133. Absolution from Reserved Matters

1. Benedictus, a confessor, received from his Ordinary the faculty, the first time, of absolving from reserved sins; the second time, of absolving from reserved cases. Could he in each Case absolve from reserved censures?

R. Affirmatively. For with regard to the first formula, from reserved sins, sins regularly cannot be absolved unless the censures first have been absolved, if they are punished with censures. But sins are most truly reserved whether they are reserved by themselves with no censure added, or are reserved by reason of an added reserved censure. Therefore that formula of absolving from reserved sins embraces each case, both cases reserved without censure, and cases reserved with reserved censure.

But the other formula, of reserved cases, of itself also embraces each reservation; for a reserved case most truly exists whether a sin is reserved without any censure, or whether it is reserved by reason of a reserved censure. Besides, from the now customary manner of speaking, by the name of reserved cases today everywhere and by all are understood both cases reserved without censure and cases reserved with reserved censure. D'Annibale, ed. 3, p. 1, n. 347, note 16.

2. "Recadius, a simple confessor, absolved Titius from the grave sin of striking a cleric, reserved to the Pope, because he, on account of the inconveniences of advanced age, labors under a perpetual impediment to going personally to Rome. Afterward, however, he doubts whether he acted rightly, or what must be done.

It is asked: Whether a simple confessor can absolve from papal cases those who cannot go to Rome?

R. Negatively. The reason is that a simple confessor has no faculty of absolving from that censure. For a grave striking of a cleric is a case reserved to the Pope; if it had been a light striking, it would be reserved to the bishop. Nor does it matter that the penitent cannot go to Rome; for although on that account he is exempted from the law of approaching the Apostolic See, nevertheless he is not exempted from the law of presenting himself, in the way in which he can, to the bishop, from whom, the aforesaid impediment standing, he is able to obtain absolution from his censure. Therefore the confessor will be able, if some grave necessity urges and easy access to the bishop is not open, to absolve this penitent with the burden of presenting himself to the bishop at the time and in the manner in which he can. Lugo, d. 20, s. 10. Hence Recadius invalidly absolved the penitent from the grave striking of a cleric, under the pretext that he could not personally go to Rome, because then the case remained reserved to the bishop." Thus Fr. Gury n. 600.

This resolution must be corrected according to the norm of various Decrees of the Holy Office and of the Sacred Penitentiary concerning absolution from sins and censures reserved to the Supreme Pontiff. Cf. I. M. 800. Wherefore 1.º to the proposed Question, as it stands, one must respond: Negatively, and this "holds even for the Case when the penitent has been perpetually impeded from personally setting out for Rome." S. O., June 17, 1891. For recourse must be made by letter to the Holy See. But in more urgent cases, in which absolution cannot be deferred without danger of grave scandal or infamy, or it would be hard for the penitent to remain longer in grave sin, absolution can be given by a simple confessor, with the obligation, however, of having recourse to the Holy See at least within a month by letter. S. O., June 23, 1886; June 16, 1897.

But as regards the proposed Case, it must be noted that from the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis the censure of the canon is simply reserved to the Roman Pontiff; but from this papal reservation, by the same Constitution, are excepted "the cases and persons concerning which by law or privilege it is permitted that a bishop or another absolve." I. M. 1182. Wherefore, the penitent being impeded from approaching the superior, he can be absolved by another, c. Eos qui, 22, de Sent. excomm., in 6.º. Therefore Recadius does not seem to be disturbed. Cf. Comment. de Censur., ed. 5, n. 58 ff.; D'Annibale, p. 1, n. 346, 349, 368.

3. "Samuel, a religious, enjoying the faculty of absolving from cases reserved to the Pope, absolves also from episcopal cases, although he had not been specially delegated for this, especially when a double reservation, namely papal and episcopal, attaches to the same sin; because, he says, he who can do the greater can also do the lesser.

It is asked: What is to be said to the Case?

R. Fr. Samuel erred greatly by absolving from episcopal cases without the delegation of the bishop, from the fact that he was approved for papal cases, and by loosing a double chain, while he was able to loose only one. For he falsely applied the principle: He who can do the greater can do the lesser; he should have added: in the same genus. But here there is no question of the same genus, since papal and episcopal cases draw their origin from a diverse principle." Thus Fr. Gury 598.

Fr. Gury says nothing in the resolution of the Case about a double reservation attaching to the same sin, namely papal and episcopal. In such a Case Fr. Samuel does not seem to err. There is no mixed reservation, that is, pontifical and episcopal at the same time. Nor can there be; for those things which are called to the judgment of a superior are by the law itself withdrawn from the jurisdiction of inferiors; otherwise absolution given by him would be almost useless. And so the Ordinary cannot also reserve to himself those cases which are reserved to the Roman Pontiff; and, if he had reserved some to himself, and the Roman Pontiff afterward reserves them, the episcopal reservation vanishes by the law itself. Suarez, d. 31, s. 4, n. 26; Lugo, d. 20, nn. 149, 151; D'Annibale, p. I, n. 339. Cf. Commentar. de Censur., ed. 5, n. 24.

4. "Liborius, a simple confessor, absolves from reserved matters even outside the case of death: 1.º Germana, who otherwise would have to remain for a week in the state of mortal sin with great anxiety; 2.º Caius, whose long and difficult confession he had received before he knew the reservation; 3.º Geruntius, an old man, who comes to confess on the last day of the Easter time and is very far from the episcopal city, and therefore cannot approach the bishop personally. In absolving these penitents, Liborius earnestly utters and repeats these words of the sacramental form: so far as I can, and thou hast need. But he does not take care to warn them of the obligation to confess these reserved sins afterward, when occasion is given, to the superior or to some delegate.

