A newly confirmed Catholic who is trying to navigate the sometimes baffling world of small T tradition writes me from England:
I’m still a bit bothered by the idea of eating meat on Friday once being a mortal sin and now not (how does that work? What was the actual sin involved back in the day, and why isn’t it sinful now?
That’s one of those things “everybody knows” and so it prompts me to question if it was ever really true. The sin, whatever its gravity, attaches not so much to meat as to the duty of respect owed the passion of Christ. So there is still a discipline of self-denial attaching to Fridays, but the Church gives us different ways of living that out. Some sort of self-denial is called for, but how to do that is given more latitude. (By the way, the meat discipline was, until the modern era, largely a discipline that cut the poor slack while targeting the rich. For the poor could not afford meat anyway, but could afford (or catch) fish. We make these judgment calls about how to show proper respect/modesty/honor all the time. And these judgements change as human fashions and cultures do. So two hundred years ago, a bearded soldier was observing perfect honor toward military decorum. Today, he would be insubordinate. 3000 years ago, liturgical dance was a perfectly honorable way to worship God (as David showed, dancing before the ark like a priest). Today, no. Different cultures have different ways of expressing proper honor. The Church tries to keep a bit of order with minimal regulations. That’s basically the story.
How much authority does the Church have to toggle things between being mortally sinful and not sinful at all?
In a certain sense, none at all. Contempt for the Eucharist or the Passion is *always* mortally sinful. That’s because sin and virtue are not arbitrary legal penalties and rewards handed down by an arbitrary and capricious Mesopotamian deity who just decides, for no particular reason, that likes this and does not like that. Rather, sin and virtue pertain to the sort of creatures we are and the sort of God He is. At all times and everywhere, a movement of the human soul toward hostility to God (however that is expressed) is damaging to the human person. Conversely, any attempt to open the heart to God, however it is expressed, is pleasing to God. However, ways in which that contempt is shown by a different culture can change. Moses can stand barefoot in some ratty shepherd’s garb and be perfectly reverent. Let some hippie priest try it, and he is showing contempt for the decorum of the Mass and feeding his ego and persona as a “radical dude” while making the Mass about himself and distracting the worshippers from God and toward himself. The trick is getting at the spirit of the law, rather than the letter.
Of course, this also means we cannot judge, since external appearance will only get you so far. But the point of the disciplinary codes of the Church is not to encourage judgemental feeding frenzies among the members of the Body of Christ (though that can be an unfortunate side effect sometimes). It is, once again, to maintain a certain semblance of order and discipline in a large and rowdy Church of a billion people. It’s rooted in a very Latin, as distinct from Anglo-Saxon, approach to law. Anglo-Saxon tradition says, “Make as few laws as possible, then stick to them through thick and thin even if it’s stupid. Anglo-Saxon drivers stop at stop lights in the Mojave Desert when there is no car within a hundred miles, BECAUSE IT’S THE LAW! Latin conceptions of law tend to list rules for every possible thing, and then list all the exceptions and reason why somebody might have a reason for not obeying the rule—which more or less explains Italian driving. When an Anglo-Saxon cutlure encounters Latin Law (as in, for instance, the canon of law of the Church) it can result in (depending on your perspective) an exasperating (or funny) attempt by the average product of English or American culture to treat what is actually a fairly loosey goosey and latitudinarian code of order and discipline as though it is is Iron Law of Existence. Hence, the constant stream of complaint about canon law as proof Catholic “legalism”. In fact, however, such things are typically evidence of what W.H. Auden referred to as “Catholicism of a warm, easy-going Mediterranean variety”, that has lots of room for human weakness, takes a nice siesta every afternoon, and like to drink wine with friends in open evening air while it’s northern cousins labor through the day, fighting sleep, so that they can make sure to get eight restful hours of sleep tonight in order to begin a productive day of good Puritan work tomorrow. The earnest legalism is actually in the mind of Anglo-Saxon.
But I’m wandering pretty far afield from the original question now.
