115. On the Minister and Subject of Confirmation

1. Andrew, a Greek, confirmed by a Greek presbyter in Greece, since he is now staying in Italy, is uncertain about the validity of his confirmation, and asks whether he can be confirmed again by a Latin bishop.

Quaer. What is to be said of the Case?

R. Andrew cannot be confirmed again by a Latin bishop. For he was validly confirmed by a Greek presbyter. The ordinary minister of confirmation is indeed the bishop alone; and, from legitimate delegation, any presbyter. Trid. c. 7. c. 3., Benedict XIV, C. Eo quamvis § 8. This delegation is reserved to the Holy See. But whether it is reserved to the Holy See by ecclesiastical law only or by divine law is not equally certain. As may be seen in the Collectanea S. C. de P. F. n. 669. seqq., the faculty is granted to Vicars Apostolic of delegating simple presbyters to administer the sacrament of confirmation. But from the most remote antiquity Greek or Eastern presbyters confirm, in baptism itself, those whom they baptize. It is indubitable that confirmations of this kind are licit and valid where the Holy See has not later disapproved them, as among the Bulgarians, Italo-Greeks, etc. Benedict XIV, C. Anno vertente, 18 June 1759. They are ratified, moreover, even though they have been performed by schismatics. For, since they were as it were tolerated, after the Photian schism jurisdiction in this matter was not taken away. Cf. Collectan. S. C. de P. F. n. 674. seqq. It is likewise indubitable that Greeks validly confirm even outside baptism. Wherefore Andrew's confirmation is to be held as altogether valid. - D'Annib. 282., Theol. Virceburg. 195. seqq., Benedict XIV, de Syn. l. 7. c. 7.

2. John, a missionary, while giving spiritual exercises in one of his Christian communities, with a great crowd of Christians running together from every side, is called to confirm a little girl near death in a place rather distant, so that he would have to interrupt the mission to its great detriment.

Quaer. Whether John is bound to confirm the dying person, as in the Case?

R. Negatively. For the missionary, an extraordinary minister of confirmation by pontifical delegation, cannot be bound more than the bishop, the ordinary minister. Moreover, bishops are excused from confirming the dying where there is inconvenience. Cf. St. Alph. l. 6. n. 175., La-Croix. l. 6. p. 1. n. 388. 390.

3. Ernest, a missionary, administering the sacrament of confirmation by delegation of the Holy See, is accustomed to use a rochet, miter, pastoral staff, ring, and pectoral cross. Does he act rightly?

R. Ernest does not act rightly. If he is not marked with the episcopal character, or if at least the use of pontificals does not belong to him from a true and legitimate privilege, he ought to administer confirmation in church clothed in sacerdotal vestments, or at least clothed with alb and stole. But if he administers confirmation outside a church or oratory in private houses less solemnly, he should not omit using at least the stole, if he cannot have a surplice. S. C. de P. F. 23. Apr. 1774., 4 May 1774. Collectan. S. C. de P. F. n. 665.666.

4. "The triple sign of the cross which is made by the confirming bishop over the one confirmed, while he pronounces the words, in the name of the Father: ought it to be made with the thumb upon the forehead of the one confirmed, or simply with the hand, without contact with the forehead, over the person confirmed?

R. According to the Pontifical, while he anoints the forehead with chrism he ought to say: I sign you with the sign of the cross, making the sign upon the forehead itself with the thumb; and when this has been done, with the hand extended toward the one confirmed, he begins: In the name of the Father, etc., forming the sign of the cross three times in the customary manner." S. R. C. 7 May 1853. n. 3012.

5. "In the administration of the sacrament of confirmation nothing stands in the way of your committing the wiping away of the sacred chrism to acolytes, in the absence of a priest or of another constituted in sacred orders, since no general decree prohibits this, especially when necessity is urgent." From the Letters of S. C. de P. F. 20 May 1786 to the Vicar Apostolic of Eastern Tonkin.

