Jimmy Akin – Page 502

True Confessions Writing Advice

NEW AND IMPROVED! Now with fewer typos!

A writer writes:

I’m a writer, working on something that incorporates a back and forth between a priest and a congregant in a confession booth. I’m not Catholic, and when I asked a Catholic friend for some help, he was sad to say he couldn’t remember the last time he went to confession. He did, however, give me your name as someone who might be able to shed a little light on the situation. You don’t know me from Adam,

That’s okay. I don’t know most folks from Adam. There are six billion of us, after all.

and I’m sure you’re a busy guy, but if you had a couple of moments to field a couple of questions, it would be most appreciated.

Sure, no prob.

The info I’m looking for is pretty basic. The character in the thing I’m writing hasn’t been to confession since he was a little boy. So he’s pretty rusty when he enters the booth.

Okay, first a bit of general info: They aren’t called "booths." They look like that–or used to, at any rate–but the term you’ll want to use is "confessional." Also, these days they don’t look like booths in most churches. They’re like little rooms, and they’re usually designed in such a way that you can either sit opposite the priest on one side of a screened partition or so that you can go around the other side and make your confession face-to-face if you want.

If your story is set in the past (say, pre-1970) or if you just want a more traditional feel, you can still use the booth set-up. A few parishes still have those.

As a bit of research for your story, I’d suggest visiting a Catholic church and looking at the confessionals. It’ll help give you a better idea how to describe them in the story. Notice the colors and textures and smells (though all of these will, of course, vary from parish to parish). If you need to know the names of things in the room–like the kneeler that may very well be present in front of the screen–ask someone from the church office to explain them.

BTW, try to pay this visit when confessions are not being heard. It’ll inconvenience folksand confuse the priest if you’re there poking in the confessional around while people are waiting in line for confession.

When someone enters a confession booth, who speaks first? And what’s said?

Typically the penitent will begin by making the sign of the cross (i.e., crossing himself) and saying "In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Amen." If the penitent stops at "and of the Holy Spirit" then the priest may say the "Amen."

If the penitent doesn’t say the Trinitarian formula, the priest will probably do so as a way of prompting the penitent to start. If the penitent still doesn’t start, the priest may say in a friendly, inviting manner, "Go ahead" or simliar words.

According to the rite (as found in a book called The Rites, volume 1, which goes into all this in great detail), the priest then invites the penitent to trust in God, using one of a number of different invitations.

May God, who has enlightened every heart, help you to know your sins and trust in his mercy.
The Lord does not wish the sinner to die but to turn back to him and live. Come before him with trust in his mercy.
May the Lord Jesus welcome you. He came to call sinners, not the just. Have confidence in him.
May the grace of the Holy Spirit fill your heart with light, that you may confess your sins with loving trust and come to know that God is merciful.
May the Lord be in your heart and help you to confess your sins with true sorrow.
If you have sinned, do not lose heart. We have Jesus Christ to plead for us with the Father; he is the Holy One, the atonement for our sins and for the sins of the whole world.

In practice, the priest doesn’t make this invitation if, as usually happens (so far as I know), the penitent launches into his confession after the sign of the cross is made.

The TV version has the congregant starting first, saying, "Forgive me, Father, for I have sinned." But if the congregant wasn’t sure how things went, might the priest start?

The classic way of beginning is by the penitent saying "Bless me, Father, for I have sinned. It has been X amount of time since my last confession." If the penitent doesn’t know how long it’s been, he may simply say "It’s been a long time since my last confession." The priest might ask how long, and the answer "Years" would be acceptable.

Actually–and most folks don’t know this–the mentioning of how long it’s been is not mandatory. The rite only calls for the priest to ask for this if he doesn’t know the penitent.

Is there ever any discussion re: what types of sins might be discussed? For example, if someone hadn’t been to confession in a long time, might the priest suggest he start with sins of the heart, sins of the flesh, sins of the mind, etc.?

Yes, this kind of thing will happen. If the penitent hasn’t made an examination of conscience before going in to confess, the priest will help him do so in the confessional (assuming that there’s time). The typical way this would happen would be for the priest to walk the penitent through the Ten Commandments, asking if he can remember any offenses against the individual commandments. (Be sure to use the Catholic numbering of the Ten Commandments if you go this route. SEE HERE AND SCROLL DOWN.)

The priest may, though, simply ask the penitent what sins are on his mind, and afterwards he may ask if there are any other sins that he is aware of that he needs to confess. (You only need to confess mortal or major sins; not venial or light ones.) The priest may also give the penitent counselling advice, particularly about how to avoid sin in the future.

