Faculties and Privileges of Confessors who Confer Spiritual Aids on the Sick in Roman Hospitals (Holy Office, 9 March 1870)

1. All secular and regular priests approved for confessions by the Ordinary of Rome can confess in any hospital whatever of the city.¹

¹ The confession certificate, where it is said: that sacramental confessions of Christ's faithful.... in any hospitals whatsoever of the kindly City, according to the Briefs of Clement XII of holy memory, issued on 28 Apr. 1738, you may be able to hear, etc.

2. As regards Regulars, even those approved only in other dioceses can confess the sick of those hospitals to which they are sent by their superiors, according to the prescription made to these by the Supreme Pontiffs.²

² Edict of His Eminence Cardinal Guadagni, 6 Sept. 1738, renewed by His Eminence Cardinal Patrizi on 22 July 1850.

The faculty as regards absolution from censures, in the forum of conscience only, and from sins, which according to the Council of Trent (sess. 14, ch. 7) Holy Church concedes to any Priest whatever for the faithful placed in the article of death, namely, that there be no reservation. And therefore all Priests can absolve any penitents from any sins and censures whatever; this same most ample faculty is conceded by the Supreme Pontiffs to Confessors approved in the aforesaid manner, for the benefit only of the sick in the hospitals of Rome, although they are not placed in the article of death.³

³ The aforesaid Brief of Clement XII of holy memory, by which he approves that of Pope Paul III: "with all and singular faculties of absolving from all and singular sins, crimes, and offenses, however grave and enormous, even those reserved to the Apostolic See, etc., even if they were such that for them the Apostolic See deservedly ought to be consulted."

Then as regards the two cases reserved to the Vicar of Rome, namely of the buying and selling of the Easter ticket, and of the non-fulfillment of the Easter precept, besides the faculty of absolving them in the internal forum, there is likewise conceded the faculty of absolving in the external forum from the interdict him who may have incurred it because of the non-fulfillment of the said precept, and whose name had been published at the door of the Church, with the obligation on the Confessor, after having made the penitent aware of it, immediately to transmit the notice by means of authentic attestation to the office of the Vicariate, using the following formula.

I, the undersigned, declare that I have absolved the sick person N. N. of the Parish

And as regards censures he adds: "from any sentences, censures, and penalties whatsoever of excommunication, suspension, and interdict, and other ecclesiastical sentences, censures, and penalties, in whatever way incurred, and from other reserved cases.... in the forum of conscience only, we concede and indulge the faculty of absolving...."

N., notoriously denounced and interdicted because of the non-fulfillment of the Easter precept. In witness, etc. From the venerable archhospital N., on the day, etc.⁴

⁴ Decree of His Eminence Cardinal Patrizi, 23 February 1851.

1. Of commuting any vows whatever into other works of piety, excepted, etc. That is, of commuting into other pious works any simple vow whatever, excepted that of chastity, of religion, and of the three pilgrimages to the places of the Holy Land, ad limina SS. Apostolorum, and to St. James in Compostela.

2. Of relaxing any oaths whatever. That is, of dissolving any promissory oath, when there is no harm to a third party.

3. And of ministering ecclesiastical sacraments to those sick persons. By this is understood, besides the administration of the sacrament of Penance, also that of the Eucharist, both in common form and in the form of Viaticum, and the sacrament of Extreme Unction. Concerning this faculty, it is a fitting thing not to make use of it when it could displease the Priest who by his special office is bound to administer the said Sacraments.

4. Of imparting in the article of death a plenary indulgence and remission of all their sins; and this not only to the dying persons of the hospital, but also to those of the family, using the prescribed formula.⁵

⁵ The faculty concerning vows, oaths, the administration of the sacraments, and the blessing in the article of death is established from the aforesaid Brief of Clement XII, declared and confirmed by Pope Pius IX, Rescript of His Eminence Cardinal Vicar Patrizi, from an Audience of the Most Holy One, 5 Jan. 1856. But the faculty of giving the blessing in the article of death also to the dying persons of the family of the hospitals is had from the same Pope Pius IX, Rescript of 11 Feb. 1851.

5. In suffrage of the souls of the deceased in the hospitals, there are privileged the altar of the Most Holy Crucified in the cemetery of S. Spirito, and any other altar existing in the wards and chapels of the hospitals dependent on the Commission.⁶

⁶ Rescript of the Supreme Pontiff Pius IX, 11 March 1851.

In all the archhospitals and hospitals of Rome, namely those which are public and general for every class of persons, such as are at present those noted below; as also in those which may be opened in the future, even if subsidiary and temporary, and in the places annexed to the same.⁷

⁷ Cited Brief of Pope Clement XII.

