Confirmation Age (Hypothetical Change)

[tafan]

While it is currently the current practice in the Latin Church, and is therefore reflected in canon law, I don’t see that as an argument that it is “best”. Neither the Latin Church nor the universal Church teaches that it is best, but I’m interested in your reasoning for stating that it is best. Different approaches developed for different reasons. Those reasons could change now or in the future, and the practice could change.

Here’s what the Church has to say:

It seems to me that the Church is saying that the unity of the sacraments is good, and so it is also good to reserve Confirmation to the Bishop. Both are good, neither is best. Both approaches are a compromise from the ideal that was practiced in the early Church, in which the three Sacraments were administered together, by the Bishop.

I didn’t really see an argument here. You’re just basically saying “this is the way we currently do it, so it is best”. For example, I would argue that it is best to have Confirmation conferred by the priest at Baptism. It seems to me that the unity with the Bishop is clearly understood in the Eastern Churches, even though the Bishop does not perform the Sacrament. On the other hand, the current western practice of delaying Confirmation until the age of reason (or beyond) seems to have caused no end of confusion regarding the sacrament and what it is. Too many people assume that, because the church generally waits until the age of reason to confer the sacrament, that Confirmation is about “making a choice for the Church” or some other such thing that has nothing to do with the sacrament itself. So, that is my argument for why I think infancy is best. Also, it is not insignificant that the Latin Church teaches that Confirmation should be given to infants in danger of death. What is your argument for why you think that the age of reason is best?

You make a lot of good points. I was commenting on what was best from a narrow perspective: ie from someone in the Latin rite. And since its the norm of the Latin Rite, that is what should be best for us Romans. You are looking at more of a universal answer. If I do that, I agree with your point that doing it with infant baptism emphasizes unity of the sacraments and doing it at the age of reasons allows for it to be conferred by Bishops. Both are good, and I don’t know if it really matters that much. As long as it is done by the age of reason, then the person has the graces he needs throughout all of his life.

You last point about the Latin Church teaching that confirmation should be given to infants in danger of death is very interesting. I did not even know this, and it does seem rather inconsistent with my view of the sacrament. Can you answer why a person, before the age of reason, needs or is helped by the sacrament of confirmation? The answer to that question might just be determining factor as to “what is best”.

 

[babochka]

You last point about the Latin Church teaching that confirmation should be given to infants in danger of death is very interesting. I did not even know this, and it does seem rather inconsistent with my view of the sacrament. Can you answer why a person, before the age of reason, needs or is helped by the sacrament of confirmation? The answer to that question might just be determining factor as to “what is best”.

Honestly, I don’t know the church’s answer for this, but I think that the burden of explanation really rests on those arguing that those prior to the age of reason do not benefit from the sacraments. Like Baptism, Confirmation works on our souls whether or not we have the use of reason. The Catechism states that Confirmation is the completion of Baptismal graces. Why on earth would we start a process, but not complete it until several years later? The answer is practical and convenient, not theological. A child should be sealed with the Holy Spirit and nourished with the bread of life, so that his soul will flourish and he will grow into fullness of a relationship with Christ. The use of his rational faculties will benefit from the years in which he was enriched with this Grace. We don’t have to understand why this works to acknowledge its reality. While it might not be strictly necessary for salvation for a child who has not reached the age of reason, why would we presume that they cannot benefit? The use of reason is not obtained in a moment in time, on the 7th birthday. It is gradual and is presumed (by the Church) to have been reached by the age of 7. My 3-year-old is beginning to learn the difference between right and wrong. He most certainly knows that the Holy Communion that he receives is Jesus. Does he understand transubstantiation? No. Does he know why receive? No. But he does not that it is very special and that it is Jesus. My 5-year-old definitely possesses the use of reason, but not to the degree that I hope she will someday have. Human development continues throughout our lives, thanks be to God. There is no magic moment of understanding, at 7, or 13, or 50. We nurture that Grace that has been received through the Sacraments and hopefully grow until the day we die, and even into eternity in our understanding and love for God.

We are obligated to the receive the Sacraments and to follow the laws of the Church after the use of reason. For reasons that I don’t fully understand, the Latin Church has treated the age of reason as a floor rather than a ceiling. If we are not obligated to receive Holy Communion and Confirmation until the age of reason, nobody should receive it before. All of the arguments for delay seem to rest on the idea that it is not necessary for salvation, therefore it is more convenient or more prudent to wait. I have yet to see a good argument that the young child receiving the sacrament does not benefit.

I guess the most important thing for me is that God’s Grace works on its own, in spite of our understanding and “readiness” . The Eastern Churches will also give the Sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick to children below the age of reason, which the Latin Church does not do. I don’t get this either, as the Sacrament is for physical and spiritual healing.

