Implications of a valid, but illicit confirmation

[carefullytread]

What are they? Is there anything the confirmand must do other than go to confession? Do they even need to go to confession or is the illicitness attached to the minister not the confirmand? A confirmation leaves an indelible mark, so the sacrament certainly shouldn’t be repeated if the first one was valid, correct?

As an example of what I mean, see my earlier question. From 1ke’s response, it would seem that a Latin Rite Catholic living in a Latin diocese subject to a Latin bishop as his ordinary who was confirmed by an Eastern presbyter was validly, but illicitly confirmed.

 

[MorEphrem]

I wouldn’t even call it necessarily illicit (if that’s illicit, then there are millions of illicit baptisms, confirmations and weddings done by the Latin Church over Eastern faithful - I am familiar with the occasional situation where a Latin priest is informed one spouse is Eastern and he refuses to, or doesn’t even know, he needs to obtain permission).

The sacrament has been imparted to you from God through the Church. There is nothing to be done other than perhaps make sure it has been properly recorded.

If it’s really bothering you, call the Chancery.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

What are they? Is there anything the confirmand must do other than go to confession? Do they even need to go to confession or is the illicitness attached to the minister not the confirmand? A confirmation leaves an indelible mark, so the sacrament certainly shouldn’t be repeated if the first one was valid, correct?

As an example of what I mean, see my earlier question. From 1ke’s response, it would seem that a Latin Rite Catholic living in a Latin diocese subject to a Latin bishop as his ordinary who was confirmed by an Eastern presbyter was validly, but illicitly confirmed.

As a priest, I frankly do not understand the basis by which you are making an accusation that the priest acted illicitly.

 

[carefullytread]

As a priest, I frankly do not understand the basis by which you are making an accusation that the priest acted illicitly.

There isn’t an accusation at all - it was a hypothetical example.

I don’t mean to focus on that particular example, and if I’m wrong that this was an example, please disregard it. I am more interested in the question of valid, but illicit confirmations in general and was only trying to illustrate how such a thing might happen. The question occurred to me in the context of the answer to the previous question, which is why I referenced it.

 

[1ke]

What are they? Is there anything the confirmand must do other than go to confession? Do they even need to go to confession or is the illicitness attached to the minister not the confirmand? A confirmation leaves an indelible mark, so the sacrament certainly shouldn’t be repeated if the first one was valid, correct?

As an example of what I mean, see my earlier question. From 1ke’s response, it would seem that a Latin Rite Catholic living in a Latin diocese subject to a Latin bishop as his ordinary who was confirmed by an Eastern presbyter was validly, but illicitly confirmed.

Actually, no, that is not an example of an illicit confirmation. Because the Eastern presbyter has the faculties to confirm Latin Catholics given by their own code of canon law.

But to answer your question-- no, there is nothing the confirmand needs to do.

 

[dans0622]

Sure, there are ways for a Confirmation to be illicit. What to do about that, I suppose, would depend on why it was illicit: was it because of the minister or because of the recipient? Either may be the cause.

Whatever the case may be, I think it would be appropriate for one who purposefully and knowingly caused an illicit celebration of Confirmation to confess it. Beyond that, I can’t think of any appropriate, remedial actions for the recipient. The minister should see to it that he doesn’t make the same mistake again…

Confirmation certainly cannot be repeated (cf. canon 889.1).

Dan

 

[carefullytread]

Sure, there are ways for a Confirmation to be illicit. What to do about that, I suppose, would depend on why it was illicit: was it because of the minister or because of the recipient? Either may be the cause.

Whatever the case may be, I think it would be appropriate for one who purposefully and knowingly caused an illicit celebration of Confirmation to confess it. Beyond that, I can’t think of any appropriate, remedial actions for the recipient. The minister should see to it that he doesn’t make the same mistake again…

Confirmation certainly cannot be repeated (cf. canon 889.1).

Dan

I’m more curious about cases where it illicit because of the minister.

