Catholic confirmation: Were you required to "prove" mass attendance?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is this a joke? Seriously? I’m not religious so it’s a serious question. I thought churches were supposed to be full of the honest people and it was the rest of us heathens who were apparently dishonest and dishonorable. I can’t even imagine being called a liar by a priest.

It's not that the priest calls people liars, just that they want proof that you're being truthful.

Missing mass is a mortal sin for Catholics, yet many do it and apparently some will even lie about it -- yet another sin.

It is a mortal sin if the person in question chooses not to go and replaces God with other activities. A kid without someone to take them or guide them is not acting with intent by missing mass. I’m always amazed at how many ‘Christians’ seem to forget the many biblical exhortations to not judge others. Frankly your making assumptions about other people, their motivations and worthiness is a grave sin in and of itself. You know what they say about people in glass houses and such!

Doubt very much that pp is Christian. It’s probably the Jew who comes on here constantly to bash Catholics.

This is not "bashing" - this is simply explaining how the church works

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is this a joke? Seriously? I’m not religious so it’s a serious question. I thought churches were supposed to be full of the honest people and it was the rest of us heathens who were apparently dishonest and dishonorable. I can’t even imagine being called a liar by a priest.

It's not that the priest calls people liars, just that they want proof that you're being truthful.

Missing mass is a mortal sin for Catholics, yet many do it and apparently some will even lie about it -- yet another sin.

It is a mortal sin if the person in question chooses not to go and replaces God with other activities. A kid without someone to take them or guide them is not acting with intent by missing mass. I’m always amazed at how many ‘Christians’ seem to forget the many biblical exhortations to not judge others. Frankly your making assumptions about other people, their motivations and worthiness is a grave sin in and of itself. You know what they say about people in glass houses and such!

Doubt very much that pp is Christian. It’s probably the Jew who comes on here constantly to bash Catholics.

This is not "bashing" - this is simply explaining how the church works

I was referring to the pp who claimed the Catholic Church will send the kid to hell because he can’t get to church, or priests are calling people liars, and the other nasty and untrue accusations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is this a joke? Seriously? I’m not religious so it’s a serious question. I thought churches were supposed to be full of the honest people and it was the rest of us heathens who were apparently dishonest and dishonorable. I can’t even imagine being called a liar by a priest.

It's not that the priest calls people liars, just that they want proof that you're being truthful.

Missing mass is a mortal sin for Catholics, yet many do it and apparently some will even lie about it -- yet another sin.

It is a mortal sin if the person in question chooses not to go and replaces God with other activities. A kid without someone to take them or guide them is not acting with intent by missing mass. I’m always amazed at how many ‘Christians’ seem to forget the many biblical exhortations to not judge others. Frankly your making assumptions about other people, their motivations and worthiness is a grave sin in and of itself. You know what they say about people in glass houses and such!

It may not be the kid's fault, but they are still not in church and still can't get credit (for confirmation class) for being there.

You’re trying to hard to find fault. But there are plenty of people in every church who would drive a kid who really wants to come.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is this a joke? Seriously? I’m not religious so it’s a serious question. I thought churches were supposed to be full of the honest people and it was the rest of us heathens who were apparently dishonest and dishonorable. I can’t even imagine being called a liar by a priest.

It's not that the priest calls people liars, just that they want proof that you're being truthful.

Missing mass is a mortal sin for Catholics, yet many do it and apparently some will even lie about it -- yet another sin.

It is a mortal sin if the person in question chooses not to go and replaces God with other activities. A kid without someone to take them or guide them is not acting with intent by missing mass. I’m always amazed at how many ‘Christians’ seem to forget the many biblical exhortations to not judge others. Frankly your making assumptions about other people, their motivations and worthiness is a grave sin in and of itself. You know what they say about people in glass houses and such!

Doubt very much that pp is Christian. It’s probably the Jew who comes on here constantly to bash Catholics.

This is not "bashing" - this is simply explaining how the church works

No, the pp who shrilly says the Church will condemn a kid who can’t attend services actually has no idea how the Catholic Church works. It’s not explaining, it’s called making up false accusations and judging others based on faulty presumptions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Two thoughts: The church shouldn't deny communion to a child because their parent isn't as "good" as they would like. We don't deny children food and care because their parents aren't great. The parents are the stewards but you shouldn't punish a child for having a lousy steward.

Second: You shouldn't have to 'prove' mass attendance. It is working on the assumption that the child is a liar. Not the best set up for that kind of a scenario. I'd favor a situation where you reminded the child of their obligations, remind them that lying is wrong and expect the best. I don't think Jesus would be checking church attendance.

