Yuku free message boards

Pax Tibi asked: How do people feel about going to confession? Do you feel intimidated? Do you find it helpful?

Mag6nideum asked: I would also like to hear how confession is to be approached. I've begun to make a list of all my sins and shortcomings for my first confession, but then I came upon an article written by a famous Catholic theologian that seems to suggest that a priest should kick out anyone who comes to him with confessions that are not in the category of what you guys would call "mortal sins"! Now, I cannot make up a mortal sin or two to confess in order to become a Catholic. I can however confess quite a few sins that, IMO, are as bad, or almost as bad as fornication, murder and adultery. The basic ones being pride and disobedience. The old culprits

PaxTibi and Mag6nideum:

Let me confess: I find the Sacrament of Reconciliation as it is now called both intimidating and helpful. I've even made excuses like "the parking lot was full" to postpone the inevitable Lenten confession. Why? Mainly because of the humiliating knowledge that my sins are always variations on the same theme -- icky venial pimples on the soul but no huge mortal offenses that seem so much more, well, daring and glamorous and worth the priest's time. But the theologian who suggested that one should not confess venial sins is quite, quite wrong. The gradual defacing of one's spirit that happens from repeated, unconfessed, venial sinning is probably just as awful as one splashy extra-marital affair that busts up someone's marriage.

The tricky part, for me, is to distinguish if I can between actual sins and character flaws. Is being late for appointments a sin or a just a bad habit? Is repeating a story about someone sinful calumny or mere water cooler conversation? What about white lies? Are they sins or necessary "social" grease? Spending hours on the Pope Benedict forum -- wasting the time the Lord has given me or actually a productive activity? I do use guides to a good confession (pamphlets are available in Catholic bookstores and online like this one which help in examining my conscience, but I still get confused. Unfortunately, I haven't run across many confessors who help make the distinction. And, as I've noted on this forum before, it does make a difference which priest hears your confession. Some are simply better at the task than others. However, even the most inattentive or dismissive confessor is still empowered to absolve you of your sins, so his "bedside manner" doesn't matter much really. In the moment, though, it can be quite an experience.

Here's a somewhat funny story. Two years ago we were in Rome for Pope Benedict's first consistory, which occurred during Lent. Arrangements had been made for our group to attend a penance service with confessions at Sta. Maria Maggiore. Priests were stationed all over the church, in plain sight in the side chapels, around the sanctuary and also in a few of the confessionals. Lots of people went to confession; I was towards the front of a long line leading to a youngish priest who was in a chapel near my seat. He turned out to be Irish and extremely enthusiastic. One of the subjects I mentioned got him so riled up, he raised his voice, started gesticulating with great animation, and basically preached for what felt like an eternity. All I could do was stay kneeling, mutter "yes, Father" "I agree, Father" now and then, while feeling the stares of my fellow penitents in my back. By the time we were done, the entire line (which included people in our group) had melted away. I've rarely been more mortified. But he had given me excellent advice and helped me deal with what was bothering me.

Bottom line: what's the point of being a Catholic if you don't avail yourself of the sacrament of confession? It's like spring cleaning your house. You may not enjoy the scrubbing and dusting and getting rid of the cobwebs, but it's so wonderful when everything is nice and clean and fresh smelling and orderly. Or washing a dirty car. Doesn't it seem to run more smoothly and go faster when it's brightly polished? The same is true for your soul. May the Lord guide you on your way to this sacrament, Mag6nideum, and rest assured that it's entirely worth it, whatever misgivings you may have beforehand.

Mag6nideum:

For some reason your post cuts off the last sentence; I tried to fix it to no avail. Anyway, St. Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologica, Question 25, has the following response to your question about relics:

Article 6. Whether any kind of worship is due to the relics of the saints?

Objection 1. It would seem that the relics of the saints are not to be worshiped at all. For we should avoid doing what may be the occasion of error. But to worship the relics of the dead seems to savor of the error of the Gentiles, who gave honor to dead men. Therefore the relics of the saints are not to be honored.

Objection 2. Further, it seems absurd to venerate what is insensible. But the relics of the saints are insensible. Therefore it is absurd to venerate them.

Objection 3. Further, a dead body is not of the same species as a living body: consequently it does not seem to be identical with it. Therefore, after a saint's death, it seems that his body should not be worshiped.

