Silence Questions and Discussion

  • Thread starter Thread starter shazirah
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

shazirah

Guest
I watched the movie Silence with my brother today and it’s put me in a thoughtful mood. I’m not Catholic and my brother is a very new Catholic, so I have some questions that maybe someone here can answer. And I guess just general discussion of the movie, because it was really good, I thought.

— Here Be Spoilers —
  1. When the priests arrive in Japan, one of the reasons why the secret Christians are so glad to see them is because only priests can give certain sacraments like confession and the Eucharist. So, for a community like that without a priest, what happens if they can’t confess their sins? Is the desire to do so enough to absolve them if they happen to die before being able to confess? Can a priest absolve someone if they don’t understand the other person’s language enough to understand what was being confessed?
  2. When the issue comes up of whether the Japanese Christians should “trample” the icon of Jesus if they’re caught, one of the priests says to do it and the other one says not to. Which is technically correct and does it affect the nature of a sin if someone is coerced through threat of violence?
  3. What do you guys make of Kichijiro? Is someone who apostatizes every time things heat up still a Christian?
I’m interested in your thoughts.
 
  1. If you cannot make it to Church, you can’t do it. Likewise for confession. A perfect contrition (bring sorry for your sins because of offending God, as opposed to fear of His Just punishment) brings forgiveness of mortal sin. Note this includes confessing when you are able.
  2. Well, isn’t that the whole question of the thing!? I think the book tries to present it as OK, but of course it’s questionable. Is it deceit? Is it disrespectful to the One we love so much? But is it worth it for the others?
  3. I have a lot of respect for one who refuses to apostasize. One who does…not so much. On the same token, though we like to imagine that if we were put to the test, we’d stick to our guns and not deny the Lord, but if you’ve never been in that position, how can you say?
 
Kei said:
Well, isn’t that the whole question of the thing!? I think the book tries to present it as OK, but of course it’s questionable. Is it deceit? Is it disrespectful to the One we love so much? But is it worth it for the others?
Click to expand...
Has the Church ever actually actually ruled one way or the other on the subject or is it just an individual conscience thing?
 
If you go to the gear icon, next to the built-in emoji box when you compose, you can blur spoilers- just a practical heads-up 🙂
 
I think it’s a very specific situation that the Church has not presented a concrete thing. Perhaps it is possible to articulate what is the correct answer through morals already well established, but not this specific situation, no.
 
This is me speaking hypothetically, and not the Church, but I think it depends.
For example, if you are a husband of a large family, you owe it to your family to live, and therefore, if necessary, exteriorally deny your faith.
But, if one is a young/older person, with no obligations, and they know what the Church teaches concerning martyrdom (Which if I remember correctly is that someone who dies for the faith is automatically reccieved into Heaven), then why not?
 
I haven’t seen the movie, nor read the book. But anyway,

With perfect contrition they are absolved provided they fully intend to confess at the soonest opportunity. We are to have hope that God will grant us the grace to make such an act of contrition if in danger of death, and we are to trust in His mercy no matter what. As for the language issue, a priest may choose to absolve a penitent even if he does not understand his/her confession, I believe as long as there is no reason to suspect insincerity-- the confession will be valid provided that it was sincere on the part of the penitent, and I think it would surely be prudent for the priest to grant absolution when there is need for the sacrament.

With regards to denial of faith, my understanding is that it is never permissible for any reason, even if only external. Peter’s denial of Christ was certainly condemned. We also have examples in 2 Maccabees 6:18-31 and 7:1-45 of praiseworthy steadfastness in internal and external faith.

“External pressure” such as threat of violence does affect the “free character” (Catechism #1860) of the act, although it is not our place to judge others’ personal culpability. It is easy to see though that an immediate threat to oneself or especially a loved one would have a very significant impact because of said immediateness. However I don’t think the action can be called permissible, even if culpability is severely reduced (i.e. perhaps one is not guilty of personal mortal sin).

To quote Aquinas, “the evils of the soul are more to be feared than the evils of the body, and evils of the body more than evils of external things.” Of course as well, it is one thing to say these things and another entirely to actually hold to one’s principles under such grave threats. We pray that no situation like this is ever forced on us and that we be given strength should one arise.
shazirah said:
Is someone who apostatizes every time things heat up still a Christian?
Click to expand...
I think all I could say is that it does reflect a lack of true faith, but that person isn’t necessarily not a Christian. He or she could have genuine sorrow for the sin and resolve to never denying the faith again, and yet still fall the next time. While such a person would be committing sin and falling victim to fear, fear is a very real emotion and so to fall in such a situation is still understandably human.

I would say a true internal denial/loss of faith in Christ would be necessary for one to be no longer a Christian, not just repeated moments of caving in to fear.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top