Chapter IV. On the Privileges of Regulars

173. • The privileges by which Religious rejoice are chiefly concerned with exemption from the jurisdiction of Bishops, the sacrament of Penance, reserved cases and censures, irregularities, certain vows and bonds, Mass and Communion, and some other things. - See St. Ligorius, bk. 1, at the end, Appendix 2, on Privileges; and in Hom. apost., tr. 20, ch. 4.

1º Regulars generally enjoy the privilege of exemption from the jurisdiction of Bishops, because regular Prelates in their monasteries and churches have jurisdiction quasi-episcopal ¹.

¹ ** These things do not render the reason, nor do they assign the cause of exemption, but merely express its effect. The cause is the will of the supreme Legislator, namely of the Roman Pontiff, who judged it to be for the ecclesiastical matter to have several persons immediately subject to himself, and therefore exempt from the jurisdiction of Ordinaries.

2º Therefore they are exempt from the visitation of the Bishop both as to persons and as to Monasteries and Churches. Except 1º Monasteries of Nuns not subject to Regulars, and also those subject to them as to the custody of enclosure, for taking care of which Bishops watch as delegates of the Apostolic See; 2º Churches of seculars whose Pastor is a Religious; 3º Churches of Regulars if they are parishes, yet only as to those things which regard the parish and the Pastor insofar as he discharges that office ².

² ** The rights of Bishops, as regards the visitation of Parochial Churches belonging to monasteries of Regulars, you have defined by the Constitution Firmandis of Benedict XIV, 6 Nov. 1744.

3º The privilege of exemption is enjoyed not only by the Professed and Conversi, but by Novices and tertiaries who dwell within the cloisters. Likewise, as to censures and sacraments, servants of Regulars who actually serve, and, as if of the family and perpetual table companions, reside within the cloisters of the Monasteries ³, no otherwise than the Conversi themselves. - Trent, sess. 24, ch. 11. - See St. Ligorius, bk. 1, at the end, Appendix on Privileges, n. 75.

³ ** Hence the true reason must be sought why these servants of Regulars, as St. Alphonsus also notes, bk. 6, n. 583, are not subject to episcopal reservations of sins or censures: namely, because they are exempt from the jurisdiction of the Bishop. And indeed by force of this principle, the solution becomes easy of a certain case which could seem very complex to some. Suppose, for instance, that some servant of this sort falls into a sin which the Bishop has reserved, and wishes to confess his sins to a secular Confessor, not however having faculty for reserved cases. I ask: will this confessor be able to absolve him? For if you deny it, how will you say with St. Alphonsus (l.c.) that he is not subject to episcopal reservation? But if you affirm it, how does the Confessor absolve from a sin over which he does not have jurisdiction? Perhaps finally will you say that reservation, which is a restriction of jurisdiction, affects not Confessors but penitents? Therefore solve the knot from this, that these servants are in the same condition as Religious as to this, whom they serve. Now just as a religious, when by faculty of his prelate he confesses to a secular priest or to one of another Order, is absolved by force of the jurisdiction which the Prelate indirectly communicates to the priest whom the subject has chosen for this, so also these servants, who likewise are subject to the jurisdiction of the Prelate. And since the regular Prelate does not restrict the jurisdiction indirectly communicated by himself as to that sin which the Bishop has reserved, the reason is manifest why the jurisdiction of the secular priest in absolving either a religious or a servant of religious is not restricted.

But this very thing plainly happens when someone confesses in a diocese not his own and brings a sin reserved in that diocese indeed, but not in the proper diocese of the penitent. For since both from the nature of the thing and from the common opinion of the Doctors, absolution is then conferred by force of jurisdiction indirectly communicated to that confessor by the Ordinary of the penitent, and since this Ordinary, as the hypothesis states, has not reserved a sin of this sort and therefore has not restricted jurisdiction as to it, the manifest reason is clear why in the case the Confessor can validly and licitly absolve him from the sin in whatever way reserved there, unless he came there in fraud of reservation, as will be said in its place.

174. • 1º Regular Priests, by faculty of their Superior, can absolve Religious of the same Order without any approval of the Bishop of the place. Thus from the privileges conceded to them by law. - St. Ligorius, n. 140. Nevertheless Congregations which are not Religions properly so called are by no means comprehended by this privilege ⁴.

⁴ ** Sometimes, however, even these Congregations enjoy the same privilege, namely from a special indulgence of the Roman Pontiff.

2º Regulars living in a Convent ought to confess to Priests of the Order designated by the Superior, nor can they be validly absolved by any others either inside or outside the house without permission of the Superior ⁵. Thus from the privilege conceded to Religion.

