May 2005 Archives

Glad to be hosting the Catholic Carnival at Deo Omnis Gloria again! This Carnival is the biggest this site has hosted yet and it is full in every respect of the word. So sit, immerse yourself, and push away from the table when you’re full!

The Carnival continues to grow and for good reason – it’s an excellent spot to learn about Catholic blogs you haven’t seen before or to find great posts. So, let’s jump right in:

+ A Penitent Blogger starts us out in fine fashion with a brief reflection on our attitudes at Mass in They Will Respect My Son. I think we’re sure to recognize our faults in this exceptional piece.

+ The Anchoress gives us an excellent post on The Mystery of Suffering. It’s not short, but worth every word.

+ Lex Communis takes Saint Thomas Aquinas to the movies – including Star Wars – in We are all Manichaeans now. Who thought Aquinas, Augustine, and the goop in Prince of Darkness could all fit in an interesting, cohesive analysis of heresies?

+ Be Here Mondays blogs about ritual, dress, and reverence in Mary’s Detaching Veil. Includes illustrative photographs (and a serious point).

+ Clairity’s Place reviews a poem by Li-young Lee called My Father’s House. The post includes a link to the poem for those who haven’t read it.

+ Our Word and Welcome to It takes a look at J.F. Powers, a well-known Catholic author in the 60’s who is virtually unknown today, in Wish I’d Written That . . .. His small but powerful body of work can speak to Catholics today as powerfully as they spoke to his contemporaries.

+ HMS Blog pens a reflection on the Mass readings for Corpus Christi in The Bread of Life. The post focuses on how the Eucharist should give our lives the proper orientation toward Christ and the Church.

+ Veritas examines the inconsistencies of those politicians who oppose abortion but support embryonic stem cell research in More Inanities. He also clarifies exactly which side “the extremists” are on.

+ Heart speaks to Heart examines what I see as a very important issue these days in Being an Authentic Woman – Catholic Style. She does an excellent job of underlining the choices women face in our society.

+ Ales Rarus points out that we should all be better informed about the arguments for and against cloning, so he posts An Exchange on Cloning. The exchange takes place between an atheist lexivore and a Catholic MD/PhD student.

+ Crusader of Justice takes another look at the popular phrase from a few years ago in WWJD. Is this the right question? Read on for answers . . .

+ Quo Vadis offers an exceptionally good analysis of the utilitarianism in our culture and its effects in Utilitaria. He includes discussion on embryonic stem cell research, cloning, abortion, contraception and more – a must read.

+ From the Anchor Hold put sage wisdom (and three years of experience) online in The Lessons of this Blog’s Beginnings. Happy birthday to you! And bloggers should read the post . . .

+ Notes extends a few thoughts about the sexual abuse scandal the Church recently faced in And he took them up in his arms. It is based on comments in a St. Blogs Parish Hall post and makes some interesting points.

And this blog submits Is the Catholic Church the Anti-Christ? Inquiring minds want to know. Many of us have heard this statement, this post examines Scripture to find the truth.

Hope you have enjoyed the Carnival!

God bless,
Jay

Catholic teaching regarding communion often provokes opposition, confusion, or outright resentment among protestants. There are many different aspects of the Eucharist that provoke such reactions, but one of the most common is the concept of the “real presence”. As a former protestant, I guess I should be able to sympathize with common protestant sentiment in this regard. But the sentiment is actually quite difficult for me to understand. Even as a protestant, I accepted the idea that Christ could be and was present in communion. I must admit that some of this acceptance came out of my background.

