I must say that in the past I was not always as on board as I should have been when it came to the feast of the Sacred Heart. As I man I have struggled especially with some of the Sacred Heart images of past years, especially from the 1940s into the 1970s that frankly made Jesus look like a bearded lady. Deep red lips, baby soft skin, and a “come-hither” look, head tilted in a rather feminine manner and the long slender fingers and strangely bent wrists all seemed too feminine for me. See for example here: Sacred Heart. Frankly the feminized portrayal of Jesus made me cringe. “Maybe this works for some,” I thought, ” But not for me.” Women are beautiful but men shouldn’t look like women.
Then too, the whole notion of the heart has become rather distorted. The heart is largely thought of by most as the domain of sentimental feelings, and of romance. Stronger Biblical notions of the heart were lost in favor of these sentimental and romantic ones. So there Jesus was pointing to heart, to indicate his Love but I experienced it through the current notion of sentiment and romance. While the true teaching on the Sacred Heart was much richer and proper, the version that reached me was distorted and had little appeal for me.
In recent years I have tried to recover a more proper notion of the Feast of the Sacred Heart. I have done this by coming to understand the heart in a more Biblical way. I have also done this by learning to understand the heart of Christ in a stronger way that is more helpful for me.
Recovering a more Biblical understanding of the heart – In celebrating the heart of the Lord Jesus, we ought to see it in a more Biblical way. In the Biblical world the heart did not exclude feelings but feelings were more located in the gut. Things such as tenderness, mercy, love and emotions were spoken of in terms more visceral than we are comfortable with today. Most of our modern translations do not literally render the Hebrew and Greek references which speak of the “bowels of mercy” in God or in the human person. Most modern translations render the Hebrew “bowels of mercy” as “tender mercy” and expressions such as “my bowels are moved within me” as “My heart is moved within me.” We just don’t talk about bowels today in polite company!
I say this to indicate that for the Biblical writers, feeling, sentiment, mercy and so forth were not usually located in the heart but elsewhere. You can see this if you get a rather literal rendering of the Hebrew and Greek such as the Douay Rheims or Young’s Literal Translation and refer to passages such as this: Gen 43:30; 1 Kings 3:26; Song 5:4; Is 63:15; Jer 31:20; Lam 2″11; 2 Cr 6:12; Phil 1:8; Phil 2:1; Col 3:12 etc. While feelings such as anxiety, fear, romance, tenderness etc. were pondered in the heart their real “place” was shifted down one level to the “gut” or viscera. We do have some vestiges of these ancient notions in expressions like “gut reaction” or “butterflies in my stomach.”
So what then IS the biblical notion of the heart? While not wholly excluding feelings, the “Heart” in the scriptures is the deepest part of us where we “live.” It is where we deliberate, where our memories and thoughts are. It is where we process feelings and events. It is where we ponder what to do and decide. It is where we reflect and consider the direction of our life and most deeply understand who we are and how we are related to God and others. It is the place of our decisions and where we set priorities. In short is it the place where “I am” in the deepest sense. Most moderns locate this in the brain (or mind, a word that the Scriptures often use for a similar understanding) but the ancients located all this in the heart.
A broader and stronger notion of the heart – Hence, as we ponder the Heart of Christ on this feast of the Sacred Heart we do not wholly exclude his tender feelings for us. But we must also broaden our notions of what it means to celebrate the Heart of Christ. The Heart of Christ is where he lives and is most essentially His very self. Hence his human heart is a heart that first of all worships and obeys his Father. It is in his heart that he ponders his Father’s will and sets out to obey it. It was in his heart that he set his face like flint for Jerusalem (Lk 9:51) and said to this apostles, “the world must know that I love the Father and that I do just as the Father has commanded me” (John 14:31). It is in his heart that he decides to lay down his life for us: No one takes it from me, but I lay it down on my own. I have power to lay it down, and power to take it up again. This command I have received from my Father (Jn 10:18). Isaiah had said of Jesus: Oblatus est quia ipse voluit (He was offered because he himself willed it) (Is 53:7). It is ultimately by Christ’s obedience that we are saved and this was determined in his heart. His love was manifest by his decision both to obey his Father and to die for us. This is deeper than emotion or feeling though it does not exclude them. When the solider thrust a lance in his Chest and heaved it open there was revealed the human heart of Christ who resolutely chose to save us. There was also revealed the very heart of God who loves us infinitely.
