Article I. On Approval

Approval can be defined: A juridical judgment of a Prelate concerning the fitness of a Priest for hearing confessions.

Hence, for granting approval, an examination is not required essentially; for a prudent judgment concerning fitness can be had even without an examination when this is established from another source. But this judgment ought to 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 a vicar of Christ in this ministry ¹.

¹ Nevertheless, these things do not pertain to the essence. Wherefore the Ordinary would indeed approve illicitly, but validly, one who perhaps lacks these qualities.

538. I say I. Approval is required for hearing confessions both licitly and validly ². It is established from Trent, sess. 23, ch. 15, On Reformation, where it is established thus: No Priest, even a regular, can hear the confessions of secular persons, even Priests, nor be regarded as fit for it, unless he either has a parochial benefice, or is judged fit by the Bishops through an examination, if this shall seem necessary to them, or otherwise, and obtains approval, which is to be given gratuitously.

² This holds with regard to churches using the Latin rite, but not likewise with regard to Eastern churches. Indeed, Verricelli (De Apost. Mission., tit. XV, q. 223) observes that not even missionaries of the Latin rite need the permission of a Greek Catholic Bishop for hearing confessions. It is sufficient, he says, if before the Greek Bishop they reverently exhibit the letters of their Mission or priestly Order; for this suffices so that, once permission to celebrate has been granted, they may also hear confessions. It is proved because Latin Priests ought not to be of a worse condition among Greek Bishops than Greek Priests. But an itinerant Greek Priest arriving from elsewhere, after showing the letters of his Priesthood and obtaining from the Greek Bishop permission to celebrate, can at once both celebrate and hear confessions, because among the Greeks there is no priest who cannot hear confessions, but in ordination itself he receives the faculty and jurisdiction of absolving. Therefore, the same is likewise to be said of a Latin Priest, to whom, by the very fact that the Greek Bishop gives the faculty to celebrate, he is considered also to give the faculty of hearing confessions. Indeed, if the Greek Bishop does not take care to see the dimissorial letters of itinerant Greek Priests and permits them, without any express permission having been given, both to minister the Sacrament of Penance and to celebrate, the same seems to be said of a Latin missionary Priest. Nevertheless, the missionary must ask permission from the Vicar of the Latin Catholic Bishop, if one is present there.

539. I say II. The Bishop alone, or one who has quasi-episcopal jurisdiction, can approve. The reason is that it pertains to the Prelates of the Church alone to judge concerning the fitness of Ministers to be deputed for hearing confessions. This is also established from the Council of Trent cited above. But the Bishop can approve either by himself or through another delegated by him, because approval is an act of jurisdiction, and ordinary jurisdiction can be delegated. - St. Lig., nos. 550, 558.

It must further be observed that, according to the present discipline of the Church, jurisdiction also is accustomed to be conferred upon Priests by the Prelate together with approval, exempt Regulars being excepted ³; and therefore, in common usage, jurisdiction is also comprehended under the name of approval. Formerly, however, namely, before the Council of Trent, when the approval of the Bishop was not necessary, jurisdiction was commonly granted by Pastors; this faculty now scarcely has exercise among pastors, since a priest can now scarcely be found who has not already received jurisdiction from the Bishop together with approval.

³ Do not understand these words as though a Bishop cannot grant jurisdiction to Regulars. It is only indicated that Regulars do not need the delegation of the Bishop, since they have jurisdiction, as will be said below, delegated by the Apostolic See through their own prelates.

540. Questions. - QUESTION 1. From which Bishop is approval to be obtained?

Reply. Approval ought to be granted by the Bishop of the diocese in which confessions are to be heard; hence the approval either of the Bishop of the penitents or of the Bishop of the Priests does not suffice. It is established from the Bull of Innocent XII of the year 1700, where it was decreed: Confessors, both secular and regular, whoever they may be, can in no way hear penitents without the approval of the Bishop of the place in which the penitents themselves dwell; nor for this does approval obtained once or several times from other Ordinaries of other dioceses avail, even if the penitents are subjects of those Ordinaries who had approved such Confessors. Then the Pontiff declares that otherwise the confessions will be null and the Confessors suspended. Benedict XIV confirmed this Constitution by the Bull which begins Apostolica. - See St. Lig., no. 548 ⁴.

⁴ Since the Council of Trent had not expressly explained by which Ordinary Confessors were to be approved, the Doctors departed into three diverse opinions, as can also be seen in St. Alphonsus (bk. 6, no. 548). For some said that approval was to be sought from the Ordinary of the priest, since he alone would have jurisdiction over him; others, however, from the Ordinary of the penitent, because he had the right of inspecting to whom he committed his sheep; and finally others from the Ordinary of the diocese where the confession is made.

