On Penance

“If there were in all the regenerate such gratitude toward God that they constantly preserved the justice received in Baptism through His beneficence and grace, there would have been no need for another sacrament, distinct from Baptism itself, to be instituted for the remission of sins. But because God, rich in mercy, knew our frame, He also bestowed a remedy of life upon those who afterward had delivered themselves into the servitude of sin and the power of the devil, namely, the Sacrament of Penance, by which the benefit of the death of Christ is applied to those who have fallen after Baptism. Penance was indeed at all times necessary for attaining grace and justice for all men who had defiled themselves with any mortal sin, even for those who sought to be washed by the Sacrament of Baptism, so that, their perversity having been cast away and amended, they might detest so great an offense against God with hatred of sin and pious sorrow of soul. Whence the prophet says: Be converted and do penance for all your iniquities; and iniquity shall not be your ruin. “The Lord also said: Unless you do penance, you shall all likewise perish. And Peter, the prince of the Apostles, commending penance to sinners about to be initiated by Baptism, said: Do penance, and let every one of you be baptized. Moreover, neither before the advent of Christ was penance a sacrament, nor is it, after His advent, for anyone before Baptism. But the Lord principally instituted the Sacrament of Penance when, raised from the dead, He breathed upon His disciples, saying: Receive the Holy Spirit: whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained. By this signal act and these words so clear, the universal consensus of the Fathers has always understood that the power of forgiving and retaining sins, for reconciling the faithful who have fallen after Baptism, was communicated to the Apostles and their legitimate successors. And with great reason the Catholic Church rejected and condemned as heretics the Novatians, who of old obstinately denied the power of forgiveness. Therefore, approving and receiving this most true meaning of those words of the Lord, this holy Synod condemns the fictitious interpretations of those who falsely distort those words, contrary to the institution of this sacrament, to mean the authority of preaching the word of God and announcing the Gospel of Christ.

“Furthermore, this sacrament is known to differ from Baptism in many respects; for besides the fact that it is most widely different in matter and form, by which the essence of a sacrament is constituted, it is certainly established that the minister of Baptism need not be a judge, since the Church exercises judgment over no one who has not first entered her through the gate of Baptism. For what have I to do, says the Apostle, with judging those who are without? It is otherwise with the household of the faith, whom Christ the Lord once made members of His Body by the laver of Baptism; for if afterward they have defiled themselves with any crime, He willed that they should not now be cleansed by a repeated Baptism, since that is in no way lawful in the Catholic Church, but should stand before this tribunal as guilty persons, so that by the sentence of priests they might be freed, not once, but as often as they should flee to Him in penance for sins committed. Moreover, the fruit of Baptism is one thing, and that of Penance another; for by Baptism, putting on Christ, we are made in Him an altogether new creature, obtaining the full and entire remission of all sins. Yet by the Sacrament of Penance we can by no means arrive at this newness and integrity without great weeping and labors on our part, divine justice requiring it; so that Penance has deservedly been called by the holy Fathers a certain laborious Baptism. But this Sacrament of Penance is necessary for salvation for those who have fallen after Baptism, as Baptism itself is for those not yet regenerated.

“The holy Synod furthermore teaches that the form of the Sacrament of Penance, in which its force principally consists, is placed in these words of the minister: I absolve you, etc.; to which, according to the custom of holy Church, certain prayers are laudably joined, but they in no way pertain to the essence of the form itself, nor are they necessary for the administration of the sacrament itself. The acts of the penitent himself—namely, contrition, confession, and satisfaction—are, as it were, the matter of this sacrament. Insofar as these are required in the penitent, by divine institution, for the integrity of the sacrament and for the full and perfect remission of sins, they are for this reason called the parts of Penance. But the reality and effect of this sacrament, so far as concerns its force and efficacy, is reconciliation “with God, which in pious men who receive this sacrament with devotion is sometimes wont to be followed by peace and serenity of conscience, with vehement consolation of spirit. In delivering these teachings concerning the parts and effect of this sacrament, the holy Synod at the same time condemns the opinions of those who contend that terrors struck into the conscience and faith are the parts of Penance.

“Contrition, which holds the first place among the aforesaid acts of the penitent, is sorrow of soul and detestation for sin committed, together with a resolution not to sin thereafter. This movement of contrition was at all times necessary for obtaining the pardon of sins; and in a man who has fallen after Baptism it finally prepares for the remission of sins if it is joined with confidence in the divine mercy and with the desire of performing the other things required for duly receiving this sacrament. The holy Synod therefore declares that this contrition contains not only cessation from sin and the resolution and beginning of a new life, but also hatred of the old life, according to the saying: Cast away from you all your transgressions by which you have transgressed, and make yourselves a new heart and a new spirit. And certainly, he who has considered those cries of the Saints: Against You only have I sinned, and I have done evil before You; I have labored in my groaning; every night I will wash my bed; I will recount to You all my years in the bitterness of my soul; and others of this kind, will easily understand that they flowed from a certain vehement hatred of the former life and an immense detestation of sins. It teaches furthermore that, although it sometimes happens that this contrition is perfected by charity and reconciles man to God before this sacrament is actually received, nevertheless the reconciliation itself is not to be ascribed to the contrition apart from the desire of the sacrament, which is included in it. But that imperfect contrition which is called attrition, because it is commonly conceived either from consideration of the turpitude of sin or from fear of hell and punishments, if it excludes the will to sin and is joined with the hope of pardon, it declares not only does not make a man a hypocrite and a greater sinner, but is even a gift of God and an impulse of the Holy Spirit—not indeed as yet dwelling within, but only moving—by which the penitent, assisted, prepares a way for himself to justice. And although by itself, without the Sacrament of Penance, it cannot lead the sinner to justification, nevertheless it disposes him to obtain the grace of God in the Sacrament of Penance. For the Ninevites, profitably struck by this fear, did penance full of terrors at the preaching of Jonah and obtained mercy from the Lord. Therefore certain men falsely calumniate Catholic writers as though they taught that the Sacrament of Penance confers grace upon those receiving it without a good movement, which the Church of God has never taught or believed; and they also falsely teach that contrition is extorted and coerced, not free and voluntary.

“From the institution of the Sacrament of Penance already explained, the universal Church has always understood that the complete confession of sins was also instituted by the Lord and that it exists by divine law as necessary for all who have fallen after Baptism; because our Lord Jesus Christ, when about to ascend from earth to heaven, left priests as His own vicars, as presidents and judges, to whom all mortal crimes into which the faithful of Christ have fallen are to be brought, so that by the power of the keys they may pronounce the sentence of remission or retention of sins. For it is established that priests could not have exercised this judgment without cognizance of the cause, “nor indeed could they have observed equity in imposing penalties, if penitents had declared their sins only in general and not rather in kind and individually. From these things it is gathered that all mortal sins of which penitents have consciousness after a diligent examination of themselves must be enumerated in confession, even if they are most secret and have been committed only against the last two precepts of the Decalogue—sins which sometimes wound the soul more grievously and are more dangerous than those committed openly. For venial sins, by which we are not excluded from the grace of God and into which we fall more frequently, although they are rightly and profitably declared in confession without any presumption, as the practice of pious men demonstrates, nevertheless can be withheld without fault and expiated by many other remedies. But since all mortal sins, even those of thought, render men children of wrath and enemies of God, it is necessary to seek pardon for all of them from God by an open and modest confession. Therefore, while the faithful of Christ strive to confess all sins which occur to their memory, without doubt they expose them all to be pardoned by the divine mercy; but those who act otherwise and knowingly retain some sins propose nothing to the divine goodness to be forgiven through the priest; for if the sick man is ashamed to uncover his wound to the physician, the medicine does not heal what it does not know. It is gathered furthermore that those circumstances which change the species of a sin must also be explained in confession, because without them the sins themselves are neither fully set forth by the penitents nor known to the judges, and it cannot come about that they are able rightly to judge the gravity of the crimes and impose upon the penitents the penalty that is fitting for them. Hence it is foreign to reason to teach that these circumstances were devised by idle men, or that only one circumstance is to be confessed, namely, that one has sinned against his brother. But it is also impious to say that confession, which is enjoined to be made in this manner, is impossible, or to call it a torture-house of consciences; for it is established that nothing else is required of penitents in the Church than that, after each has examined himself more diligently and explored all the folds and recesses of his conscience, he confess those sins by which he remembers having mortally offended his Lord and God; while the other sins which do not occur to one who thinks diligently are understood to be included generally in the same confession. For these we say faithfully with the prophet: From my hidden sins cleanse me, O Lord. The difficulty of confession of this kind and the shame of uncovering sins could indeed appear grave, were it not lightened by the so many and so great advantages and consolations which are most certainly conferred through absolution upon all who worthily approach this sacrament. Furthermore, as regards the manner of confessing secretly to a priest alone, although Christ did not forbid that anyone, for the vindication of his crimes and his own humiliation, and both as an example to others and for the edification of the offended Church, might be able to confess his offenses publicly, nevertheless this was not commanded by divine precept, nor would it be sufficiently prudent to command by any human law that offenses, especially secret ones, be disclosed by public confession. Hence, since secret sacramental confession, which holy Church has used from the beginning and now also uses, has always been commended by the holiest and most ancient Fathers with great and unanimous consent, the empty calumny of those who do not shrink from teaching that it is foreign to the divine command, is a human invention, and had its beginning from the Fathers assembled at the Lateran Council, is manifestly refuted. For through the Lateran Council “the Church did not establish that the faithful of Christ should confess, which she understood to be necessary and instituted by divine law, but that the precept of confession should be fulfilled at least once a year by each and all when they had arrived at the years of discretion. Whence throughout the universal Church, with great fruit for the souls of the faithful, that salutary custom of confessing during the sacred and most acceptable time of Lent is now observed; which custom this holy Synod greatly approves and embraces as pious and deservedly to be retained.

“Concerning the minister of this sacrament, the holy Synod declares that all doctrines which perniciously extend the ministry of the keys to any other men besides bishops and priests are false and wholly foreign to the truth of the Gospel; for they suppose that those words of the Lord: Whatever you shall bind upon earth shall be bound also in heaven; and whatever you shall loose upon earth shall be loosed also in heaven; and: Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained, were spoken indifferently and indiscriminately to all the faithful of Christ, contrary to the institution of this sacrament, in such a manner that anyone should have the power of forgiving sins—public sins, indeed, through correction, if the person corrected acquiesces; but secret sins through a spontaneous confession made to anyone whatsoever. It also teaches that even priests who are held by mortal sin exercise the function of forgiving sins as ministers of Christ, through the virtue of the Holy Spirit conferred in ordination; and that those who contend that this power does not exist in bad priests hold an evil opinion. But although the absolution of the priest is a dispensation of another’s beneficence, nevertheless it is not merely the bare ministry either of announcing the Gospel or of declaring that sins have been forgiven, but is after the manner of a judicial act, by which sentence is pronounced by him as by a judge. And therefore the penitent ought not so to flatter himself concerning his own faith that, even if no contrition is present in him, or the priest lacks the intention of acting seriously and truly absolving, he should nevertheless think himself, by reason of his faith alone, truly absolved before God; for faith without penance would effect no remission of sins. Nor would he be anything other than most negligent of his salvation who knew that a priest was absolving him in jest and did not diligently seek another who would act seriously.

“Since, therefore, the nature and character of judgment demand that sentence be passed only upon subjects, it has always been held as certain in the Church of God, and this Synod confirms it as most true, that an absolution pronounced by a priest upon one over whom he has neither ordinary nor subdelegated jurisdiction must be of no effect. But it appeared to our most holy Fathers to pertain greatly to the discipline of the Christian people that certain more atrocious and graver crimes should be absolved not by just any priests, but only by the highest priests. Hence the Supreme Pontiffs, by reason of the supreme power handed down to them in the universal Church, were rightly able to reserve certain graver causes of crimes to their own peculiar judgment. Nor is it to be doubted—since all things that are from God are well ordered—that the same is lawful to all bishops, each in his own diocese, for edification, however, and not for destruction, by the authority handed down to them over their subjects above the other inferior priests, especially as regards those crimes to which the censure of excommunication is annexed. It is consonant with divine authority that this reservation of offenses have force not only in the external polity, but also before God. Nevertheless, lest anyone perish through this very occasion, it has always been most piously observed in the same Church of God that there be no reservation at the point of death; “and therefore all priests can absolve any penitents from any sins and censures. Outside this point, since priests can do nothing in reserved cases, they should strive only to persuade penitents to approach their superiors and legitimate judges for the benefit of absolution.

“Finally, as regards satisfaction—which, of all the parts of Penance, just as it has been commended to the Christian people by our Fathers throughout all time, is also the one especially assailed in our age, under the supreme pretext of piety, by those who have an appearance of piety but have denied its power—the holy Synod declares it altogether false and foreign to the word of God that guilt is never forgiven by the Lord without the whole punishment also being remitted. For clear and illustrious examples are found in Sacred Scripture, by which, besides divine tradition, this error is most manifestly refuted. Indeed, the nature of divine justice seems to demand that those who sinned through ignorance before Baptism be received into grace by Him in one manner, but in another manner those who, once freed from sins and the servitude of the devil and having received the gift of the Holy Spirit, did not fear knowingly to violate the temple of God and grieve the Holy Spirit. And it befits the divine clemency that sins not be remitted to us without any satisfaction in such a manner that, seizing the occasion and thinking sins lighter, we should, as injurious and insulting toward the Holy Spirit, fall into graver ones, treasuring up wrath for ourselves on the day of wrath. For without doubt these satisfactory punishments greatly recall men from sin and restrain them as by a certain bridle, and make penitents more cautious and vigilant for the future. They also heal the remnants of sins and remove vicious habits acquired by living badly through contrary acts of the virtues. Nor was any way ever deemed safer in the Church of God for averting the punishment impending from the Lord than that men should frequently perform these works of Penance with true sorrow of soul. Added to these things is that, while by making satisfaction we suffer for sins, we are made conformable to Christ Jesus, who made satisfaction for our sins, from whom is all our sufficiency; and from this also we have a most certain pledge that, if we suffer with Him, we shall also be glorified with Him. Nor is this satisfaction which we discharge for our sins ours in such a way that it is not through Christ Jesus; for we who of ourselves, as of ourselves, can do nothing, with Him who strengthens us cooperating, can do all things. Thus man has nothing from which to glory; but all our glorying is in Christ, in whom we live, in whom we merit, in whom we make satisfaction, bringing forth fruits worthy of Penance, which have their force from Him, are offered by Him to the Father, and through Him are accepted by the Father. Therefore the priests of the Lord, insofar as spirit and prudence shall suggest, ought to impose salutary and fitting satisfactions according to the quality of the crimes and the capacity of the penitents, lest perhaps, if they connive at sins and deal too indulgently with penitents by imposing certain very light works for very grave offenses, they become participants in the sins of others. But they are to keep before their eyes that the satisfaction which they impose is not only for the safeguarding of a new life and as a medicine for infirmity, but also for the vindication and chastisement of past sins; for the ancient Fathers also believe and teach that the keys of the priests were granted not only for loosing, but also for binding. Nor did they on that account consider

“the Sacrament of Penance to be a tribunal of wrath or punishments, just as no Catholic ever thought that, through satisfactions of this kind on our part, the force of the merit and satisfaction of our Lord Jesus Christ is either obscured or in any part diminished. Since the innovators are unwilling to understand this, they teach that the best Penance is a new life in such a way that they take away all the force and use of satisfaction.

