Parents miss Mass, kids get ax

[Brad]

Lurch104:

Yes, but he is punishing the chidren for the sin of the parents. Remember, for a sin to be mortal three elements must be present:
1: The act must be a mortal sin
2: Knowledge that the act is a mortal sin
3: Full consent of the will.

Unless these children are capable of walking to mass, they are not in a state of sin based on premise #3. I agree it is best to have the entire family participate, but take every oppurtunity to reach the young people now before they become too jaded.

He is reaching them. He is showing them how they are to raise their children in the faith when/if they have them. He is teaching them that faith is serious, not a game. He is teaching them that parents have responsibility and are not to look to him to babysit their children.

The priest is not saying the children are sinning. He is saying that the parents must take minimum involvement.

The young people become jaded when they are going to religous ed class in 10th grade and their parents are home watching TV. It makes for a miserable time for the faithful children that do want to learn their faith and are mocked for it.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

InnocentIII:

OK Alan. Let me just say that I find your comments about this matter have been intemperate, and yes I saw the pre-edited version of your earlier post and I consider that was a personal and completely uncharitable attack on Fr Cichon, based on nothing else than a one-sided media report. Convince ME that I was wrong.

Why? You are right. That earned me my first official warning in 3000 posts, and I deserved it. I know what I said and I agree with your characterization of it. I’m sorry I put it there, and I’m glad the mods took it out. Beyond that I do not wish to discuss mod action.

Also, thank you for saying that “you find” my remarks a certain way, without speculating on my ability to love. Now maybe we can get back on an even keel here.

Now I wonder why they were surprised??? Maybe because they thought they could just ignore the Church “cuz they wouldn’t do that to the kids”. Seems to me that the parents have some explaining to do here.

More likely they’re space cases and don’t pay close enough attention to know what they were supposed to do. They are probably too busy with other things. We’re not talking about rocket scientists here; we’re talking about to scum parents who can’t even get their kids to church.

Strange isn’t it. Mrs LoPizzo can’t attend mass to keep her child in CCD but can sign up to another parish. And what’s more she was such a comitted Catholic that she would rather leave the Church than attend mass. What message does this send to her son?

First of all, yes it’s stupid and flawed from a strictly logical standpoint. People don’t behave logically when there are emotions involved.

It’s hard to say what the message is. There are several message she may be sending and several the son may actually receive, based on the particulars of their relationship. One possibility is the son will think the Church people are mean and pushed us around. Remember, the Church isn’t here to defend herself because it washed its hands of this child so this child is now subject to no information other than what this wannabe parent feeds it. Maybe the child wants to go to Mass enough that it is disappointed in Mommy’s Behavior, but probably not.

They might also learn that being a Catholic actually makes demands, rather than learning one can be Catholic and ignore the Church’s requirements.

Yup. Shape up or ship out. That’s what they learn.

This is puerile nonsense. We are discussing education in the faith here not intellectual inquiry or academic excellence.

First, I really love that word “peurile.” I’ve never heard it before so I had to go look it up. Thank you; I can hardly wait to try it myself. That’s the kind of word you just can’t drop too often, though, or it would stick out like a sore thumg.

Second, how is it nonsense? We say that parents are not providing the ideal conditions for learning, so we’re not going to try to teach them anymore under those circumstances. It happens to be feeding them faith food and going to Mass, instead of feeding them breakfast or whatever.

Oops I have to go for a bit. I’ll finish later.

First let me say this: I’m not saying anybody, including the priest, is evil, guilty, or ill-concerned over these children. I am saying that this strategy is likely to backfire in many ways.

Peace and Love,
Alan

 

[Brad]

AlanFromWichita:

That’s right, so if children are in this predicament, let’s make sure we also shut off their access to any Truth at all about the Church so they know nothing of the church other than through their slacking parents.

For 30+ years, the Church has been trying to “keep people in” by watering down truth, not teaching truth, or even teaching heresy.

Now you want them to “keep people in” by not even requiring they take the mass seriously.

It hasn’t worked. It won’t work. It will never work.

 

[Other_Eric]

Hi guys!

It’s very simple. What this pastor has done is violate the Code of Canon Law to reach an emotionally satisfying result. He is defying the authority of Rome. May God have mercy on him.

