Jimmy Akin – Page 502

First Confession Advice

A reader writes:

My husband is in RCIA, and he thinks he has to be in the Confessional for 6 hours, relaying every horrid thing he ever did in his childhood, like the one time he killed a bird out of meanness, and all those times he didn’t keep holy the Sabbath growing up, etc.

Okay, just to make sure you know: Your husband doesn’t need to confess anything from before he was baptized. Baptism wipes out all sins prior to it, so if he wasn’t baptized until sometime after he was an infant then he doesn’t need to worry about that chunk of his life.

And he keeps asking me for an example of a venial sin. Believe it or not, I can’t think of an example.

Well, killing a bird out of meanness and not keeping the Sabbath holy as a non-Catholic strike me as two good examples.

Killing a human is a grave sin, but killing an animal is not–unless by killing it you somehow gravely damage a human being (e.g., by killing the horse of a man who needs the horse to earn his livelihood or killing a very expensive purebred pet or something).

Similarly, non-Catholics are not obliged by canon law to attend Mass or to refrain from servile labor on Sundays. Their obligations for Sunday observance are much more general and, not being bound by a specific standard, they generally do not sin mortally if they fail to go to church or otherwise observe Sundays. This is especially so for those raised in households where Sunday observance was very lax.

Second, our pastor and instructor, whom I love and respect, kind of laughed and said, "I’ve been a priest for 35 years and I haven’t yet met someone who’s broken all ten Commandments."

I was thinking to myself, "Oh, yes you have. You’ve met me."

Further, my husband has also broken all ten. All one has to do is read one of those Examination of Conscience books to figure out that most people have broken all ten.

True, but you have to realize that the things listed in an examination of conscience aren’t all mortal sins. For example: "Have I stolen the property of another?" is only mortal if you gravely harm the person from whom your steal. If you take a box of pens home from work then that’s going to be venial (unless for some really weird reason the existence of your place of employment hinges on its having that box of pens or something).

If you steal a thousand bucks from work, though, that’s going to be mortal since that thousand dollars represents a thousand dollars of damage that was done to some person or persons (like your fellow employees) who would otherwise have it (the loss of a thousand bucks being a serious matter for anyone who isn’t very wealthy).

My husband was raised in a single parent home where religion was not a priority. I asked him the other day, "When you (stole the candy, killed the bird, missed Church) did you know it was a sin?" He replied that he knew in his heart those things were bad, even if he didn’t know they were ‘sins’. So, does he have to confess them?

The fact that he couldn’t articulate the word "sin" in connection with them doesn’t of itself mean that he’s off the hook, because he still knew they were wrong and did them anyway. But the fact that he was raised in this kind of religiously lax family (in the case of missing church) and that he’s talking about very small things (stealing candy, killing a bird) mean that the grave matter needed for mortal sin is not there.

Am I going to be an old woman before my husband emerges from the Confessional?

That would depend on whether there is a mini-black hole or other extreme gravitational force in the confessional that could warp spacetime while your husband is making his confession.

I mean, we’re trying to have kids, for crying out loud.

Good luck with that! We need more kids around!

Can you, at your leisure, please explain ‘First Confession: What to Say, What not to Say"?

In a post I did earlier today (by a strange coincidence), I talked about how the process of making a confession generally works, and I’m sure that they’ll give your husband additional guidance in his RCIA course.

I would say this, though: It is clear that your husband is currently suffering from a case of confessional scrupulosity, by which I mean that he’s overestimating what sins he needs to confess. This is a normal thing in persons just coming into the Church, because he hasn’t yet had a chance to learn what does and does not need to be confessed. As he learns more, this tendency should go away.

A standard piece of advice for people who have scrupulosity is that they are to confess ONLY those sins which they are CERTAIN were mortal sins and to refrain from confessing everything else, simply saying "And for all my sins I am sorry."

I would therefore look through the Ten Commandments, with a knowledge of the different ways one can offend against them, and say, "Can I remember any cases where I KNOW that I GRAVELY offended against one of these DELIBERATELY and KNOWING that it was a grave violation at the time?"

