Category: Catechesis

We here at Catholic Light are just as grateful as can be for the election of Pope Benedict XVI, and so are most of our readers.
Yet we cannot overlook the plight of readers who are disappointed or frustrated to find that this new Pope believes exactly the same faith as did Pope John Paul II. He believes the same as every other Pope before him, without subtraction or contradiction.
I do hope all these folks who are feeling frustrated today will come to accept what has happened, and understand that the outcome is nothing to be distressed or even surprised about: it’s the completely normal result of a papal election.
We Catholics should have done a better job before the election to help our diverse friends on-line set their expectations. Start with this, because you can rely on it above all else: the Pope will be an orthodox Catholic, one who holds and teaches the established faith of the Church. If there are any points of Catholic teaching that you might consider erroneous, misguided, or just unpleasant, please understand that he will not change them. It’s not his calling to do that, and he doesn’t have the power to do it. In fact, we believe that the Holy Spirit will not let him do it.
That’s because Christianity is a revealed religion — that is: a religion bearing spiritual and moral teaching revealed by God, and of course divinely revealed doctrines are true, because God cannot lie; and if we were to change our acceptance of those, we’d be falling into error.
This is how the Church understands herself: on a mission from God, to bring all of mankind into friendship with Christ, to receive salvation and truth from Him: or at least to bring to Him as many of mankind who will accept Him.
I can’t expect everyone to agree with the Church, but please do accept that this is our faith; this is who the Church is and what she’s about. Don’t be disappointed when the Church doesn’t fulfill the wishful thinking of pundits who profess with great self-assurance that some future Pope will change Catholic teaching on morals. Don’t expect the Church to fulfill even your own wishful thinking, if you want her doctrines to be reversed. The Church isn’t here to be constantly changed by the world; rather, she is here to change the world.

My second post about self-sacrifice is about a little Iraqi girl who risked her life to save others (don’t worry, there’s a very happy ending.)
On a didactic note: this story shows the folly of consequentialism, an error propounded by some liberal theologians and explicitly condemned by the Holy Father in Veritatis Splendor. Consequentialism is the idea that you can only know if an action is truly good or bad according to the outcome of the action. But that’s foolish because, since no one can know the ultimate outcome of any given action, there’s no way you can accurately gauge its effect beforehand. Therefore, you should do good and hope that good comes of it.
As if to illustrate this principle, a small act of almsgiving led to a huge act of bravery. Seriously, read the story. I personally guarantee you won’t regret it.

I get the impression that my confessions are shorter than average. That is not because I sin less than other people. I try to go to confession at least once a month, and I rarely go more than six weeks without receiving the sacrament. (Grace is like gasoline to my soul: I run fine as long as I keep pouring it in regularly.)
At first, I thought I was just underestimating the time. “Time flies when you’re recounting your offenses against God,” as the saying goes. But a couple of weeks ago, I waited for more than an hour behind 10 people or so, and I couldn’t have taken more than two minutes. This has happened with many different priests at several parishes, so I don’t think I’m imagining it; even when the people in front of me are taking 5-10 minutes, I’m finished in half that time.
What’s going on here? Usually, I think of my sins beforehand and rattle them off unless the confessor asks me for clarification. If there are some mitigating or exacerbating circumstances, I mention them. For example, a while ago I missed Mass through no fault of my own, but I felt relieved because I had a lot to do that evening. That was clearly not a mortal sin, but since I treated Mass that day as a chore, it showed how far I was from saintly perfection.
Do people try to get pastoral advice in the confessional? I take it if it’s offered, but I don’t ask for it unless I have a question about something I’m confessing. Or do a lot of people need on-the-fly catechesis, and priests try to teach the penitents that certain things are sinful? I have several spiritual shortcomings, but resistance to orthodox teachings isn’t one of them.
I’m not fishing for someone to say “you’re so holy, Eric,” because I know that’s not true. I’m truly curious.

I went to the church nearest the Nameless Entity, in a blessed old urban parish run by the Dominicans. One of my Advent penances is to go to confession every week, and I thought I’d get started a week early.
This was the second time I had this particular Dominican. He is, I’m convinced, an entirely orthodox and kindly old man, with a genuine love for sinners and an evident joy for God’s creation. However, both times he didn’t ask me to make an act of contrition. The second time, I said one to myself as he gave me absolution.
I believe that this is a defect in the form of the confession itself, but the absolution is still valid. But what should I do when I have him next time? Charitably correct him? I’m uncomfortable with doing that — it doesn’t seem very penitential. Maybe I should say, “Father, do you mind if I say my act of contrition?” I’m open to suggestions.
Bonus question: after I went to confession, I stayed for daily Mass, but I had finished eating lunch at around 11:45 and the Communion was at about 12:35 or 12:40. I abstained from the Eucharist because I had eaten less than an hour before, because I had not planned to attend Mass.
I think I did the correct thing, but is there any kind of exemption if you did not deliberately break the one-hour fast before receiving? I don’t think there is, but I just thought I’d check to see if anyone knew.

In a comment on a previous post, I opined that Catholic bishops have been talking about homosexual marriage recently because homosexuals brought it up in the first place. Blaming them for taking an interest in the subject is sort of like blaming Poland for starting World War II.
I wanted to expand on my point that “militant homosexuals [are] trying to destroy marriage.” On the surface, that would appear to be hyperbole — they are merely trying to expand the definition of marriage, much as the definition of “citizen” has expanded to embrace blacks. It does not diminish American citizenship to let blacks have their full compliment of civil rights, goes the argument, so why is marriage injured by homosexual civil marriages?
Up until the campaign for gay marriage moved into its active phase in the 1990s, the homosexual movement agreed with the feminists: marriage is an essentially patriarchical, oppressive institution that codified the dominant heterosexual, masculine paridigm of American society. (Sorry for the jargon — I’m trying to use the same terms they used when I was in college in the ’90s.)
Now, however, the campaign for gay marriage has shifted its position, saying that homosexuals will be “civilized” (their word, not mine) by it, and therefore society will benefit because the instability of homosexual relationships will be greatly mitigated.
But you cannot radically redefine a concept without changing its essence. If marriage consists of one man and one woman, to change that formula is to make it something different. Even if you make the change for a greater good — reducing the astonishing promiscuity of gay men, for example — you will have mutated marriage into something else. Call it what you will, an agreement or a contract or even “marriage,” but it will have ceased to be itself.
Supernaturally, marriage helps us because spouses assist each other in their journey toward heaven. Also, the relationship between husband and wife is a model of Christ and his bride, the Church. On the natural level, marriage is for begetting and rearing good children and thus the perpetuation of a good society.
The further we drift away from those fundamental ideas, the more the Church will insist upon the proper understanding of marriage. It’s not rude of the bishops to indicate that homosexuals are trying to further degrade marriage in the popular mind, as well as civil law. It’s their job, and may they do it well.
I have nothing but sympathy for those who have a homosexual orientation through no fault of their own. As a fellow sinner who lives with the residual yet powerful effects of original sin, I cannot imagine how difficult it must be to go through life with that burden, especially for people attempting to live a Christian life. Indeed, I am awed by their courage.
I hope that society can find some way to accomodate homosexuals without veering off to the extremes of violent rejection of their existence, or unqualified acceptance of homosexual conduct. However, defining marriage out of existence will not solve that problem.