⁵ ** This permission of the Superior imports an indirect communication of jurisdiction, which is made to the priest to whom the subject will confess. But why a Religious cannot be validly absolved by any others whatsoever, besides the designated confessors, whether within or outside the Order, the reason is easily plain: namely, because all others lack jurisdiction for absolving him.

3º Yet it is customary to concede that during the time of Jubilee Regulars, even Nuns, can confess to any approved Priest without permission of the Superior. - St. Ligorius, n. 410 ⁶.

⁶ ** The clauses of the Constitution granting the jubilee must be diligently inspected. For several times the Apostolic See has elsewhere declared either that universally Religious, or at least certain ones of them by force of a singular disposition or privilege, are not comprehended by these concessions.

4º Regulars on a journey, if they have a suitable companion of the same Order, ought to confess to him. But if a suitable companion is lacking, they can confess to any Priest at least approved, whether regular or secular.

But can Regulars, when a suitable companion is lacking, confess to any Priest, even not approved, provided he is suitable? Some deny this, especially relying on the decision of the Sacred Congregation of the Council to the postulate of the Bishop of Hildesheim. But more probably one must affirm with St. Ligorius, Appendix on Privileges, n. 3, with the common opinion ⁷.

⁷ ** This common opinion of the Doctors rests on the Decree of Trent (sess. 23, ch. 15, De Reform.), which is of this sort: "The Holy Synod decrees that no one, even a Regular, can hear confessions of seculars, even of priests, nor be reputed suitable for this, unless he either has a parochial benefice, or by examination by the Bishops, if it seems necessary to them, or otherwise is judged suitable, obtains approval...." Therefore it expressly requires the necessity of approval only for receiving confessions of seculars. Therefore Regulars are not comprehended by this Decree, and thus remain under the old law. But that Capuchin Fathers can confess only to approved priests was specially established by Benedict XIV. For the rest, since Pontifical Constitutions grant Regulars the faculty that, if a companion from their own Order is lacking, they can be absolved by another Priest, whether Regular or secular, by that very fact jurisdiction is conferred on this priest who is chosen by the penitent.

But the Resolution of the Sacred Congregation to the Postulate of the Bishop of Hildesheim does not stand in the way, because there was question of Religious who, although they had at hand companions of their own Order, nevertheless wished to confess to any Priest, as by law is conceded to them on a journey when a suitable companion is lacking ⁸.

⁸ ** From the Acts of the Sacred Congregation (Thesaur. Resol. S. Congr. Conc., tom. 38, p. 111) it is established that the question proposed was concerning Regulars who, coming to the city several times per year and staying there for some days, were accustomed there to choose for themselves a secular presbyter not approved by the Bishop, although in the same city there were not lacking those who, from the proper family of each Order, could receive their Confessions, and of whom they could easily have supply (ibid., p. 113). Now, as is also noted in the Acts, the faculty conceded to Regulars, that while they were traveling or were outside their convents they could confess to any priests whatsoever, had this condition added (ibid., p. 116): "if they cannot have some suitable presbyter from the Professed of the Order," or if they cannot have a supply of priests because they do not have their own confessor. Therefore that the Sacred Congregation responded, not indeed to the general question, but to that special case on 18 Nov. 1769, that those confessions were not valid, pertains nothing to the controversy which the Author touches in this place.

175. • 1º As to subjects. They can absolve them 1º from all papal cases and censures, unless the Pontiff excepts certain ones, although reserved to the Bishop, such as the light striking of a Cleric; 2º from all papal cases in the same mode as Bishops can absolve their own diocesans; 3º from excommunication on account of striking even gravely and publicly inflicted on Clerics ⁹.

⁹ ** St. Alphonsus (bk. 7, n. 107) notes that by common law a Regular can be absolved by his Prelate, 1º if he has struck a companion of the same Order, unless the striking is enormous, or a hand has been laid on a Bishop or Abbot; 2º if he has struck a religious of another Order, provided also the sentence of the Prelate to whom the one struck is subject is applied; 3º that he cannot be absolved by his Prelate if he has struck a secular cleric, but that the Apostolic See must be approached for absolution, although he can be absolved by the Bishop if the striking was light. All these things are extended to a Novice who has bound himself by these crimes.

