Indulge me for a moment

On Divine Mercy Sunday, we heard John’s gospel about Thomas coming to believe in the risen Lord only after seeing the evidence.  Thomas doubted the resurrection occurred until he had a revelation from Jesus himself.  Jesus said to him, "Have you come to believe because you have seen me?  Blessed are those who have not seen and have believed."  As Catholics, we accept certain tenets as a matter of faith without having visible evidence. We know the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ even though it appears to be bread and wine because Jesus said so.  Beyond God’s revelation, some Catholic practices and devotions have developed over the centuries from the private revelations of various saints.  

Our pastor used his Sunday homily to question why people do not take advantage of the plenary indulgence available to those who attend the Divine Mercy Sunday devotion, a devotion that can be traced to the private revelation to a saint.  Father lamented that only a dozen or so individuals would likely show up for the afternoon service.  People generally don’t like to be publicly chastised during a homily which, in my opinion, isn’t the best way to reach an audience.  Nevertheless, I pondered his question.  Why do so many Catholics dismiss the opportunity for a plenary indulgence?

Father sometimes refers to plenary indulgences as “get out of jail free” cards.  If only it were that simple.  There are really two factors here that may affect how Catholics respond to plenary indulgences and in particular those granted based on a private revelation.  Divine Mercy Sunday came about from the Lord’s revelation to Saint Faustina.  Her diaries are available to anyone who wishes to study them.  As Catholics, we are not required to believe private revelations, even those approved by the Church.  

From Catholic Answers:  In 2010, Benedict XVI explained: Ecclesiastical approval of a private revelation essentially means that its message contains nothing contrary to faith and morals; it is licit to make it public and the faithful are authorized to give to it their prudent adhesion. A private revelation can introduce new emphases, give rise to new forms of piety, or deepen older ones. It can have a certain prophetic character and can be a valuable aid for better understanding and living the Gospel at a certain time; consequently, it should not be treated lightly. It is a help which is proffered, but its use is not obligatory (Verbum Domini 14).

In the 1700s, Benedict XIV observed that the Church accepts these revelations only “as probable” and added, “It follows that anyone may, without injury to the Catholic faith, give no heed to these revelations, and differ from them, provided he does so modestly, not without reason, and without contempt.”

The lack of contempt is needed because one needs to show respect to the Church authorities who approved them, but if one thinks there is a good reason not to accept a particular, approved apparition, the Church holds that one is free to do so.  Even though Catholics are not obligated to believe private revelations, the visions of Saint Faustina have gained approval by the Church.  

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia:  When the Church approves private revelations, she declares only that there is nothing in them contrary to faith or good morals, and that they may be read without danger or even with profit; no obligation is thereby imposed on the faithful to believe them.  So, some Catholics may hold a certain skepticism about the authenticity of Saint Faustina’s visions which seemed to be very specific. 

The Divine Mercy Chaplet may sound strange to anyone not accustomed to this type of prayer.  Similar to praying the rosary, the chaplet decades are repetitive. “For the sake of his sorrowful passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world” is said fifty times in the course of the chaplet prayer.  The final exhortation says, “Holy God, Holy Mighty One, Holy Immortal One, have mercy on us and on the whole world.”  The way we sing it in our parish always sounds ominous to me.  I find myself wondering if God really finds this devotion pleasing.

Then we come to the indulgence associated with Divine Mercy Sunday.  On the same day St. Pope John Paul canonized Sr. Faustina, he also established Divine Mercy Sunday as a feast day for the entire Church. Divine Mercy Sunday was officially established for the universal Church by a decree of the Vatican's Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments on May 5, 2000. 

A plenary indulgence, granted under the usual conditions (sacramental confession, Eucharistic communion and prayer for the intentions of Supreme Pontiff) to the faithful who, on the Second Sunday of Easter or Divine Mercy Sunday, in any church or chapel, in a spirit that is completely detached from the affection for a sin, even a venial sin, take part in the prayers and devotions held in honor of Divine Mercy, or who, in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament exposed or reserved in the tabernacle, recite the Our Father and the Creed, adding a devout prayer to the merciful Lord Jesus (e.g. Merciful Jesus, I trust in you!")

The Church in its Divinely instituted authority to bind and loose certainly has the ability to speak for Christ in granting indulgences, but is a plenary indulgence even attainable for the average Catholic?  Who among us is saintly enough to be completely detached from the affection for even a venial sin?  Perhaps Catholics who do not actively seek plenary indulgences are actually more conscious of their sinful nature and therefore think a plenary indulgence is beyond reach under the required conditions. 

