Should the Confirmation age be lowered?

[EasterJoy]

Confirmation at the age of 7 should not mean that religious instruction is over. We have turned Confirmation into a graduation from religious ed over the years but that idea CAN be reversed. I was confirmed in grade 2 at the age of 7. We still had years of catechesis ahead of us in school and were not expected to be ‘done’ with RE until we graduated from high school.

No, no one says that religious education is over upon confirmation. Still, canon law notes these ages for candidates for the sacraments of initiation:

Baptism: Parents are obliged to take care that infants are baptized in the first few weeks; as soon as possible after the birth or even before it, they are to go to the pastor to request the sacrament for their child and to be prepared properly for it.
Eucharist:… children who have reached the use of reason …prepared properly and, after they have made sacramental confession…sufficiently disposed.
Confirmation: at about the age of discretion…requires that a person who has the use of reason be suitably instructed, properly disposed, and able to renew the baptismal promises

It is the sense of the Church, then, that normally baptism take place very soon after birth, First Holy Communion at the age of reason, and confirmation at the age of discretion.

I think that in order for someone to be “suitably instructed” and “properly disposed” they of course have to know that they are never going to be done informing their consciences and deepening their knowledge of the Lord, both intellectually and in the direct experience of prayer, almsgiving, and service. We’re not “done” at high school; rather, like the rest of our education, we are to take over our on-going education ourselves. Normally, how much “formal” education that will include is going to differ from person to person, but let us hope that Catholics know that we are all required to be “life long learners” in matters of faith.

 

[Phemie]

No, no one says that religious education is over upon confirmation. Still, canon law notes these ages for candidates for the sacraments of initiation:

Baptism: Parents are obliged to take care that infants are baptized in the first few weeks; as soon as possible after the birth or even before it, they are to go to the pastor to request the sacrament for their child and to be prepared properly for it.
Eucharist:… children who have reached the use of reason …prepared properly and, after they have made sacramental confession…sufficiently disposed.
Confirmation: at about the age of discretion…requires that a person who has the use of reason be suitably instructed, properly disposed, and able to renew the baptismal promises

The Church also calls for confession at the age of discretion. Since it requires Confession for children before they receive Communion for the first time, I think we can properly interpret ‘age of reason’ and ‘age of discretion’ as being the same thing.

I don’t know a 7 year old who can answer ‘Amen’ to “Body of Christ” who cannot answer “I do” to the Renunciation of Sin and Renewal of Baptismal Promises if properly prepared.

 

[EasterJoy]

The Church also calls for confession at the age of discretion. Since it requires Confession for children before they receive Communion for the first time, I think we can properly interpret ‘age of reason’ and ‘age of discretion’ as being the same thing.

I don’t know a 7 year old who can answer ‘Amen’ to “Body of Christ” who cannot answer “I do” to the Renunciation of Sin and Renewal of Baptismal Promises if properly prepared.

Hmmm. If there were no difference whatsoever between the age of reason and the age of discretion, I do not believe that canon law would employ two different terms. The two different terms must exist in order to allow a distinction at least between two different abilities, even if in a single individual those two abilities might be attained at roughly the same time, don’t you think?

The canon law notes that the obligation to confess grave sins at least annually starts at the age of discretion. Doesn’t that merely imply that children who have reached the age of reason and made their first confession in preparation for beginning to receive the Eucharist are not so obliged until they attain the age of discretion? Still, yes, if a child were to achieve the two capacities more or less simultaneously, it would stand to reason that proper education and disposition would be the only thing necessary for the bishop to deem the sacrament of confirmation appropriate for that individual, regardless of chronological age.

 

[tafan]

No, no one says that religious education is over upon confirmation. Still, canon law notes these ages for candidates for the sacraments of initiation:
.

Actually, that is the main argument in support of a older age of confirmation being made on this thread. That from a practical standpoint, parents will not send kids to religious education classes after confirmation, so the later the better. That’s it.

It is horrible reasoning, it is solving one problem with a worse problem (denying our children graces). It is analogous to keeping people from speeding on highways by destroying all of their cars.
The only way it can make sense to anyone is if they deny the efficacy of the sacrament.

