Jimmy Akin – Page 453

Forgotten & Forgiven Mortal Sins

A reader writes:

I am aware that if one goes to confession and supplies the requisite contrition, then all sins which the person committed are absolved–provided that the person does not intentionally conceal any mortal sins.

Correct.

Also, I have been told by several priests that this means that if one remembers a mortal sin after confession, they should know that they are forgiven for it so long as they mention it the next time they go to confession.

Correct, though this should be formulated a little differently. You are forgiven if you meant to confess all your mortal sins and just forgot one. Having been forgiven of the one you forgot, you are still obligated to confess it the next time you go to confession. It’s not that your forgiveness of it is conditional on you adopting the intention to confess it next time. That sin has already been forgiven. It’s that you incur a new sin if you refuse to adopt the intention of confessing it.

Now I remember that you did a similar blog topic about this fairly recently, but my question is one that I don’t think you dealt with in that blog.

My question is after one has remembered the mortal sin, how soon is one required to seek out confession? For example, if I go to confession and mention everything I can bring to mind, but immediately afterward remember a mortal sin, must I go to confession to mention the mortal sin as soon as possible? Or could I just wait 2 weeks, a month, etc., until I feel like going to confession? And can I receive communion in the meanwhile?

Since you are not in a state of mortal sin, you can receive Communion prior to your next confession.

As to how long you can wait before the next confession, the fact that you have an already-forgiven-but-not-yet-confessed sin does not create an obligation to go at any particular time, though one might suggest that one should go before one is likely to forget the mortal sin that needs to be mentioned.

Consequently, church law does not require one to go within any particular time frame, other than the obligation to confess one’s mortal sins at least once a year. It would be arguable whether this law applies to forgiven-but-unconfessed sins or not. The purpose is clearly to deal with mortal sins that haven’t been forgiven, so in the absence of clarification that it applies to those that have as well, it would seem that liberty would be presumed on the grounds of it being doubtful whether the law applies to this case (canon 14).

Now, there is language in some Church documents about going to confession "as soon as possible," but this is connected with a different situation, which is described in canon 916:

A person who is conscious of grave sin is
not to celebrate Mass or receive the body of the Lord without previous
sacramental confession unless there is a grave reason and there is no
opportunity to confess; in this case the person is to remember the obligation
to make an act of perfect contrition which includes the resolution of
confessing as soon as possible.

What this canon is talking about is a person who has not been to confession and who can’t go, not a person who has been and just forgot a sin. That person needs to make an act of perfect contrition in order to get back into a state of grace and thus able to take Communion, and making an act of perfect contrition includes the will to go to confession when it is possible (and reasonable) to do so.

The Code formulates this in terms of going "as soon as possible," but what it means by this is as soon as it is possible and reasonable for a person to go. The Church does not expect you to do unreasonable things just to be able to go a sooner. (E.g., driving recklessly in order to get to the church a little faster or demanding that the priest get out of bed to hear your confession.) There is an unstated reasonableness condition in this canon.

This may be where you got the idea about needing to go "as soon as possible," but it does not apply to your case. It deals with those who have an unforgiven sin and can’t go to confession before Communion, not those who went to confession and got forgiven but forgot to mention something.

Your sins already have been remitted by the sacrament of confession. You just forgot something.

This kind of situation happens all the time, and if there were a requirement to go to confession within a particular timeframe, it would be on the books.

Flattening The Real Presence

Blogger Catholic Mom writes:

I’ve been engaging in an online discussion with some folks and the gist of the discussion is they believe Christ is as present when 2 or 3 are gathered in His name or in the faces of the poor as He is in the Eucharist. Therefore, all this fuss about tabernacles and reverence is irrelevant. As long as we are out there ministering to our fellow man we are meeting Christ just as much as we would in the Eucharist.

I can explain that the Eucharist is the True Presence of Christ, Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity. I am not sure how to describe the presence of Christ we find in the gathering of Christians or when we minister to the poor. I know it is distinct from the Eucharist. How would you verbalize this difference?

