Morality of Price Gouging from a Catholic Perspective

There has been a lot of discussion recently about the morality of price gouging. I mean it's not really a discussion as such. Pretty much everyone is on the same page. Price gouging is highly immoral and should definitely be illegal. Even people who disagree on most other areas of morality are united in their opposition to this phenomenon. But is price gouging always immoral? Can it possibly be defended?

Well I'm about to try. I am one of the few people who is actually in favor of price gouging, and I will explain why. As mentioned, this is a very emotional issue. We imagine poor, innocent people just trying their best to be safe during something like this pandemic only to have greedy, ruthless business owners take advantage of them to make a quick buck. It seems totally disgusting and obscene. How dare these companies, or sometimes individual hoarders, take advantage of people in a time of crisis like this one - i.e. during the Coronavirus Covid19 situation.

That's how price gouging is presented. But I want to just step back and look at it from a different angle, one, that I believe, represents logic and reason, as opposed to emotion.

First, it is important to understand how our capitalist system works vis-a-vis pricing. Many people falsely believe that the price of goods and services is a very simple proposition. Perhaps prices are determined by the cost to produce something + some fixed markup to arrive at a final price. Of course, this system cannot work because who will define all the variables? Who defines how much to pay individuals involved in the production of a good for example? Do we pay everyone the same amount? How do we determine which activities in the economy take precedence? I.e. do we need 1000 tons of iron and 100 tons of bronze? Or is it 100 tons of iron and 1000 tons of bronze?

The Soviet Union attempted to set the price of all goods and services in the economy. They literally drafted up an enormous document, or series of documents, which gave the exact price for various things. I seem to remember there were something like 3 million individual items on the list, each with a particular price. What was the result of this? Well, it was a total disaster. Many products were vastly overproduced while for others there was a massive shortage. No matter how much they tweaked the list, they could not get things right. It could not be centrally planned.

Well if that's all true, how ARE prices determined in our modern-day society. Essentially they are determined the variables of supply and demand. Most people have heard of this concept. Where the two lines intersect, that is the most effective price in the market. It's as simple as that. If one prices above the equilibrium point, they will overproduce and undersell. If they price below the equilibrium point, there will shortages. The further below the equilibrium point the price actually is, the more shortage there will be.

It's really that simple. Prices aren't inherent in a particular item. There's a joke about selling ice to an eskimo. It's a joke because it would seem nearly impossible to sell ice to an eskimo when there are millions of tons of ice all around him. Yet, in some places, ice sells for a very premium price. It's the same situation for all kinds of items.

Back to the supply-demand graph. If, all of a sudden, the demand for a particular item shoots up, then according to the graph, the price should also increase. If the price does not increase, the demand will be far greater than the supply and there will be a serious shortage. Prices must adjust or this will always happen.

This is precisely what we are seeing unfolding now during this pandemic. A few companies tried to sell highly sought-after items for a higher price. People reacted very strongly and in some places, the government made it illegal to increase prices during a crisis. They labelled it price gouging. In actual fact, it was not gouging, but reacting to the market. And the very predictable reaction was that there was a massive shortage of many items. Do people think this is preferable?

That is not a rhetorical question. I wonder: if people were presented with the following situation, how would they react?

There are 1500 units of hand sanitizer available and 1000 people want them. The normal price is $3 per unit.

Would you rather the company:

A) Continue offering the product for $3 per unit and thus the first 100 customers buy an average of 15 units each, and leave 900 customers with nothing.

B) Increase the price to $10 per unit. Few people would buy more than 2 units because of the very high price, plus they would not be able to resell them for a profit on the black market. Therefore, with everyone buying 1 or 2, most or all people would receive hand sanitizer.

Most people presented with this true-life scenario would refuse to answer the question. They would simply bemoan the fact that anyone would buy more than 2 units. They would say people should share or care more about others, etc. There would be a lot of sentimentality and emotional appeals. But unfortunately that is not the reality of the situation.

They would either respond by saying that or just creating some alternate reality where production of these goods just magically increases or people are more generous or whatever the case may be. But again, they are not dealing with reality, they are dealing with ideals.

Limiting Quantities
Another response I've heard from many people is the idea that companies should simply limit the number of units each person can purchase. Many companies have used this approach. But there are several problems with this.

1) There are many things people can do to get around quantity limits. One individual can revisit the same store multiple times throughout the day. Perhaps on one visit he could go to a particular cashier and then on another visit, go to a different person. Or he could use self-checkout. Also, he could visit multiple locations, etc.

2) Another issue is that by limiting the price of a good, you can never increase the attractiveness of a particular market. For example, right now home delivery is very popular especially for things such as groceries. Companies are offering a lot of money and premiums to get people to work for them delivering groceries and to do food delivery. The demand went up and the higher price for labour is attracting more workers, which is a good thing.

In the case of essential goods, let's go back to the hand sanitizer situation. At the normal price, there is no incentive for companies to increase production or for other companies that do not normally manufacture hand sanitizers to enter the market. However, if the profit potential increased dramatically, many new companies would emerge specifically to fill the demand. This is simply what happens and there are many examples of this.

Also, if a particular good is available in a distant area, perhaps another city, province, state, or coutry. Normally there is no incentive to transport a particular good over a very long distance. However, at the higher price, people are willing to travel far to sell their goods.

The list goes on as to the advantages. What we know for certain is that without allowing prices to increase as they naturally do, no one is better off.

Prices Eventually Drop
The mechanisms I have described are only temporary. Yes, at the beginning, highly sought-after goods increase dramatically in price, which is a good thing, because it signals to the market that a lot of a particular good is needed. So, companies get on the bandwagon to produce as much as possible. A term you will frequently hear is that profits convey information. High profits indicate to others that they should enter the market, that there is a lot of opportunity there.

Because so many new entities are entering the market, the supply dramatically goes up. Then what happens? You guessed it, the price drops. That way, the price goes down and the supply goes up. Isn't this exactly what people wanted in the first place?

We have to let the market work. If we do, eventually we get enough supply and people in general are better off. The price of particular goods is already determined by the market. By artificially keeping prices too high or too low, you are creating a sub-optimal scenario. In a time of crisis, the market needs to work its magic more than ever to ensure people get what they need.

