Skip to main content

I Believe In The Resurrection Of The Body, And The Life Everlasting. Amen.

I've just learned that my very first confessor in the Catholic Church, Monsignor Joseph Pins, has died. I really don't have the skill or the eloquence to write a fitting tribute, but I wanted to tell you why I love him.

I met him when I entered the RCIA program at the Cathedral Basilica of St. Louis. He must have been warned about the likes of me. You think you can raise a good objection to the Catholic faith, until you meet him. But he never breathed apologetic fire; he had the serene confidence that comes by true holiness.

Some time later, the powers that be decided that a barbecue for the catechumens and candidates would be nice. I'm off to one side, still hoping none of my Presbyterian seminary professors will catch me there. He asks if I'd like to get anything. I say to the man who has never been mistaken for a fitness personality, "Well, I don't want to cut in front of you, Monsignor." "Do I look like I've missed a meal?" he answered.

It can get pretty scary for folks in RCIA, if you don't know. Especially if, like me, you've devoted most of your adult life to believing things about Christ that do not cohere with what the Catholic Church teaches. I was flat-out scared; I wanted to leave; I started to think maybe it had all been a mistake. So, I went to Monsignor Pins. We batted some stuff around, Marian stuff, Scripture and the like, for some time. He finally said, "Do you want to be Catholic?" "Yes," I answered. "Why?" he asked. "I think it's the Church Christ founded, based on Petrine primacy, apostolic succession, and the Eucharist."

"Well," he paused, for what seemed like forever, "where else are you gonna get that?"

Still later, it came time to hear a lecture on the Last Things. It remains one of the greatest nights of my life. Some people are brilliant, and some are relevant. He was both. I never felt more ready to die than that night. As I have said many times, I understood more about redemptive history from that night than I'd learned in the previous year.

Monsignor Pins could give a homily. I don't recall mistaking him for Billy Sunday, but I was always ready for the Eucharist when he finished. Or, to shuffle off to the corner after Mass to confess. That's what you need a priest to do.

I don't even feel I deserve to be sad today. I only gave him prayer-chores. But God knits your heart together with the priest, especially the first you see for help. It's just the way it is. Now, it only remains for me to believe the things he taught us. To be without God is the only death that endures. "Do you pray every day?" he'd always ask. "Yes," I'd answer. "Don't stop." Don't worry, I won't.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Friend I Once Had, And The Dogmatic Principle

 I once had a friend, a dear friend, who helped me with personal care needs in college. Reformed Presbyterian to the core. When I was a Reformed Presbyterian, I visited their church many times. We were close. I still consider his siblings my friends. (And siblings in the Lord.) Nevertheless, when I began to consider the claims of the Catholic Church to be the Church Christ founded, he took me out to breakfast. He implied--but never quite stated--that we would not be brothers, if I sought full communion with the Catholic Church. That came true; a couple years later, I called him on his birthday, as I'd done every year for close to ten of them. He didn't recognize my number, and it was the most strained, awkward phone call I have ever had. We haven't spoken since. We were close enough that I attended the rehearsal dinner for his wedding. His wife's uncle is a Catholic priest. I remember reading a blog post of theirs, that early in their relationship, she told him of the p
Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con

Just Sayin.' Again.

One interesting objection to this chart has been to say that one gets stuck in a "loop" that doesn't resolve. This is a thinly-veiled way of putting forward the argument that we don't need absolute certainty in religious dogma. But Fred Noltie already dealt with this in the comments on another post. And to the specific objector, no less. I'll be blunt: The only principled thing to do is put down your Bible, resign your pulpit, and lead tours in Europe. Because a man must be able to distinguish dogma from human opinion, and this epistemology doesn't allow us to do that. One of dogma's distinguishing characteristics is infallibility; another is certainty. Without this, essential characteristics of God Himself are put into question. If we say that the most important Person any person could know is God, and the content of that knowledge (doctrine) is the means by which we know Him, it must be certain. This Reformed argument that certainty is a dangerous or un