Journeys of a Catholic Poster Girl

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.

Today is the annniversary of the first apparition. 

If you’re new to Fatima, go here. 

If you’ve got young children (or want a good movie about it), this is what you want. (Note: The vision of Hell might scare very young kids.)

And, of course, there is the Warner Brothers (WARNER BROTHERS!) classic film, “Our Lady of Fatima”, which my family loves. (If you can believe it—this link takes you to the 1952 New York Times Review. The New York Times!) 

Our Lady of Fatima was a source of a lot of devotion in my family. Jacinta, the youngest visionary, is my sister’s patron saint; for my first communion I received a statue of Our Lady of Fatima, surrounded by Lucia, Francesco and Jacinta. Fatima is also probably the only place my dad would actually get a passport to visit. 

And don’t forget–John Paul the Great credits Our Lady of Fatima with saving his life after the 1982 assassination attempt. 

Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us!

From http://www.indianasnewscenter.com/news/local/43427367.html

STATEMENT TO THE FAITHFUL
From Bishop John M. D’Arcy
April 21, 2009

My Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

Recently, Father John Jenkins, CSC, in a letter of response to Bishop Olmsted of the Diocese of Phoenix, who had written him, critical of the decision to invite President Obama to speak and receive an Honorary Degree of Law at Notre Dame, indicated that it was his conviction that the statement Catholics in Political Life (USCCB) did not apply in this matter. Father Jenkins kindly sent me a copy of his letter, and also at a later meeting, asked for a response.

In an April 15th letter to Father Jenkins, I responded to his letter.

Now the points made in his letter have been sent by Father Jenkins to the members of the Notre Dame Board of Trustees and have been publicized nationally, as well as locally in the South Bend Tribune. Since the matter is now public, it is my duty as the bishop of this diocese to respond and correct. I take up this responsibility with some sadness, but also with the conviction that if I did not do so, I would be remiss in my pastoral responsibility.

Rather than share my full letter, which I have shared with some in Church leadership, I prefer to present some of the key points.

1. The meaning of the sentence in the USCCB document relative to Catholic institutions is clear. It places the responsibility on those institutions, and indeed, on the Catholic community itself.
“The Catholic community and Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions.” (Catholics in Political Life, USCCB)

2. When there is a doubt concerning the meaning of a document of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, where does one find the authentic interpretation? A fundamental, canonical and theological principal states that it is found in the local bishop, who is the teacher and law-giver in his diocese. (Cannon 330, 375 §§ 1 & 2; 380; 381 § 1; 391 § 1; 392, & 394 §1)

3. I informed Father Jenkins that if there was any genuine questions or doubt about the meaning of the relevant sentence in the Conference’s document, any competent canonist with knowledge of the tradition and love for Christ’s Church had the responsibility to inform Father Jenkins of the fundamental principle that the diocesan bishop alone bears the responsibility to provide an authoritative interpretation.

4. I reminded Father Jenkins that he indicated that he consulted presidents of other Catholic universities, and at least indirectly, consulted other bishops, since he asked those presidents to share with him those judgments of their own bishops. However, he chose not to consult his own bishop who, as I made clear, is the teacher and law-giver in his own diocese. I reminded Father Jenkins that I was not informed of the invitation until after it was accepted by the President. I mentioned again that it is at the heart of the diocesan bishop’s pastoral responsibility to teach as revealed in Sacred Scripture and the Tradition. (Lumen Gentium, 20; & Christus Dominus, 2) I reminded him that it is also central to the University’s relationship to the Church. (Ex corde ecclesiae, 27 & 28; Gen. Norm., Art. 5, §§ 1-3.)

5. Another key point. In his letter to Bishop Olmsted and in the wide-spread publicity, which has taken place as the points in the letter have been made public, Father Jenkins declared the invitation to President Obama does not “suggest support” for his actions, because he has expressed and continues to express disagreement with him on issues surrounding protection of life. I wrote that the outpouring of hundreds of thousands who are shocked by the invitation clearly demonstrates, that this invitation has, in fact, scandalized many Catholics and other people of goodwill. In my office alone, there have been over 3,300 messages of shock, dismay and outrage, and they are still coming in. It seems that the action in itself speaks so loudly that people have not been able to hear the words of Father Jenkins, and indeed, the action has suggested approval to many.

In the publicity surrounding the points Father Jenkins has made, he also says he is “following the document of the bishops” by “laying a basis for engagement with the President on this issue.” I indicated that I, like many others, will await to see what the follow up is on this issue between Notre Dame and President Obama.

6. As I have said in a recent interview and which I have said to Father Jenkins, it would be one thing to bring the President here for a discussion on healthcare or immigration, and no person of goodwill could rightly oppose this. We have here, however, the granting of an honorary degree of Law to someone whose activities both as president and previously, have been altogether supportive of laws against the dignity of the human person yet to be born.

