Just got word that, following a meeting with AMU faculty members who expressed concern about the future of the institution, Fr. Joseph Fessio, SJ, was offered a position at AMU.
The new position is not provost but a triple position of theologian-in-residence, being a member of the theology faculty, and also head of the university’s abroad program.
Fr. Fessio has accepted.
Interestingly, he is also scheduled to be inducted into the Catholic education hall of fame.
A reader writes:
Can you invalidate a confession by not being specific enough in
confessing your sins?In particular, if you say "I read something I shouldn’t have" instead
of "I read a book with sexual material that I knew might or would be an
occasion of sin," have you actually confessed the sin?I have made several confessions like this, assuming it was okay, but
now I am suddenly not sure.
It is possible to invalidate a confession if one deliberately refuses to confess in adequate detail, however that does not apply in this case. I’ll explain why.
First, a word about what adequate detail is: We are expected–to the best of our reasonable ability–to confess our mortal sins in number (how many times you did it) and kind. Kind is where the question of specificity comes in, and the rule is that we are to confess specifically enough that anything that affects the species of the sin is mentioned.
To understand that, one needs to have a grasp of the difference between genus and species. Genus is the general category to which a sin belongs. Species is the variation that distinguishes one sin from others in the same general category.
For example, saying "I committed a sexual sin" would cover only the genus of the act but does not address the species of sexual sin that has been committed. One would thus need to say "I committed adultery" or "I committed fornication" or "I committed a homosexual act" or "I committed masturbation" or "I committed incest" or whatever the case may be. Adultery, fornication, homosexual acts, masturbation, incest, etc., are all the various species of sexual sin.
Now, because of the shame involved in confessing many of these things, penitents often use circumlocutions to convey the idea while blunting the sense of shame that is involved. For example, they may say, "I had impure thoughts" rather than "I wilfully engaged in sexual fantasies about someone I’m not married to." "Impure thoughts" is code for what they did, and priests understand what it means. Technically, your thoughts could be impure in all sorts of way not involving sex (i.e., they could be tainted, and thus not pure, by any kind of sin you wilfully entertained), but priests know people mean they entertained improper sexual thoughts when they say this.
The important thing is not the words that are used but that the priest understands the species of the sin that is being confessed. As long as he understands–or as long as you reasonably believe that he understands–then you have confessed adequately.
If you said something like "I read something I shouldn’t have" then priests are quite likely (given a knowledge of penitents and how often sex comes up in confession) that you were confessing deliberate exposure to materials that could produce sexual temptation. If someone says that they read something they shouldn’t have, and they’re too embarassed to say why they shouldn’t have read it, sex is going to be the first thing that suggests itself. Unless a priest knew that you were in the habit of reading things likely to produce grave temptations of some other nature, a normal priest is going to assume that you’re talking about sex.
If he has doubts about what you’re confessing then he should ask for a clarification, and in these cases it seems that the priests you confessed to didn’t ask, indicating that they understood your meaning.
It thus seems to me that "I read something I shouldn’t have" is basically the same kind of thing as "I need to confess impure thoughts." Neither is an explicit statement, but both are going to be understood by a confessor.
Even if they weren’t, though, you would not have invalidated the confession because you believed that you were adequately confessing. You therefore were not deliberately holding anything back that you knew you needed to confess. As long as that’s the case, your confession is formally integral (to use a bit of technical jargon that means you intended to make a complete confession, or one complete enough for validity) and the absolution will be valid.
20
CNS is reporting:
Curiosity about the New Testament figure of Judas and a feeling that his reputation as the worst sinner in history "isn’t fair, isn’t right" led British novelist Jeffrey Archer to attempt a new version of the story.
Archer, presenting "The Gospel According to Judas by Benjamin Iscariot" at a March 20 press conference in Rome, said he is a practicing Anglican who wanted his new book to be backed up by solid biblical scholarship.
So he convinced Father Francis J. Moloney, provincial of the Salesians in Australia and a former president of the Catholic Biblical Association of America, to collaborate.
Now, I don’t have a problem with someone writing a book called "The Gospel According to Judas" or writing novels about Judas or about Judas’s perceptions of Christ. I don’t even have a problem with someone who wants to present Judas as something other than the worst sinner in history–something that the Church doesn’t teach that he was. One could hold that Judas had diminished culpability for his sins and that someone else in history had a higher degree of culpability.
