Sacraments – Page 10

Valid Protestant Eucharists

A piece back I noted that Protestant churches"apart from very exceptional circumstances, do not have the Real Presence when they celebrate the Lord’s Supper.”

Following which, a reader wrotes:

What are these circumstances?

The big problem keeping most Protestant Eucharists from being valid is the absence of a valid, sacramental priesthood in Protestant circles due to the fact that at the time of the Reformation all of the Protestant denominations failed to preserve the sacrament of holy orders, either altogether or in a valid form.

In rare cases, however, a Protestant minister may have a valid priestly ordination. There are basically two ways this can happen:

He was ordained as a priest in a non-Protestant church, such as the Catholic Church or one of the Eastern Orthodox churches. Sometimes priests of these churches may become Protestant, in which case their priestly ordination remains valid.
The Protestant denomination itself may have acquired valid holy orders, as appears to be the case with the Charistmatic Episcopal Church, which obtained holy orders from a Brazilian schismatic group that split off from the Catholic Church.

Thus there may be lone individual ministers (as in case 1) in Protestant churches who have the power to consecrate the Eucharist or, in at least one case, an entire Protestant denomination that has it.

In addition to this basic requirement, the usual conditions of using the proper matter and form and having the proper intent also must be fulfilled for a valid consecration of the Eucharist.

Married At The Rehersal?

A reader writes:

I have just a quick question about marriage. I was recently married in the Catholic Church (both my wife and I are strong, faithful Catholics). During the rehearsal, the deacon forgot to mention to us to not recite the vows he was saying because it was just a rehearsal. He wanted us to hear them but not recite them. So, we repeated what he said during the rehearsal. My question is this: does this mean that we were married, in the eyes of God, that night instead of the following day during the wedding mass?

No, you were married the following day. Here’s why.

The Code of Canon Law provides:

Canon 1108

§1. Only those marriages are valid which are contracted before the local ordinary, pastor, or a priest or deacon delegated by either of them, who assist, and before two witnesses according to the rules expressed in the following canons and without prejudice to the exceptions mentioned in cann. 144, 1112, §1, 1116, and 1127, §§1-2.

§2. The person who assists at a marriage is understood to be only that person who [a] is present, [b] asks for the manifestation of the consent of the contracting parties, and [c] receives it in the name of the Church.

The deacon in question may have [a] been present and may have asked you to repeat the vows after him, but since the context was a wedding rehersal he was not [b] genuinely asking for the two of you to manifest matrimonial consent there on the spot, nor did he [c] receive this consent in the name of the Church. Y’all may have gone through all the motions of a wedding, but you were in rehersal mode, not actual performance mode.

Even if the two of you were attempting to exchange matrimonial consent at the time, the deacon had not genuinely asked for it nor did he genuinely receive it. As a result, the Catholic form of marriage was not observed (because of the deacon’s attitude of mind at the time) at this ceremony and so the marriage would be null on defect of form grounds–and that’s assuming that a rehersal ceremony could even be counted as a ceremony to begin with.

The situation is analogous to performing a baptism as part of a stage play. All the right words and actions may be said and done, ane even said and done by people capable of performing and receiving baptism, but without the requisite intent the sacrament is not performed.

In the case of your rehersal ceremony the deacon (at least) lacked the intent needed to do his role as required by canon law. He was acting in the capacity of a wedding reherser, not a wedding officiant. Form was thus not satisfied.

Congrats on your recent marriage, though!

Reception of the Eucharist

A reader writes:

I am a Cradle Catholic who was married at a young age and divorced against my will two to three years later. He was an unbaptized person but we were married in the Catholic Church.

Allow me to intrrupt for a moment to note that this marriage is presumed valid until such time as it might be annulled. The brevity of the marriage is not itself a sufficient sign that the marriage was invalid from the beginning, but it may possibly be revealing of an underlying problem that was sufficient to invalidate the marriage at the time it was attempted. You may wish to investigate the possibility of an annulment for this marriage.

I was devastated and stopped practicing the Catholic faith…mostly because I felt unwelcome in the Church (my perception and not necessarily the truth but I was young). I eventually was received into another church.

Twelve years ago I married another Cradle Catholic, divorced, who had not been married in the Church or before a minister. Ten years ago, the grace of God lead me to a strong reconversion to my Catholic faith and have been practicing faithfully and raising our son in the faith. I now relate more to the faith of a convert. I never received the Eucharist out of respect for Church Law.