1303 From this fact, Confirmation brings an increase and deepening of baptismal grace:

• it roots us more deeply in the divine filiation which makes us cry, “Abba! Father!”;115
• it unites us more firmly to Christ;
• it increases the gifts of the Holy Spirit in us;
• it renders our bond with the Church more perfect;116
• it gives us a special strength of the Holy Spirit to spread and defend the faith by word and action as true witnesses of Christ, to confess the name of Christ boldly, and never to be ashamed of the Cross:

How can we deny our children these graces (in this day and age especially)?

Furthermore, the church specifically says that the preparation for confirmation should be at the beginning of a person’s formation (not at the end):

1309 Preparation for Confirmation should aim at **leading **the Christian toward a more intimate union with Christ and a more lively familiarity with the Holy Spirit - his actions, his gifts, and his biddings - in order to be more capable of assuming the apostolic responsibilities of Christian life. To this end catechesis for Confirmation should strive to **awaken **a sense of belonging to the Church of Jesus Christ, the universal Church as well as the parish community. the latter bears special responsibility for the preparation of confirmands

I have been gone a week or so from this debate, just reviewed all of the new posts this morning. There has been no argument for a late confirmation age based on any Church teaching presented. None that I can find. If I am wrong, please correct me and I will retract this statement.

 

[EasterJoy]

Actually, that is the main argument in support of a older age of confirmation being made on this thread. That from a practical standpoint, parents will not send kids to religious education classes after confirmation, so the later the better. That’s it.

It is horrible reasoning, it is solving one problem with a worse problem (denying our children graces). It is analogous to keeping people from speeding on highways by destroying all of their cars.
The only way it can make sense to anyone is if they deny the efficacy of the sacrament.

How can we deny our children these graces (in this day and age especially)?

Furthermore, the church specifically says that the preparation for confirmation should be at the beginning of a person’s formation (not at the end):

I have been gone a week or so from this debate, just reviewed all of the new posts this morning. There has been no argument for a late confirmation age based on any Church teaching presented. None that I can find. If I am wrong, please correct me and I will retract this statement.

If people think that making confirmation late is going to keep children in RE longer, they are very much mistaken. What happens is that families drop out of RE after First Holy Communion and then may or may not resurface when the student reaches 14 or 15 or 16.

Honestly, I have to wonder what good is done by keeping students in RE classes that are not only not academically challenging, but which not a few students take to be academically insulting.

The greater problem, however, is that I don’t think the formation of the parents impressed it upon them that the Sacrament of Confirmation is necessary to full Christian initiation or that parents do not understand they have an obligation to both prepare their children for confirmaton and to lead their children to seek it. There is a saying that “you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink.” That is fine, but some parents seem to think that if the horse doesn’t seem to be looking for a stream, if it doesn’t seem thirsty, then they must have an animal that has evolved past the need for water!

If one’s child won’t eat and starts to get thin and listless, we know the child needs some kind of help. If the child wants nothing to do with religion, however, too many think this is just normal. That a problem has become epidemic does not make it normal!

 

[Brendan]

Hmmm. If there were no difference whatsoever between the age of reason and the age of discretion, I do not believe that canon law would employ two different terms. The two different terms must exist in order to allow a distinction at least between two different abilities, even if in a single individual those two abilities might be attained at roughly the same time, don’t you think?.

FYI, the two terms are generally synonymous

Modern Catholic Dictionary

AGE OF DISCRETION. Sometimes refers to the age at which a person reaches adulthood and can make lifetime decisions, especially regarding one’s state of life. But more commonly it is the age when a child is capable of making free acts of the will and therefore becomes morally responsible for his actions. This was St. Pius X’s understanding as regards the age for receiving the sacraments of penance and Holy Communion. In general, it is about seven years of age.

