XI. On Reservation

What is reservation? - Reservation of causes generally is the calling up of the judgment of some cause from an inferior judge to a superior; whence it happens that, while the inferior judge's ordinary power remains, the power of judging certain other graver causes is taken away from him. Therefore reservation of cases in our matter, namely the reservation of sins or censures, in relation to absolution to be given and received, is a restriction or limitation of jurisdiction, i.e., a denial of the power of absolving from certain sins and censures, with the power of absolving from others preserved. Therefore in reserved matters the simple confessor can do nothing; in reserved matters, not in the penitent bound by reserved matters. The penitent can be absolved from other things; from reserved matters he cannot be absolved. Although the penitent confesses these in good faith, and the confessor absolves, they are then remitted only indirectly. - Trent, sess. 14, C. 7, c. 11; Lugo, de Euch., d. 14, n. 87, 96; L. 265, 578, 579, 596; S. Th., Suppl., q. 20, a. 2.

Who can reserve cases; and what cases have in fact been reserved by those who can reserve them? - The Supreme Pontiff, by reason of his jurisdiction over the whole Church, can reserve cases in the whole Church. But the cases in fact reserved to the Supreme Pontiff are some reserved with censure, others without censure. Papal cases reserved with censure are contained in the Constitution of Pius IX Apostolicae Sedis on censures, to which several others were afterward added.

Papal cases reserved without censure are: calumnious accusation of solicitation; and the acceptance of gifts from Regulars, unless the gifts have not been restored, or unless a promise of restitution is made when the penitent cannot now restore. Therefore this acceptance is not properly a reserved case. Cf. 295, 1279. Gury-Ballerini-Palmieri 382, IV.

A faculty is granted to Confessors by the rescript-form of the S. Penitentiary: "VI. Of absolving from the case reserved to the Apostolic See on account of gifts accepted from Regulars of either sex, with a salutary penance imposed, and, when there is question of gifts which do not exceed the value of ten scudi, with some alms imposed according to your judgment, to be assessed and cautiously expended as soon as possible for the benefit of the religion or convent to which restitution would have to be made, provided however that it is not established that they were from the proper goods of the religion; but insofar as the gifts accepted either were above the value of ten scudi or are established to have been from the proper goods of the religion, after restitution has first been made; and if the penitent cannot fulfill this at present, after a serious promise has been issued of restoring within a term to be determined by your judgment; otherwise under reincidentia."

Only by the Supreme Pontiff can they be absolved, the Cardinal Penitentiary himself being excluded, who violate those things which have been established under penalty of excommunication for the election of the Supreme Pontiff, Constitution Vacante Sede, Dec. 25, 1904, and also the secret which is called that of the Holy Office. Ord. serv. in R. C., special Norms, c. 7, a. 2, n. 4.

Moreover only by the S. C. Consist. can priests be absolved from suspension from divine things who, without observing the law of the same Sacred Congregation, have rashly and arrogantly migrated. S. C. Consist., March 25, 1914, Supplementum Primum Enchiridii Moralis, ed. 3, p. 59 ff.

Bishops, by reason of their jurisdiction in their own diocese, can reserve cases in it. Episcopal cases are some reserved by the common law itself, others by the Bishops themselves. The former are contained in the praised Constitution Apostolicae Sedis, to which others were afterward added. But the latter, reserved to themselves by the Bishops themselves, are various according to the various dioceses, and are contained in their own catalogues.

A case reserved to Bishops without censure is that concerning the relief of the miserable condition of the Indians: "... We condemn as guilty of a monstrous crime and declare to be such all who dare or presume to reduce the aforesaid Indians into servitude, to sell, buy, exchange, or give them, to separate them from wives and children, to despoil them of their things and goods, to lead and transfer them to other places, or in any way to deprive them of liberty, to retain them in servitude; and also to furnish counsel, aid, favor, and work under whatever pretext and color sought to those doing the aforesaid things, or to preach or teach that this is lawful, and otherwise to cooperate in any way in the foregoing... Therefore we will the power of absolving penitents from these crimes in the sacramental forum to be reserved to the Ordinaries of places." Pius X, Encyclical Letter Lamentabili statu, June 7, 1912, Acta Ap. Sed., vol. 4, p. 521 ff.