Praise God for your reversion and your desire to live in a way pleasing to God that is respectful of the Church’s law!

About 4 years ago I sought priestly counseling because I was very confused about how my marriage was making me feel in the context of my evergrowing faith. My husband is agnostic but does not fight me and supports our parish and my raising our son in the faith.

Again, more to be thankful for.

In addition he is in an advanced stage of Parkinson’s, partially paralyzed now from a surgery and cognatively compromised at times.

I am very sorry to hear this and will pray for him. I encourage others to do so as well.

I am living a celibate life.

Permit me to make a minor terminology clarification. Properly speaking, celibacy is the unmarried state. You mean that you are living continently. Sorry if this seems nit-picky, but I have a bugaboo about this.

The lack of being able to share our faith and relate together to living the Cross has been an increasing sorrow to me over the years and If I had the faith then that I have now I would never have been able to date or marry him without sharing the most important thing in my life.

I understand entirely.

On the other hand I truly believe that God is taking care of him by having him with me — I could never leave him alone at this stage of his life. And I believe Jesus is stretching out His loving arms to him.

Again, very understandable, and very loving.

An annulment is not a likely possibility for us.

It sounds to me as if, seeing as how you wish to remain with your present husband (for as long as he has), that the thing to do would be to pursue an annulment on your first marriage and then, if necessary, having this marriage convalidated or "blessed," in colloquial terms. Then your marital status would be fully in accord with Church law.

I had expressed to this priest my aching for the Eucharist and he told me that he was giving me permission under the "seal" of confession to receive the Sacrament of Reconciliation and the Eucharist. I have been doing so but more recently I have been having doubts and recently asked him again if he can really make an exception for me. He reiterated that it was definitely within his authority as a priest to do this. Then the statement came out recently from the Vatican about the sacriligious receiving of the Eucharist by divorced and remarried Catholics. I have been sick to my stomach and have continued daily Mass and Rosary devotions but I have not received the Eucharist. I do not one want to profane the Sacrament. And yet everything I read in the New Testament of Jesus is that he was most merciful toward sinners who knew they were sinners.

Purely and simply, my question is is it within the priestly authority to forgive and allow the receiving of the Eucharist under the "seal of confession?

Without knowing the exact way that the priest explained matters, I couldn’t comment directly on what he said, but in general priests have no ability, under the seal of confession or otherwise, to give people permission to receive the Eucharist if they are living in a way that would prevent them from being able to do so. If he implied such an authority on his part, he was wrong.

That being said, it is not clear to me that you are prohibited by Church law from receiving the Eucharist. You have said that you are living continently. This might be simply because of your husband’s current health, but as long a you are willing to live continently until such time as the two of you could licitly engage in conjugal relations (if ever) then your will is in conformity with God’s law (i.e., continence until such time as relations are morally permitted).

That being the case, you could simply go to confession and be absolved (if you haven’t already done so) and then begin receiving the Eucharist. You wouldn’t need any further permission beyond that.

If you are able to obtain an annulment on your first marriage and, if needed, a convalidation on your present one then conjugal relations would again be permitted. That would become more of a pressing issue if your husband had a dramatic improvement in his health than it may be now, but you might want to pursue the option for other reasons anyway.

In any event, if the conditions I mention about your living continently are met then you should be able to receive absolution and then the Eucharist.

Hope this helps!

Erring Pastor Followup

Down yonder (keep scrolling), a reader writes:

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.

If you go back and read the original post, you’ll see that I quite carefully noted that I’m relying on a press report and that the press may have gotten it wrong. Consequently, I’m not making unequivocal determinations regarding anybody’s guilt. I’m speaking to whether the pastor’s actions were lawful if the press report is accurate.

The reader continues:

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.

This interpetation of the canon is not accurate. It is patently untrue that "all" the spiritual goods referred to in the canon are available at Mass since the canon expressly refers to "the sacraments" (plural). This means all the sacraments, and you can’t get all the sacraments at Mass. Such a reductionistic reading of the canon is simply wrong.

Neither can the faithful’s right to receiving goods "from the word of God" limited to what happens in Mass. It also includes, as later canons spell out–the duty of pastors to assist with the catechetical preparation of children to receive the sacraments.

Canon 843: You conveniently ignore the "proper disposition" which would include regular mass attendance.

