In this section you can write a comment with any question you may have about Christianity, and we, within our capabilities, will give you an answer.
If you are a Catholic but need clarification, if you are a Protestant and you think you must correct a Catholic error, if you are an agnostic who has not give up in your search for the truth, or if you are simply a Christian but have questions or want to dig deeper, do not be afraid and ask.
When Thomas saw Jesus and still doubted, Jesus did not just reproach him for his lack of faith; he took his hand and asked him to put his finger into his wound. This is how faith problems are resolved, addressing them directly instead of trying to ignore it for fear of losing faith… or discovering it.
Leave your question below (it will be published after review):
Please maintain a respectful tone; offensive comments or those in all caps will be ignored. We appreciate it if you indicate your religion or denomination to help us better focus our response.
previous users’ questions
-
Both the Old and New Testaments were written long after the supposed events narrated in them, so why should we believe what they say?
LikeLike
-
Yes, the biblical texts were written years—even centuries—after many of the events they describe. But in the ancient world, that was not unusual, nor does it mean the content is unreliable.
1️⃣ Oral Tradition Was the Ancient Equivalent of Writing
Today, we record facts by writing or filming them. But in ancient times, most people couldn’t read or write. Knowledge was preserved by memorizing and narrating, especially in cultures that valued history and identity.
✅ In oral cultures, trained individuals (like priests or elders) were responsible for preserving the community’s memory with incredible precision. Their capacity to memorize long and complex texts would surprise modern readers.
✅ Stories, laws, genealogies, and historical events were considered sacred and vital. They were repeated frequently in liturgical, educational, and domestic settings. This ensured early preservation, long before anything was written down.
✅ So even if some Old Testament stories were written centuries after the events, their faithful transmission began soon after they happened, often within living memory of the first witnesses.2️⃣ The New Testament and Eyewitness Memory
The New Testament writings, especially the Gospels, are even closer to the events they recount.
✅ Paul’s letters were written just 20–30 years after the crucifixion of Jesus.
✅ The Gospels were based on direct or indirect eyewitness testimony (see Luke 1:1–4), and circulated within communities where people still remembered Jesus personally.3️⃣ Community as a Guardian of Truth
The Bible was not written by isolated individuals. It grew within communities that treasured these truths and ensured their integrity.
✅ The Israelites preserved their sacred traditions with great care. For them, remembering God’s deeds was a sacred duty (cf. Deuteronomy 6:6–9).
✅ Early Christians shared what they had seen and heard before it was written down (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:3–8).4️⃣ Reliable Compared to Other Ancient Writings
Many accepted historical sources—like Herodotus or Julius Caesar’s writings—were also written long after the events they describe, often with far fewer manuscripts or controls.
✅ By contrast, the New Testament has thousands of manuscripts, many very early, with remarkable consistency across them.➖ Conclusion ➖
The Bible does not rely on modern standards of reporting. It is rooted in ancient memory systems that were rigorous, sacred, and community-based. In oral cultures, memory was the main form of preservation, and it worked with astonishing accuracy. The events were remembered, repeated, and protected long before they were written. To dismiss Scripture just because it was written later is to misunderstand how ancient people preserved truth—and how powerfully they did it.LikeLike
-
-
Is Jesus a demigod?
LikeLike
-
No, Jesus is not a demigod. This is a serious misunderstanding of who He is, and it stems from applying pagan categories to a mystery that is uniquely Christian.
1️⃣ What is a “demigod”?
In Greek mythology, a demigod is a being who is half-human and half-divine—like Hercules, the son of Zeus and a mortal woman. Demigods are not fully divine; they are a mixture, a hybrid. They are created through the union of gods and humans.
2️⃣ Who is Jesus Christ?
Jesus is true God and true man. He is not a mixture or a hybrid. He is one divine Person (the Second Person of the Trinity) who took on a full human nature. This union of two natures (divine and human) in one divine Person is called the hypostatic union.
✅ He is not “half-God, half-man” but fully God and fully man.
✅ He is eternally begotten of the Father, not created.
✅ His human nature begins in time, through the Incarnation, when He is conceived in the womb of the Virgin Mary by the power of the Holy Spirit.
3️⃣ Why this matters
Calling Jesus a “demigod” diminishes both His divinity and His humanity. It implies that He is somehow less than fully God or not fully human. But the Church teaches—and has always taught—that:
✅ Jesus is consubstantial with the Father (Nicene Creed).
