Age of youth responsibility-a bit more

Without getting into a large theology and religious ritual and sacraments discussion, let me touch on some of the implications of what I wrote about for the seven year olds.

It is ironic that in a modern society filled with a lot of hot air about self examination and self discovery that many applaud the abandonment of the longest living and most justified form of it, which is childhood confession.

Think back to Biblical, and Qur'anic society. If a child sinned or committed an offense, the child was responsible and there was a code of punishment that the parents would have to follow on the child's behalf to atone. For example, beside any legal or civic judgment the Israelite parent would have to perform certain sacrifices at the temple to atone to God. This meant that two things were going on. One is that there is a process by which confession and atonement is followed. The other is that there is an understanding that one must only punish the child when the child has achieved an age of reason. Thus all the faiths, Judaism, Christianity and Islam, are founded in an understanding that knowledge of sin and wrong doing is a reality once a child is old enough to achieve an age of reason AND that regardless of secular restitution (let's say the child stole something) there is also a purification process needed before God.

This is why the Catholic Church has taught the sacrament of Confession, (now called Penance and Reconciliation in order to emphasis that confession is not enough but genuine regret and reconciliation is also needed) starting at the age of seven.

Children at that age have been recognized throughout history, both secular and faith history, that they have achieved the age of reason and they should and must know right from wrong. That's why children are well along at being in school by then, I mean, think about it. It is a traditional and vital part of Christian faith that children know how to discern that they have sinned and confess their sins. How do we know "that is in the Bible?" When Jesus warned about those who lead children into sin, implicit in that remark is that people are able to recognize sin when it occurs, and that includes children who have reached the age of reason.

There is no more maturity process than one by which parents and their church teach children not only what is "right from wrong" but "what is a sin" and furthermore, how to avail one's self of confession and cleansing of that sin. Why in the world do some denominations think that children do not need to recognize and confess their sins? It is part of raising a well balanced child, rather than letting society and soft porn TV do it for you.

I remember when I was six years old, approaching seven, of course, and playing around with my Catholic child friends and we'd joke that we only had a few months to go before we were accountable to God for anything we did wrong! Remember, I'm not speaking of raising children to "behave," to be "good" and "play nice." I'm speaking here of children who are raised properly who also are able by the age of seven to discern sin in themselves and others, and to have a God given process by which to repent, confess and atone.

I cannot begin to describe to you what a difference in producing mature youngsters than that, and that is the way it used to be.

This is why the Catechism of the Catholic Church makes this comment in another context, which is regarding preparation for the sacrament of Holy Communion (the "Lord's Supper" as some non-Catholics call it):

1244 The Latin Church, which reserves admission to Holy Communion to those who have attained the age of reason...

In other words, the Catholic Church teaches to seven year olds how to initiate the sacrament of Confession in order to prepare for the sacrament of Holy Communion because no one should partake in Holy Communion (or the "Lord's Supper") who is not able to discern their own sin and repent it. When I was growing up seven year old children who then went to their First Confession and First Communion from that point onward availed themselves of "going to Confession" whenever they felt the need.

Can people today only fantasize about a time when eight, nine, ten, eleven and twelve year old children would on their own initiative self-examine and decide that they needed to go to Confession? That was indeed how it was when I was growing up and indeed as children several of us would go together, not at prompting by parents or priests, when it was time to go.

Can you see what I mean by 1) how misunderstood the Catholic faith is and 2) how infantilized our modern children are? The "Greatest Generation," that Catholic component, was raised like that, for the most part, where children knew very well not only what was a crime, or what was bad behavior, but what was also sin and they took their own responsibility for initiating and carrying out their sacrament of Confession.

Leave aside the argument, the old, tired arguments, about the role of a priest in Confession. Do not even try to pretend that those of you who teach that "confession is between 'myself' and God and 'does not need a so called mediator'" are raising your children-no matter how good they are-to be at that age as introspective and recognizing of sin in themselves and others as was done traditionally. I cannot even compare the seven year old child of Biblical times, the seven year old child of early Islamic times, and the seven year old child of the early, middle and even later Christian times with the seven year old child of today and how blind to sin.... even worse than that, how blind and eager and self excusing for sin that they have become!

Children are eager to be grown up and adults have robbed them of one of the most fundamental gifts of the faith which is at the age of reason to recognize and self examine for sin, to elect to reject sin, and to have sacramental self initiated means to confess and repent sin.

Please do think about that. Children are eager to be all grown up, and instead of the ways they have always learned to be "grown up," which is to recognize, shun and repent sin, that has been taken from them, a vital part of becoming a genuine child of God upon their age of reason.

Like I said, I am not trying to have a theological discussion or debate here. I guess you might think of this as part of the "faith and reasoning" series I am teaching, where I am showing you that far from being hocus-pocus, faith in God makes total sense and has for hundreds, indeed thousands of years been reality paced with factual human development. So think about it and you young people in particular, imagine what it was like to be raised where at seven years old you could not only discern "right from wrong" and being "good from bad," but also examine yourself (and observe others) to discern sin and what displeases God, and to have the religious gift at your own initiation to partake of, as I had when I was growing up. I cannot believe it, many times as I look around, at how children have been robbed of both their childhood and their access to mature religious participation at their own free will.

Further, often children would confess to sins and the priest would counsel them in the privacy of the confessional that perhaps their tentatively confessed feelings of envy or so forth were not actually full out sins, but temptations and normal human weaknesses. Far from being strict, children who worried that perhaps wishing they had something as nice as what the neighbor's child had was not a sin of envy or coveting, but a natural feeling of sadness, wistfulness. The priest would be, and often was back then, a reassuring figure in a child's discernment of sin rather than a harsh taskmaster. I remember my friends would discuss among ourselves "I wonder if that feeling was a sin" and the child who wondered would report after confession what the priest said, and the reassurances he gave, or the gentle warnings he would impart. That is, again, why it's not just a matter of being "between me and God" but confession with that mediator present does not mean the priest is forgiving sins instead of God, but is able to, as was documented to as early as the second century of Christianity, provide context for the one confessing regarding the dimensions and impact of their sin. Catholic kids used to discuss their sins and what the priest said all the time and it was a huge part of the development of their real and active faith. Kids need spiritual feedback that is real and access that is under their control more than even, particularly in these fake times.... especially when at best good godly parents but they are still sway to the temptations of the world, and at worst the the baby momma's drug using and child abusing boyfriend are far from being the ultimate resource in sin discernment!

Senator Ted Kennedy *sigh*

The *sigh* is because this just isn't a topic I want to blog about. It's the type of thing I'd more like to discuss in person with small groups, perhaps while having tea. But I know that people will wonder what I think, so here it is.

First of all, people are saved by grace (through faith) not works. So you can forget all the fund raising, the caring nice guy, etc regarding whether he achieves heaven or not. Being a good charitable Christian is expected of a Christian, not a check off list for salvation. Faith and God given grace are required for entry to heaven.

For those who do not understand the faith vs. works issue, here's a simple analogy. Millions of believers have achieved heaven who have never had the financial means to perform "good deeds" as people refer to them today. It's only the modern mindset that thinks that donations and legislation for "good causes" issues a "get in heaven easy pass." Millions and millions of people who have lived during the past thousand years by scratching the fields with a stick and keeping their families from starving have achieved heaven without "good deeds" because they had belief and faith in the one God, through Jesus Christ. I hope that helps you to understand that if you really honor the poor, you recognize that entry into heaven is for the poor who believe but who are unable to "perform good deeds," "fund raise" or "lobby for good causes."

Having said that, as I've repeatedly said, God has provided a means for genuine confession and repentance for sins. Only the Senator's confessor knows the status of his completeness in availing himself of that process, instituted and promised by Jesus Christ himself. Denying him a church funeral Mass would be churlish and wrong, assuming a knowledge that one simply does not possess, which is between him and God, and witnessed by his confessor priest.

