Should Confirmation be made available to young children? I answer yes. Let’s take a stroll through a Thomistic presentation of the Sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation to find out why it may be appropriate to collapse the timespan between the sacraments of initiation; Baptism, Eucharist and Confirmation.
I was baptized as an infant and confirmed in eighth grade. During confirmation preparation, our teacher instructed that confirmation was a “coming of age” in the Church, “You’re adults now!” I understood confirmation as the sacrament of “CCD graduation.” My confirmation preparation was neither ideal nor uncommon. In his work Meeting Christ in the Sacraments, O’Neill examines the sacrament of Confirmation at length. He argues that when Confirmation is presented solely as the sacrament of “Christian maturity” (as I was taught) it is “telescoped theology” that misses the broader reality of what actually happens in the sacrament (112).
In conversation with O’Neill, I will offer a more fully explanation of what the sacrament of Confirmation is and does, paying careful attention to its “character” or effect, and how the mission of the confirmed Catholic is expanded from the baptized Catholic. To begin, I will review the sacrament of Baptism as a foundation from which to consider Confirmation. From this explanation, I hope that readers will understand that Confirmation is not about the recipient’s age or CCD graduation. Rather, Confirmation bestows the gifts of the Holy Spirit and fully incorporates the recipient into the active, apostolic mission of the Church to the world.
Finally, while O’Neill is clear that the action of the baptized is internal to the Church, I disagree (in part). Even the baptized, in their nascent vocation, bear witness Christ in the world. Because of this reality, I’ll consider whether it may be appropriate to confirm people at a younger age so that they have gifts of the Holy Spirit to fully bear witness to Christ, so long as Confirmation is never merely “CCD graduation,” but coincides with continued formation which should be life-long.
Baptism
Sacraments are “efficacious signs of grace, instituted by Christ and entrusted to the Church, by which divine life is dispensed to us” (CCC 1131). As an “efficacious sign of grace,” baptism was instituted by Christ in at least two ways. First, when John the Baptist plunged Jesus into the Jordan, the Spirit of God descended like a dove, and he heard, “You are my beloved son, in you I am well pleased,” (O’Neill 109; Mt 3:16-170). In this, Christ, the God Man, is revealed as the chosen instrument for the redemption of humankind. Secondly, through Christ’s passion, “When Christ rises out of this purifying bath of pain, the whole human race has been changed in his flesh” (110).
As instituted by Christ, through sprinkling or immersion in water, recalling the waters of the Jordan, the recipient becomes an “adopted child of God” participating in Christ’s divine sonship (109-110). In emerging from the water, she also has fellowship with Christ in the baptism of Calvary and may share in eternal life (110). The two events in the life of Christ reveal part of the baptismal character.
The baptismal character or “indelible mark” of baptism also incorporates the baptized into Christ’s priesthood which is oriented toward the capacity for worship (117).[1] In receiving baptism, “the recipient himself forges the final link in the sacramental chain which connects him with the action Christ in the visible Church” (133). The baptized has an “integral share in the life of the Church” in the “exterior actions of the virtue of religion (faith) and the virtue of worship” (134).
O’Neill’s Line Between the Character of Baptism and Confirmation
A sacrament, when received, “infallibly gives grace,” so the baptized have the capacity to participate in the life of the Church in worship (119). But those who are baptized (and who receive the Eucharist) are not fully initiated into the Church. O’Neill draws a firm distinction between the vocation of the baptized and the confirmed.
Concretely, O’Neill writes, “[T]he baptized person directly influences only himself” (97). For O’Neill, the baptized person participates in the life of the Church by growing in holiness and formation, but this is internal action and distinct from the confirmed Catholic’s official participation in the Church’s apostolic mission (156).
Unpacking Confirmation
O’Neill wrote that the “essential task of the Church is to preach, to proclaim the message of Christian redemption to every individual” and this demands renewal of the “whole human culture” (144). This echoes Jesus’s commissioning of the Apostles. In confirmation the baptized are more perfectly brought into the Church and enriched with “special strength of the Holy Spirit.” They are equipped to be true witnesses of Christ, and more strictly obliged to spread and defend the faith by word and deed.” (CCC 1285).
