I don't want to make Confirmation

[Blessedwithfive]

Going to Church doesn’t mean you are a religious person. It just means you are respectful of your parents. Plenty of non-Catholic and non-Christian adults come to Church to learn, to experience, etc. So don’t look at it as something you have to suffer through. No matter what you believe in terms of faith right now, each experience is an opportunity to gain understanding. I am 20 years older than you, have gone to Church my entire life, and am still constantly learning about the Catholic faith.

This! My husband attends each Sunday with me even though he is not Catholic. It’s a sign of respect to me and my beliefs and respect to God. You really need to show some respect to your parents. Your parents do not have to take care of you if you will not follow their rules. The state (DCF) will step in and take to you foster care and at your age that would be a group home or even a detention home. And in state care you will go to the local high school…it really won’t be fun. By not following your parents rules, you would be classified as a juvenile delinquent. Attending Church on Sundays is not considered child abuse…it’s called responsible parenting.

I will pray for you. I think you just need to rethink your position.

 

[Havard]

The people who are saying that a teenager’s reluctance to get confirmed is a reason confirmation should be done earlier are missing the point of the sacrament. Confirmation is when you accept responsibility for your own faith and role in the church as an adult member.

How can you confer that on someone who’s still a kid?

Confirmation was originally imparted with baptism, upon infants. Our Orthodox brethren still practice it the original way. We only changed the practice in the West because it became impractical for bishops to make it to every rural community regularly to baptize.

 

[QuasiCatholic]

Confirmation was originally imparted with baptism, upon infants. Our Orthodox brethren still practice it the original way. We only changed the practice in the West because it became impractical for bishops to make it to every rural community regularly to baptize.

That doesn’t change the fact that confirmation, as described in the Catechism, makes no sense as something to be conferred on infants, or on those who are not yet sure of their faith.

For example:

“by the sacrament of Confirmation, [the baptized] are more perfectly bound to the Church and … more strictly obliged to spread and defend the faith by word and deed.” – children aren’t responsible for sins even at that age, so how can they be “strictly obliged” to spread the word?

“(Confirmation) gives us a special strength of the Holy Spirit to spread and defend the faith by word and action as true witnesses of Christ” – hard to do if you haven’t actually learned anything about your faith yet (or how to talk for that matter )

“Preparation for Confirmation should aim at leading the Christian toward a more intimate union with Christ … in order to be more capable of assuming the apostolic responsibilities of Christian life.” – again, if you’re an infant, there’s no preparation. So this sentence doesn’t even make sense. In fact, if people were confirmed as infants – in our current system – they would never really learn anything about the faith because that all comes during confirmation classes.

and finally:

“The practice of the Eastern Churches (i.e. infant confirmation) gives greater emphasis to the unity of Christian initiation. That of the Latin Church more clearly expresses the communion of the new Christian with the bishop as guarantor and servant of the unity, catholicity and apostolicity of his Church.”

 

[Corki]

The people who are saying that a teenager’s reluctance to get confirmed is a reason confirmation should be done earlier are missing the point of the sacrament. Confirmation is when you accept responsibility for your own faith and role in the church as an adult member.

How can you confer that on someone who’s still a kid?

You are confusing the purpose of the Sacrament with its effects. The purpose of Confirmation is to seal a person’s initiation into the Church. Age has nothing to do with it. As noted by others, Confirmation is often received by infants. Children who convert to Catholicism after age 7 receive Confirmation at the same time they are received into the Church. When I was Confirmed, the typical age was 3rd or 4th grade and today many diocese have adopted what is called “restored order” of the Sacraments with Confirmation coming before First Communion.

One of the effects of the Sacrament is to give a person the graces to grow in his/her faith and to accept responsibility for a greater role as a Church member.

 

[MBeatty1999]

This! My husband attends each Sunday with me even though he is not Catholic. It’s a sign of respect to me and my beliefs and respect to God. You really need to show some respect to your parents. Your parents do not have to take care of you if you will not follow their rules. The state (DCF) will step in and take to you foster care and at your age that would be a group home or even a detention home. And in state care you will go to the local high school…it really won’t be fun. By not following your parents rules, you would be classified as a juvenile delinquent. Attending Church on Sundays is not considered child abuse…it’s called responsible parenting.

