Case LXIII: Expired Jurisdiction

Case.—Linus, a priest, has had jurisdiction in his diocese for the past two years. His faculties have now expired. Two or three days before their termination he wrote to the Bishop acquainting him with the facts and asking a further extension of two years. He has heard nothing from the Bishop since, although he has no doubt that his request will be favorably received. This morning, after Mass, he was requested by some of his regular penitents to hear their Confession. At first he was inclined to refuse, but then, considering that the penitents would not understand any technical explanation he could give, also reasoning that the renewed faculties must be on the way to him, he decided to hear the Confessions as requested. Thinking the matter over afterwards, he concludes that the Church supplies the jurisdiction in case of common error and he is satisfied that his action was correct.

Question.—How would you solve the case?

Solution.—In the first place, Linus has no right to act on the presumption that the Bishop will renew his faculties; for while we may use tacit jurisdiction, it is not lawful to use presumptive jurisdiction. Then, the argument that the penitents would not understand has no force in Canon Law. Such ignorance of penitents can never be considered as a title for assumption of jurisdiction. Penitents might be amazed that their regular confessor should refuse to hear their Confessions at the particular time, yet they would be apt to assign many a saving reason for his refusal. Thirdly, the confessor who hears in such an instance Confessions with the excuse that his faculties must then be on the way to him, must be in the post office, etc., reasons in a way that is not sanctioned by the law. Delegated jurisdiction has its effect only from the moment it is authentically received and accepted (cf. Genicot, Vol. II, No. 327-5; Lehmkuhl, Vol. II, No. 380) even though there be no doubt that it will be most certainly granted (cf. Genicot, Vol. II, No. 331). It may in fact be on the way, the messenger may be at the door with the documents, the servant may be bringing them to the priest; but as long as the confessor has not authentically received them by his own person, then it must be said that he has no knowledge of the fact that the Bishop has actually granted him the required faculties, and hence he cannot use what he has not. His subsequent reasoning that the Church supplied jurisdiction was correct only probabiliter. It is not certain that the Church supplies when there is lack of jurisdiction without a titulus coloratus. It ‘is merely probable that she does by reason of the common error, hence for the common good. This is the case before us, for the jurisdiction of Linus having expired he has no title to jurisdiction. But even though the Church actually supplied, that does not make the action of Linus licit outside of a case of necessity, which does not exist under the circumstances given above. We must conclude that Linus’s action in hearing Confessions and absolving was gravely illicit. He lacks theological sense.