This is my homily for today, the 26th Sunday in Ordinary Time, Cycle A. Today's readings are here.
Wow - Jesus came down hard on the religious authorities in today’s Gospel, didn’t he? Not because he thought that tax collecting and prostitution were admirable ways to live. In fact, under the religious laws of that time, tax collecting and prostitution were considered sinful occupations. In a social world that tended to divide the clean from the unclean, the holy from the sinners, people in these professions were definitely unclean sinners. And in consequence, they were social outcasts, too. Perhaps that’s not too different than our own social norms; we have our versions of respectable and unrespectable, socially acceptable and socially unacceptable, too.
Yet Jesus had the impertinence to inform the religious authorities, those paragons of respectability and ritual purity, that these sinners, these tax collectors and prostitutes, would enter God’s kingdom before them!
It seems Jesus’s view is, what matters is not how socially respectable one is. What matters is whether, when we hear God calling out to us, we respond by following him. Everything else, everything that came before, can be forgiven.
Every year, in January or February, we hear the story of Jesus summoning Peter and Andrew, and James and John, from their fishermen’s boats and following him. And they do so, leaving their boats and their nets behind. This is presented to us as the ideal of how we should respond when Jesus calls: we should immediately say yes – and then we should immediately make changes, even significant or drastic changes, to our lives and our plans, to make that “Yes” real. We must not only say “Yes”; we must live “Yes” as well.
Today’s parable of the two sons shows the two parts of that response. The first part is to say “Yes”. And the second part is to live “Yes” out. The first son fails to say “Yes”, but then succeeds in the second part – which is really the hard part, isn’t it? It’s a lot easier to say “Yes” than to live “Yes”. That’s the second son: the son who says “Yes” but fails to live “Yes”.
In Jesus’s view, the chief priests and elders previously had said “Yes” to God: they had promised to follow and uphold the religious Law. Jesus’s indictment of them is that they had said “Yes” but had failed to live “Yes”. They were the second son. On the other hand, tax collectors and prostitutes with whom Jesus consorted had not initially said “Yes”; in fact, they had been living lives of “No”, living lives of sinfulness. Yet when John the Baptist, and then Jesus, came along and gave them a chance to live “Yes”, they took the opportunity – they grabbed the lifeline. They were the first son.
In our church, we give people the opportunities to say “Yes”. At infant baptisms, parents promise to rear their children in our faith; and godparents promise to help them. The parents and godparents say “Yes”. But what’s more important is that they live “Yes”. The sacrament of baptism is a wonderful thing, but we parents and godparents are really put to the test after the baptism service ends, when we and we return to our homes and try to live out out the promises we’ve made, by teaching our children about Jesus and loving our neighbor and forgiving one another. I get to see our parents in action here, and it’s wonderful to see how many of you have been living “Yes”.
It’s similar in our marriages. At our wedding ceremonies, we promise to be faithful to one another, and to love and honor one another, all the days of our lives. We say “Yes” to one another. And then those sacred promises are put to the test once the wedding and reception and honeymoon end, and we have to live out those promises, day after day after day. We must not only say “Yes”; we must live “Yes” in our marriages. Anyone who has been married knows how difficult this is, and how corrosive to a marriage it can be when one of us fails to be faithful, or fails to love, or fails to honor our spouses. Those of you who are in good marriages are beacons of light to the rest of us, showing us how to live “Yes”.
One of the wonderfully hopeful things about today’s Gospel reading is: it’s never too late to live “Yes”. Even if we’ve been living “No” lives, living in contravention of God’s law and God’s desire for us, we can turn around and say “Yes” – and what is really important, start to live lives of “Yes” to God. Jesus offers us this invitation, not only once, but every single day – constantly. Let our prayer be that we live lives of “Yes” to that invitation.
Good thoughts, Jim. And "yes" may mean different things in different parts of our lives.
ReplyDeleteOne of the wonderfully hopeful things about today’s Gospel reading is: it’s never too late to live “Yes”.
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting to me that (if my impression is correct) when a person dies, the Catholic view is that he or she is judged not by a whole lifetime of good or bad behavior, but by what is the person's disposition at that last moment. To take an extreme example, we have the story of the "good thief," who we might imagine was deserving of execution, but because of a moment of pity entered paradise that day.
When we read a biography, we generally judge a person by his or her entire life, and probably many of us may conclude that the person did some very bad things, while also having done some admirable things. We don't have to approve or disapprove or give a passing or failing grade. But in Catholic thought, the person is eternally rewarded or punished for whatever the state he or she is in at the time of death.
Particularly disturbing is the hypothetical case of a moral monster who makes it to confession during his last moments and achieves salvation, since absolution can received by someone with "imperfect contrition"—not sorrow for bad behavior, but merely the fear of punishment.
I think the good thief's situation was: he didn't get to meet Jesus until the day he died. Presumably that is the case for tax collectors like Zacchaeus, and for the prostitutes who met Jesus.
DeleteFor someone like me, who was baptized as an infant, raised by pious parents, and attended years of Catholic school and a Catholic university, it's a different situation. If I've lived a life of sin and become a moral monster, then it's not a case of my not having previously met Jesus; it's a case of my having met him, many times, and saying "No thanks" and turning my back on him. If I repent as death approaches, I think it's incumbent upon me to make reparation with those whom I've injured. To whom much has been given, much is expected.
