firmest possible Catholic identity.
Q If the pope who succeeds the current Holy Father manages to authorize the ordination of women and okays some abortions, won’t that mean that the Catholic Church is fallible in matters of morals and teachings because of the contradictions?
A: No, it would not. The only way along those lines that the Church’s infallibility could be disproved would be to show a contradiction between two infallibly defined points.
If—God forbid—we got an unfaithful pope at some point, and he allowed some women to undergo an ostensible ordination, then the ordination would not be valid, and the unfaithful pope’s behavior would be scandalous. But this would not address the Church’s gift of infallibility, since merely allowing something to be done does not amount to an infallible definition that it can be done. Only the latter would create a contradiction with the fact, as defined by the ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Church, that only a baptized male validly receives the sacrament of holy orders.
In the same way, if an unfaithful pope said that some direct abortions are permissible, it would be wrong and scandalous but it would not create a contradiction. Only if he tried to infallibly define that some direct abortions are not sinful would a contradiction be generated with the fact—again defined by the ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Church—that direct abortion is intrinsically and gravely sinful.
So mere bad teaching or scandalous behavior on the part of an imaginary future pope would not affect the Church’s gift of infallibility. Only a new infallible definition that is indisputably irreconcilable with prior definitions would create the contradiction needed to disprove infallibility.
And it is precisely because the Church has been granted an infallibility protection that such a state of affairs will never be allowed to happen. God has promised to prevent it. Although we do not have a specific promise in this regard, it is also likely that he will prevent any future pope from behaving in the scandalously misleading way that you suggest.
Q: I am a carrier of Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy, which means if I have a boy there’s a good chance he will have this terrible disease. I want to do everything possible to make sure my next child is healthy. There’s a process called MicroSort that increases the chance of having a boy by removing sperm with Y-chromosomes. Is this process wrong according to the Church?
A: It is wrong according not only to the Church but according to God. God designed human sexuality to work in a particular way. Medical technology can be used to assist the natural functioning of that process (e.g., surgery could be used to repair fallopian or vas deferens tubes), but medical technology cannot be used morally to replace the reproductive process that God designed. Indeed, nothing can replace the process morally (that is why homosexual behavior, for example, is intrinsically immoral).
The MicroSort process involves several stages that unambiguously interfere with God’s design for human sexuality. The sperm must be collected, sorted outside of the body, and then either in vitro fertilization or artificial insemination must be done. All of these—including the way the sperm collection is normally done—are intrinsically contrary to the way God has set up human reproduction. The Micro-Sort method thus constitutes a replacement of natural and not the assistance of nature and is intrinsically gravely sinful.
There may be, however, something natural that can be done in your situation. For further assistance, contact the National Catholic Bioethics Center, 159 Washington Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02135, (617) 787-1900, www.ncbcenter.org.
Q How does the Church distinguish heaven, first heaven, third heaven, paradise, purgatory, Hades, and hell?
A: The term heaven is used in three senses in Scripture: to refer to the atmospheric realm where birds fly; to refer to the stellar realm where the sun, moon, and stars are; and to refer to the supernatural realm where God is.
When Paul refers to being in "the third heaven" (2 Cor. 12:4), he may simply be referring to that third, supernatural realm where God manifests his presence or he may be referring to a "level" within this supernatural realm. Christian piety has often speculated on the existence of sub-realms within the supernatural heaven (e.g., "seventh heaven"). While it is clear that there are different degrees of reward in heaven (1 Cor. 3:12–15), it is not clear that there will be regions in heaven that practice reward-based segregation of the population.
The term "paradise" refers originally to a kind of pleasure garden or park that often would be built alongside a king’s palace. The term is applied to the Garden of Eden, which is depicted as God’s paradise—God being the king (though there is no suggestion that Eden was built beside a palace). The term later came to be applied to the place of the righteous dead. Originally this was located in Hades, until the Resurrection and Ascension of Christ, when it was moved to heaven (cf. 2 Cor. 12:4).
The term "Hades" is a Greek word referring to the place of the dead. It does not, in Scripture, have the connotation that it does today (i.e., the place of the damned). All of the dead, good and bad, went to Hades and, while the wicked were tormented, the righteous were comforted (Luke 16:25). After the Resurrection and Ascension of Christ, the righteous dead in Hades were transferred to heaven.
The term "hell" is a Germanic term that used to be a synonym for Hades. As such, it could refer to the place of the unrighteous or the righteous dead. Thus, when in the Apostles’ Creed we say that Jesus "descended into hell," we mean to the place of the righteous dead, not the unrighteous. Over time the term in English has come to refer exclusively to the place of the damned.
The word "purgatory" refers to the final purification that the righteous dead experience on their way to heaven. It may or may not take time; it may or may not take place in a special realm.
In general, we don’t know how space and time work—or don’t work—in the afterlife, so the above discussion of non-physical realms must be understood with a significant degree of nuance.
Q: If Jesus was really God, why did Satan try to tempt him? Doesn’t he know that God can’t sin?
A: Yes, he does know, which is why he tried to tempt him. If Jesus had succumbed to the temptation, the devil would have known that Jesus wasn’t the real Messiah.
Remember, the devil isn’t God. He isn’t omniscient or infallible and so doesn’t know everything. He can make mistakes. As Aquinas puts it: "The minds of demons are utterly perverted from the Divine wisdom, they at times form their opinions of things simply according to the natural conditions of the same. Nor are they ever deceived as to the natural properties of anything; but they can be misled with regard to supernatural matters; for example, on seeing a dead man, they may suppose that he will not rise again, or, on beholding Christ, they may judge him not to be God" (ST I:58:5).
Thus, to establish that Jesus was God, the devil needed to do a little testing.
Q: Why can’t a priest ever marry?
A: In the Eastern Rites of the Church it is common for married men to be ordained to the priesthood. Further, in the Latin Rite there are a few married men, converted ministers from other faiths, who are ordained to the Catholic priesthood. This, however, is not common. Finally, in neither the Latin Rite nor the Eastern Rites do priests (or deacons) marry after they have been ordained, except in extraordinary circumstances.
The reasons Latin Rite priests can’t marry is both theological and canonical.
Theologically, it may be pointed out that priests serve in the place of Christ and therefore, their ministry specially configures them to Christ. As is clear from Scripture, Christ was not married (except in a mystical sense, to the Church). By remaining celibate and devoting themselves to the service of the Church, priests more closely model, configure themselves to, and consecrate themselves to Christ.
As Christ himself makes clear, none of us will be married in heaven (Matt. 22:23–30). By remaining unmarried in this life, priests are more closely configured to the final, eschatological state that will be all of ours.
Paul makes it very clear that remaining single allows one’s attention to be undivided in serving the Lord (1 Cor. 7:32–35). He recommends celibacy to all (1 Cor. 7:7) but especially to ministers, who as soldiers of Christ he urges to abstain from "civilian affairs" (2 Tim. 2:3–4).
Canonically, priests cannot marry for a number of reasons. First, priests who belong to religious orders take vows of celibacy. Second, while diocesan priests do not take vows, they do make a promise of celibacy.
Third, the Church has established impediments that block the validity of marriages attempted by those who have been ordained. Canon 1087 states: "Persons who are in holy orders invalidly attempt marriage."
This impediment remains as long as the priest has not been dispensed from it, even if he were to attempt a civil marriage, even if he left the Church and joined a non-Catholic sect, and even if he apostatized from the Christian faith altogether. He cannot be validly married after ordination unless he receives a dispensation from the Holy See (CIC 1078 §2, 1°).
|
Catholic Answers