 

[Brad]

Other Eric:

Hi guys!

It’s very simple. What this pastor has done is violate the Code of Canon Law to reach an emotionally satisfying result. He is defying the authority of Rome. May God have mercy on him.

Jimmy Aikin is terrific on Catholic Answers but frankly I am frustrated with some of his blog opinions and wish he’d do more investigation before writing these dissertations.

He wrote a rather lengthy condemnation of this priest’s actions on the premise that he is denying the children the sacraments and this is a FALSE premise.

What the priest is doing is putting minimum requirements on receiving religous education, which is a requirement for the sacraments.

It is a minimum requirement that you attend mass (if physically able) to receive communion. It is a minimum requirement that you go drive to the store in order to get food.

In a previous blog opinion, Aikin argued that it was right to deny children Catholic education in a Catholic school because they were adopted by homosexuals. I disagree with this previous blog opinion AND I do not see how these 2 separate opinions can be reconciled.

 

[fix]

Brad:

JIn a previous blog opinion, Aikin argued that it was right to deny children Catholic education in a Catholic school because they were adopted by homosexuals. I disagree with this previous blog opinion AND I do not see how these 2 separate opinions can be reconciled.

I agree, that is why I am against so-called Catholic schools allowing in children whose parents are in scandal and I am in favor the this priests’s actions as you pointed out so clearly.

Mr. Akin is a great apologist, but I will wait for the canon lawyers before I condemn this priest. As you say the priest is not denying anyone any sacraments.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Brad:

For 30+ years, the Church has been trying to “keep people in” by watering down truth, not teaching truth, or even teaching heresy.

Now you want them to “keep people in” by not even requiring they take the mass seriously.

It hasn’t worked. It won’t work. It will never work.

Hmm. How to respond? I’m not sure what weapon to select…

empathy:
You are right that teaching the watered down truth has not worked for 30 years, and it sounds like you take the Mass very seriously.

empathy with twist:
You are right that teaching the watered down truth has not worked for 30 years, so let’s try not teaching them at all and see if that works better.

selective agreement:
I agree that watering down the truth will never work, at it has not in the past.

selective disagreement:
The Church has not changed her teachings.

defensiveness:
I can’t believe you’re saying I don’t care about the Mass.

satori:
Yes, I suppose it’s time we kept a bit tighter ship; maybe that would solve some problems.

parable invoke:
My position is not intended to lessen the importance of the Mass, but to maintain some ties to sheep who may be at the fringes.

NT invoke:
If he still doesn’t listen, cast him out.

sincerity:
My position is not intended to lessen the importance of the Mass, but to maintain some ties to sheep who may be at the fringes.

There. That last one will be my final answer.

Alan

 

[YinYangMom]

Momofone:

I think that the pastor needs to take into account illnesses and such. This woman, Lisa, had some really valid reasons. She didn’t screw up as far as I can tell. Her father was critically ill and her daughter’s skull was fractured. Believe me, under that kind of stress, I’m sure she felt that God would understand. And maybe it wouldn’t be easy to just find someone to take her child to Mass-she may have just moved there and didn’t know anyone, maybe the people she knew weren’t going to Mass, etc. Now if we are just talking blowing off Mass, that’s a different story.

When my 18 year old nephew was in critical condition after having an aneurism while driving a vehicle…believe me, the priest of their parish, our parents’ parish and ours (different states) immediately knew of the situation. Masses were said for him where ever any relatives lived…and at home, the parish community brought meals, helped with driving the other kids to and from school/church functions, etc.

Being Catholic is a COMMUNITY thing…it is not solo…belonging to a parish means you offer support and receive it - not only from the priest and through the mass - but from/through the entire community.

Sorry, if this woman was truly an active Catholic (not cafeteria or INO), that 6 year old would have been in class, the priest would have known of the hardships of that woman and the community would have helped her a lot.

 

[InnocentIII]

fix:

I agree, that is why I am against so-called Catholic schools allowing in children whose parents are in scandal and I am in favor the this priests’s actions as you pointed out so clearly.

Mr. Akin is a great apologist, but I will wait for the canon lawyers before I condemn this priest. As you say the priest is not denying anyone any sacraments.