✅ He shares in the divine nature of God and the full human experience—without sin.
✅ He is not a new creature or some in-between being; He is the eternal Son of God, the Word made flesh (John 1:14).
4️⃣ Biblical and doctrinal foundation
Scripture affirms both His full divinity (John 1:1, Colossians 2:9) and His full humanity (Hebrews 2:17, Philippians 2:7). The early Church fought hard to defend this truth against heresies that either denied His divinity (like Arianism) or His humanity (like Docetism).
➖ Conclusion ➖
Jesus is not a demigod, but the God-Man: one divine Person with two natures. This is not mythology—it is the profound mystery of our salvation. Only someone who is truly God could save us, and only someone who is truly man could do it on our behalf. In Jesus, we have both.
LikeLike
-
-
Did Christians in the first century pray to saints?
LikeLike
-
No, first-century Christians did not yet pray to the saints as we understand it today, but the foundations for that practice were already present in their beliefs and actions.
1️⃣ Early focus: Christ and the Father
The first Christians, being close in time to the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, focused their worship and prayer directly to God the Father through Jesus Christ, as seen in the New Testament:
✅ 1 Timothy 2:5: “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.”
✅ John 14:13-14: Jesus says, “Whatever you ask in my name, I will do it.”This focus does not deny the future role of saints, but emphasizes the primacy of Christ in salvation and prayer.
2️⃣ The communion of saints was already believed
From the beginning, Christians believed in the communion of saints—that is, a real spiritual unity between believers on earth, the souls in purgatory, and the saints in Heaven. They prayed for the dead, and asked the living faithful to intercede for one another (cf. James 5:16).
That sets the foundation: if we can ask each other to pray for us, why not ask those already with God, who are more alive than we are and free from sin?
3️⃣ Seeds of veneration in the 1st and 2nd centuries
While direct prayers to saints weren’t common in the first century, veneration of martyrs began very early—already by the end of the first century and especially in the second. The Martyrdom of Polycarp (mid-2nd century) shows Christians honoring the relics of martyrs and gathering to celebrate their “heavenly birthday.” These were not mere memorials: they believed the martyrs were alive in Christ and could intercede.
By the third century, prayers asking for the intercession of saints were clearly present, especially in the Roman catacombs and Christian tomb inscriptions.
4️⃣ Praying to saints is rooted in Christ’s mediation
Asking a saint to pray for us does not bypass or compete with Jesus’ mediation. It’s like asking a holy friend to pray for you—except this friend is already in Heaven. We never pray “through” a saint as a substitute for Christ. We pray to saints to ask their help in bringing our needs to God, just like we ask friends or family to do.
➖ Conclusion ➖
While first-century Christians probably did not yet explicitly pray to saints, the doctrinal and devotional foundations were already there: belief in the communion of saints, honoring martyrs, and asking for intercession. The practice developed organically as the Church deepened its understanding of the Body of Christ, always centered on Jesus and always within the unity of the Church.
LikeLike
-
-
Why is the Pope infallible?
LikeLike
-
Yes, the Pope is infallible—but only under specific conditions, and not because he is personally sinless or superhuman. His infallibility exists because of Christ’s promise to the Church, not because of any personal virtue.
Let’s break it down.
1️⃣ What does “infallible” actually mean?
“Infallible” does not mean the Pope is perfect, cannot sin, or never makes mistakes in daily life. It means that, under certain conditions, he is preserved by the Holy Spirit from error when definitively teaching on faith or morals as Supreme Pastor of the universal Church.
This was defined clearly at Vatican I in 1870, but it reflects a truth always held by the Church. The idea is not that the Pope cannot err in politics, science, or personal judgment—but that when he officially defines a doctrine for all Catholics to believe, he cannot teach error.
2️⃣ Where is this in the Bible?
✅ Matthew 16:18-19: Jesus says to Peter, “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church… I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven…”
✅ Luke 22:32: Jesus says to Peter, “I have prayed for you, that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren.”
✅ John 21:15-17: Jesus commands Peter three times, “Feed my sheep.”
These passages show that Peter was uniquely chosen to be a shepherd and teacher, and that Jesus Himself prayed for his faith to remain firm. The Catholic Church teaches that this protection continues in Peter’s successors.