"I think the good thief's situation was: he didn't get to meet Jesus until the day he died." Jim, that would be my take on it too.
DeleteAnd I think imperfect contrition is better than no contrition, that God alone knows what caused someone to make a decision that landed them in a bad state at the time of death. I think of someone who had attained sobriety or been drug free for months or years but "fell off the wagon", leading to their death.
Purgatory is an idea which has always made sense to me, not as a punishment but a chance to recognize the consequences of your actions, if you were not resolutely wicked, but had made some mistakes.
" Our Lord's patience is directed toward salvation." (2 Peter 3:15).
I believe that is true, otherwise we'd all be in trouble.
Is it just me, or do concepts like mortal and venial sin, or perfect and imperfect contrition, seem quaint in 2026? Some of the Catholic apologists on TikTok are practically medieval (not that they are necessarily representative of 21st century Catholicism).
ReplyDeleteYes, they do, and the CCC rarely uses them. Some apologists simply enjoy parading arcane info around as if that knowledge is proof of holiness.
DeleteI don't think the old terminology is used anymore. But the ideas of their being degrees of sin, and more complete and less complete contrition,. are still valid.
DeleteI don't know that the terminology is outdated, I've heard it as recently as last week.
DeleteIt was always easier for me to see a sin as something that loosened or cut the bond with God thru the Church. Venial and mortal sin, perfect or partial contrition is jargon that might still be useful in the exalted realm of theologians. Maybe it also carries meaning for preVat2 Catholics?
DeleteI have often thought of sins as analogous to (or the same as) negative actions in a committed relationship. Infidelity might or might not be a "mortal sin" in a marriage. It strikes me as odd, though, to ask questions like, "Is it a sin to go to your son's same-sex wedding?" In real life, do we have catalogs of mortal and venial sin equivalents?
DeleteI think of sin as actions or words that cause harm to others - a violation of love thy neighbor, one of the two great commandments. So infidelity in marriage causes harm,. Lying causes harm - most of the time but if the lie is meant to protect someone from hurt, is it a sin? White lies? Spreading gossip causes harm. Cheating, stealing, etc all cause harm. Anger is tricky - sometimes it causes harm but sometimes it’s a reaction- righteous anger.
DeleteJean, we pre- Vatican II Catholics were thoroughly indoctrinated in concepts like mortal and venial sin, perfect and imperfect contrition etc. And there was a strong (somewhat prurient) focus on any “sins” related to sex in any way. In high school CCD we were told that kissing (especially “ making out) was an occasion of sin. A five second smooch was ok though- maybe. .
Jim, I’m often surprised at your comments - you once said that you didn’t think anyone taught transubstantiation anymore. Aand now you say that you don’t think people talk about mortal/venial sins and perfect/ imperfect contrition. Yet Katherine says she has heard them recently. I wonder if it’s because you were raised mostly in the post Vatican II church instead of the church old folks like me, Jack and Stanley experienced.
Anne - I may have said that about transubstantiation, although I think it's more likely that it is still taught than the mortal/venial distinction.
DeleteI don't doubt that there are priests or others who continue to talk about the mortal/venial distinction, and perhaps it was a priest from whom Katherine recently heard it mentioned(?). The distinction itself is as valid now as it ever was (sin hasn't changed, although our understanding of it evolves).
I hesitate to call the mortal/venial distinction "pre-Vatican-II", as, to the best of my knowledge, the Council did not call for the terms to be retired. And the Catechism of the Catholic Church continues to use the terminology (cf CCC 1854-1864). But ithe Catechism also stresses that there are other ways to think about sin.
Among the critiques of the mortal/venial approach to thinking about sin are: it is a legalistic, crime-and-punishment way of thinking about sin. Just as the legal system has criteria to distinguish manslaughter from murder, there are criteria to distinguish between venial and mortal sins.
The distinction also tends to imply in people's minds that venial sins are negligible and can safely be disregarded, when in fact (at least in my view) sins that might seem relatively trivial taken in isolation, can have a cumulative effect that can cause significant spiritual wounds.
The distinction also carries an implication that all sins are personal, without a social dimension.
The distinction between mortal and venial can also feed the scrupulosity of the overly-anxious and srupulous.
A lot of aspects of the pre-Vatican-II church continue to have new life breathed into them by the Internet and social media. That is true of liturgy, and it is true of the moral life. Some of this is laudable; e.g. I think knowledge of saints' lives is promoted in the online Catholic world. As you can probably tell from my comments here, I don't think clergy are doing the church a good service by continuing to insist upon the mortal/venial distinction, at least to the exclusion of other ways of thinking about sin and forgiveness.
David asks, "In real life, do we have catalogs of mortal and venial sin equivalents?"
DeleteDavid, I am not sure if this is what you are asking, but you may know that priests absolutely used to have manuals that categorized sins and sinful scenarios as mortal or venial, as an aid to giving penance during confessions.
