Article II. On the Jurisdiction of Confessors

I say 1°. The power of jurisdiction is necessary for validly receiving confessions, nor does the power of Order suffice. The reason is taken from the Council of Trent, sess. 14, chap. 7, where it reads thus: "Since therefore the nature and character of judgment require this, that sentence be passed only upon subjects, it has always been persuaded in the Church of God, and this Synod confirms it to be most true, that that absolution ought to be of no moment which a priest pronounces upon one over whom he does not have ordinary or subdelegated jurisdiction."

I say 2°. § 1. By ordinary jurisdiction for receiving confessions for the universal Church, besides the Roman Pontiff, the Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church possess it; for each one's own territory, the Ordinary of the place, and the pastor and others who are in the place of the pastor.

§ 2. With this same jurisdiction there are also endowed the canon penitentiary of a church, even collegiate, according to the norm of can. 401, § 1, and exempt religious Superiors for their subjects, according to the norm of the constitutions.

§ 3. This jurisdiction ceases by loss of office, according to the norm of can. 183, and, after a condemnatory or declaratory sentence, by excommunication, suspension from office, or interdict (Can. 873).

I say 3°. § 1. Delegated jurisdiction for receiving the confessions of any persons, whether seculars or religious, is conferred upon priests, both secular and religious, even exempt, by the Ordinary of the place in which the confessions are received; but religious priests should not use the same without the permission, at least presumed, of their Superior, with the prescription of can. 519, however, remaining firm.

§ 2. Ordinaries of places should not habitually concede jurisdiction for hearing confessions to religious who are not presented by their own Superior; but to those who are presented by their own Superior, they should not deny it without grave cause, with the prescription of can. 877, however, remaining firm (Can. 874).

From these things it is clear: for hearing the confessions of seculars, delegated jurisdiction is conferred by the Ordinary of the place of the accepted confession upon priests both secular and religious, even exempt. The same one confers the same jurisdiction upon the same persons for hearing the confessions of religious. But religious priests ought not use delegation without the permission, at least presumed, of the Superior; if nevertheless a religious approaches and is absolved, the confession is valid and licit according to the norm of Canon 519. But if some religion enjoys a privilege of absolving from certain cases reserved to the Supreme Pontiff, the manner in which it is communicated to individual confessors is to be learned from the Constitutions.

I say 4°. § 1. For validly hearing confessions there is need of jurisdiction expressly conceded by writing or words.

§ 2. Nothing can be exacted for the concession of jurisdiction (Can. 879).

Wherefore tacit jurisdiction no longer avails; but it must be conceded expressly, either by words or by writings.

I say 5°. § 1. Both Ordinaries of places should not concede jurisdiction, and religious Superiors should not concede jurisdiction or license of hearing confessions, except to those who have been found suitable by examination, unless there is question of a priest whose theological doctrine they have ascertained from another source.

§ 2. If after jurisdiction or license has been conceded they prudently doubt whether the priest previously approved by them still continues to be suitable, let them compel him to a new trial of doctrine, even if there is question of a pastor or canon penitentiary (Can. 877).

The law is indeed grave, which keeps away the unsuitable, and admits only the suitable to exercising this sacred ministry. The law concerning not conceding jurisdiction or license except to those who have been found suitable by examination strikes both Ordinaries of places and religious Superiors, unless the knowledge of these men has been ascertained by them from another source. It would indeed be a most grave sin to assign to this office a man not suitable; nor is this ever licit. Suitability must be established by examination, unless there is question of a man whose theological doctrine is known. When they do not have this sufficient theological doctrine ascertained from another source, they are bound under grave obligation to require an examination; if they have it ascertained from another source, they are not bound to require an examination, for concerning them there is not the law: let them not concede except to those who have been found suitable by examination, unless there is question of a priest whose theological doctrine they have ascertained from another source. Therefore the prohibition of conceding jurisdiction or license without examination does not seem to affect those who are known without examination to have sufficient theological knowledge.

But if prudent doubt is present concerning the continuation of the suitability of the confessor, Ordinaries and Superiors can, indeed ought, compel him to a new examination.

