January 2007 – Page 4

Serious Consequences for Catholic Non-Voters

It is being reported that a Nigerian bishop is encouraging his flock to vote, informing them that it is their sacred duty to do so, and even going to the extent of saying that they will not be allowed to receive Communion if they do not register to vote.

It’s not clear if these reports are accurate, but some of the handling of them in the press is demonstrably *in*accurate.

In particular, the statement that non-registering Catholics will be excommunicated is flatly wrong. Refusing someone Communion is not the same as excommunicating them.

ED PETERS HAS THE STORY.

Thomist Or Molinist Or Neither?

A reader writes:

I was just wondering whether you were a Thomist,
Molinist, or neither. I understand that this is a
question that you might choose not to answer, as it
could lead to a pretty hairy blog post as a result,
but I was simply curious. I’ve been looking into both
schools of thought, and I wanted to know where you
stood.

For those who aren’t aware, Thomism and Molinism are the two best-known schools of Catholic thought regarding the subjects of predestination, grace, and free will. They are not the only two, however. If you look in Ludwig Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, you’ll find additional schools listed.

At this point in my theological development, I’m not really either a Thomist or a Molinist. Originally, coming from conservative Presbyterianism, I had a strong predisposition towards Thomism. This led me to write A Tiptoe Through TULIP, to help illustrate the degree to which Calvinistic thought is compatible with Catholic thought. That piece explored how close one could get to Calvinism while remaining within the bounds of Catholic teaching. I have long wanted to write a companion piece exploring just how far away from Calvinism you could get and remain within the bounds of Catholic teaching as well, though I have not had the leisure to do so.

Currently I don’t have strong opinions regarding which of the permitted Catholic positions on the relevant issues are correct. I believe that predestination exists, for Scripture says that it does. The question in my mind is how predestination works. It may be the kind of strong predestination that St. Augustine and St. Thomas believed in or it may be one of the alternative understandings that have been advocated by other thinkers, such as those of the Molinist or other permitted Catholic schools.

I’m not entirely sure that we have been given the data needed to address every issue relating to this subject. Scripture and Tradition allow us to establish certain points, such as the absolute necessity of grace for anyone to be saved, but they may not allow us to fully exhaust the mystery that we are confronted with here, just as they allow us to establish certain points regarding the nature of God without exhausting the mystery that he is.

I am particularly suspicious of strategies that attempt to handle biblical language as if it did not contain a large amount of ambiguity. There is a tendency among many Calvinist authors to treat biblical language as if it is a lot less ambiguous than is really the case. For example, many of the key terms connected with salvation–"redemption," "justification," "sanctification," and even "salvation" itself–occur in Scripture with more than one meaning. This is not often appreciated in some circles. Also, it is often assumed that certain terms are synonyms, when in fact they may not be. These tendencies appear particularly in Calvinist writings, and in reading them one often gets the feeling that a system is being imposed on the data of the text rather than being derived from it.

To ultimately settle what I think about many of these matters, I’d have to conduct an extensive review of the biblical literature and how thought on this question has developed over time. Given the practical orientation of my work–which involves defending the liberty of opinion that Catholics have rather than trying to prove one particular school of thought correct–I have not had the occasion to do that research. Thus I’m better at explaining the boundaries of Catholic teaching and what particular biblical verses might mean than what school of thought (if any) is correct and what the relevant verses definitely do mean.

In other words, I try to be transparent to the Church: If the Church allows a variety of opinion on a particular point, I tend to leave matters as they are. There are more urgent priorities in research that I need to pursue than trying to settle my views on highly complex, highly debatable matters of this type. At some point I may have the leisure, or the personal motivation, to do a systematic review of this area, but thus far I have not.

Capsaicin To The Rescue?

Capsaicin is the substance that makes chili peppers hot. I’ve loved the taste of it for years, and hot sauce has been a frequent guest at my table.

It also has medical applications. It’s used for a variety of conditions and is often found in creams for topical application and in the form of nutritional supplements. It helps with joint pain, muscle strain, and other complaints. It’s even been found to kill certain cancer cells.

THIS IS MY FAVORITE BOOK ON NUTRITIONAL SUPPLEMENTS, AND IT INCLUDES INFO ON CAPSAICIN.

But it turns out that capsaicin may have just unlocked one of the most troubling medical issues of our day: diabetes.

