Reflections on the Sacrament of Marriage by Bishop Michael Sheridan, S.T.D.

Spring is a time when the sacramental life of the church is particularly evident. These are the days when we celebrate First Holy Communions, confirmations, ordinations and marriages. It is to the last of these sacraments that I devote my thoughts today.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) gives us this beautiful definition of marriage, based on the Second Vatican Council’s teaching on the sacrament of matrimony:

"The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring; this covenant between baptized persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament" (no. 1601). Phrase by phrase, this definition gives us a little "catechism" on marriage.

The matrimonial covenant. The 1917 Code of Canon Law referred to the "marriage contract." Although a contract does not differ significantly from a covenant, the Second Vatican Council chose to call marriage a covenant rather than a contract because of the sacred nature of a covenant. Scripture uses "covenant" to speak of the solemn agreements entered into between God and his creatures. Jesus established a "new and eternal covenant" through his sacrificial death and resurrection. More than simply a legal agreement (contract), marriage is a profound and deeply spiritual agreement that stems from a solemn oath (vows). For this reason, marriage establishes a lifelong bond that ends only with death.

A partnership of the whole life. The sacred covenant that is marriage is not simply an agreement to exchange certain rights and duties. In marriage, "the partners mutually surrender themselves to each other (cf. "The Constitution on the Church in the Modern World," Vatican II, no. 48). This mutual giving of two persons reflects Christ’s gift of himself to us in love even to the shedding of his blood. The marriage partnership is one of total self-giving. This helps us to understand why contraception is sinful. When a married couple uses contraception, they are saying to each other, "I give you myself completely — except for my fertility. Contraception contradicts the very nature of marriage.

The good of the spouses. There are two ends or purposes to marriage. The first is the good of the spouses. Here we are speaking of spousal — or conjugal — love. There are few words that are more misused and misunderstood in our contemporary culture than "love." Popular media would have us believe that love is little other than an emotion — and a fleeting one at that — or simply physical attraction. In fact, genuine spousal love is far more.

Again, from the Catechism of the Catholic Church: "By its very nature conjugal love requires the inviolable fidelity of the spouses. This is the consequence of the gift of themselves that they make to each other. Love seeks to be definitive; it cannot be an arrangement ‘until further notice.’ The ‘intimate union of marriage, as a mutual giving of two persons, and the good of children demand total fidelity from the spouses and require an unbreakable union between them’" (1646).

But there is more. Marriage was not created by God only for the good of the spouses. There is a second — and equally important — purpose of marriage.

The procreation and education of offspring. By its very nature, marriage is ordered to the procreation of children. While not every act of marital intercourse will result in the conception of a child, every act of intercourse must be open to the gift of a child. Here, again, we see why every act of contraception is a gravely sinful. Contraception literally truncates the meaning of marriage. It eliminates one of the intrinsic purposes of marriage. "Fecundity is a gift, an end of marriage, for conjugal love naturally tends to be fruitful. A child does not come from outside as something added on to the mutual love of the spouses, but springs from the very heart of that mutual giving, as its fruit and fulfillment. So the Church, which is ‘on the side of life,’ teaches that ‘it is necessary that each and every marriage act remain ordered per se to the procreation of human life.’" (CCC 2366).

Raised to the dignity of a sacrament. Marriage as a natural institution comes from the creation as recorded in the Book of Genesis. The marriage of two baptized Christians, however, is different from marriage as a purely natural union. "The grace of the sacrament perfects the love of husband and wife, binds them together in fidelity, and helps them welcome and care for children. Christ is the source of this grace and he dwells with the spouses to strengthen their covenant promises, to bear each other’s burdens with forgiveness and kindness, and to experience ahead of time the ‘wedding feast of the lamb’" (United States Catholic Catechism for Adults, 285).

Although not in the definition of marriage, there is another point of church discipline that needs to be made. Catholics are bound most seriously to have their marriages witnessed by a priest or deacon. Dispensation from this law is possible; but, if a Catholic attempts marriage before anyone other than a priest of deacon without dispensation, that marriage is invalid, and the Catholic party(ies) to the marriage may not receive the sacraments of the church until the union can be regularized.

The apostle Paul teaches us that marriage is "a great foreshadowing; I mean that it refers to Christ and the church. In any case, each one should love his wife as he loves himself, the wife for her part showing respect for her husband" (Eph 5:32).

May this be true of every Christian marriage!

