Is Capitalism to be condemned to the same extent as Communism

[Question:]{.underline} Is the ceremony of the “Holy Fire” a real and legitimate miracle?

[Answer:]{.underline} The ceremony of the “Holy Fire” or Holy Light takes place at 12:00 Noon on Holy Saturday (in the Orthodox calendar) every year in the church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem. It has been recorded since the fourth century and the Eastern Orthodox claim that this miracle has taken place every year since at least 1106. The Orthodox patriarch enters alone into the Holy Sepulchre, whilst the Armenian bishops wait outside. He recites a series of traditional prayers and then awaits for a miraculous lighting of the 33 candles that he is holding in his hands. He then comes out and lights the candles of the other bishops and of all the people present. It is claimed that this “fire” is not like regular fire and does not burn or harm, at least for the first 33 minutes after it has been lit. The miracle is revered throughout the Orthodox world, and the “fire” is taken from Jerusalem.

Descriptions are precise, and the event is very public. The Israeli authorities always inspect the Patriarch to ensure that he has nothing on him with which he could light the candles, precisely to exclude a fraud. Before them, the Ottoman Turk authorities did the same thing. It is difficult to accept the rationalists’ claim that it is a “pious fraud”, and that the candles are covered with phosphorous so that they will spontaneously ignite. However, there are many who claim this, and who quote Edward Gibbons in The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire and Pope Gregory IX in 1238 as condemning it as a pious fraud (wikipedia.org).

All in all, it seems unreasonable to claim that all the bishops of the Orthodox, Armenian and Coptic churches, who are not in agreement on liturgical or theological questions, nor in communion with one another, would all be involved in a deliberate deception. Why would they be united in such bad will? Consequently, it seems most reasonable to accept the pious belief in the miracle, that takes place in virtue of the power of the Resurrection of our Divine Savior, and is symbolic of the light of Faith and the fire of love, which we also in the Latin rite venerate on Holy Saturday, under the title of Lumen Christi, after the blessing of the Paschal fire. It does not seem necessary to claim that since the Eastern Orthodox are separated from the one true Church, that they would necessarily be deprived of this traditional miracle, which is really a part of their unchanging and traditional liturgy. From the same perspective, it is perfectly possible to admit the miracle, given on account of the good faith of many of the simple faithful and the integrity of their liturgy, without for as much considering it as some kind of legitimization of their schism.

[Question:]{.underline} Can one retroactively offer for an additional intention a rosary that has already been completed?

[Answer:]{.underline} It is certainly true that for all of our prayers, as with the Masses at which we assist, we can have multiple intentions, and that each additional intention does not take away from the others. However, common sense indicates that the intention must precede the act, for if it did not do so, it could not give the purpose or morality to the act, nor could it be the final cause for which the act is performed. If we perform an act of kindness, it is the end for which it is performed (finis operantis) which is the principal circumstances that determines its value and its merit. The same can be said of our prayers and rosaries. The intentions are the reason why we perform such acts and consequently, if they are to have any influence on our prayers, the intentions must be formulated, preferably at the beginning, but at the very least before the end of those prayers or rosaries. Otherwise they can in no way be considered to be the intentions of such prayers.

This principle is confirmed by the teaching of the moral theologians concerning the intentions of a priest who is offering up the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. This intention for which the Mass is to be applied must be formulated before the Mass. It does not have to be formulated immediately beforehand, but can be formulated long in advance. However, at the very latest it must be formulated by the time the essence of the sacrifice of the Mass is accomplished, that is during the canon of the Mass, before the second consecration. Otherwise, it can in no wise be considered as the intention for which the Mass is applied. (Prummer, Man. Th. Mor. III. p. 183).

In like manner, the faithful ought to formulate the intentions for their rosaries, prayers and Masses ahead of time, or at least as they begin these exercises. It is good to have a general intention, in addition to the particular intentions, as for example, for such and such a sick person. Such a general intention could be for all those who recommend themselves to our prayers, or for the Church and for souls in need. Another such general intention that can be recommended is that given by St. Louis Grignon de Montfort in the practice of the True Devotion, namely doing all our actions and prayers for Mary as for our proximate end, that is for her intentions, since we give to her the value of all our good actions, and leave to her the entire and full right of disposing of them. If such be our general intention, we need no longer be concerned about having missed out on a particular intention, either because we forgot to apply it, or because we did not know about it. Since Mary, glorious in heaven, knows all such intentions, she can apply our prayers for these intentions, and we would never have a retroactive intention to apply.

[Question:]{.underline} What is the origin of the expression Mysterium fidei found in the consecration of the Precious Blood at the traditional Mass?

[Answer:]{.underline} The interest of this question lies in the fact that this sacred expression cannot be found in the four texts that describe the institution of the Blessed Eucharist, found in the three synoptic Gospels and in St. Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians, nor is it to be found in the words of consecration of the sacred liturgies in the eastern rites.

St. Thomas Aquinas explains the absence of this expression from these four accounts by pointing out that none of these sacred authors intended to write down the form of the sacraments, which were kept hidden in the early Church (IIIa, 78, 3, Ad 9), which is supported by the fact that none of these sources contains the complete form for the consecration of the Holy Eucharist, as found in the traditional Mass. He goes on further to explain that these words — the mystery of faith — are of divine Tradition, being passed on to the Church through the Apostles.

However, this being said, it is clear that these words are not necessary for the validity of the consecration of the chalice. For in the first centuries of the Church, they were not said by the consecrating priest, but were rather an exclamation made by the assistant deacon, to bring the attention of the faithful to the transubstantiation, the greatest of all mysteries and the summary of our Faith. This is confirmed by the fact that, although most ancient, they exist only in the Roman rite.

It does not follow, however, that they are optional, or that the most ancient Tradition of the Church can be abandoned and these words eliminated. They are, in fact, a recognition of the most sublime reality, the highest and most sacred action of which man can be the instrument, the acknowledgment that God alone can perform this miracle upon which our eternal salvation depends. This is how Father Gihr, in The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass (p. 641) describes these words:

“The exclamatory phrase in the middle — the mystery of faith — indicates the unsearchable depth and obscurity of the Eucharistic Sacrifice. That the God-Man did shed His blood for us on the Cross, and that He again sheds it for us in a mystical manner on the altar — is an adorable divine achievement which includes in itself the sum of the most unheard-of wonders, all of which can be acknowledged and believed as true only in the light and the power of faith. Christ’s sacrificial blood in the chalice is a mystery of faith in the fullest sense of the term.”

It is consequently greatly to be regretted that the Novus Ordo Mass has eliminated this expression of Faith, as so much that pertains to the divine action in the propitiatory sacrifice of the altar. It is yet another way in which it undermines the living and profession of the true Catholic Faith.

[Question:]{.underline} Are human-animal hybrids a possibility?

[Answer:]{.underline} Materialism pushes modern scientists to “prove“ that man has no immortal soul. The most effective way to do this would be to establish that the only difference between man and the animals is a genetic one, by creating a hybrid which is part man and part animal. www.LifeSiteNews.com published an article on July 25, 2011 quoting the Daily Mail, that 155 “admixed“ embryos, containing both human and animal genetic material had been created by scientists harvesting genetic material from embryos in the UK, and that this had been done secretly, but legally with licenses, under the 2008 Human Fertilisation Embryology Act. This secret research was revealed by a report prepared by a committee of scientists, and tabled in the British Parliament. These embryos included such things as attempts to give monkeys human attributes, by injecting human stem cells into their brains.

Would it really be possible, then, to create a living being which is partly human and partly animal, and if so are they really animal or human?

A similar question arose over the question of test tube babies, in which the human egg is artificially fertilized in the laboratory and then implanted in the mother, thus bypassing the sacred marriage act, ordained by God to be the means by which the matter for new life is prepared. At the time, some said that such individuals could not have souls, since this process of fertilization was so perverse. The evidence is for all to see, since this is now common place. This incredibly immoral and revolutionary method of in vitro fertilization, in which man plays God, clearly produces human beings who have a soul. God infuses the soul when the scientist disposes the matter by fertilizing the ovum. The Church has repeatedly condemned this process, but the individuals thus produced are fully human beings and have a soul, and ought to be baptized and raised as Catholics.

Then came cloning, in which an attempt is made to reproduce a new individual with the exact same genetic make up as the one from which it is cloned. This has succeeded with animals, but is fraught with multiple technical problems, so that the animals thus created suffer from many genetic defects. To the best of my knowledge this has not been done for a human being, even illegally and surreptitiously. However, if it were done, this individual would certainly have a soul and be a true human being, with a soul, for he would have all the genetic material and the organization of a human being, even if he had serious genetic defects. The soul, principle of life, is infused at such time as the material elements are given the organization needed to support human life, that is when the genetic material is incorporated into the cell to make one living being.

However, the same does not apply for hybrids. If a human-animal hybrid embryo could be grown to term, it would have to be either one or the other. Either it would be principally an animal, with some human characteristics, and hence no soul, or it would be principally human, with some animal characteristics, and hence would have a soul. A creature that would be equally both, half and half, would not only be physiologically impossible, but also metaphysically so. The reason for this is that the principle of life, the soul, has to be either the immortal soul of the human who has the spiritual faculties of intellect and will, or in the case of an animal, it has to be the immaterial principle of a being that has no spiritual faculties, but only those that depend upon bodily existence, which includes the passions and feelings, but not free will.

One frightening possibility is genetic manipulation to produce an animal that can act and react in some ways like a man. Such an animal might even look like a man, but he would have no intellect, no free will, no judgment, but would act purely and simply out of instinct or emotion, which is in either case a purely physical response. The other, and more frightening possibility, is to produce a man who is so defective and animalistic in his reactions that he is incapable of using free will. He would be like those with serious neurological or genetic diseases who never attain the use of reason, but who may receive baptism and be Catholic.

May God forbid that the foolhardy pride of man go to such extremes in his striving to be as God, denying that which is most precious about human nature, his spiritual faculties of intellect and will.

The above-mentioned article quotes Lord David Alton, who publicly opposed the creation of such hybrids as ethically unacceptable: “Of the 80 treatments and cures which have come about from stems cells, all have come from adult stem cells, not embryonic ones. On moral and ethic grounds this fails; and on scientific and medical ones too”. Our society will have a terrifying punishment if this abuse of innocent human beings, embryos, for destruction and genetic manipulation continues. It is a sin crying out for vengeance.

[Question:]{.underline} Can one offer one Rosary for two different intentions?

[Answer:]{.underline} The intention is the act of the will that orders our acts towards their end. If it is true that all of our acts must have a supernatural end or motive, at least implicitly related to Almighty God, in order to be supernatural and meritworthy, it is in no way necessary that there be only one end. All of our acts can have several subordinate supernatural ends, directed ultimately to the salvation of our soul and the greater glory of God. The more explicitly and actually we think of and renew the intention of these ends, the more meritorious do the acts become. Thus it is that we do our chores at home to help our family members, to keep order and peace in the family, to do penance for our sins and to overcome our disordered self-love, and ultimately to save our souls and give glory to God. None of these intentions takes away the slightest from the others, but the more we reflect on each one, the greater the love of God and merit that is gained by the good deed.

Thus also it is that the priest can and does have multiple intentions in offering the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. He has only one principal or first intention, for which he receives the stipend, but he may also have other or secondary intentions, such as for other persons, souls, situations or needs. Moreover, every Mass is offered up for the Pope and the bishop, the Catholic Church and right-believing Catholics, for the celebrant and for those present, and for all faithful Christians, living and deceased, and finally that through and with and in Christ be given “to God the Father Almighty, in the unity of the Holy Ghost, all honor and glory”! None of these intentions conflicts one with the other, nor does the application and reflection on them, diminish in any way the other intentions, but rather to the contrary reinforces them. The reason for this is that spiritual things are not like material things. When material things are divided up there is less to go around for each person, but when spiritual things are shared, there are quite simply more and more graces granted, according to the intensity, fervor, and love with which we offer our intentions to Almighty God.

The same applies to all our prayers, and to the Rosary in particular. They can likewise be offered up for multiple intentions, all these intentions being directed to the salvation of our soul and the greater glory of God. The same Rosary can be offered up for the sick and dying, our relatives in need, the grace of conversion for my own soul or for another, and for the consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. The multiplying of the intentions does not in any way decrease the efficacy of the prayer for any one of those intentions. It is true that we do well to have a special intention for each decade of the Rosary, as well as a general intention for the entire Rosary. However, this is not because the entire Rosary cannot have multiple intentions, but on account of our human weakness, according to which we will focus and concentrate much better if we have a specific intention for each decade. Consequently the same family Rosary can be used for the intention of the Eucharistic Crusade for the month, for the obligation of the family Rosary, for the Rosary Crusade to obtain the consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. All is in the intention, and there lies the difficulty. We must reflect on the various intentions, and offer our Rosary up, at least at the beginning (virtually) for these different intentions.

[Question:]{.underline} Can and/or should bishops and superiors report cases of sexual abuse of minors to civil authorities?

[Answer:]{.underline} In his letter of March 20, 2010 to the Catholics of Ireland concerning the sexual abuse of children by priests and religious, Pope Benedict XVI explains that one of the causes of the pedophilia crisis was “a misplaced concern for the reputation of the Church and the avoidance of scandal” (4). This is certainly one of the reasons for the failure of Church authorities to investigate and report for civil investigation the perpetrators of these crimes against civil law, which failure is in turn the major reason for the extremely large financial settlements against the Church and in favor of the victims.

In the above mentioned letter the Pope is categorical in reminding the perpetrators of these crimes that they must admit their crime and accept the demands of justice: “At the same time, God’s justice summons us to give an account of our actions and to conceal nothing. Openly acknowledge your guilt, submit yourselves to the demands of justice, but do not despair of God’s mercy”. This means the acceptation of the punishment inflicted by ecclesiastical tribunals, as well as that imposed by civil tribunals.

In its “Guide to Understanding basic Procedures concerning Sexual Abuse Allegations” the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith makes this very clear statement: “Civil law concerning reporting of crimes to the appropriate authorities should always be followed”. In general, civil law requires that all those who are responsible for the well being of children, and in particular all health care professionals, must report such allegations for investigation. The responsibility of religious superiors in this regard will differ from country to country. However, they will generally be obliged to report them, and must certainly not do anything to discourage parents from reporting such crimes for civil investigation.

The grave danger involved in such reporting is that an allegation might in fact be false. To report such a false allegation could entirely destroy a priest’s reputation and the good that he can do for the Church. Consequently, only founded allegations should be reported for investigation.

In former times the reporting of priests to civil authorities was not so necessary, since the ecclesiastical tribunals were very strict and punished adequately the offenders and were able to protect the innocent. Canon 2359, 2 of the 1917 Code states that all those guilty of offense against the sixth commandment with minors “shall be suspended (of all priestly and sacramental functions), declared infamous, deprived of every office, benefice, dignity or position that they may hold, and in more grievous cases they shall be deposed” (from the clerical state). It is in the spirit of this traditional law of the Church that the General Chapter of the Society of Saint Pius X in 2006 decided that crimes of this kind (which God forbid) would lead to dismissal from the Society, and had this decision introduced into the Society’s statutes.

The 1983 Code, to the contrary, simply states that such offenders are to receive a just punishment, dismissal from the clerical state not being excluded (Canon 1395, 2). It is typically vague, and has not regularly been applied. Now (since 2001) all such cases must be referred to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which reserves judgment and imposition of the punishment to itself, and has a clear protocol, although not as strict as in former times, leading to reduction to the lay state only in a small proportion of the most grievous cases.

Given all this confusion, the simple answer to the question is that this crime, if certain, ought always to be reported to civil authorities. The criminal then receives the punishment due in justice as for any other crime against society. He is placed on the list of sex offenders, and thus is excluded from ever working with children, even outside the priesthood. It is the best protection for the innocent victims and the most powerful means to eliminate this plague of moral corruption from the Church.

[Question:]{.underline} May I immunize my children with vaccines developed from cell lines that were originally derived from an aborted fetus?

[Answer:]{.underline} It is clear that if a Catholic has a choice in the matter, he is bound to choose a vaccine that is not derived from a fetal cell line, for he does not want any kind of participation in the crime of a voluntary abortion, even one done nearly fifty years ago. However, this question has become a very difficult one from the fact that several vaccines are not available in any other form but that derived from an aborted fetus, in particular rubella (contained in the MMR), chicken pox and Hepatitis A. Is one morally obliged to forgo such a vaccination, otherwise necessary for health? Also, if one is bound by civil law to receive or give such a vaccination, must one refuse under pain of sin?

This question was very well resolved by the Pontifical Academy for Life, in a document approved by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and dated June 9, 2005. (It can be viewed at www.cogforlife.org/vaticanresponse.htm ). This document makes the necessary distinctions. The first is between formal and material cooperation. It is never permitted, for any reason, to cooperate formally in another’s immoral action, in this case the abortion. Examples of formal cooperation include the staff who willingly help with the abortion or the original researchers who requested the aborted fetal tissue for their research. However, those who simply use the products of the cell line do not cooperate formally in the abortion.

Material cooperation exists when a person shares in some way in an evil action, for example by taking advantage of its consequences, but without sharing its evil intent. Examples of material cooperation include the staff who prepare the operating theatre or the nurse who prepares the patient, neither of them knowing the exact nature of the procedure to be performed. Material cooperation can be immoral, if done without sufficient reason, or moral if done for a good and proportionately grave reason, in proportion to the gravity of the evil and the proximity of cooperation in it.

