Month: June 2005

This Week’s Show (June 16, 2005)

LISTEN TO THE SHOW.

DOWNLOAD THE SHOW.

HIGHLIGHTS:

  • Why are people able to get divorced, annuled, & remarried today as opposed to a few decades ago?
  • Did Pius XII say that when the Jews return to Israel it will mean the world is coming to an end in a generation?
  • Does God hear your prayers if you’re in a state of mortal sin?
  • What is the bird Prothonotary Warbler named after? (answer after the first break)
  • How to square the the salvation of catechumens with the Catechism’s statement that baptism is the only assured means the Church knows of for entry into eternal beatitude?
  • If God could have Mary be conceived without original sin, why doesn’t he do this for everyone?
  • How to check out reported papal statements that the Church didn’t do enough in WWII for Jewish people?
  • Gentleman has been told that he can’t receive Communion because he’s divorced until he gets an annulment. True?
  • Why does Fundamentalist get mad when we tell him the Pentateuch wasn’t written by Moses at our Bible study?
  • Is B16 likely to allow a greater us of the Tridentine Mass? What’s he likely to do to improve the liturgy generally?
  • Person in video says that practice precedes theology, that we do things first and them make up explanations for them later. True?
  • Can a deacon get married again if his wife dies?
  • Are we to consume the Host immediately after we receive Communion in the hand?
  • Where to get evidence for Peter having a successor in Rome?
  • How to respond to Fundamentalists who get offended when he tells them the Catholic Church is the true Church?

Non-Catholic Marriages & Annulments

A reader writes:

I recall you reaffirming a week or two ago that the Church considers Protestant marriages valid, even in Protestant sects that recognize divorce and remarriage.  Do you feel that at some time in the future the Church may reconsider this?  I know that some consider the existance of a prenuptual agreement grounds to invalidate a marriage, since it means both spouses are acknowledging the possibility that the marriage may not be permanent.  Would the Church ever consider the fact that Protestants and at least some Evangelicals, by reason of recognizing divorce and remarriage, transmit this feeling to the couple being married, thus creating the circumstances for invalidity?

When people say that the Church recognizes Protestant marriages, it doesn’t mean that all of them individually are valid. It means that it extends to them the same favor of the law that it extends to Catholic marriage: In other words, it assumes that they are valid until it is proven otherwise.

The presence of a pre-nuptial agreement does not of itself invalidate a marriage (Protestant or Catholic), though depending on what the pre-nuptual agreement says or the circumstances surrounding the agreement, it may show that one or both of the parties had an understanding of marriage sufficiently deficient that it prevented them from exchanging valid matrimonial consent, meaning that the marriage was invalid.

Because the Protestant understanding differs significantly from the Church’s understanding, there may (or may not) be a higher ratio of invalid Protstant marriages, but this is not certain. There are no statistics on this, so it would be conjecture to speculate one way or the other.

Nevertheless, many Protestant marriages, when examined by a Catholic marriage tribunal, are found to be invalid. This may occur, for example, when one of the parties to such a marriage has divorced and remarried and now wishes to enter the Catholic Church.

Thus the reader continues:

The reason I ask this is that I know of a number of non-Catholics who have divorced and remarried, and are now to one extent or another attracted by the Catholic faith.  Their stumbling block is a fear that their previous marriages do not meet the requirements for invalidity.  Without knowing all the facts, and with them not having consulted a priest, I recognize that it is almost impossible to offer an accurate opinion; nevertheless I do sympathize with their situation.  Having said that, I also feel a degree of discomfort in continuing to try to bring them closer to the Church if I’m only leading them down a path toward disappointment.  (I know they could, for example, choose to live in a chaste relationship, but for various reasons I don’t think that’s likely in these cases.)

At any rate, I’d welcome your advice as to how to take such situations into account when evangelizing to non-Catholics.