Source: This column originally appeared in the June 4, 2010 issue of The Colorado Catholic Herald

To Bear Witness To the Truth: An Unequivocal Moral Obligation for All Christians

by Rev. John Corapi, SOLT, STD
---------------

Every Catholic and, indeed, every Christian faithful to the Gospel, has the moral obligation to bear witness to the truth, “in season and out of season, convenient or inconvenient,” accepted or rejected. This mandate is nothing new, of course. It’s as old as the Old Testament, and as new as the New Testament. Nonetheless, I’m afraid that it has become more necessary than ever to remind ourselves of it.

The Magisterium formally teaches in the Catechism of the Catholic Church #2471, quoting Sacred Scripture, “Before [Pontius] Pilate, Christ proclaimed the He has ‘come into the world to bear witness to the truth’ (Jn 18:37). The Christian is not to be ‘ashamed then of testifying to our Lord’ (2 Tm 1:8). In situations that require witness to the faith, the Christian must profess it without equivocation, after the example of St. Paul before his judges. We must keep ‘a clear conscience toward God and toward men’” (Acts 24:16).

Let me give you one definition of equivocation: “A statement that is not literally false but that cleverly avoids an unpleasant truth; intentionally vague or ambiguous.” How about this for an example: “A woman has the right to choose.” Choose what? A less vague, ambiguous, and equivocal statement would be, “A woman (or man) has the right to choose to perpetrate homicide. Or, “A nation has the right to facilitate, enable, or legislate genocide.”

Oh, excuse me, that would be an unpleasant truth, or maybe an “inconvenient truth,” as the inventor of the internet, Al Gore, might say.

The Catholic Church unambiguously and formally teaches:

The duty of Christians to take part in the life of the Church impels them [IMPELS THEM] to act as witnesses of the Gospel and the obligations that flow from it. This witness is a transmission of the faith in words and deeds.

WITNESS IS AN ACT OF JUSTICE THAT ESTABLISHES THE TRUTH OR MAKES IT KNOWN (see Matthew 18:16).

The recent travesty involving the University of Notre Dame’s invitation to the President of the United States to give the commencement address and receive an honorary doctor of laws degree is the antithesis of Catholic and Christian witness to the truth. A lawyer who vigorously, publicly, and consistently support an anti-life and anti-family litany of evils will now receive an honorary doctor of laws degree from what is arguably the most prestigious Catholic University in America.

A picture is worth a thousand words. Indeed, what thousand words will be conveyed by the picture(s) of Mr. Obama receiving his honorary doctorate and sending off the graduating class at Notre Dame University?

This will be a dark day indeed for the University of Notre Dame and the Catholic Church that permitted it to happen. In the end, the bishops have the right and the duty to decide if the University of Notre Dame can any longer claim “Catholic” credentials.

Meanwhile, the obligation to bear witness to the truth weighs more heavily than ever on each one of us. We have rapidly entered into a new era of persecution of the Church and the truth that she professes and teaches, reminding us again,

"The disciple of Christ must not only keep faith and live on it, but also profess it, confidently bear witness to it, and spread it: All however must be prepared to confess Christ before men and to follow him along the way of the Cross, amidst the persecutions which the Church never lacks.” (Lumen gentius 42; Dignitatis Humanae 14).

Service of and witness to the faith are necessary for salvation: “So everyone who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven; but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven” (Mt 10:32-33).

God Bless You,
Fr. John Corapi

Eight Bishops Have Spoken Out against Pelosi's 'Catholic' Abortion Theology

WASHINGTON, D.C., August 28, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Two more bishops have released statements condemning House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's widely publicized claim that the Catholic faith could support abortion.

Bishop Michael J. Sheridan of Colorado Springs and Bishop David A. Zubik of Pittsburgh join the other six Catholic bishops who have already corrected Pelosi's false claims, made during an appearance on NBC's Meet the Press, that when life begins has been "an issue of controversy" throughout the history of the Church and that, therefore, the Catholic faith can support abortion.

Bishop Sheridan warned Catholics in his statement Tuesday that Pelosi's picture of Church history and teaching is categorically false....

Pelosi's own bishop, Archbishop George Hugh Niederauer, has thus far made no comment. His spokesman Maurice Healy told LifeSiteNews.com that the Archbishop would be publishing something on the matter in his regular column in the diocesan newspaper on September 5.

September 5? Why the rush?

Bishop Sheridan's full statement here.

Bishop Zubik's full statement here.

at LifeSiteNews/

Scandal and Other Sins against Our Neighbor's Soul

"Thou shalt not kill" (Ex. xx. 13).

