Why does it say in Isaiah 45:7 that God created evil?
Isaiah 45:7, in some English translations, reads: “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.” The Hebrew word that is translated “evil,” or ra, can indeed mean moral evil such as in Genesis 2:9, “the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil [ra].” However, ra can also refer to natural evil, such as in Psalm 34:19: “Many are the afflictions (ra) of the righteous; but the LORD delivers him out of them all.”
Since God is all-good, he cannot engage in moral evil, because it is impossible for him to act against the good. However, God can cause natural evil because pain can ultimately serve God’s good ends or purpose for creation. It seems clear from the context that this verse refers to God creating natural evil.
The Hebrew words used for peace and evil in this verse are shalom and ra. The word shalom is a greeting and along with literally meaning “peace” it is an informal way of wishing someone well. Prior to this verse, Isaiah is describing how God is in complete control of the universe. The Israelite’s suffering is not the result of God being unable to fend off other evil gods, a belief common among non-Jews of the time. Rather, when the Israelites suffer, the prophet has made it clear that God is aware of their suffering and is directing it toward a good end.
The Catholic RSV translates Isaiah 45:7 thusly: “I form light and create darkness, I make weal (shalom) and create woe (ra), I am the LORD, who does all these things.” Just as darkness is the opposite of light, the opposite of peace is unrest or calamity, not necessarily moral evil. This passage describes only how God is the ultimate cause of both what we enjoy and suffer through, but it is God who will deliver us from these sufferings we must endure for our own good.
— Trent Horn
If a person gets an annulment so that he can get married again, how is this not going against Jesus’ words that the two become one that no man can put asunder? Annulments seem to be just like what Moses did when he allowed divorce because of his own people.
An annulment does not “put asunder” (Matt. 19:6) a marriage. Rather, it recognizes and declares that, based on sufficient evidence, a true marriage never actually came into existence. What might have appeared to have been a marriage was not truly one. Thus, there is no marriage to put asunder.
— Jim Blackburn
I’ve been going to a non-Catholic Bible study lately and am feeling drawn toward their particular church. They teach that after a person comes to Christ, he cannot lose his salvation. They cite John 10:28 as proof of this.
The belief that one cannot lose his salvation is certainly an attractive one. But what is more important than the attractiveness of a belief is its truth. And the simple fact is, if we are going to go by what the Bible teaches, we must acknowledge that salvation, once accepted, can also be rejected.
The Scripture you reference states, “I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish, and no one shall snatch them out of my hand.” What this means is precisely what it says; since Jesus protects us (his sheep), no one, including Satan himself, has the power to snatch us out of his hand. But it does not say that we cannot or will not choose to reject the salvation offered us and jump out of his hand. Indeed, elsewhere in Scripture it says we can do just that:
For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overpowered, the last state has become worse for them than the first. For it would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them. It has happened to them according to the true proverb, The dog turns back to his own vomit, and the sow is washed only to wallow in the mire (2 Pet. 2:20).
See also 1 Corinthians 15:1-2, Colossians 1:21-23, Hebrews 6:4-6, and Revelation 2:10.
I would encourage you to find a Bible study that is faithful to the teachings of the Catholic Church—which is the same as saying faithful to the Bible—such as The Great Adventure.
— Matt Fradd
Was St. John the only apostle not to be martyred? If so, is this significant?
Yes, St. John was the only apostle to not die a martyr. This is not nearly as significant as the fact that he was also the only apostle standing at the foot of the cross. His was the unique honor of giving solace to our Blessed Mother and, therefore, to her Son.
— Fr. Vincent Serpa
My priest said that it was theologically sound to refer to our Lord as “Mother.” Is that correct?
No. God the Father is pure spirit and so does not have gender. But Jesus called him Father and told his apostles to do the same when they asked him to teach them to pray. So we call him Father and not Mother. We understand human fatherhood to the degree that we know God the Father—and not the other way around.
— Fr. Vincent Serpa
In a recent homily I heard a priest mention the charismatic gifts. What exactly are these gifts? Do all Christians have them?
The charismatic gifts are special graces of the Holy Spirit that are given for the building up of the Church. We find biblical grounding for this throughout the New Testament, but particularly in the writings of St. Paul:
“Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit; there are varieties of service, but the same Lord; and there are varieties of working, but it is the same God who inspires them all in everyone. To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good” (1 Cor. 12:4-7).
“Having gifts that differ according to the grace given to us, let us use them: if prophecy, in proportion to our faith; if service in our serving; he who teaches in teaching; he who exhorts, in his exhortation; he who contributes, in liberality; he who gives aid, with zeal; he who does acts of mercy with cheerfulness” (Rom. 12:5-8).
