Thursday 20 March 2014

‘Pastoral Considerations’ -The Devil’s Work?

There is no doubt that we need to find ways of encouraging those who struggle in irregular situations; that we need to show them as much warmth and valuing as we can. We need to find the kind of pastoral care that puts souls first; one that is done in Truth, since we are always to “do the truth in charity” (Eph.4v15). Any ‘Pastoral Considerations’ ('arrangements') which are inconsistent with Truth but rather enable a life to be lived in concrete (practical) opposition to Truth (Christ) are not good pastoral care. They may, no matter how well intentioned, be described as the work of the father of lies, who is ever seeking to lure souls from Christ. Satan can achieve his aim if he is able to have us put a person’s feelings, their emotional pain, before their souls; he can do it if he can influence minds into thinking we can hold to defined teaching on marriage while making ‘Pastoral Arrangements’ which circumvent that doctrine. Such arrangements only aid people in avoiding the practical application of the Ten Commandments to their lives, placing them in a situation which lacks in spiritual integrity: believing one thing, doing another. We need then, to be be discerning and find ways of helping that show the pastoral care of Christ rather than simple 'pastoral considerations' inspired by the enemy. 

To claim Vatican II’s “pastoral orientation” as the basis for making pastoral changes regarding admission to Holy Communion for those in irregular situations is to accuse the Bishops and priests of the pre-Vatican II Church of lacking in pastoral care. Not so; they simply modelled themselves on the Lord. When He, the Supreme Pastor of souls, was confronted with the woman caught in adultery He was not afraid to end their encounter with the injunction “Go, and sin no more”.Sadly -alarmingly- many clergy cannot emulate Him; their call for ‘pastoral considerations’ amount to a ‘pastoral escape clause’ being added to His injunction “Go and sin no more”. That clause is “unless it is too difficult or too painful for you, at which time we will fashion a way around the Commandment for you”. It is a clause which inherently seeks to dispense from Divine Law (which is beyond all authority in the Church no matter what colour cassock one wears) and transforms the Ten Commandments into ‘Ten Ideals’: “You shall not commit adultery unless your situation is too difficult/painful for you...”; “You shall not kill unless your situation is too difficult/painful for you....”. The first of these allows for all kinds of sexual irregularity; the second for the mass slaughter of unborn babies and the terminally ill. These two Commandments form the bedrock of Christ’s Culture of Life; dispensations from them would positively provide for Satan’s Culture of Death.

Those who call for ‘Pastoral Considerations’ do not seem to realise that they are in danger of abandoning the very Council they claim to be implementing, since to abandon moral disciplines in the living of the Christian life is to abandon the Council’s call to holiness, replacing it with a call to compromise. There is a tremendous need today for re-learning true pastoral care; the kind of care where souls are shepherded without enabling them to abandon the Truth (Christ) in their concrete, daily lives.

So while we must find ways which help those in irregular situations to live in hope, we must do so in accord with Truth. Such folk need the warm support of the community; they need to be assured that they can (and should) still plead for grace with the rest of us at the foot of the Cross in Mass; should still seek Pastoral Counselling from their priest that they might live out the fullness of the Faith; should still take their place on the roster for Eucharistic Adoration; still engage in charitable works, attend parish social events and take their part in the care of parish property. Even membership of the Finance Committee can be open to them since this is not a ministerial or catechetical task (such tasks oblige them to teach one thing while living another). All in all, a great deal is open to those in irregular situations, and pastors at all levels must help them to see, value and access what is open to them, rather than erroneously concretise a lifestyle which is in opposition to Truth and which cannot, therefore, be the work of the Holy Spirit, who is not a spirit of contradiction.

12 comments:

  1. Hear, hear!

    ReplyDelete
  2. See Fr Reto Nay's homily on "Dogmatic and true versus pastoral and convenient", from 13 November 2013.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you Lynda.
      God bless.
      This is a link to follow, folks
      http://gloria.tv/?media=581062

      Delete
  3. Thanks for the clarity !!

    You may find interesting that some of us are trying to invite the Church to uphold marriage long before a 2nd marriage occurs. The Church could instruct an abandoner of his or her obligation to reconcile the marriage and restore common conjugal life.

    An updated Vindicate Rights Petition is available from MarysAdvocates.org

    Bai Macfarlane

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for the comment.
      I think the Church already makes it clear that the spouses should reconcile; I'm not sure what can be done to achieve such reconciliation.
      God bless you and your apostolate.

