Category: Sacraments

A reader writes:

I recall you reaffirming a week or two ago that the Church considers Protestant marriages valid, even in Protestant sects that recognize divorce and remarriage.  Do you feel that at some time in the future the Church may reconsider this?  I know that some consider the existance of a prenuptual agreement grounds to invalidate a marriage, since it means both spouses are acknowledging the possibility that the marriage may not be permanent.  Would the Church ever consider the fact that Protestants and at least some Evangelicals, by reason of recognizing divorce and remarriage, transmit this feeling to the couple being married, thus creating the circumstances for invalidity?

When people say that the Church recognizes Protestant marriages, it doesn’t mean that all of them individually are valid. It means that it extends to them the same favor of the law that it extends to Catholic marriage: In other words, it assumes that they are valid until it is proven otherwise.

The presence of a pre-nuptial agreement does not of itself invalidate a marriage (Protestant or Catholic), though depending on what the pre-nuptual agreement says or the circumstances surrounding the agreement, it may show that one or both of the parties had an understanding of marriage sufficiently deficient that it prevented them from exchanging valid matrimonial consent, meaning that the marriage was invalid.

Because the Protestant understanding differs significantly from the Church’s understanding, there may (or may not) be a higher ratio of invalid Protstant marriages, but this is not certain. There are no statistics on this, so it would be conjecture to speculate one way or the other.

Nevertheless, many Protestant marriages, when examined by a Catholic marriage tribunal, are found to be invalid. This may occur, for example, when one of the parties to such a marriage has divorced and remarried and now wishes to enter the Catholic Church.

Thus the reader continues:

The reason I ask this is that I know of a number of non-Catholics who have divorced and remarried, and are now to one extent or another attracted by the Catholic faith.  Their stumbling block is a fear that their previous marriages do not meet the requirements for invalidity.  Without knowing all the facts, and with them not having consulted a priest, I recognize that it is almost impossible to offer an accurate opinion; nevertheless I do sympathize with their situation.  Having said that, I also feel a degree of discomfort in continuing to try to bring them closer to the Church if I’m only leading them down a path toward disappointment.  (I know they could, for example, choose to live in a chaste relationship, but for various reasons I don’t think that’s likely in these cases.)

At any rate, I’d welcome your advice as to how to take such situations into account when evangelizing to non-Catholics.

First, let’s deal with your on role here: You should evangelize these folks. Sharing the fullness of the teachings of Christ, which means sharing the Catholic faith, is what we are to be about. We cannot say that merely because someone is a fellow Christian he has "enough" of Christ’s teachings and should be left alone. Christ wants him to have all his teachings, and it is our job to try to facilitate that–in ways that are appropriate and charitable and not overly pushy. (Being overly pushy pushes people away from Christ.)

It is true that, if they move closer to the Church and have their marital statuses examined that it may be found they are in an invalid marriage at present. This may mean painful choices, such as living as brother and sister with the present "spouse," but God will give them the grace to deal with those choices–and he will give it to them at the time they need it. You should do your part (evangelize) and allow God to help them with the parts that you cannot help. Don’t worry. He’s got enough grace for everyone, and he will give it to them generously as they respond to him.

This then is the key to their situation: They should strive not to allow their worries about their marital situation to stand as a barrier between them and the true faith. They should pursue the truth, wherever it leads them, and trust God to give them the grace they need at the points they need it.

He will.

He’s promised to do so:

God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your
strength, but with the temptation will also provide the way of escape,
that you may be able to endure it [1 Cor. 10:13].

A reader writes:

I recall you reaffirming a week or two ago that the Church considers Protestant marriages valid, even in Protestant sects that recognize divorce and remarriage.  Do you feel that at some time in the future the Church may reconsider this?  I know that some consider the existance of a prenuptual agreement grounds to invalidate a marriage, since it means both spouses are acknowledging the possibility that the marriage may not be permanent.  Would the Church ever consider the fact that Protestants and at least some Evangelicals, by reason of recognizing divorce and remarriage, transmit this feeling to the couple being married, thus creating the circumstances for invalidity?

When people say that the Church recognizes Protestant marriages, it doesn’t mean that all of them individually are valid. It means that it extends to them the same favor of the law that it extends to Catholic marriage: In other words, it assumes that they are valid until it is proven otherwise.

The presence of a pre-nuptial agreement does not of itself invalidate a marriage (Protestant or Catholic), though depending on what the pre-nuptual agreement says or the circumstances surrounding the agreement, it may show that one or both of the parties had an understanding of marriage sufficiently deficient that it prevented them from exchanging valid matrimonial consent, meaning that the marriage was invalid.

Because the Protestant understanding differs significantly from the Church’s understanding, there may (or may not) be a higher ratio of invalid Protstant marriages, but this is not certain. There are no statistics on this, so it would be conjecture to speculate one way or the other.

