IX. On the Jurisdiction of the Confessor

Is jurisdiction required for hearing Confessions licitly and validly? - Jurisdiction, taken generally, is a certain moral power of governing subjects. Ecclesiastical jurisdiction is twofold: one in the external forum, and it is the power of making laws, inflicting punishments, etc.; the other in the internal forum, and it is the power of absolving or binding in the tribunal of Penance. But this is either ordinary, which belongs to someone by reason of an office having care of souls annexed; or delegated, which is given to another by one having ordinary jurisdiction. - The power of jurisdiction is necessary for hearing Confessions, and the power of order does not suffice. The reason is that absolution is a judicial sentence, which cannot be passed except upon subjects. Therefore subjects must be assigned to the confessor; but this pertains to him who has authority over those subjects. This is altogether required for the right governance of the Church. And this is established from Trent, sess. 14, C. 7, declaring that "that absolution must be of no moment which a priest pronounces upon one over whom he does not have ordinary or subdelegated jurisdiction." - L. 557.

To whom does jurisdiction belong? - Ordinary jurisdiction belongs: to the Pope for the whole Church in each forum, since he has the Primacy of jurisdiction. Vatican Council, Constitution Pastor aeternus. The Major Penitentiary acts in his place in many things. - To Legates for their province, and to Cardinals for their church. - To the Bishop for his diocese, also in each forum, since this has been committed to him so that he may rule and direct it; likewise to the Archbishop toward the subjects of his Bishops, only when he is actually visiting; and, according to the more common and truer opinion, to the Vicar General, since he makes one tribunal with the Bishop. C. Non putamus 2, de Consuetud. in 6; C. Romana 3, de Appellat. in 6. But when the Bishop has died, the jurisdiction of the Vicar ceases, not because his jurisdiction is not ordinary, but because, with the Bishop lacking, he ceases to be Vicar. - To the Capitular Vicar when the See is vacant. - To pastors for subjects in the internal forum, Trent, sess. 23, C. 15, de R.; and to the penitentiary canon in his own diocese, and to all those who have a benefice or office to which the obligation of hearing Confessions is annexed. - To abbots and prelates of regulars for their subjects, from several privileges granted to them by the Supreme Pontiffs themselves.

Penitentiaries appointed in the Basilicas of the City hear confessions of all the Christian faithful, even regulars, even without any permission of their superiors. Benedict XIV, Constitution Inter praeteritos, Dec. 3, 1749; Constitution Convocatio, Nov. 25, 1749.

