Confirmation by a Parish Priest in connection with Marriage (Part 11)

By Msgr. Rey Manuel S. Monsanto, JCD III. The Case of c.884, par.1: After talking about those other cases of delegating a priest, it will now be clear that in c.884, par.1, specifically the second phrase we will dealing with a special and different case. The case of c.884, par.1, second phrase, is also obviously another case of granting faculty by special grant to some priests in a diocese to be done by the diocesan Bishop. We treat it, however, differently from the others because this object of our special study is different from the other cases with its specific questions, like whether a diocesan, on his own authority, can grant this faculty to his priests, whether he can use this power to grant the faculty to all his parish priests, and the like. In other words, we mentioned the others first in order to show that this case is different from them. This part of par.1 states: “If necessity so requires, he (the diocesan Bishop) may grant to one or several priests the faculty to administer this sacrament.” The canon says that the diocesan Bishop, apart from the cases mentioned in c.883, no.2 and c.884, par.2, may also delegate a priest or even several specified priests in his diocese to administer confirmation. Since the canon does not specify any situation or limitation, the diocesan Bishop may, therefore, grant this faculty either permanently or for a specified limit of time, and either for specific cases or situations or even in a general manner to any priest/s. The only required parameters needed on the part of the action of the diocesan Bishop are the following: there is a “necessity” to grant it, like the vastness of the diocese, or the health of the Bishop, or the diocesan is often outside his diocese. The canon does not say that the necessity must be a grave one. he is only “one” or “several” of his priests, and not to delegate all the priests. The priest/s must be “specified”. Although the canon does not specify the office or pastoral work of the priest/s, it would seem logical that if he does delegate he should first delegate either his Vicar general or Vicars general, if he has more than one (cfr. c.475, par.2); and, in addition, he can also delegate some or all of the Vicars forane, or even a few more priests in strategic places. We can add a fourth requirement: if he delegates priest only for specific cases, like for marriage, or for certain times, the diocesan Bishop should specify these, as this is a case of special grant and according to c.882 will be for the validity of the action of the priest. The particular questions related to this canon: We will now go into the questions related to this canon and which have prompted this particular study. Does the diocesan bishop need a special “indult” from the Holy See to grant the faculty to one or several priests? In the Code of 1917: The 1917 Code stipulated in c.782, par.2 that the priest who can be the “extraordinary minister” of confirmation may be given the faculty either by common law or by special indult granted to him by the Apostolic See. In the Code of 1983: The 1983 Code, however, in c.884, par.1 does not in any way mention such an indult. It simply says that the diocesan Bishop can grant it, the only conditions being those we have already mentioned above. Does the diocesan bishop need a law from the Bishops’ Conference to grant the faculty? The Code would normally specifically indicate if a certain canon would need to be specified or particularized by the Bishops’ Conference. The Code, however, does not say so in this case. It simply grants the power to the diocesan Bishop without the need to wait for a law from the Conference. However, there is also no stipulation either that prevents the Bishops from agreeing among themselves to issue some guidelines (not laws) for some kind of uniformity throughout the country. They can decide to issue suggestions as to who can be given the faculty, for what circumstances, etc. Any diocesan Bishop, however, can always invoke his right given by this canon to choose the priest/s he wishes and for circumstances peculiar to his place. Should the diocesan bishop grant all his parish priests the faculty to confirm in view of an impending marriage? The Code (in stating that the diocesan Bishop himself or should ask some other Bishop if he cannot do it; when it emphasizes that only “one or several specified priests” may be given the faculty; and when it insists that for a dying person only the chrism consecrated by a Bishop is to be used) does not seem to favor giving all the parish priests the faculty to confirm. This is to emphasize that this task of administering confirmation is to be strictly understood as belonging to a Bishop being a successor of an apostle. However, it is to be noted that the above considerations are strictly connected with granting a priest or priests “general faculty” to confirm in the diocese. Confirmation specifically in connection with marriage is a special particular circumstance. And granting faculty to confirm in connection with marriage is a favor for a