3️⃣ Infallibility protects the Church, not just the Pope
The point of infallibility is not to glorify the Pope—it’s to protect the faithful. If the Pope could officially teach error in matters of faith, how could we trust what the Church teaches? Christ didn’t leave us a Bible without a teacher. He founded a Church, with authority to teach in His name (Matthew 28:19–20), and He promised, “The gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Matthew 16:18).
That promise would be meaningless if the Church’s supreme pastor could lead souls into heresy. Infallibility is God’s gift to His people, not a personal privilege of the Pope.
4️⃣ Has papal infallibility been used often?
Very rarely. Only a few times in history has a Pope used his full infallible authority to define a dogma. Two clear examples:
✅ The Immaculate Conception (1854)
✅ The Assumption of Mary (1950)Most Catholic doctrine comes through the ordinary and universal Magisterium, which includes all the bishops in communion with the Pope. Infallibility doesn’t mean every papal statement is infallible—it applies only to very specific, solemn teachings.
➖ Conclusion ➖
The Pope is infallible only when he teaches officially and solemnly on faith or morals, and only because Christ protects His Church from error. It’s not about the Pope being perfect—it’s about Jesus keeping His promise. Without this protection, the Church could fail. But with it, Catholics can trust that, in what truly matters—salvation and truth—the Church will never lead them astray.
LikeLike
-
-
Did God allow the ark of the covenant to be lost because it had become an idol?
LikeLike
-
No, God did not allow the Ark of the Covenant to be lost because it had become an idol. The Ark was never condemned by God, and the Bible never suggests that it became an object of idolatry among the faithful Israelites. Its disappearance had other purposes tied to judgment, mystery, and fulfillment.
1️⃣ What was the Ark of the Covenant?
The Ark, commanded by God in Exodus 25, was His throne on earth—the visible sign of His presence among His people. Inside it were:
✅ The tablets of the Law (the Ten Commandments)
✅ The staff of Aaron
✅ A jar of mannaAbove it was the “mercy seat,” where God’s glory would appear between the cherubim. God Himself instituted the Ark—not man—as a holy sign of His covenant, not as an idol.
2️⃣ Was it ever treated as an idol?
Not in the way we understand idolatry (worshipping something as a god). There was, however, one episode where the Ark was misused superstitiously:
✅ 1 Samuel 4: The Israelites brought the Ark into battle against the Philistines thinking it would guarantee victory—treating it like a magic object. They were defeated, and the Ark was captured. But the Bible doesn’t say the Ark itself was the problem—it was the people’s lack of faith and their manipulation of holy things.
So the Ark wasn’t an idol—but when the people treated it irreverently, God allowed consequences.
3️⃣ Why was the Ark lost?
The Ark was likely hidden before the Babylonian destruction of the Temple in 586 BC. According to 2 Maccabees 2:4-8, the prophet Jeremiah, warned by God, hid the Ark in a cave, and said it would remain hidden “until God gathers His people together again and shows His mercy.”
So its loss was not because of idolatry, but:
✅ As a judgment—a sign of Israel’s infidelity and the breaking of the covenant.
✅ As a preparation—pointing forward to a greater presence of God.4️⃣ Fulfillment in Mary and Christ
In the New Testament, the Ark is fulfilled in a new and more perfect way:
✅ Revelation 11:19–12:1: The Ark appears in Heaven—and immediately we see “a woman clothed with the sun” (a reference to Mary). The Church Fathers understood this as indicating that Mary is the new Ark, who bore within her the true Word of God, the true Bread of Life, and the true High Priest—Jesus Christ.
The loss of the old Ark prepared the way for the living Ark: Mary, and ultimately the Church, in whom Christ now dwells.
➖ Conclusion ➖
The Ark was never rejected by God as an idol—it was always holy. Its loss was not due to idolatry, but a sign of judgment and a preparation for something greater. Like many things in the Old Covenant, the Ark pointed forward to Christ, who is God’s definitive presence among us. God didn’t discard the Ark—He fulfilled it.
LikeLike
-
-
Why did the Roman Empire persecute the first Christians?
LikeLike
-
The Roman Empire persecuted the first Christians not because they believed in Jesus, but because their faith challenged the religious, political, and social order of the empire. To Rome, Christianity looked dangerous—not for what it believed privately, but for what it refused to do publicly.
