A. While some Christians believe that divine revelation is transmitted to us “by Sacred Scripture alone” (sola scriptura), the Catholic Church has always been aware that what Christ did and said was handed down in the first decades after His death by preaching and word of mouth, as well as by practices such as the liturgy, and later committed to writing in part — becoming what we call the New Testament. Since the writing of New Testament Scripture didn’t somehow abolish what Christians already knew and were passing on about Christ, we ended up with twin “streams” that bring us the word of God, albeit in different ways and therefore requiring different forms of interpretation.
The original stream we call Tradition (Latin for “what is handed down”), and the second stream, together with the Old Testament, we call Sacred Scripture or the Bible. The same (Catholic) Church that ratified the Christian Bible continued to treasure Tradition, and teaches that “both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence” (see the Catechism, 82).

Q. A video by Ken Howard (a Baptist and creationist) says that the Shroud of Turin is just a money-maker for the Catholic Church, and that Jesus’ beard would have been pulled out, therefore leaving no imprint. Where is his basis in Scripture for this? If not in Scripture, was this a tradition? If so, where did it come from?

A. Isaiah 50:6 reads: “I gave my back to the smiters, and my cheeks to those who pulled out the beard; I hid not my face from shame and spitting.” Since the time of the early Church fathers, this Old Testament passage has been interpreted by many Christians as a prophetic reference to Our Lord’s passion. Several popular Protestant tracts make reference to the verse in that light, so it’s likely that this is the basis of Mr. Howard’s claim.

Let’s look at the verse closely. Even if you assume that it speaks prophetically about Jesus’ suffering in literal detail, there’s by no means any indication here that His beard in its entirety was pulled out, leaving no trace. In fact, the same Hebrew phrase (meaning literally “to pluck hair”) was used by the Old Testament writer Ezra to describe what he did to himself as an act of penance when he heard a dismaying report about his people’s apostasy (see Ezra 9:3). Ezra would hardly have ripped out his entire beard and scalp by the roots on that occasion, so it’s clear that Isaiah, using the same words, didn’t necessarily mean that, either. Nor is it likely that, in the few hours they had to torture Him, Christ’s tormentors would have systematically plucked every single hair from His face so that no imprint of a beard would have been left on His shroud.

Mr. Howard’s claim, if it’s based on this passage, thus offers a clear example of a common problem in biblical interpretation: reading into a scriptural text much more than is actually there.

For the rest, I very much doubt that the Shroud is a “money maker” for the Catholic Church. It’s rarely on display and the costs of preserving it are high. Not to mention that it’s hard to make money off something you don’t charge for. It would be interesting to know whether Mr. Howard charges for his videos or asks for donations. Because in that case, paradoxically, the Shroud probably makes more money for Mr. Howard than for the Catholic Church.

Q. I lived in Japan recently for two years. During that time, my eyes were opened to the close relationship between idols and the beings they portray. In Japanese religions, the idol contains the spirit of the being that is venerated. Am I correct or incorrect to notice a similarity in your answer in a previous issue of Envoy [see “I Have a Question,” Issue 4.1] that the honor given to an image passes to its prototype? In pagan religions, the honor given to an image is meant for its prototype also — for example, Buddha.

A. In Christianity, images do not “contain the spirit of the being that is venerated,” so you would be incorrect to see a similarity in that regard. Images simply remind us of the being represented. One form of image is the written or even spoken word. “G-O-D” is not God, but an image of God. We don’t adore those three letters; we adore the One they refer to.

Two- and three-dimensional images were especially important for people who didn’t read. In medieval times, the stained glass windows in cathedrals and churches were, practically speaking, the plain peoples’ Bible, since they were illiterate. Contrary to the accusation that “the Catholic Church kept the Bible from the people,” the Church has read it to them every Sunday for the last 100,000 Sundays, explained it to them when they’ve no longer understood the languages in which it was first transmitted (first Greek, and then Latin), and made extensive use of the language of art.

