JIMMY AKIN.ORG: Sacraments

December 20, 2007

Christmas Trees Unsafe - Faith Inconvenient

(Tim Jones)

Hey, Tim Jones here again. This is from my blog Old World Swine;

I link THIS STORY (Reuters) - about the removal of Christmas trees due to the risk of fire - only because it reminded me of an incident that took place when I was a newly minted Catholic and Parish Council member.

During one council meeting I noted that some parishioners had asked me to ask if we couldn't have some votive candles in the church. The priest made some remarks about the fire hazard, and said he wasn't sure about insurance and liability, and stuff. He suggested electric candles. The meeting moved on, as I silently resolved not to press the issue lest we actually wind up with prayer candles that turned on and off and reminded me of a tacky chandelier at my aunt's house.

Father then read a letter from our Bishop, directing all parishes to begin working toward perpetual Eucharistic Adoration as soon as possible.

If there is a word the opposite of "enthusiasm", it was written all over our priest's face. Once again, he noted all the problems that would have to be overcome... security, scheduling... well, that was about it, but the upshot was that it was going to be a pain in the tush and the Bishop's letter was going to be ignored. That was it.

I must have made some sort of grunt of perplexitude, because I remember Father explaining to me again what a gigantic logistical headache perpetual Adoration would be, and ending with the clincher that "This parish is just not that devotionally-minded".

Had I been older, and a more grizzled and seasoned Catholic, I might have asked the question that popped into my head, "...and you are okay with that? As the spiritual father of the parish, the complete lack of interest in classic Catholic devotions doesn't bother you just a teensy bit?". I guess I didn't ask because I knew the answer.

This also got me to thinking about another question that has bothered me from time to time, about why we don't hear from the ambo more encouragement for Catholics to make use of the sacrament of Confession. It seems like it is always scheduled at dawn-thirty on Saturday mornings, and I can count on one hand the number of times I have heard even the mildest endorsement of it in a homily. Forgive me if I have entertained the idea that some priests might not push Confession because they really don't want to make more work for themselves.

It must be a dreary job, in a sense, listening to the same old sins week in and week out, and some that must grieve any sensible person. There is no one else in the parish who can do it. My Dad was a cop for a number of years, and I think the constant exposure to the underbelly of the human family took its toll on him over the years, though he never talked about it. Cops are basically the guys who follow after the parade with a shovel.

I would like to have some input from priests or others who might be able to answer the question. Are some priests, perhaps, partly motivated to keep mum on the dearth of confessing Catholics by a desire not to further clutter their already busy schedules? Just asking.

Posted by Tim Jones in Sacraments, Technology | Permalink | Comments (71)

March 22, 2007

Specific Confessions

(Jimmy Akin)

A reader writes:

Can you invalidate a confession by not being specific enough in confessing your sins?

In particular, if you say "I read something I shouldn't have" instead of "I read a book with sexual material that I knew might or would be an occasion of sin," have you actually confessed the sin?

I have made several confessions like this, assuming it was okay, but now I am suddenly not sure.

It is possible to invalidate a confession if one deliberately refuses to confess in adequate detail, however that does not apply in this case. I'll explain why.

First, a word about what adequate detail is: We are expected--to the best of our reasonable ability--to confess our mortal sins in number (how many times you did it) and kind. Kind is where the question of specificity comes in, and the rule is that we are to confess specifically enough that anything that affects the species of the sin is mentioned.

To understand that, one needs to have a grasp of the difference between genus and species. Genus is the general category to which a sin belongs. Species is the variation that distinguishes one sin from others in the same general category.

For example, saying "I committed a sexual sin" would cover only the genus of the act but does not address the species of sexual sin that has been committed. One would thus need to say "I committed adultery" or "I committed fornication" or "I committed a homosexual act" or "I committed masturbation" or "I committed incest" or whatever the case may be. Adultery, fornication, homosexual acts, masturbation, incest, etc., are all the various species of sexual sin.

Now, because of the shame involved in confessing many of these things, penitents often use circumlocutions to convey the idea while blunting the sense of shame that is involved. For example, they may say, "I had impure thoughts" rather than "I wilfully engaged in sexual fantasies about someone I'm not married to." "Impure thoughts" is code for what they did, and priests understand what it means. Technically, your thoughts could be impure in all sorts of way not involving sex (i.e., they could be tainted, and thus not pure, by any kind of sin you wilfully entertained), but priests know people mean they entertained improper sexual thoughts when they say this.

The important thing is not the words that are used but that the priest understands the species of the sin that is being confessed. As long as he understands--or as long as you reasonably believe that he understands--then you have confessed adequately.

If you said something like "I read something I shouldn't have" then priests are quite likely (given a knowledge of penitents and how often sex comes up in confession) that you were confessing deliberate exposure to materials that could produce sexual temptation. If someone says that they read something they shouldn't have, and they're too embarassed to say why they shouldn't have read it, sex is going to be the first thing that suggests itself. Unless a priest knew that you were in the habit of reading things likely to produce grave temptations of some other nature, a normal priest is going to assume that you're talking about sex.

If he has doubts about what you're confessing then he should ask for a clarification, and in these cases it seems that the priests you confessed to didn't ask, indicating that they understood your meaning.

It thus seems to me that "I read something I shouldn't have" is basically the same kind of thing as "I need to confess impure thoughts." Neither is an explicit statement, but both are going to be understood by a confessor.

Even if they weren't, though, you would not have invalidated the confession because you believed that you were adequately confessing. You therefore were not deliberately holding anything back that you knew you needed to confess. As long as that's the case, your confession is formally integral (to use a bit of technical jargon that means you intended to make a complete confession, or one complete enough for validity) and the absolution will be valid.

Posted by Jimmy Akin in Sacraments | Permalink | Comments (50)

January 15, 2007

RLDS/Community of Christ Baptism Validity

(Jimmy Akin)

A reader writes:

I've got a question for you! My husband is seriously considering converting to the Church, and I'm giving him as much information and help as I can. Would he need to be baptized again? He was raised Reorganized Latter Day Saint (now called Community of Christ). They don't consider themselves Mormon, although they use their own Book of Mormon. They baptize in the name of the Holy Trinity, and their beliefs in the Trinity seem to be more like those of the Catholic Church. We understand that the Church does not consider the baptism of Mormons valid, but what how does it view the RLDS baptism?

The Catholic Church does not have a position on the validity of RLDS/Community of Christ baptisms, though the question periodically comes up in pastoral practice.

A few years ago I did some research--including talking to the folks at the Community of Christ headquarters--at the request of a diocese that was dealing with a situation similar to that of your husband. Though my memories are not as clear as I would like (they never are), my understanding is that the RLDS has passed through a clarification in its views on the Trinity. A few decades ago the understanding was shakier and had tendencies toward modalism--that is, viewing the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit as three "modes" in which God exists rather than as three Persons. More recently, their official doctrinal statements have articulated the Trinity much more clearly, though from what I can tell there seems to remain some question about how well it is understood among some members of the community.

Their current doctrinal statement on the Godhead, as found on their web site, seems to reflect this evolution:

God

The one eternal, living God is triune: one God in three persons. The God who meets us in the testimony of Israel is the same God who meets us in Jesus Christ, and who indwells creation as the Holy Spirit. God is the Eternal Creator, the source of love, life, and truth. God actively loves and cares for each person. All things that exist owe their being to God who alone is worthy of our worship.

Jesus Christ

Jesus Christ is "God with us," the Son of God, and the living expression of God in the flesh. Jesus Christ lived, was crucified, died, and rose again. The nature, love, and purpose of God are most clearly seen in Jesus Christ, our Savior.

Spirit

The Holy Spirit is the continuing presence of God in the world. The Spirit works in our minds and hearts through intelligence, comfort, guidance, love, and power to sustain, inspire, and remake us [SOURCE].

The expression in blue is thoroughly orthodox and correctly articulates the Trinity in terms of three Persons rather than three modes. The expressions in red can be understood in either an orthodox or an unorthodox sense and may reflect the previous understanding of the Father, Son, and Spirit as modes of God's existence.

It is very heartening that the Community of Christ has undertaken this purification of its understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity, and they are to be commended for being willing to rethink this matter.

The groups history suggests that there is still reason for caution in assessing the validity of baptisms. Because the group has not historically had as firm an understanding of the Trinity as it now does and because of its common origin and relationship with the Salt Lake/LDS church (which is now known to have an invalid baptism), it is difficult to arrive at a firm conclusion on this question.

Ideally, it would be possible to find out how the doctrine of the Trinity was understood by the minister and the recipient at the time of the baptism, but a variety of factors (fading memories, difficulty in contacting people, etc.) this is likely to be impractical. For this reason, in view of the overall circumstances, I personally would recommend that people becoming Catholic from the Community of Christ receive a conditional baptism (with a formula like "If you are not baptized, I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit") to make sure that they are validly baptized, while still respecting the fact that their first baptism may have been valid.

One other practical note: The pastoral workers you are likely to encounter may not know that much about the Community of Christ or its history, and so you may need to help them understand that it is not the same as the Mormon church (whose baptism is invalid) and that it is not the same as ordinary Protestant groups (whose baptisms are valid). I would suggest making these points and then asking for a conditional baptism.

Please feel free to refer them to this post or to get in contact with me if I can be of assistance.

I hope this helps, and God bless your husband for being willing to investigate the Catholic faith!

