|
Questions &
Answers
about
Authentic Catholic Teaching
The following are
questions submitted to the Boston Catholic Journal
concerning important aspects of our Holy Catholic Faith
that are often unclear to many Catholics. In an effort
to promote sound doctrine in the way of exploring the
authentic teachings of the Church in light of
contemporary events, we present the following series of
questions asked by perplexed Catholics and answers
that accord, not with "editorial opinion", but with the
genuine Magisterium of the Holy Catholic Church.
Do YOU Have a Question?
Ask us
QUESTION:
Dear Editor,
I have been dating my boyfriend for almost 4 years now.
At the beginning of the relationship I had a certain way
of thinking similar to that of the average immoral
society. However throughout the years I've come across
people (i.e. priests, books, family members, etc) whom
through their share wisdom they have change my way of
thinking, and I'm very thankful to God cause now I'm
more aware of the Truth. I'm rather more conservative
now. With that said, this 4 year relationship was not
pure at all or as how relationships are intended to be
by God's laws. Today I've come to realize that my
current boyfriend is not the ideal man I would like to
marry (if I marry) nor is he the ideal man that I could
like for my children (if I have any). We are very
different in mind, but I continue to think that I would
have not change if I had not met these wise people. It
was an unintended confession that opened my eyes as a
matter of fact. Nevertheless, I still have certain
unexplained feelings for my boyfriend and I'm still with
him but I know that if indeed I wanted to remain with
him forever, there are many things he would have to
change first. I feel in no authority the right to change
him or ask changes of him even if they are for his own
good, especially because when I ask of such changes he
comments that he is not changing for God or because he
sees it wrong but because he does not want to lose me. I
fear that later in life he'll hate me because I made him
give up things that feel so "natural" or "okay to do"
for him (i.e pornography, masturbation, premarital sex,
degrading sarcasm, etc). I have given him my standpoints
on such subjects (and we don't agree in perspectives)
however he's told me he would stop and that he had
actually stopped. When I made my decision for a chaste
life, he thought I was simply talking about sexual
intercourse and indirectly still wanted at least other
acts that are sexually pleasurable and completely
against God. I gave into his thoughts and this
non-sexual intercourse pleasurable acts for sympathy and
afraid of loosing him. To begin with my actual
questions, on the one hand I don't want to break up with
him because I did notice minor changes in him to living
a more moral lifestyle. However, I fear I will succumb
into sin (as already did in the past) if I continue with
him. How do I know that God didn't make us (me and my
boyfriend) meet so that I could help him move towards
God as the people that I came across helped me (which I
believe was no coincidental). I am very confused and I
tell God that I would gladly help but I am not strong
enough, I am still working in my own conversion to a
true Catholic. I still don't understand many things. I
have begin to pray moreso than before and inclusion I
have began to pray the rosary at nights. Am I just to
blind and not know how to decode God's answers, or does
it just prove that I don't have enough faith? What is my
duty as I try to become more spiritual when I can't even
show enough mercy (from the passage of God's Will: It is
to be merciful, just as God has shown you mercy.) or
forgive ( Is to forgive perfectly...as He himself has
forgiven you)? Do I simply not know how to love, since I
can't accept him (my boyfriend) with his faults? My
final question is, where do I draw the line in my
current state with as far as being merciful, forgiving
and being patient, it seems to me that Jesus would never
draw the line, is that what I must do as well, just
tolerate everything so that he (my boyfriend) does not
fall? Am I being selfish by leaving him just to seek my
own salvation for fear that by being with I will fall
into sin and his ways of thinking?
I must add on that I'm in a long distance relationship,
we have not engage in pleasure but I think it is because
he is not here. In other words I cannot say for sure I
won't fall again into his askings when he comes back.
For the same reason I do not want to go to confession,
because I've confessed about it twice already and I
don't stop and I feel like a hypocrite towards God.
After confession I feel completely enthusiastic and
decided to stop the sin, but I fall once I'm with my
boyfriend.
Thank you very much for listening and please do respond,
anything would be grateful.
Name not
disclosed
ANSWER
First, I wish to thank you for writing such a candid
and trusting letter --- this took great courage …
and the prompting of God Who alone stirs your heart
to do so. It is such a humbling realization to find
that God Himself knows us --- little and sinful as
we are ---- and comes to us asking not just for a
place in our heart … but for our very heart! And so
He has come to you. “You have not chosen me: but I
have chosen you” (St. John 15.16).
He comes to you and now He sues for your love ---
your love in return for His. You are “the beloved”.
He has set His heart upon you, and as any lover, He
loves you with a jealous love, wanting you, desiring
you for Himself above all, before all --- and so
great a Lover is God that He would keep you for
Himself alone, as “the Love of your life.” That is
to say, He wants your love pre-eminently and above
all other loves. In a word, Little One, you are
beginning to realize what you have yet to
crystallize in your heart, to come to terms with in
your mind: the astounding realization that He, God,
is in love with you. You are “the beloved”.
You recoil at the thought! “God … GOD … is in love
with … me?! How can that be? I am sinful.” Yes, that
is true. “I am unworthy!” Yes, that also is true.
But you are also the imago Dei, you were created in
His own image --- and so deeply within yourself you
possess the inimitable beauty --- and lovableness
---of God Himself. But the image has been marred by
sin, the mirror reflecting God (the imago) has been
bent, abused, distorted … by the world which has had
its way with you. It is so battered, so covered in
the opacity of sin, that you no longer see Him
clearly when you look deeply within yourself.
Instead of God, in Whose beautiful and unmarred
image you have been created, you see what the world,
what sin, has done to you, and you turn away in
shame. This is not what God wanted for you. In fact,
He now comes to you as Christ came to Veronica on
His sorrowful Way to the Cross: you see the battered
image of God, scourged by the world, and in a silent
pleading He looks upon you, asking you without so
much as a word, to place the fabric of your life to
His bruised and disfigured face --- and when you
clean it of the abuse of the world, it is beautiful
to behold --- and what is more, the fabric of your
being now bears the image of God once more upon it.
Know this first, Little Sparrow: you are now being
asked to respond to God Who first set His love upon
you. It is the reason for all your questions and all
your confusion. And until you respond to it in
fullness, He will sue you, seek you, all the days of
your life. Why? Because he loves you. Can He do
otherwise with whom He loves?
I will answer your questions, Little One --- but not
as the world would have me answer, for the world is
equivocal and wishes to keep what it renounces, it
wishes to reconcile sin with sanctity, to keep, in a
word, both what God wants and what the world wants.
