The Subject of Confirmation

91. Who can receive confirmation. 1. The subject of valid confirmation is every baptized man not yet confirmed, even if lacking the use of reason. For confirmation is the natural complement of the spiritual life which is conferred in baptism, and in the same way as baptism it has been instituted for all.

2. Ordinarily, however, little children before the use of reason are not to be confirmed; but when they have attained the use of reason, they should receive this sacrament as soon as possible.¹ The reason of the first point is that it is not fitting that the complement of spiritual life for fighting for the faith be communicated to a man before he exists as fit for this fight. Therefore the practice of the Latin Church, prevailing almost everywhere, has this: that children are confirmed neither before nor long after the seventh or eighth year of age. The reason of the second point is that through confirmation a man becomes more fit both for grasping the precepts of the Christian life and for directing his life according to them.

a. Nevertheless little children before the use of reason can be confirmed: alpha. if danger of life is imminent; beta. if the bishop can provide the occasion of receiving this sacrament only rarely; gamma. if somewhere (as among the Greeks, in Spain, and in Latin America) there exists the custom of confirming infants.

b. In the first twelve centuries throughout the whole Church, confirmation was conferred on infants immediately after baptism. This custom the Greek Church retained, but the Latin Church changed it, so that ordinarily it does not confer confirmation on infants before the use of reason; and this was established by a wise counsel.²

c. Therefore the following can be validly and licitly confirmed: alpha. the perpetually insane, as soon as a suitable occasion of receiving the sacrament has offered itself; beta. the dying, although they have not yet attained the use of reason, so that in the resurrection they may appear perfect and not be deprived of so great an increase of grace and glory.

d. Neophytes who in the article of death are baptized while entirely uninstructed and cannot be sufficiently instructed so as to elicit the intention of receiving this sacrament are not to be confirmed.³

e. As far as can be done, children are to be instructed and led to receiving the sacrament of confirmation when they are admitted to receiving holy communion. Since by the recent law concerning the first communion of children they are to be admitted to the holy table soon after they have attained the use of reason, the sacraments, according to the mind of the Church, are conferred in this order: baptism, eucharist, confirmation.

¹ Cf. Benedict XIV, constitution Eo quamvis, 4 May 1745. Cn. 788: The administration of this sacrament in the Latin Church is suitably deferred to about the seventh year of age.

² Cf. Roman Catechism, p. 2, c. 3, q. 17.

³ Holy Office, 10 Apr. 1861.

92. The obligation of receiving confirmation. Of itself there does not exist a grave obligation of receiving confirmation. By these things it is not denied that one who, when the occasion has been offered, refuses to receive confirmation can sin gravely by reason of contempt; but by reason of the sacrament itself there is no grave necessity of receiving it.

a. That a grave obligation does not exist, either of seeking the occasion or of receiving the sacrament when the occasion has been offered, many have taught, especially among the older theologians, with St. Thomas.¹ But more recent theologians, who follow St. Alphonsus (n. 181), for the most part affirm a grave obligation; nevertheless they do not bring forward an argument by which they clearly demonstrate it.

alpha. Not from the law of nature: for if this obligation were proved from the nature of the thing, confirmation would be necessary by necessity of means; but a sacrament which supposes the state of grace cannot be necessary by necessity of means. Then they argue in this way: by the law of nature each one is bound to fortify himself with this sacrament for overcoming temptations in the spiritual life which will arise against the faith. - But since several other means instituted for this end are present, by this argument the necessity of the sacrament is not proved. And indeed the sacrament of confirmation confers grace necessary for preserving the faith in dangers, for confessing it externally, and for establishing life according to the faith; nevertheless there are also other means (use of the sacraments, prayer, works of piety, etc.) by which the end of the sacrament can be obtained. Therefore the whole question is reduced to this: whether God denies the necessary graces to those who, when the opportunity has been given, do not receive confirmation, as if in punishment for such negligence. But this cannot be affirmed. For first, the more common opinion of theologians holds that God does not deny the necessary graces on this account, and the Roman Catechism is also of this opinion.² Nor are the faithful persuaded that they are held by a precept, either divine or ecclesiastical, to receive this sacrament. But if the holy Fathers and ancient councils sometimes seem to affirm the necessity of receiving this sacrament, it must be noted that formerly confirmation was conferred immediately after baptism, and therefore the Fathers and councils, by reason of baptism, from which confirmation was practically not distinguished, urged the obligation of receiving it. Therefore it seems possible to affirm that a strict obligation is not demonstrated, and therefore is not to be established.³

beta. Not from divine law: for a divine precept of receiving confirmation does not exist, since the words of Christ, "that they should wait for the promise of the Father,"⁴ i.e., the Holy Spirit, concern only the apostles. Nor does this other argument have greater force, namely that by the very institution of the sacrament Christ commanded its use: for by instituting the sacrament he willed that all the faithful attain the perfection of spiritual life which is conferred only by this sacrament. - But Christ indeed willed that all attain essential perfection, which consists in the state of grace; but whether Christ also willed that all the faithful attain accidental perfection, which is conferred through confirmation, is in question, and therefore would have to be proved. But it is not proved from the institution itself, because not all things which Christ instituted are commanded.

gamma. Not from ecclesiastical law: for demonstrating this, chiefly two arguments are brought forward. First, certain words from the constitution of Benedict XIV Etsi pastoralis: "They [the Italo-Greeks] are to be admonished that they are held guilty of grave sin if, when they can approach confirmation, they refuse and neglect it." - But these words concern entirely particular circumstances, and therefore a universal law cannot be inferred from them.⁵ Then they bring forward the instruction which is found in the appendix of the Roman Ritual and which contains these words: "although this sacrament is not of necessity of means for salvation, nevertheless it cannot be rejected and neglected without the guilt of grave sin, when a suitable occasion of receiving it is present"; Clement XIV approved this instruction.⁶ - From these things, however, this one thing is inferred: that the fathers of the Congregation de Propaganda Fide, who composed this instruction for missionaries, were of the opinion which they signify by these words; but by no means that they established a universal law, since they lack legislative power. Nor is the approbation of the supreme pontiff an act of legislation.

delta. From the fact that the new Code, when speaking of the obligation of receiving the sacrament of confirmation, uses ambiguous words: "it is licit for no one (under grave? under light?) to neglect it,"⁷ it is rightly and deservedly inferred that it deliberately abstained from settling the question disputed among theologians. For this reason, even today the opinion denying a grave obligation holds.

b. The proposed opinion can have practical moment if someone doubts whether he has already been validly confirmed, or if someone already placed in more advanced age is deterred by great shame from seeking confirmation in a place where all the rest are accustomed to be confirmed in childhood or infancy. These are to be admonished and exhorted, but not compelled, to receive the sacrament of confirmation.⁸ - From the same opinion it does not follow that parents are not held by a grave obligation to take care that their children be confirmed when the occasion is given; for since they have spiritual care of them, from piety they are bound, if they can, to procure for them that which so greatly promotes spiritual life.

¹ Summa III, q. 72, a. 1, ad 3.

² Cf. Roman Catechism, p. 2, c. 3, q. 15 s.

³ Cf. Dolger, p. 179 ff.

⁴ Acts 1, 4.

⁵ Cf. Gury-Ballerini ad n. 270.

⁶ The instruction is of the S. Congregation de Propaganda Fide, 4 May 1774; in another instruction of the Holy Office, 20 June 1866, this obligation is denied.

⁷ Cn. 787.

⁸ Cf. Genicot, Theol. mor. inst., II, n. 164.

93. Required conditions. For receiving confirmation validly there is required baptism received, and in adults at least habitual intention, which is implicitly contained in the will of living as a Christian. For receiving confirmation licitly and fruitfully there is required the state of grace. Therefore he who before confirmation has fallen into grave sin can indeed procure grace for himself either through confession or through perfect contrition; nevertheless confession is very much to be advised and by custom is everywhere premised.

That the one to be confirmed must be fasting, or, if it is permitted by age, strengthened by the holy eucharist, is nowhere prescribed; nevertheless it is laudably observed where confirmation is conferred on those who have already been admitted to holy communion.

ANYONE is capable of being confirmed who has not yet received this sacrament and who has been baptized. For the validity of the sacrament the use of reason is not necessary, but adults who have the use of reason must have at least an habitual intention of receiving the sacrament. No one may lawfully receive this sacrament who is not in the state of grace. Moreover, according to modern discipline, Confirmation is only given to those who have been well instructed in Christian doctrine and know well what is required of a good Catholic. Before Confirmation is administered, the opportunity should be taken to give special instructions in Catholic faith and practice to those who are about to receive the sacrament (Can. 1330).