Posted by Jimmy Akin in Sacraments | Permalink | Comments (12)

January 12, 2007

Confession & Confirmation Validity

(Jimmy Akin)

A reader writes:

There's just something that's been troubling me lately and I thought I'd ask your opinion. I was baptised as a Catholic as a baby, but didn't receive any other sacraments or attend Mass regularly until I was 18 when my interest in the faith was kindled. I joined an RCIA group and received confirmation and first Eucharist. A few months later, I realised to my horror that for confirmation to be valid, one must have first made their first Reconciliation - I had never been to confession. I was not once told during RCIA that I needed to first receive the sacrament of Reconciliation and can plead ignorance, though I know I ought to have studied the faith more deeply and it is therefore my fault really.

When I made my first Confession, I told the priest the situation at the start (he was a visiting priest). He seemed a tad startled by the situation, but heard my confession and absolved me. When I later spoke to my church's catechetical co-ordinator, she assured me that my Confirmation was not voided, but I can't help but worry that my reception of the sacrament was not valid. Bearing in mind that I did genuinely receive Confirmation in good faith and genuine intent, should I be concerned?

What hte priest and the catechetical coordinator told you is correct. Your confirmation's validity would not have been affected by the fact that you had not received the sacrament of reconciliation prior to it, so you an rest easy in this matter.

It is true that, in many places in the Latin rite, individuals make their first reconciliation before being confirmed, but it is not an absolute necessity that they do so, as illustrated by the fact that in many Eastern Catholic churches, confirmation (or chrismation) is given to infants at the time they are baptized.

The reason that reconciliation often precedes confirmation in the Latin church is to ensure that the candidate is in a state of grace at the time he receives confirmation. Confirmation is one of the sacraments of the living, meaning that you need to be in a state of grace to receive it. Unlike baptism and reconciliation and the anointing of the sick, it does not restore you to the state of grace if you are not in it.

Thus the Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

To receive Confirmation one must be in a state of grace. One should receive the sacrament of Penance in order to be cleansed for the gift of the Holy Spirit (CCC 1310).

But this requirement does not affect the validity of the sacrament. This is made clear in the Code of Canon Law, which states:

Can. 889 §1. Every baptized person not yet confirmed and only such a person is capable of receiving confirmation.

§2. To receive confirmation licitly outside the danger of death requires that a person who has the use of reason be suitably instructed, properly disposed, and able to renew the baptismal promises.

The conditions named in §1 are those that the recipient must meet for the confirmation to be valid. He has to be baptized and not yet confirmed.

The conditions in §2 are those that are required for the sacrament to be licit (celebrated in conformity with the law). This is where the state of grace fits into the picture. It is one of the dispositions needed to receive the sacrament (indeed, it is the main disposition required), and so one must be in a state of grace to be suitably disposed to receive confirmation.

If you were not in a state of grace at the time of your confirmation then your confirmation would have been celebrated illicity (not in conformity with the law) but it would nonetheless be valid.

You therefore don't need to be concerned about this matter and can set your mind at rest.

The sacraments are like Tonka trucks--they're hard to break--and God made them that way because he knew he was entrusting them to fallen individuals who wouldn't always perform them correctly, and so he suited them to our fallen condition. If the state of grace was necessary for the validity of confirmation then there would be endless scrupulosity about whether or not one was validly confirmed, based on one's inability to remember whether one was in a state of grace at the time. The same thing goes for marriage and ordination. Consequently, God simply did not make the state of grace a requirement for these sacraments to be valid. One is morally obliged to receive them in a state of grace, but one is still validly confirmed, or married, or ordained, even if one was not in a state of grace.

Posted by Jimmy Akin in Sacraments | Permalink | Comments (29)

January 09, 2007

Marriage Questions Reader Roundup

(Jimmy Akin)

Yesterday's post on marriage questions produced a bunch of important follow-up questions, so here are my replies. Let's start with a couple sent by e-mail:

Regarding the reader's question, "If he converts to Catholicism in 5 years, should he leave his "wife" since he is making her an adulterer?", you answer, in part, "If the annulment is granted then their marriage could be convalidated ("blessed") and they would be genuinely married."

I'm wondering, since this case involves two people who were non-Catholics at the time of their wedding, why would their marriage need to be convalidated once her annulment is granted, since, as you explained earlier, it is possible that their marriage is already valid?

Similarly, the reader asks, "If both he and his wife convert to Catholicism, would his wife have to get an annulment for the first marriage and then he and her get remarried in the Catholic Church?" and you answer, "Yes".

Assuming she gets an annulment, why would the couple need to get remarried in the Catholic Church? After her annulment, wouldn't their marriage be automatically presumed valid?

The reader is quite correct. In answering these two questions I fuzzed out on the fact that if the wife's annulment is granted then the marriage would NOT need to be convalidated.

The reason is that she would have been free to marry her current husband at the time of the wedding, and so her current marriage would be presumed valid. Thus no convalidation would be necessary.

My apologies for the mental lapse. (I've also contacted to the original reader to make sure he knows about this correction.)

In the combox, a reader writes:

What should be the position of a grandmother whose Catholic grandson is going to marry a Protestant girl in a Protestant ceremony? He says he doesn't care about the Catholic thing and has been attending her church for years.

Based on matters as you present them, the marriage will not be valid, and I could not recommend attending it. The situation could be fixed if one of three things happens: (1) the couple changes its plans and gets married in a Catholic ceremony, (2) the grandson gets a dispensation from his bishop to have a non-Catholic ceremony, or (3) the grandson contacts the bishop and formally defects from the Church, relieving him of the obligation to observe the Catholic form of marriage. These options are in their order of preferability.

Another reader writes:

A friend of mine is getting married. She was baptized Catholic but not raised as such, and has never attended church or received instruction or other sacraments. The groom-to-be is also in this same situation. They are planning a civil ceremony. Is it alright to attend this wedding, praying that when this couple starts a family they might see the need to raise the children in the faith?

The same answer as was given to the case of the grandmother and her grandson applies here, only with both of the parties needing to take the actions indicated.

Also, rumor has it they are getting a special permit from the governor for a special "one day" justice of the peace. The person they are asking to perform the civil ceremony is a practicing Catholic. Is this a problem?

Since the marriage is presumably invalid, I could not recommend that a Catholic officiate at the service. If the situation were changed so that the marriage would be valid (by dispensation or formal defection) then a Catholic could serve as the officiant in good conscience.

Another reader writes:

This is giving me a big "uh-oh" moment, so can someone help me? Situation: While still a Protestant, I married a divorced woman, also a Protestant. I am now in RCIA and was hoping to be confirmed this Easter. My wife is remaining Protestant but supports me in my conversion.

The RCIA questionnaire the pastor gave us asked simply "Are you re-married?" I said no. It did NOT ask if my wife is re-married so I have not told him that fact. The article above makes me think that I am now in an adulterous relationship. Is this correct?

Not necessarily. If your wife's original marriage was invalid then she was free to marry you and your current marriage is presumed valid and thus non-adulterous.

Will it prevent me from being confirmed?

Not necessarily. Until it is able to examine your wife's first marriage, the Church has to assume that it was valid and, if you are leading a conjugal life with her, the Church would have to assume that you are in a state that would prevent confirmation. However, if you were living as brother and sister then this would not apply and you could be confirmed.

If it matters, my wife's first husband was abusive and abandoned her and their child. She believes he is mentally ill. I am now his child's father, for all practical purposes - he does not pay child support and has not tried to see his son for years. So I would think there are strong grounds for annulment, but she has not requested one.

If the conditions you mention were present at the time she married him, or manifested shortly thereafter, they may signal that the marriage was not valid, meaning that your marriage to her is valid, conjugal relations you have are not adulterous, and an annulment would be possible to obtain.

You have my sympathies for discovering this unexpectedly. I was in a similar situation when my wife was alive and we discovered that the Church did not regard us as married since we had not had a Catholic service (I was not yet Catholic at the time). It sounds to me that you have reason for optimism in your situation, and I would encourage you to trust God to lead you and your wife as you explore what needs to be done.

If you'll e-mail me your physical address, I'd like to send you a copy of my booklet on annulments to answer some basic questions that you may be having at present.

God bless you!

Another reader writes:

Isn't INTENT necessary for a marriage to be considered valid? For example, during a play that has a marriage ceremony no real marriage takes place because there was no intent to marry.

In order for a sacrament to actually be a sacrament, the INTENT must be at least "to do what the Church says it does" even if one's own knowledge of what the Church says the sacrament is about is limited. For example, a Catholic can take part in the sacrament of Penance without really knowing how he is absolved of his sins so long as he intends for his sins be be absolved. Conversely, if a Catholic during Penance intends to be forgiven for all sins, save for "that one", the sacrament is not valid.

Now many, if not most, Protestants do not intend to do what the Church does when they marry. Many will actually take classes that will teach them that marriage can be dissolved in X Y Z circumstances, and most Protestant groups will actively teach that marriage is not a sacrament. Therefore, at the time of marriage, many Protestants have not INTENT or WILL or KNOWLEDGE to enter into the sacrament of marriage.

Is it therefore not the case that, while Protestant marriages are given the favor of the law, most of them are not valid sacramental marriages anyway?

Intent is necessary for the performance of a sacrament, but the intent that is required is general, not specific. Individuals do not have to intend all of the effects of the sacrament. They don't even have to have a clear idea of what a sacrament is. As long as they are intending to do what the Church does in a general way then the sacrament will be valid. Thus Protestants can have valid baptisms and marriages without understanding either the effects of the sacraments or that these are sacraments.

