isn't 'confirming' children a disgrace?

JoeB-

Does anyone not think it's wrong to 'confirm' children? (i.e 11 year olds!!!!)

I think that children don't have the capability to 'choose' the catholic religion and so it is just a device for the church to boost its numbers... how many 16 or 18 year olds would choose to be confirmed? (My belief is that it would be very few)

And as an aside is there any way I can be unconfirmed as I wasn't old enough to make the choice myself and was effectively forced into it?

Scofflaw

JoeBallantine wrote:

And as an aside is there any way I can be unconfirmed as I wasn't old enough to make the choice myself and was effectively forced into it?

That question is better asked in the Atheist forum...

cordially,
Scofflaw

DS

I think there is a logical fallacy in wanting to be "unconfirmed" as you put it. If your current beliefs are not religious then surely you would now see your confirmation as just an hour sitting on a bench listening to a load of crap. If you're concerned about having been confirmed you're giving credibility to the ritual itself, which I suspect goes against your current beliefs, right?

I agree that religion is imposed on children at far too young an age, this is after all the main reason religion is so widespread, but I don't think confirmation is at all relevant. This ritual is only significant or meaningful to a Catholic.

philologos

I personally think confirmation should be scrapped and baptism brought forward into the teenage years.

Mitch Connor

given the choice, i reckon most kids would chose to have a confirmation. Its a great money earner.

Asiaprod

A brief extract from the History of Confirmation (Catholic Encyclopedia).

Regarding the obligation of receiving the sacrament, it is admitted that confirmation is not necessary as an indispensable means of salvation (necessitate medii).

On the other hand, its reception is obligatory (necessitate præcepti) "for all those who are able to understand and fulfill the Commandments of God and of the Church. This is especially true of those who suffer persecution on account of their religion or are exposed to grievous temptations against faith or are in danger of death. The more serious the danger so much greater is the need of protecting oneself". (Conc. Plen. Balt. II, n. 250.) As to the gravity of the obligation, opinions differ, some theologians holding that an unconfirmed person would commit mortal sin if he refused the sacrament, others that the sin would be at most venial unless the refusal implied contempt for the sacrament. Apart, however, from such controversies the importance of confirmation as a means of grace is so obvious that no earnest Christian will neglect it, and in particular that Christian parents will not fail to see that their children are confirmed.

An interesting caveat to the confusing usage above of the sacrement is that the Sacrament of Confirmation is not a sacrament that was established by God/Jesus but by the Catholic Church, and was formerly nothing but a catechism in which those who were approaching adolescence gave an account of their faith before the Church; and that the minister was not a bishop only, but any priest whatsoever (Lib. Ref. ad Colonien.).

stevejazzx

Scofflaw wrote:

That question is better asked in the Atheist forum...

cordially,
Scofflaw

Why?

The poster is asking a question that, if it has a valid answer then surely christians are more or at lkeast as likley to know it. If you think the poster is being superficial then that's another matter but i didn't get the impression.

Scofflaw

stevejazzx wrote:

Why?

The poster is asking a question that, if it has a valid answer then surely christians are more or at lkeast as likley to know it. If you think the poster is being superficial then that's another matter but i didn't get the impression.

Well, mostly because it's been asked and answered there a couple of times already. I should probably have clarified that, but it was a quick post!

cordially,
Scofflaw

stevejazzx

Fair enough btw having missed that, what was the answer. I would find it very odd if one could be 'unconfirmed' . Surely no religous text covers that so the process would've had to of been invented by the upper realms of the clergy.

BrianCalgary

I agree that 11 can be too young. I was confirmed in teh Anglican church at 15, I didn't understand what I did until I was about 20. My confirmation was a nice ceremony with the Bishop present and food.

My denomination is into adult baptism. We have had kids as young as 10 be baptized, these particular kids do know what they are doing. We aslo have others who are 15, and I don't think they would know what baptism was about.

