Marshmallow Catholicism, Courtesy Of Youcat

This video from Sensus Fidelium warns against Youcat and other types of "gimmick catholicism".  Although the video image is odd, just click on it and it will play.

Cohabitating Couples And The Sacrament of Confession

Earlier today Leon posted a comment to my post about the wedding of cohabitating couples.  Please note that he says that he, his wife and (I assume) other couples confessed right before their wedding ceremonies.  This raises a whole bevy of questions.   Let me preface these questions with some important clarifications.  As I ask questions and make remarks, I do not intend these to be construed as criticism of Leon and his friends.  I've no doubt that the actions they took were taken in good-faith compliance with their priests and marriage-prep instructors.  I suspect Leon and his friends were merely victims of poor catechesis resulting from the erroneous "spirit of Vatican II".  For that matter, their priests and marriage-prep instructors may well have been robbed of their proper Catholic formation by that same "spirit of Vatican II".  I know I was in my latter years of school.  Fortunately my sacramental preparation wasn't so corroded, as we used the Baltimore Catechism.  I'll be referring to that catechism later.  Now the questions arising from Leon's comment.

• Why "right before"?  Why were they not advised to take advantage of that sacrament at earlier times during their course?
• Were the cohabitating couples ever advised that they should separate (that is, cease fornication) during the course of their marriage preparation      
• If they were urged to confess, were they urged to confess the mortal sin of fornication?  Were they even taught why fornication is a mortal sin?

I suppose that list of questions could go into infinity, but I'll stop here.  As I said in the last post, no sacramental grace (including from matrimony) can accrue to those in a state of mortal sin unless one receives the Sacrament of Confession.  The fact that Confession in Leon's case seems to have been delayed until the eve of the wedding makes me wonder if that sacrament is being misunderstood, and to such an extent as to compromise the efficacy of that Sacrament.  As I said, I'll be trotting out the Baltimore Catechism (used to prepare me for my first confession).

Here is Question 384: What must we do to receive the Sacrament of Penance worthily?  To receive the Sacrament of Penance worthily we must:
       first, examine our conscience
       second, be sorry for our sins (contrition)
       third, have the firm purpose of not sinning again
       fourth, confess our sins to the priest
       fifth, be willing to perform the penance the priest gives us

If Confession really occurs on the eve of the wedding, how does that allow for a proper examination of conscience and, more telling, testing of the purpose of not committing fornication again?

Let's look at several other questions in succession, and I'll put comments in red.

Question 388: What is contrition? Contrition is sincere sorrow for having offended God, and hatred for the sins we have committed, with a firm purpose of sinning no more.  Under the scenario that Leon described, was a hatred for the mortal sin of fornication properly instilled in the marriage prep attendees?

Question 389: Will God forgive us any sin unless we have true contrition for it?  God will not forgive us any sin, whether mortal or venial, unless we have true contrition for it.  Unless that hatred of fornication has been instilled, there is no forgiveness of that mortal sin.  How can this be interpreted otherwise?

Question 390: When is sorrow for sin true contrition?  Sorrow for sin is true contrition when it is interior, supernatural, supreme and universal.

Question 391: When is our sorrow interior?  Our sorrow is interior when it comes from our heart and not merely from our lips.  So how are currently-cohabitating couples being taught to have interior sorrow?

Question 392: When is our sorrow supernatural?  Our sorrow is supernatural when, with the help of God's grace, it arises from motives which spring from faith and not merely from natural motives.  The natural motives in the case of marriage preparation might include "discharging the formality of confession" as though it was just another item on the "punch list" of things to do before the wedding.

As I pointed out in the previous post, if couples have been committing the mortal sin of fornication, they need to receive the Sacrament of Penance worthily before they can properly receive the Sacrament of Matrimony.  I recited and commented on the Baltimore Catechism questions to illustrate why I think it's highly unlikely that Leon and his friends were properly prepared to receive either Penance or Matrimony.  I have good reason to believe this scenario is repeated in parishes throughout the world.  Are the twenty couples being married tomorrow also victims of ill-considered marriage preparation?

The divorce rate for Catholics is roughly on a par with that of non-Catholic couples; that's indicative that God's laws about marriage and sexuality are not being taken seriously, assuming they are known at all.  I realize a good deal of Catholic education is below par, but in this day of the internet, there is no excuse for not filling in the gaps of our own education.

If the couples whom the Pope will marry tomorrow have indeed been properly instructed, I ask why the new article (particularly from Catholic sources) did not make that clear.  The lack of such mention leaves too much room for ambiguity and even scandal.

St John Neumann Catholic Church Bulletin - Poor Theology Of The Mass

As you read this post, please have open the bulletin insert in question; it is here, on page 5, right-hand column.  Before I proceed, I voice agreement that our devout assistance at Holy Mass is imperative to our receipt of the graces that are present at Holy Mass.  However, these graces are present owing to the nature of the Mass itself.  No other person present can impede my reception of these graces, provided that I am properly disposed.

First, what is the Mass?  Let's look at the clear, concise answer from the Baltimore Catechism.  That question, by the way, is Question 263 of the Baltimore Catechism.  The answer is - again from that catechism - The Mass is the unbloody sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ.  Here are more questions and answers from the Baltimore Catechism delving into the nature of the Mass.

Here are some more from EWTN.  Take special note here of Question 360, and part (a) of the answer: "Christ, though invisible, is the principal minister, offering Himself in the Mass.  The priest is the visible and secondary minister, offering Christ in the Mass".  This statement of fact is why this statement from the SJN bulletin is flat-out incorrect: "Mass at St. John Neumann and in any church is the joint effort of all the people in the assembly, not just the priests and special ministers who are, first of all, also members of the assembly. Every member of the parish assembly has a serious responsibility to help make the Mass a life-giving sacramental experience. To the degree that any member of the assembly does not work to make the Mass life-giving, to that degree the sacramental signs fail and the Eucharistic sign becomes less than what it should be."  The rather modern error that seems to be the undercurrent of this paragraph is the error that the roles of clergy and the roles of laity are on a par with regard to the Mass.  That's simply incorrect.  Christ is the primary minister and the priest is the secondary minister.  That's it!  No more "ministers"!  This is why a priest can say a private Mass, by himself.  The presence of laity have absolutely no impact on the sacramental validity of the Mass.  Conversely, no priest means no Mass - no matter how many devout laity are gathered.

I just don't have time to elaborate on all the error that is contained herein.  Suffice it to say that it is absolutely false to equate the role of those who've received the Sacrament of Holy Orders with the role of the laity.  It is NOT our presence that is "the transforming energy of all sacramental celebrations".  A Sacrament is an outward sign instituted by Christ to give grace (again, from the Baltimore Catechism).  What's with this "transforming energy" new-age talk?

But in going down, we see the lists of ushers, readers, musicians, etc.  "Priest" is thrown in the laundry list, and there's no particular order.  That's simply wrong.  It is the priest who is the minister, acting as alter Christi.  No lector nor greeter can do that.

I agree that one's lack of attention can impact the grace that they are able to receive from Mass.  So too can a faulty understanding of what Mass is.