Indulgences... No need to freak out.

When I finally became a faithful Catholic in my late 20s, I had no real idea what indulgences were. I had some vague notion that they were something complicated, controversial and even corrupt. The very word seemed scandalous and sinful! And the word "indulgences" was usually preceded by "the sale of" -- and that can't be good when we're talking about souls!

What I finally figured out was not so complicated. An indulgence is just a certain prescribed prayer, good work, or practice of piety which remits the temporal punishment due for sins which have already been forgiven.

Um, Leila, what in the heck is temporal punishment??


I'm glad you asked!


When we sin, there are two parts to reconciling with the Lord:

1) We must ask for and receive forgiveness for our sins (at which point our guilt is removed)
2) We must make amends for our sins (that's how we repair the spiritual damage we have caused)

Making up for our sins is only just, right? We know it in our hearts, and we apply it in real life.

Think about it:

A boy recklessly throws a baseball near his neighbor's home. It shatters a window. What does the boy need to do? He needs to approach the neighbor with contrition and apologize for the transgression. A good neighbor then forgives the boy.

But can the boy now just walk home happily and never think about it again? No, of course not. We all know that the boy needs to make it right, and the neighbor expects it. Pick up the glass pieces, replace the window, pay for the damage, whatever. But the window must be restored. Even with forgiveness, an apology is incomplete until the offender has made things right again. That's justice, and it makes sense.

Divine forgiveness and justice make sense, too.

So, an indulgence is a special way of making up for the damage of our sins, in the form of a specific prayer, good work, holy act, pilgrimage, etc.

I think of an indulgence as similar to a penance after a sacramental confession. In confession, our sins are forgiven when the priest absolves us, but we must still go and perform the given penance or our "apology" is not complete. That penance helps remit our temporal punishment. Indulgences are an extra-sacramental way to remit the temporal punishment for our sins, and this time not through our own personal merits, but by availing ourselves of the treasury of grace won by Christ and the saints.

A plenary indulgence removes all of one's temporal punishment.
A partial indulgence removes part of one's temporal punishment.

By the way, if all of our temporal punishment due is not paid here on earth, we'll be payin' up in Purgatory! (And Purgatory is a whole 'nother post!)

Um, Leila, what exactly gives the Church the right to set indulgences for the faithful?

I am glad you asked!

Remember back in this post, when we talked about disciplines vs. doctrines? Well, the specifics of an indulgence are an exercise of Church discipline:

A discipline is a rule or regulation which can and often does change. This is the "binding and loosing" authority that the Church received when Jesus said to Peter and the Apostles, "Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in Heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in Heaven" (Matt. 16:19, Matt. 18:18).... Why do they exist? To help the faithful in each era become holy. Depending on times and cultures and circumstances, Popes and bishops will bind or loose the faithful according to the needs of the people of God at that time.

Now, the thing about indulgences is, they are not obligatory. They are an amazing, voluntary opportunity for increased holiness and grace. A beautiful gift!

Um... but, Leila, what about the "selling of indulgences"? You know, the thing that caused so much scandal and made Martin Luther leave the Church?

I'm glad you asked!

At the time of Martin Luther, some of the clergy had fallen into great sin and corruption. Yes, it's true... the Church is full of sinners (for anyone who is human, this should not come as a shock). Martin Luther was right to call out the corruption in the Church, including the sale of indulgences. We don't have a problem with Luther for that! In fact, many Catholics were rightly horrified by the sin and corruption in the Church at the time. (Our issue with Martin Luther was an issue of doctrine, and that's a whole 'nother post.)

Was the sale of indulgences shameful when it occurred? Yes! But remember: The abuse of a thing does not negate its proper and legitimate use. I hope we can all agree on that principle.

And, I hope this post made you a *teensy-weensy* bit less confused about indulgences.  :)

For much more information, go here and here.

Mental fatigue and a change of direction...

So after 300+ comments (who knew that comments went to a second page past a certain point?), I am ready to switch gears for a bit and go into what I think I do best: Teaching the basics of the Catholic Faith with simplicity and clarity.

I certainly plan to write the contraception post I've been promising (and there will likely be more than one, since the topic has so many facets). Also, I will be posting some very basic stuff which begins at the beginning (Adam and Eve) and spells out the Faith from there, in small bursts. That will be a whole series of its own.