Most civilized individuals comprehend the evil in which man causes bodily injury to his neighbor, as well as those sins one can direct against his own life. But there seems to be a great misunderstanding of the different ways by which we can injure our neighbor's soul.

How is it possible to injure our neighbor's soul?

We do so when we scandalize him; that is, when we deliberately tempt him to sin or voluntarily influence him, or give him occasion to commit evil.

Let us then prayerfully consider, with the help of the Holy Spirit:

I. The nature of this sin.
II. The reasons for avoiding it.

I. All offenses by which we injure the soul of our neighbor are called sins of scandal. This word "scandal" is very often misunderstood and used in a wrong sense.

Many people take it in its narrower meaning and think that it consists only in causing vexation or annoyance to others. But this is not the scandal spoken of by our Savior, or alluded to in Holy Scripture and by the catechism.

What, then, constitutes the sin of scandal?

It consists in injuring the soul of our neighbor by causing him to commit sin, or putting him by some influence or action of ours into a worse state, making his conscience harder and less upright than it was before the scandal.

Who are guilty of this sin?

Those who make known to others evil of which they were ignorant; who by their commands, their counsel, their actions, their promises, or threats lead others to commit sin which they would otherwise not have committed; who by their point of view, their examples, their praise, their conduct, knowingly and consciously influence others for evil; who provide opportunities of sin for others which they would not otherwise have had.

Let’s look at an example from Holy Scripture.

After the death of Solomon, Israel was divided into two kingdoms, the kingdom of Juda and the kingdom of Israel. Although the kingdom of Juda was much smaller than the kingdom of Israel it had one great advantage in possessing the ancient capital Jerusalem. In Jerusalem was the only temple of the true God; in it lived the high-priests, and it was there they offered the lawful sacrifices and celebrated the festivals to which the entire populace of both empires crowded. The first king of the separated kingdom of Israel feared that his subjects by going too often to the festivals and sacrifices in Jerusalem might be seized with the desire to be once more united to the kingdom of Juda. So what did he do?

He erected north and south at the boundaries of his kingdom a golden calf as an idol. He himself offered sacrifice to it and he commanded his people to do the same. Now here we have clearly a sin of scandal. The king gave scandal to his people by causing them to commit the sin of idolatry; by erecting the idols he provided them with the occasion of sinning, and by sacrificing to the idols himself he gave them bad example.

Moreover, in commanding them to adore these idols and forbidding them to go to Jerusalem to worship the true God he deliberately led them into sin. We read that the good King Azarias when struck with leprosy withdrew to an isolated house apart from his people for fear of contaminating them with his foul disease. Unfortunately, many rulers both before and after him have, on the contrary, done their utmost to spread amongst their sub?jects the errors of idolatry.

If we look around about us in the world we can see that giving scandal is quite common. Thousands and thousands of people are engaged in writing, printing, selling, and lending books, movies, and music that positively teem with indecencies, blasphemies, and speculations of all kinds, things which neither young nor old can read, watch or listen to without sin. Such things are eagerly devoured by multitudes. Pornographic or sexually explicit movies and pictures are made, painted, printed, and reproduced an indefinite number of times and they would be difficult for anyone to look at without sin; yet this is the class of objects which rivets the eyes of thousands upon thousands each and every day. It permeates television and the internet and is accessible by even the most innocent children.

Across the country, politicians, teachers, and sadly, even a few priests and religious are engaged in giving erroneous representations of Catholic doctrine and speaking of things which are opposed to the natural moral law and which are repugnant to the senses of a civilized and moral society.

Some actors and singers engage in performances which could not easily be listened to innocently.

For the sake of money, opportunities are publicly and privately offered for the commission of sins of impurity, and many make use of such opportunities.

Adults young and old think nothing of holding conversations in the presence of children which are quite unfit for them to hear. In some places state sponsored programs are even used to promote perversion and sexual deviance and fill the minds of children with such propaganda. These poor young creatures may have no choice but to listen day by day to such poison and contamination; how can they keep themselves unsullied?

And besides all of this, what an example of sin, of unbelief, of contempt of the Church and her ordinances, is but too often given by superiors to their inferiors.

And how many parents are a source of scandal to their own children! How many young souls have owed their initiation to vice and the premature loss of their innocence to their intimate friends and companions! How many there are that give scandal, how many are ready to take it!

How true are our Savior’s words: "Woe to the world because of scandals!" Woe, indeed, because of their number, but still more because in itself scandal is such grievous sin.

II. This brings us to the second point of our instruction, namely, the reasons for avoiding scandal. What should particularly deter us from giving scandal?

