Note that I have removed some of my more political posts from recent days so as to focus this blog on theology instead of politics. However, I remain against the Russian invasion and annexation of Ukraine.
Post your questions in the comments section, and I’ll try to answer them. Theology questions only.
the reproach of Christ 
Is learning and studying on Sunday, even as a hobby or recreational activity allowed or is it a venial sin?
Is approving of other people’s sins, thinking something like “it was very good that he has done this horrible act” in itself sinful (gravely or venialy) or is it an imperfection.
Thank You for all of Your answers as always.
“Is learning and studying on Sunday, even as a hobby or recreational activity allowed or is it a venial sin?”
Not a sin at all.
“Is approving of other people’s sins, thinking something like “it was very good that he has done this horrible act” in itself sinful (gravely or venialy) or is it an imperfection.”
That would be in itself sinful, but not an actual mortal sin.
Ron,
Six of the nine (25th of the month) Mesjugorje messages since Jan 2022, the Blessed Virgin Mary mentions Satan. In the 41+ years of messages from Medjugorje, the Virgin Mary rarely mentions the devil. What are we to make out of these dire messages where she mentions Satan so often. It seems to me that events may truly start in 2023.
I would not read anything into that. It may be that events begin in 2023 (Garabandal; Medjugorje). We will have to wait and see.
It is a very common objection for those who reject Communion on the hand to say that Christ is present in each particle of the consecrated bread no matter how small the particle is, they say that as if such is a teaching from the Magisterium.
Questions:
1) Is it a teaching of the Magisterium that Christ is present in each particle of the consecrated bread? (I think some Saints have commented on it, but I haven’t read from the Magisterium on this matter).
2) How small has a particle of the consecrated bread has to be for Christ to be present?
(you have comment on this before but I can’t find that post).
Thank you.
If the particle is too small to be bread, it is not part of the consecrated bread. So the smell of bread and of wine do not have the real presence. Neither does the absolute smallest particles, that are like dust. Then, when the consecrated bread breaks down in the stomach, to no longer be bread, it is no longer the real presence. Same for the wine.
Hi Ron, I heard a priest on a YouTube talk say that the moral life is only in the natural law and not in religion or faith. He aluded to the fact that some pro lifers can be athiests. What are your thoughts?
Catholic teaching is that all the requirements of the moral law are accessible to reason alone, without divine revelation. However, fallen sinners have a difficult time correctly understanding the moral law by reason, as our reason is fallen and we are influenced by other fallen sinners. So divine revelation, which also contains the whole moral law, helps us to achieve a better understanding of what reason ought to be able to understand on its own.
How late can one come to Holy Mass? It has happened to all of us for one reason or another.
Is it sinful to leave Holy Mass after communion?
If you have a just reason, you might miss Mass without sin, or at least without mortal sin. (The CCC says “serious” reason, but the usual categories under Canon law are just or grave, and some examples given in the CCC are just, not grave.) So being late would be a lesser version of missing Mass. A just reason (or unforeseen circumstances) and it cannot be more than a venial sin to be late or to leave after Communion. But certainly the faithful should try to attend the whole of the Mass.
WE always came late to Mass when I was a kid. Then we left early because “we have to unblock the parking.” When I complained my father just said “Three Principle Parts”.
One time the Priest called out my Dad leaving early and we sheepishly came back, but next week it was back to Three Principle Parts.
Humans are distinguished from all other Earthly animals (and perhaps all Cosmic animals) by having reason and free will.
Is it possible for a being to have reason but not free will?
Is it possible for a being to have free will but not reason?
My opinion is that the ability to reason abstractly implies free will, which implies an understanding of transcendent values (truth, morality, goodness, worshiping God), and all of that implies an immortal soul.
Can we be certain that Judas Iscariot is in Hell?
We cannot be certain.
What if a person has two motives for performing a certain action. One good and one bad. Would that act then be sinful? For example, what if I take a job at a homeless shelter because I really care about the less fortunate members of our society and because I want to show my friends how loving and holy I am so that they can look up to me.
There are three fonts of morality: intention, object (which determines the moral nature of the act itself), and circumstances (including consequences). A bad intention is sinful, but the nature of the act does not change. Also, that motive is venial.
