Newspaper Page Text
Thursday, March 30, 2000
The Southern Cross, Page 5
A s a new mother, I was so sensitive. I
found it almost impossible to accept
advice from anyone but Dr. Spock and
my pediatrician. Yet something about
my inexperience and attitude attract
ed unsolicited advice from almost
everyone I encountered. Never have
strangers felt so comfortable approa
ching me as they did 17 years ago
when my infant daughter and I would
venture out of the house.
I’ll never forget the morning I was
waiting in a check-out line with Katie tucked in
one of those front pouch carriers (the latest in
baby equipment then) when a man loudly repri
manded me: “What are you doing carrying that
baby around like a kangaroo? That’s no way to
carry a baby!”
I didn’t even attempt a reply. I hurriedly paid
the cashier and left the store before I started cry
ing, my tears springing from a combination of
anger, hormones, and that rising sense of self
doubt I had only partially submerged. j
Strangers also felt completely at ease telling
me if my baby was too cold or too hot, when she
needed booties and when she needed her head
covered. They warned me about the dangers of
high chairs and shopping carts. I know these
folks were well-intentioned, and some of their
advice made sense, but, at that time in my life, I
perceived every word of advice as implied criti
cism or pushy interference, and I resented it.
Fortunately, the advice stopped coming when
my second child was bom. Perhaps I developed
Everyday Graces
Go easy on advice
an air of confidence I hadn’t shown with
my firstborn. Perhaps strangers, seeing
me with two children in tow, figured
that since I’d got the first one past
toddlerhood the other one would
survive as well. Whatever the rea
son, I was relieved when, for the
most part, the unsolicited advice
stopped coming.
Because I was so sensitive, nowa
days, when I encounter new mothers, I
resist the urge to tell them to put
something on the baby’s feet. I don’t feel
inclined to show them the proper way to hold an
infant, and I’ve never commented on the ugli
ness of pacifiers. (That’s the comment I heard
frequently when in public with my third child,
our only pacifier baby. Charlie was colicky, so
pacifiers were as precious as jewels in our
household, regardless of how unappealing they
were to strangers.)
Because I was so sensitive to unsolicited ad
vice, I don’t offer it to new mothers. But deep
down, after 17 years of motherhood, I’m harbor
ing a lot of advice I’d love to give. If I could, I’d
tell a new mother to trust her instincts, to realize
that no one is more attuned to her infant than she
is. Yes, the experts should be consulted for ill
ness and basic care, but she will learn her baby’s
rhythms and routines. Very quickly, she’ll sense
what’s right for her baby, and her baby will
thrive in her loving care.
I’d tell a new mother to spend as much time as
possible with her baby, snuggling, rocking, coo
ing, singing. But I’d also recommend she take
breaks away from infant care by taking a walk
(no stroller), going out to dinner with her hus
band, relaxing in a bubble bath. As hard as it is
to leave the baby with a trusted sitter, a new
mother needs brief periods of time away from
the baby’s demands.
I’d tell her it’s impossible to spoil a newborn.
Babies under 4 months need all that attention,
and it’s likely they’ll wake to nurse several times
during the night. But once baby’s old enough to
sleep through the night, he should be encouraged
to, even if that means letting him cry. An excel
lent book on this subject is Healthy Sleep Habits,
Happy Child by Marc Weissbluth, MD. This
book rescued me a dozen years ago when my
son was almost a year old and still waking to
nurse several times through the night. At that
time, I came down with a case of shingles and
pneumonia, brought on, I’m convinced, by
exhaustion. Dr. Weissbluth makes a compelling
argument for establishing daily nap routines and
independent night-time sleep habits for babies
and young children. If followed consistently, his
advice is a lifesaver to parents and children.
And I would remind her that, although it may
appear otherwise, her baby is not intent on mak
ing her miserable. He doesn’t purposely wake up
crying as soon as she sits down to a hot meal. He
doesn’t choose to fall asleep after she’s waited
30 minutes in line to have his portrait made. He
doesn’t deliberately soil the shoulder of her best
dress, just as she’s heading out the door. He
(Continued from paged 1)
Mary Hood Hart
Questions & Answers
Q uestion: I recently was watch
ing commentary on EWTN
regarding Pope John Paul’s apolo
gy, which unfortunately I was un
able to witness myself. The com
ment was made that the pontiff was
asking forgiveness for sins commit
ted by individuals, not by the
Church herself, which is infallible.
However, don’t we, the members of
Christ’s body, comprise the
Church? Without the members of
the body of Christ, would there be
a Church? Can you please clarify?
—Cecilia Stender
nswer: Theologically, the
Church is the Body of Christ,
of which he is the head and we are
the members. As Christ’s body, the
Church as such cannot be said to
“sin”, although its members some
times do, in contradiction to their
baptismal grace. In the same vein,
the Creed defines the Church as
one although it is made up of many
members and many communities,
holy although it contains sinners,
catholic (universal) although made
up of local churches (dioceses), and
apostolic, carrying on the mission
of the Apostles and rooted in their
tradition, although both that mis
sion and tradition have developed
and have been adapted to changing
times and circumstances. Our com
munity in the Church is a foretaste
and promise of our ultimate com
munion with the triune God, before
whom nothing impure can stand.
—DKC
Q uestion: When in the history
of the Church did changes
taxe place regarding how the laity
would receive the Eucharist?
Where there any special attitudes
going on in society which may
have prompted the changes? I’d
like to know how many times we
have made changes—the dates plus
anything you know to enlighten us.
I am sure there are many in our
diocese who want to know more as
we share the Lenten study, “The
Fullness of the Eucharist.”
—Mildred Roush
A nswer: The actions performed
by Jesus Christ at the Last
Supper are the same as those per
formed by the priest at Mass. Jesus
took, blessed (or gave thanks), broke
and gave the unleavened Passover
bread, saying, “This is my body,
which will be given up for you.” He
took, blessed and gave the Cup of
Blessing, saying, “Take this all of
you and drink from it. This is the
cup of my blood, the blood of the
new and everlasting covenant. It
will be shed for you and for all so
that sins may be forgiven. Do this in
memory of me.” At Mass, the priest
combines the actions over the bread
with those over the cup. He takes
the bread and wine from the people
at the Presentation of the Gifts, says
the Eucharistic Prayer of blessing,
praise and thanks, breaks the bread
at the “Fraction” (during the Lamb
of God) and gives it to the people in
Holy Communion.
In the ancient Church, for nearly
a millennium, there was no distinc
tion between priests and lay people
in the mode of receiving commu
nion: all received frequently, under
both kinds, while standing and
from their own hands. But during
the Middle Ages, lay people came
to receive communion so infre
quently that special laws had to be
enacted requiring them to receive at
least once a year (the “Easter Duty”
enacted by the Fourth Lateran
Council, 1215). Eventually, the
communion of the congregation
was rare during most of the year,
but overwhelming at Easter; the
cup was withheld from the laity
from about the 14th century on.
When the laity did receive com
munion, they did so under one kind
only, while kneeling and from the
priest’s hand. The attitude seems to
have been one of unworthiness (on
the part of lay people only), height
ened, perhaps, by the link in peo
ple’s minds between confession and
communion. What had been the
common manner of receiving com
munion was now associated with
the priesthood.
The medieval practice, for which
there was no theological warrant,
was nevertheless retained by the
Council of Trent (1545-1563), in
order not to seem to give in to
Protestant demands, although the
possibility of restoring the cup to
the laity was held out for a while.
The ancient equality between all
baptized believers at the moment of
their closest communion, with God
and one another has been restored in
the wake of Vatican II (1962-65).
—DKC