Delegated jurisdiction is granted by the Church to any priest in a case of extreme necessity, or at the point of death. Trent, sess. 14, C. 7. At the point of death, that is, whether at the point or in danger of death, because the necessity of the penitent is almost the same in danger as at the point of death; and because in this matter point and danger are taken for one and the same, C. Si quis suadente 29, can. 17, q. 4. And indeed danger and point of death are either taken for one and the same among the doctors, or, if they are distinguished, that distinction has itself thus: point designates death nearly imminent, morally certain, and almost inevitable; but danger is when there is a probable doubt, and death is frequently accustomed to happen in such a case. Suarez, in 3 p., t. 4, d. 26, s. 4, n. 2; Lugo, de Poen., d. 18, n. 20; Ithur., Cas. 49, nn. 1-3, 10-16; Giraldi, Expos. Iur. Pont., p. 2, s. 39, par. Verum; L. 561. - But such danger is judged to be present in battle, in a long and dangerous voyage, in difficult childbirth, in a dangerous illness, in probable danger of falling into insanity, in slight hope of liberty for captives among infidels if they are believed to be going to have no other priests, etc., namely whether death threatens from within or from without. - L. 557, 558, 559, 561. "Any priests whatever, undertaking a sea journey, provided they have or obtain the faculty of receiving sacramental Confessions either from their own Ordinary, from whose diocese they depart, or from the Ordinary of the port in which they embark, or even from the Ordinary of any intermediate port through which they pass in the journey, can on the ship, during the whole maritime journey, receive the Confessions of the faithful sailing with them, even if perhaps during the journey itself it is necessary to pass through, or even for some time to stop in, different places subject to the jurisdiction of different Ordinaries." Holy Office, Aug. 23, 1905. Likewise, "as often as the ship stops during the journey, they can hear Confessions both of the faithful who for any reason come to the ship, and of those who, when they perhaps briefly go down onto land, ask to confess, and they can validly and licitly absolve them, even from cases perhaps reserved to the Ordinary of the place, provided nevertheless - as regards the second case - there is no priest approved in the place, or only one, and the Ordinary of the place cannot easily be approached." Holy Office, Dec. 12, 1906. "The faithful of the Ruthenian rite, in the Canadian region, even in places in which a priest of the Ruthenian rite is present, can confess their sins to a Latin priest approved by the Ordinary of the place and validly and licitly obtain the benefit of sacramental absolution. The faithful of the Latin rite can confess their sins to a Ruthenian priest approved by his Bishop in places in which there is a mission or church of the Ruthenian rite. But Ruthenian priests cannot absolve the faithful of the Latin rite from censures and from cases reserved in the Latin diocese in which they exercise the sacred ministry without permission of the Latin Ordinary. Conversely let the same be said of Latin priests as regards censures and reservations established by the Ruthenian Bishop." S. C. de P. F., Aug. 18, 1913, art. 28. "The Ruthenian faithful in the United States of North America, even in places where a priest of the Ruthenian rite is present, can confess their sins to a Latin priest approved by the Ordinary of the place, and validly and licitly obtain the benefit of sacramental absolution. But priests of the Ruthenian rite should know that censures and reservations of cases in the diocese in which they exercise ministry, whether now in force or to be imposed, also affect the clergy and people of the same Ruthenian rite." Pius X, Constitution Ea semper, XVIII Kal. July 1907, concerning Ruthenians in the United States of North America, art. 25. "The Latin faithful in the United States of North America, even if a priest of the Latin rite is present, can confess their sins to a Greek-Ruthenian priest approved by his Ordinary and validly and licitly obtain the benefit of sacramental absolution. Likewise the Greek-Ruthenian faithful can confess their sins to a Latin priest approved by his Bishop. But Latin priests will not be able to absolve the faithful of the Greek-Ruthenian rite from censures and cases reserved by the Greek-Ruthenian Ordinary without permission of the same. Conversely let the same be said of Greek-Ruthenian priests as regards censures and reservations established by Ordinaries of the Latin rite." S. C. de Prop. Fid., Aug. 17, 1914, for Greek-Ruthenians in the United States of North America.

Can delegated jurisdiction be subdelegated? - Resp. In the negative, generally speaking, namely unless a special concession of the delegating one is added; and then it is judged to be subdelegated in the name of the delegating one himself. The reason is that the delegate has only that power which is granted to him; but only the power of exercising jurisdiction is granted to him, not of committing it to another, unless something else is expressed. Except: 1. If jurisdiction is delegated to someone as a privilege perpetually annexed to his office or dignity; for then such jurisdiction is regarded as ordinary, as is the faculty imparted to Bishops by Trent, C. Liceat 6, sess. 24. 2. If an office is committed to someone to which jurisdiction is annexed; and this holds even if the office is not proper, but that of a vicar, e.g., a vice-pastor or vice-rector for an absent pastor, or one not yet a priest. A vicar of this kind can well subdelegate his jurisdiction, not indeed the whole, but a part, namely for one or another cause. The reason is that then not only the exercise of the pastor has been committed to him, but also the office of pastor, to which belongs not only the use but still also the delegation of jurisdiction. - L. 566; St. Thomas, Quodl. 12, a. 31; cf. vol. 1, nn. 250, 254.

