Mass obligations for families with small children et.

[MithLuin]

This comes back to - "If you can go, go. If you [u]can't[/u], don't kill yourself trying to get there; the obligation doesn't apply in that circumstance."

I think the list from 1962 tries to codify "can't" in a way that might seem dated or culturally irrelevant to us. If it isn't relevant though - we can ignore it. I mean, most of us are not unmarried pregnant women nor do we have husbands or fathers who will beat us if we go to mass. I don't see "my alarm didn't go off and I slept clean through it!" on that list, but if you were literally [i]asleep[/i], is there any way you can be held responsible for missing? But of course, if you were up all night partying, knowing that mass was early in the morning...that would be a different story.

See, the grey area comes when we really are at fault for not making it there, which is something that will usually depend upon the particulars. 'Forgetting' to set an alarm can be the same thing as intentionally deciding the night before that you can't be bothered to get up for mass. It's the difference between an honest mistake or accident...and a mortal sin.

[Ziggamafu]

Regardless of the grave obligation, it is important to go to Mass. But it deeply saddens and frustrates me when obviously well-intentioned Catholics worry that they have "accidentally" committed a mortal sin (as if that were possible) by sadly missing Mass for what honestly seemed to them to be a reasonable excuse; as if their commonsense may not have quite made it past some undefined line, into the category of valid excuses. That, to me, is pathetic, and a gross distortion not only of Church teaching, but of the very spirit and purpose of the celebration of Holy Mass in the first place. The third commandment was given to us to ensure some much-needed relaxation in the midst of a world gripped by sin and its consequences; the Mass, for the working out of our salvation and, what's more, that peace may abide deeply in our hearts. What tragedy that for some, it may become an occasion of the sin of despair or scandal because of an improper understanding of the nature and function of grave obligations.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote]Have you ever read, say, St. Francis de Sales against Protestantism? Or St. Thomas More's Dialogue Concerning Heresy? When it comes to errors and misrepresentations of Church teaching - especially by those who represent a teacher's position (such as the flag-bearers of Phatmass) - the saints throughout history, the Apostles, and even our Lord Himself were FAR more "snarky" than I've been. All for the love of the Church! I have not merely listed Jone, but also the CCC, Canon Law, Jimmy Akin, Fr. Vincent Serpa, the Baltimore Catechism, etc., all in defense of our wise Mother's commonsense approach to the holy obligation of Mass. That all of this is not enough for some people is beyond belief.[/quote]

A person defending the teaching of the Church, which is magisterial in nature, from heretics who deny the certain and defined deposit of faith is a very different thing from a person defending one theologian's interpretation of moral law, an interpretation which is not endorsed specifically by the Church and which is open to criticism. Fr. Jone goes far beyond the documents of the Magisterium in his statement on this subject; it is not obliged for me to agree with anything more than the Magisterium has put forth. Therefore, I cannot be compared to a heretic, and especially not as a theologian disagreeing with another theologian's private opinion, nor can you regard yourself as heroicly snarky in the face of obstinate heresy from someone denying the deposit of faith.

As for your quoting other sources, no one is disagreeing with the sources, but with your interpretation of the sources. I have not looked at your profile, but Jennie tells me you are studying theology. I wish you well in your endeavor, but I will tell you that you will do better as a theologian if you don't go accusing other theologically trained individuals of heresy every time they think critically or appear (to you) to disagree with the Church. You must ask yourself first what your opponent really means and intends, whether they may validly have a different understanding of the text, whether the text is ambiguous, etc. Case in point: no one here disagrees with the reasons for missing Mass listed by any magisterial source. No one here disagrees with any magisterial source. If you want to understand and have a true discussion, you're going to have to acknowledge this and ask yourself what we are really saying [see below].

