text:
A model penitent
Mollie Wilson O'Reilly March 29, 2014 - 2:17pm
In connection with what I wrote here a few days ago, I must confess to being fascinated by this brief video clip -- see below -- of Pope Francis receiving the sacrament of Reconciliation at a Vatican penance service yesterday. He seems to have taken Msgr. Marini by surprise -- something Marini must be getting used to by now -- as Carol Glatz reports for CNS.
What a great idea -- a way to demystify both the papacy and the sacrament itself. Despite the joke about "Is the pope Catholic?" it does keep coming as a surprise to see the pope acting like just another Catholic.
That video led me to this one, from Rome Reports, of Francis talking about Reconciliation at an outdoor audience. For all that I've read about (and by) Francis, I haven't seen him speaking all that much, which is a shame, since his personal, one-believer-to-another style is especially obvious in his manner of speaking (even when you don't understand Italian). I also like his proposal that we think of the sacrament not as an obligation, but a right.
For the past several years the archdiocese of New York has had a day set aside in Lent and Advent -- "Reconciliation Monday," this year, the Monday of Holy Week -- when parishes are expected to offer confession for a significant portion of the day. It's meant, I think, to remove one obstacle to returning to the sacrament, by making it very convenient. It also restores a communal dimension to this very private sacrament. And I'm always grateful for the extra push to do my Easter duty. What about where you are: does your diocese do anything similar to encourage people to receive the sacrament of Confession? Does it pay off?
Commenting Guidelines
Several months ago I decided to mirror the pope's practice of going to confession every two weeks. It has been quite helpful to my spiritual practice.
I am quite taken by Pope Francis. It started last Holy Thursday when I learned he washed the feet of some young people in jail (I am a prison chaplain) including those of women and a Muslim. At every step the Holy Father has continued to inspire me to "press on".
I consider him a gift of the Holy Spirit to my Catholic faith which was struggling amidst the many difficulties, scandals and what not of the last several years.
He reminds me that it is important to remember that "we are all sinners" in need of God's mercy and that the Church is first and foremost a place and a people to encounter God's love in Jesus through whom God's love, mercy and forgiveness is bestowed.
I have recommended the practice of the pope and confession to others. While at first, they object, once they take it up - it opens up new vistas for them.
We have been blessed with Francis!
Every Monday evening in Lent, from 5:30 until 7:00 pm, each church in our diocese is open, and has at least one priest available for Confession. It's called "The Light is on For You", and began last year. It has been very well received.
There's no added confession time at my church this Lent. I've only actually been once ever, just before I was baptised (RCIA). I've never wanted to go back. Can't help thinking prayer with Jesus/God should be adequate for confession/forgiveness.
The diocese I live in also has a "The Light is on For You" campaign they run in advent and Lent, except I think it's on Wednesdays. I have no idea of how effective it is.
I am with Crystal when it comes to confession to a priest. It was never a practice I found helpful in the spiritual journey, in fact, it was quite the opposite at times. Since regular confession from childhood through middle age was generally either a neutral, unhelpful and unsatisfying experience, or even at times, a highly negative experience, I finally asked myself why I was doing it? I was an adult, no longer under the thumb of Sister or Father as I was when growing up, just following a habit inculcated in childhood, a habit based on the deliberate implanting of fear (of hell) in the young. It is a form of brainwashing of the young in some ways, and I have read that some are protesting requiring confession of 7 year olds before they receive First Communion. I agree - little kids should not be forced to do this in order to receive First Communion. So, I decided not to bother anymore. This was about 20 years ago and I haven't missed it at all. It is not necessary, as Crystal points out, as we are all quite able to talk directly with God, who is the one who forgives.
Crystal, you shouldn't have gone to confession before baptism. Whoever told you to do that was, uh, deeply confused. Baptism forgives all sin; the sacrament of reconciliation is only available after baptism. When I hear stories like this, I shake my head. How can anyone get this so wrong? It's basic stuff and hardly difficult to sort out. Every catechist and priest should know this.
Concerning Mollie's post, I'm inspired by Pope Francis's fervor and humility.
I'm not convinced, however, we need to celebrate this sacrament every week or two. Are we so often in a state of mortal sin? Really? Yes, I know the response: it's the way to perfection! Great saints feel even their little sins are big! Yet there's also a "devotional" use of the sacrament that lends itself to scrupulosity -- a danger to be avoided. What about the Lord's Prayer, penance in everyday life, the penitential act at Mass? If we act as though none of these things "count," and auricular confession is the one and only way we seek forgiveness and reconciliation in the Christian life, it's out of balance. The sacrament is a treasure. But it exists within this rich background. I do think that if we credit these normal aspects of penance in everyday life, then our occasional celebration of the Sacrament has a more wholesome context.
I've had a lot of really terrific experiences of the sacrament of Penance. I've also had a number of dull or mediocre ones, as I'm sure everybody has. Childhood was the dullest, because we were taught a pretty formulaic approach, but it got better later on. Perhaps it's because most of the time I've sought confessors whose counsel I value. Not that it's about counseling, but a certain trust in the wisdom of one's confessor counts for much.
That said, what I appreciate the most (and increasingly find it hard to find) is a good communal celebration. There's a lot of lovely stuff in the ritual that can be done when people gather together, but we rarely use it to capacity. It's true that the reform of the sacrament of penance was not as deep as some of the other reforms of Vatican II, because the fathers as a whole didn't understand clearly enough what the issues were. Still, they did some good things. Sadly, we have yet to see the fruits of this at the parish level, except in isolated instances.
Rite, someone else mentioned that to me too. Maybe I'm miixing it up in my memory, but I recall we in the RCIA class having to go to confession beofre Easter - it wasn't a voluntary thing but part of the class. I think partly why I remember it was that the married couple facilitators of our class didn't themselves go to our priest regularly for confession - they disliked him and wen to someone at another church ;) It was very midern - a small room with two chairs facing each other over a table. The funny thing is that zombie me couldn't think of anything to confess. It wasn't untill a few years later during a retreat that I realized a had a lifetime of bad stuff to deal with, via prayer.
Rita ==
Fine post.
@Ritta Ferrone
In this age of entitlement and ego we live in, where lack of charity abounds, especially on the internet, I hardly think "scrupulosity" is much of a danger for many, if not most.
Maria, I'd bet you are wrong. Any confessors/spiritual counselors reading this?
To support the notion that scrupulosity is not a problem, I remember reading an article concerning a discussion about whether intro theology/philosophy classes in Catholic colleges should focus on Ethics, in order to help make those disciplines more relatable to college first-years. There was a study cited that said that some enormous (>70%, maybe) percentage of students couldn't remember the last moral decision they had made. They just didn't think that the choices they were making had any resonance on a right/wrong spectrum. I really don't think scrupulosity is a problem. And besides, if it was, that would be evident to the confessor, and he's a great person to counsel the penitent on how to avoid scrupulosity. I think it would be worse for someone to be in scrupulous turmoil without another person to guide him/her.
Re: The timing of First Penance for children; I don't think it makes that much difference whether it's before or after First Communion. One of my sons had it before, the other after; and I didn't really see problems either way. I am glad they have changed the approach from the way we used to do it back in the day, when I was in grade school. We had a lengthy list for examination of conscience, and then the whole class got marched over to church on the Thursday before First Friday for confession. We were to confess the number and name of every sin; it was God-as-accountant. I do remember that I had some scrupulosity issues. I am thankful that now the emphasis is the mercy of God, and our relationship with Him. One of the reasons for introducing children to the sacrament of Penance is to give them familiarity with it so that when they get older and there are heavier moral issues, it isn't total terra incognito. Besides, baby steps; morality for children is such things as telling the truth, obeying ones parents, and being kind to others. It is good for them to know that when we mess up, God is waiting to help. To quote Isaiah, "Come, let us make things right."
As far as confession as an adult, it does foster a certain self-awareness. I don't go every first Thursday anymore. Probably should. But I do go 2-4 times a year. And it's always the same sins. One might say, "So it's not doing much good, is it?" However, the way I look at it is, these things have their roots in certain weaknesses. I think it is good to think about these Achille's heels in a serious way so that I can ask God's help with them. I imagine that since they are part of my personality I will be dealing with them my whole life.
Maria and Sam suggest that the part of my comment pertaining to scrupulosity may be fighting the last war. But consider this:
1. The young people who have little awareness of moral decision-making are probably not going to church anyway. (Remember too that Catholic colleges have a lot of non-Catholics.) Do you think you'll get this age group to go to confession when they don't even go to Mass? No, you won't.
