Manage Account

A relative of mine just had his spouse leave him out of nowhere. How should we guide him towards hopeful reconciliation?

If a couple is living in a sinful divorce, goes to confession, but then goes right back to that same lifestyle, do they have to confess again before receiving communion and keep doing that over and over?

If your spouse had a previous marriage that was never annulled, and then they go through the annulment process, do you now need to get your marriage convalidated?

My brother married outside the Church and got a divorce. Now he’s dating a Catholic, cohabitating with her, and receiving the Eucharist. Should I say anything?

I was civilly married, then we had our marriage convalidated in the Church. My husband was a non-Christian. Now during our divorce he’s saying he never intended to become Catholic or raise our children Catholic. Is this grounds for annulment?

If someone’s spouse dies, does she still need to get an annulment before marrying someone else?

I’ve had two priests say it’s okay for me to date before I’ve had an annulment. Are they correct?

Divorce and the Eucharist

Catholics like to try and validate the serpents claim that when you die you don’t really die. That’s how they end up teaching Mary and all the saints are not dead but in heaven.

How should I love God and have a firm resolve especially after confession?

When was the last time the pope spoke ex cathedra?

Do you think it’s ok to use philosophy and theology to evaluate human evolution?

I’m a recent revert. Why does the bible seem to suggest that Jesus is subordinate to the father?

How are we sure the saints are in heaven if there’s a chance they went to purgatory?

Are priests also counselors?

