NOTES AND QUERIES THEOLOGY INTERPRETATION OF FACULTIES. CONSEQUENCES OF REV. DEAR SIR,-Will you kindly give me your opinion on the following cases. 1°. A penitent (X) confesses a reserved sin. The confessor, who has only the usual diocesan jurisdiction, decides that the circumstances do not warrant an immediate absolution. So he asks X to come back next week, and in the meantime secures from the Bishop special faculties to deal with the case. X returns, and tells the confessor that he has fallen again into the reserved sin confessed last week. Can the confessor absolve? 2o. After the confessor has received faculties as above, another penitent (Y) confesses the same sin. Can the confessor absolve him? 3°. X (belonging to diocese A) commits in diocese B a sin reserved in diocese A. Is he affected by the reservation? If so, how and why? He was outside the territory when the act took place. M. H. In connexion with the first two cases, and with many others of a similar kind, the student of Moral Theology manuals will occasionally meet with rules that look somewhat mysterious: and his mystification will grow when, as sometimes happens, he finds them formulated as definitely as if they were based on a Papal decree or on the first principles of moral science. He must apply a corrective. The whole problem is simply one of interpretation: What faculties did the Bishop mean to confer?' On that particular point the confessor concerned may be in a far better position to form an opinion than all the theologians that ever wrote. Their views, of course, are useful as furnishing a general test or criterion, but they must be employed as such, and not allowed to dominate the situation. Maxims devised for special cases have been treated by subsequent writers with a respect that would have astonished those who formulated them first: they must be handled with special care and caution. The ultimate decision depends on a combination of circumstances: any one of them may have been overlooked by the compilers of the manuals, and may lead to conclusions very different from those generally adopted. Always bearing in mind, therefore, that some fact or other known only to those concerned may throw new light on the Bishop's intention and nullify conclusions based on general principles, we should say : 1o. That, in the first case, the confessor can absolve. In favour of VOL. XV-22 that view we appeal merely to a common-sense interpretation of the Bishop's action. He may be presumed to have granted all faculties necessary for dealing with the penitent's case when it arises-when the confession is made and absolution sought. Whether the sin was committed once or twice or twenty times, whether after repentance or not, whether last week or the week before-all these are matters to which he can be reasonably supposed to have attached no extension or restriction of faculties. Always, though, on the supposition that the facts do not clearly indicate the opposite. As would be the case, for instance, if he granted jurisdiction over sins already committed or confessed' or 'because the Paschal period is coming to an end' or 'in order that the penitent may communicate during the mission' or adopted any other equally unusual formula. In the first case, a sin repeated would remain reserved; in the second and third, the sin (whether repeated or not) would be reserved unless confessed within the period mentioned. Our general reply may be illustrated from another department of Canon Law. The particular section has been abrogated by the Code, but not because of any defect in the principle to which we appeal. When a diriment matrimonial impediment arose from unlawful intercourse, a Roman dispensation might be executed by the Bishop even though the sin had been repeated with the same individual after the dispensation had been applied for. The case is not quite parallel, but the analogy is close enough to point a moral. In support of the view we may quote one of our latest authorities: An licentia [Fr. Barrett asks] absolvendi a casibus reservatis ad peccata post ipsam commissa extendatur? [And he answers]: Distinguendum est; vel enim data est potestas pro peccatis toties commissis vel narratis, in quo casu ab his solum absolvere potest privilegiatus; vel data est indefinite, in quo casu extensam esse adalia affirmant communiter juxta S. Alphonsum, dummodo non interponatur magna distantia inter concessionem licentiae et novarum culparum commissionem, quando nempe pro particulari poenitente concessa est. . . . Sic, si non sit ultra mensem dilatio inter concessionem et usum facultatis, privilegiatus absolvere potest et a patratis post datam licentiam. Which is only a slightly different way of saying what St. Alphonsus had said long before 3 : An licentia data de absolvendis reservatis extendi possit ad peccata post ipsam commissa? Distinguendum: si concessio facta fuit praecise pro peccatis narratis, vel pro tot vicies commissis, tantum pro eis valere potest. Secus vero, si licentia est concessa indefinite : ita communissime, et valde probabiliter Lugo dist. 20, n. 122, cum Bon. et Praepos. Ronc. p. 110, qu. 7, cum Passer, Mansi, et Gabr. ac Salm. de poen. c. 13, p. 3, n. 39, 1 Cf. Lehmkuhl, ii. 1035 (note), 1038, etc. 2 Sabetti-Barrett, Comp., 783 (q. 9°). 