 

[SMHW]

You last point about the Latin Church teaching that confirmation should be given to infants in danger of death is very interesting. I did not even know this, and it does seem rather inconsistent with my view of the sacrament. Can you answer why a person, before the age of reason, needs or is helped by the sacrament of confirmation? The answer to that question might just be determining factor as to “what is best”.

I don’t pretend to know enough to answer this question. I’m just going to offer some things I have heard over the years of my Catholic education ad offer a few speculations.

I don’t know if this is a case of theology derived from existing practice or if it has always been the mind of the Church… But at some point I was told that the reason confirmation is not given to infants is to maintain the fuller *sign *of the sacrament. Infants need some one to speak for them when they receive baptism. They get to speak for themselves in confirmation.

As to why infants are confirmed when in danger of death… I can think of a couple of reasons. Baptism and confirmation are permanent marks on the soul that would presumably exist in heaven. I would think that we would want our children to be able to “arrive” in heaven with confirmation.
Something about which I am less sure… I remember when infants in danger of death were sometimes giving anointing of the sick; the sisters taught us that this sacrament often brought about physical healing. Today infants are not supposed to be given anointing of the sick; perhaps confirmation offers comparable strengthening?

 

[Hopey]

Babies and children who are dying receive all the sacraments of initiation, or should receive them.
The eastern Catholics kept the tradition of fully initiating babies while we, Latin, moved Confirmation to a time when the Bishop could do this in order to preserve unity with Bishop, etc. Moving it to when they are older than age of discretion, 16 and above, has been fueled by a false theology that it is the candidate who finally gets to confirm his faith. That couldn’t be further from the truth.

Those are just some reasons why a baby in danger of death would receive all while other have to wait, connection with the Bishop for us. It has nothing to do with maturity, getting to choose you are Catholic, etc. Or, it shouldn’t be taught like that.

 

[Phemie]

Babies and children who are dying receive all the sacraments of initiation, or should receive them.

While they do receive Confirmation, if the priest thinks of bringing the Chrism with him, they do not receive Communion unless they are able to distinguish between the Host and bread and can receive reverently.

I knew one priest who gave a dying 4 year old Communion but the child had been asking to receive Jesus for several months and had demonstrated that he met above requirements.

 

[Hopey]

While they do receive Confirmation, if the priest thinks of bringing the Chrism with him, they do not receive Communion unless they are able to distinguish between the Host and bread and can receive reverently.

I knew one priest who gave a dying 4 year old Communion but the child had been asking to receive Jesus for several months and had demonstrated that he met above requirements.

There are so many things, rules, they have regarding the sacraments and small children that I wish they would relax on.
Take the anointing of the sick and not giving it to dying children under age of reason. It has never made sense, to me, that if I need it, confession first (no sins) but a child is prevented because on of the properties is that it can erase all sins and they don’t have any! Huh?
I did explain my disappoint with the way some of these are handled because one BIG part of the anointing of the sick is healing.
I would not mind having babies confirmed when they are baptized nor having to go to the cathedral for the Bishop to do it if they want to retain the connection of the Bishop with his flock.
For us, Latin, that isn’t an option. Moving it to before 1st Communion would help in my opinion.

 

[Vico]

There are so many things, rules, they have regarding the sacraments and small children that I wish they would relax on.
Take the anointing of the sick and not giving it to dying children under age of reason. It has never made sense, to me, that if I need it, confession first (no sins) but a child is prevented because on of the properties is that it can erase all sins and they don’t have any! Huh?
I did explain my disappoint with the way some of these are handled because one BIG part of the anointing of the sick is healing.
I would not mind having babies confirmed when they are baptized nor having to go to the cathedral for the Bishop to do it if they want to retain the connection of the Bishop with his flock.
For us, Latin, that isn’t an option. Moving it to before 1st Communion would help in my opinion.

Because Anointing is a remedy against the remains of sin. The remains of sin are, from the Baltimore Catechism 275.**Q: **What do you mean by the remains of sin?
**A: **By the remains of sin I mean the inclination to evil and the weakness of the will which are the result of our sins, and which remain after our sins have been forgiven.
From the Catechism of the Council of Trent: Furthermore, all those who have not the use of reason are not fit subjects for this Sacrament; and likewise children who, having committed no sins, do not need the Sacrament as a remedy against the remains of sin.
and in the CCC "the restoration of health, if it is conducive to the salvation of his soul.**1532 **The special grace of the sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick has as its effects:

- the uniting of the sick person to the passion of Christ, for his own good and that of the whole Church;

• the strengthening, peace, and courage to endure in a Christian manner the sufferings of illness or old age;
• the forgiveness of sins, if the sick person was not able to obtain it through the sacrament of Penance;
• the restoration of health, if it is conducive to the salvation of his soul;
• the preparation for passing over to eternal life.

