§ 3. On Jurisdiction Supplied By The Church

1753. Three principal cases are enumerated in which the Church SUPPLIES jurisdiction, and imparts it, for individual acts, to a priest who otherwise lacks it. The first is the case of danger of death; the second is the case of common error; the third is the case of probable jurisdiction. Wherefore the following principles must be established.

Principles. I. If DANGER OF DEATH is imminent and an approved confessor is lacking, EVERY PRIEST can absolve a dying person from ANY censures and sins WHATEVER. Thus expressly the Roman Ritual, on the Sacrament of Penance. Trent is consonant, sess. 14, cap. 7, in these words: "Most piously, lest on this occasion itself anyone should perish, it has always been guarded in the same Church of God, that there be no reservation in the article of death: and therefore all priests can absolve any penitents whatever from any sins and censures."

It is said 1. If danger of death is imminent; because the article of death and danger are equated in law. But such danger is judged to be present in battle, in a long voyage, in difficult childbirth, and in every grave and mortal disease. - And the Doctors say this same thing of him who would be in probable danger of falling into madness, or would be a captive among Turks and feared that he would have no priest any more to whom he could afterward confess.¹¹

It is said 2. and an approved confessor is lacking. For the Church does not concede the faculty except by reason of extreme necessity, namely lest someone perish. But this reason ceases, or is judged to cease, when an approved one is present. Thus the very common opinion and one to be held in practice, against another which nevertheless Lugo calls probable.¹² Except with the common opinion: 1. If the approved one would not wish or would not be able to hear the confession, because then it would be the same as if he were lacking. 2. If the dying person so dreaded manifesting his crimes to the approved one, because for example he is his enemy, or blood-relative, or the object of the sin to be manifested, that he would be in danger of confessing sacrilegiously. 3. If the infirm person could not confess to the approved one without great difficulty or inconvenience (thus Sporer, cited by St. Alphonsus and not rejected). 4. If the approved one comes after the confession has already been begun with a simple priest (cf. n. 1780). - Except a fortiori: 1. If the approved one has been excommunicated by name, suspended, interdicted, irregular, degraded, schismatic, notoriously heretical, apostate: because such a one has lost jurisdiction, and a simple priest is to be preferred to him; 2. if he were of another diocese, because in this case he could by no means be called approved with respect to the sick person; 3. if he were the accomplice of the infirm person in a base sin¹³ (cf. n. 1780).

It is said 3. every priest; therefore even a priest who was never approved; even an irregular or suspended one; even an excommunicated or degraded one; indeed even a vitandus, schismatic, heretic, apostate.¹⁴ - Indeed all these validly absolve the one in danger when an approved one is lacking; yet not licitly unless order is preserved: that is, a priest immune from every censure and punishment should absolve rather than an irregular or suspended one; this one rather than an excommunicated one, etc.¹⁵

It is said 4. from any censures and sins whatever; because in the article or danger of death there is no reservation. Yet see what was said in n. 1282 and other things to be said in n. 1777.

1754. II. If COMMON ERROR with a COLORABLE TITLE is present, it is certain that the Church supplies the jurisdiction which is lacking to the confessor. Thus all, and it is proved from the law Barbarius, ff. de Officio Praetorum, and from can. Infamis, Cause 3, q. 7. - The reason is because otherwise many souls would perish, and therefore the Church is reasonably presumed to supply.¹⁶

It was said 1. If common error is present, that is, if all or almost all the faithful of that place think that the confessor is in fact furnished with jurisdiction, whether ordinary or delegated. But otherwise if the error is private, namely of one or a few. The reason is because the Church is not judged to supply except by reason of the common good, after the manner of a provider or general governor, who attends to the common good alone, and leaves the good of private persons to the care of particular providers. Thus very commonly the Theologians, against a few.