It's the parents' responsibility to take the child to church and the parents who would take the children (or not) to an out-of-town church when away from home, and the parents who are expected to get the signature of the priest in the other town. Thus it is the parents who are lying and driving the child to sin -- missing mass and lying.

The priest can only be in contact with any child through the child's parents and it is the parents who are trying to cheat their way to the child's communion. Do you expect the priest to ask the child if they lied for their parents?

Not a good example to the child.

So you are ok denying the sacraments to a child even when it isn't their fault? How very Christian of you.

In the situation we're discussing, the child is old enough to know that missing mass is a mortal sin. It doesn't matter whose "fault" it is - if you miss mass, you miss mass. Like if you fell down vs your parents pushed you down -- you'd still have bruises that need treatment.

Of course, even a confirmation-age child would not go to hell for parental sins that the child couldn't control, but to be a Catholic in good standing, the child would have to go to confession, go to communion and attend mass regularly.

So a 10 year old cannot partake of the sacraments unless their parents are good Catholics. I see. I guess it is important to have rules. Wouldn't want just anyone having access to this stuff would we.

Some people keep talking about Communion. But this thread is about CONFIRMATION.
First of all, generally 10 year olds aren't getting confirmed. (Unless it's part of RCIC, but that's a different situation anyway.)

Secondly, while I think this whole signature thing is hog-wash, one of the major points of confirmation is that the child is accepting responsibility as a full member of the Catholic community - no longer a child dependent on others, but someone responsible for their own actions and attending based on their own faith. Absolutely some parents force their teens to get confirmed, and I think that's totally inappropriate. But suggesting that someone should automatically have access to confirmation is just whacky. If you are so young and dependent that you are reliant on your parents to take you to church, then it's totally OK to wait to be confirmed until you are older and can do it independently.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is this a joke? Seriously? I’m not religious so it’s a serious question. I thought churches were supposed to be full of the honest people and it was the rest of us heathens who were apparently dishonest and dishonorable. I can’t even imagine being called a liar by a priest.

It's not that the priest calls people liars, just that they want proof that you're being truthful.

Missing mass is a mortal sin for Catholics, yet many do it and apparently some will even lie about it -- yet another sin.

It is a mortal sin if the person in question chooses not to go and replaces God with other activities. A kid without someone to take them or guide them is not acting with intent by missing mass. I’m always amazed at how many ‘Christians’ seem to forget the many biblical exhortations to not judge others. Frankly your making assumptions about other people, their motivations and worthiness is a grave sin in and of itself. You know what they say about people in glass houses and such!

Doubt very much that pp is Christian. It’s probably the Jew who comes on here constantly to bash Catholics.

This is not "bashing" - this is simply explaining how the church works

No, the pp who shrilly says the Church will condemn a kid who can’t attend services actually has no idea how the Catholic Church works. It’s not explaining, it’s called making up false accusations and judging others based on faulty presumptions.

But the church will deny them access to the sacraments which is pretty uncool. Practicing Christian, went to a Catholic college.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Two thoughts: The church shouldn't deny communion to a child because their parent isn't as "good" as they would like. We don't deny children food and care because their parents aren't great. The parents are the stewards but you shouldn't punish a child for having a lousy steward.

Second: You shouldn't have to 'prove' mass attendance. It is working on the assumption that the child is a liar. Not the best set up for that kind of a scenario. I'd favor a situation where you reminded the child of their obligations, remind them that lying is wrong and expect the best. I don't think Jesus would be checking church attendance.

It's the parents' responsibility to take the child to church and the parents who would take the children (or not) to an out-of-town church when away from home, and the parents who are expected to get the signature of the priest in the other town. Thus it is the parents who are lying and driving the child to sin -- missing mass and lying.

The priest can only be in contact with any child through the child's parents and it is the parents who are trying to cheat their way to the child's communion. Do you expect the priest to ask the child if they lied for their parents?

Not a good example to the child.

So you are ok denying the sacraments to a child even when it isn't their fault? How very Christian of you.

In the situation we're discussing, the child is old enough to know that missing mass is a mortal sin. It doesn't matter whose "fault" it is - if you miss mass, you miss mass. Like if you fell down vs your parents pushed you down -- you'd still have bruises that need treatment.

Of course, even a confirmation-age child would not go to hell for parental sins that the child couldn't control, but to be a Catholic in good standing, the child would have to go to confession, go to communion and attend mass regularly.

So a 10 year old cannot partake of the sacraments unless their parents are good Catholics. I see. I guess it is important to have rules. Wouldn't want just anyone having access to this stuff would we.