On the contrary, It is written (De Eccles. Dogm. xl): "We believe that the bodies of the saints, above all the relics of the blessed martyrs, as being the members of Christ, should be worshiped in all sincerity": and further on: "If anyone holds a contrary opinion, he is not accounted a Christian, but a follower of Eunomius and Vigilantius."

I answer that, As Augustine says (De Civ. Dei i, 13): "If a father's coat or ring, or anything else of that kind, is so much more cherished by his children, as love for one's parents is greater, in no way are the bodies themselves to be despised, which are much more intimately and closely united to us than any garment; for they belong to man's very nature." It is clear from this that he who has a certain affection for anyone, venerates whatever of his is left after his death, not only his body and the parts thereof, but even external things, such as his clothes, and such like. Now it is manifest that we should show honor to the saints of God, as being members of Christ, the children and friends of God, and our intercessors. Wherefore in memory of them we ought to honor any relics of theirs in a fitting manner: principally their bodies, which were temples, and organs of the Holy Ghost dwelling and operating in them, and are destined to be likened to the body of Christ by the glory of the Resurrection. Hence God Himself fittingly honors such relics by working miracles at their presence.

Reply to Objection 1. This was the argument of Vigilantius, whose words are quoted by Jerome in the book he wrote against him (ch. ii) as follows: "We see something like a pagan rite introduced under pretext of religion; they worship with kisses I know not what tiny heap of dust in a mean vase surrounded with precious linen." To him Jerome replies (Ep. ad Ripar. cix): "We do not adore, I will not say the relics of the martyrs, but either the sun or the moon or even the angels"--that is to say, with the worship of "latria." "But we honor the martyrs' relics, so that thereby we give honor to Him Whose martyrs [The original meaning of the word 'martyr,' i.e. the Greek martys is 'a witness'] they are: we honor the servants, that the honor shown to them may reflect on their Master." Consequently, by honoring the martyrs' relics we do not fall into the error of the Gentiles, who gave the worship of "latria" to dead men.

Reply to Objection 2. We worship that insensible body, not for its own sake, but for the sake of the soul, which was once united thereto, and now enjoys God; and for God's sake, whose ministers the saints were.

Reply to Objection 3. The dead body of a saint is not identical with that which the saint had during life, on account of the difference of form, viz. the soul: but it is the same by identity of matter, which is destined to be reunited to its form.

Even though your preferred theologian, Pope Benedict XVI, "is not a Thomist" as it happens St. Thomas relies on St. Augustine to bolster his argument, which I thought might please you.

When it comes to saints and relics in the Catholic Church, I think you must understand that there's both doctrinal Catholicism and cultural Catholicism, and when you become a member of the "family" there are all sorts of family traditions and habits (good and bad) that you'll have to get used to. Among them is the role the saints play in Catholic devotional life.

Doctrinally, Catholics are generally taught what St. Thomas explains. We do not worship the saints or their relics. We venerate (i.e. honor) the saints because while they lived here on earth they were witnesses to God's love and goodness and mercy and justice and occasionally His power and might and glory. So by praying "to" the saints, we're actually asking them to intercede for us with God, which they're in a good position to do because they are in heaven and we're not. They are, in effect, intermediaries who act on our behalf in putting a good word in with the Lord. It's sort of like asking Msgr. Georg Gaenswein for something we want the Pope to do for us. We are not supposed to believe that they have the power all on their own to work miracles. Unless, of course, we're asking St. Anthony of Padua to help us find something we've lost!

And this is where we get to cultural Catholicism. Over time, popular saints like St. Anthony, for instance, have developed reputations for being of particular help with certain kinds of problems. They appear to specialize in heaven in those subjects that helped make them saints in the first place, or that led to stories being told about their special talents. So if you've misplaced your rosary or glasses or wallet or what have you, a quick prayer to St. Anthony can be extremely helpful. Try it. It works! Now, this aspect of devotion to saints does veer awfully close to superstitition. Poor St. Joseph, for example, is supposed to be very helpful in selling your house if you bury his statue upside down in the yard and pray. Perhaps the idea is that he'll hustle the sale so that you'll unbury his image. I don't know. I have not tried that one myself.

