My liberal church finally went over the edge.

[Aeternitus]

Aeternitus,

Sorry for the delayed reply.  This is with regards to your question about cry-rooms pre-VII:

https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=22198.msg477134#msg477134

This is also a link to a prior 13-page thread on this same topic.

Many thanks for the link, which I have now read, but I didn't find any evidence showing cry rooms were pre Vatican II, just people claiming as much, with no real indication of why they held that view.     

In what I could find, it seems they were pre Vatican II – just.  The general consensus, as indicated in the quotes below, is that they came into being in the 50s, as a result of the post-war baby boom, gaining momentum during Vat II years of 60s and 70s.  If anyone has any further evidence to the contrary, I'd be interested in seeing it. 

I'm constantly wondering how people have Mass-trained their children. A quick study of old world architectural structures reveals the absence of any cry room plans. However, even the oldest of churches had a quieting space, an area like a vestibule, where a child could be removed to briefly while a parent calmed them down...

It wasn't until the '60s and '70s that soundproof rooms started showing up. And while the cry room solved one set of problems for exasperated parents and distracted parishioners, it introduced a whole set of new ones. For instance, would cry room inhabitants feel like we are still participating in the Mass? https://www.uscatholic.org/cryrooms

One architectural feature of the church reflects that it was built at the height of the baby boom.  A soundproof room, screened with artfully decorated windows and fitted with speakers carry the voice of the priest, was next to the narthex.  Literature from that era explains that the "cry room has been provided so mothers with young children can still attend the divine services."  The first Mass was celebrated on Sunday, September 23, 1951. https://www.stgabrielstl.org/Parish-Information/About-St-Gabriel

This is true around the country, as well. Cry rooms sprang up in churches after the Second Vatican Council in the late 1960s, but were often repurposed over the decades since then. https://evangelist.org/Content/Opinion/Perspectives/Article/To-cry-room-or-not-to-cry-room/4/36/22962

That isn't to say that such rooms are a perfect solution. In fact, cry rooms — which became popular in the 1950s, after the baby boom — have become a sort of lightning rod. http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/cry-rooms-solution-or-a-catholic-version-of-children-should-be-seen-but-not

And also some responses from forums/blogs etc, showing that St Theresa isn't the only example of a young child being kept at home:

My husband claims he didn't go to church with his family until about age 5, so that does give credence to the claim that in times past people used to do this..."

Well, that's why there aren't originally-built cry rooms in the old churches. Because babies stayed home with someone, mom, grandma, whoever. Also, parishes were close by and people could just scoot out to an earlier or later Mass. And Mass wasn't about socializing.  That's the way it was always done. This whole dragging babies to Mass thing is a relatively new convention.

Also, what is wrong, when kids are very young, to have tag-team family Mass? That's what my parents did for four or five years. Yes, it would have been great to attend Mass together, but it was better for Mom and Dad to be able to focus on the liturgy too with the kids who could also focus.

My guess is that mothers and their babies didn't go to Mass at all in the middle ages. Between taking care of their other small children, breastfeeding, etc., I doubt that attending Mass was a priority. Our church is pretty old and doesn't have a cry room, and our [very conservative] priest has told parishioners that they are excused from Mass, per canon law, until their children are old enough to be reasonably under control for an hour.

One interesting thing I've noted is that adults around the age of 60 or older always mention having split their time at Masses when their children were young so that they didn't have to take their babies or toddlers to church. People younger than that seem horrified and/or baffled by the idea, as if it never occurred to them that a husband and wife would attend different Masses, and their small children wouldn't attend Mass at all.

I was so lucky! My parents did not take me to Mass until I was five. We the kids stayed with grandma while mom and dad went to Mass. Grandma read the stories from the bible to us every Sunday morning. When my oldest brother started going to Mass I begged my parents to take me also. Can you imagine a kid begging to go to Mass! By then I knew the stories, I knew there was a connection to the scriptures to be found. And I had to catch up to my brother. Thank you Lord for fraternal rivalry!

This is a favorite subject of mine...what is missing in all of this discussion, seems to me, is the fact that we are participating in the Sacrament of the Eucharist...this is not a parish social where we are expecting noisy children...crying is irreverence, however unknown to the child, for which the parents are responsible...it is also inconsiderate of others...the solution is either take the child to the vestibule or parents split the duties..that way everybody benefits and the Mass is celebrated properly and reverently for all...when we make excuses and the complainers are accused of impatience, we miss the point. It is the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist....