A heart tender but also strong – On this feast of the Sacred Heart of Jesus we celebrate not just that he loves us in an emotional sense, but even more, that he decided to die for us. He freely pondered what our salvation would cost him and took up the cross. He chose to obey the Father for us. His is love his tender but it is also decisive. The warmth of his love is sure but the wounds of his obedience also speaks of a love that is strong and enduring unto the end.
Sentiment has it’s place, but (perhaps because I am a man) I need more. On this feast of the Sacred Heart I am glad to point to a love that is strong, obedient, loyal and sacrificial. A love that engages the battle on my behalf and summons me to follow. A love that is not just visceral but is of the true and deep Heart of Christ, a heart tender but also strong.
This video has many images of the Jesus, (some better than others). Sacred Heart of Jesus, Have mercy on us!
It is a rather sad sounding description isn’t it? “Ordinary Time” hmm… The Latin title for this time period isn’t all that impressive either: Tempus per annum (Time through the year). But maybe there IS some inspiration here after all. The faith is not just something reserved for extraordinary moments and seasons. It is meant to be lived in all the ordinary moments of life too, it is meant to be lived through the year.
The liturgical readings and prayers of Ordinary Time emphasize discipleship. What does it mean to be a disciple of Jesus in matters such as decisions, money, use of time, priorities, etc? How to do we encounter the Kingdom of God and perceive it in our daily lives? What are the conditions of discipleship? How will we ultimately be judged? These are some of the themes of Ordinary Time.
So, encounter God in the “ordinary” in the time through the year, even on vacation this summer. There is no vacation from our vocation. Do miss what God is doing, even in the ordinary.
Last Sunday when I was at the Jubilarian Mass at the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception, I had the opportunity to see the exhibit “Paintings on Silk” which currently is open to the public in the Memorial Hall of the National Shrine. I was immediately drawn to the paintings, especially the faces which appear to capture the mystery of the moment, seemingly fully present to the unfolding of Salvation history in which they have found themselves; they radiate a holiness that is the one and universal vocation.
Exquisite in detail
The artist, Manisha [her Baptismal name is Theresa] Winchell, a Catholic from Rajasthan, India takes a new look at paintings by Fra Angelico and the depiction of Our Lady of Guadalupe bringing India’s vivid colors – see for example the oranges, blues and yellows in the wings of the angel in the Annunciation – and intricate decorations onto the silken canvas. Upon close inspection of these highly detailed decorations one discovers Scripture, in Greek, Latin and Sanskrit, thus giving the paintings an additional spiritual dimension. Manisha shared with me that as she painted Mary’s robes it made her feel as if she were there in each story in Mary’s life and the design of the robes taught her something about Mary. Marrying the exquisite detail of Indian saris and a prayer of praise, Mary’s response to the angel is written on the hem of her robe.
A lesson in inculturation
Gazing at the silk paintings I was reminded of what we mean by inculturation. Inculturation is the word that the Catholic Church uses to speak of how the seeds of the Gospel are planted in every culture. The Gospel then can be incorporated in a particular culture’s customs and traditions. It is obvious to the observer that Our Lady of Guadalupe and the paintings of Fra Angelico speak to somebody who did not grow up in our Western culture and are at the same time enriched by that culture’s contribution. In “The Bridegroom,” it is Indian culture that predominates as one is drawn to a striking image of Mary, clothed in traditional Rajasthani dress walking with her son, Jesus, clothed as a bridegroom. While at first it seems completely unfamiliar to the Western observer, the imagery certainly is not. This painting captures the universal dimension of Catholic spirituality.
Mary, teacher of love
In the ministry of evangelization, we talk a lot about how to celebrate the diversity of the church of Washington in a way that celebrates the universality of our faith. In Manisha’s paintings, she captures it in the faces of the Mary, Jesus and the characters of her work. Manisha’s hope for people who view the exhibit is that “their minds will be raised to Mary, and that they will grow close to her because Mary is a teacher of love.”
The exhibit runs through June 24. Do make plans to visit.
Some years ago Fr. Patrick Smith, a friend of mine and a priest of this Archdiocese preached a sermon wherein he asked if the Church was a clubhouse or a lighthouse.