1️⃣ Christians refused to worship the Roman gods
In the Roman world, religion wasn’t just personal—it was public and political. The empire believed its stability depended on honoring the gods through sacrifice and temple worship. Everyone was expected to participate.
But Christians said:
✅ There is only one God
✅ We cannot worship false gods
✅ We cannot sacrifice to Caesar, to Jupiter, or to any deity but the true GodThis refusal made them look unpatriotic, antisocial, and even treasonous.
2️⃣ Christians refused to worship the emperor
Starting with Emperor Augustus, Roman emperors were often treated as divine or semi-divine. Citizens were expected to burn a bit of incense and say “Caesar is Lord.”
Christians would not do it. They said, “Jesus is Lord.”
That made Rome very nervous. It wasn’t about private belief—it was about public loyalty. To refuse the emperor’s cult was seen as rebellion. And Rome did not tolerate disobedience that looked political.
3️⃣ Christians disrupted the old social order
Christianity taught that:
✅ All people are equal in dignity—men, women, slaves, rich, poor
✅ There is no longer “Jew or Greek… slave or free…” (Galatians 3:28)
✅ Power, status, and even family ties must submit to ChristThis deeply undermined Roman social values, which were based on hierarchy, honor, and absolute loyalty to the family and the state. Christians didn’t revolt violently—but they lived differently, and that was enough to provoke fear and suspicion.
4️⃣ Christians were misunderstood and slandered
Because early Christians met in private, refused pagan feasts, and spoke of eating the “body” and “blood” of Christ in the Eucharist, they were accused of:
✅ Cannibalism
✅ Immorality
✅ Hating humanityThese false rumors, combined with their growing numbers and refusal to conform, made them easy scapegoats—especially when disasters struck, like the Great Fire of Rome in 64 AD, after which Nero blamed the Christians.
➖ Conclusion ➖
The Roman Empire persecuted Christians because they were faithful—not because they were violent or political, but because they refused to worship false gods, refused to honor the emperor as divine, and lived in a way that challenged the sinful structures of society.
Their loyalty to Christ was total. And for Rome, that made them dangerous.
LikeLike
-
The Jews also refused to worship the Roman gods and the emperor, yet they were a lawful religion in the empire, so why was it different for Christians?
LikeLike
-
Very good question. The Roman Empire didn’t persecute people just for refusing to worship their gods. It tolerated many different beliefs. The real difference was legal status and perceived loyalty.
1️⃣ A LEGAL RELIGION
Judaism was a religio licita, an ancient and officially tolerated religion. The Romans respected ancestral customs and allowed Jews special exemptions, such as not having to worship the emperor.
Christians, on the other hand, were soon recognized as a separate and “new” sect—not protected under Judaism. Once that happened, they lost legal protection.2️⃣ PUBLIC DISTRUST
Christians avoided public feasts and refused to worship the emperor, which was interpreted not as religious devotion but as civil disobedience.
Jews, while different, were a known group. Christians were seen as a fast-growing, unpredictable movement undermining Roman social unity.3️⃣ EXCLUSIVITY AND EVANGELISM
Christianity’s rapid growth and claim to exclusive truth made it threatening. It didn’t just add another god—it denied all others as false. Romans valued religious pluralism, so this made Christians seem dangerous.
Judaism, by contrast, rejected Roman gods too—but wasn’t evangelical.4️⃣ MARTYRDOM AND “STUBBORNNESS”
Christian martyrs refused even a symbolic act of Caesar worship. That was viewed not as piety but as obstinate rebellion. Rome admired loyalty to the state above all.
Jews rarely forced that kind of confrontation, partly due to legal exemptions and partly due to political caution.➖ CONCLUSION ➖
Jews were tolerated as an ancient and stable religion. Christians were persecuted for being new, fast-growing, exclusive, and unwavering in their refusal to worship the emperor. The Roman state feared disloyalty more than difference. Fidelity to Christ made Christians seem like subversives—though in reality, they were the most faithful citizens of all.LikeLike
-
-
Is Jesus Christ only the Son of God in his divine nature?
LikeLike
-
No, Jesus Christ is the Son of God in both His divine and human natures, though in different ways. His divine Sonship is eternal, while His human sonship flows from the Incarnation. But He is always one Person—the divine Son of God.
1️⃣ Eternally the Son in His divine nature
Before time began, Jesus already was the Son of God. As the Second Person of the Trinity, He is eternally begotten of the Father, not made, consubstantial with Him (cf. John 1:1–2, 14).
