CHT to the reader who sent a link to a story which says:
The pastor of a Staten Island Catholic church is playing holy hardball – kicking hundreds of kids out of religious ed classes because their families aren’t showing up at Mass.
The Rev. Michael Cichon, pastor of St. Joseph/St. Thomas in Pleasant Plains, used each family’s bar-coded donation envelope to track attendance.
He’s tossed about 300 kids from classes and told them not to reapply until next April.
Without the classes, children cannot receive the sacraments, meaning some youngsters who thought they’d be making their First Communion next year will have to wait.
The suspensions,
legalFLAGRANTLY ILLEGAL under churchdoctrinelaw, were a shock to many parents with kids enrolled in the 1,400-child program, which caters to kids who don’t attend Catholic schools.
Assuming this story is correct, the pastor of the parish in question is violating the fundamental ecclesiastical rights of the children, as well as causing public scandal by misrepresenting the position of the Church on this matter.
While it is true that folks are gravely obliged to go to Mass unless a justifying cause exists, what this pastor is doing is totally contrary to the Church’s law.
Witness . . .
Can. 213 The Christian faithful have the right to receive assistance from the sacred pastors out of the spiritual goods of the Church, especially the word of God and the sacraments.
Okay, now right there that makes this a matter of an ecclesiastical right. The kiddos have to receive from the sacred pastors (most particularly their pastor) goods from among the spiritual goods of the Church, "especially . . . the sacraments."
A pastor is not at liberty to deny or impede anyone’s access to the sacraments except in keeping with the law.
Want proof?
Can. 843 §1. Sacred ministers cannot deny the sacraments to those who seek them at appropriate times, are properly disposed, and are not prohibited by law from receiving them.
So unless the pastor has something in the law that would bar the child from the sacraments, he can’t deny them access.
This applies most especially to the Eucharist, for the Code devotes an additional canon to hammering home point that:
Can. 912 Any baptized person not prohibited by law can and must be admitted to holy Communion.
Is there anything in the law that would allow him to deny the kids the Eucharist? Well, there’s this:
Can. 913 §1. The administration of the Most Holy Eucharist to children
requires that they have sufficient knowledge and careful preparation so
that they understand the mystery of Christ according to their capacity
and are able to receive the body of Christ with faith and devotion.
If the kids don’t have sufficient knowledge and careful preparation then they can’t receive the Eucharist. What the offending priest is doing is trying to keep them from gaining sufficient knowledge and careful preparation by barring them from the catechetical courses they were attending in order to acquire these things.
What law is the priest offending against by barring the children from attending these courses? This one:
Can. 843 §2. Pastors of souls and other members of the Christian faithful, according to their respective ecclesiastical function, have the duty to take care that those who seek the sacraments are prepared to receive them by proper evangelization and catechetical instruction, attentive to the norms issued by competent authority.
He thus has the "duty to take care that those who seek the sacraments"–that’s the kids, folks–"are prepared to receive them by proper evangelization and catechetical instruction." The kids are willing to take the instruction. It’s the pastor who’s refusing to offer it. He is thus in violation of his duty under canon 843.
There’s also a rights issue here as well, because:
Can. 217 Since they are called by baptism to lead a life in keeping with the teaching of the gospel, the Christian faithful have the right to a Christian education by which they are to be instructed properly to strive for the maturity of the human person and at the same time to know and live the mystery of salvation.
The pastor is thus not only falling down on his duty to educate the kids under 843. He’s also violating the kids’ right to an education in how to live the mystery of salvation (e.g., by receiving the sacraments) under 217.
But wait! He’s only booted them out for this year. Can it be argued that he’s just delaying their education rather than prohibiting it to them? There are several responses to this:
- The course of action he has undertaken may well lead to the kids never receiving the education that is their right because the pastor may so offend their parents that they stop taking their kids to church at all and cease practicing the faith.
- There is still nothing in the law (more on this below) that allows a pastor to punish children by denying them their right to sacramental catechesis because their parents don’t go to Mass or don’t take them to Mass. Consequently, what if the parents dug in their heels and said: "I’m still not going to Mass next year either. You either let my kid back into this class or you don’t." The parents could continue that pattern of behavior indefinitely, and either the pastor concedes at some point that he doesn’t have the authority to punish the children in this way or he continues his refusal to catechize them indefinitely, in which case their sacramental education is not just delayed but is ultimately denied.
