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 May 11-15, 2009

---

Question of the Day for Friday, May 15, 2009

Married Convert Priests

Q. To my knowledge, I have never heard the answer to the following: Since the Catholic Church believes in celibacy for its priests, why then does the Church allow Protestant ministers who convert to Catholicism to become priests when they are married? No one is suggesting that they, if married, divorce their wives, but why not give them the status of deacons? The deacons are allowed to be married, and they now function in many roles previously limited to priests.

Mary Geary, via email

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

Celibacy is both a gift to the Church and a gift to men and women who have embraced this calling “for the sake of the Kingdom of God.” The discipline of apostolic celibacy allows the priest to be more closely configured to Christ, who also lived celibacy, and this is fitting because the priest is called to celebrate the Sacraments and preach the Word “in persona Christi” (in the person of Christ.)

Although deeply rooted in apostolic tradition, this discipline is a matter of church law to which exceptions can be made for a pastoral reason. Pope Pius XII made an exception in favor of two German Lutheran pastors in the 1950’s. In addition, the law of the Eastern Catholic churches allows for married priests.

In 1980 a special “Pastoral Provision” was granted for married Episcopal priests who convert to the Catholic faith, allowing them to be ordained as Catholic priests even though they are married. In addition, married ministers from other Protestant denominations have also been allowed to be ordained to the Catholic priesthood. A married Protestant minister with children might find it difficult — if not impossible — to support his family by looking for another line of work. If such obstacle would prevent his conversion to the Catholic faith, then the Church stands ready to make an exception in his case to facilitate his conversion to the true faith.

Then why not have them become married deacons? That is a very good question. The most obvious reason is that they seek to be priests. Additionally, permanent deacons are usually not compensated for their work and must support themselves and their families from the income they earn from other professional work, while priests are compensated.

Question of the Day for Thursday, May 14, 2009

Read the Didache?

Q. I’ve been learning about some of the ancient Christian books, such as the Didache, that were read as Scripture in some local churches for awhile but were in the end not included in the canon of the Church as divinely inspired. Recognizing that these books are not divinely inspired, do you think it’s okay to read them?

C.D., via email

A. Several books were highly regarded in parts of the early Church — so much so that some local churches read from them publicly in Mass as if they were Scripture — yet were not included in the final biblical canon by the universal Church. Among these would be such books as the Didache (or “Teaching of the Twelve Apostles”), the Epistle of Clement, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Wisdom of Solomon, the Acts of Peter, the Acts of Paul, the Apocalypse of Peter, the Epistle of Barnabas, and the Gospel of the Hebrews.

 Some of these books, I think, make for more edifying reading than others.

For example, the Epistle of Clement (a.k.a. 1 Clement) is full of godly instructions for Christian life from Pope St. Clement I, written perhaps as early as A.D. 70 by a man who had known St. Peter and other apostles. The Didache, written perhaps as early as A.D. 60, gives us a fascinating glimpse into life in the churches of the first generation of Christians. (Both of these books were composed before the last of the books in the New Testament canon.)

On the other hand, the Acts of Peter (probably dating from a century after the books just named) provides entertaining tales of St. Peter which can sometimes stretch our sense of credulity. In one anecdote, for example, the book claims that St. Peter spoke to a smoked tuna hanging in a window and raised it back to life, so that it swam around in a pond and ate bread crumbs!

With God all things are possible, of course, but it may be that the Church rejected this book from the canon because of such stories as these.
The Apocalypse of Peter claims to report what Jesus showed Peter about the end of the world and the torments of hell. In fact, it’s the earliest of the so-called Christian “tours of hell,” books that purport to describe the tortures of the damned in detail. (The most famous book in this genre is Dante’s Inferno; I wrote a novel a few years back that is also this sort of book, entitled My Visit to Hell.)

The Church most likely rejected this “Apocalypse” because Church leaders came to realize that it was not in fact written by St. Peter but was composed much later. Nevertheless, it exerted tremendous influence among Christians over the notions of hell and the end of the world that later developed.

I assume that you’re aware of other books from this period and later, such as the so-called “Gospel of Thomas” and “Gospel of Mary,” which were influenced by the heresy called Gnosticism. These were not read as Scripture in orthodox churches and never seem to have been seriously considered for the canon by Church authorities. They may make for interesting reading, but they should not be viewed as reliable sources of Catholic teaching or early Christian history.

Question of the Day for Wednesday, May 13, 2009

Ancestor Sins?

Q. There is a controversy within our Bible sharing group. A couple of us say that there is a sin called “ancestor sin,” while the rest of us say that this is not the teaching of the Church. The latter group says that sin is an act carried out by an individual against the laws of God and that we cannot be responsible for the sins of our ancestors or that our ancestors’ sins will be passed on to us.

Please clarify with biblical references.

V.N., Malaysia

A. The notion of “ancestor sin” (or sometimes “generational sin”) is popular in some Christian circles, both Catholic and Protestant, often appearing in Pentecostal and Charismatic circles. The teaching in its most general form, as I have encountered it, insists that the sins of our ancestors can negatively impact our lives. In practice, those who believe this teaching usually call for Christians explicitly to renounce or repent of their ancestors’ sin in order to be liberated from its consequences.

 It’s true that in Scripture God told the ancient Israelites (in the first of the Ten Commandments, as they are usually numbered in the Catholic tradition): “I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me” (Exodus 20:5 RSV).

It’s also true that the disciples asked Jesus whether the medical condition of a man blind from birth was a result of his own sin or that of his parents, suggesting that they believed he could suffer as a result of his ancestors’ sins (see John 9:1-2).

Common experience confirms that one generation’s sin can cause serious problems for the next, both in terms of individual psychological and physical injury, and in terms of social damage as well.

