Yes, we are listening!

A response to the Register and Msgr. Dennis Murphy

Catholic Insight Staff

Recently the Catholic Register carried a full page special: "Are we listening?" by Monsignor Dennis Murphy, pastor of Corpus Christi parish in North Bay, ON (March 27, 00). From the allotment of space and prominence given the article, one could well conclude that the Register's editor Joseph Sinasac may have found these ideas compatible with his own. It is not out of order, therefore, for Catholic Insight to devote a little space to examining them.

Who is Msgr. Dennis Murphy? lie has returned to pastoral work after 22 years in administration, first as General Secretary of the Conference of Catholic Bishops in Ottawa, then as founder and head of the Institute of Catholic Education (ICE) in Toronto--known for introducing the Catholic AIDS program from the USA into Ontario--and then as head of education for the Ontario Catholic Trustees Association. In the article, he took the opportunity to bare his soul about certain Church practices.

(1) He would like general absolution to be the regular norm for the Sacrament of Reconciliation. People like it, he says; they don't like personal Confession because it doesn't meet the spirituality of today. Should the Church not listen to its members?

(2) He wants children to go to First Communion without having to go to Confession first. Surely youngsters don't commit mortal sin, he suggests, and only those with mortal sin are bound to receive absolution in the Sacrament of Reconciliation.

(3) He would like the bishops of a country to have the final say concerning the translations of the liturgy which are used in their churches. Why should people from outside the country, who perhaps don't even speak English, or know the culture, be allowed to object to certain translations?

(4) There is a shortage of priests now and for the foreseeable future. But people have a right to the Eucharist and to the other sacraments. So the Church should revise its regulations about celibacy and ordain married men. This principle that sacraments are for the people seems not to be understood by current sacramental practices.

(5) Finally, the local bishop should be able to make the decision about ordination to the priesthood in his diocese. This is only right and just in view of the collegiality of bishops emphasized by the Second Vatican Council, After all, bishops are Vicars of Christ just as much in their own dioceses as the Pope is in the whole Church.

These are Monsignor's main points. Many readers will recognize them as points often brought forward in conversation.

One's first reaction might well be to sympathize with him. Why not accommodate the faithful already pressed and harassed by a thousand and one burdens? Why make life tougher than necessary?

Yet the observant reader, on first reading Monsignor's article, will not escape a certain unease. He may detect a certain strain in the argument that the people "in Rome" are not quite with it, that they are insensitive, perhaps even obdurate. That they don't seem to have much goodwill, that they seem to know so little about practical pastoral questions. This theme is not uncommon among those unhappy with Rome. In fact, come to think of it, it is a constant refrain with those who hanker for change.

But is there truth to this argument that Curia Cardinals are stuffed shirts who know little or nothing about pastoral practice because they are administrators removed from the hurly burly of daily life? Well, actually, no. Why not? Because practically every Cardinal "bureaucrat" who heads a department or Congregation in the Vatican was chosen for this while he was a residential bishop in his own country, including, of course, Pope John Paul (Krakow), Cardinal Ratzinger (Munich), Cardinal Baum (Washington), Cardinal Stafford (Denver), Cardinal Trujillo (Bogota) and so on.

What about the Monsignor's five points?

1. Is general absolution such a wonderful thing? When people refuse to confess individually, and priests shun hearing confessions, one of the great graces and duties given them by Jesus is set aside. It is now so easy to have one's sins forgiven that, to make it easier yet by withdrawing the requirement that people must confess their sins to God through a priest, is to contradict the words of Jesus, "Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven; whose sins you shall retain, they are retained." In short, it is to minimize the seriousness of sin.

One wonders whether Monsignor told his parishioners at the General Absolution he held last Advent or Lent that, unless they were resolved to confess all mortal sins privately soon after, the absolution they received was invalid, as Canon 962 tells us. The same Canon Law clearly explains that general absolution is meant only for emergencies, such as soldiers going to battle, not for normal use. In November 1998 six Vatican Cardinals had several meetings with the bishops from Australia. This concluded with a document calling for the end to general absolution, except in real emergencies (see CI, May 99, p.24, and June 99, p.6).

General absolution prevents questioning penitents properly, counselling and instructing them properly, and, if necessary, refusing them absolution. The omission of these could lead penitents to be unaware of the real state of their soul and to live with a false conscience. General absolution is something like getting a raise from your employer simply by describing your talents and achievements in your own mind, without ever talking to the boss.