✅ John 17:5: “Glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.”
✅ Hebrews 1:3: “He is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact imprint of his nature.”This eternal Sonship belongs to His divine nature—He shares the same divine essence as the Father.
2️⃣ Truly Son also in His human nature
When the eternal Son became man, He didn’t stop being God. Instead, He took on a full human nature—body and soul—in the womb of the Virgin Mary.
✅ Luke 1:35: “The holy one to be born will be called Son of God.”
So, even in His human nature, Jesus is called Son—not because He becomes a new person (He is always the divine Son), but because that human nature now belongs to the Person of the Son.
This is the mystery of the hypostatic union: one divine Person, Jesus Christ, with two natures, divine and human. His humanity doesn’t make Him a second son—it belongs entirely to the same eternal Son of God.
3️⃣ The Church’s teaching: one Son, two natures
The Council of Chalcedon (451 AD) defined it clearly: Jesus is one Person in two natures, without confusion or division. So we can say:
✅ Jesus is the Son of God according to His divine nature, eternally begotten of the Father
✅ Jesus is the Son of Mary according to His human nature, born in time—but this human nature belongs to the same divine Person: the SonThere is not a “divine Jesus” and a “human Jesus.” There is one Jesus Christ, true God and true man, the Son of God through and through.
➖ Conclusion ➖
Jesus is not only the Son of God in His divine nature. He is the Son in both natures, because the one Person who possesses them is the eternal Son of the Father. The Incarnation doesn’t create a new sonship—it reveals it. The same divine Son who existed from all eternity is now truly man, and remains forever both God and man.
LikeLike
What did Jesus Christ mean when he said, “I have not come to bring peace, but a sword”?
LikeLike
-
This is one of the most surprising and misunderstood sayings of Jesus, found in Matthew 10:34: “Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.”
1️⃣ Jesus Did Not Promote Violence
First of all, Jesus is not saying that He came to start wars or encourage physical violence. The “sword” here is not a weapon for hurting others — in fact, Jesus commands us to love our enemies and teaches that “those who take the sword will perish by the sword” (Matthew 26:52).
2️⃣ The Sword is a Symbol of Division
In this passage, the “sword” represents the division that inevitably arises when people are confronted with the truth of the Gospel.
Christ brings peace to the hearts of those who accept Him, but the world — in its sin and resistance — often responds with rejection, hostility, or even persecution.
Jesus Himself explains right after this verse that His coming will divide even families: “For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother” (Matthew 10:35). This is not because Jesus wants conflict, but because fidelity to Him sometimes demands difficult choices and can provoke opposition.
3️⃣ The Peace of Christ vs. False Peace
There is a false peace — the peace of compromise, of avoiding truth to keep everyone comfortable. Jesus did not come to give that kind of peace.
His peace is not the absence of conflict, but the presence of truth and salvation, even if it causes suffering in this world.
4️⃣ A Call to Courage and Loyalty
Jesus warns us that following Him may cost us relationships, comfort, or even our lives. But this is the price of true discipleship: placing God above all else.
The sword of Christ cuts through lies, sin, and false attachments. It divides light from darkness, truth from error, and calls us to radical loyalty to God.
➖ Conclusion ➖
When Jesus says, “I have not come to bring peace, but a sword”, He is teaching us that the Gospel is a call to conversion, truth, and holiness — a call that will often be resisted by the world. True peace comes through fidelity to Christ, even when it brings division or sacrifice.
LikeLike
How can we be sure that Jesus really existed?
LikeLike
-
Some people today —especially in anti-religious circles— claim that Jesus of Nazareth never existed, and that He is simply a myth like ancient pagan gods. But this idea is completely unfounded historically, and no serious scholar accepts it.
1️⃣ Strong Historical Evidence
The existence of Jesus is one of the best-attested facts of ancient history.
We have historical sources from different types of witnesses:
✅ Roman historians like Tacitus (c. 116 AD) clearly state that “Christus” was executed under Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius (Annals 15.44).
✅ Jewish historian Josephus (c. 93 AD) confirms that Jesus was a wise man, known for extraordinary deeds, and crucified by Pilate (Antiquities 18.63).
✅ Other Roman authors like Suetonius and Pliny the Younger also mention Christians and their devotion to Christ.
These sources are independent from Christian writings and confirm key facts: Jesus existed, taught publicly, had followers, and was crucified.
