I know for a fact that my life as a teen would have been much easier if I had a President (or anybody) to helped me realize that being born gay is not something to be ashamed of. I'm not sure how kids always seem to know another kid is gay - but they do. I was bullied as were millions more. Thank you President Obama for publicly addressing this very important issue.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
37 comments:
Finally! Doesn't make up for the mess he's created with DADT but at least it's something.
I was also upset with the sluggish pace of repealing DODT - but I think perhaps the President has a better idea. Since the courts are also working to repeal this on a constitutional level, the President may be wise to let that happen. Then it becomes a legal issue and not a political one. If he rushes it through executive order style, it may come back to haunt him at re-election time - or even for this election.
I have no idea how this policy ever passed on constitutional grounds. Clearly it is unconstitutional to bar anyone from serving their country if they are willing and able to do so. Even people with disabilities should be able to find a place in the military. I think that proving the policy unconstitutional will prevent a re-occurrence if the conservatives take control again.
Yeah, that was good. That's the type of thing that he's best at (and I don't just mean reading someone else's words off a teleprompter). I could see that really helping someone.
I'm serious, I really liked it.
As a matter of fact, I can honestly say that I think that was the best thing that President Obama has done since he became President.
I think this guy is going to be a really great EX-President! Seriously. Then he can go around doing these type of things, which are very good, without messing everything else up as he has been doing. I'm looking forward to it!
One nit-pick (of course): "Clearly it is unconstitutional to bar anyone from serving their country if they are willing and able to do so."
Clearly? Where does it say that in the Constitution? It may be an obligation of citizenship to serve in the Armed Forces, but is it a Right? I don't think that it is "clear" at all. For example, I may be obligated to serve jury duty, but that doesn't mean I have the right to go down to the courthouse and demand to be put on a jury, does it?
Yes, it's always easier to just insult someone rather than answer a difficult question.
For the record, I have no problem with gays serving in the military. I was merley challenging your completely unfounded assumption that such service is neceessarily a Constitutionaly based inalienable right (it's not).
When challenged, you merely ignored the question and started name-calling.
Childish.
Andre, I believe it's DADT that's unconstitutional and a clear violation of the first and fifth amendments.
Thohea,
To tell you the truth, this isn't an issue that I have followed very closely, but having said that it's always seemed to me that DADT was a messes up approach all around.
I had to remove a comment I posted because of a bad link - but it is an important post so I'm re-posting it. It's important because the topic of this post is bullying - and people like Andre are a big part of the problem when they teach children that I'm a sinner because I'm living my life the way I was created rather than they way they want me too.
Here is the original post:
I don't have the document in front of me right now but I thought I read in the past something about "all men (people) are created equal. I'm not sure why I'm replying to this comment because it seems like you are grasping at some way to justify this exclusion.
Regarding the topic of this article, please go read your comment you posted only moments ago on this one.
http://denbec.blogspot.com/2010/11/compassion-is-not-republican-value.html
You are part of the problem. The President was talking to YOU.
There - having hopefully fixed that, I do want to comment again on the DADT topic.
First - I do think it is a right and a privilege to serve your country. A right granted in the constitution as pointed out by thohea
Second - I totally agree that DADT is a totally messed up policy - made so by MASSIVE Republican opposition to President Clinton's promise to allow gays in the military. Andre - you are lying if you say you are not familiar with this.
It is also the very reason the Obama health care reform is not as effective as it should be. Compromise almost always leads to a diminished goal. President Clinton and President Obama should have never backed down on their original plan.
I haven't paid much attention to this issue because,quite frankly, I find it rather boring ( I don't really care either way... certainly though, I can understand why you might find it more personally relevant).
How exactly is the right for gays to serve in the military enshrined in the Constitution? Please explain that to me in detail (with citations please). I'm waiting.
It seems to me that it is a Political question, not Constitutional question. It is a question that should be decided by the people through normal political process of legislation. It should NOT be decided by the courts. Does anyone really think that any of the writers of the Constitution would have approved of gays in the military? Of course not. Given the culture and prejudices of the time, if that had considered the issue at all, they almost certainly (rightly or wrongly) would have explicitly banned them. So to now make the claim that it is a Constitutional right is obviously absurd.
Personally, I think the ban is silly. If I were a member of Congress I would probably vote to repeal it. The only hesitation I would have would be deference to the uniformed leaders of the various Services themselves. If they were strongly opposed to it (I don't even know if they are or not?) then I would be inclined to assume that they know better than I what is best for the proper functioning and cohesiveness of the Military, and that would be a more important consideration to me.