 

[Joe_5859]

Confirming infants in the West would require a change to Canon Law. I would be happy with just following Canon Law and confirming kids at the age of discretion.

Of course, Canon Law does leave it up to individual bishops conferences to determine another age. Here is what the bishops in the U.S. have determined:

Canon 891 - Age for Confirmation

On November 15, 2000, the Latin Rite de iure members of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops approved complementary legislation for canon 891 of the Code of Canon Law for the Latin Rite dioceses of the United States.

The action was granted recognitio by the Congregation for Bishops in accord with article 82 of the Apostolic Constitution Pastor Bonus and issued by decree of the Congregation for Bishops signed by His Eminence Giovanni Battista Cardinal Re, Prefect, and His Excellency Most Reverend Franciscus Monterisi, Secretary, and dated May 9, 2001.

Complementary Norm: The National Conference of Catholic Bishops, in accord with the prescriptions of canon 891, hereby decrees that the Sacrament of Confirmation in the Latin Rite shall be conferred between the age of discretion and about sixteen years of age, within the limits determined by the diocesan bishop and with regard for the legitimate exceptions given in canon 891.

As President of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, I hereby decree that the effective date of this decree for all the Latin Rite dioceses in the United States will be July 1, 2002.

Given at the offices of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops in Washington, DC, on August 21, 2001.

Most Reverend Joseph A. Fiorenza
Bishop of Galveston-Houston
President, USCCB

Reverend Monsignor William P. Fay
General Secretary

So that’s why the dioceses in the U.S. are all over the map with when Confirmation is given. It’s up to the local bishop. In some dioceses, the bishop leaves it up to the pastor. Then it gets even messier.

I think an earlier age makes much more sense theologically. But I do appreciate the practical considerations many have. And given that our bishops have legitimately determined that a wider age range is possible, then I have no problems following that (even while personally lobbying for an earlier age ).

 

[babochka]

Confirming infants in the West would require a change to Canon Law. I would be happy with just following Canon Law and confirming kids at the age of discretion.

It seems to me that this would not require a change in canon law, simply a change in the complimentary norms approved by Bishops’ Conferences. Just has the US Bishops have currently determined that in the US the sacrament will be conferred between the age of reason and age 16, they could also determine that children should be confirmed between birth and the age of reason. It is not unprecedented in the west, even in modern times. In the Philippines and Latin America, until very recently (70s and 80s), it was quite common for all young children who had been baptized, but not confirmed, to receive the sacrament when the bishop came to town. This included infants all the way up to the age of reason and beyond. In other cases, when visits from the Bishop were extremely rare, the pastor had faculties to confirm and did so at the time of baptism. I understand that this is becoming less common, however.

I think an earlier age makes much more sense theologically. But I do appreciate the practical considerations many have. And given that our bishops have legitimately determined that a wider age range is possible, then I have no problems following that (even while personally lobbying for an earlier age ).

We can acknowledge that our Bishops have the authority to do things in a certain way, even if we think it is not the best way. Let us pray for our shepherds.

.

 

[Joe_5859]

It seems to me that this would not require a change in canon law, simply a change in the complimentary norms approved by Bishops’ Conferences. Just has the US Bishops have currently determined that in the US the sacrament will be conferred between the age of reason and age 16, they could also determine that children should be confirmed between birth and the age of reason. It is not unprecedented in the west, even in modern times. In the Philippines and Latin America, until very recently (70s and 80s), it was quite common for all young children who had been baptized, but not confirmed, to receive the sacrament when the bishop came to town. This included infants all the way up to the age of reason and beyond. In other cases, when visits from the Bishop were extremely rare, the pastor had faculties to confirm and did so at the time of baptism. I understand that this is becoming less common, however.

We can acknowledge that our Bishops have the authority to do things in a certain way, even if we think it is not the best way. Let us pray for our shepherds.

.

I thought of that after I posted. Yes, that is correct. Thank you for the clarification.

 

[CuriousInIL]

It would also remove the idea that Confirmation means ‘graduation’ from religious education, as it did when I was Confirmed in high school. Almost no one continued in formal formation after Confirmation, I don’t remember if classes were even offered!

I like that our diocese has returned to the traditional order of the Rites of Initiation: Baptism, Confirmation, Eucharist.

