Ask A Catholic IV

[Jehoshua]

Well, according to my recollection of a kids' show I saw on EWTN, animals do have souls, but only humans have immortal souls, so I imagine official Catholic teaching is something similar to this.

You are correct. Animals have a material soul that ceases to exist when they die. Humans have a spiritual soul that continues to exist after death

 

[Jehoshua]

Well its one day (my time) till the (ecclesiastical) new year and for the americanisti amongst the Catholics of this forum the day where the new translation of the roman missal shall finally come into effect. It shall replace the incredibly deficient and rushed out translation that currently remains in use in America.

So to you I give you a belatedly early happy new (ecclesiastical) year, and my hope that you remember to say "an with your spirit" (et cum spirituo tuo)

-

Oh and if anyone has any questions that would be good too

 

[GhostWriter16]

Is it sinful for friends to gather together and shoot each other with weapons like these?

 

[Jehoshua]

That would depend on the intent. If the group of friends had no intent to maliciously cause physical harm to their fellows then there would be no problem. If an individual did intend maliciously to cause harm then he would be committing sin.

If the toy gun was of the kind that it would cause substantial harm in any case then your simply being stupid to shoot at friends with it, and knowingly shooting a friend in that knowledge that it would cause substantial harm would be sinful, although hopefully a toy gun wouldn't be of such a nature that it would cause substantial harm to the hypothetical living target.

 

[GhostWriter16]

That would depend on the intent. If the group of friends had no intent to maliciously cause physical harm to their fellows then there would be no problem. If an individual did intend maliciously to cause harm then he would be committing sin.

If the toy gun was of the kind that it would cause substantial harm in any case then your simply being stupid to shoot at friends with it, and knowingly shooting a friend in that knowledge that it would cause substantial harm would be sinful, although hopefully a toy gun wouldn't be of such a nature that it would cause substantial harm to the hypothetical living target.

They can cause pain or perhaps welts, but as long as you use eye protection (Which we do) there would not be any serious harm.

In which case I wouldn't think it would be a sin.

 

[berkut]

Whem people came with this versicle

Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property
Exodus 21:20-22

what do you say to then?

 

[Jehoshua]

The thing about scripture of course is that many things must be taken within the context of the period they were written, and furthermore another important thing is that it is erroneous to pick a small quotation and base an assertion from that one quotation. Scripture must be taken as a whole, and looked at within the light of the entire deposit of faith. So in regards to this quote from exodus, it of course relates directly to the period when slavery was a fact of life. We see as such that the quotation is a judicial statement in favour of moderation, and a statement that (compared to the pagan societies) slaves have rights and are human under the jurisprudence of the old covenant. Ergo the mosaic law was merciful to slaves and slaves were not so despised as elsewhere. (one fundamental distinction that is relevant to that is that between pagan and judaeo-christian culture, a difference was that the pagan culture looked down upon manual work, whereas such a disdain was absent in the judaeo-christian context)

Now moving forward to the christian context and the new covenant we find this moderation elaborated upon where St paul writes "For as many of you as have been baptized in Christ, have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek: there is neither bond nor free: there is neither male nor female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:27-28; cf. 1 Corinthians 12:13), asserting that before God all mankind slave or free is equal, there is religious equality in christianity between the master and the slave, there is no religious distinction between them as there was in the old roman religion. Thus the call for moderation and mercy in the old covenant finds a fullfillment in the religious equality of slave and free in christianity, the religion of the new covenant and fulfilment of old judaism. Indeed this language of fraternity is in particular contradiction to the cruelty and dehumanisation of slaves by the romans.

In addition to this I would like to point out to you from this principle that St. Paul draws no political conclusions. It was not his wish, as it was not in his power, to realize Christian religious equality amongst people temporally either by force or by revolt. Such revolutions in secular society are not effected of a sudden, christianisation does not happen in a flash! Christianity therefore accepts society as it is, and then taking it, influences it for its transformation through, and only through, individual souls in pursuit of a more just society in accord with the teachings of Christ. In affect christianity, particularly early christianity acted not directly to abolish slavery, but acted as if slavery did not exist, preparing remotely for the liberation of society through its works of charity and mercy, through religious example and through the constant assertion that mankind is equal. This finding its fulfilment in later eras as slavery slowly dissapeared in christendom. Thus to condemn christianity as such for ignoring the horror of slavery is erroneous, and is to blame it for not releasing a violent revolution against the old order which would of perhaps caused much more harm than good. Furthermore it is not as if the venerable fathers of the Church never even thought of its abolition, Gregory of Nyssa is most enthusiastic in his reprobation of slavery and John Chrysostom gives us an image of a society without slaves. Ergo to sum up christianity reforms society as it is given towards its religious vision.

