Chapter VII: Sacrament of Reconciliation
We
now turn to the Sacrament of Penance.
The terms “Reconciliation,” “Penance,” and “Confession” are used
interchangeably to describe this sacrament, but the best term is, arguably,
“Reconciliation.” A frequently asked
question regarding this sacrament, which is probably also asked in Orthodox and
Anglican circles, is: Why do Catholics
confess their sins to a priest? To
answer this question, one needs to understand the theology regarding the early
Church structure/hierarchy.
One
of the traditional understandings of Baptism is that, when a person is
baptized, he or she shares in the Priesthood of Christ, which, according to the
author of the Letter to the Hebrews, is superior to the Jewish priesthood, as
Jesus is recognized as a priest in the Order of Melchizedek (Hebrews
6:13-7:28). This teaching is known as
the “Priesthood of All Believers,” or the “Common Priesthood/Lay
Priesthood/Royal Priesthood” (First Peter 2:1-9, Revelation 1:6). But while there is a common priesthood, there
is also an ordained priesthood/clergy, which takes place by the “laying on of
hands” (Second Timothy 1:6). This is
what is known as the Sacrament of Holy Orders.[1] At the top of this ordained priesthood/clergy
are the individuals called “bishops,” who are recognized as “successors of the
apostles.”[2]
In
the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus gives Peter, and the other apostles, the power to
“bind and loose” (Matthew 16:13-19, 18:15-18).
Likewise, in the Gospel of John, the resurrected Christ informs his
apostles that they have the power to “forgive and retain sins” (John
20:21-23). As successors of the
apostles, bishops have received this power.
One
of the duties of the bishop is to celebrate the sacraments. However, bishops
cannot be “everywhere at once.” Therefore, they appoint, by the laying on of
hands, those to assist them in celebrating the sacraments. These particular individuals are called
“presbyters,” or, in contemporary English, “priests.”[3] So it is the presbyter/priest that the
average Catholic, Orthodox, or Anglican will see, when celebrating the
Sacrament of Reconciliation; and it should be noted that, in the Letter of
James, the author encourages Christians to confess their sins to “one another”
(James 5:14-16).[4]
In Future Confessions, Helen Must Tell
Every Sin She Has Committed Since Her Last Confession
No,
she does not. Helen only has to
receive the Sacrament of Reconciliation, when she has committed what is known
as a “mortal sin.”
The
terms “mortal sin” and “venial sin” are terms that come out of the Western part
of the Christian world, but they find their origin in the First Letter of John.[5] Essentially, “sin is sin,” but not all sin is
“mortal” (First John 5:16-17).
According
to this theology, “venial [forgivable] sin,” while sin, does not remove the
grace of God from a person’s soul. By
contrast, “mortal [death] sin,” removes the grace of God from a person’s soul,
and leaves him or her “spiritually dead.”
Because
of this, when a person is “spiritually dead,” having committed a mortal sin, he
or she has to be reconciled back to God through the Sacrament of
Reconciliation. If a person commits a
venial sin, the Sacrament of Reconciliation is encouraged, but not
necessary. Those sins can be confessed
directly to God/Jesus Christ (Priesthood of All Believers). Likewise, the Church encourages Christians to
receive the Sacrament of Reconciliation at least once a year for serious sins.[6]
Catholicism Replaces Repentance with the Sacrifice of Penance
No,
it does not. “Repentance” and “penance”
are two separate issues. “Repentance”
takes place when the individual receives the Sacrament of Reconciliation or
confesses directly to God. “Penance” is
the temporal/earthly action an individual does to a sin that has been
forgiven. To explain the two, let me
provide an example.
Let
us say that before Christmas, an individual engages in porch piracy—that is,
stealing potential Christmas gifts. By
doing so, the person has not only angered God, but he or she has also hurt the
individual(s) who would have received those gifts. Feeling remorse for what he or she has done,
the person goes and receives the Sacrament of Reconciliation. By doing so, the person has been reconciled
back to God (Repentance). However, while
God has forgiven the individual’s sin, the results of the person’s sin would
still remain—essentially, the individual(s) who were hurt by their Christmas
presents being stolen. Penance deals with this situation, which is
trying to remove the attachment of what was done wrong by the person’s sin—such
as returning the stolen Christmas presents.
But No
Man Has the Power to Forgive Sins But God Alone
This
statement is frequently used as an attack on the Sacrament of Reconciliation,
and it seems to have its origins with the “scribes” and Pharisees in the
synoptic gospels (Mark 2:6-7, Matthew 9:3, Luke 5:21).[7] Chick uses it in his comic/tract Last Rites,[8] despite
the fact that the statement is a contradiction to what the risen Christ tells
his apostles in the Gospel of John (John 20:21-23); and, if one rejects the
traditional Christology that Jesus is God-incarnate, then Jesus of Nazareth, a
man, had the power to forgive sins (Mark 2:1-12, Matthew 9:1-8, Luke
5:17-26).