2. The people most likely to increase their use of the sacrament are the ones who are already going to church. Dominant in this population is the older crowd that was schooled in a more scrupulous approach, and for whom O Lord, I am not worthy shades into worries about never being worthy. I've seen a lot of it. You can push their buttons and get them to confess more often, but it's not good pastoral care. The net effect is not to make them more holy but to make them more anxious.
Penitence has always been an integral part of the church. We are all sinners. But there is no theological justification for auricular confession. It was not a practice of the church until the eight century or so when the Irish monks introduced it. In many ways it has done a lot of good. While it has also been a source of terrible evil. Catholics for the most part stopped going to confession because of Humanae Vitae. The paradox is that there were fewer communicants when everyone was convinced that one had to go to auricular confession than when people stopped going.
Vatican II emphasized general or communal confession for good reason. This practice makes clear that we are all sinners. The words of Christ "whose sins you shall forgive they are forgiven" are more addresed to all the people of God who build up and forgive one another.
As a confessor I found that it could be an enormous source of Good. Mainly by getting young people away from a stifling interiority to lead more generous and fruitful lives. And for those burdened by a terible guilt it can be a real balm. Unfortunately, because our parishes are so founded on magic, we do not build a community. The only time the community seems to come completely together is at the Cardinal's Appeal when the Pastors, under pressure, make sure everyone makes a pledge. Other than that there is the only contact at the exit of Mass on Sunday, or at fund raisers.
As far as abuse in confession, in his new book, The Dark Box, Cornwall recounts countless abuses by priests of those who went to them for confession.
Nevertheless, auricular confession can be a positive experience with some Catholics. It would be preferable, I believe, if we built up our communities more where we can trulty build up and uplift each other.
Rita, I agree, few would find more grace in Reconciliation than in the Mass. But, I very recently graduated from a Jesuit school, and while our Church was packed for every student Mass, I know that Confession was never offered, even during Lent, except by a priest-advisor for a small Catholic club on campus. And I think many take seriously their identity as Catholics, and speak of their Catholicism as inspiration for careers and service; but some mix of Reconciliation not being offered and their lack of interest keep them from it.
As for your second point, I yield to your experience. It is certainly possible that many people were made to be scrupulous, though again, I think Confession is as likely to combat it, as to exacerbate it.
Kudos to Rita....another perspective:
I no longer "go to confession" nor do I encourage others to do so. I "celebrate the Sacrament of Reconciliation", and once you have experienced the sacrament celebrated well, there is no need to "encourage" you to do it again, it is something you eagerly look forward to! This change in verb is one (small) part of the change under my iceberg.
Catholics my age were never taught to associate the verb "celebrate" with the noun "sacrament". My catechism taught me that sacraments were "things" that the priest "administered" and that I "received". I received baptism, I received Holy Communion – which was separate from Mass
(and treated in a separate chapter by the catechism) – I went to Mass, or heard Mass, or attended Mass. I did not receive Mass (because Mass was not a sacrament). Like Mass, I "went to" Confession. The priest administered – and I received – absolution. In so far as confession was a sacrament at all, the sacrament part was simply the priest's absolution formula – which I never heard because he said it at the same time I was saying the Act of Contrition. In the Roman Ritual that I received as an ordination gift (the book which contained all the prayers I needed to administer the sacraments) there was a chapter on each of the sacraments; but there was no chapter on the Sacrament of Penance. The formula for absolution was printed inside the front cover. That's all the priest needed to know. Absolution and "the sacrament" were pretty much identical. The rest was "devotional" not a Sacrament.
As news began to come from Rome in the mid-1960s, I (a seminarian at the time) began to hear rumors that in the future sacraments would not be "administered" but "celebrated". I began to imagine what this might mean. I thought of ways in which one could celebrate the Eucharist, ways in which one could celebrate baptism, but I was stumped when it came to the Sacrament of Penance. How can one celebrate Confession?
My suspicion turned out to be correct. We cannot celebrate Confession. However we can, and must, celebrate a God who is all merciful and all loving. A God who simply (and literally) loves us to death. This is the intention of the current ritual (which you might not have experienced yet; it was only published in the USA in 1975 and changes in the Church don't happen overnight).
How to encourage people "to go"?
One way, is to tell them that "they have to." Guilt works for some people (but apparently not for 98% of Catholics!) and the article I was reading quotes the law.
There is, of course, that precept of the Church that says that we must confess our serious sins at least once a year. The trouble is that many people seem to no longer believe that they have committed a serious sin. We have lost our sense of sin.
A couple of comments – actually 3 – one for each sentence.
What actually is the current law? What do we find in the Code of Canon Law ?
(Canon 960) Individual and integral confession and absolution constitute the only ordinary means by which a member of the faithful conscious of grave sin is reconciled with God and the Church. Only physical or moral impossibility excuses from confession of this type; in such a case reconciliation can be obtained by other means.
According to this law, Rite One and Rite Two are the "ordinary" forms for the sacrament currently for those in "grave" sin. Rite Three is excluded as an "ordinary" form by this canon. [Some read the canon incorrectly and understand that it refers only to Rite One.]
The law states that this individual and integral confession of sin is required only for 1) Catholics, who are 2) conscious of grave sin, and 3) who are not excused by physical impossibility or excused by 4) by moral impossibility. [Note that the Code speaks of "grave" sin. The Rite speaks of "serious" sin. Neither speaks of "mortal" sin.]
The article "Go to Confession..." speaks of "serious sins" and comments that: "The trouble is that many people seem to no longer believe that they have committed a serious sin." This is, of course, a judgement call; no one can say how many Catholics have committed a serious sin. In actual fact, the more accurate judgement call – judging from the number of Catholics sharing in the Eucharist (and judging from what I hear in the confessional) – would be that serious sin is very rare.
"Serious sin" is not something we fall into and fall out of repeatedly. If "serious sin" is a complete rupture from our acceptance of God's love, it is sort of like divorce in a marriage. And divorce is not something you "commit" frequently. But I will "reframe" my judgment of the author of the article and simply admit that he probably has a very different understanding of "sin" than that I find in the New Testament.
But in actual fact, by the law, no one ever needs to confess "I missed my morning prayers," "I was angry with my husband," "I ate meat last Friday," "I missed Mass last Sunday because I was sick" etc. etc. etc. These might be things you would want to discuss with a spiritual director, but you never have to mention them by name and number in the Sacrament of Reconciliation. For most Catholics, a simple "I am sorry for my sins" or "I am a sinner" is all one need tell the priest in the sacrament. In fact, the very fact of coming is sufficient.
And even in the (rare?) case where there is serious sin, you do not need to confess it in contexts of physical or moral impossibility. Today, confessing to a priest is morally impossible for many Catholics because of their past history with the sacrament. In a parish with only one priest, someone who has to work with him day by day (e.g. the parish secretary, the director of religious education, the janitor, etc) might consider it morally impossible to confess to "their boss" because of how that would shape their day to day working relation. Moral impossibility is real, and covers many more circumstances than most people think.
(note......too much of the US *confession* experience has been influenced by our Irish roots which twists *humans are created good* to *well, they are really bad*; the stereotypical Irish scrupulosity; which turns the sacrament from a communal liturgy into a private act, etc. We need to get back to an earlier, historical tradtion and see this sacrament as an adult *action* and not part of some type of childhood education process. It needs to capture scriptureal symbols and meanings around metanoia, conversion, today's gospel story of a man born blind can now see (but at a deeper level, we all have our blindnesses; living water symbol (again at a deeper level); the liturgical gestures of healing; laying on of hands; the formula of forgiveness; that all sacraments (at their core) or actions of the community.
Then there is the hilarious Fr. Guido Sarduccin to put it all in perspective.
Misery loves company, I guess, because I was relieved to hear I am not the only one for whom Confession is a source of unhealthiness in my life. I do have a history of scrupulosity, and every time I go to Confession, it simply awakens that tendency in me. Anxiety and misery galore!
I haven't gone in about 4 years and feel guilty becuase my children never see me go (I told you I was scrupulous). But I just can't bring myself to do it and risk falling back into the cycle of unhealthiness and self-absorption. Because ultimately, that's what a lot of scrupulosity often boils down to---excessive worry about myself and my own salvation.
