July 2006 Archives

I recently was asked this in an email exchange and thought I would elaborate on my answer in a post. Generally speaking, we can confess our sins directly to God. However in doing so we miss out on some of the benefits that sacramental confession brings.

When Was Confession Invented, Anyway?
The Catholic understanding of going to a priest for Confession was actually “invented” by Jesus Christ Himself while on earth. Near the end of His ministry, Jesus took the apostles aside:

John 20:19-23. On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the doors being shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.” When he had said this, he showed them his hands and His side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord. Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.” And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”

With the protestant mindset, this is nonsensical. Without a sacramental confession, Jesus basically gave them nothing. Or He gave all of us the ability not only to forgive the sins of others, but to retain them as well. Either way it doesn’t make sense why Jesus performs this act at such an important moment in Scripture and in His ministry.

But the Catholic understanding fits perfectly. Jesus called His priests aside and gave them power to forgive or retain sins in sacramental confession. It would not be possible for the priests to decide whether to forgive or retain sins without hearing what those sins were. In practical terms, Jesus’ words require the Catholic confession in order to make sense. Which means as Catholics we go to confession as Jesus chose for us to. The apostles began forgiving sins – see 1 Corinthians 5:3, where St. Paul explains that he has already “judged” another’s sin. In 2 Corinthians 2:10 he further explains that he forgives the sins of those that the Corinthians forgive.

Moving forward in the Church there are numerous instances of Christians explaining or defending confession over the years. So confession was Jesus’ preferred way of asking forgiveness, so why would you do it another way?

What are the Benefits of Confession?
The biggest benefit of Confession comes from the Biblical text itself: when we go to confession we can know with certainty that we are forgiven. Jesus gave his priests the power to forgive sins, so they can forgive our sins. Of course, Jesus is actually the one forgiving our sins, however the priest acts in persona Christi and uses the power Jesus gave them to forgive our sins. As a protestant you can hope that you are forgiven for your sins, but never fully know.

In addition Catholics can receive and perform penance, which removes the temporal punishment for sin. In particular this is important for mortal sins, which require satisfaction to be forgiven. The understanding of penance requires a deeper analysis of the issue than I will take up here, but in a future article I will address it. Catholics also receive additional graces to help them avoid future sin through the sacrament that cannot be obtained outside of it.

Finally there are other non-obvious benefits to confession. For example our humility is improved by requiring us to go to a priest and openly confess our sins (I know personally this has helped me to avoid sin!). Also we receive sound spiritual advice from the priest on avoiding temptations and improving our lives – the benefit of a psychologist with the power to forgive. This seems like a side benefit, but it is very important. As fallible humans we can convince ourselves of all kinds of things. For example, you can justify your sins by developing excuses. Priests, through the power God gave them, can help us to see through our pride and denial to the root of the problem. They can help you to understand the reason why you are sinning and give you practical advice for avoiding it. This is no mere trifle, it is a huge benefit that helps you on your road to heaven.

Confession is for all of us
From my point of view the biggest issues are (a) Jesus wanted us to do it this way; (b) we know we are forgiven; and (c) we receive additional grace to help us avoid sin in the future. If Jesus instructs us to do something a certain way, how can we be too arrogant to follow? If Christ told us to do something a certain way, we can rightly assume that He had a good reason for it.

God bless,
Jay

Don't miss this week's Catholic Carnival. It's hosted by a first-time host: Alabama Improper. Pretty interesting.

God bless,
Jay

It's always sad to see someone choose popularity, publicity, and/or money over their faith - and that's what Charlotte Church just did. She was raised Catholic, but apparently feels the need for more press. Not only did she refer to Pope Benedict as a 'Nazi,' she also:

Miss Church, dubbed the ‘voice of an angel’ before she turned her talents to popular music, also dressed up as a nun and pretended to hallucinate while eating communion wafers imprinted with Ecstasy smiling faces.

She smashed open a statue of the Virgin Mary to reveal a can of cider inside, said she worshipped St Fortified Wine, and stuck chewing gum on a statue of the child Jesus.

All in the name of publicizing her new television show. The "voice of an angel" chooses to act like a fallen one, apparently.

I think most of the time when we choose the world over God it comes in small choices, little decisions over time that put God second and our wants first. However sometimes - this is especially true with celebrity - we can watch one seemingly fateful decision to mock God in order to gain our wants. Female singers seem especially prone to try and follow Madonna's example on this, which is regrettable.

