Cool, figured you had it right, but wanted to confirm. So it would be beneficial for someone who learns he has been shriven invalidly to mention this at next confession, for maximum clarity of conscience.
Would this be a case of common error on the side of the penitent? that they should reasonably expect a priest in a confessional in a regular church should have faculties. So they wouldn’t need to panic about trying to remember that Confession to bring that matter up again?
I think I'd say, "I found out a past confession may have been invalid because the priest lacked faculties, so I want to be sure I'm covered" or some such, unless for some reason something from the old confession stood out fresh in my memory. It's just a matter of keeping a tidy conscience; I cannot imagine our Lord holding innocent error from many Confessions ago against you.
Incidentally, a good case for caring about indulgences, also.
"It depends" -- it is sometimes the case that one illicitly does something valid, but I think much more rarely the case that one licitly does something invalid.
If I baptize a healthy baby on my own and without parental consent, I behave illicitly but the baby is baptized (validly).
If a couple exchanges consent to marry but one spouse is secretly harboring a plan to continue an affair and eventually abandon the marriage, the priest and the other spouse may well behave quite licitly, only to much later have the invalidity (nullity) declared/discovered.
Licity has to do with whether you did your part in keeping with the Church's care of souls; validity has to do with whether we have the evidence of divine action a sacrament should offer.
Thank you, especially for the examples. I know of some of these circumstances, but would not have been able to assign these terms to them. Appreciate it!
Some illicit sacraments may be valid depending on the circumstances
Also there is a difference between a confessor invalidly imparting Sacramental absolution and a penitent validly receiving it
This distinction was made when priests of SSPX during the year of mercy were not given faculties to validly impart Sacramental absolution but penintents were assured that their sins were indeed absolved Sacramentally
"During the Year of Mercy, Francis made special provisions to recognize as valid the absolution offered by SSPX priests through the sacrament of confession. After the Holy Year ended, the pope extended that provision "lest anyone ever be deprived of the sacramental sign of reconciliation through the church's pardon."
Along the same lines, was this a mistake? Did you mean to say validly here? Or would he have been able to absolve validly but not licitly because he may have had the faculties from elsewhere but been prohibited from exercising those faculties in Boston due to the prohibition?
“the archdiocese also prohibited the priest from public ministry in 2017 — meaning that if even he had been granted faculties from another diocese, he would not have been free in June 2018 to exercise them licitly in the Archdiocese of Boston, when he was reportedly hearing confessions in the city.”
"Or would he have been able to absolve validly but not licitly because he may have had the faculties from elsewhere but been prohibited from exercising those faculties in Boston due to the prohibition?"
Given Father G's explanation of Canon 967, a priest who is traveling through other dioceses and has habitual faculties can hear confessions validly and licitly. If the priest is religious, (which I believe he is) he must have faculties from the ordinary in the place of his domicile. If the Religious has such faculties at his domicile, and faculties are therefore supplied by the Law when traveling, even if he is prohibited by the ordinary of a place, he would hear confessions validly but illicitly in that particular place. Is that correct?
To the Pillar: Who was Fr. Nicgorski's ordinary in Rome and were his faculties revoked when he was traveling in Boston in 2018?
Is there any Church Canon law, whereby the Oblates are obliged to inform penitents of potentially invalid or illicit sacraments of confession at St. Francis (Prudential) Chapel?
Out of curiosity, if a priest is traveling and passes through other dioceses, is he able to hear confessions along the way, even of his traveling companions? Or is that also a case of not having faculties from the local ordinary?
A priest who possesses habitual faculties to hear confessions can hear confessions validly anywhere unless he is denied the faculty by a local ordinary. And in that case, he does not have the faculty only in the territory of the local ordinary who denied it (see Can. 967 § 2). So, if a diocesan priest has the faculties to hear confessions from his bishop of incardination, he can hear the confessions of anyone, and anywhere, while he is traveling. He does not need to get faculties from the local ordinary while traveling because he has the faculties from the law itself.
However, this does get a little more confusing with priests who are religious - generally, they need to ensure that they have been given the habitual faculties "by grant of an ordinary of the place in which they have domicile." So, if they have a change in domicile, then they would usually need to get the faculties from the local ordinary before they could hear the confessions of anyone, anywhere, while traveling.
"Can. 967 § 2. Those who possess the faculty of hearing confessions habitually whether by virtue of office or by virtue of the grant of an ordinary of the place of incardination or of the place in which they have a domicile can exercise that faculty everywhere unless the local ordinary has denied it in a particular case, without prejudice to the prescripts of can. 974, §§ 2 and 3."
