Holy Cross Seminary

Frequently Asked Questions About Catholicism
Answered by Fr. Peter Scott

Question: Is it permissible for representatives to vote in favor or a law banning partial abortion, but permitting some exceptions, such as the protection of the life of the mother?

Answer: The moral dilemma about voting for such a law is that by so doing one actually gives the impression of approving the consequence of the law, namely that there could be some partial birth abortions, even if greatly reduced in number. Is it not a cause of scandal to vote for such a law. How can one give one’s approval to a law that permits evil? It is certainly understandable that some pro-lifers would refuse to support a local bishop who encourages his faithful to support the law, as does Archbishop Sheehan of Santa Fe for the proposed New Mexico ban on partial abortions.

It is certainly true that "cooperation in evil legislation is sinful" (Jone, Moral Theology, p. 140), and that a law that permits any abortions is evil. However, there can be some exceptions to this rule. This can happen when the cooperation is only material, that is, when we do not accept the evil will of the principal agent (here the legislature as a whole), and consequently do not share in the evil. We do not have any intention to make some abortions possible, but our intention is to do all that we can to stop as many abortions, as much evil, as we can.

It is similar to the case in which it is permissible to advise a lesser sin, if the sinner cannot otherwise be deterred from committing the greater sin (i.e. all abortions are permitted). (cf. Jone, p.90; Slater, Moral Theology, p.131). "To lessen sin is surely to do good. This is the more probable opinion, according to St. Alphonsus".

Here the voting for a law that would occasionally permit abortions (instead of regularly) is not an immediate cooperation, even material. It is only very remotely that our vote would permit the sinful action of some abortions. "As a rule, this time of cooperation is also wrong. It may be permitted, however, if the rules of the double effect may be applied – of the act performed is not intrinsically evil, for example, and if a correspondingly good reason is present" (Cunningham, The Christian Life, p. 183). To participate in a legislative act to stop partial birth abortions, as much as possible, is not intrinsically evil, and there is a proportionate reason for the unavoidable evil consequence (the occasional abortions on the grounds of the mother’s health), namely that many abortions will be prevented from happening.

Jone admits that this applies to the case of cooperation in evil legislation: "The only exception admitted is the case in which such representatives might avoid a greater evil by their cooperation; in such cases, however, they must make clear their position". (Ib. p. 140) A Catholic representative or voter must make it perfectly clear that he does not support the exceptions involved in the bill to ban partial birth abortions, so as to avoid giving scandal. However, having done so he is free to vote for it, in order to avoid a greater evil. It is for similar reasons that it is permitted for Catholic representatives to give their approval to laws promoting freedom of religion, if they do this in order to avoid a greater evil (Cf. Prummer, I, p. 29).

Question: Is it wrong to be an organ donor?

Answer:  There are some occasions in which it is clearly permissible, for example when a person has a pair of organs, only one of which is really necessary. One can be removed to transplant to another person, such as a kidney transplant. There are other cases in which it is permissible, for example when the organ can be taken when the person is clearly already deceased, such as eye corneal transplants.

However, it is manifestly immoral to kill a person to take one of their organs, although that person would have died on his own within a short period of time. It is never permissible to kill one person just to help another. Only God has power over life and death.

The problem arises because once a person has really died and his cardiac and respiratory functions have ceased for several minutes, then his organs will be damaged in such a way that they cannot be used for organ transplants. Hence the organs must be removed first.

The big dispute presently concerns when a person is alive or dead. This involves the concept of brain death. The medical profession generally considers that when a person has been proven to be brain dead, for example by a flat EEG or by the absence of respiration when the respirator has been turned off, then he must be considered to be dead, despite the fact that his cardiac and respiratory functions are being artificially maintained. Consequently, it is permitted, so they say, to remove any or all organs from a person who is still breathing and whose heart is still beating, so long as they are proven to be brain dead. This has actually become big business, and a "living corpse" like this is worth $80,000 for its internal organs. 

This practice is not only disgustingly inhuman. It is manifestly anti-God and immoral. Death is the moment at which the soul leaves the body. This is known only to God, the creator of life. While a person is still breathing, even artificially, and while his heart is still beating, he has many signs of life. His body is being maintained in life by the circulation of blood. He is still a human being. It is true that if his brain is dead he will never think again, and he will not have the reflexes and reactions that depend upon brain function. However, this does not mean that he is not alive. It just means that there is a permanent irreparable impairment to his human activities. It is not for man to decide that he is not a man and that he is not alive. Consequently, he must be treated as a living person. Hence no essential organs can be removed until well after all respiration and cardiac action have ceased,

Question: Is it licit to allow one’s children to be vaccinated for rubella with vaccine manufactured with the help of fetal cells from aborted babies?

Answer: There is no doubt that it is illicit to prepare vaccinations by the use of cell cultures from aborted babies. It certainly is a very troublesome situation if the only way of obtaining such necessary vaccines is from cultures prepared from the by-products of abortions.

