"The Catholic Church Just Destroyed Itself with Logic"

[Gorgias]

The “friendly atheist” also makes a big deal about the invalid “last rites” of the priest’s grandmother, and how this means that the Catholic Church presumes she’s in hell. What malarky!

First off, “last rites” aren’t required for salvation. The anointing is meant for healing, and the distribution of Eucharist as Viaticum can be done by a layperson. If there are no “last rites” performed, then the Church teaches that God provides the graces that would have been given if it were, in the case of a person who is in the habit of praying. From the Enchiridion of Indulgences:

To the faithful in danger of death, who cannot be assisted by a priest to bring them the sacraments and impart the Apostolic Blessing with its plenary indulgence (see can. 468, 2 of Code of Canon Law), Holy Mother Church nevertheless grants a plenary indulgence to be acquired at the point of death, provided they are properly disposed and have been in the habit of reciting some prayers during their lifetime. The use of a crucifix or a cross to gain this indulgence is praiseworthy.

The condition: provided they have been in the habit of reciting some prayers during their lifetime supplies in such cases for the three usual conditions required for the gaining of a plenary indulgence.

The plenary indulgence at the point of death can be acquired by the faithful, even if they have already obtained another plenary indulgence on the same day.

So … this whole “grandma dies and goes to hell because of a simple ‘we’ instead of ‘I’” meme is horribly mistaken. So much for “Catholic superstition”, eh?

 

[ReaderT]

I don’t think that I wrote what you placed in italics, no?

You didn’t - what I meant with italics was, I need to see the italicized part (or a statement to that effect) in the Catechism, because that’s the part we disagree on. CCC says there are exactly two ways to definitively receive absolution of mortal sins, and in both cases you need to explicitly say your sins to a priest at some point:

1. Through imperfect contrition and confession [to a priest].
2. Through perfect contrition with “the firm resolution to have recourse to sacramental confession as soon as possible", where you will then confess your mortal sins.

If you fail to confess sins for a reason other than an obstinate refusal to confess them, then your confession is not invalid – in other words, it is valid absolution and forgiveness!

Forgive me, but I don’t see anything that makes that claim in the CCC, which has very clear requirements for a definitive absolution (see 1 and 2 above), both of which involve explicitly stating mortal sins to a priest.

If you can give me a source that backs your claim here, I’ll be eager to read it.

Except that, what you’re saying is “through no fault of her own, Grandma didn’t successfully complete the process of absolution of her sins.” That’s similar to a situation in which a person dies on the way to the confessional. The Church doesn’t say that God exclaims “Gotcha!” and condemns them to hell because they weren’t able to complete the action they intended to take. Same deal here.

I think those are two different situations. Anyway, everything I’ve read in the catechism says these people (who confessed to Fr. Ward either in routine confession or before death) did not meet the requirement for absolution of mortal sins (unless someone can prove otherwise), which means nothing changed about them still being in mortal sin.

That’s a nice try, but it doesn’t hold up. You’re assuming that these folks never went to confession again. That’s a rather tenuous assumption.

Well, for those who confessed before death, I think we can prove that with near certainty. Father Ward said he gave last rites to hundreds of people, many probably confessed, and they did not receive absolution from Ward because he couldn’t give it.

But even the ones who went to a subsequent confession, that fact doesn’t mean anything because they don’t meet the requirements for absolution (perfect contrition + firm resolve to confess their sins later).

ReaderT:

Through perfect contrition with “the firm resolution to have recourse to sacramental confession as soon as possible” (which they did not have).

Again, you’re building a straw man argument without evidence.

Of course they didn’t have the firm solution to (re)confess their sins. They didn’t even know they needed to - they thought Fr. Ward was validly ordained.

 

[Gorgias]

Forgive me, but I don’t see anything that makes that claim in the CCC, which has very clear requirements for a definitive absolution (see 1 and 2 above), both of which involve explicitly stating mortal sins to a priest.

You’re not going to find it, as such, in the catechism. It’s not meant to be an omnibus of every situation that might occur in a Catholic’s life.

There are explanations about absolution in the confessional, even when Catholics don’t confess a sin (unless they intend to deliberately omit confessing it, which is not the case here). In that case, the confession ‘counts’ and absolution is valid.

