Case LXV: Absolution of Travelers

Case.—Cosmos, a priest of the diocese of X, passing through the adjoining diocese A, is asked by Listrus, a layman of the diocese of D, to hear his confession. At first the request is refused. Upon second thought the priest consents, for he recalls that theologians agree that confessors can validly absolve all strangers. Since he is in good standing in his own diocese, he sees no reason why he should not validly absolve. So he hears the confession and imparts absolution.

Question.—Is this absolution really valid; if so, from whom does the priest receive his faculties?

Solution.—St. Alphonsus taught that peregrini could be validly absolved by virtue of faculties received ex voluntate ecclesiae, and therefore by virtue of jurisdiction received immediately from the Pope, or, mediately, through the bishop whose subject the penitent is. But theologians to-day have adopted the opinion of Ballerini (Op. Theol. Moral, Vol. v, 1), which may be stated as follows: (1) In order to absolve a peregrinus faculties must be granted by one who has ordinary jurisdiction over the penitent; (2) the existence of the custom of absolving peregrini outside their diocese neither conveys nor can convey the necessary jurisdiction; (3) jurisdiction is given by consent (express or tacit) or leave (implicit or explicit) of the Ordinary or of the particular pastor of the peregrinus; (4) this consent includes the imparting of jurisdiction to the confessor chosen by the peregrinus; (5) a sufficient indication of the consent exists in the tolerance of the custom with the knowledge of the bishop and without any reclamation on his part; (6) the jurisdiction dependent upon this consent may be withdrawn, thus destroying the custom and invalidating any absolution imparted to his subjects. So much for the source of jurisdiction over peregrini. Can we hold, then, that Cosmos received the necessary faculties for the absolution of Listrus from the bishop of D? No, we cannot. For though the custom does exist of granting indirect jurisdiction to those priests who are chosen by peregrini as their confessors, yet in accordance with the principles of Canon Law, only such priests can exercise jurisdiction who have received the necessary approbation from the bishop of the place where the confessions are heard. To impart absolution without this approbation is sinful, and of course renders null and void the absolution granted. The bishop of D can not grant this essential requirement to Cosmos, for he is not the proper subject of the bishop of D. The bishop of X has already approved Cosmos, but this approbation is limited and is of no value within the territorial jurisdiction of the Ordinary of A. The bishop of A has given no approbation to this foreign priest, hence Cosmos has no approbation for the hearing of confessions within the diocese of A. It is evident he does wrong in hearing the confession of Listrus, and the absolution he imparted was absolutely invalid. Bishops do not intend to give jurisdiction to those who cannot legitimately exercise it. Wherefore it is not their wish to bestow it on those who do not possess the necessary approbation. Hence we can hold that the kind-hearted Cosmos did not even have the all essential jurisdiction, and, as a consequence, could not validly absolve.