Here is an example of what I think of as pre-Vatican II "Catholic thinking" regarding mortal and venial sins. I am driving on a road trip. The speed limit is 70 mph, but the traffic on the highway seems to be averaging 77-78 mph. If I keep up with traffic, is that a sin? Is it a mortal or a venial sin? What if I go 75? Is that venial, whereas if I accelerate to 80, is that mortal?
DeleteMy own admittedly post-Vatican-II view of this scenario is: I have an obligation to my passengers, others on the road and myself, as well as to a well-ordered society, to drive safely and to not egregiously break a just law. I think I can speed modestly with a clear conscience. I am capable of judging whether I am driving safely - but I probably am not as cognizant of the risks as I think I am (I am not an expert on vehicle engineering, road design, the effects of weather, etc.), so I should have a bias toward driving more slowly than I otherwise would. And I may "take risks" for short periods of time, e.g. accelerate to get past a cluster of bunched-up vehicles that strikes me as posing a safety risk. I can use the brain God gave me to make moral choices without accessing the mortal/venial distinction.
The legalism of official Catholic teaching is often an obstacle to the kind of moral reasoning of your example. If driving over the speed limit is a sin, the sin isn’t due to breaking a man- made law (speed limits) but to the possible risks for harming others. One of the “ten” commandments in a Jewish bible (there are a lot more than ten and they aren’t broken up the same way as in a Catholic bible, and they aren’t numbered) is to keep holy the sabbath. The sabbath was the seventh day of the week, hence the name. But most Christians think the Sabbath is on Sunday ( the Seventh Day Adventists being a notable exception). They define “keeping holy” the sabbath as equating to “go to church services” on Sunday. Catholics go farther and say that missing mass on Sunday is a mortal sin. But the commandment from Moses doesn’t say this (obviously mass didn’t exist then) and Jesus never said missing mass on Sunday is a mortal sin (mass didn’t exist during his lifetime either). The church’s man-made rule insists that missing mass is a mortal sin that could lead to eternal separation from God, But the church ignores some of the specifics of the the Hebrew law which includes “resting” on the Sabbath - no work allowed. Our more Orthodox Jewish neighbors follow this, sometimes interpreting in an extreme way, so some create work arounds. Our former next door neighbor (who died 6 years ago- we still miss him) told us that his father hired a gentile to do certain forbidden tasks on the Sabbath - such as turning on the lights in the house at dark (yup - considered to be “ work”.) He was a Reform Jew as an adult, unlike his parents. So he turned on his own lights. The Orthodox Jews in an adjacent neighborhood all walk to their synagogue on the Sabbath, pushing babies in strollers and elderly in wheelchairs.
DeleteThe Mosaic commandments as written in the Torah (note that women are included in the list of possessions forbidden to covet (#14) like ox and donkeys)
https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/9881/jewish/Chapter-20.htm
It would be a lot better if the RCC focused on teaching moral reasoning in forming moral decisions rather than having a manual of sins. To me, that reasoning would center around the Great Commandment of loving thy neighbor and avoiding doing harm. Your driving story is a good example of this. My husband is an aerospace/ aeronautical engineer but an automobile fan too. He loves cars and he did all the repairs on ours. He owned a racing car for years, finally restored after he retired. He gets upset at people driving the speed limit in the left lane on multi-lane roads when the traffic as a whole is going faster. He says it creates a dangerous situation because people then pass on the right or weave in and out. In that view, the person in the left lane driving the speed limit would be the “sinner” for creating a dangerous situation. Having done so many long distance drives (hundreds and thousands of miles) I know that once away from cities, traffic is thinner and pretty much everyone drives 10-15 miles over the limit without creating a dangerous situation. I drove on highways where I would sometimes realize I was up to 90 - long, straight, flat, dry highways with no other cars in sight. I would slow down because normal cars aren’t designed for such high speeds and out west a herd of bison might suddenly appear and run across the road (happened to me once). Hitting one would probably have killed me and injured the bison!😳
I don't think confessors have sin category manuals anymore.
DeleteAbout mortal sins, I think the three part qualifier still describes them: An action has to be morally grave matter. The person has to know/ realize that it is morally grave. And there has to be sufficient reflection and full consent of the will on the part of the person.
Driving a little too fast out on the open road isn't morally grave. Getting behind the wheel when you are drunk would be.
I think sin is on a continuum, from less serious to more serious. A marriage could be an analogy. Infidelity would potentially destroy the marriage. Little things like taking a spouse for granted or telling little lies to avoid a difficult conversation wouldn't, of themselves. But added up they weaken the relationship. The same would be true of "little sins" weakening one's relationship with God.
Katherine—“I think the three part qualifier still describes them: An action has to be morally grave matter. The person has to know/ realize that it is morally grave. And there has to be sufficient reflection and full consent of the will on the part of the person.“
DeleteYes, I think that is still relevant. In addition, the “sufficient “ reflection must include a decision to deliberately and consciously choose to reject God.
When the conservatives in the Church tsk, tsk about so many people going to communion, but not confession when they’re in a state of mortal sin, it seems they don’t really understand the conditions that define mortal sin, nor do they know Church law, often stating (online anyway) that people are taking communion without going to confession once/year (the “Easter duty”). But although receiving communion once/year actually is a church “law,”, going to confession isn’t required unless one is aware of being in a state of mortal sin.