(Conversely, even if the Joint Chiefs of Staff decided that an ALL GAY military would be better at defending this nation and all our freedoms, then I would be happy (if somewhat baffled) to defer to them in that direction too!)
"President Clinton and President Obama should have never backed down on their original plan."
Oh, how I wish they hadn't! Then we wouldn't have had a second Clinton term, and the Republicans would have won an even huger victory on Tuesday!
The big question everyone is asking now, in the wake of last Tuesday's blow-out, is whether President Obama will follow Clinton's example and move to the center, or will he decide to double down on failure?
My suspicion is that he is too ideologically rigid ( and arrogant)and/or too seeped in denial to moderate his radicalism.
I'm betting he doubles down!
I'm with you on this one! I'd rather have a one term President with significant accomplishments than a 2 term President with nothing to show for it - or worse - a country in worse shape than when they took over.
It should always be about the country and not about the election.
"...people like Andre are a big part of the problem when they teach children that I'm a sinner because I'm living my life the way I was created rather than they way they want me too."
Oh dear...it seems a few clarifications are in order.
1. As a Catholic I am taught and believe that we are ALL born in a state of original sin (one look at the state of the world around us and it should be pretty obvious even to non-Catholics,that some version of that must be true), and thus, yes, in that sense "living my life the way I was created" is not enough. Much more is demanded of us all.
2. My reference on another post to "confessing your sins" was not specifically (or even generally) aimed at your sexual orientation. I was speaking of sin in general ( Sin being defined as the state of being cut off from communion with God). I meant it in the sense in which we are all sinners (I doubt very much that you are a greater sinner than I).
3. How you live your life is completely your business (within reason, of course; if it turned out you were a serial killer, or something like that, I would be greatly annoyed!).
4. Yes, Catholic teaching is that homosexuality is a "grave disorder" and a mortal sin (it's a long story). But that does not mean that Catholics hate gays! On the contrary, we are taught (commanded even) to love our gay brothers and sisters. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (binding on all Catholics) teaches that gays " must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided"(CCC 2358). That's hardly a prescription for bullying!
5. Personally, I like gay men a lot. I often find them more interesting, emotionally sensitive,and aesthetically attuned than many straight men (generalizing here, of course, and indulging in some stereotyping, which never the less is often closer to the truth than not).
There's much more to be said, but that's a start.
-Hugs?
Andre, maybe you should pay more attention to this issue, especially if you see an injustice being propelled by the very party you adore. It's that "compassion" thing that's been mentioned in other posts.
Thohea,
I'm sorry, but what particular "injustice:" is it that you are referring to?
Don't forget Andre that I was raised Catholic and I was baptized, confirmed and most of the other sacraments except the ones I'm not allowed (marriage) or deserve yet (last rights).
In my opinion the Catholic church is the worst of the hypocrites when it comes to the issue of being created gay. Their teaching is that it's OK to be gay - we know you were created that way. Just don't act on it. You must remain celibate because it might disgust the parishioners.
At least other religions stand firm on their hatred.
The Catholic church is like those folks in every office I've ever worked in saying we don't mind gay people as long as they don't flaunt it. I get that same feeling from your reply - you are OK with gays but you don't want to deal with a gay marriage or talk of me and a partner going to the beach this weekend or allowing me to adopt children etc. etc. You all think gay is a bedroom thing.
If you have a girlfriend, wife, or child - try to pay attention to how often they come up in normal daily conversation. Then realize that is all perceived as "flaunting" if you are gay.
Gay isn't a bedroom thing - it's a life thing. And it certainly isn't a lifestyle. Furniture is a lifestyle.
You've raised a lot of really interesting points and I want to give a thoughtful reply, but, even though the opposite might seem to be true, I also do not have unlimited time to respond to blog posts!
I'll get back to you sometime in the next few days ( I know you'll be counting the seconds...)
Well, first of all, I can certainly see how, as a member of a particular minority group ( and being at most probably only 2-3% of the population, an especially small minority group) it must be extremely annoying to be "tolerated" in the way you describe. I would find that maddening too.
However that may be, it is still important to be able to make the logical distinction between those people who have an instintive aversion to the thought of same sex relations and those people who "hate" homosexuals.
You have made numerous references to your belief that you were born or "created" gay, and that may or not be the actual truth of the matter, but what seems to be equally and quite obviously true is the far less controversial fact that the vast majority of humans are born with a hard wired repulsion to the thought of homosexuality ( the infamous biological "yuck" response).
It is no big mystery, from a purely Darwinian evolutionary point of view, why the number of men possesing the urge to seed females would far exceed the number of males who had the urge to seed other males. The corresponding yuck response is similar to other evolved sexual aversions such as those regarding having sex with our parents or our children. But to conflate this natural biological response with "hatred of homosexuals" makes about as much sense as saying that I must hate my mother because the idea of having sex with her makes me nauseous.
Of course, I have no doubt that there are people who, for diverse pschological reasons, truly do "hate" homosexuals. I'm not saying that they don't exist, but I am not one of them, and I think it was grossly unfair (and purely reactionary) , for you to throw that label at me.
There is a lot of criticisms that you could direct at me that would have much justification, but that is not one of them.
more later (too sleepy)...
Andre - It's a really beautiful day here and I MUST go biking - but I can't leave without addressing the most major part of your response.
"You have made numerous references to your belief that you were born or "created" gay, and that may or not be the actual truth of the matter,"
I ask you - of the two of us - who would better know if this is true - you or me. I know 100% completely without a doubt it is true. You can only speculate.
It's like a man trying to decide if a woman was born that way or decided to be one. She knows 100% she was born that way - the man could only speculate.
She had all the parts and the persona at birth and even before. So did I. WITHOUT A DOUBT.
Get that into your head and the rest will be easy. I'll deal with the 2% comment later but in the meantime - please step outside your home there in San Francisco and re-evaluate.
I wasn't claiming to know either way, I just meant that "whatever the case may be..." and then proceed to the main point I was then focusing on.
However, since you brought it up... although I am quite happy to grant that you quite obviously would know more about your own sexual identity than I would, I just want to point out that it is impossible to claim that you know "100%" that you were born gay.
The most you could claim is that you had that sense from your earliest memories. The theoretical possibility at least exists that no one is born gay, but rather develops that orientation due to being exposed to particular experiences or conditions at a very early age.
I am not partisan to either side of that debate, but my sense is that the science on this is far from settled and various theories exist, and much is still be learned.
Of course, whether you were gay from birth or not, really doesn't have all that much direct relevance to the issues that we are discussing.
What difference would it make either way? If it were to be proven today beyond a shadow of any reasonable doubt that no one is born gay, but rather becomes that way for whatever reason during the first year or two of psychological and physical development, would that make you any less sure of your sexual identity today? Would that make you any less adamant in claiming the respect you deserve as a person and a human being? Of course not.
Have a GREAT ride, and we'll talk later...
It was a fantastic ride on a most beautiful day. 25 miles along the Atlantic coast. Perfect.
Now to address your post because this is VERY important. First - I'll rephrase to say that I am 100% totally sure I did not choose to be gay. Why is it important? Because as long as the haters can keep that theory that we chose to be gay - then they can say that choice is deviant and therefore they are justified in their judgments.
However, if you can rule out that it is a choice then there is no basis for your exclusions except for clear cut bigotry.
That is why those that object always keep the choice argument open - even though we keep telling them, with 100% certainty, that we did not choose to be gay. It justifies their hatred.
Now a quick comment on the yuck factor you mentioned. We gays were also born with it and we find heterosexual intercourse just as revolting. Really - we do.
We don't disagree about this.
It has never even occurred to me that someone could "choose" to be sexually attracted to one or the other sex.
Could you just choose right now, this moment, that from now on you are no longer going to find men sexually attractive, but you are now going to be turned on by women? Of course not. You could choose to stop having sex with men and start having sex with women, but that wouldn't change your true innate desires, would it?
I hate coffee. I mean really hate it. I've only drunk one single cup of it my entire life, and I had a stomach ache all day afterwards. So I drink tea. I love tea. I don't "choose" to love tea and hate coffee; I just do. That's just the way my taste buds are wired, I guess. It is completely inconceivable to me that I could just decide that all of a sudden I was going to start loving the taste of coffee and hating the taste of tea. How is that even theoretically possible? If I was stranded on a desert island with only cases of canned pre-made coffee and nothing else to drink (no water or any other liquid) I might, out of necessity, over time eventually develop a taste for coffee, maybe even grow to love it, but that's not at all the same thing as choosing to love it.