Many it would seem want the Church just to be a friendly place where people can gather. Many of these same people get angry when the Church shines the light of truth on something. They declare that the Church should just be open and inviting. They object when She is challenging and points to the demands of the Gospel.
But the Church has to be more than a clubhouse otherwise she is no different than a bowling league or the Moose Lodge. She is most certainly meant to be a lighthouse, warning of danger, giving light to those in darkness but also risking that some who are accustomed to the darkness, will complain of the Light of Christ she reflects.
It was indeed a fine sermon and its message is essential and profound. I was mindful of that sermon when I ran across the video below from Ignitermedia.com which asks if the Church is a Cruise ship or a Battleship.
Many it would seem surely think of the Church more like a cruise ship. One that exists for my pleasure and entertainment. “Peel me a grape!” seems to be the attitude that some bring to Church. The video does a good job listing how people think of the Church as a cruise ship by listing the questions many ask of a luxury cruise liner:
Do I like the music they play in the ballroom?
Do I like the captain and his crew?
Is the service good?
Am I well fed?
Are my needs met promptly?
Is the cruise pleasant?
Am I comfortable?
Will I cruise with them again?
It is a true fact that our parishes ought to work very hard to make sure the faithful are effectively served and helped to find God. Good sermons, excellent and obedient liturgy to include good music, a beautiful Church and dedicated clergy and lay staff. God deserves the very best and so do his people. However it also follows that the world does not exist merely to please me. No parish we attend will ever be exactly the way we want it. No priest preaches perfectly every Sunday. The choir does not always sing my favorites.
Some people stay away from Church and call it boring or say they aren’t being fed. But in the end, it’s not about you! We go to Mass to worship God because God is worthy, because God deserves our praise and because he has commanded us to be there. God has something important to say to us whether we want to hear it or not. He directs us to eat his flesh and drink his blood whether we like it or not. We must eat or we will die. Holy Mass is about God and what he is saying and doing.
The video goes on to suggest a better image for the Church as a Battleship. I was less impressed with the criteria they gave comparing the Church and a battleship and so I have added my some of my own as well:
Is the ship on a clear and noble mission?
Is the ship able to endure storms at sea?
Does the captain submit to a higher authority?
Are the tactics and moves of the enemy well understood by bridge crew?
Does the bridge crew have proper training and experience?
Are the general crew members equipped to succeed?
Is the general crew well trained in the available weaponry?
Does the general crew cooperate with the captain?
Are they taught to be disciplined and vigilant?
Are they rooted in (naval) tradition yet well aware of current circumstances?
Are they at their posts?
Do they take the battle seriously?
Does the ship have adequate first aid and medical help?
Is the crew properly fed?
Some dislike any military imagery in reference to the faith. But pugna spiritalis(spiritual battle) is simply a fact. We are besieged by the world, the flesh, and the devil. We are called to engage the battle and by God’s grace with through to victory. Our weapons are the Word of God, the Teachings of the Church, the Sacraments, and prayer. We cannot win on our own but must work together under the authority of the Church which is herself under God’s care and authority. We are rooted in the wisdom of tradition and guided by the Pope and Bishops to apply that wisdom and our training to these current times. Peter’s Barque has endured many storms, yet has never sunk. She is a sure a steady ship on a clear and noble mission.
Any day that I wear my “Grace if Enough” tee shirt, I’m bound to have an interesting conversation with someone. In fact, sometimes that’s exactly why I wear it.
One day I was at Teaism in Dupont Circle and a man who was there with his daughter asked, “What does your shirt mean?” Great question!
The quote (and the title of a song by Matt Maher whose concert is where I purchased the tee) comes from 2 Corinthians 12:9:
Therefore, that I might not become too elated, a thorn in the flesh was given to me, an angel of Satan, to beat me, to keep me from being too elated. Three times I begged the Lord about this, that it might leave me, but he said to me, “My grace is enough for you, for power is made perfect in weakness.” I will rather boast most gladly of my weaknesses, in order that the power of Christ may dwell with me. Therefore, I am content with weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and constraints, for the sake of Christ; for when I am weak, then I am strong.
Today was no different. I was at the grocery store, and as I was checking out the cashier said to me “Is your name Grace?” I giggled and said, “No, it’s the Grace of God!”
As I left the store, the lyrics of another musician came to mind…my fav, U2:
Grace, it’s a name for a girl, it’s also a thought that changed the world.