It is somewhat difficult to answer this question because in telling us that he is present wherever two or three are gathered in his name, he didn’t give us a lot of detail about what this manner of presence entails. The same is true for the "if you did it for the least of my brethren, you did it for me" passage.

It is clear that Jesus is present in these places in that his divinity is omnipresent, but he seems to mean more than that.

Yet it is also clear that he is not present there in the same way that he is in the Eucharist. The Eucharist is Jesus–just disguised. But it is clear that a poor person to whom we are ministering is not Jesus himself. It would not be appropriate to react to the poor person exactly the way we would react to Jesus himself. For example, it would not be appropriate to offer the poor person the worship of latreia, which is due only to God.

Common sense thus tells you that–whatever Jesus’ mode of presence is in such cases–it is less than the full reality of that presence which is found in the Eucharist. Therefore, one does an injustice to the Eucharist–and to Jesus himself–if one attempts to flatten the uniqueness of the Eucharistic presence and reduce it to the other modes of his presence which Scripture and theology speak of.

To do so speaks of either gross ignorance of the faith or an agenda of some sort that is so strong it overrides what is patently obvious.

If I were to attempt to unpack what Jesus meant in referring to these alternate and lesser modes of presence, the best I could probably do would be to say that Jesus is speaking metaphorically when he makes these statements in the gospels. It is important to point out that a metaphor is not the same as a fiction. Metaphors are ways of expressing a truth that is otherwise difficult to convey, or at least to convey with the same vividness that hte metaphor carries.

Consequently, I would say that–while Jesus’ divine nature is present in such instances since it is omnipresent–he is also "present" in the sense that he spiritually guides and works through and helps people gathered in his name. Similarly, since we have a duty toward Jesus to exercise charity toward others, when we show charity or fail to show it to the poor we are fulfilling or failing to fulfill a duty toward Jesus and thus our action has reference to him even though we are outwardly acting toward someone else.

But in these cases Jesus’ Body, Blood, and human Soul are not present, as they are in the Eucharist. Jesus uses the metaphor of his presence in these cases not to signify that he is fully present in them as he is in the Eucharist but that he is guiding and working through and helping people or that our actions toward others have to be viewed in relation to our obligations to him.

There may be more to it than this, for we are not privvy to all of the divine mysteries, and Jesus may be present in more mystical ways that I am not able to articulate, but it is clear that Jesus’ presence in the Eucharist is both unique and supreme and not to be flattened onto a par with other modes of presence.

There is absolutely no difficulty demonstrating that from Church documents, as the following indicate.

The Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church says this:

282. How is Christ present in the Eucharist?

Jesus Christ is present in the Eucharist in a unique and incomparable way. He is present in a true, real and substantial way, with his Body and his Blood, with his Soul and his Divinity. In the Eucharist, therefore, there is present in a sacramental way, that is, under the Eucharistic species of bread and wine, Christ whole and entire, God and Man.

While the Catechism itself says:

1373 "Christ Jesus, who died, yes, who was raised from the dead, who is at the right hand of God, who indeed intercedes for us," is present in many ways to his Church: in his word, in his Church’s prayer, "where two or three are gathered in my name," in the poor, the sick, and the imprisoned, in the sacraments of which he is the author, in the sacrifice of the Mass, and in the person of the minister. But "he is present . . . most especially in the Eucharistic species."

1374 The mode of Christ’s presence under the Eucharistic species is unique. It raises the Eucharist above all the sacraments as "the perfection of the spiritual life and the end to which all the sacraments tend." In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist "the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained." "This presence is called ‘real’ – by which is not intended to exclude the other types of presence as if they could not be ‘real’ too, but because it is presence in the fullest sense: that is to say, it is a substantial presence by which Christ, God and man, makes himself wholly and entirely present."

One of the most important discussions of this topic is found in Paul VI’s encyclical Mysterium Fidei, which was written precisely to combat erroneous understandings of Christ’s presence. Sections 35-39 of the encyclical are in particular devoted to the topic, and the pope offers an explanation of different ways in which Christ is present in different things and activities, concluding, under the heading "The Highest Kind of Presence":

These various ways in which Christ is present fill the mind with astonishment and offer the Church a mystery for her contemplation. But there is another way in which Christ is present in His Church, a way that surpasses all the others. It is His presence in the Sacrament of the Eucharist [38].