They're still intending to do what Christ wills Christians to do. They may not understand the nature of these realities or their effects, but they understood that Christ wills them, and by willing what Christ wills, they implicitly will the content of his will, even if they have an erroneous understanding of that will. As long as the intent to do what Christ wants is governing their choice then they virtually will the contents of Christ's will.

If I am a Protestant and I want to be baptized because it is Christ's will for me then even if I don't understand what baptism is (a sacrament) or does (regenerate and remit sins) then I will be validly baptized because the controlling factor in my decision is the intent to do what Christ wants. If I am a Baptist who has been taught that baptism is not a sacrament and that it does not regenerate or remit sins, that is mental clutter that is of secondary importance to my intent to do what Christ wants. Such secondary clutter does not invalidate.

The same thing applies to matrimony, mutatis mutandis. If I want to marry a woman who is Christian because this is what Jesus wants me to do (rather than simply setting up house with her) the the fundamental factor involved in my choice is the intent to do what Jesus wants, and thus I implicitly will what Jesus wills. I do not have to have an articulated understanding of what Christian marriage is (a sacrament) or does (impart grace to the spouses to let them live their married lives). I may even have mental clutter to the contrary, but as long as my misconceptions about marriage aren't more decisive to me than my intent to do what Christ wants, the marriage will be valid.

Another reader writes:

Can. 1148 §1. When he receives baptism in the Catholic Church, a non-baptized man who has several non-baptized wives at the same time can retain one of them after the others have been dismissed, if it is hard for him to remain with the first one.
2 questions regarding this one:

1. Does this mean he can keep his favorite one, even if she is not necessarily the first one? I’m confused about the meaning of “if it is hard for him to remain with the first one”.

It's a little stronger than that. The canon appears to presume that he will chose the first one unless their is a special difficulty with choosing her. This does not preclude one from saying, "Well, my preference for Wife #2 is so strong that I would find it hard to live with Wife #1," but to merely pick one's favorite wife with no further thought seems foreign to the way the canon is written.

2. Could this apply to those Mormon groups who still practice polygamy, since the Catholic Church doesn’t recognize the Mormon baptism as being valid?

Same thing applies. The Mormon groups that practice polygamy (so far as I know) are in the same condition as the LDS church with respect to the invalidity of their baptisms. Thus canon 1148 would apply to men in their number directly.

Another reader writes:

I attended the wedding of my sister-in-law, practicing Catholic, and her husband, a divorced Protestant. They were wed outside of church by a Lutheran minister because husband had not sought an annulment. I knew at the time that their wedding was improper, but I never thought twice about attending. Is this a sin for which I must confess?

If you never thought twice about attending it then you did not display the degree of deliberation (indeed, you did not deliberate) needed to commit a mortal sin and thus do not need to confess it.

Posted by Jimmy Akin in Sacraments | Permalink | Comments (31)

January 08, 2007

Marriage Questions

(Jimmy Akin)

A reader writes:

I went out to lunch with my Protestant friend the other day. He is getting married in a month to another Protestant, who is divorced. I told him the Catholic Church (and God, for that matter) would consider his marriage invalid, and I told him I would not be able to attend his wedding. This started a firestorm of questions I did not know the answer to.

I'll be happy to take a crack at the questions, but first I have a note regarding the initial conversation. It's always a difficult prudential question to figure out how to discuss these matters with folks coming from a Protestant perspective because they do not generally share the Catholic understanding of the indissolubility of marriage. Often they hold the view they do in good conscience, because it is the one that they have been taught all their lives and because there are verses that--unless you examine them closely--can make variants of their view seem plausible.

That being said, it would be a mistake to tell someone in the situation you describe (apparently, a never-been-married Protestant marrying a civilly divorced Protestant) that the marriage will definitely be invalid. It may or may not be invalid. Here's why:

The never-been-married Protestant is free to marry if he chooses. The civilly divorced Protestant may or may not be free to marry. If her former husband is still alive AND her original marriage was valid then she is still bound to her first husband and is not capable of marrying another person, per the teaching of Jesus and Paul. In that case her union with the never-been-married Protestant would be invalid because the two parties were not free to marry each other due to her prior bond.

However, this is not the only possibility. If her former husband is dead OR if he is still alive BUT her first marriage was invalid then she was not genuinely married to him and so she is still free to marry and can validly wed the never-been-married Protestant if she wishes. In that case, both parties of the new union would be free to marry each other and the union would be valid.

Since we don't know for sure whether her first marriage was valid or invalid, we don't know for sure whether she is free to marry the never-been-married man, and so we don't know for sure whether their contemplated union would be valid or not.

So I wouldn't present matters to him as definitely as that.

What should one do instead?

The starting point, as the Code of Canon Law puts it, is that marriage "enjoys the favor of the law." That means that, in legal terms that the Catholic Church presumes a marriage is valid until the contrary is proved. If we as individual Catholics take our cues from canon law in this way then we also would presume that the divorced woman's marriage is valid and thus that her contemplated union will not be valid.

This is not an indefeasible presumption, though.

It could be overturned if, for example, the woman were to apply for an annulment in the Catholic Church and it were granted. That's not likely to happen, given the fact that she's not marrying a Catholic and thus understandably has no reason from her perspective to do so. But other things might defeat it as well.

For example, if I knew her and knew that her first marriage was one she contracted at age sixteen and was never consummated and her husband was an active and violent alcoholic at the time and that the marriage broke up in two weeks then, even in the absence of an annulment, I as a practical matter would feel comfortable concluding that her original marriage had so much wrong with it that there was almost certainly invalid and that she is currently free to marry.

Apart from such a strikingly clear case, though, we need to fall back on the presumption that canon law makes regarding her first marriage, which is that it was valid.

If her first marriage is presumed valid then I would recommend not attending or celebrating the union because it must be presumed to be adulterous--i.e., she will be objectively committing adultery against her first husband in marrying the second, which is what Jesus meant when he said, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery" (Mark 10:11-12) and what Paul meant when he wrote, "a married woman is bound by law to her husband as long as he lives. . . . Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive (Romans 7:2-3).

I can't recommend attending or otherwise celebrating an objectively adulterous union. To do so would confirm the parties in an objectively sinful state and thus constitute a form of false witness.

Because the parties are presumably acting in good conscience, though, this situation should be handled as gently, humbly, and lovingly as possible.

If, as indicated, you've told your friend that his marriage will not be valid and, if you didn't further nuance this in the conversation, I would go back to him and explain--as gently, humbly, and lovingly as possible--that his marriage may not be valid and that you have to presume that this is the case and thus, with sincere sorrow and regret, you won't be able to attend the wedding, but this does not mean that you don't love and respect your friend.

Now for the questions:

1. Although I should not attend his wedding, is it permissible for me, a devout Catholic, to attend his bachelor party (assuming they do not partake in immoral acts)?

As a batchelor party is a celebration of an upcoming wedding, I could not recommend attending for the reasons cited above. I would explain this as gently and lovingly as possible.

2. If he converts to Catholicism in 5 years, should he leave his "wife" since he is making her an adulterer?

If her first marriage is valid then his leaving her would not make her an adulterer. To the contrary, it would cause an objectively adulterous situation to cease.

That is not to say that he should leave her, because we do not know if her first marriage was valid or not. To determine that, an annulment could be pursued. If the annulment is granted then their marriage could be convalidated ("blessed") and they would be genuinely married. Also, in the ensuing five years they may have had children and--as some couples have--they might determine, even in the absence of an annulment and convalidation, to stay together for the sake of the children, living as brother and sister.

3. If his "wife" converts to Catholicism and he does not, should she leave him and try to reconcile with her ex-husband?

If her first marriage was valid then, as long as the former husband is alive, she would have the option of reconciling with him, staying single, or living as brother and sister with her current husband, or pursuing an annulment and convalidation with her current husband. Which of these options would be the best would depend on a variety of factors. However, assuming that her situation with her current husband is good, the last of these options would likely be the first one she would want to pursue.

4. If both he and his wife convert to Catholicism, would his wife have to get an annulment for the first marriage and then he and her get remarried in the Catholic Church?

Yes.

5. If an Egyptian man is married to 3 wives, and he converts to Catholicism, what does he do with his three wives? Is he only married to one of them? Or none of them?

This situation is expressly dealt with in the Code of Canon Law, which provides:

Can. 1148 §1. When he receives baptism in the Catholic Church, a non-baptized man who has several non-baptized wives at the same time can retain one of them after the others have been dismissed, if it is hard for him to remain with the first one. The same is valid for a non-baptized woman who has several non-baptized husbands at the same time.

§2. In the cases mentioned in §1, marriage must be contracted in legitimate form after baptism has been received, and the prescripts about mixed marriages, if necessary, and other matters required by the law are to be observed.

§3. Keeping in mind the moral, social, and economic conditions of places and of persons, the local ordinary is to take care that the needs of the first wife and the others dismissed are sufficiently provided for according to the norms of justice, Christian charity, and natural equity.

I hope this helps, and I ask readers to keep you and your friend and his fiancee in their prayers.

Posted by Jimmy Akin in Sacraments | Permalink | Comments (75)

January 05, 2007

Contraception & Validity

(Jimmy Akin)

A reader writes:

I have a question I hope you will consider answering for me, as it has been bothering me. If you post this on your blog, please keep this anonymous.

