On Reconciliation: Can virginity be restored?

THE QUESTION
Sometime during listening to Catholic radio archives discussing families, college kids, and the issues of the day, I thought it worthwhile to take a theological look at the question: Can virginity be restored?

Here's the short answer: If given in marriage, no. If given outside of marriage, yes.

Now, an event in history cannot be changed. But in the context of this analysis, the physical actions are not the ultimate focus. In Catholic teaching, the sexual faculties and the giving of the self in that way to another is something which belongs within the institution of marriage. From the Catechism:

Sexuality is ordered to the conjugal love of man and woman. (CCC#2360) The acts in marriage by which the intimate and chaste union of the spouses takes place are noble and honorable; the truly human performance of these acts fosters the self-giving they signify and enriches the spouses in joy and gratitude. (CCC#2362) [S]pouses share in the creative power and fatherhood of God. (CCC#2367)

The sacrament of marriage is seen as the image of Christ as bridegroom wedded to his only bride, the Church (Theology of the Body 91, et al).

In other words, the gifts of our gender and sexuality are properly exercised within marriage. In so doing, the spouses express gratitude to the Creator who gave the gifts. Thus, virginity given in marriage does not cause any spiritual damage to the involved spouses. Such giving of virginity cannot be "repaired" or "restored" because no damage occurred in its giving.

The loss of virginity outside of marriage is a different story. Because it involves the use of the sexual faculties in a way reserved for marriage, damage is caused to the soul. Sin takes place. It is in this sense that the virginity lost can be restored. And it is only this sense that is of ultimate consequence.

This involves the heart of the Gospel message:

The Gospel is the revelation in Jesus Christ of God's mercy to sinners. The angel announced to Joseph: "You shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins." (CCC#1846)

In his earthly ministry, Christ breathed on the Apostles and said, "If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained." (John 20:23) Many Catholic apologetic articles can be found on this subject (e.g. here or here), but suffice it to say, this is an important passage in understanding that Christ installed the sacrament of reconciliation (aka penance, confession). Christ exercises his forgiveness through the priest.

So the crux of this essay is this: The giving of virginity in a sinful way causes damage that can be repaired by Jesus Christ who gave the Church the healing sacrament of reconciliation.

Think of what happens when someone incurs an injury, say a broken bone. Doctors can reset this bone such that it heals and restores the bone to its original status and strength. Sin likewise causes damage to the soul. It is Christ who repairs this damage.

Healing of the Paralytic, Codex Egberti

ANALOGY OF THE HEALING OF THE PARALYTIC
The figure of physical healing as the sign of spiritual healing is evident in Scripture. For example, in Mark 2, there is the story of the paralytic lowered through the ceiling. Jesus tells the paralytic, "My son, your sins are forgiven." The scribes there are disturbed and question who but God can forgive sins. Jesus then gives them the physical sign that he has the power to forgive sins which cannot be seen with the eyes. He says to the scribes, "But that you may know that the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins" and then he says to the paralytic, "I say to you, rise, take up your pallet and go home." The paralytic rises and walks.

Jesus juxtaposes the physical healing with the forgiveness of sins. Christ removed the man's physical affliction so that the audience would believe he removed the man's spiritual affliction. This is why if one illicitly loses one's virginity, one should know that this can be restored by Christ in the sacrament of reconciliation.

Here are a couple more Church references demonstrating this teaching:

The whole power of the sacrament of [reconciliation] consists in restoring us to God's grace and joining us with him in an intimate friendship. (CCC#1468)

[W]ell may those sinners who have stained the white robe of their sacred baptism fear the just punishments of God. Their remedy is "to wash their robes in the blood of the Lamb"—to restore themselves to their former splendor in the sacrament of Penance. (Pope John XXIII, Paenitentiam Agere, 14)

And so, the Church, operating by the power of Christ, offers those authentically approaching the sacrament of reconciliation true healing of their sin, be it a loss of virginity outside of marriage or any sin. A soul can be restored to a newness, a "former splendor," as if the sin had never occurred. In the spiritual sense, which is the only one of eternal consequence, the soul having sinfully forfeited his or her virginity has recovered grace lost. The damage is repaired. As in the story of the paralytic, the affliction on the person is removed. Gone. The the true penitent receiving the sacrament is united to God destined to dine at the eternal banquet in heaven.

