My neice will be making her first communion in May of 2002. My sister-in-law informed me that she will make her communion first. It is my understanding the the directives from Rome clearly state that children MUST make their first confession before receiving communion for the first time. It is also mentioned clearly in the new Catechism of the Catholic Church. Why after so many times of being told of the directives that this is still going on? Why aren't bishops inforcing church teaching/law? If in fact bishops are in communion with the Pope, then I would think this problem would have been corrected. Don't priests meet with their bishops at least once a year as a group? And if so, why isnt this and other issues of abuse being addressed in a timely manner? Sorry for all the questions. Thank you!

-- Steven Bonderski (saturn3579@earthlink.net), October 16, 2001

Answers

Steven, there are a lot of areas where bishops thumb their noses at the Pope...it's been going on for 30+ years now. Actually, the First Communion before first Confession thing was approved as an experiment by Pope Paul VI, but as it proved to be a failure (re: the kids never ended up going to confession at all) the experiment was discontinued some years later. Still, some of the bad practices still linger on. Your sister-in-law (or you, if she's not interested) should write to the bishop in the diocese where your niece is receiving and tell him of the practice - the pastor of the church might be the one in error, and bishop should be told.

-- Christina (introibo2000@yahoo.com), October 16, 2001.

Steven,

What a coincidence. I went to this board today to ask the exact same question. The Church I attended as a child and young adult has recently switched to the same practice. I was hoping that I could find the statements not allowing this practice in the Catechism or Canon online so that I could include the quotes in my letter to our Bishop.

So if anyone knows where it is stated that First Reconcilliation is required before First Communion, please let me know.

Thanks in advance.

-- Glenn (glenn@excite.com), October 17, 2001.

I found the following from our Canon laws:

Can. 914 It is primarily the duty of parents and of those who take their place, as it is the duty of the parish priest, to ensure that children who have reached the use of reason are properly prepared and, having made their sacramental confession, are nourished by this divine food as soon as possible. It is also the duty of the parish priest to see that children who have not reached the use of reason, or whom he has judged to be insufficiently disposed, do not come to holy communion.

It sure reads to me that Reconciliation must come first.

-- Glenn (glenn@excite.com), October 17, 2001.

It is also in a very specific document from Rome released in the late 70's and is stated in the current Catechism. I urge you or the childs parent to prepare the child for Reconciliation and take the child to another parish if necessary. To insure that the child receives this Sacrament a few weeks before Holy Communion. Most priests that have any respect for the Sacraments will be happy to hear the childs first Confession if you explain the circumstances.

-- Br. Rich SFO (repsfo@prodigy.net), October 17, 2001.

Hello, friends. Thank you for discussing this important subject.

Here is the quotation from the new Catechism, which cites Canon 914:
"1457 ... Children must go to the sacrament of Penance before receiving Holy Communion for the first time. [Cf. CIC, can. 914.]"
"CIC" stands for "Codex Iuris Canonici" (Latin for "Code of Canon Law").

Thanks to the great EWTN online library, I found this definitive item for you to use in your letters:

-------------------- QUOTE ------------------------------
SANCTUS PONTIFEX [The sainted pontiff]
Declaration on Confession Before First Communion
from the Sacred Congregations of the Sacraments and for the Clergy
(24 May, 1973) [published in the Vatican's official Magisterial texts:] Acta Apostolicae Sedis (AAS) 65-410.

(The following "declaration on putting the sacrament of penance before the First Communion of children" was issued jointly by the Sacred Congregations of the Sacraments and for the Clergy.)

The Sainted Pontiff, Pius X, basing his action on the prescription of canon 21 of the Fourth Lateran Council, stipulated by his decree, "Quam singulari," of 8 August, 1910 (AAS, pp. 577-583), that right from the age of discretion children should receive the sacraments of penance and the Eucharist. This precept, which has been reduced to practice throughout the universal Church, has produced and even today produces very many benefits for Christian life and spiritual perfection.