And the two are opposed. Prior to his real
conversion, and while yet striving with the flesh
and its desires, Saint Augustine famously uttered:
“O, God … make me chaste! … but not yet.” This is
the way of the world, the way of sorrow from which
God called St. Augustine through the unceasing
prayers of his mother, Saint Monica.
You are ambivalent in your feelings toward your
boyfriend --- and for good reason. You have sought
to satisfy his desires, largely in sexual terms. But
I do not see him attempting to satisfy your desires:
specifically your desire to be chaste. This is
understandable: he cannot have both --- so he
himself chooses one: his own desires --- not yours.
That is not love. Love does not seek itself. It
seeks the beloved, and the good of the beloved in
all things. This is what it means to love. Did he
really love you, he would seek the desire of your
heart: to be chaste; and not the desire of his
sexual satisfaction. He would be willing, even
eager, to do what makes you happy --- as you have
been too eager to do what makes him happy at the
expense of your own unhappiness. Yes, I understand
that sexual desire is often mutual, even if it is
against ones will. This is to be human. And so you
have fallen into sin, much to your unhappiness. But
do not despair, Little One. Despair is one of the
Seven Deadly Sins.
You have gone to Holy Confession with sincere sorrow
in your heart and a firm purpose of amendment. How
beautiful this is. You had received Actual Grace and
forgiveness. “BUT”, you say, “I went out and did the
same thing again! --- and went to Confession again
--- and still sinned again!” O, Little One, there
are none among us who have not --- even among the
greatest Saints. However many times you fall, get
up, daughter of the Most High God! Get up and return
to Him through the Sacrament of Confession. Again
and again and again until you sin this way no more.
God will give you the grace you need to succeed. You
must pray for it and work very hard toward it.
Sanctity always comes at great cost --- especially
to what is weak and human within us. But its beauty
exceeds all others! You become like unto your true
Lover Who is God, and Who is sanctity itself.
The salvation of your boyfriend’s soul cannot be
purchased through sin, Little One. No matter how
tender your heart, you cannot bring your boyfriend
to God through sin. It is not possible, for God is
holy. You cannot choose a sinful act in an attempt
to arrive at what is holy --- either for yourself or
for another. Nor are you being merciful to your
boyfriend by acquiescing to his sinful desires: to
the contrary, Little One (who are so precious to
God!) you are cooperating with him in sin which is
evil --- and which leads him away from God. It that
real mercy, my child? To lead another still further
away from God Who is his greatest good, though he
may recognize it not?
Understand this well, Little Sparrow, for I speak
from the heart of the Church: Your primary
obligation is to save your own soul first! How can
you presume to save another soul when you give no
thought or effort to saving your own? You cannot. Or
can you save another soul at the expense of your
own? You will lose both. Please understand this. It
is not being selfish! It is our first and foremost
obligation! To save our own souls. Did not Christ
tell us that we do not do well when we seek to take
the splinter out of our brother’s eye --- while we
ourselves still have a splinter in our own? We must
look to our own conduct, our own sanctification, our
own salvation first --- before we can begin to set
about assisting another in saving their own.
I apologize that this letter has been overlong, my
Little Sparrow. I sense your pain and confusion and
would that your heart be at peace. Remember the
words of Our Blessed Lord to Mary Magdalene who had
sinned much, and became His most faithful follower:
“Your sins are forgiven. Go and sin no more.”
Let us do likewise
God keep you.
In the Immaculate Heart of Mary,
Joseph Mary del Campos
Editor
Boston Catholic Journal
www.boston-catholic-journal.com
PO Box 80171
Stoneham, MA 02180 US
editor@boston-catholic-journal.com
QUESTION:
-
Is
Looting Always a Sin? (asked in the
context of the aftermath of the earthquake in Haiti
on January 12, 2010 and Chile on February 27 in the
same year.)
Dear Editor,
I am wondering if you can provide me with guide lines,
and some answers to what to me is a moral problem. I
would like to know is looting always a sin? How does one
differentiate between what would be acceptable and what
is not. What is the criteria, what has the Church
actually to say on this subject? It is obvious to me
that there are situations , usually disasters or
tragedies (say fire, flood, etc) where there will sadly
be, by the ruthless, an immediate exploitation of the
situation to grab, to steal, for the purpose of
remuneration (often black marketing) or possession of
the actual goods.
One thing in particular makes me raise this point, a
supermarket was structurally badly affected by the
quake, the walls badly cracked, the building in disarray
... But the building obviously carried a great stock on
perishable and less perishable foods. In a situation
where people are cut off from water, electricity and
food, especially when they have dependent families and
are stealing motivated by a desire to support the lives
of their children and families ... is this still
regarded as a sin? In a situation where the Supermarket
became non viable, in other words not able to open for
business because of public safety, housing food with
sell by dates, and probably ultimately intended to be
bulldozed ... is looting in this situation. I find it
very hard to believe it is, so I would ask you to try
and clarify this point of what is acceptable and what is
not.
Perhaps you can give some light on this. What would
the moral theologians say for example ... Is looting
always a sin — that's the question. Thank you.
A.U. England - 02 March 2010
ANSWER
Dear A.U.,
To answer your question in a word: Stealing is always
a sin.
When taking something as a matter of opportunity that
does not belong to oneself, and with no intention to
compensate the owner in any way, one commits the act of
stealing which is breach of the 8th Commandment, “Thou
shalt not steal.” In a dire situation necessitating the
acquisition of another’s property to sustain one’s life
or the lives of others (as long as what is stolen does
not in and by the act imperil the life of its lawful
owner), it cannot be construed as “theft” since no
“good” in the way of anything material is greater than
the “good” of life that is preserved at the cost of
“matter”. It must be understood in terms of
“commensurability”: there is nothing in the way of
“matter” that corresponds in value, and is therefore
deemed commensurable with, “human life.” There is no
correspondence in value since what is material can
always be replaced, whereas a life cannot
This, however, does abrogate the 8th Commandment. It is
not a matter of so-called “situational ethics” which
would attempt to rationalize and therefore justify sin .
