Showing posts with label Catholicism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Catholicism. Show all posts

Friday, February 03, 2012

Miscellany

someecards.com - Welcome to Planned Parenthood where we don't do mammograms but will gladly give you these birth control pills that cause breast cancer.

(Source)


It's hard to say exactly what is going on here. News headlines boiled down to "Komen to defund Planned Parenthood" and "Komen reverses decision", but neither is strictly true, from what I can tell. As the founder of the Susan G. Komen foundation said in an interview, they never defunded PP, and PP still has several grants from them. Of course, the pro-choice crowd immediately launched in hysterics, claiming that the Komen foundation must hate women, hacking the SGK website, etc. etc. Not one of them appears to be at all interested in what or why SGK is doing what it's doing: they simply changed their grant policy to try and give money to direct providers of cancer screenings, rather than referrers. Since Planned Parenthood does not do mammograms, or really any cancer screening aside from what you can do at home by yourself, SGK simply decided there was better use of its money.

To put that in words that even liberals can understand, SGK "defunded" (for certain values of defunded) PP because PP is not very good at providing cancer screenings.

Komen's "reversal" appears to be a rephrasing of their original policy shift. At this point, it is unclear what exactly is going on, other than PP is trying to bully SGK in some sort of mafia shakedown ("Nice charity, you got there. Would be a shame of somethin' were to happen to it"). Canonist Ed Peters (how do I get a title like that? I mean, aside from studying Canon Law) summed up what was going on pretty well. Of course, they have the media to assist them on the shakedown, and Get Religion has an excellent piece on the atrocious reporting of the story.

Perhaps the most humorous example of the media folly was MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell who, in an interview with SGK founder Nancy Brinker asked how a bipartisan organization such as SGK could deign to hire a pro-life Republican. 

Wednesday, February 01, 2012

On Martyrdom.

Years ago, back when I went to the YMI day retreats, one of my group leaders asked us if we knew what it meant to be a martyr. Me, always the over-achiever, raised my arm high and proclaimed that it was someone who died for their faith. The missionaries laughed at me. "Not in America!" they proclaimed.

And I think they are right. The idea of feeding Catholics to lions, or burning them to death as was the fate of the Ugandan martyrs, seems highly unlikely. The American character is too averse to such open persecution, and the evil too blatant, to really grab hold in this country. So what does martyrdom look like in America?

(And you are fooling yourself if you think there aren't American martyrs. The world cannot simultaneously hate the Church and tolerate Her presence. A sinner hates nothing more than the guilt of his sin, and cannot help but harbor a grudge against those who reinforce that guilt by denouncing the sin.)

About once a year, a priest from Vladivostok, Russia, makes the tour of Orange County, preaching at parishes, and asking for support for the missionary work in Russia, undoing the evils of the Communists. He tells the story of what happened to the Church in Vladivostok at the beginning of the Revolution. Most of the city's inhabitants were Orthodox—too many to openly persecute—so the Soviets simply bombed the churches. One Easter Sunday, in front of all the faithful, they simply closed the Orthodox churches, save one, and blew them up, to be rebuilt for The Party's use. The Catholics were not so lucky. They were a small minority, and the Communists saw no reason to try and tolerate them. Catholics were simply rounded up and executed, and the city didn't notice much difference.

So there is strength in numbers. It's hard to imagine a relatively peaceful country killing off a fifth of its inhabitants (or even a twentieth, if we only count those who meet the bare minimum requirement of weekly Mass attendance). 60 million (or 15 million) is a lot of graves to fill. But the tactics of the Soviets may lend an insight. If there are too many to round up, simply keep them out of their churches.

Saturday, December 17, 2011

Dying of Laughter

Star Wars as an allegory of Vatican II.


Here's the part where I had tears in my eyes:
The heroes involved with saving the Church from the Culture of Death, i.e. rescuing Leia from the Death Star, was Paul VI, John Paul II, and the faithful Catholic laity … that is, Obi-Wan Kenobi, Luke Skywalker, and Han Solo. 
The way to destroy of the Culture of Death is, paradoxically, by means of more life … that is, by sex, impregnation … and so forth. At the battle of Yavin, the rebels intend to symbolically do just that … namely (hear me out on this one) … have sex with the Death Star. Oh, man, I’ve really lost it haven’t I? The rebel starfighters attempt to shoot proton torpedos (which vaguely look like sperm) into a small exhaust port (which, I’ll just say it, represents the vaginal opening). Furthermore, the rebel’s ships are called X-Wings and Y-Wings … which are, of course, represent X Chromosomes and Y Chromosomes (i.e. the sex-determining structures of DNA involved in reproduction). Moreover, imperial TIE Fighters, which represent contraception (i.e. TIEing one’s tubes … and later on TIE “Interceptors” which sound like “Contraceptors”), try to destroy them to prevent this symbolic act of impregnation.
While Luke is narrowing in on the target with his targeting computer, Obi-Wan mystically tells him to “let go” and just “use the force,” as the computer is destined to fail. In other words, Obi-Wan is encouraging a natural method for this act rather than an artificial one. Luke obeys him, and it works. This, of course, parallels how Paul VI advocated natural sex as opposed to artificial birth control, and John Paul II followed his predecessor in this. John Paul II thus helped to blow up of the Culture of Death with his … yes, that’s right …Theology of the Body (his pivotal work explaining to the modern mind the correct view one should have with regard to human sexuality).
(H/T Mike Flynn)

