Should the Confirmation age be lowered?

[GRATEFULONEjim]

So how do you explain to children the improper order of the sacraments of initiation?

No need…In the Diocese of Buffalo they receive them as the Diocese orders.

Baptism
Eucharist
Confirmation

It is accepted as the norm although in other Rites of the Catholic Church it may vary. Catechisis in our Diocese covers all Rites of the Catholic Church and their intricacies. By offering the Sacrament of Confirmation in 11th-12th grade, we are afforded the extra time to enlighten the children on the differences that are to be encountered in the Catholic faith.

Our parish community embraces and strengthens our young Catholics to be strong evangelists and defenders of the faith. To live their faith outwardly and openly, so when encountered, people will know they are Catholic without asking.

Check this out if you missed it…

youtube.com/watch?v=Qt32SyDWuW8#at=19

 

[GRATEFULONEjim]

Here’s how I see it:

It is the Bishop’s right and responsibility to set the confirmation age for his diocese. In the last 100 years or so, but even more so in the last 50 years, there has been tremendous experimentation in the church regarding this sacrament. The Bishops are trying to respond to a pastoral situation unique to our times. Our children are growing up in a post-Christian secular society, in largely uncatechized families.

The teaching of the church is clear on what the sacrament of confirmation is and previous posts have given the teaching in detail. It is not a rite of passage. Given the situation, however, of conferring the sacrament on teenagers, it is indeed a time for them to affirm the faith on their own. An older child or teenager should not receive the sacrament unless he or she is able to affirm that faith and has sufficient knowledge of it. Knowledge of the faith and free choice appropriate to one’s stage of development is necessary for all of the sacraments of initiation, not just confirmation. For this reason, accepting Confirmation as a teenager is indeed a person’s opportunity to make a free choice for the faith, and I’m glad that there are diocese out there that take seriously the responsibility to prepare these children, even while I think they should confirm at a much younger age, prior to First Communion.

The first approach (younger confirmation) does create a problem, since it is a reality that children will drop out of religious education. To me, the second approach (later confirmation) creates a bigger problem, since it gives the impression that confirmation is, by its very nature, a sacramental “rite of passage”, which we all agree is not the case.

I clearly have my own bias here. I was Chrismated (Confirmed) as an infant and all of my children were Chrismated as infants. I believe firmly that children benefit from receiving all of the sacraments of initiation at a young age. I do understand the dilemma of catechesis, but I don’t believe it is reason to delay the sacraments. I believe we ought to have more uniformity in practice as well. I, however, am not a Bishop. It is the Bishop’s decision in his own diocese.

Nicely worded.

 

[babochka]

All kidding aside, I consider this an extremely important issue in the Church. The Church in most of the United States really has this wrong, and it is a serious state of affairs.

If we truly believe in what the Church teaches as to the effects of the sacrament, and then stop and think about how our society and culture is pushing kids to do the exact opposite of everything on that list: all one can conclude is that we are schizophrenic. Why in the world would we deprive our children of the supernatural graces listed above, especially at this point and time in history? Its is absolutely a spiritual version than refusing to feed our kids and letting them starve to death. And it is being forced upon us by our Bishops, jeeze…

Amen! I agree that this is a very serious issue in the church. Our children need the sacramental grace early, before they enter the turbulent teenage years. Yes, they need catechesis as well, but they need the effects of the sacrament even more.

We need to pray for our Bishops.

 

[babochka]

And in the cases of sacramental prep, I think the parent session should be mandatory. Part of the problem with the gross misunderstanding of Confirmation is not the lack of catechesis among those being confirmed, but of those teaching them.

I get it, I really do… but, as a parent of 5 children, please spare me from mandatory sessions for the parents. Please.

 

[babochka]

Check this out if you missed it…

youtube.com/watch?v=Qt32SyDWuW8#at=19

So, using the 3-legged stool analogy from the video, they have to get through the first 7 years of life on just one wobbly leg. At age 7, we permit them to have a 2nd leg, and if they can get through the teen years with their faith intact (but without having the tools God has given us), we reward them with the 3rd leg that gives them stability? Definitely sounds backwards to me.

 

[jimbaker]

the confirmation’s that i have been to -

• seems to be a religious ceremony, where the participants all repeat a prayer-- that they reject the devil and his ways-- and embrace the rules and oblacations of the catholic church,

kinda like the apostles creed–

no one expects any spiritual impartation when i spoke to them…

this was especally true when i went thru this ceremony in the 4th grade–

i found it surprisinging disipointing that when the bishop layed hands on me – there was not any impartation-- because in class they seemed to indicate that their would be a one spirit application–

oh well-- kinda like finding out santa claus was not real–

and when you are in 4th grade-- you can tell the difference between the two

 

[Oneofthewomen]

I get it, I really do… but, as a parent of 5 children, please spare me from mandatory sessions for the parents. Please.

I understand where you are coming from, I really do!!
But…,
if all parents knew and practiced their faith as well as many here on CAF do, we would not be having this discussion.

