P
ProVobis
Guest
Nonsense.
Why not bathrooms where people get to leave their seats or parking lots, where everyone is encouraged to drive now?
The most damaging innovation to Catholic parishes in the last 50 years...
- Status
Why not bathrooms where people get to leave their seats or parking lots, where everyone is encouraged to drive now?
Y
YoungTradCath
Guest
No one at my very old, very traditional, very reverent, yet Novus Ordo, church, is forced or even requested to use the cry room. But they do anyways, because they want to, because they feel like it’s the right thing to do.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
Were there cry rooms before Vatican II?
W
whipp711
Guest
Not.
P
PatriceA
Guest
How do you know that for sure, unless you’ve surveyed everyone that uses the cry room? Do you have children? Have you been in the shoes of a mother that gets the nasty comments or the “eye” if they don’t remove their crying child or baby from the pews?
V
vsedriver
Guest
This might be a radical idea but when my children were infants and up to the age where they started to walk we didn’t take them to church. We took turns with one going to the early Mass and one going to the late Mass. Personally, I enjoyed the hour of peace and quiet. When the kids were old enough to understand ‘sit still’ and ‘be quiet’, they went to church with us. I never took food or toys to church.
I kept my kids on a fairly regular schedule so if we did all go to church I knew they were fed, and changed before Mass and more often than not they slept through the whole liturgy.
I kept my kids on a fairly regular schedule so if we did all go to church I knew they were fed, and changed before Mass and more often than not they slept through the whole liturgy.
P
ProVobis
Guest
This is not radical at all. In fact, it was very typical back in the 50’s when there were seven Masses on a Sunday morning and most could walk to Church. In our family, we all went at different times even when we could walk.
C
Corki
Guest
If you want to call cry rooms a damaging innovation you need to look at what it replaced. In the 50s, it was much more common than it is today for families with small children to split up for Mass so that the little ones stayed home while the parents and older children tag teamed to Mass. Or the mother simply stayed home - especially with infants. In the days before wide spread childhood vacinations, it was very common not to take infants hardly anywhere. Cry rooms didn’t so much replace crying children at Mass as they replaced **absent **children at Mass and allowed families to attend Mass together.
(probably not a universal experience but it’s mine
)
(probably not a universal experience but it’s mine
)
C
cargau
Guest
I’m not sure I’m willing to concede that the crying room is the most damaging innovation, but I do agree its up there.
Pope JP II said that children are not just the future of the Church, they are the Church. Jesus said “let the little ones come to me”…
It seems to me that the real problem is that kids are not taught/disciplined on appropriate behaviors at Mass. There should be no juice, cereal, toys or books. Mass is not play time. Still, I understand any child or toddler crying. If the child becomes a distraction (I mean really bawling) to others, the parent(s) should remove the child long enough to compose the child and then return to their seats.
Everyone of us is a part of the body of Christ and should be made every way possible to be included in the celebration of the Eucharist. No one should be segregated.
Our kids are the Church as JP II says, but they are also the future. Going to Mass should become a perfectly natural part of our lives, not something that you just get through.
I
InquisitorMax
Guest
The original article uses emotive arguments. I felt my gorge rising. Just a little.
I think people should just use good sense. Is the baby continually screeching? Take him outside. He’s probably setting the other laymen’s teeth on edge. He’s not yet reached the use of reason so he’s not going to get much out of Mass anyway.
Is it just an occasional yell? Stay where you are.
I suppose it’s down to which is more distracting: keeping the kid inside or your walking out.
Why don’t people with small kids just sit near an exit?
S
silicasandra
Guest
That’s what we do; but I’m not sure how we’ll feel about it once winter rolls around. Our church does not have a cry room and I’m glad of that. We have attended Mass when visiting my in-laws, and at that parish there is a cry room, and very few young children aren’t in there. We have received the occasional glare for not being “in our place,” I guess, but our baby (almost 4 mos) is usually very quiet (we go during his naptime). When he isn’t, DH stands with him in the back, which he likes because then he can look around and see better than if he were in the pews (he loves looking at the stained glass windows.)Why don’t people with small kids just sit near an exit?
To clarify: the glares we get are for just sitting down in the pews with a baby. Even if he’s sleeping. I can’t imagine another reason why we would be receiving glares, unless it’s that we’re taking someone else’s space.
Plus, if he cries out even once, the same people fixate on us. It just makes you want to sink down into the floor. 
C
Cider
Guest
I disagree that it’s the single most damaging thing, but I agree with him that they never should have been implemented.
C
Cristiano
Guest
I am not sure that I would call the cry room the most damaging innovation; however, it seems to me that it is the part of the disturbing “about me” trend that I see at Mass whether it is about contemporary music to make people feel good or about the deep silence to allow people to meditate better. The Mass is not about us or for us. Romano Guardini and then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger invested a lot of time discussing in their books how we fit into the Mass and how we should participate into it. I never saw that it was about us even if it calls for our presence.
J
JReducation
Guest
I’m neither for or against the cry rooms. As I posted in # 35, no one ever thought of it before it before, because it was unnecessary. Catholic churches were built differently. To have or not to have one really depends on the floor plan of the church.
However, to say that the crying infant is second to the reverence due to the Lord at mass is in conflict with Catholic moral theology.
