Dear Catholic Exchange,
I have seen priests bless living animals. Are there any Catholic rituals for burying pets?
Thanks,
Larry
Larry,
Greetings in Christ. You asked whether the Church provides for funerals or other burial rituals for pets.
As you correctly noted, the Church does provide for the blessing of animals. However, the Church does not have burial rituals for pets. Funerals are reserved for human persons, in which the deceased person’s soul is commended to God’s mercy.
There is no definitive Church teaching on whether animals will be in heaven. Many theologians conclude that only souls made in the image of God, i.e., human souls, will be in heaven. In its treatment of heaven, the Catechism of the Catholic Church simply notes, referring to human persons, that “those who die in God's grace and friendship and are perfectly purified live for ever with Christ. They are like God for ever, for they ‘see him as he is,’ face to face” (no. 1023, citing 1 Jn. 3:2).
United in the Faith,
Thomas J. Nash
Senior Information Specialist
Catholics United for the Faith
827 North Fourth Street
Steubenville, OH 43952
800-MY-FAITH (800-693-2484)
Was Jonah a Real Person?
Dear Catholic Exchange,
What does the Church teach about the inerrancy of the Bible? I read a Catholic Truth Society pamphlet by Cardinal Paul Taguchi (1975) that affirmed the inerrancy of the Bible. Additionally, I recently read an article by Fr Michael Kelley C.Sc.R (Lecturer at Yarra Theological Union) in our Deanery newsletter stating, “Support for the inerrancy of the Bible is maintained by select, uncontextualised quotations that affirm for example, that Jonah was a real person. . . .All Christians wish to support the authority of the Word of God, but most of us are unwilling to accept an authority that does not subject itself to the accepted modes of interpretation of the Biblical text.”
Regards,
Sharon Petrakou
Bishop Carroll and the Crisis of Today
Dear Tom,
I went to the Catholic Renewal Convention in Anaheim. Fr. Groeschel was one of the featured speakers. He was awesome. He said the current crisis in the Church is the worst since 1790 when Bishop Carroll was appointed in Maryland. What do you suppose he meant by that?
Debbie Bradel
Dear Debbie,
I would imagine Fr. Groeschel was going for the most dramatic comparison possible in referring to the appointment of Fr. Carroll as America’s first bishop in 1790, 14 years after our nation’s founding (he had founded Georgetown University one year earlier). Bishop Carroll was responsible for laying the very foundation for the Catholic Church in America and establishing the Catholic educational system in this country.
I don’t expect the American Church was in very good shape at that point, with no leadership structure at all. It’s telling that Fr. Groeschel would compare the current state of things to that time. Here’s a bit more background, FYI: http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/today/aug15.html
Tom Allen
Editor & President
Catholic Exchange
Editor's Note: To contact Catholic Exchange, please refer to our Contact Us page.
Please note that all email submitted to Catholic Exchange or its authors (regarding articles published at CE) become the property of Catholic Exchange and may be published in this space. Published letters may be edited for length and clarity. Names and cities of letter writers may also be published. Email addresses of viewers will not normally be published.
Dear Sharon,
As you noted, Father Michael Kelley of Yarra Theological Union writes the following:
“Support for the inerrancy of the Bible is maintained by select, uncontextualized quotations that affirm, for example, that Jonah was a real person. . . . All Christians wish to support the authority of the Word of God, but most of are unwilling to accept an authority that does not subject itself to the accepted modes of interpretation of the Biblical text.”
To be fair, given the limited quotation provided from Father Kelley, it’s impossible to know for sure the complete contexts of his remarks. He could be making a categorical argument against biblical inerrancy, or he could be making a case against a certain defense of Biblical inerrancy. In any event, as our Faith Fact entitled, Taking God at His Word: A Catholic Understanding of Biblical Inerrancy, makes clear the Church does teach biblical inerrancy.
