I Have a Question - Fr. Hugh Barbour, O.Praem.

Into the Mouths of Babes
Can infants receive Holy Communion? And other questions from our readers.

Q I was at a Sunday Liturgy in a Byzantine rite parish and was amazed to see the priest give Holy Communion to a couple of babies. I asked about this and they said it was their custom, and that when a baby was baptized, he or she was also confirmed and given Holy Communion on the same occasion. This is so different from the practice of the Roman rite. Can you explain why there is this difference? Why don't we have a similar privilege?

A In the early Church, the Sacraments of Christian Initiation (baptism, confirmation and Holy Eucharist) were all given at the same time by the bishop in the Cathedral Church, always on Easter and then later also on Pentecost. As the Church grew and as the custom of delaying baptism well into adulthood disappeared, this task was given also to simple priests by delegation from the bishop, and was extended to any season of the year.

In the Eastern Church, the value of keeping the traditional order and liturgical unity of these sacraments was emphasized, and so all three were administered at once by the priest to infants, as well as to adults.

In the Western Church, the role of the bishop as the sanctifier and enlightener of his flock was maintained as much as possible, and so only baptism was entrusted to priests, while the bishop maintained the role of confirming the baptized. This led to a delay between baptism and confirmation. Since the traditional order of the sacraments required that the Holy Eucharist be received after confirmation, this sacrament was also delayed until later. When at the beginning of this century Pope St. Pius X laudably insisted that young children receive Holy Communion as early as possible after they have the habitual use of reason, there was no similar attempt to confer confirmation earlier, and so in most places the traditional order of the sacraments was broken.

The trend to put confirmation later and later has continued in this country especially, although there is nothing in the universal law of the Church which requires waiting until teenage years to receive this sacrament. In fact, theologically speaking, if someone is fit to receive Holy Communion, then he or she is all the more ready to be confirmed, since confirmation is ordered to the full participation in the life of the worshipping Church, which is the Blessed Eucharist. Confirmation is not the sacrament of chronological or social maturity, but of the sacramental maturity of the individual. Receiving the Eucharist is the fullness of the sacramental maturity of the individual. In fact, the only sacraments which require by the law of the Church an adult maturity are the sacraments which are directed to the good of the mystical body as a whole: holy orders and holy matrimony. There is absolutely nothing in the nature of the sacrament of confirmation which requires it to be delayed to high school years. Why not have the bishop come and confirm and then give first Holy Communion at the confirmation Mass to all those 7-year-olds together? If he cannot come to each parish every year, he could combine several parishes regionally, or delegate someone according to the law. Then the "theologically logical" order of the sacraments would be maintained.

All in all, though, the Eastern custom is, in my opinion, more in keeping with the nature of the sacraments themselves than the Western one as it has developed. The Roman emphasis on the role of the bishop in confirmation is a sound one, but as the old saying goes, sacramenta propter homines, "the sacraments are for men." They should not be needlessly restricted. It wouldn't be a bad thing at all if little Latin Catholic babies were given the grace of receiving all the sacraments of initiation, or at least baptism and confirmation, together — something which is now possible only in the Roman rite for adult converts. All the documents of the Magisterium, the Second Vatican Council, the Code of Canon Law, the liturgical books and the Catechism of the Catholic Church speak of the sacraments in their ancient order.

Unfortunately for cradle Catholics of the Roman rite, they are never administered in that way. This separation over a long time of the three sacraments of initiation leads to a falling off, as many of the baptized end up not receiving the sacrament of confirmation at all. The countries and old territories of the former Spanish empire enjoyed the privilege for many years of confirming infants at baptism in the Roman rite. The use of this privilege is sadly disappearing.

I recognize that many priests and bishops in the United States would not agree with what I am saying here, but I think it's a well-founded opinion based on the inner nature of the sacraments themselves, and not just on later customs which are the result of some historical accidents and misunderstandings. In the meantime, we can pray that at the very least, the sacrament of confirmation not be so long delayed in the Latin rite, so that the children of our day may receive, as soon as possible, the graces they so need. In the meantime, I can point out that St. Thomas Aquinas teaches in his Summa Theologiae that the effects of this sacrament can be received before the fact by an act of desire for them, a kind of "confirmation of desire." We can teach our children to make this act of desire, as they await their now usually long-delayed celebration of this very powerful sacrament.

Q Some spiritual reading I am doing says we should work on eliminating not only our venial sins, but also our imperfections. What is the difference between the two? Why is something imperfect if it isn't a sin?

A This is one of those disputed questions about which moral theologians used to write a great deal. Using the principles of St. Thomas Aquinas, I will try to give the simplest answer possible.

Any sin is first of all a thought, word, deed or omission for which we are responsible; it is voluntary, and contradicts the judgment of our reason enlightened by faith in a matter which affects our relationship with God. Mortal sin is an act which is incompatible with that tie, while venial sin is an abuse or exaggeration not incompatible with a relationship to God, but which genuinely hinders our progress toward Him. On a journey, mortal sin would be like turning an about face and going in the opposite direction, or leaving the road altogether. Venial sin would be like stopping temporarily for no good reason just because the journey is a bit too hard; you might be tempted to give up and so fall into some grave sin, so it's best to keep going.

