Question X: What power a regular prelate has to absolve, both from sins and from penalties

SINCE, when I shall treat of the Minister of the Sacrament of Penance, in the 3. part, treat. on this Sacrament, I shall speak of those who can absolve from reserved cases, censures, and sins, little remains here to be discussed, beyond certain general principles, from which anyone can easily infer whatever is to be alleged in particular.

FIRST therefore it is undoubted that every ordinary Prelate has the faculty of absolving from those penalties and sins which are not forbidden to him by special prohibition; but since that Prelate of the Religion, of which we treated in the preceding questions, is an Ordinary, this power is not to be denied to them.

SECONDLY it is certain, by the same principle, that this power can be delegated to another; for this always follows upon ordinary Jurisdiction. Indeed Suarez holds, cap. 15. num. 4., and usage obtains, that the Prelate is bound to this delegation of jurisdiction; for since he is bound to provide for the salvation of his subjects in the better way, and the delegation of power is the most apt and not rarely necessary means for this, he would not be free from fault if he reserved to himself alone the confessions of all, and the more so because, with the vindicative or dominative power, he could join the knowledge had in confession; whence various scandals would arise, and subjects would be turned away from the Sacrament.

HENCE Clement VIII., in the decree de reservat. casuum, concerning Regulars, reported in Suarez, in the place cited, thus decreed: let it not be lawful for the Superiors of Regulars to hear the confessions of subjects, unless they have committed some reserved sin: or the subjects themselves of their own accord, or of their own motion, have sought it of them. Whence Prelates are accustomed in each convent to depute several to receive the confessions of the brethren, any one of whom the subject may choose for himself as confessor, that he may more freely attend to his salvation. Yet this confessor, thus deputed permanently by the Provincial or another Prelate, does not obtain ordinary jurisdiction, since he cannot subdelegate it to another.

IT IS DOUBTED, however, whether one having jurisdiction delegated by the Pontiff can be hindered from hearing the confession of a Religious of another order? It is answered that such a Religious cannot be hindered on the part of his own Prelate, but can be on the part of the Prelate of him who wishes to confess; for since that power is understood to be given over due matter, and the Prelate makes his subject incapable of passive absolution, he will then not be able to confess, nor on that account can the confessor exercise any jurisdiction over him: yet if the Pontiff should expressly indulge that it be lawful even against the dissent of the penitents' Prelates, then the indult would hold in that sense; yet until he expresses his mind in this or a similar way, he is presumed to have willed otherwise.

IT IS CONFIRMED by the declaration of Innoc. IV. made to the order of Preachers, and had in the supplem. of the Minors, and in the Compendium of the Society, under the word, Confessarius, §. 5., where it is had that the Preaching brethren obtaining from the Supreme Pontiff the faculty of hearing confessions generally cannot nevertheless receive the confessions of Religious, unless these obtain license for it from their own Prelates: a similar concession made to the Minors and Carmelites is recorded in Rodriguez, tome 1. quaest. 62. art. 4., and Suarez commemorates many other indults, lib. 2. tome 4. de Relig. cap. 16. num. 15. The usage also of almost all Religions confirms this same, which, while it is known to the Pontiff and is not disapproved, declares his mind to have been according to the things already said.

HENCE infer that a Religious journeying, and received into hospitality in a convent of another order, ought not to confess there; and this almost every Religion specially ordains for its subjects; unless a grave necessity of confessing, or scandal from the omission of confession, impends.

YOU WILL ASK whether it is lawful for Regular Prelates to reserve cases.

THE UNDOUBTED assertion of all is that it is lawful: it is clear from the practice of all Religions; it is clear moreover from the Council of Trent sess. 14. cap. 7., where, though the discourse be of the supreme Pontiff and Bishops, he nevertheless understands all others who have a quasi-episcopal Jurisdiction; since this power does not depend on the character of a Bishop, nor is it granted to his dignity alone, but to the commodious and more efficacious governance of subjects; which agrees with greater reason in Regular Prelates on account of the greatest obligation of leading to perfection, this means of turning from sin is not to be denied them.

BESIDES it is proven from the Rules of so many Religions, which the Supreme Pontiffs have approved; thus Honorius III. approved the Rule, in which cap. 5. it is read: If any of the brethren have mortally sinned at the instigation of the enemy, for those sins concerning which it has been ordained among the brethren that recourse be had to the Provincial Ministers alone, the aforesaid brethren are bound to have recourse to them, etc., where the discourse is of notorious sins, as the Angelic Doctor notes, on the Rule, cap. 7.; see the Monumenta of the orders, concess. 66., and likewise the supplement of the Minors with the decree of Clement VIII. de casibus reservatis Regularibus, specially ordaining, as I shall say more aptly and more fully, in the 3. part, treatat. on the Sacrament of Penance, where we treat of reserved cases. Here only it is to be noted by the common opinion that, for some sin to be reserved, it must be mortal and completed in act.