Question 1. Whether the Church supplies jurisdiction when penitents invincibly are ignorant of its defect?

Resp. In common error the Church supplies jurisdiction for both forums. - Cf. Can. 209.

Question 2. Whether it is licit to absolve with negatively doubtful jurisdiction?

Resp. Negatively, unless some necessity urges, and then absolution is to be given under the condition: if I can. St. Alphonsus thinks that necessity of this sort is present: 1°. if the precept of annual confession urges; 2°. if the penitent must celebrate Mass or communicate, and otherwise would incur a mark of infamy; 3°. if a priest is bound to celebrate from obligation. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 571.

Question 3. Whether it is licit to absolve in positive and probable doubt, whether of law or of fact?

Resp. Affirmatively, because the Church supplies in positive and probable doubt, whether of law or of fact. Cf. Can. 209.

Question 4. Whether heretics, excommunicates to be avoided, degraded persons, irregulars, apostates, etc., absolve validly in danger of death, when another priest is lacking?

Resp. Affirmatively, because then the Church supplies jurisdiction, as is established from the Council of Trent, sess. 14, chap. 7, where it reads thus: "Very piously, lest on this very occasion someone perish, it has always been observed in the same Church of God that there is no reservation at the article of death: and therefore all priests can absolve any penitents whatsoever from any sins and censures whatsoever." - Indeed, not only in the article, but also in danger of death absolution can be given by any priest, because in canon law the article and danger of death are customarily taken for the same thing, such as, for example, is considered to be present in battle, on a long voyage, in difficult childbirth, and similar cases. Cf. St. Alphonsus, nn. 560 and 561.

"Whether any soldier, constituted in the state of war-convocation or, as they say, mobilization, by that very fact can be equated with those who are placed in danger of death, so that he can be absolved by any priest met with." The Sacred Penitentiary, after maturely considering the things set forth, kindly, with our Most Holy Lord Pius X assenting, responded thus: "Affirmatively, according to the rules handed down by approved authors." 18 March 1912.

Question 5. Whether a simple priest can validly absolve a dying person even when an approved confessor is present?

Resp. In danger of death all priests, although not approved for confessions, validly and licitly absolve any penitents whatsoever from any sins or censures whatsoever, however reserved and notorious, even if an approved priest is present, with the prescription of can. 884, 2252 remaining safe (Can. 882).¹

Can. 884 treats of absolution of an accomplice in the article of death; Can. 2252 of the necessity of recourse in the case of absolution from some censure ab homine, or from a censure reserved in the most special way.

¹ Cf. Addenda, p. 1150, n. 125.

Question 6. Whether a Pastor can call in a Pastor of the same or of a different diocese for hearing confessions in his parish?

Resp. Affirmatively, as regards a Pastor of the same diocese; for although by force of his office he has jurisdiction only for his own parish, nevertheless from almost universal custom he can also hear confessions in the whole diocese, unless the Bishop decrees otherwise. - But as regards a Pastor of a different diocese, he can be called in for hearing the confessions of his own subjects; but not for hearing the confessions of other penitents. - Cf. Can. 881 and 874.¹

¹ Cf. Addenda, p. 1095, n. 30.

Question 7. Whether among us that ancient pact still flourishes, by which some priest, after receiving faculties from his own Bishop, can validly use the same in another diocese?

Resp. Negatively, as is established from the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore, n. 118, where it is said: "Lest wandering, unknown, and depraved priests undertake sacred offices with offense of the faithful, the Fathers judged that the faculties which the Bishops by a certain common pact mutually bestowed upon themselves in the convention held in the year 1810 were to be revoked; and therefore for the future, none of the priests, by force of that pact, can exercise jurisdiction or undertake any sacred office without the authority of the ordinary." Note, however, the statute recently enacted in a certain Synod of New York, where n. 157 says: "For the sake of liberty of conscience, we concede that every outside Priest who is known in his own diocese to be endowed with ordinary faculties may be able to absolve a Priest of Our Diocese who has chosen to confess to him in this diocese, and likewise all persons who have true habitation in his house." - Cf. Amer. Eccl. Rev., Vol. 2, pp. 37 and seq.

