Confirmation: Non-Believers who get it anyway

[Melchior_1]

So occasionally I have heard some people who essentially say “I don’t believe in Catholicism, but I need to get confirmed because my family expect me to” or some such item like this.

I’m a bit torn on this. On one hand, at the very least this is incredibly dishonest because you’re professing you believe in the faith without believing in it. On the flip side, Sacramental Grace is Sacramental Grace, and we generally want people to do this.

Thoughts?

 

[smichhertz]

So occasionally I have heard some people who essentially say “I don’t believe in Catholicism, but I need to get confirmed because my family expect me to” or some such item like this.

I’m a bit torn on this. On one hand, at the very least this is incredibly dishonest because you’re professing you believe in the faith without believing in it. On the flip side, Sacramental Grace is Sacramental Grace, and we generally want people to do this.

Thoughts?

Hey Melchior!

This is a great question! On one hand, you want them to take it more seriously, on the other hand, you don’t want to deny them the sacrament.

Here’s how I see it: Like you said, sacramental grace is sacramental grace and regardless of the reasons why someone is doing it, as long as they validly receive it, it does some good. We should, of course, encourage people to receive sacraments for the best of reasons, but I don’t think we should deny it simply because they don’t have the best of intentions.

Also, even people who initially just go through the motions to keep the parents happy could get inspired and suddenly start taking their faith more seriously. A trend I have noticed is that fallen away Catholics start coming back when they have kids, as they start to see the importance of raising kids in the faith.

 

[lauraabarlow]

I am one of the fallen-away catholics. Left and joined the baptist faith but after my divorce, and our Great Pope John Paul II’s illness and death, I felt pulled back to my catholic faith. My oldest-who is 17 was just baptized and went to confessionals a few times. Tried to get him in RCIA program to finish the sacraments. My middle son, age 15 and now living with his father was baptized and made his first communion at age 12. My youngest, age 8 just made her first communion 2 months ago. I would have laughed ten years ago if anyone had told me I would return back to my faith yet here I am. Oh-I have two face book friends strangely who are catholic priests-wonderful folks What you said is so true-I forgot how to spell your name (Smitz?-the smiling fellow with a hat on)-I can definitely testify to that fact

 

[smichhertz]

(Smitz?-the smiling fellow with a hat on)-I can definitely testify to that fact

Haha, it’s fine. It’s a confusing handle anyway. Thanks for sharing!

 

[Bluegoat]

I don’t see how this can be sacramentally valid to be honest. Consider how the CC understands the requirements for a valid marriage, or the arguments they make about the validity of Anglican ordination.

If one takes those things seriously than I think it is difficult to imagine that someone being confirmed without meaning what they say or believe are really confirmed.

I don’t really blame them though. I have seen parents on CAF say that it is acceptable - even a duty - to force children to be confirmed. Parents can put a lot of pressure on. How it can be ok to encourage your kids to lie to God, or the priest, or the congregation, is beyond me. That should stop them before the question of validity comes up - lying is a sin. Sinning to receive a sacrament doesn’t make sense.

And of course that kind of hypocrisy turns many young people away.

 

[smichhertz]

I don’t see how this can be sacramentally valid to be honest. Consider how the CC understands the requirements for a valid marriage, or the arguments they make about the validity of Anglican ordination.

True, but confirmation is different. Sacraments like confirmation and baptism don’t require intent from the person receiving it for it to be valid. These sacraments deliver a SEAL along with the grace.

For instance, I could drag someone kicking and screaming to the baptismal font and forcibly baptize them and it is still valid. However, since they had no intention of receiving the sacrament, they would simply receive the seal of the sacrament and not the grace.

But if anytime in the future, they had a conversion of heart and decided to live a Christian life, there would be no need for another baptism, and they would immediately receive the sacramental grace at that time.

 

[Corki]

So occasionally I have heard some people who essentially say “I don’t believe in Catholicism, but I need to get confirmed because my family expect me to” or some such item like this.

I’m a bit torn on this. On one hand, at the very least this is incredibly dishonest because you’re professing you believe in the faith without believing in it. On the flip side, Sacramental Grace is Sacramental Grace, and we generally want people to do this.

Thoughts?

Confirmation isn’t about professing that you believe in the faith. It is about completing your initiation into the Catholic Church. As long as the person isn’t being forced to receive Confirmation, it is a good thing. He/she may not be properly disposed at the moment but may have a change of heart in the future at which point all those graces will flow.

