Post by Pacelli on Jan 14, 2020 17:48:31 GMT -5
The following was published by Francis O’Connell was published in the American Ecclesiastical Review, Vol. CXXXXVIII, pp. 207-208, March 1958.
A thank you to forum member Wenceslav for providing this.
SOURCE
A thank you to forum member Wenceslav for providing this.
SOURCE
COMMON ERROR IN A HOSPITAL
Question: A priest not possessing faculties for confessions from the local Ordinary, while visiting a patient in a hospital, was requested by this latter to hear his confession. The priest complied with the request on the ground that common error supplied the requisite jurisdiction, and that the fact that the patient was desirous of the benefits of the sacrament of Penance afforded sufficient reason for inducing common error. It should be added that the patient was not in danger of death, nor was the patient a religious woman, to whom Canon 523 might be applicable. What is to be said of the procedure employed by this priest to justify him in hearing the patients confession?
Answer: There are occasions when a priest, while aware that he does not possess faculties for administering the sacrament of Penance from the local Ordinary, may lawfully obtain the required jurisdiction by inducing common error—for example, when a large group of people are waiting for confession on Trinity Sunday, many of whom will probably not come again for a long time if they are not given the sacrament of Penance now, and the priest cannot contact any diocesan official who will give him faculties. In such a case the priest may enter the confessional and hear confessions with the assurance that his ministration is both valid and lawful (Damen, Theologia moralis, II, n. 360). But the case described by the questioner is very different. Only one person is concerned, other confessors are probably available, and there seems to be no urgency; hence, it is difificult to see how the priest was justified in his attempt to induce common error. Indeed, it would seem that his administration of Penance was not only illicit, but also invalid. For, the most generous opinion as to the act that will obtain faculties for a priest through common error seems to be that of Cappello, who requires no more than an act which by its nature is capable of giving many people the impression that the priest is empowered to hear confessions, such as the act of entering a confessional in a public church even if only one person is present. (De sacramentis, II, n. 342). This procedure might confer faculties in the case described if the confession of the sick person were heard in a confessional in the hospital chapel ; but there is no theological reason to believe that common error can be induced if the priest merely sits at a sick person's bedside and tells him to make his confession.
FRANCIS J. CONNELL, C.SS.R.
Question: A priest not possessing faculties for confessions from the local Ordinary, while visiting a patient in a hospital, was requested by this latter to hear his confession. The priest complied with the request on the ground that common error supplied the requisite jurisdiction, and that the fact that the patient was desirous of the benefits of the sacrament of Penance afforded sufficient reason for inducing common error. It should be added that the patient was not in danger of death, nor was the patient a religious woman, to whom Canon 523 might be applicable. What is to be said of the procedure employed by this priest to justify him in hearing the patients confession?
Answer: There are occasions when a priest, while aware that he does not possess faculties for administering the sacrament of Penance from the local Ordinary, may lawfully obtain the required jurisdiction by inducing common error—for example, when a large group of people are waiting for confession on Trinity Sunday, many of whom will probably not come again for a long time if they are not given the sacrament of Penance now, and the priest cannot contact any diocesan official who will give him faculties. In such a case the priest may enter the confessional and hear confessions with the assurance that his ministration is both valid and lawful (Damen, Theologia moralis, II, n. 360). But the case described by the questioner is very different. Only one person is concerned, other confessors are probably available, and there seems to be no urgency; hence, it is difificult to see how the priest was justified in his attempt to induce common error. Indeed, it would seem that his administration of Penance was not only illicit, but also invalid. For, the most generous opinion as to the act that will obtain faculties for a priest through common error seems to be that of Cappello, who requires no more than an act which by its nature is capable of giving many people the impression that the priest is empowered to hear confessions, such as the act of entering a confessional in a public church even if only one person is present. (De sacramentis, II, n. 342). This procedure might confer faculties in the case described if the confession of the sick person were heard in a confessional in the hospital chapel ; but there is no theological reason to believe that common error can be induced if the priest merely sits at a sick person's bedside and tells him to make his confession.
FRANCIS J. CONNELL, C.SS.R.