Random Questions

It seems students in the middle of exams don't always have religious questions to ask. These are a few of the random questions we've received...

1. What is the square root of PI? ~1.7725
2. What is 365 x 7? 2555
3. What is the chemical formula for table salt? NaCl

The ones in bold we got right - GO TEAM!

Do Catholics believe in Creationism or Evolution?

I'm not sure my response was the best one for this, for I replied that I believed in creative evolution. I didn't get much of a chance to explain after that, as he seemed shocked and walked away.

Basically, the Catholic Church says that all of creation is being held into being by a Creator God. God chose to create the entire universe out of nothing, set all the physical laws into place, is intimately connected with the continuation of creation at every moment and will choose at one point in the future to bring it all to a close.

Science is the study of how creation works, all the laws which God has put into place to make the universe and ordered and non-chaotic place. Evolution is the theory for how our universe went from a primordial (life-less) soup to a place that is host to a world teeming with such diverse forms of life. I've not heard of another scientific theory that explains how this change has come about and until I do I have no qualms with supporting it.

So there are two questions you can ask, "how does creation work?" and "what is the purpose of creation?" Science answers the first and religion the second. They don't contradict because they ask different questions. The only time they appear to contradict is when one field tries to answer the wrong question. When science tries to answer questions on the purpose of creation or when religion tries to answer questions on the how of creation, then you run into problems.

The apparent contradiction comes about from just this problem, where both sides stepped outside of their field of expertise. Some scientists have said that evolution removes the need for a creator, when that is simply not the case. To say that is like saying that because you understand art theory and know all the techniques used in creating a painting there is no need for a painter.

Some religions have also made the same mistake when they tried to turn the Bible into a science textbook. The Bible is the story of salvation and while it is possible that it contains scientific truth, that is not it's primary purpose nor should it be used that way. The purpose of Genesis is to let us know that God created everything out of nothing and to tell us why (so that all of creation may be in union with God and share in divine love).

Properly understood though they build upon each other and enlighten the other. As JPII said, "Science can purify religion from error and superstition. Religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes"

Further resources to learn more about the relationship between the Catholic Church and Science can be found at these websites:

• Can One Accept Both Catholicism and Neo-Darwinian Evolution?
• The Catholic Laboratory
• How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization

What's wrong with Euthanasia

The problem with euthanasia is that it sends a message that some lives are worth living and others are not and that it is up to man to decide which. Once you say that person A can be killed because condition X makes his life not worth living, you've allowed person B to be killed because of Y. By making the value of a life contingent on something you devalue all life. It's not just a slippery slope, but a jump off a cliff.

Furthermore, by telling someone that suicide is an option what are you telling them? It says that the loneliness and despair they feel is all there is. There is no one who loves them, no one who cares. You are in effect telling that person that their life is unwanted, that they are useless consumers who should be killed for the convienence of others. I can't think of a more hateful thing than to say "yes, you're right, you're life isn't worth living."

Additional comment from a friend:

Something to add would be how difficult it can be to determine a person's true level of cognitive impairment, which seems to be a big factor in determining whether or not a person can CHOOSE whether or not they want to die (otherwise, it falls on a family member I suppose...). This is pretty important when you consider how many individuals who are euthanized have some type of cognitive deficit.

Working with communication disorders, it's really easy to see how something as simple as a hearing loss can exacerbate a person's state of confusion. Many patient's just try to fake like they understand what you're saying or they are so demented that they really don't have the ability to tell you what's wrong with their hearing. Either way, bad hearing can make a person's cognitive status appear MUCH worse than it actually is.

Another point to take into account is that once someone has it in their mind that "hey, this person's pretty demented," it can make it VERY difficult to change their mind. One of my previous supervisors told me about how there was a woman on the Alzheimer's ward at her nursing home that really wasn't that demented and really didn't NEED to be there and didn't want to be there. There were one or two higher staff members there that said the woman was very demented and needed to be on the Alzheimer's ward. From the sounds of it, one of the staff members just had it in her mind that the lady was demented and not much could be said to change her mind. Eventually it WAS determined that the lady really was pretty with it and was taken off the ward.

The point I'm trying to make is that you can't always tell how cognitively impaired someone is just by looking at them or having a conversation with them, and many people in nursing homes could be taken advantage of due to this. While we'd like to believe that there's always going to be a nice clean procedure in determing whether or not someone should be euthanized, it won't always be. In the end, regardless of whether or not someone believes euthanasia is equivalent to murder, people WILL be murdered because there are going to be times when proper procedures won't be always be made.