I in no way ignore this. I don’t mention it because this clause is not germane to the legal issue being discussed. Some have tried to make it relevant by arguing that you have to fulfill your Sunday obligation to be properly disposed to receive Communion but this fails because the mechanism by which failure to fulfill Sunday obligation results in lack of proper disposition is because it results in folks being in mortal sin.

Only that doesn’t happen in this case because any child whose parents refuse to take him to Mass has a valid excuse for missing Mass and thus is not in mortal sin. (At least not on that ground alone.)

Further, as I have pointed out elsewhere, frequent attendance at a Mass is simply not required for one to be properly disposed to receive Communion. If you have people who live up in the hills, with only one parish within driving distance, and the diocese only sends around a priest every two months to say Mass for them then they do not thereby lose the proper dispositions needed to receive Communion when it is offered at a Mass. Same goes for shut-ins who are too physicaly infirm to go to Mass. And same thing goes for those who can’t get to Mass on their own (e.g., kids) and who don’t have someone who is willing to take them (as in this case).

Canon 912: There is no evidence that anyone is being denied Holy Communion.

Please go read the news article in question. It makes it quite clear that the pastor is preventing the kids from attending the catechetical classes needed for the children to make their First Holy Communion. They are thereby being denied Communion by denying them the prerequisites for Communion.

Canon 913: The fact that they do not attend regular mass is proof that they do not have careful preparation.

No it is not. Canon 18 expressly states that laws restricting the exercise of a right must be given a strict interpretation.

Applying this to the requirements for the exercise of the right to receive Communion requires one to take a strict understanding of the preparation that is necessary: It is that catechetical preparation needed for initiation into the Eucharist, not attending Mass each week–or even attending Mass frequently.Otherwise the people living up in the hills who don’t have regular access to Mass would never be able to get any of their children initiated into the Eucharist.

Canon 18 requires one to give these canons a strict interpreatation favoring the right of the child to both the catechesis and the reception of the Eucharist.

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?

I would have him encourage the parents to engage in regular Mass attendance in ways that do not involve obstructing the child’s right to catechesis or the Eucharist. For example: Making personal calls on them to urge them to attend Mass more frequently and explaining how important it is, both for themselves and for their children. If there are too many such parents, he should enlist others to aid in the effort.

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?

No, because that’s not what’s going on here. The children’s Mass attendance is not insufficient to qualify them from receiving the sacrament, either on grounds of proper disposition or careful preparation. He therefore does not need to ignore this fact because it is not a fact.

What is a fact is that the child has a right to both catechesis and, following that, the Eucharist, in a timely manner that cannot be obstructed because of the delinquency of his parents.

Erring Pastor Addendum

Thought I’d mention another aspect of the case of the New York pastor who reportedly is denying the rights of children to be catechized and then receive the Eucharist because their parents aren’t attending Mass or (presumably) taking the kids ot Mass.

As we noted, what he’s doing is unlawful under Church law.

But in pointing this out, I didn’t dwell on one aspect of what he’s doing: Using bar-coded donation envelopes to track their attendance. Apparently, each family gets a batch of donation envelopes with a bar-code unique to them and are then expected to drop one in the plate each week.

Something that may immediately occur to you as problematic about this is that the pastor may be extorting donations out of the kids’ parents in exchange for allowing them access to catechesis and then the sacraments.

If he were doing this, he would be guilty of simony and subject to ecclesiastical penalties.

But that’s not what he’s doing.

THE ARTICLE MAKES CLEAR that he’s not charging anything. People are free to simply drop an empty envelope in the plate. (This has, presumably, been communicated to the parents in question. Otherwise, we’re back to a species of simony.)

Nevertheless, there’s a problem: There is NO REQUIREMENT WHATSOEVER that the faithful fulfill their Sunday obligation at the parish at which their kids are receiving catechesis. Canon law provides that:

Can. 1248 §1. A person who assists at a Mass celebrated anywhere in a Catholic rite either on the feast day itself or in the evening of the preceding day satisfies the obligation of participating in the Mass.

Parents are perfectly at liberty to go to a different parish, even a parish of a different rite, or even a Mass celebrated somewhere other than a parish (e.g., in a monastery) to fulfill their Sunday obligation.

If they exercise that prerogative, they won’t be at the erring pastor’s parish to drop their bar-coded envelope in the plate.

The pastor is thus not only obstructing the rights of the children to catechesis and the sacraments he is further violating the law by imposing on the families the burden to attend Mass at one particular parish (his) in order for their children’s rights to catechesis and the sacraments to be honored.

Any way you slice it, this guy’s in the wrong.

