Confession Digression
The April 4, 2004 edition of the Northwest Indiana Catholic newspaper contains a Catholic News Service article by Jerry Filteau titled Who is going to confession? The story is about a symposium at The Catholic University of America in Washington DC, held to discuss the reason so many Catholics no longer participate in frequent confession.
According to the article, Boston College historian James O'Toole stated, "Between 1965 and 1975, the number of American Catholics going to confession fell through the floor." O'Toole and other symposium participants listed numerous reasons for the "near-demise of auricular confession" during those years. Quoting from the article, it lists four:
1. Its speed: The typical confession was "two minutes or less" and many felt it was perfunctory.
2. Fear: "Everybody seemed to have a story of a priest yelling at them," and as soon as they felt they could give confession up, they did.
3. A "growing sense of triviality": Catechetical instruction on the rite continued to call for enumeration of individual sins by kind and gravity, while Catholics were starting to think of sin in categories such as social sin, sinful attitudes behind one's individual actions, and fundamental option instead of the classical "mortal" or "venial" categories.
4. Contraception: When Pope Paul VI reaffirmed in 1968 the church teaching that use of contraception in the conjugal act was always intrinsically wrong, "most Catholics stopped confessing it."
Taking O'Toole's points one by one, I see it a little differently:
1. Speed: Even in the old days when we went to confession frequently, I don't recall ever hearing anyone say, "Gee, I wish I could spend more time in that confessional." Nobody enjoys telling their sins to a priest. We did it because it was necessary and a pre-requisite for receiving the Eucharist.
2. Fear: In the old days of frequent confession, perhaps everybody had a story of a priest "yelling" at them. We still went to confession. After all, we deserved a scolding once in a while. Nowadays, priests never "yell" in the confessional, and yet, nobody comes.
3. A "growing sense of triviality": O'Toole is getting closer here. There has been a de-emphasis of the mortality of mortal sin. The pre-Vatican II booklets we used to examine our consciences prior to confession were very specific with mortal sins written in all capital letters. More on this later.
4. Contraception: This is a valid point among Catholics of reproductive age. The sin of contraception is probably one of the toughest teachings for Catholic couples to accept. The assumed practice of birth control by Catholics caused many to turn inward to their own consciences when discerning right from wrong. To validate their behavior, they assumed an attitude that the church, run by a celibate all-male clergy, just didn't understand the workings of married life. Most felt the Church was disconnected from modern reality. Catholics became faced with three choices: They could confess something they did not feel was wrong and were not willing to give up. They could dismiss contraception as a sin and omit it from the confession. Or, they could acknowledge the perceived disconnect of the Catholic clergy and simply avoid confession altogether.
While O'Toole makes some valid points, the reasons Catholics avoid confession go much deeper. It is no coincidence that the number of confessions plummeted after Vatican II. Perception of sin changed drastically in the aftermath of the Council. For example, prior to Vatican II, Church precepts dictated that eating meat on Friday was a Mortal Sin. Dying in a state of Mortal Sin meant going to hell. After Vatican II, the Church allowed another penance to be substituted for abstinence from meat on Fridays. When was the last time you heard a priest say that you still need to refrain from meat if you don't substitute something else? Is it still a Mortal Sin? Who knows?
Thomas Aquinas warned of changing rules without good reason. In fact, he goes beyond that, saying that rules should never be changed unless it would cause more harm NOT to change them. He reasoned that changing any rule diminished the binding power of the rule. The command to do penance on Fridays carried little weight after the rule was changed. Catholics wondered how many were banished to hell for something that was perfectly acceptable now?
Since meatless Fridays were so closely associated with Catholicism, the diminished power of the rule carried over to other perceptions of sin, changing the mindset of the typical Catholic. If we will no longer go to hell for eating meat on Fridays, we probably won't go to hell for missing Mass on Sundays or failing to confess mortal sins once a year, especially if these sins are no longer mortal. The line between right and wrong took on a more subjective feel. Catholics began to rely on personal discernment to form their consciences.
Vatican II also changed the mechanics of confession. Confession became the Sacrament of Penance or Sacrament of Reconciliation. We were no longer to say, "Bless me Father for I have sinned." This was replaced by a short dialogue of prayer with responses which made some Catholics uncomfortable. It is hard enough to remember one's sins without having to recall lines such as "His mercy endures forever." Later, many Catholics reverted to the old form, but those who began confessing less frequently became confused about which form to use. Some confessionals displayed a prayer card with the wording, but many did not. In the confusion (and as another result of the diminished power of a changed rule), form became unimportant. Yet, those who were uncertain what to do and too embarrassed to ask, simply stayed away.
The aftermath of Vatican II also affected our reverence for the Eucharist. We went from communion cloth to no cloth, rail to no rail, kneeling to standing, paten to no paten, receiving on the tongue to receiving in the hand. We went from priestly distribution to lay Extraordinary Eucharistic Ministers. We went from ornate tabernacles to humble boxes. And as Thomas would have expected, the binding power of the rules diminished to the point where receiving the Eucharist is a state of grace was no longer an issue. It is not so much that Vatican II changes were bad, but the fact that they were changes reduced their binding power to the point of casual abuse.
Prior to Vatican II, nearly all confessions were completely anonymous, done behind an opaque screen in privacy. Now, Catholics have the option of going face to face. Many Catholics are uncomfortable with face to face confession, but feel a certain stigma attached to hiding behind a screen when others are openly confessing. A recent emphasis on Communal Reconciliation Services with multiple priests hearing individual confessions makes anonymity even more difficult since most churches have only one confessional and the other priests generally hear face to face. Those preferring to go behind the screen may feel alienated or intimidated by the communal service. Again, it becomes easier to avoid an uncomfortable situation. And since the communal penance service is held only twice a year in many parishes, those who do like it may gain the perception that twice a year is frequent enough.