The principles of double effect must be applied, namely provided that the good effect (in this case the use of the vaccine) does not come directly from the bad effect (the murder of the innocent), but is simply a by product of this immoral act. Moreover, the material cooperation can be immediate, as in the nurse who takes care of the patient before or after the procedure, or it can be mediate because not directly involved in the abortion. Moreover this mediate material cooperation can also be very remote, and far removed from the abortion itself, as in the case of those who use vaccines that were developed from a fetal cell line some fifty years old. In cases of remote material cooperation, it is not such a grave reason that is required for there to be a proportionate reason for the material cooperation. This is not to deny the very grave evil of abortion, but simply because the material cooperation, is extremely far removed from the abortion done so many years ago. The absence of any other vaccine and the need of the vaccine for one’s health would suffice. The reason for this given by the above mentioned document is that in this case, given the remoteness of the material cooperation, “the duty to avoid passive material cooperation is not obligatory if there is grave inconvenience”. Danger to health or problems with civil law constitute such a grave inconvenience.

This being said, the development of vaccines from fetal cell lines is gravely immoral, and we have the duty to actively oppose it as much as we can, in order to avoid any formal cooperation. This is how the above mentioned document describes this grave obligation: “Therefore, doctors and fathers of families have a duty to take recourse to alternative vaccines (if they exist), putting pressure on the political authorities and health systems so that other vaccines without moral problems become available…They should oppose by all means…the vaccines which do not yet have morally acceptable alternatives, creating pressure so that alternative vaccines are prepared, which are not connected with the abortion of a human fetus…”

Nevertheless, it would be excessive and wrong to deny that the material cooperation in the use of such vaccines is very remote, so that where there is no alternative to such vaccines, and where the health of children or of the community at large requires it, it is not only permissible to use such vaccines for which there is no alternative, but sometimes even obligatory. This would be the case of a woman planning to marry, who had never been vaccinated against rubella and who did not have any natural immunity. It would be a moral obligation to receive the vaccine, even derived from fetal cell line, in order to protect her own unborn children from the possibility of serious deformities due to infection with the rubella virus. Her duty to protect her unborn children is the grave reason that permits and, where there is no alternative even makes obligatory, the very remote mediate material cooperation involved.

In the case of routine vaccine of children with MMR (Measles, Mumps and Rubella) there is certainly no obligation to have the vaccine, since it is not strictly necessary. It would certainly be best to request the Measles and Mumps portions separately from the Rubella, thus making a statement of moral principle, and this should be done whenever possible. However, if the MMR combination is the only one offered, and if one has good reason to give this vaccine (as is generally the case), then a parent is not to be troubled in conscience by allowing it to be administered to his children.

[Question:]{.underline} What constitutes martyrdom?

[Answer:]{.underline} The word martyr is taken from the Greek and means a witness. However, a martyr, as acknowledged by the Catholic Church, is a special kind of witness, and martyrdom the act of giving one’s life in doing so.

The definition of martyrdom is in fact given by St. Thomas Aquinas when he asks the question of whether or not it is the Faith alone which is the cause of martyrdom, or whether the defense of other virtues also can be the cause of martyrdom (IIaIIae Q.124,a.5). There he defines martyrs as those who “physical suffering to death bear witness to the truth, and not to any truth but to the truth that is according to piety, which was revealed to us by Christ (a truth of Faith); wherefore the martyrs of Christ are said to be as if his witnesses…and hence the cause of every martyrdom is a truth of Faith.”

Analyzing this definition, we can determine the three conditions that must be fulfilled for the full and true nature of martyrdom to be accomplished (See Prummer, Man. Th. Mor., Vol II, §623). There are of course many other heroic acts of the virtue of fortitude, but the honor of the crown of martyrdom is only given to those souls whose lives fully realize all three conditions:

1. True physical death is required, for this is the greatest sacrifice a man can make and the most perfect testimony to the truth of the Catholic Faith. Thus St. John the Evangelist, who was boiled in hot oil and miraculously delivered, is not in the strict sense a martyr, nor the Blessed Virgin Mary at the foot of the cross, although spiritually and through her fullness of grace she is the Queen of Martyrs.

2. The death must be inflicted out of hatred of Catholic Truth. St. Thomas Aquinas (Ib.) points out that the death must be a profession of the truth of the Catholic Faith, either in the form of words or by actions. Clearly heretics cannot be martyrs, but a man can be a martyr for his actions, and not just for his words. St. Thomas also points out that a man can be a martyr not only for defending a dogma of Faith but also for defending moral truths of the supernatural order that depend upon the Faith, or which are referred to God in a supernatural sense. Thus it is that St. John the Baptist is rightly considered as a martyr in the strict sense, as is St. Thomas A`Beckett in defending the rights of the Church and St. Thomas More in defending Papal primacy over the Church in England. Likewise is St. Maria Goretti rightly considered a martyr by dying for purity. St. Thomas Aquinas also points out that those who die for their country can also be considered as martyrs if the human good of the nation is referred to God himself. Thus Garcia Moreno, the President of Ecuador, can rightly be considered a martyr, as also could St. Joan of Arc (although she is not usually honored as such).

3. The death must be accepted voluntarily, that is without resistance. Thus it is that St. Maurice and his Theban legion of 2,000 men became martyrs by offering no resistance. However, infants and those who are asleep cannot be considered as martyrs in the true sense. To the objection of the Holy Innocents, St. Thomas replies that there is no evidence that God gave them free will, but rather that they obtained by a special grace of God, along with baptism of blood, what is normally merited by free will. (Ib. 124,1 Ad 1).

Consequently, there are many persons who die holy deaths but who are not strictly martyrs. This happens if the persecutor does not know that a person is Catholic or does not kill him because he is Catholic, or because he holds to some supernaturally revealed Catholic truth, but for some other reason. This it is that St. Maximilian Kolbe, as heroic as was his death, is not rightly considered a martyr. Nor was Edith Stein (St. Maria Benedicta), for she was put to death for her Jewish origins rather than for her Catholic Faith. Another case of a man who died a holy death but who is not a martyr is St. Damian De Veuster, who died on account of the leprosy contracted at Molokai in Hawaii. For as heroic as was his life, his death was still by natural causes.

It also follows that any persons who die for natural truths, that is for truths of the natural law, are not martyrs. Any persons who would be killed for standing up against abortion or euthanasia, for example, would be performing a great act and obtaining many merits if done for supernatural reasons. But the inviolability of human life and the immorality of killing the innocent are in themselves truths of the natural law, shared by many non-Catholics. Dying for them would not make a person a martyr.

[Question:]{.underline} Should I attend the New Mass when I cannot travel to attend the traditional Mass?

[Answer:]{.underline} The answer to this question is fundamental to our understanding of the crisis in the Church. The answer that will be given by the priests who celebrate under the 2007 Motu proprio of Pope Benedict XVI, Summorum pontificum, is quite clear. The New Mass is the “ordinary” form of the Roman rite, and the traditional Mass is the “extraordinary form”. While a person might have a personal preference for one or the other, such a personal preference does not exempt him from the general law of the Church, making the assistance at Mass on Sundays an obligation in conscience. Such can be the only logical answer of those priests and communities approved by the bishops and post-conciliar Rome, but who celebrate the traditional Mass.

However, the answer to this question will be quite different from a priest who celebrates the traditional Mass in virtue of the perpetual right guaranteed by the Papal Bull Quo primum of Saint Pius V (1570). Such a priest will clearly be free to answer the truth, namely that the New Mass of Paul VI is a compromise on the principles of Faith, in particular undermining belief in the divinity of Christ, in the Real Presence, and in the propitiatory value of the sacrifice of the Mass; that it is a compromise that attempts to fuse together some (not all) Catholic externals with a neo-protestant and neo-modernist way of thinking and acting..

If you, a traditional Catholic, assist at the traditional Mass, it is not because of personal preference for an old-fashioned “extraordinary” form. It is because you want to keep the Faith, live the Faith, sanctify your soul and go to Heaven, and because you know that the traditional Mass hallowed by seventeen continuous centuries of use by saints, is the most powerful means to do this that God has given to His Church. If you were to go to the New Mass when unable to travel to the traditional Mass, you would risk losing your Faith, you would be scandalized by the disrespect for God made man in the Blessed Sacrament, and you would not only fail to grow in the Faith and in the love of God, but would be in grave danger of bitterness and cynicism about a Church that has become so lukewarm as to allow such an abuse on such a widespread basis.

Consequently, for the love of Jesus who died for our sins, who lives in the Blessed Sacrament, always interceding for our behalf, do not participate in the New Mass. All the moral theologians say that the positive laws of the Church (such as attendance at Sunday Mass) do not oblige under grave inconvenience. That is why a person is not obliged to travel more than one hour to get to Sunday Mass. One hour travel time is considered a grave inconvenience. In this case, the grave inconvenience is the participation in a liturgy that is offensive to God, and quite simply evil, deliberately deprived of the beauty, goodness, truth, integrity and holiness that chacterize all the prayers and ceremonies of the true Catholic Mass.

[Question:]{.underline} What is a Requiem Mass?

[Answer:]{.underline} Masses in the Church’s calendar all take their names from the first words of the Introit, which is the first part of the Proper which is sung. Thus it is that the Mass from the Common of the Blessed Virgin Mary is called Salve, sancta parens, that for the Third Sunday of Advent is called Gaudete, and that for the Fourth Sunday of Lent Laetare.

All the Masses that are specifically offered up for the repose of the souls of the faithful departed, whether they be funeral Masses, or the Masses for All Souls Day, or anniversary Masses, or the daily Mass for the faithful departed, have the same Gregorian Propers, the Introit of which begins with Requiem aeternam. Hence they are all called Requiem Masses, although each of the six different Masses has different readings and prayers, begging in a variety of ways for the eternal rest of the departed souls now suffering in Purgatory. They are characterized by the use of black vestments. It is a very sad for the poor souls, the suffering of whose separation from God on account of their sins is represented by black. It is also a betrayal of the charity upon which they depend that the liturgical revolution of 1969 did away with Requiem Masses altogether, and this despite the condemnation by Pope Pius XII, as recently as 1947, of those who “wish to radically suppress black from the liturgical colors” (Mediator Dei).

The Church requires that a priest celebrate a Requiem Mass in the case of funerals, and on All Souls’ Day. At other times they are optional, but may be said, according to the rubrics, such as for anniversaries, or the daily Mass for the faithful depa

rted on ferial days. However, it is not only Requiem Masses that are offered up for the repose of the souls of the faithful departed. Every Mass is offered for this intention, and it is a part of the General Fruits of every Mass that it is offered up to obtain the relief of the temporal punishment of the suffering souls in Purgatory, as is specifically prayed for in the Canon of the Mass at the Memento for the faithful departed.

In addition, the Mass of the liturgical day that a priest celebrates every day can be offered up for the repose of one or more departed souls, and frequently is. When this special intention is requested of a priest, this intention obtains the Ministerial Fruit of the Mass, namely the effect of impetration, propitiation and satisfaction which comes from a priest applying the Mass to the special intentions that are requested of him. When a priest receives a donation, or Mass stipend, he takes upon himself, in justice, the obligation of applying the Ministerial Fruit for the particular intention of the person who offers the stipend.

The Ministerial Fruit can be applied either to the living or to the dead, or to both. This fruit depends upon the sacrifice of the Mass itself, and the intention of the priest in applying it. It does not essentially depend upon the rubrics or ceremonies followed. Thus it is not essential to the ministerial fruit that the Mass offered up be a Requiem Mass. It is for this reason that “the theologians commonly teach that the obligation of celebrating a Mass for the living can be satisfied by a Requiem Mass, and that the obligation of celebrating for the faithful departed can be satisfied by a Mass in honor of a saint” (Prummer, Manuale Theologiae Moralis, III, p. 193-194).

This being said, when a priest accepts a Mass stipend, he implicitly agrees to accept the particular conditions under which that stipend is given, at least under pain of venial sin. Consequently if a priest accepts to celebrate a Requiem Mass, rather than simply to celebrate a Mass for the repose of a particular soul, then he is bound to celebrate it as a Requiem Mass. The faithful should be mindful, though, that they make it very difficult for the priest if they ask him to celebrate a Requiem Mass, and this only for an accidental gain of some additional prayers for the poor souls. For one, the rubrics frequently forbid it, and secondly it makes it very difficult if the priest has to celebrate Mass for a community or parish, in which for the common good he is bound to celebrate the Mass of the liturgical day. Consequently, when Masses are offered for the repose of the faithful departed, the faithful ought not to ask for Requiem Masses, unless they first of all check with the priest that he is able to celebrate them as such, as he will willingly do for anniversaries of death, for example.

[Question:]{.underline} Is Vatican II the cause of the world-wide pedophile scandal?

[Answer:]{.underline} Pope Benedict XVI’s March 20, 2010 Pastoral Letter to the Catholics of Ireland goes a long way towards answering this question, for it is the first Papal document to analyze the causes of the scandal. It is historical for more than one reason. It is first of all an admission of a grave and sinful decadence in the Church, such as has not been seen since the Council of Trent: “I can only share in the dismay and the sense of betrayal that so many of you have experienced on learning of these sinful and criminal acts and the way Church authorities in Ireland dealth with them” (1). It is secondly an admission that the bishops are responsible for these faults, and that these were not just administrative faults, but grevious, and indeed mortal, sins: To the bishops, he has to say: “It cannot be denied that some of you and your predecessors failed, at times grievously, to apply the long-established norms of canon law to the crime of child abuse” (11), and to the priests and religious he apologizes for the sins of the bishops: “All of us are suffering as a result of the [sins]{.underline} of our confreres who betrayed a sacred trust or [failed to deal justly and responsibly]{.underline} with allegations of abuse.”(10). Thirdly, it is an admission that this scandalous moral breakdown is the worst thing that has happened to the Church in Ireland since the Protestant revolt of the 16^th^ century, and that it has done more harm to the Church in Ireland than four centuries of persecution of Catholicism by the British invaders: [They] “have obscured the light of the Gospel to a degree that not even centuries of persecution succeeded in doing” (4).

CAUSES OF CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE

Such moral corruption in the higher echelons of the Church must have a cause, and it is the fourth and most important admission made by the Pope. We are grateful to Benedict XVI to have analyzed the reasons that brought this about in Ireland. His conclusions apply elsewhere, and are a real indictment of the post-conciliar church. He first of all gives the principal causes, and then lists some contributing factors, in a brutally truthful and real analysis of the problem. First of all the principal causes:

“All too often, the sacramental and devotional practices that sustain faith and enable it to grow, such as frequent confession, daily prayer and annual retreats, were neglected. Significant, too, was the tendency during this period [recent decades], also on the part of priests and religious, to adopt ways of thinking and assessing secular realities without sufficient reference to the Gospel [= humanism and secularism]. The programme of renewal proposed by the Second Vatican Council was sometimes misinterpreted and, indeed, in the light of the profound social changes that were taking place, [it was far from easy to know how best to implement it]{.underline}. In particular, there was a well-intentioned but misguided tendency to avoid penal approaches to canonically irregular situations. It is in this overall context that we must try to understand the disturbing problem of child sexual abuse, which has contributed in no small measure to the weakening of faith and the loss of respect for the Church and her teachings.” (4)

While still exempting Vatican II itself from responsibility, the Pope makes it quite clear that it is the new man-centered religion which is the source of the problem, which is nothing other than the adaptation of the Church to the world so much wanted by Vatican II (Gaudium et spes). He admits that it is a result of the lack of Faith, and that this lack of Faith is a direct consequence of the abandonment of those traditional practices that express and enliven our Faith in the divinity of Christ (such as frequent confession, daily prayer and retreats), that constantly purify the soul from its faults, that maintain a spirit of prayer and contemplation, so necessary for the separation from the world. Furthermore, and this is of fundamental importance, he admits that nobody really knew how to implement Vatican II, and yet maintain the spirit of Faith. It is the beginning of asking the fundamental question: what kind of pastoral council could it have been that was so difficult to understand and interpret that the Pope himself admits “that is was far from easy to know best how to implement it? A true pastoral council is one that gives direction, not one that causes confusion. One example the Pope himself give of the failure to know how to correctly implement the Council has been the constant refusal to apply the Church’s canonical penalties. However, this was clearly done for a reason. The Pope does not yet admit it, but clearly it was that the Council’s novel consideration of human dignity excludes in practice the need for discipline, just as God’s all-mercifulness evacuates the need for justice. This avowal by the Sovereign Pontiff is historical and is very close to admitting that it was the humanism and secular spirit of Vatican II itself that undermined the Faith in its practical implementation, and that consequently brought about this moral corruption.

The Pope goes on to list some of the contributing factors: inadequate screening of candidates for the priestly and religious life, insufficient formation, authoritarianism and the “failure to apply existing canonical penalties” (4). Although the latter is the more serious, it could only have happened on account of a general, widespread lukewarmness, bringing with it indifference to the gravity of the sin and offences against Almighty God. Although the Pope does not state the obvious explicitly, he does request the conversion that is the logical consequence of it, and this as his first “decisive action” that he asks of the bishops: “This must arise, first and foremost, from your own self-examination, inner purification and spiritual renewal. The Irish people rightly expect you to be men of God, to be holy, to live simply, to pursue personal conversion daily” (11).

It is certainly a horrifying disgrace that it takes civil investigations to bring to light a degree of moral corruption so perverse and so opposed to even natural goodness and uprightness as to cause disgust and anger amongst pagans and those who have no religion - and this in the very Church, Christ’s own mystical body, of which Our Lord said: “You are the light of the world…so let your light to shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father who is in heaven” (Mt 5:14,16). We are greatly saddened that is has takened such a scandal to awaken Catholics to the consequences of nearly a half century - two generations - impregnated with the spirit of Vatican II.