The hospitals indicated above are precisely those which now depend on the Commission, namely:

1. The archhospital of S. Spirito, and the annexed foundling hospital, or conservatory of exposed children, and the conservatory of females, illegitimate, annexed to the same archhospital, with its infirmary.

2. The archhospital of the Most Holy Savior at S. Giovanni in Laterano.

3. The archhospital of S. Giacomo in Augusta.

4. The archhospital of S. Maria della Consolazione.

5. The archhospital of S. Gallicano.

6. The hospital of S. Maria de' Pazzi.

7. The hospice of S. Rocco.⁸

⁸ Motu Proprio of Pope Pius IX concerning the Commission of the hospitals of Rome, 18 September 1850, title I.

1. Confessors approved for men alone cannot confess sick women in the hospitals.

2. Confessors enrolled in the Pious Union of St. Paul the Apostle can obtain from the primary Regulator of the same other special faculties to use them in the hospitals to which they are assigned by him, and in other places and works of the said Pious Union.

3. Priests who confess the sick in the hospitals are not obliged, as they are under penalty of suspension with regard to the sick in private houses, to leave a written attestation of it. But it will be well done, after hearing the confession of a sick person who confesses there for the first time, to make the one who has care of the hospital aware of it.

4. The Confessors who go to confess the sick in the hospitals can also confess there healthy persons, both of the family, excepting hospital nuns, for whom special approbation is required, and other outside persons. But for healthy persons the Confessors can make use only of ordinary faculties, and of those which they may personally have obtained also for other places.

5. The secular and regular Ecclesiastics who apply themselves to the spiritual good of the sick in the hospitals of Rome, by preaching, catechizing, administering the Most Holy Sacraments to them, etc., gain each time an indulgence of two hundred days, and a plenary one once a year if they apply themselves there at least twelve times.⁹ Cf. Acta S. Sed. Vol. 6, p. 284 ff.

⁹ Rescript of His Eminence Cardinal Patrizi, from an Audience of the Most Holy One, 5 January 1856; it is preserved in the archive of the Pious Union of St. Paul the Apostle together with the other Rescript cited above.

"Const. Quoad communi, 30 March 1742, for the Capuchins, section 2, declares that any one of the Order of Capuchins, whether Priest or Lay Brother, dwelling outside the cloister with due license, 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 he is approved by his Regular superior for receiving sacramental confessions. Benedict XIV issued this Constitution for the Capuchins, because from the statutes of their general Chapters, superiors, even major ones, cannot deputize Confessors outside the Order. The Most Holy Lord Pius IX enlarged the Indult conceded 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 the case in which there is present only one Capuchin Priest approved for confessions; granting, besides, that from an outside Confessor they can obtain sacramental absolution also as regards cases reserved by the statutes of the Order, and the censures consequently incurred, yet with the obligation furnished of presenting themselves to their regular superior at once as soon as it is permitted, and of again obtaining from him absolution concerning cases and censures of this kind." Bizzarri, Collection, ed. 1885, p. 723.

"A certain religious, from the Augustinian family, using a faculty obtained from the Prior of his Convent, confesses to a priest, and indeed an approved one. It is asked: 1. whether validly? and insofar as affirmatively, 2. whether the Prior can by right concede this faculty to his subjects or not? Resp. In the Order of the Hermits of St. Augustine, affirmatively to both, provided that the Priest has been among those approved by the Ordinary of the place. For other Orders one must stand by the Constitutions and Statutes." S. C. EE. and RR. 3 June 1864.

"To superiors both general and provincial, it concedes the faculty, whether by themselves or through other suitable religious men deputed by them, of indulging to the suppressed regulars of their Order that, while the circumstances of the present times last, they may be able to choose for themselves any confessor whatever, whether regular or secular, yet from those approved by the Ordinary of the place, by whom also, insofar as there is need, they can be absolved from cases and censures reserved in their own Order; and concerning irregularity contracted in whatever way from violation of the same censures, provided that it remains occult, they can receive the grace of dispensation in the forum of conscience only.

It declares besides that it is lawful for any suppressed regulars whatever, whether dwelling in some house, as n. 1, designated by the Superior, into which dispersed Religious have gathered, or dwelling outside religious houses as secularized for a time, to make their sacramental Confessions before confessors of their own Order, legitimately approved by their own Prelate." S. Poenit. 18 Apr. 1867.

"His Holiness ordered it to be rescripted to the proposed doubt, namely that Religious of suppressed Convents, who for this reason do not live in community, can choose for themselves as Confessor any Presbyter whatever, whether from the secular Clergy or from the Regular Clergy, provided that he is from those approved for receiving confessions by the Ordinary of the place. But to those Religious concerning whom there is question, who, although ejected from their Convents, nevertheless live in Community in the better way in which it can be done, His Holiness kindly grants the Indult of choosing for themselves any Confessor whatever, as above, provided that in it there are not had at least four Confessors of their own Order." Bizzarri, loc. cit., p. 155. S. C. EE. and RR. 3 July 1862.