Another nuance was a change in the way sins were confessed. Confessing, especially face to face, took on a more conversational manner. While this might be good, it requires more thought and composition which can be disconcerting. This can be a problem during communal services where brevity is a concern. When discussing intimate details of one's life, some people need time to open up.
The shortage of priests may also affect the number of people going to confession. Whether we admit it or not, we sometimes rate priests on how easy or difficult it is to confess to them. Some give a little lecture and tough penance and others simply tell you to say three Hail Marys, pray the Act of Contrition and go in peace regardless of the gravity of the sin. With many parishes having only one priest, our choice of confessors is often limited. The increased role of the laity has forged closer working relationships with the typical parish priest and many find it difficult to tell their darkest sins to someone they are close to.
All of this confessional avoidance becomes commonplace because of something I call Peer Permission. We know about the power of peer pressure, the tendency to do something because others are doing it. Peer Permission is essentially allowing ourselves to be derelict in duties because others are doing the same. Not going to confession becomes acceptable because our peers are not going either.
Priests contribute to this acceptance by not speaking out. Their homilies rarely mention the devil or mortal sin. Instead, we hear about how forgiving and merciful God is. This is true, but part of the message is missing. God provided a means for attaining his forgiveness and mercy sacramentally. The absence of this emphasis by the clergy infers a validation that minimizes the appearance of necessity.
Reversing the exodus from Sacramental confession will not be easy. The burden may fall on the shoulders of the same parish priest whose attitude may have contributed to the problem. He himself may require some coerced reflection on the importance of the sacrament. Once the decision is made to bring people back to confession, a three step approach may work best. First, create the desire for Sacramental confession by demonstrating the need for souls to be clean. This may require extensive re-education. Second, ease the fear and apprehension of those who have not been to confession for a long time. And third, provide frequent opportunities.
Getting people back into the confessional must start from the pulpit. Sunday homilies are the best way to educate a captive audience. And, one homily is not enough. It may take a series of homilies. We need to go back to the very basics, explaining the necessity of confession and addressing what has transpired since Vatican II. We need to re-catechize adults as if they were making their first confession. How should we confess? What should we say when we enter the confessional? Do we need to be specific in name and number? Assure the penitent that the Act of Contrition will be posted in the confessional for those too nervous to say it by rote.
When I was in the second grade preparing for my first confession, our priest used a simple visual aid which fascinated me at the time. It was a white tube similar to the cardboard core from a roll of paper towels, though slightly larger. The word Confession was printed on the outside. Father used handkerchiefs to represent souls. Some were snow white, representing souls free from sin. Some had some black ink spots, representing souls with venial sins. Others were completely black, representing souls in a state of mortal sin. Much like a magic trick, he would insert the sinful souls into one end of the tube, and they would come out the other end white. To illustrate making a bad confession, the handkerchiefs came out of the tube with spots remaining. It was a very effective tool to use on a seven-year-old.
I have often lamented that Catholics sometime suffer from a spiritual retardation, never progressing much beyond that elementary level. We have been so poorly catechized over the past forty years that an entire generation knows little about their faith including the importance of the confession. Sadly, we find ourselves in a condition where parents are unable to pass the faith to their children. We have much work to do. We can begin by restoring our reverence for the Holy Eucharist. Emphasizing the importance of being in a state of grace before receiving Communion is essential at this time where Catholics routinely take the Body of Christ as if it were a vitamin pill.
On Divine Mercy Sunday, the first Sunday after Easter, Catholics had an opportunity to gain a plenary indulgence. Many Catholics today do not know what a plenary indulgence is, let alone how to get one. A plenary indulgence is the complete remission of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven. (CCC 1471) What a wonderful gift! How many priests even mentioned this to their congregations? Unfortunately, there is so much confusion about indulgences that it has become Catholic taboo to talk about them. Our Lord has offered us a wonderful gift and we simply ignore it.
Gaining the plenary indulgence is fairly simple. According to the Divine Mercy Sunday website, "The plenary indulgence is granted (under the usual conditions of a sacramental confession, Eucharistic communion and a prayer for the intentions of the Supreme Pontiff) to the faithful who, on Divine Mercy Sunday, in a spirit that is completely detached from the affection for a sin, even a venial sin, recite the Our Father and the Creed, and also adding a devout prayer (e.g. Merciful Jesus, I trust in you!)."
A priest who stresses the importance of this gift and offers special opportunities for confession to gain the indulgence, would certainly stand a chance of getting a few more Catholics into the confessional. Those who made a good confession for Easter could probably have obtained the Divine Mercy indulgence with little additional effort. While it is apparently not necessary that the confession take place the same day, it nonetheless needs to take place within a reasonable timeframe. If the priest no longer mentions these indulgence opportunities, even those aware of them will assume they are no longer important.
At some point in the re-education process, it will be necessary to be blunt with the congregation. They must learned a renewed reverence for the Blessed Sacrament and be made aware of the sin of receiving the Holy Eucharist in a state of sin. They must know how to form their consciences in accordance with Church teaching. Perhaps we need a renewed fear of the realities of hell. Blessed Sister Faustina, whose vision of the Sacred Heart led to the institution of Divine Mercy Sunday, also had a Vision of Hell. Her diary mentions seven tortures of indescribable suffering, and she warns that most souls there were ones who did not believe hell existed. A re-examination of eternal damnation would certainly foster an appreciation for the availability of Sacramental forgiveness.
