Confirmation Clarification

[Lisa_Mladinich]

Dear CA,

I participate in a Yahoo group for catechists, and our current discussion has been distressing. Some of the catechists are arguing that no preparation is needed for the Sacrament of Confirmation because it is a “gift” and not something you can prepare for. They say we are not confirming anything, the Spirit is confirming us and that, therefore, there is no need for the confirmed to make any commitment to Christ. The Church clearly teaches that proper preparation and evangelization has to take place before the sacrament is administered, but these folks seem to be of the ilk that feels making demands on kids is unnecessary and just plain mean.

Would you please give me a strong reference point for refuting this error? It’s all part of the “Jesus loves you and that’s enough!” trend that began in the post-Vatican II years when I was a kid, and this kind of mushy thinking is still prevalent. A very fine catechist on our list quoting from Church documents hasn’t made a dent.

Thanks!

 

[jmcrae]

The Sacrament of Confirmation is indeed a gift - one that we need to prepare ourselves very carefully, to receive!

However, at the same time, preparation for Confirmation need not entail a detailed course in theology.

What do the kids need to know? First, they should be Catholic, and being raised in Catholic homes. If this is happening, they are already “mostly prepared.”

The problem is, not every kid, and in fact not most kids, are in good Catholic homes where the whole family goes to Mass on Sundays, the Rosary is prayed before bed every night, grace is prayed before meals, holy water fonts are installed by the doors, there are conversations about God at the dinner table, etc. Most kids are in families where the faith is something you get out for special occasions like Christmas and Easter, and then forget about, for most of the time. So as a Catechist you find yourself trying to make up for a lot of lost ground - teaching kids how to say their prayers, introducing them to Catholic culture, explaining to them who Jesus is, introducing them to the Saints, trying whatever subterfuge you can to get them to Mass, or at least into the Church building, on Sundays, etc. Which ought to be unnecessary, but hey - this is the real world.

However, if you have the good fortune to run into kids who are already mostly prepared by good home training, then what your job actually is, is to introduce the kids to the Seven Gifts of the Holy Spirit, discuss the 12 Fruits, make sure they know their “lists” - the Seven Sacraments, the Five Precepts, etc. that the Bishop will ask them when he comes, and making sure they understand what is going to happen during the Sacrament itself - what they are supposed to say, what the Bishop will do, and what all of those things mean to them.

As far as “being mean” it would be “mean” to just throw the kids at the Bishop’s feet without telling them anything at all about what’s going on, or letting them know the answers to the questions that he is going to be asking them.

 

[Lisa_Mladinich]

First, thank you SO MUCH for your swift and thorough response.

Second, may I quote you?

 

[jmcrae]

First, thank you SO MUCH for your swift and thorough response.

You are most welcome.

Second, may I quote you?

Certainly! Let me know how it goes.

 

[puzzleannie]

the bishop of every diocese has issue directives on the age for Confirmation of baptized Catholic youth, and the preparation for the sacrament and how the pastor is to determine who is worthily disposed to receive it. Those guidelines are in the framework of universal canon law on the sacrament. It is the bishop who confirms the candidates Christian initiation, not the candidate who confirms his parents’ choice to have him baptized. Find out what is required in your diocese and use that as the resource for the discussion with your friends.

 

[CDNowak]

Dear CA,

I participate in a Yahoo group for catechists, and our current discussion has been distressing. Some of the catechists are arguing that no preparation is needed for the Sacrament of Confirmation because it is a “gift” and not something you can prepare for. They say we are not confirming anything, the Spirit is confirming us and that, therefore, there is no need for the confirmed to make any commitment to Christ. The Church clearly teaches that proper preparation and evangelization has to take place before the sacrament is administered, but these folks seem to be of the ilk that feels making demands on kids is unnecessary and just plain mean.

Would you please give me a strong reference point for refuting this error? It’s all part of the “Jesus loves you and that’s enough!” trend that began in the post-Vatican II years when I was a kid, and this kind of mushy thinking is still prevalent. A very fine catechist on our list quoting from Church documents hasn’t made a dent.