What has happened in Anglican and Catholic church is that confirmation has become a tradition that can have no meaning in many of those doing the confirming.

The question to be answered is the person being confirmed, are they completely aware of the meaning of the promise they are making? If yes, away they go, if no, then wait.

UU

BrianCalgary wrote:

I agree that 11 can be too young. I was confirmed in teh Anglican church at 15, I didn't understand what I did until I was about 20. My confirmation was a nice ceremony with the Bishop present and food.

My denomination is into adult baptism. We have had kids as young as 10 be baptized, these particular kids do know what they are doing. We aslo have others who are 15, and I don't think they would know what baptism was about.

What has happened in Anglican and Catholic church is that confirmation has become a tradition that can have no meaning in many of those doing the confirming.

The question to be answered is the person being confirmed, are they completely aware of the meaning of the promise they are making? If yes, away they go, if no, then wait.

Oh, what church is that Brian? I think that's a really good idea! At least at that age they'd be old enough to make up their minds whether they want to do it or not. I think Baptist churches do the same because I know somebody who didn't get baptised there until he was in his teens and he asked to be baptised also even though he was brought up in the denomination.

philologos

I hear the reasons given for infant baptism are that baptism is the new circumcision of the time of Abraham. Wikipedia has a nice section on infant baptism and what arguments are for it.
It's part of the Wikiproject for Christianity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infant_Baptism

hairyheretic

BrianCalgary wrote:

The question to be answered is the person being confirmed, are they completely aware of the meaning of the promise they are making? If yes, away they go, if no, then wait.

That, to my mind, would be the most sensible way to do things. If you're not fully aware of what you're doing, you shouldn't be doing it.

philologos

Amen ^^. Thats the policy that should be implemented, People should get confirmed because they want to be Christians, not for pressure from parents or any other reason. To be honest with you why have confirmation at all when you could move baptism forward and ask the same question to the candidate.

Red Alert

A few years back one easter night a girl in her early twenties was baptised into the catholic faith. She was confirmed almost immediately afterwards. It was a really amazing part of the mass, because at the time I had lost touch with the church. Seeing someone who was in full understanding of what she was doing was just breathtaking. What made it more so was the fact that she a pretty ordinary good looking girl, and from her chat with the priest when he asked her to tell everyone her name etc she seemed very normal and together.


I think baptism is something that your parents should still do if they wish, but confirmation is something that should be done on your own initiative.

philologos

I was at confirmation service in Greystones (Church of Ireland) last weekend (my cousin was getting confirmed), and one of them was getting both baptised and confirmed on the same day. To be brutally honest with you it doesn't seem as if the Church is responsible for infant baptism. Parent's are free to decide when to baptise their children into the Christian faith. Brian I think you are being overly critical of the Catholic, and Anglican churches in this respect. It is the parents who ultimately decide.

PDN

Jakkass wrote:

I was at confirmation service in Greystones (Church of Ireland) last weekend (my cousin was getting confirmed), and one of them was getting both baptised and confirmed on the same day. To be brutally honest with you it doesn't seem as if the Church is responsible for infant baptism. Parent's are free to decide when to baptise their children into the Christian faith. Brian I think you are being overly critical of the Catholic, and Anglican churches in this respect. It is the parents who ultimately decide.

I would suggest that it should not be for the parents to decide. It should be for the child itself. The churches aid & abet parents to make decisions on behalf of their children instead of allowing those children to decide for themselves whether they want to be Christians.

philologos

Hence, the responsibility should be on parents to let their own children decide for themselves, instead of being only Christians on paper, which many posters complain about on the Atheism and Agnosticism forum.

BrianCalgary

Jakkass wrote:

Parent's are free to decide when to baptise their children into the Christian faith. Brian I think you are being overly critical of the Catholic, and Anglican churches in this respect. It is the parents who ultimately decide.