As for the cutting up of bodies, well, I think we had a bit of a discussion about this subject elsewhere on the forum in connection with the news that the Vatican was thinking of moving Pope John Paul II's body from the crypt to the basilica proper. That removal would be in direct opposition to his testamentary wish, which was to be buried "in the ground." I had hoped that the Church in its wisdom would send his heart to Poland to be buried there. It's no secret that if Papa Wojtyla had really had his 'druthers, he would want a resting place in Krakow. Frederic Chopin's heart is in a pillar in one of the principal churches in Warsaw, so why not John Paul II's? There's a long tradition of removing the organs of the Hapsburg kings and queens and burying them separately from the rest of their bodies. You can visit both burial sites in downtown Vienna. The ancient Egyptians did the same thing.

Perhaps you would be less squeamish about the idea of the dispersal of body parts if you think about the subject as a kind of spiritual version of an organ or tissue "transplant." I assume you don't object to the idea of a body's being cut into pieces for purposes of keeping someone else alive or helping restore another to health. For a summer as a student I worked in an eye clinic where every day little lunch pails holding frozen eyeballs were delivered so that patients could have corneal transplants. Those were truly generous gifts either from the donors or their families. The presence of a body part of a saint in a reliquary in a church or chapel is such a gift. The relic can help keep the faith alive or restore the spiritual life of the community.

I hope this explanation helps a little bit. I fully understand your bewilderment at what seems to be really a barbaric and medieval custom, but if you look at it through the eyes of faith it's not so bizarre after all.

I'm sure it makes no sense. . . . . Miracles etc are a modern problem and people can be made saints by acclamation or by the pope. Newman could be canonised for his theology & holiness of life. there is no need for miracles.

Harroldian:

I hope that your comment about "it makes no sense" is not a reflection on my somewhat feeble attempt to explain what may be the inexplicable when it comes to saints and relics. For those who are following this discussion I do want to correct the impression your post may give, which is that the Roman Catholic Church does not require miracles for someone to be declared a saint. That is not correct.

In April 2006, Pope Benedict XVI wrote a letter to the Participants in the Plenary Session of the Congregation for the Causes of the Saints, in which he stresses that actual physical miracles are required. This is what he has to say on the subject (emphasis added):

* * *

This Document is addressed primarily to diocesan Bishops and its preparation constitutes the first item on the agenda of your Plenary Meeting. Its intention is to facilitate the faithful application of the "Normae servandae" cited, in order to ensure the seriousness of the investigations carried out in diocesan inquiries into the virtue of Servants of God and in cases claiming martyrdom or possible miracles.

The evidence for the causes is collected and studied with supreme care and with a diligent search for the historic truth through testimonies and documentary proof "omnino plenae", for they have no other aim than the glory of God and the spiritual good of the Church and of all who are in search of the Gospel truth and perfection.

The diocesan Pastors, deciding "coram Deo" on which causes deserve to be initiated, will first of all evaluate whether the candidates to the honours of the altar truly enjoy a firm and widespread fame of holiness and miracles or martyrdom. This fame, which the Code of Canon Law of 1917 stipulates should be "spontanea, non arte aut diligentia procurata, orta ab honestis et gravibus personis, continua, in dies aucta et vigens in praesenti apud maiorem partem populi" (can. 2050 2), is a sign of God who points out to the Church those who deserve to be set on the lamp stand to "give light to all in the house" (cf. Mt 5: 15).

It is clear that it will not be possible to introduce a Cause of Beatification or Canonization if proven holiness does not exist, even if the person concerned was distinguished for conformity with the Gospel and special ecclesial and social merits.

The second theme that your Plenary Assembly is treating is "the miracle in the Causes of Saints". It is well-known that since ancient times, the process for arriving at canonization passes through the proof of virtues and miracles, attributed to the intercession of the candidate to the honours of the altar.

As well as reassuring us that the Servant of God lives in Heaven in communion with God, miracles constitute the divine confirmation of the judgment expressed by the ecclesiastical authority on his/her virtuous life. I hope that the Plenary Meeting will be able to examine this subject in greater depth in the light of the Tradition of the Church, of present-day theology and of the most reliable scientific discoveries.