Now Ordinaries cannot reserve to themselves cases which the Supreme Pontiff has reserved to himself. S. C. EE. et RR., Nov. 26, 1602. Cf. Suarez, d. 31, s. 4, n. 25; Lugo, d. 20, n. 149, 151. - Moreover they should not be ready to reserve to themselves especially more frequent sins, for example against chastity; but, on the contrary, they are admonished to be ready in granting, especially to confessors in places situated far from the episcopal city, the faculty of absolving. Hence they are also admonished to establish penitentiaries and other priests in the diocese who can themselves absolve and give to others the faculty of absolving. S. C. EE. et RR., Nov. 26, 1602.

Finally, episcopal reservations made outside a synod, since at least in fact they are not considered as perpetual laws, whether with or without consultation of the chapter, cease when the Ordinaries cease from office or die.

Pastors also, although they are not superior prelates and from this head it would not seem that they themselves can reserve cases, nevertheless absolutely can; because they have ordinary jurisdiction. But in fact there is no reservation by pastors, since it would be almost useless.

Regular prelates can reserve, if they wish, the eleven cases designated by the Decree of Clement VIII, May 26, 1593. They can by no means reserve other sins or censures without mature discussion and the consent of the general chapter in the whole order, or of the provincial chapter in the province. But Nuns are subject to the reservation of the Bishop if they are not exempt; otherwise, if they are exempt. But nuns subject to Regulars are also subject to the reservation of the Bishop in matter clearly pertaining to delegated jurisdiction. L. 580-583, 600, 602; Benedict XIV, de Syn., l. 4, c. 5; Lugo, Resp. Mor., l. 4, d. 28; l. 1, d. 21.

But Clement VIII commends moderation in the aforesaid reservation, considering that "reservation... could bring some weaker persons, who at times fear to disclose the stains of conscience to their superior, into danger of eternal damnation and despair of spiritual remedy." And in fact the eleven Clementine cases are truly graver; for they are the following:

Poisonings, Incantations, Sorceries.

Apostasy from Religion, whether with the habit laid aside or retained, when it has proceeded so far that there is an exit outside the enclosure of the Monastery or Convent.

Nocturnal and furtive departure from the Monastery or Convent, even if made without the intention of apostatizing.

Property against the vow of poverty, which is by mortal sin.

A false oath in a regular or legitimate trial.

Procuring, aid, or counsel for causing an abortion after the fetus is animated, even if the effect has not followed.

Falsification of the handwriting or seal of the Officials of the Monastery or Convent.

Theft from the goods of the Monastery or Convent in that quantity which is mortal sin.

A voluntary lapse of the flesh consummated by the deed.

Killing, or wounding, or grave striking of any person.

Malicious impediment, delay, or opening of letters from Superiors to inferiors, and from inferiors to Superiors.

What in fact are the conditions of reserved sins? - The Church is not accustomed to reserve except graver and external sins. Therefore reservation is not incurred unless the sin was grave, by an act at once internal and external, and one consummated. Likewise it is not incurred either in doubt of law or in doubt of fact concerning the sin itself, although after received absolution the reservation appears certain.

Do age, fear, and ignorance excuse from reservation? - They certainly excuse when the reservation has the character of a penalty, as in the reservation of censures. Hence ignorance excuses from reservation in papal cases, because, two excepted, cf. 795, all the rest are reserved because of censure, from which ignorance excuses. Consequently, once the censure is removed, no reservation remains. For episcopal cases, if the reservation is joined to a censure, theologians disagree; but several and grave theologians hand down the same concerning these as concerning papal cases, since no distinction is found in the Law between papal and episcopal censures. Yet not a few establish a distinction between episcopal and papal cases, so that in the former, when the censure ceases, e.g., because it is unknown, the reservation still remains; since the sin is reserved both by reason of the censure and by reason of itself. But the words of the reservation, custom, and the power of the one reserving must be considered, that the matter may be determined. Suarez, d. 29, s. 2, n. 7. - They also excuse in the reservation of sins when the legislator positively declares that he constitutes the reservation as a punishment of the crime; for then it is certainly penal.

