RCIA director, canon law and my 7yo

[Shellie]

it is not the catechist’s call, and it is not the DRE’s call, or even the pastor’s call. This DRE, according to OP, claims this is the bishop’s rule. I would ask to see it in writing.

I am taking this all in, believe me, I thank you all.

I have seen this on a paper sent to our home (form mail for kids in CCD) which states it is diocesan policy which states something like age 16 and 10-12th grade. I really don’t doubt that it is.

There are also several places where the rite calls for generous latitude in the celebrant’s choices, and there is also a section (am home now so I don’t have the book in front of me but is in the same section on children I referenced before) in the “red” which points out that children of catechetical age in preparation class together may include both baptized and unbaptized children, and that it is preferable that catechumens be prepared along with other children who will be receiving the other initiation sacraments “at the usual age.” This passage is often used to justify delaying confirmation, but it is clearly not the intent of the RCIA as written.

I really need help drafting this. Is there a woe is me smiley?

And to address other posters, I don’t think our priest would want to talk to me. I mean that, sadly.

At our Rite of Welcoming, we had a reception afterwards. He all but ignored us candidates. And he is NOT shy. From snippets I’ve gathered from parishioners, my husband and I think the DRE is presenting him how he wants to be presented. It is just our opinion, but it is a strong one. There are only 6 candidates – 4 in my family. It was a small reception – the size of a family’s dining room and about 8 parishioners present.

I don’t think he’d take kindly to an appointment OR my writing the Bishop’s office to ask.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

In your place, I’d want to hear him say that for himself, and I’d give him an “out” - the norm of RCIA is to be fully received into the Church. Age doesn’t (or shouldn’t) factor into it.

That’s what he can tell any kids who want to be Confirmed “early” - but if there is, in fact, this huge demand for “early” Confirmation (which I seriously doubt, in any case - most kids see it as just another extra Religion class and more homework to do, on top of everything else they have to do), then why not accomodate that, too?

And all of that hinges on these other kids actually seeing your kids get Confirmed, anyway. In my experience, not too many teens or kids come to the Easter Vigil, other than child and teen converts who are being received into the Church that night. It’s an awfully late night for most kids, and they would normally make their Easter obligation on the Sunday morning.

One question I would have for him, too would be, Where is it written that you have to be of a certain age to be Confirmed, other than to be old enough to understand what it is, and to want it?

“Where is it written that you have to be of a certain age to be Confirmed,”

In the Bishops directives for his diocese, that is where, Canon Law gives Bishops conferences the right to determine age for Confirmation, and the USCCB has set an age range. Then it has given individual Bishop the authority to determine it for their subjects within that range. The exception being where Canon Law and the Rites of the Church give priests certain faculities and obligations in certain circumstances. This is one of those circumstances with the 7yo.

 

[Shellie]

Shellie,

Each diocese is to have a Judical Vicar, a sort of ‘chief Canonist’, usually a priest, who is the named authority on the practice of Canon Law in the diocese.

Find out who this person is in your diocese and run this past him.

I did locate the Judicial Vicar and he has a personal email listed.

I am so new to Catholicism…I am hesitant to contact him. Should I really ask this question to the JV?

Thanks.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

This is incorrect. There is provision for separating baptism and confirmation in the Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults:

“319. If the confirmation of those baptized is separated from baptism, the celebrant anoints them with chrism immediately after baptism.” (From The Rites Volume One, Liturgical Press, 1990, ISBN: 0-8146-6015-0, page 208.)

It has the prayer for this annointing and it is clearly not confirmation, it does not have “N, be sealed with the Gift of the Holy Spirit.”

The Latin number is n. 358 for this USA RCIA paragraph 319. It is in the section of the RCIA for children.

The same provision is made for adults, in USA RCIA n. 228, Latin n. 224. It has in n. 215 “In accord with the ancient practice followed in the Roman liturgy, adults are not to be baptized without receiving confirmation immediately afterwards, unless some serious reason stands in the way. …”.

