In regards to my two previous posts on this site, I have received a response from the bishop in my area concerning children receving communion before the sacrament of pennance. I hope those who are members of this parish will take the time to question the pastor. For those wishing their children to make their first confession before communion, I will hope you will stand up and make yourselves heard! Here then is the contents of the bishops letter-

"Dear Mr. Bonderski: I received your recent letter concerning your niece's First Communion at St. Mary in Plainfield. I am forwarding your letter to the pastor of St. Mary.

It is my understanding that St. Mary provides an opportunity for those who wish to receive the Sacrament of Reconciliation before First Communion. The citation in the Catechism refers to Canon 914. Canonists and moral theologians, howeer, agree that the Sacrament of Reconciliation is mandatory only for those who are aware that they have committed mortal sin. Because of that, there is some ambiguity about the necessity of every child having to receive First Reconciliation before First Holy Communion.

In any case, I am grateful for your letter and I will see that it is sent on to the pastor."

In my opinion, theologians and canonists can debate various issues all they want, but when the Holy Father or the magisterium has spoken definitively, then the matter is closed and no longer open to discussion. Let me know what YOU think, and look forward to your responses. Thanks for all your encouragement!!!!

-- Steven Bonderski (saturn3579@earthlink.net), October 27, 2001

Answers

I find the response interesting. How is it that the children are offered the "opportunity for those who wish to receive the Sacrament of Reconciliation before First Communion." If no preparation for First Reconciliation is provided until later?

"Canonists and moral theologians, however, agree that the Sacrament of Reconciliation is mandatory only for those who are aware that they have committed mortal sin."

I agree with this AFTER their First reconciliation. I feel that every child receiving Confirmation should be encouraged and provided with the opportunity for Confession prior to Confirmation but cannot be required to go to Confession.

-- Br. Rich SFO (repsfo@prodigy.net), October 27, 2001.

Steven, your Bishop, as the Popes representative in your diocese, is in charge of making those decisions locally that affect faith and morals for his flock. He has stated, “Canonists and moral theologians however, agree that the Sacrament of Reconciliation is mandatory only for those who are aware that they have committed mortal sin. Because of that, there is some ambiguity about the necessity of every child having to receive First Reconciliation before First Holy Communion.” I wonder what part of Canon 914 he finds ambiguous?

Canon 914 reads as follows: “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.”

I tend to agree with Br. Rich. The Bishops comments are indeed puzzling. I guess the Bishop is suggesting here that there are children who have reached the age of reason and who are not aware of ever having committed a mortal sin and therefore not in need of Confession but at the same time, qualify to receive First Communion. I suppose this could happen. After all, we are dealing with 7 & 8 yr. olds. What serious mortal sin could most of them knowingly commit? However, with all due respect, the Bishop seems to have overlooked other benefits derived from the Sacrament of Confession - the grace that it brings the penitent, the newfound availability of Indulgences for the penitent etc. In his wisdom however, he has recognized that concerned parents have the option of seeking confession for their children on an individual basis. Were it me, I would wholeheartedly seek out the priest for the sacrament of confession for my child for the other beneficial reasons I have outlined.

Peace!

Ed

-- Ed Lauzon (grader@accglobal.net), October 29, 2001.

Jmj

Hello, friends.
This is the third recent thread on this subject. Very interesting. Also, I received a private e-mail note asking me to elaborate on some of things involved here. I thought it might be helpful to reproduce part of my reply now. [Please note that it is written with the understanding that the abuse is occurring at the parish level, and the bishop has not yet been contacted.]

The proper procedure for you to use in handling a problem of this kind, according to Church law (based on the gospel of St. Matthew), is the following:

(1) Do your best privately to convince your pastor that the implemented change was contrary to the Church's law. I hope that you have a computer printer (or access to one), so that you can print the earlier thread. You can clip out, and show to your pastor, the three quotations that should be persuasive to any Catholic, lay or clergy:
(a) the Catechism stating that "[c]hildren must go to the sacrament of Penance before receiving Holy Communion for the first time";
(b) Canon Law stating that "children ..., having made their sacramental confession, are nourished by this divine food"; and
(c) the 1973 document stating that "experiments [placing Communion before Confession] must have an end put to them ... and, for the future, [the traditional sequence] must be obeyed everywhere and by all."
You can tell your pastor that you are convinced that he is making an error that goes against Church law and that it is necessary that the error be undone, for the sake of the children and to show good example (obedience) to the pope.