- The Church has established a timeframe for when this sacramental education is supposed to happen. To wit:
Can. 914 It is primarily the duty of parents and those who take the place of parents, as well as the duty of pastors, to take care that children who have reached the use of reason are prepared properly and, after they have made sacramental confession, are refreshed with this divine food as soon as possible. It is for the pastor to exercise vigilance so that children who have not attained the use of reason or whom he judges are not sufficiently disposed do not approach holy Communion.
It is thus the duty of the pastor to see that, once the children reach the age of reason that they make their first holy Communion "as soon as possible." He’s falling down on that duty because, as we have seen he is delaying the children’s sacramental education by at least a year (possibly indefinitely) by imposing a requirement not found in the law that their parents attend Mass. Such a delay is inconsistent with the duty to make sure they receive Communion "as soon as possible."
You can’t punish the children for what their parents don’t do. This is contrary to the first principles of justice. Neither can you punish the children even if the parents fail to take them to Mass. Why? Because Church law expressly envisions cases in which it is not possible for someone to attend Mass:
Can 1248 §2. If participation in the eucharistic celebration
becomes impossible because of the absence of a sacred minister or for another
grave cause, it is strongly recommended that the faithful take part in a
liturgy of the word if such a liturgy is celebrated in a parish church or other
sacred place according to the prescripts of the diocesan bishop or that they
devote themselves to prayer for a suitable time alone, as a family, or, as the
occasion permits, in groups of families.
Now, hi-ho Sunshine! "I’m seven years old and there isn’t a parish on my corner and I can’t drive a car and my parents won’t take me" is a grave cause for missing Mass! For that matter, "I’m seven and my parents insist that I stay with them and they won’t go to Mass" is a grave cause!
The Church in that case recommends various alternatives to the child (the most practical one–in the absence of the ability to drive a car–is spending some personal time praying on Sunday), but these are recommendations rather than mandates, and in no case does it say that you can deny a kid’s right to sacramental catechesis and subsequent admission to the Eucharist on these grounds.
How do we know that the kid can’t be disqualified on these grounds?
Can. 10 Only
those laws must be considered invalidating or disqualifying which expressly
establish that an act is null or that a person is affected.
Since the law doesn’t say that the kids are disqualified, they ain’t.
Is there any doubt about this? NO!
Can. 18 Laws which
establish a penalty, restrict the free exercise of rights, or contain an
exception from the law are subject to strict interpretation.
Since the children have a right to sacramental education and
subsequently to the reception of the Eucharist, any restriction the
pastor wishes to place on the exercise of those rights must be subject
to strict interpretation.
As the green CLSA commentary notes: "Strict interpretation limits the law’s application to the minimum stated in the law" (p. 75). Since it is not stated in the law that the pastor can delay or deny children’s rights on the basis that their parents don’t go to Mass or won’t take their children to Mass, he cannot deny their rights on these grounds.
What the pastor is doing–however well motivated he may be in trying to encourage parents to take their kids (and themselves) to Mass–is not permitted under Church law. It is a violation of the childrens’ fundamental rights to receive the sacramental education needed to receive the Eucharist in a timely manner.
Incidentally, the green CLSA commentary happens to note regarding canon 18:
[A]ll the faithful have a right to receive Holy Communion (cc. 213, 912). To restrict this right, there must be a clear basis in the law, or the right is unlawfully denied. Thus, pastors are not free to extend to parents the requirements of preparation of children for the sacrament (c. 913, §1), and unlawfully deny the sacrament to children whose parents do not participate (p. 76).
What the pastor in New York is doing is worse than the case just envisioned. He is not merely telling the parents "Y’all go catechize these kids; I’m not gonna do it." So far as can be determined from the article, he’s letting neither the parents catechize their kids nor is he allowing them to receive catechesis at the parish.
If the article is right (and one must always leave the possibility that the press has, once again, got it wrong) then what he’s doing to these children is simply unlawful.
Yes, their parents should take them to Mass, but no, you can’t punish them by interfering with their rights to catechesis and the Eucharist if they don’t.
Jimmy,
Can you point out what the catechism or the code of canon law say about the requirements for Confirmation? What level of knowledge is required? Do you have to be free from mortal sin to receive the sacrament?
My dad had a brief stint as a CCD teacher years ago, teaching the grade 7 confimation class. When none of the students knew what the Trinity was, he was shocked but began to teach them. The preist at the parish booted him out after parents complained that he was confusing the children.
