T
Timothysis
Guest
Padua_Minded is absolutely right. The Church, in her generosity, has made provisions for such a matter as stated above. If the person honestly does not know the details of a priest’s status, then the Church grants validity to the confession.Most of the posters here are wrong.
In the Latin Church priests can only ordinarily hear confessions if they have been granted the faculty to do so by their local bishop ( Can. 969 §1). If I were to go to a laicised Latin-rite priest for confession, whilst being aware that he had no faculty from his bishop, my confession would not only be illicit, but the absolution woud be invalid. The same law applies to marriages.
However canon law specifies that the principle of ecclesia supplet (where the Church supplies extraordinary jurisdiction) applies in cases of error or positive doubt:
You clearly had no reason to believe the priest was not in good canonical standing with his local ordinary and consequently your confession was valid and your sins need not be repeated. However your priest was wrong to absolve you, and I hope you consider reporting him to his bishop.
In an interesting comparison, if one went to a SSPX chapel for confession without knowing the status of the group and the individual priest hearing confessions(the fact that they are suspended from their priestly faculties), the Church grants that the absolution is, indeed, valid.
BTW, don’t interpret this as a personal endorsement of the SSPX because I would never support them in their current state. I just mention them because I think it is wonderful that the Church, in her generous interest for the sake of our souls, should make such broad exceptions.