"Regulars, even those secularized for a time, ought to make their confession before confessors approved by the Ordinary of the place, by whom in the act of sacramental confession they will be able to be absolved even from censures and cases reserved in the Order, if they are by no means reserved in the Diocese." S. C. EE. and RR. 27 Aug. 1852.

"The S. C.... judged that the aforesaid Regulars, of St. Francis, approved by the Ordinaries of places for hearing the confessions of secular persons, cannot be prohibited by the same Ordinaries from hearing the confessions of the same persons when sick in their own houses without the license of the parish priests; provided that they leave a note, or notify the Parish Priests themselves, that the sacrament of Penance of this kind has been ministered by them." S. C. EE. and RR. 13 Sept. 1641; 22 Sept. 1645. - Cf. N. 543; Bizzarri, Collection, ed. 1885, p. 753 ff.; and Acta S. Sed. Vol. 1, p. 678 ff.

"Whether Regulars can minister the Eucharist as Viaticum and also Extreme Unction to lay persons dwelling in their convents by reason of hospitality and the like, if they fall sick there? Resp. They cannot, but only to those who are continuous table-companions and of the family of the Convents, from Trent, sess. 26, ch. 11, de Regul., and Constitution Circumspecta of Gregory XIII, 17 Feb. 1649." S. C. C. 1649.

"Whether the weekly servant, cleric, baker, gardener, and stewardess dwelling in the Courtyard of the Monastery.... have, the requirements of the Council being considered - Resp. Negatively." S. C. C. 21 Jan. 1713.

"1. Whether secular male and female servants of nuns, dwelling in the same dwellings, situated in the courts of monasteries surrounded by a wall, and which are contiguous to the monasteries and have a door which is closed in the case, are bound to receive the Eucharist in paschal time from the Parish Priests in whose Parishes the monastery and dwellings are situated in the case? 2. Whether it pertains to the said Parish Priests to minister the Sacraments to the said male and female servants in their final illness in the case? Resp. To the 1st, affirmatively; to the 2nd, affirmatively." S. C. C. 17 Sept. 1822. Cf. Benedict XIV, Notification 55, nn. 7, 8.

"Whether young persons and boarding pupils, living for studies in Colleges of Regulars, and girls dwelling for the sake of education in exempt monasteries of Nuns, are to be held as belonging to the family of the monastery and convent, so that, the Parish Priest not being required, they can receive paschal Communion, Viaticum, and Extreme Unction from the regular Superior? Resp. Deferred, and let the doubts be divided." S. C. EE. and RR. 8 June 1860. Cf. Acta S. Sed. Vol. 3, p. 47 ff.; Lucidi, 3rd ed., Vol. 2, p. 371 ff.

The confessor of nuns is to be changed at least every three years. S. C. EE. RR. 26 Nov. 1602; 15 Feb. 1593; 10 March 1634. - It is declared an abuse that the confessor of Nuns be constituted for life or for several Monasteries. 4 March 1594. - Only one confessor is to be deputed for each Monastery. Benedict XIV, Const. Pastoralis curae. Cf. Bizzarri, Collection, ed. 1885, p. 374.

"But since sometimes from peculiar circumstances of things it can happen that confirmation for another three-year period is not only useful, but necessary, hence the same S. C., the Ordinary having been heard, and the Nuns capitularly by secret votes, in particular cases grants confirmation for a second, and even for a third, three-year period, yet on this condition, that for confirmation for a second three-year period the consent of two out of three parts of the Nuns concur; and for confirmation for a third three-year period the consent of all accede. But the Ordinary must report concerning the probity of life and prudence of the confessor, and make the S. C. more certain concerning the necessity, or at least utility, of the confirmation." Bizzarri, Collection, ed. 1885, p. 13.

Ordinaries of places, as a general rule, cannot designate Regulars as ordinary confessors of Nuns immediately subject to the Bishop, without leave of the Sacred Congregation. S. C. Nov. 1721 and 5 Sept. 1727. Cf. Bizzarri, ed. 1885, pp. 313, 322, 335, 345, 382, 383; Ferraris, v. Nuns, art. 5, n. 29.

