MERGED: Must go on a retreat to be confirmed?

[benedictgal]

Obedience is one of the virtues that God calls us to.

Here is a prayer for obedience. catholicdoors.com/prayers/english/p00521.htm

In humble obedience lessons can be learned and fear removed, it may not be the retreat that God is calling you to but the submission to the authority of the Church from which the Sacrament you seek is conferred. It may be this submission that will bring you closer to Him as a soldier for Christ.

I will keep you in my prayers.

However, I think that there is one point that not a few people on this thread are missing. Nowhere in Canon Law does it state, as Spirithound noted early on in this thread, that these retreats are to be mandatory for the reception of the Sacrament.

While the intention of having a retreat may be a good one, to make it binding on the young people who are to receive the sacrament is going beyond the bounds of the law.

We have talked about obedience a lot on this thread; however, obedience is a two-way street. Just as we are expected to obey the bishops on faith and morals, they, too, are also expected to obey the Holy See, in this case, the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments.

Now, while the OP still has not given us a sufficient reason for not wanting to go to the retreat, I am concerned that making these kinds of things mandatory in order to receive the Sacrament is taking things a bit too far.

Before we start to rush to judgment on the OP, it would help if he could give us something a little more concrete than what he has listed.

 

[hazcompat]

i thank yo for helping me but i will not quit on this issue until i get my own jusstice for not being confirm for a dumb retreat !

Please, go to the link. select new testament. in the search window type “go”.

drbo.org/

and thank you

peace

 

[Lapey]

However, I think that there is one point that not a few people on this thread are missing. Nowhere in Canon Law does it state, as Spirithound noted early on in this thread, that these retreats are to be mandatory for the reception of the Sacrament.

While the intention of having a retreat may be a good one, to make it binding on the young people who are to receive the sacrament is going beyond the bounds of the law.

We have talked about obedience a lot on this thread; however, obedience is a two-way street. Just as we are expected to obey the bishops on faith and morals, they, too, are also expected to obey the Holy See, in this case, the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments.

Now, while the OP still has not given us a sufficient reason for not wanting to go to the retreat, I am concerned that making these kinds of things mandatory in order to receive the Sacrament is taking things a bit too far.

Before we start to rush to judgment on the OP, it would help if he could give us something a little more concrete than what he has listed.

Your position on these required retreats has been mentioned and mostly agreed upon several times. This does not change the fact that the bishop is the one who sets the norms for his diocese, this is cononical. We can debate whether this goes too far or not all day long, but the fact remains that the bishop has set this requirement, not to limit or withhold the sacrement, but to asure readiness. That is his duty along with the parents and pastor. However the final say goes to the bishop of his diocese. End of story.

PS. It is not a rush to judgement to point out that this child is not ready for the sacrement by reading his posts. He is not ready to comply with a resonable request for preperation by his bishop, and has not given a legitemate reason except that he doesn’t want to and the bishop can’t make him go on a retreat. My answer is, yes he can.

 

[purplesunshine]

Actually, I remember reading in catechism that every adult catholic should atleast ATTEMPT to go on a retreat yearly…the duration of the retreat is up to you…but I’m pretty sure I’ve seen it before.

 

[Cristiano]

Your position on these required retreats has been mentioned and mostly agreed upon several times. This does not change the fact that the bishop is the one who sets the norms for his diocese, this is canonical. We can debate whether this goes too far or not all day long, but the fact remains that the bishop has set this requirement, not to limit or withhold the sacrament, but to assure readiness. That is his duty along with the parents and pastor. However the final say goes to the bishop of his diocese. End of story.

I think that this is the critical point. The Bishop is the teaching authority and saying that a teenager does not need the Bishop decision because he can do that by himself at home, it sounds to me like not recognizing the teaching authority. I still think that some of these retreats can be a waste of time; however, this kind of pride is a bigger issue that needs to be dealt with before confirmation.

 

[benedictgal]

Your position on these required retreats has been mentioned and mostly agreed upon several times. This does not change the fact that the bishop is the one who sets the norms for his diocese, this is cononical. We can debate whether this goes too far or not all day long, but the fact remains that the bishop has set this requirement, not to limit or withhold the sacrement, but to asure readiness. That is his duty along with the parents and pastor. However the final say goes to the bishop of his diocese. End of story.

