Article II. On Sacramental Jurisdiction Over Some Classes of Persons Specifically

I. Jurisdiction over soldiers. 1. It is clear that soldiers can confess to a priest who has jurisdiction from the local Ordinary in whose place the confessions are instituted. What military chaplains can do independently of the local Ordinary depends on the special prescriptions of the Holy See (cf. can. 451, § 3). Namely, if a military bishop has been constituted, or at least if a chief chaplain has been placed over the whole army, the faculty of conferring jurisdiction over soldiers on other priests is easily granted to these.¹

2. Soldiers called to war, or mobilized as it is said, are equated with those constituted in danger of death; hence for them there hold the things which we shall say about jurisdiction over the dying (n. 370).²

¹ Cf. A.A.S. 1915, p. 217.

² Sacred Penitentiary, March 18, 1912; May 29, 1915 (A.A.S. 1915, p. 282); cf. Sacred Penitentiary, December 18, 1914 (A.A.S. 1914, p. 712); December 4, 1915 (A.A.S. 1915, p. 526).

II. Jurisdiction over those sailing. All priests undertaking a sea voyage, 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 throughout the whole journey receive on board the ship the confessions of any of the faithful sailing with them, even though the ship on the journey passes through, or even remains for some time in, various places subject to the jurisdiction of different Ordinaries. Whenever the ship stops on the journey, they can receive the confessions both of the faithful who for any reason come to the ship and of those who, while the priests are briefly calling at land, ask to confess, and can validly and licitly absolve them even from cases reserved to the local Ordinary (can. 883). Therefore observe:

1. The proper Ordinary of a secular priest and of a non-exempt religious is the local Ordinary in whose place the aforesaid have domicile or quasi-domicile up to the undertaking of the journey. It is disputed whether jurisdiction can also be conferred on an exempt religious by his own major Superior. Some affirm this, because the Code speaks of the Ordinary, not of the local Ordinary. But under the name Ordinary there also comes a major Superior. Nevertheless, it seems this must be denied, considering the character of both the ancient¹ and the new legislation, which continually assigns the conferral of jurisdiction over secular persons and non-exempt religious to the local Ordinary. There is added the fact that in doubt one must not depart from the old law (can. 6, 4).

2. Jurisdiction is had throughout the whole journey. The journey, however, is judged to begin when the ship first leaves the port. The journey and the jurisdiction continue until the priest, having left the ship, has definitively landed.

3. The word briefly comprehends three whole days, not more. This also holds in the case in which, to continue the same journey, the confessor must leave one ship in order to board another, if he must wait so long for this ship in port.²

¹ Holy Office, August 23, 1905 (Collectanea, n. 2244).

² Pontifical Commission, May 20, 1923 (A.A.S. 1923, p. 112).

III. Jurisdiction over the dying. In danger of death all priests, even those not approved for confessions, validly and licitly absolve any penitents from any sins or censures whatsoever, however reserved and notorious, even if an approved priest is present, with the prescription of canons 884 and 2252 preserved (can. 882). It is said:

1. In danger of death. The article of death is not required, but grave danger of death suffices, and indeed whether truly existing or prudently, though falsely, thought to exist, whether already arisen or soon to arise. Therefore the case is present: 1. in a dangerous illness; 2. in a very difficult childbirth, or a little before it; 3. before a dangerous surgical operation; 4. before a voyage full of danger; 5. in time of plague; 6. in battle or a little before it (St. Alphonsus, VI, 561). With those constituted in danger of death are equated: 1. soldiers called to war or mobilized;¹ 2. all men and women, not excluding religious sisters, who in some way belong to mobilized armies and are staying in camps.² These, however, regard only kingdoms which are waging war or are in imminent danger of war, as seems to be deduced from the words "called to war" and "staying in camps."³

2. All priests, even those not approved for confessions; even public heretics or schismatics; likewise excommunicates, both tolerated and to be avoided (cf. can. 2261, § 3).

3. Even if an approved priest is present; hence as regards validity no priest is now excluded. Nevertheless, of itself it is illicit to receive absolution from a heretic or schismatic if another is present.

4. With the prescription of canon 884 preserved; considering that canon, absolution of an accomplice in danger of death is indeed valid, but outside a case of necessity is illicit.