I’ve been meaning to blog on this for a while, and news has undoubtedly already raced through the diabetes community, but a team of Canadian researchers used capsaicin as part of a treatment that at least temporarily cures Type 1 diabetes in mice.

The researchers noticed abnormalities in the pain receptor cells in the pancreas of those affected with diabetes and conjectured that these were involved in the condition. They then took mice with Type 1 diabetes and injected their pancreases with capsaicin to deaden the pain receptor nerves. To their amazement, these mice almost immediately began producing insulin. They also injected a neuropeptide called Substance P, which helped, too. The upshot is that some of the mice have remained free of diabetic symptoms for as much as four months after a single treatment.

If this finding holds up, it turns a lot of thinking about the nature of Type 1 diabetes on its head and may open the door to an equivalent human treatment that could revolutionize the lives of those with diabetes.

It’s too soon to say whether this will all pan out, but human trials are expected to begin soon, and it’s definitely a subject to keep an eye on–and to keep praying about.

James 2:14

A reader writes:

What’s your opinion of the translation that one often sees in James 2:14:

Can such faith save him? (NIV)

Can that faith save him? (NAS)

as apposed to the KJV and NKJV:

Can faith save him?

To
me, this one translation choice seems to be make a big difference in
how one reads James in light of the Sola Fide debates. But I’d be
interested in your thoughts on it from an "original language" viewpoint
and if it’s really as critical as it seems to me.

The Greek of the passage allows either translation. In the Greek original there is a definite article (the Greek equivalent of "the") in front of the word for faith in this passage. The thing about the definite article in Greek is that it’s a little tricky. It doesn’t fully correspond to the English word "the" in its meaning and usage.

If I may put it this way, the Greeks were kind of definite article happy. They slapped it in front of all kinds of nouns where we just wouldn’t. For example, if you’re reading along in the Greek New Testament you’ll run into statements that "the Jesus" or "the Paul" did or said things. (In other words, they’ll put the definite article in front of a proper name.) They also put it in front of a lot of other words where we wouldn’t use it, and in these cases it doesn’t convey the same force as the English "the."

In other cases, though, they used it with more force than "the" has. In these situations, it has the force of a pronoun, like "that."

There are thus three ways the translator may need to handle the definite article:

1) Leave it untranslated because it doesn’t correspond to English usage/doesn’t have as much force as "the"

2) Translate it as "the"

3) Translate it with a pronoun or similarly more forceful term, like "that"

Pretty much everybody agrees that option #2 is not the correct one in James 2:14. A reference to "the faith" would be most naturally understood as a reference to "the Christian faith," and it does not seem plausible that James wants to say that the Christian faith does not save people.

Translations thus divide between following option #1 (like the KJV and NKJV) and option #3 (like the NIV and NAS).

If you are coming from an interpretive school that tries to solve the James/Paul issue by saying that James is talking about a different kind of different and inferior faith than Paul is (e.g., "dead faith") then that would push you toward option #3. I think that there are problems with that approach, and I’ve written about that elsewhere.

The passage is more naturally handled with option #1, as the King James and New King James translators (who were firmly Protestant) did. The passage naturally reads like one in which the definite article has less force rather than more, and if you aren’t being motivated by a variant of the "dead faith" solution to the James/Paul problem, I don’t see why you’d want to go with option #3.

Thus Protestant author Bob Wilkins (who founded a ministry in support of the doctrine of sola fides) writes:

The Greek merely has the definite article. The noun faith occurs 11 times in vv 14-26. Of the 11 uses, 8 times James uses the definite article. Yet clearly in none of the other 7 places does it make any sense to translate the noun and article as that faith or such faith. For example, v 17, if handled the same way as some translate v 14b, would read, "Thus also that faith by itself, if it does not dead." Is there some kind of faith, then, that is not dead when devoid of works? Hardly. James’s point is that faith without works is dead. Not some special kind of faith [SOURCE].

RLDS/Community of Christ Baptism Validity

A reader writes:

I’ve got a question for you! My husband is seriously considering
converting to the Church, and I’m giving him as much information and
help as I can. Would he need to be baptized again? He was raised
Reorganized Latter Day Saint (now called Community of Christ). They
don’t consider themselves Mormon, although they use their own Book of
Mormon. They baptize in the name of the Holy Trinity, and their
beliefs in the Trinity seem to be more like those of the Catholic
Church. We understand that the Church does not consider the baptism
of Mormons valid, but what how does it view the RLDS baptism?

