Can You Do Evil To Get A Good Result?

Q - I watched a show called "The Confession", and it was about how a hit man comes to confession and unrepentantly confesses some of his sins.

One murder he confesses is about how he goes to a man's house and gives him a gun and says if he kills himself, he will let his family live. However, if he will not kill himself, the hit man will kill him and his family.

I know this situation is hypothetical, however I was curious about what Catholic Church would say is the correct path to choose for someone who knew suicide was gravely wrong. I was thinking that the man would not be held liable for killing himself because of freewill, is that correct? Thanks.

A - Thanks for the question. Lucky for us both, the Catholic Church gives us tools to answer questions like this. The principles that guide us in complex moral decisions are clear in this situation.

It boils down to this - we can never do something that is evil in order to get a good outcome. Another way of saying it is this - good ends do not justify evil means. In this case the good end would be saving the life of others, but the evil is taking your own life. We can play out the hypothetical situation below.

Here are the two options that the hit man gives the other man, and the moral reasoning why neither are options:

1. Kill yourself and I will not kill your family.
   --We cannot willfully kill ourselves in any situation. Our lives have an intrinsic value, but are not our own. They belong to God, who alone ought to decide the time of our death.
2. Don't kill yourself and I will kill you and your family.
   --Here we must understand that if the man chooses not to kill himself (a good decision), then the decision is not his to make if the hit man kills anyone because of that decision.

The moral reasoning of modern man is relativistic and utilitarian. Most modern people would say the Catholic Church is too strict in the principles and needs to try and do something in such situations, because lives are going to be lost. Yet, a Christian can never be the one who decide to kill an innocent person (even themselves), because we must answer for how we lived our lives, not the choices of others and life is not our own to take.

Modern moral thinking says that morality is relative to time, people, situations, etc. and that we must do what is best in that situation to bring us the most happiness via pleasure (with the least amount of pain). This kind of moral reasoning has no anchor, but blows on the wind of human whims. This is the thinking that has brought us abortion, genocide, cloning, etc.

A good intention, the situation surrounding the act, and the relationships that are part of the situation cannot make an evil act a good one. Our first priority is to God and his moral law. This law, at it's core, is to do good and avoid evil.

BTW - based on the way you describe the show, the priest would not be able to absolve the man from his sins, because he is unrepentant.

I hope this helps.

Is St. Paul Sexist?

Q - Would you please explain for me the passage from 1 Corinthians 11:1-16?
Does the description in 1 Corinthians 11:3 imply some kind of hierarchy therefore subordination from one member to the other? Why is a man not supposed to cover his head while a woman has to? Are these traditions? Finally, Jesus has long hair, do you see any contradiction?


A - Thanks for the questions. I will try and tackle all of them. First of all, we have to remember a few things about the authors of the Sacred Scriptures.
1 - God inspired them to write truth that leads to salvation. Here is what Vatican II said in Dei Verbum:

"since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings (5) for the sake of salvation."

2 - The human authors are limited by their own humanity and do not write about the natural order of things if they are ignorant about something. God inspires the truth that is supernatural and transcends the natural order. Therefore, a writer could not tell us about modern scientific discoveries thousands of years ago. Thus, when we read the Bible we must consider what the original human author knew about the world. The Catechism says:

109 In Sacred Scripture, God speaks to man in a human way. To interpret Scripture correctly, the reader must be attentive to what the human authors truly wanted to affirm, and to what God wanted to reveal to us by their words.

So, when we go through these passages, we must keep these things in mind.
Here is the passage in context:

"Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ. I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold fast to the traditions, just as I handed them on to you. But I want you to know that Christ is the head of every man, and a husband the head of his wife, and God the head of Christ. Any man who prays or prophesies with his head covered brings shame upon his head. But any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled brings shame upon her head, for it is one and the same thing as if she had had her head shaved. For if a woman does not have her head veiled, she may as well have her hair cut off. But if it is shameful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should wear a veil. A man, on the other hand, should not cover his head, because he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; nor was man created for woman, but woman for man; for this reason a woman should have a sign of authority on her head, because of the angels. Woman is not independent of man or man of woman in the Lord. For just as woman came from man, so man is born of woman; but all things are from God. Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head unveiled? Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears his hair long it is a disgrace to him, whereas if a woman has long hair it is her glory, because long hair has been given (her) for a covering? But if anyone is inclined to be argumentative, we do not have such a custom, nor do the churches of God."
1 Corinthians 11: 1-16

What is Paul getting at here? Well, it will take a while to break it all down.

Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ. I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold fast to the traditions, just as I handed them on to you. 

When Paul is saying to imitate him, he is speaking about the preceding passage, not this one. So, I will address the rest of this passage without directly linking them to Paul's example.

The rest of this passage is disputed by scholars. One school of thought is that he is talking about sexual differences between all men and women. Some say it has to do with marital relationships, not the broader differences between men and women. The Greek in this passage for "man" and "woman" can be also translated into "husband" and "wife", so this is where some of the scholars get this thought.

Now, the word "head" in Greek is Kephale. It can mean a physical head of a person's body, ruler, leader, source, or origin. So, there are different ways of interpreting what Paul is saying here. One way of interpreting Scripture is to read it in the context of other passages. Paul also talks about headship in Ephesians 5 and starts off with these passages:

"Be subordinate to one another out of reverence for Christ. Wives should be subordinate to their husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is head of his wife just as Christ is head of the church, he himself the savior of the body. As the church is subordinate to Christ, so wives should be subordinate to their husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ loved the church and handed himself over for her to sanctify her, cleansing her by the bath of water with the word,"
-Ephesians 5: 21-16

So, husbands and wives are to be subordinate to one another - which means to let the other person's interests and welfare come before your own. Also, if a man is to be head of his wife as Christ is, then a man should lay down his life for his wife, as Christ did for the Church. There is no subjugation of women here. Rather, there is sacrificial love for one another.

Now, what about the head covering issue?

The Church teaches that this was a cultural practice in Paul's day and he is asking them to keep the practice up. This is not a matter of doctrine, but a discipline, therefore it can be changed as other disciplines in the liturgy have over time. Thus, the document Inter Insigniores says:

"it must be noted that these ordinances, probably inspired by the customs of the period, concern scarcely more than disciplinary practices of minor importance, such as the obligation imposed upon women to wear a veil on their head (1 Cor 11:2-16); such requirements no longer have a normative value."

So, there is no moral or Church law that would ever require a woman to cover her head or wear what some women still wear - a chapel veil (mantilla) - rather, this is a personal devotion and women are permitted to wear them if they so choose.

As for Jesus and long hair - we just don't know what he looked like or how he had his hair.

Now, based on archaeological data, we can say that most Jews of Jesus day would have had long hair and beards (by today's standard). But, most women would have had hair much longer, probably down to their waists. So, what Paul is calling long is a cultural standard as well. He is asking men to try not to appear as women do.

I hope all of this helps.

Differences Between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches?

Q - Can you point out the major differences between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches?

A – Thanks for your question!

Before we get to the differences, let us affirm what we have in common. While language is different, we both share valid Sacraments. We both hold the Saints and Mary in esteem. We both have authority that comes from the Apostles. We both recognize at least some of the Ecumenical Councils as authoritative. We both center our belief on the Eucharist. We both believe in basic creedal Christianity. Both are legitimate “churches”.

Now, some Orthodox do not like Catholics at all and others are much more open. But, the Catholic Church views the Orthodox as a “sister” Church and we should remember this. Pope John Paul II said that he looked forward to the day when the “Church can breathe with both lungs”, in referring to the Catholic and Orthodox uniting again.

The differences between Orthodox and Catholic start and end with authority. The Orthodox do not believe that the Pope has any special authority over the other Patriarchs and (leaders of the Orthodox churches) Bishops. He is merely another Bishop with the same authority as the rest.

Other issues include:

• The Orthodox (for the most part) reject the Immaculate Conception of Mary.
• There is a slight difference, although many believe it to be blown out of proportion (including me), about the spiration of the Holy Spirit. Was it from both Father and Son or the Father alone?
• The liturgies (worship) are different in style and somewhat in emphasis.
• Orthodox allow contraceptive use in marriage.
• Orthodox allow divorce and remarriage.

For more on the divide, you can read this.

Pray for Christian Unity!

Is Harry Potter Evil?

Q - Because the final Harry Potter movie is coming out, I thought I might ask what the Church teaches about the books and movies. Is Harry Potter considered evil or more accurately, should I be careful with the books and movies?

