Little Teaching: All Saints Day! (And All Souls Day...oh, and Halloween)

A little primer about this amazing three-day stretch!


Halloween (or Hallowe'en), October 31: 

The word derives from "All Hallows' Eve", which denotes the evening before All Hallows' Day (All Saints' Day), a Christian feast day.


All Saints' Day, November 1:

Also known as the Feast of All Saints. It's the day we Catholics honor all the saints in Heaven, not only the canonized, recognized saints who have their own particular feast days on the Church calendar. There are many millions of other saints in Heaven who are not canonized, most of whom are obviously unknown to us, and this is the day we celebrate those myriad holy men and women.

All Saints' Day is a holy day of obligation, and so to willfully miss mass on this day is a grave sin for Catholics. Find a mass, and praise God and His saints!

All Souls' Day, November 2:

This is the day we remember and pray for all the souls in Purgatory. These souls are not forgotten by the universal Church, and they benefit from the prayers of the faithful as they steadily approach perfection and the Beatific Vision. Often, Catholic parishes invite parishioners to write the names of their deceased loved ones in a "Book of Remembrance", to have prayers and masses offered for these souls during the month of November.

All Souls' Day is not a holy day of obligation.




And, I guess this very little teaching qualifies as a Little Teaching, so it gets the icon!

Just to clarify...

…because it can be confusing:



Halloween (or Hallowe'en), October 31: 

The word derives from "All Hallows' Eve", which denotes the evening before All Hallows' Day (All Saints' Day), a Christian feast day.


All Saints' Day, November 1:

Also known as the Feast of All Saints. It's the day we Catholics honor all the saints in Heaven, not only the canonized, recognized saints who have their own particular feast days on the Church calendar. There are many millions of saints in Heaven who are not canonized, most of whom are obviously unknown to us, and this is the day we celebrate those myriad holy men and women.

All Saints' Day is a holy day of obligation, and so to willfully miss mass on this day is a grave sin for Catholics. (In other words, get to mass!)


All Souls' Day, November 2:

This is the day we remember and pray for all the souls in Purgatory. These souls are not forgotten by the universal Church, and they benefit from the prayers of the faithful as they steadily approach perfection and the Beatific Vision. Often, Catholic parishes invite parishioners to write the names of their deceased loved ones in a "Book of Remembrance", to have prayers and masses offered for these souls during the month of November.

All Souls' Day is not a holy day of obligation.




And, I guess this very little teaching qualifies as a Little Teaching, so it gets the icon!

Purgatory is...

• Purgatory is a doctrine of our Faith. 

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church: "All who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven. The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned." (1030-1031)

There are only two ultimate destinations for a human being: Heaven or hell. Purgatory is the "wash-room" of Heaven.

• Purgatory is necessary.

The Bible, in Revelation 21:27, says, "Nothing unclean shall enter Heaven" -- and God was not joking. Are you utterly pure? Perfect? Sinless? Completely without fault or blemish? I'm not either. To get from here to there requires an actual change from imperfect to perfect. The purification of Purgatory is that transitional bridge. If you die in the friendship of God, and unless you are the rare soul perfected in love before that moment of death (think of a Mother Teresa or a newly baptized infant), you are going to be cleansed before you enter Heaven. You simply cannot enter otherwise.

• Purgatory is logical.

If I repent of a sin, I not only ask forgiveness, but I make recompense. We instinctively form our own children this way, as we teach them to make amends when they have committed a wrong. Not only do we require a child to make his apology ("I'm sorry I recklessly ran over your flowerbed, Mrs. Jones"), we require that he make things right as well ("I will purchase new flowers and replant them for you"). Purgatory is the final "making things right" -- both in our own souls and in the Mystical Body of Christ, i.e., the Church, which is harmed by its members' sin.

That "making things right" after we are forgiven is called the temporal punishment for sin, and it can and should happen while a person is still on this earth. However, if temporal punishment (or "expiation") for our forgiven sins has not occurred fully by the time of death, the expiation is still logically required after death.

• Purgatory is merciful.

C.S. Lewis, a non-Catholic Christian, understood the mercy of Purgatory, and how the soul cries out for it:

Our souls demand Purgatory, don't they? Would it not break the heart if God said to us, 'It is true, my son, that your breath smells and your rags drip with mud and slime, but we are charitable here and no one will upbraid you with these things, nor draw away from you. Enter into the joy'? Should we not reply, 'With submission, sir, and if there is no objection, I'd rather be cleaned first.' 'It may hurt, you know' -- 'Even so, sir.'  (Letters to Malcolm: Chiefly on Prayer)

Amen, and thank God for the mercy of Purgatory.

• Purgatory is just.