Do people who go to confession not ever talk to God about the things they confess? I mean, does going to confession take the place of prayer about those kind of things? I wouldn't want tp put a mediator between myself and God, I guess.
Crystal, the way I have always understood it; yes, you always talk to God first. Confession doesn't take the place of prayer about those things. It goes along with it. One definition of a sacrament is an outward sign of an inner reality. It is like Baptism, the parents have made the decision; or in the case of an adult, they have made the decision; a long time before the water is poured. The inner reality is always there first, if that makes any sense. The sacrament is the community aspect. The butterfly effect is that our actions always affect the community as well as ourselves.
Thanks, Katerine. The community aspect is one I hadn't thought of. But it seems that people believe the actual forgiving only happens at confession, not theough personal prayer? I read about people worrying that if they get hit by a ruck before they get to confession, they'll go to hell, etc.
As I understand it, if you sincerely pray to God and repent of your serious sin (or any sin), He has already forgiven you. It's like when Jesus healed the lepers and told them to go show themselves to the priests of the temple, in order to end their separation from the community.
Sam, thanks so much for your follow-up comment. I do agree, The situation you describe seems to be imbalanced in the other direction, and that is regrettable.
The conditions seem to be in place for a wholesome understanding of the place of the sacrament in that setting. Surely a community steeped in prayer and justice issues and the liturgy can make sense of the human need for God's forgiveness and the Church's ritual celebrations of God's mercy.
I go back to the rites. I think that the absolute privatization of rites concerning this business of sin and forgiveness has missed the boat. Probably those campus ministers say to themselves "the students could make an appointment to go to confession if they want." But this ignores the fact that we mostly process the mystery of sin and grace communally. Suppose a penance service accompanied a peace walk or experience of service to the people on the bottom rung of society's ladder? We might find a thing or two in our own actions and attitudes for which we desire forgiveness, as we wake up to the fact that we are complicit in "the sin of the world."
When I was growing up, the focus was still a lot on sexual sin, and the sacrament carries along this shadow of prurient interest -- going "into the box" to whisper your sexual sins that dare not be named out loud. I'm not saying there are no sexual sins, of course there are, but focusing all this anxiety on one area and forgetting the rest is deeply wrong too. I was reading in the paper recently about "bystander" training for college students, aimed at reducing the number of rapes and drinking-related accidents and so forth by empowering the friends of people who are engaging in risky behavior to intervene and redirect a dangerous situation. What a wonderful moral training about sins of omission, about being "my brother's keeper"! But do we bring that into how we look at sin and grace or celebrate reconciliation? No, not often enough, I think.
It is interesting, though, that the majority of Catholics, plus most non-Catholic Christians, do not want nor feel the need to confess sins to a pastor or priest. I doubt even the pope confessing publically will change that trend.
"I go back to the rites. I think that the absolute privatization of rites concerning this business of sin and forgiveness has missed the boat. Probably those campus ministers say to themselves "the students could make an appointment to go to confession if they want." But this ignores the fact that we mostly process the mystery of sin and grace communally."
Absolutely spot on.
Crystal --
We were taught that before confessing we must "examine our conscience", which was sort of systematically trying to remember all our sins. We were also taught that if you were sincerely penitent and told God you were sorry for you sin that you would be forgiven immediately, even if you were then hit by a truck. (I'm glad to see that other people here were taught the same thing.) But you still had to confess it.
Psychologically I think it's good to confess your sin out loud to someone else -- not just say "I did it", but I did it and I'm guilty of sin". Makes you realize that sin can have continuing effects, for one thing. Further, people aren't above fooling themselves, so having a priest who understands people well give you a little lecture which also can include encouragement to "sin no more" can also be a very good thing. And the absolution sort of validates that you are forgiven.
Of course, we don't want to confess. But it's good for humility.
Hi Ann,
I don't know - I think going to a therapist would probably be more helpful in assassing what one has done, the moral implications, the remorse, how to go on in a more positive fashion. But maybe I just think this because I wasn't raised as a Catholic.
Crystal --
If I"m not mistaken, some of the great psychiatrists, e.g., Jung and Freud (?), thought that confessing guilt could be highly therapeutic in removing burdensome *feelings* of guilt. But I don't think that guilt is simply a *feeling*, though I grant that there is a very distinctive feeling associated with moral guilt. Moral guilt is a state of soul which is a *lack* -- a lack of a relationship to what ought to be, very often a person. To be guilty is to be in a state of sin.
think it's very important to recognize this fact -- that *feeling* guilty is not the same thing as *being* guilty. Scupulous people *feel* guilty when they really aren't guilty. (I knew a psychoanalyst who said "If you *feel* guilty, then you ARE guilty". Wrong!)
It seems to me that the big difference between going to a therapist and going to confession is that a therapist can help one remove *feelings* of guilt that are inappropriate, while going to confession can help one to heal one's guilty soul that lacks a relationship to what ought to be. It enables you to restore a relationship that is lacking. This restoring a due relationship is what requires that we make restitution -- i.e., we must provide what was lacking before.
Yes, it can get pretty complicated. And that's why great novels are often about the complications of guilt and feelings of guilt, admissions of guilt and restitution and healing.
Yes, I see what you mean. But if you know you've done something wrong and talk to God about it, say you're sorry, and he forgives you, then: mision accomplished. After that has happened, I'm not sure why one would feel the need to go to confession, but if one did, it's that need that I think might be better dealt with by a shrink than a priest. Does that make sense?
"Of course, we don't want to confess. But it's good for humility."
The danger I see concerns not the young people or the older crowd that Rita Ferrone @11:43am speaks of, but everyday Catholics, myself included, in this country who, so quick to judge and condemn others, appear to be losing their sense of humility.
Just look at the kinds of snark, vitriol and bile hurled at the Church, the pope and really, anyone who disagrees with their line of thinking, and yet, they, we all call ourselves Catholics.
We could all use a lot more humility and mercy, and Pope Francis is reminding us that the Sacrament of Penance and Reconciliation, in all its rich and varied forms, can help us with that.
All this of course is premised upon the notion that every parish has a good confessor, which sadly is not the case, but that's another story.
But the reason many people don't go to confession is *not* that they aren't humble, it's *not* that they don't believe they ever do wrong things ... it is that they believe they can be forgiven by God directly through prayer.
Ann O, examining one's conscience is a very good practice and should be done every day if possible. I try to remember both the good and the bad of the day before going to sleep, and if I don't fall asleep in the process of this little examen, to pray about both!
Regular communal penance services that include a comprehensive examination of conscience are helpful. But going to confession to a priest is not a necessary component of the examen, unless one is proactively seeking insight and guidance. In that case, Crystal might be right that a therapist could be a better choice. Other good choices might be a spiritual director of some kind, or a trusted friend. Very few priests have the personal qualities and gifts needed to be good "confessors". If confession to a priest was a positive, healing experience that helped people gain insight as to the why of their sins, and helped people to grow spiritually, as well as to heal, the lines would be out the door. But the reality is that confession to a priest is seldom a good experience for most Catholics. That's why so few go.
I have been on and off with confession but have had, by and large, good experiences. I went this Lent and it was good. I try to go once a year but not more often than that. By now, I know what I have to do, and a yearly moral inventory and assessment is sufficient.
I think the examen of consciousness, a variant of the Ignatius's examen is good to do nightly. It provides balance and not excessive pointing to guilt.
Morality is different than moralism and does require teaching and it is a process. We strive to do the best that we can but we can and do fall, all the time.
A point that needs to be made is that you can only confess something that you know full well is sinful. You know through prayer and meditation. So, for example, if I practice contraception due to the fact that having a child would be injurious to my spouse in terms of health and that it is the most responsible decision for all considered, then I do not and have never confessed it. It isn't a sin.
Now, I know full well that people can be very adept at deluding themselves and can say the same thing about adultery. I think principles like fidelity to commitments (morality) are important virtues to teach and it is true that we are not always faithful to all of these and this is where we need help (mercy). But we do have to own that we do these imperfectly and sin has a social implication.
For the longest time for me the reason for not going to confessions was the discrepancy between my sense of right and wrong and the catechism's. On contraception, for example, but there are other examples. When you go to confession, you are supposed to "empty your bag". How can you confess to using contraception, when you have no sense of guilt and no intention of stoppping it? But how can you not confess it without making an incomplete confession? I am taking contraception as an example, but there are many other similar conundrums (often involving sexuality). More generally, the moral guidelines and priorities stated by our church leaders (excluding pope Francis) are significantly different from my own, so what use is it to go and present my sinful self to someone whose moral views are out of phase with mine?