I have worked in “Adult Faith Formation” programs at 2 different parishes. The response most often given by adults for not taking advantage of these programs-
“I’ve been Baptized, had First Communion & was Confirmed, what more do I need to learn?” :sad_yes:

 

[jmcrae]

i found it surprisinging disipointing that when the bishop layed hands on me – there was not any impartation-- because in class they seemed to indicate that their would be a one spirit application–

There was. The fact that you didn’t feel it doesn’t change the fact that you received strengthening in the gifts of Wisdom, Understanding, Knowledge, Right Judgement, Courage, Piety, and Awe (fear) of the Lord. It was a spiritual effect, which means that you would not have felt anything physically.

 

[babochka]

Has anybody in a diocese or parish with later confirmation attempted to have their child confirmed earlier using this canon?

Ministers are not to refuse the sacraments to those who ask for them at
appropriate times, who are properly disposed, and who are not prohibited by law from receiving them. (Canon 843.1)

I have no idea how it is generally interpreted, but I saw it on the Diocese of Buffalo website and I wondered if it would apply in this situation.

One more thought…

Since the church teaches that even a child below the age of reason should be confirmed in danger of death, it seems to me an acknowlegement that waiting for Confirmation is less than idea, but a concession to other circumstances. Originally, those circumstances were waiting for an opportunity for the Bishop to confirm, but now the circumstances seem to be fear of losing the opportunity to teach children the faith.

 

[GRATEFULONEjim]

Has anybody in a diocese or parish with later confirmation attempted to have their child confirmed earlier using this canon?

Ministers are not to refuse the sacraments to those who ask for them at
appropriate times, who are properly disposed, and who are not prohibited by law from receiving them. (Canon 843.1)

I have no idea how it is generally interpreted, but I saw it on the Diocese of Buffalo website and I wondered if it would apply in this situation.

One more thought…

Since the church teaches that even a child below the age of reason should be confirmed in danger of death, it seems to me an acknowlegement that waiting for Confirmation is less than idea, but a concession to other circumstances. Originally, those circumstances were waiting for an opportunity for the Bishop to confirm, but now the circumstances seem to be fear of losing the opportunity to teach children the faith.

It is determined by the pastor who follows the bishop who says not before 11th-12th grade RE is complete.

 

[tafan]

No need…In the Diocese of Buffalo they receive them as the Diocese orders.

Baptism
Eucharist
Confirmation

It is accepted as the norm although in other Rites of the Catholic Church it may vary. Catechisis in our Diocese covers all Rites of the Catholic Church and their intricacies. By offering the Sacrament of Confirmation in 11th-12th grade, we are afforded the extra time to enlighten the children on the differences that are to be encountered in the Catholic faith.

Our parish community embraces and strengthens our young Catholics to be strong evangelists and defenders of the faith. To live their faith outwardly and openly, so when encountered, people will know they are Catholic without asking.

Check this out if you missed it…

youtube.com/watch?v=Qt32SyDWuW8#at=19

You stated that earlier that “All of the parents and children are fully aware of the Rite of Initiation as they are taught this beginning in K-1 as part of learning the Sacraments”. Now, the very FIRST thing the Catechism says about the Eucharist in the section on the Eucharist is the following:

1322 The holy Eucharist completes Christian initiation. Those who have been raised to the dignity of the royal priesthood by Baptism and configured more deeply to Christ by Confirmation participate with the whole community in the Lord’s own sacrifice by means of the Eucharist.

The VERY FIRST THING that is taught in the Catechism is that the Eucharist completes Christian initiation and is for those who have been confirmed. Yet you now state there is no need to teach this to them, beyond the fact that other rites in the Church may vary the order. No,No,No,No. The Catechism is for the Latin Rite!!! And: the order does NOT vary in other rites either. It is the same universally. The teaching does not vary at all.

Please document any Rite of the Catholic Church which teaches a different order of the sacraments of initiation. If you can, I will admit I am wrong.

If the Church feels this is the first thing that needs taught about the Eucharist in its universal Catechism, it would seem there is a need to explain this to the kids. And how can the kids be told, with a straight face, that they should have been confirmed before 1st communion, but not in this country.

Yes, I know and acknowledge the Bishop’s Conference has been given the right to set the age of confirmation under canon law. But it seems that a proper theological explanation is in order for upsetting the clearly defined proper order. We are all entitled to that explanation. We are all denied that explanation, beyond “it keeps kids in the faith formation program”. Sorry, that does not address the issue and furthermore, it has certainly proved to be false in most locations.

 

[babochka]

I understand where you are coming from, I really do!!
But…,
if all parents knew and practiced their faith as well as many here on CAF do, we would not be having this discussion.

I have worked in “Adult Faith Formation” programs at 2 different parishes. The response most often given by adults for not taking advantage of these programs-
“I’ve been Baptized, had First Communion & was Confirmed, what more do I need to learn?” :sad_yes:

Well, thankfully my children receive the sacraments of initiation in infancy, so it won’t come up for me. My parish is so small that the pastor knows each person rather well. If he believed that preparation (of the parents) for Baptism or any sacraments was necessary, it could be handled individually and informally. I realize that such an approach won’t work for most parishes, though. Maybe they could just make the classes mandatory for the first child? Or the parent can be exempted from the classes if you’ve had a child receive the sacrament in the past 5 years.