Benevolent Grandma was a baptized Christian who stayed close to Jesus and lived a good life of caring and love, but she was a mild gossip. Serial Killer was a baptized Christian who lived a life of evil, destroying people and goodness everywhere he went, but he sincerely repented on his deathbed.

Both souls are Heaven-bound, but the soul-cleansing required of Mr. Killer is going to be a lot more severe, prolonged, and painful than the mild purification required of Grandma.

And that's as it should be. That is how justice works.

We are not all the same. We are all individuals who come from different circumstances and who make different choices. God alone can read our hearts, and His justice for each of His children is very personal, not a rubber stamp.

As Jesus said, "You will not get out until you have paid the last penny." For some of us, the payment exacted will take longer, as the sum required to "make it right" is larger.

• Purgatory is Biblical.

The clearest manifestation (and my favorite) is 1 Corinthians 3.

We read that by our life choices and works, we build on the foundation that is Jesus Christ:

If anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, or straw, the work of each will come to light, for the Day will disclose it. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire (itself) will test the quality of each one's work. 

"The Day" refers to the Day of Judgement. The first Day of Judgement for most of us will be the Particular Judgement, the day of our death, when we face God. So, keep in mind that all that follows happens after a person's death. There are three possibilities for a soul:

First possibility: If the work stands that someone built upon the foundation, that person will receive a wage. This is the soul who goes directly to Heaven.

Second possibility: But if someone's work is burned up, that one will suffer loss; the person will be saved, but only as through fire. This is the soul who goes to Purgatory, who is cleansed by the fire of God's love before entering Heaven.

Third possibility: Do you not know that you are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwells in you? If anyone destroys God's temple, God will destroy that person; for the temple of God, which you are, is holy. This is the soul who goes to hell.

Glance back at the second one: "suffering" "loss" "saved, but only as through fire". We call that Purgatory.

• Purgatory is historical.

The doctrine of purgatory, or the final purification, has been part of the true faith since before the time of Christ. The Jews already believed it before the coming of the Messiah, as revealed in the Old Testament (2 Macc. 12:41–45) as well as in other pre-Christian Jewish works, such as one which records that Adam will be in mourning "until the day of dispensing punishment in the last years, when I will turn his sorrow into joy" (The Life of Adam and Eve 46–7). Orthodox Jews to this day believe in the final purification, and for eleven months after the death of a loved one, they pray a prayer called the Mourner’s Kaddish for their loved one’s purification. 

Jews, Catholics, and the Eastern Orthodox have always historically proclaimed the reality of the final purification. It was not until the Protestant Reformation in the sixteenth century that anyone denied this doctrine.  (Catholic Answers)

The witness of the Roman Catacombs (products of the early, pre-Nicene, persecuted Church) attests to a belief in Purgatory by their etchings and inscriptions. In fact,

so overwhelming is the witness of the early Christian monuments in favour of prayer for the dead that no historian any longer denies that the practice and the belief which the practice implies were universal in the primitive Church. There was no break of continuity in this respect between Judaism and Christianity. (New Advent)

• Purgatory is painful.

Every cleansing of an open wound is painful. Every turning toward the purifying fire of God's love is an uncomfortable shock to the system, and every honest move to perfection (even in this life) is accompanied by a suffering.

Facing the judgement of our Father will not be a clean, comfortable adjustment. The man who looks through a dark veil his whole life and is then, in an instant, exposed full-on to the dazzling white light of the Son can expect to cry out in some initial pain.

But the pain of Purgatory is most rightly described, I believe, as the pain of loss. We are made for union with God, and we are not complete and satisfied until that union is achieved. When the soul knows without doubt that she is at long last on her way to be united with her Beloved, but also knows that she cannot yet get to Him, and when she knows that it was her own actions and choices that are keeping her from that final, perfect and eternal union with her Beloved, she experiences a great and melancholic longing, an aching sense of loss.

There is a reason that God speaks to His people through marital imagery: The Bride and the Bridegroom, The Wedding Feast, The Consummation, the final achievement of perfect, eternal union with the Beloved. Earthly marriage and physical consummation is the closest we can get to another human being on earth, but it is a pale reflection of true Marital Union with God. The knowledge that one could have rushed to His embrace sooner, but now must wait and long and pine, is a nearly unbearable suffering for the soul in Purgatory, as it would be (on a much lesser scale) for any bride who cannot yet, through her own fault, reach her lover.

• Purgatory is joyful.

Although the suffering in Purgatory is intense, the joy of Purgatory great, even greater than any earthly joy. After all, total, ecstatic union with God is palpable now, as the beatific vision is nearing one's view. No jubilation on earth could ever compare to the clear knowledge that Pure Love is drawing the lovesick soul to Himself for completion.