I think it's unfair to subject other parishioners to badly behaving children and persistent crying infants. My grandparents went to early Mass and babysat us while parents went to Church. Mom started bringing us once we were about 5yrs. old. I did the same with my kids.

[Aeternitus]

...See, then what ought to be your modesty, your respect and your attention, if you wish to derive the fruit and the blessings which God is wont to pour out on those who assist at the sacred mysteries with sentiments of piety and reverence.

We read in the Old Law, that while the Jews were offering their sacrifices, in which were immolated bulls, lambs and other animals, it was a sight worthy of admiration to behold with what earnestness, respect and silence all the people assisted thereat.  And although the number of persons was innumerable, besides seven hundred ministers of the sacrifices, yet it seemed as if the temple were empty; not the least noise, not even a whisper was heard from the vast multitude.  Now, if such respect and veneration were shown to these sacrifices, which were only shadows and mere figures of ours, what respect, what devotion, what religious silence does not the Holy Mass demand, in which the Immaculate Lamb Himself, the Incarnate Word, is offered for us in sacrifice.  This truth was perfectly understood by the glorious St Ambrose, who, as Cesarius relates, was accustomed whilst celebrating the Divine Mysteries, to turn to the people after the Gospel and exhort them to a rigorous silence, by which he understood, not only that they put a bridle to their tongue, but they took care not to make the least noise, by coughing, moving or making any sort of other sound.   His orders were strictly obeyed, and all those who assisted at his Mass felt themselves seized with a holy fear and were so interiorly moved by divine grace that they derived great fruit and an increase of every spiritual blessing." (The  Hidden Treasure: Holy Mass by St Leonard of Port Maurice.)

Mothers ought to leave very young children at home, as they disturb not only those who bring them to church, but other people, and sometimes even the priest himself.  But bigger children who are old enough to be still, may be brought to Mass. (p 351 Cochem's Explanation of the Holy Mass)

[John Lamb]

I sympathise with you awkwardcustomer but I don't think your appeal to a pre-VII tradition amounts to much. We have to distinguish between real apostolic and ecclesiastical traditions, and mere cultural traditions. Other posters have offered enough evidence to show that infants being prohibited from attending Mass is not a universal apostolic or ecclesiastic tradition. That it was the tradition in the part of France where St. Therese lived in the 19th century doesn't prove much. She still lived in a largely Catholic culture, belonged to a 19th century middle class home where she probably had a nanny, and in any case would be able to receive instruction in the faith outside of church. The culture is different today. Traditionalists are a beleaguered group in a very hostile prevailing culture, so it's to be expected that things sometimes feel slapdash and less than the ideal. I think Miriam made an excellent point about forming the right interior disposition within yourself before arriving. If you're being idealistic and expecting something specific you're always going to be annoyed when it's denied to you. Traditional Catholics cannot be expected to behave in every single way exactly as Catholics prior to the Council did, since we are living in very different conditions inside and outside the Church.

[bigbadtrad]

Fr. Robert Taft, Archimandrite of the Russian Greek Catholic Church, claims that the "age of reason" requirement is a "medieval innovation", as if that somehow renders it disposable.  What greater insult can there be to a liturgical practice than to dismiss it as a 'medieval innovation'?

It's not tradition therefore an innovation. Are you denying it now that I've proven it and you are just using your own logic instead of tradition and it was you who was screaming TRADITION why not stick with tradition?

...the Tradition of the Church has been to give Communion to children who have reached the age of reason.

You mean innovation, not tradition. The Church has that prerogative, but it's still an innovation. St. Pius V called Quo Primum an innovation. Doesn't mean Quo Primum is bad.

You're arguing past facts, tradition, and a doctor of the Church when you have nothing. You just claim tradition and when it's proven by Church teaching and a doctor of the Church (which was your criteria BTW) then you have nothing except a regional, cultural example.

As things stand, the Church does not require anyone below the age of reason to be at Mass.

Nor does She prohibit them, nor does She recommend they don't go, nor does She stop mothers from going to Mass for 20 years to stay home as would be the case today.

Unless you're childless you don't know the habit of religion and how important it is. Take away the habit of public worship of a mother for 20 years and find how Catholic the kids are and how Catholic she is.

But let me toss it back... I quoted the history and tradition of the Church and tossed in a doctor of the Church. Show me one that tells us not to bring children to Mass as they destroy silence. We both know the answer, it doesn't exist.

