Newspaper Page Text
PAGE 3—August 2, 1973
Consultation with U. S. Preceded Confession Statement
VATICAN CITY (NC) - The Vatican
moved to stop experiments in delaying
first confession until after first
communion only after it received a
report indicating that some U. S.
bishops had doubts regarding the
experiments, according to information
supplied to NC News.
Vatican officials said that documents
showed that the Vatican, which has
been criticized in some U.S. circles for
acting arbitrarily, issued its declaration
on confession and Communion only
after worldwide consultation and
months of study in the Vatican by
“experts in theology and pastoral life.”
The intent of the Vatican, according
to documentation furnished NC News in
Rome, is to return to the “theological,
spiritual and pastoral principles”
enunciated by Pope St. Pius X in which
the child is taught not only the love of
God but also the child’s capability of
both offending and being forgiven by
God.
Asked specifically if it would be
acceptable to allow a child preparing for
first Communion to “opt” for
confession, a Vatican official declared:
“The order of the sacraments has
been restored to confession and then
communion. What could be clearer?”
Apparently, those who advocated
postponing confession for children until
about the age of nine or ten while
allowing them Communion about the
age of seven, based their thinking on
psychological and pedagogical
principles.
These principles, in essence, stated
the child is not aware of sin until he is
about nine or ten and that earlier
confession only serves to give him the
impression he is capable of sin and
detracts from the idea of a loving God.
While these psychological and
pedagogical principles were not rejected
outright by the U. S. hierarchy in its
report to the Vatican, the bishops
declined to endorse the principles.
They recommend a continuation of
experimental practice on the basis of
the good experience reported by
dioceses regarding the more fruitful
reception of the two sacraments.
In a letter dated March 21 (but not
sent until June), the Vatican
Congregation for the Clergy, which
partially shares competency over
catechetics with the Congregation for
the Sacraments, focused on the
importance of the theoretical principles
underlying the experiment.
“The conference of the United States
Bishops, by declining endorsement of
the psychological and pedagogical
principles on which the practice of
delayed confession is justified, is at one
with the Holy See in this most serious
matter,” the letter said.
Since the request for delaying
confession was based largely on these
principles and since “no important new
reasons” have been advanced, the
congregation said in its letter that the
request for continued experimentation
was refused.
The letter reminded the U.S. Bishops
that the congregation’s addendum to
the General Catechetical Directory
issued April 11, 1971, strongly urged
confession before Communion but did
allow experimentation with
Communion without prior confession.
Claiming that the reasoning of the
addendum in calling for confession
before Communion was based on sound
principles, the letter continued:
“These principles, traditional in the
teaching of the Holy See, and
eloquently set forth by St. Pius X, are
not in any way out-dated or rendered
less valid by progress in the science of
psychology, pedagogy and allied
sciences.
“Rather, the progress in these
sciences serves to confirm them even
where they appeared to some to be
called in doubt.”
Although this letter was prepared for
the signature of Cardinal John Wright,
prefect of the Congregation for the
Clergy, it was never signed and only sent
with a cover letter on June 26 to the
U.S. bishops.
The reason for the delay reflects the
activity that the letter prompted in at
least four Vatican agencies over the
entire question of experimentation.
A chronology of events furnished by
a Vatican official illustrates this
activity:
April 11, 1971: The addendum to the
Catechetical Directory stressed that
confession before Communion “should
be retained” but allowed
experimentation with the Holy See’s
permission.
Nov. 30, 1972: U.S. bishops wrote
Vatican asking for two year extension
of experimentation.
Dec. 13, 1972: Clergy Congregation
acknowledged receipt of this request,
said they would study the matter with
other competent Vatican personnel.
Jan., 1973: Special congress of
Catechetical experts is convened in
Congregation for the Clergy to study
effects of experimentation. At the same
time, consultors from Congregations of
Clergy, Sacraments, Doctrine of the
Faith and Secretariat of State met to
study the points raised in the Nov. 30
letter of the U.S. bishops.
