Should 1st Communion be for the Children of Seldom Practicing Catholics???

[MariaG]

Hi Pug,

posted by Pug
Maria,

I’ve been too concerned about the pope to come back and answer you.

Me too. It catches me off guard at times, the intensity of my sorrow. I have as yet, been unable to celebrate and be happy for him being released from his suffering. I still mourn the loss of his firm moral guidance for the world and the Church.

posted by Pug
I agree that there is an obligation for the parish and parents to provide good preparation for the child for sacraments. I would think, however, that a priest could admit a child to the Eucharist based on his firm knowledge that the child is prepared and he could do it without the ceremony. For example, I think it would be sad to make a well-prepared child wait a whole year if they missed their first communion date because of illness. I think the child who is ready should be admitted promptly.

A priest could choose to do so if a child missed the ceremony due to illness. But the priest could also choose to make the child wait A parent could certainly appeal the decision, but hopefully, a priest would not make a child wait in a case due to illness.

posted by pug
I don’t really have experience with the ceremony, but I would hope it is really for the kids and not the parents. What matters is that they receive Christ, that is what is special about the day, not the ceremony. Perhaps having the ceremony helps those lukewarm parents feel motivatied to provide their children the opportunity to receive at least that one time. Just as long as it doesn’t turn into lots of kids receiving who really don’t care about Christ, just because the parents want the ceremony for their kids. I’m afraid that happens, based on my limited experience. I hope I’m wrong.

I actually had the honor of instructing a group of older kids who “missed” (usually done in the second grade at our parish) their first communion. There were four from 6th to 8th grade. The parents had not regularly attended Mass. After the classes started, two still did not attend. But our parish does not require the parents to come to Mass for the kids to receive. It encourages it, but there is no attendence taken. The kids do not even have to be there. It is simply encouraged.

We do require that they attend classes. It was awesome to see these kids, all of them, whether they had been brought to Mass or not, learn to love and respect the awesome sacrament. To teach older kids about Reconcilliation, and then Holy Communion. Wow. It is so hard to describe the absolute joy that lit up their faces when they understood. And for two of the kids, I know they were there because the parents wanted the ceremony. But the great news is that the Holy Spirit is able to reach those kids too.

God Bless,
Maria

 

[MariaG]

posted by netmil(name removed by moderator)
Why would we set these kids up to sin? If we teach them that not attending Mass is a sin, then aren’t we setting them up? They can’t drive themselves to Mass.

If a child is unable to attend Mass for lack of an ability to get to Mass, where is the sin? The sin will rest squarely on the shoulders of the parents. For something to be a sin, there must be intent. If the child has the opportunity to go and declines, that is sin on the child. If even after asking to go, the child cannot get to Mass, there was no *intent *on the part of the child to miss Mass, therefore no sin on the part of the child.

posted by netmil(name removed by moderator)
One parish in our area has sign in sheets at Mass. If one does not attend mass, the child is not allowed in CCD. It keeps them innocent if their parents are not supporting them at home and yet gets the parents to put in the effort if they want the ceremony.

Maybe I am totally wrong, but if the parents are not ready to be Catholic, the children should be allowed to remain innocent.

I disagree. Leaving a child ignorant does not allow them to remain innocent. It just leaves them ignorant. I know of kids who never miss a Mass, receive communion, but only do it because the parent makes them. I just had the joy of teaching children who while they started because their parents signed them up, they truly love and understand what they are receiving. I know that two of them will have a hard time getting to Mass, yet I also know when they are able, they will actually have more love for the Lord than that other child who comes every week.

The hardest part of my job was to explain that now that the children had more knowledge than the parents, they needed to be obedient to their parents, but continue to ask them to bring them to Mass. But to leave them ignorant? I do not see how leaving people ignorant is ever helpful. It is like those who don’t preach the full gospel to their protestant brothers and sisters because it is better they remain ignorant. I completely disagree with that also.