The First Synod of Westminster prescribes that priests who have the cure of souls should do all in their power to have children confirmed, especially if they be of the humbler sort, so that they may be able to resist the temptations to which their faith will afterward be exposed. Canon 787 says that no one may neglect to receive Confirmation on occasion being offered, and that parish priests are to take care that the faithful receive it opportunely.

For Confirmation there should presents one or two to be confirmed. be one sponsor who He himself should be confirmed, should have the use of reason, and should have the intention of fulfilling his office. He should not be a heretic or schismatic, or criminal, nor the father, mother or spouse of the person to be confirmed. He should be lawfully designated, and should physically touch the person confirmed by personal contact or by proxy.

That he may be lawfully admitted he should not be the same who acted as sponsor in Baptism, and he should be of the same sex as the person confirmed (Can. 794-796).

Spiritual relationship arises between him and the person confirmed (Can. 797). But it is not a diriment impediment of marriage (Can. 1079).

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:

1. 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.

2. 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.

³ Hebrews 6:1-2.

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.

I. The person receiving. Every and only baptized person not yet confirmed can validly be confirmed (canon 786; n. 38). Per se even those perpetually insane are to be anointed, namely so that at least according to being they may be constituted perfect and complete Christians; and this must be urged even more if the discussion concerns the partially insane (St. Alphonsus, VI, 180).

II. The age of reception. In the first twelve centuries there was the usage of conferring Confirmation together with Baptism. This practice still flourishes in the Greek Church; but in the Latin Church it has been changed, except in some regions in which even little children are presented to be confirmed, as in Spain and in Latin America. For the rest, with respect to the Latin Church this rule holds: the administration of Confirmation is suitably deferred to about the seventh year of age; nevertheless it can be conferred even before then if the infant is constituted in danger of death, or if it seems expedient to the minister for just and grave causes (canon 788), for example if otherwise the infants would lack the occasion of receiving the sacrament for a very long time (St. Alphonsus, VI, 178). In other cases it cannot be conferred before about the seventh year of age.¹ It is not expedient to defer Confirmation longer than about the seventh year of age, since "thus the young adolescents confirmed become more pliant for grasping precepts, and more suited for receiving the Eucharist afterward, and from having received it they receive more abundant advantages."² Cf. St. Thomas, III, q. 65, aa. 1 and 2.

¹ Pontifical Commission, 16 June 1931, reply to II (A.A.S. 1931, p. 353); compare, however, with respect to the custom which flourishes in Spain and elsewhere, the response of the Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments, 13 June 1932 (A.A.S. 1932, p. 271).

² Thus Leo XIII in the brief Abrogata, 22 June 1897.

III. Things to be observed in reception. In the one receiving there are required: 1. the state of grace (canon 786), which, if it has been lost, is to be recovered through confession or through perfect contrition; 2. sufficient instruction, if the one to be confirmed possesses the use of reason (cited canon), namely instruction in the rudiments of faith and in the principal things which regard the sacrament of Confirmation.¹ It is only of counsel that the one to be confirmed, if it can conveniently be done, be fasting.² Finally, those to be confirmed, if there are several, are to be present for the first imposition or extension of hands, nor are they to depart until the rite has been completed (canon 789). It is said, if there are several, for if there is only one person to be confirmed and he is absent, the ceremony cannot even be begun.

Note. The precept of the Roman Pontifical of wearing a linen band until the chrism has dried is no longer observed, but immediately after the anointing the chrism is wiped from the forehead of the confirmed person (St. Alphonsus, VI, 180).

¹ The Sacred Congregation de Propaganda Fide, 4 May 1774, says thus: "Those to be anointed with sacred chrism must first be diligently instructed, according to the teachings of the Roman Catechism, concerning the nature, dignity, effects, and dispositions prerequired for receiving this sacrament worthily. Likewise they must be instructed concerning the rudiments of faith, the precepts of the Decalogue and of the Church, the acts of the theological virtues, and they must hold in memory the Lord's Prayer and the Apostles' Creed" (Collectanea, n. 503).

² Cf. Roman Pontifical.

“The simultaneous conferral of Baptism and Confirmation upon children is not to be admitted except perhaps in danger of death, according to practice.” Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 21 March 1851; C. nos. 668, 673, 680-683.

“No one is to be confirmed unless he has attained at least the seventh year of his age; nor is there to be a departure from this practice of the Latin Church except for altogether grave causes, for example, if infants lie dangerously ill or, because of the distance of places, if the present occasion were lost they would scarcely have another.” Sacred Congregation, 11 December 1850.

“Since a much younger age is required for admission to the Sacrament of Confirmation than for admission to First Communion, as the Roman Catechism, On Confirmation, no. 18, hands down and Benedict XIV, On the Diocesan Synod, book 7, chapter 10, nos. 2-3, teaches, it is proposed to you that article 22, page 19, in the Synodal Acts be reformed according to the doctrine cited, so that Confirmation may first have place and afterward, at a suitable time, First Communion may be supplied.” Sacred Congregation of the Council, 19 November 1854, to the Bishop of Saint-Denis.

Who is the minister of confirmation? - Only the bishop is the ordinary minister of this sacrament. Thus Innocent III declared, and Trent sess. 7, c. 3. - A simple priest can confirm as extraordinary minister from special delegation of the Supreme Pontiff, or from his commission conferring fullness of power. This is clear from the practice of the Church. Greek or Oriental presbyters, from most ancient custom, confirm in baptism itself; and they validly confirm also outside baptism. Yet those places are excepted from which the Holy See has taken away this faculty, which consequently is not in Italy and the adjacent Islands, in Bulgaria, in Cyprus, and among the Maronites of Lebanon. Cf. Benedict XIV, Const. Etsi pastoralis, May 27, 1742. Likewise confirmations of this kind are held valid, although done by schismatics, for from those as if tolerated jurisdiction was not taken away. Benedict XIV, Const. Eo quamvis tempore, May 4, 1745; Const. Anno vertente, June 18, 1759; A. S. S. v. 25, p. 439. But the priest must use chrism blessed by the bishop. This is clear from the Decree of Eugene IV, where it is said that the matter of confirmation is chrism blessed by the bishop. - Roman Pontifical, de Confirm.; St. Thomas Suppl. q. 38, a. 1; Quodl. 11, a. 7; 3 p., q. 72, a. 11; Benedict XIV, de Syn. l. 7, c. 7, 8, 9; Lugo Resp. Mor. l. 1, d. 6, 7; L. 170; E. M.

From the Constitution of Pius X Ea semper, XVIII Kal. Jul. 1907, concerning the Ruthenian Rite in the United States of North America, art. 14: "It is altogether forbidden to Ruthenian priests dwelling in America to sign the baptized with sacred chrism; and if they shall do otherwise, let them know that they have acted invalidly." But in the Decree of the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, Aug. 18, 1913, concerning the Ruthenian Rite in the Canadian Region, the aforesaid article is omitted. And it is also omitted in another Decree of the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, Aug. 17, 1914 [text/OCR reads: 1904], concerning the Greco-Ruthenian Rite in the United States of North America.

Can the Pope delegate even to a simple priest the power of confecting chrism? - It is controverted. Not a few affirm; but several others deny. The same controversy exists for the oil of extreme unction. But it is clear that the oil of extreme unction is validly blessed by Greek presbyters. Cf. Benedict XIV, de Syn. l. 8, c. 1, n. 4. The blessing of a priest in each sacrament, without delegation of the Pope, is invalid. - L. 163, 709; E. M.

Can a bishop confirm faithful persons who are not his subjects? - As regards validity, he can confirm all, as follows from the power of order. - As regards liceity, he cannot confirm except those who are found in his diocese; and he would sin gravely by confirming even his own subjects in another diocese while exercising pontificals there, because then confirmation is judged an exercise of jurisdiction of the external forum, which cannot be performed without permission of the Ordinary of the place. But he can confirm strangers in his own diocese, which has been introduced by custom and by the tacit consent of bishops. - Holy Office, Apr. 19, 1899; L. 173.

An Abbot nullius, having the privilege of confirming the faithful, cannot confirm subjects of another in another diocese, even with the consent of the bishops.

