Newspaper Page Text
PAGE 5-March 9,1972
KNOW YOUR FAITH
>
POOR IN AN EMPTY APARTMENT - Whether categorized as “deserving” or “undeserving,” the emptiness of life for the poor
on welfare is a despairing sight. (NC PHOTO)
New Rite Of
Confirmation
BY FR. JOSEPH M. CHAMPLIN
On the feast of the Assumption last summer, Pope Paul VI
issued a revised rite for confirmation. Like the other renewed
rituals recently published (e.g., baptism, marriage, funerals), it
contains a variety of alternative texts -- readings, prayers,
blessings -- and expects the bishop in consultation with those
who plan the liturgy to select those which best fit the
circumstances of a specific congregation.
The new decree, however, also includes several significant
changes in the manner that sacrament has customarily been
administered. In this column I would like briefly to describe a
few of these innovations.
--Sponsors. Formerly, confirmation godparents were to be
distinct from the adults who fulfilled that role at baptism. Nor
were parents allowed to “stand up” for their boys or girls during
this ceremony. The revised legislation takes a totally different
view, even expressly abrogating previous Church law in the
process.
“Ordinarily there should be a sponsor for each of those to be
confirmed.” “It is desirable that the god-parent at baptism, if
present, also be the sponsor at confirmation.” “Even the parents
themselves may present their children for confirmation.”
Authorities naturally did not introduce those reforms
without good reason. Each of the three modifications noted
above enjoys sound theological support. The Vatican document
explains their doctrinal basis in these terms:
A sponsor for each:
The Christian And Welfare
“The sponsor brings the candidate to receive the sacrament,
presents him to the minister for anointing, and will later help
him to fulfill his baptismal promises faithfully under the
influence of the Holy Spirit.”
BY RUSSELL SHAW
At what point does a war on poverty become a war on the
poor?
Almost at once that question requires some rather careful
qualification. It is not a matter of conscious motivation, as if
the many groups and individuals working to alleviate the plight
of the poor were actually in league against the objects of their
concern.
Yet built into human nature is a sort of recurrent resentment
against the poor - at least, when demands on their behalf begin
to be made upon the non-poor. Nobody bears ill-will toward the
poor as long as they keep quiet (except to say “thank you” for
the occasional dole that is directed their way). But when they
become vocal and obstreperous, when they insist that society
has unfulfilled obligations toward them, they suddenly become
objects of suspicion and hostility. Then wars on poverty tend to
merge into wars on the poor.
It may be that something of the sort has been operative in
become a “mess,” but it is a considerable leap from this fact to
the assumption - implicit and sometimes even explicit in many
discussions of the problem -- that this is somehow the fault of
the recipients of welfare.
inability on their part to live and work in conventional,
competitive society.
Among the poor who are objects of public hostility, these
“undeserving” individuals (the welfare “bums” and “loafers”)
rank very high -- perhaps second only to militant spokesman for
the poor. Yet without accepting their behavior as right or
normative, one should be aware of the elements of sickness and
self-destructiveness involved in it. Righteous indignation seems
neither an adequate nor a Christian response from this point of
view.
To what extent the present administration’s welfare reform
program will come to grips with this and other problems
remains to be seen. The reforms have many good features: a
federally guaranteed income floor for the poor and assistance to
the working poor, for example. The program also includes a
number of weaknesses and certain aspects (such as work
“incentives” designed to get employable persons into some sort
of jobs) whose long-range implications only experience will
show.
What seems obvious, however, is that, even if all parts of the
reform package prove a smashing success, the intractable
problem of the “undeserving” poor will remain largely
untouched. It is then that one would have to fear “get-tough”
policies which would in fact amount to making war on the poor.
The challenge, it seems is to develop deepened public
understanding of the poverty problem - in all its human
complexity - in order to head off possible punitive measures
against the poor themselves.
The same sponsor for baptism and confirmation: “This
change expresses more clearly the relationship between baptism
and confirmation and also makes the duty and function of the
sponsor more effective.”
Parents as sponsors: “The initiation of the children into the
sacramental life is especially the responsibility and concern of
Christian parents. They are to form and gradually increase a
spirit of faith in the children and, with the help of catechetical
institutions, prepare them for the fruitful reception of the
sacraments of confirmation and the Eucharist. The role of the
parents is also expressed by their active participation in the
celebration of the sacraments.”
-Parental preparation of the candidates. Vatican II
statements on Christian education clearly specify that parents
are the prime religious teachers of children. This truth has
enormous consequences on the practical level, effects already
observable in the current country-wide programs of parent
involvement in catechesis for first Communion and first
confession.
The quotation just cited would seem to encourage a similar
approach for confirmation. However, for the priest simply to
throw this educational ball to mother and dad, then walk away,
is not exactly what the Roman text recommends. An earlier
paragraph notes: “It is the responsibility of the people of God
to prepare the baptized for the reception of the sacrament of
confirmation. Pastors should see that all the baptized come to
DRAWING OF ELEMENTS IN THE RITE OF
CONFIRMATION - With it all, the initiation of the children
into the sacramental life is especially the responsibility and
concern of Christian parents along with others. (NC Art by Eric
Smith)
the fullness of Christian initiation and are therefore carefully
prepared for confirmation.”
