The Papists

Hi there! Thanks for your question.

CCC #2487 says this:

Every offense committed against justice and truth entails the duty of reparation, even if its author has been forgiven. When it is impossible publicly to make reparation for a wrong, it must be made secretly. If someone who has suffered harm cannot be directly compensated, he must be given moral satisfaction in the name of charity. This duty of reparation also concerns offenses against another’s reputation. This reparation, moral and sometimes material, must be evaluated in terms of the extent of the damage inflicted. It obliges in conscience.

So the Catechism is clear that public reparation is the general way of dealing with an offense. 

In French, reparer simply means to fix. Simply put, we’re called to fix things after committing an offense against someone. 

The first thing that comes to my mind is to simply say sorry and ask for forgiveness in front of the person. You tell them, “I’m sorry. Can you forgive me?” and then it’s on them to forgive you. If you did something that hurt them or damaged their property, you should offer to pay the medical bill or mechanic’s bill or contracter’s bill (or replace whatever you broke or damaged). Financial compensation is a good way to make public reparation for a wrong. Another way that comes to mind is to give of your time—your service to that person. If you, say, trampled your neighbour’s rose bushes because you walked outside and were angry, then you could offer to give an hour of your day during the summer helping your neighbour in their garden. 

On a more serious note, public reparation could mean serving a jail sentence or paying a severe fine. Pleading guilty and accepting your jail time would be a good way to make public reparation. Remember, once you commit a wrong and you realize it is wrong, it is up to you to “make up for it” as best you can. 

I hope I was able to answer your question. Take care!

Your friend,

Olivier

approximatelyinfinity:

rebelling-against-the-rebels replied to your post: Hanging out in both lungs of the Church today!

I’ve always wondered what the difference between Orthodox and Catholic were. I know that Orthodox don’t recognize the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome, but is there anything else?

Great question! There are a handful of differences between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. The Catechism paragraph 838 says that non-Catholic Christians who have been “properly baptized” are in a “certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church. With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound ‘that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist.’ ” In other words, we’re really freaking close. :)

As far as the actual differences, some are theological and some are liturgical choices.

• The Pope. While the West teaches papal supremacy (meaning he has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church), the East considers the Pope to be a “first among equals.”
• The “filioque” controversy, in which the West added the words “and the Son” to the Nicene Creed without the consent or consultation of the East. This reflects some differences in the understanding of the Holy Trinity. (Too complicated to get into right now)
• Slightly different views of original sin. Both say it exists, but the West says everyone inherits the sin of Adam and the East says we inherit the sin of Adam AND everyone else who came before us.
• The Immaculate Conception (rejected by the Orthodox)
• Teachings on purgatory, which the East generally rejects, although some believe in a form of purification after death…
• The use of leavened vs. unleavened bread
• Celibacy of parish priests (which is a tradition, not a hardfast rule in the West)

These differences are important, but often they are blown out of proportion by both sides. Historically, there has been a lot of conflict between the East and West about these things, and both can still be “bitter” about it. (It seems to me that the East is a little more bitter than the West, but I don’t blame them. That whole sacking of Constantinople thing…) (Sometimes it reminds me of two feuding families that have been going at it for so long that they can’t remember why they’re arguing anymore.) Fortunately, in recent years a lot of progress has been made in terms of reconciliation between the two Churches. 

Honestly, in today’s world, we’re fighting against the same things. I saw a book in the Orthodox Church’s bookstore that was like, “Criticism of Protestantism” or something like that, and I’m sure it’s nearly identical to what the Catholic Church says about Protestantism! 

So anyways, that’s a long-winded answer that really only touches the surface. In brief, there are some differences, listed above, but honestly a lot of the conflict is historical rather than theological. And we’re making progress so we can be friends again. :)

I figured I’d reblog this here to make it visible to more people. Hope it’s informative!

Hi Anon,

I believe this article will answer your questions. Also, if you want an excellent book on the subject, I recommend “Can Catholics and Evangelicals Agree on Purgatory and the Last Judgement?” by Brett Salkeld. It’s an excellent piece of work (and the answer is yes!). 