But I do have a problem with this:
Archer’s main thesis is that Judas tried to prevent Jesus’ arrest and execution by enlisting the help of a scribe to get Jesus out of Jerusalem and back to Galilee where the Romans supposedly would ignore him.
In the end, the scribe betrays Judas, which means Judas unwittingly betrays Jesus.
Both Archer and Father Moloney doubt that Judas committed suicide, a story recounted only in the Gospel of St. Matthew.
The Benjamin Iscariot in Archer’s title is Judas’ fictitious son, who — years after the death of Jesus — finds his father living in an ascetic community near the Dead Sea. His father reluctantly gives his version of what happened to Jesus and the son writes it down.
I’m sorry, but this is unacceptable on two grounds. First, it flatly contradicts the biblical accounts of Judas’ death. It would be one thing if the author made it clear that he was not writing about our universe and that he was dealing with a parallel Judas and what happened to him, but that’s not the case. The author and Fr. Moloney both cast doubt on the inspired text as it applies to our universe. This is an unacceptable misrepresentation of the facts of history. It’s not a case of them proposing a novel or unexpected way to harmonize the accounts of Judas’s death; it’s them flatly rejecting the biblical accounts.
Second, the author has fallen into the perennial trap of trying to exonerate Judas. That’s not the same thing as portraying him in a way that nuances his character and motives. It’s not the same thing as just saying "He may not have been the worst sinner in history." It’s flatly rejecting the betrayal that Judas performed. On this account, Judas didn’t betray Jesus; he was himself betrayed.
Sorry, but that’s not going to cut it. Not if we’re being asked to entertain what might have been the case with the Judas in our universe.
I don’t know what it is with authors (and filmmakers) who want to rehabilitate Judas in this fashion.
But I suspect it’s this: They themselves have an uneasy conscience.
They themselves feel that they have betrayed Christ (as have we all by our sins), but rather than throw themselves on Christ’s mercy and accepting his grace, they want to rationalize or excuse their sins and so–using the character of Judas as a psychological surrogate for themselves–they rationalize and excuse his in fictional form.
The underlying psychological message they’re trying to give themselves is: Hey, if Judas didn’t really betray Christ–if he was a tragic victim of circumstance–then that’s what I am, too. I haven’t really betrayed him. I’m just a victim of fate, too, and I’m not really responsible for what I’ve done.
By their lives of Judas you shall know them.
A reader writes:
My good friend’s daughter goes to Ave Maria in Fl. She received this email from Fr Fessio:
To the Ave Maria University community:
I have been asked to resign my position as provost and leave the campus immediately.
I will miss Ave Maria and the many of you whom I hold dear.
Fr. Joseph Fessio, S.J.
HERE’S AN INTERESTING STORY ABOUT DOING CPR ON SOMEONE SUFFERING FROM CARDIAC FAILURE.
It turns out that the use of mouth-to-mouth respiration as part of keeping someone alive may actually decrease their chance fo survival. The more important thing is doing chest comrpessions to keep their blood moving. Taking time away from doing chest compressions to try to force air into their lungs may do more harm than good. It also may deter people from helping them in the first place, since many have an aversion to mouth-to-mouth.
Something to think about in case you’re ever in an emergency situation in which someone needs CPR.
A reader writes:
I have spent many years as an active Christian in a Protestant church, but about
2 yrs ago I began reading the early church fathers and
suddenly my eyes were opened to the Truth of
Catholicism! I have been studying ever since and am
involved with several online Catholic groups.My question is:
Since I am anxious to enter the RCC and I have studied
extensively, is there a reason/need for me to go
through almost 18months (including Inquiry) of RCIA? I
have another year to go in this particular RCIA but I
am struggling with some things. The candidates and
catechumens are doing the exact same program, no
consideration is made for previous Christian life
whatsoever (our priest has delegated RCIA to the
facilitators and will not intervene). The candidates
are required to participate in the scrutnies etc. I
know that it says in the RCIA manual (thanks to your
website :o)) that candidates do not participate in
scrutnies and sent the info along to my facilitators
and they said "technically scrutnies do not apply to
you but we have decided that everyone will participate
in them". I endured sitting through a movie entitled
"The Fourth Wiseman" which was RCIA’s version of
sharing the gospel.Should I submit to everything this RCIA demands out of
obedience to the church or should I go across town to
another RCIA who is willing to look at each person’s
history and take that into account? I talked with this
other RCIA and they are eager to help me enter the RCC
sooner than NEXT Easter Vigil.I want to be in full communion with the Church and I
hunger for the Eucharist! I do not think I am
demanding anything the Church does not make allowances
for but I do not want to be rebellious in any way.Could you please help me with this?