For children it has in n. 254 “… Since the children to be initiated often belong to a group of children of the same age who are already baptized and are preparing for confirmation and eucharist, their initiation progresses gradually and within the supportive setting of this group of companions. …”.

So I think the catechist is on strong ground.

I interpret 319 to apply to children under the age of reason being Baptized at the Easter vigil with the parents or other family members.

I also interpret 254 to apply to children “Candidates”, children already validly Baptized being received into union with the Church along with their parents or family members.

 

[jmcrae]

I did locate the Judicial Vicar and he has a personal email listed.

I am so new to Catholicism…I am hesitant to contact him. Should I really ask this question to the JV?

Thanks.

I barraged both my Bishop and my parish priest with questions via e-mail throughout my RCIA process.

He always replied promptly, thoroughly, and very kindly. (I always prefaced my messages by explaining that I was a Candidate in the RCIA, mentioned that I was confused about stuff - I would say, “I know that my RCIA teacher did her best to explain this, but I’m still confused - is it this, or that?” and thanking him for being the chief teacher of the Diocese. )

I say, go for it. The worst thing that can happen is that he’ll be too busy to answer you - you can’t lose, as far as I can tell.

 

[urbana]

I did locate the Judicial Vicar and he has a personal email listed.

I am so new to Catholicism…I am hesitant to contact him. Should I really ask this question to the JV?

Thanks.

I would first ask your pastor directly, before effectively going over his head. Hopefully the DRE was incorrect in what she said, and the priest is receptive to questions. (with perhaps a desire to avoid being overwhelmed with questions easily handled by the DRE like what time to show up and what to wear.) However, if I did not receive a satisfactory answer from the priest, I would certainly contact the JV. That is his job.

 

[John_Lilburne]

I interpret 319 to apply to children under the age of reason being Baptized at the Easter vigil with the parents or other family members.

I also interpret 254 to apply to children “Candidates”, children already validly Baptized being received into union with the Church along with their parents or family members.

The heading applying to both these is: “CHRISTIAN INITIATION OF CHILDREN WHO HAVE REACHED CATECHETICAL AGE”. (RCIA n. 252, The Rites Volume One, Liturgical Press, 1990, ISBN: 0-8146-6015-0, page 170).

 

[John_Lilburne]

… There are also several places where the rite calls for generous latitude in the celebrant’s choices, and there is also a section (am home now so I don’t have the book in front of me but is in the same section on children I referenced before) in the “red” which points out that children of catechetical age in preparation class together may include both baptized and unbaptized children, and that it is preferable that catechumens be prepared along with other children who will be receiving the other initiation sacraments “at the usual age.” This passage is often used to justify delaying confirmation, but it is clearly not the intent of the RCIA as written.

I think these are important parts of the RCIA for this issue:

"CHRISTIAN INITIATION OF CHILDREN WHO HAVE REACHED CATECHETICAL AGE
252. …
253. … Also as with adults, their initiation is marked by several steps, the liturgical rites of acceptance into the order of catechumens (nos. 260-276) the optional rite of election (nos. 277-290), penitential rites or scrutinies (nos. 291-303), and the celebration of the sacraments of initation (nos. 304-329); corresponding to the periods of adult initiation are the periods of the children’s catechetical formation that lead up to and follow the steps of their initiation.
254. The children’s progress in the formation they receive depends on the help and example of their companions and on the influence of their parents. Both these factors should therefore be taken into account.

1. Since the children to be initiated often belong to a group of children of the same age who are already baptized and are preparing for confirmation and eucharist, their initiation progresses gradually and within the supportive setting of this group of companions. …
2. For celebrations proper to this form of Christian inititation, it is advantageous, as circumstances allow, to form a group of several children who are in this same situation, in order that by example they may help one another in their progress as catechumens.
3. In regard to the time for the celebration of the steps of initiation, it is preferable that, if possible, the final period of preparation, begun by the second step, the penitential rites (or by the optional rite of election), coincide with Lent and that the final step, celebration of the sacraments of initiation, take place at the Easter Vigil (see no. 8). Nevertheless before the children are admitted to the sacraments at Easter, it should be established that they are ready for the sacraments. Celebration at this time must also be consistent with the program of catechetical instruction they are receiving, since the candidates should, if possible, come to the sacraments of initiation at the time of their baptized companions are to receive confirmation or eucharist."
   (The Rites Volume One, Liturgical Press, 1990, ISBN: 0-8146-6015-0, page 170-171).

