New Catholicism Q and A

Ask any question on Catholicism. I’ll answer within reason, if I can. Use the comments below for the Q and the A.

This entry was posted in commentary. Bookmark the permalink.

51 Responses to New Catholicism Q and A

  1. Vít Lacman says:

    Are catechumens required to do the Friday penance and go to the church on Sundays and holy days of obligation?

    • Ron Conte says:

      Everyone is required to keep the Ten Commandments, including worship God and keep holy the Sabbath. As for the specific rules for catechumens, I don’t know.

  2. Marguerite A Murphy says:

    If I have it my heart to make a good confession, taking weeks beforehand to examine my conscience and make a list of my sins (some mortal) but then, once in the Confessional become so nervous that I forget to confess some grave sins, can I still receive Communion or should I reconfess before receiving?

    • Ron Conte says:

      It is always said, and was taught at the Council of Trent, that sins you forget to confess in the Confessional are still forgiven. You may receive Communion. You do not need to reconfess any sins before that prior Confession.

    • Marguerite A Murphy says:

      Thank you Ron.

  3. Vít Lacman says:

    What does change inside the person already baptised by desire when he receives the actual sacrament of baptism? If for example catechumens already have the state of grace by their desire for the sacrament, why can’t they go to the communion or confession. What does the actual baptism of water do that the baptism of desire cannot?

    • Ron Conte says:

      The baptism of desire or of blood forgives all sins, grants the state of grace and the three infused theological virtues, and is sufficient for salvation (if the person does not sin gravely afterward, or at least repents). The formal Sacrament of Baptism with water forgives all sin and remits all punishment due for sin, and grants the permanent character of baptism. Also, formal Baptism makes one a visible member of the Church, permitting the other Sacraments to be received, while the non-formal types of baptism cannot be ascertained in the external forum and so do not permit the other Sacraments to be received until formal Baptism. The formal Sacrament of Baptism also has the advantage that the recipient knows he has received the state of grace.

  4. Matt says:

    Our three teens attend public schools in a very liberal State that we live in. We are unable to afford to have them attend Catholic schools. What my wife and I see at the public schools is quite offensive. Pride flags inside and outside the classrooms. A growing number of teens are using pronouns to identify themselves. We are told it is the trend these days. Our children have friends that, for example, female, but go by a male name, but are undecided they tell us about their gender. Their parents go along with these pronouns and tell us that they are inclusive and embracing. I find it bizarre that I am talking to my children’s friends and using their preferred names, while they are clearly female. We believe that schools, social media, and peer pressure, are causing mass confusion, about gender identity.

    The decline of morals in our society is quite appalling. It seems to have accelerated these past several years.

    We have this constant worry about our three teenagers. We do the best we can to monitor them but not to the point where we are overbearing, as it may backfire, as I’ve seen in other families. If we tell them they can’t be friends with them, we are then labeled religious bigots.

    We pray as a family and attend Sunday Mass.

    What more can we as Catholics do other than pray for them and their friends, and society. I know that the events described in Garabandal and Medjugorje, may begin soon to correct society. However, I keep waiting, and it seems that every year, nothing happens. How bad must things get until God corrects society?

    • Ron Conte says:

      I don’t really have an answer for you, Matt. I share your concerns for children in this society. I do think the Warning might occur in 2023, but I cannot be certain.

    • Thomas Mazanec says:

      To be honest, it seems that every Lent Ron says the Warning will likely occur on Good Friday, and every Holy Saturday he admits he was wrong.

    • Ron Conte says:

      Not sure why that sentence contains the phrase “it seems that”. Most years, that is what happens. Figuring the start of these events has been very challenging. Once things begin, we’ll see how well I’ve understood eschatology.

    • Matt says:

      That phrase I wrote in original post, ‘it seems that’ doesn’t make sense to a reader. I apologize.

    • Ron Conte says:

      You misunderstood me. I was merely emphasizing that it is every clear my predictions on the date of the Warning have been wrong many times.

  5. Matt says:

    Do you know the Italian Bible released in 2020 “scrutare le scritture”? Can you tell if you’re good at comments?

  6. guilhermefeitosa024 says:

    why is the position to recognize to resist schismatic?

    • Ron Conte says:

      When you “recognize”, you are admitting that Francis is the true valid Pope. When you “resist”, you are resisting the authority he is given as the successor of Peter and Vicar of Christ. By definition, resisting a valid Pope is schism.