You will note that we mentioned, in our opening
response, the terms “a matter of opportunity”, and “no
intention to compensate the lawful owner”. These are the
two conditions that make the act of expropriating
another’s property to oneself unjust and therefore
sinful. The thief steals “as a matter of opportunity”,
and not out of “need” — specifically the direst need,
which is to sustain life. This acquisition of another’s
goods — in the case to which you adverted, a grocery
store partly destroyed and left open to the possibility
of looting — is still, in this case “opportunistic”,
inasmuch as it was an opportunity provided by a disaster
—but it is an opportunity for some, perhaps many, that
most readily affords the preservation of life. This same
opportunity can be availed by a thief who has no
pressing need of what is in the store, or perhaps no
need at all, but rather sees it as the “opportunity” to
augment (not to preserve — and that is key) his own
well being — especially at the expense not simply of
the lawful owner, but of those who stand in genuine and
dire need of what the store contains, and which would
not be available to them were the thief to succeed in
his own ambitions prompted by “want” (not need) first,
and heedless of the “need” (not the simple want) of
others. The thief therefore steals twice: from the
lawful owner, of his possessions, and from those in dire
need, of their lives. Here we see the ugliness of the
sin of theft in the starkest terms.
The behavior of the one who takes what does not belong
to him to preserve life is motivated by an intrinsic
good, whereas the behavior of the thief is motivated by
an intrinsic evil. Culpability, or fault, clearly cannot
be ascribed equally to each. The former is motivated by
a greater good than anything which can be stolen,
whereas the latter, the thief, is motivated solely by
base intentions completely extrinsic to the preservation
of life.
The second, equally important consideration (although
subordinate in existential terms) concerns “the intent
to compensate”. From this, even the man who takes what
does not belong to him to preserve his own life or that
of another, is not absolved from the demands of justice
which require that what belongs to another be restored
to him if taken without his consent. The “just man” —
even while taking what does not belong to him, has the
intention of repaying to the owner what the owner has
lost as a result of his appropriating the owner’s goods
to preserve the greatest good of all: life. The exigency
does not absolve him from justice, and the just man
recognizes this, and firmly intends to repay the owner
his losses as soon as time and opportunity affords him.
Once the exigency has passed, life has been preserved or
sustained, it is the intent of the just man to restore
to owner what is rightfully his.
The just man, under such circumstances, neither sins nor
circumvents justice.
The “thief”, on the other hand, being of evil will, has
no intention whatever of acceding to the demands of
justice, and therefore no intention of repaying the
owner. He both sins and circumvents justice.
It is the sad reality, given the human condition since
the Fall of our First Parents, that what was
“opportunistic” soon becomes predatory. The man seeking
food (which he does not have and which he needs) will
sometimes use the opportunity to steal a television
(which he may not have and which he does not need). When
the one entering the store for food comes out also with
a record player, he is a looter and a thief. There are
no “extenuating circumstances” and hence no “situational
ethics” (which are, in fact, no “ethics at all) that can
exculpate the thief.
In this same Fallen State, man is likely to rationalize
his sinful behavior by invoking the perennial problem of
the “unequal distribution of wealth” and construing it
as an injustice that he is merely “mitigating” or to
which he is applying his own remedy. It nevertheless
remains that two injustices do not attain to justice.
God keep you.
In the Immaculate Heart of Mary,
Joseph Mary del Campos
Editor
Boston Catholic Journal
editor@boston-catholic-journal.com
FOLLOW-UP QUESTION:
Dear Editor,
Just one more point needed for clarification. What if
the person who takes what is not his under the "dire
circumstances" that you outlined — realistically
has no way of repaying the owner? What if he or she is
too poor, too old, or even physically unable to pay the
owner back? What then?
A.U. England - 03 March 2010
FOLLOW-UP ANSWER:
We had said in our first reply
that, "the just man recognizes this, and firmly intends
to repay the owner his losses as soon as time and
opportunity affords him. Once the exigency has passed,
life has been preserved or sustained, it is the intent
of the just man to restore to owner what is rightfully
his.
Full restitution may not always be possible, nor even a
restitution “in kind”. The effort is nevertheless made,
in whatever measure possible to “the one who has taken”,
to compensate the owner of the goods that had been
taken. As we say, it may not be “in kind” — bringing,
for example, a perishable good like bread back to the
owner, since the taker cannot make bread. He can,
however, offer the owner his labor as payment —
returning to the owner an equal value even if not “of
kind”. The labor he offers would equal the cost of the
bread to the owner.
On the other hand, he may be so destitute that he is
unable to repay the owner in any material way (he may be
physically disabled and utterly poor). In such a case he
could offer what is of incommensurably greater value to
the owner than what he had taken: prayer for the owner
that God Himself repay manifold what he had taken and
cannot repay. In a word, the taker commends the owner to
God to repay the owner what he himself cannot, but which
God surely can. If the owner is a just man, then he
receives in gratitude the incommensurably greater good
that the taker offers him. If he is unjust and
unmerciful, he will demand that the taker be imprisoned
for his deed (not misdeed), in which case the owner
incurs the guilt of mercilessness that calls down
mercilessness from God upon himself — and receives no
compensation whatever — spiritual or material, for an
imprisoned man brings no value to the owner whatever.
We need remember the Parable of the Unforgiving Servant:
“as he could not pay, his lord ordered him to be sold,
with his wife and children and all that he had, and
payment to be made. So the servant fell on his knees,
imploring him, 'Lord, have patience with me, and I will
pay you everything.' And out of pity for him the lord of
that servant released him and forgave him the debt.”
(Matthew 18:21-35)
This is the model of justice and mercy that must be
invoked in such situations. As one very devout Nun once
put it, “God cannot be outdone in generosity.” What is
more, every sin is a greater offense to God than to the
person also sinned against, for the first principle
violated emanated from God (in this case a breach of the
8th Commandment) prior to its violation against man.
There is no sin against a man that is not concurrently
and to a greater degree, a sin against God Who is
primarily offended.
In the event that the owner or his heirs are no longer
available, or no longer exist to be repaid, the debt
owed should be repaid to the poor in the “same kind”
that he would have paid the owner: by labor or prayer on
their behalf since he himself is poor and in need,
understanding both the want and need of the poor. The
payment, ultimately — because of his own destitution
— has, we will remember, been given to God to repay,
Who sees and knows the genuine destitution of the debtor
and will repay as He sees and knows best, and to whose
benefit alone He only knows.
In the way of an aside, we would remind you (because of
our uncertainty of your other response) that
“Situational Ethics” is abhorrent, and a mockery of
genuine ethics. The “Agape” of Paul Tillich is much
wanting, abused, and misconstrued. Our selfless love for
our fellow man in and for God does not preclude justice,
which is a perfection both in God and in man. Love does
not abrogate justice. Indeed, justice is a manifestation
of love inasmuch as it manifests a perfection of God Who
is Just and Loving and in Whom there is no contradiction
between the two, but in Whom, rather, the two notions
are complementary and mutual.