Latin Mass Bleg

I am currently engaged in a project of translating certain Church documents that are not generally available in English (sorry, but this is not one of the Secret Projects, or I wouldn’t be telling you about it). Chief among these documents are the "front matter" of the Roman Missal as it existed before the reform of the liturgy that followed the Second Vatican Council.

This "front matter" corresponds loosely to the present General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM) and certain other associated documents.

By translating them, I want to not only make available more of the riches of the former rite of Mass to English speakers but also to provide a tool that can be used to track the development of liturgical law between the change in the two orders of Mass.

But I don’t want to waste my time if I don’t need to. Hence this bleg.

I wanted to ask my readers–who are a very well-informed bunch, as is obvious–if they are aware of English translations of the front matter of the previous Roman Missal, particularly the 1962 edition, which was the last before the Council’s reforms began to kick in.

I know that there were English translations of some documents from this period because I happen to have an English translation of the Roman Ritual (not the same as the Roman Missal) that came out back then. I’m wondering if there was a simlar translation (available online or not) of the Roman Missal in its entirety, or just its front matter.

Specifically, the documents I am wondering about are titled in the 1962 edition as follows:

Pius Episcopus (servus servorum dei, ad perpetuam rei memoriam)
Clemens Papa VIII (ad perpetuam rei memoriam)
Urbanus Papa VIII (ad perpetuam rei memoriam)
Litterae Apostolicae (moto proprio datae; novum rumbricarum breviarii et missalis romani corpus appprobatur. Johannes PP. XXIII)
Sacra Congregatio Rituum (decretum generale; quo novus rubricarm breviarii ac missalis romani codex promulgatur)
Rubricae Generales (chiefly concerned with the calendar)
Rubricae Generales Missalis Romani
De Anno et Eius Partibus
Tabula Paschalis Antiqua Reformata
Tabula Temporaria
Calendarium Missalis Romani
Ritus Servandus in Celebratione Missae
De Defectibus in Celebratione Missae Occurentibus
Praeparatio ad Missam
Gratiarum Actio post Missam
Ordo Incensandi Oblata

If you are aware of an English translation of any of these (a 1962 edition or an earlier one), in print or online, whether in whole or in part, please let me know by combox or e-mail.

The one exception is De Defectibus in Celebratione Missae Occurrentibus ("On Defects Occurring in the Celebration of Mass"). This document–about liturgical abuses–has already been translated into English and is available on a number of web sites (mostly those of radical traditionalists). I have freshly translated it into English, however, because the existing translation does not seem to be very good. I don’t know what Latin original they were working from (clearly it was not that of the 1962 edition), but this version seems to be a startlingly loose and squishy translation, and I felt that a more literal one was warranted.

This translation should be appearing online soon. I’ll let you know when and where.

Thanks much, folks!

A Hard Situation To Be In

A reader writes:

I have a severe disability that leaves me dependent on my parents for personal care, transportation, etc. My parents are devout Protestants and don’t think Catholics are truly Christians. While I was in college, I began investigating Catholicism and eventually accepted the Church was what she claimed to be. At first, my mother was willing to drive me to Mass on occasion. Later, Mom refused to drive me to any more Masses or RCIA meetings. Due to the generosity of a Catholic classmate, I received RCIA instruction on my lunch hour while at school and another friend drove me to Mass so I could receive Reconciliation, Confirmation, and First Communion. I occasionally attend church with my parents and I’ve lost contact with the classmate since I graduated. The pastor is extremely Anti-Catholic. I find myself growing increasingly bitter and resentful as well as missing the grace of the sacraments, especially Reconciliation and the Eucharist. Here are my questions:

1. Should I continue attending church with my parents?

This is a judgment call. You are certainly permitted to attend with your parents as long as it does not pose a danger to your faith. Whether you should do so would depend, among other things, on how necessary it is for you to keep peace in your household. You are in a better position than I would be to answer that question.

