Catholic Q & A E-Book

John Dietzen

• Herausgeber: WS
• Kategorie: Religion und Spiritualität
• Sprache: Englisch

Seitenzahl: 1070

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2021

Beschreibung

In this question and answer compendium, topics encompassing many aspects of Catholic religious, practical, and moral life are discussed, including the Bible, the Mass and sacraments, divorce and remarriage, saints, attitudes toward other religions, and end of life issues. Since shortly after Vatican Council II, Father John J. Dietzen has been addressing questions about Catholicism in his weekly columns; these authoritative, comprehensive, and up to date answers about Catholic belief and life will inform and challenge practicing and lapsed Catholics, curious Christians, and others who wish to learn more about the Roman Catholic faith. Written in an engaging and warm pastoral style, this comprehensive reference avoids tedium while conveying concise information and covers many situations that are not addressed in the traditional Catechism. Areas where church teaching is silent are explored, and official church positions are explained in plain language. Hundreds of questions are drawn from years of ministry and counseling, while new queries have been added to address current trends and issues.

Leseprobe

CATHOLIC PRESS ASSOCIATION

FIRST PLACE

Popular Presentation of the Catholic Faith

Catholic Q & A[The New Question Box]

by Father John J. Dietzen,

wins first place.

There seems to be nothing about the faith that Father Dietzen does not treat somewhere in this compellingly readable book. A well laid out question-and-answer form, with questions divided into subject categories, makes this a book one can dip into or (very tempting!) read from cover to cover.

Father Dietzen combines impressive knowledge with deep pastoral sensitivity. Long may he and his writing continue to inform and inspire seekers about the faith.

Support your local bookstore or order directly from the publisher at

www.CrossroadPublishing.com

To request a catalog or inquire about quantity orders, please e-mail

[email protected]

From The New Question Box

The Crossroad Publishing Company

Copyright © 1997, 2002 by John J. Dietzen, M.A., S.T.L.

Material in this book includes material copyrighted under the title The New Question Box: Catholic Life in a New Century. The materials compiled in this book are taken from articles owned and copyrighted by Catholic News Service.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the written permission of The Crossroad Publishing Company.

Book design by Ann Aspell

Printed in the United States of America.

First printing of the Crossroad edition 2005

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publications data is available.

ISBN 0-8245-2309-1

eISBN 9780824503468

This printing March 2016

This book is dedicated with affection and gratitude to my family, those who have always been and those who have become my family through the years, and to the thousands of readers whose questions, insights and searching faith are a continuing source of admiration and inspiration.

CONTENTS

Note on the General Instruction of the Roman Missal

Preface

Introduction

Chapter 1 THE BIBLE

Scripture in the church / norm of faith / difference in Bibles / Vulgate Bible / Gospels / literary forms / translations / composition / interpretation / authors / apocryphal books / Adam and Eve / polygenism / Big Bang theory of creation / age of human race / Israel / Yahweh / Jewish life and law/ Moses / Abraham / Noah / God, before Creation / theology and science / virginity of Mary / Jesus / Christ’s sufferings / resurrection / “beloved disciple”/ evolution / Armageddon / fundamentalism / gift of tongues / end of world / millennium.

Chapter 2 THE CHURCH

The People of God / “one, true church” / magisterium / Vatican Council II / priests / popes / infallibility / married converts ordained / Roman collar / sexual orientation and ordination / canon law / precepts of the church / joining the church / leaving the church / returning to church after absence / salvation outside of church / celibacy / women’s role in the church / past views on women / religious communities / permanent deacons / lay movements / parishes / converts / theologians / theology and dogma / vocations / Christian creeds / Didache / excommunication / Baltimore Catechism / Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Chapter 3 THE MASS

Eucharist / multicultural liturgies / Saturday Mass / Sunday Mass / Holy Day Mass / televised Mass / Mass in the home / Tridentine Mass / Latin Mass / Masses for the deceased / Mass stipend and intentions / sabbath day / liturgical music / priest as presider / tabernacle/ bells / altar stones / candles/ incense / chalice / Real Presence / posture at Mass / women in ministry / homilies / translations of the Mass / language of the Mass in history / transubstantiation / sign of peace / crossed arms at Communion / epiklesis / doxology,.

Chapter 4 HOLY COMMUNION

Communion under both species / belief in Real Presence / Communion in the hand/ Communion on the tongue / sign and symbol / reverence of outstretched hands / intinction / bread for the Eucharist / eucharistic ministers / allergies prevent Communion / AIDS from the cup / Communion fast / frequency of reception / first Communion before confession / ministering holy Communion / Communion after remarriage / Easter duty / Communion for mentally handicapped / Communion for Alzheimer’s patients / Communion for infants / Communion for semi-comatose / spiritual communion / Communion for sick.

Chapter 5 BAPTISM AND CONFIRMATION

Qualifications for godparents / Orthodox godparents / Protestant godparents / responsibilities of godparents / delaying baptism / churching of women / place for baptism / baptism by immersion / baptism without permission / parents’ responsibility / validity of Protestant baptism / unbaptized children / children of unwed mothers / limbo / Confirmation sponsors / Confirmation name / changing sponsors / supplying ceremonies.

Chapter 6 MARRIAGE AND FAMILY LIVING

Marriage vows / purposes of marriage / permanence of marriage / theology of marriage / marriage as sacrament / banns / preparation for marriage / premarital sex / cohabitation / interfaith marriage / promises in interfaith marriage / place for marriage ceremony / interracial marriage / common-law marriage / children marry out of the faith / Protestant marriages valid / marriage in heaven / unmarried and pregnant / Catholic marriage in Protestant church / dispensation from form / physical abuse in marriage / Natural Family Planning / birth control / onanism / sterilization / sterility / marriage of cousins / polygamy and church law / children and the Mass / responsibilities of parents / children and cults / homosexual children / impotence / sanatio in radice.

