VII. On the Form of the Sacrament of Penance

What is the form of the sacrament of penance; what is its force and obligation? - The form of absolution is had thus in the Roman Ritual: "May almighty God have mercy on you, and, your sins having been forgiven, bring you to eternal life. Amen. - May the almighty and merciful Lord grant you indulgence, absolution, and remission of your sins. Amen. - May our Lord Jesus Christ absolve you, and I by his authority absolve you from every bond of excommunication, suspension, and interdict, insofar as I can and you need; then: I absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen. - May the Passion of our Lord Jesus Christ, the merits of the Blessed Virgin Mary and of all the Saints, and whatever good you have done and evil you have borne, be for you unto remission of sins, increase of grace, and the reward of eternal life. Amen."

The hand is raised from the word Indulgentiam up to the word Passio Domini, and the sign of the cross is made over the penitent while saying: In nomine Patris.... The word suspensionis is omitted for laymen. It is a pious custom that the confessor before Confession, while he blesses the penitent, say: "May the Lord be in your heart and on your lips, that you may rightly confess all your sins," or recite a similar prayer. But this does not fall under obligation.

The words Misereatur, Indulgentiam, Dominus noster, Passio, etc., "the doctors commonly say can be omitted without any sin.... And this seems truer, since Trent, sess. 14, C. 3, says that these prayers are only laudably added; for the word laudably certainly seems to import no precept. Nevertheless no one doubts that it is more fitting... to add prayers of this kind, especially those which follow, Passio Domini, etc., since it is probable that through those words all the good works of the penitent are elevated to sacramental satisfaction." L. 430, 507; St. Thomas, Quodl. 3, a. 28. Since it is probable: to others this seems incredible. And they say that those words contain only the deprecation of the Church and have no other force than the other sacramentals. Lugo, d. 25, n. 56. But it is not incredible that the good works of the penitent are elevated to sacramental satisfaction for sins confessed and remitted. The Rubric says: "In more frequent Confessions it will be enough to say: Dominus noster, etc., up to Passio Domini," exclusively. - The word deinde seems not to pertain to the very formula of absolution, but to the order of things to be said. S. R. C., Aug. 27, 1836, Veronen. Indeed in the Ritual it is had: first he says, second he says, then again. But because before it was written in red character and now in black, they say that that deinde pertains to the form. - The elevation of the hand and the formation of the sign of the cross certainly are not required for the validity of the essential form. Florence, Decr. pro Arm.; Trent, l. c.

It is commonly asserted that it can be omitted without grave sin, and several learned authors assert that it can be omitted without any sin. And they say the same about uncovering the head. L. 425.

Absolution from censures precedes absolution from sins: Dominus noster, etc. This absolution is valid if it is said, from every bond of censures, or from censures. Absolution from censures can validly be given by the same form by which one is absolved from sins: I absolve you from your sins, because these words involve absolution from whatever bond arising from sins; and nothing stands in the way of the confessor directing his intention to each absolution, from censures and from sins. Nevertheless this is not excused from venial fault, since it is against the use of the Church. But probably it is altogether excused if there is no probable suspicion that the penitent has incurred some censure. Besides, a priest would sin mortally who, against the prohibition of the Church, wished to absolve the penitent first from sins and then from censures. From censures, namely of excommunication. For suspension and interdict of themselves do not deprive one of the reception of the sacrament of penance. But the penitent would validly be absolved from sins if he were in good faith, absolution from censures not having first been given. The reason is that the prohibition of the Church cannot invalidate a sacrament whose validity depends on divine law, since all essential things required for it concur. - L. 430; La-Croix 1567.

