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)