§ 1. On The Concession Of Jurisdiction With Respect To Regulars

1758. Regulars can be considered under a twofold respect: insofar as they are confessors, and insofar as they are penitents. - Hence, so that all things which pertain to them under each respect may be treated, we shall divide the present matter into two parts, so that in order we may discuss: 1. the Regular Confessor; 2. the Confessor of Regulars.

There is a twofold reason why we judge that the question concerning the Regular Confessor is to be treated in this place: the one, so that all things which are proper to Regulars concerning jurisdiction may thus be inspected in one view; the other, so that the doctrine concerning their jurisdiction may become better known. For although the jurisdiction of a regular confessor receives no special limitation from the Law, nevertheless it is so bound by it that unless the Bishop's approbation accedes, it cannot be validly exercised over the Christian faithful. - With these things premised, let the following be:

1759. Principles. I. REGULARS properly so called, who pronounce solemn vows and who enjoy the privilege of exemption (likewise those who have communication of privileges with Mendicant Religious), receive jurisdiction immediately from the HOLY SEE for receiving the confessions both of THEIR OWN and of SECULARS. This is established from the Constitutions of the Supreme Pontiffs in the Body of Law;⁴ likewise from other Constitutions, which, although they were afterwards modified, especially through Trent as regards privileges, nevertheless remained unrepealed as regards jurisdiction. Thus commonly. Hence jurisdiction is conceded to any Regular by that very fact that the Superior grants him delegation, or communication of jurisdiction, in the name of the S. Pontiff.⁵

II. Regulars, for receiving confessions of SECULARS, need the APPROBATION of the Bishops in whose dioceses they are going to receive confessions. This is established from the decree of Innocent XII (in the year 1700), by which it was sanctioned that confessors, whoever they may be, both secular and regular, cannot hear secular penitents without the approbation of the Bishop of the place (cf. n. 1747, q. 2).

1760. From these things it is inferred: 1. The Bishop can concede approbation to Regulars at will, without restriction, or with some restriction as regards time, places, and persons. It is confirmed from various decrees of the Holy See.⁶ See what was said in n. 1749 seqq.

2. If the Bishop has expressly conceded approbation only for some transitory act, for example for some Mission, the conceded faculty is judged 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 clear. But if the request of the faculty is general, and the concession has not been restricted, the obtained faculty is not limited to the work which was the occasion of the petition: thus, for example, if you seek the faculty on the occasion of giving spiritual exercises to Nuns in such a convent, by the same faculty received you can hear confessions also of other faithful. The reason is because "whatever is not excepted is contained in the concession." Yet except reserved cases, which, by the law itself, are never understood as comprehended in the general faculty of hearing confessions.⁷

1761. Questions. Q. 1. Whether the Bishop can, WITHOUT CAUSE, DENY approbation to Regulars?

Resp. Negative. "For," says Pignatelli,⁸ "Regular confessors do not receive jurisdiction from the Bishop, but from the Supreme Pontiff, and approbation is required only as a condition so that jurisdiction can be exercised. Therefore Bishops cannot prohibit Regulars from absolving at some time." Yet if approbation is lacking, even if unjustly denied, free jurisdiction will also be lacking (cf. n. 1747, q. 3).

Q. 2. Whether the Bishop can REVOKE approbation conceded to Regulars?

Resp. 1. He cannot revoke approbation conceded to all Regulars of the same community without consulting the S. C. of Bishops and Regulars. Thus from the Bull Superna. - Except if it is a question of regions very distant from the City, and a most grave cause underlies it; concerning which the S. Congregation wished the consciences of Bishops to be gravely burdened.⁹

Resp. 2. But the Bishop can revoke the approbation of individual Regulars in particular if a just cause is present. Moreover, if the Regular, after previous examination, was approved by the Bishop himself, without any restriction as regards persons or as regards time, the cause is not judged just unless it concerns confession. On the contrary, if he was approved by his Vicar or predecessor, or with limitation, the Bishop can, on account of any just cause whatever, revoke the approbation and subject him to a new examination. Thus from the same Bull Superna.¹⁰ - In practice, the regular confessor must always acquiesce in the judgment of the Bishop.

Q. 3. Whether a Regular once approved in some diocese needs NEW APPROBATION if, his dwelling having been changed, he returns to the same place or passes through it?

Resp. Negative, unless the diocesan Statutes, or the Bishop, decree otherwise. The reason is because one approved indefinitely and without limitation remains approved, at least until implicit revocation; but in the present case no revocation, not even implicit, has intervened. Therefore. Thus Croix,¹¹ Lugo,¹² with the common opinion.

Q. 4. Whether a Religious validly absolves, AGAINST THE WILL OF THE SUPERIOR, but from the express delegation of the Bishop?

Resp. 1. Negative, if the Bishop intended to give approbation only; and from another source the Superior, who has from the Rule the power of constituting confessors, is unwilling in such a way that he is judged to take jurisdiction away from his subject. The reason is clear; for then the Religious has jurisdiction from no one.

Resp. 2. Affirmative, if the Bishop intended also to confer jurisdiction; as in present practice is usually done. The reason is because the Bishop can well confer jurisdiction upon a Religious, no otherwise than upon a secular priest, over his own sheep. For whoever enjoys ordinary jurisdiction can delegate it to any priest.¹³

But that Religious would sin gravely against obedience, because he would transgress the precept of his Superior in a grave matter; nor could he in a case of this sort use the privileges of his own Order, because these are communicated through Superiors alone.

