More quotes from my friend (with his own comments in black):
“By a general indult of the Holy See the faculty of conferring the Sacrament of Confirmation is granted to the following priests and to these alone, as extraordinary ministers (Canon 782/2), only in the cases and under the conditions herein enumerated:
(a) pastors entrusted with a proper territory, thereby excluding pastors of persons or families, unless they also have their own territory, at least cuмulatively;
(b)the vicars mentioned in Canon 471 and administrative vicars;
(c ) priests to whom is committed, exclusively and permanently, within a certain territory and with a fixed church, the complete care of souls with all pastoral rights and duties.
2. The aforesaid ministers can themselves personally confer Confirmation validly and lawfulyy upon the faithful staying in their territory, not excepting persons residing in places withdrawn from parochial jurisdiction-- not excluding, therefore, seminaries, hospices, houses for the sick and other institutions of a similar nature even belonging to Religious, no matter how exempt (cf.r Canon 792)-- provided that these persons are in real danger of death by reason of serious illness, because of which hey may be considered as likely to die. If the aforesaid ministers exceed the limits of this mandate, let them clearly realize that they act in vain and administer no Sacrament, and that the statute of canon 2365 applies also to this case.
Woywood, Stanislaus, O.F.M., LL.B.. A practical Commentary on the Code of Canon Law Vol II.Rev. Smith. 1957. Wagner: New York. Appendix X, p 840
---
I must pause and make a few observations. Considering that the authors so far have expressed the necessity of a papal indult (or some other papal approval) in order for simple priests to confer the sacrament, I believe the greatest regard should be given to this indult and who exactly it is given to, as well as what the results are if the sacrament is conferred outside the limits of this indult.
This indult has an invalidating factor-- it speaks not merely of lawfulness, but of validity. Now, not presuming on my own abilities to interpret the law, however clear it may seem, I have consulted another canonist who explores whether or not there is some leeway for priests who perform the duties of those who are mentioned in the indult, but are not actually under the category of those to whom the indult is given. Here follows the canonist Conway exploring this very issue. These quotes are rather long:
---
[Question:] Some clarification of the following point in connection with the recent decree on Confirmation would be much appreciated. The decree says that the new confirming power is enjoyed by all priests who are in exclusive charge of a distinct district with a church of its own and who are appointed to this charge in a stable manner. What I wish to know is whether a curate who is in charge of a part of a parish, would qualify for the power under this paragraph? In this parish I have been appointed as curate and the appointment is is likely to last for a number of years. I have charge of clearly- demarcated part of a parish which has a church of its own, distinct from the main parochial church. This church has its own baptismal font; the Blessed Sacrament is reserved in it. I am in residence beside it and for the people living in this district this is the church which they attend for all religious ceremonies and I exercise all parochial functions in their regard (the parish priest has given me full faculties for marriages). Of course I do not say a separate missa pro populo. Have I the new confirming power within the territorial limits of my district? -- Curate.
[Answer:] The answer to 'Curate's' enquiry is that he has not the new powers of administering confirmation. The paragraph in the new decree to which he refers contemplates an entirely different situation to the familiar phenomenon of a curate who is left in charge of part of a parish by the parish priest.
Perhaps the easiest way to underline the differences between the two positions is to point out that the paragraph in the decree deals only with priests who have the exclusivecare of souls in a particular territory. Now 'Curate'-- and others in the same position-- have not exclusive power. It may be that de facto the parish priest does not interfere in the care of souls in the district in any way; but the fact remains that he has the right to do so if he chooses, that is is parish priest for the entire territory of the parish, including the district of which the curate has charge, and that the authority of the curate is entirely subordinate to that of the parish priest-- and, in fact, is partly delegated by him. In no sense, therefore, can the curate be said to have the exclusive care of souls in his district. Whatever his position de facto, de iure he is not independent.
The situation which the paragraph contemplates is a piece of territory in a diocese which does not belong to any parish whatsoever, but which has a church of its own with a duly appointed priest, with all the rights and duties of a parish priest. Many territorial units in England and Wales, which had not been canonically erected as parishes, were formerly of this kind. the priest in charge, or 'rector,' was, however, immediately subject to the bishop of the diocese-- his authority was not subordinate to that of a parish priest for the simple reason that his territory did not form part of any parish. He had all the rights and duties of a parish priest including, as was decided in a case which came before the Sacred Congregation of the Council in 1932, the obligation of the Missa pro populo. Where such a situation still obtains, that is, where the priest in question is parish priest in all but name, the new power of administering confirmation will be enjoyed by the priest in charge.
[question] After the death of the parish priest and until the next parish priest is appointed, may the curate in charge of the parish confirm dying children? May the bishop empower him to do so? --P.P.
