Category: Moral Theology

Meat On Lenten Fridays: A Mortal Sin?

A common question at this time of year is whether or not deliberately violating the law of abstinence is a mortal sin. It is. The relevant law is found in Paul VI’s 1966 apostolic constitution Paenitemini, which provides that:

The time of Lent preserves its penitential character. The days of penitence to be observed under obligation through-out the Church are all Fridays and Ash Wednesday, that is to say the first days of "Grande Quaresima" (Great Lent), according to the diversity of the rite. Their substantial observance binds gravely [Norm II §1, emphasis added].

That the keeping of abstinence (and fast on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday) is part of the substantial observance of these days is evident from the fact that the second half of Norm II names this as the chief requirement of observing these days:

Apart from the faculties referred to in VI and VIII regarding the manner of fulfilling the precept of penitence on such days, abstinence is to be observed on every Friday which does not fall on a day of obligation, while abstinence and fast are to be observed on Ash Wednesday or, according to local practice, on the first day of ‘Great Lent’ and on Good Friday [Norm II §2, emphasis added].

The faculties mentioned "regarding the manner of fulfilling the precept of penitence on such days" have to do with the ability of pastors to dispense the faithful from the obligation of abstinence and fast or commuting it to something else. If such dispensation or commutation is not obtained then "the manner of fulfilling the precept" is abstinence.

Thus one must substantially observe the law of abstinence on such days, and the obligation to do so is a grave one, meaning that it satisfies the condition of grave matter required for mortal sin. If one knowingly and deliberately fails in this obligation then one has committed mortal sin.

As to the reason for this, the Code of Canon Law notes that:

The divine law binds all the Christian faithful to do penance each in his or her own way. In order for all to be united among themselves by some common observance of penance, however, penitential days are prescribed on which the Christian faithful devote themselves in a special way to prayer, perform works of piety and charity, and deny themselves by fulfilling their own obligations more faithfully and especially by observing fast and abstinence, according to the norm of the following canons [Can.  1249, emphasis added].

It is thus a matter of divine law that the faithful are to do penance (a fact we could have determined from Scripture), and the regulations regarding fast and abstinence are simply the Church’s specification of this divine requirement, made in keeping with Jesus giving the church the power to bind and loose (Matt. 16:18, 18:18).

'Nuther Interview (Stem Cells)

Did another media interview yesterday. A start-up cable TV network called WealthTV is doing a program on stem cell research, and they came by Catholic Answers to do an interview on the Catholic perspective on fetal stem cell research.

Once they got set up (which took a while), the interview only took about 30 minutes, and went very well. Nice guys on the production staff.

Due to the nature of the network (which is supposed to be a kind of lifestyle channel for the well-heeled set, from what I understand), I made a special point of the economic benefits of embracing the culture of life and how, due to the developed world’s failure to do so thus far, we are now facing Medicare and Social Security crises due to our declining birthrate. Less people out there means less economic productivity. Hopefully it’s a point that’ll have some traction with the folks who watch the channel.

The show is supposed to air in early to mid June, when WealthTV goes on the air. I’ll let y’all know when, if I find out.

‘Nuther Interview (Stem Cells)

Did another media interview yesterday. A start-up cable TV network called WealthTV is doing a program on stem cell research, and they came by Catholic Answers to do an interview on the Catholic perspective on fetal stem cell research.

Once they got set up (which took a while), the interview only took about 30 minutes, and went very well. Nice guys on the production staff.

Due to the nature of the network (which is supposed to be a kind of lifestyle channel for the well-heeled set, from what I understand), I made a special point of the economic benefits of embracing the culture of life and how, due to the developed world’s failure to do so thus far, we are now facing Medicare and Social Security crises due to our declining birthrate. Less people out there means less economic productivity. Hopefully it’s a point that’ll have some traction with the folks who watch the channel.

The show is supposed to air in early to mid June, when WealthTV goes on the air. I’ll let y’all know when, if I find out.

Housework on Sundays

A reader writes:

My wife and I have a large family, my wife homeschools, and I work six days a week.