We hope this answers your second question.
Printable PDF Version
QUESTION:
Dear Mr. Editor,
I would be so grateful if you could explain to me, what
actually constitutes a lie?
Sometimes you know in life one is placed in a situations
where you simply cannot state the truth about a
situation or person. Someone's asks you for example. "Do
you know that Angela is having an affair"?
It is clear that out and out lying is sinful, but there
are situations where you can’t reveal the truth, what
then ?
If I say yes I do, then I am actually confirming for the
other what may actually be gossip, if I say no, and
there are misgivings in the back of my mind, am I
telling lies?
I am so averse to gossiping, it is so destructive, and
causes so much pain. When an individual is over
inquisitive, or trying subtly or less subtlety to
extricate information from me, can I then justifiably
tell a lie?
It can happen if I say for instance, I really couldn't
say, or I am not prepared to enter into this, that it is
misconstrued to mean that I am avoiding answering
because the question is true, which it is not! And even
if it were its not my place to say.
I feel a bit bad because I would be perfectly able to
tell a lie to protect another from exposure ... and I
have done that in the past.
So what does the Church say about this kind of
situation.
It stands clear that if I were asked by a priest, a
policeman or someone in a legitimate position I would
answer truthfully.
Can you help on this one.
Thank you for your help beforehand.
Gilbert G.
ANSWER
Dear Gilbert,
We will
provide you with two versions of the answer: the one
is short, the other a bit longer, but necessary to
completely understand what is involved in Lying:
The short
answer:
In the instances you
adverted to, for example, when someone asks you, “is
so-and-so having a relationship with so-and-so?” –
and you know in fact that they are — are you
compelled to confirm this?
No. Possessing the truth in no way binds us or
compels us to publicly disclose it unless public
harm were to follow from our failure to do so. This
is clearly not the case with gossip which itself is
sinful behavior. In fact, to cooperate in the
propagation of gossip is to abet the sin itself —
something you are never compelled to do under any
circumstances.
The most appropriate answer would be, “The affairs
of so-and-so are none of my business, and I am
surprised that you believe it is yours. Her affairs
are her own, just as yours are your own, and
whatever her private affairs are they should not be
open to public discourse. If you really have a
compelling reason to know, why do you not ask her?
We should respect her privacy as we hope that she
would respect our own.”
A simpler and altogether truthful answer would be,
“I do not involve myself in her private affairs. If,
for some reason you really must know, I suggest that
you ask her.” The fact of the matter is that you not
involve yourself in her private affairs, even if
certain aspects of them have become known to you
inadvertently.
The instance, on the other hand, in which “you tell
a lie to protect another from exposure ...”, that is
to say, to protect another from deleterious
consequences that would follow from your telling the
truth appears to be more complex, although it is
not. Once again, you are not compelled to tell the
truth about what you know explicitly in the terms
asked. You are not compelled to make public what is
private. But neither must you lie.
On what authority does the asking party have the
legitimate power to morally (or legally) compel a
truthful answer from you — explicitly in the terms
in which it is asked? You had answered the question
correctly: “It stands clear that if I were asked by
a priest, a policeman or someone in a legitimate
position I would answer truthfully.”
If the inquiring part does not possess any of these
credentials, they do not legitimately possess the
moral authority to compel an answer from you that
would satisfy their question. For example, if you
were asked, “Does so-and-so engage in such-and-such
activity?”, it would be scandalous of you to confirm
a presumed evil of that person (presumed, because,
were it not presumed but still in need of
authentication, it would not be asked of you in the
first place). First of all, your own knowledge of
all the circumstances surrounding the sin of another
is, at best, deficient. You may know that such and
such thing in fact was done by that person, while
remaining totally unaware of any circumstances
extenuating it, or any of the antecedents that
culminated in it. As such, you can genuinely and
truthfully assert, “I do not know.” You know “in
part” and “deficiently” — at least in the
definitive terms of the one inquiring who is seeking
a “yes” or a “no”.
But you can
authentically provide neither. You are in possession
of certain and very likely superficial
aspects of what that person had done, but not to the
extent that you can say with full knowledge
and complete certainty: “yes”. Only the person
inquired about can make that final statement. You
really cannot answer the question in the unqualified
context in which it is presented to you. You cannot
say, “no”, on the one hand, because that is not
true. But neither can you say, “yes” on the other,
because it is equally not true that you really
“know” all that the person had done, under what
circumstances it was done, and what antecedents led
up to it.
You can truthfully answer, “If what you say is
true, I suppose that only so-and-so could tell you
himself. Ask him.”
If this is construed by the questioner as “avoidance
and therefore likely”, then that is the illicit
assumption of the one who asks — for which you
have no responsibility whatever. You are answering
his question — it is not for you to attempt to
persuade him to any conclusions. These he makes of
himself, in light of, or despite what you say. You
have spoken the truth, and should be entirely
comfortable with that. The conclusions he reaches
are not of your making.
The more complete answer:
A lie is any
defection from the truth, from what is true,
from what knows to be true, or the abrogation of
what is true altogether.
A lie is always sinful,
for it is a violation of the 9th
Commandment, “Thou
shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor” (Ex. 20.16 & Deut.
5.20) — extrapolated and widely accepted as a
proscription against lying, or untruthfulness in
general. To underscore the irredeemable evil
inherent in lying, we must look not so much to the
Old as to the New Testament; not so much to Moses,
as to Jesus.
In the way of one of the few
actual descriptions (not citations) of the
devil that occur in the Bible, the one Jesus Himself
uses refers to the evil one as, “a liar and the
father of lies”.
|
“He was a murderer
from the beginning, and he stood not in
the truth; because truth is not in him.
When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of
his own: for he is a liar, and the
father thereof.” (St. John 8.44) |
This is a startling statement
coming from an unimpeachable source — Christ
Himself. It is startling because it completely
overthrows the notion that lying can proceed from
any benign motive, that lying can be innocuous,
and sometimes even unavoidable and necessary as a
means to a good end. Jesus tells us something
strikingly different.
Note that he describes the
devil as he, “quia mendax est et pater eius”
— not just a liar himself, but the father of
lies, the one who begets lies as a father
begets children. As it is the nature of a father to
beget children, so it is the nature of the devil to
beget lies. He is, in a word, the malignant “pater
eius” from whom all lies proceed.
