On the Sacrament of Penance

"Whether in a case of extreme necessity absolution can be given by telephone? Resp. Nothing is to be answered." S. Poenit. 1 July 1884.

"In the Cathedral of Padua, by immemorial custom, in the public administration of the sacrament of Penance, the Priest Confessors are forbidden from the use of the stole prescribed by the Roman Ritual; it is asked whether one must stand by a custom of this kind? Resp. Negatively, but one must stand altogether by the Ritual and other Decrees." S. R. C. 7 Dec. 1844.

"Whether the custom of ministering the Sacrament of Penance without a stole, even in a Church and in the Confessional Seat, can be observed? Resp. It is fitting that in a Church the stole be employed according to the decrees of the S. R. C." S. R. C. 31 Aug. 1867.

"Whether the Reverend Lord Bishop Visitator of Tongking rightly established that the Confessions of women are not to be received unless a small grating is interposed, except in the case of sickness? Resp. Affirmatively, according to the orders given many times by the S. C." S. C. de P. F. 12 June 1764.

"Since it befits men who, released from secular cares, have professed the institute of a stricter life by regular vows, to shrink from all familiarity with women, hence, that what has been sanctioned both by the Decrees of general and provincial Councils, and by the Constitutions of the Supreme Pontiffs, and especially most recently of St. Pius V, Gregory XIII, and Benedict XIV, namely that within the enclosures of male Religious no entrance be open to any women whatever, with most grave penalties inflicted both upon men who admit females, under whatever pretext, within the enclosure of Regular houses, and upon females who violate the cloister of the same houses: adhering to these most salutary sanctions, the S. C., although it has not ceased from time to time to warn Prefects of Missions if it has learned that some of them at any time have not been sufficiently vigilant in this matter, nevertheless with the interval of time, or from forgetfulness of the law, or because the disposition of man is prone to lessen the force of laws however most holy, it has often happened, as was reported to the same Congregation by the letters of many, that in stations and hospices of Missionaries women have sometimes been admitted, and in rooms, or in other places within the enclosure of the hospices, have received the sacrament of Penance. Indeed, the S. C., well knowing how unbecoming and how dangerous this is, since it desires its Missionaries dwelling among enemies of the Christian name to abstain not only from evil, but also from every appearance of evil, so that, according to the admonition of the Apostle, they may be without offense to Jews and Gentiles and the Church of God, upon the report of the Reverend Father Lord Stephen Borgia, Secretary, established and ordered that hospices and stations, or any houses whatsoever of whatever Order, Congregation, or regular Institute existing anywhere in places of Missions, in which two or three Missionaries of the Latin rite dwell, or may happen to dwell, are subject to the laws of cloister, so that it is not at all lawful for any Regular whatsoever to introduce any female within the private rooms, dwellings, or recesses of the same hospices or stations, under any title, appearance, and pretext whatever, much less to administer to them there the most holy sacrament of Penance; nor is it lawful for women, under the pretext of any licenses whatever, to enter the aforesaid private rooms, dwellings, or recesses of the hospices, under the penalties inflicted by the sacred Canons and by the above-mentioned Constitutions of the Pontiffs against violators of cloister. But so that access may also be open to women to the internal oratories, churches, and places of the same hospices where sacred things are performed, that they may be present at the sacrosanct sacrifice of Mass and at other ecclesiastical functions, and receive the sacrament of Penance, the same Sacred Congregation declares and decrees that women can be admitted in the internal churches, chapels, or public oratories of the aforesaid hospices, to which nevertheless they are to approach by a direct path, and not turn aside into rooms or private dwellings, and by the same way by which they approached, they are to return. The Sacred Congregation further orders and commands that the confessions of women be heard openly in churches, chapels, or public oratories where they are present, but where these are lacking, in another open and accessible place, and as near as can be to the door of the hospice, to be designated by the respective Ordinaries, and, these being lacking, by the local Superiors of Missions, with an iron grating or another barrier interposed between the mouth of the confessor and of the woman penitent. Those who shall have done otherwise, and shall have contravened these most salutary ordinances, shall incur the penalties against violators of cloister and despisers of the sacred Canons and of the aforesaid apostolic Constitutions.