I do not want a special dispensation to do work on Sundays, but if my wife and I do not work around the house on Sunday the place would fall apart.

I do not do really hard labor on Sundays — no home improvement or lawn work. But just doing the necessary work keeping the house picked up and my wife doing a load of laundry or two is fairly hard work.

I have no doubt that if my wife and I were more diligent during the week we probably could cut down on Sunday work a lot. But it is hard. And we simply are not diligent enough.

So what is too much on Sunday? I try to sanctify the work I do by offering it to God, but obviously if He wants me not to do it, the sanctification won’t take, so to speak.

I know the standard "more than two [or some say three] hours of work is a mortal sin." I know I should strive for as little as possible. But if my wife and I get to the end of the week and the work needs doing, are we permitted to do it?

I find it hard to advise in this situation, because there are not hard and fast rules about what can and can’t be done on Sunday. In fact, I would be hesitant to employ the "two or three hours" rule that you mention. That kind of rule of thumb coheres well with the way the law used to be written, but the law on Sunday observance has been integrally reordered. The current law applies the principles of Sunday observance in a way that makes such prior rules of thumb unreliable.

Let me show you what I mean. Here’s the old law:

On feast days of precept, Mass is to be heard; there is an abstinence from servile work, legal acts, and likewise, unless there is a special indult or legitimate customs provide otherwise, from public trade, shopping, and other public buying and selling [CIC(1917) can 1248].

Now, here’s the new law:

On Sundays and other holy days of obligation, the faithful are obliged to participate in the Mass.

Moreover, they are to abstain from those works and affairs which hinder the worship to be rendered to God, the joy proper to the Lord’s day, or the suitable relaxation of mind and body [CIC(1983) can. 1247].

You’ll notice that the concept of "servile work" is gone from the new law. So are prohibitions on any specific affairs (legal acts, public trade, shopping). Instead, there is a general prohibition on "those works and affairs which hinder" the goals of worship and rest.

The concept of servile work was problematic, which is why it was eliminated. Servile work was understood principally as physical labor, and the concept worked fairly well in an age when people largely lived by manual labor. If you’d worked all week, you needed a day of physical rest. On this day it was permissible, however, to do non-servile work, meaning non-physical labor.

But today a large number of people do not do manual labor for a living. They sit in offices and do non-physical labor all day long. To prevent them from doing physical work on Sundays could result in them getting little or none of the physical activity they need to be healthy. Also, allowing them to continue to do non-physical work on Sundays, just like they do all week, would result in long-term mental strain due to not getting adequate time to rest and recharge their batteries. It would leave them stuck in a rut.

As a result, the law was re-written. As it is now, the law leaves it to the individual to figure out which specific works and affairs interfere with these goals in his particular case.

This means, among other things, that the old rules of thumb about how much servile work you could do on Sunday aren’t reliable.

Now to deal with your particular situation, I am a bit hesitant due to lack of information: I don’t know what kind of work you do during the week, I don’t know how many kids you’ve got or what ages they are, and (quite importantly) I don’t (yet) have the experience of managing a large household. All of these give me pause, but let me offer what I hope are some useful points:

  1. You don’t have to kill yourself the other six days in order to provide yourself with a restful Sunday. You need some rest on the other days, too, so if you find it too difficult to get your work done on those days, don’t worry about it.
  2. Consider the possibilities of using your kids to help with the housework. If you have a large family, some of the kids may be getting to an age at which they could be of use picking up, doing laundry, etc. Enlisting them in doing the tasks also would be of benefit to them, both spiritually and in establishing good habits and skills for the future.
  3. Try to group the things you do on different days so that you end up doing things on Sunday that shake you out of your rut, either by raising or lowering your physical activity level or just changing what tasks you do so that you flex different mental and physical muscles on Sunday.
  4. Re-think what tasks you let yourself do on Sunday in light of the above discussion of the law. It might be that some tasks you have up-to-now have been classifying as servile work (e.g., lawn work, gardening) might actually be fun for you or your wife to do and constitute restful activities.
  5. Think about what you do on Sunday and other days in terms of value: Which is more valuable to you and your family: Doing the work and having the environment you like (which is restful in itself) or not doing the work and not having the environment you would like. It might be that it is more restful to do the work and get the environment you want, or it might be that physically resting and having a sub-optimal environment is more restful.
  6. If you have trouble sorting out these issues, that’s understandable. The way the law is written now, we don’t have the kind of simple rules we used to, and more of a burden is placed on the individual in applying the principles to his own circumstances. Just do your best to figure it out, act on the results, and that will be pleasing to God.
  7. If you need, try consulting a spiritual director who knows you, your family, and your situation. Make sure he also understands the principles embodied in the current law regarding Sunday.

