MERGED: Must go on a retreat to be confirmed?

[Cristiano]

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.

I think that using the legal arm of the Church to justify immature and arrogant behaviors is not helpful to a teenager because it only validates bad behaviors. Canon law and its applications are for the spiritual development of the individuals in their relationship with God. Using Canon Law and its applications to undermine reasonable pastoral choices made by a Bishop does not add to the good of the community.

 

[GEddie]

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?

A “mature fifteen-year-old” is an oxymoron, pure and simple.

A fifteen-year-old is a kid and should be treated, and expected to act, like one. It’s why the general society does not normally allow them to drive cars, or to vote, etc.

It also means that older people will tell them what to do. Like going on CCD retreats.

OP: You seem somewhat anxious about this retreat. Why not talk to your parish priest about your concerns? He can address whatever issue you don’t wish to share online.

We all have things to face that we do not want; but this retreat is not something hideous or frightening, neither, most likely, will it be awesome fun; it is just something minor to expereince and then resume your life.

God Bless and ICXC NIKA.

 

[benedictgal]

This is a red herring

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

First of all, I would not be so quick to call something that is true a red herring. Furthermore, if there were underlying issues with the retreat, itself, then the child should tell the parents. Going out of obedience to the parents is one thing. However, it is something entirely different if this retreat were mandatory in order to receive the sacrament, something that I believe goes against the bounds of Universal Law.

 

[benedictgal]

I think that using the legal arm of the Church to justify immature and arrogant behaviors is not helpful to a teenager because it only validates bad behaviors. Canon law and its applications are for the spiritual development of the individuals in their relationship with God. Using Canon Law and its applications to undermine reasonable pastoral choices made by a Bishop does not add to the good of the community.

Actually, before we go and attact the OP, maybe there is something deeper than what he or she is telling us.

I stand by what I have written. Making something mandatory when the Universal Law does not even call for it is, as other posters have indicated, causing “hoops” to be jumped thruogh in order to receive a Sacrament.

 

[Tepeyac]

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?

That would be unjust. That would be holding the individual to a standard (willingness to go on a retreat not required by the Church for reception of a Sacrament) not required by the Church, a standard reliant on another standard not required by the Church (the reatreat).

It would be defining disposition of the individual (required by canon law) according to standards not required by canon law (required retreat) and disavowed specifically by the CDWDS.

I think it’s not whether its a great or small burden, but whether it’s a reasonable or unreasonable burden. The CDWDS has declared required retreats to be an unreasonable burden.

 

[PerfectTiming]

Actually, before we go and attact the OP, maybe there is something deeper than what he or she is telling us.

People have asked and the OP hasn’t given any other reason for their refusal to attend. They’ve given no indication that there is a reason they aren’t sharing, they’ve been quite open about their reasons for not attending and that’s all we can go on. And to be honest they have yet to give a good reason for not going, it just seems like it’s a kid being stubborn.

 

[Kat127]

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.

I agree with you. But you and I both know the amount red tape that will have to be gone through before the parish/diocese change their policy. By that time, the OP will be 18 and going through RICA or Adult Confirmation.

Or, the OP might win his battle that they can’t refuse him Confirmation because he refuses to go on the retreat…but they very well might find another reason to refuse his Confirmation, and we both know it. Is it right? No. Could it happen? You bet!

Most teenagers have enough going on in their lives they don’t want to take on reforming the Catholic Church. I was merely trying to give the OP another way to look at the retreat that might be more bearable.

But if the OP wants to take this on: take notes about the canon law here on the forum, talk to your classmates and see who else is objecting, organize and present a united front to your pastor.

Good luck!

 

[FAB]

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.

His unwillingness to follow the Church authority at that parish, does bring into question his readiness.
You contend that the retreat cannot be made mandatory, myself and several others posters disagree and also know better. We will have to agree to disagree.
There is a real issue of just sacramentalizing a person, without knowing if the person truely has a relationship with the Lord, or truely understands their faith.
I taught confirmation students for many years. I found out that it was the retreat which in most cases brought all the lessons together and I could see real changes of spirituality in my students, even in those who didn’t want to be there.
The OP is resisiting something that he knows nothing about. As I posted earlier, there is a good chance that there are other reasons that he doesn’t want to attend this weekend. As a parent, if he were my child the answer whould be simple, God comes before all else, you are going.

 

[jpbgrad98]

If the OP cannot be obedient and go on the retreat as he has been instructed to by the diocese, one wonders what obedience he will show to other Church teachings and standings…

I realize that 15 is not really adult status, and by the OP posts, in which no other reason other than “I am not going…”, lends truth to the fact that they may not be ready for Confirmation.

 

[benedictgal]

His unwillingness to follow the Church authority at that parish, does bring into question his readiness.
You contend that the retreat cannot be made mandatory, myself and several others posters disagree and also know better. We will have to agree to disagree.
There is a real issue of just sacramentalizing a person, without knowing if the person truely has a relationship with the Lord, or truely understands their faith.
I taught confirmation students for many years. I found out that it was the retreat which in most cases brought all the lessons together and I could see real changes of spirituality in my students, even in those who didn’t want to be there.
The OP is resisiting something that he knows nothing about. As I posted earlier, there is a good chance that there are other reasons that he doesn’t want to attend this weekend. As a parent, if he were my child the answer whould be simple, God comes before all else, you are going.

