Ask a question below in the comments, and I’ll try to answer it. Please keep questions brief, and on the topic of theology.
Some questions and answers to get things started:
1. Why can’t lost souls in Hell repent?
God gave humanity the gifts of free will, the ability to reason abstractly (and so understand things of transcendent value: goodness, truth, love, faithfulness, hope), and an immortal soul. So God does not extinguish the souls in Hell, making them cease to exist. Their punishment is never-ending, just as the reward for the Just souls in Heaven is never-ending.
God forgives any and all wrongdoing, no matter how severe, as long as the sinner repents. But repentance is only permitted by God in this life. After we die, we stand before God, each person alone before the judgment of God, and we are judged for all the good and bad we have done, and whether we repented from all the things we did that were seriously wrong (mortal sin). Those who repent from grave sin before death, and who thereafter live a good life (loving God and neighbor), die in a state of grace and will have eternal life in Heaven, perhaps after some time of punishment in Purgatory.
But those who die unrepentant from grave sins, committed with full knowledge that the act was gravely wrong and will full deliberation (full freedom of will), die in a state of unrepented actual mortal sin, and so they do not have the state of grace when they die. All such persons, if they meet all of the aforementioned conditions, are judged by God and sent to Hell.
However, often a grave sin does not have full culpability (full responsibility for the sin), due to a lack of understanding of the seriousness of the sin, or a lack of full freedom in committing the act.
When souls are sent to Hell, they cannot repent because they do not have the grace of God that is absolutely necessary to repent. No one in Hell has the state of grace, which implies and includes the love of God and neighbor, and no one in Hell is given the grace from God to be able to repent, because they have already been judged and sentenced by God. It would not be fair to send all persons to Heaven, no matter how much evil they have done, knowingly and deliberately and without repentance, by some type of process of constant endless opportunities to repent. Some persons deserve Hell due to their own choices and refusal to change.
God forgives any and all sins in this life, if the sinner is repentant. But after death, repentance is not possible for the souls in Hell.
.
2. In Catholicism, is the procreative meaning of marital sexual acts more important than the unitive meaning?
To be moral, each sexual act must be marital, unitive, and procreative. These three meanings have the same degree of importance, in that the deprivation of any one or more of these meanings makes the sexual act gravely immoral.
The procreative meaning is present as long as the sexual act is of the type that is ordered toward procreation, and the couple do not knowingly thwart that procreative end (such as by contraception). The procreative meaning is not more important than the unitive meaning, but all three meanings must be present in each sexual act, or the act is objectively a grave sin.
.
3. Is it a sin to miss Mass on Sunday or a holy day?
Catholics have an obligation to attend Mass on Sunday (or the Saturday evening vigil Mass) and on holy days of obligation, as determined by the Vatican, the Bishops Conference of one’s country or region, and the Bishop of one’s diocese.
However, a practicing Catholic who regularly attends Mass can miss Mass on occasion for a just reason. The reason does not need to be grave.
For example, if someone is ill with a cold or the flu, they can and should stay home. You can fulfill the Commandment to keep holy the Sabbath by prayer at home, and perhaps by watching Mass on TV or the internet. (But watching Mass at home is not required.)
If your illness is mental or psychological, you can miss Mass without sin.
If you have an obligation to care for an infant or toddler, or multiple young children, or the elderly, you might miss Mass due to that obligation without sin.
If your work prevents you from attending Mass (this more often occurs with holy days of obligation), then you might miss Mass without sin.
If you are travelling, even for a non-essential reason, and are unable to attend Mass, you might miss Mass without sin.
The overall obligation to worship God and to keep holy the Sabbath is grave, as is the obligation Catholics have to attend Mass. But for a Catholic who regularly attends Mass, missing on occasion for a just reason is not a sin. And the reason need not be grave.
Ronald L. Conte Jr.
Ask other questions below in the comments.
the reproach of Christ 
Dear Ron,
Thank you very much for your response. I especially appreciate your historical examples.