The question here is whether or not it is permissible to use such vaccines if they are the only ones that are readily available. Can the principles of double effect be applied, that is when only a good effect is directly willed, and a bad effect is simply permitted, but not directly willed in itself. The good effect in this case is the immunization against the infectious disease. The bad effect is the abortion, the killing of the innocent. It is never permitted to do something evil in order that a good can come of it, that it, it is never permitted for the good effect to come from the bad effect. However it is possible to permit an evil, that is not directly willed in itself, and this is called the indirect voluntary.

Here one could argue that the person who seeks the vaccination does not will the abortion, but simply uses the cells that are obtained as a consequence. However, the vaccine is not just an indirect effect of the abortion. There is in fact a direct line of causality, from the abortion, to the available fetal cells to the development of the vaccine, to the immunization. Therefore, the immunization is a direct consequence of the abortion, and not just an indirect effect. Consequently, it would be immoral to use a vaccine that one knew was developed in fetal cells, no matter how great the advantage to be procured.

Moreover, even if it were to be admitted that the vaccination is not a direct consequence of the abortion, for the abortion is not performed directly in order to obtain fetal cells, and those who use them might claim, as for themselves, that they do not directly will the abortion in itself, the Catholic sense tells the faithful that they can never use the by-products of abortions for any reason at all, for by so doing they promote the mass murder of the innocent which is destroying modern society and all sense of morality. There must always be a proportionate reason to use the indirect voluntary, that is to permit something evil which is not directly willed. Here the reasonable gain obtained by the use of the double effect (if it truly were indirectly willed only, which it is not) would not in any way be proportionate to the horrible evil of abortion and the scandal would be immense.

If a person is not aware of the fact that fetal cells are being used in the culture of the vaccines that he or she is giving to his/her children, then clearly there is no moral fault involved. However, if he/she is aware of this, then he/she is morally obliged to refuse such vaccinations on principle, until such time as they can be obtained from cultures which are morally licit. Furthermore, if civil law should make such vaccinations obligatory (e.g. for attendance at school), then the parent would be obliged to object in conscience to such immoral means of vaccinating their children.

Moreover, it is not permissible to remain in willful ignorance on such a question. If there is a positive reason to suspect that fetal cells are indeed involved in the production of the vaccine, then a person is morally obliged to clarify the matter, and find out if this is indeed true or not.

Question:  How should Catholics view dancing?

Answer:  The morality of recreational or social dancing is not a new subject, but one which saints and moral theologians have treated at length. The difficulty lies in the fact that the style, fashion and manner of dancing are in a continual flux, and that this affects its morality.

All agree that dancing, in itself, is morally indifferent, and consequently that it is not in itself sinful, and that dancing of the right kind, under the right auspices can in itself be an innocent and even beneficial diversion. However, it is equally clear that it is very commonly a proximate occasion of sin, in virtue of the circumstances that accompany the dancing, such as place, time, immodesty, company, let alone the sensual nature of many dances, and the intimate physical contact which is an immediate peril for the virtue of purity, and entirely opposed to the respect which is owed to the body, temple of the Holy Ghost.

The Catholic Encyclopedia of 1913 summarizes in this way the Church’s teaching: "Undoubtedly old national dances in which the performers stand apart, hardly, if at all, holding the partner’s hand, fall under ethical censure scarcely more than any other kind of social intercourse. But aside from the concomitants – place, late hours, décolleté, escorting. etc. – common to all such entertainments, round dances, although they may possibly be carried on with decorum and modesty, are regarded by moralists as fraught, by their very nature, with the greatest danger to morals. To them perhaps, but unquestionably still more to masked balls, should be applied the warning of the Second Council of Baltimore against ‘those fashionable dances which, as at present carried on, are revolting to every feeling of delicacy and propriety’"  (Vol. IV p. 619)

Such is the Church’s teaching concerning ballroom dancing, despite the fact that it can be a form of art. It must, at least in general and for most young people, be considered a proximate occasion of mortal sin, and consequently forbidden. However, square dances and folk dances, in which there is not the same intimate physical contact and pairing off, nor the same danger of bad company, are not a proximate occasion of sin and are consequently permissible. Ballet, as an art form, and expression of beauty, can be licit and permissible. However, it must be remembered that it is a sensual art form, and one in which the displaying of the body can be an occasion of sin both for performers and for the audience, and one in which vanity plays a large part. e.g. the ultra-slim figures required. It is consequently not an art form to be encouraged or patronized.

It goes without saying that modern dancing as commonly done these days, being animalistic and extremely sensual by its exclusive emphasis on rhythm at the expense of any ordered, harmonious, bodily movement, is always to be excluded as a proximate occasion of serious sin, in virtue of the music and dance itself, as well as the company and other circumstances.   

