Preacher or Teacher
I find myself feeling very frustrated these days. Seems to me very few Catholics know even the basics of their faith. Even those who are active in the Church, serving on pastoral councils, parish commissions, Knights of Columbus, Christian Mothers, you name it, most approach these services as political or social rather than spiritual. Yes, I am generalizing, perhaps unfairly, but I have seen little evidence to think otherwise.
The Church has been in existence 2000 years. Up until a few hundred years ago, being Christian meant being Catholic. The faith was handed down from generation to generation. I received my Catholic Faith from my mother’s side of the family that immigrated from Czechoslovakia some five generations ago. As the Church protects the deposit of Faith from error over the centuries, Catholic parents have taught the Faith to their children. When one person in a family loses or rejects the faith, the Faith is then likely lost to that persons descendants. Most of the millions of good Protestant families out there probably have a Catholic ancestor who for some reason left the Church.
I look around our community today and see many Catholics who just quit going to Mass and are not raising their children in the Faith. In most cases, their ancestors preserved the family faith for 2000 years only to have one of their descendants break the chain. Barring a personal conversion, that precious Catholic Faith will be lost forever to their future descendants. How sad.
Why does this happen? I blame ignorance for the most part. Most Catholics are poorly catechized. Anyone truly understanding what the Catholic Church is and knowing the reality of eternity, would never leave the Church. I was bothered by a conversation I recently overheard between two very active Catholics speaking of receiving Communion in Protestant churches. One spoke of attending an Episcopal wedding where everyone was invited to receive communion. She was asking the other Catholic if it was okay to do so. He told her he didn’t see anything wrong with it, and had himself received in a Lutheran church when traveling with another person. Another told of visiting a dying relative in a hospital when a woman Episcopal minister came in an offered to perform a communion service. Their response was that it couldn’t hurt, so they did it. I did speak up, trying to charitably explain why it was wrong to do so, but they seemed to think Catholic rules were too restrictive.
When attempts are made to provide catechesis for adults at our parish, the people who need it most never attend. Those who do are already seemingly grounded in the Faith. Hence my frustration. What can we do to evangelize people who are already Catholic, let alone those who are not? I have said this before, but I truly believe education from the pulpit is where it must begin. That twenty minute homily each week is the only opportunity we have to light the fire. Priests may need to take a different approach to homilies, shifting modes from preaching to teaching.
Our current pastor writes his homilies in manuscript form and reads them to the congregation. I can understand why he may prefer to do this. He and I are about the same age, and I know how easy it is to lose my train of thought as I get older. Working with a prepared text allows the author to organize thoughts and edit them for content. He can say exactly what he wants to convey without fear of leaving something out or speaking in error. Yet in doing so, he loses effectiveness. What is gained in the transmission may be lost in the reception. There is nothing more boring than listening to someone read a lengthy script.
In speaking from the heart, the priest engages the congregation in a way that captures the attention of the listener. People are more likely to remember details from a conversation than from a speech. Catholics are more apt to accept Church teaching if they know the history and understand the origin of doctrine. Catholic belief comes from Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magesterial Authority of the Church. The Liturgy of the Word gives the priest plenty of opportunities to take an apologetic approach to his homily by explaining how Church doctrine developed from God-breathed revelation.
We have not had a Catholic school at our parish since 1972, and religious instruction since that time has been inadequate. Every Sunday as our altar servers arrive for Mass, I see them walk right past the monstrance completely oblivious to the exposition of the Blessed Sacrament. Some of them will make a mechanical curtsy in the general direction of the tabernacle, but they clearly have no concept of where they are. This often happens in view of their parents and catechists. Seeing the same young faces behave the same way week after week leads me to believe they are not being properly formed, probably because their parents and those teaching them were not properly taught either.
Our hope lies in the parish priest being able to inspire a desire in his parish to grow in faith. Those who are spiritually distant are unlikely to respond favorably to verbal chastisement or criticism from the pulpit. That is not to say the message should be sugarcoated. Rather, many need to be lovingly taught the very basics of the faith, as though they are children hearing them for the first time. It may actually be the first time for some. 1 Peter 3:15 comes to mind again. Sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts. Always be ready to give an explanation to anyone who asks you for a reason for your hope, but do it with gentleness and reverence. With understanding comes appreciation and the desire to know more.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Conscience Formation
During the summer months, Mass attendance at our little parish has dwindled substantially, prompting our pastor to post a sign out front that says, “There is no vacation from God.” I grew up with the idea that attending Sunday Mass was not optional. In second grade, Sister Clarencia told us missing Sunday Mass was a Mortal Sin unless we were truly sick and unable to go, and if you die with a Mortal Sin on your soul, you will go to hell. I also remember the story of the guy who left Mass right after Communion only to be hit by a train on the way home. Today, it seems to be no longer "spiritually correct" to use such scare tactics, but they worked on me.
All of this makes me wonder how to get people back in the pews. Fear, while being an effective motivator for some, is not best reason for going to Mass. How do we get people to desire the graces they need to reach the ultimate goal of eternal salvation? Those of us who have been around awhile see the change that has taken place, especially since Vatican II. The emphasis on the Fear of the Lord has been replaced with the God is Love message. The danger of damnation is not talked about much anymore. Rather, Catholics want to leave Mass feeling good about themselves and many priests try to accommodate them.
Our current pastor is rather old school in his delivery. His homilies are stern at times, and folks come away feeling they have been chewed out for not living their lives to his standard of holiness. I suspect this has affected summer attendance more than family vacations. We will see whether attendance returns in the fall.
I don’t envy priests today. God knows there are many borderline Catholics out there who need to be drawn into a closer relationship. If the homily drives them away, there is little hope for bringing them back. Yet, sugarcoating the message can hide the bitter truth. There is a hell and people will go there. As our spiritual Father, the parish priest has to provide the delicate balance of a loving parent and firm disciplinarian.
Our diocesan paper carries a question and answer column by Reverend John Dietzen. In the July 12 issue, someone asked about a claim made at a Catholic symposium that Pope John Paul II said we can follow our consciences only when in accord with church teachings. The questioner wondered if that was really what the Pope taught. Before I read the answer, I thought to myself, I know how I would answer this. We have to follow our consciences, BUT we have an obligation to form our consciences in accordance with Church teaching. If we believe something contrary to what the Church teaches, we have a problem.
