Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [liturgy-l] No E-Confession

Expand Messages
  • James O'Regan
    ... At issue I think is what counts as incarnational? James O Regan http://www.jamesoregan.com tel 613-824-4706
    Message 1 of 8 , Jun 6, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      Chris wrote and I snipped:

      > Well, that's just impractical. When are they going to get more efficient
      > with the sacraments? ;)
      >
      > Who decided this was newsworthy? :)

      At issue I think is what counts as incarnational?



      James O'Regan
      http://www.jamesoregan.com
      tel 613-824-4706
    • Chris McConnell
      At 03:08 PM 6/6/01 -0400, James O Regan wrote: Chris wrote and I snipped: Well, that s just impractical. When are they going to get more efficient
      Message 2 of 8 , Jun 6, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        At 03:08 PM 6/6/01 -0400, James O'Regan wrote:
        >Chris wrote and I snipped:
        >
        > > Well, that's just impractical. When are they going to get more efficient
        > > with the sacraments? ;)
        > >
        > > Who decided this was newsworthy? :)
        >
        >At issue I think is what counts as incarnational?

        Sorry, James, I meant "Who *at Reuters* decided it was newsworthy?", since
        it would seem self-evident (to me) that sacraments need to be celebrated in
        person. The Vatican makes some controversial and problematic
        pronouncements sometimes, but this ain't one of them. :)

        Incarnation is exactly the issue. Cyberspace is great, but I'm
        old-fashioned enough to think that "incarnational" requires a body. :)

        I think there's another interesting question about what this whole story
        reveals. The very idea of doing "confessions" online seems to suggest
        that, in a popular mindset, the essence of the sacrament is the mere
        conveying of information about what one has done -- perhaps also the
        conveying of information that one is absolved. All of the other aspects of
        celebrating a sacrament are dispensible. A pretty impoverished sense of
        things!

        Chris McC


        _________________________________________________________
        Do You Yahoo!?
        Get your free @... address at http://mail.yahoo.com
      • Nathan Nettleton
        ... The dividing line between the virtual reality of cyberspace and the bodily reality of the sacraments may not be as easy to define as we think. I ve just
        Message 3 of 8 , Jun 6, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          Chris McConnell wrote:
          >
          > Incarnation is exactly the issue. Cyberspace is great, but I'm
          > old-fashioned enough to think that "incarnational" requires a body. :)

          The dividing line between the 'virtual reality' of cyberspace and the
          bodily reality of the sacraments may not be as easy to define as we
          think. I've just been reading Paul Fiddes' excellent new book
          "Participating in God: A Pastoral Doctrine of the Trinity" (London:
          Darton Longman & Todd, 2000) and he uses some discussion of the 'bodily'
          dimension of email communication to introduce his chapter on "The
          Incarnate God and the Sacramental Life". I've pasted the section below.

          Peace and hope,

          Nathan

          _____________________________________
          Nathan Nettleton
          Pastor, South Yarra Community Baptist Church
          Melbourne, Australia
          mailto:nathan@...
          _____________________________________

          There have been several recent books on the dangers as well as the
          benefits of the internet, that electronic spider's web linking millions
          of computers throughout the world. In one book, the author interviews a
          number of people who have 'virtual relationships' with other net-users.
          These are people who meet, talk and even - it seems - find love in
          cyberspace. What fascinated the author was the way that these
          relationships were not just a matter of words (or rather duodecimal
          digits), but seem to have taken over the whole person, including the
          body. This was despite the fact that the internet was supposed to offer
          a reality that was purely mental, free from the limits of the body.
          Although one net-user gave the author permission to communicate with his
          'virtual partner', he became increasingly agitated, abruptly took the
          keyboard back, and could hardly type because his hands were shaking so
          much. He felt that this had been an intrusion on an intimate
          relationship. Other people the author talked to felt strongly that they
          were being unfaithful to their married partners by having such
          relationships, and that they had - virtually - committed adultery. His
          conclusion was that the cyberspace personality had taken on a
          'surprising substance'.