To be accurately interpreted, the Bible must be read according to the various literary genres of the biblical books. Father Kelley also speaks of the “accepted modes of interpretation of the Biblical text.” Father Kelley seems to be speaking of modern methods of biblical interpretation, such as the historical-critical method. However, to be faithfully Catholic, any mode of interpretation must be applied in a way that recognizes biblical inerrancy. For further reading on this subject, I also recommend reading our Faith Fact entitled, Making “Sense” Out of Scripture.
With regard to the issue of the Book of Jonah, the Church has not made any definitive pronouncement on the literal meaning of this biblical book. Thus, there has not been any clear, official affirmation that Jonah was indeed a historical figure, or that, if he was, the events described in the Book of Jonah actually happened as described. As our Faith Fact on biblical inerrancy explains, if the literal meaning of a text is historical-that is, if the inspired author intended to write a historical account, then because the Holy Spirit protected the sacred authors from error in all that they wrote, we must believe the historical events happened as described. However, if the sacred author intended the literal meaning of the text to not be a historical account, but rather an allegory or a morality lesson, then we need not believe that the text is describing an actual historical event. The crucial issue at hand in determining whether Jonah is a historical figure and whether the events described truly happened is determining whether the inspired author of the Book of Jonah intended to write a historical account. (Even the term “historical” itself can be misleading, since people in ancient times had a different conception of what constituted history and accurate historical records.) Since the Church has not definitively pronounced on this matter, Catholics are not bound to a particular understanding of the literal meaning of the text. (See our Faith Fact on Making “Sense” of Scripture for information beyond the literal meaning/sense.)
While the Church has not made an official pronouncement on the matter, we must also note that many Church Fathers did believe that the Book of Jonah described a person who really existed and events that really happened (Pope Clement, Letter to the Corinthians; St. Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho; St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies; St. Ignatius, Epistle to the Trallians; St. Methodius, Fragments; and Tertullian, On the Resurrection of the Flesh). In affirming the historicity of Jonah, the Fathers seem to be following the example of Jesus Himself, who said:
“An evil and adulterous generation looks for a sign; but no sign will be given to it except the sign of the Prophet Jonah. For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. The men of Nineveh will arise at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and behold, something greater than Jonah is here (Mt. 12: 39-41).”
Here Jesus implicitly affirms the actual existence of Jonah. Someone could argue that the statement “. . . as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale” does not necessarily refer to an event that actually happened, and that Jesus could simply be referring to a well-know morality story. Yet signs are tangible realities, which point to a higher reality. Thus Jesus’ description of Jonah’s stay in the belly of the whale as a
“sign” (pointing to Jesus’ stay in the tomb) implicitly suggests that the event did actually occur. Furthermore, Jesus appears to be affirming (v. 41) the existence of the Ninevites as real people who repented upon hearing the preaching of Jonah, and who will arise at the last judgment with Jesus’ generation and condemn it.
It is also worth noting that the Book of 2 Kings makes mention of a prophet by the name of Jonah: “[T]he word of the Lord, the God of Israel, which he spoke by his servant Jonah the son of Amittai, the prophet, who was from Gath-hepher” (2 Kings 14:25). This appears to be the same prophet described in the Book of Jonah: “Now the word of the Lord came to Jonah the son of Amittai. . .” (Jon 1:1-2).
Thus we can say that there is strong evidence from Scripture and Tradition to suggest that there was a historical prophet by the name of Jonah, and that the events in the book really happened. As noted, however, the Church has not made any definitive pronouncement regarding these issues. Normally the Church does not make such pronouncements on the interpretation of particular books or passages of Scripture. The exception would be when erroneous interpretations of a particular book or passage threaten essential Catholic teachings.
If we can be of further service on this matter, or you would like more information about our apostolate, please contact us toll-free at (800) 693-2484.
United in the Faith,
Thomas J. Nash
Senior Information Specialist
Catholics United for the Faith
827 North Fourth Street
Steubenville, OH 43952
800-MY-FAITH (800-693-2484)