[awkwardcustomer]

Fr. Robert Taft, Archimandrite of the Russian Greek Catholic Church, claims that the "age of reason" requirement is a "medieval innovation", as if that somehow renders it disposable.  What greater insult can there be to a liturgical practice than to dismiss it as a 'medieval innovation'?

It's not tradition therefore an innovation. Are you denying it now that I've proven it and you are just using your own logic instead of tradition and it was you who was screaming TRADITION why not stick with tradition?

You're quibbling.

But whether the 'age of reason' requirement is tradition or innovation, the Church has taught it since the 12th century.

That's eight centuries and counting.

...the Tradition of the Church has been to give Communion to children who have reached the age of reason.

You mean innovation, not tradition. The Church has that prerogative, but it's still an innovation. St. Pius V called Quo Primum an innovation. Doesn't mean Quo Primum is bad.

You're arguing past facts, tradition, and a doctor of the Church when you have nothing. You just claim tradition and when it's proven by Church teaching and a doctor of the Church (which was your criteria BTW) then you have nothing except a regional, cultural example.

Innovation, tradition .... whatever you call it, this has been the practice of the Church for 800 years.

As things stand, the Church does not require anyone below the age of reason to be at Mass.

Nor does She prohibit them, nor does She recommend they don't go, nor does She stop mothers from going to Mass for 20 years to stay home as would be the case today.

Unless you're childless you don't know the habit of religion and how important it is. Take away the habit of public worship of a mother for 20 years and find how Catholic the kids are and how Catholic she is.

Who said anything about stopping mothers from attending Mass for 20 years?

Only you.

Have you read any of the quotes posted above by Aeternitus?

But let me toss it back... I quoted the history and tradition of the Church and tossed in a doctor of the Church. Show me one that tells us not to bring children to Mass as they destroy silence. We both know the answer, it doesn't exist.

St John Chrysostom gave Communion to children, you said.  As I have pointed out countless times on this thread, the issue here is babies and toddlers, not children.  How can any discussion proceed if the terms people use vary.

So you haven't proved anything, other than that you do not read posts but see fit to comment on them anyway.

[awkwardcustomer]

Here is evidence that babies and toddlers weren't taken to Mass - from 1896, published not in some corner of France as in the testimony of St Therese of Lisieux, but in the USA with an Imprimateur from the Archbishop of New York.

Aeternitus kindly posted it above, and I'm reposting it here for emphasis, from 'Cochem's Explanation of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass with an Appendix, Containing Devotions for Mass, for Confession, and for Communion', by Camillus P. Maes

Mothers ought to leave very young children at home, as they disturb not only those who bring them to church, but other people, and sometimes even the priest himself.  But bigger children who are old enough to be still, may be brought to Mass. (p 351 Cochem's Explanation of the Holy Mass)

http://www.saintsbooks.net/books/Fr.%20Martin%20Cochem%20-%20Explanation%20of%20the%20Holy%20Sacrifice%20of%20the%20Mass.pdf 

[coffeeandcigarette]

Here is evidence that babies and toddlers weren't taken to Mass - from 1896, published not in some corner of France as in the testimony of St Therese of Lisieux, but in the USA with an Imprimateur from the Archbishop of New York.

Aeternitus kindly posted it above, and I'm reposting it here for emphasis, from 'Cochem's Explanation of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass with an Appendix, Containing Devotions for Mass, for Confession, and for Communion', by Camillus P. Maes

Mothers ought to leave very young children at home, as they disturb not only those who bring them to church, but other people, and sometimes even the priest himself.  But bigger children who are old enough to be still, may be brought to Mass. (p 351 Cochem's Explanation of the Holy Mass)

http://www.saintsbooks.net/books/Fr.%20Martin%20Cochem%20-%20Explanation%20of%20the%20Holy%20Sacrifice%20of%20the%20Mass.pdf

That was thoughtful of you to re-quote that passage. Let me ask you this. If "mothers" should leave babies at home, exactly who should they leave them with. What if you live (like MANY trads) almost an hour, or more than an hour from mass. What if you have no family. What if it costs so much in fuel to get to mass that you could never afford to drive to mass, come home, and send your spouse right back again. What if you only have one mass on Sunday? If every mass centre had two masses per Sunday and feastday, and you lived close to mass, some of these suggestions of Aeternitus would work....mostly they don't.

[Maximilian]

What if you live (like MANY trads) almost an hour, or more than an hour from mass. What if you have no family. What if it costs so much in fuel to get to mass that you could never afford to drive to mass, come home, and send your spouse right back again. What if you only have one mass on Sunday?