See Dying with Unconfessed Mortal Sin | Catholic Answers. Notice the standard is not “make an act of perfect contrition” (or even “make a perfect act of contrition” ), but rather, merely to have perfect contrition – that is, to be sorry for your sins because they offend God.

In that case, we have a situation in which people were contrite – after all, they approached the confessional! – but, due to no fault of their own, they did not receive a valid absolution. And, if they prayed an Act of Contrition sincerely, then they’d met the standard!

Now, in the case that the Friendly Atheist discusses – that of Fr Hood’s grandmother on her deathbed – he’s gleefully talking about the possibility that she’s in hell. (Yeah. “Friendly”. Uh huh. ) That would only happen under the following scenarios:

• she’d committed a mortal sin since her last confession
• she wasn’t contrite for the sin, and did not regret it because it offends God. (You realize that even praying the act of contrition would check that box, right?)

None of the following scenarios would imply her soul was in peril:

• she’d committed venial sin (or grave yet not mortal sin) and not received absolution
• she didn’t receive valid “last rites”

So, what it boils down to is that Friendly Atheist doesn’t understand (or doesn’t wish to properly characterize) Catholic teaching. Not surprising, but at the end of the day, it’s neither “illogic” nor “souls in peril” territory.

did not meet the requirement for absolution of mortal sins (unless someone can prove otherwise), which means nothing changed about them still being in mortal sin.

If such a person exists – and that’s a big “if”, wouldn’t you say? – it puts them in the territory of “mortal sin; sincere contrition; wasn’t able to get to confession before death.” The Church teaches God’s mercy in that case.

Father Ward said he gave last rites to hundreds of people, many probably confessed, and they did not receive absolution from Ward because he couldn’t give it.

I would contest the “many” assertion. Most folks who call for last rites are calling for family members who are already actively dying, and so, they don’t really participate in the sacrament. (Rather, they get a general absolution from the priest, as it were.)

 

[Gorgias]

But even the ones who went to a subsequent confession, that fact doesn’t mean anything because they don’t meet the requirements for absolution (perfect contrition + firm resolve to confess their sins later).

Take a minute and read what you just wrote. I think you’re mistaken:

• they would have prayed the Act of Contrition in the invalid confession, and therefore, would have expressed perfect contrition
• they did have recourse to a subsequent sacramental confession!

So… wrong on both counts, it appears.

Of course they didn’t have the firm solution to (re)confess their sins.

That isn’t the standard, and that’s why it’s not required.

 

[ReaderT]

ake a minute and read what you just wrote. I think you’re mistaken:

• they would have prayed the Act of Contrition in the invalid confession, and therefore, would have expressed perfect contrition
• they did have recourse to a subsequent sacramental confession!

So… wrong on both counts, it appears.

1. Perfect contrition is not a guaranteed just because someone recited an act of contrition. You can go to confession and even say the words without being filled with sorrow and hatred for sin because (first and foremost) it offends God. Nor is that required for absolution.
2. Many acts of contrition don’t even include language that expresses the ideas of perfect contrition.
3. But let’s say these two obstacles are notwithstanding (which is not guaranteed) and they do have perfect contrition. It still doesn’t matter. In order for the sins to be forgiven at a subsequent confession, they have to be confessed at a subsequent confession. That is the way your church has always worked: Protestants who confess to God throughout their lives still have to go to confession when they convert, for example. It doesn’t matter that they (in your words) “confessed sins in what was unknown to the penitent to be a confession without a valid absolution”.

ReaderT:

Of course they didn’t have the firm solution to (re)confess their sins.

That isn’t the standard, and that’s why it’s not required.

I’d say the CCC disagrees but we can agree to disagree.

You’re not going to find it, as such, in the catechism. It’s not meant to be an omnibus of every situation that might occur in a Catholic’s life.

There are explanations about absolution in the confessional, even when Catholics don’t confess a sin (unless they intend to deliberately omit confessing it, which is not the case here). In that case, the confession ‘counts’ and absolution is valid.

