|
Permalinks:
Sites:
Blogs:
|
April 10, 2004 Holy Saturday Fulfilling the Sunday Obligation on Saturday A correspondent writes:
Your mother's pastor probably had the same thought that you did--that the readings, etc., for Easter Vigil are different than those of Easter Sunday and that, as a consequence, Easter Vigil might not (or, in his opinion, does not) fulfill the Sunday obligation. The idea that the readings of a Mass must be the same as those of the Sunday or holy day following in order to fulfill the obligation is a common idea, but it is in error. There is no doubt about this in the law. Here is what the law says:
Note that there is nothing in the law about there needing to be any particular readings or set of ceremonies needed to fulfill the obligation. Any Mass in any rite on the evening of the preceding day satisfied the obligation. The fact that no readings or ceremonies are required in the law is itself proof of the fact that they are not required, but the matter is doubly proven by the fact that the law provides that a Mass "anywhere in a Catholic rite" is sufficient. The reason is that the different rites have different readings and ceremonies in their Masses. If I were to go across the street to the local Maronite parish, or a few miles one way to the local Chaldean parish, or a few miles the other direction to the local Ruthenian parish, I would hear completely different readings and observe different ceremonies. Yet their Masses would fulfill my Sunday obligation, as the above canon indicates. So despite the popular misconception, no particular rites or ceremonies are needed, and any Mass on Saturday evening--Easter Vigil Mass included--will satisfy the obligation for Sunday. April 9, 2004 You may have heard that today is called Good Friday because it was on this day that Christ accomplished our redemption and, as Martha Stewart might say, "That's a Good Thing." Actually, as intuitive as this answer is, the answer is more complex than that. You will find some dictionaries (like this one) that list the origin of the "Good" in Good Friday as the ordinary adjective good, being taken in the sense of "holy." You will find others (like this one) that disagree. The Catholic Encyclopedia entry on Good Friday lists its designation in several languages, and although it is called "Holy Friday" in the Romance languages, English isn't a Romance language but a Germanic one. The article concludes that the origin isn't clear, but notes that "Some say it is from 'God's Friday' (Gottes Freitag)." This actually sells this explanation a little short. As far as I can determine, the "God's Friday" explanation is the standard one, particularly among older etymologists. It's also reasonable since we know of a similar very common "God" > "good" transformation in English, namely "goodbye," which is a contraction of "God be with you." Once the true origin of a word or phrase is forgotten, people have a tendency to analyze it in terms of the words it sounds like, and so people today tend to analyze "goodbye" in terms of wishing good for someone, though this isn't at all where the word comes from. I suspect the same thing is going on with "Good Friday." People are reanalyzing the word "Good" based on the familiar adjective today, and this conjecture has crept into some dictionaries. The older, messier "God's Friday" explanation strikes me as more likely the correct one. A reader writes:
Let's see. The date of Easter varies every year between March 22 and April 25, and since Good Friday is two days earlier than Easter, that would put he range of Good Friday dates at March 20 to April 23. Since the Feast of the Annunciation is a fixed feast nine months before Christmas, it has a date of March 25, within the range of possible Good Friday dates. However! The General Norms for the Liturgical Year and the Calendar contains a holiday anti-collision system for just such events. As you can see from the Table of Liturgical Days, Good Friday as part of Triduum is a liturgical day of rank I:1, which is the highest there is, so it takes precedence over the solemnity of the Annunciation, which is a rank I:3 liturgical day. Under the old calendar, "If this feast falls within Holy Week or Easter Week, its office [was] transferred to the Monday after the octave of Easter" (Catholic Encyclopedia). From what I can tell, if there were a conflict between the solemnity of the Annunciation and Good Friday (or the other days of Holy Week, which are rank I:2 days), the same would likely be the result today. My review of the new movie The Alamo is up at DecentFilms.Com. I expected the movie to be too hokey to be enjoyable, but it actually was pretty good. It was more psychologically complex than one would expect, and the audience I saw the film with actually applauded at the end. April 7, 2004 John Paul II on Nutrition and Hydration You may have read press accounts a few weeks ago of a recent address given by the pope on the subject on the necessity of administering nutrition and hydration (i.e., food and water) to individuals in persistent vegetative states. I read these accounts, too, and since then I've been trying to locate a copy of the full text of the