Fr. Fitzpatrick vs. Fr. Scott on Validity of SSPX Confessions

[MagisterMusicae]

The answer is that the priests who create common error commit mortal sin by doing so unless they have a grave reason.

Thus Canon Law punishes the priests who should know better and not the penitents.

Indeed.

I think this is where most people get hung up.

It is not that the law is trying to let any priest skirt around the law without penalty.

Validity and Liceity are not the same thing.

The law clearly provides for valid sacraments in nearly every case, in order to protect the faithful, yet a priest who knowingly sets up an illicit situation commits an objectively grave sin. If he has just reason to do so then there is no sin on his part.

The problem is trying to impute what looks like lawlessness on the part of the priests as a reason for invalidity of the sacrament.

The discussion of whether an SSPX priest is acting wrongly and sinfully by creating the situation is a completely different question, and one we ought not discuss without very stringent standards and restraint, lest it become accusations of sin against particular people.

[newschoolman]

Certainly if a priest deliberately leads a community into honest error regarding either factual matters or regarding the law itself -- then the people are not to blame. 

[MagisterMusicae]

Certainly if a priest deliberately leads a community into honest error regarding either factual matters or regarding the law itself -- then the people are not to blame. 

Which is one of the purposes of the way the law is written.

But the law also indicated that if a priest creates a situation in which a group of reasonable people (a hypothetical, not actual group) would fall into error, then there is Common Error of Law and jursdiction is also supplied, even if there is no "honest error" at all.

This is to protect the faithful and ensure they receive valid sacraments.

Again, whether it is sinful or wrong for a priest to create a situation where Common Error of Fact or Common Error of Law exists to provide supplied jurisdiction, is a separate discussion.
 

[newschoolman]

But the law also indicated that if a priest creates a situation in which a group of reasonable people (a hypothetical, not actual group) would fall into error, then there is Common Error of Law and jursdiction is also supplied, even if there is no "honest error" at all.

No, I had already addressed this above.  There is no common error of law when the (actual or hypothetical) community actually knows the truth of law.  Yet, according to the opinions of the moral theologians that I have already cited, when the (actual or hypothetical) community is in common error regarding the law -- "one or the other" who actually knows the truth -- can benefit by a valid confession.  In other words, supplied jurisdiction presupposes real common error (regarding factual matters or the law) among the (hypothetical or actual) community. 

[PastorAeternus]

The law clearly provides for valid sacraments in nearly every case, in order to protect the faithful, yet a priest who knowingly sets up an illicit situation commits an objectively grave sin. If he has just reason to do so then there is no sin on his part.

What is an “illicit” situation? Advertising “confessions before every Mass” in the bulletin? Preaching without faculties? Becoming a “spiritual director” to his “parishioners”? Acting like he has faculties to preach? In other words, when he acts like a regular priest with faculties and jurisdiction -rather than a simplex priest acting under emergency conditions for saying the Mass (and no preaching) and hearing confessions when he is approached by someone in grave need? 

 

Does a non-jurisdictional priest have any obligation to educate his "parishioners" on jurisdiction - as in - he has none - but if they pop in that's OK?   

 

Is the official policy with regard to educating “parishioners” for all non-jurisdictional priests who set up traditional “permanent” enclaves with all the bells and whistles (just like your parish Church) - “don’t ask, don’t tell”?

 

Except for Fr. Paul Trinchard, I do not know of a single independent or Society priest (OK, I only know a few) who actually act as simplex priests who serve the Faithful under emergency conditions.  Catholics line up for their weekly minor fault confessions just like they would anyplace else. Who is going to tell them any different?

 

One independent priest I know who "advertises" goes to a N.O. Church for confession -but he wouldn't dare advise any of his "parishioners" that there are hundreds of Churches to choose from where they can probably find a priest who won't tell them sin does not exist or ask them "what the hell are you doing here?".  But knowing the sensitive natures of most traddies and their right to spiritual direction - hey - what can he do? 

 

If you build it, they will come.     

 

So I am not sure what is meant by an “illicit” situation when the priest is already in an illicit situation - but acts like he isn’t. 

 

Should this be a separate topic?    

 

[Vincentius]

The answer is that the priests who create common error commit mortal sin by doing so unless they have a grave reason.