When is a bishop bound to confirm? - He is bound to confirm those asking, whenever he conveniently can, if he cannot defer it to another near time. - He is also bound sometimes to provide opportunity to his subjects of receiving this sacrament. Hence he would sin gravely if he abstained for a long time from conferring confirmation, e.g., for eight or ten years, and did not go around the diocese, at least through the principal places, unless he were excused by moral impossibility. - "But if a just cause is present, he does not sin who defers for three or more years." L. 175. - La Croix 388.

Does a bishop sin gravely by omitting to confirm a dying person asking for the sacrament? - Since this sacrament is not necessary for salvation, not to go to the dying in order to confirm them, because it is not without inconvenience, is light; and where this custom prevails, not even light. - L. 175; La Croix 390; Benedict XIV, de Syn. l. 7, c. 10, n. 8; l. 13, c. 19, n. 5.

Who is the subject of confirmation? - It is every and only baptized man not yet confirmed, although lacking the use of reason. For confirmation perfects the spiritual life which is received in baptism, and it was instituted for all, as baptism was. - Yet from the practice generally prevailing in the Church, children who have not yet attained the use of reason are not to be confirmed, unless the legitimate custom of places brings this about, as for example prevails among the Greeks and in Spain. Benedict XIV, Const. Eo quamvis § 6. - "It is certain among all that infants are licitly confirmed if just causes accede, namely danger of death, absence of the bishop, etc." L. 178.

"If the twelfth year does not seem to have to be awaited, certainly it is most fitting to defer this sacrament until the seventh." Roman Catechism 18. Nor must it be awaited that children be confirmed only after first Communion. Leo XIII, Brief, June 22, 1897. - "Even to those about to die this sacrament is to be given... Even confirmed children who die obtain greater glory, just as here also they obtain greater grace." St. Thomas 3 p., q. 72, a. 8 ad 4. - Speaking about the insane, Benedict XIV says that confirmation must altogether be ministered to them. L. 178. Even the perpetually insane are licitly confirmed. L. 180. - Roman Pontifical, de Confirm.; Benedict XIV, de Syn. l. 7, c. 10, n. 5, 8; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 72, a. 8; E. M.

What is the necessity and obligation of receiving confirmation, and of what kind is it? - "It is not necessary for salvation by necessity of means, nor of itself by necessity of precept. This is common with St. Thomas and others against Scotus and Sylvester. The reason is both because the Church does not urge its reception by any penalties, and because neither from Scripture, nor Tradition, nor the end or institution of the sacrament is such a precept gathered.

And the canons which are brought forward to the contrary are sufficiently explained of necessity for better being." Busembaum 181. - "The precept which is had in Trent sess. 23, c. 4 de R. does not bind all, since it is hypothetical; but only those to be ordained, or to be initiated with first tonsure. Henriquez, Valentia, Suarez, and Navarrus teach against Tanner that its omission is not mortal; and Navarrus adds that not even a bishop sins mortally by ordaining one not confirmed, or if he himself, not confirmed, ordains." Busembaum 183.

According to St. Liguori there is an obligation under grave obligation from divine precept, at least in the course of life and when a suitable occasion is given; and he proves this from the Declaration of Benedict XIV, Const. Etsi pastoralis, concerning the rites and dogmas of the Greeks, where he says, § 3, n. 4: "They are to be warned by the Ordinaries of places that they are held by the guilt of grave sin if, when they can approach confirmation, they refuse and neglect it." These words of Benedict XIV do not seem to conclude for all; because the Pontiff speaks only of those invalidly confirmed by Greek presbyters, who therefore refused to approach confirmation again because they held the first as valid. Whence there was here a particular reason of obliging them to receive the sacrament of confirmation, namely so that they would thus retract the error. And this is confirmed from Benedict XIV himself, de Syn. l. 7, c. 10, n. 9, which work was published after that Constitution, c. 9, n. 4. Wherefore the law is doubtful. Yet the opinion of St. Alphonsus is handed down in the Instruction issued by authority of S. C. de P. F., May 4, 1774, and inserted into the Roman Ritual. But the common opinion of St. Thomas is handed down, on the contrary, in the Instruction of the Holy Office, June 20, 1866, for the Apostolic Vicar to the Gallas. - St. Thomas 3 p., q. 72, a. 8; Suppl. q. 29, a. 3 ad 3; E. M.

What is to be done in doubt whether someone has been confirmed? - He can be confirmed again conditionally, cf. 345, 346. But he is not bound to this if he truly probably believes that he has already received the sacrament. - L. H. A. 48.

What dispositions are required in those to be confirmed? - 1. The baptismal character for the validity of the sacrament, and in an adult the intention of receiving the sacrament of confirmation for the strength of his soul. Cf. 381; Holy Office, Apr. 10, 1861; Collection of S. C. de P. F. n. 1213. 2. The state of grace, because confirmation is a sacrament of the living. Wherefore he who is conscious of mortal sin must have recourse to the sacrament of penance, unless he is perfectly contrite. The general custom is that no one be confirmed unless he presents a certificate signed with the autograph of the pastor. 3. That the one to be confirmed be imbued with the rudiments of Christian doctrine, especially those which are of necessity of means, and which regard the sacraments of penance and confirmation. - Roman Pontifical, de Confirm.; E. M.

Must the one to be confirmed be fasting? - Resp. In the negative, considering present-day custom. For the canonical laws which prescribed fasting for receiving confirmation have fallen into desuetude. For this reason also the use has prevailed of conferring that sacrament in the evening time. - Roman Pontifical, de Confirm.; L. 184; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 72, a. 6, 7.

What about the various prescriptions concerning the administration of confirmation? - The rite to be observed by a bishop is had in the Roman Pontifical; but the manner to be observed by a simple priest administering this sacrament is had in the Instruction of S. C. de P. F., May 4, 1774. - "Confirmation can be conferred on any day whatever," L. 184, "and at any time whatever," L. 174. "But probably it can be ministered without grave sin in some decent place, even outside the Church," L. 174, 184, even in churches of regulars. Benedict XIV, Const. Confirmandis § 6. "The bishop must be clothed with amice over the rochet, or with surplice if he is a Religious, and with stole, white cope, miter, and staff... They more truly say that to omit all the aforesaid instruments is mortal..., otherwise if only some one is omitted... It must be noted as regards the staff, that it suffices that the staff remain publicly exposed, or be held by a cleric... Likewise the Sacred Congregation declared that it suffices that the bishop confirm without miter, with only the stole used... It must be noted that the omission of the slap, scandal being excluded, is never mortal..., they deny that omission of the candle can ever be mortal." L. 134; Roman Pontifical.

Moreover, outside the case of necessity, under grave obligation a sponsor is required, and of the same sex, Roman Pontifical, de Confirm.; Instruction of S. C. de Pr. F., May 4, 1774; and only one, designated by the parents or by the bishop in their defect, who, as regards validity, must have been confirmed; besides, he must be different from the baptismal sponsor, at least outside necessity. The sponsor contracts spiritual kinship with the confirmed person and his parents, provided however that he touches him. He also contracts the obligation of instructing the confirmed person as regards those things which pertain to faith and morals, if the confirmed person has not been instructed and another is lacking. Trent sess. 24, c. 2 de R. M. - But a religious cannot be sponsor unless the one to be confirmed is likewise a religious. Cf. 441 ff. - As regards the manner of receiving in confirmation, it is prescribed in the Roman Pontifical that the one to be confirmed place his foot upon the right foot of the sponsor; but today received custom has that it suffices that the sponsor place the right hand upon the right shoulder of the one to be confirmed. S. R. C., Sept. 20, 1749, ad 6, n. 2404; L. 187.

The forehead of the confirmed person is to be bound with a linen band, marked with a cross, and thus to remain until the chrism dries or is wiped away. But today by desuetude this ceremony is no longer in use in our parts, since immediately after the anointing the forehead of the confirmed person is wiped. L. 188. - "The common blessing, which is given by the bishop to those confirmed at the end, is not necessary for the sacrament, but is a simple ceremony, as the doctors commonly say. Hence Tamburini probably says that the admonition which is made, that those confirmed not depart before the aforesaid blessing, does not seem to oblige." L. ib. - Roman Pontifical, de Confirm.; L. 185-188; H. A. 50-52; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 72, a. 10, 12; E. M.

The names of those confirmed and of the sponsors are to be recorded in the parish books.

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.

