JD, I feel for you. I hurt my back for the first time in my early twenties as and since then have suffered from periodic back spasms that leave me for three-four days at a time.
Ed. is right about lying on the floor. Also, heating pads and ice packs do wonders
It's possible that this is mere projection on my part, but I really feel for the bishop of Salt Lake. I imagine he's between a number of rocks and hard places, and if it were me, I would be looking to find the solution that would result in the smallest number of people being mad at me. (Not saying that is a good thing, just a reality that a lot of people-pleasers experience.)
The problem: more and more people are, for whatever reason, delaying baptism of their kids until 7+. This is, originally, a problem with the formation of the parents (assuming the parents are Catholic). Let's say it's reached an 80-20 split, so there's now a sizeable minority of children who are not "following the proper steps" and being seen to be "rewarded" for this by "getting to" receive a 3 (sacraments) for 1 (year) deal, while their peers (and their peers' parents) are being made to jump thru hoops for a decade or more. I can see how this might generate an atmosphere of resentment, and perhaps a negative feedback loop in which more and more parents feel justified in delaying baptism. Not what we want. So what's the solution? There are a number of them, but all of them will make some number of people mad.
Solution (1): the Eastern approach, or some modification thereof like the Denver/ Manchester NH dioceses. I like this best, as do many Pillar readers, and I think DREs would too. But it's a huge change that affects everyone in the diocese. Christmas and Easter parents/ grandparents really want the photo op of their little girl in the adorable mini wedding gown, and then a few years later the "Catholic graduation" party. For these folks, getting rid of the "rites of passage" they have been familiar with for several generations may actually make them check out completely. I believe Manchester instituted whole- family formation at the same time, again a great idea in theory but requires a ton of buy-in from poorly- formed parents and complete retraining of the catechists. Maybe Salt Lake couldn't figure out how to make that all work.
Solution (2): some kind of interview that determines the young people's disposition to receive the sacraments. This could apply to the whole diocese, or simply to the RCIC kids. Again, popular with Pillar readers, but OH BOY does this look like gatekeeping. My step kids were kept from baptism after participating in RCIC for a year (give or take a few absences) bc the DRE said she'd been praying about it and she felt God was telling her my kids weren't ready. She could not point to anything other than this as a reason. (Actually this DRE had been around at that parish long enough that she'd gatekept my kids' bio-mom from Confirmation, although at least in that situation she could point to poor class attendance.) This kind of system is very open to complaints of favoritism. It's reliant on the DRE or whoever is doing the interviews not having a bad day or taking a dislike to a particular kid or family.
So that naturally leads to Solution (3): baptize the delayed kids right away when requested, because everyone accepts that understanding is not necessary for baptism - after all, we baptize infants! (I know this is incorrect; just saying it's a common misperception.) We accept Protestant baptisms, which are usually done spontaneously without prep, and then give them formation to receive the other sacraments. So there's a bunch of precedent for baptizing on short notice and then waiting to do the other sacraments. Pros of this approach: the newly baptized young people get put in the proper faith formation class with their peers, so it both looks "fair" and also gives new young Catholics an opportunity to make Catholic friends their own age; the parents of the newly baptized are likely not well formed enough to complain; it cuts down on complaints of unfairness from families in the regular system; there's something keeping the new families coming back, for a couple of years anyway. Cons of this approach: it's illegal, bad theology, and goes against the traditions of the Church in order to conform to man-made tradition. But the only people likely to complain about that are priests (whom the bishop is in charge of, so they'll do what he says even if they complain), canon lawyers (who don't really have any power unless there's an actual case), and Pillar readers. So in terms of causing the least amount of headaches in the diocese itself, it seems to me that solution 3 is a clear winner. As someone commented on another post, bishops (and many priests) seem to think of Canon law as more like guidelines anyway. Not saying i like it or agree with it, but I do get it.