Can you go to hell for the "flimsiest of reasons"?A look at invincible ignorance and a forgotten value of conversion

THE QUESTION
On the August 27, 2013 Coast to Coast radio show George Noory interviewed Catholic historian
Charles Coulombe on a variety of topics during the last three hours of the show. Coulombe was consistently excellent, had his facts about Church teaching straight, expressed himself succinctly and charitably, and very well-represented the Church to members of an audience that might not otherwise ever hear an accurate portrayal of Church matters.

After listening to the entirety of the interview, I only wished he would have expounded more on one issue. The issue was raised by a caller, Ray in Niles, OH, who asked the following (emphasis mine):

When we say that people who are evil would deserve hell and those who lead virtuous lives deserve heaven, that makes rational sense. But the problem I've always had with the
Church and with Christianity in general is that you're condemned to hell for the flimsiest of reasons. For example, you're required to believe a matter of fact that Christ was divine and the Incarnation. Now let's suppose a person leads a virtuous life but doesn't happen to believe that. That doesn't make them evil. I mean, if I believe, for example, that the Eiffel Tower is in London, England and not Paris, I'm wrong. But I'm wrong about a matter of fact. I'm not evil in making that. Now the Church holds you responsible for knowing things that you can't possibly know. We hold people responsible when we're in a position to say to them, "You acted against your better judgment. You ought to have known better." But if one doesn't believe in the Incarnation, or the divinity of Christ, is one going against one's better judgment?And furthermore, what constitutes a judgment has to do with an accident of birth. People who are born into Roman Catholic families tend to be Roman Catholic. People who are born into Muslim families tend to be Muslim. People who are born in Jewish families tend to be Jewish. And so on. Are they expected to know that the other religion is true? And how can they know that? If you can't know what you're required to believe, then how can you be eternally damned for getting it wrong? That just doesn't make any rational sense.

Coulombe began by pointing out the tremendous number of fallen away Catholics as evidence that people don't necessarily stay where they are. True or not, the caller's ultimate claim was that it was possible, according to Church teaching, that a person unable to know what to believe would be condemned for not believing it. The gist of the caller's question is not uncommon. Coulombe made other fair points related to the fallen human nature of man, and Christ as the escape from a futile position. However––although it is easy for me to say not under the constraints of radio time as was Coulombe––I wished he would have expounded on the concept of "invincible ignorance."

To put it briefly, the caller was incorrect that the Church teaches that a person will be condemned to hell for not knowing something he "can't possibly know."

THE ANSWER
In Catholic theology, there exists a doctrine commonly called "invincible ignorance" or some similar paraphrase. The Catechism offers descriptions. Beginning in paragraph 846 is the following: "all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body." From there, we read the important subsequent paragraph (emphasis mine):

This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church: Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation. (CCC#847)

That paragraph alone debunks the caller's claim that the Church teaches the condemnation of those who don't formally know Christ. A person who "through no fault of their own" would be considered "invincibly ignorant." In other words, they did not receive a legitimate opportunity to know and believe in the Christ, whom alone is the door to salvation.

Essentially, if a person was invincibly ignorant of the truth of Christ, and if they attained salvation, they would still be incorporated into "the Church which is his Body" (CCC#846), but in an informal sense. Not with their lips or through receipt of the sacraments would such a person express his faith in Christ. But by their "sincere heart" and by their move "to do his will as they know it" (CCC#847) is their expression made. And it should be noted that even this action is done by "grace," which is God's gift, God's initiative. It should also be noted that the Church does not teach such persons certainly "will" go to heaven, but "may" in some way known to God.

