Prolife common ground with Obama Administration?

This just aired on Thurs night (5/28/2009) and I randomly stumbled upon it on CSPAN (which I don't normally watch at all!)

It's a public exchange of views (not really a debate) at Catholic University of America with the topic: “The Obama Administration and the Sanctity of Human Life: Is There a Common Ground on Life Issues? What is the Right Response by ‘Pro-Life” Citizens?”

It's interesting since one of the presenters is Dr. Doug Kmiec who argued publicly and strongly that faithful Catholics can vote for Obama in the last election and is seen here still generally supportive of Obama and his administration. Both presenters are Catholic lawyers and professors and even though it's not a debate, it's interesting to see both sides articulated so clearly before each other. Take a look, it's only about an hour. And yes, this matters for you still in high school because you SHOULD be voting in the next presidential election in 4 years! And Catholic or not, as residents of the US, we're all under the administration of President Obama.

Catholic University School of Law presentation

Letters to Arthur: Indulgences

This might be helpful for some in understanding indulgences: (Pat came up with the title)

Alright guys, just jotting down my thoughts on this, it's not very organized, sorry about that :P But it's long, sorry about that too!! But I hope it helps to clear some stuff up!

To understand indulgences, we have to understand the Sacrament that it is tied to: Reconciliation also known as the Sacrament of Penance. To understand that Sacrament, we have to understand Sacraments in general (what they are, what they do, etc.) and sin.

I’ll cover briefly sin, Sacraments in general, then the Sacrament of Penance and then we’ll dive into indulgences.

Sin we know is anything that is a turning away from God, in our thoughts, words, and actions. To have any sin keeps us away from God because He is perfect. From both the Bible as well as our own experiences, we know that sin not only keeps us away from God, but also from each other (other people, especially the ones we love the most). We see this in the original Fall between Adam and Eve, and then with Cain, Lot and his wife, etc which is a unnatural (as God meant us to be) way of relating to other creatures. So there is a twofold effect of sin: First, especially grave sin keeps us away from God so much so that we may even be denied eternal life. Second, sin also gives us unhealthy attachments to creatures (from inanimate objects to other human beings, to even angels rather, usually demons). I like to think of it like if you do something wrong, you are: 1. guilty, and 2: suffer the consequences. Scott Hahn has the example of if you drove your car into someone’s home. God’s forgiveness is so great, He doesn’t just forgive you, He asks you to be in His family and adopt you. My addition to that is, okay you’re now an heir and a part of the family that’s living in the house, but the house has a huge hole where your car ran into that still needs to be fixed. That’s the consequence.

The other thing to keep in mind about sin is that since God is all good and perfect, every sin offends not only the person or persons we sin against, but we sin against God as well. (another way to think about the double effect of sin).

Sacraments briefly are just outward signs of inward grace that effect (actually make happen) what they symbolize. The Sacrament of Penance of Reconciliation then is God forgiving a person. The priest then stands in the person of Christ as it’s Christ that forgives the penitent through the priest. (This does NOT mean this is the ONLY way God forgives sins, but it’s the normal way Jesus instituted because God is not limited by the methods He chose to use to interact with us, but we have to keep in mind He CHOSE to do it that way). So when the Christ forgives us through the priest, our guilt is taken away. We are no longer guilty of the sins we committed, because of Christ’s sacrifice on Calvary. However, we live in time and space and we have consequences. The consequences of sin is not JUST the act of the sin (like the hole in the house you ran your car into), but also that sins effect on ourselves! We know from experience that the more we sin, the easier it is to sin next time. Which leads inevitably to the “hardness of hearts” that Jesus seems to really dislike. That’s one way of looking at what’s termed “temporal punishment” of sin, that not only do we ourselves have to deal with, but those around us and especially those we love and love us. Versus “eternal punishment” which is from the guilt of the sin itself. That’s why when we receive the Sacrament of Reconciliation the priest declares that we are forgiven and then gives us a “penance.” An act to remit the temporal effects of the sin. For example, if you stole 10 bucks from your mom, your penance could be to give it back. For most sins, these sorts of actions are impractical, many times impossible (like you stole 10 bucks, but you spent it on candy which you ate). So prayers or other devout acts are prescribed so that we are less attached in the unhealthy way that the sin causes to us by drawing to God and asking for His help. The act of trying to repair our relationships with those we’ve wronged is called “satisfaction” which is usually also included in the penances.