Married couples must be told that they should not be receiving Communion if they practice artificial birth control. At the same time, every parish should be offering instruction on Natural Family Planning to ALL married couples and those in marriage preparation classes. It is a great disservice to the mission of salvation to simply condemn artificial birth control without teaching the alternatives. Contact the Couple to Couple League for assistance.
Beyond the educational process, the priest can do several simple things to make their parishioners more comfortable making their confessions. Schedule confessions at regular times. Be in the confessional with the door closed prior to the starting time, and do not leave until the end of the schedule. Those who wish to receive the Sacrament anonymously need to be assured that the priest will not wander out of the confessional, thereby invading their privacy. Once per month, swap parishes with a neighboring priest. Give your parishioners a regular opportunity to confess to a stranger. Some people feel more comfortable telling their sins to someone with whom they do not have a close relationship.
Set aside ten or fifteen minutes to hear confessions on Sunday before the Masses. This has several advantages. In parishes were confessions are so few that people do not go for fear of being the only ones in attendance, Sunday confessions before Mass will guarantee more people in the church. This not only helps those who seek anonymity in a crowd, it also converts Peer Permissiveness back into Peer Pressure or conformance. When people attending Mass see others entering the confessional, they may feel the necessity to confess also.
Overcoming forty years of neglect will require much effort on the part of bishops, priests and the laity. With a little re-education, compassion, and coaxing, the lines may start to get longer again. While we can do much to break down the barriers, it will ultimately be up to the individual to choose the best route for his or her salvation.
Sunday, April 25, 2004
Thursday, March 25, 2004
Some Thoughts after viewing The Passion of the Christ
Mel Gibson's movie The Passion of the Christ, has caused quite a stir here in early 2004. The movie depicts in graphic detail, the twelve hours leading up to the crucifixion of Jesus.
The violence would have been overwhelming had we not been prepared for it by pre-release publicity. Even so, it was difficult to watch. I know Mel Gibson wanted to impress on us the magnitude of the suffering Jesus endured for us, but I thought the scourging prior to the crucifixion was somewhat extreme. I almost felt like the crucifixion itself paled in comparison to the time and intensity of the physical pain He went through prior to that moment. I don't mean that as a criticism of the movie. It is simply recognition of a strange feeling of relief that came over me when the crucifixion came, knowing that His suffering would soon end.
And then comes the realization that we continue to inflict this pain upon Him with our sins. It is this thought that gives me pause. Most Christians agree that Christ died for our sins, and this would include not only the original sin of our first parents, but all of the sins of humanity, past, present and future. How this occurs is a matter for theologians, but to the average person like me, the whole idea can be confounding. The process of salvation would seem to be an important thing to understand, because this is where many Christian denominations veer off in different directions.
Some believe that because Jesus died for ALL our sins, salvation is assured once we accept Jesus as our "personal Lord and Savior." The Bible does mention salvation as a past event, and therefore, some think they are already saved. Of those who think their salvation is already assured, some believe it cannot be lost. We often refer to them as the OSAS (once saved, always saved) crowd. They believe that Christ has atoned for all sins, past present, and future. So, nothing they do from now on can keep them from heaven.
Let us think about this. Did Christ's death on the Cross include payment in advance for our future sins? Is the crucifixion a past payment for future transgressions? Some would probably answer 'yes'. Does it follow then, that any sin we commit in the future, no matter how grievous, cannot take away our salvation? The OSAS people might say that once we accept Jesus as our personal Lord and Savior, we will no longer yield to the temptation of serious sin, and those that do were never really saved in the first place.
Okay, but let us think about this some more. Much of the controversy surrounding Mel Gibson's movie about the Passion revolved around charges that it was anti-Semitic in that it blamed the Jews for the crucifixion of Jesus. Christians of all denominations and Mel Gibson, himself a devout Catholic, countered that we all crucified Jesus by our sins.
Mel did not appear in this movie except in the scene of the crucifixion where it is his arm swinging the hammer, pounding the nails through the hands of Jesus into the Cross. This was his way of assuming personal responsibility for Christ's death. Most Christians would probably agree that every time we sin, we are swinging that hammer.
So, how does this happen exactly? If we continue to hurt Jesus with our sins, was atonement for our sins a payment in advance, or is it a payment that is ongoing and ever present? Christ said it is finished, but how can this be when we continue to sin? How is the debt paid when we continue to cause damage?
As human beings on this earth, we think in physical dimensions learned by observing our surroundings. God, being spirit, is not limited as we are by the same four dimensions, one being time. People smarter than I am, say there is no such thing as time in the spirit world. In other words, time is strictly a property of the physical world. This helps to explain why God could take billions of years to form the universe, as some believe. A billion years to us might be nothing to Him.
Even though the Sacrifice of Christ on Calvary took place 2000 years ago in a physical sense, is it not possible it could be ongoing and ever present in a spiritual sense? Could that explain how Christ continues to save us from our sins, past present and future? And, isn't this continuation of the Sacrifice on Calvary exactly what we witness every day in the Mass? The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? (1 Cor 10: 16)
In the Mass, the physical world we know on earth meets and intermingles with the supernatural world of the Risen Christ where time is no longer of the essence. Hence, the laws of physics do not always apply. Bread and wine can cease to be bread and wine though the accidents remain. Flesh and Blood becomes true food and true drink. What may seem like a past event continues in the present. It is not another sacrifice, but the same sacrifice made present. In the Mass, we enter our own little twilight zone, not an place to be feared, but rather a source of nourishment and life. It is a spiritual reality entering a physical reality, a sight to be gazed upon with awe and majesty.