Have you considered going anyway and telling your confessor exactly what you have written here?
How would he respond to your struggles? If he just resorts to more moralising and lecturing, would you challenge him? Can we, the laity, challenge the confessor when we feel he is failing at his duty, or when we feel we are not getting what we ought to have from said confession, which is, as the pope said, our right?
My struggles are similar to yours, and I have always wondered about these questions.
Crystal, in addition to reconciliation with God there is also, I think, a reconciliation with the Church. Healing our divisions that are also divisions from one another, trying to be one Body.
I've had a lot of really terrific experiences of the sacrament of Penance.
I've had one terrific experience once, with a priest who knew me well. Perhaps it was because he was aware of everything that I was not bringing up in confession, but it did not prevent him from giving me absolution. Then it seemed like a true reconciliation that gave a sense of possibility, the sense that this was a new start, the feeling that God is with us (not "with me" but "with us"), that what unites us is stronger than what divides us, and that we in the church can help one another in our struggle against sin.
But that was a one-time exception. I don't expect much from that sacrament. It normally leaves me cold, but I do my once-a-year minimal duty, just in case, to leave open the possibility that it will initiate a change. You never know.
Maria: no, I haven't. But on the rare times when I do go to confession, I could not possibly "challenge" the confessor. I am there to reflect on my own failings, not on his. It seems contrary to the mindset of that moment to start asking for "my right". Basically, I don't know what to make of that sacrament.
Obviously, this is an issue of moral theology, however, you cannot confess a sin that you have no awareness of being sinful.
I can conceive of this problem being particularly acute around marriage and remarriage for some cultures and people. A person is divorced and then ends up marrying civilly with someone. Technically and according to church teaching, they are in a state of sin and committing adultery. But i think very few would view it in this fashion.
This is where the "internal forum" comes in to play I suppose.
The overall principle is that we believe that the Church does have the authority to credibly and authentically teach what it has received from Christ and that it also provides the means for us to live that out through the sacraments and our participation. For our part, we do our best to live those out.
But I think that confession has been so poorly garbled and managed and handled that the issue is not so much people lacking a sense of sin (although that might be part) but the sacramental form needs some reform. My understanding is that in the Eastern church you can get spiritual counsel from anyone, lay, religious, and that confession is simply the formal absolution. But the process of growing in holiness is through dialogue with trusted and reliable people around issues that are deeply personal and difficult.
And let's face it, frequently those issues are sexual in nature although we skirt around those in public discussion like these as we are afraid of playing to traditional Catholic stereotypes. But even secular therapists are aware that at least some issues are in this area.
"challenge" might not have been the best word choice.
I was thinking more along the lines of telling the confessor, prior to his giving the absolution, "Father, I have another confession to make: What you have told me, what has happened here, how it all went, it didn't help at all. I feel nothing different."
Otherwise, I'm right there with you in that I don't really know what to make of this sacrament either. I still do believe it's an important part of our life of faith as Catholics, and therefore, worth struggling with.
George D and all --
Yes, the "mechanics" of Confession needs to be overhauled and the catechesis, but I think that most of all the whole concepts of sin and of conscience need to be looked at more fully. They are more complex than simply doing what is objectively wrong and then saying one did it to a priest. There is so much more to it than that. Which brings us the subject of grace, a topic we haven't even touched on here. I mean the sacrament as an added source of sacramental grace, of spiritual strength for the future. I suspect some here might have no idea what that is.
The complexity of the sujbect is why I brought up great novels -- it's because they can teach us what conscience and Confession and what mercy and forgiveness really involve. The greatest novelist in that regard is probably Dostoievsky whose psychological understanding of the subject is unparalelled. Imagine having him for a confessor! And, note, he was an Orthodox Catholic (hated the RCC, actually). Yes, the Orthodox get the laity involved in examination of conscience, which is a great idea IF the laity understands the subject well. For one thing, the priests can't possibly understand all the people in his parish as well as their friends and neighbors and co-workers do. The Orthdox just might have a lot to teach us about Confession. I woner if the ecumentical talks between us get eround to that.
But just improving what people think Confession is would be a great step forward. I read just yesterday a post by Fr. Longenecker, a conservative priest over at Patheos, about Confession. The comments were heart-breaking == any number of people have really grotesque concepts about the subject. See: Did you receive absolution or not? I'm not sure Fr. L. himself has a very clear notion of what is involved in the process. He didn't really answer the question.
Twelve-step programs offer an interesting perspective that I think applies to confession as well.
Step 4 is the "fearless and searching moral inventory", Step 5 is sharing this inventory with another human being. The accountability and responsibility for self involved in sharing it with another person is an important part of the recovery process. Another AA slogan: "We're only as sick as our secrets."
Jim H, --
Hmm. Very interesting. Does AA view alcoholism as something the alcoholic is responsible for? Or partly responsible for? (Complexity, complexity.) And this brings up the question of the inter-relations among our sinful inclinations -- how they play off each other. (Extremely complex. That's why we need stories an novels -- to learn about such things.)
Once more I have to repeat my recommendation] of the Buddhist meditative practice called "naming" or "noting" -- the one in which one concentrates on the psychological events that come and go in conscisoussness. Among the frequently appearing kinds of mental events are desiring, feeling, imagining, remembering, choosing plus any number of other kinds of mental events that can be part of moral experience. The practice trains one to see oneself as one actually exists, as one does in real life, in our actual inter-actions with the world. The practice teaches us better understand our own motives and choices, but it also sometimes reveals some good things about ourselves. At any rate, it teaches us to see ourselves more accurately, which is sometimes very difficult when examining one's conscience and the experience of temptation and choice.
Many here are comparing psychotherapy to confession. I find this a good comparison for many reasons. Having been the provider on both side I may bring something extra to the table. On of the most troubling aspect about therapist and priests is too many of them take a superior position. As if they are above it all and can do what they want. They also tend to be dictatorial and too many times absolutely controlling. There are many psychological groups which are just as controlling as religious orders. Where the leaders demand to control every apsect of a person's life. Whether it is who to date or marry or what employment to seek. In the extremes sexual liberties are taken. So this is a factor to consider in this discussion.
As far as the relationship of pedophiles to confession, Cornwall points out how the change by Pius X changing the age to 7 opened the door for priests to prey on children. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2554748/How-Pope-called-Pius-tur...
The concept of a priest "washing a person clean" has led pedophiles to continue unabated because of the recourse to confession. As with many there was no firm purpose of amendment.
Well, that didn't take long. I was wondering how long it would take for someone to bring up the issue of pedophilia.
Maria, Do you want to discuss the issue or ridicule bringing it up?
Further you might have seen it before if you had read my post on
March 30, 2014 - 12:08pm
It's one thing to say "He died for our sins" and another to say "He atoned for our sins" and still another to say He was "sacrificed" for our sins . The first is basically ambiguous because the word "for" has many specific meanings. On the other hand "atoned" and "was sacrificed" convey the notion that He suffered in our place and His Father said, "That's enough -- I'll take your suffering in place of the guilty ones'". It seems to me that an adult has reason to be more than miffed if that is not the intended meaning of the catechism. If the concept meant is more subtlle than that, the the catechism should say so or find some other, unambiguous terminology.
Which brings me back to my hobby-horse. The official RCC is too often willing to say one thing and mean another. When oh when will it start talking like an adult to adults with adult vocabulaires and understandings?
I was not ridiculing but actually, lamenting the fact that things have become such, through no fault of our own, mind you, that we can no longer have any meaningful discussion about our faith without having that tragic problem brought up.
So yes, I do want to discuss the issue about the sacrament of penance and reconciliation, about its meaning, value and implications as it relates to God's love, grace and mercy. But no, in this thread, I do not want to discuss the issue of pedophilia, sex abuse or how the Church is failing to address the issue properly.
The Eucharist as a sacrament of forgiveness.


text:
Self-help material, workshops and groups, individual counselling and more.
The Careers Service runs over 400 events every year, including employers fairs in the autumn term.
The Students' Health Service provide over 1200 appointments every week during term time.
The Chaplaincy offers a soup lunch every Monday during term-time, along with many other events.
Disability Services provides a wide range of professional support, guidance and services for disabled students.