The subject of the Sacrament of Confirmation is every and only baptized human being not yet confirmed, although lacking the use of reason. For Confirmation perfects the spiritual life which is received in Baptism, and was instituted for all, as Baptism was.

Yet from the practice generally prevailing in the Church, children who have not yet attained the use of reason are not to be confirmed, unless a legitimate custom of places permits it, which flourishes, for example, among the Greeks and in Spain ¹.

¹ Yet those things must be noted which Benedict XIV writes on this matter (De Synodo, lib. 7, chap. 10, n. 8). If a Bishop, he says, in his Constitutions were to say that he is prepared to confer the Sacrament of Confirmation on baptized children and infants, but constituted in danger of death; or were to order that children and infants be presented to him when he is going to minister the Sacrament of Confirmation in this or that place of his diocese, since easy access to them is not going to be possible for him later, either because of his increasing age, or because of their distance from the city, or because of the difficulty of the journey; certainly nothing in synodal Constitutions of this sort would seem to be reprehensible.... Yet the Bishop must note three things: first, that in his Constitution he say nothing by which he may seem to insinuate a necessity or precept of receiving the Sacrament of Confirmation at that age and state; secondly, that he administer the Sacrament with that dignity for which the Church wished to provide when it denied it to infants before they had attained the use of reason.... thirdly, finally, lest after he has said that he is ready to confer Confirmation on all children placed in danger, he willingly hasten to the more noble and to those pleasing to himself, and refuse to go to the poor or to others of the lowest common people; for this indeed would be done with acceptance of persons and with the scandal of many.

if, when they can approach Confirmation, they refuse and neglect it.

270. Questions. - QUESTION 1. Whether, or of what sort, is the obligation of receiving the Sacrament of Confirmation?

Resp. 1. There is no obligation by necessity of means. For even through Baptism alone there can be had the remission of sins and eternal life.

Resp. 2. According to St. Ligorius, there is an obligation under grave sin from divine precept, at least during the course of life and when a suitable occasion is given; and he proves this from the Declaration of Benedict XIV in the Bull Etsi pastoralis, on the rites and dogmas of the Greeks, where he says, section 3, n. 4: They are to be admonished by the Ordinaries of places that they are held by the guilt of grave sin Scavini notes, however, that the words of Benedict XIV do not conclude for all; because the Pontiff speaks only of those invalidly confirmed by Greek Presbyters, who therefore refused to approach Confirmation again, because they regarded the first as valid. Whence there was here a particular reason for obliging them to receive the Sacrament of Confirmation, namely, that they might thus retract their error ².

² The VV. observe (p. 930, n. 89) that St. Alphonsus thought the same on this question not only in the works of Moral Theology, but also in the dogmatic work written in Italian; and they bring forward these words of the St. Doctor: Let it be noted here that the same Benedict XIV in the Bull Etsi pastoralis declared that those who refuse or neglect, when they can, to take Confirmation while they are among the Greeks, must be admonished by their Bishops concerning the grave sin which they commit. And certainly the same must be said of those who are among Latins. In these words it remains somewhat obscure what he means when he says, Those who, while they are among the Greeks, and below, Those who are among Latins. Indeed the question was about Italo-Greeks, namely about those Greeks who, refugees from their country occupied by the barbarous Turks, had betaken themselves to Italy or the adjacent Islands, and there, after they had fixed their seat, preserved the Greek rite in sacred things, as they preserve it even now.

But that what Gury says after Scavini concerning the sense of the Constitution of Benedict XIV is most true is manifestly clear to one reading the Constitution itself. For in section III, where the Sacrament of Confirmation is treated, the Pontiff first (n. 1) thus speaks concerning Confirmation invalidly conferred: Latin Bishops should confirm absolutely on the forehead infants, or others in their Dioceses (for those Greeks are subject to the Latin Bishop in whose Diocese they reside), baptized by Greek Presbyters; since neither by our Predecessors nor by Us has faculty been granted, or is granted, to Greek Presbyters in Italy and the adjacent Islands, that they confer the Sacrament of Confirmation on baptized infants; nay rather, as far back as the year 1595, by Clement VIII of happy memory, our Predecessor, it was expressly forbidden to Italo-Greek Presbyters that they confirm the baptized with Chrism. Then (n. IV), concerning those who had been invalidly confirmed by Greek Presbyters, he thus decrees: Although those confirmed by a simple Priest are not to be compelled to receive this Sacrament of Confirmation from a Bishop, if scandals could arise from such compulsion, since the Sacrament of Confirmation has no such necessity that without it someone cannot be saved; nevertheless they are to be admonished by the Ordinaries of places that they are held by the guilt of grave sin if, when they can approach Confirmation, they refuse and neglect it. Therefore it is manifest that here a general question is not being treated, but one concerning those who, invalidly confirmed, perhaps even to favor the presbyters who had wished to confirm them badly, were refusing to approach again.

There is added the fact that it is beyond the custom of the Apostolic See, and especially of Benedict XIV, abruptly to define a controversy against the most common opinion of the Doctors without any cause.

QUESTION 2. What is to be done in doubt whether someone has been confirmed?

Resp. He can be confirmed again under condition, as is clear from the things said in the Treatise on the Sacraments in general, n. 206. But someone is not bound to this if he truly and probably believes that he has received this Sacrament. - St. Ligorius, Homo apostolicus, n. 48.

271. • QUESTION 3. What dispositions are required in those to be confirmed?

Resp. There is required: 1. the baptismal character for the validity of the Sacrament, and besides, in an adult, the intention of receiving the Sacrament, as is clear from the things said on the Sacraments in general, n. 230.

2. The state of grace, because Confirmation is a Sacrament of the living. Wherefore he who is conscious of mortal sin must have recourse to the Sacrament of Penance, unless he is perfectly contrite. The general custom is that no one be confirmed unless he presents a schedule signed by the Parish Priest.

3. That the one to be confirmed be imbued with the rudiments of Christian doctrine, especially those things which are of necessity of means, and which pertain to the Sacraments of Penance and Confirmation. - Thus commonly.

QUESTION 4. Whether the one to be confirmed must be fasting?

Resp. No, with attention to present custom. For the canonical laws which prescribed fasting for receiving Confirmation have gone into desuetude. Therefore the practice of conferring this Sacrament in the evening time also has prevailed. - St. Ligorius, n. 184, at the end, and others.

End of the Treatise on Confirmation.

Each person confirmed ought to have a separate sponsor, whose obligations are similar to those assumed by the sponsor at Baptism.¹⁴

¹⁴ Codex Iuris Can., can. 794, 797.

— I. The ordinary minister of valid confirmation is every and only bishop; but the extraordinary minister, from a faculty made either by common law or by a peculiar indult of the Apostolic See, can be any priest, so that a priest can be said to be the remote minister of this sacrament. Cf. c. 782, §§1, 2.

With this faculty received, the presbyter indeed acquires no jurisdiction, but his power of order, which he has incomplete, is perfected. But that the Supreme Pontiff alone and no other bishop can give this necessary complement seems to be attributed to a reservation made by the Supreme Pontiff. Cf. Lehmkuhl, II, 133, 134.

All priests of the Greek rite obtain this faculty. In the Latin Church, by law itself the following are endowed with that faculty: Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church (c. 239, §1, n. 23), an abbot or prelate nullius, an Apostolic Vicar and Prefect; but these latter three cannot validly use it except within the limits of their territory and only while the function lasts (c. 782, §3).

Besides, "a presbyter of the Latin rite to whom, by force of an indult, this faculty belongs, validly confers confirmation only on the faithful of his own rite, unless in the indult something else has been expressly provided" (c. 782, §4).

Therefore a faculty given by the law itself is not circumscribed by this exception.

But priests of an oriental rite who at the same time baptize and confirm infants of their own rite are prohibited from conferring confirmation on infants of the Latin rite (c. 732, §5). The confirmation conferred nevertheless more probably is valid.

— In his own diocese, a bishop legitimately administers confirmation even to outsiders, unless express prohibition of their own Ordinary stands in the way; but in another diocese, he is permitted to minister confirmation to his own subjects privately and without staff and miter. That he minister it solemnly, he needs license of the local Ordinary at least reasonably presumed (c. 783).

Before the Code, they demanded, and indeed under grave guilt, the tacit consent of one's own Ordinary that outside subjects be legitimately confirmed. Yet they permitted that this consent be presumed, both as to those who ran in from another diocese, and as to one to be ordained who had received dimissorial letters for orders from his own bishop.

