I guess I should say I have nothing against the Matt Maher Band and Bob Schrimpf - its the mandatory part that's the problem.
Posted on 02/04/2010 9:28:49 AM PST by NYer
This is Matt: We here at CMR have been huge fans of Erin Manning who blogs over at And Sometimes Tea. And so we wanted to have Erin write over here once a week for the next month as a guest blogger. I think CMR could use some female perspective - other than Patrick's. So enjoy Erin's post. Heeeeeeerrrre's Erin!!!!!!!
Last week, I read that the Diocese of Phoenix had decided to strengthen their marriage preparation requirements. Instead of six months of mostly lay led marriage preparation classes, the diocese now requires nine, to include mandatory NFP classes and some basics about Catholic teaching regarding marriage, including Catholic opposition to divorce, contraception, and homosexual "marriage."
Yesterday I read about (and wrote about) the Polish priest who installed a fingerprint reader to make it easier to track confirmation candidates' Mass attendance. If the children attend 200 Masses in three years, they can skip an otherwise mandatory exam.
What do these two very different stories, from two very different places in the world, have in common? One specific problem, a problem I like to call "Sacramental Gatekeeping."
In one sense, I can understand the actions of both the Phoenix Diocese and the Polish priest. In the first instance, it can't be denied that a scandalously large number of people get married in the Catholic Church in America without being regular practitioners of the Catholic faith, without truly understanding what the Church believes about marriage or requires of those who enter this vocation, without being in any sense ready to take on this new way of living, this sacramental union with another person and, with God's blessing, with the children they should be hoping to have together. In the second instance, I think the priest is trying in an ingenious way to remove an onerous requirement for confirmation--an exam--and giving those children who are serious enough about their faith to come to Mass a way to avoid having to take a test on their way to this sacrament.
But unfortunately, both solutions to the problems are quite likely to end up being anything but. A couple wishing to marry in the Phoenix Diocese isn't going to undo what might be a couple of decades of religious indifference or bad catechesis with a whopping total of three extra months of preparation, especially when a lot of that preparation is likely to involve being in a classroom with dozens of other couples who are all filling out worksheets with titles like "Relationship tools--what are your expectations of marriage?" or "Money--who is in charge?" A simple Google search of the Pre-Cana program (a standard marriage preparation class for Catholics) shows glowing reviews by couples who attended--and who lived together before marriage and had no idea of separating before the wedding, and who weren't asked to, or who lied and said they had separate addresses, etc.
And though I'm sympathetic to the Polish priest, it's true that a savvy child could easily scan his or her fingerprints and then simply leave the church building or hang out in the back. I have no idea how likely a Polish Catholic child is to try such a thing, but it's only too likely that some American children, faced with a similar system, would learn how to game it.
So what ends up happening is this: the philosophy of Sacramental Gatekeeping keeps thinking that less-serious Catholics can be brought to a greater understanding and appreciation for the sacraments they seek if they have to attend more classes (and pay more class fees), take more tests, prove more attendance, add more "service hours," and otherwise do more and more things that really have very little to do with the sacraments at all as "minimum requirements" for receiving these sacraments. And the less-serious Catholics keep figuring out ways to get around the increasingly burdensome requirements--while those Catholics who do take their faith seriously, who are at Mass every Sunday and Holy Day (and sometimes quite a few weekdays as well), who have been active in their parishes since their Baptisms (or at least since they left the Cry Room) end up being told "You wish to receive a sacrament, or have your child receive one? Great! Here are six more hoops through which you must jump..."
And the hoops are getting to be insane.
Take baptism, for instance. How many dioceses or parishes now require that both parents must take a class for each child, that they may not attend the class until after the baby is born, and that they cannot bring the baby to the class with them? This is almost like saying, "Hey, if you are the practicing Catholic parents of four or five young children and you breastfeed your baby, we're going to make it really really hard for you to get baby number six baptized until he or she is weaned--but then again, we don't allow baptisms during Lent, so you're going to have to wait at least that long anyway. Aren't you excited?"
Or take first penance and first Holy Communion. How many dioceses or parishes are now requiring several years of parish-based religious education plus special sacramental preparation classes in addition to some special sessions like all-day retreats which both parents and the child must attend? If your child is paying tuition at a diocesan school, some of these requirements sometimes (but not always) evaporate--but if you are homeschooling your child using the exact same religious education textbooks your diocese uses, chances are you're still going to be required to enroll your children in the parish program. Here, the Powers That Be are saying, "We know you consider yourself a Catholic school-at-home. We think the education you are giving your children is the exact equivalent of the religious education of a child whose parents never attend Mass and who is not receiving any school-based religious instruction at all. Isn't that nice of us?"