Absolution from sins essentially and certainly consists in words. Given by gesture or writing or other signs it is invalid. Florence, Decr. pro Arm.; Trent, sess. 14, C. 3; prop. condemned by Clement VIII, June 20, 1602; Paul V, July 14, 1605; L. 428; St. Thomas, 3 p., q. 84, a. 3, ad 3. - Wherefore it is essentially required that the penitent to be absolved be morally present. Prop. cited, condemned by Clement VIII and by Paul V. The confessor, while he pronounces the form, seems to speak with the penitent himself. Therefore the aforesaid moral presence is reckoned that within which men can and are accustomed to speak with a common voice, although a higher one. Such presence extends to about twenty paces, especially where the penitent has not yet gone out of the sight of the confessor. But the penitent is to be recalled when he can in every way be recalled. Besides, without scruple a penitent can be absolved who has withdrawn from the confessional, if it is certainly known that he is still within a few paces. But it is not enough for moral presence if the priest sees the penitent, or perceives him by another sense; for presence for absolution requires greater nearness than for hearing a sermon or Mass. Hence, if someone could at some time be absolved only from a distance, for example if he were falling from a roof, then absolution should be given under condition. - L. 429.

Therefore absolution can in no way be given validly by wireless telegraph, nor by wired telegraph, nor by telephone, nor by gramophone.

In the sacramental forum the matter is done between those present, and what is done in it is valid, although the penitent has departed unabsolved, or has performed a sacrilegious Confession. But in the forum of conscience the matter is done even between those absent. For those things which pertain to the spiritual salvation of each person can well be treated even between the absent. Some wish the forum of penance to be the sacramental forum; others the forum of conscience. Sanchez, de Matr., l. 8, d. 34, n. 29; Suarez, de Leg., l. 8, c. 1, nn. 15, 16.

Absolution from sins is contained in the words: Ego te absolvo a peccatis tuis, in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti. Amen. It is altogether certain that the due form is not deprecatory, but indicative: ego te absolvo, etc. Trent, sess. 14, C. 3. Likewise it is certain that the words te absolvo pertain to the essence of the form. - If it is said: absolvo a peccatis tuis, it more probably is valid, because the pronoun te is sufficiently expressed by the pronoun tuis. But very commonly they deny this; and because this opinion is also probable, in practice it must altogether be followed, from prop. 2 condemned by Innocent XI. - But if it is said: ego te absolvo, omitting a peccatis tuis, they very commonly say it is valid from the Roman Catechism, n. 14, and from St. Thomas, 3 p., q. 84, a. 3; yet that it is a grave sin, since it is against the custom of the Church. But others hold that these words pertain to the essence from the words of Christ: "Whose sins you shall forgive." And this opinion is also probable, and therefore in practice one must not depart from it. If finally only absolvo is said, the form will be invalid, because it has no determinate sense and falls upon no determinate subject. - But the common and true opinion denies that the words in nomine, etc., pertain to the essence of the form. For in the institution of this sacrament Christ made no mention of the Trinity, as in baptism. Some think their omission is mortal, others that it is no sin, others, better and almost commonly, say it is venial, since the aforesaid invocation is according to the custom of the Church. - L. 430.

It is not necessary that the penitent hear the words of absolution, much less that he understand them. It suffices that the priest truly pronounce them, and it is advisable that in the presence of others, in order to preserve secrecy, they be said quietly. - Although, insofar as it is a sentence, it can be deferred for a longer time, even after a week, e.g., it can be given; nevertheless, insofar as it is a form, it cannot be deferred for a longer time. Absolution is indeed validly given after an hour from Confession; indeed it can be given on another day if the penitent renews the accusation: again I accuse myself of these things which yesterday, which the day before yesterday, etc., I confessed. - L. 9, 429; E. M.

Confessions are to be heard in church, but not in private homes unless from a reasonable cause. Hence they cannot be heard in private oratories, nor in semi-public oratories, unless by permission of the Bishop. Roman Ritual, Order of administering the sacrament of penance, part 2; Benedict XIV, Encyclical Magno cum, June 2, 1751.

