Moral Theology – Page 46

CONTENT NOTICE

The next couple of days I’m going to be doing a series of posts about . . . (ahem) . . . sex.

The reason is that in our sex-obsessed culture, it’s important for apologists to know how to argue the subject, particularly from a natural law persective since so many today won’t take you seriously if you just quote the Bible to them.

I’m going to keep it delicate here, but some of the links I cite to stories about recent scientific research regarding sex may be more blunt than some might want, so fair warning.

PONTIUS PILATE: “I’m Personally Opposed But . . . “

Saw press accounts about this a while back, so it may be old news to some, but is still worth repeating. Once again, a bishop speaks with refreshing clarity. Bishop Thomas Wenski, coadjutor of Orlando, writes:

Today, some self-identified Catholic politicians prefer to emulate Pontius Pilate’s “personally opposed but unwilling to impose” stance. Perhaps, they are baiting the Church, daring an “official sanction” making them “bad Catholics”, so as to gain favor among up their secularist, “blue state” constituencies. Such a sanction might turn their lack of coherent Catholic convictions into a badge of courage for people who hold such convictions in contempt.

But if the whole of point of being a Catholic is to grow in holiness –admittedly by practicing a whole lot and making some errors along the way – then it would be as John Paul II reminds us “a contradiction to settle for a life of mediocrity, marked by a minimalist ethic and a sentimental religiosity”. You cannot have your “waffle” and your “wafer” too. Those pro-abortion politicians who insist on calling themselves Catholics without seeing the contradiction between what they say they believe and their anti-life stance have to do a lot more of “practicing”. They need to get it right before they approach the Eucharistic table [Source].

PONTIUS PILATE: "I'm Personally Opposed But . . . "

Today, some self-identified Catholic politicians prefer to emulate Pontius Pilate’s “personally opposed but unwilling to impose” stance. Perhaps, they are baiting the Church, daring an “official sanction” making them “bad Catholics”, so as to gain favor among up their secularist, “blue state” constituencies. Such a sanction might turn their lack of coherent Catholic convictions into a badge of courage for people who hold such convictions in contempt.

But if the whole of point of being a Catholic is to grow in holiness –admittedly by practicing a whole lot and making some errors along the way – then it would be as John Paul II reminds us “a contradiction to settle for a life of mediocrity, marked by a minimalist ethic and a sentimental religiosity”. You cannot have your “waffle” and your “wafer” too. Those pro-abortion politicians who insist on calling themselves Catholics without seeing the contradiction between what they say they believe and their anti-life stance have to do a lot more of “practicing”. They need to get it right before they approach the Eucharistic table [Source].

For The Repose of the Soul Of David Reimer

I was really sorry to hear about this. David Reimer has died. I read about David a while back. He had an amazing and disturbing story (which I’ll get to in a minute). He leaves behind a wife and two adopted children.

The children are adopted because of something that happened to him very early in life. He was the victim of a botched circumcision, following which

His parents consulted the famous sex researcher John Money, who had maintained that “Nature is a political strategy of those committed to maintaining the status quo of sex differences.” He advised them to let the doctors [give the child a sex change operation], and they raised him as a girl without telling him what happened. I [secular humanist author Steven Pinker] learned about the case as an undergraduate in the 1970s, when it was offered as proof that babies are born neuter and acquire gender from the way they are raised. A New York Times article from the era reported that Brenda (nee Bruce) “has been sailing contentedly through childhood as a genuine girl.” The facts were suppressed until 1997, when it was revealed that from a young age Brenda felt she was a boy trapped in a girl’s body and gender role. She ripped off frilly dresses, rejected dolls in favor of guns, preferred to play with boys. . . . At fourteen she was so miserable that she decided either to live her life as a male or to end it, and her father finally told her the truth. She underwent a new set of operations, assumed a male identity [and the name David], and today is happily married to a woman [The Blank Slate, 349].

