Dear Deacon Ditewig, I remain confused!

Dear Deacon Ditewig,

As one Catholic blogger to another, both ordained Catholic ministers with PhDs, I have to say that despite your recent post, I remain confused. I don’t disagree with Pope Francis – I can’t, because I don’t fully grasp what he is is asking me to do. Perhaps that’s because of a different kind of polarisation, which has nothing to do with traditional/liberal viewpoints in the church and everything to do with the way we think about right and wrong.

I fully recognise that I live in a polarised church. Many Catholics, particularly those formed in the 60s and following decades, are humanitarians. They fully embrace the command to “love your neighbour” and are rather uncomfortable with those church teachings (e.g. about divorce, contraception, abortion) which make life more difficult for people in already-difficult situations (many don’t seem comfortable with the idea of a God who reveals Himself and speaks with authority). Meanwhile, a generation of young Catholics, particularly upcoming seminarians, have taken refuge in the outer trappings of identity, taking comfort in cassocks, Latin, and various traditions dating back 500 or 1000 years, though not to the time of Christ himself.

The thing is, I find myself in neither of these groups. I am an evangelical Catholic, seeking the voice of Christ in Scripture, Apostolic Tradition, and the Magisterium, and willing to set aside my own preferences for the sake of obedient unity. Before Pope Francis, I did not wash women’s feet at the Maundy Thursday Mass. A year following his election, guided by his example (and sensing that he wished to lead by example rather than issuing documents), I washed women’s feet at the Mass of the Lord’s Supper for the first time. But I felt more comfortable about doing so after the Vatican had made it official.

I want to live out my Catholic priesthood faithful to Jesus Christ and to the directives of the Magisterium. But I find it difficult to make sense of Amoris Laetitia. Pope Francis says explicitly he does not intend to set out case examples to guide us, because we as parish priests need to “accompany” and “discern” individual cases of persons who have entered a second union after a failed marriage. But what is it that I am to discern?

Do I recognise that there is moral good present in a relationship which is faithful and expressive of agape love, but which lacks the Church’s blessing? (AL 292) Yes, of course.

Do I recognise that some Catholics don’t have a fully developed understanding of their call to faithfulness in a marriage blessed by the Church? (AL 295) Yes, that too.

At the root of all of this is the teaching of Our Lord himself, who forbade divorce (with the exception of ‘porneia‘, which the scholars still argue about), tempered by St Paul’s privilege for a Christian abandoned by an unbelieving spouse.

The problem with marriage is that, for a person to be validly married, they must stand up in public and declare themselves to be freely entering into an unbreakable, lifelong, commitment. Now, if in my conversation with the person, I find that they didn’t understand this, I have grounds to believe the original marriage was invalid. But if they did understand this, what is left to discern?

In AL 300, Pope Francis sets out that there are many different cases of second unions, and priests may need to accompany such partners in an examination of conscience; in some cases, we may find that there was “no grave fault” on the part of the divorced person. The Pope says there can be no double standards and there is no “gradualness in the law”. I take this to mean that in working with such a person, I can help ease the guilt they may feel about the failure of the first relationship, but I must also help them understand that they have made a promise to God to live in lifelong fidelity to that partner, since the same law applies to every sacramental marriage.

Pope Francis then points out (AL 305) that a person in objective sin may partially or even totally lack subjective culpability and still be living in God’s grace. In footnote 351 he reminds us that the Confessional must be a place of mercy and the Eucharist is medicine for the sick. Clearly by placing these footnotes where they are, the Pope is asking me to consider whether I should offer absolution or holy communion to a person in a second union. But how can I absolve a person for breaking a promise of life-long faithfulness if that person is not yet willing or able to resume keeping the promise?

Reading on (AL 308), Pope Francis indicates his preference for a “less rigorous” approach which intrinsically allows space for confusion. Well, I am certainly confused. I am not helped by noticing that while the Polish Bishops have affirmed the status quo, the Maltese Bishops have indicated that in certain circumstances, persons in second unions might receive absolution and communion, and be admitted as godparents. If the Magisterium says it is not possible to give clear rules or even case studies of when I should say yes or no, how am I to make my discernment?