Why is it that people don’t know that Grace is more than just a name for a girl?? Why? Because we don’t speak about grace enough. When was the last time you answered someone’s question with the word “Grace”?
“Wow, how did you do so well on your exam?”
“Wow, aren’t these flowers gorgeous?”
“Wow, how did your mother make such a quick recovery?”
Sometimes we forget who’s in charge and how much He loves us. So let’s start remembering and calling His gift by its proper name: GRACE
One of the strong traditions of Scripture is of the great reversal that will one day come for many. I have often been sobered by it when I consider how blessed I have been in this life. I have also been consoled by it when I struggle to understand why some people in this world seem to suffer so much more that I do, or others do. Life seems a very uneven proposition if we only look at this side of the equation. Only God sees the whole picture but to some extent he has revealed that those who have suffered much in this life will be more than rewarded in the life to come and that there will be a great reversal.
The theme of the great reversal is most fully developed in the New Testament where the understanding of the life to come is also most developed.
Consider the following texts:
[Jesus said], “But many who are first will be last, and the last will be first.” (Matt 19:30 & also Matt 20:16 & also Mark 10:31)
[Mary said], “He has cast down the mighty from their thrones but lifted up the lowly. The hungry he has filled with good things; but the rich he has sent away empty.” (Lk 1:52-53)
Abraham replied [to the rich man], ‘My child, remember that you received what was good during your lifetime while Lazarus likewise received what was bad; but now he is comforted here, whereas you are tormented. (Luke 16:25)
Blessed are you who are now hungry, for you will be satisfied. Blessed are you who are now weeping, for you will laugh. Blessed are you when people hate you, and when they exclude and insult you, and denounce your name as evil on account of the Son of Man. Rejoice and leap for joy on that day! Behold, your reward will be great in heaven. For their ancestors treated the prophets in the same way. But woe to you who are rich, for you have received your consolation. But woe to you who are filled now, for you will be hungry. Woe to you who laugh now, for you will grieve and weep. Woe to you when all speak well of you, for their ancestors treated the false prophets in this way. (Luke 6:21-26)
Much will be required of the person entrusted with much, and still more will be demanded of the person entrusted with more. (Luke 12:48)
I consider that the sufferings of this present time are as nothing compared with the glory to be revealed for us. (Rom 8:18)
For this momentary light affliction is producing for us an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison, as we look not to what is seen but to what is unseen; for what is seen is transitory, but what is unseen is eternal. (2 Cor 4:17-18)
There are other texts, and I am grateful if you will add to this list. But, for now, let these suffice. As I have said, I am both challenged and consoled by these texts.
I am consoled for I, like others, have suffered in this life and experienced set backs. In regards to this, the Lord promises that sufferings and set backs, if endured with faith, produce ultimate profit, not loss. Much of this profit may wait till heaven, but surely sufferings endured with faith are like treasure stored up in heaven. First the cross, but then the crown. Hallelujah.
I am also consoled on account of others. I, like you, know people who have suffered far more than seems fair. Loss after loss mounts up, grief after grief. My humanity recoils and I often cry to God on behalf of others who seem to suffer so much more than others. Lost health, lost jobs, lost home and family members. Why, O Lord?!
I think of my poor sister who was mentally ill and horribly afflicted by demons and voices who spoke to her, haunted her and robbed her increasingly of any touch with reality. Ultimately her life ended tragically when she died in a fire. She was surely among the last. But she loved God and wanted desperately to get well. The day after she died I offered Mass for her and I heard her speak to me in the depth of my heart and she said “I’m OK now, Charlie.” And somehow I knew that God was taking care of her, purifying and clearing her mind. And I also knew that she who was among the last but believed, I would one day see as among the first in the glory of heaven (pray God I get there). I suspect that she will be closest to the throne and that I, who have been among the first here in this world will have a “mansion” far less spacious than hers.
I am consoled for my sister’s sake and also for those who, unlike me, live in great poverty in other parts of the world. The bounty of American living is but a dream to them. Perhaps there is war. Perhaps there is famine or natural disaster. Perhaps they are victims of despotic and corrupt governments. They are less free, less blessed, in greater stress and often in desperate need. They are among the “last” in this world. But, if they have faith, they will be blessed to be among the first in the great reversal that is coming when the Kingdom fully breaks in. Faith IS essential. Jesus did not say all the last shall be first but that many who are last shall be first. I am sure that it is living faith that makes the difference.
