Case XLI: Necessity of Confirmation

Case.—Sabinus, a middle-aged man, has never been confirmed. He neglected this in his younger days, and now, although Augustus, his pastor, has several times invited him to receive the sacrament, he has always absented himself on the day when Confirmation was administered. He feels that to receive Confirmation at his age will be regarded as a sign of inferiority and will expose him to ridicule. Finally in confession he is told by Augustus that these dispositions amount to contempt of the sacrament, and he is dismissed without absolution.

Question.—1. Is there an obligation of receiving Confirmation?

2. Did Augustus act rightly?

Solution.—1. We must distinguish between an obligation per se and an obligation per accidens. The former exists when a certain thing is obligatory because it is an indispensable means of salvation (necessitas medii), e.g., Baptism; or because it has been commanded (necessitas praecepti), e.g., assistance at Mass on Sundays. An obligation exists per accidens when duty arises not from any such intrinsic reasons as the foregoing but from reasons that are extrinsic, e.g., when the neglect of some means, which in itself is conducive but not necessary to salvation, would cause spiritual injury to one’s self or others.

It is certain that per accidens a person may be held, and even gravely, to the reception of Confirmation. Thus one who felt an especial need of the graces of this sacrament on account of his own weakness or the perilous times in which he lived could not be excused from sin if he wilfully neglected the opportunity to receive it.

He would be wanting in the duty of charity to self which requires that we do not endanger our own salvation. Of course, if such a one had recourse to prayer or other means of guarding against his spiritual dangers, his presumption would be less and the neglect of Confirmation would probably not exceed a venial sin. Another instance in which Confirmation would be obligatory per accidens arises when the refusal to be confirmed causes great scandal or savors of contempt of sacred things.

All theologians agree that apart from these cases of accidental obligation there does exist some obligation per se to receive Confirmation. They are very much divided, however, as to the manner in which the obligation binds, whether gravely, or lightly. Certainly Christ did not make Confirmation an indispensable requisite for salvation (necessarium necessitate medii), but from the very fact that He instituted it as a sacrament, He also willed that it should be received.

The fact of its institution as a sacrament does not prove, however, that Christ commanded the reception of Confirmation as a grave obligation. For though all the sacraments are necessary, not all are necessary in the same degree. Some are so necessary that without them salvation is impossible (necessaria ad esse), others are so necessary that without them salvation is less easily attained (necessaria ad melius esse). Further it is not certain that the positive law makes the reception of Confirmation a grave duty. It is true that Pope Benedict XIV. says in the Bull Etsi Pastoralis: “Those who have not been confirmed are to be admonished by the Ordinaries of the places that they are held guilty of grave sin if, when they can approach Confirmation, they refuse and neglect it.” But this Bull dealt with the case of certain Greeks who would not receive Confirmation because they obstinately refused to acknowledge as invalid the Confirmation they had received from their priests. For them the reception of Confirmation was a grave duty per accidens, in order that they might retract their errors and repair the scandal they had given. It does not follow, then, from the above words that the faithful are obliged per se and sub gravi to receive Confirmation.

2. Augustus acted rightly when he earnestly endeavored to persuade Sabinus to approach Confirmation, for it is the desire of the Church that all her children be brought to the spiritual maturity this sacrament confers. But his later action in refusing absolution was imprudent, if not unjust. For although the reasons that Sabinus gave for his neglect of the sacrament were foolish, they did not show that he was acting from contempt. Augustus should have considered that the view that Confirmation is virtually contemned when a favorable occasion to receive it is neglected, is far less probable than the opposite opinion, which holds that neglect of Confirmation is to be considered as contempt only when it is intended as a mark of disregard and disrespect. In any case it would have been the part of prudence to leave Sabinus in bona fide so long a no good result could have been foreseen from admonishing him about his duty.