The Ring Cycle

A correspondent writes:

I was wondering if you could help me with a particular issue. Several years ago, I had purchased an engagement ring for the obvious reason. At that time, I had asked a close person friend of mine who is a priest to bless the ring. I am not sure what blessing he had placed or said over the ring. To my fortune, the marriage never took place and I am still in possession of the ring.

A more appropriate opportunity has arisen and I would potentially like exchange the blessed ring for another distinctively different ring. As an aside, I would feel awkward giving the same ring to a different girl. I believe it to be unfair. I hope you can see my point.

Would it be a mortal or venial sin, a sacrilege or scandal against the church or God if I exchanged the blessed ring knowing that the blessed ring will eventually be sold in the market place?

The Code of Canon Law is not as detailed as one would like regarding the disposition of blessed articles in situations such as you describe. Nevertheless, it seems possible to determine a reasonable course of action. Here are the relevant points:

  1. Canon law does not discuss how blessed articles lose their blessing, though it indicates that they can (cf. Can. 1269).
  2. Canon law does discuss how blessed (technically, dedicated) places lose their status.
  3. In the absence of an express discussion of point #1, the logical way to understand how articles lose their sacred status is by analogy to point #2.
  4. Places can lose their sacred status (a) by major destruction, (b) by being relegated to secular use by the competent ordinary, or (c) by being relegated to secular use in fact (Can. 1212).
  5. By analogy, you can exercise option (c) and relegate the ring to secular use in fact, simply by choosing to do so. (Or you can throw it into Mount Doom, if you wish.)
  6. Once the ring has been relegated to secular use, you can exchange it or do whatever else you would want with it.
  7. The relegation of a thing to secular (lit., "profane") use for a just cause (which you clearly have in this case) is not sinful, otherwise the option would not be provided for in the law.
  8. In case it helps, the law distinguishes relegating a sacred thing to profane (secular) use from relegating it to sordid use. The former is allowed, while the latter is not (Can. 1222 ยง1). You are interested in the former, not the latter.

As a result, it seems that you can simply relegate the ring to secular use and then exchange it in good conscience.

Hope this helps, and God bless you!

The Jigsaw Man

A reader writes:

What is the Church’s position on organ (and/or various other body parts) donations ?? On the one hand this would seem like a great gift to your fellow man if you were to die, – but on the other – it would seem to open up areas for potential corruption (i.e. – illegal marketing and forced euthasasia, – some of which we probably already see.)

Also, since we believe in "the resurrection of the Body", – what are the consequences of having given your heart, eyes, etc. (or maybe your entire Head) to science or another person ?? It seems we could assume all things would be reconciled and returned at the resurrection ?, but what about if you were given a heart from a donor, – do you now have two, your old one, or your new one ?? Also, what about those individuals who may have had their physical body completely consumed or annihalted (fire and/or explosion, etc.) ?? Not to mention those who may have been born "incomplete" – which is to say with a variety of deformaties or abnormalities ??

The Church’s basic position, as expressed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, is as follows:

Organ transplants are in conformity with the moral law if the physical and psychological dangers and risks incurred by the donor are proportionate to the good sought for the recipient. Donation of organs after death is a noble and meritorious act and is to be encouraged as a manifestation of generous solidarity. It is not morally acceptable if the donor or those who legitimately speak for him have not given their explicit consent. It is furthermore morally inadmissible directly to bring about the disabling mutilation or death of a human being, even in order to delay the death of other persons (CCC 2296).

This means that posthumous organ donations are themselves morally praiseworthy but must be done in accord with moral law–for example, you cannot kill a person to get his organs.

Because one cannot consent to an immoral act, one cannot consent to the harvesting of organs that are collected in an immoral manner, so these could not be donated. However, one can donate other organs that are harvested in a moral manner.

Regarding the resurrection, the Catechism notes (CCC 999-1000) that the manner of the resurrection exceeds the ability of our present intellects to comprehend it. However, it would seem theologically certain that we will be raised in a way that results in us being physically unimpaired (thus having one, perfectly-functioning heart, regardless of how many transplants or mechanicals we had during life). The degree of the destruction done to the body (e.g., reducing it to dust and ashes) does not matter. And those who had deformities in this life either will not have them or will not be impeded by them in the resurrection. My personal guess, though I cannot prove it, is that we may well be able to change around our bodies at will in the next life. In any event, we won’t be suffering due to bodily flaws or limitations.