Dear Mr. Conte,
Thank you for Q&A-
In the exchange recounted in Matthew 16:22-23, for example, wouldn’t the contemporary way of looking at things tend to be more that the error was worldliness and the flesh rather than Satan?
But, don’t those two boil down to the devil- as long as it is thought of in the sense of influence rather than possession?
I’m not thinking possession is common, but it seems that in the biblical era way of understanding what we now call psychogical experience- angels and demons were considered to be frequently involved.
It seems more effective to think of it that way, in a certain careful sense. One is still responsible for one’s choices and actions. Etc.
But isn’t it easier to reject the pull of the world and the flesh if one doesn’t identify so much with the pull as being of oneself?
Thank you.
{16:22} And Peter, taking him aside, began to rebuke him, saying, “Lord, may it be far from you; this shall not happen to you.”
{16:23} And turning away, Jesus said to Peter: “Get behind me, Satan; you are an obstacle to me. For you are not behaving according to what is of God, but according to what is of men.”
Jesus is not saying that Peter was influenced by Satan, but rather that Peter is acting a little like Satan, who by being the first angel who sinned was a leader in evil, against God’s plan. Peter, by acting as if he were merely “of men” and not acting as one who should be “of God”, was thereby acting against the plan of God for Christ to suffer for us.
The saying that the three influences on free will toward sin are the flesh, the world, and the devil refers to concupiscence, the influence of other sinners, and the influence of fallen angels. The first two are not of devils. They do not boil down to the devil, nor is any devil involved in every sin, nor in most sins.
You gave me alot to think on- thank you very much.
Although I’m not sure it’s explicitly making the point, one of the things that really got me thinking about this was something I read in a sermon by Saint Vincent Ferrer (https://www.svfsermons.org/A191_EpiphanySermon.htm):
“And there are seven princes who are the captains of the seven capital sins
· The first prince, and captain of pride is called Leviathan, in Job 40, (v. 20). He is the king over all the sons of pride.
· The second prince, and captain of avarice is called Mammon, about whom Christ spoke in Matthew 6:24: “You cannot serve God and mammon.”
· The third prince, and captain of lust is called Asmodeus, about whom we read in Tobit 3:8: “And a devil named Asmodeus had killed them,” namely the lusting [bridegrooms].
· The fourth prince, of envy is called Beelzebub. Luke, 11:15 ” He casts out devils by Beelzebub, the prince of devils,” The word was about the envy of the Jews of Christ.
· The fifth prince, of gluttony is called Beelphegor. Ps. 105:28: “They also were initiated to Beelphegor: and ate the sacrifices of the dead.”
· The sixth prince, of anger is called Baalberith. Judges 9:4: “..out of the temple of Baalberith: wherewith he hired to himself men.”
· The seventh prince, of sloth is called Astaroth. I Kings 7:3: “Put away the strange gods from among you, Baalim and Astaroth: and prepare your hearts unto the Lord.” [End excerpt.]
Combining that with what I had previously read about angels- that we can’t completely discern their existence and capabilities, and that they are not bound by time and space in the way that we are; and then, biblical references such as- “prince of this world”; “our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against principalities and powers, against the directors of this world of darkness, against the spirits of wickedness in high places”; and, “You are of your father, the devil. And you will carry out the desires of your father”-
That’s how I ended up at that conclusion.
Thank you very much.
The seven “princes” are figurative. There is not a devil for each of the seven capital sins. The Church does not teach that a devil is involved whenever there is sin. You are taking Bible passages out of context, and misinterpreting a passage from a Saint.
Oh no! Wow! Uh oh!
It sounds as though it’s a very good thing that I am in RCIA!
Thank you so much for the guidance, Mr. Conte.
Ron,
In eschatology, is it possible for the Almighty God to alter the timing of prophecies and private revelations where the actual events occur in a different timeline? I believe the events will occur but by his divine nature, I would think God could possibly delay or expedite actual events.
When a timing or situation is revealed in Scripture, then it cannot change, as God is the author of Scripture and He cannot lie or be mistaken. The problem is in the interpretation. Sometimes, it is said in private revelation that a fulfillment of a prophecy is delayed, but this is not literal. God does not plan, and then delay or change His mind. It is an anthropomorphic description of how God works to portray him as planning, finding out new information, and then changing his plan, as when He tells Abraham to sacrifice his son, and then sends an angel to say not to do so.