We can pray for her and stop buying her music. But we also need to pray for a society in which a young girl feels this is the best way to the top.

God bless,
Jay

Deo Omnis Gloria is three years old today.Yippee! It was started on the Feast Day of St. James the Greater who was one of the "Sons of Thunder." I think the apostle must be praying for us since Deo Omnis Gloria has made it this long.

Hopefully we have many years left. Don't worry - our posts should pick up in the next week!

God bless,
Jay

When I first read this USA Today article I had to double check and make sure it wasn't from The Onion. The main lady in the article claims to have "proof" that she is a direct descendant of Mary Magdalene and Jesus Christ. She not only believes The Da Vinci Code, she believes she is The Da Vinci Code. Unreal. The article does point out that she won't offer any evidence:

So far, McGowan is offering only her word about her lineage and only hints at her proof. In addition to the visions, she says, she has discovered that her family is related to an ancient French lineage that traces its roots to Jesus and Mary Magdalene's descendants. Legend holds that Mary Magdalene settled in France after Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection. "That's all I'm prepared to say right now," McGowan says. Some members of her family, she explains, want her to respect their privacy and not discuss it.

But what really got to me were some of the quotes:

[Trish] Todd [editor in chief at Touchstone, a division of Simon & Schuster] says she has no problem believing McGowan's claim that she descends from a marriage between Jesus and Mary Magdalene. "Yes, I believe her. Her passion and her mission are so strong, how can she not be?"

Wow. So apparently anyone with a strong "passion and . . . mission" must be true. What a sucker. How did Trish get a paying job? There's "no hard evidence" according to USA Today except her word, but that's enough for some, apparently. Don't miss this one either:

Kirshbaum [former CEO of Time Warner Books] believes McGowan when she says she is a descendant of Mary Magdalene. "I feel she's entirely credible," says Kirshbaum, who read The Expected One after McGowan self-published it last year. "She spent 20 years of her life researching this subject. You have to give her any benefit of the doubt because she's totally rational. I believe her absolutely. She had total credibility with me from the very beginning."

This guy uses rationality as the judge of Truth. If they are rational, they must be true. The ignorance in that statement is astounding.

I run into two types of people. The first group says, "No one is idiotic enough to believe The Da Vinci Code is real. It's just fiction." The other group says, "Well, he does make some good points." They're both wrong, obviously, but I'm surprised at how deeply some people believe this trash anyway. I've seen more and more good arguments that destroy everything Dan Brown put in his book. But people are still suckered in (it's our job to clear the air, so to speak). I did enjoy this part of the article:

"A historian simply has to look at what evidence there is," says Bart Ehrman, chairman of the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill and author of Peter, Paul & Mary Magdalene: The Followers of Jesus in History and Legend (Oxford University, $25). "You can survey anyone who is a scholar of early Christianity and they will all tell you the same thing. It's completely bogus."

Straight to the point. This is a load of garbage. Please don't believe it. Please do some homework before you get suckered in. Please.

God bless,
Jay

This week's Catholic Carnival is now up here, so take a minute and enjoy it. I think everyone can get something from one of the various topics discussed in the Carnival.

God bless,
Jay

To many in the world today the idea of the Catholic priesthood is foreign. Many mistakenly believe that the priesthood is some elite society within the Catholic Church that rules the Church in a tyrannical way or for personal gain. Yet this is farther from the truth than most realize. Sure, we all have witnessed scandalous behavior by priests. Certainly there are some who use their priesthood to obtain comfort and a life of prestige. Absolutely there are priests who preach and teach things contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church. Yet these are the exception not the rule. It is important for us to remember that priests are men and being men are just as susceptible to sin as we are; even Jesus Christ had Judas. Yet the true priest is another Christ to the world. He lays down his life out of love for God and for his fellow brothers and sisters. In this article I would like to contemplate the priesthood in both the Old and New Covenants. What purpose does it serve? Why even have "priesthood" to begin with?

The priesthood from the beginning has been shrouded in mystery. In Genesis 14:18-19 we read:

And Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine; he was priest of God Most High. And he blessed him and said, “Blessed be Abram by God Most High, maker of heaven and earth; and blessed be God Most High, who has delivered your enemies into your hand!”