God Bless,
Maria

 

[MariaG]

posted by Anna Elizabeth

Just my point, netmil(name removed by moderator). Yet, look at the number of posters who are willing to set those children up to sin in the hope of reaching the parents through them.

You are not setting a child up to sin. To be a sin, there must be intent. If a child is unable to get to Mass, even if they ask, there is no sin on the part of the child.

Many perhaps don’t have much experience with children. But the pious willingness to use the chldren in this manner is nothing less than exploiting them and as such is morally indefensible.

I find it more exploitive to make a child’s reception of communion dependent on the the actions of the parent, than accepting that these people are responding to the call of God. Let God judge them, not us.

Frankly, I find it sad that people place a child in the position of being responsible for the parents behavoir as well as their own.
Christ didn’t tell people to go and be good for a year, make sure your parents behave too and then come talk to Him. He accepted them just as they came. He also said to keep not the little children from Him.

I never want to have to stand before the Lord and say, sorry Lord, I didn’t let Katie receive You because her parents wouldn’t go to Mass every week.

I do understand both sides of the issue. There is merit on both sides. Let’s not start calling things “morally indefensible” just because you disagree. The fact is it is done both ways with good reasons on both sides, both sides have merit and both sides have good reasons. But frankly, I find it distastful to the extreme to deny a baptized child the Real Presence of Our Lord because the parents don’t act the way they are supposed to.

Distaste and disagreement do not equal morally indefensible, since you are not “setting up” a child to sin.

God Bless,
Maria

 

[netmilsmom]

MariaG:

You are not setting a child up to sin. To be a sin, there must be intent. If a child is unable to get to Mass, even if they ask, there is no sin on the part of the child.

There are many more sins than missing Holy Mass. With 1st Communion comes 1st Confession. You teach a 7 year old what a mortal sin is. Therefore they are not ignorant anymore, nor are they innocent.

If a child goes through 2nd grade CCD, she know what a mortal sin is. Let’s say she commits a mortal sin, then begs to be taken to confession but the parent’s don’t find the time.
She goes to school and gets hit by a bus. She died in a state of Mortal sin. If she had not been instructed, she would have died innocent. Perhaps I’m wrong about this and someone could give a reference where that girl would be in a state of Grace without confessing to a Priest.

Baptism yes! 1st Communion with a family that does not support the spiritual life of that child, I’m not sure.

I certainly would not want to take that responsiblity.
I’m not sure that intent would matter in this case.

 

[MariaG]

If one has perfect contrition with the intent to confess to a priest, you can die without having made it to confession.
CCC
1452 When it arises from a love by which God is loved above all else, contrition is called “perfect” (contrition of charity). Such contrition remits venial sins; it also obtains forgiveness of mortal sins if it includes the firm resolution to have recourse to sacramental confession as soon as possible.[51]

I was looking for the reference, I did not find what I was looking for, but I did find this from here catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0311fr.asp

Mortal sin requires three elements: serious matter, knowledge of the sinfulness of the act, and free consent. If any one of these is omitted, no mortal sin is committed.

In my opinion, there are very few things, if any, a child could do that fall under all three of these. By the time the child is capable of mortal sin, they are old enough to make their own arrangements to get to church if their parents won’t take them.
But of course, my opinion is just that, my opinion. I was looking for a definitive source. Can’t find it yet, but I thought I read something from CA that said the same thing.

I’ll keep looking.

God Bless,
Maria

 

[netmilsmom]

MariaG:

If one has perfect contrition with the intent to confess to a priest, you can die without having made it to confession.
CCC
1452 When it arises from a love by which God is loved above all else, contrition is called “perfect” (contrition of charity). Such contrition remits venial sins; it also obtains forgiveness of mortal sins if it includes the firm resolution to have recourse to sacramental confession as soon as possible.[51]

That is venial sins or sacramental confession as soon as possible. Reading true to the words, YOU are responsible, knowing that you have taught the child what a mortal sin is without making sure the child has the ability to make it for the Sacrament. That child may not go to hell but can you guarantee the DRE won’t?