God bless you,
Robert
Dear Ron,
Would you be able to comment on this article by Fr. Gerald Murray? https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2023/03/27/another-revolution-in-the-church/
It’s clear that Fr. Murray doesn’t like the provisions of Episcopalis Communio, but at the end of his article he makes this statement: “This innovation must be resisted by the Church’s bishops. It conflicts with the dogmatic teaching of the Church on the nature of the sacrament of Holy Orders, in particular the nature of the episcopate.”
I think Fr. Murray’s claim is hyperbolic. The role of non-bishops in the Synod is covered in Article 2.2 of Episcopalis Communio: “Art. 2 §2: According to the theme and the circumstances, certain others who are not Bishops may be summoned to the Synod Assembly; their role is determined in each case by the Roman Pontiff.”
The authority of any document that comes from the Synod will be that of the Roman Pontiff himself according to Art 18 of Episcopalis Communio.
Fr. Murray is entitled to his opinion, but to claim that an apostolic constitution of the Pope “conflicts with the dogmatic teaching of the Church” seems to challenge the indefectibility of the Roman Pontiff. I wonder if you agree.
It will be a couple of days before I can write a reply, which I would be happy to do. At the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon, the Pope was not present, so he sent two papal legates, who were merely priests. They rejected the 28th Canon of Chalcedon, and it stood rejected. Also there have been non-Bishops and non-ordained persons, who wrote to Ecumenical Councils, and whose writings played a role in the Council’s decision. So it is clear that non-Bishops can have substantial roles at Ecumenical Councils, and so they also can have such roles at a lesser gathering, such as a Synod.
I think Fr. Murray is grasping at straws on that point. Even if lay persons vote, the teaching authority of the Church rests with the successors to the Apostles. And any vote by a Synod can be set aside by the Pope, or by the Bishops and the Pope, if they were to find that the laity were voting together in an inappropriate way.
The addition of laity to a Synod, even if they are allowed to vote, is protected from grave error by the indefectibility of the Church, the Pope, and the body of Bishops led by the Pope. Fr. Murray’s claim that the Synod changes into something else by adding layperson voters is quite a stretch. The approval of the Pope is sufficient to protect the decisions of a Synod from grave error, and since the Pope can set aside even the decisions of an Ecumenical Council, he certainly can set aside or correct the decisions of a Synod. So there is no danger to the Church there.
Ron, can you explain why the Orthodox have valid sacraments while the Anglicans don’t?
The Anglicans explicitly state that they do not believe in an ordained priesthood; they have rejected the Sacrament of holy Orders, and they changed the ceremony and wording for when they make someone an Anglican minister. For those two reasons, the Sacrament is not valid.
The Orthodox believe in all 7 Sacraments, and the wording and actions, the form of the Sacrament, remains a valid form. So their holy Orders, which stems from valid Bishops with Apostolic succession, remains a valid Sacrament producing valid priests.
Several questions about the suffering and the role of the Church.
1. How can be explained the suffering of the good people to be overall bigger than that of the bad people, (generally speaking of good and bad people and amount of suffering they have in this mortal life).
2. Why the Church ministers at times behave as if she is not here to care for her own, exactly the good, suffering and lowly? Again generally speaking.
3. Why is it said (was it in the Catechism or elsewhere) that the Church herself must go through Golgotha (i.e. to die), if at the same time we are taught that the sacrifice of Jesus Christ is one and for all and suffice to redeem all the sins until the end of the world?
4. And how 1, 2 and 3 fit with the image of the all powerful and all good God who controls everything, even the permitted actions of the devils, and who sent His Only Begotten Son to die INSTEAD of us?
5. If the good God does not approve 1. and 2. then who is to blame ultimately for it, and isn’t there a major flaw in the (historical, patristic) teaching that is definitely not a part of any Dogma?