Fr. Alvin Kimel summarizes Peter Kreeft:

Purgatory is joyful, not gloomy. Whatever pain may attend the process of purification, it does not diminish the profound joy and triumph of Purgatory. The holy souls have passed through death into life and know that their ultimate destiny is now secure. The sufferings of Purgatory are more desirable than the most ecstatic pleasures on earth.

• After Jesus' Second Coming and the Final Judgement, Purgatory will cease to be.

When Jesus returns in glory and the end of the world comes, and when the Final Judgement separates the sheep from the goats for all eternity, and when the new heaven and new earth are established in perfection, there will be no more purification of souls necessary. Purgatory will cease to be, and all souls will be fixed in their final states forever.


“God is the Last Thing of the creature. Gained, He is its paradise; lost, He is its hell; as demanding, He is its judgment; as cleansing, He is its purgatory” --Hans Urs von Balthasar





Related post: Indulgences: No need to freak out!

Little Teaching: We serve the good, not effect the good

[I have not left my Grammar Nazi card at the door. Please see footnote for my shocking use of "effect" rather than "affect".]

People are complex, emotions are complex, and situations are complex.

But principles based in Truth are simple.

There is a bedrock Christian principle that has burned itself into my mind and heart since the first time I read this pithy phrase, 17 years ago:

We serve the good, not effect* the good.

Ding! Ding! Ding! Bells went off. This was the formula for living the Christian moral life, and it streamlined everything for me.

Let's go through it:

We serve the good always. To be a servant of the good means that at every step, in every thought, and with every action, we choose virtue over sin. In fact, we are never, ever permitted to sin. We do sin, of course, but not because it's allowed! Nope, sorry, God never gives us permission to do evil, whether big or little (mortal or venial). As children of God, we are to choose only the good.**

We don't effect [i.e., bring about] the good. That means we don't look to force or manipulate a good outcome in a given situation. In fact, to be concerned primarily with outcome puts us in dangerous moral and spiritual territory, namely falling into an "ends justify the means" mentality. That's the mentality that leads a well-meaning politician to lie in order to win an election. It leads a good student to cheat on an important exam to assure her acceptance into a top university. It leads an employee to steal from his boss so that he can take his wife out for a lovely anniversary dinner. And it leads to the belief that one may directly kill an innocent person in order to save the lives of hundreds.

In each of those examples (and a million more), the person has ceased to 'serve the good' and decided to 'effect the good'. But when we are willing to do wrong, even in the hopes of a good result, we transgress the moral law and offend God, who is Goodness.

Serving the good requires humility and trust, as it obligates us to mind our own actions only, while entrusting outcomes, good or bad, to God.

That's kind of a relief, isn't it? None of us is needed to be the Savior of the world, and we are not required to set all things right at any cost. We are only required to serve the good -- which means serving God -- in each moment.

*The use of "effect" here, though seemingly wrong (most would think it should be "affect" since it's a verb), is correct. In this case, to effect = to bring about or complete. "Effect" and "affect" can both be used either as a noun or a verb. "Effect" is usually the one used as a noun, but not in this rare case. As verbs, "to affect" means to produce a change in, and "to effect" means to bring about or make happen.

**For the scrupulous among us, you'll want to go here, next!




.

Quick Takes: Lots of good stuff

Be sure to read to the end, where there'll be a payoff for some lucky reader….

1) A while back I received the coolest email from a lovely teen girl:

Hi!

My name is Maddi, I'm the 16-year-old daughter of Ellyn. (She emailed you a while back asking if you could direct her to specific points that would be easy teachings for me.) Now, as a part of my home school curriculum, I read a "Little Teaching" every morning.

I just wanted to thank you, first of all, for emailing my mom back with the links. Also, for writing these lovely lessons. They're easy to understand, and I really do enjoy them. I find it a good way to grow closer to God during Lent by learning more about Him, and why He does what He does for me! Every time I read one, or two :) , I feel more of God's love. Especially reading those about sin, and our freedom God gave us.

I could rant-on some more, but I'll keep this short...!

Sincere thanks,
Maddison

That got me thinking that the Little Teachings and some of the other posts would be good for parents to use with their teens, to nail down the basics of the Faith.

So, I recently added a new tab to the top of my blog, called "Little Teachings". Not only does it contain the past LT posts, but also the "What I Never Learned in CCD" posts, and the answers to the Doctrinal Quiz Shows. I may throw in a few more past links if I find them, and I will certainly add more as I write them, but at least now they're all in one place. Let me know what you think. (By the way, I think they are good for adults, too!)


2) I just like these (facebook is good for something besides sucking my life away)...

