[latae sententiae]

It no longer applies to the faithful at St.Anthony's, since the retired diocesan priest, Fr. Murphy was there long enough to have administered confession and absolution to every one there.

He had no permission from your Archbishop to offer Mass and absolve on his turf. Hence, to your newfound leadership, those absolutions never happened validly. Ask them.

But maybe you could tell me why the WHO of it concerns you, rahter than the fact of it... ?

Oh, it doesn't concern me in the least, but it should concern you. Still waiting for (a) and (b), BTW.

[hobbes1]

He had no permission from your Archbishop to offer Mass and absolve on his turf. Hence, to your newfound leadership, those absolutions never happened validly. Ask them.

That is incorrect. 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.....

[hobbes1]

Actually I answered both.

As to Fr.Perricones positon, as I pointed out, he would be aware of the grave sins being incurred by, and indeed guilty of grave sin in keeping such information from the aforementioned, and would be injudiciously administering and receiving Holy Commmunion.

So Occams Razor applying, now, You should prove why you think the opposite is actually the truth.