Annulling a Confirmation?

[SRLAUREL]

Also - not anyone can baptize - in almost all cases it must be done by your parish Priest. Only those that are baptized themselves can confer this sacrament IN CASES OF LIKELY DEATH ONLY. If death was not likely (even if the child lived), the baptism was not valid.

Priest, Profit and King only gives you do much…

Thanks to everyone for the advice. The Diocese is not responding to my inquiries - so I wanted to see what was possible for I pushed to the Arch Diocese.

I do not wish to start a war with my Church - I just want to feel good about the people charged with leadership in my religion. I know what they did was wrong - but I would like for them to say it as well.

Christ’s vision of the Church was prefect - the human’s he gave it to are not. I know this and still trust in Christ’s vision…

You are mistaken. Anyone can baptize whether there is danger of death or not. Optimally we baptize within the context of communal celebrations and for that reason baptisms (initiations into the faith community) are presided over by the priest, but as the first person said, anyone (any Christian) can baptize and this is one of the reasons we recognize baptisms from other denominations, and only rarely conditionally baptize.

Regarding your first questions, as others have noted if the sacraments are valid (and what you have described sounds like that is the case here even though you were left out of the loop for some reason), they cannot be made null or void. While you don’t believe your Son understood or knew what he wanted, others apparently felt otherwise and acted on that determination. He has been initiated fully into the church you claim to love. While I don’t believe Sacraments should be forced on minors without parents’ consent, I also feel that somehow you have not conveyed the whole story in your questions. By all means, rejoice with your son and help him understand the depth and breadth of his decision. He will continue to affirm this decision or deny it later on, and in large part that will depend upon your assistance.

Sincerely,
Sister Laurel, Erem Dio
Stillsong Hermitage
Diocese of Oakland

 

[LilyM]

He’s 9 - he is not old enough to know what he wants or why. He was unfairly manipulated by his mother and his parish Priest - people he thought he could trust.

I wasn’t much older - maybe 10 or 11 - when I was confirmed. I’ve never regretted the fact or wished I’d been older. And I don’t feel in any sense that I didn’t know what I wanted or why. I knew what I knew, and a few extra years wouldn’t have made a whit of difference. Nor do I feel that I was manipulated into it by anyone either.

Unlike, I’ve got to say, many a 14 or 15 year old who I’ve later heard say that they feel that they were pressured to go along with Confirmation to please their parents or for similar reasons.

A younger person, in my experience, can often be less intimidated by that pressure to please and so be more likely to stand up for themselves when asked to do something that they don’t sincerely want for themselves.

Doesn’t mean I agree with the going behind your back, of course.

I’ve got to ask, is there any particular reason why you didn’t trust your priest’s judgement that your child was ready for the sacrament when the issue was first raised? Surely he’s prepared many children for the sacraments whereas you haven’t, which means he knows a thing or two about when a child is ready and when he or she isn’t.

 

[sach008]

I’ve got to ask, is there any particular reason why you didn’t trust your priest’s judgement that your child was ready for the sacrament when the issue was first raised? Surely he’s prepared many children for the sacraments whereas you haven’t, which means he knows a thing or two about when a child is ready and when he or she isn’t.

I do not trust the priest’s judgement because he told a 9 year old to lie to me and his father so we would not be able to delay these Rites until he was 14 years old. He has now been kicked out the school he attended for “lying, cheating and stealing”, where as before he had never done anything like that. It was heinous for this authority figure to encourage dishonesty in a child and not expect to corrode his underlying sense of morally.

In my opinion this priest had a moral sin on his soul while forcing these sacraments on a unwilling person - and that makes them invalid.

What we will present to the tribunal is that this child had not yet reached the age of reason, thus permission must have be given by his parents. Canon Law does not say “just one parent” it says “parents” as in both - so one parent for and one parent against does not meet the requirements of Canon Law.

I just did not know if Confirmation or First Communion could be invalidated - I was not looking for judgement on my beliefs. God will do that.