Or take confirmation. I could write a whole post on this one; isn't it crazy that one of the Sacraments of Initiation has been postponed to the age of sixteen in so many dioceses around the country? Why do we wait so long before our children receive the Holy Spirit? The most honest reason I've heard comes from weary parish religious-ed teachers who say sadly, "If we confirmed kids any earlier, they'd stop coming to church much younger than they already do."
But because confirmation has become a kind of "Rite of Telling Our Kids They're Now Spiritually Mature Adults Whether They Are Or Not," the requirements have spun out of control. I've heard from lots of people whose children were required to take at least two years of special classes above and beyond normal religious education, to log huge numbers of "service hours" doing projects in the parish and in the community--but only so many hours in each of several specific categories, because the child who has been volunteering at the parish for years has to branch out and go feed the homeless or it doesn't "count," so to speak--and even, perhaps most disturbingly, to go on overnight co-ed confirmation retreats, where various topics are discussed, but not, certainly, the imprudence of spending the night in close proximity to dozens of teenage members of the opposite sex.
And now marriage will be the latest sacrament to be adorned with extra hoops for the good Catholic young adults to jump through. Setting aside the fact that many excellent Catholic teachers over the years have warned against lengthy engagements, there is the problem that the young man and woman from strong Catholic backgrounds who have been going to Mass and frequenting confession throughout their youths and young adulthoods, who could practically teach a class themselves on what the Church teaches about marriage, who are eager to begin their lives together and to have children with God's blessing, and who take seriously all that the Church expects and requires of them as mature adults, will have to agree to a nine-months' engagement, dozens of classes at least some of which may be of dubious value, and whatever else in the way of hoops may be laid out in front of them during the nine-months' "marriage preparation process."
Some who are reading this will no doubt object: "But there are no such young couples! The vast majority of the Catholic couples getting married in the Church are weak in their faith, irregular in their attendance, indifferent to the Church's teachings, and untrustworthy! It's unrealistic to expect young Catholics to know their faith and actually plan to live it!"
To the extent that this is true, it is not too much of an exaggeration to call it the central problem facing the Church today. Unfortunately, it is a problem likely to be exacerbated, rather than helped, by Sacramental Gatekeeping.
There are currently 29 comments on this at the CMR site, some of which are quite interesting. What is your perspective on this topic?
God is about Love and accepting his Love voluntarily and following HIM.
The Church recognizes all baptized Catholics no matter their level of particiption in the Church. (Unless they are excommunicated).
The Church needs to encourage our acceptance of God’s Love and to learn more about Him in a postive and accepting way so that we can attempt to be like Jesus.
While the Church should have some requirements, they need to be in the spirit of teaching about God’s love.
The Church should be like a Home and someplace where we can find refuge in God in an accepting loving peaceful enviroment at the parish level.
That is a good description of my parish. What separates us from those around us is size. We are a very small parish with less than 50 families. As a result, we are more like an extended family, keenly aware of each other's personal struggles and willing to assist, as needed. The pastor is like an anchor who prevents us from drifting away.
I don’t know. It depends on the pastor, and it depends on you.
When my kids were born, our priest knew us. He saw us in church every week. In that we’d taken the time to get to know him a little and he to know us a little, he was able form a judgment about us and our knowledge of and devotion to the faith.
No baptismal preparation classes. Our sons were baptized within a few weeks of their birth.
Our deacon was furious, but the pastor had spoken.
We homeschooled our two sons (the younger is finishing 8th grade and will join his brother at a local Catholic high school), including religious education.
Again, our new pastor (pastor #2) knew us. He saw us in church every Sunday. We were active in the parish. When we began homeschooling when my older son was in first grade (before the sacramental year for First Penance and First Holy Communion), I visited with him, showed him the materials we planned to use, and explained our methods. He approved.
Same for the second son.
Before our sons received their sacraments, the pastor interviewed each of them to make sure that they had the basics of the sacramental theology down.
My younger son will receive Confirmation this year. Our newest pastor (this is pastor #3 for us in this parish) knows us, sees us in church, sees us involved with the parish. No problems.