THE REMEDY FOR THE EVIL - JUSTICE

However, it is most reassuring that Pope Benedict XVI proposes concrete initiatives of the old-fashioned type, based upon that virtue that was put out to pasture two generations ago - justice. He insists that the perpetrators of these crimes not only personally atone for their actions, but also submit to the demands of justice in both ecclesiastical and civil law: “God’s justice summons us to give an account of our actions and to conceal nothing. Openly acknowledge your guilt, submit yourselves to the demands of justice, but do not despair of God’s mercy.” (7). Justice also requires that the bishops and religious superiors “besides fully implementing the norms of canon law in addressing cases of child abuse, continue to cooperate with civil authorities…” (11). Justice also requires reparation for the offence given to Almighty God, and the Pope does not fail to request this either, in the form of Eucharistic Adoration in parishes, seminaries, religious houses and monasteries: “Through intense prayer before the real presence of the Lord, you can make reparation for the sins of abuse that have done so much harm…” (14), to which is to be added Friday penances, fasting and prayer, Scripure reading and works of mercy.

Finally, the Pope begins to touch with his finger the root of this disorder: - the lack of appreciation for the religious and priestly vocation, yet all the while refusing to acknowledge its origin. This is why he orders a nationwide mission for all bishops, priests and religious, that “by exploring anew the conciliar documents, the liturgical rites of ordination and profession, and recent pontifical teaching, you will come to a more profound appreciation of your respective vocations, so as to rediscover the roots of your faith in Jesus Christ…”(14). It is greatly to be feared that this ultimate remedy will fail, vitiated as it is by reference to documents that take the sacrificial action out of the Mass, the identification with Christ out of the priest, the total consecration to God alone out of the religious. If only such a mission were based on the unambiguous, non-compromising, unworldly, entirely supernatural pre-Vatican II documents and pontifical teachings, what an entire transformation it would produce!

[Question:]{.underline} Does the Church have any teaching concerning organ harvesting?

[Answer:]{.underline} The frequency of organ transplantation in recent years has brought to a head the debate which Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI have been unable to resolve, despite several discourses on the question. The debate does not concern the morality of organ transplantation in itself. This question was in fact resolved by Pope Pius XII, when he spoke on the question of the transplantation of the cornea of the eye, which can be taken from the cadaver of a deceased person. He had this to say in his discourse to specialists of eye surgery on May 14, 1956: “The cadaver is not, in the proper sense of the word, a subject of rights, for it is deprived of the personality that can alone make it the subject of rights. The extirpation is no longer the removal of a good; the visual organs have, in effect, no longer the character of good in the cadaver, for they no longer serve it, and have no relationship to an end“. Hence the conclusion he draws: “The deceased person from whom the cornea is taken is not harmed in any of the goods to which he has a right, nor in his right to these goods“. (Quoted in Courrier de Rome, #312, juin 2008) The same principles can be applied to the transplantation of organs necessary for life, morally permissible provided that they are taken from a cadaver. John Paul II confirmed this very clear teaching in a discourse to the 18^th^ international medical congress on transplantation on August 24, 2000: “Individual vital organs in a body can only be removed after death. This requirement is obvious, since to act differently would mean to intentionally bring about the death of the donor by removing his organs.”

BRAIN DEATH & REAL DEATH

However, the debate concerns the determination of the moment of death, necessary to morally remove organs for organ transplantation. The difficulty lies in the fact that the moment of death, the separation of body and soul, is not an event that is always obvious to empirical investigation. Furthermore, it is clear that, as both Pius XII and John Paul II admit, the determination of this moment is not a question for theology or for the Church`s Magisterium, but is a technical one for which the medical profession is responsible. Before 1968, the determination of the moment of death was done by the cessation of respiratory and cardiac functions, entirely necessary to maintain the unity of a living being. However, it was in 1968 that the Harvard criteria were first proposed and accepted, namely that brain death could be used to determine the fact of death. Professor Seifert, a specialist on the question, had this to say to LifesiteNews of February 24, 2009: “We look in vain for any argument for this unheard of change of determining death … except for two pragmatic reasons for introducing it, which have nothing to do at all with the question of whether a patient is dead but only deal with why it is practically useful to consider or define him to be dead…the wish to obtain organs for implantation and to have a criterion for switching off ventilators in ICUs.”

It is the identification between brain death and real death that has become the moral basis of all transplantation of organs necessary for life since 1968, for it allows organs to be taken from a person considered juridically dead (consequently not really a person, and no longer considered as having either human dignity or rights, except as determined in a previous last will), but in all appearance biologically alive, given that his cardiac and respiratory functions are being artificially maintained. Encouragement was given to this opinion by Pope John Paul II when, in the abovementioned discourse of August 2000 he declared: “We can say that the recently established criterion to establish death with certitude, namely the complete and irreversible cessation of all cerebral activity, if rigorously applied, does not seem to be in conflict with the essential elements of a serious anthropology…This moral certitude is considered as the necessary and sufficient basis for acting in an ethically correct fashion.“

This opinion was further confirmed by a 2006 statement from the Holy See, entitled “Why the Concept of Brain Death Is Valid as a Definition of Death” and signed by Cardinal Georges Cottier, then theologian to the papal household; Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo, at the time president of the Pontifical Council for the Family; Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini, the former Archbishop of Milan; and Bishop Elio Sgreccia, the then president of the Pontifical Academy for Life.

However, John Paul II`s statement was certainly not definitive, and like Pius XII, he accepted the principle that when in doubt a person was presumed to be alive and not dead at all: “Moreover, we recognize the moral principle according to which even the simple suspicion of being in the presence of a living person brings with it the obligation of full respect for him and of abstaining from any action that aims at bringing about death“ (March 20, 2004; Discourse to a congress of Catholic physicians). His acceptation of doubt on this question was shown by his approval of the decision of the Pontifical Academy for Life to convoke a meeting of specialists in February 2005 “on the determination of the precise moment of death“, which would have had no purpose if the neurological criteria were the final word on the question.

Benedict XVI has continued the same rather ambiguous attitude, on the one hand being in favor of organ transplantation as an act of charity (being himself a card carrying organ donor until elected Pope), but on the other hand insisting that it is actual death that is required to legitimize organ transplantation. Professor E. Christian Brugger, Senior Fellow of Ethics at the Culture of Life foundation, points out that in his November 2009 address to a conference on organ transplantation organized in part by the Pontifical Academy of Life, Benedict XVI “warned that the principle of moral certainty in determining death must be the highest priority of doctors. In its roster of speakers, that conference… did not address the moral issue that is at the heart of the controversy over organ transplants“ (LifeSiteNews, February 4, 2011).

While such traditionally-minded ethicists are hoping that opinion in the Vatican may swing back around to condemning brain death as a criterion of real death, we must ask ourselves the question as to why there is such timidity on such an important question. Why is it that the obvious common sense observation that brain death does not bring about dissolution of the organism, nor of its unity, nor of its vital activities, is not clearly admitted by the modernist theologians? There can be only one explanation: the influence of situation ethics, namely that the morality of each particular act depends essentially on the circumstances rather than on the act itself, with the consequent hesitation to condemn acts as intrinsically evil. This combined with the focus on a more secular ethics, concentrating on the value of man`s physical existence, rather than the sovereign importance of his soul, and of his eternal salvation, has led to the confusion. If only we had the clarity of Pope Pius XII, who in his discourse on the problems of resuscitation had this to say: “Human life continues for as long as its vital functions — which is not the same thing as the simple life of the organs — continue to manifest themselves spontaneously [or with the help of artificial procedures]{.underline}” (In Courrier de Rome, Op Cit.).

DEAD DONOR RULE FALSE

A very interesting contribution to the whole consideration of the morality of the removal of organs from persons said to be brain dead has come from an unexpected source. It is the New England Journal of Medicine that published, on August 14, 2008, Vol 359 (7), p. 674-675, an article that demonstrates beyond all serious doubt that the harvesting of organs is done from persons that truly are living, and that in point of fact it is the harvesting of the organs necessary for life, such as lungs, heart, two kidneys, complete liver and pancreas, that is actually the cause of death. The title of the article is “The dead donor rule and organ transplantation” and it was written by Dr. Truong & Professor Miller.(1)

The authors do not conclude that organ transplantation ought not therefore to be done, but to the contrary justify it on the purely utilitarian non-principle that the person was going to die in any case. This we cannot accept, as the Church has constantly taught, for the end does not justify the means, and you cannot kill a person on account of the good that can come to another person. Nevertheless, the passage attached as a note below illustrates the principle that the donor of the organs is indeed a living person, and hence that act of taking the organs is the deliberate termination of life, and that transplantation of organs necessary for life can only be justified as the taking of one life to save or prolong another life - that is by playing God. The authors are entirely in favor of such immorality, but at least they avoid the hypocrisy of attempting to justify it by pretending that the brain dead person is actually a dead non-person, pointing out that he retains many vital functions, and can live for years in such a state.

In their own words: “The uncomfortable conclusion to be drawn from this literature is that although it may be perfectly ethical to remove vital organs for transplantation from patients who satisfy the diagnostic criteria of brain death, the reason it is ethical cannot be that we are convinced they are really dead.“ They do not even hesitate to question the motives of the medical profession changing from the definition of death by cessation of cardiac function, to that of brain death, purely and simply to obtain organs for transplantation: “At worst, this ongoing reliance suggests that the medical profession has been [gerrymandering the definition of death to carefully conform with conditions that are most favorable for transplantation]{.underline}. At best, the rule has provided misleading ethical cover that cannot withstand careful scrutiny“

This leaves us with the acute moral problem of patients who are dying, and whose only hope for physical survival lies in heart, lung, or liver transplants.

Surely if it is up to the medical profession to determine the moment of death, it is also up to the Church to state loud and clear that brain death is not actual death, and cannot be used as a justification for organ transplantation. Surely if it is up to the medical profession to determine the moment of death, it is also up to the Church to state loud and clear that brain death is not actual death, and cannot be used as a justification for organ transplantation. These organs can only be usefully obtained from a body which still has all its vital functions, and which is still intact — that is biologically alive. The fact that the person is brain dead changes nothing to this. Such persons have no alternative but to accept their terminal illness and to prepare for a holy death. To accept the donation of organs is to accept the termination of another person’s life for one’s own good.

However, a clear distinction must be made from those persons who could receive a donation of an organ from a living person, without the removal of the organ causing his death. This is the case of the transplantation of one kidney, a part of a liver or pancreas, (either from a person in good health or one who is going to die), a cornea, or such harmless procedures as bone marrow transplantations. To the contrary, such transplantations, which require a sacrifice on the part of the donor, but not the loss of life, are strongly to be encouraged, whenever such means are a proportional and appropriate medical treatment.

Finally, Catholics ought to be reminded that they ought not to grant a general permission for organ transplantation from their own body, as is frequently requested, and that they should not allow such a permission to be included on their driver`s license. This would effectively be to grant permission for the immoral removal of their organs, and for their own murder, should they become brain dead, and it would take away from their Catholic relatives the power to stop the medical profession from taking these measures.

(1) The dead donor rule and organ transplantation (excerpt)

“Since its inception, organ transplantation has been guided by the overarching ethical requirement known as the dead donor rule, which simply states that patients must be declared dead before the removal of any vital organs for transplantation. Before the development of modern critical care, the diagnosis of death was relatively straightforward: patients were dead when they were cold, blue, and stiff. Unfortunately, organs from these traditional cadavers cannot be used for transplantation. Forty years ago, an ad hoc committee at Harvard Medical School, chaired by Henry Beecher, suggested revising the definition of death in a way that would make some patients with devastating neurologic injury suitable for organ transplantation under the dead donor rule.

The concept of brain death has served us well and has been the ethical and legal justification for thousands of lifesaving donations and transplantations. Even so, there have been persistent questions about whether patients with massive brain injury, apnea, and loss of brain-stem reflexes are really dead. After all, when the injury is entirely intracranial, these patients look very much alive: they are warm and pink; they digest and metabolize food, excrete waste, undergo sexual maturation, and can even reproduce. To a casual observer, they look just like patients who are receiving long-term artificial ventilation and are asleep.

The arguments about why these patients should be considered dead have never been fully convincing. The definition of brain death requires the complete absence of all functions of the entire brain, yet many of these patients retain essential neurologic function, such as the regulated secretion of hypothalamic hormones. Some have argued that these patients are dead because they are permanently unconscious (which is true), but if this is the justification, then patients in a permanent vegetative state, who breathe spontaneously, should also be diagnosed as dead, a characterization that most regard as implausible. Others have claimed that “brain-dead” patients are dead because their brain damage has led to the “permanent cessation of functioning of the organism as a whole.” Yet evidence shows that if these patients are supported beyond the acute phase of their illness (which is rarely done), they can survive for many years. The uncomfortable conclusion to be drawn from this literature is that although it may be perfectly ethical to remove vital organs for transplantation from patients who satisfy the diagnostic criteria of brain death, the reason it is ethical cannot be that we are convinced they are really dead.

Over the past few years, our reliance on the dead donor rule has again been challenged, this time by the emergence of donation after cardiac death as a pathway for organ donation. Under protocols for this type of donation, patients who are not brain-dead but who are undergoing an orchestrated withdrawal of life support are monitored for the onset of cardiac arrest. In typical protocols, patients are pronounced dead 2 to 5 minutes after the onset of asystole (on the basis of cardiac criteria), and their organs are expeditiously removed for transplantation. Although everyone agrees that many patients could be resuscitated after an interval of 2 to 5 minutes, advocates of this approach to donation say that these patients can be regarded as dead because a decision has been made not to attempt resuscitation.

This understanding of death is problematic at several levels. The cardiac definition of death requires the irreversible cessation of cardiac function. Whereas the common understanding of “irreversible” is “impossible to reverse,” in this context irreversibility is interpreted as the result of a choice not to reverse. This interpretation creates the paradox that the hearts of patients who have been declared dead on the basis of the irreversible loss of cardiac function have in fact been transplanted and have successfully functioned in the chest of another. Again, although it may be ethical to remove vital organs from these patients, we believe that the reason it is ethical cannot convincingly be that the donors are dead.

At the dawn of organ transplantation, the dead donor rule was accepted as an ethical premise that did not require reflection or justification, presumably because it appeared to be necessary as a safeguard against the unethical removal of vital organs from vulnerable patients. In retrospect, however, it appears that reliance on the dead donor rule has greater potential to undermine trust in the transplantation enterprise than to preserve it. At worst, this ongoing reliance suggests that the medical profession has been [gerrymandering the definition of death to carefully conform with conditions that are most favorable for transplantation]{.underline}. At best, the rule has provided misleading ethical cover that cannot withstand careful scrutiny. A better approach to procuring vital organs while protecting vulnerable patients against abuse would be to emphasize the importance of obtaining valid informed consent for organ donation from patients or surrogates before the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment in situations of devastating and irreversible neurologic injury…”

[Question:]{.underline} Can Catholics practice Yoga?

[Answer:]{.underline} Yoga is a complex routine of physical positions, borrowed from the Eastern religions of Buddhism and Hinduism, directed towards meditative practices also learned from these religions. In former times there would have been no question of Catholics practicing a discipline learned from the false Eastern religions. However, an intense propaganda has presented Yoga as a simple technique of relaxation, not necessarily related to any particular spirituality, but very helpful in obtaining harmony of mind and body.

Furthermore, the development of Ecumenism in the post-conciliar church over the past fifty years has led to an effort to incorporate certain non-Catholic practices into Catholic spirituality, amongst which is yoga. The question, then, arises as to whether this is a licit enrichment of spirituality or in fact a syncretism, a uniting of different religions into one, clearly opposed to the Catholic Faith.

In order to recognize that Yoga is not just a physical exercise of bodily relaxation, but truly a spiritual activity, it suffices to look at the efforts of Catholics to reconcile the two, as on the website of the Archdiocese of Chicago (www.holynamecathedral.org). There you will find an entire page entitled Catholic Yoga, which begins in this way:

“Drawing from multiple faith traditions, yoga has evolved across the ages as a means of tuning the body for better communion with God through prayer and meditation. Join us as we explore the multiple spiritual and physical benefits of yoga practice while explicitly integrating prayers and spiritual themes of our Catholic Faith. Typical sessions will include an opening prayer, inspired movement & strengthening, and contemplative prayer to close.”

The statements of “Catholic” yogis, such as Holy Name Cathedral’s instructor Ali Niederkorn belie the myth that Yoga is a physical exercise, for she “offers faith-based yoga classes encouraging yoga practice as a form of prayer and meditation”. The legitimacy of Catholics practicing Yoga is consequently not that of a physical exercise, but of a spiritual practice.

Yoga is not one single practice, theory or philosophy, but for none of its practitioners is it a purely physical exercise. It forms an integral part of the meditative practices of three different religions: Hinduism, Jainism and Buddhism, each religion giving its own, and different, explanation of the value of yogic meditation (See www.wikipedia.org). The practice of Yoga in the west consequently shows no more coherency than in the east, but in every case it is heir to a pagan spirituality, claiming to bring some kind of communion with the divine. It is consequently an integral part of the New Age movement, which pretends to build up a post-Christian spirituality, according to which man achieves the divine by some communion with nature.

Rome has spoken out against the use of Yoga by Catholics in two little known documents. The first, from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, entitled Orationis formas, or letter to the bishops of the Catholic Church on some aspects of Christian meditation, was dated October 15, 1989. It highlights the differences and the incompatibilities between Christian meditation and the styles of meditation used in the Eastern religions, including yoga, warning of the “dangers of attempting to mix Christian meditation with eastern approaches since that could be both confusing and misleading, and may result in the loss of the essential Christocentric nature of Christian meditation“ (www.wikipedia.org) It is the least one could say, but rather an understatement. It points out the radical opposition, Eastern meditation being a technique of concentration on oneself, a self-absorption, whereas Christian prayer is a flight from the self, a conversion from self to God.