[quote name='Ziggamafu' post='1752918' date='Jan 16 2009, 12:47 PM']To me, questioning Jone's orthodoxy in moral theology would be like questioning Ratzinger's orthodoxy in doctrinal theology (for the sake of a more proper comparison, say, before he was made pope); acceptable and even good in a sense, but not very profitable, and certainly surprising from anyone other than a dissenter.



Certainly - especially from those in teaching positions - great caution and thought is required when explaining disagreements with so highly respected a work. Blithe, unsubstantiated comparisons to heretics do not reflect such care, and, by extension, could possibly demonstrate a disrespect for the general teaching authority of the Church, which, on top of the sense of the faithful of the time, formally endorsed the book as being without any moral error 27 times over.[/quote]

As I said above (after the post I'm quoting, I realize), a well-learned moral theologian I know says he's never even heard of Jone, despite TAN's claims regarding the foundational nature of his work. Certainly not the greatest moral theologian of the 20th century (which, in my opinion, would be JPII); if he had been that, I would have at least heard of him. The fact that my moral theologian friend hasn't heard of him makes his work even more questionable in my mind.

Regardless, the private opinion of a theologian is quite reasonably open to criticism, despite the honors it may have received. You compare criticizing Jone with criticizing Ratzinger, but Ratzinger, in his capacity as a scholar and not as the pope, wrote "Jesus of Nazareth" and specifically said that he is open to criticism. Theologians as theologians do not bear the authority of the Magisterium. Fr. Jone isn't even a member of the Magisterium, so there's no room for misinterpretation. For a theologian's opinions even to be considered fairly normal (and therefore, somewhat [i]unofficially[/i] less open to criticism, although any work not of the Magisterium is always open to criticism at least by those trained in theology), the teaching would have to be in accord with the Vincentian canon.

As for comparing his work to a heretic's, that was not my point. My point was that nihil obstats and imprimaturs are (very unfortunately) not always indicators of orthodoxy, even if they come in multitudes. The Dutch Catechism had the approval of the council of Dutch bishops and was translated into virtually every language spoken in the Western world, yet it remains a condemned scourge on the field of catechetics.

[quote name='Ziggamafu' post='1753722' date='Jan 17 2009, 12:45 PM']"Reasons such as the necessity to work to support one's family, child care, personal sickness or the care of the sick, necessary travel etc. would excuse a person on particular occasions. Those who have continuing reason to be excused should consult their pastor."

[url="http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/sunday_mass.htm"]http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/sunday_mass.htm[/url]

***

"Any cause which is moderately grave excuses from the precept- namely, [b]any reason which involves [u]some notable inconvenience[/u] or harm to [u]mind[/u] or body [u]either of oneself or of another.[/u][/b]"

[b]St. Alphonsus [/b](Theol. mor. book 3; 324)

***
[b]
Can. 1323 The following are not subject to a penalty when they have violated a law or precept:[/b]

[b]1. a person who has not yet completed the sixteenth year of age;[/b]

2. a person who without negligence was ignorant that he or she violated a law or precept; inadvertence and error are equivalent to ignorance;

3. a person who acted due to physical force [b]or a chance occurrence which the person could not foresee or, if foreseen, avoid;[/b]

4. a person who acted coerced by grave fear, even if only relatively grave, or due to necessity [b]or grave [u]inconvenience[/u][/b] unless the act is intrinsically evil or tends to the harm of souls;

5. a person who acted with due moderation against an unjust aggressor for the sake of legitimate self defense or defense of another;

6. a person who lacked the use of reason, without prejudice to the prescripts of cann. 1324, §1,n. 2 and 1325;

[b]7. a person who without negligence thought that one of the circumstances mentioned in nn. 4 [/b]or 5 was present.

***

...more coming, as I get the time.[/quote]

No one disagrees with any of these comments, we disagree with your interpretation. Namely, I agree with your definition of the word "grave." You seem to think that not having gone on a vacation in a long while and wanting a day to rest is "grave;" further, you (or Fr. Jone) seem to think that it is possible to fulfill the Sabbath call to rest without going to Mass, even if you have the opportunity to go to Mass.

