Category: Moral Theology

A reader writes:

On October 16th in "Music Scruples: The Opus Continues" you said,

"If it
does then it would be a matter of prudence as to whether you should
follow the moral law answer in violation of civil law. As long as you’re
doing what’s moral then, by definition, you’re morally safe, and it’s a
question of whether you’re willing to take the risks associated with not
following the civil law answer."

You also in a previous post talked about the concept of a "legamoron."

My question for you is as follows: is it always morally permissible to
do something morally neutral (drive without the proper insurance, speed,
take food into the movie theater, drinking moderately underage, etc) as
long as you are willing to accept the (often unlikely) consequences
associated with those actions?

I was under the previous belief that any
offense against legitimate civil law was an offense against the public
order and common good of society and so even minor crimes were at least
venially sinful. Your clarification on this matter would be most helpful.

It is not always morally permissible to do something that is morally neutral in itself, contrary to what civil law would provide. Civil law has a role in ordering morally neutral actions so that society is benefitted. For example, there is no intrinsic reason why we Americans drive on the right side of the road instead of the left. Considered in itself, driving on either side of the road is morally neutral. But given the amount of traffic on many roads and the speed at which the traffic moves, it is reasonable that the state make requirements about what side we drive on. That reasonableness enables such laws to be ordinances of reason, which is required for a law to be legitimate.

In the same way, requiring the people–under ordinary driving conditions–have a certain amount of insurance coverage also strikes me as reasonable, though in emergency circumstances that requirement would go out the window (e.g., if you’re rushing someone to the hospital or if you’re fleeing a murderer or if you just mailed your check to the insurance company but you can’t afford to stay home from work). In those cases–if the law were to require you to not drive–the law would cease being one of reason and it would be morally legitimate to ignore it as an unjust law, at least in those cases.

While the concept of a legamoron provides some additional flexibility in some cases (e.g., speeding), the default is to obey the law unless it is manifestly unreasonable and thus not a just law in those circumstances (legamorons being laws that, by their nature, would be unjust if rigorously enforced, though we still need to comply with even legamorons when they are functioning reasonably–so you shouldn’t be doing 75 in a school zone when kids are present).

In order to have moral justification for disobeying a civil law, it seems to me that the following conditions need to be met:

1) The law is of itself or at least in this particular case unreasonable and thus is not functioning as an ordinance of reason (or it must otherwise fail to meet the definition of a law as "an ordinance of reason for the common good, made by him who has care of the community, and promulgated"; ST I-II:90:4).

2) The benefits to you in ignoring the law are not outweighed by the harm that will come to you if you get caught, weighted by the likelihood of you getting caught.

In judging these matters, we need to carefully evaluate whether these conditions are fulfilled, for it is easy for us to rationalize civil lawbreaking, just as it is easy for us to rationalize sin.

Nevertheless, there are points at which the Christian faith recognizes it as being legitimate to break civil law, as when the apostles were required to stop preaching the name of Christ and they replied "We must obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29).

A reader writes:

I majoring in music and I oftentimes get sheet music in my
classes and private lessons.  Many of these are of a full song and sometimes
copied straight out of a book.  Some are modern songs that aren’t in public
domain.  I fear the teachers may not have gotten permission to use these but
I don’t know the law well enough to say whether it is fair use.  I know you
probably aren’t an expert on copyright, but being somewhat scrupulous, I’m
not sure how to go about doing my work while fearing that I could be
violating copyright.  I certainly don’t want to commit mortal sin just to do
my homework.  Should I bring it up whenever I feel it is a problem, or
should I just let the teachers worry about it?  May I just ignore it and
give extra to charity?  Any advice would be helpful.

I don’t have the background in civil law needed to answer the question of what civil law would say about this situation, so I’ll answer it primarily in terms of moral law, with the caveat that the moral law answer may clash with the civil law answer. If it does then it would be a matter of prudence as to whether you should follow the moral law answer in violation of civil law. As long as you’re doing what’s moral then, by definition, you’re morally safe, and it’s a question of whether you’re willing to take the risks associated with not following the civil law answer. (In this case–that of a student being given fishy sheet music by his teacher–I would say that the risks are small.)