In his answer, Father Dietzen quotes from Pope John Paul’s book, Crossing the Threshold of Hope, in which he says, “Man cannot be forced to accept the truth.” “He can be drawn to the truth only by his own nature, that is by his own freedom.” The Pope also cites St. Thomas Aquinas, who “maintains that it is wrong to make an act of faith in Christ if in one’s conscience one is convinced, however absurdly, that it is wrong to carry out such an act.” And finally, he refers to a statement by Cardinal John Henry Newman, also from the Pope’s book, where Cardinal Newman placed conscience above any outside authority, civil or religious.
When I read Father Dietzen’s answer, I immediately thought many Catholics will use this to justify most any behavior. All of these statements, taken out of context, emphasize the need to follow our own consciences, but little is said about our responsibility for forming our consciences. Father Dietzen concluded by saying, “People must search for the true and the good, especially when conscience itself becomes almost blind because of a habit of sin. But an honest conscience which searches for what is right always retains its dignity.” Perhaps he could have gone on to say that “the true and the good” can be found in the teachings of the Church and believing something in opposition to Church teaching is neither true nor good.
People need to be very careful when taking statements out of context to illustrate a point. I envision people further taking statements from Father Dietzen’s article out of context to support their own belief. According to the Pope and Cardinal Newman, conscience rates above any outside authority, civil or religious. Therefore, if I don’t believe it’s a sin to miss Mass on Sunday, it’s not a sin. If I don’t believe using artificial birth control is a sin, it’s not a sin. If I believe a woman should have the right to choose abortion, I can still receive Holy Communion.
Now, there is an element of truth here. We cannot commit a Mortal Sin if we truly and honestly believe it is not a sin. Yet, we have a responsibility as Catholics to form our consciences in accordance with Church teaching. If the Church tells us it is sinful to deliberately miss Mass on Sunday, to use artificial birth control, and to promote legal abortion, then it’s a sin for us to do any of those things. Yes, we must follow our consciences, but we must make sure our consciences are properly formed.
During the summer months, Mass attendance at our little parish has dwindled substantially, prompting our pastor to post a sign out front that says, “There is no vacation from God.” I grew up with the idea that attending Sunday Mass was not optional. In second grade, Sister Clarencia told us missing Sunday Mass was a Mortal Sin unless we were truly sick and unable to go, and if you die with a Mortal Sin on your soul, you will go to hell. I also remember the story of the guy who left Mass right after Communion only to be hit by a train on the way home. Today, it seems to be no longer "spiritually correct" to use such scare tactics, but they worked on me.
All of this makes me wonder how to get people back in the pews. Fear, while being an effective motivator for some, is not best reason for going to Mass. How do we get people to desire the graces they need to reach the ultimate goal of eternal salvation? Those of us who have been around awhile see the change that has taken place, especially since Vatican II. The emphasis on the Fear of the Lord has been replaced with the God is Love message. The danger of damnation is not talked about much anymore. Rather, Catholics want to leave Mass feeling good about themselves and many priests try to accommodate them.
Our current pastor is rather old school in his delivery. His homilies are stern at times, and folks come away feeling they have been chewed out for not living their lives to his standard of holiness. I suspect this has affected summer attendance more than family vacations. We will see whether attendance returns in the fall.
I don’t envy priests today. God knows there are many borderline Catholics out there who need to be drawn into a closer relationship. If the homily drives them away, there is little hope for bringing them back. Yet, sugarcoating the message can hide the bitter truth. There is a hell and people will go there. As our spiritual Father, the parish priest has to provide the delicate balance of a loving parent and firm disciplinarian.
Our diocesan paper carries a question and answer column by Reverend John Dietzen. In the July 12 issue, someone asked about a claim made at a Catholic symposium that Pope John Paul II said we can follow our consciences only when in accord with church teachings. The questioner wondered if that was really what the Pope taught. Before I read the answer, I thought to myself, I know how I would answer this. We have to follow our consciences, BUT we have an obligation to form our consciences in accordance with Church teaching. If we believe something contrary to what the Church teaches, we have a problem.
In his answer, Father Dietzen quotes from Pope John Paul’s book, Crossing the Threshold of Hope, in which he says, “Man cannot be forced to accept the truth.” “He can be drawn to the truth only by his own nature, that is by his own freedom.” The Pope also cites St. Thomas Aquinas, who “maintains that it is wrong to make an act of faith in Christ if in one’s conscience one is convinced, however absurdly, that it is wrong to carry out such an act.” And finally, he refers to a statement by Cardinal John Henry Newman, also from the Pope’s book, where Cardinal Newman placed conscience above any outside authority, civil or religious.
When I read Father Dietzen’s answer, I immediately thought many Catholics will use this to justify most any behavior. All of these statements, taken out of context, emphasize the need to follow our own consciences, but little is said about our responsibility for forming our consciences. Father Dietzen concluded by saying, “People must search for the true and the good, especially when conscience itself becomes almost blind because of a habit of sin. But an honest conscience which searches for what is right always retains its dignity.” Perhaps he could have gone on to say that “the true and the good” can be found in the teachings of the Church and believing something in opposition to Church teaching is neither true nor good.
People need to be very careful when taking statements out of context to illustrate a point. I envision people further taking statements from Father Dietzen’s article out of context to support their own belief. According to the Pope and Cardinal Newman, conscience rates above any outside authority, civil or religious. Therefore, if I don’t believe it’s a sin to miss Mass on Sunday, it’s not a sin. If I don’t believe using artificial birth control is a sin, it’s not a sin. If I believe a woman should have the right to choose abortion, I can still receive Holy Communion.
Now, there is an element of truth here. We cannot commit a Mortal Sin if we truly and honestly believe it is not a sin. Yet, we have a responsibility as Catholics to form our consciences in accordance with Church teaching. If the Church tells us it is sinful to deliberately miss Mass on Sunday, to use artificial birth control, and to promote legal abortion, then it’s a sin for us to do any of those things. Yes, we must follow our consciences, but we must make sure our consciences are properly formed.
Saturday, June 27, 2009
Polite Conversation
Last week, I backed my pickup truck out of the garage and into the grill of my son’s car parked in the driveway. Someone had taken his usual parking spot so he pulled in behind me since there was no other space available. I had seen his car there earlier, but in my haste, I simply backed up without thinking or looking.
When I realized what I had done, I got angry. I immediately went in the house and told my son what happened. I told him I was sorry and would pay for the damage. (The car is in my name, and on my insurance policy.) As I brooded over the circumstances, I found myself trying to place the blame on someone else. If my daughter’s friend had not taken my son’s parking place, he would not have parked behind me. It’s always easier to direct anger at someone else rather than oneself. That didn’t last long, however. I knew I was the one who put the truck in reverse and backed up without looking.