A - Thanks for the timely question. I am guessing this will create a lively discussion. I read the books just a few months ago to see if they were appropriate for my 11 year-old daughter to read. We ended up reading the entire series and talking about them and had some great discussions as a result. I am also working my way through the movies and have watched the first four.

I, unlike some other Catholics, do not believe they are dangerous to read for the average adolescent who is well-formed in their faith and is emotionally secure, for their age - as long as a parent reads and discusses the moral pitfalls with them.

There are some Catholics who believe the series is "evil". It is criticized in this manner because the books contain magic done by witches and wizards. I can see this side of the argument, but do not share such a harsh view. While magic plays a part, as long as the boundaries between the magic described in the books and real occult magic is discussed with a child, it could help a young person understand the real problems with seeking power in magic, not drive them toward it.

What I can say is the Church has no official position on these books or movies. So, we must use our best judgment as to whether or not someone should read them. Is it possible that someone could be spiritually harmful, because of magic, for some who are immature in their faith? I suppose it is possible, but I believe it is unlikely. To be quite honest I have bigger reservations over the moral decision-making of the characters than I do about the use of magic. Also, there are much more dangerous things in our culture including parts of the internet, certain video games, etc.

So, since there is no side the Catholic Church takes on this issue, I might provide some pros and cons (as I see them) and you can make the decision yourself. BTW - I HIGHLY recommend that parents read and discuss the books with their children and only allow them to read them if they are well-formed in their faith, act in a moral manner, and are emotionally secure, for their age.

CONS of Harry Potter:

• The protagonists of the series (esp. Harry) make poor moral decisions. There is regular rule breaking and the moral decision making sometimes equals "the ends justify the means".
• The consequences of breaking the rules and doing bad things is not always clear.
• The only ones who really enforce the rules are the characters who are either evil or questionable. The "good" authority figures generally sweep away punishment or minimize it.
• The use of magic might encourage some young children who do not understand the occult to think about magic or seek it out too much.

PROS of Harry Potter:

• Several virtues are highlighted repeatedly, including courage, loyalty, and love.
• Harry overcomes many terrible events in his life to do something very good in the end.
• Prejudiced and oppressive leaders are shown to be what they are.
• Voldemort, the antagonist, is clearly evil and corrupt.
• The magic used is not occult, but more utilitarian.
• Some compare the story to the life of every Christian and the moral drama of life that goes with it.
• The dangers of fame and the drawbacks of power/fame are clear.

Clearly there is no clear-cut way to decide what any individual Catholic or Catholic family should do. The best thing to do is be prudent and follow your conscience.

I hope this helps.

Can Non-Catholics Be Saved?

Q - My dad is a non-Catholic Christian but my mom and I are Catholics. In one discussion he brought up the opinion that the Catholic church believes that the Catholic faith is infallible and that they believe non-Catholic denominations cannot be forgiven of sins. What is the truth on these matters and how can we as Catholics better approach the opinion that only we will be saved?


A - Thanks for the question. All who are saved are saved because of Jesus Christ. Thus, no grace comes by any other means, because it is by His suffering, death, and resurrection that we are freed from sin and made able to go to heaven. Scripture is very clear on this and as Jesus said - "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." - John 14:6

Another truth is that outside the Church there is no salvation. But, we have to understand what this means in context. Think of it this way. There is no salvation apart from Jesus. Jesus established His Body and Bride, The Church, as the instrument of that salvation. Therefore, there is no salvation outside of this instrument of his salvation - outside of Christ's Body/Bride. So, who belongs to this Church and how?

The Catechism teaches:
Who belongs to the Catholic Church?

836 "All men are called to this catholic unity of the People of God.... And to it, in different ways, belong or are ordered: the Catholic faithful, others who believe in Christ, and finally all mankind, called by God's grace to salvation."

837 "Fully incorporated into the society of the Church are those who, possessing the Spirit of Christ, accept all the means of salvation given to the Church together with her entire organization, and who - by the bonds constituted by the profession of faith, the sacraments, ecclesiastical government, and communion - are joined in the visible structure of the Church of Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. Even though incorporated into the Church, one who does not however persevere in charity is not saved. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but 'in body' not 'in heart.'"

838 "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter." Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church." With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist."

What about non-Christians? Can they be saved?

843 The Catholic Church recognizes in other religions that search, among shadows and images, for the God who is unknown yet near since he gives life and breath and all things and wants all men to be saved. Thus, the Church considers all goodness and truth found in these religions as "a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life."

