Jurisdiction of a Priest During Confession

[FrDavid96]

Hello!

I was reading up on the valid administration of the Sacrament of Penance, and it only lightly touched on the fact that not only the character of the priesthood, but also the jurisdiction, that is, judicial power, is required. It points out that a bishop had jurisdiction over his diocese and a parish priest over his parish, but it didn’t really explain what this means. It went on to say that a person not holding such an office, but had been empowered by the Pope or bishop can administer the sacrament. Can someone please explain what this means most fully?

Thank you so much for answering my question!

• SnowAngels

OK. But it is a long answer…

We have to start from the very beginning.

In the sacrament of Confession, we are reconciled to God and the Church. This reconciliation has two parts, which compose the whole: we are both forgiven and absolved. Think of it this way, forgiveness and absolution are two sides of one coin that is “reconciliation.”

Forgiveness and absolution are NOT two words that mean the same thing. Catholics often confuse or interchange the words, but that’s not accurate. They are two different realities (again, which come together to make the “whole” of reconciliation).

Forgiveness means that God Himself has remitted the sin. The sinner is reconciled to God.
Absolution is a juridic act of the Church which reconciles the sinner to the Church (in so far as the sinner is in need).
(Those are both very short definitions, of course. Much more can be said.)

The Sacrament of Confession (or Reconciliation or whatever other word is used) has, as its sources, two references from Sacred Scripture.

1. John 20 (post-Resurrection) “Whose sins you forgive are forgiven…” These words are addressed to the 11 Apostles, who are now the first priests of the New Covenant.
   This is the power of the priest to forgive.
2. Matthew 16 “thou art Peter…whatever you bind on earth…” This is often called the “Power of the Keys”. These words were addressed to Peter, and to him alone; yet extended to other priests.
   This is the power of the priest to absolve.

That gets us back to the words of your original question. Yes, one needs both the “character of priesthood” and jurisdiction in order to absolve a penitent. The character of the priesthood is necessary because of #1 (“whose sins you forgive…”), while the jurisdiction is necessary because of #2, the Power of the Keys.

In order to have the complete Sacrament of Confession, the priest needs both. Ordination alone does not empower a priest to be the minister of the Sacrament. He also must have the “faculties” to absolve. Again, this is the Keys.

The Keys were given to Peter alone, and by extension to the legitimate Successors of Peter (ie, the Popes). Only the Pope can “bind and loose.” Now, the Popes can (and we could even say that they “must”) delegate some of that Power of the Keys to other priests, since not everyone can go to Confession to the Pope. Therefore bishops and priests are given the faculties to absolve sinners. It’s essential to keep in mind here that they do so as ministers of the Church. Remember that absolution is a juridic act of the Church—meaning that it is a legal act—which reconciles the sinner to the Church. That’s why a priest must necessarily be a minister of the Church—because only by being a representative of the Church can he reconcile the sinner to the Church.

When a priest (whether bishop or presbyter) reconciles the sinner to the Church, the sinner is both forgiven and absolved. However, in order to actually absolve—meaning to perform a juridic act of the Church, the priest must have the authority of the Church to do so. This is what we call “faculties.” (Specifically, the faculty to absolve.)

There are many different ways (all of them explained in canon law, already referenced in this thread, so I won’t repeat them) that faculties are given to priests.

The bottom line is that the reason why faculties are necessary for a priest to absolve is because that reconciliation to the Church is a juridic (legal) act of the Church, and so a priest must be a representative of the Church, and that legal authority has its limits.

Now, there’s a lot more to it than what I’ve posted, so please understand that I’ve skipped over many, many points here, in an attempt to summarize things.
I’m also multi-tasking here, so I realize that I’ve repeated myself a few times, and sometimes written the same thing again.

 

[dans0622]

…I realize that I’ve repeated myself a few times, and sometimes written the same thing again.

That’s pretty funny, Father. … You did mean to repeat yourself, right?

Dan

 

[FrDavid96]

That’s pretty funny, Father. … You did mean to repeat yourself, right?