Question 8. Whether a priest approved by the Bishop can hear the confessions of the faithful without the permission of the Pastor?

Resp. Negatively, as regards liceity, if the confessions are received in a church subject to the Pastor, because due order altogether requires that, since he is the immediate superior in his church, permission to exercise sacred ministries there be sought from him. But as regards validity, it is certain according to all that the license of the Pastor is not required.

Question 9. Whether a priest approved in some place can receive the confessions of pilgrims, wanderers, and Eastern Catholics coming there?

Resp. § 1. All priests of either clergy approved for hearing confessions in some place, whether instructed with ordinary or delegated jurisdiction, can also validly and licitly absolve wanderers and pilgrims from another diocese or parish who approach them, and likewise Catholics of any Eastern rite.

§ 2. Those who have ordinary power of absolving can absolve subjects everywhere on earth (Can. 881).

Wherefore our pastors can hear their own subjects everywhere; and this can carry with it a vast good of souls.

Question 10. Whether the Bishop can forbid under penalty of invalidity that diocesans go to confess outside the diocese?

Resp. Negatively, because the right is given to a subject of confessing to the confessor whom he prefers.

Question 11. Whether a simple priest can absolve those navigating on the Ocean, or from whom approval must be obtained?

Resp. § 1. All priests undertaking a sea journey, provided they have duly received the faculty of hearing confessions either from their own Ordinary, or from the Ordinary of the port in which they board the ship, or even from the Ordinary of any intermediate port through which they pass on the journey, can, during the whole journey, receive on the ship the confessions of any faithful whatsoever navigating with them, although the ship on the journey passes through or even for some time stops in various places subject to the jurisdiction of different Ordinaries.

§ 2. But as often as the ship stops on the journey, they can receive the confessions both of the faithful who approach the ship for any cause whatsoever, and of those who, when they themselves have touched land in passing, ask to confess to them, and validly and licitly absolve them even from cases reserved to the Ordinary of the place (Can. 883).¹

¹ Cf. Addenda, p. 1109, n. 52.

Question 12. To whom can the faithful confess?

Resp. It is free to any faithful person to confess his sins to any legitimately approved confessor, even of another rite, whom he prefers (Can. 905).

Question 13. Whether one who, having delegated jurisdiction, has begun to hear a confession can finish it even if meanwhile the delegation expires?

Resp. "Some say that he cannot. Petrus de Ledesma, cp. 12. Others, however, affirm that he absolutely can, whom Sanchez reports and follows, l. 2 in Decal. cp. 13, n. 15, and in a similar matter indicates l. 4, cp. 54, n. 34; Diana, v. I, De Bulla Cruciata, Resp. 94: which opinion is very probable, because the matter is not whole. Cap. Gratum and Cap. Relatum on the office of a delegate." - Lugo, de Sacr. Paen. disp. 19, sec. 2, n. 24.

Question 14. Whether delegated jurisdiction or license can be conceded with limitation?

Resp. § 1. Delegated jurisdiction or license of hearing confessions can be conceded circumscribed by certain limits.

§ 2. Nevertheless let Ordinaries of places and religious Superiors beware lest they too greatly restrict jurisdiction or license without reasonable cause (Can. 878).

Those who have not been found generally suitable for hearing confessions and nevertheless have asked to be admitted can receive limited jurisdiction at the judgment of the Ordinary.

Indeed it is evident, universally speaking, that jurisdiction and license ought not to be too greatly restricted.

Nevertheless, a power conceded generally is not to be considered limited as regards time, places, and other circumstances, unless these are held in the law itself as contained in the general concession, such as reserved cases.

I say. § 1. In an exempt clerical religion, for receiving the confessions of the professed, novices, or others of whom in can. 514, § 1, delegated jurisdiction is conferred also by their own Superior, according to the norm of the constitutions; to whom it is lawful to concede it even to priests from the secular clergy or of another religion.