That last line says: "Regardless of whether they are born, unborn, big, small, black, white, weak, strong, wealthy, poor, planned, unplanned, wanted or not."

(And yes, I am mortified to discover typos in my posts and even in my comments. Sometimes my fuzzy brain or tendency to rush overtakes even my grammar nazi-ness. But please know that I never condone my own grammatical errors; I am properly appalled and ashamed whenever they occur, and I apologize for letting other grammar nazis down.)

3) Okay, the weirdest thing! I saw a huge increase in my stats this week, and I noticed that I've had almost 2,000 hits in the past few days on this post that ran last October:

Why I Should Have Never Had Eight Children 

(And many hits on this related post as well.)

I can tell that the readers were coming from a reprint of the same article on LifeSiteNews, which ended up as one of the top ten most-read articles on their site in 2011 (how nice that a list of all my faults was so widely read -- yay for humility!). But the posts have been dormant for months. So it's intriguing to me that suddenly this week a wave of folks were sent to that LifeSite article from…somewhere, and then a boatload of those folks made their way here. The point I'm trying to get to is that I don't know what the original source was! Do any of you know?? I am just so curious who or what could generate this kind of interest in an old post!

4) Finally saw October Baby! Whoa… that was a powerful ending and the most powerful part of all came during the credits. Really worth your time. 

5) So maybe you all heard the news reports that the big, bad Vatican meanies are bringing the hammer down on the sweet little nuns of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR)? Well, before you feel all sorry for the ladies, please take a gander at this:

Exhibit A for explaining the LCWR report

Yes, it should shock you -- if you haven't been plugged into the shenanigans of that group before.

Now, this stuff has been festering for decades, and the real story is not how the heavy hand of the hierarchy "suddenly" came down on the sisters, but rather how the Church moves so dang slowly in these matters of scandal and dissent, giving the sisters decades to conform their religious orders to the teachings of Church that they profess to serve. 

Think of it this way: An organization of vegans decides, after many decades and many warnings, to crack down on a group of its members who insist upon eating meat every day, proudly and loudly, while still proclaiming themselves vegans. Everyone in the world would see that action by the vegan hierarchy as just, and would wonder what took them so long. The press would report it accurately, as well.

If only the same consideration would be given to the Vatican.

6) Malcolm has a family in process of adopting him now all because they saw a video of him.

If it worked for Malcolm, it can work for Beau. Check out this sweet angel and just try to resist him (be sure to watch at least to the point where you see him walking -- such a good boy!):

Go here for more info on Beau. (I am his Guardian Angel, which means that I am committed to praying for him and advocating for him until he finds a home.)

7) Considering the debt I owe to the infertile Catholic blog community, I am thrilled to be today's stop on the blog book tour for The Infertility Companion for Catholics, written by Angelique Ruhi-López and Carmen Santamaría.

In the authors' own words:

Spiritual healing, encouraging hope and a new perspective: these are what we hope people will experience when reading The Infertility Companion for Catholics: Spiritual and Practical Support for Couples. We co-authored this book because we know first-hand the struggles inherent in the infertility journey and wanted to provide a companion book for the journey, one that, as our preface says, “you can consult and rely on when you need to be challenged, encouraged, and understood.” The book provides moral and spiritual support as well as guidance on the many options that infertile couples face and how to make necessary choices while remaining faithful to the teachings of the magisterium. “Its purpose is to give voice to the reality of infertility among those who seek to live as faithful Catholics.”


In addition to the spiritual and practical support provided toward the middle and end of the book, the first four chapters lay the ground work of what the Church teaches on infertility and why the Church only has our best interests in mind. Here is an excerpt from the chapter entitled, “What Does the Catholic Church Have to Do with Infertility?”

God doesn’t only work through us and what we think. He uses our friends and family as well as the Church to speak to us. The scriptures tell us, “Oh, that today you would hear his voice: Do not harden your hearts” (Ps 95:7–8). We know how hard it can be to see the truth in the Church’s teaching. The pain of infertility can be so profound it can cloud our vision and make us only focus on one goal—having a baby. But in the end, “what profit is there for one to gain the whole world and forfeit his life?” (Mk 8:36). With obedience, we can properly hear God’s voice as we walk along this infertility journey instead of allowing society to dictate our decisions.