First, let’s deal with your on role here: You should evangelize these folks. Sharing the fullness of the teachings of Christ, which means sharing the Catholic faith, is what we are to be about. We cannot say that merely because someone is a fellow Christian he has "enough" of Christ’s teachings and should be left alone. Christ wants him to have all his teachings, and it is our job to try to facilitate that–in ways that are appropriate and charitable and not overly pushy. (Being overly pushy pushes people away from Christ.)

It is true that, if they move closer to the Church and have their marital statuses examined that it may be found they are in an invalid marriage at present. This may mean painful choices, such as living as brother and sister with the present "spouse," but God will give them the grace to deal with those choices–and he will give it to them at the time they need it. You should do your part (evangelize) and allow God to help them with the parts that you cannot help. Don’t worry. He’s got enough grace for everyone, and he will give it to them generously as they respond to him.

This then is the key to their situation: They should strive not to allow their worries about their marital situation to stand as a barrier between them and the true faith. They should pursue the truth, wherever it leads them, and trust God to give them the grace they need at the points they need it.

He will.

He’s promised to do so:

God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your

strength, but with the temptation will also provide the way of escape,

that you may be able to endure it [1 Cor. 10:13].

Non-Catholic Marriages & Annulments

A reader writes:

I recall you reaffirming a week or two ago that the Church considers Protestant marriages valid, even in Protestant sects that recognize divorce and remarriage.  Do you feel that at some time in the future the Church may reconsider this?  I know that some consider the existance of a prenuptual agreement grounds to invalidate a marriage, since it means both spouses are acknowledging the possibility that the marriage may not be permanent.  Would the Church ever consider the fact that Protestants and at least some Evangelicals, by reason of recognizing divorce and remarriage, transmit this feeling to the couple being married, thus creating the circumstances for invalidity?

When people say that the Church recognizes Protestant marriages, it doesn’t mean that all of them individually are valid. It means that it extends to them the same favor of the law that it extends to Catholic marriage: In other words, it assumes that they are valid until it is proven otherwise.

The presence of a pre-nuptial agreement does not of itself invalidate a marriage (Protestant or Catholic), though depending on what the pre-nuptual agreement says or the circumstances surrounding the agreement, it may show that one or both of the parties had an understanding of marriage sufficiently deficient that it prevented them from exchanging valid matrimonial consent, meaning that the marriage was invalid.

Because the Protestant understanding differs significantly from the Church’s understanding, there may (or may not) be a higher ratio of invalid Protstant marriages, but this is not certain. There are no statistics on this, so it would be conjecture to speculate one way or the other.

Nevertheless, many Protestant marriages, when examined by a Catholic marriage tribunal, are found to be invalid. This may occur, for example, when one of the parties to such a marriage has divorced and remarried and now wishes to enter the Catholic Church.

Thus the reader continues:

The reason I ask this is that I know of a number of non-Catholics who have divorced and remarried, and are now to one extent or another attracted by the Catholic faith.  Their stumbling block is a fear that their previous marriages do not meet the requirements for invalidity.  Without knowing all the facts, and with them not having consulted a priest, I recognize that it is almost impossible to offer an accurate opinion; nevertheless I do sympathize with their situation.  Having said that, I also feel a degree of discomfort in continuing to try to bring them closer to the Church if I’m only leading them down a path toward disappointment.  (I know they could, for example, choose to live in a chaste relationship, but for various reasons I don’t think that’s likely in these cases.)

At any rate, I’d welcome your advice as to how to take such situations into account when evangelizing to non-Catholics.

First, let’s deal with your on role here: You should evangelize these folks. Sharing the fullness of the teachings of Christ, which means sharing the Catholic faith, is what we are to be about. We cannot say that merely because someone is a fellow Christian he has "enough" of Christ’s teachings and should be left alone. Christ wants him to have all his teachings, and it is our job to try to facilitate that–in ways that are appropriate and charitable and not overly pushy. (Being overly pushy pushes people away from Christ.)