Offering a place of welcome and pastoral and spiritual support to all members of the University.
A positive and unique health care experience for students.
A free, confidential counselling service for students.
Providing support and services for disabled students across the University.
Providing advice and guidance, information, events and vacancies to help you realise your aspirations.
A service to support vulnerable students and staff supporting those students.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Pax Obama, Part Deux
David Gibson January 18, 2013 - 3:50pm
Amazingly, the Republican fringe may have started to acknowledge reality: it backed down on the debt ceiling hostage scenario in which they basically held a gun to their own heads.Jon Chait explains here. But I think the main lesson is that by incremental steps Obama is forcing the GOP to recognize that they have to govern. Every small compromise they make is a surrender of their all-or-nothing fundamentalism. And a win for actually governing.Addendum: A Sully post at The Dish links to Adam Gopnik on the importance of passing some gun laws and thereby starting to change the culture of guns in the U.S., much as the cultural norms around driving drunk and using seat belts (and smoking -- who'd have thought Big Tobacco could be tamed?) have changed over the years. It's about promoting a "culture of life," as the bishops say in endorsing Obama's gun control proposals. Not one fell swoop. But changing the culture. By forcing the GOP to make any concessions the White House changes the dynamic of "cliff-diving" and hostage-taking and extremism to one that at least affords the chance to make government and society function.Now we can get back to the real news, which is that wild and crazy Notre Dame football team and its star player, Manti Te'o. The good news: he apparently got himself a real girlfriend right after the fake love of his life died so tragically. Bad news: they broke up. So it goes with rebounds.
Commenting Guidelines
Although Manti Te'o clearly invented some of the story of his nonexistent girlfriend, there are some indications that he really was the victim of an extraordinarily elaborate and vicious hoax taking in not just him, but his family. Check out this. Who knows what the full story will be, but I personally am not telling any imaginary-girlfriend jokes until there's more information.
Under Pax Obama can we also have more laws restricting abortion in order to change attitudes toward it? Then we would be moving toward the Seamless Garment. Andrew Cuomo seems to be going the right way on guns, but the wrong way on abortion. Let's embrace the Seamless Garment -- no capital punishment, no torture, no preemptive wars, no more permissiveness on guns and no more abortion.
Laws against/restricting abortion will NOT change attitudes toward it. Think back to the pre-RvW days with (1) offshore abortions for the well-to-do and (2) back alley abortions for the poor.All the laws in the world will not change attitudes toward something that women feel they are forced to do, either because of marital, economic or health status, or personal preference.
And then there is this re: Manti Teo --- http://www.ibtimes.com/sportsnet/manti-teo-gay-rumors-cautionary-tale-be... you imagine being a 21 (22 this month) year old closeted jock (**IF** HE IS) from a conservative Mormon Samoan background at Notre Dame, a school that only this last December (!) has agreed to allow the creation of a LGBT support group? More than one of us has felt the need in our earlier lives to create that all-necessary girlfriend to keep parents, aunts and other people off of our back with those who are you dating? questions. And we learned how hard it is to keep ones lies straight (pun intended).
Jim,"[P]ersonal preference?"
The Pew Forum's recent survey on abortion views ... http://www.pewforum.org/Abortion/roe-v-wade-at-40.aspxHas big tobacco been tamed?
I hope someone will be able to correct me on this, but I doubt it. The sad thing is that when you line up the votes for and against President Obama's gun violence initiatives, the majority of supporters of abortion will be on his side and the majority of opponents of abortion will oppose him. He did do one thing that was smart: He offered so many proposals that he may get majorities for some -- like background checks -- among those who are satisfied with getting their NRA points for opposing others, like assault rifles, but don't want to look like complete idiots.I'll be with the avid anti-abortionists tomorrow and will get a reading on their views on Obama's gun violence initiative. But overall, I suspect the conversation will end where it usually does, with my remarking that they can hardly expect Obama to support them on abortion when they can't name one blinking thing on which they ever have or ever will work with him.
Yes, Frank. There are some women who choose to have an abortion for no other reason than they do not want a child. To my thinking, that is personal preference.That is the one instance where I cannot develop any sense of understanding of the choice to have an abortion. Birth control is too easy to come by to be so cavalier about becoming pregnant.Also, I recommend reading this:http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2013/01/this-is-forty-the-...
Jim,Thanks for the link. It reminds me of this by Rabdall Balmer at NPR on why and when the republicans began to champion an anti-abortion stance ...http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5502785
The blood of unborn infants put to death cries out to God for justice. While an Illinois state senator, Obama championed legislation that would legally prevent any doctor from giving medical aid to an infant that survived an abortion attempt. That blood is on his hands, and nothing liberal Catholics can say will ever change that.
While an Illinois state senator, Obama championed legislation that would legally prevent any doctor from giving medical aid to an infant that survived an abortion attempt. Bob Schwarz,That is absolutely preposterous. It's malicious nonsense. There was no such legislation. If you believe there was, present some evidence.
Crystal,Well, if you don't like Republicans usurping the abortion issue, then by all means lets have liberal and progressive Catholics speak out against it. Now is the best time. Obama has won. Progressive Christians can use their laudable stance against violence to persuade the government and the culture that abortion is another form of violence that needs to be restricted. As Christians, we need to oppose capital punishment, torture, the fetish of gun ownership and abortion.
David Nickol,Bob Schwarz' contention has been discussed for years with evidence provided by both sides of the issue. Ultimately, it comes down to whose testimony you believe and whose fact-checking you trust.
Frank Gibbons,No, sorry. There simply was no bill "that would legally prevent any doctor from giving medical aid to an infant that survived an abortion attempt." I have debated the Illinois version of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act and the various other abortion bills Obama opposed, but there simply was no bill to prevent doctors from giving medical care to born-alive infants. At minimum, Bob Schwartz has badly garbled something. He should attempt to explain what he is referring to, because whatever it is, he has badly misunderstood it.
From the Gopnik piece:"Thanks to the efforts of MADD and the other groups, drunk driving became socially verboten, and then highly regulated,"Note the progression, from the grass roots and mediating institutions, and then to legislation.For the futility of trying to change culture via legislation, cf the war on drugs.
Perhaps the situation in Ireland with the death of Savita Halappanavar gives us an idea of what outlawing abortion looks like.
Savita's death was a horrific tragedy, but we now know that it was the malpractice of the physicians and not the law which killed her. Ireland--despite giving its prenatal children equal protection of the laws--has lower maternal death rates than most of Europe. Go Irish go.
"For the futility of trying to change culture via legislation, cf the war on drugs." Well, progressive and liberal Catholics could at least raise their voices against abortion as they with capital punishment and water boarding. Why not?I sense a reluctance among Catholic liberals (except for MSW) to address the problem of abortion. When Catholics, laity or clergy, speak out against abortion, they are accused of being mouthpieces for the Republican party. They're further castigated as only focusing on abortion but not on other life issues. If progressive Catholics won't take a stand against unrestricted abortion, why throw rocks at other Catholics who do? You accuse them of not having a seamless garment approach to life, but seem impervious to the idea that you may not have one either.
To return for a moment to David Gibson's main point ("...that by incremental steps Obama is forcing the GOP to recognize that they have to govern. Every small compromise they make is a surrender of their all-or-nothing fundamentalism. And a win for actually governing..."), it seems to me this is, if anything, more important than is generally recognized.For some decades now (at least since Newt Gingrich became leader of the House Republican caucus), the Republican party has concerned itself less and less with the business of functioning (and governing) as a political party in a representative democracy, and increasingly with the business of being a radical, ideological movement bent on removing all internal dissent and discrediting the legitimacy of their political opponents.Spending the next decade or so relearning how to function effectively as a political party would be, I think, a great benefit not only to Republicans but to the nation as a whole.
I thought Gail Collins was good this morning on Manti/Notre Dame:http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/19/opinion/collins-the-girl-of-my-dreams.... concludes her column with this:"This all occurred a couple of years after the Notre Dame team was involved in a genuine tragedy when a freshman from a neighboring girls college reported she had been sexually assaulted by a football player. The school did not order up an outside investigation. In fact, there appeared to be no investigation at all. After a period of dead silence in which she received a threatening text from another player, the girl died from an overdose of medication. Nothing else happened. Writing this week in The Washington Post, Melinda Henneberger, a Notre Dame graduate, noted that 'my alma mater held the kind of emotional news conference for the fake dead girl they never held for the real one, Lizzy Seeberg.'"Games over. Notre Dame loses."