Feb. 26, 1973: Secretariat of State
finds the principles advocating
confession before Communion “valid
and opportune” not only for the
Church in the United States but for the
Church universal.
For the next two and one half
months the same Vatican departments
met to prepare a statement ending
experimentation.
March 21, 1973: The Congregation
for the Clergy prepared its full reply to
the U.S. bishops, but held up pending
the approval by the Pope of the end of
experimentation.
May 24, 1973: Pope Paul approved a
declaration issued by the Congregations
of the Clergy and the Sacraments which
ended the experimentation and returned
the Church universal to the practice of
confession before Communion.
June 20, 1973: The Clergy
Congregation sent its still unsigned
letter to the U.S. bishops along with a
cover letter explaining the reason for
delay.
A Vatican source, independent of any
of the agencies involved in ending the
experiment, told NC News that Pope
Paul was not convinced from the very
beginning that the experimentation was
a good thing.
★★★★★★★
Varying Reactions to Decree
BY JERRY FILTEAU
(NC News Service)
A Vatican declaration ending the
widespread experiment of delaying first
confession until one to three years after
the reception of first Communion has
brought a wide range of interpretations
from dioceses engaged in the practice.
In several dioceses bishops
immediately said that any parishes
which are permitting first Communion
before first confession must discontinue
the pratice.
But in other dioceses bishops or
diocesan religious education offices
asked parishes to wait for diocesan
guidelines, and diocesan officials said
the new decree will not mean a simple
return to former practices.
In the Green Bay, Wis., diocese,
“most of the diocese” is on a program
in which first confession is normally
delayed according to Father David D.
Kasperek, director of the diocesan
religious education office.
But Father Kasperek described the
program as “hardly an experimentation,
but a good solid theological, canonical
position.”
The Green Bay diocese is still
studying the meaning of the Vatican
declaration, Father Kasperek said, but
he added his initial reaction was that the
declaration is intended only to ban
experiments that “undermine” the
Church’s offical teachings on
confession.
“We’ve always initiated preparation
for the celebration of Penance in the
first grade,” he said. But he said he felt
the Church’s teaching is fulfilled in
religious education programs if
“preparation is adequate that the
sacrament could take place if
necessary.”
The new Vatican declaration cannot
be interpreted as forcing every child to
go to confession before receiving first
Communion, Father Kasperek said,
because that would be “placing an
obstruction [to the right to receive
Communion] that divine law doesn’t
allow.”
BY U.S. BISHOPS
WASHINGTON, D. C. (NC) -
Fifty-seven percent of the bishops
responding to a recent survey feel that
training or orientation in
communications media should
emphasize their personal relationships
to and use of the media and “on
camera” and “on mike” sessions.
The survey, conducted by the
Department of Communications, United
States Catholic Conference (USCC),
polled the nation’s bishops on their
need for personal training and practical
orientation in working with the
communications media. Of the 300
bishops who were sent questionnaires,
137 (45.7 percent) responded.
More than 90 percent of the bishops
agreed that such training was necessary,
with 34 percent placing emphasis on
developing diocesan communications
policies and practices. Only seven
percent indicated a preference for
training in communications theory.
Answers on the usefulness of
USCC-sponsored communication
workshops showed that 77 percent of
the bishops felt the three workshops,
conducted at Loyola University, New
Orleans, between 1970 and 1972 were
While religious educators contacted
by NC News were agreed on this
theoretical point, there was some
uncertainty as to what it should mean
in practice, in the development of
catechetical programs and parish
guidelines.
At the heart of the problem is the
fact that in many areas which have
experimented with later confession,
many parents and religious educators
have become convinced of positive
values in delaying first confession.
Among the values most often cited
are:
-The separate catechesis, or religious
instruction, on the two sacraments of
Penance and the Eucharist allows a
fuller and deeper understanding of each
sacrament.
-A separate catechesis helps dispel
the attitude that a person must go to
confession in order to receive
Communion, even if he is not in serious
sin.
-Delaying confession helps the child
to approach Penance with a more
mature attitude and a better sense of sin
and repentance.
