In Defense of Marriage

The Ad Hoc Committee for the Defense of Marriage assists the bishops and State Catholic Conferences in promoting and defending the authentic teaching of the Church regarding the nature of marriage as a covenant between one man and one woman directed to the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of children. They have an excellent website at:
http://www.marriageuniqueforareason.org/

They have a very interesting video at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lh_81zsW6U8&feature=player_profilepage

How The Church Teaches: Cardinal Ratzinger's Letter on "The Many Faces of AIDS"

ZE10120501 - 2010-12-05
Permalink: http://www.zenit.org/article-31158?l=english
How The Church Teaches
Cardinal Ratzinger's Letter on "The Many Faces of AIDS"
By Steven A. Long

NAPLES, Florida, DEC. 5, 2010
In the current media-engendered vortex of illusion regarding the Church's teaching about disordered sexual acts and condoms, the principal constituent is of course a certain incomprehension regarding how the Church teaches, as distinct from journalistic interviews.

Also to blame, of course, is the current culture of the 24-hour news cycle that holds that nothing could be more defining or important than the story of the moment. Thus, the media swirl may too quickly become self-hypnotizing. But in the Roman Catholic faith, the magisterium serenely propounds the doctrine of faith and morals, and when direction from the universal teaching authority is required no one is left in doubt as to the provenance of the supplied doctrine.

Such an occasion occurred -- for those with memory to recall -- in 1988, when then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger addressed a memorable letter as prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to Archbishop Pio Laghi, who was at the time nuncio to the United Sates, regarding the National Conference of Catholic Bishops' administrative board's document "The Many Faces of AIDS." In that document, Cardinal Ratzinger, representing the CDF with the full knowledge and support of Pope John Paul II, formally expressed the official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church.

One might have expected the media to make some reference to this formal teaching instrument, understanding the difference in Roman Catholic life between journalistic conversations and magisterial acts. Doing so would have placed discussions about Catholic teaching in their proper historical and doctrinal context.

Nonetheless, for those who wish to place the recent journalistic remarks of the Holy Father in their magisterial context, his own pellucid words from 1988, as prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, are perhaps the best source. These may be found below. They represent the formal teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, and anyone claiming the contrary should of course be able to point to some official magisterial pronouncement supporting such a claim.

The idea that Pope Benedict the XVI is unaware of the nature of the Church's teaching instruments, or that he intended to alter Church teaching with a few brief comments in a journalistic interview, is preposterous on its face. This is something the current media culture seems to fail to grasp.

* * *

On "The Many Faces of AIDS"
Letter to Archbishop Pio Laghi
May 29, 1988

The lively discussion, widened and sometimes distorted by the press worldwide, which followed the publication of the NCCB Administrative Board's well-known document, "The Many Faces of AIDS," and in which were involved distinguished representatives of the episcopate, has generated in many of the faithful, and not only in the United States, a good deal of confusion regarding the authentic Catholic position on the moral problems involved. The Holy See wishes, therefore, to express its deep concern that the unity so necessary among the bishops in the teaching of Christian moral doctrine be clearly and publicly demonstrated.

In the first place, and on a more general level, one must keep in mind the problem posed by the worldwide reaction which accompanies certain documents issued by various episcopal conferences. This requires a particular sense of responsibility and prudence in the choice of themes to be treated and in the manner in which these statements are published, not to mention a careful composition of the texts themselves. At least in some cases, when the subjects under discussion are of interest to the universal Church, it would seem advisable to consult in advance with the Holy See.

Secondly, regarding the precise moral issue in question here, I want to draw attention to the clarification which appeared in the March 10 edition of L'Osservatore Romano, in an unsigned article entitled "Prevention of AIDS: Christian Ethical Aspect," and I quote,

"To seek a solution to the problem of infection by promoting the use of prophylactics would be to embark on a way not only insufficiently reliable from the technical point of view but also and above all, unacceptable from the moral aspect. Such a proposal for 'safe' or at least 'safer' sex -- as they say -- ignores the real cause of the problem, namely, the permissiveness which, in the area of sex as in that related to other abuses, corrodes the moral fibre of the people."

In the case here under discussion, it hardly seems pertinent to appeal to the classical principle of tolerance of the lesser evil on the part of those who exercise responsibility for the temporal good of society. In fact, even when the issue has to do with educational programs promoted by the civil government, one would not be dealing simply with a form of passive toleration but rather with a kind of behaviour which would result in at least the facilitation of evil.