As a “PK” in the late 70’s to early 80’s, I grew up with a basic understanding of “sacraments”. As a protestant, I knew that there were only two sacraments: baptism and communion. Over time, my dad moved down a more fundamentalist path, gradually rejecting the idea of “sacraments” (I think). Actually I am not entirely clear what path he took and why because we never discussed the issue. But my own early upbringing was never unseated, and I never rejected the idea that Christ had left certain “sacraments” for the church. Among these was “communion”. And if communion was a “sacrament”, it must be something more than just a symbol. In the first place, evangelicals and fundamentals generally dislike symbols as a rule of thumb. Second, the idea of placing any sort of theological emphasis on a symbol was more distasteful. And finally, we did have symbols that were “okay”, like the fish on the back of the car (now he’s often eating a Darwin fish!), little dove logos, and, of course, the cross. Yet none of these symbols could be considered “sacraments”. So obviously communion and baptism had to have some sort of power that was more than merely symbolic.

When I went to college and attended church for the first time as an adult, I ended up at a Lutheran congregation. This was an odd place for an evangelical like me, especially considering the proximity of Lutheranism to Catholicism, the more liturgical service (though not strictly practiced at this congregation), the infant baptism, etc. However, during Bible classes, I had no problem accepting the Lutheran doctrine of the real presence, known as “consubstantiation”. In short, this meant that the bread and wine were not replaced by Christ’s body and blood, but that the elements were joined by Christ’s body and blood. The prefix “con” meaning to join, compared with the Catholic dogma of “transubstantiation” where the prefix “trans” indicates a transformation. In either case, both doctrines accept the true presence of Christ’s body and blood in the elements.

Some of you who know my conversion experience know that the final protestant congregation to which I belonged (a fundamentalist denomination called “Calvary Chapel”) practically drove me into the arms of the Church by its casual neglect of communion. Though some of my reaction was driven by my experiences and education as described above, a lot of it was based on Scripture as well. And after my family and I joined the Catholic Church, I came to understand just how Scriptural the centrality of the Eucharist was.

I felt a need to address this topic due to several comments that have been made by some of you alleging that the Catholic Church is the antichrist. It is hard for me to imagine how any "thinking" human being with the slightest knowledge of Sacred Scripture could make such an allegation, yet the fact remains. Sadly, even in our present times many Protestants and members of various sects (Seventh Day Adventists, Jehovah Witnesses, etc) believe that the Catholic Church is the antichrist. Hopefully, this article will provide clarity as to how this claim is false and biblically unsound. In the Book of Revelations we read:

And the beast was given a mouth uttering haughty and blasphemous words, and it was allowed to exercise authority for forty-two months; it opened its mouth to utter blasphemies against God, blaspheming his name and his dwelling, that is, those who dwell in heaven. Also it was allowed to make war on the saints and to conquer them. And authority was given it over every tribe and people and tongue and nation, and all who dwell on earth will worship it, every one whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb that was slain. (Rev 13:5-8)

Many of our separated brethren claim that this represents the Catholic Church due to her "universality" and due to the false concept that Catholics worship, in some way, some person other than Jesus Christ. The fact that the Catholic Church is "universal" or in practically every country on the face of the earth doesn't prove that she is the antichrist. Sacred Scripture doesn't specify that "universality" is the telling sign of the antichrist. Secondly, the argument that Catholics worship any one other than Almighty God is also erroneous, as any person who possesses any knowledge of what the Catholic Church actually believes and teaches is well aware of.

Since the 1960’s, American Culture has been struggling with the notion of “free love” that has been translated into “free sex” by today’s Americans. Simply put, this notion suggests that sex is merely an act between two people that has no future consequences or ramifications.

The notion is wrong on several points. Even our personal experiences tell us that sex is much more than a singular act. Sex binds us emotionally to our partner in ways more complex than the simple physical binding that occurs during the sexual act. As Pope John Paul II used to point out, sex is a promise of love in physical acts, rather than words. Sex is a complete giving of yourself to the other person, which is why it is sinful when it occurs outside of marriage (only in marriage have the partners given the promise of permanent love that makes sex the complete act of that love).