There are two basic classifications or categories of charismatic gifts – ordinary and extraordinary. We read in the Catechism:
“Whether extraordinary or simple and humble, charisms are graces of the Holy Spirit which directly or indirectly benefit the Church, ordered as they are to her building up, to the good of men, and to the needs of the world” (CCC 799).
The ordinary charismatic gifts, which are the invisible grace gifts that assist us in fulfilling our vocation and living out our particular state in life, are widely given. The extraordinary gifts, which are typically associated with those of a more pronounced supernatural or miraculous nature, such as healing, miracles, prophecy, tongues (see 1 Cor. 12-14), while commonplace in the first century, are much less so today. The Church teaches the faithful to be receptive to the charismatic gifts (cf. CCC 800-801).
— Hector Molina
My son and his fiancé have planned their wedding Mass for a Friday afternoon at 3 p.m. at her parish in another state. To me that seems a bit inappropriate, their joyful occasion coinciding with the exact time of our Lord’s death on the cross. Their priest okayed it; so he must not see a problem. Do you?
Every Mass we attend is a celebration of that moment. If your son’s fiancé is planning a nuptial Mass, she’s free to choose whatever time of day she wishes.
— Fr. Vincent Serpa
How should I respond to a friend of mine who says all religions are equally true?
You might ask your friend if she adheres to the law of non-contradiction, which states that a thing cannot be both true and not true at the same time and in the same respect. If she is rational and concedes, then point out to her that different religions make contradictory claims that can’t both be true. For example, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam teach that God is separate from the universe, which he freely chose to create. Pantheism, on the other hand, teaches that God is the universe. Both cannot be true. If your friend says that she does not accept the law on non-contradiction, then you might tell her that she ought to accept it, since, according to her (il)logic, two contradictory beliefs (such as accepting the law of non-contradiction and not accepting it) can both be true, which is clearly absurd.
— Matt Fradd
A friend of mine believes that we can sin by only perceiving. To give an example; if I’m angry with someone and wish them harm then I have sinned (You shall not kill). This I tend to agree with. What my friend doesn’t agree is sinful is that person acting out that anger and harming the other individual. I tend to think at the very least this adds to the gravity of the first sin, if it’s not a similar but distinct sin. Please assist.
To sin mortally, the action must be objectively sinful, the person must know that it is sinful, and the person must freely choose to commit the act. Just considering the possibility of harming another person is not a sin, but only a temptation—until the person wills to harm the person. Then it is a sin. When one actually harms the person, he is carrying out what he has already willed. It is the same sin. Morality is determined by intention and will as well as the nature of the act freely willed.
— Fr. Vincent Serpa
The other day my son asked me a question I couldn’t answer: Can God create a rock so heavy he can’t lift it?
This is a false dilemma that seeks to invalidate the omnipotence of God. While omnipotence does mean “all powerful,” it does not mean the ability to do the logically impossible. There are certain things God cannot do. He cannot lie (Heb. 6:18), he cannot change (Malachi 3:6), etc. To do so would be to contradict his nature, which is impossible. God would have to suffer some imperfection in order to lie or change; thus he cannot do these things precisely because of his infinite power and perfection.
The answer to your son’s question is no. And this is so not because he is not infinite in power and perfection but because he is these things. You or I could theoretically make something like a car or a house that we could not lift. But that is because we are not omnipotent. God cannot do so because it would be logically impossible for him to do so.
Another way to think of this is to say God’s omnipotence means God can do all things that are real and possible. But because something that is logically impossible isn’t really a thing at all, the words of St. Thomas Aquinas may be of help to your son: “It is more exact to say that the ‘intrinsically’ impossible is incapable of production than to say that God cannot produce it.” (Summa I, Q. XXV, a. 3).
— Matt Fradd
A Calvinist friend of mine says that the only reason the Catholic Church rejects contraception is because the pope wants more priests, but is it true that Protestants used to believe in the immorality of contraception?
Yes. The Christian rejection of contraception was universal until 1930. It was then at the Lambeth Conference in England that the Anglican church changed its teaching to allow the use of contraception in limited circumstances. Now virtually no Protestant denomination finds a problem with it. The Catholic Church’s principled stance has nothing to do with the pope wanting more priests.
I wonder if your friend is aware of how vociferously the founder of his own denominations, John Calvin, spoke out against contraception. In his commentary on Genesis, regarding the sin of Onan who “spilled [his] semen on the ground” (Gen 38:9), Calvin wrote:
I will content myself with briefly mentioning this, as far as the sense of shame allows to discuss it. It is a horrible thing to pour out seed besides the intercourse of man and woman. Deliberately avoiding the intercourse, so that the seed drops on the ground, is doubly horrible. For this means that one quenches the hope of his family, and kills the son, which could be expected, before he is born.