“It teaches furthermore that so great is the bounty of the divine munificence that we are able to make satisfaction before God the Father through Christ Jesus not only by punishments voluntarily undertaken by us for the vindication of sin, or imposed at the discretion of the priest according to the measure of the offense, but also—and this is the greatest proof of love—by temporal scourges inflicted by God and patiently borne by us.

“Canon 1. If anyone says that in the Catholic Church Penance is not truly and properly a sacrament instituted by Christ our Lord for reconciling to God the faithful as often as they fall into sins after Baptism: let him be anathema.

“Canon 2. If anyone, confounding the sacraments, says that Baptism itself is the Sacrament of Penance, as though these two sacraments were not distinct, and that therefore Penance is not rightly called the second plank after shipwreck: let him be anathema.

“Canon 3. If anyone says that those words of the Lord Savior, Receive the Holy Spirit: whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained, are not to be understood of the power of forgiving and retaining sins in the Sacrament of Penance, as the Catholic Church has always understood them from the beginning, but distorts them, contrary to the institution of this sacrament, to mean the authority of preaching the Gospel: let him be anathema.

“Canon 4. If anyone denies that for the complete and perfect remission of sins there are required three acts in the penitent, as it were the matter of the Sacrament of Penance—namely, contrition, confession, and satisfaction—which are called the three parts of Penance; or says that there are only two parts of Penance, namely, terrors struck into the conscience after sin has been recognized, and faith conceived from the Gospel or from absolution, by which one believes that sins have been forgiven him through Christ: let him be anathema.

“Canon 5. If anyone says that the contrition which is prepared by the examination, collection, and detestation of sins, whereby one reflects upon his years in the bitterness of his soul, pondering the gravity, multitude, and foulness of his sins, the loss of eternal beatitude and the incurring of eternal damnation, with a resolution of a better life, is not true and profitable sorrow, nor prepares for grace, but makes man a hypocrite and a greater sinner; and finally, that it is a coerced sorrow and not free and voluntary: let him be anathema.

“Canon 6. If anyone denies that sacramental confession was either instituted or is necessary for salvation by divine law; or says that the manner of confessing secretly to a priest alone, which the Catholic Church has always observed and observes from the beginning, is foreign to the institution and command of Christ and is a human invention: let him be anathema.

“Canon 7. If anyone says that in the Sacrament of Penance it is not necessary by divine law, for the remission of sins, to confess each and all mortal sins of which memory is had after due and diligent reflection, even secret sins and those which are against the last two precepts of the Decalogue, and the circumstances which change the species of a sin; but says that this confession is useful only for instructing and “consoling the penitent, and that of old it was observed only for imposing canonical satisfaction; or says that those who strive to confess all sins wish to leave nothing to the divine mercy to pardon; or, finally, that it is not lawful to confess venial sins: let him be anathema.

“Canon 8. If anyone says that the confession of all sins, such as the Church observes, is impossible and is a human tradition to be abolished by the pious; or that each and all of the faithful of Christ of either sex are not bound to it once a year, according to the Constitution of the great Lateran Council, and that for this reason the faithful of Christ are to be advised not to confess during the time of Lent: let him be anathema.

“Canon 9. If anyone says that the sacramental absolution of the priest is not a judicial act, but a bare ministry of pronouncing and declaring that sins are forgiven to the one confessing, provided only that he believes himself to be absolved; or if the priest absolves not seriously but in jest; or says that the confession of the penitent is not required in order that the priest may absolve him: let him be anathema.

“Canon 10. If anyone says that priests who are in mortal sin do not have the power of binding and loosing; or that priests alone are not the ministers of absolution, but that it was said to each and all the faithful of Christ: Whatever you shall bind upon earth shall be bound also in heaven; and whatever you shall loose upon earth shall be loosed also in heaven; and: Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained; by virtue of which words anyone can absolve sins—public sins, indeed, through correction alone, if the person corrected acquiesces; but secret sins through a spontaneous confession: let him be anathema.

“Canon 11. If anyone says that bishops do not have the right of reserving cases to themselves except with regard to the external polity, and that therefore the reservation of cases does not prevent a priest from truly absolving from reserved cases: let him be anathema.

“Canon 12. If anyone says that the whole punishment is always remitted by God together with the guilt, and that the satisfaction of penitents is nothing other than faith by which they apprehend that Christ made satisfaction for them: let him be anathema.

“Canon 13. If anyone says that satisfaction is by no means made to God through the merits of Christ for sins, as regards the temporal punishment, by punishments inflicted by Him and patiently borne, or imposed by a priest, nor even by those voluntarily undertaken, such as fastings, prayers, alms, or also other works of piety, and that therefore the best Penance is only a new life: let him be anathema.

“Canon 14. If anyone says that the satisfactions by which penitents redeem their sins through Christ Jesus are not worship of God, but traditions of men which obscure the doctrine of grace, the true worship of God, and the very benefit of the death of Christ: let him be anathema.

“Canon 15. If anyone says that the keys were given to the Church only for loosing and not also for binding, and therefore that priests, when they impose punishments upon those confessing, act contrary to the purpose of the keys and contrary to the institution of Christ; and that it is a fiction that, by the power of the keys, after the eternal punishment has been removed, a temporal punishment for the most part remains to be discharged: let him be anathema.”

“7. Most true is the proverb, and more excellent than every doctrine thus far given concerning contritions: not to do so thereafter is the highest Penance; the best Penance is a new life.” Proposition of Martin Luther condemned by Leo X.

“14. A good man ought so to conform his will to the divine will that he himself wills whatever God wills, and says: Because God wills in some manner that I sinned, I would not will not to have committed the sins. He added that this was true Penance. “15. If a man had committed a thousand mortal sins, if he were rightly disposed, he ought not to will that he had not committed them.” Propositions of Eckhart condemned by John XXII.

“1. Mortal sins, as regards guilt and the punishment of the next world, are blotted out by contrition of heart alone without relation to the keys.” Proposition of the Master of Osma condemned by Sixtus IV.

“3. The Sacrament of Penance, as regards the conferral of sacramental grace, is of nature, not of any institution of the Old or New Testament.” Proposition of Master Peter of Osma condemned by Sixtus IV.

“5. That there are three parts of Penance—contrition, confession, and satisfaction—is not founded in Sacred Scripture or in the ancient holy Christian Doctors.” Proposition of Martin Luther condemned by Leo X.

“11. Sins omitted or forgotten in confession because of an imminent danger of life or for another cause need not be expressed by us in a subsequent confession.” Proposition condemned by Alexander VII.

“39. The declaration of the Synod concerning the confession of venial sins, which it says it wishes not to be practiced so frequently, lest confessions of this kind be rendered too contemptible: Rash, pernicious, and contrary to the practice of the Saints and the pious approved by the Sacred Council of Trent.” Proposition of the Synod of Pistoia condemned by Pius VI.

“8. In no way presume to confess venial sins, nor even all mortal sins, because it is impossible for you to know all mortal sins. Hence the primitive Church confessed only manifest mortal sins.” Proposition of Martin Luther condemned by Leo X.

“Can catechumens confess sacramentally before they are baptized, whether absolutely or conditionally?—Response. As regards confession before Baptism to be conferred absolutely: Negative. But if the catechumen nevertheless wishes to confess, he is to be instructed that this can in no way be regarded under the aspect of a sacrament, since absolution cannot be imparted, nor is the missionary bound to observe secrecy. But if it concerns those who must be baptized conditionally, then, for the greater facility of the ecclesiastical function, they can first be heard sacramentally as regards the accusation of their faults; then, after the conferral of Baptism under condition, the confessor, having again reviewed with the penitent under principal headings those things of which he has already made accusation, is to absolve him sacramentally, likewise under condition.” Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, 2 December 1874.

“Most Blessed Father: Among the decrees of the First Provincial Synod of Westminster, chapter 16, no. 8, where the abjuration of adult Protestants and Baptism to be conferred upon them under condition are discussed, this is added: ‘Sacramental confession also is always to be required in such a case.’ In the annotations which Father Ballerini added to the Roman edition of Father Gury’s moral theology, this confession is said to be more conformable to the Instruction issued by the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office concerning the manner of reconciling heretics, from which Instruction it is deduced that a complete confession of sins is opportune. In the text of Father Gury it is held that it is to be advised in practice.

“But since this author, both in his theology and in the cases of conscience, cited the opinion of other authors who teach that, because there exists a doubt concerning the first Baptism received by new converts in infancy—so that, if that was null, the true reception of Baptism is that which is bestowed conditionally on the occasion of the abjuration—the obligation of confessing sins completely before this conditional Baptism is doubtful, some confessors in England, following those authors, judged a doubtful obligation of complete confession to be no obligation; and because of the reluctance of converts to make it and because of the danger of an incomplete or even sacrilegious confession, they deemed it altogether expedient that converts set forth only some sins to the confessor, so that they might obtain from him the benefit of sacramental absolution, should there perhaps be need of it.

“On the other hand, there is the constant practice of the greater part of the confessors of the kingdom, both before and after the approval of the Provincial Council, not only advising but also requiring complete confession. There is the difficulty of converts bringing their understanding into captivity unto the obedience of the faith except through humility and submission of soul, which Christ the Lord deigned to place in the Sacrament of Penance. There is also the impossibility of knowing, except through a complete manifestation of sins, whether the new convert is duly disposed for Baptism itself, and whether, for example, he is willing to make restitution of reputation or goods (if he should happen to be bound to it), to avoid the proximate occasion of sin, and to withdraw from a marriage contracted invalidly, even if it cannot be sanated through a dispensation of the Holy See—as in the daily more frequent cases of a marriage contracted after civil divorce. There is, moreover, the necessity of providing for his salvation through justification in the Sacrament of Penance, from the integrity of which no one once baptized in infancy can be exempted, especially in view of the diligence of the younger members of the English clergy in faithfully observing the rite of baptizing, and hence in view of the greater number of those concerning the validity of whose infant Baptism it is not lawful to doubt.

“But since it is certain that after several years the obligation of complete confession will entirely lose its force if theologians are able in practice to follow as safe the opinion of the aforesaid authors, the Archbishop of Westminster and the bishops of England earnestly request that Your Holiness, in your benevolence toward the missions of England, deign to declare the mind of the Church concerning this most grave question:

“Whether, according to the decree of the Provincial Synod approved by the Holy See, sacramental confession must be required from new converts in England, and whether it must be complete?”

“Response. Affirmative; and the Decree issued on Thursday, 17 June 1715, is to be given.” Holy Office, 17 December 1868.

Decree of Thursday, 17 June 1715: “Is full credence to be given to Charles Wipperman of Rostock in the Duchy of Mecklenburg, preacher and lecturer of quietistic Lutheran theology, superintendent and principal doctor of the sect of the Lutheran quietists, reconciled to the holy Catholic faith at the Holy Office of Parma, concerning certain errors detected in his Baptism; is he to be believed concerning those things which he recounts? And insofar as the response is affirmative, so that provision may be made both for his salvation and also for the salvation of the others of that sect or region, especially if they should be ignorant, it is asked whether the said Wipperman is to be rebaptized; and insofar as the response is affirmative, whether absolutely or under condition; and insofar as the response is affirmative, whether he is bound to confess all the sins of his past life; and insofar as the response is affirmative, whether confession is to be placed before, or after, Baptism conferred under condition.—His Holiness, having heard the votes of the Most Eminent Fathers, said: Charles Ferdinand is to be rebaptized under condition, and, Baptism having been conferred, he is to confess the sins of his past life and to be absolved from them under condition.”

“The response of the Holy Office of 17 December of last year, although given only at the request of the bishops of England, contains a universal law, and therefore binds not only in England but also in other regions. Hence it is evident that it can in no way be permitted that an opinion contrary to the aforesaid decision be taught. From the offices of the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 12 July 1869. Alexander Cardinal Barnabò, Prefect; John Simeoni, Secretary of the Sacred Congregation [the original prints ‘de P. I.’].”

The preceding Decree of the Holy Office of 17 December 1868 was also accepted by the most recent Plenary Council of Latin America, no. 559.

“77. By contrition, even when perfected by charity and joined with the desire of receiving the sacrament, sin is not remitted, outside a case of necessity or martyrdom, without the actual reception of the sacrament.” Proposition of Michael Baius condemned by St. Pius V.

“Indeed, because among other things there is one which especially disturbs holy Church—namely, false Penance—we admonish our fellow bishops and priests not to allow the souls of the laity to be deceived by false penances and dragged into hell. But it is established that Penance is false when, several sins having been contemned, Penance is done for one alone, or when it is so done for one that another is not abandoned. Whence it is written: Whoever shall keep the whole law but offend in one point has become guilty of all—namely, as regards eternal life. For just as, if he were entangled in all sins, so also if he remains in only one, he will not enter the gate of eternal life. For Penance is made false when the penitent does not withdraw from either a curial or a commercial office which he can in no way manage without sin; or if hatred is borne in the heart; or if satisfaction is not made to anyone offended; or if the offended person does not forgive the offender; or if anyone bears arms against justice.” Second Lateran Council, 1139, canon 22.

Gregory VII had already issued decrees On False Penance in the Fifth Roman Synod, canon 5, and the Seventh Roman Synod, canon 5, and Urban II in the Council of Troia, canon 16, from which last canon that of the Lateran Council was taken verbatim. Gregory adds to those here enumerated the one “who unjustly detains another’s goods ,” or “who has seized the goods of another and, although he can, has refused to restore them or make amends.”

“14. No one ought to answer the priest that he is contrite, nor ought the priest to ask it.” Proposition of Martin Luther condemned by Leo X.

“66. He who wishes to approach God ought neither to come to Him with brutish passions nor be led by natural instinct or by fear as beasts are, but by faith and by love as sons are.—67. Servile fear represents God to itself only as a harsh, imperious, unjust, intractable master.—68. The goodness of God has shortened the way of salvation by enclosing the whole in faith and prayers.” Propositions of Pasquier Quesnel condemned by Clement XI.

“4. The imperfect charity of one who is dying necessarily carries with it a great fear, which by itself alone is sufficient to constitute the punishment of purgatory, and it prevents entrance into the kingdom.” Proposition of Martin Luther condemned by Leo X.