In today’s world we have magazines elevating serial seducers to the level of a god. Men who sleep with a different woman each night are not viewed as if they have a psychological problem that makes them view women as sexual objects; rather they are viewed as the true measure of a man. This is far from the reality and these articles ignore the intense loneliness of these men (and women, of course) and the selfishness necessary to debase not only the other, but also yourself, in this way.

In some ways, protestant churches have accepted the notion of “free love.” They have accepted contraception as if the will of God was determined by the majority of His self-professed followers. Some have okayed abortion – both contraception and abortion are requirements of a culture that preaches “free love,” since they are necessary to get away from the realities of the sexual act (it is so powerful that it can produce the fruit of love – a child shared by two people). Many of these churches have accepted remarriage after divorce as if it were a natural dogma of life. It is only the Catholic church that sticks with the traditions of the last 2,000 years and says “No” to divorce, contraception, abortion, and free love.

In order to remove the cancer of “free love” as a personal creed from our society, we need to get back to preaching about marriage. In other words, we must show individuals that there is another option out there: marriage to a spouse you love that can never be broken up by anyone. A marriage so strong that you give everything to your spouse, which means no more contraception. A marriage that is based on the Truth that God put into our very souls.

To preach that we must live it first. So love your wife, love you kids, stop using contraception, and then tell others how they can have what you have - through Christ.

God bless,
Jay

First things first, Joe's grandfather passed away this week - please pray for his soul and for God to comfort his family. This is one of the many reasons posting has been light this week.

Second, the newest Catholic Carnival is now up. Take a minute to check it out.

God bless,
Jay

PS - if you believe prayer for the dead is wrong, read this: Should we Pray for the Dead?

It amazes me what passes for journalism these days. Tonight I’m watching an episode of 20/20 that questions whether Jesus really rose from the dead. These so-called men of God are suggesting that Jesus didn’t physically rise from the dead. It was metaphysical, they suggest, Jesus became the equivalent of a ghost.

Is this true? Absolutely not. And if you believe this, you do not believe the Bible. Period.

Biblically, what happened is telling. When Jesus was arrested, all of his followers fled. John followed, but at a distance. Let me repeat that: all of the disciples fled. These aren’t men who totally, completely believe – they fled from men arresting God, who could have easily protected them. Then, after His crucifixion, they basically remained in hiding. Doing nothing. Then Christ appeared to them after being raised from the dead. Was it a physical resurrection?

John 26:24-29. Now Thomas, one of the twelve, called the Twin, was not with them when Jesus came. So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord.” But he said to them, “Unless I see in his hands the print of the nails and place my finger in the mark of the nails, and place my hand in his side, I will not believe.” Eight days later, his disciples were again in the house, and Thomas was with them. The doors were shut, but Jesus came and stood among them, and said “Peace be with you.” Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand and place it in my side; do not be faithless, but believing.” Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!” Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe.”

Here in the passage, we have Jesus suggesting His resurrection was physical: Thomas could stick his finger in Jesus’ wounds. The book of Acts takes the proof even further when the disciples who fled earlier were suddenly completely unafraid. So faithful now, that all but John suffered martyrdom for their beliefs. In other words, their lives radically changed once they saw the risen Christ. Would they do this without a resurrection? Could a ghostly Christ allow Thomas to feel His wounds?

If you believe that Christ wasn’t physically resurrected, you obviously believe the Bible is also in error or that Christ was lying. If you believe the Bible, particularly the Gospels and Acts, then you believe Christ physically rose from the dead. We believe that Christ was physically resurrected and that we will be physically resurrected. Yes, we will have glorified bodies, but they are still our bodies – the same ones we sin in today. As Jesus told Thomas, “do not be faithless, but believing.” And don’t believe anyone who purports to follow Christ and then ignores basic tenants of Christian belief. If Christ wasn’t physically raised from the dead, then our faith is in vain.

God bless,
Jay

Go see Catholic Carnival XXX: Pentecost and unOrdinary Time at Veritas. Another great roundup of Catholic posts on various topics. It's worth a few minutes of your time.