I would make two points here. First a quote from a fuller article on this issue (see my previous post for the link) (my bolding)

Joseph Zwilling, director of communications for the Archdiocese of New York, said it’s up to individual pastors to set policy for religious education enrollment.

“A pastor does have some leeway in establishing a standard in his parish,” Zwilling said. “This has nothing to do with funding.”

Island churches have different policies regarding religious education and preparation for the sacraments. Some require prospective godparents and confirmation sponsors to produce a letter from their own pastors, certifying that they are active and practicing Catholics.

While these strict policies are “doctrinally good,” according to Monsignor Nicholas Soares, pastor of St. Clement-St. Michael R.C. Church in Mariners Harbor, “pastorally, they can be not so sound.”

Now we can discuss the pastoral soundness of the priest’s actions till the cows come home but he is not acting illegally.

Secondly, as I pointed out earlier the priest has been warning parents for 18 months. Hardly the act of a “hard-headed priest”.

Thirdly, he has not denied the child the sacraments and I am sure that should the child desire to receive communion and mentioned this to the priest he would undoubtedly accept and see the child was prepared.

It seems to be assumed that the child is an independant individual but clearly this child attends at the behest of the parents. As was also said on this thread should we go into the homes of the baptised children of catholics who don’t send their children to CCD or a Catholic school and drag them off by main force?? Because that is the logic of the argument that we must educate all baptised children regardless of their parent’s actions.

Parents who want their child raised Catholic must at least show respect to the Catholic faith or the child will just be confused. Adequate forewarning was given and IMO it was pastorally sound. If the parents take their children out of CCD by not attending mass (and that is effectively what has happened) then that is something they must answer for. I note however that they seem more likely to go to a parish that is less demanding. Sounds to me like nominal catholicism all round.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

InnocentIII:

Tell me how teaching children that we are “not just kidding about the mass” which the Church teaches is necessary for salvation is having a worldly mentality. Is it religious to teach that attendance at mass is optional?

It is not correct to teach that attendance at Mass is optional. My beef is with any mentality that we are supposed to punish people for missing it, and the more we do so the more we show our love for the Mass. I would think that the pain of mortal sin and ipso facto excommunication would be enough, that we don’t also have to take worldly punitive action.

No I do not mean this at all. One can make a perfectly good argument for ministering to the children without attacking the priest in vituperative personal terms and without pleading for understanding because they are the victims of a power struggle between priests and parents.

OK, then help me make it, I will say you understand me, and then you can tell me that you disagree.

You assign all blame to the priest yet your only argument is that this is unfair to the children because they are children.

I do not assign all blame to the priest for their missing Mass. He has done what he can, it seems, to the point of near despair.

I assign blame to the parents for not taking the kids to church.
I assign blame for the pastor for compounding the problem for the kids by also denying them Catholic education.

There is no attempt to question either the parents or the harm done to the children by the hypocritical attitude that they should attend CCD but mass isn’t important.

Are you talking about the journalism of the original article? Yes, it could have been more informative.

Please rate the following from the best situation for the child to the worst situation. 1 is best, 2 is second best, 3 is worst.

____ A. child goes to Mass and CCD.

____ B. child misses Mass, but still goes to CCD.

____ C. child has no regular contact with Church at all.

My argument is that A=1, B=2, C=3.

Regarding your “mass isn’t important” argument bait you keep throwing out there: you are very sly in your words that presuppose that letting kids continue their education despite their family problems and lack of Mass attendance is tantamount to telling them Mass isn’t important. The connection is purely in your mind, but it is presupposed by your writing. You keep trying to put the thought in my mind that I think Mass isn’t important. You can keep trying implicitly to assert it’s there but I’m not taking the bait.

It is clear that it is not just about encouraging the parents. If the child attended mass with a friend or other family member they would not have been banned. So this child is being “educated” for what? To become another cafateria catholic?

This answers my question above, then. You seem to be saying it’s better that if they aren’t going to be in full communion then they are best having no contact with us at all.

It sounds like at its roots this sounds like a “traditional” Catholic suggesting to a “progressive” one, “we don’t need you in the Body of Christ.”

I guess you could justify it, “feed my sheep” only applies to “mine [who] know me” and if they aren’t in full mental assent with Rome, then they aren’t sheep and we don’t need to feed them.

