Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

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