God bless,
Jay

The Anglican church has just issued a new document that agrees with Catholic teaching on Mary. Some quotes from the article:

In the passage likely to cause most dissent, the document says the infallible dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption - the teachings that Mary was herself conceived "without sin" and that on death she was "assumed" body and soul into Heaven - are "consonant with the teaching of the Scriptures".

Remember, the Anglican church is one of the original protestant churches (one of the first to break off from the true church). Perhaps it just takes almost 500 years to search the Scriptures and realize the reality of the Catholic position? After all, protestant churches in the US (which are significantly younger than the Anglican church) are now beginning to appreciate Mary much more. Another quote:

It [the document] states that there is "no continuing theological reason for ecclesial division" over the role of the Virgin Mary. "We do not consider the practice of asking Mary and the saints to pray for us as communion dividing," it says. The document also describes private devotions inspired by apparitions of Mary as "acceptable".

Interesting - another move in the direction of a unified Church, which is what Christ prayed for . . .

God bless,
Jay

Catholic morality is unquestionably good for society in practical terms. To non-Catholics, this may sound outrageous, but it is absolutely true – after all, Catholic morality is defined by God, rather than an individual person. So, I thought I would point out the clear benefits of a society abiding by the Catholic teaching. I obviously can’t cover every aspect, so I’ll just point out a few:

MORAL TEACHING: Birth Control is Sin
Practically, this is a slam dunk – even if you don’t like it. Let’s think of some of the practical realities of not having birth control available:

• Less adultery. There is a much greater chance that you’ll get caught!
  
• Less pre-marital sex. Serious consequences for this type of sin.
  
• A new appreciation for the reproductive mystery of women.
  

I know what you’re saying: “Yeah, but that means more children!” We’re so scientific in our age that we miss the Biblical teaching that God and only God opens the womb. Children are always a blessing. So, if no birth control means more children, that must mean God wants to bless us with more children now, but we’re not open.


MORAL TEACHING: Divorce is Not Possible
The Church teaches that marriage is a single choice that binds us before God forever. No one can tear apart what God has bound together in effect. So, marriage would be a single choice you make in your life – if you decided to leave your spouse, you could never marry again. What are the ramifications:

• Marriage would be taken more seriously. No more getting married with the thought in mind that you can just divorce if it doesn’t work out.
  
• Couples would work harder at marriage. If it doesn’t work, you’re going to suffer – literally. So couples would be less willing to simply pack it in and leave.
  
• Leaving your family would be the last option – and another attractive person would not be the impetus for you to leave (you wouldn’t be able to marry that person).
  

MORAL TEACHING: Life has Value from the moment of Conception through Death
Many Christian churches teach some aspect of this, but most have begun to comprise with some aspects of it. This belief would have drastic consequences in American life and for the better:

• Abortion would be made illegal. Thank God – why should anyone be able to kill another person?
  
• Euthanasia would be stopped. This provides even the elderly with a chance to come back to Jesus Christ. Everyone agrees suicide should be illegal for teenagers, why should it be okay for the elderly? They need God just as much.
  
• Embryonic Stem Cell research would go the way of the dinosaur. Thank God.
  
• The Death Penalty would be eradicated. Catholics agree that the state can impose the death penalty, but argue that we shouldn’t: this gives the worst sinners an opportunity to come back to Christ. In our day and age, we have the capacity to keep them in jail for life, while giving them the option of hearing the Good News.
  

MORAL TEACHING: We are called to Serve
Catholics have always lead the way in serving society and individuals, from starting hospitals and colleges to soup kitchens and homeless shelters. Imagine the power of a society convicted by this need to serve . . .

This is just a quick sampling of how a societal acceptance of Catholic teaching could change the world. It seems a dream, but it is possible for this to happen. Believe it or not, previous generations of the world have been completely under the thumb of an untruth, and Truth will always prevail. Much prayer is needed, but the fight has already been won! May Catholic teaching fill our lives with Love.