The problem of educational programs in specifically Catholic schools and institutions requires particular attention. These facilities are called to provide their own contribution for the prevention of AIDS, in full fidelity to the moral doctrine of the Church, without at the same time engaging in compromises which may even give the impression of trying to condone practices which are immoral, for example, technical instructions in the use of prophylactic devices.

In a society which seems increasingly to downgrade the value of chastity, conjugal fidelity and temperance, and to be preoccupied sometimes almost exclusively with physical health and temporal well-being, the Church's responsibility is to give that kind of witness which is proper to her, namely an unequivocal witness of effective and unreserved solidarity with those who are suffering and, at the same time, a witness of defense of the dignity of human sexuality which can only be realized within the context of moral law. It is likewise crucial to note, as the board statement does, that the only medically safe means of preventing AIDS are those very types of behaviour which conform to God's law and to the truth about man which the Church has always taught and today is still called courageously to teach.

I am confident that these considerations, which are known to His Holiness and have his fullest support, will be welcomed by the cardinal and bishop members of the conference and I wish to express my sincerest hope for a successful conclusion of this important meeting of the entire episcopate of the United States."

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
Prefect
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

December 8th - The great Feast of Immaculate Conception

You are all fair, O Mary; the original stain is not in you.
You are the glory of Jerusalem, the joy of Israel, the honor of our people, and the great advocate of siners.
O Mary, Virgin most prudent, Mother most merciful, pray for us; intercede for us with our Lord Jesus Christ.

"We declare, pronounce and define that the doctrine which asserts that the Blessed Virgin Mary, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God, and in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, Saviour of the human race, was preserved free from every stain of original sin is a doctrine revealed by God and, for this reason, must be firmly and constantly believed by all the faithful."

In 1854, Pope Pius IX, in the Papal Bull ineffabilis Dei, declared Mary's Immaculate Conception to be a dogma of the Faith. Pope Pius was not inventing a new concept but re-affirming the very ancient belief held by Christians from both East and West, that Mary was conceived free of the stain of original sin, through the future merits of her Son’s Incarnation, Passion, and Death. God created Mary to be a pure vessel to bear God-made-flesh. Only Christ is sinless on his own account. Mary was rendered sinless on account of a prevenient action of God, applying Christ's future merits and perfection to her. Mary sinlessness was purely on account of God's grace, and the work of her beloved and most Holy Son, Jesus Christ.

Like every single member of the human race, Mary needed a saviour. And in Christ through his merits as saviour of mankind, God redeemed Mary in a most remarkable manner, preserving her from the stain of Original Sin. In the Gospels Mary rejoices in the wonderful work of her saviour, connecting her salvation in Christ with all generations calling her blessed:
My soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord, my spirit rejoices in God my saviour. For he has looked with favour on his lowly servant:
From this day all generations will call me blessed (Matthew 1:46-48).

“The Church invented nothing new of her own when she began to extol Mary; she did not plummet from the worship of the one God to the praise of man. The Church does what she must; she carries out the task assigned her from the beginning.” Mary: The Church at its Source - Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI)

Mary, whom the Angel Gabriel called "full of grace", and whom "all generations will called 'blessed'" has been viewed as unique since the earliest days of the Christian faith. Just as Christ has was called the "new Adam," the Church Fathers, especially Saints Justin (AD 150) and Irenaeus (AD 180), described Mary as the "new Eve, who - unlike Eve - humbly obeyed God. The Church Fathers also called her the "new ark of the covenant" and theotokos, God-bearer. Thus the ancient doctrine of Mary's Immaculate Conception and sinlessness unfolded.

St. Ephrem the Syrian (d. AD 373) described Mary as without stain or blemish, the "all-pure, all-immaculate, all-stainless, all-undefiled, all-incorrupt, all-inviolate" (see Nisibine Hymns, and "Precationes ad Deiparam"). St. Ambrose (d. AD 397) wrote "lift me up not from Sarah, but from Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled, but a Virgin whom grace has made inviolate, free of every stain of sin" (Commentary on Psalm 118).

St. Augustine uses language similar to the Catholic dogma of the Immaculate Conception, in describing the holy Virgin Mary, “concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honour to the Lord; for from Him we know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon her who had the merit to conceive and bear Him who undoubtedly had no sin.”(On Nature and Grace, 42).