Three priests, all different folks. But all willing to accommodate parishioners who show up faithfully for Mass, who are involved with the parish, and who bother to have a relationship with their pastor.
And that is precisely how it should be. Kudos on an excellent job of raising your children in the faith!
I'd like to acknowledge that not everyone finds himself in a parish where this might work. For folks in parishes with thousands and thousands of families, and only a priest or two, the poor parish priest may just be too burdened to deal with folks on this level.
But we are fortunate that our parish has only around 1000 or 1200 families. And frankly, less than 10% of those folks do more than show up for Mass (and even that's perhaps only 40% or so). So, for those who BOTHER with the church much, it's difficult for the pastor NOT to get to know them.
sitetest
Regarding the Diocese of Phoenix, you might like to read the article below and view some of the videos on Catholics Come Home and Pro Life. My impression is that Archbishop Olmstead is very positive in addressing some key questions affecting Catholics in a loving spirtual way. So his approach to marriage preparation is just as positive.
Covenant of Love - Marriage Prepartion Manual
http://www.diocesephoenix.org/mfrl/documents/CovenantofLovewithPromLetter.pdf
http://www.thesacredpage.com/2010/01/los-angeles-getting-new-archbishop-part_30.html
My comment below may turn out a little long and I’ll try not to rant.... :)
I had to go to a mandatory meeting for the baptism of my 7th child. It was run by a nice couple although the materials were rather shallow and fluffy - nothing from the Catechism in the handouts.
We each had to introduce ourselves and when they heard this was my 7th time having a child baptism the reaction was “Why do you need this class?” - my response “Because its required.” I was more bemused than anything else and didn’t mind the hour meeting.
Confirmation at my parish is a completely different story - I was not bemused. They require 2 years of bi-weekly meetings - only two allowed absences (no excuses) - required to go to the Life Teen mass - required to go to overnight retreats - required to buy tickets and go to some sort of Christian Rock concerts - required to do service projects - required to be a least 16 years old.
One of my children is very medically fragile, had a liver transplant at 4 months, and was still having serious issues that required days or weeks of hospitalizations at hospital in San Francisco where he had his transplant. For one of my older children’s confirmations she was having to make drives back to Fresno just to get him to his required bi-weekly class and then make the drive back to San Francisco.
My daughter, who is now a student at Thomas Aquinas College, wanted to be confirmed at the age of 15. We were told that age in our diocese is 16 - no exceptions. So I then sent our pastor a very polite letter about what the code of canon law says is the requirements for confirmation along with a copy of the letter from the Congregation of Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments “AGE OF CONFIRMATION:
When Local and Universal Law Conflict”:
http://www.adoremus.org/CDW_Confirmation_age.html
The result was a meeting with the lady at our parish who runs the confirmation program and was apparently blocking my daughter from receiving that sacrament without jumping through all the hoops she had set up. My daughter met with her first and then we met with her together. Quite frankly my daughter knew more than her. I later found out that in the private meeting my daughter quoted John Paul II about confirmation, she was corrected with “we don’t use the term putting on the Armor of Christ” anymore. Needless to say a short time later we received a letter stating that she did not know enough about the faith to receive the sacrament.
Anyway the sense that I got after going through this is that there are very well meaning individuals that believe the preparation is more important than the actual sacrament. They are willing to hold that sacrament hostage as a sword to imposed whatever unnecessary programs or style of worship they want to impose. They do not want the sacraments at an earlier age because they lose that weapon. They may be well meaning and trying to address real issues with folks that do not take their faith seriously, but their methods are wrong.
I guess I should say I have nothing against the Matt Maher Band and Bob Schrimpf - its the mandatory part that's the problem.
Wow. You're much more patient than I am.
I'd have just joined another parish.
sitetest
Oh, I should finish up my own story. My daughter ended up not having to go through the whole program our local parish had set up.
Something very Providential happened completely out of the blue and she was confirmed by a bishop who was a friend of John Paull II and had attended the 2nd Vatican Conference The confirmation occurred at the exact same time that the cardinals were in conclave to choose our current Pope.
When everyone came out of the church after the confirmation Mass a very intense wind blew for about 5 seconds through the courtyard. And it turned out the she was confirmed sooner than she would have been if she had been given a “yes” from our parish to be confirmed early.
I don't know, and I don't think the author should mention this without being prepared to tell us.
