§ 1. On The Nature And Necessity Of Approbation

1746. I. APPROBATION is the juridical judgment of the Bishop concerning the fitness of some priest for hearing confessions.

It is called 1. a juridical judgment; for it is an act of the intellect, and not only of the will, as is the conferral of jurisdiction. Hence, ordinarily it is not made except after an EXAMEN has previously been instituted. Yet this is not essentially required, because a prudent judgment can be had even without examination, as often as the fitness of the priest is established from another source. 2. Of the Bishop, even if not yet consecrated; or of the Vicar general, or Vicar capitular, or Abbot having episcopal jurisdiction. - 3. Concerning fitness, that is, concerning the complete aptitude of the priest, both as regards necessary knowledge and prudence, and as regards holiness of morals suitable to the vicar of Christ in this ministry.¹ Yet the judgment is accompanied by an act of the will, by which the one approving wills that he who has been judged fit can freely use his jurisdiction, whether already had or to be had.

II. For the liceity of absolution, indeed for its validity, approbation IS REQUIRED. This is established from Trent, saying in sess. 23, de reform., cap. 14: "Although priests in their Ordination receive the power of absolving from sins, nevertheless the holy Synod decrees: that no one, even a Regular, can hear confessions of seculars, even priests, nor be reputed fit for this, unless either he has a parochial benefice, or is judged fit by the Bishops through examination, if this shall seem necessary to them, or otherwise, and obtains approbation, which is to be given gratis." Certain cases are excepted, in which the Church supplies jurisdiction (cf. n. 1753 seqq.).

This approbation is necessary even for hearing confessions of venials, as is established from the decree of Innocent XI, February 12, 1679, on daily Communion, and from the common interpretation and practice of more recent Authors.²

1747. Questions. Q. 1. In what way is approbation given?

Resp. 1. Implicitly, through the conferral of a parochial Benefice. For he to whom care of souls is committed is by that very fact declared fit for receiving the confessions of those committed to him, so long as he retains his office. - But if he resigns it, approbation ceases, unless perhaps (which is customarily done) the Ordinary wished him to be approved even independently of the parochial benefice.

2. Explicitly, through an express judgment. This mode of approbation, pertaining to delegated jurisdiction alone, was introduced by the Council of Trent. For before that time it belonged to pastors to delegate their jurisdiction to other priests not approved by the Bishop, yet entangled in no censure. - But mendicant Regulars did not need the approbation of Bishops, since they freely used jurisdiction directly conferred upon them by the Holy See.³

Q. 2. From WHICH Bishop or ORDINARY must approbation be obtained?

Resp. According to the opinion today altogether to be held, it must be obtained from the Bishop or Ordinary of the place where confessions are to be received; nor does the approbation either of the Bishop of the penitent or of the Bishop of the confessor suffice. This is established from the Bull Cum sicut of Innocent XII (April 19, 1700), and from the Bull Apostolica Indulta of Benedict XIV (August 5, 1744).⁴

Hence: 1. A priest approved in one diocese cannot absolve even his own penitents in another, unless he has previously obtained the approbation also of this Bishop. Yet domicile or quasi-domicile in the diocese is not required for obtaining it.

2. A pastor in his own diocese, but outside his own parish, must, like other priests, be approved for receiving the confessions of those who are not of his parish.⁵ Thus it is gathered from the S. C. of the Council in Leodien., August 1600.⁶

Q. 3. Whether approbation SOUGHT and unjustly denied suffices?

Resp. Negative, for the Council of Trent (loc. cit.) requires that the priest obtain approbation; but unjust denial is not concession. The same is established from the 13th proposition condemned by Alexander VII: "He satisfies the precept of annual confession who confesses to a Regular presented to the Bishop, but unjustly rejected by him." But "although the Bishop internally disapproves, external approbation is valid for conferring jurisdiction."⁷

Q. 4. Whether PRESUMED approbation suffices?

Resp. 1. Presumed approbation concerning the future does not suffice, that is, which is judged would be conceded if it were sought. But approbation actually existing and declared by some sign is necessary. Hence it is not permitted to begin confessions before that consent, sought by letters, has truly been given, although it may seem certain to be obtained. Thus commonly. 2. Presumed approbation concerning the present, or tacit approbation, suffices (cf. n. 239, Req. 2). Hence he validly absolves who hears confessions in the presence, or with the knowledge and non-contradiction, of the Ordinary, to whom it is established that he does not otherwise have approbation; because then the Ordinary is presumed to give it in the present. But such a presumption, since it is founded on evident signs, certainly suffices.⁸

Q. 5. Whether the Bishop can subject priests already approved AGAIN to examination, and LIMIT or REVOKE their approbation?

Resp. 1. The Bishop can, from a just cause, recall to examination all confessors approved by himself or by a predecessor, even pastors and Regulars, provided there is a vehement suspicion of their inexperience. This is established from the decree of the S. C. of the Council, January 15, 1667,⁹ and from the Constitution Romani Pontificis of St. Pius V. - He can similarly, at his will, revoke approbation already given, or restrict it to place, to time, to persons, without being bound to give a reason for such revocation or restriction. This is expressly deduced from the Bull Apostolici ministerii of Innocent XIII, by force of which the whole matter was committed to the Bishop.¹⁰

Resp. 2. If revocation or restriction is made without a just cause, it is indeed illicit, but nevertheless valid. This is established from the 13th proposition condemned by Alexander VII (as above, question 3). - There are indeed Authors who deny that approbation once absolutely conceded can be validly revoked without reasonable cause; "but," says St. Alphonsus,¹¹ "I judge this opinion scarcely probable in practice, because the injustice of the revocation would have to be clearer than light, and every danger of hallucination absent; but this can scarcely occur, since there can be innumerable just causes with the Bishop for revoking approbation, which are unknown to the confessor." But in doubt whether the revocation was made from a just cause, the presumption is for the Superior.