This is particularly challenging when one considers all the competing voices in the world. We must know God well enough to recognize his voice above all others in the stirring of our consciences. God should first be our friend, as Blessed Teresa of Calcutta said. The Lord is our Good Shepherd, and “the sheep follow him, because they recognize his voice. But they will not follow a stranger; they will run away from him, because they do not recognize the voice of strangers” (Jn 10:4–5). When reading Church teaching, we form our consciences and learn to recognize God’s loving voice. In a similar way, if we learn to recognize God’s voice and his promptings in our everyday life, we will be better equipped to hear his voice while navigating the confusing world of infertility treatments, instead of the voice of the stranger that we do not recognize. (…) 

The Church is for us, not against us, when it comes to helping us walk this arduous path of infertility. The Church is our mother, and just as the loving parents we also desire to be, it seeks only our good. We need only open our minds and our hearts to understanding why it teaches as it does. Angelique explains her initial encounter with Church teaching on infertility treatment:

I had always heard that the Church did not accept some infertility treatments, but before we were faced with infertility, I never knew why. I am an avid researcher by nature and as the months continued to pass without a positive pregnancy test, I began doing online searches on the Catholic Church and infertility. I don’t know what surprised me most about what I found: the wealth of Church materials on the subject or the fact that the information is not widely known. Initially, what I read overwhelmed me because of how profound it was; later, as I continued to read it and pray about it, that same material overwhelmed me because it made me realize God’s profound love for me.

Amen, ladies, and thank you for consolidating what Catholics need to know about dealing with infertility in this morally confused age.

I'm excited to say that I have a brand new copy of this book to give away! To enter the drawing, simply leave a comment below stating that you would like the book. If you feel more comfortable remaining anonymous, please email me at littlecatholicbubble (at) gmail (dot) com.

But wait!! To sweeten the pot, I will give you two additional chances to win if you become a new subscriber to or official follower of my Orphan Report blog (be sure to let me know), and I will give you five additional chances to win if you donate in any amount to Malcolm's iPad giveaway, here. (Yes, I am still obsessed with the orphans, and I don't see that changing anytime soon, so y'all will have to live with it.)

I will pick a winner on Sunday night at random, yay!


Have a great weekend, and thanks to Jen for hosting!




.

Vintage "Little Teachings from the Bubble"

Well, wow, we are still going strong in our discussions on this post from June 22, and I am wiped out! It's been an interesting discussion, and one that has taken us far afield from the original topic.

I feel the need to take a breather, spend some more time fulfilling the duties of my vocation. (Yes, children, you still have a mother! And, dear husband, you still have a wife!) So, for a couple of days, I think I will steer this blog back to the "teaching" mode by providing some links to past "Little Teachings" that may have been missed by newer readers.

Here they are, in chronological no particular order:


Knowing God's will and Catholic freedom


Mary's Perpetual Virginity


The difference between Church Doctrine (unchanging truth) and Church Discipline (changeable rules)


Mortal Sin and Venial Sin


Dissenting Catholics and the question of conscience


Suffering, Catholic style! (The meaning of redemptive suffering)


The Pope is not as powerful as you think


The distinction between a person and his actions


Indulgences: No need to freak out


Subsidiarity: Why haven't I heard this before?


Can non-Catholics be saved?


One more IVF post (thank you, Fr. Tad, the brainiac!)


And, I want to throw in…


Scrupulosity, a little bit of hell

Doctrinal Quiz Show answers, also in no particular order:

Marriage and the Eucharist

Amazing Grace

Communion of Saints

Do we become angels when we die?

Why was Mary immaculately conceived (sinless)?

How many doctrines of the Church are taught infallibly?

Evil

The three stages of holiness

The two types of judgements

Moral Reasoning 101: The Ends Don't Justify the Means

Moral Reasoning 101: The Principle of Double Effect

Sacraments vs. Sacramentals

Church Councils

Salvation History Made Simple

(Or, What I Never Learned in 1970s and 1980s CCD)

Part I: Adam and Eve and the Fall

Part II: After the Fall

Part III: The Trinity

Part IV: Why it Had to Be Jesus, and Why Jesus Had to Die

Part V: Jesus as the "Lamb of God"

Part VI: Jesus, the Mass, and the Eucharist

Part VII: Authority

If you feel so inclined, please feel free to throw out some ideas for future "Little Teachings" posts. I take requests! (Well, as long as I know the subject well enough to talk about it, ha!)

And on that note, please pray for me as I attempt to take inventory of all the clothing in this house tomorrow. I would almost rather stick pins in my eyes. Almost. ;)

Beatification and Canonization: How does it happen?

With the much-anticipated beatification of Pope John Paul II tomorrow, this seems the perfect time to explain the process of canonization!

If you are dying for all the official details, you can read the canonical procedures as laid out in the Apostolic Constitution Divinus Perfectionis Magister. But I like to put things simply, so here is a bare bones outline:

1) A person with a reputation for sanctity dies.

2) Before a "cause" can begin for his beatification and canonization, five years must pass. This is to ensure that emotions and fervor, which often surround the death of a holy person, have stabilized.