Agree, Luke.The Republicans grab every opportunity to display their contempt for the President of the United States. "Speaker Boehner has turned down an invitation to every formal state dinner President Obama has heldsix in total. And that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell had turned down at least two. And that McConnell even declined an invitation last spring when the University of Kentucky mens basketball team was honored at the White House for winning the national championship.In 2011, the White House held a reception for newly elected members of Congress. Only 27 of the new Republican House members showed up out of the record freshman class of 87."--Smerconish http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/01/18/lets-hope-for-a-more-social-more-civil-mo...
"Well, progressive and liberal Catholics could at least raise their voices against abortion as they with capital punishment and water boarding. Why not?"Indeed.
Jim Pauwels, I'm pretty liberal, and I just did raise my voice against abortion just this morning. But I'll tell you this: Hanging out with the regulars can really bring a guy down. And "if Obama wants to stop gun violence, why doesn't he stop abortion violence?" Which is about the level of analysis I expected.
What to you conservatives want from liberals on the matter of abortion? Yelling and screaming names at those who honestly think that abortion is OK? Many of us liberals are against it and say so, so will you please stop making your overstated claims about who is against it and who is not.I'll believe the sincerity of the conservatives when they start showing some respect for their sincere opponents and try to change them with facts and solid arguments. The conservatives don't seem to think that's necessary. Just show a picture of a fetus smiling and that's all the argument you need to know what the fetus really is. But it's not. Grow up.
Saw this today ... "The Newtown Shooting Really Has Changed the Conversation on Gun Control, as Google Trends Can Show" by Rebecca J. Rosen .... http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/01/the-newtown-shooti...
David Nickol: was wrong about Obama championing legislation denying the medical care. What he did do is just as heinous: From 9/10/2012 Washington Post Fact CheckerIllinois lawmakers voted down identical versions of the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act in 2001 and 2002 before a new iteration of the bill came before the Senates Health and Human Services Committee, headed by Obama. This new legislation removed the controversial line about recognizing live-born children as humans and giving them immediate protection under the law. It also addressed Obamas concern about previable fetuses, adding a neutrality clause that said the measure would not affect the legal status of fetuses prior to delivery.Nonetheless, Obama voted against the new bill, which happened to be an almost exact replica almost to the word of a federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act that passed in 2002 without opposition in either politial party. (Updated: The vote in the House was by voice vote and the vote in the Senate was by unanimous consent.)
Correction:David Nickol: I was wrong...
Ann Olivier,I've never yelled or screamed at anyone who supports abortion rights. None of the people I know who oppose abortion yell and scream and people who support the right to an abortion. I've never even told those who support abortion or who won't speak against it to "grow up."
Senator Obama objecting to an $8 trillion debt and voting against a debt limit extension was good, but Republicans objecting to a $16 trillion debt and making feeble -- extremely feeble and weak -- attempts to slow the growth of debt to less than $1 trillion per year is holding a gun to their heads??By all means, let us acknowledge reality -- spending $16,000,000,000,000 that you do not have and imposing that debt on future generations is grossly dishonest theft. It was grossly unjust when Senator Obama rightly objected to it, and it is grossly unjust now that the debt is twice what it was then.
Luke Hill: David Brooks column in the Times yesterday (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/18/opinion/brooks-the-next-four-years.htm...) delved into this matter but from many would consider to be a more confontational perspective. Start here: "Its more likely that todays Democrats are going to tell themselves something like this: We live at a unique moment. Our opponents, the Republicans, are divided, confused and bleeding. This is not the time to allow them to rebuild their reputation with a series of modest accomplishments. This is the time to kick them when they are down, to win back the House and end the current version of the Republican Party. First, we change the narrative. The president ran in 2008 against Washington dysfunction, casting blame on both parties. Over the years, he has migrated to a different narrative: The Republicans are crazy. Washington could be working fine, but the Republicans are crazy. etc.In other words, out-Teapublican the Teapublicans, and give no quarter.
Progressive members of groups that are also on the receiving end of conservative "christian" invective on a regular basis tend to be less eager to jump on every cause that is not commonly held in society but is one of the poster causes for said conservative "christians."This is particularly true when these conservative "christians" want the government to outlaw what they cannot convince others is an immoral action. When they are as upset about rampant gun violence that is spawned by a culture of suvivalist isolation - particularly from "those people", me-first, and "kill 'em before they think they can kill me," then we might be persuaded to pay more attention.
Bender,The vote on the debt-ceiling limit has no material effect on the debt. Congress has already committed the United States to spend a given amount of money. Congress has also determined the amount of revenue the United States can collect. When the bills come due, they have to be paid, and the only way to pay them is to borrow. When Congress votes against raising the debt-celing limit, what it is saying is, "We have committed the government to spending X dollars, we have committed (limited) the government to collecting Y dollars in taxes, but Y is less than X, so the government needs to borrow Z dollars to pay the bills, and we refuse to let it." The president (and the executive branch) have to pay the bills. When Congress refuses to raise the debt-ceiling limit, what they are doing is saying to the president, "We determined that a certain amount of money had to be spentmore money than the United States hasand you have to pay that money. We know you will have to borrow the money, or the United States will default on its bills with potentially catastrophic results, but we are not going to let you borrow the money to pay the bills we decided the government should do unless you give in to our demands."The analogy to taking innocent hostages and demanding ransom is very apt. When Obama voted against the debt-ceiling limit in 2006, he and the Democrats were in the minority. As New York Magazine says:
When Obama, along with every other Senate Democrat, voted against raising the debt ceiling in 2006, they did so for the sake of self-serving political posturing, yes, but they also did so knowing that their GOP colleagues could and would dutifully raise it on their own.
Political posturing by a Democratic minority is one thing. Putting the country at risk of defaulting by the House majority is quite another.
Nonetheless, Obama voted against the new bill, which happened to be an almost exact replica almost to the word of a federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act that passed in 2002 without opposition in either politial party. (Updated: The vote in the House was by voice vote and the vote in the Senate was by unanimous consent.)Bob Schwartz,Thanks for your reply. The Born Alive Infant Protection Act Obama voted against when he was in a Democratic minority in the Illinois Senate and later killed in committee when the Democrats took the majority did absolutely nothing to protect the lives of viable born-alive infants or guarantee human care for non-viable ones. The federal version of the bill that passed did nothing either. Here is the statement by my congressman, Jerrold Nadler, one of the most liberal, pro-abortion-rights members of the House, at the hearings for the bill:
Today, we consider legislation reaffirming an absolutely established principle which is enshrined in the law of all 50 States that an infant who is born and is living independently of the birth mother is entitled to the same care as any other child similarly diagnosed regardless of whether labor was induced or occurred spontaneously.It was not and is not clear to me now why we need to legislate that which is obvious and clear in the law, that which most Members of Congress and the general public already assume to be the law, but if the majority is interested in a belts-and-suspenders approach, sobeit.
I do blame Obama to some extent for voting against the bill, but only because he was not clever enough to realize that the bill did nothing that Illinois law did not already require, butas the liberal House members realizeda vote against it could be seized on and its import seriously distorted by anti-abortion propagandists.
The above should read: "guarantee humane [not human] care for non-viable ones."I would be interested if Bob Schwartz or anyone else could cite an instance where either the Illinois or the federal Born Alive Infant Protection Act was ever invoked, came into play, or was credited with doing anything at all to protect or improve care for born-alive infants.
I received an e-mail from Newsmax " Vatican Sides With Obama on Gun Control' http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/Vatican-guns-control-support/2013/01/19/... I always find things from "the Vatican" confusing. I know that Lombardi is the communications person, but the article reads like it is what he, Lombardi, personally thinks, which wouldn't be "The Vatican" would it?
Frank G. --Glad to hear that you're not one of the many conservatives who yell and scream (things like 'MURDERER') at those with whom they disagree. But you did give us some reason to think that raised voices are the way to go when you said above at 9:49 a.m.""Well, progressive and liberal Catholics could at least raise their voices against abortion as they with capital punishment and water boarding. Why not?" The reason why not is because that is a rhetorical appeal. Noisy voices have nothing to do with evidence and reasoning. The law will not be changed until the culture changes, and persuasion is the only way to change the culture. Further, the culture will *not* be changed by misjudging the intentions of our honorable opponents, by name-calling nor by rhetoric generally. There are a few English speaking Catholic philosophers who have give arguments against abortion, but some of us do not find them convincing. Rather, some of us are persuaded that abortion wrong on the basis of some classical metaphysical arguments together with some contemporary biological and psychological ones. (I've recommended the Wolter/Sullivan article presenting the basics here at dotCommonweal a number of times. Go read them.) And just remember, there is nothing in Church teachings that tells us *which* anti-abortion arguments are sound.
