Slap Them Sooner Confirmation & First Communion

[bitterhope]

I am sorry that you feel overwhelmed by the cost. I can assure you that your parish is probably not trying to make a profit off of the families, most parishes are not! More than likely there is a way for people who have a hardship with the fees to attend and have a scholarship pay the fee for them. At least most churches I know have an option like this!

I have not run “Sunday Schools” but have worked for them and promise you that there are many hidden costs. First of all there is simply the building heating, lighting, janitor, water, toilets, maintenance and insurance. A parish has to keep a building open and have liability insurance in case one of the children (for instance) falls and breaks their arm. Figure in the cost of photocopies, paper, electricity, crafts for the children, books and you may be surprised that the cost of running a simple Sunday School is not so simple after all. $40 for an entire year for a child would be about right here where we live too, to help the church out with the costs. Hope this helps a little.

I have heard this argued before, but most parishes have unnecessary projects that they pour money into. Why not pour that money into our youth and families instead? It really doesn’t make sense to be spending in excess several million dollars on stained glass windows and not a few thousand dollars on the kids. This is an actual example of one if my former parishes.

 

[ForeverJoy]

I have not run “Sunday Schools” but have worked for them and promise you that there are many hidden costs. First of all there is simply the building heating, lighting, janitor, water, toilets, maintenance and insurance. A parish has to keep a building open and have liability insurance in case one of the children (for instance) falls and breaks their arm. Figure in the cost of photocopies, paper, electricity, crafts for the children, books and you may be surprised that the cost of running a simple Sunday School is not so simple after all. $40 for an entire year for a child would be about right here where we live too, to help the church out with the costs. Hope this helps a little.

I was just trying to show how confusing and expensive it seems to Protestant Converts. When all you’ve ever known is “free” Sunday School, having to pay for CCD can be a shock, especially since many probably don’t understand the difference between Protestant Sunday School and Catholic CCD.

And I really feel for the poster below me, who has several kids to enroll. How many other families are in their same position, who want to participate in CCD and church life, but can’t afford it? Asking for assistance can be embarrassing, and some ppl just won’t do it. If the Protestant churches can have free Sunday school, it seems like perhaps CCD might have better retention if it was also free. (I realize that might not be possible for smaller parishes.)

 

[bitterhope]

I was just trying to show how confusing and expensive it seems to Protestant Converts. When all you’ve ever known is “free” Sunday School, having to pay for CCD can be a shock, especially since many probably don’t understand the difference between Protestant Sunday School and Catholic CCD.

And I really feel for the poster below me, who has several kids to enroll. How many other families are in their same position, who want to participate in CCD and church life, but can’t afford it? Asking for assistance can be embarrassing, and some ppl just won’t do it. If the Protestant churches can have free Sunday school, it seems like perhaps CCD might have better retention if it was also free. (I realize that might not be possible for smaller parishes.)

The assistant offered at the parishes I have attended is a payment plan, where you put a set amount down and make monthly payments on the balance. If other parishes do it differently I’m glad, but I’ve only been offered assistance that way. The other problem I’ve had when I did ask for assistance, one of the teachers treated my son horribly the entire year. The other teachers were fine and one remains a good friend of our family, but that one teacher was terrible.

 

[TimothyH]

If this is true, then many bishops, priests and cardinals are in theological error. As I do not think the Catholic Church riddled with theological error, I will hold to my opinion, and you hold to yours. I know in Scripture, there is a variety of order in which the Sacraments arrived to different people. For example, the Last Supper preceded Pentecost.

FYI - EWTN does not make any such bold claim in this link.

I did not say that bishops and cardinals are in theological error. Those are your words not mine.

That confirmation is supposed to be done before communion is not my opinion and that is exactly what the EWTN article (which was a reprint of an article from the Diocese of Phoenix’ website) says.

See question 5 in the original link (ewtn.com/library/BISHOPS/ordsacinit.htm). It cites CCC 1212, 1222 and most notably 1223 which reminds us that the Eucharist is the summit of our faith.

The Eucharist was received after confirmation until 1910 for this reason.

-Tim-

 

[pnewton]

Whatever each bishop thinks best for them, as there is no wrong way. Even the different rites treat this disciplinary matter differently.

 

[TimothyH]

Whatever each bishop thinks best for them, as there is no wrong way. Even the different rites treat this disciplinary matter differently.

You keep arguing from the perspective of whether Bishops are doing things incorrectly or not. That misses the point.