Regarding your first quote above (from EWTN), these things are call excused, so long as we understand that they are special circumstances and not to be used frequently (notice that EWTN adds "on particular occasions" as a further requirement of any excuse). I will give you my example: when Jen was pregnany, she was deemed high risk. On several occasions, I had to rush her to the hospital. A couple times, this happened on a Sunday and she was being treated well before time for Mass. Technically, I could have left and come to Mass and then gone back to the hospital, but that would have been the wrong thing to do in a grave situation. If, however, I found out that she'd have to be hospitalized for the long-term (say, the last three months of pregnancy), I certainly wouldn't have used that as an excuse to miss Mass every week. Regarding travel, remember that he says "necessary;" EWTN does not seem to agree with Fr. Jone that leisure trips are a good excuse.

Regarding your quote from St. Alphonsus (as you know, a great moral theologian and doctor of the Church), I would not disagree with him, though I would interpret "notable" to mean "grave" or "serious."

Regarding Canon 1323 § 1, this of course means that no one under 16 is subject to the penalties assigned in canon law, though I would interpret it (reminding you that I am not a canon lawyer) to mean that those under 16 are still subject to canon law, much the way that if I am a child and I jaywalk, I have still broken the law, but no court is going to convict me. Regarding § 3, no disagreement here, but I don't see how that applies to people taking leisure trips or trying to fulfill their Sabbath rest in any way excluding Mass. Regarding § 4, the boldfaced area seems to agree with what I have already indicated with my comments on the principle of double effect, but I still disagree that Fr. Jone's list of "graves" is fitting to the canon. Regarding § 7, that's simply a statement regarding invincible ignorance. It doesn't apply here because I wouldn't even dream of disagreeing.



[quote name='Ziggamafu' post='1753994' date='Jan 17 2009, 07:43 PM']Regardless of the grave obligation, it is important to go to Mass. But it deeply saddens and frustrates me when obviously well-intentioned Catholics worry that they have "accidentally" committed a mortal sin (as if that were possible) by sadly missing Mass for what honestly seemed to them to be a reasonable excuse; as if their commonsense may not have quite made it past some undefined line, into the category of valid excuses. That, to me, is pathetic, and a gross distortion not only of Church teaching, but of the very spirit and purpose of the celebration of Holy Mass in the first place. The third commandment was given to us to ensure some much-needed relaxation in the midst of a world gripped by sin and its consequences; the Mass, for the working out of our salvation and, what's more, that peace may abide deeply in our hearts. What tragedy that for some, it may become an occasion of the sin of despair or scandal because of an improper understanding of the nature and function of grave obligations.[/quote]

TAN says that Fr. Jone's book was partly a guide for confessors, so I will give my opinion on confessors, which I am quite certain St. Alphonsus would agree with me on, as I've read his guides for confessors dealing with scrupulants: scrupulosity comes from an unformed (or misformed) conscience; a confessor should try to clarify the teaching the Church and help form the scrupulant's conscience, not make a list of excuses for scrupulants to make them feel better about their actions. I am saying that I do not think Fr. Jone's reasons are all valid. As such, it my opinion, it would do damage to scrupulants to read his work. Personally, as a scrupulant, I would rather learn the moral teaching of the Church and learn how to trust in God, rather than be given a detailed list of one theologian's "to do and not to do" list. When a person misses Mass for what they thought was a reasonable excuse, then there is, as you surely know, no culpability, but that does not take away the Church's responsibility to correct and clarify the matter when needed.

The Mass should never be a cause of despair, but the Church should also not fall short of calling people to a greater understanding of their obligations. The solution to the "improper understanding of the nature and function of grave obligations" is not to widen the meaning of grave to include pleasure trips and luxury, but to focus the mind and faith of the scrupulant on the love of God rather than on fear.

I'd write more but have to wait because Aaron is crying.