1. The thought that he who gives scandal by destroying those souls which Jesus Christ has ransomed with His blood is the ally of Satan.

2. The dreadful consequences of this sin.

3. The awful pronouncement by Jesus Christ: "He that shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in Me, it were better for him that a millstone should be hanged about his neck, and that he should be drowned in the depth of the sea.”

These reasons should be powerful enough to deter any Christian from the sin of scandal.

He who gives scandal is doing the work of Satan.

This is nothing more than the truth, for what is Satan's business but to draw men into sin, and to keep them in it, thus bringing them to destruction and hell. Therefore, the scandal-giver is first and foremost the ally of Satan.

What a disgraceful part to play! It is bad enough to have this ancient, malicious, envious, treacherous enemy of mankind always close beside us with his numberless temptations. Does hell with its evil spirits not furnish him with helpers enough? Are not his assaults only too successful as it is? Must men need to enroll themselves in his service, making themselves his most efficient allies?

It is easy to understand why Satan should want to deceive souls. He has lost heaven, hope has forsaken him, hell is his portion forever, and there is no salvation for him. But that men and Christians, citizens of the earth, who have it in their power to sanctify themselves, who are called to eternal life, for which they have been redeemed by the blood of Christ, that they should stoop to further the devil's work is an unspeakable disgrace.

In what way does giving scandal help and promote the work of Satan?

It helps in a way in which he is not able to help himself. The devil can not speak to us in audible language; he can place no material picture before us which we can see with our bodily eyes; he can neither command nor threaten nor bribe us; he is not at liberty to tempt us as he pleases, but is restricted according as God allows.

When we give scandal we do for the devil that which with all the resources of hell he is not able to do for himself. Oh, the ignominy, the sin, the shame of scandal!

Further, let us review the results and consequences of scandal. What are its results?

First, it causes him who actually gives the scandal to commit sin, and next, it leads into sin those who take it. These last are generally no small number. Many listen to and laugh at unclean, unrestrained conversations in shops, factories, schools, and even in places of worship. Those who have been tempted themselves tempt others in their turn, repeating these jokes and songs, and so making for others the same occasions of sin that they have had themselves.

One single scandal grows and flourishes long after it has passed from the mind of the giver of it, perhaps when he is dead and his bones have been moldering for hundreds of years; and it may be that it will live right up to the very day of judgment.

It has been said that one book of the godless and unbridled French writer Voltaire has given rise to more mortal sins than there are letters in the whole volume, and this is probably understating the case, rather than overstating it. Though the author of it has long since gone to his grave the evil book lives on and was read by hundreds. “Woe to the world because of scandal!"

If scandal in general is a thing so dreadful, then to give scandal to the innocent is the worst of all. Of this kind of scandal our Savior says:

"He that shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in Me, it were better for him that a millstone should be hanged about his neck and that he should be drowned in the depth of the sea."

How precious in the sight of God is the youth and innocence of the souls of children; redeemed by Christ and washed pure in His precious blood they are tenderly loved by Him and destined for the kingdom of heaven, and His curse and vengeance will surely fall on those who shall dare to snatch them out of His hand and lead them along the road to perdition. Better, a thousand times, they had been cast into the sea with a millstone round their necks, than that they should live on to give more such scandal.

In truth, the sin of scandal is a terrible one. It is terrible in its own nature, awful in its consequences, and in the punishment it merits.

There is but one resolution to make after this meditation: O my Savior, I promise Thee I will never give scandal. May my tongue cleave to my mouth, my hands wither away, my feet grow powerless, rather than I should be a cause of sin to others. I will give no scandal, neither will I take it; and when the tempter approaches me I will drive him away with the words which Thou Thyself made use of "Get thee behind Me, Satan" - I will neither see you nor hear you nor follow you. Depart from me; I am and mean to be for all eternity the faithful disciple of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.
__________________
Adapted from Popular Sermons on the Catechism, Vol. II(©1914)
by Rev. A. Hubert Bamberg
Edited by Rev. Herbert
Nihil Obstat: Remegius Lafort, S.T.D
Imprimatur: John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York

Bishops respond to House Speaker Pelosi’s misrepresentation of Church teaching against abortion

From the USCCB website:

WASHINGTON--Cardinal Justin F. Rigali, chairman of the U.S. Bishops’ Committee on Pro-Life Activities, and Bishop William E. Lori, chairman of the U.S. Bishops’ Committee on Doctrine, have issued the following statement:

In the course of a “Meet the Press” interview on abortion and other public issues on August 24, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi misrepresented the history and nature of the authentic teaching of the Catholic Church against abortion....