 

Is it proper to take part in a Divine Mercy Sunday devotion for the sole purpose of gaining an indulgence?  Can our motivation be misplaced?  Can thinking we have gained an indulgence be presumptuous on our part?  These are all questions that come to my mind.  Trying to meet all the conditional requirements to gain a plenary indulgence can seem misplaced, perhaps even bordering on superstition.  If I do this and say that so many times, this thing will happen.  Should the indulgence alone be the motivating goal?

As we were leaving the church after the Divine Mercy service, I overheard a woman asking our priest if going to confession at our Lenten Penance service (March 20th) was sufficient to gain the plenary indulgence on Divine Mercy Sunday (April 7th).  He said, “No.  Confession had to be the week before or the week after.”  According to the EWTN website, the Apostolic Penitentiary, the roman dicastery responsible for the administration of Indulgences, states that sacramental confession can take place within about 20 days before or after the indulgenced act, March 20 to April 7 is 18 days by my count.  It is understandable why we Catholics are sometimes confused when our priests give us conflicting information.

This is why I believe we may place too much emphasis on trying to accumulate indulgences.  Yes, we should attend Divine Mercy Sunday services and other devotional opportunities to ask God for His mercy, but not to be too concerned about whether we qualify for a reward.  Being overly obsessed with meeting procedural requirements can lead to superstitious behaviors. If we are properly motivated to seek Our Lord’s Divine Mercy and are granted an indulgence as a result, alleluia!   Pray, make frequent confessions, receive Holy Communion, and then say, “Jesus, I trust in you.”

 

Choosing right

 

Come November, it looks like we will be choosing between a doddering old man and an immature egotistical narcissist.  In a population of some 332 million people, is this the best we can do?  Surely there are American men and women better suited to lead our nation in the twenty-first century.  

 

I place great emphasis on choosing candidates who are pro-life.  If a person thinks it is okay to dismember defenseless babies in the womb, how can they be trusted to care for those of us outside the womb?  Showing such disregard for even the most basic human life forms says so much about a person’s moral character, or lack of it.  That being said, the egotistical narcissist is the only viable choice between the two even though I question the strength of his moral backbone.   

 

The Alabama Supreme Court recently ruled that frozen embryos qualify as children under state law and are subject to legislation dealing with the wrongful death of a minor.  Therein lies the problem with in vitro fertilization.  Seems like there are always multiple embryos collected and frozen.  What happens to the ones that are not used?  That is one reason the Church forbids IVF.  It also separates the unitive action from the procreative action of the marital embrace.  

 

The Alabama Republican House and Senate almost immediately passed a bill to protect providers and patients from prosecution for damage to frozen embryos.  So, the court says embryos are children, but the legislature says there is no penalty for destroying them.  The logical solution is to say they cannot be created in the first place, but that probably won’t happen. Once again, the Catholic Church in her infinite wisdom had it right from the beginning. 

 

Now, I thought the people on the left would be happy about protecting those who damage frozen embryos. Not so fast.  A personal injury lawyer from Minneapolis who has represented IVF clients who lost frozen embryos due to faulty equipment is concerned he will not be able to collect damages for his clients.  It seems the only losers in this whole situation are the frozen embryos themselves even though they qualify as children under Alabama state law.  Apparently, it is okay to kill them, just not by accident.  

 

Here in Indiana, the legalization of cannabis is a topic of conversation among candidates in the upcoming election.   Personally, I have no objection to cannabis for medicinal purposes if it proves beneficial to people who are suffering.  For such individuals, I believe it should be prescribed by a doctor and dispensed at a pharmacy like any other drug. 

 

I am against recreational cannabis.  Why do we need to go there?  What good can possibly come from it aside from a source of revenue?  Why do we need more ways to numb our brains?So many vices that were taboo just a few years ago are now flourishing in the mainstream. From drugs to gambling to artificial intelligence, we continue to look for ways to escape reality.  Will we eventually consider legalizing recreational meth or cocaine?  Stay tuned.

 

 

 

Managing side effects

I recently watched a clip of an interview with Jerry Seinfeld where he was asked why he left his most popular show while it was at the top of the ratings.  He said all productions hit a peak in quality and eventually start to taper off.  He wanted to end his show while it was at its best and before it began to lose appeal.  He related that even the best standup comedians may hold an audience for an hour and fifteen minutes, but they can cross that line where people begin to wonder when this is going to end.  At that point, the entire effort suffers.

 

Our most recent parish Synod presentation was on the Mass.  Unbeknownst to anyone, our pastor decided to show a two hour-long DVD at an evening meeting that most parishioners expected to last an about an hour. He seemed amused at how many in attendance actually fell asleep at their tables.  What positive effects, if any, came from this experience?  These were all older Catholics who had already been attending Mass for many years.  At the end of a long day, any lengthy presentation must be interesting to hold attention.  Once that inevitable fatigue line is crossed, there is no going back. 