Chapter 7 DIVORCE, ANNULMENT, REMARRIAGE

Marriage regulations / Pauline Privilege / excommunication / sacraments after divorce / lack of form / “Catholic divorce” / sacraments after remarriage / remarriage after divorce / marriage cases, procedures / Roman Rota / annulments / annulment cases / children in annulment / counseling after annulment / divorce and the sixth commandment / Communion after divorce.

Chapter 8 RIGHT AND WRONG

Formation of conscience / moral decision-making / degrees of sin / divine punishment / forgiveness / Ten Commandments / consistent ethic of life / abortion / abortion and excommunication / post-abortion counseling / embryo / health care decisions / mother or baby? / returning to sacraments after abortion / juries / Sunday observance / priests and politics / fast and abstinence / conscientious objection / death penalty / gossip / cloning / alcohol / obscenity / Catholic social doctrine / Masonic order / school policies for pregnant students / transsexual surgery / masturbation / vasectomy / maturing heterosexually / usury

Chapter 9 PENANCE AND ANOINTING OF THE SICK

Private confession / perfect contrition / penance after mortal sin / penance: prayer or action / Easter duty / frequency of confession / penitential rite in Mass / integral confession / privacy in confession / rites of penance / scrupulosity / confession without serious sin / children and confession / age for serious sin / generic confession / communal penance / general absolution / confession of aged / inability to confess / fear of confession / confession after abortion / language problem in confession / anointing of the sick / viaticum / ministry to the sick

Chapter 10 ECUMENISM

Belief / “Roman Catholic” / salvation / Catholic participation in Protestant services / Protestant participation in Catholic services / Communion in a Protestant church / Communion to non-Catholics / interfaith marriage / Anglican, Roman priests / Catholic-Anglican agreement / Catholic-Lutheran agreement / Orthodox intercommunion / number of sacraments / World Council of Churches / “heretics” / Book of Common Worship / Protestant religious orders / Hanukkah / women’s ordination / use of Catholic churches / Masses for non-Catholics / Rotary Club / Muslims / Rosicrucians / Mormon baptism of the dead.

Chapter 11 PRAYER AND DEVOTIONS

Do prayers affect God? / answered prayers / devotion or superstition? / spiritual growth / Stations of the Cross / Magnificat / novenas / first Fridays / holy water / candles / palms / rosary / Advent customs / Cursillo / Charismatics / Focolare / rapture in prayer / indulgences / guardian angels / Benediction / blessed articles / praying for deceased.

Chapter 12 SAINTS

Mary in Catholic devotion / Mary’s birthplace / tomb of Mary? / Immaculate Conception / Assumption / rotation of feasts / prayers to saints / statues / apparitions / private revelations / Fatima / Guadalupe / Garabandal / Necedah / Bayside / veneration of relics / communion of saints / St. Gerard / St. Patrick / feast of All Saints / American saints.

Chapter 13 DEATH AND BURIAL

Fear of eternity / prayers for the dead / cremation / donation of body after death / organ and tissue donations / funeral services for non-Catholics / funeral Masses / burial sites / wakes / funeral liturgy after miscarriage / suicide / Catholic burial after suicide / passive euthanasia / living wills and power of attorney / flags on caskets / soul after death / deceased babies.

Chapter 14 ETCETERA

Does God exist? / understanding heaven, hell, purgatory / imprimaturs / Holy Trinity / Easter / Easter vigil / Lent / Sacred Triduum / Holy Week / ashes / B.C. and A. D. / Gregorian calendar / crucifix / Knights of Columbus / flags in church / astrology / Abraham Lincoln / humanism / Ku Klux Klan / Shroud of Turin / diabolical possession / devil worship / chain letters / evil / reincarnation / extra-terrestrial life / healing on television / Halloween / programs for volunteers / giving to panhandlers / final judgment / purgatory and prayers for the dead / index of forbidden books / suffering / worry / dreams / parousia / miracles / temptation / kingdom of God / Santa Claus / suicide bombers.

Index

NOTE ON THE GENERAL INSTRUCTIONOF THE ROMAN MISSAL

The recently completed revision of the Roman Missal, including the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM), is now in effect for the Universal Latin church. The official English translation of the new missal, including the GIRM, was issued in 2003 by the Secretariat for the Liturgy of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. GIRM references in this volume follow the translation.

PREFACE

The question column from which this book is compiled began more than thirty years ago, in the late 1960s, when the church was barely setting out on the journey of renewal mandated by the bishops of the Second Vatican Council. Its purpose was to assist Catholic people — most of whom had little knowledge of the concerns, processes, hopes, vision, leadership, and conclusions that the bishops shared in the remarkable years of that council — to assimilate what had happened there.

Decisions the bishops reached about the life and direction of the church in the modern world, and the practical consequences of those decisions, needed to be viewed thoughtfully in light of the church’s experience through Christian history and its authentic theological traditions. The column, and later the several editions of The New Question Box, were attempts to make that happen.

That need still exists, but it has changed. People of varying temperaments and background view change, especially change in something as deeply meaningful as their faith, in different ways. Some deal with it more easily than others. Some see the Spirit moving us in ways others would reject.

From my pastoral work, and from the wide range of correspondence I receive from around the country, two things are clear. First, at the opening of the Council, Pope John XXIII explained that its purpose would be not to change Catholic doctrine, but to find better, more human and effective ways of proposing it to people. That work of adapting the church’s method of living and evangelizing in a way most likely to influence the modern world is even now barely underway. And second, most Catholics are more knowledgeable and discriminating than they were 35 years ago. They see their faith not only as institutional, but more as a relationship with God, with Jesus Christ.

Perhaps one question and response in this book expresses well two possible trends. The writer complains that I too often do not give simple yes or no answers that “most of us poor Catholics can understand and follow.” That is one way to look at Catholic life.