An imperfection is quite different from these two. An imperfection would consist not in doing something we know is wrong, but in choosing something good when we really could choose something better. On a journey this would be like crawling when we could walk, or walking when we could run. For example, on my day off, I could go to a First Friday Mass, but I am really tired, and decide to sleep in. Getting proper rest is really a good thing, but getting to Mass and taking a nap later would be much, much better.

Or in my spiritual reading, I am attracted to lots of stories about apparitions, even though I have never read the Gospel of Luke. Reading about approved apparitions is fine and edifying, but first things first. Sacred Scripture is much better for my soul. In fact there's a plenary indulgence for devoutly reading Sacred Scripture for half an hour. You could offer that for the souls of the faithful departed who, like yourself, have neglected the study of their Faith during life! Or I have an inspiration to do a penance by not putting salt on my french fries, but I say, "No, I like french fries with salt. I'll do some other penance." Eating salt on your french fries is a good thing in itself, but an act of penance is much better.

Imperfections are not so much obstacles to the love of God, as they are obstacles to a more fervent love for Him. It's as though He offers us better gifts than we actually want. We're at Cana and we say, "Would You mind changing that wine back into water? Water's good enough for me. You shouldn't have put Yourself to the trouble." Zeal for overcoming imperfections is really what distinguishes us from the heroism of the saints. We work on the imperfections of others, they worked on their own. Thus, if we want to be saints, we have to work on our imperfections honestly, and be sensitive to the good inspirations God gives us. Usually, though, God permits at least some sudden and barely deliberate imperfections even in very holy people. This keeps them humble and dependent on Him. While we need to remember that imperfections are not sins, we should always ask God to give us the grace to be so generous with Him that we will "go the extra mile" spiritually. As it says in Psalm 119 (or 118 in older Catholic bibles), "I will run in the way of your commandments because you have enlarged my heart."

Q My wife and I were recently at a Natural Family Planning seminar. The discussion turned at one point to what is allowed in marital relations. The result of the discussion seemed to be that anything is acceptable as long as there's openness to life and we don't do anything against the natural law. Is this right? It seems to go pretty far.

A The natural law is defined by St. Thomas Aquinas as "[human] reason's participation in the eternal law of God."

This means that the natural law is basically the rule of reason (including the influence of faith on our reason) over human action. The more perfectly our actions follow the rule of reason guided by faith, the more perfectly they obey the natural law. The minimum standard is the avoidance of all actions gravely contrary to what we know to be right. There is no maximum standard, since one can always deepen one's understanding of and motivation for one's actions by increasing practical knowledge through prayer, study and penance. The saints are the ones who seek to observe the law of God most perfectly. Indeed, their actions come more and more under the influence of the Holy Spirit, which further perfects our human actions, by placing them under the direction of the mysterious movement of the inner life of God.

Marriage relations are no exception. A couple should observe the minimum, to be sure, otherwise they will not save their souls. But they should not stop there. Marriage relations are very much influenced by the passions of our fallen nature, which war against the law of the Spirit, and should not be treated lightly. The attention of the couple should be drawn more and more to the true ends of marital love, the procreation of children and the mutual increase of love and union between the spouses. Pleasure is only meant to be an effect of these goods, and the obligation to respond to one's spouse is only a minimum protection of them. The more importance given solely to pleasure or convenience, the more the acts are separated from their higher standard. Thus it can be quite possible to avoid mortal sin, but still engage in exaggerated attitudes which could be venially sinful.

This needs to be pointed out once in a while. This isn't an invitation to scrupulosity, but a challenge to make married love a way to holiness. A good practical guide is always to set a higher standard than the minimum. Since we usually fall short of the highest goal we set, if our goal is merely the minimum requirements for avoiding grave sin, we run the risk of falling short even of that most necessary of goals. Perhaps concentrating on the happiness of our beloved spouse before our own pleasure will protect us from this attitude. One thing is certain, an attitude of "anything goes as long as we're married and not using contraception" is not sound and will certainly lead to many venial sins, if not grave ones.

In Tobit 8:5-9, we're presented with the ideal of married love. On their wedding night, when Sarah and Tobias were alone in their room, they got out of bed and Tobias prayed, "Blessed art thou, O God of our fathers, and blessed be thy holy and glorious name for ever. Let the heavens and all thy creatures bless thee. Thou madest Adam and gavest him Eve his wife as a helper and support. From them the race of mankind has sprung. Thou didst say, 'It is not good that the man should be alone; let us make a helper for him like himself.' And now O Lord, I am not taking this sister of mine because of lust, but with sincerity. Grant that I may find mercy and may grow old together with her."

And she said with him, "Amen."

Only then did they consummate their marriage. Why not pray together in this way? Yes, even right before or after the marital embrace. After all, we say grace before and after meals, don't we? Peace of soul, generosity and gratitude to God can only increase the true enjoyment and love all married couples seek. Are you listening, men?



Have a question you'd like answered? Send it to Fr. Brian Wilson, L.C., "I Have a Question," 1453 E. California Blvd., Pasadena, CA 91106. Or send e-mail to frwilson@ samilink.com.