Karl Keating's E-Letter of July 3, 2007

[VBoone]

Karl,
As always I enjoy your e-letter, and this one in particular rather startled me. I applaude your courage in correcting that priest. Thankfully I have never encountered a priest with that kind of attitude regarding reconcilliation/confession. I was wondering though how you explained it to this priest? I recently finished a class on the sacraments in the Ministry Formation Program, it was a great class and I came out with much better understanding and clearer picture of the sacraments. During this class, we had a discussion on this same topic on this very type of mentality, "you only have to go to confession ie once a year or when you have commited a mortal sin"....and "we do a confessionl at the beginning of mass..it covers venial sins" albeit from the laity point of view. Unfortunately, I do see that attitude at my parish, even though our priest (who by the way was our MFP sacraments teacher) expounds on it every chance he can in his homilys!, it just puzzles me to no end how he can put things so clearly and yet it seems to fall on deaf ears.
BTW, I was a cradle Independent Baptist before I crossed the Tiber 4 years ago.
Blessings,
Virginia

[fineca]

Originally Posted by Karl Keating

Emil:

I'm glad to hear that you're engaged actively in apologetics. You may be the only one now, but your good example may induce others to take up the work too. Don't become discouraged if you seem to make little headway. Most progress will be invisible to you. That's the way God arranges these things.

I took at look at your blogs, both the apologetics one and the personal one ("Emil's Errands").

Inasmuch as the former was in Finnish only, I'm at a loss to comment on the contents, except to say that, while not being able to read your native tongue, I have to be fond of a language that is so generous in its use of umlauts and that has lots of words with double vowels, including double yy.

Your personal blog, being dual-language, was more accessible. I think you did a fine job with it--it seems you are able to get around quite a bit. Then again, I suppose Poland is about as far from you as, say, Arizona is from me!

Dear Karl,

many thanks for your response - wonderful to be acquainted with you personally after following and being grateful for your work all this time

I understand you will have very little time off in Finland. Anyways it would be great to meet you, or the whole group (not many Catholic sights/sites but the cathedral with the relics of St.Henry (much fought over by the Lutherans) and the Blessed Sacrament yes, who would visit the country but not Jesus in the country?, let me know when you know more, you have my e-mails.

Thank you for your kind words and valuable advice. There are others interested in apologetics too, but so far there are no other apostolates/initiatives in the field. But when I get the money and other stuff needed to publish the articles as a book perhaps then more people will know and start doing things

Wow, I'm glad you found my other blog too and took the time to have a look at both of them! As a language-freak I appreciate your comments on my mother tongue, but Estonian still beats Finnish in words like töööös (on/during a work night) and jääääres (at the edge of/by the ice).

Poland is my favorite country been there 7 times it's a 1,5 hours' flight away My dad works for the airline (Finnair) so I get to fly a lot cheaply Arizona ... I just played tennis with an American Mormon missionary from Arizona yesterday. I beat him, but lost to his partner...yes, he was from CALIFORNIA - what can you do

Best regards
in Christ
Emil

[steve99]

Karl and others have concentrated on the penitential rite of the Mass. But I think it is worth pointing out that the Catechism says under the fruits of Holy Communion:

1393 Holy Communion separates us from sin. The body of Christ we receive in Holy Communion is "given up for us," and the blood we drink "shed for the many for the forgiveness of sins." For this reason the Eucharist cannot unite us to Christ without at the same time cleansing us from past sins and preserving us from future sins:
For as often as we eat this bread and drink the cup, we proclaim the death of the Lord. If we proclaim the Lord's death, we proclaim the forgiveness of sins. If, as often as his blood is poured out, it is poured for the forgiveness of sins, I should always receive it, so that it may always forgive my sins. Because I always sin, I should always have a remedy.227

1394 As bodily nourishment restores lost strength, so the Eucharist strengthens our charity, which tends to be weakened in daily life; and this living charity wipes away venial sins.228 By giving himself to us Christ revives our love and enables us to break our disordered attachments to creatures and root ourselves in him:
Since Christ died for us out of love, when we celebrate the memorial of his death at the moment of sacrifice we ask that love may be granted to us by the coming of the Holy Spirit. We humbly pray that in the strength of this love by which Christ willed to die for us, we, by receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit, may be able to consider the world as crucified for us, and to be ourselves as crucified to the world. . . . Having received the gift of love, let us die to sin and live for God.229

