“In light of Your Excellency’s considered response, this Dicastery considers it necessary to respond in some detail to the considerations you raise, and so the case was submitted to a renewed and attentive examination. The Congregation was anxious to communicate the results of this study as soon as possible asking you to note the authoritative nature of the conclusions contained therein ….”
After clarifying that the Vatican congregation does have authority to examine the bishop’s decision not to allow the confirmation, the letter proceeds:
"In reply to this Congregation’s decision that appropriate steps be taken to provide for the girl’s confirmation in the near future, Your Excellency had proposed essentially two arguments:
"1. Though willingly admitting that the girl is well instructed and that her parents are very good Catholics, you point out that ‘instruction is not the sole criterion for recognizing the opportune time for confirmation … this evaluation is a pastoral one which involves much more than being instructed.’
"2. Your Excellency indicates that the Diocesan Policy establishing that conferral of the Sacrament is to be no earlier than the sophomore year of high school is within the right inherent in the law in light of the legislation complementary to can. 891 for the Conference of Bishops to which you belong.
“With respect to Your Excellency’s first point, it is no doubt true that there is a pastoral judgment to be made in such cases, provided that by ‘pastoral judgment’ one is speaking of the obligation of the Sacred Pastors to determine whether those elements required by the revised Code of Canon Law are indeed present, namely, that the person be baptized, have the use of reason, be suitably instructed and be properly disposed and able to renew the baptismal promises (cf. cann 843,1; 889,2) … it is clear this young girl has satisfied each of the canonical requisites for reception of the sacrament.”
In regard to the second point, while the selection of an older age for confirmation is within the bishop’s right, the congregation goes on to say:
“*t is also clear that any such complementary legislation must always be interpreted in accord with the general norm of law. As has been stated before, the Code of Canon Law legislates that Sacred Ministers may not deny the Sacraments to those who are not prohibited by law from receiving them (cf. can 843,1). Since it has been demonstrated that the girl possesses these requisite qualities, any other considerations, even those contained in the Diocesan Policy, need to be understood in subordination to the general norms governing the reception of the Sacraments.”
After pointing out that it is the role of parents as the primary educators, and then of the sacred pastors to see that children are properly instructed, the letter adds:
“Consequently, when a member of the faithful wishes to receive this Sacrament, even though not satisfying one or more elements of the local legislation (for example, being younger than the designated age …), these elements must give way to the fundamental right of the faithful to receive the Sacraments. Indeed, the longer the conferral of the Sacrament is delayed after the age of reason, the greater the number of candidates who are prepared for its reception but are deprived of its grace for a considerable period of time.” *
It seems clear to me that it is the Bishop’s right to set a later age for the reception of the sacrament, but if a properly disposed person, above the age of 7, capable of renewing Baptismal promises and demonstrating a basic understanding of the sacrament, requests it, it is not to be denied.
The above information came from
canonlaw.info/a_preparingchildren.htm, which gives one perspective on how much can reasonable required of candidates preparing for Confirmation.
