I occassionally get 5-second slivers of time to ponder things theological.
This opportunity doesn't come very often, but when it presents itself, i am no doubt likely to stumble into areas of thought beyond my expertise. The CIC has always proven a sound reference for me, but as i no longer have access to one at my late parish office, i find myself wasting too much time searching through it on the internet. So to spare my children parental neglect, i throw it out there for all of you. Here's the latest:
At what age of the child is the will of one's parents no longer sufficient for the valid reception of the Sacrament of Confirmation?
And consider that in light of the tragically all-too-common circs. of the modern era.
(For instance, is baptized Jimmy, age 13 and totally immature on most fronts, sufficiently competent to say that he does not want to be Confirmed?
Or are mom and dad, who are mature, competent, and primarily responsible for the education of Jimmy, still able to make that act of will for him now that they made for him at his infant baptism?)
Answer and references would be appreciated....
4 comments:
I know Jon Paul and Father Martin actually ask the 8th graders if they desire to make their confirmation after their classes and before the sacrament. If the student says no, they discuss why not. For the most part the students are able to decide for themselves (especially since they know more than their parents by this time) if they desire to recieve it.
Ask JD... he's a canon laywer...
Erica,
you ask a good question. For validity, "every baptized person not yet confirmed... is capable of receiving confirmation." (c. 889.1) Ignorance, error, or grave fear will not invalidate the reception.
A person need not be sui compos (that is, be capable of a human act) however, for liciety, the person who is sui compos and does posses the use of reason (which, in Jimmy's case is presumed because he is older than 7), the person must be suitably instructed, properly disposed, and able to renew his baptismal promises. Therefore, while the Church does not compel anyone to receive confirmation, if a parent compels a child to receive confirmation, the sacrament will be valid, though, arguably, depending on the nature of coercion, illicit.
While Jimmy may or may not be competent to decide whether he wants the Sacrament, his reception of it will be valid by virtue of the fact, merely, that he is baptized. Now, the Church may determine that since Jimmy himself is not properly disposed, by virtue of the fact that he doesn't want to receive communion, and it is the prerogative of the PASTOR to withhold the sacrament until such time as Jimmy is suitably disposed.
In short, the parents can't compel the Church to confer the sacrament on Jimmy because they desire it when he does not. However, if they compel Jimmy to receive confirmation when he does not want it (which, morally, they probably shouldn't do), such a confirmation will be valid, though, if the Church discovers this situation, they may refrain from confirming him.
I hope that is at least a little clear.
This issue, among others, is one reason why I am genuinely in favor of infant confirmation.
JD Flynn, JCL
Now that I am officially a canon lawyer (I graduated yesterday!) I should probably charge :) JK!
So yeah... why did I even bother? I knew JD would have the answer!
A round of drinks in honor of your recent graduation, JD!
And thank you for your thurough answer. Much applause! They taught you well.
Infant Confirmation has always sounded like the logical way to go. Perhaps we will soon see a growing trend in favor of that in the near future?
Post a Comment