It is true that, if they move closer to the Church and have their marital statuses examined that it may be found they are in an invalid marriage at present. This may mean painful choices, such as living as brother and sister with the present "spouse," but God will give them the grace to deal with those choices–and he will give it to them at the time they need it. You should do your part (evangelize) and allow God to help them with the parts that you cannot help. Don’t worry. He’s got enough grace for everyone, and he will give it to them generously as they respond to him.

This then is the key to their situation: They should strive not to allow their worries about their marital situation to stand as a barrier between them and the true faith. They should pursue the truth, wherever it leads them, and trust God to give them the grace they need at the points they need it.

He will.

He’s promised to do so:

God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your
strength, but with the temptation will also provide the way of escape,
that you may be able to endure it [1 Cor. 10:13].

And With Strange Eons Even Death May Die

A reader writes:

Jehovah Witnesses quote Rev. 20:14 ,"Hell will be cast into the Lake of Fire," to prove Hell is not eternal.  How do you explain that verse?

First, let’s look at the verse in context:

11: Then I saw a great white throne and him who sat upon it;
from his presence earth and sky fled away, and no place was found for
them.
12: And I saw the dead, great and small, standing
before the throne, and books were opened. Also another book was opened,
which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written
in the books, by what they had done.
13: And the  sea gave up the dead in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead in  them, and all were judged by what they had done.
14: Then  Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the  second death, the lake of fire;
15: and if any one’s name  was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the  lake of fire.

As you can see from this translation, which is the RSV, the term "hell" is being rendered "hades." This is what the Greek term in the text actually is: hades. This is important because the term hades is not best translated by "hell" in contemporary English.

The way we use the word "hell" today (this was different in earlier English), "hell" refers to the place of the damned.

That’s not what hades meant in Greek. Hades was a more general term referring to the place or abode of the dead. Thus in the Septuagint hades is the standard translation of the term sh’ol, which also refers to the abode of the dead in general.

When the New Testament wants to refer specifically to the place of the damned, it uses a different term, such as "Gehenna" or, as in this passage, "the Lake of Fire."

That gives us the background we need to understand the passage above: It speaks of the resurrection of the dead and the final judgment:

First John sees the stage set for the judgment, then he sees the dead who are to be judged. Their resurrection is depected in verse 13. If we remember that hades is the abode of the dead, the import of the passage is as follows:

And the  sea gave up the dead in it, Death and the Abode of the Dead gave up the dead in  them, and all were judged by what they had done.

That’s the import of the following verse as well, which comes across as follows:

Then  Death and the Abode of the Dead were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the  second death, the lake of fire.

The passage thus refers to the destruction of the reality of death and, consequently, the need for a place for the dead. So it is quite true that hell–in the sense of hades or the place of the dead–will be no more. After the resurrection, everyone will be alive–forever. Some will be alive with God in paradise, but others will be in torment forever. As the book of Revelation earlier says:

And the smoke of their torment goes up for ever and ever; and they have
no rest, day or night, these worshipers of the beast and its image, and
whoever receives the mark of its name [Rev. 14:11].

Prayer Request

There is a young, college-age gentleman who has been a friend of Catholic Answers for a number of years and who used to work there.

He’s been sick since January and been having excruciating pain in his neck and abdomen. This morning, starting at 8 a.m. Pacific time (11 a.m. Eastern), he is going to be having a thyroid biopsy.

I don’t normally make prayer requests here on the blog, but I’d ask folks to keep him in prayer. The biopsy happens today and then he’ll get the results on the 20th.

Thanks, folks. I appreciate it.

Icarus Crashed

… again.

"Two pilots, in a jovial mood as they flew an empty commuter jet, wanted to ‘have a little fun’ by taking the plane to an unusually high altitude last October, only to realize as the engines failed that they were not going to make it, according to transcripts released Monday.

