To: The
Reverend Geoffrey Kerslake, Episcopal Vicar, Archdiocese of Ottawa
CC: The Most
Reverend Christian Riesbeck, CC, Auxiliary Bishop of Ottawa
Dear Fr.
Geoff,
Thank you for
your prompt reply. I believe it helped to clarify certain issues for me. As you
mentioned in your reply, “Ultimately the age is set at the discretion of the
local bishop listening to the experience
and advice of his advisors and parishioners.” In this light of this
observation and more generally in light of Canon 212, section 3, of the Code of
Canon Law regarding “the Christian faithful” (namely that “they have the
right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors
their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church”), I would like to take the opportunity to
share some of my experience and provide some feedback about how I have seen the
policy unfolding in practise.
First, I share
the bishops’ hope that young people – as well as people of all ages, especially
parents of young people – will be
more involved and committed in their faith. However, if the faith – and
specifically the sacramental theology – that we seem to be clearly taught in
the CCC has the appearance of contradicting
the faith which is embodied in policies/practises of the diocese, surely this
is rather alienating from an
integrated development of intellectual and practical faith and conducive to confusion, rather than greater
involvement and commitment.
Second, I can’t
help wondering: Is there is any real evidence that children who are confirmed
at a later age actually do end up more involved and committed in their faith?
(And if there is evidence for such a positive effect, then why not also (or
instead) delay the reception of First Communion to a later age?) I am convinced
that parental commitment is what principally makes a difference, and I assume
that parental commitment (or non-commitment) to the Catholic faith is not (certainly not directly) a function of the age at which their children receive the
various sacraments of initiation.
On the other
hand, regarding the need to catechise parents, I strongly agree with you about
this need. But again, the current age policy for First Communion and
Confirmation seems to contradict the plain meaning of CCC 1322, and so,
especially in the absence of any explanation of the point being provided from
the diocese/bishops, the policy would seem to actually make it more difficult
to provide clear catechesis to parents (and then to their children) on this
issue. I would add that even among the most highly motivated and committed
parents I know, who faithfully attend mass and try to live out the demands of
the gospel with joy and generosity, there is widespread confusion regarding the
nature of Confirmation – and I think this is not at all surprising given the
current lack of pastoral support for developing a sound, coherent understanding
of this sacrament (and again, one that coheres with the basic teaching we find
in the universal Catechism).
Last year I
volunteered in my parish to help with the Confirmation prep. The children were
given a series of frankly rather insipid worksheets to work through at home and
they attended a one-day retreat (at which I led one session). At the retreat I
was very impressed with how little the children knew – i.e., how little they
had learned and/or been taught - and how interested they were to learn, but I
can tell you with firm moral certainty that these sixth-graders are not being
well-prepared by such a process. If there is a genuine opportunity for more
developed preparation at the later age, then I think we are not currently
taking much advantage of this opportunity (at least not in our
diocesan-approved parish prep program).
In reality,
however, I think even ninth- or tenth-graders, let alone sixth-graders, based
on any program, no matter how well-conceived, are very unlikely to be at a
stage of maturity to take on an involvement and commitment to the Catholic
faith when this is contradicted by the typical non-involvement and lack of
commitment of their parents. I think it is common knowledge (and I believe this
has been confirmed by actual quantitative studies) that if, as seems to be the
norm, non-practising parents simply jump through whatever hoops the diocese or
parish requires of them, just so their kids can be confirmed, and then carry on
as before with no regular involvement in a life of faith and prayer and
communal participation in the life of the parish, their kids will very likely
do the same. So again, I am anxious to know if there is any substantive
evidence or any sound reason for thinking that the laudable pastoral objectives
you mentioned are actually being served by a blanket policy universally withholding the sacrament of
Confirmation from children who otherwise, in accordance with the basic and
universal doctrine and law of the Latin Rite Church, could and should be
receiving it (cf. CCC 1306-1308 and Canons 889-891 (without prejudice to the
authority of bishops’ conferences duly recognized in Canon 891, or to the de facto authority of local bishops
which you mentioned in your reply to my initial query)).