Nevertheless, many Protestant marriages, when examined by a Catholic marriage tribunal, are found to be invalid. This may occur, for example, when one of the parties to such a marriage has divorced and remarried and now wishes to enter the Catholic Church.

Thus the reader continues:

The reason I ask this is that I know of a number of non-Catholics who have divorced and remarried, and are now to one extent or another attracted by the Catholic faith.  Their stumbling block is a fear that their previous marriages do not meet the requirements for invalidity.  Without knowing all the facts, and with them not having consulted a priest, I recognize that it is almost impossible to offer an accurate opinion; nevertheless I do sympathize with their situation.  Having said that, I also feel a degree of discomfort in continuing to try to bring them closer to the Church if I’m only leading them down a path toward disappointment.  (I know they could, for example, choose to live in a chaste relationship, but for various reasons I don’t think that’s likely in these cases.)

At any rate, I’d welcome your advice as to how to take such situations into account when evangelizing to non-Catholics.

First, let’s deal with your on role here: You should evangelize these folks. Sharing the fullness of the teachings of Christ, which means sharing the Catholic faith, is what we are to be about. We cannot say that merely because someone is a fellow Christian he has "enough" of Christ’s teachings and should be left alone. Christ wants him to have all his teachings, and it is our job to try to facilitate that–in ways that are appropriate and charitable and not overly pushy. (Being overly pushy pushes people away from Christ.)

It is true that, if they move closer to the Church and have their marital statuses examined that it may be found they are in an invalid marriage at present. This may mean painful choices, such as living as brother and sister with the present "spouse," but God will give them the grace to deal with those choices–and he will give it to them at the time they need it. You should do your part (evangelize) and allow God to help them with the parts that you cannot help. Don’t worry. He’s got enough grace for everyone, and he will give it to them generously as they respond to him.

This then is the key to their situation: They should strive not to allow their worries about their marital situation to stand as a barrier between them and the true faith. They should pursue the truth, wherever it leads them, and trust God to give them the grace they need at the points they need it.

He will.

He’s promised to do so:

God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your

strength, but with the temptation will also provide the way of escape,

that you may be able to endure it [1 Cor. 10:13].

A reader writes:

Can my wife or myself go to confession?
Our story is this, both are cradle Catholics. I left the Church when I was seventeen-eighteen for Evangelical Protestantism and return to the Catholic church about one year ago, thanks be to God.  Married for the first time in my twenties, then divorced ten years later. I have two children from that marriage. I was married in a Protestant church. My wife was also married ten years then divorced but my wife was married in a Catholic church, no children from that marriage. This is our second marriage. We were married in a Lutheran church four years ago. We both have yet to start the paper work towards an annulment.

First, let me assure of you of God’s love for you and your wife. No matter what has led to your current situation, it remains true that God loves the both of you and sent his Son to die for all of us–y’all included–so that we could go to heaven.

Also, no matter what has led up to the present situation, it can be rectified. What needs to be done to rectify it is something that depends on the facts of the situation, but God always make possible a way for us to get right with him. This is as true of the two of you as it is everyone else.

With that in mind, let’s look at the situation at hand, and I’ll offer what help I can.

First, regarding your prior marriage, it is difficult to tell what the Church would judge its status to be. There is a signficant likelihood that the Church would presume (until the contrary is proven) that your first marriage is valid. Whether the Church would presume this depends on a number of factors that would be rather complex to go into here (e.g., whether in becoming an Evangelical you defected from the Catholic Church by a formal act, what year your first marriage occurred in). Assume for the moment, though, that the Church would presume your first marriage valid.

Before looking at your wife’s first marriage, I should also say a couple of things about the children that came from your first marriage:

First, the fact that children came from this marriage does not affect its validity. Marriages are either valid at the time they are contracted or they are not. If children arrive later this does not reach back in time and cause a marriage to become valid.

Second, even if your first marriage was invalid, this does not make your children illegitimate. Legitimacy is a category of human law used for determining things like inheritance rights, and under Church law the children of any putatively valid marriage are considered legitimate. For practical purposes, this means that if either your or your spouse entered the marriage in good faith–even if it was invalid–then the children are legitimate. You should not worry yourself on this point. (Also, even if they weren’t legitimate, that would only tell us something about their status under human law. It says nothing about how God views them. God loves them just as much as he does you or your wife or the pope.)

Regarding your current wife’s first marriage, it sounds as if the Church will regard it as valid until the contrary is proven.

It thus looks as if the Church may presume that your first marriage was valid and that it probably would presume that your current wife’s first marriage was valid. This means that the Church must assume that the two of you were not free to marry each other when you attempted to contract marriage four years ago.