Similar warnings were contained in a 2003 booklet, a report issued as the fruit of the reflections of a working group composed of members of the Pontifical Councils for Culture and for Interreligious Dialogue, the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples and the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, entitled Jesus Christ, the Bearer of the Water of Life, A Christian reflection on the New Age, as a response to requests for clarification concerning New Age phenomena, such as Yoga. (www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils). Amongst the many critiques of the New Age, what interests us here is the teaching that New Age practices are not compatible with Christian prayer: “New Age practices are not really prayer, in that they are generally a question of introspection or fusion with cosmic energy, as opposed to Christian prayer, which involves introspection, but is essentially a meeting with God“. It reiterates the fundamental Catholic teaching that Jesus Christ, the one foundation of the Church, must be at the heart of every Christian action, which is clearly not the case with New Age. It also points out that New Age spirituality deliberately blurs the fundamental distinctions between Creator and creation, religion and psychology, subjective and objective reality. This is a much more profound perversion than the modern confusion between nature and grace, for it destroys the whole sense of reality and man`s place in God`s creation and leads to pantheism.

Yet the practice of Yoga amongst Catholics continues to be on the increase. Certainly it is partly a consequence of the spiritual vacuum created by the loss of true spirituality after Vatican II. Certainly it is also because these reports never became translated into authoritative moral teachings with canonical punishments for those who infringe them. However, it is also because the ecumenical movement with non-Catholics forbids any condemnation of false anti-Christian spirituality.

It is for these reasons that we can find, incongruously, clearer statements from some Protestants than from Catholic bishops. Dr. Albert Mohler, for example, President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, has made a study of the question of Yoga, analyzing the recently published book by Stefanie Syman, a fifteen-year devotee of yoga, entitled The subtle body: the story of Yoga in America. Here are some of his observations:

Syman describes yoga as a varied practice, but she makes clear that yoga cannot be fully extricated from its spiritual roots in Hinduism and Buddhism. She is also straightforward in explaining the role of sexual energy in virtually all forms of yoga, and of ritualized sex in some yoga traditions…Most (American Christians) seem unaware that yoga cannot be nearly separated into physical and spiritual dimensions. The physical is the spiritual in yoga, and the exercises and disciplines of yoga are meant to connect with the divine…

”…When Christians practice yoga, they must either deny the reality of what yoga represents or fail to see the contradictions between their Christian commitments and their embrace of yoga. The contradictions are not few, nor are they peripheral. The bare fact is that yoga is a spiritual discipline by which the adherent is trained to use the body as a vehicle for achieving consciousness of the divine…” (www.albertmohler.com )

What exactly are these contradictions? There is certainly a different attitude to the body, which for the Catholic, is an instrument for our sanctification only on the condition that it be mortified, spiritually put to death, so that the inclinations of fallen human nature are not followed, whereas for the yoga practitioner it is a means of contact, or consciousness of the divine that is in man, overcoming, they say, the duality between the Creator and the creature. Dr. Mohler has this to say, quoting Prof. Doug Groothuis:

“The goal of yoga is not the purification of the body or the beautification of the physique, the point of yoga is a change in consciousness, a transformation of the consciousness wherein one finds oneself at one with the ultimate reality which in Hinduism is Brahman…the biggest impact on the west is the Vadantic or the non-dualistic school which says that ultimately everything is one, that’s non-dual, and everything is divine. So instead of the biblical view that there is a creator-creature relationship this is a monistic or non-dualistic view that all that exists is Brahma…and Brahma is beyond words and beyond thought” (Ib.)

In conclusion, it cannot be denied that the practice of Yoga is an implicit denial of the Catholic Faith in the divinity of Christ, true God and true man, and of a true Christ-centered spirituality. Any practice of it must be included under the grave sin against the Faith called indifferentism. Persons who attend Yoga classes place their Faith in grave danger, and those who practice or teach it must be considered as suspect of heresy, implicitly promoting a world view that is directly and explicitly anti-Christian.

[Question:]{.underline} Can a Roman Catholic satisfy his Sunday obligation by attending an Eastern rite Mass?

[Answer:]{.underline} The Church’s discipline on this question has changed over time. There was a time when every Catholic was bound to assist at Mass in his parish church. This law was already abrogated in the 16^th^ century, when the Popes permitted the assistance at Mass in Franciscan and Dominican convents. Benedict XIV taught in the 18^th^ century that bishops could no longer bind their faithful to assist at Mass in the parish churches, for the contrary custom was already established. The growth of Eastern rite Catholic churches throughout the 19^th^ century brought to a head the question of whether Latin rite Catholics could assist at Mass in eastern rite Churches and vice versa, which was resolved in the 1917 Code of Canon Law.

Canon 1249 has this to say: “The precept of hearing Mass is fulfilled by being present at Mass celebrated [in any Catholic rite]{.underline}, either in the open, or in any church or public or semipublic oratory…”. There is no difficulty in interpreting these very clear words. Bouscaren & Ellis (Canon Law) has this commentary to make: “The Mass may be celebrated in any Catholic rite; therefore an Oriental may satisfy the precept by hearing Mass according to the Latin rite, and a Latin by hearing it according to any of the Catholic Oriental rites” (p. 635). Canon 1248 of the 1983 Code reiterates the same law: “The precept of participating in Mass is satisfied wherever it is celebrated in a Catholic rite…”

Consequently, it is quite clear that those who attend the Liturgies in the schismatic Orthodox churches who are not united with Rome, do not satisfy their Sunday obligation, whereas those who attend the same liturgies celebrated by Uniate Eastern rite Catholics certainly do. This includes such rites as the Ukrainian, Greek Catholic and Maronite rites. However, it does not mean that it is prudent to attend such rites. For the rites of these uniate Eastern rite Catholics have, alas, also been modified in the spirit of Vatican II, and the priests have been taught the revolutionary, humanistic theology of the post-conciliar church. Consequently, it would be very imprudent to assist at such rites unless one had the guarantee that they were being celebrated in the traditional way, in the traditional liturgical language (such as Old Slavonic) by traditional priests, who are in communion with Rome, such as the priests of the Society of Saint Josaphat in the Ukraine.

[Question:]{.underline} Can the use of artificial birth control ever be without culpability?

[Answer:]{.underline} An action which is in itself intrinsically evil can never be objectively moral or permissible, no matter how good the intentions of the person who performs the act. However, it does not necessarily follow that a person is subjectively culpable for the act. This is really a question of ignorance, and whether this ignorance is culpable or not. It is certainly true that there are many persons, both Catholic and not, who are ignorant of the gravity of this mortal sin. Does this exempt them from the subjective imputability of formal sin or not?

There can be no doubt that ignorance can and frequently does reduce the culpability of an act, for it is opposed to the advertence or knowledge required for an act to be truly human and a mortal sin. The typical case is when a man shoots at what he thinks to be a deer, and it turns out to be his friend that he kills. Ignorance excuses from the culpability, provided that it was not from negligence of hunting rules that the error occurred. However, it is also clear that ignorance is not just a wound of original sin that darkens the intellect from seeking and perceiving supernatural truth, but it is frequently willful, at least in its source, and consequently deliberate and culpable. It is the case of a person who simply does not want to know what the Church teaches on moral issues, such as artificial birth control..

Consequently, some distinctions have to be made to elucidate the gravity of the ignorance.

The first distinction is between vincible and invincible ignorance. Invincible ignorance is not culpable, and it is the ignorance of the person who is in good faith. It is without any fault of his own that he is in error.

There are three different degrees of vincible ignorance, of increasing gravity: simply vincible ignorance (where there is slight negligence), and then crass or supine ignorance (due to grave negligence0, which is a mortal sin, and finally affected or deliberate ignorance, when a person deliberately choses to be ignorant. This is the most frightening state of all, for it closes a person`s soul to the influence of the truth and grace.

The fundamental question is whether or not there can be invincible ignorance over the immorality of artificial birth control. This is resolved by the distinction that St. Thomas Aquinas makes, between the primary and the secondary precepts of the natural law. No man is invincibly ignorant of the primary precepts, which are the ten commandments as they stand. No man can be invincibly ignorant of the immorality of adultery, abortion or murder, or be excused by ignorance. However, men may be ignorant of the secondary precepts of the natural law, which flow logically from the commandments, but are not necessarily evident to everyone. This is the case with polygamy and divorce, for example, for which Almighty God gave dispensations in the Old Law, account of the Israelites` hardness of heart.

The immorality of artificial birth control is likewise a secondary precept of the natural law, flowing from the first purpose of marriage: children. This is not a moral law that is immediately obvious to everyone. In fact, a vast number of those who believe in God, such as Protestants, cannot see a problem with it, although it is manifestly against the natural law. This is, alas, also not infrequently the case with Catholics in our present time, since they are being told that nowadays the priests unofficially tolerate these practices. With Pope Benedict XVI stating that now condoms “can be the first step in the direction of a moralization“, implicitly allowing them, it can hardly be doubted that it is possible for even Catholics to be in invincible ignorance on this particular question. If they are in invincible ignorance, they are not culpable for the material sin that they commit by using them, although the grave offense to Almighty God still exists.

However, this does not mean that those who use artificial contraceptives are always or even frequently exempt from fault. Sometimes, especially in the case of practicing Novus Ordo Catholics, the ignorance will be simply vincible. They make do not hear from their priests that artificial contraception is wrong, and do not see why they should research it themselves. Their ignorance is due to the lack of application to the correct living of the Catholic Faith, but not from any contempt of the Church`s moral teachings. There is at least venial culpability. Sometimes, it will be crass or supine ignorance, in which a person makes no effort to know the Church`s teaching on such subjects, by such false reasoning as to say that the priests have no right to control my life. This is clearly a mortal sin of ignorance, as is not infrequently the case of those who do not practice the Faith. Finally, there is the possibility of affected to deliberate ignorance, in which a person has only contempt for the Church`s teachings, nor any desire to know what they are.

As a consequence of these distinctions, we need to be careful on how we judge and how we respond when we hear that couples are using artificial birth control. If they are not Catholic, they will not infrequently be invincibly ignorant. Consequently we should avoid personal judgments of culpability, and rather focus on more fundamental issues of the natural law and of Faith. Novus Ordo Catholics might admit also to using such artificial birth control, and also be in invincible or simply invincible ignorance. In such a case, a clear explanation of the reasons why it is immoral should suffice to set them on the right path. Those whose ignorance is supine or deliberate are going to require prayer and penance, for they are unlikely to accept correction.

[Question:]{.underline} Can a priest forgive the sin of abortion?

[Answer:]{.underline} Abortion is not just a sin. It is a monumental crime, and one which the Church punishes in a very special way, more than other sins, such as murder. The gravity of this sins lies in the perversity that characterizes it: killing deliberately the unborn child in his mother’s womb is so radically opposed to the desire of nature itself, as to be a direct revolt against God, the author and giver of life. Consequently, abortion is punished with a censure, that is an ecclesiastical punishment, and in particular the censure of excommunication, which excludes the Catholic from receiving any of the spiritual benefits and blessings of the Church, most particularly the sacraments.

Consequently, a person who has knowingly and deliberately cooperated in an abortion, and who is aware of the censure attached to it, is automatically excommunicated. He cannot receive the valid absolution from his sin until such time as the censure of excommunication is remitted. This is also a part of the Church’s power to bind and to lose, but it is in the Church’s law reserved to the bishop of the diocese.

However, to protect the anonymity and the reputation of persons who have committed such grave crimes (in cases where there is no public scandal), the Church allows the censure of excommunication to be absolved in the confessional. Normally, the priest has to obtain authorization from his bishop to grant this absolution, although generally it is delegated to all those priests who have jurisidiction. Once the censure has been absolved, then the priest is free to absolve from the sin, for there are no longer in the Church any reserved sins.

Consequently, it is generally the priest, who will give absolution from the censure and also from the sin of abortion, with two separate penances, in the process of sacramental absolution. Since traditional priests, who use supplied jurisdiction, cannot have recourse to a local Ordinary to obtain permission to absolve from the censure, the Church considers this impossibility of recourse as being sufficient reason for them to grant the absolution themselves. Thanks be to God the Church is all merciful, and always makes it possible for the true penitent to receive absolution. Furthermore, the Church has a special precaution that is applied by every traditional priest when he administers sacramental absolution. He always uses a conditional formula, absolving from any excommunication or interdict that a person may perhaps have incurred, so as to be on the safe side and to ensure that the absolution from sin that immediately follows is valid. It is unfortunate that this precaution, like so many other assurances of God’s mercy, is omitted from the new rite. Let, then, no person who may have cooperated in this crime hesitate for an instant to approach the tribunal of mercy.

[Question:]{.underline} Is a person always obliged to profess his Faith publicly?

[Answer:]{.underline} The answer to this question is of fundamental importance. Every Catholic is aware of the obligation of professing one’s Faith outwardly, since this obligation is clearly taught by our Divine Savior himself: “Every one therefore that shall confess me before men, I will also confess him before my Father who is in heaven. But he that shall deny me before men, I will also deny him before my Father who is in heaven” (Mt 10:32,33), and by St. Paul: “For if thou confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in thy heart that God hath raised him up from the dead, thou shalt by saved. For, with the heart, we believe unto justice; but with the mouth, confession is made unto salvation” (Rm 10: 9,10). A person who would not be willing to profess his Faith outwardly would be just as much as hypocrite as a person who performs works but does not believe in his heart. Moreover, it would be a grave irreverence to Almighty God, who reveals the Faith to us, and a grave sin of charity against one’s neighbor, deprived as he would be of the possibility of knowing the true Faith.

Yet by the same token, a person who would constantly be professing his faith, regardless of the suitability of the time, place and persons would right be regarded as a fanatic, unable to carry on normal conversation and affairs, potentially causing scandal and giving offense to other who do not share the true Faith, potentially bringing odium to the Church, and potentially suffering many unnecessary adverse effects himself.

It is for this reason that St. Thomas Aquinas considered this question in the Summa Theologica IIa IIae Q. 3 a.2. His resolution depends upon the distinction between an affirmative and a negative precept. A negative precept, of the kind “Thou shalt not” binds us always and at every time and in all circumstances. However, an affirmative precept “Thou shalt”, only binds in appropriate circumstances. Here are St. Thomas’ words:

“Since confession of the Faith is something affirmative, it can only fall under an affirmative precept. Hence its necessity for salvation depends on how it falls under an affirmative precept of the divine law. Now affirmative precepts…do not bind for always, although they are always binding; but they bind as to place and time according to other due circumstances, in respect of which human acts have to be regulated in order to be acts of virtue.

Thus then it is not necessary for salvation to confess one’s faith at all times and in all places, but in certain places and at certain times, when, namely by omitting to do so, we would deprive God of due honor, or our neighbor of a service that we ought to render him: for instance, if a man, on being asked about his faith, were to remain silent, so as to make people believe either than he is without faith, or that the faith is false, or so as to turn others away from the faith…”

The application of this principle will enable us to resolve the question as to when a man is bound to confess the Faith, and also when he ought to, although he may not be bound.

The first consequence is that it is never permitted to deny one’s Faith, whether it be directly (in words) or indirectly (by actions, as did weak Christians of the early centuries when they burnt incense before idols to avoid martyrdom, thereby committing a mortal sin), for such denial is always a grave irreverence and dishonor to Almighty God and to our Divine Savior. This obligation is so grave that it is contained in the traditional code of Canon Law, Canon 1325, #1: Christ’s faithful are bound to openly profess the Faith as often as their silence, hesitation, or way of acting would mean an implicit denial of the Faith, contempt of religion, insult to God or scandal to one’s neighbor”. It is hardly surprising that the modernist 1983 Code contains no mention of this grave obligation in the divine law. As a consequence of this the moral theologians teach that a man is bound to profess his Faith when questioned by the public authority (as did the martyrs), or when a person, motivated by hatred of the true religion strives to make him act in some way against the Faith, or when the spiritual good or edification of one’s neighbor requires it. (Prummer, Manuale theologiae moralis, I, p. 355-356).

However, it is certainly not necessary to volunteer information and to profess the Faith in other circumstances, in which case it might be irrelevant, harmful, upsetting or dangerous. Consequently it is perfectly permissible on occasion to hide the fact that one is a Catholic, when no profit would come to the faith or to the faithful in mentioning it. It is the case of priests and religious hiding their identity in times of persecution. It is likewise the case of the Catholic businessman who, in business deals with non-Catholics sees no utility in revealing the fact that he is Catholic, or the Catholic employee who does not tell his employer his religious convictions. It could be a cause of difficulty and would be of no advantage.

Prummer (op. cit. p. 358-359) gives the follow example: “The Catholic who eats together with non Catholics is not bound to say the customary prayers before and after the meal and thus betray the fact that he is a Catholic, if grave inconvenience would come from so doing. The reason is obvious: the Catholic is not bound by any strict precept to recite these prayers, and the omission of these prayers does not include a denial of the Faith”.

Of course, a fervent Catholic is not going to be content with simply doing the minimum, and by publicly professing his Faith only on those occasions when failure to do so would be a mortal sin. He wants to profess his Faith, always seeking to know the will of God as to whether he should show himself to be Catholic or not. This is a decision of the virtue of prudence, which must consider first and foremost the honor of Almighty God, that of Our Divine Savior, the Blessed Mother and Holy Mother Church, and secondly the good of souls, and finally the temporal and spiritual advantages to oneself, either of professing or of not professing the Faith. Supernatural prudence is not brash and presumptuous. Although it prefers to profess the Faith publicly, and will generally consider it much better to (discreetly) make the sign of the cross, wear medals and say prayers in public, for much good generally comes from this and little or no harm, it will nevertheless act with discernment, recognizing those particular situations in out secular society in which the show of Faith, not necessary for God’s honor, will be considered excessive and out of place, and consequently not appropriate or motivated by the spiritual good of one’s neighbor.

[Question:]{.underline} Why did Our Lord not allow St. Mary Magdalene to touch him?

