THE EXTRAORDINARY CONFESSOR AND THE SPECIAL OCCASIONAL CONFESSOR OF NUNS AND SISTERS

REV. DEAR SIR,- As I am a country priest away from books and book. men, I should be obliged if you would answer the following questions for me in the I. E. RECORD :

1°. Canon 521 in the Codex speaks of the extraordinary confessor qui quater saltem in anno, etc. Now, can an extraordinary confessor hear the confessions of the sisters of the community for which he is extraordinary more than four times in the year, and, if so, how often ? Can he hear them as often as he is sent for? Usually, the extraordinary confessor discharges the functions of his office at quarter tense. Is any special time prescribed ?

2°. Canon 522 speaks of confessors approved for hearing women' confessions, and the cases in which they may hear the confessions of nuns and sisters. Now, can a nun send for such a confessor to hear her confession in the convent oratory ?

RUSTICUS.

1°. There is no doubt, we think, that, so far as Canon 521, § 1, is concerned, an extraordinary confessor may visit the convent to which he has been appointed more than four times in the year for the purpose of hearing the confessions of the community. A law should be understood in accordance with the natural, ordinary meaning of its words; and the sentence, qui quater saltem in anno ad domum religiosam accedat, in accordance with ordinary usage, implies that the extraordinary confessor must visit the convent four times, and that he may do so more frequently. If it were intended to fix four precisely as the number of times on which the extraordinary confessor should discharge his functions, then the word saltem would be both unnecessary and misleading.

It is a more difficult question to determine the number exactly. The very notion of the office itself implies that the extraordinary confessor may not exercise his functions very frequently; and the words, at least four times, of the Code, several times, of the decree Cum de Sacramentalibus, and, two or three times, of the Council of Trent, used to designate the frequency, lead to the same conclusion. Personally, we are inclined to think that six times is not too high an estimate, but we should not care to extend it further. Vermeersch states that the authority of the Ordinary is required in order that the functions of an extraordinary confessor may be discharged more frequently than four times in the year : 'Ut autem ultra quattuor vices extraordinarius accedat, qua talis, opus est auctoritate Ordinarii, ad quem spectat frequentiam majorem definire.' 1 To a certain extent we agree with this teaching. The Ordinary may define, within the limits of Canon 521, § 1, the number of times on which the extraordinary confessor is to hear confessions, and, if he does so, the confessor must act in accordance with his regulations. If, however,

the Ordinary simply appoints an extraordinary confessor without having made an ordinance of this kind, the latter, in regard to the frequency with which his functions are to be discharged, is bound only by the terms of Canon 521, §1; and hence, without any further authority, he may hear confessions more frequently than four times. Should he do so more frequently than is allowed by Canon 521, § 1, or by the regulations of the Ordinary, he acts unlawfully indeed, but, from the viewpoint of jurisdiction, there is no doubt that the confessions which he hears are valid: by his appointment he receives from the Ordinary he special jurisdiction requisite for hearing the confessions of nuns and sisters, and is therefore in a different position from those whose jurisdiction is derived from law and limited by all the conditions laid down by law.1

From what has been said, it follows that an extraordinary confessor may not discharge his functions as extraordinary, whenever he is sent for by the community; but it may be asked further whether individuals have the right of asking for him just as for the special supplementary confessors of Canon 521, § 2. Vermeersch is of opinion that they have; he considers that the words ex iis confessariis of Canon 521, § 3, refer both to the special supplementary confessors of Canon 521, § 2, and to the extraordinary confessor of Canon 521, § 1. Here are his exact words: 'Diximus: "quotiens confessarium sive extraordinarium sive supplementarem postulet." Etenim, postquam in § 1, egit de confessario extraordinario, in § 2 de supplementaribus, canon, in § 3, ait “ Si aliqua religiosa aliquem ex iis confessariis expetat." Erga verba ista referuntur ad ambas superiores paragraphos, ita ut inter eos confessarios extraordinarius computetur.'2