  7. Barbara says:

    I believe the events of Garabandal will unfold in the coming years, possibly next year. I understand people switching off because this has taken a very long time. From my understanding there are certain, what I would call markers that indicate when events are getting close. Firstly that events would happen when communism returns. I believe the rise of the Chinese Communist Party is the biggest threat today and has its roots in Marxism. Secondly that the Pope would go to Moscow. This was in the planning. Thirdly that Russia would suddenly and unexpectedly attack parts of Europe. Russia has attacked Ukraine. Fourthly that an important synod would occur close to the Warning . I believe the Synod on Synodality is likely this synod. I understand that these events have not occurred exactly as the girls stated but should we consider that prayer has altered these events to some extent. What is the likelihood that these events will align again in Conchita’s lifetime. Finally the 30th December 2022 marks the one hundredth anniversary of the formation of the USSR. One hundred years of Russia wreaking havoc across the globe, one hundred years of Russia spreading it’s errors around the world. I believe in Garabandal but I’m certainly no authority and I have followed your conclusions Ron and although dates have come and gone I believe your thinking is right. Regardless of what does or doesn’t unfold, I cling to prayer for everything, but maybe this is the time in history that God will intervene in a world that seems intent on erasing Him from human consciousness.

    • Ron Conte says:

      I generally agree with what you are saying. 2023 could be the year of the Warning. I hope for its benefits, but I fear the sufferings that follow. The world needs Divine intervention now more than ever.

    • Barbara Fitzpatrick says:

      Thanks Ron. We can only pray for the strength to endure whatever may come. God bless

      Sent from my iPhone


  8. Thomas Mazanec says:

    1) What is your opinion on gradualism?
    2) What is your opinion on transhumanism?

  9. Pete Welch says:

    Was the Church exercising its magisterium when condemning Galileo’s scientific theories? I know scientific knowledge doesn’t fall within the Churches magisterium, however, part of the controversy involved interpretation of biblical passages that seen to support the geocentric model. The Church might have been premature to pontificate (if that’s even the correct term) on scientific ideas but they surely must be able to pontificate on scriptural passages. To what extent can we say the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit when it comes to matters that don’t strictly involve an exercise of the Churches magisterium?


    • Ron Conte says:

      The decision in the case of Galileo was not an act of the Magisterium, so errors are possible.

      Regarding Copernicus and Galileo, people like to point out that science was right and the Church was wrong. But the situation at the time was not so simple. Galileo was arguing for the theory of Copernicus, about a generation after him, but most other scientists disagreed. The Church considered that perhaps the passages of the Bible interpreted as saying that the earth is stationary could be understood figuratively. But since the majority view of scientists at the time contradicted Galileo and Copernicus, the Church decided to side with science as well as a literal interpretation of the Bible, so Galileo was rebuked.

      Copernicus’ theory said, as we all know, that the planets revolve around the Sun. But he also assumed that the orbits of the planets were circular (rather than elliptical) and that the stars are much closer than they really are. The result was two problems that caused other scientists to reject Copernicus’ theory, even as long as a generation later. The assumption of circular orbits caused calculations of where the planets should be in the sky, if Copernicus was correct, to fail to match observations. In addition, when the earth is on opposite sides of the Sun, we look at the distant stars from two different angles. This should result in a parallax, as when you hold a finger in front of your eyes and alternately open/close each eye. Objects more distant than your finger appear to move in relation to the finger. Scientists of Copernicus and Galileo’s time could not detect any stellar parallax. So the majority of scientists rejected the theory of Copernicus during the time of Galileo.

      The Church was actually siding with the majority view of scientists in deciding against Galileo.

      Eventually, it was proved that the planets do revolve around the Sun.

  10. Vít Lacman says:

    As You could surely deduce from my annoying questions to You, I am struggling with scrupulosity. Or at least I suspect that I am scrupulous. I myself am not sure, if I truly have scruples or simply some persistent yet rational doubts. Do You know if there is any way how to know for sure, if my conscience is not working properly, and consequently, if I don’t have to pay so much attention to its judgements? How to know with certainty if my conscience is actually plagued by scruples?
    This is probably a silly question and hard to answer. But Your response would still help me. Hopefully my question is intelligible.

    Thank You for all Your answers. God bless You.

    • Ron Conte says:

      You are definitely suffering from scruples. Consult your Confessor. Also, rely on the judgments of other faithful Catholics. Do not propose to yourself that something is a mortal sin for you, if no one else thinks so. Give yourself the benefit of any doubts, especially in what seems to be actual mortal sin (but likely is not due to scruples).

Comments are closed.