MariaG:

In my opinion, there are very few things, if any, a child could do that fall under all three of these. By the time the child is capable of mortal sin, they are old enough to make their own arrangements to get to church if their parents won’t take them.
But of course, my opinion is just that, my opinion. I was looking for a definitive source. Can’t find it yet, but I thought I read something from CA that said the same thing.

Your feelings really don’t mean anything. I don’t mean to sound insulting, but your opinion is the same as the people who thought it was a good idea to make 1st Confession after 1st Communion. The Vatican said otherwise.

Maybe we should leave the children as innocent. You say ignorant and I say innocent but this way they shoot straight to heaven, guaranteed.

 

[MariaG]

CCC
1452 When it arises from a love by which God is loved above all else, contrition is called “perfect” (contrition of charity). Such contrition remits venial sins; it also obtains forgiveness of mortal sins if it includes the firm resolution to have recourse to sacramental confession as soon as possible.[51]

posted by netmil(name removed by moderator)

That is venial sins or sacramental confession as soon as possible. Reading true to the words, YOU are responsible, knowing that you have taught the child what a mortal sin is without making sure the child has the ability to make it for the Sacrament. That child may not go to hell but can you guarantee the DRE won’t?

Perfect contrition with the firm resolution to go to confession. That means if the child asks and asks to go, but the parent does not, they are still in a state of grace. And I always tell any child I teach that if their parent won’t take them, call me up, I will take them to confession. And I do.

But even if I didn’t, How do I become responsible for the sins of the parent? I trust in the Lord that the people are responding to the call of God. I trust in my pastor’s judgement that we should not put impediments in the way of children receiving the sacraments which are their right through baptism.

How then does that mean that the person who taught the child or gave permission for the child to be taught is responsible for the parents failing to do their job?

And as a matter of fact, children that I personally come in contact with and teach, the sacraments as well as just regular CCD, I do check up on them and offer them rides to Mass and confession. I do this several times a year for many different children. The “drop offs”, the ones that parents bring but just drop off, always come and sit with me at church. It is kind of sad that some people at church actually asked me about my “foster children”. But at least the children are given an opportunity to know the Lord.

Our new priest feels as I explained. We should not stop people from responding to the call of the Lord, nor should we place impediments in the way of children receiving. Our job is not to judge whether we think they are going to keep coming, our job is to make sure the kids have the opportunity to keep coming and participate in all the sacraments.

I also spent time in the Protestant churches. One of the statistics really hits me. Did you know that 80% of people who go to church today, were introduced to Christianity as children, through Sunday school, CCD, or Vacation Bible School?

That means that every 100 children who are not allowed to learn about Christ as a child, only 20 will ever go to church as adults. 20%. Think of that. Out of 10 kids who come to regular CCD classes or special classes for the sacraments and are not allowed to because the parents did not commit to come also, **only 2 will develop a relationship with Christ as an adult. **

I do understand the view of not allowing children to receive first communion until the parents have shown some kind of committment, I like my new Priest’s view better, but I do understand the other view. I do not understand not allowing a child to go to regular CCD classes unless the parents go to Mass. I am more worried about going to hell for keeping the little children from Him.

And as I said, I am looking for the source that I read on kids and sin.

God Bless,
Maria

 

[netmilsmom]

MariaG:

CCC
1452 When it arises from a love by which God is loved above all else, contrition is called “perfect” (contrition of charity). Such contrition remits venial sins; it also obtains forgiveness of mortal sins if it includes the firm resolution to have recourse to sacramental confession as soon as possible.[51]

Perfect contrition with the firm resolution to go to confession. That means if the child asks and asks to go, but the parent does not, they are still in a state of grace. And I always tell any child I teach that if their parent won’t take them, call me up, I will take them to confession. And I do.

You are putting a huge amount of responsibility on a seven-year-old.

