Newspaper Page Text
(All Articles This Pege Copyrighted 1971 By NC News Service) PAGE 5—January 28, 1971
PRIEST IN CONFESSIONAL - The priest in the confessional was a scene familiar to many
children in the early part of this century as they went to confession before receiving First Holy
Communion. (NC PHOTO by Bill Gage)
Sacraments And
Religious Education
First Communion
Without Confession
By Fr. Carl J.
Pfeifer, S J.
When I was in the second
grade in St. Louis I made my
first confession the day
before making my first
Communion. The Sisters of
the Incarnate Word had
carefully prepared us for
weeks for confession, and for
several days for Communion.
Fr. Marron heard our
confessions Saturday
afternoon and gave us Holy
Communion Sunday
morning. I’m sure most
Catholics my age had a
similar experience. Much later
I learned to my surprise that
my father had not gone to
confession for the first time
until after his first
Communion.
Recently I have met others
who recall the days when it
was quite normal to receive
first Communion prior to
first confession. In fact it was
only within the past 60 years
that the practice of having
children receive the
sacrament of penance before
the Eucharist became the
standard procedure in the
Catholic Church. This may
seem surprising to practically
of all of us who grew up
thinking that this was always
and everywhere the proper
order of receiving the
Sacraments. But it was not
until the time of Pope Pius X
in 1910 that throughout the
world Catholic children
routinely received confession
immediately before first
Communion.
For well over half the
Church’s history, children did
not go to confession at all;
when they did it was
normally after they had
received the Eucharist. For
the lsst half of the Church’s
history, with the exception of
the years between 1910 and
perhaps 1965, there was no
set practice for everyone.
Different customs were
followed in various parts of
the world. Today in the
United States as well as in
many other countries the
more traditional practice is
being reinstated, namely first
Communion without previous
confession. Exactly when
each child is to appraoch
these sacraments for the first
time is wisely left to the
child’s parents and the local
parish priest-a norm that
dates back to such great
theologians as St. Thomas
Aquinas in the 13th century.
One reason for the change
is that Catholics today realize
what Catholics of earlier
centuries understood well,
namely that there is no need
for children to go to
confession prior to
Communion. Confession is
required before receiving the
Eucharist only if one is guilty
of mortal sin. Contemporary
theologians-and an increasing
number of priests and
parents-grace with the
judgment of the best
theologians of the Middle
Ages in asserting that the
pre-adolsescent child is
normally incapable of
committing mortal sin.
Modem day psychology
provides mounting evidence
to support this judgment.
Venial sins may be foreign
in many ways outside the
sacrament of Penance,
notably by the faithful
reception of the Eucharist.
Confession before first holy
Communion is therefore not
necessary.
Nor is it generally
desirable. There is little
evidence to support the view
that early confession forms
good habits of sacramental
reception in later life. In fact
the weight of evidence
suggests just the opposite.
Certainly the present decline
in the number and frequency
of adult confessions-among
those trained as children in
the practice of frequent
confession-does little to
bolster that opinion. Nor
does the fact that so many
adults who go to confession
confess more or less as they
did in elementary school. In
fact there is considerable
evidence that the practice of
very early confession
militates against a proper
appreciation of the sacrament
of penance, simply because
the young child is going
through motions the meaning
of which he is not able to
understand.
We have all probably
laughed more than once at
stories at children making up
sins to tell the priest in
confession. We may also have
been embarrassed at the tears
of a child preparing for or
coming from confession. In
the judgment of most
responsibile religious
educators today, the ordinary
child before age 10 at the
earliest, finds it quite
difficult, if not impossible, to
receive this sacrament
meaningfully. His perceptions
are still so highly subjective
that an accurate moral
evaluation of thoughts,
words, and actions is beyond
his capability. He is unable to
reflect on and analyze
accurately his intentions,
particularly over a period of
time.