Given the conditions you reminded us of, how often do you think normal people are actually in a state of mortal sin? How does a person decide whether going over the speed limit is reckless endangerment of others and possibly a mortal sin or just a civil violation?
Are people who “know” God and experience divine love really going to make a conscious decision to reject God’s love? Is it more likely that even though they go to church, pray, and have been taught about God and Jesus they have never experienced divine love— maybe sought it, but not experienced it and so don’t make a fully knowledgeable and conscious choice to turn their back on God?
"Given the conditions you reminded us of, how often do you think normal people are actually in a state of mortal sin?" We would hope not often or at all. I think of it like caution signs and life-buoys on a beach. If you ignore them, it doesn't mean you're going to drown. But it is also an unwise decision.
Delete" I think the three part qualifier still describes them: An action has to be morally grave matter. The person has to know/ realize that it is morally grave. And there has to be sufficient reflection and full consent of the will on the part of the person."
DeleteI agree - I think this three-part framework is helpful to think about the nature and severity of sin.
I would imagine this framework was developed to help the overly scrupulous to assess the seriousness of a particular sin. I suppose scrupulosity is a fairly common problem. Personally, I can have that tendency.
In my view, whatever the opposite of scrupulosity is, that is much more common among people: a lack of sensitivity to the nature and severity of sin. I think many of us have "succeeded" in deadining our consciences to the point that we act without being aware (or perhaps we suppress our awareness) of the moral dimension.
I tended to scrupulosity too, especially as a teenager.
DeleteI think people would be less inclined to deaden their consciences if they considered more about their relationship with God. We profess to love him and be loved by him. It is natural to seek to please a loved one and take care of the relationship.
Is deadening the conscience about everyday (venial?) sins the same as conscious rejection of a relationship with God? If not, then even if something is objectively immoral, it doesn’t necessarily qualify as a mortal sin because it doesn’t include that conscious rejection. But determining morality objectively is pretty tough.
DeleteSometimes sin is in the eye of the beholder - Catholic clerics teach that modern contraception is a mortal sin. A sin so serious that it could lead to eternal separation from God (seriously?) This notion is based on ancient pagan philosophy. . Most Catholic couples don’t see it as an objective wrong but as morally neutral. Contraception is a gift to married couples, who generally use it in order to strengthen the love between them. It facilitates a closer, loving relationship in marriage. But if used to be unfaithful to a spouse it can facilitate harm. Harming others is a sin against the commandments to love. But in itself modern contraception is morally neutral and not evil or sinful. Food is morally neutral , but if abused, leads to harm and the sin of gluttony ( based on group photos of bishops and cardinals it seems that many of them should examine their consciences about this). Morally neutral acts can be used for good or bad, but are not intrinsically evil. NFP mandates an un-natural lifestyle and involves un- natural practices such as using basal temperature thermometers daily and self examination of vaginal mucus. Hardly natural. The clerics claim that contraception (excluding NFP) is an obstacle to the natural sexual result of conception, ignoring the reality that through most people’s lives, it’s far more important function is the unitive support it provides marriage. NFP often damages marital relationships, so it can be harmful. When it harms the marriage it’s practice can be sinful. But not always, because like modern contraception, it is also, in itself, a morally neutral method of family planning that works for a few but not for most.
I've never felt that Catholicism offered much room for the laity to make moral assessments of the type Anne describes above.
DeleteTo couples who want to limit family size, there's NFP or plain old abstinence. NFP has its promoters who say that it brings couples closer together spiritually.
Medieval lore is full of stories of couples who achieve marital bliss without intercourse, and occasionally these types of stories surface still, whether religiously motivated or not: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/magnetic-partners/202203/why-some-of-the-happiest-couples-never-have-sex
And long marriages often end in celibacy due to illness without eroding the relationship.
So my guess is that the Church would take a dim view of couples claiming that sex was a necessary part of their marriage such that they needed to use contraception.
Jean, the church should love you because you “ think with the church” and accept all their arguments. For most of us, if illness or old age ( or paralysis) impedes marital lovemaking it’s something that couples can deal with. They have built the relationship over years. But to treat normal marital lovemaking as an occasion of sin if the chances of procreation are reduced is the real sin in my opinion. If NFP works for some, great. But it doesn’t work for most which is why 95% of Catholics use modern birth control methods at some point during their marriage. When the family is complete, almost half of women get their tubes tied. Some men get vasectomies. The NFP crowd pushes it as a way to grow together spiritually, but according to what I’ve read, many conservative Catholic women are miserable using NFP but fear complaining because of how they will be judged. So they give anonymous interviews or comment anonymously online about the subject. I have no issue with them choosing whatever works best for their marriage and they should not have an issue with others who find modern contraception best supports their marriages. It took the church more than 2000 years to grudgingly admit that marital lovemaking is a strong unitive factor in marriage and that the point of marriage isn't exclusively limited to producing babies. Another bad thing the church does is teach that a couple shouldn’t marry if they do not plan to have children. For these clerics, sex is about producing more baby Catholics and so it’s tolerated as a necessary evil ( see Augustine for example) lovemaking to share love isn’t really essential. The stories of marital bliss without physical love should not be held up as ideal. So canonizing two married couples who became celibate by choice after dutifully producing a few baby Catholics is another sign of the church’s distaste for sex, even marital sex. It would be nice to canonize a couple of normal married couples.