MariaG:

But even if I didn’t, How do I become responsible for the sins of the parent? I trust in the Lord that the people are responding to the call of God. I trust in my pastor’s judgement that we should not put impediments in the way of children receiving the sacraments which are their right through baptism.

How then does that mean that the person who taught the child or gave permission for the child to be taught is responsible for the parents failing to do their job?

The DRE is responsible because he/she is avoiding the fact that the child has no family support. It’s not that he/she is responsible for the sins of the parent but rather the DRE is closing his/her eyes to the fact that the parents, in past practice, are neglecting that duty.
You may support the children that you teach, but those like you are few and far between. Also, what if they move? Who supports them then?

MariaG:

I also spent time in the Protestant churches. One of the statistics really hits me. Did you know that 80% of people who go to church today, were introduced to Christianity as children, through Sunday school, CCD, or Vacation Bible School?

You sound like the DRE at our old parish, looking to the Protestants to guide us. We are not Protestant. Conservative Catholic churches in my area are growing by leaps and bounds. The liberal parishes that ignore the Sunday Mass requirements for parents are bleeding parishioners.

That means that every 100 children who are not allowed to learn about Christ as a child, only 20 will ever go to church as adults. 20%. Think of that. Out of 10 kids who come to regular CCD classes or special classes for the sacraments and are not allowed to because the parents did not commit to come also, **only 2 will develop a relationship with Christ as an adult. **

I would like to see the more relevent stats of how many children who went to CCD with non-supportive parents stayed in the faith.

I am more worried about going to hell for keeping the little children from Him.

But you wouldn’t be, the parent’s would be, the child would remain innocent.

 

[MariaG]

posted by netmil(name removed by moderator)

You sound like the DRE at our old parish, looking to the Protestants to guide us. We are not Protestant. Conservative Catholic churches in my area are growing by leaps and bounds. The liberal parishes that ignore the Sunday Mass requirements for parents are bleeding parishioners.

I am not looking to protestants for guidance. I was quoting a statistic that show how vital it is to reach children, most adults never become practicing Christians without exposure to religion as children.

Liberal? Because I do not think baptized children should be denied the Real Presence of Our Lord because of the actions of the parents?

I disagree with your stance, and so does my priest. Try stating your case without throwing around labels.

If I find the article, I will certainly post it. Otherwise…

 

[netmilsmom]

MariaG:

I am not looking to protestants for guidance. I was quoting a statistic that show how vital it is to reach children, most adults never become practicing Christians without exposure to religion as children.

Liberal? Because I do not think baptized children should be denied the Real Presence of Our Lord because of the actions of the parents?

I disagree with your stance, and so does my priest. Try stating your case without throwing around labels.

If I find the article, I will certainly post it. Otherwise…

I didn’t call you a liberal (I stated that you sounded like my old DRE who proudly proclaims herself to be such). You brought up your Protestant experience. I stated that it would be better to look at laxed Catholics who where put through CCD programs with no parental support. My public school friends who went to CCD with lukewarm Catholic parents, are now “labeled” Catholic and attend on Christmas, maybe. My Catholic School friends who’s parents WERE required to attend, are now striving raising their children the same way. (and it’s ironic that many CCD kids with supportive parents are now Militant Catholics!)

A priest is required to make sure parents will raise their children Catholic.
(Canon 868.2) For the baptism of an infant, it is necessary that there be a well founded hope that the infant will be brought up in the Catholic religion. If such a hope is altogether lacking, the baptism is to be put off according to the prescriptions of a particular law and parents are to be informed of the reason.

Yet, it’s okay to continue to instruct children, and therefore put the responsibility of remission of sins on them, now and for the next nine years until they can drive? It is knowingly taking an innocent person and making them responsible, with no support. You don’t “think” that a child can meet the requirements for mortal sin. I would not ever want to take that chance with an innocent person’s soul. I guess that’s where we differ.