6. Peter, a missionary, called to confirm a certain adolescent in some Christian community, seeing that there is no man there who may fulfill the office of sponsor, commands a virgin catechist to fulfill the office of sponsor-woman. - Does he act rightly?

R. In the administration of confirmation a sponsor is required, who ought to be one, confirmed, and of the same sex. But confirmation can licitly be conferred without a sponsor, if one is not available. Wherefore Peter would have done better if he had administered confirmation with no sponsor employed. Cf. St. Alph. l. 6. n. 185. 187., Enchir. Moral. 494., I. M. 494. But could Peter himself not have performed the office of sponsor? To S. C. de P. F., 21 Sept. 1843, the doubt was proposed: "Whether it is lawful for priests who administer the sacrament of confirmation to act at the same time as sponsors"; and it answered: "It is not to be tolerated."

7. Anastasius, a missionary enjoying the faculty of administering confirmation, administers it to all infants in the place of the mission where he himself is staying, immediately after baptism. - Does he act rightly?

R. Anastasius, speaking per se, does not act rightly. This is clearly proved from the Constitution of Benedict XIV, Eo quamvis, 4 May 1745: "Although among the western Churches the simultaneous conferral of baptism and confirmation was sometimes established in custom, and this custom in former time had grown up in some dioceses... nevertheless, this custom having been entirely abrogated by the Roman Church, mother and teacher of the others, by the most prudent decrees of the Supreme Pontiffs it has been providently provided that the sacrament of confirmation be conferred on those reborn from the font of baptism only at that age in which the faithful, having put away the things that belonged to a child, would understand that baptism and confirmation differ from each other as much as, in natural life, generation differs from growth; and that they themselves had indeed been received into the militia through baptism, but through confirmation had been strengthened for battle and instructed by grace to bear contests." But a far lesser age is required for admitting persons to the sacrament of confirmation than for admitting them to first communion, as the Roman Catechism 18 hands down, and Benedict XIV, de Syn. l. 7. c. 10. n. 2. 3, teaches. S. C. C. 19 Nov. 1854., I. M. 489.

Nevertheless, sometimes confirmation can be conferred, for a just cause, even on those younger than seven years, as St. Charles hands down in Conc. Mediol. 5. tit. Quae ad Confirm. Sacr. pertinet: "If the bishop, because of some just and indeed necessary cause, should sometimes judge that it is to be ministered to a little child and infant who not only does not complete the age of years, but does not even reach it, let it not be forbidden." Cf. Cas. Bon. Dioec. year 1786. Month of Oct. Cas. 3.

8. Elodia, a matron rather careless about Christian duties, reached an advanced age without having received the sacrament of confirmation, although she had rather often had the opportunity of receiving it. Her confessor indeed several times induced her, when a new opportunity was given, to arm herself with so great a sacrament; nevertheless, he feared to urge her under grave obligation, lest, with the law neglected, she would thereby sin more gravely. And so it happened that the woman a little afterward died without the help of confirmation, though fortified with the other sacraments.

Quaer. What is to be said of the Case?

R. According to all, the sacrament of confirmation is not necessary by necessity of means. But whether it is necessary by necessity of precept is disputed. "It is a question," says D'Annib. 283., "whether this sacrament is necessary by necessity of precept; some deny it, others affirm it and think it is grave: therefore the law is doubtful." Cf. I. M. 490. "But while the controversy of theologians stands, Elodia was not to be urged under grave obligation to receive the sacrament of confirmation, but only to be exhorted to this. Therefore the confessor acted rightly by abstaining from declaring a grave obligation. Indeed, even if the divine obligation were established, the confessor would still have acted prudently, since there was room for fear that the woman would not satisfy the declared obligation and would incur greater detriment of soul. For not all obligations by which the faithful are bound are always to be opened at once; rather, several are sometimes prudently to be passed over by the confessor, when it is foreseen that the penitent will not satisfy his duty." G. 246.