TCA Question & Answer of the Day

Each weekday, you'll find a new question and answer. Check back for the new question and scroll down to see previous day's entries! Let us know what you think - - or question! -- by emailing us at tcanswer@osv.com.

For the Week of April 20-24, 2009

Question of the Day for Friday, April 24, 2009

Gnostic Gospels?

Q. I have heard about the Gnostic gospels: Gospel of Mary Magdalene, Gospel of Philip, Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Peter, Gospel of Bartholomew. I have the Gospels of Mary Magdalene and Philip, and have the others on order.

Why the lack of publicity in the Catholic Church about these gospels? As a Roman Catholic am I allowed to have access to them and read them — for curiosity’s sake only? Your thoughts in this area would be appreciated.

D.S., Fredericksburg, Texas

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

The Gnostics came into prominence in the Church’s second century, and some traces of this heresy still appear from time to time. Many Gnostics believed in two gods at war with each other. The god of this world is an evil god, whom they identified with the god of the Old Testament. Opposed to the evil god is a higher god whom Jesus Christ revealed.

This world has been created by evil powers who seek to keep human souls imprisoned in physical bodies, which are themselves evil. Salvation (that is, escape from this evil world) comes through esoteric knowledge (Greek gnosis) imparted to a select few. Gnostic systems of thought, especially those of Valentinus and Basilides, are filled with fanciful speculation about the cosmos.

These Gospels are part of a large body of literature — so-called Gospels, Acts, Epistles, and so on — that the Church rejected because they are filled with error. The Church understandably does not give publicity to any heretical writings, but you are certainly free to read them. Some are literally fantastic, some are even amusing. Many claim to give detailed information about Jesus’ infancy, childhood and youth.

Take the Gospel of Thomas as an example. (Scholars differ as to whether it is strictly a Gnostic writing.) Sometimes playmates decide to ostracize one of their members, often for no good reason. The Gospel of Thomas relates that this happened to Jesus. His playmates ran from him, hid in a cellar, and told their mothers not to tell Jesus where they were.

In looking for his playmates Jesus heard a noise in the cellar and asked one of the mothers what caused the noise. She assured him it was only a bunch of goats there. Jesus said “let the goats come forth,” and thereby turned the children into goats.

When the mothers (naturally) pleaded for the restoration of their children, Jesus turned them back into human form. After that, the mothers told their children (quoting now from the Gospel of Thomas), “See that ye do everything that Jesus the Son of Mary commandeth you to do” (M.R. James, “The Apocryphal New Testament,” Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1945, 68).

The Pseudo-Gospel of Matthew claims to report on the Holy Family’s flight into Egypt. On the third day of that journey Mary saw a palm tree and asked for some of its fruit. Joseph objected that the tree was far too high to climb.

Thereupon, the infant Jesus from his mother’s lap commanded the tree to bend down and give its fruit to his mother. (This event was supposed to have taken place only a few days after Jesus’ birth.) The tree obeyed. After Mary had picked the fruit, the infant Jesus bade the tree rise to its upright position, and again it obeyed.

That “gospel” gives several examples of how Jesus as a little boy dealt with a few of the inevitable neighborhood bullies. When they jumped on him, or disturbed him at play, he made them fall down dead. After remonstration by their parents or by St. Joseph, he brought them back to life. Presumably, they gave him no further trouble.

Question of the Day for Thursday, April 23, 2009

What About Reiki?

Q. Our local Catholic hospital allows Reiki practitioners to operate at their facility. Isn’t Reiki a New Age or even occult practice? If so, why would a Catholic hospital allowing this to happen?

 H.K., via email

A. Unfortunately, all too often Catholic hospitals have promoted Reiki and other questionable practices. So I’m pleased that the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) recently released a statement clarifying that Reiki has no place in Catholic medical care. It’s called “Guidelines for Evaluating Reiki as an Alternative Therapy,” published on March 25, 2009. I hope it will be widely read and followed by the Catholic health care community.

 A few of the document’s most important insights:

 Though Reiki proponents often claim that it is not a religion, it has several aspects of a religion: “spiritual healing,” “sacred ceremonies,” references to a God or Goddess or “divine consciousness,” “universal life energy,” and more. These aspects are rooted in Eastern religions rather than the Christian faith. So is the notion that healing “energy,” rather than a gift of divine grace bestowed by God at His discretion, is in fact capable of being manipulated and used by the practitioner, who has been trained in techniques to do so.

 The non-Christian religious elements of the practice are not the only problem with Reiki. The document notes that its claim to “universal life energy” and the ability to manipulate it have not been accepted by modern medical science. Reiki lacks scientific credibility and tends toward superstition.

 The document concludes, then:

“Reiki finds no support either in the findings of natural science or in Christian belief. For a Catholic to believe in Reiki presents insoluble problems. … Since Reiki therapy is not compatible with either Christian teaching or scientific evidence, it would be inappropriate for Catholic institutions, such as Catholic health care facilities and retreat centers, or persons representing the Church, such as Catholic chaplains, to promote or provide support for Reiki therapy (10, 12).”

