VIII. On the Approbation of the Confessor

What is required for the adequate power of the minister of penance? - Three things, namely power of order, power of jurisdiction, and approbation. The power of order is required, that is, that which belongs to the minister by force of ordination and is intrinsically annexed to the priestly character. The reason is that it was said by Christ to priests alone: Receive the Holy Spirit; whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them. John 20:22. This is established besides by a multiple definition of the Church. Trent, sess. 14, C. 6, cc. 3, 9, 10. - The power of jurisdiction is required, that is, the power by which the priest as judge can pronounce sentence on some, as his subjects. Trent, sess. 14, C. 7. - Approbation is required for hearing Confessions both licitly and validly, or a public judgment about the suitability of the priest for hearing Confessions. Trent, sess. 23, C. 15, de R.; L. 539, 540; Lugo, Resp. Mor., l. 1, d. 16; E. M.

But confessors are bound to take the oath, according to the Motu Proprio of Pius X. "I. Can the Ordinary in a case grant to extra-diocesan priests of the Latin rite, already approved by their own Ordinaries for their respective diocese, the faculty of hearing confessions either for one or another occasion or for some more or less long space of time, without being forced to receive from them again the oath prescribed in the Motu Proprio Sacrorum Antistitum against the errors of the Modernists? "II. Can the same Ordinary do this if it is a question of priests of the Syro-Malabar rite who, even if they have been approved in their own rite for confessions, nevertheless have never taken the said oath? "Resp. To I, in the affirmative; to II, if it is a question of a faculty to be granted by way of a transient act, in the affirmative; otherwise, in the negative." S. C. Consist., April 10, 1913, A. A. S., vol. 5, p. 272.

What is approbation? - Approbation can be defined: the juridical judgment of a prelate about the suitability of a priest for hearing Confessions. Hence for granting approbation an examination is not essentially required; for a prudent judgment about suitability can be had even without examination, when this is established from elsewhere. But this judgment must be adequate, namely both on the part of the intellect as regards knowledge and prudence, and on the part of the will as regards holiness of morals, fitting for the vicar of Christ in this ministry. Nevertheless these do not pertain to the essence. Therefore the Ordinary would indeed illicitly, yet validly, approve one who perhaps was destitute of these qualities. "And although the Bishop internally disapproves, external approbation is valid for conferring jurisdiction." L. 545. - L. 542.

Whether approbation is required only for liceity, or also for validity? - Approbation is required for hearing Confessions both licitly and validly. This is established from Trent, sess. 23, C. 15, de R., where it is thus laid down: "That no priest, even a regular, can hear Confessions of seculars, even priests, nor be regarded as suitable for this, unless either he has a parochial benefice, or, by examination by the Bishops if it shall seem necessary to them, or otherwise, he is judged suitable and obtains approbation, which is to be given gratis." - No priest, even a regular: understand even a regular prelate, "although it is not fitting that doctors and licentiates, or lectors in theology, be examined, provided they have lectured on Moral Theology." L. 542. Unless either he has a parochial benefice, namely actually; and therefore canons who have care of souls only habitually cannot hear Confessions licitly and validly without the approval of the Bishop. S. C. C., April 1, 1876.

Unless he obtains approbation. "Whether Confession of venials made to a simple priest is illicit and invalid? That it is illicit today is certain from the Decree of Innocent XI on daily Communion, Feb. 12, 1679.... But whether... it is invalid? The first and very common opinion denies it..., but the second opinion affirms it, and I think this sufficiently probable." L. 543. The illicitness is confirmed by common and constant custom, also and especially among regulars. - L. 541, 546, 549; Lugo, Resp. Mor., l. 5, dd. 15, 24; E. M.