For an interesting cautionary tale regarding the potential abuses of organ harvesting, see Larry Niven’s Hugo-nominated sci-fi story "The Jigsaw Man." This was the story, incidentally, that coined the term "organlegging," and the dangers it warns about are as relevant today as when it was written. Fascinating reading for pro-lifers interested in the way society could go.

And Speaking of Greek . . . (Hilasterion)

Another reader writes:

I’m having trouble developing a Catholic view of a debate the occurred amongst protestant biblical scholars over the proper translation of the greek word "hilasterion." C.H. Dodd argued that it should be translated as "expiation," conveying that Christ’s death covers or removes our sins. He disputed the translation of the greek word as "propitiation" which conveyed that Christ’s death appeased the wrath of God, a concept he found to be typical of pagan religions but inappropriately applied to New Testament thought.

It seems that some modern translations have since shyied away from "propitiation," including the New American Bible which uses the word "expiation" for all occurrences of "hilasterion," and the New Revised Standard Version uses the phrase "sacrifice of atonement."

I was beginning to think likewise until I recalled that the Council of Trent affirmed the theology behind the word "propitiation." When the Council defined the Sacrifice of the Mass it stated, "this sacrifice is truly propitiatory,…For the Lord, appeased by this oblation grants grace…" (DS 1743). So it appears that the Church confirms the concept of propitiation, in the sense of appeasing God’s wrath, even though the NAB and the NRSV avoid using this word. But I haven’t been able to find any contemporary Catholic literature on the matter. Could you please comment or advise?

This question has to be handled on two levels, the linguistic and the theological. Since I haven’t seen what Dodd said, I can’t speak directly to that, but let’s talk about the position you described.

It is very risky to mix linguistic and theological arguments in the way you described. Too often people let their theological commitments govern how they read the linguistic evidence, and this can lead them astray, even out of the best of motives (and even if their theology happens to be correct). The proper procedure is to try to first establish what the text says on purely linguistic grounds (or as near to pure as one can get) and then try to establish what it means theologically.

Linguistically, when hilasterion is used as a noun (it can also be an adjective), it appears to mean "propitiation" or "appeasement" (like its cognate noun, hilasmos). Abbott-Smith (who I just recommended, above) doesn’t list "expiation" as a possible meaning (though some newer dictionaries may, possibly through the influence of Dodd and others of the same mindset).

I wouldn’t appeal to this as a rock-solid conclusion, however, for several reasons: (1) Before doing so I want to check a bunch of dictionaries, including highly technical ones, (2) I’d want to dig into the original sources that the dictionaries and concordances reference to see if the word is regularly used in a way that would exclude "expiation" as a likely meaning, and (3) we often at this late date simply cannot tell the precise nuance a word is being given.

It’s clear that when Paul describes Jesus as a hilasterion (e.g., Rom. 3:25) that he means that it is through Jesus that the consequences of our sins are removed. That much is obvious. But the precise nuance he wants to give the term is far less obvious, whether it is the idea of turning away or satisfying wrath (propitiation/appeasement) or making amends (expiation) or something else. To establish the latter nuance with certainty, a lot of careful scholarly work would have to be done, and a completely satisfying answer might not be attainable due either to a lack of linguistic evidence or ambiguity in the evidence.

Nevertheless, let’s go with the understanding that hilasterion and its cognate terminology should primarily be understood in terms of turning away or satisfying wrath. Though I can’t document it the way I’d like at the moment, this seems to me to be the likely understanding of the nuance Paul wishes to call to mind.

Having dealt with the linguistic level, let’s kick it up to the theological level. What does propitiation mean theologically? Those who would argue that the idea taken literally is more suited to pagan than to Christian theology are correct. Pagan deities might literally feel passions like anger, but Christian theological had established long before the time of Trent that God does not literally have passions (see Aquinas on this point). As a result, when God is described as being angry or hating something, such as sin, there is a figurative component to the language (again, see Aquinas on this point).

