David Ancell / Saturday, August 09, 2003 / Comments(0)
I glanced through the document in question (which clearly says it relates to the confessional), the CBS story, and some Canon law and came up with a bit of an analysis. The result can be found on Spiritual Pyromania.
Category: Posts imported from Danger! Falling Brainwaves, Uncategorized
David Ancell / Friday, August 08, 2003 / Comments(0)
For those of you who saw the CBS special that “covered” a 1962 Vatican document (I didn’t see it, so I can’t comment directly.), here is an analysis from Catholic World News that counters it. I do think that, regarding laws such as these, there are some important points:
1. Any secrecy involving the confessional is no doubt held because of the strict confidentiality of the confessional. No matter how many people want transparency, I wouldn’t want anything that happens to me in the confessional to become public matter.
2. From what I understand, the document was superseded by the 1983 Code of Canon Law.
3. Judicial matters such as these must be viewed from the perspective of the time period in which they originated. To do otherwise is arrogance.
Does anyone who saw the special know if CBS consulted orthodox canon lawyers to explain what the document meant? The Catholic World News report suggests that they didn’t. If they didn’t, then it is darn near impossible to attribute any inaccuracies to honest error.
UPDATE: If you can’t get on the CWN site, try the Catholic Exchange link.
Category: Posts imported from Danger! Falling Brainwaves, Uncategorized
David Ancell / Thursday, August 07, 2003 / Comments(0)
In case you haven’t noticed, it appears that Amy Welborn has moved her blog to another site. It’s amazing that a few months ago, she wanted to quit blogging. Now, she has moved her blog to a paid site, changed the name to Open Book, and is actively blogging just as before. Well, I’m glad she’s there and has a better site.
Category: Posts imported from Danger! Falling Brainwaves, Uncategorized
David Ancell / Tuesday, August 05, 2003 / Comments(0)
Would that this experience lead Brittney Spears, and many others, to conversion! I am just now posting it because the permalink now works. Brittney Spears felt that her love was “the one” and was comitted to her forever despite the fact that there were no marriage vows said. Therefore, she felt that it was okay to consumate that relationship. She found out that she was wrong.
Don’t let anyone fool you about any commitment short of marriage. Until the wedding, it is not reality. This is one reason why it is dangerous to engage in the marriage act on the presumption that you have found “the one.” My hope now is that Brittney Spears will come to know the God she has offended and receive his forgiveness. Not only would it be a blessing in her life, but it would be a great blessing to all of her fans.
Category: Posts imported from Danger! Falling Brainwaves, Uncategorized
David Ancell / Monday, August 04, 2003 / Comments(0)
It is difficult to be in the Church today without encountering someone who is teaching false teaching. It may be a CCD teacher, a sister, a priest, or even a bishop. Some of them may have some adverse agendas that nothing short of an act of divine intervention will overcome.
However, I firmly believe that the majority do not. I have encountered many of these. You can usually tell them by asking them what they meant by a particular statement and finding that they are willing to discuss it with you on respectful terms. Some will even reverse what they are trying to tell people upon seeing an appropriate Church document. They may even publicly correct the error.
I am thinking of this because of a conversation that I had with a seminarian friend of mine. He said that St. John Vianney, whose feast we celebrate today, converted a parish by his holiness. He went on to say that sometimes a parish converts a priest by their holiness.
Some of these people who teach false teaching were taught this by the agenda folks and honestly believe that it is correct. If you present them with a Church document, they analyze it in the framework that they are formed in. They won’t be convinced because they have conviction in their false teaching. In a case like this, a display of anger will do nothing more than to solidify the false teaching. The person sees the bad example of those who know the truth and wants no part of it.
On the other hand, I know of a pastor who has rethought much based on the good example of parishoners, staff, and associate pastors. The guy still hasn’t totally embraced orthodoxy, but he is at least open to those people and sees the true faith in them. He loves them and wants to do what is best. Because of his sincerity, he is open to truth. Because of the people surrounding him, truth is conveyed.
Category: Posts imported from Danger! Falling Brainwaves, Uncategorized
David Ancell / Sunday, August 03, 2003 / Comments(0)
Here’s another response to a Busted Halo post on the gay marriage thread:
Somehow, there has been an idea that Jesus decided that external conformity with the law was no longer necessary. He did not do this. He made external conformity insufficient. This is precisely why I can’t in good conscience put a gun to someone’s head and tell them to repent. There would be no interior conversion.
Jesus did “not come to destroy, but to fufill” the Law of Moses (Matthew 5:17-20). He goes on to say that our righteousness must exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees, meaning that we go beyond external conformity. He goes on to explain what he means. He says that the fact that you don’t commit murder doesn’t make you right if you harbor anger against your brother (Matthew 5:22). Should we take his words to mean that it is okay to murder as long as you aren’t angry? He goes on to say that if you so much as look at a woman with lust, you have already committed adultery (Matthew 5:27-28). Does this mean that it is okay to commit adultery as long as you don’t lust?