Unfortunately, that wasn’t the end of his story. He committed suicide after a failed investment cost him a great deal of money (warning: the obituary contains an explicit description of what happened to him earlier in life).

What a tragedy.

He was the victim of a horrible accident that was then immeasurably compounded by a criminally irresponsible sexuality “expert,” forced to lead a life contrary to the nature he genuinely had been given by God, and used as an instrument for advancing an absurd agenda to rationalize the sins of some and add confusion and error to the lives and belief systems of others.

That’s over now. Let’s pray for his soul.

A Time For Honesty

Archbishop John J. Myers of the Archdiocese of Newark has released a pastoral letter titled A Time For Honesty, in which he takes on the subject of abortion and the role it needs to have in Catholics’ political positions.

He is right on target. Go Archbishop Myers!

Some pertinent excerpts:

There is no right more fundamental than the right to be born and reared with all the dignity the human person deserves. On this grave issue, public officials cannot hold themselves excused from their duties, especially if they claim to be Catholic. Every faithful Catholic must be not only “personally opposed” to abortion, but also must live that opposition in his or her actions.

As voters, Catholics are under an obligation to avoid implicating themselves in abortion, which is one of the gravest of injustices. Certainly, there are other injustices, which must be addressed, but the unjust killing of the innocent is foremost among them.

Catholics who publicly dissent from the Church’s teaching on the right to life of all unborn children should recognize that they have freely chosen by their own actions to separate themselves from what the Church believes and teaches.

One who practices such dissent, even in the mistaken belief that it is permissible, may remain a Catholic in some sense, but has abandoned the full Catholic faith. For such a person to express ‘communion’ with Christ and His Church by the reception of the Sacrament of the Eucharist is objectively dishonest.

To receive unworthily or without proper dispositions is a very serious sin against the Lord. St. Paul explicitly teaches this in his letter to the Church at Corinth when he wrote, “This means that whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily sins against the body and blood of the Lord. A man should examine himself first; only then should he eat of the bread and drink of the cup. He who eats and drinks without recognizing the body eats and drinks a judgment on himself” (1 Cor 11: 27-29).

To receive communion when one has, through public or private action, separated oneself from unity with Christ and His Church, is objectively dishonest. It is an expression of communion by one’s action that is objectively not in accordance with one’s heart, mind, and choices.

That some Catholics, who claim to believe what the Church believes, are willing to allow others to continue directly to kill the innocent is a grave scandal. The situation is much much worse when these same leaders receive the Eucharist when they are not objectively in communion with Christ and His Church. Their objective dishonesty serves to compound the scandal.

Some might argue that the Church has many social teachings and the teaching on abortion is only one of them. This is, of course, correct. The Church’s social teaching is a diverse and rich tradition of moral truths and biblical insights applied to the political, economic, and cultural aspects of our society. All Catholics should form and inform their conscience in accordance with these teachings. But reasonable Catholics can (and do) disagree about how to apply these teachings in various situations.

For example, our preferential option for the poor is a fundamental aspect of this teaching. But, there are legitimate disagreements about the best way or ways truly to help the poor in our society. No Catholic can legitimately say, “I do not care about the poor.” If he or she did so this person would not be objectively in communion with Christ and His Church. But, both those who propose welfare increases and those who propose tax cuts to stimulate the economy may in all sincerity believe that their way is the best method really to help the poor. This is a matter of prudential judgment made by those entrusted with the care of the common good. It is a matter of conscience in the proper sense.

But with abortion (and for example slavery, racism, euthanasia and trafficking in human persons) there can be no legitimate diversity of opinion. The direct killing of the innocent is always a grave injustice. One should not permit unjust killing any more than one should permit slave-holding, racist actions, or other grave injustices. From the perspective of justice, to say “I am personally opposed to abortion but…” is like saying “I personally am against slavery, but I can not impose my personal beliefs on my neighbor.” Obviously, recognizing the grave injustice of slavery requires one to ensure that no one suffers such degradation. Similarly recognizing that abortion is unjust killing requires one—in love and justice—to work to overcome the injustice.

