Ask a theological question, get an answer (hopefully). — This post is now closed and not accepting new questions.
-
Those who reject the Magisterium, grasp at straws seeking its replacement.
-
Click here for a list of my Roman Catholic theology books and booklets, including books about the future.
-
To read the Kindle versions of my books, without a Kindle device, get the free cloud reader — or — any of the free Kindle reading apps.
The CPDV — my conservative Catholic translation of the Bible, from the Latin Vulgate into English, is available at Amazon.com in Kindle format and online here.
Meta
Subscribe to my RSS Feed. (If you use Google Chrome, first add a Chrome RSS reader or extension.)
the reproach of Christ 
How is a married person in a sacramental marriage supposed to undeservingly and continuously take verbal abuse from their spouse? We are told as Catholics to forgive our spouse, offer our sufferings to God, remain silent, stay for the sake of the children, bear insults, pray, fast, etc., all for the Glory of God. I know Saint Monica and Saint Rita experienced an incredible amount of sufferings in their marriages, however, their spouses, relatives, and children converted and or were saved, which was a good thing.
I don’t want to separate from my spouse, but I don’t know how much more I can take of living in this state of sadness and no intimacy. Counseling is not working. If I leave my spouse and divorce and remarry, I am committing adultery in the eyes of the Catholic Church, and will be condemned to Hell. Our children will be devasted as divorce begets divorce. I can’t have the marriage annulled just because of verbal abuse and no sex. I feel cheated out of a happy married life. I see so many around me divorced and living happy lives now. Oh well. I’ll continue to pray, remain a faithful Catholic, and continue to love God first with all my heart.
The Warning of Garabandal might be next year, on Good Friday. That might help.
In my 8th grade Catechism Class we were going over the 3 fonts of morality and I asked the question of what are some intrinsically evil acts, one kid said bullying and I agreed that bullying is an intrinsically evil act, was I correct?
violence against the innocent; threats of violence against the innocent would each be intrinsically evil. For bullying, it depends on the definition.
Is it possible for Christians to pray with people of other faiths? My understanding is that the Church acknowledges that Jews and even Muslims worship the same God, albeit with obviously important theological differences. Moreover, coming from a Hindu background, I can make the same case for many Hindus that, for example, Nostra Aetate and Pope Benedict XVI have made for Muslims — they worship God as the self-existent, immanent and transcendent author and judge of creation, who commands us to love one another (my understanding growing up was that the Hindu gods were mythopoeic expressions of aspects of the Divine, though many also worship them as gods in themselves — as many traditional Buddhists do actually revere the Buddha as a god or godlike figure).
I’m wondering for the sake of building bridges, for example at my work, where “diversity and inclusion” are valued, but clearly in a way that is more about sexual and gender identity/ideology and implicitly hostile to traditional beliefs about sexual morality. If I were to try to build a community of traditionally religious people, say Christians, Jews and Muslims in particular, in the name of religious diversity and including people of traditional beliefs and values in the diversity and inclusion conversation, would it be a good thing to pray with them, or could that be potentially scandalous? Where is the line between “Blessed are the peacemakers” and promoting religious indifferentism?
You have the correct understanding. It is good to pray with other believers, including Jews, Muslims, Hindu, Buddhists, etc. Persons are in a state of grace who love others selflessly (even atheists, possibly). You can build those bridges.
How is suffering related to salvation? Many saints said that you have to suffer, resign yourself to suffering, carry your cross (Luke 9:23-24), if you want to be saved. Is it true?
A baptized infant who dies is saved. So carrying your cross, helping your neighbor in works of mercy, other positive precepts are required in the sense of at least avoiding an actual mortal sin of omission, and also of meriting a greater reward in Heaven.
This is a morality of modesty question. In the Straight-jacket-Catholicsm article you criticized traditionalist for insisting that people dress like he the 1800’s to Mass. I understand that TLM goes should not force people to because the Church herself does not.
QUESTION (1)
However, is it not preferable for men to to wear dress clothing and for women to wear skirts below the knees and blouses that cover shoulders and elbows to Mass?
I see many people wear shorts, t-shirts (often exposing tattoos), leggings, miniskirts, tank tops etc. to Mass and it feels disrespectful. They doesn’t seem to be aware of how bad it looks so it’s not a sin, or venial at worst. Also, it’s often a matter of socio-economic status. So I try not to judge and rather consider that some people are poor and from a segment of society wear “uppity” attire is unknown, or even ridiculer. Similarly, some people come to Mass wearing clothing hat would be mortally sinful in any situation. Again, they may lack awareness so it could be only venially sinful.
I go to my Novus Order parish wearing a suit and tie; my mother wears a long dress and veil. I do it not to be prideful, but to offer my sartorial tithe to God and lead by example. Whenever I see someone grossly inappropriately dressed for mass, I say a quick prayer for them and hope they keep coming back to Mass, no matter what they wear.
QUESTION (2)
Are clergy not held responsible to remind the laity on how to dress respectfully for Mass? The souls of the faithful are in the priests hands. Now, I’m no saying give a fire ‘n brimstone sermon about wearing veils and long dress but rather a reminder to cover one’s shoulders, no shorts t-shirts or tank tops or miniskirts for teenagers and older etc.
