Confession and Jurisdiction

[Tyrel]

I have a twofold question about Jurisdiction and the sacrament of confession.

First, if it is true, as it seems to be, that a priest cannot licitly hear confessions in an alien diocese without the permission of the Bishop at that diocese, then does that mean that a priest who ‘per-forms’ confession without permission is doing it licitly, or does it mean the sacrament isn’t taking place at all? If the first, then perhaps my next question will not seem so difficult, but if the second, then it would seem that priests exercise their faculties only by reason of their sharing in the Bishops faculties.

What, then, of the Eastern Orthodox, Orientals and other schismatic bishops and priests who are not formally united to the Pope, since he is ultimately the source of all the ‘power of jurisdiction’. Does the Sacrament happen outside of the jurisdiction illicitly, or else not at all, or else somehow licitly?

Three canon laws inform the background to these questions:
non 966 section 1; " §1. The valid absolution of sins requires that the minister have, in addition to the power of orders, the faculty of exercising it for the faithful to whom he imparts absolution."

Canon 967; " §1. In addition to the Roman Pontiff, cardinals have the faculty of hearing the confessions of the Christian faithful everywhere in the world by the law itself. Bishops likewise have this faculty and use it licitly everywhere unless the diocesan bishop has denied it in a particular case.§2. Those who possess the faculty of hearing confessions habitually whether by virtue of office or by virtue of the grant of an ordinary of the place of incardination or of the place in which they have a domicile can exercise that faculty everywhere unless the local ordinary has denied it in a particular case, without prejudice to the prescripts of ⇒ can. 974, §§2 and 3.

Canon 974; “§2. When the faculty to hear confessions has been revoked by the local ordinary who granted it as mentioned in ⇒ can. 967, §2, a presbyter loses the faculty everywhere. If some other local ordinary has revoked the faculty, the presbyter loses it only in the territory of the one who revokes it.”

Taken together these seem to indicate that
"Ordination to the priesthood gives a man the power to forgive sins. His right to hear confessions in a particular locality is normally given by the local Ordinary (bishop) and this is called jurisdiction. With jurisdiction, a priest may use his power of forgiving sins, and without jurisdiction, a priest may not. "
which apparently was canon 883 of an older code… one which is cited by this crazy over here: truecatholic.us/jurisdiction.htm

However, my point is to have a deeper understanding of the sacrament itself. The priest is only exercising his faculties by reason of the Bishop. When a priest goes to another diocese he can only forgive sins there on the ‘presumption’ that the Bishop does in fact grant him the faculties, which remains the presumption in the absence of an objection. This indicates that Bishops have the power of jurisdiction in a more primitive way. However, what happens when Eastern Bishops are concerned…

and why all this fuss about:

“”*On an ocean trip, all priests may hear confessions on the boat during the time of the voyage and absolve the faithful who travel with them (even though the boat may pass through districts subject to various Ordinaries or stop for a while in some port), provided they have been properly approved for confessions either by the bishop of their own diocese, or by the bishop of the port where they take the boat, or the Ordinary of any of the ports at which the boat calls.
Whenever the boat stops at a port during the voyage, such a priest may hear confessions, absolve not only the people who for any reason enter the boat, but also, if the priest goes ashore for a while, persons who request him to hear their confessions, and he may absolve them even from sins reserved to the local Ordinary (Canon 883).

A declaration of the Committee of the Authentic Interpretation of the Code has decided that if the boat stops in some port and the priest goes ashore, he can hear confessions on land all who want to confess to him, even though the boat stops for two or three full days. The priest may hear confessions for the same length of time, when he changes boats in some port and has to wait for the connecting boat. In both cases, he cannot hear confessions beyond three days, if the local Ordinary can easily be reached.*"

Thanks for your time.

 

[Tyrel]

just to bolster that question:

Clearly then, this indicates that the Bishop has the power of jurisdiction more immediately than the priest. The priest has it only by reason of the Bishop. However, what of a priest who is excommunicated? Does that priest have the power to forgive sins illicitly, or doe he not have the power in principle?

 

[FrDavid96]

I’ll try to address this one piece at a time, because there are several very different issues here.

First, the entire argument presented by this priest (in the article) is that there is no legitimate pope, and no legitimate bishops. Therefore, the argument itself is based on a false principle.

It’s also based on the now-abrogated 1917 Code of Canon Law. The canons which he cites have no force of law.

The author confuses forgiveness with absolution. Forgiveness comes from God, through the ministry of the priest. Absolution is a juridic act of the Church, whereby the sinner is reconciled to the Church. As a juridic act, absolution requires the power of governance (jurisdiction). Without jurisdiction, absolution simply cannot occur.