DP and I haven't had to attend a baptism preparation class since our second child. We call the office to schedule the baptism, and the secretary says, "Oh, it's y'all!" Four parishes have done this.
As a more general comment, I think that marriage is a different case from Baptism and Confirmation. Baptism and Confirmation (and Eucharist, and Anointing of the Sick) “work” by the words and actions of the minister, whether the recipient of the Sacrament is conscious of it at all.
However, a sacramental marriage bond is formed only if the couple - ministers of the sacrament to one another - have the correct dispositions and ability. It makes sense that instruction for this Sacrament would be more comprehensive than for others, especially in the current cultural situation. If the couple do not accurately understand and commit to a Christian marriage, then *they are not married*, and the Church should not be facilitating a form of marriage without the Sacrament.
**My impression is that Archbishop Olmstead is very positive in addressing some key questions affecting Catholics in a loving spirtual way. So his approach to marriage preparation is just as positive.**
I think you are totally right and I would not be surprised at all if Archbishop Olmstead were to become the new Archbishop of Los Angeles.
You heard it here first! LOL!
Our rector is very involved in the lives of his parishioners (at least the ones who show up more often than Christmas and Easter!) Our experience is that anybody with a special case need only ring up Monsignor and anything reasonable will be dealt with. For example, we didn't have to go to RCIA when we converted from 'high church' Anglican - we simply met several times with Monsignor and he gave us some reading and quizzed us pretty thoroughly. Since we had been working through the Church Fathers for several years, and were reading Newman's Apologia, and had even read Apostolicae Curae, Monsignor realized it would be a waste of time. Not to mention that as a dedicated pedant I would have annoyed the heck out of whoever the instructor was!
The requirements for Baptism seem quite reasonable:
A child should be baptized within the first few months after birth. We provide a baptism preparation class. You can attend that either before or after the birth of your first child. The baptismal preparation classes are held the fourth Sunday of each month (except for December) at 12:30 p.m. No sign up is required, simply show up for the hour long class. For parents and godparents whose child will be baptized at another church, a letter of attendance will be given at the class. This class does not have to be repeated for subsequent children.
We've experienced the Confirmation class and it also is very reasonable. They attend once a week for about half a year, and a class is also offered for the parents during that time (which we attended - it was interesting and informative.) My daughter reported that she learned a lot, the class was very straightforward and orthodox, there were not a lot of silly requirements. I think they did work one Saturday for the St. Vincent de Paul Society, boxing canned goods, and they had a one-day retreat.
I know that they studied very thoroughly, because our Archbishop (who was brand new at the time) catechized them live and on mike during the Confirmation . . . and every single one of the 20-odd kids answered all his questions sensibly and well (even naming lists like the Fruits of the Holy Spirit and the Ten Commandments!) He asked my daughter about her patron saint and got an earful . . . . I could have warned him not to ask open-ended questions!
Your daughter and Anoreth should have been roommates or something, except that would have been too confusing ;-).
The thing I object to most in Confirmation programs is overnight, co-ed “retreats.” Tulsa Diocese had them, and they had the usual “boys sneaking into the girls dorm” nonsense like the summer camp movies. If we’d had a child in Confirmation prep there, I’d have gone straight to the Bishop, and he’d have excused us. Great man, Bishop Slattery.
Here, they have a mandatory event to do a ropes course, of all things. I haven’t complained (except to mention in my evaluation that it has nothing to do with the Catholic Faith) because Anoreth and Bill both thought it was fun. Bill and his best friend missed most of the second, “sit around and talk” event, because they’d gone to Fayetteville with the Boy Scouts, but the coordinator excused them without argument. I think they like it better when the know-it-all students aren’t around being snide.
Overnight coed retreats are generally not a good idea - although I allowed my daughter to go to the Archdiocese's SonFest -- a co-ed high school beach event in Florida. I knew the chaperones, and the boys and girls were on different floors in the hotel. I was a chaperone for another trip, and the kids who went were serious types and not wild at all. I guess it's a little different when it's not required, and the kids self-select for a voluntary trip. Plus, I just couldn't see them getting into much trouble having Catechism lectures, Confession, Eucharistic Adoration and Mass every day . . . .
We did a ropes course, but it was with the Boy Scouts. They let old lady Venture Crew Advisors do it too! :-D
I could have been an assistant or chaperone for the ropes course, but I’m always pregnant.
If we ever have a schedule conflict or a child who doesn’t want to do it, I’ll raise a religious objection.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.