And some are convinced that the best way to lower abortion rates is to concentrate on education and contraception rather than making all abortion illegal.
Back to Manti Te'o and Notre Dame ...How could a nationally known player on the Irish football team be so clueless and naive about this deception perpetrated, we are asked to believe, solely on the internet??? Strains credulity.I suppose it could happen, it's possible that a football jock could be so gullible as to fall for this "stunt." But, I'm inclined to believe that it is more likely that flying monkeys roost in the Golden Dome.I must admit that this whole story does remind me of a patient, who was a college athlete himself, I consulted with many years ago who in order to hide his homosexuality constructed elaborate imaginary architecture in his personal life all to conceal the hidden truth of his life. There were fantasy girl friends, real girl friends for dates at parties and events, even "vacation trips" to the Caribbean replete with souvenir photos on the beach. His parents, siblings, relatives and close friends had no inkling. This was a life deep, deep in the closet. The anxiety of keeping up appearances eventually crashed in on him. It took him years to recover and start a new life.I don't know about Te'o. Perhaps he was duped. But, there is a part of me that believes in a very painfully public way we are going to learn a lot more about Te'o's private life, a part of his life that he has perhaps struggled to keep from view, before this media storm is all over.BTW: Melissa Henneberger of the Washington Post, ND graduate, has already written about the parallels between Te'o treatment by university officials and that which was visited upon St. Mary's student Lizzy Seeberg who was sexually assaulted by a ND football player. Makes you wonder???
@Jim McCrea (1/19, 4:06 pm) Thanks for the link. In my view, Brooks' column is practically a case study in what is wrong with moderate Republicans, and why they have virtually disappeared over the past generation.First, the almost willful misinterpretation of history. In point of fact, President Obama has, in the past two years, signed into law roughly $2.5 trillion in deficit reduction---weighted more heavily towards spending cuts than tax increases. (According to the CPBB, another deficit reduction deal of $1.2 trillion would effectively stabilized federal debt as a % of GDP for the next decade.)Second, the apportionment of blame equally to "both sides", when Democrats (particularly President Obama) have repeatedly made clear their openness to 1) Republican policy ideas and 2) compromise, only to be met repeatedly by virtually unanimous Republican opposition to anything the president proposes. (As has been extensively reported, this is the result of a conscious, deliberate political strategy aimed at regaining political power that congressional Republicans adopted before President Obama took the oath of office four years ago.)Third, the blind unwillingness to recognize that until some (moderate?, pragmatic?) bloc of Republicans demonstrates their willingness to break with the party's radical majority---and to do so repeatedly---in order to negotiate compromises with Democrats on a broad range of issues (e.g., reducing unemployment, reducing the deficit, improving gun safety, reforming immigration, addressing climate change), the rest of the country will continue to view (and rightly so) Republicans as obstructionists unwilling or unable to engage in the normal give-and-take of democratic politics.If one were to re-read David Brooks' columns over the past year and make a list of the policy proposals he endorses, one would find that President Obama not only has expressed a willingness to compromise with those proposals, he also in many cases has expressed his outright support for those proposals. It is Brooks' unwillingness or inability to take "yes" for an answer that makes one question his intellectual honesty.
"First, the almost willful misinterpretation of history. In point of fact, President Obama has, in the past two years, signed into law roughly $2.5 trillion in deficit reductionweighted more heavily towards spending cuts than tax increases."Luke --Not only that. I read recently that since the beginning of Obama's first term the debt itself has been reduced by 10%! I hadn't seen that before. Makes you wonder about the general competency of American news organizations, not just Fox. They don't seem to know which questions to ask sometimes.
I read recently that since the beginning of Obamas first term the debt itself has been reduced by 10%! Ann,If that were true, congress would not have had to keep raising the debt ceiling limit, and wouldn't be about to raise it again. The national debt declined continuously from Truman's second administration through the Carter administration. It shot up during Reagan's two terms and Bush 41's term. It declined during the Clinton years to the point where at the beginning of Bush 43's first term, projections were that the debt would be paid off by 2011. However, Bush's policies (tax cuts, prescription drug benefits, two wars, etc.) instead caused the debt to climb again, and then the fiscal crisis hit at the end of Bush's second term, and the debt has skyrocketed ever since, including in Obama's first term. So Republicans and Democrats alike from Truman on were paying off the national debt until Ronald Reagan started running it up again. And yet the Republicans claim to be against big government.
Ann:"I read recently that since the beginning of Obamas first term the debt itself has been reduced by 10%!"Wow! Now I am curious: where did you read such thing? I thought it was common knowledge that Obama has been adding about a nifty trillion of debt each year, and that US public debt is about to go throught the "magic" 100% of GDP ratio. Moreover, if as Mr. Gibson says the Republican are going to let Obama "govern" US debt will reach Japanese level within a few years. Fortunately, according to Keynesian orthodoxy, all the spending will produce a wonderful economic recovery. then taxes will pick up the debt will go down. Or at least, this is what people like Prof. Krugman have been telling us for the last couple of years.
Sunday evening: five shot to death in a New Mexico house.http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/01/20/teenage-gunman-kills-5-in-new-mexic...
@Carlo Lancellotti (1/20, 8:37 pm) I suspect Ann Olivier (1/20, 12:43 pm) simply confused (or misspoke) debt for deficit. Federal debt is the total amount of money the federal government owes. The federal deficit (or surplus) is the difference between federal revenues and spending in a given fiscal year.The federal deficit for FY 2012 was $1.089 trillion, down from $1.3 trillion in FY 2011. For comparison purposes, the federal deficit for FY 2010 was $1.293 trillion, and for FY 2009 (the final budget of the W. Bush administration) was $1,413 trillion. http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_deficit_chart.htmlIn addition to the reduction in the (annual) deficit since the beginning of his first term, President Obama has signed into law roughly $2.5 trillion in additional deficit reduction measures to take place over the coming decade. The well-respected Center for Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) has calculated that another $1.2 trillion in tax increases and spending cuts would stabilize total federal debt as a percentage of GDP at 73% over the latter part of this decade (well below the "magic" 100% debt/GDP ratio). http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3885
1-20-13 "Sunday evening: five shot to death in a New Mexico house.' In NM, a 15 year old killed his pastor father, mother, and 3 siblings. His pastor father had the guns for house protection, one being a AR15. NRA professes the need for house protection ignoring the in-house slaughters and suicides. What is the ratio of in house deaths to protection? , including suicides 10-1? Anyone who has a gun in his house that is not in a locked safe should be considered a fool and be libel for damages. That stance should be the goal of the culture change.
Luke --Thanks for the defense, but I was somewhat confused and confusing. The point is under Obama spending has gone down significantly. And, no, that won't solve the long-term debt problem. That will require higher tax rates or more revenue from more people (higher employment) or both.
Carlo --Yes, most Keynesians did predict that stimulus monies would result in more jobs and more taxes from the new workers. However, in this recession there is a lot of money on the sidelines that is not being invested. I don't doubt it's at least partly because the conservative economists keep saying that Keynes can't work, so they keep their capital idle. Big mistake. No, I don't remember where I read that about the money on the sidelines, but I've seen it said more than once.
Ann:ah, ok, it is the conservative economists' fault. That's reassuring.Luke Hill:thanks for the link. I was a bit concerned because the CBPP does not say what assumptions they are making about GDP growth. They seem to get their GDP estimates from a CBO document, and CBO document are often optimistic. Considering that the US economy may well go back into recession in 2013 (in spite of 4 trillions of federal deficit since Obama took office. But that was partly due to the fact that conservative economists convinced people to keep their money on the sidelines!), I am less optimistic.
Carlo --Isn't it a principle of supply=side economics that lowering taxes will produce more investments causing more production? And isn't a corollary of this that when there is money to be invested the money *will* be invested? (Otherwise, lowering taxes wouldn't cause more production.)What explanation do you have for why the money on the sidelines isn't being invested? Fear of risk? That is probably part of it too. (Today's capitalists aren't the most courageous risk-takers.)