It is true that Jesus did not directly mention homosexuality (though St. Paul, whose conversion was a direct encounter with Jesus, did in Romans 1:26-28). However, he also didn’t mention theft. He didn’t need to because coveting the wife or goods of a neighbor was already in the Ten Commandments. Should we presume that theft is now morally acceptable?
Jesus took sin rather seriously. In Matthew 5:30-31, Jesus explains just how serious sin is by saying (not to be taken literally) that even cutting off your right hand or eye is preferable to sin and to Hell. Even as he was condemning the scribes and Pharisess, he still tell people to follow their words, just not their example (Matthew 23:1-3). The Pharisees condemned Jesus for healing on the Sabbath knowing full well that they would pull their ox out of a ditch on the Sabbath. Therefore, Jesus did not break the law.
Jesus did change the dietary restrictions, but do be aware that this is disciplinary law and not moral law. For example, eating meat on a Friday of Lent is not an intrinsically immoral act, but the Church prescribes abstinance from meat as a discipline. She could change it tomorrow. This is not true of moral law. Human sexuality receives its nature from God. We are not made for homosexuality because it is impossible for one man to unite with another sexually. Such act can never be acts of love but are only acts of using for pleasure. The consequences of this act are evident (in both heterosexual and homosexual populations) by the spread of STDs.
The Pharisees had problems with racism and with the condemnation of the sins of others while ignoring their own. The Samaritans were considered half-breeds. To help a Samaritan was not to condone their sin. The Pharisees also tried to cut off anyone they presumed was a sinner. Jesus died on the cross for sinners, and there would be no need to do that if sin wasn’t real. Jesus forgave sins, but he didn’t excuse them. He told people to “go and sin no more.”
We must be careful of dissenting from Church teaching on the grounds that we are “thinking for ourselves.” That is prideful disobedience. Ultimately, we are to think the thoughts of God. In turning from sin, we experience a much greater freedom than we would from indulging in our passions and enslaving ourselves to sin.
Category: Posts imported from Danger! Falling Brainwaves, Uncategorized
David Ancell / Saturday, August 02, 2003 / Comments(0)
According to this article on Catholic Exchange, a judge ruled in favor of an Ave Maria student, stating that she could not be denied a scholarship because she chose theology as her major. If she earned the scholarship, then it is none of the state’s darn business what she majors in.
My home state of Missouri has the same restriction on its “Bright Flight” scholarship. If you score a 30 or higher on the ACT, you get a scholarship to any school in the state. However, they will deny the scholarship if you choose to major in divinity or theology. Well, at least this was true in 1993 when I graduated. I hope they change their laws.
Category: Posts imported from Danger! Falling Brainwaves, Uncategorized
David Ancell / Saturday, August 02, 2003 / Comments(0)
Mike Hayes invited comments on his article. This is my response:
I read and reread your article on two different days. I agree that we can’t go before God and then ignore our brothers and sisters. I know of a priest who said that “Charity begins in the parking lot.”
However, the sidebar says that Catholics believe that Christ is present in the bread and wine. Actually, the Church teaching is that the bread and wine no longer exist but have become the Body and Blood. If Christ were merely present in bread and wine, then the bread and wine would still exist. In this case, to the extent the bread and wine still exist, we are worshipping bread and wine.
But on to the article . . . . I disagree that the Mass or adoration become empty ritual under any circumstances. We can certainly fail to dispose ourselves to receive the graces and therefore not receive them. However, it is not the Mass but rather our hearts that were empty.
Basically, what I am trying to say is that it is not our charitable works which make the Eucharist meaningful but rather the Eucharist that makes our works meaningful. The Eucharist is the source and summit of our faith. It is the source of all the graces we need for salvation and for doing good works. It is also the sacrifice in which the work of our redemption is accomplished. While Christ is present in all places in his divinity, his humanity is present only in the Sacred Host. Like all human bodies, he has to occupy a physical space.
The grace of God and his salvation is a free gift for us won by that sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross that is re-presented in an unbloody manner in the Mass. We are not saved on our own merits. However, we can grow in sanctifying grace through our good works. Before that can happen, we must be given the grace through God’s initiative.
Does this mean that the works of those who do not believe in Christ are meaningless? No, it doesn’t. Salvation comes only through Christ, but Christ has the power to save those who through no fault of their own don’t explicitly accept him.
I approach the Eucharist to receive Christ himself, the source of all graces. I pray before him in the tabernacle or monstrance, knowing that he is there. Then, I can go out into my job or whatever else I might be doing that day. I continue my practice as essential to growth in virtue.
Category: Posts imported from Danger! Falling Brainwaves, Uncategorized
David Ancell / Saturday, August 02, 2003 / Comments(0)
Here is an excerpt from a homily that I heard a few months ago:
Baptist: You Catholics don’t baptize the right way. You are supposed to do it by immersion.
Catholic: Does Baptism do anything?
Baptist: No, it’s just a sign.
Catholic: Then why the @#@!@#* do you care how we do it?
Category: Posts imported from Danger! Falling Brainwaves, Uncategorized
David Ancell / Friday, August 01, 2003 / Comments(0)
Take a look at this post on Spiritual Pyromania regarding the breakdown of the family.
Category: Posts imported from Danger! Falling Brainwaves, Uncategorized