In my letter, I have also asked Father Jenkins to correct, and if possible, withdraw the erroneous talking points, which appeared in the South Bend Tribune and in other media outlets across the country. The statements which Father Jenkins has made are simply wrong and give a flawed justification for his actions.

I consider it now settled – that the USCCB document, Catholics in Public Life, does indeed apply in this matter.

The failure to consult the local bishop who, whatever his unworthiness, is the teacher and law-giver in the diocese, is a serious mistake. Proper consultation could have prevented an action, which has caused such painful division between Notre Dame and many bishops, and a large number of the faithful.

That division must be addressed through prayer and action, and I pledge to work with Father Jenkins and all at Notre Dame to heal the terrible breach, which has taken place between Notre Dame and the Church. It cannot be allowed to continue.

I ask all to pray that this healing will take place in a way that is substantial and true, and not illusory. Notre Dame and Father Jenkins must do their part if this healing is to take place. I will do my part.

Sincerely yours in our Lord,
Most Reverend John M. D’Arcy

It’s Lent, so, if you haven’t already….

watch this.

But I’m back! Sometimes I run into dry spells on this blog. I don’t just want to randomly write things–I want them to have some heft, you know? This isn’t the blog where I just mindlessly spill about my day (although I don’t really do that at the Bucket, either..)…

Anyway, here are some links/thoughts…

This is a great piece from Fr. Z on one of my favorite Saints, St. Gianna Molla. If I was getting confirmed today I would pick her. For those unfamiliar with her story, she was an Italian doctor who was diagnosed with a uterine tumor while pregnant, but she would not have a surgery that would remove it, since it would endanger her child’s life. Instead, St. Gianna gave birth to a healthy baby girl, even though St. Gianna died shortly after. The daughter became a doctor, like her mother.

Also from Fr. Z, the Pope’s address to Young People at Yonkers. This was the only speech of his I was able to hear live while he was in the US (since I do not have cable at my apartment, sigh…I could only watch snippets whilst I was at my parents). This was truly a remarkable speech.

Side note re: music. I can’t believe someone complained about the “Battle Hymn of the Republic” being sung when the Pope was welcomed at the White House.
1) The Pope asked for it!
2) It is said to be one of the Virgin Mary’s favorite hymns (as told by the visionaries at Medjuorgje–it’s on the tape “Sounds of Medjuorgje”, which my dad played over and over in the car when I was a kid).
3) (I think it was) The Army Choir sounds AWESOME when they sing this! When it was sung (twice!) at Reagan’s funeral, I just loved it. They do a fantastic job. Why shouldn’t we sing one of the best songs we have?
4) It’s a true, honest-to-God Americanhymn. Let’s give him the good stuff!

And I have to say, I loved watching GW with the pope. He has had so many Catholics on his advisory boards, working in his administration, etc.–and we can’t forget the appointments of Chief Justice Roberts and Associate Justice Alito!

And assorted notes.

From the Corner:

Popes Must Speak Out for Peace [Michael Novak]

That is what popes are intended to do — they are to represent Christ, the Prince of Peace, in a world that is and has always been a maelstrom of passions, conflict, and wars. Popes have sometimes been warlike, but that ill becomes their office, and nearly always causes lasting repugnance.

That is why in 2003 many Americans who believed that the war in Iraq was justified, also believed that it was very good for Pope John Paul II to oppose the war. The pope should not be, and should not even be allowed to seem to be, a proponent of war, especially of a war with so many complex religious tendrils, and with so many centuries of conflicted history. It was right and just for Pope John Paul II to oppose the war.
The role and munus (office, burden, duty) of the presidents of nations are different. Presidents must make a probable judgment about the long-run implications both of inaction and action, and about what in the long run will have been the most creative path for them to have taken. These are excruciating judgments, for they usually involve long-run costs, discouragements, and difficulties. Many of us of a certain age remember the long sacrifices and costs of World War II.

This background is important to grasp, since Pope Benedict XVI will almost certainly judge that he is duty-bound to call for the violence in Iraq to cease. The edge of his words will be felt more sharply here, where he delivers them, than among Al Sadr and his Shia militias, who are now causing so much of the violence in three cities in Iraq. The Shiites militias very much want the Americans will stop fighting, and to depart.

The pope may also continue saying, as he has often in the last year, that the religious freedom and dignity of every person in Iraq must be protected, and minority populations (in this case, one of the oldest continuous Christian communities in the world) must be especially respected. He may repeat his deep conviction that violence is contrary to the nature of God.

Benedict XVI may also wish the future of democracy and the rule of law in Iraq to flower fully, and to be long-lasting. He may express the hope that these will bear good fruit for justice and human dignity throughout the Middle East, and all around the world.