Until you mentioned that there is a nearby RCIA program that would be willing to help facilitate your entrance into the Church by actually obeying the National Statues for the Catechumenate–which require that people not all be treated like catechumens–I was going to suggest that you hold your nose, grit your teeth, and tough it out. In other words, just do whatever you have to to get into the Church, which is the important thing.
That’s what I had to do. I had an awful RCIA program, and the parish I was attending refused to comply with Church law, which requires that candidates for reception into the Church who have already lived lives as catechized Christians are to be sorted out from the uncatechized and be given abbreviated periods of formation and then received into the Church apart from Easter Vigil.
Unfortunately, I was in a town where there were only two Catholic churches, and I didn’t have another alternative.
Neither do many people.
But if you are in the fortunate situation of having another RCIA program available to you that actually will follow the law then by all means make use of it!
There is zero problem with obedience on your part regarding this. You have no obligation whatsoever to stick with an RCIA program that is refusing to follow the law if you have the alternative of one that is. The obedience problem isn’t yours; it’s theirs.
If I were in your shoes, I’d count myself fortunate at having made the discovery of the other option and then waste no time in following it up.
Welcome home!
One big clue to the pope’s thinking came in his 1997 book, titled “Milestones: Memoirs 1927-1977” and written when he was Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, in which he sharply criticized the drastic manner in which Pope Paul VI reformed the Mass in 1969.
…
But the picture is not so clear-cut. As Cardinal Ratzinger, he said he considered the new missal a “real improvement” in many respects, and that the introduction of local languages made sense.
In one revealing speech to Catholic traditionalists in 1998, he said bluntly that the old “low Mass,” with its whispered prayers at the altar and its silent congregation, “was not what liturgy should be, which is why it was not painful for many people” when it disappeared.
The most important thing, he said at that time, was to make sure that the liturgy does not divide the Catholic community.
With that in mind, knowledgeable Vatican sources say the pope’s new document will no doubt aim to lessen pastoral tension between the Tridentine rite and the new Mass, rather than hand out a victory to traditionalists.
CNS on the Motu Proprio: a link and commentary
What came to my mind here was there is also a need for those who have rejected our tradition and traditional forms to likewise demonstrate their own good will and a hermeneutic of continuity. Let’s be clear and fair, there has been a hermeneutic of rupture which has banished most anything deemed “pre-conciliar” and this is as problematic as the sort of traditionalist who has rejected anything and everything “post-conciliar.”
Further, not all “traditionalists” take on this approach of rupture. If they are simply attached to the treasures of the classical liturgy, desirous of true liturgical reform in the light of both the Council and our tradition of organic development, all the while never questioning the validity of the modern Roman rite, but calling for a reform of the reform with regard to it, then it seems to me that they have nothing to justify and join the ranks of our Holy Father as a Cardinal in this set of ideas. In that regard, I would propose they form a part of the true liturgical centre and mainstream —- just as do those who focus upon the reform of the reform, but who are supportive of the availability of the classical liturgy, provided we do not take an immobiliistic and triumphalistic approach to it, or one which rejects the Council — not as popular opinion may go of course, but as the mind of the Church may go, as seen in the light of the Conciliar documents and our tradition.
As for the extremes, the road to a change of heart and mind is not a one way street as this article might make one think; it is rather and precisely a two-way street.
Of course a lot of people have been wondering where the Tridentine Mass liberalization motu proprio is and why it hasn’t come out.
We know with a high degree of confidence that the documents was drafted–in fact, that it’s been through several drafts–and that B16 has been favorably disposed to issuing it (or it wouldn’t have been drafted in the first place).
But where is it?
Some have speculated that it was delayed by the negative reaction of the French episcopate–or other episcopates–and that this negative reaction may derail it altogether.
Maybe.