Most difficult and most
dangerous is his attempt to
relate his thoughts, words,
and actions to his relationship
with God. The fact that he
says “no” to his parents does
not necessarily involve saying
“no” to God. Violating a
parental rule is not
necessarily the same as
violating God’s law. Learning
lists of sins is even more
misleading. “Anger,” for
example, may be a very
appropriate feeling rather
than a “sin.” There is serious
risk that the too early
imposition on children of a
sacrament meant for adults
may lead to a legalistic and
magical attitude toward
confession with little relation
to real life and to a fear and
guilt-centered spiritual life.
In short, as the traditional
practice of the Church
suggests, there is no need for
children to receive confession
prior to First Communion,
nor is it, as a general rule,
desirable. It is much more
important that the child be
initiated into a deep
awareness of God’s love for
him, and experience that love
in the warm affection and
forgiveness of adults in his
life.
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
1. What are your feelings
concerning the reception of
Holy Communion before
receiving the sacrament of
Penance?
2. Is a child capable of
committing “serious sin?”
Vpvf WaaI^
1 T T V/V/'JHk.
Feb. 4
Fr. Walter M. Abbott, S.J. - SCRIPTURES IN THE LIFE OF THE CHURCH TODAY
(Second Corinthians)
Fr. Joseph Champlin - WORSHIP AND THE WORLD (Parish Marriage Preparation
Classes)
Fr. Peter J. Riga — THE SACRAMENTS (Matrimony)
Fr. Carl J. Pfeifer, S.J. - SACRAMENTS AND RELIGIOUS EDUCATION
The
Sacraments
Question
And Answer
By Fr. Peter J. Riga
Penance
The sacrament and the
practice of penance are very
ancient in the Church.
Tradition speaks very clearly
about the Church’s power,
received from Christ, to
forgive sins committed after
baptism. Whatever else can be
said of the changes involving
this sacrament (and it has
evolved greatly in history),
what remains clear and
without question is the
consciousness of the Church
to forgive in an authoritative
way all and every sin of the
faithful.
We may define the
sacrament of penance as the
application to “this” sinner at
“this historical moment, of
the redemptive passion and
resurrection of Christ in and
by the Church. Sin is an
offense against God since by
sin we reject God’s call to
love in Christ. Since God’s
love is visibly and historically
present in the Church as the
Sacrament of Christ in the
world, sin is an offense
against the Church as well. It
follows that the sacrament of
penance is an authoritative
reconciliation by the Church
of the sinner to both God and
the Church (Vatican II,
Constitution on the Church,
par. 11) and admission to the
commu nion of saints.
We know that the Church
is the fundamental sacrament
of Christ, the visible presence
of God’s saving and loving
grace in the world in every
age. She is the community of
those who believe in the
Lord Jesus, called to the
forgiveness of sins and life
and reconciliation with God.
In baptism, the person
baptized is incorporated into
the Church, the body of
Christ. So too in the
sacrament of penance. The
reconciliation of the sinner
with the Church (represented
in private confession by the
duly authorized minister) is a
visible sign of his
reconciliation with God as
well, for it is within the
Church that the baptized
sinner meets the forgiving
word of God’s mercy in
history. It is for that reason
that we can call penance a
true sacrament.
The Scriptures give this
power of “binding” and
“loosing” to the Church (cf.
Mt. 18:17; Jn. 20:19, I Cor.
5:3; etc.), where Jesus
confers on the Apostles his
own authority of “loosing”
sinners from the realm of the
darkness of sin and death.
The teaching is rather clear:
the Church has been given the
victorious and saving power
of Jesus over sin and death.
Anyone who is reconciled
with the Church on earth is
hv that verv fact also within
the domain of God’s saving
power and has therefore
attained the true forgiveness
of sins on earth in the name
of God. This binding and
loosing from the power of
Satan to the forgiving grace
of God, is truly a real
juridical power of the Church
on earth.
The reception of a sinner
once again into the Church is
the sign of both his
forgiveness of his sins
(negative aspect) and his
reconciliation with God
(grace, the positive aspect).
Reconciliation comes about
when the repentant sinner, in
the presence of a duly
authorized minister of the
Church, asks pardon of God
and of the Church and
receives the reconciliation of
the Church and God. It is this
divine reality which we call
the sacrament of penance in
the Church.