My far greater worry is that many men and women of influence, in politics, government and law enforcement, have accepted assistance in their office from providers of false idols (money) and those who practice occult beliefs (influence). If Senator Kennedy has tainted his Roman Catholic beliefs with either idolatry or occult beliefs, even if he did "only a little of it," that would, of course, put him in a very precarious position with God. I really hope that he neither did this, but frankly, so many do and are in dire peril of their souls, and thus I also hope that if he did that he genuinely repented and confessed before his passing.

RIP.

Understanding hell, demons and sin

Understanding hell, demons (devils, evil spirits) and sin

This commentary is scripture based and helps you to assemble something of a three dimensional view of how these interrelate through cause and effect. In other words I’m going to help you answer questions for yourself such as “where do they come from” and “what are they really like?”

First, one must understand what the scriptures teach about sin. Sin is defined in the Bible as five things:
1 Transgression of law (1 John 3:4)
2 All unrighteousness (1 John 5:17)
3 Neglecting to do good (James 4:17)
4 Whatsoever is not of faith (Romans 14:23)
5 Thoughts of foolishness (Proverbs 24:9)

You see, it is an error to believe that sin is defined “only” as breaking one of the Ten Commandments. Jewish scholars have always understood that sin is manifested through any unrighteousness, neglecting of an opportunity to do good, to operate without faith, etc, but it is the Apostles who make that crystal clear in the scripture. Thus there has never been any question that sin extends far beyond breaking one or more Commandments. St. Paul goes as far as to be very specific that even doing the “right” thing but doing so without faith IS A SIN. “And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.”

These words are some of the most powerful in all of the writings of the Apostles and are one of the hinges of truly understanding sin. While Paul is speaking of receiving the bread and the wine of Mass unworthily (that is what he means by eating), you cannot read this and think Paul is speaking only of lack of faith about the bread and wine because he explicitly adds “for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.” Anything that a human does that is not “of faith,” which means grounded in true belief, “is sin.” People who have been exposed to the faith but are not of faith are living and walking manifestations of living in sin, even if they are going through the motions of doing the “correct” things. In the example, Paul is explaining that someone who is a Christian and shows up for service and believes in Jesus Christ, but receives the bread and wine thinking, “Well, maybe it is or maybe it is not, but I believe in general so I’ll partake” is in a state of sin. Paul in this chapter describes those who have belief but are weak, so he is clearly directing himself to those who would swear they believe but inside their heart are selective about what they believe and what they do not. Paul is concerned and condemning those who believe in God, believe in Jesus, but have weak or doubting faith in the bread and the wine, and thus they “eateth with offence” (Romans 14:20).

Because Paul is discussing a specific problem he addresses himself throughout the chapter to the problem of the weak in faith coming to Mass, consuming the bread and wine while “doubting” and makes clear that that alone is sufficient identification of being sin. Using classic logic and discourse, Paul writes the chapter about the specific problem but closes with the general law, guidance or admonishment, which is that EVERYTHING that is “not of faith” “is sin.” One can do good deeds, attend services, plant churches, be an honest businessperson, etc, but if one is doing those things while doubting in God and one’s faith in its entirety, that person is in a state of sin.

In Proverbs 24:9 “The thought of foolishness is sin; and the scorner is an abomination to men.” So there is very clear Old Testament statement that foolish thoughts (both secular and faith based) is sinful and are sins and worse, those who scorn (in any way or any part) of faith are worse than sinners because they become an abomination (since their scorning harms others in their faith). Now of course this does not mean that someone who tries something foolish, such as riding his horse too fast, is sinning… or does it? Even the foolishness of youth has its perils to those in the care of the person (the horse, the bystanders) and yes, this is sin. Here the Bible is stating that not only doing the foolishness is a sin but the thought of foolishness is sin. This Proverb does not mean honest mistakes. This Proverb means having thoughts, whether they are followed by willful actual deeds or not, that are willfully misleading to one’s self. Thus even thinking that you are someone that you are not, for example, thinking to one’s self that you are really a reincarnated Pharaoh and that everyone else around you is an ignorant underling or minion, is a sin even if you never act upon that foolish belief. This proverb explains the difference between having a foolish belief or thought, which is a sin, and the out loud scorner, who is not only a sinner but an abomination. Again, this is one of those hinge scriptural citations that is essential to understand the pervasiveness and true nature of sin.

The Apostle John makes two important contributions to the definition of sin. He writes “Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law; for sin is the transgression of the law.” What John is explaining is that you can look at sin from not only the traditional way of breaking the law (by law we mean God’s law in the scripture and what Jesus taught) equals committing a sin, but the obverse is also true. If you a commit a sin you are automatically transgressing God’s law. By this John is explaining that God’s law is complete; it “covers” all situations of sin or not sinning. So one cannot sin and say “Well, that is not in the law” because it is, to those who are not being manipulative or willfully ignorant. John is also explaining what is an important problem today, which is to understand that being loosened from the Jewish law of ritual does not mean that all of the scriptures regarding God’s law of required behavior in order to not sin is somehow no longer valid. What Christians call the “Old Testament” remains the bedrock for understanding God’s law regarding what is just and righteous, and what is wrong and sinful.

John’s second point is powerfully similar in parallel to what Paul had written, saying, “All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death.” I am using an Old English bible in this commentary so here is the same in more modern prose, “All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin that is not deadly.” By this John makes two crucial points. Anything that is wrong, unjust or unfair is a sin, period. It does not matter if it is legally (civically) or socially “allowable” or commonplace: if it is wrong, unjust or unfair it is a sin. The second point is that while these are sins and obviously extremely commonplace, not all of them mean that the soul will necessarily die cast into hell in punishment. It is a sin, for example, to verbally abuse someone, even if “everyone does it,” or “he lost his temper since he was under stress” but that one instance of sin does not necessarily mean that he will go to hell for it. John is making another of the hinge explanations of sin, which is that all unrighteous behavior is a sin, no matter how large or small the transgression, but that God, obviously, discerns between those who continue in patterns of sin and thus merit casting into hell, and those who commit wrongdoings but repent, remedy and do not continue in sin.

The Apostle James makes clear the understanding that missed opportunity to do good is a sin. He writes “Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.” Thus a person might in theory not commit any sins of transgression of God’s law, and might even evade overtly doing sins of unbelief or unrighteousness, those that Paul and John warn about, yet by not doing a good deed when one knows about it and knows it is in one’s power to remedy is sinning.

For example, I often perceive that people think they have nothing sinful to confess. They even joke about Catholics who go frequently to confession. Yet, how many of you would be able to confess this sin: “One of my work colleagues is struggling with his assignment, and even though I have the knowledge and skill to help him I did not offer to.” It does not matter that you are “busy” or that he “should know how to do his own job” or that “you are competitors on performance reviews.” To see someone in need and to not offer to assist is a sin. This sin is not “canceled out” by tossing an extra buck into a charity donation bin. James is making it crystal clear that if someone knows there is an opportunity to do good and they do not address that specific opportunity, they are sinning and thus in a state of sin.

Thus there is absolutely no excuse for people to claim that they do not really “know” “what is a sin” and “what is not a sin.” These five scriptural descriptions of sin are easily accessed in my 1957 edition of The New Standard Alphabetical Indexed Holy Bible [Authorized or King James Version] in the Index under the listing “Sin defined:” (page 169). Second, there is no excuse for people to think that they are not in a constant state of sin that requires continual self awareness, confession, remediation and renunciation of further instances of those sins. Now more than even in this greedy and hard hearted modern society there is a plentitude of example of daily, if not hourly, sin by just about everyone I can think of. Society and everyone in it has become constant committers and amplifiers of all five definitions of sin.