A Nuncio or Apostolic Delegate, if he is a bishop, by force of his faculty, n. 63, can confirm in the whole dominion subject to his jurisdiction and during a sea voyage, both in going to and returning from the place of his mission.

— A bishop must, by grave obligation, minister the sacrament of confirmation to his subjects duly and reasonably asking it, especially at the time of the visitation of the diocese (c. 785, §1).

The same is the office of a presbyter furnished with apostolic privilege, toward those in whose favor the faculty has been conceded (c. 785, §2).

Indeed the Ordinary who is prohibited from confirming by himself must provide, as much as can be done, that at least within any five-year period this sacrament be administered to his subjects (c. 785, §3).

Wherefore, after the Code, we judge that an Ordinary sins gravely who has neglected this administration beyond five years, although formerly they judged a delay grave after eight or ten years.

Concerning the negligence of a bishop, the Metropolitan must make the Roman Pontiff certain from cc. 785, §4 and 274, 4°.

— On the Subject. 1. All and only the baptized not yet confirmed are validly confirmed.

2. From among the baptized not yet confirmed, the following are licitly and fruitfully confirmed: a) adults who, constituted in the state of grace, are sufficiently instructed; b) the perpetually insane. Nor in those who have been masters of themselves is there need that they previously asked this sacrament, because in the profession of Christian life there is had a sufficient will of this sacrament. Therefore it is enough that the insane person be in the state of grace; and he is presumed to be in that state, unless the contrary is at least vehemently suggested; c) infants constituted in danger of death, or those for whom it seems expedient to the minister because of just and grave causes (c. 788). These causes can exist if a long absence of the bishop is foreseen, or if it is feared that the infant will die before another occasion of the sacrament.

With these causes excluded, administration of confirmation is conveniently deferred in the Latin Church to around the seventh year of age (c. 788), so that a sacrament less necessary may be received with greater reverence and in a more conscious manner.

But the dignity of this sacrament demands this: that those to be confirmed be thoroughly instructed concerning the special grace of this sacrament, that is, of fortitude, especially of intrepid confession of faith. This will be the occasion of inculcating in Christian adolescents that noble manliness which despises exterior human fears and, stronger, overcomes the interior attacks of temptations. And it is to be wished that so great a sacrament be held at a greater price.

— 1. The sacrament of confirmation has no necessity of means. Yet for a dying person who cannot confess or be anointed by extreme unction, the sacrament could become necessary.

2. The necessity of precept itself was commonly denied before the Code, both because the negligent are punished by no penalty, and because the obligation is gathered neither from Scripture or tradition, nor from the end or institution of the sacrament. Yet they admitted that an obligation of receiving it could arise per accidens for avoiding scandal, or, with persecution pressing, if someone fears that in torments he may fail in strength.

But now from c. 787, "it is lawful for no one, when occasion is offered, to neglect it"; so that this negligence, which betrays a certain sloth or lesser esteem, must be blamed at least venially. Besides, by the same canon, an obligation is imposed on pastors of taking care that the faithful approach it at an opportune time.

In the Greek Church, all infants are fortified by this sacrament. The same can be affirmed concerning the children of Catholics in the City also, since the custom is that some bishop be called to a dying infant to confirm him. But elsewhere, because of the rarity of bishops, very many infants die not confirmed.

If someone considers these things, does he not begin to grieve over this unequal condition of children, and to inquire into the manner by which morally an occasion may be given to all of obtaining in the soul that new character which by this sacrament is imprinted in the soul? Now much more easily today, by common law itself, the faculty of confirming is communicated to presbyters. Could not faculties be conceded, in places where bishops are few, to deans or archpriests for confirming children placed in danger of death? Those who are eminent in authority will judge concerning the opportuneness of the matter; yet it will be lawful for us to have it among our wishes.

3. Those to be ordained or to be initiated by first tonsure should indeed first be confirmed. Yet omission is not thought mortal (St. Alphonsus, VI, 786). Navarrus (Manuale, c. 22, n. 9) adds that not even a bishop sins mortally who ordains one not confirmed or himself not confirmed.

160. Principle. Every baptized and not yet confirmed human being is a subject capable of confirmation.

The reason is that every baptized human being needs strength for confessing the faith in difficult occasions, should any occur. Confirmation is therefore the complement of baptism; hence, during the first twelve centuries, throughout the universal Church there existed, and in the Greek Church there still exists, the practice of conferring confirmation immediately after baptism. But the practice of the Latin Church now has it almost everywhere that the faithful are not confirmed until after attaining the use of reason, that is, around the seventh year of age. Nevertheless, it can be conferred even earlier if an infant is placed in danger of death, or if it appears expedient to the minister for just and grave causes.⁶²

In Spain, Latin America, and other regions, infants, at least sick infants, are confirmed.⁶³ Therefore, legitimate custom concerning the age of those to be confirmed is to be observed. Benedict XIV⁶⁴ teaches concerning this matter: "By the most prudent decrees of the Supreme Pontiffs it was providently ordained that the sacrament of confirmation be conferred upon those reborn in the font of baptism only at that age at which the faithful, having put away the things that belonged to a child, would understand ... that through baptism they had indeed been received into the soldiery, but through confirmation were strengthened for battle and furnished by grace for enduring the contests."

1. For receiving confirmation validly, not only baptism is required, but in a person capable of reason also at least a habitual intention.

2. For receiving confirmation licitly, the following are required:

a) the state of grace, because confirmation is a sacrament of the living. Although a sinner can acquire the state of grace by perfect contrition with the desire for confession, nevertheless in practice it must be strongly insisted upon that anyone existing in the state of grave sin make a sacramental confession before confirmation;

b) due instruction in one who has sufficient use of reason. Hence the Roman Ritual admonishes: "Those to be anointed with sacred chrism are first to be diligently instructed ... concerning the nature, dignity, effects, and dispositions required for worthily receiving a sacrament of this kind."

According to the ancient usage of the Church, those to be confirmed had to be fasting, and therefore it would be desirable that this be observed even at present. Thus the old Roman Ritual.

⁶² Code of Canon Law, c. 788, and St. Thomas, S. theol. 3, q. 72, a. 8 ad 4.

⁶³ Cf. Acta et Decreta Concilii plenarii Americae Latinae 1899, n. 520; Pontifical Commission, June 16, 1931 (Acta Apostolicae Sedis XXIII, 353); and Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments, June 30, 1932 (Acta Apostolicae Sedis XXIV, 271).

⁶⁴ Constitution Eo quamvis tempore, May 5, 1745.

161. 3. The obligation of receiving confirmation is not of the necessity of means. Thus all teach. Whether, however, it is of the necessity of a grave precept is disputed. Very many deny it. St. Alphonsus⁶⁵ already cited twenty-three authors for this negative opinion, among whom was St. Thomas. In our days the negative opinion is held by Lehmkuhl,⁶⁶ Noldin,⁶⁷ Gihr,⁶⁸ Göpfert,⁶⁹ Larraga-Sanchez,⁷⁰ and many others. Many, however, affirm it, among whom are St. Bonaventure, though not with equal certainty, St. Antoninus, St. Alphonsus, and Benedict XIV.⁷¹ Among modern authors this affirmative opinion is held by Marc,⁷² Aertnys,⁷³ Müller,⁷⁴ Dölger,⁷⁵ and others. All concede that the omission of confirmation is a grave sin if contempt, scandal, or a special danger to salvation is present. Apart from these three cases, however, a grave obligation of receiving confirmation cannot be proved with certainty. For it was said above, in n. 158, according to the common opinion, that a bishop is not bound to administer the sacrament of confirmation to a dying person who asks for it; likewise, a bishop is not obliged to provide each individual member of the faithful of his diocese an opportunity to receive this sacrament except within a period of five years. These things can scarcely be reconciled with a grave obligation of the faithful to receive confirmation. If such a grave obligation truly existed, then bishops would be bound much more strictly to administer that sacrament. Moreover, the graces conferred in confirmation, although certainly most precious, can also be obtained in other ways, for example, by repeated reception of the Eucharist. Finally, if this grave obligation were present, it would exist for all capable human beings. But no one will say that a dying infant is bound under grave obligation to receive confirmation. Therefore, although no one is permitted to neglect this sacrament when an opportunity is offered, as the Code of Canon Law, c. 787, aptly admonishes, and the faithful are earnestly to be admonished to endeavor to receive confirmation worthily, it must not be said that otherwise they are guilty of mortal sin. St. Alphonsus also at first favored the negative opinion, since no precept, either natural or positive, could be adduced which imposed such a grave obligation; but afterward, thinking that Benedict XIV⁷⁶ had determined the contrary, he abandoned this opinion, which on account of the authority of Benedict XIV he considers insufficiently probable.⁷⁷ Nevertheless, the words of Benedict XIV can be explained otherwise.

