132. On Reservation

1. "Olivarius, stained by a reserved sin with an episcopal censure, but ignorant of the reservation, truly contrite and in the best faith, confesses to Sabellus, a priest not approved for reserved matters. But the confessor, whether from ignorance or from inadvertence, absolves him, and does not notice the error until the penitent has already gone far away. Wherefore he hesitates in uncertainty, not knowing what must be done by him.

It is asked: What, the reservation having been known after confession, must be done by the penitent or by the confessor?

R. 1.º With regard to the penitent: if afterward he knows that he could not be absolved by Sabellus, let him approach another confessor enjoying a greater faculty, and open the reserved sin to him; or let him ask an ordinary confessor to seek pardon, by force of which he can absolve him. - 2.º With regard to the confessor: let him admonish the penitent concerning the error committed, if this can be done easily, for example, if he returns to confession, so that that error may be repaired; or better, let him immediately seek from the bishop the faculty of absolving from that reserved sin, and take care that the penitent approach again for the sake of confessing, and, a new declaration of this sin having been prudently obtained, let him absolve him even without admonishing him of the error. But if he can neither easily admonish nor absolve the penitent, let him leave him in good faith." Thus Fr. Gury n. 578.

The reason of this resolution is that, as the same Fr. Gury has in the preceding number 577, although ignorance of the censure excuses from the censure, because a censure, since it is a punishment, directly affects the person of the sinner, nevertheless ignorance of the reservation does not excuse from the reservation, because reservation by its nature looks to this, that reserved things undergo the judgment of a more prudent one, and therefore directly limits the jurisdiction of the inferior; which is the most common opinion of St. Alphonsus 581. I. M. 796.

Now in the Case Olivarius does not appear to have confessed other sins besides the reserved sin; but his confessor Sabellus seems to have been a confessor who was already publicly known as such and was publicly carrying out the office of confessor. Hence although the absolution was invalid by reason of the reservation of the sin and the defect of the confessor's power, nevertheless in fact the absolution was valid by reason of common error. The reason: "From Law 3, de Offic. praetor., it is declared that jurisdiction is supplied on account of the utility of those among whom the thing has been done: and this is valid here also; especially because a title is not usually displayed to the people nor asked for; as, for example, when someone receives the power of receiving confessions, or of absolving from reserved matters. Certainly common error supplies those things which pertain to the state and condition of persons, whenever by law, whether civil or canonical, this is needed so that something can validly be done; nor does it need a colored title: as in the one who is publicly held to be free (L. 3 and L. 2, de Sent. et interl.), a citizen (L. 1 C. de Testam.), a head of a household (L. 3 Ad S. C. Maced.), a wife (L. 24 de Rit. nupt.), a cleric (c. 12 de S. E. in 6.º), a suitable witness (§ 7 de Testam.), an heir (L. 44 de A. H.), patron of a benefice (Perez, de Matrim., 40, 5, 3), a husband (St. Alphonsus III, 232), (Toull. V, 407; Durant. IX, 109; Zach. 670, 27; Less. II, 29, 67)." Thus D'Annibale, p. 2, n. 79, note 74. And thus, as to the solution of the case, Gennari, M. E., vol. 7, part 1, p. 83 ff.

For the most distinguished author, in the place cited, proposes this Case: "Giulio, a penitent, confesses only reserved sins to Giovenale, a simple confessor. Giovenale, not noticing the reservation, simply absolves him ... It is asked: What is to be said in the case of Giovenale? ... When a priest exercises the ministry of confessions and is commonly believed to be a confessor, although he does not have the faculty, or it has expired, and although he does not have that for reserved matters, nevertheless he validly absolves, although he commits a most grave offense ... We are of the opinion, therefore, in our case, that Giovenale validly absolved Giulio, who confessed only reserved sins; because the absolution, although null in itself, is made valid by the Church through common error. For if the Church supplies jurisdiction when approval for confessions is entirely lacking, she ought to supply it also when only the approval for reserved matters is lacking; for this second case the same reason holds which holds for the first. The matter concerns securing eternal salvation for the penitent."