AGE OF REASON. The time of life at which a person is assumed to be morally responsible and able to distinguish between right and wrong. It is generally held to be by the end of the seventh year, although it may be earlier. With the retarded it will be later.

therealpresence.org/dictionary/adict.htm

 

[EasterJoy]

FYI, the two terms are generally synonymous

Modern Catholic Dictionary

therealpresence.org/dictionary/adict.htm

Generally…but with legal terms, the devil is generally in the details, right?

In this case, doesn’t the discretion due any act need to be proportionate to the seriousness and nature of the act? For instance, a person can reach the age of discretion needed to consent to baptism or confirmation without having reached the extent of discretion required to consent to marriage, isn’t that correct?

If that is the case, then age of reason and age of discretion might be entirely synonymous with regards to baptism or First Holy Communion, but not with regards to confirmation, let alone marriage.

 

[thewanderer]

Generally…but with legal terms, the devil is generally in the details, right?

In this case, doesn’t the discretion due any act need to be proportionate to the seriousness and nature of the act? For instance, a person can reach the age of discretion needed to consent to baptism or confirmation without having reached the extent of discretion required to consent to marriage, isn’t that correct?

If that is the case, then age of reason and age of discretion might be entirely synonymous with regards to baptism or First Holy Communion, but not with regards to confirmation, let alone marriage.

Perhaps, but we do know, at the very least, that there is nothing wrong or contrary to the nature of the sacrament in receiving it as an infant. ( Look at the Eastern Catholic Churches). So while we can debate what the current practice of the Latin Rite is, we can’t claim that there is something about confirmation that requires it to be received at a later date.

 

[tafan]

Generally…but with legal terms, the devil is generally in the details, right?

In this case, doesn’t the discretion due any act need to be proportionate to the seriousness and nature of the act? For instance, a person can reach the age of discretion needed to consent to baptism or confirmation without having reached the extent of discretion required to consent to marriage, isn’t that correct?

If that is the case, then age of reason and age of discretion might be entirely synonymous with regards to baptism or First Holy Communion, but not with regards to confirmation, let alone marriage.

I am not buying into this argument at all, at least with respect to the language that is used by the Church in canon law and other documents.

There is no use of the term “age of discretion” for marriage in canon law. Instead it provides the following:

Can. 1072 Pastors of souls are to take care to dissuade youth from the celebration of marriage before the age at which a person usually enters marriage according to the accepted practices of the region.

Can. 1083 §1. A man before he has completed his sixteenth year of age and a woman before she has completed her fourteenth year of age cannot enter into a valid marriage.

 

[Brendan]

Generally…but with legal terms, the devil is generally in the details, right?

In this case, doesn’t the discretion due any act need to be proportionate to the seriousness and nature of the act? .

Correct, look at the reception of Christ Present in the Blessed Sacrament. By definition, there is nothing that can be more serious or have a greater nature.

So the Church has defined an appropriate age for this most incredible act… about 7

That is why Pope St. Pius X had this definition of 'age of discretion;

Therefore, the age of discretion for Confession is the time when one can distinguish between right and wrong, that is, when one arrives at a certain use of reason, and so similarly, for Holy Communion is required the age when one can distinguish between the Bread of the Holy Eucharist and ordinary bread-again the age at which a child attains the use of reason.

Note how he links his definition (in Quam Singlulari) to that of the age of reason,

 

[Phemie]

Generally…but with legal terms, the devil is generally in the details, right?

In this case, doesn’t the discretion due any act need to be proportionate to the seriousness and nature of the act? For instance, a person can reach the age of discretion needed to consent to baptism or confirmation without having reached the extent of discretion required to consent to marriage, isn’t that correct?

If that is the case, then age of reason and age of discretion might be entirely synonymous with regards to baptism or First Holy Communion, but not with regards to confirmation, let alone marriage.

I just checked the French translation of the code and it uses ‘age of reason’ for both sacraments.

 

[EasterJoy]

I am not buying into this argument at all, at least with respect to the language that is used by the Church in canon law and other documents.

There is no use of the term “age of discretion” for marriage in canon law. Instead it provides the following:

Yes, but those may not marry who “who suffer from a grave defect of discretion of judgment concerning the essential matrimonial rights and duties mutually to be handed over and accepted.” That same person, however, might still be eligible for confirmation, that is what I’m getting at. Discretion is not a single thing that you either have or don’t have. You can have it in degrees, is what I’m gathering (not arguing).