With regard to your query about my quote from the Catechism that “the honor rendered to an image passes to its prototype, and whoever venerates an image venerates the person portrayed in it” (CCC 2132): As you rightly note, there’s a parallel here between the Catholic and pagan attitudes toward religious images, and not surprisingly; they both essentially reflect a natural and very human attitude toward images. We show our love (or for that matter, our hatred) for a person by the way we treat his image. That’s why a lover may kiss a picture of the beloved who’s far away, or a mob may attack a political leader by burning him in effigy. In all these cases, the affection or abuse shown the image is obviously intended for the person the image represents.

Q. Pope John Paul II taught that Freemasons are sons of God the Father; Pius IX taught that Masons are sons of the Devil. John Paul II taught that Jews worship the true God; Gregory XVI said Jews do not worship the true God. John Paul II taught that liberty of conscience is a right of men; Gregory XVI taught that liberty of conscience is insanity. John Paul II taught that doctrine and dogma grow and evolve; St. Pius X condemned as heresy the idea that doctrine and dogma can evolve. Do these statements prove John Paul II is a heretic, and are they binding under infallibility?

Jesus told some of His opponents that the Devil was their “father” (see Jn 8:44), and Christian writers since that time have sometimes echoed his language. This was a way of saying, not that the Devil was their Creator or literal progenitor (which would be blasphemous and a denial of a fundamental tenet of the faith), but rather that their wrong beliefs, motivations, and behavior were inspired by the Devil.

A. The first thing they prove is that if you read anything without attention to literary and historical context, you will infallibly misunderstand what is being said. And the second thing they prove is that doctrine and dogma grow and evolve in the sense stated by Pope John Paul II, and they do not change or evolve in the sense denied by Pope St. Pius X.

I can’t find the particular quote of Pope Pius IX on Freemasonry that you refer to, but in any case we should look carefully at the context of any statements about the Freemasons. On the one hand, all people — Masons included — are sons of God in that He has created them, He loves them as a Father, and no matter how far they wander from Him, He wants them to return home to live with Him forever (see, for example, Is 64:8).

On the other hand, Jesus told some of His opponents that the Devil was their “father” (see Jn 8:44), and Christian writers since that time have sometimes echoed His language. This was a way of saying, not that the Devil was their Creator or literal progenitor (which would be blasphemous and a denial of a fundamental tenet of the faith), but rather that their wrong beliefs, motivations, and behavior were inspired by the Devil. Jesus went on in the same verse to talk about how the Devil was a “murderer” and a “liar” whose desires his opponents were seeking to carry out. Since Freemasonry is a false religion (see a later question below), the Devil is the “father” of it just as we might speak of Lenin as the “father” of Communism.

Pope Leo XIII (Humanum Genus, 1884), for example, spoke of Satan as the supreme spiritual chief of the hostile army of Freemasonry. But he specifically added: “What we say must be understood of the Masonic sect in the universal acceptation of the term . . . but not of the single members.”

That Freemasons are sons of God in this sense of His beloved creatures certainly does bind as an infallible teaching. Even prodigal sons are always sons, and the Father is always waiting for their return. Any contrary position would be an abomination at odds with the Gospel.

Again, I haven’t been able to find Pope Gregory XVI’s words about Jews “not worshiping the true God.” Would that include Jesus and Mary, do you think? They were, after all, pious and faithful Jews.

Gregory XVI, in Mirari, opposed the liberalism of the French religious writer Felicite Robert de Lamennais, and the contention that as long as you act uprightly you can believe whatever you want and be saved. That is not what is understood today by “freedom of conscience.” Pope John Paul II defends the right and duty to follow what one’s conscience dictates without being hindered or forced to act against one’s conscience. This is not a license to follow your whims, preferences, or even opinions, but what your conscience shows you to be the right course of action. For a Catholic this requires as a principal ingredient the acceptance with religious obedience of what the Church teaches.

Pope St. Pius X condemned the Modernists who “lay down the general principle that in a living religion everything is subject to change, and must in fact be changed. In this way they pass to what is practically their principal doctrine, namely, evolution. To the laws of evolution everything is subject under penalty of death — dogma, Church, worship, the Books we revere as sacred, even faith itself.” “Change” as used by Pope St. Pius X involves instead a denial of what was taught before.