Others are arguing from the perspective of religious education, cost, retention, formation, etc. These miss the point.

Whether bishops are doing things right or wrong doesn’t matter. Please forget about that. Either way, restoring the order of the sacraments is the right thing to do.

Yes - restore the order.

Amen.

-Tim-

 

[pnewton]

You keep arguing from the perspective of whether Bishops are doing things incorrectly or not. That misses the point.

I am not “arguing” at all. We are all entitled to our own opinions.

The way things are done in my own parish works fine. We “restored” them all the way back to the time of the apostles.

 

[pnewton]

The other teachers were fine and one remains a good friend of our family, but that one teacher was terrible.

That teacher’s issue may not have been related to money. Every parish has those members we have to work really, really hard to see them as Christ does. The way we do it is waive the fee if we need to. It is not going to break the bank.

 

[bitterhope]

That teacher’s issue may not have been related to money. Every parish has those members we have to work really, really hard to see them as Christ does. The way we do it is waive the fee if we need to. It is not going to break the bank.

Unfortunately people like her are everywhere. Yes, it was money related and I’ve accepted that. I’ve never been in a parish where the fee was waived for anyone but I’m glad that those parishes do exist. I would think there would at least be a family cap where no family pays for more than X number kids but I haven’t experienced that either. I do think that religious ed is important but I don’t think parents get the credit we deserve by the staff. It’s always brought up here and in real life how if the kids don’t come to class they have no chance if being catechized except by society (and that’s no good). The majority of parents I know teach their kids quite well with or without religious ed from the parish. The ones that don’t, their kids aren’t getting enough by going 50 mins a week for 8-10 months each year for it to really make a difference. And I do not believe that delaying sacraments works to keep kids in the parish programs anyway. Most go through 2nd grade and then go back for confirmation in whichever grade that occurs in their parish. Few families send their kids continuously through high school, even the ones that take faith formation very seriously. We are the primary educators of our children and the majority of bishops defend our right to teach our kids religious ed at home instead of the parish being in charge. If we restored the order of the reception, or did it as the Eastern churches do, we wouldn’t have teens refusing to be Confirmed and missing out on the graces received. Some kids that move to different diocese find they are placed in classes with younger kids and get discouraged. Others are prepared but then told they can’t for another three years. Some, since they haven’t received all their sacraments, opt to not be confirmed because they find it silly or pointless–typical teen thinking. There are many reasons for returning the sacraments to the correct order but I haven’t heard any convincing argument for keeping it later.

 

[pnewton]

I’ve never been in a parish where the fee was waived for anyone but I’m glad that those parishes do exist.

I do not fully understand this. It seems to me that someone would want to help. I know that with our KC dues, there are those willing to pay for those in need. I would think someone would want to step up and have the means to do so for something like education.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

I can tell you as a DRE…if we didn’t hold that carrot out…NO ONE would be enrolled in High School catechesis.

Without indicting any one parish’s efforts, what this objections says is that:

1. As a broader Church, we have failed - catastrophically - to convince people that knowing and living the faith matters.
2. To remedy that failure, we should withhold the unmerited gift of sacramental grace from children.

In other words, we make children bear the cost of our own failure to teach them or their parents. We deprive them of grace, distort the meaning of the sacrament (and sacraments in general, for that matter) and excuse ourselves from addressing the real problem of the catechetical failure that produced the post-Confirmation exodus to begin with.

But, if you’re going to do it in that order…the kids should probably be older then 7 or 8 years old for the last three sacraments.

That is too young to conclude faith formation.

This confuses “faith formation” with “classroom preparation to receive a sacrament.” 8 years old is obviously too young to conclude one’s formation in faith, it is also false that the only time we can or ought to undergo faith formation is in the immediate run-up to receiving a sacrament. If people stop showing up for formation after receiving the sacraments of initiation, the fault does not lie with the time of reception but with the ecclesial culture that allows such dropout to be considered normal.

From the EWTN article:

14. Is it wrong, then, to be confirmed after receiving Eucharist?
Of course not. The Church has many ways of celebrating the mysteries of God’s love in the sacraments. But because Rome so strongly encourages restoring the order of celebrating the Sacraments of Christian Initiation, don’t be surprised if more and more communities restore the original sequence—Baptism, Confirmation and First Eucharist.

There is “nothing wrong” with receiving Confirmation after Eucharist in the sense that those who do so incur no moral culpability and violate no ecclesiastical law. But the CCC is all we need to see that there is something theologically wrong - according to the Church’s own modern teaching articulated even while allowing for practical departure - with Confirmation after Eucharist.

