Confirmation - A Decision.?

[ryecroft]

On another thread, I have been discussiong how I would never force my God Child or any c hild of mine to be confirmed if he/she didn’t want to be. Now many of the responses I have gotten have kind of confused me as they have seemed to make it clear that confirmation is not about agreeing to follow the Catholic faith. If this is the case, then why did the Church decide to wait until a child was of “the age of reason” to be confirmed instead of keeping it like the Eastern Church does often and Baptize and confirm at the same time. I can’t imagine trying to coerce someone into being confirmed, but from what I’m hearing many believe that the choice should just be taken away and the sacrement done when an infant. I believe that because the Church has decided to wait until the age of reason to confirm children that they want the child or young adult to have a desire to be confirmed. If not it seems rather confusing to me. I’m just not sure what to think. I know what I would and would not do as far as my God Daughter and the children my husband and I will have. But would you really want someone to be confirmed who doesn’t want to remain in the Catholic Faith or who doesn’t agree with the teachings of the Church?
God Bless
Rye

 

[Rence]

1319 A candidate for Confirmation who has attained the age of reason must profess the faith, be in the state of grace, have the intention of receiving the sacrament, and be prepared to assume the role of disciple and witness to Christ, both within the ecclesial community and in temporal affairs.

You can’t force someone to go through with the Sacrament. It’s something they have to decide on their own. However, IMOHO, you can and should make the candidate continue attending Mass (even if they’re not taking Communion, because you can’t force that either, it has to be voluntary and they have to be in the State of Grace), and finish the education process and continue their Catholic education as long as they are living under their parents’ roof.

You’re right not to coerce your godchild into receiving the sacrament of confirmation. If you force them, they’ll resent you and the Church. And No, you don’t want someone who doesn’t want to be Catholic or who doesn’t agree with the teachings to be confirmed. You want to continue being their advisor and helping them work through their issues and answer their questions, but you can’t force someone to be Catholic or be Confirmed.

 

[LilyM]

On another thread, I have been discussiong how I would never force my God Child or any c hild of mine to be confirmed if he/she didn’t want to be. Now many of the responses I have gotten have kind of confused me as they have seemed to make it clear that confirmation is not about agreeing to follow the Catholic faith. If this is the case, then why did the Church decide to wait until a child was of “the age of reason” to be confirmed instead of keeping it like the Eastern Church does often and Baptize and confirm at the same time. I can’t imagine trying to coerce someone into being confirmed, but from what I’m hearing many believe that the choice should just be taken away and the sacrement done when an infant. I believe that because the Church has decided to wait until the age of reason to confirm children that they want the child or young adult to have a desire to be confirmed. If not it seems rather confusing to me. I’m just not sure what to think. I know what I would and would not do as far as my God Daughter and the children my husband and I will have. But would you really want someone to be confirmed who doesn’t want to remain in the Catholic Faith or who doesn’t agree with the teachings of the Church?
God Bless
Rye

It’s not quite as black and white as that - for one thing Eastern Catholics (who are every bit as Catholic as we Latins) follow the ancient and laudable practice of baptising, chrismating (confirming) and communing infants - all on the same day, without any problems from Rome about it.

I suppose the way to look at it is that infants can indeed be baptised without their consent, and Eastern Catholic (and Orthodox) infants are also confirmed and communed without knowing what they are doing.

However, once someone passes the age of reason it should all be their own choice. Nothing different in the sacrament itself, but the difference in age of the recepient means a different approach.

 

[bpbasilphx]

\If this is the case, then why did the Church decide to wait until a child was of “the age of reason” to be confirmed instead of keeping it like the Eastern Church does often and Baptize and confirm at the same time\

I’ve wondered about that myself. Why is the Roman Church out of step with the other Apostolic Churches in this regard?

 

[prodigalson12]

\If this is the case, then why did the Church decide to wait until a child was of “the age of reason” to be confirmed instead of keeping it like the Eastern Church does often and Baptize and confirm at the same time\

I’ve wondered about that myself. Why is the Roman Church out of step with the other Apostolic Churches in this regard?