In
any case, the meaning behind this criticism is that the confessor (bishop or
presbyter/priest) is actually forgiving the penitent’s sins, and not God
himself. However, that is not what is
taught by the Catholic, Orthodox, or Anglican Churches.
The
confessor does not actually forgive the penitent’s sin. God, or, more specifically, Jesus Christ,
does through the confessor—which would, ironically, place Chick’s
attempted criticism of the sacrament (his use of First John 2:1-2) in agreement
with it.[9] Let me provide two examples.
In
the Book of Acts, Peter is described healing a lame man (Acts 3:1-10). But, according to this theology, Peter did not
actually heal the lame man, Jesus Christ did through Peter (Acts
3:11-16).
Likewise,
when a Baptism is celebrated, the celebrant is not, technically speaking, the
person performing the Baptism. Jesus
Christ is through the celebrant.[10]
While
Chick may disagree with this theology, even though, to some extent, he arguably
agrees with some of it, he can no more prove it wrong, than somebody who does
agree with it, can prove it right.
From
here, Chick attacks the physical object known as “the confessional” in his
continued attack on the Sacrament of Reconciliation, even though the
confessional, in of itself, has nothing whatsoever to do with the theology
behind the Sacrament of Reconciliation, in of itself. He mentions how the confessional is used as
an instrument of “gossip” and “blackmail,” even though the purpose behind it is
to prevent such things.
In
the earliest days of the Christian religion, the Sacrament of Reconciliation
could be celebrated both publicly and privately, but its public celebration
is what led to the push for it to be celebrated privately—i.e. people
“gossiping” about other people’s sins.
It is also quite ironic that one of Chick’s sources is The Priest, the Woman, and the Confessional
by Charles Chiniquy, and it is probably why Chick used a female character as
his “Catholic” in this tract/comic, instead of a male.
Unlike
Alberto Riveria, Charles Chiniquy (1809-99) was an actual Catholic
priest. Excommunicated in 1856, Chiniquy
eventually became a Presbyterian minister, where he also found himself in
trouble with authority figures,[11] and an
anti-Catholic activist known for spreading conspiracy theories about the
Catholic Church.[12]
In
his work, The Priest, the Woman, and the
Confessional, Chiniquy argues that confessors (bishops or
presbyters/priests) pressure penitents, in this case women, to confess every
sin to them to know about their “private lives.” While it is true that there are Church documents
which mention “confessing all sins,”[13] there
is no Church document which states that a confessor must pressure the penitent
to “confess every sin”—and the penitent is only supposed to receive the
sacrament when he or she commits a mortal sin—so it would seem even if
Chiniquy’s account is true,[14] then
the only individual forcing the penitent—in this case, women—to confess every
sin would have been Chiniquy himself, which may have been due to his own
personal moral failings.[15]
As for the “gossip” and “blackmail”
associated with the confessional, that would only take place by a confessor—or,
in the rare case, an “outside listener”—breaking the “seal of confession,”
which is forbidden (in Chiniquy’s lifetime,[16] and in
contemporary times).[17] Even if one disagrees with the theology
behind the Sacrament of Reconciliation, he or she should be able to notice that
the only way “gossip” or “blackmail” could be spread, would be by the confessor
breaking the trust of the penitent.
The Confessional Came from Ancient Babylon
When I first read this
statement, my immediate thought was Alexander Hislop’s The Two Babylons, and Chick’s 1978 comic, Angel of Light—which he references—confirmed my suspicion.[18]
Alexander Hislop (1807-65) was a
nineteenth century Scottish Presbyterian minister. His work, The
Two Babylons, was published in 1853.
In it, he tries to show how the rituals and beliefs of the Catholic
Church actually have their origins in ancient Babylon with Nimrod and his wife,
Semiramis. The problem with Hislop’s
arguments are that they are either not historic, or they fall in line with the
logical/rhetorical fallacy of Hasty Generalization.[19] Chick—or more specifically, Hislop—attempts
to show how the ancient Babylonians used a device similar to a modern-day
confessional, and, therefore, the two are “one and the same.” Here is the problem with this argument.
Let us say that an individual, who
has little, to no knowledge, of Christian theology, attends a wedding in a
Catholic church. Then, the next day,
this same individual, attends a wedding in a Lutheran church. On the surface, the individual is not going
to notice any differences, but, to those gathered, there is a difference.
One
side (Catholic) holds that what took place was a sacrament. The other side (Lutheran) does not. Now, let me use another example.
Let
us say that our same individual attends a wedding in a Catholic church. Then, the next day, this same individual
attends a wedding in an Orthodox church.
On the surface, the individual is not going to notice any differences,
but, to those gathered, there is a difference.
While
both sides, Catholic and Orthodox, recognize marriage to be a sacrament, it is
how they recognize marriage to be a sacrament.
One side (Catholic) holds that the couple actually makes the sacrament. The other side (Orthodox) holds that Jesus
Christ makes the sacrament, which is why, from an Orthodox perspective, a
bishop or presbyter/priest needs to be the celebrant.
The Confessional is not Found in the
Bible
There are a lot of events/objects
not found in the Bible for a number of different reasons, but just because an
event/object is not found in the Bible, that does not automatically mean that a
particular event did not take place, or that a particular object is
automatically unethical. Let me provide
an example.
