Free will and prayer

[Suudy]

Sitting in our Catachumen discussion (we are dismissed after the homily during mass), we discussed prayer. A retired priest moderates the meeting, and our discussion drifted towards free will and prayer.

It started with a discussion of miracles and prayer associated with them. Frequently the priest (call him Father Steve) mentioned that he believes that no miracles can violate the laws of nature. I frequently argue (in the academic sense) about this, citing the Eucharist of a miracle that violates the laws of nature, i.e. bread and wine becoming Christ’s flesh and blood. Continuing, he said that by the very act of granting us (and the entire universe) free will, he is prohibited from interfering with the very rules he put in place. To do so would be tyranny.

Given this, someone asked why we should pray if God can’t do anything about it. (Note that the reason Father Steve believes God can’t do anything about it is because of the free will of the universe and man.) His answer is that it is for the person doing the praying, not the recipient. It evokes change in the person doing the praying, but cannot do anything for the recipient.

Now the interesting part of our conversation. I asked about prayer for the souls in purgatory. Since purgatory is not really a place, but more of a state, there are no laws of nature to violate. I asked him if prayers for the dead were useful to the dead. Since those in hell cannot be saved, prayer for them is meaningless. Similary for those in heaven, since they are already in heave, there is no need to pray for them. However, and please correct me if I am wrong, those in purgatory are helpless. They cannot pray for themselves nor pray for others. It seems our prayers are the most useful.

Father Steve’s reply? We are in purgatory now, and hell is a vacant place. I don’t know if hell is vacant or not (I hope it is), but the suggesting that this is purgatory seems contradictory to what the Catechism teaches. I got tired of arguing these points with him, so I dropped the issue.

Any thoughts on these ideas? Anyone heard anything of the sort? I’m not exactly sure what to think of this. He is a priest, and seems a well educated one at that.

Thanks,
Suudy

 

[Apolonio]

Suudy,

First, a miracle does not “violate” the laws of nature. They interfere with it, but does not violate it. The laws of nature are not deterministic, but probabilistic. They tell us what usually happens. God can change circumstances and intervene. By changing the circumstance, He does not violate it. For example, there is a law which says “thou shall not cross the red sea.” To cross the red sea would be a violation of it. But if someone changed the law to saying “You can cross the red sea at 2 pm,” and someone crossed it at that time, then there is no violation because the circumstances changed. That’s basically what happens in a miracle.

As far as Fr. Steve is concerned, he’s wrong. The universe does not have free-will. Only persons have free-will. It seems that he has a deist view, not Catholic. I also don’t understand what he means by “the one praying but not the recipient.”

As far as purgatory is concerned, we can say, in a sense, we are in purgatory if we mean that we are under purification in this life. That could be said analogically or metaphorically, not literally.

 

[jeffreedy789]

good answer, apolonio. i’d second what he said. it sounds like your priest either misspoke, gave you the wrong impression of what he believes, or believes something the church doesn’t teach.

i would recommend reading cs lewis’s ‘miracles’ to see a very good and well thought out answer to the dilemma inherent in your question.

 

[DavidFilmer]

Suddy - it seems your priest (while I don’t doubt his sincerity or his vocation) is an unfortunate victim of the deplorable state of our seminaries these past forty+ years. In years past, it was the older priests one could turn to for genuine Catholic knowledge and wisdom. Now it is often the other way 'round.

Your question suggests that you are probably better qualified to instruct your RCIA group than your assigned priest. Unfortunately, this is not possible. So I encourage you to bear with the program, and at a later date obtain the credentials to teach RCIA yourself, so you may impart the correct and actual teaching of the Catholic Church. You will thus do a great service to untold numbers of persons seeking the Fullness of Faith.

 

[Suudy]

Thanks for the reply. I was worried that such a topic might not elicit much interest.

Apolonio:

First, a miracle does not “violate” the laws of nature. They interfere with it, but does not violate it. The laws of nature are not deterministic, but probabilistic. They tell us what usually happens. God can change circumstances and intervene. By changing the circumstance, He does not violate it. For example,

The word I chose, “violate,” is probably too strong a word. Perhaps “contradict” is more appropriate. For example a fully grown male turning into a female. I think his point was that contradictions are not possible, but modifications are.

His one example is for cancer. God won’t make a cancerous growth suddenly turn into normal cells. Rather, He could enhance the body’s ability to fight the cancer, increase the effectiveness of the treatment, or numerous other things. But no sudden healing.

Your point about probabilities is excellent. When the discussion moves towards miracles again, I’ll follow that line of thought. I’m very curious to see his response.

Apolonio:

As far as Fr. Steve is concerned, he’s wrong. The universe does not have free-will. Only persons have free-will. It seems that he has a deist view, not Catholic. I also don’t understand what he

Indeed. His point about the universe having free-will is not so much that the universe can make choices, but about God’s decision not to interfere with our free-will. For example if a cancer patient doesn’t want to be healed, but God listened to other’s prayers, it would violate the patient’s free-will.

