Case 9. A Regular's Approbation

Caius, a regular priest, after successfully passing the examination required by the Bishop, received from him ordinary faculties until the next synod. The superior of the house, who alone went to the synod, carried with him the faculty papers of the other Fathers to be renewed, but he could not find those of the absent Caius, which therefore were not renewed by the Bishop. Caius returned home on the following Saturday and there was not enough time to seek faculties from the Bishop; hence a doubt arose whether or not he could hear confessions. After some discussion of the doubt, the superior permitted Caius to hear the confessions of the faithful; afterwards, however, he was tormented by scruples concerning the validity of the absolutions that were given by Caius. Hence it is asked:

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

2. From whom do Regulars receive jurisdiction to hear the confessions of the faithful?

3. Can an absolution given by a priest who habitually lacks jurisdiction nevertheless sometimes be valid?

4. What is to be said of the case?

The first question is answered above, p. 169.

2. From whom do Regulars receive jurisdiction to hear the confessions of the faithful?

It is possible for Regulars to receive jurisdiction both from their own superiors and from the bishop of the place. As to whether they actually receive it from one or the other, or from both, depends on the intention of the bishop and of the superior in question. In any case the approbation of the bishop is required to hear the confessions of seculars.¹

1 Manual of Moral Theology, vol. ii, 189.

3. Can the absolution given by a priest who is without habitual jurisdiction nevertheless sometimes be valid?

Yes, the absolution is valid if the Church supplies jurisdiction for the act, as she sometimes does. Thus any priest may validly absolve those who are in danger of death, or when it is probable that he has jurisdiction, or when the faithful go to confession to a priest under the general belief that he has faculties and when also he has a colorable title, and probably even when there is only the general belief without any colorable title.²

2 Ibid., 184.

4. The case. Caius, a Regular priest, was examined by the bishop and granted by him faculties till the next synod. His faculties were not renewed at the next synod and the question arose whether he could go on hearing the confessions of the faithful. His Regular superior allowed him to do so, and thereby gave him jurisdiction which Regulars receive from the Pope through their Superiors. There was, however, a difficulty about Caius’ approbation. He had been examined by the bishop, had passed with success, and had a right to receive general and perpetual approbation. However, the bishop only gave him approbation till the next synod. So that, whatever the merits of Caius were, in fact he had no approbation after the next synod was over. He should not then have heard confessions, unless indeed it was known to be the intention of the bishop that in such cases where a priest’s faculties had not been renewed through inadvertence or by accident, they should not cease at the time appointed, but should continue. However, as the faithful knew nothing about this, those that came to him were probably absolved on account of the co mm on mistake, the Church probably supplying faculties.¹

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