|
Q u i c k Q u e s t i o n s
|
This Rock
Volume 3, Number 2
 February 1992 
|
|
|
Was Jesus' hair too long?
Q: Aren't all images of Jesus false? In 1 Corinthians 11:14 Paul tells us long hair is degrading to and unnatural for a man. All the pictures of Jesus show him with long hair, so they must be false images.
A: The pictures we have of Christ do not derive from any physical description we have of him in the Bible, because there is none. The basic image comes from a long artistic and iconographic tradition. Nothing in that facial image contradicts the Bible.
Part of the problem here is how long is long? We know from archeological materials, such as Middle Eastern carvings and Egyptian tomb paintings, that Jews wore what we would consider today as long hair and beards. Hair reached down to the shoulders on men. Women wore hair down to the waist.
Paul was telling Corinthian men that wearing hair down to the waist as women did would be effeminate and unnatural. You assume the length and cut of a Jewish man's hair in the first century was as it is for most men today, but that's a misconception which results in your misinterpretation of Paul's epistle.
Q: I've been at funerals where the person had not been a practicing Catholic. Some of these people had never been to Church in all the years I knew them. Why is it the Church buries these lapsed Catholics?
A: Often it is not clear why a lapsed Catholic has lapsed. The Church wants to fulfill the wish of Christ that all be saved. It is not proper for us to pass judgment on the spiritual state of others, particularly if we have not been with them during their last minutes of life.
Remember that at the last moment the good thief had a change of heart and Christ welcomed him into paradise. The parish priest or hospital chaplain will look for any indication that the individual wished to die on good terms with the Lord. Given that indication, the priest will not withhold any of the spiritual benefits that can be given the deceased and those close to him by a funeral Mass.
Q: I'm not a Catholic, but my wife is. We've decided to have our two children baptized and brought up as Catholics. We've been getting instructions from the parish. We were advised to pick a saint's name for each of the children. Why is that done?
A: You will hear in the creed, when it is said at Mass, that we believe in the Communion of Saints. This means we are spiritually united with those who have died and are now in heaven. They can act as intercessors--they have the ability to assist us and pray for us.
By choosing a saint's name you acknowledge this fact and ask a particular saint to assist you in bringing up the child; the saint becomes the child's patron--and a role model for the child.
Q: What was the Index of Forbidden Books? What books were put on it? Since the use of the Index has been dropped, is it all right now to read those books?
A: The Index was a list of books considered dangerous to faith or morals. In establishing the Index the Church intended to protect Catholics from such material. The subject matter of books listed on the Index ranged from heretical treatises to pornography. After Vatican Council II a specific list of books was dropped and a set of guidelines established in its place. The reading of such books is not edifying spiritually or morally. They should not be read out of curiosity. Permission to read objectionable books is given to those whose task it is to refute them and defend the teaching of the Church.
Q: What are sins that cry to heaven for vengeance and sins against the Holy Spirit?
A: Most Catholics are familiar with the term mortal sin. Mortal sins deprive the soul of grace. They are serious transgressions of God's law, done freely and deliberately with a clear understanding of what they are. Their result is to deny a soul entrance to heaven.
There are particular mortal sins that are so evil that they are said to be sins that cry to heaven for vengeance: murder (Gen. 4:10), sodomy (Gen. 17:20-21), oppression of the poor (Ex. 2:23), and defrauding workers of their just wages (James 5:4).
Sins against the Holy Spirit are mortal sins that harden a soul by its rejection of the Holy Spirit. Six sins are in this category. They are despair, presumption, envy, obstinacy in sin, final impenitence, and deliberate resistance to the known truth.
Q: Isn't confession to a priest an option? If you're sincerely sorry for your sins and confess them in your own heart, aren't you already forgiven?
A: The power to forgive sins was one Christ gave to his apostles (Luke 10:16; 2 Cor. 5:18-20. After he rose from the dead Christ said to the apostles, "'As the Father has sent me, so I send you.' And when he had said this, he breathed on then and said to them, 'Receive the Holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained'" (John 20:22-23).
We can be truly sorry for our sins--that is essential for forgiveness--but we can't forgive our own sins. We can't absolve ourselves. That is a power reserved to God alone. Through Christ that power was conferred on his apostles and their successors, the bishops, and their helpers, the priests. Confession is not an option. It is the ordinary (normative) means through which sins are forgiven.
Q: In my church I was taught that dancing is sinful. What I have seen of dancing confirms this is right. How can your church condone dancing?