Alan

 

[InnocentIII]

AlanFromWichita:

It is not correct to teach that attendance at Mass is optional. My beef is with any mentality that we are supposed to punish people for missing it, and the more we do so the more we show our love for the Mass. I would think that the pain of mortal sin and ipso facto excommunication would be enough, that we don’t also have to take worldly punitive action.

OK, then help me make it, I will say you understand me, and then you can tell me that you disagree.

I do not assign all blame to the priest for their missing Mass. He has done what he can, it seems, to the point of near despair.

I assign blame to the parents for not taking the kids to church.
I assign blame for the pastor for compounding the problem for the kids by also denying them Catholic education.

Are you talking about the journalism of the original article? Yes, it could have been more informative.

Please rate the following from the best situation for the child to the worst situation. 1 is best, 2 is second best, 3 is worst.

____ A. child goes to Mass and CCD.

____ B. child misses Mass, but still goes to CCD.

____ C. child has no regular contact with Church at all.

My argument is that A=1, B=2, C=3.

Regarding your “mass isn’t important” argument bait you keep throwing out there: you are very sly in your words that presuppose that letting kids continue their education despite their family problems and lack of Mass attendance is tantamount to telling them Mass isn’t important. The connection is purely in your mind, but it is presupposed by your writing. You keep trying to put the thought in my mind that I think Mass isn’t important. You can keep trying implicitly to assert it’s there but I’m not taking the bait.

This answers my question above, then. You seem to be saying it’s better that if they aren’t going to be in full communion then they are best having no contact with us at all.

It sounds like at its roots this sounds like a “traditional” Catholic suggesting to a “progressive” one, “we don’t need you in the Body of Christ.”

I guess you could justify it, “feed my sheep” only applies to “mine [who] know me” and if they aren’t in full mental assent with Rome, then they aren’t sheep and we don’t need to feed them.

Alan

Alan, we seem at least to have reached calmer or at least less heated waters. Sadly it is late here (2am) so i must to bed. But I shall continue this discussion with you tomorrow.

 

[YinYangMom]

AlanFromWichita:

Second, how is it nonsense? We say that parents are not providing the ideal conditions for learning, so we’re not going to try to teach them anymore under those circumstances. It happens to be feeding them faith food and going to Mass, instead of feeding them breakfast or whatever.

Far from ideal…we’re saying the parents are not providing the minimum conditions for learning. Attending mass is an obligation set forth by the Church - not that priest - and one the baptized Catholic agrees to abide by under fear of being in a state of sin.

When the Catholic marries, they vow to be open to new life and to raise them in the faith. That means they promise to do the raising - it does not mean they promise to hand the kids over for someone else to to the raising in the faith.

Sorry, an active, committed Catholic made at least two solemn promises to be active in their faith and the minimum requirement of that is to attend Mass weekly.

I do understand your objection to punishing the child in this situation, but you’re also assuming the other 299 of those receiving the letter reacted the same way as this one woman. I suspect not.

We do not know how this particular child is taking the message - you assume he is learning the Church is mean and demanding and rejected his loving mother for no reason at all and therefore he’ll never want anything to do with Catholicism again.

Most likely, she’ll send him to another parish and he will learn that parishes operate differently under the Catholic church, so it’s ok to shop around until you find a Catholic church which allow you to be Catholic the way you want to be Catholic, not the way Christ asked us to be.

This woman will successfully raise another Cafeteria or INO Catholic - but the child will most likely remain Catholic. And later in life he may look back on this memorable event to realize the priest was right all along.

That’s what I’ll be praying for.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

InnocentIII:

So this child is being “educated” for what? To become another cafateria catholic?

OK, here is my most important point through all this that I think is going unheard.

This is not an attempt to demonize or blame you for anything, because I have no doubt that you are completely on the level as far as your fervor for the Church and for doing whatever is best for the children. This is honestly a comparison I believe to be valid, and troubled me greatly when I saw how many church leaders don’t seem to see it.

If we use the reasoning that a child is not worth investing our worldly resources in, based on the fact that they are most likely just going to become a cafeteria Catholics because of something that was passed from their parents, then how does that differ from a contraceptive or even abortive mentality?

Are there any happy Catholics here whose parents didn’t support them but the Church did not give up on them? Remember the lost sheep and all that? Only the sick need a hospital? Where does all that go?