But do they excuse also when the sin is simply reserved? - There are those who affirm, because reservation by its nature is a vindicative penalty, or at least medicinal, or because such at least is reasonably presumed to be the will of the legislator. This opinion is probable to many, and also to several of those who oppose it, who consequently conclude that it is lawful to use it, provided the confessor makes the penitent more certain about the reservation, so that if afterward he falls again into reserved matters, he may be held by the reservation. But the doctors far more commonly and more truly deny. The reason is that reservation by its nature is not a penalty, but merely a restriction of jurisdiction as regards greater causes, which the superior judge calls to himself to be judged by himself and submits exclusively to his own judgment. Nor indeed is the will of the legislator reasonably presumed, since this cannot be taken either from the intrinsic nature of the reservation itself, or from the extrinsic words of the law and other circumstances. And certainly no excuse is to be admitted if the legislator explicitly declares that he wills to comprehend in the reservation both children, and those suffering fear, and the ignorant. - L. 580-583, 596, 600.

Who can absolve from reserved matters, and when? - Besides the Roman Pontiff and the Major Penitentiary, those who reserve, and those who act in their place, can absolve by ordinary right. Therefore Bishops absolve from episcopal cases, and their vicars general. C. Non putamus 2, de Consuet. in 6, each one in his own diocese; not likewise canon penitentiaries. L. 509. From cases reserved by Regulars, their superiors absolve, and at present all Confessors approved by the local Ordinary. Cf. here 790. But at present Regulars cannot absolve from papal cases, from the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis of Pius IX on censures; nor can they absolve from episcopal reserved cases from prop. 12 condemned by Alexander VII. Yet they can absolve from those reserved to Bishops by the common law itself. For this faculty is found nowhere revoked. L. 599; S. O., March 22, 1881. - Likewise all absolve from reserved matters who receive special delegated jurisdiction over reserved matters.

Power of absolving from reserved matters, given simply for papal cases, or given even for papal cases, does not hold as regards cases reserved by Ordinaries. Benedict XIV, Constitution Pias Christi; L. 594. Power given by an Ordinary for absolving from reserved matters does not hold for papal cases. But each power given simply does not hold for specially reserved cases, or those reserved in a special manner. C. Si Episcopus 2, de Poenit. in 6.

Since pilgrims by common custom confess and are absolved as inhabitants of the place in which they stay, they cannot be absolved from reserved matters in the place of Confession by a simple confessor; but they can be absolved from matters reserved in their own country, unless they have come there in fraud of the reservation, and there is question of censures reserved ab homine. Clement X, Constitution Superna, June 21, 1670; S. C. C., Sept. 16, 1649, apud Benedict XIV, de Syn., l. 5, c. 8; S. C. C., Nov. 12, 1612; S. Penit., Nov. 21, 1873. He comes in fraud of the reservation who comes for this principal end, of avoiding the judgment of his own pastor and of obtaining absolution from reserved matters. Therefore, if he comes in order to handle his other business, and then confesses, or even in order to confess better, he uses his own right. Concerning censures reserved ab homine; for as regards these a universal custom cannot be invoked, as for censures, even reserved ones, imposed by law, though others deny this. D'Annibale 346, vol. 1, ed. 3; L. 573, 574, 587, 592, 593; Filliucci, tr. 7, c. 10, n. 284; Gury-Dumas, Gury-Ballerini 582.

Confessors even privileged cannot absolve penitents of another rite from a case reserved by each one's own Ordinary. Leo XIII, Constitution Orientalium dignitas, Nov. 30, 1894. Cf. here n. 766. - At the point of death all can absolve from reserved sins and censures, because then there is no reservation from Trent, sess. 14, C. 7. Therefore for absolving from papal cases no permission of the Bishop is needed, and anyone can absolve from reserved matters, even when the superior or another having power is present. Cf. n. 773 and n. 799.

On the faculty of Cardinals to absolve from reserved matters, cf. vol. 1, n. 266 bis 1.