As I posted earlier, I think the priest and bishop have a choice, because the rite makes provision for an anointing with oil (in the Mass) instead of confirmation.

The argument I suggest putting is they are making the wrong choice. No. 256 encourages the sacraments at the Easter Vigil. The “group of companions” may not mean the hundreds who are their age in the diocese. Instead it seems to refer to the “several children in their situation” of n. 255.

 

[puzzleannie]

thank you, that was the section I had in mind

the way I see the passage used more often is to justify confirming baptized children, along with the newly baptized, at the same ceremony, at an age younger than the normal age prescribed by the bishop.

Our diocesan sacramental guidelines are very clear that RCIA must take at least 2 years, that children undergo all the rites prescribed for them, including scrutinies, and that the priest at the Easter Vigil has the faculty to confirm the newly baptized, and those adults and children baptized into another Christian community The bishop specifically excludes baptized Catholics from that faculty and reserves their confirmation to himself. the law interprets the passage cited to mean that children of the first two classes are preparing together and initiated together, but that baptized Catholics participate in their own classes and are initiated at the usual age.

Because in this diocese in most parishes, at least 1/3 to 1/2 the Catholic children preparing for first communion at any time are over the prescribed age (3rd grade) the practice has always been to combine these older children in a class with true RCIA candidates and catechumens. They then receive their first communion at Easter, at the same time their classmates are being fully initiated. This also leads to a lot of misunderstanding on the part of parents and even catechists.

I know for a fact there are parishes who confirm all the children. There are also parishes who confirm none of the children until they reach the diocesan age of 16. The synod is supposed to bring all parishes into uniform practice, but this is going to take a long time, and the arguments (despite 7 years of discussion during the synod process) are along the lines demonstrated on this thread. John accurately states the thinking of many priests and DREs.

The fact remains it is the bishop who has the authority to confirm and to set the specifics for Confirmation. the priest, the DRE, the catechist, and the parents will have to abide by his ruling. period. he is the bishop. It is of little value to accompany a child (or adult) through the RCIA journey if we are going to use it as an excuse for disobedience and dissent, because the first thing every Catholic should learn is that obedience to Church authority, and the humility that demands, are the foundation of the other virtues and practices of the Faith.

 

[Scottgun]

All of this is theoretical (that is, it is dependent on the specific bishops policy, which we have not seen as far as I can tell) and what she really needs is a sit-down face-to-face with a priest–much, if not all, will be answered when this happens. Little to nothing will be answered if we stick with this absurd notion that we need to go through a cabal of lay administrators as mediatrix of clerical authority in order to get information. The RCIA director is there to help, not to be a barrier between the laity and the priest.

I’m not busting on RCIA directors in general. But in my own experience, the guy I sponsored knew he wanted to be Catholic and had more than enough knowlege and formation to be confirmed, yet when he voiced his concerns to the RCIA director, she said would pass that along to the priest. Who knows if she actually did it or not, but she hummed and hawed with the response. In short, she didn’t want anyone bucking her system and her pecking order. In frustration, my guy made an appointment with the priest and two weeks later was confirmed. Yes, he was older, but my main point is if one has a concern, take to the priest directly and not through self-appointed “liasons”.

Scott

 

[kage_ar]

If your Priest will not meet with you, not schedule a meeting to talk - I’d find another Parish!

 

[WenckebachCath]

The fact remains it is the bishop who has the authority to confirm and to set the specifics for Confirmation. the priest, the DRE, the catechist, and the parents will have to abide by his ruling. period. he is the bishop. It is of little value to accompany a child (or adult) through the RCIA journey if we are going to use it as an excuse for disobedience and dissent, because the first thing every Catholic should learn is that obedience to Church authority, and the humility that demands, are the foundation of the other virtues and practices of the Faith.

