Home | Contact Us | Subscribe/Renew | Register | Search | Site Map
By Father Francis Hoffman
Q. What is a good confession? I grew up thinking that one had to be very specific about telling sins.
My friend says that is not true anymore. She insists that we should just say, "I committed adultery," or "I fornicated," or "I stole."What is the truth? Be specific or general?
K. Fleming, via e-mail
A. A good confession is an integral confession accompanied by genuine sorrow for one's sins and a firm resolution to improve and avoid future occasions of sin. A confession is integral if the penitent mentions the number and kind of all mortal sins of which he or she is aware and which have not been previously confessed.
When confessing mortal sins, it is enough to mention the number of times, the nature of the sin and any aggravating circumstances. An aggravating circumstance would be any situation that made the sin more serious.
For sins against the Sixth Commandment it is enough to mention, for instance: I committed adultery on two occasions with two different persons; I committed fornication three times. An aggravating circumstance might be the age of the person or relationship of that person to you. Another aggravating circumstance might be intoxication. If you stole something, you should also mention the value of the item and how you plan to make restitution.
Normally, an experienced confessor might ask some questions to help you be complete and sincere while at the same time avoiding useless questions. For the confessor to give you sound advice, he needs to know the complete picture of your situation, so try to be very sincere. If you are telling too much detail, or useless information, the confessor will politely cut you off and redirect the conversation.
Q. I would like to know what is now the status of the vigil light (tabernacle light), as I don't see it in a lot of churches anymore. Could you please let me know why the light is not seen in many churches?
Ruth Dougherty, Minot, N.D.
A. The General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM) states: "In accordance with traditional custom, near the tabernacle a special lamp, fueled by oil or wax, should be kept alight to indicate and honor the presence of Christ" (No. 316).
If you do not see the vigil light, perhaps it is because the tabernacle has been moved to a place in the church that is not clearly visible. If the tabernacle is clearly visible, and there is no vigil light burning, you should ask the pastor of your church to place one there.
Keep in mind, of course, that on the rare occasions when the Blessed Sacrament has been temporarily removed from the tabernacle, the light will be extinguished.
Q. Should the Sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick be sought by someone suffering from a long-term mental and spiritual wound caused by being a victim of a sin or crime?
Extreme Unction seems to be reserved for those in physical danger of death, and yet there are serious, persistent mental and spiritual sicknesses that may need more than counseling in order to heal. I believe this sacrament has been neglected.
Name withheld by request
A. You are correct in stating that "there are serious and persistent mental and spiritual sicknesses that may need more than counseling in order to heal." But the Sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick was not intended to cure mental illness. It is chiefly to strengthen the soul in times of physical suffering and anguish, and secondarily it can restore strength and vitality to the body to give the soul an opportunity to prepare to meet the Lord.
The Code of Canon Law stipulates: "The anointing of the sick can be administered to any member of the faithful who, having reached the use of reason, begins to be in danger of death by reason of illness or old age" (Canon 1004.1).
Commentators note that in practice this means that the sacrament can be given to a person before surgery, as well as to the elderly "if they have become notably weakened even though no serious illness is present"; and that it "must be given to children, even if there is some doubt as to whether they have attained the use of reason."
In general, if there is any doubt, the sacrament should be administered according to Canon 1005: "If there is any doubt as to whether the sick person has reached the use of reason, or is dangerously ill, or is dead, this sacrament is to be administered."
For those who suffer spiritual illnesses that are more pronounced than what is typical of the consequences of original sin, I would suggest they try the Sacrament of Reconciliation on a monthly basis. For mental illnesses, a qualified mental health expert, psychologist or psychiatrist should also be consulted.
If there is reason to believe the devil is involved, either through obsession or possession, perhaps an exorcism is needed.
Q. I was told that choosing a saint's name at confirmation is discouraged by the Vatican because it doesn't reflect the connection between baptism and confirmation. Children are supposed to just use their baptismal names.
I looked online and found it's the policy in one other diocese, but not that it's a directive from the Vatican. I thought it was more up to the local bishop or pastor's discretion.
What if your child doesn't bear a saint's name? It seems as if confirmation would be a good time to acquire a saint's name if your parents neglected to give you one at baptism.
Kathleen McClellan, Savannah, Ga.
A. I know of no such directive from the Vatican, but it is not necessary to take a new name at confirmation. In fact, there is no mention of a "confirmation name" in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the Code of Canon Law, or the Liturgical Rites for Confirmation.
Nevertheless, the pious custom of choosing a favorite saint's name for confirmation dates back to the early Middle Ages, if not before.