The Catholic Church does not have a position on the validity of RLDS/Community of Christ baptisms, though the question periodically comes up in pastoral practice.

A few years ago I did some research–including talking to the folks at the Community of Christ headquarters–at the request of a diocese that was dealing with a situation similar to that of your husband. Though my memories are not as clear as I would like (they never are), my understanding is that the RLDS has passed through a clarification in its views on the Trinity. A few decades ago the understanding was shakier and had tendencies toward modalism–that is, viewing the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit as three "modes" in which God exists rather than as three Persons. More recently, their official doctrinal statements have articulated the Trinity much more clearly, though from what I can tell there seems to remain some question about how well it is understood among some members of the community.

Their current doctrinal statement on the Godhead, as found on their web site, seems to reflect this evolution:

God

The one eternal, living God is triune: one God in three persons. The God who meets us in the testimony of Israel is the same God who meets us in Jesus Christ, and who indwells creation as the Holy Spirit. God is the Eternal Creator, the source of love, life, and truth. God actively loves and cares for each person. All things that exist owe their being to God who alone is worthy of our worship.

Jesus Christ

Jesus Christ is "God with us," the Son of God, and the living expression of God in the flesh. Jesus Christ lived, was crucified, died, and rose again. The nature, love, and purpose of God are most clearly seen in Jesus Christ, our Savior.

Spirit

The Holy Spirit is the continuing presence of God in the world. The Spirit works in our minds and hearts through intelligence, comfort, guidance, love, and power to sustain, inspire, and remake us [SOURCE].

The expression in blue is thoroughly orthodox and correctly articulates the Trinity in terms of three Persons rather than three modes. The expressions in red can be understood in either an orthodox or an unorthodox sense and may reflect the previous understanding of the Father, Son, and Spirit as modes of God’s existence.

It is very heartening that the Community of Christ has undertaken this purification of its understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity, and they are to be commended for being willing to rethink this matter.

The groups history suggests that there is still reason for caution in assessing the validity of baptisms. Because the group has not historically had as firm an understanding of the Trinity as it now does and because of its common origin and relationship with the Salt Lake/LDS church (which is now known to have an invalid baptism), it is difficult to arrive at a firm conclusion on this question.

Ideally, it would be possible to find out how the doctrine of the Trinity was understood by the minister and the recipient at the time of the baptism, but a variety of factors (fading memories, difficulty in contacting people, etc.) this is likely to be impractical. For this reason, in view of the overall circumstances, I personally would recommend that people becoming Catholic from the Community of Christ receive a conditional baptism (with a formula like "If you are not baptized, I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit") to make sure that they are validly baptized, while still respecting the fact that their first baptism may have been valid.

One other practical note: The pastoral workers you are likely to encounter may not know that much about the Community of Christ or its history, and so you may need to help them understand that it is not the same as the Mormon church (whose baptism is invalid) and that it is not the same as ordinary Protestant groups (whose baptisms are valid). I would suggest making these points and then asking for a conditional baptism.

Please feel free to refer them to this post or to get in contact with me if I can be of assistance.

I hope this helps, and God bless your husband for being willing to investigate the Catholic faith!

Lenten Penance Suggestions

A reader writes:

I am attending RCIA this year, and with Lent fast approaching, my sponsor and I are trying to come up with an appropriate penance.

There are a number of caveats, however, that are making this a challenge. I am a single parent of a daughter who is a few years old (just baptized recently!); I work full-time; and I attend school part-time. I rarely watch television (because the programming appalls/bores me) or eat out (because I simply can’t afford to). I suffer from depression related to a medical condition for up to a week each month. Last year, I determined to say the Rosary everyday. While it was enlightening to do so, it may not have been the wisest choice; I didn’t realize that it was all Sorrowful Mysteries through Lent, so I was in a funk for a month after Easter.

My boyfriend jokes that my lifestyle is so Spartan that it seems there’s nothing to give up; certainly, the only things are to diligently start or stop doing something. The only trick is figuring out what that ought to be.

First of all, I want to say that it is wonderful to hear how God is moving in your life, in spite of the difficulties you are facing right now.

Concerning Lenten penances, you should be aware that, except for the fast and abstinence that will be required after you become Catholic (unless your medical condition interferes with them), it is not mandatory that you "give up something for Lent." This is a common and praiseworthy custom, but not a requirement.