And indeed, to the first of these opinions, which otherwise most grave Doctors had embraced as the more probable, is owed that opinion which was the author of so many dissensions: that Regulars, once they had obtained approval from some Ordinary, could thereafter hear confessions in any other diocese without the approval of the Ordinaries, since they thought neither another approval from them nor a delegation of jurisdiction, which they had from the Apostolic See, to be necessary for themselves. Against them came the Constitution Cum sicut of Urban VIII, September 12, 1628, in which the privilege formerly granted also to certain Religious, that they could hear sacramental confessions even if they had not been examined and approved for this by the diocesan Bishops, is abolished. And with regard to all Religious there also followed the Constitution Superna of Clement X, which in section 4 decrees that Religious approved by a Bishop to hear the confessions of secular persons in his diocese cannot hear them in another diocese without the approval of the diocesan Bishop, although the penitents are subjects of that Bishop by whom the Religious themselves had already been approved.

And since by this Constitution of Clement X the question did not seem to be removed (see Lacroix, bk. 6, part II, no. 1516), because both it and the preceding one of Urban VIII established this concerning Regulars alone, hence there was the new Constitution of Innocent XII, from which the Author reports certain things, which also comprehends secular confessors and decrees that the Bull of the Holy Crusade introduced no new law and contained no privilege with regard to the approval of Confessors against the form of the Council of Trent..., so that Confessors, both secular and Regular, whoever they may be, etc., as in the passage transcribed by the Author. And since certain authors, such as, for example, the Salmanticenses (On Privileges, ch. 4, no. 11) contended that the Constitution of Innocent XII, which treated of the Bull of the Crusade, was not necessarily extended to other privileges of choosing a Confessor for oneself, for example, those which are granted through a Jubilee. Therefore Benedict XIV (Const. Apostolica indulta, August 5, 1744) established and declared that those things which his Predecessors, the Roman Pontiffs Innocent XII, Innocent XIII, and Benedict XIII, had decreed concerning the understanding and use of the indult of the Bull of the Crusade, ought equally to have force and obtain also in the remaining indults of the same kind. From all these things it is manifestly evident that the first and second of the opinions recounted above are now to be regarded as obsolete.

541. • QUESTION 2. Can someone absolve his own subject in another diocese without the approval of the Ordinary?

Reply 1. Affirmative, if he has truly personal or ordinary jurisdiction over him. The reason is that whoever, by reason of his office, has ordinary jurisdiction is considered approved by the law itself to hear his own subjects everywhere; nor is ordinary jurisdiction, provided it is exercised without judicial solemnity, confined to a place, but unless it is specially restricted, it can be exercised everywhere. - Thus commonly with St. Lig., no. 548; Reuter, no. 348; Lacroix, no. 1516; and others against a few. Hence a Bishop and a Pastor can absolve their subjects outside the parish and diocese without the approval of the Bishop of the place.

Reply 2. Negative, if only delegated jurisdiction over the penitent is possessed, because this is of itself considered merely territorial, not personal, and therefore does not follow the delegate outside the territory. - Thus the same authors.

QUESTION 3. Does presumed approval suffice?

Reply. Negative. The reason is that, from the Council of Trent, approval actually and absolutely existing and already obtained is required. But for approval of this kind, actual consent declared by some sign is required. Indeed, it is not lawful to begin hearing confessions before that consent, requested by letter, has been received, even though it appears certain that it will be obtained. - Thus commonly. - St. Lig., no. 570.

Much less is a ratification of approval valid even when prudently presumed, because ratification has place only in acts whose validity can be suspended into the future; but the validity of a present absolution cannot be suspended, for the validity of the Sacraments cannot depend upon a future action ⁵. - St. Lig., ibid.

⁵ Compare, however, those things which were said above (no. 232) concerning sacraments which are valid but unformed.

542. • QUESTION 4. Can a Bishop validly and licitly limit approval with regard to a certain time, place, and persons?

Reply 1. Affirmative as regards validity, even without cause. The reason is that it is an act wholly dependent upon the will of the Bishop as Superior. Hence, just as he can validly refuse approval, so he can grant it only with a restriction. This is also established from proposition 13 condemned by Alexander VII: He satisfies the precept of annual confession who confesses to a regular presented to the Bishop, but unjustly rejected. Therefore a denial of approval, even an unjust one, is valid; therefore much more a restriction. It is also established from the Council of Trent, sess. 23, ch. 15, where it is said: Unless he obtains approval. But one who obtains it with a restriction simply does not obtain it for the excluded cases.... Therefore, etc. - St. Lig., no. 542; Lugo, disp. 21, no. 51.