"To the doubts proposed.... the S. C. EE. and RR. responded that the Bishop can deputize Regulars, to whom this is not forbidden by their Constitutions and rules, as extraordinary confessors. But that Bishop petitioner, in the defect of presbyters who are suitable, may be able to deputize religious men as ordinary confessors, the S. C., from the special authority of Our Most Holy Lord, grants the faculty for three years only." 14 Feb. 1851, at Francis Sentis, 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 twice or three times, and even four times, per year, although they themselves do not wish to confess their sins to them, nevertheless by the present edict they are ordered to present themselves to them, so that they may receive salutary admonitions and exercise an act of subjection. And the ordinary Confessors are ordered, meanwhile, while the extraordinary is present, to hear the Confession of no Nun of the same monastery. But if any Nun does not wish to present herself to the extraordinary Confessor, let her be punished by the Superior; but girls to be educated who are unwilling to subject themselves and present themselves are to be expelled. They also command that neither the ordinary nor the extraordinary confessors approach those monasteries to hear confessions when the time of their office has already been completed; nor receive from any of them, or send to her, letters, unless there is special license." 12 Dec. 1708. Bizzarri, Collection, ed. 1885, pp. 295, 294.

"The expressed mind of His Holiness is that the ordinary Confessor ought not to exercise his ministry, nor approach the Monastery, during the whole time in which the commission of the general extraordinary lasts. - A regular extraordinary Confessor, his office having been completed, cannot any longer approach the Monastery without the necessary leave, because he remains subject to the prohibition and penalties established against Regulars, as all other regulars do. His Holiness declares, however, that this prohibition does not include secular Presbyters, and therefore these, even after the office of extraordinary confessor has been completed, can, as before, continue to the Monasteries, because in this part the new Constitution of Benedict XIV, Pastoralis Curae, innovated nothing as regards secular presbyters." S. C. EE. and RR., Jan. 1749.

"Sometimes Nuns, either by reason of health or for another cause, obtain leave of going out for a short time from their Monastery, retaining the habit; it is asked whether in such a case they can make their confession before confessors approved for both sexes, although not approved for Nuns. Resp. Affirmatively during the stay outside the Monastery." S. C. EE. and RR. 27 Aug. 1852.

In Diocese N. of France, "in many parishes there are two or three, and scarcely four, Sisters of more recent Congregations, serving the education of girls. Now those Sisters, living in common but outside cloister, do not have a private chapel, but frequent the parish church, like the others, attending Mass there and the other Offices, receiving the sacraments both of Penance and of the Eucharist; furthermore those Sisters rather often pass from one parish to another according to the will of the Superior General. Now, whether in these circumstances the disposition of law concerning the triennial change of confessors is to be applied, especially since in these parishes there is only one presbyter, namely the parish priest? Resp. The Sisters concerning whom there is question can make sacramental confession outside their own pious house before any confessor whatever approved by the Ordinary." S. C. EE. and RR. 22 Apr. 1872, to 3.

"Whether the reservation made by the Bishop in his Patent Letters as regards cases reserved to himself is sustained in the case? namely with respect to Nuns subject to Regulars. Resp. Affirmatively only as regards cases reserved in matter clearly pertaining to delegated Jurisdiction; in the rest, negatively." S. C. EE. and RR. Sept. 1746. Cf. Bizzarri, Collection, p. 756, ed. 1885.

"Since it was doubted by some Regulars whether, in the Decree of Pope Clement VIII of happy memory, issued on 26 May 1593 concerning the quality of cases to be reserved by the Superiors of the same Regulars, censures were also comprehended, so that it would be lawful for the same Superiors, without the consent of a general or provincial Chapter, to attach excommunication to some sins not contained in a Decree of this kind, and to reserve absolution from the same to themselves, the S. C. of Cardinals placed over the affairs of Regulars, the Most Illustrious Bardinus reporting, judged that censures are comprehended in the aforesaid decree." 7 July 1617.

Cf. N. 556.

"Meanwhile, by mandate of His Holiness himself, the same Ordinaries are admonished that throughout their whole Diocese, and especially in those places which are farther removed from the City and the Cathedral See, they constitute and delegate Penitentiaries and other Priests, to whom they concede the faculty of absolving from Cases reserved to themselves, so that to these also it may be lawful to impart the same to other confessors if there is need, even by living voice." S. C. EE. RR. 26 Nov. 1602. - "But the same S. C. declares that the faculty and license of absolving from reserved cases.... can be conceded even by the living voice alone." 26 Nov. 1602.

"In small Communities Superiors altogether ought habitually to deputize one confessor from the Religious of their own Order, who has the faculty of absolving from cases and censures reserved in the Order." S. C. EE. and RR. 16 Aug. 1866, approved and confirmed by Pius IX on the 17th of the same month.

Pius IX, Brief 28 Sept. 1852, indulged to the Capuchins that from an outside confessor "they can obtain sacramental absolution also as regards cases reserved by the Statutes of the Order, and the censures consequently incurred, yet with the obligation furnished of presenting themselves at once, as soon as it is permitted, to their regular Superior, and of obtaining absolution from him." Cf. N. 557.