What is more, in another
context, Christ tells us that "A good tree cannot bring
forth evil fruit; neither can an evil tree bring
forth good fruit." (St.
Matthew 7.18). So understood, a lie, being evil,
cannot possibly be the occasion of a good. Its fruit
is evil because it is contrary not just to the 8th
Commandment, but to Christ Himself, “Who is the Truth”.
(St. John 14.16) How then can a lie, any lie, be
construed as good when by its very nature it is
contrary to (the nature of) Christ Himself?
This is not to say that all
lies are of the same gravity. Very clearly this is
not the case. But because some lies appear to
facilitate an apparent good perceived as greater
than the evil inherent in the lie, does not, even
from a benign motive, make the lie not a lie. It
remains what it is: a lie.
Most often, despite our greatest efforts, we cannot
overcome the sense of guilt that accompanies every
lie, no matter how “small”. We instinctively
recognize that, regardless of the apparently good
ends that had motivated it, we have made a breach
and have sinned. Our own consciences (the voice of
God within) convict us in spite of the good end
achieved. It is a good achieved at the expense of
another good: truth. We attempt to put them on a
balance in terms of magnitude or proportion: the
more the scale tips toward the good, the more
“benign” the lie.
The problem with this is that
the scale is not balancing two competing goods, such
that the preponderance of the one over the other
justifies the choice of a greater good over a lesser
good. In either case, the choice will be a
good choice, although one may be “better” — that
is to say, possessed of a greater magnitude of good
— than the other. Literally, such a “balancing
act” is justifiable in attempting to determine the
preponderance of things alike in nature. One does
not place grapes on the one side and apples on the
other to determine which is better, or which, by
weight (preponderance), yields greater value, still
less a diamond on the one side and a bar of lead on
the other. This “balancing” is pointless.
It is much the same with evil
and good. To attempt to balance evil with good is to
presume that they are like in nature, and
commensurable in value — when in fact they are
opposite both in nature and value since “evil”
has no “being” at all. In fact, it is
precisely a “privation of being! Evil is the
absence or deprivation of a good. What we
understand as the evil we call illness, for example,
is nothing more than diminished health — it is a
privation of “being healthy”. Were there no such
state as “being healthy”, there would be no
“illness”. Evil, in a word, has no “existence” of
itself. It is a diminution of a good thing, but not
a “thing” itself.
God keep you.
In the Immaculate Heart of Mary,
Joseph Mary del Campos
Editor
Boston Catholic Journal
editor@boston-catholic-journal.com
Printable PDF Version
QUESTION:
Dear Editor,
I read an article recently by an American priest who
said in his opinion a plenary indulgence is never
ever gained by anyone. He bases his opinion on the
fact that one of the stated requirements to gain a
plenary is for one to be totally free from the
disposition to sin either venial or mortal. And in
his opinion given our human nature not one of us is
ever free from this disposition. So is therefore not
in a position to gain one of these indulgences.
This disturbed me greatly. And I found myself giving
much thought as to whether I am in fact ever going
to be capable of gaining a plenary indulgence, which
means so very much to me .
One COULD not or indeed SHOULD not be at confession
on a daily basis to try and keep oneself free from
all sin. The danger here as I see it one could
easily develop a disposition to scruples which is a
very unhealthy state of mind.
Can I ask you editor to please comment on the
article by the priest. In the hope that I will be
reassured that my attempts to release a little soul
from purgatory and so fulfil the needful heart of my
Jesus are not in vain.
Thank you.
TMC
09 March 2010
ANSWER
Dear T.M.C.
The American priest is, presumably, expressing his
opinion as a person and not as a priest, for
he is not expressing the authoritative and
indisputable teaching of Holy Mother the Church.
That his personal opinion is divergent from, and in
conflict with, what the Church teaches — a
teaching to which he is bound to assent not
just as a priest but as a Catholic, is most
regrettable but hardly surprising. What is more, his
statements are a scandal to the Church and to the
faithful in that they cause confusion among the
faithful in regard to genuine Catholic doctrine. The
priest is bound to unambiguously teach authentic
Catholic doctrine — not to express his “opinions”
about
matters of the Faith that have been established and
are not subject to dispute or question. “What”, the
confused Catholic asks, “is the truth of the matter
at hand? The Church holds and teaches the unique,
profound, and unquestionable value of Indulgences,
particularly Plenary Indulgences. But the Church’s
representative in the person of this priest, is
declaring otherwise. Who is right? The Church and
her countless Saints who have spoken clearly over
the centuries on this matter — or
"Father-knows-best-but-really-doesn’t?” The
question is rhetorical. The Church is right and
Father so-and-so is clearly wrong.
On what basis does he make the pronouncement, “Given
our human nature not one of us is ever free from
this disposition (to sin) … and therefore [no one
is] in a position to gain one of these indulgences.”?
Not in virtue of his priesthood. No priest has the
authority to interpret authentic Church teaching to
accord with his misguided opinion. No bishop, no
theologian, no Catholic whomsoever has this
authority. This misguided and incorrect “opinion”
does not reflect what the Church teaches, what the
Sacred Deposit of the Faith holds, and what Catholic
Dogma maintains.
The statement that, “Given our human nature not
one of us is ever free from this disposition”
(requisite to a Plenary Indulgence) in and of
itself reveals a
defective knowledge of the norms outlined for the
gaining of a Plenary Indulgence, which makes
no reference whatever to a
“disposition to sin”:
“To
acquire a plenary indulgence it is necessary
to perform the work to which the
indulgence is attached and to fulfill three
conditions: sacramental confession,
Eucharistic
Communion and prayer for the intentions of
the Supreme Pontiff. It is further required
that
all attachment to sin, even to
venial sin, be absent.”
(Norm 7 of the
Indulgentiarum Doctrina)
http://www.boston-catholic-
journal.com/Indulgentiarum_Doctrina.pdf
|
As you can see, it stipulates that one must be free
from “attachment” to sin — not from
the disposition to sin. The two are quite
different. To be free from “attachment to sin” is
not to be free from the allurement of sin which
would constitute freedom from temptation
(something to which Christ Himself was subject in
His sacred humanity in the Three Temptations -
St. Matthew 4.1-11). It
is not possible to be free from temptation in our
fallen state because we are not free of the Tempter
who ever assails those who follow Christ. (cf. 1
Peter 5.8)
We cannot be free from temptations to sin, (cf. St.