Reply 2. As regards liceity, distinguish. The Bishop can indeed restrict or even altogether deny approval for a just cause, as is evident, because the necessity of approval was introduced for this end, that the fit be separated from the unfit. It is otherwise, however, if he does this without a just cause.

QUESTION 5. What are just causes for limiting approval as to time, etc.?

Reply. They are for the most part the following: 1. if there is now a necessity of having several Confessors which will afterward cease; 2. if the one to be approved indeed has sufficient knowledge, but greater knowledge is rightly desired for perpetual approval; 3. if it is prudently feared that, after once obtaining perpetual approval, he will neglect study; 4. for testing how he conducts himself in hearing confessions, namely, whether he applies general principles well, etc.

543. • QUESTION 6. Can a Bishop validly and licitly revoke approval once granted?

Reply 1. Affirmative by reason of validity, even without a just cause. The reason is: 1. because such a revocation is made in a matter so subject to the Bishop that it can proceed only from him; 2. because approval, even unjustly revoked, no longer exists, or cannot be said simply to be possessed or obtained. - Thus commonly with St. Lig., no. 551; Billuart, diss. 6, art. 5.

Reply 2. By reason of liceity, distinguish. 1. The Bishop can indeed revoke approval, even when granted without limitation, for just causes; for this follows from the necessity of approval, which demands that whoever ceases to be fit be removed from office. 2. He cannot, however, revoke approval without a just cause. For, from what has been said, the Bishop cannot deny approval without cause; therefore, much less can he revoke without cause one already granted, since according to the saying: More shamefully is a guest cast out than not admitted. - St. Lig., etc.

544. • QUESTION 7. Can a Bishop approve an extern Priest?

Reply. A Bishop can approve any fit person actually existing in his diocese, even if only passing through. It is established from universal practice and the common opinion of the Theologians against a few who require for this a quasi-domicile, or at least a domicile of habitation in the diocese of the approving Bishop ⁶. The reason is that a delegation or mandate can be committed to anyone, provided he is capable. It is established further from the practice which is universally observed in the Church. - Recall the Decree of Innocent XII related above, no. 540.

⁶ This, namely, was a consequence of the opinion which established that approval for hearing confessions was to be required from the proper Ordinary of the priest. And since by law no one becomes a subject of any Ordinary except by reason of domicile or quasi-domicile, the Doctors therefore required one or the other of these in order that someone could be approved by a Bishop. But since that opinion has now become obsolete, its consequence also remains obsolete. That certain writers repeat this now obsolete doctrine and think that approval can be granted only to subjects who are such by the law of domicile, quasi-domicile, or at least habitation seems to be attributed merely to the not infrequent custom by which some are readily borne toward transcribing the opinions of the ancients without in any way examining their reason.

Meanwhile observe that certain Doctors indeed require for the validity of approval that the priest can be called a subject of the approving Ordinary. But they consider him a subject as soon as he sets foot in the diocese, even if no will of remaining there is present. Thus Lugo: I infer eighthly that a Religious approved by some Bishop while he is staying in his episcopate, whether as a guest or with domicile, although after changing domicile, or returning to his own domicile if he was a guest, he no longer remains a subject of that Bishop...; nevertheless, if he afterward returns to the same episcopate, he recovers the approval... and by virtue of it can hear confessions without a new approval, because he again becomes a subject of the same Bishop by whom, or by whose predecessor, he was approved (De Poenit., disp. 21, no. 44). Moreover, subject in this place means a priest in a restricted sense, that is, merely in relation to hearing confessions. Thus the same Lugo (ibid., no. 35): His Ordinary in relation to hearing the confessions of this diocese is that one alone to whom he is subjected in relation to this office and by whom, if he sins in this matter, he can be punished as by his own judge and Ordinary in this class of causes. And from this that which he himself had premised (ibid., no. 33) is well reconciled with these things: When Bishops give permission to hear confessions even to foreign and visiting priests, they do not attend to or ask whether they were previously approved or whether they came with the intention of remaining, but only whether they are or are not sufficient. Thus Lugo; and if the first of the three opinions presented above, in the note at no. 440, is understood with him in such a way that anyone who becomes subject to the Ordinary in relation to hearing confessions is called a subject, and only for as long as he remains in the same diocese, it is manifest that this opinion is very well reconciled with the third, which is to be maintained from the apostolic Constitutions.