2️⃣ The Gospels Are Historical Documents
The New Testament is not merely a religious text — it is a set of first-century documents based on eyewitness testimony.
Even non-believing historians recognize that the Gospels were written within a few decades of Jesus’ life, in a specific time and place, naming real political figures like Herod, Pontius Pilate, and Tiberius.
3️⃣ Hostile Jewish Testimony: The Talmud
Another fascinating confirmation comes from Jewish rabbinical writings — especially the Talmud — which were compiled between the 3rd and 6th centuries but preserve oral traditions going back to the time of Jesus or shortly after.
Although these texts are hostile to Christianity, they confirm several key facts:
✅ They mention “Yeshu ha-Notzri” (Jesus of Nazareth).
✅ They accuse Him of performing wonders — attributing them to sorcery.
✅ They acknowledge that He had disciples.
✅ They confirm that He was executed (on the eve of Passover).
✅ They indicate that His teachings caused conflict with Jewish religious authorities — implying that He claimed special authority, including Messianic or even divine claims.
This is highly significant: even Jesus’ enemies did not deny His existence — instead, they tried to discredit Him, which only makes sense if He was a real historical figure whose impact could not be ignored.
4️⃣ Where Does the “Jesus Myth” Idea Come From?
Interestingly, no one in the ancient world — not Jews, not Romans, not pagans — denied the existence of Jesus.
This idea only emerged much later, in certain anti-Christian intellectual circles in Europe during the 18th and 19th centuries.
Why?
➤ For ideological reasons — especially among atheists and anti-clerical thinkers who wanted to destroy the credibility of Christianity at any cost.
Some tried to argue that the Gospels were mere legends or symbolic stories, comparing Jesus superficially to pagan gods.
But modern historians — even skeptical ones — completely reject this theory.
It fails for a simple reason: Jesus is rooted in real history. He lived in specific places, under known rulers, surrounded by eyewitnesses — friends and enemies alike.
Today, the theory that Jesus never existed survives only in extreme anti-religious circles — atheist blogs, conspiracy theorists, or militant secularists. No serious historian supports it.
➖ Conclusion ➖
We can be absolutely certain that Jesus of Nazareth really existed. The evidence comes not only from the New Testament but also from non-Christian and even hostile sources like the Talmud.
Faith in Christ does not begin with fantasy — it begins with the solid fact that God entered real human history in the person of Jesus, who walked among us, taught, was crucified, and rose again.
To deny the existence of Jesus is not a serious historical argument — it is a modern ideological myth, born not from evidence, but from prejudice.
LikeLike
Did Saint Augustine of Hippo and Saint Thomas Aquinas believe that prostitution was a necessary evil?
LikeLike
-
The idea that “prostitution is a necessary evil” is often linked to Saint Augustine and Saint Thomas Aquinas. But we need to be careful: neither of them approved of prostitution, and neither said it was good. What they did was explain why, in a fallen world, trying to eliminate it completely could sometimes do more harm than good.
1️⃣ Saint Augustine’s View
Augustine never called prostitution “necessary” in itself. But in De ordine (II, 4, 12), he uses a strong image: if you remove prostitutes from society, “you will unsettle everything with lust.” He compares it to removing sewers from a building: disgusting, but if removed entirely, things get worse.
This is not moral approval—he calls prostitution a sin—but rather a reflection on human weakness. In other words, given the broken state of man, some evils are tolerated to avoid greater ones.
2️⃣ Saint Thomas Aquinas’ View
Aquinas picks up this idea in the Summa Theologiae (II-II, q. 10, a. 11, ad 3). He argues that just as God allows some evils so that greater goods may come, the State can tolerate certain sins like prostitution to preserve peace and public order. Trying to eradicate it completely by force might lead to worse consequences, such as rebellion or hidden vice.
But again, this is toleration, not approval. Aquinas clearly teaches that prostitution is sinful and harmful to both individuals and society.
3️⃣ The Principle of Tolerated Evil
This principle is well established in Catholic moral theology: not every evil must be suppressed by law. Some sins must be fought spiritually and culturally, rather than legally, because coercion would lead to greater harm or scandal. The Church, in her prudence, distinguishes between what is evil and what should be illegal.