Cf. N. 556.

"1. Whether the opinion teaching that absolution of cases and censures, even those reserved in a special way to the Pope, devolves upon the Bishop or upon any approved priest, when the penitent is in the impossibility of personally approaching the Holy See, can still safely be held? 2. Insofar as negatively, whether recourse must be had at least by letters to the Most Eminent Prefect of the S. Penitentiary for all cases reserved to the Pope, unless the Bishop has a special indult, except in the article of death, in order to obtain the faculty of absolving? Resp. To the 1st, account being had of the practice of the S. Penitentiary, especially from the publication of the Apostolic Constitution of Pius IX of holy memory, which begins Apostolicae Sedis, negatively. To the 2nd, affirmatively; 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, the things to be enjoined by law having been enjoined, from censures even reserved in a special way to the Supreme Pontiff, yet under the penalty of falling again into the same censures, unless the one absolved, at least within a month, by letter and through the medium of the confessor, has recourse to the Holy See. The Most Holy One approved and confirmed the resolution of the Most Eminent Fathers." S. I. C. 23 June 1886. Cf. Commentary On Censures, Part I, art. 5.

"Whether Apostolic Vicars without a special faculty can receive denunciations in the matter of solicitation to shameful things, and whether, denunciations of this kind having been received, they are bound to refer them to the Holy Office? Resp. Supplication is to be made to the Most Holy One for extension to all Apostolic Vicars of the Instruction for the Apostolic Vicar of Cochinchina, dated 1 June 1775, with this addition: that they send to the Holy Office through the medium of the S. C. de P. F., in a sealed letter, the names of those soliciting." Holy Office, 20 June 1883. Supreme Pontiff Leo XIII on the same day approved and conceded the extension. Other decisions concerning this matter, please compare, in the Commentary on Const. Sacramentum Poenitentiae.

"There are certainly many cases in which the denial and delay of absolution is an opportune remedy, and at times necessary. Let the Confessor see, says St. Charles Borromeo in the Instructions of Penance, that he absolve no one who is unwilling either to lay aside hatred or enmity, or refuses to restore another's goods according to his ability, or is not prepared to depart from a state of mortal sin, or to avoid the occasion of a similar sin. Hence the Apostolic See has always risen up with marvelous zeal against the soft and ill-ordered facility of some casuists in granting absolution, as is evident to any reader from the propositions deservedly and justly condemned by Alexander VII, Innocent XI, and other Roman Pontiffs. But it would be very prolix to enumerate cases of this kind, but they can be seen in St. Charles Borromeo in the Instruction of Confessors; and let Confessors not allow themselves to be led away from those holy rules, confirmed by the consent of the whole Church, by false mercy toward penitents.

But, the excepted cases having been premised, the holding back, indiscriminately and everywhere applied, of any mortal sin whatever, for the sake of conceiving a greater horror against crimes and of acquiring a better disposition for obtaining the benefit of absolution, is certainly not a medicine nor a congruous chastisement ever employed by the Church upon unwilling penitents, but one usurped by rigid and imprudent Confessors alone, against every right, and proscribed by three Roman Pontiffs. Peter de Osma already attempted to introduce this excessively severe and imprudent practice, to say nothing worse, by that proposition: Penitents are not to be absolved unless the enjoined penance has first been completed, deservedly condemned in the Council of Complutum and by Sixtus IV in the year 1579, in the Bull which begins Licet ea. It is clear that the same destructive practice, after the apostate Marcus Antonius de Dominis, book 5, On the Republic of the Church, ch. 7, and Antoine Arnauld, book On Frequent Communion, part 2, from ch. 8, prevailed among the Belgians and some French followers of rigorism. From their books Alexander VIII, among the rest, struck these two propositions with just anathema: 16. The order of putting 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 way dictating the same, and 17. Through that practice of immediately absolving, the order of Penance is inverted. Quesnel again attempted to introduce this cruel practice as regards its substance, under deceitful and equivocal terms, by these two propositions: 87. It is a mode full of wisdom, light, and charity to give souls time to bear with humility and to feel the state of sin, to ask for the spirit of penance and contrition, and to begin at least to satisfy the justice of God before he is reconciled. 88. We do not know what sin and true penance are when we wish immediately to be restored to the possession of those goods of which sin despoiled us, and we refuse to bear the confusion of that separation, deservedly and justly condemned in the Bull Unigenitus by Clement XI. Indeed, that severe practice brings very great ruin to souls, especially to those attrite, or, if you prefer, beginning to love, from St. Leo and Augustine, Epistle 180 to Honoratus, teaching: many perish through defect of the Sacrament who by its aid would have flown up to heavenly things. Therefore they remain exposed to the danger of eternal damnation, our most wise Savior admonishing us that we always watch in justice, for at the hour when we do not think, the Son of Man will come.

