Guilty Silence- Casti C0nnubii, p57

[shocktrooper]

Casti Connubii:

1. We admonish, therefore, priests who hear confessions and others who have
   the care of souls, in virtue of Our supreme authority and in Our solicitude for the
   salvation of souls, not to allow the faithful entrusted to them to err regarding this
   most grave law of God; much more, that they keep themselves immune from
   such false opinions, in no way conniving in them.** If any confessor or pastor of
   souls, which may God forbid, lead the faithful entrusted to him into these errors
   or should at least confirm them by approval or by guilty silence**, let him be
   mindful of the fact that he must render a strict account to God, the Supreme
   Judge, for the betrayal of his sacred trust, and let him take to himself the words
   of Christ: "They are blind and leaders of the blind: and if the blind lead the blind,
   both fall into the pit.[46]

I would like to use markomalley’s comment from a different thread to ask a few questions that have greatly bothered me for a while now. Please see the bolded section specifically. [NB] this is not an attack on his comment at all. I totally agree with him.

…For example, the use of hormonal contraceptives is grave matter. But there are a number of factors that determine whether or not the use of hormonal contraceptives is a mortal sin or not.

For example, did the person know that the use of hormonal contraceptives is grave matter? It is entirely possible that the person has never been taught that it was grave matter. Many, many priests are absolutely loathe to bring such a subject up in their homilies. Many Religious Education directors are loathe to broach the subject in CCD classes (or even to allow it to be brought up) out of fear that some parents will pull their children from the classes (that is, assuming that the lay RE director even accepts that teaching of the Church: I have met more than a few who don’t). If the person’s parents don’t accept the teaching of Humanae Vitae; if they don’t, they’d likely not bring it up at home (and if those parents in question did bring it up, they’d do so to say that the Church is wrong about that, just like the Church is wrong about female ordination – these parents’ words, not mine)…

My question is…does it seem to be the case that priests refrain from bringing up such topics because they are “banking” on the “invincible ignorance” card? Do they not want to present the truth because then the parishioners will now be “knowledgeable” of the Church’s teaching as if they did not “know” already. Would this tactic make the priest an accessory to their sin by his guilty silence? Does the priest really think that any adult person in the U.S.A. can claim to be invincibly ignorant of such teachings of the Church. I don’t recall spiritual/religious sloth to be an acceptable criteria for Invincible Ignorance and I surely don’t recall not educating the faithful to be charitable.

Also, is there some mandate that I don’t know about that prohibits a priests from catechizing on moral issues, such as contraception, abortion, fornication, cohabitation, masturbation, and homosexual acts in a homily?

This question is for all, not just markomalley.

Thanks in advance.

Pax Christi.

 

[1ke]

My question is…does it seem to be the case that priests refrain from bringing up such topics because they are “banking” on the “invincible ignorance” card? Do they not want to present the truth because then the parishioners will now be “knowledgeable” of the Church’s teaching as if they did not “know” already. Would this tactic make the priest an accessory to their sin by his guilty silence? Does the priest really think that any adult person in the U.S.A. can claim to be invincibly ignorant of such teachings of the Church. I don’t recall spiritual/religious sloth to be an acceptable criteria for Invincible Ignorance and I surely don’t recall not educating the faithful to be charitable.

I think that “people” make assumptions and paint priests and religious education directors/teachers with a very broad brush. Talking in absolutes is, of course, nonsensical because there are thousands (if not millions) of people who make up the priests, religious, teachers, and catechetical staff of parishes and schools worldwide. You cannot possibly know what those people are doing at any given time.

While it may be Person A’s experience that they have “never” heard a homily on X, Y, or Z or their experience that certain topics were not discussed in religious education, Person B might have a totally different experience.

So, I think it is dangerous to talk in generalities and it borders on sinful to paint priests, religious, and teachers with a brush labeled “negligent”, “heretical”, “slothful” or other such terms.

This post is starting from the premise that priests don’t teach on these topics and that RE programs don’t either. That is **not **the experience everywhere, perhaps only in your local area. There are TONS of schools and parishes using Theology of the Body for Teens, bringing in speakers such as Jason Evert, promoting their own programs (such as my own diocese). I have personally heard homilies on these topics, and not all in one parish or one diocese. I have read about these topics from the bishop himself in the diocesan newspaper, in **multiple **dioceses. I’ve even heard now-Cardinal DiNardo speak on these topics in a radio interview on local *secular *radio in Houston when he first took over for Bishop Fiorenza.

Yes, the Church teaches if you would but only look. The short, 15 minute homily is NOT the only place and time to teach. It may not even be the best time or place.

Also, is there some mandate that I don’t know about that prohibits a priests from catechizing on moral issues, such as contraception, abortion, fornication, cohabitation, masturbation, and homosexual acts in a homily?

No.

 

[shocktrooper]

I think that “people” make assumptions and paint priests and religious education directors/teachers with a very broad brush. Talking in absolutes is, of course, nonsensical because there are thousands (if not millions) of people who make up the priests, religious, teachers, and catechetical staff of parishes and schools worldwide. You cannot possibly know what those people are doing at any given time.

