I don't believe it for a second.
When we are in the confessional, we have no idea who is on the other side.
From the Catholic Encyclopedia under the entry of "Penance" (scroll down to the section titled "The Minister:"
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11618c.htm The minister (i.e., the confessor)
From the judicial character of this
sacrament it follows that not every member of the
Church is qualified to forgive
sins; the administration of penance is reserved to those who are invested with authority. That this power does not belong to the
laity is evident from the
Bull of
Martin V "Inter cunctas" (1418) which among other questions to be answered by the followers of
Wyclif and
Huss, has this: "whether he
believes that the
Christian . . . is bound as a
necessary means of
salvation to confess to a
priest only and
not to a layman or to laymen however good and devout" (
Denzinger-Bannwart, "Enchir.", 670).
Luther's proposition, that "any
Christian, even a
woman or a child" could in the absence of a
priest absolve as well as
pope or
bishop, was condemned (1520) by
Leo X in the
Bull "Exurge Domine" (Enchir., 753). The
Council of Trent (Sess. XIV, c. 6) condemns as "false and as at variance with the
truth of the Gospel all doctrines which extend the
ministry of the
keys to any others than
bishops and
priests, imagining that the words of the Lord (
Matthew 18:18;
John 20:23) were, contrary to the institution of this
sacrament, addressed to all the
faithful of
Christ in such wise that each and every one has the power of remitting
sin". The
Catholic doctrine, therefore, is that only
bishops and
priests can exercise the power.
These
decrees moreover put an end, practically, to the usage, which had sprung up and lasted for some time in the
Middle Ages, of
confessing to a layman in case of
necessity. This
custom originated in the conviction that he who had
sinned was
obliged to make known his
sin to some one — to a
priest if possible, otherwise to a
layman. In the work "On true penance and false" (De vera et falsa poenitentia),
erroneously ascribed to St. Augustine, the counsel is given: "So great is the power of confession that if a
priest be not at hand, let him (the
person desiring to confess)
confess to his neighbour." But in the same place the explanation is given: "although he to whom the confession is made has no power to
absolve, nevertheless he who confesses to his fellow (socio) becomes worthy of pardon through his desire of confessing to a
priest" (P.L., XL, 1113). Lea, who cites (I, 220) the assertion of the Pseudo-Augustine about
confession to one's neighbour, passes over the explanation. He consequently sets in a wrong light a series of incidents illustrating the practice and gives but an imperfect
idea of the
theological discussion which it aroused. Though
Albertus Magnus (In IV Sent., dist. 17, art. 58) regarded as
sacramental the
absolution granted by a
layman while
St. Thomas (IV Sent., d. 17, q. 3, a. 3, sol. 2) speaks of it as "quodammodo sacramentalis", other great
theologians took a quite different view.
Alexander of Hales (Summa, Q. xix, De confessione memb., I, a. 1) says that it is an "imploring of
absolution";
St. Bonaventure ("Opera', VII, p. 345, Lyons, 1668) that such a confession even in cases of
necessity is not
obligatory, but merely a sign of
contrition;
Scotus (IV Sent., d. 14, q. 4) that there is no
precept obliging one to
confess to a layman and that this practice may be very detrimental;
Durandus of St. Pourcain (IV Sent., d. 17, q. 12) that in the absence of a
priest, who alone can
absolve in the tribunal of penance, there is no
obligation to confess; Prierias (Summa Silv., s.v. Confessor, I, 1) that if
absolution is given by a
layman, the confession must be repeated whenever possible; this in fact was the general opinion. It is not then surprising that
Dominicus Soto, writing in 1564, should find it difficult to
believe that such a
custom ever existed: "since (in
confession to a layman) there was no
sacrament . . . it is incredible that
men, of their own accord and with no profit to themselves, should reveal to others the secrets of their
conscience" (IV Sent., d. 18, q. 4, a. 1). Since, therefore, the weight of
theological opinion gradually turned against the practice and since the practice never received the
sanction of the
Church, it cannot be urged as a
proof that the power to forgive
sins belonged at any
time to the
laity. What the practice does show is that both people and
theologians realized keenly the
obligation of confessing their
sins not to
God alone but to some
human listener, even though the latter possessed no power to
absolve.