Meantime, please let me know if there is any particular topic which you are interested in learning about. I am taking requests!

PS: Congrats to Beth on her beautiful boy, Leo Michael, born on the Feast of the Immaculate Conception!! And thanks to everyone for the interesting information on the last "Just Curious" post! Great to see some new names!

A few items and a "Just Curious"!

I'm just full of awe about so many things these days. (Advent is a good time for that, I guess!)

First, I am simply awestruck that Sew Infertile has given birth to the most beautiful baby girl, Hannah Grace! This amazing family has pretty much consumed my thoughts since I heard that Sew was at the hospital! Sometimes the human heart fills up to overflowing with gratitude to God for His gifts, and for life itself. There really are no words. Welcome, Hannah! (My future daughter-in-law?)

Second, I cannot believe that my last post ("My imaginary dialogues with abortion rights advocates") has resulted in over 200 comments so far! (Yeah, so what if most of them are mine??) If you have missed any of the discussion (and if you have a couple of hours, ha ha), then go and read. I am learning a lot, and I suspect others are, too. With one exception, I believe everyone has been civil, even gracious.

Third, I am honored that a recent Bubble post has been featured at Catholic Exchange, here. It's a post I can't take much credit for; however, it's incredibly important for Catholics to read. I am grateful that CE thought so, too, and I'm grateful for the chance to bring it to others' attention again.

Finally, today is the Feast of the Immaculate Conception! On this holy day (of obligation, by the way!), we honor our Mother Mary, the most perfect creature ever made, conceived without sin! She is such a gift to us and to this world! How on earth can anyone speak of the Catholic Church as sexist when we hold a woman to be the most perfect human in all of creation, reigning as Queen above all the angels and saints?

St. Mary Immaculate, pray for us!

Now, because I am curious....

Into what religion were you born, if any? And your spouse?
And, what religion, if any, do you practice now?

I am a Cradle Catholic (born and baptized Catholic), but I didn't know my faith very well till my late 20's. I am still Catholic today (I hope that is obvious, ha ha!).

My husband was raised as an agnostic Jew. He had his own conversion right around the time I had my "reversion" (after six years of marriage and three kids), and now he is a practicing Catholic. I am still trying to get him to sit down and write his faith story!

How about you?

My imaginary dialogues with abortion rights advocates

I talk to myself, so why not talk to imaginary people? Here are some of my internal dialogues with abortion rights advocates ("AA"):


Dialogue, Thread A:

Me: Do you think the unborn are as human as you are?

AA: Yes, I do.

Me: And you still think that a mother should be able to abort that baby, who is as human as you are?

AA: Yes, I do.

Me: So, some humans have rights and others don't have any?

AA: Yes, that is correct.

Me: Doesn't that mean that one set of humans (the born) get to determine whether or not other humans have the right to live or not?

AA: Yes, that is correct.

Me: Do you think that's moral in other situations, or only with born vs. unborn humans?

AA: {I don't know how this thread ends, because I haven't yet gotten an answer.}


Dialogue, Thread B:

Me: Do you think the unborn are as human as you are?

AA: No, I don't.

Me: What do you think they are?

AA: They are potential humans.

Me: At what moment do they become fully human?

AA: At viability. {Other answers may include: At brainwaves, at heartbeat, at the beginning of the second trimester, at birth, three months after birth, etc., etc.}

Me: Is that objectively true, or is that simply your opinion?

AA:  I have thought about it at length, and that's my conclusion.


Me: So, it's an opinion?


AA: {silence.}

Me: How do you pinpoint the exact second that humanity begins, so that we don't accidentally kill any innocent people?

AA: We can't pinpoint an exact second, but it's a good estimate. 

Me: Isn't that arbitrary?

AA: Well, we have to draw the line somewhere.

Me: Why do we have to draw the line anywhere? Shouldn't we always err on the side of life in something this important and irrevocable?

AA: {Actually, I am not sure how this thread ends, either, because I've never heard this question answered.}

Dialogue, Thread C:

Me: Do you believe that the unborn are as human as you are?

AA: Well, they are human, but they are not "persons."

Me: What is the difference? 