In other words, the Church does not teach that God plays little games of "gotcha" and sends someone to hell for a "flimsy" reason, such as a person never having had an opportunity to believe in the usual sense. What constitutes true "ignorance" may only be known to God and the soul in question. Perhaps it is possible even for someone who was preached the gospel explicitly to remain invincibly ignorant due to various emotional or mental impediments. On the other hand, a person who heard the gospel may falsely convince themselves that they did not receive enough evidence (or grace) and proudly claim that they were not adequately evangelized. We could speculate, but defining an ignorance that can vary from soul to soul is not the purpose of this post, if it were even possible.

The theology of salvation and an "informal" faith in Christ is not new. For instance, in the Old Testament, we are told Elijah, who lived long before the Incarnation of Christ, was taken to heaven (2 Kg 2:11). Paul eludes to the mercy shown to him because, as he says, he "acted ignorantly in my belief" when he persecuted Christians (1 Tim. 1:13)  The Early Church Fathers likewise made similar statements about ignorance or informal incorporation into the Church, which is Christ's body. St. Augustine stated, "in the ineffable prescience of God, many who appear to be outside are within," incorporated by "wish or desire," while "many who seem to be within are without." (St. Augustine, quoted in De Lubac, The Splendor of the Church, p. 212). The 2nd century Church Father, Justin Martyr, went so far as to say those who lived before Christ either embraced or persecuted Christ in a mystical way (emphasis mine):

We have been taught that Christ is the first-born of God, and we have declared above that He is the Word of whom every race of men were partakers; and those who lived reasonably are Christians, even though they have been thought atheists; as, among the Greeks, Socrates and Heraclitus, and men like them; and among the barbarians, Abraham, and Ananias, and Azarias, and Misael, and Elias, and many others whose actions and names we now decline to recount, because we know it would be tedious. So that even they who lived before Christ, and lived without reason, were wicked and hostile to Christ, and slew those who lived reasonably. (St. Justin Martyr, First Apology, 46) 

Father William Most compiled a number of similar citations in this article under the subhead "Broad texts of the fathers" as well as other citations from the Magisterium.

A PARALLEL THOUGHT ON "FLIMSY" DOOM
In Catholic theology and Biblical language, it is sometimes said a wicked soul will experience "death," not in the sense of temporal death, but the death of the soul, a "second death" (Rev. 2:11; Rev. 20:6-14), where the fires of hell are eternal.

Barring a special revelation, we cannot "observe" heaven or hell in the way we can the environment around us. Keep in mind the Coast to Coast caller's difficulty believing in the idea of hell because of, what was to him, the "flimsy" way one can get there. The caller, though his premise was erroneous, believed if one went to hell for a "flimsy" reason, it therefore didn't make "rational sense." He was not willing to believe such a doctrine based on the unequal proportion between a hypothetical error in ignorance that could result in a disproportionate fate. Keep that in mind in the following thought exercise.

Let's say a man comes home from a long day's work and decides to make himself a bowl of soup. He turns the knob on his gas stove. He had a stuffy nose that day, and didn't smell the gas leak that had accumulated throughout the day. Ignorant of the gas leak, he blows up. In keeping with the reasoning of the caller, should a person trying to cook soup deserve to die? Where is the rational sense in the consequence of death, when the subject was ignorant that death would result from his action? Where is the proportion? Would the caller deny that the man had blown up based on the flimsy reason why the man was killed?

The point of the thought exercise is to demonstrate the fallacy of the caller's conclusion in having a "problem" with the Church, even if his theological understanding of Church teaching had been correct. At best (or worst), he would have to admit that a "flimsy" reason for going to hell would simply parallel the empirical evidence we have of people dying a temporal death due to ignorance.