3 Th. Mor., vi. 601 (q. iv.). cum Aversa, Leand., Dic., etc. Dummodo, recte limitant, non interponatur magna distantia (puta ultra mensem: ut ait Ronc. cum Mansi) inter concessionem licentiae et commissionem novarum culparum: intellige, si pro quodam particulari poenitente sit tantum impertita licentia. Item bene advertit Ronc. praefatam sententiam non procedere, si licentia impertita fuerit intuitu alicujus festivitatis. The maxim about the month's delay, is one of those to which undue importance may be easily attached. It represents an effort to give definite meaning to the magna distantia,' but can claim, of course, no mathematical accuracy. The problem again is one of defining the Bishop's intention. Presumably he restricts his concession to sins connected in some way or other with what we may term the present crisis in the penitent's life. How far that is to be regarded as extending, no one except the Bishop himself can fix for certain. A month may be taken as a rough and ready standard: but, in favourable circumstances, the confessor may utilize his powers after a much longer period. 1 2o. In the second case submitted by M. H.' the confessor cannot absolve. If Y could be absolved, so could Z, so could A, B, C, and all the penitents we may care to name. So that the special faculty sought by the confessor and granted by the Bishop would, in some mysterious way, and without direct action by either priest or Bishop, have developed into a general faculty to absolve all penitents. That is out of harmony with all the principles. The confessor holds only what the Bishop grants: the Bishop grants only what he intends: and-unless the opposite is clearly proved-the Bishop intends only a special jurisdiction in favour of the particular penitent whose case has been submitted. 3°. 'M. H.' seems to regard reservation as something 'incurred' by the delinquent-somewhat after the manner of a censure or irregularity. For that view of the case there used to be some authority years ago: recently, and especially under the Code, it has lost whatever degree of probability it once enjoyed. Reservation simply means restriction of the ordinary confessor's faculties. It affects the confessor himself directly, the penitent only when he appeals to a confessor with restricted faculties. So, in the case given, X cannot be absolved by the ordinary confessors of diocese A, because their jurisdiction is restricted: neither can he be absolved by the ordinary confessors of any other diocese in which the same sin is reserved-for the same reason: but he can be absolved by the confessors of any diocese in which the reservation does not hold, simply because unrestricted faculties have been granted in that locality. And what is true of X is true of Y (who belongs, say, to diocese Z), and of every other human being who commits the same sin-whether it be in his own diocese or out of it. If they remain outside the dioceses in which the sin is reserved, they may be absolved by any confessor: if they venture inside, they must apply to confessors who hold special faculties. In a sense, therefore, they are all affected by the reservation'; in another sense, not one of them is. 1 Cf. D'Annibale, n. 347: Quia est beneficium principis et niminem laedit non oportet illud aestimare ex rigore verborum.' As against all this, some few maintained that a 'peregrinus' might be absolved from locally reserved cases-and we find the view supported in a book published as late as last December. Internal evidence, as well as the Roman reply of August last, make the position untenable." DANCES REV. DEAR SIR,-What kind of dances come under the prohibition in No. 179, page 83, of the Maynooth decrees? What action should a priest take in order to promote' dances forbidden in the above? After a Gaelic League Class, an Irish dance is carried on for half an hour. The priest promotes this dance: or, without promoting it at all, he simply remains and looks on. Can he do either without violating No. 179 ? An answer in the I. E. RECORD will much oblige. I. C. P. We dealt with this matter many years ago, and shall be obliged if 'I. C. P.' consults the reply.' AN AMERICAN DISCUSSION ON RESERVATION REV. DEAR SIR,-Would you kindly give your decision regarding the power