Month: May 2004

Also in regard to the staying or going question, another reader writes:

Initially, we aren’t told in this post just what makes the correspondent’s current parish “less than orthodox”. Is it because every mass isn’t in Latin (and we all know people who feel this way); or are there serious doctrinal and dogmatic inaccuracies and falacies being promulgated? Are we dealing with style or substance here? We can’t tell from the post as written.

Actually, there was more in the post than I printed. The lady in question included a number of examples, some of which I see she has also mentioned in the comments box of the original post.

I didn’t reproduce these comments when writing my entry because of space reasons and because it is my policy not to include data that could identify individuals or make them feel like they might be identifiable.

However, even if she had not included these examples in what she wrote, it would not have affected my answer. I learned a good while ago that you answer questions as they are posed to you, and if someone shows up and says “My parish has a problem with dissenters and I don’t feel that I can put my kids in its religious ed programs, should I stay at this parish or not?” then I’ll say the same thing I did say: If I concluded that I couldn’t put my kids in a parish’s religious ed programs then I would be disinclined to stay at the parish.

I would not be inclined to poke around to find out just how bad the problems at the parish may be. You have to trust people in what they are asking you. If you tried to second guess everything they tell you then getting a simple question answered would become a protracted discussion, and that would result in less rather than more service being performed.

As a parent of very young twin daughters I’ve been thinking about how to deal generally with the issue of people outside the home imparting opinions, beliefs, perspectives, etc. that are at odds with those we’ll be imparting. My instinct is that it’s better to equip children to deal with these issues and prepare them to hold to and defend what we’re teaching them, rather than insulating them and have an alternative view really rock them when they’re older but not prepared to respond.

I’m very sympathetic to the idea that children need to be exposed to challenges as part of the growing up process. The job of parents is not to shelter kids from every potential danger but to teach them how to deal with dangers (including dangers to their faith) so that they will know how to deal with them once they are adults. This means progressively allowing the child to encounter riskier situations as he grows in the ability to handle them, including awareness of other people’s religious opinions.

That being said, it does not do children a service to plant them in a parish from their early years where they are going to be exposed to rank dissent. Kids in such a situation need to be told that what they are hearing from their priests and CCD teachers is wrong, but this itself is a disservice since it schools them from an early age in ignoring and distrusting Church authorities. It is better to place them in an environment where the parish is supportive of their faith and let them encounter the world of Catholic dissent late in their development, after they have already assimilated an orthodox Catholic identity.

In fact, to the extent possible, dissident Catholics are the final religious group that children should be made aware of. It is less of a threat to a child’s faith to learn that there are people in a far off corner of the world who don’t believe in Jesus than that there are Catholics right in the leadership of their own parish who think it’s okay not to listen to the pope. The former is a reality that is unconnected with the child’s everday experience, but the latter is a much more confusing and direct challenge to their own assimilation of the faith.

And finally, we have to remember that it’s not as if this family is attending a “church” run out of the local gym ala some of the Calvary Chapel folks. They are members of a congregation under a duly appointed and aNNointed priest. There has to be some respect for that.

Yes, precisely, which is why one would want to foster children’s respect for the priesthood by not putting them in a parish where the parents have to constantly contradict what the priest says in front of the children.

In regard to the post on whether a family should switch parishes, a reader writes:

“A parish is a definite community of the Christian faithful established on a stable basis within a particular church…” (CCC).

This doesn’t say that one *can’t* choose a geographically distant parish, but it does point to proper motives. Stable. That means you can’t jump ship whenever you think you need to.

The Catechism is not a document of law, so it shouldn’t be quoted when one is making a legal point. It’s a teaching document and should be quoted when making a doctrinal point. In this case, the Catechism is quoting the Code of Canon Law, which is the relevant legal document, but the canon being quoted doesn’t make the point that you’re wanting to make. “Stable” refers to the constitution of the parish (i.e., it continues to exist over time rather than in an ad hoc fashion), not to the status of its members. If you moved to a new town and joined a parish for two months and then had to move again, the parish would remain stable even though you had only fleeting membership in it.

The weeds and the wheat will always be there. Soon there will be a good reason to leave the next parish. Classifying Catholics (in good standing) destroys the body; it’s like a marriage that starts off with the option to run whenever things get rough.

That doesn’t appear to be what’s happening here. The couple seems well acquainted with both parishes and does nothing to suggest that they are a fly-by-night couple who are never satisfied. It would be entirely speculative to suggest that.

The premise that classifying Catholics in good standing destroys the body is problematic in several respects:

First, Jesus gave us reason with which to make classifications and to identify potential problems. We’re fulfilling the mandate contained in his gift of reason when we use it in this manner.

Second, the Church itself acknowledges that there are differences between Catholics in good standing that can affect the most felicitous way for them to relate to each other (the existence of multiple “rites” or churches sui iuris in the Church being a striking example of this).

Third, we are not talking about Catholics here who are living fully in line with the teachings and practices of the Church. We are talking about people who are in some measure dissenters from Church teaching and practice, and even if they are “in good standing” in the sense of not having censures or expiatory penalties imposed on them by ecclesiastical authority, they are not “in good standing” in the sense of actively adhering to Catholic teaching and practice.

The comparison between joining a parish and getting married is also problematic. Marriage is a much more permanent union than parish membership (i.e., you don’t get a new spouse every time you move to a new neighborhood), but to stick with that analogy, it casts doubt on the idea of not making distinctions between Catholics in good standing. One would not tell a person that it harms the body of Christ to judge one potential spouse to be a more suitable marriage prospect than another, though both are Catholics in good standing. One could say the same thing about evaluating two prospective parishes.

While nobody can instruct someone what to do with their children, the “it’s for the children!” is the excuse of choice these days. I would argue that children are better served by strong parental leadership in the face of adversity, not cutting and running.

See my forthcoming post for more on the good of the children argument.

I can’t imagine what would happen if American Catholics faced actual persecution.

It’d probably cause the dissenters in parishes like the one in question to either better adhere to the Church or fall away from it entirely.

Wow, James, you are growing soft. And I thought you were from Texas :-).

Don’t mess with my Texas heritage unlessen yew be wantin’ a fight on yore hands. Here’s hopin’ the above answer wasn’t too “soft.” 🙂