Maybe. There are those who do find Christ and experience His love and grace in both churches. Yet I disagree that it is up to the parents to decide their childrens acceptance of Christ whether it's through adult baptism or confirmation. As an infant it is up to the parents.

As a parent it is my responsibility to ensure that my kids are raised in the knowledge of Jesus Christ and for me to model the Christian life for them and others.

Ultimately it is their responsibility whether or not to accept Christ as their saviour, and I trust they will based on the foundation that has been given them through our church and home.

Unfortunately I see too many Catholics that abandon Christ because they have not received that foundation and modelling, yet they have observed all the sacraments based on the cultural pressure to do so.

JoeB-

Jakkass wrote:

To be brutally honest with you it doesn't seem as if the Church is responsible for infant baptism.

Well in the catholic church they say unbaptised children don't go to heaven... through no fault of the childs... they go somewhere like limbo instead... even though they are now thinking of changing this idea... he he he... does god's world change so much? or do men make up the rules? (Obviously men make up the rules as god doesn't exist)

And isn't god himself to be held responsible if he allowed a child to be conceived who would then die unbaptised and thus not be able to go to heaven,... in my mind this means that God effectively 'doomed' that child to an eternal life without god... doesn't seem to be very nice to me! Don't forget god knows the past and the future apparently.. even though that precludes the possibility of free will. (And it does preclude the possibility of free will regardless of what catholic thinkers will tell you, at the very least it transfers responsibilty of apparently 'free' actions to god)

My own belief is that god is ultimitely responsible for the way i live my life and my eternal fate... after all he knows what I will do with my life.. i am an unbeliever because he made me that way, not through my own choice... i.e god didn't give me faith... that's not my problem... if he wants to doom me because of this he can work away... what a muppet (IMO)!

So I believe that god isn't real as there are too many paradoxes... so the catholic faith is a political organisation... that's why i hate them so much... they prey on simple minded folk... the government should have been brave enough to charge the most senior members with crimes relating to facilitating child abuse, i.e the pope and cardinals etc etc... even if the possibility of serving summons and gaining justice was quite unlikely as they reside outside the state...

Come on people, reject these ridiculous ideas and becomes free athetists.

Cheers
Joe

JoeB-

Jakkass wrote:

To be brutally honest with you it doesn't seem as if the Church is responsible for infant baptism.

Well in the catholic church they say unbaptised children don't go to heaven... through no fault of the childs... they go somewhere like limbo instead... even though they are now thinking of changing this idea... he he he... does god's world change so much? or do men make up the rules? (Obviously men make up the rules as god doesn't exist)

And isn't god himself to be held responsible if he allowed a child to be conceived who would then die unbaptised and thus not be able to go to heaven,... in my mind this means that God effectively 'doomed' that child to an eternal life without god... doesn't seem to be very nice to me! Don't forget god knows the past and the future apparently.. even though that precludes the possibility of free will. (And it does preclude the possibility of free will regardless of what catholic thinkers will tell you, at the very least it transfers responsibilty of apparently 'free' actions to god)

My own belief is that god is ultimitely responsible for the way i live my life and my eternal fate... after all he knows what I will do with my life.. i am an unbeliever because he made me that way, not through my own choice... i.e god didn't give me faith... that's not my problem... if he wants to doom me because of this he can work away... what a muppet (IMO)!

So I believe that god isn't real as there are too many paradoxes... so the catholic faith is a political organisation... that's why i hate them so much... they prey on simple minded folk... the government should have been brave enough to charge the most senior members with crimes relating to facilitating child abuse, i.e the pope and cardinals etc etc... even if the possibility of serving summons and gaining justice was quite unlikely as they reside outside the state...

Come on people, reject these ridiculous ideas and becomes free athetists.

Cheers
Joe

jhegarty

I though we got rid of limbo....

i know the current Pope has said that unbaptised could get to heaven...

PDN

jhegarty wrote:

I though we got rid of limbo....

i know the current Pope has said that unbaptised could get to heaven...