But I am also challenged. I am among those who are first. What does this say for me in the great reversal that is coming upon this world? I have good health, I enjoy bountiful blessings. I am more blessed that I deserve. I live in the greatest, richest, and most powerful country in the world. My needs are largely provided for. I am here in my air-conditioned room with time enough to write and ponder things far beyond mere subsistence. I am surely among the first, the rich. Even the poorest in this country are blessed compared to many others in the world. Where shall I be when the first trumpet sounds, when the great reversal sets in?
Not everything is as it appears. We crave wealth, power and access and call it a blessing. We want to be first. But God warns it may well be a curse: Those who want to be rich are falling into temptation and into a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires, which plunge them into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is the root of all evils, and some people in their desire for it have strayed from the faith and have pierced themselves with many pains. (1 Tim 6:9-10). Knowing this and other texts like it, we still want to be rich, on top, first. We are very obtuse.
And so, I must say I am challenged. I am not defeated however or fatalistic. God has not utterly forsaken the “first.” He has left us a way and given us instruction on how to avoid the “curse” of our wealth and good fortune. Simply put, that we should use our status as “first” to bless others. That our many gifts would be placed at the service of the human family. A few texts come to mind:
[Jesus said], “I tell you, make friends for yourselves with deceitful wealth, so that when it fails, they [likely the poor whom we befriended] will welcome you into eternal dwellings.” (Luke 16:9)
Tell the rich in the present age not to be proud and not to rely on so uncertain a thing as wealth but rather on God, who richly provides us with all things for our enjoyment. Tell them to do good, to be rich in good works, to be generous, ready to share, thus accumulating as treasure a good foundation for the future, so as to win the life that is true life. (1 Tim 6:17-19)
And so it is that the Lord tells us who are “cursed” to be first to store up our true treasure in heaven (Matt 6:19). Of course we do not store up our treasure in heaven by putting it in a balloon or rocket. Rather we store it up by generously dispensing it to the poor. Perhaps by simple gift, or by providing jobs and economic opportunity for others. Perhaps by sharing our gifts of knowledge, or time or other talents. In so doing perhaps our curse of being among the first will be overcome and the challenge will be met.
The great reversal is coming! Where will I be when the first trumpet sounds?
This Chant of the funeral Mass refers to the great reversal but prays that the deceased will be found with Lazarus who once was poor. The text says: In paradisum deducant te Angeli; in tuo adventu suscipiant te martyres, et perducant te in civitatem sanctam Ierusalem. Chorus angelorum te suscipiat, et cum Lazaro quondam paupere æternam habeas requiem.(May the angels lead you to paradise and at your coming may the martyrs receive you and may they lead you into the Holy City Jerusalem. May a choir of Angels receive you and with Lazarus who once was poor, may you have eternal rest).
In the last two days on the blog comments I have noticed consternation by some that more stress is not placed on receiving communion worthily. I understand the concern they express but also feel the need to approach this issue carefully. This is because two important goods are at sake that must be kept in balance:
Frequent reception of Holy Communion which is a great and necessary food for us as Jesus insists in John 6:50-55,
Worthy reception which the Holy Spirit through Paul warns is also necessary in 1 Cor 11:27ff. Let’s look at these texts briefly.
SCRIPTURE: Jesus was very clear to teach that the Holy Eucharist is a necessary food for us:
This is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.”…..Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. (John 6:50-53)
Hence it seems clear that it is essential to receive Holy Communion frequently, if not every week. The Church’s practice of celebrating Mass every day (or every week as in the Eastern Rites) and offering Holy Communion at each Mass confirms this interpretation of the Lord’s words that the Eucharist is a necessary food for the Faithful to receive with high frequency, preferably every week. This practice also distinguishes us from Protestant notions wherein the frequent reception of Holy Communion (even if they had it) was largely set aside. The “Unless” in this text is a rather strong word that cannot easily be ignored. Jesus in effect teaches that Holy Communion is a sine qua non (“a without which, not”, an essential) for having life. In other words it is an essential food without which we are dying spiritually. So here is one value the Church must advance, frequent reception of our necessary food.
