Homeschoolers forced into CCD for First Holy Eucharist

[Learning123]

It’s probably different in different places. On my tax form, I can pick which school board to send my education taxes to; I am not required to support the public schools, if I don’t want to. (And in fact the Bishop prefers us to support the Catholic system.)

You’re right. It is very different here. So our taxes, NOT by choice, go to the public school we don’t use. We also, by choice, give to the parish school and CCD programs that we do not use. It looks like there might be an adult program we’d take part in soon. So excited for that!

A quick side track… If not for the taxes of all those choosing private education whether in an institution or at home, I would imagine that many a school would be short of the funds necessary to maintain the physical space for the children that are there and provide them with the basics of education, much less the extras to which they’ve become accustomed. I’m not saying that justifies the situation, just stating the realities of the school districts that I know.

 

[Learning123]

Divided amongst the schools in the district. The district would receive the same amount of money if there were no homeschoolers or private schools, lowering the per pupil rate. Given the case law in the US, the right has been established in some states for any student to be able to participate in the programs.

I know it seems off from the intent of the original post, but if it helps…I don’t know how it varies by state, but I thought that here if a child participates in so much as an eye exam at the public school they received some monies. Public school staff have indicated to me before that it is much more than needed to cover the service provided and that is why there is such a push for any and every person imaginable to participate in any and every way imaginable. Let me be clear that I’m not sure of my understanding, and I have seen no documentation as to the exact financial reimbursement for various services or activities.

 

[elts1956]

No. Ultimate responsibility for the religious education of children rests with parents, not pastors or parish employees. CCD should be, at best, a supplement to what parents are doing.

– Mark L. Chance.

Since when did parents forbid the church to teach their children religion? Do we have several little religions starting here, or is the idea of primacy of conscience rearing its lovely head? I am thoroughly confused about what you are talking about. I was under the impression it is the responsibilty and job of the Church to teach religion and the truths of the Church to the flock? Just because you are home schooling your children in secular subjects doesn’t mean you are well versed in the catechism. The teaching of Religion by parents should support what is taught by the Church. This smacks of rampant individualism and not cohesion with the Church to me.

 

[Learning123]

As I said, is having 1st communion only once a year a violation of a child’s right to receive the sacrament when he/she is ready? Should we be having 1st communion available every Sunday or why not every day? After all its their right to receive the sacrament when they’re ready and not have to wait for the parish schedule.
What about baptisms? Do we really need to wait for the once a month baptism? Why can’t every family just show up when they want on any day to receive this most essential sacrament?

I’m sure it varies by parish, but for what it’s worth here is what happens for those two sacraments at our parish.
For baptism the parents approach the priest during the pregnancy. The parents have required reading and one or more meetings with the priest. Then they decide together on a date, a time, and during/after Mass. Now when we were at a much larger urban parish you went through a much more formal program for your first child, which we did, but we ending up needing to move out of the area before the birth. I don’t know if they did individual or once a month baptisms.
For First Holy Eucharist the parish school handbook says the family can choose to go as part of the class or individually as the child is ready. I think they always did this on a Saturday night or Sunday morning Mass, but yes we could see a child receive their First Holy Eucharist many times a year. Sometimes the child was mentioned in the petitions and a certificate was presented before Mass ended. And since in many parishes only the class, staff, and invited family can fit in the building, we would otherwise rarely see this.

 

[elts1956]

No. Ultimate responsibility for the religious education of children rests with parents, not pastors or parish employees. CCD should be, at best, a supplement to what parents are doing.

– Mark L. Chance.

To me this smacks of saying that the laity don’t have to be obedient to their parish, priests don’t have to listen to their Bishops and Bishops don’t have to listen to the Pope. Which about 2/3rds don’t anyway. Sad.

If we have ONLY parents providing religious instruction to their children, why would we need priests and churches? Sounds a bit Protestant to me.

 

[Learning123]

Since when did parents forbid the church to teach their children religion? Do we have several little religions starting here, or is the idea of primacy of conscience rearing its lovely head? I am thoroughly confused about what you are talking about. I was under the impression it is the responsibilty and job of the Church to teach religion and the truths of the Church to the flock? Just because you are home schooling your children in secular subjects doesn’t mean you are well versed in the catechism. The teaching of Religion by parents should support what is taught by the Church. This smacks of rampant individualism and not cohesion with the Church to me.