This is correct, the faculty conferred by a ordinary of domicile does not expire when domicile lapses. So it can be the case, and sometimes is for religious, that the carry a faculty granted by an ordinary of domicile, even after their domicile has changed.
In either case, I believe that Nicgorski maintained domicile in RCAB even after going to Rome for his assignment.
Perfect love drives out fear of liability. So I will pray for everyone in his order to become great saints (continued digging by journalists will probably be the more effective direct approach though.)
Folks, lucid…valid…what about the woman who was traumatized? Do you realize what this type of treatment does to one’s soul and relationship with the church? And you are debating Canon Law.
I presume she would feel better knowing that what happened to her was in complete opposition to the Church and the confessor had no right to even be there
She may be comforted by this knowledge, if she can get past the the trauma she experienced spiritually, mentally and emotionally which will live on with her for a long time. As documented in the article, there was a history of sexual misconduct by the priest and lack of transparency by the OMV. More of the same in the Church.
"... After receiving his bachelor’s degree at age 25, he continued his studies at the Angelicum in Rome and St. John’s Seminary in Boston. He made his final profession as an Oblate in 1990 and was ordained to the priesthood in 1991.
Among his assignments, he was assistant pastor at St. Andrew Parish in Avenel, N.J.; program director at Emmaus House, a retreat facility in Perth Amboy, N.J., and diocesan director for youth and young adults for the Diocese of Metuchen, initially at the invitation of Bishop Edward Hughes, who was a former superintendent of Catholic schools in Philadelphia. ...."
It should not take this long to adjudicate these cases and make sure no one else is harmed in the meantime. ENOUGH.
"to hear the confessions of others validly, a religious priest like Nicgorski must be given the faculty to do so by some local ordinary."
------ straight up question because at the moment I can't remember: is this a matter of validity, or did you mean "licitly"?
no, validity.
Cool, figured you had it right, but wanted to confirm. So it would be beneficial for someone who learns he has been shriven invalidly to mention this at next confession, for maximum clarity of conscience.
yes.
Would this be a case of common error on the side of the penitent? that they should reasonably expect a priest in a confessional in a regular church should have faculties. So they wouldn’t need to panic about trying to remember that Confession to bring that matter up again?
We need an explainer on this.
Yup.
As I understand it: panic, no.
Better do it than not, sure.
I think I'd say, "I found out a past confession may have been invalid because the priest lacked faculties, so I want to be sure I'm covered" or some such, unless for some reason something from the old confession stood out fresh in my memory. It's just a matter of keeping a tidy conscience; I cannot imagine our Lord holding innocent error from many Confessions ago against you.
Incidentally, a good case for caring about indulgences, also.
I had to look up this distinction. What isn’t clear is if a Sacrament is illicit, can it still be valid, and vice versa?
"It depends" -- it is sometimes the case that one illicitly does something valid, but I think much more rarely the case that one licitly does something invalid.
If I baptize a healthy baby on my own and without parental consent, I behave illicitly but the baby is baptized (validly).
If a couple exchanges consent to marry but one spouse is secretly harboring a plan to continue an affair and eventually abandon the marriage, the priest and the other spouse may well behave quite licitly, only to much later have the invalidity (nullity) declared/discovered.
Licity has to do with whether you did your part in keeping with the Church's care of souls; validity has to do with whether we have the evidence of divine action a sacrament should offer.
Roughly speaking, and subject to correction.
Thank you, especially for the examples. I know of some of these circumstances, but would not have been able to assign these terms to them. Appreciate it!
All licit sacraments are valid as well
All invalid sacraments are illicit as well
Some illicit sacraments may be valid depending on the circumstances
Also there is a difference between a confessor invalidly imparting Sacramental absolution and a penitent validly receiving it
This distinction was made when priests of SSPX during the year of mercy were not given faculties to validly impart Sacramental absolution but penintents were assured that their sins were indeed absolved Sacramentally
"During the Year of Mercy, Francis made special provisions to recognize as valid the absolution offered by SSPX priests through the sacrament of confession. After the Holy Year ended, the pope extended that provision "lest anyone ever be deprived of the sacramental sign of reconciliation through the church's pardon."
NCR 4/4/2017
Pretty much wrong on all counts, there. See above.
Along the same lines, was this a mistake? Did you mean to say validly here? Or would he have been able to absolve validly but not licitly because he may have had the faculties from elsewhere but been prohibited from exercising those faculties in Boston due to the prohibition?
“the archdiocese also prohibited the priest from public ministry in 2017 — meaning that if even he had been granted faculties from another diocese, he would not have been free in June 2018 to exercise them licitly in the Archdiocese of Boston, when he was reportedly hearing confessions in the city.”
