Neither fish nor flesh nor good red herring!

On Tuesday morning of this week, I went to daily Mass at our local Catholic school in honor of the Feast of the Presentation. It’s one of those interesting feasts where objects are involved. I was hoping to see some candles blessed (hence the medieval name for the day, “Candlemas”), but the Mass planners for our parish schoolchildren opted for a table display instead (I dimly remember hearing of a past “incident” with children and candles…). The little table, situated at the foot of the altar, held an assortment of ornately dressed baby Jesus dolls, each one seated on his own throne. During the homily, our presider picked up one of the dolls and, lifting it high, explained how Jesus was “presented” at the Temple forty days after his birth. I’d love to know what the children were thinking about this impressive visual. My own mind wandered to Simeon, grasping the infant Jesus at the steps of the Temple, explaining to the children of Israel who Jesus was: “a light of revelation for the Gentiles, and glory for [the] people Israel” (Luke 2: 32).

Jesus is clearly the center of the action in the Gospel, and was certainly captivating as a centerpiece for the children (and me) to focus on during morning Mass. The readings for the “Presentation of the Lord” (Malachi 3: 1-4, Psalm 24: 7-10; Hebrews 2:14-18; and Luke 2:22-40) clearly emphasize Jesus, who is the King of Glory, the one who will come to the Temple, the messenger, and the incarnation of the covenant promised to the People of God. Certainly, Christians have long-identified this moment in Luke’s gospel as a time to celebrate. As early as the 4th century, a woman named Egeria, who made a pilgrimage to the holy city of Jerusalem, recounted her experience of a special liturgical celebration taking place forty days after Jesus’ birth.

On the sidelines of the presentation of the baby Jesus, though, are the presenters of Jesus, Joseph and Mary, who approach the Temple in an attitude of thanksgiving for their child, after “the days were completed for their purification” (Luke 2:22). Mary and Joseph were the first children to whom the Christ child was explained; the first people who watched in wonder as a baby was held aloft at the foot of the Temple.

While we rightly might focus on the “presentation” of Jesus, equally at play is the “thanksgiving” of his parents, and the ritual of “purification” referenced in the text. While Luke delicately notes that the couple waited for “their” purification, it was Mary who, following Levitical law, needed to refrain from approaching the Temple area for a certain number of days following the birth of a child. Even Mary, chosen from among women and without sin, goes through this ritual, showing her absolute fidelity to God’s law.

Remembering this particular Biblical event shapes Christian ritual practice in at least two significant ways. First, as noted before, I was hoping for candles. Lamps, lights, and, eventually, candles, all hold powerful symbolic valence for God and Christ, the light of the world. As for liturgical usage, the appearance of candles accompanying the Presentation first appears clearly in texts from the 9th century. Sermons reflecting on this text from Luke explain the symbol of the candle as a metaphor for Jesus and Mary in several ways. For example, the wax candle (Jesus) was brought forth by the bee (Holy Spirit) and the flower (Mary). Alternatively, both wick and wax make up a candle; both humanity and divinity “make up” Christ. And, of course, Christ is “the light of the world” (John 8:12). The custom of bringing candles to accompany this liturgy led to customs of blessing candles in general on this day—for use in the Church and at home.

But, aside from Candlemas itself, a second significant ritual event unfolds from this incident in Luke. What Mary does becomes a ritual pattern for Christian women.  Mary waited for an appropriate time post-partum to return to her community’s sacred space. Known as the “Churching of Women,” Christian women were eventually encouraged to model Mary, and to refrain from entering a church for a period of time after a child’s birth. The details of the custom (and the explanations as to why it should be done in the first place) vary widely from place to place. The ritual is described by some in penitential tones, as a necessary purification; other sources describe the churching with joyful notes, as a moment of thanksgiving for the life of the child (and of the mother). Processions to church, accompaniment with candles, water and incense, reciting psalms, and the woman being led through the doorway of the church by her pastor were all elements that, at one time or another, were involved in the ritual.

Though the ritual sounds like something women were made to do, by the beginning of the 16th century, the “Churching of Women,” is also described by women as a social event focused on women and women’s social groups. Before the ritual at the church itself, a woman’s churching afforded her and her female friends an occasion for festivity, food, dressing up, and spending time celebrating together.

Nonetheless, by the time of the Reformation on the Continent and in England, this multi-valent ritual had become a lightening rod for Christian reformers: it was either evidence of gross and papist superstitions, or a prayerful and important ritual of return for faithful women. Divisions in opinion were not along “Catholic” and “Protestant” lines, either. While rubrics for the churching of women remained through numerous editions of the Church of England’s Book of Common Prayer, a late 16th-century Puritan tract described the rite as “neither fish nor flesh nor good red herring!”