A: Given some of the dancing that has been portrayed in movies in recent years and imitated on dances floors, you are partly right. But not all dancing is "dirty dancing." Folk dancing, square dancing, ballroom dancing, and even many modern forms of dancing are not. Although you were advised against immoral dancing, what you were taught unjustly condemned all dancing. Keep in mind that the Bible shows dancing can be an expression of joy. The women of Israel danced after they crossed the Red Sea (Ex. 15:20), and David danced before the Ark of the Covenant (2 Kings 6:12-17).
Q: How can there be miracles? If there is a God--and I'm not sure there is--he couldn't perform miracles. To do so would violate his own laws and disrupt and destroy the whole order of the universe as we know it.
A: You seem to know what the "whole order of the universe" is and what all its "laws" are. Your picture or model of the universe is a limited (and limiting) one. It presumes you can and do know all that there is to know. You exclude a transcendent God because he would be stepping into a model you have constructed, like a house of cards, and knock the thing down.
Physicists and other scientists tell us how little they know and understand about the nature of the universe. Science does not know how the universe was created. It does not know ultimately what constitutes matter or life, and it does not know what the purpose of existence is. God is the Creator of the universe and only he has complete knowledge of and power over it. God's infinite power over the universe is the first true law of the universe.
Miracles exist and are an exercise of that supreme power, though they may upset your limited view of the universe. Here are two books to clarify things for you: Old Errors and New Labels by Fulton Sheen (out of print but worth checking out of the library) and Miracles by C. S. Lewis (still in print).
Q: Last year I left the Mormon Church and became a Catholic. I want to bolster my faith with more knowledge, especially on the subject of the nature of God so I can do a better job of explaining this to my Mormon family members. They constantly challenge my Catholic beliefs, especially that there is only one God. What do you recommend?
A: Start with Frank Sheed's Theology and Sanity, which contains a lucid and compact explanations of this subject. Then loan your relatives the book and offer to discuss it with them after they've read it. During the discussion cite these passages as biblical evidence there is only one true God: Isaiah 44:6; 45:5-6, 18, 21-22; 46:9. Cite these passages to show God is omnipresent: Psalm 138 (139):7-8; Wisdom 1:7; Jeremiah 23:24; Ephesians 1:23.
Q: Why do Catholics cling so tightly to the tradition of apostolic succession when there's no biblical support for it? All you can point to are dubious opinions of a few early Christian writers.
A: We cling tightly to this tradition because it's true, for starters, and because all Christians are commanded to do so by Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:2 and 2 Thessalonians 2:15. For biblical corroboration look at Acts 1:21-26, where you'll see the apostles, immediately after Jesus' Ascension, acting swiftly to replace the position left vacant by Judas's suicide.
They prayed for guidance, asking God to show them which candidate was "chosen to take the place in this apostolic ministry from which Judas turned away." After choosing Matthias they laid hands on him to confer apostolic authority.
Look at 1 Timothy 1:6 and 4:14, where Paul reminds Timothy that the office of bishop had been conferred on him through the laying on of hands. Notice in 1 Timothy 5:22 that Paul advises Timothy not to be hasty in handing on this authority to others. In Titus Paul describes the apostolic authority Titus had received and urges him to act decisively in this leadership role.
Lastly, please do better homework on early Christian writings. The testimony of the early Church is deafening in its unanimous (yes, unanimous) assertion of apostolic succession. Far from being discussed by only a few, scattered writers, the belief that the apostles handed on their authority to others was one of the most frequently and vociferously defended doctrines in the first centuries of Christianity.
Q: At an adult Bible study I was trying to explain the Trinity. I said today we can understand, at least in theory, more about it than Augustine could because we have the work of Aquinas to stand on, and Augustine understood the Trinity better than the first Christians. My pastor criticized me, saying we couldn't understand the Trinity at all because it's a mystery. Who's right?
A: You are. Your pastor seems to be confused about what a mystery is. It isn't a religious truth about which we can know nothing. It's a religious truth about which we can't know everything and about which we wouldn't know anything at all if God hadn't revealed it to us.
Frank Sheed had a good way of explaining what a mystery is and isn't. He said many people--your pastor might be an example--think of it as a museum gallery into which we can't enter at all because a brick wall blocks our way. Instead, a mystery is more like an endless gallery. No matter how far down it you walk, marveling at the pictures, you're still no closer to the end (the end representing complete understanding). You can understand more and more, but you'll never get the whole story.
If we really "understand nothing" about the Trinity, then we can't even talk about one divine nature and three Persons. A discussion of the nature-and-Persons issue indicates we understand at least something about the Trinity.
Postscript: Sometimes Catholics who have questions about the faith are brushed off by priests who say, "Just accept it. It's a mystery." Such a reply usually manifests theological and pastoral laziness. You may have to put up with it, but don't swallow it.
|
C A T H O L I C A N S W E R S :
[TOP]
of
