A fascinating piece in Chiesa by the veteran Vaticanologist Sandro Magister on the church's approach in Argentina regarding baptism. Rather than withholding baptism for children for parents who are on the fringes of the church, Cardinal Jorge Maria Bergoglio (SJ) reminds us that the "child has no responsibility for the condition of his parents' marriage." As the deck says, "Better a church of the people rather than only of the pure." There's a long windup but then this, which has implications for the church--particularly in the United States--that go beyond the question of baptism:
What reemerges here is the ancient and still unresolved dispute between a Church of the elite, a pure, minority Church, and a Church of the masses, populated also by that immense sea of humanity for whom Christianity is made up of a few simple things.
In Italy, for example, the dispute came up again during the last major national conference of the Church, held in Verona in October of 2006. On that occasion, one position held by the "rigorists" was precisely that of withholding baptism and the other sacraments from those believed to be unfit because they are not practicing.
It is a dilemma that Joseph Ratzinger himself experienced personally as a young man, and finally resolved in the same direction indicated by Cardinal Bergoglio. This is what, as pope, Ratzinger himself said in replying to the question from a priest of Bressanone, in a public question-and-answer session with the clergy of the diocese on August 6, 2008.
The priest, named Paolo Rizzi, a pastor and professor of theology, asked Benedict XVI a question about baptism, confirmation, and first communion:
"Holy Father, 35 years ago I thought that we were beginning to be a little flock, a minority community, more or less everywhere in Europe; that we should therefore administer the sacraments only to those who are truly committed to Christian life. Then, partly because of the style of John Paul II's Pontificate, I thought things through again. If it is possible to make predictions for the future, what do you think? What pastoral approaches can you suggest to us?".
Pope Ratzinger responded:
"I must say that I took a similar route to yours. When I was younger I was rather severe. I said: the sacraments are sacraments of faith, and where faith does not exist, where the practice of faith does not exist, the Sacrament cannot be conferred either. And then I always used to talk to my parish priest when I was Archbishop of Munich: here too there were two factions, one severe and one broad-minded. Then I too, with time, came to realize that we must follow, rather, the example of the Lord, who was very open even with people on the margins of Israel of that time. He was a Lord of mercy, too open – according to many official authorities – with sinners, welcoming them or letting them invite him to their dinners, drawing them to him in his communion.
"Therefore I would say substantially that the sacraments are naturally sacraments of faith: when there is no element of faith, when First Communion is no more than a great lunch with beautiful clothes and beautiful gifts, it can no longer be a sacrament of faith. Yet, on the other hand, if we can still see a little flame of desire for communion in the faith, a desire even in these children who want to enter into communion with Jesus, it seems to me that it is right to be rather broad-minded."
AMDG,
That said, I wonder if stating the question in these terms isn't missing the point. While the church is not only for the pure (as if that kind of purity really exists) it is for the striving. People often correctly point out that the Church is a hospital for sinners not a museum for saints, and this is true, but it is also not a lobby where we just stand around milling about with no discernable purpose and occaisionally stopping to stare at the pretty pictures. The Church IS a hospital for sinners and recovery from spiritual dis-ease takes real work. As the metaphor suggests, we may not be pure, but we better damn well be striving.
As this applies to, say, baptism, I think it is important to consider what canon law says about infant baptism. Namely that infant baptism is predicated upon a "founded hope" that the child will be raised in the faith. Again, this doesn't, to my mind, mean that the parents have to be perfect, but it means, to me, that they need to give real evidence of striving and a willingness to teach their children how to strive. To require less is for the Church to enable spiritual innoculations that inject far too many people with a weakened strain of faith that is too easily killed by the world but makes one immune to authentic life in Christ-potentially forever.
The state of one's soul may be impossible to evaluate (and inappropriate-at least to some degree-to judge), but the quality of one's effort is not. And it is not judgmental in the least to remark that a person's effort is insincere or ineffectual and therefore, some kind of good-faith change is required before admission to the sacrament is granted.
Otherwise, we end of treating sacraments as magical rituals that do not demand our cooperation or cultural trappings that have no real meaning. I think both ideas are as common as they are tragic, and the Church must do what it can, not to protect the so-called "purity" of the people but rather its mission as a hospital for sinners, an instrument of healing and conversion.
Greg
On a more serious note, this brings into focus the whole question of infant baptism. I am not saying yay or nay, just saying that it has changed over time and this makes me think of that.
Your concerns do not resonate with me. I say anyone who , having experienced the mess the Church has been in the last decade, and still brings their baby to be baptized, in the bringing, has already manifested a strong faith and an enough faith. let it be done unto them. Pax
I do want to point one thing out here that some posters seemed to miss out on: there is still "some catechesis" involved in the baptism and there is still notion that the sacraments are sacraments of the faith. The Pope and Cardinal talk about how it is important that we not impose a "purity test" as a condition of access to the Sacraments.
I guess the bigger question is whether a politician who, let's take Congressman Kennedy, professes to be Catholic but advocates public policy in direct opposition of a central tenet Church moral teaching ought to be provided similar access to the Sacraments, and it's here where I don't think the article provides a clear directive. Because that clearly is a very different case than the one described by the good Cardinal with the woman with seven children. I'm ambivalent as to whether Kennedy ought to present himself for communion (I don't go up unless I've been to confession recently and when, a few years ago, I wrestled with Church teaching on abortion, never went up for communion; this seems fair to me), but it seems obvious to me that the Cardinal acted courageously and correctly.
I agree with Ed that baptism, especially in situations where money and time (places in the world where a person might be able to attend Mass once a month) are controlling factors, need not necessarily have strings attached outside of an interest in membership in the body of the Church. But I guess the crux of where we and Ed seem to depart are those instances where a parishioner seeks communion or a similar sacrament (say marriage or the priesthood) without really being comfortable with some core church teachings (be it human dignity in the unborn or in the indigent). (a) ought they be doing so? (b) more importantly, are we doing them any favors by not telling them they ought to reconsider?
Think of an alcoholic. They persist in behavior which hurts them and those around them and if we permit their behavior, aren't we really just making their live's worse? I sincerely hope Con. Kennedy or Kathleen Sibelius, or Con. Pelosi, etc, etc experience the sort of conversion experience that can help them bring their political beliefs in line with Church moral teaching, not because I think I know better than them or because I don't like it when people "break the rules," but ultimately because I care for the condition of their mortal souls.
A little more of this kind of talk and the calls/cries to throw people under the busses will go away.. 'Lord hear our prayer'
Continuing the metaphor, all manner of sick people are admitted to the hospital, but patients who are uncooperative with treatment are routinely discharged. This is not because hospitals are being judgmental or are interested in seeing only "the pure." Its because hospitals must concern themselves, not with being a warehouse for malingerers, but rather being a place of healing for those who wish to strive for health. So it is, I would argue, with the Church.
Ok, all done now. ;-)
Greg
While addressing the issue of First Communion, Pope Benedict said:" The proper meaning of catechesis, infact, must be this; to bring the flame of Jesus' love, even if it is a small one , to the hearts of children and through the children to their parents, thus reopening the places of faith of our time."
[Luke 9:49-50]
J. H. Newman, Apologia Pro Vita Sua.
John XXIII said said the same thing albeit more succinctly: “We are not on earth to guard a museum, but to cultivate a flowering garden of life.”