|
|
 |
|
QUESTION:
Elizabeth C.
|
|
“He was a murderer from the beginning, and he stood not in the truth; because truth is not in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father thereof.” (St. John 8.44) |
This is a startling statement coming from an unimpeachable source — Christ Himself. It is startling because it completely overthrows the notion that lying can proceed from any benign motive, that lying can be innocuous, and sometimes even unavoidable and necessary as a means to a good end. Jesus tells us something strikingly different.
Note that he describes the devil as he, “quia mendax est et pater eius” — not just a liar himself, but the father of lies, the one who begets lies as a father begets children. As it is the nature of a father to beget children, so it is the nature of the devil to beget lies. He is, in a word, the malignant “pater eius” from whom all lies proceed.
What is more, in another context, Christ tells us that "A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit; neither can an evil tree bring forth good fruit." (St. Matthew 7.18). So understood, a lie, being evil, cannot possibly be the occasion of a good. Its fruit is evil because it is contrary not just to the 8th Commandment, but to Christ Himself, “Who is the Truth”. (St. John 14.16) How then can a lie, any lie, be construed as good when by its very nature it is contrary to (the nature of) Christ Himself?
This is not to say that all
lies are of the same gravity. Very clearly this is
not the case. But because some lies appear to
facilitate an apparent good perceived as greater
than the evil inherent in the lie, does not, even
from a benign motive, make the lie not a lie. It
remains what it is: a lie.
Most often, despite our greatest efforts, we cannot
overcome the sense of guilt that accompanies every
lie, no matter how “small”. We instinctively
recognize that, regardless of the apparently good
ends that had motivated it, we have made a breach
and have sinned. Our own consciences (the voice of
God within) convict us in spite of the good end
achieved. It is a good achieved at the expense of
another good: truth. We attempt to put them on a
balance in terms of magnitude or proportion: the
more the scale tips toward the good, the more
“benign” the lie.
The problem with this is that the scale is not balancing two competing goods, such that the preponderance of the one over the other justifies the choice of a greater good over a lesser good. In either case, the choice will be a good choice, although one may be “better” — that is to say, possessed of a greater magnitude of good — than the other. Literally, such a “balancing act” is justifiable in attempting to determine the preponderance of things alike in nature. One does not place grapes on the one side and apples on the other to determine which is better, or which, by weight (preponderance), yields greater value, still less a diamond on the one side and a bar of lead on the other. This “balancing” is pointless.
It is much the same with evil
and good. To attempt to balance evil with good is to
presume that they are like in nature, and
commensurable in value — when in fact they are
opposite both in nature and value since “evil”
has no “being” at all. In fact, it is
precisely a “privation of being! Evil is the
absence or deprivation of a good. What we
understand as the evil we call illness, for example,
is nothing more than diminished health — it is a
privation of “being healthy”. Were there no such
state as “being healthy”, there would be no
“illness”. Evil, in a word, has no “existence” of
itself. It is a diminution of a good thing, but not
a “thing” itself.
God keep you.
In the Immaculate Heart of Mary,
Joseph Mary del Campos
Editor
Boston Catholic Journal
editor@boston-catholic-journal.com
Dear Editor,
I read an article recently by an American priest who
said in his opinion a plenary indulgence is never
ever gained by anyone. He bases his opinion on the
fact that one of the stated requirements to gain a
plenary is for one to be totally free from the
disposition to sin either venial or mortal. And in
his opinion given our human nature not one of us is
ever free from this disposition. So is therefore not
in a position to gain one of these indulgences.
This disturbed me greatly. And I found myself giving
much thought as to whether I am in fact ever going
to be capable of gaining a plenary indulgence, which
means so very much to me .
One COULD not or indeed SHOULD not be at confession
on a daily basis to try and keep oneself free from
all sin. The danger here as I see it one could
easily develop a disposition to scruples which is a
very unhealthy state of mind.
Can I ask you editor to please comment on the
article by the priest. In the hope that I will be
reassured that my attempts to release a little soul
from purgatory and so fulfil the needful heart of my
Jesus are not in vain.
Thank you.
TMC
09 March 2010
Dear T.M.C.
The American priest is, presumably, expressing his
opinion as a person and not as a priest, for
he is not expressing the authoritative and
indisputable teaching of Holy Mother the Church.
That his personal opinion is divergent from, and in
conflict with, what the Church teaches — a
teaching to which he is bound to assent not
just as a priest but as a Catholic, is most
regrettable but hardly surprising. What is more, his
statements are a scandal to the Church and to the
faithful in that they cause confusion among the
faithful in regard to genuine Catholic doctrine. The
priest is bound to unambiguously teach authentic
Catholic doctrine — not to express his “opinions”
about
matters of the Faith that have been established and
are not subject to dispute or question. “What”, the
confused Catholic asks, “is the truth of the matter
at hand? The Church holds and teaches the unique,
profound, and unquestionable value of Indulgences,
particularly Plenary Indulgences. But the Church’s
representative in the person of this priest, is
declaring otherwise. Who is right? The Church and
her countless Saints who have spoken clearly over
the centuries on this matter — or
"Father-knows-best-but-really-doesn’t?” The
question is rhetorical. The Church is right and
Father so-and-so is clearly wrong.
On what basis does he make the pronouncement, “Given
our human nature not one of us is ever free from
this disposition (to sin) … and therefore [no one
is] in a position to gain one of these indulgences.”?
Not in virtue of his priesthood. No priest has the
authority to interpret authentic Church teaching to
accord with his misguided opinion. No bishop, no
theologian, no Catholic whomsoever has this
authority. This misguided and incorrect “opinion”
does not reflect what the Church teaches, what the
Sacred Deposit of the Faith holds, and what Catholic
Dogma maintains.