However, in my experience, most Catholics are not all that “poor.” Fifty years ago, in the seminary, I realized that any doctrine or teaching is lifeless until I have asked myself the question, what does this mean for me? How should my life be affected because of it?

A huge number of Catholics today feel somewhat the same. Thirty years ago, the principal topics in my mail concerned marriage, divorce and remarriage. Today the predominant subject is holy Scripture. What are its meanings? How can they lead us to a deeper knowledge and relationship with Jesus? Teachings tend to be lifeless and ineffective until one can understand and relate to them personally, and envision how these realities will positively affect friendship with Jesus Christ, which so many Catholics and other Christians increasingly desire. They know that no friendship, with God or anyone else, grows without patience, sincere pursuit of greater understanding and knowledge, prayer, genuine care for the other, and continual reflection.

All this cannot be said, of course, in every column, or on every page of this book. But the purpose of both is to assist and support readers in this pursuit, and to recognize how Catholic life, in all its living expressions of worship, faith and service, can enhance that kind of intimacy with God.

This latest edition will, I hope, make easier a joyful, dedicated living of our faith in that same spirit. It is therefore written from a pastoral viewpoint, responding to some large and small questions facing the church and the whole People of God today. In brief, I have tried to assist and encourage a frame of mind in which Catholic Christians can function with fidelity to the teachings of the church and to Godgiven intelligence, common sense and faith, and with confidence that any risks are taken in the security of the enduring love of a faithful God.

While repetitions are avoided as much as possible, they are sometimes necessary to give proper context to specific subjects. I ask the readers’ indulgence when that occurs. Where necessary, historical background on questions of conscience, belief and practice has been presented to deepen understanding of how and why the church reached the positions it assumes today.

I am grateful to the many diocesan newspaper editors who have carried my column through the years; to the thousands of readers whose questions and faith have been an inspiration and encouragement, and to the bishops, priests, religious and lay people around the country whose wisdom and advice are a constant help and support. My gratitude to you all.

—John J. Dietzen

Peoria, Illinois

2005

INTRODUCTION

For more than a quarter of a century, Father John J. Dietzen of the Diocese of Peoria has been the foremost question and answer columnist in the Catholic press in the United States.

Ordained in 1954, he has served his central Illinois diocese as director of the Office of Family Life, an editor of the diocesan newspaper, The Catholic Post, officer and board member of the Catholic Press Association, chairman of the Respect Life Board, and member of the Catholics for Life department of the Catholic Conference of Illinois. A teacher, lecturer, retreat master and participant in ecumenical dialogues, he was also pastor of two large parishes: St. Mark’s in Peoria from 1973 until 1983, and then Holy Trinity in Bloomington, from which parish family he retired in 1998.

The question column, initiated in the Catholic Post, has been syndicated by Catholic News Service since 1975 and appears in Catholic newspapers in all parts of the United States and Canada. A collection of his columns, published in book form with the title The New Question Box, won first place in the “Popular Presentation of the Catholic Faith” category of the 1992 Catholic Press Association Book Awards.

In his wide-ranging research for answers to questions submitted by his readers, Father Dietzen draws on major authoritative sources such as the Bible, canon law, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, papal encyclicals, conciliar decrees, and documents issued by the U.S. Catholic Bishops and Vatican offices. He also credits his many friends and correspondents, among them national, archdiocesan and diocesan officials, for providing information when needed.

Father Dietzen’s vast experience as scholar, journalist and pastor — along with mail his column draws from all parts of the country — give him a unique sense of the church today, and his love and support for his faith and his readers are evident in his responses.

This collection of his columns marks the 15th printing of this volume since it first appeared in book form in 1981; it has been retitled Catholic Q and A: Answers to the Most Common Questions About Catholicism.

Once again we invite readers into these pages to enjoy both the questions and Father Dietzen’s informative, pastoral responses, and pray they find here the answers to their own spiritual searching, and the sense of courage, confidence, and peace of heart and mind that a deeper knowledge of their faith will bring.

ABBREVIATIONS FOR REFERENCES:

CCL Code of Canon Law

CCC Catechism of the Catholic Church

GIRM General Instruction of the Roman Missal

CHAPTER 1

THE BIBLE

Church and sacred Scripture

A priest we know said recently the church existed before the Bible, at least before the New Testament. I realize this is true. But today, he added, we can do without the Bible, but we cannot do without the church. This is more than my understanding of our faith can absorb. Could you tell me in more detail what he meant?

As you say, the church certainly existed before the New Testament was completed. Many Christians were born, lived and died before the last book of the Bible was even written somewhere at least 60 or 70 years after Jesus died. The Bible was not solidified in its present combination of books until centuries later.

The statement that the church could do without the Bible is, in my view, at least ambiguous. In a way, of course, he is right. Theoretically the church could do without the sacraments of baptism, penance, holy orders and possibly even the Eucharist. Who are we to say that the church could not have been formed in a variety of other ways than Jesus actually arranged?

The church which really exists, however, is unthinkable without all of these elements and it is just as unthinkable without the Bible. Surely, the living community of faith with its leaders (particularly the pope and other bishops) will be the living carrier of the message and life of Christ to the world until the end of time. There is one sense, then, in which this living family of Christ will always be the final interpreter of the biblical word of God. It is equally true, however, that Scripture enshrines the teachings of the Lord and of the apostles with a special clarity and universality, so that it will be for all time the norm against which the church measures all its actions and its faith.

Whatever we propose as “might have been,” the real church would soon be lost without Scripture. This is why the church has always venerated the Bible just as she venerates the body of Christ. “From the table of both the word of God and of the body of Christ she unceasingly receives and offers to the faithful the bread of life, especially in the sacred liturgy” (Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation of Vatican II). The council document goes on to say that “all the preaching of the church must be nourished and ruled by sacred Scripture.”