Price "gouging" is simply a pejorative term used to shame companies for simply listening to the market, which they do at all times for all other products. Somehow though when the market indicates prices should increase, they should suddenly stop listening? That makes no sense. To me, not only are price increases moral from a Catholic perspective, they are obligatory. Not listening to the market may score you brownie points from economically-uneducated Do-Gooders, but it hurts the majority of people. One should use logic and reason in this situation, not emotion. Although it may seem unseemly for a company to increase prices on essential goods during a crisis, in the long-run, everyone is better off because of it.

I encourage you to post any comments you may have below!

Catholic Communion During Coronavirus: Revisited

A few days ago, I wrote an article concerning the reception of communion in Catholic churches during this time of pandemic associated with Covid19 and Coronavirus. I just wanted to post some updates and tweaks in my stance on this. It may evolve further as time goes on but I wanted to just take a moment to offer some clarification on it.

Many of my Catholic brethren have expressed disagreement with dioceses around the world banning the sacraments altogether. I have since looked into the ideas of some people concerning making Mass available while also addressing concerns around the pandemic. I believe some of these ideas were rather innovative, just as I mentioned some innovative ideas surrounding the sacrament of reconciliation.

Sunday Obligation
One of my concerns was that by making Mass available, the bishop would be creating an obligation to attend Mass under the pain of mortal sin. A proponent of offering Mass said the dispensation to attend Mass could be continued while not having an outright ban. People could choose for themselves if they would like to go.

People mentioned that civil authorities had not banned other activities such as grocery store shopping and therefore, why should churches be shut down. In other words, "If I can go get a mini fridge at Canadian Tire, why can't I receive Jesus Christ in the Eucharist?" This is a valid point. My rejoinder to this line of reasoning is that Canadian Tire is optional whereas Mass is ordinarily not. This seems to be addressed by making Mass optional as it were.

I do still wonder about the risk of this. I mean I also wonder about the risk of going grocery shopping. Just because one risky activity is allowed does not mean that all risky activities should be allowed. I think people have different tolerance levels when it comes to risk. I am personally very risk-averse in this pandemic. I do not like to even go outside for a walk. I become very nervous about it. On the other hand, other people are casually going to the store without a worry in the world. I wonder if people who are very risk averse would have no qualms about missing Mass if it were not obligatory or would some still feel "pressured" to attend despite their discomfort. To ignore people who feel this way, I believe, would be somewhat cruel.

Packed Churches
Another concern I had was imaging normal crowds of people attending Mass during this outbreak. Most places can now not have more than 10 people in a particular area and we are obliged to be at least 6 feet apart. This is based on expert advice. So when I imagine a church with Sunday attendance, I wonder how this could possibly work given these guidelines. Again there may be innovative solutions to solve this. For example, if you had a church like our basilica in St. John's Newfoundland, you could have one person (or people who live together) per section and every other section (or 2) would be blocked off. There would be a maximum number of attendees during a particular Mass.

Another option would be to have a Mass outside the church with the altar being under some kind of canopy. The faithful could park outside as they would in a drive-in theatre.

Reception of Communion
There has been some discussion about how one would go about receiving communion in such a pandemic. Many suggestions have been made. I am not sure if I am convinced by any of them. Some say that reception on the tongue is much safer than reception on the hand. However, in this time, I am not sure how either is "safe". This is one that would require some exploration. Some have suggested the priest "sanitize" his hands after each time he gives communion. Is this possible? I am not sure. Will it work? Again, I am not sure.


Attitude
I may be wrong, but I am afraid some may be using this as an opportunity to compare their faith and regliousness to that of others in an uncharitable way. "I advocate lots of Masses regardless of the risk, therefore I am more serious about my faith!" I think exposing people to a high degree of risk is not charitable at all, but the opposite. There is a difference between prudence and heroic virtue. I'm not saying that those advocating a cavalier attitude are more virtuous, but people willing to risk themselves may be displaying virtue. For example, going into a dangerous area to offer comfort, or if one were a priest, to offer the sacraments, could be a sign of great love and charity. Simply demanding that others put themselves at risk is not charitable.

An Example
I have been listening to a very amazing audio series on Youtube about St. Charles Borromeo and the plague. He displayed extraordinary virtue by putting himself at risk for the sake of his flock. He truly displayed great heroic virtue. He cared nothing for preserving his own life but only about the eternal salvation of his spiritual children. Many followed his example and ventured into the plague-striken areas of Milan to administer the sacraments with little regard to their own well-being. Miraculously, his followers who visited countless sick and destitute did not themselves contract the dreaded illness. It reminds me of Jesus Christ who said those who try to save their lives will lose it but those who give their lives for the Kingdom of God will gain it.

Thoughts
Overall I think this situation requires balance. Prudence means doing what is reasonable. Even in the time of the plague in the time of St. Charles, most Masses and the sacraments were cancelled. Were they completely stopped? Probably not, but even then there were measures taken to ensure the safety of Catholics. If safety can be ensured and people are given choices, I think the sacraments can be offered in limited ways as opposed to being outright banned.

Open to Ideas
Please feel free to contribute to this complex topic. I am open to reasonable ideas and am only advocating what I believe to be the best approach. Thank you for reading!

Holy Orders During the Coronavirus (Covid19)

This is the fourth blog in this 7-part series on the sacraments during a pandemic, specifically during this Coronavirus pandemic. We've already explored confession, the Eucharist, and matrimony. There are four sacraments left to go. Today we explore Holy Orders.

Holy Orders are the means by which men become deacons, priests, and bishops within the Catholic Church, and it must be in that order. These are the three types of ordained men in the Church and although some men have different titles, such as Monsignor, Archbishop, Nuncio, or even Pope, they are all still one of the three main types.

Jesus Christ and Saint Paul recommend men to remain celibate and to seek after the things of Our Lord. Jesus Christ tells those who can, to give up marriage and follow him. Although marriage is considered a good and a sacrament, and thus a path to salvation, receiving holy orders and becoming a priest is considered a higher good in the Church.