Later Church Fathers, such as St. John of Damascus (d. AD 755) and St. Andrew of Crete (d. AD 740) continued to speak about Mary's sinlessness as bearer of God Himself. John of Damascus wrote:
The Father's...sanctifying power overshadowed her, cleansed and made her holy, and, as it were, predestined her. Then Thou, Word of the Father...didst take flesh of the Blessed Virgin, vivified by a reasoning soul, having first abided in her undefiled and immaculate womb...(Sermon I: On the Assumption)
St John also spoke of Mary's "holy, undefiled, and stainless soul" (Sermon II: On the Assumption).

This wonderful and most beautiful belief continued right down through the history of the Church even though, there was no official dogma of the Immaculate Conception until 1854. Let us give honour to the Most Holy Trinity, and to Jesus Christ Incarnate, by honouring devoutly the great Mother of God!

Don't prepare for 'Christmas'. Prepare for the Feast of The Nativty of Our Lord!

In our modern, secular society, preparing to celebrate the great feasts of the Church requires great effort. We fit our Spiritual efforts around our daily commitments, rather than the other way round. Our worldly obligations, in practice, take precedence over those which feed our souls. These are so often left ’for another day‘. And unless we make a conscious effort, our focus always remains in the here and now and never on the eternal.

Yet the Church has always offered us ways to help us prepare to celebrate any Feast day, and even more especially the great Feasts of Christmas and Easter: fasting, prayer, and giving.

Fasting: making room for God.

Fasting provides us with the opportunity to "empty" our bodies and minds of worldly things, in order to more completely fill ourselves with the Word and the Spirit. The process starts with food - not our essential food, but all those many extras and ’treats’ with which we so regularly indulge ourselves.

We are now in the first week of Advent, which was often in the past called the ‘Little Lent’. Advent is a penitential period of preparation for the coming of the Christ Child into our hearts and lives. Are we ready? Or do we expect to treat December purely as a time to ‘buy for Christmas’, assuming that we should receive all the spiritual blessings of this great feast, without making any effort - or offering a gift in return. How easy it is for us to lapse into unthinking greediness, and to teach our children indifference and worldliness, simply by our thoughtless carelessness.

Let us try to make an effort this Advent to prepare properly, in advance, to bring the gift of ourselves to the Christmas manger, to make a journey of desire with the shepherds and the Three Holy Kings, so that on Christmas night we may greet the newborn Christ without shame.

Here are some ideas to consider:

* Reduce the amount of food you do eat. Cut out "second helpings" and snacks. Never allow yourself to feel overfull.
* Keep your food simple. Spend less time planning menus, cooking, serving, and eating.
* Cut back on TV, radio, the computer etc. Reduce the endless noise that permeates our daily lives. Try to spend at least a little time in quiet prayer or meditation. If it is helpful and you want to listen to something, play recorded liturgical music.
* Reduce your entertainment hours. Cut out movies, video games, surfing the internet, and junk reading, and use the time for more spiritually-enriching activities.
* Add something new, however small, to your daily prayer routine. If you normally ask God's blessing only before meals, add a prayer of thanksgiving after meals, too. If you normally say "bedtime" prayers, add the morning prayers. Pray more. Make a "family altar" as the place for prayer, or place an icon or religious picture on the kitchen table.
* If you have the time, read the Epistle and Gospel for each day at the dinner table, or quietly by yourself.
Make a family prayer list of those you will remember each day - both the living and the dead, and include relatives, benefactors, teachers, co-workers, friends, and anyone you know who is currently suffering. For younger children consider making a "picture" list, so that they can see the people for whom they are praying.
* Replace the novels, magazines etc. with some spiritual reading.
* Try and attend one extra Mass during the week.
* Say one (extra) Rosary during the week.
* Consider beginning or renewing a family or personal commitment to some long-term "giving" project that uses you talents and time as Christ directs us - to help feed the hungry, clothe the naked, shelter the homeless, or comfort those in despair (see Matthew 25:34-46)
* Don’t pre-celebrate the Feast! If you intend to put up decorations: a Christmas tree, lights and greenery, don't put them up too early. Wait until the eve of the feast, when the Church is also anticipating its celebration.
* Celebrate the full Christmas season with the Church. The season lasts for twelve days after Christmas Day, and finishes on the Feast of the Epiphany. Resist the desire to clear everything away on New Years Day!