AA: "Personhood" of a fetus is something to be determined by each pregnant woman. Only she can decide when her fetus becomes a "person" to her. It's a woman's right.


Me: Is there any objective standard for "personhood"?


AA: Well, some say that "personhood" is determined by conscious thought and memory.


Me: So, an Alzheimer's patient in the final stages, or a severely brain-injured adult may no longer be considered a "person"?

AA: Well, some people argue that that's the case, but I don't subscribe to that. It's extreme.

Me: What is the essential difference between a post-conscious Alzheimer's patient and a pre-conscious fetus?

AA: The the fetus has never lived a real life.

Me: How do you define what is "real" life? Isn't that arbitrary?

AA: Yes, maybe, but remember, it's a woman's right to choose to assign meaning to the life within her.

Me: So, the woman gets to decide the "personhood" of another?

AA: Yes.

Me: But it still seems so arbitrary and subjective.

AA: Wait, there is an objective standard, if that's what you are looking for. The U.S. Supreme Court decided in 1973 that "personhood" begins at birth, and that's when the fetus gets legal protection.

Me: So the government can legitimately decide when someone is a "person" and thus entitled to the full spectrum of human rights?

AA: Yes.

Me: Are you okay with that?

AA: Yes, of course. I fully support Roe v. Wade.

Me: Would you support the government defining the "personhood" of other groups as well, like when the Supreme Court declared that black slaves were property, and not fully human (Dred Scott decision)?

AA: No! Of course not. That's ridiculous.

Me: Can you tell me the salient difference?

AA: {I don't know how this thread ends, either, since I have never heard the answer to that one.}



Okay, there you have it. Yep, that actually is what I do in my spare time, ha ha! I've got other imaginary dialogues, too, but I will save those for later. If anyone wants to complete any of the threads or tell me where I went wrong, that would be great!

Answer to DQS and Grand Prize Winner!!

I'm back with the answer to the Doctrinal Quiz Show, Church History Edition! Once again, I am quite impressed with the answers!

Here was the question I posed:

Over the past 2,000+ years, the Church has held many councils (i.e., gatherings of the world's bishops, often called "ecumenical councils"). These councils have been convened to combat heresy and define doctrine, among other things. Can you name the first two Church councils and the last two Church councils? For an extra edge toward the Grand Prize, please state the approximate date of each council and one major issue that was on the table.

And, here's how I would have answered it (keeping in mind that answers could vary and still get points):

The first Church council (some of you smarty-pants noticed that I gave a little leeway... not all were "ecumenical" councils) was the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15). It occurred in the First Century (probably around the year 50 A.D.) The major issue was whether much of the Mosaic Law (such as circumcision) would be required of Gentile converts. In other words, would Gentile converts to Christianity have to become Jewish first? Peter and the other bishops, guided by the Holy Spirit, declared that the answer was no.

The second Church council (and the first "ecumenical" council) was the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D. The Church was combating the Arian heresy and needed to make very clear the nature of Christ's divinity and His relationship to the Father. From this council we received the Nicene Creed, which is still recited every Sunday at Mass after the homily.

The second most recent ecumenical council was the First Vatican Council ("Vatican I"), in 1869-1870. One major issue was the definition of Papal Infallibility.

The most recent ecumenical council was the Second Vatican Council ("Vatican II"), from 1962-1965. One major issue addressed was the liturgy. Another was the Church's relationship to the modern world.

Now, as for the scoring.... There was a maximum possible score of 12 points (three points for each council: one for naming the council, one for giving the approximate date, one for naming a major issue). Mrs. Blondies, Lisa Graas, JoAnna, R.J. Grigaitis, A Martha Trying to Be Mary, and Ruby -- you all did a great job and were in the running! But someone smoked you all, and we'll get to that in a minute.

In the meantime, here are the rest of the Bubble Awards!

The Not Only Were You in the Running, But You Might Have Won If You Weren't Such a Bundle of Nerves, Because I *Think* Your Date for Nicea Was a Typo Award goes to.... Ruby!!

The Expressed Incredulity With a Tinge of Smart-Mouth But it Totally Cracked Me Up Because I Know You Meant it in Love Award goes to.... Sew!! (Sew, just because you are you, you must have about ten Bubble Awards by now. I hope you have a big shelf for them all!)