Yes, it’s not an omnibus, but when the Catechism makes definitive pronouncements saying that a person is in mortal sin unless X conditions are met, and then further says “Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, ‘eternal fire’”, then I think any person with an ounce of self-preservation is going to make really sure they follow those instructions to the letter, because we’re talking about their eternity, and I don’t feel comfortable risking my soul on a “probably not going to hell”

There are explanations about absolution in the confessional, even when Catholics don’t confess a sin (unless they intend to deliberately omit confessing it, which is not the case here). In that case, the confession ‘counts’ and absolution is valid.

Again, even in the link you provided I don’t see any source that says unconfessed sins are still forgiven if a Catholic didn’t intentionally omit them.

 

[Gorgias]

So, our Friendly Atheist says that the Archdiocese does something he considers “buck-wild” – a “spiritual contact tracing”. Umm… if the Church really did “destroy itself with logic”, wouldn’t it have ignored the effects of Fr Hood’s lack of baptism? Or, if they were following the logical implication of the invalid baptism… wouldn’t they do precisely what they embarked upon, namely an attempt to follow up and close the loop? FA might claim that this is silly, but he has to admit that its internal logic is sound. Maybe he’s having too much fun smirking.

Nevertheless, he gets this wrong, too, and does a poor job of characterizing what the Church wrote on the subject. Namely:

• He says “can you imagine the Church getting in touch will all those whom it supposedly conferred sacraments upon?” Umm… why yes – yes I can! See… that’s why the Church keeps records of everyone who is baptized, confirmed, and married, including notations of who celebrated the sacrament! So… he gets a pass, I suppose, since he’s speaking from ignorance, but… the Church has the ability to reach out to these folks. And so: strike one for FA.
• FA says “if you were confirmed into the Church by Fr Hood, it doesn’t count”. True. And yet, the baptism he performed did count. Strike two.
• FA says “if you were married by Fr Hood, it doesn’t count.” True. And yet, the Church has a process called sanatio in radice (“healing at the root”, often translated in English as “radical sanation”). This process doesn’t require a new marriage ceremony – in fact, it doesn’t even require the couple (who presumes that their marriage is already valid!) to be present or aware of the procedure! – and it resolves questions of invalidity, including issues of form (that is, what FA is railing about – the lack of a validly ordained priest witnessing the vows). So… strike three.

So… did “the entire Catholic cinematic universe begin collapsing”? Hardly. The Church knows that humans make mistakes, and she realizes that God isn’t sitting there with His finger on the “lightning bolt button”, ready to proclaim divine “gotcha” judgments on folks.

Seems that FA is the only one who thinks that the Church dabbles in magic and superstition.

(continued…)

 

[Gorgias]

(continuing…)

What about FA’s interpretation of Church declarations? Not accurate:

• the question of “sin” doesn’t come from the question of absolution in the confessional – it comes from the question of whether folks married by him were “living in sin.” The Church, reasonably, answered “no, you’re not.” So, FA seems to be deliberately conflating ‘confession’ with ‘marital state’, and making the explanation of the latter apply to the former. I’d call that ‘strike four’; maybe it’d be more appropriate to say that now, he’s trying to throw a spitball.
• What about the “sort of” First Communions? The invalid marriages? “Sort of”? No. And that’s not what the document says. FA has moved from spitballs to applying vaseline to his ballcap and to his pitch. Highly uncool.
• What about the Anointing of the Sick? Again, immaterial. They said that “God supplied grace in some measure”. Not “God’s cool with it”. Just that God loves us even when we mess up. (OK… maybe I should love FA a bit more; he’s messing up pretty impressively by this point.) OK – he implies that people have gone to hell based on these mistakes. I’m trying really hard to like FA. It’s not working too well.

FA fails to prove his point – that sacraments don’t matter. I think he really thinks he’s done so. He hasn’t, though. The Church hasn’t said “it’s only the thought that counts.”

FA, I think that atheists don’t “win this round”, at least if they use your arguments. Nice try, though. Stick to Monty Python, perhaps.

 

[ReaderT]

Also: Gorgias I see you wrote other things (and I’m not overlooking them) but I have to run in the moment, so will reply later. Thanks.