Thanks!

Given the variety of practice in Confirmation throughout history and in the various Churches united with Rome, the view that “we are not confirming anything” has merit. Even in the Latin Church the norm is the age of reason (see Canon 891 and the clarification). The fact is that the modern understanding of Confirmation has been warped, I can only guess in the attempt to keep it distinct from Communion (and actually traded ages in common practice from prior to Quam Singulari).

However, that is as far as they are right, but if they won’t accept Church documents I fear that “they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.”

–PS Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for stronger demands on kids, but this is an issue where proper perspective is usually lacking.

 

[grandfather]

Dear CA,

I participate in a Yahoo group for catechists, and our current discussion has been distressing. Some of the catechists are arguing that no preparation is needed for the Sacrament of Confirmation because it is a “gift” and not something you can prepare for. They say we are not confirming anything, the Spirit is confirming us and that, therefore, there is no need for the confirmed to make any commitment to Christ. The Church clearly teaches that proper preparation and evangelization has to take place before the sacrament is administered, but these folks seem to be of the ilk that feels making demands on kids is unnecessary and just plain mean.

Would you please give me a strong reference point for refuting this error? It’s all part of the “Jesus loves you and that’s enough!” trend that began in the post-Vatican II years when I was a kid, and this kind of mushy thinking is still prevalent. A very fine catechist on our list quoting from Church documents hasn’t made a dent.

Thanks!

Recent history shows a lot of confusion about this sacrament. I was confirmed at 12. The material of study was the Baltimore Catechism. After Vatican II that was disposed of and ridiculed as outmoded. New teaching methods and materials came into vogue. Within a few years an exodus of young people from the Church commenced. The folks in charge of the religious ed programs recognized there was a problem. It was decided that the problem was that the age of confirmation was too young. The new programs and methods were never put in doubt. The problem was the kids. They were not mature enough to be confirmed and the age was moved to about 12th grade. That did not solve the problem. Young people kept leaving. Instead of teaching the faith the programs had the kids do things to earn points and prove they were serious enough to be worthy of the sacrament, and committed enough. Again the problem was the kids not the material and the old Catechism continued to be ridiculed as an anachronism from the dark ages. How is it possible that some generations of Catholics were confirmed at 12 and stuck around and suddenly 12 was too young, because they were abandoning the faith? I was around through all of this and remember it well. A sacrament, which is truly a gift, became something to be earned, like a merit badge. Kids had to come to class, do skits, make banners, go on retreats, visit nursing homes and spend a weekend on skid row volunteeering at soup kitchens to prove they were worthy. It is not really volunteering though when the payment is you get to receive a sacrament. These are all good things to do and it is a good idea to encourage works of mercy, but it is a terrible idea to connect it to earning a sacrament.

Now the pendelum has apparently swung too far the other way. No preparation at all.

Confirmation should be seen as a teaching moment in the western Church. It is not the only means of teaching. That should be happening all along.

In the eastern rites, all of them as far as I know, infants receive all the sacraments of initiation, Baptism, Holy Eucharist, and Chrismation/Confirmation. That is how things originally were done in the early Church, but in the west they were separated. Originally they were all given by the bishop. Then the bishop gave faculties to priests, because babies needed to get baptized and could not wait until the bishop made it to the village. In the west they thought it would be good if something were saved for the bishop to do, so they separated baptism from confirmation.

You have several years to catechize youth. Surely if they were properly taught they would know the precepts of the faith by the time they are teenagers. History shows that the new programs failed. Catholics are in need of good catechesis. It is better than it was in the 80s, but comparing something mediocre to a disaster makes what is mediocre shine. We have a long way to go.

 

[teachccd]

These are all good responses. My contention would be that we can never have to much catechesis. Every month I teach a pre-baptism class at my parish for parents and godparents. To be a godparent one must be confirmed. I see around 90% (not an exaggeration) of people coming through my classes who don’t know that Jesus didn’t sin or even what mortal sin is. I am a Confirmation facilitator as well as an adult formation educator and I am a strong proponent of continued religious education. While the sacrament of confirmation itself does not require two years of catechesis, how could one dispute that those being confirmed should know their Catholic Christian faith? We are being mean by taking our volunteer time to better educate our youth in their faith?