It is also important to note that the sacraments come through priests who act as Alter Christi meaning Jesus Christ acts through the priest. Therefore, it not the priest as a fallen individual who effects the sacraments but Jesus Christ from whom all sacraments flow. But because Jesus Christ effects the sacraments through the priests, priests are absolutely essential in the life of the Church.

As mentioned earlier, the sacraments come from the Sacrifice on Calvary which is made present at the altar during each Mass. But the particular means by which the sacraments come to be efficacious is through the priest. Without priests, there are no sacraments. Their importance cannot be understated.

Does this absolute necessity of having priests for the sacraments and thus to continue the Church on earth specifically mean ordinations must occur continuously even in the face of threats? I think we must take a prudent view of this. As mentioned in a previous post about matrimony, although ordination is a good and one of the highest goods, it is not absolute essentially that they be carried out at all times. According to ---, there are currently 414,582 priests in the world. Obviously this isn't a static number and is probably an estimate, although a very precise one. This particular statistic was created by Georgetown University. I'm not sure the exact method used to acquire such a precise number, but I suppose each diocese reports the number of priests, and then each country's conference of bishops compiles these and send this information to a central repository. Of course, religious orders would also do this. I can imagine a high amount of accuracy in this area.

In any event, it also notes that the number of priests is in decline overall. I am not sure the current trend but the number has gone from 419,728 in 1970 to 414,582 in 2017. Although these numbers are quite comparable, it is important to note that the number of people on earth, as well as the number of Catholics, in that same time frame has almost exactly doubled. Therefore, the number of priests per Catholic is half of what it used to be.

Having said all of this, and given the importance of priests overall, the urgency of immediately ordaining priests during an ongoing pandemic, seems minimal. Priestly ordinations should be large and festive events involving hundreds or thousands of people from the Catholic community. It is an edifying event which really shows the faith of the people and in particular of these men who follow this call from God. In a time of pandemic, very few people would likely attend. It would become an almost private event. The joy and splendor of what is taking place would be minimized.

Of course, theologically speaking, even if no one was there except the bishop to administer the sacrament, it would still be equally efficacious. I just believe it would lack much in the way of solemnity and importance within the community. On top of this, it could create negative feelings within the Catholic community and the region as a whole. The Catholic community may regret not being able to attend an ordination or feel they are being asked to put themselves at risk in order to do so. The community may perceive the actions of the Church as being callous and uncaring towards individuals. Obviously we do not do things for the approval of society at large which accepts many evils. But the Church must always be a beacon of light and hope, not of scandal.

Overall, in my humble opinion, ordinations to the priesthood ought not take place when most people are quarantined or self-isolating due to a pandemic such as Covid19. Please provide your feedback and comments below! Join me tomorrow as I discuss my thoughts on another sacrament!

Catholic Marriage During Coronavirus

Catholic Marriage During the Coronavirus Outbreak

Holy Matrimony is one of the seven sacraments of the Catholic Church. It joins a man and a woman in a lifelong conjugal union for the purpose of procreation and the spiritual growth of each other. Marriage is considered a vocation in the Church and is a path to holiness. Many saints speak of the ability of marriage to sanctify people.

Catholics are told to enter marriage with the idea of given fully of themselves to their spouse. This means practicing mortification, patience, and various other physical and spiritual penances for the sake of the other. I feel men are particularly called to sacrifice themselves as Christ sacrificed himself for his body the Church. We cannot enter into marriage with the idea that we will be served by the other person and that all our desires must be fulfilled. In fact, it is quite the opposite.

As mentioned the Church holds up marriage as the highest ideal of intimate relationships between men and women. Jesus Christ changed it from a natural institution to a sacrament, meaning through marriage we receive Grace from God. Therefore, it is easy to see the high importance of marriage to Catholics.

With this in mind, would the Church allow a man and a woman to marry in our current world which is experiencing a massive, global pandemic?

The answer is quite frankly no. Marriage may be a great good, a holy sacrament, and a vocation but it is not essential to the spiritual life. Not marrying will not prevent a person from receiving God's grace or from becoming holy. Therefore, although marriage is a good, it is not a requirement.

Typical marriages go far beyond the bare minimum requirements for legality within the Church, which includes having a priest involved plus 2 witnesses. Indeed, for the most part, the bride and groom have 3-5 people standing for them on each side. The wedding reception involves hundreds of people usually. That's not to mention the dozens of workers.

During the Coronavirus (Covid19), a gathering such as this would probably be illegal at best, and probably quite immoral. Why? Because you are putting MANY people at risk. Many people in fact, far beyond the number of guests attending. If for example, there are 200 guests, and each of those guests interact with an average of 5 people outside the wedding in the following week, and each of THOSE 5 people interact with 5 more the week after, within 2 weeks from the wedding, there would be 5000 connections. If one or more of those people had come into contact with the virus, well you get the picture.

Therefore, in my opinion, it would be very imprudent to have a wedding during the Coronavirus. It is sad that many people have had to cancel their weddings during the early part of this wedding season due to this pandemic. But we must consider other people when making plans.

Catholic Communion During Coronavirus

Communion During Coronavirus (Covid19)

This is the second of 7 articles outlining how the Church ought to react vis-a-vis the sacraments during a time such as this, i.e. a worldwide pandemic. Should sacraments be offered? If so, how? What is the Church's responsibility and what is the most prudent way to act in these times.

Today we look at the Blessed Sacrament - i.e. the Eucharist i.e. Communion. Should communion be offered during this time?

First we must note the high importance that is placed on the Eucharist within the Church. The Catholic teaches that the Holy Eucharist is the true body, blood, soul and divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ. We do not believe it is a symbol, nor do we believe the Eucharist has only spiritual significance. We believe that besides appearance to our senses, the Eucharist is truly transformed during the celebration of the Sacrifice of the Mass.

So what is the Mass? Well the Mass is when this re-presentation of the Sacrifice of Jesus Christ takes place at the altar. The Sacrifice of Jesus Christ is the source from which all the sacraments flow which is why the Church calls the Eucharist the source and summit of the Christian life. Without the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, all the other sacraments would be ineffective and essentially not even exist.

