Bishops and confirmation

[salusanimarum17]

I was reading a closed thread about one of the SSPX bishops and confirmation. A dispute arose in that thread about bishops and faculties and confirmation. I’m not a canon law expert but can at least read cannon law. I see in canon law that there is nothing said about bishops needing or getting a faculty so that they can confirm, unlike in regard to confession. But, there is probably more to the story than those small sections of canon law. Since anybody here can have an opinion, I’d like some referencces to some kind of authoritative sources like the canon law and catechism. Please don’t make this about the SSPX.

 

[runningdude]

According to the other thread, the faculty was needed for the bishop to legally administer the sacrament. It would be sinful for the bishop to illegally administer the sacrament, even if technically valid.

I was reflecting on this other thread a bit, and I think I came up with a metaphor to describe why this is the case: consider a relationship between a man and a woman. Outside of marriage, the two have the ability to create a child, but it would be sinful for them to do so. Marriage gives them the necessary “faculty” to morally bring a child into the world.

Likewise, ordination gives a bishop the raw ability to celebrate the sacrament of confirmation. When a bishop has, a valid office within the Catholic Church, such as being the installed ordinary (leader) of a diocese, or even the auxiliary bishop of the diocese, the necessary faculties are provided by the either Canon law, the presiding bishop, or by installation into the office itself. When properly installed, a bishop may legally celebrate the sacraments.

In the case of a suspended bishop, this permission is revoked, thus any sacraments he celebrates may indeed be valid, but are immoral to participate in.

The gist of the other thread was that there are many sources for this permission to celebrate the sacrament of confirmation, however it this permission is necessary for the sacrament to be legally, and thus morally celebrated.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

Can. 887 A presbyter who possesses the faculty of administering confirmation also confers this sacrament licitly on externs in the territory assigned to him unless their proper ordinary prohibits it; he **cannot confer it validly **on anyone in another territory, without prejudice to the prescript of ⇒ can. 883, n. 3.

[Can 883 n.3 refers to danger of death.]

See full Canon Law, CHAPTER II. THE MINISTER OF CONFIRMATION for more information.

 

[runningdude]

Can. 887 A presbyter who possesses the faculty of administering confirmation also confers this sacrament licitly on externs in the territory assigned to him unless their proper ordinary prohibits it; he cannot confer it validly on anyone in another territory, without prejudice to the prescript of ⇒ can. 883, n. 3.

“Presbyter” refers to a priest, not a bishop. Priests are incapable of confirming without faculties. A bishop could confirm without faculties, but it would be illegal.

Can. 886 §1. A bishop in his diocese legitimately administers the sacrament of confirmation even to faithful who are not his subjects, unless their own ordinary expressly prohibits it.

§2. To administer confirmation licitly in another diocese, a bishop needs at least the reasonably presumed permission of the diocesan bishop unless it concerns his own subjects.

The canons only speak of licitness of conferring the sacrament by a bishop. It would be gravely immoral to confirm without the proper permission/faculties, but possible.

 

[salusanimarum17]

“Presbyter” refers to a priest, not a bishop. Priests are incapable of confirming without faculties. A bishop could confirm without faculties, but it would be illegal.

The canons only speak of licitness of conferring the sacrament by a bishop. It would be gravely immoral to confirm without the proper permission/faculties, but possible.

Good clarification. Those laws is where my confusion is. It talks about presbyters and faculties but never about a bishop and faculties. But, there is that “presumed permission” thing. Are you saying that the permission is the same as faculty? If that’s the case, why didn’t they just say “faculty.” And, what exactly is reasonably presumed permission.

 

[runningdude]

Good clarification. Those laws is where my confusion is. It talks about presbyters and faculties but never about a bishop and faculties. But, there is that “presumed permission” thing. Are you saying that the permission is the same as faculty? If that’s the case, why didn’t they just say "faculty. And, what exactly is reasonably presumed permission.