Don't worry. I always do. I also edit e-mails to remove personally identifying information.

Anyway, my wife and I have been married for more many years, and thanks be to God have grown more and more faithful to the truths of the Catholic Faith. We have been lifelong Catholics, and in the last several years have fully adhered to the Church's teaching on contraception.

However, at the time we married, although we had not engaged in sexual relations prior, we used contraception of one kind or another for a few years after marriage. We realized eventually just how horrible the practice is and we have confessed and lived out the Church's teaching since.

My wife says she did not know that contraception was wrong at the time she began using it. I knew the Church taught it was wrong, but rationalized it away, and even was so brazen as to conclude that it was only a venial sin, as if that was ok. After all, what is the 2000 year constant teaching of Christ's Church compared to my mighty intellect?

The rub is this: is our marriage valid? When we took our vows, we believed we were "open to children" and would "accept children lovingly from God". I assure you, we both desired to have children in our marriage, and were not intending to use contraception to be childless. We just thought timing was the thing. Also, we both would have gladly accepted any child that came about in spite of the contraceptive effort.

God is merciful, and today we have several beautiful children. Our past actions are a source of deep shame and regret. But I know that regardless of how peachy things may have turned out, the validity of a marriage depends on the form, matter and intent at the time of contraction. So, assuming all else of form, matter and intent was there, do you think our immoral practice caused our marriage to be invalid?

I'm glad to be able to give you good news: The Church does NOT hold that the use of contraception--even at the time marriage is contracted--is of itself invalidating. (Put more formally, the Church does not hold that the intent at the time of marriage to use contraception is of itself invalidating.) Therefore, the situation as you describe it does not present any grounds on which to doubt the validity of your marriage. Based on what you've said, the Church would presume your marriage valid, and you should (and must) too. So you can stop worrying.

If you had excluded by an act of the will completely excluded the orientation of your marriage toward the procreation of children then there potentially would be grounds for nullity, but the fact that you were open to having children shows that you were not excluding this orientation toward procreation, even though for a time you used morally illegitimate means to delay having children.

The orientation of marriage toward procreation is an essential property of matrimony, and to exclude it completely by an act of the will can mean that matrimonial consent (the consent to be married) is not present, however, one does not have to plan on having children now in order for sufficient openness to procreation to be present.

Indeed, the amount of openness that one has to have for matrimonial consent to be present seems rather modest. You do not have to intend to have children. In fact, the Church recognizes the validity of the marriages of couples in various situations who intend not to have children. For example, elderly people who are past the age of childbearing or people who have a serious medical or other condition that warrants perpetual use of Natural Family Planning to avoid conception. Such people can still be open to the reception of children if (miraculously in the first case or accidentally in the second case) they conceive a child.

Choosing to delay the bearing of children by morally illegitimate means is sinful and needs to be repented of, but while the use of these means renders individual sexual acts closed to children, it does not render the marriage as a whole closed to children.

The Church has been confronted for a long time (the whole of its existence, actually, since contraception has been around since pre-Christian times) with the situation of couples using contraception at the beginning of their marriage but still intending to have children eventually, and it simply does not recognize this as invalidating the union. It's sinful, but not invalidating since the couple is still allowing their marriage to retain a fundamental orientation to procreation, even if they are thwarting that openness in the case of individual acts.

So do not worry about the validity of your marriage and rejoice in the conversion that God has granted you and your wife!

Posted by Jimmy Akin in Sacraments | Permalink | Comments (94)

October 06, 2006

Holy Water

(Jimmy Akin)

A reader writes:

A protestant pastor recently asked why holy water is blessed. I did not have a good answer. Why is holy water blessed, and what does this blessing do above and beyond regular water?

Holy water is blessed in order to make it holy. Otherwise, it would just be water.

As to what the blessing does, it consecrates (sets apart) the water for sacred use. It is particularly used in baptism and, upon entering a church, in blessing oneself as a reminder of baptism (that's why holy water fonts are set at the doors of churches, to remind us of how we entered the Church by baptism). In addition, holy water is used to bless other things and thus it serves as an acted out prayer by which we as God to bless whatever the holy water is being used on.

Holy water--like the other sacramentals--does not function like a sacrament. The Catechism of the Catholic Church notes:

Sacramentals do not confer the grace of the Holy Spirit in the way that the sacraments do, but by the Church's prayer, they prepare us to receive grace and dispose us to cooperate with it. "For well-disposed members of the faithful, the liturgy of the sacraments and sacramentals sanctifies almost every event of their lives with the divine grace which flows from the Paschal mystery of the Passion, Death, and Resurrection of Christ. From this source all sacraments and sacramentals draw their power. There is scarcely any proper use of material things which cannot be thus directed toward the sanctification of men and the praise of God" [CCC 1670].

Like the other sacramentals, holy water thus serves as a means by which we can to something to signify our desire to consecrate ourselves and our circumstances to God, striking a connection with him in response to his grace and asking him to give us of his grace. They are, if you will, a kind of acted out prayer in which we and the Church implore God's blessings.

October 03, 2006

Confirmation: Valid Or Invalid?

(Jimmy Akin)

A reader writes:

I have recently come into the Catholic Church, but I have some concerns about the validity of my confirmation. During RCIA when we were learning about the Sacrament of Reconciliation, the deacon/instructor told us, upon being questioned about it, that none of us were able to receive absolution if we went to confession as we were not yet Catholics.

This is false. The deacon did not know what he was talking about.

I was baptized in a different denomination, and upon doing some research I've found that there is in fact an expectation and an obligation that before one can be confirmed, one must first go to confession.

Correct. Those who have already been baptized are expected to go to confession prior to their reception into the Catholic Church to make sure that they are in a state of grace at the time that they receive the other sacraments of initiation (confirmation and the Eucharist).

Given these circumstances and the fact that I didn't know of the obligation to go to confession before confirmation, was my confirmation valid? If not, what do I do?

Your confirmation was valid. While confirmation is one of the sacraments of the living (meaning: the spiritually alive, those who are in a state of grace), it requires the state of grace for liceity (lawfulness) and not for validity. Therefore, even if you were not in a state of grace at the time you received confirmation, you still would have received it validly.

This is a good thing considering the number of co-ed sleepovers that are being conducted as part of misguided confirmation preparation with teenagers.

The same thing is true for marriage and holy orders--the state of grace is required for liceity but not validity. Otherwise we'd never know who was really confirmed or married or ordained, because we could never be sure who was or wasn't in a state of grace at the time.

Now, for a person to knowingly receive one of these sacraments in a state of mortal sin would be the sin of sacrelige, but since you (a) may have been in a state of grace at the time and (b) were doing what you were told in innocent ignorance of the need to go to confession, you are not culpable for that.

Also, on a side note, what exactly am I required to confess? Do I confess mortal sins since my baptism, or since I was not aware of the Church's teaching regarding mortal sin, do I only confess those mortal sins that I can recall since I became explicitly aware of the Church's teaching?

Confessions prior to reception into the Church should cover the mortal sins committed since one's baptism. Baptism deals with mortal sins committed prior to its reception (if any), and confession deals with those committed after baptism.

What you should do at this point, if you have not already confessed these sins, is include them in your next confession. If there was a lengthy period between your baptism and your reception into the Church, so that there are a lot of sins to confession, you should make a special appointment for your next confession since it may take some time. This is better than showing up at an ordinary confession time and having everyone else wait in line for a long time. If you make an appointment, you also will be able to take whatever time you need without feeling time pressure.

To prepare for this confession, you probably should use a published examination of conscience to help you figure out what you need to confess.

You do not, however, need to refrain from receiving the Eucharist until you can make this confession. The sacrament of confession forgives all mortal sins unless some are deliberately held back. Since you didn't culpably hold anything back, you have already been forgiven for these sins and restored to a state of grace. You still need to mention these sins in your next confession, but the situation is sacramentally equivalent to having forgotten to mention a mortal sin when you were last in confession. The sin was forgiven and still needs to be mentioned in your next confession, but you are in a state of grace and can receive the Eucharist.

Hope this helps!

Posted by Jimmy Akin in Sacraments | Permalink | Comments (27)

September 14, 2006

Forgotten & Forgiven Mortal Sins

(Jimmy Akin)

A reader writes:

I am aware that if one goes to confession and supplies the requisite contrition, then all sins which the person committed are absolved--provided that the person does not intentionally conceal any mortal sins.

Correct.

Also, I have been told by several priests that this means that if one remembers a mortal sin after confession, they should know that they are forgiven for it so long as they mention it the next time they go to confession.

Correct, though this should be formulated a little differently. You are forgiven if you meant to confess all your mortal sins and just forgot one. Having been forgiven of the one you forgot, you are still obligated to confess it the next time you go to confession. It's not that your forgiveness of it is conditional on you adopting the intention to confess it next time. That sin has already been forgiven. It's that you incur a new sin if you refuse to adopt the intention of confessing it.

Now I remember that you did a similar blog topic about this fairly recently, but my question is one that I don't think you dealt with in that blog.

My question is after one has remembered the mortal sin, how soon is one required to seek out confession? For example, if I go to confession and mention everything I can bring to mind, but immediately afterward remember a mortal sin, must I go to confession to mention the mortal sin as soon as possible? Or could I just wait 2 weeks, a month, etc., until I feel like going to confession? And can I receive communion in the meanwhile?

Since you are not in a state of mortal sin, you can receive Communion prior to your next confession.