Ask Me Anything

The Catechism of the Catholic Church gives us the most important reasons why we must <a href="https://www.catholic.com/tract/infant-baptism">baptize infants</a>:
<blockquote>
Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the new birth in baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all men are called. The sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation is particularly manifest in infant baptism. The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer baptism shortly after birth (CCC 1250).
</blockquote>
<a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/to-explain-infant-baptism-you-must-explain-original-sin">Original sin</a> is a reality from which each and every human person desperately needs to be freed. Biblically speaking, Romans 5:12 is remarkably clear on this point:
<blockquote>
Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned.
</blockquote>
Even if nothing else was <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/to-explain-infant-baptism-you-must-explain-original-sin">said in Scripture</a> implying infant baptism, we could conclude it to be necessary just from this simple fact: babies need to have original sin removed from their souls.
But there is more.
St. Paul, being a Jew, as well as all of the apostles, understood the idea that true religion is a family affair. A Jew became a Jew when he was circumcised on the eighth day after his birth. They did not have to first “accept Moses as their personal prophet” before they could be circumcised. And according to Paul, baptism is the fulfillment of circumcision:
<blockquote>
In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ. . . . You were buried with him in baptism (Col. 2:11-12).
</blockquote>
The Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition, which I quoted above, has the word &#8220;and&#8221; placed between “Christ” and “you were buried.” I left it out because it is not in the original Greek text. The Greek indicates that baptism is the circumcision of Christ!
This seems trivial to us today. Okay, so baptism is the “circumcision of Christ.” But this was not trivial to first-century Jewish Christians who were being challenged to circumcise their children “after the manner of Moses or else they could not be saved” (see Acts 15:1-2). Many were being persecuted because they chose infant baptism instead of infant circumcision. As Paul says in Romans 2:28:
<blockquote>
For he is not a real Jew who is one outwardly, nor is true circumcision something external and physical. He is a Jew who is one inwardly, and real circumcision is a matter of the heart, spiritual and not literal.
</blockquote>
What is this “spiritual circumcision” of which Paul speaks? Baptism, according to Colossians 2:11-12. Not the shedding of foreskin, but the transformation of the inward man through the sacrament. As a fulfillment of that which is only a type, baptism does something circumcision could never do: &#8220;baptism now saves&#8221; us (1 Pet. 3:21). The change that occurs is not physical; it is spiritual. As it is often said, what you don’t see is what you get in all of the sacraments, baptism included—and infant baptism included, too.
Elsewhere in Scripture we find a close association between baptism and circumcision. In Galatians 3:27-28, Paul says:
<blockquote>
For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
</blockquote>
Paul&#8217;s point is that baptism is more inclusive than its Old Testament antecedent. You had to be a free, male Jew to be circumcised. And when were males generally circumcised in the Old Testament, by the way? At eight days after birth (Gen. 17:12). Paul’s point is that in the New Testament, baptism is open to all. Of course babies would be included.
This idea of baptism as the circumcision of Christ, therefore opening up the legitimacy of infant baptism, is at least implied in other biblical texts as well. You&#8217;ll recall that on Pentecost, Peter preached to thousands of Jews, who already had an understanding of their faith involving a family covenant, and said, &#8220;Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. . . . For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, everyone whom the Lord calls to him&#8221; (Acts 2:38-39).
If Peter believed that baptism is exclusive to adults, he was a terrible teacher!
The Lord explicitly &#8220;called infants&#8221; to himself in Luke 18:15-17:
<blockquote>
Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them; and when the disciple saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to him, saying, “Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God. Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it.”
</blockquote>
These were not just children who were being brought to Jesus. The Greek word here is brephe, which mean &#8220;infants.&#8221; And again, the Jews listening would understand that the parent’s belief and obedience suffices for the child until he is old enough to own his faith. The parents bringing children to Christ, according to Christ, is equivalent to the children coming to him on their own. Moreover, because babies are icons of what we all should be—that is, they put up no obstacles to the work of God in their lives, and they can most obviously do absolutely nothing to merit anything from God—infant baptism makes sense, as they are reminders of “the sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation” (CCC 1250).