(2) If your pastor is unwilling to correct his mistake, then you need to find one or two other parishioners who will join you in approaching the pastor to urge him to make the correction. If you yourself don't have a young child, the best kind of parishioner for you to find as a companion in approaching the pastor is the parent of a child who will be receiving First Communion in the Spring.

(3) If your pastor is still unwilling to correct his mistake, then you have the right to approach the bishop. You and your companion(s) could write to him or try to meet with him to discuss the situation. After explaining the situation and showing the bishop the three Vatican quotations, he has a duty to respond to you. We can hope that the bishop would correct your pastor's error.

(4) But if the bishop says that the pastor was doing something acceptable and/or that he was following the bishop's orders, you will have a difficult decision to make. It seems that you would have three choices:
(a) You could decide to silently bear the pain of the abuse and do nothing further. I don't recommend this, because the whole parish would be left believing that the pastor is doing the right thing.
(b) You could contact the St. Joseph Foundation to obtain their advice about seeking to vindicate your rights under Canon Law. They are expert canon lawyers who help people to contact the Vatican about errors made by bishops, so that they can be corrected. I believe that the Foundation has already been involved in Confession/Communion cases, so they would know exactly what you can and cannot do. [I have been reading the Foundation's newsletter for more than ten years, so I know about the sad fact that the law is sometimes misunderstood by, or even deliberately broken by, bishops, who (on rare occasions) have to suffer the consequences of being overruled by the Vatican.]
(c) You could find an obedient, orthodox priest [it may have to be in a neighboring diocese] who would lend a sympathetic ear and -- prior to the day of First Communion -- would hear the First Confessions of children who have been properly prepared by their parents.

It is true that this is not a matter of unchangeable doctrine (faith or morals), but rather a changeable "discipline" of the Church. [For example, did you know that a Catholic baby in a Byzantine rite church receives Baptism, Confirmation, and First Communion on the same day -- as an infant? A Byzantine Catholic's First Confession comes much later!] And it is true that many disciplinary matters are open to interpretation and "dispensation" or "commutation" by a Latin Rite bishop.

But I think that we can safely say that we are discussing a case of a discipline that only the pope can change. That seems clear to me from (1) the firmness of the language in the documents, (2) the fact that it is repeated in three different kinds of documents in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s, and (3) the dramatic fact that it is mentioned in the Catechism itself (which is normally for doctrine only, not for disciplines). [There is a canon in the Law (#988) that says that Confession is required only after mortal sin. That is the law, not just an "agreement" of "canonists and moral theologians," as Steven's bishop stated. However, the bishop should have realized that Canon 914, the Catechism reference, etc., act to supersede Canon 988 with respect to first Confession.]

God bless you.
John
PS: I probably shouldn't go off on this tangent, Ed, but I found something you wrote intriguing: "[Y[our Bishop [is] the Pope's representative in your diocese ..."
My belief has always been that the first bishops, the Apostles, are not considered (neither by Jesus nor by us) as St. Peter's "representatives." My understanding is that such a perception and practice (bishops as papal legates/deputies) evolved over the course of centuries, and that a great effort was made to correct it at Vatican II. Popes John and Paul wanted to stress the collegiality of the bishops, their role as successors of the Apostles, as (small "p") pontiffs, each with his own high degree of teaching, sanctifying, and governing authority (not derived from papal powers, but from Christ himself). Popes Paul and John Paul have given great deference to the world's bishops, not treating them as their "representatives" whose every action is micro-managed and corrected. On the other hand, the pope is the visible universal shepherd who appoints the bishops and with whom the bishops must remain in union in matters of faith and morals. It's interesting to read about this delicate balance in the roles of the pope and bishops in Vatican II's Decree Concerning the Pastoral Office of Bishops in the Church (Pastor Dominus).

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), October 30, 2001.