 

[benedictgal]

I do not trust the priest’s judgement because he told a 9 year old to lie to me and his father so we would not be able to delay these Rites until he was 14 years old. He has now been kicked out the school he attended for “lying, cheating and stealing”, where as before he had never done anything like that. It was heinous for this authority figure to encourage dishonesty in a child and not expect to corrode his underlying sense of morally.

In my opinion this priest had a moral sin on his soul while forcing these sacraments on a unwilling person - and that makes them invalid.

What we will present to the tribunal is that this child had not yet reached the age of reason, thus permission must have be given by his parents. Canon Law does not say “just one parent” it says “parents” as in both - so one parent for and one parent against does not meet the requirements of Canon Law.

I just did not know if Confirmation or First Communion could be invalidated - I was not looking for judgement on my beliefs. God will do that.

With all due respect, your line of reasoning regarding the age of reason does not hold water, since children are to receive First Holy Communion when they reach the age of reason. Furthermore, you did not state, if I read your post correctly, that the child was unwilling to receive the Sacrament.

Second, the child’s father is the custodial parent, not you, and, the child’s mother does have a say in all of this. Inasmuch as your husband is the child’s father, this is a matter between the two parents. The child, in any case, should not be viewed as a pawn.

Third, you are making a very serious charge against the priest. You need to be prepared to back things up. These are grave matters you are presenting before the tribunal and not to be taken lightly.

Again, form, matter, intent and a validly ordained minister are what makes the sacrament valid. A lack of any of these invalidates the sacrament.

Regarding the child’s conduct, perhaps there is an underlying reason behind his behavior. You cannot lay the blame on his reception of the sacrament

 

[CDNowak]

In my opinion this priest had a moral sin on his soul while forcing these sacraments on a unwilling person - and that makes them invalid.

The sinfulness of the minister does not invalidate the Sacraments, this is the Donatist heresy. As the child is presumed (unless there are manifest mental issues) by the age of 9 to have reached the age of reason (actually considered to be about 7), his willingness at the time of the Sacrament is important. (Also see the Confirmation Age thread for more understanding about the Sacrament of Confirmation, Age of reason, and related issues).

Since this is when the Sacrament is normally conferred in the diocese I think serious reason (not parent’s wishes or those contradicting an accurate understanding of the Sacrament) would be required to delay. Delaying first Communion would be a very serious matter, as Pius X stated in Quam Singulari. The child has already been bound for two years to Confession and Communion, neglecting that for another 5 is quite serious.

---

edited to add:
I have to ask, How much of this is about the Sacraments and how much is other issues (and how might those factor into misbehavior in school)?

 

[IntegraCatholic]

My step-son was give his First Communion and Confirmation over my husband’s objections. We wanted him to wait until he was 14 to be confirmed so that he could understand the significance of the sacrament.

He can certainly understand the significance of the Sacrament before age 14. What’s more, holy Communion, as it is the very body and blood of Christ, deserves more reverence than the Sacrament of Confirmation (and should be prepared by Confirmation). If someone is capable of understanding the Blessed Sacrament and can rightly receive It, he can certainly receive Confirmation, which is why Confirmation has always been received before first Holy Communion throughout the history of the Church.

In our diocese, Phoenix, children are now receiving Confirmation at age 9 - the same time as First Communion.

That is good because the proper reception of the Sacraments ought to be Baptism, Confession, Confirmation, Holy Communion. When St. Pius X. reduced the age for first Holy Communion, he never intended that it be placed before Confirmation, which is logically received before first Holy Communion according to the nature of each Sacrament. When the Holy See was asked about this particular situation, it responded (in the 1920s, I think) that the proper order of the Sacraments is not to be changed. If a child is to receive Holy Communion younger, then he is to be confirmed younger.

His mother and the parish priest decided to ignore my husband and confirm my stop-son anyways. They told my step-son to lie and not tell his Dad he was preparing for this or that it would be done.