Later that evening, the family lightheartedly rehashed the day’s events as we were going out to dinner after attending vigil Mass. My wife remarked that she was surprised to hear me tell my son I was sorry. This really shook me. “What do you mean?”, I said. “My life has been one continuous apology!” Actually, I got a little angry again. I have always considered myself ready to admit when I am wrong. I suggested that I have said those two words way more often than she has. Of course, I am probably wrong way more often than she is, but I didn’t say that. I joked about us getting into a huge argument in the restaurant we were about to enter, and then the conversation went on to other things.
The next morning, I spent an hour at Eucharistic Adoration. During some quiet time, I began thinking about what my wife said. Was she really surprised to hear me say, “I’m sorry”? Should I tell her I’m sorry for all the times I didn’t say I’m sorry? It is often not easy to admit we are wrong or have made a mistake. I always thought of myself as being somewhat generous with my apologies, but maybe others do not see me that way. Or could it be that members of my family do not see me that way?
I remember times when I have been in really bad moods for some reason, giving my family the quiet treatment, only to put my friendly face back on when guests arrive. Why would I treat strangers or acquaintances better than the people I love? Applying some self-analysis, I seem to want others to think well of me beyond what niceties may flow from me naturally. I may go out of my way to be polite to others, but become lax around members of my own family. I suppose it is natural to relax our efforts around people we are most comfortable with. This brings to mind the movie Love Story that popularized the line, “Love means never having to say you’re sorry.” I really have to disagree.
As a fan of the Chicago Cubs, I am a regular viewer of their baseball games on television. Former player and now Cub broadcaster, Bob Brenly, often jokes about the six key words that every husband should know for a successful marriage. They are: “Yes dear, you’re right, I’m sorry.” While always good for a laugh, he is actually speaking truth, provided those words are said with sincerity. Pride often keeps us from admitting when we are wrong.
Sorry is not the only word often going unsaid. What about thank you? We can never be too gracious, yet I am sure there are many times when I take for granted what others do for me. If memory serves me correctly, it was Msgr. Kenneth Velo during his funeral homily for Joseph Cardinal Bernardin, who told of the Cardinal sending thank you notes for thank you notes. How often during the coarse of a single day does someone else do something for us, and how often do we fail to show our appreciation? I’m sorry for all the times I didn’t say thank you.
It is particularly important for us Catholics to be ever gracious in our daily interaction with others, whether they be loved ones or perfect strangers. If we truly see Christ in every other human life, we should treat them as we would treat Him. Seeing Christ in the behavior of some people can be difficult at times. In those cases, it is all the more important that they can see Christ in us.
Last week, I backed my pickup truck out of the garage and into the grill of my son’s car parked in the driveway. Someone had taken his usual parking spot so he pulled in behind me since there was no other space available. I had seen his car there earlier, but in my haste, I simply backed up without thinking or looking.
When I realized what I had done, I got angry. I immediately went in the house and told my son what happened. I told him I was sorry and would pay for the damage. (The car is in my name, and on my insurance policy.) As I brooded over the circumstances, I found myself trying to place the blame on someone else. If my daughter’s friend had not taken my son’s parking place, he would not have parked behind me. It’s always easier to direct anger at someone else rather than oneself. That didn’t last long, however. I knew I was the one who put the truck in reverse and backed up without looking.
Later that evening, the family lightheartedly rehashed the day’s events as we were going out to dinner after attending vigil Mass. My wife remarked that she was surprised to hear me tell my son I was sorry. This really shook me. “What do you mean?”, I said. “My life has been one continuous apology!” Actually, I got a little angry again. I have always considered myself ready to admit when I am wrong. I suggested that I have said those two words way more often than she has. Of course, I am probably wrong way more often than she is, but I didn’t say that. I joked about us getting into a huge argument in the restaurant we were about to enter, and then the conversation went on to other things.
The next morning, I spent an hour at Eucharistic Adoration. During some quiet time, I began thinking about what my wife said. Was she really surprised to hear me say, “I’m sorry”? Should I tell her I’m sorry for all the times I didn’t say I’m sorry? It is often not easy to admit we are wrong or have made a mistake. I always thought of myself as being somewhat generous with my apologies, but maybe others do not see me that way. Or could it be that members of my family do not see me that way?
I remember times when I have been in really bad moods for some reason, giving my family the quiet treatment, only to put my friendly face back on when guests arrive. Why would I treat strangers or acquaintances better than the people I love? Applying some self-analysis, I seem to want others to think well of me beyond what niceties may flow from me naturally. I may go out of my way to be polite to others, but become lax around members of my own family. I suppose it is natural to relax our efforts around people we are most comfortable with. This brings to mind the movie Love Story that popularized the line, “Love means never having to say you’re sorry.” I really have to disagree.
As a fan of the Chicago Cubs, I am a regular viewer of their baseball games on television. Former player and now Cub broadcaster, Bob Brenly, often jokes about the six key words that every husband should know for a successful marriage. They are: “Yes dear, you’re right, I’m sorry.” While always good for a laugh, he is actually speaking truth, provided those words are said with sincerity. Pride often keeps us from admitting when we are wrong.
Sorry is not the only word often going unsaid. What about thank you? We can never be too gracious, yet I am sure there are many times when I take for granted what others do for me. If memory serves me correctly, it was Msgr. Kenneth Velo during his funeral homily for Joseph Cardinal Bernardin, who told of the Cardinal sending thank you notes for thank you notes. How often during the coarse of a single day does someone else do something for us, and how often do we fail to show our appreciation? I’m sorry for all the times I didn’t say thank you.
It is particularly important for us Catholics to be ever gracious in our daily interaction with others, whether they be loved ones or perfect strangers. If we truly see Christ in every other human life, we should treat them as we would treat Him. Seeing Christ in the behavior of some people can be difficult at times. In those cases, it is all the more important that they can see Christ in us.
Saturday, May 23, 2009
The Mary Mary Month of May
May is traditionally the month during which we Catholics give particular honor to our Blessed Mother. Our parish had a procession and crowning of the statue of Mary on Mother’s Day. We are also showing Marian videos in the parish hall on Monday and Wednesday evenings during May. Our pastor, Father Terry, asked me to preview the videos and set them up for showing at the scheduled times. I also make the popcorn.