Charity would require that one give Pelosi the benefit of the doubt and assume she was "mistaken."

However, given the publicity about Pro-death "Catholic" politicians over recent years, any rational being would be led to understand that such ignorance is not the reason for her "misrepresentations" but rather, it stems from a prideful dissent from the natural moral law and Catholic teaching.

In other words, she spewed forth lies about what the Church teaches. Any Catholic politican who would be as willfully ignorant as Pelosi appeared to be should resign any and all positions of public office. To "misrepresent" a teaching as simple and fundamental as that of abortion and conception casts grave doubts on her ability to use her intellect to understand any other subject.

Click here for the rest of the USCCB statement.

Answers-What's Your Moral IQ on Violence, Fear and Habit in Moral Matters?

Questions can be viewed here.
_____________

1. It is force by a free external agent that is exerted on one to compel him to perform an act against his will.

2. No.

3. No.

4. Yes, because of the scandal she causes.

5. No. She can still sin in her heart.

6. It is mental anxiety brought on by the apprehension cif an impending danger.

7. When his fear is so great that it deprives him of his use of reason.

8. No.

9. Yes. Although an evil habit may lessen Jack's guilt, he still must try to correct it.

10. No.
_________________________
Adapted from The Queen's Work Magazine, December 1946

What's Your Moral IQ on Violence, Fear and Habit in Moral Matters?

Violence, Fear, and Habit in Moral Matters

Allow ten points for each question. One hundred per cent means that you are a moral theologian; 90, you know the law; 80, you are about average; 70, you'd better join a study club.
___________________

I. What is violence?

2. Mary, violently resisting, is carried into a Baptist revival and forced, against her will, to take part in the services. Does Mary sin in any way?

3. If John saw that he would be forced to eat meat on Friday whether he resisted or not, would he be obliged to resist?

4. Louise, being forced to commit a sin against her will, does not resist. She knows that there are people around who will be scandalized by her lack of resistance. Does she sin?

5. Alice Marie, forced at the point of a gun to give her employer's money to a robber, inwardly gives consent to her sin. She does not believe that she can sin in this case. Is she right?

6. What is fear?

7. When would a person, who acted because of fear, not be guilty of sin?

8. Whenever Jack slices a ball on the golf course, he inadvertently blasphemes. Is Jack guilty of sin?

9. If Jack, who inadvertently blasphemes on the golf course, recognizes that he has a bad habit and does nothing about it, is he guilty of sin?

10. Pat, forced at the point of a gun to sign a contract, wonders if she is obliged to keep it.
_________________________

Answers next Monday...

Adapted from The Queen's Work Magazine, December 1946

Answers, What Kind of a Theologian Are You-The Nativity?

Questions can be viewed here.

1. Micheas, Mich. 5, 2.
2. a-Yes. b-Yes. c-Yes. d-No.
3. a-Yes. b-Yes. c-Yes.
4. a-No. b-Yes. c-Yes.
5. a-No. b-No. c-No.
6. a-St. Peter, Mat. 16, 15. b-St. John, John. 1, 18.
7. a-Yes. b-Yes. c-Yes. d-No.
8. a-Yes. b-No. c-Yes.
9. a~No. b-Yes. c-Yes. d-Yes.
10. a-St. John, Jo. 1, 1, 14. b-St. Paul, Gal. 4, 4.
_________________________
Adapted from The Queen's Work Magazine, December 1946

Aquinas, the Catechism and Capital Punishment

An article worth reading by By William Saunders.

What Kind of a Theologian Are You? The Nativity

You know that

"all those things are to be believed with divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the written or orally transmitted word of God, and which the Church, either by a solemn judgment or by her ordinary and universal magisterium, proposes for belief as having been divinely revealed." (Vatican Council.)

Can you recognize truths which are of divine and Catholic faith?

Try the following quiz on The Nativity.

Give yourself 10 points for each of the 10 questions Which you answer correctly.
If you score 95-100, give yourself a SCL (summa cum laude);
90-94, a MCL (magna cum laude);
85-89, a CL (cum laude);
80-84, a BP (bene probatus);
70-79, a P (probatus);
1>-69, a NP (non probatus).

[Answer each "a, b, c, d" with Yes, No, or the proper response]
_____________________

1. Who said' "And thou, Bethlehem Ephrata, art a little one among the thousands of Juda: out of thee shall...come...the ruler of Israel"?

2. That tiny Babe in the manger was

a) miraculously conceived;
b) immaculately conceived;
c) miraculously born;
d) miraculously nourished.