Confusion surrounding the meaning of the ritual of churching may explain its gradual disappearance from practice. Still, women’s churching was common through the twentieth century. My maternal grandmother did not attend her children’s baptisms (c. 1943-1950); her children were baptized before the “appropriate time” had been observed before my grandmother could return to church. In the present, vestiges of the rite appear in other locations. Baptismal rites, such as that for Roman Catholics, include a blessing for the mother (and the father) in the context of baptism—reflecting the element of thanksgiving which was a component of the churching ritual.

At the end of the day, even though I didn’t witness my candle-blessing at the children’s Mass, I’m still grateful for the reflection caused by this moment in the liturgical year. Liturgy calls us to learn about the life of Christ, and to remember the witness of those first faithful children. Continually, liturgy and liturgical ritual invite us to respond to God in every moment—be it childbirth or daily Mass—with gladness and thanksgiving.

Katharine E. Harmon

Katharine E. Harmon, Ph.D., is Project Director for the Obsculta Preaching Initiative at Saint John’s School of Theology and Seminary in Collegeville, Minnesota.  A Roman Catholic pastoral liturgist and American Catholic historian, Harmon is a graduate of the University of Notre Dame’s liturgical studies program.  She has contributed over a dozen articles and chapters to the fields of both liturgical studies and American Catholicism.  She is the author of  There Were Also Many Women There: Lay Women in the Liturgical Movement in the United States, 1926-1959 (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2013) and Mary and the Liturgical Year: A Pastoral Resource  (Chicago: Liturgy Training Publications, 2023). She edits the blog, Pray Tell.

Please leave a reply.

Comments

6 responses to “Neither fish nor flesh nor good red herring!”

  1. Karl Liam Saur

    When my youngest brother (my parents’ sixth and final live birth, born the day after his oldest sister graduated from high school) was baptized in 1968, my mother did not attend. I remember asking why and the custom being explained to me.

  2. Maureen Grisanti Larison

    This is interesting background information on an often-forgotten part of our heritage. I remember my maternal grandmother describing her experiences of the churching ritual (my mother and uncles were born from 1918 – 1930). It sounded as if her memories were focused more on the purification aspects, but I found the custom intriguing. I don’t believe that my mother attended any of our baptisms (my siblings and I were born from 1944 -1958) but I never heard her mention the churching process.

  3. Dismas Bede

    I remember the Sunday I asked to be “churched.” As a young child in church every Sunday after the last Mass, I witnessed the ritual unfold on a quite regular basis. Clearly not knowing what it was all about, or even noticing that it involved only women, usually in black, my hungry, young mind reasoned, “If the church is giving something out, I want it.” So, one Sunday I approached Father, and asked for “What she got.” He gently explained that “what she got” was for those blessed with the gift of motherhood, something which the church reserved for women only, that men and boys such as myself would never receive.
    That was enough to assure me that the church was/is happy to give and celebrate whatever is appropriate to each of us.
    My siblings and I were born and baptized between 1949-61. My father and the newest baby’s godparents toted us all to church… while my mother stayed home… preparing the next celebration. I can still picture the priest changing his stole from the purple to the white side during the ceremony. So grateful that we’ve come such a long way, and now do such things as blessing infants in the womb! So much for being “defiled” and “impure!”

  4. Jim McKay

    I once described this as equivalent to modern maternity leave, 6 weeks after the birth of a child when the mother is kept from attending church and most other social functions. I got a lot of flak for that!

    It did provoke an interesting discussion of the purification of Mary? Jesus? The 2 sinless people had to be purified! There is an oxymoronic connotation here, when the purest are purified, that overturns the whole idea of purity.

  5. Rita Ferrone Avatar
    Rita Ferrone

    My mother described the purpose of this ritual concisely. She was positive about it’s purpose: “It’s to get forgiveness for having had sex with your husband.”

    Perhaps the prevalence of such unfortunate explanations of the “penitential” aspect in popular usage was one of the reasons why it was discontinued.

    Are there other “penitential” issues relating to childbirth?

  6. Katharine E. Harmon

    Interestingly, the notions of “thanksgiving” and “penitence” are both present in the “churching” ritual from quite early. One of the earliest “ritual” descriptions of the churching of women shows up in a 9th century penitential text (Pseudo Theodore). While it’s in a “penitential” resource, the woman is described as holding a candle and making thanksgiving. For a more modern example, the “churching” of women appeared in the 1549 Book of Common Prayer–described as the “Purification.” By 1552, the title had been changed to the “Thanksgiving” of women after childbirth.

    In terms of interpreting the rite, the heart of its meaning might not be so much in its name (awarded, likely, by male writers), but in how women actually experienced it. The literature on, at least, the early modern period in England, suggests that “churching” was a positive experience for at least some women.


Posted

in

,

by

Tags:

Discover more from Home

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading