We have been notified by the school authorities of the date for Michael and Daniel’s first communion in May 2013. A little early you might think – absolutely not. First communion has become a rite of passage in Irish society. A fortune is spent on first communion outfits for girls and parties for boys and girls.
I’m not quite sure how this happened. First communion was always a big deal – I remember my own at age 7 and 2 months. But, you know, it involved a nice white dress your mother made and family lunch in a restaurant. No one hired stretch limos or got fake tan and no one hired out a function room. This is, I think, a hangover from the Celtic tiger when expenditure on a range of fronts got slightly out of control. Unlike expenditure in other areas which has been sharply reined in, expenditure on first communion celebrations continues to be considerable. At the same time, Ireland has become a much more secular society. School composition doesn’t reflect this and over 90% of primary schools are catholic. So it’s very easy to have your child prepared for the sacraments. In the overwhelming majority of cases sending them to the school at the bottom of the road will do it.
So, essentially, you have a ceremony prepared for in almost all schools which is regarded as a rite of passage for children and their first big public celebration. These children’s parents may not be religious but overwhelmingly, they tend to opt in. A number of my friends who are not religious have let their children make first communion on the basis that it’s more trouble than it’s worth for them to opt out and they enjoy the day. As a practicing catholic my inner smugness [doubtless carrying me straight to Hell] allows me to shrug my shoulders at this approach [though I like to think that I would not do this myself – more inner smugness – doubly damned].
Bear with me, there is a point to all this context. So, non-religious parents believe their children have a right to their first communion “day out”. The church is, understandably, not entirely delighted with this approach and has insisted that children and their parents attend regular masses in the academic year during which children are to receive their communion. Hilariously, this is greeted with outraged indignation by many parents. I think that they want to remove the sacrament of communion from the church’s keeping because it’s really for the children. Seriously?
The local freesheet “The Northside People” recently reported the latest church first communion outrage under the inevitable [front page!] headline “Holy row over Communion change”. Essentially, the church is trying to lay greater emphasis on the religious aspect of the sacrament which I would have thought would be hard to argue with. I am totally wrong. Parents are “up in arms over changes being introduced”. According to the People “The new changes will involve parents, teachers and parishes working together to see smaller groups of children receiving their First Communion during Sunday mass instead of Saturday, as has been the tradition for generations.” Harmless enough, you might think. Well no, in fact “some parents believe the change will limit the amount of time their children have to celebrate the occasion and feel their children are being deprived of what is considered a traditional family day. Many families with children making their First Communion on Saturdays spend the rest of the day visiting relatives before organising a family day out on the Sunday. But under the new guidelines being introduced on a phased basis, the children will be back at school the day after they take the sacrament.”
“Saturday has always been a traditional day for children to celebrate their First Communion and we now feel that they are being robbed of that tradition” said a parent adding for good measure – “We also feel that it’s an attempt to tone down the hype surrounding First Communion celebrations, which is not very nice for the children.†This seems very odd to me, either she cares about its religious significance in which case the change of day doesn’t matter or she doesn’t in which case I think she’s daft to have her child go through what is to her a meaningless rigmarole and could give her some other kind of party.
The parent went on to say, “If it doesn’t change I won’t be allowing my daughter to make her Communion at the church. I’ll probably take her to Lourdes instead where she’ll be able to feel like the day is really special.” Oh Lourdes, be very afraid.
A certain ignorance about the nature of the sacrament is arguably also displayed in the comment “We don’t tell the church what to do so the least they could do is listen to us and stop telling us how we should celebrate our children’s Communion.â€
I appreciate that this situation largely arises because of the historical legacy of an overwhelmingly catholic education system at primary level and I suppose during times of transition odd quirks are likely to be thrown up but still I find this very strange. Am I alone? Am I completely out of tune with how everyone else in Ireland feels? Is it because I’m a practicing Catholic (on the other hand very much the wishy-washy liberal wing)? Do you think this is insane as well? I would be interested to see if anyone has comments. No pressure now.
Paradoxically, this is one of those areas where observant Catholics and observant atheists (such as myself) can agree on some aspects – the emphasis being on the word ‘observant’, in that we both believe it is important to strive for consistency between our beliefs and how we behave (though we will inevitably fail in this). So I too am amazed at times at how parents can happily put their children through the sacraments and key rites of a religion they themselves have rejected on some level.
That’s about the limit of my agreement with you, though. Throughout your post I was thinking, ‘Yes, but this only arises because 90+% of the available education is Catholic!’ Now, I appreciate it takes a long time to change an education system, so how about, in the meantime, changing the way individual schools educate? I remember back to my own Catholic school and the hours of teaching devoted, in class time, to preparing for confession, first communion and confirmation – to the extent that any child not participating in these rites would feel incredibly excluded and subject to tremendous social pressure. I don’t know if this is still the case. It strikes me that it would be better to make this preparation entirely extra curricular, ideally taking it out of the school environment altogether. I don’t see the church agreeing to this because it strikes me that, although they may complain about the detail (lapsed parents wanting their child to have its first communion but not wanting to go to mass regularly as a preparation) of the current situation they quite like the fundamentals of it (that having those children go to a Catholic school and mainstreaming the Catholic rites into the education provided is a useful way for the church to get back into the fold some of the children of these ‘lost’ parents).
So, you can either ask all the concerned parents en masse (excuse the pun) each to change their personal behaviour or you can try and change the system to ensure this situation doesn’t arise.
I look back on my own Catholic education with a lot of bitterness. I was systematically indoctrinated – the hours of preparation for the sacraments being the least of this, in fact – and this in a state-funded institution.
My first communion was followed by a restaurant meal and a trip to the zoo. We also wore our dresses (sans veil) every Sunday to Mass for some time thereafter.
I must admit that I have been to at least one partyish do where the relatives all went back to the house afterwards, there was a pot of chicken chasseur and rice bought fairly cheaply from local caterers with salads etc made by themselves, and they did get a bouncy castle for the children which kept them happy until it got dark. That family would be weekly Mass-goers.
My eldest niece is making her first Communion this year and the first of the special Masses was on recently, not an issue for them since they go regularly but I have heard of major complaints when it turns out that the special Mass has been postponed and thus the parents have been “duped” into attending an extra one. The following Sunday my other brother and I were minding them and our plans to bring them to Mass were scuppered partly by one of the others’ tantrums and partly by a slow clock – the imminent communicant was disappointed.
I am reliably informed that at least one church a few years ago had to notify parents that while extended family members were welcome to attend they were not allowed to eat takeaway food in the church. My dark suspicion about the objection to Sunday rather than Saturday is that it would cut down on the drinking (of the parents, although I have heard of one horrific case where a father presented his son with a 2 litre bottle of cider on his special day – the children in that family were later taken into care).
Great post and comments! I don’t have anything to add to the sentiments already expressed, except to wonder if something like this is the inevitable consequence of a de facto established church in Ireland (in any country really). If religion is important for religious and not merely social ‘identity politics’-type reasons, this sort of thing should be done outside school time so that only those who approach it with the proper attitude participate in it.
Whilst being neither Irish, religious (raised methodist, now agnostic) or a parent, I have to say I agree with you. To put it mildly, it seems a bit silly for these parents to kick up a fuss about something they’re not really that into in the first place.
Also not being properly Irish and protestant to boot, I can’t really comment on the case in point – it’s not really equivalent but I suppose there would be an enormous stink here if the church tried to ‘take back’ Christmas however much people mutter about it being secularised.
Protestant here (predestined) and American, so I can’t comment on the religious indoctrination in the schools — there is a big bruhaha here about getting God and religion of any kind out of government run schools on the one hand, and massive moves to privately funded “religious” schools by the religious conservatives (particularly in the deep South) so that God and their particular brand of protestantism can be got back into schools and their children “properly” indoctrinated.
I wonder if you are overlooking the heavy political charge involved here? Ireland struggled for so long to be allowed not just to be Catholic, but to be Irish. I think the indignation expressed is because the Church is messing about with the way the Irish traditionally celebrate first communion. It’s not a religious issue, but Irish cultural tradition issue.
Gosh what interesting comments – thank you. The interface between religion and education can be very vexed, I suppose. And this is one of its manifestations. Also Irish people are very good at feeling put upon.
The Church finds itself in a dilemma because the State failed to provide any alternate schools. Catholic schools were cheap. TheChurch provided land, extra funding and free management. Now things have changed and people want the Church to just forego its schools.
People need to develop some honesty and integrity. If you have no faith, no relationship with Christ, no love for the Mass, then you should not be having your children make their First Communion. It’s not like letting your kids play GAA even though you’ve no interest. And if you do, at the very least respect the process, the rules and the place. What you do after agrees up to you.
Gosh. More comments than many an online newspaper article. Perhaps you need to call up Joe Duffy. Get the nation talking.
This sounds so much like the difficulties over baptism services in the Anglican church. I’m not sure if it is the same in Ireland (I suspect not) but here now that many couples don’t get married, they need a big ceremony to mark some kind of rite of passage. For some British Catholic families this is First Communion (some say, well, she might not get married, so she’d better have this) and for the non-Catholic ones it’s the baptism.
At our church baptisms have until recently mainly been the 12 noon post-morning-service family-only type thing. I think this was partly as it’s a large pretty historic church and partly as we had fewer congregation with babies. Now they are split between the two but the midday “private” ones had got big – four or five families – and started to be My Big Fat Gypsy Christening type affairs. Even in the main morning service we notice many christening guests seemed to think they were in a night club.
So I do wonder if there may also be a niggling doubt that there might not be a big wedding, so better make the most of this? I think marriage rates are higher in Ireland but there may be the families with small/post-baby/elopement type weddings.
I agree with everything you say about the double standards of parents who want to have a first communion, but don’t want to credit it with any religious significance.
And yet, I do think that there is something mean-minded and counter-productive about churches who try to deprive non-churchgoers of their religious ceremonies. Like it or not, most people do not go to church out of a sense of duty any more. When they do choose to go (baptisms, first communions, weddings, funerals), it could be viewed as a marketing exercise for the church – an opportunity to make the non-attenders aware of the benefits of church-going, whether religious or otherwise.
In the (Anglican) Church of Ireland, Sunday services tend to be half empty. But everyone shows up on Christmas Day. For their pains, they are often berated from the pulpit for not going to church the rest of the year. Not a great advertisement. But, if the choir sang well, the rector gave an interesting and thought-provoking sermon, and a fine feed of coffee and mince pies was provided afterwards, they might see what they were missing.
It is worth noting that the Mormon church has almost no fall-off of church attendance among teenagers. Why? Because teenagers are at the centre of their religious ceremonies (known as “temple ordnances). They are then sponsored to go on two-year missions around the ages of 18 and 20. They are then expected to settle down, get married and produce new Mormons. The church values them at every age. I think the Catholic and Anglican churches could learn a lot from them, given that, after confirmation, there isn’t much reason to stick around.
It’s about faith and being part of a common faith community. The church isn’t there to provide occasional life moments for non believers, something special on Christmas morning. Mormons make demands on their members, inc teenagers, that’s why they stay involved. Think there is something in the theory connecting lack of marriage with big baptisms and first communions.
I think it’s limiting to attribute differing rates of adherence from one church to another to those churches’ internal practices. The social and cultural context plays an enormous role too. In the Catholic church alone, adherence in the younger generations remains much stronger in some countries than in others.
Waffle, I was intrigued by an almost throw-away comment in your post – that you’re in the “wishy-washy liberal wing”. What I’m curious about is whether this wing finds expression within the church today or whether you have to keep your more liberal take on certain issues to yourself? When I was a child, I had no sense of this wing even existing, though it undoubtedly did, because there seemed no arena for it to express itself – at parish level, I mean, not the upper echelons.
For family reasons, I recently had contact with for the first time in many years with my childhood parish. The current priest is a real contrast with the old one – less authoritarian, less the automatic arbiter, more ecumenical, more aware and tolerant of non-belief, more nuanced in maintaining the church’s line. What struck me most of all was that he seemed to have a sense of having to earn his and his church’s place in people’s lives, rather than expecting it – as an outsider I view this as positive, though it might seem sad to many. But it also struck me you could be honest with him, at least privately; that you could be part of the church without constantly having to button your tongue.
What an interesting, thoughtful bunch of commenters you are. I do think it’s interesting how many commenters are non-catholics – I feel myself that non-catholic churches were always better at outreach – Sunday schools and the like – and seem to be better at thinking about these things also [a follow through from the Reformation?]. Until relatively recently so much Irish catholicism was taken for granted that we accepted it unthinkingly. I don’t think we’re very good at thinking about it now but we’re getting better, I suppose.
Praxis, oh yes, there is a wishy-washy branch and I am a fully paid up member. The Tablet might be your friend, I’d say.
Very late to the party now, but can’t resist leaving my 2 cents. Wanted to chime in to say that I completely agree with you! You’ll remember that I’m American and not Catholic (Mormon, in fact), but I can absolutely empathize with your soul-damning inner smugness. In the Mormon church, anyone can be baptized at any age, but children who are born to Mormon parents who are active in the church are baptized around their 8th birthday. Briefly, our belief is that an infant doesn’t need to be baptized because children are innocent until the “age of accountability,” which we believe is 8 years old. Before that, we believe that any wrongs they commit are done in total innocence and do not endanger their souls. Anyway. Because of this practice, there are also (frequently) 8 year old children of parents who no longer attend church, but who are baptized because their parents still have some feeling for that tradition. I will admit to inner smugness (or consternation) when I see this, because I believe that partaking in a religious rite puts real, spiritual responsibility on the recipient’s shoulders. Anyone who truly believes in any religious rite sees it as not just a traditional event, but as a covenant made with God. And to those of us who believe, that is not something to be taken lightly. So yes. That is my long way of saying that in my opinion you are 100% in the right to feel that these parents are just plain crazy. Having your child do something that you don’t even believe in? Why not just take them to a showing of a Disney movie in a princess costume and throw a party afterward? It’s basically the same thing if you have no belief, right?
That was going to be the extent of my comment, but sorry for you, I have to add a few things since Mormons were brought up by a commenter above who is clearly not a Mormon. Let me say first that I believe that MT’s remarks about Mormons were meant to be complimentary to the church (if I’m understanding the tone correctly), but some things are just plain wrong. There’s something really creepy and almost inappropriate-sounding in saying that teenagers are “at the center of” our religious ceremonies in our temples. Let me correct this: teenagers who live high moral standards ARE allowed into our temples, but they are NOT at the center of the ceremonies there. In fact, they are NOT allowed to participate in the most important ceremonies there. They are involved only in ONE type of ceremony which, incidentally, carries IMMENSELY less spiritual responsibility than the covenants made in the other ceremonies there. . . the ones the adults participate in. So yes teenagers are in the temple but no they are not at the center of anything there.
Secondly, Mormons are not generally sponsored to go on those 2 year missions. They are asked to either work to save enough money to pay for it (this is usually accomplished through an after-school job during high school), or at least as much as they can, or their parents are asked to pay for it. For lower income families where neither of these options is possible, THEN the church will pay for the mission. But only if the would-be missionary has shown that he/she/the family does not have the ability to pay.
And finally, even though it is not as flattering, for the sake of transparency, I have to refute the notion that there is “almost no fall-off of church attendance for teenagers.” Fall-off among young teenagers is probably very low, I’m not certain on the numbers. But I did hear statistics recently about the numbers of late teenagers and early twenty-somethings who leave the church, and it is actually quite a big number. Can’t remember the statistics of course, so I can’t sound really official, but there it is. . .not terribly flattering, but true.
Sorry about that. Had no intent of hijacking your comment section into a discussion of my religion, but it’s hard to stay quiet when there are so many misconceptions out there! By the way, those misconceptions are pretty much always started by people who have left the Mormon church. Trust me, I’ve seen so many articles and interviews, and, nearly without exception, there is some parenthetical note about the fact that the person interviewed is no longer a practicing Mormon. So the information they give has an air of authority, but there’s definitely an ax to grind, which colors the truthfulness of the information.
Kara: You are quite right. I am not a Mormon, and I probably characterised the religion a bit two-dimensionally. Apologies for my many errors.
However, on a visit to Salt Lake City some years ago, I was really struck by the enthusiastic involvement of people of all ages in the community. I was there in my capacity as a family researcher, and spent some time in the fantastic library there. Several very old people were working there with badges saying (I think) “Missionary”. It struck me that many of these people could have been living alone, and wanted to spend time with other people doing something useful. In Ireland, they would not have had such a productive outlet.
At a younger age, there were many missionaries who had the role of showing visitors around the tabernacle, and similar tasks.
I realise that the volunteer spirit is more common in the US than this side of the Atlantic, but I was really struck by how the LDS managed to harness people’s natural enthusiasm. There is much that I do not admire about the beliefs and history of the LDS, but I did think that other churches could learn from them.
Belgian Waffle: I have often been struck by how little many Irish catholics know about their own faith, let alone other faiths. I think you are right that adherents of majority religions have less need to ask questions. Adherents of minority religions are acutely aware of the differences.
Oh MT, Kara – blogging gold – intelligent polite discussion in the comments. I cannot tell you how delighted I am. K, it IS true that these comments do always seem to be by former Mormons…
MT, I do think it is extraordinary how little lots of us know about our religion. I really do wonder whether it’s a hangover from traditional Catholic attitudes to Bible reading (had a – catholic – friend who tried to read it cover to cover but had to take long breaks as the OT was so disturbingly violent). Also, I can’t help feeling that every week priests have a captive audience to tell about religion [the sermon] but in a lifetime of mass going, I have very rarely heard a memorable one. Something wrong there surely.