Monday, September 26, 2011

Catholicism on Public Television

Father Robert Barron's Catholicism will be airing on PBS stations nationwide, as well as on EWTN. You will want to catch this one. It's inspired by Kenneth Clark's Civilisation and looks to be amazing. You can find out more (and watch clips from it) here.

You can also find out air dates for your area here.

For those of us in LA/Orange Counties, episodes 1, 3, 4, and 5 will be on KLCS (channel 58) Mondays at 9pm, starting October 3rd. KVCR (channel 24) will air it Tuesdays at 8pm, starting on the 11th. Those in Lake Elsinore, I assume, can get KVCR (Riverside/San Bernardino).

If those in Bakersfield can get Fresno stations, KVPT will air all four PBS episodes on October 23rd starting at 11am.

In the Tampa area, you can catch it on WEDU on Wednesdays at 11pm, starting October 5th.

In Chicago (Fr. Barron's home diocese), it will be on WTTW Thursdays at 8pm starting October 13th, with encores the following Sundays at 4pm.

In South Bend (I think I have readers there?) it will be on WNIT Thursdays, October 13th and 20th, from 9-11pm.

If those in the DC area weren't so busy trying to raise well-adjusted children, and still had access to on-air television, they could have watched the first episode on Maryland PTV this past Thursday at 8pm, and the second this coming Thursday, the 29th, at the same time.

If I missed anyone, check here for your market.

The remaining episodes (2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10) will air on EWTN on November 16th-19th, repeatedly.

And if you can't catch it on TV, potentially because you're lame or because you live in a stone-age commune and don't have TV, you can buy the DVD box set for a kingly sum of $150 (I know what's going on my Birthday/Christmas list this year!). Or you can wait for your parish to host a showing, unless you go to some hippie new-age parish.

There's also a book to go along with it. Again, you will not want to miss this.

Thursday, February 10, 2011

iConfess I'm Shocked

So my friend's iPhone app has been doing quite well, apparently.

It's now the top paid app in the "Lifestyles" section of the app store.


And it's also in the top 25 purchased apps in the app store.



It started small, with the Catholic blogosphere.

Thomas Peters at American Papist praised it.
Mark Shea called it "very cool."
Father Z called it "useful but flawed."
Father Roderick tweeted about it.
Even Father Barron recommended it.
Early on in the viral outbreak, Patrick himself appeared for an interview on one of SQPN's podcasts.

Then it got big.

CNN: New app helps Catholics confess on the go.
Fox: Church Approves 'Confession' App for iPhone.
CNBC: Bless me iPhone for I have sinned.
New York Times: Forgive Me, Father, for I Have Linked.
HuffPo: Confession App Sanctioned By Catholic Church.

(I'm tired of linking. Find the rest yourself)

It was also covered on segments on Fox News, CNN, and the Today Show (I don't have the clips). Apparently Conan made a joke about it on his show. Something about butt-dialing God.

Even Perez Hilton mentions it.

Some of the coverage was good:
AP: Religion Tech: Confessing Sins on Your iPhone.

Other, well, not so much, prompting Get Religion to correct The Times (of London).

Then it got... really big.

Father Federico Lombardi, director of the Vatican press office, commented on it, saying it is not a replacement for confessing to a priest. Of course, Patrick already new that and never intended that it would be used as a substitute, only as an assistance.

This caused a fair amount of confusion as several news outlets announced that the Vatican "excommunicated" the app. Seriously.

HuffPo: Vatican Bans Confession Via iPhone App.
Reuters (via LA Times): New iPhone app helps Catholics through confession.
The Telegraph: Vatican bans iPhone 'God app'.

Of course, you can't say the phrase "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic" in an empty room without stirring up controversy. The range of criticism showed the Chesterton effect in full force. Complaints in the comments sections on the blogs and news articles ranged from "the Catholic Church is so silly for offering this backwards and outdated rite. Why, a Catholic can commit the most outrageous sin and simply confess to a priest to receive absolution! It makes wrong-doing so easily forgiven as to encourage it!" to "the Catholic Church is so silly for offering this quaint and un-biblical rite. Why, anyone can receive forgiveness by simply offering contrition directly to God! Involving a priest simply adds needless complexity to obtaining redemption to the point of encouraging people not to seek it!" to "the Catholic Church is so silly for offering this wrong-headed and hurtful rite. Why, telling people to confess their sins to a priest makes them feel guilty and shameful about ordinary behavior! The guilt-complex it creates is responsible for driving gay teens to suicide!"