God bless,

Micah

[Ziggamafu]

[quote name='Raphael' post='1754345' date='Jan 18 2009, 12:38 PM']A person defending the teaching of the Church, which is magisterial in nature, from heretics who deny the certain and defined deposit of faith is a very different thing from a person defending one theologian's interpretation of moral law, an interpretation which is not endorsed specifically by the Church and which is open to criticism. Fr. Jone goes far beyond the documents of the Magisterium in his statement on this subject; it is not obliged for me to agree with anything more than the Magisterium has put forth. Therefore, I cannot be compared to a heretic, and especially not as a theologian disagreeing with another theologian's private opinion, nor can you regard yourself as heroicly snarky in the face of obstinate heresy from someone denying the deposit of faith.[/quote]

This is in part why I thought your references to clearly heretical works that slipped through cracks in the nihil-obstat system in comparison to Jone were so uncalled for. You are right, we are dealing with interpretations of ecclesial law. Of course there is room for disagreement. That doesn't mean we can't talk about the disagreements. I cannot call you a dissenter and neither can you call me one. I am not even sure at this point what is the magnitude or severity of our disagreement - if there even is one. I suppose my last post summed up why the thread ruffled my feathers. In my zeal to aid those for whom the obligations of the Church are heavy and terrifying burdens, I was overcritical of you. And I have not been fair in my tone. I apologize.

YOU WROTE:
[b]
"As I said above (after the post I'm quoting, I realize), a well-learned moral theologian I know says he's never even heard of Jone, despite TAN's claims regarding the foundational nature of his work. Certainly not the greatest moral theologian of the 20th century (which, in my opinion, would be JPII); if he had been that, I would have at least heard of him. The fact that my moral theologian friend hasn't heard of him makes his work even more questionable in my mind."[/b]

He was more famous in non-English speaking countries. If you do some digging, you'll find him cited in many scholarly articles and texts concerning moral theology, and even sometimes mere secular ethics; see Amazon's list of books citing Jone for a starter, though Amazon obviously doesn't have the "search text" feature for most Catholic texts and the citations provided are consequently nowhere near a complete list. One thing that is interesting to me is the number of anti-orthodox Catholic books that cite him as an example of the tyrannical absolutism of the "other side". John Paul the Great will, I hope, one day be regarded as a doctor of the Church; however, his efforts in the realm of moral theology were mostly in regards to sexuality and politics. If he personally authored some exhaustive tome on moral theology that I don't know about, I would be ecstatic. Tan's claim of universal acceptance - and my borrowing of it - was surely hyperbole, stressing his eminent position amongst the scholars of the time.


YOU WROTE:
[b]"Regardless, the private opinion of a theologian is quite reasonably open to criticism, despite the honors it may have received. You compare criticizing Jone with criticizing Ratzinger, but Ratzinger, in his capacity as a scholar and not as the pope, wrote "Jesus of Nazareth" and specifically said that he is open to criticism."[/b]

I brought up the reference to Ratzinger as the first comparison that popped into my head, but you will find that a page or two ago I clarified that of course the text is open to criticism. Even dogma - or at least the current wording or understanding of dogma - is open to criticism. Certainly those texts not under the protection of infallibility are all the more subject to criticism and even error.


YOU WROTE:
[b]"As for comparing his work to a heretic's, that was not my point. My point was that nihil obstats and imprimaturs are (very unfortunately) not always indicators of orthodoxy, even if they come in multitudes."[/b]

I get that, I just think that this is a non-argument for your position. Saying that a text could be wrong is not the same as demonstrating that it is wrong. You have admitted that the issue here is the interpretation of a Church law; I simply believe that all of the references I have provided, taken together, lend credibility to my interpretation (which cautiously, though optimistically, gives a nod to Jone's list of excuses). I'm not so much interested in defending Jone's list as I am attacking the mentality behind those who immediately condemn it.