3. Even as a Babe He was

a) King;
b) Head of the whole human family;
c) the Mediator between God and men.

4. The Infant had

a) the infused virtue of faith;
b) the infused virtue of charity;
c) the Gifts of the Holy Ghost.

5. Could the shepherds tell just by looking at Him that He

a) was not a human person;
b) was a divine person;
c) was the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity?

6. Who later on called Him

a) "Christ, the Son of the living God";
b) "The only-begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father"?

7. That Infant had

a) two wills;
b) two free wills;
c) two noncontrary wills;
d) two omnipotent wills.

8. His human intellect

a) was immune from error;
b) was omniscient;
c) had the beatific vision.

9. Is it of divine and Catholic faith that He had a body that was

a) brought from heaven;
b) born of Mary;
c) mortal;
d) adorable?

10. Who said of Him

a) "'In the beginning was the Word...and the Word was God...and the Word was made flesh";
b) "God sent his Son born of a woman"?

_________________________

Answers next Monday...

Adapted from The Queen's Work Magazine, December 1946

Answers-What's Your Moral IQ on Double Effect?

Questions can be viewed here.
_____________

1. Joe did not commit suicide.
(1) He sought to save Bill's life, not to kill himself.
(2) Swimming in itself is an indifferent act.
(3) The saving of Bill's life is not produced by the evil effect of Joe's death, for if by some chance his life were saved, the good effect would follow just the same.
(4) To give one's life to save another's is a proportionate reason.

2. Yes.
(1) He sought first to kill himself, an evil act.
(2) This act is wrong of its very nature.
(3) The good effect: namely, the saving of Bill's life is produced by an eyil means - Joe shooting himself.
(4) The reason is the same as in the first case.

3. No.
(1) The good effect, the weakening of an enemy, is directly intended.
(2) Destroying a ship is not evil in itself.
(3) His own death is not the cause of the good effect, the destruction of the carrier.
(4) There is a sufficient rea­son for permitting himself to be killed.

4. No. He intends to murder his fellow prisoners in order to obtain a good effect, to save the lives of himself and his family. The fact that they are willing doesn't change the case, because they have no authority to consent to the unjust killing of themselves.

5. No. All the conditions are fulfilled.
(1) He intends the good effect, the de­struction of the ammunition dump.
(2) This is not evil in itself.
(3) The death of the women and children in the maternity hospital is not the cause of the destruction of the ammunition dump.
(4) The saving of the lives of his fellow countrymen and the weakening of the enemy is a proportionate reason for the death of the people in the hospital.

6. No. The conditions are fulfiIied.
(1) She does not wish to kill herself but she does want to escape death by fire.
(2) Jumping out a window is not evil in itself.
(3) The good effect, escaping a horrible death by fire, is not brought about by the evil effect, being killed, because if she were caught in a fire net, the good effect would follow anyway.
(4) She is not putting her life in any worse danger than she is in at present and she is escaping death by fire.
_________________________
Adapted from The Queen's Work Magazine, January 1947

What's Your Moral IQ on "Double Effect"?

Allow ten points for each question. One hundred per cent means that you are a moral theologian; 90, you know the law; 80, you are about average; 70, you'd better join a study club.
___________________

The Double Effect

It is permissible to do an act that will produce two moral effects, one good and the other bad, if all of the following conditions are fulfilled:

(1) if the good effect and not the evil effect is directly intended;
(2) if the act itself is good or at least indifferent;
(3) if the good effect is not produced by means of the evil effect; and
(4) if there is a proportionate reason for perniitting the foreseen evil effect to occur.

Verify the conditions in the following cases and answer the questions:

1. Joe and Bill on a raft in the Bering Sea have only enough food and clothing to keep one man alive till help comes. Joe in order that Bill may live jumps into the sea and starts swimming, but he drowns before he swims very far. Did Joe commit suicide?

2. If in the same case instead of jumping into the sea Joe were to shoot himself to obtain the same effect, would he be guilty of suicide?

3. Lieutenant Brennan, navy pilot, in his plane full of high explosive bombs, dives into an enemy aircraft carrier and destroys it. Did Lieutenant Brennan commit suicide? [Updated: Assume that his plane is so damaged that it will not make it back to base but will crash into the sea]

4. Ernst, an innocent man in a concentration camp, sentenced to be tortured to death, is offered his life and the lives of his wife and family if he will shoot some of his fellow prisoners. He knows that many of his fellow pris­oners are innocent of any crime, but they will be killed whether he shoots them or not. They are willing to have Ernst shoot them for the good of him­self and his family. May Ernst shoot them?

