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.” 🙂
Wow, a personal “fisking” by James himself. I’m honored. Unfortunately, I find the arguments off target. I’ll go over them:
James says “In this case, the Catechism is quoting the Code of Canon Law…but the canon being quoted doesn’t make the point that you’re wanting to make.”
I say: It is. It is quoting Can. 515, which covers buildings, priests, and people. If you doubt that, just look down to Can. 518 which says:
“As a general rule, a parish is to be territorial, that is, it is to embrace all Christ’s faithful of a given territory.”
This is the law, and it’s geographical, to “embrace” all within a given territory (exceptions are for rite, language or nationality – any other basis could certainly not include the moral state of the parish members, as this would have to be set by the bishop anyway, not the individual).
Besides, the CCC even refers to the “definite community”, the members. Any reasonable reading of either the CCC or the law would have to include the people. You seriously believe it doesn’t?
James writes: “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.”
I say: I’m curious where you would draw the line and still stay obedient to Can. 518. Looking outside of their area for a parish due to the lowly moral status of its members? This is an American phenomenon – individualism – that seems to me opposed to the unity of the Catholic faith, not to mention Can. 518.
Let’s say they do attend a parish outside of their area, and then that parish goes south. Using your logic, they would jump again, and again, until they find the ‘right’ parish. Is this the Catholic way of unity, authority, and community?
James writes: “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…”
I say: Wow. Serious charge. Do you believe the bishop has no knowledge of this parish? If not, surely you don’t feel your opinion supercedes his?
James writes: “The comparison between joining a parish and getting married is also problematic…One could say the same thing about evaluating two prospective parishes.”
I say: Prospective parishes? Ouch. Even the words sound Protestant. Think about Louisiana where “Parish” is the “County”; i.e., the physical location.
True, the marriage analogy is not perfect, but it is applicable to my point of sticking with a parish, thick and thin, warts and all. I’m arguing against trying to find a wife that is perfect in every way so as to avoid any hardships. It’s the wrong way to start a marriage – or a parish community. What happens when you find the warts?
James writes: “[persecution would] probably cause the dissenters in parishes like the one in question to either better adhere to the Church or fall away from it entirely.”
I say: If so, how important it is to have at least some strong members in the parish. And I would argue that the same missing virtues (lack of fortitude, disordered prudence) that would cause one to move away from his geographical parish would display themselves when the going got really rough.
James writes: “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.” :-)”
I say: OK, OK, I’m convinced. That hat ain’t just for show… And hey, even though I think you are all wet here, please understand that I have great respect for your service, your blog, and (usually) your opinion. I hope that’s not too mushy for a Texan.