Homily on sexual morality

[Rau]

No classroom program on Earth can rival the Holy Spirit…none.

Take away the classroom and deprive the Holy Spirit of one more opportunity…

 

[babochka]

So you , as a catechist believe that "things will just turn out ok on their own, and we don’t need catechism classes?

They why do we teach anything? Why have the US Bishops encouraged lifelong catechesis?
Why do parishes spend so much time and money n the children?
Why do parents even bring their children?

It’s not magical action. It’s work.
We, as a church must do the work.
The world corrupts children quickly and very efficiently.
We’re kidding ourselves if we think that they don’t need our guidance and help. It’s WE who rely on the Holy Spirit to teach well. But we have to give parents help.

No, it is not magic, but it is grace. It is grace that our children need as they enter the tumultuous teen years. It is grace that will strengthen them and hold them close to Christ. Making them wait until 16 or 17 is tantamount to sending them into battle without spiritual armor.

I just don’t understand why these things must necessarily be tied to sacramental catechesis. Do you think that we Eastern Catholics, who confirm in infancy, abandon our children to the wolves after their baptisms? Of course not! We provide ongoing catechesis at the appropriate level. Other than preparation for confession. it isn’t tied to the reception of a particular sacrament. Why do you think that parents (and bishops) who desire a younger Confirmation age don’t have a commitment to providing excellent ongoing faith formation?

I don’t know what the solution is and I acknowledge that we have a problem with the way catechesis is viewed. We’ve been doing it this way for a long time. Kids and families get the message that they can be done with catechesis, whether we confirm at 7 or at 17. It is still viewed by many Catholics as a “graduation” of sorts. I think we should have as our goal to work away from that understanding of catechesis, rather than embrace it as the only possible way we can get our kids catechized.

As you mentioned in an earlier post, though, all the parish-based catechesis in the world isn’t going to make a significant difference if these conversations aren’t happening with our kids at home, regularly.

I know from our previous conversations that you feel very passionately about this. I respect and appreciate our perspective and dedication to the kids that you have helped fprm over the years. I wholeheartedly believe that our kids should be receiving formal religious education throughout High School. I just don’t think that delaying confirmation is the only way to accomplish that.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

I just don’t understand why these things must necessarily be tied to sacramental catechesis. Do you think that we Eastern Catholics, who confirm in infancy, abandon our children to the wolves after their baptisms?

No, I personally do not think the Eastern Catholics abandon their children. Not at all. However the situation is radically different, in my experience of it. In the West, the Eastern Catholic Churches tend to be smaller and more tightly knit and that facilitates their education and formation…both within the family and within the parish.

For us in the occident, on the other hand, it is simply a matter of our lived reality that the religious education classes of the child’s age that are required for First Communion and Confirmation are much larger than the classes in the other age brackets.

“If the child is to receive this sacrament, the child needs attend these classes” and so the child shows up because the parents want the child to receive First Communion and want the child to receive Confirmation – but in the intervening years and the later years, the class size plummets.

Whatever the confirmation age is, for a significant number of a Religious Education programme, that is the last time you will see them in catechesis…and maybe ever.

There were basically four broad groups

There were parents who took the role of teachers of the faith seriously. They taught their children at home as well as provided good example. The classes were a supplement for them.

There were parents who were conscientious about their children having some level of formation…they attended Sunday Mass more often than not. They brought their children to religious education seriously – but the educator and the parish priest could easily gauge the level at which the faith was a focus in the home, to a greater or lesser degree. If the child had no knowledge or experience related to the faith that was not dependent on what was learned in religious education classes, that was pretty apparent.

There were parents, sadly, who would bring the child to religious education but they themselves did not attend Mass nor did the child. Some would do this over a span of years…others just to tick the box in order to get the two sacraments.

There were parents who would come occasionally…such as Christmas and Easter or even more often…several times per year, with their children, but with no participation in religious education or the sacraments.

It’s a heart-breaking thing to have a child run up to you as the Priest after Mass on Christmas and the daughter is all excited to have photos by the Christmas crib and the decorations…and she says that she would like to attend Mass regularly – and the parents say “We should come more often”…but never do. Or “I’d like to be confirmed” and the parents say “We should make that happen”…and don’t. They’re too busy for the sacraments and for religious education and so it remains squeezed out of the family’s life.

Those groups were the way it was when I was a young priest and it is that way when I am an old priest. Some things don’t change.

 

[KMG]

He is correct…weekly Communion is not needed.