The statement that, “Given our human nature not
one of us is ever free from this disposition”
(requisite to a Plenary Indulgence) in and of
itself reveals a
defective knowledge of the norms outlined for the
gaining of a Plenary Indulgence, which makes
no reference whatever to a
“disposition to sin”:
| “To
acquire a plenary indulgence it is necessary
to perform the work to which the indulgence is attached and to fulfill three conditions: sacramental confession, Eucharistic Communion and prayer for the intentions of the Supreme Pontiff. It is further required that all attachment to sin, even to venial sin, be absent.” (Norm 7 of the Indulgentiarum Doctrina) http://www.boston-catholic- journal.com/Indulgentiarum_Doctrina.pdf |
As you can see, it stipulates that one must be free
from “attachment” to sin — not from
the disposition to sin. The two are quite
different. To be free from “attachment to sin” is
not to be free from the allurement of sin which
would constitute freedom from temptation
(something to which Christ Himself was subject in
His sacred humanity in the Three Temptations -
St. Matthew 4.1-11). It
is not possible to be free from temptation in our
fallen state because we are not free of the Tempter
who ever assails those who follow Christ. (cf. 1
Peter 5.8)
We cannot be free from temptations to sin, (cf. St.
Matthew 18.7) but we
can be free of our attachment to sin itself. It is
within the will of man, even when falling into sin,
to have no attachment to the sin beyond the hapless occasion
itself. It is of the essence of repentance to
resolutely and genuinely express the intention to
sin in that way no more — that is to say, to renounce
any affinity for the occasion of sin, which, in
other words, to refuse attachment to the sin into
which one had fallen.
To say that this is not possible is contrary to
human experience and history. Many — having sinned
and repented — have returned no more to sin. Mary
Magdalene was among them. In our own lives we find
that we renounce any attachment to a sin that has
brought us untold misery. To say otherwise is to
deprive man of freedom by holding that he is not
free not to sin. But if he is not free not to sin,
then he cannot be held culpable for it — for he
was unable to do otherwise. In this case, there is
no sin and no sanctity, nothing praiseworthy and
nothing blameworthy. This is called “determinism”.
We are not responsible for our behavior and choices
because they are pre-determined for us by our very
constitution as human beings, a constitution that
does not include freedom in its inventory. What we
do, we must do. And if we must do it, and cannot do
otherwise, there is no sin, and eo ipso, no
guilt.
But this clearly is not the case. In exercising the
freedom to disagree with Church teaching (to
disagree with what is true — which one can always do,
but which is not understood as coherent behavior)
Father so-and-so instantiates the very point he
repudiates. He is free to disagree, even if he ought
not. It is even within Father’s power to renounce
his attachment to this error, however compelling he
may find it to be. It is within his power to state
it no more — even while it may not be within his
will. He is even free to hold himself not be free,
but in so doing utters an inescapable contradiction. The “mind” of Father so-and-so is not
the “mind of the Church” — nor does it accord with
human experience and a coherent notion of free
agency.
Regrettably, much of what he often hear from the
pulpit, you will notice, is not ,“what the Church
teaches”, but “what the priest “thinks about” and “the
way he look at it”, or “it seems to him” — on a
given matter that most often has only marginal
relevance to the Gospel reading in any event. We are
not in Church, presumably, to listen to the opinions
and quirks of interpretation of any given priest —
but to the Word of God as the Church sees it …
and not as
“Father so-and-so sees it.
We hope that you find this answer satisfactory.
God keep you.
In the Immaculate Heart of Mary,
Joseph Mary del Campos
Editor
Boston Catholic Journal
editor@boston-catholic-journal.com
Dear Editor,
Thank you so very much for answering my question on
the gaining of plenary indulgences ... I am
completely reassured and so thankful to you.
I am afraid that we were brought up with the
mentality that when a priest speaks he is speaking
with the authority of the teaching of the Church.
Unfortunately we have come to learn that this
does not always be the case. And that is a
great sadness when so many can be influenced by the
words of our priests. If they only but realised the
potential to educate that they hold in their hands.
Thank you, editor, with all my heart. TMC
To the Boston Journal
To whom it may concern,
Dear Sir,
I am an 18 year old student at University studying
Social sciences. Since I have been at Uni I have met
quite a lot of Catholics and indeed have had some
very interesting exchanges with them, I admire them
for their stance on pro-life issues, not only the
unborn ,but the whole euthanasia debate.
The Catholic Church just seems to be drawing me...in
fact I am thinking of approaching the Catholic
Chaplain for instructions.. BUT ..Jack, a fellow
student and a catholic, has lent me a Catholic
Prayerbook, I have browsed through it and come up
against a problem, can you help me? My problem is
this that reading through the "Examination of
Conscience" there is a list of questions, presumably
that I am supposed to ask myself before going to
confession?
Well the question concerns ' self pleasuring ",
although they call it by another name !
I have the greatest difficult to understand WHY is
this regarded by the church as a sin ? I can
understand that if I attempted (I will not) to
exploit a woman sexually, take advantage of her,
that's wrong, I understand too that physical
intimacy with another man is wrong, according to
Christian ethics, but I just cannot grasp why " self
pleasure", is a sin ? It ' feels good ', its not
involving anyone but myself, and as it is something
that I admit I do frequently, how am I going to get
my head around this? I mean isn't this private ?
Perhaps you may be able to advise me, I would feel
more comfortable to know why and where I stand on
this one before I approach a priest, Thankyou for
your kind attention.
Please pray for me because I really would like to
learn to love Jesus more
Cheers ! George. Oxford
Dear George,
Thank you for so candid
a letter. Your forthrightness took courage, and
addresses a common problem experienced by people of
all ages, not just the young — and both genders as
well.