Let’s start with whose responsibility it is to secure rights to the sheet music in question: It’s your teachers’. If they are violating copyright in their production of this material then that is fundamentally their responsibility, not yours. You are only involved to the extent that you are cooperating with the situation, and your cooperation looks to be remote and material only. Remote material cooperation can be morally legitimate when there is a proportionate reason, and your need to get an education is certainly a proportionate reason to go head and play what’s on some shady sheet music that your teacher puts before you (or sends home with you).

The situation of teacher and student is analogous to the situation of employer and employee. If, once you’re out in the workplace, your employer (let’s say it’s a symphony orchestra) puts fishy sheet music in front of you then your need to make a living is a proportionate reason to play what’s on it.

The same goes for people in other fields of employment whose bosses require them–as part of their work–to use things that they haven’t secured the rights to. For example, if you work in an office and your employer hasn’t gotten a software license for the copy of Microsoft Word that is on your computer then you go ahead and use the word processor. It’s your boss’s moral responsibility to get the license, not yours. Your need to earn a living is proportionate to the individual act of piracy that you are (at best) remotely cooperating with.

Of course, to the extent that prudence allows we should encourage our employers (or teachers) to obtain the needed rights or permissions, but our ability to do this prudently is often very limited. People can be denied pay raises or promotions or good grades if they come off as scrupulous troublemakers to their superiors. In extreme cases, they can even end up fired or failed. As a result, significant caution should be exercised in making the decision whether and how to address such matters.

In the case of courses taken at an academic institution, the professor (as opposed to the student) is very much in charge of the classroom, and I generally advise students to keep their heads down, not make trouble, get good grades, and then deal with the situation (if it’s worth dealing with) once one is an alumnus and can no longer be hurt by the institution. There are exceptions to this rule, of course, but erring on the side of caution is my general advice.

In the case of the private lessons you are taking, though, you may have more leeway. The student in such a setting may be in a better position to say, "Hey, why don’t we study this (non-problematic) material?"

One last bit of info, which pertains specifically to educational situations: U.S. copyright law includes fair use provision that allow for academic/educational use of limited amounts of copyrighted material. This is one reason, for example, that professors of various disciplines may make photocopies of individual journal articles or individual chapters of books and distribute them to their students via professor publishing.

At least in some settings this is allowed.

Whether it is allowed in the case of the sheet music you are being given, I couldn’t say–I don’t know enough about the provisions of civil law on this point or your own situation. Whatever the case might be, however, I would seek to avoid scrupling over this issue, and you would not have a moral obligation to give extra to charity, as revealing as that thought is about the good intentions you clearly have.

The global warming people are wrong, so we should just burn down all the forrests, kill all the endangered species, and suck the planet dry as part of our mandate to fill and subdue the earth, right?

Of course not.

God did not give us a mandate to suck the earth dry. That would be counter-productive, not least of all to ourselves. Instead, he called us to be stewards of creation. In Genesis, you’ll note that Adam is created "to tend and keep" the garden. He was the gardener of Eden. What was true of him as the head of the human race is true of the race as a whole: We we are called to steward–manage–the planet and the life forms and resources it contains. The material creation does have an orientation to the service of man (CCC 353), but this does not remove man’s responsibility to wisely steward the life and resources God has created (CCC 337 ff).

The problem for many Christians today who would like to find good environmental stewardship groups is that so many of the groups that are out there have been taken over by one form or another of environmental whackiness–even many Christian groups.

With that in mind, I was very pleased recently to renew my acquaintance with the Presbyterian author and scholar, E. Calvin Beisner, who is an old friend. (In fact, it was he who set me right on the birth control issue back when I was a Presbyterian.)

As part of our conversation, Cal informed me about a group he is involved with, the Interfaith Stewardship Alliance, which seeks to bring responsible stewardship principles to the discussion of the environment, without veering off into the extremes of environmental whackiness.

The ISA is truly an interfaith group, as can be seen from looking at a list of its formal advisors, which includes priests, ministers, rabbis, and professionals in a variety of fields.

I’m particularly appreciative of the group’s emphasis on managing the environment in a way that does not keep developing countries from developing. It is contrary to human nature and love of neighbor to confine millions of human beings to squalor and poverty in the name of perserving environmental goals that are formulated without respect to the human costs of achieving them. A balance must be found that harmonizes the need for preserving environmental resources with the needs of our fellow human beings, and this group is seeking to help in that effort.