I hope we won’t have to go over the Biblical references about the above info. There is also the aspect of the salvific role of the Church in our lives. Since we are “sensual” people, we learn, interact, etc. in and through our senses. (This is one of the reasons for Sacraments) It makes sense then that Christ chose to proclaim the Good News to people and bring people to eternal life through the Church, although we know it’s not the ONLY way God can do those things.

Now, indulgences. Indulgences are for those sins where the temporal punishment was not complete. They can be for ourselves as well as for those who’ve died. Since we know that God is perfect and to be in His presence eternally means we must be perfect, without any sin and without any “stains” of sins (attachments to any sin). So that means when we die, there must be a purgatory where these attachments to sin that weren’t purified in our lives must be purified. In our lives, even when we receive the Sacrament of Reconciliation we forget some lesser sins but the forgiveness is for ALL our sins we’ve committed so far. So there may be some temporal punishments that weren’t worked on in our life that would need to be purified of after we die.

So we see how indulgences benefit us in a very real temporal (lessens the “time” in purgatory) and spiritual way (conforms our lives and ourselves to be more like Christ). A good reference would be Eph 17-24, where we have real actions prescribed by Christ’s Church to “put away” the old and “put on the new self.” Formally speaking though, there is no such thing as time in purgatory because purgatory is after our lives on earth and so is in the eternal, which cannot be measured in time because it is what some philosophers and theologians call “aeviternal” or infinite in one direction. (Whereas eternal is infinite in both directions so only God is eternal, no beginning and no end). But we speak of purgatory in time because we live in time for now and it’s hard to imagine otherwise.

But there’s the issue of indulgences benefiting those that have already departed. This goes into the whole “treasury” of the merits of Christ. But from what Paul said, Col. 1:24, we can “fill up” our merits to Christ’s, adding up the merits. And so we can gain indulgences for those who’ve past and are in purgatory.

The bad wrap indulgences have was the "sale" of them in the old days. This was understandable because if your penance was to donate some money, it could easily become something like "donating extra money this month can be counted as an indulgence." and so this can be interpreted as "buying your way out of purgatory." Was this abused? of course! the priests and even bishops are human, especially when money is needed for good purposes or sometimes even not so good purposes (personal greed of a priest of bishop). And with publicity like this NY Times article, we can see that not only is the general public not aware of what an indulgence is, but so is the average Catholic! (which is really sad). But it indeed is a grave sin to actually “sell” an indulgence or any other holy article (blessed things, or Sacraments and sacramentals) for profit, which is considered Simony after Simon the magician from the Gospels. But the abuse of these things, including indulgences does not make the teaching invalid.

Okay, this is long enough and I’m sure reading all this is some form of “purgatory” :P Anyway, these are just my thoughts based off the Compendium (PAT, you have a copy of this!! Start reading it!! Hahaha) and the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Here are the quotes and references for more reading if you’re interested below. I’ll also give you the link for the indulgence I’m actually planning to obtain for my grandma who just past away a few days before this Easter. I would also recommend, (I should have put this at the top before you read this) stuff from Scott Hahn, who’s WAY more Biblical than I.

Links below:

• Compendium 312: Indulgences are the remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven. The faithful Christian who is duly disposed gains the indulgence under prescribed conditions for either himself of the departed. Indulgences are granted through the ministry of the Church for which, as the dispenser of grace of redemption, distributes the treasury of the merits of Christ and the Saints.

• Ref: CCC1471-1479, CCC 1498, section on Sacrament of Penance right above that section

• Scott Hahn phone interview about Indulgences

• If you REALLY want to get Biblical with Scott Hahn, but it’s pricey :P

• Declaration of a special indulgence in honor of St. Paul on what would be his 2000^th birthday!!

A Conversation with Peter Kreeft

I was really touched by this interview with Peter Kreeft. Some of you might recognize that name as the author of many of the books that we young adults recommend you to read.

As usual, Kreeft is extremely thoughtful and accessible at the same time. Sure, you might have to set aside 10 minutes to read it, but it's definitely worth it. I love how he doesn't always answer the questions posed to him in its immediacy, but takes time to look behind the assumptions. If you don't have time to read all of it, make sure to check out his response to the questions about cafeteria Catholics, reconciling the Church's teachings with personal beliefs, hook-up culture, and gay marriage.

Bishops can er in teachings?

This article is interesting.

It shows that bishops not in communion with the Pope can make errors in faith and morals! As was demonstrated by the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, the highest Church authority in Canada for Canadians. And no, it's not because they're Canadians! Even though it was authoritatively given by the rightful shepherds of Canada, it was made in error.

