MERGED: Must go on a retreat to be confirmed?

[benedictgal]

The problem is that niether Dr. Peters of the CDWDS answer how this is suppose to be accomplished in thier understanding
I don’t see the word voluntary here.

Nor do I see anything having to do with a mandatory requirement to go to a retreat in order to be eligible for the reception of the Sacrament of Confirmation.

This reminds me of the account of the Acts of the Apostles concerning the Council of Jerusalem wherein the Apostles debated the question of mandating certain things from the Gentile converts.

[28] For it hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us, to lay no further burden upon you than these necessary things: [29] That you abstain from things sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication; from which things keeping yourselves, you shall do well.

As Dr. Peters noted, there is nothing wrong with doing extra things if they are done simply as a means to augment what the youngsters have learned. However, when making such things mandatory, it seems to me that we are placing an undue burden and at times, a hardship. I do not think that this is what the Holy See had in mind.

 

[Tepeyac]

Those of us who work in instructing the faith understand this, at the same time there is a host of other sections and documentsd which speak of having proper formation and how it should be performed.
A unbaptized person coming into the church says they have had a spiritual experiance and wants to be baptized, and to recieve the sacraments. Does this fundamental right that has been batted around mean the priest is to immidiately take them to the baptism font, for baptism, then annoint them for confirmation, lead them to the tabernacle for first Eucharist? of course not. From the early history of the Church it has been te practice to give proper dicenernment and teaching before administering the sacraments.

True but discernement and teaching don’t require retreats, at least at this point in history, and the church has specifically said they should not be held as requirements.

Formation and discernement can be handled in different ways, they just can’t be required beyond what the church envisions and allows. I don’t doubt that these retreats are wonderful opportunities for formation and fellowship. The question isn’t whether they have any value or not. I think they often do. The question is simply whether they should be required for confirmation. They are not.

 

[thomasf]

Would you tell this to an adult?

There is no canonical requirement for a retreat. It is the bishop’s call on how his congregation is prepared. Perhaps there is another way.

Yes. If the Bishop requires it, and it’s not out of line, then do it.

 

[benedictgal]

Yes. If the Bishop requires it, and it’s not out of line, then do it.

I don’t know if you read through the whole thread, but, when there is a conflict between local policy and universal law, the universal law supercedes. Canon Law does not place participation in a retreat as a requirement for the reception of the sacrament of confirmation.

Retreats, if done properly and if they are doctrinally, theologically and liturgically sound, can be a good thing. However, these should be voluntary and not mandatory.

Interestingly enough, I found this by one of CAF’s own: Jimmy Akin. He writes that:

The idea that a sleepover of any kind could be so essential to preparation for confirmation that those who do not participate iin it sould be denied one of the sacraments of Christian initiation, and thus be denied the fullness of Christian initiation, is unconscionable. This is a raw exercise of power in denying the sacraments to those who will not toe the line on a matter that is trivial at best and those involved in it sin gravely by denying the sacrament on this pretext.

He also makes this interesting point, citing the same letter that I posted a few pages ago:

The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments has interpreted this canon in such a way that diocesan policy is subordinated to the right of the faithful to receive the sacraments if they are otherwise qualified to receive it. Diocesan policy is then regarded as a template for ensuring the orderly administration of the sacraments, but exceptions must be made to it if sacramentally qualified members of the faithful insist on exercising their right to receive the sacrament.

It’s interesting how he, too, reaches the same conclusion.

 

[FAB]

Nor do I see anything having to do with a mandatory requirement to go to a retreat in order to be eligible for the reception of the Sacrament of Confirmation.

This reminds me of the account of the Acts of the Apostles concerning the Council of Jerusalem wherein the Apostles debated the question of mandating certain things from the Gentile converts.

As Dr. Peters noted, there is nothing wrong with doing extra things if they are done simply as a means to augment what the youngsters have learned. However, when making such things mandatory, it seems to me that we are placing an undue burden and at times, a hardship. I do not think that this is what the Holy See had in mind.