specific circumstance. Hence, due to the distance of the parishes and the inconvenience of traveling to places where confirmation is available that may even force them to leave their work and lose their important day’s salary, and most especially so that the faithful will readily see the value of the sacrament of confirmation as needed for the fullness of the sacraments of initiation especially for persons who will soon become parents and so that they will not just take it for granted for their own children, and since granting such faculty will facilitate their reception of the sacrament and eliminate the grave inconvenience, it seems reasonable for a diocesan Bishop to grant it to all parish priests in view of an impending marriage. But, this, we say once again, will be the prerogative decision of each individual Bishop, and he does not need the nod of the Conference nor an indult from the Holy See to do it. If a diocesan Bishop decides to grant “specified priests” or even all parish priests to confirm in this circumstance, he should clearly state when the parish priest is to administer confirmation: during the marriage ceremony itself, or days before in view of an impending marriage. And if he chooses the latter, he should also state how long or how many days before the marriage it can be done (because he/she might still be able to attend a regular confirmation in a diocese before the marriage). These are very important conditions for the administration of confirmation by a priest because he confirms only by delegation and these conditions are for validity. Thus, for example, in a case of confirmation connected with adult baptism, it is to be done in one continuous ceremony otherwise the confirmation will be invalid (see c.866). For the meantime: Can “ecclesia supplet” be used by the parish priests for this case? In the meantime that the diocesan Bishops do not clarify this particular question which is connected with the statement in the “Canon Law Digest” of whether the parish priests are already granted the faculty to confirm in connection with marriage, I believe that parish priests can VALIDLY CONFIRM IN CONNECION WITH MARRIAGE by virtue of c.144: the Church supplies (“ecclesia supplet”) the power of jurisdiction in case of “positive and probable doubt of law”. However, this problem is so easy and can be given immediate solution and the diocesan Bishop does not have to wait for a Conference resolution. For each individual diocesan Bishop by virtue of c.884, par.1 can either immediately tell his parish priests they that they have such faculty or that they do not have such faculty in his diocese, and he can immediately designate specified priests to confirm. And the “doubt of law” is solved.

Confirmation by a Parish Priest in connection with Marriage (Part I)

Or, can the provision of C.884, Par 1 be applied to this case? (First of Two Parts) By Msgr. Rey Manuel S. Monsanto, JCD Introduction: In the “Canon Law Digest of the Philippine Church”, compiled and edited by F. Testera, OP, under the heading “CONFIRMATION”, there is a subheading that reads: “Confirmation by the Parish Priest at Marriages”. The entered answer, however, is almost just a word for word quotation of c.884, par.1 and does not seem to answer clearly and specifically the questions: whether the Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) has approved that the diocesan Bishops may delegate all their parish priests to confirm in connection with marriages; or, whether the Conference has already allowed all parish priests to confirm in said circumstances. It is not even clear if a parish priest can do it “in view of an impending marriage”, or just during the marriage ceremony itself because the said subheading says: “at marriages”. Because of this uncertainty, there is a case of “doubt of law”. Hence, there arise questions like: Is confirmation so needed for a catholic to be able to go into marriage? Can a priest be delegated to confirm? And if so, how and in what circumstances? Does a diocesan Bishop need the approval of the Bishops’ Conference? Or, does he need an Apostolic Indult to grant the faculty? And, lastly, should he delegate all his parish priests to confirm in connection with marriage? And we can add the question: for the meantime that this is not clarified, can the parish priests, due to doubt of law, have recourse to “ecclesia supplet” of c.144? I. The need for confirmation before a marriage: The 1983 Code of Canon Law simply counsels the fittingness of administering confirmation to a catholic who is about to be admitted into the sacrament of marriage. It says in c. 1065, par.1: “Catholics who have not yet received the sacrament of confirmation are to receive it before being admitted to marriage, if this can be done without grave inconvenience.” This counsel is not mentioned in the old Code, but is now mentioned in the new Code to put into canonical formula the Vatican emphasis that confirmation is one of the “sacraments of initiation” and so needed for “full Christian initiation” (c.842, par.2). However, as can be seen, the canon does not make confirmation a necessary