“Remember The Alamo!”

San_jacintoThat was a battle cry 169 years ago in the Battle of San Jacinto (san hah-sin-tah), the decisive battle for Texan Independence from Mexico.

The battle cry was uttered by the renowned Gen. Sam Houston (who later had a town named after him) and Darth Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna, who was the villain of the Alamo Massacre.

"Remember the Alamo!" wasn’t the only battle cry of the day, though. "Remember Goliad!" also was.

Darth Santa Anna had also been in charge of the massacre at Goliad, at which he’d ordered all prisoners put to death.

And thus it was with the memory of these two massacres that the valiant Texican warriors of San Jacinto went forth to win their independence.

GET THE STORY.

Remember the Alamo! Remember Goliad!

The Hippy in Me

There is a ton of analysis out there on BXVI, being that he was already a well known figure before he assumed the papacy, which is unusual in itself. Here is a little snippet from an interview of religion writer David Van Biema on TIME.com., that suggests that this Pope is not fearful of losing members over questions of doctrinal purity.:

He (BXVI) has previously indicated that he would be comfortable with an extremely small Church, preferring a small church of true believers to a larger one whose numbers are swelled by people he would not see as good Catholics. Benedict XVI has previously argued that it is not unhealthy for church to be a counter culture rather than a dominant player in secular Western society.

Gee, I always wanted to be "counter-cultural". It appeals to my internal hippy. I have always said that if Natural Family Planning had been invented by a ponytailed professor in the ’60s, it would be all the rage. Hey, man, no chemicals, no artificial anything. Just you and your soul-mate doing what comes naturally.

Read the whole article HERE.

A Layman Pope?

I’m writing this note before the conclave, and it’s likely to be moot by the time it goes up on Thursday, but here goes.

A reader writes:

i am practicing catholic from india. your statement that a layman could become a pope is very confusing i am a married person with 2 children do you think that i could become a pope if 2/3rd of the cardinals vote me as the pope. more over which cannon law allows a person who has not taken celebecy to become a pope. we also request that you dont make such irresponsible statements about the catholic faith which is followed by millions of catholics in the world

I appreciate your concern for accuracy and for not misleading the faithful, but I think that there has been a bit of a miscommunication here.

Any discussion of the possibility of a layman being elected pope in this day and age is purely hypothetical. There is basically no chance whatsoever that this would happen in today’s environment. For the sake of accuracy, though, I note that it is a hypothetical possibility.

Canon law expressly provides for the situation in which a non-bishop is elected pope. It says that if a non-bishop is elected pope then he is to be consecrated as a bishop immediately. This provision of canon law does not restrict the election of a pontiff to priests. It simply refers to him not being a bishop. Therefore, he could be a priest, a deacon, or a layman.

There is also nothing in canon law or other lay preventing the cardinals from electing a man who is married or has children. They would never do so in real life at this point in Church history, but there is nothing in canon law stopping them from doing so. If they really felt that a married layman with kids was the best person to lead the Church, they are empowered to elect such a person.

Indeed, in Universi Dominici Gregis, John Paul II exhorted them, saying:

Rather, having before their eyes solely the glory of God and the good of the Church, and having prayed for divine assistance, they shall give their vote to the person, even outside the College of Cardinals, who in their judgment is most suited to govern the universal Church in a fruitful and beneficial way [SOURCE].

There are no restrictions on that. The only restrictions that would exist would be one that of their nature prevent one from being consecrated a bishop. That means that women could not be elected (or that such an election would be invalid), but it is possible in principle–even though it is rare in the Latin church–to be married still receive holy orders.

Indeed, Scripture seems to indicate that the first pope was that way.

So if the cardinals did give you a two-thirds vote, you would be validly elected pope.

I think you have nothing to fear in regard to this possibility, though. It would be very foolish for the cardinals to elect any layman today, for it would be very, very bad for the Church. Consequently, they will not do so.

Confession Validity

A reader writes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

20

Reflections On the Papal Process

Although I’ve been a Catholic for nearly a decade now, in many ways this past month I have felt like a baby Catholic.  And, despite the sorrow for John Paul II and the joy for Benedict XVI, mostly I’ve felt like a baby greedily sucking in the drama, the pageantry, the history, and — most of all — the world reaction.