But in a declaration dated May 24
and made public in early July, the
Vatican Congregations for the
Sacraments and for the Clergy declared
that “an end must be put to these
experiments.”
Father Joseph R. Sparks, director of
the religious education office for the
diocese of Davenport, la., said his first
reaction was “to feel quite sorry for the
parents in this country who have
accepted the reasons for a change in this
practice.”
“Many of them have grown to a
much better understanding of their
children and their faith life,” he added.
The experimentation with delayed
confession “was not just a whim or a
fad,” Father Sparks said. “It was done
on the basis of sound psychology and
educational theory.”
He said that about 65 percent of the
parishes in the Davenport diocese have
either useful or very useful. One percent
felt the workshops were not very useful
and 18 percent had no opinion.
Eighty-five percent stated that the
actual operation of communications
media policies and structures in their
diocese was fair to excellent.
Eighty-four percent felt that their own
personal relationship to and use of the
media was fair to excellent.
The bishops generally felt that
communication was a vital but
neglected area. Bishops in smaller
dioceses cited lack of money to
undertake communication programs and
concern for the expense of TV
production.
“The broad field of communications
in the U. S. today should be studied and
the use of the media for our culture
specifically should be strongly pushed
by our communications office,” one
bishop commented. “We are still using
pre-TV tools for today’s job.”
Anothei bishop suggested that
training in communications media
should “be a part of seminary training
for all.”
had the option of delaying confession.
He called the new declaration an
“authoritarian” document. “It cites
only the past 63 years of Church
tradition, which in terms of Church
tradition is not very long,” he said.
“Now the question is how to deal
with it,” he added. “Our bishop and
most bishops will go along with the
authoritative discipline.”
Father Sparks also said he was afraid
that conservative organizations that
have fought most of the changes in
catechetical methods “can use this to
say, “See, we were right.”
On the other side of the coin, he said,
the new directive will create a
credibility problem of the Church
among “adults who understood the
reasoning” behind delayed confession.
Father Gerard L. Tierney, director of
religious education in the diocese of
Albany, N. Y., expressed similar fears.
In a public statemtnt Father Tierney
called for a study of the issue “in a
positive and constructive frame of
mind.”
He warned against the “two
extremes” of simply rejecting the
document or of interpreting the
document as a call “to return to the
exact duplication of the first confession
practice of the past.”
“Those hypothetical people at each
of the two extremes share very sad
common ground-neither has (really)
understood the meaning of the
Church,” Father Tierney said.
He said the document is addressed to
bishops, and “the primary responsibility
for faithful and creative implementation
of the document” rests on the bishop
and his advisors.
While most religious education
officials agreed that the new document
would not mean a simple return to past
practices, the extent of adaptation
required was not immediately clear.
Msgr. Paul G. Cook, president of the
National Conference of Diocesan
Directors of Religious Education and
director of religious education for the
archdiocese of Baltimore, said Cardinal
Lawrence Shehan of Baltimore has
appointed a committee to draft
guidelines for first confession and first
Communion.
“The cardinal has asked parishes to
await the guidelines before making
modifications,” Msgr. Cook said.
He added that he personally feels that
delay of first confession until after first
Communion “could be allowed in
individual instances” under the new
directive.
But he also said it seems clear that
the directive “calls on parents,
confessors, teachers and pastors to
encourage the child to make first
confession before first Communion.”
“I don’t think you could say we have
the freedom to encourage the child not
to go to confession first,” he said.
Msgr. Cook summarized the problem
of implementing the Vatican declaration
as one of pastoral concern.
“The document reflects a real
pastoral concern,” he said, “and the
experiment reflects a pastoral concern.
“There is a third pastoral
concern-how to blend the best elements
of both pastoral concerns.
Media Training Need Recognized
APOSTOLIC DELEGATE ARRIVES - Archbishop
Jean Jadot (right) new Apostolic Delegate in the
United States, is introduced to Bishop James Rausch,
general secretary of the U.S. Catholic Conference and
National Conference of Catholic Bishops, by Msgr.