[quote]No one disagrees with any of these comments, we disagree with your interpretation. Namely, I agree with your definition of the word "grave." You seem to think that not having gone on a vacation in a long while and wanting a day to rest is "grave;" further, you (or Fr. Jone) seem to think that it is possible to fulfill the Sabbath call to rest without going to Mass, even if you have the opportunity to go to Mass.[/quote]

You are wrong in your assessment of Jone's stance. It is interesting - and perhaps indicative of the very problem my posts address - that this is the way you immediately interpreted it. The counter-reference to article 60 is beneficial here. For context, the transcription of 59 is required as well:

[i]"59. - 3. The Extent. Since one must observe the law, he also has the duty:

a) To acquire knowledge of the law.
A cleric must, therefore, read the official diocesan publication to learn the ordinances of his bishop.

b) To use the ordinary means which are absolutely necessary for the observance of the law.
Hence, a priest must have a breviary, and take it with him on a journey.

60. c) To remove or anticipate obstacles which make the law (proximately) impossible of observance.

* If the time for the observance of a law is at hand, it is forbidden to render oneself incapable of its observance, unless there is a correspondingly good reason for doing so. The gravity of the reason must be in proportion to the importance of the law, the nearness of the time for its fulfillment, and the frequency of the law's non-observance by putting such an obstacle in the way of its fulfillment. -- One may not take a trip on Saturday afternoon merely for pleasure if doing so makes attendance at Mass the next day impossible. (Cf. 198)

* If the time for observing the law is still remote such an obstacle may be placed in the way of its observance. One may, therefore, take a pleasure trip even if Sunday Mass is thereby rendered impossible, provided he leaves before Saturday or Sunday morning.

* One may never do anything with the intention of rendering the observance of the law impossible. Hence, it is sinful to work merely to be excused form the obligation of fasting.

There is no obligation to remain subject to the law. Thus, it is not forbidden on a day of abstinence to go to a locality where a dispensation from the law has been granted and there eat meat."[/i]

(From Book I: First Principles; Chapter III: Interpretation, Obligation, and Observance of the Law)

Being relaxed and employing common sense is not the same as being lax and employing the spirit of dissension. Isn't that wonderful news? [i]<- not to be read sarcastically.[/i]


[quote]I will give you my example: when Jen was pregnany, she was deemed high risk. On several occasions, I had to rush her to the hospital. A couple times, this happened on a Sunday and she was being treated well before time for Mass. Technically, I could have left and come to Mass and then gone back to the hospital, but that would have been the wrong thing to do in a grave situation.[/quote]

Well thank God for that. The reason I've spent so much time getting hot over this issue is for the sake of those people who, misunderstanding Church teaching because of an imbalanced emphasis on a grave obligation's threats, would either have abandoned their wives in that situation or have been terrified of Hell-fire and perhaps even bitter for staying.

[quote]Regarding travel, remember that he says "necessary;" EWTN does not seem to agree with Fr. Jone that leisure trips are a good excuse.[/quote]

Perhaps, and perhaps not. There are countless nuanced situations that could be provided to any individual representative of EWTN and as many nuanced answers.

[quote]Regarding your quote from St. Alphonsus (as you know, a great moral theologian and doctor of the Church), I would not disagree with him, though I would interpret "notable" to mean "grave" or "serious."[/quote]

Again, interpretation could be made in either of our favors.

[quote]Regarding Canon 1323...Regarding § 4, the boldfaced area seems to agree with what I have already indicated with my comments on the principle of double effect, but I still disagree that Fr. Jone's list of "graves" is fitting to the canon. Regarding § 7, that's simply a statement regarding invincible ignorance. It doesn't apply here because I wouldn't even dream of disagreeing.[/quote]

Can 1323.7 stipulates that even if the inconvenience [i]seems[/i] grave (sincerely, not by negligence), then the person missing Mass is not under grave obligation.