Mel Gibson's movie The Passion of the Christ, has caused quite a stir here in early 2004. The movie depicts in graphic detail, the twelve hours leading up to the crucifixion of Jesus.
The violence would have been overwhelming had we not been prepared for it by pre-release publicity. Even so, it was difficult to watch. I know Mel Gibson wanted to impress on us the magnitude of the suffering Jesus endured for us, but I thought the scourging prior to the crucifixion was somewhat extreme. I almost felt like the crucifixion itself paled in comparison to the time and intensity of the physical pain He went through prior to that moment. I don't mean that as a criticism of the movie. It is simply recognition of a strange feeling of relief that came over me when the crucifixion came, knowing that His suffering would soon end.
And then comes the realization that we continue to inflict this pain upon Him with our sins. It is this thought that gives me pause. Most Christians agree that Christ died for our sins, and this would include not only the original sin of our first parents, but all of the sins of humanity, past, present and future. How this occurs is a matter for theologians, but to the average person like me, the whole idea can be confounding. The process of salvation would seem to be an important thing to understand, because this is where many Christian denominations veer off in different directions.
Some believe that because Jesus died for ALL our sins, salvation is assured once we accept Jesus as our "personal Lord and Savior." The Bible does mention salvation as a past event, and therefore, some think they are already saved. Of those who think their salvation is already assured, some believe it cannot be lost. We often refer to them as the OSAS (once saved, always saved) crowd. They believe that Christ has atoned for all sins, past present, and future. So, nothing they do from now on can keep them from heaven.
Let us think about this. Did Christ's death on the Cross include payment in advance for our future sins? Is the crucifixion a past payment for future transgressions? Some would probably answer 'yes'. Does it follow then, that any sin we commit in the future, no matter how grievous, cannot take away our salvation? The OSAS people might say that once we accept Jesus as our personal Lord and Savior, we will no longer yield to the temptation of serious sin, and those that do were never really saved in the first place.
Okay, but let us think about this some more. Much of the controversy surrounding Mel Gibson's movie about the Passion revolved around charges that it was anti-Semitic in that it blamed the Jews for the crucifixion of Jesus. Christians of all denominations and Mel Gibson, himself a devout Catholic, countered that we all crucified Jesus by our sins.
Mel did not appear in this movie except in the scene of the crucifixion where it is his arm swinging the hammer, pounding the nails through the hands of Jesus into the Cross. This was his way of assuming personal responsibility for Christ's death. Most Christians would probably agree that every time we sin, we are swinging that hammer.
So, how does this happen exactly? If we continue to hurt Jesus with our sins, was atonement for our sins a payment in advance, or is it a payment that is ongoing and ever present? Christ said it is finished, but how can this be when we continue to sin? How is the debt paid when we continue to cause damage?
As human beings on this earth, we think in physical dimensions learned by observing our surroundings. God, being spirit, is not limited as we are by the same four dimensions, one being time. People smarter than I am, say there is no such thing as time in the spirit world. In other words, time is strictly a property of the physical world. This helps to explain why God could take billions of years to form the universe, as some believe. A billion years to us might be nothing to Him.
Even though the Sacrifice of Christ on Calvary took place 2000 years ago in a physical sense, is it not possible it could be ongoing and ever present in a spiritual sense? Could that explain how Christ continues to save us from our sins, past present and future? And, isn't this continuation of the Sacrifice on Calvary exactly what we witness every day in the Mass? The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? (1 Cor 10: 16)
In the Mass, the physical world we know on earth meets and intermingles with the supernatural world of the Risen Christ where time is no longer of the essence. Hence, the laws of physics do not always apply. Bread and wine can cease to be bread and wine though the accidents remain. Flesh and Blood becomes true food and true drink. What may seem like a past event continues in the present. It is not another sacrifice, but the same sacrifice made present. In the Mass, we enter our own little twilight zone, not an place to be feared, but rather a source of nourishment and life. It is a spiritual reality entering a physical reality, a sight to be gazed upon with awe and majesty.
Thursday, February 19, 2004
Who's got the key?
(A followup to Bishop Burke's Wake Up Call [Jan 23])
How do some Catholics justify supporting a pro-abortion candidate? What is the thought process that allows people to call themselves Catholic, yet live in defiance of Catholic teaching on such issues as contraception? The difference between a cafeteria Catholic who chooses which teachings he will follow and the Protestant who self-interprets Scripture to suit his own beliefs is that the Protestant is not a hypocrite.
Whether the topic is Marian dogmas, infant Baptism, Real Presence, purgatory or whatever, nearly every apologetic discussion between Catholics and Protestants eventually turns to a question of Church authority. Does the Magesterium of the Catholic Church have the authority to speak for God? Protestants say no. But Catholics who ignore Catholic doctrine are also saying no. Expressing disagreement with Church teaching implies the belief that the Church is wrong about some things.
While we would expect Protestants to deny the authority of the Catholic Church, Catholics who defy Church authority are also protesting. They are pretending to be something they really aren't. They make a Profession of Faith on Sundays expressing belief in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. Their actions, however, express doubt in the authority of that Church to speak truth. They may call themselves Catholic, but they are in reality behaving as Protestants.