When traditionalists complain about the Novus Order, sometimes I think they are really just complaining about the perceived laxity among some clergy and faithful. I share this sentiment with them. You’ve mentioned that the traditionalists are heretical sometimes for saying the Church is teaching error. But I think, many are just saying that the Church’s clergy and schools are simply not teaching at all!
I don’t think the Church is teaching error but many people seemed to have just stopped trying or are afraid of offending parishioners. The dress codes we enforce say a lot about ourselves. Too formal, and you’re overcompensating; too lax and you have little self-respect.
People have to use their own judgment about what to wear to Mass and in other places. Modesty is a teaching of the Church. But I think the sins of the world and of many in the Church have become so severe that we must focus on the worst problems first.
There is laxity among many moderate or liberal Catholics; it is certainly possible to criticize almost anyone in the Church. The problem with some traditionalists is using criticisms of others to keep themselves from admitting faults and accepting teaching/correction from the Church.
Is God opposed to pleasures of this life? Is something sinful in a compelling book, comfy bed or entertaining movie? If not, why were so many saints and even scripture against so called “the world”. When something is worldly, earthly, of the world it’s never anything good. So what exactly is “the world”.
Some pleasures are sinful and others are not. Self-denial, denying self even pleasures that are not sinful, helps to free the mind and heart to pray better and the soul to love better. The world is used sometimes to refer to the sinfulness of secular society. All that God created is good. So the world, used in a negative sense, would be the sinful human society as opposed to Christianity and persons of good will doing good in society.
That’s helpful, thanks!
I have a question about morality, particularly in regards to theft, but also to help me identify moral objects more generally.
Narrowly, I’m specifically concerned with a very modern “gray area’ of intellectual property theft — videogame emulation. In short, it’s not only possible, but extremely common, to be able to acquire and play virtually any videogame from the past on a computer, phone, etc, without paying for it. Now, it seems obvious that doing so in the case of a recent game that one can easily purchase is a clear-cut offense. But what about doing this for old games that one cannot easily acquire in the marketplace, such as for platforms that are no longer available or were only ever available in foreign markets? As an analogy, if I were to download an old movie that was only ever released in Germany on Betamax, is that theft (I could in principle spend hundreds or thousands of dollars acquiring the physical media and the means to consume it)? I’m not exactly taking something from someone nor causing anyone material harm by depriving them of goods or income. But is it still theft? I used to play old videogames this way, then after converting, I stopped out of concern that it’s stealing. I have no desire to start again if I can’t do so with a clear conscience.
More broadly, I am trying to wrap my head around intrinsic evil and moral objects. In the case of theft, what is the moral object? Does playing an out of print Nintendo game that I never owner have a different moral object than swiping a $20 bill from the collection plate? And, does swiping the bill have a different moral object if I swipe it from a rich man’s wallet, as opposed to the collection plate? And what if I swipe it out of sheer boredom, versus out of hunger? What if I steal it from someone who themselves stole it from someone else?
And again more broadly — how can I reliably identify moral objects, and how can I reliably distinguish between good and bad moral objects, and between intrinsic evils such as lying and abortion as opposed to non-intrinsic evils that are bad due to the intention and/or the circumstances?
(Sorry if this double posts, my browser crashed while I was trying to post before)
ON the question of old movies or video games that one is practically unable to purchase, I don’t believe that would be theft. As for the moral object, it pertains to the moral type of the act, not to the specific circumstances. The type is general, and is the font called object. The specifics are in the font called circumstances. So any type of theft has the same moral object, to deprive the owner of his goods, and the first owner of all good things is God, hence it is a sin listed in the Ten Commandments and can sometimes be grave. The gravity of theft is found in the intention or the circumstances.
On the last question “more broadly…” See my books on Amazon:
https://smile.amazon.com/s?k=conte+intrinsic+evil&ref=nb_sb_noss
Ron, are faithful Catholics free to believe in created children of God existing in other parts of the created universe or universes. I mean beings with immortal souls. When Jesus died to atone for our sins do you think He died to atone for the sins of all of God’s children outside of earth also. I imagine we are in the area of speculative theology here or maybe it is already clarified. Thank you
It is tenable to opine that other intelligent beings with free will, abstract reason, and immortal souls exist in the universe. Jesus died for them also, as is proven by the fact that the grace of the Cross are what saved the holy Angels, who were tested by God a long time before the Cross.
We have just had the feast day of St. Peter of Alcantara, whom I first encountered in the autobiography of St. Teresa of Avila. He is a very attractive personality, and one of my favorite saints, but I don’t really understand the purpose of his remarkable austerity. He forced himself to sleep only about an hour each night, he ate only once every few days, he never wore shoes, and only had a thin robe, so was frequently freezing cold. We are so far removed from this sort of self discipline today – could you explain why St. Peter ( and some other Franciscans) voluntarily led lives of such suffering?
That is beyond the scope of a short response here. But I will say that the value of spiritual goods over material, and the need to practice self-denial to free the soul to love God all the more, are part of the reason for such austerity. Note however that St. Therese, at the end of her life, in her autobiography thought that she herself was perhaps too austere at times.
As for the sufferings that you describe, they are not as severe as a Catholic who is suffering through a serious disease or inoperable cancer or the loss of multiple close family members, or other sufferings that not infrequently afflict human persons living in middle class comfort. Then there are the sufferings of the poor and hungry in the world. His sufferings, by comparison, are not so austere.