Thank you, Jimmy. This has already been hashed out on Open Book and an amazing number of people expressed the opinion that it was OK to deprive these children of the Sacraments because of their parents’ failings.
I don’t know the answer to the problem of non-attendance at Mass, but I’m sure this isn’t it.
Jimmy;
You’re right on this one (as usual). The Priest went WAY overboard.
But the Priest SHOULD revoke any “in Parish” reduced tutitions. Required weekly attendance is quite common. The envelope goes in the basket, you’ve complied. I know of no church that requires any amount to be IN the envelope. The priests want the family in church. I have no problems with some (any) pressure being brought to bear.
Do you have any suggestions for Parishes in similar situations?
It is shocking, at times, what kids (and adults) don’t know about their faith. I think this has driven some well-intentioned bishops and parish priests to try to rectify the situation by imposing unreasonable attendance requirements on kids and adults in a “carrot and stick” approach to receiving the sacraments.
In our dicese my son and other kids his age are required to attend classes for TWO YEARS in preparation for confirmation. If they miss more than a few classes (or service projects) they are barred from being confirmed until at least the next year.
Well, the bishop has a problem. But is usually a “better” problem to have to pull back on the reins than to use the spurs.
In our parish (same diocese as in the story), our pastor makes envelopes a requirement to using the school or church hall. If you don’t use the envelope, you can’t register your child. But afaik, there has never been a case of being kicked out once you are there.
I too was shocked at how many people on Open Book didn’t see this violation of canon law for what it was.
Thank you very much, Jimmy.
I was confused when the article said that the actions were legal “under Church doctrine.” I didn’t know what the writer was talking about!
Why is it then okay to refuse baptism to the child of parents who have no intention of raising the child in the faith?
Is attending mass not considered a part of religious formation? Last I checked, skipping mass which the children even prior to first communion are required to attend is a grave sin. (Their culpability is another issue.) I don’t think your case is as tight as you make it Jimmy.
Sending your kids to catechism is at least SOMETHING. I think you’d only get baptism refused if you told the priest you planned to do nothing at all, or teach the child some other religion.
A question for Jimmy:
Is the pastor violating the Canon Law you cite if his intention is merely to DELAY by one year the reception of first Communion of the children?
I agree that the pastor’s decision is not a good one. I’m just not entirely persuaded that this is a clear-cut violation of Canon Law. It certainly would be if the pastor said “I’m not going to allow these children Communion until their parents start attending Church regularly”. But if this is merely a one-year delay of first communion, intended as a “wake up call” to the parents, he is not denying the Children the rights that they have under Church Law. But I may very well be wrong.
Why is it then okay to refuse baptism to the child of parents who have no intention of raising the child in the faith?
Whoa!! Who said that was ok?
rp, I know a priest who delayed a class for a year. He was new to his parish and he discovered the kids didn’t know any of their faith and rarely went to church. But in that case, he did exactly that. He delayed the kids, didn’t kick them out. He went to each home and talked with the parents about the importance of proper formation including going to church and then devoted a year to teaching these specific children on a regular basis. A year later, they were all properly prepared, and a lot of parents had come back to the faith through their children’s experience.
Would this be legitimate if the reason behind it is that there are only so many spots in the program, and the pastor wants to make sure that first choice goes to those kids whose families actually attend mass at that parish?
“Why is it then okay to refuse baptism to the child of parents who have no intention of raising the child in the faith?”
Very good point. I hope that Jimmy is able to answer this one.
“Whoa!! Who said that was ok?”
There is a requirement in Church law that there be a well founded hope that the child be brought up in the Catholic faith. Though of course in some unusual cases an uncle or grandmother who is a practicing Catholic may be the basis for this well founded hope, the fact remains that in other cases, in the absence of such an alternative basis, that the unwillingness of the parents to raise their child Catholic will prevent the child from being baptized.
Brandon raises an interesting question. The “Instruction on Infant Baptism” of the SCDF in 1980 said this:
28. In the first place, it is important to recall that the Baptism of infants must be considered a serious duty. The questions which it poses to pastors can be settled only by faithful attention to the teaching and constant practice of the Church.
Concretely, pastoral practice regarding infant Baptism must be governed by two great principles, the second of which is subordinate to the first.
1) Baptism, which is necessary for salvation, is the sign and the means of God’s prevenient love, which frees us from original sin and communicates to us a share in divine life. Considered in itself, the gift of these blessings to infants must not be delayed.