This Decree of the Sacred Congregation, having been reported to Our Holy Lord Pope Pius VI, His Holiness kindly confirmed, adding the strength of his apostolic authority, and ordered that it be inviolably observed by all, under the aforementioned penalties." S. C. de P. F. 26 June 1780.

"Whether Your Eminences approve: 1. That, under penalty of excommunication latae sententiae, it be commanded to the Priests of that Vicariate that they hear the Confessions of women who are not lying sick only with at least a wooden or reed grating interposed, with small holes and with a veil placed over it, and only by day, unless grave necessity urges? 2. That, under the same penalty, entrance to the houses of Nuns be prohibited to the same Priests and their ministers, unless true necessity urges, namely when the Sacraments are to be ministered, or unless they have a special faculty given in writing by the Superior of the Mission? That, under the same penalty, access to Priests be prohibited to Nuns, except in cases approved by the Superior of the Mission? Resp. The Most Eminent Fathers, the gravity of the matter having been weighed with due maturity, judged that, in order to remove abuses, Decrees issued at other times are to be renewed and confirmed. One of these, appended here, from the year 1780, begins: Cum deceat, etc. But the other, of the year 1785, on 7 March, established that the precept of the grating which is in the first be observed in churches or oratories erected in the Mission; but in those cases in which there is lacking a duly constituted church or oratory, and the Missionary is compelled to administer the sacrament of Penance in private houses, and other suitable barriers are not at hand, in receiving the Confession of women he is to hear them only covered with a veil.

But as regards the association of women and sacred Ministers, besides those things which are contained in the Decree recounted above of the year 1780, the S. C. earnestly commends to Your Amplitude that you command the Missionaries never to turn aside from those rules which are handed down in the Synod of Szechuan, and especially in the Pastoral letters of the Bishop of Caradrus brought forward in the appendix. Indeed all these things, if they are exactly observed, will not only remove abuses, but there will not even be a place for suspicion. For the rest, the S. C., in rescripting these things, does not prohibit Your Amplitude from also ordering and decreeing other things, according to ordinary power, as shall seem more expedient in the Lord, yet in such a way that you proceed most cautiously to greater penalties, and much more to reservations, having before your eyes the inconveniences which follow thence in the place of Mission and the difficulties of obtaining absolution." S. C. de P. F. 17 Aug. 1839, to the Coadjutor of the Apostolic Vicar of Cochinchina.

"Whether the Confessionals of Nuns can be in Sacristies or houses which Confessors inhabit? Resp. They cannot, but ought to stand in the churches of monasteries." S. C. C. 2 Sept. 1642.

"Although, as the Council of Trent teaches, it has been commanded by no Divine precept, nor can it by any human law be prescribed with sufficient counsel, that offenses, especially secret ones, be opened by public Confession, nevertheless it seemed to the delegated Fathers, adhering to the same Holy Synod, that those who voluntarily wish to confess through an interpreter ought not to be prohibited by the Apostolic Vicar of Constantinople; for whom it will suffice to guard against abuses and scandals, and to take care that the interpreter be admonished concerning the obligation to the observance of the secret." S. C. de P. F. 1633.

"Whether in distant regions a Catholic, unconfessed for many years, asking absolution by signs only, because of defect of language, can be absolved without the help of an interpreter? Resp. There is no need of an interpreter in the proposed case, just as also absolution of sins can and must be imparted to one exhibiting the signs which he can..., provided they suffice for expressing some sin in species. But in the case in which someone tries as much as he can to exhibit signs of sins in species, but they cannot be understood at all, he can be absolved through only a manifestation of sins in general." S. C. S. O. 28 Feb. 1653.

