Pay No Attention to That Man Behind the Curtain! Catholic History and the Emerald City Protocol

reformation21 ^ | April 2012 | Carl Trueman

[Gamecock]

Full Title: Pay No Attention to That Man Behind the Curtain! Roman Catholic History and the Emerald City Protocol

In the field of Reformation studies, Professor Brad Gregory is somebody for whom I have immense respect.  Those outside the discipline of history are possibly unaware of the ravages which postmodernism brought in its wake, making all narratives negotiable and fuelling a rise in interest in all manner of trivia and marginal weirdness.  Dr. Gregory is trained in both philosophy and history and has done much to place the self-understanding of human agents back at the centre of historical analysis.  Thus, for those of us interested in the Reformation, he has also played an important role in placing religion back into the discussion.  For that, I and many others owe him a great debt of gratitude.

I therefore find myself in the odd and uncomfortable position of writing a very critical review of his latest book, The Unintended Reformation (Belknap Harvard, 2011). The book itself is undoubtedly well-written and deeply learned, with nearly a third of the text devoted to endnotes.  It is brilliant in its scope and execution, addressing issues of philosophy, politics and economics.  Anyone wanting a panoramic view of the individuals, the institutions and the forces which shaped early modern Europe should read this work. Yet for all of its brilliance, the book does not demonstrate its central thesis, that Protestantism must shoulder most of the responsibility for the various things which Dr. Gregory dislikes about modern Western society, from its exaltation of the scientific paradigm to its consumerism to its secular view of knowledge and even to global warming. I am sympathetic with many of Dr. Gregory's gripes about the world of today; but in naming Protestantism as the primary culprit he engages in a rather arbitrary blame game.

Dr. Gregory's book contains arguments about both metaphysics and what we might call empirical social realities. On the grounds that debates about metaphysics, like games of chess, can be great fun for the participants but less than thrilling for the spectators, I will post my thoughts on that aspect of the book in a separate blog entry. In this article, I will focus on the Papacy, persecution and the role of the printing press.  This piece is more of a medieval jousting tournament than a chess game and will, I trust, provide the audience with better spectator sport.

One final preliminary comment: I am confident that my previous writings on Roman Catholicism and Roman Catholics indicate that I am no reincarnation of a nineteenth century 'No popery!' rabble-rouser. I have always tried to write with respect and forbearance on such matters, to the extent that I have even been berated at times by other, hotter sorts of Protestants for being too pacific. In what follows, however, I am deliberately combative.  This is not because I wish to show disrespect to Dr. Gregory or to his Church or to his beliefs; but he has set the tone by writing a very combative book. I like that. I like writers who believe and care about the big questions of life. But here is the rub: those who write in such a way must allow those who respond to them to believe with equal passion in their chosen cause and to care about it deeply and thus to be equally combative in their rejoinders.

A key part of the book's argument is the apparent anarchy created by the Protestant emphasis on the perspicuity of scripture. In this, Dr. Gregory stands with his Notre Dame colleague, Christian Smith, as seeing this as perhaps the single weakest point of Protestantism. He also rejects any attempt to restrict Protestantism to the major confessional traditions (Reformed, Anglican and Lutheran) as he argues that such a restriction would create an artificial delimitation of Protestant diversity. Instead, he insists on also including those groups which scholars typically call radical reformers (essentially all other non-Roman Christian sects which have their origins in the turn to scripture of the Reformation). This creates a very diverse and indeed chaotic picture of Protestantism such that no unifying doctrinal synthesis is possible as a means of categorizing the whole.  

I wonder if I am alone in finding the more stridently confident comments of some Roman Catholics over the issue of perspicuity to be somewhat tiresome and rather overblown. Perspicuity was, after all, a response to a position that had proved to be a failure: the Papacy.  Thus, to criticize it while proposing nothing better than a return to that which had proved so inadequate is scarcely a compelling argument.

Yes, it is true that Protestant interpretive diversity is an empirical fact; but when it comes to selectivity in historical reading as a means of creating a false impression of stability, Roman Catholic approaches to the Papacy provide some excellent examples of such fallacious method.  The ability to ignore or simply dismiss as irrelevant the empirical facts of papal history is quite an impressive feat of historical and theological selectivity. Thus, as all sides need to face empirical facts and the challenges they raise, here are a few we might want to consider, along with what seem to me (as a Protestant outsider) to be the usual Roman Catholic responses:

Empirical fact: The Papacy as an authoritative institution was not there in the early centuries. 