Not to tell his father whether he was receiving the Sacraments or not is not lying. He doesn’t have an obligation to tell his father that, and the clergy of the Church know better about when someone ought to receive the Sacraments than a layman.

No family, expect his mom, were present for the ceremony. He did not get to have a party or any kind of celebration for those two major Rites. Also I doubt that the sacraments are valid because both my step-son, the priest and his confirmation knew that it was being conducted by lying to his Dad (and legal custodian).

Even if he had lied, that has nothing to do with the validity of the Sacrament.

We would like to have these annulled so that when he is older can can receive them in a pure manner with joy and all of his family there to celebrate.

You cannot annul a Sacrament. The “annulment” of marriage means that the Sacrament never took place to begin with because of some impediment. There is no impediment you have given that would have prevented the Sacrament from being effected.

Additionally - his Baptism in question because neither of his God Parents (or his parents) had been confirmed. I know this is a requirement, but not sure if this is grounds for annulment.

It is an abuse (and grave matter) if the godparents are not confirmed or do not practice the faith, but it does not invalidate the Sacrament. All that is necessary for a valid Sacrament is form, matter, and intention. So long as the correct words were said (Trinitarian formula), water was used, and the minister had the intention to do what the Church does, the baptism is valid.

 

[Anna2552]

I do not trust the priest’s judgement because he told a 9 year old to lie to me and his father so we would not be able to delay these Rites until he was 14 years old. He has now been kicked out the school he attended for “lying, cheating and stealing”, where as before he had never done anything like that. It was heinous for this authority figure to encourage dishonesty in a child and not expect to corrode his underlying sense of morally.

In my opinion this priest had a moral sin on his soul while forcing these sacraments on a unwilling person - and that makes them invalid.

What we will present to the tribunal is that this child had not yet reached the age of reason, thus permission must have be given by his parents. Canon Law does not say “just one parent” it says “parents” as in both - so one parent for and one parent against does not meet the requirements of Canon Law.

I just did not know if Confirmation or First Communion could be invalidated - I was not looking for judgement on my beliefs. God will do that.

I think the kid is going over the edge because he’s torn between two families who hate each ohter so much they are willing to go before a tribunal to invalidate a sacrament. 9 years old, no stress there!

Throw him a big party and have a great time. Tell him how proud you are of him. Find him a new school and be consistently supportive to help him to do better. Be a super stepmom and help him get beyond all the nastiness of the people around him. You have an opportunity here to change someone’s life for the better. Please don’t blow it.

 

[Phemie]

I think the kid is going over the edge because he’s torn between two families who hate each ohter so much they are willing to go before a tribunal to invalidate a sacrament. 9 years old, no stress there!

Throw him a big party and have a great time. Tell him how proud you are of him. Find him a new school and be consistently supportive to help him to do better. Be a super stepmom and help him get beyond all the nastiness of the people around him. You have an opportunity here to change someone’s life for the better. Please don’t blow it.

That’s putting everything in perspective.

 

[LilyM]

I do not trust the priest’s judgement because he told a 9 year old to lie to me and his father so we would not be able to delay these Rites until he was 14 years old.

I didn’t ask you why you don’t trust the priest NOW. The answer to that is obvious.

I asked what was the reason that you didn’t trust him BEFORE all that. I mean when the priest first, and before indulging in any lying or deception of any kind (because that didn’t come till later, after you’d said no), brought up the subject of the child’s confirmation and stated that in his opinion the child was ready. What was there THEN that made you not trust his opinion?

I just did not know if Confirmation or First Communion could be invalidated - I was not looking for judgement on my beliefs. God will do that.

I’m not judging your beliefs. I’m just asking why, in a situation where most people would, and usually rightly, trust the judgement of their priest, you didn’t.

I’m not saying you were wrong at all, you may’ve been perfectly correct. I’m just saying I don’t understand it based on what you’ve told us. It seems that there must’ve been something shifty about the priest before this business started to make you distrust him or something.