ei

66

Damen, in the new edition of Aertny's Moral Theology, takes up the very contrary position: 'Nota denique confessarium extraordinarium non per se habere jurisdictionem ut confessarium specialem, nisi ergo haec facultas expresse data sit, religiosa extra tempora statuta eum arcessere nequit.' 3 We agree with Damen's teaching; we think that Vermeersch's interpretation of Canon 521 is not in the least probable. A brief examination will suffice to show this. The first paragraph of the canon prescribes the appointment of an extraordinary confessor, and states that he should visit the convent to which he is attached at least four times in the year, and that on the occasion of each visit every member of the community should present herself before him, at least for the purpose of receiving

his blessing. The second paragraph requires Ordinaries to designate some priests for each convent, to whom individual members of the community may have recourse in particular cases for the sacrament of Penance without its being necessary to apply to the Ordinary on each occasion. The third paragraph, then, declares that: If any religious asks for one of these confessors it is unlawful for any superioress, either personally or through others, directly or indirectly, to inquire the reason of the petition, to oppose it by words or acts, or to show that she is displeased.' It seems quite clear to us that the confessors of this paragraph are the same as those mentioned in the one immediately preceding. The confessors of § 2 are designated, as we saw, in order that individuals may be able to apply to them in particular cases; and § 3 determines what the attitude of the superioress should be when such an application is made. Evidently, then, the confessors of § 2 and § 3 are the same. Moreover, if application could be made to the extraordinary confessor in particular cases, § 1, which defines his functions, should have stated so. The Code does not prescribe any special times at which the extraordinary confessor is to discharge his functions. It is within the competence of the Ordinary to make regulations on this point; and, if he does so, the confessor must obey them. Otherwise, the confessor may select his own times, provided, of course, there is a reasonable interval between them. The prevailing practice, as mentioned by our correspondent, seems very appropriate.

2o. In our opinion a nun or sister may not send for the special occasional confessor dealt with in Canon 522. In connexion with several classes of confessors of nuns and sisters, e.g., the special supplementary confessors just dealt with, it is expressly stated that they may be sent for in certain circumstances. This is a clear indication that those confessors, in regard to whom there is no such statement, should not be specially called in; and in this matter the words employed by Canon 522 are: Si... aliqua religiosa . . . confessarium adeat.' The canon, therefore, does not confer this right; it contemplates the case in which the religious personally approaches the confessor for confession in some church or oratory, public or semi-public, whether within the precincts of the convent itself or outside of it. This is also the teaching of Vermeersch, as is evident from the following passage: Verum, dum confessarii de quibus in cc. 519-521 agitur vocari possunt, oportet hie ut ipsa soror confessarium adeat, cujus proin occasionem habere debet, sive intra domum, quia ob aliam causam, v.g., missae celebrandae, praesto adest, sive extra domum, in ecclesia quam visitet.' 1

Should, then, a nun or sister ask for a confessor of the kind contemplated in Canon 522, it is not only lawful, but obligatory, for the superioress to refuse the request. But how do things stand, if such a confessor is actually called in? From what has been said, it follows, of course, that it is unlawful to call him in; but is a confession heard by him valid from the view-point of jurisdiction? Vermeersch thinks that

1 l.c., n. 448.

it is not: 'Non possit ergo simplex confessarius consulto accersi ad audiendam sororem ; et confessio tali facta non foret valida. Sin minus, ex tote periret c. 876, quo, extra cc. 522, 523, peculiaris jurisdictio ad validitatem confessionis postulatur.' 1 We do not think, however, that this point is quite clear. It may be urged that, even though the confessor is called in, the condition, 'si . . . religiosa. . . confessarium adeat," is fulfilled when the nun or sister approaches the confessor for confession. Something additional, indeed, is done, which is not permitted by law; but it is on the fulfilment of the prescribed conditions that the jurisdiction depends.

THE OBLIGATION OF

PRESIDENTS OF INTERMEDIATE

COLLEGES TO GIVE SWORN TESTIMONIALS

REV. DEAR SIR,-Will you kindly answer the following query in the I. E. RECORD: Is the President of an Intermediate college bound to give sworn testimonials on behalf of those who have been students of his college, when they seek admission to a religious Order or Congregation?