Behold those words: "They [the Italo-Greeks] are to be admonished by the Ordinaries of places that they are held by the guilt of grave sin if, when they can approach confirmation, they refuse and neglect it." The Instruction of the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith of May 4, 1774, approved by Clement XIV, has similar words. The Pontiff prescribed that confirmation be received by the Italo-Greeks because otherwise a grave scandal would have arisen there. For these Italo-Greeks, contrary to every law, had caused their infants to be confirmed by simple priests; afterward, however, they refused the valid reception of confirmation from bishops. Therefore, there was obstinate disobedience on their part. Accordingly, the Pontiff deservedly charges them with mortal sin unless they are willing to receive confirmation. Moreover, it appears sufficiently that Benedict XIV did not wish to settle the controversy concerning the obligation of confirmation, because in his book On the Diocesan Synod,⁷⁸ which he published after the cited Constitution, he seems somewhat to favor the opposite opinion. As regards the Instruction of the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, Lehmkuhl replied:⁷⁹ "This statement is an opinion which has the more common opinion against it and cannot in any way become a law." Setting aside this reply, which seems insufficiently reverent, I say that the Sacred Congregation wished only to condemn grave contempt for confirmation; for it asserts: "This sacrament cannot be rejected and neglected without the guilt of grave sin." But all admit this, and St. Thomas already taught it in express words.⁸⁰

From all that has been said it follows that one who, because of a notable inconvenience, delays confirmation or even does not receive it is not to be accused of mortal sin.⁸¹ For example, one is not bound under grave obligation to receive confirmation if, on account of a very advanced age, this would cause him great embarrassment; one is not bound under grave obligation to request confirmation if there is doubt concerning a prior confirmation, unless, however, he wishes to be promoted to Tonsure and Orders.⁸²

⁶⁵ Theol. mor., l. 6, n. 181.

⁶⁶ Theol. mor. II, n. 140.

⁶⁷ De sacr., n. 92.

⁶⁸ Die hl. Sakr. I, § 48.

⁶⁹ Moraltheol. III, 45.

⁷⁰ Prontuario, n. 1225.

⁷¹ Instit. 6, n. 10.

⁷² Instit. mor. II, n. 1501.

⁷³ Theol. mor., l. 6, n. 60.

⁷⁴ Theol. mor. III, § 83.

⁷⁵ Das Sakr. d. Firm., sect. 2, chap. 1, § 3.

⁷⁶ Constitution Etsi pastoralis, May 26, 1742.

⁷⁷ Theol. mor., l. 6, n. 182, at the end.

⁷⁸ L. 7, c. 10, n. 9.

⁷⁹ Theol. mor. II, n. 142.

⁸⁰ S. theol. 3, q. 72, a. 1 ad 3.

⁸¹ Cf. Billuart, De confirm., a. 8, § 2.

⁸² Cf. Holy Office, January 14, 1885.

1499. I. VALIDLY confirmed are all and only those baptized who have not yet been confirmed. This is established both from what was said concerning the nature of the Sacrament and from the use and tradition of the Church (cf. nn. 1432 and 1433).

Hence you will infer: 1. The dying are to be confirmed, that in the resurrection they may appear perfect, and may be able to fight bravely with the devil, especially concerning faith, if perhaps they have need.¹³

2. The perpetually insane are validly and licitly confirmed; for although they never seem about to fight spiritually, nevertheless this happens per accidens. For the rest, it can happen that they enjoy at least some lucid interval, in which so great a help will profit them unto salvation.¹⁴

3. Infants not yet having attained the use of reason are validly confirmed; because bodily age does not prejudice the soul, and therefore just as an old man can obtain spiritual birth through Baptism, so a child or infant can obtain perfect spiritual age through Confirmation. Thus St. Thomas.¹⁵

Whether infants not yet having attained the use of reason are licitly confirmed, YOU WILL ASK? Resp. Regularly this is illicit, as Benedict XIV declared.¹⁶ For the contrary usage has prevailed in the Roman Church, both on account of reverence for the Sacrament, and to avoid the danger of repetition, and finally so that those receiving may understand that through Baptism they had indeed been accepted into the Christian army, but through Confirmation they had been strengthened for battle, and instructed by grace for bearing contests. "Wherefore, if the twelfth year does not seem to be awaited, at least until the seventh it is especially fitting to defer this Sacrament."¹⁷ We have said regularly; because they are licitly confirmed before the use of reason if just causes accede, for example danger of death, long absence of the Bishop, legitimate custom, etc.

4. One doubting whether he has been confirmed can be confirmed under condition: but a greater doubt is required than for Baptism; and he who is probably confirmed is not held to this, even if he is to be ordained.¹⁸

1500. II. That an adult LICITLY receive the Sacrament of Confirmation, besides the conditions to be placed for validity, there is required in him: 1. The state of grace, because Confirmation is a Sacrament of the living. Hence the Roman Pontifical: "Adults ought first to confess sins and afterwards be confirmed, or at least concerning mortal sins, if they have fallen into them, let them be contrite." To the unworthy, character is indeed conferred, but not grace.¹⁹ 2. Knowledge of the rudiments of faith, especially those which are of the necessity of means, and which look to receiving the Sacrament. 3. From law it seems also to be required that both the one confirming and the one to be confirmed be fasting; but authors say this is of counsel, or if it is a precept, that it does not oblige under grave obligation, or that it has not been received, or that it has now ceased by contrary custom.²⁰

1501. It is asked: Whether there is an OBLIGATION of receiving the Sacrament of Confirmation?

Resp. The Sacrament of Confirmation is not necessary by necessity of means unto salvation. All confess this, and the reason is that through Baptism alone the grace of sanctification and eternal life can be had. But it is, without doubt, necessary by necessity of precept whenever, from omission of it, either contempt of the Sacrament would be had, or grave scandal would arise, or danger of the soul losing faith or charity would certainly be imminent, for example in places in which persecutions against Catholics break out. Thus commonly.

But the question is whether there is an obligation PER SE of receiving this Sacrament? Some indeed deny with St. Thomas²¹ that any precept exists concerning this matter, whether natural or positive, at least under grave obligation. But others more truly affirm with St. Antoninus and St. Bonaventure; and they say that there is a grave obligation, from divine precept, of receiving this Sacrament, at least during the course of life and when opportunity is given. The reason is that, by the very fact that Christ the Lord instituted it as a peculiar remedy for beating back the attacks of enemies, chiefly against faith, He assuredly annexed to it such sacramental grace as is of the greatest help and utility to all. But voluntarily to deprive oneself of so great a good is gravely repugnant to charity and to care for salvation; therefore he manifestly sins against charity toward himself who, detained by no impediment, neglects to be confirmed.²²

But indeed, this grave obligation is principally proved from the declaration of BENEDICT XIV in the Bull Etsi pastoralia, on the rites and dogmas of the Greeks. For he speaks thus (§ 3, n. 4): "They who have not been confirmed are to be admonished by the Ordinaries of places that they are held by guilt of grave sin if, when they can approach Confirmation, they refuse and neglect it." The ROMAN RITUAL agrees, in whose newest Appendix these things are read: "Although this Sacrament is not of the necessity of means unto salvation, nevertheless, without guilt of grave sin, it cannot be spurned and neglected, when a suitable occasion of receiving it is present."²³ Whence, the denying opinion does not seem to remain probable.²⁴

1276. - The subject of the Sacrament of Confirmation is every and only baptized man not yet confirmed, although lacking the use of reason. For Confirmation perfects the spiritual life which is received in Baptism, and it was instituted for all, as was Baptism.

Nevertheless, from the practice generally prevailing in the Church, children who have not yet obtained the use of reason are not to be confirmed, except for peculiar reasons, for example in danger of death.³

1277. Questions. - Query 1° Whether, or of what kind, is the obligation of receiving the Sacrament of Confirmation?

Resp. 1° There is no obligation by necessity of means. For even through Baptism alone remission of sins and eternal life can be had.