2. What about Confession before First Communion? This, too, is not a new idea! In fact, it is something which popped up after Vatican II and is now rejected both in the new Canon Law (1993) and in the new Catechism (1995).

There are excellent reasons for having children confess their sins before First Communion. First Communion is a sharing in the Sacrifice of the Cross, which is a sacrifice for sin. To receive Communion without knowing what sin is, or without cleansing oneself properly, is not right. If parents believe that six- or seven-year-olds usually don't commit mortal sins, they should read the newspaper accounts of horrific crimes committed by children not much older! They also know that they usually don't avoid venial sins either. And Confession is for venial sins also. Worst of all, children are prevented from meeting Christ in this beautiful sacrament; the priests first, and parents next, are culpable.

Sin, even venial sin, weakens us, pushes us into darkness, and clouds our conscience. Grace from sacramental confession restores the child of God to the light and keeps the conscience sensitive. If children are not trained to go to Confession when they're young, they may find it too difficult to form the habit of regular confession in later life. Could it be that the regularity in receiving the Sacrament has fallen off because many First Communicants received Communion without first going to Confession? Besides, children don't mind at all going to Confession first. They can easily be made to see that sin is a reality in their young lives and, unless it is treated there, it will be a worse reality in their mature minds.

3. With respect to liturgical translations, in order for the Catholic Church to continue as the true Church, she must have unity in faith, in discipline, and in worship. The translation of liturgical texts is extremely important because our worship must be in accord with our faith. The chief part of our worship is the Eucharist or Mass, and consequently there is a central text for it as for the other six Sacraments.

Since the Church is multilingual, the official texts (which are in Latin in the Latin rite) must be translated into several languages. Now, if some translations are erroneous, harm could be done to the faith. If the baptismal formula, for example, were changed from "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" to "I baptize you in the name of the Creator, the Redeemer, and the Sanctifier," as some feminists would like, and as some priests appear to have done, the baptism would be invalid. And if a bishop were to claim authority to change the approved text to suit only himself, why could not a parish priest claim authority to change the text approved by the bishop?

The argument that the Vatican doesn't know Canadian culture is wrong. The Cardinals know it only too well. It is a feminist culture, thriving on false "rights" which have no foundation in natural law, a culture which has spread throughout the Western world making "choice" and "equality" focal points of death and disaster.

4. The fourth point dwells on the shortage of priests. Should the Church, in the Latin rite, ordain married men as priests? The affirmative answer is based usually on the lack of priests in certain regions. (The reader may want to consult the three long articles by the editor on the history of celibacy, CI, March, April, and May 1997)

The negative answer has several reasons for itself. The celibate priesthood is, first, traditional in the Latin rite; secondly, it has served extremely well; thirdly, there is a well-founded opinion that ordaining married men would not really replenish the numbers at all. It would bring with it new problems, first and foremost the undermining of the tradition of celibacy which goes back to Christ Himself. But also it would bring practical problems such as the mobility of priests and the increased cost of running the Church.

5. On point five, Monsignor Murphy says that, whatever the theoretical case may be, a bishop should have the final say in his diocese concerning whether married men may be ordained. He demands that

"local bishops or conferences of bishops have a strong voice in determining the church discipline which determines who is a valid subject for ordination."

But he should know that bishops do have a strong voice in determining such a matter. What he wants is for them to have the final say. This matter has been discussed at length at least in three synods over the last 40 years, including recently again in Rome, and turned down, but not without a "strong voice" from episcopal conferences: most of them were against having a married clergy in the Latin rite.

The Monsignor states that bishops are "Vicars of Christ as truly in their dioceses as the Holy Father is the Vicar of Christ for the Universal Church." This statement is incorrect. Bishops are vicars of Christ only if they are in communion with the Pope. They also are not the voice of the Church's Magisterium, even in their own diocese, unless this voice is in accord with the universal Magisterium of the Church.

Finally, the subtitle of the article "Are we listening?" breathes a "Protestant" air, the air, of those who think that the Church is the creation of the people who, therefore, can change it as they see fit. The Catholic understanding, rather, affirms the Church as the possession and creation of Christ, whose teaching remains the sole criterion for what should or should not be done. The answer, therefore, is, yes we are listening, but to Christ and the Church rather than to superficial opinions.