I may or may not have more to say later about certain reactions from non-Catholics, but what has impressed me the most is how important the past month has been to the world.  The world has known that something monumental has been happening in its midst and it has been watching.  While we might quibble with or heckle down some of the watchers’ commentaries, I think it says something significant about the Catholic Church that this transition has meant so much worldwide to Catholics and non-Catholics alike.

Can you imagine anything like this surrounding a shift in leadership in any other religion — Christian or non-Christian — anywhere else in the world?  The only possible comparable might occur when the Dalai Lama passes on, but I think much of that will be because of his personal appeal to the world; it won’t be because of the office he holds.  In other words, while many around the world will genuinely and sincerely mourn the Dalai Lama, I doubt there will be much worldwide speculation on who will succeed him.  There certainly won’t be an equivalent to this past week’s coverage of the Vatican and the election of the new Pope.  And it is astounding that the only marginal comparable of which I could fathom is a man who is not only a non-Christian but also a non-monotheist.  No other Christian or non-Christian, monotheistic or non-monotheistic, religion offers a worldwide office and leader of such importance to the secular or religious world.

It says something of the importance of the Church and the papacy to the world that the world knows that these are events of such monumental importance that they must be covered in-depth.  There may be fundamental disagreements between the world and the Church, between the world and the Pope; but the Church and the Pope will never be irrelevant to the world.  And, for me, that is confirmation that Christ is still active in the world today and that the world subconsciously recognizes him in the Catholic Church.

For a baby Catholic like me, that’s a huge comfort.

Randomly Flexible Modalities

When you are a student at MIT and you are in the mood to play a trick on someone, you can’t just Vaseline their doorknob or fiddle with the settings on their spell checker. People expect a little higher grade of tomfoolery from future code writers. So, when these two MIT chums got more bored than usual they decided to play a hoax on the World Multi-Conference on Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics! No, seriously!

They sat down and wrote this nifty program that randomly generates scientific research papers, including charts and diagrams and tech-speak so jargon-bloated and convoluted that it’s difficult to distinguish from REAL scientific gibberish (I learned a little of this kind of thing myself, when I took a seminar in Grant Writing) and their paper was accepted for presentation at the conference!

They are now trying to raise money to travel to the conference and give a randomly generated talk on their paper. The event organizers aren’t too excited about that, though, and may not let them in. The paper is hilarious to read because you know it’s fake, and the story also has a link you can follow to randomly generate your own scientific treatise!

GET THE STORY.

The Best Defence…

Already conservatives are on the defensive, trying to calm the irrational fears of the fringe (theological) left of the Church, assuring them that Pope Benedict won’t be that bad. Even FOX News has been sucked into this. Just now I saw a piece all about the concerns of "many American Catholics" that the new Pope is too authoritarian and traditional.

Hel-lo-o-o-o? You could just as easily frame the story this way: "Many American Catholics Elated at Conclave’s Outcome" or "Many American Catholics Eager For New Pope’s Likely Reforms". Why let these shrieking harpies set the agenda?

I confess, I did check in at BeliefNet last night just to revel in Andrew Sullivan’s perplexed rage. His most telling comment was comparing Benedict XVI to JPII. How does Sullivan think the new Pope will stack up against the most beloved figure of modern times? He laments that he will be "even more hardline" than JPII.

Let’s hope pray so!

READ SULLIVAN’S RANT HERE, if you can stomach it. I found it most enjoyable.

Hillary: Less Than Advertised?

HillaryHillary Clinton is being treated as if she’s a political supergenius.

Y’know, you hear all those stories in the press about how she’s "cleverly repositioning" herself to fool voters into thinking that she’s not a shieking, hard-left harpy in anticipation of the 2008 elections, in which she will be a virtually unstoppable juggernaut because she’ll have pulled the wool over the American public’s eyes so completely that we won’t remember she was ever a hard-left harpy and won’t notice all the hard-lefties supporting her in 2008 giving each other all the "wink, wink, nudge, nudge" signs as she says things to further her non-hard-left harpy image.

What a supergenius politician!

OR IS SHE?