Resp. 2° According to St. Alphonsus⁴ there is an obligation binding under grave sin from divine precept, at least in the course of life, and when a suitable occasion is given; and he proves this from the Declaration of Benedict XIV in the Bull Etsi pastoralis concerning the rites and dogmas of the Greeks, where⁵ he says: "They are to be warned" (those who are not confirmed) "by the Ordinaries of places, that they are held guilty of grave sin if, when they can approach Confirmation, they refuse and neglect it."

Query 2° What must be done in doubt whether someone has been confirmed?

Resp. He can be confirmed again under condition, as is clear from what has been said in n. 1213. But one is not held to this, if he truly probably believes that he has received this Sacrament.¹

Query 3° What dispositions are required in those to be confirmed?

Resp. There is required: 1° the baptismal character for the validity of the Sacrament, and moreover in an adult the intention of receiving the Sacrament, as is established from what has been said in n. 1238. III. 1240. R. 2°.

2° The state of grace, because Confirmation is a Sacrament of the living. Wherefore he who is conscious of mortal sin must have recourse to the Sacrament of Penance, unless he is perfectly contrite.

3° That the one to be confirmed be imbued with the rudiments of Christian doctrine, especially those which are of necessity of means, and which regard the Sacraments of Penance and Confirmation.

4° That he have a Patron. Concerning this note these hortatory words of the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore:² "The Bishops will move every stone, so that discipline of this kind" (namely of employing Patrons in Confirmation), "already introduced in some dioceses of these Provinces, be introduced everywhere. But those confirmed shall each have individual Patrons, nor, however, shall males perform the office of Patron for females, nor females for males. But if this altogether cannot be done, at least two Patrons are to be employed for boys, and two Matrons for girls." The journal Pastoral-Blatt fuer Nordamerika³ thinks that one male or one female can be employed for both sexes, where two cannot be found. Besides, Patrons for Confirmation must have the same qualities as Patrons for Baptism.⁴

But "the Patron places the right hand upon the right shoulder of the one to be confirmed, which custom is different from that which is prescribed in the Pontifical, but has been approved by the S. C. R. on 20 Sept. 1749." Cf. L. VI. 187, § fin.¹

5° "Whenever Confirmation is administered to many, we establish," say the Fathers of the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore,³ "that slips, on which the names of those who are to be confirmed are inscribed, are to be given by the pastor to each one, which they are to exhibit to the Bishop about to administer the Sacrament."

Query 4° Must the one to be confirmed be fasting?

Resp. Negatively, considering the custom of today, and the same holds concerning the one confirming. For the canonical laws which prescribed fasting for receiving Confirmation have gone into desuetude. Therefore also the practice of conferring this Sacrament in the evening time has prevailed; but it can be conferred on any day.¹

S. Th. III, q. 72, a. 6 and 8.

190. The capable subject of Confirmation is every and only a baptized man not yet confirmed (can. 786). Whence it is validly conferred upon children and the perpetually insane, who, although they have no spiritual enemies to attack, can receive spiritual strength and an increase of grace; but upon adults, provided they have at least a habitual and implicit intention of receiving the sacrament (nn. 92-93).

But that it may be received licitly and fruitfully, the one receiving it must be constituted in the state of grace, since it is a sacrament of the living, and, if he has the use of reason, sufficiently instructed (can. 786), namely both concerning those things necessary to know by necessity of means and of precept, and concerning those things which regard the sacrament to be received, as the Instruction of the S.C.P.F. of the year 1774 explains.

191. A special precept of receiving Confirmation is not given per se, because the sacrament is not necessary for salvation but for the perfection of salvation (a. 1, ad 3). Hence:

a) Those who do not receive it do not per se sin gravely.

b) But to neglect so great a means of salvation regularly, and with a sufficiently great inconvenience excluded, is not done from a reasonable motive, and therefore is accustomed to include light fault; whence can. 787: "Although this sacrament is not of the necessity of means for salvation, nevertheless it is lawful for no one, when occasion is offered, to neglect it...."

c) Per accidens grave sin can be present by reason of scandal, or contempt, or special necessity on account of a peculiar danger of losing the faith.

192. Confirmation is fitting for every age and of itself is to be given to all. - For, just as it is of the intention of nature that everyone who is born bodily arrive at perfect age, although this is sometimes impeded on account of the corruptibility of the body, which is forestalled by death, so also and much more is it of the intention of God that one who is born spiritually arrive at the perfect age of supernatural life. But the soul, to which both spiritual birth and the perfection of spiritual age pertain, is immortal, and can, just as in the time of old age it can obtain spiritual birth, so in the time of youth or childhood it can obtain perfect age, because bodily ages of this kind do not prejudice the soul. Therefore Confirmation can be conferred on every age and per se ought to be given to all (a. 8).

Hence "even in childhood man can obtain the perfection of spiritual age...; and from this it is that many in childhood, on account of the strength of the Holy Spirit received, fought strongly for Christ even unto blood" (ad 2). And this sacrament is also to be given to the dying, that they may appear perfect in the resurrection.... Whence "also children departing after having been confirmed both obtain greater glory, just as here also they obtain greater grace" (ad 4).

In the first centuries Confirmation was given immediately after Baptism. From the fifth century, on account of the multiplication of the faithful in the Latin Church, the conferral of Confirmation, as reserved to the bishop, began to be separated from the administration of Baptism; and so gradually the custom prevailed of delaying it until the years of discretion, except, however, in Spain, where the ancient custom, as among the Greeks, was preserved up to the present day.

Now the present custom of the Latin Church is more fitting, both on account of greater reverence for so great a sacrament and on account of hope of more abundant fruit in those receiving consciously. According to the present discipline consecrated by can. 788: 1. regularly Confirmation is to be delayed until the use of reason, and ordinarily is not to be administered before it; 2. nevertheless it can be conferred before this if the infant is constituted in danger of death, or if it seems to the minister expedient on account of just and grave causes; 3. yet it is not to be delayed longer, but is fittingly given at around the seventh year of age.

I say. The subject of the Sacrament of Confirmation is every and only baptized man not yet confirmed, although lacking the use of reason. For Confirmation perfects spiritual life, which is received in Baptism and was instituted for all, as Baptism was. From the practice, however, generally in force in the Church, children who have not yet attained the use of reason are not to be confirmed, unless the legitimate custom of places, which is in force somewhere, bears this, or a grave cause persuades otherwise. Wherefore the Fathers of Baltimore established that the Sacrament of Confirmation is to be administered to no one who is less than seven years old, unless because of peculiar reasons, for example, in danger of death. - Cf. Second Plenary Council of Baltimore, n. 252. - Benedict XIV, de Synod. dioec., lib. 7, cap. 10, n. 8.

Question 1. Whether, or what kind, is the obligation of receiving the Sacrament of Confirmation?

Resp. Although this sacrament is not of the necessity of means for salvation, nevertheless it is licit for no one, when the occasion has been offered, to neglect it; indeed parish priests are to take care that the faithful approach it at a suitable time (Can. 787).

Is the obligation on account of which it is licit for no one, when the occasion has been offered, to neglect the Sacrament grave or light? To us the obligation of not neglecting it, when the occasion has been offered, seems grave. Thus the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, instruction, 4 May 1774: "For although this Sacrament is not of the necessity of means for salvation, nevertheless without the guilt of grave sin it cannot be rejected and neglected when the occasion of receiving it is present. Now this doctrine, if it is true for all who are Christians everywhere, has place much more in those who dwell in the lands of heretics or pagans, in which persecutions sometimes press upon Catholics. Whence there is need that they be strengthened by the power of the Sevenfold Spirit, etc., etc." And indeed, to neglect the Sacrament "through which, by the supreme benefit of God, the strength of special grace is conferred for constantly professing the Catholic faith even in graver dangers," as Pius IX says in the encyclical letter Nostis et Nobiscum, when the occasion of receiving it is offered, is also to neglect the supreme benefit of God, which wholly strengthens us in the spiritual battle against the internal and external enemies of the faith, and which from its institution was born to be the ordinary means of protection and strength in this battle which every Christian man must wage. But to reject, neglect, cast aside such a means, when by extending, as it were, the hand we can obtain it, is without cause to reject the supreme benefit of God, that special armor by which Christians, by the will of Christ, may become most strong. Now this seems to us to have in itself a special malice, and a grave one, of carelessness for salvation. Therefore we judge that Confirmation is not necessary by necessity of means, nor in general is there a grave precept of receiving it, but that there is a grave precept of not neglecting it, when a suitable occasion of receiving it is offered, and therefore in that case also of receiving it; to say nothing of scandal or of the particular necessity of the grace of the Sacrament.