My PhD is not in Theology (though I have a first class Bachelor’s in Theology) – it is in Astrophysics. While you sail the seas, I navigate the heavens. I have a mathematical mind, trained in logic and principles. And perhaps that is the problem. These days, we understand that people have different thinking styles. Not everyone’s brain tackles moral problems the same way. Some brains see things more in terms of principles; others see consequences. It might be the case (I’d love to have the research time to test this) that professors of moral philosophy are more likely than average human beings to be biased to think in terms of principles. Perhaps Pope Francis, and Jesuits in general, have an aptitude for discerning imperfect courses of action which lead a step closer to God’s will without reaching its fullness.

Pope Francis does not want to throw the floodgates open for everyone. But he does want me, as a parish priest, to discern whether a particular individual might approach the sacraments without ruling out that possibility. “Discerning” means I can’t decide a priori to allow everyone or no-one to do so. But without (non-binding) case studies and examples, I don’t know what I am looking for.

There have been many times in my life when I have chosen to act on principle even though I foresaw the consequences may have been problematic. I did so before I became a Catholic; and once I was a Catholic, I took comfort in the idea that the Church teaches that there are intrinsic evils, so morality depends on principles rather than consequences. I know that saints have been martyred for holding to their principles. But I also know that a strong reason that I live by my principles is that I am “wired” to do so, and not all human beings are wired like me.

Deacon Ditewig, you have suggested that those who say Pope Francis’ words are “confusing” are really hiding the fact that they disagree with him. But please hear me when I say that if the Magisterium teaches clearly that I am to deny communion to those in second unions, I will do so; if the Magisterium teaches clearly that I am to admit them, I will do so (while still maintaining that such relationships are prima facie adulterous; I recognise that the Eucharist can be medicine for sinners). As a parish priest I have been charged with “discerning and accompanying” individuals towards a possible decision to admit them to communion, a process which is as alien to my science-shaped mind as it seems intuitive to Pope Francis (who graduated as a chemical technician, and is therefore skilled in providing solutions).

Therefore I remain, respectfully,

Confused of Cardiff.

(Revd Dr Gareth Leyshon, PhD, MInstP, MA (Oxon), BTh, Director of Ongoing Formation of the Archdiocese of Cardiff – views are my own)

The Fault in Our Stars

Homily at St Philip Evans for the 14th Sunday in Ordinary Time, Year A

Hazel and Gus lie on grass, their faces touching, with the caption Today’s sermon is inspired by a movie – it’s called The Fault in Our Stars. In case you haven’t seen it, it’s a love story about a boy and a girl, who meet in a support group for cancer survivors. Being a love story, it’s not much of a spoiler if I tell you that Hazel and Gus fall in love. Nor would it surprise you to learn that they end up making love together.

I enjoyed the movie, but one thing left me downcast. I walked out of the cinema knowing that if one more thing had been added to the plot, it would have been a truly heartwarming movie I would have gladly awarded five stars. What was missing? Imagine that Hazel and Gus had called in a chaplain to celebrate a bedside marriage, followed by a discreetly filmed love scene. Then it would have been a beautiful love story we could celebrate without reservation… but it’s a sign of our times is that the climax is simply that they climb into bed together.

“Put an end to the misdeeds of body!” St Paul, in today’s Second Reading, calls us to a high standard of integrity. He is echoing the teachings of Our Lord himself, who warned us many times against giving in to lust. This is a message we don’t hear often – indeed, it’s one I don’t often preach about myself – but that doesn’t mean it’s not important. Today, I want to remind us all of the standards to which we are called – that making love belongs in marriage alone.

We need to be reminded of this message, because the world we live in keeps pulling us away from it. There are very few movies or television series today where characters insist on being married before jumping into bed together. A story about divorce always bears the sadness of a broken relationship, and adultery always means a promise has been broken – but perhaps we also see these on screen so often they begin to feel normal.