"Missionaries dealing with penitents whose language they do not know should exhort them to employ an interpreter, through whom they may confess all sins; but if they should be unwilling to do this, let them at least confess some through an interpreter and the rest through nods and signs, as much as they can; but if they wish to confess none through an interpreter, let them confess through signs in every better way in which they will be able, as is done in the case of mute persons. But let Missionaries take care to learn from each language usual there those few words which are necessary for explaining the principal sins against the precepts of the Church." S. C. S. O. 10 Feb. 1668.

"But that the abuse which in the aforesaid regions, namely Goa and the adjacent islands, as is stated above, has crept in, of receiving Confessions through an interpreter, or by a catalogue of sins read to the penitent so that he may indicate by nods whether any have been committed by him, may be uprooted radically, it is strictly commanded to the capitular Vicars, the conscience also of the Regulars themselves and of whomever it concerns being gravely burdened, that in the future they permit this in no way, but that Confessions be heard only by those who sufficiently perceive the meaning of that language; and, to increase their number according to the requirement of the matter, secular Priests of that region are to be promoted altogether for receiving the Confessions of the faithful in the native language." Clement IX, Const. In excelsa, 13 Sept. 1669.

Whether and when parish priests are bound, under grave obligation, by themselves, or at least through another, to assist the dying even to the final agony of life, although they have already been duly furnished with the sacraments and seem well disposed? Resp. "One must stand by the prescriptions of the Roman Ritual; in the rest, let him consult approved authors." S. C. C. 23 March 1878. Cf. Acta S. Sed. Vol. 11, p. 189 ff.

".... Another inconvenience is in the excess of satisfactions which they impose, namely of many rosaries, even up to the number of three hundred, of as many litanies, with fasts, hair shirts, and other afflictive works, on stated days, through weeks, or months, or whole years....

But as regards the second excess in imposing a satisfaction of many rosaries, litanies, fasts, etc., two extremes also are to be avoided. A prudent Confessor, says St. Charles Borromeo in the Institutions of Penance, for imposing penance, should neither apply one so light that the power of the keys is thereby contemned, and he himself becomes a participant in the sins of others, nor also one so grave or long-lasting that penitents refuse to comply with it, or do not carry out completely the one accepted. There is no reason why we should linger over avoiding the first of these extremes; for it is enough to hear the Council of Trent, sess. 14, ch. 8: The Priests of the Lord ought, as much as spirit and prudence shall suggest, according to the quality of the crimes and the faculty of the penitents, to enjoin salutary and fitting satisfactions: lest, if perchance they connive at sins and deal too indulgently with penitents, by enjoining certain very light works for very grave offenses, they be made participants in the sins of others.

Yet to mitigate the second excess, which prevails among the Tongkingese Priests, we bring forward a few documents indeed, yet solid ones, full of wisdom and prudence, to which they ought diligently to attend, so that they may respond both to their own office and to the utility of penitents. Therefore let them attend to this doctrine of St. Thomas Aquinas, in Quodlibet 3, dist. 13, art. 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 many pieces of wood placed upon it, so it could happen that the small affection of contrition recently excited in the penitent might be extinguished because of the grave burden of satisfaction, with the sinner totally despairing; whence it is better that the Priest indicate to the penitent how great a penance ought to be enjoined upon him for his sins, and nevertheless enjoin upon him something which the penitent bears tolerably, from the fulfillment of which he may become accustomed to fulfill greater things. For those things which the Priest would not have dared to enjoin, and which he does apart from an expressed injunction, receive a greater force of expiation of past guilt from that general injunction when the Priest says: Whatever good you shall have done, may it be for you unto the remission of sins. The same Angelic Doctor repeats the same doctrine in 5, dist. 2, ch. 1, art. 2, little question 2, ad 3: A Priest, he says, *imposing a penance less than condign, does not always sin...., because sometimes, even by design imposing a lesser penance, he benefits the penitent more than he harms him, who perhaps by the magnitumagnitude of the penance he could be impeded from performing the penance, because of the weakness of virtue still newly recovered in him; and therefore he neglects the lesser harm in order to avoid the greater, and meanwhile the divine love strengthened in him will stir him up of his own accord to perform more works of penance than the Priest could have enjoined upon him according to the gravity of the sins.