If, however, the two of you were not free to marry each other because one or both of you were bound to previous spouses then your case falls into the situation Jesus warned about:

Whoever divorces his wife and marries another,  commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her  husband and marries another, she commits adultery [Mark 10:11-12].

The adultery in this case refers to the sexual relations that are assumed to be occurring between two persons living as husband and wife.

If two people are having adulterous relations then they are not able to go to confession for that reason until the situation is repaired.

This can occur a number of ways.

One way is to apply for annulments and, if necessary, having your current marriage convalidated ("blessed"). At that point you would be regarded as married to each other and thus the relations you have would not be adulterous, meaning that you could go to confession and participate in the normal sacramental life of the Church.

Another way to repair the situation is to cease having the relations that put one in danger of violating Jesus’ command. In other words, to live as brother and sister until such time as one’s marital situation has been properly addressed. In that case there would be no barrier to one going to confession and participating in the sacramental life of the Church.

The reader continues:

I understand the importance of marriage and family but would like an explanation why divorce is treated as almost an unforgivable sin. Seems that murderers who repent can ask for forgiveness but not the divorced.

I am sorry for a failed marriage and divorce. But what is the status of our soul if we cannot go to confession?

First, regarding divorce as an "unforgivable sin." I understand why it may seem this way at the moment, but this is not the best way to look at the situation. The problem really is not the divorces. The Church recognizes that there are legitimate reasons why one may need to seek a civil divorce. In those cases a person does not sin in divorce. Even apart from those circumstances–which is to say, even when a divorce was sinful–divorce is as forgivable as any other sin in confession.

The thing that prevents one from going to confession is thus not the divorce, it having ongoing sexual relations that fall afoul of Jesus’ prohibition on remarriage following divorce. Adulterous relations are themselves as forgivable as any other sin in confession, but one must repent of them as one must repent of any other mortal sin that one wishes to be forgiven of. As long as they are ongoing, one has not repented of them, and so one could not be absolved of them in confession.

It is not the divorces in the past that pose a problem for going to confession, it is the sexual relations being had in the present between parties who were not free to marry each other.

Regarding the state of your souls in the present situation, this is something that ultimately only God can say. He alone has knowledge needed. No human being does, and so the Church does not presume to pass judgment on the state of your souls.

What it can do, and must do, as part of its pastoral responsibility, though, is to be frank with you about how your situation appears to square–or fail to square–with God’s law and to warn you of the need to rectify matters if there appears to be one. This is what the Church is doing by pointing to Christ’s teachings on marriage and the seriousness of engaging in what, at least from the facts at hand, appear to be adulterous relations.

The Church wants to do everything possible to help the two of you address the situation, which is why it makes available the annulment process to examine your first marriages to see if they were valid or not. It is why, assuming the two of you are free to marry, it makes available the possibility of having your present union convalidated ("blessed"). And it is why, even before such eventualities, the Church offers sacramental absolution in confession if you choose to live as brother and sister until your marital situation can be rectified.

The Church is thus doing its best to both hold out the message of God’s grace while also holding fast to his teachings regarding marriage.

More can be said about all this, but let me add two points that I hope will help.

First, I strongly recommend that you get a copy of Ed Peters’ book

ANNULMENTS AND THE CATHOLIC CHURCH: STRAIGHT ANSWERS TO TOUGH QUESTIONS.

It’s the best book on the subject, bar none, and I’m sure it could help you get a better handle on the situation.

Second, because folks always wonder about what would happen if their lives were suddenly in jeopardy. In this situation there would be three things to do: (1) Resolve to do whatever is necessary to rectify your situation and live as God wants should you survive (i.e., repent), (2) implore God’s mercy and make an act of perfect contrition (i.e., turn from one’s sins based on love of God–a consideration of God’s infinite goodness being sufficient), and (3) go to confession if there is time for this before the end.

If one repents of one’s sins and makes an act of perfect contrition, one is reconciled with God even before one is able to go to confession. If there is time for a priest to be summoned and one can go to confession, the sacrament completes the work already done in one’s heart through repentance and perfect contrition.

Having said all that, let me once again reassure you of God’s love and the Church’s love. It is wonderful that you have already responded to God’s grace to the extent that you have and have resumed life as a Catholic. God will help bring you the rest of the way that needs to be gone.  I’ve tried to be straight with you about the situation, and I hope the answers help. Please do not hesitate to write back if I can be of service.

A reader writes:

Can my wife or myself go to confession?

Our story is this, both are cradle Catholics. I left the Church when I was seventeen-eighteen for Evangelical Protestantism and return to the Catholic church about one year ago, thanks be to God.  Married for the first time in my twenties, then divorced ten years later. I have two children from that marriage. I was married in a Protestant church. My wife was also married ten years then divorced but my wife was married in a Catholic church, no children from that marriage. This is our second marriage. We were married in a Lutheran church four years ago. We both have yet to start the paper work towards an annulment.