Interracial Marriages

A correspondent writes:

when i see inter-racial couples my spirit tells me that this is not natural. i have seen the child of an inter-racial marriage. the child had a black skin, had a white scalp with bright red hair. the child looked like a freak

I can’t agree with you, nor does the Church. From a moral perspective, differences in skin color are no more significant than differences in hair color or eye color. Neither are other racial characteristics. The human race is already one big family; it’s simply that certain characteristics have come to predominate in different parts of that family.

From the perspective of intrinsic morality, there is no more reason for people with different skin colors not to marry than for people with different hair colors or different eye colors. That may lead to uncommon combinations, but hey, I always thought Storm from the X-Men looked cool.

There can be extrinsic reasons why individuals of different racial backgrounds ought not marry. E.g., two hundred years ago in America a mixed-race couple would face an extremely hard life, including in some places imprisonment or worse. For example, in early Utah Brigham Young decreed that any white man who had conjugal relations with a black woman was to be put to death:

Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so [Journal of Discourses 10:109].

Fortunately, in the developed world, the attitudes creating such factors have virtually disappeared.

Let me share with you the Bible’s perspective on interracial marriages. First, they are not at all unusual in Scripture. Palestine is located at a major junction between Europe, the Middle East, and Africa, and so mixed race marriages were far from unknown. They occasionally crop up in the Bible. For example, two of the tribes of Israel (Ephraim and Manasseh) resulted from the union of the patriarch Joseph (a Semite) with the daughter of Pharoah’s high priest (an Egyptian, and thus a Hamite).

Scripture also records God’s intense displeasure at the criticism of one particular interracial marriage. In Numbers 12 we read that Moses’ brother and sister, Aaron and Miriam, criticized Moses for marrying a black woman (she is described as a Cushite, meaning she was probably of Ethiopian ancestry):

Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses because of the Cushite woman whom he had married, for he had married a Cushite woman.

And the LORD came down in a pillar of cloud, and stood at the door of the tent, and called Aaron and Miriam; and they both came forward. And the anger of the LORD was kindled against them, and he departed; and when the cloud removed from over the tent, behold, Miriam was leprous, as white as snow. And Aaron turned towards Miriam, and behold, she was leprous.

And Aaron said to Moses, “Oh, my lord, do not punish us because we have done foolishly and have sinned. And Moses cried to the LORD, “Heal her, O God, I beseech thee.”

But the LORD said to Moses, “If her father had but spit in her face, should she not be shamed seven days? Let her be shut up outside the camp seven days, and after that she may be brought in again.” So Miriam was shut up outside the camp seven days; and the people did not set out on the march till Miriam was brought in again [Num. 12:1, 5, 9-11, 13-15].

In this passage the text notes that Miriam, who had been criticizing Moses for marrying a black woman, was turned “as white as snow” by her leprosy. It is as if God is saying, “You want white? I got yer white! I got yer white right here!”

Spiritual Headship

A correspondent writes:

I was wondering what our belief as Catholics are concerning a question my Husband has. He says that the man of the household should be the "spiritual leader" of his family. He is not Catholic, and only turned "fundamentalist/independent" 5 years ago. Before that I was the sole source of my families (we have 1 daughter) faith building. Our daughter (who is 12) is very active in the church, and loves the faith as I do. She is an alter server, reader, and sings on Sunday morning Mass services. So, I was wondering where -if it does say -in the Bible that the man should be the spiritual leader of the family, since I don’t want to go to my husbands new church and feel that we are rooted in the Catholic faith. How do I explain to him that this isn’t going to happen, and possibly refer to scripture in explaining this to him?