A superior who has ordinary jurisdiction can remove reservation outside Confession; and the penitent can then be absolved by any confessor. But one who has delegated jurisdiction, since it is given principally for absolving sins, can absolve from reserved matters only in sacramental Confession. Suarez, de Censur., d. 7, s. 5, n. 36; Lugo, d. 20, n. 74. "But can a superior absolve a penitent from reserved matters, and send him back to an inferior for the others? Some affirm universally... Others say that this is lawful only in a case of grave necessity, for example if the superior could not free himself from some very grave business, and on the other hand judged it necessary personally to hear the reserved sin. And Lugo, d. 20, n. 78, Salm., etc., admit this. But in a very rare case, with it added that the penitent would be under necessity of communicating and would not wish to confess the same sins twice. This last does not seem improbable, granted the case with all these conditions." L. 595. "One who has been absolved from reserved matters by a superior can afterward be absolved from the same by anyone; because they are no longer necessary matter of Confession." L. 596. - Lugo, Resp. Mor., l. 1, d. 27; l. 4, d. 28; l. 3, d. 6; E. M.

Note: A superior should not give permission to absolve from reserved matters with difficulty, "lest otherwise that which ought to have been unto edification yield unto destruction." L. 578; S. Th., 4, d. 17, q. 3, a. 3, qc. 5 ad 6; Opusc. contra impugn. Relig., C. 1. Therefore, regularly, he sins gravely if grave detriment to the subject is feared from the denial. L. 586. Regularly, that is, unless grave scandal and grave damage to the community threaten, to which only the superior, after the matter is known, could bring a remedy. - L. 586; Suarez, d. 30, s. 4, n. 8, 9; E. M.

Is one absolved from reserved matters in the article of death by an inferior bound to present himself to the superior if he recovers? - Resp. In the negative, if the discussion is about merely reserved sins. For from Trent, sess. 14, C. 7, in the article of death there is no reservation. Therefore there is also no burden of reservation, unless it is proved from another source. - If the discussion is generally about reserved censures, the first opinion affirms absolutely, from C. Eos qui 22, de Sent. exc. in 6; the second opinion distinguishes as regards papal censures: it affirms concerning papal censures reserved in a special manner, denies concerning the others.

The reason is that in the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis concerning the former it is said that, as regards those absolved, the obligation of standing to the mandates of the Church if they recover remains firm; but concerning the rest nothing is said. The third opinion denies absolutely even concerning the aforesaid censures reserved in a special manner; because the Tridentine decree was not corrected by the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis, and that clause does not necessarily signify, either from the Law of the Decretals or from the authority of theologians, an obligation of presenting oneself to the superior; provided however that, if the penitent recovers, he perform those things which the superior would have exacted from him, the matter had not been notorious, nor brought to the contentious forum. Cf. cited C. Eos qui. For the Tridentine decree removed that obligation, declaring without any ambiguity of words that in the article of death there is no reservation, and then immediately confirming the obligation of approaching the superior outside the article of death, sess. 14, C. 7. And this argument, taken from Trent, is confirmed from the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis itself, since if cases reserved in a special manner are to be excepted, this is because in the same Constitution they are expressly excepted by force of the aforesaid clause, while concerning other cases simply reserved scarcely any question is any longer raised. - Further, it has been declared by the Holy Office that the obligation of standing to the mandates of the Church imports the burden, either personally or through the confessor, of having recourse to the Supreme Pontiff and obeying his mandates, or of seeking a new absolution from one having the faculty of absolving from censures reserved in a special manner to the Supreme Pontiff. And this obligation is under penalty of reincidentia. But the same obligation does not press for other cases simply reserved. S. O., Aug. 19, 1891; Jan. 13, 1892; March 30, 1892. - E. M.

While an impediment to approaching the superior stands, can someone be absolved by a simple confessor from reserved cases? - From the ancient Law of the Decretals: Bishops can in the aforesaid case, by themselves or through others specially delegated by them, absolve in both fora from all cases and censures, in whatever way reserved to the Apostolic See. This is clear 1. from C. 2, 3, 6, 11, 13, 17, 24, 33, 37, 50, de Sent. exc.; 2. from the common opinion of theologians. Hence the saying: A papal case, when an impediment supervenes, becomes episcopal. L. 584, 599.

