169. Solicitation to Shameful Things

1. "Cornelia, with tears and sighs, confesses in confession to Sulpitius, the parish priest, that under the pretext of confession she committed a shameful deed with Evraldus, a confessor, whom she pursued with a most depraved love. Sulpitius prudently questions her, and learns that Cornelia had feigned herself gravely sick and had called the confessor, entirely ignorant of that depraved affection, under the pretext of confession, and had finally induced him, although at first reluctant, to perpetrate the crime. These things having been heard, Sulpitius hesitates, uncertain, not knowing whether he ought to urge the denunciation of this confessor or not.

It is asked: Whether Cornelia is to be obliged to denounce Evraldus, whom she herself solicited and induced into sin?

R. St. Lig. denies it with others... But the Decision of the Holy Office, Feb. 11, 1661, stands in the way... and the recent Instruction of the same Sacred Congregation, Feb. 20, 1867, by which this is also expressly declared in § 2." Thus P. Gury 653.

But in the cited Decision and Instruction nothing is had which bears on the matter; for there the question is of true solicitation on the part of the confessor in confession. But in the aforesaid Case there is in no way question of confession. There is indeed a pretext of confession; but in order that under pretext of confession a confessor must be denounced, it is necessary that the confessor use confession as a pretext for soliciting the penitent; and it is not enough that the penitent use confession as a pretext, so that she can solicit the confessor and sin with him. In the Case no pretext appears on the part of the confessor. For a pretext is everything which covers an interior intention by some exterior fact, whether true or only apparent. Now in the Case there was no intention of solicitation on the part of the confessor. The confessor did nothing to cover this intention. Nor indeed does it appear from the Case that the confessor set about hearing a true confession, or simulated hearing a confession. But the penitent alone is the one who feigns herself sick and, using confession as a pretext, calls the confessor so that she may solicit him. The confessor, having been called, goes into Cornelia's house; solicited by her, he first resists and then consents. Where, here, is solicitation of the confessor under pretext of confession, that is, a provocation to shameful things made by a priest as by a confessor, using confession as a pretext in the Case, or inviting to confession so that he might provoke to shameful things? Cf. Commentar. in C. Sacramentum Poenitentiae n. 17, ed. 5; I. M. 1255.

2. Titia was accustomed to use Caius, a religious man, for sacramental confession; she was also employed in washing and mending his linen garments. One day, after confession had been completed, in which, as never before, she had accused herself of adultery, Caius asks her to betake herself after communion to the monastery atrium. Titia promises that she will do this; and not long afterward, approaching the atrium, she finds the confessor waiting for her. While they interweave conversation concerning certain garments to be mended, Caius kisses Titia and exercises other shameful touches with her, to which she consents. After these things it happened more than once that, when she was entering the church to hear Mass, Caius, sitting in the confessional, invited her by finger to approach him, and said to her at her ears: "wait for me today at home; I will come to visit you." Finally Caius promises her that he will come to the aid of her necessities if, the remaining lovers having been put aside, she would serve him only; which indeed happened for three years.

It is asked: 1.º What is the crime of solicitation, of which the Constitutions both of Gregory XV, Universi gregis, and of Benedict XIV, Sacramentum poenitentiae, speak? - 2.º What are the clauses under which Constitutions of this sort make provision concerning this crime? - 3.º Whether, in the circumstances of the proposed Case, a true species of solicitation was present, and which clause it regards?

R. To the 1st. Cf. I. M. 1253. To the 2nd. Cf. I. M. 1254 seqq. To the 3rd. Solicitation indeed was absolutely present in the Case on the part of Caius, since he provoked and induced Titia to shameful things. But whether solicitation to be denounced according to the cited Constitutions was present is distinctly declared by parts. The first time, when Caius kisses Titia and touches her shamefully, the aforesaid solicitation cannot be affirmed. For first, that Caius, after the confession of Titia was completed, in which she had first accused herself of adultery, asked the same Titia to betake herself to the monastery atrium, certainly cannot be held as solicitation at least in cause or means. For Caius perhaps could well have asked Titia to go to the monastery atrium on account of some need of linen garments to be washed and mended, and in no way for some evil end. And this is certainly persuaded and confirmed from the fact that afterward Caius and Titia interwove conversation concerning certain garments to be mended. That Caius in the meantime kisses Titia and exercises other shameful touches with her certainly is not to solicit on the occasion of confession, to which clause almost the others can easily be reduced.

At most it would be to solicit from knowledge of confession, and it is at least a controversial and doubtful matter whether this solicitation is contained in the aforesaid clause; but it must be excluded from it, whether because in reality it is not to solicit from confession, but from knowledge of the fragility of the penitent acquired through confession; or because the penitent could not denounce the confessor without betraying and defaming herself; for she would have to manifest her confession in order to explain that denunciation, as must be done, how it had been carried out on the occasion of confession. Besides, could not Caius, when he was interweaving conversation with Titia present, then for the first time have seen her being tempted and miserably conquered by temptation? That Caius, sitting in the confessional, invited Titia by finger to approach him, and with a lowered voice told her to wait for him at home, likewise does not contain solicitation on any occasion of confession, since no confession followed either before or afterward in the Case; and the woman, as appears from the Case, was altogether outside the confessional and only stood before it in order to hear those words of Caius. Finally, that Caius urges Titia and obtains that she serve only his shameful love likewise brings in no occasion connected with confession; and therefore neither by reason of this solicitation continued for three years does there appear an obligation of making denunciation according to the Constitutions of Gregory XV and Benedict XIV.

But although here there is not present, from positive law, an obligation of making juridical denunciation to the ecclesiastical Judge, nevertheless, the circumstances of the Case having been inspected, there can well be an obligation of making denunciation by natural law to the Prelate of that Caius. For there is question of a religious man, of a religious who through so long a time continues shameful sins with a woman, all modesty being removed, and not incidentally from some sudden temptation, but from a well-considered purpose of soul; whence the aforesaid scandal can easily still threaten in the future both for the same Titia and for another, and not without danger also of public scandal and public defamation for the whole Convent.