Masturbartion or Self-Abuse, is intrinsically
sinful because it is the enactment of the sin of
Lust (which is one of the Seven Deadly Sins: Pride,
Greed, Lust, Anger, Gluttony, Envy, and Sloth). We
will address the term, "self-pleasuring" that
you use, later and in a very important context.
Christ admonished us, “You have heard that it was
said to them of old: Thou shalt not commit adultery.
But I say to you, that whosoever shall look on a
woman to lust after her, hath already committed
adultery with her in his heart.” (Saint Mathew
5.27-28)
We see that the act alone does not constitute the
sin, but before the act the sin already exists in
the heart — which in and of itself is sufficient
to qualify already sinful desire as the act of the
sin itself. This makes perfectly clear sense: the
thought always precedes and precipitates the act.
Were there no lust in thought, no act of lust would
follow. The act is preceded by the will which gives
assent to both the thought and to the actualization
of the thought through the deed.
Christ is quite clear about this:
|
“For from the heart come forth evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false testimonies, blasphemies. These are the things that defile a man." (Saint Matthew 15.19-20) |
Note that he says “de corde”
— “from the heart” — even before the acts
that follow from them — is a man defiled. This is
extremely important to understand. Every sin
proceeds from the heart, from the thoughts, as the
motivation to sin, the willingness to sin. Every act
of sexual sin is preceded by the lustful thoughts
which motivate the act. And these are sufficient in
and of themselves to constitute the act, such that
the same penalty applies to the sin in thought as to
the sin in deed. What separates the two are either
“occasion” or “opportunity” — either of which
provided would culminate in the physical act.
One must ask oneself two questions:
What in fact is one entertaining
in one’s mind while masturbating? It is, of
course, the sinful act of either fornication or
adultery
(or more grave still, a homosexual act).
The next, and logical question
is, were it possible to actualize this fantasy
with the one being fantasized about, would one
indulge in it?
The only coherent answer is yes, for otherwise
one would be fantasizing about what one really
did not desire, and if one did not really
desire this, one would not be masturbating.
It is quite false to maintain that the act of
masturbation hurts no one and is of itself harmless
and victimless. It injures the soul through allowing
it to succumb to sin which of itself is a moral
evil with ontological (i.e. pertaining to
“being” itself) dimensions: it either diminishes or
deprives the soul of grace —
which is the participation of the soul in the very
life of God — or in the case of mortal sin,
destroys that participation, or ones life in God,
altogether. Is there any greater evil? Sin also
injures the Church of Whose body you are a member.
“If one member suffer any
thing, all the members suffer with it.”(1
Cor. 12.26). If one is married, it constitutes an
act of infidelity and adultery against ones wife or
husband. If one is single, it constitutes the act of
fornication or adultery. What is more, it is an
offense against the person fantasized about inasmuch
as it deprives that person of his or her own
personhood, reducing that person the status of a
mere object to be used to satisfy ones lust. It is
equally a violation of the virtues of chastity and
continence. Most of all it offends God! So we see
that masturbation is hardly a “victimless” sin. I
fact, its victims are many, starting with oneself,
proceeding though others, and reaching even to God.
What is particularly
interesting in your question is the terminology you
use, which I recognize is not your own but which has
deep implications itself which are noteworthy.
Please do not understand it as a reproach to you in
your question at all. It is not, nor is it meant to
appear so, but brings to relief a growing problem in
the lexicon currently used to address sexual issues.
The term “self-pleasuring” is a neologism (a
new and artificially invented word, “made up” is one
proper definition) that is really a euphemism
(a more agreeable word intended to avoid a
disagreeable, offensive, or shame-provoking word
that is much clearer and actually proper to the
concept or act involved.) I have deliberately
provided definitions for the two words, “neologism”
and “euphemism” in an attempt to totally clarify the
issue and avoid any confusion.
Apart from the grammatical incongruity (one does not
speak of “pleasuring oneself” in enjoying a meal, or
“self-pleasuring oneself” in reading a book or
watching a movie that one finds pleasurable) this
neologism is essentially crafted in an effort to
present an act or concept fraught with immorality
with one that is not. Who, after all, would argue
that “pleasure” is an evil in and of itself? In
short, if the act or concept itself is not
already understood as immoral or offensive, then
it would not stand in need of a neologism or
euphemism to express it, yes?
It is, somehow, less self-incriminating to express
such acts as a euphemisms, and we reflexively
understand this. However awkward the term, it is
easier (less apt to stir ones conscience) to say
that “I self-pleasure myself often” than to say “I
masturbate often.” In fact, we are likely to cringe
upon making such a completely overt statement. If,
however, we wish to liberate this behavior (called,
incidentally, “self-abuse” in correct
terminology, and not “self-pleasuring”) from a
negative moral connotation, we must first seek to
morally neutralize it, by inserting it through
“acceptable terminology”, into acceptable public
discourse. Becoming acceptable in public discourse,
the act becomes implicitly acceptable itself.
The entire thrust of this aside is that when we
begin calling something intrinsically evil by
another name that is not evil we are engaging in
nothing short of deception: we begin calling what is
evil good. The unpardonable sin of blasphemy,
perhaps the most frightening sin of all,
occurs when we conflate evil with good and good with
evil. (c.f. Saint Matthew 12.22-32)
God keep you.
In the Immaculate Heart of Mary,
Joseph Mary del Campos
Editor
Boston Catholic Journal
editor@boston-catholic-journal.com
Hi there,
Please help me ! My life is in a mess, this time I
have blown it, that's for sure! I am just turned 17,
raised a Catholic, although I haven't been to church
for ages. I think church is actually so, so boring!
I cant believe that this is happening to me, but I
have just discovered that I am already 3 months
pregnant! If my parents know this I'm sure they will
throw me out. My mom happens to mind what the
neighbors will say and all that stuff !