Never mind.  Put together a doctrine of development whereby Christians - or at least some of them, those of whom we choose to approve in retrospect on the grounds we agree with what they say  - eventually come to see the Pope as uniquely authoritative.  

Empirical fact: The Papacy was corrupt in the later Middle Ages, building its power and status on political antics, forged documents and other similar scams. 

Ignore it, excuse it as a momentary aberration and perhaps, if pressed, even offer a quick apology. Then move swiftly on to assure everyone it is all sorted out now and start talking about John Paul II or Benedict XVI.  Whatever you do, there is no need to allow this fact to have any significance for how one understands the theory of papal power in the abstract or in the present.  

Empirical fact: The Papacy was in such a mess at the beginning of the fifteenth century that it needed a council to decide who of the multiple claimants to Peter's seat was the legitimate pope.  

Again, this was merely a momentary aberration but it has no significance for the understanding of papal authority.  After all, it was so long ago and so far away.

Empirical fact: The church failed (once again) to put its administrative, pastoral, moral and doctrinal house in order at the Fifth Lateran Council at the start of the sixteenth century.  

Forget it.  Emphasise instead the vibrant piety of the late medieval church and then blame the ungodly Protestants for their inexplicable protests and thus for the collapse of the medieval social, political and theological structure of Europe.  

Perhaps it is somewhat aggressive to pose these points in such a blunt form. Again, I intend no disrespect but am simply responding with the same forthrightness with which certain writers speak of Protestantism. The problem here is that the context for the Reformation - the failure of the papal system to reform itself, a failure in itself lethal to notions of papal power and authority - seems to have been forgotten in all of the recent aggressive attacks on scriptural perspicuity.  These are all empirical facts and they are all routinely excused, dismissed or simply ignored by Roman Catholic writers. Perspicuity was not the original problem; it was intended as the answer.   One can believe it to be an incorrect, incoherent, inadequate answer; but then one must come up with something better - not simply act as if shouting the original problem louder will make everything all right. Such an approach to history and theology is what I call the Emerald City protocol: when defending the great and powerful Oz, one must simply pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.  

Given the above empirical facts, the medieval Papacy surely has chronological priority over any of the alleged shortcomings of scriptural perspicuity in the history of abject ecclesiastical and theological disasters. To be fair, Dr. Gregory does acknowledge that 'medieval Christendom' was a failure (p. 365) but in choosing such a term he sidesteps the significance of the events of the late medieval period for papal authority. The failure of medieval Christendom was the failure of the Papacy. To say medieval Christendom failed but then to allow such a statement no real ecclesiastical significance is merely an act of throat-clearing before going after the people, the Protestants, who frankly are in the crosshairs simply because it appears one finds them and their sects distasteful. Again, to be fair, one cannot blame Roman Catholics for disliking Protestants: our very existence bears testimony to Roman Catholicism's failure. But that Roman Catholics who know their history apparently believe the Papacy now works just fine seems as arbitrary and selective a theological and historical move as any confessionally driven restriction of what is and is not legitimate Protestantism.  

As Dr. Gregory brings his narrative up to the present, I will do the same. There are things which can be conveniently ignored by North American Roman Catholic intellectuals because they take place in distant lands. Yet many of these are emblematic of contemporary Roman Catholicism in the wider world. Such, for example, are the bits of the real cross and vials of Jesus' blood which continue to be displayed in certain churches, the cult of Padre Pio and the relics of Anthony of Padua and the like (both of whom edged out Jesus and the Virgin Mary in a poll as to who was the most prayed to figure in Italian Catholicism). We Protestants may appear hopelessly confused to the latest generation of North American Roman Catholic polemicists, but at least my own little group of Presbyterian schismatics does not promote the veneration of mountebank stigmatics or the virtues of snake-oil.