One additional issue with Solution 1 is that, depending on how it's implemented, it could lead to an even poorer comprehension of the significance of the Eucharist than is already evident in the general population. At the moment, first holy communion is associated with first reconciliation, which at least attempts to make it clear that there's something dispositional about participation in that sacrament. Perhaps an Eastern catholic could weigh in about how first reconciliation is handled in churches which administer the Eucharist to infants? But regardless, in the Latin Church there's already a cavalier approach to reception of the Eucharist, I think brought on by a complete misunderstanding of ex opere operato. I have been subjected twice in the last 6 months to homilies at my local parish in which Father Pastor passionately argued that by having a requirement to be a Catholic in the state of grace, "we are keeping away the people who need the healing of Jesus most, and don't we believe that Jesus will always heal those who come to him? They can't possibly leave that encounter unchanged. So aren't we, as the church, putting walls around Jesus that he wouldn't want put there? I'm just asking questions. I really hope and pray that someday our Church will realize how misguided all these rules are, just like we've recognized our other serious mistakes."
I can't imagine this is the only priest in the US making arguments like this, whether in homilies or in the internal forum. With the theological understanding of even the priests in such a dire state, it seems to me that administering the Eucharist to infants could result in an absolute collapse in devotion to the Eucharist, including a total loss of morale among laypeople who thought they understood at least a little bit how serious and fearful a thing it is to receive the lord of the universe into one's very body. Not saying it's insurmountable, but I think it's important to think through what the consequences would be for the masses of poorly formed Catholics' understanding before we make sweeping changes to the way the faith has been practiced in living memory. We've made a whole bunch of sweeping changes already in living memory, with the best of intentions and in the name of ressourcement, with, I think we would all agree, mixed results.
All great thoughts and well reasoned- it’s a shame things have deteriorated so, isn’t it?
There is a family in my parish who is Eastern Catholic and their children all receive the sacraments with baptism, but they go to our Roman parish since there is no option locally in their ritual- I know that recently one of their kids completed her first reconciliation upon reaching the age of reason. I would imagine that is the typical way to handle it, to add in the sacrament of penance to the already existing sacramental life of the child when appropriate
As a Byzantine Ruthenian, I would say our approach to the Eucharist is more in line with Pope Francis's comments that it is good for the sick. Our kids received all the sacraments, in order, as babies and continue to receive Christ ever since.
While in the US there was a trend to make first confessions a pseudo first communion, my observation is that the modern trend is that children are prepared as appropriate to their maturity and then go. The prior practice grew largely out of a lack of confidence in our historical practice, and a desire on the part of rite transferring Latin Rite Catholics to have an equivalent to what they had as kids.
FWIW, my observation is that neither path is a failsafe against falling away. Plenty of my peers who got dressed up in white shirts and gowns for first confession have fallen out just as many Latin Rite Catholics drop out after First Communion or Chrismation. Ultimately it matters a lot more what example the parents set and what they teach. That said, I've never understood why the Latin Rite made it harder on parents by denying access to the graces of Confirmation and Communion ASAP.
I think there is another less extreme option of doing away with some of the clearly ridiculous “hoops” from the current sac prep processes for baptism, Eucharist, and confirmation (as discussed, the service projects for confirmation, making parents repeat the baptism class for each successive child, etc). Of course there will always be issues as long as there are people making unreasonable demands on either side of the equation, which there always will be.
Yeah the baptism class repetition would be a really easy one to dispense with. "Families that have participated in baptism class within the last 5 years are exempt" or something like that.
And if you restore the order and have confirmation a little younger and communion a little older than is the current standard, the community service naturally goes away because a 10-year-old can't really volunteer for much. And the ongoing faith formation after confirmation can incorporate some community service as a part of discerning what spiritual gifts came upon you/ were strengthened in your Confirmation.
I really do like the Denver/Manchester solution best.
Just to be clear on commonly missives elements - With #3, we can’t overlook the Church’s (not the Bishop’s, the pastor’s, or the DRE’s) basis for baptizing infants: From the very beginning, whole “households” received baptism. There is no reason to believe that infants would not have been included (see Acts 11:14; 16:15, 33; 18:8; 1 Cor. 1:16).
When Paul led the Philippian jailer to Christ in Acts 16, he said to him, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household” (Acts 16:31). He does not say that all in his household must first believe. He simply says they will all be saved. How could he say that?