The worst of it is this, I don't even know who the
father actually is, me and my friends like to go
clubbing and have fun., it could be one of a few
guys so I cant even say, its his, or his !
I cant have a baby! I have no job, what have I to
offer a child, I want an abortion, in a word I want
to get rid of it.
I don't even know why I am hesitating one min I am
all ready to grab a taxi and run off to planned
parenthood, and the next I feel like maybe its
wrong, but is it? the feeling passes but I'm more
sure. All I wanted was a bit of fun and I don't see
why I should pay for it now and end up with a baby.
God wont expect this of me will he?
I mean surely God wont be mad at me if I do this?
will he ? People tell me God is forgiving, well then
if I go ahead will God forgive me? I really to want
this abortion it will settle my problem and I can
get on with my life, also its my life and my space
isn't it ?After all I may meet an alright guy, and
have a baby later on , its not that I'm saying no
baby at all, but not now !
So do you think God will
forgive me ? I mean its such early stages, and
accept I know in my head I wouldn't even know I was
pregnant, but I am.
What shall I do ? I really am desperate.
Thanks a lot, I hope you don't mind me writing but I
just happened to see your answer box on the journal,
that's a mystery too, how on earth I arrived at the
Journal, I Googled for something else entirely!
Deidre
PA
Can you put an answer on your site, please do not
mail me at this address in case my Mom sees it, as
both my folks use this computer. Thanks a lot.
Dear Deidre,
My name is Bernadette and I am a (young) contributor
to the Boston Catholic Journal. The editor asked me
to answer your question or at least offer you my
advice as a woman. I have read your letter carefully
and I want to first say that I am sorry that you
have to go through this alone — I truly can feel
your pain. It is so hard to be a woman sometimes ...
I know that I am not you and cannot imagine exactly
what you are going through at this moment, but I can
certainly relate. At one time or another, many woman
goes through what you are now experiencing ... some
get the answer that they are looking for, and
others, like yourself, unfortunately do not. The
decision that you are now faced with is probably one
of the most difficult ones you will have ever have
to deal with in your life, and whatever you choose
to do will have an impact on you forever. I know, it
is scary.
I was also (as I am sure you can guess) raised a
Catholic, and I am very familiar with the teachings
of my faith. The values that have been instilled in
me since childhood still to this day, like yourself,
affect many of my decisions and thoughts. I am not
married, either, and if I found myself in your
situation I could not even fathom the idea of having
and affording a baby. Every woman who has found
herself in your situation had probably never
anticipated the possibility of having a child
out of wedlock. Given all the "easy" solutions to
really tough questions — especially if you are a
woman — that are thrown at you so off-handedly
today, obviously the first thought that would enter
a woman's mind is that the easiest solution would be
to have an abortion. Planned Parenthood makes it
look so simple ... so "right" ... and with no
consequences! A few hundred dollars and the problem
is gone. Right? It would seem to be a simple fix to
a big problem. Almost all women have this
exact thought when faced with this decision. Even
though they think about it, I just know that, deep
down, many would never be able to go through with it
if it weren't presented to them as an easily
available, totally acceptable, and entirely
guilt-free experience that is "every woman's right",
right? Somehow, despite all the slick slogans and
glossy brochures passed out in high school, I could
never bring myself to see an abortion as a solution
I could live with — simply because there is a
child's life at stake, and that little baby has
absolutely no voice of it's own.... their life and
death it out of their hands.
Thankfully, I have never been in this positiont, but
I know that these are the thoughts that you are
having at this moment. I, too, would probably
question whether or not God would ever be able to
forgive me if I went through with something like
that.... Surely He would understand that now
is not the time! I can't afford it! I am not ready!
He has to know this, right?! But the truth of
the matter is, that He does know this, He
knows everything, and He knows that you and I
know that it is a terrible sin to have an abortion,
because after all, it is a little baby we are
talking about. HOWEVER, He also knows your pain, and
knows that you are now faced with a very difficult
decision, which is why, I believe, God wants me to
help you figure out your options and what you can
do. Now we (because hopefully you will accept
my help and advice... because I am more than happy
to help you with this, today, tomorrow, whenever..)
must figure out what options exist.
In my opinion, you have three options.
However, I do not think that "option number one" is
the right one for you. Option two may be, but based
on your letter and what you have said about your
parents and your situation, it might not be the
easiest. I think that option three has
your name written all over it :)
1)
Abortion --
easy? Kindda. The right choice? I hope you will come
to realize, no, it is not...Not simply for the sake
of the baby, but for your own sake. Abortions may
seem easy, but in fact they are VERY complicated.
Many women who have abortions have a VERY difficult
time coping afterwards. Whether it is because of the
sickness the follows, or the mental and emotional
damage. It is hard to face the fact that you have
'terminated' a pregnancy. The words are tough to
swallow, and
many women mentally suffer after the operation. They
wonder if they will ever be able to get pregnant
again, wonder if they could have managed a baby, if
their
lives would somehow be better, they have a difficult
time actually SEEING children. If you do the
research, the truth is not very pretty.
2)
Keeping your baby
-- easy? Absolutely not. The right choice? Perhaps
... perhaps not ... Based on what I have read in
your letter, your parents would not support your
decision to keep the child. You are only 17 and are
probably not financially ready to support a child,
though there are agencies out there to help (and
colleges that offer support and child care if you
are planning of furthering your education). The
truth is, which I am sure you already know, having a
baby is a huge responsibility, one that requires a
lot of time, energy, money and effort. However, what
you get in return is a beautiful little child
that loves and depends on you and doesn't care how
old you are or how much money you have. This option
is by far the most difficult, and again, I am not
sure if it is the best for you, only you can decide
that.
Finally, in my opinion, the best option for
you:
3) ADOPTION! Easy?