Well, “permission” is kind of like a “sub-faculty”. A bishop in good standing with the church generally will have the faculty to legally confirm candidates. The faculty generally comes from being installed as either the head bishop of a diocese (the diocesan bishop), or being installed by the diocesan bishop as an auxiliary bishop. To abbreviate the canon:

Can. 883 The following possess the faculty of administering confirmation by the law itself: … those who are equivalent in law to a diocesan bishop; …

Can. 884 §1. The diocesan bishop is to administer confirmation personally or is to take care that another bishop administers it…

emphasis added]

Outside of his assigned dioceses, a bishop will need permission to use that faculty. For instance, the Archbishop in Hartford might ask the Bishop in Norwich (CT) to provide an auxiliary bishop to cover a couple parishes while his own auxiliary is sick. Simply asking for help would probably supply the permission, although a formal letter might be issued to properly document everything.

A reasonably assumed permission might be a last minute substitution of an auxiliary bishop from another dioceses due to sudden sickness or emergency, but in general a bishop can’t just wander into another diocese and start confirming people - it would be a nightmare to document!

A neat example of this was last year at my college’s local chapel/parish. Our church has a close relationship with the Haitian Ministry of the Diocese of Norwich, and we used to send several students down each year before the earthquake. Last year, the Bishop of Port-au-Prince came to visit our bishop here in Connecticut, and because of our church’s close relationship, he was asked to confirm our confirmation candidates that year!

 

[dans0622]

I was reading a closed thread about one of the SSPX bishops and confirmation. A dispute arose in that thread about bishops and faculties and confirmation. I’m not a canon law expert but can at least read cannon law. I see in canon law that there is nothing said about bishops needing or getting a faculty so that they can confirm, unlike in regard to confession. But, there is probably more to the story than those small sections of canon law. Since anybody here can have an opinion, I’d like some referencces to some kind of authoritative sources like the canon law and catechism. Please don’t make this about the SSPX.

Hello,

As one of the participants in that “dispute,” I have little to add to what I ineptly said there. I will say is that this is one case where there isn’t more to the story. Since “faculties” are part of ecclesiastical law, the only times they are needed or are granted are determined in the law. Since the law on bishops and Confirmation says nothing about faculties either being needed or granted, there is no reason for anyone to say that they are needed or granted. As you noted, the law is perfectly clear about the bishop getting a faculty to hear Confessions. So, it’s not as though the law couldn’t have said the same in regard to Confirmation. It didn’t. You might wonder “well, how is a bishop approved to minister in the Church?” Simply by being validly and licitly ordained in the Church, he is approved to minister. As the Catechism says in #1558 “Episcopal consecration confers, together with the office of sanctifying, also the offices of teaching and ruling…”

I am arguing a negative/an absence so I can’t point to any sources and say “there it is.” All I can do is say that if you look at the law and at *any *commentary on this part of the law, you will never see anything about bishops needing/getting a faculty to Confirm. Those who taught me canon law say the same. (It’s not as though I made this opinion up on my own.)

Thanks for your time. I think I have now said all I can possibly say about this.

Dan

 

[runningdude]

Hello,

As one of the participants in that “dispute,” I have little to add to what I ineptly said there. I will say is that this is one case where there isn’t more to the story. Since “faculties” are part of ecclesiastical law, the only times they are needed or are granted are determined in the law. Since the law on bishops and Confirmation says nothing about faculties either being needed or granted, there is no reason for anyone to say that they are needed or granted. …

To address your statement that I’ve put in bold,

Canon 883 (previously posted in part in this thread) specifically addresses the faculty to confirm. I’m not sure where the disagreement is

Can. 883 The following possess the faculty of administering confirmation by the law itself:

1/ within the boundaries of their jurisdiction, those who are equivalent in law to a diocesan bishop;

2/ as regards the person in question, the presbyter who by virtue of office or mandate of the diocesan bishop baptizes one who is no longer an infant or admits one already baptized into the full communion of the Catholic Church;

3/ as regards those who are in danger of death, the pastor or indeed any presbyter.

emphasis added]

Canon law gives the diocesan bishop the faculty to confirm, as well as any other priest given a mandate to confirm. The mandate would be in the documents installing the priest to his office. The documents installing an auxiliary bishop to a dioceses would also likely give him this mandate. Either way, the law explicitly states that a faculty is needed, whether given by office or mandate.