 

[LilyM]

I think the kid is going over the edge because he’s torn between two families who hate each ohter so much they are willing to go before a tribunal to invalidate a sacrament. 9 years old, no stress there!

And the Tribunal is willing to investigate the matter rather than metaphorically toss them out and tell them they’re being silly. So the two families, it would seem, have a point, although from the facts given it looks like the validity of the sacrament is unaffected.

 

[Catholicben]

In our diocese, Phoenix, children are now receiving Confirmation at age 9 - the same time as First Communion.

Awesome! That is actually the correct order of the sacraments:
Baptisim, Confirmation then First Communion, just as in the easter vigil. I would like to see more dioceses doing this!

 

[ElisabethM]

I do not trust the priest’s judgement because he told a 9 year old to lie to me and his father so we would not be able to delay these Rites until he was 14 years old. He has now been kicked out the school he attended for “lying, cheating and stealing”, where as before he had never done anything like that. It was heinous for this authority figure to encourage dishonesty in a child and not expect to corrode his underlying sense of morally.

This is a serious accusation against a priest and should only be made with objective proof, not hearsay. It starts with going to the priest and finding out for yourself what he did or did not say and do. You say your stepson is not capable of judging whether or not he’s ready for Confirmation, so I think you would certainly question his capacity to report the words of anyone fairly.

This sounds like an internal family squabble between divorced parents. There is no charity in anything you have written.Your stepson is suffering because of the supposed-to-be grown-ups squabbling. You have couched your fight in terms of caring about the boy, but that doesn’t change the truth.

Search your heart and ask what you really care about here. Pray to the Holy Spirit to enlighten you and then go to Confession. Pray for greater grace from your own Confirmation to love your stepson’s mother and to love your stepson, seeking God’s best for him.

em

 

[JosephWoodard]

I think part of the problem with talking about “annulments” is that it sounds like it’s a decision of Church authorities to end a marriage (since “annul” can mean ‘to end or terminate’). Even though it would be more unwieldy for Catholics to say, I think saying “declarations of nullity” would clear up a lot of confusion.
This may have all been answered by someone already (I haven’t read all the comments). But in this case, it sounds like it was a valid confirmation. But if you are dissatisfied with the answer your pastor is giving you about something, you can ask your bishop (or another faithful member of the Church whose opinion you respect).

 

[Snugglebugmom]

This is a matter that should be settled between the two parents of the child. He is not your son, you have no say in the matter. The boy has two parents, they should be able to work it out between them. I get the feeling that your dislike for the boy’s mother is the reason for your anger, and not the suspicion that the sacraments he received were not valid.

 

[twopekinguys]

I do not trust the priest’s judgement because he told a 9 year old to lie to me and his father so we would not be able to delay these Rites until he was 14 years old. He has now been kicked out the school he attended for “lying, cheating and stealing”, where as before he had never done anything like that. It was heinous for this authority figure to encourage dishonesty in a child and not expect to corrode his underlying sense of morally.

In my opinion this priest had a moral sin on his soul while forcing these sacraments on a unwilling person - and that makes them invalid.

What we will present to the tribunal is that this child had not yet reached the age of reason, thus permission must have be given by his parents. Canon Law does not say “just one parent” it says “parents” as in both - so one parent for and one parent against does not meet the requirements of Canon Law.

I just did not know if Confirmation or First Communion could be invalidated - I was not looking for judgement on my beliefs. God will do that.

You keep going to the “age of reason” argument. Even though another poster pointed this out earlier, I will point it out again. The age of reason in the RCC is 7 years of age.

Here is a quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia. (bolding mine)

“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.”

As someone who has to deal with a blended family, I understand your frustrations, but what is done is done. You’re not going to get a 'do over" on this.

The more anger and frustration you exhibit over this, the more it is going to affect the child.

Right now, my prayers are with your step-son.