Kindda! The right choice? It may be! I think that
adoption is perfect for you for a number of reasons:
a)
You seem very worried about what your parents are
going to think and say. I really think that your
parents would probably not be so hard on you. They
wouldnot have to help you support the child. They
would see that you are making an educated,
responsible, and mature decision. They would not
have to worry about you and how it would have an
effect of your life, because really, it would not be
that difficult. True, you would have to carry the
baby for 9 months and go to doctors appointments and
things, but that is all relatively EASY compared to
the last two options! I am VERY sure that if you
told your parents that you were pregnant and have
thought things over and that you think it is the
BEST thing for both you and the child to give it up
for adoption, they would be supportive of your
decision.... and if they are not, keep reading what
I have to say....
c)
Obviously, you are worried about yourself and the
impact this will have on your life. If you give this
baby up for adoption you will not have to worry
about how to
afford it, who the father is, what you have to offer
it, ANYTHING! You can move forward with your life in
a few months and feel GOOD about your decision! You
did not have an abortion, you let the child live!
You can go to college! Get a great education! Get a
great job! Meet a great guy! And when you are ready,
have a family with the manwho loves you and who
wants to support you and the baby! It is absolutely
possible! You would know that your child is in good
hands and is taken care of and happy.... you never
know who they will become or what good things they
will do :) Both your lives will be the better for
it.
c)
It really is easy to do. All you have to do is
contact an adoption agency. If you need help, I will
certainly do some research and help you find one in
your area. YOU get to pick which parents are right
for your baby! You will actually have couples
competing for you! Once you find the parents you
think will best raise your child, THEY will be there
to support you the whole way, EVEN IF YOUR PARENTS
DONT! THEY will often schedule, pay, and COME to
doctors appointments with you! THEY will always be
checking up on you! THEY will make sure you are
doing well and have what you need! THEY WILL BE
THERE WITH YOU THE ENTIRE PROCESS, BECAUSE THEY WILL
TRULY CARE ABOUT YOU AND THE BABY. There are
soooo many wonderful couples out there who would
DO ANYTHING to have a child of their own, but for
some reason, they cannot. Imagine their pain when
they found out they COULDN'T have a child. I am sure
they, too, were questioning God ... "WHY IS THIS
HAPPENING TO ME? WHAT IS WRONG WITH ME? GOD, DO YOU
NOT WANT ME TO BE A PARENT?!" Now the obvious
question is, why WOULDN'T you want to help them? I
hope that you are beginning to see how this REALLY
is the right choice for you.... I hope that you are
beginning to realize that option one is NOT the only
option for you, that there is, in fact, a MUCH
BETTER OPTION just waiting for you to make your
move!
I really, sincerely hope that this helped. Please,
feel free to contact me directly or the BCJ site if
there is anything else I can do to help. Please, do
not be afraid to accept my help and know that I am
here to help you in whatever way I can. I will
certainly keep you in my prayers and look forward to
hopefully hearing a response from you soon!
Your new friend,
Bernadette :)
bernadette@boston-catholic-journal.com
"My question is about attending the new Mass. I find it very unnerving to attend this Mass as I feel that it is more of a social hour than time I can spend with my Lord and assisting at Mass. Besides I always attended a Mass said in Latin and with people who dressed respectfully for our Lord and women who covered their heads in respect. So my question to you is how do I go to this new Mass not really feeling like I'm attending Mass. I feel like I am just doing this for show."
LH
Dear LH,
First, thank you for the courage it took to ask about the Elephant in the Room that everyone sees and no one wants to talk about. Even our priests. Especially our priests — and more especially our bishops who are too deeply involved in other things of a more ... social nature, and decidedly more pressing than the salvation of souls.
Buy a
1962 Roman Missal (available from
Baronius Press and other publishers), go to
page 9, the "Liturgical Calendar", find
the month and date of the Mass for
the forthcoming Sunday (or weekday), hunker down
in a back pew and open it to pages 889 - 896 ("Preparation
for Holy Mass") BEFORE Mass
begins.
When Mass
proper begins, do as the rest of the
congregation does (if kneeling is not practiced —
yes, we know, incredible, but it happens —
kneel anyway when you know you should —
especially during the Canon of the Mass when the
species of bread and wine are transubstantiated into
the Most Holy Body and the Most Precious Blood of
Christ during the Holy Eucharist, and after
receiving Him in Holy Communion — even if everyone
just sits and drapes their arms over the backs of
the pews). You have no obligation to join in
singing that you are "The Light of the World"
(you probably do not esteem yourself to be so, and
neither do I) or, in fact, any other
maudlin ditty. At times of singing, you can quietly
read or re-read the Gospel or Epistles in your Roman
Missal — fiercely focusing on them to drown out
the strident singing and the banging of the drums
and piano. Or you could simply close your eyes,
intent upon your presence at the foot of the Cross
before which you stand at Mass. This requires holy focus. Pray to Mary.
She will help you. While it appears that everyone is paying attention to
virtually everyone else except Christ — you
are paying attention to God through either the Readings in your Missal
or your place under the Cross.
Be resolute in
fixing your gaze upon the Tabernacle in which dwells our
Blessed Lord, Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity. He is
there! What do you care of what others are paying
attention to? You may be the only person there who
knows what is really going on behind the clamor
and distractions surrounding you: the very Passion
of Our Lord Jesus Christ on the Cross ... and
you are standing or kneeling at the foot of the Cross.
HE is why you are there! Focus on Him! He
is, after all, intent upon you! When the
clamor reaches a crescendo of self-adulation, remember
those who really surround you most closely: Christ, Mary,
and the Holy Angels surrounding the Altar. They did not
come to be entertained by
the "Music Ministry" or to be amused by the antics of the priest. They
came for you. They were waiting for you. And now you are
there. To Whom, then, will you pay close attention? At
Whose feet will you sit? Will you mount Calvary to be
with Him under the Cross ... or join the minstrels who
would drop their instruments and fall into awe and
silence before the Crucified Who is on that Cross, and
on that Altar before them — could they see Him with
the eyes of Faith. Close your eyes and see Him
Whom others fail to see with waking eyes!