“25. The doctrine which states generally that fear of punishments can only not be called evil if at least it extends to restraining the hand—as though the very fear of hell which faith teaches is to be inflicted for sin were not good and useful in itself, as a supernatural gift and a movement inspired by God, preparing for the love of justice: False, rash, pernicious, injurious to the divine gifts, condemned elsewhere, and contrary both to the doctrine of the Council of Trent and to the common opinion of the Fathers, namely, that according to the customary order of preparation for justice, fear must enter first, through which charity may come: fear is the medicine, charity the health. From St. Augustine, On the First Epistle of John, chapter 4, tractate 9, nos. 4-5; On the Gospel of John, tractate 41, no. 10; Exposition of Psalm 127, no. 7; Sermon 157, On the Words of the Apostle, no. 13; Sermon 161, On the Words of the Apostle, no. 8; Sermon 349, On Charity, no. 7.” Proposition of the Synod of Pistoia condemned by Pius VI.

“6. Contrition which is prepared by the examination, collection, and detestation of sins, whereby one reflects upon his years in the bitterness of his soul, pondering the gravity and multitude of sins, the loss of eternal beatitude, and the acquisition of eternal damnation: this contrition makes a hypocrite, indeed a greater sinner.” Proposition of Martin Luther condemned by Leo X.

“9. He truly sins who hates sin merely because of its turpitude and incongruity with nature, without any regard for God offended.” Proposition condemned by Alexander VIII.

“57. It is probable that natural attrition is sufficient, provided that it is morally upright.” Proposition condemned by Innocent XI.

“10. Sins are forgiven to no one unless, when the priest forgives, he believes that they are forgiven him; indeed, the sin would remain unless he believed it forgiven. For the forgiveness of sin and the bestowal of grace do not suffice, but it is also necessary to believe that it is forgiven.—11. In no way trust that you are absolved on account of your contrition, but on account of the word of Christ: Whatever you shall loose, etc., Matthew 16. Hence, I say, trust if you have obtained the priest’s absolution, and believe firmly that you are absolved, and you will truly be absolved, whatever may be the case concerning contrition. “12. If, by an impossibility, the person who confessed were not contrite, or the priest absolved not seriously but in jest, nevertheless, if he believes himself absolved, he is most truly absolved.” Propositions of Martin Luther condemned by Leo X.

“Our Most Holy Lord Pope Alexander VII, having learned, not without grave sorrow of soul, that certain scholastics were contending rather sharply among themselves, and not without scandal of the faithful, whether that attrition which is conceived from fear of hell, excluding the will to sin and accompanied by the hope of pardon, requires in addition some act of love of God in order to obtain grace in the Sacrament of Penance—some affirming it, others denying it, and each side censuring the opposing opinion—His Holiness, earnestly desiring to preserve the bond of peace among the faithful and to extinguish every tinder of schism, having heard the votes of the Most Eminent and Most Reverend Lord Cardinals, General Inquisitors against heretical depravity, as well as the Lord Consultors and Qualifiers of the Sacred Congregation of the same General Inquisition, by this present Decree, in virtue of holy obedience and under pain of latae sententiae excommunication reserved to this Holy See and other penalties to be assessed at the discretion of the same Holy See, commands each and all the faithful, of whatever rank and dignity, even episcopal and higher, indeed even those adorned with the cardinalitial dignity, that if henceforth they write on the matter of the aforesaid attrition, or publish books or writings, or teach, or preach, or in any other manner instruct penitents or other scholars, they are not to dare to mark either opinion with the note of any theological censure or any other injury or insult—whether the opinion denying the necessity of some love of God in the aforesaid attrition conceived from fear of hell, which today appears more common among scholastics, or the opinion affirming the necessity of the said love—until something concerning this matter shall have been defined by this Holy See.” Alexander VII, Decree of 5 May 1667, concerning attrition from fear of hell.

“36. The doctrine of the Synod which, after first stating that, when there are unequivocal signs of the love of God dominant in the heart of a man, he can deservedly be judged worthy to be admitted to participation in the Blood of Jesus Christ which takes place in the sacraments, adds that the supposititious conversions which are made through attrition are wont to be neither efficacious nor lasting; and consequently that the pastor of souls ought to insist upon unequivocal signs of dominant charity before he admits his penitents to the sacraments; which signs, as it then teaches (§17), the pastor will be able to deduce from a stable cessation from sin and fervor in good works; which fervor of charity it further sets forth (On Penance, §10) as a disposition which must precede absolution; understood in such a way that not only imperfect contrition, which is commonly given the name attrition, even when joined with the love by which man begins to love God as the fountain of all justice, and not only contrition formed by charity, but also the fervor of dominant charity—and that indeed proved by long experience through fervor in good works—is generally and absolutely required in order that a man may be admitted to the sacraments and penitents especially to the benefit of absolution: False, rash, disturbing to the peace of souls, contrary to the safe and approved practice in the Church, “derogatory and injurious to the efficacy of the sacrament.” Proposition of the Synod of Pistoia condemned by Pius VI.

“59. The interior way is separated from confession, confessors, cases of conscience, theology, and philosophy.—60. For advanced souls, which begin to die to reflections and even arrive at the point that they are dead, God sometimes makes confession impossible and Himself supplies with so great a persevering grace as they would receive in the sacrament; and therefore it is not good for souls of this kind in such a case to approach the Sacrament of Penance, because that is impossible for them.” Propositions of Michael de Molinos condemned by Innocent XI.

“7. If a man has been duly contrite, every external confession is superfluous and useless for him.” Proposition of John Wyclif condemned in the Council of Constance, Session 45, in 1418.

“9. When we wish to confess all things purely, we do nothing other than wish to leave nothing for the mercy of God to pardon.” Proposition of Martin Luther condemned by Leo X.

“2. Confession of sins in kind was useful to the Church by reason of some statute, not by divine law.—3. Evil thoughts ought not to be confessed, but are blotted out by displeasure alone without relation to the keys.—4. Confession ought to be secret, that is, concerning secret sins, not manifest ones.” Propositions of Master Peter of Osma condemned by Sixtus IV.

“59. It is lawful to absolve sacramentally those who have confessed only by halves, on account of a great concourse of penitents, such as can occur, for example, on the day of some great feast or indulgence.” Proposition condemned by Innocent XI.

“Our Most Holy Lord ..., the matter having been maturely and diligently considered, condemned and prohibited as at least false, rash, and scandalous this proposition, namely, that it is lawful to confess sins sacramentally by letters or by an intermediary to an absent confessor and to obtain absolution from the same absent confessor; and he commanded that henceforth this proposition not be taught in public or private lectures, sermons, or assemblies, nor ever defended as probable in any case, printed, or brought into practice in any manner.” Clement VIII, Decree of 20 June 1602. On 14 July 1605, in the Congregation of the Holy Office, Paul V declared that this Decree also had force in the divided sense, that is, concerning confession or absolution separately. Clement VIII, however, by an oral pronouncement, declared that he did not intend the case in which a dying person deprived of his senses, whom the bystanders testify previously to have requested absolution, was to be absolved.

“Although, as the Council of Trent teaches, it is commanded by no divine precept, nor could it be prescribed sufficiently prudently by any human law, that offenses, especially secret ones, be disclosed by public confession, nevertheless it appeared to the appointed Fathers, adhering to the same holy Synod, that those who wish spontaneously to confess through an interpreter ought not to be prohibited by the Apostolic Vicar of Constantinople. It will suffice for him to guard against abuses and scandals and to take care that the interpreter be admonished concerning the obligation of observing secrecy.” Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 6 September 1630; 19 July 1838.

“In distant regions, can a Catholic who has not confessed for many years and who, because of a lack of language, seeks absolution only by signs, be absolved without the aid of an interpreter?—Response. There is no need of an interpreter in the case proposed; likewise, absolution from sins can and ought to be imparted to one who exhibits such signs as he can, provided that they suffice to express some sin in kind. But in a case in which someone strives as much as he can to exhibit signs of sins in kind, but they cannot be understood at all, he can be absolved through the manifestation of sins in general alone.” Holy Office, 28 February 1633.

“Missionaries, when dealing with penitents whose language they do not know, are to exhort them to employ an interpreter through whom they may confess all their sins. But if they are unwilling to do this, they are at least to confess some through an interpreter and the rest by nods and signs, insofar as they can. But if they are unwilling to confess any through an interpreter, they are to confess by signs in every better manner in which they can, as is done with the mute. But missionaries are to take care to learn, from each language commonly used there, those few words which are necessary for explaining the principal sins against the precepts of the Church.” Holy Office, 10 February 1668.

“But in order that the abuse which, as stated above, has crept into the aforesaid regions—Goa and the adjacent islands—of hearing confessions through an interpreter, or by reading a catalogue of sins to the penitent so that he may indicate by nods if any was committed by him, may be eradicated from the root, it is strictly commanded to the Vicars Capitular—also gravely burdening the conscience of the regulars themselves and of all whom it concerns—that in future they permit this in no way, but that confessions be heard only by those who sufficiently understand the meaning of that language; and that, in order to increase their number as the matter requires, secular priests of that region be altogether advanced to hear the confessions of the faithful in their native language.” Clement IX, Constitution In excelsa, 13 September 1669.

“8. The soul ought not to wish to know whether it proceeds according to the will of God or whether it now remains resigned to that same will; nor is there need for it to wish to know its state, nor anything of its own, but it ought to remain as a lifeless body.—9. The soul ought to remember neither itself, nor God, nor anything whatsoever; and in the interior way every reflection is harmful, even reflection upon its human actions and its own defects.—10. If by its own defects it scandalizes others, it is not necessary to reflect, provided the will to scandalize is absent; and not to be able to reflect upon one’s own defects is a grace of God.” Propositions of Michael de Molinos condemned by Innocent XI.

See On the Sixth Precept of the Decalogue, no. 788.

“58. We are not bound to admit to the confessor, when he asks, the habit of any sin.” Proposition condemned by Innocent XI.

“... Another abuse lies in the excess of satisfactions which they impose: several Rosaries, namely, even up to the number of three hundred; the same number of litanies, together with fasts, hair shirts, and other afflictive works on appointed days, for weeks, months, or entire years.... “But as regards the second excess in imposing a satisfaction consisting of many Rosaries, litanies, fasts, etc., two extremes must likewise be avoided. A prudent confessor, says St. Charles Borromeo in the Institutions of Penance, in imposing a penance is neither to employ one so light that the power of the keys is thereby contemned and he himself becomes a participant in the sins of others, nor one so grave or long-lasting that penitents refuse to obey him or fail to execute it in full after accepting it. There is no reason for us to tarry over avoiding the first of these extremes; for it suffices to hear the Council of Trent, Session 14, chapter 8: The priests of the Lord ought, insofar as spirit and prudence shall suggest, to impose salutary and fitting satisfactions according to the quality of the crimes and the capacity of the penitents, lest perhaps, if they connive at sins and deal too indulgently with penitents by imposing certain very light works for very grave offenses, they become participants in the sins of others.

“Nevertheless, to mitigate the second excess which prevails among the priests of Tonkin, we bring forward a few teachings, but solid ones full of wisdom and prudence, to which they ought diligently to attend, so that they may answer both to their office and to the benefit of the penitents. Therefore, let them attend to this doctrine of St. Thomas Aquinas, Quodlibet 3, distinction 13, article 1: It seems sufficiently fitting that the priest not burden the penitent with a grave weight of satisfaction, because, just as a small fire is easily extinguished by much wood placed upon it, so it could happen that the small affection of contrition lately aroused in the penitent would be extinguished by a grave burden of satisfaction, the sinner entirely despairing. Hence it is better that the priest indicate to the penitent how great a penance ought to be imposed upon him for his sins, and nevertheless impose upon him something which the penitent can tolerably bear, from the fulfillment of which he may become accustomed to fulfill greater things; for the things which the priest would not have ventured to impose, and which he does beyond the express injunction, receive a greater power of expiation of past guilt from that general injunction when the priest says: Whatever good you shall do, may it be unto you for the remission of sins. The same Angelic Doctor repeats the same doctrine in book 5, distinction 2, chapter 1, article 2, little question 2, response to 3: A priest who imposes a penance less than commensurate does not always sin ..., because sometimes, even deliberately imposing a lesser penance, he benefits the penitent more than he harms him; for the penitent might perhaps be impeded from performing the penance by its magnitude, because of the weakness of the virtue only recently restored in him. And therefore he neglects the lesser harm in order to avoid the greater, and meanwhile the divine love strengthened in him will of its own accord rouse him to perform more works of Penance than the priest could have imposed upon him according to the gravity of the sins.

“Let them also attend to and ponder the admonition of St. Charles Borromeo in the Institutions of Penance: In imposing penance he shall employ prudence, piety, and justice, taking account of state, condition, sex, age, etc. Therefore, he is to impose such a penance as he judges can be performed by him; and accordingly sometimes, if he sees it to be expedient, he is to ask him whether he can, or whether he doubts that he can, perform the penance imposed upon him; otherwise he shall change or lessen it. He shall consider, moreover, the soul and mind of the penitent, and his weeping, groaning, and tears, indications of interior sorrow.... They are not to impose alms upon the poor, nor a fast upon those who seek their livelihood by their own labor; and this is to be observed also in other penances. “Finally, let them attend to the counsel of St. Francis de Sales in the admonitions written for the instruction of confessors, chapter 8: It is not expedient to impose intricate satisfactions composed of various kinds of works or a great number of different prayers, because that collection of different prayers or variety of pious works may induce forgetfulness of the imposed penance and thereby produce anxiety and scruples in the minds of penitents. Moreover, devotion is for the most part diminished and grows tepid while the penitent thinks more about which prayers he must recite, or what he must do, and on which day, than he attends to the very prayers which he pours forth or to the very works which he performs.

“If they diligently attend to these and the other admonitions and counsels of St. Charles Borromeo, they will certainly mitigate the excessive rigor which they have hitherto exercised and will provide for their own obligation.” Instruction of the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 3 October 1736.

“21. A parishioner can suspect mendicants who live from common alms of imposing a penance or satisfaction that is too light and unfitting, for gain under the profit of temporal assistance.” Proposition condemned by Alexander VIII.

“Can a penitent, by fulfilling a prayer or pious work enriched with indulgences, at the same time both satisfy the penance and gain the indulgences?—Response. Affirmative, after consultation with His Holiness.” Sacred Congregation of Indulgences, 14 June 1901.

“38. The voluntary cross of mortifications is a grave and unfruitful burden and therefore is to be abandoned.—39. The holier works and penances which the Saints performed do not suffice to remove even a single attachment from the soul.—40. The Blessed Virgin never performed any exterior work, and nevertheless was holier than all the Saints. Therefore, holiness can be attained without exterior work.” Propositions of Michael de Molinos condemned by Innocent XI.

“19. Man ought to do Penance throughout his whole life for original sin.” Proposition condemned by Alexander VIII.