[quote]...a confessor should try to clarify the teaching the Church and help form the scrupulant's conscience, [b]not make a list of excuses for scrupulants to make them feel better about their actions. [/b] I am saying that I do not think Fr. Jone's reasons are all valid. As such, it my opinion, it would do damage to scrupulants to read his work. Personally, as a scrupulant, I would rather learn the moral teaching of the Church and learn how to trust in God, rather than be given a detailed list of one theologian's "to do and not to do" list.[/quote]

Jone's book is far from a "list of excuses". If it for some creepy reason makes you feel any better, Jone is mostly fire and brimstone throughout his book which is why the traditionalists love him so. This includes two and a half additional pages on the grave obligation (of Mass) by itself; Jone goes so far as to say that the obligation is not fulfilled if the attendee is not "devout", "i.e., he must have the necessary attention and intention." (Part II, Section III: The Third Commandment; Chapter III, article 2; 197.2) Anytime he gives excuses or lists situations in which culpability is diminished, he does so in smaller text. The examination of conscience that one can, lowest species by lowest species, gather from Jon's book is by far and away the most exhaustive of any that I have ever seen. As such, and as a former sufferer of excessive scrupulosity, the book was exceptionally useful in the formation of my conscience.

[quote][b]When a person misses Mass for what they thought was a reasonable excuse, then there is, as you surely know, no culpability, but that does not take away the Church's responsibility to correct and clarify the matter when needed.[/b][/quote]

That...pretty much sums up the heart of my position. I merely think it is underemphasized, as if people should always be suspicious of commonsense. It would very difficult to prove wrong certain interpretations of what constitutes a "reasonable excuse", however, such as those you disagree with in Jone. And in any case, that would seem to remove the requisite of "full knowledge" for the offense to be mortal even if the sincere perception of a reasonable excuse turns out to be flawed.

[quote]The Mass should never be a cause of despair, but the Church should also not fall short of calling people to a greater understanding of their obligations. The solution to the "improper understanding of the nature and function of grave obligations" is not to widen the meaning of grave...but to focus the mind and faith of the scrupulant on the love of God rather than on fear.[/quote]

I wholeheartedly agree with this.

Live the Love,

~Z

Edited January 18, 2009 by Ziggamafu

[StColette]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' post='1754405' date='Jan 18 2009, 02:00 PM']John Paul the Great will, I hope, one day be regarded as a doctor of the Church; however, his efforts in the realm of moral theology were mostly in regards to sexuality and politics. If he personally authored some exhaustive tome on moral theology that I don't know about, I would be ecstatic.[/quote]


I believe JPII's moral theology went far beyond sexuality and politics. Veritatis Splendor hit on the hard moral issues that the 20th century faced. His focus on human sexuality was an enormous contribution to moral theology, more so I would say then any moral theology book I've ever come across. Jone's book may cover numerous amounts of issues, but I believe JPII found the root of the sins that plagued and still do plague our society throughout the world. Human sexuality and human dignity were the basis of all of JPII's moral theology. It is the lack of respect for human dignity and human sexuality that has caused a great moral decay in our society. I believe that this is why it was the focus of so much of his work. We must remember that the quantity of work cannot outweigh the quality of work. St. Therese was made a doctor of the Church because of how her "Little Way" influenced so many. It wasn't a large exhaustive text on following the Lord, but a humble and quite small reflection on how to do the will of God.