I’ve been following this thread from it’s inception. I quote the above phrase because it’s the first response to indicate that perhaps the OP should obey her priest and bishop, instead of challanging his rules.

Let me say that I’m surprise to read an RCIA candidate want to challange her priest and bishop immediately, before even being accepted into the Church, and I’m surprised to read so much encouragement for her to do so on a conservative Catholic site. I’m especially surprised that it’s over a matter such as the customary age on confirmation within the parish.

I think that it would be wise to accept the authority of the parish priest here. I also think it would be a very good idea for the children being baptised to be on the same timetable for confirmation as their peers within the parish.

Let me just say that I’ve been a Catholic all my life, and have raised 5 children within the Church, and I’ve never written to my Bishop to complain about anything! Is this a new trend within the Church? To read that an RCIA candidate is considering challanging her priest on this matter is very surprising.

 

[Shellie]

I believe you misinterpret my motive:

“Can you help me formulate my kind appeal to her again and then the priest?”

The CanonLaw.info site gave me information that I thought could be clarified.

I would “challenge” nothing. I would accept such clarification and obey quietly.

It is a learning experience to be humble and be submissive – and never a better opportunity than when you may be doing something contrary to canon law which my OP references. I can’t say that I see asking for clarification as being a “challenge.”

WenckebachCath:

Let me say that I’m surprise to read an RCIA candidate want to challange her priest and bishop immediately, before even being accepted into the Church, and I’m surprised to read so much encouragement for her to do so on a conservative Catholic site. I’m especially surprised that it’s over a matter such as the customary age on confirmation within the parish…

 

[Scottgun]

I’ve been following this thread from it’s inception. I quote the above phrase because it’s the first response to indicate that perhaps the OP should obey her priest and bishop, instead of challanging his rules.

Let me say that I’m surprise to read an RCIA candidate want to challange her priest and bishop immediately, before even being accepted into the Church, and I’m surprised to read so much encouragement for her to do so on a conservative Catholic site. I’m especially surprised that it’s over a matter such as the customary age on confirmation within the parish.

I think that it would be wise to accept the authority of the parish priest here. I also think it would be a very good idea for the children being baptised to be on the same timetable for confirmation as their peers within the parish.

Let me just say that I’ve been a Catholic all my life, and have raised 5 children within the Church, and I’ve never written to my Bishop to complain about anything! Is this a new trend within the Church? To read that an RCIA candidate is considering challanging her priest on this matter is very surprising.

I won’t speak for the others, by my posts have not in *anyway advocated challenging the priest or bishop. *They very much do encourage the candidate to hear it from the priest’s or bishop’s mouth directly. If I wasn’t clear, let me make it clear now: **If the priest or bishop says wait on confirmation for the 7-yr.-old., by all means humbly submit and obey. **My honest guess is that the bishop’s directives allow for exceptions and leeway and that she should find out about them–and find out about them directly from the priest or bishop and not through a RCIA director who ultimately does not have the governing say on this.

Scott

 

[Shellie]

I won’t speak for the others, by my posts have not in *anyway advocated challenging the priest or bishop. *They very much do encourage the candidate to hear it from the priest’s or bishop’s mouth directly. If I wasn’t clear, let me make it clear now: **If the priest or bishop says wait on confirmation for the 7-yr.-old., by all means humbly submit and obey. **

You’ve been clear before this. There was never any doubt that this would be done.

My honest guess is that the bishop’s directives allow for exceptions and leeway and that she should find out about them–and find out about them directly from the priest or bishop and not through a RCIA director who ultimately does not have the governing say on this.

Scott

That is precisely what is at issue. I have no indication that the DRE has ever spoken with the priest about this before. Her comment that he “probably wouldn’t want to do it so as not to deal with other kids wanting to be confirmed at an earlier time,” indicated to me that this has not been brought up to the priest (the RCIA/confirmation link) before.

I appreciate your comments.