Therefore, believing in Christ, for example, does not “wash you from your sins” if we are speaking of those that are committed day after day, and not original sin. The scripture explains there are two remedies for sin:

1 John 1:7-10
But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

John is NOT speaking of “once and for all” cleansing of original sin! That is plain as the light of day in this passage. John is describing continual, progressive ongoing life with continual, progressive ongoing occasions for sin, which ALL do. John does not say “stand in the light” he says “walk in the light.” Further, the act of “fellowship one with another” makes it abundantly clear that John is speaking of the progression of inevitable occurrences of sins throughout one’s existence in life. The remedy is not the blood of Jesus giving a “free pass,” but the blood of Jesus purchased the right to be forgiven of sins as they occur and as one repents and amends by Jesus. It could not be any clearer. Notice too the word “unrighteousness,” as John continues to remind that unrighteous deeds are sins.

Paul, even though that is not his focus and intention, alludes to the ongoing power of Jesus to save (and thus, by implication, forgive sins):

Romans 1:16
For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, “The just shall live by faith.” For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness, and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness.

Paul here makes clear that it is not standing still in faith (once is good for all time) but “live by faith.” Paul is explaining that the gospel of Christ (which was not written down in book form so Paul means what Christ said, did and taught, and then his redemptive power through his blood) is an ongoing gift to live by from God himself. To use an analogy it is like the gospel of Jesus is a prescription for sin that God has given to people to live by in both an ongoing way “by faith” and when they sin “against all ungodliness, and unrighteousness.” Notice that Paul addresses sins of breaking God’s law (ungodliness) but also the sins we have talked about, which are human to human “unrighteousness of men.”

The need to recognize the daily if not hourly presence of sin in all of its forms is essential, and there is no excuse for those who say that the scripture is either unclear or limits itself “only” to the Commandments. You have it directly from the mouths of the Apostle Jesus loved, St. John, the Apostle James and the Apostle Paul, converted by the resurrected and glorified Jesus himself. In these writings, which are of course what we have preserved, through the behest of the Holy Spirit, of their first hand understanding of God’s will through Jesus Christ, there is no mistaking the continual and pervasive state of sin in all and the need to use the remedy of God through what Jesus Christ has brought in the gospel, in an ongoing process of confession, remediation, expunging and being “dead to sin:”

Romans 6:1-2
What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid: how shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?

Paul is asking the rhetorical (for purpose of logic and debate) question, paraphrasing, “Should we keep on sinning just to test how often God will send grace to save us?” His answer is that obviously one should not keep being ill through sin just to test how often God the doctor will come. So Paul’s answer is that rather than continually test the waters or, rather, test the fire of sin, each person must be dead to sin, so that sin no longer can or will live within them. When Paul says dead to sin he means to be inert, which is that one no longer interacts with sin. When one is dead to sin by, for example, no longer noticing any of the temptations of sin, sin cannot attach itself or live within the person. That is what being “dead” to sin means.

I wonder how many people notice this example of Paul’s genius. Do you notice that he is putting forth a rather pagan type of belief as the opening proposition? This is the kind of obsessive compulsive attitude that infests much of modern society, which is why I point it out. Pagans believe in magic ritual. So Paul, without saying as much, is opening this chapter with the question, “Should we be like the pagans and deliberately sin and sin again in order to test when the ‘gods’ intervene, and either damn or rescue us?” People who listened to Paul and who read his letters would have understood exactly what he meant, but this genius, this gem of nuance is somewhat lost to moderns who, in contrast, now stand more on the pagan mentality side than the Christian side. However, make no mistake, people would have well understood in Paul’s time that he is starting with the anti-God and preposterous position, of continuing to sin in order to see “that grace may abound,” and then saying immediately and obviously, no, “God forbid” that we should do that and instead must become “dead to sin” and no longer live “therein” of sin.

If people really understood the Gospel, the Bible as a whole, and the specifics of what the Apostles here have explained about sin, confessionals would be busy and packed and a whole lot of really unjust, negligent and foolish behavior and thoughts would end in a hurry. How many people would routinely ignore the day to day needs of those around them and how many would think that a nasty comment on an Internet news story is funny, witty or constructive “acting out” if people understood that each and every instance of that is a sin against God?

I can think back about a routine work day when I was an intern at an outpatient psychiatric clinic and the sin-o-meter would just be running and accumulating for many of my co-workers. How many times in a day did one of them not help out someone who was struggling? Click! How many times did they let a patient that they didn’t like and lost patience with feel inferior to them, just with a glance or a way with words? Click! How many times did they gossip? Click! How many times did they yak for an hour about their hot tubs and what artistic performance they attended, rather than donate that time (which is work time after all) to working on a difficult case? Click! These are all sins and that is the type of thing that Christians are supposed to be aware of and not do, and what those old fashioned orthodox Catholics confess in the confessional. This, by the way, is why in traditional Catholic confession one is supposed to give the priest the number of times that one has sinned, as best as one can, since each instance is an individual “stand alone” sin. How many people would have to confess to posting hundreds if not thousands of cruel taunts on an Internet news comment section? Each and every one is a sin and though while one is not expected to itemize, especially when it is in the hundreds, one is expected to confess to the magnitude and comprehend that each and every instance is commission of a sin against God (and God keeps perfect count).

So humans, particularly modern humans, are not only constantly sinning, they are encrusted and coated with sin and they rather than discourage it propagate it among themselves and others. They indulge themselves in sinful foolish thinking instead of working to discern the truth, they propagate competition rather than reaching out to assist where the need is present (and not the “good cause” that they “feel like” doing), they perform individually and socially countless instances in a day of being unrighteous, petty and uncharitable, and each and every one of those occurrences is a sin against God.

Isaiah 59:12
For our transgressions are multiplied before thee, and our sins testify against us: for our transgressions are with us: and as for our iniquities, we know them.

Have you ever wondered where sin “goes?” We know where sinners go, they either repent and receive God’s mercy and go to heaven (after purification from their sins, which Catholics call purgatory) or they go to hell. But what happens to sin itself? What are the “physics” of sin?

First of all, we can see the effects of sin on both those who sin, and those who are victims of sinners, and over all of those individuals, on society and the ultimate outcome of humanity as a whole. Sin lives on in its damage, costing actual lives, health, liberty, joy, family, treasure, security, and peace of mind, as any victim of sin can tell you (assuming they were not actually killed by someone’s sin). Survivors of other people’s sin live in the wreckage left behind by the sin, all the way from ruined lives down to damaged self esteem and interior suffering. So sin leaves it’s “brand” and it’s the gift that keeps on giving. This is part of the meaning of the above citation from Isaiah. Isaiah explains that it’s not like a sin takes place and then it falls away, like a used tissue. Sins stay with people “for our transgressions are with us.” This is another example of the Biblical “know” word, where to “know” means to interact with, not just be aware of. Sins harm the victims, and they stick onto those who commit the sins, AND the sinner continues to interact with their sins as they accumulate.

So if you think of sin in its common imagery of a dirtying and the smearing of blackened soot on the soul, which is a pretty accurate and apt image, the blackening of each sin is applied to the person and stays with that person. Not only does each sin layer on in depth of blackness and severity (from repetition) but the person continues to tie up their soul in internal “dialogue” and feedback with sins even long passed. Computer people can think of each sin as running a background process, even if the consequences of the sin on the victim are long gone and you do not even think about your sin any more. If the sin is not identified, remediated, confessed, expunged by God and thus forgiven and cleansed, it continues to run its background process in your soul, and that is a very bad thing.

This is why Christian imagery understands that the confession and forgiveness of sins is a “washing” process, washing that takes place in the blood of Jesus. See, here you can better understand that the washing of sins is a continual process; it is not a “one time for all.” Jesus bought you access to the washing machine, if you want to think of it that way, but you are still expected not to roll in the mud and you are expected to take recourse of the washing machine each and every time that you do. Unforgiven and unrepentant sin sticks and it is not inert. The weight of sin is like the dirt and tar that eventually drags one all the way to hell.