God bless,
Jay

Prompted by the continual insistance by one of our "separated" brothers in Christ that it is wrong to ask the saints to pray for us, I have decided it worthwhile to post an explanation of why we, as Catholics, pray to the saints. This explanation is taken from Catholic Answers, an outstanding apologetics organization.

Praying to the Saints

The historic Christian practice of asking our departed brothers and sisters in Christ—the saints—for their intercession has come under attack in the last few hundred years. Though the practice dates to the earliest days of Christianity and is shared by Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, the other Eastern Christians, and even some Anglicans—meaning that all-told it is shared by more than three quarters of the Christians on earth—it still comes under heavy attack from many within the Protestant movement that started in the sixteenth century.

Can They Hear Us?

One charge made against it is that the saints in heaven cannot even hear our prayers, making it useless to ask for their intercession. However, this is not true. As Scripture indicates, those in heaven are aware of the prayers of those on earth. This can be seen, for example, in Revelation 5:8, where John depicts the saints in heaven offering our prayers to God under the form of "golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints." But if the saints in heaven are offering our prayers to God, then they must be aware of our prayers. They are aware of our petitions and present them to God by interceding for us.

Some might try to argue that in this passage the prayers being offered were not addressed to the saints in heaven, but directly to God. Yet this argument would only strengthen the fact that those in heaven can hear our prayers, for then the saints would be aware of our prayers even when they are not directed to them!

In any event, it is clear from Revelation 5:8 that the saints in heaven do actively intercede for us. We are explicitly told by John that the incense they offer to God are the prayers of the saints. Prayers are not physical things and cannot be physically offered to God. Thus the saints in heaven are offering our prayers to God mentally. In other words, they are interceding.

For those unfamiliar, the Catholic Carnival is a roundup of various articles on Catholic blogs. It typically covers a wide range of topics - this week even more than normal. So stop by and visit the 29th Catholic Carnival. You're sure to find something interesting!

God bless,
Jay

Ridley Scott’s newest epic, Kingdom of Heaven tackles the Crusades but ignores the real history in order to get his opinion across. So we get an epic movie filled with falsehoods and half-truths with one general goal in mind: Sir Ridley wants to make faithful figures on both sides look like the bad guys (in other words “religion is bad” – Mr. Scott is a self-described agnostic).

The movie is likely to be huge, so it’s important to understand what the Crusades were in case someone asks. The Catholic Encyclopedia online has an excellent overview of the Crusades here for a detailed look. I’ll summarize here from my own studies and link to some additional articles.

To understand the Crusades, you must understand some history. From the time Islam was born, Muslims began attacking and conquering Christian cities. Within Islam there is a strong belief that although you can practice other non-Islamic religions, every state should be Islamic in nature. Thus Catholic lands were a target of Islamic warriors (remember: there were no protestants at this time – the Catholic Church was the only Christian church). Areas such as Egypt were majority Catholic (hard to believe today) and were taken over by Muslims. The First Crusade began when the Emperor of Constantinople sent a request for help to the Churches in Europe. The Pope called for all good Christians to fight in order to stop the Muslim forces (which were continuing to attack). This article on the Crusades (by a history professor) includes Pope Urban II’s hopes:

How does a man love according to divine precept his neighbor as himself when, knowing that his Christian brothers in faith and in name are held by the perfidious Muslims in strict confinement and weighed down by the yoke of heaviest servitude, he does not devote himself to the task of freeing them? ...Is it by chance that you do not know that many thousands of Christians are bound in slavery and imprisoned by the Muslims, tortured with innumerable torments?

And thus began the Crusades, which continued through the fifteenth century in one form or another. These were Christian men seeking to help their fellow Christians as well as stop the “Moors” from taking over all of Europe and freeing the Holy Land.