However, there is no Canonical requirement that the young people must undergo a retreat in order to be confirmed. That is simply going beyond the bounds of what is allowed. As far as the “end of story” is concerned, that was certainly not the case in the matter where the CDWDS had to intervene, which I posted a few pages ago. There is such a thing as going beyond what the Canon requires.

CHAPTER III.

THOSE TO BE CONFIRMED

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.

Can. 890 The faithful are obliged to receive this sacrament at the proper time. Parents and pastors of souls, especially pastors of parishes, are to take care that the faithful are properly instructed to receive the sacrament and come to it at the appropriate time.

Can. 891 The sacrament of confirmation is to be conferred on the faithful at about the age of discretion unless the conference of bishops has determined another age, or there is danger of death, or in the judgment of the minister a grave cause suggests otherwise.

Regarding the OP’s concerns, there are some thigns that should be addressed insofar as the retreat and the catechesis are concerned. Are there lapses in doctrinal matters? Are they teaching something that is contrary to the Faith of the Church?

I remember when I received the Sacrament of confirmation, we practiced the night before. There was no need to do these “practice” sessions at an overnight retreat. Furthermore, we were also tested on our knowledge of the Faith. Our bishop (at the time) was going to quiz us on the Faith and we had to be prepared. He did this during the actual Mass. We were going to be randomly selected to answer questions. I was the last one picked and had to define transubstantiation.

Unfortunately, I don’t think that the young people these days are receiving that kind of catechesis. Rather than focusing on a retreat, parishes should ensure that these young people are properly schooled in the Faith of the Church and learn it.

 

[Lapey]

However, there is no Canonical requirement that the young people must undergo a retreat in order to be confirmed. That is simply going beyond the bounds of what is allowed.Totally your opinion. As far as the “end of story” is concerned, that was certainly not the case in the matter where the CDWDS had to intervene, which I posted a few pages ago. There is such a thing as going beyond what the Canon requires.I have mentioned before, several pages ago, that there was much more to this story. The committee didn’t intervene solely because of a requirement of a retreat. This is absurd, if it were not absurd the vast majority of bishops in the US would have been repromanded and corrected, because most require this retreat, it’s the norm not the exception.

Regarding the OP’s concerns, there are some thigns that should be addressed insofar as the retreat and the catechesis are concerned. Are there lapses in doctrinal matters? Are they teaching something that is contrary to the Faith of the Church?You have no evidence of this, only you have speculated these issues.

I remember when I received the Sacrament of confirmation, we practiced the night before. There was no need to do these “practice” sessions at an overnight retreat. Nobody said the retreat was to practice the ceremony, it is to teach and prepare. I might add too, some of these retreat are very well organized and would be quite benficial for all to attend. Furthermore, we were also tested on our knowledge of the Faith. Our bishop (at the time) was going to quiz us on the Faith and we had to be prepared. He did this during the actual Mass. Since you like siteing law and rubrics, where in the rubrics of the mass should I suggest my bishop add the test?We were going to be randomly selected to answer questions. I was the last one picked and had to define transubstantiation. How did you do?

Unfortunately, I don’t think that the young people these days are receiving that kind of catechesis. Rather than focusing on a retreat, parishes should ensure that these young people are properly schooled in the Faith of the Church and learn it.They are at most parishes, I can speak for my parish. We have a program that is talked about across the diocese, I am proud to be part of it. PS. I planned and directed this past years REQUIRED overnite retreat. Everyone attended except one young lady, she will not confirm with her group, my recommendation btw, she is not ready.

Who determines what is the norm…the bishop. Please stop trying to teach, this is not the real world for this young man. This young man is required to go on this retreat, fact. He chooses not to go, the bishop can make him repeat or join RCIA or allow him to be confirmed outside of the requirement, fact, fact, and fact.

Now we can continue going around in circles if you like, but it will not help this young person or any others for that matter.

Move on please…

 

[FAB]

However, there is no Canonical requirement that the young people must undergo a retreat in order to be confirmed. That is simply going beyond the bounds of what is allowed. As far as the “end of story” is concerned, that was certainly not the case in the matter where the CDWDS had to intervene, which I posted a few pages ago. There is such a thing as going beyond what the Canon requires.

.

