Luky;
APART FROM MY HUSBAND, few people have agreed with my outlook on life, which belongs to the turn of the 19th century. Someone once suggested that I made my husband as hidebound as I am, but anyone who knew him will agree that it was impossible to talk him round once his mind and conscience were in agreement. I think it was because we were so alike in outlook that we married. For one thing, I always wanted a large family and he was one of the very few men I know who don't think of a child in terms of the money the child's upbringing will cost.
Begin again
Like me, he hadn't a very high opinion of himself, but we both shared a very high opinion of our Lord. We did not think we always lived as good a life as we should, but every time we fell down, we got up, dusted ourselves off and tried again.
Our children got sermons from us all their lives about the way we feel things should be done. That few other people consider this way the right way was, of course, hard on the children. Some of them minded, some didn't. It is difficult to insist on a lifstyle that finds little applause in the world around us.
Clash of views
One of my sons used to have long talks with me, trying to point out the error of my ways. I'd like to pretend that these sessions turned into a meeting point of the generations, but they actually ended in my yelling and trying to control my tears.
Nobody who does not live my kind of life can understand how hard it is to behave differently from others.
I believe in modesty, courtesy between the genders, family prayer. I disapprove of young children going alone to the movies on a Saturday afternoon because of what I have seen on the occasions when I took mine to the matinee. I think some fashions are shocking. I don't think boys and girls should start going steady or dating until they are out of school.
It was all very hard on the kids.
Hangups for life
"I see you are bringing up the children in the same bigoted way you taught to my sister and me" my son used to say, shaking his head. "If only you knew the harm you are doing. You will give these poor kids complexes for the rest of their lives."
"I'd infinitely rather my children had complexes than that they have to shoulder parenthood too early", I'd snap back.
"You see, you see? Only one thing on your mind. Why should a little innocent dating lead to anything you would consider wrong?"
"I don't consider them wrong, the ten commandments do. And if what I often read in the media is anything to go by, they happen all right."
It happened to them
My son and I love each other, but our ideas are wide apart. He was terrified that I would bring up the younger children with a soured view of married life, but I can never forget the heartaches of special friends who struggled as single mothers.
I think the age where a child is especially vulnerable is between thirteen and eighteen. At thirteen he begins to experience an attraction to the opposite gender, one of life's beautiful things. But if he has not yet learnt to handle these new emotions by the age of 18, I won't be able to help him.
I am hesitant to trust children with far more freedom than I could or should have been entrusted with when I was between the ages of thirteen and eighteen.
However, my son's feelings about my indoctrination apart, I took courage from words he spoke to me another time.
"Not that I'd let anyone say a word against you, mind. You may be the stuffiest old lady in the world, but at least you are prepared to stand up and fight for your convictions."
Catherine Nicolette
Ah yes. I remember the battles well. I used to admire my brother, who took up cudgels and discussed issues at length with Mom and Dad. On the whole I didn't bother. We'd go round in a very long circle, and at the end the parental policy never budged one inch. I was a great one as a child for not wasting energy unduly.
I used to have to laugh though. My brother was not always keen on what he termed sermons. Mom would earnestly wind up her manifold and well thought out reasons for some parental ruling with an exhortation on the lines of, "And as Father said in his sermon on Sunday . . ." and we would get a telling moral from the previous Sunday's sermon which underlined the rule. Afterwards my brother would be somewhat bitter, saying, "It's bad enough having to listen to a sermon once, but it's unspeakable to have to listen to it twice."
City of God
One of the books in our library at home was St Augustine's 'City of God' and I used to read the book endlessly, along with a Dutch version of the life of St Pius X. Every time I got bored and moaned to Mom, she used to briskly say, "Well, go and read something from the library". Other girls my age got the teen magazine 'Jackie'. I got Augustine and Tomas à Kempis. They were good reading though.
There were a couple of points in City of God that I didn't quite grasp, and I waited until our local Theologian Fr Jansen visited. At eight years old, I asked him to explain. "What have you been reading, Nicolette?" he asked kindly. "City of God," I answered brightly. He went quiet for a long time, looking at me. "Why?" he asked. "Because it's the only English book we have in the library at the moment besides your books," I replied. "The others are all in Dutch and Irish and I don't understand all the words."
He threw his head back, and laughed heartily; his lovely Dutch laugh resonating around the then still-new furniture in our lounge. He then proceeded to explain - in eight year old terms - Augustine's philosophy about sin and our personal conscience. Augustine, he wound up, said 'Turn inward, brethren, and in everything you do, see God as your witness." So, if God knew your conscience was clear, it did not matter what anyone thought or said; all was right in your world.
On sin, Father explained the Catechism that a culpable grave sin required three ingredients; grave matter, full knowledge and full consent. If any of these was missing, then a fully understood grave sin had not been committed.
Fully explained
Well, that let me off the hook. Many's the time there was grave matter (like the inquiry that followed the eating of the icing from the family Sunday cake). It was, I now understand, a Very Very Bad Thing To Do. Although, honestly, it certainly did not feel like that at the time. I ticked off the second box for culpable sin; - I had full consent to eating the icing. But aha, the third box let me off. I did not have full knowledge that I was not supposed to have eaten the icing off the cake. Mom had stated quite clearly, don't eat the cake.
She had not stated, don't eat the icing.
And even Augustine supported me, because if I looked inwards - I explained earnestly at the court martial to Mom and Dad - my conscience was clear. Because I did not have full knowledge. Therefore there was no sin. It then followed, I concluded philosophically, that no grave sin had taken place because although there was grave matter, and full consent - there was no full knowledge.
I really could not understand why Mom got so annoyed, and started talking in Dutch.
Suffice it to say, that I was grounded from reading 'City of God' for a while. That was ok. I turned to Fr Jansen's 'The Sacramental We" and 'Existential Approach to Theology." They were pretty exciting too.
Grounded
Which brings me to the point; by age twelve, Mom grew exasperated and said one day, "Your brother argues and discusses, and then does what I say. You smile gently, turn away, and then go and do your own thing." I'm still quite sour I got grounded that week for impertinence; all I did was explain a most valid point in my defence from the philosophical point of view . . .
Ah. Those were the days.
The Sacramental We
https://www.amazon.com/SACRAMENTAL-WE-Existential-Approach-Sacramental/dp/B000FMKP4O
An Existential Approach to Theology
https://www.amazon.com/Existential-Approach-Theology-G-M-Jansen/dp/B001U8F3NU
The City of God Part 1 Audio Book
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQrr_qsYXCM
City of God
http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/2053
With thanks to Books.Google, Amazon, Youtube and LibertyFund.Org
No comments:
Post a Comment