“59. When through alms and other works of Penance we make satisfaction to God for temporal punishments, we do not offer to God a worthy price for our sins, as certain erring persons suppose; for otherwise we would be redeemers, at least in some part. Rather, we do something in consideration of which the satisfaction of Christ is applied and communicated to us.—77. The laborious satisfactions of the justified are not able to expiate de condigno the temporal punishment remaining after guilt has been pardoned.” Propositions of Michael Baius condemned by St. Pius V.

“15. A penitent can, on his own authority, substitute another for himself to fulfill the penance in his place.” Proposition condemned by Alexander VII.

“35. The proposition conceived in these words: If charity in the beginning is always weak, in the ordinary way, in order to obtain an increase of this “charity, the priest ought to cause those acts of humiliation and Penance which have been commended by the Church in every age to precede; to reduce these acts to a few prayers or to some fast after absolution has already been conferred appears to be a material desire to preserve for this sacrament the bare name of Penance rather than an enlightened means fitted to increase that fervor of charity which ought to precede absolution. We are indeed far from disapproving the practice of imposing penances to be fulfilled even after absolution; if all our good works always have our defects joined to them, how much more ought we to fear lest we have admitted many imperfections in the most difficult and momentous work of our reconciliation?—Insofar as it intimates that penances which are imposed to be fulfilled after absolution are to be regarded rather as a supplement for defects admitted in the work of our reconciliation than as truly sacramental and satisfactory penances for sins confessed; as though, in order that the true nature of the sacrament and not a bare name be preserved, it were necessary in the ordinary way that acts of humiliation and Penance imposed by way of sacramental satisfaction should precede absolution: False, rash, injurious to the common practice of the Church, and leading into an error branded with the note of heresy in Peter of Osma.” Proposition of the Synod of Pistoia condemned by Pius VI.

“87. It is a manner full of wisdom, light, and charity to give souls time to bear with humility and to feel the state of sin, to seek the spirit of Penance and contrition, and to begin at least to make satisfaction to the justice of God before they are reconciled.—88. We do not know what sin and true Penance are when we wish immediately to be restored to possession of those goods of which sin deprived us, and we refuse to bear the confusion of that separation.” Propositions of Pasquier Quesnel condemned by Clement XI.

“5. Penitents are not to be absolved unless they have first performed the penance imposed upon them.” Proposition of Master Peter of Osma condemned by Sixtus IV.

“16. The order of placing satisfaction before absolution was introduced not by the polity or institution of the Church, but by the very law and prescription of Christ, the nature of the thing itself in some manner dictating it.—17. Through that practice of absolving at once, the order of Penance is inverted.—18. The modern custom concerning the administration of the Sacrament of Penance, although the authority of very many men sustains it and the long duration of much time confirms it, is nevertheless regarded by the Church not as a use, but as an abuse.” Propositions condemned by Alexander VIII.

“Is the word deinde in the form of absolution, printed in red type in certain editions, to be omitted?—Response. Nothing is to be changed.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 11 March 1837, Verona.

“In a case of extreme necessity, can absolution be given by telephone?—Response. Nothing is to be answered.” Sacred Penitentiary, 1 July 1884.

“In the Cathedral of Padua, by immemorial custom, in the public administration of the Sacrament of Penance, priest-confessors abstain from the use of the stole prescribed by the Roman Ritual. Is such a custom to be followed? “—Response. Negative; rather, the Ritual and the other decrees are altogether to be followed.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 7 December 1844, Padua, response to 2.

“Can the custom of administering the Sacrament of Penance without a stole, even in a church and in the confessional seat, be retained?—Response. It is fitting that a stole be used in church according to the Decrees of the Sacred Congregation of Rites.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 31 August 1867, Amiens, response to 2.

“Did the Right Reverend Bishop-Visitor of Tonkin rightly establish that the confessions of women are not to be heard unless a grille is interposed, except in a case of infirmity?—Response. Affirmative, according to the orders repeatedly given by the Sacred Congregation.” Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 12 June 1764.

“Does Your Eminence approve: 1. That, under pain of latae sententiae excommunication, the priests of that Vicariate be commanded to hear the confessions of women who are not bedridden only with a grille at least of wood or reed interposed, having small openings and a veil placed over it, and only by day, unless grave necessity urges? 2. That under the same penalty those priests and their ministers be forbidden access to the houses of nuns unless true necessity urges, namely, when the sacraments must be administered, or unless they have a special faculty given in writing by the Superior of the Mission? That under the same penalty the nuns be forbidden access to priests except in cases approved by the Superior of the Mission?—Response. The Most Eminent Fathers, having pondered the gravity of the matter with the maturity that was fitting, judged that, in order to remove abuses, Decrees issued elsewhere were to be renewed and confirmed. One of these, appended here and beginning Cum deceat, etc., is from the year 1780 (see here On Particular Statutes, no. 294). The other, of 7 March 1785, established that the precept concerning the grille contained in the first Decree be observed in churches or oratories erected in the Mission; but in those cases in which a duly constituted church or oratory is lacking and the missionary is compelled to administer the Sacrament of Penance in private houses, and no other suitable barriers are at hand, in hearing the confessions of women he is to hear them only when they are covered with a veil.

“But as regards the custom of women and sacred ministers, besides what is contained in the above-mentioned Decree of the year 1780, the Sacred Congregation earnestly commends to Your Amplitude that you command the missionaries never to depart from those rules handed down in the Synod of Szechuan, and especially in the pastoral letters of the Bishop of Caradra appended thereto. If all these things are observed exactly, not only will abuses be removed, but there will not even be room for suspicion. Furthermore, in giving this reply the Sacred Congregation does not prohibit Your Amplitude, by your ordinary power, from also commanding and decreeing other things, as shall appear more expedient in the Lord, yet in such a way that you proceed most cautiously to greater penalties, and much more to reservations, keeping before your eyes the inconveniences which follow from them in a mission territory and the difficulties in obtaining release.” Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 17 August 1839, to the Coadjutor of the Apostolic Vicar of Cochinchina.

“Can the confessionals of nuns be in sacristies or houses inhabited by confessors?—Response. They cannot; rather, they must stand in the churches of the monasteries.” Sacred Congregation of the Council, 2 September 1642.

“To the Reverend Rectors of churches and the Superiors of monasteries and religious houses in Rome.

“It has come to the notice of this ecclesiastical curia that in some churches of this capital city and at certain religious institutes, especially those of women, the confessionals are not found in the required condition.

“To remove this abuse, which can give rise to most grave inconveniences, the rectors of churches are reminded that confessionals for women must be placed in the church, in an open place, furnished with a close-set immovable grille (we earnestly recommend that it be covered all around with a fixed veil), and constructed in such a way that the confessor remains entirely separated from the female penitent.

“Therefore, the following are to be considered irregular: confessionals for women situated in sacristies or lacking a close-set grille; those which are placed in the church but in a secluded, dark place almost hidden from the eyes of the public; and those consisting of a simple board with a grille, called half-confessionals.

“Likewise irregular are the confessionals of monasteries and female religious houses which, besides lacking a close-set grille, are not furnished with a fixed veil that renders the priest invisible, and in which the confessor does not remain in a room different from that of the female penitent.

“All these and other similar and defective kinds of confessionals must be abolished or corrected within one month from the date of the present notice. By superior order, the undersigned makes a formal precept concerning this to those whom it concerns, giving notice that, when the said period has elapsed, he will not fail to send ecclesiastical persons to verify whether the present orders have been duly executed.

“On this occasion it is also recalled that the confessions of women, even in a church and in regular confessionals, cannot be heard, without a most special privilege, later than one-half hour after the evening Ave Maria.

“From the Secretariat of the Vicariate, 9 February 1898.”

Whether and when are parish priests bound under grave obligation, either personally or at least through another, to assist the dying until the final agony of life, although they have already been duly fortified by the sacraments and appear well disposed?—Response. “The prescriptions of the Roman Ritual are to be followed; in the remaining matters, let him consult approved authors.” Sacred Congregation of the Council, 23 March 1878; A. S. S., vol. 11, p. 189 ff.

“20. Whether he believes that a Christian, beyond contrition of heart, when an appropriate priest is available, is bound by necessity of salvation to confess to a priest alone and not to a layman or laymen, however good and devout.—21. Likewise, whether he believes that a priest, in cases permitted to him, can absolve a sinner who has confessed and is contrite from his sins and impose a penance upon him.” Articles concerning which those suspected of the errors of Wyclif and Hus are to be questioned by command of Martin V in the Bull Inter cunctas.

“13. In the Sacrament of Penance and the remission of guilt, a Pope or bishop does no more than the lowest priest; indeed, where there is no priest, any Christian does just as much, even if it were a woman or a boy.” Proposition of Martin Luther condemned by Leo X.

“When they—the bishops—should presume to subject those missionaries to an examination before they administer the sacraments, because the words examined and approved are lacking in the letters patent, let them respond to those same bishops that to be approved as missionaries is the same as to have been approved for the administration of the sacraments; for the office of missionaries, for which they were approved, consists especially in this: that they preach and administer the sacraments.” Instruction of the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 14 January 1726, to the Missionaries of the Congo.

“Priests setting out on a journey can be approved by the Ordinaries of the places from which the ships depart, in such a way that, while the journey continues, they may validly and lawfully receive the confessions of the faithful sailing with them until they arrive at a place where another ecclesiastical Superior endowed with jurisdiction is established. Nevertheless, those Ordinaries must take care not to grant a faculty of this kind to priests who have not been recognized as suitable according to the norms of the Council of Trent, Session 23, On Reformation, chapter 15.” Holy Office, 29 March 1869.

“Any priests setting out on an overseas voyage, provided that they have from their own Ordinary the faculty of hearing confessions, can hear aboard ship throughout the entire journey the confessions of the faithful sailing with them, although during that voyage they may perhaps pass through, or even remain for some time in, different places subject to the jurisdiction of different Ordinaries.” Holy Office, 4 April 1900.

“As regards the doubt whether a vicar capitular can suspend the faculty of hearing confessions of confessors who were approved by the deceased bishop at pleasure and without a definite term, the Most Eminent Lords commanded me to reply that there is no difficulty as regards secular priests, because, since they depend immediately upon the ordinary jurisdiction of the bishop, to which the chapter succeeds while the see is vacant, the vicar capitular consequently enjoys full power to limit their faculty and even to suspend them from hearing confessions, either because of grave faults pertaining to the Sacrament of Penance or because of a defect of that doctrine, probity, and integrity of life which are required in sacred ministers. The same cannot be said of regular confessors. Indeed, since they were approved after prior examination and without a limit of time, or even at our pleasure, by the deceased bishop, neither the chapter nor the vicar capitular can punish them with the penalty of suspension, even for just reasons, since this is a personal right of the bishop, to which, according to the more common opinion of the Doctors, the chapter does not succeed while the see is vacant. But since grave inconveniences would arise from this defect of power, recourse is to be had to the same Sacred Congregation.” Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, 19 June 1866.

“The vicar capitular represents that he has discovered that several secular and regular priests obtained from the deceased bishop the faculty of hearing confessions “without any prior examination, and that they are so unskilled that several scandals arise. Therefore, he petitions for the faculty of calling them to examination, approving those whom he finds suitable and prohibiting those who are unsuitable. Hence it is asked: 1. Whether the vicar capitular can do this; and insofar as the response is negative, 2. Whether the requested faculty is to be granted? The Sacred Congregation of the Council responded on 5 February 1688: To the first: Affirmative. To the second: Provided for in the first.” Scavini, book 3, no. 472, Milan, 1874.

“We decree and declare that the successor Archbishop can examine again both secular and regular confessors....” Urban VIII, Brief Cum sicut, 9 October 1626.

The Sacred Congregation of the Council “judged that successor bishops, when a reasonable cause supervenes, can, even ex officio and even outside visitation, examine parish priests approved for parochial churches.” And it says the same of regular parish priests. The Roman Rota decreed that the will and the mere peace of conscience of the bishop is a sufficient cause for a new examination. But if it concerns parish priests already examined by the same bishop, whether he can examine them again, the same Congregation has this: “1. A bishop can examine parish priests and rectors once approved for the care of souls when there is a vehement suspicion of their lack of skill. 2. He can proceed to an examination of this kind outside visitation. 3. To conduct the said examination, it is not necessary that judicial proofs of lack of skill precede.” Scavini, loc. cit.

The Sacred Congregation of the Council, having been asked whether the Capuchins who had heard confessions in the Diocese of Padua without the permission of the bishop of that diocese had absolved validly—because some of them were approved in another diocese, while others had indeed been approved by the Bishop of Padua for one year, but that year had already elapsed—responded: “They heard confessions illicitly and invalidly, but those who confessed in good faith are not to be disturbed. Nevertheless, if those who confessed should learn of this or should doubt the invalidity of the confession, they are bound to repeat the confession.” 11 December 1683; Benedict XIV, Notification 84; Scavini, book 3, no. 479, Milan, 1874. See M. E., vol. 7, part 1, p. 83 ff.

“Those who hold that absolution granted at the point of death by a non-approved priest is valid are not to be disturbed, even when an approved priest could easily have been summoned or been present; nor are those to be disturbed who hold that absolution granted at the same point of death from reserved sins, whether simply reserved or reserved with a censure, by a priest not having jurisdiction over the reserved matters is valid, even if a priest having the aforesaid jurisdiction could easily have been summoned or been present.” Holy Office, 29 July 1891.

“The Holy See has always maintained the maxim that the freedom of Christians ought not to be bound in any way in so delicate a matter as sacramental confession, and has always willed that it be lawful for each person to manifest his faults to whichever among the approved sacred ministers was most pleasing to him. Nor has it ever likewise forbidden an approved confessor to hear, in his own church, the confessions of any Catholic whatsoever who should present himself at the sacred tribunal. Thus Christians of one diocese are not forbidden to pass into another in order to confess there. Moreover, although for the fulfillment of the Easter precept every Christian must make his Communion in his own parish, he nevertheless has no obligation to confess on that occasion to his own parish priest. This has always been, and is, the maxim and practice maintained by the Holy See. Nor has any distinction of rite ever been made, since the administration of this sacrament brings with it no change of rite; indeed, whenever any doubt has been raised on this particular point, the Holy See itself has declared that no limitation of this kind is to be made. Hence, in 1626, on 5 June, it severely forbade certain Latin bishops to prevent their subjects from confessing to Ruthenian priests, and vice versa. Here is the decree: “Latin bishops ought not to prohibit their subjects from making their confessions to united Ruthenian priests approved by the Ordinaries of the places; nor, conversely, may united Ruthenian bishops bind their subjects by a similar prohibition against approaching approved Latin confessors to disclose their sins. For since the united Ruthenians are true Catholics, where diversity of rite is not repugnant, it is unfitting and harmful to introduce discords and dissensions between them by arousing or nourishing them.” Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 2 June 1835, to the Greek-Melkite Archbishop of Aleppo.