After the penitent is finished confessing the priest will assign him a penance (typically some prayers, such as an Our Father and a Hail Mary or a decade of the Rosary or something, or he may assign him to read the Scripture readings for that day).

Then the priest invites the penitent to say an act of contrition, in his own words or using a set formula. If the penitent isn’t sure what to do the priest may lead him through a simple act of contrition like:

Lord Jesus, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner.

Then the priest extends his hands or his right hand and says the words of absolution:

God, the Father of mercies, through the death and resurrection of his Son has reconciled the world to himself and sent the Holy Spirit among us for the forgiveness of sins; through the ministry of the Church may God give you pardon and peace, and I absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

As he says the Trinitarian formula he makes the sign of the cross with his hand, and when he is done the penitent says "Amen."

Then the priest says something to dismiss the penitent, such as "The Lord has freed you from your sins. Go in peace."

There are a lot of variations on how this all happens. You might want to check out The Rites volume 1 (a local parish will have it) to see some of them. One thing that is not supposed to vary, though, are the words of absolution as I gave them above. The priest has a lot of flexibility elsewhere, but he’s supposed to say the words of absolution verbatim. (Regrettably, not all priests do.)

One thing I’d recommend is that after you write this scene you show it to an actual priest and ask him if what you’ve written rings true. If he spots any major problems, you’ll be able to fix them before turning in your story to–well, wherever it is you’re planning on submitting it.

Good luck!

The Great TV Self-Outing

Over at the InsightScoop, Carl Olson has just outed himself regarding the fact that he watches TV, including which particular shows he watches.

He did so because Mark Brumley dared him.

Then Mark e-mailed me and dared (well, suggested) me to do the same.

Now they have a blogstorm going of bloggers and other Catholic notables outing themselves as TV watchers and naming their favorite shows.

GET THE SHOCKING TV CONFESSIONS OF CARL OLSON, MARK BRUMLEY, DOM BETTINELLI, JULIE D, SANDRA MIESEL–AND OTHERS!

Now, per Mark’s ~~dare~~suggestion, here is my own:

Since I never use my blog to talk about anything other than apologetics, it may come as a shock to readers that I, too, watch television.

Unfortunately, I have to admit that I’m a bit out of the loop when it comes to some of the shows that they’re talking about over at InsightScoop. I mean, I’ve heard of them, but I can’t actually tune in to them due to the fact that I’m out square dancing much of the time–at least when the shows are on.

As a result, there is really only one current show that I’m guaranteed to tune in for every week, other shows that I’ll watch if I’m still awake, and other shows that I plan to watch when they’re released on DVD (allowing me to skip the annoying and offensive commercials, as well as the annoying and offensive waits until next week’s show).

So here’s my list, divided by subcategory:

WHAT I ACTUALLY TUNE IN FOR

Battlestar Galactica (I get home just in time from square dancing to watch this one)

WHAT I’LL WATCH IF I’M STILL AWAKE

The repeat of Stargate SG-1 immediately after Battlestar Galactica
The repeat of Stargate Atlantis immediately after the repeat of Stargate SG-1

SHOWS I’LL WATCH ON DVD ASAP AFTER THEY’RE RELEASED

Monk (I’d watch it live, but it’s on at the same time as Battlestar Galactica)
Stargate SG-1
Stargate Atlantis

SHOWS I’LL GET AROUND TO WATCHING ON DVD

Lost
24
The Simpsons
The 4400

SHOWS I HAVEN’T ACTUALLY SEEN BUT MAY WATCH ON DVD

Deadwood
Sleeper Cell
CSI

SHOWS I WON’T WATCH ON TV OR ON DVD

The latest lame Sci-Fi channel original movie (unless it has Bruce Campbell in it)

So how about you? What’s your list?

About That New Approach On Islam . . .

Some quotes:

"If we tell our people they have no right to offend, we have to tell the others they have no right to destroy us," Cardinal Angelo Sodano, the Vatican’s Secretary of State (prime minister), told journalists in Rome.

"We must always stress our demand for reciprocity in political contacts with authorities in Islamic countries and, even more, in cultural contacts," Foreign Minister Archbishop Giovanni Lajolo told the daily Corriere della Sera.

Pope Benedict signaled his concern on Monday when he told the new Moroccan ambassador to the Vatican that peace can only be assured by "respect for the religious convictions and practices of others, in a reciprocal way in all societies."

"Enough now with this turning the other cheek! It’s our duty to protect ourselves," Monsignor Velasio De Paolis, secretary of the Vatican’s supreme court, thundered in the daily La Stampa.