It is important to understand where the Church gets its authority to speak for God. And it is equally important to understand the implication of denying the inerrancy of Church-defined dogma. If one accepts the Bible as the inspired Word of God, then he can know that Jesus Christ was God, and that he established a Church. (Matthew 16: 16-19) Jesus tells us the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against his Church, and He gives Peter the 'keys to the kingdom of heaven.' He tells Peter, "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." (NAB)
One sufficiently catechized in his faith, will understand the significance of giving the keys, a symbol of authority, to Peter. A parallel passage in Isaiah 22: 15-25 tells the story of Shebna who held the office of 'Master of the Palace'. The 'Master of the Palace' was a prime minister who ran the day-to-day operation of the kingdom. Shebna disgraced his master's house and his authority was transferred to Eliakim. Verse 22 says, "I will place the key of the House of David on his shoulder; when he opens, no one shall shut, and when he shuts, no one shall open." (NAB)
Jesus is clearly transferring authority to Peter making him prime minister, not of an earthly kingdom as Eliakim, but rather of the heavenly Kingdom. Even marginal Catholics must accept the fact that Pope John Paul II is the 264th successor to the chair of Peter and thereby possesses the authority of the keys. To bolster that authority, Jesus promised He would send the Holy Spirit to guide His Church to all truth (John 16: 12-13). The Bible also refers to the Church as the pillar and foundation of truth. (1 Tim 3:15) How presumptuous of anyone to look at two thousand years of God-granted authority and say, "I disagree."
And yet, that is precisely what many Catholics do today when they say, "The pope doesn't understand; there is nothing wrong with birth control" or, "I don't like abortion, but I support a woman's right to choose" or, "we should allow women to be priests", or "I don't need to confess these things to a priest; that's between me and God." Even if one finds a way to skew his conscience into thinking the Church is wrong, the Lord's statement about binding and loosing should dispel any feeling of safety. If further confirmation is needed, Jesus told his apostles and their successors, "Whoever listens to you, listens to me. Whoever rejects you, rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me." (Luke 10: 16)
Like Protestants, cafeteria Catholics should also think about the implications of considering some Church doctrine to be in error. To reject the authority of the Church is to reject the authority of Scripture. It was bishops of the Catholic Church who determined which of the early Christian writings were inspired by God. Many claimed to be inspired, but only those accepted by the Church became the New Testament. Jesus promised to deliver truth through His Church. If the Church is capable of error in matters of faith, then erroneous writings could have also been included in Scripture. If we question the validity of the New Testament, all of Christianity begins to unravel.
We don't need to do that. Rest assured, the Bible is the inspired Word of God, but realize we are dependent on an infallible Church to know it. Like Protestantism, cafeteria Catholicism is not a viable option. It is untenable. Either we believe all Catholic doctrine or there is no reason to believe any. The Catholic Church has been given the authority to set the rules in matters of faith and moral responsibility. How sad that some Catholics become so incredulous when a priest or bishop rebukes them for acting in opposition to Church teaching. There is no room for compromise here.
(A followup to Bishop Burke's Wake Up Call [Jan 23])
How do some Catholics justify supporting a pro-abortion candidate? What is the thought process that allows people to call themselves Catholic, yet live in defiance of Catholic teaching on such issues as contraception? The difference between a cafeteria Catholic who chooses which teachings he will follow and the Protestant who self-interprets Scripture to suit his own beliefs is that the Protestant is not a hypocrite.
Whether the topic is Marian dogmas, infant Baptism, Real Presence, purgatory or whatever, nearly every apologetic discussion between Catholics and Protestants eventually turns to a question of Church authority. Does the Magesterium of the Catholic Church have the authority to speak for God? Protestants say no. But Catholics who ignore Catholic doctrine are also saying no. Expressing disagreement with Church teaching implies the belief that the Church is wrong about some things.
While we would expect Protestants to deny the authority of the Catholic Church, Catholics who defy Church authority are also protesting. They are pretending to be something they really aren't. They make a Profession of Faith on Sundays expressing belief in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. Their actions, however, express doubt in the authority of that Church to speak truth. They may call themselves Catholic, but they are in reality behaving as Protestants.
It is important to understand where the Church gets its authority to speak for God. And it is equally important to understand the implication of denying the inerrancy of Church-defined dogma. If one accepts the Bible as the inspired Word of God, then he can know that Jesus Christ was God, and that he established a Church. (Matthew 16: 16-19) Jesus tells us the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against his Church, and He gives Peter the 'keys to the kingdom of heaven.' He tells Peter, "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." (NAB)
One sufficiently catechized in his faith, will understand the significance of giving the keys, a symbol of authority, to Peter. A parallel passage in Isaiah 22: 15-25 tells the story of Shebna who held the office of 'Master of the Palace'. The 'Master of the Palace' was a prime minister who ran the day-to-day operation of the kingdom. Shebna disgraced his master's house and his authority was transferred to Eliakim. Verse 22 says, "I will place the key of the House of David on his shoulder; when he opens, no one shall shut, and when he shuts, no one shall open." (NAB)
Jesus is clearly transferring authority to Peter making him prime minister, not of an earthly kingdom as Eliakim, but rather of the heavenly Kingdom. Even marginal Catholics must accept the fact that Pope John Paul II is the 264th successor to the chair of Peter and thereby possesses the authority of the keys. To bolster that authority, Jesus promised He would send the Holy Spirit to guide His Church to all truth (John 16: 12-13). The Bible also refers to the Church as the pillar and foundation of truth. (1 Tim 3:15) How presumptuous of anyone to look at two thousand years of God-granted authority and say, "I disagree."
And yet, that is precisely what many Catholics do today when they say, "The pope doesn't understand; there is nothing wrong with birth control" or, "I don't like abortion, but I support a woman's right to choose" or, "we should allow women to be priests", or "I don't need to confess these things to a priest; that's between me and God." Even if one finds a way to skew his conscience into thinking the Church is wrong, the Lord's statement about binding and loosing should dispel any feeling of safety. If further confirmation is needed, Jesus told his apostles and their successors, "Whoever listens to you, listens to me. Whoever rejects you, rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me." (Luke 10: 16)
Like Protestants, cafeteria Catholics should also think about the implications of considering some Church doctrine to be in error. To reject the authority of the Church is to reject the authority of Scripture. It was bishops of the Catholic Church who determined which of the early Christian writings were inspired by God. Many claimed to be inspired, but only those accepted by the Church became the New Testament. Jesus promised to deliver truth through His Church. If the Church is capable of error in matters of faith, then erroneous writings could have also been included in Scripture. If we question the validity of the New Testament, all of Christianity begins to unravel.