“1. Can the Catholic chaplains of any army, whether regular or secular, administer Penance, the Eucharist by way of Viaticum, and Extreme Unction to soldiers living in garrisons without a faculty of the Apostolic See or the permission and approval of the Ordinary in whose diocese they happen to be? 2. Can they assist at the marriages of soldiers of whatever station living in garrisons with military women, without the said Apostolic faculty and a prior proof of free status and its recognition before the local Ordinary, and without the permission of the parish priest in whose parish they reside? 3. Is the same true with soldiers living in camps and in winter or summer quarters? 4. Is the same true with soldiers placed on actual expedition? 5. Is the same true with soldiers wishing to marry women who are not military women but Italian natives of the place or diocese in which they are found? 6. Are non-Catholic soldiers contracting marriage bound to observe the Tridentine form? 7. Are Catholics contracting marriage with non-Catholic women, while the soldiers remain in garrisons, camps, and on expedition, all the more bound to observe it? 8. Can non-Catholic chaplains assist at marriages of non-Catholics with non-Catholics and respectively with Catholics, even within the boundaries of Italy; and insofar as the response is negative to all except the sixth and seventh: 9. Whether and what is to be referred to His Holiness and established as a certain rule concerning the sanation of things done in the past and things to be done in the future with respect to all the aforesaid matters?

“The Sacred Congregation responded on 6 March 1694: To the first: Negative. To the second: Negative, and confirmed in the case of Casale, 28 June 1704. To the third, fourth, and fifth: Negative. To the sixth: Affirmative, where the Council was promulgated according to the decree of the Sacred Congregation of 26 September 1602. To the seventh: Affirmative, and a dispensation is further needed in order that the marriage be lawfully contracted. To the eighth: As to the sixth. To the ninth: As regards the past, consciences are not to be disturbed concerning the Sacrament of Penance; and as regards marriages, for their sanation recourse is to be had to His Holiness, with consent renewed even before the confessor, “who is bound to deliver testimony of the renewal of the consents to the parish priest of that place where such renewal of consent occurred.” Scavini, loc. cit., no. 893.

“16. Those who have a benefice with the cure of souls can choose for themselves as confessor a simple priest not approved by the Ordinary.” Proposition condemned by Alexander VII.

“Those who have confessed to friars having a general permission to hear confessions are bound to confess again to their own priest the same sins which they had confessed. Given the decree Omnis utriusque sexus, issued in a General Council, the Roman Pontiff cannot bring it about that parishioners are not bound once a year to confess all their sins to their own priest, whom he says is the parish curate. Indeed, not even God could bring this about, because it implies a contradiction. The Pope cannot give a general power to hear confession; indeed, not even God can do so without one who has confessed to a person having permission being bound to confess the same things to his own priest, whom he calls his proper curate.” Error of John of Pouilly condemned by John XXII in 1320; Extravagantes, book 5, title 5, On Heretics, chapter 2, Vas electionis.

Launoy renewed the condemned error; and when this opinion, an enemy of peace, began to infect parish priests in France, Clement VIII issued this decree in 1592, cited in Benedict XIV, Institution 18, no. 7: “We decree that it is lawful for sins to be confessed, even in Lent and at Easter and at any other time, both to the said Friars ... and to the other aforesaid privileged persons to whom this has been granted by the Apostolic See, provided, however, that they are suitable and approved by the Ordinary....”

And Clement X in the Constitution Superna, §§4-5, decrees and declares “that regulars once approved can, in the diocese of the approving bishop, hear at any time of the year, even at Easter, the confessions of any persons whatsoever, even the sick, without any permission of parish priests or the bishop ...; and that those who at Easter have confessed to the said religious simply approved have satisfied the Constitution which begins Omnis utriusque sexus as regards confession alone.”

There exists in Pignatelli and in Pitonius, On Confessors, no. 36, a Declaration of the Sacred Congregation of 5 April 1584, expressed in these words: “A decree of a bishop which states that no confessor, even one approved by the Ordinary, can hear anyone’s confessions during Easter time without the permission of his own curate is in no way to be observed.”

“20. Confessions made to religious are for the most part either sacrilegious or invalid.” Proposition condemned by Alexander VIII.

“In monasteries, and also in colleges where life is conducted according to regular institutes, both the regular prelates and the confessors of the regulars of those same monasteries or colleges can hear the confessions of those secular persons who belong to the household and are continual table-companions, but not of those who merely serve them.” Clement X, Constitution Superna. See La Croix, no. 1505.

“Can regulars administer the Eucharist as Viaticum and also Extreme Unction to laymen by reason of hospitality and similar residence in their convents, if they become ill there? “—Response. They cannot, but only to those who are continual table-companions and belong to the household of the convents, according to the Council of Trent, Session 25, On Regulars, chapter 11, and the Constitution Circumspecta of Gregory XIII, 17 February 1649.” Sacred Congregation of the Council, 1649.

“Do the hebdomadary, cleric, baker, gardener, and female steward dwelling in the courtyard of the monastery ... have the requisites of the Council?—Response. Negative.” Sacred Congregation of the Council, 21 January 1713.

“1. Are the secular male and female servants of nuns, dwelling in the same residences—situated in the courtyards of monasteries enclosed by a wall, contiguous to the monasteries, and having a gate which is closed in the case—bound to receive the Eucharist at Easter time from the parish priests in whose parishes the monastery and residences are situated in the case? 2. Does it pertain to the said parish priests to administer the sacraments to the said male and female servants in their final illness in the case?—Response. To the first: Affirmative. To the second: Affirmative.” Sacred Congregation of the Council, 17 September 1822. See Benedict XIV, Notification 55, nos. 7-8.

“1. Does a religious who has not been approved by his Superior according to the laws of his own Order, or even against the Superior’s will, validly hear the confessions of secular persons with the faculty of the Ordinary alone? 2. Can regular Superiors having jurisdiction suspend their subjects from hearing the confessions of secular persons, even ex informata conscientia? And insofar as the response is affirmative: 3. Is a suspension announced orally and without writing valid? 4. Is absolution imparted by one who is bound by such a suspension valid? And insofar as the response is negative: 5. Does one who attempts an absolution of this kind incur irregularity?—Response. To the first: Affirmative. To the second: Affirmative, yet in such a way that the suspended religious hears confessions illicitly but not invalidly. To the third: Affirmative, since it is imposed by way of a particular precept. To the fourth: Affirmative. To the fifth: Provided for in the preceding responses.” Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, 2 March 1866.

“Are young men and pupils who are boarders, living for the sake of study in colleges of regulars, and girls staying for the sake of education in exempt monasteries of nuns, to be regarded as pertaining to the household of the monastery, such that, without consulting the parish priest, they can receive Easter Communion, Viaticum, and Extreme Unction from the regular Superior?—Response. Deferred, and let the doubts be divided.” Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, 8 June 1860; A. S. S., vol. 3, p. 47 ff.; Lucidi, 3rd ed., vol. 2, p. 371 ff.

“The Sacred Congregation ... judged that the aforesaid regulars of St. Francis, approved by the local Ordinaries to hear the confessions of secular persons, cannot be prohibited by those same Ordinaries from hearing, without the permission of the parish priests, the confessions of those same persons when sick in their own homes, provided that they leave a note or notify the parish priests themselves that the Sacrament of Penance of this kind was administered by them.” Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, 13 September 1641; 22 September 1645. See nos. 763, 782; Bizzarri, Collection, ed. 1885, p. 753 ff.; A. S. S., vol. 1, p. 678 ff.

“In the Constitution Quod communi of 30 March 1742 for the Capuchins, §2, it is declared that anyone of the Capuchin Order, whether a priest or a lay brother, who with due permission is living outside the cloister, if he finds no confessor of the said Order, can confess his sins to any secular priest approved by the Ordinary of the place, and also to a regular, provided that the latter is approved by his own regular Superior to hear sacramental confessions. Benedict XIV issued this Constitution for the Capuchins because, according to the statutes of their general chapters, even major Superiors cannot appoint confessors outside the Order. Our Most Holy Lord Pope Pius IX enlarged the indult granted by Benedict XIV through Apostolic Letters in the form of a Brief on 28 September 1852, so that Capuchins can choose for themselves an outside confessor, as above, even in a case where there is only one Capuchin priest approved for confessions. He granted, moreover, that they can obtain sacramental absolution from an outside confessor even as regards cases reserved by the statutes of the Order and censures thereby incurred, provided, however, that the obligation is imposed upon them of presenting themselves to their regular Superior as soon as the first opportunity permits and of again obtaining from him absolution concerning such cases and censures.” Bizzarri, Collection, ed. 1885, p. 723.

An indult was granted to the Capuchin Friars Minor by which the Father Minister General can permit that “each one of them who, with the permission of his Superiors, is outside the convent for any reason whatsoever and does not have a supply of confessors—at least two—can freely confess his sins to any duly approved confessor and be absolved by him even from cases reserved in the Order and the censures thereby incurred; and the religious thus absolved is not further bound to present himself to his regular Superior to obtain a new absolution concerning the reserved cases and censures ..., provided that they live outside the cloister with the permission of their Superiors or are making a journey, but not those who deliberately or in fraud of the law undertake journeys.” Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, 5 April 1897; A. S. S., vol. 30, p. 30.

“A certain religious of the Augustinian family, using a faculty obtained from the prior of his convent, confesses to a priest who is indeed approved. It is asked: 1. Is the confession valid? And insofar as the response is affirmative: 2. Can the prior by right grant this faculty to his subjects or not?—Response. In the Order of Hermits of St. Augustine: Affirmative to both, provided that the priest was among those approved by the local Ordinary. For other Orders the Constitutions and statutes are to be followed.” Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, 3 June 1864.

“Can a member of the Congregation of the Mission validly make a sacramental confession to an approved external priest without the permission of the Superior, when he could easily have a priest-confessor within the Congregation also?—Response. Negative.” Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, 23 September 1881; M. E., Conversano, vol. 2, part 3, p. 99.

“1. In the case, should the Decision of the Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars of 23 September 1881 be confirmed or revoked? And, insofar as the response is negative to the first and affirmative to the second: 2. Does the dependence of the Missionaries upon the jurisdiction of the Ordinaries extend also to other matters of the internal forum?—Response. To the first and second: According to the mind. The mind is that the members of the Congregation of the Mission can validly confess to any confessor approved by the local Ordinary, after consultation with His Holiness as a precaution.” Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, 14 December 1903; M. E., vol. 15, p. 484 ff.

“Titius, a priest approved to hear Confessions, has not rarely happened to hear the confessions of regulars of various Orders. Therefore, so that he may act with greater prudence, he earnestly requests from this sacred Tribunal the solution of the doubts which are immediately proposed below:

“I. Caius, a regular priest, approached Titius toward evening to make his confession. When asked about a faculty received from his Superior, he responded that the Superior was absent from the house and would not return that day, and that no other priest was present in the convent. In this lack of a domestic confessor, could he validly and lawfully be absolved by Titius?

“II. Among the faculties which the Sacred Penitentiary is accustomed to communicate to confessors for the internal forum, no. VIII reads: ‘the faculty of absolving religious of any Order whatsoever, provided that they have legitimate permission to make sacramental Confession before you ..., even from cases and censures reserved in their religious institute.’ Does that faculty have force for cases reserved in any manner whatsoever? For in religious institutes, some cases are customarily reserved to the immediate Superior, others to the Provincial, and others to the General. But it would be very difficult for an outside confessor to observe these distinctions. Therefore, an expeditious use of the faculty suggests that it comprehends all cases proper to the religious institute. Moreover, a prudent confessor will not omit to command those things by which sufficient provision is made for the good or the law of the Order.

“III. Is it lawful for a regular confessor to use the aforesaid faculty when he hears the Confession of a religious of the same Order to which he himself belongs, so that he possesses jurisdiction over the reserved cases of his own Order which was not formally accepted from the Superior; or, on the contrary, is its use restricted to religious who are outsiders?

“IV. Can a Superior who permits Confession, with a condition added—for example, ‘Provided that for reserved cases you observe the custom of the Order’—impede the use of the aforesaid faculty; or, on the contrary, once permission to confess has been granted, does the chosen confessor possess, by virtue of the faculty of the Penitentiary, a power over reserved cases wholly independent of the Superior’s will?

“V. Are the things stated under no. IV altogether to be transferred to a traveling religious who had no need of his Superior’s express faculty in order to approach an outside confessor?

“Response. To the first: If the Superior of the house and the other confessors are absent for at least one entire day, so that it would be burdensome for the religious penitent to lack sacramental absolution throughout that whole time, he is lawfully and validly absolved by a suitable, that is, approved, outside confessor. To the second: Affirmative. To the third: Provided that the regular confessor is approved to receive the Confession of a religious of his own Order, affirmative to the first part, negative to the second. To the fourth: Negative to the first part, affirmative to the second. To the fifth: If the outside confessor has from the Holy See the faculty of absolving religious from cases reserved in their Order, affirmative; otherwise, negative.” Sacred Penitentiary, 14 May 1902.

“It has been reported to this Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Roman and Universal Inquisition that in this venerable City certain Superiors of Religious Communities, as well as of Seminaries and Colleges, hear the sacramental confessions of their pupils dwelling in the same house. No one even moderately versed in sacred ministries fails to know as certain how many inconveniences, indeed how many grave evils, can arise from this. For on the one hand the freedom of the pupils to confess their sins is diminished and the very integrity of confession is endangered; while on the other hand the Superiors could be less free in the government of the community and are exposed to suspicion either of using information obtained in confession or of showing themselves more benevolent toward the pupils whose confessions they hear. “Therefore, that these and other evils which can easily arise from an abuse of this kind may be forestalled, this Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, by the express command of Our Most Holy Lord Pope Leo XIII, strictly prohibits any Superior, whether major or minor, of any Religious Community, Seminary, or College in this venerable City from daring in any manner to hear the sacramental Confessions of his pupils dwelling in the same house, except in some rare case of necessity, concerning which his conscience is burdened.”

“By the preceding Decree of the Holy Office of 5 July 1899, nothing was derogated from the Apostolic Constitutions as regards Religious Orders.” Holy Office, 23 August 1899.

The preceding Decree of the Holy Office of 23 August 1899 does not have force for Religious Congregations of simple vows which have perpetual vows and common life and which have been approved by the Church. Holy Office, 20 December 1899.

“His Holiness commanded that the proposed doubt be answered, namely, that religious of suppressed convents who for this reason do not live in community can choose for themselves as confessor any priest whatsoever, whether from the secular clergy or from the regular clergy, provided that he is among those approved by the local Ordinary for hearing confessions. But to those religious in question who, although ejected from their convents, nevertheless live in community in the best manner possible, His Holiness benignly granted an indult to choose for themselves any confessor whatsoever, as above, provided that there are not at least four confessors of their own Order in that community.” Bizzarri, loc. cit., p. 155; Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, 3 July 1862; see no. 251.