It was said 2. with a colorable, or putative, title, namely one which was conceded by a legitimate Superior, and of itself would be apt for conferring jurisdiction, unless it were made void by an occult defect. - Moreover, that defect can occur: 1. in the one conceding, for example if he had not been free in conceding, or if the Bishop had died, and, the death being commonly unknown, his Vicar continued to hear confessions; - 2. in the one receiving, whether some vice preceded, for example occult irregularity or excommunication, or whether he has been despoiled of his title and this is unknown; - 3. in the act, as if occult simony intervened, by reason of which the act would be void. Therefore, in these cases, the confessor, common error standing, validly absolves; although he sins mortally if he is conscious of his defect.¹⁷

"It is more doubtful," says the Holy Doctor,¹⁸ "whether the Church supplies jurisdiction when only common error intervenes, WITHOUT A COLORABLE TITLE.

"Busenbaum, Concina, Roncaglia, Sporer, Holzmann, etc., deny it, while they say that otherwise impious priests would take occasion from this to feign that they are confessors, and to disseminate errors. - But this reason does not convince; because although the Church denied jurisdiction to these, nevertheless it would not impede the damage. - Wherefore Lugo, Lessius, Pontius, Castropalaus, Sanchez, etc., probably affirm it, and Roncaglia, Sporer, and Holzmann themselves, with Cardenas, etc., say that it is probable, since the same reason of the common good which is brought forward for a colorable title runs also for error."¹⁹ - But since this opinion is at least probable, it can sometimes, with a just cause, be licitly brought into practice, as is clear from the following principle.

1755. III. A priest VALIDLY and LICITLY absolves WITH PROBABLE JURISDICTION, with probability of law, if some gravely reasonable cause concurs. The reason is because a universal custom flourishes in the Church, and almost all confessors follow it, of absolving, when a just cause is present, with probable jurisdiction. - But such a custom certainly confers jurisdiction, and therefore the confessor now does not absolve with a probable opinion, but with true certitude, namely with reflex certitude (cf. n. 82, Except 2).

We said 1. with jurisdiction probable with probability of law, namely that which rests upon the opinion of grave Theologians. Therefore not any probability whatever suffices, but, as the Authors commonly hold, that is required which is supported by truly serious reason and authority.

We said 2. if a gravely reasonable cause concurs (at least, so that absolution be given licitly); because although in that case the Church can rightly be judged to supply jurisdiction on account of the good of souls, nevertheless, every just cause being lacking, she is not presumed to wish to connive at the mere liberty of priests.¹

Moreover, a REASONABLE CAUSE would be had: 1. If the penitent especially needed the help or counsel of this confessor. - 2. If the accomplice of the sin is known to the confessor who possesses certain jurisdiction. 3. If the confessor who has probable jurisdiction prudently fears that the penitent will make a sacrilegious confession before him who has certain jurisdiction. - 4. If the penitent himself fears lest he fall into some aversion or damaging suspicion of the approved confessor. 5. If otherwise he would have to abstain from confession for a longer time. 6. If the precept of annual confession is urgent, or an occasion is given of gaining particular Indulgences. 7. If the penitent had already declared some grave sin to the confessor, and this latter doubted whether it is reserved or not (cf. n. 1769).²

1756. IT IS ASKED. Whether it is permitted to absolve with jurisdiction doubtful by DOUBT OF FACT, for example when it is doubted whether jurisdiction was in fact conceded by the Superior, whether it endures, etc.?

Resp. Negative, unless some necessity compels, and then only under condition. But NECESSITY is judged to compel when it is better that someone be doubtfully absolved than not absolved at all, that is: 1. If the precept of annual confession is urgent; 2. if the penitent must celebrate Mass or communicate, and otherwise would incur the mark of infamy; 3. if a priest must celebrate from obligation on that day. Yet one doubtfully absolved cannot communicate unless he elicits an act of perfect contrition, and he is bound to subject the sins again to the keys, unless he learns that the confessor had true jurisdiction.³ (cf. n. 1663, q. 5, and there at the end of the Note.)