Ecclesiastes 7:20
For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not.

Even the Apostles, who had what you can think of as the only set of guaranteed personal “tickets” from Jesus for heaven (where Jesus promised to go ahead and prepare a place for them) understood that they had to keep living in a sinful world, as sinners, and thus they would humbly only confess to “hope” of being saved. The Apostles and the disciples were the last ones to think that they lived without sin and thus they continually exhorted and monitored their own behavior, as virtuous as it was, confessing all transgressions and removing their causes. They understood what the scriptures has always made clear and the Gospel of Jesus brought into full light, which is the continuing sinful ongoing (as differentiated from the original sin of Adam and Eve) nature of all men, including themselves, and the glory of the gift of God in the form of Jesus Christ who can forgive sins and make one clean again (after each one). Besides Jesus only one lived without sin, and that was his mother, Mary, preserved in purity from birth to death. She is the only one of humans who an angel would say was “full of,” as in being complete, from bottom to top, with grace. Something is not full if it is partially filled. Gabriel made very clear that Mary alone was completely filled with grace and thus preserved from the stain of sin throughout her life. She lived in the midst of the Apostles and disciples; they needed to look no further than Mary in order to have a continual reminder of what purity looks like, after Jesus had ascended to heaven.

John 2:5
His mother saith unto the servants, “Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it.”

Mary continued to be the living reminder, not author, of God’s prescription against sin through Jesus that Paul alludes to. Mary’s words are that whatsoever Jesus says (and by “whatsoever” she means everything, large or small, no matter how logical or whatever Jesus says), to do it. The Gospel of Jesus is the prescription for the occurrences of sin, and she who the angel titled “full of grace” speaks these vitally important words for all. The Apostles, particularly John to whom Mary was entrusted by Jesus, had the continual living presence of her, without sin, whose only words regarding the ministry of her son Jesus are the pointer to the Gospel of Jesus, spoken when he performed his first miracle, and continuing unchanging and unerring throughout all of time.

2 Timothy 3:13
But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived.

What Paul means here is that sin and sinners accumulate, getting worse and worse, particularly as they interchange and reinforce each other in sin. He is explaining that without the Gospel of Jesus that sin is a continuing and ever worsening condition. Paul, again in a mark of his genius, recognizes that the argument that humans naturally seek to “be good” and can do so without God is totally bogus and invalid. Many today think, erroneously, that people sin less and become more enlightened as they “evolve” in self and mutual interest, and that simply is not true. We can see that in the litany of sins that have gone from rare to not only common but enforced upon the strong and the weak that I discussed above. Society has become more and more sinful as it has drawn away from God and most specifically God’s remedy, Jesus Christ, not less. So Paul understands and explains that sin only increases and becomes a feedback loop of continual and stronger self and mutual reinforcement. Therefore he next writes:

2 Timothy 3:14-17
But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them. And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation, through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for corrections, for instruction in righteousness. That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

Paul is explaining that freedom from the increasing feedback loop of sin is obtained simply by Timothy, who was raised a Christian, continuing to follow the scriptures in faith through Jesus Christ. Again this is not an imagery of “standing still” with being free of sin and guaranteed of paradise once and for all. Paul lists the ongoing activities of life to which scripture must be applied, which is as the original source of what to do and why things are as they are (doctrine), the template by which one can rebuke those around you who sin (reproof), the way to determine if you are doing something wrong and change it to the right (corrections) and the gaining of wisdom through life for one’s self and for the benefit of teaching others (instruction in righteousness). Then Paul introduces the imagery of a house, the man, therefore, being perfectly furnished as each step is followed. One’s interior is good, worthy of God and dead to sin as one obtains and edits piece by piece one’s internal furnishings.


Paul’s image of the man who perfects himself by following life long the Gospel of Jesus Christ is a very useful one to borrow when now, describing, “what happens to sin” and what hell is like (and who are the demons and devils).

We have already explained that sin lives on after the sin is committed, whether it is forgotten or confessed, and regardless of the state of life of the victim. Let us use for example a victim who is robbed but is still alive. The sinner, the robber, has taken something from the victim that might have been a life altering event, even if a charity or the insurance company reimburses the victim. The victim may be fearful, may have suffered unreimbursed financial loss or livelihood, have lost their retirement, cannot help their children financially, etc. and the victim must make decisions and face limitations in their life they would not have faced otherwise. This is how the sin “lives on” by having redirected the victim onto a worse path. So that sin is still very much “alive” even if the sinner fully repents and confesses and even if they pay back the victim. Thus, one might ask how can Jesus Christ then forgive and remove sin as if it had never happened. The answer is that the sin still exists but God takes the layer, the spot of stain, the “soot” of sin off of the person who committed the sin and places it in hell.

So think of a clearer example, which is that someone murders another person. The sin lives on because there is absolutely no way that the victim of sin can be brought back to life as if he or she were never murdered. The sin of murder is a dreadful blackening of the soul that is the stain of sin attached to the sinner’s eternal being. Now, if the murderer does not confess and genuinely repent, his soul, covered with that sin, goes to eternal damnation in hell. (I’m using an example where one need not worry about “mitigating” circumstances, since God is of course aware of them and responds accordingly in his all knowing wisdom and mercy, though also ‘accepting no excuses’ justice. So we are not assuming some poor abused kid is the perpetrator etc. for this example). Say this is a cold blooded adult on adult or adult on child murder. If the person never confesses his or her guilt and do all that he or she can to repent and live out their lives within God’s law (and of course the civil law system) when that person dies he or she and his or her sin stained soul are taken straight to hell.

However, suppose this murderer genuinely repents? He or she confesses (not fighting the charges and putting the victim’s family through more agony), accepts his or her punishment, provides restitution however he or she can and accepts God and God’s law and will and has genuine (not of convenience or cynical) conversion. The murderer can be forgiven and the sin removed by God through the salvation grace of Jesus Christ and the sinner can achieve heaven. However, the sin that is removed from the sinner is still an entity, a reality, because God does not turn back the clock as if something had never happened. He restores the soul as if the sin had not happened. So the stain is removed from the soul and cast into hell, since hell is that place where all that “is not of God” is discarded.

The sin is not a living being, but it is like dirt washed off of clothing in our laundry analogy, the stain of evil. Unlike genuine earthly soil that is good, there is nothing good or “of God” of sin. Thus while clothes can be laundered and the dirty water flushed into the environment to be renewed, the stain of sin cannot remain in any place that is “of God.” Thus there is no sin in heaven, and while the consequences and temptations of sin live on among the lives of the living who are affected by sin, the removed stain of the sin itself becomes part of the furnishings of hell.

When you have a friend visit the home of another friend, one you have not seen, and you ask him or her to describe the friend’s house, he or she can answer one of three ways. Your friend can start by describing the first view, the exterior, including the location, the address, what style it is and what the neighborhood is like. Alternatively, your friend can dive right into describing the interior, how many rooms and how is it furnished and decorated. Or your friend can describe the ambiance of who lives there, saying nothing of the details but just that it’s “family friendly” and the kids have room to play, and grandmother lives in her own apartment in the house, etc. Well, heaven can also be described through those three means and that means of course that so can hell be described such.

Sin is the interior of hell, the “furnishings,” the paint, the wallpaper, the walls, the sounds, the sights. The sin that is removed from one’s soul, or is brought with that person if he or she is damned, is what comprises the interior of hell. It is a terrible, very terrible place. People are somewhat jaded by the exterior description “it’s hell and God does not go there” and the “ambiance” of who is there “Satan, the fallen angels, demons and the damned sinners,” but the full horror of hell is not understood unless you realize that all sins that were ever committed, their “energy” (to use that tedious but useful phrase) is cast into hell and sins are the “construction material” of hell. It is not the sin itself, so it’s not like people in hell are running around re-murdering and re-thieving (that’s the problem on earth where the consequences of sinful mindsets keep sin rising anew among humans through their own actions). Rather, it is the stain of the sin on the soul, the disfiguring, the warping, and the reinforcement of being not of God that is the construction material and the decoration of hell.