Fold your hands in
front of you during the "Sign of Peace" and
humbly bow to any who turn to you, front and side,
without turning around. This is not impolite. It is
acknowledging them, if they are so disposed (and not all
are comfortable with the handshake: it is a physical
contact which not everyone welcomes, myself included,
and for many women it is a breach of modesty to grope
for the hands of everyone around them. Many a man —
although, of course, none will admit it — welcomes
this opportunity to have "physical contact" with a woman
he finds attractive, and not all grasping of hands is
entirely chaste in the heart of the one insisting upon
it. This is not prudish. It is an uncomfortable truth.
Humbly and slightly bowing in the context of the Mass is
a much deeper sign of respect than a superficial
handshake. How many talk, laugh, blow kisses, hug, or run
across the aisle to greet everyone possible —
and even have brief conversations in the process ("How
is John doing?)! And how many of these people will not
so much as acknowledge one another — whom they had
embraced with such affection in Church... on the street!
The rubrics of the Mass do not specify the
method or means of conveying the "Sign of Peace" ... and
the "V" waving of the fingers in all directions
has a long history of political overtones that, in my
opinion, has no place in the Mass. Not all Catholics,
especially older Catholics, were "Flower Children" of
the 60's.
Fold your hands
reverently before you as you go to Communion, heedless of
the indifferent carriage of others. You know Whom you
approach. And you can, if it is physically possible to
you, you can also genuflect on one knee and bow your head before you arise to receive Him, the
King of Kings. Do not be ashamed to honor Him so. He
promised to those that were ashamed of Him on Earth, that he
would be ashamed of them before His Father in Heaven and His
holy Angels. (St. Matthew 10.33). Saint Francis of Assisi,
the man recognized to be the most Christ-like of all men,
did not consider himself worthy to hold Our Blessed Lord in
the Eucharist in his hands. For that reason he never became
a priest. I would urge you, as our forefathers had done for
over a thousand years, to receive Him in Holy communion on your tongue,
knowing that Father Francis himself did likewise. It is an
act of utter humility and love.
After Mass, do not
flee as the others. What have you been given? Ten lepers
approached Christ to be healed, and only one returned to
give thanks (St. Luke 17.12-19). Do likewise. Go to Him in
the Most Blessed Sacrament of the Altar after Mass and give
Him thanks and praise. The gift you were given is far
greater than the gift given the lepers. Christ's very self!
Body and Blood!
Remember that on Calvary there were many, and even some among them gambled beneath Him. Do not be ashamed to do as Mary did, and not the cruel soldiers. Go to Him. And do not judge the crowd around Him at the foot of the Cross at Mass. We see appearances. God alone sees the heart. Some there are who love much and suffer much. Do not disdain them because the crowd is loud around them, too — even as the crowd was loud and scornful as Christ hung on the Cross and only Mary and John remained.
Yours is a question that deeply
vexes, even unsettles, Catholics with a deep sense
of the sacred and an earnest desire to worship God
alone in a manner due His Divine Majesty. Even this
very term "His Divine Majesty" is seldom, if ever
heard, in the New Mass. Somehow, it offends our
sense of democracy; the "progressive" notion that,
not only are all equal before God (bishop,
priest and laity alike), but that God Himself is
trespassing upon our cherished sense of a
presumed , if politely unstated, equality with Him.
Catholics no longer "do transcendence". God is
imminent in us all — rather than
transcending us and everything. In celebrating
ourselves we celebrate Him — or so
we are urged to believe. The logic is sound ... even
if the premises are deeply flawed — in fact,
completely untrue. In philosophy, Modus Ponens
always produces a sound logical argument — that is
to say, the form of the argument is always
valid even if the terms themselves are
ludicrous.
This loss of transcendence, aptly supplanted by a suffocating sense of imminence (indwelling) is a major factor contributing to our loss of the sense —and Presence — of God. Christ is no longer the Light of the World: "We are the light of the world" as the ditty goes in virtually every parish and quite nearly at every Mass. God is an interloper in His own House; a disruptive Guest with a Divine attitude Who presumes to eclipse this "light" by momentarily distracting us from ourselves during that brief moment of Transubstantiation that we politely accord Him before resuming the celebration of ourselves and the absolute certainty of our salvation. We are the tenants who have evicted God from His own House, much as the tenant farmers in the Gospels.1 It has largely ceased to be the "House of God" and has become "Our Faith Community", our "Our Prayer Space", terms as bizarre and disconnected with the continuity of the Church as the practices that most often occur within them. The focus is "We", "Ours" ... in a word, the apotheosis of the self over God.
Think of the stultifying term, "We are Church" ... apart from its ungrammatical format (languages that use the definite ("the") and the indefinite ("a") article use it to articulate a distinction between things specific ("the house", meaning this particular and unique house) and things general ("a house" meaning any house apart from distinguishing features specific to it). This is no quibbling with words, however silly and foreign they may sound. It is a deliberate divesting of the Catholic Church's unique role as the means to salvation instituted by Christ Himself. 2 Think of "We are Government". Which government? What kind of government? Of what country? Is it the government of an empire? A republic? A democracy? A regime? There are no distinguishing features to which we can appeal. It is a senseless and meaningless utterance, because the statement lacks anything definite that we can predicate of it. It is not "the Church", or even "a Church" ... it is just, well, ... "Church."
