Part — Wouters, Manual of Moral Theology
Part IV. On the Necessity of Confirmation
I. Necessity of means is rightly denied (canon 787); for Confirmation is necessary neither for acquiring sanctifying grace, because it is ordered to increasing it, nor for obtaining actual graces by which the spiritual life can be preserved, since a right to graces simply necessary is already given through Baptism.
II. Necessity of precept. There is an obligation of receiving Confirmation; and that obligation seems to be grave. It is said:
There is an obligation. This is clear: 1. From canon 787: "It is permitted to no one, when the occasion is offered, to neglect it"; add canon 1021, § 2: "Catholics who have not yet received the sacrament of Confirmation are to receive it before they are admitted to marriage, if they can do so without grave inconvenience." 2. From these words by which Pope Urban draws out the obligation from the end and character of Confirmation: "All the faithful, through the imposition of the hands of bishops, ought to receive the Holy Spirit after Baptism, so that they may be found fully Christians."1 3. From those things by which we shall prove the grave obligation.
The obligation seems to be grave. I understand a grave obligation per se, not only sometimes per accidens. Namely, all concede that one who neglects to receive Confirmation can per accidens sin gravely: 1. by reason of scandal; 2. by reason of contempt; 3. by reason of a particular danger and spiritual weakness (St. Alphonsus, VI, 182). But it is disputed whether a grave obligation per se must be asserted. With St. Alphonsus (loc. cit.), against several more recent authors, it seems that it must be affirmed. For first, St. Paul2 reckons Confirmation among the fundamental institutions of Christianity; this hints that it obliges under grave obligation, all the more because all the other things enumerated there3 oblige under grave obligation.4 Then Benedict XIV, in the bull Etsi pastoralis,5 declares with respect to the Italo-Greeks who had been confirmed by a non-competent priest and therefore invalidly: "that they are held guilty of grave sin if, when they can approach Confirmation, they refuse and neglect it."6
Now Benedict XIV by these words intends and signifies a grave obligation existing per se, not only that which held the Italo-Greeks per accidens by reason of special circumstances. For: a) This is the more obvious sense, since the preceding words regard all, so that even the words cited seem to regard all and not only the Italo-Greeks; for the rest, for a whole century all theologians understood the words of the Supreme Pontiff in the aforesaid sense. b) The Instruction of the Sacred Congregation de Propaganda Fide,7 approved by Clement XIV, which teaches that the obligation is present per se, refers to the bull of Benedict XIV. c) Benedict XIV himself sufficiently signifies that this is the meaning of his bull, as can be seen in the unpublished works of Pope Benedict XIV.8 Observe also that Benedict XIV, as a private doctor, held as certain and almost common the opinion which teaches that there is per se a grave obligation of receiving Confirmation.9 Besides, the Instruction of the Sacred Congregation de Propaganda Fide,10 which Clement XIV "approved and commanded to be inviolably observed by all whom it concerns," declares: This sacrament "cannot be rejected and neglected without guilt of grave sin when a suitable occasion of receiving it is present."11 Moreover a sacrament which is held as the complement of Baptism, or which pertains to the integrity of Christian being, seems to be imposed under grave obligation. But Confirmation is of this kind; hence Pope Urban, to use his words again: "All the faithful, through the imposition of the hands of bishops, ought to receive the Holy Spirit after Baptism, so that they may be found fully Christians." Then Confirmation confers the Holy Spirit, who is called "the Promise of the Father"; it confers grace which both in the Old and in the New Testament is assigned as the proper gift of the Messianic kingdom. Now it is difficult to admit that these things are not to be pursued under a precept, and that a grave one.12
Corollary I. It seems it must be said that the obligation of Confirmation is not only of ecclesiastical law, but also of divine law, since several of the arguments brought forward indicate divine law.
Corollary II. Per se the sacrament must be repeated under condition if a prudent doubt exists whether it was truly or validly conferred (canon 732, § 2).
Corollary III. Those more advanced in age who are very ashamed to receive the sacrament with children can, if they cannot be confirmed privately, scandal being excluded, be left in good faith.
1 In canon Omnes, 1, distinction 5, De consecratione.
2 Hebrews 6:2.
4 Cf. Umberg, op. cit., p. 200.
5 26 May 1742.
6 The complete text here is: "Although those confirmed by a simple priest are not to be compelled to receive this kind of sacrament of Confirmation from a bishop if scandals could arise from such compulsion, since the sacrament of Confirmation does not have such necessity that without it someone cannot be saved, nevertheless they are to be admonished by the Ordinaries of places that they are held guilty of grave sin if, when they can approach Confirmation, they refuse and neglect it."
7 4 May 1774 (Collectanea, n. 503).
8 These were edited by Dr. F. Heiner; there, on p. 215, Benedict XIV declares that in his Constitution Etsi pastoralis he established several things, among them: "That, although one of the Italo-Greeks has received Chrismation from some simple priest, he must not be forced to receive Chrismation from the bishop when some grave scandal could perhaps be feared from this step; nevertheless, since this sacrament is not absolutely indispensable for eternal salvation, the Ordinary of the place to whom the Italo-Greek is subject ought wisely to admonish him that, in order not to be guilty of grave sin, when the occasion of being confirmed comes, he should not neglect it, since in this case contempt of the sacrament would have place, as we also demonstrated in our sixth Instruction."
9 "It is certain," he writes, "that men already in adult age must, either in fact or at least in desire, be confirmed by necessity of precept, which is also numbered among the precepts of God. It is called a precept of the Church when one endowed with the use of reason, if a bishop, the minister of this sacrament, is present, is impeded by no legitimate cause from receiving it. Thus almost all theologians teach, and those who are especially commended by praise of wisdom; they testify that those are stained with grave fault who, because of contempt or yawning sluggishness, omit to have the soul fortified with the grace of this sacrament" (Institutiones Ecclesiasticae, VI, n. 10).
10 4 May 1774 (Collectanea, n. 503).
11 The complete text here is: "For the rest, let missionaries not omit also to exhort the peoples entrusted to them to receive Confirmation at the due time, and also that parents see to it that their children are confirmed; for although this sacrament is not of necessity of means for salvation, nevertheless it cannot be rejected and neglected without guilt of grave sin when a suitable occasion of receiving it is present. Now this doctrine, if it is true for all Christ's faithful everywhere, has much more place in those who live in lands of heretics or pagans, in which persecutions sometimes arise against Catholics."
12 "If Confirmation," says Pohle, "were a merely useful and not a necessary sacrament, why would it have been instituted and ordained by Christ as the supplement and completion of Baptism for all Christians?" (Lehrbuch der Dogmatik, vol. III, p. 158). Cf. Umberg, op. cit., p. 198.