Journeys of a Catholic Poster Girl

So I have worn the veil to Mass three times since I received it. The first two times were at daily Mass, which are less crowded, and today was the Sunday unveiling (unveiling of the veil…haha!).

The first time I wore it, I felt a bit self-conscious. It also brngs up questions like, when do I put the veil on? When I’m in the church building? Before I enter the sanctuary? In the sanctuary? When I get to my seat? I decided to put it on upon entering the sanctuary. If I’m wearing a coat this can create some issues, because I don’t want it to fall off when I remove my coat, but so far that hasn’t happened. When I leave Mass, I take it off when I’m out of the sanctuary, meaning that if I was going to get doughnuts or whatever post-Mass, the veil would be off.

So I get to my seat, veil in place, and Mass proceeds as usual. It helps me focus, because my peripheral vision is sort of skewed by the veil. My veil is lace, so I can see through it, if I try, but I sort of like the fuzziness on either side of me. It helps me concentrate.

I try not to fiddle with it, but it does have a tendency to slip back on my head so I have to pull it forward sometimes. (I like it right about where bangs would begin.) But no far it has not fallen off, even when I bow or lower my head.

And no, I haven’t received any looks or questions. But at this parish, it’s not uncommon to see girls of about six or seven wearing a small chapel cap or veil, so I’m not really doing anything all that special. At another, less traditional parish, I’m sure I’d get some looks.

So, this is my veil experience thus far. I have found it helps me concentrate (I’m not wildly looking around anymore, because I don’t want the veil to fall off!), which can only be a good thing at Mass.

It isn’t often that TV shows lead to deep theological discussion, but last night’s episode of House, M.D. provided that for several of my friends and I. The topic? The sacrament of Confession.

Probably no other sacrament is as misunderstood among non-Catholics as this one. So when Dr. Robert Chase entered the confessional to confess the killing of a patient, I was really hoping the show would handle this accurately. (FOX has a pretty good track record for being on-spot with Catholic things—see Agent Booth in Bones.)

The scene, for those of you who didn’t see the episode, essentially went like this: Dr. Chase (who was a former seminarian) enters the confessional (behind the screen, natch), and begins with the standard “Bless me, Father, for I have sinned.” He waits for a few seconds, gathering up the nerve to continue. Then he blurts out that he killed a man (note he doesn’t say patient), but that he knows it was the right thing to do, and thus, doesn’t really feel sorry about it.

The priest tells him that in order to receive absolution, he has to be sorry (this is correct). Chase (who should know better, being a former seminarian and all) asks what he has to do to receive absolution (not forgiveness). He asks if he has to go to the police and turn himself in, even though the man he killed was responsible for the deaths of thousands of other people. The priest says yes. Chase leaves the confessional, unable to reconcile the fact that he has killed a very bad man (someone who was responsible for killings many others, and now can no longer kill), but yet feels this intractable guilt.

(Note: Perhaps the priest would’ve reacted differently if Chase said he was a doctor who killed a patient. But I’m not sure. I think Chase was thinking more in terms of deliberate killing, or murder, than malpractice.)

So that’s the set-up. After the episode, a few of my friends and I were tossing around our thoughts on Facebook.  Among my Catholic friends, the questions were more, “Would a priest really react that way?” (For the record—I didn’t think it was too far-fetched. He can’t give absolution if the person isn’t sorry. Being sorry is a required for valid confession.)

Among my Protestant friends, the questions were (understandably) different. Mostly, they involved two points: one, why does Chase even go to confession, since priests don’t forgive sins—God does, (corollary—and anyway, how can the priest deny forgiveness?) and, two, no amount of penance (the priest had made a reference to saying Hail Marys) can “earn” forgiveness from God. He just gives it.

I responded to these concerns with the following (in a more concise way, since this was, after all, Facebook):

1) A priest cannot give absolution if the person isn’t sorry—being sorry is an important part of the confession. In the Act of Contrition, you essentially say (wording varies depending on your version of choice) that what you did is wrong, that you’re sorry you did it, and you’re (going to try) not to do it again. Chase isn’t sorry, therefore he can’t, in good conscience, say the Act of Contrition. Therefore, the priest cannot give a valid absolution.