 

[Gorgias]

Perfect contrition is not a guaranteed just because someone recited an act of contrition.

Did I say that? No. I said “sincerely prayed the act of contrition.” That covers it, then: they sincerely said “I’m sorry for my sins because they offend you.” Either that’s ‘perfect contrition’ or there is no such thing. You can’t have it both ways.

Many acts of contrition don’t even include language that expresses the ideas of perfect contrition.

Every actual act of contrition does. Some prayers do not.

It still doesn’t matter. In order for the sins to be forgiven at a subsequent confession, they have to be confessed at a subsequent confession.

No. The Church recommends mentioning it again. Doesn’t require it, though. But… nice try.

Protestants who confess to God throughout their lives still have to go to confession when they convert, for example.

“Protestants who confess to God throughout their lives” hadn’t made an attempt at sacramental confession, though. Apples and oranges, my friend…

when the Catechism makes definitive pronouncements saying that a person is in mortal sin unless X conditions are met

yes – and when the person meets those conditions, as we’ve seen that they have (perfect contrition and subsequent recourse to sacramental absolution), then they’re forgiven! You’re trying really, really hard, and I applaud the effort, but… no dice, friend.

Again, even in the link you provided I don’t see any source that says unconfessed sins are still forgiven if a Catholic didn’t intentionally omit them.

Good reading skills are your friend, brother. Look again:

Perfect contrition will obtain pardon for mortal sin without the sacrament of penance when we cannot go to confession, but with the perfect contrition we must have the intention of going to confession as soon as possible, if we again have the opportunity.

Did they have the intention of going again? Yep. Did they have the opportunity? Perhaps, but even if not, then the intention counts.

 

[ReaderT]

“Protestants who confess to God throughout their lives” hadn’t made an attempt at sacramental confession, though. Apples and oranges, my friend…

Even with those Protestants who have “made an attempt at a sacramental confession” by confessing to their (non-holy-ordered) Lutheran or Anglican priest for 20 or 30 years - your church doesn’t say that that covers them, because they have to (re)confess when they convert. Your church clearly shows that such a confession to a non-priest has to be redone.

ReaderT:

It still doesn’t matter. In order for the sins to be forgiven at a subsequent confession, they have to be confessed at a subsequent confession.

No. The Church recommends mentioning it again. Doesn’t require it, though. But… nice try.

“Nice try”? I’m not trying to trick you - I’m telling you, your church doesn’t allow you to confess to a non-priest and then get only absolution from the priest later - that has never been an accepted thing, as anyone here can tell you. In fact you can’t even confess to the Great High Priest (God) and then only receive absolution later: you have to say the sins again (CCC 1452).

But if that was the way it worked, then like I said a Protestant convert wouldn’t have to go to confession before being received: he heartfeltly confessed to God or his Lutheran minister his whole life, so nothing need be brought up. He met your very requirement to have “confessed sins in what was unknown to the penitent to be a confession without a valid absolution”. And yet your church requires them to reconfess, and there’s no difference here.

I said “sincerely prayed the act of contrition.” That covers it, then: they sincerely said “I’m sorry for my sins because they offend you.” Either that’s ‘perfect contrition’ or there is no such thing. You can’t have it both ways.

“Perfect contrition” - which is what’s required when seeking absolution outside of confession - is not just “sincerely praying the act of contrition.” Perfect contrition is “Sorrow for sin arising from perfect love" and includes "a perfect love of God.” That is a bar that many may not always reach.

yes – and when the person meets those conditions, as we’ve seen that they have (perfect contrition and subsequent recourse to sacramental absolution), then they’re forgiven! You’re trying really, really hard, and I applaud the effort, but… no dice, friend.

As I stated above with the Protestants, the conditions are not met. If they were, they wouldn’t have to reconfess, but they do.

 

[Gorgias]

Even with those Protestants who have “made an attempt at a sacramental confession” by confessing to their (non-holy-ordered) Lutheran or Anglican priest for 20 or 30 years

That’s the point, though: they haven’t made the attempt at a valid sacramental confession. One of the tragedies of the Reformation is that good people have been misled, and are following beliefs that are unfounded and untrue. We pray for unity, and we pray for their well-being and salvation!