With any judgment call, the thing to do is think and pray about it and then make the best decision one can, trusting God with the results. Even if one makes the wrong decision, making the attempt itself glorifies God and pleases him.

2. Should I speak up when Anti-Catholic statements I know to be false are made in that church? Can you give me advice on handling these situations? The pastor knows I’m Catholic.

This is also a judgment call, and one that has to be handled on a case-by-case basis. What I mean is that it depends on how bad the anti-Catholic statement that gets made is. If it is a minor thing, there is less reason to speak out. If it is a major thing, there is more reason. While we have a general obligation to share the truth with people, this obligation is suspended if people are unwilling to accept it. Thus Jesus told his disciples to shake the dust off their feet if a town wouldn’t receive their message. In the same way, you would want to correct misimpressions about the Catholic faith if you can, but if people aren’t listening to you and you perceive that the situation is just being made worse, the advisable thing to do would be to–metaphorically speaking–shake the dust off your feet and wait for a more opportune season.

If you do address anti-Catholic statements being made at the Church, I would be sure to do the following things: (1) follow the rules of ettiquite that pertain to the situation in the Church (e.g., don’t shout from the pew, "That’s wrong and you know it!"), (2) address the matter politely and in the most face-saving way possible for the person who made the mistake (on the principle that you catch more flies with honey than vinegar), and (3) be armed with the facts. Be ready to show exact quotations from Church documents, or use the resources online at catholic.com.

3. My former priest (he’s since left the parish) told me I was excused from my obligation to go to Mass because it was impossible in my case. I have no reason to doubt him, but just to double check would my situation be considered a valid excuse? I have not asked my mother to reconsider her decision in months. How often should I bring the situation up, and am I committing mortal sin if I don’t? I have no reason to believe things have changed.

You are definitely excused from your Sunday obligation if you can’t get to Mass. You should not worry about that in the slightest. Church law does not require you to do the impossible, or even the gravely inconvenient, and if you have no way to get to church then you are simply not required to do so.

As to asking your mother to take you again, if you have no reason to believe that things have changed then you do not have any obligation at this particular moment to ask. It thus is not a mortal sin if you don’t. Do not scruple about this either. The Church does not want you harming family relationships by asking all the time, and prudence would not want you angering one of your primary caregivers.

That being said, asking every once in a while–how often would be a judgment call, but certianly with a substantial period between requests–would be a good thing to do, though.

4. I am conscious of having committed mortal sin since my last confession. Since I don’t have access to the confessional the moment, is there anything else I can or should be doing besides privately repenting and trusting in God’s grace?

If you are unable to go to confession then repenting and making an act of perfect contrition (turning away from sins based on love of God–the fact that he is infinitely good and thus his will is infinitely good and what we should conform our wills to), with the intention to go to confession when possible, is enough to reconcile you with God.

Though I think there may be something else you can do: I would reach out to the local Catholic community and see what they can do to help you.

I would begin by calling a priest and asking him to come by and hear your confession and bring you the sacrament. You are in the same situation as a shut-in or a person in a hospital who can’t go to church, and priests can and do make pastoral visits to such people. He might not be able to do so often, but you should be able to find a priest willing to help.

Of course, how your parents would react to having a priest in the house is something that you weigh carefully in deciding whether to pursue this option. As long as you are not in danger of death, though, there is no grave obligation for you to get to the sacrament of confession.

Even if it is not possible to have a priest visit, I would still call one–or a church secretary–and ask about finding a ride to confession and Mass. The odds are very good that someone in the local Catholic community would be able–at least sometimes and possibly every week–to help you get to confession and/or Mass.

Of course, there is still the matter of how your parents would react to this, but as long as they are reasonable people–even if they strongly disapprove–then it should be possible to at least use this means of practicing your Catholic faith.

On the other hand, if they have a horrendously negative reaction and start making and carrying out threats (like denying you basic care or committing physical abuse or even just getting into heated arguments constantly) then you would be excused from even making this effort. (NOTE: I have no reason to think that your parents would do such things–and I assume that they are good people and wouldn’t–but there are such people out there.)

I also would join an online Catholic community–like the forums at Catholic.com–and try getting personal and spiritual support that way.