Comments
Post a Comment
I have a friend who has 3 months to live. She entered the Catholic Church when she first married many yrs. ago. She wants to be cremated but the priest said her body would have to be in a coffin first for the funeral service. She said she cannot afford a casket, etc. and wondered how I felt about it, since I am a cradle catholic. I just told her to do as she feels is right with God. They just don’t have a lot of money. When my husband died, he wanted to be cremated and the church did not allow that 25 yrs ago. Now his body is in a crypt in one State and I am living in another state. All these rules and regulations about burying keep changing. I wish I had the money to cremate my husband’s body and have it here with me, so we can be buried together, rather than going through an expense that we cannot afford.—-Now, I understand, you don’t need a funeral Mass, but a graveside service will do. What is the difference in, a few prayers with a body or a few prayers with the ashes. Makes no sense to me. I know, in time, this too will change.
So is it still a mortal sin if you don’t do any act of self denial on Friday?
These kind of changes show that the growing tendency towards fundamentalism of the Church shows a total lack of knowledge of the Churches history and evolution throughout the centuries. It has caused a complete departure from the teachings and spirit of Jesus Christ.
There are traditions in the Church, such as the infallibility of the Pope, that were political decisions, and therefore don’t have a whole lot to do with the teachings of Christ.
I wouldn’t care so much, but this tendency of such a powerful institution continues to oppress people in third world countries by supporting politians, particuarly in Canada and the US, who support exploitive foreign polices. The antithesis of Christ’s teachings and a moral degradation.
Great post, but in the course of wandering far afield from the original question you never answered it at all. The reason it was mortally sinful is simply that the Church forbade it. Following Jesus fully means obeying the laws of the Church he established. For that reason, not receiving Communion worthily at least once a year is sinful, but was not so before the law mandating that for all Catholics was put in place (in the thirteenth century, if I recall correctly).
PachyD
I seem to recall from my theology classes in college that some sacraments have conditions on their validity that are purely canonical in origin, such as the minimum for the sacrament of marriage, which is 16 for males and 14 for females, but could be changed. It seems quite possible that something could have been a mortal sin in virtue of canon law that would not otherwise be intrinsically sinful. Once the canon is changed or mitigated legitimately by the conference of bishops, it is not a mortal sin under the law.
Back in the 1960s sister taught us:
“If you order a hot dog at Marco’s, and then remember that it’s Friday, go aheead and eat it. No sense in wasting good food.”
Sister’s point was that it was a sin to violate rules like that only if you did so deliberately. I don’t think that eating meat on Fridays was considered a mortal sin, but I do know that a mortal sin is a mortal sin only if it objectively is a mortal sin and you commit it deliberately.
“To observe the days of fasting and abstinence” is one of the precepts of the Church, just like the requirement to go to Mass on Sundays and holy days of obligation. Therefore, it fulfills the requirement for grave matter. If the other two are also present, the sin is mortal. As alluded to by Mr. Shea, this is an example of Mother Church prescribing a salutary behavior, not condemning meat. The bishops have always had the ability to modify or dispense as the need arose, i.e., Cardinal Spellman’s dispensation of the no-meat-on-Friday precept for military personnel when he was the Apostolic Vicar and as it is modified almost to the vanishing point in the US today.
It is true that “Laws of God” CANNOT be changed. “Laws of the Church” CAN be changed. This is what I learned in Catholic Grade School. Today, if people bend the Laws of the Church, they are called ‘cafeteria Catholics’ & commit venial sins.
If you disobey God’s Laws, that is a mortal sin.
Correct me, if I am wrong about this, in any way.
Sue, I wouldn’t call this a correction. Just my thoughts on the subject. It’s not always easy to distinguish between the laws of the Church and those of Christ. The Church gave us the bible, the Church is the best source of understanding what that bible means. The Tradition of the Church, which includes sacred scripture-because that’s what scripture is, written Tradition, helps us to understand the meaning of that scripture. I will readily admit that it can be confusing, but we shouldn’t jump to the conclusion that the dictates of culture are superior to the Traditions of the Church, which after all,is the Body of Christ.
I think in some sense we are all “cafeteria Catholics”, at least to the extent that we fall short of fulfilling the demands of the gospel. But to my mind what distinguishes a “Cafeteria Catholic” from a fallen Catholic Christian is an acknowledged readiness to grant the superiority of the dictates of culture to the Traditions of the Church. The picking and choosing is done using the current dominant cultural world view to guide our choice of which Traditions to obey and which to ignore, or worse.
It’s one thing to fall short of the goal,it’s another thing to have the hubris to say that you can define the goals for yourself. It’s a spiritual difference.
Just my thoughts.
