The Catholic bulletin. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1911-1995, 1917-01-06

When | went to school, some TWEEN
$y-fiVe years ago, it was the strict rule
that children be twelve years of age
before they be allowed to receive first
Holy Communion; now, the age limit
is eight, nine or ten, and even younger
Why this radical change?
The rule requiring a child to be
twelve years Of age before being adj
mitted to first Holy Communion had
only local authority, and was based on
local conditions, which we presume
justified the ruling. 1t was not a gen
Gral law of the Church. Much earlier
than twenty-five years ago, in fact, in
1926 the Church, with her fullest au-
thority, condemned as heretical any
who would deny that all and each of
the faithful of either sex are obliged
TO receive the Holy Eucharist every
year, at least at Easter time, when
they will have attained the age of dis
erection. This age of discretion, or the
Use Of reason, varies with different in
dividualS, different nations, and even
with different localities in the same
country. In warmer climates children
generally arrive at maturity at an
earlier age than in colder climates.
It is this law of the Church enacted at
the Council of Trent that is binding on
ALL If its application to individuals
has varied from time to time, this
means only that the local authorities
differed in their judgment as to the
time at which the child reached the
age of discretion, or the use of reason;
some, putting it at a later year, others
at an earlier year.
1t is to be admitted, however, that
Pope Plus X emphasized the point that
the full use of reason is not required;
that the beginning of the use of reason
is sufficient to justify pastors in ad-
uniting children to Holy Communion.
But even now the age limit in years is
not everywhere the same All are
anxious to follow the teaching of the
Church and to serve best the welfare
of the child; but, unfavorable circum-
stances in the child's life, absence of
sufficient religious training in the
home, lack of piety in the home and
other obstacles retard the spiritual de-
velopment of the child, and conse-
Quently, the age at which it can dis
tlnguish the Holy Eucharist from COM
mon bread sufficiently to allow it fit
tinGly to receive Holy Communion.
At recent EMISSION" the sufferinas
Of hell were emphasized very strongly,
so much so, indeed, that everlasting
torture seemed to make God a cruel
monster, rather than a clement Saw
Jour.
He'll means essentially the loss for
all eternity of the happiness of God
The Church has defined three things
IN regard to hell: list, there is a hell;
2nd, that he'll is eternal; 3rd, that
there are different degrees of suffer-
ing in hell. These are the only points
that are of Catholic faith on this ques-
ton. III none of them, nor in all of
them, can one find anything contra
dictory to the Justice or mercy of God.
The holiness of God requires that
nothing defled can enter heaven.
The one who is condemned to hell de-
parts this life in state of wilful and
persistent rebellion against God and
ills law. 1t is at mortal enmity with
God. It meets God in this condition.
Could one even fancy such soul has
tenIng to loving embrace Of God. On
the contrary, all we know of enmity
means either war or separation be-
tween the two parties. If we could by
any power of imagination put soul
guilty Of mortal sin into heaven, it's
first instinct and its every power would
be eXerted to escape from heaven. 1t
would see in God it's one enemy,
whom it would wish even to destroy,
its very breath would be a curse of
God. Could such a soul live in peace
and happiness in heaven? There
would be a contradiction between the
holiness of God and the deformity of
such a soul; there would be another
contradiction between the state of
mind OF the reprobate and the peace
of heaven and of God.
On the other hand, God must assert
His Justice. He has written in the
heart of each one His law, promis-
Ing reward or punishment for fidelity
or disobedienCe. The good who serve
God will be rewarded, made happy for
all eternity. Would it be consistent
with justice that rebellions be reward
ed in the same way as the faithful?
The soldier who endangers his life to
obey his country's laws is honored and
rightly so; would the soldier who at
tackled his commanding officer be
praised by men? The law of the land
would have only one sentence for the
traitor. God, we say, must uphold the
law that he has made, otherwise, He
would not be the LawMaker, the AL
mighty. The other who could set at
defiance with impunity that law, would
really be above God, debating to God
what law he could obey. Would such
a course be consistent with divine JUS
tice? 1t would be repugnant essential
ly even to the ideas of justice that
right reason gives us.
Reason alone, then, teaches us that
the unrepentant sinner cannot live
with God, and it is clear teaching of
revelation that there is no chance for
.A,1 r,... 4 L