I can only guess, but I cannot see the validity of confirming someone who doesn’t know what they are even doing. I can understand baptism, as in it’s impossible for us to actually remember the original sin it’s supposed to address, but confirmation itself is an active choice. I struggle with it’s true validity when performed on an infant, it should be universal as it becoming something only done through the age of consent. I think of one possibility for the inconsistency, it may take longer for it to be proven best before the others change their mandates and policy’s, kind of like making revisions within any government or large corporation, those changes do take place, be it having to go through the bureaucratic processes first which are slow.

 

[tee_eff_em]

\If this is the case, then why did the Church decide to wait until a child was of “the age of reason” to be confirmed instead of keeping it like the Eastern Church does often and Baptize and confirm at the same time\

I’ve wondered about that myself. Why is the Roman Church out of step with the other Apostolic Churches in this regard?

The Catechism

V. The Minister of Confirmation

1312 The original minister of Confirmation is the bishop. In the East, ordinarily the priest who baptizes also immediately confers Confirmation in one and the same celebration. But he does so with sacred chrism consecrated by the patriarch or the bishop, thus expressing the apostolic unity of the Church whose bonds are strengthened by the sacrament of Confirmation. In the Latin Church, the same discipline applies to the Baptism of adults or to the reception into full communion with the Church of a person baptized in another Christian community that does not have valid Confirmation.

1313 In the Latin Rite, the ordinary minister of Confirmation is the bishop. Although the bishop may for grave reasons concede to priests the faculty of administering Confirmation, it is appropriate from the very meaning of the sacrament that he should confer it himself, mindful that the celebration of Confirmation has been temporally separated from Baptism for this reason. Bishops are the successors of the apostles. They have received the fullness of the sacrament of Holy Orders. the administration of this sacrament by them demonstrates clearly that its effect is to unite those who receive it more closely to the Church, to her apostolic origins, and to her mission of bearing witness to Christ.

1314 If a Christian is in danger of death, any priest should give him Confirmation. Indeed the Church desires that none of her children, even the youngest, should depart this world without having been perfected by the Holy Spirit with the gift of Christ’s fullness.

tee

 

[JRKH]

Gee -
Now I’m confused.
Initially I was with the OP in that I felt confirmation should not be forced.
For myself, having attended Catholic School, receiving the sacramanets as seen mostly a “rite of passage” rather than the attainment of greater grace.
I don’t mean they didn’t “teach us” about what we were doing. Rather it just seemed that when you reached a certain grade in school this or that was just what you did. (of course having parties and presents wasn’t bad either.
All of this meant that, as an adult, and away from The Church I never really understood what I had passed through.

Now it appears I have been under a misconception of what confirmation is.

I had always assumed, from the word “confirm”-ation, that we and our sponsor, were “confirming” our baptismal vows and, now that we had reached the age of reason, were “confirming” our decision to follow Christ in The Church.
But
According to the Catachism it seems confirmation is a “confering” of the Holy Spirit by the Bishop. More of a “pentacost” than a “baptism”

If my new understanding is true, then I would lean more toward “strongly encouraging” that the child receive the sacrament. To not receive it could prevent the child from full access to the Grace and Wisdom of the Holy Spirit. It could make the Child more suseptable to sin and falling away from the faith. Also waiting until later (possibly even adulthood) could cause the person to become to “embarrassed” or “self conscience” to go and get what most get at 12 or 14 years old. I realize that most converts are confirmed as adults but that is different than what I’m talking about here.

Anyway. This thread has enlightened me on the matter some and so, while I still think that a child should not be “forced” to receive, the parent and sponsor should do all they can to encourage the child to receive the sacrament ASAP.