The issues of time, money, gas, etc. have to be worked out by the parents. There may be some juggling involved. But one solution that should be scratched off the list ahead of time is to have children violate the sanctity of the Mass. If that "solution" is not considered as an option, then since "necessity is the mother of invention," other plans will be made.

The real issue is in one's heart. If a parent desires to do everything possible to prevent children's noise from violating the sanctity of the Mass, then they will achieve their goal one way or another, to the greatest extent possible, even if accidents happen on occasion.

But if parents think that it is their "right" to bring noisy children to Mass, then they won't make the necessary efforts, and the dignity of the sacrifice will be spoiled every Sunday.

And along with entitled parents, we also suffer frequently from entitled children -- those who have been raised to believe that they should express themselves, even within the confines of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Here again, if children have the right attitude at heart, the one where they realize that this is not about them, that they are not the center of the universe, and that others don't revolve around their whims, then even if occasional accidents happen, in general there will not be a constant environment of noise and distraction at a time when there should be reverent silence.

[Aeternitus]

Here is evidence that babies and toddlers weren't taken to Mass - from 1896, published not in some corner of France as in the testimony of St Therese of Lisieux, but in the USA with an Imprimateur from the Archbishop of New York.

Aeternitus kindly posted it above, and I'm reposting it here for emphasis, from 'Cochem's Explanation of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass with an Appendix, Containing Devotions for Mass, for Confession, and for Communion', by Camillus P. Maes

Mothers ought to leave very young children at home, as they disturb not only those who bring them to church, but other people, and sometimes even the priest himself.  But bigger children who are old enough to be still, may be brought to Mass. (p 351 Cochem's Explanation of the Holy Mass)

http://www.saintsbooks.net/books/Fr.%20Martin%20Cochem%20-%20Explanation%20of%20the%20Holy%20Sacrifice%20of%20the%20Mass.pdf

That was thoughtful of you to re-quote that passage. Let me ask you this. If "mothers" should leave babies at home, exactly who should they leave them with. What if you live (like MANY trads) almost an hour, or more than an hour from mass. What if you have no family. What if it costs so much in fuel to get to mass that you could never afford to drive to mass, come home, and send your spouse right back again. What if you only have one mass on Sunday? If every mass centre had two masses per Sunday and feastday, and you lived close to mass, some of these suggestions of Aeternitus would work....mostly they don't.

You are right.  The situation now, due to the crisis in the Church, is very different from what it was even in the 50s and 60s.  Parents of families have a very difficult task without the support of family or reliable Catholic friends.  What one can do about it is subject to the individual family circumstance/options and after discussion with one's priest.  But the default position from the most vocal posters here, seems to be outrage that parents of young children should be expected to do anything, because the church doesn't have a law forbidding babies and toddlers (NOT children) at Mass attendance, opposed to the duty of fulfilling one's Sunday obligation.  Well, if one lives too far from church that obligation doesn't apply and it then becomes a choice.  How far is too far is a discussion one has with one's priest, so that the particular circumstances of the family can be taken into consideration also.
 
Right from the beginning, when I joined the discussion on this thread, I could see both sides.  I have now read both threads on this topic and a significant amount of other material in trying to come to a conclusion.
   
From the evidence provided, the traditional position seems to be not to take babies and young children to church.  Yes, infants could receive communion in the early church, but that is not evidence in itself that they received and were at church every Sunday, or even that they were present at the Mass. They could have been brought in from an outer room. 
 
St Theresa was kept at home because she was considered too young to attend Mass.  The recent quotes I provided, indicated the same applied to others in the US.  St Ambrose insisted on complete quiet in his Mass, no coughing or moving at all, to the point of instilling holy fear into his parishioners; St Leonard of Port Maurice highlights the necessity of complete quiet and compares it to the Old Law when the sacrificing of animals was done in such total silence that one would think the church was empty.  Cochem makes clear the accepted practice of not bringing babies and children to Mass until they could sit still. Munda explained, in the first thread, that she read in an old mother's manual that babies and toddlers were left at home. The evidence is significant.  On the contrary, the only evidence provided for babies and toddlers attending church is current practice and practical need.
 
Given the above, my conclusion is that the crisis in the church is responsible for babies and toddlers attending Mass, thereby potentially compromising the silence, reverence and devout attention it deserves. 