The "Addendum" to the "General Catechetical Directory", however, which was promulgated by the Sacred Congregation for the Clergy on 11 April, 1967 (AAS, 1972, pp. 97-176), strengthened the practice of putting the sacrament of penance before the First Communion of children by these words: "After having weighed everything and having in view the common and general practice which cannot be directly derogated from without the approval of the Holy See, and after having heard the episcopal conferences, the said Holy See judges it fitting that the current custom in the Church of putting confession before First Communion be preserved." [N. 5; C.L.D., 7, p. 838.]

The same document considered certain new practices, which had been introduced in some places and which permitted first reception of the Eucharist without reception of the sacrament of penance and which allowed only that those experiments could be continued temporarily "after first having had communication with the Apostolic See and being of one mind with the said See." [Ibid.]

After having attentively considered the matter, and keeping in view the wishes of the bishops, the Sacred Congregations for the Discipline of the Sacraments and for the Clergy, by this document do declare, with the approval of the Supreme Pontiff, Paul VI, that experiments of this kind, already carried out for two years, must have an end put to them simultaneously with the dosing of the 1972-1973 school year and, for the future, the decree, "Quam singulari," must be obeyed everywhere and by all.

Given at Rome, the 24th day of May, 1973.
------------------END QUOTE -----------------------------

I have recently read that the improper practice, due to ignorance or defiant disobedience, is being followed in the Diocese of Joliet (in Illinois), and in the Archdiocese of Milwaukee (in Wisconsin).

Where this is happening due to ignorance of the Church's law, I believe that it is due to an influential and erroneous opinion that was published in a commentary on the Code of Canon Law. The error is arrived at by the following argument:
1. Canon 988 says: "The faithful are bound to confess, in kind and in number, all grave sins committed after baptism, of which after careful examination of conscience they are aware, which have not yet been directly pardoned by the keys of the Church, and which have not been confessed in an individual confession. The faithful are recommended to confess also venial sins."
2. Thus, only mortal sins must be confessed, and little children preparing for first Communion almost surely are unable to commit mortal sins.
3. Therefore, these little children cannot be compelled to make first Confession before first Communion.

The flaw in this is that the principle declared in Canon 988 begins to bind people only after first Confession and first Communion have taken place. That is, Canon 914 "trumps" Canon 988 for first-time penitents and communicants.

If someone encounters the excuse (offered by some parents or priests) that a child who is preparing for first Communion is not "ready" for first Penance, then one must firmly state that the child is therefore not "ready" for first Communion either. Canon 914 must be obeyed.

St. James, pray for us.
God bless you.
John
Jmj

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), October 17, 2001.

Thanks John and Br. Rich.

P.S. Nice to see you back, Br. Rich.

-- Glenn (glenn@excite.com), October 18, 2001.

Has there been any more news on this issue since 2001? I'm going through the old threads here to help further my Catholic education.

>> The flaw in this is that the principle declared in Canon 988 begins to bind people only after first Confession and first Communion have taken place. That is, Canon 914 "trumps" Canon 988 for first-time penitents and communicants.

I don't understand the justification for these statements. Canon 988 refers to "grave sins committed after baptism", and doesn't refer to first Communion at all. There is nothing in its text that restricts its application until after first Confession and first Communion. And if Canon 914 were meant to trump Canon 988, then Canon 988 would have a clause that says "without prejudice to the provision of Canon 914". In the absence of such a clause, both Canon 914 and Canon 988 are equally in force.

But, in the case of a first communicant who has committed no mortal sin, they are in conflict. Since "doubtful laws do not obligate" (Canon 14), there is no requirement to have first Confession before first Communion when no mortal sin has been committed.

As a matter of practice in my parish, the second graders are prepared for confession in religous education, but are recommended to delay the actual Sacrament of Reconciliation until fourth grade.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), May 29, 2003.