[Answer] The answer to this question is that the priest who has been given charge of a vacant parish by the local ordinary has the power to administer confirmation in danger of death, from the decree Spiritus Sancti Munera.
To appreciate the precise legal position on this point it is necessary to recall the dispositions of the Code for the charge of a parish during an interregnum. The Code says that 'an acting parish priest', called the vicarious oeconomus, should be appointed as soon as possible by the local ordinary. Pending the appointment of this vicarious oeconomus,however, the charge of the parish devolves, in the virtue of canon 472, on the senior curate or on the nearest parish priest. Now, the important point is that it is only the vicarious oeconomus appointed by the local Ordinary, who has the power of confirming-- the priest who has charge of the parish, in virtue of canon 472, pending the appointment of vicarious oeconomus has notthe power. It may seem strange that it should be so, but there is little room for doubt on this point; the decree speaks only of the vicarious oeconomus and the Code makes it quite clear that the senior curate, who gets his power from canon 472 immediately the parish priest dies, is not a vicarious oeconomus. The commentators on the decree generally agree that unless and until the is appointed vicarious oeconomus he has not the power of confirming. Of course, it is very often the senior curate who is appointed vicarious oeconomus so that he will normally have charge of the parish for the complete interregnum, first from canon 472 and then in virtue of his appointment as vicarious oeconomus by the local Ordinary. But it is only after he has been appointed to this office that he has the power of confirming.
Conway, William. D.D., D.C.L.. Problems in Canon Law: Classified Replies to Practical Questions. 1956. Brown and Nolan Ltd.: Dublin. Pp 152-54
---
Here also is the canonist Woywood again, who re-emphasizes the fact that the relevant faculty here is that of order (rather than jurisdiction) and Woywood tells us that the Code does not even allow an Ordinary to delegate confirmation to a priest without first receiving faculties from the Holy See in order to do so:
---
"The extraordinary minister [of confirmation] is a priest who, either by the common law or by special indult of the Apostolic See, has received the faculty to confirm. The following have this faculty by law: Cardinals (Canon 239/1.23), abbots and prelates nullius, vicars and prefects Apostolic. With the exception of the Cardinals, these clergy cannot validly make use of the faculty except within the limits of their respective territory, and during their term of office only.
[...]
Persons who have by law the power to confirm cannot delegate that power to a priest, for as we saw above, the Code does not grant bishops the faculty to delegate a priest to give Confirmation, and besides there is no question here of delegating jurisdiction but rather a power of orders. No power of orders delegated to a person or annexed to an office can be committed to another, unless this is expressly permitted by law or by indult (Canon 210). When necessary, the Holy See grants bishops and others (vicars and prefects Apostolic) the faculty to delegate a priest for the conferring of Confirmation (emphasis added)."
Woywood, Stanislaus, O.F.M., LL.B.. A practical Commentary on the Code of Canon Law Vol I.Rev. Smith. 1957. Wagner: New York. Pp. 406-07
---
Summarily, if I may offer what I've taken away from these authorities:
(a) The issue at hand is of order rather than jurisdiction
(b) Priests have a latent power to confirm (this is controversial-- that they can confirm is known certainly, how exactly is a matter of controversy but this seems the best explanation)
(c) This latent power can only be "activated" by the Holy See (whether by common law, indult, delegation, etc.)
(d) Considering that the issue is one of orderrather than jurisdiction, and that this particular constituent of order (the power to confirm) can only be exercised validly by express approval from the Holy See, one could not invoke epikeiaor intrinsic cessation to justify or validate the confirmations of those not included in the indult Spiritus Sancti Murena.
(e) Even if there were somehow a way to say that the indult covers priests in your situation, Fr. Xxxc (and I think it is quite clear that it does not, as your missionary zeal notwithstanding, you are not a parish priest or a priest given a particular territory with a particular Church), it would only apply to those in danger of death; and not merely in danger of death according to canon 882, but a very specific danger of death: that is, a serious injury or illness from which death is likely to occur.
(f) Though none of the sources I've quoted say this, when I was doing the research I came across on many occasions the fact that confirmation is not necessary in the same way baptism and confession are. As a result, the strict laws regarding the ministration of Confirmation aren't nearly as flexible and nuanced as they are for those other two sacraments, and whatever "flexibility" there is we find in the express laws and indults from the Holy See, which again only apply to those priests and those instances the indult specifies.
In a sentence, I find that this research reveals quite clearly that any Confirmations attempted by yourself or other priests in your situation (or those similar) would be doubtfully valid, likely invalid. I was compelled to contact you with this information so that you could be aware of the great difficulties posed by such actions, and I hope that after having read these authorities you have come to the same conclusion as I.
We will continue to keep you in our prayers, as well as all those Catholics across the world who do not have ready access to the sacraments.
Topic: Fr. Raphael Arrizaga Begins Administering Confirmations? (Read 13203 times)