I agree, but I am not sure what that has to do with my question, 1ke. I did not accuse anyone directly and I don’t see any reason to not speak in general terms when trying to find an answer to a question. If I gave more details, then I am sure you would accuse me of slandering a good person’s name or gossiping. I am not looking for an argument, just an answer to my question.

While it may be Person A’s experience that they have “never” heard a homily on X, Y, or Z or their experience that certain topics were not discussed in religious education, Person B might have a totally different experience.

Sorry, 1ke, but again, this has nothing to do with my question.

So, I think it is dangerous to talk in generalities and it borders on sinful to paint priests, religious, and teachers with a brush labeled “negligent”, “heretical”, “slothful” or other such terms.

Ok, now you are really getting defensive for no reason. Why are you accusing me of bordering on the sinful? I quoted Casti Connubii, para 57. Last time I read it, it spoke in very general terms. I called no one heretical or negligent but was asking if the intention to keep silent on such topics would cause the priests or religious to fall prey to Casti Connubii’s warning. I also never accused the priest to be slothful. I used that term to describe people (yes a general term, sorry) that are stuck in a state of apathy or indifference in their religious/spiritual life.

This post is starting from the premise that priests don’t teach on these topics and that RE programs don’t either. That is **not **the experience everywhere, perhaps only in your local area.

Obviously the scenario is not the case everywhere and I never said it was. Can you please stay on topic and address the questions?

There are TONS of schools and parishes using Theology of the Body for Teens, bringing in speakers such as Jason Evert, promoting their own programs (such as my own diocese). I have personally heard homilies on these topics, and not all in one parish or one diocese. I have read about these topics from the bishop himself in the diocesan newspaper, in **multiple **dioceses. I’ve even heard now-Cardinal DiNardo speak on these topics in a radio interview on local *secular *radio in Houston when he first took over for Bishop Fiorenza.

Glad to hear but again, this has nothing to do with preaching in a homily.

Yes, the Church teaches if you would but only look. The short, 15 minute homily is NOT the only place and time to teach. It may not even be the best time or place.

That is one of the problems which is why I brought up spiritual apathy. Did Jesus sit around and wait for people to come and ask Him questions on the side or did He seek out the sinner and preach the Truth to a group of people? Can you imagine all the “general” terms He used? The homily has the greatest impact since the audience is bigger and attention is present. You preach something in a homily and everyone “audibly” hears it. You print it or post it somewhere or even have a ministry dedicated to it, and you will maybe reach 20%. It just doesn’t make sense. The homily IS the best time and place to teach on these things if the Scripture readings allow for such commentary. I whole heartily disagree with you on that point.

I read a statistic that up to 70% of Catholics use contraception. It is quite obvious that the current approach is not working. THIS IS ONLY AN EXAMPLE If you had 70% of Catholics going around deporting illegal aliens or shooting people, I am quite sure you would hear something about it in a homily. Don’t you agree?

Let me ask you another question, what is the percentage of your parishioners that partake in activities outside the Sunday Mass that has to do with faith formation?

Pax Christi.

 

[1ke]

Ok, now you are really getting defensive for no reason. Why are you accusing me of bordering on the sinful?

I am not getting defensive and I am not accusing YOU of anything. I said “people” as in “generality”.

Obviously the scenario is not the case everywhere and I never said it was. Can you please stay on topic and address the questions?

I am on topic.

Glad to hear but again, this has nothing to do with preaching in a homily.

The bishop cannot be everywhere and therefore his letters in the diocesan newspapers ARE preaching. Preaching is not limited to the homily.

You preach something in a homily and everyone “audibly” hears it. You print it or post it somewhere or even have a ministry dedicated to it, and you will maybe reach 20%. It just doesn’t make sense. The homily IS the best time and place to teach on these things if the Scripture readings allow for such commentary. I whole heartily disagree with you on that point.

vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2I.HTM
vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2J.HTM
vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2K.HTM

 

[manualman]

I think the problem is one of venue and appropriate time.

Kids mature at wildly differing rates and sexual matters can not be tailored to group instruction well. This is a parental job.

Homilies are generally given at mass where there are kids present. It is crucially important not to disturb childhood innocence sooner than the culture is going to do it to them.

Catholic adults are notorious for not showing up for any other sorts of catechetical opportunities, so a bit of creativity is called for. Marital prep is a great time that should be used vigorously. A creative approach I saw recently was a mandatory parent ONLY attendence before kid’s first reconciliation. The priest did a great job of pointing out that kids learn by example far more than by instruction and that parents are wasting their time sending kids to CCD if they are modeling stubbornly sinful behaviors in their own life. He then did a very nice job of calling people to repentance and confessions of their own, including the topic of this thread.

More creative, but appropriate ideas like that are badly needed.