Paul seems to have understood what St. Peter had already preached back when Paul was still persecuting Christians (in Acts 2:38). The promise of faith and baptism is for the jailer and his children.
I would wildly guess that some of that Diocese are apoplectic that their children are going through years of fees, hours and monthly tithe to get their kids sacraments and some adults are waltzing in with their 9 years olds getting all the sacraments in one session. To me it sounds like a version of modern political and cultural tensions in American parishes.
JD, I feel for you on the back thing and wish you a speedy recovery. In March (a couple months before I turned 40), I tweaked my back by simply moving a box at the gym for box jumps. I stopped, stretched, and showered. My lower back completely went when I put socks on. I could barely walk. Years of lifting, running, and high impact finally did me in.
Thanks to Ed, I googled pro wrestler yoga and found DDPY. I can't recommend it highly enough. Lots of push ups, stretching, core stuff, and more. I haven't felt this good in years.
One idea that I haven't heard yet is the *real* roots of the Western practice: have the priest baptize the infants and have the diocesan bishop make the confirming/first Holy Communicating circuit to confirm all of the infants-through-toddlers who have been baptized since his last visit.
The western (and originally universal) practice of reserving confirmation in ordinary circumstances to the bishop preserves an incredibly important element of our ecclesiology: our membership in the Body of Christ is only fully realized in relationship to the college of bishops/ our very own successor of the apostles. Initiation into the Christian mysteries isn't a me-and-Jesus thing. It isn't even a parish thing. It fundamentally includes the whole church, most fully expressed by the local church in all its orders gathered around the diocesan bishop. If you ask me, that's really the only appropriate place to complete Christian initiation.
Other sacramental hot takes & related bomb-throwing:
* Wherever feasible, the OCIA triple play should only occur at the Easter Vigil celebrated in the cathedral with the diocesan bishop presiding. Maybe at the Pentecost Vigil.
* The age of reason should be raised to 10 years old. While children under this age can properly understand the Eucharist, most don't in my experience.
* Adults being confirmed after the normal age should be confirmed by the bishop with the kiddos. There's no theological difference between being confirmed at age 14 and age 40. I don't see why we should treat them differently.
In addition to a “like” button, we need a “makes total sense” button!
Fr. Jeff, you are so right about the reason for the delay in Confirmation: reserving it to the Bishop makes sense; waiting till age 14 doesn’t.
The idea of raising the age of reason does give me a lot of pause. My parish is building our Catechesis of the Good Shepherd program, immersing the youngest children in liturgy and scripture. There is such a divine simplicity to the deepest truths of the faith, I think we really can help them to grasp their essence early on.
Of course, the age of reason is also linked to first confession. I’d be interested in hearing your experience with children’s grasp of the reflection necessary for that!
That's a good point. While I think we've all met kids who are precocious and understand the Eucharist very well, in the normal course of human development most kids don't develop abstract thinking skills until age 11 or 12. That matches my own experience. When working with first Holy Communion classes, there are always at least a couple kids that want to know how Jesus can fit in such a small box. That's a good indicator that they don't quite grasp the Eucharistic presence.
I'm not saying that kids younger than 10 *can't* demonstrate a sufficient faith in the Blessed Sacrament to receive it; I'm just saying that we shouldn't *assume* they're able to do so until they're 10 years old. (In fact, I actually encouraged a woman talk to her pastor about having her child receive Holy Communion before the normal time last year.)
I had that thought after reading the initial article. I see no reason why Confirmation couldn’t be given to babies/toddlers as the Confirmation circuit goes around. This could be implemented in phases logistically even so there isn’t a year when a thousand kids are confirmed. If previously 8th graders were confirmed then say the next year it’ll be 6-8th graders (and younger by pastors approval?). Then work your way down until it’s babies.
Eastern approach to sacramenta of initiation, preach it JD! (says the Byzantine Ruthenian)
JD, I feel for you. I hurt my back for the first time in my early twenties as and since then have suffered from periodic back spasms that leave me for three-four days at a time.