“Regulars, even those temporarily secularized, must make their confession to confessors approved by the local Ordinary, by whom, in the act of sacramental confession, they can be absolved even from censures and cases reserved in the Order, if these are not reserved in the diocese.” Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, 27 August 1852.

“Besides the ordinary confessor, another extraordinary one is to be offered by the bishop and other Superiors two or three times a year, who ought to hear the confessions of all.” Council of Trent, Session 25, On Regulars, chapter 10. Other Supreme Pontiffs confirmed these statutes, especially Benedict XIV in the Constitution Pastoralis curae, 5 August 1748.

The confessor of nuns must be changed at least every three years. Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, 26 November 1602; 15 February 1593; 10 March 1634. It is declared an abuse that a confessor of nuns be appointed for life or for several monasteries. 4 March 1591. Only one confessor is to be appointed for each monastery. Benedict XIV, Constitution Pastoralis curae. See Bizzarri, Collection, ed. 1885, p. 374. The prescription for changing the confessor every three years is applied not only to monasteries and conservatories, but to any society of women living together in the manner of a community and having ordinary confessors. The continuation of an ordinary confessor beyond three years without permission of the Holy See does not render the absolutions null, but only renders the exercise of the sacred ministry illicit. Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, 20 July 1875.

“But since it can sometimes happen from peculiar circumstances that confirmation for another three years is not only useful but necessary, the same Sacred Congregation, after hearing the Ordinary and the nuns capitularly by secret votes, grants in particular cases confirmation for a second and even a third triennium, yet under this condition: that for confirmation for a second triennium the consent of two-thirds of the nuns concur, and for confirmation for a third triennium the consent of all be added. The Ordinary must report concerning the probity of life and prudence of the confessor and inform the Sacred Congregation concerning the necessity, or at least the usefulness, of the confirmation.” Bizzarri, Collection, ed. 1885, p. 13.

“As regards the doubt concerning the confessor of Sisters who direct schools or serve in a hospital, it appears it can be held that if they live in community and have a special confessor, he is subject to the same general rules and must be approved every three years. But if they make their confession in a public church, or to the parish priest if he is the only priest residing in the place, or to another confessor, since strictly speaking neither the one nor the other can be called the ordinary confessor of the community, no appointment or confirmation is required for him.” Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 1877.

As a general rule, local Ordinaries cannot designate regulars as ordinary confessors of nuns immediately subject to the bishop without the permission of the Sacred Congregation. Sacred Congregation, November 1721 and 5 September 1727. See Bizzarri, ed. 1885, pp. 313, 322, 335, 345, 382, 383; Ferraris, Nuns, article 5, no. 29.

“To the proposed doubts ... the Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars responded that a bishop can appoint as extraordinary confessors regulars who are not forbidden by their Constitutions and rules. But so that the petitioner bishop, in default of suitable priests, may appoint religious as ordinary confessors, the Sacred Congregation, by the special authority of Our Most Holy Lord, granted the faculty for three years only.” 14 February 1851, in Francis Sentis, The Decretals of Pope Clement VIII, Freiburg im Breisgau, 1870.

Edict of Clement XI, beginning Avendo determinato, etc.: “Since the Council of Trent decreed that extraordinary confessors are to be given to nuns two or three, and even four, times a year, although they may not wish to confess their sins to them, nevertheless they are commanded by the present edict to present themselves to them, so that they may receive salutary admonitions and perform an act of subjection. The ordinary confessors are commanded, meanwhile, while the extraordinary confessor is present, to hear the confession of no nun of the same monastery. But if any nun is unwilling to present herself to the extraordinary confessor, she is to be punished by the superior; girls under instruction who are unwilling to submit and present themselves are to be expelled. They also command that neither ordinary nor extraordinary confessors approach those monasteries to hear confessions when the time of their office has already expired, nor receive letters from any of them or send letters to her unless there is special permission.” 12 December 1708; Bizzarri, Collection, ed. 1885, pp. 293-294; Benedict XIV, Constitution Pastoralis curae. “The expressed mind of the Holy See is that the ordinary confessor ought not to exercise his ministry or approach the monastery during the entire time in which the commission of the general extraordinary confessor lasts. A regular extraordinary confessor, when his office has ended, can no longer approach the monastery without the necessary permission, because he remains subject to the prohibition and penalties established against regulars, like all other regulars. But the Holy See declares that this prohibition does not comprehend secular priests, and therefore these, even after the office of extraordinary confessor has been completed, can continue to approach monasteries as before, because in this respect the new Constitution of Benedict XIV, Pastoralis curae, introduced nothing new as regards secular priests.” Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, January 1749.

“At the point of death, a particular confessor must be granted by the bishop to any nun requesting one, or by the regular prelate if the monastery is exempt; and if the regular prelate is lacking or refuses, the bishop can and must supply; but if the bishop refuses, one is to be given by the Major Penitentiary, if time permits.” Benedict XIV, Constitution Pastoralis curae.

“The Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars established ... that regular priests cannot hear the sacramental confessions of women of the Third Order, who are called women of Penance, unless they have been approved by the Ordinary to hear the confessions of secular persons.”

“Sometimes nuns, either for reasons of health or for another cause, obtain permission to leave their monastery for a short time while retaining the habit. It is asked whether in such a case they can make their confession to confessors approved for both sexes, although not approved for nuns.—Response. Affirmative, during the stay outside the monastery.” Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, 27 August 1852.

In the Diocese of N. in France, “in many parishes there are two or three and scarcely four Sisters of the more recent Congregations, devoted to the education of girls. These Sisters, living in common but outside enclosure, do not have a private chapel, but frequent the parish church like the others, there assisting at Mass and the other offices and receiving both the Sacrament of Penance and the Eucharist. Moreover, these Sisters frequently pass from one parish to another according to the will of the Superior General. Accordingly, in these circumstances, is the provision of law concerning the triennial change of confessors to be applied, especially since in these parishes there is only one priest, namely, the parish priest?—Response. The Sisters in question can make sacramental confession outside their own pious house to any confessor approved by the Ordinary.” Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, 22 April 1872, response to 3.

“Is the reservation made by the bishop in his letters patent as regards cases reserved to himself upheld in the case—namely, with respect to nuns subject to regulars?—Response. Affirmative only as regards cases reserved in a matter clearly pertaining to delegated jurisdiction; in the remaining matters, negative.” Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, September 1746. See Bizzarri, Collection, p. 756, ed. 1885.

“Can Latin missionaries hear the confessions of Eastern nuns without the special consent of the Eastern Ordinaries?—Response. Negative, and the Constitution Inscrutabili of Gregory XV is to be observed.” Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 11 December 1838.

In the Constitution Inscrutabili Dei providentia of 5 February 1622, these things are contained: “But confessors, whether regular or secular and exempt in any manner whatsoever, both ordinary and extraordinary, can in no way be appointed to hear the confessions of nuns, even those subject to regulars, unless they are first judged suitable by the diocesan bishop and obtain approval, which is to be granted gratis.” See no. 301.

On 9 January 1601, the Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars established that local Ordinaries were to be admonished thus: “Lest local Ordinaries, to whom the right of reserving cases belongs, be burdensome by more reservations than are necessary to their subjects or to confessors cooperating in procuring the salvation of souls, let all be admonished to reserve few cases, and only those which they judge it necessary to reserve for maintaining Christian discipline and for the salvation of the souls entrusted to them, according to the state and quality of each diocese.”

And it decreed that the same admonition was to be repeated on 26 November 1602: “But lest local Ordinaries, to whom the reservation of cases pertains, exceed the measure in this matter, the same Sacred Congregation judges that they are again to be greatly admonished not indiscriminately, but when this shall appear expedient for the common good, to reserve to themselves the absolution only of more atrocious and graver crimes, the reservation of which may contribute to maintaining Christian discipline and tend toward edification, not toward destruction; lest otherwise, the power of the ministers of the Sacrament of Penance having been restricted, an effect contrary to the pious mind of holy Mother Church should follow. It also prohibits them from superfluously reserving to themselves cases contained in the Bull customarily read on the day of the Lord’s Supper or other cases specially reserved to the Apostolic See.”

Encyclical letters were also issued by the same Sacred Congregation on the same day, 26 November 1602, to the bishops in this manner: “The Sacred Congregation judges that these things especially are to be admonished: that the Ordinaries themselves take care not indiscriminately to reserve those cases to which a major excommunication imposed by law is annexed, absolution from which is reserved to no one, unless perhaps because of frequent scandal or another necessary cause certain cases of this kind should appear to be reserved by name; nor cases in which absolution is not conferred except with restitution or performance of those things to which penitents are bound; nor those which, although they induce mortal sin, nevertheless concern matters of small moment and are wont frequently to occur among the uneducated, such as damage inflicted and the like. They are also to use great circumspection in reserving carnal sins because of the danger of scandals, especially in those persons upon whom some suspicion could fall because of access to extraordinary confessors or frequent return to ordinary confessors. Finally, they are especially to enter upon and follow that course which, after the customs, nature, and inclination of each province and people have been diligently considered, shall appear more expedient in the Lord.”

The Decisions of the Sacred Congregation of the Council agree with the Decrees of the Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars. For when it was reported to the former that the Bishop of Belcastro had increased beyond measure the catalogue of reserved cases, on 29 January 1661 it commanded that, excepting ten or at most twelve graver cases to be designated at the bishop’s discretion, the others be deleted from the catalogue.

When the Bishop of Mirepoix consulted the Holy See concerning certain Ordinances framed by him, and among them this was also proposed: “Because many of the clergy were more prone to lust, we reserved this case to ourselves, and that severity greatly profited the amendment of morals,” the Sacred Congregation responded on 3 July 1677: “It is not approved.”

“Our Most Holy Lord, who long ago carefully considered and learned by the fact itself that the reservation of the faculty of absolving religious penitents from certain graver sins, unless Superiors use it very prudently and moderately, can lead certain weak persons, who sometimes fear to disclose the stains of their conscience to the Superior, into danger of eternal damnation and despair of a spiritual remedy—therefore, so that His Holiness might provide opportunely against this evil, he decreed that no Superior of regulars reserve to himself the absolution of sins except those which follow, or some of them, according as they shall prudently judge in the Lord to be expedient for the benefit of their subjects:

“1. Poisonings, incantations, sorceries.

“2. Apostasy from the religious institute, whether the habit is laid aside or retained, when it reaches the point that an exit is made beyond the enclosure of the monastery or convent.

“3. Nocturnal and furtive departure from the monastery or convent, even when done without an intention of apostatizing.

“4. Possession of property contrary to the vow of poverty, when it is a mortal sin.

“5. A false oath in a regular or legitimate judgment.

“6. Procuring, aiding, or counseling the performance of an abortion after the fetus is animated, even when the effect does not follow.

“7. Falsification of the handwriting or seal of officials of the monastery or convent.

“8. Theft from the goods of the monastery or convent in such an amount that it is a mortal sin.

“9. A voluntary carnal lapse consummated in act.

“10. The killing or wounding, or grave striking, of any person.

“11. The malicious obstruction, delay, or opening of letters from Superiors to inferiors and from inferiors to Superiors.

“If, moreover, some other grave sin should appear to require reservation for the preservation of the religious institute or for purity of conscience, this is to be done in no other way than by the mature discussion and consent of the general chapter for the whole Order or of the provincial chapter for the province.

“Superiors of regulars are not permitted to hear the confessions of subjects except when they have committed some reserved sin, or the subjects themselves spontaneously or of their own motion request it from them.

“Superiors are to appoint in each house two, three, or more confessors according to the greater or lesser number of subjects; and these are to be learned, prudent, and endowed with charity, who may absolve them from non-reserved cases and to whom the absolution of reserved cases is also to be committed when a case occurs in which the confessor himself judges in the first place that it ought to be committed.”

“His Holiness subsequently declared, and declares, that if the Superior should refuse to give the faculty of absolving some reserved case to confessors of regulars who request it, the confessors can nevertheless, on that occasion, absolve the regular penitents “even without having obtained the faculty from the Superior.” Ferraris, Regular Prelate, no. 58.

“Since certain regulars doubted whether censures were also comprehended in the Decree of Pope Clement VIII of happy memory, issued on 26 May 1593 concerning the nature of cases to be reserved by the Superiors of those same regulars, so that it would be lawful for the same Superiors, without the consent of the general or provincial chapter, to annex excommunication to certain sins not contained in a decree of this kind and to reserve absolution from it to themselves, the Sacred Congregation of Cardinals charged with the affairs of Regulars, with the Most Illustrious Bardino reporting, judged that censures were comprehended in the aforesaid Decree.” 7 July 1617.

“12. Mendicants can absolve from cases reserved to bishops without obtaining the faculty of the bishops for this.” Proposition condemned by Alexander VII.

“Meanwhile, by command of His Holiness himself, the same Ordinaries are admonished that throughout their whole diocese, and especially in those places which are more distant from the city and cathedral see, they appoint and delegate penitentiaries and other priests to whom they grant the faculty of absolving from cases reserved to themselves, in such a way that it may also be lawful for these, if there is need, to impart the same faculty to other confessors, even orally.” Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, 26 November 1602.

The same Sacred Congregation, 26 November 1602, declares “that the faculty and permission to absolve from reserved cases ... can also be granted by the spoken word alone.”

“In small communities Superiors must altogether appoint habitually one confessor from the religious of their own Order who has the faculty of absolving from cases and censures reserved in the Order.” Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, 16 August 1865, approved and confirmed by Pius IX on the 17th of the same month. See nos. 790, 795.

Faculties and privileges of confessors who render spiritual assistance to the sick in Roman hospitals. Holy Office, 9 March 1870. See Ferraris, Supplement, under Censure, no. 40.

See no. 797.

“1. Can the opinion still safely be held which teaches that absolution from cases and censures, even those reserved in a special manner to the Pope, devolves upon the bishop or any approved priest when the penitent is in the impossibility of personally approaching the Holy See? 2. Insofar as the response is negative, must recourse be had, at least by letter, to the Most Eminent Cardinal Penitentiary for all cases reserved to the Pope, unless the bishop has a special indult—apart from the point of death—in order to obtain the faculty of absolving?

“Response. To the first: In view of the practice of the Sacred Penitentiary, especially since the publication of the Apostolic Constitution of the late Pope Pius IX which begins Apostolicae Sedis: Negative. To the second: Affirmative; but in truly more urgent cases in which absolution cannot be deferred without danger of grave scandal or infamy, concerning which the conscience of confessors is burdened, absolution can be given, with the things required by law being enjoined, from censures even specially reserved to the Supreme Pontiff, but under pain of re-incurring the same censures unless, at least within one month, by letter and through the intermediary of the confessor he has recourse to the Holy See. After consultation with His Holiness, His Holiness approved.” Holy Office, 23 June 1886.