The three Sacraments of Initiation flow together. There needs to be a very strong reason not to complete the sequence, IMO.

 

[SonCatcher]

Confirmation is really for those who have made the faith their own. If the stain of original sin has been removed by Baptism, that is the “minimum”. For the vast majority of Confirmation candidates, this was when they were children. Anything beyond (IMO) should be, at least in part, coming from within the person himself.

I certainly don’t think we should be minimalists. Indeed, we should pursue all Grace anywhere we can get it. It cannot be imposed on the unwilling, however.

 

[Bluegoat]

True, but confirmation is different. Sacraments like confirmation and baptism don’t require intent from the person receiving it for it to be valid. These sacraments deliver a SEAL along with the grace.

For instance, I could drag someone kicking and screaming to the baptismal font and forcibly baptize them and it is still valid. However, since they had no intention of receiving the sacrament, they would simply receive the seal of the sacrament and not the grace.

But if anytime in the future, they had a conversion of heart and decided to live a Christian life, there would be no need for another baptism, and they would immediately receive the sacramental grace at that time.

It isn’t different - intent is always part of a sacrament - it is a matter of whose intent. Consider marriage. If a couple has wrong intention at the time of marriage, but later has a change of heart, do you not think the grace comes? The Church seems to think such things are possible as it does not say that a newly baptized couple needs to be re-married to have a sacramental marriage - the grace comes automatically to make up the difference.

And yet if later still they ask for they marriage to be declared null because of the original impediment of disposition, the later change of heart makes no difference.

Personally, I think the sacraments are probably valid even if forced, but I don’t think the CC is consistent in the way it deals with it. I think marriage/annulment and elements of the discussion of religious orders and intent show this pretty clearly.

In any case, trying to pressure kids above the age of reason into a sacrament is a bad idea on many levels. If the child has to actually lie in the course of the liturgy, it is a good bet he or she should not be participating.

 

[Redratfish]

I don’t see how making someone lie about what they believe and have to recieve one sacrament (confirmation), since the lie will cause them to use another sacrament, (confession).

The parents job is the raise the child in the faith. it is not to force them to be Catholic. Personally, I think parents don’t do enough. One of my best friends is an agnostic/leaning atheist, and recieved confirmation. He didn’t care, it was because his parents forced him to. Personally, I don’t see how his confirmation is valid, I thought confirmation was you accepting being a Catholic, and the Church accepting you as an adult member

 

[Corki]

surely if the person just does not believe and is only getting confirmed to please their parents then this would constitute a very strong reason?

Maybe, but that’s up to the confirmand and whoever is conducting his/her interview to determine. Pleasing parents is a positive reason for Confirmation. After all, the parents promised to raise their child in the Church when they brought him/her to be baptized and that includes completing the Sacraments of initiation. Cooperating with that intent is a good thing.

 

[Corki]

I don’t see how making someone lie about what they believe and have to recieve one sacrament (confirmation), since the lie will cause them to use another sacrament, (confession).

The parents job is the raise the child in the faith. it is not to force them to be Catholic. Personally, I think parents don’t do enough. One of my best friends is an agnostic/leaning atheist, and recieved confirmation. He didn’t care, it was because his parents forced him to. Personally, I don’t see how his confirmation is valid, I thought confirmation was you accepting being a Catholic, and the Church accepting you as an adult member

Confirmation is not about you accepting being Catholic or anything at all about being an adult member. The normative age for Confirmation is the age of discretion (around age 7) - nowhere near adulthood.

This is what happens at Confirmation.

1. The sacrament of confirmation is conferred through the anointing with chrism on the forehead, which is done by the laying on of the hand, and through the words: BE SEALED WITH THE GIFT OF THE HOLY SPIRIT.

There is no affirmation from the person being confirmed, nor any opportunity to lie. Confirmation is something that is done by the Bishop. If he does what I quoted above and if the person in front of him is a baptized Christian, it’s valid - no questions asked. The only ways the Sacrament could be invalid would be if the Bishop was a fake, the person being Confirmed had not already been baptized or the proper form wasn’t used.

 

[dans0622]

It isn’t different - intent is always part of a sacrament - it is a matter of whose intent. Consider marriage. If a couple has wrong intention at the time of marriage, but later has a change of heart, do you not think the grace comes? The Church seems to think such things are possible as it does not say that a newly baptized couple needs to be re-married to have a sacramental marriage - the grace comes automatically to make up the difference.