(In case you don't believe me on that last one, this HuffPo piece makes a connection between Pat's app and teen suicide. For reals.)

Despite my earlier protestations, I did end up buying the app today. The personalized examination of conscience is good. This is what it gave me when I entered my name.

Perhaps a little too good

Monday, January 31, 2011

iConfess

Let's try this again, shall we?


So, there's an interesting new iPhone app that's climbing the charts. I'll let the press release explain it:

South Bend, IN—Little iApps, LLC is pleased to announce the release of Confession: A Roman Catholic App, its very first application for iPhone™, iPad, and iPod touch®. Developed for those who frequent the sacrament and those who wish to return, this confession helper is priced at $1.99 and is available for download at the iTunes store. This announcement follows directly on the heels of Pope Benedict’s message for the 45th World Communications Day address in which he emphasized that new media, “if used wisely, can contribute to the satisfaction of the desire for meaning, truth and unity which remain the most profound aspirations of each human being.”
Designed to be used in the confessional, this app is the perfect aid for every penitent. With a personalized examination of conscience for each user, password protected profiles, and a step-by-step guide to the sacrament, this app invites Catholics to prayerfully prepare for and participate in the Rite of Penance. Individuals who have been away from the sacrament for some time will find Confession: A Roman Catholic App to be a useful and inviting tool.
That's right, an app to help you in the confessional! Just what this world needs! (Seriously, have you been paying attention to what's going on out there? Confession is just the thing for it.) I, personally, haven't picked it up yet. A) I already know how to make a good confession, thank you very much, and B) storing a "personalized examination of conscience" on a portable, easily-lost-or-stolen device makes me uncomfortable, password-protected or no.

But this app is interesting for two reasons. Firstly, it's the first iPhone, iPod, or iPad app to receive a nihil obstat and imprimatur. Secondly, it was written by one of my college buddies, Patrick, who I went to Austria with, and shared a house with my senior year.

He didn't write it by himself, mind. 
Anyways, the app has been doing very well in the app store, making its way into the top 25 paid apps in the "Lifestyles" section, almost surpassing the "Adult Sex Game HD" app in terms of popularity.


Interesting juxtaposition


So, if you're new to the sacrament, or a frequent-goer, perhaps you could check out my friend's app? I'll let him close out this post:

Pope Benedict’s general prayer intention for January 2011 was, “that young people may learn to use modern means of social communication for their personal growth and to better prepare themselves to serve society.” Little iApps developer and co-founder, Patrick Leinen, said, “Our desire is to invite Catholics to engage in their faith through digital technology. Taking to heart Pope Benedict XVI’s message from last years’ World Communications Address, our goal with this project is to offer a digital application that is truly ‘new media at the service of the Word.’ The app has already aided one man in returning to the sacrament after 20 years. We hope many more will take advantage of this new confession resource.”

Saturday, October 02, 2010

LinkDump

"A group proposes to build a religious establishment on their own property near a site associated with great pain and significance for some people. These people, rightly or wrongly, associate that religion with the many deaths that were caused and so raise a great ruckus in protest against the said establishment. For their part, the religious establishment pleas that they intend to pray for all who died there, including their own co-religionists. But this plea is dismissed," writes philosopher, statistician, physicist, historian, SF author extraordinaire, and all-around cool guy Mike Flynn.


"I pause while you assume the proper attitude," he continues.

"I write, of course, of the Polish sisters who wanted to establish a convent near Auschwitz, which created a great outcry that it was insensitive to Jewish concerns. The Pope intervened and told the sisters to place their convent elsewhere, since if they remained intransigent they would do more harm than good. That they had a right to do what they planned did not mean it was right to do it."

We haven't discussed the ground-zero mosque in this space, and I am curious what my readers think. Me, personally? I am in favor of it, so long as they build a chapel to Our Lady of Victory right next door.

Sunday, June 06, 2010

Lauda Sion

Sion, lift up thy voice and sing:
Praise thy Savior and thy King,
Praise with hymns thy shepherd true.

All thou canst, do thou endeavour:
Yet thy praise can equal never
Such as merits thy great King.

See today before us laid
The living and life-giving Bread,
Theme for praise and joy profound.

The same which at the sacred board
Was, by our incarnate Lord,
Giv'n to His Apostles round.

Let the praise be loud and high:
Sweet and tranquil be the joy
Felt today in every breast.

On this festival divine
Which records the origin
Of the glorious Eucharist.

On this table of the King,
Our new Paschal offering
Brings to end the olden rite.

Here, for empty shadows fled,
Is reality instead,
Here, instead of darkness, light.

His own act, at supper seated
Christ ordain'd to be repeated
In His memory divine;

Wherefore now, with adoration,
We, the host of our salvation,
Consecrate from bread and wine.

Hear, what holy Church maintaineth,
That the bread its substance changeth
Into Flesh, the wine to Blood.

Doth it pass thy comprehending?
Faith, the law of sight transcending
Leaps to things not understood.