[Ziggamafu]

[quote name='StColette' post='1755173' date='Jan 19 2009, 11:24 AM']I believe JPII's moral theology went far beyond sexuality and politics. Veritatis Splendor hit on the hard moral issues that the 20th century faced. His focus on human sexuality was an enormous contribution to moral theology, more so I would say then any moral theology book I've ever come across. Jone's book may cover numerous amounts of issues, but I believe JPII found the root of the sins that plagued and still do plague our society throughout the world. Human sexuality and human dignity were the basis of all of JPII's moral theology. It is the lack of respect for human dignity and human sexuality that has caused a great moral decay in our society. I believe that this is why it was the focus of so much of his work. We must remember that the quantity of work cannot outweigh the quality of work. St. Therese was made a doctor of the Church because of how her "Little Way" influenced so many. It wasn't a large exhaustive text on following the Lord, but a humble and quite small reflection on how to do the will of God.[/quote]

All very true; then again, I wouldn't refer to Chesterton as (primarily) a theologian even though he has a great deal to say in regards to theology. It is a matter of opinion regarding simple classifications. I have no bone to pick with those who say that John Paul the Great is the greatest moral theologian of the twentieth century. His teachings in morals were obviously more influential than anyone else who specialized in moral theology. It is a silly thing to bicker over classification systems. I would say he was the greatest moral theologian in regards to marital love, natural human rights, and just government. But his teachings and insights into these areas were / are of such importance and impact that he could easily be said to be the "greatest moral theologian". When I said that Jone was considered [i]one of[/i] the best moral theologians, I added a conditional "the best" as a possibility, not as a personally affirmed declaration. There are few influential theologians of the twentieth century who specialized in and devoted their lives and careers to specifically moral theology. Again, fruitless thing to bicker over.

[StColette]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' post='1755194' date='Jan 19 2009, 11:10 AM']Again, fruitless thing to bicker over.[/quote]

lol I wasn't bickering dear, just stating my opinion . As I tell Micah, you'll know when I'm arguing

[Ziggamafu]

[quote name='StColette' post='1755202' date='Jan 19 2009, 12:23 PM']lol I wasn't bickering dear, just stating my opinion . As I tell Micah, you'll know when I'm arguing [/quote]

So do you guys have kids? Going to mass, for us, is an exercise of self-sacrificial love for our Eucharistic Lord, given that it primarily consists of going in and out of the sanctuary with fussy infants, with little or no retention of what is going on in the liturgy, lol. We usually have to go through the readings as a devotion later in the night, after putting the kids to bed.

Admission: I sometimes feel irrationally resentful / envious of singles who seem so piously "into" the celebration of Mass, absorbing every word. I know it is stupid, but I sometimes feel like the Mass caters to those who are not parents of small children.

Edited January 19, 2009 by Ziggamafu

[StColette]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' post='1755245' date='Jan 19 2009, 12:16 PM']So do you guys have kids? Going to mass is an exercise of self-sacrificial love for our Eucharistic Lord, given that it primarily consists of going in and out of the sanctuary with fussy infants, with little or no retention of what is going on in the liturgy, lol. We usually have to go through the readings as a devotion later in the night, after putting the kids to bed.[/quote]

lol You missed the entire thread on the pregnancy and birth lol Aaron was born on Halloween, so he's about 3 months old now. He's wonderful during Mass. He loves the music and enjoys looking at the stained glass when we can sit close enough to it. I've only had to take him out once and that was right after his baptism. lol He didn't enjoy the water too much and it made it worse that Father took him from me while the little guy was eating. lol So he wasn't too happy after that. Other than that one instance we haven't had any issues with fussiness during Mass. Micah took Aaron with him to daily Mass this morning and cracked up when the first reading was about the High Priest Aaron. I'm usually the one "entertaining" Aaron during Mass. I can multitask a little better than Micah so I can "entertain" baby and listen to the liturgy at once.

[Lil Red]

+J.M.J.+
so our little toddler was not very good at all during Mass this weekend. and she knew it. so during the Offertory (i know, bad timing), she was scream crying, and i picked all our stuff up (that's hard to do when you are 27 weeks preggo), picked her up and walked out. and while i did so, i said to her (in a whisper) "you are not being a good girl". so we went and sat in the foyer of the church and boy, she knew she was being punished! she had to sit on my right side, with no toys, couldn't stand up and look around, just had to sit there.

i think i got more out of Mass in those 10 minutes than i had in weeks!!