The topic this month has centered on Marian apparitions, especially those of the twentieth century. I was familiar with Fatima, but many of the other reported apparitions were new to me. Among those were Garabandal (Spain), Betania (Venezuela), Kibeho (Africa), and Akita (Japan). Always being a bit skeptical, I wondered how many of these apparations were approved by the Church. A little Internet research proved to be very educational.
If the Church has a list of verified supernatural apparitions, I have yet to find it. Various groups have published lists, but they are not all in agreement. I found anywhere from 10 to 14 approved Marian apparitions in the twentieth century. Writing only from memory now, it seems like five or six reported apparitions are commonly listed as approved supernatural phenomena, but beyond those, lists varied. Part of the reason may be the way apparitions are classified. Studied apparitions may be classified as "not worthy of belief," "not contrary to the Faith," or "worthy of belief." They may also be termed as supernatural occurrences, that is, not of natural or demonic origin. Those compiling the various lists may be looking at numerous pastoral statements given over a period of time, which could account for some of the confusion.
From the information provided in the videos we watched, many of the apparitions contained similarities. The visionaries are often young people, children, humble and innocent. The Marian messages usually call for prayer, fasting, repentance, conversion, rejection of sin, and the more recent ones for an end to abortion. They sometimes foretell of miraculous signs and chastisement for those who do not heed God’s message. Some messages would seem to indicate these events will take place very soon. Of course, these are all private revelations and not necessarily messages to be accepted by everyone. Yet, even the unapproved apparition stories appeared quite convincing.
Our video series on apparitions was happening at the same time the Barrack Obama abortion controversy was taking place at Notre Dame. (See last month’s blog entry.) Those protesting Obama being given an honorary degree by Notre Dame staged massive prayer vigils for an end to abortion. This got me to wondering why Our Blessed Mother appears to innocent children, asking them to deliver her message, rather than appearing to the perpetrators of the sin themselves. I went to Eucharistic Adoration on the morning of Obama’s speech at Notre Dame, “suggesting” to Our Lord and His Blessed Mother that a well-timed apparition during his talk would be a really effective means of getting the President’s attention. Obviously, God has a better idea as the apparition did not happen as far as I know. Of course, even if it had, the liberal media probably would not have reported it.
A week has passed since Obama’s appearance. If Father Jenkins has experienced any reprimand for giving an honorary degree to an abortion friendly president, it has not been reported. I rather expected the controversy to subside after the ceremony with no action taken. So far, that seems to be the case. Perhaps, the Blessed Mother could pay him a visit too!
May is traditionally the month during which we Catholics give particular honor to our Blessed Mother. Our parish had a procession and crowning of the statue of Mary on Mother’s Day. We are also showing Marian videos in the parish hall on Monday and Wednesday evenings during May. Our pastor, Father Terry, asked me to preview the videos and set them up for showing at the scheduled times. I also make the popcorn.
The topic this month has centered on Marian apparitions, especially those of the twentieth century. I was familiar with Fatima, but many of the other reported apparitions were new to me. Among those were Garabandal (Spain), Betania (Venezuela), Kibeho (Africa), and Akita (Japan). Always being a bit skeptical, I wondered how many of these apparations were approved by the Church. A little Internet research proved to be very educational.
If the Church has a list of verified supernatural apparitions, I have yet to find it. Various groups have published lists, but they are not all in agreement. I found anywhere from 10 to 14 approved Marian apparitions in the twentieth century. Writing only from memory now, it seems like five or six reported apparitions are commonly listed as approved supernatural phenomena, but beyond those, lists varied. Part of the reason may be the way apparitions are classified. Studied apparitions may be classified as "not worthy of belief," "not contrary to the Faith," or "worthy of belief." They may also be termed as supernatural occurrences, that is, not of natural or demonic origin. Those compiling the various lists may be looking at numerous pastoral statements given over a period of time, which could account for some of the confusion.
From the information provided in the videos we watched, many of the apparitions contained similarities. The visionaries are often young people, children, humble and innocent. The Marian messages usually call for prayer, fasting, repentance, conversion, rejection of sin, and the more recent ones for an end to abortion. They sometimes foretell of miraculous signs and chastisement for those who do not heed God’s message. Some messages would seem to indicate these events will take place very soon. Of course, these are all private revelations and not necessarily messages to be accepted by everyone. Yet, even the unapproved apparition stories appeared quite convincing.
Our video series on apparitions was happening at the same time the Barrack Obama abortion controversy was taking place at Notre Dame. (See last month’s blog entry.) Those protesting Obama being given an honorary degree by Notre Dame staged massive prayer vigils for an end to abortion. This got me to wondering why Our Blessed Mother appears to innocent children, asking them to deliver her message, rather than appearing to the perpetrators of the sin themselves. I went to Eucharistic Adoration on the morning of Obama’s speech at Notre Dame, “suggesting” to Our Lord and His Blessed Mother that a well-timed apparition during his talk would be a really effective means of getting the President’s attention. Obviously, God has a better idea as the apparition did not happen as far as I know. Of course, even if it had, the liberal media probably would not have reported it.
A week has passed since Obama’s appearance. If Father Jenkins has experienced any reprimand for giving an honorary degree to an abortion friendly president, it has not been reported. I rather expected the controversy to subside after the ceremony with no action taken. So far, that seems to be the case. Perhaps, the Blessed Mother could pay him a visit too!
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Jeer, Jeer for Old Notre Dame
The uproar over the University of Notre Dame inviting pro-abortion President Obama to speak at commencement demonstrates the polarization that has arisen among members of the Church these days. A public confrontation pitting Catholic against Catholic is unfortunate. Making the situation even worse is the growing resentment between the two sides.
On one hand, we have orthodox Catholics who try to live their faith according to the teachings of the Church, especially when it comes to protecting human life from conception to natural end. They are rigid in their adherence to moral and ethical behavior, and hold other Catholics, both individuals and institutions, to high standards. They tend to be vocal when they see behavior they do not like, and therefore may be stereotyped as intolerant or self-righteous.
Being of the former bend, I find it more difficult to catagorize the other side. My guess is that most of them are more accepting of the secular world in which they live. It would be too easy to simply dismiss them as not living their Catholic faith, though I am sure that is often the case. They may still be good Catholics in their personal beliefs, but do not pass judgment on the diverse behavior of others. I suspect that deep down, they view acceptance of Catholic teaching a personal choice more than absolute truth. I also suspect they take a more humanistic view of Church hierarchy as opposed to being a Divinely-guided Magisterium. For this reason, they may be viewed as worldly or heterodox.