2) Assurances must be given that the gift thus granted can grow by an authentic education in the faith and Christian life, in order to fulfill the true meaning of the sacrament.[37] As a rule, these assurances are to be given by the parents or close relatives, although various substitutions are possible within the Christian community. But if these assurances are not really serious there can be grounds for delaying the sacrament; and if they are certainly non-existent the sacrament should even be refused.
As for the current “problem” of the “booting of the kids” from catechism classes because of the parents, I suspect that the pastor had this in mind and applied it in a different arena. Don’t blame him. In most seminaries the study of Canon Law is mostly limited to the Canons on Marriage and Annulments and the like and most younger seminarians and clergy today are so wrapped up in the liturgical canons, norms, etc, they don’t read anything else!
Offered for what it’s worth!
I do think Prester John, BillyHW and vinegar raise an interesting question. How can the specific requirements for Baptism be squared with Jimmy’s interpretation of canon law? And isn’t it at least reasonable for a pastor to conclude that the absence of Mass attendance is simply incompatable with “sufficient knowledge and careful preparation”? I have a hunch that these kids and their parents were warned of the importance of Mass (last I checked missing Mass without good reason was a mortal sin) and they obviously didn’t care. It’s not like the pastor remotely demanded 100% perfection.
I’m not sure that the pastor made the right decision here, but I find the assertion that he broke canon law unconvincing.
Prester, one of the differences between baptism and first communion is that in the latter, one is already dealing with members of the Faithful, who have specific rights from their baptism.
Prester, one of the differences between baptism and first communion is that in the latter, one is already dealing with members of the Faithful, who have specific rights from their baptism.
You mean like the faithful atheists who were confirmed right alongside me?
Jimmy is wrong and misleading. If the parents don’t bring their kids to church and that “constitutes a grave cause for not attending mass” because the parents refuse to bring them, how then are the children expected to get to RE? Maybe the good Pastor should send a bus to pick up little Gino.
Come on Jimmy, your off your rocker!
Jimmy,
Re: Rev Cichon of Staten Island and the RE program.
The parents admit that they haven’t been attending mass. Read the article in the Staten Island Advance. So that said, it is not a question of where they are fulfilling their obligations or that it can’t be proven that they haven’t been attending mass. They simply are not attending mass.
I lived near this affluent community for most of my life and I can tell you that many of the parents want their children to attend RE and make their 1st communion so that the parents can put on a celebration that people in other parts of the country would think is a wedding. The children will arrive at the church in limousines. The boys will be in tuxedos and the girls will be in dresses that cost nearly $1,000. The parents will reserve a catering hall with hundreds of guests at $150 per plate. Family and business associates will be expected to attend and bring an envelope ($) for little Gino’s gift bag.
These culture catholics are spoiled, arrogant, self centered morons who have absolutely no understanding of catholic doctrine. The sacraments mean nothing to them.
Furthermore, Rev Cichons actions are not a violation of Canon Law. His actions are in support of Canon Law and the Doctrine of the Catholic Faith.
Get it straight man. You owe your readers a retraction and the good Rev., an apology.
Paul D’Alessio
Meridian, Idaho
Here I am again… with apologies… but I did some “googling” and here are some other relevant quotes from the Code of Canon Law of 1983 in regard to the rights and responsibilities of parents as the first or primary teachers of their children. Before those… one can’t help but wonder if perhaps these parents aren’t doing what so many do in expecting the “school” to not only teach “3 R’s” but also provide for the nourishment, socialization, psychological counseling and health care of the children so that some at least of today’s kids hardly do more than sleep at home — when they do? Is Father perhaps putting the monkey back on the right backs for the education of children? Hmmmm.
Some canons of the law:
Canon 226.2 “Because they have given life to their children, parents have a most serious obligation and enjoy the right to educate them; therefore Christian parents are especially to care for the Christian education of their children according to the teaching handed down by the Church.”
Canon 774.2 affirms, “Before all others, parents are bound by the obligation of forming their children in the practice of Christian life…”
Canon 793.1 “Parents and those who hold their place (e.g., adoptive parents or guardians) are bound by the obligation and enjoy the right of educating their children.”
This canon also clarifies that “…it is explicitly recognized that their [the parents] right extends to the choice of means and institutes which they prudently determine as being most suitable.”