address. (The press accounts are too sketchy for serious analysis.) Well, I finally located it! Unfortunately, as usual, the Holy See has given it a absurdly long title that nobody will ever refer to it by (Address of John Paul II to the Participants in the International Congress on "Life-Sustaining Treatments and Vegetative State: Scientific Advances and Ethical Dilemmas"--Man! What is it with Italians and the titles they feel compelled to give ecclesiastical documents?). To get around this unweildy tongue-twister, people have to make up their own names for it, so I'm going to call it the Address on the Vegetative State (AVS). You can read the whole thing at the address above, but here is some analysis: The address is encouraging for the pro-life movement. It contains three particular points of encouragement. The first is a section in which the pope takes on the term "vegetative state" and notes its dehumanizing sound. He forcefully states: §3, emphasis in original). The second is the section that attracted the most notice from the press, in which the holy father stated:
The same section also provides papal endorsement of a point that pro-lifers have sought to apply in other areas:
All of this is great, and I hope that the pro-life movement, Catholic physicians, and Cathoic medical-ethicists fully assimilate what the holy father has said. At the same time, there are some limitations to the document that need bearing in mind. The first is that as an address, as an address, does not have that high an intrinsic level of authority in the spectrum of papal pronouncements. The points named above would have much more weight if they were included in an encyclical, and it would have been great if they were included in Evangelium Vitae. Perhaps soon they will be worked into an encyclical, depriving opponents of a point that they might try to argue. The second limitation is that the address does not answer all the questions that can be posed in this area. For example:
The answer to the first question is the best worked out. If a person cannot assimilate food and water and is being harmed by them (e.g., the fluids he is fed intravenously go out and collect in his tissues, causing them to swell and eventually burst open and weep) then it is licit to discontinue them. However, it would be very helpful to have guidance from the pope regarding the conditions that must be met for this to be legitimate, particularly regarding the nature and degree of harm that a person must experience. The answer to the second question is less worked out, but the address helps. If the burden is of a physical nature then the conditions pertaining to the first question would seem to apply. If the burden is non-physical (i.e., psychological) then the person would seem called to offer up the suffering and accept nutrition and hydration. If the burden is a combination of the two then the solution would seem to be to factor it into its physical and psychological components and apply the above results. The answer to the third question is something that the address does not deal with. While it would seem that a person is obliged to accept nutrition and hydration as long as the conditions pertaining to the first question are not met, the address does not tell us whether caretakers have a right or an obligation to force nutrition and hydration on a person who has expressly refused it. While one can't hope to have all possible questions answered at once, further guidance from the holy father on these questions would be very helpful. As long as they are not expressly addressed, anti-life forces will continue to use them as loopholes though which to pursue their agenda. April 6, 2004 The Gravity of Penance: Follow-Up I A couple of follow-ups on the recent entry on the gravity of Friday penance. First, a reader writes:
Good question! The answer is no, the Code does not repeal and replace all prior norms. First, there are some norms that, although part of universal law, simply are not part of the Code. The largest body of norms that are not found in the Code are the Church's liturgical laws, a fact of which the Code itself takes note:
There are also other parts of universal law that are not contained within the Code, for example most of the norms that are to be observed in electing a new pope are not found in the Code but are contained in another document. The one presently in force in John Paul II's apostolic constitution Universi Dominici Gregis. There are thus certain documents that contain norms complimentary to those in the Code. One of these is Paenitemini. In fact, it is one of the oldest such documents currently in force. Second, the Code makes the point that it does not repeal all other norms. For example:
What the Code does say lapse are the following:
