Case XLIX: Jurisdiction

The priest Severinus, well acquainted with Prudentius, the bishop of another diocese, visits this diocese and requests jurisdiction to hear Confessions. Prudentius tells him: “Whenever you are in my diocese you have jurisdiction to hear Confessions, together with faculty to absolve from cases reserved to the bishop.” Two years after this Prudentius dies. Severinus now asks his confessor: 1. Does the jurisdiction which Prudentius gave me continue until a new bishop takes office, and just when will it terminate? 2. While Prudentius still lived a change was made in reserved cases; does my faculty continue in their respect? 3. Upon one occasion I received there jurisdiction to hear the Confessions of nuns; was I, in their case, permitted to exercise authority in reserved cases?

The answer is not difficult. Ad. 1 Prudentius had said: “Whenever in my diocese,” etc. It may be claimed that, as Prudentius is dead and the diocese is no longer his, the jurisdiction was given by Prudentius only for the duration of his administration. This interpretation appears artificial and not justified. Prudentius uses the expression my diocese instead of mentioning the name of the diocese, and he would have expressed himself more definitely if he meant to authorize Severinus only for the period of his administration. It is therefore to be held that the bishop did not restrict the jurisdiction to the time of his own life, nor to his episcopal administration. The granting of the general jurisdiction is a gratia facta presbytero, which even re integra, i. e., if the priest during the administration of his friend had not once made use of it, is not affected in its duration by the death of the awarding bishop: arg. c. 36, in VI., 3, 4: a grant of this kind—which, since it contains a special favor, ought to remain in force—does not expire, even while the matter remains untouched, through the death of the grantor.

Severinus may accordingly continue to make use of his jurisdiction, not only during the vacancy, but even later, unless, of course, the new bishop revokes all faculties granted by his predecessor. Propriety requires, however, that Severinus should acquaint the new bishop with the powers granted to him, and request confirmation of the same.

Ad. 2. This question may also be answered in the affirmative, for the faculty to absolve from reserved cases was not granted in a restricted sense, regarding only certain reserved cases, or the reserved cases then prevailing, but in a general sense, and there is no reason for restriction to the reserved cases which were in force in the time of Prudentius: Arg. reg. jur. 15, in VI.: odia restringi et favores convenit ampliari. Whether the reserved cases were lessened or increased by Prudentius, Severinus enjoys in this respect unlimited jurisdiction. If, however, the new bishop has created new reserved cases, there is therein contained a silent revocation of the general jurisdiction formerly granted to confessors for these cases, and Severinus cannot thereafter absolve from these new reserved cases, no more than the priests of the bishop’s own diocese, without explicit new delegation.

Ad. 3. What has just been said about the general validity of the faculty to absolve from reserved cases finds application also in this regard.

Severinus could pro casu absolve also nuns, not only from not reserved, but also from reserved sins.

Dr. Rudolf R. v. SCHERER.