Let them attend to and weigh the admonition of St. Charles Borromeo in the Institution of Penance: In imposing penance he will employ both prudence and piety and justice, account being had of status, condition, sex, and age, etc. Wherefore let him impose such a one as he judges can be performed by him; therefore sometimes, if he shall see it expedient, let him ask him whether he can, or whether he doubts that he can, perform the penance enjoined upon him; otherwise he will change or lessen it. He will consider besides the soul and mind of the penitent, and the weeping, groaning, and tears which are signs of inward sorrow.... Let them not impose alms upon the poor, nor is a fast indicated for those who seek their living from their own labor, which is also to be observed in other penances.

Finally let them attend to the counsel of St. Francis de Sales in the admonitions written for the instruction of Confessors, ch. 8: It is not expedient to impose satisfactions that are intricate and composed of various kinds of works or of a great number of diverse prayers, because that accumulation of diverse prayers or variety of pious works induces forgetfulness of the imposed penance, and thence will beget anxiety and scruples in the souls of penitents; then devotion is usually relaxed and grows tepid, while the penitent thinks more about what prayers he ought to recite or what he ought to do, and daily, than he attends to the prayers themselves which he pours forth, or to the works themselves which he does.

If they diligently attend to these and the remaining admonitions and counsels of St. Charles Borromeo, they will certainly mitigate the excessive rigor which they have exercised until now, and will consult both for the salvation of souls and for their own obligation." Instruction of the S. C. de P. F. for the Tongkingese or Annamite Priests, 1736.

Cf. n. 621.

"As regards the doubt whether the Vicar Capitular can suspend the faculty of hearing confessions of confessors who were approved by the deceased Bishop at pleasure, and without a defined time, the Most Eminent Lords ordered me to rescript that there is no difficulty as regards secular priests, because, since they depend immediately on the ordinary jurisdiction of the Bishop, to which the Chapter succeeds when the See is vacant, consequently the Vicar Capitular enjoys full power of limiting their faculty and also of suspending them from hearing confessions, either because of grave faults pertaining to the Sacrament of Penance, or because of defect of that doctrine, honesty, and integrity of life which is required in sacred Ministers. The same cannot be said of regular confessors; indeed, since these have been approved after a prior examination and without limit of time, or even at Our Good Pleasure, by the deceased Bishop, the Chapter or the Vicar Capitular cannot punish them by the penalty of suspension, even for just reasons, since this is the personal right of the Bishop, to which, according to the more common opinion of the Doctors, the Chapter does not succeed when the See is vacant. But since grave inconveniences would be produced from this defect of power, recourse must be had to the same S. C." S. C. EE. and RR. 19 June 1866.

"The Vicar Capitular sets forth that he has discovered that several secular and regular priests obtained from the deceased Bishop the faculty of hearing confessions with no prior examination, and that they are so unskilled that several scandals result. Therefore he supplicates for the faculty of calling them to examination, and of approving those whom he shall have found suitable and prohibiting the incapable. Hence it is asked: 1. whether the Vicar Capitular can do this; and insofar as negatively, 2. whether the requested faculty is to be conceded? The S. C. of the Council on 5 Feb. 1688 responded: to the 1st, affirmatively; to the 2nd, provision has been made in the first. Scavini, book 3, n. 472, Milan 1874.