6. And because I reached so far with escalating questions that logically come one after another, that I do not have their answers and do not find satisfying answers in TODAY’s theological books (although there are some answers given):
Could we expect the next Council to answer more and clarify better some of these non-dogmatic beliefs held for too long and being “too big to fail”? 2025 is the 1700th anniversary of the first Nicaea council, preceded by 2 years of Synod on Synodality.
I will be thankful if you address these questions, maybe in a next larger post.
I’ll consider addressing those questions in a future post, perhaps.
Dear Mr.Conte,
Please, does the text of the “Surrender Novena”, (associated with Father Dolindo Ruotolo) put forward a theologically sound approach?
Thank you very much.
That claimed private revelation is certainly false, and its Novena is wicked; it contains gravely harmful advice and false doctrine.
Very grateful for your answer–thank you.
Dear Ron, I disagree that “The procreative meaning is not more important than the unitive meaning”.
The answer of the Holy See in 1944 was this:
“Can one admit the opinion of certain writers who deny that the primary end of marriage is the procreation and rearing of children, or teach that the secondary ends are not essentially subordinate to the primary end, but are equally principal and independent?”
The answer was 𝒏𝒆𝒈𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒗e, and the next day Pope Pius XII approved this decision and ordered it to become a matter of public law.
Decree “On the Purposes of Marriage”. AAS, 36, 1944, p.103.
Click to access AAS-36-1944-ocr.pdf
The primary end of MARRIAGE is the procreation and education of children. My comment was on sexual acts, which must be marital and unitive and procreative. In the context of the three moral objects of moral sexual relations, all three moral objects (ends) of the sexual act must be present for the act to be moral. The absence of any one or more of these three objects always makes the act gravely immoral. Your quote is on marriage, not the morality of sexual acts. The “secondary ends” are various good consequences of marriage, other than the procreation and education of children. Secondary ends do not include the unitive moral object of sexual acts.
Why future incident, Garbandal warning is not yet recognised or accepted or confirmed by Vatican?
Garabandal and Medjugorje have specific predictions about the future. These are private revelations, lacking the surety of Tradition and Scripture. And so the Magisterium prudently waits, rather than making a judgment on things that have not yet been revealed. Even when Scripture teaches about the future, the Church only interprets Scripture about the future authoritatively on a few points, as She is mainly concerned with teaching divinely-revealed truths and guiding the faithful in the present.
just as there is an invincible ignorance, is there also a conquerable ignorance?
since:
“my people are lost for lack of knowledge” [Hosea 4:6]
There is culpable ignorance, as when a person deliberately and knowingly chooses not to consider the moral meaning of his acts or the grave harm that his acts may do. And, yes, an ignorance can be “conquerable”, in the sense that the person could have obtained the truth, but was negligent, to one degree or another. This negligence in ignorance can be venial or mortal.
Can the souls in purgatory pray for us, or with us? Is it a theologically valid opinion to think so?
The souls in purgatory must make reparations for their sins, not only by suffering, but by praying as well. So they can pray with us and for us, and we for them. They do not merit, as we might, by suffering and praying, as they are paying their debt for their sins. But they are united with us in Christ and in the one Church.
Ron,
I believe God’s position to enter the Kingdom of Heaven is an even playing field for all persons. However, it appears while persons are born into different religions or being an atheist certain restrictions/commadments/obligations are required to fulfill their duty on entry into heaven. Is it harder to enter heaven because of these obligations?
What is your opinion?
I believe that the easiest path to Heaven is to be a believing and practicing Catholic. The further away from Catholicism one goes, the harder it is to be saved. However, God uses His grace and providence to ensure that everyone has ample opportunity to be saved, since they are judged by conscience and have many helps from God along the way.
Great article! About hell, just would like to ask something, if hell is eternal and no one can get out of it, how is that the demons can enter a body in earth when diabolic possession takes place? I do not understand that part. Could you provide some light on this matter? Thanks in advance, regards.
Some devils are in Hell and will be punished there forever; other devils are permitted to roam the earth, until it is time for their judgment (I suppose at the general judgment).