The same exaggerated notion appears in the practice of confessing to the
deacons in case of
necessity. They were naturally preferred to
laymen when no
priest was accessible because in virtue of their office they administered
Holy Communion. Moreover, some of the earlier councils (
Elvira, A.D. 300; Toledo, 400) and penitentials (Theodore) seemed to grant the power of penance to the
deacon (in the
priest's absence). The Council of Tribur (895) declared in regard to bandits that if, when captured or wounded they confessed to a
priest or a
deacon, they should not be denied communion; and this expression "presbytero vel diacono" was incorporated in the
Decree of Gratian and in many later docuмents from the tenth century to the thirteenth. The Council of York (1195)
decreed that except in the gravest
necessity the
deacon should not
baptize, give communion, or "impose penance on one who confessed". Substantially the same enactments are found in the Councils of
London (1200) and
Rouen (1231), the constitutions of
St. Edmund of Canterbury (1236), and those of Walter of Kirkham,
Bishop of
Durham (1255). All these enactments, though stringent enough as regards ordinary circuмstances, make exception for urgent
necessity. No such exception is allowed in the
decree of the Synod of Poitiers (1280): "desiring to root out an
erroneous abuse which has grown up in our
diocese through dangerous
ignorance, we forbid
deacons to hear confessions or to give
absolution in the tribunal of penance: for it is
certain and beyond
doubt that they cannot
absolve, since they have not the
keys which are conferred only in the
priestly order". This "abuse" probably disappeared in the fourteenth or fifteenth century; at all events no direct mention is made of it by the
Council of Trent, though the reservation to
bishops and
priests of the
absolving power shows plainly that the Council excluded
deacons.
The authorization which the
medieval councils gave the
deacon in case of
necessity did not confer the power to forgive
sins. In some of the
decrees it is expressly stated that the
deacon has not the
keys — claves non habent. In other enactments he is forbidden except in cases of
necessity to "give" or "impose penance", poenitentiam dare, imponere. His function then was limited to the forum externum; in the absence of a
priest he could "reconcile" the sinner, i.e., restore him to the communion of the
Church; but he did not and could not give the
sacramental absolution which a
priest would have given (Palmieri,
Pesch). Another explanation emphasizes the fact that the
deacon could faithfully administer the
Holy Eucharist. The
faithful were under a strict
obligation to receive Communion at the approach of death, and on the other hand the reception of this
sacrament sufficed to blot out even mortal
sin provided the communicant had the requisite dispositions. The
deacon could hear their confession simply to assure himself that they were properly disposed, but not for the purpose of giving them
absolution. If he went further and "imposed penance" in the stricter,
sacramental sense, he exceeded his power, and any authorization to this effect granted by the
bishop merely showed that the
bishop was in
error (Laurain, "De l'intervention des laïques, des diacres et des abbesses dans l'administration de la pénitence", Paris, 1897). In any case, the prohibitory enactments which finally abolished the practice did not deprive the
deacon of a power which was his by virtue of his office; but they brought into clearer light the
traditional belief that only
bishops and
priests can administer the Sacrament of Penance. (See below under Confession.)
For valid administration, a twofold power is
necessary: the power of order and the
power of jurisdiction. The former is conferred by
ordination, the latter by
ecclesiastical authority (see JURISDICTION). At his
ordination a
priest receives the power to
consecrate the
Holy Eucharist, and for valid
consecration he needs no
jurisdiction. As regards penance, the case is different: "because the
nature and
character of a judgment requires that
sentence be pronounced only on those who are subjects (of the judge) the
Church of God has always held, and this Council affirms it to be most
true, that the
absolution which a
priest pronounces upon one over whom he has not either ordinary or delegated
jurisdiction, is of no effect" (Council of Trent, Sess. XIV, c. 7). Ordinary
jurisdiction is that which one has by reason of his office as involving the care of
souls; the
pope has it over the whole
Church, the
bishop within his
diocese, the
pastor within his
parish. Delegated
jurisdiction is that which is granted by an
ecclesiastical superior to one who does not possess it by virtue of his office. The need of
jurisdiction for administering this
sacrament is usually expressed by saying that a
priest must have "faculties" to hear confession (see FACULTIES). Hence it is that a
priest visiting in a
diocese other than his own cannot hear confession without special authorization from the
bishop. Every
priest, however, can
absolve anyone who is at the point of death, because under those circuмstances the
Church gives all
priests jurisdiction. As the
bishop grants
jurisdiction, he can also limit it by "reserving" certain cases (see
RESERVATION) and he can even withdraw it entirely.
Topic: Found out priest was ordained in New Rite (Read 17546 times)