5. Captain Alvarez, in time of war, drops a blockbuster bomb on a large ammunition dump that is located alongside of a maternity hospital. Is Alvarez guilty of murder if he freely volunteered to perform this mission?

6. Kay, trapped by fire on the top story of a high building, jumps out the window to avoid a terrible death by fire. She realizes that such a jump will be fatal. Is she guilty of suicide?
_________________________

Answers next Monday...

Adapted from The Queen's Work Magazine, January 1947

Answers - What Kind of a Theologian Are You - on God?

Questions can be viewed here.

1. a-Yes. b- Yes. c- Yes.

2. St. Paul, Rom. 1, 20-21.

3. a-False. b--False. c-False. d­-False.

4. a-Yes. b-Yes. c-Yes. d-Yes. e-No.

5. St. Paul, 1 Cor. 13, 12.

6. a-Yes. b-Yes. c-Yes. d-No.

7. a-No. b-Yes. c-No. d-Yes.

8. Yes.

9. a-Yes. b-Yes. c-Yes.

10. a-Yes. b-Yes. 1 Tim. 2, 4; 1 Tim. 2, 5.
_________________________

Adapted from The Queen's Work Magazine, January 1947

What Kind of a Theologian Are You? On God

You know that

"all those things are to be believed with divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the written or orally transmitted word of God, and which the Church, either by a solemn judgment or by her ordinary and universal magisterium, proposes for belief as having been divinely revealed." (Vatican Council.)

Can you recognize truths which are divine and Catholic faith?

Try the Following Quiz on God.

Give yourself 10 points for each of the 10 questions Which you answer correctly. If you score 95-100, give yourself a SCL (summa cum laude); 90-95, a MCL (magna cum laude); 85-90, a CL (cum laude); 80-85, a BP (bene probatus); 70-80, a P (probatus); 1>-70, a NP (non probatus).

[Answer each "a, b, c, d" with Yes or No]

1. Is it heretical to say that the one true God cannot be known

a) with certainty;
b) by the natural light of human reason;
c) through created things?

2. Who said: "...since the creation of the world his invisible attributes are clearly seen...his everlasting power also and divinity - being understood through the things that are made. And so they are without excuse"?

3. Human reason is unable to know that God exists without the supernatural help of

a) actual grace;
b) faith;
c) sanctifying grace;
d) revelation.

4. By natural reason alone man is able to know that God is

a) spiritual;
b) im­mutable;
c) infinite;
d) omnipotent;
e) triune.

5. Who said: "We see now through a mirror in an obscure manner; but then face to face. Now I know in part; but then I shall know even as I have been known"?

6. It is of divine and Catholic faith that in the beatific vision the blessed see

a) the divine essence;
b) God as He is;
c) the three divine persons;
d) all crea­tures.

7. The blessed see God

a) with their bodily eyes;
b) intuitively;
c) comprehensively;
d) unequally, according to the diversity of their merits.

8. To have the beatific vision souls need the light of glory.

9. Is it of divine Catholic faith that the one true living God is

a) omnipotent, eternal, immense, incomprehensible;
b) infinite in intelligence and will and all perfection;
c) ineffably exalted and supremely happy?

10. St. Paul said:

a) "God will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowl­eedge of the truth"; b) "For there is one God, and one mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus."

_________________________

Answers tomorrow...

Adapted from The Queen's Work Magazine, October 1947

Answers, What's Your Moral IQ - The Human Act?

Questions can be viewed here.
_____________

1. It is the science of human actions in so far as they are directed by rea­son and faith to our supernatural final end.

2. Only those are called human which are deliberately performed by one who possesses the use of reason.

3. They are the object of the act, the circumstances surrounding the act, and the purpose of the one perform­ing the act.

4. All of them.

5. It is the unjust taking of something which belongs to another.

6. The fact that it is a day of absti­nence.

7. No. Alex had no intention of kill­ing his father.

8. Nick did not sin because in order to sin one must act freely. Nick could not act otherwise than he actually did.

9. No. The length of time that a temptation persists in Jim's mind is no indication of whether he sinned or not. He must consent to the sin before he can sin.

10. Yes, because she consents to a gravely sinful act.
_________________________
Adapted from The Queen's Work Magazine, October 1946

What's Your Moral IQ - The Human Act?