DeleteNot advocating for or against Church teaching on contraception or other matters. Did not seem sensible to me, but I didn't see much wiggle room. After years of reflection, I felt I was not Catholic material, so I left.
DeleteJust my view: I think the NFP vs contraception ship sailed, a long, long time ago. I don't doubt there are couples that are "NFP-observant" but I don't think there are very many.
DeleteMy take is, most adults these days are genuinely puzzled by the church's objections to contraception. If they don't understand what is being asked of them, I don't see how it can be classified as a mortal sin if they don't do it.
More broadly, I think the claim "using contraception is a mortal sin", whatever the truth of it, is an instance of the "accountants-of-sin" approach that contitutes a critique of the mortal/venial framework.
If anyone ever asked me what to teach about this, I'd probably lead with the church's teaching which I consider to be the root of this question: married couples should be open to having children. I think that is something that everyone can understand. It is something I can ask myself, and discuss with my spouse, regarding our marriage: are we open to having children? What are the practical implications on our marriage to be open to having children? What things in our marriage and relationship are we willing to sacrifice in order to accommodate children? Does it mean I need to trim my self-indulgent expenditures? Does it mean I may need to remove myself from my career and the labor market for a time? Does it mean we may need to relocate to be live in an affordable and safe area for a larger family? These are useful things for a couple to explore, even before they are married, and also after they are married.
Great questions. Maybe cradle Catholics can plug into DoubleThink easier than us dumb converts.
DeleteI think where the church's teaching gets in trouble is the insistence that every sexual act should be open to children, rather than a general teaching that marriage should be open to children. Even there we know that not every marriage can be open to children. Older people do get married, and some people are unable to have children for medical reasons.
DeleteI would like to see more of a focus on actual children, rather than philosophical discussions of sex. That would mean being part of the "village" that is supportive of a good life for children, whether they are one's own or someone else's. That might mean being supportive of good schools and safe housing. And definitely means opposing separating parents and children and putting them in internment camps, and mistreating pregnant women.
Certainly sums up what I see as a sensible and practical attitude to married family life, and most Catholics I know see it that way.
DeleteJim, not everyone wants to have children. They are not open to it. We have friends who decided that before getting married and she had her tubes tied before the wedding. They are still happily married after more than 50 years. Would the church have denied them marriage if they had been Catholic? Does the church deny marriage to Catholic couples now who have decided that they really do not want to have children? I don’t remember being asked if we were open to having children. When we married I really wasn’t at all sure that I wanted to have children but we never seriously discussed that question. If I had told the priest that I wasn’t sure if I wanted to have children I wonder if they would have slammed the church door in our faces.
Delete" Does the church deny marriage to Catholic couples now who have decided that they really do not want to have children? "
DeleteWell, in a word - yes. It's in the rite itself:
"(The following question may be omitted if circumstances suggest this, for example, if the couple is advanced in years.)
"Are you prepared to accept children lovingly from God and to bring them up according to the law of Christ and his Church?
"The bridegroom and bride each say: I am."
At least in our archdiocese, agreeing to accept children also appears in a questionnaire that each of the prospective spouses fills out (in the presence of the clergy, but not in the presence of the fiance) at the beginning of the journey toward the Catholic wedding. This is along with questions that run along the lines of, 'Were you previously married?', 'Are you of age?', 'Have you been coerced in any way to agree to marry this person?'
Now - if the couple (or either of the spouses) can't, in good conscience, assent to being open to having children, then what should happen is for the clergyman to sit down with the spouses and have a discussion about it - possibly several conversations. This provides the clergyman an opportunity to explain to the couple why being open to children is, according to church teaching, intrinsic to marriage (and the "marital act"). In short: it provides an opportunity for accompaniment.
Ideally, even if the couple decide that they can't in good conscience make the promise the church needs them to make, at least they can part on friendly terms with the clergyman, who should stress that, should they experience a change of heart, the church doors are always open; and should they decide on a courthouse or similarly secular wedding, there is such a thing as a convalidation which can happen in the future; etc.
Having said all that, I don't doubt there are clergy who, upon hearing, "I'm sorry, I really don't want children, plan not to have any, and have taken steps to ensure we can't have any", would respond with, "Then get the h*ll out of my office". I can't stand those guys.
I actually think there's more wiggle room than that.That question is still probably in the ceremony in our archdiocese too. I remember a lot of years ago when my great-uncle married his second wife (both were previously widowed). And they were probably in their late sixties at the time. They both said "yes" to that question. And everyone laughed about it afterwards.
DeleteI think the pertinent question for younger people to address (at the time of pre-marriage sessions, not in the ceremony) is, whether or not you intend to have children, if a pregnancy happens anyway, will you do the right thing and see it through, and raise and love them?