I will pray for you. I think you just need to rethink your position.

I don’t think it would go that far. I could see my parents doing that if I became violent or started doing drugs in the house. I don’t think refusing to go to church rises to that level.

 

[esieffe]

Am I wrong? I feel that is dishonest to go through with it if I truly don’t believe in it. I think that if I said this to a priest, the priest would probably say, “If that’s the way you feel, you shouldn’t go through with it.”

I hope you change your mind at some point, but for now, I think it is time to discuss it with a Priest. He might be able to change some point of view you have. There might be something that has escaped your attention, which a priest might be able to address. If it is a large Church, this has happened before.

Honesty is the best policy. I hated going to Church too every Sunday, except around Christmas and Easter / Holy Week. Now I love it. If I did not have the religious upbringing I had, I would have been lost long ago, and I don’t know if I would have known where to turn had I not had that upbringing.

 

[QuasiCatholic]

There’s a big difference between an infant and a 7 year old. I think 7 is still way too young, but that’s the church’s “age of discretion” and that’s what it considers the reasonable minimum threshold for confirmation.

Children younger than that are only supposed to be confirmed if in danger of death.

Think about it – if the church wants all Catholics to eventually be confirmed, and it is willing to break its own rules to make sure we’re confirmed before we die even if younger then 7, than why AREN’T they confirming people at baptism?

I doubt they’re gambling people’s souls on tradition alone. So it stands to reason – especially in conjunction with its own statements in the catechism – that it’s because there is a spiritual benefit in waiting to be confirmed until you have at least some understanding of what you’re doing.

 

[pianistclare]

Am I wrong? I feel that is dishonest to go through with it if I truly don’t believe in it. I think that if I said this to a priest, the priest would probably say, “If that’s the way you feel, you shouldn’t go through with it.”

Our pastor interviews the kids up for Confirmation, and if he feels like they don’t know enough about their faith or are not committed…he doesn’t allow them to go forward.
Make an appointment with your pastor.

Tell your mother you want an appointment (private) with your pastor.
She will abide by his decision.
You likely have had very poor catechesis. You have never learned the “why” of what we believe.
If you feel like the program is not going to enlighten you, seek out another parish with a strong program before you make statements like “I don’t believe in organized religion”. That’s like saying I don’t believe in High School. It exists. It’s there, and it’s for your own good.
Find out what you don’t know about Catholicism before you walk away from it.
But if you’re not ready, (and I don’t think you are) you need not worry. One can be confirmed later in life. It’s good to do the classes now with your peers, but again, if the priest says you’re not ready. Then it’s his call. He can explain it to your mom. And hopefully, he can fix the parish programs to make them more effective.

 

[Phemie]

There’s a big difference between an infant and a 7 year old. I think 7 is still way too young, but that’s the church’s “age of discretion” and that’s what it considers the reasonable minimum threshold for confirmation.

Children younger than that are only supposed to be confirmed if in danger of death.

Think about it – if the church wants all Catholics to eventually be confirmed, and it is willing to break its own rules to make sure we’re confirmed before we die even if younger then 7, than why AREN’T they confirming people at baptism?

I doubt they’re gambling people’s souls on tradition alone. So it stands to reason – especially in conjunction with its own statements in the catechism – that it’s because there is a spiritual benefit in waiting to be confirmed until you have at least some understanding of what you’re doing.

The only reason that Confirmation is not conferred with Baptism is because in the Western Church the Bishops retained that sacrament for themselves and are “ordinary minister” of that sacrament. That’s the only reason it became separated from Baptism, the bishops couldn’t be present at all Baptisms.

It was still traditionally conferred before the person received Communion for the first time, usually in the early teens but sometimes early adulthood. Then in 1910, Pius X decreed that children could receive Communion around the age of 7. At that point, since he had not also recommended that the age of Confirmation be lowered, the order of the sacraments was flipped and suddenly the completion of initiation, which up to then had been the reception of Communion, became Confirmation and an entirely erroneous understanding of what Confirmation is began to spread. We are still fighting for people to understand that this sacrament is not something you do it is something which is done to you. You are not confirming anything.

