Holy Cross Seminary

Frequently Asked Questions About Catholicism
Answered by Fr. Peter Scott

Question: Is a Catholic in mortal sin if he allows more than one year to pass since his last confession?

Answer: It is one of the six precepts of the Church, and is explicitly stated in Canon 906 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law: "All Catholics of either sex who have reached the years of discretion, that is the age of reason, are obliged to confess all their sins accurately at least once a year". Since this is a clear obligation in a serious matter, established by the Church for the salvation of souls, it is clear that it is under pain of mortal sin, and that if a person deliberately omits to confess his or her sins, he commits an additional mortal sin.

However, there is a change in the wording of the corresponding canon in the 1983 Code. Instead of all sins, it now says "serious sins" (Canon 989).This leaves some ambiguity, but it must be understood as meaning "mortal sins" to use the precise term employed by the traditional code of Canon Law. This seems to take away all obligation to confess sins if one thinks that one has no "serious" or mortal sins on one’s soul. This is the common practice in the post-conciliar church, in which many practicing Catholics go for many years without seeing the need to go to Confession. It is a great tragedy, for their conscience becomes extremely lax. Who are they to judge of themselves that they have not committed any mortal sin? It is hard to understand how one who is familiar with the traditional teachings of the Church could be excused from the sin of presumption.

However, it must be admitted that "strictly speaking, only those are obliged by this precept who have committed a mortal sin" (Jone, §395, p. 279). This is confirmed by Woywood and Smith’s Practical Commentary on the Code of Canon Law (pp. 512 & 513). It is there pointed out that the obligation of confessing one’s mortal sins is of divine law, coming from Our Lord Himself. The time for the confession of sins was specified by the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), but the Council of Trent interpreted this as applying only to those sins that have to be confessed by divine law. Furthermore the 1917 Code of Canon Law itself states explicitly (Canon 902) that the confession of venial sins is optional, and one canon cannot contradict another. Hence it was never strictly obligatory under pain of mortal sin for a Catholic who was sure that he had no mortal sin to go to Confession every year.

However, putting aside this technical and unreal exception, (for who can really pretend to be free of mortal sin when he is so lax as to go to Confession only once a year?), it remains that the spirit of the Church is that which is contained in the letter of Canon 906 from the traditional code, and not that contained in the new code, namely that every Catholic should consider it his duty to go to Confession at least once per year.

In fact, it is not just once a year, but frequently that we should confess our venial sins if we hope not only to stay in the state of grace, but also to advance in virtue. This is what Pope Pius XII had to say on this subject in 1943: "It is true that venial sins may be expiated in many ways which are to be highly commended. But to ensure more rapid progress day by day in the path of virtue, We will that the pious practice of frequent confession, which was introduced into the Church by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, should be earnestly advocated." (Mystici Corporis Christi, §88) Condemning the younger priests who "lessen esteem for frequent confession", the Pope described some of the many advantages to the soul of the regular confession of our venial sins. "By it genuine self-knowledge is increased, Christian humility grows, bad habits are corrected, spiritual neglect and tepidity are resisted, the conscience is purified, the will strengthened, a salutary self-control is attained, and grace is increased in virtue of the Sacrament itself." (Ib.) Is it any wonder that the Church requires that we go to Confession 8 days before or after gaining a plenary indulgence?

Question: Does the Church approve of surgery for an ectopic pregnancy?

Answer: It is never permitted to directly kill an infant (or any other person for that matter, with the exception of self defense, just war and capital punishment), and so consequently, it is immoral to perform an abortion in the case of an ectopic pregnancy, even to save the life of the mother. This is immoral, whether it is done surgically or chemically. There are now available medications (such as methotrexate, or just recently RU-486) that are commonly used for tubular pregnancies, and that directly cause the living fetus to be aborted. This is always immoral.

However, if it can be established that the fetus is already dead (by ultrasound examination, for example), then clearly the surgical removal of the already dead fetus for the health of the mother is entirely permissible.

The difficulty arises when the fetus is still alive. The mother's life is endangered through internal hemorrhage at that time. The moral theologians hold different opinions as to whether it is permissible to intervene surgically to remove the ectopic pregnancy before the death of the foetus. Some say that surgical intervention directly kills the foetus, which is immoral. Others say that it is not direct killing at all, but it is the removing of a mass of tissue (including the placenta) which has fixed itself in the wrong place (the fallopian tube instead of the uterus), in such a way as to cause a tumor invading the mother’s fallopian tube, rather like a malignant tumor. Just as it is possible to operate on a tumor of the mother, (e.g. in treatment of uterine cancer) even if as a consequence and indirectly the child will die, so also it is moral, they say, to surgically remove this abnormal mass of tissue, which contains the fetus. It is an indirect and unfortunate, though necessary, consequence that the fetus will die, but this is not willed in itself.

The principle used in this second opinion is the application of the principle of double effect, or the indirect voluntary. This is moral, provided that the bad effect, in this case the death of the unborn child is not directly willed in itself, and that there is a proportionate reason (such as saving the life of the mother), and that the good effect, namely saving the mother’s life does not directly come from the bad effect, the death of the child. The understanding of this solution depends upon the grasping of the gravity of the proportionate reason. The fetus that lodges in the fallopian tube cannot survive in any case, and if the mother is not treated she may very hemorrhage to death, or be observed in hospital for several weeks, and her fallopian tubes can be so damaged by the ectopic pregnancy left untreated that she might never be able to conceive again.  