Here beneath these signs are hidden
Priceless things, to sense forbidden,
Signs, not things, are all we see.

Flesh from bread, and Blood from wine,
Yet is Christ in either sign,
All entire, confessed to be.

They, who of Him here partake,
Sever not, nor rend, nor break:
But, entire, their Lord receive.

Whether one or thousands eat:
All receive the self-same meat:
Nor the less for others leave.

Both the wicked and the good
Eat of this celestial Food:
But with ends how opposite!

Here 't is life: and there 't is death:
The same, yet issuing to each
In a difference infinite.

Nor a single doubt retain,
When they break the Host in twain,
But that in each part remains
What was in the whole before.

Since the simple sign alone
Suffers change in state or form:
The signified remaining one
And the same for evermore.

Lo! bread of the Angels broken,
For us pilgrims food, and token
Of the promise by Christ spoken,
Children’s meat, to dogs denied.

Shewn in Isaac's dedication,
In the manna's preparation:
In the Paschal immolation,
In old types pre-signified.

Jesu, shepherd of the sheep:
Thou thy flock in safety keep,
Living bread, thy life supply:
Strengthen us, or else we die,
Fill us with celestial grace.

Thou, who feedest us below:
Source of all we have or know:
Grant that with Thy Saints above,
Sitting at the feast of love,
We may see Thee face to face.
Amen. Alleluia.

~St. Thomas Aquinas, for the feast of Corpus Christi, 1264

For those who want to hear the chant in Latin.



At St. John's today, it was sung by the cantress with the angelic voice, so imagine that, except higher and more beautiful.

Friday, February 19, 2010

I thought I'd share this wrong e-mail from a week or two ago:


***Words words words***

hey Joe,
its elder bischoff. how is the life as a not missionary? are you being good? hey guess what, elder draper set a date with shannon his first day in hermitage. im so pissed, he set like four dates his first day there. now everyone there is gunna think we were super lazy and all it took was a good missionary to get some work done. piss! he's just reaping our fruit!

thats all.

-elder Bischoff

PS. Let Me write your sister!

***No more!***

The e-mail address was <somethingsomething>@myldsmail.net

I decided to have some fun with this one. Here's what I wrote back:

###

Hi,

I think you've got the wrong e-mail address, but this web site might help you: http://www.catholic.com/library/pillar.asp.

In Christ,
-Joe B.

###

I was going to send him a link to one of the pages against Mormonism, but they seemed just a little too much on the offensive for first contact.

Thursday, November 12, 2009

Catechebulary.


His Excellency Most Rev. Donald W. Trautman, bishop of Erie, has been working to prevent the implementation of the new translation of the Roman Missal. One of his concerns is over the vocabulary, and he is concerned that some of the words may be beyond the grasp of Joe Pewsitter. (What Does the Prayer Really Say has been covering the story. You can find entries here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.)

Since charity demands that we assume that His Excellency must just simply be too busy to take, y'know, two minutes of a homily to explain what some of these words mean, F.U. News has taken it upon itself to help defuse the situation by defining these words and giving usage for each.

*ahem* Let us begin.

in·eff·a·ble (ĭn-ĕf'ə-bəl)
adj.
  1. Clever; cunning: I tried to screw him over with legal speak, but he was ineffable and saw right through it.
  2. Incapable of sexual attraction; frigid: I walked up to the hawt chick in the bar and tried to get her digits, but she was ineffable.
  3. Able to be placed in the letter "F".
con·sub·stan·tial (kŏn'səb-stăn'shəl)
adj.
  1. Of or relating to narcotics, particular those of an illegal nature: arrested and sent to prison for possession of consubstantial material.
  2. The state of being on board a submarine with a guy named Stan.
in·car·nate (ĭn-kär'nĭt)
adj.
  1. Having an intense fear of carnivals or fiestas: We wanted to go to the state fair, but Sue is incarnate.
v.
  1. To be turned into an automobile: Steve was incarnated as a Ford Thundercougarfalconbird.
  2. A word that the designers of the game Indigo Prophecy don't know the meaning of: the girl has a pure soul and has never been incarnated.
n.
  1. My friend, Nate, who sits around in his car all day.
in·vi·o·late (ĭn-vī'ə-lĭt)
n.
  1. The rage a conductor feels when the violist misses the entrance for his solo for the umpteenth consecutive time.
  2. An early 19th century art movement that focused on producing artwork of reddish-blue and light purple hues.
ob·la·tion (ə-blā'shən, ō-blā'-)
n.
  1. A type of mocking cheer practiced in some rural European areas that involves clapping while giving a raspberry: the peasants showed their distaste for the performer's interpretation with a standing oblation.
  2. A perverse sexual act involving a woodwind.
ig·no·min·y (ĭg'nə-mĭn'ē, -mə-nē)
n.
  1. The first word of the Sign of the Cross, in Latin: Ignominy Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti.
  2. A shameful display of lawn ornaments, esp. one involving lots of gnomes.
  3. A very small fire: After hours of rubbing twigs together, all I had to show for it was an ignominy.
adj. -ious
  1. The loss of a PvP battleground to a team consisting entirely of gnomes: an ignominious defeat.
pre·cur·sor (prĭ-kûr'sər, prē'kûr'sər)
n.
  1. The emptiness between each blink of a cursor on a computer.
  2. The letter audible immediately before the bleep in censored dialog that is only there so you know what word is being said.
suf·fuse (sə-fyūz')
v.
  1. To use a consubstantial narcotic.
  2. To use some poor woman who doesn't know English very well to try and get signatures to end women's suffrage. Jimmy Kimmel is an ass.
un·van·quished (ŭn-vān'kwĭsht)
adj.
  1. Never having lost to an Aston Martin Vanquish in a race: After twelve races, the Ferrari was still unvanquished.