Your church clearly shows that such a confession to a non-priest has to be redone.

I would appreciate it if you quit saying “your church”. The Orthodox Church would require it as well, wouldn’t ya’ll?

In any case, it’s not a “do-over” – it’s an initial approach to a sacramental confession.

Nevertheless, it seems you’re mis-characterizing what Protestants believe about forgiveness of sin, even in the presence of a confession to a pastor. From the ELS website:

Martin Luther emphasized the universal priesthood of all believers, stressing that fellow Christians need not go through any kind of priestly mediator to communicate with God and to be assured of absolution. The Roman Catholic Church has misled people in this matter by leading them to believe that only an ordained priest could legitimately declare individual sins forgiven.

So… Lutherans do not believe that the confession to the priest is any different than private prayer; therefore, looking at it from a Catholic perspective, your assertion that they approached sacramental forgiveness is mistaken. Perhaps some of our Lutheran friends on CAF might be willing to give their understanding of the Lutheran perspective, so that we’re not speaking for them inaccurately…

I’m not trying to trick you - I’m telling you, your church doesn’t allow you to confess to a non-priest and then get only absolution from the priest later - that has never been an accepted thing, as anyone here can tell you.

The thing is… their intent wasn’t “to confess to a non-priest and get absolution later.” Intent matters in Catholic Moral and Sacramental theology.

However, there is a point worth mentioning: once a person knew that Fr Hood wasn’t validly ordained at the point at which they went to him to confession, it would seem that they should confess their sins again to a priest. However, at that point – years down the road – a simple “I can’t remember precisely what I confessed, but I was contrite then and am contrite now” would suffice.

I think you’re trying to make this sound a whole lot different than it really is – filled with legalism and lack of compassion, where the opposite is true.

 

[AlbMagno]

I think you’re trying to make this sound a whole lot different than it really is – filled with legalism and lack of compassion, where the opposite is true.

I was going to say the same to @ReaderT: in other threads didn’t you criticize this resolution from the CDF for being legalistic? If so, then why would you think God would be more legalistic with the Salvation of an innocent person?

Or is this just an hypothetical construct just to critize how we Roman Catholics “do things”?

 

[StudentMI]

Why are people ganging up on ReaderT? He’s one of the most consistent of posters here.

 

[StudentMI]

…why would you think God would be more legalistic with the Salvation of an innocent person?

Just jumping in here. God is fairly legalistic with salvation. For centuries we were taught that salvation was fairly limited and that the unbaptized can’t go to heaven. Now we think we know better because we’re more ‘compassionate’. What if we’re wrong?

 

[Tis_Bearself]

In order for the sins to be forgiven at a subsequent confession, they have to be confessed at a subsequent confession.

Catholics are not required to confess

• sins that are venial (they may mention them in confession but it’s not required), or
• sins they have genuinely forgotten. (With the caveat that if a sin is grave-possibly-mortal and they remember it later, they should mention it at the next confession.)

Many sins told in a past confession that turned out to be invalid absolution for some reason would likely fall in these categories of “venial” or, when the person goes next, “forgotten”. They would not need to be mentioned again unless like I said the sin was a forgotten, possibly mortal sin that the person had just remembered.

If a Catholic were truly worried about past confessions to a priest whose holy orders had been found invalid, all they need to do is sit down, do their best examination of conscience for the time period over which they confessed to that priest, and mention all the grave-possibly-mortal sins they remember. It’s not hard to do. And they don’t get left on the hook for sins they forgot. The Church does not teach that.

 

[StudentMI]

Many sins told in a past confession that turned out to be invalid absolution for some reason would likely fall in these categories of “venial” or, when the person goes next, “forgotten”. They would not need to be mentioned again unless like I said the sin was a forgotten, possibly mortal sin that the person had just remembered.

Presumably. We don’t know if a sin is venial or mortal, and if a confession was invalid…

 

[ReaderT]

That’s the point, though: they haven’t made the attempt at a valid sacramental confession.