So, needless to say, the Eucharist is of utmost importance when it comes to our faith. Therefore, if I advocate that at least one sacrament be offered the first would be the Eucharist. And since I already said that confession ought to be offered, although perhaps in innovative ways, I must automatically advocate for the offering of the Eucharist as well since it is uniquely the source and summit of our faith, right?

However, this is not necessarily the case. A few things must be considered. First of all, although the importance of the Eucharist cannot be understated, this does not necessarily mean that all must receive this sacrament on a regular basis. It is not a requirement for salvation that one receive the Eucharist every week. In fact, when we speak of our Sunday obligation, we do not mean that everyone is obligated to receive the Eucharist during the Mass on Sunday every week or else commit a grave sin. Rather, the obligation to attend Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation refers only to attendance at Mass, i.e. participation. Participation does not necessarily mean partaking in communion.

In our modern Catholic world, one would be forgiven for believing that reception of Holy Communion is an absolute requirement for all attendees at Mass. At Mass nearly everyone receives the Eucharist every week. In fact, many do not realize that not doing this is even permissible. However, to even be allowed to receive the Eucharist, one must be a Catholic in the state of grace. Outside of this, no one is permitted.

As mentioned, the idea that communion is something all people must partake in at every Mass isn't something that has been universally held by all theologians and saints throughout history. In the olden days, when there was much less sin in the world, people had to be encouraged in a variety of ways to receive communion. The Church even made a rule stating that Catholics must receive at least once per year. Remember, this is a separate requirement from our requirement to attend Mass every single week at least.

There is an interesting history in the Catholic Encyclopedia which describes the frequently of reception of the Eucharist down through the ages. In the Early Church, some people participated in frequent reception, which others less so. The article, found here, describes how communion was received fairly frequently, perhaps once a week or more, up until the time of Charlemagne. In the middle ages, the articles describes how Communion became very infrequent. So much so that the 4th Lateran Council compelled the faithful, under threat of excommunication, to receive communion at least once per year.

The article describes how various religious orders and various saints received at different frequencies. Some as few as thrice a year, while others communicated much more often.

As we can see, reception of communion every week has not always been the norm and many holy saints were reluctant to frequently receive the Blessed Sacrament. On the other hand, many theologians recommended frequent reception including Thomas Aquinas. The Council of Trent speaks against very infrequent reception (specifically citing 3 times per year), but goes on to say whether communion ought to be received monthly, weekly, or daily will not be subject to a universal rule.

My point in going into all of this detail is basically to explain that while perhaps desirable, the reception of the Eucharist is not a mandatory action that must be undertaken weekly.

Given this fact, it would seem prudent that communion be limited or stopped during this time of pandemic if that means keeping people safe from a potentially very dangerous virus. Of course, our spiritual well-being is much more important that our physical well-being or safety. However, when possible, we must safeguard our bodies as well as our souls. We are not a dualistic religion, we believe in the importance of body and soul.

Finally, during these difficult times, we can remain a spiritual and Eucharistic people. We can watch the Mass on television and make a spiritual communion. Also many churches have once again been very innovative. Some have offered drive-in adoration. The monstrance (aka ostentorium) is on display either outside or behind a window, and people spend time before our Eucharistic Lord while maintaining a minimum distance.

Take care of one another during these difficult times and hopefully we will get back to full access to the Sacraments very soon. God Bless.

Confession During the Coronavirus

The Seven Sacraments During the time of the Coronavirus
Today's Topic: Confession

On Janaury 20, 2020, the United States had its first confirmed case of the coronavirus. This dreadful disease originated in China, many believe from consuming an unusual animal such as a bat. Of note, bat is a prohibited animal to eat in the Old Testament in books such as Deuteronomy and Leviticus.

So the first case came to the US in January, but it wasn't until mid-March that churches really started closing in the US and Canada. That's only a couple of weeks ago. From most places, it seems like a very long time since this measure was enacted, but it really hasn't been.

The big concern many Catholics have had during this time is the availability of the sacraments. That's why I have devoted the next 7 topics on dealing with these issues. I will go through each of the 7 sacraments and discuss the issues surrounding them and how I feel it is best to deal with the threat of this virus.

So on the topic of confession. Confession is of vital important to faithful Catholics. During a good confession, a penitent is forgiven of the eternal punishment due to mortal sin, which is eternal suffering in hell and separation from God in heaven.

As you can imagine, therefore, making this sacrament available is of utmost importance. In fact, it is more important than merely earthly considerations. If one were to understand the true gravity of something like hell, the risk of illness or even death would be minor in comparison.

Therefore in my perspective, confession should not be totally cancelled no matter how grave the threat of disease is. Therefore, during this time of coronavirus, I believe for the spiritual well-being of Catholics around the world, confession should be made available to those who need it.

Having said this does not remove the necessity to practice caution in how the sacrament is offered. Placing people in harm's way, by for example, having dozens of people wait in crowded lines to receive the sacrament, could put them in excess and unnecessary risk. This would be immoral. So what is the solution?

Thankfully many priests around the world have considered the risks and the necessity of having confession and have come up with very ingenious ways of offering reconciliation to parishioners. A priest in Maryland, Fr. Scott Holmer, of St. Edward the Confessor Catholic Church, was one of the first priests in the United States to offer confession in a sort of Drive Through fashion.

Parishioners wait in their car for the car ahead of them. Once the car ahead is done, they drive up and the priest is waiting. He is wearing a blindfold so that he can maintain the anonymity of the confessional. As this is optional, I assume the penitent could ask him to remove the covering. So the person confesses his sins and drives away after receiving absolution.

In this case, risk is minimized while offering an invaluable service to the people.

Some might ask why an in-person confession is required. Couldn't it be done over the phone or maybe even webcam? The answer is no. And I am personally glad of this fact. As we know in the Church often an exception will become the norm. Once something is allowed, even if discouraged, it tends to grow more and more. And I believe that would be very detrimental to the sacrament. It would become a lot less personal, a lot less close. It would become rather transactional, and "convenient". The purpose of confession is to receive forgiveness of sin which ultimately comes from Jesus Christ himself as the second person of the Trinity who acts within the priest who is an Alter Christus.

The closeness and proximity are integral parts of the confession which takes place and I believe they must be preserved. Part of the experience is being in the presence of the priest which is normally in a Church. There is a physical aspect to it because we are physical beings. It is similar to when Jesus Christ would forgive people of their sins in person.

