Correct interpretation?

[Brain]

The sacraments require words, matter, proper minister, and (in 1 or 2? cases) jurisdiction to be valid, correct? all other regulations on sacraments are cannonical right?

I ask this because i was thinking about how eastern rite catholics baptize confirm and recieve eucharist as a baby, and obviously noone in their right minds questions the validity.

so then, (purely for example, im not trying to steal episcopacy or anything) by canon law bishops must be 35 (or is it 40) but there is no sacramental reason, just reason and the church’s wisdom, that requires that. Same with priests, could a bishop ordain a complete moron (yes, i know we all think this has happened, very funny…) despite the fact that common sense would dictate that an ordinand should have at least average intellegence, preferrably at least a bit above average.
Or a child in danger of death (or other grave reason) could be absolved by a priest with faculties (this is assuming there is the situation where it is suspected the child has moral reason even though he does not yet have the chatechesis for confession).
Or pretty much any other sacrament, can it be performed vaildly (not always licit but valid) outside of the cannonical requirements of age or chatechesis?

 

[threej_lc]

Yup!

Whith proper form and matter, all sacraments are valid whether their administration concedes to canon law or not. Obviously, if they violate canon law, they are illicit, but that does not change their validity.

However, the ability to reason and consent is a necessary part of “matter” in the administration of the sacrament, therefore if someone isn’t mature enough to fully understand the commitment of love, they couldn’t validly get married, nor one before the age of reason could validly recieve confession.

Josh

 

[cameron_lansing]

threej_lc:

Yup!

Whith proper form and matter, all sacraments are valid whether their administration concedes to canon law or not. Obviously, if they violate canon law, they are illicit, but that does not change their validity.

However, the ability to reason and consent is a necessary part of “matter” in the administration of the sacrament, therefore if someone isn’t mature enough to fully understand the commitment of love, they couldn’t validly get married, nor one before the age of reason could validly recieve confession.

Josh

A good distinction between what is illegal and what is invalid there.

But there would have to be a process to overturn the presumption of validity in both cases. (*) That would assume that the question was raised and needed to be resolved in the external forum.

There could no investigation related to confession because of the inviolate seal.

In terms of marriage, the term “commitment of love” per se would not have a sufficiently precise meaning in a tribunal process to be helpful. It would require elaboration in other terms that the law would understand. The closest would probably be canon 1095, 2º which makes those who suffer from a grave lack of discretion of judgment concerning the essential matrimonial rights and duties mutually to be handed over and accepted incapable of giving matrimonial consent. But those essential rights and duties are juridically far different from love, taken without further elaboration. Of course, the law does make those under a certain age or lacking the use of reason incapable of marital consent, too.

*Canon 124: §1. For the validity of a juridic act it is required that the act be placed by a qualified person and includes those things which essentially constitute the act itself as well as the formalities and requirements imposed by law for the validity of the act. §2. A juridic act placed correctly with respect to its external elements is presumed valid.