"The West has had relations with the Arab countries for half a century, mostly for oil, and has not been able to get the slightest concession on human rights," he said.

Bishop Rino Fisichella, head of one of the Roman universities that train young priests from around the world, told Corriere della Sera the Vatican should speak out more.

"Let’s drop this diplomatic silence," said the rector of the Pontifical Lateran University. "We should put pressure on international organizations to make the societies and states in majority Muslim countries face up to their responsibilities."

GET THE STORY.

Jurassic Church

A reader writes:

You asked for more Sci-Fi questions to blog about, so I’m happy to be able to help. 🙂

1. Assume that a group of people who can time travel journey back to the Jurassic period. Among their number are some Catholics. Barring any other impediments (rampaging dinosaurs, etc.), are those Catholics still obliged to travel forward in time to attend Mass at some point?

The way the law is written now, the answer would be no.

The current Code of Canon Law (the one binding on the time travellers when they left–unless a new Code comes into existence before then) was promulated on January 25, 1983. Laws do not pertain to things prior to their promulgation unless the law in question expressly provides otherwise:

Can. 9 Laws regard the future, not the past, unless they expressly provide for the past.

The current Code makes no provision for creating a legal obligation to attend Mass prior to its own promulgation, so there isn’t one.

The same goes for the 1917 Code of Canon Law (which previously was in effect). And, in fact, the New Law (a.k.a. the Law of Christ) that was promulgated in the first century did not (so far as we know) contain any provisions on this topic.

Therefore, it would seem to me that if you travel back before the Mass obligation was legally binding that you simply are not bound by it.

There also, in the same manner, is no provision in the Codes of Canon Law requiring you to travel forwards in time to attend Mass.

Of course, it would be a very good thing to do so–assuming that you are reasonably able to do so–but not a legally required thing.

All of this applies to one’s ordinary Sunday obligation. The same would seem to apply, though, to one’s annual obligation to receive Commuion, at least during Easter time. It’s especially hard to enforce that if Easter hasn’t come into existence yet.

This is not to say that there are no religious obligations that would attach to time travellers. Anything that is part of human nature and thus natural law would continue to bind them (e.g., that we must worship the one true God, that we must devote adequate time to rest and worship, that we must not break the Ten Commandments).

So would any particular obligations arising directly from their reception of baptism, confirmation, marriage, and ordination–since these involve the entry into states of life that have obligations that are not temporally specific.

(The general duty to receive the Eucharist arising from baptism might oblige people to return to the future for the Eucharist in a general way, but not at any specific point in time–no pun intended.)

But matters specified by ecclesiastical law would not be specified if one travels to a temporal environment before that law comes into existence–unless it makes provision otherwise (which it doesn’t).

As a proof of this, note that ecclesiastical law does not bind AFTER a law ceases. Once you move FORWARD in time past a law’s existence, it is no longer binding. (This happens entirely naturally as time carries us forward.) In the same way, if you move BACKWARDS past a law’s existence then it also is no longer binding. Thus ecclesiastical laws do not bind BEFORE they are promulgated because they do not exist prior to promulgation.

Can. 7 A law is
established when it is promulgated.

If no ecclesiastical law exists when you happen to be then you are not bound by any ecclesiastical law.

2. If so, should they do so on their own personal timeline’s Sunday, or on Sunday according to the Jurassic’s calendar?

Since there is no binding law on this point, the question is moot.

3. Now imagine that a Catholic priest was among their number. Could he say Mass or offer any of the other Sacraments?

This is an interesting question. It is not clear whether priests who have time travelled to before the Incarnation, Death, and Resurrection of Christ would have the power to perform the sacraments.

We do have some indication that these graces can be operable before the Christ Event (as some theologians call it). For example, from the first moment of her conception Mary received graces that were not usually given until the Christian age began (and, for many, before the end of the history).

Christ also confected the Eucharist before his Death and Resurrection.

But the matter is not 100% certain, and in doubtful cases it is advisable to administer the sacraments conditionally (e.g., "If it is possible to baptize you in this time zone, I baptize you . . . ").

4. If the group also included a bishop, would that change anything?

Yes. They could conditionally set up apostolic succession in the Jurassic and have a Church-before-the-Church–at least conditionally.

They might also be able to conditionally elect a Jurassic pope, though this is also uncertain and would have to be done conditionally.

At that point it would be advisable to send someone Back To The Future to consult with the known Magisterium to ask for rulings on the feasibility of all this.

And they’d need to listen to what the known Magisterium has to say.

We’d hate to have to heal a cross-temporal schism.