It is also his prerogative…entirely…to suspend Extraordinary Minister use to the homebound.

 

[ChunkMonk]

I feel bad for your priest. Sounds like he got a ‘flock’ of wolves. Tough gig for a shepherd.

The Homily is not the time to talk about sin? Uh… What?

 

[ChunkMonk]

Fire and brimstone doesn’t work.

Worked for just about every Prophet.
Worked for Jesus.
Worked for many Saints.
Worked for many Popes.
Worked for many priests.
Chafes the sensibilities of a modern Catholic and suddenly ‘it doesn’t work’ anymore.

 

[CilladeRoma]

I understand that, but why would you want to deprive the sickest, most needy members of your flock.

I can say with all honesty, that this parish has one of the best trained, most reverent group of homebound ministers I ever encountered. Our former Pastor made sure to make “rounds” so that he saw everyone at least every other month, and was always available if someone needed pastoral counseling or confession. To suspend a practice, without even talking with anyone about it because he feels it unnecessary speaks more of hubris than of shepherding.

 

[OraLabora]

Worked for just about every Prophet.

Worked for Jesus.

Worked for many Saints.

Worked for many Popes.

Worked for many priests.

Chafes the sensibilities of a modern Catholic and suddenly ‘it doesn’t work’ anymore.

With “monk” in your username, you surely must have at least some passing familiarity with the Rule of Saint Benedict. Go back and read chapter 2 in its entirety. You’ll see that not chafing the sensibilities of modern Catholics (in this case monks!) goes back to the 6th century. Nothing new under the sun.

So to take your above:

Worked for Jesus. But mostly with hypocritical Pharisees; he was gentle with sinners
Worked for many Saints. But not all
Worked for many Popes. But not all
Worked for many priests. But not all
Chafes the sensibilities of a modern Catholic and suddenly ‘it doesn’t work’ anymore. see above

A good homilist will always play to his audience. He will as Saint Benedict says in Chapter 2 recognize that:

One he must coax, another scold, another persuade,
according to each one’s character and understanding.
Thus he must adjust and adapt himself to all
in such a way that he may not only suffer no loss
in the flock committed to his care,
but may even rejoice in the increase of a good flock.

The Rule is full of accommodation for the weak, admonition for the stubborn, and encouragement for the strong. Saint Benedict was no fool, he was a fine student of human nature.

 

[KMG]

“Hubris” is a pretty strong word to use to attack a priest who is merely doing what the Church permits.

 

[ChunkMonk]

No, I have absolutely zero familiarity with it except for having it cited to me on this forum. I know it by name.

Would St. Benedict really say that a laity should rebel against their priest because he gave a passionate homily?

I don’t particularly like the style of homilies given by most priests. Do you know what I do? I humiliate myself. I try to think of why the preist is doing it that way. I make an honest effort to listen even more closely. I convince myself that the priest knows better.

I don’t form a posse and try to run him out of town. I don’t withhold donations from my own parish in an attempt to blackmail the bishop into giving me my way. Those two things are horrible and the OP and her parish should be ashamed of themselves.

With all due respect to St. Benedict, I wonder if he knew what it is like to be a layman in the 21st century.

 

[OraLabora]

Would St. Benedict really say that a laity should rebel against their priest because he gave a passionate homily?

No, but you have to recognize human nature, and Saint Benedict is very much aware that different medicines and doses are required, lest one drive away a soul, which ends up as much a stain on the soul of the one that provoked the loss, as on the soul of the rebellious one.

 

[qui_est_ce]

He is correct…weekly Communion is not needed.

It is also his prerogative…entirely…to suspend Extraordinary Minister use to the homebound.

She left out the part where the priest is visiting the home bound himself.

 

[KMG]

Yes, she did indeed.

 

[CilladeRoma]

I did not leave it out. It is further up thread. If the commenter was able to comment about it- he knew.

And no, he is not going to make weekly rounds, as has been the custom for many years.

The homebound were told that they would be scheduled for a visit once a month and it would not be on the weekend.

Spouses, except in extreme situations, will no longer be able to bring Communion home to their homebound spouse (or same for adult caregivers), all of who were duly trained.

I have been a part of this ministry at this parish for the past 4 years. As I have said, it is one of the best-trained groups I’ve worked with. Which is all part of the problem-
new young priest, coming in with idea and changes, without taking any time to get to know his flock.
We are not some goofy, ultra-liberal parish, who wants things done our way.
We want the same respect that many here say we owe this priest.