It also says under the Sacrament of Reconciliation:
1458 Without being strictly necessary, confession of everyday faults (venial sins) is nevertheless strongly recommended by the Church.59 Indeed the regular confession of our venial sins helps us form our conscience, fight against evil tendencies, let ourselves be healed by Christ and progress in the life of the Spirit. By receiving more frequently through this sacrament the gift of the Father's mercy, we are spurred to be merciful as he is merciful:60
Whoever confesses his sins . . . is already working with God. God indicts your sins; if you also indict them, you are joined with God. Man and sinner are, so to speak, two realities: when you hear "man" - this is what God has made; when you hear "sinner" - this is what man himself has made. Destroy what you have made, so that God may save what he has made. . . . When you begin to abhor what you have made, it is then that your good works are beginning, since you are accusing yourself of your evil works. The beginning of good works is the confession of evil works. You do the truth and come to the light.

Note- strongly recommended is not the same as necessary

[chewchoo]

karl,
why so many cruise choices?
now we have to decide "which" trip we want to take.

[Karl Keating]

Originally Posted by chewchoo

karl,
why so many cruise choices?
now we have to decide "which" trip we want to take.

I want to make it easy for you: Sign up for all of them!

[chewchoo]

Originally Posted by Karl Keating

I want to make it easy for you: Sign up for all of them!

really, that would be my first choice,
but realistically i only get so much vacation time.
and when are you going to post the pics from the last cruise???

[manualman]

When people ask how often they should go to confession, I think it useful to point out a problem in the assumptions underlying the question! Instead answering try this approach:

You: You understand that it is a Sacrament and Grace is bestowed upon you by virtue of receiving it, right?

Them: Yeah.

You: Consider another sacrament. Did you know that in catholic sacramental theology, a marriage is not valid unless it is consummated? In other words, for catholics, sex is not only good, it is sacred.

Them: What's that got to do with frequency of confession?

You: I wonder how many engaged couples ask the priest how often they must consummate their marriage?

Them: Who would ask such a dumb question?

You: Exactly. Attitude adjustment completed.

[fineca]

manualman, great point.
karl, I would also like to know what you said to the priest. an apologetic like the one in the letter surely wouldn't have been appropriate, I guess you made reference to some Church documents encouraging frequent confession for venial sins.

[Karl Keating]

The incident occurred more than 20 years ago. I have forgotten the exact words I used, but it was to the effect that the Church encourages not only frequent confession but confession of all sins, including venial sins, and that confession never was intended only for mortal sins.

(If it were, how come all of the popes of my lifetime went to confession weekly? Certainly they weren't comitting mortals sins each week!)

[CatholicMC]

[quote=Karl Keating;2429581]Yes, I have an opinion:

Okay, I'll go through a paragraph which I feel exemplifies my point. Under "Not An Invention", the third paragraph.

"The only protests come centuries later, at the Reformation, which is when opponents of the Catholic Church rewrote history to justify their theological novelties. Those Reformers who didn't like the idea of confession (or the idea of sacraments in general) gratuitously claimed that confession was something cobbled together in the Middle Ages or, at any rate, was not part of the original deposit of faith."

*"opponents of the Catholic Church rewrote history to justify their theological novelties."
While I agree with you, if I wasn't Catholic I think I would be put off at the notion of my forbearers being acused of rewriting history, and accusing my church of theological novelties.

*"who didn't like the idea of confession (or the idea of sacraments in general)"

This little aside with the parentheses seems tounge in cheek. Again, if I was a non-Catholic I would probably stop reading it, even though you write the truth.

(*"something cobbled together in the Middle Ages..." By the way, I really liked the way that sentence was written. The word cobbled really brings about a mental picture of the Middle Ages, ie cobblestone etc...)

So I suppose if your overall objective is to defend the faith, (seeing as though you are a Catholic Apologetic), then this letter hits its mark with the contented faithful, if in fact that is your only target audience.

If however, you are trying to reach outside of this audience to non-Catholics, I think that wording is very important, especially due to the fact that many non-Catholics already hold pre-conceived notions of the Church.

I realize though that you are very famous, and good at your job, and it really is no place of mine to lecture you in how you do it.

But form personal experience when talking to non-Catholics, especially Evangelicals, the truth is needed but not in an inflamatory way.

[Karl Keating]

1. "rewrote history to justify their theological novelties"

Either they did or they didn't rewrite history. Either their theological distinctives were novelties (new) or not (old, from the original deposit of faith). I maintain that their distinctives indeed were new and cannot be shown to have been believed much before their time by anyone. I also maintain that they thought they could justify holding these ideas by claiming they were found in the early Church--or, at least, that they existed in the early Church but all record of them disappeared because the usurping Roman Church wiped out all literary evidence of these distinctives.