When people sin, God is not literally burning with anger, because his infinite beatitude cannot be diminished by what creatures do. Instead, as Aquinas and Catholic theology in general points out (see Ott’s discussion of this), Scripture and the Magisterium are using language with a figurative component when they speak in this way.

The same component is present when the language of propitiation is used with regard to God. To say that God has been propitiated does not mean that he has stopped burning with anger (something he was not doing in the first place) but that the person now will not experience the painful consequences of sin that he otherwise would have experienced. The sacrifice of the Mass, by bringing about this state of affairs by applying the fruits of Christ’s sacrifice, is thus propitiatory.

What Trent was concerned to do was to repudiate Protestant hypotheses that tried to explain the Mass as a sacrifice of thanksgiving only and not one that put away sin. It was not trying to establish more precisely the concept of propitiation and relied on the understanding of it that Catholic theology had already worked out (e.g., as in Aquinas and the scholastics).

So, bottom line, from what I can tell without extensive digging into the linguistic evidence, I’d probably translate the hilasterion passages with propitiation/appeasement-related terms but then in commentaries or homilies (if I were a priest or deacon) explain what these mean theologically.

The Greek New Testament

A reader from Australia writes:

I am studying Latin and am interested in studying Greek also. I though you would be the one to ask for a recommendation of a good, Catholic Greek Bible. Are there any differences (e.g. Catholic/non-Catholic) in the many Greek editions of Scripture? Also, I think I remember you recommending the book on Biblical Greek by William Mounce. Is that right? Have you any other recommendations for a beginner?

The differences between Catholic and Protestant Bibles in the original languages are essentially confined to the Old Testament. There is not a dispute over the Greek text of the New Testament between the two groups. Both Catholic scholars and Protestant scholars (which is to say, leaving aside Catholic Douay-Rheims Onlyists and Protestant King James Onlyists) face the same set of options in determining the best readings for particular passages, and the discussion is not polarized along confessional lines.

For your purposes–learning to read in the Greek New Testament–more or less any edition will do. I wouldn’t even turn you away from one of the Textus Receptus editions for basic learning to read purposes (though these editions are not as accurate as contemporary ones done after the advent of New Testament textual scholarship). The standard version that most scholars, Catholic and Protestant, work from is the United Bible Societies/Nestle-Aland text.

Here is an inexpensive, leather-bound edition put out by the American Bible Society.

As far as textbooks to learn from, yes, I recommend Mounce’s Basics of Biblical Greek. It is the best text currently on the market, bar none. (At least until I get around to finishing mine, which is going to be some time, especially with Secret Project #1 filling up my schedule in the interim.) You also need the workbook that goes with it. If you want to get Mounce’s own lectures on tape or CD to self-study with, you can order them from his website.

Two dictionaries that I recommend are:

  • I also recommend Mounce’s Analytical Lexicon to the Greek New Testament, which is an excellent dictionary that parses each word found in the New Testament to help you figure out troublesome word forms.
  • And I highly recommend A Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament by George Abbott-Smith, which is an excellent older dictionary that gives references to word usage in extra-NT sources and tries to supply the Hebrew equivalent of NT Greek terms.

For those not ready to take the plunge into learning Greek, but who would like to get a little exposure to it (enough to use Greek NT-related study tools, such as the dictionaries I just recommended), I recommend Mounce’s Greek for the Rest of Us.

Hope these do for now. I’m working on a permalink page for this site in which I’ll give a bunch more language resource recommendations. I also have a couple of articles on the subject coming out in the July-August and September issues of This Rock.

Good luck in your studies! New Testament Greek is an easy and rewarding language to learn!

A Catholic View of Israel

A reader writes:

Mr. Akin,

Within the last couple years, I’ve been an Atheist-come-Christian (not baptized). I plan on converting to Catholicism next year & will soon be
signed up for RCIA. I’ve been enjoying listening to you on the ‘Q&A Open
Forum’ from the ‘Catholic Answers’ radio show archives on the Internet. All of my initial concerns and questions have been entirely & satisfactorily dealt
with (the usual suspects: Papal authority, role of Mary & the Saints, Immaculate conception, works-vs-grace), EXCEPT one.