Benedictgal, I would say there is no requirement:

Can. 890 The faithful are obliged to receive this sacrament at the proper time. Parents and pastors of souls, especially pastors of parishes, are to take care that the faithful are properly instructed to receive the sacrament and come to it at the appropriate time

The Bolded section, it can be argued, gives the bishop the authority to decide what “properly instructed” means. In many cases this has come to mean a series of classes, my diocese guidlines are two years and two retreats.

 

[Kat127]

Again, if you folks read into my comments that I do not know and understand exactly what confirmation is, either you give me too little credit, or yourself too much.

Correcting the deacon is not going to help this young man, fess up and go through the process that is required. So please stop wasteing time trying to correct the deacon who does not need correcting.

What an example of humility you are!

Stop picking on a 15 year old kid. Yes he, is acting like a child. Guess what? He is a teenager! Something is obviously bothering him. Do you really think harsh words from the internet are going to suddenly make him snap to? You have made your point 10 times over. He understand you think he just needs to suck it up and do whatever he is told. Obviously he was not persuaded by your arguments.

To the OP. As you can tell from the responses you have had here most adults dismiss any complaint that starts with “I want…” Usually the rest of the sentence is lost because they are too busy thinking “This isn’t about what you want.”

It sounds to me like the money issue really has you steamed because you don’t feel you’ll be getting your “money’s worth” out of spiritual benefit of the retreat. This is the problem with telling people they are obligated to go on a retreat and then ask them to pay for it- it feels like you are buying something. That doesn’t seem very holy does it?

The overnight stay and the time away from home are a sacrifice. I’m sure there are a million other things you rather being doing. You may very well get very little out of the retreat. I never got much out of mine. But some people get a ton of benefit out of them. You need to go on the retreat for the same reason you have to read your text book AND do an experiment. Because people learn different ways and your teachers have to try to reach everyone.

You can always opt out if you choose. But your Church does have the right to say they will not confirm you if you do not meet their requirements. There will be other parishes and other opportunities to received Confirmation. You have to decide what is more important to you- confirmation or your private reasons for refusing the retreat.

Please understand, no on on this forum knows what your reasons are. Everyone (including me) is making assumptions about what they think your reasons are based on their own life experiences. The best advice I can give you is to talk to a trusted adult about your reasons and see what they tell you.

It goes without saying, that if you are worried about your safety or anything like that- don’t go.

 

[benedictgal]

Who determines what is the norm…the bishop. Please stop trying to teach, this is not the real world for this young man. This young man is required to go on this retreat, fact. He chooses not to go, the bishop can make him repeat or join RCIA or allow him to be confirmed outside of the requirement, fact, fact, and fact.

Now we can continue going around in circles if you like, but it will not help this young person or any others for that matter.

Move on please…

While the fact remains that he is “required” to go, such a requirement should not be made mandatory in order to receive the sacrament of Confirmation. Again, I reference the intervention of the CDWDS. The retreat can certainly happen, but, it should be voluntary and not a requirement.

The CDWDS noted several times that the local law needs to be made in conjunction and in consideration of the Universal Law. That is how it issued its ruling in the case of the 11-year-old girl. Now, the conference of bishops certainly has the right to mandate the age of confirmation for their particular territory (as evidenced in the year 2000 when the USCCB/NCCB mandated that it should be beween the ages of 7 and 16); however, to make the retreat a mandatory issue is to beyond the bounds established by the Universal Law.

Thus, the young man and his parents could make a legitimate case against going to the retreat.

 

[Tepeyac]

But your Church does have the right to say they will not confirm you if you do not meet their requirements…

But that’s the thing, a retreat is not a requirement to be confirmed in the Catholic Church. Making it a requirement is going beyond what a diocese or bishop is allowed to do.

The bishop’s authority isn’t unlimited. He is also under the laws of the Church and can’t just do anything he want’s to do. If he’s gone beyond what the Church requires for a sacrament, then it’s right to hold him accountable to it. It’s right for people to complain.

These sorts of non-required “requirements” like mandatory retreats for confirmation are a bad idea. They may be well intentioned but I think in the long run they skew people’s, especially adolescent’s, view of the spiritual life and end up turning some people off, in my opinion. They turn the sacraments of initiation into a series of hoops that people are forced to jump through.

 

[Lapey]

What an example of humility you are! Thanks, I apreciate that! My response that you object to was to two posters who interpreted my post to say that I didn’t understand confirmation, I just simply tried to steer the conversation away from me and back to the OP. I am sorry if I can’t say what he wants to hear. I do not think he needs to hear that any of us adults agree that he is special and doesn’t have to cmply. What good would that do? Am I missing the boat? If so, how?