There was a change from the 1917 code to the 1983 Code. In the new code, a priest who has (habitual–that is, permanent rather than temporary) faculties to hear confessions has those faculties everywhere in the world–that is, unless the local bishop of the place where he is visiting denies him. See canon 967 which you quoted. To put that another way, the restrictions from the 1917 code no longer apply, therefore the relaxation of those restrictions likewise do not apply. The current Code is all that applies today.

Put yet another way, forget about boats and airplanes and ports. The canons on which that was based no longer have any force. They would only apply if we were talking about the past, rather than the present.

Now, as to your own questions:

First, if it is true, as it seems to be, that a priest cannot licitly hear confessions in an alien diocese without the permission of the Bishop at that diocese…

That’s not the case. A priest does not need the permission of the local bishop–he only needs to have the absence of a prohibition to hear confessions. That’s an important distinction.

What, then, of the Eastern Orthodox, Orientals and other schismatic bishops and priests who are not formally united to the Pope, since he is ultimately the source of all the ‘power of jurisdiction’. Does the Sacrament happen outside of the jurisdiction illicitly, or else not at all, or else somehow licitly?

The simple answer is that over the centuries, popes have decided to extend jurisdiction (or not-withdraw it) to absolve to priests of the Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Oriental Churches. This is a touchy subject, because our Orthodox brethren don’t like to hear this. I don’t want to get into a debate about it, but suffice to say that popes have not withdrawn the jurisdiction to absolve. They do absolve validly and (provided they follow the canons of their own Church) licitly.

That’s a start at least.

 

[FrDavid96]

just to bolster that question:

Clearly then, this indicates that the Bishop has the power of jurisdiction more immediately than the priest. The priest has it only by reason of the Bishop. However, what of a priest who is excommunicated? Does that priest have the power to forgive sins illicitly, or doe he not have the power in principle?

Yes. Every priest exercises the power of governance as an extension of the bishop’s governance.

In the case of a priest who is excommunicated, he cannot hear confessions and cannot absolve, so any attempt at absolution is invalid. However, through the Code of Canon Law, the pope gives jurisdiction to absolve to a priest (any priest, even an excommunicated one) in case of danger-of-death. So an excommunicated priest doesn’t have faculties from his bishop, but he does have them from the pope–but only in danger of death.

The important point here is NOT to say that the priest doesn’t need jurisdiction, but that the pope gives him jurisdiction by virtue of the law.

 

[Tyrel]

Thank you for your replies. I will try to be brief in my further questions, because I am unsatisfied.

I’ll try to address this one piece at a time, because there are several very different issues here.

First, the entire argument presented by this priest (in the article) is that there is no legitimate pope, and no legitimate bishops. Therefore, the argument itself is based on a false principle.

It’s also based on the now-abrogated 1917 Code of Canon Law. The canons which he cites have no force of law.

First, obviously I agree, and I don’t want to distract the conversation by talking too much about the crazy schismatics. However, just as a point of sound reasoning, it seems to me that this priest is being consistent, since the 1917 Code was abrogated by a Code which he would not recognize as licit, and therefore would not abrogate it. But let’s be done with the schismatics for now, since that’s rather peripheral.

There was a change from the 1917 code to the 1983 Code. In the new code, a priest who has (habitual–that is, permanent rather than temporary) faculties to hear confessions has those faculties everywhere in the world–that is, unless the local bishop of the place where he is visiting denies him. See canon 967 which you quoted. To put that another way, the restrictions from the 1917 code no longer apply, therefore the relaxation of those restrictions likewise do not apply. The current Code is all that applies today.

Put yet another way, forget about boats and airplanes and ports. The canons on which that was based no longer have any force. They would only apply if we were talking about the past, rather than the present.

excellent information. However, I want to make clear that I am after a deeper understanding of the dynamics of the sacrament itself. In other words, I’m working on the supposition that it is logically possible for a Catholic code of canon law to look like the one in 1917. Thus, read on:

Now, as to your own questions:

That’s not the case. A priest does not need the permission of the local bishop–he only needs to have the absence of a prohibition to hear confessions. That’s an important distinction.

Actually, it seems that this is only practically true, and not theologically true. Theologically it seems as though the permission of the bishop is simply presumed in the absence of a prohibition. Theologically, then, the jurisdiction still comes from the bishop and the faculty is simply lent to the visiting priests (and indeed, is extended to the priests of a diocese by the Bishop of that diocese in the same way). The Bishop has theo-logical priority in such a way that the power of jurisdiction is only met ‘by reason of the Bishop’s episcopal authority/jurisdiction’.