When a living person sins, God is there. God is there even (one would say especially) during the worst of the horrors of sin using, for example, the Holocaust. God through the Holy Spirit works constantly to strengthen humans to make choice against sin and to convert back to grace. God comforts those harmed by sin as they are suffering, and those who believe are best able to feel his comfort. But God is not “within” the stain of sin that forms on the soul. Sin is by definition “not God.” God controls what happens to the sin and destroys it by removing it from the soul of the penitent and casting the stain of each and every sin that is repented and forgiven in the disposal place that is the one area where God is not present (but of course controls) and that is hell. God delegated authority over what is not of God to Satan. God can do anything he wants so of course he could in theory shut down hell and put Satan out of a job and so forth, but that is not realistic so long as the human race continues. So long as humans live and have the free choice to choose sin instead of God, God will maintain his God-free disposal area and leave Satan “in charge” of its internal torments.

So think again of the Holocaust. Every person who was tormented and murdered, represents millions upon millions of individual stains of sin (one for each sin occurrence, not one per victim) that are on the souls of the perpetrators and thus go with the unrepentant perpetrators to hell. So hell is constructed of, in this example, construction material that is each and every one of the millions of incredibly hideous sins that were committed during the Holocaust. A latter day sinner who ends up in hell finds his or her self living among the stain of all of the sins that were ever committed.

Think about that and how awful hell truly is. I like a good joke about hell as much as the next person, but it’s better to laugh about a hell joke if one really understands that when one is not joking, it is truly unthinkably and unbearably filled with all that is wretched, evil, of despair and of suffering, accumulated through all the years of humanity’s consciously sinful existence. (Animals don’t sin so as long as humans were unconscious animals they, like the animals, were not sinning.) So no cockroaches in hell! There is no life form other than the fallen angels, the demons and the damned, because life is innocent and of God and therefore there are no foul creatures or monsters in hell. The monsters are far, far worse than fantastic animals because the monsters are the accumulated stain of all of the sins ever committed, and the damned live without God in that place forever.

Isaiah 5:13-15
Therefore my people are gone into captivity, because they have no knowledge: and their honorable men are famished, and their multitude dried up with thirst. Therefore hell hath enlarged herself, and opened her mouth without measure: and their glory, and their multitudes, and their pomp, and he that rejoiceth, shall descend into it. And the mean man shall be brought down, and the mighty man shall be humbled, and the eyes of the lofty shall be humbled.

Isaiah is explaining that when Israel turns away from God they suffer worldly hardship, because they go into captivity, but that they also become those who will go to hell and add to hell’s population. Because of Israel’s collective sin of disobeying God the nation falls into captivity, but a worse thing takes place to individuals who lose their faith (“they have no knowledge” means that they no longer use knowledge of God in their faith and thus means they lose their faith and turn farther away from God). So Isaiah explains that those who keep the faith go into captivity along with those who do not keep the faith, but those who keep the faith will be saved while those who abandon God are individually damned to hell. Isaiah is explaining that many individuals turned away from God during the captivity, and thus those individuals swelled the ranks of those in hell, where they are cast upon their death. The mean man (the average man) and the mighty who abandon God and their faith equally join in hell, and those who had snooty and proud attitudes on earth are brought to the lowest of the low in hell.

If one looks for an actual description of hell you do not find so much of it in the Old Testament as the New Testament, and even there details are sparse. Why? Because the Bible is not a textbook and a “how does God do it” question and answer format. This is because when the sacred works were written people did not think the way that they do today, with the arrogance of “Well, explain it to me and I’ll decide on my own what I think of it.” So God does not bother to give humans a blow by blow description of hell because to those who are sane, knowing that hell is a place of eternal torment where God is not present and the damned are thrust and it is ruled by Satan is “detail” enough. But I know that moderns like “details” so this is why I am explaining the scripture to you.

Isaiah 28:15
Because ye have said, We have made a covenant with death, and with hell are we at agreement; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, it shall not come unto us: for we have made lies our refuge, and under falsehood we have hid ourselves.

Isaiah, in his great prophecy, much of it regarding the coming of Jesus Christ as Messiah, foresees a time when people will ally themselves with hell by thinking that it is a tolerable state of being that can be endured and bargained with, but that this belief is all lies. This is what is meant by “with hell we are at agreement” and “we have made lies our refuge” because those people convince themselves of a false view of what will come when God’s wrath at their sin descends, either at the time of individual death or at the epic end of times. Isaiah prophesies that many will think that hell and what it represents (unrepentant sin) can be bargained with, or modified or “updated” in those people’s understanding of it. So Isaiah saw not only in his own time but prophesied that people will be what we call “revisionist” today, which is to deny hell as it truly is and think that one can gain refuge or tacit agreement with it.

Proverbs 27:20
Hell and destruction are never full: so the eyes of man are never satisfied.

This proverb is very deep, much more than it seems on the surface. It explains that there is no “fixed amount” of hell or destruction but that rather both hell and destruction endlessly expand as humans are more and more sinful. It is the coveting, the “eyes of man” for what they gain from sin rather than goodness and from God that generate sin, destruction, and the place where all that is evil and not of God will repose, which is hell. This is contrary to some pagan beliefs that people are allotted to places due to capricious gods or natural forces, so that a certain number or type of people go to hell and that’s that. This proverb explains that hell and destruction and mankind’s sinfulness expand indefinitely as cause and effect and apace with each other. This makes Paul’s urgent admonishment to be “dead to sin” even more important to understand. Interacting with sin-not being dead to sin-expands the occurrences and power of sin and likewise the capacity of hell since hell will take in endlessly all who merit it.

Psalms 9:17
The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God.

This is one of the psalms by King David. Here David is explaining that not only do individuals who are wicked go to hell, but so do entire nations. This is because if a nation “forgets God” it has constructed an ethos and society that is full of sin and it ensnares each person in that structure of sin and not only magnifies but perpetuates sin, developing a society that is based on sin (since sin is that which is not-God) and hence an entire nation can fall into hell. This is not to say that individuals who are in that society who believe and are faithful (and no doubt persecuted) are not individually rewarded and saved into heaven by God upon that individual person’s death. That is not the point. The point is that King David warns that people can risk constructing a godless nation that takes them “as a group” to hell.

Again, notice that David says “forgets God” and not “never knew about God” or “never received the good news about God.” David is warning that those who have no excuse, who knew God, and who then turn away from him, are doomed to hell, whether individuals or entire nations that discard their faith in God willfully or negligently.

So hell is not really discussed in great detail in the Biblical books of the Old Testament except as I’ve cited here. That really was enough for the Israelites: being estranged from God and suffering eternal torment was more than enough information for them. But during his time Jesus understood that people needed more specifics to strengthen their faith and to be fully informed, to use a modern word, about the non-negotiable dreadfulness of hell. Thus most of the Biblical descriptions of hell are in the words of Jesus himself, the Apostles repeating what they learned from Jesus, and St John’s Book of Revelation (also known as the Apocalypse).

In the second half of this blogging I will cite what Jesus explained and the rest of the New Testament descriptions regarding hell. I will also explain the linkage between the stain of all sins ever committed being cast into hell and what is the true nature of devils and demons. I will also, then, turn to the Qur’an because compared to the Bible God, through the archangel Gabriel, is quite chatty about the specific horrors of hell.

I hope that you have found this helpful so far, and not hell-full.

If you check the top list of the five types of sins, and suddenly discover that you are guilty of hundreds (some I'm sure have thousands) of sins, I know that the priests have extended Confessional hours during Lent, and I'd take advantage of that if I were you.

Eagerly reading Archbishop Chaput's book

It just arrived!