By this standard, the norms of Paenitemini are not abrogated. These are not part of the 1917 Code (1°), they are not en toto contrary to the prescriptions of the 1983 Code (2°), they are not penal laws (3°), and--although they are universal disciplinary laws--they do not regard matters which the 1983 Code completely reorders (4°). Therefore, Paenitemini stands except where specifically modified in the new Code. In fact, the Code has so little to say about penance that one cannot determine what the Church's law is without consulting Paenitemini. For example, the Code does not provide any explanation of what the law of fast entails. It states who is subject to it (Can. 1251), but it does explain what the law itself is. To find that out, you have to consult Paenitemini (Norm III §2). The Gravity of Penance: Follow-Up II Another reader writes:
According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
According to Paenitemini, the substantial observance of the Church's days of penance is grave matter. This means that if one fails in this regard with adequate knowledge and consent, a mortal sin is committed. The reader continues:
According to John Paul II's apostolic constitution Sacrae Disciplinae Leges :
What the pontiff says regarding the Code is true of the Church's laws in general. They are not a replacement for faith, grace, and the charisms of the Spirit, but are intended to create an order in the society of the Church that facilitates the development of these. If you don't like the way the law is presently written, that is your prerogative. To tell you the truth, I wouldn't have a problem myself if the Church decided to change the grave matter of the law in question. But I'm simply trying to represent the Church's law accurately. The reader continues:
No. Please read the blog relevant entries on this subject. Cheese and animal fat are do not violate the law of abstinence. Whether the amount of meat on a sausage pizza would violate the substance of the observance might be a debatable matter. (However, there are limits. A "meat-lover's pizza" certainly would.) The reader continues:
Depends on what you mean by "on a par." If you mean "Is it also grave matter?" then yes, that is what the Church's law provides. If you mean "Is it as grave as the other matters you name?" then no, clearly that is not the case. The reader continues:
I'm afraid that I don't understand your remark regarding sheep, so I can't respond to it. I can only tell you what the law says. If someone knowingly and deliberately fails to observe the substance of the Church's penitential requirements by violating the law of abstinence then, since the law itself states that this is grave matter, the person will commit a mortal sin. However, if people are "blithely" chowing down on pork chop sandwiches on Fridays during Lent (which is when the law of abstinence binds in the United States) then their blithe-ness may be evidence that they may not be aware of the law or its gravity and so may lack the necessary knowledge to commit a mortal sin in this matter. If your Benedictine-run Catholic high school has such poorly catechized Catholic attendees at the sports games it sponsors that they don't know the law in question, that would seem to be the fault of the shepherds who head their parishes. If people don't know what the law says, don't blame the messenger who finally tells you. Blame the ones who should have told you in the first place and didn't. Hope this helps! On a lighter note, this is why I don't listen to talk radio . . . . . . I only work on it. April 5, 2004 There's a line in Ecclesiastes that says:
I don't know how much I wisdom I've accumulated in my short span of years, but I have accumulated knowledge of certain subjects, and it can indeed cause grief. This frequently comes home to me when I am at Mass and listening to the way the standard American liturgical translation butchers what is said in the Scriptures. A few years ago, this really drove me nuts, and every time I would go to Mass (which was basically daily), I would tense up at the readings, waiting to see what would be translated wrong this time. But I got over it. I realized with time that God doesn't want us to give away our peace to others, including incompetent translators. Getting mad has a purpose if there is something one can do about it, but if one can't do anything to bring about positive change then it only hurts oneself. God doesn't want that. So I chilled out, and these days it takes a bit more to rattle me. But it does happen from time to time. Yesterday, Palm Sunday, it did. You may recall how a few years ago a new lectionary for Sunday Mass and there was a big hullabaloo about the use of gender-revisionist language in it. The Holy See appointed a commission of three American cardinals to go over the text and strip out the revisionist language. This they did--almost. They left in some allegedly "minor" instances of "horizontal" revisionist language, such as representing St. Paul as having said "brothers and sisters," where in fact he said "brothers." I've never been happy with this. Any tampering with Scripture to suit a social-political agenda is sacrilege, as far as I'm concerned. The text should be translated as faithfully as possible, given the capacities of the receptor language, and any needed side explanations (like the fact that Paul includes female Christians when he says "brothers") should be made as needed in the homily. It is, after all the function of the homily to explain the readings (not to share jokes and anecdotes and bland exhortations to niceness). Well, yesterday at Mass I ran into another--particularly inept--manifestation of gender-revisionism in the readings at Mass. Here's the relevant passage:
When I heard those "my friend"s in the text, I said to myself, "There's no way that that's what's in the Greek," and indeed, it's not. What Peter says is anthrōpe (pronounced AN-throw-peh), which is a form of direct address translating as "O man" or just "man." There is no way it means "friend," much less "my friend." That's simply not what Peter said (and if he had, the guys might have turned to him and said, "You're no friend of mine!"--not wanting to be associated with a follower of Jesus). What makes this instance of revisionist language particularly inept is that the text has not been consistently gender-sanitized. Notice that Peter is left saying "Woman" to the maiden, which is what he does say in Greek (gunai, pronounced GOO-nai). This suggests that the gender revisionists who were at work on this text had a specific agenda. They weren't trying to bring about gender "neutrality" in the texts, but to eliminate references to men. The final twist in this is that there is another gender bungle in the text. You will notice that Peter is twice identified as "this man." Yet the word "man" is not in the Greek. The word is the pronoun houtos (HOO-toss), which just means "this." It's true that this is the masculine form of the word, so you'd use it for a man (or a boy, or a thing referred to by a noun of the masculine grammatical gender), but the word "man" isn't there. I'd want my Greek students to translate it as "this one" and save the word "man" for when the word anthrōpos or anēr is in the original. What a mess. Too bad the cardinals didn't get it completely cleaned up. April 4, 2004 As I'm sure y'all know, the Spanish recently suffered the tragedy of a terrorist attack on their rail lines, killing hundreds of people. As a result, some are now referring to the event as "Europe's 9/11," though the comparison is somewhat inappropriate. The American 9/11 was larger by a factor of ten. As tragic as the Spanish event was, it is not on the same plane. Let's hope that Europe doesn't have to feel the pain of a true 9/11-size event. As I'm sure y'all also know, the Spanish then responded very inappropriately in the wake of their attack, when came just before a national election. The Spanish electorate kicked out their incumbent government, which had supported the War on Terror and the liberation of Iraq, and chose an appeasement-oriented government whose prime minister-elect promptly took to scolding the U.S. and promising the withdrawal of Spanish troops from Iraq. This was criminally stupid for all kinds of reasons. What did the Spanish get for their efforts in sending appeasement signals to the terrorists? More terror. How they could have expected anything else? Did they think that the terrorists would say, "Oh, now that the Spanish have turned tail and shown their cowardice, we'll leave them alone"? Couldn't they see that instead the terrorists would say, "Now that the Spaniards have shown they are cowards, let us press the advantage"? You can't play appeasement games with such people. All it does is embolden them. They want you to be afraid. That's why they're called terror-ists. If you give in to the terror then all you do is turn them into successful terrorists, and that will encourage them to keep going after you so that they can get more concessions from you. What is jaw-dropping about this situation is how the Spanish, of all Europeans, thought appeasing Islamic terrorists would work. Don't they know their own history? Don't they know that their land was under Muslim rule for centuries until it was taken back shortly before the discovery of the New World? Don't they know that Usama bin Laden has referred to "the tragedy of Andalusia"--by which he means the fact that the Spainiards' ancestors kicked out the Muslims occupying the country--as one of the things stuck in his craw about the way the world is right now? Spain, of all places in Europe, is the part Muslim Fundamentalists most want back in their hands, because it is an embarrassment to them. They had it, and they lost it. In their view, it is by rights part of Muslim territory, currently occupied by Christian infidels. As a result, the Spanish need to show more strength and resolve of will in dealing with Muslim Fundamentalists than other Europeans. But apparently the Spanish do not realize this. They have been lulled into the same lazy stupor of fear and appeasement as the rest of Europe. This creates problems, and not just for them. For us. The reason is that the terrorists don't understand the difference between Europeans and Americans, and they are likely to try the same tactics on us that they tried on the Spanish. These won't work. Americans have more resolve in dealing with the problem than Europeans, and attacks on us will only serve to further enrage us and redouble our efforts against the terrorists. But the fact is that the terrorists aren't very bright guys. If they were, they would realize that there are better ways to get what you want in life than what they're trying. Terrorists are just violent criminals with an ideology, and criminals in general aren't a bright sort. As a result, terrorists are likely to try the tactics on us that worked on Spain. We must now be extra vigilant. Thanks for nothing, Spain. April 2, 2004 Meat On Lenten Fridays: A Mortal Sin? A common question at this time of year is whether or not deliberately violating the law of abstinence is a mortal sin. It is. The relevant law is found in Paul VI's 1966 apostolic constitution Paenitemini, which provides that:
That the keeping of abstinence (and fast on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday) is part of the substantial observance of these days is evident from the fact that the second half of Norm II names this as the chief requirement of observing these days:
The faculties mentioned "regarding the manner of fulfilling the precept of penitence on such days" have to do with the ability of pastors to dispense the faithful from the obligation of abstinence and fast or commuting it to something else. If such dispensation or commutation is not obtained then "the manner of fulfilling the precept" is abstinence. Thus one must substantially observe the law of abstinence on such days, and the obligation to do so is a grave one, meaning that it satisfies the condition of grave matter required for mortal sin. If one knowingly and deliberately fails in this obligation then one has committed mortal sin. As to the reason for this, the Code of Canon Law notes that:
It is thus a matter of divine law that the faithful are to do penance (a fact we could have determined from Scripture), and the regulations regarding fast and abstinence are simply the Church's specification of this divine requirement, made in keeping with Jesus giving the church the power to bind and loose (Matt. 16:18, 18:18). April 1, 2004 Participated in a debate today. It was a tightly-structured panel discussion at Southwestern College here in the San Diego area. The topic was homosexual "marriages," and the participants were me, a law instructor, a psychology instructor, and a lawyer from the ACLU who was also a lesbian. The debate largely turned into a discussion between me and the lawyer lady, with a little input from the others. It went quite well. The main arguments of both sides got put forward, we had a chance to rejoin each other's arguments, threw in some humor, and got the audience engaged (as illustrated by their applause after telling points were made). I'm going to try to contact the lawyer lady and thank her for a good debate. (She got out of there very quickly after the event.) In preparing for debates and major interviews, I try to "game out" the discussion ahead of time in my mind. (This can cause problems, because it can leave me awake in bed at 2 a.m. twisting arguments around in my head, but that's an occupational hazard; it's what you have to do to get the job done right.) Today's debate was the first one I've done on homosexual "marriage," and the first occasion I've had to debate homosexuality in a number of years, so for a day or two ahead of time I gave myself a mental workout on the subject. One of the arguments I was particularly concerned to have a solid, snappy answer for is the claim--which was sure to come up--that homosexuality exists in the animal world and that this makes it "natural" for humans as well. This is an argument that must be convincingly rebutted, because otherwise it undermines the natural law argument against homosexuality, leaving only a religious argument, which in the present, secular public sphere is doomed to fail. Since it is true that animals do sometimes display homosexual behavior, the obvious rejoinder to the "animals do it too" argument is that just because animals do something, that doesn't mean it's good for humans to do. This answer has the benefit of being true, but stated in that form it has the detriment of being boring. It's not a "grabber," and it smacks too much of your parents saying, "If all the other kids wanted to jump off a bridge, would you jump off too?" That kind of argument probably caused you to stop paying attention when you were a kid, and the same danger presents itself here. It doesn't matter how true the rejoinder is; if it isn't presented in an arresting manner then the audience will stop paying attention and won't take it seriously. So I ruminated on the charge, and in the wee morning hours, the answer revealed itself to me. I had a good, snappy way of presenting the argument that would grab the audience's attention and force them to take it seriously. Here's what I came up with, and ended up using in the debate:
The audience really responded to this. The black widow line alone got a huge laugh. I think even people on the other side of the issue were laughing. After the point was made, there was a big round of applause in acknowledgement of its force. There was no judging of the debate and no announcement of the winning side, but after the event a gentleman from the audience came up to me and said that he overheard some in the audience who were in favor of "gay marriage" saying of me "Man, he's killing them (the folks on the other side) with these arguments." Perhaps that was one of the ones they were thinking of. . . . (Shrug.)