Equally noteworthy, apart from what church it is (which we cannot answer), is whose church it is. It is no longer God's Church — it is our Church. Even if we no longer know what it is, we at least know who it belongs to. It belongs to us ... not God. It is our Church. In fact, its only distinguishing feature is that, whatever it is, it is ours. — and not Christ's. It is us! "We are Church!" For 2000 years (minus 40) it was the Body of Christ of which He is the Head. 3
Is it any wonder, then, that at the New Mass, the Novus Ordo (still valid despite its being trivialized and much abused. See the heresy of Donatism which holds that the Sacraments are invalid, and even the Mass itself, if the presiding priest is unworthy) we celebrate ourselves — rather than worship God. The focus appears to be upon everything and everyone — from the show-host priest striding jestingly in the aisles, to the miserable cacophony of pianos, drums, trap sets, cymbals, guitars, and the most dismal "folk music" (think Joan Baez and Cat Stevens) that ceased to exist 30 years ago everywhere except in the Catholic Church, to the divas inviting your applause, and Kiddie-Hour at the Altar — everyone and everything ... except Jesus Christ in the Most Holy Sacrifice (absolutely the most central feature of the Mass, apart from which there is no Mass; a now "antiquated" notion which is no longer spoken of — let alone emphasized — in most "modern" Catholic Churches.)
In short, we have not lifted ourselves to Heaven, but dragged God down the Earth — and like our priests, He, too, has largely become rather "one of the guys" ... with a cameo appearance in the Most Holy Eucharist.
We deign to favor Him with our presence at Mass ... smug in our certainty that He is keenly aware of the sleep-in, sports event, or other social obligation that we have sacrificed for Him — and of which He is surely, and most appropriately, not only cognizant but deeply grateful.
Yes, the sacred nature of the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is often trivialized ... and by many unknown. But you know, LH.
In short, yes, you and I can survive the appalling lack of reverence at so many Masses. We must ... because Christ Himself must. Day in and day out.
Mother Teresa held that the most effective means of conversion is personal example. It starts with one. And beholding the beauty of the one, another comes to know this beauty also.
God keep you.
In the Immaculate Heart of Mary,
Joseph Mary del Campos
Editor
Boston Catholic Journal
editor@boston-catholic-journal.com
____________________________
1 St. Matthew
21.33-41 Saint Matthew 16.17-19
2 St. Matthew 16.17-19
3 Colossians 1:18
Dear Journal,
What does God say about
pregnant single mothers? To marry or not to marry? I
have 8 siblings, 6 of them are girls and 5 of them
are married. From all five of them, I cannot say I
would prefer to have one marriage over another, I'd
prefer not have a marriage at all. All including my
mother, have set an example it appears to be as
having to be the one to make more sacrifices in the
relationship for the sake of the children having
their fathers near them (of course they all say they
love their husbands still). However, I asked them
one day (just the sisters), "Not counting the
children, would you do it all over again. Marry the
same guy and put up with everything?" All said no
except one. As a girlfriend of the father of my
coming baby, I am already not willing to put up with
many things I see in him. I fear he isn't ready or
rather doesn't want to give up on a lot of things
that expectant fathers should give up on. But now I
fear that perhaps I am being a little too demanding
of a partner, in comparison to other girls or even
my sisters. I am having trouble wanting to just
settle for the norm which constitutes of: the man is
a man and he is allowed to have his "manliness" with
the society given definition. The women lives to
serve her children and husband. My mother had a very
rough life, and for many years I refused to believe
that she was born to live all that suffering, now I
have stop questioning or commenting on her life, I
just accept it since it is her life and pertains to
her only. However, I don't know that I want to spend
a life next to a man and hoping and praying for the
day that he will change. We don't share values,
goals, and even our morality judgment is very
different. Of course because we come from different
backgrounds. The other day I shared with him how I
needed and wanted to go to confession and to this he
replied, "What did you do?" I chuckled considering
that we both participated in the sin of sex and now
are pregnant. I love this coming baby and I don't
regret it, but i do regret having sin or even with
who I sinned with if that makes any sense. I
acknowledge my sin, and if this cross of mine
commands me to get married than without hesitation i
will pick it up and carry it.
P.S. Perhaps you recall of me writing to you
earlier. And I took your advice and left the
relationship. And well time later he looked for me
again and I fell like the common "in-love" girl or
rather "in-lust" (I don't even know now) and well
now I have a brought a new innocent life into our
problems. I don't even know how to tell my baby that
I'm sorry.
Lost
Dear Lost,
I will answer your first question before addressing
others. You ask, “What does God say about pregnant
single mothers?” To marry or not to marry is another
question; one for which I will offer my own
suggestion, and the reasons for it.
So, “What does God say about pregnant single
mothers?”
The answer to this is unequivocal and clear, and so
God tells you at once and forever:
“I
love you, and I love the life within you that I have
created. I Alone am the Giver of Life, and I have
chosen you to cooperate with Me in bringing this
life — that I have willed — to being. That your
will and My will are one — that the child shall
live and be loved — is itself a sign of
blessedness, for holiness consists in this: that
your will be perfectly one, perfectly in harmony,
with My will in all things. It is nothing more and
nothing less.
In this state of holiness you will find happiness,
and apart from it you will never find peace, for you
will never possess real happiness. Why? Because
always I will your good, in this life and in the
next; I will what is perfectly good for you, and
what is perfectly good for you will bring you
happiness. There is no happiness apart from what is
good, yes?
Oh, there are things pleasurable and they bring you
momentary fulfillment, but not happiness. Happiness
endures. Pleasure passes. Happiness and pleasure are
not the same at all, My Little One. Some pleasures
are good, and some are sinful, according to your
state in life. Sexual pleasure is good — within
the Sacrament of Marriage, but sinful outside of it.
But you know this already, my daughter — and in
the Sacrament of Penance you have come to Me before.