What do the Crusades mean for us? I thought this was a particularly beneficial point from this article on Kingdom of Heaven:

It takes no great counter-factual leap to see what would have happened if Crusaders had not fought back. Gibbon for once got it right when he imagined a Muslim England where "the Koran would now be taught in the schools of Oxford, and her pulpits might demonstrate to a circumcised people the sanctity and truth of the revelation of Mahomet".

By the way, the article includes a review.

Were their atrocities committed during the Crusades? Yes, two in particular against Jews that were heinous. However, in both cases Church leaders went over and beyond to stop these acts. Overall, the Crusades help save Christian civilization from being overtaken by Islam, despite what you might have heard.

There is much historical information on the Crusades available. Archbishop Chaput of Denver recently pointed out that Christians have an obligation to keep the true facts of the Crusades alive. We are constantly fed this nonsense of the Crusades being Christian aggression against a peaceful enemy. Actually, the Muslims believed they were in a jihad against all of Christianity and without the Crusades it’s hard to imagine a Christian Europe today.

So, before you go see Kingdom of Heaven (if you must), at least read about the real history. Then read some reviews by Catholics. That way you’ll at least be unfazed by the falsehoods in the movie.

God bless,
Jay

PS - Hat Tip to The Curt Jester for the Chaput article.

This week’s Carnival including selected quotations from each entry.

+ Veritas takes a look at Altered Nuclear Transfer (ANT):

Altered nuclear transfer is a proposed offered by Stanford prof William Hurlbut as a way to break the embryonic stem cell research (ESCR) impasse. The problem with ESCR is, of course, that research with great potential with regard to various diseases involves the killing of human beings at the embryonic stage. Hurlbut seeks to do an end run around the impasse by using genetic engineering to create entities with embryonic stem cells which are not actually human embryos.

Is it what it seems to be?

+ A Penitent Blogger reflects on religious liberty in Martyrdom by Relativism:

Relativism is actually the enemy of religious liberty by making everything subjective and detaching it from the reality that exists beyond ourselves, including God. Relativism thus attacks the very foundation of liberty. Religious liberty based on relativism is no longer a quest for truth or a reaching out to the Creator, but rather a barely-masked worship of self and an alienation from anything that is outside our own skulls.

+ Notes developed an applet that includes the name of our new pope in several languages in PAPA BENEDICTVS XVI. My favorites?

Papież Benedykt XVI (Polish)
Pop Benedict XVI (Tok Pisin)
Kumukauoha Penekiko XVI (Hawaiian)
[ed: Oh, and of course] Papst Benedikt XVI (German)

+ CowPi Journal introduces the Paperclip Campaign:

This week is the national week for the Days of Remembrance for the victims of the Holocaust. As a way to remember them, and to remember all victims of terrorism and hate crimes, wear a paperclip on your collar this week!

Why paperclips? He explains in the post . . .

+ HerbEly examines why Pope Benedict XVI chose his name in Civilizing the Barbarians:

Barbarians, in this case, are persons who cannot conduct a rational discourse in ethics. Without ethical discourse, governing becomes simply an exercise in political power.

+ Dunmoose the Ageless gives us Lectio Divina, a reflection based on the book of Baruch:

Is this "choosing wisdom" a one-shot deal or is it made on a day-by-day, hour-by-hour, minute-by-minute basis?

A fascinating question.

+ HMS Blog examines our role in cooperating with Jesus’ promise of the Holy Spirit in "ANOTHER ADVOCATE ... THE SPIRIT OF TRUTH":

We must also continually accept and cooperate with the Spirit through our way of life. Thus, Jesus speaks to his disciples about the importance of the commandments. St. Peter also considers the meaning of "life in the Spirit." Like Jesus Christ himself, we must always say and do what is good, even when threatened with suffering. We must persevere in showing the fullness of love for God and for our neighbor.

There’s more – go read it.