Here’s how the Code of Canon Law describes what Catholics do on penitential days, like those in Lent:

Can. 1249 The divine law binds all the Christian faithful to do penance each in his or her own way. In order for all to be united among themselves by some common observance of penance, however, penitential days are prescribed on which the Christian faithful devote themselves in a special way to prayer, perform works of piety and charity, and deny themselves by fulfilling their own obligations more faithfully and especially by observing fast and abstinence, according to the norm of the following canons.

If you want to do something special for Lent, you could add something–prayer, acts of piety, acts of charity–rather than giving something up. Indeed, your decision last year to say the Rosary would be an act of adding a prayer (though you can take it easy on yourself regarding the mysteries if you choose to do that again; the sorrowful mysteries are not mandatory in Lent, and if you find they exacerbate your depression, you can say the joyful or glorious or luminous ones instead). If you would prefer to do something else, you could also choose to say some other prayer or do a little Scripture reading or study the Catechism a little in preparation for becoming Catholic.

One thing that the canon above mentions as a form of self-denial is striving to fulfill one’s duties more faithfully, and you could simply try to apply yourself a little more in your daily situations.

Given the depression that you face, I would consider doing something to resist the depression, such as thinking about the blessings that you do have in your life (like your daughter!) and thanking God for them. Or you might decide to try to go out of your way to get your daughter to smile or laugh, thus bringing joy to her and making you feel good, too.

Also, don’t feel that you have to commit to just one thing for the whole of Lent. If you find that whatever you choose isn’t benefitting you, or benefitting you that day, then feel free to switch to something else, or simply skip it that day. These voluntary penances are meant to encourage us gently to grow in holiness, and if you find yourself being unduly burdened by them, it is a sign that you need to let up on yourself or switch to something else.

I hope this helps, and God bless you as you approach your reception into the Church!

Confession & Confirmation Validity

A reader writes:

There’s just something that’s been troubling me lately and I thought I’d ask your opinion. I was baptised as a Catholic as a baby, but didn’t receive any other sacraments or attend Mass regularly until I was 18 when my interest in the faith was kindled. I joined an RCIA group and received confirmation and first Eucharist. A few months later, I realised to my horror that for confirmation to be valid, one must have first made their first Reconciliation – I had never been to confession. I was not once told during RCIA that I needed to first receive the sacrament of Reconciliation and can plead ignorance, though I know I ought to have studied the faith more deeply and it is therefore my fault really.

When I made my first Confession, I told the priest the situation at the start (he was a visiting priest). He seemed a tad startled by the situation, but heard my confession and absolved me. When I later spoke to my church’s catechetical co-ordinator, she assured me that my Confirmation was not voided, but I can’t help but worry that my reception of the sacrament was not valid. Bearing in mind that I did genuinely receive Confirmation in good faith and genuine intent, should I be concerned?

What hte priest and the catechetical coordinator told you is correct. Your confirmation’s validity would not have been affected by the fact that you had not received the sacrament of reconciliation prior to it, so you an rest easy in this matter.

It is true that, in many places in the Latin rite, individuals make their first reconciliation before being confirmed, but it is not an absolute necessity that they do so, as illustrated by the fact that in many Eastern Catholic churches, confirmation (or chrismation) is given to infants at the time they are baptized.

The reason that reconciliation often precedes confirmation in the Latin church is to ensure that the candidate is in a state of grace at the time he receives confirmation. Confirmation is one of the sacraments of the living, meaning that you need to be in a state of grace to receive it. Unlike baptism and reconciliation and the anointing of the sick, it does not restore you to the state of grace if you are not in it.

Thus the Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

To receive Confirmation one must be in a state of grace. One should receive the
sacrament of Penance in order to be cleansed for the gift of the Holy Spirit (CCC 1310).

But this requirement does not affect the validity of the sacrament. This is made clear in the Code of Canon Law, which states:

Can. 889 §1. Every baptized person not yet
confirmed and only such a person is capable of receiving confirmation.

§2. To receive confirmation licitly outside the
danger of death requires that a person who has the use of reason be suitably
instructed, properly disposed, and able to renew the baptismal promises.

The conditions named in §1 are those that the recipient must meet for the confirmation to be valid. He has to be baptized and not yet confirmed.