The I Am Shocked But Consoled That an RCIA Class Actually Taught Such Things Award goes to.... Allie!!

The Okay, Fine, I Will Give You an Award For Answering First Award goes to.... Mary!!

(For those of you who are recent additions to the Bubble and haven't heard my awards disclaimer: I would love to continue handing out awards to everyone, but we do not use the liberal model here, and so not everyone will get an award, even if you are a good person and had a clever answer. Not getting an award will not harm you permanently, and it will help build your character.)

Now, finally, the GRAND PRIZE WINNER and winner of Jay Groft's newly released, beautiful Christmas CD goes to....

K!!!!

Not only does K win the CD (email me and I'll have it sent out to you!), but also the coveted Bubble Award Icon which can be used to win friends and influence people: 

Great, great job, K!!!!!

Good-night everyone, and be sure to join us next time for.... DOCTRINAL QUIZ SHOW!!!!

Doctrinal Quiz Show! (Well, more like Church History Quiz!) And, another fabulous Grand Prize!

Welcome back to Doctrinal Quiz Show!  I thought I would make this question a little bit broader than the others, giving people a chance to offer a wide range of answers. I want to see how well you know your Church history, while touching on doctrinal issues as well. 

Think carefully:

Over the past 2,000+ years, the Church has held many councils (i.e., gatherings of the world's bishops, often called "ecumenical councils"). These councils have been convened to combat heresy and define doctrine, among other things. Can you name the first two Church councils and the last two Church councils? For an extra edge toward the Grand Prize, please state the approximate date of each council and one major issue that was on the table.

If you cheat, you die. Can I be any more clear than that? Whoops, sorry. That's not very Christian of me. But let's just say that I have ways to detect whether or not you are cheating.... Uh-huh. It's true. I have a sixth sense. 

Now, the GRAND PRIZE is very special to me. Jay Groft is a Catholic singer here in Phoenix, and he and his wife Jenni (Catholic blogger!) are family friends of ours. Tomorrow is the release of his brand new Christmas CD, with a release concert at our diocesan cathedral! I am so pleased to offer his brand new Christmas CD as the Grand Prize!! To hear a sample of Jay's prayerful songs, click here, here or here. 

To order this wonderful CD, click the image.

Speaking of Grand Prizes, it just gives me chills to tell you this story. The last quiz show (Bible in the Bubble) featured a rosary giveaway from Melanie at Trendy Traditions. Melanie recently lost her fifth child, Jude, due to his premature birth. I was stunned to find out yesterday that the verse which I chose for the quiz had special meaning to Melanie: It was the same verse that she and her husband had chosen for Jude's funeral cards! Praise God for His gentle consolations.  

Okay, now.... on your mark, get set, GO!!!!

The Pope and Condoms *UPDATED*

"I've often said that if a sports reporter was as clueless about his subject as the typical religion reporter is about his, he couldn't keep his job for a week. The Pope and condom story is the latest confirmation of that observation."   -- Paul Thigpen

I have been asked to address the recent statement of Pope Benedict regarding condoms.


I will throw out some quick thoughts, but for far superior analyses, go here (Fr. Fessio), here (George Weigel), and here (Archbishop Chaput).


I don't have much to add to those pieces, but I will do what I usually do, which is to take my simple mind and put things in the simplest way I know how:

• In the Pope's example, the person deciding to use a condom is already engaging in gravely sinful activity (prostitution). Using or not using a condom does not in any way change the morality of the act; the person is still committing a terrible sin, which can never be condoned.

• In the Pope's scenario, the condom is not being used for contraception, but as (perceived) protection against disease. Is condom use a legitimate way to stop the spread of AIDS? According to the Pope: "[The Church] of course does not regard it as a real or moral solution"; however, the intention of not wanting to infect your partner with a deadly disease may be "a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality." In other words, there may be a stirring of the conscience that sex is about love, and not merely "a sort of drug that people administer to themselves."

• It's as if a drug addict was deciding if he should shoot up his partner with the clean needle, or if he should just use the dirty one that's more convenient. That moment of concern for the other might be a step towards morality. It's not the use of the needle that is good; rather, the good is found in the concern for the other. Christianity is all about love, and love is all about willing what is best for the other. Pope Benedict was musing on one of his favorite topics (and the subject of his first encyclical): Love. Even in the midst of a moral hell, there can be movement toward love.

