My remarks in this area are so negative. I have such high expectations of EWTN. I think there should be more emphasis on the eternal Word than on any personality, such as… take your pick.
Fr. Connor and Fr Mullady seemed to skip over a full discussion of paragraph 1735 of the catechism. It’s a very touchy subject, of when someone may commit a grave action, yet not be culpable of mortal sin, due to the conditions listed there. The paragraph divides into unintentional and intentional action – it distinguishes actions which are inadvertent – so the rest of the actions referred to there must be deliberate actions which are, at the same time, objectively grave in matter, yet are not mortal sins for the reasons listed there and for “other” reasons which are not specified.
Fr Mitch declined a question I sent into the EWTN Live program, stating that this subject was too complicated to discuss on the air. How do you like that? That was the return email I got from EWTN.
…such an important subject that is too complicated to discuss on the air. Yes, there is the often-repeated three conditions for a sin to be mortal. But, in the fine print here in 1735, things are not so clear, that even this priest would not want to be quoted on the air. On another occasion when I called in on this same question, Fr Mitch limited the psychological factor which limit culpability for sin to only the extreme case of someone who is determined to be criminally insane. I can’t accept this, to rely on local standards of mental illness to override the catechism. First, if the CCC only meant criminally insane as a reducing culpability, it could have said so, but didn’t ! Second, there are a lot of other psychological conditions where people are not making free decisions, but are swayed by any of a whole textbook of psychological conditions, temporary or otherwise. People suffering with PTSD, for example, which can affect anyone of any age or gender may not be able to control themselves, when their stress point is reached. And, how about the sociological reasons for being less than fully culpable for a grave action - these are only mentioned in the most general way in 1735. Soldiers are trained for killing and are sent out to do just that, intentionally, or to drop bombs which has the same effect. That’s a sociological factor.
As complicated as this subject is, muddying the clear waters of catechism definitions, it is THERE in the CCC and presented to us as part of the deposit of faith, Part of the complexity is that 1735 is really describing God’s mercy, and who can put limits, bounds, or human definitions on it?
So, I’m a bit disappointed with the call-screening that only permits us callers to lob in easy questions.
I have a hard time finding programs I like on the network. I enjoy the Journey Home, and as a history fanatic I LOVE Catholic Beginnings. I also like Grab Your Catechism with Fr. Connor. They did a special on Catholic schools a few months ago that I really enjoyed, since I’m going into education.