The simple answer is that over the centuries, popes have decided to extend jurisdiction (or not-withdraw it) to absolve to priests of the Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Oriental Churches. This is a touchy subject, because our Orthodox brethren don’t like to hear this. I don’t want to get into a debate about it, but suffice to say that popes have not withdrawn the jurisdiction to absolve. They do absolve validly and (provided they follow the canons of their own Church) licitly.

That’s a start at least.

Yes, it is a start. That is exactly the direction I was hoping to go. When was the jurisdiction to absolve actually extended to them, or rather was it always presumably extended to them for some reason?

Yes. Every priest exercises the power of governance as an extension of the bishop’s governance.

In the case of a priest who is excommunicated, he cannot hear confessions and cannot absolve, so any attempt at absolution is invalid. However, through the Code of Canon Law, the pope gives jurisdiction to absolve to a priest (any priest, even an excommunicated one) in case of danger-of-death. So an excommunicated priest doesn’t have faculties from his bishop, but he does have them from the pope–but only in danger of death.

The important point here is NOT to say that the priest doesn’t need jurisdiction, but that the pope gives him jurisdiction by virtue of the law.

Remember that my question is not one of validity. I want to know whether the ‘sacrament’ itself can occur. It seems necessary for the sacrament to occur that the priest have the power of jurisdiction. What isn’t clear to me is whether this power of jurisdiction allows the priest to perform this sacrament licitly, or whether it allows him to perform it at all.

The author confuses forgiveness with absolution. Forgiveness comes from God, through the ministry of the priest. Absolution is a juridic act of the Church, whereby the sinner is reconciled to the Church. As a juridic act, absolution requires the power of governance (jurisdiction). Without jurisdiction, absolution simply cannot occur.

First, the absolution is forgiveness, since the absolution is the act of ‘absolving one of sins’ which is forgiveness. The question then is whether forgiveness by absolution can even occur, licitly or illicitly, without the power of jurisdiction.

The real question is:

just to bolster that question:

Clearly then, this indicates that the Bishop has the power of jurisdiction more immediately than the priest. The priest has it only by reason of the Bishop.** However, what of a priest who is excommunicated? Does that priest have the power to forgive sins illicitly, or doe he not have the power in principle?**

 

[FrDavid96]

Yes, it is a start. That is exactly the direction I was hoping to go. When was the jurisdiction to absolve actually extended to them, or rather was it always presumably extended to them for some reason?

:

I’m going to break this down into pieces.

The jurisdiction was “never withdrawn.” As I said, this is a touchy and sticky subject.

 

[FrDavid96]

First, the absolution is forgiveness, since the absolution is the act of ‘absolving one of sins’ which is forgiveness. The question then is whether forgiveness by absolution can even occur, licitly or illicitly, without the power of jurisdiction.

The real question is:

Keep in mind that forgiveness and absolution are two different things. Yes, they are related (of course!). Absolving is not the same as forgiving.

As I said before, absolution is a juridic act of the Church. Without jurisdiction, one cannot commit a juridic act. Therefore, absolution simply cannot occur if the priest lacks jurisdiction.

I’ve underlined two clauses in your sentence above for a reason “absolution can even occur…without the power of jurisdiction”–no it cannot.

 

[FrDavid96]

The real question is:
However, what of a priest who is excommunicated? Does that priest have the power to forgive sins illicitly, or doe he not have the power in principle?

I think I’ve already answered that.

A priest who is excommunicated cannot absolve–unless it’s a matter of danger of death.

Also, remember the difference between absolution and forgiveness. No priest has the power to “forgive sins” priests have the power to extend God’s forgiveness–they have the power to forgive vicariously (acting as ministers of Christ) but only God forgives absolutely.

I’m not trying to criticize your vocabulary here, but these are important distinctions.

 

[Tyrel]

Keep in mind that forgiveness and absolution are two different things. Yes, they are related (of course!). Absolving is not the same as forgiving.

As I said before, absolution is a juridic act of the Church. Without jurisdiction, one cannot commit a juridic act. Therefore, absolution simply cannot occur if the priest lacks jurisdiction.

I’ve underlined two clauses in your sentence above for a reason “absolution can even occur…without the power of jurisdiction”–no it cannot.

Ah, I see. What you mean, then, is that somebody might be forgiven outside of the visible means of confession, but you are not trying to suggest that the sacrament of confession can occur without absolution, only that its effect can plausibly occur without the ordinary means. Is that accurate?

The jurisdiction was “never withdrawn.” As I said, this is a touchy and sticky subject.

Fascinating. What, then, of an excommunicated priest?

 

[Tyrel]

I think I’ve already answered that.

A priest who is excommunicated cannot absolve–unless it’s a matter of danger of death.