Since there are opinions on both sides of this question, both can be safely followed in conscience. Consequently, it is permissible to have surgery, provided that it is not a direct abortion, but the removal of invasive tissue, but it is never permissible to taken medications to kill the live fetus.

Question: Is one allowed to study on Sunday?

Answer: The important distinction to be observed in the keeping of the Sunday rest is between servile work, opera servilia and liberal works, opera liberalia. Note that the Church’s interdiction does not depend on the purpose, or reason for which the works are done, but on the nature of the work itself. Servile works performed out of charity are forbidden on Sundays, such a mowing a neighbor’s lawn or painting his garage, and liberal works are permitted, even if they are done for profit., such as painting pictures to sell.

You might wonder what the difference, then, is between servile work and liberal works, and why it is that servile works should be particularly forbidden. St. Thomas Aquinas explains in the Summa IIaIIae 122, a.4, Ad 3, that "servile work is so called from servitude; and servitude is threefold. One whereby man is the servant of sin, according to Jn8:34 ‘Whosever committeth sin is the servant of sin’, and in this case all sinful acts are servile. Another servitude is whereby one man serves another. Now one man serves another not with his mind, but with his body. Wherefore in this respect those works are called servile whereby one man serves another. The third is the servitude of God; and in this way the work of worship, which pertains to the service of God, may be called a servile work".

Clearly Sundays are consecrated to the worship of God, and servile works in this third sense are not only permitted but obligatory. Also, servile works in the first sense of sin are always forbidden, but especially on Sunday, the day that is specially given to the greater glory of God. If servile works in the second sense of physical activities formerly done by servants are expressly forbidden on Sundays, it is because the preoccupation with such matters is a part of the punishment for original sin (Gen 3:19 "In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread") and hinders the soul from being elevated to the things of God, from contemplating eternity, and taking care of its eternal salvation and the greater glory of God. Not so the liberal arts, which express the soul’s elevation and consideration of beauty, truth and goodness in varying ways. The Sunday should consequently be used for the soul to express its freedom to know, love and serve God not only by participating in Holy Mass and the Church’s offices, and also by its exercise of and/or appreciation for the liberal arts. This is summarized by Jone: "Liberal and artistic works are also lawful: studying, teaching, drawing, architectural designing, playing, music, writing (also typing), painting, delicate sculpturing, embroidering, taking photographs. These works are lawful even if done for remuneration" (Moral Theology).

However, it may happen on occasion that even the liberal arts hinder the soul’s worship of God, when they are immoral or an occasion of sin, or if a person is so preoccupied with them that he no longer assists at Mass or attends to his spiritual duties. In such circumstances, study also becomes sinful on Sunday.

Question: Can a Catholic in conscience declare bankruptcy, and if so can he consider his debts as forgiven?

Answer: Civil laws allowing the declaration of bankruptcy are just laws, enacted for the common good, for they enable a debtor’s creditors to be satisfied in as far as and just a manner as possible, and prevent his remaining assets from being squandered or wasted. They consequently oblige in conscience, insofar as they do not conflict with the natural law. Fr. Jone in his Moral Theology (p. 259) describes what is allowed by natural law: "The natural law allows an insolvent person to retain what is required to modestly support himself and his family according to their social status and to establish a small business...To retain more than this is an injustice and makes one subject to restitution..."

Consequently, it is morally licit to declare bankruptcy, provided that it is truly impossible to pay one’s creditors, and provided that one honestly declares all of one’s assets. However, it does not necessarily follow from this that the debtor is freed from all obligation in conscience to make restitution to his creditors.

In fact, ordinarily and of itself, the obligation of restitution is not abolished but only temporarily suspended, until such time as it becomes possible. The reason why this is ordinarily the case is that the creditors only very reluctantly accept a partial reimbursement of the debt, and cannot be considered as voluntarily condoning it, if the former debtor enters into sufficient wealth to pay it off.

However, exceptions to this ordinary rule of justice take place when civil laws explicitly and entirely abolish every obligation of paying a debt after a true legal bankruptcy declaration. This is an accepted exception, for such laws are just laws, very useful for commerce and for the common good. Such persons, having honestly, and without any fault of their own, fallen into bankruptcy, are then free to begin again their family and business activities. Fr. Jone has this to say about the U.S. "where the juridical opinion favors complete freedom in case of a bona fide bankrupt. According to this more lenient viewpoint, debts are contracted under the implied condition that they will cease in case of bona fide bankruptcy. Although the legal immunity guaranteed in phrases as ‘forever discharged from all debts and claims’ does not apply to the internal forum, nonetheless the law for all our States and territories ‘a discharge in bankruptcy shall release a bankrupt from all his provable debts...’ is adduced as proof of the solidly probably opinion that a declaration of bankruptcy liquidates a bona fide bankrupt’s debts also in conscience" (Ib. pp. 259 – 260).