Judging from the outcome of the last presidential election and the acceptance of President Obama to be honored at Notre Dame by the administration and probably a majority of the students, those of us embracing the Catholic Faith to the fullest are in the minority. Being tolerant of opposing opinions is one thing, but providing a pulpit at a supposedly Catholic institution for those views when they promote intrinsic evil is unacceptable, especially when we appear to be losing the moral battle.
Students who do not expect or accept Catholic teaching at a Catholic University should probably be attending school elsewhere. In this case, those who do expect orthodox Catholicism should look elsewhere too. Why would anyone expect to get a first class education in any discipline from a Catholic University that cannot even profess the truth of its own Faith? Some might argue that universities can maintain their Catholicity while entertaining diverse or contrary thought, or that academic freedom requires open dialogue with dissenters. In the sciences, humanities, arts and other disciplines, this may be true, even in the case of theological science as long as it does not conflict with Catholic doctrine. But when it comes to matters of Faith and Morals, dissention should not be an option, and promoting or providing a public forum for such dissention is inexcusable.
In 1967, many Catholic Universities, including Notre Dame, signed what was known as the Land O’ Lakes Statement, so-called because it came from of a conference of Catholic educators held in Land O’ Lakes, Wisconsin. The meeting took place to address the issue of a perceived conflict between the Church and academic freedom. The gist of the statement can be summarized in the second sentence: “To perform its teaching and research functions effectively the Catholic university must have a true autonomy and academic freedom in the face of authority of whatever kind, lay or clerical, external to the academic community itself.”
Although the Land O’ Lakes statement also stressed the importance of keeping Catholic higher education distinctively Catholic, the barn door was now open and Catholicity was trampled in the academic stampede to freedom. Dissenting priests were given positions of authority at Catholic Universities where they cast doubt among believers and undermined Church teaching. Instead of lifting up the Catholic Church as a beacon of truth beyond reproach, many Catholic universities demolished the Faith by allowing the secular world to dictate curriculum and university policy.
In 1990, Pope John Paul II issued a lengthy document called Ex Corde Ecclesiae (From the Heart of the Church). Seen as a rebuttal to the Land of Lakes Statement, it defines what makes an academic institution Catholic giving bishops the authority to affirm or deny catholicity. Some Catholics are organizing an effort to have Bishop D’Arcy remove the Catholic label from Notre Dame. While the good Bishop is unlikely to go to that extreme, he said he will boycott the graduation ceremony, and may even take part in an organized protest.
According to an article by sportswriter Curt Rallo in the April 21, 2009 edition of the South Bend Tribune, Notre Dame president Father John Jenkins defiantly reaffirmed his decision at a celebration of 60 years of black student athletes. Defending the invitation of President Obama, Jenkins said, “He’s one of our great orators of our time, and we’re just so proud to have him.” It would be interesting to know how many of the students who cheered his remark are Catholic.
At my weekly catechism class earlier this evening, we got into a discussion of moral ethics. A number of hypothetical ethical dilemmas were proposed where object and means seemed to be at odds. One commonly used example involves lying in order to protect the lives of others. In my mind, the answer is obvious. I have lied for much lesser reasons. Yet I realize the morality of doing wrong to achieve a right deserves serious thought, and questions such as these are certainly pondered in academia. Then I wonder if Father Jenkins gave any serious thought to the moral consequences of inviting a pro-abortion president to speak at a Catholic university. I can understand some of Father Jenkins’ (and Obama’s) supporters speaking from ignorance, but Father Jenkins himself should know better. Even if he were right, the fact he chooses to ignore his Bishop demonstrates a complete lack of respect for the Church hierarchy.
Father Jenkins recently wrote that his invitation to Obama was in accordance with a 2004 statement by the United States Council of Catholic Bishops called Catholics in Political Life because Obama is not Catholic. This past week, Bishop D’Arcy responded with a letter to Jenkins, excerpts of which were released to the public. The Bishop cited one of the highpoints of the USCCB statement that says, “The Catholic community and Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions.” How can Father Jenkins reconcile what he is doing with that statement?
Father Jenkins has placed his superiors, the university, and the Catholic Church in an awkward position. If he is disciplined as he should be with the loss of his position, Obama’s supporters will try to paint Catholics as intolerant racists. The local paper has printed dozens of letters in support of Jenkins, some of them from students, alumni, and at least one priest. One woman boldly stated that she was a Catholic who is pro-life and pro-choice. A man accused pro-lifers as being cafeteria Catholics because they are not as vocal about other problems in the Church. Another supports Obama because of all the hunger and starvation in the world, as if he will end it all and his opponents are the cause.
It’s only a matter of time before the mud-slinging starts. Non-Catholics smell blood in the water and join in the frenzy. A writer in today’s paper said, “When you discuss the sanctity of life, you may wish to skip over the Crusades, the Inquisition, the burning of thousands of women as witches, the vile behavior of the Catholic priests who told their faithful to pay the English rents while their children starved during the Irish potato famine and the alleged collaboration of the Vatican with the Nazis.” Oh boy. Now, do we go off on another tangent and defend these charges, or just let it ride.
A pattern is evident in most of these letters. These are not people who hold Church teaching in high regard, despite some of them claiming to be “devout” Catholics. I wonder how many of the “devout” Catholics make frequent confessions, attend weekday Mass (or even regular Sunday Mass for that matter), spend time in Eucharistic Adoration, or pray the Rosary. These are things the rest of us should be doing for all concerned, especially the aborted children, President Obama, Father Jenkins and Notre Dame.
The uproar over the University of Notre Dame inviting pro-abortion President Obama to speak at commencement demonstrates the polarization that has arisen among members of the Church these days. A public confrontation pitting Catholic against Catholic is unfortunate. Making the situation even worse is the growing resentment between the two sides.
On one hand, we have orthodox Catholics who try to live their faith according to the teachings of the Church, especially when it comes to protecting human life from conception to natural end. They are rigid in their adherence to moral and ethical behavior, and hold other Catholics, both individuals and institutions, to high standards. They tend to be vocal when they see behavior they do not like, and therefore may be stereotyped as intolerant or self-righteous.