Dan

Well, sort of. Upon reading it, I caught myself repeating “jurisdiction” when I should have written “faculties.”

That’s what I get for trying to multi-task—I often make mystakes.

 

[JamesTheJust]

That’s what I get for trying to multi-task—I often make mystakes.

 

[judynurse]

Well, sort of. Upon reading it, I caught myself repeating “jurisdiction” when I should have written “faculties.”

That’s what I get for trying to multi-task—I often make mystakes.

Fr. David: You need to hit your spell check more, too! :

Question a Priest can answer - out of curiosity: Can a Priest, in the Confessional, say to the penitent :“you’re already forgiven” or “you’re forgiven” PRIOR to actually giving the Absolution? If so, is he referring to obvious contrition, or what? Perhaps reassurance?

 

[L_Marshall]

Generally speaking, a priest’s faculty to hear confessions is valid throughout the entire diocese, not just his parish. Bishops do this because it will make things easier if a priest needs to fill in, if there’s a large gathering of penitents, et c.

Religious priests (that is, those belonging to religious orders, e.g.: Franciscans, Benedictines, Jesuits, et c.) must receive permission from their superior AND the bishop of a diocese if they wish to hear confessions.

 

[PJM]

=SnowAngels;11575324]Hello!

I was reading up on the valid administration of the Sacrament of Penance, and it only lightly touched on the fact that not only the character of the priesthood, but also the jurisdiction, that is, judicial power, is required. It points out that a bishop had jurisdiction over his diocese and a parish priest over his parish, but it didn’t really explain what this means. It went on to say that a person not holding such an office, but had been empowered by the Pope or bishop can administer the sacrament. Can someone please explain what this means most fully?

Thank you so much for answering my question!

• SnowAngels

The NORMS: Code of Canon Law
"THE MINISTER OF THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE

Can. 965 A priest alone is the minister of the sacrament of penance.

Can. 966 §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.

§2. A priest can be given this faculty either by the law itself or by a grant made by the competent authority according to the norm of ⇒ can. 969.

Can. 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.

§3. Those who are provided with the faculty of hearing confessions by reason of office or grant of a competent superior according to the norm of cann. ⇒ 968, §2 and ⇒ 969, §2 possess the same faculty everywhere by the law itself as regards members and others living day and night in the house of the institute or society; they also use the faculty licitly unless some major superior has denied it in a particular case as regards his own subjects.

Can. 968 §1. In virtue of office, a local ordinary, canon penitentiary, a pastor, and those who take the place of a pastor possess the faculty of hearing confessions, each within his jurisdiction.

§2. In virtue of their office, superiors of religious institutes or societies of apostolic life that are clerical and of pontifical right, who have executive power of governance according to the norm of their constitutions, possess the faculty of hearing the confessions of their subjects and of others living day and night in the house, without prejudice to the prescript of ⇒ can. 630, §4.

Can. 969 §1. The local ordinary alone is competent to confer upon any presbyters whatsoever the faculty to hear the confessions of any of the faithful. Presbyters who are members of religious institutes, however, are not to use the faculty without at least the presumed permission of their superior.

§2. The superior of a religious institute or society of apostolic life mentioned in ⇒ can. 968, §2 is competent to confer upon any presbyters whatsoever the faculty to hear the confessions of their subjects and of others living day and night in the house.

Can. 970 The faculty to hear confessions is not to be granted except to presbyters who are found to be suitable through an examination or whose suitability is otherwise evident.

Can. 971 The local ordinary is not to grant the faculty of hearing confessions habitually to a presbyter, even one having a domicile or quasi-domicile in his jurisdiction, unless he has first heard the ordinary of the same presbyter insofar as possible.

Can. 972 The competent authority mentioned in ⇒ can. 969 can grant the faculty to hear confessions for either an indefinite or a definite period of time.

Can. 973 The faculty to hear confessions habitually is to be granted in writing.