Saturday, October 24, 2009

Ask Dr. Breen.


Dear Dr. Breen,

The Congregation of the Sacraments and Divine Worship has stated that "No priest, deacon, acolyte, or extraordinary minister of Holy Communion may refuse a communicant Communion on the tongue." This has been reinforced by the Pope and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.

My question is this: why has Our Lady of Perpetual Help parish in Bakersfield, CA, seen fit to deny me Communion on the tongue?

-A Concerned Communicant


Dear Concerned,

Thank you for writing, Concerned. Of course your question touches on one of the basic sacramental impulses, with all its associated hopes and fears for the future of the Universal Church on Earth. I also detect some unspoken questions. Does Our Lady of Perpetual Help parish really know what's best for us? What gives them the right to make this kind of decision for the communicant? Will they ever allow us to receive Communion on the tongue again?

Allow me to address the anxieties underlying your concerns, rather than try to answer every possible question you might have left unvoiced. First, let us consider the fact that for the first time ever, as a species, radical liturgical changes are in our reach. This simple fact has far-reaching implications. It requires radical rethinking and revision of our sacramental imperatives. It also requires planning and forethought that run in direct opposition to our liturgical pre-sets.

I find it helpful at times like these to remind myself that our true enemy is Doctrine. Doctrine was our mother when we were an infant Church. Doctrine coddled us and kept us safe in those hardscrabble years when we formed our beliefs and saw our first martyrs roast in a meager fire and started painting icons upon the catacomb walls. But inseparable from Doctrine is its dark twin, Orthodoxy. Doctrine is inextricably bound to unreasoning impulses, and today we clearly see its true nature. Doctrine has just become aware of its irrelevance, and like a cornered beast, it will not go down without a bloody fight. Doctrine would inflict a fatal injury on our Church. Doctrine creates its own oppressors, and bids us rise up against them. Doctrine tells us that the unknown is a threat, rather than an opportunity. Doctrine slyly and covertly compels us away from change and progress. Doctrine, therefore, must be expunged. It must be fought tooth and nail, beginning with the basest of sacramental urges: The urge to receive Communion on the tongue.

We should thank Our Lady of Perpetual Help parish for giving us respite from this overpowering force. They have given a command and exorcised our demons in a single stroke. They have given us the strength we never could have summoned to overcome this compulsion. They have given us purpose. They have turned our eyes toward the stars.

Let me assure you that Communion on the tongue will be allowed on the day that we have mastered ourselves...the day we can prove we no longer need it. And that day of transformation, I have it on good authority, is close at hand.

-Dr. Wallace Breen

Wednesday, February 11, 2009

Too Inspirational Not to Link.



I had never heard this story before. The article mentions "materials are being compiled as evidence for her process of beatification." Does that mean her cause for canonization is open? It seems to me that she would be a particularly good patroness for pregnant and nursing mothers.



Yes, I realize I've been posting an excessive amount of links and videos recently. I'll try to get a content post sometime soon. But don't get your hopes up. It will probably be more Space Pirates.

Tuesday, December 30, 2008

Offering of Indulgences: A Game Theory An Operations Research Approach.

Or: what happens when a math major ponders theology.

A few weeks ago, Fr. Robert gave a homily on the topic of indulgences: how to obtain them, the difference between partial and plenary, and offering them for the faithfully departed. And me being me, I began to wonder: what is the optimal way to offer indulgences to maximize grace through one's life?

First, let's define an indulgence. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, "an indulgence is a remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven, which the faithful Christian who is duly disposed gains under certain prescribed conditions through the action of the Church which, as the minister of redemption, dispenses and applies with authority the treasury of the satisfactions of Christ and the saints."

It continues, distinguishing between partial and plenary, "an indulgence is partial or plenary according as it removes either part or all of the temporal punishment due to sin."

Lastly, the Catechism specifies, "the faithful can gain indulgences for themselves or apply them to the dead." (CCC 1471)

This last statement is what I would like to focus on, for the purpose of this discussion.

Why offer them for the dead?