Thus Canon Law punishes the priests who should know better and not the penitents.

If the penitent knows that the priest is not capable of licitly conferring a sacrament, he sins as well.  He cannot feel smug and state, "Well, this priest doesn't have the faculties but since the law protects me, I can obtain absolution regardless."  If this is the way the argument goes, there is something rotten and screwy about the law (which incidentally is what happens only in protestant faith communities, where error abounds).  The law protects only those who are ignorant of the validity and lawful status of their confessor.   This is what has been stated that "The law clearly provides for valid sacraments in nearly every case, in order to protect the faithful..."  In "nearly" every case.  Not in all cases.[/QUOTE]

Indeed.

I think this is where most people get hung up.

It is not that the law is trying to let any priest skirt around the law without penalty.

Validity and Liceity are not the same thing.

The law clearly provides for valid sacraments in nearly every case, in order to protect the faithful, yet a priest who knowingly sets up an illicit situation commits an objectively grave sin. If he has just reason to do so then there is no sin on his part.

The problem is trying to impute what looks like lawlessness on the part of the priests as a reason for invalidity of the sacrament.

I understand what you are saying, but the law applies only in certain conditions; it's not universal, the preponderant reason or that which has greater force (or influence) is when there is not the presence of a priest who has faculties.

"Validity and Liceity are not the same thing."  Right, but they need to go hand in hand.   A sacrament that is valid but not licit is no sacrament.   Except in cases of  dire necessity -- danger of death.

A case in point:  In one large city, a traditional independent priest set up his own church and was drawing in many catholics.   Common error in law at work, right?  Not necessarily because a state of necessity existed when the bishop made the statement that "No Latin Mass, no traditional sacraments while I am bishop."   However, a new Ordinary came and brought in the FSSP and that put the Indie in an illicit situation.  His congregation now had a choice:   stay and be willfully ignorant, or flee to where validity and liceity existed.

The discussion of whether an SSPX priest is acting wrongly and sinfully by creating the situation is a completely different question, and one we ought not discuss without very stringent standards and restraint, lest it become accusations of sin against particular people.

Why would it be a "different question," and why should this be out of bounds?    This situation is created in many instances where there is not a need for it, i.e., when a priest with faculties is available. 

As for "a priest who knowingly sets up an illicit situation commits an objectively grave sin" -- why would he put his salvation in jeopardy?   Is there in him a presumption of mercy, that since he is saving a soul, the objectively grave sin would not be imputed to him?  What if he croaks right there in the confessional?

So I am not sure what is meant by an "illicit" situation when the priest is already in an illicit situation - but acts like he isn't. 

I wonder about that too.

[MagisterMusicae]

But the law also indicated that if a priest creates a situation in which a group of reasonable people (a hypothetical, not actual group) would fall into error, then there is Common Error of Law and jursdiction is also supplied, even if there is no "honest error" at all.

No, I had already addressed this above.  There is no common error of law when the (actual or hypothetical) community actually knows the truth of law.  Yet, according to the opinions of the moral theologians that I have already cited, when the (actual or hypothetical) community is in common error regarding the law -- "one or the other" who actually knows the truth -- can benefit by a valid confession.  In other words, supplied jurisdiction presupposes real common error (regarding factual matters or the law) among the (hypothetical or actual) community. 

You are confusing the two concepts, NSM.

Common Error of Fact is a factual error. If people know that a priest does not have jurisdiction there cannot be Common Error of Fact, since there is no factual error.

Since the law itself lists Common Error of Law as an entirely separate kind of Common Error, then it is clearly different. This, it seems you fail to understand.

Common Error in Law is not "error regarding the law". It is a legally created "Common Error" which is not an actual error. It is not a error regarding the application of law. It is a legal fiction, of which there are countless other examples.

Because it is a legal fiction, the standard which must be met is a situation or fact exists, and this situation or fact would cause a group of reasonable (average) Catholics to believe that a priest has jurisdiction. It is not necessary for an actual group of people to be in error, only that a group of reasonable people would be in error if they were presented with the general situation.

There is no consideration of what they know or don't know, or what they should know, or whether the group is an SSPX group and whether the priest has informed them that he has no ordinary jurisdiction. None of this matters. If we insist upon narrowing the group or putting caveats on this hypothetical group of "average Catholics" we make Common Error of Law into Common Error of Fact. They are not the same, but two very different concepts.

