« Useful Myths? | Main | The Da Vinci Code...Code »
July 02, 2005
Original Order
Bill Cork reports that the Diocese of Phoenix is going to restore the original order of the Sacraments of Initiation and celebrate Confirmation before First Communion. The pastoral letter from the bishop is very good and thorough, even though it is on the web as an evil pdf document. The decision was made through consultation with a task force and the Presbyteral Council, and it was unanimous. So what are they going to do?
They're going to stagger the celebration of the sacrament for the older kids, and for those in the 7-9 year old range:
Effective immediately, the age for celebration of Confirmation is lowered so that, ordinarily, children baptized as infants will celebrate Confirmation and 1st Eucharist in the same Sacred Liturgy during the third grade. Preparation and celebration of the Sacrament of Reconciliation is to precede Confirmation and should, ordinarily, occur in the second grade.
Very good. Any discussions about the "practical" aspects of this must take a backseat to theology, and the mis-placement of confirmation oh, lo these many decades in many parts of the world has really been a travesty, and done great damage to a proper theological understanding of confirmation itself and the sacraments of initiation as a whole. And, turning to pragmatic considerations, anyway, as we've discussed here before, adolescent confirmation, shorn from its baptismal associations and proximity to Eucharist, by 10-15 years in the life of the one celebrating, has become, in practice, less a sacrament (in perception) than a ritualized sociological marker of, not Christian initiation, but initiation into adulthood (sort of), and, more practically, an tool for blackmail...go through this, and you won't have to go to religious ed any more. More common than you think.
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
Comments
I totally concur with every aspect of this pastoral decision as well as with your comment, Amy. Some parishes in my diocese already do restored sequence. But in places that don't this will cause a major stir. I wonder if this is a trend that all the U.S. bishops will adopt.
Posted by: RAP at Jul 2, 2005 11:08:25 PM
Amy,
Until I read your post I was unaware that Confirmation was supposed to precede Communion, but it makes perfect sense.
I was under the impression that Confirmation has followed Communion for decades though. I think my mom had her confirmation after first communion, and she was born almost 60 years ago.
The "blackmail" thing is funny, but on the other hand how else are you to get kids to have any religious education beyond age 6? That said, most kids don't get any religious ed even up until they make Confirmation (mine was at 16 and I was almost completely ignorant of our faith).
Posted by: Ian at Jul 2, 2005 11:21:05 PM
"Restored Order"?
Didn't Christ institute the Eucharist BEFORE Confirmation?
Posted by: Chris-2-4 at Jul 2, 2005 11:29:47 PM
I'm not at all sure I agree with this. I understand all the theological arguments and the tradition of the eastern Churches. But the western development does not at all strike me as a necesary perversion of the Sacrament, and frankly I see nothing at all wrong with having this Sacrament represent the Christian equivalent of a Bar Mitzvah. It was very meaningful to me in that guise, and I am minded to view movements like this as untraditional archaism.
And yes, I am quite aware of the canons on Confirmation in the old Code.
Posted by: David Kubiak at Jul 3, 2005 12:30:46 AM
Fantastic. Why not arm pre-teens with the Gifts of the Holy Spirit? Middle schoolers could use a strong dose of these Gifts.
Posted by: ambrose at Jul 3, 2005 12:32:30 AM
I like the idea of "Christian Bar Mitzvah," too.
And if Confirmation is the Sacrament of Christian maturity--well, I guarantee my kids aren't quite mature enough yet. (My 12-year-old [older of two boys] just finished his first year of Confirmation prep, and he definitely has a ways to go in the Christian maturity department.)
Posted by: diane at Jul 3, 2005 1:19:14 AM
Uniates and Orthodox do these things the old-fashioned way ... even the little babies get all three sacraments (Baptism, Chrismation, and Eucharist) at the same liturgy. It works, just as it has done for centuries.
Lee
Posted by: Lee Penn at Jul 3, 2005 1:46:39 AM
Note that this restoration is not the kind of archiacism we see pushed in some quarters (and feared in others). As the Catholic Encyclopedia points out, Trent fixed the age of seven as appropriate for confirmation.
Posted by: Samuel J. Howard at Jul 3, 2005 1:53:33 AM
Good for Bishop Olmsted. I think this is the way to go. I hope LOTS more dioceses do this, in the US and around the world. A problem with turning a sacrament into an initiation into adulthood is that it turns it into primarily something we do for God, rather than primarily vice versa. It's because of the sacramental sealing with the Holy Spirit and completion of baptismal grace that we're enabled to mature as Christians - not vice versa.
With this "untraditional archaism" stuff, one has to remember that it's the pope and bishops in communion with him who are the custodians of Tradition and who have the responsibility to decide whether a practice that has arisen really is a proper development of the Tradition or is something that isn't properly harmonious therewith and needs to be "pruned back."