First, let me assure of you of God’s love for you and your wife. No matter what has led to your current situation, it remains true that God loves the both of you and sent his Son to die for all of us–y’all included–so that we could go to heaven.

Also, no matter what has led up to the present situation, it can be rectified. What needs to be done to rectify it is something that depends on the facts of the situation, but God always make possible a way for us to get right with him. This is as true of the two of you as it is everyone else.

With that in mind, let’s look at the situation at hand, and I’ll offer what help I can.

First, regarding your prior marriage, it is difficult to tell what the Church would judge its status to be. There is a signficant likelihood that the Church would presume (until the contrary is proven) that your first marriage is valid. Whether the Church would presume this depends on a number of factors that would be rather complex to go into here (e.g., whether in becoming an Evangelical you defected from the Catholic Church by a formal act, what year your first marriage occurred in). Assume for the moment, though, that the Church would presume your first marriage valid.

Before looking at your wife’s first marriage, I should also say a couple of things about the children that came from your first marriage:

First, the fact that children came from this marriage does not affect its validity. Marriages are either valid at the time they are contracted or they are not. If children arrive later this does not reach back in time and cause a marriage to become valid.

Second, even if your first marriage was invalid, this does not make your children illegitimate. Legitimacy is a category of human law used for determining things like inheritance rights, and under Church law the children of any putatively valid marriage are considered legitimate. For practical purposes, this means that if either your or your spouse entered the marriage in good faith–even if it was invalid–then the children are legitimate. You should not worry yourself on this point. (Also, even if they weren’t legitimate, that would only tell us something about their status under human law. It says nothing about how God views them. God loves them just as much as he does you or your wife or the pope.)

Regarding your current wife’s first marriage, it sounds as if the Church will regard it as valid until the contrary is proven.

It thus looks as if the Church may presume that your first marriage was valid and that it probably would presume that your current wife’s first marriage was valid. This means that the Church must assume that the two of you were not free to marry each other when you attempted to contract marriage four years ago.

If, however, the two of you were not free to marry each other because one or both of you were bound to previous spouses then your case falls into the situation Jesus warned about:

Whoever divorces his wife and marries another,  commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her  husband and marries another, she commits adultery [Mark 10:11-12].

The adultery in this case refers to the sexual relations that are assumed to be occurring between two persons living as husband and wife.

If two people are having adulterous relations then they are not able to go to confession for that reason until the situation is repaired.

This can occur a number of ways.

One way is to apply for annulments and, if necessary, having your current marriage convalidated ("blessed"). At that point you would be regarded as married to each other and thus the relations you have would not be adulterous, meaning that you could go to confession and participate in the normal sacramental life of the Church.

Another way to repair the situation is to cease having the relations that put one in danger of violating Jesus’ command. In other words, to live as brother and sister until such time as one’s marital situation has been properly addressed. In that case there would be no barrier to one going to confession and participating in the sacramental life of the Church.

The reader continues:

I understand the importance of marriage and family but would like an explanation why divorce is treated as almost an unforgivable sin. Seems that murderers who repent can ask for forgiveness but not the divorced.

I am sorry for a failed marriage and divorce. But what is the status of our soul if we cannot go to confession?

First, regarding divorce as an "unforgivable sin." I understand why it may seem this way at the moment, but this is not the best way to look at the situation. The problem really is not the divorces. The Church recognizes that there are legitimate reasons why one may need to seek a civil divorce. In those cases a person does not sin in divorce. Even apart from those circumstances–which is to say, even when a divorce was sinful–divorce is as forgivable as any other sin in confession.

The thing that prevents one from going to confession is thus not the divorce, it having ongoing sexual relations that fall afoul of Jesus’ prohibition on remarriage following divorce. Adulterous relations are themselves as forgivable as any other sin in confession, but one must repent of them as one must repent of any other mortal sin that one wishes to be forgiven of. As long as they are ongoing, one has not repented of them, and so one could not be absolved of them in confession.

It is not the divorces in the past that pose a problem for going to confession, it is the sexual relations being had in the present between parties who were not free to marry each other.

Regarding the state of your souls in the present situation, this is something that ultimately only God can say. He alone has knowledge needed. No human being does, and so the Church does not presume to pass judgment on the state of your souls.

What it can do, and must do, as part of its pastoral responsibility, though, is to be frank with you about how your situation appears to square–or fail to square–with God’s law and to warn you of the need to rectify matters if there appears to be one. This is what the Church is doing by pointing to Christ’s teachings on marriage and the seriousness of engaging in what, at least from the facts at hand, appear to be adulterous relations.