But let us grant to rigid directors that persons of this kind who are attrite survive until absolution: absolution having been delayed for them, they remain enemies of God, incapable of all merit and satisfaction; for their works, according to St. Thomas, in 4, dist. 15, since they are done without charity, are not satisfactory: For it is impossible, he says, that someone satisfy God unless he please God; and therefore, that there be a suitable satisfaction, it must be informed by sanctifying grace, and in the Supplement, q. 14, art. 2: works done without charity are not satisfactory. Therefore whatever things may have been proposed, the sinner deprived of absolution will be able to obtain no indulgence; suspicions, losses of reputation, scandals, arise from an indiscriminate delay of absolving; shame in confessing is a strong bridle against sin, as is had from chap. Quem, 88, On Penance, dist. I; because penitents who have been repelled often cast aside thought of salvation by despairing.

Therefore let Missionaries not follow the disorderly reformers of the Church. Let them rather adhere to the Council of Trent, sess. 6, ch. 14, On the fallen and their reparation, where we have absolution prior to satisfaction, and the guilt of sins together with eternal punishment remitted by the sacrament of Penance before satisfaction, by which only temporal punishment remaining after absolution is remitted. But this prudent and benign practice was not instituted only by Trent, but is, as the Roman Catechism testifies, the most ancient use of the Church, approved by Scripture and the authority of the Fathers. The evangelical father orders the first robe to be brought quickly to the prodigal son returning, and does not send him back so that by feeding swine he might conceive a greater horror against sins and be disposed for the paternal embrace. Among the articles because of which Chrysostom was wrongly deposed by certain Bishops, but restored by Apostolic authority, this was one: If you have sinned again, repent again, and as often as you have sinned, come to me, and I will heal you. Basil to a spiritual son: When, he says, you have felt yourself 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. The Decree of Boniface, Bishop of Mainz, establishes that each Presbyter should take care, after receiving the Confession of penitents, at once, a prayer having been given, to reconcile. I would be endless if I wished to bring forward the documents of all the Fathers for such a practice of the Church, but the things alleged suffice.

Therefore that practice, prudent and benign, fortified by so many testimonies, of at once absolving sinners, as attrite or contrite, flourishes in the whole Church where there is an abundance of Confessors, where there is no danger of persecution. How much more, then, must it necessarily be observed in Western Tongking, where many and continual persecutions against Catholics flourish, and where indeed the harvest is great, but the workers very few. Nor let innovators deceive you, who under the shadow of zeal nourish cruelty and deadly sluggishness in the heart; let them not, I say, deceive you by testimonies of Scripture, Ezekiel 13 and Jeremiah 6, which they everywhere abuse. For from these we can collect nothing more than that absolution is not to be imparted to those lacking the necessary disposition, but not that it is to be denied to those furnished with that disposition; nor will you find any place in the oracles of the ancient covenant according to which reconciliation with God was delayed for penitents, or to be deferred. Scarcely had David confessed his offense, saying, I have sinned against the Lord, when Nathan announced in the name of God: The Lord also has taken away your sin; you shall not die. Nor again let them lead you astray by testimonies of Cyprian, of the Roman Clergy, of Innocent I, and of other Fathers, which they likewise abuse; for when those testimonies are read not cut short but whole, it will appear to anyone sincerely attending that they speak concerning certain public sins which at that time were to be punished by public penance; and although approved authors think that in the very imposition of public penance sinners were regularly absolved from the guilt of fault, for this indeed was to receive the imposition of the hand unto penance, to be absolved from the guilt of fault and to receive the mode of public satisfaction. Indeed Morinus himself, of the highest authority among the new Theologians, although he thinks that the absolution, even Sacramental, of public crimes was delayed until the fulfillment of canonical penance, agrees with us as regards other sins; for thus he says: All crimes and sins which in those centuries were not expiated by public penance were remitted at once or a little after confession was made to the Priest, a few excepted, which, when they were public, were sometimes punished by the Canons with privation of Ecclesiastical communion. He teaches the same thing as the Roman Catechism, that the custom of absolving at once after confession is from the very cradles of the Church, if you except certain enormous crimes for which public penance was owed; indeed, that in the Eastern Church from twelve centuries to this time the custom has been observed of absolving at once even from public sins, which toward the end of the work he proves more fully from Greek penitential books.