The pope is not primarily a political player, and yet the cultural and moral power of his words and actions may this week well have long political consequences. On the record, we are entitled to have confidence in Benedict’s bravery, balance of mind, and concern to do his duty.

Fr. Neuhaus in yesterday’s WaPo:

edict is not a showman, as many – intending praise or blame – said his predecessor, Pope John Paul II, was. Benedict is a priest and professor who finds himself in the unexpected position of being pastor of a universal church of 1.2 billion people. This visit to America is a pastoral visit, and he will do what good pastors do: teach, encourage, and gently correct where necessary. The best way to understand Benedict is to listen carefully to what he says.

Many who claim to be perplexed by Benedict wonder how the harsh doctrinal “enforcer” under John Paul II can reinvent himself as the benign father of the family of the faithful. (The word “pope” has its origins in “papa.”) No reinvention is necessary. Those of us who have known him for many years, recognize in Benedict the invariably gentle manner of the learned and intellectually curious Joseph Ratzinger. If there is a surprise in these first three years, it is that Ratzinger, who very much wanted to retire to his scholarly pursuits, seems to enjoy being pope.

Key to understanding the man is that he is much more of an Augustinian than a Thomist. Of all the great doctors (i.e. teachers) of the Catholic intellectual tradition, the fifth century St. Augustine and the thirteenth century St. Thomas Aquinas are the great lights by which most schools of thought are defined. To be sure, there are Augustinian Thomists and Thomist Augustinians, and the distinctions often have more to do with sensibility than substance. Put all too roughly, Thomists are devoted to a systematic presentation of unchanging principles of reason, while Augustinians are given to a discursive account of the complexities of mind and heart in pursuit of the right ordering of love to the truth, and ultimately to absolute truth, who is God.

Perhaps the best known words of Augustine are these: “You have made us for yourself, O Lord, and our hearts are restless until they rest in you.” Benedict’s first encyclical (teaching letter) is titled Deus Caritas Est – God is Love – in which Thomas gets one footnote to dozens from Augustine. Benedict recently said at the funeral of a friend, “Christianity is not an intellectual system, a collection of dogmas, or a moral system. Christianity is an encounter, a love story, an event.”

In Benedict’s telling, it is in the first place the story of God’s unqualified love for and commitment to the human project. He speaks frequently of Jesus Christ as “the human face of God.” While the Church says “no” to this and “no” to that, every “no” is in the service of a much greater “yes.” Against a sometimes dry intellectualism or restrictive moralism, Benedict presents the way of Christ as a high adventure of mind and heart toward the transcendental realities of the good, the true, and the beautiful. In sum, Christianity is an invitation to say “yes” to God’s “yes” in Jesus Christ.

This Augustinian pope has a very high estimate of human reason, and in his United Nations address this week I expect he will address the rational grounds for commitment to human rights and the dignity of the human person. Reason was also the centerpiece of his “controversial” lecture at Regensburg University in September, 2006, where he challenged Muslims to recognize that the use of violence in advancing religion is “to act against reason and therefore to act against the nature of God.”

A constant theme of Benedict’s is that, when rightly understood, there is no conflict between religion and science, faith and reason, heart and mind. Theories to the contrary, he contends, are both unreasonable and de-humanizing because they fail to offer an adequate account of the limits, possibilities, and complexities of the human experience. His message is one of prophetic humanism.

This week Benedict will be addressing many issues, both those internal to the Church and those related to the culture and the world. To understand Benedict, listen to what he says, and listen most closely to what he says about what it means to be a human being fully alive. ++++++++++

Father Richard John Neuhaus is editor in chief of First Things, the monthly magazine of religion, culture, and public life.

And, from Newsweek, two opposing stories:
George Weigel
And this.

Ramesh Ponnuru on today’s NRO: (my notes in bold)

Conscientious Voting
Doing injustice.

By Ramesh Ponnuru

The Washington Post has published an angry attack by Joe Feuerherd on this country’s Catholic bishops. (He closes by damning them.) He takes the bishops to be edging up to the proposition that he has put his soul in danger of eternal damnation by voting for Barack Obama (or any pro-choice politician).

Feuerherd doesn’t take the tack that it is wrong in principle for the bishops to suggest that some types of political behavior can endanger people’s souls. It is hard to see how he could take that tack, given that he appears to believe, first, that there is such a thing as an eternal soul that can be damned or saved, and second, that moral choices can affect the outcome. Nor does Feuerherd argue, exactly, that the bishops are wrong to regard abortion as a grave injustice. He says that he is himself pro-life. Evidently, then, he believes that abortion is the unjust killing of innocent human beings, and the “right” to abortion therefore amounts to a license to commit an injustice of the gravest kind.