2) A penance is our part of the bargain here, and is derived from the Jewish custom of sacrifice, depending on the size of the person’s sin (see Dr. Scott Hahn’s book Lord, Have Mercy for a lot more on this idea). The process of forgiveness/atonement requires that we do something in reparation. It is an active sacrament. Sometimes, yes, the penance is a rosary. Sometimes it’s doing a good deed. I once had a priest tell me (in my younger days) to hug my mom. But the idea is that the penance helps you avoid the temptation to sin again. And you have made reparations—you have done your part to repair whatever damage, visible or invisible, that you have done.

3) Some Biblical basis for Confession can be found in John 20:28, and Matthew 16:18, where Jesus tells the disciples that “whatever [they] bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven, and whatever [they] loose on Earth shall be loosed in Heaven.” (This was in reply to the idea that Confession is a man-made invention and not instituted by Christ.)

Confession is probably the most misunderstood sacrament the Church has. If you’re not Catholic, it can easily seem mysterious and sort of out there. And let me tell you, it’s a whole lot easier to mumble through the occasional Confiteor at Mass than it is to go into the confessional and tell the priest what you, yourself, have done wrong in the past week, month, year. Mumbling through prayers with the rest of the congregation sort of absolves your sense of responsibility. You’re not telling everyone what you did. In the confessional, you have to. That’s what you’re there for, and that’s what the priest is there for—to hear the sins, to council you, to give you God’s forgiveness.

In today’s Enquirer (article by Dan Horn)–my emphases and comments.

Catholics stand together during Sunday Mass to recite the “Profession of Faith,” a creed that defines precisely what it is that makes them Catholic.

“We believe in God … We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ … We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.”

The prayer covers a lot of ground, from God’s creation of the Earth to Christ’s birth and crucifixion to the promise of life in heaven. Most churchgoing Catholics memorized the words as children and consider the creed a statement that unites them in a common belief.

And yet, when they walk out of church at the end of Mass, they still find plenty about their faith to argue about.

The arguments have been passionate in recent weeks as Cincinnati’s Catholics debated Archbishop Daniel Pilarczyk’s decision to punish Sister Louise Akers for publicly supporting the ordination of women priests.

Pilarczyk told Akers she could not teach in archdiocesan schools until she renounced her stance on the issue. A week after she refused, a parish priest in Westwood dismissed a volunteer religion teacher, Carol Egner, for writing a letter to The Enquirer supporting Akers and her position on women priests.

The decision to punish the teachers not only rekindled debate over the ordination of women, but also highlighted a long-running tug-of-war between traditionalists and progressives over the future of the Catholic Church.

“What’s happening with Akers is not an isolated case,” said John Allen, an author and columnist who covers the Vatican for the National Catholic Reporter, an independent weekly newspaper. “It’s a small piece of a much bigger picture.”

The struggle within the church has intensified in the past few years as conservative Catholics, energized by the appointment of Pope Benedict XVI, pushed for stricter adherence to church teaching. They have praised a Vatican investigation of women’s religious orders, welcomed a return to traditions such as the granting of indulgences and cheered Pope Benedict’s declaration that Catholics must “not seek to adapt the faith to the fashions of the age.”

They also supported Pilarczyk’s decision to get tough with Akers over the ordination of women, which some consider a vestige of a liberal theology that took hold in the 1960s and 1970s after the Second Vatican Council.

The council, also known as Vatican II, launched reforms that some theologians now say were misinterpreted as an invitation to change the central teachings of the faith to better mesh with the changing secular world.

“Vatican II wasn’t intended to set off a liturgical civil war, but that’s what we got,” said Rich Leonardi, a Cincinnatian who writes the conservative Catholic blog Ten Reasons. “There was a tendency to think the church should just go with the flow, to move with the world rather than to move the world.

“That ship has sailed. There’s no intensity around that movement any more.”

Catholics who favor reform dispute Leonardi’s take on their views, saying they remain active and committed to changing their church from within. They acknowledge, however, that they face more challenges today than they did just a few decades ago.

“I do think there seems to be a trend among bishops around the country to get much more hard-line about women’s issues,” said Christine Schenk, director of FutureChurch, which favors a “discussion” about women’s ordination but has not endorsed the idea.

“It’s a mystery to me, but talking about women’s equality in the church is threatening at some level.” (Oh. Puh-leaze. Genesis doesn’t say “male and female he created equally” It says, “Male and female he created them.” Each gender is unique, and each has unique gifts. They are not interchangable things. For more–read the Theology of the Body. Even a brief summary will suffice.)