Canon 798. “Parents are to entrust their children to those schools in which Catholic education is provided; but if they are unable to do this, they are bound to provide for their suitable Catholic education outside the schools.”
Can. 1134 “From a valid marriage there arises between the spouses a bond which of its own nature is permanent and exclusive. Moreover, in Christian marriage the spouses are by a special sacrament strengthened and, as it were, consecrated for the duties and the dignity of their state.”
Canon 1136. “Parents have the most serious duty and the primary right to do all in their power to see to the physical, social, cultural, moral, and religious upbringing of their children.”
Prester John: The question is not whether the pastor is correct to encourage the parents to take the kids to Mass. Of course he is. This is an important part of being Catholic and the parents have a duty to make sure it happens.
The question is whether the priest is within his rights to obstruct the rights of the children on account of the fact that the parents aren’t doing this. He is absolutely not.
This isn’t an ends question (“Putting a monkey on the backs of the people” who need to do the educating) it’s an ends question (violating the rights of the children for the *presumed* sins of the parents).
Paul D’Alessio:
First, your momma should have taught you some manners. Please use them.
Second, your critique of New York Catholic culture is as may be (or not). It has nothing to do with the law. Whatever cultural sins the parents may be guilty of (throwing lavish First Communion parties) is not relevant to the children’s ability to exercise their rights.
Third, you are incorrect that regular Mass attendance is necessary for the kind of religious education mandated by the Code of Canon Law. You do not need to attend Mass every week in order to be able to appreciate and receive the Eucharist with reverence.
If you parents don’t take you–even if they set a scandalously bad example for you–it does not stop you from recognizing and worshipping Jesus in the Eucharist or from knowing the basics of the Catholic faith or even from knowing the basics of the Mass, as you presumably would be taught these and you would have at least *some* experience of seeing them in practice.
Canon 18 is clear that when applying a law that involves the prohibition of the exercise of a right, it must be given a strict interpretation, meaning the minimum stated by the law. You are proposing a different and broader standard be applied here since there is nothing in the Eucharistic preparation canon about attending Mass each week–much less attending it at a particular parish.
This broader interpretation of the preparation canon is ruled out by canon 18. The pastor is simply violating the rights of the children.
Jimmy,
Do you really believe that you are sufficiently informed on the specifics of this matter to make such an unequivocal determination of the priests guilt?
Have you communicated with the Pastor to determine what exactly he has done? Or with the parents of the children?
I’m just wondering, because I didn’t realize that “Canon Law” provided for such judgements as you have made.
Regarding some of your points specifically.
Canon 213: The spiritual goods of the church to which they are entitled are all available to them at mass. It does not say they are entitled to spiritual goods in the form of regular religious education classes.
Canon 843: You conveniently ignore the “proper disposition” which would include regular mass attendance.
Canon 912: There is no evidence that anyone is being denied Holy Communion.
Canon 913: The fact that they do not attend regular mass is proof that they do not have careful preparation.
Since you seem to lean heavily on the assumption that much of the detriment here is sacramental preparation, which I don’t believe it is all about, what would you have him do?
Should he acknowledge their right to attend the classes and ignore that their mass attendence is insufficient to qualify them for receiving the sacrament due to proper disposition, and careful preparation?
I find it hard to believe that these children are being held hostage on Sunday and not able to go to Mass. I would think a simple, “Mom, can we go to Mass?” would have had positive results.
It certainly seems odd to admit someone to Holy Communion who is not attending Mass weekly. Seems like part of the proper preparation would be for the potential communicant to understand the importance of Sunday Mass.
Don’t forget there are a lot of mixed marriages out there where a spouse hostile to the church can be a serious obstacle to Mass attendance.
It also requires great diplomacy on the part of the catechism teacher to convey how important attendance is without coming across as critical of the parents.
Additionally, once they have received their first holy communion, returning to the church as an adult requires only going to confession, whereas if they drift away never having received this sacrament they must attend RCIA (which I need not mention can be really lousy and time consuming.) This was the approach our pastor took when I was teaching CCD. It was frustrating at the time because it was difficult to prepare the children, but I have come to agree with this approach.
Let the children come to Him. Sometimes, the parents will follow. This is true even for Baptism. A while back JPII chastised the German bishops for putting the parents through too many hoops for their children to be baptized which is God’s free gift to the child.
Idaho Falls Post Register Newspaper
Idaho post falls idaho newspaper . Idaho Mountain Express N