Let me provide more detail on the conversation. It revolved around the discussion of the tsunami. People may ask why did God cause such destruction? Or, why did He allow it to occur? Why didn’t He stop it? Father Steve’s answer is that God had no choice. He gave us free-will, and to interfere with the tsunami would violate the free-will of those involved.

Admittedly, I don’t see his logic here.

Apolonio:

means by “the one praying but not the recipient.”

His point is that prayer is really a moving, powerful experience for the one doing the praying. In the end, it really cannot do anything for the person being prayed for, other than to strengthen the bond between the two (the one praying and the one being prayed for). If God were to act upon the prayer, He would violate the free-will of the one being prayed for.

Apolonio:

As far as purgatory is concerned, we can say, in a sense, we are in purgatory if we mean that we are under purification in this life. That could be said analogically or metaphorically, not literally.

While typing this response, I just had an insight into what may be his point. If we are in purgatory now, then, as the church teaches, we are helpless. We cannot pray for ourselves or others. We rely upon the prayer of the saints. If this is true, then it would explain why Father Steve believes that God cannot interfere in what we think are real happenings.

Put it this way, the tsunami resulted in great suffering. That suffering can be applied as penetential suffering for the sins of our life before purgatory. Those that die to us here have completed their penance and are welcomed into heaven. So when Father Steve says that prayer is meaningless, it is not because God cannot interfere, it is because we are helpless.

Regardless of any such thoughts, the Church teaches that purgatory is a separate existence from what we are now. Saying that we are in purgatory now, contradicts what is taught by the Church.

Thanks for the discussion,
Suudy

 

[Suudy]

DavidFilmer:

it seems your priest (while I don’t doubt his sincerity or his vocation) is an unfortunate victim of the deplorable state of our seminaries these past forty+ years. In years past, it was the older priests one could turn to for genuine Catholic knowledge and wisdom. Now it is often the other way 'round.

I’m not sure that is true in this case. Father Steve is older, probably in his 80s. He was born and raised in Ireland. I don’t know where he attended seminary, but he did mention he has a degree in canon law.

He seems rather philosophical, and seems think much less of God as a personal, involved savior but more as a benevolent benefactor. He often describes God as “nothing.” He says “nothing” because the purest love involves giving yourself away. And God so loved us, He gave his entire self away.

DavidFilmer:

Your question suggests that you are probably better qualified to instruct your RCIA group than your assigned priest. Unfortunately,

Thanks for the vot of confidence, but I wouldn’t go that far. While my interest in the Catholic church has prompted me to read quite a bit, and discuss with others the Caholic faith, I think I’m far from qualified to teach others. While it does ruffle my feathers to hear things that I think contradict Catholic teaching, I don’t think I have the education or insight to provide any authoritative counterarguments.

DavidFilmer:

this is not possible. So I encourage you to bear with the program, and at a later date obtain the credentials to teach RCIA yourself, so you may impart the correct and actual teaching of the Catholic Church. You will thus do a great service to untold numbers of persons seeking the Fullness of Faith.

I have thought of that. In fact, I called into EWTN Live to ask Father Pacwa what I should do with an RCIA instructor saying that contraception was acceptable (sidebar: I was in RCIA before last Easter, but dropped out due to disagreements with the instructor. I’m attending RCIA at a different parish now. I can post more info if anyone is interested.). He suggested swallowing my tongue and waiting until I was confirmed before trying to initiate any changes. Though I may have the correct teaching, I lack any authority until I’m a member.

Suudy

 

[Apolonio]

Suudy,

I wouldn’t use the word “contradict” either. I think “interfere” is a much better word.

You said:

“People may ask why did God cause such destruction? Or, why did He allow it to occur? Why didn’t He stop it? Father Steve’s answer is that God had no choice. He gave us free-will, and to interfere with the tsunami would violate the free-will of those involved.”

Well, God could have stopped the tsunami if He wanted to. I understand what the priest is saying, but I don’t think the free-will answer will do. It may be a good answer for evil things people do to each other, but not natural disasters. The best thing to say is that God has a moral sufficient reason for allowing them and we may not know it. And of course, the problem of suffering is not only a philosophical problem, but a personal problem. The answer is always Jesus Christ. It’s not an abstract answer, but a concrete answer. Gabriel Marcel once said that life is not a mystery to be solved, but a mystery to be lived. And the answer to suffering is suffering with and in Christ.

I disagree with his assertion that it cannot do anything for the person being prayed for. The Church is the mystical body of Christ. We are in communion with Christ and in communion with each other. We all work together just as parts of the body work together. Moses interceeded for his people and God listened to him. Not only did that help Moses, but the others as well. When Jesus prayed for His disciples, that just didn’t make Him grow, but it also worked because His disciples became faithful after His ascension.

Fr. Steve limits the power of God and that’s unfortunate.