Question of the Day for Friday, October 31, 2008

Did Mary Experience Concupiscence?

Q. Did Our Lady ever have to struggle with concupiscence?

 D.M., via email

A. Concupiscence, the Catechism of the Catholic Church tells us, is “human appetites or desires which remain disordered due to the temporal consequences of original sin, which remain even after Baptism, and which produce an inclination to sin” (Glossary).

 This interior disorder, with which we are all sadly familiar, thus results from original sin. But Our Lady was preserved from original sin, so she was not subject to concupiscence — nor was, of course, her divine Son.

Question of the Day for Thursday, October 30, 2008

Celibacy and the Sex Scandals

Q. Do you think that if celibacy were handled in the Catholic Church as the Orthodox faith does (allowing married priests), that would have helped with the priestly sex scandals? Would there be less pedophilia? Where priests can marry, are there far fewer incidents of this nature?

J.P., Wichita, Kan.

A. Here’s a reply from TCA columnist Father Ray Ryland, Ph.D., J.D.:

In its coverage of the scandals in the Church, the secular press — and unfortunately, even some Catholic press —consistently used the term “pedophilia.” The secular press is notoriously supportive of the gay agenda. Use of the term “pedophilia” can only be an effort to disguise the fact that the Church scandals are overwhelmingly instances of homosexual aggression, usually against adolescents.

When distressing news of some priests’ tragically sinful behavior was broadcast, a number of commentators suggested that the cause is celibacy. The argument goes thus: If the Church would only allow her priests to marry, they would not become sexual predators.

This argument is absurd, for at least two reasons. First, priests who have been guilty of these homosexual crimes would have no interest in being married. Even if they had been allowed to marry, being married in itself would not have solved their problems.

Second, research shows that the incidence of sexual molestation of minors is higher among Protestant clergy (who are allowed to marry) than among Catholic priests. There is a still higher incidence among public school teachers. And the highest incidence of molestation is among family members. (See TCA Life, September/October 2004, in our magazine, The Catholic Answer).

As for the last item in your question, I have no information about the incidence of molestation among priests of the Orthodox churches.

Question of the Day for Wednesday, October 29, 2008

Repent of Original Sin?

Q. Can we repent of original sin?

 Q.B., Atlanta, Ga.

A. Original sin is a deficiency of sanctifying grace and supernatural life in the damaged human nature we have inherited from our first parents, as a result of their sin. Actual sin, on the other hand, is sin that we have personally committed by an act of our own free will.

 For this reason, we can repent of actual sins, having genuine sorrow for what we have done or failed to do, and intending to do better. But we can’t “repent” of original sin in that way, since it comes to us apart from our free will and is not of our own doing.

 Nevertheless, this doesn’t mean we can’t do anything about original sin. The sacrament of Baptism cleanses us both of original sin and of actual sins committed up to the time we’re baptized. That’s why it’s so important for Catholic parents to have their children baptized as soon after birth as possible. And if an adult has not been baptized and still carries original sin, he or she can “repent” of the failure to do so, and then seek entrance into the Church through baptism.

Question of the Day for Tuesday, October 28, 2008

Sign of the Three Crosses?

Q. Here in the United States, are people not accustomed to blessing themselves by making the sign of the three crosses? This is customary in Spain and Mexico.

The first cross, on the forehead, is made so that God may preserve us from evil thoughts. The second, on the mouth, is made so that God may preserve us from evil words. The third, on the breast, is made so that God may preserve us from evil deeds. Then we finish by saying this: “By the sign of the holy Cross, may our Lord God deliver us from our enemies, in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Amen.”

The sign of the three crosses is concluded by making one large cross. [Translated from the original Spanish.]

C.R., Kingsburg, Calif.

A. Here’s a reply from TCA columnist Father Francis Hoffman, J.C.D.:

What you describe is not a custom in our country, although, as a pious practice from time immemorial in Spanish-speaking countries, it is entirely legitimate and praiseworthy, and it just might catch on in this country. Typically, the only occasion when “Anglo” Catholics bless themselves with three small Signs of the Cross over the forehead, lips and heart is at the beginning of the Gospel reading at Mass.

Question of the Day for Monday, October 27, 2008

Human/Animal Hybrids?

Q. A friend told me that in England the government is going to allow the creation of human/animal embryos. What does that mean?

 I.H., via email

A. On Oct. 22, the British Labour government’s “Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill” was passed by the members of Parliament 355 to 129. The bill includes a number of deeply disturbing provisions, but one provision is especially bizarre: It legalizes the creation of so-called “human admixed embryos” through cloning, to be used in experiments.

This Frankenstein-like research mixes human and animal “material” in cloned embryos, which as a result are 99.9 percent human and 0.01 percent animal. These can be cultured for 14 days for use in research, after which time they must be destroyed. It would still be illegal for these human/animal hybrids to be implanted in either animals or humans (presumably to bring them to full term).

 As usual, the rationale for creating such legislation is medical research. Also as usual, the attitude being taken by the researchers and the legislators is that the noble end justifies the gruesome means.

  I’m reminded of the science fiction novel published by H.G. Wells over a century ago (1896), called The Island of Doctor Moreau. In it, a scientist creates human/animal hybrids out of a morbid curiosity to examine the results.

 It will be bad enough to have researchers creating hybrid embryos, performing research on them, and then destroying them. But does anyone seriously believe that none of these scientists, having gone as far as creating and culturing these unnatural embryos for two weeks, will go on to implant one or more of them in a human or animal mother — just to see what results?

 In fact, we would probably be naïve to assume that it hasn’t happened somewhere already, if not in the U.K., then perhaps in the U.S. or Korea. But to legalize even the beginning of the process is monstrous.