Notice though there were requirements made of the gentiles:

That you abstain from things sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication; from which things keeping yourselves, you shall do well.

Were they an undo hardship? They certainly seemed to be mandatory.

 

[Tepeyac]

There are a number of things that make me think local, extra requirements for sacraments are often a bad idea. A number of times it was brought up that the OP didn’t seem mature so he must not be ready to recieve confirmation but receiving the sacraments isn’t about emotional maturity. It makes me think stuff like requiring retreats have these unintentional consequences, they bring in other ideas of what people should be like in order to receive the sacraments. It’s no longer just knowledge, and faith. It brings up issues of personality. I don’t think that’s a good thing. I don’t think people should be judged fit to recieve the sacraments on the basis of personality or of being a “team player”. I think these extra requirements end up having that effect and it makes me uncomfortable.

 

[benedictgal]

Notice though there were requirements made of the gentiles:

Were they an undo hardship? They certainly seemed to be mandatory.

Circumsion was something that the Jewish converts wanted to impose on the Gentiles. The Gentiles coming into the Church had some of these practices before their conversion. These, the Church did not permit. However, the Church did not mandate that they had to follow Jewish purification laws and mandates concerning eating unclean animals.

 

[Lapey]

I don’t know if you read through the whole thread, but, when there is a conflict between local policy and universal law, the universal law supercedes. Canon Law does not place participation in a retreat as a requirement for the reception of the sacrament of confirmation.

Retreats, if done properly and if they are doctrinally, theologically and liturgically sound, can be a good thing. However, these should be voluntary and not mandatory.

How long will you beat this dead horse? This thread has been derailed, and is in need of closing.

We have ventured into something we cannot decide, let alone change. The simple truth is that this young man IS required, apparently by his bishop and enforced by his youth minister and pastor, to make this retreat.

We should all be trying to get this young man to be obedient and comply with the requirements instead we are arguing something that none of us can control. Even Dr. Peters cannot make a difference here either, with this particular kid I mean.

So please I beg one more time, either get back to the OP or do as I am trying to do, get out of the discussion, as my comments always seem to be turned around. I understand that fact as I do speak quite decisively and direct, this does intimidate some even though I don’t intend this it happens.

Gal, please don’t respond to this post again with the same mantra, I am not responding to this anymore. I will participate on the subject to help and direct this boy, but I’m done, and I hope all of are done with discussing things we cannot control.

Thanks, and God bless.

 

[DCNBILL]

Nor do I see anything having to do with a mandatory requirement to go to a retreat in order to be eligible for the reception of the Sacrament of Confirmation.

This reminds me of the account of the Acts of the Apostles concerning the Council of Jerusalem wherein the Apostles debated the question of mandating certain things from the Gentile converts.

[28] For it hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us, to lay no further burden upon you than these necessary things: [29]That you abstain from things sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication; from which things keeping yourselves, you shall do well.

As Dr. Peters noted, there is nothing wrong with doing extra things if they are done simply as a means to augment what the youngsters have learned. However, when making such things mandatory, it seems to me that we are placing an undue burden and at times, a hardship. I do not think that this is what the Holy See had in mind.

Please do not say that you are associating these practices with a Catholic spiritual retreat.

 

[FAB]

Formation and discernement can be handled in different ways, they just can’t be required beyond what the church envisions and allows. I don’t doubt that these retreats are wonderful opportunities for formation and fellowship. The question isn’t whether they have any value or not. I think they often do. The question is simply whether they should be required for confirmation. They are not.

And what does the Church envision? In the early Church converts were required extensive preparation.
At the time of confirmation we now have at 15 it becomes a pivital point of decision for the yourng man or woman being prepared. Statistics show that a person decides by the time they are 20 to remain Catholic or to leave the faith. The Formation for confirmation in many cases has become the last true chance to instill an understanding and love forfor the faith.
Just the act of confirming the sacrament will not make a person want to stay Catholic for life. All these things that are being required are an effort to install this love for Jesus and the Church he founded.
Those of us who are looking for the best way to do so, don’t need to be told what we can’t or shouldn’t do, wat is needed is insight into what will be the best way of formation.