Jim: I wonder if you read my first note about my friend who is dying and wants to be cremated immediately, rather than buy a casket in order for the priest to pray over her dead body. That to me is a Church law that can be changed. When my husband died, he, being a non-catholic preferred cremation, but decided on a cript burial because the Church did not approve cremation in 1985, and we wanted to be together in the end——yet today they approve of cremation. The Church law changed. Would this be considered Church culture, rather than Church Tradition? If cremation is culture, then having the body in a casket in order to pray over it must be ‘culture’ also. We had to be married in the rectory rather then the church. That too changed a few years later. Culture or Tradition? I think of all of this being ‘culture’. Like you said, it can be confusing. We no longer abstain from meat on Friday—-we now abstain 1 hour before Communion, whereas, yrs. ago it was before midnight on Saturday. Now we can make our Mass obligation on Saturday evening. As to Lenten Fasting, I tried it and lost weight and my priest told me that I should not Fast and harm my health. All these things have changed in my 83 yrs, so I have considered them Church Laws and not God’s Law. Guess I have been through a lot of changes in the Church. [Forgot to mention the vernacular, which I really liked.] Were these changes ‘culture’ or ‘tradition’ ? Confusing—-yes.
This is not an argument, just an anecdote that this blog recalled to mind. One of the reasons that the fathers of Vatican II voted to dispense with the Friday abstinence was that the bishop whose diocese included the apartheid regions of South Africa got up and said that the only way the poor in his diocese could obtain meat was to trap rats. If they had the misfortune to trap a rat on Friday they had to try to keep it alive until midnight, so that they could legally eat it, because they had no refrigeration and the rats immediately began to spoil if they died. This is just one of the things that caused the Council fathers to re-think a custom that had originated in a Europe where meat was the chief ingredient for a feast rather than a normal component of a meal.
Sue, I didn’t see your previous post.I’m 68 years old, my wife was cremated when she died, as per her request. Church law can change. As one example married priests could be permitted. However Church Dogma can’t. It can be deeper understood, explained in different ways, this is what Vat II did.
The opposition between God’s Law and Church Law is disturbing to me. This is a tool that secular-Cafeteria Catholics-use (I’m not saying that you are one of these people)to separate themselves, from teachings of the Church they don’t like. How do you distinguish between the two? A secular Catholic will use contemporary social standards-at least the ones they like-to make the distinction. They put secular culture in the driving seat.
But like I said it can be confusing.
Mary: That is fascinating. Where do I find that in the literature?
“The reason it was mortally sinful is simply that the Church forbade it. Following Jesus fully means obeying the laws of the Church he established.”
This strikes me as a rather dubious way of looking at things. The Church as authoritative expositor of moral law is one thing, but it’s not a comfortable thought to consider the Church as having the power to arbitrarily say “do what I say or burn in Hell!”, not least because that power has been and will be misused (see e.g. Pope Alexander VI threatening a woman with excommunication if she didn’t sleep with him; though I’m sure there are worse examples in church history). I also find it a little hard to reconcile the idea of being under Grace, and not under Law, with the idea of a Church having Divine warrant to order people to do anything it says on pain of Hellfire.
“The opposition between God’s Law and Church Law is disturbing to me… How do you distinguish between the two?”
If I understand rightly, God’s Law is the fundamental moral law of what constitutes right and wrong, and the virtues that should be aimed at; whereas Church Law is aimed at good order and implementing the fundamental moral law. God’s Law doesn’t really innovate - innovation comes from defining points that hadn’t been nailed down before, or extending fundamental principles; and it tends to be hedged around with strong language about stuff being instrinsically evil or gravely immoral or whathaveyou, which often acts as a giveaway.
“...which more or less explains Italian driving.”
I don’t think anything explains Italian driving…
What fundamental moral law is that? Depending on where and when you look you can find “fundamental moral laws” that justify polygamy, abortion, homosexual marriage, incest,etc. You say those aren’t fundamental moral laws, who are you to say?
The Church does not have “Divine warrant to order people to do anything is says on pain of hellfire”. That’s a straw man, it belongs in a tabloid, or a Jack Crick anti-Catholic cartoon.
Italian drivers have nothing on Boston motorists.