But lest the reservation of cases, too frequent and manifold, finally become odious on this account, that it be burdensome, a declaration of the sacred Congregation was made, on January 9, 1601, whereby the local Ordinaries (among whom also understand, by equality of reason, the Prelates of Regulars) are admonished to reserve to themselves as few cases as they can, according to the true exigency of the subjects and places.

To the ORDINARIES of Regulars, moreover, the said decree of Clement VIII. enjoins that they reserve only the eleven cases recalled therein, or those of them they prefer; yet they can reserve some other sin newly emerging, provided it be done for the Province in a Provincial Chapter, or in a General one for the whole Order.

Among US, moreover, by the Consent of the whole General Chapter held at Rome in the year 1613, all the said eleven cases are reserved, which I shall examine in the place cited.

To absolve belongs to him whose it is to reserve; for sins are reserved in order that recourse be had to the Prelate reserving, and thus a stricter rein be cast upon the wicked propensity to sin; But if he shall have delegated the power of absolving from these, or shall have deputed some confessors, according to the decree of Clement VIII. reported above, both for sins and for reserved cases; as is now mostly in use; the cases seem reserved to such confessaries; since those who have lapsed into them are not bound to have recourse to the Superior, while he deputed has functioned with the power given: Yet in these and similar things the practice and ordinance of each Religion is to be inspected; namely, whether the power was granted with some burden to be performed by the confessor, or by the penitent himself? whether with the burden of presenting himself, or the penitent, to the Superior reserving? etc. which are to be observed according to the custom of each Religion: And let these things have been said briefly concerning the first part of the question, as far as the present place concerns it.

The SECOND part of the question, whether Prelates can also absolve from censures, is almost decided by what was said above: for censures are loosed by the same by whom they are imposed, whence since to impose censures is necessary for the office of an Ordinary to be duly executed, and for some Regular observance, to remove them also often expedites the same; wherefore whether the censure be laid by a man, or by the law, by a particular or universal sentence, the Regular Prelate will be able to absolve from it, unless it be reserved to a superior Prelate, in whose special reservations an inferior can do nothing, though conversely he can remove the censures laid by an inferior.

If, however, a Bishop, in a case lawful to him, lay censures upon a Religious, as the Council of Trent defines he can, sess. 25. cap. 13. de Regular., they are now to be removed by the Bishop himself, or by him whom he shall have delegated, according to the universal Rule already handed down: for it would be ridiculous, and against the intent of the council, that a Regular Prelate could remove at will, against the Bishop's own wish, a censure the Bishop had laid; nor does the exemption stand against this, which ceases for such a case. In which matter only the Authority of the Pontiff may be considered, who, as he could wholly bestow exemption on Regulars, so also enjoined subjection upon some of them, as is seen in the various decrees of the Council of Trent concerning Regulars, where it is intimated that Bishops do not act precisely as Ordinaries in laying censures against Religious; but as having a power delegated from the Pontiff; which shows the obligation of a greater bond, on account of the greater jurisdiction, namely Pontifical, as Suarez cited notes, cap. 20. num. 4., where he observes in passing, from the Privilege of Nicholas IV. reported in the Compendium of the Society, under the word, excommunication, §. 3., that whatsoever censures laid by Bishops upon Religious do not hold, unless they were expressed nominatim: for thus it is had, Nicholas IV. did not will the brethren to be bound by any sentence of excommunication, suspension, and interdict of man, unless mention were made nominatim, nor would it suffice if he said in a general sentence, that they hold as much as if they were named expressly. Whence Suarez infers, num. 5., that it does not suffice that the convent or such a Religion be named; for since he speaks of the brethren and subjects nominatim, etc., it is required that these be signified in particular; otherwise the Privilege would serve for little.

MOREOVER Regulars have many Privileges of absolving from censures, reserved in the law to a Bishop, which may be seen in the compendious compilers: But in what order, or upon what persons, they can exercise their Privileged jurisdiction, is better known from the tenor of the indults and from the practice of the Religions than from any juridical demonstration, especially since the common law has expressed nothing on this matter; but ever concerning other Prelates it is understood under the name of Abbot, whose Privileges are some granted to the very places in which they reside, wherefore they cannot be drawn to other houses, even of the same institute; for Privileges hold as much as they sound; Others are personal, given immediately to the Prelates themselves; and if mention be made of a Prelate simply, it is understood to be made of whoever has Ordinary jurisdiction, since he is truly a Prelate; which holds a fortiori of him, if the discourse be in the plural of Prelates; for thus it is extended to Conventuals, Provincials, etc. See on these Suarez at length, differing, Cap. 12. where above.