"The plane, which the two were ferrying from Little Rock, Ark[ansas] to Minneapolis, crashed and both Capt. Jesse Rhodes and First Officer Peter Cesarz perished.

"The cockpit voice recording, released by the National Transportation Safety Board at the start of a three-day hearing into the Oct. 14, 2004 accident, revealed how the pilots cracked jokes and decided to ‘have a little fun’ and fly to 41,000 feet — the maximum altitude for their plane. Most commuter jets fly at lower altitudes."

GET THE STORY.

Tragic as this story is, I can’t help but speculate on this pair’s intake interview with St. Peter outside the Pearly Gates.

PETER: "Reason for being here?"

PILOT: "We, ah, well…. We wanted to have a little fun."

PETER: "I see. And are you having fun now?"

D&D & The Knights

A reader writes:

Mr. Akin,

I’m 18 years old, a fellow Catholic, a Knight of

Columbus in the 3rd degree, and I play D&D.

I have a question that’s been haunting me. Is there truth to the story that

the new Pope, while still a cardinal, was on a committee that blacklisted

D&D?

Considering that you reference D&D and other RPGs, and not in a morally

negative light, I’m assuming that it’s not a sin to play D&D.

I’d really appreciate it if you could help me out.

P.S.: Are you a Knight? If not, have you given it any thought?

I’ve thought about it, but I’m not much of a joiner. Maybe someday.

As to the rumor you heard, here’s my rule for dealing with rumors about what popes have and have not done: I discount them utterly until such time as a person produces a primary source (or an extraordinarily reliable secondary source) validating the claim. There is simply too much nonsense on the papal rumor net to do otherwise.

Consequently, I could not recommend that you pay any mind to rumors that Cardinal Ratzinger was on a committee that prohibited the playing of Dungeons and Dragons or other role-playing games. Certainly the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and it ssubsidiary bodies did no such thing. Role-Playing Games are, frankly, a phenomena that simply does not rise high enough to trip the Vatican’s radar.

That being the case, one must fall back onto the principles of moral theology. On applying these to RPGs,

SEE HERE.

In sum, though: There is nothing intrinsically sinful with RPGs, though they can definitely be run in a way that has a corrosive effect on the morals of the players. This is particularly true of D&D as it is commonly played. It all depends on who you’re playing with, how the GM or DM runs the game, and how you respond.

Hope this helps, and thanks for writing!

D&D & The Knights

A reader writes:

Mr. Akin,

I’m 18 years old, a fellow Catholic, a Knight of
Columbus in the 3rd degree, and I play D&D.

I have a question that’s been haunting me. Is there truth to the story that
the new Pope, while still a cardinal, was on a committee that blacklisted
D&D?

Considering that you reference D&D and other RPGs, and not in a morally
negative light, I’m assuming that it’s not a sin to play D&D.

I’d really appreciate it if you could help me out.

P.S.: Are you a Knight? If not, have you given it any thought?

I’ve thought about it, but I’m not much of a joiner. Maybe someday.

As to the rumor you heard, here’s my rule for dealing with rumors about what popes have and have not done: I discount them utterly until such time as a person produces a primary source (or an extraordinarily reliable secondary source) validating the claim. There is simply too much nonsense on the papal rumor net to do otherwise.

Consequently, I could not recommend that you pay any mind to rumors that Cardinal Ratzinger was on a committee that prohibited the playing of Dungeons and Dragons or other role-playing games. Certainly the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and it ssubsidiary bodies did no such thing. Role-Playing Games are, frankly, a phenomena that simply does not rise high enough to trip the Vatican’s radar.

That being the case, one must fall back onto the principles of moral theology. On applying these to RPGs,

SEE HERE.

In sum, though: There is nothing intrinsically sinful with RPGs, though they can definitely be run in a way that has a corrosive effect on the morals of the players. This is particularly true of D&D as it is commonly played. It all depends on who you’re playing with, how the GM or DM runs the game, and how you respond.

Hope this helps, and thanks for writing!