More correspondence about Fr. Bedard's article "Abusing the Sacraments".

(C.I., Jan. 2007, pp. 39-40; Letters of reply, C.I., Feb. 2007, pp. 7-9 & Mar. 2007, pp. 5-7)

From B. Hunt

Please take it easy on Fr. Bob Bedard. A good dozen years ago he was telling the congregation at St. Mary's that he was old. He may have aged somewhat more since then.

Fr. Bob is absolutely gifted as a speaker and as a writer but hopefully his sharp mind, his tongue and pen still have miles (and books) to go. He must be one of the few who can have the congregation chuckling, respectfully and fittingly, at funeral Masses.

Reading the responses to his Sacramental Abuse article it appears that most who replied see his contribution as "Fr. Bob's Opinion," rather than as the Church's stand on difficult sacramental situations. Perhaps the writers should check with their own pastors, or their bishops on these matters, before disagreeing so readily. Without a proper stand in these situations, can the Church be much more than a nice-to-belong-to club, rather than the one true Church, to which all should belong?

Only in paragraphs 14 and 15 of his article did Fr. Bob, seemingly, actually and clearly give his opinion. In my opinion, Communion should never be given/received where one is not of the right disposition, or is a non-churchgoer.

Where Confession/Reconciliation is concerned, can any priest ever give absolution if he becomes aware that the penitent is not possessed of, at least, imperfect contrition? There are certain fundamentals, certain basics that priests must try to follow and these difficult situations must be where our priests and bishops are obliged to exercise their judgment. There must be multitudinous such situations today, in our terribly secular world.

We must pray for our priests and the exercise of their 'right judgment.' We should follow them and surely query and learn from their homilies, their sermons and instructions, but we should be careful about simply disagreeing with them. In so doing we may be showing up our own shortcomings, those regarding our faith knowledge, our understanding and perhaps even our own personal faith.

Ottawa, ON

From Fr. Leonard Kennedy, C.S.B.

Father Bedard was opposed by several writers for saying that, "for an infant to be baptized lawfully it is required that there be well-founded hope that the child will be brought up in the Catholic religion. If such hope is truly lacking, the baptism is, in accordance with the provisions of particular law, to be deferred and the parents advised of the reason of this." Of course any infant may be baptized in danger of death. I am surprised that no one pointed out that the quotation in the italics above is the teaching of the Code of Canon Law on the subject (#868).

I might raise another point to agree with Father Bedard. There are Catholic schools which have occasional Masses at which all the students are present and all go to Communion even though many (perhaps most) of the students don't go to Confession or Sunday Mass. The question is: why is this allowed?

Toronto, ON

From Fr. Ed. Henhoeffer

As a pastor it is with great interest that I have been reading the editorial debate about refusing the sacraments which was sparked by Father Bedard's article. Personally, I do not refuse the sacraments very often but I certainly understand Father Bedard's point. The pastoral situations that we are dealing with at the time of preparation for the sacraments are very frustrating.

At the beginning of last school year, I was invited to introduce myself to the Junior Kindergarten class. To keep things short, I can say that not only had they never heard of a priest or the Church, but they had no idea who Jesus was. What can I say? All of their parents had failed in even carrying out the basic promises they made during the baptismal liturgy when they said "Yes" to raising these children in the faith.

During preparation I emphasize faith practice, getting marriage situations regularized and so on, but one sees little resolve on the part of parents to begin to rectify the situations in which they find themselves. I do know that any suggestion of delay is interpreted as outright refusal, and either they will not return or they will go elsewhere. And so we struggle on, praying that God's grace will somehow touch them. I just ask your readers for prayers for all parish priests who have to deal with these pastoral frustrations on a day-to-day basis.

St. John the Baptist Parish, Guelph, ON

From a priest

Reading the letters in the February issue, I think someone should rise to the aid of Father Bedard.

Sympathy for the thoughts and trials expressed by Father Bedard in his article on Abusing the Sacraments is most common among parish priests. Having spent fifty years in the service of Our Lord, the anxiety of every Pastor was well known, encountered at every turn.