For the full text of the document, click here.

Question of the Day for Wednesday, April 22, 2009

No Miracles of John the Baptist?

Q. If John the Baptist came “in the spirit and power of Elijah” (Lk 1:17), then why didn’t he work miracles as Elijah did? (The Scripture says, “John performed no sign” — see Jn 10:41)? It seems strange to me that Jesus and the Apostles worked miracles, but John did not.

 B.H., Cumming, Ga.

A. That’s an excellent question. I don’t know that the Church has ever spoken authoritatively on this issue, so I’ll venture my own speculation.

 The miracles Jesus worked, Scripture tells us, were signs — that is, they were intended to get people’s attention, and when they did, their purpose was to point away from themselves to a Person: Jesus Himself. They gave testimony to His divinity.

 When the Apostles and other followers of Jesus worked miracles, these too were signs — pointing, not to the Apostles themselves, but to the Lord Jesus whom they preached.

Occasionally one of their “signs” was misinterpreted, resulting in some confusion among those who witnessed them. In the city of Lystra, for example, when St. Paul miraculously healed a crippled man, the people wanted to worship him and his companion, St. Barnabas, as gods (see Acts 14:8-13). But St. Paul corrected their error, and in most cases, the apostolic miracles gave clear testimony to the divinity of Jesus Christ.

 With St. John, however, we have a situation in which many people had already concluded, before Jesus’ public appearance in ministry, that the Baptist was himself the Messiah. He had to deny that notion publicly and point to Jesus instead (see Jn 1:15, 19-27).

Even then, some people continued to elevate John to a superhuman status. After he was beheaded by Herod, some claimed that Jesus was the Baptist come back from the dead (see Mt 14:2; Lk 9:19). We also have historical evidence suggesting that some of John’s followers did not take their cue from him about embracing Jesus as the “Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world” (Jn 1:29), but instead went on to develop a separate religious sect that considered John its founder.

Even without performing miracles, then, John constantly ran the risk of being mistaken for Christ or being followed instead of Christ. Think how much worse the situation would have been if he had performed miracles!

John’s primary role, of course, was precisely to serve as a sign — to point others to the Lamb of God. But God had him perform that role through his compelling preaching and personal example rather than through miracles. I think the Lord did it that way to avoid help his followers avoid confusion.

Question of the Day for Tuesday, April 21, 2009

St. Adrian of Canterbury?

Q. Who or what is St. Adrian of Canterbury patron saint of?

P.Z., via email

A. St. Adrian of Canterbury was born in Africa about the year 635 and became the abbot of Nerida, a Benedictine monastery near Naples, Italy, when still rather young. Pope Vitalian wanted to appoint him as Archbishop of Canterbury, England, but Adrian considered himself unworthy of such an honor and convinced the Holy Father to appoint Theodore of Tarsus, a Greek monk, instead. But the Pope insisted Adrian should accompany Theodore and be his adviser in the episcopal work.

In England, Archbishop Theodore appointed Adrian as abbot of the monastery called St. Peter in Canterbury, which had been founded by St. Augustine (also known as St. Austin) of Canterbury (d. 604), the great apostle to the English.

St. Adrian fulfilled his mission from the Pope by accompanying Theodore on his apostolic visitations of England. Through his wise counsel and assistance, he helped the archbishop in the work of harmonizing the customs and practices of the Anglo-Saxon Church with those of the Church in Rome.

St. Adrian was an erudite man, educated not only in theology and Scripture but also in languages, mathematics, poetry and astronomy as well. Under his leadership, the monastic School of Canterbury, which he founded, became the great center of English learning and culture and one of the best schools in Europe. He founded numerous other schools throughout England as well, where many of the saints, scholars, missionaries, bishops and abbots of the following generations were trained in Greek, Latin, Scripture, theology, Roman law and arithmetic.

Having lived 39 years in England, Adrian died there in the year 710 and was buried at Canterbury. His tomb became the site of miracles and his body was found incorrupt in 1091. St. Adrian’s feast day is January 9.

I’ve been unable to discover any particular cause or group of people for which he serves as patron saint. Perhaps one of our readers knows the answer to that question? In any case, as a college professor, I think I’ll start asking for his intercession in my work with students.

Question of the Day for Monday, April 20, 2009

Only One Confirmation Name?

Q. I’m a baptized Protestant thinking about going through RCIA. If I did so, would I take on a saint’s name when received into the Church? And would I be limited to only one, assuming I had more than one saint who was very meaningful to me? Thanks.

J.B., via email

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

Congratulations. That’s the best news I’ve heard today!

When you are received into the Church and receive Confirmation, you may indeed take on a saint’s name, and you are not limited to only one, just as John Paul I was not limited to one name when he became pope. However, you are not required to take on a saint’s name.