As to how long you can wait before the next confession, the fact that you have an already-forgiven-but-not-yet-confessed sin does not create an obligation to go at any particular time, though one might suggest that one should go before one is likely to forget the mortal sin that needs to be mentioned.

Consequently, church law does not require one to go within any particular time frame, other than the obligation to confess one's mortal sins at least once a year. It would be arguable whether this law applies to forgiven-but-unconfessed sins or not. The purpose is clearly to deal with mortal sins that haven't been forgiven, so in the absence of clarification that it applies to those that have as well, it would seem that liberty would be presumed on the grounds of it being doubtful whether the law applies to this case (canon 14).

Now, there is language in some Church documents about going to confession "as soon as possible," but this is connected with a different situation, which is described in canon 916:

A person who is conscious of grave sin is not to celebrate Mass or receive the body of the Lord without previous sacramental confession unless there is a grave reason and there is no opportunity to confess; in this case the person is to remember the obligation to make an act of perfect contrition which includes the resolution of confessing as soon as possible.

What this canon is talking about is a person who has not been to confession and who can't go, not a person who has been and just forgot a sin. That person needs to make an act of perfect contrition in order to get back into a state of grace and thus able to take Communion, and making an act of perfect contrition includes the will to go to confession when it is possible (and reasonable) to do so.

The Code formulates this in terms of going "as soon as possible," but what it means by this is as soon as it is possible and reasonable for a person to go. The Church does not expect you to do unreasonable things just to be able to go a sooner. (E.g., driving recklessly in order to get to the church a little faster or demanding that the priest get out of bed to hear your confession.) There is an unstated reasonableness condition in this canon.

This may be where you got the idea about needing to go "as soon as possible," but it does not apply to your case. It deals with those who have an unforgiven sin and can't go to confession before Communion, not those who went to confession and got forgiven but forgot to mention something.

Your sins already have been remitted by the sacrament of confession. You just forgot something.

This kind of situation happens all the time, and if there were a requirement to go to confession within a particular timeframe, it would be on the books.

Posted by Jimmy Akin in Sacraments | Permalink | Comments (17)

August 29, 2006

Lesbian Couple & Baptism

(Jimmy Akin)

A reader writes:

Recently my parish priest baptized the child of a lesbian couple. Now, I haven't spoken with him yet, but I will. So for instance, I don't know if the couple is sexually intimate or even practicing Catholics. In any event, where does the church stand on this issue? I'd like to know your thoughts before I speak to my priest and then my bishop who I will also speak with.

The relevant Church law is expressed in the following canon:

Can. 868 §1. For an infant to be baptized licitly:

1/ the parents or at least one of them or the person who legitimately takes their place must consent;

2/ there must be a founded hope that the infant will be brought up in the Catholic religion; if such hope is altogether lacking, the baptism is to be delayed according to the prescripts of particular law after the parents have been advised about the reason.

Strictly speaking, it doesn't matter whether the parents or guardians of the child are themselves Catholic. What matters is that the child will be brought up Catholic.

(This is something that has been relevant at various times in history. For example, I was reading an article a while back about some villagers in Indo-China who were themselves unwilling to become Christian but who were most anxious to have their children brought up to be Catholics.)

The question for your purposes is whether the clause I've highlighted in blue is fulfilled if the caretakers of the child are a lesbian couple.

It seems to me that this matter is not clear.

While it's true that the individuals can take the necessary steps to raise the child as a Catholic so that the child comes to think of himself as a Catholic and so that he goes to Mass and the sacraments and even learns the basics of the faith, it nevertheless seems to me that there is an argument that the living arrangement of his caretakers of itself constitutes a fundamental barrier to the child receiving an authentically Catholic formation--not to mention what they're likely to teach him about sexuality.

In fact, it seems to me that one could argue that the child would not, in fact, be brought up in the Catholic religion but in a heresy since the child would in all likelihood be brought up to doubt or deny the fact that homosexual behavior is intrinsically sinful--this point being contained in the deposit of faith (e.g., read Romans 1) and having been defined by the orginary and universal Magisterium of the Church, qualifying it as a point that must be believed with divine and Catholic faith and thus making its obstinate post-baptismal doubt or denial a heresy.

The child, as a child, would not be obstinately doubting or denying it (within the canonical meaning of "obstinate") by just taking his "parents" word for it, but one could nevertheless argue that the child was being raised in material heresy and not the Catholic religion.

On the other hand . . .

Rome hasn't said that, and Rome baptizes the kids of all kinds of parents who are likely to raise their kids in material heresy.

Americans--who tend to read and apply the law very rigorously--are often shocked when they learn just how permissive Europeans are in applying the law regarding the above canon.

This is perhaps nowhere more clearly on display than in the Church's documents regarding the pastoral care of Gypsies.

I've been meaning to blog about that--and will soon--but it's stunning the pastoral concessions that are granted to Gypsies in the main document. It is clear that, while many Gypsies are nominally Catholic, the Church is perfectly willing to baptize their children even though they have moral certitude that the child will not be raised to participate in multiple sacraments. Yet the relevant dicastery has judged that helping Gypsies maintain at least some kind of Catholic identity, even if it is a gravely impaired one.

And the same goes for numerous non-Gypsy Europeans who happen to be pro-abort and pro-homosexual and who plan to raise their children to be the same. Their kids get baptized, too.

So based on European praxis, it seems that a person could well argue that "being raised in the Catholic religion" means only acquiring a minimal--one might even say nominal--Catholic identity, and this could be fulfilled by two lesbians promising to raise the child Catholic.

Thus the law seems to me not to be sufficiently clear on this point, and we could use a clarification from Rome.

The changing nature of society--as well as the dramatic weakening of Catholic identity in the developed world--is likely to force the Church at some point to clarify this and even to reconsider whether a foreseen minimal Catholic identity for the child is enough to warrant baptizing him.

In the meantime, as it is a doubtful point of law and a matter of significant pastoral concern, I would say that you are well within your rights to talk to your pastor and bishop about it and make your opinions (whatever they may be) known in a respectful manner.

Posted by Jimmy Akin in Sacraments | Permalink | Comments (66)

August 04, 2006

Valid Scapular Enrollment?

(Jimmy Akin)

A reader writes:

A friend of mine recently asked a question on a web message board. Because you are the master of all rules, laws and technicalities, I was hoping you might be able to answer this question
I decided to ask a priest to enroll me in the brown scapular. Here's what happened:

If anyone is familiar with the enrollment prayer, the priest must bless the scapular itself once, and the person wearing it twice (at separate parts of the prayer). The priest jumped over blessing the second time:
V. By the power granted to me, I admit you to a share in all the spiritual works performed with the merciful help of Jesus Christ by the religious of Mount Carmel. In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. (Make the sign of the cross)
At this point the priest said the right words but failed to make that sign of the cross over me (although I did it myself). So how specific is this priestly enrollment prayer? Am I enrolled and being paranoid? Or should I have it re-enrolled?
So, just what is it that makes an enrollment valid?

The brown scapular is a sacramental rather than a sacrament. As a result, it works the way the Church intends it to work. Unlike the sacraments, it does not have an essential form and matter that has been passed down to us from Jesus Christ, so the Church is free to establish whatever requirements for enrollment in it that the Church wants.

If you read the text of the enrollment, it does call for the sign of the cross to be made at three points, but the Church has not said that the sign of the cross is essential for validity. Indeed, the sign of the cross gets made in all kinds of ceremonies without affecting their validity one way or the other. In Mass, for example, the sign of the cross is made several times, but if the priest omits it, it does not serve to invalidate the transubstantiation of the Eucharist in Mass. The sign of the cross is a reverent action that is called for in the Mass, but it is not required for validity. The same is true of the other sacraments. In none of them, even though the sign is called for, is it part of the essential matter or form of the sacrament and so omitting it (e.g., anointing a sick person by just dabbing them rather than signing them) does not affect validity.

If something isn't essential for validity in the sacraments then, unless the Church specifically indicates otherwise, it isn't going to be necessary in a sacramental, either. Based on the example that the Church sets with the use of the sign of the cross in the sacraments, we should understand its use in the sacraments in a similar light. Thus unless, in the case of a particular sacramental, the sign of the cross is indicated to be essential then it should be regarded as non-essential.

The Church does not intend the sacramentals to be contingent on the performance of minor details since the Church knows full well that priests and lay people will mess things up, and it doesn't want people scrupuling about this. As long as the essential core of the rite is performed, that is what counts.

In the case of the brown scapular enrollment, the essential part of the rite for enrollment is the words quoted above: "I admit you to a share in all the spiritual works performed with the merciful help of Jesus Christ by the religious of Mount Carmel." If the priest says that then the person is enrolled. It's what's known linguistically as a performative utterance since the uttering of the words performs the act in question. A more commonplace example of a performative utterance would be "I invite you to my party"--by saying it, you do it, and by saying "I admit you" the priest admits the person.

The added element "In the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (during which the sign of the cross is called for) thus seems to be a qualifier that expresses the spirit in which the admission is done, but it is not essential for the admission itself to take place. What's essential is the "I admit you" with an indication of what the person is being admitted to.

As long as the priest said those words--or words with equivalent meaning--the person has been admitted and does not need to be re-enrolled.

Hope this helps!

Posted by Jimmy Akin in Sacraments | Permalink | Comments (38)

July 14, 2006

The Presumption Of Faith

(Jimmy Akin)

A reader writes:

I've never heard the term "presumption of faith" used before but in thinking about the issue of Bishops withholding Communion from wayward politicians, it strikes me that the Church applies almost universally this principle (expressed in other ways).