But the Scriptures also teach the necessity of receiving worthily, that is, without knowledge of grave sin in oneself. And here too the wording is quite clear and strong:
Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many among you are ill and infirm, and a considerable number are dying. If we discerned ourselves, we would not be under judgment; but since we are judged by (the) Lord, we are being disciplined so that we may not be condemned along with the world (1 Cor 11:27-31)
So, Scripture considers unworthy or unmindful reception of Holy Communion to be a very serious matter since it is a sin directly against the Body of the Lord. St. Paul links it to some rather severe punishment from God: sickness, even death. All who sin such bring judgment upon themselves that at the very least requires discipline from the Lord and perhaps condemnation. This text along with Tradition has meant that the Church warns any of the faithful conscious of mortal sin to refrain from Holy Communion until such time as they are reconciled through Confession. In such wise the Church is not “mean” or “restrictive” as some say. Rather she is faithful to Scripture and also charitable in warning the faithful against things that many bring them under the judgement of condemnation.
The Church has struggled over the centuries to keep the faithful balanced in regard to these two values. Frankly for many centuries people stayed away from receiving Holy Communion, receiving only very rarely. I remember my Grandmother (who was born in 1896) once telling me that when she was a child almost no one went to communion. In a Church filled with hundreds of people often no one would go to the rail. Even despite confession, many felt unworthy. This infrequent reception had led the Church in the Middle Ages to insist on the “Easter Duty” which required the faithful by way of precept to receive Holy Communion at least once a year in the Easter Season after Sacramental Confession where necessary. During the Middle Ages even monks and nuns received only a few times per year! More recently, at the turn of the last Century, Pope Pius X had also encouraged more frequent reception of Holy Communion by among other things moving the age of First Communion much earlier. You can read more on this topic here: Frequency of Holy Communion.
Rare Reception was one extreme. Lately we seem to have the other extreme wherein almost everyone attending Mass receives Communion but only a very small percentage of them have recently been to confession. To receive Communion worthily means to be free from mortal sin. Today, very few of the faithful have any notion of the requirement of receiving communion worthily. This is due to poor catechesis as well as a muted sense of sin in general and of mortal sin specifically. Many in fact are not all that clear on what constitutes mortal sin. I was surprised to learn early in my priesthood that many younger people had the no idea what the expression “mortal sin” meant. Some figured it meant that you had killed someone. I tried referring to it as serious sin, but also discovered that many people don’t take a lot of things very seriously.
Most pastors are aware that a great deal is needed to rectify this situation. Simply saying “go to confession more” doesn’t often work since many, although admitting the presence of sin in their lives do not see their own condition as serious. “After all no body’s perfect Father” is about as deep a sense of sin as some have. Again, poor catechesis and bad preaching is partly to blame.
How Did we get here? I want to propose that we are also experiencing a reaction (actually an over-reaction) to the understanding of sin in the 1950s. I was born in 1961 and, not having been alive in the 1950s, let alone a priest, I must rely for my information on that period in the Church from older clergy, older people in general and also on aspects of that time that still echo in the confessions and thinking of older people today. From these sources it is my assessment that in the 1950s and before a very objective notion of sin was emphasized that took little account of circumstances and/or personal factors.
A couple of examples may illustrate. An older priest told me of a confession he once had wherein a woman insisted she must hear her confession since she had committed a mortal sin on the way to Church. It seems the sin involved breaking her fast. What happened was that a bug had flown into her mouth and she had swallowed it by accident. Although the priest tried to reassure her that she was not to blame she insisted that the bug constituted “nourishment” and that she must be absolved in order to receive Communion. Other older priests tell me similar, though less exotic, stories. This was apparently part of the training of the faithful in the old days. I have had personal confirmation of this sort of thinking over my 21 years a priest as well. For example, twice this past winter we had snowfalls here in Washington approaching 30 inches. Despite this I did not have an insignificant number of older people confess that they had missed mass on those weekends. When I reminded them that it was quite impossible to get out in 30 inches of snow they seemed unfazed. “But it was a sin to miss Mass Father.” I have learned to accept that this was their training. They were taught sin only as a very objective thing. Circumstances were quite beside the point.