There are people who carry the gene for something like Huntington's disease, who have surgical sterilization prior to even thinking about getting married. The church doesn't require people to try and get that reversed once it as happened. And I don't think they refuse to marry a couple who are unable to have children, for whatever reason.
In real life one size doesn't fit all.
I wish the institutional church could sort these things out, but they can't. Because it would probably set off a schism.
Well, the nasty priest and the nice priest are both still refusing to respect the consciences of a couple who do not want children by refusing to officiate and witness the marriage in the church. And that’s wrong. Trying to force people to agree to have children by saying “ Well then, no church wedding for you” is a form of blackmail. Not everyone is suited to parenthood and, tragically, many unsuitable people become parents end up abusing their kids, physically or emotionally or both. The church puts couples through endless hoops these days to marry in the church. They should do the same before couples decide to get pregnant. They should help them do a serious self- analysis as to their suitability for parenthood while allowing the church wedding and letting the couple have time to do the self- reflection.
Delete. . The church ignores the reality that the reason to marry is love - not to produce children for anyone but themselves, to share their love, —if they want children. Not for parents, not for the church, and definitely not for the economy. Pressure on couples to have children is wrong.
I think of pledging to accept a child as meaning a pledge that an accidental pregnancy would be carried to term. No abortion. I don’t remember if those words you mentioned were in our marriage ceremony. I don’t think so but we were married by a very VII priest - he was among the hundreds of priests who signed the statement published as a full page in the NYT protesting Humanae Vitae. EJDionne wrote about him when he retired— an amazing priest who moved to Dionne’s parish after leaving ours.
I remember almost nothing about our wedding ceremony actually. It was a relatively lowkey event, although we did have a full nuptial mass and my Protestant husband received communion at the pastor’s invitation. We had a home reception - buffet trays from the supermarket- at my sister’s house, the same sister who lent me her wedding dress. I had no money for a big fancy wedding, my mother had no money, my father was somewhere but not involved. I was very much in love and happy to be getting married and didn’t care about fancy gowns or receptions. But I was so nervous my husband worried about me walking down the aisle because he could see me shaking and my brother steadying me. He was afraid I would fall. ( my father wasn’t there). It took me a while to decide to try for a child. My husband wanted children and, of course, once I agreed we ended up with three wonderful sons. But were married for six years when our eldest was born. Even after I decided ok to kids I experienced two miscarriages in the year before I carried to term. I wondered then if God was sending me a message that I shout have kids. But it worked out for us.
I was afraid that having children would damage our relationship because I had seen many couples’ relationships go downhill after the first baby. Studies do show that the first sharp rise in divorce comes a year or two after the first child is born. Having a baby dramatically changes the relationship. Would be parents need to understand this and take plenty of time before having children. I had also observed that couples we knew who had CHOSEN not to have kids were seemed much happier than the couples with kids who had been married the same amount of time. Those who wanted kids but couldn’t have them are a different story. I also knew that my father had never wanted kids but couldn’t persuade his Irish Catholic wife to use the primitive birth control available in the 1940s. So they had five. Essentially the marriage as a love relationship was over before I was even born, although the divorce didn’t come until I was 17. They had lived apart for years before the divorce.
"Trying to force people to agree to have children by saying, 'Well then, no church wedding for you,' is a form of blackmail."
DeleteIf a sacramental Catholic marriage means being willing to welcome children and the couple can't buy into that, what right do they have to demand to be married in the Church despite that?
"I actually think there's more wiggle room than that...There are people who carry the gene for something like Huntington's disease, who have surgical sterilization prior to even thinking about getting married. The church doesn't require people to try and get that reversed once it as happened. And I don't think they refuse to marry a couple who are unable to have children, for whatever reason."
DeleteRIght. The way it's phrased in the liturgical book is, "Are you prepared to accept children lovingly from God...?" If by some miraculous or seemingly-miraculous series of events, she wife finds herself expecting, is she open to that? That's how I would interpret it.
As an aside, I'd note this is one of those unusual "special cases" which don't apply to the majority, probably the vast majority, of young couples looking to get married. It's something for the church to consider (and as I tried to note in the previous paragraph, I think the church accommodates it in the way it has phrased the liturgical formula), but it doesn't invalidate the church holding to the criterion we're discussing. (Not that I think you are looking to do that, Katherine.)
"Well, the nasty priest and the nice priest are both still refusing to respect the consciences of a couple who do not want children by refusing to officiate and witness the marriage in the church."
DeleteNot at all. There is no human right or civil right or conscience right to be married in a Catholic church. The church believes what it believes, and it offers weddings to believers (and those the believers wish to marry). If the couple believe something different - then they do. And in that case, there are innumberable other options for them. Even in the days my parents were married, there was the court house, Las Vegas, churches belonging to other religions, and so on. And these days, Adam Sandler can officiate at your wedding, if you happen to know him. If he's not available, your best friend or your favorite boss from your former job can get an insta-license, and you can have your wedding on the beach.
All that said - I understand that there can be deep disappointment if the groom or the bride always assumed, or even dreamed, of getting married in the family parish. And I get the family pressure, that mom and/or the grandparents want a Catholic wedding. We see the same things with baptisms of babies whose parents' shadows rarely if ever darken the doorway of a church. For infant baptisms, too, we require preparation, and we ask questions during the ceremony to which we expect assent. We even walk the parents, line by line, through the Apostle's Creed, expect them to assent to each article.