Matthew 18.7) but we
can be free of our attachment to sin itself. It is
within the will of man, even when falling into sin,
to have no attachment to the sin beyond the hapless occasion
itself. It is of the essence of repentance to
resolutely and genuinely express the intention to
sin in that way no more — that is to say, to renounce
any affinity for the occasion of sin, which, in
other words, to refuse attachment to the sin into
which one had fallen.
To say that this is not possible is contrary to
human experience and history. Many — having sinned
and repented — have returned no more to sin. Mary
Magdalene was among them. In our own lives we find
that we renounce any attachment to a sin that has
brought us untold misery. To say otherwise is to
deprive man of freedom by holding that he is not
free not to sin. But if he is not free not to sin,
then he cannot be held culpable for it — for he
was unable to do otherwise. In this case, there is
no sin and no sanctity, nothing praiseworthy and
nothing blameworthy. This is called “determinism”.
We are not responsible for our behavior and choices
because they are pre-determined for us by our very
constitution as human beings, a constitution that
does not include freedom in its inventory. What we
do, we must do. And if we must do it, and cannot do
otherwise, there is no sin, and eo ipso, no
guilt.
But this clearly is not the case. In exercising the
freedom to disagree with Church teaching (to
disagree with what is true — which one can always do,
but which is not understood as coherent behavior)
Father so-and-so instantiates the very point he
repudiates. He is free to disagree, even if he ought
not. It is even within Father’s power to renounce
his attachment to this error, however compelling he
may find it to be. It is within his power to state
it no more — even while it may not be within his
will. He is even free to hold himself not be free,
but in so doing utters an inescapable contradiction. The “mind” of Father so-and-so is not
the “mind of the Church” — nor does it accord with
human experience and a coherent notion of free
agency.
Regrettably, much of what he often hear from the
pulpit, you will notice, is not ,“what the Church
teaches”, but “what the priest “thinks about” and “the
way he look at it”, or “it seems to him” — on a
given matter that most often has only marginal
relevance to the Gospel reading in any event. We are
not in Church, presumably, to listen to the opinions
and quirks of interpretation of any given priest —
but to the Word of God as the Church sees it …
and not as
“Father so-and-so sees it.
We hope that you find this answer satisfactory.
God keep you.
In the Immaculate Heart of Mary,
Joseph Mary del Campos
Editor
Boston Catholic Journal
editor@boston-catholic-journal.com
Printable PDF Version
Dear Editor,
Thank you so very much for answering my question on
the gaining of plenary indulgences ... I am
completely reassured and so thankful to you.
I am afraid that we were brought up with the
mentality that when a priest speaks he is speaking
with the authority of the teaching of the Church.
Unfortunately we have come to learn that this
does not always be the case. And that is a
great sadness when so many can be influenced by the
words of our priests. If they only but realised the
potential to educate that they hold in their hands.
Thank you, editor, with all my heart. TMC
QUESTION:
To the Boston Journal
To whom it may concern,
Dear Sir,
I am an 18 year old student at University studying
Social sciences. Since I have been at Uni I have met
quite a lot of Catholics and indeed have had some
very interesting exchanges with them, I admire them
for their stance on pro-life issues, not only the
unborn ,but the whole euthanasia debate.
The Catholic Church just seems to be drawing me...in
fact I am thinking of approaching the Catholic
Chaplain for instructions.. BUT ..Jack, a fellow
student and a catholic, has lent me a Catholic
Prayerbook, I have browsed through it and come up
against a problem, can you help me? My problem is
this that reading through the "Examination of
Conscience" there is a list of questions, presumably
that I am supposed to ask myself before going to
confession?
Well the question concerns ' self pleasuring ",
although they call it by another name !
I have the greatest difficult to understand WHY is
this regarded by the church as a sin ? I can
understand that if I attempted (I will not) to
exploit a woman sexually, take advantage of her,
that's wrong, I understand too that physical
intimacy with another man is wrong, according to
Christian ethics, but I just cannot grasp why " self
pleasure", is a sin ? It ' feels good ', its not
involving anyone but myself, and as it is something
that I admit I do frequently, how am I going to get
my head around this? I mean isn't this private ?
Perhaps you may be able to advise me, I would feel
more comfortable to know why and where I stand on
this one before I approach a priest, Thankyou for
your kind attention.
Please pray for me because I really would like to
learn to love Jesus more
Cheers ! George. Oxford
ANSWER
Dear George,
Thank you for so candid
a letter. Your forthrightness took courage, and
addresses a common problem experienced by people of
all ages, not just the young — and both genders as
well.
Masturbartion or Self-Abuse, is intrinsically
sinful because it is the enactment of the sin of
Lust (which is one of the Seven Deadly Sins: Pride,
Greed, Lust, Anger, Gluttony, Envy, and Sloth). We
will address the term, "self-pleasuring" that
you use, later and in a very important context.
Christ admonished us, “You have heard that it was
said to them of old: Thou shalt not commit adultery.
But I say to you, that whosoever shall look on a
woman to lust after her, hath already committed
adultery with her in his heart.” (Saint Mathew
5.27-28)
We see that the act alone does not constitute the
sin, but before the act the sin already exists in
the heart — which in and of itself is sufficient
to qualify already sinful desire as the act of the
sin itself. This makes perfectly clear sense: the
thought always precedes and precipitates the act.
Were there no lust in thought, no act of lust would
follow. The act is preceded by the will which gives
assent to both the thought and to the actualization
of the thought through the deed.
Christ is quite clear about this:
|
“For from the
heart come forth evil thoughts, murders,
adulteries, fornications, thefts, false
testimonies, blasphemies. These are the
things that defile a man."
(Saint
Matthew 15.19-20) |
Note that he says “de corde”
— “from the heart” — even before the acts
that follow from them — is a man defiled. This is
extremely important to understand. Every sin
proceeds from the heart, from the thoughts, as the
motivation to sin, the willingness to sin. Every act
of sexual sin is preceded by the lustful thoughts
which motivate the act. And these are sufficient in
and of themselves to constitute the act, such that
the same penalty applies to the sin in thought as to
the sin in deed. What separates the two are either
“occasion” or “opportunity” — either of which
provided would culminate in the physical act.
One must ask oneself two questions:
-
What in fact is one entertaining
in one’s mind while masturbating? It is, of
course, the sinful act of either fornication or
adultery
(or more grave still, a homosexual act).