I could have just as easily been born loving coffee and hating tea.
You could have just as easily been born (or developed) heterosexual and I could have been born homosexual.
That is not what the Christian/Catholic view of homosexuality is about. It has nothing at all to do with choosing what your sexual desires are going to be.
I will tell you what it IS about...but that will have to wait until another later post, because I have some other work I have to do right now...
I already know what the Catholic thing is about (raised Catholic - remember?) It is about procreation and any sexual act that is not about procreation is a perversion. Masturbation is in that category too. I would argue that both acting on homosexuality (if you are homosexual) and masturbation are not only normal and natural, but also quite needed for good health. Repressing ones sexuality can cause serious personal harm. Masturbation on the other hand (pun intended) is a natural way of releasing semen that is no longer alive - just like nocturnal emissions.
This is just another example where the Catholic Church is out of touch with reality and humanity.
I would agree with you that homosexuality is "natural" too, in the sense of "based on the state of things in nature"(Dictionary.com,2.)
The problem, from the Catholic point of view, is that because of Original Sin we are living in a fallen state of nature, so that much of what is "natural" can never the less be disordered. People are naturally born with all sorts of disordered and harmful conditions, physical, psychological, spiritual...thus to claim that because you were born with a condition or orientation it must necessarily be morally acceptable is clearly false reasoning. It is conceivable that someone might have been born a pyro-maniac. If such a person later grew up and began to act on those impulses, would it then be inappropriate for anyone to criticize him, because, after all, he was just "born that way".
Please note: I am not saying that being gay is the moral equivalent of being a pyro-maniac. It was just a convenient example to make the larger point.
You have mentioned a number of times that you were raised Catholic, however, I can't help but notice that that claim is almost always followed by some complete misrepresentation or distortion of basic Catholic teaching.
I deduce from that either:
1. You have forgotten what the teachings of the Catholic Church actually are, or....
2. You were never properly taught what they are in the first place (which is not at all uncommon), or...
3. This is such a personally intense and emotional issue for you that you are unconsciously distorting and repressing them as a psychological defense mechanism, or...
4. (least charitably) You are intentionality misrepresenting them for purely self centered or idealogical reasons ( it is easier to ridicule and defeat a false caricature of an argument than to engage it head on).
"You must remain celibate because it might disgust the parishioners."
No, you must remain celibate for the exact same reason that the rest of those very same parishioners (the unmarried ones) must remain celibate; because Christ called all men (gay or straight) to a state of Chastity. It is not a sin to be born homosexual (to sin is to act, not to be).
"At least other religions stand firm on their hatred."
If there are Catholics who hate gays, then they are sinning themselves, and they are rejecting Catholic teaching.
By the way,
"the same black line that falls on you, falls on me."
I quoted that lyric to you once before. None of what I have said above is meant to imply in any way that I think that I am somehow any less of a sinner than you or anyone else is (I suspect, if anything, that I am far far worse...).
I'm just responding to a few things that you have said which I believe are inaccurate.
I make absolutely no claim of knowledge about, nor judgement on, the state of your soul...
I'n not trying to piss you off (OK, maybe just a little bit...)
I was baptized - so my original sin was "cured".
The rest of the arcane rules you mentioned are the very reason the Catholic Church (and most other organized religions) are out of touch with life. And it's the reason I do not consider myself Catholic. The very notion that we are created with Original Sin and other "flaws" is preposterous. God creates perfection.
I do, however, very strongly believe in God and thank my creator for my life - as it is - and my health, family, friends and many other blessings.
"The very notion that we are created with Original Sin and other "flaws" is preposterous. God creates perfection."
Preposterous? Yes, God is identical with the Good, so that all that he creates is by necessity good, and yet, Evil quite obviously does exist in the world, so we must account for it somehow.
Man, created "in the image of God", is a rational being, gifted with Free Will,and can choose to create Evil by distancing himself from God (Remember, that in Catholic Theology, Evil is not a positive thing that exist in and of itself, it is a negative, it is defined as the absence of Good/God.)
This world which you and I were born into, was created by God and thus, originally was only Good. But it bears the wounds and scars of the history of the Evil that man has inflicted upon it. That is our Patrimony, our inheritance.