 

[thomasf]

I don’t know if you read through the whole thread, but, when there is a conflict between local policy and universal law, the universal law supercedes. Canon Law does not place participation in a retreat as a requirement for the reception of the sacrament of confirmation.

Retreats, if done properly and if they are doctrinally, theologically and liturgically sound, can be a good thing. However, these should be voluntary and not mandatory.

I don’t buy your legalistic approach to this matter. The Bishop sets requirements. We as catholics are supposed to obey the church and the decisions the Bishop makes. We are supposed to be open to God’s will. All I’ve seen from the OP is a whiney kid that thinks he knows better than the Bishop and has decided to not obey the Bishop. And frankly, I’m a little disappointed with the adults that have also whined about the requirement. It’s a retreat, not torture. It’s there to benefit the confirmation candidate. The op hasn’t given any good reason for not going other than it makes him mad and he thinks he doesn’t have to do it. It’s immature and petty and it shows the kid probably isn’t read to be confirmed.

Like I wrote originally. Suck it up, obey the Bishop, and do the retreat. Life is full of stuff we don’t want to do but have to. Get used to it now, there’s plenty more to come.

I didn’t want to do my retreat either. Heck, I didn’t want to even get confirmed. I whined and complained the whole 2 years of confirmation prep. Did my parents coddle me and tell me it’s okay and that the Bishop was a big bad man for making me do stuff I don’t want to do? Did they give in to me just because I wasn’t happy about confirmation or didn’t want to do it? No, my mother told me if I didn’t go on the retreat and didn’t get confirmed I would be out of the house. And she meant it. Guess what, I did the retreat and got confirmed. And the world went on and my life didn’t end because I had to do stuff we didn’t have to do. A parent’s job is to make the kid do things that are good for them, whether or not they ‘want’ to do it.

I tell ya what, if the op was my kid I’d do the same to him. Suck it up, do what’s required to get confirmed. Why do we have this culture today where people get to whine and complain about hard stuff and we automatically let them out of it? Did you see Jesus whining and complaining on the cross about being crucified? Did God let him out of it because it was hard? No, He did His Father’s will and obeyed. These are the things we’re supposed to be teaching children about the faith. There’s going to be a whole lot more hard stuff to deal with in life surrounding your faith, and God is going to call you to HIS will, which usually isn’t easy or what we want. God doesn’t care about the whining.

 

[FAB]

Circumsion was something that the Jewish converts wanted to impose on the Gentiles. The Gentiles coming into the Church had some of these practices before their conversion. These, the Church did not permit. However, the Church did not mandate that they had to follow Jewish purification laws and mandates concerning eating unclean animals.

Hey we agree, Circumsion would be an undo hardship, not a retreat!

 

[benedictgal]

How long will you beat this dead horse? This thread has been derailed, and is in need of closing.

We have ventured into something we cannot decide, let alone change. The simple truth is that this young man IS required, apparently by his bishop and enforced by his youth minister and pastor, to make this retreat.

We should all be trying to get this young man to be obedient and comply with the requirements instead we are arguing something that none of us can control. Even Dr. Peters cannot make a difference here either, with this particular kid I mean.

So please I beg one more time, either get back to the OP or do as I am trying to do, get out of the discussion, as my comments always seem to be turned around. I understand that fact as I do speak quite decisively and direct, this does intimidate some even though I don’t intend this it happens.

Gal, please don’t respond to this post again with the same mantra, I am not responding to this anymore. I will participate on the subject to help and direct this boy, but I’m done, and I hope all of are done with discussing things we cannot control.

Thanks, and God bless.

Deacon Lapey, I am not beating a dead horse. Perhaps if you have something from the CDWDS that supports the viewpoint that you are holding, it might be good to share.

What I have stated has everything to do with the OP. He noted from the get-go that the retreat is mandatory. However, this conflicts with what the CDWDS has stated and with what is in the Canon.