A 'firm purpose of amendment?' Is it necessary for a valid Confession? - Part II

Vol II: The Penitent Christian
Excerpt from a Sermon by Fr. Francis Hunolt
The Nature of a Purpose of Amendment

I do not mean to say that it is always an infallible sign of an inefficacious purpose for one to relapse into the same sins. Past sins, (even grievous ones), may be committed again, after some time, or under the pressure of a great temptation or occasion. Our wills, alas, are inconstant and changeable, so that today we may be honestly determined to do the will of God, and tomorrow, quite differently disposed. What I say holds good chiefly of those who spend months and years in the same vices, showing no sign of amendment from one confession to another, and making no use of the proper means to correct their bad habits. Of such people I say that they have not a firm purpose of amendment, no matter what they say to the contrary in confession, for their actions contradict their words. Hence, there must be an earnest determination to avoid all sin.

II. There must be a firm purpose to avoid all sin for all time and under all circumstances. God accepts no temporary armistice; if you wish to be reconciled to him, you must declare with him a peace which is to last forever. You must be resolved at the present moment never again to commit a single mortal sin, under any circumstances whatever. At the present moment, I say; for your purpose (no matter how strong it may be), cannot keep you from sinning in the future; but your will must be so disposed that you are firmly determined as long as your good purpose lasts, that mortal sin shall be incompatible with it; and if it lasted for eternity, it would be impossible for you ever to commit a mortal sin. God wishes to make a lasting peace with you; he will not be satisfied with half of your heart. In virtue of your purpose, you must be firmly resolved to avoid all the proximate occasions of sin, to overcome all bad desires and inclinations, and to fulfil all the obligations that arise from sin. If you have not a firm resolution to that effect, your purpose is of no use, and your confession is invalid.

There are many who purpose to avoid sinful acts, yet retain their evil desires and inclinations. As a sick man, who abstains from certain articles of food and drink, solely because the physician obliges him to do so, meanwhile, eagerly desires the forbidden meats; so, would-be penitents often hunger after their past excesses and rejoice secretly in the recollection of past forbidden pleasures which they have only abandoned perforce.

They wish they had made more use of the opportunities formerly offered them of
indulging their passions; they regard as happy those who still gratify themselves in that way. They wish that it were not forbidden, but lawful, to indulge in such pleasures; and they are so disposed, that, if there were no hell, they would sin without scruple. They do not fear sin, nor offending God, but solely hell-fire.

This being a mere slavish fear, which does not fully exclude the will to commit sin, therefore, does not suffice for a true conversion. Nay, to be thus disposed, to say, for instance, if impurity were not forbidden under pain of hell, I would commit it, is a new mortal sin; because it is a purpose of offending God if there were no hell, as well as a real complacency in and desire for the sinful action. O sinner, how can you thus treat your good God? You give him your heart as you would give your money to a cut-throat who threatens your life. “Here,” you say, “take all my money, but spare my life!” while you think in your heart that, if he had not a dagger pointed at your throat, you would be very far from parting with your purse so easily. “Here,” you say to God, “here is my will and the assurance of my obedience; I must obey thee and abandon sin; but if had not hell to fear, if I could live forever, then I know what I should do!” Away with such purposes of amendment! They are of no avail to the forgiveness of sin!

They do not completely abandon sin who do not give up the proximate occasions and results of sin: I mean, those ill-gotten gains, those improper intimacies, all those things which have been a scandal and a frequent cause of sin to themselves and others. Some men, not satisfied with the sins they commit themselves, leave, as it were, an inheritance of sin to their descendants. So, an unchaste man, who cannot any longer gratify his passions, dies; but he leaves behind him bad books, lewd pictures, and statues enough to corrupt the living. A vindictive man dies; but he leaves behind him a legacy of hatred stamped in the memories of his children, by his oft repeated expressions of rancour against his enemy. An avaricious man dies; but he leaves to his heirs a load of unjust and usurious gains that is sufficient to damn them. All these people make bad confessions; their sorrow is useless, their purpose vain, the absolution they receive invalid!

What a blessing it would be, what a consolation for the confessor, what a splendid proof of an earnest purpose of amendment, if the penitent could always say with truth: “Father, I am seriously resolved to amend, and, in order to prove my sincerity, here are ‘the heads’ of my sins. I have wronged my neighbour, but I have made complete restitution. I have the money here that belongs to him. Can you tell me how to restore it without exposing my good name?” or, “I have lived in improper intimacy for so long with a certain person; but that person is now gone away, or, I have left the house in which I used to sin;” or, “For some months past I have not spoken a word to one whom I disliked, but we are now reconciled.” Oh, what a splendid proof of a sincere resolution to amend!