(NOTE: All this could change if a liturgical dancer accidentally steps on a butterfly.)

A Special Thanks

I’m back in town now and just wanted to say a special thanks to all who supported JimmyAkin.Org in this year’s Catholic Blog Awards. The results are now official,

AND HERE THEY ARE.

JimmyAkin.Org won the following categories:

Most Informative Blog
Best Blog By A Man
Best Apologetics Blog

Wow! I was very surprised to win the first two of those categories, and it is a real honor. I know there were difficulties this year, ones which I’m sure can be fixed in the future, and I just wanted to say a special thanks, both those those who supported JA.O and to those who didn’t (your votes also made the awards meaningful, as giving a sense of the opinion of the Catholic blogosphere!) and to those who hosted the awards.

I also posted a comment responding to some particular posters in the combox and wanted to call attention to it. IT’S HERE.

Congratulations also to all the other winners and nominees! (And be sure to check out SecretAgentMan’s exultation in his own performance this time around.)

So thanks once again, and I hope next year’s awards will be an even bigger success, with even more new bloggers in St. Blog’s and deserving recognition for their efforts.

(NOTE: I’ll post my blog award banners as soon as I get them and can integrate them into my templates. Maybe this weekend if I get them soon enough.)

Unforgiveness Worries

A reader writes:

I read that if a person repents, God will forgive him. But the Bible has many examples of people who repented, but weren’t forgiven. Judas "repented of his sin," but the Bible implies he is now in Hell. Simon Magus repented, but Peter only said that God will "perhaps" forgive him, like it’s not certain he will. Esau in Hebrews 11 repented, but to no avail.

I am so confused about this. Will God forgive our sins when we repent and Confess, what about the examples above?

The Council of Trent infallibly defined the following:

If any one saith, that in the Catholic Church Penance is not truly and properly a sacrament, instituted by Christ our Lord for reconciling the faithful unto God, as often as they fall into sin after baptism; let him be anathema [Trent, Canons on the Sacrament of Penance, 1].

Any sin that you commit after baptism is thus one for which Christ instituted the sacrament of penance so that you can be reconciled. As long as you repent and go to confession, the sin will be forgiven.

Do not worry further about this. To do so is scrupulous.

Regarding the three biblical figures you mentioned:

Judas didn’t repent and go to confession. He got sorry and killed himself. Repentence means turning your will away from grave sin so that you do not will to commit grave sin. Judas obviously didn’t do that because he went out and committed what was known at the time to be a grave sin. He may have experienced regret for his actions, but he did not turn his will away from grave sin. He despaired and went further into it.
Simon Magus appeared to repent, but Peter couldn’t know for sure what was in his heart. Hence Peter phrased himself tentatively.
Esau didn’t commit an act of sin; he committed an act of foolishness: He sold his birthright. When you sell something to someone, the only way you can get it back is if they’re willing to sell it back to you. Jacob wasn’t willing to sell it back to Esau, so Esau didn’t get his birthright back. This is not the case of a person being unforgiven by God. It’s the case of a person making a foolish deal and then having "seller’s remorse." That’s used in Hebrews 12 as an example to us that we must repent while there is still time (i.e., during this life), but there is nothing in Scripture that implies Esau is damned. In fact, he ends up forgiving and being reconciled with Jacob, even though he no longer has the birthright.

The reader also writes:

I read on your website that if a person believes he has committed the unforgivable sin, it means he hasn’t, since repentance is a sign that the Holy Spirit is at work in him, convicting him of sin.

That’s not quite what I said: I said wanting to repent (i.e., wanting to turn your heart away from grave sin) shows that the Holy Spirit is still at work in your heart. It’s not just believing that you haven’t committed the unforgivable sin; it’s wanting to repent that shows that you haven’t totally closed yourself off to God’s grace.

However, this isn’t very comforting, because — how does a person know if his repentance is the kind that comes from the Holy Spirit, instead of the kind that judas had, the worldly sorrow described in 2 Corinthians?

The solution to the issue is clear. If you read 2 Corinthians 7, we find Paul saying:

9: As it is, I rejoice, not because you were grieved, but
because you were grieved into repenting; for you felt a godly grief, so
that you suffered no loss through us.
10: For godly grief produces a repentance that leads to salvation and brings no regret, but worldly grief produces death.

Paul contrasts two kinds of sorrow: godly grief that leads to repentance and salvation and worldly grief that leads to death.

The contrast between the two depends on whether repentence is produced. If you repent then it was godly grief. If you don’t repent then it was what Paul calls "worldly" grief.