"Or would he have been able to absolve validly but not licitly because he may have had the faculties from elsewhere but been prohibited from exercising those faculties in Boston due to the prohibition?"
correct
Given Father G's explanation of Canon 967, a priest who is traveling through other dioceses and has habitual faculties can hear confessions validly and licitly. If the priest is religious, (which I believe he is) he must have faculties from the ordinary in the place of his domicile. If the Religious has such faculties at his domicile, and faculties are therefore supplied by the Law when traveling, even if he is prohibited by the ordinary of a place, he would hear confessions validly but illicitly in that particular place. Is that correct?
To the Pillar: Who was Fr. Nicgorski's ordinary in Rome and were his faculties revoked when he was traveling in Boston in 2018?
Is there any Church Canon law, whereby the Oblates are obliged to inform penitents of potentially invalid or illicit sacraments of confession at St. Francis (Prudential) Chapel?
Out of curiosity, if a priest is traveling and passes through other dioceses, is he able to hear confessions along the way, even of his traveling companions? Or is that also a case of not having faculties from the local ordinary?
A priest who possesses habitual faculties to hear confessions can hear confessions validly anywhere unless he is denied the faculty by a local ordinary. And in that case, he does not have the faculty only in the territory of the local ordinary who denied it (see Can. 967 § 2). So, if a diocesan priest has the faculties to hear confessions from his bishop of incardination, he can hear the confessions of anyone, and anywhere, while he is traveling. He does not need to get faculties from the local ordinary while traveling because he has the faculties from the law itself.
However, this does get a little more confusing with priests who are religious - generally, they need to ensure that they have been given the habitual faculties "by grant of an ordinary of the place in which they have domicile." So, if they have a change in domicile, then they would usually need to get the faculties from the local ordinary before they could hear the confessions of anyone, anywhere, while traveling.
"Can. 967 § 2. Those who possess the faculty of hearing confessions habitually whether by virtue of office or by virtue of the grant of an ordinary of the place of incardination or of the place in which they have a domicile can exercise that faculty everywhere unless the local ordinary has denied it in a particular case, without prejudice to the prescripts of can. 974, §§ 2 and 3."
Thank you Father.
Incredibly helpful, thanks!
This is correct, the faculty conferred by a ordinary of domicile does not expire when domicile lapses. So it can be the case, and sometimes is for religious, that the carry a faculty granted by an ordinary of domicile, even after their domicile has changed.
In either case, I believe that Nicgorski maintained domicile in RCAB even after going to Rome for his assignment.
Both confession and matrimony require faculties for the sacraments to be celebrated validly.
See Canon 966.
Thanks for the reference! Just couldn't recall. Cheers!
Great discussion about validity v liceity. Any word on why his order is mum, or why he is doing this? That seems the bigger question.
Perfect love drives out fear of liability. So I will pray for everyone in his order to become great saints (continued digging by journalists will probably be the more effective direct approach though.)
Folks, lucid…valid…what about the woman who was traumatized? Do you realize what this type of treatment does to one’s soul and relationship with the church? And you are debating Canon Law.
I presume she would feel better knowing that what happened to her was in complete opposition to the Church and the confessor had no right to even be there
She may be comforted by this knowledge, if she can get past the the trauma she experienced spiritually, mentally and emotionally which will live on with her for a long time. As documented in the article, there was a history of sexual misconduct by the priest and lack of transparency by the OMV. More of the same in the Church.
It's interesting that Nicgorski's final seminary time and early priestly life overlapped with Cardinal McCarrick's territory.
https://catholicphilly.com/2015/08/news/local-news/from-fishtown-to-rome-local-priest-heads-a-global-order/
"... After receiving his bachelor’s degree at age 25, he continued his studies at the Angelicum in Rome and St. John’s Seminary in Boston. He made his final profession as an Oblate in 1990 and was ordained to the priesthood in 1991.
Among his assignments, he was assistant pastor at St. Andrew Parish in Avenel, N.J.; program director at Emmaus House, a retreat facility in Perth Amboy, N.J., and diocesan director for youth and young adults for the Diocese of Metuchen, initially at the invitation of Bishop Edward Hughes, who was a former superintendent of Catholic schools in Philadelphia. ...."
McCarrick had been bishop of Metuchen, and was Archbishop of Newark when Nicgorski began his priestly ministry in New Jersey. https://www.northjersey.com/story/news/2020/11/10/timeline-nj-ex-cardinal-theodore-mccarricks-rise-and-fall/6228189002/
Thank you for your continued coverage on this. Please keep at it.