Yes, there are difficulties with this conception, but I don’t see how we can avoid it. For example, the Church definitely has the power to declare holy days of obligation on which Catholics must attend mass on pain of mortal sin, and when this requirement is lifted then attending mass is no longer required. As for the example you cite, it should be obvious that any authority who commands us to do what is morally wrong, even the Pope, is exceeding his authority and can (indeed must) be ignored. The Catholic Encyclopedia article on excommunication says: “An excommunication is said to be null when it is invalid because of some intrinsic or essential defect, e.g. when the person inflicting it has no jurisdiction, when the motive of the excommunication is manifestly incorrect and inconsistent, or when the excommunication is essentially defective in form . . . It is admitted by all that a null excommunication produces no effect whatever, and may be ignored without sin.”
We’re still under law. All people are under law, all the time. It can’t be avoided. Our liberation from the letter of the Law of Moses doesn’t mean there is no longer an authority whose commands must be obeyed. Indeed, in a sense the necessity of obeying is all the more urgent, precisely because we are under grace and our salvation is now on the line. The difference is that the law is no longer arbitrary: as Mark said, all of it is only to reflect a relatively few basic rules, such as respect for the Eucharist and the Passion. The Church can authoritatively administer these rules by making them more specific, which will be greatly helpful and even necessary to us who are still subject to the clouded judgment of concupiscence, but these decrees still remain on a different level from things which are intrinsically wrong. Therefore in cases of necessity they can be contravened, which moral laws never can. But without this urgent necessity, they are still authoritative, because the Church has decreed, reformably and possibly even imprudently, but still imperatively, that the eternal laws of Grace should come to us, for now, in this form.
Sorry if I’m unclear or erroneous; I’m in over my head here.
Several things occur to me: “As for the example you cite, it should be obvious that any authority who commands us to do what is morally wrong, even the Pope, is exceeding his authority and can (indeed must) be ignored.” you assume your point,i.e., “what is morally wrong”, which is exactly my point. What is your reference, “God’s Law”?, the Taliban is obeying “God’s Law”, just ask them (be sure to have a few drones hot and ready to go when you do)
“The difference is that the law is no longer arbitrary: as Mark said, all of it is only to reflect a relatively few basic rules, such as respect for the Eucharist and the Passion. The Church can authoritatively administer these rules by making them more specific, which will” Mark said this?
Like I said before,it can be confusing, but there is a distinction between reformable Church disciplines and Dogma.
I would like to recommend a few books to you. 1. “A Church to believe in”, Cardinal Avery Dulles, “Assurance of Things Hoped for”, Cardinal Avery Dulles, “Magisterium”, Francis A. Sullivan, S.J., and “The Church We Believe In”, Francis A. Sullivan, S.J. Both Dulles and Sullivan are teaching from within the Church,trying to understand the mind of the Church. They differ in their understanding of what is, and what is not, reformable vs irreformable teaching. Also the Vat II docs, Lumen Gentium, and Gaudium et Spes,should be read.
It’s more than a head trip: the best way to understand Catholicism is to be one. If your not already, get into a Inquiry class, and the RCIA program. Love with Catholics for a while, ask questions there, see how it actually works. We’re all on a long spiritual journey, you should make this one of your stops, you may be pleasantly surprised.
Jim, a couple of clarifications: first of all, I’m already a believing, practicing Catholic and have been Catholic since before the age of reason. Second, by Mark, I mean Mark Shea in the blog post which this combox is attached to, not Mark the Evangelist. Sorry for any confusion.
You write: “you assume your point, i.e., ‘what is morally wrong’, which is exactly my point.” No, I don’t. We know that something is morally wrong when the Church, with divine authority, tells us so. Earlier, you wrote: “You say those aren’t fundamental moral laws, who are you to say?” Again, the question is not who are we, but who is the Church. The Pope speaks for the Church when he is addressing a teaching to the whole church in his capacity as Pope, but not when coercing a woman in his bedroom. Knowledge of such distinctions may be confusing in some cases (in this case the situation seems pretty clear), but it is vital for making sense of church history without going mad.
It’s equally vital to recognize the difference between discipline and doctrine, and while there is sometimes a gray area, doing so is not too difficult in most cases. On this point, I’m not sure we actually disagree on anything. However, I’m not quite sure what point you’re trying to make. My point is that reformable disciplines, which certainly include the regulations on fasting and abstinence, while they are temporary, prudential measures, not eternal, irreformable truths, are still binding on Catholics while they last. Thanks for the book recommendations.