It's some real mature, adult stuff. It may require a young fiance, or a young parent, to break their parents' or grandparents' hearts by telling them, I'm sorry but I don't believe what the chiurch believes, so we're going to do something different. It's pretty common.
Anne, we didn't want kids immediately, either. We both were starting grad school and didn't think we were in the time of life for kds. My wife also experienced several miscarriages before our oldest child made it to term. It's deeply painful. I'm sorry for you.
DeleteAnd your wedding sounds wonderful! I wish young couples going deeply into debt to have their idea of what a wedding should be, would read your description.
To me this whole issue is complicated by the fact that the Roman Rite (but not Eastern Rites) views the bride and groom as the actual ministers of the sacrament. The priest or deacon is only a witness. In earlier versions of canon law, I think that there was something similar to "common law" marriages where sacramental marriages were recognized especially in circumstances where clergy were unavailable.
DeleteIt seems to me that if couples are the actual ministers, then they should know when a sacrament has taken place, whether by common law or civil marriage, or when it has not taken place (that is a church marriage was invalid and should be annulled, i.e. regarded as non-existent).
In many times and places "church weddings" have been for the wealthy and were about family property rather than the raising of children which was taken care of by nannies, slaves, etc.
It is interesting the Orthodox Church which views marriage as being conferred by the priest are much more willing to admit that some marriages fail, and therefore allow divorced persons to remarry, while the Catholic Church spends a lot of time and energy having clergy litigate about whether or not a marriage has taken place, rather than just talking to the couple.
Jack, the Orthodox seem to have much more understanding of the real world of marriage and family than the Catholic Church does. They don’t require such a pledge when marrying and they also handle divorce in a far better way than the Catholics. I suspect that the fact that most religions Orthodox priests are married and most Orthodox bishops were married at some point and widowed contributes to their greater understanding of the realities.
DeleteWe had our oldest when I was 23. It was planned, and happened within a month once we made up our minds to try. We were too dumb to worry about whether we were qualified. One thing we found out is that parenthood grows you up in a hurry.
DeleteOk - this and then I’ll go away.
DeleteJean and Jim, it sometimes seems that you think that every Catholic who participates in sacraments agrees with every single teaching of the church, treating them as dogma, not doctrine—which is not defined as “infallible “ even by the church itself. If that were a requirement there would be very few people eligible for Catholic sacraments. Few Catholics realize that some “saints” were excommunicated before the church slowly grasped the truth of their dissent. Few Catholics know that many present day dissenters (priests, nuns, theologians) are not excommunicated because not every teaching is infallible dogma. Few Catholics understand primacy of conscience. Few are familiar with Newman’s teaching about “On Consulting the Faithful on Matters of Doctrine” or the Sensus Fidelium. The church actually does provide a lot of “:wiggle room”. It often described itself as a “big tent” before the conservative forces started undermining Vatican II. The hard-nosed conservatives in the church don’t want the “simple faithful” to realize any of this, but to blindly obey, pay, and pray (lowest of the priorities). .
This question - “Are you prepared to accept children lovingly from God …? ” actually provides a lot of wiggle room - because it’s a matter of interpretation. I would interpret it as accepting an unplanned pregnancy and carrying to term, but not a requirement to have children if physically possible. I didn’t know about this rule until I read an article long after we married about the church denying a sacramental marriage to a couple whose male half was paralyzed and physically unable to have intercourse. I was horrified because it showed so clearly that the church doesn’t understand that the holiness of marriage, the sacrament, subsists in the love of the shared love of couple not in procreation. It was ironic too, since the church upholds virginity as the ideal state.
When we married I’m pretty sure that question wasn’t part of the ceremony. I know we didn’t fill out a questionnaire. We didn’t have to do a pre- Cana retreat. We met with the pastor and talked. He knew I had not been going to mass regularly and that my husband wasn’t Catholic. His questions centered on what we would call “identity”today. Basically he wanted to know if I “felt” Catholic, if being Catholic was meaningful to me. I guess he decided there was hope for me. I stuck around for more than 30 years before finally throwing in the towel. We raised the boys Catholic, even sending them to mostly Catholic schools. But I did tell the boys that their religious choices when they grew up were their own, and let them know that I dissent from some Catholic teachings. I taught them about primacy of conscience and never made them go to confession after the first one. If I had been told that I had to swear I would not try to avoid conceiving children I might have done what Jim recommends and gone elsewhere. I couldn’t have made that promise in good conscience at that time. It took a few years to come around to wanting to have children.
We also met with the young assistant priest three times. He asked about our careers and about how we saw our roles after marriage and children (if we had them) - basically wanting to know if we had discussed whether or not I would continue to work or stay at home after marriage or kids. (In those days many women quit jobs when they married - before having kids). There was no right or wrong - he wanted to see if we were on the same page. He told us that this question created a lot of arguments sometimes. Most of the time we just chatted about music or politics or the state of the world.