Does delegated jurisdiction of hearing Confessions expire by the death or removal from office of the one granting it? - There is a twofold opinion. The first, which Thomas Sanchez says is sufficiently probable, affirms it. But the second, which the same Sanchez holds as more probable, denies it, whether that permission was granted by a Bishop or by any other Ordinary who can grant it. The first reason is "because all laws deciding that the power of delegated jurisdiction perishes by the death of the delegating one, while the matter remains intact, treat of contentious power, such as this is not.... 2. Because, although permission to hear Confessions is in favor of penitents, it is deservedly numbered among graces already made; because, since it is not granted with respect to a determinate person in that person's peculiar favor or at his petition, it is rather regarded as a grace made to the priests themselves, since it redounds to their greatest favor; and as soon as it is granted to them, it is perfectly granted and depends on the execution of no one. And this is the definition of a grace made. But a grace made does not expire by the death of the one granting, even if the matter is intact. 3. Because practice itself so testifies. Indeed, when the Bishop has died, all confessors exposed by him are accustomed to hear Confessions until the permission is revoked by the chapter or by the successor Bishop." Sanchez, de Matr., l. 8, d. 28, nn. 71, 72; who adds besides these things which make for a fuller knowledge of the present matter: 1. "When, however, permission had been granted to a priest of hearing the Confessions of a determined penitent, in favor of that penitent, the faculty would expire by the death of the one granting, while the matter is intact, i.e., as regards a Confession not yet begun before. Because, since that grace is in favor of that penitent and is not yet perfected, but is to be executed by the confessor, it does not have the nature of a grace made, but of a grace to be made, which we have said expires by the death of the one granting, while the matter is intact.... 2. Permission granted by a Bishop or other prelate of choosing a confessor... more truly... does not expire by the death of the one granting, even while the matter is intact, or by removal from office..., because this faculty is to be judged not as delegation, but as a grace made." l. c., nn. 73, 74. - Lugo, Resp. Mor., l. 1, d. 20. "It is certain," says Bouix, de Iur. Reg., vol. 2, p. 247, "that unlimited permission does not expire by the death of the one granting; and about this there is no doubt. Likewise it is certain that permission for a determined time does not expire by the death of the one granting, but perseveres until the expiration of the fixed term; this likewise is outside controversy. Concerning permissions at good pleasure, Clericatus indeed asserts, after Diana, that they expire by the death of the one granting.

But on the contrary side is the common opinion of the doctors, which Ferraris thus explains, v. Approbatio, a. 1, n. 10, etc." Cf. St. Alphonsus, 551, 552, 558, 559, where the holy Doctor affirms that the faculty given in this way expires by the death of the one granting: "until our good pleasure, or at the judgment of our will, and the like." But l. 1, App. 2, n. 13, he thinks the contrary opinion probable. C. Si gratiose 5, de Rescr. in 6, favors cessation. But S. C. EE. et RR., June 17, 1866, and C. 16, de R. I. in 6, favor duration.

From the Decree of the Holy Office, May 3, 1889, faculties habitually granted to Ordinaries, even for a predefined time or for a determined number of cases, all pass to successor Ordinaries. Ferr., Supplementum, v. Episcopus, n. 20. This was extended by another Decree of the Holy Office, May 3, 1899, to Superiors General of Religious Orders. E. M.

Does the Church supply jurisdiction when penitents invincibly ignore its defect? - It must first be noted that defect of jurisdiction can happen in diverse circumstances of things. For the error can be either common among the faithful, or private to only some person. Again a priest lacking jurisdiction can have a colored title, or only an estimated one. Title signifies cause, and therefore a title is that by which some right is acquired for us. But a colored title is a title false in itself, but nevertheless truly conferred by a superior, and therefore bearing before itself the appearance of a true title, although from some cause it labors under a hidden defect of nullity. Thus a priest who is made pastor simoniacally obtains an invalid title from Canon Law; and, if he was constituted in the parish by a legitimate Bishop, he has a colored title. Cf. C. Statuimus 107, caus. 1, q. 1. But a merely estimated title is one which is regarded by the faithful as present, although it does not exist.

The Church certainly supplies if the error is common among the faithful and at the same time joined with a colored title. The reason is drawn from the common interpretation of theologians resting on diverse places of Law. For, as they say, the Church as a pious mother is deservedly judged to supply jurisdiction for the good of souls, since she can do this. This is equally valid whether someone has ordinary or delegated jurisdiction. It is valid besides even if the confessor knows that he does not have jurisdiction, e.g., one who knows that the time of approbation has elapsed for him, or that by force of a sentence secretly notified to him he has been suspended from hearing Confessions. L. 572.