It seems to me that this opinion can certainly be followed with respect to debts to mortgage companies, credit card companies and the like, for they calculate on a certain proportion of bad debts. However, it would seem that in the case of a personal loan from a friend, acquaintance of relative the implied condition of the cessation of the debt in case of bankruptcy would not exist, and that such debts call for restitution in conscience, even if they do not according to civil law.

Furthermore, any person who deliberately brings on a bankruptcy by negligence in administering his finances, or by failure to regularly fail his bills, or by living beyond his means, or by racking up high credit card debts, certainly has the duty in conscience of restitution, even after bankruptcy has been declared. For it is taught by all the theologians that when the bankruptcy is brought on by grave fault or fraud on the part of the bankrupt, then the duty of restitution always remains, as soon as it becomes possible to do so (Prummer, II, p. 210).

It is certain that in our materialistic world this whole question of justice and honor in paying one’s debts is taken very lightly, and that many people feel that they are in no way culpable or at fault in bringing about their bankruptcy, or living in such a way as to gravely risk bankruptcy, under the excuse that they can always declare bankruptcy. This is a sin against justice, as well as an abuse of the bankruptcy laws. This cardinal virtue of justice is crucial to any upright Catholic life. Grounds of charity cannot be used to excuse from it. Traditional Catholics must make an effort to escape from the slavery of materialism that will lead them to sins against justice, by fighting against the mentality of spending all the time, and of abusing the facility of credit cards.

Question: Is it wise to give children pocket money?

Answer: A judgment of prudence consists in taking the right means to attain one’s goal. Pocket money must be given for a reason, and that reason is certainly not to placate children, or so that they can be like their friends, or have everything that they want. The reason why children would be given pocket money would be to teach them a sense of responsibility in the use of the means placed at their disposal in the best way possible. It is important for a parent to realize that it is not because he has given his child pocket money that he is free from all responsibility as to how it is spent. The parent should not only know, but also supervise, the spending of this money, and make it quite clear that he has the authority to forbid, unnecessary, wasteful or worldly use of pocket money.

It is also important for children to learn from an early age that privileges such as pocket money need to be earned, and that it will be suppressed for behavior problems. It is also a necessary education to give it as a payment for on time, joyful and good performance of chores, so that pocket money is not something to be taken for granted.

The age at which pocket money is given and the sums given are highly variable, depending upon culture, the family’s economic status and life style and the parents’ methods of education. It is doubtless preferable to err on the side of austerity and poverty, as is usually the case with large families.       

Question: Should the mother or the father be responsible for teaching children their catechism?

Answer: The very formulation of the question presupposes a false dichotomy, since both are responsible. Yet, both are not responsible equally and in the same way.

Since the father is the head of the family, he has the responsibility for planning, and foresight is his prerogative and duty. His is the responsibility to look to the future, and to plan out the religious formation of his children, just as it is his duty to lead the family in prayer and other religious activities. He has no right to opt out of all involvement, on the grounds that he is not home long enough, but must act towards his family as Christ, who is the invisible head of the mystical body, the Catholic Church. His paternal prudence requires that he determine how and when his children’s religious education is to take place, even if he is not able to do it himself.

Ed Willock had this to say a half century ago: "Few fathers realize their own dignity as fathers, and few see the unique role that the Church insists that they plan in this work of revolutionary change (i.e. the formation of character in children). He should recognize that the American tradition of the last quarter century, which assigns to him the role of eternal adolescence, is a belittlement of his vocation. He is the bridge between Church and State. He is the bridge between state and family. He is the bridge between family and Church." (In Fatherhood and Family, Angelus Press, p. 81).

However, the mother is the one who is responsible for the daily implementation of her husband’s foresight. She is the one who will teach them the holy names of Jesus and Mary in her knees, and who will repeatedly go over their catechism questions with them by heart.

Nevertheless, as the children grow older the father’s role in the actual teaching of the Faith ought to increase, inasmuch as it is possible. It is he who ought to lead family discussions defending the great teachings on the Faith, and who must instruct his children on how to defend their Faith out in the world, and how also to defend the Church. By so doing, his authority and leadership will make the learning and expression of the Faith a profound reality in the lives of his children, instead of a superficial veneer.

Question: Did Jesus have a brother named James?

Answer: James the Lesser was a cousin of Our Lord, and not at all a son of the Blessed Mother. However, the Greek work for brother, "adelphos", is also used for close relatives, and as well as "brother" also has a meaning rather like the English word "brethren". The New Testament certainly speaks about Jesus’ brethren, but by a false translation protestants pretend that his brethren were his brothers and make the sacrilegious and blasphemous heretical statement that the Blessed Mother did not always remain a virgin. It is sacrilegious because it speaks of the Blessed Virgin Mary as if she were a regular woman, not one consecrated to be the Mother of God. It is blasphemous for it treats of the Incarnation of the Son of God as if it were not a divine work, brought about by the overshadowing of the Holy Ghost. It is heretical because it denies the dogma of the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary, first formally defined by the Second Ecumenical Council of Constantinople in 553 (Db 214 & 218).

home | top of page | next page | list of questions