"Render unto Caesar: Serving the Nation by Living Our Catholic Beliefs in Political Life," by (Archbishop) Charles J. Chaput, published by Doubleday, 2008.

It is visually a lovely book, and that perfect little size that I like (octavo?) Yes, I just did a quick Google search. This size is Large Crown Octavo (5 1/4" x 8") otherwise known as LC8 ('Trade' paperback or B format). (Thanks to www.writersservices.com for jogging my memory from the days back when I had the money to collect antique books!) I find this a really nice size for hardcover books, and two of my other favorite recent purchases are this size. ("Jesus of Nazareth" by Pope Benedict XVI and Newt Gingrich's book "Rediscovering God in America," plus another book I can't put my hands on right now but is a book about one of my favorite artists Chagall's works).

I want to include a quote by Archbishop Chaput, right from the first Chapter, as a reminder of the debt that is owed to the many good priests who labor in the vineyards. He did not write this section with that intention at all (he is commenting about society) but read the statistics and think about it.

"This book will not feed anyone's nostalgia for a Catholic golden age. The past usually looks better as it fades in the rearview mirror. Art Buchwald once said that if you like nostalgia, pretend today is yesterday and then go out and have a great time. I agree. After listening to some ten thousand personal confessions over thirty-seven years of priesthood, I'm very confident that the details of daily life change over time, but human nature doesn't. We've seen better and worse times to be Catholic in the United States than the present. But today is the time in which we need to work."

Wise and encouraging words and he addresses something that I keep trying to explain and often infer in my blog postings... people have always struggled with the challenges of life, and God understands that, and certainly does not expect perfection. Since my teens I have told people this quote of mine, "People are like horses; they are messy" as ways to console that it's never easy and of course God understands this. But I wanted to include this quote from Archbishop Chaput's book not only for this great social wisdom and context but also as a hat tip to him and to all the priests who labor as Confessors in the image of Christ. How many people today do not appreciate that at the same time they say, "I wish I could have known Jesus" that they can avail themselves of the sacrament of Confession and be within the reception room that Jesus established directly through Apostolic succession so that yes, people can recall the time when people could confess their sins directly to Jesus and be assured of quality "feedback" (not just kidding oneself if one is understood and forgiven or not). I worry about people who will "bounce their business ideas" off of many colleagues, yet figure that thinking to themselves "well, I sure sinned there but here, I am mentally beaming to Jesus that I'm sorry, so now I know I'm forgiven and it's all OK."

Confessor priests ARE the gift of Jesus Christ to humanity so that they can KNOW indeed in truth that "Jesus understands" and that they "are forgiven."

What I was like receiving the sacraments

Trying to be nice here and share some pleasant memories, and also think of questions and distortions that many might have about my point of view and experiences.

It is not at all difficult to be the "someone" (I've explained that before but basically when I say the "someone" I mean how I was born with total knowledge and context as witness to the reality of the one God, the content of the events in the Bible, and also the Qur'an) and still be a child and young adult.

For example, when I first had to start going to Confession (the sacrament of Penance & Reconciliation), unlike other children, I had nothing to confess. But I also am a born diplomat and was not ready to get into it with the nuns over a period of years how unlike other children, I didn't even have the little boo boo sins to confess. So I confessed things like lying, when what I meant was I'd say to someone "It's hot today," while one could argue that it was warm and not hot. So I'd think of a few instances where opinion could be held in speech but where I was not lying, but I could honestly "give that to the priest to work with" (they didn't ask too many questions about context or I'd have had a dilemma). So I managed to find things to "confess" that sounded "typical kid," but so I'd not be lying in the confessional either. So that's what Confession was like for me. I liked praying the prayers given as penance, but I could also appreciate wanting to get a priest who was one who gave out "light and easy" penances! :-)

My First Holy Communion was great. My father was still alive and he wore a wonderful suit and I had the whole communion dress, veil, gloves, white missal and purse, and I loved them. There are photos of me and my dad taken by my brother, and they are treasured because like I said, my dad did not live throughout my childhood and my Communion was one of our last big family events before he died. So I could enjoy all the aspects of Holy Communion because not only of my faith but my assurity of knowledge. Yet, I could still have the angst of a child, especially because I can witness to the sanctity of the sacrament itself. For example, in those days you could not touch the host with your hand, so the nuns spent plenty of time warning us that it would stick to the tops of our mouths and not to panic! But we could not touch inside our mouths to loosen the host. So the nuns got all of us pretty anxious! And sure enough, the first time I received, it stuck to the top of my mouth, and also my friend who was next to me. We panicked and got all weepy! The nun in front of us in the pew told us, just keep rubbing with our tongue and not to panic and that it would dissolve, and it did. So this is another example of how I could be "the someone" and also have a very human reaction in not wanting to mess up the rules! Gosh when I think how irreverential so many are today, I wonder how far adrift and negative everyone has become. It is sad. But anyway, it was a fine day even though I got teased for the crying. It was a very sunny and beautiful spring day in upstate New York, back when we had long and snowy winters.

One thing that made me and two other children very sad was that we could not receive our first Holy Communion, and also our Confirmation, which I am about to reminisce about, with the rest of the Catholics in our school class and age group. Three of us had to be "a year behind" because of arbitrary decision that December 1 birthdays were the cutoff point. So those of us with birthdays right before December were made to wait a year with the "little kids." We all found that to be terribly mortifying that we were held back from our class just because we had October and November birthdays. So I was not with my classmates when I had religious instruction for my first Holy Communion or Confirmation. In a small town and with kids you grew up with and attended class together with year after year, that was really shattering and the first real pain that I received that was unjust and unfair. I still remember sitting in religious instruction classes with kids I didn't know at all because they were a year behind me, and me and the two others just suffered through it.

By the way, in fairness, it was not the Church that caused the problem, it was the school system that let kids into kindergarten and then assigned subsequent grades based on the December 1 date. So I was in a grade where my best friend was just about a year older than me. The Church does its sacraments by age of eligibility. So one must be seven years old to receive one's first Holy Communion and go to Confession. That is because seven is the age where children are deemed in the church to be old enough to know the difference between right and wrong. Thus children become "responsible for any sins that they commit" at the age of seven. That is why the Church assembles classes according to age, and not by school grade. And that makes perfect sense in doctrine even though it hurt to go through. So I have little tolerance for people today who rail against doctrine because of "hurt feelings" and it not being "fair." It IS fair and it IS correct; that is why it is Church doctrine. So suck it up and be obedient to the Church doctrine, as I was as a child, even when it hurt me a LOT.

In classes for Confirmation you get to choose your "saint name," called your "confirmation name." It becomes one of your middle names. Well, for boys that was great. But back in the early 1960's in a poor town girls had no access to books and so forth giving them choices of names. You basically got to choose between Mary and Catherine. I'm not exaggerating. Even Anne was not discussed as a possibility. So the girls basically chose one or the other and I went with Catherine. Cultists like to get all in a tizzy about that, looking for "a reason" that I "chose Catherine" (you know, past lives and all that). Well, bumble f's, in my class I still remember sitting in my usual seat (far right row about five seats back) and hearing, "Which will it be? Mary or Catherine?" LOL! There was no leafing through the missal being "inspired" by one saint or the other, or by other women. If a girl had said, "How about Anastasia" the nun would have undoubtedly beat her senseless! It is NOT how things were done back then. So there was absolutely no significance to my choosing Catherine.

I didn't mind, though, because I was honoring a saint by that name that I knew of very well. That was Catherine Laboure, to whom the Virgin Mary appeared and gave to her the Miraculous Medal. The Miraculous Medal had been revealed given to St. Catherine in 1830, and so by the 1960's I had already seen many miracles that resulted from this virtue. The Miraculous Medal was carried by many soldiers (including my dad) in World War II, and it also helped many conversions of dire sinners. So she was the Catherine that I had in mind.