I’m sure that there are as many opinions out there as there are Catholics. While I agree that we should not make the kids feel as if they earned a sacrament we do have classes for baptism, matrimony, first reconciliation and Eucharist and there’s a big class for Holy Orders. I do not find it to be cruel and unusual punishment for 14-16 year old kids to learn more about their faith. Like one poster said, most are not getting it at home. Why pull the rug out of the only chance some of these kids have?

 

[teachccd]

You have several years to catechize youth. Surely if they were properly taught they would know the precepts of the faith by the time they are teenagers. History shows that the new programs failed. Catholics are in need of good catechesis. It is better than it was in the 80s, but comparing something mediocre to a disaster makes what is mediocre shine. We have a long way to go.

Boy do we ever. Programs only work with parental support. Many kids do not even attend Mass. We have a very long way to go, starting with the parents…teachccd

 

[grandfather]

Boy do we ever. Programs only work with parental support. Many kids do not even attend Mass. We have a very long way to go, starting with the parents…teachccd

Well…

That is true sort of.

It kind of says there is nothing wrong with the programs. The problem is the parents. Surely there are unengaged parents, but there are also really lousy programs. At first the problem was the kids, not the programs. Now it is the parents not the programs.

My mother was Catholic and never attended Mass, ever. My father Protestant and never attend church ever.

My mother sent me to catechism class and I was taught by the Sisters of Charity, Saint Elizabeth Ann Seton’s order. To say there was no parental support is an understatement. I suspect that this was not that uncommon, but who knows what went on in other homes. The nuns knew what they were doing. They got the message across. They planted the seeds deep.

The blanket statement that programs will not work without parental support, that is only an excuse for bad programs. It is a cover up for failed programs. Pass the blame. Make excuses on top of excuses.

The teacher has to assume there are a few hours of this kid’s life in your hands and you have to get the job done with the help of God. You can make the difference. I have been there. You plant the seeds and God will send someone else to water and pull weeds. If you start out by saying you are going to fail unless… then you will fail.

 

[teachccd]

Well…

That is true sort of.

It kind of says there is nothing wrong with the programs. The problem is the parents. Surely there are unengaged parents, but there are also really lousy programs. At first the problem was the kids, not the programs. Now it is the parents not the programs.

My mother was Catholic and never attended Mass, ever. My father Protestant and never attend church ever.

My mother sent me to catechism class and I was taught by the Sisters of Charity, Saint Elizabeth Ann Seton’s order. To say there was no parental support is an understatement. I suspect that this was not that uncommon, but who knows what went on in other homes. The nuns knew what they were doing. They got the message across. They planted the seeds deep.

The blanket statement that programs will not work without parental support, that is only an excuse for bad programs. It is a cover up for failed programs. Pass the blame. Make excuses on top of excuses.

The teacher has to assume there are a few hours of this kid’s life in your hands and you have to get the job done with the help of God. You can make the difference. I have been there. You plant the seeds and God will send someone else to water and pull weeds. If you start out by saying you are going to fail unless… then you will fail.

Of course there are exceptions to everything and blanket statements can always be proven wrong. I personally teach adult education, junior high (seventh and eighth grade) and I facilitate a Confirmation group of 15 year old students. I would not volunteer all of my time if I thought that this was a failing program. There are indeed many factors that form the faith of a child. Our Church is very clear the the parents are the primary religious educators of their children. A catechetical progam is a resource for the parents and is never meant to be the source of the faith that was handed to their children when they presented them for baptism. Parents assume this responsibility and many fall short presuming that an hour and a half class once a week will suffice.

Faith is lived not taught. Religious Education programs are designed around a lived faith. There are a vast array of programs but then there are variables within every program. Different catechists with varying experience and teaching techniques can alter the dynamics of any program, good or bad.