Prior to this passage we find no reference to Melchizedek or to a priesthood of God Most High. Yet clearly it was preexistent to Abraham and, in a certain sense, greater than Abraham for Melchizedek blesses him and in return is given a tenth of everything Abraham owns. The Navarre Bible commentary has this to say about Melchizedek and his priesthood:

Melchizedek is regarded as having a priesthood earlier and greater than that of Aaron; cf. when the King Messiah is praised: “You are a priest for ever, after the order of Melchizedek” (Ps 110:4). In the New Testament, the mysterious priestly figure of Melchizedek is portrayed as a type of the priesthood of Christ, for Christ is truly the eternal priest even though he (like Melchizedek) does not belong to the priesthood of Aaron. “For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him, and to him apportioned a tenth part of everything. He is first, by translation of his name, king of righteousness, and then he is also king of Salem, that is, king of peace. He is without father or mother or genealogy, and has neither beginning of days nor end of life, but resembling the Son of God he continues a priest forever” (Heb 7:1-3).

In the light of all this, Christian liturgy has seen a prefiguring of the Eucharist in the bread and wine offered by Melchizedek (cf. Roman Missal, Eucharistic Prayer I); tradition sees him as a figure of priests of the New Law.
- The Navarre Bible: Pentateuch, Texts and Commentaries, p. 94.

Yet while the priesthood of Melchizedek was earlier and greater than that of Aaron, Aaron’s priesthood was necessitated by God and, like the priesthood of Melchizedek, a prefiguring of the priesthood of the New Covenant (cf. CCC, 1541). This understanding of the priesthood of the Old Covenant is brilliantly laid out in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

1539 The chosen people was constituted by God as "a kingdom of priests and a holy nation."6 But within the people of Israel, God chose one of the twelve tribes, that of Levi, and set it apart for liturgical service; God himself is its inheritance.7 A special rite consecrated the beginnings of the priesthood of the Old Covenant. The priests are "appointed to act on behalf of men in relation to God, to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins."8

1540 Instituted to proclaim the Word of God and to restore communion with God by sacrifices and prayer,9 this priesthood nevertheless remains powerless to bring about salvation, needing to repeat its sacrifices ceaselessly and being unable to achieve a definitive sanctification, which only the sacrifice of Christ would accomplish.10
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8 Heb 5:1; cf. Ex 29:1-30; Lev 8.
9 Cf. Mal 2:7-9.
10 Cf. Heb 5:3; 7:27; 101-4.

I used to work at a Catholic monastery and I can remember people coming in and returning a ten cent plastic rosary that they stole 20 years ago. Their conscience had burned to the point that they kept the rosary all that time and actually returned it in order to find peace and reconciliation.

Apparently something similar on a larger scaled happed last week. Some stolen items were returned 25 years after being stolen from a church. The guy obviously felt bad from the start, since he kept them rather than selling the goods (as I'm sure he intended to). It's amazing the power of a good conscience to keep one from evil.

My goal is to raise children with a conscience this powerful - a conscience that does great good in their lives. I think all Christian faiths should make it a top focus to form a good conscience and teaching chiildren right and wrong from an early age. It has the ability to transform our society for good.

What a fascinating story.

God bless,
Jay

Catholic pro-life groups are now under attack. And their enemy is as deceptive as a snake: Catholics for Free Choice. It's important to note that Catholiics for Free Choice aren't really Catholic, they are simply pro-abortion liberals who are attempting to hide under the mantle of Catholicism. They are attacking pro-life groups through legal means in an attempt to silence them.

Their first attack was on Catholic Answers, who publishes the excellent Catholic Voter's Guide. Fortunately, they were able to re-create their business as another form of charity that solved the problem (at least the way I understand it). The next target is Priests for Life, which is another exceptional pro-life group. How pathetic is that? If you really believe what you preach, why not try to win through argument? Instead these guys try legal means to silence the opposition. Free speech, apparently, only applies to liberal interest groups.

If you able, please try to donate to Priests for Life and Catholic Answers. Both are exceptional groups in the fight to save innocent children. And remember: Catholics for Free Choice are not Catholic and, as we now see, not for free choice (they're for abortion).

God bless,
Jay

We've argued time and again that protestantism introduced relativism into Christianity. Suddenly you are the pope and can decide (without the help of decades of theological study) what is right, what is wrong, and what the Bible really says. If you reject the Church's authority, how long until you also reject parts of Biblical authority? This article is the perfect example.

This guy - who calls himself "Reverend" argues that "Jesus never said one word about homosexuality, never said one word about civil marriage or abortion." Never mind what the rest of the Bible teaches, this guy has decided that the only part of the Bible that matters is direct quotes from Jesus. He doesn't actually know what Jesus said about homosexuality, abortion, or civil marriage, since the Bible didn't capture all of Jesus' words (the Bible specifically states this). He's arguing that since Jesus' words in the Bible don't specifically condemn abortion, homosexuality, and civil marriage then they are okay. Never mind what the rest of the Bible states plainly!