 

[pianistclare]

My mom and I were eating dinner tonight. I told her I didn’t want to make confirmation. Se said, “You have to be confirmed.” I said, “No I don’t.” She said, “We’ll discuss this later.” My dad is away on business. We had a fight. When my dad gets back, I plan on telling my parents that I will not be confirmed. We can do it the easy way or the hard way. They can just leave me alone, or they can try to force me to go to confirmation classes. In that case, I will misbehave and cause problems in confirmation class to deliberately get thrown out and denied confirmation. Then my parents will be humiliated when they go to church.

OK, I was sympathetic until you posted this.

This shows that indeed you are not ready, because a well-formed Christian young man would not say this about the parents who love him, provide for him, and are trying to raise him with morals.

Go talk to the priest and tell him that you don’t want to be confirmed and why.
Then, get on your knees and thank God for parents that love you.

You are far too immature to be Confirmed.

 

[QuasiCatholic]

The only reason that Confirmation is not conferred with Baptism is because in the Western Church the Bishops retained that sacrament for themselves and are “ordinary minister” of that sacrament. That’s the only reason it became separated from Baptism, the bishops couldn’t be present at all Baptisms.

Again, you aren’t thinking about this logically. OK, fine, the bishop has to do the confirmation. As it is, he visits each parish once a year to confirm the teenagers, right? Why isn’t he using that trip to confirm all the babies born since his last visit? Or all the unconfirmed members in general?

Why, as an adult coming to the church, did I need to take a year of classes to prepare me for baptism and confirmation? Why do churches have confirmation classes for teens? Why is PianoClare, who is – I believe – a catechist herself, telling our OP that he is too immature to be confirmed? None of that makes any sense if confirmation is something we could just as easily hand out to infants without all the fuss.

And if it IS something we could just as easily do in infancy, then I would think the church holds ultimate responsibility for the soul of every single Catholic who fails to achieve that sacrament due to the – according to you – completely arbitrary system it’s created.

 

[OneSmallFlower]

Confirmation is your agreement to the Christian mission as an adult.
If you don’t believe what the Catholic Church teaches, or at the very least have a strong desire to be a good Catholic, then you should not be confirmed.
My knowledge of the sacrament of Confirmation is limited at best, but I doubt that it would even be a valid sacrament of someone is being forced to do it- I know Baptism and Marriage aren’t. At the very least, it would be illicit. See this answer here:

catholic.com/quickquestions/should-catholic-parents-force-their-children-to-be-confirmed-against-their-will

Explain- POLITELY!- to your parents that you don’t feel it’s morally right for yourself or for the Church to pretend to be someone you’re not. Then, allow your parents, without fighting them, to enroll you in a good catechesis class. They are your parents, and even if you argue, you need to have respect for them. Take it from someone who’s a born rebel, it’s better to try to listen to them rationally and politely. Then, even if you disagree, you’ll still be doing so with mutual respect. There will be times when your parents truly are wrong; this is one of those times. But that does not give you the right to be disrespectful to them. Believe it or not, by trying to force you to get confirmed, your parents are actually trying to do what they believe is best for you. They want you to be happy, and they know that Catholicism is the true way to being happy.

 

[Phemie]

Again, you aren’t thinking about this logically. OK, fine, the bishop has to do the confirmation. As it is, he visits each parish once a year to confirm the teenagers, right? Why isn’t he using that trip to confirm all the babies born since his last visit? Or all the unconfirmed members in general?

Because right now Canon Law says that Confirmation is at the age of reason unless the child is in danger of dying. Note that it doesn’t say that a baby is to be given Communion if in danger of dying. Because in the Latin Rite to receive Communion we must know WHAT we are doing and whom we are receiving. Not so Baptism and Confirmation – unless we are adults.

Why, as an adult coming to the church, did I need to take a year of classes to prepare me for baptism and confirmation? Why do churches have confirmation classes for teens? Why is PianoClare, who is – I believe – a catechist herself, telling our OP that he is too immature to be confirmed? None of that makes any sense if confirmation is something we could just as easily hand out to infants without all the fuss.