Years later, of course, in a cynical and strange world, people got obsessed with Catherine of the wheel (since the method of torture is more interesting to humans nowadays than the context of the faith). And so some people I know "wanted me to have chosen Catherine of the wheel" so they could glom onto her torture and work that into my story, in their delusion. Others love Catherine of Sienna because she was a "mystic" and had these long rapturous "conversations" with Jesus, and so that camp "wanted me to have chosen Catherine of Sienna" so that they could, well, you get my drift. It shows how little anyone knows me. The saint I chose was the one that was a virgin who lived a quiet and holy life, only a century before, living to the age of 70 or so, but with one distinction. That is, the Virgin Mary appeared to her and gave her one of the greatest gifts for modern believers, one that had demonstrated its virtue for nearly a hundred years by the time I had to "choose" my Confirmation name. And that's as simple as that. She was a great lady by the way. I wish people would follow her example more than look for gory deaths or rapturous visions. She had to go against some strong personalities to get people in the Church to believe her, and then to get the medal worked and given to the world. She was beatified by Pope Pius XII in 1947 by the way, just about twenty years before my Confirmation. So she was very much of my real world and my priorities are always the here and now.

In Confirmation a Catholic is viewed as being an adult (age 13). It is one's Catholic bar mitzvah or bar mitzpah in a way. Again, it is another example of how the Catholic Church is the true church running straight and true from its roots in the Old Covenant to modern times. A Catholic child of 13 is viewed as being "an adult in the faith" and also a "soldier of Christ." That means there is knowledge that one can speak one's own mind about the faith, is responsible for one's own sin and also must be prepared to suffer or die for the faith. The highlight of it is the ceremony presided over by the Bishop, where each new "soldier of Christ" steps before the Bishop to get the symbolic slap on the face. Wow, were we excited about that! The slap symbolizes that each child is now a defender of the faith, and thus might face persecution and suffering. Of course the Bishop doesn't haul off and clout each kid, ha! But being kids, it gave us something to worry about. No one wanted to look like a wimp. Boys worried about that and girls worried about it hurting. So I worried about it hurting. So we lined up and approached him and just as the nuns promised, it was barely more than an open handed touch to the cheek, no slap at all really! But it was great performance anxiety for all of us young soldiers of Christ!

I hope you enjoyed my musings and reminiscing.

What does God expect regarding forgiveness?

This grieving mother ponders forgiveness regarding the man who murdered her son.

http://www.canada.com/windsorstar/news/story.html?id=c1ee0a52-62ea-4fb0-afae-18652c7512bc

***
First of all, many Christians have a view of forgiveness that is not justified in the scripture. Some Christians think that God, through Jesus, is instructing them to forgive those who wrong them immediately. That is just not the case.

Jesus forgives the woman at the well for her sins, but only after she told him the truth and freely confessed to him. Jesus did not walk around forgiving people for things they did not first confess to. So in a modern society, this woman in the news story would be perfectly justified to not forgive 1) so long as the perp is denying having done the murder and 2) he has not either confessed, or found guilty (even after a lengthy trial) and 3) if he does not express sorrow for his actions, even if that is a brief statement at sentencing. So yes, God enjoins all to forgive, but there is nothing in the Bible about the timing having to be instantaneous. In fact, there is much scriptural justification for forgiveness being given only after confession and restitution. A woman such as this mother could find it in her heart to do it sooner, but actually, since this is not a one on one crime (in fact the guy seems to be a serial killer), she would be in her rights to not forgive until the entire story and third party culpability becomes clear through investigation and trial. What I mean is that it's not like he struck her. The perp killed her son, and others, and so there are facts to be obtained and disposal of a verdict since the harm was done to third parties.

So speaking of cases where the harm is done first hand to the person who is now pondering forgiveness, that too requires confession and admittance, and an attempt at restitution. Here is another area that some misinterpret Jesus' actions. Jesus forgave on the cross (while dying) and the first martyr St. Steven forgave while being stoned to death. These are often cited, inaccurately, as models for "instant forgiveness." Um, think about it. IF they were going to forgive, as Jesus and Steven were both clearly disposed toward forgiving, they, um, had to do it while still alive, I mean, duh. If Jesus and Steven were of the holy mindset to forgive, they had to do it while being killed in order to get around to it at all! But if they were not of the mindset to forgive as they are being killed, that would have been the normal course of things and just fine with God. I mean, really, think about it. Do you think God expects every Christian to yell "I forgive you" while fighting for their life in an assault? Um, no. That is why Jesus was Jesus, and Steven was the first martyr and saint. Their inclination was obviously on the life to come with God after their deaths, and so they set the role model for saintliness, not for human behavior. I sure would not like my child to be forgiving the person who is beating and raping her as he's doing it. I mean, a little common sense people, please.

It takes extraordinary grace to exercise forgiveness the way that the average people, the Amish, did when that guy took their girls hostage, intending to abuse them and then kill them, and resulting in deaths of himself and as I recall half of the hostage girls, wounding seriously the others. The Amish correctly made a faith based decision to forgive based on lots of grace. But remember, the perp was a neighbor, and his breakdown was a mystery to all. The Amish invoked their amazing grace in order to not burden themselves with trying to understand what only God could sort out when all is said and done. Forgiveness is necessary the moment the unforgiving starts to become an additional burden. So it should not be done too soon, because people who do not confess and repent do not merit forgiveness (though the grace of the person forgiving can obviously allow them to forgive even in cases where forgiveness is not yet merited), or it can't be merited because the perp is deceased. But if the burden of sorrow and anger starts to fester and further harm the victim, they should immediately find a way to forgive, with God's help.

Jesus teaches in the "Our Father" to ask God to forgive "us" our trespasses as "we forgive those" who trespass against "us." This is for the victim's good health and long term well being as much as it is doing good in God's eyes. In other words, Jesus is not just teaching people to forgive people so that God will be merciful to them in turn, though obviously that is the bulk of the justification. Jesus is also giving people a remedy, a medicine, for those who are wronged. And like any medicine it must be taken at the right time. Therefore, people should forgive in order to preserve their own peace of mind, but only after the natural process of perp identification, dispensation of the case, and/or confession, restitution, penance and recovery of the victim's ability to forgive has taken place. Like I said, Jesus did not walk through towns shouting, "Hey! I know all your sins! Don't even bother confessing to those you harmed, or making it up to them, cause God's going to make them forgive you anyway." I mean, sometimes one has to sketch the extreme satirical opposite view in order to explore the soundness of one's unspoken assumptions. Following Jesus as a model, you find he is generous with mercy and forgiveness, but only after the person has "come clean" with what they have done. That is why the Catholic Church has the sacrament of what we used to call Confession in less politically correct wording times. It's not that a "human" as a "priest" is inserting himself between humans and God, as non Catholics like to allege. It's to preserve the requirement, observed by following the example of Jesus Christ, that confession must be made in public in the sense of being spoken to another person authorized to evaluate the sin. Otherwise people let themselves off the sin hook all the time. "God knows I'm sorry" they say to themselves and think that's that. Um, nope, that's not that.

Anyway, God bless this lady in her sorrow about her son, and please, folks, don't pressure her either way. People know when it is time to forgive, and especially if it has been merited by truthfulness.

About receiving Holy Eucharist controversy

Known "pro abortion" Catholics have been observed receiving holy communion at Mass. This has understandably caused publicity and discussion. Discussion that is directed toward better understanding is good and fruitful. Discussion that is "holier than thou art" and hypocritical is not helpful. Here is what I mean.

When I was a young child in the 1950's and early 1960's, I attended weekly Sunday Mass in my small town. Any given Sunday a good third or half of the Mass attendees did not approach the altar for communion! And this was not because they were politicians or great sinners. Until recently this was how a good Catholic discerned the day to day status of their spiritual life.