Our stars of television, stage and screen do not set us a great example away from the camera, either. We look to famous people to inspire us, but under the intense pressure of the media’s gaze and a wealthy lifestyle, half of all celebrity couples divorce before they have been together for 15 years – that’s twice the divorce rate of the rest of the population. Drew Barrymore, Eminem, and Britney Spears didn’t even make it to their first wedding anniversaries. Perhaps we should be thankful that we are not cursed with such fame or such wealth!

The truth is, that even in today’s world, marriage is important. Couples who get married before they start living together or having children are most likely to have a stable relationship. Couples already living together who eventually get married also have some advantage over those who never make their relationship official – this is based on solid research on couples in the UK by a think tank called the Marriage Foundation. Getting married doesn’t need to be expensive – we don’t have to follow the trend for ever-more-lavish parties – and I’ve even heard of churches who pull together to put on a reception so that poor members who feel they can’t afford a wedding can tie the knot.

I know I am preaching to the converted because most if not all of you at Mass today who are in stable relationships are already married – though perhaps I should remind you that if a Catholic gets married without the church’s blessing, your civil marriage is not recognised by the Church. If that applies to you, don’t panic – come and see me so I can arrange a blessing for you.

The reason I’m talking about this today is that we have a major task on our hands – we must correct the fault in our stars. When our stars of stage and screen set a poor example on or off-stage, we must not remain silent. We have a duty to remind our children and our wider families that as God’s children, we are held to a higher standard. In today’s world, this attitude might be seen as naive. But doesn’t Jesus today bless those who are child-like and dismiss those who try to be “adult”? Let’s hold on to our childish romances, then, where a handsome prince sweeps up his virgin queen and celebrates a royal wedding! The Bible itself uses the same romance to speak of God’s love for Zion, symbol of ancient Israel and the Church herself.

Parents, I’m challenging you today to talk to your children about the kind of relationships they see portrayed in movies and on television. We can’t hide from the world we live in – we have to respond to it. Don’t stop older children watching what other people are watching, but ask hard questions. What are the consequences of free relationships? When do relationships become oppressive power games? You might find it helpful to check out the movie reviews commissioned by the United States Bishops, readily available online, which pick out the morals highs and lows.

If we try to ban our older children from watching everyday material, we’ll eventually fail. But what we can do is to recommend positive examples for them to watch or read alongside the more worldly fare. I’ve asked friends who are parents to four children to share with me the books and movies they would recommend, and you’ll find their list in this week’s newsletter (and at the bottom of this page).

The issue is this: we live in a world where our celebrities portrays as “normal” and even “good” kinds of relationships which are against God’s Law. We are temped to compromise our values, but on this matter, we must put an end to the misdeeds of the body. We are called to promote the childlike innocence of Christians, not the serpentine wisdom of the world around us. So do not adjust your sex! There is a fault in our stars!


Some book links from my friends:

There is a link on this website to the booklist we discussed and there is also a podcast worth listening to. It is called Season 10 RAR Bonus episode (some of the best books by living authors)

Clink on the link for bookishness, go to book lists

Episode 48, age appropriateness

 

Film recommendations

Here is a list of films that have been released in the last 5 years and I consider to be of high quality, have something positive to contribute to the culture and are not (at the very least significantly) saying anything contrary to our faith.

 

Up to age 14

(U or PG films, nothing to cause problems content-wise)

  • The Jungle Book
  • The BFG
  • Moana
  • Inside Out
  • The Lego Movie
  • Boxtrolls
  • Big Hero 6
  • Paddington

Age 14+

(these are all rated 12 (or less), but I think are better suited to 14+ as there will often be some swearing, violence, intensity and/or sexual references which I wouldn’t consider suitable to younger children, however it very much depends on the child. Sometimes for me it’s not just about specific content but what the film is about and what age will best appreciate the story)