So in 1968, after Pope Paul VI issued Humae Vitae, an encyclical that had authority over the Universal Church that made the final definitive statement on the morality of the use of contraception (if you don't know what it said, basically: artificial contraception is intrinsically evil), the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops got together for a Plenary meeting and issued a statement called now the Winnipeg statement, and in it contained parts (paragraphs 17, 25, 26, 34) that spoke quite contrary to the clear teaching in Humanae Vitae . The statement itself along with highlights.

And now, after 40 years, we can take a look back at the aftermath and the prophecies that Pope Paul VI predicted a whole generation ago. The Canadian Catholic Church has had to recover and even supercede the original Winnipeg statement with one on the 40th anniversary of the prophetic Humanae Vitae.

Read the article!

Since Colin's going around posting other people's work, I'm gonna return the favor and post his response to an email question on purpose of our lives (in response to whether or not evangelization is the purpose) and a response to a conversation about absolute truth in relation to different religions:

I will take this from the Baltimore Catechism (old school catechism we used before the new catechism of the 90s and today).

"God made me to know Him, to love Him, and to serve Him in this world, and to be happy with Him for ever in heaven."

The idea of evangelization is part of this purpose in that we are called to share God whom we encounter in the person of Christ. But
this flows from this premise of knowing, loving, and serving him. So your answer was good. If the center of one persons faith is
evangelization, well it will eventually dry out because it is no source of life in itself. Rather evangelization flows from
encountering Christ and wanting others to encounter Him as well.

Oooo...I am glad I get to answer before Henry. There is something nice about being 9 hours ahead for once. Jesus Christ fulfills Judaism.
Judaism prepared the way for the full revelation of God in Jesus Christ. Make sense? God basically revealed himself in stages. Moses
sees something of God and receives the commandments and we also have the other prophets who give us part of who God is. Jesus Christ is God
and reveals God in his person, through his words and deeds. So we do not say Jesus came simply to reform Judaism. That is false. Judaism
prepared the way for the coming of Christ. I would not live with the reform idea. :)

I am glad you are questioning what your mom says because she is in a real way, reflecting the modern ideology that all truth is relative
and whatever truth we have is just for us. The diversity of religion does not mean they are all true. Rather we believe and it is true that
there is but ONE truth. All other religions have SOME truth in them but the fullness of truth we find only in the Catholic Church. It may
sound arrogant in todays world but that is the truth. Buddhism has a good sense of morality but they fail to understand that suffering it
not something you simply eliminate from your existence by living a certain way and eliminating desires but rather you encountering in
suffering Christ himself who suffers for us and with us and suffering becomes salvific. Ok totally different topic.

Hmm...maybe you should have listened to my second truth talk...haha. It is confusing but here is the thing, almost every religion claims to
be true and most reject other religions as false. So if you say all religions are true you are in contradiction because they mostly claim
they are true and others are false. But where the Church is different is that not only do we claim to be true but we, as you look through
the teachings of the Church and understand the beauty of it all, we are actually true.

Part of the way to see the Church as true, above and over all other faiths, is to see if it answers the deepest desires of the heart. Does
it satisfy your desire for happiness, for love, for truth, for peace, for beauty, for justice, for mercy and so on? Does it make sense? What
else can answer the questions of suffering and evil in the world without...copping out in a sense? This is also a matter of faith but I
think as you continue to look at your Catholic faith, you will see that it is not something that you were simply born into but a truth
that has been revealed and continues to be revealed to all people and will until the end of time.

If you want I can try to email this talk to you when I am back in Rome...I think it was pretty good when I gave it to a Young Adult
Group...

Ok Henry and Pat...all yours...correct me if necessary...haha
--
Colin

Absolutism vs Relativism

The High School Retreat (good times!) this past March generated a lot of questions and discussion about absolute versus relative truth. Some of you peppered us young adults with questions and were appeased, whereas others have either forgotten or are still not quite satisfied. While I know that our profound wisdom can be awe-inspiring <*cough*>, there are still some of you who would prefer a more eloquently robust philosophical, theological, and academic argument.

For this I'd like to defer to my homie Peter Kreeft. I don't actually know him, but he's a stud and I wish I did. You can either listen to his audio lecture or read the transcription of it depending on the type of person you are. Yes, there actually are really smart people who believe in absolute truth. It's not just your CM teachers. Study up and change the world ya'll.