I eventually came to a belief that sin is a violation of the command to love, that sin is something that causes harm. I realized that some church teachings cause harm - institutional sin. That’s when I left active participation in Catholicism- I didn’t want to cooperate with the institutional sins as a passive participant.
"... it sometimes seems that you think that every Catholic who participates in sacraments agrees with every single teaching of the church ..."
DeleteI don't really care what other Catholics agree with, honestly, or why you care what I think.
I tried being Catholic for 20 years, and it drove me nuts. My only interest in organized religion now is to support Raber, who has stayed with the Church despite his own doubts and cordial dislike of the local priest.
"This question - “Are you prepared to accept children lovingly from God …? ” actually provides a lot of wiggle room - because it’s a matter of interpretation. I would interpret it as accepting an unplanned pregnancy and carrying to term, but not a requirement to have children if physically possible. "
DeleteI pretty much agree. It certainly doesn't require couples to have children. It does require that they be open to having children. (As we've discussed, some couples or individual spouses may not be open to having children). I'd say "being open" includes actually having the child, should a pregnancy transpire.
Humanae Vitae goes much farther and states that using technology or artificial barriers to prevent conception is the opposite of being open to having children.
Jim, the bishops on the birth control commission voted overwhelmingly in support of changing that teaching. They reversed their position from the first vote to the final because during subsequent meetings they had invited married people (and medical professionals) to testify about their experiences. They were told the truth by these witnesses about the enormous stress placed on marriages by this teaching and the damage done by it. But conservative Vatican politicians persuaded Paul VI that changing that teaching would damage papal credibility- if they admitted to being wrong about this, it would undermine trust in all church teachings, including other papal pronouncements.
DeleteIronically, it seems that it caused the laity to simply tune out all Vatican guidance on sexual morality, which is also unfortunate.
. “According to Andrew Greeley, Pope Paul VI's 1968 encyclical Humanae Vitae was a disastrous turning point that caused a massive crisis of authority, credibility, and participation in the Catholic Church.” (wiki’) This led to the steep drop in mass attendance and observance that studies showed occurred between 1968-1975” (it’s never recovered). This precipitous drop was linked to a collapse in trust of papal authority and loss of credibility in church pronouncements. So HV brought about the loss of papal authority which was the very reason Ottaviani and his buddies wanted Paul VI to reject the findings of the Birth Control Commission. It backfired spectacularly. Apparently Paul VI at one point even had a spokesman clarify that HV is not an infallible teaching.
Their reasoning about “natural” with the NFP teaching is twisted. It’s nonsense to call it a “natural” way to avoid conception. It’s birth control, just as the pill and conforms are. Besides, using basal temperature thermometers and, these days, apps, IS using technology. In addition, the lifestyle imposed by NFP is an artificial lifestyle, denying the normal ebb and flow of marital lovemaking. They look at marital sex as tolerable in order to produce kids, while ignoring that marital sex’s most important role is supporting the unitive aspects of the love relationship. As Newman once noted, a teaching that is not received by the faithful is usually in error. The data show that 93-95% of the Catholic laity reject the contraception teaching. But it’s tough for the clerical class to admit it’s a wrong teaching when the church has backed itself into a corner with a different erroneous teaching - infallibility. So rather than lose face, it basically ignores the reality that the Church - the billion + laity - has largely rejected this teaching because they know that the claim that NFP is “natural” is laughable. It works for some, but they are a small group.
The church is perpetuating a false teaching. It is not the first time it’s done this in its history, and it takes the church centuries to “develop“ a teaching that is wrong to rectify the errors. Newman believed that “when a proposed or official teaching lacks the reception or "consent" (consensus) of the Catholic laity, it can signal a profound breakdown or failure in the church's hierarchical leadership.”
That’s what happened when HV was published.
PS. Jim, I realize that, as a deacon, you have to provide the official line on a public platform. You explain official teachings and I play the role of gadfly or devils advocate taking a contrarian stance. I read that Leo is really pushing synodality (apparently fought by American bishops) . Perhaps someday that will allow the voice of the faithful to come through, even on doctrine, and not be limited to governance. . But it will be years. Maybe centuries.
Delete"PS. Jim, I realize that, as a deacon, you have to provide the official line on a public platform."
DeleteI guess that is the institution's expectation. I try to say what I think here.
David, personally, I think that a whole lot of traditional Catholic teaching is midaevil and should be relegated to what the Anglicans refer to as “historic documents “, especially the “Thirty- nine Articles of Religion” which defines their Protestant doctrines and denounces “ Romish” doctrine. There are many problematic teachings in the RCC.
ReplyDeleteVery much unrelated, maybe it's a venial sin that I am enjoying Senator Eric Schmidt's embarrassing day at work too much. Who knew the Atlanta Hawks and the Iowa State Hawkeyes aren't the same team! I still don't understand how they thought placing Jack Smith in Atlanta at a Hawks game on February 3, 2024 was going to convict him of perjury.
ReplyDeleteLord! If nothing else, the Trump administration has thrown into high relief how many morons and invertebrates we have in Congress. We need better people. But my home care people told me they're putting a lo-jack on my TV so I can't watch this stuff.
DeleteWhat is a lo- jack? I probably need one on my phone!
Delete