And yet if later still they ask for they marriage to be declared null because of the original impediment of disposition, the later change of heart makes no difference.

Personally, I think the sacraments are probably valid even if forced, but I don’t think the CC is consistent in the way it deals with it. I think marriage/annulment and elements of the discussion of religious orders and intent show this pretty clearly.

In any case, trying to pressure kids above the age of reason into a sacrament is a bad idea on many levels. If the child has to actually lie in the course of the liturgy, it is a good bet he or she should not be participating.

Hello Bluegoat,

The only time when the Catholic Church says a recipient does not need to have some intention to receive a Sacrament is when the person is unable to form an intention–in other words, infants. For any adult who *can *form an intention, such an intention is necessary for validity. There was another thread on this topic several months ago. Not that I am the final authority on this, but I said more about the topic there. forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=546291

Regarding marriage: if a couple has an intention contrary to the nature of marriage at the time they exchange consent, that marriage is invalid. If they, later on, change and have proper intentions, the marriage becomes valid. The most obvious example would involve children/openness to life. For example, a couple might have a positive intention to deny each other the right to natural relations/children. Later on, let’s say they freely decide to have natural relations and would accept a child. They have validated their marriage by now expressing, in action, their proper consent. This is expressed in canon law, in c. 1159.1 vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P46.HTM

Such a validation is impossible for the other Sacraments since the recipients are not the ministers, as they are in marriage.

Making vows in a religious order is not a Sacrament. So, I am not sure what you mean by mentioning that.

To the OP: if such a person has an intention that is truly contrary to receiving the Sacrament, or never had any intention whatsoever to receive it, it will not be valid. Most kids that age might do it just because Mom and Dad want him to but this is not really a contrary intention. It is a motivation, not an intention. So, as far as validity goes, I’d say all these Confirmations are valid. But, the full effect of the grace of the Sacrament might be dormant until the kid decides to actively receive/utilize it. This is not canon law, though, so I’m out of my element with this comment.

Dan

 

[Bluegoat]

Hello Bluegoat,

The only time when the Catholic Church says a recipient does not need to have some intention to receive a Sacrament is when the person is unable to form an intention–in other words, infants. For any adult who *can *form an intention, such an intention is necessary for validity. There was another thread on this topic several months ago. Not that I am the final authority on this, but I said more about the topic there. forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=546291

Regarding marriage: if a couple has an intention contrary to the nature of marriage at the time they exchange consent, that marriage is invalid. If they, later on, change and have proper intentions, the marriage becomes valid. The most obvious example would involve children/openness to life. For example, a couple might have a positive intention to deny each other the right to natural relations/children. Later on, let’s say they freely decide to have natural relations and would accept a child. They have validated their marriage by now expressing, in action, their proper consent. This is expressed in canon law, in c. 1159.1 vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P46.HTM

Such a validation is impossible for the other Sacraments since the recipients are not the ministers, as they are in marriage.

Making vows in a religious order is not a Sacrament. So, I am not sure what you mean by mentioning that.

To the OP: if such a person has an intention that is truly contrary to receiving the Sacrament, or never had any intention whatsoever to receive it, it will not be valid. Most kids that age might do it just because Mom and Dad want him to but this is not really a contrary intention. It is a motivation, not an intention. So, as far as validity goes, I’d say all these Confirmations are valid. But, the full effect of the grace of the Sacrament might be dormant until the kid decides to actively receive/utilize it. This is not canon law, though, so I’m out of my element with this comment.

Dan

This is more or less what I understood - however, I wonder how your views on marriage square with the annulment process?

I agree that most kids who feel some pressure to confirm are probably not entirely opposed - I personally think it is impossible to make a firm line on Sacraments in many cases. Which is why the Church has usually wanted to be more careful rather than walk the line.

Why take the chance that the child is just not that interested, rather than really opposed? Why take the chance that he will begin to think that outward appearances of piety are what Christianity or Catholicism is about?

If people think that the Sacrament of Confirmation is s important every Catholic child should benefit from it, they should administer it o infant. If they want to wait until they are, religiously speaking, responsible for themselves then they should respect the consequences that comes with it - the children may not want to do it.