Ed. is right about lying on the floor. Also, heating pads and ice packs do wonders
Sorry, I meant it leaves me incapacitated for days at time
It's possible that this is mere projection on my part, but I really feel for the bishop of Salt Lake. I imagine he's between a number of rocks and hard places, and if it were me, I would be looking to find the solution that would result in the smallest number of people being mad at me. (Not saying that is a good thing, just a reality that a lot of people-pleasers experience.)
The problem: more and more people are, for whatever reason, delaying baptism of their kids until 7+. This is, originally, a problem with the formation of the parents (assuming the parents are Catholic). Let's say it's reached an 80-20 split, so there's now a sizeable minority of children who are not "following the proper steps" and being seen to be "rewarded" for this by "getting to" receive a 3 (sacraments) for 1 (year) deal, while their peers (and their peers' parents) are being made to jump thru hoops for a decade or more. I can see how this might generate an atmosphere of resentment, and perhaps a negative feedback loop in which more and more parents feel justified in delaying baptism. Not what we want. So what's the solution? There are a number of them, but all of them will make some number of people mad.
Solution (1): the Eastern approach, or some modification thereof like the Denver/ Manchester NH dioceses. I like this best, as do many Pillar readers, and I think DREs would too. But it's a huge change that affects everyone in the diocese. Christmas and Easter parents/ grandparents really want the photo op of their little girl in the adorable mini wedding gown, and then a few years later the "Catholic graduation" party. For these folks, getting rid of the "rites of passage" they have been familiar with for several generations may actually make them check out completely. I believe Manchester instituted whole- family formation at the same time, again a great idea in theory but requires a ton of buy-in from poorly- formed parents and complete retraining of the catechists. Maybe Salt Lake couldn't figure out how to make that all work.
Solution (2): some kind of interview that determines the young people's disposition to receive the sacraments. This could apply to the whole diocese, or simply to the RCIC kids. Again, popular with Pillar readers, but OH BOY does this look like gatekeeping. My step kids were kept from baptism after participating in RCIC for a year (give or take a few absences) bc the DRE said she'd been praying about it and she felt God was telling her my kids weren't ready. She could not point to anything other than this as a reason. (Actually this DRE had been around at that parish long enough that she'd gatekept my kids' bio-mom from Confirmation, although at least in that situation she could point to poor class attendance.) This kind of system is very open to complaints of favoritism. It's reliant on the DRE or whoever is doing the interviews not having a bad day or taking a dislike to a particular kid or family.
So that naturally leads to Solution (3): baptize the delayed kids right away when requested, because everyone accepts that understanding is not necessary for baptism - after all, we baptize infants! (I know this is incorrect; just saying it's a common misperception.) We accept Protestant baptisms, which are usually done spontaneously without prep, and then give them formation to receive the other sacraments. So there's a bunch of precedent for baptizing on short notice and then waiting to do the other sacraments. Pros of this approach: the newly baptized young people get put in the proper faith formation class with their peers, so it both looks "fair" and also gives new young Catholics an opportunity to make Catholic friends their own age; the parents of the newly baptized are likely not well formed enough to complain; it cuts down on complaints of unfairness from families in the regular system; there's something keeping the new families coming back, for a couple of years anyway. Cons of this approach: it's illegal, bad theology, and goes against the traditions of the Church in order to conform to man-made tradition. But the only people likely to complain about that are priests (whom the bishop is in charge of, so they'll do what he says even if they complain), canon lawyers (who don't really have any power unless there's an actual case), and Pillar readers. So in terms of causing the least amount of headaches in the diocese itself, it seems to me that solution 3 is a clear winner. As someone commented on another post, bishops (and many priests) seem to think of Canon law as more like guidelines anyway. Not saying i like it or agree with it, but I do get it.