This is a sensitive subject, and I hesitate to comment on it without having the space to explore the subject thoroughly and make sure that what I am and am not saying is clear. Nevertheless, I’ll try to answer as best I can. First, some basic principles:

Men and women are equal in God’s eyes. They have equal dignity, and Christ died for both genders equally.
Husbands and wives have an equal right to the goods of marriage and equal responsibility toward making the marriage work.
There are differences in the genders. For example, men tend to be larger and stronger than women, while women have longer life-spans and more agility.
These differences manifest particularly on the level of statistical averages, and the remarks I am about to make are to be understood in this light. The average trends do not always hold on the level of individuals (e.g., some men are physically smaller than some women, some women are physically stronger than some men).
Some differences between men and women are non-physical. For example, though the genders are of approximately equal intelligence, women have greater verbal aptitude than men, and men have greater spatial aptitude than women.
One of the differences between the genders is that men are designed for physical competition and combat in a way that women are not (it goes along with being larger and stronger). They are correspondingly configured mentally and emotionally. Put negatively: Men are more aggressive, more competitive, and less risk-averse on average than women are. Put positively: Men tend to have a stronger leadership drive than women.
The differences between the genders translate into a corresponding differentiation of roles. For example, men are generally better suited to roles that require greater physical strength (e.g., being a weight lifter); women are generally better suited to roles requiring greater agility (e.g., being a gymnast).
In a few cases, the differences in roles is absolute: Only women can give birth; only men can be priests.
In most cases, however, the differences do not lead to an absolute division of roles, and in any given marriage whichever partner is better suited for a task is usually the appropriate one to do it.
In general, men are configured physically and cognitively to serve as the primary leader/protector of the family, while women are configured physically and cognitively to serve as the primary nurturer/caregiver. (Though it is to be immediately pointed out that men also need to nurture and care for the children. Both parents have equal responsibility to make sure the children get what they need as they grow and develop. Men are by nature configured to be the secondary nurturer/caregiver for the family, just as women are configured to be the secondary leader/protector.)
Apart from the siring and bearing of children, however, the distinction in roles within marriage is not absolute. Many spouses are in situations where one spouse refuses to, is ill-suited to, or is incapable of fulfilling the typical roles just described. For example, some women have husbands who are physically or mentally incapacitated and unable to fulfill the functions that typically would be expected of a leader/protector–or, the husband may refuse to fulfill these roles, or he may simply be less suited to them than his wife. In the same way, some husbands may have wives who are physically or mentally incapacitated and unable to fulfill the functions that typically would be expected of a nurturer/caregiver–or, the wife may refuse to fulfill these roles, or she may be less suited to them than her husband.
In such atypical cases, the good of the family must be provided for, and this frequently means that one spouse may need to fulfill an atypical role for his or her gender. E.g., a woman with an alcoholic husband may need to exercise the primary leadership he is incapable of exercising responsibly; a man with an alcoholic wife may need to provide the primary care for the children that she is incapable of providing responsibly.

The above points form the natural law foundation needed to answer your question. With them in mind, two things should be pointed out:

First, Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition recognize the difference in gender roles just described. For example, this is evident in Scripture passages such as the following:

But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God [1 Cor. 11:3].

Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. As the church is subject to Christ, so let wives also be subject in everything to their husbands. Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. Even so husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no man ever hates his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh." This mystery is a profound one, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church; however, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband [Eph. 5:22-33].

Likewise you wives, be submissive to your husbands, so that some, though they do not obey the word, may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives, when they see your reverent and chaste behavior. Let not yours be the outward adorning with braiding of hair, decoration of gold, and wearing of fine clothing, but let it be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable jewel of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God’s sight is very precious. So once the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves and were submissive to their husbands, as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord. And you are now her children if you do right and let nothing terrify you. Likewise you husbands, live considerately with your wives, bestowing honor on the woman as the weaker sex, since you are joint heirs of the grace of life, in order that your prayers may not be hindered [1 Pet. 3:1-7].