Who can approve? - The Bishop alone can approve. The reason is that it pertains only to the prelates of the Church to judge about the suitability of ministers to be deputed for hearing Confessions. This is also established from the cited Trent. But the Bishop can approve either by himself or through another delegated by him, because approbation is an act of jurisdiction; but ordinary jurisdiction can be delegated. Wherefore Vicars General and Capitular Vicars, Vicars and Prefects Apostolic, can also approve. - "Moreover under the name Bishop are also understood prelates having episcopal jurisdiction, such as certain abbots, and the Chapter when the see is vacant; but not Provincials or Generals of Orders. A Bishop confirmed, although not yet consecrated, can rightly approve, because he already has jurisdiction. Otherwise, if he is only elected and not confirmed; or one who has renounced the episcopate, because then he lacks jurisdiction." L. 547. - It must be noted that according to the present discipline of the Church, together with approbation jurisdiction also is customarily conferred on priests by the prelate; and therefore, in common usage, jurisdiction also is comprehended under the name of approbation. But formerly, namely before Trent, since the approbation of the Bishop was not necessary, jurisdiction was commonly granted by pastors; this faculty now scarcely has exercise in pastors, since now there can scarcely be found a priest who has not already received from the Bishop jurisdiction together with approbation. - Bertagna, de Casuum reservatione, p. 1, c. 1, note; Ferraris, v. Approbatio, a. 1, n. 15; L. 550, 558; E. M.

Wherefore in fact the approbation which is now given is the faculty of hearing Confessions. And thus someone in fact validly hears Confessions, although he is not suitable and is not judged suitable by the interior judgment of the Bishop, who nevertheless grants approbation. And indeed this approbation from the Council of Trent implicitly contains permission and faculty of hearing confessions.

From which Bishop must approbation be had? - Approbation must be bestowed by the Bishop of the diocese in which Confessions are to be heard; hence the approbation either of the Bishop of the penitents or of the Bishop of the priests does not suffice. This is established from the Bull of Innocent XII, Cum sicut, April 19, 1700, where it was sanctioned: "Confessors, both secular and regular, whoever they may be, by force of the Bull of the Crusade, can in no way hear penitents without the approbation of the Bishop of the place in which the penitents themselves dwell; nor does approbation once or several times obtained from other Ordinaries of other dioceses suffice for this, even if the penitents are subjects of those Ordinaries who had approved such confessors." Then the Pontiff declares null "Confessions which are made without the approbation of the Bishop of the place in which the penitents themselves dwell." What is clearer? But if even with the privilege of the Bull of the Crusade approbation is required from the Bishop of the place, how much more without privilege. But the Salmanticenses... say that the opposite opinion is not condemned by this Bull, if someone had a privilege of a different kind from the Crusade, for example of a Jubilee, or something similar. But the Bull of Benedict XIV, which begins Benedictus Deus, stands against this, where it is said that in the Jubilee faculty is given both to seculars and regulars of choosing a confessor for themselves, provided he is among those approved by the Ordinary of the place; but nuns from the same can choose a confessor for themselves, yet only from those approved for Confessions of nuns in that place, although for other monasteries." L. 548. Besides, the Constitution Apostolica Indulta, Aug. 5, 1744, of the same Benedict XIV, stands against it; he established and declared that those things which the Roman Pontiff predecessors Innocent XII, Innocent XIII, and Benedict XIII had decreed "concerning the understanding and use of the indult of the Bull of the Crusade must also be valid and obtain equally in the remaining indults of the same kind." L. 548, 549; E. M.

Religious of St. John of God can hear confessions of the sick in their own hospitals, without approbation of the Ordinary of the place, from a special privilege.

Does presumed approbation for the future, or interpretative approbation, suffice? - Resp. In the negative. The reason is that from Trent approbation actually and absolutely existing and already obtained is required. But for approbation of this kind actual consent is required, declared by some sign. - Indeed it is not even lawful to begin Confessions before that consent, requested by letter, has been received, even if it seems certainly obtained. - Nor indeed is ratification of approbation valid, even prudently presumed; because ratification cannot make valid an invalid act which no longer exists, namely the form of absolution which consists in words. - The same is valid for assisting at marriages. - Gousset 478; L. 570, l. 3, n. 700; Lugo, d. 19, s. 2; Sanchez, de Matr., l. 3, d. 35, n. 18 ff.; d. 36, n. 6 ff.; Barbosa, de Offic. paroch., p. 2, c. 21, n. 75.