IOW, I’m not trying to make an “argument”. I’m just trying to ascertain how canon law differentiates between readiness for one sacrament of initiation and another. The bishops, who are obliged to confer confirmation on those who reasonably ask for it, routinely make a distinction in that degree readiness, so I’m looking to see why.

 

[babochka]

Actually, that is the main argument in support of a older age of confirmation being made on this thread. That from a practical standpoint, parents will not send kids to religious education classes after confirmation, so the later the better. That’s it.

It is horrible reasoning, it is solving one problem with a worse problem (denying our children graces). It is analogous to keeping people from speeding on highways by destroying all of their cars.
The only way it can make sense to anyone is if they deny the efficacy of the sacrament.

How can we deny our children these graces (in this day and age especially)?

Furthermore, the church specifically says that the preparation for confirmation should be at the beginning of a person’s formation (not at the end):

I have been gone a week or so from this debate, just reviewed all of the new posts this morning. There has been no argument for a late confirmation age based on any Church teaching presented. None that I can find. If I am wrong, please correct me and I will retract this statement.

For a few years, several parishes in the Diocese of Sacramento had confirmation in 2nd grade, at the same Mass as 1st communion. The (former) Bishop allowed this on a trial basis. In 2005, he ended the practice and requested that all parishes meet the new norms withing 5 years. At that time, Confirmation age ranged from 7-16 years old.

Here is an excerpt from the official document, which can be found here diocese-sacramento.org/evangelization_catechesis/pdfs/CONFIRMATIONNORM05.pdf

Rationale:

1. The diocesan bishop wishes to acknowledge the practice in 80 out of the 105 parishes and chaplaincies.
2. The diocesan bishop is responding to numerous requests from pastors, DREs and others to establish a uniform norm for the age of Confirmation.
3. While supportive of the theology of the Sacraments of Initiation, the diocesan bishop acknowledges that the absence of an adequate base and practice of youth ministry and catechesis and the consequent practice of the majority of the parishes cannot be ignored.
4. The diocesan bishop fully appreciates the work of those who have long proposed the restored sequence of the Sacraments of Initiation. He is pleased that the Diocese of Sacramento was among the early pioneers in this endeavor and anticipates that he may come back to it when the necessary youth ministry and catechetical system is solidly in place.

Over and over again, we find the same thing. I have yet to hear a bishop teach that confirmation is a sacrament for adults or those already mature in the faith. If they’ve spoken on the issue, the bishops acknowledge that this situation is less than ideal, and it is a compromise on the theology of the sacrament in order to keep the kids in catechesis. That is certainly the right of each bishop to make this decision for those in his diocese, but the situation is contributing to a woeful misunderstanding of the nature of the sacrament. Over and over in this discussion, we have heard people argue that Confirmation is a sacrament for adults. or that those receiving it need to have a thorough understanding of their faith. In some, but not all of those arguing for a later Confirmation, there has been a stubborn refusal to consider what the Church actually teaches on the subject.

1. The church desires that no one dies without the sacrament.
2. In is standard practice in the Eastern Rites to Chrismate infants at Baptism.
3. In the present Latin discipline, Confirmation is to be given at the age of reason (presumed to be about the age of 7), unless the conference of bishops determine another age or some other good reason.
4. In danger of death, a person below the age of reason should be confirmed.
5. In some countries, it is common and licit to confirm toddlers/young children, even in the Latin Rite.
6. The Eucharist (and not Confirmation) is the final Sacrament of Initiation.
7. Children older than 7 (the presumed age of reason) who are coming into the Church are to be confirmed at the Easter Vigil, along with the adults.