These things are confirmed by the declaration of the S. C. OF BISHOPS AND REGULARS. For when the doubts were proposed: - I. Whether a Religious not approved according to the laws of his own Order by his Superior, or against the will of the same, with only the faculty of the Ordinary, validly receives the confessions of seculars. - II. Whether Regular Superiors, having jurisdiction, can suspend their subjects from hearing the confessions of seculars, even from informed conscience. - And insofar as affirmative, III. Whether a suspension pronounced orally and without writing is valid? - IV. Whether absolution imparted by one who is bound by such suspension is valid? And insofar as negative, V. Whether he who attempts an absolution of this sort incurs irregularity.

The Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, the matter having been discussed, on March 2, 1866, judged that it should respond: To I. Affirmative. - To II. Affirmative; yet in such a way that the suspended Religious receives confessions illicitly, but not invalidly. - To III. Affirmative, since it is made after the manner of a particular precept. - To IV. Affirmative. - To V. Provided for in the preceding.¹⁴

See other things in the Treatise on the Religious State (n. 2187).

1762. Principle. Jurisdiction for receiving the confessions of EXEMPTS cannot be conceded by the Bishop, but by their PRELATE or by the POPE, whether directly or indirectly. But the Prelate can concede it even to one not approved, provided that, so that the delegation may be licit, he is judged fit. This is established from what was said above concerning the origin and nature of the jurisdiction of Regulars (nn. 1757 and 1759).

Hence: 1. Regulars dwelling at home are bound to confess to the Prelate, or to confessors appointed by him, and no Regular validly confesses except before the Superior, or before him who has been appointed by the Superior. Wherefore Clement VIII (Decree of May 26, 1593) COMMANDS: "Superiors, in individual houses, shall appoint two or three confessors, according to the greater or lesser number of subjects." - Except the time of Jubilee, as was said in n. 1736.

2. Servants and other seculars who are of the household and almost continual table-companions CAN be absolved by a confessor approved either by the regular Prelate or by the Bishop. This is established from Trent, sess. 24, cap. 11, de ref., and from the Constitution Superna of Clement X¹⁵ (cf. n. 2186).

1763. Questions. Q. 1. To whom can or must Regulars dwelling OUTSIDE THE CONVENT confess?

Resp. Regulars traveling with the license of their Superiors, or staying outside the Convent, must, if they have the availability of a confessor of their own Order, confess to him; for he is appointed by the law itself. "But if a companion is lacking, or another suitable confessor of his own Order, they can well, from the presumed license of the Prelate, confess to another SUITABLE priest, regular or secular (except the case in which it is a question of reserved sins); and in this all agree."¹

"But it is doubtful whether this priest must be APPROVED for confessions. Wigandt and Antoine affirm it, and Concina with Vasquez, etc. But others very commonly and more truly deny it";² because for confessors of Regulars even implicit deputation of the Superior suffices, according to the constitutions or customs of the Order, nor is approbation of the Ordinary of the place required by any law. It is established moreover from the declarations of Sixtus IV, in the Bull Supplicari,³ issued August 2, 1479, and of Innocent VII in the Bull Provenit,⁴ issued October 17, 1405, which concede to Regulars in that case "that they are able to choose any other suitable and discreet presbyter, Religious or Secular." Nor was this privilege revoked by the Council of Trent, which requires approbation for confessions of seculars, but not of Regulars.⁵

Nor does the declaration of the S. C. of the Council of November 18, 1769, in Hildesimen.⁶ hinder this: namely that illicit and invalid are the confessions of Religious who there were accustomed to choose for themselves a secular presbyter not approved by the Bishop; for they did not lack the availability of a confessor of their own Order, as is clear from the very exposition of the Doubt.

Nor does the Brief of Benedict XIV of March 30, 1742, in which it is required that Capuchins choose an approved one, hinder more; nor the declaration of the S. C. of Bishops and Regulars of June 3, 1861, by which the same condition is appended for the Order of Hermits of St. Augustine. For it is by no means established that the things thus established and decreed for Capuchins and Hermits must be extended to all Regulars. For each Religion has its own constitutions. - For the rest, as regards the Capuchins, "Pius IX, by Brief of September 27, 1852, modified the aforesaid disposition of Benedict XIV, by conceding to Capuchin Friars, whether lay or priests, dwelling in any place whatever because of sermons, Missions, a journey, or on account of any other legitimate cause, when there is no monastery or hospice there, and they have availability only of one priest confrere, the faculty of confessing their sins to a SECULAR priest approved by the Ordinary, or to another REGULAR priest approved by the Superior of the Order to which he belongs: - likewise by these they can be absolved from cases and censures reserved in the Order, with the obligation nevertheless remaining firm of later presenting themselves to their proper Superior, etc., so that they may again be absolved from the said cases and censures."⁷

Q. 2. Whether Regulars can absolve resident students, without the Bishop's approbation, as being of the household?

Resp. Some deny it, because resident students are not of the household, as servants are. Yet others, more commonly, affirm it. Nor does St. Alphonsus dissent; for speaking of that privilege which familiars of religious enjoy, he adds without any mark of reprehension: "Bordonus extends this to pupils of Monasteries."⁸ "In practice," says Gury,⁹ "this latter opinion is safe"; and the reason is because this has been expressly conceded to several Regular Orders, for example to Benedictines, Theatines, Somaschans, Clerics Ministers of the Infirm, etc., in which privilege the other Orders communicate by the fact itself.¹⁰