On moving to a new parish, where a Baptismal program was conducted by lay persons, I attended the first session after my arrival. A huge question arose: there were five children being "presented for Baptism," one by a young lady who had no idea who the father was; one by a couple who forgot to get married; one by a couple involved in multiple divorces; one by a father who laid it on thick with 'Father, do you know who I am?' though he was never seen in the church, and one by a delightful young couple who were trying to do everything right.

How can you speak to that group with one voice?

I renewed my resolve to visit every family in their home before accepting to do the Baptism. And sometimes the only path I could see was to make sure they knew about emergency infant Baptism, and offer to pray for them.

But even knowledge about emergency infant baptism can be abused, as in a case when a woman brought her third child for First Communion--where the others received their First Communion I did not know--and when I asked for a Baptism Certificate, she said she had baptised them, herself, at home.

The second part of my resolve was to set aside ample time for the ceremony of Baptism, use it to explain signs, symbols and words used in the ceremony, observing precisely the Ritual of Baptism. No Baptism took less than an hour, and the "guests" almost invariably stopped me afterwards to thank me for the instructions and beauty of the symbolism and commitment involved.

Should we lean to leniency when accepting a child for Baptism? Never once, when I gave in, did anyone ever come back to thank me. But often, when I laid down the law and "delayed" the Baptism the parents--or godparents--came round later to express appreciation. Unique was the case of two young Catholics who wished to be married in church, but never attended church. I pointed out the contradiction asking them to think about it. They returned in a couple of weeks and were full of enthusiasm about returning to Mass--they had had a fine experience. But most interesting was the phenomenon that a couple of weeks later, he returned, all alone, to express his thanks for having to reconsider and re-light his faith; and then, a few weeks later and unbeknown to him, she came to express the same gratitude. I asked if they had discussed her coming, and she said he knew nothing about her coming. I did not tell her he had been in.

The Church has the right idea when saying infant Baptism should be delayed when there is lack of good faith or intentions. Her methods may not bring instant results, but they do reflect the ways of Christ who, more than once, said, "Go, and sin no more." He could have baptized everybody in sight, or redeemed us all by a simple request to the Father, but no, He requires something of us, a simple, sincere act of faith and promise to accept his way.

May God bless you in all your work--do keep it up.

Thornhill, ON

Editor: In Australia, Ft. John Speekman denied Communion to schoolchildren who did not attend Sunday Mass. Bishop Jeremiah Coffey removed him from the parish, but the Congregation for the Clergy ordered Fr. Speekman reinstated "without further delay." Bishop Coffey has continued to appeal the case rather than comply with the directive. This incident confirms a) that there is disagreement about how to handle the Sacraments in the presence of unbelief, and b) that the Holy See supports the views of Ft. Bedard (more next month).

From Brant Fotheringham re "The Church and AIDS" (C.I., Feb. 2007, p. 41)

Dr. John B. Shea includes a quotation in his article from the Vatican's Pontifical Council for the Family: "The Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception, that is, of every marital act intentionally rendered unfaithful. This teaching is to be held as definitive and irreformable."

In 1968 the Canadian Bishops stated in relation to contraception that "they may be safely assured that whoever honestly chooses that course which seems right to him, does so in good conscience."

This statement, in blatant contradiction of Vatican policy, has never been retracted by the Canadian Bishops. Nearly forty years later do Canadian Catholics not have the right to know how the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops presently views this definitive teaching? Will they never refute their 1968 statement?

Sidney, BC

From Joseph Cober re the rosary 

Fr. Beltran, pastor of St. Thomas More Church, Toronto, stopped the praying of the rosary after Mass (Letter, George McGivern, C.I., Feb. 2007, p. 6). So what? At Sacred Heart parish, Guelph, on the last Sunday of May and the third Sunday of October, after the 11 a.m. Mass, the rosary is prayed outside, walking around a housing block, rosary well visible in hand; already for five consecutive years, always hoping that some day we will get the co-operation from the pastor. We have done this also on the third Sunday, and it will be tried at St. Anne's parish, Kitchener, Ontario.

Parishioners of St. Thomas More, rejoice! Those who are physically able, pray the rosary, walking in the street, e.g. once a month or every Sunday in front of the main entrance till you may do so inside. Then joyfully, one Sunday in May and October, pray, rosary in hand, walking in the street. You are called to evangelize!

Guelph, ON