Q. In a column in the November-December issue of Maryknoll magazine, Fr. Robert Jalbert said that “St. Matthew describes in his Gospel (15:21-28) a Gentile Canaanite woman who pleads with Jesus to heal her daughter. When he tells her that his mission was restricted to the Israelites, she stretches his boundaries and he realizes that God’s message of love and reconciliation is intended for all people.” Did Jesus really need this woman to “stretch his boundaries” so that He would realize that God’s message was intended for all peoples? — P.D., Washington State.
A. While this woman provided Jesus with an opportunity to show that His mission was directed toward everyone, Jews and Gentiles alike, we think it safe to say that He didn’t need anyone to “stretch His boundaries.” He was after all the God-man who always knew what His mission was, even at the age of 12 when He told Mary and Joseph, who had found Him conversing knowledgeably with the Temple religious leaders, that “I must be in my Father’s house” (Luke 2:49).
This response, said Pope John Paul II at one of his weekly audiences, was Christ’s “manifestation of His awareness that He was the ‘Son of God’ and thus of His duty to be ‘in His Father’s house,’ the Temple, to ‘take care of His Father’s business’ (according to another translation of the Gospel phrase). Thus, Jesus publicly declared, perhaps for the first time, His Messiahship and His divine identity.”
Q. What can you tell me about a curriculum for teaching the Catholic faith to six-year-olds at the local parish? We are tutoring the child ourselves because the time of the classes at the parish conflicts with our work schedule and meal time. The program is put out by Our Sunday Visitor. — G.C., Texas.
A. We assume that you are talking about the series Alive in Christ, which offers materials for children in grades 1-8 and has been found to be in conformity with the Catechism of the Catholic Church. We have not read any of the texts, but since their contents presumably reflect what the Catechism teaches, else they would not have received a favorable review from the Ad Hoc Committee on the Catechism, and since Our Sunday Visitor usually publishes reliable materials, we think that the curriculum should be fine for teaching your child.
Q. Is it true that St. Augustine placed unbaptized infants in Hell? — S.C., California.
A. Yes, it is true. In the 2007 document The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptized, the International Theological Commission summed up the belief of Augustine (the interior quotations are from the saint himself):
“The sole remedy for the sin of Adam, passed on to everyone through human generation, is baptism. Those who are not baptized cannot enter the kingdom of God. At the judgment, those who do not enter the kingdom (Matt. 25:34) will be condemned to hell (Matt. 25:41). There is no ‘middle ground’ between heaven and hell. ‘There is no middle place left, where you can put babies.’ Anyone ‘who is not with Christ must be with the devil.’
“God is just. If he condemns unbaptized children to hell, it is because they are sinners. Although these infants are punished in hell, they will suffer only the ‘mildest condemnation,’ ‘the lightest punishment of all,’ for there are diverse punishments in proportion to the guilt of the sinner. These infants were unable to help themselves, but there is no injustice in their condemnation because all belong to ‘the same mass,’ the mass destined for perdition. God does no injustice to those who are not elected, for all deserve hell” (nn. 17, 18).
Augustine’s stern view was mitigated as the centuries went by until theologians came up with a possible hypothesis, namely the theory of Limbo, which, said the International Theological Commission, can be “understood as a state which includes the souls of infants who die subject to Original Sin and without baptism and who therefore neither merit the Beatific Vision nor yet are they subjected to any punishment because they are not guilty of any personal sin. This theory, elaborated by theologians beginning in the Middle Ages, never entered into the dogmatic definitions of the Magisterium even if that same Magisterium did at times mention the theory in its ordinary teaching up until the Second Vatican Council” (Preface).
Limbo is not mentioned either in the documents of Vatican II or in the Catechism. What the Catechism does say is this:
“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 should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say, ‘Let the children come to me, do not hinder them’ (Mark 10:14; cf. 1 Tim. 2:4), 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” (n. 1261).
In its final comments (n. 102), the International Theological Commission said that “our conclusion is that the many factors that we have considered above give serious theological and liturgical grounds for hope that unbaptized infants who die will be saved and enjoy the beatific vision. We emphasize that these are reasons for prayerful hope, rather than grounds for sure knowledge. There is much that simply has not been revealed to us (cf. John 16:12). We live by faith and hope in the God of mercy and love who has been revealed to us in Christ, and the Spirit moves us to pray in constant thankfulness and joy (cf. 1 Thess. 5:18).”
Q. At a Bible study on the Gospel of Mark, Jesus was explaining the Parable of the Sower to the apostles. He said to them, “To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside everything is in parables; so that they may indeed see but not perceive, and may indeed hear but not understand; lest they should turn again, and be forgiven” (Mark 4:10-13). This can’t mean, can it, that Jesus was deliberately excluding people from the kingdom of God by concealing from them the true meaning of His words? — C.L., Massachusetts.
A. No, that’s not what Jesus meant. He was quoting from Isaiah (6:9-10), where God warned the prophet that when he tried to preach judgment to the people of Israel, they would not listen because they were steeped in sin. It was not God who was blocking the people’s eyes and ears; it was the people who were blinding and deafening themselves in order to avoid hearing Isaiah’s warning and to persist in their sins.
Isn’t this true of people today who do want to hear the truth about sexual morality, for example, because they might have to change their lives?
In her book The Gospel of Mark, Mary Healy explains the meaning of Jesus’ words:
“Jesus, likewise, is addressing a wayward generation, many of whom will harden themselves to avoid grasping the implications of his words. His parables, by their hidden depths veiled in simplicity, will cause a separation by the response they evoke in listeners’ hearts. For those who ponder the parables with sincere openness, the mystery of the kingdom will be gradually unveiled.
“But for those who prefer to persist in their own rebellious ways, the parables will remain opaque: so that they may look and see but not perceive, and hear and listen but not understand. Their obstinacy hinders them from attaining the goal of all Jesus’ teaching: that they be converted and be forgiven. The tone of Jesus’ words expresses a longing in the heart of God, as if God were saying: ‘If only you would listen, my people!’ (see Deut. 30:10; Psalm 81:13-14; Luke 19:42).
“Yet his pronouncement hints at a theme that Paul will later develop in great detail (Romans 9-11): even the hardening of part of Israel — the refusal of many Jews to accept the Gospel — is within God’s plan and will in the end contribute to the full and glorious accomplishment of his mysterious purposes” (pp. 85-86).
Powered by WPtouch Mobile Suite for WordPress