  • Marvel Avengers films: series of 15 (and rising) interconnected films starting with Iron Man (2008) and most recently Guardians of the Galaxy 2 (2017). The stories are overall very positive, good vs evil, protecting the innocent, doing the right thing, friendship, loyalty etc. lots of action, jokes and a cleverly unfolding larger narrative. All have mild bad language and some have intense scenes and occasional sexual reference. Not to be confused with the other Marvel franchise, the X-Men which although 12 rated has more violence and overall lower quality
  • Star Wars films: Everyone knows these! The most recent ones are 12 rated but are mild, with no bad language or sex references, rating for intensity only
  • Arrival (2016): Brilliant sci-fi about an alien arrival with a pro-life undercurrent, intense scenes of bereavement and occasional bad language
  • A Monster Calls (2016): Powerful film about a boy coping with the imminent death of his mother. There is a lot of fantasy adventure in-between and the film emphasises the wonder of life and how trials can bring family together
  • The Hunger Games (4 films 2012-2015): Slightly controversial as at the end of the first film the characters seem to choose suicide as a valid option (although it doesn’t actually happen) but I don’t believe the film endorses this choice, and while there is some intense action and violence, the films have a strong lead character who stands up to tyranny and dictatorship and the series ends on a positive pro-family note
  • Suffragette (2016): Fictional drama about the suffragette movement, very strong message about the value of all individuals and fighting for what is right. Some mild bad language and an ongoing subplot about an abusive relationship
  • The Hobbit / Lord of the Rings films: Fabulous imaginings of Tolkien’s world. Hobbit films not as good as LOTR but still high quality. No bad language or sex references but many intense / frightening scenes
  • Edge of Tomorrow (2014): Action packed sci fi / alien invasion film about a cowardly soldier who is forced to face death many times and learn how to defeat earth’s enemy
  • Ender’s Game (2013): Low key but well-made sci fi about a boy being trained to lead a mission against an alien invasion, more intellectual than action orientated with some interesting ideas about who our enemies are
  • Saving Mr Banks (2013): Story of the making of Mary Poppins, great characters and lots of laughs, as well as positive emotional journey for the main character. Only rated PG but the backstory of an alcoholic father is a bit intense for youngsters
  • Gravity (2013): Stunning sci fi about a woman stranded in space, strong message of the value of life. Some bad language and intensity
  • Captain Phillips (2013): Gripping and moving true story about a cargo ship overtaken by pirates. Mild bad language and many intense / emotional scenes
  • All is Lost (2013): A sailor is stranded out at sea and tries to survive. Celebration of the resourcefulness and resilience of man. One incidence of strong language.
  • The Impossible (2012): Based on the true story of a family hit by the 2004 Tsunami in Thailand. Very emotionally powerful and positive about what family means. Very intense in the Tsunami scenes with some gruesome images.
  • Lincoln (2012): Story of Abraham Lincoln’s struggle to end slavery. Celebration of idealism and value of the individual. Brief strong language and war violence.
  • Les Miserables (2012): Musical of Victor Hugo’s novel. Very strong affirmation of the value of people, full of rousing songs, emotional uplift and positive Catholic characters. Some bleak situations, sexual references and revolutionary violence.

Holy Matrimony

Homily at St Philip Evans, on the 27th Sunday of Ordinary Time, Year B.

Two wedding rings around a gold crossThere’s a story about a traveller lost in the Irish countryside, who pulls up alongside a farmer and asks the way to Tipperary. “Ah,” says the farmer, “If I were trying to go to Tipperary, I wouldn’t be starting from here!”

The Gospel we’ve just heard touches on the sensitive and often painful subject of divorce. It’s a reality we can’t avoid in Church, because it’s a subject Jesus didn’t avoid in his preaching and teaching. Even the language our Lord chose is challenging – “anyone who divorces one partner and marries another is guilty of adultery”. Why would Jesus teach such a thing? To understand this, we have to understand the big picture of Christian Marriage, and I want to address my words today especially to those teenagers and young adults among us – you who are not yet married but are considering your future. If you are not such a person, then I offer you these words as wisdom for you to pass on to the young people in your lives. But before I offer you this advice – my “Directions to Tipperary” – I should first speak to those among us who wish they were not starting from here.