Catholics are supposed to go on a regular basis to Confession. They timed it so that they would go usually every few months. In the time just before their next Confession, good Catholics tended NOT to approach for communion, usually because they had something on their mind that they wished to bring up in Confession. No one thought anything about those who received on a given day and those who did not. The most pious of parishioners were as likely to have days of not receiving as anyone else.

Fast forward to these times. I have been astonished to see virtually the entire congregation of Masses march up to the altar to receive. And THIS is a generation that does not go to Confession as frequently as my peers did when I was young! You have less confession, graver sins and almost 100% receiving of the Holy Eucharist! Oh my God, I'd laugh if it was not so serious.

So those of you who drag the spiritual status of public figures into the spotlight may be better off pausing and contemplating this difference in the times I have discussed. Leave this topic to the bishops who must decide how best to serve individuals in their diocese and jurisdictions.

Bible Reading: A root of sacrament of Penance

Why Catholics believe in the sacrament of Penance and Reconciliation

One helpful passage from the Old Testament showing its valid roots in the Jewish Law

Sirach 34: 23-26
If one man builds up and another tears down, what do they gain but trouble? If one man prays and another curses, whose voice will the Lord hear? If a man again touches a corpse after he has bathed, what did he gain by the purification? So with a man who fasts for his sins, but then goes and commits them again: Who will hear his prayer, and what has he gained by his mortification?

Jesus Christ is the purification, the fasting mortification. Humankind is widely known to be the ones who "touch the corpse after bathing" and "commits them again (sins)." So long as there are sins committed there is need for purification and mortification by touching back to Jesus Christ in the sacrament and striving not to sin again, but being humble in the knowledge that it happens more than most admit.

Many abuse Penance and Reconciliation and thus will fall

Distortions of the Sacrament of Penance and Reconciliation do not result in Absolution

Throughout history some Catholics have been tempted by the thought that they can continue to sin if only they periodically go to Confession, through the sacrament of Reconciliation. Some of them even think their sins are “venial” and therefore not in need of confession. And there is the occasional priest who is complicit in a cycle of forgiveness, knowing that he is aiding and abetting an ongoing condition of sin. This is a reminder that under these conditions neither the confession is valid nor is the priestly giving of forgiveness. In fact, the deliberate and knowing attempt to use Reconciliation in this manner is a mortal sin by both parties. I’m not trying to discourage people from going to the sacrament of Reconciliation, far from it, I think it is needed more frequently than ever. But I am warning people that Reconciliation cannot be used as a “forgiveness check kiting scheme.”

Here are some informative paragraphs from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

1450 “Penance requires…the sinner to endure all things willingly, be contrite of heart, confess with the lips, and practice complete humility and fruitful satisfaction.

1451 Among the penitent’s acts contrition occupies first place. Contrition is “sorrow of the soul and detestation for the sin committed, together with the resolution not to sin again.”

(My comment: Obviously being contrite during that confession but planning to commit the same sin again is not contrition and this does not qualify for forgiveness.)

1452 When it arises from love by which God is loved above all else, contrition is called “perfect” (contrition of charity). Such contrition remits venial sins; it also obtains forgiveness of mortal sins if it includes the firm resolution to have recourse to sacramental confession as soon as possible.

1453 The contrition called “imperfect” (or attrition”) is also a gift of God, a prompting of the Holy Spirit. It is born of the consideration of sin’s ugliness or the fear of eternal damnation and the other penalties threatening the sinner (contrition of fear). Such a stirring of conscience can initiate an interior process which, under the prompting of grace, will be brought to completion by sacramental absolution. By itself however, imperfect contrition cannot obtain the forgiveness of grave sins, but it disposes one to obtain forgiveness in the sacrament of Penance.

(My comment: These two above paragraphs recognize the two “mindsets” of people about to attend Reconciliation. One is the perfect state of mind, and one is an imperfect state of mind, but one that is recognized to be a step in the right direction. Notice there is not a third option, which is to go to confession as insurance or coverage over a pattern of ongoing sinning, either venial or grave sin.)

1458 Without being strictly necessary, confession of everyday faults (venial sins) is nevertheless strongly recommended by the Church. Indeed the regular confession of our venial sins helps us form our conscience, fight against evil tendencies, let ourselves be healed by Christ and progress in the life of the Spirit. By receiving more frequently through this sacrament the gift of the Father’s mercy, we are spurred to be merciful as he is merciful:

Whoever confesses his sin… is already working with God. God indicts your sins; if you also indict them, you are joined with God…
When you begin to abhor what you have made, it is then that your good works are beginning, since you are accusing yourself of your evil works.

(My comment: One of the biggest threats to the souls of millions of people today is that they think that grave sins that they are committing are venial sins. For example anger, blasphemy, envy, hatred, malice and sins against hope, love and faith are GRAVE sins. What follows is an example of a societal ill that people do not understand that it is a GRAVE sin, not a venial sin.)

2539 Envy is a capital sin. It refers to the sadness at the sight of another’s goods and the immoderate desire to acquire them for oneself, even unjustly. When it wishes grave harm to a neighbor it is a mortal sin:

St. Augustine saw envy as “the diabolical sin.” “From envy are born hatred, detraction, calumny, joy caused by the misfortune of a neighbor, and displeasure caused by his prosperity.”

2540 Envy represents a form of sadness and therefore a refusal of charity; the baptized person should struggle against it by exercising good will. Envy often comes from pride; the baptized person should train himself to live in humility:

Would you like to see God glorified by you? Then rejoice in your brother’s progress and you will immediately give glory to God. Because his servant could conquer envy by rejoicing in the merits of others, God will be praised.

(My comments: A venial sin would be a pang of regret felt momentarily and as part of “human nature” toward someone who is better off than oneself. All other forms of envy are a GRAVE sin, especially if it leads to a continual state of mind of envy or actions against the person who is envied. Then it becomes MORTAL and is a disassociation from God’s salvation. How many people do you know who are continually envious? They are in a state of GRAVE MORTAL sin. And there are no “offsetting insurance policies.” For example you cannot “pay off” envy you have toward a person by being particularly charitable to another person. There are no offsetting of sin and charity like a ledger book. That is an offense against God in the form of the Holy Spirit.)

1459 Many sins wrong our neighbor. One must do what is possible in order to repair the harm (e.g., return stolen goods, restore the reputation of someone slandered, pay compensation for injuries). Simple justice requires as much. But sin also injures and weakens the sinner himself, as well as his relationships with God and neighbor. Absolution takes away sin, but it does not remedy all the disorders sin has caused. Raised up from sin, the sinner must still recover his full spiritual health by doing something more to make amends for the sin: he must “make satisfaction for” or “expiate” his sins. This satisfaction is also called “penance.”

(My comment: Again, if you have wronged a neighbor, you must restore the relationship to both the neighbor completely and in total, and also with God. Lavishing donations on the neighbor’s favorite charity is not restoring the relationship with the neighbor. The sacrament of Reconciliation without actually fixing the harm done to the neighbor is not valid, especially if the harm to the neighbor is part of an ongoing condition of their suffering.)

1466 The confessor is not the master of God’s forgiveness, but its servant. The minister of this sacrament should unite himself to the intention and charity of Christ. He should have a proven knowledge of Christian behavior, experience of human affairs, respect and sensitivity toward the one who has fallen; he must love the truth, be faithful to the Magisterium of the Church, and lead the penitent with patience toward healing and full maturity. He must pray and do penance for his penitent, entrusting him to the Lord’s mercy.

(My comment: Obviously the confessor must not think that he has extra insight or ability to grant Penance that is beyond what Christ has intended. Penance granted by a personal “crime and sin enabling priest” are invalid, obviously, and incurs GRAVE MORTAL sin on both the confessor and the “would be penitent.”)

2092 There are two kinds of presumption. Either man presumes upon his own capacities, (hoping to be able to save himself without help from on high), or he presumes upon God’s almighty power or his mercy (hoping to obtain his forgiveness without conversion and glory without merit.)