Hope this helps!

The Ring Cycle

A correspondent writes:

I was wondering if you could help me with a particular issue. Several years ago, I had purchased an engagement ring for the obvious reason. At that time, I had asked a close person friend of mine who is a priest to bless the ring. I am not sure what blessing he had placed or said over the ring. To my fortune, the marriage never took place and I am still in possession of the ring.

A more appropriate opportunity has arisen and I would potentially like exchange the blessed ring for another distinctively different ring. As an aside, I would feel awkward giving the same ring to a different girl. I believe it to be unfair. I hope you can see my point.

Would it be a mortal or venial sin, a sacrilege or scandal against the church or God if I exchanged the blessed ring knowing that the blessed ring will eventually be sold in the market place?

The Code of Canon Law is not as detailed as one would like regarding the disposition of blessed articles in situations such as you describe. Nevertheless, it seems possible to determine a reasonable course of action. Here are the relevant points:

  1. Canon law does not discuss how blessed articles lose their blessing, though it indicates that they can (cf. Can. 1269).
  2. Canon law does discuss how blessed (technically, dedicated) places lose their status.
  3. In the absence of an express discussion of point #1, the logical way to understand how articles lose their sacred status is by analogy to point #2.
  4. Places can lose their sacred status (a) by major destruction, (b) by being relegated to secular use by the competent ordinary, or (c) by being relegated to secular use in fact (Can. 1212).
  5. By analogy, you can exercise option (c) and relegate the ring to secular use in fact, simply by choosing to do so. (Or you can throw it into Mount Doom, if you wish.)
  6. Once the ring has been relegated to secular use, you can exchange it or do whatever else you would want with it.
  7. The relegation of a thing to secular (lit., "profane") use for a just cause (which you clearly have in this case) is not sinful, otherwise the option would not be provided for in the law.
  8. In case it helps, the law distinguishes relegating a sacred thing to profane (secular) use from relegating it to sordid use. The former is allowed, while the latter is not (Can. 1222 §1). You are interested in the former, not the latter.

As a result, it seems that you can simply relegate the ring to secular use and then exchange it in good conscience.

Hope this helps, and God bless you!

The Jigsaw Man

A reader writes:

What is the Church’s position on organ (and/or various other body parts) donations ?? On the one hand this would seem like a great gift to your fellow man if you were to die, – but on the other – it would seem to open up areas for potential corruption (i.e. – illegal marketing and forced euthasasia, – some of which we probably already see.)

Also, since we believe in "the resurrection of the Body", – what are the consequences of having given your heart, eyes, etc. (or maybe your entire Head) to science or another person ?? It seems we could assume all things would be reconciled and returned at the resurrection ?, but what about if you were given a heart from a donor, – do you now have two, your old one, or your new one ?? Also, what about those individuals who may have had their physical body completely consumed or annihalted (fire and/or explosion, etc.) ?? Not to mention those who may have been born "incomplete" – which is to say with a variety of deformaties or abnormalities ??

The Church’s basic position, as expressed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, is as follows:

Organ transplants are in conformity with the moral law if the physical and psychological dangers and risks incurred by the donor are proportionate to the good sought for the recipient. Donation of organs after death is a noble and meritorious act and is to be encouraged as a manifestation of generous solidarity. It is not morally acceptable if the donor or those who legitimately speak for him have not given their explicit consent. It is furthermore morally inadmissible directly to bring about the disabling mutilation or death of a human being, even in order to delay the death of other persons (CCC 2296).