Peace
James

 

[geoformeo]

Hi all,

Very interesting thread. As a confirmation teacher, I definitely have my own personal bias. I think that confirmation is rightly to be conferred on a person between the ages of 16-17, for those who were raised Catholic. There are many reasons for this:

1. The Catholic faith is extremely rich and deep. At this age, the kids are old enough to grasp and inquire about this richness and depth.
2. At this age, they are equally concerned about the “what does the Church teach?” as “why does the Church teach this?” It’s not rote memorization of teachings, but an explanation of the theological, moral, and intellectual reasons for faith.
3. At this age, kids are discovering who they are, and are searching for Truth. In a culture where they are bombarded by all the wrong things, confirmation at this time provides for them a singular light in the culture of darkness. And, believe it or not, the kids want the Truth! It not only shows them the right path, but gives them a defense for it.
4. Confirmation at this time provides for them a spiritual foundation to last a lifetime. The teens are figuring themselves and life out, and going through confirmation at this time enables them to face their daily challenges in the light of faith, and supports them through the trying times at college. Even those who fall away from the faith for a time after confirmation have something indelibly impressed upon them that they can remember and ultimately come back to. I can’t say that that would necessarily be the case for me, had I got confirmed at say 12, or earlier.
5. Apologetics, baby! They are believers, and they are challenged daily. They want and need to know how to defend their faith. As it is, most adult Catholics are undercatechized…how much more so if you are confirmed before you understand how to defend it?

There are many, many more reasons. I have one current student who was confirmed as an infant, and is coming so that he actually understands what he is bound to hold for the rest of his life. Makes sense to me. I have a coworker who has fallen away from the faith because he was confirmed at 13 and never understood the faith, and has a gripe about being confirmed before he truly understood what he was committing his life to. Slowly but surely, he is working his way back, praise the Lord.

I can understand the arguments for the other way of thinking, but in my honest opinion, I think it needs to be a decision of one’s own volition. A parent can make a kid take the classes, but ultimately I will not let a kid get confirmed if they do not on their own choose to do so at the end of classes.

 

[puzzleannie]

\If this is the case, then why did the Church decide to wait until a child was of “the age of reason” to be confirmed instead of keeping it like the Eastern Church does often and Baptize and confirm at the same time\

I’ve wondered about that myself. Why is the Roman Church out of step with the other Apostolic Churches in this regard?

it has to do more historically with the role of the bishop than the age of the candidate. As local churches grew and were no longer centered around the local bishops, but in more parishes headed by priests, it became harder for the bishop to baptize everyone so that was delegated to the pastors. In the East they priest who baptized also confirmed (Chrismated) while in the West the bishops reserved confirmation to themselves, so whenever they visited a town or parish the confirmed all the baptized, no matter what their age.

The whole “coming of age” and “soldier of Christ” mentality is a much later accretion, as with more formal catechism training, children usually made first communion and confirmation at the same time, toward the end of their formal academic schooling which coincided with the end of their catechism instruction. That was usually the age in which they went out to work, probably anywhere from 12-16 depending on the time and place. When Pope St. Pius X lowered the age of first communion, the interdependence of the sacraments of initiation became further separated, but his motivation was overriding, in not depriving a child of Eucharist unduly once they understood enough to ask for the sacrament.

ONce parents, candidates and parishes accept that all 3 of these are sacraments of initiation, not graduation, then religious instruction, including mystagogy on the sacraments, will continue after Confirmation, as will service, involvement in parish life and so forth.

 

[diggerdomer]

I can only guess, but I cannot see the validity of confirming someone who doesn’t know what they are even doing. I can understand baptism, as in it’s impossible for us to actually remember the original sin it’s supposed to address, but confirmation itself is an active choice. I struggle with it’s true validity when performed on an infant, it should be universal as it becoming something only done through the age of consent. I think of one possibility for the inconsistency, it may take longer for it to be proven best before the others change their mandates and policy’s, kind of like making revisions within any government or large corporation, those changes do take place, be it having to go through the bureaucratic processes first which are slow.

The Sacrament’s validity is not dependent on the state of the “recipient.”

As has been noted already, there are diverse practices in the Catholic Church regarding Confirmation/Chrismation (age, primarily).