One more point I would like to address is that of a mass confession. No, not a confession which occurs during the Sacrifice of the Mass, but a group confession of many people. It is officially called a general absolution.

The Code of Canon Law has this to say about General Absolution and its permitted use:

Can.  961 §1. Absolution cannot be imparted in a general manner to many penitents at once without previous individual confession unless:
1/ danger of death is imminent and there is insufficient time for the priest or priests to hear the confessions of the individual penitents;
2/ there is grave necessity, that is, when in view of the number of penitents, there are not enough confessors available to hear the confessions of individuals properly within a suitable period of time in such a way that the penitents are forced to be deprived for a long while of sacramental grace or holy communion through no fault of their own. Sufficient necessity is not considered to exist when confessors cannot be present due only to the large number of penitents such as can occur on some great feast or pilgrimage.

The only possible justification for general absolution during Coronavirus would be the second condition that priests would have insufficient time to hear the confession of a large number of people and that they would be deprived of the sacrament for an extended period of time. This would probably not work as a justification. The reason is that as of right now, it is not foreseen that all human interaction, even from a distance, will be completely prohibited. If, however, people were given 24 hours before all contact with others would be strictly forbidden, I could see the possibility of a general absolution being given.

It is important to note that it is not an absolute require that someone receive sacramental confession to receive absolution from their sins. A person having perfect contrition can be forgiven the eternal punishments due to sin by expressing sorrow directly to God. This is, however, premised on the idea that once given the opportunity, the person who received absolution in this manner, would avail of sacramental confession as soon as possible.

I hope this clarifies this question somewhat. If you would like add a comment or ask a question, please feel free to do so!

Catholic Church Readings for Tuesday, March 31, 2020

Here are readings for Catholic Church Masses for Tuesday March 31 2020. I will offer my commentary on the Gospel at the end if anyone is interested. Also, I encourage comments on this blog post. So please feel free to share what you think below.

Reading 1, Numbers 21:4-9
4 They left Mount Hor by the road to the Sea of Suph, to skirt round Edom. On the way the people lost patience.

5 They spoke against God and against Moses, 'Why did you bring us out of Egypt to die in the desert? For there is neither food nor water here; we are sick of this meagre diet.'

6 At this, God sent fiery serpents among the people; their bite brought death to many in Israel.

7 The people came and said to Moses, 'We have sinned by speaking against Yahweh and against you. Intercede for us with Yahweh to save us from these serpents.' Moses interceded for the people,

8 and Yahweh replied, 'Make a fiery serpent and raise it as a standard. Anyone who is bitten and looks at it will survive.'

9 Moses then made a serpent out of bronze and raised it as a standard, and anyone who was bitten by a serpent and looked at the bronze serpent survived.

Responsorial Psalm, Psalms 102:2-3, 16-18, 19-21
2 Do not turn away your face from me when I am in trouble; bend down and listen to me, when I call, be quick to answer me!

3 For my days are vanishing like smoke, my bones burning like an oven;

16 when Yahweh builds Zion anew, he will be seen in his glory;

17 he will turn to hear the prayer of the destitute, and will not treat their prayer with scorn.

18 This shall be put on record for a future generation, and a people yet to be born shall praise God:

19 Yahweh has leaned down from the heights of his sanctuary, has looked down from heaven to earth,

20 to listen to the sighing of the captive, and set free those condemned to death,

21 to proclaim the name of Yahweh in Zion, his praise in Jerusalem;

Gospel, John 8:21-30
21 Again he said to them: I am going away; you will look for me and you will die in your sin. Where I am going, you cannot come.

22 So the Jews said to one another, 'Is he going to kill himself, that he says, "Where I am going, you cannot come?" '

23 Jesus went on: You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world.

24 I have told you already: You will die in your sins. Yes, if you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins.

25 So they said to him, 'Who are you?' Jesus answered: What I have told you from the outset.

26 About you I have much to say and much to judge; but the one who sent me is true, and what I declare to the world I have learnt from him.

27 They did not recognise that he was talking to them about the Father.

28 So Jesus said: When you have lifted up the Son of man, then you will know that I am He and that I do nothing of my own accord. What I say is what the Father has taught me;

29 he who sent me is with me, and has not left me to myself, for I always do what pleases him.

30 As he was saying this, many came to believe in him.

My Commentary on these verses of the Gospel:
I am not a theologian or highly trained in the Bible. So I will offer what I can and hopefully you find some value in it.

The Jews who were followers of Christ were not quite catching on to what he has to say here. He makes several references to the fact that he comes from God and that he and God as united. He mentions that he does nothing on his own, and that he only does what is in accord with God the Father in heaven.

That's not much like us. We sometimes do God's will and some people at some point in their lives may do most things that God wills. But Jesus goes much further here when describing himself and indicates that he ALWAYS does the will of the Father. He can never be separated from the father and that their wills correspond perfectly.

This is yet another example of the Trinity in the Gospel. Jesus is clearly saying that he and God are equal.

The Jews in this passage do come across as rather clueless. "Is he going to commit suicide?" they ask. It always strikes me how clueless they in fact do seem. You would think after all Christ has done and revealed they would not believe her would just simply kill himself. Many don't even seem to know who he is. Jesus has a great deal of patience to persistently explain who is he over and over.

Jesus is very stark in this passage. He does not mince words or beat around the bush. He is very clear that those who do not follow him will perish. In parts of the Gospel Jesus is even more explicit in stating that those who do not follow him will go to Gehenna, a place of hellfire and torment. Gehenna in fact was a place in Jerusalem. There, garbage was continuously burnt. This gave a clear and vivid picture of the place Jesus was describing.

As we all struggle through this difficult time with coronavirus, aka Covid19, it is good to keep in mind that Jesus loves us more than we love ourselves and that he wills our ultimate good.

Can you eat SEAL during Lent?

