1.

We are supposed to be eternally happy in Heaven. But how could that be if we knew that someone we loved was in Hell? Does that negate the existence of Hell?

This question, while very difficult, does not negate the existence of Hell, as belief in Hell’s existence is based in scripture and spoken of by Christ Himself. However, the question remains – will we experience sorrow in Heaven for those in Hell?

Apologist Peter Kreeft addresses this dilemma in his book “Every Thing You Ever Wanted To Know About Heaven.” Kreeft states, “We seem to face a dilemma here. On the one hand, Scripture assures us that “God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes,”… On the other hand, the blessed dead seem sometimes to manifest sorrow, like Mary at La Sallette, weeping for the sins of the world.”

Kreeft speaks of the concept of “ the more you love, the more you suffer.” The question then naturally arises: Does God the Father, who loves all sinners, suffer? Kreeft states that the affirmative answer to this question was declared a heresy, and so the problem is, how can God love us and remain aloof and invulnerable? How will we be able to do this in heaven if those we love are in Hell? We must be able to because, as Kreeft states, “Heavenly children resemble their Heavenly Father.” Kreeft explains: “The answer requires us to distinguish between two ingredients of earthly love and caring, an active and a passive ingredient … Say a parent loves a child who has done something harmful to himself. The parent’s love speaks two words to the child. The first word, the word of active caring, says, ‘How could you do this to yourself?’ The second word, the passivity and the vulnerability, says, ‘How could you do this to me?’ God loves us with the first love only, and the blessed in Heaven will love as God loves….[God] truly loves and cares, yet He is invulnerable – not by being aloof, but by being supremely active, not passive.”

“If our spirits are similar enough to God, we too can love without sorrow or vulnerability because we love only with the active feeling of caring, not the passive feeling of being hurt.”

This may seem like a rather philosophical and detached, even unsatisfactory, answer to such a concerning question, but in the end it is trust in God that it comes down to, as well as remembering the Lord’s words to the prophet Isaiah, “For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways,” declares the LORD. “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways And My thoughts than your thoughts.” (Is. 55:8-10)

2.

Jesus says to call no man father in Matthew 23:9. So why do Catholics call priest Father?

Through an examination of both Scripture and Tradition, Christ's intention in Matthew 23:9 becomes clear. In this situation, Jesus is rebuking the Pharisees for their spiritual pride. His words of rebuke were recorded to steer us away from looking to any human being as if he were our father in the way only God is Father. Christ's intention was not to prohibit us from literally referring to priests or any other father-figure as "father," as evidenced by His own use of the term (see for example, Mt 15: 4-6; 19:5; 19:29; 21:31; Jn 8:46). In giving us the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, Jesus even has the rich man use the title "Father Abraham" three times to refer to the ancient patriarch (see Lk 16:24, 27,30).

Scripture also records St. Paul referring to himself as a "father" to other Christians (see Phil 2:22; 1 Cor 4:15). St. Stephen who, while under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, publicly addressed the Jewish leaders as "my brothers and fathers." (Acts 7:2) St. Paul added that "though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel I urge you then be imitators of me." (I Corinthians 4:15-16) This understanding of these Gospel passages was clear and uniformly accepted in the early Church. The custom of calling bishops and priests "father" arose very early. Even the custom of calling the bishop of Rome "pope" derives from the affectionate Latin word for "father": papa. To quote but one of the early Church fathers, St. Irenaeus of Lyons wrote in the year 180 A.D.: "When any person has been taught from the mouth of another, he is termed the son of him who instructs him, and the latter [is called] his father." (Against All Heresies 4:41:2)

Since the term "father" abounds in both Scripture and Tradition, we can be sure that Jesus' intention was not to literally ban the use of the word, but to instruct us in its proper use. He reminds us that God the Father is the ultimate source of all authority. The authority that the Pharisees of His time wielded within the religious community came from the Father as does the authority given to our own religious leaders today.

3.

In Mathew 12:36, Jesus says, “I tell you, on the day of judgment men will render account of every careless word they utter; for by your words you will justified, and by your words you will be condemned.” What does Jesus mean by “every careless word” (in some translations “idle word” or “idle chatter”) ?

To understand what Jesus means by “idle” or “careless” words, let’s begin by looking at what the saints have to say. St. John Chrysostom writes that the idle word is the word “that is false, that accuses any falsely.” St. Jerome says it is the word “being spoken without the profit of either the speaker or hearer. It is the word spoken without foundation, the word that serves no purpose.” (Aquinas, Catena Aurea, Gospel According to Mathew, www.ccel.com). Such a word may be mendacious or calumnious simply because the speaker has not reflected on the content and implications of his speech. Remember that our words are dynamic realities. We have the power through our words to build up or to destroy. If what we say becomes an agent for evil, we must accept full responsibility for the evil (James 3: 1-12).

Where does that leave humor? Indeed, that very topic was addressed in a book called “The Name of the Rose” by Umberto Eco. In this fictional tale, a monk tries to hide the discovery of a lost treatise by Aristotle because it endorses humor. The implication is that the Church views humor as something sinful. We can take the writing of St. Jerome as guidance: Humor is an expression of joy, and joy certainly “profits the speaker and/or hearer.” Consequently on its face “humor” is not “careless” or “idle” ... “The joy of the Lord is our strength” (Nehemiah 8:10) ... “A joyful heart is the health of the body” (Prov. 17:22).

That changes, however, when humor results at the expense of another; in that case it becomes calumnious and would be categorized as “idle” or “careless.” And here we’re back to St. James: if what we say becomes an agent for evil, we must accept full responsibility for the evil.