Since he was raised in a religiously lax family, he likely did not know that many of the sins he may have committed in his life were grave violations, even if they were.

Making this kind of confession will suffice. As long as he doesn’t deliberately hold back something that he KNOWS to be a mortal sin then the absolution will be valid, and if he later comes to the conclusion that something he failed to mention was mortal then he can confess it at that time.

I’d also be patient with him. First confessions of adult converts can often take a while. I think that my first one lasted for something like 45 minutes (though that may be a bad memory and it may have been considerably less). It took so long not because I had that many mortal sins to confess, but because I was new to confession and was in the same situation as your husband.

I didn’t know what to confess and I wasn’t efficient at it, so I went into too much detail and confessed all kinds of things I didn’t know to be mortal, just to be sure. I didn’t know, for example, that I could just say "I have THIS to confess and THAT to confess" and move through things swiftly. Today the same initial confession would take me five minutes–ten tops, depending on any questions the priest wanted to ask me.

Also, if it is going to take a long time, you can simply stay home while your husband does it. He also might want to make a special appointment for it rather than making other people wait in line during a really long confession.

One thing that might help your husband get through it would be to write out a list of what he needs to confess. If he does this, he should do it BY HAND (NOT on a computer, where there could be an electronic record of it created accidentally or by spyware).

If he thinks he may be overcome by emotion, he can also hand the list to the priest and say "I confess THIS." If he does that, he should afterwards get the list back from the priest and DESTROY it (tearing it into little bits and flushing it down the nearest men’s room toilet would be a good way).

Measures such as these should allow him to get through the confession more quickly and get back to your marriage . . . already in progress.

Single RadTrad Catholic Seeks Same

As someone who has surveyed the various Catholic singles sites and even posted a profile on one of them, I know the difficulty of finding marriageable like-minded Catholics. Although the Internet match services are somewhat distasteful for me — although the ticking of my biological clock overrode that personal distaste for a while — they have been very successful in matching people who would otherwise never have met. I know couples who have been the beneficiaries of the good these sites can accomplish and so I’m hardly one to seek to tear down good services.

That said, I couldn’t help but roll my eyes when I surfed into TraditionalSingleCatholics.com, a site that seeks to match you with the RadTrad Catholic man or woman of your dreams:

"Begin meeting other Traditional Catholic singles from around the country today. With a full membership, you are able to email and chat with other members and post on our Message Boards; plus, you’ll be notified of new emails as you receive them, as well as upgraded services our website will offer in the coming months.

"The owners of this website are Traditional Catholics, and we, as well as many all over the world, continue to pray that the Traditional Latin Mass and Catholic Faith will be made available to all for the salvation of souls."

VISIT THE SITE.

"Michelle," you might be murmuring, "Aren’t you being a bit harsh? Just because these proprietors like the Latin Mass and think the Catholic faith should be spread throughout the world hardly makes them RadTrads."

True. That’s why you need to know that the site links to the schismatic Society of St. Pius X, the sedevacantist Society of St. Pius V, and the sedevacantist Novus Ordo Watch. It hosts an article that seriously proposes that the canonization of John Paul II would be "a large slap in the face to all the saints who did defend the Catholic faith."

GET THE STORY.

"Okay, okay," you’re saying, "The site’s loony. You’re not going to find the man of your dreams there. But why do you care if RadTrad Catholics do find the man or woman of their dreams at that site?"

Fair question.

I care because it saddens me that there are Catholics so isolated from the mainstream of life within the Church that they cannot find marriage partners on a mainstream Catholic singles site. And I care because the couples that form on that site will likely perpetuate that sense of isolationism into the next generation. A Catholic isolated from his own Church is like a blood cell isolated from the body through which it is supposed to flow. The more Catholics who are so isolated, now and in future generations, the more blood there is being drained from the mystical body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:12-27).

Do You Need An Annulment To Join The Church?

A reader writes:

My friend is an awesome convert, and is in RCIA, but being denied the rites and Sacrament because he is divored without an annulment. He is not remarried or engaged or even in a relationship. He is eligible for RCIA, is he not? How can I prove this to the gal who runs the program? She denied him the rite of election today.