You say that the nuns knew what they were doing and no doubt they did. But, you are an exception and not the norm. I experience those children whose parents take them to Mass every Sunday and make every effort to support our program. There is a vast difference in the response of those children and their interaction with me and their peers. Those who are just dropped off know that there is no accountablilty and respond as such.

Seeds are planted and I may never know the end results in most of the kids that I teach. But I do hear of the stories of the many kids who leave the Church. There are no guarantees either way but a lived faith always has a better chance than a one and a half hour taught faith.

Thank you for sharing your story as it truly brings a light of hope when I hear a parent tell me that their kid’s game is more important than my class or that their homework ranks higher than the ten minute assignment that I give them occasionally. Your story allows me to know that no matter what God is in charge…God bless…teachccd

 

[jmcrae]

Well…

That is true sort of.

It kind of says there is nothing wrong with the programs.

If the program contains heresy, then you need to mention it to the Bishop, so that he can remove it and replace it with something more appropriate. Your DRE can only work with what your Bishop is giving her to use. (She is not allowed to depart from the program that the Bishop is giving to her, and if she is doing that, then the Bishop also needs to be made aware of that, so that he can fire her.)

 

[grandfather]

If the program contains heresy, then you need to mention it to the Bishop, so that he can remove it and replace it with something more appropriate. Your DRE can only work with what your Bishop is giving her to use. (She is not allowed to depart from the program that the Bishop is giving to her, and if she is doing that, then the Bishop also needs to be made aware of that, so that he can fire her.)

Sounds good on paper, or in theory. A local priest who was pastor of a small town parish nearby taught his parishoners for 25 years that confession was no longer necessary. He did not have confession at his parish for all that time. The bishop was well aware of it. A pastoral associate (priest) in a local parish entered the church in the procession at a daily Mass, dressed in street clothes. He sat in a pew, while a woman said the Mass. The bishop knew about this and told those who complained to him to mind their business. Another local pastor publicly attests he does not believe in numerous Catholic dogmas. The bishop is silent. Another well know priest in the diocese says when people come to him in confession and confess homosexual acts he refuses them absolution, and tells them they have not done anything sinful and should not be confessing. The bishop is well aware of this. Things are broken.

Beyond the problem of heresy, knowingly teaching things that are in contradiction to Catholic dogma, there is the problem of content, what is missing that should be taught. Hence, the comment about watered down programs. In my home library I have the texts of high school religion classes from the 1940s. It is amazing how substantial they are. They really cover a lot of ground. The reason they were able to get so much across is the methods that they used. The catechism method, question and answer, works.

There are many good people out there in parishes doing their very best to catechize children. Things seem to be getting much better. They deserve a lot of appreciation and credit and support. They are doing a good job with the resources and support that they have and they are always trying to improve.

There are also things that are really disordered. The woman who is in charge of all educational programs at a local parish sued the Church, because she wants to be a deacon.

 

[jmcrae]

Sounds good on paper, or in theory. A local priest who was pastor of a small town parish nearby taught his parishoners for 25 years that confession was no longer necessary. He did not have confession at his parish for all that time. The bishop was well aware of it. A pastoral associate (priest) in a local parish entered the church in the procession at a daily Mass, dressed in street clothes. He sat in a pew, while a woman said the Mass. The bishop knew about this and told those who complained to him to mind their business. Another local pastor publicly attests he does not believe in numerous Catholic dogmas. The bishop is silent. Another well know priest in the diocese says when people come to him in confession and confess homosexual acts he refuses them absolution, and tells them they have not done anything sinful and should not be confessing. The bishop is well aware of this. Things are broken.

If these things are true and you can prove them, then you have a case to present before the CDF, and you should do so sooner rather than later. The Pope actually does listen to these cases, and Bishops actually do get removed and defrocked, from time to time. It’s worth a shot.

The woman who is in charge of all educational programs at a local parish sued the Church, because she wants to be a deacon.