Now while this thinking may have been accepted by many in an older generation it is clear that such mechanistic thinking was rejected by many when the 1960s hit. And frankly the extreme objectification of sin with no reference to circumstances needed correction. Proper moral theology does account for circumstances and personal factors in assessing blameworthiness. For mortal sin to be committed requires not just grave matter, but also sufficient reflection and full consent of the will. It sometimes happens that reflection and/or freedom are hindered and such factors need to be taken into account. Such factors cannot make a bad act good but they can affect culpability (blameworthiness). Modern pastoral practice in taking these things into consideration is set forth in the Catechism. Take for example the pastoral note to confessors included in the catechism regarding masturbation which, though considered objectively a serious sin, may admit of certain personal factors:
To form an equitable judgment about the subjects’ moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety or other psychological or social factors that lessen, if not even reduce to a minimum, moral culpability. (CCC # 2352)
But older pastoral practice, it seems, took little account of circumstances or of factors such as full consent of the will etc. Official Church teaching DID teach these things but the pastoral practice of the time presented sin in a much more mechanistic sort of a way and other aspects of Church teaching were poorly communicated in the 1950s and perhaps before.
Over-Reaction Sets in – To some extent this may have led to the over-reaction we experienced in late 1960s through the 1980s. Rather than refine and clarify their understanding of true Catholic teaching, many simply cast overboard a caricature of Catholic teaching which now seemed unreasonable. And the caricature WAS unreasonable. Sadly too, many Catholic priests and catechists of the time, rather than clarifying the teaching, also over-compensated. They highly de-emphasized any objective notion of sin and hyper-emphasized matters such as feelings, circumstances, false notions of conscience and so forth. Now it seemed that ONLY circumstances mattered, along with personal reflection and feeling and a diminished notion of any personal responsibility
So here we are today with long lines for Communion (good) but with no lines for confession (bad). It falls to us, to the clergy who preach and catechists who teach to re-establish the connection between frequent confession and weekly communion. But, as I have tried to demonstrate, simply saying people should go does not mean they will go. A proper and balanced foundation also needs to be re-established that restores a healthy sense of sin. The 1950s version, at least as I have described it, was not healthy. But neither is our current version that sees nothing as objectively wrong, nothing as serious, that reduces moral reflection to “how I feel about it” and sets aside any notion of final judgment with platitudes like “God will understand.”
Part of the re catechizing necessary is to reintroduce a more holistic and less mechanistic sense of sin. Sin includes not just specific acts but also very deep drives and attitudes that can become very significant. We can be very resentful, ungrateful, unchaste, unkind, unmerciful, harsh, greedy, worldly and materialistic. Sin is more than, “I yelled at my kids three times, used curse words several times and was distracted in prayer many times, and engaged in one act of solitary self abuse.” Sin includes those things but it is also that we are egotistical, thin-skinned, unloving, unforgiving and sometimes, just plain mean. We are in deep need of God’s healing mercy and some of these attitudes are much more serious than we like to think. They can cause great harm. At some point, staying away from confession for long periods is to entertain a prideful delusion that itself becomes a serious sin. Who says he has no sin makes God a liar (1 John 1:10). In trying to insist that people must get to confession before communion if they are aware of any mortal sins, we have to be willing to first expand the notion of what serious or mortal sin is.
The Church will surely need to continue to give guidance by identifying particularly grievous sins, but in the end, the Church can never develop an exhaustive list since circumstances often affect gravity. There are some sins that are always, objectively mortal (ex toto genere suo); sins such as the murder of the innocent. But there are many other things such as gossip that while not always or even usually mortal, that may become so if reputations are ruined and the intention was to do so. Since the legalism of the past has largely been rejected it may be better for us to preach a more comprehensive, wholehearted and inclusive sense of sin that accounts for the deep drives of sins and assesses sin in the whole person rather than focus merely on this or that act. If I notice a growth on my arm I may not be sure if it is serious or not. The best thing is to get it checked out. So too with sin, is it mortal or not? Best to get it checked out. Regular confession should be preached.
We have a lot of work to do to restore the balance of the two Scripture texts above. Frequent though worthy reception of Communion has historically been a difficult balance to maintain. Many factors need to be in play for this balance to be found. Simply telling people to get to confession before communion if they are aware of mortal sin may presume a lot of knowledge that many do not have and premises people no longer share, sometimes through no fault of their own. We have more work to do than simply to tell people what to do. We have to teach and reestablish a healthy sense of sin and a deeper awareness of what is sacred and proper for the worthy reception of Holy Communion.
As always, I request your input to both balance and complete this article. This video was my attempt today to exhort the faithful to worthy reception of communion through frequent confession.