-

Now for reasons of history I will move on and referance later eras. Here we see over time (as I mentioned before) that slavery in christian lands decreased as the land became more christian thus showcasing the christianisation of society. The tyrannical system of slavery evident in Rome replaced with serfdom, where serfs had all personal rights asserted but were bound to specific landholdings and from there serfdom in time dissapeared enduring longer in countries where protestantism prevailed. After this time thanks to wars with with islamic states slavery experienced a brief revival (although the proportion of slaves was very much a small proportion of the population in those countries) in mediterranean lands before the second and greater revival in the new world. This was particularly condemned by the Catholic Church where unfortunately writers forget that in 1462, Pius II declared slavery to be "a great crime" (magnum scelus); that, in 1537, Paul III forbade the enslavement of the native americans; that Urban VIII forbade slavery in 1639, and Benedict XIV in 1741; that Pius VII demanded of the Congress of Vienna, in 1815, the suppression of the slave trade and Gregory XVI condemned it in 1839; that, in the Bull of Canonization of the Jesuit Peter Claver, one of the most illustrious adversaries of slavery, Pius IX branded the "supreme villainy" (summum nefas) of the slave traders. This revival was therefore (in the context of its eradication through christianisation over time in europe) effectively a retrograde act that existed much to the chagrin of the Church. This revival reversed for a time the results of the christianisation of society and the effective end of slavery in christian lands. Fortunately however we find once more that slavery in the new world found its exit, in part due to the exhortations of the Catholic Church alongside the efforts of other men of goodwill and upright morality who condemned it and worked for the sanctification and moralisation of society according to the religious understanding of the equality of mankind. It is no accident therefore that slavery first dissapeared in lands where christianity generally (and in particular Catholic christianity) prevailed.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

You could also point out that Ephesians 6:9 forbids Christian masters from even threatening their servants, much less actually resorting to physical violence.

I could have sworn I remembered there also being a verse which insisted that Christian masters should pay their bond servants a fair wage as if they were free men, but I can't seem to find it.

 

[Jehoshua]

indeed I could! I think the verse you are forgetting may be Colossians 4:1

The relevant quote being: Masters, provide your slaves (slaves sometimes also translated as servants) with what is right and just, knowing that you also have a Master in heaven

 

[Smellincoffee]

Are there any universal ways to celebrate Advent inside the Catholic church which do not vary on the local culture?

 

[Jehoshua]

Are there any universal ways to celebrate Advent inside the Catholic church which do not vary on the local culture?

going to mass, and since, Advent is a penitential period, although one also tinged with an anticipatory joy, fasting.

 

[WWTVICTOR]

How often do you go to church for a mass? How did you get in touch with Catholicism? How does Catholicism affect your daily life?

 

[Jehoshua]

I go to mass as often as is possible. So if I am in the CBD of my city on weekdays I will usually make time to go to mass at the cathedral there. In addition to that of course I go to mass unless there is some overwhelming impediment (like distance or serious illness) preventing attendance on days of obligation (major feast days, sundays and so forth.)

How did I get in touch with Catholicism. Well I am a cradle Catholic, but as with anyone that doesn't automaticlly make one a practicing believer, there are plenty of cultural Catholics particularly in the west who are Catholic in name only. Really I got in touch gradually, I became the CFC catholic apologist you know today over time. Its sort of hard to describe how that gradual deepening of faith occured (especially since Im not about to go divulging my life story ), but naturally circumstance and interior reflection helped along with the process along with the Holy Spirit of course. Irrespective of the manner though it was simply apart of the ever increasing conversion to Christ that all christians are supposed to engage in.

How does Catholicism affect my daily life. Well Catholicism is not really some little thing you do on the side, it should be a way of life. So it affects and informs everything I do. So for example the moral and social teachings of the Church inform my political views and direct the way i live my life day to day. I also pray and make sure to engage in introspection as well, to cultivate the interior spiritual life and to examine my own state of being and conscience (and go to confession) since as is only natural since humanity is inclined to err and do evil things, I fall short! In addition, there are devotions, sacramentals, catholic music, the mass and of course since Catholicism is (when practiced) a very communal religion, I am involved with various communal groups as well and keep in touch with the affairs of the local and global Church. Oh and I spend a disproportionate amount of my time doing apologetics (although less than I used too), researching the faith and generally evangelising as the opportunity allows.

 

[GhostWriter16]

How does the Church deal with priests who consistently commit mortal sin?

And do priests who repent after committing a very serious sin (Let's just say the thing doesn't violate secular law) temporarily lose the right to preach?

 

[Jehoshua]

How does the Church deal with priests who consistently commit mortal sin?

And do priests who repent after committing a very serious sin (Let's just say the thing doesn't violate secular law) temporarily lose the right to preach?

It deals with them the same way it deals with lay people who commit mortal sin, the sacrament of confession. If that mortal sin however violates the law however (canon and secular) then that priest depending on the nature of the crime may be relieved of public duty, laicised or excommunicated.

As to preaching, if they repent after some serious sin they are not deprived of preaching. Yes you can be barred from teaching (Like Hans Kung) but if you have reconciled yourself to the Church and corrected your error then there is no reason why you should not preach. Just an aside though, your question seem to veer towards the donatist heresyin direction

 

[GhostWriter16]

I suppose you know my next question: What is the donatist heresy?