The confessor must be vested in surplice and violet stole, as the time or the custom of places bears. Roman Ritual, l. c., part 4. But regulars by privilege use only the stole; and from S. R. C., Aug. 31, 1867, ad 2, n. 3158, it is fitting that in church the stole be used.

When the confessor absolves, is it necessary that he remember the sins accused? - Absolution is a sentence. Wherefore it is necessary that, when the confessor gives it, he have at least confused knowledge of those things which the penitent has confessed, and of which he himself already had distinct knowledge. Otherwise he scarcely seems not to pronounce sentence in an unknown cause. - Wherefore if the confessor does not retain individual sins in memory, because the Confession was lengthy and complicated, because he deferred absolution, because up to this point the penitent confessed invalidly, and, after the sin previously kept back has now been accused, or after sorrow has been conceived which he had lacked, he seeks absolution, it suffices that "he remember in confused fashion the state of the penitent, or resume (if he does not remember) knowledge of it in confused fashion, and that the penitent accuse himself in common of all things previously confessed."

L. 502. - But if otherwise the penitent had narrated sins outside Confession to the confessor as to a friend, whether also in this case it suffices to resume confused knowledge of them is disputed. Lugo, d. 16, n. 638, and others affirm; for if that confused knowledge suffices in the preceding cases, it must also suffice in this one. But St. Alphonsus and many more others deny it, because in the preceding cases sacramental confession of all and each sins, which Trent requires, was not lacking; but in this case it is altogether wanting. L. 502.

Is conditional absolution valid and lawful? - It is certain that absolution imparted under a condition concerning the present or the past is valid in every case, provided the other things required for the validity of the sacrament are present; for the condition in no way changes the sense of the sacramental form, which it in no way affects, but affects only the will of the confessor, who does not intend to absolve unless the appended condition is fulfilled. But when this has been fulfilled, the form becomes absolute, and therefore nothing is found which could hinder its validity. - Likewise it is certain that conditional absolution is sometimes lawful; for if it is valid, it must also be lawful when necessity urges. When necessity urges: hence the doctrine of some must be rejected as plainly lax, who hold that conditional absolution can be imparted from any light cause whatever, even if sufficient disposition of the penitent, burdened even with mortal sins, is doubted in any way whatever. For the confessor would no longer be a prudent dispenser of the sacraments, but would cast pearls before swine; and by this facility of absolving he would bring it about that penitents would waste away in sins.

But the doctrine of those is no more to be admitted who hold that absolution is not to be imparted under condition except in extreme necessity, or in the extreme danger of life; for doctrine of this kind is exceedingly harmful to penitents who can return to a confessor only with difficulty and, dismissed without absolution, incur the danger of eternal damnation. - L. 431, 432.

In what necessity can or must absolution be imparted under condition? - Absolution can and must be given under condition whenever, if granted absolutely, it would expose the sacrament to danger of nullity, and, if denied absolutely, it would expose the penitent to danger of grave spiritual harm. - Even if necessity of this kind does not urge, absolution can nevertheless be given under condition whenever, if granted absolutely, it would expose the sacrament to danger of nullity, and, if denied absolutely, it would deprive the penitent of some notable spiritual good, though not necessary. For the sacraments indeed exist for men; but they are holy things. Wherefore provision must be made for each: both the utility of men and the sanctity of the sacrament. For this reason they are not to be heard who, against the common opinion of the doctors, hold that absolution, as also the other sacraments, must never be given conditionally, but always absolutely.