But since from the Council of Trent there ought to flourish the use of inflicting public penance for public and scandalous sins, descending to the particular case reported by the Apostolic Visitator concerning parents who give consent to the marriage of their children with disparity of cult, it seems certain that as long as it is in their power to dissolve the marriage, and, having been admonished concerning this, they refuse dissolution, they are not capable nor disposed to receiving the benefit of absolution; but if on their part they have done whatever they can, and it is no longer in their power to remove their children from the invalid union, there is no reason that, being contrite and having confessed, they should be deprived of Sacramental absolution for whole years, or even to the end of life. But lest they be an example to others so that similar Marriages be perpetrated, they could, already confessed and absolved, be punished either by communion of the Eucharist, or by another public penance, at the judgment of a prudent and discreet Bishop.

Therefore the mode full of wisdom and charity 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 as much as can be done to hasten, the precept of penance, according to the form which the Council of Trent most wholesomely prescribes: that before reconciliation they propose, so that after it, more safely and salutarily, restored into the state of grace, they may strive to satisfy." Instruction of the S. C. de P. F. for the Tongkingese or Annamite Priests who administer the sacrament of Penance in Western Tongking, 1736.

"You place another abuse in this, that you suspect the benefit of Sacramental absolution is excessively deferred. In this matter a certain judgment can by no means be brought. The Confessor, who sits before the tribunal as judge and ought as physician to prepare medicine for the sick, alone can search out how great is the atrocity of crimes, what the obstinacy of sickness, what the disposition of the penitent. Therefore he must diligently investigate whether those who approach the sacrament of Penance execrate the crimes committed with that sorrow of soul which is required for the integrity of the Sacrament by the Council of Trent, sess. 14, ch. 4, On Contrition; whether they promise the beginning of a new life and hatred of the past, not only by voice and lips, but by the inward affection of the heart; whether, in testimony of this good and firm will, they show that they have already ceased for some time from sins; whether they have plainly dismissed those occasions which, either of themselves or from their own malice or depravity, induce to sin, if it was in their power; whether they have applied remedies proposed to them at other times, by whose aid they may avoid sin in necessary and involuntary occasions; whether they have cast off the habit of sinning; whether, if at other times they obtained the benefit of absolution, having again relapsed into the same crimes from their own malice, they were rolled in the same mire; whether, as to goods, reputation, and honor in which they have injured a neighbor, they are ready and prompt to repair the damage or injury, if means or occasion are at hand. These and many other things, which Missionaries can seek from the praised Instructions of St. Charles, are diligently to be weighed by them before they bestow 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 that power of judge and authority of physician which we indicated above, or whether they act more harshly and severely with penitents duly disposed.

Nevertheless let Missionaries diligently take care that, if sometimes public penance is to be enjoined, and even prolonged for some time, they meanwhile allow no one to be deprived of the benefit of Sacramental absolution, provided that he place no obstacle on his part, and be held worthy that the grace of reconciliation with God be imparted in the forum of conscience. For we think it does not escape you that private absolution of sins, to be indulged to penitents in the Sacramental forum, and public reconciliation with the Church, differ very greatly between themselves. The former is to be denied to no one who is rightly affected and bears before him the necessary dispositions for obtaining this grace. For Holy Mother Church is benign and merciful, and does not suffer anyone to remain under the yoke and servitude of the devil, an enemy of God, lacking all merits of good works, who from the heart and with true striving of soul and mind begs pardon from God for his offenses. But the other, namely public reconciliation, is to be reserved to the judgment of the Bishop, who according to the circumstances of places and times will establish what needs to be done, and will so reconcile severity with gentleness that it will bring both punishment to the guilty and a bridle to the innocent....