Can. 974 §1. The local ordinary and the competent superior are not to revoke the faculty to hear confessions habitually except for a grave cause

 

[FrDavid96]

Fr. David: You need to hit your spell check more, too! :

Question a Priest can answer - out of curiosity: Can a Priest, in the Confessional, say to the penitent :“you’re already forgiven” or “you’re forgiven” PRIOR to actually giving the Absolution? If so, is he referring to obvious contrition, or what? Perhaps reassurance?

Actually, yes. Remember that forgiveness comes from God Himself. The priest, in the confession, acts (in persona Christi) as the minister of God. Therefore, if the priest is certain that God has indeed already forgiven the sin, then the priest might say that.

Absolution, on the other hand, is a juridic act of the Church. That means that no sinner is absolved unless and until a priest validly imparts absolution. So, a priest could not tell the penitent that he was “already absolved.” He might, however, make the point that if the sin is very minor, then the need for healing (ie absolution) is likewise very minor.

A priest might find the circumstances to be such that he wants to assure the penitent that the sin was forgiven by God even before the Sacrament of Confession. Because God is not bound by the Sacraments.

I am imagining a scenario to match your question…

Let’s say that someone commits a very minor sin. “I hit my thumb with a hammer and said a bad word because it hurt…immediately I was sorry for what I did. I asked God’s forgiveness, and then I prayed all 20 Mysteries of the rosary to make-up for it…” At that point, I might indeed say something to indicate that God already forgave the sin, even before the Confession. Remember that I’m trying to make-up a scenario to fit the question, so bear with me here. That would be a “teachable moment” to fend-off scrupulosity.

Here’s another scenario that’s a bit more realistic. A penitent might confess to “receiving Communion unworthily” for having received Communion at Mass after committing some small venial sin without having first gone to Confession, but having made a sincere act of contrition. If it’s the type of sin that does not prevent one from receiving Communion, the priest might (and in certain circumstances, even should) say that the first sin was forgiven through the sincere act of contrition, and therefore there was no sin in receiving Communion.

 

[judynurse]

FrDavid: Thank you! Between the two scenarios you actually hit the nail on the head! I had wondered about this for several weeks, and finally found someone to ask who might actually know the answer. Thanks again!

This would also hold true for a mortal sin which had been forgotten, therefore not previously confessed specifically, and a person had therefore, belatedly realized they had perhaps received the Sacrament of Communion unworthily. Correct?

 

[Gorgias]

Generally speaking, a priest’s faculty to hear confessions is valid throughout the entire diocese, not just his parish. Bishops do this because it will make things easier if a priest needs to fill in, if there’s a large gathering of penitents, et c.

No. A priest, having been granted faculties to hear confessions habitually, can hear confessions validly everywhere, not just throughout the entire diocese. Bishops don’t do this “because it will make things easier;” they do this because that’s what canon law dictates to them…

 

[judynurse]

Why does it sometimes happen (I have observed this in the past), that a priest is visiting family in a Parish which is not only a long way from where he habitually serves as a Priest, but also outside the local Diocese, may be invited or allowed to celebrate the Mass while visiting friends and family in the location, but the local Priest hears the Confessions prior to Mass?

Is this likely due to the local Priest not wishing to place additional burdens and time constraints upon the visiting Priest, who is there to visit his family (rather than coming to assist the local Priest), or does it have to do with the difference of being from another diocese?

 

[Edmundus1581]

This question is related to an issue I have wanted to know the answer to for a long time. The issue comes up repeatedly in these forums and is never settled.

Does a priest, through his jurisdication (or faculties) have the authority to interpret the requirements of confession authoritatively for a penitent?

This comes up in various forms:

1. Penitents have not, in the past, confessed mortal sins by specific kind, eg. confessing “impure actions” for masturbation, fornication, etc.
2. Penitents have not, in the past, confessed mortal sins by number, eg. confessing “missing Mass” for “missed Mass ten times”.
3. A penitent is informed that he need not continue to confess past mortal sins, and to wipe the slate clean and only confess any mortal sins committed from now on.
4. After confessing a number of sins, the priest says “that’s enough”, even though the penitent may have other mortal sins to confess.