 

[diggerdomer]

Hi all,

Very interesting thread. As a confirmation teacher, I definitely have my own personal bias. I think that confirmation is rightly to be conferred on a person between the ages of 16-17, for those who were raised Catholic. There are many reasons for this:

1. The Catholic faith is extremely rich and deep. At this age, the kids are old enough to grasp and inquire about this richness and depth.
2. At this age, they are equally concerned about the “what does the Church teach?” as “why does the Church teach this?” It’s not rote memorization of teachings, but an explanation of the theological, moral, and intellectual reasons for faith.
3. At this age, kids are discovering who they are, and are searching for Truth. In a culture where they are bombarded by all the wrong things, confirmation at this time provides for them a singular light in the culture of darkness. And, believe it or not, the kids want the Truth! It not only shows them the right path, but gives them a defense for it.
4. Confirmation at this time provides for them a spiritual foundation to last a lifetime. The teens are figuring themselves and life out, and going through confirmation at this time enables them to face their daily challenges in the light of faith, and supports them through the trying times at college. Even those who fall away from the faith for a time after confirmation have something indelibly impressed upon them that they can remember and ultimately come back to. I can’t say that that would necessarily be the case for me, had I got confirmed at say 12, or earlier.
5. Apologetics, baby! They are believers, and they are challenged daily. They want and need to know how to defend their faith. As it is, most adult Catholics are undercatechized…how much more so if you are confirmed before you understand how to defend it?

There are many, many more reasons. I have one current student who was confirmed as an infant, and is coming so that he actually understands what he is bound to hold for the rest of his life. Makes sense to me. I have a coworker who has fallen away from the faith because he was confirmed at 13 and never understood the faith, and has a gripe about being confirmed before he truly understood what he was committing his life to. Slowly but surely, he is working his way back, praise the Lord.

I can understand the arguments for the other way of thinking, but in my honest opinion, I think it needs to be a decision of one’s own volition. A parent can make a kid take the classes, but ultimately I will not let a kid get confirmed if they do not on their own choose to do so at the end of classes.

How does this cohere with the unchanging Catholic practice of “confirmation” as practiced by Eastern Catholics (and with RCIA, Latin Catholics as well) which entails all Sacraments of Initiation being celebrated simultaneously?

 

[Jermosh]

I think Confirmation is certainly an expectation, and taken entirely too lightly. I would like a Catholic Rumspringa myself.

 

[JRKH]

I think Confirmation is certainly an expectation, and taken entirely too lightly. I would like a Catholic Rumspringa myself.

I had to look that one up. I had heard of the Amish practice but never heard the term - Rumspringa.

Unfortunately I don’t see how this would work in catholicism. The Amish have a very closed community. So the small amish children are raised without the kind of “outside” influences that most Catholic Children are exposed to - television, radio, music, etc. Not that they never hear or see these things, but their family and their culture “shuns” such things. This makes their “Rumspringa” period more of a “culture shock” than we would find it.

If catholics today lived a life that was as strict and as “church centered” as they did years ago (at least in my family) then a Rumsprina might work, but not the way we live today.

Perhaps we could learn something from our Amish Bretheren.

Peace
James

 

[1ke]

but confirmation itself is an active choice.

No. It isn’t. This is a misunderstanding of what Confirmation is. It is the BISHOP who does the confirming, not the candidate. The Bishop is confirming Baptism, not the candidate’s faith. It has nothing to do with an “active choice.”

A person is Catholic by virtue of their baptism. A Catholic is obligated to receive confirmation:

Can. 890 The faithful are obliged to receive this sacrament at the proper time.

I struggle with it’s true validity when performed on an infant, it should be universal as it becoming something only done through the age of consent.

This is an outgrowth of your incorrect understanding of what Confirmation is.

I think of one possibility for the inconsistency, it may take longer for it to be proven best before the others change their mandates and policy’s, kind of like making revisions within any government or large corporation, those changes do take place, be it having to go through the bureaucratic processes first which are slow.

The Eastern Rite and the Orthodox will not be changing anything as they have maintained their practice for 2000 years. It is the Latin Rite that has deviated.