Being of the former bend, I find it more difficult to catagorize the other side. My guess is that most of them are more accepting of the secular world in which they live. It would be too easy to simply dismiss them as not living their Catholic faith, though I am sure that is often the case. They may still be good Catholics in their personal beliefs, but do not pass judgment on the diverse behavior of others. I suspect that deep down, they view acceptance of Catholic teaching a personal choice more than absolute truth. I also suspect they take a more humanistic view of Church hierarchy as opposed to being a Divinely-guided Magisterium. For this reason, they may be viewed as worldly or heterodox.
Judging from the outcome of the last presidential election and the acceptance of President Obama to be honored at Notre Dame by the administration and probably a majority of the students, those of us embracing the Catholic Faith to the fullest are in the minority. Being tolerant of opposing opinions is one thing, but providing a pulpit at a supposedly Catholic institution for those views when they promote intrinsic evil is unacceptable, especially when we appear to be losing the moral battle.
Students who do not expect or accept Catholic teaching at a Catholic University should probably be attending school elsewhere. In this case, those who do expect orthodox Catholicism should look elsewhere too. Why would anyone expect to get a first class education in any discipline from a Catholic University that cannot even profess the truth of its own Faith? Some might argue that universities can maintain their Catholicity while entertaining diverse or contrary thought, or that academic freedom requires open dialogue with dissenters. In the sciences, humanities, arts and other disciplines, this may be true, even in the case of theological science as long as it does not conflict with Catholic doctrine. But when it comes to matters of Faith and Morals, dissention should not be an option, and promoting or providing a public forum for such dissention is inexcusable.
In 1967, many Catholic Universities, including Notre Dame, signed what was known as the Land O’ Lakes Statement, so-called because it came from of a conference of Catholic educators held in Land O’ Lakes, Wisconsin. The meeting took place to address the issue of a perceived conflict between the Church and academic freedom. The gist of the statement can be summarized in the second sentence: “To perform its teaching and research functions effectively the Catholic university must have a true autonomy and academic freedom in the face of authority of whatever kind, lay or clerical, external to the academic community itself.”
Although the Land O’ Lakes statement also stressed the importance of keeping Catholic higher education distinctively Catholic, the barn door was now open and Catholicity was trampled in the academic stampede to freedom. Dissenting priests were given positions of authority at Catholic Universities where they cast doubt among believers and undermined Church teaching. Instead of lifting up the Catholic Church as a beacon of truth beyond reproach, many Catholic universities demolished the Faith by allowing the secular world to dictate curriculum and university policy.
In 1990, Pope John Paul II issued a lengthy document called Ex Corde Ecclesiae (From the Heart of the Church). Seen as a rebuttal to the Land of Lakes Statement, it defines what makes an academic institution Catholic giving bishops the authority to affirm or deny catholicity. Some Catholics are organizing an effort to have Bishop D’Arcy remove the Catholic label from Notre Dame. While the good Bishop is unlikely to go to that extreme, he said he will boycott the graduation ceremony, and may even take part in an organized protest.
According to an article by sportswriter Curt Rallo in the April 21, 2009 edition of the South Bend Tribune, Notre Dame president Father John Jenkins defiantly reaffirmed his decision at a celebration of 60 years of black student athletes. Defending the invitation of President Obama, Jenkins said, “He’s one of our great orators of our time, and we’re just so proud to have him.” It would be interesting to know how many of the students who cheered his remark are Catholic.
At my weekly catechism class earlier this evening, we got into a discussion of moral ethics. A number of hypothetical ethical dilemmas were proposed where object and means seemed to be at odds. One commonly used example involves lying in order to protect the lives of others. In my mind, the answer is obvious. I have lied for much lesser reasons. Yet I realize the morality of doing wrong to achieve a right deserves serious thought, and questions such as these are certainly pondered in academia. Then I wonder if Father Jenkins gave any serious thought to the moral consequences of inviting a pro-abortion president to speak at a Catholic university. I can understand some of Father Jenkins’ (and Obama’s) supporters speaking from ignorance, but Father Jenkins himself should know better. Even if he were right, the fact he chooses to ignore his Bishop demonstrates a complete lack of respect for the Church hierarchy.
Father Jenkins recently wrote that his invitation to Obama was in accordance with a 2004 statement by the United States Council of Catholic Bishops called Catholics in Political Life because Obama is not Catholic. This past week, Bishop D’Arcy responded with a letter to Jenkins, excerpts of which were released to the public. The Bishop cited one of the highpoints of the USCCB statement that says, “The Catholic community and Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions.” How can Father Jenkins reconcile what he is doing with that statement?
Father Jenkins has placed his superiors, the university, and the Catholic Church in an awkward position. If he is disciplined as he should be with the loss of his position, Obama’s supporters will try to paint Catholics as intolerant racists. The local paper has printed dozens of letters in support of Jenkins, some of them from students, alumni, and at least one priest. One woman boldly stated that she was a Catholic who is pro-life and pro-choice. A man accused pro-lifers as being cafeteria Catholics because they are not as vocal about other problems in the Church. Another supports Obama because of all the hunger and starvation in the world, as if he will end it all and his opponents are the cause.
It’s only a matter of time before the mud-slinging starts. Non-Catholics smell blood in the water and join in the frenzy. A writer in today’s paper said, “When you discuss the sanctity of life, you may wish to skip over the Crusades, the Inquisition, the burning of thousands of women as witches, the vile behavior of the Catholic priests who told their faithful to pay the English rents while their children starved during the Irish potato famine and the alleged collaboration of the Vatican with the Nazis.” Oh boy. Now, do we go off on another tangent and defend these charges, or just let it ride.
A pattern is evident in most of these letters. These are not people who hold Church teaching in high regard, despite some of them claiming to be “devout” Catholics. I wonder how many of the “devout” Catholics make frequent confessions, attend weekday Mass (or even regular Sunday Mass for that matter), spend time in Eucharistic Adoration, or pray the Rosary. These are things the rest of us should be doing for all concerned, especially the aborted children, President Obama, Father Jenkins and Notre Dame.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Bless me Father, for have I sinned?
Our new pastor has been here eight months now. At one of our Tuesday evening Catechism classes, he spoke of his disappointment in the low number of confessions he has heard since coming to the parish. He said he is almost to the point of nagging people to come to confession. I understand his frustration, but doubt that nagging will solve the problem. I believe most people are reasonable, and therefore, will respond to a reasonable argument. Having said that, I have been thinking about the problem of how to draw people to the sacrament.