Allow ten points for each question. One hundred per cent means that you are a moral theologian; 90, you know the law; 80, you are about average; 70, you'd better join a study club.
___________________

I. What is moral theology?

2. Are all of man's actions human actions?

3. What are the three elements which give a human act its moral goodness or badness?

4. How many of these elements must be good or indifferent if the act is to be a good act?

5. What is the object of an act of theft?

6. Circumstances of a human act are those accidental conditions which change the act from a good one to a bad one. What is a circumstance that ordinarily makes it wrong for a Catholic to eat meat?

7. Alex kills his father thinking he is a deer. Is Alex guilty of parricide?

8. Nick, while in jail, misses Sunday Mass. He believes he commits a sin so he reconciles himself to the fact. Does Nick commit a sin?

9. Jim had immodest thoughts that persisted off and on for several hours, but he did not give consent to having these thoughts. Does Jim commit sin?

10. Joan deliberately reads a really harmless book that she thinks gravely sinful. Is she guilty of a grave sin?
_________________________

Answers Next Monday...

Adapted from The Queen's Work Magazine, October 1946

Answers - What Kind of a Theologian Are You-Justification?

Questions can be viewed here.

1. Justification-of the impious.

2. Trent.

3. Faith.

4. Yes.

5. a-Yes. b- Yes. c-Supematural.

6. Yes.

7. St. Paul, Heb. 11:6.

8. Yes.

9. St. Paul, 1 Cor. 13:2.

10. Yes.
_________________________
Adapted from The Queen's Work Magazine, October 1946

What Kind of a Theologian Are You - Justification?

You know that

"all those things are to be believed with divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the written or orally transmitted word of God, and which the Church, either by a solemn judgment or by her ordinary and universal magisterium, proposes for belief as having been divinely revealed." (Vatican Council I.)

Can you recognize truths which are divine and Catholic faith?

Try the Following Quiz on Justification.

Give yourself 10 points for each of the 10 questions Which you answer correctly. If you score 95-100, give yourself a SCL (summa cum laude); 90-95, a MCL (magna cum laude); 85-90, a CL (cum laude); 80-85, a BP (bene probatus); 70-80, a P (probatus); 1>-70, a NP (non probatus).

[Answer each "a, b, c, d" with Yes or No]
_________________

1. What do we call "a translation from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace and adoption of sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour"?

2. What ecumenical council gave the best exposition of the Catholic doctrine of justification?

3. What did it assign as "the beginning of human salvation, the foundation and root of all justification"?

4. Is it of divine and Catholic faith that "justification is not merely the remission of sins, but also the sanctification and renovation of the interior man by the volun­tary reception of grace and gifts"?

5. a) Can an adult dispose himself for justification?
b) must he?
c) by natural or supernatural acts?

6. Is it heretical to hold that "justifying faith is nothing else but confidence in the divine mercy which remits sins for Christ's sake"?

7. Who said: "Without faith it is impossible to please God. For he that cometh
to God must believe that He is and is a rewarder to them that seek Him"?

8. Is it heretical to maintain that "by faith alone the impious man is justified"?

9. Who said: "If I should have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing"?

10. Is it of divine and Catholic faith that we "receive justice within us...according to each one's proper disposition and co-operation"?
_________________________

Answers next Monday...

Adapted from The Queen's Work Magazine, October 1946

Answers, What's Your Moral IQ of Charity towards Ourselves?

Questions can be viewed here.
_____________

1. It is a supernatural act by which we love ourselves for the love of God.

2. Yes. God has created us for heaven. We have a serious obligation to go there, and unless we learn the means of getting there, we will never arrive at our goal.

3. Yes. We must acquire a knowledge of religious and secular subjects that will help us to be virtuous and to save our souls.

4. If he means that he has a right to that idleness that leads men to sin, he is not correct.

5. Yes, if it is necessary for me to obtain sustenance or to help me avoid sins that are the fruit of idleness.

6. Because I am not the owner of myself but the steward who is to give an account to God on the day of judgment.

7. No. I may wish to die in order to go to heaven or to escape extraordinary suffering.

8. Yes. I have a grave obligation.

9. Yes, unless suffering would be an occasion for me fall1ng into sin.

10. Yes, if they willl not be an occasion for me fall1ng into sin.
_________________________
Adapted from The Queen's Work Magazine, April 1946

Answers, What Kind of a Theologian Are You-Biblical Inspiration?

Questions can be viewed here.

1. Yes.

2. a-No. b-No.

3. By the teaching of the Church.

4. a-No. b-No.

5. a-No. b-No. C-Y8S.

6. a-No. b-Yes.

7. a-No. b-No. c-No.

8. c and d- Yes; others, No.

9. a-No. b-No.

10. No.
_________________________
Adapted from The Queen's Work Magazine, April 1946