          This modern (postmodern?) phenomenon confirms that encounters between
          persons always involve the body. Words that are spoken are also embodied
          in looks, gestures and other bodily language. There is no such thing as
          a purely mental communication. Even between two net-users who only meet
          in virtual space there is bodily communication. Of course, there is the
          use of the fingers to type and eyes to monitor the screen, but beyond
          this there is a commitment of the whole body to the interchange in a way
          that cannot be entirely rationally analysed. Those who have a 'virtual'
          social life know, or feel, that it still happens in some way through the body.

          This raises a key issue for the way that we know God. Does it make any
          sense to speak of a 'personal encounter' with God, if God does not have
          a body? In this book I have been giving an account of an engagement with
          a personal God in various pastoral contexts. To be sure, I have not been
          writing about an 'I-Thou' encounter with either one personal being or
          three personal beings, but about participating in a flow of personal
          relationships in God which are like 'movements between' an I and a Thou.
          Nevertheless, this is a personal way of talking about encounter with
          God. Can we use such language at all if God is Spirit, without a body?
          John Macquarrie proposes that we cannot, and so urges that when it comes
          to God, talk about encounter with 'Being that lets-be' is more adequate
          than talk about personal relationships. I suggest we do not attempt to
          meet this challenge by arguing that there can be disembodied personal
          meetings; the limiting case of the internet adulterers would be against
          us. We should rather take a different path altogether, to assert that
          God indeed does have a body.

          Of course, all talk about God must be analogy, and so has an element of
          the 'unlike' as well as the 'like' about it. I am not suggesting that
          God has a body in the same way that we are embodied, but that God
          commits God's own self to body - or rather, to bodies - as a meeting
          place with us. The divine Word will not be spoken without physical
          mediation. God takes on bodies in order to draw us into the triune
          relationships in God.
        • Cody Unterseher
          ... story ... suggest ... mere ... the ... aspects of ... sense of ... I have to agree completely with Chris. As a Catholic, (and, yes, there are times when
          Message 4 of 8 , Jun 6, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            Chris McConnell wrote:
            >
            > I think there's another interesting question about what this whole
            story
            > reveals. The very idea of doing "confessions" online seems to
            suggest
            > that, in a popular mindset, the essence of the sacrament is the
            mere
            > conveying of information about what one has done -- perhaps also
            the
            > conveying of information that one is absolved. All of the other
            aspects of
            > celebrating a sacrament are dispensible. A pretty impoverished
            sense of
            > things!
            >

            I have to agree completely with Chris. As a Catholic, (and, yes,
            there are times when ol' Rat-zinger has me wishing I wasn't,) I have
            come to appreciate the "matter and form" of the sacraments. I have a
            particularly wonderful confessor who has at times held my hands as I
            have confessed; at times held me in an embrace while imparting
            absolution. These things are not common courtesy, nor are they
            requisites for the celebration. But they were the right (rite?)
            things at the right time. They conveyed, more than my confessing or
            her absolving, the unconditional love God and the bond of covenant
            that I share with the Church in Christ.

            To confess via e-mail is indeed mere "conveying of information" but
            certainly not the communication and celebration integral to the
            incarnational celebration of a sacrament.

            Blessings,
            Cody Unterseher
            oblate21@...
          • Cody Unterseher
            ... Uh, that should have been _his_ absolving. . . I was in that whistful mode of eschatological thought wherein gender no longer is a barrier to the full
            Message 5 of 8 , Jun 6, 2001
            • 0 Attachment
              Cody Untersher wrote:

              > They conveyed, more than my confessing or
              > her absolving, the unconditional love God and the bond of covenant
              > that I share with the Church in Christ.

              Uh, that should have been _his_ absolving. . . I was in that whistful
              mode of eschatological thought wherein gender no longer is a barrier
              to the full sacramental life of the Church.

              To my Roman Catholic brothers and sisters who may have been
              scandalized, my most humble apologies. "Mea culpa. . . ."

              Cody
              oblate21@...
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.