But St. Alphonsus adds with the common opinion that these things must be understood according to common law. For, he says, with privileges considered, Religious can indeed be absolved by their Prelates, even if the striking was enormous ... and this has force even if a Religious struck another of another Order, or a secular cleric, and even if the striking was public. But as to these privileges, St. Alphonsus remits the reader to some writers, among whom Palaus (De Censur., disp. 3, punct. 23, § 4, n. 10) alleges the Compendium of Privileges of the Society of Jesus, word Absolutio, where these things are had (n. 10): "If any live under the obedience and correction of the Society, they can be absolved by the Provost General and by others whom he deputes, from all sins committed before or after entrance into the Society, and from all censures and penalties inflicted by law or by man, except from these four which are contained in the Bull of Sixtus IV, namely relapse into heresy, schism, falsification of apostolic letters, and carrying of prohibited things to infidels. It is had by the Bull for the Preachers, given on the day before the Kalends of September 1474 under Pontiff Sixtus IV, beginning Regimini universalis..., and of the same Pontiff Sixtus IV for the Carmelites, 4 Kal. Dec. 1476, beginning Dum attenta..., and of Julius II for the same Preachers, 27 Feb. 1510, beginning Exponi Nobis..., where among the above excepted cases he adds conspiracy against the Roman Pontiff; but as to the remaining cases besides these five, he declared that the publication of the Bull Coenae and the derogations contained in it do not stand in the way."

For the rest, as to absolving religious subjects from cases of the Bull Coenae, there must not be passed over what Lucius Ferraris notes after others (word Absolutio, art. I, n. 37, and word Praelatus Regularis, n. 20), namely that the Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, a word having been made with His Holiness Clement VIII, absolutely decreed that all Bulls and decrees derogatory of the privileges of Regulars, as to the faculty of absolving from cases reserved to the Pope, are to be understood only in order to seculars, but not in order to their own Regular subjects. But as to what he intimates (word Praelatus Regularis, n. 31), that certain authors assert that the Sacred Congregation declared that Regular Prelates cannot absolve from hidden heresy, he himself (ibid., nn. 25-29) openly shows that that Declaration of 19 Nov. 1628, which Mendo boasts of so much (Stater., disp. 1, q. 4, n. 56), and after him Dominicus Viva (on prop. 4 of Alexander VII, n. 2), pertains nothing here. See also those things which the same Ferraris has under word Absolutio, art. 1, from n. 29.

2º As to seculars. 1º They could absolve them, supposing the Bishop's approval for hearing confessions, from papal cases, excepting those which are contained in the Bull Coenae and five others, which are customarily called Clementine; 2º more probably they could absolve from cases reserved to the Bishop in law or from custom and which the Bishop himself did not reserve to himself. - St. Ligorius, ibid.

But these general faculties have been taken away by more recent law through the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis, 15 Oct. 1869, in which, as to the faculty of absolving from cases reserved to the Apostolic See, these things are read: "But whatever privileges or faculties, whether by Our Predecessors or even by Us, have ever been conceded up to this time to any company, Order, Congregation, Society, Institute, even Regular of whatever species, even endowed with a peculiar title and even worthy of special mention, all these and every one of them We will by this Our Constitution to be revoked, suppressed, and abolished, as in fact We revoke, suppress, and abolish them," etc. Therefore both the things which Gury had written in this place, and the things which older Authors of many centuries have concerning this matter, pertain merely to the history of the past time ¹⁰.

¹⁰ ** Note nevertheless the Declaration which in the Instruction of the Holy Office of the Supreme Inquisition, given 1 Feb. 1871 to the questions of a certain Ordinary, is read thus: "By the Constitution (Apostolicae Sedis) the Most Holy Father by no means intends, not even in the least, to bring detriment to faculties of whatever kind which had been conceded by the Holy See before the promulgation of the same Constitution, whether these are quinquennial, or extraordinary, or regard the present Jubilee," namely that proclaimed on the occasion of the Ecumenical Vatican Council, "and he wills that they remain in their full vigor for the time prefixed in the said Constitutions or Indults enduring." These last words sufficiently indicate that temporary faculties, even those conceded to some company, or Order, or Institute, are not comprehended in the abrogation. Likewise, since in the cited words of the Constitution the abrogation is referred only to privileges or concessions attributed to a company, Order, Society, Institute, or Congregation, it is openly gathered that faculties which are personal remain in their force, namely those which had been conceded to some singular person.

But if from a concession of this sort there are some who have the faculty in papal cases, the question now returns whether they can absolve from cases reserved to the Bishop by law or custom, and which the Bishop himself has also reserved to himself anew. Now that those who enjoy the aforesaid faculty cannot absolve from papal cases which by law become episcopal, when perhaps Bishops in their edicts have also specially reserved those to themselves, St. Alphonsus (bk. 3, n. 397, and bk. 7, n. 99) seems to have taken from Viva (on prop. XII of Alexander VII, n. 13), although for it he alleges Cabassutius and Elbel. But others perhaps will in some way deny the supposition, namely that a Bishop can reserve to himself a sin, or cause, which the Supreme Pontiff has reserved to himself. For the reservation of a Superior so withdraws that cause from the power of the inferior prelate that the latter cannot even absolve from that sin, or certainly cannot absolve except by a power delegated to him and from mere permission of the Superior. But it seems absurd that he who does not even have the faculty of absolving from some sin nevertheless reserves it to himself, and indeed reserves it in such a way that not even those who received the faculty of absolving from the reserving Superior can absolve from it.