We all know some of the strange rules with eating certain animals during Lent. In general, every Catholic is obliged to abstain from "flesh meat" during Fridays of Lent. However, they can eat fish of almost any kind.
But did you know there are some animals that are not fish that can be eaten during Lent in certain areas? Dispensations were given in some parts of the world to alloy people to eat non-fish animals on Fridays of Lent.
For example, in Quebec, beaver was permitted in the 1700s. In Venezuela, Capybara is allowed to be eaten. And in Newfoundland, at least in previous centuries, seal meat was an allowable food to be eaten during Lent and even Fridays of Lent.
One of the reasons for this was that our modern-day taxonomy did not exist prior to Carl Linnaeus who lived between 1707 and 1778. He started the classification of the animal kingdom into various groups such as Mammals, Birds, Fish, etc.
So animals were classified in different ways. One way was by their predominant behavior. All of the animals listed above which are exceptions to the rule of only eating fish spend most of their time in the water. In an older classification system, these animals could be considered types of fish.
When you think about a seal, it, in many ways, acts and behaves as a fish, even though it is a mammal and spends much of its time on land (or ice).
In any event, seals are permitted to some people. To be honest, I am not sure if seal meat is currently permissible to be eaten during Lent in Newfoundland as it once was.
As a side note, if you are interested, I sell seal oil capsules which contain high levels of omega-3 fatty acids. You can check out my website at www.TerraNovaSealOil.com
Thanks for stopping by and reading. I will try to update this blog frequently!

Fasting During Lent: Are you doing enough?

Have you ever gone through Lent and ended up in Easter and thought to yourself, "Man that wasn't hard. In fact, it wasn't hard enough."?

It has happened to me many times. I give up some very minor things during Lent and when it's all over, I barely even notice. Examples of not giving up much include:

• No chocolate between 7pm and 8pm on Wednesdays and Fridays
• Having one less Coffee on the first day of the month.
• Going to Mass on Ash Wednesday instead of staying home

These are somewhat exaggerated to make a point. In reality, I once heard of a person who had given up one particular type of chocolate bar during Lent. That's it. Remember, they didn't give up snacking, or sweets, or even chocolate in general, they had given up one particular chocolate bar. They permitted themselves to eat ANY OTHER type of chocolate bar, but not this one particular kind. And I'm not saying milk chocolate, e.g. I mean something like Kit-Kat bars or Mars bars.

Now, once Lent is all said and done do you think this person can better relate to Jesus Christ and feel as though they accompanied him in the desert for 40 days? I somehow doubt it.

On the other hand, this person may have already been holy and sanctified that they didn't really need to give anything up and perhaps they were focusing more on doing more almsgiving or acts of charity, as opposed to "giving things up".

One thing that can get us through Lent is the prospect and thought of Easter. The hardships we are going through will be turned to joy and glory at Easter. Isn't that the point? Imagine doing something much greater this Lent than usual. Maybe not eating until after 3pm every day, maybe eating just one meal a day, maybe forgoing all snacks, or not eating meat on most days, etc.

Although I sometimes personally focus on the fasting aspect of Lent, there is also almsgiving and prayer which are equally important. And in all three it's important to know the reason we are doing these things. They are all meant to be done for love of Christ. If they are done primarily for reasons other than love of God, they are being done for the wrong reasons.

Once your trial is over and the glories of Easter are upon us, you will feel like a new creation!
Please provide your comments and feedback!

Sensus Fidelium: A Treasure Trove of Information

If you are a serious Catholic, you have no choice but to check out the Sensus Fidelium Youtube Channel.

The channel contains thousands of top quality audio from various Catholic priests and others. They are very faithful to tradition and teach true Catholic Doctrine. I must say that I really learned a lot by listening to some of these talks particularly those by Fr. Chad Ripperger. He really clarifies things in a fantastic way. For example, he doesn't lightly use words randomly. He uses the precise word that he is looking for as he has memorized their definitions.

This priest has given some excellent talks concerning the various levels of prayer and the necessity of mental prayer. This is something that I hadn't her talked about very often in homilies. As mentioned, he very clearly explains the various levels of prayers and will quote various saints when giving his talks. We need clear teaching and teachings of substance, which is something that is highly lacking in the live of most Catholics.

Check it out at https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC3x3gDTqUYy_bFZWS-U_mZQ

Stupid Abortion Argument #25918: If you don't pay all expenses of a child, then you aren't pro-life

A popular new argument being brought by pro-choice advocates is that you aren't really pro-life unless you pay for some or all expenses related to raising a child. The specific argument can vary.  For example, when advocating that children not be killed in the womb some pro-choice people will ask "How many children have you adopted?" Others might rhetorically asked if you are willing to pay all of the expenses associated with having this child.

On a purely logical basis this line of reasoning is easily answered. Pro-life people believe that human life begins at conception and that purposely ending the life of an innocent human being after conception is murder. It is a very basic an easy concept to understand.   Any deliberate killing of a human being is gravely morally wrong. Stating this fact and telling others about it is a morally good thing to do. This is a very basic concept.

In order to advocate that a particular group of people not be killed, one has no moral obligation to first agree to provide for any or all of their material needs. This is an illogical belief. This would make no more sense than saying in order for one to say that innocent people should not be killed one must first agree to provide for all of the material needs of the people they say should not be killed. If I advocate for the idea that homeless people should not be arbitrarily murdered in the streets it does not make sense to say I must bring all homeless people into my home in order to advocate this position.

In fact, I doubt in reality that anybody truly believes that in order to advocate on behalf of the right to life of an individual we must agree to bring that individual into our home or to pay for their material needs. Even answering this objection is difficult only in the sense that it is so obvious that there's not really any logical argumentation required in order to make that point.  But then again advocacy of abortion is not based on logic but on convenience.

Once again, the true point of argumentation when it comes to abortion is whether the pre-born child is a human being or not. Pro-choicers will call an unborn child anything but a child. They say it's a clump of cells, a potential life, etc. All of these are emotive and non-scientific stances. By definition, there is a human being upon the fertilization of an egg by a sperm to form a zygote. This zygote grows quickly. After around 5-9 days there are hundreds of cells and after 2 weeks most organs have begun to form. This child has unique DNA and the heart, lungs, etc. have begun development. To say this is not a human person is absurd.

This is just the most recent "argument" presented by pro-choicers. It should be summarily dismissed.