Assuming in all cases that the penitent has made a sincere confession. Assuming also that our confessor is someone in good standing with the Church and not reckless with Catholic teaching and sacraments.

We are often told in this forum that in such cases the penitent is still obliged to confess (or re-confess) all past mortal sins in kind and number.

In such cases, can we accept the the confessor has acted with authority in hearing the confession and granting absolution, and that hence we should not revisit those confessions? **In other words, we can accept the absolution and the priest’s advice on authority, without further analysis of our confession by reference to Church teaching or Canon Law? **(This, btw, is the advice which I have personally received from confessors several times, but this differs from the advice often given in this forum).

 

[judynurse]

I am also interested in these questions stated above, particularly in #3 and #4, which I have personally run into at times.

What are the correct answers to these questions?

 

[FrDavid96]

Why does it sometimes happen (I have observed this in the past), that a priest is visiting family in a Parish which is not only a long way from where he habitually serves as a Priest, but also outside the local Diocese, may be invited or allowed to celebrate the Mass while visiting friends and family in the location, but the local Priest hears the Confessions prior to Mass?

Is this likely due to the local Priest not wishing to place additional burdens and time constraints upon the visiting Priest, who is there to visit his family (rather than coming to assist the local Priest), or does it have to do with the difference of being from another diocese?

It’s probably your first answer: because the local pastor wants to allow the visiting priest time to visit his family (or just time to enjoy his vacation).

 

[Edmundus1581]

This question is related to an issue I have wanted to know the answer to for a long time. The issue comes up repeatedly in these forums and is never settled.

ps. My question was posted in the few minutes before I leave to go on holiday for a couple of days. If there are any replies then I thank you, but won’t be able to follow up until Saturday.

I was not going to post today, but this issue of “jurisdiction” is one I have wanted to follow up for a long time.

 

[judynurse]

This question is related to an issue I have wanted to know the answer to for a long time. The issue comes up repeatedly in these forums and is never settled.

Does a priest, through his jurisdication (or faculties) have the authority to interpret the requirements of confession authoritatively for a penitent?

This comes up in various forms:

1. Penitents have not, in the past, confessed mortal sins by specific kind, eg. confessing “impure actions” for masturbation, fornication, etc.
2. Penitents have not, in the past, confessed mortal sins by number, eg. confessing “missing Mass” for “missed Mass ten times”.
3. A penitent is informed that he need not continue to confess past mortal sins, and to wipe the slate clean and only confess any mortal sins committed from now on.
4. After confessing a number of sins, the priest says “that’s enough”, even though the penitent may have other mortal sins to confess.

Assuming in all cases that the penitent has made a sincere confession. Assuming also that our confessor is someone in good standing with the Church and not reckless with Catholic teaching and sacraments.

We are often told in this forum that in such cases the penitent is still obliged to confess (or re-confess) all past mortal sins in kind and number.

In such cases, can we accept the the confessor has acted with authority in hearing the confession and granting absolution, and that hence we should not revisit those confessions? **In other words, we can accept the absolution and the priest’s advice on authority, without further analysis of our confession by reference to Church teaching or Canon Law? **(This, btw, is the advice which I have personally received from confessors several times, but this differs from the advice often given in this forum).

Would love to hear the answer!!

 

[FrDavid96]

This question is related to an issue I have wanted to know the answer to for a long time. The issue comes up repeatedly in these forums and is never settled.

Does a priest, through his jurisdication (or faculties) have the authority to interpret the requirements of confession authoritatively for a penitent?

This comes up in various forms:

1. Penitents have not, in the past, confessed mortal sins by specific kind, eg. confessing “impure actions” for masturbation, fornication, etc.
2. Penitents have not, in the past, confessed mortal sins by number, eg. confessing “missing Mass” for “missed Mass ten times”.
3. A penitent is informed that he need not continue to confess past mortal sins, and to wipe the slate clean and only confess any mortal sins committed from now on.
4. After confessing a number of sins, the priest says “that’s enough”, even though the penitent may have other mortal sins to confess.

