Case 16. Doubtful Jurisdiction

Titius, a priest of the Diocese of Liverpool, boarded a railway at Liverpool to proceed to London and was alone in the carriage when Paul entered and, after the journey had begun, started a conversation with Titius. After speaking about other matters, at length they conversed about religion. Titius found that Paul was a Catholic but had not confessed for many years because of a disagreement with the parish priest; Paul was nevertheless prepared to confess here and now if Titius was willing to hear him. Titius doubted whether they were still within the boundaries of the Diocese of Liverpool, but since Paul wished to stop at Crewe, thinking that there should be no delay, he immediately heard the confession and absolved Paul. Afterwards, when he thought about the matter, several doubts occurred to him, which he proposes for resolution. Hence it is asked:

1. Who is the minister of the sacrament of Penance?

2. Is it lawful for one endowed with doubtful jurisdiction only to absolve a penitent?

3. Is one doubtfully absolved bound to confess again?

4. What is to be said of Titius’s manner of acting?

The first question is answered above, p. 169.

2. May a priest who has only doubtful jurisdiction absolve a penitent?

He may not, except in case of necessity, for the sacrament would be exposed to the danger of nullity, and the penitent to harm. In case of necessity he may. Theologians admit as just reasons for giving absolution with doubtful jurisdiction the necessity of making one’s Easter communion, or if the penitent has not confessed for a long time.

3. Is one who is doubtfully absolved bound to confess again?

Most theologians answer Yes, for the reason that he is bound to make certain that his sins have been submitted to the keys. This doctrine hardly agrees with the principles of probabilism, for unless there was some chance that the absolution would be valid there was no use giving it, and after the event Standum est pro valore actus. St. Alphonsus (VI, 432) seems to restrict the obligation of confessing again to the case in which the penitent afterwards finds out for certain that the priest had no jurisdiction when he granted absolution.

4. What about Titius’ action? Titius had faculties only for the diocese of Liverpool, but when he gave absolution he was not certain whether he was in the diocese of Liverpool, or in that of Shrewsbury which borders on it. With this doubt in his mind he gave absolution. In this he acted rightly. For it was not certain that the jurisdiction with which he had started on his journey had ceased, and he could presume that he still had it. As Paul had probably submitted his sins to a duly qualified priest and had received absolution for them, he was not strictly bound to confess them again, but Titius should have told him about the doubt concerning his faculties, so that Paul might confess again if he wished to make his absolution certain, or in case he became dangerously ill before going again to confession.¹

1 Manual of Moral Theology, vol. ii, 185 f.