This means that posthumous organ donations are themselves morally praiseworthy but must be done in accord with moral law–for example, you cannot kill a person to get his organs.

Because one cannot consent to an immoral act, one cannot consent to the harvesting of organs that are collected in an immoral manner, so these could not be donated. However, one can donate other organs that are harvested in a moral manner.

Regarding the resurrection, the Catechism notes (CCC 999-1000) that the manner of the resurrection exceeds the ability of our present intellects to comprehend it. However, it would seem theologically certain that we will be raised in a way that results in us being physically unimpaired (thus having one, perfectly-functioning heart, regardless of how many transplants or mechanicals we had during life). The degree of the destruction done to the body (e.g., reducing it to dust and ashes) does not matter. And those who had deformities in this life either will not have them or will not be impeded by them in the resurrection. My personal guess, though I cannot prove it, is that we may well be able to change around our bodies at will in the next life. In any event, we won’t be suffering due to bodily flaws or limitations.

For an interesting cautionary tale regarding the potential abuses of organ harvesting, see Larry Niven’s Hugo-nominated sci-fi story "The Jigsaw Man." This was the story, incidentally, that coined the term "organlegging," and the dangers it warns about are as relevant today as when it was written. Fascinating reading for pro-lifers interested in the way society could go.

Sinful Thoughts?

A correspondent writes:

Hi Jimmy, I enjoy listening to your spots on Catholic Answers Live and also
seeing you on The Journey Home on EWTN.  I am currently seeking help for an Anxiety Disorder and trying to better my mental health.  One symptom of
those with high anxiety is unwanted "scary" thoughts or sudden flashes of
unusual images in your mind.  For instance, you may be washing dishes and
cleaning a sharp knife and all of a sudden you get a subconscience thought
out of nowhere that you might stab somebody, or in church you might
desicrate a cross or something.  I have no intent on doing these things, but
I’ll get a mental flash.  Is this considered sin?  Are thoughts of no intent
sinful?  Thanks for your time.

Thank you for writing and for your kind words.   It sounds as if you may be suffering from Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD), which is a very common anxiety disorder, estimated to affect perhaps one in forty people.   Because it is so common, and because the thoughts it generates can be so troubling to people, I am often contacted by people who have this condition, and I’ve read up on it. In persons of faith, OCD tends to cause scrupulosity, being constantly afraid that one is in a state of mortal sin because of the thoughts. However, be assured that the thoughts OCD generates are not sins. We do not have much control over the thoughts that occur to us, and people who have OCD have a quirk in their brain chemistry that makes them more susceptible to such thoughts than others. As you point out, these are not things that you would actually do. They are therefore what psychologists term ego dystonic thoughts, contrary to one’s beliefs and values. As a result, there is not the kind of cooperation of the will needed to make them sinful. In fact, you should not confess these thoughts in the confessional, as focusing on them will tend to reinforce them and exacerbate the condition. You should simply do your best to ignore them. The more you can relax and ignore them, the better you will get.   I don’t know if you have yet engaged in a course of treatment for the condition, but I should mention that OCD is very treatable. It appears related to a deficiency of the neurotransmitter serotonin in the brain, and there is a class of drugs known as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) that effectively increase the amount of serotonin in the brain and bring a great deal of relief to people with this condition. Also, certain nutritional supplements that can increase serotonin levels (e.g., 5-HTP) may help, though these should not be used if one is already on SSRIs without a doctor’s supervision. If you would like to read more about nutritional supplements that might help, I recommend the book Dr. Atkins Vita-Nutrient Solution, by Dr. Robert Atkins in addition to the 5-HTP book already linked.   Hope this helps, and God bless you!