      Delete
  4. If the Church was not so moribund there would be a real effort to build a Catholic society. Catholics should be encouraged to marry Catholics and mixed marriages should be discouraged. The contraceptive mentality should be opposed and supplanted by a pro life pro child teaching especily in so called Catholic schools. We are slowly dissappearing as a Church and as a people.
    Paul. .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. hank you.
      I couldn't agree more. The core problem is contraception; it is the root of the anti-life, anti-marriage mentality that is destroying society and the Church. Our schools will not teach sound Catholicism unless our Bishops insist that it is, and stand up for The Faith against the secular State. At present they seem to seek its approbation.
      God bless.

      Delete
  5. Because contraception is so prevalent and involves a long-term attitude to marriage, procreation and obedience to God, it probably has the greatest ill-effect on the Church. Priests and bishops generally refuse to teach people that use of contraception is a mortal sin and that they may not receive Our Lord until they have validly confessed and been absolved including a firm purpose of amendment of this way of life (which it becomes for most people). I think many people who contracept on an ongoing basis and are therefore in a constant state of mortal sin, receive Our Lord, committing sacrilege which compounds their distance from God and further deadens the conscience, leading to defective reason and poor discernment in all areas of moral judgment.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you Lynda.
      Indeed. Until the problem of contraception is tackled we are not getting to the root cause at all.
      In one parish in which I preached on contraception and sexual morality I was told by the people who did the marriage instruction that it was not my place to preach on marriage issues at Mass; that this was a subject for them teach on in the marriage instruction period! I corrected them, firmly, but charitably. I have not been put off preaching on these issues, though such homilies seem to have little positive effect. One is often a lone voice on these issues...
      God bless

      Delete
    2. Dear Fr Dickson, I'm sure that you're preaching the truth is having a good effect - though it may be slow. Thank you!

      Delete
    3. The Catholic concept of mortal sin is completely arbitrary. On November 18, 1966 the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops declared that henceforth Friday abstinence would become voluntary except during Lent. So on November 18, 1966 deliberately eating meat on Friday was a mortal sin and by indulging, you became an enemy of God for doing so. On November 25, 1966 practicing Catholics were allowed to partake on Fridays and not be labeled as enemies of God. Which meant that if you ate meat on Friday anytime prior to November 25, 1966 and died, you were consigned to eternal damnation, presumably because of your bad timing.

      Anyone who wants to understand "grave," "grievous" sin needs to read Shakespeare's play MacBeth. The lead character progresses in "serious" sin ultimately to become a homicidal psychopath and his complicit wife goes insane. In key scenes it is obvious that both of them are fully advertent and free to change course if they would. MacBeth suspects that he will no longer be able to sleep because of the evil he has done. "Sleep no more! MacBeth does murder sleep." That would be the hallmark and signal experience of a person guilty of grave sin, the distruction of his or her peace of soul, a bad conscience.

      If artificial birth control is as pernicious as it is imputed to be, then contracepting Catholic women should be suffering psychological disintegration and the Catholic husbands who abet them should be turning into iniquitous fiends. That is the ruin that is visited on authentic mortal sinners. Maybe someone can provide some objective data on how evil these spouses actually are.

      Delete
    4. Thank you for this, Dain.
      Eating or not eating meat on Fridays was a Church discipline, not a doctrine, and disciplines can be changed -as can the penalty the Church attaches to them. It is not so much that timing (the date) makes a difference but one’s attitude: someone who forgets it is Friday and eats meat is not the same as someone who knows it is Friday but does not take the need for penance seriously: it speaks to the person’s dedication to God. Shakespeare’s point is that once we sin grievously we sink further and further into self-destruction, but it is of a spiritual reality rather than psychological reality as portrayed by Shakespeare. In any case, it is the Gospel (as committed to the Church) that we must look to discern what actually constitutes sin.
      It would take a book rather than a blog comment to respond adequately to your question on artificial contraception, but we can at least say that artificial contraception is destructive, with harm to the woman (DVT’s, CVA’s. MI’s and death are of higher incidence among women who take the pill than those who do not), and harm to society: increased breakdown of marriage (divorce is uncommon among couples who practice natural family planning) and increased killing of the unborn child when contraception fails. All acts of contraception are a refusal to entrust everything about oneself to one’s spouse. It says “I give you everything but my fertility”, which is hardly an indicator of mutual trust and commitment.
      God bless you and yours.

      Delete

Please comment using a pseudonym, not as 'anonymous'.
If you challenge the Magisterium, please do so respectfully.
We reserve the right to delete from comments any inflammatory remarks.
If we do not reply to your comment it is through lack of time rather than interest.