Alan

 

[Catholic_Heart]

**This kind of thing really ticks me off…Checking envelopes is NO way to track attendance, for one thing. Many people do not use them…Or, they might use them only once or twice a month…when paychecks come in. **

---

**I feel so sorry for all those kids…What view of Christian charity do they have now? It’s my idea of a pastor using his authority in a thoroughly nasty manner. **

---

If I were a parent, and had this done to me and my child, I would NEVER darken the door of that particular church again. Did he think he would win the parents over, and cause them to rush to attend Mass? What a dumb thing to do…

---

I have said many times on this forum that children should NEVER be made to suffer for the actions (or lack of actions) of their parents…And I stand by that…This a perfect example of cutting off your nose in spite of your face…

 

[fix]

InnocentIII:

I would make two points here. First a quote from a fuller article on this issue (see my previous post for the link) (my bolding)

Now we can discuss the pastoral soundness of the priest’s actions till the cows come home but he is not acting illegally.

Secondly, as I pointed out earlier the priest has been warning parents for 18 months. Hardly the act of a “hard-headed priest”.

Thirdly, he has not denied the child the sacraments and I am sure that should the child desire to receive communion and mentioned this to the priest he would undoubtedly accept and see the child was prepared.

It seems to be assumed that the child is an independant individual but clearly this child attends at the behest of the parents. As was also said on this thread should we go into the homes of the baptised children of catholics who don’t send their children to CCD or a Catholic school and drag them off by main force?? Because that is the logic of the argument that we must educate all baptised children regardless of their parent’s actions.

Parents who want their child raised Catholic must at least show respect to the Catholic faith or the child will just be confused. Adequate forewarning was given and IMO it was pastorally sound. If the parents take their children out of CCD by not attending mass (and that is effectively what has happened) then that is something they must answer for. I note however that they seem more likely to go to a parish that is less demanding. Sounds to me like nominal catholicism all round.

Thank you for the information. That does put things in perspective for me. I want to comment on this :

While these strict policies are “doctrinally good,” according to Monsignor Nicholas Soares, pastor of St. Clement-St. Michael R.C. Church in Mariners Harbor, “pastorally, they can be not so sound.”

That is a weasel comment and a cheap shot to the priest in question.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

YinYangMom:

Sorry, an active, committed Catholic made at least two solemn promises to be active in their faith and the minimum requirement of that is to attend Mass weekly.

Hi YinYangMom,

We all agree the parents are scum, and may end up in hell quite frankly for failing to meet their promises to God and their children.

My issue is not with how we treat the parents, but what to do with the kids caught in this situation. That’s where I’m looking toward the priest for solutions that don’t involve cutting whatever lifeline these kids have.

I do understand your objection to punishing the child in this situation, but you’re also assuming the other 299 of those receiving the letter reacted the same way as this one woman. I suspect not.

I didn’t assume anything about the other 300. I think the whole concept is flawed whether the mother has a valid excuse or not. We keep trying to make this about the parents. It isn’t. It’s about giving the children the best we can given the situation that they are born of the dregs of Catholicism. (whew a bit strong wording there )

This woman will successfully raise another Cafeteria or INO Catholic - but the child will most likely remain Catholic. And later in life he may look back on this memorable event to realize the priest was right all along.

That’s what I’ll be praying for.

You may pray for that. I will not try to block you.

I think it’s a long shot, made longer by removing the kid from Catholic education so his mind will be easy prey for non-Catholic beckonings.

I also pray that the when the Catholic community implements policy, it takes very seriously its obligation to nurture orphans, whether they are orphans physically, legally, or spiritually.

Alan

 

[YinYangMom]

Other Eric:

Hi guys!

It’s very simple. What this pastor has done is violate the Code of Canon Law to reach an emotionally satisfying result. He is defying the authority of Rome. May God have mercy on him.

Oh give me a break!

Can. 213 - First of all, this pertains to those who have already been initiated into the particular sacrifice, not those seeking to receive them for the first time…and Second, the key word there is faithful, as in one who honorably adheres to Church teaching on their own initiative without having a priest threaten them.

Can. 843…again, talking about those who have already been initiated not in training.