It is my view that:
1). God has returned the Jews to Israel, as promised.
2). He blesses toughs that bless the Jews
3). He will bring judgment on toughs that divide the land
4). The world will bring their armies against her.
and of course.
5). As a people, the Jews will come to know Jesus as their savior (I know this last point is in the Catechism).

What is the official view on these issues, if any? I must say that I feel very strongly about these issues, and that I’m truly hoping that they don’t contradict Catholic theology.

Could you please help me understand the Church’s view & let me know if there is room for these beliefs in the Church.

The Church does not have an official position on all of these questions. It does, as you note, teach the latter, because St. Paul does in Romans, though even then there is room for discussion about what the corporate conversion of the Jewish people means (e.g., someone might say that it means only most Jews, others might mean that it means absolutely all Jews; I view the latter as unlikely given how God tends to do things in history, but it’s not incompatible with the Catholic faith).

Regarding your first four points, however, it would be hard to establish an authoritative position of the Church on any of them in Magisterial documents. They would all seem to be permitted exegetical options, and thus, as you put it, there appears to be "room for these beliefs in the Church."

I should issue a caution here, however. Sometimes the points you name are put in a larger package of known as Dispensationalism. This is not a Catholic school of thought, and it has many problems, including (in my personal view) an excessively futuristic reading of the book of Revelation. I don’t know what sources you are drawing upon in formulating these views (besides the obvious Scripture passages used to support them), but I would exercise caution regarding them and not try to build a highly detailed view of the future.

Also, I’d be careful in applying these views to the current political situation. Holding the positions you maintain does not mean endorsing a uniformly pro-Israel point of view. Even during biblical days, when the promises of blessings and curses you mention were unquestionably in operation, Israel as a nation made mistakes that it would have been foolish to support. So great were the mistakes that God himself disciplined the nation through foreign invaders that took away the land. This serves as a warning both to Israelis and non-Israelis against an "Israel, right or wrong" policy. In the present situation, both Arabs and Israelis have violated the human rights of each other, and neither side is free of guilt. Both have blood on their hands.

Hope this helps, and welcome home!

It's Okay To Eat Meat Today (Solemnities in Lent)

Although eating meat on Fridays during Lent normally is prohibited, this does not apply on Fridays that are solemnities. The Code of Canon Law provides that:

Abstinence from meat, or from some other food as determined by the Episcopal Conference, is to be observed on all Fridays, unless a solemnity should fall on a Friday. Abstinence and fasting are to be observed on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday (Can. 1251).

Since today–Friday–is the solemnity of St. Joseph, the law of abstinence doesn’t apply.

Patrons of the highly-effective Atkins Diet, rejoice!

It’s Okay To Eat Meat Today (Solemnities in Lent)

Although eating meat on Fridays during Lent normally is prohibited, this does not apply on Fridays that are solemnities. The Code of Canon Law provides that:

Abstinence from meat, or from some other food as determined by the Episcopal Conference, is to be observed on all Fridays, unless a solemnity should fall on a Friday. Abstinence and fasting are to be observed on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday (Can. 1251).

Since today–Friday–is the solemnity of St. Joseph, the law of abstinence doesn’t apply.

Patrons of the highly-effective Atkins Diet, rejoice!

Happy St. Patrick's Day!

One apologetic note: Some of Protestants–particularly those of Irish descent–have sought in recent years to claim St. Patrick as one of their own. In other words, they have argued that he believed in Protestant Christianity and was not a Catholic.

This is completely false. It amazes me that they can even make such a preposterous claim. St. Patrick was a Latin-speaking bishop commissioned by the pope and whose writings abound with Catholic teaching. Only a person who had never read them, or never read them with any degree of attention, could miss this fact.

For the evidence, see here. Also you can read St. Patrick’s Confession.

Happy St. Patrick’s Day!

One apologetic note: Some of Protestants–particularly those of Irish descent–have sought in recent years to claim St. Patrick as one of their own. In other words, they have argued that he believed in Protestant Christianity and was not a Catholic.

This is completely false. It amazes me that they can even make such a preposterous claim. St. Patrick was a Latin-speaking bishop commissioned by the pope and whose writings abound with Catholic teaching. Only a person who had never read them, or never read them with any degree of attention, could miss this fact.

For the evidence, see here. Also you can read St. Patrick’s Confession.