§ 2. In an exempt lay religion, the Superior proposes the confessor, who nevertheless must obtain jurisdiction from the Ordinary of the place in which the religious house is found (Can. 875).

You Will Resolve. Whence it follows that the Superior in an exempt clerical religion and the Ordinary of the place can concede power or delegated jurisdiction for hearing the confessions of the professed, novices, or others living in the religious house day and night by reason of service, education, hospitality, or infirm health.

Indeed it is lawful for the Superior to concede this jurisdiction even to priests from the secular clergy or of another religion. Therefore just as a confessor adorned with delegated jurisdiction by the Superior alone of his own exempt clerical religion can validly and licitly receive the confessions of his confreres or of others of whom above, so also a confessor enjoying delegated jurisdiction from the Ordinary of the place alone can hear the confessions of the same. Concerning such penitents the source of that jurisdiction is twofold, the Superior and the Ordinary of the place.

1°. If the Bishop, or your superior by delegation from him, concedes to you approval for a determined class of penitents, the faculty cannot be extended to others, as is clear. But if the request for the faculty from the Bishop or from the superior is general, and the concession has not been restricted when the tenor of the words is inspected, the faculty obtained is not limited to the work which was the occasion of the petition. The reason is taken from the known rule: Whatever is not excepted is contained in the concession. Nevertheless, except reserved cases, which by the law itself are never understood to be comprehended in the general faculty of hearing confessions.

2°. A religious Superior, when by delegation from the Bishop he employs a subject for the general works of the sacred ministry, with the hypothesis of some special restriction excluded, is considered to concede to him every kind of faculty for any penitents whatsoever, and also for all reserved cases contained in the episcopal concession. The reason is that he is considered to concede all that which he can and customarily does concede, according to the aforesaid rule: Whatever is not excepted is contained in the concession.

Question 1. Whether it is licit for the Ordinary of the place or the religious Superior to revoke or suspend jurisdiction or license?

Resp. § 1. The Ordinary of the place or religious Superior should not revoke or suspend jurisdiction or license for hearing confessions, except for a grave cause.

§ 2. But for grave causes the Ordinary can even forbid to a pastor or penitentiary the office of confessor, with recourse in devolutive effect to the Apostolic See remaining safe.

§ 3. Nevertheless it is not licit for the Bishop, without consulting the Apostolic See, if there is question of a formed house, to take away jurisdiction all at once from all confessors of some religious house (Can. 880).

Question 2. Whether a Regular once approved in some diocese needs a new approval if, after changing habitation, he returns to the same place?

Resp. Negatively, because one approved indefinitely and without limitation remains approved at least until an implicit revocation of approval; but in the present case no revocation has intervened, not even implicit. Therefore ... Cf. Lugo, disp. 21, n. 44. Lacroix, n. 1541.

Note, however, that among us it is established that many Bishops, as is gathered from Synods recently held, wish to revoke, and in fact do revoke, faculties conceded as soon as some priest departs from the diocese in such a way that he no longer has domicile there.

Question 3. Whether a Religious validly absolves seculars, when the superior is unaware or unwilling, from the delegation of the Bishop alone?

Resp. Affirmatively, because this delegated jurisdiction alone suffices for validly hearing confessions, though the Superior is unaware or even unwilling. - Cf. Can. 874. Nevertheless religious priests ought not use this faculty without the permission, at least presumed, of the Superior, with the prescription of Can. 519 remaining safe.

Question 4. Whether Regulars can absolve, without the approval of the Bishop, their servants or other familiars living in the monastery?

Resp. Affirmatively, by force of Canon 875, § 1, brought forward at n. 774.

Question 5. Whether Regulars can absolve resident pupils without the approval of the Bishop, as being of the family?

Resp. Affirmatively, by force of Canon 875, § 1, brought forward at n. 774.

Question 6. How many confessors are to be deputed in individual houses of a clerical religion?

Resp. § 1. In individual houses of a clerical religion, several confessors legitimately approved are to be deputed according to the number of members, with power, if there is question of an exempt religion, of absolving even from cases reserved in the religion.