Suarez excellently treats this question (De Poenit., disp. 31, sect. 4, n. 26), writing these things among others: "By this very fact that the Supreme or higher Pastor reserves a sin to himself, he extracts it from the jurisdiction of all inferiors. Therefore inferiors have nothing which they can reserve to themselves. But if this is so, it rightly follows that, through the faculty of the same supreme Pastor, which is also communicated to the Mendicants, the reservation is sufficiently removed, because a Superior can concede jurisdiction even if the inferior is unwilling; and this is true not only from use, but also from the rigor of law."

Nor otherwise does Card. De Lugo speak (De Poenit., disp. 20, n. 151), who moreover recalls that this is positively interdicted to Bishops. Finally I add, he says, that what has been said, namely that a Bishop cannot VALIDLY reserve to himself a sin which the Supreme Pontiff had already reserved to himself, which is the same concerning any inferior Prelate with respect to a superior Prelate, has place also when the Bishop or inferior Prelate had first reserved some sin to himself. For if afterwards the Pope or superior Prelate reserves that same sin to himself, by that very fact the reservation of the Bishop or inferior Prelate ceases, because then also through the reservation of the Pope there is taken away from the Bishop the faculty of absolving from that sin; and therefore he cannot reserve it to himself anew, nor continue the reservation previously made.... Finally the Sacred Congregation of Cardinals by mandate of Clement VIII, in its decree edited in the year 1602 concerning reserved cases, prohibited that for the rest Bishops reserve to themselves cases accustomed to be read in the Bull Coenae, or others specially reserved to the Apostolic See.

1º With their own they can dispense 1º in all hidden irregularities from offense, with voluntary homicide excepted, as Bishops with diocesans; 2º in irregularities as to defect of soul on account of insanity, if its danger has ceased; as to defect of body, for example, as to defect of birth, which irregularity of itself ceases through religious profession, as to bigamy even true, and public defect of mildness.

2º With seculars. 1º They can dispense in all hidden irregularities from offense, as a Bishop; 2º they can dispense and commute vows and oaths, as a Bishop, but only in the internal forum; 3º they can dispense with spouses in the impediment of exacting the debt because of incest committed with a blood relative of the other spouse. - St. Ligorius, n. 109. - Moreover Religious can dispense in a vow of chastity with spouses in order to the use of matrimony, whether the vow was emitted before or after marriage had been entered.

176. • 1º Regulars can celebrate Mass one hour before dawn, that is, three hours before sunrise, but only in their own Churches, in which secular Priests also can do this from the same privilege, Gregory XIII; but after midday only one hour. For although from the privilege conceded by Eugene IV they formerly could celebrate even three hours after midday had elapsed, yet that privilege was revoked by St. Pius V.

2º They can administer the Eucharist in their Churches to all the faithful, except on the day of Easter ¹¹.

¹¹ ** At Rome Thursday in the Lord's Supper is also excepted.

3º They can administer paschal Communion, Extreme Unction, and Viaticum to their subjects, novices, and familiars ¹². - St. Ligorius, nn. 121, 122. - Nevertheless secular Congregations, excluding a special Apostolic Indult, such as for example was recently conceded to the Sulpicians, Marists, and Oratorians.

¹² ** Understand familiars here as those who are perpetual table companions and live within the cloister. And hence the reason why Regulars can administer to them the sacraments about which there is speech. For as was said above, n. 173, by law these are exempt from the jurisdiction of the Bishop, and therefore of the pastor.

1º They can dispense, with cause, in ecclesiastical laws for their own subjects, as Bishops can, for example concerning the divine Office, fasting, abstinence, etc.; because they have quasi-episcopal jurisdiction.

2º Regular Superiors can permit subjects who are simply tonsured to preach in Churches (Gregory XIII).

3º Mendicant religious generally communicate among themselves ¹³ in their privileges, both as to persons and as to places. But they do not communicate them when they are wholly special, or odious, or contrary to their own state, so that they prejudice the common good or the observance of Religion.

¹³ ** Indeed Mendicants also participate in the privileges of Orders that are not Mendicant.

But it must be carefully observed that these privileges conceded to Religious families by Canon Law, or by the Holy See, belong only to Superiors, who communicate them to subjects according to their wisdom; and furthermore that the same are not extended to Orders not strictly religious, which are called secular Congregations ¹⁴.

¹⁴ ** Understand: unless by a special indult of the Apostolic See this also has been conceded to them.