How you deal with much of this situation is a matter of prudence and judgment rather than law. To the extent possible, I would simply do your best to live in a dignified, Catholic manner and avoid arguing with your parents about it. Jesus pointed out that a prophet has no honor among his own country and people, and it usually is very hard to discuss such matters with your parents. They remember changing your diapers, after all, so it’s natural for them to think "Who is she to tell us about religion?" They also are in a difficult situation and are giving you a lot in the form of personal care they provide, and I would do my best to be grateful and loving for that.

I also would offer up the suffering you experience as a result of your condition and situation, both for your own sanctification and for your parents–as well as others in the world, including those who are even less fortunate (such as those in Muslim countries who can’t go to church or they’d be killed by their families).

God bless you for your faithfulness in a very difficult situation. Your fortitude pleases God, and he will certainly reward you greatly. I ask my readers to keep you and your family in their prayers and ask that God would give blessings to you all.

Do Not Give What Is Holy To Dogs

Canonist Ed Peters writes:

Fr. Louis Scurti, a campus minister at William Paterson University in New Jersey, "brings his two dogs everywhere [oh?] and that includes Sunday Mass." His pair of pooches set themselves up in the sanctuary during Mass, "making people feel included" [huh?] and providing a "symbol of domesticity" [double huh?]. Although the apparently untethered canines "have been known to growl" at late-comers, Fr. Scurti assures us that his dogs "don’t remove the sacredness of the liturgy at all."

The dictates of common sense are hard to put into words. If one has to explain to a pastor why his mutts don’t belong in Mass, one goes into the effort with the uneasy feeling that such words might be wasted on, well, someone who needs that kind of thing explained in the first place. But most folks can tell the difference between a liturgy and a living room, and many Catholics are out of patience with priests (granted, in shrinking numbers) who still treat the Mass as their personal property.

GET THE STORY.

Actually, I think that one of the canons Ed mentions–1220–would prohibit what the priest is doing. The canon reads:

Can. 1220 §1. All those responsible are to take care that in churches such cleanliness and beauty are preserved as befit a house of God and that whatever is inappropriate to the holiness of the place is excluded.

The highlighted phrase is meant precisely as a catchall to cover all the myriad "Please don’t eat the dasies" situations that the legislator knows he can’t individually envision. Having dogs in the sanctuary–at least dogs who are not assistance animals–is inappropriate to the holiness of the place, and thus they are to be excluded.

By including the highlighted phrase, the legislator intends "those responsible" (including the priest) to exercise common sense in figuring out what is inappropriate to the holiness of the place and–if the priest in question has defective common sense on this point–then someone higher up (his bishop, the CDW) should explain it to him.

After all, dogs are irrational creatures that cannot appreciate the sacred and therefore do not belong in sacred places.

Our Lord may have been making a point about humans when he said it, but the foundation of the metaphor in the animal kingdom makes the same point with even more force:

"Do not give dogs what is holy; and do not throw your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under foot" (Matt. 7:6).

The Resistance

When Season 2 of Battlestar Galactica ended, it was announced that the new season wouldn’t be starting until October, which seemed a long way away.

Well, the time is almost upon us, and SciFi is now ramping up to the new season by releasing a set of ten webisodes that advance the story by bridging Seasons 2 and 3. (CHT to the reader who e-mailed!)

The webisodes are being released twice a week, one on Tuesday and one on Thursday at noon Eastern, and they tell the story of the developing resistance movement, chafing under Cylon rule on New Caprica. In fact, the title of the webisode series seems to be "The Resistance."

Thus far, three webisodes have been released, so there are seven more to go.

YOU CAN VIEW THEM HERE.
(minor bad language warning.)

If you need a refresher on what’s happened in the story so far or haven’t yet watched BSG,

YOU CAN GET A 3-MINUTE VIDEO RECAP HERE (WHICH ALSO HAS A PREVIEW OF SEASON 3).

Incidentally, when Season 2 finished, I made some predictions about what would happen in Season 3.

LET’S SEE HOW ACCURATE I WAS.