3) The local bishop, at the request of the faithful, may open an investigation. A diocesan tribunal is formed, and witnesses are called forth to testify to the heroic virtue of the candidate, as demonstrated by facts of his life. Documents and evidence are gathered, and the candidate is deemed "Servant of God".

4) Upon completion of the local investigation, the case is sent on to Rome, to the Congregation for the Causes of Saints, where a more rigorous investigation begins. After an intense examination of the claims of heroic virtue (and doctrinal orthodoxy) of the candidate, nine theologians vote as to whether the cause should move forward. If yes, then the cause is sent to the cardinals and bishops who are members of the Congregation. If, after months of meetings, they also vote yes, then the cause moves on to the Pope for approval and public decree.

5) The next step is beatification. For a candidate to be eligible for beatification, the Church requires evidence of one miracle attributed to the intercession of the candidate -- a miracle that occurred after his death. A posthumous miracle is considered proof that the person is truly in Heaven. (Martyrs are exempt from the requirement of this first miracle.) Beatification also requires another investigation of the candidate's heroic virtue, and the Church may call "devil's advocates" to the stand, to testify against the candidate's cause. If the results of these investigations are favorable, the Pope beatifies the candidate, who may now be called "Blessed" and receive limited veneration.

6) Canonization is the final step in the process, and it requires evidence of a second miracle (or first, in the case of a martyr), which must have taken place after the beatification.

It's the miracle stuff that I find so fun! I remember watching a network news magazine back in 1998 (I think it was Dateline NBC), which did a segment on the canonization of Edith Stein, aka Teresa Benedicta of the Cross. They focused on the Vatican's miracle investigation, specifically that a little American girl at death's door was healed miraculously through Edith Stein's intercession.

The secular doctors who were called before the Vatican panels to testify about the alleged miracle were interviewed by the network. These doctors (who treated the girl and/or were expert medical witnesses) had no affiliation with the Church, and had no prior knowledge of or interest in the Church's investigative processes. I recall one doctor expressing his surprise and admiration for the thoroughness and seriousness of the panel inquiry. He hadn't expected it to be so objective and scientific, and he was quite impressed and satisfied.

It was one of the only times I've witnessed a major media network report fairly and respectfully about the Catholic Church.

7) Finally, if all the investigations are decided in favor of the candidate (after many years!), the Pope canonizes the candidate, who acquires the title of "Saint". This declaration is considered infallible.

It's important to remember that everyone in Heaven is a saint. Canonization does not "make" someone a saint, but merely confirms the truth of what God has already done for that person. The faithful on earth have assurance that the canonized saint dwells with the Lord in Heaven, and that we may look to him as a Christian role model and hero, and request his intercession at the Throne of God.

The saints are such a gift to the Church!

+++++++

On a personal note, I am giddy that tomorrow my eldest daughter, who has been studying in Italy, will be attending the vigil and beatification mass of Pope John Paul II! For those of us not lucky enough to be there, we can watch the vigil and beatification live on EWTN, or watch/listen through the internet.

JPII, we love you!

Answering Miss Gwen: The distinction between a person and his actions

In our discussions on a previous post, Miss Gwen asked a great question about the distinction between a person and a person's actions. She said, "I'm trying to see it, but I just don't." So, I thought the subject deserved its own blog post. Miss Gwen's words are in red.


I don't always see a clear distinction between the person and their actions. Maybe you can help me understand. I mean, does that entail "seeing" Hitler as a misguided person who performed bad actions? 


First, we don't necessarily say that Hitler was "misguided". We don't know what he was. All we know is that his acts were gravely sinful, terribly evil. As Christians, we can say that part loudly and clearly, because we know what sin and evil are, without ambiguity.


What we cannot say is that Hitler was irredeemable. We don't (ultimately) know anything about the state of his soul or whether he repented of his monstrously evil deeds at the moment of his death. We just don't know. It is not our place to damn him to hell; it's only God who can read souls and pronounce ultimate judgment. When Jesus told us not to judge, this is what he meant. We may judge actions, but not people's hearts or the state of their souls. Only God can read a human heart, and only He knows the state of a soul.


Or a serial killer as someone with a troubled past who unfortunately gruesomely killed a lot of prostitutes because they were easy targets? 


Same as Hitler. We can and must speak clearly that these actions are evil. Even if the killer had a troubled past, his actions are still evil. Even if he is mentally ill, his actions are still evil. Even if he committed his crimes under hypnosis by an evil genie, his actions are still evil. We can agree on that, right?


However, culpability -- i.e., whether or not a person is fully responsible for his actions -- is a separate issue. We can all understand that someone who is truly insane and completely out of touch with reality is not morally responsible for his actions. The actions of an insane killer are still objectively evil, but the killer may not have total (or even partial) moral culpability. [Note: Lack of moral culpability does not mean that a dangerous person is free to roam the streets; the state has an obligation to protect its citizens via humane and appropriate means of incarceration. And we should all hope that a mentally ill prisoner would receive treatment for his disorder.]