Many among us will have known the pain of a failed relationship. I want to remind you that simply being divorced against your will, or even agreeing to a divorce to settle the finances of a past relationship, is not in itself a sin. A Catholic who is merely divorced is not automatically barred from Holy Communion. As for a Catholic who enters a new civil marriage without the Church annulling their previous marriage, I have no power to soften the words of Jesus in today’s Gospel, but I do echo the words of recent Popes who thank you for your faithfulness to attending Mass while refraining from receiving Holy Communion. Pope Francis has recently acted to make it simpler to pursue an annulment, and I am always willing to make an appointment to speak to anyone who wants to discuss their marital situation. Perhaps the Bishops meeting in Rome this month will find further ways to extend the mercy of Christ, but whatever the Church does will have to honour the very difficult teaching present in today’s Gospel.

And now, my message for our young people.

My dear young friends, have no doubt that God loves each one of you and has a plan for your life. Most of you will be called by God to enter a state of Holy Matrimony. And I use such old fashioned language rather than the word “Marriage” because what the Church calls “Marriage” and what the society around us now calls “Marriage” are two very different things. I want to share with you today, God’s vision for Holy Matrimony.

How would you like to have one person in your life whose top priority was your well-being? Someone who would always be loyal to you, no matter how you offend them? Someone who would work to help you in good times and in bad? Someone who would always tell you that you are loved and cherished, even when tired or distracted? Someone who will forgive you and take you back however you might fail them?

God would like you to have such a partner in life. But there’s a catch. For you to have someone like that as a partner, you must be that partner to someone. And that’s quite demanding!

What sort of parents would you like to have? Two who would always work hard to make up a quarrel as soon as possible? Two who always pull together, not apart? Two who never force you to choose between them?

Once again, do unto others as you would have them do unto you – if you want to have such a parent, you must be such a parent.

I can’t imagine a child wanting their parents’ relationship to fail rather than be healed. I can imagine a person wishing to try a series of different relationships rather than enjoy the blessings and challenges which come with an exclusive partnership. But serial relationships come with a price. You know how a piece of sellotape loses its sticking power if you use it two or three times? In the same way, the more relationships you allow to reach a very intimate level, the less depth and freshness each one will have.

When Jesus read the Book of Genesis, he saw in it a clear message from God-the-Father that God’s plan was for a man and a woman together to become one flesh, and to form a family unit, a unit which no earthly power should dare to divide.

If what Jesus teaches is true, it has serious consequences.

We’re not free to define marriage as we see fit. Holy Matrimony can only exist between a man and a woman.

We’re not free to declare that a marriage has ended. Holy Matrimony is founded on a pledge to be faithful until death, in sickness, poverty, and ‘for worse’. Each partner in Holy Matrimony has promised, in advance, to be faithful to their spouse even if that spouse should fall into a 20-year coma or run off and abandon them.

Nor should we try before marriage anything we should keep as a gift to our partner on our wedding night. Jesus doesn’t speak about that in today’s Gospel, but he does warn us to avoid lust, and St Paul writes at greater length about the kind of purity which is expected of Jesus’ followers.

“Wait a minute, God, what business is it of yours? It’s my body, after all.”

Actually, no. St Paul says that if we are Christians, our bodies belong to the Lord and we must use our bodies to give glory to God. Today’s Second Reading reminds us that even Jesus Himself couldn’t avoid suffering when He was obedient to His Father’s Will. We are free to say that we don’t want to do God’s will. We are not free to pretend that God hasn’t made the laws which Jesus shows us in today’s Gospel – and the same God who made the laws knows better than any one of us the agonies which take place in the human heart when we’re drawn to any relationship outside those laws.