PachyD
Pacyderminator:
Evidently I misunderstood you. I began this blog with someone who was trying to create a gap between God’s Law and Church law. I thought you were following in that vein. We do agree. Mea Culpa
Jim, Pachy - thanks for the explanations & reading recommendations. I am actually Catholic, but haven’t been for long (I’m the reader Mr. Shea’s responding to in this article, incidentally); fasting is something I know zip squat about, and as an ex-Pentecostal type I am also very concerned with the issue of whether fasting & church obedience constitute legalism/Pharasaism/“loading people down with more burdens than they can bear”/being under Law rather than Grace &c. (Evangelicals & Pentecostals often do see Catholicism in such terms, especially the ex-Catholic ones.)
Legalism is in the heart,not in the “thing”,i.e., fasting, attending Mass, your doing. If you are fasting to get brownie points with God, that’s legalism, and it leads to pride because people who aren’t fasting (in this view) are not getting brownie points with God and therefore not as “good”, “worthy” as you are. This sucks :-(
It’s all about your attitude. Fasting is about spiritual discipline, (remember,watch out for the pride thing, it’s deadly)separating yourself from the world to be closer to God, to hear Him better. There are many different ways to fast: food, drink, no TV (that’s a tough one), spend more time in prayer, time with your family, less time in front of tv :-). Talk to your pastor.
Look in your heart.
Just a question for you, did you come into the Church through the RCIA program?
Take Care, God Bless you.
I am going to go back to cremation. On Ash Wednesday, we are reminded that we turn into ashes. Actually, if you put a body into the ground without the chemicals they inject into it, it will finally disintegrated much sooner. (of course this is against health laws) I went to a protestant funeral/memorial service—the woman who died, had her husband’s ashes in an urn—both were put on the altar and the family memorialized them before the ashes were put into the soil together. It was so beautiful. I understand that in some countries in Europe, where property in at a minimum, bodies are exhumed and cremated, after so many yrs. (So I was told by a woman from Spain) So in the end, what is the difference in a priest, at a service, spreading holy water and incense on a coffin or on an urn. Sometimes, we have to use common sense with these rituals. My friend, who is dying, will definitely be cremated right away, without a coffin to display, and knowing the Catholic Church, as I know it, it is going to be fine.
Jim, I did come in through an RCIA program, but fasting wasn’t mentioned, and it wasn’t clear why church laws are binding on the conscience. I’ve also not come across good examples of Catholics (or anyone) fasting, so I have no idea what it looks like in practice.
I’m guessing the right attitude towards fasting is that where you sweep away all distractions and focus on God. I don’t know what makes this happen (except for “everything going wrong and driving me to my knees” - destruction of comfort zones is a very edifying thing); up till now I wasn’t even aiming for this when fasting, I thought the point was more about discipling one’s desires.
Regarding legalism: makes sense. I guess my real problem is I’m unsure what the difference is between Law and Grace and my assumptions on the matter are incoherent and a bit antinomian. (I keep instinctively confusing Law with legalism, which isn’t helpful.)
godescalc
That is an excellent post. I think your RCIA program was deficient in the areas you mention.
I do not find a lot of Catholics today who do fast, at least in the obvious areas of food, drink, entertainment, abstention(in any form) is alien to our culture.(tells you something about our culture) You might try just allocating a certain amount of time, on a given day, to be in scripture, instead of doing something else you customarily would do. I’m always surprised how difficult even a simple thing like this can be. (At least for me,which probably says more about my spiritual laziness than I want to admit.) Disciplining desire is an important part of getting closer to God.
The book of James is a touchstone for me on the issue of works, faith. Luther hated it, called it an “epistle of straw”, and didn’t want it in the New Testament. He didn’t like the book of Revelation either.(too Jewish) I think works, including obedience to the “law”, which can be considered works, are closely related to faith. “Show me your faith without works” James 2:18-26.
Your serious about your faith and I commend you for it. I hope it never changes. Try the books I recommended to you, and let me know what you think.
Is the purpose of fasting to discipline one’s desires or to help concentration on God? I don’t think we need to choose between them. The primary purpose, of course, is simply to practice mortifying your desires so that you will be better able to submit your will to God’s. But you also may find that prayer (and increased prayer should always accompany fasting) becomes easier and more fulfilling.