 

The fact that most in attendance were likely wishing they had not come will make them less inclined to attend in the future.  The length and quality of previous meetings had already affected me personally as I elected not to attend this one.  It was the first Synod monthly meeting I had missed in the three years we have been doing this.

 

These programs for faith formation are beneficial if done properly.  When they become a boring chore, they are counter-productive.  We sometimes fall into a trap where we know we need to do something to help people grow in faith but we simply phone in the effort.  Yes, the parish put on a two-hour presentation on the Mass.  It looks good on the record when we report to the diocese, but have we really connected with anyone?  Have we turned people off?

 

I appreciate the effort.  Is it better than nothing?  I suppose so.  Maybe someone is inspired to do better.  The problem is we are not reaching those in most need of spiritual help.  It’s always the same old parishioners that come.  Somehow, we need to do better.  Our guests should leave wanting more, not wishing they had not come. 

 

Homilists should take note.  How often I have heard a priest make a great point in a homily only to have it lost by dragging his talk on forever.  I think we all prefer quality over quantity.  Some speakers may not realize that excessive quantity can destroy quality.  Always try to leave your audience looking for more instead of their watches.

 

In a time when Mass attendance is sporadic for some, the homily takes on special significance. The homily may determine whether a person desires to come back regularly or maybe never again.  This is especially important now that we are into Lent when some lapsed Catholics may be drawn back to the Church.  A priest who likes to use his homily as a public rant on the status of civilization will not gain favor with his audience even among those who may commiserate with him.  Extending the rant beyond twenty minutes seals the exasperation.  If a person decided to attend that day looking for hope or comfort, he will leave feeling worse than when he came.  

 

I am not saying a priest needs to tell us everything is peaches and cream.  A priest can use the same tough words with a tone of empathy and an occasional smile.  Try a friendly voice.  We can hear you without yelling.  He is more likely to get a positive response if people do not feel like they are being chastised for everything wrong in the world.  Some people take criticism very personally even if it was not directed at them.  Quality, length and tone are all critical elements of any effective presentation.  Homilists should ask themselves, is your message getting through if your demeanor turns people off or drives them away?

Class update

Leading an OCIA group can be a challenge.  Our class began with only six attendees.  Sounds simple enough, but all have varying Christian backgrounds.  Ages range from 20 to 80.  We have a lapsed Catholic and her Lutheran husband, a baptized Catholic who was never catechized in the faith, a grandmother who resents the strict Apostolic Christian household in which she was raised, a fundamentalist Baptist with some anti-Catholic ideas, and a young woman with no Christian upbringing at all.  Designing a lesson plan that meets the needs of everyone can be somewhat difficult when those needs vary from person to person.  A few are well versed in the Bible and others completely unfamiliar.   It’s a bit like teaching arithmetic and calculus in the same class.  

 

Complicating matters is the fact that we are now meeting two in our group remotely, not by Zoom or Facetime, but rather by cell phone on speaker audio.  They are wintering some 1500 miles away for the next two months.  Travel, foot surgery, and even a heart attack has limited attendance of others at times.  Only the young woman with no Christian background has been faithfully present every class.  She has been a blessing with her new-found enthusiasm for the Catholic faith.  

 

Despite everything, our group has been doing great, or so I thought.  Today, our fundamentalist woman sent me a text message right before class time saying she was dropping out.  Her attendance has been spotty and I sensed she had reservations about the whole process.  She said after reading the book on Catholicism, she could not bring herself to join.  I assume she was referring to Trent Horn’s book, Why We’re Catholic, which we had given each participant on the first day.  

 

I responded to her text, thanking her for her honesty.  I also asked if she would mind listing a few of her objections to the Catholic faith to help me prepare my classes in the future.   She gave me two main objections, those being praying to dead saints and confessing sins to a priest.  Now we had covered both topics in our sessions, but she was not always present for those discussions. Both topics were also covered in Trent Horn’s book, which she either didn’t read or didn’t understand.  Her response indicated she believed the priest determined the “wages or punishment” for sins by the amount of penance he assigned.  She said, “Only God can forgive/punish not man.”  Obviously, she has misconceptions about the sacrament.  

 

Wanting to answer her objections in a friendly brief text, I sent her a link to an article by Father Mitch Pacwa titled The Bible supports praying to saints.  Any hope of convincing her of Catholic belief would have to come from the Bible which she claims to read every day.  I also asked her how she interprets John 20:23 where Jesus gives his apostles the authority to forgive and retain sins.  She replied, “What john 20:23 says to me is that we are given the holy spirit from Jesus, and because we have the holy spirit, Jesus forgives us of our sins.  We don't need a man of any cloth we only need Jesus.” 