The Church wants to do everything possible to help the two of you address the situation, which is why it makes available the annulment process to examine your first marriages to see if they were valid or not. It is why, assuming the two of you are free to marry, it makes available the possibility of having your present union convalidated ("blessed"). And it is why, even before such eventualities, the Church offers sacramental absolution in confession if you choose to live as brother and sister until your marital situation can be rectified.

The Church is thus doing its best to both hold out the message of God’s grace while also holding fast to his teachings regarding marriage.

More can be said about all this, but let me add two points that I hope will help.

First, I strongly recommend that you get a copy of Ed Peters’ book

ANNULMENTS AND THE CATHOLIC CHURCH: STRAIGHT ANSWERS TO TOUGH QUESTIONS.

It’s the best book on the subject, bar none, and I’m sure it could help you get a better handle on the situation.

Second, because folks always wonder about what would happen if their lives were suddenly in jeopardy. In this situation there would be three things to do: (1) Resolve to do whatever is necessary to rectify your situation and live as God wants should you survive (i.e., repent), (2) implore God’s mercy and make an act of perfect contrition (i.e., turn from one’s sins based on love of God–a consideration of God’s infinite goodness being sufficient), and (3) go to confession if there is time for this before the end.

If one repents of one’s sins and makes an act of perfect contrition, one is reconciled with God even before one is able to go to confession. If there is time for a priest to be summoned and one can go to confession, the sacrament completes the work already done in one’s heart through repentance and perfect contrition.

Having said all that, let me once again reassure you of God’s love and the Church’s love. It is wonderful that you have already responded to God’s grace to the extent that you have and have resumed life as a Catholic. God will help bring you the rest of the way that needs to be gone.  I’ve tried to be straight with you about the situation, and I hope the answers help. Please do not hesitate to write back if I can be of service.

A reader writes:

I went to confession today, and when the priest said the words of absolution
he left out the usual "from your sins."  So it was, instead, "I absolved you
in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit."  I take it this is
valid.  I’m just looking for confirmation on this. 

You are correct that this would be valid (unless the priest intended to absolve you of something other than your sins–e.g., ecclesiastical censures–though that’s not in view in this case).

Isn’t the required form
simply "I absolve thee" according to Trent?  Thanks for your help.

Trent references the words of absolution in passing but doens’t quote them completely. It says "I absolve thee, etc." In making these references, Trent is not attempting to specify the minimal form necessary for absolution. It is simply stressing that the absolution takes effect when the minister says the words that constitute its form. Part of the formula is provided simply to indicate when this occurs.

There is no single set of words that are necessary for validity in the case of this sacrament. Various formluas of absolution are used in different rites of the Church, though "I absolve you" is the one used in the Latin rite. It is valid as long as the priest intends to do what the Church does, even if he omits the object of absolution. His intent to do what the Church does–since the Church absolves sins in this sacrament–is sufficient.

20

A reader writes:

I think it’s canon 891 and 883 or there abouts, also CCC 1307 that talks to the Sacrament of Confirmaion.

It’s canon 891 that determines the age under universal law. (Canon 883 deals with another matters, and the CCC is not a legal text and so does not establish legal requirements.)

Here is what canon 891 provides:

The sacrament of confirmation is to be
conferred on the faithful at about the age of discretion unless the conference
of bishops has determined another age, or there is danger of death, or in the
judgment of the minister a grave cause suggests otherwise [SOURCE].

The reader asks:

Does the term "the age of discretion" as the reference point for receiving Confirmation mean that children should be confirmed at an early age (7 years old)?

Yes, as a general matter. (Compare CANON 11.)

How does that sync with many parish programs that have the child wait until a later age (teens in High School)?

See below.

Are they vaild programs?

Educational programs are not valid or invalid. I assume taht you mean: "Is it licit to administer the sacrament of confirmation to children only after they are in their teen years?" Yes, in the United States. See below.

 

Does the Church accually spell out a specific age for Confirmation?…in the Latin Rite?

No, it doesn’t.

The universal law of the Latin Church as found in the Code of Canon Law provides that the sacrament of confirmation, in general, be adminsitered at about the age of discretion, which is generally taken to be seven years old.

However, you will note that canon 891, quoted above, provides that the conference of bishops may determine a different age. In the United States, the conference of bishops has passed (and the Vatican has ratified) the following complementary norm:

The National Conference of Catholic Bishops, in accord with the
prescriptions of canon 891, hereby decrees that the Sacrament of
Confirmation in the Latin Rite shall be conferred between the age of
discretion and about sixteen years of age, within the limits determined
by the diocesan bishop and with regard for the legitimate exceptions
given in canon 891 [SOURCE].

