Q. Jesus is the king of the universe, so why did He choose to be born in a lowly stable instead of in a palace, or at least in an ordinary house? — R.S.. via email.
A. If Jesus came into the world as a powerful king, or perhaps as a military warrior, or as a wealthy member of the community, people would have been afraid of Him, as they were afraid of King Herod, or of Roman soldiers, or of the Pharisees who looked down on them (cf. the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector in Luke 18:9-14).
But who could be afraid of a tiny, helpless baby? In his “Blessing Before a Christmas Stable” in the December 2017 issue of Magnificat, Fr. Peter John Cameron, OP, offered this explanation:
“You came as a baby because babies are irresistible and adorable. You came as a baby because you want our first impression of God incarnate to be that of one who does not judge. How I long to be united with you in every way. May I never be attracted to the allurements and charms of the world. May I love you always, at every moment, with all my heart, soul, mind, and strength. May the tenderness, the dependency, and the mercy that you reveal in your infancy become the hallmarks of my life….
“O Emmanuel, may the assurance of your unfailing Presence be for me the source of unending peace. May I never fear my weakness, my inadequacy, or my imperfection. Rather, as I gaze with faith, hope, and love upon your incarnate littleness, may I live my own littleness, for God is with us. Endow my life with a holy wonder that leads me ever more deeply into the Mystery of Redemption and the meaning of my vocation and destiny.”
In his Christmas Eve bulletin, Fr. George Rutler of the Church of St. Michael in New York City compared the birth of Christ in a cave to the His Resurrection from a cave. He said that the divine glory of Jesus “was not something he attained as he grew up; rather, it was what he allowed to dim when he came into time and space. He ‘emptied himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men’ (Phil. 2:7).
So Christmas is about two caves, and the birth in a stone stable would be only a sentimental reverie without the fact of the burial cave burst open. The Holy Infant in the manger is a kind of graphic hint for our limited intelligence, of the indescribable Ruler and Judge of the Universe.”
Q. Does a father have a right to defend the life of his child standing beside him by killing someone in front of him who is about to kill his child? How does that differ from a father being in a Planned Parenthood facility and wanting to defend the life of his innocent unborn child by killing the abortion doctor? Also, if the “father” in the abortion facility is unrelated to the child facing abortion, does he have the right to kill the doctor who is about to kill the unborn child? — B.F., Iowa.
A. The Church has always taught that one may engage in self-defense against an aggressor in order to protect one’s own life or the life of a loved one, provided that all efforts to resolve the situation peacefully have been unsuccessful. In other words, there are certain conditions that must be fulfilled. One, the use of force must be imminently necessary to save the person’s life. Two, we must never intend to kill the aggressor, only to defend our own life or the life of another innocent person. Three, we must use the lowest level of force necessary to resist the attacker. If maiming the aggressor or running away will give sufficient protection, this is what should be done.
While the Church has spelled out these conditions for self-defense against an aggressor, she has never taught that it would be morally right to take the life of those in the business of killing unborn babies. The violence and killing taking place inside the abortuaries are no justification for engaging in more violence and killing either inside or outside the facility. Yes, the abortion holocaust is an abominable and unspeakable crime, to use the words of the Second Vatican Council, but no Catholic can legitimately go around shooting abortionists.
There is nothing in Sacred Scripture, or in Catholic teaching that can be cited to justify murder, even the murder of an evildoer. God alone has power over life and death, and no one may take the life of another person without having been given that power by God, as in the case of the state’s authority to impose capital punishment or to conduct a just war. God has never delegated that power to individuals.
In summary, hear the words of the late Fr. Paul Marx, OSB, founder of Human Life International and as vociferous an opponent of abortion as ever there was:
“Committing additional violence is in no way a response to the daily violence of abortion. Even though babies are daily being killed by the thousands, we have a responsibility to ensure that further bloodshed does not take place. It will only foster more violence and bloodshed in our already stricken society.”
Or listen to Jesus Himself, who commands us to “love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your heavenly Father, for he makes the sun rise on the bad and the good, and causes rain to fall on the just and the unjust” (Matt. 5:44-45)
Q. Following up on a recent question and answer about whether the nails that held Jesus to the cross went through His hands or His wrists (cf. the December 14, 2017 column), I have some comments. First, my take on the bloodstains on the Shroud of Turin, which you said showed the stain on the back of the wrist, is that since Jesus’ hands were above His Body, that would have allowed the blood to flow down His hands to the wrists.
Second, Mel Gibson’s movie The Passion of The Christ showed not only the nails in the palms, but also ropes around the wrists tied to the cross. This could be another source of the wrist blood stains on the Shroud.
Third, could Jesus not have found a word to describe the position of the nail holes when He appeared to the apostles a week after Easter and told Thomas to “put your fingers here and see my hands, and bring your hand and put it into my side, and do not be unbelieving, but believe” (John 20:27)? — G.B., Florida.
A. Much of our reply on December 14 was based on the experiments of Dr. Pierre Barbet, as described in his book A Doctor at Calvary. We found Barbet’s conclusions to be very persuasive, although G.B. has some doubts about what Barbet said. Nevertheless, here are our replies to G.B.’s comments.
First, the bloodstains on the back of the wrists are confined to a small area where the nail was driven, and there is no trail of blood from the hands to the wrist. There is also the fact that the hands on the Shroud don’t show the thumbs, which led Barbet to conclude that the nails partly severed the median nerve in the wrist, causing the thumb to jerk inward against the palm and disappear from view.
Second, the reason why Jim Caviezel had ropes binding him to the cross in the Mel Gibson movie was that no actor would agree to be nailed as Christ was. But even if there were ropes, they would not cause the specific bloodstain on the back of the wrist of the Man on the Shroud. Ropes would cause abrasions, but not bloodstains.
Third, there was no reason for Jesus to come up with another word when He told Thomas to “put your fingers here and see my hands.” Jesus may have been recalling the words of Psalm 22: “They have pierced my hands and my feet….” But notice that He did not use the word “palm” as the location of the nails. And Barbet has pointed out that “anatomists of every age and land regard the wrist as an integral part of the hand, which consists of the wrist, the metacarpus, and the fingers” (p. 119).
Finally, while Pierre Barbet was the pioneer in this research, his conclusions have been affirmed by many others. They include Ian Wilson, author of The Turin Shroud and The Blood and the Shroud; Gilbert R. Lavoie, author of Unlocking the Secrets of the Shroud; C. Bernard Ruffin, author of The Shroud of Turin; and John Walsh, author of The Shroud.
Powered by WPtouch Mobile Suite for WordPress