Resolutions: A penitent constituted in mortal sin is to be absolved under condition whenever there is prudent doubt about absolution having been imparted, or rightly given, and certainty about this cannot easily be had. Likewise a doubtfully disposed penitent who is in grave danger of death, e.g., a woman in difficult childbirth, a sailor or anyone else about to undertake a long voyage, a soldier before battle, a sick person before a very difficult surgical operation, and all the more one guilty and to be punished with death. Children and the half-witted can be absolved under condition in doubt about the use of reason or sufficient disposition, after serious diligence has been placed for disposing them insofar as can be done, especially in the following cases: if they are in danger of death; if the precept of annual Confession urges; if they have confessed some mortal sin. The reason is that they are exposed to the danger of proximate damnation if death urges, or to the danger of remaining long in mortal sin. Besides, there is no way and hope that, if absolution is delayed, they will soon return disposed and be absolved more safely, as perhaps can be hoped of others. Indeed they will be able to be absolved conditionally several times in the year, even if they bring only light matter, lest they be deprived so long of sacramental grace or remain in mortal sin, if perhaps they are in it.

Probably also doubtfully disposed spouses about to contract marriage immediately can be absolved under condition, because otherwise they are certainly going to profane that sacrament, and, dejected in soul because of absolution denied, they will not return to confess and will waste away in sins. - Likewise pious penitents can probably sometimes be absolved conditionally, in doubt whether they subject sufficient matter to the keys. But it is far better that they offer certain matter from past life, and thus not be deprived of the grace of the sacrament. - A relapsed sinner can be absolved under condition, when there is doubt about his sufficient dispositions, "if it is prudently feared that that sinner will not return again to Confession and will waste away in his sins." L. 432, 442; La-Croix 1797.

What especially as regards the dying? - Any dying person who in some way, by voice or sign, confesses or asks absolution can and must be absolved, and indeed absolutely. The reason is that all things required for the sacrament and for formally integral Confession are present. - Any dying person in whom attrition and confession can be presumed in some way, however slightly probable, can and must be absolved, at least conditionally; because in the case of extreme necessity, even in the administration of the sacraments, it is lawful to use an opinion even slightly founded. - A dying person who altogether refuses the sacrament of penance, or who can in no way be presumed attrite, can in no way be absolved. The reason is most clearly evident. - L. 480, 482; E. M.

Resolutions: All dying persons not yet destitute of the senses and consenting to absolution and obeying the commands of the confessor are to be absolved: absolutely indeed, if they voluntarily seek Confession or if with willing soul they propose to confess; but conditionally, if they are scarcely with difficulty induced to some Confession, or if there is prudent doubt about their sufficient disposition. - All dying persons destitute of the senses who before deprivation of the senses expressly showed a desire for Confession, e.g., by ordering a priest to be called, etc., are to be absolved, at least conditionally. The reason is that they are judged truly to confess through the testimony of those standing by. This is established from the Councils and from the Roman Ritual.

All dying persons altogether destitute of the senses who lived Christianly are to be absolved under condition, even if then they gave no sign either of sorrow or of desire for Confession. The reason is that, since sorrow and desire for absolution can be presumed in these, Confession also can in some way be presumed. - Other dying persons destitute of the senses, who lived little Christianly, are also to be absolved conditionally, because even in them penance and Confession can still be presumed in some way. - A dying person destitute of the senses in the very act of sin, e.g., in a duel, adultery, theft, etc., can probably be absolved under condition. The reason is that even he can be sufficiently disposed. This especially has place for one who perhaps was led to sin by fear, human respect, etc. Not a few live badly, but in no way wish to die badly; and they conceive a will of penance for the moment of death. - L. 481, 485; La-Croix 1162; Elbel 308, 211; Benedict XIV, de Syn., l. 7, c. 15, n. 9 ff.; cf. Commentary on the absolution and assistance of the dying.

754 bis. On the obstinate dying sinner. - Certain modern authors go further and say that absolution can be imparted even to a dying person destitute of the senses who previously refused to receive the sacraments of the Church; indeed, abhorring them, he altogether rejected them with blasphemy. For sacramental absolution can be imparted in so great a crisis of affairs even with slight probability, and it is possible that he conceive penance in his heart. - But in fact this reason does not prove the assertion. A transition is made from slight probability, that is, from the lowest degree of probability, to possibility, and indeed to absolute possibility. It is certainly metaphysically possible that that obstinate sinner, destitute of the senses, conceive penance. But who will ever be able to say that this is morally possible, that this is at least probable in the lowest degree? What, indeed, is the moral motive of that possibility, what rational foundation of this possibility? Moreover, is it lawful to impart absolution, even only under condition, to the indisposed, whom it is established in a human way to be indisposed?