Bishop Gilbert Sheldon, said it best, (and I am paraphrasing here because I can’t find my letter) Many Catholic parents are choosing homeschool for Catechism because instruction is lacking.
The priests are listening to a bunch of educators who think they have the great ideas, and not the Vatican. It’s a mistake.

 

[MariaG]

I could not find the article I was looking for, so I posted on Ask the apologist forum. Here was my question. To view the full answer yourself, go here, forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=50583

Quetion posted by MariaG in Ask the apologist
Are children who are of the age of Communion, but still too young to get to church or confession by themselves, able to commit mortal sin?

An argument has been made that it is better to deny First Communion and even CCD classes to children whose parents will not commit to coming to Mass every week in order to allow the children to remain innocent because of the lack of parental support

from ask the apologist
Such an argument is specious. It may appear attractive to those trying to protect young children from mortal sin, but demonstrates a lack of knowledge about the requirements for mortal sin and the absolution of mortal sin. It also shows a lack of trust in God.

If a child committed a mortal sin, (which the apologist questions if it is possible), the sin would still be forgiven if the child repented but was denied the ability to go to confession.

 

[WhiteDove]

Jesus himself told his well-meaning disciples not to prevent the children from approaching him (cf. Matt. 19:13-15). Those today who would deny children access to Christian education and the sacraments out of a misguided fear for the children’s innocence do the children no favors by attempting to keep them in ignorance of their Lord and Savior.

I’m glad to see she included this statement in her reply.

 

[netmilsmom]

MariaG:

I could not find the article I was looking for, so I posted on Ask the apologist forum. Here was my question. To view the full answer yourself, go here, forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=50583

If a child committed a mortal sin, (which the apologist questions if it is possible), the sin would still be forgiven if the child repented but was denied the ability to go to confession.

Well, I guess that you and the Apologist have a right to your opinions. However I will post this again,

" (Canon 868.2) For the baptism of an infant, it is necessary that there be a well founded hope that the infant will be brought up in the Catholic religion. If such a hope is altogether lacking, the baptism is to be put off according to the prescriptions of a particular law and parents are to be informed of the reason. "

I see no difference in putting off the Sacrament of Pennace because the parents lack hope in instructing a child in the Catholic Religion and delaying Baptism, again informing the parents of the decision. Otherwise one is teaching a child that by the example of his/her own parents, we don’t have to follow the rules.

 

[MariaG]

We are not talking about *baptizing *children of parents who do not come to Mass. We are talking of children who have already received baptism and being denied further sacraments due to the sins of the parents.

posted by netmil(name removed by moderator)
I see no difference in putting off the Sacrament of Pennace because the parents lack hope in instructing a child in the Catholic Religion and delaying Baptism, again informing the parents of the decision. Otherwise one is teaching a child that by the example of his/her own parents, we don’t have to follow the rules

You see no difference? The catechism and canon law is very detailed, where does it say that Sacrament of Penance should be delayed until the **Parent **goes to Mass?

And let’s look at the canon again.

" (Canon 868.2) For the baptism of an infant, it is necessary that there be a well founded hope that the infant will be brought up in the Catholic religion.** If such a hope is altogether lacking**, the baptism is to be put off according to the prescriptions of a particular law and parents are to be informed of the reason. "

Even IFthere is no difference between receiving baptism and instruction for confession, argument can be made that a hope is NOT *altogether *lacking when a parent presents a child for further teaching. There is no hope whatsoever by denying the child any education at all that they will be brought up in the Catholic religion.

I will post your own word back to you. You cannot see a difference, but clearly others can.

Your feelings really don’t mean anything. I don’t mean to sound insulting, but your opinion is the same as the people who thought it was a good idea to make 1st Confession after 1st Communion.

:bible1: Matthew 19:13 - 15
Then children were brought to him that he might lay his hands on them and pray. The disciples rebuked the people;
14] but Jesus said, “Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.”
15] And he laid his hands on them and went away.