Many of the parishioners have been there 20 years or more, and have been through good leaders & bad. When a seasoned veteran of Chruch politics & long-time parishioner comes to you, hat in hand and dejected because he can no longer bring his home-bound wife communion, because of a new priest’s whims & desires, what do you say? I can only imagine the responses he would get from some of you.
All I can say is- shameful!.

 

[qui_est_ce]

I did not leave it out. It is further up thread. If the commenter was able to comment about it- he knew.

I know you mentioned it in an earlier post, that’s why I knew about it. But you left it out of several subsequent posts, leaving the impression that there were no more visits to the home bound.

And no, he is not going to make weekly rounds, as has been the custom for many years.

The homebound were told that they would be scheduled for a visit once a month and it would not be on the weekend.

Makes me wonder if there were abuses?

I have been a part of this ministry at this parish for the past 4 years. As I have said, it is one of the best-trained groups I’ve worked with. Which is all part of the problem-

new young priest, coming in with idea and changes, without taking any time to get to know his flock.

Many of the parishioners have been there 20 years or more, and have been through good leaders & bad. When a seasoned veteran of Chruch politics & long-time parishioner comes to you, hat in hand and dejected because he can no longer bring his home-bound wife communio

Reminds me of someone else 2,000 years ago who shook things up.

, because of a new priest’s whims & desires, what do you say? I can only imagine the responses he would get from some of you.

All I can say is- shameful!.

Really? Has he told you this? “Just because that’s the way I want it?”

This priest really needs our prayers.

 

[omgriley]

One can talk about morality without using the loaded words. Instead of saying what we “can’t” (or shouldn’t do) how about talking about what we should and can do?

There is also the bulletin, the web and anytime that is not Mass. We have some very active ministry groups- why not meet with each group privately one month? We have a family faith formation program, why not use the adult session once a month to have this conversation?

Again, I am not saying we should not talk about this stuff, I just wonder if the homily is the best place to start.

Part of understanding what one should do means having a proper understanding of what one shouldn’t do. It’s important to talk about sexual morality, and it’s important to hear it from the priests --especially in this culture.

You mean when no one actually has to sit and pay attention to what’s being said?

 

[exnihilo]

We want the same respect that many here say we owe this priest.

Why do you think this priest is disrespectful? It is he that has care of the parish and the right to determine how communion is administered.

Many of the parishioners have been there 20 years or more, and have been through good leaders & bad. When a seasoned veteran of Chruch politics & long-time parishioner comes to you, hat in hand and dejected because he can no longer bring his home-bound wife communion, because of a new priest’s whims & desires, what do you say? I can only imagine the responses he would get from some of you.

All I can say is- shameful!.

I have no problem with the parishioner not liking the decision. I have no problem with him disagreeing with it. He can think it is an awful decision. But doesn’t he owe obedience to the priest and his decision? What exactly is shameful, unless you are saying so standing in judgement of your priest?

 

[CilladeRoma]

Really? Has he told you this? “Just because that’s the way I want it?”

This priest really needs our prayers.

Yes, this is exactly what he said, along with "No one is required to have communion every week.
So, I am disbanding the ministry and will take care of it myself, as my schedule allows, hopefully once a month."

He has not been there long enough to know of any abuses, and our former Pastor kept a very tight reign on this ministry. If he ever heard of something even a little suspicious, he investigated. If there was an issue, it dealt with swiftly.

Yes, he needs prayers. Yes, I pray for him daily.

 

[KMG]

There may well have been abuses he is aware of that you are not.

And he is correct, weekly Communion is not required.

 

[omgriley]

I have no problem with the parishioner not liking the decision. I have no problem with him disagreeing with it. He can think it is an awful decision. But doesn’t he owe obedience to the priest and his decision? What exactly is shameful, unless you are saying so standing in judgement of your priest?

I have to agree with this. What exactly has the priest done that’s so abhorrent? I think the OP mentioned it in the beginning that he has actually done nothing wrong “per se” Well to me all that means is people don’t like change and are uncomfortable.

Let the priest run the parish. If he isn’t fostering liturgical abuse or overstepping his authority, then there really isn’t anything you can say. If you have concerns, bring them to hm. If he hears you out and disagrees, then you’ve done all you can do.

This isn’t a democracy. This happens quite often in Protestant churches where the congregation thinks they have some right or say in how things are done. I’m not saying that’s the stance the OP is taking, but they should try to understand that the parish administration is ultimately up to the Pastor.