[Answer:]{.underline} The love of St. Mary Magdalene for our Divine Savior flowed immediately from her Faith in his divine power to forgive sins, and her awareness of her total dependence upon such forgiveness. It was why she could not bear to leave the Holy Sepulchre once she and the holy women and Saints Peter and John had seen that it was empty. Standing there weeping, all that she could think of was that someone had stolen his body. It was when Our Divine Savior, whom she thought to be the gardener, called her by name, that she recognized him. Attempting to adore Him and kiss His feet, as she had done (Lk 7:45) when He had forgiven her her sins, she was told these curious words: “Do not touch me, for I have not yet ascended to my Father, but go to my brethren and say to them, ‘I ascend to my Father and to your Father, to my God and your God’” (Jn 20:17).

Quite different, indeed, was our Divine Savior’s reception of the others who saw him, as recorded in the Gospel. The other holy women, we are told, “embraced his feet and worshipped him” (Mt 28:9). Likewise the Apostles, to whom Our Lord showed his hands and his side, and especially St. Thomas, whom He invited to put his finger into the wounds of his hands and his hand into the wound of his side (Jn 20:27). Why the difference?

The key to understanding this mystery is in the literal translation of the Greek text of St. John’s Gospel, which means “Touch me no longer”. St. Mary Magdalene had touched and had been very attached to Our Lord’s sacred Humanity, from which she had received so much. However, Our Lord wanted to teach her the mystical lesson, so necessary for her to become the contemplative soul that she later was, namely not to be attached to anything on this earth, and to rise above the appearance of the senses, so as to live by Faith alone. It was not the same with the Apostles, who were the official witnesses of the physical Resurrection of Our Lord from the dead, and who consequently were to receive a multitude of outwards signs of the physical resurrection, including the physical touching and eating together with him. The mystical, loving soul of St. Mary Magdalene did not need these extra signs, but it was sufficient for her to believe what she had seen, which is likewise the Faith that we have, through the apostles’ testimony, as Our Lord said to St. Thomas: “Because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed. Blessed are they who have not seen, and yet have believed.” (Jn 20:29)

[Question:]{.underline} Is it a sin to judge others’ actions?

[Answer:]{.underline} Rash judgment is a mortal sin against the virtue of justice, and one repeatedly condemned, both by our Divine Savior, and the Apostles. “Judge not, that you may not be judged. For with what judgment you judge, you shall be judged”, Our Lord declares in his sermon on the mountain (Mt 7:1,2). St. Paul’s teaching is neither different nor any less frightening: “Wherefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art, that judgest. For wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself. For thou dost the same things which thou judgest.” (Rm 2:1). In fact, St. Paul is so careful that he dare not even judge himself, declaring that even when he is not aware of doing evil “yet am I not hereby justified, but he that judgeth me is the Lord.” (I Cor 4:4). If such be the case with our own selves, how much more dangerous yet is it to judge others: “Therefore judge not before the time; until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsel of the hearts” (I Cor 4:5).

However, it might readily be objected that we are forced to make judgments on others on a constant daily basis, for if we were not to make such judgments we would not know whom to imitate, whom to follow, whom to avoid, whose actions to detest; we would not be able to govern ourselves prudently, nor to protect ourselves against evil, nor even to keep the commandments nor to live in a rational and human manner, let alone in a good and supernatural way. Are we not to make judgments on such evil persons as Luther and Henry VIII, who caused incalculable damage to the Church and to souls, or Loisy, the condemned founder of modernism?

The objection is an entirely valid one. A judgment is only a sin if it is rash, which means that it is not based upon sufficient clear evidence and proof. If the evidence is overwhelming, the judgment can be and ought to be made, provided we are certain about our objectivity, and that we have excluded the natural tendency of fallen human nature that Our Lord castigates so clearly: “Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thy own eye, and then shalt thou see to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.” (Mt 7:5). Moreover, a rash judgment is only a sin if, without sufficient reason, it is a judgment of the moral character of another’s actions, namely if we accuse him of a vice. It is perfectly possible to make an observation on the objectivity wrongness or a person’s work, or even of the immorality of an action, without questioning a person’s good intentions, namely that he is in ignorance as to the moral evil that his actions contain. For example, we must condemn artificial birth control as a mortal sin. However, we do not state that all those who use this are necessarily culpable of the sin and condemned to eternal damnation for it. Likewise the Church is obliged to condemn and excommunicate heretics and all those who maintain communion with them. If we likewise must hold their actions and beliefs as evil, we are not forasmuch enabled to make any judgment as to the state of their individual souls.

Modernists take advantage of our Divine Savior’s teaching on this question to perpetrate their errors and deception. Under cloak of charity, of being loving and accepting towards everyone, they fall into subjectivism, and indifferentism, as if man cannot know the one true religion, but that believers of all religions are in a certain way right and pleasing to God. Anybody who would dare question their theory that faith is a purely interior sentiment is accused of lack of charity and understanding, and condemned to silence, under pain of judging his neighbor. Such a “reasoning” is no reasoning at all, but actually the destruction of human reason, of the truth, of the true charity that enlightens the mind in error. In answer to this, it is our duty, in the light to the Church’s constant, infallible and certain teachings, to make judgments concerning all the novelties, errors and betrayals of the modernists in the Church’s hierarchy, remembering the words of St. Paul: “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema” (Gal 1:8). However, in so doing, let us remember that we cannot make judgments for which we do not have certain and compelling evidence. Thus we cannot judge that any particular bishop or prelate has formally sinned against the Faith, or that he has lost the Faith. This would (in general) be rash. However, the judgment that their actions endanger the Faith, as does the New Mass, the practice of Ecumenism and the Humanism of the modern Church, is an obvious fact that any reasoning man is bound to conclude from the evidence.

Closely related to the sin of rash judgment is that of detraction — namely the telling of the sins of another, or the sharing of one’s judgments on him with others, so as to destroy his good reputation in the minds of others. All men have a right to their good reputation, regardless of their own personal sins, and it is not because our observations are true that we have the right to say them publicly or even privately to others. It is only when there is a proportionate and grave reason that, reluctantly, we are bound to do so. In the case of the crisis in the Church, there is indeed such a reason — the common good, the salvation of souls, the protection of Holy Mother Church against the infiltration of sacrileges and errors without number. However, in doing so, it is our duty in charity and in justice not to judge the interior intentions, nor the subjective moral character of the actions performed by members of the hierarchy, and this all the more on account of the confusion that modernism creates. It is so easy for them to be in ignorance, on account of the brainwashing to which they have been subjected.

The Catholic spirit is consequently to be found in due moderation, even in condemning modern errors. It is for this reason that the bitter, condemnatory spirit of the sedevacantists is not Catholic. In the same spirit, we will condemn the manifest errors in the Pope’s writings and practices, and the dangers to the Faith that they pose, but we will not judge his personal Faith or intentions and certainly not presume to pronounce on his pertinacity.

[Question:]{.underline} Am I bound to put money in the collection every Sunday?

[Answer:]{.underline} It is one of the six precepts of the Church that we must all contribute to the support of the Church, according to our means, under pain of mortal sin. A person who, although able to do so, would continuously refuse to contribute to any collection for the sake of the Church would sin grievously against the precept of the Church and against the virtue of charity, which obliges us to give alms, at least some times, as we are able.

However, the Church’s precept does not determine in what way a person contributes to the support of the Church. He can do so by yearly or monthly donations, rather then every week. He can do so by contributing to an order of religious or missionaries or to the support of any religious activity or charitable work that is properly the work of the Church and is approved by it. Consequently, a person who would give all his donations to help a school, or make donations to help poor students attend a Catholic school, or to support a convent of religious or overseas missionaries, fulfills the letter of the law and does not commit a sin. It may even, in some cases, be God’s will for him to do so.

However, the Offertory collection is profoundly symbolic. It signifies our own personal sacrifice of charity, offered for the Church and the poor, for whom the Church cares. Consequently, those who understand the liturgy will make an effort to make a regular donation in the Sunday Offertory collection, even if it is only a symbolic amount, knowing that it represents the gift of themselves to their Creator and Redeemer. Did Our Lord not praise the widow’s mite: “Truly I say to you, this poor widow has put in more than all. For all these out of their abundance have put in as gifts to God; but she out of her want has put in all that she had to live on” (Lk 21:3 & 4)? This does not mean that it is, in general, prudent to give even out of the necessities of life, but rather that, like the generous widow, we must be willing to give what it is God’s will for us to give, which is at least something. It is also the reason why the Church does not encourage tithing, or giving 10 %. It is not the question of quantity that matters, but generosity, of the heart.

There are persons who feel that they can use their Sunday collection donations as a way to vote. If they like the pastor, they are generous; if he offends them or makes decisions they do not like, then they close up their wallets. As natural as this may seem, it is not generous nor is it the seeking of God’s will that ought to motivate our generosity. While it is certainly permissible to direct donations away from specific parish functions, if one feels called to do so, or a special responsibility for a certain apostolate, of that the funds can be better used for those in special need, nevertheless one should not do so on the basis of personalities or of a whim. Moreover, even when this is done, in general something should still be given to the parish.

All these variables being considered, it is important to avoid any rash judgment against fellow parishioners, as for example when an usher sees that a person never or rarely contributes to his parish. He does not have the right to think or say that his fellow parishioner is breaking this precept of the Church, but must rather presume that he is contributing to the support of the Church in other ways. At the most the pastor could question his parishioners, to ensure that they are keeping the commandment of the Church and to ascertain if there is any reason they do not feel comfortable contributing to the parish.

[Question:]{.underline} Ought one to make the sign of the Cross when being blessed?

[Answer:]{.underline} There are a large number and variety of different blessings in the Church’s liturgy. All Catholics are aware of the solemn blessing in the name of the Most Holy Trinity, which is given at the end of Mass. However, there are also blessings in the rites of administration of all the sacraments, such as when we ask the priest to bless us when we begin our Confession. There are also very many blessings in the different parts of the Divine Office, notably at Matins, Prime and Compline. The more solemn of these blessings are made in the name of the Most Holy Trinity, as the blessing at the end of Mass, such as before Confession, or at the end of Compline. However, there are many blessings in the Divine Office that do not specifically invoke the Holy Trinity, such as those at Matins and at Prime, in which it is Almighty God who is asked to bless us and bestow on us such graces as the preservation from evil and the obtaining of everlasting life. Finally, there are those blessings in which no words are said, when the blessing is made with the Blessed Sacrament, either after the administration of Holy Communion or during Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament.

The rubrics do not prescribe precisely whether or not a person is to make the sign of the Cross when being blessed. It is consequently governed by salutary custom. It is the custom that when we are being blessing in a solemn way in the name of the Most Holy Trinity that we make the sign of the Cross, as profession of Faith in the Trinity, but without saying any words. However, it is not obligatory, nor do the graces of the blessing depend upon it. Such is the case for the blessings before Confessions and at the end of Mass and in the office of Compline. In addition, there are some other blessings that do not mention the Holy Trinity, such as at the end of Prime, with which it is customary to make the sign of the Cross. However, there are other blessings in the office of Prime and Matins, which do not invoke the Holy Trinity, in which it is not the custom to make the sign of the Cross.

What about the silent blessings with the Blessed Sacrament? There are two laudatory customs. One is simply to bow one’s head in adoration of our Divine Savior. This makes sense, since the Trinity is not explicitly invoked in the silent blessing, but it is rather a blessing directly from Our Lord Himself. The other custom is to make the sign of the Cross as in receiving other blessings. If this latter practice is equally meritworthy when done in the spirit of adoration, it is not equally logical and is consequently not to be preferred.

[Question:]{.underline} Can a Catholic ever exchange valid marriage vows with a non-Catholic in the absence of a priest?

[Answer:]{.underline} Catholics know that the canonical form of marriage is required for validity, namely that they must exchange vows in the presence of their parish priest or a delegate. A Catholic who attempts marriage, even with a non-Catholic, without the canonical form, is not validly married in the eyes of God and the Church.

However, there is an extraordinary form of marriage (Canon 1098 in the 1917 Code and Canon 1117 in the 1983 Code), in which marriage vows are exchanged in the absence of the parish priest, when an obstacle exists to the exchanging of vows before the parish priest which lasts for more than one month. The priests of the Society marry validly those who refuse to participate in the Novus Ordo preparation for marriage and ceremonies, in virtue of this extraordinary form, and of supplied jurisdiction. The Canon permitting the use of the extraordinary form requests the presence of another priest if possible, or if this is not possible of at least two witnesses. It would be very imprudent for a couple of take advantage of this extraordinary form without the presence of a traditional priest, whose presence ensures the Church’s blessing and nuptial Mass, the civil requirements, adequate marriage preparation, and the keeping of precise records. However, it would not necessarily be invalid if they were to do so, in particular in mission countries in which traditional priests are absent for months at a time.

The situation with a mixed marriage is different. It requires dispensation from the impediment of mixed religion, which dispensation the couple manifestly cannot give themselves. Also, the Catholic who plans to enter into a marriage with a non-Catholic, is entering into a situation that compromises greatly the raising of children in the Faith, and is desperately in need of priestly guidance.

If the non-Catholic is not even baptized, the ensuing marriage will certainly be invalid, because the impediment of disparity of cult invalidates a marriage for which no dispensation is granted. However, if the non-Catholic is validly baptized, as is usually the case with a Protestant, the impediment is that of mixed religion. The absence of the dispensation or authorization makes the marriage in such a case illicit, but not invalid. Consequently, it might be theoretically possible for a mixed marriage in the absence of a priest to be valid, provided that the objective obstacle to the exchange of vows before the parish priest within one month is manifest. Since the Church only tolerates such marriage, and allows no blessings or nuptial Mass, there will not always be a serious obstacle to going to the Novus Ordo parish priest. If this obstacles does exist, it will be the refusal of the indifferentism promoted by the post-conciliar church in the marriage preparation. However, such a situation would be inappropriate, highly imprudent, and illicit. Such a couple would afterwards have to submit their case to a trusted priest for verification as soon as possible, and be willing to renew their vows before him at a later date in case of doubt.

[Question:]{.underline} Does one strike one’s breast at the Hail Holy Queen and the consecration of Mass?

[Answer:]{.underline} Pious practices are good and merit worthy when done with the right intention. However, we should always endeavor to ensure that they make sense, and that the external gesture corresponds with the interior sentiment or conviction. Otherwise, they become private, bizarre, excessive and off-putting, regardless of the good intentions of the persons involved.

The symbolism of striking one’s breast is both clear and evangelical. We find it clearly described by our Divine Savior in the parable of the Pharisee and the Publican: “But the publican, standing afar off, would not so much as lift up his eyes to heaven, but [kept striking his breast]{.underline}, saying “O God be merciful to me the sinner!’” (Lk 18:13).

Consequently the Church prescribes the rubric of striking one’s breast, when the sentiment is that of sorrow for sin and the prayer one for forgiveness. It is an outward side that our heart is crushed by its sense of unworthiness, which is what contrition really is. Thus it is that the striking of one’s breast is prescribed at the triple mea culpa in the Confiteor’s at Mass and in the Divine Office and the administration of the sacraments of Penance and Extreme Unction. It is also prescribed at the triple invocation at the Agnus Dei of Mass, when the people pray “Have mercy on us, Have mercy on us, Grant us peace”, and at the triple prayer “Domine, non sum dignus” which is recited by the priest before Holy Communion, and then by the faithful. It is interesting to note that it is not to be done at the Agnus Dei of a Requiem Mass, for then we do not ask for forgiveness and peace for ourselves, but rather eternal rest for the poor souls in Purgatory.

The “custom” of striking one’s breast at other moments, in which the sentiment is not one of profound contrition, is abusive. Consequently, this gesture is not to be made in the prayer of the Hail Holy Queen, at the invocation “O clement, O loving, O sweet Virgin Mary”, as is sometimes piously but wrongly done. Likewise it is not to be done at the consecration or elevation during Mass, for the sentiment then is not one of contrition, but rather one of profound adoration, in which we repeat silently to ourselves the words of St. Thomas “My Lord and My God”. Such striking of one’s breast, as pious as it may seem, is not be retained, for it makes no sense.

[Question:]{.underline} Does mortal sin destroy merit forever?

[Answer:]{.underline} No merit for good deeds is properly our own, for no act can be supernaturally meritorious except through the merits of Our Lord Jesus Christ, who alone is by Himself perfectly pleasing to His Father in heaven. Our merits are entirely dependent on Jesus’ merits, and in effect their fruit.

Consequently, if one has the misfortune to lose the union with Our Divine Savior that is given to him by sanctifying grace, then becoming spiritually dead, he separate ourselves from Him and consequently loses all the merits of his previous life. All his past good deeds are wasted, and of no more benefit to his soul than if he had never done them.

However, when a man makes a good humble confession and recovers the grace that he had lost, he is once again united with our Divine Savior, source of all merits. It is manifestly obvious that Jesus, who is God, has not in the meantime forgotten all his good deeds, but is very mindful of them. They were never destroyed in themselves, but only unable to have the weight and value of merit on account of the sinner’s separation from Christ. However, with the return to sanctifying grace, this obstacle to merit is removed. Consequently the sinner who does penance recovers all the merit from all the good works of his entire life that were performed in the state of sanctifying grace and for the love of our Divine Lord.

Here we penetrate just a little into the depth and the power of God’s mercy. It truly is a restoration of everything that was lost through sin, and not only the washing away of the fault. Justification of the sinner brings with it as well sanctifying grace, a share in the divine life, the friendship with God, the adoption of sons of God, and returns the soul to the state it was before sin, with the exception of the punishment due to sin. Indeed, frequently the situation of the mortal sinner returned to the state of grace is better than before he committed mortal sin, for having realized his weakness and escaped from his accursed lukewarmness, he now has a greater love of God and degree of sanctifying grace.

Having returned to its former state, the soul recuperates with sanctifying grace the sharing in Jesus’ merits and life, and the fruit of Jesus’ merits, namely its own merits for good deeds accomplished in the state of grace. O admirable and incomprehensible disposition of Divine Providence, yet inseparable from the mystery of the justification of the sinner. This recovery of the merits of past good deeds is called reviviscence. Consequently, mortal sin does not destroy merits forever, but only destroy merits until such time as the sinner, having made a good confession, recuperates the divine friendship.

