Interviewer says: >>Father, in your book, Who Shall Ascend?, you call for a correction in the matter, uhh, the three things that are necessary for a mortal sin.

Father James Wathen answers:
...If the matter, that is the act itself, is grievously against God’ law, then a mortal sin has been committed, and the person is guilty of it.  His state of mind, or his state of will do not reduce that act to merely a venial sin.  It is not right to speak of a venial sin as being “merely a venial sin” EXCEPT in comparison to a mortal sin!  – because a mortal sin is the WORST thing that can be brought into the created world!

Most Catholics have a misguided conscience, because the catechism tells them that if they do not acknowledge that their grievous act is a mortal sin, that they’re not guilty of it, and we insist that they MUST acknowledge:  that if they have done that which is grievously wrong, no matter if they did not know it was wrong, or, if they were not fully voluntary in the perpetration of it, their act is not a venial sin, it is a mortal sin.  Their guilt may be less than if they were fully cognizant, or if they acted with a full volition, but they must never say that by their disposition of soul, that they can reduce a mortal sin to being a “mere” venial sin.  

>>Can you give us any examples of that?

Fr. replies:  
I can give you countless examples!  The example that, uh, is constantly before me is, the desecration of the Holy Eucharist, being what is referred to as “Communion in the Hand.”  The priests have convinced the people, that not only is it NOT a desecration of the Eucharist for them to take Communion in their hand, they have convinced them that it’s a GOOD thing!  – and, people generally BELIEVE it!  But I say to the people:  “It is no less a desecration because the priests AND YOU, do not call it so!  It is an act of desecration because a lay person cannot touch the Blessed Eucharist;  he has no right, EXCEPT in the case of VERY GRAVE necessity – to SAVE it from VIOLATION!  
...

Let me emphasize first of all, that, in the present mind, that is, as people are now being taught, they are being encouraged to ignorance – they are being taught that the less that they know, the less accountability they will have.

>>Ignorance is bliss!

That’s exactly right!  And I want them to understand that the main thing that they have to do on this earth is to do that which is good and to avoid that which is evil.  Their obligation to do that which is good is more important than that they have enough food to eat.  Their obligation to do that which is good and to avoid that which is evil is more important than having oil in their car, or money in their pocket, or anything that we would describe as a natural, or a temporal necessity.  The main thing they have to do in this life is not to violate God’s law.  This should be their central preoccupation:  everything else is second to it.  

Then they will be told that they are ‘ignorant’ – then they will be told (or they will CONCLUDE) that the less they know the better off they are – and if they are totally stupid, then they will have nothing to be held to account for!  

That is the logical consequence of this position.

...

That’s right, simple ignorance is simply not knowing, when a person is simply not aware that he is ignorant of a fact.  He is simply uninformed.  And there is no culpability in simple ignorance.  

...

>> And then you have a third, an “effective” which is a positive avoidance of knowledge.

An effective ignorance is when a person does not want to know because of the obligation that knowing would impose.  

>>So, we have a pagan error here, that when you hear about invincible ignorance, it seems they claim the person’s not culpable, that various degrees of that he’s invincibly ignorant…

And they want to extend it to the point where, as you put it, and as the saying goes, “Ignorance is bliss” – IGNORANCE IS DESTRUCTION.

We have been given a mind in order to know.  And we are responsible for all our acts.  We have to insist to people that:  we have been given a free will.  And freedom of choice means to do or not to do.  That is the primary aspect of free will:  to do or not to do.  

A person must not DO, until he knows that what he DOES, is not evil, but is good.  In the case of some acts they are purely neutral, or we would say, “unmoral,” they have no moral implication or ingredient, such as eating or walking.  But many, many acts, a great number of our acts, a great majority of our acts have a morality about them.  We have, as our PRIMARY OBLIGATION BEFORE GOD, because we are His servants, to know whether this act is good or bad, and if we do not know, before we act, we must find out, lest we sin!  

We are not allowed to act in the ignorance of the morality of an action!

>>St. Thomas Aquinas he says that “All sin proceeds from ignorance.”

That is exactly right.  And that kind of statement is foreign to most Catholics.  That kind of statement also, or let us say, this kind of attitude, is a scandal to non-Catholics!  They think that Catholics are hypocrites because they do so many things under the excuse of ignorance.  Presently, the bishops and the priests are wrecking the Church, and a great number of them are pleading ignorance.  Or, imagining that they will be able to plead ignorance before the Judgment seat of God.  We insist to them that they will be held to accountable for everything they’ve done, everything they’ve permitted, and everything they have failed to do.  They are responsible for EVERYTHING, and that is why we should busy ourselves about enjoining in what God wants.  

>>... St. Paul says in first Corinthians chapter four verse four he says, I have nothing on my conscience, yet am I not thereby justified…

He’s saying that a man cannot justify himself.  A man has to be aware that he is under divine scrutiny, and that he must be mindful that God’s judgment is perfect:  it is flawless:  He cannot be deceived in ANY WAY, and we will be judged according to GOD’S KNOWLEDGE, and NOT according to OUR knowledge!  

>>Pope Innocent II said, and he was clarifying what you’re saying, and he said, quote, that whatever is done through ignorance must not be considered a sin, it’s hereby condemned as error. Pope Innocent the second said it so this isn’t something new or something that you're introducing here that very good... at that, now we can make the distinction ... the fact that catechisms are not infallible doctuments.

I have encountered a lot of alarm and astonishment when I point out something in the catechism that can bear some emanation.  People have the notion that the catechisms are flawless.  And they would say with regard to the Baltimore Catechism:--

"I grew up with the Baltimore Catechism:  it is what I learned my faith out of.  And now you’re telling me that it’s no good?!"

And our answer is, we’re not saying that “it’s no good,” we’re saying that there are some errors which need correction.  That’s what we’re sayig.  And the Catholics need to understand that there is no infallibility attached to catechisms.  The classic example we have with us now is the new catechism of the Catholic religion that John Paul II has given us.  It is not orthodox.  It is, in many areas, cleverly deceptive, it is dangerous, and they should stay away from it.