The Catechism addresses the practice of offering an indulgence for the faithfully departed in paragraph 1479: "Since the faithful departed now being purified are also members of the same communion of saints, one way we can help them is to obtain indulgences for them, so that the temporal punishments due for their sins may be remitted."

And again, in 1032, "From the beginning the Church has honored the memory of the dead and offered prayers in suffrage for them, above all the Eucharistic sacrifice, so that, thus purified, they may attain the beatific vision of God. The Church also commends almsgiving, indulgences, and works of penance undertaken on behalf of the dead:

"Let us help and commemorate them. If Job's sons were purified by their father's sacrifice, why would we doubt that our offerings for the dead bring them some consolation? Let us not hesitate to help those who have died and to offer our prayers for them."

Lastly, in paragraph 1475, it is explained how the benefits of the holiness of one member of the church can benefit another: "In the communion of saints, 'a perennial link of charity exists between the faithful who have already reached their heavenly home, those who are expiating their sins in purgatory and those who are still pilgrims on earth. between them there is, too, an abundant exchange of all good things.' In this wonderful exchange, the holiness of one profits others, well beyond the harm that the sin of one could cause others. Thus recourse to the communion of saints lets the contrite sinner be more promptly and efficaciously purified of the punishments for sin."

So the teaching here is that by offering indulgences for the Church Suffering, we can help them to obtain their final glory, and there is the hope that, once they have achieved perfect unity with God, there holiness can then benefit us here on Earth (the reality, not the planet).

During the sermon, Fr. Robert mentioned that, since we cannot know who is in purgatory, he always offers the indulgences he earns for his closest relative that is in purgatory, and lets God sort out who that is. This brought to mind my method of offering indulgences: to offer them for the soul with the longest sentence. The idea here was that if I got a soul who would otherwise have a long temporal punishment out of purgatory, that soul would be more thankful, and thus be more likely to use his spiritual goods for my benefit here on Earth. But then I began to wonder. Is this really the best way to achieve optimal grace and spiritual benefit?

Assumptions (no, not August 15ths).

Let us began by making certain assumptions about indulgences and the Church Triumphant.

Firstly, let us assume that upon helping a soul obtain the beatific vision, that soul will be grateful and offer his share of the Church's Treasury (CCC 1476-1477) for our benefit. This will give us some spiritual benefit, B. Secondly, let us assume that B can vary depending on the length of time, T, of the soul's temporal punishment. That is, a soul who was to remain in purgatory for a very long time, who we help out, will be more grateful to us, and thus offer us a bigger portion of his spiritual goods than a soul who was not to serve for very long. If true, this would mean that B would be greater for helping a soul with a longer sentence. Now let us examine three possible cases for how B can vary between souls with different lengths of their temporal punishment.

1) Logarithmic or no change.

In this first case, a soul who has a long sentence would either not be any more grateful upon being helped out of purgatory by our good works, or his gratefulness would increase logarithmically in relation to his increased sentence. Since we are assuming a direct correlation between sentence length, gratefulness, and spiritual benefit, this would imply that B does not change, or increases logarithmically between souls with differing sentence lengths.

We could express B as:
B = c ln T, for the logarithmic case, or
B = c, for the constant case.

2) Linear.

In this second case, a soul's gratefulness for being helped from purgatory increases linearly with respect to the amount of time he was to spend in purgatory. That is, B increases linearly with respect to the length of time which we, through our indulgence-earning actions here on earth, remit from the soul's time in purgatory.

In this case, we would write
B = cT

3) Geometric or exponential.

In this last case, a soul's gratefulness, and thus our spiritual benefit, increases at a geometric rate or an exponential rate with respect to the amount of time by which we reduce the soul's temporal punishment.

In other words,
B = kTc, i.e., B increases geometrically with respect to the temporal punishment of the soul, or
B = ckT, or B increases exponentially with respect to time.
(For c, k positive.)

So the purpose of this exercise is to determine, for a given assumption about the relation between spiritual benefit and temporal punishment, what is the best strategy to maximize B with respect to indulgences earned during one's life? Essentially, we are balancing getting many less-grateful souls out of purgatory against getting fewer extremely-grateful souls.

Plenary vs. Partial.

A plenary indulgence, according to the Catechism, removes "all of the temporal punishment" due to sin. Basically, a plenary indulgence acts as a "get out of purgatory free" card, that will automatically attain the beatific vision for a given soul. In this context, it is clear that, for all but the most trivial case (that is, where there is no difference in B between souls with short or long sentences), it is most advantageous to offer indulgences to souls who have the longest temporal punishment. For this reason, we will instead focus our study on how best to offer partial indulgences.

Let us assume that a partial indulgence remits a constant, finite amount from a soul's temporal punishment, where the amount remitted is dependent upon the act that earned the indulgence. We will call the amount of remission R.

The Trivial (Selfish) Solution.