§ 2. Religious Superiors having the power of hearing confessions can, with the things to be observed by law observed, hear the confessions of subjects who spontaneously and by their own motion ask this of them, but they should not do this by way of habit without grave cause.

§ 3. Let Superiors beware lest they induce any subject, either themselves by themselves or through another, by force, fear, troublesome persuasions, or another reason, to confess sins before them (Can. 518).

Question 7. Whether religious Superiors having the power of hearing confessions can hear the confessions of their subjects?

Resp. Affirmatively, in relation to subjects who spontaneously and by their own motion ask this of them, but without grave cause they should not do this by way of habit. But let Superiors beware lest they induce any subject, either themselves by themselves or through another, by force, fear, troublesome persuasions, or another reason, to confess sins before them. Cf. Can. 518, §§ 2, 3.

Note. - The master of novices and his associate, the Superior of a Seminary or college, should not hear the sacramental confessions of their pupils dwelling with them in the same house, unless the pupils spontaneously ask this in particular cases from a grave and urgent cause (Can. 891).

Question 8. Whether it is licit for a religious, even for quiet of conscience, to institute confession before any confessor approved by the Ordinary of the place, although not numbered among the designated?

Resp. Affirmatively, as is clearly apparent from the following canon:

With the constitutions remaining firm which command or advise confession to be made at stated times before determined confessors, if a religious, even exempt, for the quiet of his conscience approaches a confessor approved by the Ordinary of the place, although not numbered among the designated, the confession, any contrary privilege being revoked, is valid and licit; and the confessor can absolve the religious even from sins and censures reserved in the religion (Can. 519).

While the canon leaves the fullest liberty to religious, even exempt, it likewise leaves in place the constitution which commands or advises confession to be made before determined confessors, and it does not abrogate the use, approved by immemorial experience of centuries, of confessing to one stable and prudent confessor. The confession of which in the canon is valid and licit. And the confessor can absolve any religious, even exempt, from cases reserved in the religion.

Question 9. What has been established by law concerning confessors in lay religions of men?

Resp. Even in lay religions of men there is to be deputed, according to the norm of can. 874, § 1, 875, § 2, an ordinary and extraordinary confessor; and if a religious asks for some special confessor, let the Superior concede him, in no way inquiring into the reason for the petition, nor showing that he bears it with difficulty (Can. 528).

Question 10. Who designates the priest for sacred rites and approves him for sermons in lay religions?

Resp. A distinction is to be made according to Canon 529:

If there is question of non-exempt lay religions, it belongs to the Ordinary of the place to designate the priest for sacred rites and to approve him for sermons; if of exempt religions, the regular Superior designates the same priests, and the Ordinary supplies his negligence (Can. 529).

I say. The new Code thus establishes the principle:

§ 1. With any contrary particular law or privilege revoked, priests both secular and religious, of whatever grade or office, need peculiar jurisdiction for validly and licitly receiving the confessions of any religious women and novices, with the prescription of can. 239, § 1, n. 1, 522, 523 remaining safe.

§ 2. This jurisdiction is conferred by the Ordinary of the place where the house of the religious women is situated, according to the norm of can. 525 (Can. 876).

From canons 239, § 1, n. 1; 522, 523 it is clear: Cardinals can hear their confessions everywhere. If some religious woman, for tranquility of conscience, confesses in any church or oratory, even semi-public, before a priest approved for hearing women, the confession is valid and licit; and the same is to be said when religious women are gravely ill, to whom it has been conceded to call in any priest approved for hearing the confessions of women. With these cases removed, for validly and licitly hearing the confessions of any religious women and novices whatsoever, the general power of hearing confessions of either sex does not suffice, but there is required peculiar jurisdiction conceded by the Ordinary of the place where the house of the religious women is situated.

Question 1. What is the law of the ordinary confessor according to the new Code for religious women?

Resp. It is contained in the two paragraphs of canon 520, and regards each house and any religious woman who asks for a special moderator of the soul.

§ 1. To individual houses of religious women let only one ordinary confessor be given, who receives the sacramental confessions of the whole community, unless on account of their great number or another just cause there is need of another or of several.

