Must your Confirmation Saint and Sponsor be the same gender as you?

[SuscipeMeDomine]

Wow, I think we’re having a radical agreement here.

 

[babochka]

Okay for EU but Canon 889.2 for Confirmation, REQUIRES/DEMANDS (or however one wishes to translate the Latin requiritur) one to be suitably instructed, properly disposed, and able to renew the baptismal promises, apart from the danger of death, which, as I understand it, must be real danger or terminal. It is not necessary for any danger of death to exist for Baptism.

You have conveniently left out part of the canon. It states:

Apart from danger of death, to receive confirmation lawfully, **a person who has the use of reason **must be suitably instructed, properly disposed, and able to renew the baptismal promises.

A person who does not yet have the use of reason (such as an infant) does not need to be instructed. The same standard would also apply to Baptism. A person who has the use of reason must be suitably instructed, properly disposed and able to make the baptismal promises prior to receiving the sacrament. An infant without the use of reason does not need to do that.

Also, it does not need to be done only in danger of death or in the event of a terminal illness.

Can. 891 The sacrament of confirmation is to be conferred on the faithful at about the age of discretion unless the conference of bishops has determined another age, or there is danger of death, or in the judgment of the minister a grave cause suggests otherwise.

In many places, infants are routinely confirmed in the Latin Rite. Examples include the Philipines and Mexico. At least up until the mid-70s, early 80s, it was extremely common to confirm infants in these places. I don’t know what the common practice is now. Danger of death is not necessary; the minister’s judgement of a grave reason is sufficient.

Finally, from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which in this matter is more explicit than canon law in this matter.
1307 For centuries, Latin custom has indicated “the age of discretion” as the reference point for receiving Confirmation. **But in danger of death children should be confirmed even if they have not yet attained the age of discretion.**125

1314 If a Christian is in danger of death, any priest can give him Confirmation.134 Indeed the Church desires that none of her children, even the youngest, should depart this world without having been perfected by the Holy Spirit with the gift of Christ’s fullness.

It really doesn’t get any clearer than this.

 

[babochka]

I strongly agree with the baptism, but what would be the theological reason for the confirmation? I asked this once of someone with a masters in theology, who couldn’t tell me.

The answer is found in the Catechism:

1314 Indeed the Church desires that none of her children, even the youngest, should depart this world without having been perfected by the Holy Spirit with the gift of Christ’s fullness.

 

[ProVobis]

It would be for the extra graces and the gifts of the Holy Spirit.

Okay, I think I’ve found from my 1962 handmissal notes of what I was looking for. (I presume the SP allowed for Confirmation using the 62 liturgical books so the handmissal has still valid and licit rubrics.)

(1) According to the Council of Trent, this Sacrament makes us perfect Christians; hence the name perfectio, sometimes applied to it by Latin writers. Further, according to St. Thomas it also confers fullness of grace, and is therefore known to the same authors as “sacramentum plenitudinis gratiae.”* 2) Confirmation makes the Christian a soldier, and marks him with a new character which is, as it were, the military credentials of the souls in perpetual warfare with God’s enemies. This character will remain in the life to come, “just,” says St. Thomas, “as the status of a soldier remains after the victory, to the glory of the conquerors and the shame of the conquered.”

*Sacrament of the fullness of grace"

*books.google.com/books?id=sB7lrpjH7dkC&pg=PA190&lpg=PA190&dq=sacramentum+plenitudinis+gratiae&source=bl&ots=2wKRdo70sd&sig=amX40AT_ItlHVT6QxK_JN28W7kE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=rysSVP75N82syASEu4DIBQ&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=sacramentum%20plenitudinis%20gratiae&f=false

 

[Jack007]

Interesting to talk about “last rites” in terms of an infant. You’re supposed to be over the age of reason to receive Anointing of the Sick (with a few exceptions). And I don’t know that there’s an exception at all for receiving the Eucharist (viaticum) before the age of reason. So it would actually make more sense to make sure the infant is baptized and confirmed.

by last rites, i meant its substitute for children.