Some people keep talking about Communion. But this thread is about CONFIRMATION.
First of all, generally 10 year olds aren't getting confirmed. (Unless it's part of RCIC, but that's a different situation anyway.)

Secondly, while I think this whole signature thing is hog-wash, one of the major points of confirmation is that the child is accepting responsibility as a full member of the Catholic community - no longer a child dependent on others, but someone responsible for their own actions and attending based on their own faith. Absolutely some parents force their teens to get confirmed, and I think that's totally inappropriate. But suggesting that someone should automatically have access to confirmation is just whacky. If you are so young and dependent that you are reliant on your parents to take you to church, then it's totally OK to wait to be confirmed until you are older and can do it independently.

How many 14 year olds do you know that drive? Also how many 14 year olds that want to go to church and/or get confirmed? But that is a separate discussion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is this a joke? Seriously? I’m not religious so it’s a serious question. I thought churches were supposed to be full of the honest people and it was the rest of us heathens who were apparently dishonest and dishonorable. I can’t even imagine being called a liar by a priest.

It's not that the priest calls people liars, just that they want proof that you're being truthful.

Missing mass is a mortal sin for Catholics, yet many do it and apparently some will even lie about it -- yet another sin.

It is a mortal sin if the person in question chooses not to go and replaces God with other activities. A kid without someone to take them or guide them is not acting with intent by missing mass. I’m always amazed at how many ‘Christians’ seem to forget the many biblical exhortations to not judge others. Frankly your making assumptions about other people, their motivations and worthiness is a grave sin in and of itself. You know what they say about people in glass houses and such!

Doubt very much that pp is Christian. It’s probably the Jew who comes on here constantly to bash Catholics.

This is not "bashing" - this is simply explaining how the church works

No, the pp who shrilly says the Church will condemn a kid who can’t attend services actually has no idea how the Catholic Church works. It’s not explaining, it’s called making up false accusations and judging others based on faulty presumptions.

But the church will deny them access to the sacraments which is pretty uncool. Practicing Christian, went to a Catholic college.

But if they can’t get to church anyway, then they aren’t doing sacraments either, duh. As pp’s have said, they can wait until they get their license at 16, or ask a church member to drive them, and it’s fine. This would be obvious to someone without bias.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Two thoughts: The church shouldn't deny communion to a child because their parent isn't as "good" as they would like. We don't deny children food and care because their parents aren't great. The parents are the stewards but you shouldn't punish a child for having a lousy steward.

Second: You shouldn't have to 'prove' mass attendance. It is working on the assumption that the child is a liar. Not the best set up for that kind of a scenario. I'd favor a situation where you reminded the child of their obligations, remind them that lying is wrong and expect the best. I don't think Jesus would be checking church attendance.

It's the parents' responsibility to take the child to church and the parents who would take the children (or not) to an out-of-town church when away from home, and the parents who are expected to get the signature of the priest in the other town. Thus it is the parents who are lying and driving the child to sin -- missing mass and lying.

The priest can only be in contact with any child through the child's parents and it is the parents who are trying to cheat their way to the child's communion. Do you expect the priest to ask the child if they lied for their parents?

Not a good example to the child.

So you are ok denying the sacraments to a child even when it isn't their fault? How very Christian of you.

In the situation we're discussing, the child is old enough to know that missing mass is a mortal sin. It doesn't matter whose "fault" it is - if you miss mass, you miss mass. Like if you fell down vs your parents pushed you down -- you'd still have bruises that need treatment.

Of course, even a confirmation-age child would not go to hell for parental sins that the child couldn't control, but to be a Catholic in good standing, the child would have to go to confession, go to communion and attend mass regularly.

So a 10 year old cannot partake of the sacraments unless their parents are good Catholics. I see. I guess it is important to have rules. Wouldn't want just anyone having access to this stuff would we.

Some people keep talking about Communion. But this thread is about CONFIRMATION.
First of all, generally 10 year olds aren't getting confirmed. (Unless it's part of RCIC, but that's a different situation anyway.)

Secondly, while I think this whole signature thing is hog-wash, one of the major points of confirmation is that the child is accepting responsibility as a full member of the Catholic community - no longer a child dependent on others, but someone responsible for their own actions and attending based on their own faith. Absolutely some parents force their teens to get confirmed, and I think that's totally inappropriate. But suggesting that someone should automatically have access to confirmation is just whacky. If you are so young and dependent that you are reliant on your parents to take you to church, then it's totally OK to wait to be confirmed until you are older and can do it independently.