“1. The response to the first question of the Decree of 23 June 1886, which reads as follows: In view of the practice of the Sacred Penitentiary, especially since the publication of the Apostolic Constitution of the late Pope Pius IX which begins Apostolicae Sedis: Negative, does not appear to concern cases specially reserved to the Supreme Pontiff without a censure, since these are not treated in the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis. Does the old doctrine of the theologians therefore remain intact, according to which bishops or their delegates—or, as Castropalao maintains, a simple priest—can absolve from these cases when the penitent cannot go to Rome, without its being necessary to write?

“2. When bishops have a quinquennial indult from the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith comprising fourteen numbers, no. 10 of which grants the faculty of absolving from all cases, even those specially reserved to the Roman Pontiff, except the case of one who absolves an accomplice, can they delegate that faculty in France and in Europe, at least for a particular case, so that it is not necessary for the penitent to approach the bishop himself, although no. 11 of the indult contains this clause: Of communicating these faculties in whole or in part, according as he shall judge in his conscience that there is need, to suitable priests laboring for the conversion of souls, only in places where the exercise of the Catholic religion is prohibited?

“3. Supposing that the response is negative, what if it is impossible for the penitent to approach a bishop who has such an indult?

“4. When an episcopal see is vacant, can the vicar capitular communicate the quinquennial faculties granted by an indult of the Sacred Penitentiary or of the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith to the bishop who has been removed or has died?

“5. When a missionary encounters a penitent bound by censures who is merely passing through, so that the missionary cannot see the penitent again, is it sufficient, given a more urgent case for absolution, to require from the penitent a promise to write within one month to the Sacred Penitentiary, withholding his name if he wishes, and to abide by its commands, without the confessor himself writing?

“6. Can it safely be taught and put into practice, as some maintain, that, because of the present danger that letters may be opened by the civil authority, it is not required that a letter be directed to the Supreme Pontiff in more urgent cases or when the Pope cannot be approached?

“7. Supposing that a letter to the Supreme Pontiff is not required, is a letter directed to the bishop required, notwithstanding this general danger, especially when it is a question of the absolution of an accomplice, which, if treacherously detected and revealed, can also generate scandal?

“Response. To the first: Negative.—To the second, third, and fourth: Let the petitioner (Missionary A.) consult the bishop, and, insofar as there is need, let the bishop himself have recourse to the Sacred Congregation of the Universal Inquisition.—To the fifth: Affirmative.—To the sixth: Negative, since names and surnames are to be suppressed in the petitions.—To the seventh: Provided for in the sixth.” Sacred Penitentiary, 7 November 1888.

“1. Does the response to the first question of 23 June 1886 have force also for the case in which the penitent is perpetually prevented from journeying personally to Rome?

“2. In the response to the second question in the same place, does the clause but under pain of reincidence into the same censures, etc., refer only to absolution from censures and cases reserved in a special manner to the Roman Pontiff, or also to absolution from censures and cases simply reserved to the Pope?

“3. After the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis, do modern authors correctly teach—contrary to the common law, chapter Eos qui 22, On the Sentence of Excommunication, in the Sixth, v. 11; chapter Ea noscitur 13, On the Sentence of Excommunication, v. 39; and contrary to the Roman Ritual, On Penance, title 3, chapter 1, no. 23—that one who, at the point of death, has been absolved by any confessor from any censures whatsoever, however reserved, is then to be placed under the obligation of presenting himself to the Superior upon recovering his health only if the absolution concerned censures reserved in a special manner to the Pope; or is recourse of this kind to the Superior also necessary in absolution from censures simply reserved to the Supreme Pontiff?

“Response. To the first: Affirmative.—To the second: Negative to the first part; affirmative to the second part.—To the third: Affirmative to the first part; negative to the second part, according to the resolution of Wednesday, 28 June 1882.” Holy Office, 17 June 1891.

“1. Is the obligation of abiding by the commands of the Church, imposed by the Bull Apostolicae Sedis, under pain of reincidence or not?—2. Does the obligation of abiding by the commands of the Church, in the sense of the Bull Apostolicae Sedis, mean the same thing as the obligation of presenting oneself before the Supreme Pontiff, or must it be distinguished from that obligation?—3. Is absolution given in more urgent cases from censures, even those reserved in a special manner to the Supreme Pontiff, in the sense of the Decree of the Holy Office of 23 June 1886, direct or only indirect?

“Response. To the first: Affirmative to the first part; negative to the second part.—To the second: The obligation of abiding by the commands of the Church imports the burden of having recourse to the Supreme Pontiff, either personally or through the confessor, and obeying his commands, or of seeking a new absolution from one who has the faculty of absolving from censures reserved in a special manner to the Supreme Pontiff.—To the third: Affirmative to the first part; negative to the second part.” Holy Office, 19 August 1891.

“1. If penitents absolved from censures reserved to the Supreme Pontiff recover their health, does the obligation of abiding by the commands of the Church mean the same thing as the obligation of presenting themselves before the Supreme Pontiff?—2. And insofar as the response is negative, in what does the obligation of abiding by the commands of the Church consist?—3. Is the obligation of abiding by the commands of the Church under pain of reincidence?—4. Does this obligation of abiding by the commands of the Church bind also in the case of censures simply reserved to the Supreme Pontiff?—5. Does the Decree of the Holy Office of 23–30 June 1886 bind in such a way that the practice observed before this Decree is no longer to be tolerated?—6. Is absolution given in more urgent cases by virtue of the aforesaid Decree direct or indirect? “Response. To the first: The obligation of abiding by the commands of the Church imports the burden of having recourse to the Supreme Pontiff, either personally or through the confessor, and obeying his commands, or of seeking a new absolution from one who has the faculty of absolving from censures reserved in a special manner to the Supreme Pontiff.—To the second: Provided for in the preceding response.—To the third: Affirmative.—To the fourth: Negative.—To the fifth: The Decree of 23 June 1886 binds altogether, and a contrary practice is not to be tolerated.—To the sixth: Affirmative to the first part; negative to the second part.” Holy Office, 30 March 1892.

“By the Decree of the Sacred Inquisition of 23 June 1886, any confessor can directly absolve from censures, even those reserved in a special manner to the Supreme Pontiff, in truly more urgent cases in which absolution cannot be deferred without danger of grave scandal or infamy, with the things required by law being enjoined, but under pain of reincidence into the same censures unless, at least within one month, the person absolved has recourse by letter and through the intermediary of the confessor to the Holy See.

“A doubt nevertheless arises for a case in which neither scandal nor infamy is present in delaying absolution, but the penitent bound by papal censures must remain for a long time in mortal sin, namely, for the time required to request and obtain the faculty of absolving from reserved cases; especially since theologians, with St. Alphonsus de Liguori, regard it as something exceedingly hard for anyone to remain in mortal guilt for one or two days.

“Hence, after the Decree of 23 June 1886, since the theologians’ solution is lacking on this question, it is asked:

“1. In a case in which there is neither infamy nor scandal in delaying absolution, but it is very hard for the penitent to remain in grave sin for the time necessary to request and obtain the faculty of absolving from reserved cases, can a simple confessor directly absolve from censures reserved to the Supreme Pontiff, with the things required by law being enjoined, but under pain of reincidence into the same censures unless, at least within one month, the person absolved has recourse by letter and through the intermediary of the confessor to the Holy See?—Response. Affirmative, after consultation with His Holiness.” Holy Office, 16 June 1897.

“When neither the confessor nor the penitent can send a letter to the Sacred Penitentiary, and it would be hard for the penitent to approach another confessor, in this case the confessor may absolve the penitent, even from cases reserved to the Holy See, without the burden of sending a letter.” Holy Office, 9 November 1898; M. E., vol. 10, book 2, p. 218.

“With regard to absolution from censures reserved to the Supreme Pontiff, the Sacred Congregation of the Roman and Universal Inquisition decreed on 9 November 1898: When neither the confessor nor the penitent can send a letter to the Sacred Penitentiary, and it would be hard for the penitent to approach another confessor, in this case the confessor may absolve the penitent, even from cases reserved to the Holy See, without the burden of sending a letter.

“In order that the burden of sending a letter cease, must the impediment to writing bind both the confessor and the penitent at the same time; or is it sufficient, as some have interpreted, that the penitent, being unable to write, cannot present himself again to the same confessor by whom he was absolved by virtue of the Decrees of 1886 and 1897, and that it is hard for him to approach another confessor, although the absolving confessor could send a letter to the Holy See on behalf of the penitent? “Response. Negative to the first part; affirmative to the second.” Holy Office, 5 September 1900; M. E., vol. 12, p. 293.

“The priest Titius went to a foreign region to confess a sin reserved to the Supreme Pontiff. He then declared to the confessor: 1. that neither the duties of his ministry nor the amount of his means permitted him to undertake the journey again in order to receive the response of the Sacred Penitentiary; 2. that it would be too burdensome for him to present himself to another confessor in his own region, a thing he had expressly wished to avoid by undertaking the journey.

“Must the aforesaid case, even if it concerns absolution of an accomplice, be numbered among those foreseen in the Decree of the Holy Office of 9 November 1898, and can the confessor rely upon the aforesaid Decree to impart absolution without recourse to the Penitentiary, or not?—Response. It is not included.” Holy Office, 7 June 1899.

“In more urgent cases ... [by] the Decree of the Holy Office of 23 June 1886, absolution can be given from cases reserved to the Holy See, but under pain of reincidence unless the person absolved has recourse within one month to the Holy See in order to receive its commands.

“Where, however, bishops have the delegated faculty of absolving from the aforesaid reserved cases, such as is customarily granted to them by the quinquennial formula of the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith (Formula X), under no. 10, there is doubt concerning the necessity of immediate recourse to the Holy See.

“It is therefore asked: 1. In the case of an absolution granted as above, is recourse to a bishop furnished with the faculty of absolving sufficient? And insofar as the response is affirmative:—2. In the same case, is recourse also sufficient if made to the bishop’s vicar general, as to an Ordinary who by law shares in the episcopal faculties of absolving?—3. In general, is recourse sufficient if made to any priest habitually subdelegated by the Ordinary to absolve from those papal reserved cases from which the penitent had been incidentally absolved as above, by virtue of the Decree of the Holy Office of 1881?

“Response. To the first and second: Affirmative, after consultation with His Holiness.—To the third: Negative.” Holy Office, 19 December 1900.

“There are certainly many cases in which the denial and delay of absolution is a suitable remedy, and sometimes a necessary one. Let the confessor see to it, says St. Charles Borromeo in the Instructions on Penance, that he absolves no one who either is unwilling to lay aside hatred or enmity, or refuses to restore another’s property according to his ability, or is not prepared to depart from the state of mortal sin or to avoid an occasion of a similar sin. Hence the Apostolic See has always risen up with marvelous zeal against the lax and perverse facility of certain casuists in granting absolution, as is evident to every reader from the propositions rightly and deservedly condemned by Alexander VII, Innocent XI, and other Roman Pontiffs. It would be very lengthy, however, to enumerate cases of this kind; but they can be seen in St. Charles Borromeo’s Instruction for Confessors, and confessors should not allow themselves to be led away from these holy rules, confirmed by the consent of the whole Church, by a false mercy toward penitents. “Nevertheless, apart from the cases set forth above, an indiscriminate and widespread withholding of absolution for every mortal sin, for the sake of conceiving a greater horror of crimes and acquiring a better disposition for obtaining the benefit of absolution, is certainly neither a medicine nor a suitable chastisement ever employed by the Church against unwilling penitents, but was usurped by rigid and imprudent confessors alone, contrary to all right, and proscribed by three Roman Pontiffs. Peter of Osma already attempted to introduce this excessively severe and imprudent practice—to say nothing worse—by this proposition: Penitents are not to be absolved unless the penance enjoined has first been performed, deservedly condemned in the Council of Alcalá and by Sixtus IV in the year 1479, in the Bull which begins Licet ea. It is evident that, after the apostate Marco Antonio de Dominis, book 5, On the Republic of the Church, chapter 7, and Antoine Arnauld, On Frequent Communion, part 2, from chapter 8, this same deadly practice prevailed among the Belgians and certain French followers of rigorism. From their books Alexander VIII, among others, transfixed these two propositions with a just anathema: ‘16. The order of placing satisfaction before absolution was introduced, not by the discipline or institution of the Church, but by the very law and precept of Christ, the nature of the thing itself in a certain manner dictating it’; and ‘17. By that practice of absolving immediately, the order of penance is inverted.’ Quesnel attempted once again to introduce this practice, cruel in substance, by means of these two propositions couched in deceptive and equivocal terms: ‘87. It is a way full of wisdom, light, and charity to give souls time to bear with humility and to feel the state of sin, to seek the spirit of penance and contrition, and to begin at least to satisfy the justice of God before being reconciled. 88. We do not know what sin and true penance are when we wish to be restored immediately to the possession of those goods of which sin stripped us, and refuse to bear the shame of that separation’; these were rightly and deservedly condemned by Clement XI in the Bull Unigenitus. This severe practice certainly brings the greatest ruin upon souls, especially upon those who are imperfectly contrite, or, if you prefer, are beginning to love, according to St. Leo and St. Augustine (Letter 180 to Honoratus), who teach that ‘very many perish for want of the sacrament who, by its aid, would have flown to heaven.’ They therefore remain exposed to the danger of eternal damnation, while our most wise Savior warns us always to keep watch in justice, for ‘at an hour we do not expect, the Son of Man will come.’

“But let us grant to rigid directors that persons imperfectly contrite in this way survive until absolution: when absolution is delayed for them, they remain enemies of God, incapable of any merit or satisfaction; for their works, according to St. Thomas, on Book IV of the Sentences, distinction 15, since they are done without charity, are not satisfactory: ‘For it is impossible,’ he says, ‘for anyone to make satisfaction to God unless he is pleasing to God; and therefore, in order that satisfaction be fitting, it must be informed by sanctifying grace’; and in the Supplement, question 14, article 2: ‘Works done without charity are not satisfactory.’ Whatever indulgence, then, may have been proposed, the sinner deprived of absolution will be able to gain none; suspicions, harm to reputation, and scandals arise from an indiscriminate delay of absolution. The shame of confessing is a strong bridle against sin, as is held in chapter Quem, 88, On Penance, distinction 1. What of the fact that penitents who are repelled often cast aside the thought of salvation in despair?