Just ask anyone who is the child or even the grandchild of an abusive alcoholic how that person’s sins were “visited” on later generations. Or consider how an entire society can be left damaged by the widespread immorality of a previous generation.

Nevertheless, to say that the consequences of sin are visited on later generations is not at all to say that the guilt of those sins is somehow passed down or inherited, and thus we are responsible to “repent” of them ourselves to avoid punishment. We cannot repent of the sins of our ancestors, because we are not personally responsible for them.

The Lord told the prophet Jeremiah: “In those days they shall no longer say, ‘The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge.’ But everyone shall die for his own sin; each man who eats sour grapes, his teeth shall be set on edge” (Jeremiah 31:29).

This misleading proverb is repeated in Ezekiel 18:2, with the Lord declaring: “As I live … this proverb shall no more be used by you in Israel. Behold, all souls are mine; the soul of the father as well as the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sins shall die” (verses 3-4).

Yes, the sin of our first parents left us all with “original sin,” as it’s called. But original sin is different from actual sin, whose culpability attaches to those who commit it. Original sin is the condition in which we find ourselves because our first parents lost their original state of righteousness through their sin — and they could not pass on to us what they themselves no longer possessed. Original sin is thus a deficiency passed on, not some sort of individual personal culpability for what our first parents did.

 Might there nevertheless be, as some believers in “ancestor sin” teach, some kinds of spiritual bondage passed down that needs to be broken with our cooperation? Perhaps in the case of idolatrous or occult activity, in which a parent somehow involved the unwitting child in traffic with demonic powers, the child might need explicitly to renounce such associations. Or a child who has willingly followed a parent’s sinful example (such as a son imitating his father’s alcohol abuse) might benefit from consciously renouncing that model and declaring the intention to break the pattern.

 Finally, we should note that when Jesus responded to His disciples’ query about the blind man, he rejected their speculation that either the man’s sin or the sin of his parents had caused the blindness (see John 9:3).

Question of the Day for Tuesday, May 12, 2009

Scriptural Ban on Cohabitation?

Q. Someone recently asked me where it is found in Scripture that people should not live together before marriage. Do you know of any Scripture references related to this matter?

 D.D., Fort Wayne, Ind.

A. The Greek New Testament word translated into English as “fornication” or “sexual immorality” or sometimes just “immorality” (porneia — from which we get the word “pornography”) refers sometimes to sexual relations between unmarried persons, and sometimes to that kind of sexual activity as well as adultery. In either case, the term always includes the meaning of sexual relations between unmarried persons.

Given that definition, we can find cohabitation prohibited or condemned in a number of biblical passages, such as Matthew 15:19; Mark 7:21; Acts 15:20, 29; 1 Corinthians 5:11; 6:9-10, 18-20; 7:1-2; 10:8; 2 Corinthians 12:21; Galatians 5:19; Ephesians 5:3; Colossians 3:5-6; 1 Thessalonians 4:3-8; Revelation 21:8, 22:15.

You should show all those passages to your friend. But it’s important that he or she come to understand the reasons behind the biblical prohibition. I would recommend that this person read a good book that explains what Pope John Paul II called the “theology of the body.” One text to recommend would be “Theology of the Body for Beginners” by Christopher West (Ascension, 2004).

Question of the Day for Monday, May 11, 2009

Was St. John the Baptist Senile?

Q. Matthew 3:14 quotes St. John the Baptist saying to Jesus, “I need to be baptized by you, and yet you are coming to me?” This seems to indicate that John knows who Jesus is and is paving the way for Jesus by his preaching. John 1:29–30 also quotes John saying, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world. He is the one of whom I said, ‘A man is coming after me who ranks ahead of me.’” This seems to indicate that John certainly recognized Jesus.

However, Matthew 11:3 quotes John asking Jesus, “Are you the one who is to come, or should we look for another?” Is John suffering from senility? Is there an explanation for how, at the time of Jesus’ baptism, he so clearly identified Christ and his own role in Christ’s mission, yet in prison he has no clue as to who Christ is? My commentary has nothing to say about this. -- R.B., via email

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

We may assume at the outset that when John the Baptist sent questioners to Jesus, John was not senile. He was then in his early thirties, being only months older than Jesus.

Recall that the Virgin Mary visited Elizabeth, John’s mother, shortly after the Annunciation. During the three months of that visit, the Virgin must have shared all she had been told about the Child conceived within her. Furthermore, it is most unlikely that Elizabeth would not have shared this knowledge with her son as he grew up.

Why, then, did John send a follower to Jesus to ask the question, “Are you he who is to come? (That phrase, “he who is to come,” was a common circumlocution for “Messiah.”) I think John’s situation at that time explains why his faith in Jesus seemed to falter.

John was languishing in prison, fully aware that his life was hanging by a thread. His circumstances would have been dreary indeed; no wall-to-wall carpeting, no color television, no elaborate exercise rooms as in today’s prisons. It is also possible John was influenced by the common expectation that the Messiah would be a political and military leader who would rescue the Jewish people from the hated Roman rule.

So John was deeply discouraged. He needed reassurance from Jesus.

Yet note that however much John deserved a direct answer, Jesus did not give it. Instead, Jesus told John’s messengers, “Go and tell John what you hear and see: the blind regain their sight, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the poor have the good news proclaimed to them” (Mt 11:4–5). Jesus was thereby reminding John of the true credentials of the Messiah.

He ended his answer to John by adding, “And blessed is the one who takes no offense at me” (verse 6). In other words, “Blessed is the one who recognizes in my ministry the Messiah’s credentials.” Jesus’ answer was not direct, but I believe John got the answer he was yearning for.