These passages have to be applied with some care. There are elements of these passages that are culturally conditioned. For example, the 1 Corinthians passage is part of a longer, culturally-conditioned discussion of women’s head coverings in church.

More fundamentally, these passages are directed toward the typical situation described in point #10, above, not the atypical situations mentioned in points #11 and #12. But the passages do recognize the natural law situation and the fact that, under normal circumstances, men are the natural leaders of the family.

They do not say that the husband is or should be the spiritual leader of the family, but this is clearly implied (e.g., by Christ being the spiritual leader of the Church, by men being able to serve as priests, etc.). So your husband has a point: Men should be the spiritual leaders of their families.

However, we have already noted that there are atypical situations. Not all men are able (or fully able) to exercise leadership functions, the spiritual one included. The passage from 1 Peter is directed toward one such situation: that of a Christian woman with a non-Christian husband (most likely he would be a Jew, since Peter is addressing Christian Jews living outside Palestine; see 1 Pet. 1:1). Such a husband obviously cannot fully be the spiritual leader of his family (and he wouldn’t be the spiritual leader of it at all if he were a pagan rather than a Jew). In such a situation, the wife is still called to recognize his leadership role where he is capable of exercising it (hence Peter’s exhortation to her), but not where he is incapable of exercising it.

This situation is not the same as yours since your husband is a Christian, but it is analogous in that he does not share the fullness of the Christian faith (i.e., he is not a Catholic). To the extent that he shares Christian truth, he is capable of serving as spiritual leader (e.g., by leading the family in prayer, provided the prayers are compatible with the Catholic faith and he’s not trying to covertly "preach at" you and your daughter through them). However, until such time as he becomes a Catholic, he is impeded from fully exercising spiritual leadership. In particular, he is impeded to the extent that he tries to alienate you or your daughter from the Catholic Church–which simply is the Church that Jesus founded and the only one that maintains the fullness of Christian faith and grace.

You and your daughter have an obligation to maintain your Catholic faith and practice, and he must respect that. Even if he does not recognize the Church for what it is, he must recognize your conscience in the matter, and it would be a violation of your conscience to abandon Catholic faith and practice. In this regard, there are a few Scripture passages you may wish to show him.

First, in explaining your perspective on the matter, you may wish to point to the reply of the apostles when they were told to stop preaching Jesus:

We must obey God rather than men [Acts 5:29].

You must obey God by maintaining Catholic faith and practice, regardless of what you husband might say, just as also the women Peter was writing to must continue Christian faith and practice regardless of what their husbands might say.

It also might be helpful for your husband to reflect on Romans 14, in which Paul is dealing with controversies among Christians at the time (e.g., whether it was okay to eat certain foods, whether it was necessary to observe Jewish holy days). Paul pointes out that, apart from the question of which side was right in these controversies, each side must follow its conscience, and for either side to violate its conscience would be mortally sinful. (For example, in 14:20 he speaks of "destroy[ing] the work of God" by getting a person to do what his conscience says is wrong.)

As you explain this to your husband, try to understand also where he is coming from: In Protestant circles it doesn’t matter nearly as much what church one belongs to. As a result, it is a much more normal thing for wives to begin attending their husband’s church in Protestant circles. This is more reasonable because by switching from one Protestant church to another one is not abandoning the Church that Christ founded. However, you as a Catholic are not in that situation. For you it would be abandoning Christ’s Church to join another church, and he needs to understand and respect the situation you are in, even if he does not share your beliefs about the Church.

It also may be useful for your husband to reflect on the fact that no successful leader–inside of the family or out of it–continually insists on his prerogatives as a leader. Successful leaders follow the servant-leader model provided by Jesus (Mark 10:42-45), and appeal to their authority as infrequently as possible. Unfortunately, too many Christian husbands try to use the verses above as tools to get their way on trivial matters, and in so doing they undercut their ability to serve their family and provide it authentic leadership that is pleasing to Christ.