§ 2. If some religious woman, for the quiet of her soul and for greater progress in the way of God, asks for some special confessor or spiritual moderator, let the Ordinary easily concede him; he, however, should watch lest abuses creep in from this concession; but if they creep in, let him cautiously and prudently eliminate them, with liberty of conscience preserved (Can. 520).

For each religious community there should be one ordinary confessor, at least regularly; but just causes can require that there be several, such as the number of religious women or ignorance of language on the part of some. How grave this office is, how pleasing to God, is clear from the thing itself; and the more difficult it is, the more meritorious also. To God alone are known the immense fruits which the zeal of religious women in our country has brought forth; they themselves merit everything by which they may become holier. But besides the ordinary confessor of the community, another case, foreseen in some measure by Benedict XIV, is found in the present canon. "We were persuaded, and therefore we are persuaded, that not only to the whole community, but also to individual nuns, indulgence must be given in those things which are justly and reasonably sought, especially when those things are recognized to contribute to the quiet and security of their conscience." Thus he himself in Const. Pastoralis curae. Provision is made in the present case for such a religious woman. A special confessor is easily to be conceded, and although one must watch lest abuses creep in, they are nevertheless to be eliminated cautiously, with liberty of conscience preserved. In the whole legislation of the New Code, provision is made for the security of liberty of conscience.

Question 2. What is the law of the extraordinary confessor for communities of religious women?

Resp. § 1. To each community of religious women let there be given an extraordinary confessor who at least four times in the year approaches the religious house, and to whom all the religious women must present themselves, at least to receive a blessing (Can. 521).

An extraordinary confessor must be given to any community; this one should visit the religious house at least four times in the year; all must approach him, either to confess or to receive a blessing. Since the adverb at least is joined to the number four, that number designates the limit below which it is not licit for the extraordinary not to approach, above which it is licit for him to approach. Therefore he must approach at least four times, but it is licit for him to approach more often.

Question 3. Whether other confessors also are to be designated by Ordinaries of places for a community of religious women?

Resp. Affirmatively, as is clear from the following:

§ 2. Ordinaries of places in which communities of religious women exist should designate several priests for individual houses, to whom they may easily have recourse for the sacrament of penance in particular cases, without it being necessary to approach the Ordinary himself as often as this occurs (Can. 521).

The care of the Church in this can be seen, that those are to be designated to whom religious women can easily have recourse. In no way ought they approach the Ordinary as often as this occurs, but they themselves are to have recourse to the designated men with entirely every kind of liberty. Whence in the same canon it is prescribed:¹

§ 3. If some religious woman asks for one of these confessors, it is licit for no female Superior, neither by herself nor through others, neither directly nor indirectly, to inquire into the reason for the petition, to oppose the petition by words or deeds, or in any way to show that she bears it with difficulty (Can. 521).

¹ Cf. Addenda, p. 1113, n. 60.

Question 4. Whether it is licit for religious women to confess in any Church or oratory, even semi-public, before any confessor approved for women?

Resp. Affirmatively, any contrary privilege being revoked.

If, notwithstanding the prescription of can. 520, 521, some religious woman, for the tranquility of her conscience, approaches a confessor approved by the Ordinary of the place for women, the confession made in any church or oratory, even semi-public, is valid and licit, any contrary privilege being revoked; nor can the female Superior prohibit this or inquire about the matter, not even indirectly; and religious women are bound to report nothing to the female Superior (Can. 522).

Religious women traveling outside the house, or visiting the poor, or walking, for instance while they go from schools to the religious house, or for any other similar cause, can enter a Church or oratory, even semi-public, and confess to any confessor approved for women. Indeed the same is licit within the house in the same places.¹

¹ Cf. Addenda, p. 1095, n. 31; p. 1125, n. 82; p. 1150, n. 125.

Question 5. Whether it is licit for a gravely ill religious woman to call in any priest approved for women?

Resp. All religious women, when they are gravely ill, although danger of death is absent, can call in any priest approved for receiving the confessions of women, even if he is not destined for religious women, and can confess to him, during the continuance of the grave infirmity, as often as they wish; nor can the female Superior prohibit them either directly or indirectly (Can. 523).