Feuerherd makes three arguments. First, he writes that other moral issues should matter too. Second, he writes that the bishops’ moral calculus has (pro-Republican) results that are too partisan. Third, he writes that pro-choice Democratic candidates, if elected, might do more to reduce the abortion rate than nominally pro-life Republican ones would.

As to the first argument: The bishops do not suggest that conscientious citizens should be single-issue voters. They do say that voters should will justice for the unborn, which precludes voting for a pro-choice candidate because he is pro-choice and also precludes voting for such a candidate without ascribing to the injustice of killing the innocent the profound weight it is due. The bishops do not deny what is obviously true, that many other political issues have moral dimensions. In almost all cases, however, the moral issues at stake are less grave than those involved in abortion (at least if you accept the premise, as Feuerherd appears to do, that abortion is what pro-lifers say that it is). In almost all cases, as well, Catholics who agree on the relevant moral convictions may legitimately disagree about the correct policy to instantiate that conviction. (People who agree that illegal immigrants are children of God may nonetheless disagree about the implications of that view in practice.) In the case of abortion and related issues, differing prudential judgments are much less a factor. Obama disagrees with pro-lifers on goals (protecting an entire class of innocent human beings against a legal license to kill them), not just methods. (More on that below.)

The second point is true but not persuasive. It angers Feuerherd that the Church says that conscientious citizens may support the Iraq war or “oppose immigration reform.” The argument that legitimate prudential disagreements exist in these cases gives Catholic Republicans “convenient cover,” he thinks. But the reason Catholic Republicans have “cover” on these issues is that their position does not contradict Church teaching. If the Church is wrong to teach what it teaches, then Feuerherd needs to explain why. If it is right, however, then it is not the Church’s fault if Republicans tend to line up better with those teachings than Democrats do.

Finally, Feuerherd asks, “[I]s it fair for a Catholic like me to suspect that the liberal economic policies of the Democratic candidate, whether Obama or Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, will result in less dire poverty and thus perhaps fewer abortions? And isn’t that supposed to be the goal?” Anyone who wants to cast a ballot on this assumption has a moral obligation to investigate whether it is, in fact, true that 1) Democratic policies would reduce poverty much more than Republican ones would and 2) that abortion and poverty rates correlate in as straightforward a manner as Feuerherd idly (and conveniently) supposes. I am not aware of research that corroborates point two, let alone both of them taken together.

And there is another problem with this argument, which is that a reduction in the number of abortions is not the only goal that pro-lifers should have. Also important is that the law stop treating unborn children as subhuman creatures who may legitimately be denied the protections of the law against unjust killing. Obama himself may be perfectly sincere in willing that fewer women exercise the (supposed) right to abortion even while he supports keeping that option legal and making it subsidized. I have no reason to doubt that he is. But he also wills that unborn children be denied the basic legal protection from homicide that you and I enjoy. The Catholic Church wants voters to take that injustice seriously; more seriously than Feuerherd seems inclined to take it. But of course it cannot (and has no ambition to) force any voter to do anything.

From Amy Welborn: Papal Posts and Links.

He’ll be at the White House on his birthday. I wonder if he’ll find a piano at the WH and entertain W and Laura.

“Through Heaven’s Eyes”–Stephen Schwartz, The Prince of Egypt

A single thread in a tapestry
Though its color brightly shines,
Can never see its purpose
In the pattern of the grand design.

And the stone that sits on the very top
Of the mountain’s mighty face
Doesn’t think it’s more important
Than the stones that form the base

So how can you see what your life is worth, or where your value lies?
You can never see through the eyes of man…
You must look at your life
Look at your life through Heaven’s eyes.

A lake of gold in a desert sand
Is less than a cool, fresh spring.
And to one lost sheep, a shepherd boy
Is greater than the richest king.

If a man lose everything he owns,
Has he truly lost his worth?
Or is it the beginning
Of a new and brighter birth?

So how can you measure the worth of a man
In wealth, or strength or size?
In how much he gained, or how much he gave?
The answer will come
The answer will come to him who tries
To look at his life through Heaven’s eyes…

And that’s why we share all we have with you,
Though there’s little to be found.
When all you’ve got is nothing, there’s a lot to go around.

No life can escape being blown about
By the winds of change or chance
And though you’ll never know all the steps
You must learn to join the dance.
You must learn to join the dance…
So how do you judge what a man is worth
By what he builds or buys?
You can never see with your eyes on earth
Look through Heaven’s eyes!
Look at your life
Look at your life
Look at your life through Heaven’s eyes!

I seriously need to do a books/movies update, so here’s what you have to look forward to:

BOOKS

–Rediscovering Catholicsm

–Left to Tell

–The Choice

–The Gift

MOVIES

–Evening

–Knocked Up (Yes, it does belong on CPG–trust me!)

Excited yet?