Although by no express law, nevertheless from common doctrine a threefold impediment is distinguished: for a short time, for a long time, and perpetual. If the impediment is for a short time, i.e., not up to a year or six months, then one bound by a reserved sin or reserved censure cannot be absolved by another unless a grave cause is present. A grave cause is not only the paschal precept, or necessity of communicating or celebrating, but also if otherwise the penitent would have to remain in mortal sin for a long time, i.e., beyond two days. L. 585; l. 7, n. 84, 86, 88. In such a case the common and received opinion holds that one is absolved from a reserved sin only indirectly; and therefore the penitent is bound afterward to be absolved directly by one having the power. L. 585, 596. From a reserved sin; namely whether the sin is reserved without censure or with censure: for from a censure one can be absolved only directly; but while that grave cause stands, the censure does not prohibit sacramental absolution.

But there are several and grave doctors who hold that absolution even in this case is given directly from a reserved sin, whether reserved without censure or with censure. Where there is question of reserved censures, the Law does not distinguish between a long and short time, C. Nuper 29, de Sent. excomm.; C. De cetero 11, e.t.; C. Quamvis 58, ib.; C. Eos qui 22, e.t. in 6, etc. Therefore, if it is valid to argue from a faculty positively made by the Law when the case is reserved with censure, the same must consequently be said again when the case is reserved without censure. And indeed this opinion is favored by the Decree of the Holy Office, June 23, 1886, and of the S. Penit., Nov. 7, 1888.

But even in this opinion the penitent, without doubt, when the impediment ceases, is bound to present himself to the superior. This is provided in the Law itself for cases reserved with censure; but for cases reserved without censure, because by force of the reservation the penitent is bound of himself to undergo the judgment of the superior whenever he can; therefore the past impediment could not of itself absolutely exempt the penitent from this burden, although he could have confessed to the inferior confessor by a certain legitimate interpretation. For if the Law grants that power of absolving when the case is graver, namely reserved with censure, it seems implicitly to grant the same power when the case is less grave and is reserved without censure. But the penitent thus directly absolved in either case must present himself to the superior, not in order to confess again to him and be absolved again by him, since he has already been directly absolved, but "to receive his mandate and to make satisfaction as justice advised." C. Eos qui 22, de Sent. exc. in 6; C. Quamvis 58, e.t., etc.

If the impediment is for a long time, i.e., for a year or six months, and the sin is reserved with censure, absolution is indeed given directly, according to the common opinion, which again is favored by the aforesaid Holy Office Decree of June 23, 1886; but with the burden first imposed of presenting oneself to the superior when the impediment has ceased. But one omitting to present himself falls again into the same excommunication; which reincidentia shows that he was absolved from the censure, otherwise there would be no place for reincidentia. But once he has been absolved from the reserved censure, he is already directly absolved from the sin; since, when the censure ceases, the sin is no longer reserved. C. De cetero 11, de Sent. exc.; C. Quamvis, e.t.; C. Eos qui 22, e.t. in 6.

Several maintain this reincidentia even after the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis of Pius IX, which limits censures, because, they say, it belongs to the very nature of a censure, which the aforesaid Constitution does not change. Others limit reincidentia only to cases reserved in a special manner in the aforesaid Constitution, since for these alone, they say, reincidentia is established for the article of death; therefore also in the case of impediment reincidentia is likewise to be admitted for the same cases; otherwise reincidentia would be had when reservation ceases of itself, namely in the article of death, but would by no means be had when it ceases by accident, namely in the case of impediment. Others finally judge reincidentia to have been removed by the cited Constitution, because it is not read as renewed in it, from which censures at present are to be taken. And the same Constitution, if at any time in a particular case it wished to maintain a censure, expressed this, as in article 4 of the excommunications simply reserved to the Supreme Pontiff. And therefore reincidentia must be said to have been removed in the case of impediment, because reincidentia is not intrinsic to the very nature of a censure, and thus, unless Boniface VIII had added it, no one, as before, would have incurred reincidentia. At present censures are to be evaluated from the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis "just as if they had first been issued by it." Since therefore it is not contained in it, it is not to be affirmed. This as far as concerns the force of the Constitution itself, since reincidentia is affirmed in the cited Decree of the Holy Office, June 23, 1886. - But if the sin is reserved without censure, according to the common opinion no burden is imposed of presenting oneself to the superior. The reason is that, as this is prescribed for reserved censures, so for merely reserved sins it is not prescribed. But this burden seems to be affirmed for the same reason as in the preceding case, and it is confirmed by the cited Decrees of the Holy Office, June 23, 1886; S. Penit., Nov. 7, 1888.