• It is expected by every faithful Catholic on the face of the earth that the media will distort the words of the Pope on any sexual issue, spewing sensational, ignorant or even intentionally misleading headlines all over the globe.

• As in the past, faithful Catholics have looked past the erroneous headlines to uncover the actual story, which is a non-story: No new teaching was given, no changes were made to the moral law. Of course.

• Finally, even if the Pope had waxed eloquent about the moon being made of green cheese, a philosophical musing by a Pontiff in the middle of a long and fascinating interview with a reporter does not rise to the level of an official Church teaching; it is not an exercise of the Magisterium. Not.even.close. 

So, here we sit, with the Deposit of Faith intact, as it has been for 20 centuries and will be forever more. But this latest papal interview sure did give the world something to talk about! I do think all the hoopla is ironic, given that the world was long ago supposed to have written off the papacy as an irrelevant, dusty old relic. Yet even the Pope's most nuanced, non-authoritative utterances seem to carry incredible weight and power, even with the secular media. Go figure.


UPDATE: Speaking of condoms, I just read this on my daughter's blog! I couldn't resist posting it here.

You're not a monster. And nobody called you that.

Here's my frustration. I write a provocative post, challenging abortion rights advocates to answer some uncomfortable yet important questions. A fellow Catholic blogger writes a response taking issue with what she feels is an unbalanced piece. 

Fair enough, so far. 

Then, Miss Gwen comments on the other blogger's post and includes the following:

I made the mistake of commenting on Leila's blog because it was an "open letter" to pro-choice people. Of course, it turned into a giant attack with tons of questions being fired away and, as always, the judgment that I am some sort of sick, twisted monster who runs around trying to kill unborn babies and supporting genocide.

I wonder if anyone else sees my frustration? 

Where was the "giant attack"? I don't see it, and I've looked. In fact, 51 comments into my post, an abortion rights advocate (Anonymous 11:11) wrote the following:

11:11 here again. First, I want to say that I am really impressed with how civil this discussion has remained. I haven't gotten into an abortion debate in years, because it rarely stays civil.

How does Anon 11:11 see the polar opposite of what Miss Gwen saw?

Also, the "open letter" I wrote contained over 20 questions itself, but Miss Gwen makes it sound like the "tons of questions being fired away" came only after she commented, and that they shocked her. But, how is that possible?

Miss Gwen then says that, "as always," we judged her as a "sick, twisted monster" who supports genocide. I'm not trying to be difficult, but huh? Can anyone show me any evidence of that? I have re-read the comments and I see none of it.

In fact, even when Miss Gwen stated (on the Peter Singer post) that she might support an occasional case of infanticide, no one called her a sick monster. 

Miss Gwen, I thought you knew how much we like you, and that we think you are beautiful and intelligent. We have been polite to you, we have enjoyed your participation, and yes, we have often vehemently opposed your philosophies and ideas (even to the point of thinking those ideas were horrific). But we Catholics can separate the value and dignity of a person from the value of her ideas. We can love and respect you as a human being, while even hating the positions you hold. 

I don't get why you take this all so very personally. 

Think of it this way: If you and I were having a rational discussion about abortion, and you said, "I think it's monstrous that you want to force a woman to carry an unwanted fetus to term," I would respond by saying, "Yes, I know that you think it's monstrous, but..." and then go on to talk more about the ideas. As long as you are not attacking me personally, it's perfectly okay with me that you think my ideas are monstrous. 

By the way, it's a sin for a Catholic to spew hatred or personal judgement at another person. So, if it happens that some Catholic attacks you personally (i.e., "you're evil" rather than "your idea is evil"), you can call him on it! Tell him to get to confession, because that sort of thing is not allowed.  :)

Anyway, thanks for hearing me out. And please let me know (anyone, on any side) if I've got it all wrong.

Blessed Advent everyone!

Answer to Bible in the Bubble! Bubble Awards and Grand Prize Giveaway!

Hello Contestants!! I'm finally back!


Okay, I loved this question when I first read it in a fabulous book, because it's so dramatic when we see something in Scripture that occurs only one or two times. It's important to perk up and pay close attention when that happens.