If Rome hears about this, they will not be pleased.

New York Pastor Violates Children's Rights, Causes Scandal

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, ~~legal~~FLAGRANTLY ILLEGAL under church ~~doctrine~~law, 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.

GET THE (HORRIFYING) STORY.

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.

New York Pastor Violates Children’s Rights, Causes Scandal

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, ~~legal~~FLAGRANTLY ILLEGAL under church ~~doctrine~~law, 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.

GET THE (HORRIFYING) STORY.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

Convalidation Questions

A reader writes:

I am a Catholic was married in a civil ceremony several years ago. I have
since realized that I needed to be married in the
Catholic Church in order to receive Communion. My wife agreed that we
would get our marriage blessed even though she is not Catholic.

We asked the priest about having
sexual relations and he told us that since we weren’t going to get it
blessed for another year (gave ourselves plenty of time to plan) that
it is not expeced that we hold off for that long.

Okay, what the priest told you on this point is wrong. He was trying to make things easier on the two of you, but he was wrong. If two people are not validly married then they should not be having sexual relations until such time as they are.

My wife and I agreed
on several months but overstepped it ….on the last time
however she has gotten pregnant.

At the wedding she will probably
not be showing yet.
Is there any issues with going ahead with the wedding. Do we tell the
priest that she is pregnant?

You should go to confession about this, but I’m not seeing any other issues. I also don’t see any need to tell the priest about the pregnancy at this time since it is not relevant to the wedding. You will want at some point talk to the parish about making arrangements for the child’s baptism, though.

I want to be able to receive our Lord in Communion but I want to do it
the right way and not be in mortal sin.

The way to do this is to resolve to live continently until the wedding and go to confession. Then you’ll be able to receive Communion immediately, even before the wedding.

Just a curious question…..is masturbation or contraception still a
mortal sin when ones wife is already pregnant??

Masturbation is always gravely sinful, and the fact that one has a pregnant wife does not change this. I don’t understand why one would want to use contraception with a pregnant spouse since the purpose of contraception is to prevent conception, and this is not at issue while she is pregnant. Some forms of contraception (e.g., condoms) also damage the unitive aspect of the sexual act and so couldn’t be used for that reason. Others might pose a danger to the child.

In your case, though, since the two of you are not yet validly married, you shouldn’t be engaging in sexual relations until the wedding. Once that happens, though, you’d be able to engage in them the same as any other married couple during pregnancy, provided it isn’t posing a danger to the child.

MORE INFO HERE.

I know that this may not all be what you were hoping to hear, but you deserve the truth, and I want to be straight with you. You also should be commended for your willingness to do what is needed to follow Christ and rectify your marital situation. You wife also is to be commended for her willingness to help you follow your conscience even though she is not Catholic. God will bless you both for your efforts.

Hope this helps!

Requirements For Baptism

A reader sends in an e-mail from someone who says:

My friend has some questions about baptizing his
new baby girl. He wants to know can you have
your baby baptized at a Catholic church if:

Dad is a lapsed Catholic

Mom is a lapsed Presbyterian

The parents don’t belong to a local church

The parents want to get his baby baptized at a Catholic
church on vacation in Oregon

I think my friend is at a cross-roads in his faith and I’m
trying to encourage him to get back to his Catholic
roots. What do you think??

Okay! Let’s whip out our little friend, the Code of Canon Law. It provides:

Can. 868 §1. For an infant to be baptized licitly:

1/ the parents or at least one of them or the person
who legitimately takes their place must consent;

2/ there must be a founded hope that the infant will
be brought up in the Catholic religion; if such hope is altogether lacking, the
baptism is to be delayed according to the prescripts of particular law after
the parents have been advised about the reason [SOURCE].

As you can see, there is nothing in the requirements that, strictly speaking, rejects any of the four things in the fact pattern named by the e-mailer.

The fact that neither of the parents is an active Catholic at the moment is not per se an obstacle since what is strictly speaking required is their consent, not their own religious status.

HOWEVER, there is also the requirement of a founded hope (not a pie-in-the-sky hope) that the child will be raised as a Catholic, and this is where we run into a problem. Parishes will definitely want to know how founded the hope is of the child being raised Catholic if neither of the parents are practicing Catholics. Will they take the child to Mass? How do we know this if neither of them goes to Mass? Will they make sure that the child is catechized in the faith? Will they make sure that the child is confirmed and makes her first confession and first Communion at the proper times? If they’re both completely disconnected from parish life, how are they going to fulfill these responsibilities? Will they even know when it’s time for them? What will the practical arrangements be for fulfilling them? Just how strong is their commitment on these points?