Probably also the Church supplies if there is common error, or error public of itself, without a colored title, but with only an estimated or fictive title. For the same reason urges as in the preceding case, since also in this hypothesis innumerable souls can perish; especially since a title here is not accustomed either to be sought or exhibited when someone receives power from a superior of hearing Confessions or absolving from reserved cases. Thus several grave doctors; and St. Alphonsus thinks this probable in the cited place. And this is valid whether it is a question of simple absolution from sins, or of absolution from reserved cases, since in each case the reason is the same, namely the good and necessity of souls.

The Church is not judged to supply jurisdiction if the error is private, e.g., if it is of one or of a few. The reason is that the Church is not judged to supply except by reason of the common good, namely after the manner of a provider or general governor who attends only to the general good of society and leaves the good of private persons to the care of particular providers. - Ithur., Cas. 33; Cas. 47, nn. 9, 13; E. M.

Is it lawful to absolve with doubtful jurisdiction, when there is doubt of fact whether it is present? - Doubtful: it is a question of negative doubt, by which the mind remains uncertain and suspended, without being determined to a judgment, namely to a positive judgment, although only probable. Whether it is present: e.g., whether the definite time of approbation continues; whether he is within the territory of the one delegating and approving; whether such a sin is not contained in the catalogue of reserved cases, etc. Wherefore it is a question of doubt of fact, namely of a particular or private fact. Resp. In the negative, unless some necessity urges. For the sacrament is cast into danger of nullity, and thus the penitent is exposed to grave harm. But in necessity one must aid the neighbor in the best way that can be done. Necessity is present: 1. if the precept of annual Confession urges; 2. if the penitent must celebrate Mass or communicate and otherwise would incur a mark of infamy; 3. if a priest is bound by obligation to celebrate; 4. if the penitent has already confessed his sins, for then he has an acquired right to obtain absolution. But because of reverence for the sacrament, absolution must be given under condition; and the penitent must be warned about the doubt of valid absolution, so that provision be made for his salvation. Consequently he is both to be excited by the confessor to contrition, and then must confess his sins to another having jurisdiction, because they certainly must be subjected to the keys.

But, the case of providing for one's own salvation being excluded, there are not lacking those who judge that there is no need of such admonition, because the obligation of confessing them has already probably been satisfied. Cf. the following number. But here it is a question of negative doubt. How, therefore, can it be affirmed that it has probably been satisfied? - Castro Palaus, tr. 23, p. 14, n. 25; L. 571, 432.

Is it lawful to absolve with jurisdiction speculatively probable, or with positive doubt of law? - Doubt properly so called is negative doubt. Positive doubt, improperly called doubt, is such only by reason of the fear with which a judgment is made, although a judgment is made determinately, yet an uncertain judgment, namely a probable one, in which there is breadth and variety; because it can be judged that each part is equally probable, or that one is probable and the other more probable, or that only one is probable, because its motive is neither evident nor certain, although the opposite has no foundation of probability. Jurisdiction speculatively probable, or positive doubt of law, is, e.g., that common error without a colored title gives jurisdiction; that one not approved absolves a dying person when an approved one is present; that even one not approved validly absolves from venials, etc. Wherefore doubt of law falls back into doubt of fact, not indeed of a particular fact, but of a universal fact; or the doubt is about a common question of law, not of private fact.

Moreover St. Alphonsus, 573, says: "The common opinion teaches that it is lawful to absolve with probable jurisdiction, provided the opinion is truly probable, supported by grave reason and authority. Thus Sanchez, Lugo, who thinks it most safe, etc.... and Sanchez, Tamburini, Cardenas, and Dicastillo, Illsung, Gormaz, Stoz, etc., apud Croix, l. 6, p. 1, n. 117, call it morally certain." But the same holy Doctor proposes the other opinion, which he says he follows, thus: "It is indeed lawful to administer this sacrament of penance with probable jurisdiction, but only when there is present a cause of grave necessity, or of great utility... or a reasonable cause.... The reason for this limitation is that, although in that case the Church can well be judged to supply jurisdiction because of the good of souls, nevertheless, with no just cause added, she is not presumed to wish to connive at the mere liberty of priests." - But the weakness of this opinion is shown by the very reason of the prior opinion, which St. Alphonsus himself thus explains and proves: "In the Church there is a universal custom of almost all confessors of absolving with probable jurisdiction, as Suarez, Lugo, etc., and all the other authors cited for this opinion commonly testify. But the common opinion of doctors founds moral certainty about the aforesaid custom. And although the contrary authors think it illicit to absolve with probable jurisdiction, nevertheless they pass over, nor can they deny, that this custom is present at least among the far greater part of confessors. Therefore, once this custom is placed as certain, it is certain that it is lawful to administer the sacrament with probable jurisdiction, since the custom itself supplies jurisdiction, as Suarez, Navarrus, etc., teach; and they prove this from C. Cum contingat 13, de Foro compet.... Jurisdiction can well be supplied by the Church, and it is morally certainly presumed to be supplied in this case because of the good of souls. Hence the confessor, in absolving, would not absolve with only a probable opinion, but with a morally certain one, not direct, but reflex." - These things concern positive doubt or probability of law. But what about positive doubt or probability of fact, namely of a private fact? Several affirm the same, among whom is D'Annibale, ed. 3, p. 1, n. 80, note 78; but others commonly deny it. - And those perhaps affirm it because a private fact can sometimes be joined with common error. Cf. 769. - La-Croix, l. 6, p. 1, nn. 118, 120; Lugo, d. 19, nn. 20, 23 ff.; L. 571, 573; D'Annibale, p. 3, n. 321.