This is relativism taken to the next level. He decides which parts of the Bible are valid and fit his personal worldview. He is no longer Pope, he has made himself God. What a shame - and what a source of confusion for non-Christians. This is why Jesus prayed that we would be "one" and why Jesus set up an institutional Church to lead the faithful.

God bless,
Jay

You may or may not have realized that religious leaders from a wide variety of religions came together in Moscow at the World Summit of Religious Leaders, which ended today. It's extremely difficult to get consensus in this type of forum, especially since non-Christian religions were included which don't necessarily uphold Christian values. But they did issue a final statement, which had some remarkable consensus.

The biggest surprise for me was the condemnation of abortion in an indirect way:

It is, therefore, necessary to assert constantly the highest value of human life from conception to the final breath and natural death. Thus the family needs support today, for it is the privileged context for cultivating the free, intelligent and moral personality. We call for more assistance to the family, particularly in its formative mission by national and international law and the practice of states, various public institutions, religious communities and the mass media. Linked to this is our concern for the status of women and children in many societies. Promoting the unique character of every person, women and men, children and the elderly, as well as people with disabilities, we see that they all have their special gifts. Protecting them from violence and exploitation is a common task for the authorities, the society, and religious communities.

That's a pretty powerful statement coming from this body of religious leaders (let's hope it has an impact that United Nations and Amnesty International, in particular.

They also focused on religious freedom in the world and our individual rights to that freedom. It's worth taking a few moments and reading the full text of the final declaration keeping in mind that it's not a perfect document from a strictly Christian point of view, but it is a very helpful one if organizations like the United Nations take it seriously.

God bless,
Jay

Be sure to check out this week's Catholic Carnival at Cow Pi Journal. It's another good roundup of Catholic thought from all over the blogosphere.

God bless,
Jay

In our modern age, the balance between "church and state", "faith and politics", or "Christianity and citizenship" can seem difficult. Whether it be laws that our contrary to the Faith or immoral leaders, we often find ourselves in positions that challenge our faithfulness and witness to Jesus Christ. As a country, we have had multiple scandals involving presidents, senators, and political representatives at all levels of our government system. Laws legalizing abortion and, in some states, assisted suicide have been passed. Healthcare and poverty continue to be a problem. Yet we have also seen many positive things through the work of the State. So what's a Catholic to do? What's the balance? How can we be faithful Catholics and Americans?

I believe that for a clear answer we must turn to the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

The duties of citizens

2238 Those subject to authority should regard those in authority as representatives of God, who has made them stewards of his gifts:43 "Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution. . . . Live as free men, yet without using your freedom as a pretext for evil; but live as servants of God."44 Their loyal collaboration includes the right, and at times the duty, to voice their just criticisms of that which seems harmful to the dignity of persons and to the good of the community.

2239 It is the duty of citizens to contribute along with the civil authorities to the good of society in a spirit of truth, justice, solidarity, and freedom. The love and service of one's country follow from the duty of gratitude and belong to the order of charity. Submission to legitimate authorities and service of the common good require citizens to fulfill their roles in the life of the political community.

2240 Submission to authority and co-responsibility for the common good make it morally obligatory to pay taxes, to exercise the right to vote, and to defend one's country:

Pay to all of them their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.45

[Christians] reside in their own nations, but as resident aliens. They participate in all things as citizens and endure all things as foreigners. . . . They obey the established laws and their way of life surpasses the laws. . . . So noble is the position to which God has assigned them that they are not allowed to desert it.46

The Apostle exhorts us to offer prayers and thanksgiving for kings and all who exercise authority, "that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life, godly and respectful in every way."47

2241 The more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin. Public authorities should see to it that the natural right is respected that places a guest under the protection of those who receive him.

Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible, may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants' duties toward their country of adoption. Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens.

2242 The citizen is obliged in conscience not to follow the directives of civil authorities when they are contrary to the demands of the moral order, to the fundamental rights of persons or the teachings of the Gospel. Refusing obedience to civil authorities, when their demands are contrary to those of an upright conscience, finds its justification in the distinction between serving God and serving the political community. "Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's."48 "We must obey God rather than men":49

When citizens are under the oppression of a public authority which oversteps its competence, they should still not refuse to give or to do what is objectively demanded of them by the common good; but it is legitimate for them to defend their own rights and those of their fellow citizens against the abuse of this authority within the limits of the natural law and the Law of the Gospel.50

2243 Armed resistance to oppression by political authority is not legitimate, unless all the following conditions are met: 1) there is certain, grave, and prolonged violation of fundamental rights; 2) all other means of redress have been exhausted; 3) such resistance will not provoke worse disorders; 4) there is well-founded hope of success; and 5) it is impossible reasonably to foresee any better solution.