First, that’s horrible. Your friend may be devastated by this, and you should do all in your power to console him and to set this straight.

Assuming that the RCIA director is clear on the fact that your friend is not married or planning to marry in the near future (you should verify that she knows this), the most expedient way to do set things straight may be to talk to the pastor of the parish, who presumably is better informed on this point than the RCIA director.

The Church makes no requirement that people who are divorced get an annulment before they can join the Church. That is nowhere in canon law, and the burden of proof is on the lady to show where it is. (It ain’t there.)

The reason that people need annulments after divorce is to prove that they are free to remarry, not to prove that they can join the Church. As long as your friend is not remarried (or engaged or in a relationship) then he has no pressing need for an annulment.

It may be advisable for him to pursue one in case he wants to remarry in the future, but the fact is that annulments are NOT a prerequisite for joining the Church. All kinds of divorced people join the Church without annulments. You only need one if you want to remarry.

I mean: Suppose that there is a divorced person who’s marriage to his wife is valid, so that he is bound to her and not free to marry someone else. Okay, fine. He can’t marry anyone else. But that has NOTHING to do with whether he can join the Church.

God is not in the business of keeping people out of his Church just because they are divorced. There can be very good reasons why a civil divorce may be necessary–even when the marriage is valid–and the Church acknowledges this (cf. CCC 2383).

Now, if it becomes necessary to get into the canonical details of this case (which it shouldn’t be if you talk to the pastor), here is where to start:

Can. 843 §1. Sacred ministers cannot deny the sacraments to those who seek them at appropriate times, are properly disposed, and are not prohibited by law from receiving them.

§2. Pastors of souls and other members of the Christian faithful, according to their respective ecclesiastical function, have the duty to take care that those who seek the sacraments are prepared to receive them by proper evangelization and catechetical instruction, attentive to the norms issued by competent authority.

The clauses in blue indicate that if your friend is to be denied the sacraments of initiation on the grounds that he lacks an annulment that they’re going to have to cough up a law that prohibits such persons from receiving them, and there ain’t on such law.

You’ll also note that section 2 of this canon mentions precisely NOTHING about needing an annulment.

Further,

Can. 18 Laws which
establish a penalty, restrict the free exercise of rights, or contain an
exception from the law are subject to strict interpretation.

Here the blue text tells us that in order to bar your friend from exercising his right to freely embrace the Catholic faith, they’re going to have to come up with a law that unambiguously denies him the exercise of that right because of his lack of an annulment. The law has to be clearly do this in order to meet the strict interpretation test, so no trying to bend ambiguous clauses to come up with the solution the RCIA director wants.

Now let’s suppose that your friend is not baptized. What are the requirements of baptism for adults?

Can. 864 Every person not yet baptized and only such a person is capable of baptism.

Can. 865 §1. For an adult to be baptized, the person must have manifested the intention to receive baptism, have been instructed sufficiently about the truths of the faith and Christian obligations, and have been tested in the Christian life through the catechumenate. The adult is also to be urged to have sorrow for personal sins.

Ain’t nothing in there about an annulment if you’re divorced and not remarried.

Okay, so suppose your friend is already baptized and needs to be confirmed? What are the requirements for that?

Can. 889 §1. Every baptized person not yet confirmed and only such a person is capable of receiving confirmation.

§2. To receive confirmation licitly outside the danger of death requires that a person who has the use of reason be suitably instructed, properly disposed, and able to renew the baptismal promises.

Again: Nothing about nedding an annulment if you’re divorced and not remarried.

The burden is therefore entirely on the RCIA director to cough up a law that says people are to be barred from being initiated into the Church for this reason–and it has to be a clear law whose requirements stand up to strict interpretation.

Rather than hash all that out with her, though, the simplest thing is likely to be to talk to the pastor.

Please reassure your friend–who may well be devastated by this turn of events–that the Church cares for him and wants to facilitate his joining it and that the woman who denied him rite of election on these grounds is an idiot.

She is, however, an idiot who is trying to do what is right as she understands it, and that’s a good thing, so he should try to understand that as he prays for her to get smartened up.

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.