Do heretics, schismatics, excommunicates to be avoided, etc., validly absolve in danger of death, when another priest is lacking? - Resp. In the affirmative. The reason is that all priests can absolve in danger of death. Trent, sess. 14, C. 7; L. 560.

Can a simple priest validly absolve a dying person, even when an approved confessor is present? - St. Alphonsus, 562, denies it because of the authority of the Roman Ritual, de Sacr. poenit., at the beginning, where it is said thus: "But if danger of death threatens and an approved confessor is lacking, any priest can absolve from any censures and sins whatever." Several grave theologians hold this opinion. But also several other grave theologians affirm. A very strong argument indeed is available from Trent, sess. 14, C. 7, where that faculty is given absolutely and universally to all priests, for any penitents, and any sins and censures whatever; and the most universal reason is assigned, lest anyone perish. Wherefore where the law does not distinguish, neither must we distinguish, unless an exception is made by the law itself, as for the case of a priest who is an accomplice in a shameful sin, as is explained in its own place; and by this exception also, where it is a question of mere validity, the present doctrine is confirmed. Cf. 1282. Moreover the reason adduced by the Council, lest anyone perish, demonstrates every kind of breadth in this matter; for if this were excluded, someone certainly could sometimes perish because of lack of liberty. And this is added besides, that in the same Church of God it was always kept that there be no reservation at the point of death; but where there is no reservation, it is vainly asked who has power in reserved matters. Finally, before Trent no approbation of the Bishop was needed for hearing Confessions; therefore the old law, as regards the point of death, was not only not derogated, but confirmed, since the Council appeals to the old law itself when it says, "which in the same," etc. It is confirmed from the Response of the Holy Office, July 29, 1891. - Ithur., Cas. 12, 42; Lugo, d. 18, n. 23; L. 560; E. M.

Can someone absolve his own subject in another diocese without the approbation of the Ordinary of the place? - Resp. In the affirmative, if the confessor is the proper pastor of that penitent. The reason is that pastors are exempted by the Council of Trent from that law of approbation. Wherefore outside their own parish or even diocese they need to be approved by no one in order to hear the Confession of their own parishioners. - In the negative, if he is not the proper pastor. The reason is that from Trent pastors alone are exempted. Wherefore all others having delegated jurisdiction need the approbation of the Bishop of the place.

Nevertheless there are not lacking grave theologians who think that in this matter the right of one having ordinary and delegated power is the same. For the delegate uses the jurisdiction of the one delegating. But the difficulty in the present question is not about jurisdiction, but about approbation. Wherefore, if it were only a question of absolution from censures, for which approbation is not required, he certainly could do this absolutely; absolutely, namely unless he had received jurisdiction restricted by delegation to his own territory. And the same, from the old law now, would be true of matrimony, at which outside the diocese both the proper pastor and a priest deputed by the same pastor would validly assist. From the old law now: for at present, from the decree Ne temere, the pastor and the Ordinary of the place cannot grant permission except to another determined and certain priest, so that he may assist at marriages within the limits of his territory." - L. 548; Lugo, Resp. Mor., l. 1, d. 17; D'Annibale, p. 1, n. 330; p. 3, n. 322, ed. 3; cf. here 783.