The crying infant comes from the hand of the Creator whom we are worshipping and his crying is normal if he is tired, wet, hungry, uncomfortable, etc.
The ritual comes from the hand of man to worship the Creator who gave us the crying infant and redeemed him.
We must be very careful how we say things or we step onto a slippery slope. If a crying infant is second to reverence or if we perceive a crying infant as detracting from reverence. the unspoken message is that “there are times when God does not delight in life.”
If God does not always delight in life, then why should man?
The truth is that God always delights in life and in what’s part of the normal condition of lfie, such as a crying infant. The congregation may not delight in it, because a crying child can be distracting and if the crying continues, it can be distressing to those around the infant. This is true whether you’re in church, on a plane or any other close quarters.
We can certainly say that we prefer the cry room, because it distresses us to hear a child cry, NEVER because it takes anything away from God or the reverence of the mass. That is not true. Such statements are in a moral grey zone. The pro-abortion and pro-contraception crowd can use that to justify that there are many times when a baby is inconvenient, because he or she takes away from something else that human beings value as sacred.
Let us remember Jesus’ words, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.”
Fraternally,
Br.JR, OSF
However, to say that the crying infant is second to the reverence due to the Lord at mass is in conflict with Catholic moral theology.
The crying infant comes from the hand of the Creator whom we are worshipping and his crying is normal if he is tired, wet, hungry, uncomfortable, etc.
The ritual comes from the hand of man to worship the Creator who gave us the crying infant and redeemed him.
We must be very careful how we say things or we step onto a slippery slope. If a crying infant is second to reverence or if we perceive a crying infant as detracting from reverence. the unspoken message is that “there are times when God does not delight in life.”
If God does not always delight in life, then why should man?
The truth is that God always delights in life and in what’s part of the normal condition of lfie, such as a crying infant. The congregation may not delight in it, because a crying child can be distracting and if the crying continues, it can be distressing to those around the infant. This is true whether you’re in church, on a plane or any other close quarters.
We can certainly say that we prefer the cry room, because it distresses us to hear a child cry, NEVER because it takes anything away from God or the reverence of the mass. That is not true. Such statements are in a moral grey zone. The pro-abortion and pro-contraception crowd can use that to justify that there are many times when a baby is inconvenient, because he or she takes away from something else that human beings value as sacred.
Let us remember Jesus’ words, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.”
Fraternally,
Br.JR, OSF
Y
YoungCanRCMale
Guest
I have a small point to have, but one that might ease the consciences of some of you: To my knowledge, there is no obligation for children under the age of reason (usually 7yrs old) to attend Mass. Think about it from a common sense point. Children mature at different rates individually and yes some will mature faster enough to understand obligation to Mass and a simple explanation what its about, but by 7 yrs old, almost all children can understand this. Not to mention they get their first reconciliation and communion by then. I am sure this rule exists. Can anyone verify this with a Magisterial/Vatican document or Catechism?
Therefore, you don’t need to absolutely bring your really young child to mass, unless you are, say for example, a single mother and have no access to a babysitter or family member that can look after the child while you go.
BTW, JR, where did you learn about all that awesome knowledge about medeival era Church liturgy, sociology and practice?
Therefore, you don’t need to absolutely bring your really young child to mass, unless you are, say for example, a single mother and have no access to a babysitter or family member that can look after the child while you go.
BTW, JR, where did you learn about all that awesome knowledge about medeival era Church liturgy, sociology and practice?
C
Corki
Guest
It’s correct that children do not have an obligation to attend Mass until they are preparing for the Sacraments. However, it is almost impossible to teach children about the Sacraments if they have not regularly been attending Mass.
If a family is going to leave small children at home, that generally means either mother or father will miss Mass to stay with them. It’s usually considered a better plan to go as a family if possible. It’s not reasonable to expect a family to hire a babysitter so that they can go to Mass without “disturbing” others.
Q
Quarles47
Guest
I think that the most damaging innovation to Catholic parishes is Choir Directors that CAN’T SING but think they can. I’ve ran into a lot of Barney Fife types out there over the years.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
I only did this when my son was up to 3 months old. From as long as I can remember, I was in a church on a Sunday. There were no cry rooms in the Philippines. It worked. I don’t know why here in North America there is such an abhorrence to the sound of children during Mass.
P
ProVobis
Guest
I don’t know about that. The people in the pews back of the kid love to play “peek-aboo” or make funny faces as the parent holds the kid. C’mon, who can turn down a smiley kid trying to make eye contact.
D
Dragonslayer
Guest
Wow, that sure is drawing a long bow, comparing removing a crying baby to a crying room to abortion!!!The moment that we say that an infant’s presence is an inconveniene to God and to reverence, we’re stepping on a slippery slope. There are people who believe that infants are inconvenient in many situations, that’s why they kill them before birth.
It is never morally acceptable to say that a crying infant takes away from reverence. He may be a distraction and may impair our hearing, but he is not unwelcome in God’s house and takes nothing away from the sacred. If we say that the cy of a child takes away from the sacred, why stop there?
Fratrernally,
Br. JR, OSF
And I agree with YoungTradCath. We have also taken our noisy children out of Mass out of respect for others, because it is the right thing to do.
- Status