This post of JimmyAkin.Org is brought to you by the letter "R," the number "5," and the word "webisode."

Aww, That’s Sweet

It appears that we wouldn’t have His Most Awesomeness Pope Benedict if it weren’t for . . . a personal ad.

It seems, y’see, that his parents met because, way back in 1920, his father placed a personal ad looking for a wife.

(This was in the days before online matchmaking services, of course.)

According to THE STORY,

[The newspaper] Bild am Sonntag (BamS) said 43-year-old Joseph Ratzinger senior placed an advertisement as a "low-level civil servant" seeking "a good Catholic girl, who can cook and sew a bit … to marry as soon as possible, preferably with a picture," in a Bavarian paper in March 1920.

Four months later – by now a "mid-ranking civil servant" – he posted a similar notice in the same paper, and this time received a reply from Maria Peintner, the Pope’s future mother, BamS reported, citing documents from Bavarian state archives.

The second advert in the Altoetting weekly "Liebfrauenbote" stressed the gendarme Ratzinger’s "irreproachable past" and said that while it would be "desirable" if his bride had some money, it was "not a condition" for marriage.

The second ad also seemed to get quick results:

The paper said the couple married in November 1920.

It’s interesting to see the things that the pope’s father was looking for in a bride. They’re–I guess you’d say–very 1920s (money, for example, was hard to come by in Germany between the wars). Still, it kinda gives hope to those of us who are still looking.

(Now let’s see . . . "Senior management apologist with irreproachable past seeks . . . " Oh, well. Maybe another time.)

UPDATE: AmericanPapist writes:

Jimmy – here is the full (awesome) text of the personal ad Pope Benedict’s father placed :

“Middle-ranking civil servant, single, Catholic, 43, immaculate past, from the country, is looking for a good Catholic, pure girl who can cook well, tackle all household chores, with a talent for sewing and homemaking with a view to marriage as soon as possible. Fortune desirable but not a precondition” [SOURCE].

The Road To War

Last weekend I started reading The
Last and First Men by Olaf Stapleton. The book is a future history written from the perspective of one of the last men in a far distant future age. The book doesn’t have a conventional plot but is written like a history book, telling you what happened in different ages.

The opening section–the only part I’ve gotten through just yet–makes for particularly interesting reading, because it covers the period between when the book was written (1930) and the present, so we get to see Olaf Stapleton’s imaginary history of our own period.

Of course, actualy history didn’t unfold the way that Stapleton envisioned–and he knew it wouldn’t before he started writing–but it’s fascinating to see how much he got right. Even if the elements didn’t come together in precisely the way he envisioned, he was at least playing with the right elements that actually did–and continue to–shape our history. For example, he predicted a period of wars in Europe, leading to its decline, followed by a period in which Russia, China, and the United States were the dominant global players, with Russia dropping by the wayside, leading to tension between China and America and and eventually America as a global hyperpower and an Americanized world culture, with America being intensely resented internationally. That’s pretty close to what did happen, only the Chinese conflict has yet to be fully engaged (expect that to happen in coming decades).

Reading Stapleton’s analysis of the various forces shaping this history was quite interesting, and it made me want to read a similar analysis of what really did happen in world history.

Lo and behold, yesterday I ran across THIS ESSAY that does just that–or does a lot of it at least. It’s not an analysis so much of recent history as a whole, but it analyzes the major wars of the 20th century and what led to them.

The author–a Harvard history professor–seeks to look past the conventional explanations that are given for why large scale conflicts happen and identify the factors which really did lead to them.

For example, the author sets aside the canard that the 20th century was so bloody because we had bigger and better weapons, pointing out that many of the bloodies conflicts were fought not with WMDs but with individual and even primitive weapons.

(He also doesn’t do much more than touch on this, but at some point soon I plan on blogging about the fact that your chance of dying in a war has actually gone DOWN in the developed world–way down compared to what it is in primitive societies. The development of more powerful weapons does not–or at least has not yet–led to an increase in the percentage of people who are killed in war. Just the opposite. Thus far it’s correlated with a dramatic decrease in the likelihood that you’ll get killed in one.)