The question was:


The Bible describes Jesus as being joyful only one time while He was on earth. What made Jesus rejoice?


Answer:


In Luke 10:21, after Jesus greets the returning, rejoicing 72 disciples, He suddenly turns His heart to His Father:

At that very time He rejoiced greatly in the Holy Spirit, and said, "I praise You, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to infants. Yes, Father, for this way was well-pleasing in Your sight."

It's possible to meditate on that passage for weeks (and the passages immediately preceding and following it) and not begin to plumb its depths. Certainly Our Lord was joyful at other times in His life, but because this was the only time the Gospel writers documented Christ's joy... well, it makes this verse incredibly special!


Now we must forge ahead and reveal the coveted BUBBLE AWARDS!! Here we go...


The Winners Never Cheat and Cheaters Never Win Award goes to someone who didn't win for obvious reasons...This Cross I Embrace!!


The Sew Always Gets an Award Just Because She is Sew Award goes to... Sew!! (Newbies, check out the old Doctrinal Quiz Shows to understand.)


The Best Attempt at Sucking Up Award goes to... Megan!! (Next time, just remember to put a few more compliments in and you might have a shot at the Big Prize...)


The I Got the Right Answer But I Was Either Too Slow, Too Busy With Thanksgiving Stuff, or I Live in the Wrong Time Zone Award goes to...Beth!! (And I am impressed with your knowledge of Scripture, young lady! Are you sure you were raised Catholic?)


Unfortunately, we have run out of Bubble Awards to give to all those who guessed the Lazarus scene. You all would have won big if the question was, "When did Jesus weep?" Clearly you were banking on the fact that His joy was recorded after His grief.... A good guess, but not good enough!


Now let it be known that the GRAND PRIZE WINNER and the recipient of the rosary of his choice from Trendy Traditions is a first time player and the first to answer....

CR Smith!!!

Mr. Smith, not only have you won a beautiful rosary (I'll contact you and tell you how to claim it), you have also won the amazing Bubble Award icon, which is highly coveted, almost to the point of ridiculousness. You may decorate your own blog with it as previous winners have done (our last winner, Paul, even made a blog of his own to have a place to put it), or you may simply gaze upon it every now and then when you want to feel joyful. Which would be fitting for this edition of Bible in the Bubble!

For all those of you who would love a Trendy Traditions rosary, Melanie is offering a 15% discount to all those who purchase before Dec. 5. Simply put littlecatholicbubble -- no spaces -- as the code. (I should have mentioned that in the original post... sorry!! If anyone already ordered, please let me know.)


And thanks to all the NEW players who joined in this time! Please play again! There are some more fantastic Grand Prizes in the near future, so stay tuned!


See you next time!


{applause, applause, applause... and, fade....}

Bible in the Bubble! With a fabulous Grand Prize giveaway!

This one's going to be fun! Not just because of the question, but because of the Grand Prize!

First, the question:

The Bible describes Jesus as being joyful only one time while He was on earth. What made Jesus rejoice?


I always put in the caveat that there is no cheating/googling allowed, but I reeeeaaallllly mean it this time! To win such an awesome Grand Prize, someone really has to earn it! Or, if nobody gets the right answer, I will award the Grand Prize to the contestant with the most clever, creative, heartfelt, inspirational and/or amusing answer. (Or, maybe I will just choose someone who has sucked up to me all these months.)

The Grand Prize for this edition of Bible in the Bubble is being donated by Melanie at Trendy Traditions! That's right, if you didn't win one of her rosaries over at Kaitlin's blog, this is another chance! Her best-selling rosary (and my fave!) is the hot pink and zebra rosary:

But the winner can pick from any item on her site (excluding the couples or custom rosaries)! In fact, if you want to search the site and beg me tell me why you desire or deserve any one particular item, it might just serve as a tie-breaker. (If you order an item, use the code littlecatholicbubble [no spaces] to get 15% off before Dec. 5.)

Previous Grand Prize winners who received the holey soap waste-reducing exfoliating cleanser, feel free to lodge your complaints in the comment box, or talk to your therapist about your feelings of being gypped.

Okay now, what are you waiting for? Tell me what made (and continues to make) Jesus REJOICE!!!!