Is this retrospective? Does it apply to the babies who went to limbo when it did exist?

Michael G

PDN wrote:

Is this retrospective? Does it apply to the babies who went to limbo when it did exist?

It never existed. It was speculation by some theologians, never accepted by any of the Christian Churches.

Baptism and Confirmation are supposed to be Sacraments. Sacraments are signs; i.e. they are supposed to be ways of transmitting God's grace to the recipients. They are not like someone swearing an oath of allegiance, as in a citizenship ceremony.

PDN

Michael G wrote:

It never existed. It was speculation by some theologians, never accepted by any of the Christian Churches.

Baptism and Confirmation are supposed to be Sacraments. Sacraments are signs; i.e. they are supposed to be ways of transmitting God's grace to the recipients. They are not like someone swearing an oath of allegiance, as in a citizenship ceremony.

"Children who die without baptism go into limbo, where they do not enjoy God, but they do not suffer either, because having Original Sin, and only that, they do not deserve paradise, but neither hell or purgatory." (Pope Pius X, Catechism, 1905)

philologos

JoeBallantine wrote:

Well in the catholic church they say unbaptised children don't go to heaven... through no fault of the childs... they go somewhere like limbo instead... even though they are now thinking of changing this idea... he he he... does god's world change so much? or do men make up the rules? (Obviously men make up the rules as god doesn't exist)

Thats because it's rediculous to say that children have to be baptised as infants. Wasn't Christ Himself baptised as an adult?

philologos

BrianCalgary wrote:

Maybe. There are those who do find Christ and experience His love and grace in both churches. Yet I disagree that it is up to the parents to decide their childrens acceptance of Christ whether it's through adult baptism or confirmation. As an infant it is up to the parents.

As a parent it is my responsibility to ensure that my kids are raised in the knowledge of Jesus Christ and for me to model the Christian life for them and others.

Ultimately it is their responsibility whether or not to accept Christ as their saviour, and I trust they will based on the foundation that has been given them through our church and home.

I was saying it is the parent's fault for baptising their children as infants, as opposed to the fault of the respective churches. I personally think it should be on the legitimate initiative of the children in question.

JoeB-

Whatever the situation is regarding limbo the fact is that the catholic church allowed mothers to be devastated by telling them their still born children would never go to heaven and they wouldn't be re united when they died... also they wouldn't allow them to be buried in consecrated ground... this is an absolute disgrace and an abuse of power.

The catholics abused their position and used it to instill fear in otherwise god fearing people, i detest them for this. Effectively parents were forced to baptise their children for the above reasons... it was hardly a choice.

Michael G said
It (limbo) never existed. It was speculation by some theologians, never accepted by any of the Christian Churches.
end quote

I don't accept this, the catholics definitely said that unbaptised still born babies DID NOT go to heaven.... and what about PDN's point... is the pope free to make retrospective announcements... let's face it, the catholic religion is a joke, it's a political organisation which will do anything to increase it's following... as in the past when it used fear to intimidate uneducated people... now it has changed to reflect the fact that people don't want to hear those things so it reverses previous central tenets, like mortal sins etc... but god is supposed to be everlasting!!! yet major central parts of his 'religion' are changed... i often say that change is slow in an effort to 'con' people into thinking that changes aren't happening at all... they must think we are stupid...

For example as a child i was told that to miss mass on easter sunday was a mortal sin which couldn't be attoned for... i have knowingly missed that mass and so i am doomed... why should i bother believing any more. Not that I have any desire to believe, i always knew it was crap. If catholicism is true it is god's problem that i feel the way i do, not mine... and i will debate it with him personnally if he allows it... let's see how open and forgiving he is then... after all people have said it is a wolves nature to kill for fun, wouldn't it be a cruel master indeed who punished the wolf for that over which he has no control... but god will do that to his 'beloved' creations by requiring them to do the impossible, i.e act against their nature.