 

[jmcrae]

Has anybody in a diocese or parish with later confirmation attempted to have their child confirmed earlier using this canon?

Ministers are not to refuse the sacraments to those who ask for them at
appropriate times, who are properly disposed, and who are not prohibited by law from receiving them. (Canon 843.1)

When I was Coordinator for Children’s Sacraments some years back, I was working quite closely with the Diocesan Director for Religious Education, and he insisted that we follow this policy, and never refuse anyone who asked directly. Of course, invitations were sent out only to those who were of the “right” age and older - but when younger children came to us and asked of their own accord, we never refused them.

 

[GRATEFULONEjim]

You stated that earlier that “All of the parents and children are fully aware of the Rite of Initiation as they are taught this beginning in K-1 as part of learning the Sacraments”. Now, the very FIRST thing the Catechism says about the Eucharist in the section on the Eucharist is the following:

The VERY FIRST THING that is taught in the Catechism is that the Eucharist completes Christian initiation and is for those who have been confirmed. Yet you now state there is no need to teach this to them, beyond the fact that other rites in the Church may vary the order. No,No,No,No. The Catechism is for the Latin Rite!!! And: the order does NOT vary in other rites either. It is the same universally. The teaching does not vary at all.

Please document any Rite of the Catholic Church which teaches a different order of the sacraments of initiation. If you can, I will admit I am wrong.

If the Church feels this is the first thing that needs taught about the Eucharist in its universal Catechism, it would seem there is a need to explain this to the kids. And how can the kids be told, with a straight face, that they should have been confirmed before 1st communion, but not in this country.

Yes, I know and acknowledge the Bishop’s Conference has been given the right to set the age of confirmation under canon law. But it seems that a proper theological explanation is in order for upsetting the clearly defined proper order. We are all entitled to that explanation. We are all denied that explanation, beyond “it keeps kids in the faith formation program”. Sorry, that does not address the issue and furthermore, it has certainly proved to be false in most locations.

I personally do not care whether you are right or wrong. Bottom line is I follow the direction of my Diocese and I am quite content with that. I will be more than happy to change anything that the Diocese directs me to when it comes to Catechesis. When my DRE says the Diocese is changing its handling of the Sacrament of Confirmation, I will change how I prepare the Confirmands.

 

[tafan]

I think Confirmation should take place the same year as graduation from high school. This allows for continued catechesis and proper formation in the Catholic faith. Confirm to early and the learning stops. Look at the state of the American Catholic Church and you can tell I’m correct in this.

And now you don’t care,but will just follow the leadership of your diocese. That is progress, good for you to now admit you are no longer sure which way is right.

 

[KCT]

Here is the link to the Diocese of Buffalo. It explains everything much more eloquently than I can.

Your Bishop spoke at Franciscan University’s St. John Bosco Conference last weekend.

He was excellent.

 

[UncleBill]

I personally do not care whether you are right or wrong. Bottom line is I follow the direction of my Diocese and I am quite content with that. I will be more than happy to change anything that the Diocese directs me to when it comes to Catechesis. When my DRE says the Diocese is changing its handling of the Sacrament of Confirmation, I will change how I prepare the Confirmands.

Just like the nazis…I was just following orders…I guess its easier that way…no need to think.

 

[RyanBlack]

Just like the nazis…I was just following orders…I guess its easier that way…no need to think.

That comment was uncharitable, and entirely unnecessary. You should apologize.

 

[Cider]

Godwin’s law invoked already?

 

[CopticChristian]

Originally Posted by GRATEFULONEjim
I personally do not care whether you are right or wrong. Bottom line is I follow the direction of my Diocese and I am quite content with that. I will be more than happy to change anything that the Diocese directs me to when it comes to Catechesis. When my DRE says the Diocese is changing its handling of the Sacrament of Confirmation, I will change how I prepare the Confirmands.

Your response here puzzles me and I would like for you to explain the dichotomy in thinking…

Just like the nazis…I was just following orders…I guess its easier that way…no need to think.

I cannot imagine you believe that following Church teaching equates to following directions of the Nazi’s as their purposes are not the same, would you not agree?

Following orders and making it easier is a statement of what you ascribe to following directions of the Church…

The reason I say “dichotomy” is because in a posting of yours here is what you say…in response to someone talking about fasting…

But more to my point, there are more things to fast from other than food.

Some people eat very little to begin with, so fasting from food may not hold much spiritual benefit.

People can fast from all sorts of vices.

You post this…

**It’s always best to stick with the directions of the Church…rather then to decide what is “better” for me. **

Do you believe that in another posting you agree with following the Church as opposed to what is best for me and yet in this posting you equate following the Church to blind following of orders?

What did you see that caused you to contradict your thinking in a prior posting?