I hope this helps, and I encourage my other readers to keep your situation in prayer!

John Paul II Speaks On Nutrition and Hydration

You may have read press accounts a few weeks ago of a recent address given by the pope on the subject on the necessity of administering nutrition and hydration (i.e., food and water) to individuals in persistent vegetative states. I read these accounts, too, and since then I’ve been trying to locate a copy of the full text of the address. (The press accounts are too sketchy for serious analysis.)

Well, I finally located it! Unfortunately, as usual, the Holy See has given it a absurdly long title that nobody will ever refer to it by (Address of John Paul II to the Participants in the International Congress on "Life-Sustaining Treatments and Vegetative State: Scientific Advances and Ethical Dilemmas"–Man! What is it with Italians and the titles they feel compelled to give ecclesiastical documents?). To get around this unweildy tongue-twister, people have to make up their own names for it, so I’m going to call it the Address on the Vegetative State (AVS).

You can read the whole thing at the address above, but here is some analysis:

The address is encouraging for the pro-life movement. It contains three particular points of encouragement. The first is a section in which the pope takes on the term "vegetative state" and notes its dehumanizing sound. He forcefully states:

I feel the duty to reaffirm strongly that the intrinsic value and personal dignity of every human being do not change, no matter what the concrete circumstances of his or her life. A man, even if seriously ill or disabled in the exercise of his highest functions, is and always will be a man, and he will never become a "vegetable" or an "animal".

Even our brothers and sisters who find themselves in the clinical condition of a "vegetative state" retain their human dignity in all its fullness. The loving gaze of God the Father continues to fall upon them, acknowledging them as his sons and daughters, especially in need of help `(§3, emphasis in original).

The second is the section that attracted the most notice from the press, in which the holy father stated:

I should like particularly to underline how the administration of water and food, even when provided by artificial means, always represents a natural means of preserving life, not a medical act. Its use, furthermore, should be considered, in principle, ordinary and proportionate, and as such morally obligatory, insofar as and until it is seen to have attained its proper finality, which in the present case consists in providing nourishment to the patient and alleviation of his suffering. . . .

The evaluation of probabilities, founded on waning hopes for recovery when the vegetative state is prolonged beyond a year, cannot ethically justify the cessation or interruption of minimal care for the patient, including nutrition and hydration. Death by starvation or dehydration is, in fact, the only possible outcome as a result of their withdrawal. In this sense it ends up becoming, if done knowingly and willingly, true and proper euthanasia by omission (§4, emphasis in original).

The same section also provides papal endorsement of a point that pro-lifers have sought to apply in other areas:

[T]he moral principle is well known, according to which even the simple doubt of being in the presence of a living person already imposes the obligation of full respect and of abstaining from any act that aims at anticipating the person’s death.

All of this is great, and I hope that the pro-life movement, Catholic physicians, and Cathoic medical-ethicists fully assimilate what the holy father has said. At the same time, there are some limitations to the document that need bearing in mind.

The first is that as an address, as an address, does not have that high an intrinsic level of authority in the spectrum of papal pronouncements. The points named above would have much more weight if they were included in an encyclical, and it would have been great if they were included in Evangelium Vitae. Perhaps soon they will be worked into an encyclical, depriving opponents of a point that they might try to argue.

The second limitation is that the address does not answer all the questions that can be posed in this area. For example:

What about situations in which a person’s body has lost its ability to assimilate food and water, so that they do not "providing nourishment to the patient and alleviation of his suffering" but are actually harmful?
What about situations in which a person is not in a persistent vegetative status but finds the administration of food and water burdensome?
What about situations in which a person refuses the administration of food and water? What obligations do his caretakers have?