With this view of Scripture, it is impossible to understand how the church could get along without it. As that same constitution of the Vatican Council says, “It is clear that sacred tradition, sacred Scripture and the teaching authority of the church, in accord with God’s most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others. All together and each in its own way under the action of the one Holy Spirit contribute effectively to the salvation of souls.” (No. 10)

Bible is norm of faith

We are told that the Bible, the Old and New Testament, is “normative” for Christian belief. What does that mean? Catholics, and I think other Christians also, accept certain truths or doctrines that are not found stated in the Bible, for example the Assumption and the Immaculate Conception. If that is true, how can we say the Bible is the “norm” for our religion?

The Constitution on Divine Revelation (Dei Verbum), promulgated at Vatican Council II, affirmed that the church has always, and will always, regard the Scriptures, along with sacred tradition, as the supreme rule of faith.

“All the preaching of the Church,” it claims, “must be nourished and ruled by sacred Scripture.” The Bible, in other words, is a controlling presence in our understanding and reception of God’s revelation, what God wished to teach for our salvation. (par. 21) This is what is meant by the Scriptures being normative for Christian belief. In a somewhat shorthand way, it means that no truly Christian teaching can contradict the Bible, which is not the same, however, as saying that every authentic Christian belief must be found in the Bible.

If the Scriptures are, as we believe them to be, the word of God transmitted to us in human language under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, then those Scriptures are without error. Properly interpreted, there can be no contradiction between the Scriptures and any authoritative teaching of the church, which by definition we believe would be inspired by that same Spirit.

Since holy Scriptures are written under the direction of the Holy Spirit, we believe that they must also be read and interpreted under the Spirit’s guidance. Three criteria are generally indicated to guarantee that kind of interpretation: First, the interpretation must reflect the unity and content of the whole of the Bible. Second, it must be in accord, in harmony, with the living tradition of the whole church, as the Holy Spirit inspires and supports it down through the centuries. And third, the interpretation must respect what is called the “analogy of faith,” the coherence and harmony which exists between the different teachings of the faith. Again, one Christian teaching cannot contradict another teaching, or at least one of them must be wrong.

Something the same can be said for other truths about which someone may object, “Where do you find that in the Bible?” If it does not contradict what is in the Bible, and if it generally fulfills those criteria for interpretation — in other words, if it is coherent with other teachings of faith, consistent with the living tradition of Christianity, and does not conflict with the content and unity of the Bible — then a particular teaching may be accepted without violating the normative role sacred Scripture plays in the Christian religion. This, of course, has happened frequently in the history of Christianity.

The explanation of the place of Scripture in the church may be found a bit more fully in the Vatican II Constitution mentioned above (especially sections 12 and 21), and in the article on sacred Scripture in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Biblical literary forms

I am sick and tired of hearing that the Bible is full of allegories and parables. If the word of God does not suit your ungodly lay and scientific concept of the world and of God, don’t snipple here and there to your liking. Don’t you believe the Bible is the word of God?

I’m sorry you are sick and tired of hearing it, but the plain fact is that much of the Bible is made up of allegories and parables — and poetry, fictional short stories, speeches, fables, and numerous other forms of literature.

You are, of course, free to believe what you wish about the Bible, even take it as word-for-word history if you can figure out how to do that. But the church’s teaching is clear: The “truth” the Bible expresses is to be found in the meaning that the sacred writers intended when they wrote that particular part of Scripture. And to arrive at that truth, one must investigate whether that writer was producing straight history, a fable with a moral lesson involved, poetry, war stories, fictional tales, legal documents, allegories, or other kinds of writing. Only then do we discover most accurately what God is saying to us.

I like the example of George Washington and the cherry tree. The “truth” of that story is not in the facts of the plot, but in what it says about George. Should a historian some day prove there never was a cherry tree at his childhood home, our answer would be, so what? The story is not about a cherry tree, but about the honesty, integrity and nobility of the character of our first president. Furthermore, the man who thinks it is a tale about cherry trees and horticulture will miss the whole point.

Similarly the man who thinks, for example, that the story of Jonah is mainly about man-swallowing whales and storms at sea will miss the real “truth” of the story which the author intended — that God’s love is universal, and the many other revelations which that book so enchantingly unfolds. In that particular instance, it makes not one whit of difference whether the whale carried our hero around for three days, or whether there even was a Jonah in the first place.

As Vatican Council II teaches, it is in all these ways, including some sections of straight history, “that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into the sacred writings for the sake of our salvation” (Constitution on Divine Revelation, par. 11).

This “truth” in the sacred writings is in human language, however, and is therefore always limited. It must be searched out with much prayer, skill, and a faith sensitive to Catholic Christian tradition. One of the most exhaustive and carefully nuanced documents on the Interpretation of the Bible in the Church is a 1993 publication of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, with that title. In both the Old and New Testaments, it notes, “God made use of all the possibilities of human language, while at the same time accepting that his word would be subject to the constraints caused by the limitations of this language. Proper respect for inspired Scripture requires undertaking all the labors necessary to gain a thorough grasp of its meaning.” (Conclusion)

Proper understanding of the written word of God is naturally of primary importance to Catholics. Those really interested in what the church teaches on the subject might read the two documents just quoted, the Vatican II Constitution on Divine Revelation, and the statement of the Pontifical Biblical Commission. Both are available from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops in Washington, D.C.

Bible only for experts?

You mentioned that in reading the Bible it is important that we have some idea of what the writer intended when he wrote a particular book, and how the people understood it then. How can an ordinary person be expected to know all this? Shouldn’t we read the Bible unless we do know these things?

Reading the Bible in a spirit of prayer and faith in God’s word is always good and fruitful. In fact, someone who approaches Scripture with this attitude will reap far more benefits than one who has a lot of technical knowledge about the Bible, but no faith.

However, at least a little information about the background of the Bible and its books can make the reading of Scripture more beneficial and prevent much confusion and misunderstanding. Very little of the Bible is “straight” history as we think of it. Most of it is poetry, parables, personal or community reflections on memorable events, legal documents, visions or other manifestations of what were interpreted as God’s reactions to human happenings, prophecies veiled in extremely mystical symbols — and even efforts by ancient theologians to put together in a cohesive way this whole series of revelations and experiences.