To the parts in bold…
On the first, I so wish I remembered more exactly the quote and from which type of teaching it comes, but the Church expects that we teach in line with Church doctrine in avoidance of that. Using a program that has both Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur helps ensure that. And as to making sure nothing important is missed, one can compare it to other programs. These are things I HAVE done and AM doing.

If we have ONLY parents providing religious instruction to their children, why would we need priests and churches? Sounds a bit Protestant to me.

Did you really want a response to this part? I’m seriously not sure. Here’s the shortest answer I know, though not all encompassing: Parents cannot and should not administer all the sacraments!

 

[Learning123]

I remember proximate preparation having been mentioned. I remember one of the adult study programs in which I participated at least touching on the topic. I do intend to reread that information before making further communication with our diocese or parish. If there is reading you suggest on the topic please feel free to share, by PM as well would be greatly appreciated.

Just a repeat request here. Anyone who knows where I can find more about remote, proximate, and immediate preparation for First Holy Eucharist, please post it and PM me. Thanks. In an earlier post I asked about a CCC, CIC, or encyclical to distinguish between religious education and sacramental preparation.

What I could find was Familiaris Consortio speaking to remote, proximate, and immediate preparation for Marriage. That is what I had studied in the past. The other tidbits I found I either couldn’t locate the original source or did not seem to evenly closely pertain.
What I seemed to get from these though was that remote preparation is to be non-formal, family based, beginning very early in life; proximate preparation would be done by a more formal program such as a Catholic school or CCD program; and immediate would be done by the parish and/or priest. Each phase generally being shorter in length than the one before it. Assuming I understand this right then at least our parish and perhaps our diocese seem to be putting proximate and immediate together. Add to that “no exceptions” (and from the larger discussion with the priest intimating no compromising either) we’re looking at being asked to do a second full program of proximate preparation. I don’t think anyone here is really in favor of that.
I think I call the diocese’ RE office tomorrow (well looking at the time, make that today) and just see what the response is to a very general inquiry concerning the posted guidelines. If they explain that it expressly means education at the parish I could ask what compromise can be made for a child attending Catholic school outside the parish. Having no intention to leave the parish I would probably enroll her in CCD rather than risk her reception of First Holy Eucharist being delayed, but I could always continue the discussion with the diocese looking ahead to the reception of sacraments for our other children and the children of families is similar circumstances.

My goodness hasn’t she done anything about this yet? I tend to be overly cautious. I may otherwise put my foot in my mouth, and if there was CCC, CIC, or encyclicals out there to influence my thinking or actions I’d want to know them before I did that.

 

[Joannm]

Just return initiation back to its proper place, all done at once when the child is baptized, and there will be no more problems. No more need for CCD except for those who really want it, no super fancy consumer oriented First Communions that have more to do with the dress and the party than receiving Jesus, no more Confirmation/graduation from CCD, which will end up freeing up the Bishops schedule and free up parish staff to do other things that involve less headaches and paperwork.

 

[CDNowak]

To me this smacks of saying that the laity don’t have to be obedient to their parish, priests don’t have to listen to their Bishops and Bishops don’t have to listen to the Pope. Which about 2/3rds don’t anyway. Sad.

If we have ONLY parents providing religious instruction to their children, why would we need priests and churches? Sounds a bit Protestant to me.

elts, go read the first half-dozen pages of this thread. Canon law, Vatican II documents and a few encyclicals place the education of children as part of the vocation of marriage. Clarifications on canon law and being prepared for the sacraments support the canon law definition of preparedness against additions in local law. As far as bishops and priests listening to the Pope, you might want to try to convince NewEnglandPries[t] first.

 

[puzzleannie]

Just return initiation back to its proper place, all done at once when the child is baptized, and there will be no more problems. No more need for CCD except for those who really want it, no super fancy consumer oriented First Communions that have more to do with the dress and the party than receiving Jesus, no more Confirmation/graduation from CCD, which will end up freeing up the Bishop[s schedule and free up parish staff to do other things that involve less headaches and paperwork.

can’t happen soon enough for me.

[edited]
[/QUOTE]

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

Again, I haven’t read all the way through the thread yet. I can’t speak for all home school families, only for our own. So as the original poster …
This is not a whim.