5. With the prescription of canon 2252 preserved; that canon treats of the recourse sometimes to be made after recovery; this will be discussed later. In addition, note:

a) Absolution in danger of death, as regards censure, is limited to the internal forum;⁴ hence for all penal effects, for example for ecclesiastical burial, recourse must be had to the ecclesiastical judge.

b) Absolution, although valid, can nevertheless be illicit because the priest acts imprudently, for example because he is not sufficiently versed in Moral Theology and another more learned one is present. In the case, an excusing cause is required, for example if the dying person desires to be absolved by such a determinate confessor.

¹ Sacred Penitentiary, March 18, 1912.

² Sacred Penitentiary, December 21, 1914; May 29, 1915.

³ Sacred Penitentiary, March 11, 1915; May 25, 1915.

⁴ Pontifical Commission, December 28, 1927, to II (A.A.S. 1928, p. 61).

IV. Jurisdiction over travelers and those without a domicile. 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 persons without a domicile and travelers from another diocese or parish who come to them, and likewise Catholics of any Oriental rite (can. 881, § 1). From these things it is deduced, as is also clear from canon 874, § 1 and from a response of the Pontifical Commission,¹ that jurisdiction over travelers is obtained from the local Ordinary. To what extent travelers can be absolved from reserved cases will be discussed later.

¹ November 24, 1920 (A.A.S. 1920, p. 575).

V. Jurisdiction over exempt religious. We speak only of exempt religious, because non-exempt religious, as regards jurisdiction over them, are equated with the other faithful. Over exempt religious, however, jurisdiction is possessed by:

1. Over religious of an exempt clerical religion:

a) The proper Superior of the religious, who indeed enjoys ordinary jurisdiction over them (can. 875, § 1).

b) The local Ordinary in whose place they are staying (can. 519). His jurisdiction over them seems to be delegated by law rather than ordinary, because it extends only to those who are staying in his territory (n. 362). Nevertheless, he can absolve them even from sins and censures reserved in the religion (can. 519).

c) Those to whom the Superior or local Ordinary has delegated jurisdiction (can. 519 and 875, § 1). Jurisdiction delegated by the Superior is personal, so that it can be exercised everywhere; but jurisdiction granted by the local Ordinary does not extend to religious staying outside the Ordinary's territory. With respect to those who are staying in the Ordinary's territory, however, the granted jurisdiction also includes sins and censures reserved in the religion (can. 519).

What has been said about exempt religious also holds for their novices, students, boarders, and others of whom n. 164 speaks (can. 874, § 1; 875, § 1). It can nevertheless be disputed whether the religious Superior and those delegated by him retain jurisdiction over students during holidays while they are staying outside the religious house. This seems to have to be denied, because at that time the students are not subject to the Superior's power. Otherwise one should speak if during school time they go out, for example for the purpose of making a pilgrimage.

Exempt religious staying outside their own house can confess as follows:

a) Those actually traveling can confess, just as those dwelling at home can, to one approved either by the local Ordinary in whose place the confession is made, or by their own Superior; but not to a companion or another who has been approved by neither. That jurisdiction must be received from one or the other follows from canons 519, 874, § 1, and 875, § 1, so that the contrary doctrine, formerly admitted by many, must be rejected.

b) Travelers who are staying in some convent of their own order can confess: 1. to those approved by the local Ordinary; 2. to those approved by their own Superior; 3. to the Prelate of that convent and to those approved by him, namely by custom.

2. Over members of an exempt lay religion, jurisdiction is possessed by the local Ordinary in whose place they are staying and by those to whom the local Ordinary has granted it (can. 519 and 875, § 2).

3. If a religious, even an exempt one, for the quiet of his conscience approaches a confessor approved by the local Ordinary, even though not listed among those 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). Moreover:

a) A confession is made for quiet of conscience whenever from a confession made in this way greater quiet of conscience is hoped for, whether because of a more candid accusation, or because of a nearer occasion of confessing, for example if the ordinary confessor is absent. The causes assigned are of themselves accidental, and in such a case the religious would not have to approach the ordinary confessor again on that occasion, which is nowhere imposed. Besides, if a permanent cause were present, a permanent exception would also be permitted. Nevertheless, then it would be better to seek from the Superior, with permission, that different confessor who would become habitual.

b) The condition set forth under a) is not judged to pertain to validity, both because a condition so intimate is not presumed by the legislator to be intended for validity, and because that would provide occasion for doubts and anxieties. Nevertheless, to approach a non-designated confessor merely at one's own pleasure is illicit.

c) It is not lawful for a religious, if the constitutions forbid it, to leave the house without the Superior's permission for the purpose of confessing.