Still, for the sake of argument let us accept the fideistic notion that the events of the later Middle Ages do not shatter the theology underlying the Papacy.  What therefore of Roman Catholic theological unity and papal authority today? That is not too rosy either, I am afraid.  The Roman Catholic Church's teaching on birth control is routinely ignored by vast swathes of the laity with absolute impunity; Roman Catholic politicians have been in the vanguard of liberalizing abortion laws and yet still been welcome at Mass and at high table with church dignitaries; leading theologians cannot agree on exactly what papal infallibility means; and there is not even consensus on the meaning and significance of Vatican II relative to previous church teaching. Such a Church is as chaotic and anarchic as anything Protestantism has thrown up. 

Further, if Dr. Gregory wants to include as part of his general concept of Protestantism any and all sixteenth century lunatics who ever claimed the Bible alone as sole authority and thence to draw conclusions about the plausibility of the perspicuity of scripture, then it seems reasonable to insist in response that discussions of Roman Catholicism include not simply the Newmans, Ratzingers and Wotjylas but also the Kungs, Rahners, Schillebeeckxs and the journalists at the National Catholic Reporter.  And why stop there?  We should also throw in the sedevacantists and Lefebvrists for good measure.  They all claim to be good Roman Catholics and find their unity around the Office of the Pope, after all. Let us not exclude them on the dubious grounds that they do not support our own preconceived conclusions of how papal authority should work.  At least Protestantism has the integrity to wear its chaotic divisions on its sleeve.

Moving on from the issue of authority, we find that Dr. Gregory also argues that religious persecution is a poisonous result of the confessionalisation of Europe into warring religious factions. Certainly, the bloodshed along confessional lines in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries was terrible, but doctrinal disagreements did not begin with the Reformation. The New Testament makes it clear that serious doctrinal conflict existed within the church even during apostolic times (I hope I am allowed, for the sake of argument, to assume that the New Testament is perspicuous enough for me to state that with a degree of confidence); and the link between church and state which provided the context for bloodshed over matters of theological deviancy was established from at least the time of Priscillian in the late fourth century. It was hardly a Protestant or even a Reformation innovation.

When it comes to the empirical facts of Catholic persecution, Dr. Gregory only mentions the Inquisition twice. That is remarkably light coverage given its rather stellar track record in all that embarrassing auto da fe business. Moreover, he mentions it first only in a Reformation/post-Reformation context. Yet Roman Catholic persecution of those considered deviants was not simply or even primarily a response to Reformation Protestantism but a well-established pattern in the Middle Ages. No doubt the Spanish Jews and Muslims, the Cathars, the Albigensians, the Lollards, the Hussites and many other religious deviants living before the establishment of any Protestant state might have wished that their sufferings had received a more substantial role in the narrative and more significance in the general thesis. Sure, Protestantism broke the Roman Catholic monopoly on persecution and thus played a shameful and ignominious part in its escalation; but it did not establish the precedents, legally, culturally or practically.

Finally, the great lacuna in this book is the printing press. Dr. Gregory has, as I noted above, done brilliant work in putting self-understanding back on the historical agenda and thus of grounding the history of ideas in historical realities rather than metaphysical abstractions. The danger with this, however, is that material factors can come to be somewhat neglected. His thesis - that Protestantism shattered the unified nature and coherence of knowledge and paved the way for its secularization - does not take into account the impact of the easy availability of print. The printed book changed everything: it fuelled literacy rates and it expanded the potential for diversity of opinion. I suspect there is a very plausible alternative, or at least supplementary, narrative to the 'Protestantism shattered the unified nature and coherence of knowledge' thesis: the printing press did it because it made impossible the Church's control of the nature, range, flow and availability of knowledge.

Ironically, the printing press is one of the great success stories of pre-Reformation Catholic Europe. One might argue that it was a technological innovation and thus not particularly 'Catholic' in that sense. That is true; but for some years after it was invented it was unclear whether it would be successful enough to replace medieval book production. In fact, its success was significantly helped by the brisk fifteenth century trade in printed breviaries and missals and the indulgences produced to fund war against the Ottomans. In other words, it was the vibrancy of late medieval Catholic piety, of which Dr. Gregory makes much, that ensured the future of the printing press and thereby the shipwrecking of the old, stable forms of knowledge.