— Matt Fradd
My pastor recently prohibited adults from attending the Sunday “children’s/teen Mass”at our parish. Is this permitted by canon law?
A priest cannot prohibit the faithful from attending Mass because of age or for any other reason. It doesn’t matter whether it’s during a “children’s” Mass or a “teen” Mass, the Christian faithful, by virtue of their baptism, have a fundamental right to receive the sacraments in their place of worship. Canon 213 states: “The Christian faithful have the right to receive assistance from the sacred pastors out of the spiritual goods of the Church, especially the word of God and the sacraments.” And we read in canon 912, “Any baptized person not prohibited by law can and must be admitted to Holy Communion.”
In fact, one of the precepts of the Church is the faithful’s obligation to participate in the Mass on Sundays and other holy days of obligation (CCC 2180). The doors of the church for Sunday liturgy are open to anyone at any time.
— Peggy Frye
I have a good friend who I would like to ask to be my daughter’s godmother. She isn’t Catholic, but she does love Jesus and is a good person. Is that okay?
I’m happy to hear that your friend loves Jesus and is a good person, but unless she converts before your daughter’s baptism (which you should not prolong unnecessarily), she cannot be her godmother. The Code of Canon Law states:
“To be permitted to take on the function of a sponsor a person must: be a Catholic who has been confirmed and has already received the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist and who leads a life of faith in keeping with the function to be taken on” (CIC 874 §1,3). It goes on to say in the same canon, “[A] baptized person who belongs to a non-Catholic ecclesial community is not to participate except together with a Catholic sponsor and then only as a witness of the baptism” (§ 2).
— Matt Fradd
My friend says that the Bible contradicts itself and cited two examples from the life of Moses. First, who was Moses’ father-in-law? Exodus 3:1 says it was Jethro while Numbers 10:29 says it was Hobab. Also, where did Moses receive the Ten Commandments? Was it on Mount Sinai as recorded in Exodus 31:18 or Mount Horeb as recorded in 1 Kings 8:9?
Jethro was not a name but a title on par with “Your excellency,” so there is no contradiction in referring to Hobab by his name in one place and by his title in another. The same applies to the apparent contradiction in where Moses received the Ten Commandments. Sinai and Horeb may refer to the same mountain, or Horeb could be the mountain’s name, and Sinai could be the name of the desert surrounding the mountain. The contradictions are resolved when we remember that a person or place can be known by more than one name.
— Trent Horn
Do you think that the Church will ever ordain women?
No. Pope John Paul II, in his apostolic letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, formally declared that the Church does not have the power to ordain women. In 1995 the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in conjunction with the pope, ruled:
“[This teaching] requires definitive assent, since, founded on the written Word of God, and from the beginning constantly preserved and applied in the tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal magisterium (Second Vatican Council, “Dogmatic Constitution on the Church” [Lumen Gentium] 25:2)” (response of Oct. 25, 1995).
— Matt Fradd
I have two first-class relics (bone fragments and scalp hair) given to me by my uncle before he passed away. I know the Church prohibits the sale of any sacred relic, but I am interested in giving the relics to a local Catholic church where they could be displayed inside a reliquary in the sanctuary. From what I understand, before ownership of certain relics can be transferred to a different owner, permission must be granted by the Holy See. Is this true?
No. You can offer the relics to the local Catholic church for public veneration without acquiring permission from the Holy See.
Canon 1190of the Code of Canon Law states:
§1. It is absolutely forbidden to sell sacred relics.
§2. Relics of great significance and other relics honored with great reverence by the people cannot be alienated validly in any manner or transferred permanently without the permission of the Apostolic See.
§3. The prescript of §2 is valid also for images which are honored in some church with great reverence by the people.
The New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law (p. 1415) says:
Paragraph one refers to all authentic relics of the saints and the blessed. Paragraph two treats only relics which are significant (insignes) or relics which are honored with great veneration by the people. A significant relic was defined in the previous code as a part of a saint’s body (arm, forearm, heart, tongue, leg) or the part of a martyr’s body that had suffered the wound that caused death, provided the part was entire and not too small.
The Commentary goes on to say, “Relics may be given away by their owners except for the second category of relics, which may not be given away without permission of the Apostolic See.”
— Peggy Frye
I recently heard that Jesus’ virgin birth is nothing special and that the Egyptian deity Horus was virginally conceived. Is this true?
No. This sort of arguments—that Jesus is only a spin-off of pagan deities—is a position you encounter a lot on the Internet but which sophisticated atheists and skeptics don’t take. Why? Because when you read authoritative sources on Egyptian mythology, such as The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt, you see that these pagan stories are not at all similar to the life of Christ.