But, alas, that proof is not always at hand! Alas! In that Day of Wrath when the “Written Book shall be produced;” when that great account-book shall be opened, out of which the thoughts, words, and actions of all men shall be judged—how many confessions and absolutions we shall then find rejected by the Judge, although, in the opinion of men, they were valid!

Then, we shall see the truth of the words, “Many are called, but few chosen” (St. Matthew 20: 16), even amongst those who were judged to be repentant sinners.
“Pour out thy heart like water before the face of the Lord” (Lam. 2: 19), is again my conclusion. O sinner, if you wish to be truly converted to God, pour out your heart like water, not like oil, so that no grievous sin may remain in it. Pour out your heart like water, not like money out of a purse. And why? If you let your money fall, you can stoop down, and pick it up; but if you pour out water on the ground, it is absorbed by the earth, and you can never recover it. In making your purpose of amendment, pour out with your sins, all the will, desire, or hope of returning to them again, crying out with St. Paul: “For I am sure that neither death nor life nor any other creature shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord!” (Rom. 8: 38, 39.) Amen.

Source: http://www.JMJsite.com.

What is a 'firm purpose of amendment?' Is it necessary for a valid Confession? - Part I

Vol II: The Penitent Christian
Excerpt from a Sermon by Fr. Francis Hunolt
The Nature of a Purpose of Amendment

“Would to God that all sinners whose souls are dead might thus surely recover the
life of sanctifying grace in the Sacrament of Penance! Would to God, that the amendment of their lives always proved the truth of their resurrection! But how many are deluded on this point! How many are there of whom, when they come out of the confessional, we might say with truth in the words of the Gospel of today. “Behold, a dead man is carried out!” Dead he went in, and dead he comes out. His repentance is only an apparent one. This occurs either through culpably omitting a grievous sin in the examination of conscience, or through want of a true supernatural sorrow for sin, or else through want of a firm purpose of amendment, which is the third requisite to a good confession. Of the nature of this purpose learn, today, my brethren,

I. That he who desires to possess the life of grace in the Sacrament of Penance must have a firm purpose of avoiding mortal sin; and II. That he must have a firm purpose of avoiding all mortal sins for all time.

I. True contrition does not consist in mere words, nor in sighs and tears, but in an act of the will by which I hate and detest them all from a supernatural motive, and wish from my heart that I had never committed them. The purpose of amendment that I make in presence of God and of my confessor does not consist in mere words, but in an earnest and present determination of my will, from a supernatural motive, not to commit again a single mortal sin in any way whatever, for the sake of any person, pleasure, or profit, and to use all the necessary efforts to carry out this determination. If this firm purpose is wanting, repentance is of no avail, confession is useless, and the absolution received is invalid.

The Council of Trent says: True repentance requires not merely a detestation of one’s sins, but also a firm purpose of amending one’s life. But, alas! Of the numbers who go to confession, how few there are who make this earnest attempt to amend their lives! “I firmly purpose to avoid all sin, and to amend my life,” such are the words many
sinners utter with the mouth; but what do their hearts say?

Ask your own conscience. Do you not often think, when saying those words: “I shall never be able to do as I say I cannot give up this or that”? “I will amend,” says the mouth. “But,” thinks the heart: “I cannot look favourably on that man whom I have long borne hatred to, much less, can I say anything good about him.” “I will amend,” says the mouth.” But,” thinks the heart: “when difficulties arise at home I will not abstain from cursing and swearing.” “I will amend,” says the mouth. “But, next Sunday, as usual,” says the heart: “I will go to the ale-house, and get drunk.” “I will amend,” says the mouth. “But if I happen to be in that person’s company, which is
very likely to be the case,” says the heart: “I will not abstain from taking impure liberties.” Has he a firm determination of the will who knows in his conscience that he does not intend keeping his promises of amendment? His purpose consists rather in mere desires, which, like the weather-cock on the steeple, turn round in every direction, according to the wind, but, nevertheless, are not to be moved from their place.

Such a sinner would like to avoid sin, but at the same time to gratify his wicked passions. He would like to love God above all things, with his whole heart, and at the same time to place no restraint on his love for creatures. He would like to enter on the way to heaven, and still to keep on the broad path that leads to hell.