Parents, as I see the picture, ought to do more, to be more
intimately involved in the confirmation preparation, but in
cooperation with others (parish priests, religious instructor,
fellow parishioners), not to the exclusion of them.
-Priest assistants for the bishop. The latter was the original
minister of confirmation and as a consequence “ordinarily the
sacrament is administered by the bishop so that there will be a
more evident relationship to the first pouring of the Holy Spirit
on the day of Pentecost. After they were filled with the Holy
Spirit, the apostles themselves gave the Spirit to the faithful
through the laying on of their hands. In this way, the reception
of the Spirit through the ministry of the bishop shows the close
bond which joins the confirmed to the Church and the mandate
of Christ to be witnesses among men.”
Nevertheless, the law now gives certain others the authority
to confirm in special situations. Of particular interest, in my
mind, is this provision: “In case of true necessity and special
reason, for example, the large number of persons to be
confirmed, the minister of confirmation may associate other
priests with himself in the administration of this sacrament.”
Among those listed are “the pastors of the places where
confirmation is conferred, pastors of the places where the
candidates belong, or priests who have taken a special part in
the catechetical preparation of the candidates.”
This solves a particular problem for us in the United States. It
makes confirmation within Mass not only a desirable goal, but a
practical possibility. But more on that in a few weeks.
Consider what happened over the past 10 years. The number
of people on welfare in the United States rose from 7 million a
decade ago to more than 14 million in 1971. That is certainly a
dismaying fact of national life, from whatever perspective one
views it: economic cost, human wastage, or any other. Yet for
present purposes the question is what conclusion one is to reach
about the 7 million Americans who were added to the welfare
rolls during the decade. Are they to be blamed for having
become welfare recipients?
In very general terms, people on welfare break down into two
broad categories: the “deserving” poor and the “undeserving.”
Little defense should be needed of those in the first group - the
widowed or deserted mothers of several children, for instance,
whose poverty is real and no fault of their own, and for whom
public assistance is vital.
But what about the so-called “undeserving” poor: those who
presumably could support themselves but do not - perhaps will
not - and thereby contrive to stay on welfare? Are the pleasures
of the American welfare system so substantial that it is only
normal for anyone to be tempted to break the law and waste his
life in order to enjoy them? Or doesn’t the very fact that some
welfare recipients (their numbers have probably been
exaggerated) have abused and exploited the system point to
pathology rather than criminality?
This point needs to be made clearly. There is, so far as is
known, nothing very pleasant or attractive about being on
welfare. So-called “undeserving” welfare recipients are not
cashing in on a glorious bonanza; and the fact that some have
apparently chosen welfare as a way of life only points to a tragic
Christian Attitudes & People In
A WOMAN BEGS IN INDIA - Even those in need of food but
who are located far away should be objects of our common
concern. (NC PHOTO by Berne Greene)
BY FR. CARL J.
PFEIFER, S.J.
A recent television
documentary portrayed the
plight of thousands of
unemployed highly skilled
aerospace administrators,
engineers and technicians.
Several years ago these men
held high paying, creative
jobs. Today they are
unemployed.
Watching the inner lives of
these men and their families
unfold on the TV screen was
a saddening experience. Many
of them were on welfare,
lining up as anonymously as
possible to receive their
welfare checks. Some were so
embarrassed about having to
use food stamps that they
drove to supermarkets where
they would not be
recognized. Others * were
forced by their change in
fortune to join lines of men
and women picking up free
food from charitable
organizations.
Several of these humiliated
men and women admitted
that their whole attitude to
poverty and welfare had
changed now that they are
experiencing both. Desperate
for work, any kind of
respectable work, they
recognized that their previous
attitude to welfare recipients
as shiftless and lazy was a
form of prejudice. They
experienced their own need
for assistance in spite of their
prejudice. They experienced
their own need for assistance
in spite of their deep desire to
find employment, and in the
experience grew in respect
God Loves A Cheerful Giver
BY FR. QUENTIN QUESNELL, S.J.
The early Christians knew from Jesus’ words and example
that he wanted them to take care of the poor. He had warned
them not to appear before him and argue: “When, Lord, did we
ever see you hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick,
or in prison, and we would not help you?” (Matt. 25,44). They
knew he would only answer: “Whenever you refused to help
one of these poor ones, you refused to help me” (Matt. 25,45).
So they tried to live up to this teaching as well as they knew
how. They “shared their belongings with one another. They
would sell their property and possessions and distribute the
money among all, according to what each one needed” (Acts
2,44f.). “There was no one in the group who was in need” (Acts
Iven Christian communities far separated from one another
graphically shared a common concern for the welfare of
r poor. For instance, a great famine came when Claudius was
>eror. The Christians in Antioch “decided that each of them
ild send as much as he could to help their brothers who lived
udea. They did this then and sent the money to the church
trs by Barnabas and Saul” (Acts ll,23ff.).
