CathInfo.com

The issue isn’t supplied jurisdiction itself. Everyone here agrees that in a real state of necessity, the Church supplies so the faithful aren’t deprived of the sacraments.

The problem is what’s being done with it.

What we’re seeing in the communiqué is supplied jurisdiction being treated like it creates a standing authority structure, “our supplied authority,” governing apostolates, expecting submission, and effectively telling other priests where they can or can’t operate. That’s not how this principle works.

Supplied jurisdiction is temporary and limited. It exists to help souls in necessity. It doesn’t give anyone the right to build a parallel system of control or to regulate other priests who are in the exact same situation.

If one priest can appeal to necessity, then so can another. You can’t use the same principle to justify your ministry and then turn around and restrict someone else’s who holds the same faith and operates under the same necessity.

That’s where this crosses a line.

At that point, it stops being about supplying what’s lacking and starts looking like an attempt to create authority where none has been given. And that’s exactly what raises concern about SAJM, not its existence, but the way it’s beginning to function.

If the principle is sound, it has to stay within its limits:
to supply, not to control.

The issue isn’t supplied jurisdiction itself. Everyone here agrees that in a real state of necessity, the Church supplies so the faithful aren’t deprived of the sacraments.

The problem is what’s being done with it.

What we’re seeing in the communiqué is supplied jurisdiction being treated like it creates a standing authority structure, “our supplied authority,” governing apostolates, expecting submission, and effectively telling other priests where they can or can’t operate. That’s not how this principle works.

Supplied jurisdiction is temporary and limited. It exists to help souls in necessity. It doesn’t give anyone the right to build a parallel system of control or to regulate other priests who are in the exact same situation.

If one priest can appeal to necessity, then so can another. You can’t use the same principle to justify your ministry and then turn around and restrict someone else’s who holds the same faith and operates under the same necessity.

That’s where this crosses a line.

At that point, it stops being about supplying what’s lacking and starts looking like an attempt to create authority where none has been given. And that’s exactly what raises concern about SAJM, not its existence, but the way it’s beginning to function.

If the principle is sound, it has to stay within its limits:
to supply, not to control.