 

[Scottgun]

You’ve been clear before this. There was never any doubt that this would be done.

Thank you. I didn’t think there was.

That is precisely what is at issue. I have no indication that the DRE has ever spoken with the priest about this before. Her comment that he “probably wouldn’t want to do it so as not to deal with other kids wanting to be confirmed at an earlier time,” indicated to me that this has not been brought up to the priest (the RCIA/confirmation link) before.

I appreciate your comments.

Thanks again. My only point in all this to anyone still confused is that the pecking order is this:

Diocesan bishop
|
|
V
Parish priest
|
|
V
Laity

It is NOT:

Diocesan bishop
|
|
V
Parish priest
|
|
V
RCIA director, DRE, Catechist,
St. Lucia’s 3rd Fatima secret, or
some guy speaking in tongues
|
|
V
Laity

And I say this as a DRE.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

The heading applying to both these is: “CHRISTIAN INITIATION OF CHILDREN WHO HAVE REACHED CATECHETICAL AGE”. (RCIA n. 252, The Rites Volume One, Liturgical Press, 1990, ISBN: 0-8146-6015-0, page 170).

I looked at two sources I use as a comentary on Canon Law and it’s application to the Catechumenate. Both sources say that the pastor MUST under normal circumstances Confirm any child at the age of catechesis, no option, except for serious reasons. It also states that 319 applies to circumatances where a Deacon celebrates a non-Eucharistic Easter liturgy and cannot Confirm, but can annoint the head with Sacred Chrism or where a Lay person Baptizes at a non-Eucharistic Easter liturgy they cannot even anoint the head after Baptism with Sacred Chrism.

I will post these later today.

 

[OutinChgoburbs]

This is very similar to a question posted on Defenders of the Catholic Faith (catholic-convert.com), and a really good in-depth answer was given there.

 

[John_Lilburne]

I looked at two sources I use as a comentary on Canon Law and it’s application to the Catechumenate. Both sources say that the pastor MUST under normal circumstances Confirm any child at the age of catechesis, no option, except for serious reasons. It also states that 319 applies to circumatances where a Deacon celebrates a non-Eucharistic Easter liturgy and cannot Confirm, but can annoint the head with Sacred Chrism or where a Lay person Baptizes at a non-Eucharistic Easter liturgy they cannot even anoint the head after Baptism with Sacred Chrism.

I will post these later today.

For someone in danger of death, the anointing with oil after baptism is done by a deacon, with specific instructions:
“385. If the minister of baptism is a deacon, he says the following prayer, then in silence anoints the newly baptized with chrism on the crown of the head.”

But every indication is that 319 is part of a Mass:
“319. If the confirmation of those baptized is separated from baptism, the celebrant anoints them with chrism immediately after baptism.
[When a great number have been baptized, assisting priests or deacons may help with the anointing.]”

To quote evidence that it is a Mass:
“309. When the children who are candidates for initiation, their parents or guardians, godparents, other children from the catechetical group, friends, and members of the parish have assembled, Mass begins.”

“328. With Eucharistic Prayers I, II or III the special interpolations given in the Roman Missal, the ritual Masses, “Christian Initiation: Baptism,” are used.
Eucharistic Prayer IV, with its special interpolation indicated in the same ritual Masses, may also be used but outside the Easter Vigil.”

So I do not accept that 319 is for a deacon led baptism. We are left with the provision for confirmation being separated from baptism for children of catechetical age, in a Mass.

I am not saying it is normal or encouraged, but it is there. It is there, even though n. 305 seems to say the opposite:

“305. At this third step of their Christian initiation, the children will receive the sacrament of baptism, the bishop or priest who baptizes them will also confer confirmation, and the children will for the first time participate in the liturgy of the eucharist.”
(Reference: Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults, from The Rites Volume One, Liturgical Press, 1990, ISBN: 0-8146-6015-0, page 199).

 

[OutinChgoburbs]

Dummy me! I didn’t post the link from DCF, and it was a GOOD argument to explain this!!! Wasn’t being crumudgeonly.