2. "or the idea of sacraments in general"

The Reformers wrote plenty against what they called a "sacramental system." They recognized baptism and matrimony as "ordinances" but not as sacraments (with some of the Anglicans particularly being an exception--after all, the early Protestants protested against one another just about as often as they protested against Rome).

3. Okay, so you agree with what I said, but you think I shouldn't have been so straightforward about it. Indirection might have been better. I have found that for some people you can't be indirect enough. No matter how small the suggestion that you disapprove of some of their religious beliefs, it's too much--they take offense. I also have found that the only way to satisfy such people is to say nothing at all. That way lies paralysis.

I prefer plain speaking. You can speak plainly without speaking rudely. It is plain speaking to say, "This belief of yours has no long pedigree. It was made up by X in 1525. Early Christians didn't believe in it." It would be rude to say, "If you believe such-and-so doctrine, you must have a mental problem."

While in certain contexts I write mainly with a Catholic audience in mind, I realize that non-Catholics may be observing--maybe even many of them. I realize that some of them will take offense, no matter how I might phrase myself. They think they are right in each particular and that a critic must be in bad faith--or at least in bad form. But I have found that if I write as I have in this thread, the long-term results, even with non-Catholics, are better than if I try to "argue" by implication only and not by straight speaking.

Most non-Catholics (particularly, perhaps, those who visit Catholic forums) are grown up enough to take challenges to their beliefs for what they are--challenges to their beliefs and not to their persons.

[fineca]

Originally Posted by Karl Keating

The incident occurred more than 20 years ago. I have forgotten the exact words I used, but it was to the effect that the Church encourages not only frequent confession but confession of all sins, including venial sins, and that confession never was intended only for mortal sins.

(If it were, how come all of the popes of my lifetime went to confession weekly? Certainly they weren't comitting mortals sins each week!)

Sure, the recent Popes, but I don't think it's right to say it was NEVER intended for mortal sins only. In the early Church that's exactly what confession was for, still at the time of Augustine it's pretty evident, when he says there are three ways of getting forgiveness - baptism (all sins), prayer (venial sins), and penance (horrible sins like adultery that cut you off from the body of Christ). It seems that confession for venial sins only was a later development. I would be happy to find evidence contrary to this, though, but it seems to me that one could have a legitimate opinion that confession should be for mortal sins only, even if later Popes have recommended the contrary (which of course makes the opposite position a stronger one), since it's not an issue of heresy or infallibility or anything... but still I think Karl did a good job in the confessional

[steve99]

Originally Posted by fineca

Sure, the recent Popes, but I don't think it's right to say it was NEVER intended for mortal sins only. In the early Church that's exactly what confession was for, still at the time of Augustine it's pretty evident, when he says there are three ways of getting forgiveness - baptism (all sins), prayer (venial sins), and penance (horrible sins like adultery that cut you off from the body of Christ). It seems that confession for venial sins only was a later development. I would be happy to find evidence contrary to this, though, but it seems to me that one could have a legitimate opinion that confession should be for mortal sins only, even if later Popes have recommended the contrary (which of course makes the opposite position a stronger one), since it's not an issue of heresy or infallibility or anything... but still I think Karl did a good job in the confessional

There is a fourth way, which I pointed out in my post that seems to have been ignored.

According to the Catechism receiving Holy Communion wipes away venial sins.

In which case if you go to daily communion what do you have to confess unless you have committed a mortal sin?

[milimac]

"Why are you wasting my time?"

Ouch Karl. I'm trying to get into a better habit of regular confession -- once or twice per month. My greatest fear is hearing those words from a priest, even if said less bluntly.

I was hoping it was just an irrational fear, but I guess it shouldn't have come as such a great surprise.

[milimac]

On the topic of frequent confession, I wonder if anyone has read Frequent Confession. I found it very good, but was still somewhat confused when I heard an explanation of scrupulosity and the confession of sins already forgiven. My understanding from the book was that it may be appropriate to the sacrament to express sorrow for sins already forgiven -- not really a confession of the guilt, which would be itself a sinful distrust in God's mercy, but an expression of continued sorrow. If true, the sacrament is much wider than I had previously thought.

But it makes sense to me if it does include such things. In a fit of rage I break someone's arm and then express my genuine sorrow and remorse. He truly forgives me and miraculously we reconcile and even become friends. It would be aggravating and insulting to tell him "I wish you would forgive me", especially if it was a very hard thing for him to do. But to feel renewed sorrow whenever you see his scar seems appropriate.