VI. Jurisdiction over religious women. Priests, both secular and religious, of whatever rank or office, need special jurisdiction for validly and licitly receiving the confessions of any religious women and novices, with the privilege of Cardinals preserved,¹ and with the cases assigned by law excepted (can. 876, § 1). This jurisdiction is conferred by the local Ordinary where the house of the religious women is situated (can. 876, § 2). Moreover:

1. The special jurisdiction of which the canon speaks is required even for validity, as authors now commonly admit and as they deduce from the very word jurisdiction, which imports power, and from the Code itself, where it is distinguished from permission (cf. for example can. 877). Special jurisdiction is required for women religious and their novices, but not for their postulants, since these are not named. It can be disputed whether it is required for women living in common without vows. The reason for doubting is drawn from the fact that canon 675, to which some appeal, indeed refers to canons 499-530, but not to canon 876, which establishes the necessity of special jurisdiction.

2. The cases in which common law confers jurisdiction over religious women are:

a) If some religious woman, for the tranquility of her conscience, approaches a confessor approved by the local Ordinary for women, the confession, made in any church or even semi-public oratory, is valid and licit, any contrary privilege being revoked; nor can the Superior forbid it or inquire about the matter, not even indirectly; and the religious women are bound to report nothing to the Superior (can. 522). It is said:

1. For the tranquility of her conscience; this is not required for validity, as has already been explained in n. 372.

2. Approaches, that is, has recourse to him. This can be done both inside and outside the house; hence it is not required that the religious woman be staying outside her own house, but she can also call the confessor.²

3. A confessor approved for women, that is, approved for women, whether secular or religious.³

4. In any church or even semi-public oratory; to these the Pontifical Commission added: or in a place lawfully designated for hearing the confessions of women⁴ or of religious women.⁵ Moreover, the circumstance of place is required not only for liceity but also for validity.⁶

It is disputed whether among places lawfully designated there also belongs a place in which, according to canon 910, § 1,⁷ the confessions of women are sometimes licitly heard, namely by reason of sickness or another true necessity. Now although the obvious sense of the law, "in a place lawfully designated for hearing confessions of women or of religious women," seems to favor the negative opinion, nevertheless it is difficult to admit that a means of absolution of this kind is excluded for religious women, for example religious women who have difficulty approaching the place habitually designated for hearing the confessions of women or religious women. Hence jurisdiction is probably had, and certainly had when the Church supplies.

5. Nor can the Superior forbid it, that is, she cannot forbid precisely that the religious woman confess to such a confessor, although it is not lawful to leave the house without permission.

Question. Can a confessor lacking special jurisdiction, by force of canon 522, validly absolve an entire community, for example in the absence of the ordinary confessor?

Response. It must be denied, because canon 522 supposes that the case is particular, since it grants jurisdiction for the case in which some religious woman approaches or calls such a confessor.

b) All religious women, when they are gravely ill, even though danger of death is absent, can call any priest approved for receiving the confessions of women, even if he is not designated for religious women, and can confess to him as often as they wish while the grave infirmity continues; nor can the Superior prohibit them either directly or indirectly (can. 523). A grave illness is one which notably weakens health; such an illness easily becomes dangerous. Since the canon declares "any priest approved for receiving the confessions of women," according to some it is not required that he be approved by the local Ordinary in whose place the confession is made, but it suffices that he has received jurisdiction over women from some local Ordinary and still enjoys it now. This opinion, however, although the letter favors it, does not seem admissible, namely considering the character of the whole legislation, which continually requires jurisdiction conferred by the local Ordinary in whose place the confession is instituted.

c) In danger of death, for religious women as for the other faithful, canon 882 holds, as explained in n. 370.

¹ Cardinals enjoy the faculty of hearing confessions everywhere on earth, even of religious of either sex (can. 239, § 1, 1).

² Pontifical Commission, December 28, 1927 (A.A.S. 1928, p. 61).

³ Pontifical Commission, December 28, 1927 (A.A.S. 1928, p. 61).

⁴ November 24, 1920 (A.A.S. 1920, p. 573).

⁵ December 28, 1927 (A.A.S. 1928, p. 61).

⁶ Pontifical Commission, December 28, 1927 (A.A.S. 1928, p. 61).

⁷ Canon 910, § 1 states: the confessions of women are not to be heard outside the confessional seat except by reason of sickness or another true necessity and with the precautions which the local Ordinary has judged opportune.