I’d therefore invite you to

CHECK IT OUT.

A reader writes:

I am currently involved in a book reading club with some separated brethren. We are reading The Search for Significance by Robert S. McGee. Overall it is a good book to help one think about seeing our true worth through God’s eyes. However, the fullness of truth would make the book even better.

The book delves into false beliefs vs. God’s truths. One of the false beliefs discussed is, "I must be approved (accepted) by certain others to feel good about myself. If I’m not approved…. (fear of rejection)." (pg. 305) McGee identifies, "Reconciliation (Col. 1:21-22): I am totally accepted by God." (cf. pg. 305) as the offsetting truth to the false belief of the fear of rejection.

What is the Church’s answer or understanding to the fear of rejection that we as humans face in our daily lives and how do we over come it?

I’m at a bit of a disadvantage since I haven’t read the book and thus don’t know exactly what McGee says about the need for human approval. If he means that the desire for approval by others must not be our ultimate criterion–that approval by God must be–then his thesis is acceptable. On the other hand, he may be diminishing or downplaying the need for approval by other humans in a way that falsifies the truth abou man.

There can be a tendency to this at times in some Protestant circles. I don’t know whether McGee is part of one of these or not, but there are circles in which psychological needs for acceptance and approval by others are dismissed in favor of a "God accepts me, and that’s all I need, I shouldn’t worry about anything else" mentality. This can happen, for example, in circles that are highly suspicious of psychology or the concept of self-esteem (and it must be admitted that there is a lot of junk psychology and even more junk in the self-esteem movement; the trick is not throwing the baby out with the bathwater).

If one needs a Bible verse pointing out that God does not intend for us to draw all of our emotional satisfaction from God alone, I would point to one of the foundational verses about human nature as God designed it:

Then the LORD God said, "It is not good that the man  should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him" (Gen. 2:18).

This verse is not to be understood as leading to the creation of Eve simply so she could bear children or do housework. The verse reflects the need of the man to be married, to engage in a partnership of life oriented to the good of the spouses as well as the procreation of children. This means that mankind, from its foundation–and the verse in question applies to the situation before the fall, so we can’t chalk this up to original sin–is called to exist in interpersonal communion, and when this fails to happen the situation is "not good."

Jesus made it clear that not everybody is called to marriage in particular (Matt. 19:10-12), but everyone is called to interpersonal communion with others, and that means not only giving emotionally to others but taking emotional satisfaction in human relationships as well. In the case of marriage, spouses are not exclusively givers of love, they are also receivers of love, and if one spouse does not receive love and support from the other then something is wrong with the marriage.

The same applies to other human relationships, whether it is the parent-child relationship (Scripture makes a big point about the duties of parents and children toward each other) and friendships (Scripture also makes a big point about the importance of these).

In all such relationships, we are not meant to be endless wells of charity that never draw upon the relationships for our own needs. That’s just not how God set up human nature. He made us to be social beings, and we don’t exist well if we are deprived of human contact and support.

Indeed, in cases where humans are deprived of all contact with their own kind, they tend not to live for very long and, if deprived of contact from a very young age, they suffer severe developmental and emotional problems.

While we cannot allow ourselves to become slaves to the need for approval and acceptance by others so that we forget our overarching duty to God, we do need these things from others, and the lack of them hurts us. It is natural to fear what hurts us, and so we have a natural fear of rejection.

Sometimes we must face this fear and just endure it, particularly when we will be rejected for honoring our duties to God, and in those circumstances we must just trust God to give us the support we need.

However when we are not in such a situation, it is natural and appropriate to do what we can to mitigate and avoid rejection. This effort can include things like going out and making new friends, engaging in social activities, taking the steps necessary to build families, improving our social skills, doing good things that others will appreciate, recognizing when our anxieties about our relationships are hurting us and making things worse, learning to not stress so much, learning to make peace with others, etc.

There is no single solution here–no equivalent to "Just trust God and don’t worry about what others think"–because God designed human society to be a complex reality that, particularly after the introduction of sin, involves finding and implementing what can be complex solutions to the problems we face.

