Year: 2004

Mr. Spock's Favorite Subject

A reader writes:

I have two questions.

1. What is the role of logical reasoning in Apologetics?

2. Can you please suggest an introductory book on logical reasoning?

Hrm. Question #1 is kind of general. In fact, it sounds like a homework question. You wouldn’t be taking a course in apologetics at your parish or something, would you? I’m normally hesitant to directly answer homework questions, but since I don’t know that this is one, I’ll take a crack at it. Here goes:

Logical reasoning is just another way of saying "good reasoning," the alternative being bad or illogical reasoning. (This doesn’t mean that reasoning based on emotion is bad; reason that draws on our emotions also can be good, as Mr. Spock eventually learned.)

Logic is important to every field of study, apologetics included. In fact, since apologetics deals with defending a position against contrary claims and arguments, the role of logic is perhaps brought into sharper focus in apologetics.

Basically, there are two kinds of logic, known as informal logic and symbolic logic. The former involves the analysis of ordinary language arguments, the latter recasts arguments in a "mathematical" form for purposes of analyzing their structure more closely. Both have a role to play in apologetics. Informal logic is useful in the kind of ordinary, conversational apologetics that most in the field are engaged in. Symbolic logic is useful for the higher-end, technical apologetics that is possible (e.g., among philosophers).

Though logic is important to apologetics, but it has limits. There still must be room for grace and free will. Thus Vatican I infallibly rejected the proposition that "the assent to Christian faith is not free, but is necessarily produced by arguments of human reason; or that the grace of God is necessary only for living faith which works by charity" (Dei filius canon 3:5). Logic can only take one so far, but ultimately it has to be free will enabled by God’s grace that allows one to embrace the Christian faith.

Regarding question #2, I’m only going to recommend stuff dealing with informal logic. If you’re just starting out, you don’t want to try to self-teach symbolic logic. It’s too complicated for that. Here are some resources:

Mr. Spock’s Favorite Subject

A reader writes:

I have two questions.

1. What is the role of logical reasoning in Apologetics?

2. Can you please suggest an introductory book on logical reasoning?

Hrm. Question #1 is kind of general. In fact, it sounds like a homework question. You wouldn’t be taking a course in apologetics at your parish or something, would you? I’m normally hesitant to directly answer homework questions, but since I don’t know that this is one, I’ll take a crack at it. Here goes:

Logical reasoning is just another way of saying "good reasoning," the alternative being bad or illogical reasoning. (This doesn’t mean that reasoning based on emotion is bad; reason that draws on our emotions also can be good, as Mr. Spock eventually learned.)

Logic is important to every field of study, apologetics included. In fact, since apologetics deals with defending a position against contrary claims and arguments, the role of logic is perhaps brought into sharper focus in apologetics.

Basically, there are two kinds of logic, known as informal logic and symbolic logic. The former involves the analysis of ordinary language arguments, the latter recasts arguments in a "mathematical" form for purposes of analyzing their structure more closely. Both have a role to play in apologetics. Informal logic is useful in the kind of ordinary, conversational apologetics that most in the field are engaged in. Symbolic logic is useful for the higher-end, technical apologetics that is possible (e.g., among philosophers).

Though logic is important to apologetics, but it has limits. There still must be room for grace and free will. Thus Vatican I infallibly rejected the proposition that "the assent to Christian faith is not free, but is necessarily produced by arguments of human reason; or that the grace of God is necessary only for living faith which works by charity" (Dei filius canon 3:5). Logic can only take one so far, but ultimately it has to be free will enabled by God’s grace that allows one to embrace the Christian faith.

Regarding question #2, I’m only going to recommend stuff dealing with informal logic. If you’re just starting out, you don’t want to try to self-teach symbolic logic. It’s too complicated for that. Here are some resources:

"LifeTeen Masses"?

A reader writes:

What’s the deal with ‘Life Teen’ Masses? Are they a total no-no?

