128. Approval of the Confessor

1. "Candidus, a newly ordained priest, was called to undergo an examination of doctrine for hearing confessions. After the examination had been completed, the written and signed votes of the individual examiners are handed to the vicar general, who, in the absence of the bishop, was president and director of the ecclesiastical council. But he, not doubting the suitability of the priest, at once sent him as the cooperator of some parish priest, so that, with the next feast approaching, he might receive confessions. But afterward, when the votes of the examiners were opened in the next session of the council, Candidus was found wanting, or rejected by the examiners. Wherefore, immediately recalled, until he should make greater progress in moral doctrine, he was suspended from the office of hearing confessions.

It is asked: 1.º Whether Candidus validly absolved the penitents? - 2.º What if he himself knew his defect of doctrine, or even knew well that he had failed in the examination? - 3.º What if, after suspension, he still absolved several persons? - 4.º Whether the faithful, once the error is discovered, are bound to repeat with another the confessions made to Candidus?

R. To the 1st. Candidus validly absolved before he was prohibited from hearing confessions. The reason is, 1.º because he was simply approved by the superior, although the latter approved from error; 2.º because where common error intervenes with a colored title, the Church certainly supplies the defect of approval, as theologians commonly say. But in our Case such common error intervened with a colored title, namely with the title of jurisdiction conferred by the superior. Therefore, etc.

To the 2nd. In this hypothesis, he would indeed have sinned gravely by undertaking so great an office, although he knew himself incapable; nevertheless the confessions would always have been valid, because the approval of the superior and the common error of the faithful with a colored title would subsist in the same way.

To the 3rd. Even in this Case Candidus would have validly absolved if the suspension had not become known to the people, because common error would still have persevered, although the colored title had failed; for common error, even without a colored title, more probably brings it about that the Church, as pious mother, wishes to supply, lest many perish. Lig. 572.

To the 4th. Absolutely negatively. The reason is that, from what has been said, those confessions were valid, from the fact that the Church supplied jurisdiction, common error standing. But confessions once valid are never necessarily to be repeated. For the circumstance of an error discovered afterward cannot bring it about that what previously was valid becomes invalid. Therefore, etc. Elbel 320; Lig. 572." Thus Fr. Gury 542-544.

But in the response to the 1st, to the 2nd, and to the 4th, common error seems to be brought into the matter in vain, since the approval of the superior certainly was present in the Case, and with the approval jurisdiction was conferred. I. M. 755, 756.

2. Ugolinus, a parish priest, hears a confession outside the diocese, without any approval of the Ordinary of the place, of Sempronius his parishioner and of Nemesius his fellow diocesan. He absolves the former from sins reserved in his own diocese and from sins reserved in the place of confession; but the latter he absolves only from venial sins.

It is asked: What is to be said to the Case?

R. Ugolinus, existing outside the diocese, indeed acts rightly in hearing the confession of his own parishioner, but by no means in hearing the confession of his fellow diocesan. For to hear the former confession he does not need the approval of the Ordinary of the place; but for the latter he needs the aforesaid approval, as is openly drawn from Trent, sess. 23, c. 15, de R. Hence he also rightly absolved his own parishioner from sins reserved in the place of confession, but by no means from those reserved in his own diocese. For he absolves his own parishioner only with jurisdiction which he has restricted by reservation by his own Ordinary. D'Annib., p. 1, n. 78. But a fellow diocesan, not his own parishioner, he would indeed absolve illicitly and invalidly from grave sins without the approval of the bishop of the place. But since he absolved him only from venial sins, certainly illicitly; whether, however, also invalidly, is not certain. Cf. I. M. 757.

3. Habitual care exists with the chapter of the cathedral church of the city NN. Hence the archpriest each month designates a canon who for the month exercises the parochial duties. The canons indeed perform this, after receiving the mandate of the archpriest, although they have never sought and obtained the approval of the Ordinary of the place. Indeed, even after the month of exercise of parochial care has been completed, the individual canons continue to hear confessions, without any approval of the Ordinary of the place.

It is asked: What is to be said to the Case?

R. The canons of the cathedral church, if this is a church with cure, and habitual care of souls is in the hands of the chapter, need the approval of the bishop, even with a previous examination if the Ordinary has so judged, for hearing confessions, whether when, in their own time, having been designated they exercise the care of souls, or when they hear confessions outside the aforesaid time. This is established from the Response of the Sacred Congregation of the Council, April 1, 1876, A. S. S., vol. 9, p. 550, and is openly drawn from Trent, sess. 23, c. 15, de R. For the aforesaid canons have neither ordinary nor delegated jurisdiction: not ordinary, which is communicated by force of office, because they do not have the parochial benefice; not delegated, because it is certain that they have not obtained approval from the Ordinary. When the canons actually exercise the care of souls, in their month, by mandate of the archpriest, they do not then become parish priests, but are only temporary vicars, removable at the nod of the chapter itself or of the archpriest. But common error standing, the penitents whose confessions the canons have hitherto heard are not to be disturbed. I. M. 757-766.