“Therefore, let missionaries not follow the perverse reformers of the Church. “Rather, let them adhere to the Council of Trent, Session 6, chapter 14, On the Fallen and Their Restoration, where we have absolution preceding satisfaction, and the guilt of sins, together with eternal punishment, remitted by the Sacrament of Penance before satisfaction, by which only the temporal punishment remaining after absolution is remitted. This prudent and benign practice, however, was not instituted by Trent alone; rather, as the Roman Catechism bears witness, it is the most ancient usage of the Church, confirmed by Scripture and the authority of the Fathers. The father in the Gospel commands the first robe to be brought quickly for the returning prodigal son, nor does he send him away to feed swine so that he might conceive a greater horror of sins and be disposed for the fatherly embrace. Among the articles on account of which Chrysostom was wrongly deposed by certain bishops, but restored by Apostolic authority, was this: ‘If you have sinned again, repent again; and as often as you have sinned, come to me, and I will heal you.’ Basil says to his spiritual son: ‘When,’ he says, ‘you perceive yourself to be liable to sins, turn quickly to penance, lest you be confounded.’ The Clementine law Dudum, On Burials, commands the priest to hear confessions, impose penances, and absolve. A decree of Boniface, Bishop of Mainz, established that every priest should take care, after receiving the confession of penitents, to reconcile them immediately by giving the prayer. I would be endless if I wished to adduce the teachings of all the Fathers in favor of such a practice of the Church, but those cited are sufficient.

“This practice, therefore, prudent and benign and fortified by so many testimonies, of immediately absolving sinners who are either imperfectly or perfectly contrite, prevails throughout the whole Church where there is an abundance of confessors and no danger of persecution; how much more, therefore, must it necessarily be observed in Western Tonkin, where there are many continual persecutions against Catholics, and where indeed the harvest is great, but the laborers are very few. Nor let the Innovators deceive you, who nourish cruelty and deadly indolence in their hearts under the appearance of zeal; do not, I say, let them deceive you with texts of Scripture, Ezekiel 13 and Jeremiah 6, which they everywhere abuse; for from these we can gather nothing more than that absolution is not to be imparted to those who lack the necessary disposition, not that it is to be denied to those endowed with that disposition; nor will you find any place in the oracles of the Old Covenant according to which reconciliation with God was delayed for penitents or was to be deferred. David had scarcely confessed his offense, saying, ‘I have sinned against the Lord,’ when Nathan proclaimed in the name of God: ‘The Lord also has taken away your sin; you shall not die.’ Nor again let them seduce you with the testimonies of Cyprian, the Roman Clergy, Innocent I, and other Fathers, which they likewise abuse; for when these testimonies are read, not in mutilated form but in full, it will be apparent to every candid and attentive person that they speak of certain public sins which at that time were to be punished by public penance. Although approved authors think that, in the very imposition of public penance, sinners were ordinarily absolved from the guilt of sin—for this was to receive the imposition of the hand unto penance: to be absolved from the guilt of sin and to receive the manner of public satisfaction. Indeed, Morinus himself, who possesses the highest authority among newer theologians, although he thinks that the absolution of public crimes, even sacramental absolution, was delayed until the fulfillment of canonical penance, agrees with us as regards other sins; for he says: ‘All crimes and sins which in those ages were not expiated by public penance were remitted immediately or a little after confession had been made to a priest, excepting a very few which, because they were public, were sometimes punished by the canons with deprivation of ecclesiastical communion.’ The Roman Catechism teaches the same: “that the custom of absolving immediately after confession existed from the very cradle of the Church, if one excepts certain enormous crimes for which public penance was due; indeed, it demonstrates at greater length toward the end of the work, from the penitential books of the Greeks, that even in the Eastern Church the custom of immediately absolving even from public sins has been preserved for twelve centuries down to the present.

“But since, according to the Council of Trent, the custom of inflicting public penance for public and scandalous sins ought to remain in force, we descend to the particular case reported by the Apostolic Visitor concerning parents who consent to the marriage of their children with disparity of worship. It seems certain that, so long as it is within their power to rescind the marriage and, after being admonished about it, they refuse the rescission, they are neither capable nor disposed to receive the benefit of absolution. But if, for their part, they have done whatever they can and it is no longer within their power to recall their children from the invalid contract, there is no reason for those persons, contrite and having confessed, to be deprived of sacramental absolution for whole years or until the end of life. Yet lest they be an example to others to perpetrate similar marriages, after they have confessed and been absolved they could either be deprived of Eucharistic Communion or be punished with another public penance, according to the judgment of a prudent and discreet bishop.

“The way full of wisdom and charity, therefore, is to snatch sinful souls as quickly as possible from the state of sin, according to the practice of the universal Church founded in the Gospel of Christ, so that they may quickly receive the first robe; and not to prolong, but, insofar as can be done, to hasten the prescribed penance, according to the form which the Council of Trent most salutarily prescribes: that they propose it before reconciliation, so that after it, restored to the state of grace more safely and salutarily, they may strive to make satisfaction.” Instruction of the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 3 October 1736.

“You place the second abuse in this: that you suspect that the benefit of sacramental absolution is delayed excessively. No certain judgment can be made in this matter. The confessor, who sits before the tribunal as a judge and as a physician must prepare medicine for the sick, alone can examine how great is the atrocity of the crimes, what is the persistence of the sickness, and what is the disposition of the penitent. He must therefore diligently investigate whether those who approach the Sacrament of Penance detest the crimes they have committed with that sorrow of soul which the Council of Trent, Session 14, chapter 5, On Contrition, requires for the integrity of the sacrament; whether they promise the beginning of a new life and hatred of the past, not merely by voice and lips, but with the innermost affection of the heart; whether, as evidence of this good and firm will, they show that they have now abstained from sins for some time; whether they have entirely dismissed, if it was within their power, those occasions which either of themselves or from their own malice or depravity induce them to sin; whether they have applied the remedies proposed to them on other occasions, by whose protection they may avoid sin in necessary and involuntary occasions; whether they have cast off the habit of sinning; whether, if they obtained the benefit of absolution on other occasions, they again relapsed into the same crimes from their own malice and wallowed in the same mire; whether they are ready and prompt to repair the damage or injury in goods, reputation, and honor in which they have injured their neighbor, if they have the means or opportunity. These and many other things, which missionaries can obtain from the praised instructions of St. Charles, must be carefully weighed by them before they impart the benefit of absolution. But since these very things lie hidden among the secrets of confession, it is certainly difficult to judge whether they abuse the power of a judge and the authority of a physician, as we intimated above, “or conduct themselves more harshly and severely toward penitents who are rightly disposed.

“Nevertheless, let the missionaries take diligent care that, if at any time public penance is to be enjoined and even prolonged for some time, they do not meanwhile allow anyone to be deprived of the benefit of sacramental absolution, provided that he places no obstacle on his part and is regarded as worthy to have the grace of reconciliation with God imparted to him in the forum of conscience. For we think it is not unknown to you that the private absolution of sinners, to be granted to penitents in the sacramental forum, differs greatly from public reconciliation with the Church. The former is to be denied to no one who is rightly disposed and displays the dispositions necessary for obtaining this grace. For holy Mother Church is benign and merciful, and does not permit anyone who from the heart and with a true exertion of soul and mind implores pardon from God for his offenses to remain under the yoke and servitude of the devil, an enemy of God, deprived of all the merits of good works. The latter, namely public reconciliation, is to be reserved to the judgment of the bishop, who will determine according to the circumstances of places and times what needs to be done, and will thus reconcile severity with lenity, so that it brings punishment to the guilty and restraint to the innocent....

“The third suspicion of abuses which disturbs you is that you fear not only that sacramental absolution is delayed for certain criminals, but that they are also repelled, perhaps for a slight cause, from the tribunal of penance. You do not, however, explain sufficiently how this matter proceeds. For it is not right to suspect that those missionaries, whom you yourself acknowledge to devote excellent labor to procuring the salvation of souls and to be highly commended by you for their zeal for piety and charity, have become so forgetful of mercy and lenity that they repel sinners who, aroused by some stimulus of penance, approach them for the confession of their faults. For it is within the power of the priest to deny sacramental absolution to the undeserving, but not to hear the confession of their crimes would be an intolerable wickedness. We have therefore judged that the question proposed by you is to be understood in this way: that inquiry is to be made only concerning those sinners who are entangled in the bonds of crimes to which the penalty of excommunication has been attached by law. And in this matter it seems especially to be considered whether someone has been excommunicated by the sentence of a judge and publicly denounced, or instead has contracted that censure by law, not indeed declared by the sentence of a judge, but, since the crime on account of which he incurred excommunication is so notorious and manifest that it cannot be concealed by any evasion or excused by favor of law, he is therefore everywhere regarded among the rest of the faithful as a public sinner. Both are certainly to be repelled from the Sacrament of Penance, for excommunicated persons cannot be made participants in the sacraments. Nevertheless, there is a distinction between the two: one excommunicated and denounced by the sentence of a judge, since he is separated from the communion of the rest of the faithful, is also to be avoided, and therefore cannot be admitted into a church to assist at the unbloody Sacrifice, pour forth public prayers, or attend the other common offices of religion, with the sole exception of the preaching of the word of God, which an excommunicated person is permitted by law to hear, chapter Respons. 43, On the Sentence of Excommunication. But one upon whom no sentence or judicial declaration of excommunication has been imposed is neither repelled from the assembly of the faithful, nor prohibited entry to the church, nor excluded from public prayers; yet just as he is incapable in himself of participation in the sacraments, so he is rightly to be kept from them by a faithful “steward of the mysteries of God because of the notoriety and pertinacity of his crime; since public scandal has arisen from it, unless it has ceased and been amended by a suitable and appropriate penance, he is to be judged altogether unworthy to become a participant in the mysteries of Christ, lest, contrary to the precept of the Gospel, pearls be cast before swine. The missionaries must determine what and how great the penance to be imposed upon the guilty ought to be and in what manner the scandal can be removed, after weighing the circumstances of places and times; and they should especially take care that, if there is an opportunity of consulting you, nothing be decreed except with you as author and judge. Hence, therefore, the procedure of those who, making no distinction between excommunicated persons who are to be avoided and those who are tolerated, indiscriminately prohibit all, even on feast days, from entering the church and from the sacred assembly of the faithful, is not to be approved. For if they do this because they judge that such is the force of excommunication that one subjected to it is immediately to be kept from all communion with the faithful, this is contrary to the distinction mentioned and they therefore err; but if they, at their own discretion, decree this penalty indiscriminately for all excommunicated persons, they are to be reproved for excessive severity. Concerning whether those who seize girls betrothed by their parents to pagan men against their will and conduct them to the house of the bridegroom incur the penalty of excommunication, the matter is as follows: either the betrothals were entered into by the parents before the girls attained the use of reason, and it is not established that after attaining the use of reason they confirmed and ratified them; since these betrothals are altogether invalid, those who furnish counsel, assistance, or favor for the abduction of these maidens are certainly excommunicated by the law itself, according to chapter 6, Session 24, On the Reformation of Matrimony, of the Council of Trent. It is otherwise, however, if the betrothals were either first entered into with their consent or afterwards confirmed, and consequently are reputed firm and valid; for those who forcibly drag brides to the bridegroom, though unwilling and resisting, are not subject to the penalties of abductors.” Instruction of the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 29 April 1784.

“No one enjoying the communion of the Church is to be repelled from the tribunal of penance.—Let an instruction be given that all are always to be received for confession, but only those disposed are to be absolved.” Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 16 January 1804.

“The Sacred Congregation could not approve the excessive facility said to be found among the confessors of your Vicariate in the administration of the Sacrament of Penance: they are said to absolve everyone indiscriminately, without making any distinction among penitents, even relapsing sinners and those remaining in a habitual custom of the sin of superstition. Indeed, since from the very institution of the Sacrament of Penance it is established that the sins of some are to be remitted and those of others retained, John 20:23, it is manifest that this custom of your confessors, if what is related about them is true, is opposed to the very institution of the Sacrament of Penance; for it cannot be supposed that all penitents of your Vicariate possess the dispositions which, from the institution of the Sacrament of Penance just praised, are known to be necessary for obtaining sacramental absolution. This custom of your confessors is also opposed by the Roman Ritual itself, in which, under the title On the Sacrament of Penance, it is read: ‘Let the priest consider diligently when and to whom absolution is to be granted or denied.’ This would not have been prescribed if absolution were to be imparted indiscriminately to all penitents, even relapsing sinners and those existing in a habitual custom of sinning. Let your confessors therefore be instructed concerning this threefold class of penitents, according to the Roman Ritual just praised, and let them deny absolution to those who show either no signs of penance or only feigned signs; “but let them defer it for those whose penance is rightly regarded as uncertain and suspect. Thus teach the sounder theologians; thus teach the Instructions proposed to confessors by St. Charles Borromeo and by St. Francis de Sales, who adopted in his Synodal Constitutions the rules handed down by St. Charles, as can be seen in their title 9, article 5, no. 3. And the aforesaid confessors of your Vicariate must remember that, from a great facility in absolving, a great facility in sinning must necessarily arise.” Instruction of the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith to the Apostolic Vicar of Cochinchina, August 1827.

“60. Absolution is neither to be denied nor deferred to a penitent who has the habit of sinning against the law of God, of nature, or of the Church, even if no hope of amendment appears, provided that he says orally that he is sorry and proposes amendment.”—“61. One who remains in a proximate occasion of sin which he can but does not wish to leave, and indeed directly and deliberately seeks it out or thrusts himself into it, can sometimes be absolved.” Propositions condemned by Innocent XI.

“41. A concubinary is not to be obliged to dismiss his concubine if she would be exceedingly useful for the concubinary’s pleasure—commonly, regalo—since, if she were absent, he would live his life with too much difficulty, other dishes would affect the concubinary with great weariness, and another maidservant would be found only with great difficulty.” Proposition condemned by Alexander VII.

“But let the priest be discreet and cautious, so that, in the manner of a skilled physician, he may pour wine and oil upon the wounds of the injured man, diligently inquiring into the circumstances both of the sinner and of the sin, by which he may prudently understand what counsel he ought to give him and what kind of remedy to apply, using various experiments to save the sick man. But let him take care altogether not in any way to betray the sinner by word or sign or any other manner whatsoever; but if he should need more prudent counsel, let him cautiously seek it without any expression of the person, since we decree that one who has presumed to reveal a sin disclosed to him in the tribunal of penance is not only to be deposed from the priestly office, but also to be thrust into a strict monastery to perform perpetual penance.” Fourth Lateran Council, year 1215, Decrees, chapter 21.

“Both Superiors existing at the time and confessors who are afterwards promoted to the rank of Superior are to take most diligent care not to use for external governance the knowledge which they had in confession concerning the sins of others.” Decree of Clement VIII, 26 May 1594.

“It is lawful to use knowledge acquired from confession, provided that this is done without direct or indirect revelation and without detriment to the penitent, unless something much graver would follow from its non-use, in comparison with which the former is deservedly disregarded. Then this explanation or limitation was added: that it is to be understood of the use of knowledge acquired from confession with detriment to the penitent, every revelation being excluded, and in a case in which a much greater detriment to the same penitent would follow from non-use.” It was decreed: “The said proposition, insofar as it admits the use of the said knowledge with detriment to the penitent, is to be prohibited altogether, even with the said explanation or limitation.” Condemned proposition, Decree of the Congregation of the Sacred Inquisition, 18 November 1682.