Each day during the week of July 30 through August 3 you'll find a new question and answer. Check back every weekday and scroll down to see that day's entry! Let us know what you think--or question!--by emailing us at tcanswer@osv.com» 

Question and answer for July 30, 2007

Disposing of “Eggs”?

Q. A friend of ours recently shared her joyous news that after three years of marriage she had finally become pregnant. She and her husband had had great difficulty conceiving and, after in vitro fertility procedures, have now produced a beautiful baby boy.

However, she has expressed her concern over what her physician termed “her surplus eggs.” These tiny human beings are apparently in some form of suspended animation, frozen perhaps in a fertility laboratory. She is a Catholic and wonders what she should do.

She is now in her mid-40s, and another pregnancy would be dangerous. She almost lost the baby she now has. But she has qualms about “disposing of the surplus eggs.”

What can she do? She is increasingly anxious, and just maybe feeling quite guilty, about this situation. -- Name withheld by request

A. I’ve asked our TCA columnist Father Francis Hoffman, J.C.D, to handle this question. Here’s his response:
If only eggs are frozen, they can be disposed without further problem or ethical concern. But it’s likely her physician has inventoried “fertilized eggs,” that is, human embryos, and human embryos are living human beings. So welcome to the brave new world in which tiny human beings are kept in a state of frozen suspended animation!
For this reason and for others, the Church condemned the practice of in vitro fertilization in the Instruction Donum Vitae of February 22, 1987. The Church subsequently reiterated the condemnation in the Catechism (cf. nos. 2376-77) and in John Paul II’s encyclical Evangelium Vitae of 1995.

Here’s my answer to a similar question which appeared in the March/April 2006 issue of TCA.

There seem to be four ways to treat the embryos, but not all of them are ethical:

1) Use them for research. This is clearly wrong because it constitutes the direct killing of human life. No matter how good the intention of the research, this would always be wrong.
2) Do nothing and eventually they will die (they deteriorate even while frozen.) This seems unsatisfactory.
3) Thaw them, let them die and bury them. This also seems unsatisfactory, for all human life deserves to be cared for.
As for the suggestion that they should all be given burial, this is problematic too: How could it be moral or ethical to bury alive a living human being?
4) Implant them in the mother or in another woman willing to adopt the child and bring them to term. Implanting them in the mother is the best course of action at this point, but unlikely in many cases. As for adoption and implantation, reputable, trustworthy and orthodox moral theologians have different opinions about adoption of the embryos, but there seems to be a growing consensus that it could be ethical and even ‘heroic’ to adopt a frozen embryo, although that would not be morally obligatory for anyone.

However, implantation (adopted or not,) is not free of ethical concerns because it constitutes a material cooperation in the business of IVF, which is intrinsically evil in the first place, although the implantation could be allowed under the principle of double effect.

The only answer to this dilemma is to prohibit IVF. In the words of Bishop Elio Sgreccia, President of the Pontifical Academy of Life: “The practice of in-vitro fertilization must be stopped. It only encourages the production of frozen embryos, and freezing embryos is utilitarianism without mercy. When you start a wrong procedure like this, any solution is wrong and sad” (Catholic World Report, May, 2001).

Question and answer for July 31, 2007

Biblical Bald Jokes?

Q. in the Bible, somewhere, it talks about people who made fun of a bald king. What happened to them? -- Corrina Cooper, via email

A. You probably have in mind the account in 2 Kings 2:23–24. It describes how, when the prophet (not a king) Elisha was out on the highway walking between two cities, a mob of boys came out of the city and approached him. They shouted, “Go up, baldhead!”

Apparently, Elisha was being threatened with physical harm; their jeer was likely the equivalent of saying, “You’d better start running, Baldie!” But the prophet “cursed them in the name of the Lord.” They were immediately attacked by two she-bears who appeared out of the woods and “tore forty-two of the children to pieces.”

As someone who’s been bald since my early twenties, I’ve been collecting and telling bald jokes for many years now. But I must admit that I still take great pleasure in reminding friends of this particular passage in Scripture.

Question and answer for August 1, 2007

Does Scripture Forbid Drinking Alcohol?

Q. One of my Baptist friends told me that the Bible forbids drinking alcohol. Is this true? -- G.H., San Diego

A. The Bible warns against the abuse of alcohol, especially in the Book of Proverbs: “Wine is a mocker, strong drink a brawler; and whoever is led astray by it is not wise” (Pr 20:1 RSV). “Be not among winebibbers [that is, those who drink to excess]” (Pr 23:20 RSV). This latter passage goes on to describe vividly the evil effects, both physical and psychological, of drunkenness (verses 29–35).

St. Paul forbids “drinking bouts” (Gal 5:21) and insists: “Do not get drunk on wine, in which lies debauchery” (Eph 5:18).

Nevertheless, Scripture doesn’t forbid drinking alcohol altogether; it allows for moderate consumption. Jesus turned water into wine at the wedding party in Cana so the wedding guests could enjoy it (Jn 2:1–11). St. Paul instructed St. Timothy: “Stop drinking only water, but have a little wine for the sake of your stomach and your frequent illnesses” (1 Ti 5:23).

