APPENDIX I: ON THE JURISDICTION AND APPROBATION OF REGULARS

Regulars, by reason of privileges and of immediate dependence on the Supreme Pontiff, differ in several things as regards jurisdiction from secular priests. Hence:

1395. - I say I. Regulars properly so called, or those who emit solemn vows and are endowed with the privilege of exemption, and likewise those who communicate with Mendicants in privileges, receive immediately from the Pope jurisdiction for hearing the Confessions both of their own and of seculars. Hence jurisdiction granted to individual religious priests is understood, with the communication or delegation of their own Superior added. - This is clear from the Constitutions of the Supreme Pontiffs in the Corpus Juris; likewise from other Constitutions, which, although afterward modified, especially by Trent, as regards privileges, nevertheless remained irrevoked as regards the substance of jurisdiction. - Thus commonly with Lugo, Lacroix, and Billuart. - There are however those who contradict, especially today, or after the Resolution given by the Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, March 2, 1866, which we report in n. 1397, q. 8°. This resolution, however, does not seem to others to settle the question, since the proposed doubt regards a Regular having a faculty from the Bishop. Nor indeed, they say, is it thereby excluded that a Regular can draw a faculty also from another source.

I say II. Regulars, for hearing the Confessions of their own, receive approbation together with jurisdiction from the Superiors of their monastery or Order; but for hearing the Confessions of seculars they receive approbation from the Bishop of the place where the Confessions are to be heard. The reason for the first is that Trent required the approbation of the Bishop only for the Confession of seculars, and did not change the ancient discipline as regards the Confessions of Regulars. The reason for the second is clear from the Decree of Innocent XII, in the year 1700, by which it was sanctioned that confessors, whoever they may be, both seculars and regulars, can by no means hear secular penitents without the approbation of the Bishop of the place.

I say III. Regulars cannot confess, at least ordinarily, outside their own Order, without the consent of their Superiors; indeed even in the Monastery, to no one other than the one designated by the Superior himself. But those living outside the Monastery, or making a journey, cannot confess except to a companion, if they have some suitable one; but if they do not have one, they can confess to any suitable priest, whether regular or secular. - These things are clear from privileges which are known to have been granted to all Religions by Innocent IV and by other Supreme Pontiffs.

1396. Resolves. - 1° Although Regulars have jurisdiction from the Pope, nevertheless they have it bound as regards hearing the Confessions of seculars; since for the validity of absolution the approbation of the Bishop, as a condition sine qua non, is required. Thus Trent decreed that "no one, even a regular, can hear the Confessions of seculars, ... unless either he has a parochial benefice, or obtains approbation from the Bishops."

2° If the Bishop expressly granted approbation only for some transitory act, e.g. for performing some Mission, the faculty received is considered to be valid for that act alone, and for every judgment then begun.

3° If the Bishop, or your Superior by his delegation, grants you approbation for a determined class of penitents, the faculty cannot be extended to others, as is evident. But if the request for the faculty from the Bishop or from the Superior is general, and the concession was not restricted, the faculty obtained is not limited to the work which was the occasion of the petition. Thus, e.g., if you seek a faculty on the occasion of giving spiritual exercises to Nuns, in such a convent, from the same faculty received, you can hear also the Confessions of other faithful. The reason is that in a concession is contained whatever is not excepted. Except however reserved cases, which by the law itself are never understood to be comprehended in a general faculty of hearing Confessions.

4° A religious missionary called by the Bishop to perform a Mission in his diocese, by that very fact receives tacit approbation for hearing Confessions during the time of the Mission for which he is called. The same must be said if he was requested by the parish priest or another Superior with the license of the Bishop. Nevertheless he is considered approved only for ordinary cases. Hence in practice recourse must always be had to the Bishop for determining the extension or measure of the approbation.

5° When a religious Superior, by delegation of the Bishop, employs a subject for general works of the Sacred Ministry, with the hypothesis of some special restriction set aside, he is considered to grant him an all-sided faculty for any penitents whatsoever, and for all reserved cases also contained in the episcopal concession; the reason is that he is considered to grant all that which he can and is accustomed to grant, according to the aforesaid rule: In a concession is contained whatever is not excepted.

1397. Questions. - Query 1° Can Regulars outside the house, when a suitable companion is lacking, confess to a priest not approved?

Resp. See n. 1195. G). b).

Query 2° Can a Bishop without cause deny approbation to Regulars?