WHY EVANGELIZE?
One may ask, then, if a person may be granted lenience for his ignorance of Christ, isn't it safer not to evangelize? I would answer no. Here's one reason why.

In a previous post, I reviewed Church theology on How the Eucharist benefits the world. In brief, those who receive the Eucharist are receiving something divine into themselves, something supernatural that transforms and effects grace on nature. The very celebration and receipt of the Eucharist draws souls throughout creation and brings grace into the souls receiving the sacrament. Thus, even if someone would be saved in an informal way, as a result of receiving mercy due to his "invincible ignorance," the very absence of that person's formal incorporation to the Church renders that person a non-participant in the sacramental delivery of grace.

An ancient Church prayer reads, "O sacred banquet in which Christ is received as food, the memory of his Passion is renewed, the soul is filled with grace and a pledge of the life to come is given to us." (cf. CCC#1402). Through all the sacraments, especially through the Eucharist, is received grace to "enlighten and nourish Christian activity." (CCC#2031) Though the Spirit can deliver grace in any way, the Church teaches the power of grace through the sacraments.

The very foundational call of Christian activity is to love God and neighbor. Receipt of the sacraments fosters that love. Thus, in the Catholic theology which we believe based on the promises of Christ, there is a true value to the entire Church and to the entire world when one formally incorporates into the Church. There is a value that extends beyond the converting individual.

And as the Catechism concludes in the section on invincible ignorance and salvation only through the Church:

Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men. (CCC#848)

Gov. Christie gets Church teaching on homosexuality wrong

Photo of NJ Gov. Chris Christie by Luigi Novi, courtesy of Wikimedia Commons

An August 19, 2013 press release from New Jersey Governor Chris Christie announced the governor's signing of a ban on reparative therapy for minors. As a brief segue, the psychology involved in homosexual reparative therapy does not seem entirely consistent according to a variety of studies, although states like California and New Jersey have chosen scientific sides.* But the controversy of bans on reparative therapy, even on willing participants, and an examination of the variety of extant psychological disorders are not the purpose of this post.

In the NJ press release is included the following portion of a transcript from 2011 between the governor and CNN's Piers Morgan.

Piers Morgan: Is homosexuality a sin?
Governor Christie: Well my religion says it’s a sin. I mean I think, but for me, I’ve always believed that people are born with the predisposition to be homosexual. And so I think if someone is born that way it’s very difficult to say then that’s a sin. But I understand that my Church says that, but for me personally I don’t look at someone who is homosexual as a sinner.

Christie is a Catholic. When he says that his religion says "homosexuality" is a sin, he is wrong. When he says the Church calls a person who is simply "born that way" to be in "sin," he is wrong. Let's review the correct teaching again in these excerpts from the Catechism (full paragraphs here).

CCC#2357 Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. 

CCC#2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

CCC#2359 Homosexual persons...can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

Let's summarize the 3 excerpts:
2357 - Homosexual ACTS are sinful.
2358 - Homosexual persons should be treated with love.
2359 - Homosexual persons can attain Christian perfection.

Yet Christie claims to contradict his Church when he says he doesn't believe someone "who is homosexual" is a sinner. The Church's teaching on sexuality is consistent for any person––sexual behavior is appropriate only in a marital setting, must be open to life, etc. Acts of the body or indulgent acts of the heart contradictory to that environment are sinful. CCC#2352 includes the statement: "The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose." It should be noted the Church is not merciless toward persons who may fall into sexual sin. Recently the Pope made the distinction of inappropriate judgment of persons, including those with homosexual leanings. And anyone who sins is embraced to receive the sacrament of reconciliation.