The third suspicion of abuses which moves you is that you fear not only that Sacramental absolution is deferred for certain criminals, but that they are even, perhaps for a light cause, repelled from the tribunal of Penance. Yet you do not sufficiently declare how that matter proceeds. For it is not lawful to suspect that those Missionaries, whom you yourself acknowledge to be doing excellent work in procuring the salvation of souls and to be very much commended before you for zeal of piety and charity, have been so forgetful of mercy and gentleness that they repel sinners, excited by some spur of penance, approaching them for Confession of their faults; for to deny Sacramental absolution to the undeserving is within the power of the Priest, but not to hear the Confession of crimes would be an offense not to be borne. Therefore we judged that the question proposed by you is to be taken thus, that one must ask only concerning those sinners who are entangled in those bonds of crimes to which the penalty of excommunication is joined by law. And in this matter it seems that this chiefly must be considered: whether someone has been excommunicated by sentence of the Judge and publicly denounced, or whether indeed he has contracted that censure by law, not indeed declared by sentence of a Judge; but since the crime, because of which he fell into excommunication, is so notorious and manifest that it can be hidden by no evasion, or excused by no support of law, hence everywhere among the rest of the faithful he is held as a public sinner. Both certainly ought to be repelled from the sacrament of Penance; for the excommunicated cannot be made participants in the Sacraments. Yet a distinction intervenes between the two, because one excommunicated and denounced by sentence of a Judge, since he is separated from the communion of the other faithful, is also to be avoided, and therefore he cannot be admitted into church, to assist at the unbloody Sacrifice, pour forth public prayers, and be present at the other common offices of Religion, excepting only the preaching of the word of God, which it is permitted by law for an excommunicated person to hear, chap. Respons., 43, On sentence of excommunication. But he against whom no sentence of excommunication or judicial declaration has been pronounced is neither repelled from the assembly of the faithful, nor prohibited from the entrance of the church, nor excluded from public prayers; nevertheless from participation in the Sacraments, just as he is incapable in himself, so he is deservedly to be kept away by a faithful dispenser of the mysteries of God, because of the notoriety and pertinacity of his crime; from which, since a public scandal has arisen, unless it shall have ceased and been amended by suitable and fitting penance, he is to be judged altogether unworthy to become a participant in the mysteries of Christ, lest, against the precept of the Gospel, pearls be cast before swine. But what and how great the penance to be inflicted on the guilty should be, by what method scandal can be removed, Missionaries must establish, the circumstances of places and times having been weighed, and especially take care that nothing be decreed except with you as author and judge, if the power of consulting you is given.

And hence for this reason the manner of acting of those is not to be approved who, no distinction being employed between excommunicated persons to be avoided and those to be tolerated, prohibit all indiscriminately, even on feast days, from entrance to the church and from the sacred assembly of the faithful. For if they do this because they judge that excommunication has this force, that he who is subjected to it is at once to be kept away from all communion of the faithful, they are opposed to the remembered distinction, and therefore they err. But if they decree this punishment themselves, according to their own judgment, for all excommunicated persons indiscriminately, they are to be corrected for excessive severity. But whether those who, by force, snatch and convey to the house of the spouse girls betrothed by their parents to a gentile man, unwilling as they are, incur the penalty of excommunication, understand thus: either the betrothals were entered into by the parents before the girls obtained the use of reason, and it is not established that after the use of reason they confirmed and ratified them; since these betrothals are wholly void, certainly those who furnish counsel, aid, or favor to the abduction of these virgins are excommunicated by the law itself according to chap. 6, sess. 24, de R. M., Council of Trent; but otherwise if the betrothals either were first entered into with their consent or were then confirmed, and consequently are reputed firm and valid, for those who drag brides by force to the spouse, although they are unwilling and resisting, are not subjected to the penalties of abductors." 29 Apr. 1784, Instruction of the S. C. de P. F. to the Apostolic Vicar of Szechuan.

"No one enjoying the communion of the Church is to be repelled from the tribunal of Penance. - Let an Instruction be given, that they are always to be received for Confession, but only the disposed are to be absolved." S. C. de P. F. 16 Jan. 1804.

"The S. C. could not approve the excessive facility which is narrated concerning the Confessors of your Vicariate in the administration of the sacrament of Penance, who are said, with no distinction made among penitents, to absolve all indiscriminately, even recidivists and those remaining in a habitual custom of the sin of superstition. Certainly, since from the very institution of the sacrament of Penance it is established that sins are to be remitted to some, but retained to others, John 20:23, it is manifest that this custom of your confessors, if the things narrated about them are true, is opposed to the very institution of the sacrament of Penance; for it cannot be supposed that in all penitents of your Vicariate there are present the dispositions which are known to be necessary, from the just-praised institution of the sacrament of Penance, for obtaining Sacramental absolution. To this custom of your Confessors there is also opposed the Roman Ritual itself, in which, title On the sacrament of Penance, it is read: But let the Priest diligently see when and to whom absolution is to be conferred or denied. This would not have been prescribed if absolution were to be imparted indiscriminately to all penitents, even recidivists and those existing in a habitual custom of sinning. Therefore let your Confessors be taught concerning this threefold species of penitents, according to the Roman Ritual just praised, and let them deny absolution to those who provide either no indications or only feigned indications of penance; but let them defer it for those whose penance is deservedly held uncertain and suspect. Thus teach the more judicious Theologians; thus teach the Instructions proposed to Confessors by St. Charles Borromeo and by St. Francis de Sales, who adopted the rules handed down by St. Charles in his synodal Constitutions, as can be seen in their title 9, art. 5, n. 5; and the Confessors of your Vicariate just mentioned ought to remember that from great facility of absolving a great facility of sinning must necessarily arise." Instruction of the S. C. de P. F. to the Apostolic Vicar of Cochinchina, Aug. 1827.