And in fact, the Catechism says, "Although Confirmation is sometimes called the 'sacrament of Christian maturity,' we must not confuse adult faith with the adult age of natural growth, nor forget that the baptismal grace is a grace of free, unmerited election and does not need 'ratification' to become effective."
And one should note that the Catechism puts its treatment of Confirmation between its sections on Baptism and the Eucharist.
So does the Code of Canon Law. Furthermore, it says, "The sacrament of confirmation is to be conferred on the faithful at about the age of discretion, unless the Episcopal Conference has decided on a different age, or there is a danger of death or, in the judgement of the minister, a grave reason suggests otherwise." The Catechism echoes the reference to "the Latin custom" of "the age of discretion" as the normal age for Confirmation. This is the same age at which one begins to go to Confession and can receive First Communion - i.e., about 7.
I think bishops' decisions to go with "a different age" have caused more harm than good.
Posted by: Kevin Miller at Jul 3, 2005 5:59:05 AM
Theological considerations aside, I predict that enrollment in grades four and up is going to plummet. In the US, Confirmation year has just too long been the END of religious ed.
Posted by: Joanne at Jul 3, 2005 6:38:12 AM
Oh great! Just what the Church in America needs, another battle over a "change". The present order of Confirmation after Communion in this country dates back to Saint Pius X lowering the age of first Communion to 7 in 1910. Practical considerations in this country led to Confirmation after Communion. Personally, I think it is a happy change since Confirmation in the USA is given, as a result, to candidates who are on the threshold of adulthood and who therefore should be expected to act as a soldier of Christ. If we are going to start undoing changes not warranted by documents or teachings of the Church, I can think of a whole host of things I would like to see undone first before placing Confirmation before Communion.
Posted by: Donald R. McClarey at Jul 3, 2005 6:38:58 AM
Joanne makes an interesting prediction. It will be intriguing to watch if it will be fulfilled.
But as long as a older child and teenager live in the home, a parent would still be within his or her right to say, 'I don't care if you're already fully initiated, you're *still* going to religious ed."
How many parents would actually take such an approach is another matter altogether.
In any case, the choice to take it would reveal a lack of early formation in the faith in the young person, something which happens primarily in the home, not in a parish religious education program.
Posted by: Sean Gallagher at Jul 3, 2005 7:17:35 AM
An addendum to the argument I made above.
It would also be possible that an older child or teenager who had been fully initiated into the Church wouldn't want to continue in a parish-based religious education program for another reason.
He or she may have been very well formed in the faith in the home and found the parish-based program inadequate.
Now why would a parent who has embraced the duty to form their children in the faith in the home enroll them in an inadequate parish program? Because some parishes, with the tacit or even explicit approval of diocesan offices, might (illicitly, I believe) require such programs in order for a child to be confirmed and receive first Communion.
If this were to happen, then I think the parent of the young person would say, "I'm glad you don't want to go, because if you had wanted to go, I would have had (sadly) to have said, 'No.'"
Posted by: Sean Gallagher at Jul 3, 2005 7:32:51 AM
Our diocese has had the restored order for about a decade now, and I think it's great. As Ambrose said above, why would we not want to fully arm kids -- especially kids living in the the midst of the culture of death -- with the gifts of the Holy Spirit as soon as possible?
Posted by: Lori at Jul 3, 2005 7:52:35 AM
There's a perfectly reasonable way to keep your kids going to religious ed after they've been confirmed, and that's the way my Protestant parents did it: go yourself.
In our (Protestant) church there was adult Sunday School as well as children's Sunday School, and it was never assumed that you had arrived at a state where you really didn't need to learn any more from the church about Christianity.
When religious ed is seen as something that everybody does and rejoices in (and thinks is important), rather than something painful and irritating that we inflict on people too small to fight back, then teenagers will be much more likely to submit to it (as much as they'll submit to anything nowadays).
Posted by: Jon at Jul 3, 2005 7:58:32 AM
The question is not how do we make children receive religious instruction, but how we make them want to -- even demand to -- receive religious instruction.
Turning Confirmation into a kind of Catholic bar/bas mitzvah was not and is not the answer. The answer is meaningful religious instruction that focuses on both the content of our Faith and the conversion of our hearts. That takes resources and the full cooperation of parents, two things which are often lacking.
Posted by: Jim at Jul 3, 2005 8:15:23 AM
I understand the history and the principles. At the same time, it exhausts me to think of something else shifting around - and unless there is some uniformity of implementation among the bishops, it will be "one way here and the other way there." (Actually, we already have that with the variation in ages from 8 to 18.
And what will the religious ed programs do to attract and develop students who no longer "need" to be there? (When I was growing up in the Presbyterian and Episcopal churches, which confirmed in 8th grade, this was a perennial problem.)