Chit-chatters at Mass

Sunday at Mass, there were two men who were chatting. I’ve seen this before and attempted to sit fairly far away from them. Due to other circumstances, I couldn’t get too far away. Throughout the entire Mass, they chit chatted. During prayers, even during the consecration, it didn’t matter to them. Just blabbering on. It may have been one more than the other.

Sadly, this isn’t uncommon. Most people don’t talk non-stop, but randomly whispering is very common. Not one or two words, but a few minutes. Sometimes if you are unlucky enough to overhear what they are discussing, it’s not something earth-shattering. Usually it’s the most mundane topics. What are we having for supper? Did you call Jim about that hockey stick after? When do you want to go up to the cabin next weekend?

My question is, why are these people coming to Mass in the first place? Do they have absolutely no idea what it is? Pope Benedict wrote a great article addressing this problem overall. He said it comes down to a lack of understanding of what the Eucharist and the sacraments in general are. If you are unaware of the significance of what is going on, you may not have an issue with talking throughout.

Basically Benedict attributes the problem to seeing the Mass primarily in terms of its side effects rather than the main purpose. People have come to believe the primary purpose of Mass is a social gathering, where people greet each other, hug, catch up, etc. There is a vague sense of Christian community. But there is a lack of knowledge or understanding of the divine, or the sacramental, of the supernatural. It’s seen entirely as natural.

As a corollary to this, people place inordinate attention on the homily. But even that they are misjudging. The homily is meant to educate and illuminate. But in the incorrect understanding of its purpose, people see the homily as intended to “bring people together” or create a sense of community. Therefore, if the priest ventures into an area of controversy, people are quick to react. Even priests who dare bring up challenging topics often spend much time preparing the hearers about what he is about to say and offering many nice and loving thoughts beforehand lest the congregation feel attacked.

The congregation generally dislikes being challenged and is looking to be praised or congratulated in various ways. Again, this is contrary to the purpose of the homily.

I see these attitudes very often in Newfoundland. The sacramental nature of the Mass is ignored. People see their attendance as a social gathering primarily. The supernatural and sacramental are largely unknown. People just do what they are “supposed” to do because that’s what they were shown as children.

Liturgy can be an important aspect to changing the behavior of the congregation. If the priest is very nonchalant about everything and shows no reverence, then can the congregation be expected to act differently? But it’s not the whole solution. Catechesis is very important. People need informative, thought-provoking, and challenging sermons. If a priest is talking in a very monotone way about vague ideas, how will people learn things or be motivated about the faith?

Fulfilling your Sunday obligation is more than being physically in a church. It’s about being aware of what is happening. No one is off the hook for this, including the parishioners and the priest.

Disturbing Trend of Ad Hoc Morality

I have a lot of friends who claim to be Christian but whose views are at direct odds with their stated religion. I am not for a minute saying that I am somehow perfect or something or that I don’t sometimes break the rules or whatever. What I’m talking about is people who hold views totally contrary to their belief system, yet they have absolutely no problem with this.

 

Christians all view abortion as wrong, for example. Yet many people I know are fine with IVF which almost always involves abortion. For Catholics, IVF, even if somehow abortion isn’t involved, is morally illicit and strictly forbidden. I find it shocking these people are fine with it. They don’t even attempt to reconcile their clear violation of morality with their so-called belief systems.

 

My contention is that these people should just stop calling themselves Christian. They can instead say something like “I tried to be Christian but it’s too hard and it conflicts with all of my viewpoints. Therefore for now I am not a Christian.”

 

Besides this, many so-called Christians and Catholics specifically will proclaim support for transgender operations, even for children, transvestitism, and homosexual activity. All of these are clear and obvious violations of Christian principles.

 

When pressed, they will ultimately make up some reasoning like “I don’t have to believe everything in Christiainty, plus different people have different opinions.” Ah yes, choose your own religion. So convenient. As St. Augustine said “If you accept things from the gospel that you like and reject what you don’t, it’s not the gospel you’re listening to but yourself.” These people are listening to themselves. It’s the religion of self. Self-worship. You are the ultimate God in this religion. Sounds attractive.

 

It’s also a result of Protestant theology which posits that there are no authorities within religion but that it’s up to each individual to decide what’s right. To be fair, they will claim the Holy Spirit has to make all the decisions. Sounds good right? God himself making your decisions. What could be better? Well, because of this belief we have 30,000 Protestant denominations. That’s why we need a structure. Otherwise people float around rudderless. As evidenced by many of my friends, their own faulty beliefs often take precedence over God’s laws. It’s all too easy to fall into this trap when it’s a “Me and God alone” proposition.

Interesting Stat about Catholics Vs. Anglicans in England

I came across a very interesting statistic while doing some research. And basically what it said was that more Catholics attend Mass on a weekly basis then Anglicans attend church even though in England there are approximately 25 million Anglicans and only four million Catholics.

One of the interesting things that I've come across is that people of other denominations will say they are not required to attend mass or church but that it is strongly encouraged and that they attend as often as possible and that they are good people and they do what they can. But it definitely seems to me that unless you are required to go then there's a strong incentive not to go. The other thing about attending weekly religious services that you really have to make it an obligatory part of your day every week. So there's no point in saying I think probably maybe I should go and I will try to go. If you do that then you won't go. You have to say that it is absolutely required that you going you have no other choice.

But what also happens is that it just becomes part of your day. For me for example it would feel very odd and out of place for me to miss Mass on any particular Sunday. However I know for other people who never go that it would seem like the opposite. It would actually seem weird if they did go.

One thing I also noticed is that people will think it is very strange for me to attend Mass while I am traveling. However unless there is some extreme reason why I cannot go I will usually attend Mass while I'm on vacation. For one thing I find it very interesting because I get to see a new church that I've never seen before and experience their particular religious devotions and perhaps even see things such as relics or religious paraphernalia and things of that sort. So I find it personally interesting to do this. On top of that it only takes about an hour or two to attend Mass in a particular location. So if you're on vacation for a week then you will be doing a variety of things such as eating out, doing shopping and so on. So to me it's not a big deal to spend one or two hours in church and thanking God for the opportunity to travel.