Dealing with dissent

Conservatives have gained momentum in the past decade among the laity, in seminaries and in the church hierarchy. They have taken to blogs, TV and radio and have become more active in church affairs and in secular politics.

That was evident earlier this year when bishops and thousands of lay Catholics publicly opposed President Barack Obama’s speech at the University of Notre Dame on grounds that his pro-choice stance conflicted with Catholic teachings.

“What we’re living through right now is a kind of reaction against what was seen as an excessively liberal period,” Allen said.

From the outside looking in, divisions within the church are not all that visible because polls show America’s 70 million Catholics tend to hold views similar to those of the general population.

But those polls also show that Catholics who describe themselves as “orthodox” or who attend Mass regularly are more closely aligned with their church’s teachings on issues such as abortion, homosexuality and embryonic stem cell research.

These are the Catholics who have embraced what some call the “Catholic identity movement,” which calls for closer adherence to the traditions and teachings that separate Catholics from other Christian faiths.

“A watered down Catholicism that asks nothing of its members shouldn’t expect to get anything in return,” Leonardi said.

One of those teachings is the all-male priesthood. While not referenced in Scripture, it is based on sacred tradition passed down over 2,000 years and is specifically referenced in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

In other words, the male priesthood is non-negotiable.

“The church has no authority to ordain women,” said archdiocese spokesman Dan Andriacco. “It is not an open question.”

He said the discipline imposed on Akers and Egner is not part of a wider crackdown on dissent, as some fear, and the archdiocese has no interest in rooting out rank-and-file Catholics who don’t agree with everything the church does, including the 60 percent who tell pollsters they support ordaining women.

“There is no witch hunt,” said the Rev. Earl Fernandes, dean of Mount St. Mary’s Seminary. “We’re a big church. We try to help each person to grow in faith.”

‘Spirit of openness’

Dissent is nothing new for Catholics. The church’s positions on birth control, celibacy for priests, the Latin Mass and a host of other traditions and teachings have been argued for decades, or even centuries.

Priests and bishops know not every Catholic will adhere to every teaching of the faith, and most say there is room on some issues for healthy debate, or at least for disagreement.

“We want to have a fundamental spirit of openness,” Fernandes said.

Church officials say Akers and Egner crossed a line because they are teachers who publicly challenged church teachings. Their argument goes something like this: Religion is about belief, and those who believe women should be priests don’t believe what the Catholic Church teaches. They believe what Methodists teach. (Ha!)

That doesn’t mean they have to quit the church, but it does mean they aren’t permitted to teach. (Exactement!)

“We want our teachers to be authentic,” Fernandes said. “We want our teachers to believe what they teach.”

Both Akers and Egner say they would not express their views on women’s ordination in their classes, and they consider themselves loyal to their church and to the core beliefs recited every Sunday in the Profession of Faith.

They say there should be room in their church for them to do the work they love, even if they disagree on the ordination of women.

“Catholics have a very long tradition of various beliefs and the ability to talk about them,” Egner said. “Sometimes things change.”

Jeb on his brother’s faith–and faith in politics.

A great Elizabeth Foss column here

And her blog is here.

Is Notre Dame still a Catholic University, after inviting Barack Obama to give this year’s commencement address? A man who, in his first two months in office, has revoked the Mexico City policy, opened the flood gates for embryonic stem cell research, who wants to rescind conscience protections for health care workers, and has appointed fervently pro-abortion Gov. Kathleen Sebelius to the position of HHS secretary?

Some folks are a bit upset about this. I don’t blame them.

A lot of my relatives, and a few of my friends, went to or currently attend Notre Dame. Notre Dame is big in my family. But I don’t know if it can call itself a Catholic university when this is who is chooses to speak to its graduates at commencement.

If you want to encourage dialogue, then fine. Invite him to speak. But not at commencement. Commencement is highly symbolic. The speakers chosen are the faculty’s way of saying, this is someone you should look up to. This person has virtues, traits, and a character tha tare worth emulating.

Certainly the president has achieved a historic feat. But he is not, in any way, shape, or form, a strong proponent of Catholic theology. He does not embody what the Catholic church believes or teaches. Yet, he has been chosen.

I am disturbed by this.

a very great WaPo article. 

Followed by an interesting WaPo discussion.

I love how there are lots of dicussion questions about materialism and celibacy. Wow. 