It should not be forgotten that in the examination of events claimed to be miraculous the competence of scholars and theologians converges, although the last word is given to theology, the only discipline that can give a miracle an interpretation of faith.

This is why the process of Saints' Causes moves from the scientific evaluation of the Medical Council or technical experts to a theological examination by the Consultors and later by the Cardinals and Bishops. Moreover, it should be clearly borne in mind that the uninterrupted practice of the Church establishes the need for a physical miracle, since a moral miracle does not suffice.

* * *

My Latin is non-existent (except for Mass and hymns), but this is what the French version of the 1917 Code of Canon Law, Section 2050, part 2, says (again, I give a free-ish translation into English):

Il n'est pas nécessaire que les vertus, le martyre, les miracles soient établis dans tous leurs détails; il suffit que soit prouvée une renommée générale, spontanée, non pas obtenue artificiellement ou à la suite de propagande, mais née chez des personnes honnêtes et sérieuses, ayant augmenté de jour en jour et toujours existante chez la plus grande partie du peuple.

English: It is not necessary that the virtues, the martyrdom, the miracles are established in all their details; it suffices that a general reknown be proven, spontaneous, not obtained artificially or on account of propaganda, but born amongst honest and serious people, having been augmented day by day and always existing amongst the greater part of the people.

You should note that this section of the Code of 1917 deals with the "information gathering" part of the canonization process. Far more rigorous examination of the evidence is to follow. Code Sections 2116 etc. address the number of the miracles required and the kind of testimony that is acceptable:

2116
p.1 En dehors de l'héroïcité des vertus ou du martyre, des miracles opérés grâce à l'intervention du serviteur de Dieu sont requis pour sa béatification.Besides the heroism of virtues or of martyrdom, miracles occurring by the intervention of the servant of God are required for his beatification.

p.2 Toutefois, s'il s'agit d'un martyr et s'il y a évidence du martyre et de la cause de celui-ci, considéré matériellement et formellement, mais si des miracles font défaut, il appartient à la S. Congrégation de décider si, en l'occurrence, des signes (merveilleux) suffisent, et si, à leur défaut, il faut demander au Saint-Père la dispense à leur sujet.

Always, when it concerns a martyr and if there is evidence of martyrdom and the reason for it, considered materially and formally, but if miracles are lacking, it belongs to the S. Congregation to decide if, when they occur, signs (marvelous) suffice, and if, when they are lacking, the Holy Father is to be asked for a dispensation for their subject.

2117
Pour la béatification des serviteurs de Dieu deux miracles sont requis, si des témoins oculaires ont fourni la preuve des vertus, tant dans le procès informatif que dans le procès apostolique, ou si ceux qui ont été entendus lors du procès apostolique furent au moins des témoins tenant les choses de témoins oculaires; il faut trois miracles, si les témoins ont été oculaires au procès informatif, mais si ceux du procès apostolique ont seulement appris les faits d'autres témoins qui ne les ont pas vus; il en faut quatre, si dans le double procès les vertus ont seulement été attestées par des témoins de tradition et par des documents.

For the beatification of servants of God, two miracles are required, if eyewitness testimony has furnished proof of the virtues, both in the informational process as well as in the apostolic process, or if those who have been heard outside the apostolic process were at least witnesses of things seen; three miracles are needed, if the witnesses were eye witnesses during the informational process, but if those in the apostolic process have only been apprized of the facts of other witnesses who have not seen them; and four are needed, if during the double process the virtues are only attested to by the witness of tradition and by documents.

So you see, it's not that easy to be declared as saint, cries of "Santo Subito" notwithstanding. Unless Cardinal Newman is proven to be instrumental in causing a miracle, his halo will remain parked on a hatrack in heaven for a while longer.

Benodette:

What an interesting story about St. Thomas Aquinas' remains! I note that the Angelic Doctor in his two walkabouts apparently did not convey to those who saw these visions that they should put his head back with his trunk. It seems he accepted the practice.

As for the post-mortem dissection of a body, would you find it gross and nauseating if Pope Benedict's heart were removed after his death and placed in someone else's chest cavity? After all, as he told Peter Seewald, he is an organ donor. (Overlook, if you will, for purposes of this discussion that it's unlikely that this particular transplant will happen because of the Pope's advanced age and state of health.)