From the very beginning, whole “households” received baptism. There is no reason to believe that infants would not have been included (see Acts 11:14; 16:15, 33; 18:8; 1 Cor. 1:16). For brevity&#8217;s sake, I will use just one of the five examples cited in that parenthesis. I encourage all reading this to take a look at the other four examples as well.
When Paul led the Philippian jailer to Christ in Acts 16, he said to him, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household” (Acts 16:31). He does not say that all in his household must first believe. He simply says they will all be saved. How could he say that? Paul seems to have understood what St. Peter had already preached back when Paul was still persecuting Christians (in Acts 2:38). The promise of faith and baptism is for the jailer and his children.
Jesus said, “He that believes and is baptized shall be saved” in Mark 16:16. Many claim this to mean that faith must precede baptism. And this would seem to exclude infants as possible candidates for baptism. Seems airtight. Can an infant possess faith? No. Therefore, a baby cannot be licitly baptized.
Although this argument may sound convincing on the surface, it does not survive serious scrutiny. First, Jesus did not say faith must precede baptism for an individual. He simply said one has to believe and be baptized in order to be saved. He said nothing about the two having to be accomplished in that order for the individual.
Moreover, even if we were to accept as fact that faith must come first, even though Mark 16:16 does not say that, this would not exclude the possibility that the faith of the parents suffices until the child reaches the age of accountability.
Second, a strict reading of Mark 16:16 has devastating consequences. A baby cannot believe. Does that mean that all babies who die without believing will not be saved? Of course not! The thief on the cross was presumably not baptized. Does that mean he would not go to heaven? Of course not! Belief and baptism are necessary to those who have the opportunity to obtain them. If they were to be impeded from being able to believe or be baptized, and that could be the case for many different reasons, then God would judge them in accordance with what they were responsible for.
This last point gets to another reason why infant baptism is so important. Sometimes we are accountable not just for ourselves, but for others as well (see Ezek. 3:18-19). Parents are responsible for baptizing their babies. If they knowingly do not do so, they break God&#8217;s covenant in a serious matter. Like the paralytic in Matthew 9:2-6 who was completely dependent upon others to bring him to Christ in order for him to get his sins forgiven (and his physical healing), a baby is completely dependent upon his parents to bring him to Christ.
And notice as well that it was the faith of those who brought the paralytic to Christ that God used instrumentally for the paralytic&#8217;s salvation: “When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, ‘Take heart, my son; your sins are forgiven’” (v. 2). Whose faith did Jesus &#8220;see&#8221; here? “Their” seems to refer back to the “they” of the same verse: “And behold, they brought to him a paralytic . . .”
The faith of the parents suffices when they bring their infant to be blessed by Christ via &#8220;the circumcision of Christ.&#8221;
Paul clearly teaches that circumcision never justified anyone, at least in the sense of the initial gift of justification. “We say that faith was reckoned to Abraham . . . before he was circumcised” (Rom. 4:9-10). So doesn’t this prove that baptism does not save us, either?
Three points:
First, as I said above, baptism is the fulfillment of that which was only a type in the Old Testament. The fulfillment is always more glorious than the type. Thus, “baptism does now save you” (1 Pet. 3:21) in a way that circumcision could not.
Second, it is true that Abraham and David were Paul’s two examples of justifying grace occurring apart from circumcision in Romans 4. And yet, Abraham instituted circumcision by divine mandate, and David was, in fact, circumcised as a little baby. Indeed, God also declared in the Old Testament that &#8220;any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant&#8221; (Gen. 17:14). It is not a contradiction to say both faith and circumcision were necessary to remain within God’s covenant in the Old Testament, even though circumcision played no role in initial justification.
Third, the faith of the parents sufficed when it came to circumcising a child. Do we not see that principle in the New Testament as well? Jesus saw the faith of the friends of the paralytic and healed the paralytic in Matthew 9:2. When people cannot have faith, the faith of family or friends suffices. So it is with infant baptism. The faith of the parents sanctifies the children, as Paul says in 1 Cor. 7:14. This is just as much a New Testament concept as it is an Old Testament concept.
So if you have the Faith, and you&#8217;re on the fence about baptizing your baby . . . wonder no longer. Baptize him!