Actually, the CDWDS said that local law must have its guide the Universal Law. The retreat can be a help, but, it should not be mandatory. It seems to me that there is a lot of conflict here regarding the CDWDS and its authority over the local bishop. The local bishop does not have universal authority; the CDWDS does.

It is a matter of going beyond what the authority has stated can and should be done.

 

[Tepeyac]

I agree with you. But you and I both know the amount red tape that will have to be gone through before the parish/diocese change their policy. By that time, the OP will be 18 and going through RICA or Adult Confirmation.

Or, the OP might win his battle that they can’t refuse him Confirmation because he refuses to go on the retreat…but they very well might find another reason to refuse his Confirmation, and we both know it. Is it right? No. Could it happen? You bet!

Most teenagers have enough going on in their lives they don’t want to take on reforming the Catholic Church. I was merely trying to give the OP another way to look at the retreat that might be more bearable.

But if the OP wants to take this on: take notes about the canon law here on the forum, talk to your classmates and see who else is objecting, organize and present a united front to your pastor.

Good luck!

Oh I agree with what you say about the red tape and the rest. You’re right about that. I think it’s wrong but it’s how things are. If the OP takes this on I think it’s the right thing to do…

(because it is and because otherwise dioceses might start laying more requirements: first it’s 1 retreat, then 2, then 3, then 3 plus writing a spiritual autobiography…)

…but he shouldn’t feel like he has to take on this responsibility if he doesn’t want to, and place a different burden on himself. It’s up to him and his parents to decide. But if they do go through with it, it would be good thing. It’s a matter of principle and if he doesn’t benefit directly the other faithful in his diocese will.

It might even go easier than expected. Maybe all he needs to do is take notes, like you said, and print copies of the letter from the CDWDS to show his pastor and the religious ed. people at his parish. That might be all it takes for him to opt out of the retreat.

Because to be blunt it doesn’t matter what his reasons are for not going, if he’s afraid or not, if he’s being stubborn or not. Not wanting to go because it’s not required to receive the sacrament is enough reason. Because the Church says it’s not required to receive the sacrament.

 

[FAB]

Actually, the CDWDS said that local law must have its guide the Universal Law. The retreat can be a help, but, it should not be mandatory. It seems to me that there is a lot of conflict here regarding the CDWDS and its authority over the local bishop. The local bishop does not have universal authority; the CDWDS does.

Actually I don’t see a conflict between the universal law and the local law. The document you quoted from the CDWDS was for a specific case.
The universal law indicates that the local pastor is to determine readiness and to give proper instructions. The local pastor (bishop) has detemined in following the canon the best way to do so is that a candidate needs to attend a certain number of classes in preparation and a retreat.

 

[Tepeyac]

Actually I don’t see a conflict between the universal law and the local law. The document you quoted from the CDWDS was for a specific case.
The universal law indicates that the local pastor is to determine readiness and to give proper instructions. The local pastor (bishop) has detemined in following the canon the best way to do so is that a candidate needs to attend a certain number of classes in preparation and a retreat.

The document is not just dealing with a specific case, it’s stating universal principles. Local law is interpreted according to universal law

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.

and it can’t be used to keep the faithful from their right to receive the sacraments even when they don’t fulfill the local requirements

when a member of the faithful wishes to receive this Sacrament, even though not satisfying one or more elements of the local legislation (e.g., being younger than the designated age for administration of the Sacrament), those elements must give way to the fundamental right of the faithful to receive the Sacraments.

Notice, is says the faithful have a “fundamental right” to receive the Sacraments.

*edited to add: *notice it also states the right of the faithful to receive is more important that the local legislation (“those elements must give way to the fundamental right of the faithful to receive the Sacraments”).

 

[Kat127]

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.

I’m sorry. I was harsh myself. I shouldn’t have been sarcastic.

My problem with your tone is on the internet you don’t know how the OP is reacting to your words. So you can’t judge when you’ve crossed the line beyond just being direct and honest and being belittling and dismissive.

You know as much about the OP as I do. We don’t have the background of the family, community and culture to judge if the OP’s complaints are just a teenage snit or something deeper is troubling him.

If it is just a snit- he’s going to ignore everyone that says he’s just a moody teenager. If it is something more- the mocking, the sarcasm, the allegations of immaturity, the comments about bedwetting on this forum have the possibility of causing a LOT of damage.

To me the risk of hurting a troubled teen (however remote the chance) far outweigh any potential benefit you’ll get out of giving tough love to a teenager in no mood to listen to anyone. Why risk it?

But I am sorry. I shouldn’t have snapped at you. My whole post above could be directed at me as much as at you. For all I know- you are a troubled teen!

 

[iamrefreshed]

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!!!