That complexity is part of us–part of the human condition–and by wrestling with it and building good lives for ourselves we thereby glorify God. It’s what he meant us to do, and it’s what he gives us gifts of nature and grace to allow us to pursue.

By the way, though the reader asked for "the Church’s answer or understanding to the fear of rejection," I would point out that what I have written above is not a perspective unique to Catholics. Many Protestants and other Christians would share it as well, because they, too, recognize the biblical principles and the principles of human nature that are involved.

A reader writes:

Just yesterday I was blown away with news of my younger brother who says that he has same-sex attraction. I am a few years older than he is, and my younger brother is still in his teens; both of us are practicing Catholics. I spoke to him about his attraction and he says that he feels that his attraction to the male sex is stronger than for the female; the female is almost non-existent. We both live chaste lives and before I could even tell him how wrong it is, he informed me that he is aware of how wrong it is. I want to help him by talking to a priest about it or seeing a Catholic therapist concerning his issue. What more can I do to help him or even reverse the attraction; I know there have been many people who have had SSA and have led heterosexual lives.

I feel for the situation that you and your brother are in. This can be a very painful thing to have to deal with.

It sounds to me as if both of you already have a good perspective on the situation, and I don’t know how much additional advice there is that I can give. You already have a pretty good handle on matters.

Obviously, I would encourage you to pray for him and to try to help him witout making him feel worse about the situation than he already does. I would encourage him, whenever these thoughts occur to him, to relax and try to put them out of his mind.

Speaking with a priest is a good idea, but speaking to a therapist is likely to be particularly valuable since those who specialize in reparative therapy will have expertise in the matter that goes beyond what an individual priest is likely to have.

To that end, I would recommend that you contact NARTH, which specializes in such matters and has online resources that may also be helpful. Additionally, there are books on the subject that may be of help.

I would also encourage you and your brother to be optimistic about this. He is at a time in his life when many people experience sexual confusion of one sort or another, when one’s sexual inclinations can still be in flux, and the sooner that the problem is addressed in a compassionate, professional manner then the greater the progress is likely to be.

20

A reader writes:

Are Sedevacantists excommunicated, outside the grace of the Church?  What I’m asking, I guess, are followers of the schismatic doctrine of Sedevacantism (and to a lesser extent, I suppose, that of SSPX) in mortal sin?

Excommunication is an ecclesiastical censure that has specific effects that are defined by canon law. These effects are found in Canon 1331, which can be read HERE. The effects listed do not include being "outside the grace of the Church." The latter could be interpreted in several ways, and I’m not entirely sure what is intended, but I can say that excommunication neither places a person outside the Church nor does it deprive him of grace.

It does, however, presuppose that the individual has committed a grave sin. That is why, as an excommunicate, he is not allowed to receive the sacraments until he repents, for it would be sacrilege for him to do so in what must be presumed to be a state of mortal sin.

The grave sin that sedevacanists (and those who have formally adhered to the schism of the SSPX) have committed is the sin of schism. Schism is both a sin and a canonical crime, and its definition as a canonical crime is as follows:

Can. 751 Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.

If a person commits the canonical crime of schism, as defined above, then he is liable for the penalty of excommunication:

Can. 1364 §1. Without prejudice to the prescript of can. 194, §1, n. 2, an apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication; in addition, a cleric can be punished with the penalties mentioned in can. 1336, §1, nn. 1, 2, and 3.

The fact that it is latae sententiae means that the excommunication doesn’t have to be declared by an ecclesiastical authority. It occurs automatically when the person commits the crime of schism.

But the way canon law is written, it is not enough to note that a person has outwardly committed a schismatic act and then conclude that he is necessarily excommunicated. Canon law contains a number of provisions that could keep the excommunication from taking its effect, or at least from taking effect automatically. Many of these are listed in canons 1323 and 1324.

You’ll note that one of these provisions is that a person is not subject to the penalty if they committed their offense through innocent ignorance, inadvertence, or error (1323 no. 2). This means that if a person (sedevacantist or otherwise) committed a schismatic act in one of these conditions then he would not be automatically excommunicated.

It is thus possible for one to commit an objectively schismatic act without incurring excommunication.

But assume that a sedevacantist can’t get out based on one of these exceptions in the law (either the three I named or the others), would he then incur excommunication?