March 31, 2004 Learning Jesus' Native Language I'm getting a number of requests these days, inspired by the movie The Passion of the Christ, for language learning resources for Aramaic. I'll be happy to oblige to the extent that I can, but unfortunately there aren't a lot of good resources out there, especially for self-teaching. The problem is that there isn't a lot of demand for knowing Aramaic in this country, and so few resources have been developed. Many of the resources that do exist can be expensive and often presuppose that you already know Hebrew, since in biblical studies one usually learns Aramaic after one already knows Hebrew. There's just a dearth of good, self-teaching Aramaic resources. I'm hoping to help correct this with several projects that I have in the works, but they aren't close to being ready yet. What I generally recommend in the meantime is that someone who wants a little exposure to Aramaic get a copy of Classical Aramaic: Book 1 by Rocco Errico and Fr. Michael J. Bazzi. This is published in workbook format, so it's suitable for self-study, and it is very basic, so it won't be too hard. It will teach you how to read the Eastern Aramaic script and give you about a hundred word vocabulary, with many of the terms related to the faith. Now, let me pose a question to you, the reader: Just how interested are you in learning Aramaic? Would you be interested, for example, in a two or three tape set that taught you how to both say the Rosary in Aramaic and understand it? How interested would you be in similar sets for saying the Rosary in Latin, Greek, and Hebrew? Would you like to use it for yourself or with your homeschool kids or your study group? If you have thoughts on any of these questions, e-mail me. I'm doing a little market research. (And note: This isn't one of the secret projects. Those are still secret.) March 30, 2004 Did another media interview yesterday. A start-up cable TV network called WealthTV is doing a program on stem cell research, and they came by Catholic Answers to do an interview on the Catholic perspective on fetal stem cell research. Once they got set up (which took a while), the interview only took about 30 minutes, and went very well. Nice guys on the production staff. Due to the nature of the network (which is supposed to be a kind of lifestyle channel for the well-heeled set, from what I understand), I made a special point of the economic benefits of embracing the culture of life and how, due to the developed world's failure to do so thus far, we are now facing Medicare and Social Security crises due to our declining birthrate. Less people out there means less economic productivity. Hopefully it's a point that'll have some traction with the folks who watch the channel. The show is supposed to air in early to mid June, when WealthTV goes on the air. I'll let y'all know when, if I find out. A reader writes:
The canonical status of "LifeTeen Masses" is complicated at present. Here's a list of some of the complications:
A reader writes:
Hrm. Question #1 is kind of general. In fact, it sounds like a homework question. You wouldn't be taking a course in apologetics at your parish or something, would you? I'm normally hesitant to directly answer homework questions, but since I don't know that this is one, I'll take a crack at it. Here goes: Logical reasoning is just another way of saying "good reasoning," the alternative being bad or illogical reasoning. (This doesn't mean that reasoning based on emotion is bad; reason that draws on our emotions also can be good, as Mr. Spock eventually learned.) Logic is important to every field of study, apologetics included. In fact, since apologetics deals with defending a position against contrary claims and arguments, the role of logic is perhaps brought into sharper focus in apologetics. Basically, there are two kinds of logic, known as informal logic and symbolic logic. The former involves the analysis of ordinary language arguments, the latter recasts arguments in a "mathematical" form for purposes of analyzing their structure more closely. Both have a role to play in apologetics. Informal logic is useful in the kind of ordinary, conversational