-
The next, and logical question
is, were it possible to actualize this fantasy
with the one being fantasized about, would one
indulge in it?
The only coherent answer is yes, for otherwise
one would be fantasizing about what one really
did not desire, and if one did not really
desire this, one would not be masturbating.
It is quite false to maintain that the act of
masturbation hurts no one and is of itself harmless
and victimless. It injures the soul through allowing
it to succumb to sin which of itself is a moral
evil with ontological (i.e. pertaining to
“being” itself) dimensions: it either diminishes or
deprives the soul of grace —
which is the participation of the soul in the very
life of God — or in the case of mortal sin,
destroys that participation, or ones life in God,
altogether. Is there any greater evil? Sin also
injures the Church of Whose body you are a member.
“If one member suffer any
thing, all the members suffer with it.”(1
Cor. 12.26). If one is married, it constitutes an
act of infidelity and adultery against ones wife or
husband. If one is single, it constitutes the act of
fornication or adultery. What is more, it is an
offense against the person fantasized about inasmuch
as it deprives that person of his or her own
personhood, reducing that person the status of a
mere object to be used to satisfy ones lust. It is
equally a violation of the virtues of chastity and
continence. Most of all it offends God! So we see
that masturbation is hardly a “victimless” sin. I
fact, its victims are many, starting with oneself,
proceeding though others, and reaching even to God.
What is particularly
interesting in your question is the terminology you
use, which I recognize is not your own but which has
deep implications itself which are noteworthy.
Please do not understand it as a reproach to you in
your question at all. It is not, nor is it meant to
appear so, but brings to relief a growing problem in
the lexicon currently used to address sexual issues.
The term “self-pleasuring” is a neologism (a
new and artificially invented word, “made up” is one
proper definition) that is really a euphemism
(a more agreeable word intended to avoid a
disagreeable, offensive, or shame-provoking word
that is much clearer and actually proper to the
concept or act involved.) I have deliberately
provided definitions for the two words, “neologism”
and “euphemism” in an attempt to totally clarify the
issue and avoid any confusion.
Apart from the grammatical incongruity (one does not
speak of “pleasuring oneself” in enjoying a meal, or
“self-pleasuring oneself” in reading a book or
watching a movie that one finds pleasurable) this
neologism is essentially crafted in an effort to
present an act or concept fraught with immorality
with one that is not. Who, after all, would argue
that “pleasure” is an evil in and of itself? In
short, if the act or concept itself is not
already understood as immoral or offensive, then
it would not stand in need of a neologism or
euphemism to express it, yes?
It is, somehow, less self-incriminating to express
such acts as a euphemisms, and we reflexively
understand this. However awkward the term, it is
easier (less apt to stir ones conscience) to say
that “I self-pleasure myself often” than to say “I
masturbate often.” In fact, we are likely to cringe
upon making such a completely overt statement. If,
however, we wish to liberate this behavior (called,
incidentally, “self-abuse” in correct
terminology, and not “self-pleasuring”) from a
negative moral connotation, we must first seek to
morally neutralize it, by inserting it through
“acceptable terminology”, into acceptable public
discourse. Becoming acceptable in public discourse,
the act becomes implicitly acceptable itself.
The entire thrust of this aside is that when we
begin calling something intrinsically evil by
another name that is not evil we are engaging in
nothing short of deception: we begin calling what is
evil good. The unpardonable sin of blasphemy,
perhaps the most frightening sin of all,
occurs when we conflate evil with good and good with
evil. (c.f. Saint Matthew 12.22-32)
God keep you.
In the Immaculate Heart of Mary,
Joseph Mary del Campos
Editor
Boston Catholic Journal
editor@boston-catholic-journal.com
Printable PDF Version
QUESTION:
Hi there,
Please help me ! My life is in a mess, this time I
have blown it, that's for sure! I am just turned 17,
raised a Catholic, although I haven't been to church
for ages. I think church is actually so, so boring!
I cant believe that this is happening to me, but I
have just discovered that I am already 3 months
pregnant! If my parents know this I'm sure they will
throw me out. My mom happens to mind what the
neighbors will say and all that stuff !
The worst of it is this, I don't even know who the
father actually is, me and my friends like to go
clubbing and have fun., it could be one of a few
guys so I cant even say, its his, or his !
I cant have a baby! I have no job, what have I to
offer a child, I want an abortion, in a word I want
to get rid of it.
I don't even know why I am hesitating one min I am
all ready to grab a taxi and run off to planned
parenthood, and the next I feel like maybe its
wrong, but is it? the feeling passes but I'm more
sure. All I wanted was a bit of fun and I don't see
why I should pay for it now and end up with a baby.
God wont expect this of me will he?
I mean surely God wont be mad at me if I do this?
will he ? People tell me God is forgiving, well then
if I go ahead will God forgive me? I really to want
this abortion it will settle my problem and I can
get on with my life, also its my life and my space
isn't it ?After all I may meet an alright guy, and
have a baby later on , its not that I'm saying no
baby at all, but not now !
So do you think God will
forgive me ? I mean its such early stages, and
accept I know in my head I wouldn't even know I was
pregnant, but I am.
What shall I do ? I really am desperate.
Thanks a lot, I hope you don't mind me writing but I
just happened to see your answer box on the journal,
that's a mystery too, how on earth I arrived at the
Journal, I Googled for something else entirely!
Deidre
PA
Can you put an answer on your site, please do not
mail me at this address in case my Mom sees it, as
both my folks use this computer. Thanks a lot.
ANSWER
Dear Deidre,
My name is Bernadette and I am a (young) contributor
to the Boston Catholic Journal. The editor asked me
to answer your question or at least offer you my
advice as a woman. I have read your letter carefully
and I want to first say that I am sorry that you
have to go through this alone — I truly can feel
your pain. It is so hard to be a woman sometimes ...
I know that I am not you and cannot imagine exactly
what you are going through at this moment, but I can
certainly relate. At one time or another, many woman
goes through what you are now experiencing ... some
get the answer that they are looking for, and
others, like yourself, unfortunately do not. The
decision that you are now faced with is probably one
of the most difficult ones you will have ever have
to deal with in your life, and whatever you choose
to do will have an impact on you forever. I know, it
is scary.