Like presumption of innocence in court, the Church presumes faith when one asks for any of the sacraments. Because we cannot know another's heart as God can, we have to take their word that they are able to receive the sacrament and believe what the sacrament does.

In the case of communion, it has been said many times that the confessional is empty and the communion lines are full. Logic, knowledge of human concupiscence, and just the results of some of the most recent surveys of Catholics tells us that there is something wrong with the picture, but in the communion line the Church applies presumption of faith because she has to.

It is only where a person publically advertises their sin and just as publically seeks communion while demonstrating no purpose of amendment (a requisite for a good confession if that confession had indeed taken place privately), it is only in that kind a circumstance that a public response is required to avert scandal.

Others holding the same views privately and acting upon those views could receive communion in an unworthy manner and the priest or bishop may never know because they are acting on the presumption of faith.

And so on.

Does that make any sense as a concept?

It does, though I'd tweak it a bit.

There is indeed a presumption that the Church makes in admitting people to Communion, though it isn't just a presumption that they have faith. It also presumes that they meet the other requirements for Communion, such as being in a state of grace, having the proper dispositions, having fasted for an hour before the moment of Communion, and so forth. These are summed up under the heading of "worthiness to receive Communion" (which is a bit paradoxical given that immediately before Communion we say "Lord, I am not worthy to receive you," but there we are). I'd therefore phrase the presumption as a presumption of worthiness rather than a presumption of faith.

This presumption holds except in very specific cases. A Catholic presenting himself for holy Communion is not to be denied except unless he is prohibited by law from receiving. The Code of Canon Law provides:

Can. 912 Any baptized person not prohibited by law can and must be admitted to holy communion.

Now, there are people who are prohibited by law from receiving (e.g., because they're in mortal sin, because they haven't fasted, etc.), but in the practice of the Church the evaluation of these criteria is left to the individual communicant in the vast majority of cases. The only time in the Code that priest and other ministers of Communion are told not to give Communion to a person who presents himself is in the following canon:

Can. 915 Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.

Since declared excommunications (as opposed to automatic excommunications) and declared interdicts are as rare as hen's teeth, the most commonly triggered part of this canon is that concerning "others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin." That means people who are publicly known to be involved in grave sin and who refuse to amend their ways.

As a practical matter, only those individuals are denied Communion (if even they are). Otherwise the presumption of worthiness to receive holy Communion operates.

Posted by Jimmy Akin in Sacraments | Permalink | Comments (14)

July 12, 2006

More on Godparents

(Jimmy Akin)

A reader writes:

My husband and I converted to Catholicism 4 years ago. We are currently expecting our 5th child, the 3rd to be born since our reception into the Church. My question concerns the choosing of Godparents for this new child. Is it ok for us to choose the same set of Godparents for this child as for one of the other children? We have many devout Christian friends and family, but they are mainly Protestants and so unsuitable for Godparents. There are very few Catholic couples that are we close enough to, and know their faith well enough to ask them to be Godparents. The two couples that we have already asked are still the best candidates from our "pool" of friends and family. I would like to know what is okay canonically, as well as what the tradition on this question is.

Canonically there is no problem at all in having the same godparents for one child as for another. There is no canonical requirement that one child in a family must have a different set of godparents than another, as can be seen from our recent discussion of the requirements.

As far as what is traditional--well, that may vary significantly from culture to culture. In America it seems to me that most Catholics (at least the ones that I know) tend to have different godparents for different children--at least most of the time--but this is in no way binding.

Doing the best thing for the kid would take priority in my mind, and if that mean having the same ones for different kids because those are the best ones available, then that's what I'd do.

Incidentally, thanks for giving me the occasion to tie up another couple of godparent questions that came up in our previous discussion.

There was some question about whether a person who is non-Christian could serve as a formal "witness" to the baptism. The answer is that, by my reading of the canon, the answer is no.

What the canon (CIC 874) says is:

§2. A baptized person who belongs to a non-Catholic ecclesial community is not to participate except together with a Catholic sponsor and then only as a witness of the baptism.

Now, the phrase "baptized person who belongs to a non-Catholic ecclesial community" has a technical meaning in canon law, and what it means is: Protestant.

Eastern Orthodox can be godparents, as we noted, as long as there is also a Catholic godparent (see sectoin 98b of this document) don't fall under that designation because they have validly ordained bishops and so are members of churches rather than "ecclesial communities." Because Protestants don't (in general) have validly ordained bishops they don't have "churches" in the full sense and so Vatican II and canon law use the term "ecclesial community" to refer to their communions.

In the declartion Dominus Iesus, Cardinal Ratzinger noted:

[T]he ecclesial communities which have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery, are not Churches in the proper sense; however, those who are baptized in these communities are, by Baptism, incorporated in Christ and thus are in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Church (no. 17).

Canon 874 §2 is thus making a specific exception for baptized Protestants to serve as designated witnesses, together with a Catholic godparent. It is not making an exception for non-Christians.

The rule is thus that there is always to be at least one Catholic godparent, who can be either male or female.

If there is an additional godparent then it must be of the opposite sex and can be either Catholic or Eastern Orthodox.

There also can be a Catholic godparent and a baptized Protestant witness.

A non-Christian or a non-baptized Protestant (some Protestant groups do not mandate baptism) could not serve as a witness but would have to have a looser, less official relationship with the child, such as an unofficial "uncle" or mentor or something.

Posted by Jimmy Akin in Sacraments, Sacraments | Permalink | Comments (24)

More on Godparents

(Jimmy Akin)

A reader writes:

My husband and I converted to Catholicism 4 years ago. We are currently expecting our 5th child, the 3rd to be born since our reception into the Church. My question concerns the choosing of Godparents for this new child. Is it ok for us to choose the same set of Godparents for this child as for one of the other children? We have many devout Christian friends and family, but they are mainly Protestants and so unsuitable for Godparents. There are very few Catholic couples that are we close enough to, and know their faith well enough to ask them to be Godparents. The two couples that we have already asked are still the best candidates from our "pool" of friends and family. I would like to know what is okay canonically, as well as what the tradition on this question is.

Doing the best thing for the kid would take priority in my mind, and if that mean having the same ones for different kids because those are the best ones available, then that's what I'd do.

Incidentally, thanks for giving me the occasion to tie up another couple of godparent questions that came up in our previous discussion.

There was some question about whether a person who is non-Christian could serve as a formal "witness" to the baptism. The answer is that, by my reading of the canon, the answer is no.

What the canon (CIC 874) says is:

§2. A baptized person who belongs to a non-Catholic ecclesial community is not to participate except together with a Catholic sponsor and then only as a witness of the baptism.

Now, the phrase "baptized person who belongs to a non-Catholic ecclesial community" has a technical meaning in canon law, and what it means is: Protestant.

In the declartion Dominus Iesus, Cardinal Ratzinger noted:

[T]he ecclesial communities which have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery, are not Churches in the proper sense; however, those who are baptized in these communities are, by Baptism, incorporated in Christ and thus are in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Church (no. 17).

Canon 874 §2 is thus making a specific exception for baptized Protestants to serve as designated witnesses, together with a Catholic godparent. It is not making an exception for non-Christians.

The rule is thus that there is always to be at least one Catholic godparent, who can be either male or female.

If there is an additional godparent then it must be of the opposite sex and can be either Catholic or Eastern Orthodox.

There also can be a Catholic godparent and a baptized Protestant witness.

Posted by Jimmy Akin in Sacraments, Sacraments | Permalink | Comments (24)

July 10, 2006

"My Non-Christian Godfather"?

(Jimmy Akin)

A reader writes:

My wife and I are committed practicing Catholics, and we are soon to be blessed with a baby.

We do not want to delay in baptizing our child, and therefore have put our thought to Godparents.

However, I have a somewhat unusual dilemma.

Whilst we have most probably fixed on a godmother who is close to us, an experienced parent, and practicing Catholic, there is someone I would very much like to have as a godfather who is a man of principles, integrity, honesty, and many virtues Catholics highly regard. He is in many ways someone I hope my child will look up to. He towers above other possibilities as an individual. However, he is neither Catholic nor Christian. He believes in God, and has respect for the Catholic faith (as an architect, he does a lot of work for the Church, including the recent design of a major Chapel), but is not Christian. His origins are in fact Jewish. I however, whilst a committed Catholic, believe at the end of the day that what is important is how we live our lives. That said, I understand the importance and significance of baptism – thus I am torn.

May I ask your advice in regards to where do I stand in terms of Canon Law, and practice, therefore, in considering him as a candidate for godfather (bearing in mind of course that the godmother would be a practicing catholic)?

While it sounds as though the gentleman in question has numerous positive qualities, the fact that he is not Catholic would prevent him from serving as godfather. The Code of Canon Law provides:

Can. 874 §1. To be permitted to take on the function of sponsor [i.e., godparent] a person must:

1/ be designated by the one to be baptized, by the parents or the person who takes their place, or in their absence by the pastor or minister and have the aptitude and intention of fulfilling this function;

2/ have completed the sixteenth year of age, unless the diocesan bishop has established another age, or the pastor or minister has granted an exception for a just cause;

3/ be a Catholic who has been confirmed and has already received the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist and who leads a life of faith in keeping with the function to be taken on;

4/ not be bound by any canonical penalty legitimately imposed or declared;

5/ not be the father or mother of the one to be baptized.