Some other resources:

• Priests for Life
• A nurse's view of how the vulnerable are targeted.
• I'm Hungry, I want Food, by John C. Wright
• No one wants to talk about it?, by John C. Wright
• "The Flag of the World," Orthodoxy, by Chesterton (This addresses the difference between suicide and martyrdom - but anything Chesterton is worth reading if only for the dose of logic).
  

What happens to the pope's ring after he dies?

On our last trip we had a guy ask us about what happens to the pope's ring after he dies. Another person in the group he was with said that it was ground into a powder and buried with the pope, at least according to Angels and Demons. Unfortunately being in a Dan Brown book almost guarantees that the fact is either widely exaggerated or flat out wrong.

However in this case it appears to be true. The pope's ring (otherwise called the Fisherman's Ring) was used in past centuries to seal papal documents. Upon the death of the pope it is destroyed to prevent forgeries. The conclave (or the cardinals who elect the new pope) are given the responsibility of destroying the ring

13. In one of the Congregations immediately following, the Cardinals, on the basis of a prearranged agenda, shall take the more urgent decisions regarding the beginning of the election. In other words:
g) they shall arrange for the destruction of the Fisherman's Ring and of the lead seal with which Apostolic Letters are despatched; (Universi Dominici Gregis)

This document doesn't specifically say how the ring is destroyed, but there are many sites that suggest that it's face is marred by scratching it and then it is crushed with a silver hammer. The pieces are then buried with the pope along with other symbols of his office.

I can't find an online resource to verify this, but this blog details the ceremony surrounding the pope's death based on the book "The Church Visible: The Ceremonial Life and Protocol of the Roman Catholic Church" by James-Charles Noonan, Jr.

Also, Catholic Answers has an Ask an Apologist thread on the topic, unfortunately the link they give is now out of date.

What happened to Limbo?

Q - I heard in the news that the Pope has changed church teaching and now says that there is no Limbo, is this true?

A - Although several theologians postulated it as a possible explanation for unbaptized infants, Limbo was never officially taught by the Church. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church

As regards children who have died without baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved and Jesus’ tenderness toward children, which caused him to say, "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them," allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy baptism. (CCC 1261)

For further reading:

• Aggie Catholic has a good post on whether or not Limbo is a doctrine and why it matters if it exists or not.
  
• "Out on a Limbo" (2001) Karl Keeting
  

Do Catholics worship the Saints?

In response to a comment that Catholics worship Mary I gave the following answer.

The short answer is no ;-) Catholics only worship the Trinity.

Catholics believe that God is Love and because of that we believe that God is a trinity. The Father pours himself out in love and this outpouring of his love is so real and perfect that it is another person, the Son. The Son gives himself completely back to the Father in love, so real and perfect that the Love between them becomes yet a third person, the Holy Spirit. We believe that this is God and we are called to share in his divine life, to have his life poured out in us and to be images of his love to the world. We believe that this happens in the Church, specifically in the Eucharist, the bread and wine that, when consecrated by a priest, becomes the very life of God. When we partake in the Eucharist we offer worship to God by offering him our lives and receiving his Life in return.

How do the saints and such come in you ask? Well, for that I'll need to explain some of the Catholic thinking...

Since God is complete in his Love he doesn't need creation, yet because God is love He desires to share his love onto others. Much like a man in love desires the whole world to know of it so God desires for us to share in his inner life of Love. Because of this we believe that creation is the first way in which God reveals himself to us, it's a physical sign or thing that makes the invisible God in some way visible, or a sacrament. We believe that we are meant to share in the inner life of God, by giving ourselves totally to God and receiving him totally in return and to participate in his work of creation by bringing His image into the world. We believe that we are meant to be sacraments (making elements of the invisible God visible through our lives).

Now, because we believe that God wants us to love him in return we believe that he gave us free will. You can't force someone to love you, so God loves us so much that he allows us to choose NOT to love him. We stand before the two trees, the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (Satan) and the Tree of Life (Jesus) and we are asked to choose. When we choose Satan's tree we don't bring the image of God into the world, but the image of Satan, which brings disorder, disunity/loneliness, darkness and death into the world (instead of God's order, love, light and life).