Look at the idea of Original Sin this way; imagine that your father was Adam (which, of course, in a sense he was) and imagine the "Forbiden Fruit" as a container of radio-active material. God told him "Don't go near that, it's dangerous and it can hurt you!" But Adam disobeyed God and in his foolish pride and ignorance exposed himself to the radiation which not only messed him up (eventually leading to his death) but screwed up his chromosomes so that even now you (and I) suffer from the damage. We were not personally responsible for Adam's sin, but we still suffer from the consequences of it.
Shortly after sending the above comment, I happened to open up a book I had been reading (Reason To Believe; Why Faith Makes Sense by Richard Purtill) and the very first two paragraphs I read happened to be very much related to this discussion:
" "...the sin of the first representatives of mankind lost man a privelege that was not his by nature; the right to happiness in Heaven by direct knowledge of, and delight in, God. ...the Fall did not make individual descendants of our first parents guilty of any actual sin; only our own misdeeds can do that. But it did deprive all their descendants of certain helps to virtue and render them weaker and more liable to fall into actual sin.
We have remarked that there are obvious empirical reasons for thinking that man is in some sort of mess. The distance between our aspirations and our performance calls for some sort of explanation, and popular science obliges with a dozen incompatible theories: Freud...blames civilization, and some currently popular vulgarizers of anthropology blame our animal inherentance of aggressiveness. The Christian idea of an original moral failure...is at least as possible and seems to offer a more accurate pointer to the root of the trouble: all our drives (not just our libido or our aggressiveness) are out of our control, and "the evil that we will not, we do." "
Synchronicity?
I believe in God - with all my heart.
I do not believe in any book written by humans that claims to be Gods word or even divinely inspired. Only humans write books. God has never written one. Jesus didn't write one either. I don't think Jesus ever wrote anything.
I'm not aware of any credible tradition of Jesus having ever written anything, either (other than perhaps some obviously fraudulant Gnostic or hippie New Age weirdo's).
I know that there is even some scholarly debate about whether Jesus (in his human nature) was even literate!
But I'm a little confused: are you rejecting the idea that God has ever communicated directly to Man ( the phenomenon traditionaly known as "Revelation"), or is it only the Judeo-Christian Revelation that you are rejecting?
I really should clarify. I do not reject the Bible or he book of Mormon, or the Koran any other religious document. I consider them relevant historical records. I do believe Jesus lived and I also believe in miracles. These documents can be used as personal guides to life and we should always learn from our past.
However, I believe they are personal guides - for YOU to live your life by if you so choose. They should not be forced upon anyone else as their guide if they do not choose to believe in that particular document. And they should NEVER be used to condem or justify war, hate, greed, or entitlement.
In this age of the Internet and communication, we have all realized that the teachings we grew up with are not the same as other societies. Their "Holy Books" are just as relevant and no one can claim theirs is the correct or original one. None can claim they are the word of God because God didn't write any words. A claim of "Divinely Inspired" may be possible but could never be proven. They are books written by People for People.
"relevant historical records"?
Well,sure...no one would contest that, but so what? Just about anything ever written could arguably be described as a relevant historical document, but what does that get us?
The question is, are they, or some of them, or at least one of them, something more?
Look,you say that you believe in God, and furthermore, you also say that you believe that God sometimes directly intervenes in our world (miracles). Well, given those two beliefs, wouldn't it be at least reasonable to suppose that he would communicate to us somehow, at least about a few really important things?
A few weeks ago, in one of his homilies during his trip to Spain, Pope Benedict said "How could God have created all things if he did not love them, he who in his infinite fullness has need of nothing?"
Would a loving God just plop us here with no guidance? Just leave us here to our own devices, and say "Have at it; go figure it out for yourselves"?
Some have argued this, but I find it unlikely for the following reason:
Traditionaly, there are said to be two ways to learn about God: the first is through the study of his creative hadiwork (via philosophy,mathamatics, science, etc)...so called "Natural Theology". That's great, but it has it's limits, in that there are things that we can never know by those methods alone, no matter how accomplished in them we become. Really important things like: Why are we here? What is the purpose of our existence? What is the True and the Good? Wher do all the missing unmatched socks go? These are things that we could only know, via the second method, which is direct revelation; in order for us to ever know these things, God has to tell us directly.
Doesn't something like that at least seem reasonably likely?
"To confess your sins in a private little room to another person who had nothing to do with your injustice is meaningless. If you truly seek forgiveness, you must face those you wronged and ask them for their forgiveness. The Catholic Church has made it very easy to pass off malicious behavior without ever having to face those who were hurt."