I genuinely think we’ve reached the point where any further debating is really getting “in the weeds” with particulars. I’d say an Episcopalian who confesses to his pastor is making an attempt at “sacramental” confession because the Anglican Communion definitely views confession as a sacrament. But even if you disagree, it doesn’t matter, because nowhere does it say “there’s a difference between making a genuine attempt at confession and making a genuine attempt at sacramental confession.” The difference you’re highlighting (Sacramental vs. non-sacramental) doesn’t seem to be established in the Catechism (or anywhere else) AFAIK.

Anyway, I think that’ll be my last post on this subect.

The Orthodox Church would require it as well, wouldn’t ya’ll?

In my experience, not always. It depends on the situation, the convert, how and to whom they were confessing, etc. Not every situation is the same, especially with converts of different backgrounds.

Why are people ganging up on ReaderT? He’s one of the most consistent of posters here

Thank you StudentMI. I kind of deserve the pushback from Gorgias here because I’m wading into some dicey territory

 

[Tis_Bearself]

We’re expected to use our examination of conscience to determine what might be a mortal sin.
I don’t have any problem picking out my sins that involve grave matter and might be mortal vs my sins that are highly likely to be venial. Then again I’ve been at this a long time.

When I returned to confession after 18 years I remembered most of my likely-to-be-mortal sins for the first confession. I had another one or two pop up later that I mentioned in later confessions. At one of those the priest told me the sin I thought might be mortal wasn’t because based on what I told him he determined that I hadn’t had full knowledge I was committing sin at the time I did it.

Like I said, this didn’t require a lot of mental gymnastics to figure out and I trust the Lord is fine with my good faith efforts and I can get on to other things.

 

[AlbMagno]

The Magisterium didn’t taught that unbaptized people can’t go to Heaven, the Limbo was always just a theological hypothesis. It’s just logical that if God is Just and Merciful (and we didn’t invent this), then a person who is righteous outside the Church during her life will be reunited by God to it to be saved. In the case of this thread, a person who thought she was in the Church but wasn’t would also be saved, even with more reason. If it is God desires all men to be saved, (1 Timothy), then why wouldn’t He?

Pius X already stated in his Cathecism:

22 Q. In what does the Soul of the Church consist?
A. The Soul of the Church consists in her internal and spiritual endowments, that is, faith, hope, charity, the gifts of grace and of the Holy Ghost, together with all the heavenly treasures which are hers through the merits of our Redeemer, Jesus Christ, and of the Saints.

29 Q. But if a man through no fault of his own is outside the Church, can he be saved?
A. If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God’s will as best he can such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation.

 

[ReaderT]

I was going to say the same to @ReaderT: in other threads didn’t you criticize this resolution from the CDF for being legalistic? If so, then why would you think God would be more legalistic with the Salvation of an innocent person?

Or is this just an hypothetical construct just to critize how we Roman Catholics “do things”?

I don’t know exactly what thread you’re referring to but if you want my opinion, I think this whole thing is incredibly legalistic and I’ve said so elsewhere. God understands when a deacon and a priest are working together and they say “We”. Or two pastors, as was the case of a Protestant user here. But the CDF said they’re invalid, and that’s your right to practice your religion as you see fit.

Catholics are not required to confess

• sins that are venial (they may mention them in confession but it’s not required), or
• sins they have genuinely forgotten. (With the caveat that if a sin is grave-possibly-mortal and they remember it later, they should mention it at the next confession.)

Many sins told in a past confession that turned out to be invalid absolution for some reason would likely fall in these categories of “venial” or, when the person goes next, “forgotten”. They would not need to be mentioned again unless like I said the sin was a forgotten, possibly mortal sin that the person had just remembered.

If a Catholic were truly worried about past confessions to a priest whose holy orders had been found invalid, all they need to do is sit down, do their best examination of conscience for the time period over which they confessed to that priest, and mention all the grave-possibly-mortal sins they remember. It’s not hard to do. And they don’t get left on the hook for sins they forgot. The Church does not teach that.

Thank you Tis. I’m tempted to ask “what if they didn’t know the priest was invalid but they did remember their mortal sins” (e.g. people generally don’t forget their sexual misdeeds even decades later) but we’ve been down “What if Road” enough in this thread and I’ll refrain from here.