§2. A baptized person who belongs to a non-Catholic ecclesial community is not to participate except together with a Catholic sponsor and then only as a witness of the baptism.

The reason for the requirement in blue is that the function of a godparent is to serve an auxiliary role to the parents in seeing to the child's religious education as a Catholic. That means helping the child understand and accept the teachings of the Catholic faith not just in a general way but, when called upon, in their details.

For example, at some point in his life the child may have questions about transubstantiation (or any other Catholic teaching), and it would be very difficult for a godfather who does not believe in transubstantiation--who thinks that it is false--to tell his godson that he should believe in it.

Most such godfathers would not send the kind of message that the godson needs to hear and thus would undermine their faith.

Those godfathers who did tell their godson to believe in transubstantiation (or whatever doctrine is in question) would be violating their own consciences by telling another to believe what they themselves believe to be false.

To prevent this kind of situation--where either the child's faith will be undermined or the godfather will be forced to violate his conscience--the Church has determined that in order to be a godparent for a Catholic child one needs to be Catholic.

(At least in the vast majority of cases, though occasionally an exception is made for Eastern Orthodox because of their doctrinal closeness to the Catholic faith; SEE HERE.)

This practice says nothing at all about the personal quality of non-Catholics who would otherwise be considered for the role of godparent. They may be outstanding individuals and may in fact be better role models than other available people, but because they do not share the faith that they would be expected to foster in the child, they are not canonically permitted to play this role.

I would therefore urge you to look to other individuals to find candidates for the role of godfather, though the gentleman you have been considering could still potentially play an unofficial mentoring role for your child.

Incidentally, you should be aware that there is not a requirement that there even be a godfather. The Code provides:

Can. 873 There is to be only one male sponsor or one female sponsor or one of each.

So if you truly cannot find a suitable Catholic man to serve as godfather, the fact you already have a suitable Catholic godmother would be sufficient.

Hope this helps!

Posted by Jimmy Akin in Sacraments | Permalink | Comments (25)

July 03, 2006

Forgotten Sins & General Confession

(Jimmy Akin)

A reader writes:

Through the work of the Holy Spirit a couple of years ago, I was able to really turn my spiritual life around and fully embrace my Catholicism. I'll spare you all the gory details, but Catholic Answers Live played a big part.

I made some important confessions back then to really bring me back into full communion with the Church, and I continue to go every month or so. But I occasionally will remember some stuff I did in my past life, either a long time ago, or even just before my "reversion". Sometimes really bad stuff, like Darth Vader stuff.

Unless you are a mass murderer or a Satanist, I very much doubt that you've got real Darth Vader-like stuff. You may be being scrupulous.

I tend to be scrupulous at times, although it comes and goes.

Ahh. See?

I know I'm not supposed to reconfess things (which I don't)

It is possible to reconfess sins that have already been confessed and forgiven, but according to standard moral and pastoral theology this is something that a scrupulous person should not do because it fosters further scrupulosity.

and I'm not supposed to worry about past sins (which I do). The sacrament takes care of that.

True.

However, I have heard on EWTN and elsewhere that it's a good idea to mention unconfessed (forgotten) serious sins the next time I go, even though the sacrament took care of them.

It's actually a bit stronger than that. If you remember a mortal sin that your forgot to confess then you have an obligation to confess it, even though it has already been forgiven.

In the case of scrupulous individuals, though, standard moral and pastoral theology holds that they should only confess such sins if the following conditions obtain: (1) they know for a fact it was a mortal sin and (2) they know for a fact that they have not already confessed it. If they aren't sure about either of these two conditions then a person with a scrupulous conscience should not confess the sin because it will foster further scrupulosity if they get in the habit of confessing sins that they aren't sure were mortal or aren't sure if they haven't already been confessed.

Would it be a good idea for me to make a general confession, mentioning the things I can think of, as a way to move on?

I continue to receive communion almost every day. My head tells me to keep receiving, but my heart wants to rid myself of the old baggage. I do realize the danger of always remembering more and more past sins, as well as the danger of not trusting the sacrament. I've really enjoyed the posts you've made in the past regarding scrupulosity. I've also read Fr. Santa's book. I'm not a "hard case", but like I said, it comes and goes.

Whether you should make a general confession is difficult to say and is ultimately a decision that you will have to make based on your own knowledge of yourself and how successful it would be in helping you get past the present issue. It's not an unreasonable idea, though, as long as you don't find yourself wanting to do it again and again.

If you do make a general confession, then do it in such a way that will maximize your chance of getting past the scrupulosity: Sit down with a really thorough examination of conscience and make a list of everything mortally sinful that you think you may have done. Write it by hand; don't use a computer. Then take this list with you into the confessional and read it or, if it is too painful, give it to the priest and say "I confess this." Then get the list back and DESTROY it (e.g., burn it and then flush the ashes).

You can, of course, omit from the list things that you're sure that you have confessed.

And if you do decide on making a general confession, be sure to set up a special appointment time with the priest. Don't show up to do it right before Mass or when there are other people waiting in line.

Hope this helps!

Posted by Jimmy Akin in Sacraments | Permalink | Comments (20)

June 29, 2006

The Oil Of Gladness

(Jimmy Akin)

A reader writes:

Have you heard of the 'oil of gladness'? Someone told us that it is a non-sacramental oil used by lay people. My friend's mother has been asked to administer it at school on the the feast of St. Peter & St. Paul to those recently confirmed and she's a bit suspicious about it.

Firstly, what is this oil? Secondly, can a layperson administer it? (and if so, what would be the point in administering it if it is non-sacramental?)

Oh, if it makes any difference, we live in England!

I have to say that I haven't heard of anyone using the phrase "oil of gladness" in this way. The phrase originally comes from the Old Testament. In Psalm 45:7, we read:

Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

This is in a Messianic Psalm whose literal signification originally applied to the king in Jerusalem but which also applies to Christ, so the same verse gets quoted in reference to Jesus in Hebrews 1:9.

In these passages, "the oil of gladness" might refer to anointing oil used on kings of Israel at their coronation or it may refer more generally to the anointing oils that were used as part of daily Israelite culture and hygeine. These oils were often scented and putting them on could symbolize gladness in something like the way putting on perfume or cologne does in our culture.

It wouldn't surprise me if the phrase "oil of gladness" turned up in some of the Church's rites for blessing various oils, but I am not aware of any oil specifically called "the oil of gladness," though the term does show up in a non-technical sense (i.e., not as a literal name) in some church documents (see here).

That being said, it also wouldn't surprise me if some folks had taken to calling particular oils "the oil of gladness." Folk Catholicism often generates unusual names for things.

As to whether laity can perform non-sacramental anointings with oil, this was addressed in the 1997 Instruction on Colaboration, where we read:

Article 9

The Apostolate to the Sick

§ 1. In this area, the non-ordained faithful can often provide valuable collaboration. Innumerable works of charity to the sick are constantly provided by the non-ordained faithful either individually or through community apostolates. These constitute an important Christian presence to sick and suffering of the greatest importance. The non-ordained faithful particularly assist the sick by being with them in difficult moments, encouraging them to receive the Sacraments of Penance and the Anointing of the Sick, by helping them to have the disposition to make a good individual confession as well as to prepare them to receive the Anointing of the Sick. In using sacramentals, the non-ordained faithful should ensure that these are in no way regarded as sacraments whose administration is proper and exclusive to the Bishop and to the priest. Since they are not priests, in no instance may the non-ordained perform anointings either with the Oil of the Sick or ony other oil [SOURCE].

This is a rather sweeping statement, and since it has been the custom of lay people to perform at least some non-sacramental blessings with oil (at least on themselves) in Catholic history, there is some question in my mind about whether the Holy See meant the boldface statement above as a reference to non-sacramental anointings of sick people (given the fact that this is under the head of the apostolate to the sick) or whether they meant it to refer to anointings in general.

What I would do if I were your friend is this:

Here in America we have a book known as the Book of Blessings which contains many of the Church's rites for the administration of sacramentals. Some of these are approved for laypeople to perform, and if this situation were occurring in America the first thing I would do is check the Book of Blessings to see what it says.

That's an American document and wouldn't apply in England, but there's sure to be a British equivalent, so what I would do is ask to see a copy of the official ritual that she has been asked to perform. Then I would check it out to make sure that it really is an official ritual approved for use in the your country and not something that somebody just made up.

If it checks out--if it has the proper approvals from your conference of bishops and Rome--then I would feel comfortable in going ahead and performing the rite. Otherwise, I'd start asking more questions and would say that your friend's concern about participating in the rite is warranted.

Hope this helps!

Posted by Jimmy Akin in Sacraments | Permalink | Comments (14)

June 28, 2006

Delaying Infant Baptism?

(Jimmy Akin)

A reader writes:

My wife and I are expecting our third child in mid-August. Our parish does infant baptisms on the
second Sunday of September. We were hoping to have the baby baptised then. Unfortunately, my
sister-in-law (the godmother) cannot make it that day. My wife and I are having a hard time
determining if it would be contrary to our parental obligation to baptize our child if we wait an
additional month to do the baptism so that the godmother can be present. Thank you!

Here is what the Code of Canon Law says:

Can. 867 §1. Parents are obliged to take care that infants are baptized in the first few weeks; as soon as possible after the birth or even before it, they are to go to the pastor to request the sacrament for their child and to be prepared properly for it.