In Chick’s
biography, it mentions how his notion to produce the tracts/comics, which bear
his name, took place when he was “driving down the road.” The key word in that statement is “driving.” What was Chick driving? The answer is fairly obvious, and it is
mentioned in his biography, a “car,” or, more specifically, an automobile.[20]
But where
are automobiles in the Bible?
Considering that the Bible is a “collection of books” written from a
period of 1000 BCE/BC (Job) to 150 CE/AD (Second Peter), the answer is fairly
obvious…nowhere. But, since automobiles
are not mentioned in the Bible, does this mean that automobiles are
automatically unethical? No. And the same is true for the physical object
known as the “confessional.”
[1]This is a point where Protestants would disagree with the Catholic,
Orthodox, and Anglican Churches. Protestants put an emphasis on the Priesthood
of All Believers, where they hold, in theory, that any baptized Christian can
perform the same rituals as any member of the ordained priesthood/clergy.
[2] Some great examples of the Early Church Structure/Hierarchy in
early Christian literature include:
Clement of Rome’s Letter to the
Corinthians (written about 96 CE/AD) and the many letters of Ignatius of
Antioch (written between the years of 107-110 CE/AD). While Chick, and others, may not consider
these letters to be canonical, or divinely inspired, that does not change their
historical importance.
[3]The only sacrament that the presbyter/priest cannot celebrate is
the Sacrament of Holy Orders. Only the
bishop can celebrate this sacrament as he is recognized as having “full
priesthood” and being a “successor to the apostles.”
[4]It should be noted that certain Protestant communities also
practice the ritual of Confession (Lutherans and Methodists, for instance),
even though they do not consider it to be a sacrament.
[5]And one can also make a case with the “sin against the Holy
Spirit” (Mark 3:28-30, Matthew 12:31-32, and Luke 12:10).
[6]Catechism of the Catholic
Church, sections: 1455-58, 1855-63.
It should
also be noted, this is a slight point of difference between the Catholic and
Orthodox Churches. While the Orthodox
Church agrees with the theology behind mortal and venial sins, they often do
not use those terms (some Orthodox theologians in the West will), because it
essentially creates a “list of sins” for the Christian to see if he or she
should receive the Sacrament of Reconciliation.
[7]Besides writing for the illiterate, the “scribes” were well
educated Jews who knew the teachings/theology of their religion.
The
Pharisees were one of the major religious/political parties during Jesus’s
lifetime (the others were the Sadducees, the Essenes, and the Zealots). But at the end of the First Roman-Jewish War
(66-74 CE/AD), the Pharisees was the only one of those religious/political
parties to survive, and hence, all modern-day Jews descend from the
Pharisees. It is also, arguably, for
this reason that the Pharisees are treated as harshly as they are in the
canonical gospels, as they would be the religious/political party teaching that
Jesus did not fulfill the messianic requirements.
[8] Jack T. Chick, Last Rites
(Rancho Cucamonga, CA: Chick Publications, 1994), 16. Accessed from Chick.com: Last Rites. Accessed on 03 February 2024.
[9]Catechism of the Catholic
Church, sections 1465-66.
[11]Yves Roby, “Charles Chiniquy,” in Dictionary of Canadian
Biography Vol. 12, accessed from Biography –
CHINIQUY, CHARLES – Volume XII (1891-1900) – Dictionary of Canadian Biography
(biographi.ca), accessed on 10 February 2024.
[12]One of those conspiracy theories was how the Catholic Church was
involved in the assassination of President Abraham Lincoln.
[13]“Fourth Lateran Council: 1215,” constitution 21 in Papal
Encyclicals Online. Accessed on Fourth Lateran
Council : 1215 Council Fathers - Papal Encyclicals. Accessed on 10 February
2024.
And, in
truth, it would be impossible for a person to literally confess all of
his or her sins, unless, perhaps, he or she was able to receive the Sacrament
of Reconciliation every day.
[14]Chiniquy certainly had an “axe to grind” against his former
religion, and, when this happens, an individual is willing to say anything—even
if there is no evidence to support it—against the object of his or her
displeasure (in this case, the Catholic Church).
[15]Dan Graves, “Charles Chiniquy vs. the
Catholic Church,” in Christianity.com [originally published 28 April
2010]. Accessed from Charles Chiniquy vs. the
Catholic Church - 1801-1900 Church History (christianity.com). Accessed on 15 February
2024.
[18]Jack T. Chick, Angel of Light
(Rancho Cucamonga, CA: Chick Publications, 1978), 15. Accessed from Jack
Chick Angel Of Light : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive. Accessed on 10 February 2024.
[19]“Hasty Generalization” is the logical/rhetorical fallacy, which
universalizes, one, or two, particular instances. For example:
“I met three individuals with red hair.
Each one of them was rude to me.
Therefore, anybody who has red hair is rude.”
[20]“Biography of Jack Chick,” in Chick
Publications.
Comments
Post a Comment