Assuming in all cases that the penitent has made a sincere confession. Assuming also that our confessor is someone in good standing with the Church and not reckless with Catholic teaching and sacraments.

We are often told in this forum that in such cases the penitent is still obliged to confess (or re-confess) all past mortal sins in kind and number.

In such cases, can we accept the the confessor has acted with authority in hearing the confession and granting absolution, and that hence we should not revisit those confessions? **In other words, we can accept the absolution and the priest’s advice on authority, without further analysis of our confession by reference to Church teaching or Canon Law? **(This, btw, is the advice which I have personally received from confessors several times, but this differs from the advice often given in this forum).

I think people would like to help you here.

I’d like to offer a few suggestions:

1. Start a new thread; lest this one go too far off-topic.
2. Break down your questions. You’re simply asking too many different questions and they’re all merging into each other. I would suggest either a list of very specific questions or (better yet) a thread where each question is posted one at a time.

You give four “for examples” surrounded by three questions. It’s hard to take everything apart to understand exactly what you mean.

The answers are:
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.

That’s not very helpful though. I rather doubt that’s going to satisfy your questions, so to ensure that your questions get the responses they deserve, please consider starting a new thread.

 

[Vico]

No. Vico left out parts of c. 967; once a bishop grants a priest in his diocese the faculty to hear confession habitually, that priest has the faculty to hear confessions anywhere. He doesn’t need permission. (If a bishop in another diocese later says, “you can’t celebrate the sacrament of reconciliation in my diocese,” then he loses that faculty there, but nowhere else.)

In the context of a parish penitential service, one would expect that it’s the pastor who’s inviting other priests to attend and celebrate, but there’s no notion of requiring his ‘permission’ in canon law; likewise, a pastor doesn’t have the power to revoke a priest’s faculty, even within his parish. (One would hope that, if a pastor asked a priest not to celebrate reconciliation within his parish, then the priest would honor that request, though.)

I did the cut and paste in two parts, and left out some of it. Here is CIC 967 complete:Can. 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.

§3. Those who are provided with the faculty of hearing confessions by reason of office or grant of a competent superior according to the norm of cann. ⇒ 968, §2 and ⇒ 969, §2 possess the same faculty everywhere by the law itself as regards members and others living day and night in the house of the institute or society; they also use the faculty licitly unless some major superior has denied it in a particular case as regards his own subjects.

 

[Edmundus1581]

I think people would like to help you here.

I’d like to offer a few suggestions:

1. Start a new thread; lest this one go too far off-topic.
2. Break down your questions. You’re simply asking too many different questions and they’re all merging into each other. I would suggest either a list of very specific questions or (better yet) a thread where each question is posted one at a time.

You give four “for examples” surrounded by three questions. It’s hard to take everything apart to understand exactly what you mean.

The answers are:
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.

That’s not very helpful though. I rather doubt that’s going to satisfy your questions, so to ensure that your questions get the responses they deserve, please consider starting a new thread.

Thankyou so much, Father!

Each of my four examples appear repeatedly as questions in this forum, and we cannot agree on the answers and seem to make no progress.

I was hoping that the topic of “jurisdiction”, with the advice of someone qualified, such as yourself, might help us make some progress, as without it we just keep re-hashing the same answers. The priest’s “Jurisdiction” is the basis of my own responses. This is the advice that I have received in the confessional from priests (without using the particular word) but I have not been able to find references to either support, or refute, my arguments.

So, your answers are most helpful!

My question 2 has re-appeared: Does a penitent have to mention number of times sin was committed? The respondents have agreed that he does, but the follow up discussion of what to do about previous confessions has taken its usual diverging course. [Page 2]

I apologise for taking so long to respond. I was away for a few days after my post, and then not quite sure how to follow up.