The Roman Catholic Church knew the danger presented by the easy transmission of, and access to, knowledge which the printing press provided. That is why it was so assiduous in burning books in the sixteenth century and why the Index of Prohibited Books remained in place until the 1960s. I well remember being amazed when reading the autobiography of the analytic philosopher and one-time priest, Sir Anthony Kenny, that he had had to obtain special permission from the Church to read David Hume for his doctoral research in the 1950s. At the start of the twenty-first century, Rome may present herself as the friend of engaged religious intellectuals in North America but she took an embarrassingly long time even to allow her people free access to the most basic books of modern Western thought. Women in Britain had the vote, Elvis (in my humble opinion) had already done his best work and The Beatles and The Rolling Stones were starting to churn out hits before Roman Catholics were free to read David Hume without specific permission from the Church.   

Of course, Dr. Gregory knows about the Index; but he seems to see it as a response to Protestantism, not as an extension of the Church's typical manner of handling deviation from its central tenets and practices which stretched back well before the Reformation. And therein lies the ironic, tragic, perplexing flaw of this brilliant and learned book: Dr. Gregory sets out to prove that Protestantism is the source of all, or at least many, of the modern world's ills; but what he actually does is demonstrate in painstaking and compelling detail that medieval Catholicism and the Papacy with which it was inextricably bound up were ultimately inadequate to the task which they set - which they claimed! - for themselves.  Reformation Protestantism, if I can use the singular, was one response to this failure, as conciliarism had been a hundred years before.  One can dispute the adequacy of such responses; but only by an act of historical denial can one dispute the fact that it was the Papacy which failed.

Thanks to the death of medieval Christendom and to the havoc caused by the Reformation and beyond, Dr Gregory is today free to believe (or not) that Protestantism is an utter failure.  Thanks to the printing press, he is also free to express this in a public form. Thanks to the modern world which grew as a response to the failure of Roman Catholicism, he is also free to choose his own solution to the problems of modernity without fear of rack or rope. Yet, having said all that, I for one find it strange indeed that someone would choose as the solution that which was actually the problem in the first place.

[LurkingSince'98]

Hey good..,

I believe the problem originates from what I have been told by protestants I trust who have told me that prayer is worship and worship is prayer so if you are praying to Mary you are in fact worshiping her.

However, if protestants have only one kind of prayer, which is always ‘worship’; it should be fairly obvious that is the catch.

Because for a Catholic there at least seven distinct types of prayer that I am aware of and probably others I am not.

Distinct Catholic Prayer Types:

1) Adoration - as I understand it equivalent to a protestant’s worship;

2) Contrition - a prayer of sorrow and repentance;

3) Thanksgiving - such as saying grace before meals;

4) Supplication - a request for strength, healing or help;

5) Meditation - prayer for understanding a particularly deep aspect of Christ’s life - like the Agony in the garden;

6) Contemplation - a prayer state of being open to hearing the words of the Holy Spirit; and

7) lectio divinia - a very slow, deliberate contemplation on a scriptural passage or passages.

My Prayer for today:

In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, Amen.

My Lord and My God, how truly wonderful and glorious you are.

Forgive me for my transgressions and weaknesses of this day, as I am sorry for how they hurt you, especially for slighting my wife and daughter last night.

Thank you for all the gifts you have bestowed on me and my family, as we have been blessed out of all proportion to what we deserve.

I ask for for the grace to better serve my family who I know represent you on earth, and I ask for patience and forbearance from those I don’t understand.

I ask this through Jesus Christ who lives and reigns world without end amen.

In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, Amen.

For the Greater Glory of God

[goodwithagun]

Former Baptist, not current Catholic. We celebrate Hanukkah, that doesn’t make me Jewish. Actually, I make pretty mean latkes.

[BlueDragon]

Slighting your wife and daughter?

I'm sorry to hear that somebody did that (?)--- and sorry to hear of it too, mixed in with publicly pronounced prayer as it is, that is addressed more directly to God the Father, in the name of Christ --- which by-passes going though "Mary" to get there --- which part looks like progress to me.

Carry on, soldier. As you were.

[LurkingSince'98]

Waaa? Would you rather I slight yours??

I believe James 5:16 says exactly what it means and means exactly what it says - not your own personal interpretation, because it is unscriptural to do as your suggest ‘confess your sins to God’:

“Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person is powerful and effective.”

secondly did you never thoughtlessly or otherwise slight your wife or daughter? - because if you haven’t you are a better man than I am.