Posted by: Mary Jane at Jul 3, 2005 8:18:52 AM
Great for purists, but the practical results will be a disaster. It is hard in some parishes to find teachers for religious ed. and eveytime the age for Confirmation goes down, so does the last year religious ed. is even offered. Being Catholic is also being part of a religious culture, if children are not involved in that culture in religious ed. the end result will be a much smaller church in the decades to come. And before some of you start crowing that that's fine with you; just remember Catholicism is supposed to be about saving souls not having a 'puris' utopia.
Posted by: middleoftheroadnot at Jul 3, 2005 9:16:21 AM
Any discussions about the "practical" aspects of this must take a backseat to theology, and the mis-placement of confirmation oh, lo these many decades in many parts of the world has really been a travesty, and done great damage to a proper theological understanding of confirmation itself and the sacraments of initiation as a whole.
I have no doubt this change (restoration, whatever) is solidly grounded. But fwiw, one of the few things I remember about my confirmation instruction is being told that I was now of an age when I could make a commitment to Christ of my own volition. Made perfect sense to me and at the time I regarded that as an example of sound reasoning by the Church. Always have, actually.
Posted by: Christopher Fotos at Jul 3, 2005 9:22:30 AM
There's a perfectly reasonable way to keep your kids going to religious ed after they've been confirmed, and that's the way my Protestant parents did it: go yourself.
AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Meggan at Jul 3, 2005 9:40:53 AM
I think this is great and I hope it spreads.
Posted by: Peter Nixon at Jul 3, 2005 10:09:11 AM
I too think this is great, but like many others have concerns about the implementation. As others have also pointed out, the Sacraments in many places have degenerated into little more than socio-cultural rites of passage, with absolutely no follow-up either at home or in the RE program. Then, too, there is subtle (sometimes not-so-subtle) pressure from the DRE or equivalent to follow these classes or else... As to religious instruction at home, a good point was made that the parents had to be assertive about this. The parents, though, must work as a team. In our case, my husband is very skeptical about religion in general, and we had a lot of disputes about a great number of matters. This doesn't make for the greatest atmosphere, as you can imagine. But I keep my eyes open for any opportunity to relate life to faith, even though my kids are now adults. For obvious reasons, I have to remain anonymous in this post. Does anyone else have a problem with their spouses in this way? Just curious ...
Posted by: Anonymous at Jul 3, 2005 10:22:24 AM
From Canon Law:
1308 Although Confirmation is sometimes called the "sacrament of Christian maturity,"
we must not confuse adult faith with the adult age of natural growth, nor forget that
the baptismal grace is a grace of free, unmerited election and does not need
"ratification" to become effective. St. Thomas reminds us of this:
Age of body does not determine age of soul. Even in childhood man can attain spiritual
maturity: as the book of Wisdom says: "For old age is not honored for length of time, or
measured by number of years." Many children, through the strength of the Holy Spirit
they have received, have bravely fought for Christ even to the shedding of their
blood.124
b) It is preferable that Confirmation be received before First Holy Communion. If First
Communion was received before Confirmation could be opportunely received, then
frequent reception of Holy Communion may not be prevented.54
http://www.ewtn.com/library/DOCTRINE/AGECONF.TXT
Posted by: annabenedetti at Jul 3, 2005 10:41:10 AM
Sean, I'm sorry, your response seems to imply that a good number of parents would actually WANT to insist that their children continue.
As a catechist, I see that many parents consider getting their kids to class each week a major inconvenience, and quite frankly a low priority after soccer, dance lessons, and such. Most of these families attend Mass twice a year, tops.
If they can reach that final sacramental checkpoint sooner, I predict it will just vanish from their family list of weekly priorities. And we will have all that many more kids whose religious formation ends before they are nine years old.
Personally, I'm more in favor of raising the age to 11 or 12th grade, for the sake of the kids, not for the sake of theological purity.
Lori, I'd love to hear more about the great results in your diocese. How are you going about retaining kids for post-sacramental religious ed?
Posted by: Joanne at Jul 3, 2005 10:42:56 AM
Joanne, I hear what you're saying, but in my experience, if the church isn't that important to the parents, it's not going to be important to the kids, no matter when you do religious ed or how you arrange it.
These kids, regardless of when they take it, are picking up on the attend-twice-a-year-CRE-is-a-hassle vibes from their parents and they are inevitably turning into the exact same thing. Postponing the last moment of hafta, hafta, hafta go is not really going to help this.
And in any case, as far as evangelization goes, it might be better to work with a bunch of near pagans bereft of any religious experience than with those who consider themselves "good Catholics" because they went through the motions of confirmation and CRE.
Posted by: Jon at Jul 3, 2005 10:58:21 AM