So, presently in the United States, confirmation can be licitly administered at a wide variety of ages, dependent on the will of the diocesan bishop.

As an aside, it seems to me that this situation may not last. Given the current mobility of American society, folks move from one diocese to another all the time, making it very easy for individuals to "fall through the cracks" and not get confirmed. This creates a pastoral situation that may well be redressed by re-mandating a single age of confirmation at some point in the future.

A reader writes:

I’ve been asked to give a talk to a group of young adults about the Eucharist next month. I would like to use a sci-fi example to clarify the role played by the eucharistic species in the Real Presence.

It would go something like this: think of the eucharistic appearances as like a dimensional warp gate or power field which overcomes the spatial/dimensional distance between my body and Christ’s body. When my finger encounters this gate or window, it is actually touching the body of Christ, even though that body is a billion miles away / in a different universe / or whatever. But when the priest breaks the host, what he actually does is break the warp window in half: even though the window is in two pieces, the body with which it brings me into contact is still the same, unbroken body. (I think this is better than the old example of the mirror which is broken into a thousand pieces, yet each piece reflects the entire image.)

The problem is that I haven’t kept abreast of what’s happening in sci-fi. It would be great if I could relate this example to something specific people have seen on Star Trek or some other show lots of people watch.

You’re the only man I know who is thoroughly versed in both the Eucharist and Star Trek. ONLY YOU CAN HELP ME!

Oh, I’m sure many of the fine folks here at the blog could help, but I’ll be happy to.

You analogy is quite good and, actually, is one that I use all the time–particularly when explaining the Real Presence to children. It taps into an element of pop culture that almost everyone is aware of and that does, indeed, do a better job than the broken mirror analogy since one can really be present via a spacewarp (CHT to Einstein for this point) but one is not really present in a mirror.

What I’d suggest is that you tweak the language that you plan on using a little bit in order to avoid confusion. "Power field" describes something other than what you’re thinking of, and "dimensional warp gate," while it gestures at the idea, is inelegant. I would propose that you use the term "space warp." I’d also stay away from "wormhole" because it sounds bad and would also be misleading. I also wouldn’t use the bare term "warp" since in a Star Trek environment that might get people thinking about warp drive (which is absurd from a physics point of view). So I’d stick with "space warp."

I’d also be sure to throw in a qualifier that this may not be how God does it but it is a useful way of showing how what God does is possible.

I often present the analogy like this:

<me talking>When I was in the process of becoming Catholic, I had to grapple with issues like the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist and how that could be possible. As a science fan, I realized that there were all kinds of ways that God could choose to perform a miracle, so if I could think of at least one way that God could accomplish a particular thing in a scientific manner then God knew at least that way to do it and probably a lot more besides.

In the case of the Real Presence the issues to be solved are (a) how Jesus’ body can be present under the appearances of bread and wine when, plainly, the consecrated elements are much smaller than an adult human body, (b) how Jesus’ body can be present in more than one place at a time (i.e., in every host in the world), and (c) what happens when one of the consecrated elements is divided, as when a priest breaks a host or when one takes a sip of the Precious Blood.

Thinking about this in scientific terms, it seemed to me that all of these issues could be explained in terms of the warping of space. Einsteinian physics allows for the possibility of the bending and folding and other distortion of space such that two points can be connected or even made present to each other.

It thus seemed to me that it would be possible for God to achieve the above-mentioned effects if he warped space to do it. The accidents of bread and wine might then be seen as a space warp connecting to where Jesus’ body is located in heaven.

The shape and size of the consecrated elements do not have to match the shape and size of Jesus’ body because the two ends of a space warp do not have to have the same shape and size, making it possible for the whole of Jesus’ body to be present, in its entirety, in the consecrated elements without leaving any of the appearances unfilled, thus accomplishing effect (a).

The fact that he is present in all of the consecrated hosts in the world is similarly explained, as it just means that there are many space warps connecting to the location of his body in heaven, thus accomplishing effect (b).

An the fact that he remains present in his entirety even when the accidents of the consecrated elements are separated is also explainable in terms of space warping: It would just mean that the space warp has been divided when the accidents are divided, and so there are now two space warps where there was one before, thus accomplishing effect (c).

Now, in reality, God may not be doing it this way. He may be doing it in another way that is totally beyond the ability of human intellect to even grasp. We also have to be a little careful about talking about Jesus’ body in heaven as if it is currently extended in space, for it may not be. But this analogy shows that, even within the realm of human thought, it is possible to illustrate a means by which God could accomplish the effects that the faith teaches us that he does accomplish in the Eucharist.