Here is the full text of Canon 14: Laws, even invalidating and incapacitating ones, do not oblige when there is a doubt of law. When there is a doubt of fact, however Ordinaries can dispense from them provided, if there is question of a reserved dispensation, it is one which the authority to whom it is reserved Is accustomed to grant.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), May 29, 2003.

Jmj

Mark, I am beginning to worry about you more and more.
Are you, who are just barely a convert to Catholicism, already a big-time dissenter? Are you what some people call a "liberal" or "progressive"?
Are you a spiritual minimalist? That is, are you, as it appears, looking for loopholes -- for the easy way out?

First you wanted some of the divorced and "remarried" to be able to receive Holy Communion without first receiving a declaration of nullity? Now you want children to be able to receive Jesus without first confessing their sins?

Or am I reading too much into this -- and you are merely trying to justify what is being done in your parish?

Please forget about Canon 14. As I said on another thread about two weeks ago, I recommend that you adopt a quiet, learning mode instead of a challenging attitude, in which you think that you can be a self-taught authority in Canon Law. You can't do it, I assure you. Part of understanding Catholic doctrines, disciplines, and practices involves a quiet living of the Catholic life over a long period of time. Beyond that, men and women study under learned professors for a long time to earn Canon Law degrees. Please go to them for help instead of trying to teach the rest of us about the Church's laws. You are acting in a non-Catholic way with all this challenging and pontificating. You are tending toward making yourself into your own pope, as protestants do.

Mark, you asked if there is "anything new on this issue since 2001." I'm not sure, but if anything has happened since then, it has probably been a reiteration (by the pope) of what several stated earlier in this thread -- i.e., the very thing you are challenging.

Anyway, the point is that there is no Canon-14-style "doubt" involved here. How do I know that? Did you overlook the fact that Steven Bonderski, in the opening message of this thread, stated that Confession before First Communion is "mentioned clearly in the new Catechism of the Catholic Church"? If you had looked up the CCC passage, you would not have questioned what I said about Canon 914 trumping Canon 988, and you would not have quoted Canon 14. Written in 1992, CCC 1467 makes it crystal clear:

"1457 According to the Church's command, 'after having attained the age of discretion, each of the faithful is bound by an obligation faithfully to confess serious sins at least once a year.' Anyone who is aware of having committed a mortal sin must not receive Holy Communion, even if he experiences deep contrition, without having first received sacramental absolution, unless he has a grave reason for receiving Communion and there is no possibility of going to confession. Children must go to the sacrament of Penance before receiving Holy Communion for the first time."
[Note: The pope considers these such important disciplines that he takes the extraordinary measure of repeating them even within a doctrinal document, the CCC, lest anyone overlook them!]

Now please take care, Mark! You shall have Christ's peace only if you make a complete act of Faith and an act of the will to be an orthodox Catholic who does not "flee from the Cross." If you are a combative person who can't resist the urge to do battle, then please don't do battle here -- but do it in your own parish, wherein the Law and the Catechism are flagrantly being disobeyed (or are being overlooked in an act of inexcusable ignorance).
God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), June 03, 2003.

John,

I must admit that I am beginning to take offense at some of your personal remarks. In addition, your failure to take me at my word is making any dialogue here tedious to the point of being completely non-productive. But I will give it one last try:

For the life of me, I cannot understand your continued insistence that I am looking for loopholes. For the record, I went to the Sacrament of Reconciliation prior to joining the Church at Easter Vigil. I did not in any way to try avoid doing so; frankly, I had way too many sins to confess. Should my daughter want to join the Catholic Church, she is too old to be affected by this debate. I have no hidden agenda as regards childhood development; it is not one of my fields of interest. In summary, I have absolutely no personal stake in the outcome of this question, one way or the other. To repeat myself yet again, my only interest is in finding out what the current Church law really is on this point.

My reason for this, to quote from my previous post, is "to help further my Catholic education." My way of learning about things, including Church law, is to think about them and ask questions. If you find this too challenging of an attitude, then I'm afraid you are taking the "Christ's church as a flock of sheep" analogy too literally. There is a difference between the meritorious obedience of Christ's faithful, and the blind, unquestioning, zombie-like obedience demanded by a cult.