Secondly, there is Biblical evidence that those who commit certain sins shouldn't preach, even if repentant, from your least favorite chapter (The one that also affirms sola scriptura later on)

1 Here is a trustworthy saying: Whoever aspires to be an overseer desires a noble task. 2 Now the overseer is to be above reproach, faithful to his wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. 4 He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him, and he must do so in a manner worthy of full[a] respect. 5 (If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God’s church?) 6 He must not be a recent convert, or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil. 7 He must also have a good reputation with outsiders, so that he will not fall into disgrace and into the devil’s trap.
8 In the same way, deacons are to be worthy of respect, sincere, not indulging in much wine, and not pursuing dishonest gain. 9 They must keep hold of the deep truths of the faith with a clear conscience. 10 They must first be tested; and then if there is nothing against them, let them serve as deacons.

11 In the same way, the women[c] are to be worthy of respect, not malicious talkers but temperate and trustworthy in everything.

12 A deacon must be faithful to his wife and must manage his children and his household well. 13 Those who have served well gain an excellent standing and great assurance in their faith in Christ Jesus.

Reasons for Paul’s Instructions

14 Although I hope to come to you soon, I am writing you these instructions so that, 15 if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth. 16 Beyond all question, the mystery from which true godliness springs is great:
He appeared in the flesh,
was vindicated by the Spirit,[d]
was seen by angels,
was preached among the nations,
was believed on in the world,
was taken up in glory.

The deacon (I know that's an office lower than priest, but it stands to reason you can't be priest if you can't be deacon) must be faithful to his wife. That seems to exclude adulterers by default. In addition to those who habitually sin in the areas listed. Does Catholicism follow this, interpret it in some other way, or ignore it?

 

[GenMarshall]

Is it normal that, when I am at the bottom and suffering from long term unemployment, that I am constantly asking God for strength to function each day without going insane? Eventhough I turned my back on him years ago.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

A Catholic would probably disagree, but Donatism was probably the least heretical school of thought to be officially denounced as heresy. Dontanists were rigorists who agreed with the creed and all then established doctrine completely, but opposed the authority of baptized Christians who under pagan rulers had betrayed the church, denied Christ, and turned over their scriptures (plus sometimes their supposed brothers in Christ) to be publicly burned. These traditores had lost their positions in the church if not been excommunicated altogether, but were given their authority back by Emperor Constantine. While some Christians were coming to see the emperor as the leader of the Christian Church, the Donatists viewed him as a very evil man (perhaps Anti-Christ) intent on corrupting the bride of Christ. Augustine of Hippo strongly opposed the Donatists, and strongly supported government actions like decapitating their leaders and persecuting them in general.

The issue here was probably more political than spiritual. A lot of people had been baptized by traditores, many of whom did not know it, and would not be considered true Christians by the Donatists. Sorting out what baptisms were valid would have been a major hassle and slowed the growth of the church. Christianity was just going mainstream and adjusting to incorporate far larger congregations of former pagans, including those attracted by the faith's new prestige or the celebration of recently Christianized pagan holidays. Donatists opposed this, insisting that the faith should remain a much smaller community of saints seperate from the corruption of the world. They were a major hindrance to the stability of the new social order. Augustine wanted the power of the state to back up the church, whereas Donatists wanted to keep church and state strictly seperate and considered worldly powers enemies to God.

As discussed in one of the Ask a Theologian Threads, the Donatist resolve was only strengthened by persecution. They took verses like Matthew 5:11 very seriously, and taught what could be considered the opposite of the prosperity gospel. Like some modern Pentecostals teach that speaking in tongues is the only sign that one is a true christian, some Donatists taught that the only sign of a true christian is suffering persecution. They became few but fanatical, to the point that they went out of their way to seek persecution. There were accounts of Donatist highway men that would attack travelers and then hand over their weapons, preach, and demand to be martyred; these comically hyperbolic tales were almost certainly fictitious though.

 

[timtofly]

My response to Timtofly

I have decided to spoiler the whole thing to avoid the ever irritating phenomenon of a text wall for those who do not want to spend their time observing this debate of ours. I will like to say though that I am dissapointed with him over his attempts to divert the argument onto areas of Catholic theology. It would be much better if he actually responds to my points instead of going on tangents in a bid to avoid the question. Oh and it would be even better for him to use the bible to support a number of his assertions sola scriptura, a foundational protestant doctrine clearly would imply that he would have scripture to support his statements.

If the Catholic church was founded on a man, was Peter the rejected cornerstone?

From your "debate", it seems that obvously the Word by your definition it not.

You keep trouncing the Scriptures like it was some football to be kicked around. Do you not agree that the Bible is the Word of God? Is it just some book the Jews and Catholics put together for the fun of it?

I keep saying that the church is a local body of believers who filled with the Spirit read and study the Bible and practice Godliness. Yet every verse I give that points to the Scriptures/Word as the embodiment of a physical God on earth you just

Is today's Catholicism that much removed from the Apostles?

 

[_random_]

Was that [prohibitions against drinking blood] only in reaction to the imbibing of blood in Pagan rituals, or does it carry deeper significance relevant to the present?

I asked this in the evangelical thread and never got an answer. Thought I'd try it out here.