I confess that I was not going to confession nearly as often as I should have been, but I did go, and with more frequency than many other Catholics I know. My new year’s resolution is to go much more often, and so far, I am sticking to one-month intervals. Yes, I feel a wonderful sense of relief after confessing in contrast with a definite dread before I go. The apprehension is only natural when we are forced to face our faults, and that is precisely why we need to go. Confessing directly to God is way too easy. Confessing to another human being acting in the person of Christ is another story. One is apt to think twice about repeating a serious sin if confessing that sin is going to be unpleasant.
So, why don’t many Catholics go to confession anymore? Good question. Catholic behavior changed drastically after Vatican II. Those of us who were in the Church pre-Vatican II remember when there were long lines at the confessional every Saturday and much shorter lines for Communion on Sunday. We had a greater sense of the need to be in a state of grace when approaching the Communion rail. 1 Corinthians 11:27 says whoever eats the bread of drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord, but in the years following the Council, Catholics seemed to lose this awareness.
Saint Thomas warned that even when laws need to be changed, there is danger of reducing the binding power of the law as a consequence of the change. Prior to Vatican II, eating meat on Friday was considered a mortal sin. We had to receive Holy Communion on the tongue, kneeling with our hands under a cloth to make certain they did not come in contact with the host. The Mass was in Latin and the priest faced the altar. All of these things changed after the Council, and as a consequence, the binding power of Church disciplines diminished in the eyes of the faithful. Worship took on a more horizontal element, and a more “laid back” Catholic Church came into being.
Sin took on a more relative sense. If rules that were once steadfast can now be completely different, how much binding power did they have in the first place? Church disciplines suddenly seemed somewhat arbitrary and Catholics learned to rely on their own consciences in discerning which to follow, especially when it came to decisions on moral issues such as using birth control.
We were always told one of the Commandments of the Church was to confess our sins at least once a year. Now, we hear that we must confess MORTAL sins at least once a year. So, what sins are still mortal? Even the term “mortal sin” became obscure. We occasional heard references to grave sin or serious sin, but with the caveat that the disposition of the sinner affects culpability. The word sin itself disappeared from the priests’ vocabulary in many pulpits.
The manner of confession also changed with Vatican II. Instead of “Bless me Father; I have sinned”, we were now asked to use a form that required a response or two. What if there is no card in the confessional? What if I don’t do it right? What if I have to go face-to-face with the priest and I’m not comfortable doing that? All of these things contributed to keeping people away. When Catholics saw other Catholics avoiding the Sacrament, they too felt justified in doing the same.
The question becomes, how do we get people to come back? It won’t be easy. The responsibility falls on the shoulders of the parish priest, the shepherd of the local flock. Without nagging or sounding too harsh, he must gently reinstate the awareness of personal sin, and its affects on the state of grace in our souls. He must reassert the importance of being in a state of grace before approaching the Holy Eucharist. His best opportunity comes weekly during his homily.
One way might be to speak about the issue of Catholic public office holders supporting abortion. Several Bishops have ordered that such politicians be refused Holy Communion in their diocese. The priest could explain that allowing persons whose sin is publicly known to receive Communion not only profanes Our Lord, but also places the soul of those individuals in jeopardy. Refusing them Communion is also for their own benefit as it protects them from bringing judgment upon themselves. Allowing them access to the Holy Eucharist also creates scandal by giving the impression that the minister condones such action by his cooperation.
The homilist may also acknowledge the fact that Holy Communion should be refused any person in a state of mortal sin, but unless that sin is publicly exposed as in the case of the politician, the priest has no way of knowing. He might give examples saying he doesn’t know who in the Communion line is on birth control, or who missed Sunday Mass for no good reason, so he is in no position to protect that person from further harm to his or her soul.
Catholics also need a heightened awareness of less serious sin and the importance of bringing those sins to the confessional to attain the grace to overcome them. Many do not realize that actions that increase our separation from Christ are sinful. Sins of commission and omission affect most of us everyday. A good examination of conscience is essential for making us aware of sin, and that conscience needs to be properly formed. Catholics avoiding the confessional may think they have no sins to confess. Ignorance is not bliss. We have an obligation to grow in our faith, and to turn a blind eye to sin is a great disservice to God and to ourselves. All of these issues need to be addressed from the pulpit.
Lastly, Catholics need to feel confident that baring their souls to the priest is not an experience that will scar them for life. On the contrary, a good confession frees the souls from the scars of sin. If we really believe in God and the eternal life He offers us, we would take advantage of everything offered us to reach that goal, and we would rejoice in the comfort of knowing our souls are pleasing to God. Is confessing to the priest easy? Yes and no. If it were too easy, it would be less effective. Yet, considering the gravity of our sins and what is at stake, it is extremely easy to spend just a few minutes ridding ourselves of the pains of sin.
On the Second Sunday of Easter, April 17th, we will celebrate Divine Mercy Sunday. On that day, Catholics have an opportunity to receive a plenary indulgence, that is, complete forgiveness of sins and their punishment. Unfortunately, many Catholics are not even aware this opportunity exists. For the first time, our parish will celebrate this occasion with a novena beginning on Good Friday with daily praying of the Divine Mercy Chaplet. To receive the plenary indulgence, certain conditions must be met, including confession and reception of Holy Communion.
I addressed this topic of Confession once before (Confession Digression, 4-25-2004). At that time I said, at some point it will be necessary for priests to be blunt with the congregation. I think that time has finally come for our parish as our new priest mentions the importance of confession in nearly every homily. It will be interesting to see how many take advantage of this opportunity. Those who have avoided the confessional for many years will have a decision to make. When Divine Mercy Sunday passes, they will find themselves either closer to God or more detached. Simply maintaining their spiritual status quo is not an option. To ignore the opportunity is to deny one’s sins and need of reconciliation. Denying the need for Divine Mercy is itself a sin of pride.
I have sympathy for those who have not been to confession for many years. Yes, it takes some courage to fess up to the priest who gives you Holy Communion every Sunday that your last confession was twenty or thirty years ago, but this is an occasion for celebration. The priest views your return as a time for rejoicing. He is there as Christ’s ambassador of reconciliation. A heavy burden will be lifted from your shoulders when he gives you absolution. Now is your chance to take this step along with many others in the same situation as you are. Don’t let the opportunity pass you by. Just do it!
Our new pastor has been here eight months now. At one of our Tuesday evening Catechism classes, he spoke of his disappointment in the low number of confessions he has heard since coming to the parish. He said he is almost to the point of nagging people to come to confession. I understand his frustration, but doubt that nagging will solve the problem. I believe most people are reasonable, and therefore, will respond to a reasonable argument. Having said that, I have been thinking about the problem of how to draw people to the sacrament.