Your friend,

Olivier

Dear anon,

I found this good article that hopefully gives a clear answer to your question.

Here are the best bits:

1. The book Catholic Replies sums up the teaching of the Church concerning what it means to be “saved” through the Church: What the doctrine of no salvation outside the Church does mean is that everyone is saved through the Catholic Church either as faithful members of that Church, or as members of churches which contain some significant elements of truth and sanctification found in the Catholic Church, or as persons who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do His will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience (Catechism n 847).  Those churches which contain some elements of truth would be, for example, protestant churches that practice Trinitarian baptism.
2. But just because the Church recognizes the validity of Baptism in some Christian churches it does not mean that all Christian denominations are equally true as stated in the Decree on Ecumenism. Even though the Catholic Church states that those who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are brought into a certain, though imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church and are properly regarded as brothers in the Lord by the sons of the Catholic Church (Decree on Ecumenism, n.3), the Church in the documents of Vatican II stops short of calling these separated Christians as members of the “Body of Christ,” mindful of the statement issued in the 1943 encyclical of Pope Pius XII On the Mystical Body (Mystici Corporis):  Only those are to be included as real members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith and have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body or been excluded from it by legitimate authority for serious faults.

TL;DR salvation is accessible to all people, including evangelicals and other non-Catholic Christians. God does not punish people for their ignorance of the truth, but he does leave them the choice to accept or reject his love (i.e. choose either heaven or hell).

I hope this helps!

Your friend,

Olivier

Although it is encouraged to go to Confession after any type of sin, being able to receive the Eucharist depends on whether or not the sin was mortal or venial.

If you are in a state of grace (ie: have not committed a mortal sin), then you may receive communion. The Confiteor at the beginning of Mass (like any Act of Contrition) forgives all venial sins, as does receiving the Eucharist Itself. 

If you have committed a mortal sin, then you must not receive Holy Communion until after receiving the Sacrament of Reconciliation and Penance. (Receiving the Eucharist while in a state of mortal sin is in itself a mortal sin. It is a grave offence against the Blessed Sacrament.)

1 Corinthians 11:27-29: “Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgmenton himself.” 

Hi anon! Thanks for your question.

We’ll look at a few sources to answer it, particularly The Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship, and the 5 Non-Negotiables as written by Priests for Life.

First off, I want to say that voting is a matter of personal conscience, and that personal conscience and reason naturally points towards God, who is all-good and all-loving. Therefore, our voting should point to what is good and loving. 

Abortion is commonly referred to as one of the 5 Non-Negotiables, a set of issues that Catholics cannot afford to compromise in their voting without compromising their consciences. Priests for life have this to say:

The Church teaches that, regarding a law permitting abortions, it is “never licit to obey it, or to take part in a propaganda campaign in favor of such a law, or to vote for it” (EV 73). Abortion is the intentional and direct killing of an innocent human being, and therefore it is a form of homicide.

The unborn child is always an innocent party, and no law may permit the taking of his life. Even when a child is conceived through rape or incest, the fault is not the child’s, who should not suffer death for others’ sins.

Now, let’s look at what The Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith says with regard to voting:

It must be noted also that a well-formed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political program or an individual law which contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals. The Christian faith is an integral unity, and thus it is incoherent to isolate some particular element to the detriment of the whole of Catholic doctrine. A political commitment to a single isolated aspect of the Church’s social doctrine does not exhaust one’s responsibility towards the common good.

Clearly, our consciences stop us from voting for laws that are immoral, but what about the people who may or may not promote laws that are immoral? And in your case, what about candidates who might both promote laws that are immoral (and/or part of the 5 Non-Negotiables?)

The USCCB, in Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship, declares (in accordance with the previous two sources I cited):

31. Decisions about political life are complex and require the exercise of a well-formed conscience aided by prudence. This exercise of conscience begins with outright opposition to laws and other policies that violate human life or weaken its protection. Those who knowingly, willingly, and directly support public policies or legislation that undermine fundamental moral principles cooperate with evil. (page 10)

… 

34. Catholics often face difficult choices about how to vote. This is why it is so important to vote according to a well-formed conscience that perceives the proper relationship among moral goods. A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who takes a position in favour of an intrinsic evil, such as abortion or racism, if the voter’s intent is to support that position. In such cases a Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in grave evil. At the same time, a voter should not use a candidate’s opposition to an intrinsic evil to justify indifference or inattentiveness to other important moral issues involving human life and dignity. (page 11)

We can see that it’s never okay to support a candidate who believes abortion is morally permissible or does not seek to uphold the dignity of human life by making abortion illegal. 