How many 14 year olds do you know that drive? Also how many 14 year olds that want to go to church and/or get confirmed? But that is a separate discussion.

Now you’re just attacking without even reading. As PP said quite clearly, a kid can wait until they are old enough to drive or otherwise do it independently. I bolded it for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Two thoughts: The church shouldn't deny communion to a child because their parent isn't as "good" as they would like. We don't deny children food and care because their parents aren't great. The parents are the stewards but you shouldn't punish a child for having a lousy steward.

Second: You shouldn't have to 'prove' mass attendance. It is working on the assumption that the child is a liar. Not the best set up for that kind of a scenario. I'd favor a situation where you reminded the child of their obligations, remind them that lying is wrong and expect the best. I don't think Jesus would be checking church attendance.

It's the parents' responsibility to take the child to church and the parents who would take the children (or not) to an out-of-town church when away from home, and the parents who are expected to get the signature of the priest in the other town. Thus it is the parents who are lying and driving the child to sin -- missing mass and lying.

The priest can only be in contact with any child through the child's parents and it is the parents who are trying to cheat their way to the child's communion. Do you expect the priest to ask the child if they lied for their parents?

Not a good example to the child.

So you have a kid whose family comes sporadically. He or she would like to be a part of the community but cannot count on their parents to ensure that. You want . 14 year old to ask an adult parishoner for a ride. Maybe their parents aren't cool with a stranger taking their kid somewhere? Maybe the family wants to do other things on Sundays? The kid can't choose and yet wants to be a part of things but yu are pretty cavalier about them just doing it later. Would you be pleased if people told you that you could just be a proper part of a community later? The hyper focus on rules over kindness is truly stunning. What parish do you belong to?
So you are ok denying the sacraments to a child even when it isn't their fault? How very Christian of you.

In the situation we're discussing, the child is old enough to know that missing mass is a mortal sin. It doesn't matter whose "fault" it is - if you miss mass, you miss mass. Like if you fell down vs your parents pushed you down -- you'd still have bruises that need treatment.

Of course, even a confirmation-age child would not go to hell for parental sins that the child couldn't control, but to be a Catholic in good standing, the child would have to go to confession, go to communion and attend mass regularly.

So a 10 year old cannot partake of the sacraments unless their parents are good Catholics. I see. I guess it is important to have rules. Wouldn't want just anyone having access to this stuff would we.

Some people keep talking about Communion. But this thread is about CONFIRMATION.
First of all, generally 10 year olds aren't getting confirmed. (Unless it's part of RCIC, but that's a different situation anyway.)

Secondly, while I think this whole signature thing is hog-wash, one of the major points of confirmation is that the child is accepting responsibility as a full member of the Catholic community - no longer a child dependent on others, but someone responsible for their own actions and attending based on their own faith. Absolutely some parents force their teens to get confirmed, and I think that's totally inappropriate. But suggesting that someone should automatically have access to confirmation is just whacky. If you are so young and dependent that you are reliant on your parents to take you to church, then it's totally OK to wait to be confirmed until you are older and can do it independently.

How many 14 year olds do you know that drive? Also how many 14 year olds that want to go to church and/or get confirmed? But that is a separate discussion.

Now you’re just attacking without even reading. As PP said quite clearly, a kid can wait until they are old enough to drive or otherwise do it independently. I bolded it for you.

[Anonymous]

Confirmation is a sacrament of initiation. It is not "Catholic Bar/Bat Mitzvah." Ideally, it is performed when the child is baptized, even in infancy, as is the practice in the Orthodox/Eastern Rites. A recipient of Confirmation who is above the age of reason is required to be "suitably prepared." This is a low standard and essentially means that the individual must understand enough about what is going on to form the requisite intention. Parishes with elaborate, time consuming, draconian "preparation" programs may mean well, but the effects frequently are negative as many PP's have observed. At the same time, it is critical that both the candidates and the adults responsible for them both understand that this is a real, powerful, spiritual event, and not just an empty ritual. Encouraging Mass attendance (which is an obligation) is reasonable. Demanding heavily documented proofs is insulting and degrading. Much of this is a function of the excessive delegation to lay persons by parish priests of tasks the priest should be doing. The priest has a job. The director of religious education may feel the need to justify a paycheck.

[Anonymous]

My mother was confirmed in 6th grade and couldn't believe my kids have to go through the end of 8th grade to get theirs...especially when you can do the "make up" session and get it all in one year. Why make it crazy difficult when people are feeling the catholic church.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Demanding heavily documented proofs is insulting and degrading.