I recognize that I am, as we are now called in RCIA, a "neophyte", or to use your words, a "baby Catholic". I make no claim to being an "authority" in Canon Law, as you suggest. All that I did was to critique a point of Canon Law in your previous post, and offer a counter-argument. Perhaps what this really shows is that it is a waste of time for two people, neither of whom are canon lawyers, to discuss the finer points of Canon Law.

In your post, you tell me that I should go to the "men and women [who] study under learned professors for a long time to earn Canon Law degrees." Here, I must humbly recommend that you follow your own advice. As the Bishop's reply to Steven Bonderski indicates, the general opinion of canonists is contrary to your position. The Canon Law Society of America's New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law is also contrary to your position. (I'm not sure if this is the commentary that you referred to earlier.) And although you dismiss him as not coming from your "short list of reliable seminaries," Fr. Tom Richstatter backs this consensus up: I am a member of the Canon Law Society of America myself and the opinion I have set forward in this letter [that "Celebration of the sacrament of Reconciliation is not a necessary requirement for the celebration of First Holy Communion."] is what I would consider the "common opinion" of canonists. Finally, although this won't influence you at all, my RCIA group and my parish validate this widely-held viewpoint. Because of this, I'm afraid that I must conclude that I can no longer consider you a reliable source of information as regards to Church law.

You asked what kind of Catholic I was. As a neophyte, this is what I am trying to discern. Based on all that I've learned so far, I believe that the best choice is to be a "mainstream" Catholic. Frankly, I see no reason why I should dismiss the vast majority of seminaries and their professors who are not under any manner of sanction by Rome. The alternative is being drawn into some "fringe" group of Catholics who have to defend their extreme philosophies by denigrating the vast majority of Catholics who acknowledge the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Of all the Catholic groups and Catholic publications that I've come across so far, I find I am in closest harmony with the Canon Law Society of America (CLSA). Because they are continually steeped in the law of the Church, I feel that they respect it more than some liberal Catholics who flout it in favor of their view of what the Church should do. But because they are also very familiar with the freedoms contained in this law, they are able to stand up to the pharisaical leanings of some conservative Catholics. Also, I am in agreement with their quest to ordain women deacons.

P.S. With regard to CCC 1457, I must point out the that the Bishop's letter dealt with this objection. Also, the CLSA's New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law was written after the Catechism, and was no doubt also aware of it. If you look at Canons 8 and 16, as well at the Apostolic Letter LAETAMUR MAGNOPERE that promulgated the Catechism, you will see that the CCC neither supersedes nor authentically interprets Canon Law.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), June 05, 2003.

MARK MARK MARK,

you should heed the words of John,

Because of this, I'm afraid that I must conclude that I can no longer consider you a reliable source of information as regards to Church law.

john is an inveritable wealth of conservative catholic teaching. if your RCIA class, or a bishops letter, is somehow influencing you to believe them over the CATECHISM, the POPE, and the clearly defined CANON 914, then you might want to evaluate who you are following.

the catechism is up for review, but it is a document that is non refutable by faithful catholics, as such the bishop was wrong.

second, Canon 914 states that no child should take communion before the age of reason. reaching the age of reason means having reached the age where mortal sin IS possible for a child. hence, a child should not be taking communion before this point, and after this point the sacrament of reconciliation is required prior to the sacrament of the eucharist.

finally, post experiment teachings after paul VI's experiment have shown that the pope has determined that the sacrament of reconciliation is to be practiced PRIOR to the sacrament of reconciliation.

these are three irrefutable facts which show the truth of this matter. nothing has changed since 2001 to make the liturgical error of your RCIA class exceptable. AND most canon lawyers dont believe that filth anyone, what the bishop should have said is 'most of the liberal canon lawyers i know...'