In addition, we should examine our conscience DAILY and make an Act of Contrition afterwards:

“Oh my God, I am heartily sorry for having offended Thee because I dread the loss of heaven and the pains of hell, but most of all because I have offended Thee, Oh My God, who art all good and deserving of all my love.
I firmly resolve,with the help of Thy Grace to confess my sins, to do penance and to amend my life, Amen.”

BTW, If your haven’t performed 1) a through Examination of Conscience, 2) don’t confess ALL your sins, 3) don’t make the Act of Contrition and 4) don’t attempt to actually amend your life - IT DOESN’T COUNT.

BTW you should try telling your sins to a priest some time - face to face.

For the Greater Glory of God

[daniel1212]

It is interesting that you come right out and say it like that, for a previous contention and complaint among Protestants is that amid [Roman] Catholicism, there has been tendency to treat writings of past note-worthies as holy writ, thus having greatly expanded the canon somewhat by default --- and without much of any effort to provide clear discrimination and/or delineation between what could or should be regarded as even "inspired" (rather than informed by tradition) -- with you here now, indicating in the instance of Gregory a going beyond "inspired" to a "dictated by".

What it infers is that God was the actual author of such as with Scripture, versus at most being protected from error as in (purportedly) infallible statements.

[BlueDragon]

Waaa? Would you rather I slight yours??

So what's this about continuing to repeat you've been sinned against?

Citing James 5:16 doesn't help much -- if one is confessing others sins committed against themselves --- unless it was yourself who slighted your wife and daughters? uh ...I didn't consider that possibility. Perhaps you can clear up just what this "slighting" you mention was more specifically all about.

Besides... you may not know how I as you put it --interpret -- that passage --- for I otherwise much recommend that we confess our sins to on another.

Yet at the same time it is also scriptural to confess one's sins to God, particularly those which be not committed against another person, but against God more directly.

Still, confessing our sins to one another (and that we have sinned against God, too) that we may be healed -- is right and proper.

What is less than fully scriptural, if you would take us towards delving into that further, is concept of all sins being needed to be confessed to a [Roman] Catholic priest (in good standing with that church?) or else we cannot be "forgiven" --- or possibly -- healed, either. But please take note that confessing to a priest is certainly not precluded or excluded.

Now since you made some public confession, and being that this then was followed by appeals towards legalism be applied to myself (and what you perceived or assumed be my own beliefs) should I then do much the same in return?

What then? Would you be then restricted to only gaining for yourself "healing" --- but according to legalisms within [Roman] Catholicism, and need to yet go elsewhere (other than we here present on FR) for "forgiveness"?

What gives? Just what was this offer to "slight" my own [wife and daughters] by asking if I would prefer you do that, all about?

How would that remedy in any manner that having done (as you have said it did) to your own?

Or would it be more simple to just forgive that person that "slighted" those dear to yourself?

[LurkingSince'98]

good grief man - you are the one who underlined your.

Think about that - of course it was my wife who the heck would I be talking about.

and I said it in jest!

and all through Acts it is said time and again having met on the lords day we confessed our sins aid the blessing and ate the bread...

it is never found the exact quote we ‘confessed our sins to God’ it always says to one another or each other.

However, without the thorough Examination of Conscience and the an Act of Contrition and without that desire to avoid the sin it doesn’t count - it’s a whiff.

I think you analysis is a lot closer to traditional thought than many of your brethren.

btw the sacramental act of any person, priest or holy one is separated from any transgressions they may have made.... otherwise how could Peter’s evangelization have been efficacious after he essentially spit in Christ’s eye by directly denying Him - if the sin is not separated from the sinner after forgiveness, as common sense is still confirmed in faith.

AMDG

[aMorePerfectUnion]

“BTW you should try telling your sins to a priest some time - face to face.”

1. Priests are not an official office of the Church. All Christians are now priests.
2. Nowhere are we commanded to confess to a priest. We are commanded to confess our sins to one another.

[Elsie]

When yer hot; yer hot!

[Elsie]

 

 

 

[Elsie]

I still don’t see it. Where did I pray to Mary?

Well...

Hail Mary full of grace The Lord is with you.
Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb Jesus.
Holy Mary mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death.

You used her name in two of these three sentences at #337.

If your high school English teacher asked you to define the sentences; what might be your answer?

[Elsie]

My Prayer for today:

See; that really wasn't so hard; was it!

