Chapter — Slater, Cases II
Case 1. Necessity of Confirmation
Caius, a missionary in England, goes around the district to learn who ought to be confirmed by the Bishop who is soon to come. He finds Tullius, a Catholic head of a family, who denies that he has ever been confirmed. Asked how this happened, he says that out of shame he did not come to be confirmed as a boy at the appointed time, and that for the same reason he did not afterwards dare confess this to the priest. Caius persuades him at least now to receive a sacrament so necessary in our days, but doubts whether, because of his neglect, Tullius ought to make a general confession from boyhood. Hence it is asked:
- What are the matter and form of Confirmation?
- When and by whom is it to be conferred?
- Is it a necessary sacrament?
- What is to be said of the case?
The common opinion is that the anointing with chrism, together with the simultaneous imposition of the hand of the bishop on the forehead of the confirmed person while he makes on it the sign of the cross with the chrism, is the adequate and essential matter of the sacrament. The form is: “ I sign thee with the sign of the cross and I confirm thee with the chrism of salvation, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.”1
1 Manual of Moral Theology, vol. ii, p. 67 f.
- When and by whom is Confirmation to be administered?
According to modern discipline Confirmation is given to baptized persons who have attained the use of reason and have been well instructed in Christian doctrine. The bishop of the diocese is the ordinary minister of Confirmation; a priest may be delegated by the Pope to administer it.
- Is it a necessary sacrament?
It is not necessary necessitate medii; whether it is necessary necessitate praecepti is a disputed point among theologians. St. Thomas with many other approved authors deny that it is.2
2 Ibid., p. 74.
- The case. Tullius neglected to receive Confirmation not out of contempt but from shyness. As is clear from the dispute among theologians, it is not certain that in doing this he committed a mortal sin, and no one should be held guilty of mortal sin unless it is clear and certain that he has committed mortal sin. Tullius, therefore, should not be obliged to make a general confession, unless indeed he thought that he sinned mortally by acting as he did.