[Question:]{.underline} Does alcoholism deprive one of the use of free will?

[Answer:]{.underline} Innumerable are the writings on alcoholism, and nearly as numerous are the explanations of the etiology of this disorder. The concern here is about the very particular question of the complex relationship between alcoholism and free will, upon which depends our understanding of the impact of alcoholism on the spiritual life, and the spiriutal life on alcoholism.

Professionals who deal with alcoholics on a regular basis all agree that alcoholism is a disease, and a disease that runs in families. But what kind of disease is it? Either it would seem to be a physical and hereditary disorder, over which a man has no control, or it would seem that it is a disorder that a man brings upon himself by his substance abuse, so that it is consequently voluntary and willful, both in its roots and in a man’s refusal to overcome it. The first explanation denies free will, the second places it fairly and squarely in the domain of free will. There are tenants of both positions. However, both explanations, one denying the alcoholic’s free will, and the other attributing the disorder precisely to his free will, are both far too simplistic to account for the reality.

A PERSONALITY DISORDER

In fact, alcholism is a psychological disease, but not such as to destroy free will nor one that is untreatable, but one which can be overcome by heroic acts of free will. It is a psychological disease, because it is not simply the fact of drinking to excess, whether it be binge drinking or regular drinking, whether it be intoxication or a more controlled abuse. There are plenty of non-alcoholics who drink to excess. It is an entirely deliberate act. They chose to do so without any compulsion. Their personalities undergo no substantial change when they drink, other than the symptoms of intoxication. Entirely different is the alcoholic, who typically becomes quite a different person when he drinks: such as violent, abusive, depressive, anxious, antisocial, reclusive - in a word quite self-centered. This change reveals the fundamental weakness of character of the alcoholic. Although frequently highly intelligent and successful, considerate and kind, gregarious and friendly, he lacks self-confidence, does not believe in himself, is sensitive to the extreme, is frequently paranoid and paralyzed by human respect. It is this particular weakness, from which he says no way out, that drives him to escape from reality by the use of alcohol. It is consequently a compulsion, and not a choice of deliberate free will.

In this regard, alcholism is similar to the other neuroses, and different from psychoses, such as schizophrenia, which is of a physical nature and does destroy free will and also both culpability and the ability to gain merits. The psychotic is out of contact with reality and cannot direct human acts to their goal, the greater glory of God and the observance of the commandments. Not so, the neurotic. He can understand the disorder of his anxiety or depression or phobia, but feels unable to correct it, at least directly. Likewise with alcoholism. The alcoholic can understand the disorder of his excessive alcohol intake, and even that of his character weakness, but he still frequently feels unable to do anything about it. This in turns leads to the sense of hopelessness and the tendency to flee from reality by drinking. It is for this reason that he seems incapable of self will, of making a serious decision to stop drinking, which is what the friends and relatives find so frustrating in dealing with the alcoholic. It is not that, absolutely speaking, he lacks the will power, but that the compulsion makes it very difficult for him to exercise it.

EGOCENTRICITY

However, there is another and fundamental underlying characteristic of the neurotic personality, that is typically characteristic of the alcoholic. There is in him a non-deliberate, but structured, egocentricity, that is an organized, determined preoccupation with his own self, which is at the root of his disease. It is not the deliberate and willful egocentricity of the selfish person, but one produced by previous events, over which he has no choice. This is what Dr. Rudolf Allers, the famous Catholic Austrian psychiatrist had to say about this underlying characteristic of the neurotic:

“He is filled with an incessant concern for his own ego which seems to him in constant peril. Thus we find an obvious, if more or less successfully disguised, egocentricity as a further essential component of the neurotic character. The neurotic is like a man gazing into a small hand mirror which reflects his own features, but excludes the outside world.” (Practical Psychology in Character Development, Roman Catholic books, p. 164).

It is difficult for a normal person to understand such a structured egocentricity. We know that when we become preoccupied with ourselves, we are deliberately selfish, and we can do something about it. For the alcoholic, the egocentricity is a structure in his way of thinking which has become deeply rooted by past experiences: whether it be the example of an alcoholic parent, whether it be some kind of abuse, or lack of affection or positive reinforcement in early childhood years. The reason does not matter. The alcoholic always thinks in terms of himself because he is always dealing with his false and artificial sense of inadequacy and inferiority. Many such persons can be fervent and devout in their spiritual life, but unable to break out of the vicious cycle, flipping back into their vice in an apparently irrational and unexplainable manner.

REMEDIES

What, then, can be done for the alcoholic? A purely spiritual plan of action - Mass and the sacrament, and prayers - usually does not work. This is not because of a lack of free will, although it looks like it to the outsider. It is because of a failure to understand the real nature of the disorder, which is not spiritual but psychological. How many spiritual men, and even pious priests, are afflicted by this disorder, and feel unable to rise above it!

A psychological plan of action is essential. Treatment programs, and alcoholics anonymous have as their goal to put into practice such a plan of action on the natural level, to enable the alcoholic to escape from the irrational compulsion. They do not deny the existence of free will, but to the contrary strive to captivate and direct it by natural means. First of all they will lead a man to acknowledge that he has this disease, that he will have it for life, namely that he will always be a recovering alcoholic. Thus the first major problem of denial is overcome. Then they will lead the alcoholic to escape from his sense of inadequacy, by encouraging him to depend not upon himself, but upon a higher power, which we call God. Regular meetings, emotional support and the companionship of those who suffer in the same way as he does, frequently makes it possible for the alcoholic to rise above the sense of inadequacy and the compulsion to drink. We cannot approve of the naturalism and spirit of religious indifference that characterize Alcoholics Anonymous, yet these natural methods are necessary means, and enable free will to start to take control.

However, such a recovering alcoholic is still left with his character weakness, with his structured egocentricity, on account of which he can always fall back into the same vice. For this there can be only one answer, and it is a supernatural one: it is the heroic love of the Cross, it is the wholeheartedly embracing of the Gospel teaching: “If anyone wishes to come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross, and follow me. For he who would save his life will lose it; but he who loses his life for my sake will find it.” (Mt 16:24, 25). The alcoholic who is willing to deny himself completely, as Matt Talbot did, and to heroically give up all consideration of his own reputation, honor, importance by that very fact neutralizes his sense of inadequacy. His character, now strong, is no longer alcoholic. I know a pious and good priest, a long time alcoholic, who received the will power to overcome his alcoholism only when he consecrated himself totally to the Sacred Heart, that is when he gave himself up totally. However, let nobody be mistaken. Grace builds upon nature, and without the prior overcoming of the natural tendencies to deny the existence of a problem and to be preoccupied by his sense of his own inadequacy, such supernatural generosity is not possible.

Consequentlly, the disease of alcoholism certainly does not, simply speaking, abolish the use of free will. It does, however, constitute a grave obstacle to self control, through the egocentricity that it creates, and it is only by free will, by the deliberate use of a combination of natural and supernatural means, that a man can attain to consistency, wholeness and integrity of character.

[Question:]{.underline} How can one say that the New Mass is “evil,” since sometimes the priest celebrates it reverently and the faithful assist piously?

[Answer:]{.underline} All traditional-minded Catholics agree that the New Mass is not what it ought to be, namely that it is less perfect than the traditional Mass. All also agree that not all celebrants of the New Mass make a mockery of it, as do evil celebrants who use the Mass for sacrilegious or blasphemous purposes.

However, I believe that the principal difference of opinion with respect to the application of the term “evil” to the New Mass concerns the meaning of this word “evil.” Generally, we speak of evil as a moral characteristic of a person. In this sense it most certainly does not apply to those who strive to celebrate the New Mass with respect and reverence, who still believe in the Real Presence, and who try to make it a prayer as best they can. They are well intentioned, but misled.

However, when we apply the term “evil” to the New Mass, we are speaking of evil as descriptive of a human action, not of the person who does it. Here it has the philosophical meaning of “evil,” namely the absence of the good that is due. An example in the physical order is the prescribing of a medication that is harmful, and does not restore health as it ought to do. An example in the moral order is Robin Hood style charity---stealing from some persons in order to give to others. There is no justice in such behavior, and it lacks the good that is necessary for the practice of virtue; for we cannot practice charity with other people’s goods.

The same applies to the liturgy. Communion in the hand is an evil, in the circumstances of the present time, for the action of distributing Holy Communion in this fashion lacks the respect and reverence that is due to Our Lord really present in the Blessed Sacrament, regardless of the faith or good intentions of those who might administer it.

This can also be said of all the novelties and omissions in the ceremonies of the New Mass, and of the New Mass as a whole. It corrupts and undermines the Faith, for it does not adequately express the Church’s Faith in the fact that the Holy Mass is a true and propitiatory sacrifice. Furthermore, this complete expression of the Faith is essential to the Mass as a liturgical act. For it is a symbolic act, the very nature of which is to express completely the Church’s Faith on this question. The elimination of this profession of Faith in the new rite, given the protestant revolt of the 16^th^ century, is a very grave absence, for at the very least it makes the faithful believe that this aspect of the Mass is no longer important. It is the absence of a good that is due to the Mass.

The gravity of these omissions can be understood only when all the aspects of the true Mass that are eliminated in the New Mass are put together side by side: e.g., doing away with genuflections and kneeling, with altar stones and altar cloths, with Latin and the silent Canon, with the holding together and purification of the priest’s fingers, with the limitation of touching the sacred vessels and hosts to the priest only, with the double Confiteor, with the Offertory prayers, with prayers mentioning such things as sin, judgment, hell, purgatory, the purification of the soul, and detachment from this earth. One could go on and on. It is when the whole picture is put together that the New Mass can be clearly seen to be radically defective in those things that are essential to the Mass. It is consequently evil, regardless of the good intentions of the celebrants and assistants.

This is the reason why no Catholic who is aware of all these defects in the New Mass has a right to assist at it, even to satisfy his Sunday obligation. To do so would be to participate in an evil act, one that is destroying the Church and the Faith. Since the end does not justify the means, this is never permissible. Furthermore, a person cannot be bound to do something evil in virtue of a precept of the Church. Catholics ought not to assist at Sunday Mass in their parishes on the justification that it is a reverently celebrated New Mass. It is still lacking the profession of Faith essential to the Mass. It is still evil, harmful, and destructive to the Church. The presence of a few traditionally minded Catholics is not going to make any difference to this, since the changes were never wanted by the faithful in the first place but were imposed from above. Attending the New Mass cannot possibly make something that is bad become good.

Some people ask why Sister Lucia attended the New Mass until her death. She had the problem of conscience of so many religious, bound by the vow of obedience to do what their superiors tell them. Although, objectively speaking, a person in such circumstances should refuse to assist at the New Mass, we certainly understand Sister Lucia’s predicament, especially given the special revelations that she had received. She understood that, for one who receives such special graces, obedience is the only means to sanctification, and to avoiding illusion and diabolical deception. Hence her preference for obedience above everything else. After all, she was not a theologian, the Masses celebrated in her convent were very respectful, and the question of the Mass was not her concern but rather living the message of Our Lady of Fatima---namely prayer and penance.

It is certainly true that the evil that has come upon the Church since Vatican II is a chastisement for the absence of the supernatural spirit and for the failure to respond to the message of Fatima. However, this is not a reason for us to cooperate with this evil in any way, as does a person who goes to the New Mass, albeit unwillingly. Our duty is to stand up against the evil and refuse to compromise with it.

[Question:]{.underline} In elections, would it not be preferable to vote for the best candidate, rather than for the least unworthy?

[Answer:]{.underline} Certainly it is a grave moral obligation for citizens to participate in elections and to vote for worthy and good candidates. An elector who would deliberately vote for a bad candidate without grave reason would commit a mortal sin. For every citizen has a grave moral obligation, in virtue of that kind of justice called legal by theologians, to contribute to the common good of his country by electing moral, upright, and capable men. The most normal thing would be to elect the best possible candidate. However, if there are several good candidates capable of performing the functions in question, there is no strict obligation to elect the person that one considers to be the best, since this is not strictly necessary for the common good.

However, it rarely, if ever, happens in modern politics that one has to choose between more than one moral, upstanding, and capable candidate. It is, in our pagan and godless society, our sad lot that the only choices are between candidates who all lack Catholic and moral principles to varying degrees. In such a case, it is not possible to even choose a good candidate, let alone the best one. A good candidate is one whose policies are good in every domain and department of public life, according to the philosophical principle that that which is good is wholly good, and that which has any defect at all is evil, evil being the lack of the good which is due. A politician who is opposed to government funding of Catholic educational institutions, without restricting their freedom in any way, cannot be called good. A politician who approves of abortion under any conditions, even limited to circumstances such as rape and incest, cannot be called good. A politician who approves or votes for civil laws in favor of civil divorce cannot be called good. Yet even the “best,” most conservative and religious, politicians follow these principles. Properly speaking, they cannot be called good.

Yet all acknowledge that such politicians have some integrity and uprightness about them, and that their taking of elected positions will do much good for society on account of other good policies that they have. While a Catholic could not hold to such defective policies himself, should he not be able to vote for those who do in order to avoid a greater evil? The same applies to pro-life politicians whose policies on other issues might be seriously defective. Can we not vote for them to do all in our power to stop the curse of abortion?

All agree that we can. We can indeed, in order to avoid a greater evil. This is possible because it is a case of material cooperation, rather than formal cooperation. We vote for them for the good that they do, not for the evil or defective policies that they might follow or feel that they are forced to embrace to get elected. The grave reason that justifies this material cooperation is the prevention of a worse, more decadent, more immoral, and even more dangerous candidate from being elected. In practice, in our modern democracies this is the reality. It is hardly ever a question of voting for the greater good, but rather for the lesser evil, for the less unworthy candidate. However, since it is usually a very difficult prudential decision to determine what is the lesser evil, and which candidate would do the least harm, and which candidate is for the common good for society, and since material cooperation is to be avoided if at all possible, it cannot generally be considered to be obligatory to vote for the lesser evil.

[Question:]{.underline} What are we to think of independent priests?

[Answer:]{.underline} Independent priests do not exist in the Catholic Church, nor can they licitly exercise the power of Holy Orders. The first reason for this is that only the bishop receives the fullness of the power of holy orders, so that a priest’s exercise of this power is necessarily limited. Furthermore, the exercise of the power of holy orders, being a power of the mystical body of Christ, is necessarily limited by the power of government, or jurisdiction, given to the Church’s hierarchy. It is by jurisdiction that the Church is bound into one visible body. It is for this reason that a priest is forbidden to exercise his power of holy orders unless he has received “faculties,” namely the authority to do so from his religious superior or his ordinary. To deny this is to deny the Church’s hierarchical structure and to reduce it to the level of a Protestant sect.

From the earliest ages of the Church, consequently, clerics were not to be ordained except for service in a definite territory or diocese. Unattached clerics were called headless (“acephali”) and were forbidden to exercise the sacred ministry. During the Middle Ages the abuse of clerics unattached to a bishop or to a superior developed, with considerable scandal and detriment to the Church. Hence the Council of Trent (Session XXIII, Chapter XVI; July 15, 1563) decreed
“that no one shall in the future be ordained who is not assigned to that church or pious place for the need or utility of which he is promoted, where he may discharge his duties and not wander about without any fixed abode.” This is called the title of ordination, still strictly required to this very day. The holy Council continues to determine what shall be the consequence if a priest abandons that title, namely his bishop or his superior, to go it alone: “But if he shall desert that place without consulting the bishop, he shall be forbidden the exercise of the sacred orders. Furthermore, no cleric who is a stranger shall, without commendatory letters from his Ordinary, be admitted by any bishop to celebrate the divine mysteries and to administer the sacraments.”

A priest’s submission to his bishop or to his religious superior, called in both cases his ordinary, since he has ordinary jurisdiction over him, remains strictly obligatory in canon law. It is called incardination. It is contained in the 1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 111, §1 which states: “Every cleric must be incardinated in a diocese or religious community, so that unattached clerics are in no way to be accepted.” The 1983 Code of Canon Law repeats the same (Can. 265).

Before the Vatican II, this principle was everywhere accepted. A priest who left his diocese or religious community knew full well that he could not preach, administer the sacraments (outside of danger of death), or publicly celebrate Mass until such time as he found a new religious superior or bishop to incardinate him and to give him the authority to do so. The breakdown of the Church’s authority structure in the wake of Vatican II has caused quite some confusion on this issue.

There were many older priests who were unjustly stripped of their faculties, or declared suspended or even excommunicated. Such sentences, being manifestly unjust, were canonically null and void. Consequently, such traditional priests continued, rightly, their pastoral administration of the sacraments and the celebration of Mass. In justice they retained their incardination, whether it be in their diocese, from which they had been unjustly excluded, or likewise in their religious community, to whose rule they alone remained attached. In case of need the Church supplied jurisdiction, and they administered the sacraments validly and licitly. However, most importantly the “independence” of such priests was purely apparent, due to the crisis of authority, and their rejection by their own superiors. They remained attached for life to their diocese or religious community. However, most of these older priests have passed to their eternal reward, and few traditional priests remain in this situation.

Entirely different is the situation of the new generation of “independent” priests, who have been ordained by rogue bishops, such as sedevacantists and Old Catholics, without any canonical attachment at all. They set up their chapels where they can find a few faithful and set up their churches in the same way that a Protestant pastor would gather a congregation around him. They are in no way attached to the Church’s hierarchy. It is consequently forbidden for them to celebrate Mass or administer the sacraments, and likewise for the faithful to assist at their Masses, or to receive the sacraments from them, except in case of danger of death.