Use a biblical concordance to look up all the occurrences of the word “wine” in Scripture, and you’ll find that the great majority of them take a neutral or even a positive attitude toward it. (Wine is the most commonly mentioned alcoholic beverage in the Bible, though there are also a few references to “strong drink,” such as Pr 31:6).

Wine, the Bible says, is a sign of divine blessing (Dt 3328). It was part of the tithe to Old Testament priests and the libations at the altar (Dt 18:4; Ex 29:40). The psalmist rejoiced that God “brings[s] bread from the earth, and wine to gladden our hearts” (Ps 104:14:15).

There is no historical evidence for the claim made by some Christians that the wine referred to in the Bible was non-alcoholic. On the contrary: Why would Scripture warn against getting drunk on wine if it contained no alcohol?

Question and answer for August 2, 2007

Do Councils Have Final Authority?

Q. One of my Greek Orthodox friends often tells me that the final authority in the Church is an ecumenical council, not the papacy. She says the events related in Acts 15 prove this.

On the sixth Sunday of Easter she attended Mass with me. As we walked out of church she asked me if I had listened carefully to the first reading (Acts 15:1-2, 22-29). “Did you hear what it said? Nothing about Peter. It just told about the decision of the council of apostles. Haven’t I been telling you that a council is the Church’s final authority?” How should I have responded to her argument? -- Name withheld

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

In my opinion, those responsible for selecting our Scripture readings made a serious mistake in omitting verses 6–11 from this particular reading. Why the apostles came to this decision is as important as the decision itself; indeed, in some ways, more important. Yet the passage omitted includes the verses that tell why the council decided Gentiles do not have to become Jews in order to become Christians. In the omitted verses we read Peter’s speech, in which he told the council what it must decide.

In fact, the decision had already been made prior to the council, in a special revelation to Peter. Read again Acts 10, which tells us that God sent Peter to the house of Cornelius in Caesarea. As Peter preached to Cornelius and his household, they received the gift of the Holy Spirit. Thereupon Peter baptized them.

In Acts 11 we read that back in Jerusalem, Peter was criticized by “the circumcision party” (those who claimed Gentiles must be circumcised before becoming Christians). His explanation satisfied them. “And they glorified God, saying, ‘Then to the Gentiles also God has granted repentance unto life’” (v. 18).

Give your Greek Orthodox friend the whole story about the Council of Jerusalem described in Acts 15. You can also remind her that in the New Testament, the two basic issues with regard to Jesus are these: His identity and His mission. Both issues were resolved through special revelation to Peter: Jesus’ true identity (in Mt 16) and Jesus’ true mission (in Acts 10 and 11).

You can also remind your friend that no council has ever taught that councils are the final authority in matters of faith and morals. So what is the basis of her belief? But above all, pray for her to come into the fullness of Christ’s truth in His one true Church.

Question and answer for August 3, 2007

Bread of the Presence?

Q. My wife and I were confused by a Gospel passage we read. In it, Our Lord refers to “the bread of the Presence” in a biblical story from the life of King David, who of course lived in Old Testament times.

This seems to say that such bread was the Real Presence, the transubstantiated Presence and Essence of God. In David’s time? We always thought that Our Lord transubstantiated bread into His Body for the very first time at the Last Supper. So what was Our Lord saying in this passage? -- Name withheld by request

A. The passage you read would be either Matthew 12:1–4 or its parallel in Mark 2:25–26. Some translations refer there to “the bread of the Presence”; the NAB has “bread of offering” and the RSV, “showbread.” The original Greek in Mark reads “loaves of the Presence.”

Our Lord is making a reference to the Old Testament account found in 1 Samuel 21:1–6. The bread in that account is the loaves baked weekly by the priests, then placed in the Tabernacle or Ark of the Covenant where they would lie in the “presence” of God (thus “bread of the Presence”). At the end of the week, they would be replaced by new loaves, and only the priests could eat the old ones, because they had been made sacred by their time in the Tabernacle.

The term “Presence,” then, refers to God’s presence with regard to both the Old Testament bread and the Blessed Sacrament. But the two breads do not mean at all the same thing.

The former was sacred bread, but still only bread, was consecrated for a special role in temple worship. It was called “bread of the Presence” simply because it had been made holy by lying in the Presence of God as He manifested Himself in the Ark of the Covenant or Tabernacle in Old Testament times. It was an offering (hence the NAB wording “bread of offering”).

The Eucharist, on the other hand, is of course the very Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord Himself. God is really, truly present in the Host in a unique way.

You’re right to say that the Eucharistic transubstantiation took place first the night Our Lord was betrayed, and never before. We might, however, view the Old Testament bread of the Presence as a symbolic foreshadowing of the Eucharist, as was the manna that was kept in the Ark of the Covenant, or the unleavened bread at the Passover meal each year.

For more information on the subject, click here.