 

[Jack007]

I strongly agree with the baptism, but what would be the theological reason for the confirmation? I asked this once of someone with a masters in theology, who couldn’t tell me.

Has your question been answered?(i saw the replies, they were enough,rigt?)

 

[ProVobis]

Has your question been answered?(i saw the replies, they were enough,rigt?)

Thanks for asking.

I think so, but if you have something to add to the theological aspect, I’d be happy to hear it. I’m kind of burnt out with the musts and shoulds and mays and cans for the moment. :crutches:

 

[Jack007]

Thanks for asking.

I think so, but if you have something to add to the theological aspect, I’d be happy to hear it. I’m kind of burnt out with the musts and shoulds and mays and cans for the moment. :crutches:

no, i don’t have anything to add.

 

[Jack007]

Thanks for asking.

I think so, but if you have something to add to the theological aspect, I’d be happy to hear it. I’m kind of burnt out with the musts and shoulds and mays and cans for the moment. :crutches:

I quote these from ccc.

1303 From this fact, Confirmation brings an increase and deepening of baptismal grace:

• it roots us more deeply in the divine filiation which makes us cry, “Abba! Father!”;117
• it unites us more firmly to Christ;
• it increases the gifts of the Holy Spirit in us;
• it renders our bond with the Church more perfect;118
• it gives us a special strength of the Holy Spirit to spread and defend the faith by word and action as true witnesses of Christ, to confess the name of Christ boldly, and never to be ashamed of the Cross

it would be good to give these to some who is dying, right?

1308 Although Confirmation is sometimes called the “sacrament of Christian maturity,” we must not confuse adult faith with the adult age of natural growth, nor forget that the baptismal grace is a grace of free, unmerited election and does not need “ratification” to become effective. St. Thomas reminds us of this:

Age of body does not determine age of soul. Even in childhood man can attain spiritual maturity: as the book of Wisdom says: "For old age is not honored for length of time, or measured by number of years. "Many children, through the strength of the Holy Spirit they have received, have bravely fought for Christ even to the shedding of their blood.

So, even outside danger of death, children who display great holiness, reverence to god may recieve confirmation, though i think the local bishop will have to approve it.

 

[Jack007]

:stretcher: for your :crutches:
lol

 

[EMFrost]

Oh my goodness this thread took off while I’ve been gone. I am glad the conversation bore fruit, but I hope no one minds me taking this back to the original context.

The 1917 Code of Canon Law the required the Confirmation sponsor to be of the same sex as the one being confirmed “unless in particular cases it seems to the minister there are reasonable causes to do otherwise”.

That requirement was removed from the 1983 Code.

The 1917 Code also required that each person confirmed have a different sponsor but that a sponsor could serve for two people for a just reason. That was a change because the registers in my birth parish show that, at least from 1891-1916, there was one woman as the sponsor for all the girls and one man for all the boys. In 1919 there was a change but definitely not to 1 confirmandi/1 sponsor. Instead, that year there were 2 men and 2 women for 37 boys and 22 girls. Guess the promulgation of the new Code hadn’t made its way to our small rural parish in New Brunswick, Canada. Today you’d have access to it the same day it was published in Latin. It might take a little bit longer to get it in the vernacular.

There were other rules on Confirmation sponsors in the 1917 Code which were dropped or changed in the 1983 Code:

sponsor was not to be the same person as at Baptism unless both were occurring at the same time;
sponsor couldn’t be a spouse;
sponsor/confimand now had a spiritual bond which became an impediment to marriage.

It was interesting to note that under the 1917 Code there was no requirement that a Baptism sponsor have already been confirmed. I suppose that’s not surprising since they could be a sponsor at age 14 (my sponsors, in 1953, were actually 10 & 12) and might not yet have had the opportunity to be confirmed depending on where they lived. .