If we leave judgment to a higher power, then why is it so easy to point fingers at what people do and call it satanic or sinful?


Distinction: We leave judgment of souls to a higher power (God). But judging "what people do" (i.e., acts), is legitimate. We must speak clearly about what is right and wrong. Imagine a society, or even a family, that fails to identify or distinguish between good and evil.... What would that look like? I'm pretty sure I wouldn't want to live there. 


Oh, and the reason we find it "easy" to call something sinful is that we know what sin is. Sin's been around pretty much forever, and it's not hard to identify. There are no new sins, just variations on the old.


And if we separate the actions from the person then all the good things we do aren't part of us too? 


Please don't misunderstand: I've been talking about judging a person's soul vs. judging a person's actions. I have not been talking about what is or isn't "a part of us".


We have all been given the incredible gift of free will. Each individual "owns" his choices, good or bad. The good and the bad are both "part of you" -- but the bad is not "good for you". Does that make sense? It all comes down to our will. God does not touch our free will, and our actions are our own. 


Maybe this is a good time for...

A little something about our human nature:


Human beings are essentially good. God did not create anything that was evil or corrupt. 


Tragically, sin entered the world by our first parents' choice, and mankind fell from God's grace. Since then, humans have been afflicted with concupiscence, i.e., the tendency to sin. Where once humans had perfect integrity of body and soul, we now are easily tempted to evil. However, human beings, who are made in God's image and likeness, are still essentially good.* Every person, without exception, has inherent dignity and was made for the glory of Heaven. 


So (going back to the original subject), that is why we can love the sinner. 


And that is why we hate the sin. 


We hate the sin because sin is destructive to the human person. Sin demeans. Sin enslaves. Sin offends against human dignity. Sin harms not only the sinner, but others as well.


Think of it this way:


A father discovers that his beloved child has been engaging in theft and vandalism. He loves his boy. He loves his boy with every ounce of his being and would be willing to give his very life for his son. But he hates the sin. He hates it with a red-hot hate, because it demeans his son, it enslaves his son, and it offends his son's human dignity. It twists and distorts that which is good in his son, thwarts his potential, and blocks his true destiny. The father pleads, works and prays for his son's conversion. It is precisely because he loves his son that he will not accept the sin as a legitimate choice.


The father hates the sin and loves the sinner. He is a good father. 


Is that so hard to imagine?






*Note that this is quite different from the Protestant belief in the "total depravity" of human nature after the Fall. That is a post for another day.

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.

The Pope is not as powerful as you think.

Many people believe that the pope wields a strong and potentially tyrannical power over his flock. The concept of an infallible teacher leads them to imagine a dictator (even if benevolent) who can force doctrines upon Catholics at whim, leaving the faithful either a) anxious and uncertain about what dogmatic changes will come next to disturb their lives, or b) ready to run like lemmings off whatever cliff the Supreme Pontiff decides to lead them. Sure, maybe the current pope is mentally and emotionally stable, but what of the next? And the next? Think of the havoc he could wreak! Who in his right mind would put his life under the pope's authority?

In reality, however, the pope is not quite as powerful as one might think.

For example:

They say: "The pope has forbidden Catholics to use contraception!"

The reality is: For twenty centuries, the Church has taught that contraception is wrong. No pope in any era has the authority or power to reverse a teaching of the Deposit of Faith.

They say: "The pope won't allow women to become priests!"

The reality is: For twenty centuries, the Church has never admitted women to the priesthood. No pope in any era has the authority or power to reverse a teaching of the Deposit of Faith.

They say: "The pope says women can't have abortions under any circumstances!"

The reality is: For twenty centuries, the Church has taught that any and all abortions are intrinsically evil (even when there's been debate over the issue of "ensoulment"). No pope in any era has the authority or power to reverse a teaching of the Deposit of Faith.

They say: "The pope won't approve pre-marital sex or homosexual activity!"

The reality is: For twenty centuries, the Church has taught that sexual activity outside of heterosexual marriage is gravely sinful. No pope in any era has the authority or power to reverse a teaching of the Deposit of Faith.

They say: "The pope won't let people defraud the poor!"

Wait... what? The Church-bashers don't take issue with that part of the Catholic Faith? Well then, they might be happy to hear this:

For twenty centuries, the Church has taught that defrauding the poor is evil. No pope in any era has the authority or power to reverse a teaching of the Deposit of Faith.

Are you seeing a pattern here?