The discussion/debate at this point has little to do with the original post of this thread. Other issues are on the table regarding preparation and when sacraments are to be received.

If a compromise, as I think you suggested in a prior post, was an option I don’t think I’d have anything about which to be unsettled. But as the priest has promised obedience with no exceptions he hasn’t left the door cracked for a compromise. From looking at the scope, sequence, and outline for the program they use, it does look like the main prep for First Holy Eucharist is about 4 weeks, but we are being asked to attend at least 12 weeks (I’m not sure of the end date).

I’m not exactly sure what you mean by “the priest has promised obedience” in terms of religious education. Obedience to who? If he’s the pastor then its certainly within his scope to make adjustments. If, as you post, you’re willing to make some compromise and attend at least parts of the program then I fail to see what the priest is trying to claim.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

OK, just went back over your posts in this thread, father.
You started (1st substantial post, page 14)
saying:
and stated that you would deny a legitimate request so that you didn’t get more of them.

I was speaking of being exempted from the entire program.

You have argued consistently that priests should ignore canon law, and the clarifications of it. You have also suggested compromise, vaguely.

I’ve suggested compromise and common ground in almost every post. As for ignoring canon law, I was being honest, it doesn’t play out like that in the real world on a large scale. If a pastor put himself in the position of exempting some but not others and granting early sacraments to some and not others, he wouldn’t be pastor for long. The division and anger that such a situation would produce would cause a bishop to move some pieces around.
When it comes to dividing up HS’er’s, public school, and parish school kids into groups certain general guidelines can be made. However, if we end up with each individual family doing whatever it wants then chaos would indeed ensue.

That rights to the Sacraments (whether prepared by the parent, or ready for the Sacrament of Confirmation earlier than the diocesan, but not universal, norm) are limited by the convenience of the priest and staff. This is where I see the clericalism: inconvenience the parents, the children, just not the priest or bishop.

Its not about “convenience” but rather about not allowing the entire system to spiral into an unmanageable mess.

The ‘mocking’ tone is purely anger at the injustice you openly advocate. The denial of canonical rights and duties, on the basis of “it’s too hard” to work out. The denial of rights because someone is willing to claim them, and thus must be a discontent.

Once again, running an orderly and spiritually productive parish is in everyone’s interests. In every aspect of life we have rights that we don’t always exercise at every opportunity because to do so would be unhelpful.

Establishing a standard in conformity with canon law may involve a time of chaos, but it would not last long. Most people would rather have their children in CCD (where they can slip through without actually learning their faith) then teach them themselves and have them get denied if they don’t know their faith.

Actually in not too few situations a family will have their unprepared kid take the “test” (not sure even a test would be acceptable canonically) and then scream bloody murder if the kid is denied.

If my pastor or bishop were anything like you (I know the local pastors are not, thankfully), then the only option would be to appeal to Rome (or change ritual Churches, or find a traditional parish, or perhaps an Anglican Use, if one is so fortunate, although those would have to go to Rome as well). No father, the best way to face a bully is head on.

LOL, I didn’t realize asking for compromise and common ground were the traits of a “bully.”

 

[Elizabeth502]

Post 328:

Well I am very glad the non-baptismal sacraments of initiation are later and are separated. I’m glad that my children and myself have long-term memory of those events. Not only were they rites of passage, they are, in the continuum of time, moments of remembrance which serve iconically to strengthen our Catholic identities consciously.

As for the clothing, the rosaries, the books: those also enhance & memorialize the experience, when they’re done right, not to mention being of practical value (rosary, books).

Guess we could dispense with the wedding gown & tuxedo, too – maybe even with vesting the priest at his ordination. After all, we shouldn’t focus on “superficials.”

Symbols are wonderful things; so is consciousness; so is memory, so is separating the sacraments in the developmental life of a person.

 

[CDNowak]

snip<

Ok, father, you insist that you really want compromise and common ground, please drop the straw men.

Both Brendan and I have posted how the “unmanageable mess” would in fact be manageable (if implemented systematically, rather then leaving it to each parent to fight their way through) in the radical case (complete abandonment of the parish program). Realistically, most parents would continue to use the parish program, as they do not desire to teach their own children. (note the complaints about CCD being used as daycare from catechists on this thread).