The canonical status of "LifeTeen Masses" is complicated at present. Here’s a list of some of the complications:

  1. Liturgically speaking, there is no such thing as a "LifeTeen Mass." This is not a category that is recognized by Church law.
  2. As far as I have been able to determine, the LifeTeen organization has no special indults to perform Mass differently than what ordinary liturgical law provides. As a result, LifeTeen needs to celebrate its Masses in accord with liturgical law.
  3. Yet there are what appear to be clear violations of liturgical law in "LifeTeen Masses" (e.g., having teens stand around the altar during the consecration), as well as things of (at best) questionable status (e.g., saying things like "The Mass never ends" in place of "The Mass is over," the selection of music used in Mass).
  4. LifeTeen advocates might argue that they have quotes from some ecclesiastics saying nice things about them, but Church officials say nice things about all kinds of organizations without implying a blanket endorsement of everything the organization does. In particular, nice quotes from ecclesiastics do not constitute permission to vary the way in which the liturgy is celebrated, and the Holy See would not want them represented as such.
  5. LifeTeen advocates might argue that the unique features of their Masses are justified by the Directory for Masses with Children, but there are significant problems with this claim: (a) the directory in question does not appear to be intended for use with teenagers, (b) the directory does not authorize the kinds of changes found in "LifeTeen Masses," and (c) the directory makes the explicit point that children’s Masses are to be done in such a way as to lead children into the ordinary liturgy celebrated by adult Catholics; thus as the children get older, their experience of the liturgy should come to be more and more "normal," yet LifeTeen is giving them a far more divergent experience of the liturgy than normal childrens’ Masses, and just at the time they should be settling in to normal adult Masses according to the document. Also, (d) this directory is likely to be revised substantially as part of the current tightening up of liturgical law.
  6. We don’t at present have an up or down statement from the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, but if they get enough inquiries from the faithful about "LifeTeen Masses," I suspect that we will. It’s always hard to predict what the Vatican would do, and it probably wouldn’t be as severe as what some might want, but I strongly suspect that LifeTeen would have to make significant adjustments as a result of one.

'Nuther Interview (Stem Cells)

Did another media interview yesterday. A start-up cable TV network called WealthTV is doing a program on stem cell research, and they came by Catholic Answers to do an interview on the Catholic perspective on fetal stem cell research.

Once they got set up (which took a while), the interview only took about 30 minutes, and went very well. Nice guys on the production staff.

Due to the nature of the network (which is supposed to be a kind of lifestyle channel for the well-heeled set, from what I understand), I made a special point of the economic benefits of embracing the culture of life and how, due to the developed world’s failure to do so thus far, we are now facing Medicare and Social Security crises due to our declining birthrate. Less people out there means less economic productivity. Hopefully it’s a point that’ll have some traction with the folks who watch the channel.

The show is supposed to air in early to mid June, when WealthTV goes on the air. I’ll let y’all know when, if I find out.

‘Nuther Interview (Stem Cells)

Did another media interview yesterday. A start-up cable TV network called WealthTV is doing a program on stem cell research, and they came by Catholic Answers to do an interview on the Catholic perspective on fetal stem cell research.

Once they got set up (which took a while), the interview only took about 30 minutes, and went very well. Nice guys on the production staff.

Due to the nature of the network (which is supposed to be a kind of lifestyle channel for the well-heeled set, from what I understand), I made a special point of the economic benefits of embracing the culture of life and how, due to the developed world’s failure to do so thus far, we are now facing Medicare and Social Security crises due to our declining birthrate. Less people out there means less economic productivity. Hopefully it’s a point that’ll have some traction with the folks who watch the channel.

The show is supposed to air in early to mid June, when WealthTV goes on the air. I’ll let y’all know when, if I find out.

Housework on Sundays

A reader writes:

My wife and I have a large family, my wife homeschools, and I work six days a week.

I do not want a special dispensation to do work on Sundays, but if my wife and I do not work around the house on Sunday the place would fall apart.

I do not do really hard labor on Sundays — no home improvement or lawn work. But just doing the necessary work keeping the house picked up and my wife doing a load of laundry or two is fairly hard work.

I have no doubt that if my wife and I were more diligent during the week we probably could cut down on Sunday work a lot. But it is hard. And we simply are not diligent enough.

So what is too much on Sunday? I try to sanctify the work I do by offering it to God, but obviously if He wants me not to do it, the sanctification won’t take, so to speak.

I know the standard "more than two [or some say three] hours of work is a mortal sin." I know I should strive for as little as possible. But if my wife and I get to the end of the week and the work needs doing, are we permitted to do it?

I find it hard to advise in this situation, because there are not hard and fast rules about what can and can’t be done on Sunday. In fact, I would be hesitant to employ the "two or three hours" rule that you mention. That kind of rule of thumb coheres well with the way the law used to be written, but the law on Sunday observance has been integrally reordered. The current law applies the principles of Sunday observance in a way that makes such prior rules of thumb unreliable.

Let me show you what I mean. Here’s the old law:

On feast days of precept, Mass is to be heard; there is an abstinence from servile work, legal acts, and likewise, unless there is a special indult or legitimate customs provide otherwise, from public trade, shopping, and other public buying and selling [CIC(1917) can 1248].

Now, here’s the new law:

On Sundays and other holy days of obligation, the faithful are obliged to participate in the Mass.

Moreover, they are to abstain from those works and affairs which hinder the worship to be rendered to God, the joy proper to the Lord’s day, or the suitable relaxation of mind and body [CIC(1983) can. 1247].

You’ll notice that the concept of "servile work" is gone from the new law. So are prohibitions on any specific affairs (legal acts, public trade, shopping). Instead, there is a general prohibition on "those works and affairs which hinder" the goals of worship and rest.

The concept of servile work was problematic, which is why it was eliminated. Servile work was understood principally as physical labor, and the concept worked fairly well in an age when people largely lived by manual labor. If you’d worked all week, you needed a day of physical rest. On this day it was permissible, however, to do non-servile work, meaning non-physical labor.

But today a large number of people do not do manual labor for a living. They sit in offices and do non-physical labor all day long. To prevent them from doing physical work on Sundays could result in them getting little or none of the physical activity they need to be healthy. Also, allowing them to continue to do non-physical work on Sundays, just like they do all week, would result in long-term mental strain due to not getting adequate time to rest and recharge their batteries. It would leave them stuck in a rut.

As a result, the law was re-written. As it is now, the law leaves it to the individual to figure out which specific works and affairs interfere with these goals in his particular case.

This means, among other things, that the old rules of thumb about how much servile work you could do on Sunday aren’t reliable.

Now to deal with your particular situation, I am a bit hesitant due to lack of information: I don’t know what kind of work you do during the week, I don’t know how many kids you’ve got or what ages they are, and (quite importantly) I don’t (yet) have the experience of managing a large household. All of these give me pause, but let me offer what I hope are some useful points:

  1. You don’t have to kill yourself the other six days in order to provide yourself with a restful Sunday. You need some rest on the other days, too, so if you find it too difficult to get your work done on those days, don’t worry about it.
  2. Consider the possibilities of using your kids to help with the housework. If you have a large family, some of the kids may be getting to an age at which they could be of use picking up, doing laundry, etc. Enlisting them in doing the tasks also would be of benefit to them, both spiritually and in establishing good habits and skills for the future.
  3. Try to group the things you do on different days so that you end up doing things on Sunday that shake you out of your rut, either by raising or lowering your physical activity level or just changing what tasks you do so that you flex different mental and physical muscles on Sunday.
  4. Re-think what tasks you let yourself do on Sunday in light of the above discussion of the law. It might be that some tasks you have up-to-now have been classifying as servile work (e.g., lawn work, gardening) might actually be fun for you or your wife to do and constitute restful activities.
  5. Think about what you do on Sunday and other days in terms of value: Which is more valuable to you and your family: Doing the work and having the environment you like (which is restful in itself) or not doing the work and not having the environment you would like. It might be that it is more restful to do the work and get the environment you want, or it might be that physically resting and having a sub-optimal environment is more restful.
  6. If you have trouble sorting out these issues, that’s understandable. The way the law is written now, we don’t have the kind of simple rules we used to, and more of a burden is placed on the individual in applying the principles to his own circumstances. Just do your best to figure it out, act on the results, and that will be pleasing to God.
  7. If you need, try consulting a spiritual director who knows you, your family, and your situation. Make sure he also understands the principles embodied in the current law regarding Sunday.

Hope this helps!

Tables Near The Sanctuary

Another reader writes:

I love the work you are doing for our faith, and include you and
Catholic Answers in my prayers daily.

Thanks! I (and we) can use them!

Our pastor wants to have all the First Communicants sitting at tables
between the front row of pews and the Sanctuary steps, close to the
altar. The First Communicants will stand in front of their respective
tables to face the priest when he administers the Eucharist to each in
turn. This will occur at a special First Communion mass, apart from
the Sunday masses.

Is this an abuse? If so, could you please cite the appropriate
documents?

I’m not hearing anything here that is an abuse. It’s certainly one of those "please don’t eat the daisies" situations in that the legislator could not be expected to envision people putting tables between the pews and the sanctuary, but as long as the kids aren’t in the sanctuary, I’m not hearing anything that is a violation of law. The kids do need to kneel at the appropriate points in Mass, but if they do that at their tables, it doesn’t seem that anything illicit is being done. There’s nothing that says you have to be in a pew or seated with the rest of the faithful during Mass, or that you can’t use tables in lieu of a Communion rail. It’s just kind of an odd situation.

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 §1). 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.