 

[dans0622]

To address your statement that I’ve put in bold,

Canon 883 (previously posted in part in this thread) specifically addresses the faculty to confirm. I’m not sure where the disagreement is

Canon law gives the diocesan bishop the faculty to confirm, as well as any other priest given a mandate to confirm. The mandate would be in the documents installing the priest to his office. The documents installing an auxiliary bishop to a dioceses would also likely give him this mandate. Either way, the law explicitly states that a faculty is needed, whether given by office or mandate.

Hello,

Yes, the law speaks of the faculty to confirm but it is *always *in regard to ministers who are not ordained bishops. Canon law does not give the diocesan bishop the faculty to confirm: it simply says the bishop (not diocesan bishop, not a bishop who is installed into some ecclesiastical office, just “a bishop”) is the ordinary minister (c. 882).

The canon you quoted refers to presbyters who are equivalent in law to a diocesan bishop. In order to be equivalent in law to a diocesan bishop, one must be appointed to an office such as an apostolic vicar, territorial prelate, etc (see c. 368 and 381.2). These structures are juridically equivalent to a diocese. Therefore, the one in charge of it is given the same legal authority as a diocesan bishop. This is mostly in relation to the power of governance (legislative, judicial, executive) but, for the topic at hand, includes the faculty of confirming.

Yes, the law explicitly states that a faculty is needed but, again, this is *only *in regard to a presbyter (c. 882ff).

Thanks for your time.
Dan

 

[runningdude]

What are we arguing here?

That any bishop can validly confirm at any time, though not necessary legally, or that any bishop can validly and licitly confirm at any time?

 

[salusanimarum17]

I am arguing a negative/an absence so I can’t point to any sources and say “there it is.”

I guess that makes sense but it doesn’t really help give a clear answer.

 

[runningdude]

Hello,

Yes, the law speaks of the faculty to confirm but it is *always *in regard to ministers who are not ordained bishops. Canon law does not give the diocesan bishop the faculty to confirm: it simply says the bishop (not diocesan bishop, not a bishop who is installed into some ecclesiastical office, just “a bishop”) is the ordinary minister (c. 882).
**
The canon you quoted refers to presbyters who are equivalent in law to a diocesan bishop. **In order to be equivalent in law to a diocesan bishop, one must be appointed to an office such as an apostolic vicar, territorial prelate, etc (see c. 368 and 381.2). These structures are juridically equivalent to a diocese. Therefore, the one in charge of it is given the same legal authority as a diocesan bishop. This is mostly in relation to the power of governance (legislative, judicial, executive) but, for the topic at hand, includes the faculty of confirming.

Yes, the law explicitly states that a faculty is needed but, again, this is *only *in regard to a presbyter (c. 882ff).

Thanks for your time.
Dan

I concede the bolded. I originally thought “equivalent” was inclusive of diocesan bishop. I also read through a commentary online New commentary on the Code of Canon Law, by John P. Beal, James A. Coriden, Thomas J. Green (available through Google Books), that does support your notion that any bishop (with a valid ministry) may ordain subjects within their territory.

The commentary states that the territorial restrictions apply to all ministers of confirmation, for example, Bishop A could restrict Bishop B from ministering to Bishop A subjects, whether in Territory A or Territory B. However Bishop A could not restrict Bishop B from ministering to Bishop B’s own subject, even if Bishop B confirmed his subjects within Territory A.

Its complicated, but the commentary clearly says that bishops cannot celebrate the sacrament completely unrestricted. They need a valid office or ministry within the church, and they need at least implicit permission outside their home diocese/territory or mandate.

I suppose one could say that the faculty of confirmation (as Brother JR and Fr. David called it), might be inherent with the canonical office of bishop within the Catholic Church. The commentary states that this has always been the norm, with the new phenomenon of priestly confirmations given greater detail.

In the case of a suspended bishop, or even the more extreme case of laiticized bishop, their canonical office has been suspended or revoked, thus they have no authority to celebrate any sacrament, confirmation included. The sacraments would be valid, as they possess the fullness of the priesthood, however the sacraments would be illegal. I hope we can agree on this point. The authority for confirmation seems to be given or revoked depending on the bishop having an office within the church.

Whether a bishop’s specific authority to confirm is called a “faculty” seems to be the only point of contention. Am I correct?

 

[Digitonomy]

Whether a bishop’s specific authority to confirm is called a “faculty” seems to be the only point of contention. Am I correct?