Where Is Infant Baptism in the Bible?

What is that Protestants have against Mary, and how can I give scriptural responses to their objection?

I am a comic book artist. I want to create comics that are appropriate but not sterile. What principles can guide me to have this balance?

How do we know for sure that the woman in Revelation 12 is Mary? It seems that part is really about Israel.

It seems like there is a lot of tension between the Vatican and the Latin Mass People. Do you think the Vatican should have a concordat with the TLM community to keep the conversation going?

Can you elaborate on the story of remote viewing Jesus that you mentioned a couple weeks ago?

What is the Catholic Church’s teaching about cremation? And can you spread the ashes?

Do you think there is any connection between the assassination attempt on Trump and the apparitions at Fatima? They both happened on July 13. And I’ve seen clips of a Protestant who supposedly prophesied the assassination attempt — do you think t...

I’ve heard that the canonization of St. Josemaria Escriva was controversial because there were some negative testimonies that were not heard. What do you make of that situation? Can someone be canonized who shouldn’t be?

Steve Ray dives deep into the biblical meaning of &#8220;brothers&#8221; and its implications for the relationship between Jesus and Mary. With a focus on Greek and Hebrew linguistics and cultural context, Steve challenges common misconceptions about the word &#8220;brothers&#8221; in the Bible and offers compelling evidence for a unique understanding of Jesus&#8217; family dynamics.
Transcript:
I work with a really nice guy, but he&#8217;s a reformed Baptist, in accord with John MacArthur who&#8217;s kind of anti-Catholic. Anyway, we were discussing the Greek root of the word brothers and also her marriage virginity. How can I, you know, counterpunch him in regards to this?
Well, the Greek word when it says brothers of our Lord is Adelphos, and it means brother. But it&#8217;s also, &#8220;Sai is my brother.&#8221; So when you have it also, &#8220;Sai,&#8221; it says,
like, &#8220;Sai, the brother of Steve,&#8221; or the Christian brother is also Adelphos. So it has to, the context has to be applied. So Adelphos, in the Middle East, if a woman could not have milk to breastfeed her baby, she would find another woman to breastfeed her baby, and that baby would be the brother of any other baby that had milk from her. It&#8217;s called a milk brother. People don&#8217;t realize that. But any baby that drank from this woman is a brother because it drank from the same milk source. So it is the word Adelphos, and it means brother, but it can mean different things. A brother in the Lord, it can mean a brother physical brother, it can mean a step brother, and they didn&#8217;t have words. In Hebrew, there&#8217;s no word for cousin. So the word brother is also used for cousin. For example, Abraham, his brother Lot, he refers to Lot, his brother, but he wasn&#8217;t, he was his nephew. But they didn&#8217;t have those kind of descriptions. Everybody was your brother. For example, when I was driving through Jordan with my friend, everywhere he went, he said, &#8220;It&#8217;s my brother, that&#8217;s my brother.&#8221; I said, &#8220;Elias, how many brothers do you have?&#8221; He says, &#8220;15,000, we&#8217;re a tribe. We&#8217;re a Bedouin, Catholic Bedouin tribe.&#8221; All of those 15,000 were his brothers,
because you don&#8217;t use the words cousin in those, they all lived in extended families. The bus driver that we use, the father and mother live on the first floor. The first born son lives on the second floor with his kids, next floor second son with his kids, third son with his kids, and all those kids play together all the time. They&#8217;re not cousins, they&#8217;re brothers. They all live together, they&#8217;re brothers. Even the word can mean the cousins of someone. Because Mary was not &#8230; I think this is so many things you could say. At the cross, when Jesus said, &#8220;I&#8217;m going to give my mom to you, John.&#8221; Why did he say that? If Mary had another son, the second son would be in charge of mom. This is just the way it is in Jewish, to think of giving your mother to another guy when she has other sons would be unthinkable. The very fact that Jesus gave Mary to John shows that Mary had no other children. When they said that Mary is the mother of Jesus, it doesn&#8217;t say ever Mary is the mother of Jesus, Joseph, Simon, Judas, and somebody else. People also, then Matthew 1.25, this is another one you&#8217;re going to hear probably, Patrick. It says that Joseph did not know Mary until the baby was born, as though, oh, then all of a sudden they had relations.
That word until does not mean something that happened after. In one place in the Bible, it says that a woman had no children until the day she died. Well, she obviously didn&#8217;t have any kids after she died. To use that word until to try and prove that Joseph did know Mary after is nonsense. The whole passage of scripture, I could go also into John 7 showing that they were Jesus&#8217; stepbrothers, or they were his cousins. There&#8217;s an ancient tradition from the East that Joseph was married and was a widower and had other sons and daughters by a previous marriage. Therefore, those could be the brothers. They could be stepbrothers, not physical brothers of Jesus. So there&#8217;s a lot of ways to think about it.
Hey, thanks for watching. If you like this Catholic answer, be sure to like, subscribe, and check out our live streams Monday through Friday, 3 to 5 p.m. Pacific, or find the episode after on YouTube, our favorite podcast platform, or our Catholic Answers app.

How to Respond to “Jesus Had Brothers”

Episode 62: Year B &#8211; 4th Sunday of Ordinary Time
In this episode of the Sunday Catholic Word, we focus on three details that are relevant for doing apologetics. The first comes from the first reading, taken from Deuteronomy 18:15-20. The apologetical topic that comes to the fore is the intercession of the saints, and particularly the objection from necromancy. The second and third details come from the Gospel reading, which is taken from Mark 1:21-28, and it relates to Jesus’ divinity.
Readings: <a href="https://bible.usccb.org/bible/readings/012824.cfm">Click Here</a>
Looking for Sunday Catholic Word Merchandise? Look no further! <a href="https://bible.usccb.org/bible/readings/012824.cfm">Click Here</a>
&nbsp;

Is Intercession of Saints Necromancy?

In this free-for-all-Friday, Trent joins the faith, reason, and geekdom podcast to discuss his favorite live-action, DC films.

FFAF: My Top 5 DC Live Action Films