Images de page
PDF
ePub

religion, grant a 'sanatio in radice' when the non-Catholic obdurately refuses to give the necessary promises? Rome has recently declared that such marriages are to be validated by a 'sanatio' and not by dispensation; and Rome is certainly in favour of the practice of giving such sanationes' in grave cases.

J. M. C.

'J. M. C.' will try to excuse us for holding over his query for some months past. It raised a number of points that we thought it better to discuss in special articles: their treatment in our 'Notes' would only lead to endless repetition. If he consults the articles published since then, he will have our views on the matters that trouble him. We need only add:

1°. That the species matrimonii,' if understood as involving the presence of priest and witnesses, is no longer insisted upon as a necessary condition for 'validation '-unless, of course, special faculties contain an express provision to the contrary. The stricter view was supported by prominent authorities in the past, especially by Pope Benedict XIV1; but, to borrow the words of Gasparri, 'it must be said either that Benedict XIV understood by species matrimonii in the case merely a matrimonial consent expressed in a manner naturally sufficient, or that the Church, owing to the change in circumstances, has tempered the rigour of her discipline in the matter.'

2o. That, in our opinion, the 'convalidatio' of Canon 1045 (§ 2) does not include a full sanatio.' In the new regulations a partial 'sanatie' is occasionally provided for (1133-5), but the full concession is still reserved to the Holy See (1141).4

[ocr errors]

'J. M. C.' exaggerates somewhat when he speaks of the only chance of salvation.' But, as consolation in the case he mentions, we may quote for him the following passage from a writer of no mean standing :—

If the non-Catholic partner refuses to give the required guarantees, and if the Catholic partner, who is in danger of death, promises that in case of recovery he (or she) will make provision, to the best of his (or her) ability, for the Catholic education of all the children-in such a case it would seem that a dispensation can be granted; at least, let the marriage be proceeded with, on the principles of 'epieikeia.' The fact that the Church has often, even when the guarantees were not given, allowed the validation of a marriage invalidly contracted is all the greater reason for approving of the policy."

SPONSORS BY PROXY

REV. DEAR SIR,-It is necessary that the proxies be named by those who are appointed to act as sponsors in Baptism but who cannot be personally present. Does that mean that each absent sponsor must name the particular substitute, or is it enough if one sponsor send word, v.g.,

1 De Syn., 1. 13, d. 21, n. 7.

2 De Matr., n. 1445.

3 Vide supra, p. 306 (note 4).

4 See, however, p. 309 (note 3).

& Wouters, De Forma Prom. et Cel. Matr. (5th ed.), p. 39.

to the father of the child to get substitutes for him and the female sponsor. My opinion on the point is not accepted by my friends, and the matter is practical.

ANXIOUS.

We see no reason for saying that the sponsors must name the particular substitutes. If both-or one, with the other's authority-commission the father to make the selection, they have fulfilled, we think, all the essential requirements. For our reasons, 'Anxious' may consult an earlier reply of ours to a similar query. The new regulations in the Code (1089) need cause no trouble: they apply only to matrimonial cases.

CONFESSORS AND EXTERN PENITENTS

I

REV. DEAR SIR,-I should be grateful for an answer to the following difficulties regarding episcopal cases:

1o. Can a stranger who comes into a diocese, and commits a sin reserved there but not in his own diocese, be absolved from it by a simple confessor, because for him it is not reserved ?

2o. Since he is a stranger, and not bound by the particular laws of his own diocese or of the diocese in which he is, can he not be absolved even if it is reserved in his own diocèse ?

3°. The new Codex states: 'Quaevis reservatio omni vi caret extra territorium reservantis.' Since the Bishop is the person reserving, does it not follow that outside his own diocese a person can be absolved from a reserved sin, even though per accidens it may also be reserved in the diocese of confession?

...

4°. Is there now no such thing as indirect absolution of episcopal cases? Treating of the recent decree on episcopal reservations, the Irish Theological Quarterly, January, 1917 (p. 14), states: 'Bishops in the past sometimes applied the law governing Papal cases to their own it is clear that there can be no question of this in future.' Penitents cannot be absolved indirectly and then obliged to go to the Superior. But what of the confessor? If the cases mentioned in the Codex do not occur, and it would not be a great inconvenience to wait, must the faculties first be obtained, and then absolution given directly? If the grave inconvenience is there, the confessor then has ipso jure the faculties for directly absolving. No tertium quid?