 

[WhiteDove]

Dear Nettle’(name removed by moderator),
I think Maria has made her point very well. There is nothing specifically in canon law forbidding this. It is also a widespread practise, not only in the U.S. but in Europe. In Poland, most children receive their first communion, even if their parents don’t go to church. I know this for a fact.

Once the child has instruction in confession, it makes it all the easier to reestablish ties to the church once he/she reaches adulthood. By putting up strict barriers you are probably alienating him and his parents forever. Better to err on the side of hope and charity.

 

[HumbleObedience]

I am shocked and dismayed to read that there are those here who would like to deny precious children their First Holy Communion. It grieves my heart. I know your intent may be good, but our Lord beseeched us to become as little children.

If their parents fall short, let us reach out a helping hand to these children. Let us show them Christian love, not rejection! Where will they turn in their hour of need? Their hearts are like fertile soil where we can plant a mustard seed which will one day bear fruit!

We must reach out to them. Praise God that their parents are willing to have us teach them about our Lord. Let us not reject their plea!

 

[sdnewbie]

Yes most definately! Children shouldn’t be left out due to non-exposure. My sister-in-law just asked me to help bring my oldest niece to the Church (6 years old), since I am going through RCIA and learning so much she says she has forgotten being a cradle Catholic and not having gone with exception of holidays for so many years. Hopefully she’ll come back because of her eldest daughter.

 

[netmilsmom]

WhiteDove:

Dear Nettle’(name removed by moderator),
I think Maria has made her point very well. There is nothing specifically in canon law forbidding this. It is also a widespread practise, not only in the U.S. but in Europe. .

In Europe??? They are a great example! What are they doing in Africa or Latin American where the chuch is growing?

There are many things not specifically in Cannon Law that a normal person would not do.

The fruits of the works be known. When our parishes (like my parish now) require parents to bring the children up in the Catholic religion, the parish thrives. We have 200 Altar Boys, 8 seminarians, 750 families and 5 Holy Masses on Sunday. Four holy priests with instructions from the Vatican in every bulletin. Parishes are closing. There is a reason.

This statement…
" (Canon 868.2) For the baptism of an infant, it is necessary that there be a well founded hope that the infant will be brought up in the Catholic religion.** If such a hope is altogether lacking**, the baptism is to be put off according to the prescriptions of a particular law and parents are to be informed of the reason. "

Is in the cannon. But by your opinions, Reconcilliation and Eucharist are not so important to have a well founded hope that the child is being brought up in the Catholic Religion.

I admit that I did state my feelings. I was wrong to put them in. Here is the cannon law regarding one of our sacraments.
While cannon law does not state that giving other sacraments to children with parents who are not bringing them up in the Catholic Religion, disregarding this part of the cannon while looking at other sacraments diminishes those sacraments.
Those who think that children cannot commit mortal sin, were not correct in letting them receive Eucharist in 2nd grade and Reconcilliation in 4th. The Vatican corrected you then. It may well straighten you out again. It may straighten me out. Time will tell.

Cannon Law does not state that there should not be juggling at Holy Mass. Hmmmmmm. I’m glad I’m where I’m at!!!

 

[netmilsmom]

netmil(name removed by moderator):

" (Canon 868.2) For the baptism of an infant, it is necessary that there be a well founded hope that the infant will be brought up in the Catholic religion.** If such a hope is altogether lacking**, the baptism is to be put off according to the prescriptions of a particular law and parents are to be informed of the reason. "

And please read the red highlight again. “Is to be put off…” is a whole lot different than deny.
This is the last I will state on the subject.
Sometimes one must agree to disagree.

 

[WhiteDove]

Dear Nettle(name removed by moderator),
You sound so upset and angry. FYI, Poland is a very devout country, with 40% Mass attendance. That is the European country I’m most familiar with and there they freely allow both baptism and 1st Communion. In fact, my older daughter was baptized in Poland…

What is upseting you so much? The content of your posts doesn’t match up with the lovely quote in your signature.