We don't need to do that. Rest assured, the Bible is the inspired Word of God, but realize we are dependent on an infallible Church to know it. Like Protestantism, cafeteria Catholicism is not a viable option. It is untenable. Either we believe all Catholic doctrine or there is no reason to believe any. The Catholic Church has been given the authority to set the rules in matters of faith and moral responsibility. How sad that some Catholics become so incredulous when a priest or bishop rebukes them for acting in opposition to Church teaching. There is no room for compromise here.
Friday, January 23, 2004
Bishop Burke's Wake Up Call
(Roe v. Wade + 31 years)
The Diocese of La Crosse Wisconsin recently created a stir with the release of a notification from Bishop Raymond L. Burke stating that the Holy Eucharist should be withheld from lawmakers who support abortion or euthanasia. I wholeheartedly applaud the stance Bishop Burke (now Archbishop Burke of St. Louis) took. No Catholic in the state of mortal sin should be receiving Holy Communion.
Unfortunately, many besides politicians receive the Eucharist in a state of mortal sin. Are politicians being singled out for punishment? No. First of all, the action taken by Bishop Burke is not a punishment. Not only is he protecting the Body of Christ from being profaned, he is also protecting the politician from compounding his sin. (1 Cor 11:27) The Eucharist should be withheld from any person in the state of mortal sin. The difference is that politicians publicly declare their sin while the sins of another may be known only to that individual. Neither should partake in the Body of Christ.
Reaction to the Bishop's decree was swift and predictable. An article by Gayda Hollnagel in the January 16, 2004 edition of the La Crosse Tribune quotes several Wisconsin lawmakers expressing their disdain. La Crosse Mayor John Medinger, described in the article as "an active Catholic", said he was shocked. Medinger was quoted as saying, "If they're going to tell Catholic politicians if they vote in a certain way, are they also going to say that Catholics have to vote for certain politicians or they can't receive the sacraments."
You are not quite getting it, John. The bishop is not telling Catholics who to vote for. He is, however, warning Catholics who NOT to vote for. It is about time Catholics realize the responsibility they have to cultivate Christian ideals over deadly evils in our society. When an action contributes to the potential propagation of evil, it becomes a serious sin. Receiving the Holy Eucharist in a state of serious sin is itself a serious sin.
"What is the role of an individual to work within the realm of his own conscience?" Medinger asks in the article. He needs to understand the responsibility of forming one's conscience in accordance with Catholic teaching if indeed he wants to call himself a Catholic. Too often, people use conscience to validate their own personal definition of right and wrong. Worse yet, some politicians know they are propagating evil, but do so because that is what the majority of their constituents want.
Many of the Democratic presidential candidates have relinquished pro-life views held earlier in their political careers in order to gain the support of abortion advocacy groups such as NARAL, Emily's List, and NOW. I cannot believe that growth in personal wisdom could lead anyone to decide killing unborn babies is okay after all. Rather, these politicians seem to be saying, "I will have a better chance of winning the election if I sell my soul to the devil." What does that say about their character?
State Sen. Julie Lassa had an interesting quote in the Tribune article. She said, "I hold Bishop Burke in high regard; however, I believe any effort to pressure legislators by threatening to deny them the sacraments is contrary to the principles of democracy." Does Senator Lassa believe the Church is bound by the principles of democracy? Bishop Burke's authority is sanctioned not in majority rule, but in Christ Himself.
Today, Americans have a distorted view of what the separation of church and state means. Our founding fathers desired to practice their religion free from government interference. The idea was to keep the government out of religion - not to keep religion out of the government. A government set apart from God is a government that will succumb to evil. Discerning right from wrong must be rooted in the righteousness of God, not the self-righteousness of man.
The Tribune article describes Medinger's concern that non-Catholic voters will be unwilling to elect Catholic candidates for fear they will listen to the church rather than their constituents. Concerns about abortion and euthanasia extend beyond Catholic boundaries to all Christians and those of other faiths. The Democratic Party, historically the choice of Catholics, now finds itself alienated from God-fearing people because of their pro-abortion platform.
People of faith cannot vote for pro-abortion candidates in good conscience. Yet, polls show that many Catholics do. Some believe there are other issues to consider besides abortion. Sadly, others may agree with the pro-choice stance. While the Church speaks out frequently on these issues, it becomes painfully obvious that some Catholics are not listening. Merely speaking out is not enough. Bishop Burke sent out a wake-up call. Hats off to him and may all other Bishops follow suit.
(Roe v. Wade + 31 years)
The Diocese of La Crosse Wisconsin recently created a stir with the release of a notification from Bishop Raymond L. Burke stating that the Holy Eucharist should be withheld from lawmakers who support abortion or euthanasia. I wholeheartedly applaud the stance Bishop Burke (now Archbishop Burke of St. Louis) took. No Catholic in the state of mortal sin should be receiving Holy Communion.
Unfortunately, many besides politicians receive the Eucharist in a state of mortal sin. Are politicians being singled out for punishment? No. First of all, the action taken by Bishop Burke is not a punishment. Not only is he protecting the Body of Christ from being profaned, he is also protecting the politician from compounding his sin. (1 Cor 11:27) The Eucharist should be withheld from any person in the state of mortal sin. The difference is that politicians publicly declare their sin while the sins of another may be known only to that individual. Neither should partake in the Body of Christ.