Since, in addition, all of what is now in the Bible was handed down by writing or word of mouth during a period of thousands of years, it’s obviously an advantage to know, for example, what kind of writing each book was meant to be, and even to know some of the historical circumstances of the time. A parallel might be a 1935 newspaper being read today by an older man and a high school freshman. The paper would be far more intelligible and significant to the man who experienced those years than to the 14-year-old who knows only the words he sees on the paper.

Difference in Bibles

Could you please tell us the main difference between the English Catholic Bible and the King James version? I know there is a difference, but why do some people of other faiths say that Bibles are all the same?

There are today only two major differences between what we might call Protestant and Catholic Bibles.

First, Catholic Bibles contain all or part of several books in the Old Testament that do not appear as canonical books in the Protestant biblical tradition. These books are Tobias, Judith, Baruch, First and Second Maccabees, Ben Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), Wisdom, and parts of Daniel and Esther. For reasons we won’t go into here, biblical scholars refer to these as the deutero-canonical (second canon) books, or apocrypha, because of varying positions among Jews of the Old and New Testament periods concerning them.

Second, Protestant Bibles generally do not include much in the way of footnotes, explanations or introductions. The Protestant tradition that the Holy Spirit alone guides each individual in his or her reading in Scripture has caused publishers of Bibles to shy away from anything which in their view would put some sort of human intervention between the reader and the Holy Spirit.

Catholic Bibles have not hesitated to include such materials, giving background to entire books or passages, describing the audience to which the book was addressed, and so on. More and more Bibles published under Protestant auspices tend to include similar notes to assist the readers in understanding what the biblical writers were dealing with.

Apart from these, there is generally no great difference between Protestant and Catholic Bibles. In past centuries, certain biblical passages were translated quite differently, colored by doctrinal positions of the two groups. The science of choosing and translating biblical manuscripts, however, is now so highly developed that any slanting of translations in this manner is simply out of the question for reputable biblical scholars of any faith.

New translations of the Bible are underway all the time. The King James version, published in the Protestant tradition, is one of the early English translations (1611) which, however, retains much of its popularity because of the exceptional style and language which have made it a classic of English literature.

The most authoritative current English translation in the Catholic tradition is the revised New American Bible, prepared under the auspices of American and other English-speaking bishops. The best current Bibles in the Protestant tradition, I believe, are the Revised English Bible, and some other excellent ones, notably the New Revised Standard Version, which had a Catholic edition including the apocrypha, and the New International Version.

All these, of course, are published in a wide variety of sizes and editions, but the titles I have mentioned, among others, indicate the actual biblical translations contained in the books.

Apocryphal books

When were the apocryphal books (those in Catholic Bibles but not in Protestant Bibles) removed from the Scriptures?

All early English Bible translations, including the King James Version, contained the apocrypha. The Coverdale Bible (1535), the Great Bible (1539) and the Geneva Bible (1560) all included the apocrypha in a separate section between the Old and New Testaments. The same was true of the King James Version in 1611. Only in 1644, under Puritan influence, were these books excluded. The first Bible printed in the New World, in 1783, also omits the apocrypha.

Interestingly, the Geneva Bible accepted these nine books, even though the thorough-going Protestants who published it added marginal notes identifying the Bishop of Rome with the Scarlet Woman in Revelation. King James abhorred such comments, which was one reason he commissioned a new translation by some of the leading Scripture scholars of his day. The new translation is what we know as the King James Bible.

The Latin Vulgate Bible

In your column on various Bibles, you didn’t mention a famous one that I have heard about, the Vulgate. Why did you leave it out? Isn’t it one of the more important Catholic Bibles?”

The answer to which you refer responded to a reader’s request for information about English Bibles. The Vulgate is in Latin.

Back around the year 400 A. D., there was still no complete or scholarly Latin edition of the Bible, based on the languages in which the books were first written. The Hebrew Scriptures (our Old Testament) had been translated into Greek long before. And most of the New Testament was written in Greek.

To make the Scriptures more available to everyone, Pope Damasus (366-384) commissioned St. Jerome, the most learned biblical scholar of the day, to translate the Bible from the original languages into the everyday language of the “common people” (in Latin: vulgus).

A revised edition of the Vulgate was published under Pope John Paul II in 1986. In his introduction to the revision, the pope said it provided the church with a Latin text which recognized the developments in Scripture studies and provided a much better text for service in the liturgy.

Were Adam and Eve real?

My son came home from high school the other day and said his teacher told them Adam and Eve never existed. This goes down to the fundamentals of our faith, doesn’t it? Did they, or didn’t they? If there were two people who started the human race, how do we explain the different races?

We don’t know whether or not there were two original human beings from which all the rest of us descended. And if there were, we surely do not know their names.

One thing is certain: We will never find out from the Bible. Holy Scripture simply was not written to pass on to us such details of anthropology as this. Whether there were two “first parents” or 200, or exactly where they came from, has little to do with the spiritual and theological intent of the biblical story of Adam and Eve — which was put together in the form we have it only a few hundred years before Christ.

That story, which we find in the first chapters of Genesis, is meant to convey to us some of the most important truths of our faith — that the world, including the human family, owes its existence to the one true God; that this world as it came from God was good and was meant for human happiness; that whatever misfortunes there are on earth come from people’s own stubbornness and sinfulness; that even in the beginning God had a plan to eventually save us from that sinfulness.

I don’t know why this should be so “fundamental” for your faith. The great facts about God and our relation with him are the real message of holy Scripture. As for the rest, scientists generally agree that any certainty about such things that happened way back in the dawn of history, tens or hundreds of thousands of years ago, is well nigh impossible.