Now, let’s talk about the presidential candidates: Obama and Romney. Obama is certainly out of the picture, because he supports “a woman’s right to choose” (I shall refrain from commenting on this pathetic and plain wrong piece of rhetoric). Romney, on the other hand, would ban abortion in all cases except rape, incest, and in instances where the life of the mother is threatened. I believe that the most recent declaration of this information comes from one of Paul Ryan’s comments during the Vice-Presidential Debate. 

Romney has said that he would outlaw abortion except in those three cases (and Catholics recognize the life of the mother as a legitimate reason, because the goal is to preserve as much life as possible), but I don’t think there has been a time where Romney has specifically said (something along the lines of), “I believe abortion is morally wrong except in X, Y, and Z,” or “I believe abortion is morally wrong in all cases.”

I’d say that because Romney isn’t currently for outlawing abortion completely (regardless of whether it’s incremental or all at once), the logical conclusion is that his morality is set so that he’s not completely against abortion, for we know that laws must flow from morality (and not vice-versa!). By this standard, I’d say it’s best not to vote for Romney, either. (However, you could claim that ambiguity means he’s not culpable, and therefore you’re not culpable… but I don’t favour this view as it is a cop-out)

So, if neither candidate (not counting the three others from the smaller parties) is suitable based on what I’ve just said, what do you do? I know Q has said she has decided not to vote or to cast a null vote (also: Q’s #voting tag is good to read), and I feel like this might be the only moral thing to do. Or, you could write-in a candidate that does not violate any of the Five Non-Negotiables or any other moral law that Catholics adhere to.

I’m sorry this has been such a long answer, but I hope you’re more informed about what you’re going to do come November!

Your friend,

Olivier

PS: If anyone else wants to give their opinion, please do! (I’m just a lowly Canadian…)

If anyone wants to add a different opinion, please do!

Edit: Father Angel gave an interesting insight into the issue as well:

“But, if your vote helps Obama to regain the White House, just realize the Church is screwed. Screwed, screwed, screwed. I don’t mean that in an obscene way. I mean our situation is going to be tortuous[.]”

The Creation story is creative writing so in a sense Adam and Eve were “linguistic figures”. 

Genesis isn’t a play by play detailed account of what happened. The method in which it was written is to be able to draw out important truths. Genesis teaches us that God created everything, that mankind is the pinnacle of creation, and that there was perfect communion between God and Man. 

Man was given free will and humanity as a whole turned its back on God and perfect communion was broken thus resulting in Original Sin. 

If you need any more clarification, let us know!

-Javi

~

To quickly clarify, most theologians today understand the original sin to mean pride.  And they understand it in a very specific way, its the idea that we don’t need God and that we should seek elsewhere for fulfillment.  Original sin was when man tried to replace God with himself.  Many, such as Chesterton, considered the existence of original sin as axiomatic.  He’d say, look at the sorry state of the world and that’s all you need to believe in the existence of sin.

-Niko

Go ahead and ask the patron of the novena to pray for multiple things! I prayed a novena to Sts Perpetua and Felicity a little while back, and at one point, it asks you to “list all intentions.” 

You’re completely right, anon, God’s grace is infinite, so don’t be afraid to ask His saints to pray for tons of things for you!

God bless,

Olivier

Growing in Faith: Summaries of Catholic Teaching →

To those interested in doing some self-study on the most fundamental teachings of the Catholic Church, this is a 40-day study plan that is used for doctrine formation classes as given by the Opus Dei. :)

- Kai

Absolutely!

I just was hearing this explained by a priest today, actually. You can offer up anything at all for the souls in purgatory—from having to eat your greens to indulgences earned.

God bless!