"The S. C. C. judged that successor Bishops can, a reasonable cause supervening, even by office, even outside visitation, examine Parish Priests approved for parochial Churches." And it says the same concerning regular Parish Priests. The Roman Rota decreed that the pleasure alone and the sole quiet of the Bishop's conscience is a sufficient cause of a new examination. But if the matter concerns Parish Priests already examined by the same Bishop, whether he can examine them again, the same Congregation has these things: 1. "A Bishop can examine Parish Priests and Rectors once approved for the care of souls, when there is a vehement suspicion concerning their lack of skill. 2. He can proceed to an examination of this kind outside visitation. 3. For making the said examination it is not necessary that judicial proofs of lack of skill precede." Scavini, loc. cit.

The S. C. C., being asked whether Capuchins who in the Diocese of Padua had received Confessions without the license of the Bishop of that Diocese validly absolved, because some of these had been approved in another Diocese, while others had indeed been approved by the Bishop of Padua for a year, but the year had already elapsed, responded: "They illicitly and invalidly received Confessions, but those who confessed in good faith are not to be disturbed. Yet if those confessing should have learned this, or should have doubted concerning the invalidity of the Confession, they are bound to repeat the Confession." 11 Dec. 1683. Benedict XIV, Notification 84; Scavini, book 3, n. 479, Milan 1874.

"Priests undertaking a journey can be approved by the Ordinaries of the places from which ships set sail, so that while the journey lasts they may be able validly and lawfully to receive the confessions of the faithful sailing with them, until they arrive at a place where another ecclesiastical superior endowed with jurisdiction has been constituted. Nevertheless the Ordinaries themselves must beware lest they grant a faculty of this kind to priests who have not been recognized as suitable according to the lines of the Council of Trent, sess. 23, de R., ch. 15." Holy Office, 29 March 1869. Cf. Paul Villada, Cases of Conscience Accommodated to These Present Times, Part 3, Case 6, Brussels 1887.

"1. Whether chaplains of any army whatever, whether regulars or secular Catholic priests, can administer to soldiers dwelling in garrisons Penance, the Eucharist by way of Viaticum, and Extreme Unction, without faculty of the Apostolic See, or license and approbation of the Ordinary in whose Diocese they happen to be? 2. Whether they can assist at the marriages of soldiers of whatever station dwelling in garrisons with military women, without the said apostolic faculty and preceding proof of free status, and its recognition before the Ordinary of the place, and the license of the Parish Priest under whose Parish they remain? 3. Whether the same with soldiers dwelling in camps and winter or summer stations? 4. Whether the same with soldiers placed on actual expedition? 5. Whether the same with soldiers wishing to marry women who are not military, but Italian women originating from the place or Diocese in which they are found? 6. Whether non-Catholic soldiers contracting with non-Catholics are bound to observe the form of Trent? 7. Whether much more non-Catholics contracting with Catholic military women remaining in garrisons, camps, and expedition? 8. Whether non-Catholic chaplains can assist at marriages of non-Catholics with non-Catholics and respectively Catholics, even within the borders of Italy; and insofar as negatively in all things except the sixth and seventh, 9. whether and what should be consulted with and established by the Most Holy One for the healing of things done in the past and to be done in the future concerning all the aforesaid things as a certain rule?

The S. C. on 6 March 1694 responded: "to the 1st, negatively; to the 2nd, negatively and confirmed in Casalens. 28 June 1704; to the 3rd, 4th, and 5th, negatively; to the 6th, affirmatively, where the Council has been published according to the decree of the S. C. 26 Sept. 1602; to the 7th, affirmatively, and furthermore that they need a dispensation for the marriage to be licitly done; to the 8th, as to the sixth; to the 9th, as regards the past, concerning the sacrament of Penance, consciences are not to be disturbed; and concerning Marriages, for healing, consultation with the Most Holy One, the consent being renewed even before the confessor, who is bound to deliver testimony of the renewal of consents to the Parish Priest of that place where such renewal of consent followed." Scavini, loc. cit., n. 893.