Can a pastor summon a pastor of the same or a different diocese to hear Confessions in his parish? - As regards a pastor of the same diocese, although by force of his office he has special jurisdiction only for his own parish, nevertheless from almost universal custom he can hear Confessions also in the whole diocese, unless the Bishop decrees otherwise. Nevertheless the proper customs of places are to be consulted. - As regards a pastor of a different diocese, various opinions are brought forward, as Benedict XIV says, Instit. 86, n. 7. Those who affirm argue from Trent that a parochial benefice serves for universal approbation. Others deny this, to whom St. Alphonsus, 544, adheres. Declarations of the S. C. C. apud the same holy Doctor favor this opinion. The first opinion can be admitted in those places where such a custom is present.

Can a priest approved by the Bishop hear Confessions of the faithful without permission of the pastor? - Resp. In the negative as to liceity, if the Confessions are received in a church subject to the pastor. The reason is that due order altogether requires that, since the pastor is the immediate superior in his own church, permission to exercise sacred ministries there be sought from him. Nevertheless the permission of the pastor is not required for hearing Confessions in a chapel of regulars or nuns, but the permission of the superior or superiorness of the place suffices. But as regards validity, it is certain, according to all, that the license of the pastor is not required outside the case of annual Confession. Indeed it is not required even for annual Confession, at least of itself, or by common law. This is established from the common doctrine of theologians against certain ones, and also from the present custom and universal practice of the Church, as Benedict XIV testifies, Inst. 18. - L. 574.

Can a priest approved in some place receive the Confessions of travelers coming there? - Resp. In the affirmative absolutely as regards regular confessors, who have this special privilege from the Apostolic See. C. Inter cunctas of Paul III; C. Superna of Clement X. - In the affirmative also as regards secular priests. The reason is that such is the universal custom, which, having its origin at first from the tacit consent of Ordinaries, now, confirmed by long use, has been prescribed, and obtains the force of a universal law. - L. 569.

Can the Bishop prohibit, under penalty of invalidity, that diocesans go to confess outside the diocese? - Resp. In the negative, if they go to confess outside the diocese to regular confessors who have the privilege of hearing Confessions of all the faithful coming from anywhere. Suarez, de Relig., tr. 10, l. 9, nn. 19, 20; Reiff., tr. 14, dist. 8, q. 1, n. 11; Laymann, l. 5, tr. 1, c. 10.

This is confirmed by a Declaration of the Sacred Congregation and the annotation of the gloss apud Fagnanus, l. 5, cap. 12, in cap. Omnis utriusque sexus, n. 79, where it has these things: "The Sacred Congregation declared that regulars within the diocese of the approving Bishop can also absolve penitents of another diocese, since they have jurisdiction from the Pope from Clem. Dudum, de Sepult., whose jurisdiction is not restricted to the limits of some territory, but the whole world is his diocese." - In the negative also as regards secular confessors. There exist several decrees of the Sacred Congregations by which prohibitions of this kind are reproved. Cf. Collectan. S. C. de P. F., n. 928 ff. The reason is that the Bishop cannot universally, and particular cases being excluded, prohibit that which is permitted by universal custom legitimately prescribed, or by the universal law of the Church. Nor does what is objected stand in the way, namely that it is repugnant to divine law for someone to choose a confessor for himself without the permission of his own Pastor. For this is freely conceded. But one who, with the Supreme Pontiff permitting through universal custom, chooses a confessor for himself, does not choose him without the permission of his own Pastor. "Custom," says St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 20, a. 2, "gives or takes away power in such matters." Quodl. 1, a. 12; L. 564; E. M.

Does a delegate absolve validly and licitly after the term of delegation to be renewed yearly has elapsed, e.g., if a crowd of penitents flows to some great solemnity? - He absolves invalidly, of itself, or by reason of jurisdiction, because in fact he has none. Nevertheless, more probably, he absolves validly, at least for the most part, by reason of common error, because of which the Church is judged to supply for the good of souls.

But the priest sins gravely, of itself, if he knowingly does this; the reason is that he exercises the office of confessor without legitimate authority. And although then the Church supplies, he is nevertheless guilty because he himself unduly compels her to supply.