Resp. Neg. "For," says Pignatelli, "regular confessors do not receive jurisdiction from the Bishop, but from the Supreme Pontiff, and approbation is required only as a condition, that jurisdiction can be exercised. Therefore Bishops cannot prohibit Regulars from absolving at some time."... Nevertheless, if approbation is lacking, even if unjustly denied, jurisdiction also will be lacking. Cf. n. 1392. q. 4°.

Query 3° Can a Bishop approve Regulars with a limitation of time, persons, or places?

Resp. Affirm. This is clear from various Decrees of the Holy See. - See St. Alphonsus. See however n. 1196. 4°.

Query 4° Can a Bishop revoke approbation granted to Regulars?

Resp. 1° He cannot revoke the approbation of all Regulars of the same community without consulting the Sacred Congregation of Bishops. Thus from the Bull Superna. - Except if there is question of regions far distant from the City, and a very grave cause is present; concerning which the Sacred Congregation willed the consciences of Bishops to be gravely burdened.

Resp. 2° But a Bishop can revoke the approbation of individual Regulars in the individual; but if there is question of a Regular approved simply and without any limitation of time, i.e. not for a determined time or at his revocation, will, or good pleasure, and approved after a previous examination, only for a just cause concerning Confession; nevertheless one approved in this way by his Vicar or by predecessor Bishops, and not by himself, he can freely revoke and subject to a new examination for a just cause. Thus from the same Bull Superna.

Query 5° Does a Regular once approved in some diocese need a new approbation if, after changing his habitation, he returns to the same diocese?

Resp. Neg., unless the diocesan statutes or the Bishop establish otherwise. The reason is that one approved indefinitely and without limitation remains approved at least until an implicit revocation of the approbation; but in the present case no revocation has intervened, not even an implicit one. Therefore. - Thus Lacroix, Lugo, with the common opinion.

Query 6° Does a Regular approved in some diocese need a new approbation for validly absolving if, after changing place, he passes through the same diocese?

Resp. Neg., as at q. 5°, because approbation granted indefinitely and without limitation endures until revocation. - Lacroix.

Query 7° Does a Religious validly absolve seculars by delegation of the Bishop, but without the Superior knowing?

Resp. Negatively, if the Bishop intended only to give approbation, and otherwise the Superior is so unaware that he has not given jurisdiction; for then that Religious would have jurisdiction from no one. Affirmatively, however, if the Bishop, as is usually done, intended also to confer jurisdiction. See the following question.

Query 8° Does a Religious validly absolve, with the Superior unwilling, but by delegation of the Bishop?

Resp. 1° Negatively, if the Bishop intended only to give approbation, and otherwise the Superior, who has the power of constituting confessors, is so unwilling that he does not wish to give jurisdiction or removes the jurisdiction given. The reason is clear. For then the Religious has jurisdiction from no one.

Resp. 2° Affirmatively however, if the Bishop intended also to confer jurisdiction, as from present practice is usually done. The reason is that the Bishop can well confer jurisdiction on a Religious, no less than on a secular priest, over his own sheep. For whoever enjoys ordinary jurisdiction can delegate it to any priest. - Billuart, etc.

But that Religious would sin gravely against obedience, because in a grave matter he would transgress the precept of his Superior; nor in that case could he use the privileges which many Religious enjoy, e.g. for absolving from certain censures, unless privileges of this kind had also been communicated to him by the Bishop; because a Religious receives a privilege of this kind only through the Superior himself, who from the hypothesis grants no faculty to the subject.

These things are confirmed by a Declaration which very recently came forth from the Congregation of Bishops and Regulars. For the following doubts having been proposed:

"I. Whether a Religious not approved according to the laws of his own Order by his Superior, or with that Superior unwilling, validly hears the Confessions of seculars with only the faculty of the Ordinary."

"II. Whether Regular Superiors, having jurisdiction, can suspend their subjects from hearing the Confessions of seculars even from informed conscience."

"And, in the affirmative, III. Whether an orally announced suspension, and one announced without writing, is valid."

"IV. Whether absolution imparted by him who is bound by such a suspension is valid."

"And, in the negative, V. Whether one who attempts an absolution of this kind incurs irregularity."

"The Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, the matter having been discussed, on March 2, 1866, responded":

To I. Affirmatively.

To II. Affirmatively; yet so that the suspended Religious hears Confessions illicitly, but not invalidly.

To III. Affirmatively, since it is brought by way of a particular precept.

To IV. Affirmatively.

To V. It has been provided for in the preceding answers.

Query 9° Can Regulars absolve, without the Bishop's approbation, their servants or other domestics living in the monastery?

Resp. See n. 1194. II.

Query 10° Can Regulars absolve pupils living with them, without the Bishop's approbation, as being of the household?

Resp. A twofold opinion is given. See n. 1194. II.