But this solution, if it is taken absolutely as it stands, seems difficult to me. For then I do not see how also, by force of error, an accomplice would not validly be absolved from the sin of complicity, if the penitent confesses only this sin, as in the preceding Case. Nor indeed, where there is speech of common error, is there question only of the eternal salvation of the penitent, but of the common good; otherwise even in a Case of private error the Church would supply jurisdiction. Yet the solution seems to me to be admissible, and the reason just given seems to me urgent also in the Case of reserved matters, if it is added that common error is really had concerning that jurisdiction regarding reserved matters. And thus, for example, in time of jubilee, such common error could well be had with regard to some confessor who is thought to be approved, when he is not approved, and who consequently also is commonly thought able, like the others, to absolve from reserved matters. Cf. D'Annibale, p. 1, n. 348, note 20; I. M. 769.

2. "Nigritius in his diocese committed a sin to which was annexed not only reservation, but also an episcopal excommunication. A little afterward, traveling outside the diocese, he approaches the vicar general of the bishop of the place in which he is staying, sincerely lays open his conscience to him, and is absolved by him without difficulty.

It is asked: 1.º Whether a traveler can be absolved outside the diocese from episcopal censures which he incurred in his own diocese? 2.º What is to be said to the Case?

R. If there is question of censures by law, or even by man through a general sentence, it seems that one must answer affirmatively, the actual and common custom standing, against which Ordinaries do not protest, although the older authors very commonly denied it. It seems also to be drawn from the Council of Trent, by which the privilege of absolving from occult cases is granted to bishops, and where it is said: in any occult cases whatsoever, EVEN those reserved to the Apostolic See. Moreover, from the particle even it is sufficiently shown that the faculty of absolving from cases reserved by other bishops is comprehended.

To the 2nd. Nigritius more probably was validly absolved, the controversy standing which was related in the preceding question. Therefore he is not bound to repeat the confession before his own superior. Consequently the vicar general by whom he was absolved is not to be blamed. Except if there were question of a censure ab homine, about which there is by no means question in our Case." Thus Fr. Gury 585, 586. But, in the first response, the argument taken from the Council of Trent and from the particle even is by no means demonstrative. S. C. C., Jan. 24, 1741; Nov. 29, 1742; Benedict XIV, Const. Pias Christi, Aug. 20, 1752; de Syn., l. 5, c. 5, n. 9; I. M. 797.

3. "Albericus, a parish priest, bound by a reserved sin, is in the necessity of celebrating because of the multitude of people about to hear Mass on a feast day. No other priest is present except Paulinus, his vicar, who is destitute of the faculty of absolving from reserved matters. What will the wretched man do? Confession having been neglected and an act of contrition elicited, he prepares himself for performing the sacred rite. Yet, moved by scruple, he approaches the vicar and confesses only venial sins, leaving aside the reserved mortal sin.

It is asked: Whether Albericus was obliged to confess?

R. More probably negatively, because he is not bound to confession either by reason of the reserved sin, which cannot be remitted directly, or by reason of venial sins, which are not necessary matter of confession. Lig. 265. But Albericus is bound to elicit perfect contrition, and, if he doubts about it, he is obliged to confession." Thus Fr. Gury 590.

Yet, if Albericus was bound by a papal case, it does not seem that he could omit confession. For, since he himself is found in a truly more urgent case, and in that case any confessor can directly absolve from a papal case, it certainly does not appear how he can omit confession. But he is bound at least within a month and through the medium of a confessor to have recourse to the Holy See. I. M. 800, 802. But if Albericus is bound by an episcopal case, the same seems to be said, according to the opinion that a simple confessor can directly absolve from it, the impediment standing. But Albericus, when the impediment has ceased, must present himself to the superior, to receive his mandate. I. M., place cited. Cf. Comment. de Censuris, ed. 5, n. 58 ff.