How does one deal with it? Well, it is a tough one and requires the exercise of charity from both sides.  As I said in an earlier post, I have friends who have reared excellent children during this crisis, all of whom have attended Mass since just after birth.  They too didn't have family help and lived about a 30 minute drive from Church.  In thinking further of their example, I can see now that they employed a number of means to achieve this.  They tag-teamed on occasion, they utilised the assistance of Catholic friends when necessary, they were outside with the children in turns and they disciplined accordingly. They were extremely vigilant, which was prompted by their combined horror at the thought of the Mass being disrupted in any way, which they considered as offensive to God, the priest and their neighbour.  Afterwards they would head off for some coffee and cigarettes, which they also found helped  while the kids ran wild on the beach or in the park to burn off some of that restrained energy.  They were and still are the happiest family I have ever had the good fortune to meet.
 
I don't know what you can do in your situation, Coffee & Cigs.  I am saddened to hear you have no assistance at all and hope that vigilance with your young ones/children, reverence for the sanctity of the Mass and charity towards your neighbour brings you the same rewards it has brought my home-schooling friends. 

[Maximilian]

St Ambrose insisted on complete quiet in his Mass, no coughing or moving at all, to the point of instilling holy fear into his parishioners; St Leonard of Port Maurice highlights the necessity of complete quiet and compares it to the Old Law when the sacrificing of animals was done in such total silence that one would think the church was empty. 

Some years ago when I was attending Mass at the SSPX chapel in Cincinnati, the problem was severe, and it was not only infants who were causing distraction, but also the adults getting up to go to the bathroom, etc. Some were spending the whole Mass in the basement social hall which had a speaker which was supposed to be used only by nursing mothers.

The pastor gave a sermon really dropping the hammer. Perhaps he did a little research on St. Ambrose and St. Leonard of Port Maurice.

Afterwards the result was startling. The improvement was tremendous. I guess that's a testimony to the good people of Cincinnati that they took his words to heart and straightened up immediately, rather than making a lot of excuses.

[Aeternitus]

St Ambrose insisted on complete quiet in his Mass, no coughing or moving at all, to the point of instilling holy fear into his parishioners; St Leonard of Port Maurice highlights the necessity of complete quiet and compares it to the Old Law when the sacrificing of animals was done in such total silence that one would think the church was empty. 

Some years ago when I was attending Mass at the SSPX chapel in Cincinnati, the problem was severe, and it was not only infants who were causing distraction, but also the adults getting up to go to the bathroom, etc. Some were spending the whole Mass in the basement social hall which had a speaker which was supposed to be used only by nursing mothers.

The pastor gave a sermon really dropping the hammer. Perhaps he did a little research on St. Ambrose and St. Leonard of Port Maurice.

Afterwards the result was startling. The improvement was tremendous. I guess that's a testimony to the good people of Cincinnati that they took his words to heart and straightened up immediately, rather than making a lot of excuses.

Yes, sometimes all it takes is having it brought to one's attention. 

[Miriam_M]

I didn't find any evidence showing cry rooms were pre Vatican II, just people claiming as much, with no real indication of why they held that view.

We "hold the view," because we were there before V2, in churches, with families -- large families which included babies and toddlers.  Many churches. We were in pews next to the crying rooms.  IOW, we viewed the crying rooms.  That's why we "hold the view."  Do not tell other people what we did and did not see and hear, in person, pre V2 and what thousands of others saw and heard.   

If you can't find the documentation, that's your problem.  Absence or paucity of documentation, in the way anyone demands it, does not invalidate facts.

[Aeternitus]

I didn't find any evidence showing cry rooms were pre Vatican II, just people claiming as much, with no real indication of why they held that view.

We "hold the view," because we were there before V2, in churches, with families -- large families which included babies and toddlers.  Many churches. We were in pews next to the crying rooms.  IOW, we viewed the crying rooms.  That's why we "hold the view."  Do not tell other people what we did and did not see and hear, in person, pre V2 and what thousands of others saw and heard.   

If you can't find the documentation, that's your problem.  Absence or paucity of documentation, in the way anyone demands it, does not invalidate facts.

I wasn't questioning your veracity and many apologies if that is the impression I gave.   What you wrote, reproduced below, could have been second or third hand information, about one or two churches, thus exceptions to the rule, as far as I could tell, and I didn't realise you were talking from personal experience.  Had I realised you had witnessed them yourself, prior to V2, I would have been intrigued and asked you to tell us a bit more about it, such as how old were the churches; when were the crying rooms built; how many churches in the US are you talking about?  Having researched this to the extent that I have, I can now understand why the priests you mention were the most intolerant.   