Yes.

If a person maintains that the current Roman Pontiff (Benedict XVI) is not a valid pope then he thereby refuses submission to the Roman Pontiff. It is not enough to say, "I’m loyal to the office, I just don’t think that guy occupies it." You have to be in submission to the actual pontiff. You can’t be in submission to an office. If there is presently a Roman Pontiff (and there always is except in interregnums) and you ain’t in submission to him then you’re a schismatic.

You can also fail to be in submission to the Roman Pontiff in other ways, as the leaders of the SSPX were when they participated in episcopal ordinations contrary to a specific papal order–see John Paul II’s motu proprio, Ecclesia Dei. As the pontiff warned in this same document, those who formally adhere to this schism also incurred excommunication.

All of this deals with the canonical censure of excommunication, but we still have to look at the moral (as opposed to canonical) question: Are sedevacantists and other schismatics in mortal sin?

It depends. Any time anyone commits an objectively grave sin (and schism is one such sin) then they are potentially in mortal sin. Whether they are actually in mortal sin depends on whether they committed their offense with sufficient knowledge of its moral character and whether they gave it deliberate consent.

If a schismatic lacked sufficient knowledge of the moral character of what they were doing (e.g., they didn’t realize that being a Catholic was important or they didn’t realize that what they were doing was actually schimatic) or if they didn’t give deliberate consent to the act (e.g., because they were suffering from a severe psychological illness that prevented them from deliberately consenting to any of their actions) then they would not be in mortal sin. They would still have sinned gravely, but the sin would not be mortal.

On the other hand, if they had sufficient knowledge of the character of their act (and they have sufficient knowledge as long as they had enough knowledge that they should have known what they were doing was gravely sinful, so their ignorance wasn’t innocent) and they just up and did it anyway then their actions were mortally sinful and they will not go to heaven unless they repent.

As always, we can’t judge whether any particular person is in mortal sin, but those are the underlying principles.

A reader writes:

With all the angry Muslim responses over the pope’s statements, including now the attacks on the churches in Gaza, it is safe to say that, assuming he doesn’t give them the apology they want, and that their anger doesn’t abate (it usually doesn’t), we will see greater violence done against Christians.

My question is this: at what point are Christians allowed, or even obliged, to take up arms to defend themselves?  It’s not that I want this to happen, just that it seems likely to become an issue sooner rather than later in some countries.

Does it make a difference whether the Christian is defending, for example, a church building vs. his home?  A priest vs. a family member?  Under what circumstances would a non-governmentally aligned community of Christians be allowed to take up arms and counterattack?

I know we are to rely of legitimate government to defend us from attack, but one could certainly argue that some of those Middle Eastern locations don’t have a government that is truly committed to defending ALL their citizens, or any effective government at all.

Morally speaking, individuals are warranted (permitted to) use lethal force in self-defense whenever their own lives are gravely endangered. Thus as soon as your life is gravely endangered (e.g., someone pulls a gun on you) then you would be permitted to use lethal force in self-defense.

(NOTE: I’m speaking in terms of moral justification, here, not legal justification; some U.S. states have laws that prohibit people from using lethal force even though their lives are already in grave danger and–for example–require the person to try fleeing to get away from the danger instead of facing it. These laws require one to do more than what morality does and–to my mind–they are boneheaded. Requiring a person to flee from a gun-wielding maniac may, in fact, put the person at greater risk of death than using lethal force on the maniac–not to mention that it leaves the maniac free to continue his rampage and kill others.)

Though one is permitted to use lethal force in self-defense when one’s life is gravely in danger, one is not required to do so. One can refuse to defend one’s own life and, if one does so in a context in which one is being killed for one’s faith but refuses to use the means of escape one has, one accepts a martyr’s death.

One is also morally permitted to use lethal force in the defense of another person as soon as that person’s life is gravely in danger. One is not automatically required to do so, however. Possible reasons for not doing so include: (a) the person does not wish to be defended or (b) defending him could put your life in grave jeopardy, and it is not required that one put one’s own life in grave jeopardy for an person for whom you do not have special responsibility.

One is not just permitted to but required to use lethal force in the defense of those for whom we have special responsibility. This includes parents for their children, husbands for their wives, and governments for their citizens.