The most obvious solution to the indulgence-offering problem is to apply all indulgences for the remission of one's own temporal punishment, according to CCC 1471. However, while applying indulgences to oneself removes one's own current sentence in purgatory, it does nothing to remit the temporal punishment incurred by future sins. Obviously, this is a short term solution, where there is no long-term benefit to the indulgence. This strategy is only recommended if death is feared to be imminent.

We will assume that helping another soul attain heaven produces some long-term benefit. That is, the soul, now in the presence of God, will have an ongoing and lasting influence in our life. Essentially, we are assuming that B is not temporary. As such, offering indulgences for the Church Suffering will have a better long-term ROI, whereas applying them to ourselves is the best solution until we commit our next sin.

Let us further examine the long-term case.

B is Constant.

In this trivial case, the gratitude showed by a soul we have helped does not differ based on the length of the soul's temporal punishment. This may be the case if a soul does not know the period of its time in purgatory. For the trivial case, it is best to maximize the number of souls we have helped from purgatory, since the benefit we receive is the same for each one.

B Increases Logarithmically.

In the case that the spiritual benefit offered by the soul whose temporal punishment we have helped to absolve increases at a logarithmic rate with respect to the length of said punishment, it is clear that applying the indulgence to a soul with a longer sentence suffers from diminishing returns. That is, the benefit received from the soul does not increase at a comparable rate with the time. This is because,

x(c ln T) > c ln (xT), for x, c positive.

In other words, if I receive x partial indulgences, where each one will remit t amount of temporal punishment, I have the option of getting x souls with sentences of length t out of purgatory, or I can get one soul with sentence xt out of purgatory. Since the latter case suffers from diminishing returns, the first case provides the most benefit to me.

In general, B = x/p c ln (p/x t),

where x is the number of indulgences obtained, p is the number of indulgences applied to each given soul, and t is the total amount of temporal punishment remitted by all received indulgences. A simple calculation will show that this is maximized at p = 1.

B Increases Linearly.

In the case that B increases in a linear relation to the amount of time, T, remitted by our indulgences, there is no difference between which souls we apply our indulgences to. This is because,

x (cT) = c (xT)

In other words, the benefit to us is the same, regardless to whether we help one soul, with temporal punishment xT or x souls, with temporal punishment T.

B Increases Geometrically or Exponentially.

In these last two cases, it is more beneficial to apply an indulgence to a soul with a long temporal punishment, as the spiritual benefit we receive will increase at a rate exceeding the temporal punishment we help to remit. This is because,

x (kTc) < k(xT)c

and,

x (ckT) < ckxT

For this strategy, it is best to offer partial indulgences for the soul with the longest time in purgatory, that we can remit during our lives.

Why's that?

It is important to note that even in the last case, it is not most beneficial to offer our indulgences for the soul with the longest temporal punishment. One must consider the possibility that the sum total of all partial indulgences we earn will not equal the sentence length of the soul we offer them for. In this case, as of the time of our death, we will not have elevated the soul to the status of Church Triumphant, and will not have begun to receive our spiritual benefit, B. This is why it is important to make sure we at least get one soul out of purgatory with our indulgences.

A Soul's Access to the Church's Treasury.

Another variable to take into account is the holiness of the souls we are helping. It is conceivable that a holier soul would have greater access to the spiritual goods of the Church's Treasury, and thus elevating a holier soul could have a greater benefit, even with less gratefulness on the part of the soul. In this case, even though soul A, whose temporal punishment, and therefore gratitude, is much greater than that of soul B, soul B may have much greater access to spiritual goods. 

In other words, we wish to maximize,

B' = B · Hs,

where B' is our adjusted spiritual benefit, B is the unadjusted benefit, derived from the gratefulness calculations above, and Hs is the holiness of the soul whose punishment we have remitted. In this case, reasonable assumptions must be made about the likely holiness of the souls.

This approach would seem to favor souls with shorter temporal punishments, as these souls are likely to be holier than those with longer temporal punishments.

NB: I could find no indication in the Catechism that a soul's access to spiritual treasures depends on that soul's holiness during his life. If this is the case, one can safely discount holiness as a factor in application of indulgences.

Spiritual Interest Rates.

One more thing which we ought to consider is the moral decay, or lack of spiritual advancement in our lives brought about by delayed spiritual benefits. Simply put, having more members of the Church Triumphant, even those with a small benefit, praying for us now may, in the long run, provide us with greater benefit than having one soul praying for us in fifty years. This can be thought of as "spiritual interest", and can be likened to banking interest rates. For instance, is it wiser to invest $2000 now, or $5,000 in ten years?

To take this into account, one can simply apply the compound interest formula to the spiritual benefit we've calculated previously. In other words, we want to maximize the total lifetime benefit, BL, where,

BL = H(1 + B/n)nt,

where H is our initial holiness, B is the spiritual benefit that we expect to receive from our strategy, as calculated above, n is the number of souls we expect to elevate to Church Triumphant per year with our current strategy, and t is our lifetime.

Plenary vs. Partial, Part Deux.