 

[FrDavid96]

I’m treading very lightly here because while I will participate in threads that discuss the Sacrament of Confession as such, I won’t participate if it’s about a particular confession or confessor.

There are plenty of references to a priest as judge. Read the introductions to Confession in the official rites (both ordinary form and extraordinary form). They both speak of a priest as judge. Also, canon 978. Catechism 1465. The idea that the priest in confession is a judge is simply a “given” in Catholic theology. I could go on all day with references, but there’s little point. It’s a given. The question, though, (as I see it) is “what does that mean?”

It’s easy to confuse the words “jurisdiction” with “faculties” (I’ve caught myself doing just that more than once on CAF) with regard to confession.

A priest (sacerdos, meaning bishop or presbyter) has jurisdiction by virtue of his office. A bishop has jurisdiction over his diocese, a pastor has jurisdiction over his parish, an ordinary (like the Anglican-use Ordinaries) has jurisdiction over his ordinariate, etc. etc. As a part-of-the-whole of that jurisdiction comes the faculties to hear confessions and absolve sinners. This comes “from the law itself” although ultimately all faculties to absolve come from the Vicar of Christ.

To explain jurisdiction, I’ll use myself as an example. As pastor, I have jurisdiction over my parish. Canon law says that I have the faculties to hear confessions, by virtue of the fact that I am a pastor. Now, the appointment comes from the bishop. The faculties to absolve come “from the law itself” (that’s in quotes because it’s a turn of phrase when speaking about canon law).

Now, let’s say that there is a priest (in good standing) who has no office. Maybe he’s working on a doctorate, living at a university, and he has no actual ministerial assignment. He has no faculties to absolve, because he has no office. He has no jurisdiction. In such a case, the bishop specifically gives him the faculties to absolve (the bishop usually does this, but this isn’t automatic). So, for this priest it’s: jurisdiction, none; faculties, yes.

Getting back to me. When I leave my parish territory, I have no jurisdiction in that place. If I go on a pilgrimage to the Holy Land, I have no jurisdiction. But let’s say that some English speaking person notices me in Bethlehem and wants to go to confession. Even though I’m outside of my territory, and have no jurisdiction, I still have the faculties to absolve. The reason is that the law itself says that if I have faculties from my home diocese, those faculties “follow me” when I go to another place. Again, jurisdiction, no; faculties, yes.

What can confuse matters is that there are 2 different ways of speaking about a “judge.” As pastor, I am the “judge” in my parish over pastoral and administrative matters within the parish. If 3 parish groups all want to use the hall at the same time, it’s my judgement that prevails (I know that’s a petty example, but it makes the point). The parish hall is my jurisdiction.

When we’re speaking about a priest (sacerdos) in Confession, the priest is a judge over the penitent. Again, see the references from the beginning of my post. At that particular moment, meaning “within the Confession” the priest is a judge because he acts in persona Christi So long as he has faculties to hear confessions, his actual jurisdiction (his territory) is irrelevant*. A pastor hearing confessions in his own parish church is no more, or no less, a judge of the penitent than a priest from the other side of the globe. They are both in persona Christi, and they are both the judge for those particular celebrations of the Sacrament of Confession.

To make it more concrete, if a priest-confessor says “what you have confessed is sufficient” then his judgement in that particular confession is what prevails. At that moment, this isn’t about jurisdiction, it’s about having faculties to hear confessions. It doesn’t matter what canonical office that priest (sacerdos) holds. He has faculties to absolve, he is hearing a confession, therefore he is the judge at that moment.

All that is just explanation of what “jurisdiction” and “faculties to absolve” mean. The relevant point, the bottom line, is that the priest who hears a particular confession is indeed the judge (in persona Christi) of that particular penitent at that moment.

I’ll leave it at that for the moment and see where the discussion goes from here.

---

• now, we can go off on absurd tangents here, like “what if the penitent confesses to killing the previous pope?” but that would be unproductive. Let’s not do that.