Stop picking on a 15 year old kid. Yes he, is acting like a child. Guess what? He is a teenager! Something is obviously bothering him. Do you really think harsh words from the internet are going to suddenly make him snap to? You have made your point 10 times over. He understand you think he just needs to suck it up and do whatever he is told. Obviously he was not persuaded by your arguments. So by telling him the truth, I am picking on him? Really???

To the OP. As you can tell from the responses you have had here most adults dismiss any complaint that starts with “I want…” Usually the rest of the sentence is lost because they are too busy thinking “This isn’t about what you want.”

It sounds to me like the money issue really has you steamed because you don’t feel you’ll be getting your “money’s worth” out of spiritual benefit of the retreat. This is the problem with telling people they are obligated to go on a retreat and then ask them to pay for it- it feels like you are buying something. That doesn’t seem very holy does it? I would venture to say, as it has been stated already, anybody who has anything to do with these types of programs would know that the parish generally picks up these fees. If this were truly the issue, he needs to talk to his pastor and I assure you he would not have to pay. If he would, I will pay his way.

.

Very sorry if you see my posting as not humble or as attacking this ladd. I am always honest and direct with young people. I work and have worked in youth ministry for years, both on the parish level and diosecan level. Most say I am pretty good with teens, especially the teens. But I have learned that when we sugar coat things we do not teach, we enable; same holds true with adults.

If you want me to use candy with this young man, I will have to bow out, I don’t have any. However, I do have love for my little brother, which is why I tell him simple truth.

 

[benedictgal]

Benedictgal, I would say there is no requirement:

The Bolded section, it can be argued, gives the bishop the authority to decide what “properly instructed” means. In many cases this has come to mean a series of classes, my diocese guidlines are two years and two retreats.

FAB, I do not know if you read the correspondence from the CDWDS, but, here are some of the points raised earlier:

With respect to Your Excellency’s first point, it is no doubt true that there is a pastoral judgment to be made in such cases, provided that **by “pastoral judgment” one is speaking of the obligation of the Sacred Pastors to determine whether those elements required by the revised Code of Canon Law are indeed present, namely, that the person be baptized, have the use of reason, be suitably instructed, and be properly disposed and able to renew the baptismal promises (cf. cam. 843, § 1; 889, §2). **This Dicastery notes from the testimony submitted by the family, as well as that provided by Your Excellency, that it is clear this young girl has satisfied each of the canonical requisites for reception of the Sacrament.

In regard to Your Excellency’s second point, while it is clear that the Diocesan Policy is within the right inherent in the law in light of the complementary legislation for the Conference of Bishops to which you belong for can. 891,** it is also clear that any such complementary legislation must always be interpreted in accord with the general norm of law. As has been stated before, the Code of Canon Law legislates that Sacred Ministers may not deny the Sacraments to those who opportunely ask for them, are properly disposed and are not prohibited by law from receiving them (cf. can. 843 §1). **Since it has been demonstrated that the girl possesses these requisite qualities, any other considerations, even those contained in the Diocesan Policy, need to be understood in subordination to the general norms governing the reception of the Sacraments.

I would say that it would be a bit of a stretch to base one’s judgment as to whether or not the individual is prepared simply because of participation in a retreat.

Now, in another post, the point that I made, using this same response from the CDWDS, was challenged and called “absurd”. It is difficult to reply to something when it is imbedded in a quote. Nonetheless, I will say this. Perhaps people may not realize that they have the right to appeal to the CDWDS in matters such as this, as was the case with the 11-year-old girl and her family. Not many people know that they do have recourse to the CDWDS in matters like this.

Furthermore, the imposition of a retreat as a requirement could be seen as an administrative act. Please note what the CDWDS also said in that same letter:

At the same time this Dicastery has considered it important to respond to the considerations raised by Your Excellency in declining to dispense the girl from the Diocesan Policy in order that she might anticipate her reception of the Sacrament of Confirmation. This Congregation wishes, however, to preface its further comments with the observation that Your Excellency’s refusal to grant this dispensation must be seen as having the juridic value of an administrative act denying an anticipated conferral of the Sacrament. Among the responsibilities entrusted to this Dicastery is the authoritative examination of appeals against such administrative actions (cf. Apostolic Constitution, Pastor Bonus, arts. 19, § 1, 63).