About the Author
David Gibson is a national reporter for Religion News Service and author of The Coming Catholic Church (HarperOne) and The Rule of Benedict (HarperOne). He blogs at dotCommonweal.


text:
Laura Dare
She'll sleep in incredible comfort and style with Laura Dare brand girls sleepwear. Your little girl will love to wear their luxurious designer designs and fabrics. Find boutique girls pajamas and baby pajamas - all at an affordable Sophias Style discount price!
Laura Dare Green Dot Candy Stripe Ruffled Pajamas Baby Girls Premie-9M
Our Price $41.99
Sale Price: $11.99
Shop our collection of designer Laura Dare pajamas.


text:
Academic Resources
Inquiries: Andrew Burns, Ph.D.
firstname.lastname@example.com | 330-244-3444
Additional Resources:
Chemistry Degree Overview
Students can complete 2-3 years of study at the Kent State Stark before transitioning to the Kent Campus to complete their chemistry degrees.
Chemistry Degrees & Majors
Bachelor of Arts in Chemistry
The Bachelor of Arts in Chemistry has fewer required courses than Bachelor of Science program, which allows students greater flexibility in choosing electives and additional concentrations. Although not intended for students planning to become practicing chemists, this degree program is well suited for those needing a strong chemistry background as preparation for other career opportunities.
The Bachelor of Science in Chemistry consists of four concentrations: Biochemistry, Biochemistry - Pre-Medicine/Pre-Osteopathy/Pre-Dentistry, Chemistry and Materials Chemistry. The B.S. in Biochemistry is strongly recommended for students interested in medical or dental school.
Bachelor of Science in Chemistry
- Program Requirements & Roadmaps
- Chemistry - Biochemistry
- Biochemistry - Pre-Medicine/Pre-Osteopathy/Pre-Dentistry
- Chemistry
- Material Chemistry
- Chemistry - Biochemistry


text:
Oct. 6, 2008
MALIBU, Calif. - Senior Diego Fernandez posted his first top-10 finish of the season as he placed ninth in a time of 25:39.17 at the Pepperdine Cross Country Invitational. As a team, the Matador women took fifth and the men finished seventh.
Also for the men, sophomore Juan Olea represented Northridge in the top-20 as he finished 16th in a time of 25:59.95. Tawei Ma placed 49th (27:31.57) Mark Simpson was 63rd (28:14.91), Eduardo Garsia was 80th (29:45.17), Marvin Gonzales (30:00.99) and Gustavo Hernandez finished 84th (30:19.52).
As a team, the Matadors posted a team time of 2:17:10.78 and accumulated 171 points.
In the women's 6k, Sandra Velarde was the fastest Northridge runner as the junior placed 23rd in a time of 22:23.49. Nanci Velarde was 27th (22:34.48) followed by Sharon Wilkinson in 43rd-place (23:44.74). Also for the Matadors, Marissa Crook placed 58th (24:34.81), Emily Tolbert placed 64th (24:53.50), Julie Brandin was 66th (25:30.49) and Leslie Ching finished 78th (26:50.97).
As a team, the Matador women posted 156 points running an average time of 23:38.21.


text:
10 Ways to Reverse Holiday Weight Gain—Fast!
10 Ways to Reverse Holiday Weight Gain—Fast!
You may have spent a month stuffing yourself silly and bingeing on cookies, cocktails and quiches, but by following our experts' advice, you'll be back in your skinny jeans in no time.SEE MORE
DON'T beat yourself up.We all know that a big part of the holidays is catching up with family and friends and eating comfort food like Mom's stuffing. And that's OK, says Michelle May, M.D., author of Eat What You Love, Love What You Eat. "Enjoying the holidays and being too busy to work out comes with the territory, and it's nothing to shame yourself about." Accept that and move forward.
DO keep eating.After binge eating for the past month, you may feel like skipping meals entirely. But that will only make you hungrier, says Louis J. Aronne, M.D., author of The Skinny: On Losing Weight Without Being Hungry, which will make it harder to stick with a healthy eating program. The day after a calorie blowout, make sure to have protein in your breakfast—eggs, cottage cheese or yogurt—to satisfy your appetite through the day.
DO get moving.The extent of your movement during the holidays may have been limited to raising your fork, but it's important to get moving now. Exercise not only burns calories but also puts you in a positive mind-set, which can help you make smarter food choices, says Joy Bauer, the Today show's nutritionist and author of Your Inner Skinny: Four Steps to Thin Forever.
DON'T eat the white stuff.Cut out white bread, crackers and bagels from your diet. When your body isn't used to the extra salt and sugar, it holds on to a lot of water, says Bauer. "Once you get rid of that water weight, your energy levels come back up." Even better news: You'll start to feel a difference in less than 48 hours!
DO put your goals on paper.Give yourself a specific goal, and write it down, says fitness expert Frank Sepe. "Once you write it down, it becomes real and verifiable." Just saying you want to lose five or 10 pounds isn't specific enough; saying you want to lose five pounds by February 1 is. And as long as you're in the writing mode, make sure you write down all your workouts and what you eat. You'll be surprised by how much a commitment to logging your meals reduces mindless eating.
DON'T forget your vegetables.Vegetables are natural appetite suppressants, says Aronne. Bread, on the other hand, is an appetite stimulant, which is why you'll usually find it on the table in restaurants.
DON'T keep holiday leftovers.After the holidays, get rid of all the holiday food. "If you're going to lose weight, you have to get rid of the temptation," says Sepe. Replace the cookies and fruitcake with fruit and healthy snacks.
DO plan, plan, plan.Deviating from your get-healthy goals is harder when you plan out your workouts and meals. "If you know you're going to be on the go, bring your own food," says Sepe. Carry some fruit or an energy bar when you're running errands, so you don't hit the drive-through. If you know you get hungry later in the evening, plan for a small postdinner snack; then brush your teeth and "close" your kitchen.
DO hit the bottle.The water bottle, that is. Valerie Orsoni, founder of the weight-loss program lebootcamp.com, says that most of the time we think we're hungry, we're actually thirsty. In addition to helping you feel fuller, water also helps flush out the "bad" stuff you've been eating as you transition back to a healthier lifestyle.
DO be patient.Changing your diet also changes your body's weight-regulating mechanisms, says Aronne. This makes you hungrier, and it makes it more difficult to stick to your healthy diet.


text:
This 2 in 1 Mattress features an organic waterproof surface on one side and a quilted cotton surface on the other. As baby grows into a toddler bed you can choose which side of the mattress best suits your needs.
Features & Benfits:
- Promote a Healthy Environment for Your Baby or Child Baby and Children's mattresses typically use materials such as vinyl/PVC and polyurethane foam which release questionable chemicals over time. These materials and chemicals have been eliminated in the No-Compromise Organic Cotton Mattress.
- Dual Firmness Design
- TOP - Firmer Waterproof Side for Infants - Features the same luxurious waterproof organic cotton cover as our Ultra model providing a firm flat surface for infants and waterproof protection for bed wetters.
- BOTTOM - Softer Quilted "Grown Up" Style for Toddlers - Features a luxuriously quilted organic cotton bottom cover for a more mature mattress surface resembling a conventional adult mattress. Please note that this side is not waterproof and would require the No-Compromise Organic Waterproof Pad for full waterproof and dust-mite protection.
- Organic Cotton Filling Mother nature provides the best materials for a healthy and comfortable sleep. A crib mattress made with organic cotton promotes a healthy and more chemical-free sleeping environment. Cotton is an ideal filling material that is both natural and renewable. Organic Cotton is unbleached, undyed, and grown without synthetic pesticides, herbicides, or chemical fertilizers
- Firm Support Heavy-duty 252 coil orthopedic innerspring provides ideal support in accordance with pediatrician and Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) firmness recommendations. In addition, heavy-duty border rods add strong side and edge and center support. Designed for a snug fit.
- Fire Protection Cotton does not burst into flames or release deadly fumes when ignited (as compared with polyurethane foam). Exclusive fire protection system features a non-toxic and naturally derived fire barrier system that is safe and effective. It meets and exceeds all Federal and State flammability standards without the use of potentially harmful chemicals.
- Heirloom Quality Construction
- Premium components & exquisite finish
- Standard crib size (27.75" x 52" x 6"). Also fits toddler bed
- 252 Coils
Gift Wrap not available.