God loves us, and makes these laws for our own protection. Above all, God doesn’t want a single human being to be a tool used for someone else’s pleasure and then abandoned. St John Paul II wrote at length about how terrible it was for one human being to merely use another, part of the writings we now call the Theology of the Body.

So my dear young friends, God’s plan for you is that, unless you are called to the single life, you should enter a state of Holy Matrimony. This is not easy; it requires you to be a living sign of how faithful Jesus is to us – and the Lord will never abandon us in His Church, no matter how we might fail and sin. Be the committed partner you want your husband or wife to be for you. Be the loving parent who embodies the very best of what your parents are for you. Be a servant of God who follows God’s plan for Holy Matrimony, not your own – and God’s blessing will go with you always.

  • You can read my more extended reflection on Catholic teaching on marriage and sexuality.
  • Lots of resources for Supporting Marriage are available online.
  • Thanks to Kaye Smith for first showing me the ‘sellotape’ analogy.

Embracing the Cross, Another Way

Homily at St Philip Evans on the Feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross, 2014 – also Racial Justice Sunday.

Woman with head bowed and arms foldedUnusually, I would like today’s sermon to begin with a woman’s voice.

In the beginning, I was young . . . he was handsome. He said I was beautiful, smart, worthy of love . . . made me feel that way. And so we were married, walking joyfully together down a church aisle, our union blessed by God.

Then came the angry words . . . the verbal tearing apart. . . . Now I was made to feel ugly, unintelligent, unworthy of any love, God’s or man’s.

Next came the beatings . . . unrelenting violence . . . unceasing pain. I shouldn’t stay, but this is my husband . . . promised forever. He says I deserve it . . . maybe I do . . . if I could just be good. I feel so alone . . . doesn’t God hear me when I cry out silently as I lie in bed each night?

Finally came the release, the realization. It’s not me . . . it’s him. . . . I am worthy of love, God’s and man’s. One spring morning, my heart was filled with hope and with fear now only of starting over on my own. And so again I walked . . . down the hallway of our apartment building . . . never again to be silent . . . never again to live with that kind of violence, to suffer that kind of pain.

Today, I’d like to mention an uncomfortable subject. What you have just heard a wife describe is domestic abuse.

Sometimes, within our family homes, relationships go badly wrong. One adult starts hurting another one – sometimes with their hands, other times with their words. When this does happen, we can easily fall into the trap of limiting our options because we misunderstand the Church’s teaching.

Part of the trap is the attitude set out in today’s Second Reading: Jesus was humble, and accepted death on a Cross. At the heart of our Catholic religion is the agony of Christ. In the Garden of Gethsemane, he imagines walking away from the abuse which the Romans were about to inflict on him. But he knows he has a God-given mission to suffer, because this was the only way he could open for us the gates of heaven. So he allows himself to be arrested, scourged, mocked, and nailed to a cross of wood.

Jesus freely accepted suffering – and so part of our Catholic way of doing things is that when difficult circumstances come along, we “offer it up”. Love is patient, love is kind, love bears no record of wrongs but endures whatever comes. We are to love our enemies, and do good to those who persecute us, Put all these things together, and we have a recipe which seems to say ‘grin and bear it’. Add to that the fact that Jesus said ‘I do not permit you to divorce’, and you could easily fall into the trap of thinking that abused Catholic wives – or husbands – have no option other than to put up with the treatment they receive at home, on pain of sin.

What I am going to say next may surprise you, but it has the full authority of the church. You can look it up in paragraph 2383 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

If it is not safe for a wife, or a husband, to remain in the family home, they can leave their spouse.

If the relationship has broken down permanently, and a civil divorce would protect the financial affairs of the separated partner, it is even permissible for a Catholic to file for divorce. This does not stop them from being able to receive Holy Communion.

In such a case, the lifelong vows of marriage mean that the separated spouse should continue to be faithful to their partner by praying for their well-being, not seeking a new relationship, and not making things needlessly difficult when the other partner wants to negotiate over financial matters or custody of the children. The Gospel does require us to act with goodwill towards someone who has hurt us, not to punish them for their actions.