While the CDWDS is discussing the matter of the age of the young girl in question, I do not believe it to be a stretch to apply the same principle to the mandatory retreat requirement.

 

[benedictgal]

But that’s the thing, a retreat is not a requirement to be confirmed in the Catholic Church. Making it a requirement is going beyond what a diocese or bishop is allowed to do.

The bishop’s authority isn’t unlimited. He is also under the laws of the Church and can’t just do anything he want’s to do. If he’s gone beyond what the Church requires for a sacrament, then it’s right to hold him accountable to it. It’s right for people to complain.

These sorts of non-required “requirements” like mandatory retreats for confirmation are a bad idea. They may be well intentioned but I think in the long run they skew people’s, especially adolescent’s, view of the spiritual life and end up turning some people off, in my opinion. They turn the sacraments of initiation into a series of hoops that people are forced to jump through.

Exactly. Generations have received the Sacrament of Confirmation without having gone through an overnight retreat.

I am not against retreats; however, these should be voluntary and not required. There has to be a willingness among the retreatant to participate. Going on a retreat because you have to go is not the best reason to go in the first place.

 

[Catholic90]

Everyone makes great point…BUT and its a big one is that I don’t have to spend a weeekend away somewhere I can just learn about God in church why cant we just learn about god in church We have to go on a retreat because we will open up wow it makes no sense I can open up anytime i want wether it be at home, church, or anywhere else church cofirmation should not even call for a retreat I think it is a waist of money paying the church $200 dollars to sign up itts always been like this the roman catholic church wanting money in my eyes confirmation should be free anyone who want to be catholic should have a free choice and insytead of using the money for a retreat that no one wants to go to do other things in church
so i will fight this no mater what it takes i do wnt to confirm but im am not going on that retreat i say no!!!

[edited]

What do your parents say?

 

[Lapey]

You do not sound nor write like a mature 15 year old.

You stamp your feet, cross your arms, and declare " im am not going on that retreat i say no!!!" My boys all did that right around age 2 and 3. I’m guessing the eyeballs are shooting daggers too, and the brow is knitted together while your mouth is scowling!

My guess is he either has a medical issue he is embarrassed about, such as bed wetting, or he does not want to give up his weekend due to “more important issue” (gaming, partying, sleeping, skateboarding, etc.).

What do your parents say?

Be careful, you will be accused af “picking” on the OP…lol

 

[FAB]

While the CDWDS is discussing the matter of the age of the young girl in question, I do not believe it to be a stretch to apply the same principle to the mandatory retreat requirement.

benedictgal, the canon also speaks of the responsibility of the faithful.

If this young man were to come before me, I would be questioning his readiness to recieve the sacrament. as stated in the canon it is a pastoral responsibilty to determine the readiness of the individual. This individual is pushing back against the church authority. It is not a great burden to attent a retreat. If he is pushing back on such a simple request, what happens with other Church policies and doctrines that he might not like?

 

[Cristiano]

Exactly. Generations have received the Sacrament of Confirmation without having gone through an overnight retreat…

This is a red herring

…I am not against retreats; however, these should be voluntary and not required. There has to be a willingness among the retreatant to participate. Going on a retreat because you have to go is not the best reason to go in the first place.

What if the parents obligated the child to go to the retreat against his wishes, would that be reason enough?

 

[Tepeyac]

Should the alleged maturity level of the OP even be an issue? According to a post upthread, the standards from canon law are

the person be baptized, have the use of reason, be suitably instructed, and be properly disposed and able to renew the baptismal promises

It doesn’t mention emotional maturity. I doubt many of the teenagers who go on these retreats are much more mature than the OP. I know that many of adults who’ve been confirmed and married ( or ordained ) have their moments of immaturity. So why make it an issue when it isn’t one?

 

[benedictgal]

benedictgal, the canon also speaks of the responsibility of the faithful.

If this young man were to come before me, I would be questioning his readiness to recieve the sacrament. as stated in the canon it is a pastoral responsibilty to determine the readiness of the individual. This individual is pushing back against the church authority. It is not a great burden to attent a retreat. If he is pushing back on such a simple request, what happens with other Church policies and doctrines that he might not like?

And your basing this on his unwillingness to participate in a retreat that should not even be mandatory? With all due respect, that does not make sense.