Once we have shown that something is possible, it becomes entirely a matter of God’s choice whether he does it or not. Though some things may be hard or easy for humans because of our limited resources, this does not apply to God. All things are equally easy for God, because of his unlimited resources. Creating the universe is as easy for God as sending a gentle breeze. And so once we have shown that a particular type of miracle is possible, this means it is as easy for God as anything else and thus purely a matter of his choice whether he does it.</me talking>

One final tip I’d offer: I wouldn’t speak of touching the accidents as touching the Body of Christ. The Body of Christ is present, but it seems to me more proper to speak of touching the accidents rather than touching the Body of Christ directly.

Hope this helps!

A reader writes:

Prior to my Confirmation a year ago, I had not attended mass regularly until about 2 months before Confirmation. On the Saturday morning prior to Confirmation, I made my first confession in about 8 years. I was very nervous, and not entirely sure what I was doing, but I told the priest the sins that I remembered. After finishing my mental list, I ended with the word’s "And I am sorry."

Right after saying those words, I remembered another mortal sin that I had not listed, but the priest began to speak and I simply remained silent and let him talk. After hearing his advice, praying the Act of Contrition, and hearing him say the words of absolution, I left the confessional without mentioning what had come to mind. Based on your blog, you seem to know Canon law extremely well. Please tell me if this confession was valid.

Based on what you have said, it sounds as if it was.

What is required for the validity of confession is that we make what is known as a "formally complete" or "formally integral" confession. This means that we made a good faith effort to be complete and did not deliberately hold back something that we knew that we should confess.

Ideally, we also want to make a "materially complete" or "materially integral" confession, but often this is not possible due to one or a number of reasons, such as forgetfulness or uncertainty about what needs to be confessed.

There also are situations in which the standard moral theologians would recognize that an excusing cause from making a materially integral confession due to the interpersonal dynamic between the confessor and the penitent.

Once the confessor has taken control of the exchange there is psychological pressure on the penitent to keep his mouth shut and let the confessor talk. That’s part of the turn-taking behavior humans use to have conversations with each other (as opposed to monologue-ing), and it is reinforced in the confessional by the authority of the priest and the sacredness of the moment, and the feelings of humility and vulnerablity that the penitent has just generated in himself by confessing.

As a result, once the priest has started doing his thing, it can take extraordinary strength of resolve to interrupt him, stop him, and mention something that one has just remembered. The human thing to do is to simply let him finish.

Now here’s the deal: We are only called to participate in the sacraments "in a human manner" or in modo humano. We are not called upon (in non-emergency circumstances) to do anything extraordinary. The ordinary human thing is sufficient.

Therefore, if the priest has already taken control of the exchange and you suddenly remember something, there is not an obligation to confess it at that moment in order for the sacrament to be valid. If the priest gives you an opening, by all means do, of course, but if he does not then you have still made a formally integral confession in that you made a good faith effort to confess what you were supposed to, even though circumstances (your memory lapse couple with his taking control of the exchange) prevented you from making a materially integral one.

The thing to do is simply let him proceed and mention the unconfessed sin in your next confession–or the next one where you remember it and know you are obligated to confess it, at any rate.

Since you mention that this confession was preparatory for your confirmation, let me take a moment to reassure you about something else you may be wondering: Whether this confession was valid or not, your confirmation was valid. Being in a state of grace is needed for a confirmation to be licit (celebrated in conformity with the law) but it is not necessary for it to be valid (for it to imprint your soul, etc.). Therefore, even your confession had been invalid, your confirmation would still be valid.

It sound to me, though, that you made a good faith effort, based on what you knew and felt at the time, to confess what you were supposed to, and thus your confession would be valid.

20

A reader writes:

In the
Sacrament of Anointing of the Sick, it was my understanding that we are absolved
of our sins.  Now in the case of someone in a coma or in the case of Terri
Schiavo, who cannot make an oral confession, is this forgiveness obtained even
if the person was not repentant or did not have any contrition in their heart
when their ability to communicate was taken away?  Does their current state of
contrition affect the grace they receive from the anointing?

Does it
kinda work like infant baptism in that the receiver of the sacrament does not
initiate the sacrament, but they still get the grace and fruits of that
grace?

The sacraments confer grace as long as you do not put a barrier in the way of their doing so. The reason infant baptism is so automatically effective is that infants, being below the age of reason, do not have the ability to configure their will such that it puts a barrier in the way of the sacrament having its effect–and they have never had this ability. But for an adult to be baptized in a state of complete unrepentance, he will not get sanctifying grace and forgiveness (though he will get the baptismal character imprinted on his soul).

Something similar applies here: If, at the time you become unconscious (or at least sub-rational) you are unrepentant for your grave sins then your will is configured in such a way that it creates a barrier blocking the anointing of the sick from conferring sanctifying grace and forgiveness on you. Just as the state of the will at the time of death is determinative of whether you go to heaven or not, so the state of the will at the time you become unconscious (or sub-rational) is determinative of whether the sacrament will confer forgiveness.