You didn't mention Mary at all!

---

Thank you for sending your prayer Heavenward. Your prayers ARE important to us; but all of our representatives are busy right now. Stay on the line until a representive can get to you shortly.

{cue Gregorian chant #45}

[LurkingSince'98]

actually if you read back thru the 2nd and 3rd century Apostolic Fathers they did confess their sins to one another - BUT they had certain unscrupulous persons in the flock who used those sins publicly confessed against the penitent.

To avoid this abuse the Bishops of the 2nd or 3rd council voted to have confession privately to the presbyters.

Now you may not accept the validity or authority, but that is how it came down to us today in the church.

For the Greater Glory of god

[Elsie]

I think you analysis is a lot closer to traditional thought than many of your brethren.

What does TRADITIONAL mean in this sentence?

[Elsie]

To avoid this abuse the Bishops of the 2nd or 3rd council voted to have confession privately to the presbyters.

And that solved the problem: Cool!

[aMorePerfectUnion]

Thanks for the explanation. It doesn’t overrule God’s instructions in His Word, but it at least explains how the train went off the track.

[LurkingSince'98]

Elise please read all the words,

I know that I’m just going to get a cut an past job back at me, but you know I approach you with respect.

I know you say over and over the ‘6000 prayer requests per second has overloaded the lines’, but I would just point out the ONE word which is wrong and that is SECONDS.

You see because because God is infinite, and has no beginning and no end, He is the alpha and omega - that THERE IS NO TIME FOR GOD.

For god there is No past, No future, only the infinite NOW.

And therefore, there are no seconds, minutes or hours - I know, I know you are disappointed but that is the fact.

It doesn’t matter thou since God is able to keep all the balls in the universe up in the air at the same time - ‘cause he made them all - He and all the Angels and all the Saints all hear every prayer we utter and see every sin we make - He misses nothing because He exists outside of time.

It is you and I who may not hear all that is told us because we are the ones stuck in time not God and heaven.

Chaire, Kecharitomene

Hail, Full of Grace

[LurkingSince'98]

It came from Scripture you need to take it up with St. Luke.

Mary as being blessed in found in the Holy Bible. The first instance is in Luke 1:28 when the angel Gabriel appeared to Mary to announce to her that she would be the mother of the Lord Jesus.

“And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.” [Lk. 1:28]

The next instance is when Elizabeth was with the Holy Spirit, she stated that Mary was blessed.

“And she cried out with a loud voice, and said: Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.” [Lk. 1:42]

Then there is when Mary sang the Magnificat that is found in Luke 1:46-55.

“Because he hath regarded the humility of his handmaid; for behold from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.” [Lk. 1:48]

Finally, there is another reference during the ministry of Jesus when a woman raised her voice in the crowd and said, “Blessed is the womb that bore you and the breasts that nursed you!”

“And it came to pass, as he spoke these things, a certain woman from the crowd, lifting up her voice, said to him: Blessed is the womb that bore thee, and the paps that gave thee suck.” [Lk. 11:27]

So are you a Scripture guy or not?

AMDG

[LurkingSince'98]

you may think it went off the track but not Catholics -

you know you can go to confession too to a priest even though you are protestant - try it - especially face to face-

you don’t know what you are missing until you try it.

AMDG

[LurkingSince'98]

Elise,

I don’t want to hurt your feelings, so try not to get all defensive ok?

I have spoken to several protestants about confession and usually they say “I do an Examination of Conscience!”

So I ask them how do you do it and they say:

ok, I don’t have any idols before me, haven’t engraved any images, didn’t takes the Lords name in vain, I keep all the Lord’s Days, haven’t killed anybody, did steal anything, not coveted nothing or nobody - it’s all good.

Well it is not all good.