754 ter. On apparent death. - It must be noted, from several more recent authors, that the certain sign of death is nothing except putrefaction, which can happen after whole days; other signs are not infallible. Even cadaveric rigidity is not always a certain sign of death. From the moment which is commonly called death until putrefaction, a man can live a hidden life, and his death then is only apparent. In several cases apparent death can be had, so that this state of apparent death is more frequent and longer in those who are seized by sudden death or a sudden accident. But it is very probable that a similar state has place for a longer or shorter time in all men, even if they die from common diseases, both acute and chronic.

It is difficult to determine this time of apparent death, both in illnesses of sudden death and in those of ordinary death. Regularly the aforesaid time endures until cadaveric rigidity, which does not happen at one and the same time in all corpses. In sudden illnesses it can endure for one hour, two hours, and more. In ordinary illnesses it can endure only for some minutes, five, six, for a quarter of an hour, for a half-hour, longer. Wherefore the aforesaid authors conclude: then sacramental absolution and especially extreme unction, which in the case can have a more certain effect, will be able to be administered under condition. It will be easy to guard against the scandal of the faithful which perhaps could be present.

The aforesaid authors note besides, as regards the dying, that the sense of hearing perseveres for a very long time in the dying; and, even if the sick person seems immobile, incapable of moving his members and speaking, and almost dead, or given over to deep sleep, he can easily hear the voices and all words of those around him. Wherefore the best counsel is that those assisting speak nothing imprudently in a loud voice, and that the priest suggest pious affections, very brief prayers, and especially acts of faith, hope, charity, and contrition in a very brief formula to the dying person.

But the reason of these authors, as regards death from a general rule always being apparent, is by no means convincing. The reason is that the cells of the organism after apparent death still remain whole, and retain, even without circulation of the blood and respiration, the elements necessary for nourishing life, as e.g., oxygen, etc.; and consequently, although new elements do not arrive for life, until those preexisting elements are not exhausted, life does not cease. And therefore in sudden deaths, since the vital elements still persevere whole, real death is prolonged longer. But in ordinary cases of death, since those elements are almost altogether consumed, real death follows not long after apparent death. But from this indeed it is proved that the lowest degree of life still persists; but by no means is it proved, which is altogether necessary, that all those dispositions which are necessary for having a human composite still persist in matter and in the body for human life. And the common opinion of all centuries is against this existence prolonged after death. All say and believe that the man is dead.

Almost the same argument is for the first creation of the soul and union with the body. That the germ lives from the beginning, who ever denied or could deny? Otherwise, how would it afterward begin to live? But now from the fact that it lives, does it follow logically that therefore immediately that fertilized germ is informed by a rational soul, as modern authors especially assert almost indubitably? Certainly not. For it must be demonstrated that that germ, either from the beginning of fertilization, immediately has all the dispositions necessarily required for that most perfect form. And no one up to now has demonstrated this. And surely the same is true in the present case. For it must be demonstrated that a man commonly dead is not dead, but merely apparently, because all those necessary dispositions for retaining and conserving the soul in it still remain in the matter. And no one up to now has proved this. The facts which are adduced concerning true apparent death in fact prove nothing conclusively. For that sometimes a certain apparent death is had, and that sometimes true death can be distinguished from apparent death only with difficulty and in fact is not distinguished, no one has denied this. And the matter up to now was well known to all. Wherefore from this only this could rightly be concluded: that in such and such a case, absolutely speaking, a case of apparent death can be had. But that death, commonly judged to be such, is always apparent does not seem certainly demonstrated from this.