By questioning why the wars of the 20th century occurred when and where they did–as opposed to other places or the same places in other decades–the author identifies three factors that at least in recent history seem to have led to large scale wars:

1) Ethnic disintegration (that is, the falling apart of multi-ethnic societies such that the different ethnic groups become alienated from one another),

2) Economic volatility (not the same thing as poverty; he’s talking about dramatic fluctuations in the local economy, both down and up), and

3) Empires in decline (since the empire that previously kept peace in the area loses the interest or the ability to keep peace there)

Then, like Stapleton, he dusts off his own crystal ball and looks at where the next series of major conflicts are likely to errupt.

IT AIN’T PRETTY.

The difference is we probably won’t have to wait 75 years to see if his future history is right.

Devil Not Just In The Details

A couple of weeks ago, Jimmy blogged on an article in the Daily Mail reporting on a Vatican Radio interview with Fr. Gabriele Amorth.

A few days later, content from that Daily Mail article cropped up in an incredibly garbled form in a Sydney Morning Herald article by one Linda Morris, credited as "Religious Affairs Writer."

I don’t know how you get to be "Religious Affairs Writer" for the Sydney Morning Herald, but based on this piece, if I lived in Sydney, I’d consider getting my religion news from a more reliable source. Like the National Enquirer.

Here’s how the article starts out:

Devil in the detail: Vatican exorcises Harry Potter

THE Vatican has never been a fan of Harry Potter, but its chief exorcist has gone one step further and condemned J. K. Rowling’s fictional boy wizard as downright evil.

"Behind Harry Potter hides the signature of the king of the darkness, the devil," says Father Gabriele Amorth, the Pope’s "caster-out of demons".

The books contained numerous positive references to the satanic art, falsely drawing a distinction between black and white magic, he told the Daily Mail in London. In the same interview, Father Amorth said he was convinced that Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler were possessed by the devil.

Last year the Pope, who was then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, described Harry Potter as a potentially corrupting influence.

Now… how many problems can YOU spot in those few short paragraphs?

Source problems. The article claims to be reporting on an interview with Fr. Amorth given to "the Daily Mail in London." False. In fact, that article was reporting on an interview given with Vatican Radio. Fr. Amorth was apparently not interviewed by the Daily Mail.
Furthermore, even in the Daily Mail piece the Harry Potter business is only tacked on the end as something that Fr. Amorth has said "in the past." So even the Daily Mail wasn’t reporting on recent comments made by Fr. Amorth. The Daily Mail doesn’t even source the "past comments" in question — and then the current story linked above misattributes the Daily Mail‘s unsourced comments to a non-existent interview with the Daily Mail itself — specifically stating that the comments were given "in the same interview," which they weren’t! Just goes to show how carefully the reporter read the piece she was regurgitating.
The article calls Fr. Amorth the "chief exorcist" of "the Vatican" as well as "the Pope’s ‘caster-out of demons’" (the latter phrase apparently lifted straight from the Daily Mail story). Jimmy has already pointed out the problems with these assertions.
Given that (as Jimmy points out in the above link) Fr. Amorth is a priest of the diocese of Rome rather than an official of Vatican City, the various references to "the Vatican" are even more misleading than such media statements typically are.
"Last year the Pope, who was then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, described Harry Potter as a potentially corrupting influence." Since Cardinal Ratzinger was elected to the Roman See in mid-April, that would put the alleged comments within the first 3½ months of 2005. In fact, though, this statement represents a garbled report about a letter Cardinal Ratzinger wrote in March of 2003 — two years before he is supposed to have made the comments in question. Again, Jimmy has the clarification. Suffice to say, it is not at all clear that Ratzinger ever described Harry Potter as a "potentially corrupting influence," either last year or in 2003.
The article paraphrases Fr. Amorth as saying that "The books contained [sic; the books still exist!] numerous positive references to the satanic art." As phrased, this suggests that Fr. Amorth attributed to Rowling positive references to "the satanic art" as such, when in fact satanism is perhaps never mentioned in any of the HP books. The paraphrase in the original article is slightly more convincing: "Rowling’s books contain innumerable positive references to magic, ‘the satanic art’." That makes more sense: The books refer positively to magic, which Fr. Amorth calls "the satanic art." That’s different from saying that the books "contain numerous positive references to the satanic art."