The fact that she felt the need to sue gives me hope that your Diocese hasn’t lost all of its marbles.

 

[Phemie]

Beyond the problem of heresy, knowingly teaching things that are in contradiction to Catholic dogma, there is the problem of content, what is missing that should be taught. Hence, the comment about watered down programs. In my home library I have the texts of high school religion classes from the 1940s. It is amazing how substantial they are. They really cover a lot of ground. The reason they were able to get so much across is the methods that they used. The catechism method, question and answer, works.

Well, yes and no. You can transmit information that way but unless the catechist is trained and knows what he/she is talking about, you will have problems. It’s the way I was taught back in the 60s, by the teachers in my catholic school – teachers who had no training in catechetics beyond knowing how to read. If you sought clarification they were totally useless because they had never had to think beyond what was on the page and it only resulted in their repeating what was on the page – more loudly. You learned to spit back answers word for word without once having to think about what you were saying. If this method was so great how do you explain that I’m one of the few of my contemporaries who still go to Mass?

 

[grandfather]

If these things are true and you can prove them, then you have a case to present before the CDF, and you should do so sooner rather than later. The Pope actually does listen to these cases, and Bishops actually do get removed and defrocked, from time to time. It’s worth a shot.

The fact that she felt the need to sue gives me hope that your Diocese hasn’t lost all of its marbles.

The bishop who is the auxilliary told a good friend of mine that all of the Church’s problems will be solved once we ordain women to the priesthood. This is the same man who told the complainers to mind their business when a woman was celebrating Mass. I suspect the reason they do not ordain women is they know that would be crossing the line and Rome would finally intervene and roll some heads, or mitres.

I have no idea how many marbles remain in the chancery office. I have not even mentioned half the crazy stuff that went on here. The point is this. When parents who care about their kids souls see this kind of stuff going on they know they have to circle the wagons and protect what is dearest to them. They come to believe for good reason they can not rely on the folks running the local programs and they pull out. Some end up in disputes with the parish program managers and priests and appeal to the bishops, and some either go somewhere else, or do it at home. Teaching kids religion at home was unheard of not too long ago. There is a reason people choose to do this. They know something is broken and they fear for their kids. This is not a permanent phenomenon. Things are improving. When they do parents will want to have their kids involved, but right now many are wary.

 

[burritobrother]

I’m asking as someone who is in the RCIA program and is also trying to find his way around the other areas of the Church.
Exactly HOW can a priest refuse confession in his parish for 25 years? And how can the priest and the bishop not be called to the carpet for it? The things I’ve read in this thread and in others are shocking. I mean, this doesn’t even sound possible. I’m sure at least some regular members had to have complained about these things. Noone did anything about it all?
Is there some kind of tolerated movement going on that I should be aware of?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

If the program contains heresy, then you need to mention it to the Bishop, so that he can remove it and replace it with something more appropriate. Your DRE can only work with what your Bishop is giving her to use. (She is not allowed to depart from the program that the Bishop is giving to her, and if she is doing that, then the Bishop also needs to be made aware of that, so that he can fire her.)

Saying that education is not necessary for confirmation is not a heresy.

Heresy is defined in the Catechism as “the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same”.

As Confirmation is conferred upon infants in the Byzantine Catholic Churches then education is not necessary and therefore not something that must be believed.

 

[jmcrae]

Saying that education is not necessary for confirmation is not a heresy.

I think that you may have misunderstood my post.

The Church requires those who have reached the age of reason to undergo a period of preparation, which includes prayer both for and with the candidates, instruction about the Sacrament itself, and inculturation into the life of the Church, to accompany the reception of post-Baptismal sacraments.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I think that you may have misunderstood my post.

The Church requires those who have reached the age of reason to undergo a period of preparation, which includes prayer both for and with the candidates, instruction about the Sacrament itself, and inculturation into the life of the Church, to accompany the reception of post-Baptismal sacraments.

Yes this is true, but for someone to say that they do not agree with this is not heresy as it is not a dogma. It is a discipline.

That is the point I was trying to make.