PS as i have seen from your writings you have ALOT to learn about the catholic faith... and despite his sometimes abrasive style john grecik would be a great person to learn that from. if youd like to start a thread i can address why female ordination is not a possibility in the church.

-- paul (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), June 06, 2003.

paul,

I appreciate your evident concern for my spiritual well-being, and your heartfelt advice. This was not an easy decision for me to make.

>> PS as i have seen from your writings you have ALOT to learn about the catholic faith

I am in complete agreement with you here. I do have a lot to learn, and I take the responsibility to continue learning about the Catholic faith quite seriously.

>> then you might want to evaluate who you are following

You are correct; this is the fundamental issue here. If you look at it from the point of view of a new Catholic, then you have to admit that it is quite confusing. There is all sorts of quote-unquote Catholic information out there, much of it contradictory. The good news is as a longtime Christian, I am familiar with I John 4:1, which says: "Beloved, do not trust every spirit but test the spirits to see whether they belong to God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world."

Unfortunately, even applying this instruction with respect to basic Catholic doctrine, I'm forced to reject some bishops. Now, I find it more than a little bit scary when a new Catholic starts to judge and reject a bishop's example and teachings. Fortunately, in these few cases, I have discovered that the CDF has provided very clear guidance, mentioning those bishops by name and condemning their actions.

However, in the absence of any such explicit CDF guidance, I don't think that I could ever be as cavalier about dismissing the teachings of a bishop as you suggest I do. Once you start down that path, there is no telling where you will end up.

If you have any evidence to back up your claim that most canon lawyers oppose what the bishop says, then I would love to see it. If you would like to hear my thoughts on your comments about Canon 914, I'll be happy to share them with you. However, I do agree with John that interpreting Canon Law is a job best left to canon lawyers. Finally, we have been discussing women deacons in the Hans Kung revisited thread, if you'd care to contribute your views there.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), June 06, 2003.

Now, I find it more than a little bit scary when a new Catholic starts to judge and reject a bishop's example and teachings.

no reason to be afraid to stand up to anyone. we are given three great texts by which to judge. these are the Bible, the chatechism, and the canon. we are also given the grace of the Holy Spirit through the pope to make dogmatic interpretation. all four of these sources are contradicted by what this bishop has claimed, and therefore the bishop is wrong to make such a claim. its that simple. if it contradicts the church and her infallable teachings it must thus be fallable and hence, wrong.

-- paul (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), June 06, 2003.

paul,

In my attempts to learn more about the Catholic faith, I frequently try to evaluate the statements from various sources, including authorities such as priests, bishops, theologians, and seminary professors, against the standards that you mention. However, in light of John's admonition that I should "take it slow," whenever I reach a different conclusion I first assume that my own reasoning is at fault, and use the discrepancy as an opportunity for another learning experience.

For the question at hand, the first thing that I notice is that Eastern Rite Catholics start receiving Holy Communion in infancy, well before the age of reason, and well before First Reconciliation. Thus, I conclude that this is a matter of discipline, not of doctrine or dogma. As a corollary, there can be no contradiction between the bishop's statement and the Bible or the Church's infallible teachings.

As relates to the standard of Canon Law, I have nothing to add beyond what I have already said in this thread. But I do assume that my naive attempts as a "canon lawyer-wannabe," as Victoria put it, must yield to the views of actual canon lawyers.

As far as the Pope is concerned, I find that Rome's failure to take any action since 1983 against the bishop's interpretation to be the strongest argument in favor of its legitimacy. Under the prior Canon Law, the Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments and the Sacred Congregation for the Clergy were not at all shy about issuing directives with the force of Canon Law that specifically and directly prohibited those First Reconciliation practices that the Pope disapproved of. Today, the Pope could easily amend Canon 988 to include the proviso "without prejudice to the provision of Canon 914." Or if he felt that the 1983 Canon Law already prohibited the bishop's interpretation, he could issue an authentic interpretation to that effect without changing a word of the Canon Law itself. I find the absence of any of these actions very telling.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), June 06, 2003.