As a result, though there is no absolute requirement that one of the parents be Catholic, the fact that neither is an active Catholic is likely to pose a practical barrier to their providing the kind of founded hope that the parish needs for the child’s Catholic rearing.

The logical solution is for the parents to examine their hearts and recommit themselves to the practice of the Christian faith. In particular, the husband should take the child’s need for baptism as a sign that God is calling him back to his faith. He should go to confession and resume life as an active Catholic. It would also be ideal if the wife were to investigate the possibility of becoming Catholic, primarily for her own sake but also to present the child with parents who are united in faith.

I hope they’ll giv prayerful consideration to these things.

As to getting the child baptized while on vacation. I assume that the reason they wish to do this is because they will be vacationing near family and it would make it easier for family members to attend the baptism. (There may be "destination weddings" these days, but I’ve never heard of a "destination baptism," so I assume that family is the reason.)

Again, strictly speaking there is no prohibition on this. However, there may be practical obstacles. Normally baptisms are performed in the parish to which the parents (or the Catholic parent) belongs. There are also typically preliminary sessions that the parents need to attend to help them understand and prepare for the event of baptism.

All I can recommend is that the parents explain the situation and ask what kind of arrangement may be possible. I don’t know that there is one, but then the most important thing is that the child get baptized, not where this occurs or who can more easily attend. The baptism is for the sake of the child, not anybody else, so the parents should be flexible on this point if no solution emerges that would allow the baptism to take place where and when they would like.

Hope this helps, and God bless!

Let’s pray that God will shower his blessings on the child and her family!

Protestant Baptism Before Vatican II

A reader writes:

As a recent convert from the PCA, I have been placed on the parish’s Adult
Faith Formation Committee, where I hear enough half-truths and outright
rejections of Church teaching to keep five apologists working
overtime.

The latest: I was told by the head of the committee that, prior
to Vatican II, "the Church did not accept Protestant baptisms," and
therefore insisted on re-baptizing anyone who converted. After Vatican II,
I was told, the Church now "accepts Protestant baptisms and therefore
accepts Protestants as brothers and sisters in Christ." He stopped short
of place I think he was trying to go, namely: "Therefore there’s no
substantive difference between being a Protestant and a Catholic."

Now, this all sounds wrong to me. My understanding is that the Church has
long accepted the validity of any baptism, as long as the intent was to
baptize, the actions were correct, and the Trinitarian formula was
used. Further, I wasn’t aware that the Church, at Vatican II, had made any
new doctrinal teaching about the validity of Protestant baptisms (or any
new doctrinal teaching at all, for that matter). But before I begin to
scour Church documents and previous Catechisms looking for a refutation (or
at least a clarification), I wanted to ask you how to approach this question.

If he said what you report, the head of the committee is seriously in error. The Church dealt with the question of whether the baptism of heretics and schismatics were valid as early as the third century and concluded that they were.

What’s more, the matter was infallibly defined no later than the Council of Trent (earlier councils may have already taken care of this), whose Canons on Baptism contain the following:

Canon 4. If anyone says that the baptism which is given by heretics in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit with the intention of doing what the Church does, is not true baptism, let him be anathema.

Consequently, the Church has always regarded Protestant baptism as valid in principle, and Vatican II made no changes in this respect.

There was a change in the Church’s common practice following the Council, however. (Which is not to say that the Council itself mandated the change.)

It had been customary to administer conditional baptism to Protestants converting to the Catholic faith in case there had been a defect in form, matter, or intention when baptism was administered to them in their original church. A conditional baptism is not the same as "re-baptizing" someone, however. Conditional baptisms respect the validity (if it was present) of a person’s original baptism by using formulas such as "If you are not baptized, I baptize you . . . "

After the revision of the rites that followed the Council (please note: not everything that has changed in recent years is to be attrbuted to Vatican II!), it became less common to administer conditional baptism to Protestants becoming Catholic, though it is still done (as it was in my own case).

The head of the committee therefore was wrong if he asserted:

That the Church did not recognize the validity of Protstant baptisms prior to Vatican II,
That Vatican II changed this, or
That prior to the Council converts from Protestantism were "re-baptized" (as opposed to being conditionally baptized).

If he said such things, the head of the committee really should study these matters more thoroughly before pronouncing upon them.