The position of the church on this subject was made clear in the encyclical Humani Generis of Pope Pius XII (1950). In it the Holy Father insisted that the theory that there were more than two “first parents” of the human race should not be taught as an established fact. And that’s where the matter stands.

Concerning the origin of the races, neither the Bible nor Christian revelation gives us much to go on. Some of the more fundamentalist Christians profess to see hints in the Scripture about how the races started. But the church’s position, once again, is that this type of question must be answered by the sciences of anthropology and paleontology, not by theologians or Scripture scholars.

Many Adams, many Eves?

You say we may accept the possibility that there were more than one Adam and Eve who originated the human race. I have no big problem with this, but do have two questions. How do you explain scriptural references such as St. Paul’s remark, “Through one man (Adam) sin entered the world” (Romans 5, 12)?

And isn’t it true that many church councils, such as the infallible Council of Trent, and several church documents refer to Adam as “the first man?”

One critical point to remember in considering both your questions is that neither Scripture nor the council you mention were addressing themselves to the question of polygenism (that is, whether there were many first parents). Therefore one must be careful in claiming they answered a question that, up to that time, had never even been approached seriously.

To your first point, preachers and other orators quite commonly use the device of referring to well-known historical characters to make a point, with absolutely no intention of declaring judgment on the actual existence of these characters. When a priest in a homily, for example, refers to the Prodigal Son or the Good Samaritan, he is not professing a belief that these particular individuals of Jesus’ parables ever really existed. They fit the point to be made, and that’s all their mention really means.

Jesus did this, St. Paul did it, and conciliar decrees and other official church documents do the same. As mentioned above, these documents were not directly concerned with polygenism. But if reference to the scriptural story of creation helped explain or support their teaching, they rightly had no hesitation in using it.

In Humani Generis Pope Pius XII explained some doctrinal and scriptural problems with polygenism (some of which have been resolved in the last 50 years, incidentally), and says that no Catholic should hold that opinion (polygenism) as a fact since “it is not apparent” how this opinion is compatible with certain Catholic beliefs.

Humani Generis labels the belief in more than one Adam and Eve a conjectural opinion. It does not call that opinion erroneous or heretical.

By the way, there is no such thing as an “infallible council.” A particular truth may be taught as defined doctrine. But the fact that some truths are taught solemnly in a conciliar or papal document doesn’t mean that everything is, even if it’s in the same sentence.

Temptation of Adam and Eve

In the story of Adam and Eve and the devil, or the snake, the devil says, “That’s not true; you will not die. God said this because he knows that when you eat (the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil), you will be like God.” Why would Satan want them to be like God and have God’s knowledge?

Clearly, the devil in this creation story (Gn. 3) did not intend for Adam and Eve to become like God. His words were a plain lie, but a very seductive lie with just enough truth in it to make it sound attractive.

Until the fall, according to this story, the couple were on extremely intimate terms with God, even walking with him in the cool of the evening (Gn. 3:8). This closeness and intimacy resulted from their recognition of the order of creation: God was God and they were not. As long as they acknowledged this fact, a wonderful harmony and openness existed between them, and between them and God, a happiness and communion we can hardly comprehend. It was this harmony, this happiness, that the devil set out to destroy.

The temptation could be put like this: “Why should you be subject to this God when you can show him you are as good and powerful as he is? God gives you this commandment to hold you under his thumb. But if you disobey, if you act against what God says, you will prove you are his equal. That’s what God is afraid of, not that you will die, but that you will discover that you are like him.”

In their pride, of course, Adam and Eve forgot, or ignored, the fact that no matter how much they pretended otherwise, they were in reality not God’s equal. Like a child who won’t believe a sharp knife will cut his finger, they suffered the consequences. By rejecting their relationship as creatures to Creator, they destroyed the harmony of creation, and their whole world began to disintegrate.

They became alienated from themselves (“I was afraid because I was naked”), from God (“The man and his wife hid themselves from the Lord God”), and from one another (“The woman you put here with me” gave it to me), and their children killed each other. One division and hatred after another piled up until their very speech became a sign and instrument of estrangement (chapter 11).

It is into this awful mess that the Lord enters (Gn. 12) and begins, with Abraham, the long story of his redemptive love once again bringing us together, reconciling us to each other and to God.

As in so many other elements of the creation story, the sin of Adam and Eve is really the story of ourselves. Every serious sin committed since then follows the same pattern of pride, rejection of God’s dominion, more or less deliberate blindness to what is really happening, disintegration and alienation, and finally a need for the forgiving and healing grace of Jesus Christ.

Was it devil or serpent?

My question has to do with the story of the fall of man in Genesis. In that story the serpent tricks Eve into eating the fruit; she gives some to Adam. Later God banishes them from Eden and the serpent is cursed.

It seems to me the serpent is being punished for something the devil did. I don’t believe God would punish one creature for the misdeeds of another. So what am I misunderstanding about the story?

It would help you considerably, first of all, to do some serious reading about biblical interpretation, including how we might understand the Genesis stories of creation. A good start would be the introductory pages of the New American Bible, published under the auspices of the bishops of the United States. These pages reflect Catholic teaching about the need to recognize various literary forms in the Scriptures, for example in the “description” of the creation and fall of the human race to which you refer.

Briefly, and to the point, while some Christians disagree with us, we do not understand these stories as describing a strict, straight history of how the world and human beings began. For example, you speak of the curse placed on the serpent for tempting Adam and Eve, that from this time onward he would move by crawling on his belly (Gn. 3:14). Did you ever stop to wonder how serpents moved around before the curse?

I’m not being facetious at all, only emphasizing that such things are not always as simple as they seem and that a little good, serious and reputable Catholic reading on the subject will help you.

Does Bible give earth’s age?

I am a sponsor in our parish catechumen class. A priest told us in one session that someone once determined from the Bible that the earth wasonly about 6,000 years old. I find that fascinating! But he had no further details. Have you heard of this?