The political community and the Church

2244 Every institution is inspired, at least implicitly, by a vision of man and his destiny, from which it derives the point of reference for its judgment, its hierarchy of values, its line of conduct. Most societies have formed their institutions in the recognition of a certain preeminence of man over things. Only the divinely revealed religion has clearly recognized man's origin and destiny in God, the Creator and Redeemer. The Church invites political authorities to measure their judgments and decisions against this inspired truth about God and man:

Societies not recognizing this vision or rejecting it in the name of their independence from God are brought to seek their criteria and goal in themselves or to borrow them from some ideology. Since they do not admit that one can defend an objective criterion of good and evil, they arrogate to themselves an explicit or implicit totalitarian power over man and his destiny, as history shows.51

2245 The Church, because of her commission and competence, is not to be confused in any way with the political community. She is both the sign and the safeguard of the transcendent character of the human person. "The Church respects and encourages the political freedom and responsibility of the citizen."52

2246 It is a part of the Church's mission "to pass moral judgments even in matters related to politics, whenever the fundamental rights of man or the salvation of souls requires it. The means, the only means, she may use are those which are in accord with the Gospel and the welfare of all men according to the diversity of times and circumstances."53

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
43 Cf. Rom 13:1-2.
44 1 Pet 2:13,16.
45 Rom 13:7.
46 Ad Diognetum 5,5 and 10; 6,10:PG 2,1173 and 1176.
47 1 Tim 2:2.
48 Mt 22:21.
49 Acts 5:29.
50 GS 74 § 5.
51 Cf. CA 45; 46.
52 GS 76 § 3.
53 GS 76 § 5.

Although there is much more in terms of the individual Christian's moral responsibilities to the good of society, I will allow this to suffice for now. If you would like to learn more about the relationship between the Church and State please take the time to review the index of the Catechism for the proper sections.

On this great day of celebration let us recall the many blessings we have received as Americans and let us continue to prayer and work for peace in our country and in the world. May we truly be faithful citizens, but, above all, faithful Catholics.

In Christ,
Joe

Last week Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo called for excommunication of scientists involved in embryonic stem cell research. Excommunication for those not aware is not widely used in the Church today, but can occur automatically for those involved in certain activities. For example, doctors who perform an abortion essentially excommunicate themselves by performing the procedure (as do the women receiving the abortion). The Cardinal is calling for a similar situation for those scientists involved in embryonic stem cell research, which destroys the child just as an abortion does.

Christian teaching has held that life begins at conception (not implantation, not birth). So an egg and sperm combine to form a baby that simply has not been born. This embryo has the same right to life that we each have after birth. Killing the embryo through abortion is murder just as killing a week old baby would be. There is no difference between abortion and embryonic stem cell research, so I believe the Cardinal is absolutely correct.

Does this really matter in practical terms? I'm not sure. Frankly the Church has been very clear on the problems and sin involved in embryonic stem cell research, so the Catholic scientists performing this action probably aren't serious about their faith. However it does help the Church explain the seriousness of the action and clarify her understanding of the sin involved. In other words, it removes all excuses which might help some scientists to reconsider their actions and will help the Church explain more clearly her position.

Excommunication is the highest spiritual penalty the Church can attach to a sin. As the Encyclopedia of Catholic Doctrine notes:

As with all penalties in the Church, the purpose of an excommunication is "medicinal," that is, to bring about the repentance of the sinner. Repentance makes absolution from the excommunication possible (CCC 1463). If a person repents, the excommunication will always be lifted; but until this is done, he or she is barred from receiving even the sacrament of Penance and Reconciliation, and from all the other sacraments.

In other words, excommunication breaks your bonds to God and prevents you from receiving any of the sacraments until you repent of the sin. Other sins that incur automatic excommunication are apostasy, heresy, and the procuring or performing of an abortion or cooperation in an abortion that is necessary to its being performed. There are a variety of factors, such as ignorance, that may remove imputability.

There is a war in this world against life and it's good to see the Church again point out one of those attacks on life - the gift from God.

God bless,
Jay