Can military chaplains absolve soldiers everywhere without approbation of the Bishop of the place? - Resp. In the affirmative, if they have been specially delegated by the Supreme Pontiff for the spiritual care of soldiers, or by a major chaplain approved by the Pope. - But if they lack this special delegation, they can indeed hear Confessions in the diocese of the approving Bishop, and also outside it on a journey and in camps, from the tacit consent of Bishops, as is clear from universal custom; nevertheless they cannot validly absolve in stations or in garrisons without the license of the Bishop of the place, because they have no jurisdiction. This is established from various Declarations of the S. C. C., March 6, 1694; June 29, 1707; A. S. S., vol. 1, p. 681; A. A. S., vol. 2, p. 501; Zacharia apud La-Croix 1518; L. 577; E. M.

The Major Chaplain or Vicar General of the armies exists in Spain, having all military jurisdiction. Chaplains approved by him absolve soldiers independently of the Ordinaries of places. It is not established that these chaplains in Spain are bound to Mass for the people. - A military Vicar, or Major Chaplain, has been constituted in the army of the Republic of Chile. Motu proprio of Pius X, May 3, 1910. - Military chaplains in England receive faculties from the Archbishop of Westminster. S. C. de Prop. Fid., May 15, 1806. "The Bishop of Verdun, under whose jurisdiction very many soldiers are contained, for the religious care of them in time of war and at the same time for forestalling difficulties, humbly asks Your Holiness that he command a suitable declaration of the following doubts and grant the requested faculties: "I. Whether any soldier whatever, constituted in the state of military convocation, or, as they say, mobilization, is by that very fact in danger of death, so that he can be absolved by any priest encountered? "If in the negative, may Your Holiness deign to impart to any priest who, at the time of the declared war, could by law celebrate Mass, the faculty of absolving from all cases any soldier from his own or a hostile nation, or even from a friendly one. "II. Whether irregularity is incurred by every cleric whom French law has forced actively to wage war or fight? "If in the affirmative, may it please the Most Holy One to remove the aforesaid irregularity in such a way that clerics exercising war can approach the Sacraments, and priests actively serving the work of war may be able both to receive and administer Sacraments. "III. Whether a cleric constituted in sacred orders, whom military convocation, or, as they say, mobilization, has assigned to the function of a soldier, either active or serving wounded comrades, exists free from the law of the Divine Office? "If in the negative, may Your Holiness deign to exempt the aforesaid clerics from the law of the Breviary during the war. "Resp. To the first: the doubt having been reformed: 'Whether any soldier whatever, constituted in the state of military convocation, or, as they say, mobilization, can by that very fact be equated with those who are in danger of death, so that he can be absolved by any priest encountered': In the affirmative, according to the rules handed down by approved authors. "To the second doubt: To the first part: Let the petitioner consult approved authors; to the second part: the Sacred Penitentiary benignly grants that military priests, other things being equal, during military operations, may say Mass and administer Sacraments, notwithstanding the irregularity which, by fighting, they perhaps incurred; but when the war has been settled, let them have recourse to the competent authority. But nothing stands in the way of the same priests and other military clerics, although perhaps they have fallen into irregularity, being admitted to the Sacraments. "To the third doubt: To the first part: during war and its proximate preparation, in the affirmative. To the second part: provision has been made in the first." Sacred Penitentiary, March 18, 1912, n. 780.

Can pastors, Bishops, Cardinals choose a confessor for themselves? - Resp. To the first: In the negative, from proposition 16 condemned by Alexander VII. - To the second: In the affirmative, from C. Ne pro dilatione, fin., de Poenit. et rem. But the Sacred Congregation apud Fagnanus, in the said chapter n. 62, declared that this is to be understood only that Bishops outside the diocese can choose a priest subject to themselves. - To the third: In the affirmative. For a privilege was granted to them by Pius X "of choosing for themselves and their familiars a priest for receiving confessions, who, if he lacks jurisdiction, obtains it by the law itself, even as regards sins and censures from which the same Cardinals can absolve." Cf. vol. 1, n. 260 bis. - L. 565; de Priv. 65; Lugo, d. 20, n. 64; E. M.