4. "The Bishop of Ostia, for example, is present at Rome, where there are also some citizens of Ostia, who beyond doubt can confess at Rome to confessors approved by the Roman Vicar. But nevertheless they would wish to confess to another Roman priest, who is not approved by the Roman Ordinary, and therefore they ask from the Bishop of Ostia that he approve him for hearing his subjects. Yet I said that this cannot be done, disp. 21, De Poenitentia, n. 37, where I conceded that to this effect an Ostian priest present there, who is still a subject of the same bishop, can be approved at Rome by the Bishop of Ostia; but that a Roman priest staying at Rome, who is not a subject of the Bishop of Ostia, cannot be approved. But on this occasion it was asked of me why I denied this, since otherwise the approval of a confessor is an act of voluntary jurisdiction, and therefore can be exercised by a bishop outside his own diocese. Wherefore, just as the Bishop of Ostia can approve a Roman priest existing at Ostia, so that he may hear confessions at Ostia, so it seems he can approve the same priest existing at Rome, so that he may hear the confessions of Ostian citizens at Rome.

Yet I answered that this cannot be done, as I had proved in the place cited; which can again be proved from the declaration of the Congregation of the Tridentine Council adduced in that place, by which the Most Eminent Fathers said that the bishop himself, staying in another diocese, cannot confess to an outside priest not approved by the Ordinary of that place in which the confession is made. If therefore the bishop himself cannot choose for himself a confessor not approved by the Ordinary of the place in which he is, much less will he be able to assign him to his subjects. For if he could approve a Roman priest at Rome for hearing the confessions of Ostians at Rome, surely the Bishop of Ostia himself could confess to the same, since he himself is no less Ostian than his subjects; wherefore if he himself cannot, neither will the Ostian citizens be able to confess to that priest.

But the reason a priori from the things said in the cited place is this: because a confessor from the decree of Trent must be approved by his own Ordinary; but in the proposed Case the Roman priest existing at Rome would not be approved by his own Ordinary. For the Bishop of Ostia is not the Ordinary of the Roman priest, nor can he punish him, even if at Rome he should offend concerning the hearing of confessions of Ostians; but he will be able to be punished only by the Roman Ordinary. The Bishop of Ostia could indeed punish an Ostian priest staying at Rome, as Gonzalez wills, on rule 8 of the Chancery, gloss. 62, n. 11, and Barbosa, De Officio et potestate episcopi, alleg. 6, n. 17; he could also punish a Roman priest staying at Ostia, and there approved, if there he should offend concerning confessions; and therefore whether an Ostian priest stays at Rome, or a Roman priest is at Ostia, the Bishop of Ostia can be said to be the Ordinary of each, since he can punish each, and therefore each will be called approved by his own Ordinary if he is approved by the Bishop of Ostia. Yet he is not the Ordinary of a Roman priest staying at Rome, because superior and subject are correlatives, and that Roman priest existing at Rome cannot be considered the subject of the Bishop of Ostia, by whom he can in no way be coerced and punished." Lugo, Resp. Mor., l. 1, d. 17.

But it does not seem that the Bishop of Ostia, in the Case, can approve an Ostian priest at Rome. For the Council of Trent in reality does not say that a confessor must be approved by his own Ordinary, but says generally that no one can hear confessions unless either he has a parochial benefice, or is judged suitable by the bishops and obtains approval. Hence among theologians it has been disputed whether approval is to be given by the Ordinary of the priest, because jurisdiction cannot be given except to a subject; or by the Ordinary of the penitent, because it cannot be exercised except over subjects; or by the Ordinary of the place, because jurisdiction is exercised in one's own territory. The first is foreign to law and to practice. For bishops allow simple priests, travelers, and guests to hear confessions in their own dioceses. The second was formerly more common from the ancient discipline, by which permission was given to depart, and tacitly permission also to receive the sacraments from outside priests. The third, according to the law now in force, must altogether be held. Innocent XII, Const. Cum sicut, April 10, 1700; Benedict XIV, Const. Apostolica, Const. Benedictus Deus. And it is so far from the truth that travelers today are absolved only by tacit delegation of their own Ordinary, that when a certain bishop, and later the Synod of Middelburg, had forbidden them to confess at Easter except to their own parish priest or with his permission, the Sacred Congregation of the Council, April 5, 1584, judged that its decrees were in no way to be observed. Cf. Benedict XIV, De Syn., l. 11, c. 14, n. 6. And the Sacred Congregation de Propaganda Fide, September 17, 1792, Collect. n. 628, decreed: "the obligation imposed on parishioners of sacramentally confessing themselves to their own parish priest, or to another priest, yet with his permission, at Easter time, cannot be tolerated." Likewise, when at present to someone is granted the faculty of choosing for himself a confessor from those approved by the Ordinary, the absolution is void unless the confessor is from those approved by the Ordinary of the place. I. M. 759.