4️⃣ Modern Misreadings
Today, some twist this teaching to justify legalized or regulated prostitution. That’s a misreading. Neither saint ever defended it as a “right” or a “profession.” Their analysis was pastoral and political, not moral endorsement. The Church has always taught that prostitution is contrary to chastity and human dignity (cf. Catechism, 2355).
➖ Conclusion ➖
Augustine and Aquinas did not say that prostitution is good or acceptable—they said that in a fallen world, its temporary toleration by civil authority might prevent greater harms. But the ultimate goal remains conversion, healing, and the restoration of true chastity and justice.
LikeLike
Matthew 27:6 says Judas returned the temple money to the priests and hanged himself. Acts 1:16-18 says Judas bought a field with that money, fell on his head, and died. Which version is correct?
LikeLike
-
Yes, this apparent contradiction often causes confusion, but when we examine the texts carefully and consider historical context, we find that both accounts can be harmonized without difficulty.
1️⃣ What Matthew Says
Matthew 27:3–5 tells us that Judas, remorseful for betraying Jesus, returned the thirty silver coins to the chief priests and elders, and then went and hanged himself. The priests, considering the money “blood money,” used it to buy a potter’s field (Matthew 27:6–7).
2️⃣ What Acts Says
In Acts 1:18, Peter recounts that Judas “bought a field with the reward of his wickedness; and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out.” This seems to present a different picture—but only at first glance.
3️⃣ Harmonizing the Accounts
The two passages describe different aspects of the same event:
✅ Judas hanged himself—as Matthew states.
✅ Later, his body likely fell—either the rope or branch broke, or his body was left hanging and decayed until it fell. The fall caused his body to burst open, as Acts describes.
Thus, both are true: he hanged himself, and later his body fell and was disfigured.
4️⃣ Who Bought the Field?
Matthew says the priests bought the field with the silver Judas returned. Acts says Judas bought a field. This can be understood in two ways:
✅ The priests used his money, which, in Jewish custom, still counted as his act. So symbolically, Judas “bought” the field.
✅ Alternatively, Peter may be speaking rhetorically, attributing the purchase to Judas because it was his betrayal money.
➖ Conclusion ➖
There is no contradiction here when read carefully. Judas hanged himself, and his body later fell and burst open. The field was bought with his money, even if not directly by his hand. Scripture often complements itself through different perspectives, and in this case, both Matthew and Acts offer details that, together, give a fuller picture of Judas’s tragic end.
LikeLike
What is Docetism?
LikeLike
-
1️⃣ Definition and Core Idea
Docetism was one of the earliest Christological heresies in the history of the Church. The name comes from the Greek word dokein, meaning “to seem” or “to appear.” According to Docetism, Jesus Christ did not truly have a physical body or suffer bodily death—He only appeared to be human.
This view was heavily influenced by dualistic philosophies, especially Gnosticism, which saw matter as evil and spirit as good. For a Docetist, it would be unthinkable for the divine Word to truly take on corruptible flesh.
2️⃣ Why It’s a Problem
The problem with Docetism is that it destroys the reality of the Incarnation and, therefore, the entire logic of salvation.
✅ If Jesus did not truly assume human flesh, then He did not truly become one of us.
✅ If He did not truly suffer and die, then there is no real sacrifice for our sins.
✅ If there was no real death, there can be no real Resurrection, and thus no victory over death.
The Apostle John strongly condemns this idea:
“Every spirit which does not confess Jesus is not of God. This is the spirit of the antichrist” (1 John 4:3, RSV-CE).
3️⃣ The Church’s Response
From the earliest centuries, the Church Fathers fought fiercely against Docetism.
✅ St. Ignatius of Antioch (early 2nd century) insists repeatedly in his letters that Christ “was truly born, truly suffered, and truly rose from the dead.”
✅ The Nicene Creed also reflects this clarity: “For us men and for our salvation He came down from heaven […] and was made man.”
By affirming the full humanity and full divinity of Christ, the Church safeguards the mystery of our redemption: only one who is truly God could save us, and only one who is truly man could represent us.
➖ Conclusion ➖
Docetism may seem like an ancient and irrelevant error, but similar ideas reappear even today in subtle ways—whenever people downplay Christ’s suffering, His humanity, or the physical nature of the sacraments. The truth of the Incarnation is central: God became truly man, suffered in the flesh, and rose again to bring real salvation to real human beings.
LikeLike
Apologia 2.1 in English 
Leave a reply to rossingcenter Cancel reply