What about this says that this is a sacrament that should be reserved for adults or mature teens? Some people are nitpicking age of reason/age of discretion and trying to come up with different meanings, but the Church does not seem to differentiate. The bottom line is that the only stated reason, by bishops, ever for a later date is to keep kids in religious education longer. Is this a compelling reason to ignore the theology of the sacrament and risk another generation of Catholics adopting a Protestant theology of the sacrament? Apparently, most Bishops in the US believe that it is. As Catholics, we are permitted to disagree with the pastoral decisions of our bishops. I would even argue that it is our responsibility to voice our concerns and disagreements to them, with all due respect and keeping in mind and heart our duty to be obedient to our shepherds.

 

[EasterJoy]

Maybe the bishops meet up with an interior resistance to confer the sacrament on members of the faithful who are obviously not as well-educated and are not as well-disposed as the bishop himself and his classmates were when they made their first communion?

 

[Lapey]

Generally…but with legal terms, the devil is generally in the details, right?

In this case, doesn’t the discretion due any act need to be proportionate to the seriousness and nature of the act? For instance, a person can reach the age of discretion needed to consent to baptism or confirmation without having reached the extent of discretion required to consent to marriage, isn’t that correct?

If that is the case, then age of reason and age of discretion might be entirely synonymous with regards to baptism or First Holy Communion, but not with regards to confirmation, let alone marriage.

I believe you are making this too complicated. Number one, confirmation should be administered between the A of R, 7 and 16 in the US. Age of reason simply means when a typical child is capable of understanding he needs to attend Mass and receive communion at least once a year and reconciliation the same. Now many other issues require more reasoning ability on the child’s part, i.e. abstinence is not required to be binding until age 14 c. 1252; 16 to be subject to sanctions c. 1323.1; 18 for fasting c. 1252. Likewise various canonical rights of the law are acquired at different ages, thus the age of discretion. In some rights and privileges the two are the same, in others there is a difference.

In some things the age of reason is the same as age of discretion; in other things it is not equal, as in matrimony. Age of discretion for confirmation from everything I have found is very wide and the local ordinary has the rights by canon law to call the age of discretion at 7, which is the age of reason, or higher if the conference of bishops decides another age over this or there is danger of death. (C. 891) Also a thought, one child may reach the age of discretion for confirmation at 8, another at 16; not all are on the same level of faith and understanding.

This thread is dedicated to the age of readiness for confirmation and it has been a good discussion. In my opinion it should be restored to its original placement, at the age of reason before the reception of the Eucharist.

I would love to sit down with my bishop and ask why we have the sacrament at the junior year in high school and not younger, but I know my bishop very well and when he makes a decision it’s a done deal; then he would make a joke about me telling Bishop what to do in reference to the occasions when I serve as MC at diocesan Masses and get to tell him what to do in Mass and he has to listen. He likes teasing me about that.

Hope this helps a little on understanding the terms.

 

[Hopey]

I believe you are making this too complicated. Number one, confirmation should be administered between the A of R, 7 and 16 in the US. Age of reason simply means when a typical child is capable of understanding he needs to attend Mass and receive communion at least once a year and reconciliation the same. Now many other issues require more reasoning ability on the child’s part, i.e. abstinence is not required to be binding until age 14 c. 1252; 16 to be subject to sanctions c. 1323.1; 18 for fasting c. 1252. Likewise various canonical rights of the law are acquired at different ages, thus the age of discretion. In some rights and privileges the two are the same, in others there is a difference.

In some things the age of reason is the same as age of discretion; in other things it is not equal, as in matrimony. Age of discretion for confirmation from everything I have found is very wide and the local ordinary has the rights by canon law to call the age of discretion at 7, which is the age of reason, or higher if the conference of bishops decides another age over this or there is danger of death. (C. 891) Also a thought, one child may reach the age of discretion for confirmation at 8, another at 16; not all are on the same level of faith and understanding.

This thread is dedicated to the age of readiness for confirmation and it has been a good discussion. In my opinion it should be restored to its original placement, at the age of reason before the reception of the Eucharist.

I would love to sit down with my bishop and ask why we have the sacrament at the junior year in high school and not younger, but I know my bishop very well and when he makes a decision it’s a done deal; then he would make a joke about me telling Bishop what to do in reference to the occasions when I serve as MC at diocesan Masses and get to tell him what to do in Mass and he has to listen. He likes teasing me about that.