 

[Della]

The problem is the cultural milieu in which we live that we Catholics are a part of. We have to take a stand against these sins, calling them unacceptable even if our culture thinks they are, and living the life before our children and others. We can’t just blame the priests and nuns here. If we aren’t willing to do anything about it, how can we lay it all on their shoulders? Lay people make the culture much more than our religious leaders now days. Our people simply don’t want to be told they are wrong and need to repent–not when doing so will make them unpopular and they simply don’t want to change. I’m afraid it’s going to take some disaster to wake people up, either that or a real movement of laity that encourages us to make a difference where we are. It’s not easy to be in the world but not of it, most people can’t do it or don’t want to try, but if we want to see things change, we have to be the ones to make it happen.

 

[shocktrooper]

I am not getting defensive and I am not accusing YOU of anything. I said “people” as in “generality”.

I am on topic.
The bishop cannot be everywhere and therefore his letters in the diocesan newspapers ARE preaching. Preaching is not limited to the homily.

vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2I.HTM
vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2J.HTM
vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2K.HTM

Ok, 1ke, now you are talking. Thank you for the links. I am not sure what you wanted me to glean from them specifically but the below things stood out to me.

---

Can. 767 §1. Among the forms of preaching, the homily, which is part of the liturgy itself and is reserved to a priest or deacon, is preeminent; in the homily the mysteries of faith and the norms of Christian life are to be explained from the sacred text during the course of the liturgical year.

Can. 768 §1. Those who proclaim the divine word are to propose first of all to the Christian faithful those things which one must believe and do for the glory of God and the salvation of humanity.

§2. They are also to impart to the faithful the doctrine which the magisterium of the Church sets forth concerning the dignity and freedom of the human person, the unity and stability of the family and its duties, the obligations which people have from being joined together in society, and the ordering of temporal aVairs according to the plan established by God.

Can. 769 Christian doctrine is to be set forth in a way accommodated to the condition of the listeners and in a manner adapted to the needs of the times.

Let me know if I missed something that you were hoping would stand out to me.

Sorry things got off on the wrong foot.

Pax Christi.

 

[shocktrooper]

I think the problem is one of venue and appropriate time.

Kids mature at wildly differing rates and sexual matters can not be tailored to group instruction well. This is a parental job.

Homilies are generally given at mass where there are kids present. It is crucially important not to disturb childhood innocence sooner than the culture is going to do it to them.

Catholic adults are notorious for not showing up for any other sorts of catechetical opportunities, so a bit of creativity is called for. Marital prep is a great time that should be used vigorously. A creative approach I saw recently was a mandatory parent ONLY attendence before kid’s first reconciliation. The priest did a great job of pointing out that kids learn by example far more than by instruction and that parents are wasting their time sending kids to CCD if they are modeling stubbornly sinful behaviors in their own life. He then did a very nice job of calling people to repentance and confessions of their own, including the topic of this thread.

More creative, but appropriate ideas like that are badly needed.

Good points. In my parish though, there is a children’s liturgy which draws the majority of young kids (older than I would like to see) out of the church during the Liturgy of the Word.

My 7 year old sometimes complains when he sees his friends leaving and wants to go. He knows my position and usually doesn’t say anything though, but I can see it in his demeanor.

Thanks.

 

[shocktrooper]

The problem is the cultural milieu in which we live that we Catholics are a part of. We have to take a stand against these sins, calling them unacceptable even if our culture thinks they are, and living the life before our children and others. We can’t just blame the priests and nuns here. If we aren’t willing to do anything about it, how can we lay it all on their shoulders? Lay people make the culture much more than our religious leaders now days. Our people simply don’t want to be told they are wrong and need to repent–not when doing so will make them unpopular and they simply don’t want to change. I’m afraid it’s going to take some disaster to wake people up, either that or a real movement of laity that encourages us to make a difference where we are. It’s not easy to be in the world but not of it, most people can’t do it or don’t want to try, but if we want to see things change, we have to be the ones to make it happen.

Della, I agree. Our parish has a few ministries that help educate but again, you are only looking at 20% of the people that it reaches. The same faces make up the different ministries. It is very frustrating.

IMO, the disaster that wakes people up should be the “bomb” that is dropped in the homily. This will get the people aroused, either in a good way or a bad way. This will help expose where catechesis needs to be focused.

God bless.

 

[Nate13]

@Shocktropper
I agree that more priests should address these issues to some extent during the homilies. That said, it only does any good if more than 30% of Catholics start showing up to church every Sunday. A priest can teach about sexual immorality 2-3 times a year in the homily but if 70% of Catholics aren’t there to hear it, what good is that going to do?

I’d also point out that most everyone can get on Google and type in “Catholic teaching on ______” and get an answer in couple seconds.

 

[manualman]

Good points. In my parish though, there is a children’s liturgy which draws the majority of young kids (older than I would like to see) out of the church during the Liturgy of the Word.

Yes, I’ve seen that some places. Overall, I’m not a fan. Kids are smarter than people give them credit for, and if nothing else, learn from watching their parents paying attention that something important is going on here that they need to figure out.