It is the duty of every confirmed Catholic to ensure
that the proper order of first sacramental
reception by children is followed in their parish.

First confession before
First Communion

By Joseph A. Wemhoff

n For Catholic parents, the Faith formation of their children is one of the most major responsibilities of parenthood. A key element of this Faith formation is the first reception of the sacraments of Reconciliation and of Communion.

This article addresses the order of first reception of these two sacraments by children. It outlines the reasons why the reception of First Reconciliation before the reception of First Communion for children is in the best interests of children, parents, and the Church. The approach will be to examine the reasons in support of First Reconciliation before First Communion, to examine the reasons against inverted order, and to review the concept of offering a "choice." Lastly, several related issues in Canon Law will be considered, followed by an examination of how inverted order can be part of a broader agenda.

First, however, there will be presented a brief summary of teaching and of practice in the Catholic Church today, and an overview of the reasons advanced for inverted order.

Teaching and practice in the Church

In this century, Pope Pius X affirmed proper order for children on August 7, 1910, with the Papal decree Quam Singulari, which traced the basis for proper order back into the history of the Church.

In the post-Vatican II environment of the late 1960s and early 1970s, experimentation was initiated whereby the traditional order of First Reconciliation before First Communion was reversed. On May 24, 1973, the Vatican ordered these experiments halted with the publication of the Papal decree Sanctus Pontifex. In 1983, under the revised Code of Canon Law, Canon 914 was promulgated. This Canon, which addresses First Communion for children, is quoted in full below (emphasis added):

It is the responsibility, in the first place, of parents and those who take the place of parents as well as of the pastor to see that children who have reached the use of reason are correctly prepared and are nourished by the divine food as early as possible, preceded by sacramental confession; it is also for the pastor to be vigilant lest any children come to the Holy Banquet who have not reached the use of reason or whom he judges are not sufficiently disposed.

The effect of this Canon was to increase the role of parents, to insist on adequate preparation of children for Communion, and to mandate the prior sacramental reception of Reconciliation. For the most part, the vast majority of dioceses in the United States today follow proper order, but there is a minority which does not-either continuing inverted order or offering a "choice"-in defiance of Church teachings.

For children in Catholic schools and in religious education programs, the normal canonical order of sacramental first reception is First Reconciliation in the winter of Second Grade and First Communion in the spring or summer of Second Grade. Those who advocate inverted order generally practice First Communion in the spring or summer in Second Grade and First Reconciliation in the spring of Third or Fourth Grade.

Reasons advanced for inverted order

The three reasons usually advanced by advocates of inverted order are:

1. The opinions of various child development experts that children are not mature enough to appreciate sin and to undertake Reconciliation until about age 9 or 10. At this later age, they claim, children have less fear, a more mature Faith, greater understanding, and more freedom. Others hold that children lack until maybe Fourth Grade the social consciousness necessary to appreciate sin and reconciliation.

2. The order of sacramental reception for adults in the early days of the Church, which is mirrored in RCIA practices today: Baptism, Confirmation, Communion, and then other sacraments.

3. More time to do separate catechesis for Reconciliation and for Communion.

Why First Reconciliation before First Communion

To me, as a Catholic parent, there are eight compelling reasons-apart from the fact that it is the teaching of the Church-for First Reconciliation before First Communion.

Firstly, the effort to form children's consciences is one that begins very early in life, and is an ongoing process that does not start or end at the "age of reason," which generally is defined as age seven years. By the age of reason, a child should have inculcated in him a basic understanding of right and wrong, and the ability to make basic decisions (e.g., copying someone else's homework is wrong, etc.). The discipline of confessing (admitting) wrongs at this age is an important, formal step in a child's continuing formation. Also, importantly, it provides a meaningful check on the efforts of parents in correctly forming a child's conscience. As a parent, it gives me great comfort that my child, as part of Reconciliation, has a knowledge base, can reflect, and can articulate right and wrong-not at the level of an adult but according to his capacity. It is a milestone and a checkpoint.

Secondly, First Reconciliation at the age of reason sets a level of expectations in a child. It serves notice that the child is responsible for his actions and that a higher standard of conduct is expected. At about age seven, that can be a welcome message for children, who always like to know what is expected of them and who are naturally trying to emulate adult behaviors.

Thirdly, the age of reason, which traditionally has occurred in Grade Two, is occurring earlier today for a couple of reasons. There is the accelerated maturation fostered by television, popular music, movies, and other elements of our "fast track" society. Today's second grader is much less innocent/more knowledgeable than a second grader of, say, twenty years ago. Then, there is the fact that admission dates for schools have been moved back so that in some states, e.g., Illinois, it is not uncommon for second graders to be eight-and occasionally, nine-years old. In fact, First Reconciliation in Grade Two is probably past the onset of the age of reason for many children today-belying the arguments of advocates of inverted order for a later initiation to sacramental Reconciliation.

Fourthly, children need to understand that sin can come between God and mankind and between fellow human beings. Already, in Second Grade, children are intensely socially-conscious and can appreciate separation and reconciliation. First Reconciliation before First Communion gives proper emphasis to this concept of sin at an appropriate stage of children's development.

Fifthly, it seems much better to give a child a gentle, loving introduction to Reconciliation at an age when his transgressions are minor instead of waiting a year to two more when the possibilities of weightier transgressions are greater and the gap for reconciliation can be greater and more stressful on the child. In the past, any undue fear that children may have felt has been due to the how of instruction, not to the order of sacramental reception. Inverted order is the wrong answer to a valid concern.

Sixthly, the three conditions precedent to reception of Communion are freedom from grave sin, fasting for one hour prior, and the desire to live in peace with all. Why teach only two of those three? First Reconciliation before First Communion inculcates in a personal way the idea of conditions precedent to the reception of Communion.

Seventhly, it is human nature to value more highly those things which are attained through effort. By passing through the discipline of First Reconciliation first, children value First Communion more. As a practical matter, the time required for catechesis for First Reconciliation in Grade Two is no more than three months-about equal to the time required for catechesis for First Communion-so that more than ample time is present for preparation for both sacraments in one year.

Eighth and lastly, it is entirely appropriate that there is a different order of sacramental reception for adults than for children, given that Baptism remits both original and actual sin, and that catechesis for Reconciliation precedes or shortly follows Baptism of adult converts.

Why not First Communion before First Reconciliation

There are seven reasons why First Communion before First Reconciliation (inverted order) as the norm is not only inadvisable but possesses the potential to cause grave harm to children.

Firstly, while it is rare that a child would commit a mortal sin, it is possible, as evidenced by even a cursory glance at news reports today. Should a child commit a serious sin between inverted First Communion and First Reconciliation, what recourse would he then have? The policy of First Communion before First Reconciliation, which exposes even one child to the possibility of this unspeakably cruel situation, is both illogical and a serious spiritual abuse. Also, why open the door to sacrilege?

Secondly, it is the obligation of the pastor to determine that children who approach the Holy Banquet are "sufficiently disposed." If a child has made his First Reconciliation before First Communion, it would seem reasonable to give him the benefit of the doubt in this regard; if not, then it is much more difficult to see on what basis a pastor can reasonably presume sufficient disposition.

Thirdly, by following inverted order, there is created the very real possibility that child could make First Communion and never make First Reconciliation. Examples are easy to postulate. One way would be for a child who attends religious education classes to simply drop out of these classes and become dormant in the Faith. Another way, in our highly-mobile society, would be for the family to move to another part of the country after the child makes First Communion but before First Reconciliation, and then neglect to do First Reconciliation, or enroll in a school where canonical order is followed, and just have it assumed that the child has made First Reconciliation. Again, why even open the door to these kinds of outcomes?

Fourthly, for parents who send their children to Catholic schools-often, at considerable financial sacrifice-there is a major issue of justice. Catholic parents have the right to expect that instruction in Catholic schools will be the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church. Inverted order or a "choice" as the norm for Catholic schools is an unlawful, coercive impediment to parents who wish to follow Canon Law, because parents who wish to follow canonical order simply do not have the time to pursue on their own a separate course of instruction outside the norm. Also, how does a child feel when all of his classmates are doing First Communion in Grade Two and First Reconciliation in Grade Three? For two years, he will be "different" at an age when being different is especially painful to children. More importantly, why should following canonical order make a child "different" in a Catholic school?

Fifthly, the bending, breaking, or usurpation of parents' consciences-whether done with a full explanation or with no explanation at all (an all-too-often occurrence) in parishes which follow inverted order-is a very serious matter. If parents wish to follow inverted order on the basis of exceptional circumstances, then that is their right; but, the "default setting" should be Church doctrine, not the personal opinion of the pastor or of the director of religious education.

Sixthly, in some cases where inverted order is the norm, Catholic parents wishing to follow proper canonical order are given instructional materials for the parents themselves to administer catechesis at home. This practice opens the door for well-intentioned parents-some of whom themselves may be not fully conversant with Faith doctrine-to unintentionally pass on uninformed, incomplete, or uncertain catechesis to their children, resulting in improperly formed consciences in the little ones.

Seventh and lastly, much of the rationale for inverted order rests on subjective opinions from psychologists and others. Never has this writer seen a shred of "hard" evidence of the improved efficacy-by any measurement-of inverted order. Indeed, available empirical evidence would argue that inverted order produces less respect for Communion and Reconciliation. During the 1950s and 1960s, there were many "expert" psychological opinions about not disciplining children for fear of giving them a "complex." Over time, this advice has been found only to produce undisciplined, self-centered children. Quite simply, inverted order as practiced by some parishes continuously for over 20 years now simply has not withstood the test of time in any clearly demonstrable way.

The concept of a "choice"

Some have argued that it is desirable to offer parents and their children a "choice" on proper order. Such arguments are largely grounded in New Age theories. The order of first sacramental reception is a matter best addressed within the framework of the teachings of the Church under the primacy of the parents. Furthermore, from a practical viewpoint, any "choice" is really a false one for four reasons.

Firstly, having some children follow proper order and having other children follow inverted order serves only to confuse them. It also dilutes their ability to appreciate right and wrong-which is what the formation of conscience is all about-and it teaches them that this is just another choice.

Secondly, a "choice" in this matter teaches parents and children to question actively the teachings of the Church, instead of inculcating respect for, and obedience to, the teachings of the Church, which speaks not authoritarianly, but authoritatively.

Thirdly, two parallel sets of practices fragment the Church.

Fourthly, offering a "choice" serves to scandalize and anger those in the laity who are cognizant and respectful of the Church's teachings, repeatedly affirmed over the years.

Some even go so far as to assert that it is the choice of the child only to make First Reconciliation. What if a child never chooses to make First Reconciliation? What then? Also, besides begging the question of whether a child is competent to make such a major decision, this view seems oblivious to the primacy of the parents under natural order, common sense, and Canon Law.

Related issues in Canon Law

Given the power of the reasons for proper order and against inverted order, what is the purported rationale advanced by those who advocate inverted order?

Perhaps the most insidious basis for justifying this practice is the interpretation that Canon 914 pertains only to the catechesis or preparation for Reconciliation, not actual reception, and therefore children need be presented only with the opportunity of First Reconciliation before First Communion. Taken within the broader context of common sense, logic, Quam Singulari, Sanctus Pontifex, and the common practice of the vast majority of dioceses which follow proper order, this argument is utterly unconvincing. Most telling of all, if it were the intent to have Canon 914 apply only to preparation, it could very easily have been worded "preceded by preparation for sacramental confession."

It has also been asserted that the silence of Canons 913, 988, and 989 on First Reconciliation in connection with First Communion vitiates any requirement for actual sacramental reception of Reconciliation prior to First Communion for children. This argument is disingenuous in its attempt to make silence speak. There is no conflicting intent, as these Canons predate 914, and were not written concurrently. Canon 914 is designed to address the formation of children as a specific subset under these earlier Canons. Analogously, because the Constitution of the United States is silent on unreasonable searches and seizures, while the subsequent Fourth Amendment prohibits this subset of activities, the silence of the earlier corpus cannot be "interpreted" to mean that such actions really are permissible.

Another attempted justification for inverted order is that no one may be coerced against their will to receive First Reconciliation, as it may affect the proper disposition required. Could the same not be said of Baptism of infants? Could the same not be said of First Communion, which is to occur "as early as possible" under Canon 914? And what of Confirmation-is not peer pressure of a class making their Confirmation a form of coercion? Indeed, is not Canon Law itself coercive and injurious to Christian Charity in its purest form? Do I as a parent "coerce" my children by taking them to reconciliation regularly every four to eight weeks after their First Reconciliation? What if a child "chooses" never to make First Reconciliation? Obviously, in support of inverted order the coercion argument is being pushed beyond the point of reason and common sense.

Lastly, the argument has been advanced that Canon 777 places this matter in the hands of the pastor by charging him to ensure that "children are properly prepared for the first reception of the sacraments of penance and Most Holy Eucharist . . . ." Clearly, this Canon speaks to the content of the catechesis (which, incidentally, is to be consistent with Church teaching, not the personal belief of the pastor) and not to the order of sacramental reception; indeed, "penance" appears before "Eucharist" in the wording of this Canon.

How inverted order can be part of a broader agenda

So, what is "really going on" with those who espouse inverted order? The answer appears to be twofold.

In the first instance, the issue is one of balance. In the Middle Ages, out of an exaggerated sense of unworthiness and guilt, the faithful seldom received the sacraments. To counter this, the Church mandated confession and communion at least once a year. Today, out of an opposite, exaggerated sense of self-importance and self-indulgence, the emphasis is on "choices," on self-fulfillment, and away from sin and guilt. Reflective of our self-centered, materialistic times, the pendulum has swung to the other extreme of "feel good" theology. Advocates of inverted order are either unable to see this or are unable to resist this.

In the second instance, there are those who have an agenda to diminish the importance of Reconciliation as a sacrament. For some, the deferral of First Reconciliation until after First Communion is part of the broader assault on the Sacrament of Reconciliation. This attack includes the substitution of general absolution in lieu of individual confession-another abuse repeatedly condemned by the Vatican.

It is worth remembering the dedication to Reconciliation that the patron saint of parish priests, St. Jean Baptiste Marie Vianney (1786-1859), exemplified. As the Curé of Ars, he drew huge crowds to his small rural parish on his renowned reputation as a counselor and confessor. He tirelessly heard thousands of individual confessions annually, saving countless souls.

The reasons for First Reconciliation before First Communion for children are as compelling as the reasons why inverted order does not make sense, theologically or practically. The Church's discipline in this matter is firmly grounded in theology, logic, and common sense. It is the duty of every confirmed Catholic to ensure that proper order of first sacramental reception by children is followed in their parish. n