One more thought on plenary vs. partial indulgences: in order to maximize spiritual benefit during your life, you should never offer a plenary indulgance for a soul for whom you have already offered a partial indulgence. In such a case, the partial indulgences you've already spent on the soul will in essence be wasted, since they did not serve to remit the soul's punishment any faster. Instead, you might offer a plenary indulgence for the soul for whom your worst enemy has spent the most partial indulgences on, to minimize the spiritual benefit gained by him.

Note that while I could not find any evidence in the Catechism to indicate so, common sense might indicate that such a strategy would cancel out any earned indulgences, as part of the requirement for earning a plenary indulgence is to be "free from any attachment to sin," and such spiteful application of an indulgence would indicate the opposite.

God Knows What's Best.

With all these variables, and special cases, and unknowns, it seems that it is very difficult to find the optimum indulgence-application strategy. However, God always knows what is best for us. It is for this reason that I recommend we fall back on God. When you offer an indulgence, you can simply make a prayer as such, "Father in Heaven; I offer up the graces I receive today to that poor soul in purgatory whose gratefulness will maximize the equation:

BL = H(1 + B'/n)nt,

where BL is the total spiritual benefit achieved in my lifetime, H is my current holiness, n is the number of souls I will help out of purgatory in my lifetime, t is my lifetime, B' = B(T) · Hs is the adjusted holiness of the soul (where applicable), and B(T) is the gratefulness function for a soul, based on the time of his temporal punishment. Amen."

God will know what you mean.

Friday, December 19, 2008

One of the things I love about our faith is how rational it is; that is, how much it just makes sense. It is very rare that, so long as I am looking at the world from a Christian perspective, that it confuses me or doesn't make sense, particularly where human behavior is concerned. With the concepts of Original Sin, or man's fallen nature, or our innate desire for God, or the natural law, or guilt, or conscience, Holy Mother Church has very well instructed those who, like me, are not wise enough to figure out why people act as they do.


For instance, a man commits an evil. "Why did he do it?" people ask. "Because of his fallen nature, he inordinately desires created things, or things of this world, and is inclined to love himself over others," I know. Or, a group of people who commit evil may seek to legitimize it, or gain public acceptance for their evil acts. I understand this to be an act designed to assuage a guilty conscience. Or if a person acts with heroic selflessness, risking his life to save a child from a burning building, I can understand this as the person acting on his innate desire to do what is good, and he knows what is good through the natural law. It may be that all three of these happen within the same context; for instance a association aimed at the repeal of anti-arson laws sets fire to a building, causing a passerby to rush in to save the occupants. In fact, historically, these have all happened in the same context: Hitler was an evil man who sought to massacre the undesirables because he was fallen and prone to sin; the Germans who worked to accomplish his ends made excuses for why it was right, because they needed to appease their consciences and bury their guilt; and even in the midst of great evil, some rose above it all to show incredible love and compassion, because of a heroic desire for God and what is good.

(NB: the question of how people come to act as they do is, as are all questions of how, a matter of the sciences, particularly psychology and sociology, and are worth studying. For instance, what biological and environmental influences cause one man to commit evil and another to do good.)

It is because of this instruction that I am sometimes briefly astonished that, to this day, some people defend the sexual revolution as a good thing, until I remember that not everyone has the benefit of being brought up with such wisdom. To someone like me, who has a bit of intelligence but not a shred of wisdom, the revolution may look like a good thing. I mean, what could be wrong with throwing away outdated and pointless sexual mores? But when you look at the issue with the understanding provided by the Church, the problems become immediately obvious.

Chastity is part of the natural moral law, which is inscribed into our hearts and discernible through right reason. It governs our actions and helps us to act lovingly towards and promote the dignity of others and ourselves. By following the natural moral law, we can work to bring happiness. To act contrary to the natural law brings unhappiness and sorrow.

"The natural law, present in the heart of each man and established by reason, is universal in its precepts and its authority extends to all men. It expresses the dignity of the person and determines the basis for his fundamental rights and duties:

"For there is a true law: right reason. It is in conformity with nature, is diffused among all men, and is immutable and eternal; its orders summon to duty; its prohibitions turn away from offense . . . . To replace it with a contrary law is a sacrilege; failure to apply even one of its provisions is forbidden; no one can abrogate it entirely." (CCC 1956)

From this perspective it is easy to see what will happen when you casually toss aside these morals, "when you empty the relationship between the sexes of all moral significance and destroy the customs and institutions that govern it": women become a commodity, children become a possession, family becomes unnecessary, and murder becomes justifiable.

All the previous is just a very long-winded and roundabout way of introducing this article, which highlights one particular negative outcome of the sexual revolution: an increase in violence towards and abuse of women

And it makes sense.

Current Earth-Destruction Status This page is Class A WWW Depricated

Lilypie Third Birthday tickers
Lilypie First Birthday tickers
All material on these pages is ©2003-2010 by Joe Belland, Dave Belland, Tom Adams, Cari Burud and/or Paul Harold except for the stuff that we blatantly stole from other sources. All rights reserved.