Also, remember the difference between absolution and forgiveness. No priest has the power to “forgive sins” priests have the power to extend God’s forgiveness–they have the power to forgive vicariously (acting as ministers of Christ) but only God forgives absolutely.

I’m not trying to criticize your vocabulary here, but these are important distinctions.

Understood. I agree.

Speaking of vocabulary, I would like you to make clearer for me by adding the words ‘licitly’ or ‘sacramentally’ where appropriate. A priest cannot licitly - but can a priest sacramentally. By analogy, they [excommunicated priests] cannot licitly perform the Eucharistic liturgy or the Mass, but they can ‘really’ perform it.

 

[FrDavid96]

…
First, obviously I agree, and I don’t want to distract the conversation by talking too much about the crazy schismatics. However, just as a point of sound reasoning, it seems to me that this priest is being consistent, since the 1917 Code was abrogated by a Code which he would not recognize as licit, and therefore would not abrogate it. But let’s be done with the schismatics for now, since that’s rather peripheral.

…:

It is not “sound reasoning” because the author is using a code of canon law which has no force-of-law.

 

[Tyrel]

It is not “sound reasoning” because the author is using a code of canon law which has no force-of-law.

well, (and again I don’t want to harp too much on this) but it only has no force-of-law on the supposition that there have been popes beyond Pius XII and up to our time. However, on the supposition that there have not been popes beyond his time there would be nothing to abrogate the old code. That’s all I meant by consistency.

I notice you’re replying at the same time as I am. I hope my responses aren’t going to frustrate the matter.

 

[FrDavid96]

Ah, I see. What you mean, then, is that somebody might be forgiven outside of the visible means of confession, but you are not trying to suggest that the sacrament of confession can occur without absolution, only that its effect can plausibly occur without the ordinary means. Is that accurate?

Fascinating. What, then, of an excommunicated priest?

It’s logically impossible for the Sacrament of Confession to occur without absolution. That would be like saying the the Eucharist can occur without the Consecration. A Confession might be incomplete (a priest might have a sudden heart attack while the penitent is confessing), but if the Sacrament of Confession is complete, then (by definition) absolution occurs.

 

[FrDavid96]

Understood. I agree.

Speaking of vocabulary, I would like you to make clearer for me by adding the words ‘licitly’ or ‘sacramentally’ where appropriate. A priest cannot licitly - but can a priest sacramentally. By analogy, they [excommunicated priests] cannot licitly perform the Eucharistic liturgy or the Mass, but they can ‘really’ perform it.

OK.

The word you’re looking for is “valid” That means that the Sacrament (whatever Sacrament) actually occurs. Licitly means “according to the law.”

I know I keep repeating this, but an excommunicated priest simply cannot absolve. Not validly, not licitly, not sacramentally, not in any-way-shape-or-form (excepting danger of death).

It appears that you’re trying to make an analogy with the Mass. An excommunicated priest can validly (that is “for real”) celebrate Mass, although the celebration would be illicit (in violation of the law).

Is it the same for confession? (I presume that’s your question) The answer is no. See above.

 

[devoutchristian]

excommunicated priest simply cannot absolve.

What about the Orthodox? They were under excommunication for about 900 years.

 

[DhuAlQarnayn]

well, (and again I don’t want to harp too much on this) but it only has no force-of-law on the supposition that there have been popes beyond Pius XII and up to our time. However, on the supposition that there have not been popes beyond his time there would be nothing to abrogate the old code. That’s all I meant by consistency.

I notice you’re replying at the same time as I am. I hope my responses aren’t going to frustrate the matter.

I don’t know why you’re harping on this point – the author of the article is writing from the perspective of a non-Catholic religion, so of course he comes to a different conclusion. If we accept the supposition that, i.e., Methodism is the one true faith, canon law about how confessions may be heard naturally doesn’t have any force either.

It is of course theoretically possible that the Vatican would decide, at some point in the future, to edit canon law to conform more closely to the canons in force in 1917. The main distinction as it relates to the validity of confession is that, previously, priests only had jurisdiction in their own diocese unless they were explicitly granted permission to hear confession by the bishop of another diocese. Nowadays, priests are assumed to have worldwide authority to hear confession unless a specific bishop has chosen to limit confession in his diocese to priests already resident in that diocese. The jurisdiction still comes from the bishops and is at the discretion of the bishops, but the default position in the absence of any official pronouncement is now ‘on’ rather than ‘off’.

 

[DhuAlQarnayn]

What about the Orthodox? They were under excommunication for about 900 years.

“The Orthodox” were never excommunicated. Only one patriarch was said to be excommunicated, an act that was later declared to have been in error. As they have never ceased having valid bishops, their priests validly and licitly hear confessions anywhere in the world so long as they follow the rules laid down by their own bishops.