If the confirmation was objectively illicit (if such a thing is possible - but I’m thinking of cases where it was clear the minister couldn’t licitly perform the confirmation), does the confirmand face implications in the future?

Say, if the person in question wanted to stand as a godparent or as a confirmation sponsor, their confirmation certificate would come from an illicit source. Is that material? If so, is there a remedy given that confirmation cannot be repeat?

 

[carefullytread]

Actually, no, that is not an example of an illicit confirmation. Because the Eastern presbyter has the faculties to confirm Latin Catholics given by their own code of canon law.

But to answer your question-- no, there is nothing the confirmand needs to do.

Hey 1ke, thanks for replying. I guess my confusion came from section three of the relevant canon that you quoted:

§3. Any presbyter licitly administers this sacrament only to the Christian faithful of his own Church sui iuris; when it is a case of Christian faithful of other Churches sui iuris, he lawfully acts if they are his subjects, or those whom he lawfully baptizes in virtue of another title, or those who are in danger of death, and always with due regard for the agreements entered between the Churches sui iuris in this matter.

I read that as saying that for a Catholic of another Church, if they were not in danger of death, not being baptized, and not his subject, then the presbyter could not licitly perform the ceremony.

None the less, even if I misunderstood the point about Eastern priests, I think there must be cases where the minister was validly, but objectively performing the confirmation illicitly. Say by an SSPX priest.

 

[1ke]

Hey 1ke, thanks for replying. I guess my confusion came from section three of the relevant canon that you quoted:

I read that as saying that for a Catholic of another Church, if they were not in danger of death, not being baptized, and not his subject, then the presbyter could not licitly perform the ceremony.

None the less, even if I misunderstood the point about Eastern priests, I think there must be cases where the minister was validly, but objectively performing the confirmation illicitly. Say by an SSPX priest.

The law is complicated. You may be correct, I’m not entirely sure how the two codes work together. I’m not a canon lawyer.

However, the new example is also not an example because SSPX *priest *would be a case of invalid, not illicit, confirmations if they were to do them. But an SSPX *bishop *would be an example of illicit confirmation, yes.

Bottom line-- it will depend upon the situation whether confession for involvement in an illicit sacrament is needed. Case by case. I would suggest that in most cases of “illicit” sacraments, the participants aren’t aware it’s illicit-- say for example a priest who failed or forgot to get permission for something.

 

[1ke]

does the confirmand face implications in the future?

Say, if the person in question wanted to stand as a godparent or as a confirmation sponsor, their confirmation certificate would come from an illicit source. Is that material? If so, is there a remedy given that confirmation cannot be repeat?

No.

And, not their sacramental record would not come from an “illicit source”. It would come from their baptismal parish (where all sacramental records are kept).

Frankly, there is no way for someone to ‘know’ a confirmation was or was not “licit” by looking at a sacramental record.

 

[carefullytread]

No.

And, not their sacramental record would not come from an “illicit source”. It would come from their baptismal parish (where all sacramental records are kept).

Frankly, there is no way for someone to ‘know’ a confirmation was or was not “licit” by looking at a sacramental record.

Ok, that makes sense. Thanks for clarifying.

 

[Upgrade25]

What are they? Is there anything the confirmand must do other than go to confession? Do they even need to go to confession or is the illicitness attached to the minister not the confirmand? A confirmation leaves an indelible mark, so the sacrament certainly shouldn’t be repeated if the first one was valid, correct?

As an example of what I mean, see my earlier question. From 1ke’s response, it would seem that a Latin Rite Catholic living in a Latin diocese subject to a Latin bishop as his ordinary who was confirmed by an Eastern presbyter was validly, but illicitly confirmed.

Are you accusing my baptism/confirmation(happen together in Maronite Church) by a Maronite Bishop to the Roman Church illicit? No way…

 

[1ke]

Are you accusing my baptism/confirmation(happen together in Maronite Church) by a Maronite Bishop to the Roman Church illicit? No way…

Take a step back, Upgrade. No one is accusing anyone of anything. We are here to learn. Please be respectful.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Take a step back, Upgrade. No one is accusing anyone of anything. We are here to learn. Please be respectful.