Just because one, two, or a majority of the dioceses are possibly making such retreats mandatory, that does not necessarily mean that this is good. The CDWDS was clear about the Universal Law. Maybe the CDWDS has not been made aware that this is a widespread issue because perhaps not enough people know that it is their right to challenge an administrative matter under Pastor Bonus.

Furthermore, I think that there has been a rush to judgment on the OP. He came here looking for answers to a serious question. We do not know the motives behind his query. Sadly, some have either called him immature or have outright said that they would not even consider him a candidate for confirmation. We are not to pass judgment here, but, examine the issue and perhaps raise some very valid questions.

 

[surfinpure]

Psst… is it me, or did the OP leave this thread quite some time ago?

 

[Catholic90]

Hey we agree, Circumsion would be an undo hardship, not a retreat!

Hey, maybe they are circumcising at the retreat!!

Again, I am curious what the OP’s parents think about this.

 

[benedictgal]

Hey we agree, Circumsion would be an undo hardship, not a retreat!

Sarcasm aside, it’s the same principle. If the early Church did not deem it necessary to impose Jewish practices on the Gentiles coming into the Church, then, by the same token, such retreats would be imposing something on the Confirmation students that is not even called for in the Canon.

 

[Catholic90]

Psst… is it me, or did the OP leave this thread quite some time ago?

He was here yesterday. He is 15, so hopefully he is in school while we sit here debating him. He’ll probably do a fly by tonight again…

 

[Cristiano]

Deacon Lapey, I am not beating a dead horse. Perhaps if you have something from the CDWDS that supports the viewpoint that you are holding, it might be good to share.

What I have stated has everything to do with the OP. He noted from the get-go that the retreat is mandatory. However, this conflicts with what the CDWDS has stated and with what is in the Canon.

Just because one, two, or a majority of the dioceses are possibly making such retreats mandatory, that does not necessarily mean that this is good. The CDWDS was clear about the Universal Law. Maybe the CDWDS has not been made aware that this is a widespread issue because perhaps not enough people know that it is their right to challenge an administrative matter under Pastor Bonus.

Furthermore, I think that there has been a rush to judgment on the OP. He came here looking for answers to a serious question. We do not know the motives behind his query. Sadly, some have either called him immature or have outright said that they would not even consider him a candidate for confirmation. We are not to pass judgment here, but, examine the issue and perhaps raise some very valid questions.

Do you think that the practice of mandating first confession before first communion, is an abusive requirement that should not be obeyed?

 

[Lapey]

Deacon Lapey, I am not beating a dead horse. Perhaps if you have something from the CDWDS that supports the viewpoint that you are holding, it might be good to share.

What I have stated has everything to do with the OP. He noted from the get-go that the retreat is mandatory. However, this conflicts with what the CDWDS has stated and with what is in the Canon.

Just because one, two, or a majority of the dioceses are possibly making such retreats mandatory, that does not necessarily mean that this is good. The CDWDS was clear about the Universal Law. Maybe the CDWDS has not been made aware that this is a widespread issue because perhaps not enough people know that it is their right to challenge an administrative matter under Pastor Bonus.

Furthermore, I think that there has been a rush to judgment on the OP. He came here looking for answers to a serious question. We do not know the motives behind his query. Sadly, some have either called him immature or have outright said that they would not even consider him a candidate for confirmation. We are not to pass judgment here, but, examine the issue and perhaps raise some very valid questions.

It’s not MY viewpoint. It is the viewpoint of my bishop, and the majority of his colegues in the USCCB.

Now please stop, the horse is dead…I asked you not to respond with the same mantra, and you did…I said I wouldn’t respond, and I did…I am sorry to the board for my dishonesty.

 

[Lapey]

Psst… is it me, or did the OP leave this thread quite some time ago?

I would leave it it were me…

Hey OP, if you return, I would like you to know that I beliee all of us need to go in your place to a retreat, so if it’s okay with you, we will replace you. Let us know the time and place so we can go.