We believe that our first parents choose to reject God. God knew this would happen, but he allowed it to show the depths of his Love for us. But this was only the beginning of the process, he had a plan and in the fullness of time the Son stepped into creation. Jesus is the ultimate sacrament as The Image revealing the inner heart of God (which is love). We believe that Jesus was fully God and fully Man and because of this we believe that the two *most* important things he did were his crucifixion and resurrection.

We believe that In the crucifixion, because he had a human body, he really did die, and by doing so showed us the kind of love God is (no greater love is there than to lay down your life for a friend). Because He is God the whole trinity is there in the crucifixion. This is the outpouring of the life of God through Jesus back into creation, this is how he has chosen to pour this beautiful Trinitarian life into creation so we can receive in into ourselves. And his resurrection is important because in his Body he took all our brokenness and failures and buried it with him in death, and when he's resurrected all our brokenness is done away with.

We believe that we too, when we are incorporated into him, will be recreated in him without all our brokenness, in the new creation at the end of time. However, creation isn't finished yet; it is still being created. We are meant to, in this life, choose to receive God's life into us and begin the process of re-creation that will be finished at the end of time with the resurrection of our bodies. We believe that this is accomplished through the Church and the Sacraments, particularly in the Eucharist as I mentioned above.

There are those in this life who do an exceptional job of being open to the life of God pouring out into them and thus bring the image of God into the world. We look up to these people as examples of how we can also bring the image of Jesus into the world (since not everyone is called to be a 1st century carpenter). We honor them as roll models and older siblings who have finished the race; although someone might begin to worship a roll model, having a roll model doesn't automatically mean you are worshiping that person. Someone may worship a dog, but having a dog doesn't mean you are worshiping it...now cats, on the other hand are jealous gods...

Furthermore, because we believe that God is life and unity, we believe that those who accept God's life are united to us in a real way as the Body of Christ. Since we believe that our souls do not die; those who fall asleep with Christ are not separated from his Body, but still united with us in a very real way. We believe that love does not end with death (since God is love and he did not create death) and thus they continue to love their brothers and sisters in Christ and continue to support us with their prayers. Because we believe this we believe that we can continue to ask them to pray for us as we would here in this life. This is also not worship, anymore than asking your friend or sister to pray for you is worshiping them.

I'm sorry for the length, but I hope this has cleared some things up; it's an oft misunderstanding that Catholics worship the saints.

A common tactic dissolved

I think one of the most common "arguments" we're going to get here is dismissal by relativism. For example:

• "You can't impose your morals on others"
• "That is what you believe, but other beliefs are just as valid"
• "You shouldn't legislate your morality"
• "We have to be tolerant of other's beliefs"
  

Patrick Madrid recently gave a talk on this subject and offers some great advice on how to break this apart and help those who hold this self-contradictory view see the truth.

Is Getting Drunk a Mortal Sin

At our last meeting we decided to address the most common question asked at A&M and brainstormed some responses. This post is the result.

Define the Question:

The first suggestion was to make sure you understood the question being asked. Although this sounds like a very simple question, it could have several different meanings...

What does the person mean by "mortal sin"?

A lot of people throw out the term "mortal sin" around without any idea what it means. For most people it's a vague notion of something very bad that you should never, ever do, but what is mortal sin exactly?

We are called to be in a relationship with God and when we sin we are choosing a lesser perceived good over that ultimate good. When you flick someone off in traffic, you're choosing a perceived good (letting that jerk know what a horrid driver he is) over the greater good (loving one's neighbor as yourself).

Mortal sin is rejection of that relationship completely; turning your back after spitting in his face. It severs the relationship with God when we commit a sufficiently grave act with full knowledge and consent of the will.

Based on this the question becomes not, "how much can I drink before it's sufficently bad" but, "am I choosing to turn away from doing God's will?"

At this point we asked what was meant by getting drunk.

Were they talking about having one too many drinks or purposefully going out and getting trashed?

Drinking in and of itself is not sinful, Jesus himself made and drank the finest wine. Drinking in excess, however, can be unhealthy and even lead to serious medical problems. Also, it can inhibit your ability to discern right from wrong, are you drinking to not be responsible for the actions you take?

No one can analyze another's heart (which is why we're called not to judge), but we can each look into our own actions and consider whether an act is leading us closer or further from God.

This is as far as we got in the meeting, if you are interested in the ethics behind drinking (with plenty of biblical sources) check out the answer given by A&M.