Francesco De Nittis, charge d’affair of the Apostolic
Delegation. In the background is Cardinal John Krol of
Philadelphia, president of the N.C.C.B. They met at
Dulles International Airport outside Washington, D.C.,
with no pomp and circumstance. (NC Staff Photo)
Lack of Medical Ethics Has Reached
Critical Stage, Seminar Concludes
BY LOUIS PANARALE
WASHINGTON (NC) - The
distraught parents of a Mongoloid infant
tell the doctor at a hospital that they
don’t want the child to survive. The
infant is seriously ill to begin with, so
the doctor starves the Mongoloid to
death.
A 15-year-old mentally retarded boy
has enough intelligence to hold down a
paper route. He has a kidney ailment
and must have treatment with a kidney
dialysis machine, an instrument which is
extremely expensive and in short
supply. The boy is denied the treatment
on the grounds that he is of no benefit
to society. He dies.
A boy is born with an “XYY”
chromosome factor, a genetic
abnormality which a growing number of
scientists believe tends to make men
“born criminals.” Should the test be
made in the first place? If so, should the
parents be told about such a baffling
phenomenon? There is no way of telling
how the child will develop. So why
“stigmatize” him for life and prejudice
others against him? But what if he turns
out to be a criminal? Maybe special
training could have helped.
These were among nearly a score of
problems in medical ethics that were
discussed at a seminar sponsored by the
Joseph P. Kennedy Jr. Foundation for
writers and broadcasters in science,
religion and related fields.
The discussions were led by Sargent
Shriver who in 1972 ran unsuccessfully
on the Democratic party ticket for the
vice presidency of the United States. His
wife, Eunice Kennedy Shriver, also took
part in the discussions. She is executive
vice president of the foundation and is
sister of the late President John
Kennedy. The foundation is named in
honor of her eldest brother who died in
a plane crash in World War II.
A panel of 11 experts in the medical
field each spoke at the seminar. Their
general conclusion was that the
retarded, the aged and the terminally ill
have increasingly become victims of
what one speaker called a “utilitarian
philosophy” in medical institutions.
Dr. Robert E. Cooke, who cited the
case of the Mongoloid infant, said that
under such a philosophy the needs and
desires of the patient become secondary
to what may be more expedient for the
patient’s relatives, the doctor or the
medical institution. The dilemma comes
down to the rights of the patient on the
one hand and expediency on the other,
he said.
Dr. Cooke, pediatrician-in-chief- at
Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore,
tried to look objectively at the case of
the Mongoloid infant which was
dramatized in a film that he has shown
to various interested groups.
“It’s not that those doctors and
nurses are some kind of insensitive
monstors. I’m sure they felt there was a
good reason for doing what they did.
They say, “It was a professional
decision. There were no moral
implications,” Dr. Cooke said.
He said there seems to be a growing
failure among medical professionals and
institutions to distinguish between
moral and non-moral decisions.
“The sole criterion for what is right
or wrong is the benefit of the result,” he
said. But he warned that “the utilitarian
value is fine as long as it is not at the
expense of other values.” He said that
cases such as that of the Mongoloid
starvation are nothing new. “But now
we should bring them into the open.”
Father George D. Shoup, who is a
Jesuit and a medical doctor, said there is
an urgent need that basic moral issues
be defined in connection with medical
practices. “The question comes back to
what is the meaning of human existence
and what is its value. Even more, the
question is what is the meaning of
human suffering and death.”
Father Shoup said that moral issues
can also be overlooked in cases where a
patient with no chance for survival is
kept alive through extraordinary
measures. He said some doctors forget
that death can be a “heroic act.”
The Jesuit physician said experts in
ethical principles are needed to teach in
medical schools and to work in hospitals
and other medical institutions. “If we
see human life as valuable, then we must
do this rather than have a hit-and-miss
approach,” he said. “Not being taught
any ethics is, in a sense, being taught
bad ethics.”
Father Shoup, a native of
Philadelphia, is a member of the Human
Investigation Committee at Yale
University. The committee reviews
research done on humans.