Tests or interviews, at the discretion of the bishop or pastor, are certainly within the bounds of canon law to fulfill the pastor’s responsibility to ensure the children are prepared. I dare say that all of us arguing for the parents rights would be at your back in the scenario you describe. I’ve even stipulated that, if the parents fail to prepare their children by the appropriate age, that they should be required to take the parish program. A clear policy, established in cooperation with the bishop and hs’ers would certainly save everyone a huge headache.

I’ve also argued that reasonable guidelines for home education should be erected: approval of materials, pre-catechsis interviews with the parents (with the possibility, in limited cases of denying the opportunity), and of course pre-Sacrament interviews. Others have suggest family based programs that already are in existence, or only having immediate prep at the parish level, all of which have been received favorably.

That is substantial suggestion of compromise. Almost all of the substance seems to be coming from one side of the table (+jmcrae). You cannot continue to deride HS’ers on the subject of compromise if you aren’t offering anything concrete to compare.

I also wan to ask if you understand my point on reinforcing legalism? If the status quo denies rights granted by law, people will take legitimate steps to claim those rights. If they can do it locally, even through compromise they will. But if they are told the only way to get those rights is to go higher, then they will. And they will complain until they get them. (Parable of the unjust judge). But they don’t start insisting on their rights until they are denied.

 

[CDNowak]

Post 328:

Well I am very glad the non-baptismal sacraments of initiation are later and are separated. I’m glad that my children and myself have long-term memory of those events. Not only were they rites of passage, they are, in the continuum of time, moments of remembrance which serve iconically to strengthen our Catholic identities consciously.

As for the clothing, the rosaries, the books: those also enhance & memorialize the experience, when they’re done right, not to mention being of practical value (rosary, books).

Guess we could dispense with the wedding gown & tuxedo, too – maybe even with vesting the priest at his ordination. After all, we shouldn’t focus on “superficials.”

Symbols are wonderful things; so is consciousness; so is memory, so is separating the sacraments in the developmental life of a person.

Actually, the current practice deviates significantly from the correct understanding of the Sacraments, particularly Confirmation. Also the typical order of the Sacraments for children in the Latin Church is an anomaly. As it stands, canon law envisions first Penance, Confirmation and first Communion all around the same age (and the requisite knowledge and understanding at the level for that age).

I actually think that if the age of confirmation were lowered to close to the age of Communion there would be less objection from homeschoolers to CCD (three years, largely before serious behavior issues arise).

 

[EasterJoy]

Just return initiation back to its proper place, all done at once when the child is baptized, and there will be no more problems. No more need for CCD except for those who really want it, no super fancy consumer oriented First Communions that have more to do with the dress and the party than receiving Jesus, no more Confirmation/graduation from CCD, which will end up freeing up the Bishop[s schedule and free up parish staff to do other things that involve less headaches and paperwork.[Boldface mine: EasterJoy]

OK, I am not saying that the sacraments ought to be connected to religious education. I have no objection, per se, to initiation done the way the Eastern Orthodox do it, because there are pros and cons to both ways. Having said that…are you kidding?

A parish in which it is felt that there is “No more need for CCD except for those who really want it” is not a parish with “no more problems.” It is a parish facing an unmitigated disaster. That parish, unless it changes its attitude, is going to die. It is just a matter of time.

Catholics who don’t want a religious education still need one! The Church is drowning in Catholics of every age with just such an unrealized need. Many priests I know feel that they will have to stand before the throne and answer for how their priesthood was used in the instruction of those in their care, even those who could not be bothered to want what they so desparately needed. They feel they will have to answer for it, if they were not tireless in trying to rouse the sheep who were starving amid plenty, and neglecting their own lambs. Those priests (and bishops) are not going to abdicate that sacred responsibility in order to save headaches or paperwork.

There is more rejoicing in heaven over one stray being led back than in the ninety-nine who did not need to be sought out in the first place. There is no “well, hey, 99 out of a 100, that’s pretty good, I should get some credit for that” defense. Retrieving those who don’t have enough care to stay close to the fold on their own is a big deal for pastors, it ought to be, and it is going to stay that way. Only in this case, the odds of straying are a lot worse than 1 in 100.

How the problem is addressed may be argued, but that it will have to be continually addressed from now until the Second Coming cannot be.

 

[EasterJoy]

The discussion/debate at this point has little to do with the original post of this thread. Other issues are on the table regarding preparation and when sacraments are to be received.