Anyway, I agree that cry rooms were pre V2 – by a decade or so, as I made clear in my earlier post, but gained momentum during the 60s and 70s.  Do you dispute that?  Are we now on the same page with regard to crying rooms being introduced in the 1950s, as a result of the baby boom?  Or are your examples prior to that?   I myself went to churches from the 60s (not in the US) and visited a number in various countries built well before V2, but had never before seen a crying room until I started attending the SSPX many years ago.  Actually, the cry room was added to the church some years after I began attending.           

"I do not know what the history of that was beyond the pond, but it is not true that in the U.S. "the Traditional Catholic way was not to bring babies and toddlers to Mass."  That's why pre-V2 trad churches did have (sorry, folks) crying rooms.  Actually, the most intolerant people about children's noise during that time were often the priests themselves. If parents were allowing sustained noise, the priest would sometimes point it out from the pulpit, and embarrass the parents into retreating into the Crying Room."

[diaduit]

Where on this or other thread did trad parents say it was okay to remain inside the church with a noisy baby.
Unanimously we all agreed and have abided by the unwritten rule, baby makes noise mama or Papa steps outside.

NOWHERE ON THIS THREAD WILL YOU FIND OTHERWISE.

So for the last few posters at least acknowledge that trad parents aren't completely ignorant of their responsibility in that regards. Argue all you want of whether parents should or shouldn't bring them but it's a flat out lie to say we (posters on this thread)don't remove a noisy baby.

[Aeternitus]

Where on this or other thread did trad parents say it was okay to remain inside the church with a noisy baby.
Unanimously we all agreed and have abided by the unwritten rule, baby makes noise mama or Papa steps outside.

NOWHERE ON THIS THREAD WILL YOU FIND OTHERWISE.

So for the last few posters at least acknowledge that trad parents aren't completely ignorant of their responsibility in that regards. Argue all you want of whether parents should or shouldn't bring them but it's a flat out lie to say we (posters on this thread)don't remove a noisy baby.

Hello Diaduit,

As I am one of the last few posters, I am thinking I must be one of those to whom your post is addressed.   I have never claimed that anyone here has not removed children when they thought they have created noise and certainly have no difficulty in acknowledging that posters here have agreed this should be done.  It does, of course, raise the issue of that which constitutes noise and distraction for some, may not constitute noise and distraction for another, as evidenced by your own example of the man at the mid-week mass you attended who had the need to put in ear-plugs.  But if acknowledging that you all would remove the baby or toddler when you considered they became disruptive helps you in any way, then I am happy to do so.  I do believe you all would.  But that is not what is under discussion.  What is under discussion is whether babies or toddlers should be at Mass at all, if other arrangements can be made, given that they are bound to make noise of some description simply because they are little babies and toddlers. 

I didn't know the answer, but in researching it to the extent I have, I am now of the view (which is always open to further evidence) that the best traditional practice was to keep babies and toddlers (not children) at home.  I came to this conclusion because my findings highlighted the reverential  silence and attention related directly to the sanctity of the Mass, inculcated by such saints such as St Leonard of Port Maurice, St Ambrose and St John Chrysostom, and confirmed in practice with the example of St Therese, the instruction in in Cochem's (the author of the 4 Last Things) book and the manual for mothers Munda mentioned in the first thread.  This was not the main reason noisy babies/toddlers/children irked me initially.  Whilst thinking it was irreverent, I was more moved by how irritatingly selfish I found the behaviour of some (not all) parents and thought it was something I had to overcome.  I still have to overcome my irritation, but what I now know is my main focus should be on protecting and increasing the reverence, devotion, silence and attention the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass deserves from me.  To lose that feeling of awe and respect or have it diluted, even by mitigating circumstances and unavoidable distractions, would be to undermine the Faith I am honoured to hold.  So, I am now aware that I need to put into place protections for that end.  And for that reason I am extremely grateful to Awkward for almost singlehandedly debating this contentious and highly emotional issue. 

I would like to add, whilst I have come to my view, I do acknowledge that we live in an unprecedented time of crisis, so things are not always going to go according to best practice, simply because they can't.  When other arrangements can't be made, they can't be made.  We all just have to do our best.  I am saddened at the thought of you have caring responsibilities for elderly parents on top of rearing your own children, with no one to assist, the availability of only one Sunday Mass and a distance to travel.  I think Coffeeandcig is in a similar situation and it really is a heavy cross for you both.  May your rewards be great.