LOL. We have very different impressions of what it means to grab a bulletin on your way out of church.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is this a joke? Seriously? I’m not religious so it’s a serious question. I thought churches were supposed to be full of the honest people and it was the rest of us heathens who were apparently dishonest and dishonorable. I can’t even imagine being called a liar by a priest.

It's not that the priest calls people liars, just that they want proof that you're being truthful.

Missing mass is a mortal sin for Catholics, yet many do it and apparently some will even lie about it -- yet another sin.

It is a mortal sin if the person in question chooses not to go and replaces God with other activities. A kid without someone to take them or guide them is not acting with intent by missing mass. I’m always amazed at how many ‘Christians’ seem to forget the many biblical exhortations to not judge others. Frankly your making assumptions about other people, their motivations and worthiness is a grave sin in and of itself. You know what they say about people in glass houses and such!

Doubt very much that pp is Christian. It’s probably the Jew who comes on here constantly to bash Catholics.

This is not "bashing" - this is simply explaining how the church works

I was referring to the pp who claimed the Catholic Church will send the kid to hell because he can’t get to church, or priests are calling people liars, and the other nasty and untrue accusations.

Wait, what? I'm the PP who asked the question about whether this is some sort of joke. And now you're saying that not only is it apparently NOT a joke, but that the priests are apparently not calling people liars AND that I'm making "nasty and untrue accusations"? So now I'm wondering whether THIS is a joke.

If I go to work and say on my timesheet that I arrived at 9am, and my boss says "I don't believe you. Prove it. Show me your punch card." then I see that as the literal definition of someone calling me a liar. What do YOU call it?

And then if I tell someone that I'm upset my boss doesn't believe me and claims that I'm lying on my timesheet, and that I'm looking for a new job because I don't enjoy being called a liar, then you would say that I'm "making nasty and untrue accusations"?

Do you actually know what an untrue accusation is? Or what it means to be nasty? Because if someone is throwing around nasty and untrue accusations here then it seems to be you.

I can't speak for the other people on this thread but I find this behavior (and indeed the thread) to be totally bizarre. And totally not in keeping with what I'd assume about how a church runs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is this a joke? Seriously? I’m not religious so it’s a serious question. I thought churches were supposed to be full of the honest people and it was the rest of us heathens who were apparently dishonest and dishonorable. I can’t even imagine being called a liar by a priest.

It's not that the priest calls people liars, just that they want proof that you're being truthful.

Missing mass is a mortal sin for Catholics, yet many do it and apparently some will even lie about it -- yet another sin.

It is a mortal sin if the person in question chooses not to go and replaces God with other activities. A kid without someone to take them or guide them is not acting with intent by missing mass. I’m always amazed at how many ‘Christians’ seem to forget the many biblical exhortations to not judge others. Frankly your making assumptions about other people, their motivations and worthiness is a grave sin in and of itself. You know what they say about people in glass houses and such!

Doubt very much that pp is Christian. It’s probably the Jew who comes on here constantly to bash Catholics.

This is not "bashing" - this is simply explaining how the church works

I was referring to the pp who claimed the Catholic Church will send the kid to hell because he can’t get to church, or priests are calling people liars, and the other nasty and untrue accusations.

Wait, what? I'm the PP who asked the question about whether this is some sort of joke. And now you're saying that not only is it apparently NOT a joke, but that the priests are apparently not calling people liars AND that I'm making "nasty and untrue accusations"? So now I'm wondering whether THIS is a joke.

If I go to work and say on my timesheet that I arrived at 9am, and my boss says "I don't believe you. Prove it. Show me your punch card." then I see that as the literal definition of someone calling me a liar. What do YOU call it?

And then if I tell someone that I'm upset my boss doesn't believe me and claims that I'm lying on my timesheet, and that I'm looking for a new job because I don't enjoy being called a liar, then you would say that I'm "making nasty and untrue accusations"?

Do you actually know what an untrue accusation is? Or what it means to be nasty? Because if someone is throwing around nasty and untrue accusations here then it seems to be you.

I can't speak for the other people on this thread but I find this behavior (and indeed the thread) to be totally bizarre. And totally not in keeping with what I'd assume about how a church runs.

It’s how you phrase it all that’s nasty, duh. You yourself said you asked if it’s a “joke.” How would you feel if somebody claimed the requirement that a kid attend Hebrew school is a joke? And then you come out with some assertion that priests are flat-out calling people liars. They aren’t, just like a rabbi may be unhappy that your kid isn’t attending Hebrew school regularly, but he isn’t going to come right out and call the kid a “liar.”

Watch your histrionic and abusive language and you won’t get accused of being nasty. This is really a very basic issue of respect.