It is asked: What is to be said to the Case?

R. Liborius could indirectly absolve Germana from reserved sins, because it is a great inconvenience to remain so long in the state of mortal sin for a soul seized with great anxiety. He could absolve Caius, because it would be a great inconvenience to him if he had to repeat a long confession before another. He could absolve Geruntius, by reason of the necessity of communicating in the Easter time. But the reason does not hold that he cannot personally have recourse to the bishop, because he could write by himself or through another. Those bound by a papal censure can indeed approach the bishop, if they cannot seek Rome, as is conceded by the Law; but not on that account can those impeded from approaching the bishop personally be absolved by anyone whatsoever. But Liborius acted badly by omitting to admonish the aforesaid penitents concerning the obligation of declaring the reserved case again to a confessor who was approved for reserved matters. It would have been consonant with charity if, while admonishing them, he had promised that he would ask license for them, and absolve them again, so that thus a new accusation would be avoided for them." Thus Fr. Gury 595.

Concerning the preceding resolution, it must first be noted what is said about indirect absolution. For, the impediment standing, the inferior more probably absolves directly, as is drawn from the Law of the Decretals, and with regard to papal cases this is certainly established from the Responses of the Holy Office, Aug. 19, 1891, and March 30, 1892.

Then it must be noted what is said about recourse to the bishop by letter. For reservation obliges only to presenting oneself to the superior, not to sending a letter or a messenger. Hence, if one cannot perform that, he is not bound to another thing. This is admitted without any controversy by St. Alphonsus, l. 7, n. 89; whence it is also confirmed from the Response of the Holy Office, July 8, 1860: "Whether those impeded from approaching Rome in person are bound to approach at least by letter, or by a procurator, to obtain absolution from cases reserved to the Apostolic See? - R. Let him consult approved authors, among whom St. Alphonsus M. de Liguori." But although from the Response of the Holy Office, June 23, 1886, the impediment to seeking Rome standing, one must at least by letter have recourse to the Holy See, nevertheless from this the same obligation does not follow with regard to recourse also to be made to the bishop. For in the aforesaid Decree there is question of papal cases, and of these alone is there question; and since it is of strict interpretation, it is not of itself extended also to episcopal cases. Besides, the aforesaid Decree is founded on the practice of the Sacred Penitentiary, but by no means on some common disposition of Law, and so again the aforesaid Decree of itself does not comprehend episcopal cases. Wherefore the same disposition for episcopal cases cannot be affirmed except by reasoning; and that it be in fact extended to these, apart from another positive declaration, legitimate and demonstrative, as is fitting, reasoning is needed. Cf. Comment. de Censur., ed. 5, n. 58 ff.; Gennari, Consultaz. Mor. Can. Lit., p. 1, c. 34; I. M. 800.

As regards Germana, if the reserved sins of which there was question were papal cases, it seems that Liborius acted rightly by absolving her. For from the Decrees of the Holy Office, June 23, 1886, and June 16, 1897, penitents must have recourse by letters to the Holy See in the case of an impediment to approaching Rome personally. Meanwhile absolution can be given to them, with reincidence after a month unless they have recourse, in cases however truly more urgent, in which absolution cannot be deferred without danger of grave scandal and infamy, and also if it would be hard for them to remain longer in grave sin. Of this sort, moreover, is the Case of Germana. But if there was question of episcopal cases, he also acted rightly by absolving Germana, but he ought to have imposed on her the burden of presenting herself before the superior, namely unless she was excused because of an impediment, or of receiving absolution again from one having the faculty, which he himself also could have asked for her. I. M. 800; D'Annibale, p. 1, n. 349; Lig. 585.

As regards Caius, it does not seem that he acted rightly, for the inconvenience of repeating confession before another here is intrinsic to the very confession of reserved sins. If Liborius had wished to exempt his penitent from this inconvenience, then he could have deferred absolution for him meanwhile, and sought the due faculty from the superior. I. M. 800.

With regard to Geruntius, he could, with the aforesaid burden of having recourse, be absolved, if the cases were papal; because certainly, the circumstance of the Easter time standing, it would have been hard for him to remain longer in grave sin. But if the cases were episcopal, the perpetual impediment standing, for there is question of an old man, he could be absolved absolutely. I. M. 800.

5. Gregorius, his confession of reserved sins having been begun before the bishop, who had the due faculty in that matter, having left him, approached the Holy See by letter for absolution. But before he received a response, he returned to the bishop, so that he might complete the confession and be absolved.

It is asked: Whether Gregorius could in the Case be absolved by the bishop?

R. Affirmatively. "It can be asked," says D'Annibale, p. 1, n. 77, "whether the jurisdiction of the inferior ceases, if someone, passing him over, approaches the superior. Conradus and De Iustis affirm it, if he, passing over the Ordinary, approaches the Roman Pontiff, namely by a certain quasi-laying-on of hands. The rest, almost all, deny it more truly, because this is provided by no law ... Certainly the Ordinary can absolve from censures him who has appealed to the superior, and a delegate can grant a favor denied by the delegator ... For who would say that one having recourse to the Roman Pontiff for absolution from an excommunication incurred because of abortion cannot return to the bishop and be absolved? For it can scarcely be understood how someone by having recourse to the Father of all the faithful would make his own condition worse."