PRAESES.

The canons on the interpretation of which the answer to this query depends are 544, § 3, and 545, § 1. The former states that, if there is question of admitting those who have been in a seminary or college, or who have been postulants or novices in another religious institute, testimonial letters are required also, in accordance with the different cases, from the Rector of the seminary or college after consultation with the local Ordinary, or from the higher superior of the religious institute. According to Canon 545, § 1, these letters must be given gratuitously and within three months, not to the candidates for admission themselves, but to the religious superiors, and they must be confirmed by oath.

Clearly, then, there is no difficulty, if the Intermediate college is a seminary: these canons leave no room for doubt that the President must give these sworn testimonials. Nor are any difficulties encountered if the college, though not a seminary, is an ecclesiastical one, that is to say, if its primary purpose is to educate students who are intended for the clerical or religious state: all agree that in this case also the President of the college is bound by the obligation in question. Doubts, however, are raised in connexion with lay colleges, that is to say, colleges which are not specially intended for the training of those destined for the clerical or religious state, but which admit indiscriminately all who are desirous of an intermediate education, even though it be with a view to a lay position. Apart from the diocesan seminaries most of our Intermediate colleges are of this kind. Some commentators, such as

1 1.c.

Vermeersch1 and Cocchi deny that Presidents of lay colleges are bound to give these sworn testimonials. Personally, we disagree entirely with this view; we do not think that this interpretation of the canons in question has any justification. The canons use the word, collegium, without any distinction whatever, and hence, as the term is applicable both to lay and ecclesiastical colleges, we must conclude that both are included in it. When a general term of this kind is employed without qualification, it is a recognised rule of interpretation that it must be given its full signification: the axioms, ubi lex non distinguit, nec nos distinguere debemus,' ' verba generalia generaliter sumenda sunt,' may be here very appropriately invoked.

Confirmation of this view is to be found in the decree Ecclesia Christi,3 issued on the 7th September, 1909, by the Sacred Congregation of Religious, and in a subsequent interpretation of it by the same Congregation on the 5th April, 1910. This decree forbade, without the special permission of the Holy See and under penalty of the invalidity of the subsequent profession, the admission into a religious institute of those who have been expelled, on account of immorality or other crimes, from a seminary or a college, even a lay college, and of those who have been dismissed for any reason whatever from a seminary or ecclesiastical college. For the sake of clearness, we shall quote the words of the decree which bear on this point :'Nullimodo, absque speciali venia Sedis Apostolicae, et sub poena nullitatis professionis, excipiantur, sive ad novitiatum sive ad emissionem votorum postulantes :

'1°. qui e collegiis etiam laicis ob inhonestos mores vel obalia crimina expulsi fuerint ;

2°. qui a seminariis et collegiis ecclesiasticis vel religiosis quacunque

ratione dimissi fuerint.'

Evidently, then, in ecclesiastical usage, the term collegium includes both ecclesiastical and lay colleges; and to exclude the latter from the purview of law regarding collegia a distinction must be made by the legislator, such as was made in this decree Ecclesia Christi.

Moreover, the fact that, in the pre-Code discipline, expulsion from a lay college on account of immorality or other crimes debarred admission to a religious institute without the special permission of the Holy See, shows that the Code is making very little innovation in requiring these sworn testimonials from the Presidents of these institutions.

The interpretation or declaration of the 5th of April, 1910, is even more to the point. Again, for an accurate estimation of the position it is necessary to have the exact words of the query and reply before us :

'II. An ii, qui in aliqua Familia Religiosa primam tantum professionem emiserant ante publicationem decreti, valide admitti possint ad alteram professionem, scilicet solemnem in Ordinibus Regularibus, et perpetuam in ceteris Institutis, si in decreto comprehensi fuerint,

'Ad II. Affirmative; sed superiores sub gravi obligatione tenentur:

1 Epitome Juris Canonici, vol. i. n. 548.

2 Commentarium in Codicem, lib. ii. p. 133.

A. A. Sedis, 1909, p. 700.

4 Ibid. 1910, p. 231.