I confess that I was not going to confession nearly as often as I should have been, but I did go, and with more frequency than many other Catholics I know. My new year’s resolution is to go much more often, and so far, I am sticking to one-month intervals. Yes, I feel a wonderful sense of relief after confessing in contrast with a definite dread before I go. The apprehension is only natural when we are forced to face our faults, and that is precisely why we need to go. Confessing directly to God is way too easy. Confessing to another human being acting in the person of Christ is another story. One is apt to think twice about repeating a serious sin if confessing that sin is going to be unpleasant.
So, why don’t many Catholics go to confession anymore? Good question. Catholic behavior changed drastically after Vatican II. Those of us who were in the Church pre-Vatican II remember when there were long lines at the confessional every Saturday and much shorter lines for Communion on Sunday. We had a greater sense of the need to be in a state of grace when approaching the Communion rail. 1 Corinthians 11:27 says whoever eats the bread of drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord, but in the years following the Council, Catholics seemed to lose this awareness.
Saint Thomas warned that even when laws need to be changed, there is danger of reducing the binding power of the law as a consequence of the change. Prior to Vatican II, eating meat on Friday was considered a mortal sin. We had to receive Holy Communion on the tongue, kneeling with our hands under a cloth to make certain they did not come in contact with the host. The Mass was in Latin and the priest faced the altar. All of these things changed after the Council, and as a consequence, the binding power of Church disciplines diminished in the eyes of the faithful. Worship took on a more horizontal element, and a more “laid back” Catholic Church came into being.
Sin took on a more relative sense. If rules that were once steadfast can now be completely different, how much binding power did they have in the first place? Church disciplines suddenly seemed somewhat arbitrary and Catholics learned to rely on their own consciences in discerning which to follow, especially when it came to decisions on moral issues such as using birth control.
We were always told one of the Commandments of the Church was to confess our sins at least once a year. Now, we hear that we must confess MORTAL sins at least once a year. So, what sins are still mortal? Even the term “mortal sin” became obscure. We occasional heard references to grave sin or serious sin, but with the caveat that the disposition of the sinner affects culpability. The word sin itself disappeared from the priests’ vocabulary in many pulpits.
The manner of confession also changed with Vatican II. Instead of “Bless me Father; I have sinned”, we were now asked to use a form that required a response or two. What if there is no card in the confessional? What if I don’t do it right? What if I have to go face-to-face with the priest and I’m not comfortable doing that? All of these things contributed to keeping people away. When Catholics saw other Catholics avoiding the Sacrament, they too felt justified in doing the same.
The question becomes, how do we get people to come back? It won’t be easy. The responsibility falls on the shoulders of the parish priest, the shepherd of the local flock. Without nagging or sounding too harsh, he must gently reinstate the awareness of personal sin, and its affects on the state of grace in our souls. He must reassert the importance of being in a state of grace before approaching the Holy Eucharist. His best opportunity comes weekly during his homily.
One way might be to speak about the issue of Catholic public office holders supporting abortion. Several Bishops have ordered that such politicians be refused Holy Communion in their diocese. The priest could explain that allowing persons whose sin is publicly known to receive Communion not only profanes Our Lord, but also places the soul of those individuals in jeopardy. Refusing them Communion is also for their own benefit as it protects them from bringing judgment upon themselves. Allowing them access to the Holy Eucharist also creates scandal by giving the impression that the minister condones such action by his cooperation.
The homilist may also acknowledge the fact that Holy Communion should be refused any person in a state of mortal sin, but unless that sin is publicly exposed as in the case of the politician, the priest has no way of knowing. He might give examples saying he doesn’t know who in the Communion line is on birth control, or who missed Sunday Mass for no good reason, so he is in no position to protect that person from further harm to his or her soul.
Catholics also need a heightened awareness of less serious sin and the importance of bringing those sins to the confessional to attain the grace to overcome them. Many do not realize that actions that increase our separation from Christ are sinful. Sins of commission and omission affect most of us everyday. A good examination of conscience is essential for making us aware of sin, and that conscience needs to be properly formed. Catholics avoiding the confessional may think they have no sins to confess. Ignorance is not bliss. We have an obligation to grow in our faith, and to turn a blind eye to sin is a great disservice to God and to ourselves. All of these issues need to be addressed from the pulpit.
Lastly, Catholics need to feel confident that baring their souls to the priest is not an experience that will scar them for life. On the contrary, a good confession frees the souls from the scars of sin. If we really believe in God and the eternal life He offers us, we would take advantage of everything offered us to reach that goal, and we would rejoice in the comfort of knowing our souls are pleasing to God. Is confessing to the priest easy? Yes and no. If it were too easy, it would be less effective. Yet, considering the gravity of our sins and what is at stake, it is extremely easy to spend just a few minutes ridding ourselves of the pains of sin.
On the Second Sunday of Easter, April 17th, we will celebrate Divine Mercy Sunday. On that day, Catholics have an opportunity to receive a plenary indulgence, that is, complete forgiveness of sins and their punishment. Unfortunately, many Catholics are not even aware this opportunity exists. For the first time, our parish will celebrate this occasion with a novena beginning on Good Friday with daily praying of the Divine Mercy Chaplet. To receive the plenary indulgence, certain conditions must be met, including confession and reception of Holy Communion.
I addressed this topic of Confession once before (Confession Digression, 4-25-2004). At that time I said, at some point it will be necessary for priests to be blunt with the congregation. I think that time has finally come for our parish as our new priest mentions the importance of confession in nearly every homily. It will be interesting to see how many take advantage of this opportunity. Those who have avoided the confessional for many years will have a decision to make. When Divine Mercy Sunday passes, they will find themselves either closer to God or more detached. Simply maintaining their spiritual status quo is not an option. To ignore the opportunity is to deny one’s sins and need of reconciliation. Denying the need for Divine Mercy is itself a sin of pride.
I have sympathy for those who have not been to confession for many years. Yes, it takes some courage to fess up to the priest who gives you Holy Communion every Sunday that your last confession was twenty or thirty years ago, but this is an occasion for celebration. The priest views your return as a time for rejoicing. He is there as Christ’s ambassador of reconciliation. A heavy burden will be lifted from your shoulders when he gives you absolution. Now is your chance to take this step along with many others in the same situation as you are. Don’t let the opportunity pass you by. Just do it!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)