Reaction to the Bishop's decree was swift and predictable. An article by Gayda Hollnagel in the January 16, 2004 edition of the La Crosse Tribune quotes several Wisconsin lawmakers expressing their disdain. La Crosse Mayor John Medinger, described in the article as "an active Catholic", said he was shocked. Medinger was quoted as saying, "If they're going to tell Catholic politicians if they vote in a certain way, are they also going to say that Catholics have to vote for certain politicians or they can't receive the sacraments."
You are not quite getting it, John. The bishop is not telling Catholics who to vote for. He is, however, warning Catholics who NOT to vote for. It is about time Catholics realize the responsibility they have to cultivate Christian ideals over deadly evils in our society. When an action contributes to the potential propagation of evil, it becomes a serious sin. Receiving the Holy Eucharist in a state of serious sin is itself a serious sin.
"What is the role of an individual to work within the realm of his own conscience?" Medinger asks in the article. He needs to understand the responsibility of forming one's conscience in accordance with Catholic teaching if indeed he wants to call himself a Catholic. Too often, people use conscience to validate their own personal definition of right and wrong. Worse yet, some politicians know they are propagating evil, but do so because that is what the majority of their constituents want.
Many of the Democratic presidential candidates have relinquished pro-life views held earlier in their political careers in order to gain the support of abortion advocacy groups such as NARAL, Emily's List, and NOW. I cannot believe that growth in personal wisdom could lead anyone to decide killing unborn babies is okay after all. Rather, these politicians seem to be saying, "I will have a better chance of winning the election if I sell my soul to the devil." What does that say about their character?
State Sen. Julie Lassa had an interesting quote in the Tribune article. She said, "I hold Bishop Burke in high regard; however, I believe any effort to pressure legislators by threatening to deny them the sacraments is contrary to the principles of democracy." Does Senator Lassa believe the Church is bound by the principles of democracy? Bishop Burke's authority is sanctioned not in majority rule, but in Christ Himself.
Today, Americans have a distorted view of what the separation of church and state means. Our founding fathers desired to practice their religion free from government interference. The idea was to keep the government out of religion - not to keep religion out of the government. A government set apart from God is a government that will succumb to evil. Discerning right from wrong must be rooted in the righteousness of God, not the self-righteousness of man.
The Tribune article describes Medinger's concern that non-Catholic voters will be unwilling to elect Catholic candidates for fear they will listen to the church rather than their constituents. Concerns about abortion and euthanasia extend beyond Catholic boundaries to all Christians and those of other faiths. The Democratic Party, historically the choice of Catholics, now finds itself alienated from God-fearing people because of their pro-abortion platform.
People of faith cannot vote for pro-abortion candidates in good conscience. Yet, polls show that many Catholics do. Some believe there are other issues to consider besides abortion. Sadly, others may agree with the pro-choice stance. While the Church speaks out frequently on these issues, it becomes painfully obvious that some Catholics are not listening. Merely speaking out is not enough. Bishop Burke sent out a wake-up call. Hats off to him and may all other Bishops follow suit.
Saturday, December 27, 2003
Homily Humor - It ain't funny
It so happened that a boy was trying out for a football team. He wasn't very good and not very smart either so the coach told him he could be on the team if he could answer three questions. The first question was, "How many seconds are there in a year?" The boy thought a moment and answered, "Twelve. January 2nd, February 2nd, March 2nd, April 2nd. . .'. The coach thought he would have to give him credit for that, so he asked the second question, "How many days of the week start with the letter 'T'?" The boy said, "Two - today and tomorrow." The coach then asked him the third question, "How many d's in Yankee Doodle?" The boy answered, "A couple of thousand. De, de, de, de, de, de, de." (sung to the tune of Yankee Doodle.)
It so happened that a guy got on a bus in Chicago and it so happened that he asked the bus driver if the bus goes "to da loop." The driver says, "No, it goes beep beep."
It so happened that there was a church on the top of a high hill and there was a cemetery at the church. And it so happened they were having a funeral and as they were opening the door on the hearse, the casket fell out and starting sliding down the hill. It kept sliding down and down until it burst into the doors of a CVS drug store. The lid opened and the body sat up and said to the pharmacist, "Do you have anything to stop this coffin?"
If you were told these jokes, would you bother to repeat them to anyone other than a small child perhaps? Where did I hear these terrible jokes? All were told by our parish priest during homilies at Christmas Midnight Mass, the Feast of the Holy Family, and (gasp) on All Souls' Day respectively. I found the coffin joke on All Souls' Day especially distasteful since there were a number of families in attendance who had recently lost loved ones.
I like to laugh as much as anyone, but I find homily jokes offensive. Not only are they inappropriate, our pastor has the annoying habit of messing up the story and setting up each joke by repeatedly saying, "It so happened . . .". I am not opposed to employing humor from the ambo. It can be a very effective tool for capturing the audience and making a moral or spiritual point. We recently had a mission where the visiting priest told several very funny anecdotes about his own family, but there was a point to his story.
The congregation does not assemble to be entertained by a priest who turns the homily into a mindless lounge act, complete with a having visitors shout out where they are from (a la Bill Murray on the old SNL). Ironically, those who do come to be entertained are the ones in most need of a good homily. A good homily should be interesting, educational, thought provoking and spiritually enlightening.