You, because you were an adult, had to know exactly what you were undertaking in being baptized. That’s why the year of study. You were seeking to become Catholic, you had to understand what that entailed.

Confirmation simply completed your Baptism.

I don’t agree with PianoClaire. I don’t think he should be Confirmed, but not because of his lack of maturity.

And if it IS something we could just as easily do in infancy, then I would think the church holds ultimate responsibility for the soul of every single Catholic who fails to achieve that sacrament due to the – according to you – completely arbitrary system it’s created.

 

[pianistclare]

I am a catechist, DRE, Youth Minister, and Lay Ecclesial Minister. Lots of hats.
For those who do not live in an Archdiocese that recommends Confirmation at 15, here is what we advance:

That Confirmation goes a long way to put together the reality of our faith, connect the dots as it were, for all of those kids how were “dragged to Sunday school”. Confirmation prep is where kids learns the WHY of what we believe, the History of what we believe, and prepare to take ownership of their own souls, their own faith life, and their ongoing formation. As all adults should, but seldom do.
Every Archbishop here has insisted that we give teens the best catechesis we can, with a full 2 years of prep, mandatory spiritual retreats, and personal interaction with the pastor. Our kids do hours of community service as well. This serves to put into their hearts and schedules a place for helping others. A time for praying independently, and a love for learning about the church.
THAT is why we do it. If we return to simply covering it as infants, we do a disservice to the kids who are being catechized by the press, the television, the internet, and yes, by parents who hardly know what the church teaches either in some cases.
There’s a lack of vocations? I hardly think that leaving the teens to simply wander out of church because no one wants to work with them will boost vocations.

 

[QuasiCatholic]

You, because you were an adult, had to know exactly what you were undertaking in being baptized. That’s why the year of study. You were seeking to become Catholic, you had to understand what that entailed.

Confirmation simply completed your Baptism.

That can’t exactly be correct either because if I were about to die I could be baptized just by asking, no classes necessary. And why could an infant be baptized with no clue that baptism is even a thing, but adults can’t be baptized without a year’s worth of study on the subject? Surely I already had a better understanding of Catholicism at the time I started RCIA than an infant does.

But that still doesn’t answer the question of why churches require confirmation classes of those who are already baptized as children. If confirmation is not something you need to be prepared for, and is something that is done to you rather than something you choose, what’s the point of all that preparation?

 

[JimG]

I am a catechist, DRE, Youth Minister, and Lay Ecclesial Minister. Lots of hats.
For those who do not live in an Archdiocese that recommends Confirmation at 15, here is what we advance:

That Confirmation goes a long way to put together the reality of our faith, connect the dots as it were, for all of those kids how were “dragged to Sunday school”. Confirmation prep is where kids learns the WHY of what we believe, the History of what we believe, and prepare to take ownership of their own souls, their own faith life, and their ongoing formation. As all adults should, but seldom do.
Every Archbishop here has insisted that we give teens the best catechesis we can, with a full 2 years of prep, mandatory spiritual retreats, and personal interaction with the pastor. Our kids do hours of community service as well. This serves to put into their hearts and schedules a place for helping others. A time for praying independently, and a love for learning about the church.
THAT is why we do it. If we return to simply covering it as infants, we do a disservice to the kids who are being catechized by the press, the television, the internet, and yes, by parents who hardly know what the church teaches either in some cases.
There’s a lack of vocations? I hardly think that leaving the teens to simply wander out of church because no one wants to work with them will boost vocations.

This is all excellent, and I am glad that your diocese and others are doing so much in the way of catechesis and preparation of the confirmands.

Still, none of it is essential to the sacrament of Confirmation, which as has been noted can be done and has been done immediately following baptism. The sacraments function ex opera operato, by their own power, and not because of what we know or our preparation.

My own view is that we should return to confirming at the time of baptism, completing the initiation into the Church, delaying only the Eucharist till the age of reason. All the things you mention still ought to be done for every teen–it’s evangelization. It doesn’t require the sacrament as a reason to do it.