A REAL Examination of Conscience looks like this:

First Commandment: I am the Lord thy God. Thou shalt not have strange gods before Me. (Including sins against Faith, Hope and Charity)

Have I neglected the knowledge of my faith as taught in the catechism, such as the Apostles’ Creed, the Ten Commandments, the Seven Sacraments, the Our Father, etc.?
Have I deliberately doubted or denied any of the teachings of the Church?
Have I taken part in any non-Catholic worship?
Am I a member of any non-Catholic religious organization, secret society or anti-Catholic group?
Have I knowingly read any heretical, blasphemous or anti-Catholic literature?
Have I practiced any superstitions (such as horoscopes, fortune telling, Ouija board, etc.)?
Have I omitted religious duties or practices through motives of human respect?
Have I recommended myself daily to God?
Have I been faithful to my daily prayers?
Have I abused the Sacraments in any way? Received them irreverently, e.g. Communion in the Hand without obeying the principles and the 7 rules promulgated by Paul VI as binding in this matter?
Have I made fun of God, Our Lady, the Saints, the Church, the Sacraments, other holy things?
Have I been guilty of great irreverence in church, e.g., conversation, behavior, or dress?
Have I been indifferent with regard to my Catholic Faith — believing one can be saved in any religion, that all religions are equal?
Have I presumed on God´s mercy at any time?
Have I despaired of God´s mercy?
Have I hated God?
Have I given too much importance to any creature, activity, object or opinion?

Second Commandment: Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.

Have I sworn by God’s name falsely, rashly or in slight and trivial matters?
Have I murmured or complained against God (blasphemy)?
Have I cursed myself or others, or any creature?
Have I angered others so as to make them swear or blaspheme God?
Have I broken a vow made to God?

Third Commandment: Remember that thou keep holy the Sabbath day.

Have I missed Mass on Sundays or Holy Days of obligation?
Have I been late for Mass on Sundays or Holy Days of obligation or left early through my own fault?
Have I made others miss Mass on Sundays or Holy Days of obligation, leave early or be late for Mass?
Have I been willfully distracted during Mass?
Have I done or commanded unnecessary servile work on Sunday or Holy Days of Obligation?
Have I bought or sold things not of necessity on Sunday and Holy Days of obligation?

Fourth Commandment: Honor thy father and thy mother.

Have I been disobedient or disrespectful to my parents, or have I neglected or refused to aid them in their wants or to do their last will?
Have I shown irreverence to others in positions of authority?
Have I maligned or insulted priests or others consecrated to God?
Have I failed in due reverence to aged persons?
Have I mistreated my spouse or my children?
Have I been disobedient or disrespectful to my husband?
Regarding my children:

Have I neglected their material needs?
Have I failed to care for their early baptism? *(See below.)
Have I failed to care for their proper religious education?
Have I allowed them to neglect their religious duties?
Have I allowed them to date/go steady without the prospect of marriage within the near future? (St. Alphonsus says 1 year maximum.)
Have I failed to supervise the company they keep?
Have I failed to discipline them when they need it?
Have I given them a bad example?
Have I scandalized them by arguing with my spouse in front of my children?
Have I scandalized them by cursing or swearing in front of them?
Have I guarded modesty in the home?
Have I permitted them to wear immodest clothing (mini skirts; tight pants, dresses, or sweaters; see-through blouses, short-shorts, revealing swim suits, etc.)?†
Have I denied their freedom to marry or follow a religious vocation?

*Infants should be baptized as soon as possible. Apart from particular diocesan prescriptions, it appears to be the general view … that an infant should be baptized within about a week or ten days after birth. Many Catholics defer Baptism for a fortnight or a little over. The view that Baptism should be administered within three days after birth is considered too strict. St. Alphonsus, following common opinion, thought that a delay, without reason, beyond ten or eleven days would be a grievous sin. In view of modern custom, which is known and not corrected by local Ordinaries, a delay beyond a month without reason would be a serious sin. If there is no probable danger to the child, parents cannot be convicted of serious sin if they defer Baptism a little beyond three weeks at the outside, but the practice of having an infant baptized within about a week or ten days of birth is to be strongly commended, and indeed an earlier date may be rightly recommended. — H. Davis, S.J., Moral and Pastoral Theology, Vol. III, pg. 65, Sheed and Ward, New York 1935

†Ask for leaflet LF05 The Marylike Standards for Modesty in Dress

Fifth Commandment: Thou shalt not kill.