apologetics that most in the field are engaged in. Symbolic logic is useful for the higher-end, technical apologetics that is possible (e.g., among philosophers). Though logic is important to apologetics, but it has limits. There still must be room for grace and free will. Thus Vatican I infallibly rejected the proposition that "the assent to Christian faith is not free, but is necessarily produced by arguments of human reason; or that the grace of God is necessary only for living faith which works by charity" (Dei filius canon 3:5). Logic can only take one so far, but ultimately it has to be free will enabled by God's grace that allows one to embrace the Christian faith. Regarding question #2, I'm only going to recommend stuff dealing with informal logic. If you're just starting out, you don't want to try to self-teach symbolic logic. It's too complicated for that. Here are some resources:
March 28, 2004 My review of the new remake of Walking Tall is up at DecentFilms.Com. A reader writes:
I find it hard to advise in this situation, because there are not hard and fast rules about what can and can't be done on Sunday. In fact, I would be hesitant to employ the "two or three hours" rule that you mention. That kind of rule of thumb coheres well with the way the law used to be written, but the law on Sunday observance has been integrally reordered. The current law applies the principles of Sunday observance in a way that makes such prior rules of thumb unreliable. Let me show you what I mean. Here's the old law:
Now, here's the new law:
You'll notice that the concept of "servile work" is gone from the new law. So are prohibitions on any specific affairs (legal acts, public trade, shopping). Instead, there is a general prohibition on "those works and affairs which hinder" the goals of worship and rest. The concept of servile work was problematic, which is why it was eliminated. Servile work was understood principally as physical labor, and the concept worked fairly well in an age when people largely lived by manual labor. If you'd worked all week, you needed a day of physical rest. On this day it was permissible, however, to do non-servile work, meaning non-physical labor. But today a large number of people do not do manual labor for a living. They sit in offices and do non-physical labor all day long. To prevent them from doing physical work on Sundays could result in them getting little or none of the physical activity they need to be healthy. Also, allowing them to continue to do non-physical work on Sundays, just like they do all week, would result in long-term mental strain due to not getting adequate time to rest and recharge their batteries. It would leave them stuck in a rut. As a result, the law was re-written. As it is now, the law leaves it to the individual to figure out which specific works and affairs interfere with these goals in his particular case. This means, among other things, that the old rules of thumb about how much servile work you could do on Sunday aren't reliable. Now to deal with your particular situation, I am a bit hesitant due to lack of information: I don't know what kind of work you do during the week, I don't know how many kids you've got or what ages they are, and (quite importantly) I don't (yet) have the experience of managing a large household. All of these give me pause, but let me offer what I hope are some useful points:
Hope this helps! Another reader writes:
Thanks! I (and we) can use them!
I'm not hearing anything here that is an abuse. It's certainly one of those "please don't eat the daisies" situations in that the legislator could not be expected to envision people putting tables between the pews and the sanctuary, but as long as the kids aren't in the sanctuary, I'm not hearing anything that is a violation of law. The kids do need to kneel at the appropriate points in Mass, but if they do that at their tables, it doesn't seem that anything illicit is being done. There's nothing that says you have to be in a pew or seated with the rest of the faithful during Mass, or that you can't use tables in lieu of a Communion rail. It's just kind of an odd situation. |
Archives (by end date)
|