**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.

How, pray tell, can the holy Eucharist complete one’s Christian initiation when 1/3 of the sacraments that effect that initiation have yet to be received? The structure and statements of the Catechism, together with canon law, assume that sacraments are getting received in the proper order to make CCC 1322 a meaningful declaration. Confirmation after Eucharist may be possible, it may even be licit, but if our actions are falsifying the Catechism’s teaching we ought to be rather open to the possibility that our actions are problematic.

 

[bitterhope]

I do not fully understand this. It seems to me that someone would want to help. I know that with our KC dues, there are those willing to pay for those in need. I would think someone would want to step up and have the means to do so for something like education.

Our current parish has a parish school. It offers tuition assistance and has several students that attend for free. However, no assistance for Sunday school. Payment plans only. I have no desire to send my students to the parish school. It is a good academic school but they only have religion class once a week and attend Mass every two weeks. My kids get more from me even before they were homeschooled. I think they are trying to get more kids into their school by offering tuition assistance there and not to the Sunday school classes. The parish school also started the common core classes this past year so I’m really not interested in my kids going. It’s not much different than our local public schools.

 

[pnewton]

There is “nothing wrong” with receiving Confirmation after Eucharist in the sense that those who do so incur no moral culpability and violate no ecclesiastical law. But the CCC is all we need to see that there is something theologically wrong…

So the Bishops in America are not morally wrong but theologically wrong? I do not understand how they can be theologically wrong over a discipline, or why any order is mandated based on the Eucharist being the summit of our faith. The apostles received the Eucharist, then later the Holy Spirit. So do many people to day. It works. In my own parish it probably is the best way to go. It at least is working well so far.

I guess what I really do not get, is as the Bible has no clear order, as the Bishops do not agree on the same order, why are people here in such a fret over the order? Shouldn’t we all allow the same deference for variation that the Church, the Pope and God has allowed? I guess I understand a preference, but I do not understand this level of rhetoric over the topic.

 

[Vico]

Yes, Pope Benedict applauded those who returned the sacraments to their traditional order. The Church’s traditional order for the sacraments of initiation is still seen in the reception of adult converts: 1) baptism 2) confirmation 3) holy communion

It is a very odd situation indeed to receive First Communion prior to confirmation…a novelty and a departure from tradition that makes little sense. Why deprive young children of the graces of confirmation?
Perhaps we could have some sort of special profession of faith and blessing for teens who wish to take “ownership” of their faith.

In fact we must take ownership of our faith at the age of reason anyway, because that it the point from which we could mortally sin. The practice of some of the eastern Catholic churches is not to delay Chrismation and Eucharist, but to give them at the time of baptism, even for infants. They then have the strengthening as they come to the age or reason (which is actually not the same moment for each child).

 

[white_sheep]

Confirmation should definitely happen sooner. At least by age 10 or 5th grade. All this nonsense about parents not bringing them to church anymore or not taking them to CCD is beside the point. If the parents have that attitude, then they may not stay in long enough to get confirmed anyway. It is better if the kids are confirmed, period.

 

[MissRose73]

I know my sister’s kids got all 3 sacraments at Easter Vigil (but it was because their parents - fallen away, were talked into it by my mother) - they were ages 7 and 9 at the time. They were part of a group of both adults and kids in the RCIA who received all 3 that evening.

I was confirmed at 17. I had my first Communion at 8, First Confession at 10. Keep in mind this was in the 1980’s where the catechesis was not very good. I learned more from my mom’s old Baltimore Catechism book. It would be nice to push confirmation to early teen years to keep them going to church and religious ed a lot longer. My diocese currently does 3 sacraments in 1 year for kids in the 2nd grade - how many actually understand (and I am sure the same could apply for older kids, teens, and even adults) what they are receiving. My church has low attendance for religious education too beyond the 3rd grade too.

 

[jmcrae]

This is precisely why people like me, for example, are arguing for Confirmation in younger years not teen years.

I think it is prideful to believe that as a religious education teacher (which I was) that I have more to offer a child then God does. The Holy Spirit in Confirmation really DOES infuse the soul with many gifts! I cannot possibly compete with that no matter how wonderful my religious education classes or prayer groups are. This is why, I believe to delay imparting a child with those gifts, and to hold the Sacraments “hostage” so we can keep children in our religious education classes is somewhat prideful. Just my opinion though.