I’m not exactly sure what you mean by “the priest has promised obedience” in terms of religious education. Obedience to who? If he’s the pastor then its certainly within his scope to make adjustments. If, as you post, you’re willing to make some compromise and attend at least parts of the program then I fail to see what the priest is trying to claim.

My understanding is that this pastor is saying that the diocese has policies, and that exceptions granted will not be “under the radar”, so to speak. In other words, because it could be a precedent, he insists that the bishop has to concur with the principles upon which exceptions would be granted, in order that they be widely applicable throughout the diocese.

My other understanding is that this priest also helped write the policies. It is understandable that he’d be the last person the bishop would want to have appearing to ignore them. OTOH, it may just be that the policies haven’t been around long enough for the inevitable problem of interpretation and exception to have been addressed. (I suspect that sometimes, too, when you wrote and re-wrote the policies through all their many reiterations, you are so sure that they are beyond improvement that you can forget that exceptions and clarifications are always needed.)

 

[jmcrae]

OK, I am not saying that the sacraments ought to be connected to religious education. I have no objection, per se, to initiation done the way the Eastern Orthodox do it, because there are pros and cons to both ways. Having said that…are you kidding?

A parish in which it is felt that there is “No more need for CCD except for those who really want it” is not a parish with “no more problems.” It is a parish facing an unmitigated disaster. That parish, unless it changes its attitude, is going to die. It is just a matter of time.

I agree. I am actually rather astounded that there are places where they “bribe” people to go to CCD with promises of the Sacraments. The Sacraments should not be used as “bribes.”

CCD (Religious education) is not the same thing as Sacramental Preparation. Kids attending Catholic schools receive it at school; those who are homeschooling with a Catholic curriculum are receiving it at home, and those who attend non-Catholic schools receive it in a separate program, which is not connected to the Sacramental Preparation program at all, at the parish.

I don’t know specifically how the Orthodox do their religious education programs (since they don’t have schools, that I know of) but obviously they have something like a Sunday School, or some such thing, since most of the Orthodox I know seem to be reasonably well-educated in their faith.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

My understanding is that this pastor is saying that the diocese has policies, and that exceptions granted will not be “under the radar”, so to speak. In other words, because it could be a precedent, he insists that the bishop has to concur with the principles upon which exceptions would be granted, in order that they be widely applicable throughout the diocese.

OK, I see now. Essentially, without the bishop’s permission then they’re pretty much stuck.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

Both Brendan and I have posted how the “unmanageable mess” would in fact be manageable (if implemented systematically, rather then leaving it to each parent to fight their way through) in the radical case (complete abandonment of the parish program).

Yes and no. You seem to be under the impression that bishops, priests, and numerous diocese have been just making up programs and guidelines for no apparent reason. There’s a rhyme and reason to why things are done the way they are. While there’s always room for improvement that doesn’t mean we need to blow up the whole system.

And BTW, while I’m sure you both think that your plan is brilliant, I’m sure each of the 1800 families of my parish each have their own brilliant plan as to how they would run things if they could.

Realistically, most parents would continue to use the parish program, as they do not desire to teach their own children. (note the complaints about CCD being used as daycare from catechists on this thread).

I’m not so sure about that.

Tests or interviews, at the discretion of the bishop or pastor, are certainly within the bounds of canon law to fulfill the pastor’s responsibility to ensure the children are prepared. I dare say that all of us arguing for the parents rights would be at your back in the scenario you describe.

This is what you don’t seem to understand. You want a world where everyone thinks exactly like you do, the world doesn’t work like that. The idea of a pass/fail test to receive a sacrament is fraught with issues and problems that you can’t even imagine.

I’ve even stipulated that, if the parents fail to prepare their children by the appropriate age, that they should be required to take the parish program. A clear policy, established in cooperation with the bishop and hs’ers would certainly save everyone a huge headache.

The problem is that not everyone wants to cooperate with the bishop or diocese.

You cannot continue to deride HS’ers on the subject of compromise if you aren’t offering anything concrete to compare.

You’re only seeing what you want to see. I did not deride HS’ers as a group. I was pointing out was the even public school kids technically have the right to skip the entire ccd program and thus this debate entails more than just a minority group of HS’ers.

This is going in circles…