In the Bible we are told of several name changes: Abram to Abraham, Sarai to Sarah, Simon to Peter, Jacob to Israel. On each occasion, the name change occurred at a crossroads in the person's life.
Even today, professed religious choose a new name when they take vows, a newly elected pope chooses a new name for himself, and a woman more often than not takes her husband's surname on her wedding day.
It is true that the Sacrament of Confirmation is one of the three sacraments of initiation, along with baptism and holy Eucharist, and that it completes the soul's ontological configuration to Christ begun at baptism. This is in fact one argument for repeating your baptismal name at confirmation.
But it is equally true that baptized infants do not choose their baptismal names. Giving them a chance to choose a name for themselves when they are older and more responsible, out of devotion to a particular favorite saint or holy hero, is a very good thing because it allows them to make a claim on their faith and identity.
If your child does not bear a saint's name already, confirmation would be an excellent moment to acquire a saint's name.
The time-honored custom of choosing a saint's name for confirmation belongs more to the process of catechesis than it does to the Sacrament of Confirmation properly speaking. Catechists find that youngsters become more engaged in their faith when they choose a saint as a personal model.
Finally, a bishop or local pastor does have the authority to prohibit such a practice during the Rite of Confirmation. But no one can forbid you or prevent you from privately taking another name.
For more about Catholic traditions regarding names, see "What's in a Name?" in TCA Faith (January/February).
Q. Someone asked me why Catholics aren't supposed to cremate the body and scatter the ashes, yet we keep and distribute bones of saints. I know that it is OK to cremate the body, but that the ashes must be buried within a reasonable amount of time.
So how do you explain that our ashes must be buried and not split up, and kept in places of honor without scattering them, yet it's all right to keep the relics of saint to reverence?
Jenny Divis, via e-mail
A. The Church does not forbid cremation "unless this is chosen for reasons which are contrary to Christian teaching" (Canon 1176.3). However, the ashes are not to be scattered.
The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments has indicated that "the faithful should be exhorted not to keep the ashes of the dead in their homes, but to bury them in the usual manner" (July 7, 2001, Prot. No. 1532/00/L).
Relics of the saints may be venerated precisely because they have been declared saints. As to the seemingly inconsistent practice of mandating that the mortal remains of those who are not canonized remain in one place while allowing the mortal remains of saints to be dispersed, you raise a very good question.
I do not think that it was ever the intention of the Church to allow the mortal remains of saints to be disinterred and subsequently dismembered. But fervent and pious Christians of past centuries so relished the relics of saints, because of the supernatural powers associated with them, that at times they got carried away and tore them to pieces. In the Middle Ages even the theft of relics was not unknown.
However, current Church practice forbids dividing up relics into small unrecognizable parts. Filial devotion -- as well as good taste and common sense, in my opinion -- will now let the holy remains of saints rest in peace, not in pieces.
Q. With regard to your answer about "Surrogate Mothers"(TCA Life, July/August 2007) and the statements of the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
1. There is no human life without a soul.
2. Only God can create a soul.
3. Artificial fertilization is often successful in producing a human baby, which required cooperation by God to create the soul necessary for life.
4. God will do nothing evil.
5. Since God cooperated in the artificial fertilization which produced a live human, this procedure, involving God's participation, must not be "gravely immoral" (Catechism, No. 2376).
Your views would be greatly appreciated.
Robert J. Zellner, Lake Forest, Ill.
A. By that line of reasoning the sin and crime recounted in Genesis 19:30-38 (incest) must not be "gravely immoral" either, because it also produced a live human being. But it is gravely immoral, and I am certain you agree that it is, and it is rightly regarded as a felony in all 50 states.
It is true that a human baby is a great good, and that God directly infuses an immortal soul into every human being. But the conception of a child through artificial fertilization demonstrates only that God is able to bring good out of any situation, including grave human sin -- not that He approves of the sin itself.
I think you would reach a different conclusion if you recognized that the "end does not justify the means," or, as the Catechism states, "One may not do evil so that good may result from it" (No. 1756). For the sake of argument, try substituting the word "rape" for "artificial fertilization" in your five-step syllogism above and see if it works.
No one has an absolute right to a child. A child is a gift, not a right, and we need to respect God's plan for procreation.
It may be difficult to understand what the evil is regarding artificial fertilization, so let's turn to the Catechism:
"[This technique] dissociates the sexual act from the procreative act. The act which brings the child into existence is no longer an act by which two persons give themselves to one another, but one that 'entrusts the life and identity of the embryo into the power of doctors and biologists and establishes the domination of technologyover the origin and destiny of the human person. Such a relationship of domination is in itself contrary to the dignity and equality that must be common to parents and children'" (No. 2377).
Doctors are good. Biologists are good. Technology is good. But working together, they can do bad things.
That section of the Catechism may leave you unconvinced. What further convinces me about the immorality of in vitro fertilization is the "collateral damage" of the technique -- that mortal harm suffered by the excess embryos (you and I were once little embryos, and embryos are human beings!) that are either "thinned out" in the process, directly destroyed or put into a deep freeze without further provision. The collateral damage caused by IVF makes it wrong. Innocent human beings deserve better treatment.
Q. Does a Communion service fulfill a Sunday obligation?
Wence Polivka, via e-mail
A. No. However, if it is physically or morally impossible to attend Mass on Sunday, or the anticipated Mass on Saturday evening, the obligation no longer applies.
In the case that you arrive for Sunday Mass in your parish and, to your surprise, the priest does not show and a Communion service is offered instead, you have attempted to fulfill your Sunday obligation, and that's what counts. It's not your fault.
Even in that event, however, I would encourage you to go to the next parish and try to attend Sunday Mass there if that is at all possible.
Q. I recently heard someone tell about how he arrived with his family at the home of relatives he had not seen for seven or so years. It was a Sunday morning, and as they approached the front door unannounced, the door opened. It was their relatives leaving for Mass. The relatives excused themselves from entertaining their visitors, explaining that they needed to attend Mass.
The speaker opined that their obligation to hospitality was greater than their obligation to attend holy Mass. Do you agree with him?
I read in one of your columns that among the reasons for legitimately missing Sunday Mass was "a higher and more urgent duty of charity." But I struggle with accepting the notion that what appears to me to be a fairly low level of obligation to entertain guests, even "long-lost" relatives, is a "higher and more urgent duty of charity" than attending Mass. Am I wrong?
Name withheld
A. Why would someone show up unannounced on a Sunday morning after seven years? If they expect hospitality, at least they should be polite enough to call in advance! The family did the right thing to go to Mass first, and then return to show hospitality to the visitors. After all, Sunday Mass only takes an hour.
I agree with your assessment that "entertaining long-lost relatives" is a fairly low level obligation of charity, since Mass only takes an hour.
Now, if circumstances were different, and the unannounced guests arrived at your home the moment you were leaving for Mass, and one of them had an uncontrollable nosebleed and was wailing hysterically because of a domestic dispute that had happened an hour before, then in that case I would say you should by all means stay home and take care of that person.
Q. With reference to your answer regarding "Mass Attendance After 80?" (TCA Life, September/ October 2006), in what way can it ever be "morally impossible" to attend Mass on Sunday (or any other day of obligation)? No matter one's age.
Mrs. James H. Seeley, Sublimity, Ore.
A. It could be "morally impossible" for a person to attend Sunday Mass, for instance, if the only Mass available is two hours away by car. It might be physically possible to get there, but, because of other pressing obligations, a five-hour investment (two hours there, two hours back, one hour at Mass) would be too much to ask.
Ultimately, each person must follow their own conscience in evaluating the conditions and circumstances.
God does not ask the impossible, yet all things are possible with God. The important principle about Sunday Mass is to do what you can to honor Our Lord on His day and put your heart into loving God "with all your heart, with all your strength, with all your soul, and with all your mind" (Lk 10:27).
Q. Can a person with Alzheimer's disease, who is not in danger of death, receive the Sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick?
Nancy Carson, Kennewick, Wash.
A. Yes, a person with Alzheimer's who is not in danger of death may receive the Sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick. It is best not to delay this sacrament so that the elderly person can receive it while still in full, or almost completely full, possession of his or her faculties.
Normally, the fruitful reception of the anointing of the sick is preceded by a good confession, and to make a good confession, a person should be able to remember his sins, express true contrition and have a firm purpose of amendment. If the demented person is largely unaware, frequently incoherent or otherwise noncommunicative, and if the anointing of the sick has not yet been administered, it should be administered without delay. In this case, the priest will help the person to express some sign of sorrow in recognition of past sins, in order to help prepare the heart and soul to be open to Jesus Christ and His mercy. TCA
OSV4Me | Parish | Retail Search | Catalog | Books | Periodicals | Parish Resources | Other Resources | Offering Envelopes | About Us | Contact Us Send comments regarding this site to webmaster@osv.com Click here for our site map. Copyright © 2008, Our Sunday Visitor, Inc. All rights reserved.