Last week, the “Father Dad” case was in the news. It involved a Redemptorist priest who had a fathered a child when he was a seminarian working in a Portland archdiocese parish. The mother had sued for more support, and had included the archdiocese in the suit. And the archdiocese used the legal defense that the woman should have engaged in “unprotected intercourse.”
I and others found it outrageous that a Catholic archdiocese would use such a legal tactic to fight the suit because it is immoral on many levels. It advocates sinful activity, places the blame squarely on the woman, and seeks to avoid a financial obligation on the part of the priest and his order. Some are now saying that criticism of Archbishop William Levada, then archbishop of Portland, is misplaced.
OFF SUBJECT:
John: If someone has 7 kids, do the parents have to sit through 7 years of First Holy Communion classes, or is it a one time shot?
Joe,
I don’t that answer, and my pastor is out of town right now, but I would guess that once is enough. I teach the English speaking parents and the priests take turns with the Spanish speaking ones. I had about twenty students last year (the second year of the program) and our church was full for the other class, so you can see what the demographics of my parish are like.
It is one thing to hear about the sorry state of catecheses in our Church, but it is another to confront it in the guise of faithful, church-going Catholic parents who know almost nothing about their faith.
The age of discretion (or age of reason) was defined by Pius X in a decree, Quam Singulari, in 1910. It is still the operative decree in determining when to administer First Communion. This is to be done at the age of discretion, approximately age 7 or 8. As defined by the 1983 Code of Canon Law, the age of discretion is now extended to confirmation.
The Catholic Enclyclopedia (1917) has the following entry on the age of discretion.
Age of Reason
The name given to that period of human life at which persons are deemed to begin to be morally responsible. This, as a rule, happens at the age of seven, or thereabouts, though the use of reason requisite for moral discernment may come before, or may be delayed until notably after, that time. At this age Christians come under the operation of ecclesiastical laws, such as the precept of assistance at Mass on Sundays and holydays, abstinence from meat on certain days, and annual confessions, should they have incurred mortal sin. The obligation of Easter Communion literally understood applies to all who have reached “the years of discretion”; but according to the practical interpretation of the Church it is not regarded as binding children just as soon as they are seven years old. At the age of reason a person is juridically considered eligible to act as witness to a marriage, as sponsor at baptism or confirmation, and as a party to the formal contract of betrothal; at this age one is considered capable of receiving extreme unction, of being promoted to first tonsure and minor orders, of being the incumbent of a simple benefice (beneficium simplex) if the founder of it should have so provided; and, lastly, is held liable to ecclesiastical censures. In the present discipline, however, persons do not incur these penalties until they reach the age of puberty, unless explicitly included in the decree imposing them. The only censure surely applicable to persons of this age is for the violation of the clausura of nuns, while that for the maltreatment, suadente diabolo, of clerics is probably so.
Interesting…. sounds like only Marriage and Holy Orders are out of the question, maybe.
party to the formal contract of betrothal? what is this?
Of course, we have the age of reason all over the place, don’t we?
<i>“Father, am I at the age of reason?”
“It depends…”
This is an example which shows that the Church really ought to hire only truly faithful Catholics to represent Her interests. This case highlights why the recent appointment of Ed Saunders to head the Massachusetts Catholic Conference is so disturbing.
Dom,
I can’t believe so many people, you included, are falling for the LA Times spin on this story. Let me make it clear that I think the Redemptorists should be paying child support (which they have been) and I think the payments should be increased (which they are).
Quoting the Times article; “In her relationship with Arturo Uribe, then a seminarian and now a Whittier priest, the child’s mother had engaged “in unprotected intercourse sts are doing the right thing today and that’s what matters.
The ellipsis in your quote elides a lot of information. The third option you propose was clearly not the sense of the legal defense, especially as the lawyer now puts it.
And as I said, I know that the archbishop doesn’t review every document, but shouldn’t the people who work for him, especially those charged with speaking in his name on legal matters, be carefulyl vetted to make sure that they don’t cross the boundaries of Catholic teaching?
If this were the only instance of malfeasance happening under Levada’s nose, that would be one thing, but such funkiness has happened repeatedly on Levada’s watch. Just look at San Francisco. I’ve documented numerous problems, including stuff related to his chancellor and a canon lawyer who was prosecuting cases of sex abuse even while credible sex abuse charges hung over his head.
This isn’t just about three people, otherwise you’d have to say that Paul Shanley’s case, for example, was about two people: Shanley and a kid he abused. But what about the superiors of the seminarian who countenanced what he did?
I’m not saying that woman’s lawsuit against the archdiocese had a legal leg to stand on. That’s beside my point: the defense offered on behalf of the archdiocese was outrageous.
And the archdiocese used the legal defense that the woman should have engaged in Church, Susan Michelle Rollin Torres passed away after the machines, which sustained her life for the past 12 weeks, were turned off at my brother’s request. She was 26 years old.
https://www.bettnet.com/?p=5638Wed, 03 Aug 2005 08:30:41 -0500
https://www.bettnet.com/?p=5638
I know the story is a month-old, but I didn’t get a chance to discuss it then. The Diocese of Phoenix is lowering the age of confirmation in order to make sure more kids receive the sacrament.
]]>age of discretion?
What age would that be?
If one really believes in the efficacy of sacramental grace, in the grace of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit given in the Sacrament of Confirmation, then one would not delay its conferral to a later age. Children need this grace BEFORE they enter puberty. The choices a child has to make in middle school/junior high school these days have a profound impact on the rest of their lives. Religious education is a separate problem which is not solved by delaying Confirmation.
I’m siding with Joe on this one. Parishes have been unreliable about serving up authentic Catholic teaching. (Reference the Blest Are We programme)
Time to serve up the short-course. There’s a new mini catechism coming out.
Rosary, Eucharist, Mass, Confession..just the essentials. Get ‘em done by 11 or 12 and bring in the Bishop with the holy oil.
Ultimately the parents need to be the prime teachers.
If it is important to confirm children at younger and younger ages to gird them against the temptations of puberty, how do you explain the ineffectiveness of most the confirmations since the late 1960’s to even keep confirmed Catholics Catholic?
I think that Confirmtion should be reserved for those who commit to the Faith as an adult, with knowledge and enthusiam. It should not be another social event of ethnic Catholics—as with one of our daughters-in-law, whose family only attends the party afterward.
M. McC.‘s observation supports the need for the Sacrament of Confirmation to be given at the Canonical age since most of the confirmations since the late 1960’s were administered to students in grades 8 to 12.
The age of discretion is defined as the dawn of reason which has been accepted by the Church as about seven years of age. This is an OLD definition—I’m surprised more people don’t know it.
OLD DEFINITION of age of reason: what does this mean? Why should the age of reason change with time?
M. McC: perhaps those that received confirmation between 8-12 grades (as they have since the 60’s) were already too embroiled in sinful habits to respond to the grace given—-aside from the fact that macramae (sp?) and collages don’t do much to prepare us for the sacrament