§2. An infant in danger of death is to be baptized without delay.

It would seem to me that you're talking about the difference between baptizing the child either approximately 4 weeks after baptism or approximately 8-9 weeks after baptism.

Canonically speaking, it seems to me that either of these could plausibly be claimed to be within "the first few weeks." There is no set number for a "few"; if the Church had wanted to set a number, it could have, but anything in the single digits is certainly a plausible contender.

It therefore seems to me that, as long as your baby is not in danger of death, you would be fulfilling your canonical obligations regarding the child.

Should the child be in danger of death, an immediate baptism--even by you at home--would be required.

Other options here would include:

Asking the parish to do the baptism at another, sooner time when the godmother can be there and
Doing the baptism in September but having someone stand in as a proxy for the godmother.

Hope this helps!

Posted by Jimmy Akin in Sacraments | Permalink | Comments (15)

June 02, 2006

Priestesses In The U.S.

(Jimmy Akin)

A reader writes:

Mr. Akin:

I thought this article would interest you.

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/14688209.htm

The article is about a group of people in the San Jose area who are attending "Masses" celebrated by (among others) a woman who claims to have been ordained to the priesthood.

The article discusses other woman who are also about to undergo putative ordinations to the priesthood--apparently by women who have undergone putative ordinations to the episcopacy.

This "line" of ordinations extends back to the ceremony that was conducted a few years ago on Danube river. Subsequently, some of the Danube ordinands reported that they had been consecrated as bishops by unnamed bishops who are in communion with Rome.

Now, based on the activity of the women claiming the episcopacy, this movement is spreading (as it has been already) to the United States.

The Diocese of San Jose has issued warnings to the faithful that the sacraments celebrated by the individuals in question are not valid.

Regrettably, the San Jose Mercury News decided to pour this story into the standard "reformers longing for change" mold and only included the bare minimum of material needed from those with the orthodox view needed to minimally guard against charges of only covering one side of the story.

Let's keep all the folks involved or affected by this story in prayer.

The reader also writes:

I thought this part was interesting:
A dozen will be ordained in Pittsburgh on July 31, including Cordero and women from Carmel and Pismo Beach. Another woman -- fearful that her bishop will quickly excommunicate her -- will only say she's from the Bay Area.
Aren't the women who do this automatically excommunicated?

No, they're not--or at least the Vatican has not handled prior cases in this way. Simulating the sacrament of holy orders does not carry with it the penalty of automatic excommunication, so for them to be automatically excommunicated they would have to be guilty of an offence that does carry that penalty.

The most likely such offenses are heresy and schism, but there would be problems with making these charges stick.

In regard to schism, the Church has not determined that simulating the sacrament of ordination is a schismatic act.

In regard to heresy, the act of simulating a sacrament is not itself heresy. "Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith" (CIC 751), so heresy is the adoption of a particular mental state (willful doubt or denial) that must be declared or manifested externally in order to incur canonical censure (CIC 1330).

I suppose that one could argue that for a woman to attempt to undergo ordination to the priesthood could be construed as an external manifestion of belief in the possibility of women's ordination, but the latter (i.e., belief in the possibility of women's ordination) has not yet been judged to be a heresy.

That may surprise folks, but hold on a second and I'll explain.

The definition of heresy requires that the truth that is doubted or denied must be one which must be believed with both divine faith (meaning it has been revealed by God as part of the deposit of faith) and Catholic faith (meaning that the Church has definitively proposed it so that it is infallible).

Some truths (e.g., the divinity of Christ) must be believed by divine faith and Catholic faith, but some only have to be believed by one OR the other. An example of a truth that must be believed by divine faith but not Catholic faith would be anything that God has taught in revelation and that the Church has not yet infallibly proposed (e.g.,--in my opinion--the fact that Judas is in hell). An example of a truth that must be believed by Catholic faith but not divine faith would be any truth that is closely enough connected with the truths in the deposit of faith that the Church has infallibly proposed it though the truth is not itself contained in the deposit of faith. For example: the fact that the Council of Trent was a valid ecumenical council.

At present, the Church has definitively proposed the fact that women cannot be ordained to the priesthood, so this truth must be believed with Catholic faith, but it has not yet made the determination of whether this is a truth that properly belongs to the deposit of faith or whether it is simply one closely connected with the deposit of faith that the Church can infer it and infallibly propose it.

Cardinal Ratzinger--in his Pre-16 days--wrote about this and made this point expressly. That is a theologically open question at this point, and since laws that impose penalties must be interpreted strictly (CIC 18), one does not occur excommunication for heresy unless it is clear that the doctrine one has denied is one that requires divine faith as well as Catholic faith.

Consequently, when the Danube Seven got ordained, their excommunications were handled simply as declared (ferendae sententiae) excommunications rather than automatic (latae sententiae) excommunications.

YOU CAN READ THE RELEVANT DECREES HERE (BE SURE TO SCROLL DOWN FOR THE SECOND DECREE).

This is in contrast to the way the Lefebvrite excommunications were handled, where it was expressly noted that the declaration of these excommunications had been incurred latae sententiae prior to their declaration.

YOU CAN READ THAT DECREE HERE.

Posted by Jimmy Akin in Sacraments | Permalink | Comments (55)

May 12, 2006

Pastoral Consequences Of The Mormon Baptism Decision

(Jimmy Akin)

A reader writes:

My wife came into the Catholic church somewhere around 2000 before we were married in the Church. She had been a baptized Mormon before then, in which the Deacon teaching her RCIA class said the church recognized as a valid baptism. I never thought to double check his assertion on this, and there's the possibility he flat out just misunderstood or lost record of her telling him this. Whatever the case, she underwent the Preparation for Christians, instead of the Preparation for the Unbaptized. We regularly celebrate the sacraments together now, and I was wondering the validity/invalidity of her confirmation into Catholicism? Would you please shed some light on this for us?

This is a very delicate question, and I want to compliment you for asking it. It shows a willingness to confront potentially unpleasant or disturbing matters and to follow God's truth even in the face of potential difficulties.

What the deacon told you was probably based on a correct understanding of Catholic practice at the time. Prior to 2001, it was generally assumed that Mormon baptisms were valid and thus that Mormons who became Catholic did not need to be baptized upon their reception into the Church, though many were given conditional baptisms just in case.

Those were the fortunate ones, because in 2001, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued the following response :

RESPONSE TO A 'DUBIUM'
on the validity of baptism conferred by
«The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints»,
called «Mormons»
Question: Wheter the baptism conferred by the community «The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints», called «Mormons» in the vernacular, is valid.

Response: Negative.

The Supreme Pontiff John Paul II, in the Audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect, approved the present Response, decided in the Sessione Ordinaria of this Congregation, and ordered it published.

From the Offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 5 June 2001.

+ Joseph Cardinal RATZINGER
Prefect

+ Tarcisio BERTONE, S.D.B.
Archbishop emeritus of Vercelli
Secretary

This means that, after further reflection, the Church does not regard Mormon baptisms as vaild.

Whether your wife received preparation for the baptized or preparation for the unbaptized is not of concern at this point, but what is of concern is the status of her baptism.

If she received a conditional baptism at the time she was received into the Church then her confirmation and her participation in subsequence sacraments will be valid (in the case of confession, for example) and legitimate (in the case of her reception of Holy Communion).

If she did not receive at least a conditional baptism at the time of her reception then she would not be able to validly (and in the case of the reception of the Eucharist, legitimately) participate in the other sacraments since baptism is the gateway to the sacraments.

It would therefore be necessary for her to receive at least a conditional baptism, following which she would be able to participate in a normal sacramental life, including receiving confirmation.

Thus if she was not given at least a conditional baptism at the time of her reception, I recommend contacting the pastor of your parish to pursue these options. Please let me know if you encounter difficulties with this.

I'd also add a couple of additional notes:

First, the response issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is brief and does not go into the reason why Mormon baptisms are invalid. The Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano, however, published a commentary by Fr. Luis Ladaria on the reasoning behind the decision. That commentary may be helpful in better understanding this issue.

IT IS AVAILABLE HERE.

Second, it sounds to me as if everyone was acting in good conscience at the time of your wife's reception into the Church, and so nobody here is to be blamed-

JIMMY AKIN.ORG

Jimmy Akin's Blog

About

JA.O Bloggers

PermaPosts

Sites

Blogs

Categories

December 20, 2007

Christmas Trees Unsafe - Faith Inconvenient

March 22, 2007

Specific Confessions

January 15, 2007

RLDS/Community of Christ Baptism Validity

January 12, 2007

Confession & Confirmation Validity

January 09, 2007

Marriage Questions Reader Roundup

January 08, 2007

Marriage Questions

January 05, 2007

Contraception & Validity

October 06, 2006

Holy Water

October 03, 2006

Confirmation: Valid Or Invalid?

September 14, 2006

Forgotten & Forgiven Mortal Sins

August 29, 2006

Lesbian Couple & Baptism

August 04, 2006

Valid Scapular Enrollment?

July 14, 2006

The Presumption Of Faith

July 12, 2006

More on Godparents

More on Godparents

July 10, 2006

"My Non-Christian Godfather"?

July 03, 2006

Forgotten Sins & General Confession

June 29, 2006

The Oil Of Gladness

June 28, 2006

Delaying Infant Baptism?

June 02, 2006

Priestesses In The U.S.

May 12, 2006

Pastoral Consequences Of The Mormon Baptism Decision