As another who has been following these threads, I am not sure this is the only point of contention. I have been of the same opinion dans0622 stated, that absent some other defect in the form, matter, or intent, a bishop has the power to validly confirm, regardless of lack of permission, jurisdictional issues, etc. which affect the licity.

However, in the other thread FrDavid96 implied that he was holding back a different conclusion, until such time as those participating in the thread were on the same page regarding faculties. Since there continued to be disagreement with his definition and interpretation of faculties, I don’t think he ever revealed the secret conclusion. So in answer, you may be incorrect, and there may well be contention beyond what you stated.

 

[runningdude]

As another who has been following these threads, I am not sure this is the only point of contention. I have been of the same opinion dans0622 stated, that absent some other defect in the form, matter, or intent, a bishop has the power to validly confirm, regardless of lack of permission, jurisdictional issues, etc. which affect the licity.

However, in the other thread FrDavid96 implied that he was holding back a different conclusion, until such time as those participating in the thread were on the same page regarding faculties. Since there continued to be disagreement with his definition and interpretation of faculties, I don’t think he ever revealed the secret conclusion. So in answer, you may be incorrect, and there may well be contention beyond what you stated.

It is my opinion that, due to the fullness of a bishop’s priesthood, his sacraments will always be valid (barring other defect). The whole contention seems to be whether a faculty is needed for the licit celebration of confirmation.

Father David’s was trying to stress that an illegal sacrament is a very big deal. A valid sacrament that is illegally celebrated does not confer rights within the church. As such, a candidate who received confirmation from a suspended bishop does not have standing as a confirmed Catholic within the church. His soul may be marked by the sacrament, but other steps will have to be taken for the confirmation to be properly documented by the church.

I believe this was the point we were trying to reach in the other thread, though we never quite got there.

 

[dans0622]

… The authority for confirmation seems to be given or revoked depending on the bishop having an office within the church.

Whether a bishop’s specific authority to confirm is called a “faculty” seems to be the only point of contention. Am I correct?

Hello,

I think you could say that. In my own words, my point in all this is to say that a bishop has the power of order that enables him to always validly and licitly confirm in every and all circumstances, *unless *his ministry has been properly restricted, from the moment of his ordination. Possession of an ecclesiastical office is irrelevant as, for example, a retired bishop still has the right to confirm. The notion of “faculties” has no place in this conversation. “Faculties” are a matter of ecclesiastical law so when the law doesn’t use the term, neither do I.

Regarding a “bigger issue”, mine would be that the common use of the word “faculty” is not always in accord with the law. For example, people often talk about a priest’s “faculty” for celebrating Mass being taken away. Well, wait a minute, nobody ever gave him that “faculty” so how can it be taken away? By virtue of his ordination, he has the power of order that enables him to offer Mass. No law and no person gives him a faculty to celebrate Mass and none is required. If it is necessary to restrict the priest’s ministry, we shouldn’t talk about “removing faculties.” Instead, we should say “prohibit some acts of the power of order” (cf. c. 1333.1.1) or “prohibit the exercise of the sacred ministry” (cf. c. 1722). It’s a few more words but at least it is accurate.

Perhaps because there are a few cases (Confession (c. 967), priests and Confirmation (c. 883), bishops and Ordination outside their territory (c. 1017), episcopal Ordination (c. 1013), “unnecessary” Baptism outside of one’s territory (c. 862)…I think that’s it) where there is an additional faculty, mandate or permission that must be granted by law or by a person, the tendency is to extrapolate and apply that to administering all the Sacraments in all situations. That extrapolation is not correct. [Regarding the “at least reasonably presumed permission” in c. 886.2, the law doesn’t require any positive action by anyone: nothing needs to be granted. So, I did not include it in the above list. Canon 1003.2 has a similar wording regarding Anointing of the sick.]

I’m all in favor of stressing the value of licit Sacraments and I want all Sacraments to be licitly administered. So does the Church. That’s why, as far as faculties/permissions go, there are relatively few requirements–the law of the Church wants it to be as easy as possible to have (valid and) licit Sacraments. Broadening the application of faculties/permissions beyond what is in the law only makes it harder to have (valid and) licit Sacraments.

I like diversions from marriage cases but I better get to work. Thanks for your time.

Dan