Can the Bishop validly and licitly limit approbation as to a certain time, place, and persons? - Resp. In the affirmative as to validity, even without cause. The reason is that it is an act altogether depending on the will of the Bishop as superior. Hence just as he can validly refuse approbation, although unjustly, so he can grant it only with restriction. This is also established from proposition 13 condemned by Alexander VII. It is also established from Trent, sess. 23, C. 15, where it is said: Unless he obtains approbation. But one who obtains it with restriction simply does not obtain it for the excluded cases. - As to liceity, the Bishop can indeed restrict or even altogether deny approbation for a just cause, as is evident, because the necessity of approbation was introduced for this end, that the suitable may be separated from the unsuitable. But otherwise if he does this without a just cause. For it pertains to the office of priests to hear Confessions. - Benedict XIV, Constitution Apostolica indulta, Aug. 5, 1744, § 3; L. 542, 550, 552; Lugo, d. 21, n. 51.

What are the just causes for limiting approbation to a time? - They are for the most part the following: 1. If now there is necessity of having more confessors, which afterward ceases. 2. If the one to be approved indeed has sufficient knowledge, but greater knowledge is deservedly desired for perpetual approbation. 3. If it is prudently feared that after having once received perpetual approbation he will neglect study. 4. In order to test how he conducts himself in hearing Confessions. - Lugo, d. 21, n. 58.

Can the Bishop validly and licitly revoke approbation granted? - Resp. In the affirmative by reason of validity, even without a just cause. The reason is, first, because such revocation is made in a matter so subject to the Bishop that it can only proceed from him. Moreover, because approbation, even unjustly revoked, no longer exists, or cannot be said simply to be had or obtained. - By reason of liceity, the Bishop can indeed revoke approbation, even one granted without limitation, for just causes; for this follows from the necessity of approbation, which demands that whoever ceases to be suitable be removed from the office. But he cannot revoke approbation without a just cause. For from what has been said, the Bishop cannot deny approbation without cause; therefore all the more he cannot revoke without cause what has been granted; since according to the saying, the guest is more shamefully cast out than not admitted.

But there are not lacking those who think that the Bishop cannot revoke approbation granted without a just cause, neither licitly nor validly. The reason is that approbation once granted, after previous examination, is not a gracious act and favor depending on the liberality and good pleasure of the Bishop, but is an act of justice and an acquired right from a juridical sentence, and therefore owed from justice, once aptitude has been placed. Therefore, from mere good pleasure, it cannot cease either licitly or validly. Thus Suarez, d. 28, s. 8, n. 4; Lugo, d. 21, n. 64; Resp. Mor., l. 1, d. 18, n. 3; Castro Palao, tr. 23, p. 18, n. 6; Salm., c. 11, p. 6, n. 107, etc., hold. Casajoana, in the Annotations to Fr. Gury, n. 543, 2nd Spanish ed., says this opinion is very probable; but St. Alphonsus, 551, scarcely judges it probable in practice, though he implicitly judges the same probable where the injustice would be evident and any danger of mistake would be absent. But this also must be added as regards practice: that no scandal be present. Hence it is better to appeal to the Metropolitan, or to the Sacred Congregation. - L. 551; Billuart, diss. 6, a. 5; E. M.

But it remains whole for the Ordinary at his pleasure and for the quiet of his conscience alone to recall simple confessors to examination, and indeed even pastors when there is vehement suspicion of their lack of skill. Benedict XIV, de Syn., l. 13, c. 9, n. 21; Not. 9, n. 16; Not. 86, n. 10.

Can the Bishop approve a foreign priest? - The Bishop can approve any suitable person actually existing in his diocese, even if only passing through. This is established from universal practice and the common opinion of theologians. The reason is that delegation or mandate can be committed to anyone, provided he is capable.