Paul went about his collecting of alms systematically. "Now,
the matter about the money to be raised to help God’s people in
Judea: you must do what I told the churches in Galatia to do.
On the first day of every week, each of you must put aside some
money, in proportion to what he has earned, and save it up so
there will be no need to collect money when I come” (I Cor.
16,If.).
In the eighth and ninth chapters of the second epistle to the
Corinthians Paul runs through some motives for Christian giving.
He tells of other churches which “were extremely generous in
their giving, even though they were very poor” (II Cor. 8,2).
“They gave as much as they were able, and even more than that;
of their own free will they begged us and insisted on the
privilege of having a part in helping God’s people in Judea” (II
Cor. 8,4).
The main motive is the example of Christ: “rich as he was, he
made himself poor for your sake, in order to make you rich by
means of his poverty” (II Cor. 8,9). Again, “Since you have
plenty at this time, it is only fair that you should help those
who are in need.
“Then, when you are in need and they have plenty, they will
help you. In this way there is fairness for both” (II Cor. 8,13f.).
“Each one should give then as he has decided, not with regret
or out of a sense of duty; for God loves the one who gives
gladly. And God is able to give you more than you need, so that
you will always have all you need for yourselves and more than
enough for every good cause” (II Cor. 9,7f.).
“Many will thank God for your gifts through us. For this
service you perform not only meets the needs of God’s people,
but also produces an outpouring of grateful thanks to God. And
because of the proof which this service of yours brings, many
will give glory to God for your loyalty to the gospel of Christ
which you confess, and for your generosity in sharing with them
and all others” (II Cor. 9,10-13).
Obviously Paul is not writing about the modern American
approach to a welfare state. How could he be? No such thing
existed. But he is writing about Christian response to physical
needs. He is describing a systematic, even an institutionalized
approach to the problem of the physical needs of other people.
That is, he does not think that their getting help should depend
on their being lucky enough to bump into a generous person.
He is trying to organize a stable, broad-scale way of pooling
the financial resources of many to guarantee the physical
welfare of the destitute. And finally, he is doing all this as a
Christian, and he is giving the kind of motivation for it which
may be of help to us today as well.
and compassion for people
they formerly looked down
upon. They were grateful,
though embarrassed, to
receive welfare checks and
free food.
They were equally
embarrassed about the
prejudicial attitudes they
previously held toward those
on welfare. Many of us
Catholic adults no doubt
share similar attitudes toward
the poor and unemployed -
prejudice, lack of sympathy,
suspicion. To the extent that
we express prejudicial
attitudes we tend to create
them in the young and
deepen them in others.
A truly Christian attitude
to the poor'and to welfare
programs designed to aid the
needy is not necessarily naive
or blind. The Second Vatican
Council realistically
recognizes the risk that such
programs will be abused by
some: “Care must be taken
lest, as a result of all these
provisions, the citizenry fall
into a kind of sluggishness
toward society, and reject the
burdens of office and of
public service” (Church in
World, 69).
Yet the risk of abuse
should not nurture a hardness
of heart, a disdain, or
unwillingness to assist those
in need. The Council teaches
that the right to have a share
of earthly goods sufficient for
oneself and one’s family
belongs to everyone. If for
reasons beyond one’s control
for example, forced
unemployment, sickenss - an
individual is unable to earn
what is necessary for a
respectable human life,
society has a responsibility to
come to his aid.
Drawing on testimony
Need
from the early days of
Christianity the Council
“urges all, both individuals
and governments, to
remember the saying of the
Fathers: ‘Feed the man dying
of hunger, because if you
have not fed him you have
killed him.’ According to
their ability, let all individuals
and governments undertake a
genuine sharing of their
goods. Let them use these
goods especially to provide
individuals and nations with
the means for helping and
developing themselves”
(Church in World, 69).
Religious education
programs for adults as well as
for the young need to
encourage and enable growth
in realistically compassionate
attitudes toward the poor and
needy. We adults need to
seriously reflect on
contemporary social
conditions in the light of the
sobering judgment of Christ:
“ ‘Lord, when did we see you
hungry and feed you or see
you thirsty and give you
drink? When did we welcome
you away from home or
clothe your nakedness? When
did we visit you when you
were ill or in prison?’ The
King will answer them: ‘I
assure you, as often as you
did it for one of my least
brothers, you did it for me’ ”
(Mt. 25:37-40).
Our youngsters will best
learn the meaning of Jesus’
words from us, their parents,
teachers, or priests, who
attempt to translate the
words of Christ into attitudes
and action. Hopefully we and
they may grow in respect and
compassion for the needy
without having to experience
the shattering reversal of
fortune experienced by the
unemployed aerospace
specialists.