Catholic Replies
Editor’s Note: Regarding what to do with unused religious items, E.N. of California says that the Universal Living Rosary Association (ULRA) is asking people to support the missions by donating scapulars, rosaries, old missals, medals, and holy cards. As indicated on its website (www.philomena.org), nothing goes to waste.
All donations will be carefully placed with a reliable missionary or catechist. Please send your religious materials to Living Rosary, Suite 100-C, 2401 Termini St., Dickinson, TX 77539.
Q. Thank you for your interpretation of Jesus’ admonition to the women of Jerusalem as He carried His cross. His prediction that the days are coming when people will say, “Blessed are the barren, the wombs that never bore and the breasts that never nursed . . . for if these things are done when the wood is green, what will happen when it is dry?” You said that Jesus was warning that if an innocent man like Himself (the green wood) had to undergo such suffering, those truly guilty of sin (the dry wood) would be even more severely punished.
What I’m wondering is, in the light of world developments in recent decades, could it be that Jesus was foretelling of a broader and worldwide condition of “green” and “dry” humans — applying to the entire Earth, and not just Jerusalem? Who would have visualized only a few decades ago that the United Nations would be demanding that all nations provide the right to abortion, that Planned Parenthood and the U.S. Democrat Party would demand abortion on demand and that taxpayers pay for it?
It seems to me that when Jesus spoke of how the lack of love for the green would eventually prove deadly to the dry, he was speaking of unborn children as the green, and the elderly as the dry. We are now witnessing that abortion is leading to involuntary euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide (the latter recently legalized in my state of Maine). The “days” are no longer “coming,” in my view, they are here. What do you think? — G.T., Maine.
A. It is correct to say that many statements of Jesus refer not only to His own time, but also to the future. All through history, the innocent “green” have been persecuted, while those doing the persecuting (the “dry”) experienced no adverse consequences. But we know of course that all that will be rectified on Judgment Day, when mercy will be meted out to the innocent and justice to the guilty, who will be severely punished.
The only thing we disagree with is your including elderly victims of euthanasia and doctor-prescribed murder among the “dry.” Shouldn’t these innocent folks be among the “green”?
Q. Regarding your answer to the 90-year-old reader who wanted to know about some of the differences between Catholics and Protestants, you mentioned theological differences over such things as the Eucharist, the sacraments, the Bible, and the Virgin Mary. But looking at the question from a different angle, I think what keeps Protestants from “crossing the Tiber” is often moral issues — divorce and remarriage, the sinfulness of contraception, abortion, euthanasia, homosexuality, and same-sex “marriage.” How Protestants defend these things is beyond me, but I guess it makes their lives more comfortably in tune with our current “P.C.” culture. What do you think? — C.E., California.
A. Thank you for raising a good point, namely, the differences among Christians on moral issues. Just as an aside, you can also wonder how so many Catholics can defend their support of these moral evils when their Church has so forcefully condemned them. Protestants can jump from one church to another seeking one that accommodates their erroneous beliefs, but Catholics do not have that luxury, unless they shop around for “progressive” parishes.
There is no better illustration of this divide than the issue of contraception. Until 1930, every Christian community opposed artificial methods of birth control. Then the Anglican bishops in England approved contraception “in those cases where there is such a clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, and where there is a morally sound reason for avoiding complete abstinence.”
That reversal of long-held teaching quickly spread to the United States, where the Federal Council of Churches endorsed “the careful and restrained use of contraceptives by married people,” while conceding that “serious evils, such as extramarital sex relations, may be increased by general knowledge of contraceptives.”
That reversal was sharply criticized by various Protestant communities and even by secular outlets, such as The Washington Post. In an editorial dated March 22, 1931, the Post said that the FCC’s report, “if carried into effect, would sound the death knell of marriage as a holy institution by establishing degrading practices which would encourage indiscriminate immorality.”
Responding to the Anglican cave-in, Pope Pius XI issued an encyclical on Christian marriage (Casti Connubii) in December of 1930. In that encyclical, the Holy Father, seeking to “preserve the chastity of the nuptial union from being defiled by this foul stain,” proclaimed:
“Any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin” (n. 56).
While many Protestant communities have wholeheartedly supported contraception over the past ninety years, and have even jumped on the abortion bandwagon, the Catholic Church has never wavered in its defense of marriage and family life, Nor will it ever change its position, even if some bishops and theologians lobby for such a change, since contraception is “an offense against the law of God and of nature,” in the words of Pope Pius XI.
It should be noted that not all Protestants support contraception. In his book The Bible and Birth Control, Charles D. Provan listed nine reasons why the Bible prohibits birth control and quoted scores of Protestant theologians, including Martin Luther and John Calvin, who were opposed to artificial birth control, particularly the form known as Onanism.
“We found,” said Provan, “that the historic Protestant opinion of Birth Control was to view it as unnatural, murderous, and sodomitical, as well as a gross sin against God, the Church, and mankind.” He expressed the “hope that present-day Christians who advocate ‘family planning’ will investigate the origins of the Birth Control movement, find it to be grossly immoral and anti-Christian, and return to the faith of their fathers” (p. 63).
Q. All my life I have read the third verse of Psalm 42 as “My soul is thirsting for the living God,” but today in Magnificat magazine, the Psalm says, “My soul is thirsting for God, the God of my life.” This is a terrible translation, in my estimation. Am I being picky? — C.L, Arizona.
A. We are sure that biblical scholars have good reasons for changing the translations of some Bible verses, but like you we are disappointed with some of the new translations. One that bugs us is Psalm 23, which used to say, “The Lord is my shepherd; / I shall not want. / In verdant pastures he gives / me repose; / Beside restful waters he leads me; / he refreshes my soul.” Now it says in one version, “The Lord is my shepherd, / there is nothing I lack. / In green pastures you let me graze; / to safe waters you lead me; / you restore my strength.”
And in another translation: “The Lord is my shepherd; / there is nothing I shall want. / Fresh and green are the pastures / where he gives me repose. / Near restful waters he leads me, / to revive my drooping spirit.” Drooping spirit instead of soul? Not very inspiring.
You will find in Magnificat that the Psalms for Mass are usually closer to the familiar translation than the Psalms for morning and evening prayer. We think this is because the Mass Psalms are from the New American Bible with Revised New Testament and Psalms, copyright 1991, 1986, 1970, while some of the morning and evening prayer Psalms are from The Psalms: A New Translation, copyright 1963 at The Grail in England, which is a more freewheeling translation of the Book of Psalms.
In any case, we recommend that you stick to the translation that you prefer.