requirement for marriage, and so is not a strong reason for refusing marriage ceremony for a non-confirmed catholic. Moreover, the canon emphasizes that it is to be received only “if this can be done without grave inconvenience”. It is not even needed for the fruitful reception of marriage as par. 2 of this canon mentions only the sacraments of penance and the blessed Eucharist for fruitful reception. But we can also see the importance given by the Code to confirmation as it requires its reception to be a sponsor at baptism and confirmation (see cc.874, par.1, no.3 and 893, par.1). Hence, it is but proper and fitting that someone entering marriage, which would entail raising up children in the faith, be fully initiated, even if it is not needed for the liceity or validity of marriage. And that, therefore, things should be done to somehow facilitate its reception for those entering marriage. After all, it was not the fault of those persons that they were not confirmed. II. The minister of confirmation: a. The bishop as ordinary minister: The Code states clearly that the ordinary minister of confirmation is a bishop. It says in c. 882: “The ordinary minister of confirmation is a Bishop.” The Code emphasizes this episcopal prerogative when it says in c.880, par.2 that the chrism to be used “must have been consecrated by a Bishop”: “The chrism to be used… must have been consecrated by a Bishop, even when the sacrament is administered by a priest.” In other words, a priest, even one given the faculty by law or by special grant, cannot even bless chrism, much less consecrate one, even when confronted with a case of person who will die without having received confirmation. Hence, confirmation does not have to be administered to one in danger of death if chrism is not available. The canon does not even give the possibility of a Bishop granting the power to consecrate to a priest (cfr. c.1169, par.1). This provision is vastly different from the provision in c.999, no.2 which gives the possibility for a priest to bless the oil for the sick “in case of necessity”: “The oil to be used in the anointing of the sick can be blessed not only by a Bishop but also by: …ín case of necessity, any priest but only in the actual celebration of the sacrament.” Duty of the bishop: Moreover, the Code emphasizes that it is the duty and responsibility of the diocesan Bishop to administer this sacrament himself. C.884, par.1 says: “The diocesan Bishop is himself to administer confirmation…..” First choice if he cannot personally administer: another bishop And this same canon and paragraph states that if he cannot do it himself, then the first choice of a diocesan Bishop to administer the sacrament should be another Bishop anad not a priest: “The diocesan Bishop is… to ensure that it is administered by another Bishop.” b. The priest as delegated minister: The Code, however, gives different ways whereby a priest may, by delegation, administer confirmation: General statement: C.882 gives the general ways or manners whereby a priest may be able to confirm: “A priest can also validly confer this sacrament if he has the faculty to do so, either from general law or by way of a special grant from the competent authority.” The canon, therefore, states two ways whereby a priest may have the faculty to confer: 1. From general law: means that the ways are mentioned or enumerated in the Code itself. 2. By way of special grant: it means that a priest is given the faculty by special delegation by the competent authority, or through some other way. It is to be noted that this canon does not specify the quality or position of the priest in as much as it simply says: “a priest”. Hence, he does not have to be a parish priest nor a priest with pastoral work nor does he need to be in any position; in fact, a priest from outside the diocese may even be delegated. The next canon, however, c.883, which enumerates the priests who are granted the faculty by general law, lists also the position or the office or the situation of the priest. This delegated faculty, the canon clearly states, is for the validity of the sacrament. 1. Delegation from General Law: C.883 mentions the following priests in certain offices or situations as being granted by general law the faculty to confirm: “The following have, by law, the faculty to administer confirmation: “n.1 within the confines of their jurisdiction, those who in law are equivalent to a diocesan Bishop;” Those “equivalent in law” to a diocesan Bishop are those priests who, even without being ordained Bishops, are made to head ecclesiastical jurisdictions equivalent to a diocese, like a “territorial prelature”, a “territorial abbacy”, a “vicariate apostolic”, or a “prefecture apostolic” (cfr. c.368 and following). But, since they are not Bishops, the exercise of their faculty is limited to the “confines of their jurisdiction”; otherwise, the confirmation they administer will be invalid (cfr. c.887). “n.2 in respect to the person to be confirmed, the priest who by virtue of his office… baptizes an adult or admits a baptized adult into full communion with the catholic Church;” The priest who by virtue of his office baptizes, whether an adult or an infant, or admits a baptized adult into full communion with the Catholic Church is the parish priest (cfr. c.530, no.1). The parochial vicar does not have this office. “n.3 in respect to those in danger of death, the parish priest or indeed any priest.” Hence, any priest in a case of danger of death may validly confirm. This faculty, however, is, as said above, subject to the availability of chrism consecrated by a Bishop (cfr. c.880, par.2). The priest does not even have to belong to the ecclesiastical jurisdiction where he administers confirmation to someone in danger of death (cfr. c.887, the last phrase). 