Today, I received the December issue of This Rock magazine. In the editor's column, publisher Karl Keating laments about having to search for a new parish because he could no longer tolerate the way his priest celebrates the Mass. Mr. Keating says the following: "He also likes to use jokes as brackets around the liturgy. Although a gentle witticism might be appropriate in a homily, one should keep in mind that the Mass is the reenactment of Calvary, and I suspect that no one other than the Roman soldiers joked before or after that event." Amen, Karl.
It so happened that a boy was trying out for a football team. He wasn't very good and not very smart either so the coach told him he could be on the team if he could answer three questions. The first question was, "How many seconds are there in a year?" The boy thought a moment and answered, "Twelve. January 2nd, February 2nd, March 2nd, April 2nd. . .'. The coach thought he would have to give him credit for that, so he asked the second question, "How many days of the week start with the letter 'T'?" The boy said, "Two - today and tomorrow." The coach then asked him the third question, "How many d's in Yankee Doodle?" The boy answered, "A couple of thousand. De, de, de, de, de, de, de." (sung to the tune of Yankee Doodle.)
It so happened that a guy got on a bus in Chicago and it so happened that he asked the bus driver if the bus goes "to da loop." The driver says, "No, it goes beep beep."
It so happened that there was a church on the top of a high hill and there was a cemetery at the church. And it so happened they were having a funeral and as they were opening the door on the hearse, the casket fell out and starting sliding down the hill. It kept sliding down and down until it burst into the doors of a CVS drug store. The lid opened and the body sat up and said to the pharmacist, "Do you have anything to stop this coffin?"
If you were told these jokes, would you bother to repeat them to anyone other than a small child perhaps? Where did I hear these terrible jokes? All were told by our parish priest during homilies at Christmas Midnight Mass, the Feast of the Holy Family, and (gasp) on All Souls' Day respectively. I found the coffin joke on All Souls' Day especially distasteful since there were a number of families in attendance who had recently lost loved ones.
I like to laugh as much as anyone, but I find homily jokes offensive. Not only are they inappropriate, our pastor has the annoying habit of messing up the story and setting up each joke by repeatedly saying, "It so happened . . .". I am not opposed to employing humor from the ambo. It can be a very effective tool for capturing the audience and making a moral or spiritual point. We recently had a mission where the visiting priest told several very funny anecdotes about his own family, but there was a point to his story.
The congregation does not assemble to be entertained by a priest who turns the homily into a mindless lounge act, complete with a having visitors shout out where they are from (a la Bill Murray on the old SNL). Ironically, those who do come to be entertained are the ones in most need of a good homily. A good homily should be interesting, educational, thought provoking and spiritually enlightening.
Today, I received the December issue of This Rock magazine. In the editor's column, publisher Karl Keating laments about having to search for a new parish because he could no longer tolerate the way his priest celebrates the Mass. Mr. Keating says the following: "He also likes to use jokes as brackets around the liturgy. Although a gentle witticism might be appropriate in a homily, one should keep in mind that the Mass is the reenactment of Calvary, and I suspect that no one other than the Roman soldiers joked before or after that event." Amen, Karl.
Tuesday, December 09, 2003
Dad's Birthday
My Father was born December 9, 1903, one hundred years ago today. He died in 1975 and I still marvel at all the things he witnessed in his lifetime. He lived through two world wars and worked as a teller in a Chicago bank during the stock market crash of 1929. The Wright Brothers flew for the first time when Dad was barely a week old, and Americans walked on the moon six years before his death. Advancements in transportation, medicine, and technology during the twentieth century of progress are mind-boggling, and Dad lived through much of it.
He was a good father despite the fact that he was nearly 47 years old when I was born and 49 at the birth of my sister. He was 15 years older than my mother, his second wife. His first wife died of cancer in 1947, leaving him and my older brother to fend for themselves.
Dad was a Methodist, and my Mother a Catholic. They didn't discuss religion much in front of us, but occasionally Dad would let slip a little comment revealing his befuddlement with Catholic teaching. Mom's nephew was a young Catholic priest who my father would engage in very interesting theological discussion during his occasional visits. As a youngster, I didn't always understand what they were talking about, but I remember being mesmerized listening to them.
Dad remained a Protestant throughout his life. I often wonder if I could have brought him home to the Catholic Church if I knew then what I know now. No doubt such discussions would have been uncomfortable for both of us. Certain topics are much easier left untouched.
I miss him much and still awaken to very realistic dreams of him being here in the present. Perhaps he is. Happy Birthday Dad!
My Father was born December 9, 1903, one hundred years ago today. He died in 1975 and I still marvel at all the things he witnessed in his lifetime. He lived through two world wars and worked as a teller in a Chicago bank during the stock market crash of 1929. The Wright Brothers flew for the first time when Dad was barely a week old, and Americans walked on the moon six years before his death. Advancements in transportation, medicine, and technology during the twentieth century of progress are mind-boggling, and Dad lived through much of it.
He was a good father despite the fact that he was nearly 47 years old when I was born and 49 at the birth of my sister. He was 15 years older than my mother, his second wife. His first wife died of cancer in 1947, leaving him and my older brother to fend for themselves.
Dad was a Methodist, and my Mother a Catholic. They didn't discuss religion much in front of us, but occasionally Dad would let slip a little comment revealing his befuddlement with Catholic teaching. Mom's nephew was a young Catholic priest who my father would engage in very interesting theological discussion during his occasional visits. As a youngster, I didn't always understand what they were talking about, but I remember being mesmerized listening to them.
Dad remained a Protestant throughout his life. I often wonder if I could have brought him home to the Catholic Church if I knew then what I know now. No doubt such discussions would have been uncomfortable for both of us. Certain topics are much easier left untouched.
I miss him much and still awaken to very realistic dreams of him being here in the present. Perhaps he is. Happy Birthday Dad!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)