Pope Francis says something good

After asking "Who am I to judge" in relation to homosexuality, using Muslim convicts to represent the apostles during the washing of the feet on Holy Thursday, condemning air conditioners and modern life, Pope Francis has released something that makes sense.
He said you cannot just claim to be a good person, you have to go to Mass, because Jesus commanded us to. He also said not to just go out of a sense of obligation, but to go because you are spiritually nourished.
Let's hope for more statements like this from this pope. Also, I'm pretty sure this won't get any airtime in the media. They've already decided who they want Pope Francis to be, and something like this doesn't fit.
More here: http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2017/12/14/pope-francis-its-not-enough-just-to-be-good-you-must-go-to-mass/

A terrorist attack in Edmonton

Canada's leader Justin Trudeau is truly pathetic. After first flooding Canada with unvetted migrants from Islamic terrorist hotbeds, we had a terrorist attack in Edmonton, Alberta. It's truly horrendous. But what does Trudeau and his ilk do? Do they try to protect Canadian citizens? No, of course not.

Instead, they are giving money to Islamic centres for security! Seriously. After the increased threat from Islamic terrorism to citizens of Canada, the Canadian government sent out funding to Islamic centres and mosques to "increase security"!

Even my home city's small mosque received almost $50,000 for "increased security". REALLY? We are living in a truly upside-down world! Muslims commit terrorism, and THEY get extra money for security?? I imagine after this terrorist attack in Edmonton, the same thing will happen. Muslims will get more money for security.

I don't really know why these politicians are so committed to their crazy theory. Islamic terrorist attacks are happening all over the world, in every country. The more Muslims, the more attacks. It's happening all across Europe, it's happening in the US and Canada, it's happening in India, and it's happening all across Asia. We need to wake up!

In the past, we had to call Crusades to push back the Islamic invasion, Muslims trying to take over Europe. But now we are not only not pushing them back, we are welcoming them in. Do we really hate ourselves that much? This isn't about racism, it's about an ideology that hates us and everything we stand for.

At what point will these crazy politicians get real? What would have to happen for them to wake up? Maybe there is no hope for them. That's my current theory. The worse the terrorist attack, the more crazy they become. Ever since George W. Bush called Islam a religion of peace, libtards have been outdoing themselves trying to compliment this religion.

But let's face it. Islam has nothing to do with peace. It has everything to do with domination. The only time they would advocate peace is if it somehow benefited Islam. Everything is done for the spread of Islam. The end justifies the means in their twisted philosophy. At best it is a human religion, it is not a divine religion. It teaches that if you kill and destroy in the name of their religion, you will be rewarded with sexual gratification, gluttony, and a whole host of other sins of the flesh. Their founder was a horrible human being.

We know our leaders will never protect us, we have to protect ourselves. But the light of humanity shines in everybody's heart. Therefore, we must maintain hope for Muslims, pray for them, pray they leave their religion and find the true religion of Christianity.

Pope Francis and the new corporal work of mercy?!

I was at Mass on Sunday and one of the prayer intentions was to join in with Pope Francis who wants us to add a new work of mercy. I forget if it’s classified under corporal or spiritual. But he wants to add a couple. One has to do with sharing resources with the less fortunate or something and the other is about protecting mother earth. All I could do was sigh. Pope Francis is such an activist pope. He can’t just leave anything alone. People aren’t coming into the Church because of all the new stuff that’s happening. They want the original and undiluted. Why is he so intent on changing everything?

 

BUT Phil! What’s wrong with sharing and protecting the earth???? Nothing in principle. But the corporal and spiritual works of mercy have been around for like 1000 years. And now he will just change them?? They are already complete in my opinion. Jesus was never focused on saving mother earth and earth-worship. He cared more about our disposition towards God and man. And those are thoroughly addressed by the existing works of mercy. In fact, they are taken from the words of Christ himself. Feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, visiting the prisoner, etc. What we do with plastic bottles is something each person must decide. Nobody wants to destroy the planet for no purpose. Pope Francis, in his encyclical seems to think the earth is becoming a giant trash heap. He even says this. Like really? The main source of “trash” is the trash morality we have. But he rarely seems to address that. He is more interested in climate change or whatever.

 

While Pope Francis is trying to come across as hip and “with it”, he’s not bringing any new people into the Church. That’s statistically verified. Why not stick to what Catholicism is about? Spiritual growth and becoming holier, it’s not about reducing our carbon footprint.

Modern society turns morality on its head.

One interesting and disturbing thing I have noticed about people in the society around me is that rather than lacking morals altogether, they have flipped them on their heads. Things which should matter do not and vice versa.

One example is in the area of reproductive technology. Ab○rtion and I.V.F. involve the destruction of embryos and fetuses yet this doesn't seem to faze many people, including Catholics. I know many so-called Catholics who wouldn't flinch at using these life-killing technologies to achieve their goals. I know one couple right now in that situation. It seems absolutely irrelevant to them. I brought up naprotechnology, which is a Catholic re-productive technology which has a higher success rate than the standard methods. Yet they wouldn't even consider it. "The doctor at the hospital didn't mention it so I won't do it." They are like moral jellyfish – they just ebb and flow with the prevailing moral attitudes of their environment. We are supposed to be more like salmon, swimming against the tide of popular opinion and moving towards the truth.

But the irony of it is that these same people aren't amoral. They do not have a "nothing matters" attitude. On many subjects, they are zealous. I like to use the example that if we were on a nature walk and I just threw an empty water bottle into the forest or a stream and they saw me do it, they would be outraged. They would look on in shock and become very angry at me. If possible, they would do everything possible to collect the water bottle so it didn't harm the environment. Yet when it comes to human life, they wouldn't even be bothered to find out if something is morally acceptable and why. They would rather remain ignorant. Upon learning the truth, they are unaffected and couldn't care less. How perverse.

Off the top of my head, here is a list of things "modern" people care about vs. what they don't.

Things modern-day people care about:

Animal shelters and animal welfare

Recycling

Global Warming

"Gender expression"

Multiculturalism – regardless of the values of the cultures

 

Things modern-day people don't care about:

Human life

se×ual morality

Intact families

God

Their own culture and values

 

Now more than ever we need a revival of these morals.