With much less than half of Catholics believing in the Real Presence the arguments for an older age for Confirmation (which I don’t agree with) would also apply to First Communion, would they not?

Do you have any information-hard data or anecdotal evidence-about how many children remain in RE after the sacraments are completed in this order?

 

[CuriousInIL]

Do you have any information-hard data or anecdotal evidence-about how many children remain in RE after the sacraments are completed in this order?

Not meaning to direct that question to just one person. On a practical level, I wonder if there is any information regarding RE attendance in areas where the three sacraments are all completed by mid-elementary school as opposed to the practice of “using” later confirmation to keep kids in RE until middle or high school.

 

[Vico]

Confirming infants in the West would require a change to Canon Law. I would be happy with just following Canon Law and confirming kids at the age of discretion.

Of course, Canon Law does leave it up to individual bishops conferences to determine another age. Here is what the bishops in the U.S. have determined:Canon 891 - Age for Confirmation

On November 15, 2000, the Latin Rite de iure members of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops approved complementary legislation for canon 891 of the Code of Canon Law for the Latin Rite dioceses of the United States.

The action was granted recognitio by the Congregation for Bishops in accord with article 82 of the Apostolic Constitution Pastor Bonus and issued by decree of the Congregation for Bishops signed by His Eminence Giovanni Battista Cardinal Re, Prefect, and His Excellency Most Reverend Franciscus Monterisi, Secretary, and dated May 9, 2001.

Complementary Norm: The National Conference of Catholic Bishops, in accord with the prescriptions of canon 891, hereby decrees that the Sacrament of Confirmation in the Latin Rite shall be conferred between the age of discretion and about sixteen years of age, within the limits determined by the diocesan bishop and with regard for the legitimate exceptions given in canon 891.

As President of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, I hereby decree that the effective date of this decree for all the Latin Rite dioceses in the United States will be July 1, 2002.

Given at the offices of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops in Washington, DC, on August 21, 2001.

Most Reverend Joseph A. Fiorenza
Bishop of Galveston-Houston
President, USCCB

Reverend Monsignor William P. Fay
General SecretarySo that’s why the dioceses in the U.S. are all over the map with when Confirmation is given. It’s up to the local bishop. In some dioceses, the bishop leaves it up to the pastor. Then it gets even messier.

I think an earlier age makes much more sense theologically. But I do appreciate the practical considerations many have. And given that our bishops have legitimately determined that a wider age range is possible, then I have no problems following that (even while personally lobbying for an earlier age ).

The Latin Catholic canon law would not likely be changed to be like the easterm Catholic sui iuris churches, which chrysmatation occurs with infant baptism, because of the different sacramental discipline. The easten mystical approach emphasizes the action of the Holy Spirit vs being catechized.CIC
Can. 889 §2 Apart from the danger of death, to receive confirmation lawfully a person who has the use of reason must be suitably instructed, properly disposed and able to renew the baptismal promises.

 

[babochka]

The Latin Catholic canon law would not likely be changed to be like the easterm Catholic sui iuris churches, which chrysmatation occurs with infant baptism, because of the different sacramental discipline. The easten mystical approach emphasizes the action of the Holy Spirit vs being catechized.CIC
Can. 889 §2 Apart from the danger of death, to receive confirmation lawfully a person who has the use of reason must be suitably instructed, properly disposed and able to renew the baptismal promises.

This doesn’t say that the person must be catechized to receive the sacrament, it simply states that if the person has the use of reason, he must be suitably catechized before he receives it. I don’t think the East would disagree with this at all. The reception of any of the sacraments, apart from danger of death, requires suitable instruction if the person has the use of reason. This is no less true in the East.

 

[SMHW]

On a practical level, I wonder if there is any information regarding RE attendance in areas where the three sacraments are all completed by mid-elementary school as opposed to the practice of “using” later confirmation to keep kids in RE until middle or high school.

I’d love to know this too.

My personal suspicion is that “using Confirmation as a carrot” probably “works” somewhat well up through the ages of 12 or 13. I think holding off on Confirmation until the high school years results in a considerable decrease in the number of young people who are confirmed. But I could be way off.

 

[babochka]

I’d love to know this too.

My personal suspicion is that “using Confirmation as a carrot” probably “works” somewhat well up through the ages of 12 or 13. I think holding off on Confirmation until the high school years results in a considerable decrease in the number of young people who are confirmed. But I could be way off.

I would guess the same thing, but I have nothing to go on for that guess. High school Confirmation programs often have requirements such as 2 years of classes, youth group participation and service hours. If I were in a parish or diocese that didn’t confirm until 16 or so, I think I would wait until I was 18 and go through an adult Confirmation program that had fewer requirements.