Have I procured, desired, or hastened the death or bodily injury of anyone?
Have I borne hatred?
Have I oppressed anyone?
Have I desired revenge?
Have I caused enmity between others?
Have I quarreled or fought with anyone?
Have I wished evil on anyone?
Have I intended or attempted to injure or mistreat others?
Is there anyone with whom I refuse to speak, or against whom I bear a grudge?
Have I taken pleasure in anyone’s misfortunes?
Have I been jealous or envious of anyone?
Have I had or attempted to have an abortion or counseled anyone else to do so?
Have I mutilated my body unnecessarily in any way?
Have I entertained thoughts of suicide, desired to commit suicide or attempted suicide?
Have I become drunk, used illicit drugs?
Have I overeaten or do I neglect to eat properly, i.e., nutritious foods?
Have I failed to correct in Charity?
Have I harmed anyone’s soul, especially children, by giving scandal through bad example?
Have I harmed my own soul by intentionally and without necessity exposing it to temptations, e.g.: bad TV, bad music, beaches, etc.

Sixth and Ninth Commandments: Thou shalt not commit adultery. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor´s wife.

Have I denied my spouse his or her marriage rights?
Have I practiced birth control (by pills, devices, withdrawal)?
Have I abused my marriage rights in any other way?
Have I committed adultery or fornication (premarital sex)?
Have I committed any unnatural sin against purity (homosexuality or lesbianism, etc.)?
Have I touched or embraced another impurely?
Have I engaged in prolonged or passionate kissing?
Have I engaged in petting?
Have I sinned impurely by myself (masturbation)?
Have I entertained or taken pleasure in impure thoughts?
Have I indulged in lustful desires for anyone, or willfully desired to see or do anything impure?
Have I willfully indulged in any sexual pleasure whether complete or incomplete?
Have I been an occasion of sin for others by wearing tight or otherwise revealing and immodest clothing?
Have I done anything to provoke or occasion impure thoughts or desires in others deliberately or through carelessness?
Have I read indecent literature or looked at bad pictures?
Have I watched suggestive movies, TV programs, or Internet pornography or permitted my children to do so?
Have I used indecent language or told indecent stories?
Have I willingly listened to such stories?
Have I boasted of my sins or taken delight in past sins?
Have I been in lewd company?
Have I consented to impure glances?
Have I neglected to control my imagination?
Have I prayed at once to banish such bad thoughts and temptations?
Have I avoided laziness, gluttony, idleness, and the occasions of impurity?
Have I attended immodest dances or indecent plays?
Have I unnecessarily remained alone in the company of someone of the opposite sex?

Note Well: Do not be afraid to tell the priest any impure sin you may have committed. Do not hide or try to disguise any such sin. The priest is there to help you and forgive you. Nothing you say will shock him, so do not be afraid, no matter how ashamed you might be.

Seventh and Tenth Commandments: Thou shalt not steal. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor´s goods.

Have I stolen anything? What or how much?
Have I damaged anyone’s property?
Have I negligently spoiled anyone´s property?
Have I been negligent in the stewardship of other people’s money or goods?
Have I cheated or defrauded others?
Have I gambled excessively?
Have I refused or neglected to pay any debts?
Have I acquired anything known to be stolen?
Have I failed to return things borrowed?
Have I cheated my employer of an honest day’s work?
Have I cheated my employees of their wages?
Have I refused or neglected to help anyone in urgent need?
Have I failed to make restitution for my stealing, cheating and frauds? (Ask the priest how to go about making restitution, that is, returning to the owner what you unjustly took from him/her.)
Have I been envious of another because I don´t have what he has?
Have I been jealous of what another has?
Have I been stingy?
Have I been grasping and avaricious, placing too great importance upon material goods and comforts? Is my heart set on earthly possessions or on the true treasures of Heaven?

Eighth Commandment: Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.

Have I lied about anyone (calumny)?
Have my lies caused them any material or spiritual harm?
Have I rashly judged anyone (i.e. believed firmly, without sufficient evidence, that they are guilty of some moral defect or crime)?
Have I injured the good name of another by revealing true but hidden faults (detraction)?
Have I disclosed another´s sins?
Have I been guilty of talebearing, (i.e. reporting something unfavorable said of someone by another so as to create enmity between them)?
Have I lent an ear to or encouraged the spreading of scandal about my neighbor?
Have I taken false oaths or signed false documents?
Am I, without necessity, critical, negative or ever uncharitable in my talk?
Have I flattered others?

Either you make a REAL Examination of Conscience or don’t waste Gods time

http://www.fatima.org/essentials/requests/examconc.asp

Ad Majoram Dei Gloriam