Still Yet More on Tattoos

A third reader writes:

I’m pretty sure real tatooing (as opposed to simple outside coloration such as with magic market) could well be considered a sin against the fifth commandment, since it’s an attack on your own body. As are the multiple piercings one sees these days. Anytime you willingly violate the body’s natural boundaries (skin) for non-life-saving reasons, you’re in trouble.

You seem to be taking a position that goes beyond what the Church does. The argument you use would prohibit even the piercing of ears, and the Church does not condemn that practice.

While some reason would seem to be needed to break the skin, the Church does not seem to envision it as being a grave reason like the need to save a life. Indeed, many surgeries are performed that involve breaking the skin but are for much lesser goals than saving a life.

I suspect that you probably meant "for therapeutic reasons," but the Church does not seems to require that criterion (it does for mutilation, but as noted above, tattoos do not impair body function and so are not mutilation). Things like ear piercing or tattooing can play cultural functions in some societies, and those can be important reasons as well.

Since the function of the skin is to protect the body, it would seem that the skin can be pierced as long as there is some good to be achieved that is proportionate to the risk of infection given the precautions that are being taken against infection in a particular cause. If a man decides that he’s going to make a statement about his devotion to the Blessed Virgin by having a tattoo of Our Lady of Guadalupe put on his arm then he may be able to arrange it so that the risk of infection is low enough to be counterbalanced by the good to be achieved by his making the statement.

If you can cite any current Magisterial documents to the contrary, though, I’d love to see them. Hope this helps!

Yet More on Tattoos

Another reader writes:

Doesn’t the Tanach forbid tatooing?

Yes, though we already covered that. Tanak is simply the Jewish term for their Scriptures (equivalent to our Old Testament, less the deuterocanonical materials). The word is an anagram–TaNaK–where the T stands for Torah (the Law of Moses), N stands for Neviim (the Prophets), and K for Ketuvim (the Writings, basically the rest of the protocanonical Old Testament).

As noted in the answer to the first question on tattooing, Leviticus (in the Torah and thus in the Tanak) does forbid tattooing, but this doesn’t apply to use for the reasons indicated in the article. Hope this helps!

Still More on Tattoos

A reader writes:

Connected with misgivings or reservations about tattoos is the idea of "mutilation" — that we should not damage our bodies. Does the Church have any specific teaching on this subject?

I agree with you that tattooing does NOT constitute a mutilation. I’m also comfortable with ear piercing, since once the skin heals its integrity isn’t compromised in any way.

I’m more uncomfortable with tongue and cheek piercing, which I think may carry ongoing risk of infection. And just recently I saw on TV where some people are doing "tongue SPLITTING" — literally having the tips of their tongue severed for an inch or so. (Those who do this can move the two tips of their tongue independently, and one individual claimed unstated benefits for kissing. Yuck!)

Something in me says that’s just not right. What do you say?

The Church does indeed have something to say about mutilation. Here’s what the Catechism says (CCC 2296-2297):

It is morally inadmissible directly to bring about the disabling mutilation or death of a human being, even in order to delay the death of other persons.

Except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons, directly intended amputations, mutilations, and sterilizations performed on innocent persons are against the moral law.

Mutilation, as understood by the Catechism and moral theology in general, involves more than simply making a change in one’s body. Otherwise having an ear pierced or even getting a manicure or a haircut would count as mutilation. Instead, mutilation must involve some kind of impairment of function in the body (like cutting off a hand out taking out an organ). The degree of impairment then tells us the gravity of the mutilation.

Since tattoos do not involve an impairment of body function, they do not count as mutilation. You are correct about that.

You are also correct about some of the other body . . . uh . . . "modifications" that are being done today would seem to count as mutilation. I don’t know that much about tongue and cheek piercing. I’d have to do research about whether they involve long-term risk of infection. But tongue splitting would seem to be a prime example. Not only does it impair the tongue’s role in eating and talking, it also would seem to make an immoral statement of some kind due to its snake-like connotations. It also has an even higher risk associated with it due to the fact that the tongue has significant blood vessels in it and a split requires a longer time to heal, with risk of infection and bleeding. As a result, many doctors are opposed to the practice.