.
I wrote the following before reading the rest of the thread:
Thank you TKGS for this reply.
I really think you'll need to ask the priest. Perhaps he just mis-spoke. If what he ordinarily says is very orthodox, I would think that, perhaps, he was, in his mind, changing how he was going to phrase the comment as he was speaking and the "unnecessary" just came out. He may not even realize he said it. That can happen, even in repeating the phrase because it just sounded right at the time.
I was thinking this very thing when he gave the sermon like this, and so I paid extra close attention to the next few sentences, where he repeated the same phrase, "unnecessary occasions of sin."
Something I failed to mention in the OP is that his sermons are normally all typed out in advance, and he reads them from the pulpit. He doesn't use a teleprompter, but you can see his printed copy lying there on the podium as it's always folded the same way, in thirds, like it was mailed in a business-sized envelope. Sometimes, he picks up the pages to flip through and skip a page or whatever, then sets them down again to keep reading from them. His eyes go down to the page and he raises them intermittently. Quite often, he uses specific gestures for the same words, whenever they occur, and when I have assisted at two Masses on the same day with the same sermon, I have heard him give word-for-word the identical sermon, and use the precisely identical gestures in both sermons for each specific word or phrase attached to each specific gesture. I have noticed that he takes BREATHS at the same point in most sentences, during such duplicate sermons. I'm not making this up. His sermons are very good, but I often have a lot of trouble IGNORING these distractions. I guess that's my own, personal problem, that I need to overcome.
He doesn't try to hide the fact that he ALWAYS prepares sermons word for word, with very few spontaneous additions (when he does say something that's not on the page, you can easily tell the difference by the obvious difference in his style and manner, but I suspect he's not aware of this, and I'm not sure how to bring it up, because, like with my experience with Mel, I'm embarrassed to do so). He has answered this question frankly, and he has no compunction about it. It's something to do with a difficulty he has with speaking extemporaneously -- a personal problem when large groups of people are listening, or whatever. I don't hold it against him, although I have to keep it in mind while listening because his style of delivery is a bit contrived, and that is distracting to me; because he has somehow not developed the skill of dramatic reading like actors need to do to make their memorized words SEEM to be spontaneous, like in great movies.. that's what the Academy Awards are for: excellence in pretending to be someone you are NOT, and the 'magic' of being very convincing at it.
That's one thing I like to thank Mel Gibson for: a few years ago, when I went to his chapel, he stood in the pews and he read aloud some Scripture reading during Holy Week, as one of several men who gave such readings, and I guess it was to help the priest who was pretty old, and maybe he didn't have the strength to read it all himself. But the point is, when Mel read, it was a bit like heaven to me. His voice was clear, and loud, his diction was
impeccable, his style of delivery made the words come alive, as though he was actually speaking them from the heart. President Ronald Reagan had this same gift, and they called him "The Great Communicator." But Mel's tone quality and timbre is far superior to Reagan's. When you hear Gibson read Scripture, you want him to just keep on reading forever.
I asked around about this at the time, and everyone told me: "Mel's an
actor -- this is his
field." I asked if they thought he had rehearsed his lines ahead of time and they retorted, "He's a professional! What would you expect?" I suppose I should have asked him in person, but I was too embarrassed. Another actor, Richard Jameson, has been an occasional guest speaker and his dramatic reading is quite reminiscent of Mel's, and the difference is, I have managed to summon the courage to tell Mr. Jameson how much I appreciate his prowess in delivery. He was very appreciative, and he deserves the compliment, but I probably don't deserve his appreciation.
On the other hand, if he really did intend to say "unnecessary occasion of sin", then I too would like to hear of an example of a "necessary occasion of sin". I can simply think of no time when the Church would recommend (as in being necessary) the faithful to place ourselves in the occasion of sin.
I was thinking that as well. Because he offered no example in context at the time.
But you are correct. If there are "unnecessary occasions of sin", there are implied "necessary occasions of sin".
If you ask, I'm sure he will tell you he mis-spoke and, most likely, he will actually be surprised that he said that or think, perhaps, that you mis-heard him because it truly does sound absurd.
The next time I get a chance, I'll ask him and see what he says, but I really think he did not make a mistake. I saw the mannerisms he was using and the way he looked at us and his inflection and it was very much with full knowledge of what he was deliberately saying to us. He just didn't elaborate.
P.S. Is English his native language? That too could affect his thoughts about how to phrase his intended meaning.
American English is his mother tongue.
It's also interesting that this sermon was in the context of a meditation that he had provided, which has in part the following:
"Have you put yourself in
an occasion of sin by reading bad books, looking a indecent pictures, keeping bad company, attending immoral performances, watching indecent movies of television programs, singing lewd songs, and the like? Have you distributed obscene books or magazines? Have you informed others of places of distribution? Have you encouraged others to read them? Have you
been an occasion of sin to others, by your conversation, dress, appearance, or actions?..."
I had just been reading this examination of conscience; therefore, when I heard the phrase, "occasion of sin" in the sermon, I immediately recalled the context of the meditation I had just made a few minutes before. I like to think my mind was working PROPERLY when that happens so quickly. My difficulty came right away when I realized that
the word, "unnecessary" would NOT FIT in the following sentences: Have you put yourself in an unnecessary occasion of sin by reading bad books, looking at indecent pictures, keeping bad company, attending immoral performances..., and,
Have you been an unnecessary occasion of sin to others, by your conversation, dress, appearance, or actions? The reason I thought it would not fit is, I could not imagine how a meditation on examination of conscience would be fruitful when it implies that there are times when reading bad books, looking at indecent pictures, keeping bad company or attending immoral performances would be "necessary." Nor could I imagine how an examination of conscience would be of any use when it's based on the concept that my conversations, dress, appearance or actions could somehow be a NECESSARY occasion of sin to others.
All of this FLASHED THROUGH MY MIND in about 28 milliseconds the moment I heard that phrase uttered from the pulpit. And I could NOT get it out of my mind for the rest of the sermon!
And it was otherwise a pretty good sermon.
.