If any young girls is so taken with the craze of dancing to hesitate to accept the Church’s wisdom on the question, I suggest she read the following passage from the saint who liked to meekly catch flies with honey, and not vinegar, and whose understanding of the situation of people in the world is so clearly manifest in his spiritual direction. St. Francis de Sales had this to say:

"In themselves, dances and balls are indifferent things. However, in actual practice they tend strongly toward the side of evil, and therefore are dangerous.

People dance at night, and in darkened rooms. This favors certain familiarities. People stay up late and this results in their rising late the next day, causing the morning to be wasted. Consequently, they miss opportunities of serving God. Is it not foolish to turn night into day and day into night and to replace useful work with frivolous pleasure? Finally, at balls everyone tries to outdo everybody else in vanity, and vanity is favorable to the evil affections and dangerous loves which dancing so easily spawns.

Philothea, what physicians say about mushrooms or pumpkins I say about dances: The best of them are not worth much! However, if you must eat pumpkins, be careful how they are prepared, eat only a little of them, and that rarely. In the same way, if you cannot give up going to balls, be careful how you dance, doing so with modesty, dignity and the right intention. Attend balls rarely, because no matter how carefully you conduct yourself at them, there is danger of excess in them, by becoming too attached to them.

Because they are spongy, mushrooms are said to attract the surrounding rot. The same is true of balls and other such night-oriented gatherings. They usually attract sin: quarrels, jealousies, mockery, sensual loves. These activities open the pores of the heart to be poisoned by some loose word or some folly or some wanton glance of love. Yes, Philothea, such amusements are usually dangerous. They scatter one’s spirit of devotion, weaken one’s strength and chill one’s charity. They awaken countless evil affections in the soul. Because of all this, use them with great caution.

After eating mushrooms, one is advised above all to drink some good win. I personally advise you to think some holy and good thoughts after a ball. These will counterbalance the bad impressions you may have received there.

What are some such holy and good thoughts? While I was dancing, some people were burning in Hell for sins committed at dances or occasioned by their dancing. While I was dancing, monks, nuns and other fervent Christians were chanting God’s praise and contemplating His beauty, thus using their time far more profitably than I was. While I was dancing, many souls departed from this world in great anguish; thousands were suffering dreadful pains in hospitals...While I was dancing, the time of my earthly life was hurrying by and death was approaching nearer. See how he mocks and invites me to his dance! In that dance I shall take but one step from this life to the next." (Introduction to the Devout Life, Part III. Chapter 33).

Question: What is the authority of Canon Law?

Answer:  The Code of Canon Law is the book that contains all the principal laws that apply to the Latin rite of the Roman Catholic Church. The Eastern rites have different laws, and for this reason a different Code of Canon Law. The Code of Canon Law reflects the Pope’s jurisdictional authority to govern the entire Church, for those laws that are universal, or the Latin rite for those laws which are limited to the Code of the Latin rite.

Since the laws contained in the code belong to the realm of discipline, they are not in themselves doctrinal. They are consequently not ex cathedra doctrinal declarations, although they do presuppose the Church’s infallible doctrinal teachings as contained in the documents of the Extraordinary and Ordinary Magisterium. Their authority comes from the Pope’s supreme authority to govern the Church, rather than from his authority to teach.

The consequence of this is that they do not meet up with the four conditions required for an act of the Extraordinary Magisterium: they are not definitions; they often do not directly concerns matters of Faith and morals; they are often not for the universal Church (but only the Latin rite); they are not imposed in virtue of the Faith. The Code of Canon Law can, therefore, contain dangerous and erroneous statements and even laws which jeopardize the salvation of souls. Examples of these abound in the 1983 Code of Canon Law, profoundly penetrated as it is, by the admission of the John Paul II himself, by the ecclesiology of Vatican II. e.g. the reversal of the ends of marriage; the permission of sacramental sharing in both directions between Catholics and non-Catholics, and the new definition of the Church as going beyond the boundaries of the visible Catholic Church.

This means that we have to carefully examine the different laws contained in the 1983 code to see whether or not these disciplinary determinations are in accord with the infallibly defined Catholic Faith or not, just as we have to do with the Pope’s particular laws, such as the "promulgation" of the New Mass. If they are a legitimate exercise of the Pope’s authority, then we must accept them. However, if they are harmful to the Church’s teaching (as Communion in the Hand destroys Faith in the Real Presence), then these laws must be refused. An example of this is the law that permits annulments for psychological reasons, this being a direct attack on the sanctity and unity and indissolubility of marriage. It must always be remembered that if, in promulgating the Code and other laws, the Pope exercises his supreme authority to govern (i.e. there is no higher authority on earth), he never has an absolute and arbitrary authority, and that any laws which do  not accomplish the end of the law, the salvation of souls, are null and void, and that he received his authority that he "might guard sacredly the revelation transmitted through the apostles and the deposit of Faith, and might faithfully set it forth" (Vat. I, Pastor Aeternus. Db 1836).

home | top of page | list of questions