In last week’s Gospel reading, Our Lord spoke of the need to correct someone who sins against you. When a husband or wife resorts to physical violence or emotional manipulation to get their own way, this is a sin. If it is safe to challenge your spouse’s behaviour, you have a Christian duty to do so! If this is too difficult to do alone, there is help available for married couples in the form of couple-counselling or various kinds of retreats for couples in which they can re-examine their relationship.

The message I hope you will take home today is that in a difficult relationship, you are free to make hard choices. It’s a cliché, but often enough a partner will choose to stay in a strained relationship “for the sake of the children”. A person deeply in love with an abusive partner can fall into a false optimism – “I excuse what they did today, they won’t do it again.” But they will. There’s a saying that insanity is doing the same thing again and expecting a different outcome. Chances are, in such a strained relationship one partner will continue to abuse the other, and the other will continue to hope for the best.

Now it’s true, that part of what we believe as Christians is that love does invite us to “put up and shut up”. Today’s Second Reading does invite us to be humble and gracious without limit. Today’s Feast, the Triumph of the Cross, does remind us that there are times we will choose to embrace suffering, trusting that God will bring great good out of it. But any Christian who chooses to stay in an abusive relationship should do so from a position of mental strength, recognising that their partner is not going to change, and freely deciding, for Christ’s sake, to endure what is bound to come. As soon as the relationship is stretched beyond the point where God gives the strength to endure, or as soon as children are at risk from violent behaviour, it’s time to exercise one of the other choices I have just described.

Today is also the day in the year when our Church leaders ask us to consider issues of racial justice. In recent weeks, our news headlines have been full of what happened in Rotherham, where teenage girls, mostly white, were systematically groomed by men who were mostly from Pakistan. This has caused a lot of discussion on news programmes about different attitudes to marriage and other relationships in different national cultures.

Any marriage, any extended family, any household is sacred ground where an outsider, even a priest, cannot dictate how things should be. But this I will say: in any Catholic family, of whatever nationality, it is a sin for one spouse to physically harm the other. It is a sin for one spouse to belittle the other with insulting words. But it is never a sin for a spouse to leave the home when they fear for their own safety, or for their children’s.

Because this is a message which could be so easily misunderstood, I am going to ask a few questions to ensure I have made myself clear:

Does leaving the family home for your own safety, or your children’s, bar you from Holy Communion? NO.

Does filing for divorce in these circumstances, bar you from Holy Communion? NO.

Is using physical violence towards your partner the kind of serious sin that requires confession and repentance before coming to Holy Communion? YES.

Is deliberate and pre-planned emotional manipulation of a partner also the kind sin that bars a person from Holy Communion? YES.

Finally, I’d like to speak a word to children present this morning. Please don’t feel worried by the difficult things I have just talked about. Yes, it’s true there are some families where grown-ups hurt each other. But if you haven’t seen this happening in your own family, relax! Your parents are not suddenly going to start hurting each other because of a sermon in church! So don’t be afraid.

Sadly, some children already know that grown-ups can hurt each other because they see it happening at home, or because you might have friends who tell you about sad things that happen in their family. If that’s you, I want you to know that it’s always OK to talk to a grown-up you trust about these things. Your class teacher in school is probably the best person, or another teacher in school you really trust, or you can even talk to Deacon Steve or myself. And if someone at home has told you that you must never talk to anyone about something they’ve done, they are wrong!

Listen carefully: It is ALWAYS OK to talk to a grown-up you trust about something that’s worrying you. No-one is allowed to tell you that something horrible must be your secret forever and always. Today we are celebrating that Jesus died on the Cross for us so that we could be happy. If there’s something making you unhappy, it’s good to talk about it – to Jesus in your prayers, and to one of his friends who can help you.

Useful web links:

CEDAR – Catholics Experiencing Domestic Abuse Resources (England & Wales)

Podcasts on Domestic Abuse from the Catholic Church in England & Wales

When I Call For Help – US Bishops’ Message on Domestic Abuse