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS:
1. Why do you think, as
many priests have stated,
there are fewer people going
to Confession regularly
today?
2. How has the manner of
going to Confession changed
in recent years?
BY FR. RICHARD McBRIEN
Scripture In The Life
Of The Church Todav
By Fr. Walter M.
Abbott, S.J.
On Judging Preachers
of the Word,
Including Popes
In the middle of chapter 5,
after the soaring passage on
resurrection and judgment,
Paul’s Second Letter to the
Corinthians returns to a
defensive attitude
(5:11-7:16).
Here Paul first raps some
people who judged preachers
of the word by appearances
rather than by character
(5:12). Paul came off rather
badly by those standards
since he was “a small man,
and also bald.” as a Scripture
scholar I knew years ago used
to say.
Paul gives the Corinthians
the right standards of
judgment. The basic thing is
union with Christ (5:17 ff.),
and there are signs that flow
from it, signs that show a
preacher of the word is truly
a servant of God.
The first of these signs is
“enduring troubles,
hardships, and difficulties
with great patience” (6:4).
Paul had what must have
been a well-known record of
being “beaten, jailed, and
mobbed.” Here he adds
things people might not have
known: “We have been
overworked and have gone
without sleep or food” (6:5).
Then Paul ties in three
other elements: “By our
purity, knowledge, patience,
and kindness we have shown
ourselves to be God’s
servants” (6:6). If you asked
a priest today to list the signs
of his ministry, he would
probably be too modest or
mortified to give you that list
as his own, but at least he
would have it from Paul to
show you as the ideal.
Paul’s list of signs
continues: “By the Holy
Spirit, by our true love, by
our message of truth, and by
the power to God” (6:7).
These things operated in him,
and he unabashedly
proclaimed it. He finishes by
recounting some paradoxical
situations he has experienced,
situations which brought out
the signs he has listed
(6:7-10).
Then Paul seems surprised,
perhaps even astonished, by
how much he has revealed the
confidences of his heart
(6:11). That realization
enables him to swing right on.
He says he has been so open
and frank to them. He begs
them to be just as open and
frank with him. (6:12-13).
If you will jump to 7:2
you will see how it would
flow right on from 6:13. I
know that many
commentaries say the section
6:14-7:1 fits right in here.
They say Paul’s attitude here
is that the Corinthians have a
number of faults and he will
now deal with them in the
spirit he has established by
having opened his heart to
them. Then at 7:2, they say,
he returns to that theme of
openheartedness.
It may be so, but I doubt it.
There is only one big fault
dealt with here. I think the
section 6:14-7:1 is from
something else Paul wrote,
and that he or his editor
stuck it in here, where it
doesn’t quite fit, in the final
version of this Second Letter
to the Corinthians.
At any rate, here it is, part
of the canon of Sacred
Scripture, and it gave Pope
John XXIII a lot of trouble.
It has given his successor,
Pope Paul VI, a lot of trouble
too. There are many
Catholics in Italy and
elsewhere who cite this
passage of the Bible against
the policy of John XXIII and
Paul VI concerning dialogue
with non-believers, especially
Communists.
Some Catholics, including
a number of prelates, blamed
Pope John when the
Communist party in Italy
picked up a million new votes
in an election not long after
he had received Krushchev’s
son-in-law at the Vatican.
They said Pope John was soft
on Communism and his bad
example led those one million
people to vote that way.
They blame Pope Paul for
still another one-million rise
in the Communist vote since
then, because he has
continued Pope John’s policy
of receiving and talking with
Communist leaders.
The critics say the Vatican
should never have set up its
Secretariat for Non-Believers.
When they point to 6:14-15
in the Second Letter to the
Corinthians, you may at first
sight think the Scripture
condemns the policy of the
Popes: “Do not try to work
together, as equals with
unbelievers, for it cannot be
done. How can right and
wrong be partners? How can
light and darkness live
together? How can Christ and
the devil agree? What does a
believer have in common with
an unbeliever?”