+ Crusader of Justice examines morals and humanity in Moral Logic:

The moral law is not, however, ultimately based on the times, but on human nature. The essentials of the moral law were not changed by God because human nature itself, in particular the laws governing it, did not change with Christ. To argue otherwise is to say that God was deceiving people by giving them a moral code not in harmony with human nature.

Excellent examination of why morality is taught by the Church.

+ Fides, Spes, Caritas asks why we want “strict constructionist” judges when we wouldn’t apply this to the Ten Commandments in Strict Constructionism:

The very nature of the Catholic Church, and of Christianity itself really, is opposed to a strict constructionist mentality. The proof, of course, is in the pudding: if Christians were strict constructionists, no Christians would exist, because strict constructionism when applied to the law of the Old Covenant absolutely excludes the possibility of Christianity as we have it today.

I do think the analogy of comparing the Ten Commandments and the Constitution is lacking – we have an infallible interpreter of Scripture after all – but he asks an interesting question.

+ Living Catholicism asks An Interesting Question about the Local Parish:

I understand that the homily is not the reason for the mass or the reason we attend mass. However, I do have four small children that will have to listen week in and week out to a priest teaching something that doesn’t resemble Catholic thought. And then, I’ll have to explain each week to my children why the priest was wrong and what the Church actually teaches . . . What would you do in this situation?

+ And this blog submits The Rosary and Matthew 6:7:

So is the Rosary, altough repetitious and formal, a prayer full of "empty phrases" and one that attempts to draw God's attention due to it's lengthiness? Absolutely not. The prayers of the Rosary are full of meaning and devotion, they are not empty, most of them are specifically scriptural.

A later addition:
+ Be Here Mondays explores whether or not the Church should welcome dissent or dissenters in Dissenters in the Church:

The Church is not bound to honor dissenters as dissenters, any more than it is bound to honor adulterers as adulterers. Dissent is no more a Catholic virtue than adultery. Why, when you are presented with an ancient, unchanging, unambiguous teaching, do you think you are within your rights to dissent from it — and suffer no consequences?

I enjoyed reading all of the posts, so I hope you enjoy them as well!

God bless,
Jay

In most of my discussions with various Protestants and members of other religions the topic that inevitably comes up is Confession. Many think that Confession is some kind of ritualistic practice that the Catholic Church uses to magically forgive sins regardless of the individual's sincerity and/or conversion. This is simply not true. Yes, any Catholic can celebrate this God-given sacrament, but the effect of the sacrament depends on the individual approaching Confession with a contrite heart and a religious disposition. In order for us to fully understand Confession we need to understand what the Catholic Church actually teaches about it. So let us look at what the Catechism states about this sacrament:

ARTICLE 4: THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE AND RECONCILIATION

1422 "Those who approach the sacrament of Penance obtain pardon from God's mercy for the offense committed against him, and are, at the same time, reconciled with the Church which they have wounded by their sins and which by charity, by example, and by prayer labors for their conversion."4

I. WHAT IS THIS SACRAMENT CALLED?

1423 It is called the sacrament of conversion because it makes sacramentally present Jesus' call to conversion, the first step in returning to the Father5 from whom one has strayed by sin.

It is called the sacrament of Penance, since it consecrates the Christian sinner's personal and ecclesial steps of conversion, penance, and satisfaction.

1424 It is called the sacrament of confession, since the disclosure or confession of sins to a priest is an essential element of this sacrament. In a profound sense it is also a "confession" - acknowledgment and praise - of the holiness of God and of his mercy toward sinful man.

It is called the sacrament of forgiveness, since by the priest's sacramental absolution God grants the penitent "pardon and peace."6

It is called the sacrament of Reconciliation, because it imparts to the sinner the live of God who reconciles: "Be reconciled to God."7 He who lives by God's merciful love is ready to respond to the Lord's call: "Go; first be reconciled to your brother."8