Although maybe B16 is just letting the bishops have their say before he does what he planned to do all along.
Myself, I have a different speculation about why it hasn’t come out. The desire for greater consultation with the bishops may be part of it, but I suspect that there is a different factor that has been delaying the motu proprio: the delay of the apostolic exhortation.
The Holy See sequences the release of major documents so that each one can make an impact in the press and then be absorbed by the public (or at least the relevant sections of the public). They don’t want the impact of major documents diluted by having them step on each other.
You could see a bit of that happening last week when–although the big news was the release of the apostolic exhortation–the headlines in many places were stolen by attention to a document of much lesser importance: the warning about some books by an individual theologian.
The latter–because it involved controversy–got more press in some circles, though it was much less important in and of itself.
Now you can imagine what would happen if they released the motu proprio before or (as some suggested) at the same time as the apostolic exhortation. Since the motu proprio will be controversial, the press surrounding it would totally overwhelm the apostolic exhortation.
The smart things for B16 to do–and he is a very smart man–would be to issue the apostolic exhortation first, to lead with the document that clearly shows he is in harmony with the liturgical renewal that followed the Second Vatican Council (even if it needs some course corrections) and then issue the motu proprio liberalizing the celebration of the Tridentine Mass.
The inordinate delays with the apostolic exhortation (which B16 complained about himself, albeit politely) thus strikes me as a likely reason for the delay in the release of the motu proprio.
Or that’s my theory.
Okay, you won’t be able to do it any time soon.
I mean, Virgin Galactic and its competitors haven’t gotten off the groundplanet yet, and there’s all that terraforming that would have to be done, but it looks like the raw materials are there for a totally tubular Martian vacation.
We’ve known for some time that Mars has water on it, but until recently we haven’t known how much.
Now there are reports that Mars’ polar caps–if melted–would provide enough liquid water to cover the planet with an ocean 36 feet deep.
That would be if the planet’s surface were totally smooth, which it isn’t, of course, so what you’d get is patches of land poking up through the water–islands and stuff (Olympus Mons would probably be a continent)–and that means just one thing . . .
BEACHES!
Lots and lots of red sand beaches.
Oh, and there’s one other thing you’ll need for really good surfing on a terraformed Mars: a big moon to cause tidal forces. Phobos and Deimos just won’t cut it. So we’ll need to tow into orbit a really big hunk o’rock that some other planet isn’t using. Maybe one of the Jovian sattelites or something.
Just think of the interesting wave dynamics that would be possible with Mars’ lower gravity. I’m imagining really big curls or something.
In the meantime,
P.S. The story also says that they’ve detected traces of possible liquid water on Mars right now–a possible habitat for microbial life, so be sure and get your shots before you go.
This weekend I got a piece of e-mail that I thought was going to be an attempt at phishing, and I opened it expecting to quickly hit the "Report Phishing" doo-dad in Gmail.
But it didn’t contain a phishing appeal in the text of the e-mail itself. (You know, all those Nigeria/wherever variants on The Spanish Prisoner). Instead, it contained a link to a blog on Blogspot.
Ostensibly, the e-mail was from the pastor of a church in another country who had set up a blog and was inviting me to read it, but the e-mail still threw off phishing vibes to me even though there was no appeal for money in the e-mail itself.
So I clicked on the link and took a look at the blog.
I found what appeared to be the blog of a pastor in another country. Yet the way the thing was written and the way it re-used photographs kept my spider sense tingling and, sure enough, sandwiched in to various blog posts were appeals for financial support, and something in my brain said: "Two-step phishing routine; phishers may start sending out innocent-seeming e-mails as bait to get people to sites where traditional phishing is carried out."
Now, I don’t know for sure that this wasn’t legit. It may be that this really as the blog of a pastor in another country, who is innocently asking for donations.
Which is why I’m not naming the site. I don’t want to falsely accuse someone who is legitimate.
But just coincidentally, later that day, I happened to run into
THIS STORY ABOUT BLOGSPOT BEING INFECTED WITH PHISHING AND MALWARE-SPREADING BLOGS.
Be careful out there, folks.
Catholic News Service ran an interesting piece interviewing Cardinal Levada that provided a behind-the-scenes glimpse of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, including a look at the mechanics of how it goes about its work.
It’s well worth reading, so
GET THE STORY.