Many such priests allege as the justification for their behavior the crisis in the Church, and certainly with some degree of credibility. However, the modernists’ abuse of authority cannot be a justification for bypassing the entire authority structure of the Church. Evil cannot be overcome by doing evil, by ripping apart the Church’s structure even more. Here it is a question of the divine institution of the Church itself, for it was Christ Himself who established the power of jurisdiction as distinct from that of holy orders. Consequently, the Catholic response cannot possibly be to dispense with all authority in the Church and to act as if it did not exist at all. This would be to admit that the gates of Hell have prevailed against the Church, which is impossible, being directly opposed to the words of God Himself. In fact, such independent priests are nothing less than opportunists, taking advantage of the particular situation of the crisis in the Church to set up their own congregation, as if it were a private business.

Some folks will respond to this by saying that given the fact that there are no traditional dioceses, future priests and the faithful have no choice but to choose the independent, acephalous, unattached option. God would never reduce the Church to such limits that would deny her very nature, and even in these desperate circumstances has provided religious communities and clerical congregations, correctly and canonically established, with superiors who are ordinaries (at least for their members), to provide for the spiritual necessities of the faithful. These are such communities as the Society of St. Pius X and the associated Franciscan, Dominican, Benedictine, and many other communities world wide. All are just as attached to the holy virtue of obedience, upon which the Catholic Church is built, as they are opposed to the horrible illusion of an “independent” priesthood.

Consequently, the faithful have always the right to ask a priest about his incardination, or faculties, or about his ordinary, whether it be a superior or a bishop. If it is an older priest, having been many years in a religious community or diocese, who is persecuted for his love of Tradition, there will not be any doubt in this regard. If it is a priest of a regularly constituted community, such as the Society of St. Pius X, he would certainly not take umbrage at such a question, but consider that the faithful have the right to know, and that it is his great honor to declare his superior and his community, through which he is attached to the Church.

However, there are some priests who will refuse to answer the question, and who will be indignant that it is even asked. The faithful are forbidden to attend the Masses of such priests. These are the priests, usually Feeneyites, Sedevacantists, or Old Catholics, who have no attachment to the Catholic Church at all, who are either without superior or bishop, or who have as their “bishop” a non-Catholic, schismatic, sedevacantist bishop who himself has no attachment to the Catholic Church. They will make every effort to compare their false bishops (if they have any) to the Society’s bishops. However, the difference is manifest. The Society’s bishops have their attachment to the Church through the Society of St. Pius X, a legitimately established community of which they are but auxiliary bishops, and through which they receive their entire authority to administer the sacraments of confirmation and holy orders.

[Question:]{.underline} Is it permissible to make copies of CDs and DVDs that are subject to copyright?

[Answer:]{.underline} The Church has always defended the right of private ownership, as guaranteed by the natural life, and entirely necessary for the common good of society. This right does not only include material objects, commonly known as private property, but also includes such spiritual things as a man’s reputation. It consequently also includes the fruit of one’s invention, hard work, creativity, such as books, music, and manuscripts at least before they have been made public. It is quite simply theft to take and copy such items without the authorization of the author, who has ownership over them.

However, the usual difficulty arises over such books, articles, conferences, music, movies that have already been made public. The common opinion of the theologians is that in the natural law they still remain subject to private ownership, and that consequently they cannot be simply pirated. However, it would be contrary to the common good if they would remain perpetually subject to private ownership and control. Positive civil law recognizes this and admits the existence of copyright laws that forbid copying of such articles, music, movies and the like without the requisite authorization of the person who owns the copyright. However, for the common good there is a limitation on the duration of a copyright if it is not renewed, after which time the intellectual work enters the public domain. These laws are just and consequently bind in conscience, so that a person who deliberately infringes them commits a sin against justice which is either mortal or venial, depending on the gravity of the matter.

This being said, the permission of the copyright owner can be presumed if the copy is for a small item and for only a single copy or a small number of copies, which copies will not deprive the owner of any significant income. In such a case, it would not be reasonable for him to object. Thus it is permissible to photocopy one or several pages of a book that is under copyright and still in print, but it is not permissible to photocopy the entire book, thus depriving the bookseller of the sale of a book. In like manner it is permissible to copy one or other song, or a part of a program or CD or DVD. It is not, however, permissible to copy entire CDs or complete DVDs that are under copyright and still available for purchase without authorization of the owner. In general it would only be light matter and a venial sin, but to do it in large quantity, and make a business of it, would certainly be a grievous sin, as well as a criminal act. It would be different, however, if the items were already in the public domain or if the copyright owner’s intention was to allow some limited access to this copyrighted material.

The downloading of programs, music, and material from the internet needs to be considered according to the intentions of the owner of the website. In general, it can be presumed that if the material is put up on the internet without any restriction, and by a person who has a right to the material, then he is by the very fact making it publicly available. In general, it is permissible to download and use such information, since it can easily be limited by passwords, credit card requirements, and the like so that unauthorized persons cannot access it. Consequently, if the website does not expressly forbid copying the music, articles, and other items, then it can be copied without scruple.

[Question:]{.underline} Does Pope Benedict XVI support the charismatic renewal?

[Answer:]{.underline} One of the clearest indications that the Holy Father does not at all support Tradition is contained in his unambiguous support of the charismatic renewal, which is the vehicle of the Protestant ideas with which it was founded and a denial of Catholic Tradition. The whole purpose of this movement is to replace the sacraments and the Mass, as the principal means of grace. They are replaced by a personal and sentimental experience, in typical modernist fashion.

On the occasion of the 13^th^ international conference of the Catholic Fraternity of Covenant Chrismatic Communities and Fellowships, the Pope reiterated his support of these charismatic groups and gifts (Zenit.org, October 31, 2008). “Young ecclesial communities are a gift from God and their contributions should be valued and welcomed with trust…The ecclesial communities which bloomed after the Second Vatican Council, are a unique gift of the Lord and a precious resource for the life of the Church…The movements and new communities are like an inrush of the Holy Spirit in the Church and in contemporary society. One of the positive elements and aspects of the communities of the Catholic Charismatic Renewal is precisely the importance given by them to the charisms and gifts of the Holy Spirit, and their merit lies in having reminded the Church of the actuality (of these gifts)”.

This is nothing less than a profession of belief in the evolution of the Church. For clearly if these communities are now such a bonus to the Church, then the Church before 1967, when they first came into existence, could not have been what is now, and in fact must have been much less.

Then, On May 4, 2009 Benedict XVI sent a telegram, though Cardinal Bertone, Secretary of State, to 20,000 members of the Italian chapter of the Catholic Chrismatic Renewal, gathered in their 32^nd^ national assembly in Rimini.

Far from reproaching them for the deviations of the Charismatic Renewal, he expressed his hopes for “an abundant outpouring of the fruits of the Paraclete” on the gathering and expressed his desire that it would “enkindle a renewed adherence to the crucified and risen Christ, a deep fraternal communion and a joyous evangelical witness”. (Zenit.org). He made no mention at all of the grave dangers of sentimentalism and of the protestantizing substitution of special charismatic experiences for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the sacraments as the ordinary means of sanctification.

The same must be said of the Pope’s final approval of the Neocatechumenal Way. This is an organization of the laity that forms small communities of “renewal” within parishes. Founded during Vatican II, in 1964, it considered itself a response to the pastoral intuitions of that council for the participation of the laity in evangelization, and soon adopted the charismatic principles, especially independence from the priesthood, the Mass and the sacraments. It received its first official recognition in 1990 by Pope John Paul II as “an itinerary of Catholic formation valid for our society and for our times”, and then on June 13, 2008 it received its final approval from the Pontifical Council for the Laity.

Lip service to the discernment of ecclesiastical authority does not change the reality that these groups, so positively approved and encouraged, have consistently displaced the true ordinary working of the Holy Ghost in souls through prayer and the sacraments, and replaced it with sentimental, extraordinary, exterior signs, that really amount to nothing more than group psychology and natural enthusiasm. It is no secret that these groups, as a general rule, have no appreciation for the sacredness of the Church, the Mass and the sacraments, nor for Catholic Tradition and devotion to the saints, nor for the teaching of the catechism of Christian doctrine - their “living” experience having replaced this rich inheritance of true spirituality.

More recently, Cardinal Josef Cordes was honored with a personal letter from Benedict XVI on the occasion of his 75^th^ birthday, the week before Christmas, 2009. The main purpose of the letter was to thank him for his “contribution to the genesis and the growth of the World Youth Days” and for his “commitment to (lay) movements in his role in the Pontifical Council for the Laity”. (Zenit of 12-22-09).

In fact, the Pope was very specific about the charismatic and Pentecostal nature of the movements encouraged by Cardinal Cordes, not only showing his clear approval of them as charismatic, but going so far as to say that the Church can no longer exist without them:

“The charismatic movement, Communion and Liberation and the Neocatechumenal Way have many reasons to be grateful to you. While at the beginning the organizers and planners in the Church had many reservations in regard to the movements, you immediately sensed the life that burst forth from them - the power of the Holy Spirit that gives new paths and in unpredictable ways keeps the Church young. You recognized the Pentecostal character of these movements and your worked passionately so that they would be welcomed by the Church’s pastors…Here were men who were deeply touched by the spirit of God and that in such a way there grew new forms of authentic Christian life and authentic wways of being Church…They need a guide and purification to be able to rreach the form of their true maturity. They, nevertheless, are gifts to be grateful for. [It is no longer possible to think of the life of the Church of our time without including these gifts of God within it]{.underline}.” (Ib.)

Further confirmation was found in an address given the Pope on March 7, 2010 to the new parish (since 1989) of San Giovanni della Croce in Colle Salario, in Rome, a parish specifically open to these new, charismatic, ecclesial movements from its very inception, in particular the Sant’Egidio and Caritas groups. Benedict XVI had this to say: “From the very beginning this parish was opoen to the movements and to the new ecclesial communities, thus developing a wider awareness of the Church and experiencing new forms of evangelization. I call on you to continue in this direction with courage…I was happy to hear that your community wishs to promote, in regard to the vocations and the role of consecration persons and the laity, the [co-responsibility]{.underline} of all the members of the people of God…moving from considering them ‘collaborators’ of the clergy to recognizing them as truly ‘co-responsible’ for the being and action of the Church” (Zenit.org of 3/11/2010).

In this address Benedict XVI is quite explicit about the long term result of the charismatic movement - the undermining of the importance of the clergy and of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, no longer considered by them as essential to the life of the Church. Yet he gives it all the encouragement he can!

Let no-one affirm, then, that the Pope does not support and encourage the charismatic movement, or that he believes in the traditional doctrine that it is through the Mass and the sacraments, and our traditional prayers and devotions, that the Holy Ghost is communicated to us. He has manifestly embraced the charismatic thesis that in this post-Vatican II age the spirit is given through non-structured, non-clerical, humanistic organizations, regardless of whether they practise traditional Marian and sacramental devotion.

[Question:]{.underline} What are we to think of the Divine Mercy devotion?

[Answer:]{.underline} Many people have certainly received graces from the devotion to Divine Mercy propagated by St. Faustina, and her personal piety was certainly most exemplary. However, this does not necessarily mean that this devotion is from God. It is true that Pope John Paul II promoted this devotion, that it was through his efforts that the prohibition was lifted on April 15, 1978, and that he even introduced a feast of Divine Mercy into the Novus Ordo. However, the fact that good and pious people receive graces and that Sister Faustina was pious do not necessarily means that it is from heaven. In fact, it was not only not approved before Vatican II. It was condemned, and this despite the fact that the prayers themselves of the chaplet of Divine Mercy are orthodox.

CONDEMNED BY THE HOLY OFFICE

There were two decrees from Rome on this question, both of the time of Pope John XXIII. The Supreme Congregation of the Holy Office, in a plenary meeting held on November 19, 1958, made the following decisions:

1. The supernatural nature of the revelations made to Sister Faustina is not evident.

2. No feast of Divine Mercy is to be instituted.

3. It is forbidden to divulge images and writings that propagate this devotion under the form received by Sister Faustina.

The second decree of the Holy Office was on March 6, 1959, in which the following was established:

1. The diffusion of images and writings promoting the devotion to Divine Mercy under the form proposed by the same Sister Faustina was forbidden.

2. The prudence of the bishops is to judge as to the removal of the aforesaid images that are already displayed for public honor.

What was it about this devotion that prevented the Holy Office from acknowledging its divine origin? The decrees do not say, but it seems that the reason lies in the fact that there is so much emphasis on God’s mercy as to exclude His justice. Our sins and the gravity of the offense that they inflict on God is pushed aside as being of little consequence. That is why the aspect of reparation for sin is omitted or obscured.

The true image of God’s mercy is the Sacred Heart of Jesus, pierced with a lance, crowned with thorns, dripping precious blood. The Sacred Heart calls for a devotion of reparation, as the popes have always requested. However, this is not the case with the Divine Mercy devotion. The image has no heart. It is a Sacred Heart without a heart, without reparation, without the price of our sins being clearly evident. It is this that makes the devotion very incomplete and makes us suspicious of its supernatural origin, regardless of Sister Faustina’s own good intentions and personal holiness. This absence of the need for reparation for sins is manifest in the strange promise of freedom from all the temporal punishment due to sin for those who observe the 3:00 p.m. Low Sunday devotions. How could such a devotion be more powerful and better than a plenary indulgence, applying the extraordinary treasury of the merits of the saints? How could it not require as a condition that we perform a penitential work of our own? How could it not require the detachment from even venial sin that is necessary to obtain a plenary indulgence?

PRESUMPTION IN THE WRITINGS OF SISTER FAUSTINA

The published Diary of Saint Maria Faustina Kowalski (Marian Press, Stockbridge, MA, 2007) also indicates several reasons to seriously question the supernatural origin of the more than 640 pages of voluminous anad repeated apparitions and messages. The characteristic of any true mystic who has received supernatural graces is always a profound humility, sense of unworthiness, awareness and profession of the gravity of his sins. Yet this humility is strangely lacking in Sister’s Faustina’s diary. On October 2, 1936, for example, she states that the “Lord Jesus” spoke these words to her: “Now I know that it is not for the graces or gifts that you love me, but because My will is dearer to you than life. That is why I am uniting Myself with you so intimately [as with no other creature]{.underline}”. (707, p. 288). This gives every appearance of being a claim of being more united to Jesus than anybody else, even the Blessed Virgin Mary, and certainly more than all the other saints. What pride, to believe such an affirmation, let alone to assert that it came from heaven!.

In April 1938, Sister Faustina read the canonization of St. Andrew Bobola and was filled with longing and tears that her congregation might have its own saint. Then she affirms the following: “And the Lord Jesus said to me, Don’t cry. [You are that saint]{.underline}.” (1650, p. 583). These are words that most certainly no true saint would affirm, but rather his sinfulness and unworthiness of his congregation. This presumption in her writings is not isolated. She praises herself on several occasions through the words supposedly uttered by Jesus. Listen to this interior allocution, for example: “Beloved pearl of My Heart, I see your love so pure, [purer than that of the angels]{.underline}, and all the more so because you keep fighting. [For your sake]{.underline} I bless the world.” (1061, p. 400). On May 23, 1937 she describes a vision of the Holy Trinity, after which she heard a voice saying: “Tell the Superior General to count on you as [the most faithful daughter in the Order]{.underline}.” (1130, p. 417). It is consequently hardly surprising that Sister Faustina claimed to be exempt from the Particular and General Judgments. On February 4, 1935 she already claimed to hear this voice in her soul: “From today on , do not fear God’s judgment, for you will not be judged” (374, p. 168). Add to this the preposterous affirmation that the host three times over jumped out of the tabernacle and placed itself in her hands (44, p. 23), so that she had to open up the tabernacle herself and place it back in there, tells the story of a presumption on God’s grace which goes beyond all reason, let alone as the action of a person supposedly favored with innumerable and repeated mystical and supernatural graces.

It is perhaps not accidental that Pope John Paul II promoted this devotion, for it is very much in line with his encyclical Dives in misericordia. In fact, the Paschal Mystery theology that he taught pushed aside all consideration of the gravity of sin, and the need for penance, for satisfaction to divine justice, and hence of the Mass as being an expiatory sacrifice, and likewise the need to gain indulgences and to do works of penance. Since God is infinitely merciful, and does not count our sins, all this is considered of no consequence. This is not the Catholic spirit. We must make reparation for our sins, and for the sins of the whole world, as the Sacred Heart repeatedly asked at Paray-Le-Monial. It is the renewal of our consecration to the Sacred Heart, and frequent holy hours of reparation that is going to bring about the conversion of sinners. It is in this way that we can cooperate in bringing about His Kingdom of Merciful Love, because it is the perfect recognition of the infinite holiness of the Divine Majesty and complete submission to His rightful demands. Mercy only means something when we understand the price of our Redemption.

[Question]{.underline}: May Catholics patronize thrift stores owned by and benefiting false religions (e.g., Salvation Army)?

[Answer]{.underline}: This is a case of material cooperation with a false religion and is really an application of the principle of double effect, otherwise known as the indirect voluntary. This is permissible for as long as the act is not in itself evil, as would be the active promotion of a false religion, and provided that there is a sufficiently grave reason to justify the material help that such patronage would give to a false religion. The sufficiently grave reason would be the need of poor people to obtain cheap clothing.

In effect, the act of purchasing cheap clothes to provide for one’s family is a good act, done with an upright intention. The help that the organization receives from this is not willed in itself. It is true that a Catholic cannot directly will to benefit such an organization. However, the duty to prevent any possible profit to such an organization does not bind under pain of grave inconvenience. It would be unreasonable to expect this, especially in items of small value, in which no one stands to make much profit. Consequently, although it would be preferable to support a Catholic organization, such as the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, a person would not be bound to do so under pain of grave inconvenience, such as a long drive to the other side of town.