In order for the sacrament to confer forgiveness, one must have at least habitual attrition for one’s grave sins. This means that one needs to have attrition, or sorrow (of the will, not the emotions) for one’s sins based on a supernatural motive (for example, because they were contrary to God’s will or violations of his law). And this attrition needs to be present habitually, meaning that it doesn’t have to be something you are consciously thinking about, just something latent in your will based on a prior determination of the will.

For example: Suppose you have committed Mortal Sin X and afterwards you decide, "Man! I wish I hadn’t done that! Mortal Sin X is contrary to God’s will! I’m going to strive not to commit Mortal Sin X in the future (even though I fear I may commit it)!" Then you go about your business, forgetting all about it until, later that day, a train spike is suddenly driven through your head and you are taken to the hospital. Once there, the chaplain administers the anointing of the sick to you and the sacrament has its effect because you had previously made an act of the will whereby you had habitual attrition for having committed Mortal Sin X.

On the other hand, suppose that you are in flagrante delicto of committing Mortal Sin Y, and you are going "Woo-hoo! Mortal Sin Y is so much fun! I don’t care that it’s against God’s law!" and SMACK! You get hit in the head with a train spike and get taken to the hospital and, once there, the chaplain administers the anointing of the sick to you. But in THIS case, you don’t get forgiven because you lost rationality in the very act of turning your will fundamentally against God’s will. You thus, by the disposition of your will, created a barrier to the sacrament conferring forgiveness on you.

This lesson undescores why it is important to repent of our mortal sins as soon as possible. Though few of us will get hit in the head with train spikes, many of us will lose the faculty of rationality at some point and be unable to make further moral choices.

A reader writes:

In the

Sacrament of Anointing of the Sick, it was my understanding that we are absolved

of our sins.  Now in the case of someone in a coma or in the case of Terri

Schiavo, who cannot make an oral confession, is this forgiveness obtained even

if the person was not repentant or did not have any contrition in their heart

when their ability to communicate was taken away?  Does their current state of

contrition affect the grace they receive from the anointing?

Does it

kinda work like infant baptism in that the receiver of the sacrament does not

initiate the sacrament, but they still get the grace and fruits of that

grace?

The sacraments confer grace as long as you do not put a barrier in the way of their doing so. The reason infant baptism is so automatically effective is that infants, being below the age of reason, do not have the ability to configure their will such that it puts a barrier in the way of the sacrament having its effect–and they have never had this ability. But for an adult to be baptized in a state of complete unrepentance, he will not get sanctifying grace and forgiveness (though he will get the baptismal character imprinted on his soul).

Something similar applies here: If, at the time you become unconscious (or at least sub-rational) you are unrepentant for your grave sins then your will is configured in such a way that it creates a barrier blocking the anointing of the sick from conferring sanctifying grace and forgiveness on you. Just as the state of the will at the time of death is determinative of whether you go to heaven or not, so the state of the will at the time you become unconscious (or sub-rational) is determinative of whether the sacrament will confer forgiveness.

In order for the sacrament to confer forgiveness, one must have at least habitual attrition for one’s grave sins. This means that one needs to have attrition, or sorrow (of the will, not the emotions) for one’s sins based on a supernatural motive (for example, because they were contrary to God’s will or violations of his law). And this attrition needs to be present habitually, meaning that it doesn’t have to be something you are consciously thinking about, just something latent in your will based on a prior determination of the will.

For example: Suppose you have committed Mortal Sin X and afterwards you decide, "Man! I wish I hadn’t done that! Mortal Sin X is contrary to God’s will! I’m going to strive not to commit Mortal Sin X in the future (even though I fear I may commit it)!" Then you go about your business, forgetting all about it until, later that day, a train spike is suddenly driven through your head and you are taken to the hospital. Once there, the chaplain administers the anointing of the sick to you and the sacrament has its effect because you had previously made an act of the will whereby you had habitual attrition for having committed Mortal Sin X.

On the other hand, suppose that you are in flagrante delicto of committing Mortal Sin Y, and you are going "Woo-hoo! Mortal Sin Y is so much fun! I don’t care that it’s against God’s law!" and SMACK! You get hit in the head with a train spike and get taken to the hospital and, once there, the chaplain administers the anointing of the sick to you. But in THIS case, you don’t get forgiven because you lost rationality in the very act of turning your will fundamentally against God’s will. You thus, by the disposition of your will, created a barrier to the sacrament conferring forgiveness on you.

This lesson undescores why it is important to repent of our mortal sins as soon as possible. Though few of us will get hit in the head with train spikes, many of us will lose the faculty of rationality at some point and be unable to make further moral choices.