Grave illness suffices that one can licitly use this faculty; it is not required that danger of death be present. She can call in any confessor approved for women. The faculty is conceded to be used during the infirmity as often as the religious woman wishes. It is gravely enjoined upon the female Superior that she not prohibit her directly or indirectly.

Question 6. What sort of men ought to be designated for the office of confessors of religious women?

Resp. Regularly it is required that they be forty years old, outstanding in integrity of morals and prudence; they can be taken from either clergy; for a just cause, those who are below the fortieth year of age can be deputed, provided they enjoy the other endowments; let them have no power in the external forum over them.

§ 1. To the office of both ordinary and extraordinary confessor of religious women, let priests be deputed, whether from the secular clergy or religious with the permission of Superiors, outstanding in integrity of morals and prudence; let them moreover be forty years old, unless a just cause, in the judgment of the Ordinary, demands otherwise; and let them have no power in the external forum over the same religious women (Can. 524).

Question 7. Whether an ordinary confessor of religious women, when his office has been completed, can be named extraordinary? or again deputed ordinary in the same community? whether an extraordinary can be named as ordinary?

Resp. § 2. An ordinary confessor cannot be named extraordinary, nor, except for the cases numbered in can. 526, again deputed ordinary in the same community, except after a year from the completed office; but an extraordinary can immediately be named as ordinary (Can. 524).

Question 8. What is prohibited to confessors of religious women, both ordinary and extraordinary?

Resp. It is prohibited to them to involve themselves in any way in the internal or external governance of the community. Cf. Can. 524, § 3.

Question 9. How long does the office of hearing the confessions of religious women last?

Resp. The ordinary confessor of religious women should not exercise his office beyond three years; nevertheless the Ordinary can confirm him for a second, indeed even for a third three-year term, if either on account of a scarcity of priests suitable for this office he cannot provide otherwise, or the greater part of the religious women, including also those who in other affairs do not have the right of casting a vote, by secret votes, has agreed to the confirmation of the same confessor; nevertheless, for those dissenting, if they wish, provision must be made otherwise (Can. 526).

Question 10. Whether the Ordinary of the place can remove the confessor of religious women?

Resp. The Ordinary of the place, according to the norm of can. 880, can, for a grave cause, remove a confessor of religious women, both ordinary and extraordinary, even if the monastery is subject to regulars and the priest himself from confessions is a regular, nor is he bound to signify the cause of the removal to anyone, except the Apostolic See, if it is required by it; but concerning the removal he must warn the regular Superior, if the nuns are subject to regulars (Can. 527).

Question 11. Who concedes the faculty of hearing the confessions of religious women?

Resp. If the house of religious women is immediately subject to the Apostolic See or to the Ordinary of the place, the latter chooses the priests for confessions, both ordinary and extraordinary; if to a regular Superior, the latter presents confessors to the Ordinary, to whom it belongs to approve the same for hearing the confessions of those nuns, and, if there is need, to supply the negligence of the Superior (Can. 525).

Question 12. What are the dispositions of the new Code concerning manifestation of conscience for all religious, men and women?

Resp. § 1. All religious Superiors are strictly forbidden to induce persons subject to them in any way to make manifestation of conscience to themselves.

§ 2. Nevertheless subjects are not prohibited from being able freely and of their own accord to open their soul to Superiors; indeed it is expedient that they themselves approach Superiors with filial confidence, setting forth to them, if they are priests, also the doubts and anxieties of their conscience (Can. 530).

The first paragraph declares what is forbidden in this matter; it is forbidden to Superiors to induce their subjects in any way to make manifestation of conscience to themselves. Inducement on the part of Superiors, direct or indirect, exercised upon persons subject to them for making manifestation of conscience to themselves, is evidently forbidden under grave obligation.

The second paragraph explains what is not forbidden and what is expedient. It is not forbidden to subjects freely and of their own accord to open their soul to Superiors; indeed it is expedient that subjects approach Superiors full of confidence, and open to them, if they are priests, their doubts and anxieties.