I was also (as I am sure you can guess) raised a
Catholic, and I am very familiar with the teachings
of my faith. The values that have been instilled in
me since childhood still to this day, like yourself,
affect many of my decisions and thoughts. I am not
married, either, and if I found myself in your
situation I could not even fathom the idea of having
and affording a baby. Every woman who has found
herself in your situation had probably never
anticipated the possibility of having a child
out of wedlock. Given all the "easy" solutions to
really tough questions — especially if you are a
woman — that are thrown at you so off-handedly
today, obviously the first thought that would enter
a woman's mind is that the easiest solution would be
to have an abortion. Planned Parenthood makes it
look so simple ... so "right" ... and with no
consequences! A few hundred dollars and the problem
is gone. Right? It would seem to be a simple fix to
a big problem. Almost all women have this
exact thought when faced with this decision. Even
though they think about it, I just know that, deep
down, many would never be able to go through with it
if it weren't presented to them as an easily
available, totally acceptable, and entirely
guilt-free experience that is "every woman's right",
right? Somehow, despite all the slick slogans and
glossy brochures passed out in high school, I could
never bring myself to see an abortion as a solution
I could live with — simply because there is a
child's life at stake, and that little baby has
absolutely no voice of it's own.... their life and
death it out of their hands.
Thankfully, I have never been in this positiont, but
I know that these are the thoughts that you are
having at this moment. I, too, would probably
question whether or not God would ever be able to
forgive me if I went through with something like
that.... Surely He would understand that now
is not the time! I can't afford it! I am not ready!
He has to know this, right?! But the truth of
the matter is, that He does know this, He
knows everything, and He knows that you and I
know that it is a terrible sin to have an abortion,
because after all, it is a little baby we are
talking about. HOWEVER, He also knows your pain, and
knows that you are now faced with a very difficult
decision, which is why, I believe, God wants me to
help you figure out your options and what you can
do. Now we (because hopefully you will accept
my help and advice... because I am more than happy
to help you with this, today, tomorrow, whenever..)
must figure out what options exist.
In my opinion, you have three options.
However, I do not think that "option number one" is
the right one for you. Option two may be, but based
on your letter and what you have said about your
parents and your situation, it might not be the
easiest. I think that option three has
your name written all over it :)
1)
Abortion --
easy? Kindda. The right choice? I hope you will come
to realize, no, it is not...Not simply for the sake
of the baby, but for your own sake. Abortions may
seem easy, but in fact they are VERY complicated.
Many women who have abortions have a VERY difficult
time coping afterwards. Whether it is because of the
sickness the follows, or the mental and emotional
damage. It is hard to face the fact that you have
'terminated' a pregnancy. The words are tough to
swallow, and
many women mentally suffer after the operation. They
wonder if they will ever be able to get pregnant
again, wonder if they could have managed a baby, if
their
lives would somehow be better, they have a difficult
time actually SEEING children. If you do the
research, the truth is not very pretty.
2)
Keeping your baby
-- easy? Absolutely not. The right choice? Perhaps
... perhaps not ... Based on what I have read in
your letter, your parents would not support your
decision to keep the child. You are only 17 and are
probably not financially ready to support a child,
though there are agencies out there to help (and
colleges that offer support and child care if you
are planning of furthering your education). The
truth is, which I am sure you already know, having a
baby is a huge responsibility, one that requires a
lot of time, energy, money and effort. However, what
you get in return is a beautiful little child
that loves and depends on you and doesn't care how
old you are or how much money you have. This option
is by far the most difficult, and again, I am not
sure if it is the best for you, only you can decide
that.
Finally, in my opinion, the best option for
you:
3) ADOPTION! Easy?
Kindda! The right choice? It may be! I think that
adoption is perfect for you for a number of reasons:
a)
You seem very worried about what your parents are
going to think and say. I really think that your
parents would probably not be so hard on you. They
wouldnot have to help you support the child. They
would see that you are making an educated,
responsible, and mature decision. They would not
have to worry about you and how it would have an
effect of your life, because really, it would not be
that difficult. True, you would have to carry the
baby for 9 months and go to doctors appointments and
things, but that is all relatively EASY compared to
the last two options! I am VERY sure that if you
told your parents that you were pregnant and have
thought things over and that you think it is the
BEST thing for both you and the child to give it up
for adoption, they would be supportive of your
decision.... and if they are not, keep reading what
I have to say....
c)
Obviously, you are worried about yourself and the
impact this will have on your life. If you give this
baby up for adoption you will not have to worry
about how to
afford it, who the father is, what you have to offer
it, ANYTHING! You can move forward with your life in
a few months and feel GOOD about your decision! You
did not have an abortion, you let the child live!
You can go to college! Get a great education! Get a
great job! Meet a great guy! And when you are ready,
have a family with the manwho loves you and who
wants to support you and the baby! It is absolutely
possible! You would know that your child is in good
hands and is taken care of and happy.... you never
know who they will become or what good things they
will do :) Both your lives will be the better for
it.
c)
It really is easy to do. All you have to do is
contact an adoption agency. If you need help, I will
certainly do some research and help you find one in
your area. YOU get to pick which parents are right
for your baby! You will actually have couples
competing for you! Once you find the parents you
think will best raise your child, THEY will be there
to support you the whole way, EVEN IF YOUR PARENTS
DONT! THEY will often schedule, pay, and COME to
doctors appointments with you! THEY will always be
checking up on you! THEY will make sure you are
doing well and have what you need! THEY WILL BE
THERE WITH YOU THE ENTIRE PROCESS, BECAUSE THEY WILL
TRULY CARE ABOUT YOU AND THE BABY. There are
soooo many wonderful couples out there who would
DO ANYTHING to have a child of their own, but for
some reason, they cannot. Imagine their pain when
they found out they COULDN'T have a child. I am sure
they, too, were questioning God ... "WHY IS THIS
HAPPENING TO ME? WHAT IS WRONG WITH ME? GOD, DO YOU
NOT WANT ME TO BE A PARENT?!" Now the obvious
question is, why WOULDN'T you want to help them? I
hope that you are beginning to see how this REALLY
is the right choice for you.... I hope that you are
beginning to realize that option one is NOT the only
option for you, that there is, in fact, a MUCH
BETTER OPTION just waiting for you to make your
move!
I really, sincerely hope that this helped. Please,
feel free to contact me directly or the BCJ site if
there is anything else I can do to help. Please, do
not be afraid to accept my help and know that I am
here to help you in whatever way I can. I will
certainly keep you in my prayers and look forward to
hopefully hearing a response from you soon!
Your new friend,
Bernadette :)
bernadette@boston-catholic-journal.com
Printable PDF Version
|