Just my tuppence-worth here. In practise, children don't always receive the Sacrament of Penance before receiving Frist Eucharist. Although that is the normal and appropriate way to receive the Sacraments, there can occasionally be exceptions made. For example in the case of children with profound learning difficulties, where they wouldn't be judged capable of confession, and indeed perhaps not capable of mortal sin. The Sacraments of Initiation are not denied to these children on the basis that they haven't been to confession. Indeed, as people will know, the Sacrament of Penance is not one of the Sacraments of Initiation. They receive the sacraments of Baptism, Confirmation and Eucharist (the summit and completion of Christian Initiation, and graces which come from these sacrament, just as anyone else does.

God bless

Sara

-- Sara (sara_catholic_forum@yahoo.co.uk), June 07, 2003.

mark,

i admire your striving to conform to the words of leaders in the church, but this is not always the case. as you said:

As far as the Pope is concerned, I find that Rome's failure to take any action since 1983 against the bishop's interpretation to be the strongest argument in favor of its legitimacy

i must argue that the vatican does not need to take action against the bishop. the laws are quite clear, the catechism highlights that point, and we know from the Bible that repentence comes before communion. thus no action need to be taken to declare such a bishop as wrong, for his statement inherently invalidates itself through direct contradiction with what we know to be true church teaching. simple as that. rebelion is allowed to happen, but that does not argue in its favor.

-- paul (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), June 07, 2003.

paul,

I've been praying about this matter for the last day or so, asking the Holy Spirit for guidance. Finally, a question popped into my head: "If I were to just go and accept John's and paul's assertion that the bishop's teaching is wrong, then what?" Well, it became clear that in taking this path, my Catholic education would come to a halt. If I couldn't trust the Church's magisterium, nor my own reasoning, I might as well just use "eenie, meenie, miney, moe" to decide who to follow next.

So I'm going to follow my convictions, and trust in the Church's magisterium and my ability (even as a neophyte) to discern the truth with the help of the Holy Spirit. I do want to point out that I'm not so much following Steven Bonderski's bishop, but the bishop of my own diocese, as our parish has similar First Reconciliation practices.

It's becoming very clear to me that following the correct path is going to be a difficult task. On the one side, there are the ultra-liberal Catholics who think that it is okay to ordain women priests. On the other side, there are the ultra-conservative Catholics who tell me that I'm a bad Catholic if I disagree with Pope John Paul II on the issue of married priests, but then in their next breath proceed to criticize the practice of girl alter servers.

I didn't mean to imply that the Roman curia must take action against the bishop, merely that in recent history they seem to have a very strong tendency to do so. Recall that this is more than the actions of just a single bishop; the practice of allowing Holy Communion prior to First Reconciliation is very widespread in the U.S., as can be seen by examining the web sites of various parishes. Also, this is more than the opinions of a few canon lawyers; at least one very influential published commentary on Canon Law endorses the bishop's interpretation. Additionally, there are at least two religious education videos (that I am aware of) for the parents of second-graders that explicitly state that First Reconciliation is not required prior to Holy Communion if no mortal sins have been committed.

As for the Bible, the law contained in Canon 988 is Biblical in origin, c.f. I Corinthians 11:27-32. However, the relevant portion of Canon 914 is disciplinary in nature, e.g., there was no such requirement in the 1917 Code of Canon Law. Thus, even assuming that one canon could trump another canon, it is inconceivable that a disciplinary rule would trump a Biblical principle.

In fact, the Catechism is the only Church standard that is troubling with regard to the bishop's interpretation. I don't claim to fully understand this conflict, but I must note that the Catechism was promulgated as a "sure norm for teaching the faith," not as a replacement for Canon Law in governing the operation of the Church, nor as tool to be used in second-guessing the actions of bishops.

But I do want to thank you for all that you've done to help me along my spiritual journey. I'm leaving on vacation for a week, but I will be sure to check back here when I return to see if anything else has developed.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), June 08, 2003.