Question 2. What dispositions are required in those to be confirmed?

Resp. For validity there is required the baptismal character, and in an adult some intention, at least that which is called habitual implicit intention. - But for liceity, thus Canon 786: "that someone may licitly and fruitfully be confirmed, he must be constituted in the state of grace and, if he has the use of reason, sufficiently instructed" concerning the rudiments of Christian doctrine, especially those things which are of necessity of means and which regard the Sacraments of Penance and Confirmation.

Question 3. What age is required for receiving Confirmation?

Resp. Although the administration of the Sacrament of Confirmation is fittingly deferred in the Latin Church to about the seventh year of age, nevertheless it can also be conferred before that time, if the infant is constituted in danger of death, or if this seems expedient to the minister for just and grave causes (Can. 788). - Second Plenary Council of Baltimore, n. 252.

Question 4. Are sponsors required in Confirmation, as in Baptism?

Resp. From the most ancient custom of the Church, as in Baptism, so also in Confirmation, a sponsor is to be employed, if he can be had (Can. 793).

§ 1. Let the sponsor present only one to be confirmed or two, unless something else for a just cause seems good to the minister.

§ 2. Likewise let there be one sponsor for each of those to be confirmed (Can. 794).

Question 5. What conditions are required that someone be a sponsor?

Resp. In order that someone be a sponsor, it is necessary that:

1st. He himself also be confirmed, have attained the use of reason, and have the intention of carrying out that office;

2nd. He be enrolled in no heretical or schismatic sect, nor marked by any of the penalties of which in can. 765, n. 2, through a declaratory or condemnatory sentence;

3rd. He be not the father, mother, or spouse of the one to be confirmed;

4th. He be designated by the one to be confirmed or by his parents or tutors, or, if these are lacking or refuse, by the minister or by the parish priest;

5th. In the very act of confirmation, either through himself or through a procurator, he physically touch the one to be confirmed (Can. 795).

Question 6. What is required that someone be licitly a sponsor?

Resp. In order that someone be licitly admitted to the office of sponsor, it is necessary that:

1st. He be other than the sponsor of baptism, unless a reasonable cause, according to the judgment of the minister, persuades otherwise, or confirmation is legitimately conferred immediately after baptism;

2nd. He be of the same sex as the one to be confirmed, unless something else seems good to the minister in particular cases from a reasonable cause;

3rd. Besides these things, the prescriptions of can. 766 are to be observed (Can. 796).

Question 7. Does a sponsor in Confirmation contract spiritual kinship?

Resp. Even from valid confirmation there arises between the confirmed person and the sponsor spiritual kinship, from which the sponsor is held by the obligation of having the confirmed person perpetually commended to himself and of taking care of his Christian education (Can. 797).

Cf. Second Plenary Council of Baltimore, n. 253. Nevertheless, no matrimonial impediment arises from this.

Question 8. To whom can a Bishop and a privileged presbyter confer this Sacrament?

Resp. § 1. A Bishop in his own diocese legitimately ministers this sacrament even to outsiders, unless an express prohibition of their own Ordinary stands in the way.

§ 2. In another diocese he needs the permission of the local Ordinary at least reasonably presumed, unless there is question of his own subjects, to whom he confers confirmation privately and without staff and mitre (Can. 783).

It is also licit for a presbyter, if he is furnished with an apostolic local privilege, to confirm even outsiders in the territory designated to him, unless their Ordinaries have expressly forbidden this (Can. 784).

Question 9. What is the proper place of administering Confirmation?

Resp. Although the proper place of administering confirmation is a church, nevertheless from a cause which the minister has judged just and reasonable, this sacrament can be conferred in any other decent place (Can. 791).

The Bishop has the right of administering confirmation within the boundaries of his diocese even in exempt places (Can. 792).

Question 10. At what time can this Sacrament be conferred?

Resp. This sacrament can be conferred at any time; but it is especially fitting that it be administered in the week of Pentecost (Can. 790).

Question 11. Must the custom be observed by those to be confirmed of carrying a ticket?

Resp. Affirmatively, for the Fathers of Baltimore say: "Whenever Confirmation is administered to many, we establish that certain tickets, on which the names of those who are to be confirmed are inscribed, are to be given by the Pastor to each one, which they are to show to the Bishop about to administer the sacrament." - Cf. Second Plenary Council of Baltimore, n. 252.

Note. - I. Let the parish priest inscribe the names of the minister, of the confirmed, of the parents and sponsors, and the day and place of confirmation in a particular book, besides the notation in the book of the baptized of which in can. 470, § 2 (Can. 798).

II. If the proper parish priest of the confirmed person was not present, concerning the confirmation conferred let the minister, either by himself or through another, make the same certain as soon as possible (Can. 799).

VI. The same in the same place, disputation 10, chapter 7, no. 3: “It is no sin not to receive the sacrament of confirmation, even in one who can conveniently do so, unless he omit it out of contempt. Nor is he to be judged to contemn it, unless he not receive it either because he holds it of small moment, or unworthy of himself, or as childish.”

VIII. Fr. Dominic Viva in his Course of Theology, part 5, question 3, article 2, no. 6: “I answer with the common opinion in Diana … that it is not mortal to be unwilling to receive that sacrament of confirmation, contempt and scandal being cut off. Nay, from Trullench and Henríquez, against Navarrus, in Coninck, not even venial, since nowhere is there a precept concerning receiving it.”

XIV. Fr. Matthew de Moya in his Select Questions, Vol. I, tract 4, Miscellany, On the Sacraments, question 11, no. 7: “Whence is easily dissolved the foundation of those asserting that it is a venial sin, on the ground that it is a certain spiritual prodigality to deprive oneself of so great a fruit of this sacrament (of confirmation) when a man can conveniently receive it. Which reason indeed proves too much, and therefore nothing.”

VI. QUESTION VI. Who are capable of receiving this sacrament? ANSWER. All the baptized, whether men or women, or infants, are by right capable of that sacrament, as the custom both of the Latin and of the Greek Church proves: for formerly for many centuries chrism was conferred upon infants after baptism. Since nevertheless that sacrament is not necessary with the necessity of means, it was fittingly laid down in several councils that it be administered to the baptized after the use of reason has been attained. Whether the demented are to be confirmed is remitted to the prudence of the bishops. To the sick and to the possessed this sacrament ought to be administered, that they may become stronger in their struggles.

Every baptized person, not yet confirmed, may receive Confirmation. For this reason Confirmation may be administered even to young children who have not yet arrived at the years of discretion. As a fact this Sacrament was formerly administered immediately after Baptism. According to present discipline, however, the Church does not allow it to be administered to children before the completion of the seventh year, and not until the attained use of reason. Man is to receive the fulness of Christian life, through the imparting of the Holy Spirit, at an age when capable of leading a Christian life. Confirmation may, however, even now, be administered earlier: 1. When there is a lawful custom of earlier reception, as is the case in Greece and Spain (where children are confirmed at the age of two or three years); 2. When the bishop by reason of great extent of his diocese, or for other important reasons, can but seldom confirm; 3. Where danger exists that a child might die before Confirmation and the bishop wishes to go and confirm him.

In many parts it has become customary that children are confirmed only after making their first Holy Communion. What Leo XIII thought about this custom is plain from his letter to the Bishop of Marseilles, who had abandoned the former custom and confirmed children before their first Holy Communion. In his letter Leo XIII expressly approves of the bishop’s procedure and says of the existing custom: It agreed neither with the ancient and constant institution of the Church nor with the welfare of the faithful.

There lie dormant in the heart of the child the germs of most varied desires, which may bring about man’s undoing, if not early weeded out. From earliest youth the grace and assistance of the Holy Spirit are required to this end. The Holy Father sees a twofold advantage in early Confirmation: The childish mind is made more receptive for acquiring the Christian rules of life, it will be better prepared for the Holy Communion later to be received, and will obtain therefrom greater fruits: Moreover, youths confirmed in this way become more receptive to accepting precepts, and better fitted afterward to receive the Eucharist, and from receiving it they obtain more abundant benefits. The matter is one for the bishops to regulate for their respective dioceses. Fr. Goepfert, D.D.

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.