 

I am encouraged that we have a little discussion going now.   I answered by saying, “But in speaking to his apostles, and this is after his resurrection, he says whose sins YOU forgive are forgiven, and whose sins YOU retain are retained.  Jesus has given this ministry to his earthly representatives (or men of the cloth!).  How would they know what those sins are if they were not told?  And how would anyone know whether his sin was forgiven or retained unless his sin was absolved by a minister acting under the authority of Jesus?”

 

It has been a couple of days, and I have not received another response from her.  I am hoping she will give it some thought.  Some folks are so ingrained with their beliefs that any challenges to those beliefs are blindly rejected.  No evidence is convincing enough to change minds when those minds are not open to change. If I were in her position, I might act the same way.  She at least had the courage to approach a Catholic Church and begin an exploration.  I will keep praying for her and allow the Holy Spirit to take the lead.  

 

Watching my watch

As many priests do these days, our pastor serves two parishes.  He is seventy-five years old and recently eliminated one Mass from the weekend schedule leaving four to be celebrated.  When it comes to Holy Days of Obligation, he likes to schedule a morning Mass at each parish one hour apart, plus a Vigil Mass and another on the Holy Day evening. 

 

Considering the seven-mile drive between the parishes and his penchant for long homilies, the second morning Mass seldom starts on time.  On the Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception, Father had an 8 AM Mass at our parish and a 9 AM at our sister parish that I attended, something I wouldn’t normally do but for some scheduling conflicts of my own.  I arrived about 8:55, knowing the Mass would likely be a few minutes late beginning.

 

Everyone sat in the pews waiting patiently.  By 9:10, still no priest.  I noticed several men, myself included, glancing at their watches.  I found myself getting a little perturbed, the same feeling one gets sitting in the waiting room at the doctor’s office well past the time of the appointment.  Doesn’t he value our time?   Why does he schedule a certain time when he knows he will be late?

 

Then, I came to my senses.  I looked around the church.  The average age of those in attendance was probably mid-seventies.  Here I was sitting in front of the tabernacle in the presence of Our Lord.  Instead of taking advantage of the opportunity to pray, I was thinking of what else I could be doing rather than waiting on a tardy priest.  Truth be known, I had nothing better to do.  What better is there to do than be in the presence of Our Lord?  I suddenly felt foolish.  

 

I wish I could say I spent the next few minutes totally focused on the tabernacle in conversation with Jesus.  I did make the attempt, but I glanced at my watch again when Father rolled in at 9:17 and again at 9:20 when Mass actually began.  What I got was a lesson in patience and humility.  Who am I to think my time is more important than anyone else’s, especially that of a priest?  I want to remember this next time I have to wait on anyone, be it a priest, a doctor or service in a restaurant.  Maybe they have a reason for being delayed.  Give them a break.  It’s okay.  Sure my time is valuable, but despite Father’s tardiness, I was only about twenty minutes late getting back to my recliner.

Magisterial mayhem

The outspoken Bishop of Tyler Texas, Joseph Strickland, was removed from office by Pope Francis after he refused to resign at the request of the Pope on November 9.   Bishop Strickland had been critical of Pope Francis in his social media posts.  Nonetheless, outright removal of a diocesan bishop is an unusual occurrence.  

 

Bishop Strickland may have sealed his fate when he publicly referred to Pope Francis’ “program of undermining the Deposit of Faith.”  That is a serious allegation, one better made inhouse behind closed doors rather than social media.  While Strickland may have justifiable concerns about the Pope’s stance on some moral issues, airing those concerns can cause needless divisions and polarization among Catholics.  

 

We trust the Holy Spirit to guide the Church to all truth in matters of faith and morals.  Even if Pope Francis should express ideas that would seem to challenge certain Catholic long-held beliefs, we should remain confident that his opinions are not infallible declarations. 

 

Bishop Strickland has a conservative following on social media that extends far beyond the boundaries of his former diocese.  Similar to the political climate in our nation right now, the Church has its conservative and liberal factions.  Some may call it traditionists and modernists. The traditionalists may call it orthodox versus heterodox.  I doubt that Pope Francis intends to undermine the Deposit of Faith.  I believe one can be orthodox and still explore conservative or liberal theological opinions.  This may be where Francis and Strickland clash.  

 

So, I blame both sides for this public dust up.  Strickland should have kept his problems with Francis out of social media and Francis should have handled his disciplinary actions privately. To Strickland’s credit, during his November 11 interview with LifeSiteNews, he encouraged those upset by his dismissal to pray for the Pope and not to leave the Church.  Meanwhile, the rest of us are left to wonder if we should be taking sides.