The West did change, and for reasons mentioned above regarding the Bishop retaining the faculty to confirm. But, the Latin Church is revisiting this issue more and more and is considering restoring the order of the sacraments to their original order. I pray our Latin Rite will eventually return to fully initiating infants.

 

[SuscipeMeDomine]

I think Confirmation is certainly an expectation, and taken entirely too lightly. I would like a Catholic Rumspringa myself.

That would work only if we stopped baptizing infants.

Once the child is baptized, he is Catholic. He may be a not-fully-initiated Catholic, but he is Catholic and that isn’t going to change.

The Amish believe in adult baptism, so having a period to decide whether or not to join their church makes sense. They can choose not to be baptized. A Catholic of the same age cannot make that choice.

I would like to see Confirmation given to – at the oldest – children ready for their First Communion. They could be confirmed and receive First Communion at the same Mass. Even better, I would like to see baptism and confirmation given together to infants. It would make it clear that it’s not some sort of Catholic coming-of-age ceremony.

 

[ryecroft]

I’m sorry Ike, but I really can’t agree with all of what you say - look at what the church says

1319 A candidate for Confirmation who has attained the age of reason must profess the faith, be in the state of grace, have the intention of receiving the sacrament, and be prepared to assume the role of disciple and witness to Christ, both within the ecclesial community and in temporal affairs.

In other words, the person must WANT (have the intention) to receive the sacrement - and it also says that they are supposed to be ready to take their role of the “disciple” and witness of and to Christ. To me, and please, others tell me if I’m completely off here, but tell me if that doesn’t sound like you’re REQUIRED to make a decision that you WANT to profess and believe in the faith as well as be willing to prosetylize . This isn’t a decision that to me sounds like it is to be made lightly or to be forced or coerced on anyone.
God Bless
Rye

 

[diggerdomer]

I’m sorry Ike, but I really can’t agree with all of what you say - look at what the church says

1319 A candidate for Confirmation who has attained the age of reason must profess the faith, be in the state of grace, have the intention of receiving the sacrament, and be prepared to assume the role of disciple and witness to Christ, both within the ecclesial community and in temporal affairs.

In other words, the person must WANT (have the intention) to receive the sacrement - and it also says that they are supposed to be ready to take their role of the “disciple” and witness of and to Christ. To me, and please, others tell me if I’m completely off here, but tell me if that doesn’t sound like you’re REQUIRED to make a decision that you WANT to profess and believe in the faith as well as be willing to prosetylize . This isn’t a decision that to me sounds like it is to be made lightly or to be forced or coerced on anyone.
God Bless
Rye

To whom are you responding?

Also…noting the paragraph you cite from the Catechism…what about those who have not attained the age of reason and yet are Confirmed/Chrismated?

 

[prodigalson12]

No. It isn’t. This is a misunderstanding of what Confirmation is. It is the BISHOP who does the confirming, not the candidate. The Bishop is confirming Baptism, not the candidate’s faith. It has nothing to do with an “active choice.”

A person is Catholic by virtue of their baptism. A Catholic is obligated to receive confirmation:

Can. 890 The faithful are obliged to receive this sacrament at the proper time.

This is an outgrowth of your incorrect understanding of what Confirmation is.

The Eastern Rite and the Orthodox will not be changing anything as they have maintained their practice for 2000 years. It is the Latin Rite that has deviated.

The West did change, and for reasons mentioned above regarding the Bishop retaining the faculty to confirm. But, the Latin Church is revisiting this issue more and more and is considering restoring the order of the sacraments to their original order. I pray our Latin Rite will eventually return to fully initiating infants.

Can. 890 The faithful are obliged to receive this sacrament at the proper time.

My time is at the age of 41, after facing demonic forces themselves, directly and indirectly… Yeah, proper time, at an infant, NOT!!! Send the dark forces to hell which attempted to prompt me, send the angels of mercy to help those that now, need my help, sure, baptize them at birth, what battle can an infant be doing at that time???

I’m talking confirmation, not the sacrament,. I would be laid waste in absolutes, body and soul without the Sacraments…it makes us a target, being this close to God himself, God helps us all!!!