It is fascinating, especially in the light of the information we have today about the history of the earth and of the human race. Your priest might have been speaking of at least two people. During the 17th century, Archbishop James Ussher of Ireland, after much careful adding up of figures from the Book of Genesis, determined that the world was created in 4004 B. C.

Some time later, a Dr. John Lightfoot of Cambridge University, England, claimed to prove that the exact moment of the creation of Adam was “October 23, 4004 B. C., at 9 o’clock in the morning.” I suppose there is someone somewhere who still believes that. To my knowledge at least, even those who reject any evolutionary explanation of the creation of the world would find it difficult to swallow these figures.

Big Bang Theory of Creation

According to Stephen Hawking’s A Brief History of Time, the Catholic Church has declared that its teaching does not conflict with the Big Bang theory of creation. That means billions of years may have passed. Yet, at our Christmas celebration, the priest said that only a few thousand years have passed since the creation of the world. Can you clear up this confusion on the church’s position?

None of the teachings of the Catholic Church conflict with the so-called Big Bang theory of the origin of the physical universe.

We believe that this material cosmos — all the galaxies and universes, the existence of which are revealed by astronomical and other sciences — came into existence by the personally willed action of an uncreated Creator we call God.

According to the Big Bang theory, all material creation began with an infinitesimal particle of matter and energy, with a density we might call nearly infinite. The intensity of energy within this particle caused it to explode and expand into the material cosmos which now exists. Evidence for the universe having its origin something along these lines is enormous, though it can never be absolutely conclusive.

As I said, nothing in our faith prevents our believing that God could very well have created the universe in this manner. In fact, certain aspects of this theory seem to point to the existence of a Creator more clearly than some scientists are comfortable with.

Certainly, the existence of this creation, with all its mind-blowing combinations of order and randomness; of plan and arrangement, from the smallest particle to the farthest space, alongside an almost fluky indeterminateness that makes the unexpected happen all the time — that all this might have begun with one tiny, dense particle can point us perhaps more than anything else to the incomprehensible “size” and beauty of the God we believe in.

Of course, if one is a Bible fundamentalist believing that everything in the Scriptures, beginning with the Genesis story of creation, is literal historical fact, all the above would be rejected out of hand. (See preceding question.) But such theories have no basis in, and certainly are not required by, Catholic dogma or teaching.

Many Catholic parishes proclaim the ancient martyrology announcement of the birth of the Savior as a solemn introduction to the Christmas liturgy. I suspect that’s what your priest was doing. This proclamation, in several sentences situating the birth of Jesus in human history, has been in use hundreds of years, and makes no pretense at scientific accuracy. It is, however, a wonderful and moving statement of the Incarnation, when the Son of God embraced this material creation of his and took on our human flesh and nature.

Age of the human race

I read recently about some people finding human skeletons that are supposed to be over three million years old. A friend and I were discussing the article and she said that, according to the Bible, the whole world is only about 6,000 years old. I’m sure we don’t believe that. At least I don’t. But what can you say to someone like that? Is there any reason we can’t believe that the human race is three million years old?

You raise a lot of big questions. Answers will vary greatly depending on one’s understanding of the Scriptures, of religion, of God — and even of science.

There is absolutely nothing in Catholic faith that would prevent accepting any age for the human race. The Bible was never meant by God to be a course in archeology, paleontology, or even of history, in our usual understanding of that word. It is a story of God’s saving plan for us, wounded and crippled by our own selfishness and pride, and how that plan unfolded. It is a book of faith, not of technical information.

This goes especially for the first 11 chapters of Genesis, which “cover” the whole history of the world up to God’s call of Abraham as the father of the Hebrew people somewhere around 1800 B. C. The great Jewish theologians who put those stories together (creation, the flood, etc.) several centuries before Christ, had many ancient myths and legends to go on, but basically they knew even less about the details of the origin of the world than we do.

This bothered them not in the least. Their purpose, under the inspiration of God, was to make believers, not scientists, out of their people. There’s no reason at all you cannot believe men and women were strolling the earth three million years ago -- if you’re satisfied with the scientific evidence.

To the other part of your question: If someone insists that every fact, figure, name and event in holy Scripture is technically, scientifically, and historically accurate, don’t waste your time arguing about such things as the age of man. You’re simply on different wavelengths about the meaning of biblical truth.

What did God do before creation?

The first verse of Genesis says, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” My question is: What did God — Father, Son and Holy Spirit — do before Genesis 1:1? We know God had no beginning, but always was and always will be. Is there anywhere in Scripture that tells us what was going on with God in the eons before creation of the heavens and the earth?

There is nothing, it seems to me, that so dramatically confronts us with the infinite abyss of mystery between us and the Creator God as the question about what went on “before” creation of the universe. I hope I can respond without becoming too complicated, but it will help to review a few truths.

First, nothing at all happened “before” God created the universe. That word “before” implies time, and time begins with God’s creation of what St. Paul, in a wonderful Greek phrase, calls ta panta, the everything.

Time is traditionally defined first, and most fundamentally, as the measure of motion. The earth revolves on its axis once, and we call it a day. It moves once around the sun, and we call it a year. Light travels about 5.6 trillion miles from one place to another, and we call it a light-year of time. In other words, unless one material (created) object is moving in relation to another material object, there is no such thing as time in the sense we know it.

To put it another way, it is meaningless to speak of any time before creation. There were, therefore, no eons that God had somehow to fill “until” (another time-connected word) he created “the everything.”

As St. Thomas Aquinas explains, God and eternity are outside of time, where things change from moment to moment. Eternity embraces everything that is in one unchanging, instantaneous moment. (Summa Theologiae I, 10, 4) If all this boggles the mind, it’s no wonder. We’re dealing here with infinite mystery, with eternal, totally unlimited being, and we have absolutely nothing adequate to compare it with in human experience or language.