Let's look at another recent statement by a teacher of the faith, a Catholic Bishop (emphasis mine):

Church teaching is very clear that the homosexual inclination is not sinful and that same-sex attraction is not immoral, but that what we’re dealing with here is the distinction between the inclination and the conduct. ... Homosexual activity will not be condoned. (Bishop Robert Guglielmone of Charleston, May 27, 2013)

Christie is wrong. He is incorrect. As it is worded, his statement could cause scandal and false myths about the Church. If Christie does understand Church teaching and its gravity but simply rejects it, he has excommunicated himself latae sententiae. (For his part, Piers Morgan, who professes to be Catholic, has also demonstrated vitriol for Catholic teaching.)

*For example, see articles such as this from the National Catholic Register. Or read through the plaintiff's case (PDF) in the California ban. In their argument, they point out the reliance of the defendant on the American Psychological Association's 2009 Report of the Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation. The studies by that task force include the following statement: [S]ame-sex sexual attractions and behavior occur in the context of a variety of sexual orientations and sexual orientation identities, and for some, sexual orientation identity (i.e., individual or group membership and affiliation, self-labeling) is fluid or has an indefinite outcome. Other state-dismissed research can be found in the works of licensed therapists such as the participating plaintiffs in that case David Pickup, Dr. Christopher Rosik, Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, Robert Vazzo, and the National Association of Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH), the American Association of Christian Counselors, et al.

Media appears unaware that Pope Francis' statement on judging "gays" is nothing new

Today, headlines abounded throughout the news media that Pope Francis said he would not "judge" gay priests. From this article at CatholicNews.com, the Pope's expanded quote in question reads:

A gay person who is seeking God, who is of good will -- well, who am I to judge him? The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains this very well. It says one must not marginalize these persons, they must be integrated into society. The problem isn't this (homosexual) orientation -- we must be like brothers and sisters. The problem is something else, the problem is lobbying either for this orientation or a political lobby or a Masonic lobby. (see bottom of post for links to full English translation of interview)

A BBC article, among others, expressed surprise at such a notion, stating: "The Pope's remarks are being seen as much more conciliatory than his predecessor's position on the issue."

Briefly, I'll point out the problem with the headlines that do not mention the person in question's pursuit of God and good will, which is different than the insinuation that the Pope doesn't judge the behavior of any "gay" person. Most headlines focus only on the first sentence, and only some articles expand on other parts of his statement.

But why would such a statement even be a headline? Even in the context of the Pope's comments, he refers to his comment being a reflection of the Catechism, which reads:

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

The media's reaction to Pope Francis' statement reveals a serious ignorance about Catholic teaching. Some stories insisted Pope Francis exhibited a new "tone," toward those with homosexual inclinations, attempting to contrast him with Pope Benedict XVI. Yet, in 2003, Pope Benedict (then Cardinal Ratzinger) provided almost the identical sentiment while citing the Catechism:

[A]ccording to the teaching of the Church, men and women with homosexual tendencies “must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided”. They are called, like other Christians, to live the virtue of chastity. (Cardinal Ratzinger, Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons, 2003)

Years earlier, Cardinal Ratzinger wrote a letter to bishops regarding the pastoral care of homosexual persons, in which he wrote:

The characteristic concern and good will exhibited by many clergy and religious in their pastoral care for homosexual persons is admirable, and, we hope, will not diminish. Such devoted ministers should have the confidence that they are faithfully following the will of the Lord by encouraging the homosexual person to lead a chaste life and by affirming that person's God-given dignity and worth. ... The God who is at once truth and love calls the Church to minister to every man, woman and child with the pastoral solicitude of our compassionate Lord. (Cardinal Ratzinger, Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons, 1986)

As Pope Benedict, he said the same, again reflecting the basic Catechism teaching:

Deep-seated homosexual tendencies, which are found in a number of men and women, are also objectively disordered and, for those same people, often constitute a trial. Such persons must be accepted with respect and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. They are called to fulfil God's will in their lives and to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter. (Pope Benedict XVI, Concerning the Criteria for the Discernment of Vocations with regard to Persons with Homosexual Tendencies, 2005)

Both Pope Francis and Pope Benedict reflected the exact same sentiment as can be read in the Catechism. And Pope Benedict's words were even placed in official Church documents as compared to Pope Francis' comments off the cuff. Other statements by other bishops or Popes in history can be found to express a similar sentiment. Yet when Pope Francis articulated it recently, the media acted surprised. Where was the media in 1986 or 2005 to isolate a quote by Pope Benedict about gays stating, "Pope says gays worthy of love and dignity" or "Pope criticizes those who discriminate against gays." Why does the BBC, quoted above, think Pope Benedict's attitude was any different that Pope Francis'?