The answer to the first question is the best worked out. If a person cannot assimilate food and water and is being harmed by them (e.g., the fluids he is fed intravenously go out and collect in his tissues, causing them to swell and eventually burst open and weep) then it is licit to discontinue them. However, it would be very helpful to have guidance from the pope regarding the conditions that must be met for this to be legitimate, particularly regarding the nature and degree of harm that a person must experience.

The answer to the second question is less worked out, but the address helps. If the burden is of a physical nature then the conditions pertaining to the first question would seem to apply. If the burden is non-physical (i.e., psychological) then the person would seem called to offer up the suffering and accept nutrition and hydration. If the burden is a combination of the two then the solution would seem to be to factor it into its physical and psychological components and apply the above results.

The answer to the third question is something that the address does not deal with. While it would seem that a person is obliged to accept nutrition and hydration as long as the conditions pertaining to the first question are not met, the address does not tell us whether caretakers have a right or an obligation to force nutrition and hydration on a person who has expressly refused it.

While one can’t hope to have all possible questions answered at once, further guidance from the holy father on these questions would be very helpful. As long as they are not expressly addressed, anti-life forces will continue to use them as loopholes though which to pursue their agenda.

The Gravity of Penance: Follow-Up II

Another reader writes:

So that we, the readers and commentators on this topic, "Meat On Lenten Fridays: A Mortal Sin?" all are all ‘on the same channel,’ would you please define ‘mortal sin’?

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

Mortal sin destroys charity in the heart of man by a grave violation of God’s law; it turns man away from God, who is his ultimate end and his beatitude, by preferring an inferior good to him. Venial sin allows charity to subsist, even though it offends and wounds it.

For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: "Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent" [CCC 1855, 1857].

According to Paenitemini, the substantial observance of the Church’s days of penance is grave matter. This means that if one fails in this regard with adequate knowledge and consent, a mortal sin is committed.

The reader continues:

Once, at a CCD teacher’s meeting, I flew through the ceiling when one of the Catholic teacher-participants said she thought the Eucharist was only ‘symbolic’. My explosion amounted to a hill of beans. Her calm retort was, "Why does everything have to be so technical?"

Somewhat in sympathy with her I must ask, where does all this legalistic niggling regarding rules go?

According to John Paul II’s apostolic constitution Sacrae Disciplinae Leges :

[T]he writings of the New Testament enable us to understand even better the importance of discipline and make us see better how it is more closely connected with the saving character of the evangelical message itself.

This being so, it appears sufficiently clear that the Code is in no way intended as a substitute for faith, grace, charisms, and especially charity in the life of the Church and of the faithful. On the contrary, its purpose is rather to create such an order in the ecclesial society that, while assigning the primacy to love, grace and charisms, it at the same time renders their organic development easier in the life of both the ecclesial society and the individual persons who belong to it [here, but you’ll need to scroll down].

What the pontiff says regarding the Code is true of the Church’s laws in general. They are not a replacement for faith, grace, and the charisms of the Spirit, but are intended to create an order in the society of the Church that facilitates the development of these.

If you don’t like the way the law is presently written, that is your prerogative. To tell you the truth, I wouldn’t have a problem myself if the Church decided to change the grave matter of the law in question. But I’m simply trying to represent the Church’s law accurately.

The reader continues:

I drew the line at symbolism vs. Real Presence. (My mistake was to think this lady had actually thought things though. She hadn’t and she is forgiven.) Are you ‘drawing the line’ at a sausage topping or animal fat in the four-cheese pizza dough?

No. Please read the blog relevant entries on this subject. Cheese and animal fat are do not violate the law of abstinence. Whether the amount of meat on a sausage pizza would violate the substance of the observance might be a debatable matter. (However, there are limits. A "meat-lover’s pizza" certainly would.)

The reader continues:

Are you asserting that ‘deliberately violating the law of abstinence is…’ on a par with the grave matter of the denial of God, blasphemy, adultery, fornication abortion, murder, rape, child sex abuse, calumny, drunkenness, devil worship, infanticde, suicide etc.?