“That doctrine and dogma grow and evolve” has been taught very explicitly in the Church at least since the time of St. Vincent of Lerins (fifth century); his famous text on this matter is part of the Church’s liturgy! To “grow and evolve” implies continuity.

You yourself, for example, have grown and evolved with respect to when you were a sniffly three-year-old, but you’re the same person. If someone who knew you at three saw your three-year-old son today — a chip off the old block — and thought it was you, he would of course be mistaken. Since you’re a living being, growth and evolution are necessary if you’re to retain your identity. The same is true of the Church and her teachings.

Q. My Lutheran sister-in-law asked me about a supposed event in Catholic history called “The Great Divorce,” where all married Catholic priests had to divorce their wives and all the children went to orphanages. Is this a true event? Could you give me some more information about it or tell me where I could find out about it?

A. I’ve got to say that answering the questions that come from Envoy readers is never dull. Some of the stories non-Catholics hear about Catholicism are definitely “interesting”! I’ve never heard this one before. As it stands, it certainly isn’t true.

Many stories of this kind do turn out to be an embroidering on some actual event, but what it might be in this case, I don’t know. It’s quite possible that something of the kind might have happened in some individual diocese in the Middle Ages, but if it were a general happening it would be far more notorious. Thinking again, it could hardly have been the Middle Ages; I don’t think there were orphanages then. One wonders too why the children would have to go to orphanages. What did they do with the wives: Chop off their heads?

And finally this time, a few brief, very brief, and extremely brief answers . . .
Q. What does the Catholic Church have to say about Freemasonry? Can a Catholic be a Freemason?

A. Can a California Golden Bear root for the Stanford Cardinal? Okay. So, no. Freemasonry is incompatible with the Catholic faith. Why? It teaches that a person can be equally pleasing to God while remaining in any religion; it’s a religion in its own right; and historically one of its primary objectives has been the destruction of the Catholic Church. It’s true that often in the United States it’s basically a social club, but it still contradicts orthodox Christiani-ty. Catholics who become Freemasons are excommunicated, a penalty confirmed in a statement by the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in 1983.

Q. I have been attending Mass for the past few months and am very interested in becoming a member. Can a person become a member and be forgiven if they have committed a sin when not being Catholic that the Church would excommunicate a member for?

A. Yes, of course, one can be forgiven for any sin, even in the case of a person who, being Catholic, actually incurred excommunication. Christ is God’s mercy and came for sinners (all of us). Moreover, sins that involve automatic excommunication only do so when the person is aware of this. May God be with you and accompany you along your way.

Q. Mark 13:32 states: “As to the exact day or hour, no one knows it, neither the angels in heaven nor even the Son, but only the Father.” Since Jesus is the Son of God, and we believe in the Trinity — that God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one — then how can He say that He doesn’t know the exact day or hour? Is there something I’m missing here?

A. Jesus has both divine and human natures. Christ’s human knowledge could not, as such, be unlimited. See the Catechism, 471-474. The footnote to the last sentence in this passage refers to your text.

Q. Is salvation to be found outside the Roman Catholic Church? I ask in the light of the recent document by the Vatican not to allow the term “sister churches” to be applied to Protestant churches.

A.People who are outside the Catholic Church can be saved, but if they are saved, they are saved only through Jesus Christ, and only within the Body of Christ Church. See Vatican II’s Decree on Ecumenism, 3.

Q. Does organ donation go against Catholic teaching regarding the resurrection of the body?

A. No, organ donation “is legitimate and can be meritorious” (see Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2301).

Q. Can you suggest a book regarding the “dark night of the soul”?

A. Fire Within, by Thomas Dubay, published by Ignatius Press.

 

Have a question you’d like answered?
Send it to:
Fr. Brian Wilson, L.C.
“I Have a Question”
P.O. Box 640
Granville, OH 43023; or bwilson@familink.com.