The pope has no power to change the Deposit of Faith. None. Nada. Zip and zilch. He can't change the moral law. He can't change the tenets of the Creed. He can't touch the truths of faith and morals because he has no authority to do so. 

As my friend Kim relates in her conversion story (a must read!), infallibility doesn't give a pope carte blanche to invent any doctrine he wants to make up; instead, infallibility is actually a highly limiting doctrine. Jesus' teachings are preserved and protected, leaving them intact throughout the centuries.

And our dear pope, thank God, is powerless to change a single truth. 

Suffering, Catholic style! Part Two of the suffering posts.

A few days ago, I presented a secular view of suffering. I posited that, for the secular left, suffering is seen as worse than sin or death. Suffering has no meaning, and the goal becomes maximizing pleasure and avoiding pain.

There is a very different view of suffering on the Catholic side o' town.

The late, great John Cardinal O'Connor of New York once told a suffering woman, "Christ could have saved the world by His miracles, but He chose to save the world by His suffering."

This great truth is the basis of our understanding of redemptive suffering.

Let me back up a bit...

When Adam and Eve sinned and fell from grace, suffering and death entered the world. Because of this Original Sin, we are separated from God and stuck in a disordered, fallen world. Nothing comes easy for us, and suffering is our lot. Anyone who says this world is not a vale of tears is smoking something funny, or is actually a pod person. (While most Americans are bred to believe that life should be mostly joyful with moments of difficulty, life is actually mostly difficult, with moments of incredible joy.)

So Adam and Eve blew it, and for generations (long before Jesus came), God's people tried to "make it right" with God by offering animal sacrifices to the Lord. But none of those sacrifices were good enough. Then one day Jesus came to meet us in this vale of tears. Jesus (the God-Man) bridged the chasm between God and man, and by His great suffering and death on the Cross, He offered Himself as a perfect sacrifice to the Father. Jesus' sacrifice of love was so pleasing to the Father that it merited grace in abundance, enough to redeem all the world! The gates of Heaven were now open again, to all men of good will.

Jesus' suffering was redemptive.

What does that have to do with our suffering? Well, when we were baptized, we were baptized into the Body of Christ. We are the Body of Christ. When we "offer up" our sufferings in union with Christ's suffering on the Cross, we, as His Body, are participating in His atoning work! When God the Father looks upon our offering, He sees His Son's offering, and He is pleased... and graces come flowing down in abundance!

Do you get how amazing this is??

When we unite our suffering with Christ's suffering, we participate in the redemption of the world! 

It is as dramatic as it sounds! 

When offered to God, no suffering is meaningless. No suffering is wasted. No suffering is worse than death. Suffering offered in union with Christ's Cross has explosive power, including the power to sanctify not only our own souls, but to call down grace upon others as well. The saints knew this. The saints had an abundance of grace in their own souls already, but yet the suffering they endured was profound. What was it for? What was it worth? It was offered for souls. The saints offered their sufferings for the sins of the world, for the souls of others, and it was redemptive, because it was offered in union with Christ's suffering. This is how the Body of Christ works!

Now, this doesn't mean we go looking for suffering (suffering will find us without us having to look for it), and it doesn't mean that we stand by while others suffer (we are called to ease the sufferings of others). But when suffering comes, it is not meaningless; it is of great value to ourselves and to the world.

Many Protestants object to the concept of redemptive suffering, saying, "But Jesus didn't need our help in redeeming the world. His sacrifice was sufficient. We can add nothing to it!"

They are certainly right that Jesus did not need our help. In fact, God doesn't need us at all; He is God! But if you think God wouldn't receive and use our offering, read this reflection by Jewish convert Rosiland Moss*, as she struggled with the idea of redemptive suffering when she was leaving evangelicalism for Catholicism:

I thought immediately of a mother baking a cake, and her little child in the kitchen with her. The mother has everything there sufficient for the cake; but here comes the daughter and says, 'Mommy, I want to help.' So the mother receives the daughter because that love receives. She lets the daughter put the eggs in. Is the mother sufficient? Yes. Does she need the daughter? No. Does she allow the daughter to add? Yes. The daughter's addition is not needed, but it's received and it's a true addition. And I thought, 'That's love.'

Let's look to Scripture and see what St. Paul says on the subject:

Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ's afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church...  -- Colossians 1:24

What?! Something was "lacking" in Christ's afflictions? Something that St. Paul "completed" in his very flesh, rejoicing in his sufferings? What was lacking? What is lacking? Our part is lacking. Our part, where we offer our own sufferings for the sake of the Body of Christ, the Church.


Redemptive suffering. Praise God, it's a beautiful thing.

_____


*Edited in 2019 to add that Moss is now known as Mother Miriam! A holy and wonderful woman.
.