While I
understand it may be the common practice, I wonder what purpose is served by
having a policy which insists rather rigidly upon one common age/grade as the
norm for all children receiving the sacraments of initiation – especially when
the particular age/grade that is dictated by a given policy clearly does not
have any (direct) foundation in the universal doctrine and law of the Latin
Rite Church. Again, I do understand the doctrinal and canonical requirements
relating to having the use of reason and being appropriately instructed and
disposed. But assuming that such (universal, for the Latin Rite) canonical
requirements are fulfilled, what purpose is served by maintaining a rigid
diocesan policy which positively excludes
suitably instructed and disposed children from the grace of Confirmation for
four years? Setting aside debates about what the appropriate age/grade should
be for each sacrament, I understand that bishops might reasonably aim to
accomplish certain pastoral and/or administrative objectives by encouraging
non-practising Catholics to bring their children to receive the sacraments as a
matter of course, simply based on being in a particular grade in school (that
is, for Reconciliation, Confirmation, and First Communion). But regardless of
the need to consider these objectives and regardless of the effectiveness of
any given pastoral policy in achieving those objectives, I don’t understand the
purpose of a policy of positively
excluding (that is, for a period of four years) an otherwise doctrinally
and canonically licit reception of some sacrament, which exclusion, in the
absence of any substantive reasons in its favour, would seem to me to verge on
impinging on the canonical right of the Christian faithful “to receive
assistance from the sacred pastors out of the spiritual goods of the Church,
especially the word of God and the sacraments” (Canon 213).
Finally,
regarding the situation you mentioned of dividing families where kids went to
both English and French schools: Wouldn’t an easy solution to this problem be
to run the program through the parishes, not the schools? In any case, I would
again wonder here: Is there any vital objective being served by insisting on a
rigid, one-size-fits-all policy? It seems clear that there are not currently
any kind of rigorous checks in place to ensure that candidates for confirmation
are actually well-prepared and well-disposed to receive confirmation, so it
seems that providing alternate avenues for prep within parishes and/or families
–especially for families who are committed and involved in parish life – would both
be easy to do, and such a provision would clearly not compromise any existing
‘quality-control’ measures.
Returning to
our own immediate situation with our son, first, to be perfectly clear, our son
is at the standard age of reason (or discretion): seven years old (and soon to
turn eight). We are in no way inquiring about Confirmation for an infant. I
mentioned the views of two of the (Latin Rite) priests of this diocese on
infant Confirmation purely as an aside. I just thought it was interesting that
they held this view (it rather surprised me). I did not intend to raise any
concerns about the long-established practise of the Latin Church in requiring,
in normal circumstances, that those receiving Confirmation and Holy Communion “have
the use of reason.”
Second, I
understand what you explained about the Catechism and the competence of the
local ordinary to implement local policies. I also fully understand that
various practical circumstances arise such that Confirmation (along with other
sacraments, not to mention other spiritual or physical goods) is not always
available to all people with equal facility and regularity.
The particular
issue regarding which I am (still) inquiring, however, is that it remains the
case, prima facie at least, that a
plain contradiction arises when over a period of four years a child’s Christian
initiation would seem to be both complete and incomplete, since he receives
Holy Communion (which is supposed to constitute the completion of Christian initiation) without having been Confirmed
(which entails that their Christian initiation is incomplete). I assume, then, that in relation to the propositions
from the Catechism about Confirmation and Holy Eucharist which come into
tension as a result of this local (albeit widespread) policy/practise – namely,
of first having First Communion, then a delay of some years prior to
Confirmation –, the proposition that Christian
initiation is not complete without Confirmation (CCC 1306) is not in
question. Instead, it is the doctrine that “the Holy Eucharist completes
Christian initiation” (CCC 1322) that is effectively being abrogated by the
current policy of our diocese (and, as you mentioned, most Canadian dioceses).
If this is
correct, then from a theological perspective
(as opposed to a pastoral
perspective, regarding which I have already mentioned some of my concerns, or a
perspective which simply invokes the authority of local bishops to make local
policies) I can’t see how the usual policy of Canadian bishops constitutes a
genuine implementation of this
theological claim (as you put it), since an abrogation
(or ignoring) seems to be quite different
from an implementation. Obviously “implementation”
implies a particular mode of fulfilling
some general principle, not simply a setting
aside, so what I am trying to understand is how this policy can be
understood to constitute a fulfillment,
rather than a setting aside, of the
theological claim that “the Holy Eucharist completes Christian initiation.” As
a means of pastoral support to
parents who take seriously their duty to give their children a sound formation
in the principal and most necessary elements of Christian doctrine, I would suggest
that the diocese would do well to make information about this confusing subject
generally available to parents (i.e., those who are charged with being the
primary educators of their children). I’ll mention that the link to the “Revised
policy on the sacrament of confirmation” on the diocesan chancery website is
still broken.
Thank you
again for your initial prompt response and your ongoing attention to our concerns.
Yours in
Christ,
...
No comments:
Post a Comment