2. Delegation by special grant: The following are the cases whereby a priest may be granted the faculty by special grant or delegation: a. C.883, no.2 says: “in respect of the person to be confirmed, the priest who… by mandate of the diocesan Bishop an adult or admits a baptized into full communion with the catholic Church;” It is to be noted, first, that while parish priests can confirm in connection with adult baptism or with full reception into the Catholic Church, other priests are to receive a mandate from the diocesan Bishop; and, secondly, that the only one who can validly give this mandate is a “diocesan Bishop” or the Bishop of the place and not just any Bishop. And the diocesan Bishop can give this mandate any priest; and may do so not only for particular cases. b. C.884, par.2 talks of a novel case or way whereby delegation is granted to a priest by means of, what I would call, “invitation” (“faculty by invitation”): “For a grave reason the Bishop, or the priest who by law or by special grant of the competent authority has the faculty to confirm, may in individual cases invite other priests to join with him in administering the sacrament.” Hence, the actual minister of confirmation, whether he is a Bishop or a delegated priest, can, in an actual conferment of confirmation, invite other priests concelebrating with him to join in administering the confirmation. The requirements for this are: first, “grave reason”, like when there is a big number to be confirmed; and, second, it should be done in actual celebration; hence, a delegated priest, unlike a Bishop, cannot just tell other priests to confer the sacrament for him while he does not confer it himself. Thus, the canon says that the priest “may… invite other priests to join with him”. (To be continued)

The Canonical Imperatives of Priestly Sanctity (Part III)

By Fr. Jaime Blanco Achacoso, J.C.D. AFTER considering the demands laid down by Canon Law as regards the pastoral ministry of priests, we can proceed to other obligations which likewise are specify the general duty of priests to seek holiness. 2nd Imperative Can.276, §2 — 2º [Clerics] are to nourish their spiritual life from the two-fold table of Sacred Scripture and the Eucharist; priests are therefore earnestly invited to offer the sacrifice of the Eucharist daily and deacons are earnestly invited to participate daily in offering it. This imperative to make the Holy Mass the root and center of the priest’s entire life by its daily celebration is reiterated in c.904: Priests are to celebrate frequently; indeed daily celebration is strongly recommended, since even if the faithful cannot be present, it is the act of Christ and the Church in which priests fulfill their principal function. Furthermore, the Code specifies an obligation to offer the Holy Mass for the people for certain clerics by virtue of their office: 1) For the diocesan bishop: After he has taken possession of his diocese, the diocesan bishop must apply a Mass for the people committed to him on Sundays and the other holy days of obligation within his region (c.388, §1). 2) For the diocesan administrator: The diocesan administrator is obliged to reside in the diocese and to apply Mass for the people according to the norm of c.388 (c.429). 3) For the parish priest: After he has taken possession of his parish, the pastor is obliged to apply Mass for the people entrusted to him each Sunday and holy day of obligation within the diocese; if he is legitimately prevented from this celebration, he is to apply Mass on these same days through another priest or he himself is to apply it on other days (c.534, §1). On the other hand, the pious celebration of the Eucharistic Sacrifice is safeguarded by the following canonical provisions: 1) Prohibition against routine due to too many Masses daily: It is not licit for a priest to celebrate the Eucharist more than once a day, except for certain instances when the law permits such celebration or concelebration more than once (c.905, §1). In fact, only if priests are lacking can the Local Ordinary allow exceptions to this general limitation to one Mass per day: a) twice a day for a just cause; b) thrice on Sunday and holy days of obligation, for pastoral reasons. 2) Prayer before and after Mass: The priest is not to fail to make the required prayerful preparation for the celebration of the Eucharistic Sacrifice, or the thanksgiving to God upon its completion (c.909). 