The use of lethal force is not morally legitimate if the stakes are less than life. You cannot legitimately use lethal force to defend property for its own sake, for example. It doesn’t matter whether it’s a house or a church. One can, however, use sub-lethal force proportionate to the value of the property. And, if one is patrolling the property to defend it and one comes under attack personally then one can of course use lethal force in self-defense.

While the offense against religion is greater if a church is burned or a priest killed, the offense against property and against life is not different and thus does not change the criteria for the use of lethal force.

Even before life or property are in grave danger one is warranted in taking steps to see to their defense. If I were a Christian in an area in danger of Muslim violence, I would do everything in my power to obtain sufficient weapons and ammunition to defend myself and my family.

As to when individuals are morally permitted to organize for their self-defense, you have already named the condition that is required: the inability or unwillingness of the government to provide for their defense.

I’ll also touch on something that Catholic readers may wonder about–namely, the use of force in defending the Eucharist against desecration.

Jesus–in the Eucharist–of course is alive, and the Eucharist does not constitute property, so what can be done to defend the Eucharist?

Although there are steps one can legitimately take to prevent a person from desecrating the Eucharist (e.g., shoving him away from it so he can’t get it or snatching it out of his hand), one cannot kill a person who is about to desecrate the Eucharist. If someone at Mass took the Eucharist and was about to stomp on it, you could not kill him to stop him from doing it. He would  not be killing Jesus by doing so, or harming Jesus in any way since Jesus is now glorified in the beatitude of heaven. The offense is one that does not result in damage to Jesus. It results instead in damage to the soul of the desecrator and to the moral order, but Jesus has chosen by allowing such desecrations to occur to subject himself to this kind of treatment, and–while it is mortally sinful and incurs automatic excommunication reserved to the Holy See–we are not authorized to use lethal force to prevent it from happening (any more than Peter was authorized to use force to keep Jesus from going to the Cross).

This is not to say that the pastors of churches in areas subject to Muslim violence should not take action to prevent desecration of the Eucharist in case of possible attack by fanatics. If I were a pastor in such a situation, I would ensure that the Eucharist was not kept in the church or other locations where it would be in danger of desecration. This might mean reserving it in a hidden location or not reserving it at all and, for example, consuming all of the Eucharist that was reserved previously.

A reader writes:

I have a severe disability that leaves me dependent on my parents for personal care, transportation, etc. My parents are devout Protestants and don’t think Catholics are truly Christians. While I was in college, I began investigating Catholicism and eventually accepted the Church was what she claimed to be. At first, my mother was willing to drive me to Mass on occasion. Later, Mom refused to drive me to any more Masses or RCIA meetings. Due to the generosity of a Catholic classmate, I received RCIA instruction on my lunch hour while at school and another friend drove me to Mass so I could receive Reconciliation, Confirmation, and First Communion. I occasionally attend church with my parents and I’ve lost contact with the classmate since I graduated. The pastor is extremely Anti-Catholic. I find myself growing increasingly bitter and resentful as well as missing the grace of the sacraments, especially Reconciliation and the Eucharist. Here are my questions:

1. Should I continue attending church with my parents?

This is a judgment call. You are certainly permitted to attend with your parents as long as it does not pose a danger to your faith. Whether you should do so would depend, among other things, on how necessary it is for you to keep peace in your household. You are in a better position than I would be to answer that question.

With any judgment call, the thing to do is think and pray about it and then make the best decision one can, trusting God with the results. Even if one makes the wrong decision, making the attempt itself glorifies God and pleases him.

2. Should I speak up when Anti-Catholic statements I know to be false are made in that church? Can you give me advice on handling these situations? The pastor knows I’m Catholic.

This is also a judgment call, and one that has to be handled on a case-by-case basis. What I mean is that it depends on how bad the anti-Catholic statement that gets made is. If it is a minor thing, there is less reason to speak out. If it is a major thing, there is more reason. While we have a general obligation to share the truth with people, this obligation is suspended if people are unwilling to accept it. Thus Jesus told his disciples to shake the dust off their feet if a town wouldn’t receive their message. In the same way, you would want to correct misimpressions about the Catholic faith if you can, but if people aren’t listening to you and you perceive that the situation is just being made worse, the advisable thing to do would be to–metaphorically speaking–shake the dust off your feet and wait for a more opportune season.