I had wanted to respond to the comment you made above a long time ago, but we had so many other things flying around that I never got to it. It has stayed in my mind, though, mostly because of it's complete misrepresentation or misunderstanding of Catholic teaching.
When you go into the Confessional, you are not really confessing your sins to just "another person." In any Sacrament,the Priest is present "in persona Christi": in the person of Christ. You are confessing your sins directly to God. Hardly "meaningless".
And it doesn't end there, not by a long shot: you are also required to make direct reparation to any whom you, in your sin, have harmed. It's not just a matter of saying ten Hail Mary's and forgetting about it. Far from it (in my own personal life, for example, I have sins which I regret deeply, but I have not yet sought the Sacrament of Reconciliation, because I know that I do not yet possess the strength that I will need to make the restitution that is required of me).
One thing you nailed absolutely though, was when you said: "..forgiveness comes from the heart - not from the mouth."
I was reminded of this yesterday, when I came across these words in a book I was reading by Frank Sheed ("Theology for Beginners"):
"In sinning, the will chooses what pleases it, as against what God wills for it. In confessing, the will chooses what displeases it, because God wills that it should."
and
"Provided we are truly sorry and are willing to do whatever is in our power to undo any damage our sins have done to our victims - restoring money stolen, for instance, or retracting accusations we have falsely made against others - we receive absolution. The guilt of our sins is taken away. If our sorrow, though genuine and rightly motivated, has lacked the intensity called for by the sin's wickedness, there may still be punishment to make up for it; but the guilt is gone and the penance - suffered by us in this world or in purgatory - is measurable and will end...What has already been referred to as "satisfaction" involves both repairing damage done to others and willingness to do the penance required.
But the great glory of the sacrament is not the removal of guilt. The soul has been in the darkness of sin. The way to get rid of darkness is not to remove it in some suitable container, but to turn on the light. With confession and absolution, grace is restored to the soul. Once more we are supernaturally alive."
Not trying to come off as some kind of Jesus-Freak, or something (I'm not, really!)...just scratching the surface.
"To confess your sins in a private little room to another person who had nothing to do with your injustice is meaningless. If you truly seek forgiveness, you must face those you wronged and ask them for their forgiveness. The Catholic Church has made it very easy to pass off malicious behavior without ever having to face those who were hurt."
I had wanted to respond to the comment you made above a long time ago, but we had so many other things flying around that I never got to it. It has stayed in my mind, though, mostly because of it's complete misrepresentation or misunderstanding of Catholic teaching.
When you go into the Confessional, you are not really confessing your sins to just "another person." In any Sacrament,the Priest is present "in persona Christi": in the person of Christ. You are confessing your sins directly to God. Hardly "meaningless".
And it doesn't end there, not by a long shot: you are also required to make direct reparation to any whom you, in your sin, have harmed. It's not just a matter of saying ten Hail Mary's and forgetting about it. Far from it (in my own personal life, for example, I have sins which I regret deeply, but I have not yet sought the Sacrament of Reconciliation, because I know that I do not yet possess the strength that I will need to make the restitution that is required of me).
more to follow....
continued...
One thing you nailed absolutely though, was when you said: "..forgiveness comes from the heart - not from the mouth."
I was reminded of this yesterday, when I came across these words in a book I was reading by Frank Sheed ("Theology for Beginners"):
"In sinning, the will chooses what pleases it, as against what God wills for it. In confessing, the will chooses what displeases it, because God wills that it should."
and
"Provided we are truly sorry and are willing to do whatever is in our power to undo any damage our sins have done to our victims - restoring money stolen, for instance, or retracting accusations we have falsely made against others - we receive absolution. The guilt of our sins is taken away. If our sorrow, though genuine and rightly motivated, has lacked the intensity called for by the sin's wickedness, there may still be punishment to make up for it; but the guilt is gone and the penance - suffered by us in this world or in purgatory - is measurable and will end...What has already been referred to as "satisfaction" involves both repairing damage done to others and willingness to do the penance required.
But the great glory of the sacrament is not the removal of guilt. The soul has been in the darkness of sin. The way to get rid of darkness is not to remove it in some suitable container, but to turn on the light. With confession and absolution, grace is restored to the soul. Once more we are supernaturally alive."
Not trying to come off as some kind of Jesus-Freak, or something (I'm not, really!)...just scratching the surface.
sorry for the double post...it told me at first that it was too long to post (imagine that), so I split it in two, only to find after that it had posted it all as one (d'oh!)
Post a Comment