To place all of this in perspective, nothing I say here is new in Catholic teaching. The Catechism of the Catholic Church says it again. Human language will never measure up to the invisible, incomprehensible, unknowable One. Our words will always stand on this side of the mystery of God (42).

Again, as St. Thomas puts it, God’s actions, like creation and redemption, create a relationship with him that begins at a certain point in time, but his existence is independent of everything he creates. All this simply says there is no before or after with God, no past or future. With him, everything, including all ages of creation, is one eternally present moment.

The mystery of God’s eternity touches the very heart of our spiritual lives. The more profound and alive our awareness of the transcendent beauty, holiness and wonder of God becomes, the more eager we can be to answer his invitation to share these unfathomable riches, here and in eternity.

Evolution “more than a hypothesis”

Several years ago, Pope John Paul said there was enough scientific evidence to believe in evolution. Is this true? I thought we always believed that evolution is against our faith.

As long ago as 1950, Pope Pius XII, in the encyclical Humani Generis, maintained that the church has no problem with the study of evolution by scientists and theologians. The research, he said, which “inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter,” creates no difficulty for Catholic belief, as long as we accept that the spiritual “part” of our nature, what we call the soul, is immediately created by God (n. 36).

In his Oct. 22, 1996, address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, to which you refer, Pope John Paul II said that new knowledge leads us to recognize that the theory of evolution is more than a hypothesis. He makes two important points. First, we must use extreme caution when we attempt to find answers to scientific questions in the Bible. Four years before that, he spoke to the same group about the church’s condemnation of Galileo. (All are aware, I hope, that the renowned 17th century scientist and astronomer was charged with heresy for claiming that the earth revolves around the sun, not vice versa. His theory was said to contradict Scripture, which speaks rather of the sun moving, going up and coming down around the earth. See, for instance, Jos. 10:12-13.)

In that 1992 address, the pope attributed Galileo’s condemnation to the fact that the majority of theologians did not recognize the “distinction between sacred Scripture and its interpretation,” which led them “unduly to transpose” doctrine and scientific investigation. The Holy Father’s 1996 address, in relation to evolution, repeats this warning against interpretations of Scripture “that make it say what it does not intend to say.” Scripture scholars and theologians, he says, cannot do their job properly unless they keep informed about what is happening in the sciences.

Second, the evolution theory, as any hypothesis, needs always to be tested against the facts. As information gathers that fits the theory, its explanation of how life developed on our planet becomes more and more probable. According to Pope John Paul II and, I believe, most Catholic officials and theologians, the facts converging from many fields of knowledge (anthropology, geology, psychology, and so on) create a progressively “significant argument in favor of this theory.” (The complete text of this message is available from Origins, CNS Documentary Service, 3211 Fourth St. N.E., Washington, D. C., 20017-1100. Ask for the Dec. 5, 1996, issue)

None of this denies creation by God. It says simply that God apparently did his creating quite differently than those people assume who take Genesis as a scientific explanation of how the universe came to be. How God created it in the beginning, or how the energies placed in the cosmos by the Creator work to move all things toward greater and greater complexity — or simplicity — is not part of our faith.

Evolution and the soul

I enjoy your column each week, but one you had recently on evolution puzzled me. You said that one is free to hold at least some belief in evolution and still be a good Catholic in no conflict with the doctrine of the church.

Animals do not have souls, right? But human beings do. So how can we have evolved from apes, gorillas, monkeys, or so-called missing links? Aren’t they animals?

As you correctly point out, there is something that makes us human that cannot be explained by the material part of us that might be derived from other living beings through some sort of evolution. This non-material, spiritual element that is essential to our human personality is what Catholic tradition, following the terminology of one Greco-Roman philosophy, has called the soul.

Since the soul has no parts, one cannot break off a piece and pass it on in the way our parents, for example, pass on the material for our bodies from their own. This is one reason the church has taught, and still teaches, that while our bodies may evolve from other bodies, the spiritual part of us could only come into existence through a direct creative act of God. Each of our souls comes, as it were, fresh from the hand of our Creator.

Tradition has seen at least hints of this teaching in holy Scripture. For example, at death “the dust returns to the earth from which it came, and the spirit returns to the God who gave it.” (Ecc. 12:7) And, “We have had our earthly fathers (literally the fathers of the flesh) to discipline us and we respected them. Should we not then submit all the more to the Father of spirits and live?” (Heb. 12:9)

In our own time this position on evolution was repeated by Pope Pius XII in his encyclical Humani Generis (1950). The teaching of the church, he says, “does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions on the part of men experienced in both fields take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, inasfar as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter — for Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God.”

Should theology be based on science?

I am a CCD instructor and need some answers. You are probably tired of the subject of evolution, but I have taught and wrote that an ape cannot be in the image and likeness of God. The Bible speaks so often about the story of creation, that I don’t see how I can be wrong. When the pope came out with his statement on evolution, (that evolution is more than just a hypothesis and that many disciplines independently are leading us to accept it), I was left virtually defenseless.

Why don’t we read the Bible literally as do fundamentalists? The first remark of some Protestant recruiters is that we don’t believe in the Bible so we cannot be Christians. Are there books and journals on these subjects?

For whatever reasons, not a few otherwise intelligent people seem to think that any question, any searching, no matter how complicated or profound, should have answers they can absorb and understand in 30 or 60 minutes, just about the length of an “in-depth” television program.

That is not true. If we ask serious questions, then we must be willing to do serious study to find appropriate answers that will satisfy us. This is especially desirable before we start to condemn or accuse others of error because they disagree with what we “know” to be the fact.

I have previously referred readers to the introductions and textual notes in the New American Bible (especially the St. Joseph edition), published under the auspices of the bishops of the United States. A thoughtful, careful study of these alone would give at least a good start toward resolving your concerns about how the Catholic Church interprets Scripture.

Second your problems with evolution prove again how we need serious reflection before we build religious doctrines on matters that pertain primarily to the natural sciences.

Some years ago, the publication First Things