I am constantly amazed that people still believe... even though the 'leaders' have proven themselves to be perverts and criminals, doing everything they can to protect their own at the expense of the innocent... god has destroyed the population of the earth twice at least i believe, this must have included innocent people, did god care? it would appear not! Simply because the catholic leaders say they aren't evil doesn't make it so... i believe true believers should leave the church now and explain it to god themseves, if he is so great he will understand and forgive...

Obviously i detest the catholics and am happy with that... but i am not happy that they still operate in ireland... i would love to see them bankrupted and run out of the country... and jailed obviously.
I presume the catholic position on child abusers and facilitators is that they are going to hell, good riddance to them, any other position is laughable... i personnally believe the current pope has blood on his hands although i'm not 100% sure if he ever relocated child abusing priests, does anyone know? If so it is a disgrace.

Joe (not hiding behind an alias)

Red Alert

The religion of a couple of generations ago was in many ways warped - but so were many other things too.

ISAW

JoeBallantine wrote:

Well in the catholic church they say unbaptised children don't go to heaven........ he he he... does god's world change so much? or do men make up the rules? (Obviously men make up the rules as god doesn't exist)

Actually Joe this is a false arguemnt since the premise "the catholic church say..." is incorrect.

And isn't god himself to be held responsible if he allowed a child to be conceived who would then die unbaptised and thus not be able to go to heaven,...

Ditto!

... Don't forget god knows the past and the future apparently.. even though that precludes the possibility of free will. (And it does preclude the possibility of free will regardless of what catholic thinkers will tell you, at the very least it transfers responsibilty of apparently 'free' actions to god)

You ropinion. predstination is not necessarily a logical consequesnce of Omniscience.

My own belief is that god is ultimitely responsible for the way i live my life and my eternal fate... after all he knows what I will do with my life..

thats a fob off. Omniscience isn't a basis to allocate blame either!

i am an unbeliever because he made me that way, not through my own choice... i.e god didn't give me faith... that's not my problem...

this isnt logically consistant either since it contains a contradiction i.e. the non existance of God based on god's existence.

So I believe that god isn't real as there are too many paradoxes...

Yo haventpresented any you have only presented fallacies! But let me ask you this do you believe atoms exist? Ever heard of the "Wave particle duality" of the electron? Thats a paradox! Does that therefore prove electrons dont exist?

so the catholic faith is a political organisation...

Wrong again! The religion is. The belief isn't.


[quoe]
that's why i hate them so much... they prey on simple minded folk... the government should have been brave enough to charge the most senior members with crimes relating to facilitating child abuse, i.e the pope and cardinals etc etc...
[/quote]

Actually they did with senior political members of clergy in Ireland! But popes or Cardinals havent been involved in abuse themselves.

even if the possibility of serving summons and gaining justice was quite unlikely as they reside outside the state...

brendan smith didnt!

ISAW

JoeBallantine wrote:

Whatever the situation is regarding limbo the fact is that the catholic church allowed mothers to be devastated by telling them their still born children would never go to heaven and they wouldn't be re united when they died... also they wouldn't allow them to be buried in consecrated ground... this is an absolute disgrace and an abuse of power.

joe you started this thread. Please dont wander off topic and remember Limbo is in another thread!

The catholics abused their position and used it to instill fear in otherwise god fearing people,

joe are yo trolling? You realise this is the second time you have circular reasoning? You based a wrong on the idea that it is right?

I don't accept this, the catholics definitely said that unbaptised still born babies DID NOT go to heaven....

Limbo was never a cast iron doctrine. Accept that!

and what about PDN's point... is the pope free to make retrospective announcements...

Eh? no.

as a child i was told that to miss mass on easter sunday was a mortal sin which couldn't be attoned for... i have knowingly missed that mass and so i am doomed... why should i bother believing any more.

Circular reasoning again! You dont believe on the basis that yu do believe