Hope this helps a little on understanding the terms.

The age of discretion and the age of reason have been used as synonymous. In lay terms it means when a child can tell the difference between right and wrong. I have seen, especially since children are attending school very early now, it being lower. By the time they are 7, unless they have an impairment, most are at this level.
It also means they are bound canonically to certain things.
I have never heard the Church use these to mean anything else - older if you are receiving confirmation or marrying. What I have read about marriage is respect for the laws of the land. That may be 16 or 17 in some states. They still reached the age of reason/discretion when they were 7 tho. What is allowed for confirmation in the US is between the age of reason, 7, and about 16. If the bishop sets for his diocese age 16, this doesn’t mean their age of discretion changed but that is the age he chooses for them to be prepared. If it did change w the bishop deciding, then they should be unable to receive communion and reconciliation too until they are older.

 

[babochka]

What is allowed for confirmation in the US is between the age of reason, 7, and about 16. If the bishop sets for his diocese age 16, this doesn’t mean their age of discretion changed but that is the age he chooses for them to be prepared. If it did change w the bishop deciding, then they should be unable to receive communion and reconciliation too until they are older.

Exactly! There have been several people arguing that the age of discretion for confirmation is older, but that’s now what the law says. It just states that the Bishops can (and have) chosen an age older than the age of discretion for Confirmation.

 

[Lapey]

The age of discretion and the age of reason have been used as synonymous. In lay terms it means when a child can tell the difference between right and wrong. I have seen, especially since children are attending school very early now, it being lower. By the time they are 7, unless they have an impairment, most are at this level.
It also means they are bound canonically to certain things.
I have never heard the Church use these to mean anything else - older if you are receiving confirmation or marrying. What I have read about marriage is respect for the laws of the land. That may be 16 or 17 in some states. They still reached the age of reason/discretion when they were 7 tho. What is allowed for confirmation in the US is between the age of reason, 7, and about 16. If the bishop sets for his diocese age 16, this doesn’t mean their age of discretion changed but that is the age he chooses for them to be prepared. If it did change w the bishop deciding, then they should be unable to receive communion and reconciliation too until they are older.

Everything I posted is from the commentary on the current code of canon law. As far as confirmation, Eucharist etc. I agree with you 100%, they are both the same. The others I mentioned are considered different ages to reach the age of discretion but do not change the age of reason, mental capability determines that. Don’t take my word for it, go to the commentary yourself.

 

[Lapey]

Exactly! There have been several people arguing that the age of discretion for confirmation is older, but that’s now what the law says. It just states that the Bishops can (and have) chosen an age older than the age of discretion for Confirmation.

The diocesan bishop can change the age of confirmation, he cannot and does not change the age of reason. And there isn’t a real argument being made either way, the discussion is about the age of confirmation, not whether discretion equals reason. In other words, to the discussion of this thread it matters not. Let’s get back on track.

 

[GRATEFULONEjim]

The diocesan bishop can change the age of confirmation, he cannot and does not change the age of reason. And there isn’t a real argument being made either way, the discussion is about the age of confirmation, not whether discretion equals reason. In other words, to the discussion of this thread it matters not. Let’s get back on track.

Ok. The Diocesan Bishops have the authority to set the age of Confirmation between 7-16. Our Diocese is on the older end…16. It works extremely well. We have great enrollment in the RE programs Kindergarten all the way through Confirmation 11 Grade.

I do not foresee any change taking place with a set up that works as well as it does. In the Diocese of Buffalo.

I do agree that with the older age, there has become a misunderstanding on what the Sacrament of Confirmation truly conveys. Again, this goes right back to poor Catechesis.
I wish that all Catholic parents were well catechized and took great interest in leading the Domestic Church like they are called to do. Unfortunately they do not catechize their children at home and then the Diocese’ are forced to take drastic measures to ensure the children are well formed in the faith. This brings forth the unfortunate choice of delaying Sacraments.

This really has been a great thread…Very informative.