 

[1ke]

I’m sorry Ike, but I really can’t agree with all of what you say - look at what the church says

1319 A candidate for Confirmation who has attained the age of reason must profess the faith, be in the state of grace, have the intention of receiving the sacrament, and be prepared to assume the role of disciple and witness to Christ, both within the ecclesial community and in temporal affairs.

In other words, the person must WANT (have the intention) to receive the sacrement - and it also says that they are supposed to be ready to take their role of the “disciple” and witness of and to Christ. To me, and please, others tell me if I’m completely off here, but tell me if that doesn’t sound like you’re REQUIRED to make a decision that you WANT to profess and believe in the faith as well as be willing to prosetylize . This isn’t a decision that to me sounds like it is to be made lightly or to be forced or coerced on anyone.
God Bless
Rye

Our baptism obligates us to do all those things. We become members of the Body and witnesses to Christ at baptism. We are anointed priest, prophet, and king. We are strengthened in Confirmation. We are not given the mission in confirmation, we are given the mission at Baptism. We are strengthened in that mission with the gifts of the Holy Spirit. These gifts can be given at any time. It does not require that we have reached the age of reason.

We are already required to profess and believe all that the Church teaches by virtue of our baptism.

At confirmation, those who have reached the age of reason restated their baptismal vows (which all Catholics do every Easter), and ask for the *graces *of Confirmation.

You are correct that if someone does not want to approach the bishop for confirmation no one can force them. But, we must do all we can short of that to help them understand that it is an obligation that they have to be Catholic, to profess and believe ALL that the Church teaches, that we are called to mission in Christ. None of these things are “choices.” They are obligations. They are required of Christ’s disciples.

Your niece, by her parent’s example, have been taught that whether she wants to be Catholic or not, whether she wants to follow the teachings of the Church or not, whether she will conform her will to Christ or not are all valid “choices.” None of this is true. Those choices take one away from God and towards Hell. No one likes to talk about Hell but it’s real and it’s what happens to those who reject Christ and his Church.

Your niece NEEDS sacramental grace to battle against the pulls of the world. I hope you will continue to help her find her way back to the Church. She can be confirmed as an adult, so keep working on her!

 

[geoformeo]

How does this cohere with the unchanging Catholic practice of “confirmation” as practiced by Eastern Catholics (and with RCIA, Latin Catholics as well) which entails all Sacraments of Initiation being celebrated simultaneously?

For those in RCIA, I don’t see a problem. Most RCIA candidates are post their teens years. I see the practice of confirmation being celebrated simultaneously with the other Sacraments of Initiation for Eastern Catholics as, don’t take this the wrong way, a thing of the past. I am not saying that the Church needs to modernize itself, but rather that the current situation that the Church is in is different from times past. In early times, the Church was heavily persecuted, and numbers were extremely important. People were killed early and often for being Christian, so it would make sense to have them receive as many sacraments as early as possible.

Once Christendom became Christendom and up to the Protestant Revolution, (practically) everyone was Christian (Catholic). It was assumed that everyone would be and remain Catholic, and there were little outside pressures to not be Catholic or renounce the faith. So it would again make sense to give all sacraments of initiation early. Additionally, bishops could not travel like they can now, and so again, it would make sense that on the rare occasion a bishop was to be visiting a particular town, he would confer as many of the sacraments on as many of the faithful as possible, regardless of the age.

But times have changed. Catholics are, for the most part, not being persecuted to death. Bishops can travel to practically wherever they want to. And there are very strong secular, New Age, Muslim as well as denominational Christian influences and pressures that come upon our teens and young adults that are very persuasively anti-Catholic. Additionally, look at the scandal created by those “Catholics” in positions of power who publicly are opposed to Church teaching.

The question is, what would make the Church stronger–being fewer in number, but completely orthodox and faithful (i.e., those who get confirmed because they want to get confirmed), or having a greater number, but containing a number who are marginally faithful because they do not know their faith and are “Catholic” only by means of their reception of confirmation at a young age?