One additional issue with Solution 1 is that, depending on how it's implemented, it could lead to an even poorer comprehension of the significance of the Eucharist than is already evident in the general population. At the moment, first holy communion is associated with first reconciliation, which at least attempts to make it clear that there's something dispositional about participation in that sacrament. Perhaps an Eastern catholic could weigh in about how first reconciliation is handled in churches which administer the Eucharist to infants? But regardless, in the Latin Church there's already a cavalier approach to reception of the Eucharist, I think brought on by a complete misunderstanding of ex opere operato. I have been subjected twice in the last 6 months to homilies at my local parish in which Father Pastor passionately argued that by having a requirement to be a Catholic in the state of grace, "we are keeping away the people who need the healing of Jesus most, and don't we believe that Jesus will always heal those who come to him? They can't possibly leave that encounter unchanged. So aren't we, as the church, putting walls around Jesus that he wouldn't want put there? I'm just asking questions. I really hope and pray that someday our Church will realize how misguided all these rules are, just like we've recognized our other serious mistakes."
I can't imagine this is the only priest in the US making arguments like this, whether in homilies or in the internal forum. With the theological understanding of even the priests in such a dire state, it seems to me that administering the Eucharist to infants could result in an absolute collapse in devotion to the Eucharist, including a total loss of morale among laypeople who thought they understood at least a little bit how serious and fearful a thing it is to receive the lord of the universe into one's very body. Not saying it's insurmountable, but I think it's important to think through what the consequences would be for the masses of poorly formed Catholics' understanding before we make sweeping changes to the way the faith has been practiced in living memory. We've made a whole bunch of sweeping changes already in living memory, with the best of intentions and in the name of ressourcement, with, I think we would all agree, mixed results.
Thank you for laying this out so clearly, Clare.
All great thoughts and well reasoned- it’s a shame things have deteriorated so, isn’t it?
There is a family in my parish who is Eastern Catholic and their children all receive the sacraments with baptism, but they go to our Roman parish since there is no option locally in their ritual- I know that recently one of their kids completed her first reconciliation upon reaching the age of reason. I would imagine that is the typical way to handle it, to add in the sacrament of penance to the already existing sacramental life of the child when appropriate
As a Byzantine Ruthenian, I would say our approach to the Eucharist is more in line with Pope Francis's comments that it is good for the sick. Our kids received all the sacraments, in order, as babies and continue to receive Christ ever since.
While in the US there was a trend to make first confessions a pseudo first communion, my observation is that the modern trend is that children are prepared as appropriate to their maturity and then go. The prior practice grew largely out of a lack of confidence in our historical practice, and a desire on the part of rite transferring Latin Rite Catholics to have an equivalent to what they had as kids.
FWIW, my observation is that neither path is a failsafe against falling away. Plenty of my peers who got dressed up in white shirts and gowns for first confession have fallen out just as many Latin Rite Catholics drop out after First Communion or Chrismation. Ultimately it matters a lot more what example the parents set and what they teach. That said, I've never understood why the Latin Rite made it harder on parents by denying access to the graces of Confirmation and Communion ASAP.
I see all of this.
I think there is another less extreme option of doing away with some of the clearly ridiculous “hoops” from the current sac prep processes for baptism, Eucharist, and confirmation (as discussed, the service projects for confirmation, making parents repeat the baptism class for each successive child, etc). Of course there will always be issues as long as there are people making unreasonable demands on either side of the equation, which there always will be.
Yeah the baptism class repetition would be a really easy one to dispense with. "Families that have participated in baptism class within the last 5 years are exempt" or something like that.
And if you restore the order and have confirmation a little younger and communion a little older than is the current standard, the community service naturally goes away because a 10-year-old can't really volunteer for much. And the ongoing faith formation after confirmation can incorporate some community service as a part of discerning what spiritual gifts came upon you/ were strengthened in your Confirmation.
I really do like the Denver/Manchester solution best.
Just to be clear on commonly missives elements - With #3, we can’t overlook the Church’s (not the Bishop’s, the pastor’s, or the DRE’s) basis for baptizing infants: From the very beginning, whole “households” received baptism. There is no reason to believe that infants would not have been included (see Acts 11:14; 16:15, 33; 18:8; 1 Cor. 1:16).
When Paul led the Philippian jailer to Christ in Acts 16, he said to him, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household” (Acts 16:31). He does not say that all in his household must first believe. He simply says they will all be saved. How could he say that?