of pastors and Bishops in America to absolve those guilty of the crime of procuring abortion. This was the moral question at our last conference, and no definite decision was arrived at, with the result that our Bishop declared that, until the question was definitely decided, we should apply to him for faculties to absolve in all such cases. Some were of the opinion that during the Paschal time, in virtue of Canon 899, pastors could absolve from all reserved cases, whether purely episcopal or papalepiscopal, with a censure or without it. Others went further still, and said that priests could absolve from these sins even outside Paschal time, unless the Bishop reserved them specially to himself; and, as our Bishop declared he had no reserved cases now, they maintained that, in virtue of the faculties given them by the Bishop, they could absolve from these reserved cases at any time. Others still limited the powers given in 899 to sins reserved without a censure, and held that, as the procuring of abortion was reserved with a censure, priests had no power to absolve at any time, even during the Paschal season. Please give your answer in the next issue of the I. E. RECORD, and ease a troubled conscience. A SUBSCRIBER. 'Subscriber's' letter has taken an unconscionable time to reach us. But perhaps our reply may be of some use to him even now. Taking it for granted that there are no complications-ignorance, etc.-the case would really seem not to present much difficulty. From a comparison of Canons 899, § 3 and 900, with Canons 2254-6, it would appear 1 Arregui, Summ. Th. Mor. (4th ed.), n. 609. pp. 313-4. 2 See 1. E. RECORD, Oct. 1919, Fifth Series, vol. xiv. evident that the latter deals with absolution from censures, the former with absolution from sins reserved without a censure. It is clear, moreover, that Canon 899, § 3,-which grants parish priests special faculties during Paschal time-has nothing whatever to do with papal-episcopal cases: it deals explicitly with sins' which Ordinaries have reserved to themselves.' Now in the case submitted the reservation is papal-episcopal, the absolution is reserved by the Pope to the Bishop (2350). The crime, moreover, is reserved under censure (ib.). The Bishop stated he had no reserved cases now'; but that meant that he himself had reserved none, not that he had granted faculties to every confessor to absolve from the nine sins reserved to him by the Pope.1 From these facts and principles our conclusions would be: 1o. That the canonists of the first group-who claimed that 'during Paschal time, in virtue of Canon 899, pastors could absolve from all reserved cases, whether purely episcopal or papal-episcopal, with a censure or without it '-were extending the pastors' faculties beyond anything sanctioned by the Code. The Paschal-time concession gives them no special faculties over papal-episcopal cases, nor indeed over any sin reserved with a censure. For these they must fall back on specially delegated powers, or on the liberal provisions contained in Canons 2252-4, 2o. That the second group-who believed that 'priests could absolve from these sins even outside Paschal time, unless the Bishop reserved them specially to himself '—were equally over-generous. There was no need that the Bishop should' reserve them specially to himself': the Pope had already done it. And the Bishop's remark on the matter means no more than we have already stated. 3°. That the third group were right in fact, though their phraseology might be amended. As things stand, there is a censure attached to every papal and papal-episcopal case, and therefore the statement that 'the powers given in 899 [are restricted] to sins reserved without a censure is equivalent in practice to what seems to us the more correct statement— that 'the powers are restricted to purely episcopal cases reserved without a censure.' The latter seems to us the more correct because any day there might be a papal reservation established without a censure: if that happened, the first statement would lead to incorrect conclusions. 4°. That, consequently, the Bishop's practical conclusion was absolutely right. DOMICILE AND QUASI-DOMICILE. FUNERAL OFFERINGS REV. DEAR SIR,-A lived with his sister B in parish M (province of Armagh) as a labourer, having quasi-domicile there. From there he went to a hospital in another parish, ill with cancer. He expressed his intention to return to work and reside at a mill in parish M, but not to reside at his former quasi-domicile. While in hospital, B wrote to a cousin asking him to take charge of the invalid, but nothing came of it. The next letter was to a lady C, of parish N (province of Armagh), the parental home 1 In Canons 2319 (four); 2326, 2343, § 4, 2350, § 1, 2385, 2388, § 2. |