From this, we can understand the following better:

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.

848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."

So, salvation apart from Christ and His Church is impossible, but this does not rule out those that are not formally Christian or formally part of the Catholic Church, if understood that their salvation still is accomplished in some way through Christ and His Church.

To sum up, I would put the Church's teaching on these matters like this:

• --No person is ever saved apart from the grace of Christ.
• --The fullness of this grace comes only through an explicit relationship with Christ and His Church.
• --Salvation is offered to others, through the limited means they are connected with Christ and His Church. This includes the Jewish people.
• --All are called into the Catholic Church.
• --Catholics must evangelize and bring the Gospel to "all nations."

Christ came and preached the Good News to Israel. So did the apostles. We should do the same.

I hope this helps explain better these questions. Peace.

Is Our Lady Appearing at Medjugorje?

I've never understood fully all the controversy surrounding the apparitions at Medjugorje, I know there are problems with it, but can you explain it for me?

A - Thanks for the question. Medjugorge is a site in Bosnia where some children reported to start to receive visions from Mary in 1981. The visionaries say they continue to this day. This is a touchy subject for many people, because I know there are thousands of good Catholics who have visited Medjugorje to see the purported visionaries see and listen to the Virgin Mary give them messages from Heaven. Many believe that she is appearing there and are very sincere in their belief. But, sincerity doesn't prove it is happening nor does a personal belief.

Eventually the Catholic Church will rule officially on whether the visions are valid or not, and they have formed a commission to look into it - which is rare, because they usually do not rule until the visions end. But, until that day I recommned you steer clear of anything to do with Medjugorje. I will lay out why below.

1 - If The Visions Are Not Valid, There Are No Good Options.
Suppose that the visions are ruled to be invalid, and most of the evidence that is coming from the Church points that way, then there is no good option left for a person who believes them to be true:

• A - They can believe the Church is right, but their experience was not.
• B - The can believed their experience is correct, but the Church is not.

2 - All Private Revelation is Optional.
Neither option is good for a devotee of Mejugorje. Furthermore, ANY private revelation, even if approved by the Church such as Lourdes, Fatima, or Guadalupe, still isn't necessary for any Catholic to believe in. We are only bound to believe in public revelation and those doctrines intimately tied to publicly revealed truths that come to us from Jesus and the Apostles.

3 - The local Bishop Has Grave Doubts.
The local bishops in Bosnia have repeatedly stated that they doubt the visions are valid. In one statement Bishop Peric said:

"As the local bishop, I maintain that regarding the events of Medjugorje, on the basis of the investigations and experience gained thus far throughout these last 25 years, the church has not confirmed a single apparition as authentically being the Madonna."

These 3 reasons are just the tip of the iceberg. I admit I haven't paid much attention to Medjugorje, because I find everything I have heard from Church officials who oversee the Diocese (and from the Vatican) to be troubling, at best. Some priests involved have been dismissed from their orders, some troubles in the purported messages, and other issues continue to surface.

I hope this helps.

Furthermore - I know this will bring out supporters of the visionaries. For the sake of clarity, I am NOT saying that Mary isn't appearing. I am saying I have solid doubts she is, based on the evidence. We will all know once the Church rules one way or the other. Until then ask Mary to pray for us all.

NOTE - comments will be strictly monitored.

Must We Have Tied-Tubes Reversed?

Q - My wife and I have five children. years back after the 5th child my wife got her tubes tied. Are we allowed to have sex or is it now a sin? Also, if we wanted to give up sex as a sacrifice to God is that allowed?

A - Thanks for the questions. I know you must be wrestling with such a difficult situation, so I will keep you in my prayers and ask that our readers do the same.

The Catholic Church teaches that our fertility is an beautiful part to our humanity, so to have a woman's tubes tied (technically it is a tubal ligation) or for a man to have a vasectomy, is a mutilation of our bodies for a utilitarian purpose. This is because it requires a surgical procedure that renders a person infertile. It treats our fertility as a bad thing and not the gift that it is. (For more about what the Church teaches about contraception and surgical sterility see the links at the bottom). Just a side note, no tubal ligation or vasectomy can be determined to be 100% effective. There is about a 1% chance that it did not work and a chance of pregnancy still exists. Furthermore, many woman regret their tubal ligation because of health issues, psychological issues, loss of fertility, and guilt.