Well, in Upgrade’s defence, I also had a strong reaction to the scenario presented since the original poster’s implication was that the situation could only be illicit. It happens to be a scenario that touches many people.

I now understand that the original poster was engaging in some sort of thought experiment…but one still must be conscious of the scenario one constructs, which will touch other people. And it is a courtesy to say that it is a pure hypothetical.

If one has no background in canon law, one does better to pose a question than to draw a conclusion that the law does not ascribe, as in saying: “it would seem that a Latin Rite Catholic living in a Latin diocese subject to a Latin bishop as his ordinary who was confirmed by an Eastern presbyter was validly, but illicitly confirmed”

 

[1ke]

Well, in Upgrade’s defence, I also had a strong reaction to the scenario presented since the original poster’s implication was that the situation could only be illicit.

“Upgrade” came in 8 posts after the OP clarified: I don’t mean to focus on that particular example, and if I’m wrong that this was an example, please disregard it.

So, yeah, I think it was a little melodramatic at that point. My opinion on the matter. YMMV.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

“Upgrade” came in 8 posts after the OP clarified: I don’t mean to focus on that particular example, and if I’m wrong that this was an example, please disregard it.

So, yeah, I think it was a little melodramatic at that point. My opinion on the matter. YMMV.

My opinion is indeed different from yours.

 

[1ke]

What are they? Is there anything the confirmand must do other than go to confession? Do they even need to go to confession or is the illicitness attached to the minister not the confirmand? A confirmation leaves an indelible mark, so the sacrament certainly shouldn’t be repeated if the first one was valid, correct?

As an example of what I mean, see my earlier question. From 1ke’s response, it would seem that a Latin Rite Catholic living in a Latin diocese subject to a Latin bishop as his ordinary who was confirmed by an Eastern presbyter was validly, but illicitly confirmed.

In rereading the Eastern canons, it appears you are correct **IF **there is no permission or the other criteria of canon 696 §3 are not met. ( I was reading too fast this morning).

We cannot make a **blanket **statement like above-- merely the fact that a Latin Catholic was confirmed by a priest of an Eastern Church does not mean it was illicit. But, if Canon 696.3 of the Eastern code were violated, yes it would be illicit (but still valid by virtue of Canon 696.1).

 

[FrDavid96]

In rereading the Eastern canons, it appears you are correct **IF **there is no permission or the other criteria of canon 696 §3 are not met. ( I was reading too fast this morning).

We cannot make a **blanket **statement like above-- merely the fact that a Latin Catholic was confirmed by a priest of an Eastern Church does not mean it was illicit. But, if Canon 696.3 of the Eastern code were violated, yes it would be illicit (but still valid by virtue of Canon 696.1).

Exactly.

That’s the key element missing from the original scenario: whether or not the presbyter has the necessary permission (or delegation or faculties, as the situation might warrant). That would make it either licit or illicit.

Either way, licit or not, when an Eastern presbyter Confirms (Chrismates) it is always valid, at least assuming that the person is baptized and not-yet-confirmed.

 

[Vico]

Actually, no, that is not an example of an illicit confirmation. Because the Eastern presbyter has the faculties to confirm Latin Catholics given by their own code of canon law.

But to answer your question-- no, there is nothing the confirmand needs to do.

CCEO 696.3. Any presbyter licitly administers this sacrament only to the Christian faithful of his own Church sui iuris; when it is a case of Christian faithful of other Churches sui iuris, he lawfully acts if they are his subjects, or those whom he lawfully baptizes in virtue of another title, or those who are in danger of death, and always with due regard for the agreements entered between the Churches sui iuris in this matter.

 

[carefullytread]

My opinion is indeed different from yours.

And to the extent that my question caused anyone discomfort, I’m sorry. It wasn’t my intention to cast doubt on anyone’s sacraments.