II

CONFESSARIUS.

REV. DEAR SIR,-There is a good deal of controversy here over a remark of yours in the I. E. RECORD about absolution from a case reserved in the diocese from which a penitent comes and in the diocese in which the penitent seeks absolution. I am afraid it will still take an expert to understand Canon Law. The word 'reservantis' in the canon seems to be confined to the Bishop of the penitent's diocese, whereas it can equally refer to the Bishop in whose diocese absolution is asked.

Suppose a person confesses a sin in diocese A, which is not reserved

1 I. E. RECORD, Apr, 1914, Fifth Series, vol, iii. pp. 415-6.

except in diocese A, what right would the ordinary confessor in A have to absolve from that sin? If that be so, that is, if he has no such right, does the Canon Law give him the right to absolve when the sin is reserved also in the penitent's own diocese? That does not appear. When extraordinary rights are granted in Canon Law they are generally granted very explicitly, as in the case of the faculties of the Canon Penitentiary or of the priest on board ship.

III

D.D.

REV. DEAR SIR,-Practically speaking, the legislation on reservation has become a dead letter. ... Would it not be well, in episcopal cases at least, to drop the complicated regulations that theologians would seem to have devised almost for their own amusement? The best modern writers are in favour of the change. . CAIUS.

...

Judging by the letters that have reached us on this subject during the past six months, 1 there would seem to be a widespread impression that somehow or other, as a result of the Code, peregrini may be absolved by the local confessors from sins reserved in both dioceses. If the principle be admitted, it marks a very definite advance in the line of liberality and freedom.

For our own part, we must confess, we can find nothing in the Code to support this new charter of liberty. Rather the reverse. Canon 874 seems to imply that, instead of the mild teaching suggested by the Maynooth Synod of 1900, we must adopt the comparatively rigorous principle of 18753: that, in other words, whereas we have been for some years past commissioned to absolve from sins not reserved in both dioceses, we must restrict ourselves for the future to sins not reserved in the diocese in which the confession is heard.

That view may appear rather strange and strict. To justify it, we must see how matters stood before the Code was published.

For a long time past there had been considerable doubt as to the source from which jurisdiction over peregrini was derived. Some said it came from the extern Bishop, inasmuch as he was the only local authority that had jurisdiction over the penitent-the only one, consequently, that could give jurisdiction to others. In that view-if it were once established for certain-the penitent could be absolved only from sins unreserved in the extern diocese. Others claimed that it came from the local Bishop-relying on the principle that, though the local Bishop was not the penitent's Superior in the full sense, he became so in a temporary fashion and for confessional purposes, in virtue of

1 One correspondent kindly sends us a very interesting record of a debate on the subject. We would print every word of it, if we had space. 2 N. 130, which omits the words given in:

3 N. 86 Casus reservatus in dioecesi confessarii non subtrahitur reservationi ea de causa quod non reservetur in dioecesi poenitentis:'

4 The view, in theory, of Lehmkuhl, ii. 499, 521 sqq. (11th ed.); Noldin, iii. 378; Gury, n. 555; etc.

the penitent's enrolling himself, for the time being, among the local population. If that were so, the absolution obviously would be restricted to sins unreserved in the place of confession. But a third class took a view differing from both. The practice of absolving peregrini, they said, was too general to be explained by concessions, expressed or implied, from any mere local authority or individual Bishop. The custom was world-wide, and the jurisdiction must come from the Pope. But in any particular locality, they admitted, the jurisdiction so given would be restricted by local reservations —just like the jurisdiction held from Rome by Regulars, but limited by restrictions imposed by the local Bishops. This third view, it will be noted, differed from the second in theory, but in practice entailed the same results-the confessor would have to refuse absolution if the sin confessed were reserved by his own Bishop. Which of the theories was correct? The reasons and authorities were so well matched that, from the objective point of view, none of them could be pronounced a certainty. So, by an application of the principles of one or other of the 'moral systems,' the practical conclusion was reached that the sin might be absolved, provided that it were not reserved in both dioceses: in any other hypothesis, some one of the theories would guarantee liberty, and that particular theory might be adopted for the occasion.