That being said, many people struggle to follow the Church's teachings. It isn't easy to live a chaste life within marriage, because chastity (the proper ordering of our sexuality) requires self-control and discipline. In many marriages this might mean the sacrifice of periodic abstinence within the marriage. This isn't easy. But, it is worth it.

To directly answer your first question, your wife is under no moral obligation to have her tubal ligation reversed. But, she is under the obligation to confess her sin with true contrition before receiving any other Sacraments, including the Eucharist. If you went along with the surgery, then you too should go to Confession.

The decision to have a tubal ligation reversal should be discerned through prayer, consultation with a good priest, and consideration of the factors in your life (e.g. desire for children, health, risk of surgery, chance of successfully reversing, etc).

Now, if you wanted to "give up sex as a sacrifice" is a much more difficult question. I do not have enough information to answer this question. Is it hypothetically possible? Yes. But, for your situation I would highly suggest you both go talk to a good priest who can help you sort out the reasons you might be considering this option.

I hope this helps.

Additional Links:
*FAQ on Contraception
*Humane Vitae and the Catholic Church.

Competitive Eating and Gluttony

Q - Thanks for all the hard work you put into this blog; it is a daily must-read for me. I managed to catch a part of the annual hot dog eating contest today, and I was wondering: Is competitive eating a sin? The sin of gluttony comes to mind, but I also am thinking about wasting food that could go to others who need it. Of course, I can be guilty of over-eating at times, but it is certainly not on this scale or in the public eye (scandal?). I would be interested to know what you think. Thanks again.

A - Thanks for the question and for the compliments. We are always grateful for those that read our blog and are very happy that you find it helpful.

Gluttony is a sin when our passions become disordered, esp. in regards to food. The opposing virtue is temperance, which moderates the use of food and other things. Gluttony happens when a person eats an excessive amount, food that is not healthy at all and might endanger our health over a period of time.

Unlike a lot of other sins, this one is more difficult to reign in because the body needs to be nourished. It is clear that in our modern culture we have an obsession with food. Obesity is an epidemic and overeating is the norm. Billions are spent on fad diets and pills and the Food Network is one of the most popular cable channels.

But, that doesn't answer your question - what about competitive eating, which is now treated as a 'sport' and featured on ESPN. Yet, it is not without critics. The American Medical Association has endorsed a resolution that recognized "competitive speed eating as an unhealthy eating practice with potential adverse consequences." One doctor called it a form of binge eating that could result in terrible problems including a ruptured stomach.

The competitions end with many (if not most) of the competitors throwing up the food they engorged themselves on.

This sounds like a clear case of gluttony to me. It also seems that the sin of pride and greed might play a part, because the winners of such contests now become celebrities that can make hundreds of thousands of dollars in a day. But, that may or may not be the case depending on a person's motivation.

As to the wasting of food that others could use, I would be less stringent. It seems we are too quick to say that something could be "given to the poor", but not all good things in life that are non-essential should be given to the poor. Now, that isn't to say we don't have an obligation to help the poor, esp. those that can't help themselves, but not every luxury or excess is sinful.

Pray for temperance - of which the Catechism says:

1809 Temperance is the moral virtue that moderates the attraction of pleasures and provides balance in the use of created goods. It ensures the will's mastery over instincts and keeps desires within the limits of what is honorable. The temperate person directs the sensitive appetites toward what is good and maintains a healthy discretion: "Do not follow your inclination and strength, walking according to the desires of your heart." Temperance is often praised in the Old Testament: "Do not follow your base desires, but restrain your appetites." In the New Testament it is called "moderation" or "sobriety." We ought "to live sober, upright, and godly lives in this world."

To live well is nothing other than to love God with all one's heart, with all one's soul and with all one's efforts; from this it comes about that love is kept whole and uncorrupted (through temperance). No misfortune can disturb it (and this is fortitude). It obeys only [God] (and this is justice), and is careful in discerning things, so as not to be surprised by deceit or trickery (and this is prudence).

I hope this helps.

Numbers in the Book of Revelation

Q - In Revelation – why is the number 7 important? And 1/3 (not the number 3, but specifically 1/3)?

A - Thanks for the questions!

In the time before Jesus there was a popular kind of Jewish writing called Apocalyptic writing (AW). This writing had several characteristics including:

• It dealt with the subject of the last age of the world when good triumphs over evil
• It made much use of symbolism taken from the animal kingdom, astrology, numbers, etc.