The conditions in §2 are those that are required for the sacrament to be licit (celebrated in conformity with the law). This is where the state of grace fits into the picture. It is one of the dispositions needed to receive the sacrament (indeed, it is the main disposition required), and so one must be in a state of grace to be suitably disposed to receive confirmation.

If you were not in a state of grace at the time of your confirmation then your confirmation would have been celebrated illicity (not in conformity with the law) but it would nonetheless be valid.

You therefore don’t need to be concerned about this matter and can set your mind at rest.

The sacraments are like Tonka trucks–they’re hard to break–and God made them that way because he knew he was entrusting them to fallen individuals who wouldn’t always perform them correctly, and so he suited them to our fallen condition. If the state of grace was necessary for the validity of confirmation then there would be endless scrupulosity about whether or not one was validly confirmed, based on one’s inability to remember whether one was in a state of grace at the time. The same thing goes for marriage and ordination. Consequently, God simply did not make the state of grace a requirement for these sacraments to be valid. One is morally obliged to receive them in a state of grace, but one is still validly confirmed, or married, or ordained, even if one was not in a state of grace.

Secret Projects Update

A reader writes:

How about an update on those secret projects? Is there anything you can tell us (your blog readers) about any of them? Are any close to being released? Are any in developmental purgatory without so much as a partial indulgence?

I bet you’ve had about a million similar questions from others but I figured I’d ask just in case mine might be the proverbial last straw that would get you talking.

I haven’t written about this lately since the last few times I have written, but here goes:

SECRET PROJECT #1 is basically on hold at the moment. The opening that appeared a few months back hasn’t panned out (yet), and so it’s still in a holding pattern.

SECRET PROJECT #2 is moving forward, but slowly.

SECRET PROJECT #3 is basically on hold, though sister projects (not by me) are moving forward and should be announced soon.

SECRET PROJECT #4 is in HOT DEVELOPMENT and has been CRUSHING THE BRAINS of myself and half the apologetics staff at Catholic Answers for the last few weeks (if you’ve tried phoning in with a question and haven’t gotten an answer, this is why). I anticipate a public announcement soon.

I can also announce

NON-SECRET PROJECT #1 (which is very small in comparison to the others): I have been commissioned by an apologetics group outside the United States to write a booklet on Mormonism. A U.S. edition is also likely. More soon.

A Soul In A Bottle

Back when JA.O published Three Days To Never: The Interview, one of the questions Tim Powers was asked was whether we’d have to wait another five years for his next novel.

He said, "I
hope not! No, no, definitely not."

And the man was as good as his word!

I just got his latest book, A Soul in a Bottle, and read it in one sitting!

Okay, if you want to be persnickety, it’s not a novel, it’s a novella, but that’s close enough for me, and it comes in a gorgeous hardbound edition with copious illustrations by well-known fantasy artist J. K. Potter (no relation to Harry Potter or J. K. Rowling–so far as I know!).

It’s a little hard to describe the book without giving away story elements that you’ll want to let unfold in front of you, but here’s how I described it in the entry for my aStore:

Powers’ latest. A mysterious woman. A secret sonnet. A dire warning. A
forbidden romance. A *big* decision.

Easy access to the Powersverse for
those who have never ventured into it.

It has all the elements you’d expect from Tim Powers’ work–a startling eye for realism and a real-world setting, mixed with elements of the fantastic. It has ghosts–or at least a ghost–a character whose death sets the plot in motion. And it has the usual thematic elements of alcohol, tobacco, and firearms (they have a whole government agency just to deal with Tim Powers novels!).

Despite what you might suspect, the title does not refer to a soul that is literally in a bottle. That’s a metaphor. What it refers to is something you’ll have to read the story to find out.

I don’t want to give too much away about the story–in fact, I’d advise you not to read the dust jacket or the publisher’s description–because the less you know going in, the more you’ll enjoy it as Powers starts weaving his spell.

I will say this, though: Like Powers’ works in general, it’s refreshingly free from the kind of crud that clutters up many novels. There’s no sex scenes or blood and gore in it, for example. Instead, he gives us a tale that does not preach but sets up and then pays off a profound moral issue, with a forceful (and interestingly theological) stinger at the end.

I suspect that if you sample Tim Powers’ Soul in a Bottle, you’ll want to taste his other works as well, so . . .

CHECK ‘EM OUT!

Blog Day Off

Need a blog day off today.