As for what it looks like in practice, in most cases it shouldn’t look like anything. Follow the advice of Jesus: anoint your head and wash your face, and your father who sees in secret will reward you. You may find these blog posts on fasting by Steven Greydanus to be of help.
Law and grace is definitely a tricky subject. Part of the problem might be in the way the problem is stated: law and grace shouldn’t be opposed as if they were opposites. It would be better to think of them as complementary, or rather, that law is directed toward grace as its end, but as long as we are fallen beings we need the help of law to receive grace. But the best moments in the life of a Christian, and of course the whole experience of heaven when we get there, are when grace can come unfiltered through any legal (or legalistic) medium. Therefore, the law itself is always striving to make itself unnecessary: if fasting doesn’t lead, in the long term, to better prayer and better union with God, it hasn’t done much good. I think it was George MacDonald who said that the altar must often be laid in order that the fire from heaven may descend somewhere else. The rules for laying the firewood are for our sake and not for God’s: his fire can burn quite well without a nice arrangement of sticks. It’s due to our weakness that we need to mess around with wood before we can warm ourselves with that fire.
If this seems incoherent or unhelpful, please ignore. God bless,
PachyD
I don’t know—-there seems to be a lot said about fasting,(I used to give up candy during lent when I was in Catholic grade school—this was during the depression and you know how much candy was available to us—almost nil) No one seems to talk about the teachings of Jesus, who taught us as a world of people, how to get along and how to treat one another—I think that more important than fasting. I remember being scammed by an insurance man, 10 days after my husband died and he had the nerve to stand there and tell me that he was a Jew turned Christian (he was even baptized in the River Jordan) and said, “it does not make any difference what you do on earth, as long as you acknowledge Jesus Christ as your Savior.” Being still in a kind of numb state, the thought went threw my head “somewhere in the Bible, Jesus tells us how to treat widows”. To me, there was good reason for Jesus to walk the earth for 30 yrs. teaching. Maybe I am off the deep end and as incoherent as PachyD.
Talking about fasting, that is hard to do and it is suppose to mimic (wrong word?) a type of suffering, if done correctly. To me, eating one meal of two small meals a day instead of three is not really fasting. That is easy to do. (That is the way I eat now-normally). Fasting is not eating at all—-what about people who have sad and bad things happening in their families and they suffer with that—-would that be equivalent to fasting? I have a sister who had a druggie daughter who is now either bi-polar or schizoid and my sister suffers with her in the same house and she prays and prays about it. There are so many people in the world who suffer from other things and I think this suffering brings them closer to God, like my niece with juvenile diabetes, who died at age 35 and other children with diseases—they all teach us about suffering. I just think the Church makes to big a thing about fasting. Giving up something, like clothing or money to give to the poor means more. Like giving to the ministry downtown for the street people—they are the ones who used to be in State Hospitals until they closed and now they are not able to take care of themselves. I don’t know—-religion can get complicated with so many rules. I just like to listen to Father Groeschel—he is down to earth about everything. Maybe I am just getting off the subject, but the Nuns also taught us to do something good during Lent. (Maybe it is my 83 yrs of living)
But he taught us to fast, too. Of course charity is more important than fasting. Nevertheless, one helps the other.
If that insurance man was actually trying to justify his dishonesty on the grounds that he could do whatever he wanted because he had “acknowledged” Jesus, I’m simply speechless. The sheer insolent blasphemy of it defies commentary. One thing is certain: it was not Christianity he believed in, it was a degraded Subway commercial.
Ha! I wouldn’t worry about that. :)
Acknowledging the truth of everything else you have said, I don’t think the charge that the Church “makes too big a thing about fasting” has much substance. While the ideal way to learn to submit to the will of God is simply to do so, by accepting whatever he sends us in our lives, the joy and the pain, this is not sufficient for most people for one reason or another, either because they simply do not suffer enough (they are the rich whom Jesus warned will have such a hard time getting to the Kingdom of Heaven) or because they find it difficult to use their sufferings properly. The basic minimum that is required of everyone is quite light. Nevertheless, some amount of deliberate self-mortification - whether it takes the form of literal fasting or not - is vital for developing spiritual discipline for most people, even those who already seem to suffer enough.
It is not for us to judge whether any person is doing “enough” in this line, of course. That is strictly between the person in question and God, and perhaps the person’s spiritual director.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.