One way of handling the
difficulty is to point out that
the Vatican Secretariat
doesn’t work as “equals”
with unbelievers or “agree”
with the devil but simply
engages in dialogue to find
out how to deal with
problems stemming from the
fact that- unbelievers control
(Continued on Page 6)
By Father Richard
P. McBrien
Q. I get the impression
sometimes that belief in
personal immortality is on
the wane, even among some
Catholics. Is this belief just
another part of that outdated
package we’re all supposed to
be rejecting these days?
A. No. However, we must
distinguish between our belief
in personal immortality, on
the one hand, and the
arguments we once used to
justify that belief, on the
other.
In the days when much of
Catholic theology employed a
superficial Thomism as its
philosophical base, Catholic
theologians appealed to a few
stock principles to prove all
kinds of points. One such
principle stated that, if a
reality is absolutely simple
(i.e., it has no parts), then it
cannot change and it cannot
disintegrate.
The human soul is
immortal, it was argued,
because it is simple. Because
it has no parts, it cannot
disintegrate. Indeed, this is
exactly how the case was
presented by the late, highly
respected and highly
influential theologian,
Father Francis Connell: “The
soul of man is a spirit which
does not die because it is
simple, having no integral
parts, and because it is
spiritual, that is, entirely
independent of matter in its
being and in its own proper
acts; it does not depend on
creatures for existence and
cannot be destroyed by
them” (Baltimore Catechism,
n. 3, p. 11).
Many Catholic theologians
would not accept the
philosophical presuppositions
of this argument. That does
not mean, however, that they
would disagree with the
theological conclusion;
namely, that God has
promised resurrection of life
to those “who have done
good” (Jn. 5:29).
If the promises of the
resurrection applies only to
the human race in general or
has only cosmic significance,
then it seems that we have
not really surpassed
Marxist ideaology. The
promise of eternal life to
everyone who does the will of
the Father is rooted in the
faith of the primitive Church
and has been an integral
element in the Church’s faith
and preaching ever since.
Most of the second chapter
o f Vatican II’s Dogmatic
Constitution of the Church is
devoted to this topic. The
council offered no indication
that tne Church was about to
repudiate or substantially
modify its historic
convictions on this matter.
Q. When you say that the
world is moving toward the
Kingdom of God, do you
mean that we are getting
closer and closer every day?
If so, then I should say that
such an opinion contradicts
my own experience of the
world. I think that a case
could be made for the
judgment that mankind is
getting worse, not better. Our
systems of warfare, for
example, are much more
sophisticated now, and
therefore much more
effective in bringing ruin and
destruction to what is left of
the human community. And
what about Auschwitz, etc.?
A. There is no biblical,
doctrinal, or theological basis
for saying that the kingdom
of God will come about after
a period of constant,
sustained, • and inevitable
growth. In fact, the Bible
protrays the Kingdom as a
reality which comes when
people least expect it. There
is nothing predictable about
it at all.
The assumption in your
question seems to have its
source in a particular
interpretation of the writings
of Teilhard de Chardin who
did, indeed, give the
impression to some people
that the way to the Omega
Point is one of irreversible,
surprise-free progress. Over
against this notion (which is
not necessarily Teilhard’s
own), we should insist that
the quality of the Kingdom
can never be measured and,
therefore, that every
generation must confront the
crisis of the Kingdom anew.
It is possible, in fact, that on
the day before “the last day”
(if we can imagine this for the
moment) the Kingdom of
God could be in its worst
historical condition.
Although the Kingdom will
have some’ continuity with
human history, it will still
come about as a mighty act
of God and as something
really new.
For the' richest and most
balanced statement on the
problem of the Kingdom, see
article 39 of the Pastoral
Constitution on the Church
in the Modem World.
TWO OLD MEN WALKING IN THE HOLY LAND - The sight of these two old men in Jerusalem
reminds a person of the admonition by Saint Paul not to judge a person by appearance but rather
by character. (NC PHOTO by Robert Hirschfield)
■f
I
>
*