Consequently, a person ought not to have a scruple about taking advantage of such thrift stores. Moreover, the desire to help the poor could be a sufficient reason to donate items to them, provided that there was no other practical way to help the poor and no Catholic charity readily available to take them and perform the same acts of mercy. The act of charity is good, and the support of the false religion not directly willed; but since there is a much closer material cooperation in donating items, a much greater effort would have to be made to find a Catholic charity than if one were simply purchasing items for one’s own family. Hence the real need for Catholics to organize their own works of charity so as to avoid, as much as possible, material cooperation with false religions.

The same principles apply to yard sales and fundraisers that are organized to benefit a false religion. Formal cooperation is sinful, as in the case in which one would actively participate in making it a success---for example, by working a stall or seeking out donated items. However, the fact of simply purchasing cheaply some items of which one is in need is in itself only material cooperation, and is permissible provided that there is a proportionate reason (e.g., a real need for these items) and that they are not conveniently available from another source that does not support a false religion.

[Question:]{.underline} Having no choice, I went to a Novus Ordo priest for Confession, who gave me absolution saying “I bless and forgive you all your sins, in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”. Was it valid?

[Answer:]{.underline} Penance is one of those sacraments in which Christ instituted the form according to the signification of the words, rather than in the precise words themselves. It is for this reason that the different rites of the Church use different expressions, and historically the precise words of the form were somewhat different in the Latin rite of the first ten centuries than they are now. All these forms, however, indicate the direct remission of sins by the priest, as was the power entrusted by Our Lord to the Apostles: “Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.” (Jn 20:23).

Consequently, the only words of the sacramental form of Confession necessary for validity are “I absolve you from your sins”. The expression “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost”, although necessary for the validity of the sacrament of baptism is not necessary for the validity of the sacrament of penance. If the Church has included this in the formula of absolution, it is to express that it is only by the power of the Most Holy Trinity, of God Himself, that sins can be absolved. The word “absolve” is used rather than forgive, to indicate that the power to forgive is delegated by Our Lord, who being God properly has the power to forgive sins. However, the term “forgive” is still valid, for it indicates the personal remission of the fault by the minister, standing in Christ’s place. Consequently the absolution received was certainly valid.

However, the importance of this question remains. How can it be that a Catholic can be placed in front of a crisis of conscience as to whether a sacrament is invalid or not, because a priest changes the words of the form of absolution according to his own liking? This is unheard of in the Church, and is a sacrilegious and grave disrespect for the sacrament to which Christ gave a divine efficacy, even when it does not invalidate the sacrament. It is an immediate consequence of the novelties introduced since Vatican II, which modifying the rites of the Church, and the form of all the sacraments, has taken away the sacredness of what was once treated as the sacred, timeless prayer of the Church. The problem is in fact the Second Vatican Council, that stated: “The rite and formulae of Penance are to be revised…” (Sacrosanctum Concilium, 72).

These doubts, created by the post-conciliar revolution, threaten not only the validity of the sacraments, but also, and much more frequently, their licitness. Once the council laid down the principle of changing the formulae, why would a priest not think that he could do likewise? Thus is comes about that highly licit personal improvisations, undermining the sacredness of the Church’s action through the sacraments, have beomce common place. The only solution to these doubts, that a regular layperson is generally unable to resolve, is to receive the sacraments only in the traditional rite. Nothing else will stop these abuses.

[Question:]{.underline} Am I obliged to make restitution, although I have not gained anything by my action harming another’s property?

[Answer:]{.underline} Restitution is the making up for the harm done to another. It is owed in justice, as can easily be understood in the case of theft. There can be no true contrition, nor valid sacramental absolution, without the determination to return the stolen item or to make up for its value to the owner, as soon as possible.

However, it is not so clear in the case in which one has harmed another person’s property in some way, without profiting in any way. Very frequently the excuse is given that the person who does this does not even have the means to make restitution. Is he really bound?

This is what the moral theologians call unjust damnification, and it take places either deliberately, such as the case of vandalism, or accidentally as in the case of a vehicle accident that destroys another’s person’s vehicle. When the damage done to another person’s property is voluntary and deliberate, and truly the result of his personal action, then he is personally responsible for the damage and is morally bound to make it good, even if nobody knows about it, and even if he has not profited by it in any way and does not presently have the means to do so. He must have at least the determination to make restitution over time, as he becomes capable of doing so, and the priest must require this as a condition for giving absolution.

However, most frequently the damage to another’s property is not intended nor deliberate, but happens on account of imprudence or negligence that is not intentional. This is the case of at fault motor vehicle accidents. In such cases, there is harm to another’s property, but a person is not necessarily responsible for all the damage, since he did not want it or intend it. In this second case, which is call material damnification, civil law is to be followed. If a just law requires that a person make restitution for the damage thus caused, and imposes it upon him, then he is also morally bound to do so. Likewise, if he has a civilly valid contract, such as a worker or builder, who through negligence, produces a defective building (e.g. by imprudently using defective materials). Although the defect was not intentional, yet on account of the valid contract, he is bound in conscience to correct the defect that his negligence or professional fault caused.

[Question:]{.underline} Can parents claim a religious exemption against vaccinations for their children?

[Answer:]{.underline} The decision as to whether or not to accept vaccinations for one’s children is a very delicate and complex one. Many different factors enter into the decision, and since these factors differ greatly from one vaccine to another and from one family and one individual to another, there can be no one standard answer to the vaccination question. The essential consideration is the proportion between the risk of complications from the vaccine and the potential benefit to be gained both by the individual and by society as a whole. This proportion is not easy to evaluate, since there are many well documented, medically acknowledged complications (such as fever, seizures, neurological complications), and then there are the other difficulties that might not be scientifically proven to be a consequence of any particular vaccine, but for which many believe that there is a good index of suspicion, such as compromising of the natural immunity to infectious disease, and other ill-defined but real problems that have often been linked to vaccinations, such as learning disabilities and autism. All this has to be balanced against the frequency and gravity of the infectious disease against which the parents desire to protect their children.

In principle the evaluation of this proportion is a medical consideration and not a religious one, and the exemption from vaccinations that people request is on medical grounds, because they consider that the dangers outweight the potential gain. It would not be right to claim a religious exemption for a decision of this nature. This is the false attitude of those religious sects that refuse to acknowledge the real value of modern medical science. Indeed, it is not the function of the Church to determine which vaccinations are proportionate, and which are not, and whether vaccinations have a negative impact on the immune system or are responsible for autism or other such disorders.

However, involved in this whole question of vaccination, there is a principle of natural law, namely that parents have the responsibility and consequently the right to make these kinds of decisions for their children. It is only indirectly, then, inasmuch as the Church defends this right of parents enshrined in the natural law, that this question could be considered a religious one, and religious exemption could be claimed.

This principle of natural law is clearly stated in the 1917 Code of Canon Law: “Parents are under a grave obligation to see to the religious and moral education of their children, as well as to their physical and civic training, as far as they can, and moreover to provide for their temporal well being.” (Canon 1113). Note that parents’ rights are not limited to the area of education, but include every aspect of life. If the Church defends parents’ rights over those of the State in the area of education in particular, since these are the rights that modern secularists attack most vehemently, the same principles apply also to issues of health, such as vaccinations.

It was in his encyclical on the Christian Education of Youth (1929) that Pope Pius XI, quoting St. Thomas Aquinas, explained the basis of this inviolable right of the family: “The child is naturally something of the father…so by natural right the child, before reaching the use of reason, is under the father’s care. Hence it would be contrary to natural justice if the child, before the use of reason, were removed from the care of its parents, or if any disposition were made concerning him against the will of the parents” (Divini illius magistri, Angelus Press, p.20). The Pope comments on this, point out that “this duty on the part of the parents continues up to the time when the child is in a position to provide for itself”, applying this to the inviolable right of parental education. However, the same argument can be applied to all health related issues, as Canon 1113 explicitly states.

In the same encyclical, Pope Pius XI, answers the revolutionary objections of those who would want to overturn the natural law, making the child belong primarily to the State, and consequently giving the State responsibility in all such matters, over and above the parents:

“On this point the common sense of mankind is in such complete accord, that they would be in open contradiction with it who dared maintain that the children belong to the State before they belong to the family, and that the State has an absolute right over their education. Untenable is the reason they adduce, namely that a man is born a citizen and hence belongs primarily to the State, not bearing in mind that before being a citizen man must exist; and existence does not come from the State, but from the parents, as Leo XIII wisely declared: “The children are something of the father, and as it were an extension of the person of the father; and, to be perfectly accurate, they enter into and become part of civil society, not directly by themselves, but through the family in which there were born…and therefore the father’s power is of such a nature that it cannot be destroyed or absorbed by the State, for it has the same origin as human life itself’ (Rerum novarum)”.

Inasmuch as the Church defends with insistence the natural right of the family in the question of vaccinations, as all other issues necessary for the temporal well being of children, a right that modern society tends to deny, it is certainly possible and at times prudent to claim a religious exemption from vaccinations. However, it must be understood that it is not up to the Church any more than to the State to determine which vaccinations ought to be given and which ought not. All that the Church can do is to condemn those vaccinations in which immorality is involved. This could be in the production of the vaccine, as in the case of those derived from aborted fetal cell lines, or in the life style that the vaccine encourages, such as the HPV vaccine, effective for only five years, when given to pre-teen girls to protect against veneral disease and the higher incidence of cervical cancer that is its consequence.

[Question]{.underline}: Should we recite the luminous mysteries of the rosary?

[Answer]{.underline}: It was in his Apostolic Letter Rosarium Virginis Mariae of October 16, 2002, that Pope John-Paul II attempted to modify the rosary, amongst other things by adding in five additional mysteries, called the mysteries of light to distinguish them from the joyful, sorrowful, and glorious mysteries.

Unfortunately, this letter, that pretends to promote the rosary, is tainted by naturalism throughout, and considers the rosary as a psychological experience similar to the prayers and meditations of non-Catholic religions. Hence the importance of the “anthropological significance of the rosary” (§25), making understood the mystery of man. Amongst the “improvements” to the rosary proposed in this vein is the addition of the mysteries of light, especially chosen so as not to give offense to Protestants, namely all fully described in the Gospels and none of them explicitly mentioning the Blessed Virgin Mary. This is in line with the pope’s avowed intention of making the rosary more “Christocentric,” which means in practice that it becomes less explicitly Marian.

The five “significant,” “luminous,” “moments” (§21) that he chooses are Christ’s baptism in the Jordan river, His self-manifestation at Cana, His proclamation of the Kingdom of God and call to conversion, His Transfiguration, and the institution of the Blessed Eucharist. They are all beautiful events taken from the Gospels, and much appreciated as manifestations of Jesus’s goodness, in which He shows Himself, His power, His mercy, or His kingdom. However, it is very interesting to note that none of them has a direct rapport with the mystery of the Redemption, the institution of the Holy Eucharist alone having an indirect relationship inasmuch as it is the foundation of its unbloody renewal. The introduction of these mysteries is, then, an effort to water down the traditional focus on the essential mysteries of the Redemption, as contained in the joyful, sorrowful, and glorious mysteries.

However, it is no accident that the traditional mysteries of the rosary are entirely focused on the mystery of the Redemption, prepared in the joyful mysteries, accomplished in the sorrowful mysteries, and applied in the glorious mysteries. If Tradition has handed them down to us in this manner, it is because these are the mysteries that our souls need to meditate on for eternal salvation. In one of his yearly encyclicals on the rosary, Pope Leo XIII explains this: “The Rosary offers an easy way to penetrate the chief mysteries of the Christian religion and to impress them on the mind … in an orderly pattern the chief mysteries of our religion follow one another… First come the mysteries in which the Word was made flesh and Mary, the inviolate Virgin and Mother, performed her maternal duties for him with a holy joy; then come the sorrows, the agony and death of the suffering Christ, the price at which the salvation of our race was accomplished; finally follow the mysteries full of his glory” (Magnae Dei Matris, Sept. 8, 1892).

The reason for this change of orientation is to turn attention little by little away from the Redemption as a purchasing of the souls of sinners, buying us back from our sins by making satisfaction to the offense given to God. The modern theology of the Paschal Mystery thinks that this is not necessary, that God is not so childish as to require payment for sins, and that consequently all we need to reflect on is the manifestation of God’s love or glory or kindness, for “each of these mysteries is a revelation of the Kingdom now present in the very person of Jesus” (Rosarium Virginis Mariae, §21).

The end result of the recitation of these luminous mysteries will be a dessication of the rosary, its losing its specifically Marian focus, turning one’s attention away from the union with Christ’s act of Redemption by which alone we can be saved from our sins. Little by little it will become empty and sterile and will not be prayed. Consequently, we ought to refuse this optional “improvement,” but rather stick to the hard and tried Tradition of the Chuch that has sanctified so many generations of saints. Although it is not in itself a sin to recite these mysteries of light with modern Catholics, we certainly ought to discourage their recitation, and avoid purchasing or making available any pamphlets or booklets that present the mysteries of light.

[Question:]{.underline} Is capitalism to be condemned to the same extent as communism?

[Answer:]{.underline} It is certainly true that the Church condemns both laissez-faire capitalism and communism, neither political system being according to Catholic principles. However, there is a profound difference, the former not being opposed to the natural law as is the latter, which was condemned as “intrinsically perverse” by Pope Pius XI in his 1937 encyclical on communism, Divini Redemptoris.

It was, in fact, before the publication of Marx’s Communist Manifesto, in his first encyclical Qui Pluribus (1846), that Pope Pius IX identified and condemned the fundamental perversion of communism: “the unspeakable doctrine of Communism, as it is called, a doctrine most opposed to the very natural law. For if this doctrine were accepted, the complete destruction of everyone’s laws, government, property, and even of human society itself would follow” (§16). Archbishop Lefebvre comments: “It could not be better expressed. What is left of the rights of men in the countries where Communist governments have been established? There is no more property, it has been replaced by Collectivism. As for human society, it has been replaced by slavery” (Against the Heresies, p. 51)

Pope Leo XIII in his magisterial encyclical on the condition of the working classes, Rerum Novarum, condemned both excesses. However, not in the same way. After defending the right of ownership of private property as the foundation of human society, he has this to say of socialism: “The fundamental principle of Socialism which would make all possessions public property is to be utterly rejected because it injures the very ones whom it seeks to help, contravenes the natural rights of individual persons, and throws the functions of the State and public peace into confusion” (§23). He goes on to condemn the implacable class warfare engineered by communism as “abhorrent to reason and truth.”

When it comes to capitalism, it is not the system of private ownership and profit that he condemns, nor the inequalities that exist among men: “There are truly very great and very many natural differences among men. Neither the talents, nor the skill, nor the health, nor the capacities of all are the same, and unequal fortune follows of itself upon necessary inequality in respect to these endowments. And clearly this condition of things is adapted to benefit both individuals and the community…” (§26).

To the contrary, it is not capitalism itself but rather the abuse of private ownership, so characteristic of modern day capitalism, that the Church condemns. Pope Leo XIII lists some abuses, such as treating workers as slaves, or refusing to pay them a just, living, and family wage: “It is shameful and inhuman, however, to use men as things for gain and to put no more value on them than what they are worth in muscle and energy… To defraud anyone of the wage due him is a great crime that calls down avenging wrath from Heaven” (§31, 32). He goes on to teach that the collaboration between workers and employers must go beyond simple questions of justice to a relationship of friendship, not bound by materialism, but considering that earthly gain of transitory things is but a preparation for eternity.

It follows from these considerations that capitalism is not condemned by the Church as intrinsically perverse, as is communism. It is a system of government and economy in which a man’s religious and natural rights can be preserved, even if this is not always the case in practice. The right to private ownership guarantees, at least to some extent, a man’s right to raise his family according to the natural and divine law, to support the Church, to practice the true religion, to educate his children, to profess the Faith, all of which rights are denied by the collectivism practiced by communism. If it is true that socialist tendencies penetrating more and more into our modern societies undermine these rights progressively, this is not in itself the consequence of capitalism. Consequently, the Church can use, and even “baptize,” the capitalist system in a way that it cannot do for communism. An industrialist, a businessman, a property developer can all be good Catholics, provided that they observe the principles of justice and charity contained in the natural law. It would consequently be wrong to consider capitalism as inherently unjust, or consider that the state has the right to intervene and distribute wealth equally amongst all the citizens.

However, this being said, it must be remembered that modern, liberal capitalism cannot be accepted as such. It does have to be baptized. It is penetrated by gross materialism; unjust and disordered motives of pure profit; a refusal to consider the primacy of the common good; and by the principle of man’s economic, moral, and social independence that is so characteristic of liberalism and that has destroyed the Catholic spirit ever since the Protestant revolution.

If Pope Pius IX points out that communism is the fruit of Freemasonry, Archbishop Lefebvre also explains the obvious---namely, that the opposing vice of capitalism is also the outcome of Freemasonry, and that they share a similar liberalism and materialism, although in different degrees and different ways:

With the capitalist economic system, which is the fruit of the French revolution, the same people distilled the poison of this so-called freedom, because behind it---as the Pope says---were the secret societies. It was they who broke with every social structure that existed to protect the workers: the corporations, the guilds… All was broken at the time of the Revolution. The worker then found himself standing alone face to face with his employers; and at the same time unrestricted freedom was granted: “liberal” economy, freedom of trade, freedom of industry, etc. Clearly those who possessed money profited from the situation to accumulate immense fortunes at the expense of the workers, who found themselves defenseless… All these sufferings and injustices are the fruit of the modern errors … that had been propagated initially by the Protestants, and then by the Revolution: the liberal spirit, that gave total freedom to trade and industry, whereas before there had been rules. (Against the Heresies, pp. 317 — 318)

Let us not, then, be deceived either by collectivist or by capitalist propaganda. It is only by a profoundly supernatural spirit that we can begin to rebuild a Catholic social fabric. For it is not by redistribution but only by grace that the diabolical vice of liberalism can be rooted out of our souls, and that a private and unequal but just sharing in the goods of this world can prepare our souls, and our children’s souls, for eternity.

Answered by Father Peter Scott, SSPX.