And
miles to go
by Bishop John C. Nienstedt
After presenting to a local
CCW council a reflection on our current Plan for Parishes (i.e. the how
and the why behind the concepts of an Area Faith Community or an Oratory),
I entertained questions from the audience. One lady related a particularly
difficult conversation which she had had with an older man whose parish was
transitioning to oratory status. So "inconvenienced" was he in having
to travel to another neighboring parish that he threatened to join another
denomination altogether. How, the lady
asked, do you respond to this question of "inconvenience"?
I guess I begin
answering
that question with another, "When did our faith in Jesus Christ and His
Body, the Church, ever become a matter of ‘convenience?’" The heart of our
Catholic belief lies in the meaning of the Lord’s Cross without which the
Resurrection would not have happened and, as
Yet, we live in a society
that has placed the value of convenience ahead of even religious truths. Convenience gives rise to the fast food
industry. Convenience explains the popularity of the internet and cell phones.
Convenience justifies commercial stores being open on Sunday. Convenience has
likewise given us "no-fault" divorce.
No wonder it
is so difficult in today’s American society for the Church to preach a
message of
self-sacrificing love, the discipline of virtue and a mastery over our
passions. All of this requires effort, at times heroic effort. None of it falls
under the guise of "convenience."
In 1973, the Holy See
promulgated a new order of the Rite of Penance. One of the unique qualities of Rite II was
the introduction of a communal reading of Scripture, a communal examination of
conscience and a communal acknowledgement of sin. True to the nature and history of the
Sacrament, however, was the insistence on individual confession of sin with
individual absolution.
General Absolution
was
reserved for emergency situations when one would not have another opportunity
to confess for a long time (defined as a month or more). Liturgical innovators
suggested, however, that General Absolution should be a more commonly
celebrated form of the Rite, which led to its widespread use because it was so "convenient." This was not the
intention of the Church’s theology nor, for that matter, the intention of the
Vatican II documents, as a close reading will verify. But the misuse of the
Rite has led to confusion about the sacramental nature of grace, a general
denial of the seriousness of sin, a lessening of the importance of the
priesthood and a loss of countless opportunities for spiritual growth. In my
humble opinion, these results are the work of the Evil One.
But, you know,
you do not have to take my opinion on this. One only has to turn to Sacred
Scripture: On
that first Easter Sunday, despite locked doors, Jesus appeared to his apostles,
bidding them "shalom," that reconciling gift meant to overcome their
abandonment of Him in His hour of need. Within that very context of His
forgiveness of them, Jesus said: "Whose sins you shall forgive, they are
forgiven. Whose sins you shall retain, they are retained."
The power of giving or
withholding forgiveness, then, presumes that the apostles had knowledge of what
was to be forgiven or not.
The grace of new life offered
in the Resurrection permeates all of reality.
Yes, one can go into a corner and ask God’s forgiveness, but this is not
what Jesus asked us to do. Do we take Jesus at his Word or do we merely accept
what happens to be more "convenient"?
In contrast to secular wisdom, love not only means having to say you are
sorry, it also means showing the depth of that sorrow in an incarnational way.
Again, we look to the
Scriptural evidence of Jesus’ ministry: He healed groups, he multiplied the
bread and fish for the many, but whenever He forgave sins, He did so
individually, one-on-one, one at a time.
Other Scriptural influence to
ponder:
1 John 1:9 "If we confess our sins, [God] is faithful and
just and will forgive our sins . . ."
Romans
James 5:14-16 "Therefore confess your sins to one
another . . . that you may be healed."
This Scriptural testimony is
supported by early Church writings: The Didadie,
the Letter to Barnabas, the Letter of St. Ignatius of Antioch to the
Church at Philadelphia in Asia Minor, as well as the Letter of St.
Clement of Rome to the Corinthians.
The bottom line here is that
there is no theological justification from Scripture or Tradition to justify
the ordinary use of General Absolution.
That being said, I also
understand that those who innocently participated in its use for years, may now
feel embarrassed returning to the practice of confessing their sins to the
priest. I ask our priests to be especially sensitive to their dilemma and to
offer compassionate assistance at every opportunity. I also ask that priests
publicly acknowledge the problem and invite the faithful to confess their sins.
Indeed, the
celebration of the Sacrament of Penance is possible only through Christ’s
self-sacrifice on
the Cross. That sacrifice was not "convenient" by any standard, and
precisely in that way, it was redemptive!
God love you!
December, 2006
Falta Mucho por Recorrer
Por el obispo John C. Nienstedt
En 1973, la Santa Sede promulgó una nueva orden del Rito de Penitencia. Una de las cualidades únicas del Rito II fue la
introducción de una lectura comunitaria de la Escritura, un examen de
conciencia comunitario y un conocimiento comunitario del pecado. Fiel a la
naturaleza y a la historia del sacramento, sin embargo, fue la insistencia con
respecto a la confesión individual del pecado con absolución individual.
La absolución general era
reservada sólo para situaciones de emergencia cuando uno no tuviera la
oportunidad de confesarse durante mucho tiempo (defínase como un mes o más).
Las innovaciones litúrgicas sugerían, sin embargo, que la absolución general
debería ser una forma más comúnmente celebrada del Rito, que condujo a su uso
generalizado porque era muy "conveniente". Ésta no fue la intención
de la teología de la Iglesia ni, para ese tema, la intención de los documentos
del Vaticano II, lo que se verificaría con una lectura cuidadosa. Pero el uso
erróneo del Ritual ha conducido a la confusión sobre la naturaleza sacramental
de la gracia, una negación general de la gravedad del pecado, una minimización
de la importancia del sacerdocio y una pérdida de incontables oportunidades
para el crecimiento espiritual. Que en mi humilde opinión, esos son los resultados del trabajo del maligno.
La gracia de
la nueva vida
ofrecida en la resurrección impregna todo de realidad. Sí, uno puede pararse en
una esquina y pedir el perdón de Dios, pero esto no es lo que Jesús nos pidió que hiciéramos. ¿Tomamos la palabra de
Jesús en serio o simplemente aceptamos qué suceda lo más "conveniente?" En comparación con
la sabiduría secular, amor no sólo
significa tener que decir que usted está
arrepentido, sino que demuestre también con hechos la profundidad de su
arrepentimiento.
Otra vez, observamos
la
evidencia en las escrituras del ministerio de Jesús: Él curó a grupos,
multiplicó el pan y los peces para muchos, pero cada vez que él perdonaba los
pecados, lo hizo muy individualmente,
uno a uno, uno a la vez.
El resultado
final aquí es
que no existe justificación teológica
procedente de la Escritura o Tradición para justificar el uso común de la
Absolución General.
Con respecto
a lo antes
mencionado, también comprendo los que participaron inocentemente en su uso por
años, quizás ahora se sientan avergonzados de volver a la práctica de confesar
sus pecados al sacerdote. Pido que nuestros sacerdotes sean especialmente
sensibles a su dilema y ofrezcan su ayuda compasiva cada oportunidad que sea
necesaria. También pido que los
sacerdotes que reconozcan públicamente el problema e inviten a los fieles a
confesar sus pecados.
De hecho, la
celebración del
sacramento de la Penitencia es posible solamente a través del auto-sacrificio
de Cristo en la cruz. ¡Ese sacrificio no era "conveniente" para
ningún modelo, y precisamente de esa manera, esta fue redentora!
December, 2006