If the media had then desired to paint that particular caricature of Pope Benedict XVI, they could have done so, as they have with Pope Francis. But they were either negligent in recognizing Pope Benedict's words, or perhaps they consider the current social climate opportune to accent any comment that could be construed as favorable to a particular ideology, such as the current movement to certify "gay marriage" as a real institution. That could be why they did not isolate his sentence a moment later and come up with what would have been an accurate headline such as "Pope Francis condemns those who 'lobby' for homosexual behavior." Instead, Pope Francis may be seen as the media's utilitarian Rorschach blot from whom they have decided to draw whatever appearance they choose.

MEANING OF "JUDGE"
It is apparent in reading headlines such as the embarrassingly inaccurate one at the Huffington Post on this issue reading "Breakthrough: Pope OK with Gays," that some people interpret not "judging" in this context as "approval" of gay behavior.

It does not take much effort to read the next sentence in the Pope's statement that the Church's position is clarified in the Catechism. Quoted above is CCC#2358 on treating all persons with love, including those with homosexual tendencies. The preceding paragraph, CCC#2357 states: "[H]omosexual acts are intrinsically disordered. ... Under no circumstances can they be approved." So we have two teachings: homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered sins and we are still called to love those with homosexual tendencies. Also critical here is the following:

CCC#1861 Mortal sin is a radical possibility of human freedom, as is love itself. It results in the loss of charity and the privation of sanctifying grace, that is, of the state of grace. If it is not redeemed by repentance and God's forgiveness, it causes exclusion from Christ's kingdom and the eternal death of hell, for our freedom has the power to make choices for ever, with no turning back. However, although we can judge that an act is in itself a grave offense, we must entrust judgment of persons to the justice and mercy of God.

That's what the Catechism states. The Catechism is where Pope Francis referred those to understand the meaning of him not passing judgment on persons, even if one has judged those persons to have committed objectively mortal sins. It seems difficult for some in the media to understand that it is possible to love someone without approving of their every behavior. In fact, sometimes the loving response to another is to disapprove of their behavior. But perhaps this concept is alien to some persons, causing them to automatically misinterpret the Pope's meaning of not judging.

THIS INCIDENT SHOWS THE RELEVANCE OF THE CHURCH
Just a final observation––I think the matter of this media frenzy today demonstrates the relevance of the Church. Even though comboxes or members of the media scoff at the Church, claiming her to be irrelevant, their ear remains turned even as they look the other way. It demonstrates the moral authority the Church still bears, even as there exists irrational cries to silence her. Many members of the media appear almost giddy that the Pope may have approved homosexual behavior (which he did not). Could there be a psychology, that though some people with their lips say they don't care what the Pope says, they subconsciously desire the support of the Pope because they recognize the moral authority the Church still bears? Even if the media is trying to "use" the Pope as utilitarian to advance a particular cause, in their abuse of the Pope's words, they show that they recognize the power in having the Church's voice on their side. Perhaps it is telling that this is at least the third time the media has misrepresented Pope Francis' words: on atheism, Purgatory, and now homosexual behavior.

See also:
What Pope Francis really said about gays - and no, it's not new by Fr. Jonathan Morris
7 things you need to know about what Pope Francis said about gays by Jimmy Akin
Added 8/5/13: Here is Zenit's English translation of the entire Pope Francis interview on the Brazil flight (part 1 and part 2)

.