The situation is analyzed as follows: A man dressed as a priest enters a confessional and shows himself ready to hear confessions. The average Catholic would believe that he has the faculties (if they even know he needs faculties), so a group of average Catholics would also believe this. Thus if a man dressed as a priest enters a confessional and he lacks jurisdiction then it is supplied, provided he is a priest.

I have presented at least two post-1983 Canonical authorities who use this exact situation as an example. The New Commentary on Canon Law published in 2000 even uses this example, and they do no make any kind of distinction regarding a situation like the SSPX, even though if your claim is correct, that example would provide a perfect example of the limitations of this law.

The fundamental problem that I think you are making here, NSM, is not making the distinction between what is truly meant by Common Error of Law and the distinction between the two.

Beyond this, there is also doubt which we have not discussed. Doubt is defined as a situation where there are reasonable arguments for and against a proposition. Clearly if we're able to make reasonable arguments here (I'm not trying to prove that SSPX confessions are valid, only suggest arguments as to why they may be), then we also have a situaion where there is doubt, and in case of doubt, jurisdiction is supplied.

If you do have Canonical authorities (particular post-1983) which demonstrate that Common Error of Law only applied in ignorance, then I would appreciate those citations.

[MagisterMusicae]

NSM,

As a follow up, one of the previous citation you make was from Fr. Jone's Moral Theology.

In it he writes in No. 582:

I. In common error the Church supplies jurisdiction (C. 209)

One may follow the opinion which holds that a common error is had when some public act is posited which in itself is capable of leading, no one or the other, but all people indiscriminately into error, even though perhaps one or the other because of his special information may be aware of the lack of jurisdiction. — Absolution is valid even though the penitent realizes the priest's lack of jurisdiction

Although absolution thus given is valid, it remains gravely forbidden, since the Church supplies jurisdiction only for the sake of the common welfare. — Absolution is lawful only for a very serious reason (e.g. for a reason that would permit one to say Mass without fasting).

This is somewhat incorrect. In 1962 when the last edition of this book was published it was only a common opinion among Canonical authorities that Common Error of Law was a case for the supply of jurisdiction. In 1983 it was made a certain fact with the new edition of Canon Law.

The definition of Common Error of Law is also broader than the citation lets on, and this can be established by a number of Canonical authorities.

Regarding when the reason that Mass may be said without fasting, one reason listed is the avoidance of scandal and the common good. Fr. Jone states that a priest may offer Sunday Mass even if he has broken his fast so as not to appear to give scandal, but also so that the faithful might be able to hear Mass which is an obligation.

Given the loose restrictions on various other laws in he 1983 Code (for instance I may go to an Orthodox priest for confession for "necessity or a genuine spiritual advantage") it follows that there is little reason to see these as legitimate reasons in which a priest who is without faculties can hear confessions. Clearly the orthodox or some other sect does not have jurisdiction, yet they give valid sacraments.

There is also the citation about doubt:

II. Doubt of law or fact (dubium iuris vel facti) is anothe rcase in which jurisdiction is supplied  (C. 209)
 

A dubium iuris is has if the law itself is doubtful (if, for example, there is a controversy regarding the meaning of error communis). A dubium facti obtains if the doubtconcerns a fact (e.g., whether he who committed a crime, punishable by censure l.s., possed the requisite imputability). — Absolution may be given without a special reason, since in this instance the Church supplied jurisdiction for the sake of the confessor and the penitent and only ad cautelam.

Fr. Jone would seem to suggest that if we do not know that a SSPX priest has the requisite imputability for his suspension, then jurisdiction is supplied ... this is farther than most Canonists I have read would interpret this portion of the law.

[newschoolman]

I am going to suspend further comment on this for the moment.  My great hope is that the rumored lifting of the excommunications comes to pass and some provision will be made providing jurisdiction to the SSPX while a final juridical solution is being worked out.   

[maurin]

I am going to suspend further comment on this for the moment.  My great hope is that the rumored lifting of the excommunications comes to pass and some provision will be made providing jurisdiction to the SSPX while a final juridical solution is being worked out.   

you are a gentleman, nsm...thank you.