Depends on what you mean by "on a par." If you mean "Is it also grave matter?" then yes, that is what the Church’s law provides. If you mean "Is it as grave as the other matters you name?" then no, clearly that is not the case.

The reader continues:

For example, are the Catholic attendees at our Benedictine run Catholic high school who blithely chow down on the pork chop sandwiches proffered by the booster club on Friday night football games really consigning themselves to hell?

Are not these the same sheep that are being led by the shepherds, i.e., the priests who head their parishes?

I’m afraid that I don’t understand your remark regarding sheep, so I can’t respond to it. I can only tell you what the law says.

If someone knowingly and deliberately fails to observe the substance of the Church’s penitential requirements by violating the law of abstinence then, since the law itself states that this is grave matter, the person will commit a mortal sin.

However, if people are "blithely" chowing down on pork chop sandwiches on Fridays during Lent (which is when the law of abstinence binds in the United States) then their blithe-ness may be evidence that they may not be aware of the law or its gravity and so may lack the necessary knowledge to commit a mortal sin in this matter.

If your Benedictine-run Catholic high school has such poorly catechized Catholic attendees at the sports games it sponsors that they don’t know the law in question, that would seem to be the fault of the shepherds who head their parishes.

If people don’t know what the law says, don’t blame the messenger who finally tells you. Blame the ones who should have told you in the first place and didn’t.

Hope this helps!

The Gravity of Penance: Follow-Up I

A couple of follow-ups on the recent entry on the gravity of Friday penance. First, a reader writes:

Doesn’t the 1983 Code of Canon Law operate to repeal and replace the previous norms set forth by Pope Paul VI? Shouldn’t you be looking only at what the Code of Canon Law says? (And it doesn’t mention the gravity of the obligation.)

Good question! The answer is no, the Code does not repeal and replace all prior norms.

First, there are some norms that, although part of universal law, simply are not part of the Code. The largest body of norms that are not found in the Code are the Church’s liturgical laws, a fact of which the Code itself takes note:

For the most part the Code does not define the rites which must be observed in celebrating liturgical actions. Therefore, liturgical laws in force until now retain their force unless one of them is contrary to the canons of the Code (Can. 2).

There are also other parts of universal law that are not contained within the Code, for example most of the norms that are to be observed in electing a new pope are not found in the Code but are contained in another document. The one presently in force in John Paul II’s apostolic constitution Universi Dominici Gregis. There are thus certain documents that contain norms complimentary to those in the Code. One of these is Paenitemini. In fact, it is one of the oldest such documents currently in force.

Second, the Code makes the point that it does not repeal all other norms. For example:

The canons of the Code neither abrogate nor derogate from the agreements entered into by the Apostolic See with nations or other political societies. These agreements therefore continue in force exactly as at present, notwithstanding contrary prescripts of this Code [Can. 3].

What the Code does say lapse are the following:

When this Code takes force, the following are abrogated:

1° the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1917;

2° other universal or particular laws contrary to the prescripts of this Code unless other provision is expressly made for particular laws;

3° any universal or particular penal laws whatsoever issued by the Apostolic See unless they are contained in this Code;

4° other universal disciplinary laws regarding matter which this Code completely reorders [Can. 6 §1].

By this standard, the norms of Paenitemini are not abrogated. These are not part of the 1917 Code (1°), they are not en toto contrary to the prescriptions of the 1983 Code (2°), they are not penal laws (3°), and–although they are universal disciplinary laws–they do not regard matters which the 1983 Code completely reorders (4°). Therefore, Paenitemini stands except where specifically modified in the new Code.

In fact, the Code has so little to say about penance that one cannot determine what the Church’s law is without consulting Paenitemini. For example, the Code does not provide any explanation of what the law of fast entails. It states who is subject to it (Can. 1251), but it does explain what the law itself is. To find that out, you have to consult Paenitemini (Norm III §2).