What had you found, my Little One? Mercy,
compassion, and forgiveness … yes? And now you would
flee Me … fear confessing that you have sinned the
same sin again? Do you not remember my Only Begotten
Son telling Saint Peter who had asked, “Lord, how
many times should we forgive our brother? Seven
times?” To which My Son answered, “Nay, seventy
times seven times!” In other words, as often as
forgiveness is asked, it is given — as long as the
heart of the penitent is truly sorry — and even if
she falls into that sin again and again through
human weakness, and knows and expresses true sorrow
again and again, she is forgiven! Do you think I do
not know your weakness and frailty, I Who had
created you? Was not My Son, in His Incarnation,
like unto thee in all things except sin? He Himself
in His sacred humanity intimately knows the weakness
of men.
What you are really asking Me, it appears, is this:
“Do I still love you, as a woman, and now as a
mother, outside of wedlock?” In your heart of hearts
you already know the answer to this also. Yes! Not a
whit less, and even the more! — because you have,
apart from your soul that is precious to Me, a new
life within you! A life that I have given and that
you have not spurned! You love whom I love: the one
I have created within you! Love you less? No! All
the more! Not for your sin, but for your love —
your love of Me and of the child I have given thee,
that I have entrusted to thee, that you may teach
the child to know Me, to love Me, and to serve Me in
the world, and to be happy with Me forever in
Heaven. This is the charge I have given thee. This
is the purpose of the child conceived within you.
Think, my Little One! I know the end of all things …
you do not. I have willed and created life in you.
Do I do anything without purpose? Anything that is
not totally good? I knew your child long before you
were aware of this life within you!
Have no shame, Little One. Remember that My most
perfect creation — Mary — first conceived My
Only Begotten Son before she was married! And now I
have conferred upon thee the greatest dignity, the
most sublime vocation: that of motherhood!”
God Himself, then, answers your first question, and
now I will attempt to answer the questions that
follow it.
In speaking with your married sisters, you said
that, apart from the children, “had they to do it
all over again, all, save one, would not have chosen
to marry.” It appears that in their marriages there
is a lack of mutuality, of sharing, giving and
taking in turn, in which the husbands are not
solicitous of their wives needs, being preoccupied
with the fulfillment of their own. I think that this
perception is fairly common — and, regrettably,
cuts both ways. In many ways we would like something
of a “designer husband” and “designer wife” that we
could tailor to our changing desires. Traits and
features could be added or detracted to suit us as
it pleases us best. Snip away this trait, add that,
change one, transform another — and when they are
old and less to our liking to discard them
altogether. It is man and woman, husband and wife,
as mere commodities — and not as the absolutely
unique and unrepeatable persons, human beings, that
they are — and none of them is perfect … nor are
we.
As to the indifference of the husband to the wife,
it would be well to carefully read about the mutual
duties and responsibilities of a man to his wife,
and of a wife to her husband, especially in light of
the example that Saint Paul sets before us, of
Christ’s love for the Church, and the Church’s love
for Christ. (Ephesians, 5.21-31). The husband loves
his wife as his own body, ever ready to deliver
himself up for her as Christ did for the Church.
Saint Paul states it more succinctly,
“He that loveth his wife, loveth himself.”
Now, to the vitally important question — a
question that you alone must answer: Should you
marry, or not marry? It is now five years that you
have had a relationship with this young man. I have
re-read your first letter very carefully, and I will
point out a few very important things that you had
said within it, in May of 2010, and which appear
unchanged to this day, and will likely remain
unchanged.
For four years it has been thus. It is now a year
later and remains so — even given the fact that
you carry his child. This does not portend well.
Perhaps I had told you in my first letter to you
that you can only change yourself — not another.
Personality traits are particularly intractable
almost impossible to extinguish or alter. It is
hoping to “design” another person to be other than
whom they are. Yes, we want all men, all women, for
Christ and His Holy Church! And everyone is invited!
But we ourselves, as utterly unique as they are,
cannot presume to hope to bring them to Christ or
His Church at the cost of our own souls and our own
salvation. It is our duty first and foremost to seek
the salvation of our own souls — for they alone
are totally within our grasp and amenable to our
will in a way that the souls of others are not. This
is not selfish. Christ Himself told us that we dare
not presume to remove the speck in our brother’s eye
until we have first removed the splinter from our
own! No?
We would that we could bring all men to Christ —
and this is a holy desire. Ever we must strive to.
And yet it is not given to us to choose whom we
bring to God, and away from sin. Most often our
example is sufficient to inspire another to seek
what we have found, the happiness that comes with
faithfulness to God. But it is something that must
be freely chosen by another, and all our efforts are
in vain if we deceive ourselves that we can change
another who is either
indifferent or antagonistic to our Faith … by
marrying them! This endangers your own soul — and
as importantly, the soul of a child who may never
come to know God or the beauty of the Faith of Holy
Mother Church by being exposed to the influence of
one who knows neither, or disdains both.
From what you have written, my child, nothing has
changed in this young man to make him worthy of you.
Because you bear his child (that God willed … not
the man) does not obligate your marrying him at all.
Some young women feel that a child is an impediment
to the prospect of a future relationship and real
love. This is not the case at all — I can testify
to that personally from my experience with many
young men and women who have met subsequent to the
mother’s having a child by another — women who
have married worthy and honorable men who have taken
the mother’s child as their own.
You have done the most loving thing imaginable in
keeping and loving this child within you. You will
blessed in him or her. Your happiness will be
multiplied, not your sorrow. Cleave to God and place
yourself under the mantle of Mary Most Holy — both
will accompany you, and assist you — and love you,
and your child — all the days of your lives.
In the Immaculate Heart of Mary,
Joseph Mary del Campos
Editor
Boston Catholic Journal
editor@boston-catholic-journal.com
|
|