"Devil in the details," indeed!

I have to say, I’m sick to death of the news media reporting that "the Vatican" has done this or that every time someone sneezes in Italian.

This piece, though, is even more egregious than usual. Did the reporter even bother to read her source piece twice — let alone actually check a single fact?

Sydney residents, demand more from your local media!

Adding Wine To The Precious Blood

A reader writes:

We have been attending Mass at the local VA hospital whenever we can’t attend our local parish church for daily Mass.

We have noticed that at Communion, Father will reach over to the small table next to the altar(where the water and wine are kept) and pour more wine into the chalice.

We are wondering if this is okay, and what to do about it.

The short answer is that if he’d doing this on a habitual basis then it’s not okay. It is a significant liturgical abuse, and I would take action to deal with it.

The only circumstance in which something like this is permitted is described as follows in the General Instruction of the Roman Missal:

324. If the priest notices after the consecration or as he receives Communion that not wine but only water was poured into the chalice, he pours the water into some container, then pours wine with water into the chalice and consecrates it. He says only the part of the institution narrative related to the consecration of the chalice, without being obliged to consecrate the bread again.

Now, if the priest at the hospital has forgotten to pour wine into the chalice before the consecration and detects this fact afterwards–either by taste or by sight–then it would not only be okay but would be required for him to pour in wine and then proceed to consecrate it. If you saw this happen once or twice then, as long as he did what he was supposed to, no action would need to be taken.

But if he is doing it habitually then he is either so forgetful that it is questionable whether he should be saying Masses–at least in public–or (more likely given what you say) he is committing a grave liturgical abuse.

The precise nature of the abuse depends on whether the priest has included the wine on the side table in his intent to consecrate, but either way you go, there is a grave abuse occurring.

If he has not included the wine on the side table in his intent to consecrate then what he is doing is pouring unconsecrated wine into the Precious Blood, diluting it–possibly to the point that the Real Presence ceases.

That is gravely wrong, both in itself and because of the scandal it causes the faithful.

If he is including the wine on the side table in his intent to consecrate then, since it is still in his moral presence, the consecration takes place, but in this event he is pouring the Precious Blood from one container to another, which is prohibited by liturgical law. All pouring must be done prior to the consecration, lest any of the Precious Blood be accidentally spilled.

The instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum explains:

[105.] If one chalice is not sufficient for Communion to be distributed under both kinds to the Priest concelebrants or Christ’s faithful, there is no reason why the Priest celebrant should not use several chalices. For it is to be remembered that all Priests in celebrating Holy Mass are bound to receive Communion under both kinds. It is praiseworthy, by reason of the sign value, to use a main chalice of larger dimensions, together with smaller chalices.

[106.] However, the pouring of the Blood of Christ after the consecration from one vessel to another is completely to be avoided, lest anything should happen that would be to the detriment of so great a mystery. Never to be used for containing the Blood of the Lord are flagons, bowls, or other vessels that are not fully in accord with the established norms.

If the priest needs additional wine in the chalice for his own reception of Communion or for distributing Communion to others then he should pour this wine into the chalice prior to the consecration. Doing so afterward is not permitted.

If he can’t handle a chalice with more wine in it–for example, because his hands shake–then he shouldn’t be distributing Communion to the faithful under the form of wine, anyway.

So, either this priest is so forgetful that his ability to celebrate Masses in public is in question or he is committing a grave liturgical abuse. Either way, I would talk to him about it.

Jesus tells us to solve problems on the lowest level possible (Matthew 18), so I would speak with him respectfully and politely and find out what he’s actually doing, why he’s doing it, and point out the relevant passages of liturgical law. I would also explain how this confuses and potentially scandalizes the faithful and urge him to adopt the Church’s liturgical norms for the sake of their peace of mind and being a good shepherd that does not unnecessarily disturb the sheep.

If he does not correct the matter then speaking with the bishop and, if necessary, the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments would be warranted.