If you do address anti-Catholic statements being made at the Church, I would be sure to do the following things: (1) follow the rules of ettiquite that pertain to the situation in the Church (e.g., don’t shout from the pew, "That’s wrong and you know it!"), (2) address the matter politely and in the most face-saving way possible for the person who made the mistake (on the principle that you catch more flies with honey than vinegar), and (3) be armed with the facts. Be ready to show exact quotations from Church documents, or use the resources online at catholic.com.

3. My former priest (he’s since left the parish) told me I was excused from my obligation to go to Mass because it was impossible in my case. I have no reason to doubt him, but just to double check would my situation be considered a valid excuse? I have not asked my mother to reconsider her decision in months. How often should I bring the situation up, and am I committing mortal sin if I don’t? I have no reason to believe things have changed.

You are definitely excused from your Sunday obligation if you can’t get to Mass. You should not worry about that in the slightest. Church law does not require you to do the impossible, or even the gravely inconvenient, and if you have no way to get to church then you are simply not required to do so.

As to asking your mother to take you again, if you have no reason to believe that things have changed then you do not have any obligation at this particular moment to ask. It thus is not a mortal sin if you don’t. Do not scruple about this either. The Church does not want you harming family relationships by asking all the time, and prudence would not want you angering one of your primary caregivers.

That being said, asking every once in a while–how often would be a judgment call, but certianly with a substantial period between requests–would be a good thing to do, though.

4. I am conscious of having committed mortal sin since my last confession. Since I don’t have access to the confessional the moment, is there anything else I can or should be doing besides privately repenting and trusting in God’s grace?

If you are unable to go to confession then repenting and making an act of perfect contrition (turning away from sins based on love of God–the fact that he is infinitely good and thus his will is infinitely good and what we should conform our wills to), with the intention to go to confession when possible, is enough to reconcile you with God.

Though I think there may be something else you can do: I would reach out to the local Catholic community and see what they can do to help you.

I would begin by calling a priest and asking him to come by and hear your confession and bring you the sacrament. You are in the same situation as a shut-in or a person in a hospital who can’t go to church, and priests can and do make pastoral visits to such people. He might not be able to do so often, but you should be able to find a priest willing to help.

Of course, how your parents would react to having a priest in the house is something that you weigh carefully in deciding whether to pursue this option. As long as you are not in danger of death, though, there is no grave obligation for you to get to the sacrament of confession.

Even if it is not possible to have a priest visit, I would still call one–or a church secretary–and ask about finding a ride to confession and Mass. The odds are very good that someone in the local Catholic community would be able–at least sometimes and possibly every week–to help you get to confession and/or Mass.

Of course, there is still the matter of how your parents would react to this, but as long as they are reasonable people–even if they strongly disapprove–then it should be possible to at least use this means of practicing your Catholic faith.

On the other hand, if they have a horrendously negative reaction and start making and carrying out threats (like denying you basic care or committing physical abuse or even just getting into heated arguments constantly) then you would be excused from even making this effort. (NOTE: I have no reason to think that your parents would do such things–and I assume that they are good people and wouldn’t–but there are such people out there.)

I also would join an online Catholic community–like the forums at Catholic.com–and try getting personal and spiritual support that way.

How you deal with much of this situation is a matter of prudence and judgment rather than law. To the extent possible, I would simply do your best to live in a dignified, Catholic manner and avoid arguing with your parents about it. Jesus pointed out that a prophet has no honor among his own country and people, and it usually is very hard to discuss such matters with your parents. They remember changing your diapers, after all, so it’s natural for them to think "Who is she to tell us about religion?" They also are in a difficult situation and are giving you a lot in the form of personal care they provide, and I would do my best to be grateful and loving for that.

I also would offer up the suffering you experience as a result of your condition and situation, both for your own sanctification and for your parents–as well as others in the world, including those who are even less fortunate (such as those in Muslim countries who can’t go to church or they’d be killed by their families).

God bless you for your faithfulness in a very difficult situation. Your fortitude pleases God, and he will certainly reward you greatly. I ask my readers to keep you and your family in their prayers and ask that God would give blessings to you all.