My wife and I volunteer at Confirmation retreats. There are always some kids who can’t stand the fact that they can’t have their cell phone or iPod. After about three hous they don’t even realize they are missing them!

After two days many don’t want to go home!

They have made new friends and opened themselves to God. Many spend time at Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament.

It’s amazing to see God work them over in a mere weekend.

Go on the retreat young man. Odds are you won’t regret it.

 

[Corki]

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.

Did I miss something? Did the OP confirm that this was a requirement of the Bishop? The first posted stated it was a requirement of the youth minister. It would not be unheard of for a parish or even a single well-meaning youth minister to require something beyond the actual diocisan requirements.

 

[FAB]

*edited to add: *notice it also states the right of the faithful to receive is more important that the local legislation (“those elements must give way to the fundamental right of the faithful to receive the Sacraments”).

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.

 

[FAB]

Did I miss something? Did the OP confirm that this was a requirement of the Bishop? The first posted stated it was a requirement of the youth minister. It would not be unheard of for a parish or even a single well-meaning youth minister to require something beyond the actual diocisan requirements.

Each dicoese has guidelines and requirements for confirmation. The youth minister is most likely following these requirements.

 

[benedictgal]

Actually I don’t see a conflict between the universal law and the local law. The document you quoted from the CDWDS was for a specific case.
The universal law indicates that the local pastor is to determine readiness and to give proper instructions. The local pastor (bishop) has detemined in following the canon the best way to do so is that a candidate needs to attend a certain number of classes in preparation and a retreat.

However, as Tepeyac indicated, the same principle applies here, as well,. Neither of us is a canon lawyer; however, Dr. Ed Peters is. A few pages ago, I posted what his opinion was, in the matter. While he does not speak for the Holy See, he seems to carry the same train of thought:

For the valid reception of confirmation, it is only required that the confirmand be baptized (Canon 889 § 1). For the licit reception of Confirmation, however, a confirmand must be “suitably instructed, properly disposed, and able to renew one’s baptismal promises” (Canon 889 § 2). As was true in the case of baptism, the Code does not attempt a catalogue of facts which, however usefully, should be mastered by confirmands. Certainly, however, more than was required for baptism should be required for Confirmation. But this fact can lead to a problem, especially for pastors and catechists.

Parish staffers know that for most of the young people, the reception of Confirmation will be the last time those children will have any formal contact with their parish until, perhaps, it’s time for them to marry. There are temptations, therefore, to try to stretch out the preparation periods for as long as possible and to involve the confirmands as much as possible in other aspects of Church life and mission. Notwithstanding the potential benefits which can be obtained with extended preparation, however, such an approach walks, and occasionally crosses, the narrow line between challenges to faith growth and obstacles to same.

For example, some parishes require over 100 classes (weekly classes for two years) before the reception of Confirmation. But that same parish, often entirely in accord with diocesan policy, might require only four classes for Marriage preparation. Clearly, something is out of balance here.

Other Confirmation preparation programs require young people to participate in a “social awareness” service project designed by parish or diocesan staff. While many such projects are completely innocuous and of real benefit to participants and recipients, others entail specific risks to participants, (risks based on, say, travel required, locale of service, materials used, and so on), which risks confirmands and their parents may prudently elect not to assume.

A few parishes require parents, as a condition to their children’s reception of Confirmation, to consent to their children’s participation in over-night, mixed-sex retreats, at parental expense, and with a prior parental waiver of liability in favor of the parish or diocese. Obviously, parents and children might object to such activities on any number of reasonable grounds.

In the end, however, nothing in Canon 889 § 2 requires service projects or week-end retreats prior to receiving Confirmation. For that matter, as many diocesan administrators have learned, those so-called waivers of liability for service projects and retreats are not always what they used to be. Parishes making use of them should consult with diocesan legal counsel before assuming the effectiveness of such waivers in case of trouble.

It is, of course, wholly within the authority of dioceses and parishes to offer opportunities for things like Christian service and retreat experiences to those preparing for various sacraments. That does not change the fact, however, that the primary requirements for valid and licit sacramental participation are set forth in the Code of Canon Law, whose provisions control in case of conflict. As long as the voluntary nature of any additional activities is made clear, and there is recognition that young people’s eligibility to participate in the sacramental life of the Church is not based on their decision to take part or to refrain from taking part in such activities, things can progress very well.

I apologize for this lengthy post; however, Dr. Peters does reach the same conclusion that the CDWDS reaches.

 

[FAB]

However, as Tepeyac indicated, the same principle applies here, as well,. Neither of us is a canon lawyer; however, Dr. Ed Peters is. A few pages ago, I posted what his opinion was, in the matter. While he does not speak for the Holy See, he seems to carry the same train of thought:

I apologize for this lengthy post; however, Dr. Peters does reach the same conclusion that the CDWDS reaches.

The problem is that niether Dr. Peters of the CDWDS answer how this is suppose to be accomplished in thier understanding

](Canon 889 § 1). For the licit reception of Confirmation, however, a confirmand must be “suitably instructed, properly disposed, and able to renew one’s baptismal promises”(Canon 889 § 2).

I don’t see the word voluntary here.