 

[Corki]

Hello Bluegoat,

The only time when the Catholic Church says a recipient does not need to have some intention to receive a Sacrament is when the person is unable to form an intention–in other words, infants. For any adult who *can *form an intention, such an intention is necessary for validity. There was another thread on this topic several months ago. Not that I am the final authority on this, but I said more about the topic there. forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=546291

Regarding marriage: if a couple has an intention contrary to the nature of marriage at the time they exchange consent, that marriage is invalid. If they, later on, change and have proper intentions, the marriage becomes valid. The most obvious example would involve children/openness to life. For example, a couple might have a positive intention to deny each other the right to natural relations/children. Later on, let’s say they freely decide to have natural relations and would accept a child. They have validated their marriage by now expressing, in action, their proper consent. This is expressed in canon law, in c. 1159.1 vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P46.HTM

Such a validation is impossible for the other Sacraments since the recipients are not the ministers, as they are in marriage.

Making vows in a religious order is not a Sacrament. So, I am not sure what you mean by mentioning that.

To the OP: if such a person has an intention that is truly contrary to receiving the Sacrament, or never had any intention whatsoever to receive it, it will not be valid. Most kids that age might do it just because Mom and Dad want him to but this is not really a contrary intention. It is a motivation, not an intention. So, as far as validity goes, I’d say all these Confirmations are valid. But, the full effect of the grace of the Sacrament might be dormant until the kid decides to actively receive/utilize it. This is not canon law, though, so I’m out of my element with this comment.

Dan

For the Sacraments of initiation the only intent that matters for validity is the intent of the minister. If the person receiveing has an intent against receiving the Sacrament his/her reception may be illicit but the Sacrament is still valid. It is the same with Communion. A person may have no belief in the Church or in the Real Presence but the reception of Communion is still valid. This is true even if the person is unconscious and near death.

 

[dans0622]

This is more or less what I understood - however, I wonder how your views on marriage square with the annulment process?
…

Hello again,

I think it squares quite well. (I work in a tribunal, by the way.) Regarding the rest of your post, you raise good points/questions. All I will say is that unless there is voiced, direct opposition to the reception of the Sacrament, I would have to think it should be administered.

Dan

 

[dans0622]

For the Sacraments of initiation the only intent that matters for validity is the intent of the minister. If the person receiveing has an intent against receiving the Sacrament his/her reception may be illicit but the Sacrament is still valid. It is the same with Communion. A person may have no belief in the Church or in the Real Presence but the reception of Communion is still valid. This is true even if the person is unconscious and near death.

Hello Corki,

If the recipient is an adult (for this topic, that means above the age of 7), such a person needs at least a habitual intention to receive the Sacraments. Certainly, an intention to *not *receive would invalidate any attempt to baptize or confirm. Reception of the Eucharist would be totally fruitless for a person with that intention. The thread I referred to earlier has a more detailed discussion of this point. I will say nothing further since it is off topic.

Thanks for your time.
Dan

 

[Corki]

Hello Corki,

If the recipient is an adult (for this topic, that means above the age of 7), such a person needs at least a habitual intention to receive the Sacraments. Certainly, an intention to *not *receive would invalidate any attempt to baptize or confirm. Reception of the Eucharist would be totally fruitless for a person with that intention. The thread I referred to earlier has a more detailed discussion of this point. I will say nothing further since it is off topic.

Thanks for your time.
Dan

I disagree. The intention not to receive the Sacrament would make its reception illicit but not invalid.

Canon Law cite

Can. 889 §1. Every baptized person not yet confirmed and only such a person is capable of receiving confirmation.

§2. To receive confirmation **licitly **outside the danger of death requires that a person who has the use of reason be suitably instructed, properly disposed, and able to renew the baptismal promises.

 

[Bluegoat]

Hello again,

I think it squares quite well. (I work in a tribunal, by the way.) Regarding the rest of your post, you raise good points/questions. All I will say is that unless there is voiced, direct opposition to the reception of the Sacrament, I would have to think it should be administered.

Dan

Well, I think practically how would one know that the child was opposed unless he voiced his opposition?

But I have seen parents on here, on many occasions, recommend that children’s privileges should be revoked until they agree to be confirmed, because confirmation is “good” for them and their it is their duty as a Catholic to make sure the kids are confirmed. I think that kind of thing is totally nuts.

 

[smichhertz]

I disagree. The intention not to receive the Sacrament would make its reception illicit but not invalid.

Exactly. This is what I was getting at with my post.

So if I drag someone kicking and screaming to the baptismal font, it is still a valid baptism.

HOWEVER, because the person at the moment of receiving the sacrament had no intent, he would only receive the seal of the sacrament and not the grace.

If later, that person were to have a conversion and choose to become Christian, they would instantly receive the grace from the sacrament at that time. There would be no need for another baptism.