The OT book of Daniel influenced much of this writing. These kind of writings also resembled some of the styles used in the OT prophetic books like Isaiah and Zechariah. But, there are differences with the prophetic books, they include:

• AW doesn't use an author's name, but one of a celebrated persona
• AW conceives of this world as being of Satan and incapable of regeneration. Therefore the most that man can hope for is a new world that he can pray for.
• AW has determinism.That is, that there is very little room for personal freedom or conversion.What is, is.

Revelation is not therefore an Apocalyptic writing, like some call it, but rather a work of prophecy. The only one in the NT. Prophecy is not always telling the future, but rather giving a message of God to a people. This is the purpose of the Book of Revelation and it includes language that tells us about the future in part.

As for numbers in Revelation:

The number 7 - This number reflects perfection because God created the world in six days, then rested on the seventh. So, when used in Revelation it signifies such as this example (one of many):

Rev 1:12 Then I turned to see whose voice it was that spoke to me, and on turning I saw golden lampstands.

The lampstands represent seven Churches - thus the perfection of the Church is illuminated here.

The number 1/3 - represents God's mercy. Usually when used the fraction has to do with punishment that God is raining on the earth. For example:

a third of the creatures living in the sea died, and a third of the ships were wrecked. - rev 8:9

So, even when the punishment comes, there is still mercy - God doesn't destroy all.

There are many other symbols in the book of Revelation, which is why I recommend a good commentary, such as the Navarre Bible of the Ignatius Study Bible. We have both in St. Mary's library.

I hope this helps.

Did Jesus Get Frustrated?

Q - I was talking to a friend the other day and the question 'Did Jesus ever get frustrated?' came up. Now, my first reaction was to say yes, that he must have felt frustration at times as part of being human but now I'm not so sure. We both agree that Christ felt anger, but my friend puts frustration in a different category and, if I'm understanding her point, seems to see frustration as part of our fallen nature and that if we see Christ as feeling frustrated we are, more or less, down-grading him from the Divine being he is to fit in line of our perceptions on what it means to be human. Or that frustration stems from insecurity which, as he trusted fully in God, Jesus would not have felt.


A - Thanks for the question. It depends on how we define frustration. If frustration is an emotion which comes from some external opposition, then we could say that Jesus did get frustrated.

One principle that might help is to understand that emotions, in and of themselves, are not either morally good or bad. They are morally neutral. It is our reaction to them that is either good or bad.
The Catechism says:

1768 Strong feelings are not decisive for the morality or the holiness of persons; they are simply the inexhaustible reservoir of images and affections in which the moral life is expressed. Passions are morally good when they contribute to a good action, evil in the opposite case. the upright will orders the movements of the senses it appropriates to the good and to beatitude; an evil will succumbs to disordered passions and exacerbates them. Emotions and feelings can be taken up into the virtues or perverted by the vices.

The classic case of seeing Jesus respond to a situation emotionally (yet still morally justified) is in the Temple when He overturns the money changers tables:

"Jesus entered the temple area and drove out all those engaged in selling and buying there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who were selling doves. And he said to them, "It is written: 'My house shall be a house of prayer,' 12 but you are making it a den of thieves.""
Matt 21: 12-13

I would expect that Jesus was frustrated, angry, and upset by his Father's temple becoming a place of lies, theft, and dishonesty. This is a righteous anger and no sin is committed. In fact, to allow injustice to flourish without fighting against it is the sin here - not the feelings of frustration or anger.

Sometimes we have an understanding of Jesus as too sugary-sweet. As if He skips around with flowers, singing that he would like to buy the world a Coke and world peace. This isn't the case. Christ fought for His justice not just for mercy.

Was Jesus kind? Absolutely. Was Jesus nice? Not all the time - because "nice people" don't get crucified.

"Be angry, and sin not." -Eph 4:26 

I hope this helps.

Does Christ Advocate Killing Non-Christians?

Q - I used to feel that Muslims killing people of other religion saying that they are 'Infidels' was wrong. But, recently I found that Jesus told us to do that in Luke 19:27. Let me quote it here,

"Luke 19:27 But bring those enemies of mine who didn't want me to reign over them here, and kill them before me."