There is a temptation to consider Confirmation as “extra graces” heaped onto baptism. This kind of understanding makes it easy to talk about confirmation as just a “coming of age.” O’Neill points out that another misunderstanding is that some profess baptism as having only the negative effect of remission of sin without divine adoption, grace of the Holy Spirit, or incorporation into the Church. These are all misconceptions.
We Catholics must re-educate ourselves. Recall that a sacrament is an “efficacious sign of grace, instituted by Christ and entrusted to the Church, by which divine life is dispensed to us” (CCC 1131). Baptism and Confirmation are certainly related, but distinct sacraments. Baptism conforms the Christian to Christ at the Jordan (149). Subsequently, Confirmation is a “further assimilation to Christ as he was revealed at his baptism. This was a time of fullness of grace; so too is confirmation” (149).
Because Christ instituted confirmation at the start of his public ministry. “The person who is confirmed is confirmed to Christ as he was at the beginning of his public ministry” (150). Thus, confirmation is better understood not as the “coming of age” sacrament or “CCD graduation”, but as the beginning of a person’s official participation in the apostolic mission of the Church. The confirmed Catholic “cooperates in applying the fruits of Christ’s priesthood to others and not to himself alone” (156).
Through scripture, O’Neill draws a distinction between the action of the baptized and the confirmed. “Whereas before Pentecost the apostles (baptized men) were concerned only with their personal relation with Christ, after (reception of the gifts of the Holy Spirit/Confirmation) their attention was turned also to their fellow men” (152).
The external manifestation of confirmation may be different from person to person based on their circumstances, but importantly, part of the character of confirmation an “advancement in the official category to which the Christian belongs in the organization of the Church” which is distinct from the baptized (156).
Do the Baptized but Not Yet Confirmed Bear Apostolic Witness to Christ? I believe they do.
If you’re a parent, teacher or have ever interacted with a baptized child who is being formed in the life of the Church, you may marvel at the outward manifestations of the faith in their words and in their deeds. Even as a very young child, my now eleven year old would get very upset whenever he saw a homeless person asking for alms at a traffic intersection. George would ask to give the person food or money that we had in the car. This desire, I have no doubt, stems from his formation in the Church and grasp of the greatest commandment to love God and neighbor. This comes from his baptismal character, but it is focused not only to internally holiness but also externally to neighbor. As a child, my son was giving an apostolic witness in the world.
O’Neill acknowledges that the baptismal reality likely benefits others; however, he attributes it to the individual’s formation or holiness and not to formal participation in the function of the visible Church that comes through confirmation (97, 156).
I understand O’Neill’s argument. He believes that in Confirmation, in the anointing with the gifts of Holy Spirit, there is an “advancement” or “new official position in the society which forms the sacrament of Christ” (156). Further, this implies “adult participation in the visible Church’s mission.” “Adult” is understood not chronologically but as cooperating in “applying the fruits of Christ’s priesthood to others and not to himself alone” (156).
But de facto, whether confirmed or not, the baptized do bear apostolic witness in their discipleship. The baptized do give external witness to Christ, even if this witness is nascent.
I think we can appeal to scripture to support my position, too. Let’s consider, as O’Neill did, the life of the apostles. When these men were disciples (baptized men but before Pentecost/before the reception of the Holy Spirit), Jesus gave them power and authority to heal and cast out demons as a way to bear witness to Christ (see Lk 9). These baptized but not confirmed men bore apostolic witness.
Squaring Myself with O’Neill – Confirmation for Young Children
While the sacraments of baptism and confirmation are distinct in their signs, rites and character, both are essential for initiation into the Church. With “adulthood” in the Church understood as cooperating in applying the fruits of Christ’s priesthood other others, and an acknowledgment that even the baptized de facto do bear witness to Christ, it merits considering whether, with continued catechesis, the timespan between baptism and confirmation can be collapsed. If children are fully initiated into the Church through Confirmation and receive the gifts of the Holy Spirit earlier, they will be able to more fully participate in the function of the visible Church. This will enhance the witness that they naturally provide as baptized children. I think this might actually help the Church to fulfill her “essential task” of proclaiming the message of Christian redemption to every individual.
[1] The baptized participate in the life of Christ as priest, prophet, and king, but I’m limiting discussion here to priesthood because O’Neill’s treatment of the priesthood in liturgy because that is how he framed his argument.