Paul seems to have understood what St. Peter had already preached back when Paul was still persecuting Christians (in Acts 2:38). The promise of faith and baptism is for the jailer and his children.
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/infant-baptism
Misperceived, not “missive” - sorry
I would wildly guess that some of that Diocese are apoplectic that their children are going through years of fees, hours and monthly tithe to get their kids sacraments and some adults are waltzing in with their 9 years olds getting all the sacraments in one session. To me it sounds like a version of modern political and cultural tensions in American parishes.
JD, I feel for you on the back thing and wish you a speedy recovery. In March (a couple months before I turned 40), I tweaked my back by simply moving a box at the gym for box jumps. I stopped, stretched, and showered. My lower back completely went when I put socks on. I could barely walk. Years of lifting, running, and high impact finally did me in.
Thanks to Ed, I googled pro wrestler yoga and found DDPY. I can't recommend it highly enough. Lots of push ups, stretching, core stuff, and more. I haven't felt this good in years.
One idea that I haven't heard yet is the *real* roots of the Western practice: have the priest baptize the infants and have the diocesan bishop make the confirming/first Holy Communicating circuit to confirm all of the infants-through-toddlers who have been baptized since his last visit.
The western (and originally universal) practice of reserving confirmation in ordinary circumstances to the bishop preserves an incredibly important element of our ecclesiology: our membership in the Body of Christ is only fully realized in relationship to the college of bishops/ our very own successor of the apostles. Initiation into the Christian mysteries isn't a me-and-Jesus thing. It isn't even a parish thing. It fundamentally includes the whole church, most fully expressed by the local church in all its orders gathered around the diocesan bishop. If you ask me, that's really the only appropriate place to complete Christian initiation.
Other sacramental hot takes & related bomb-throwing:
* Wherever feasible, the OCIA triple play should only occur at the Easter Vigil celebrated in the cathedral with the diocesan bishop presiding. Maybe at the Pentecost Vigil.
* The age of reason should be raised to 10 years old. While children under this age can properly understand the Eucharist, most don't in my experience.
* Adults being confirmed after the normal age should be confirmed by the bishop with the kiddos. There's no theological difference between being confirmed at age 14 and age 40. I don't see why we should treat them differently.
In addition to a “like” button, we need a “makes total sense” button!
Fr. Jeff, you are so right about the reason for the delay in Confirmation: reserving it to the Bishop makes sense; waiting till age 14 doesn’t.
The idea of raising the age of reason does give me a lot of pause. My parish is building our Catechesis of the Good Shepherd program, immersing the youngest children in liturgy and scripture. There is such a divine simplicity to the deepest truths of the faith, I think we really can help them to grasp their essence early on.
Of course, the age of reason is also linked to first confession. I’d be interested in hearing your experience with children’s grasp of the reflection necessary for that!
That's a good point. While I think we've all met kids who are precocious and understand the Eucharist very well, in the normal course of human development most kids don't develop abstract thinking skills until age 11 or 12. That matches my own experience. When working with first Holy Communion classes, there are always at least a couple kids that want to know how Jesus can fit in such a small box. That's a good indicator that they don't quite grasp the Eucharistic presence.
I'm not saying that kids younger than 10 *can't* demonstrate a sufficient faith in the Blessed Sacrament to receive it; I'm just saying that we shouldn't *assume* they're able to do so until they're 10 years old. (In fact, I actually encouraged a woman talk to her pastor about having her child receive Holy Communion before the normal time last year.)
I had that thought after reading the initial article. I see no reason why Confirmation couldn’t be given to babies/toddlers as the Confirmation circuit goes around. This could be implemented in phases logistically even so there isn’t a year when a thousand kids are confirmed. If previously 8th graders were confirmed then say the next year it’ll be 6-8th graders (and younger by pastors approval?). Then work your way down until it’s babies.
Tailor?
It was good to hear Ed.'s dudgeon at confirmation programs that require community service!
Has anyone ever considered condemning such practices as a form of simony?