Godly grief is thus the sorrow for sin that makes you want to repent (i.e., makes you want to turn your will away from grave sin). Worldly grief is sorrow for one’s actions that does not make one want to turn one’s will away from sin (as when Judas despaired and plunged further into grave sin).

So do not worry about these issues. If you feel that you have committed a sin, turn your will away from it, go to confession, and do not allow scrupulous worries to mar the peace that God wants you to have as a result of the sacrament.

As long as you turn to God (as opposed to despairing and turning further away from him), you will be forgiven.

Weight Loss Good News

A reader writes:

You made some blog posts in July of last year in regards to fiber and wieght loss. The scientific approach that you used for losing weight was very appealing to me (I’m a software engineer).

Basically I set a goal of losing 2 lbs a week (with some weeks being exceptions like Thanksgiving and Christmas). I then weighed myself twice a day to determine how I was tracking to that goal each week and adjusting my food intake accordingly.

I get most of my exercise playing indoor soccer 3 times a week and chasing my 4 kids (I will really be in for it once my twin 11 month old boys figure out walking).

I did supplement fiber via powder mixed in water for the first few months of dieting pretty consistently, but less so after that. Long story short, I was 210 last July and am 155 now (at 5 ft. 7in) and I credit you with inspiring me to strategize losing weight.

It will be nice when I get back into backpacking this year to have a lighter load to carry. So thanks Jimmy for sharing your knowledge and perspectives through your website,

Congratulations! I’m honored to have played a role in your achieving your goals. I hope your remarks come as an encouragement to others.

I’m also glad that the fiber recommendation was useful. It really can play a significant role in helping folks achieve their weight goals.

Vatican Has Red Hat Sale!

Well, "Red Hat Giveaway" might be more accurate. (Slightly.)

What I’m saying is this: The pope named a buncha new cardinals yesterday–twelve of them under voting age for the next pope, and three more over it.

It came as no surprise that Archbishop William Levada (formerly of San Francisco, now head of the CDF) got a red hat. His new job is a red hat job.

Archbishop Sean O’Malley of Boston also got one.

John Paul II’s former personal secretary–now Archbishop Stanislaw Dziwitsz of Krakow–also did.

In making his selections, B16 continued the global diversification of the college of cardinals. Only 2 of the 12 new voting age cardinals were Italian.

B16 has also called ALL of the cardinals to Rome next month for a meeting of prayer and reflection the day before the consistory in which he installs the new cardinals.

This is a new thing. It certainly makes sense, though, and it will be interesting to see if it sticks with future popes (and future such events by this pope).

GET THE STORY.

MORE.

GET PICTURES OF THE NEW GUYS.

GET THE TEA LEAVES ON THE NEW GUYS.

FULL LIST OF CARDINALS.

Marriage After Hysterectomy

A reader writes:

I have been having a civil discussion about two married people and whether or not they should continue with the marital act after the women has had a hysterectomy for medical reasons. The disagreement is based on the fact that two people should be married, only if they plan, or at least try to have children.

Okay, there is the first problematic premise. It is NOT true that people should only marry if they plan or hope to have children. The Church has NEVER taught this. It has always recognized that it is morally legitimate for infertile people to get married–whether they are infertile due to advanced age or something else. As long as they can perform the marital act, they can marry. Whether the marital act will be fertile or infertile in their case is another issue.

Although nothing is impossible with God, it seems inconceivable (sorry for that pun) that the women would get pregnant after a hysterectomy.

True.

My point is, that even if this is true (getting married to only have children), when the couple was first married this was possible without Divine intervention. What are your thoughts / understanding on this?

Whether you become infertile before or after you get married has nothing to do with whether you and your spouse can engage in the marital act. Sex is not just about procreation. You cannot intentionally thwart the procreative aspect of sex, but if it is infertile for other reasons then you can continue to have it.

In fact, it continues to be a debt that the two spouses owe to each other, whether they are fertile or not. If either of them reasonably requests it, the other party is morally obliged to pay the marriage debt in a reasonable manner and time.

If a woman has had to have a hysterectomy for medical reasons then that is not a contraceptive act because it is not done in order to bring about a contraceptive effect. The fact that she is now infertile is a side-effect of the procedure, not the reason it was done.

Even if she did have the procedure to prevent herself from having more children, that would be a sin that would require repentence and confession on her part, but it would not prevent her from having intercourse while in an infertile condition.

Bottom line: Being infertile–for whatever reason and whether it is culpable or inculpable infertility–does not prevent one from engaging in the marital act. Period.

Every sound Catholic moral theologian will tell you the same.