I think Youth Groups, Pray and Play, and 56 Clubs can fill the gaps left by Sacrament Preparation if the order is restored and kids receive full initiation at age 7. They can certainly provide academic Catechesis alongside prayer experiences, service opportunities, and retreats of various kinds.

 

[babochka]

So the Bishops in America are not morally wrong but theologically wrong?

I would say that this is correct, but the bishops have chosen to continue with current practices for practical, but not theological, reasons. Theology is not dogma, and this is certainly their prerogative.

A number of years ago, the Diocese of Sacramento allowed a number of parishes to follow a restored order for the sacraments of initiation. Several parishes did so, and this “experiment” continued for a number of years. At some point, the bishop decided to end the practice and return to the previous practice, diocesan-wide, of confirming between 8th grade and the junior year of high school. In his letter explaining this decision, he acknowledge the theological strength of the arguments for restored order, but stated that he had ultimately decided to return to a later age for confirmation because a) he wanted more consistency throughout the diocese and b) it was important not to make a change of this magnitude before the implementation of diocesan-wide programs for the continuing religious education of teens and adequate youth ministry was in place. In the letter, he said that he would like to revisit the order of the sacraments after the improvements in youth ministry had been made. Of course, that was years ago, and nothing much has changed.

 

[babochka]

This is precisely why people like me, for example, are arguing for Confirmation in younger years not teen years.

I think it is prideful to believe that as a religious education teacher (which I was) that I have more to offer a child then God does. The Holy Spirit in Confirmation really DOES infuse the soul with many gifts! I cannot possibly compete with that no matter how wonderful my religious education classes or prayer groups are. This is why, I believe to delay imparting a child with those gifts, and to hold the Sacraments “hostage” so we can keep children in our religious education classes is somewhat prideful. Just my opinion though.

I agree completely. If we really believed that Confirmation does what the Church teaches it does - bestows the gifts of wisdom, understanding, counsel, knowledge, fortitude, piety and fear of the Lord, wouldn’t we desire these things for our children well before they hit the turbulent pre-teen and teen years? Why are we sending them into battle without armor?

Adequate and ongoing Catechesis, community service opportunities, spiritual growth, etc. are all absolutely necessary in the life of a Christian, but they need to exist throughout adulthood, as well as in the teen years. Some argue that Confirmation is treated as “graduation from Catechesis”. If that is true, it is a situation that we have created ourselves, by not providing good Catechesis after Confirmation and by perpetuating the myth that Confirmation is an “adult decision for Christ”.

 

[powerofk]

Here’s the thing, when I was growing up, I lived in the Diocese of Saginaw, MI. Most Rev. Ken Untenner was bishop. Right when I was going to make my Confirmation in high school, he decided to move Confirmation back to being before Eucharist. As such, all children who were either preparing for or had already made their First Communions were to make their Confirmations at the same time. Because of this, my brother and sister both made their Confirmations at the same time that I did. Later, Bishop Untenner died, and the bishop who followed him noticed that, throughout the diocese, parents were no longer taking their children to religious education classes after First Communion/Confirmation. I don’t know what he did, but I read in the bulletin when I was visiting my parents many years ago, that he was contemplating moving it back to High School due to the attrition rate.

Currently, I live in the Archdiocese of Santa Fe, NM, and I volunteer as a catechist once a week. What I’ve noticed is that often (but not always), parents will bring their children to classes until the children have completed their First Communions, and then often not bring them back until Confirmation classes in High School, if at all. Most of the students who come to classes between First Communion and High School come either because their parents want them to come (especially in later elementary school) or because they, themselves, want to come (mainly in Middle School). Even so, not many children come to classes between First Communion and Confirmation. In fact, only a small portion of the children who did their First Communions end up coming back at all for Confirmation in High School.

The problem is, honestly, that we have a large percentage of parents who are not well-versed in their faith. I don’t blame the parents for this - they weren’t taught the faith well themselves. And this goes back, unfortunately, for generations. For a long time, we, in the Church, assumed that “the people” couldn’t truly understand their faith, so we had people “memorize” their faith. Unfortunately, most people didn’t go beyond the basic memorization of the Church’s beliefs, and thus didn’t have a deep understanding of the Church’s reasoning. When the rebellion of the 1960s began, it, plus the confusion of early post-Vatican II years, had people questioning authority in all forms. And this led to some “throwing out the baby with the bathwater”, not realizing that the Church’s teachings could not change.