Annnnd just like that the nagging little voice is back. Phemie, do you happen to know why they changed the rules, particularly the gender rule? I wonder what reasonable cause would be.

 

[Jack007]

Oh my goodness this thread took off while I’ve been gone. I am glad the conversation bore fruit, but I hope no one minds me taking this back to the original context.

Annnnd just like that the nagging little voice is back. Phemie, do you happen to know why they changed the rules, particularly the gender rule? I wonder what reasonable cause would be.

well, why wouldnt they?

 

[Phemie]

Annnnd just like that the nagging little voice is back. Phemie, do you happen to know why they changed the rules, particularly the gender rule? I wonder what reasonable cause would be.

Tell that little voice to be quiet. Such as rule is disciplinary and as such the Church can change it as she sees fit.

Since it could be a person of the opposite sex, it doesn’t affect validity in any way. As with other things, ‘reasonable cause’ is in the eyes of the person who grants the permission. I see something similar with the Church’s law that “Catholics who have not yet received the sacrament of confirmation are to receive it before they are admitted to marriage if it can be done without grave inconvenience.” “Grave inconvenience” is also in the eyes of the beholder and I’ve never known a priest in the last 17 years in our parish insist that someone be confirmed before he’d marry them.

I suspect that the rule was originally put in place because the sponsor has to physically touch the person being confirmed. Also, since a sponsor could be as young as 14, it was also the way to avoid the complications that could come from having a young man be the sponsor for a young girl (or vice versa) and the spiritual bond that came from that. Once the spiritual bond stopped being an impediment to marriage (now spouses can be sponsors for someone being baptized or confirmed) there wasn’t as much reason to insist on same sex sponsors.

 

[EMFrost]

So it was little “t” tradition?

At least I know where the people questioning my decisions were coming from, they’re not crazy either. (Never said they were- just hope I didn’t imply it)

Normally I check into why a rule changes before I follow it. By doing so I’ve avoided a number of actions supposedly “okay with the Church now” that weren’t. Thing is I didn’t know what I did was a newer practice in the first place. I’m just surprised.

Thanks again Jack, thanks Phemie!

 

[Jack007]

So it was little “t” tradition?

Thanks again Jack, thanks Phemie!

It was "t"radition. You are welcome.

 

[ProVobis]

So, even outside danger of death, children who display great holiness, reverence to god may recieve confirmation, though i think the local bishop will have to approve it.

I would think so since the bishop is the Ordinary Minister of Confirmation. Or is the priest now normally confirming? It’s been awhile since I witnessed a confirmation by a bishop.

 

[Jack007]

I would think so since the bishop is the Ordinary Minister of Confirmation. Or is the priest now normally confirming? It’s been awhile since I witnessed a confirmation by a bishop.

You are right about the bishop being the ordinary minister. In my eparchy, it is done by the bishop. I am saying, a priest needs separate permissions to confirm and to confirm a young child.

 

[ProVobis]

You are right about the bishop being the ordinary minister. In my eparchy, it is done by the bishop. I am saying, a priest needs separate permissions to confirm and to confirm a young child.

How could a bishop refuse to confirm a young child who asks to be confirmed?

 

[Jack007]

How could a bishop refuse to confirm a young child who asks to be confirmed?

say, a baby who just learnt to talk asked for it without knowing the meaning, he could refuse it. for more, see the ccc quote above.

 

[Phemie]

I would think so since the bishop is the Ordinary Minister of Confirmation. Or is the priest now normally confirming? It’s been awhile since I witnessed a confirmation by a bishop.

The Bishop is the ordinary minister of Confirmation and has to give the priest the faculty to confirm a child or an adult under normal circumstances. The Law gives the priest the faculty to confirm an adult he’s baptizing or receiving into full communion and anyone in danger of death. That’s why I don’t understand why Catholics are being confirmed at the Easter Vigil in so many parishes. The odd time we’ve had an adult asking for Confirmation it’s been done at the regular time for Confirmation in our parish. One mom was confirmed with her 7 year old daughter’s class.