3rd Imperative Can.276, §2 — 3º Priests as well as deacons aspiring to the priesthood are obliged to fulfill the liturgy of the hours daily in accordance with the proper and approved liturgical books; permanent deacons, however, are to do the same to the extent it is determined by the conference of bishops. The degree of obligation is lost in translation; in effect the original obligatione tenentur is used in the Code for obligations of the greatest rank—e.g., duty of celibacy for clerics (c.277, §1), duty to attend Mass on holy days of obligation (c.1247). Indeed the liturgy of the hours forms part of the public worship of the Church, and its celebration constitutes a grave obligation for clerics, even if the commandment does not affect all the hours equally—i.e., Morning Praise and Evening Prayer form the double axis around which the divine office rotates , which should not be omitted except for a serious cause. This canonical norm is in perfect continuity with c.135 of the old CIC17. 4th Imperative Can.276, §2 — 4º [Clerics] are also bound to make a spiritual retreat according to the prescriptions of particular law. The obligation to attend spiritual retreat is also given in terms of strict obligation, and canonical provisions are made to facilitate such attendance. Thus, the days spent in such retreats are not counted among the vacation days of the parish priest, when he is allowed to be absent from the parish (cf. c.533, §2); the same right is given the parochial vicar (cf. c.550, §3). This obligation should be interpreted in the context of the right and duty of the priest to permanent formation. 5th Imperative Can.276, §2 — 5º [Clerics] are to be conscientious in devoting time regularly to mental prayer, in approaching the sacrament of penance frequently, in cultivating special devotion to the Virgin Mother of God, and in using other common and particular means for their sanctification. This canonical imperative lumps in one provision a series of norms of piety and sacramental life which are further spelled out in the Directory on the Ministry and Life of Priests as follows: 1) Devoting time regularly to mental prayer: Following the example of Christ, the priest must know how to maintain the vivacity and abundance of the moments of silence and prayer in which he cultivates and deepens his own personal relationship with the living figure of Jesus Christ (Directory…, n.40). 2) Approaching the sacrament of penance frequently: Like any good faithful, the priest also needs to confess his own sins and weaknesses. He is the first to realize that the practice of this sacrament reinforces his faith and charity toward God and his brothers. In order to effectively reveal the beauty of Penance, it is essential that the minister of the sacrament offer a personal testimony preceding the other faithful in living the experience of pardon. In this sense, it is good for the faithful to see and know that their priests go to confession regularly (Directory…, n.53). 3) Cultivating special devotion to the Virgin Mother of God: The Directory makes special mention of the Holy Rosary (Directory…, n.39). 4) Other common and particular means for their sanctification. The Directory enumerates the following: daily Eucharistic celebration, with adequate preparation and thanksgiving; spiritual direction already practiced in the seminary; the complete and fervent celebration of the liturgy of the hours, on a daily basis; examination of conscience; divine readings; the Via Crucis and other pious exercises; and the fruitful reading on lives of the saints (Ibid.). Conclusion These brief considerations were meant to show that the ideal of priestly holiness is a pretension of paramount importance in the canonical order, such that in fact concrete norms have been laid down for its accomplishment. These norms are laid down in the most concise and concrete manner in the Directory on the Ministry and Life of Priests. I consider this to be the best little manual for the life and ministry of priests, a veritable vademecum specifically for the secular clergy who many times suffer precisely from a lack of specifically secular spirituality, as compared to the members of religious orders or societies of apostolic life who enjoy well-defined norms and means of ongoing formation that safeguard fidelity to their vocation. I would like to end with a quotation from Bl. John Paul II, concluding his landmark Apostolic Exhortation, Pastores dabo vobis: “I will give you shepherds after my own heart (Jer. 3:15). Today, this promise of God is still living and at work in the Church. At all times, she knows she is the fortunate receiver of these prophetic words. She sees them put into practice daily in so many parts of the world, or rather, in so many human hearts, young hearts in particular. On the threshold of the third millennium, and in the face of the serious and urgent needs which confront the Church and the world, she yearns to see this promise fulfilled in a new and richer way, more intensely and effectively: She hopes for an extraordinary outpouring of the Spirit of Pentecost.” (n.82)