 

[pianistclare]

This is all excellent, and I am glad that your diocese and others are doing so much in the way of catechesis and preparation of the confirmands.

Still, none of it is essential to the sacrament of Confirmation, which as has been noted can be done and has been done immediately following baptism. The sacraments function ex opera operato, by their own power, and not because of what we know or our preparation.

My own view is that we should return to confirming at the time of baptism, completing the initiation into the Church, delaying only the Eucharist till the age of reason. All the things you mention still ought to be done for every teen–it’s evangelization. It doesn’t require the sacrament as a reason to do it.

Correct. Although I don’t know how many teens would show up for all this evangelization if we didn’t hold the sacrament out as a cookie of sorts for them and their parents.
Typically, we see families and their children “disappear” after First Communion.
If students were not required to remain in catechesis, they simply would not. We already struggle with those who feel that soccer, scouting, and lacrosse are more worthy activities on Sundays. It’s a different world. Children say “I won’t go” like the OP, and parents give in. The Archbishop realizes this. It’s not a perfect system, but hey, it gives us a shot at teaching them. And I for one, am grateful for the chance. The future depends on these kids receiving this instruction. And the Sacrament does mean more to them. That’s a bonus.

 

[JimG]

I don’t care about their rules. I am going to refuse to go to church anymore. That whole thing about living under their roof is wrong. In my state, (NY), they are legally responsible for me until I turn 18. They can’t legally throw me out if I refuse to go to mass.

You still owe your parents obedience and respect. They can’t require you to receive the sacrament, but they can require you to attend Mass and to attend Confirmation classes. Whether you are confirmed or not is up to you–and the bishop–but your parents can still insist that you attend the classes. And they should.

 

[maryjk]

They can make your life hell, though. Not allowing you to do things with friends, only allowing you to have the bare necessities, etc.
You are sounding like a toddler pitching a hissy fit. Grow up.

Exactly.

Do you really think that kind of childish behavior is going to convince your parents that you are making a mature, reasoned decision?

Again, exactly.

OP,
You want to make a mature decision? At least pretend to be a mature person. Throwing a hissy fit isn’t going to convince anyone that you know what you are doing.

 

[Gorgias]

Again, you aren’t thinking about this logically. OK, fine, the bishop has to do the confirmation. As it is, he visits each parish once a year to confirm the teenagers, right? Why isn’t he using that trip to confirm all the babies born since his last visit? Or all the unconfirmed members in general?

It may not seem logical, but it is an accurate representation of the historical development of the sacrament. In the early Church, when local Churches were more centralized and candidates for baptism were more likely to be adults, there was a strong catechetical component to the process, and the local bishop baptized, confirmed, and administered first communion at Easter. Later, when the majority of baptisms were infant baptism, the catechetical component fell away; coincidentally, the Churches had become more spread out and the presbyterate had developed. At that point, baptism was performed throughout the year, by the local priest. Bishops retained the right to perform the chrismation, and so, people waited for this “sealing in the Spirit” until the bishop was in town. As time went on, people became less likely to have their children confirmed, and so the Church was forced to make laws dictating that baptized Christians were to be confirmed by a certain age. This developed into a tradition that confirmation was held at that age (and not just by it). Finally, when the Church restored RCIA, catechesis was part of the process for adults, but the existing process for children (less than seven years of age) was retained.

Is there a strong internal logic here? No – it’s more reasonably explained by an appeal to historical forces. Confirmation is, among the sacraments, just weird that way. Sometimes, history has its own logic.

Why, as an adult coming to the church, did I need to take a year of classes to prepare me for baptism and confirmation?

Are you saying that the catechesis wasn’t helpful?

Why do churches have confirmation classes for teens?

Like I said, ‘historical development.’ Teens fit into the process for adults, rather than the process for infants, even though the separation of sacraments remains.

the – according to you – completely arbitrary system it’s created.

I don’t know that I’d call it “completely arbitrary”, although I’d agree that it isn’t completely logical. It’s explainable, of course, but it doesn’t fit neatly into a logical paradigm.