Can. 913…sufficient knowledge (RE) and careful preparation (parents)…** so that they understand** the mystery, etc… One without the other is neither sufficient nor careful…and that’s what this priest is doing - he cannot, in good conscience allow these kids to get the book learning only, without the life learning required to truly understand what it is they are about to participate in.

Can. 843…once again…prepared to receive…proper evangelization and catechetical instruction. This includes role modeling by the parents.

Can. 217…he highlighted the wrong part…it should be: Since they are called by baptism to lead a life in keeping with the teaching of the gospel…THEN they have a right… The parents not attending mass on a regular basis kinda waive the right for their children to be instructed. NOTHING says this child cannot, once he becomes of age himself, seek the sacraments on his own, regardless of his parents’ quasi-catholicism. And I’d venture further to say that if this child at 6 really, really wanted the instruction so he could receive ASAP, then he’d go to the priest to seek help in making sure he gets the support he needs from SOMEONE in the parish since his parents aren’t able to provide it. Several saints have insisted on certain paths despite parental objections/hinderances.

Can. 914…again, he highlighted the wrong part: It is primarily the duty of the parents…and again, overlooked the prepared properly part…

Can. 1248…again, a kid who really, really wants to be Catholic can always appeal to the priest and parish support system to help him get what he needs.

As for the rest of his proof about legality…all those citations do not pertain to the right to receive instruction…they have to do with the right to continue to receive sacraments already received.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

**This kind of thing really ticks me off…Checking envelopes is NO way to track attendance, for one thing. Many people do not use them…Or, they might use them only once or twice a month…when paychecks come in. **

**I feel so sorry for all those kids…What view of Christian charity do they have now? It’s my idea of a pastor using his authority in a thoroughly nasty manner. **

If I were a parent, and had this done to me and my child, I would NEVER darken the door of that particular church again. Did he think he would win the parents over, and cause them to rush to attend Mass? What a dumb thing to do…

I have said many times on this forum that children should NEVER be made to suffer for the actions (or lack of actions) of their parents…And I stand by that…This a perfect example of cutting off your nose in spite of your face…

This does give me an idea. I am an electrical engineer, I should figure out how to capitalize off this so I can have a real job and quit stirring up the status quo here in this forum.

Each child and adult will carry an identification card, or get an implant, that automatically records their arrival and departure times. If they go on vacation, they can use any Internet-enabled computer to upload the data from their cards, and a verification email will be sent to the pastor there.

We can not only track Mass attendance, but we can finger any early leavers. We can also keep track of those who come and go from perpetual adoration so those who promise an hour but don’t show up can be detected. We can combine this with the lists of volunteers to clean the church. Altar servers, now we know who really shows up on time.

You know, I’ve spent many committee-years in leadership positions of our parish, but I never really saw this before. How simple and beautiful: automated parish. All the pastor has to do is set the preferences, the mercy level, and other characteristics and the thing practically runs itself. It will assign volunteers, suggest remedial pastoral care and everything. Oh, no. Who forgot to update the anti-virus software?

Alan

 

[AlanFromWichita]

YinYangMom:

Oh give me a break!

I will. I don’t know about canon law so I can’t help in your argument, but here’s your break:

For my own purposes, I do not claim the pastor is acting outside of his authority.

Likewise I do not claim the pastor is anything but loving, patient, kind, and gentle in nature.

Likewise I do agree that the parents in these cases have demonstrated a pattern of failure to provide the minimum for their children.

I hope that helps.

Alan

 

[YinYangMom]

AlanFromWichita:

IMy beef is with any mentality that we are supposed to punish people for missing it, and the more we do so the more we show our love for the Mass.

I hear you on that point…
but then I go back to Adam and Eve…
did God ‘punish’ Adam and Eve or did he simply “allow” Adam and Eve to experience the consequences for their choice to disobey Him?

If you choose not to attend mass on a regular basis you are not “allowed” to receive communion without confession first - and in that confession you’re supposed to say you truly intend to do better next time around…4 weekends in a month and since 2003, they regularly attend one mass per month - that doesn’t sound like a contrite confession to me (assuming they confessed it in the first place).

Not being allowed to receive Communion is not a punishment - it is a consequence.

Not being allowed to have your child participate in religious ed because you are not upholding your obligation to live the promise you made at baptism and in your marriage vows is a consequence, not a punishment.