Also notice the parallels between this and the priesthood–if you removed the celibacy requirement, wouldn’t more people join? 

Very interesting. 

From The Corner:

Obama to End Mexico City Policy [Ed Whelan]
AP reports that today President Obama will “sign an executive order ending the ban on federal funds for international groups that promote or perform abortions.” How soon until Obama’s pro-life apologists try to argue that repeal of the so-called Mexico City policy is really a pro-life step?

Life on the Mall

Roe V. Wade at 36 (NRO)

And this picture

I offer link for pondering. 

 So many times in my life I have been close to death. And, since abortion was legal when I was born in 1982, my mother could have chose to abort me, based on my genetic make-up. And she didn’t. I’m still here, and I am so glad of that every day. Does that mean that I love waking up when my alarm clock goes off exceedingly too early? Well, no. But every day is just a fantastic gift.
Please pray for all those who are considering abortion. Pray for our politicians that they will be pro-life!

From First Things: (my emphases in bold)

When Not Aborting Is Immoral

Posted by Keith Pavlischek on September 19, 2008, 4:34 PM

From over on starboard side, Nicholas Provenzo of the Center for the Advancement of Capitalism is “troubled” by the implications of Gov. Sarah Palin’s “decision to knowingly give birth to a child disabled with Down syndrome.” He thinks “it is crucial to reaffirm the morality of aborting a fetus diagnosed with Down syndrome (or by extension, any unborn fetus)—a freedom that anti-abortion advocates seek to deny.” Here’s his line of thinking:  

A parent has a moral obligation to provide for his or her children until these children are equipped to provide for themselves. Because a person afflicted with Down syndrome is only capable of being marginally productive (if at all) and requires constant care and supervision, unless a parent enjoys the wealth to provide for the lifetime of assistance that their child will require, they are essentially stranding the cost of their child’s life upon others.

 (me: So, I guess I shouldn’t be here, right, because, you know, some CF people are only “marginally productive.” Who in the world has the right to say what is and what is not productive? How can we be so callous as to reduce human life to production, to economic terms!?)

 

Meanwhile, on the port side, Paul Ehrlich, author of “The Population Bomb,” treats us to this little thought:

I believe it is immoral and should be illegal for people to have very large numbers of children because they are then co-opting for themselves and their children resources that should be spread elsewhere in the world. You only get a chance to get your fair share. 

To the follow-up question, “How many is ‘very large’”? Ehrlich responds:

The issue is: What is the political position to take? In a country like the United States, we should stop at two. But if you had an ideal situation, you might have a lot of people who have no children at all, and some people who have as many as three or four because they happen to be particularly good parents, and are going to raise their children very well. 

Me: OK, so let’s make this a bit less hypothetical. 

“Let’s stop at two”–that means neither of my parents, both the third child in their families, wouldn’t have been born. 

On my mom’s side, more specifically, that means that my Uncle Tim and my Aunts Sue, Patty, Mary, and Amy would not have been born. Hence I would not have my fantastic aunts and uncles, I would not have my godfather, and I would not have my godson. My grandparents, instead of having 25 grandchildren to love, would have four–Julie, Jeff, Diane and Megan–and four great-grandchildren. 

If, by some miracle, my parents did squeak by, then my little sister would not have been born. Sorry, Mel. Neither would the siblings of many of my friends, especially in the families where the first two children are twins.  

What kind of absolute nonsense is this!? People can have as many kids as they want without subjecting the number to some government entity. Yes, you should be able to take care of the kids you bring into the world. I am not advocating that we all go out and produce like rabbits, here. But NO ONE can tell me or anyone else how many kids to have!

Side note: The social entitlements that the Left so enjoys are funded mainly by–guess what–tax receipts. If you have a growing aging population and a shrinking young population, then you do not have the resources to provide for these massive entitlements, like Social Security and Medicare. Look to Europe–as the birth rate declines, so does their inability to support their massive welfare states. 

The Bible says that Children are a blessing from the Lord–they are a reward! We are to “be fruitful and multiply.” The scathing comments about people with big families, people who trust in God’s providence, and who procreate, are just sickening. 

If I was married I would want at least three kids, and maybe four! I love my big family. I love my siblings. Big families are good training grounds for life. 

This sort of thinking is dangerous and needs to be stopped, pronto. Sure the environment and all that is important, but human beings are more so.