As faithful christians, shouldn't we go and kill all those who do not accept christ as their savior ? Of course I am not planning a mass massacre. But, I found the quote quite hilarious. I get the feeling that the scribes who wrote the Gospel of Luke fabricated this sentence for effect. And we Christians never paid much attention either. Or, maybe we did.


A - Thanks for the question. To get a good feel for the passage you quote, I would like to place it in context of the story around it. So, here is a bit more:

"He came to Jericho and intended to pass through the town. Now a man there named Zacchaeus, who was a chief tax collector and also a wealthy man, was seeking to see who Jesus was; but he could not see him because of the crowd, for he was short in stature. So he ran ahead and climbed a sycamore tree in order to see Jesus, who was about to pass that way. When he reached the place, Jesus looked up and said to him, "Zacchaeus, come down quickly, for today I must stay at your house." And he came down quickly and received him with joy. When they all saw this, they began to grumble, saying, "He has gone to stay at the house of a sinner." But Zacchaeus stood there and said to the Lord, "Behold, half of my possessions, Lord, I shall give to the poor, and if I have extorted anything from anyone I shall repay it four times over." And Jesus said to him, "Today salvation has come to this house because this man too is a descendant of Abraham. For the Son of Man has come to seek and to save what was lost."

While they were listening to him speak, he proceeded to tell a parable because he was near Jerusalem and they thought that the kingdom of God would appear there immediately. So he said, "A nobleman went off to a distant country to obtain the kingship for himself and then to return. He called ten of his servants and gave them ten gold coins and told them, 'Engage in trade with these until I return.' His fellow citizens, however, despised him and sent a delegation after him to announce, 'We do not want this man to be our king.' But when he returned after obtaining the kingship, he had the servants called, to whom he had given the money, to learn what they had gained by trading. The first came forward and said, 'Sir, your gold coin has earned ten additional ones.' He replied, 'Well done, good servant! You have been faithful in this very small matter; take charge of ten cities.' Then the second came and reported, 'Your gold coin, sir, has earned five more.' And to this servant too he said, 'You, take charge of five cities.' Then the other servant came and said, 'Sir, here is your gold coin; I kept it stored away in a handkerchief, for I was afraid of you, because you are a demanding person; you take up what you did not lay down and you harvest what you did not plant.' He said to him, 'With your own words I shall condemn you, you wicked servant. You knew I was a demanding person, taking up what I did not lay down and harvesting what I did not plant; why did you not put my money in a bank? Then on my return I would have collected it with interest.' And to those standing by he said, 'Take the gold coin from him and give it to the servant who has ten.' But they said to him, 'Sir, he has ten gold coins.' 'I tell you, to everyone who has, more will be given, but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. Now as for those enemies of mine who did not want me as their king, bring them here and slay them before me.'" After he had said this, he proceeded on his journey up to Jerusalem."
-Luke 19: 1-28

Notice a few things. First, we see that Zacchaeus has a conversion to Christ and puts the money he has made toward justice and service of God. He has a right understanding of the gifts given to him by God. This leads into the next section.

Here we see Christ teaching through a parable. A parable is a simple story used to illustrate a moral lesson or teaching. They are not perfect reflections of every situation. But, we can take a lot out of this one here.
The story gives us several representative persons and ideas:

• The King is Jesus.
• The Servants are those that follow him - some remain faithful and others do not.
• The money represents the gifts of God (our talents and possessions).
• The killing of the servants represents a spiritual death, not a physical one.

So, Jesus is certainly not advocating the killing of our enemies, rather he is telling us that those that reject Him are endanger of losing eternal life in Heaven. This is the teaching of the parable.

It also has a second dimension. As St. Luke says, "they thought that the kingdom of God would appear there immediately" - thus, the apostles had a false understanding of the Kingdom of God. It is not a political or earthly kingdom, but a spiritual one.

Finally, God expects us to use the gifts He gives us for His purposes and glory. Notice though that the King lavishes gifts upon the faithful servants who did as he commanded, "Engage in trade with these until I return". The lazy servant wasted the gifts of God, disobeyed the commandment, and was punished accordingly.

This should serve as a reminder to us all. Our salvation is not complete until the end of our lives and we are to be judged on our faithfulness to God by how we lived out His commandments.

There is certainly no fabrication of the sentence and the "scribes" as you call them are actually St. Luke faithfully recording the words of Christ.

I hope this helps.