… It is not enough to say: “I would like to do it.” You must say, “I will do it; I am in earnest about it; I will make use of the proper means,” It is useless for the merchant to sit idle in his shop, saying : “I would like to be rich!” or in the soldier to run away from the fight, saying : “I would like to gain the victory” ; or for the student to shut up his books and waste his time, saying : “I would like to be at the head of my class!” All this “would like” is not of the least help to them.

The merchant must labour, the soldier must fight and the student must study earnestly, if they wish to succeed. Hell is filled with such fruitless wishes and desires, which, if they were capable of restoring a sinner to the state of grace, would soon convert the abode of death into the mansion of life, and the prison of the damned into a paradise of joys. Sinner, are you in earnest about being converted and doing penance? Then you must say from your heart, with the penitent David “I said: Now have I begun” (Ps. 56: 11); I am fully determined to avoid all sin, and to amend my life. Now I have begun; the change for the better has already commenced. Ah, (you think), if I only could do that! You should rather say: If I only wished to do it. You do not wish to do it, and there the fault lies. We read in the Gospel of St. Luke that the guests who were invited to the feast “began all at once to make excuse.”

The first said: “I have bought a farm, and must needs go out and see it.” Another said “I have bought five yoke of oxen, and I go to try them;” but the third made it appear an utter impossibility for him to go: “I have married a wife, and therefore, I cannot come” (St. Luke 14: 18- 20). But St. Matthew, who relates the same parable in a different manner, gives, in a few words, the true cause of their remaining away, and shows that their excuses were worthless : “They would not come” (St. Matthew 22 : 3), he says. Thus he gives us to understand, that the excuses we allege for not amending our lives, and which are founded on our weakness, or evil inclinations, or on temptations, habits, and necessity, are referred by the all-seeing God to the one chief cause, “they would not come.”

They do not amend, because they do not wish to amend. They do not abstain from cursing, drunkenness, hatred, injustice, and impurity, because they do not wish to abstain. In a word, the earnest purpose is wanting to them. Ah, what can we not do to secure some temporal gain, to prevent some outlay of money, because we are in earnest about it! How readily we overcome ourselves, and what difficulties we are ready to face! If sinners would only give a penny to some poor person whenever they curse or swear, or send some money to a charitable institution when they fall into their accustomed sins, I am sure that in a short time they would find a great change for the better; and they would have to acknowledge, that they were unable to amend hitherto because they had no wish to amend, and that, as they were wanting in this firm purpose, their confessions were invalid.

Others who flatter themselves that they have a firm purpose of amendment while, in reality, they are always running from one confessor to another, looking for a priest who never gives them a word of advice; who knows not the state of their conscience; who is ignorant of the length of time they have been subject to their bad habits, and who, not being aware that they are in the proximate occasion of sin, cannot remind them of their duty in that respect. Again; the same grievous sins of which you now accuse yourself, you have often confessed before; and you have been confessing them for the last six, seven, or eight months, or even for the last two or three years, or longer. After all that time, you are just as much addicted to vice as before.

How is it possible; how can any sensible man imagine, that you ever had a sincere purpose of amendment, since there is not the least sign of any improvement in you? If a man is really resolved to avoid a certain thing, he can easily find means to carry out his intention. If you are determined not to fall into the mud, you know how to avoid the stone over which you stumbled before. The proverb says: “Even the stupid ass does not stumble twice over the same stone.” If, once or twice you scald a dog that you wish to drive out of your kitchen, you will find that he will not come back again. But you return for the third, sixth, or twentieth time, with the same sins on your conscience, after having fallen over the same stone, or been scalded with the same water. Who can believe that your purpose of amendment was anything more than empty words, to which you did not attach the least meaning? “He is a scoffer, and not a penitent,” says St. Augustine, “who still does what he repents of.” …

This is like the apparent repentance of many who go to confession. They throw themselves down on their knees, praying, sighing, and striking their breasts, and saying to themselves: “I am heartily sorry for having offended God, and I will never sin again!” So much they say with their lips, and then they go to the priest and receive absolution. Those who cannot see the heart would say of such: “Surely, there is now an end of sin! Here is every sign of true sorrow!” But alas, God thinks differently. The consciences of those people are still burdened with sin as before. How do we know that? Have a little patience and in a short time you will see the apparent penitent returning to his former evil ways; a sure sign that he has not had an earnest purpose of amendment; for where there is no amendment, there has been only a useless repentance.