Of course, there were men so convinced of their own particular theory that they refused to admit this liberal conclusion: and Roman decisions went far to show that they were correct. Whatever about that, practically all the theologians held that the conclusion marked the ultimate limit of Church concession. Not quite all, though. A very few fell back on a different principle altogether. They put local reservation on the same footing as local law, and harped on the maxim that no Bishop could bind anyone but his own subject. And, as a result, they proclaimed the discovery that the sin might be absolved though reserved in both places: the extern reservation fell through, because the penitent had left the territory; the local reservation, because the penitent was not subject to the local Bishop. And for this conclusion they claimed the sanction of general custom.

The parallel is far from complete. Local law affects the subject directly, local reservation the faculties held by the confessor (893). When a penitent leaves a diocese he is, of course, freed from the reservation—

1 So Aertneys, ii. 239, etc. On the theory of temporary subjection, see the authors quoted by Lehmkuhl, ii. 500.

2e.g., St. Alphonsus, vi. 588; Génicot, ii. n. 348; etc.

3 Alph., 591; Marc, 1779; Sabetti-Barrett, 773 (9°, 10°), 781 (7°); Génicot, 328, 348 'in sententia quam probabiliorem ducimus, nempe jurisdictionem haberi a Summo Pontifice,. liquet jurisdictionem confessarii iis limitibus

[ocr errors]

circumscribi quos posuit Episcopus loci.'

So the Constitution Superna: for the relevant words, v. Lehmkuhl, ii. 522 (note).

5 For a good discussion of the problem, see the I. T. Quarterly, 1908, pp. 43-7. e.g., Marc, n. 1779.

7e.g., that of 21st Nov., 1873, ibid.

8 So Noldin, iii. 378; Tanquerey, Brev. Syn. Th. Mor., p. 412, n. 1098; (recently) Arregui, Summ. Th. Mor., p. 393 (vide infra).

[ocr errors]

he is appealing no longer to the shackled confessors of his own locality-and may be absolved, provided he meet with a confessor who can deal with his case. But suppose the confessors he meets are just as much restricted as those he left behind: is he in any better position than he was before he left? Neither Bishop gives the jurisdiction; and, if it comes from Rome, it must first be filtered through the local reservations. The local Bishop cannot directly bind non-subjects.' Granted; but, 1°, he can restrict his confessors (893), and, therefore, indirectly the externs that appeal to him; 2°, the externs become his subjects for confessional purposes (874, 881). For these reasons, and for others on which we need not dwell, we are not surprised that a predecessor of ours in these pages rejected the view as devoid of solid probability

We believe [he said] that the opinion of Tanquerey and Noldin is not solidly probable. They base their view on universal custom, but certainly there is no such custom in this country, and it is very strange that, if such a universal custom exists, authors like Lehmkuhl and Génicot do not mention it. We draw the reasonable conclusion that no universal custom exists, and that as far as the Church at large is concerned the traditional view holds the ground.1

It continued to hold the ground' till the very eve of the publication of the Code. In support of that statement we appeal to the Cum experientia-the decree on episcopal reservations-dated the 13th of July, and published on the 1st September, 1916. Its final concession in the matter of reservation runs as follows: Lastly, from sins reserved in any diocese, penitents may be absolved in another diocese in which the sins are not reserved, by any confessor, secular or regular, even though the penitents come there for the special purpose of securing absolution.' There is no explicit mention of another' diocese in which the sins are reserved. But none is needed. The implication is all that we want. Quod legislator tacuit noluit.'

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Now, all this establishes a strong presumption that the traditional teaching is the correct teaching still. The strong family likeness between the decree and the corresponding canons of the Code (895-900) suggests that the framers of the Code were largely responsible for the decree. And, unless in the light of convincing evidence, we are not justified in claiming that their views on a matter of principle went through a radical transformation in the course of a few months (6, 4°).

Is there any such 'convincing evidence' in the Code? We fail to see it :

1o. The Code, if it does anything at all, subjects the peregrini to the local Bishop to a greater extent than ever before. We may cite the canons on local laws (14, § 1), on indulgences (927), on the Ecclesiae vetitum (1039, § 1), on dispensations from matrimonial impediments (1048), from fast and abstinence (1245, § 1), and from vows (1813, 1°).

1 I. E. RECORD, November, 1913, Fifth Series, vol. ii. p. 518.

2 For the text, see I. E. RECORD, October, 1916, Fifth Series, vol. viii.

pp. 340-2.

2 Ibid. 7 (e).

« PrécédentContinuer »