Let’s take the example you mentioned, the Virgin Birth. There are several different (and contradictory) stories about Horus that have developed gradually over the last 3,000 years, but the most common story of his conception involves his father, Osiris and mother, Isis.
It goes like this: When Osiris was murdered and his body cut up into fourteen pieces, his wife Isis journeyed throughout Egypt collecting them. She was able to find all pieces except his genitals, which had been eaten by catfish at the bottom of the Nile (not making this up). Isis then makes a prosthetic phallus, gets impregnated by it, and along comes Horus. Not exactly what I’d call a virgin birth.
— Matt Fradd
If a priest happens upon an auto accident where someone had just died, and the body was still warm, can he administer the sacrament of anointing?
Yes. Since medical science does not know the precise moment of death, and no one knows exactly when the soul leaves the body, a priest can administer the sacrament of the sick (conditionally) if he is doubtful that the person he is attending is dead.
The 1983 “Pastoral Care of the Sick, Rites of Anointing and Viaticum” translates par. 15:
When a priest has been called to attend those already dead, he should not administer the sacrament of anointing. Instead he should pray for them, asking that God forgive their sins and graciously receive them into the kingdom. But if the priest is doubtful whether the sick person is dead, he may give the sacrament conditionally (no. 269)
— Peggy Frye
My parish has invited a Reiki practitioner to give a workshop. When I told my priest that it’s a New Age practice and we shouldn’t be offering it at the retreat, he told me there’s not a problem with it because it’s a natural health therapy that’s good for the whole body. Is there anything official that I can show him to help change his mind?
I encourage you to give your priest a copy of the USCCB’s “Guidelines For Evaluating Reiki as an Alternative Therapy” (usccb.org/_cs_upload/8092_1/pdf). The USCCB’s Committee on Doctrine has concluded the following:
1. Reiki therapy finds no support either in the findings of natural science or in Christian belief.
2. To use Reiki, one would have to accept at least in an implicit way central elements of the worldview that undergirds Reiki theory, elements that belong neither to Christian Faith nor to natural science.
3. A Catholic who puts his or her trust in Reiki would be operating in the realm of superstition, the no-man’s-land that is neither faith nor science. Superstition corrupts one’s worship of God by turning one’s religious feeling and practice in a false direction.
4. Since Reiki therapy is not compatible with either Christian teaching or scientific evidence, it would be inappropriate for Catholic institutions, such as Catholic health care facilities and retreat centers, or persons representing the Church, such as Catholic chaplains, to promote or to provide support for Reiki therapy.
— Peggy Frye
I’ve heard that Jesus was married, because it would have been unheard of for a Jewish man to be celibate at that time. Is this true?
While celibacy was an unusual condition for men during Jesus’ time, it was not unheard of. It is commonly held that John the Baptist and minor prophets such as Banus (who is mentioned by the first-century Jewish historian Josephus) were not married.
St. Paul too was celibate, and in 1 Corinthians 9:5 he defends his right to take a wife if he desired to do so: “Do we not have the right to be accompanied by a wife, as the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?” If Paul wanted to defend his right to marry and serve the Lord, surely he would have appealed to Jesus’ own marriage if that had actually happened.
Finally, if Jesus were married, this would have severely complicated Paul’s use of the metaphor of the Church being the bride of Christ (Eph. 5:22-33, 2 Cor. 11:2-4). If even bishops were expected to be the husband of only one wife (1 Tim. 3:2), how much more so should Jesus only be the husband of his one wife, the Church?
This provides good evidence that Jesus was unmarried, as tradition has held for 2,000 years.
— Trent Horn
My mother is halfway from Catholic to nondenominational and sliding farther away every day. When I told her going to Mass was an obligation, she said, “Show me in the Bible where it says we have to go to Mass.” Is this rule in the Bible?
Genesis 2:2-3 reads, “And on the seventh day God finished his work which he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had done. So God blessed the seventh day and hallowed it, because on it God rested from all his work which he had done in creation.”
Because our Savior rose from the dead on Sunday, thereby fulfilling the Old Law, the Church celebrates Sunday as the Lord’s Day. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states, “The Sunday Eucharist is the foundation and confirmation of all Christian practice. For this reason, the faithful are obliged to participate in the Eucharist on days of obligation, unless excused for a serious reason (e.g., illness, the care of infants) or dispensed by their own pastor. Those who deliberately fail in this obligation commit a grave sin.”
Your mother needs to realize that Jesus didn’t leave his disciples the Bible—he left them the Church. It was through the authority that Jesus gave to his Church that we have the Bible. This is a fact; not an opinion.
— Fr. Vincent Serpa