If the impediment is perpetual, i.e., for ten years or five years, absolution is given directly from a sin reserved either with censure or without censure, and in either case the burden of presenting oneself to the superior is not imposed; for in this case reservation simply ceases, and that burden is incompatible with a perpetual impediment. C. Eos qui 22, de Sent. excomm. in 6. So according to the commonly received opinion. L. 585.

Those are judged perpetually impeded who are children under family authority, Regulars, old people, even sexagenarians, servants, the poor, those condemned perpetually to prisons or galleys, the infirm, namely those laboring under a long and grave illness although not mortal, those bound by the care of feeding or administering a family, or of carrying on a public office which cannot be left without public impediment, all women and not only nuns unless there is an exception, as for nuns violating enclosure, those not yet of puberty, even if they ask absolution after puberty, and anyone who cannot undertake a journey without grave spiritual or temporal harm to himself or his own. C. 2, 11, 26, 32, 37, de Sent. excomm.; L. 594; l. 7, n. 84 ff.

Those impeded from going to Rome in person are not bound to send a letter or procurator, or to write to the S. Penitentiary, or to approach a delegate, although they can. For the Law does not oblige the guilty one except that he personally approach the superior. S. O., July 18, 1860; C. Cum desideres 15; C. Quod de his, de Sent. excomm., cc. from the same Sacred Congregation; L. l. 7, n. 85-93; Schmalzgrueber, n. 262, 246; Sanchez, in Decalog., l. 2, c. 13, n. 30; Roncaglia, tr. 4, cap. 6, q. 4, r. 2. And although others have thought, and do think, otherwise, nevertheless the Decree of the Holy Office, June 23, 1886, favors this opinion, which otherwise now imposes the obligation of having recourse by letter: since the aforesaid Decree rests on changed conditions.

Those still impeded from approaching the Bishop for these cases and censures reserved to the Roman Pontiff can be absolved by any confessor. L. 585. So from C. Nuper 29, de Sent. excomm., "where the faculty of absolving seems to be granted indifferently to the Bishop and to the proper priest, namely to any confessor." Roncaglia, l.c., r. 3. Hence the opinion is also probable, which several and grave theologians hold, that absolution of cases and censures, while an impediment to approaching the Roman Pontiff stands, pertains not to the Bishop alone, but indiscriminately to any confessor. "As regards reserved censures," says Roncaglia..., "I note that this opinion is well founded in law, which asserts that one temporarily impeded from approaching the Pope can be absolved by a simple confessor, and does not need to approach the Bishop for absolution from a case reserved to the Pope." Tr. 19, cap. 3, q. 3 and l.c., r. 3. This is indeed drawn from C. Eos qui 22, de Sent. excomm. in 6; from C. Quamvis 58, de Sent. excomm.; and is clearly found in C. Nuper 29, e.t. Hence the opposite opinion, which has become more common, rests more on the authority of theologians than on some clear text of the Law. But theologians do not have the power of making laws. And this is so true that D'Annibale, who adheres to the opposite opinion, nevertheless admits that this one, p. 1, n. 349, ed. 3, "coheres excellently with the words of the canon." Moreover, the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis of Pius IX on censures favors this opinion; since it would have been very easy for the Legislator, among the other cases reserved to Bishops, to add this one also, which on the contrary was passed over. But what is now chiefly important in this question is that the praised Decree of the Holy Office, June 23, 1886, favors this opinion, by which one must stand at present.

If there is question of episcopal cases and censures, St. Alphonsus 585, l. 7, n. 92, and several others deny that a simple confessor can absolve from reserved matters; but certainly probable, indeed perhaps more probable, is the opinion asserting that those who are impeded from approaching the Bishop can be absolved from them by any confessor; and this is manifestly found in C. Nuper 29, de Sent. excomm.; C. Vos qui 22, e.t. in 6, where there is question of any superior and not only of the Roman Pontiff. D'Annibale, p. 1, n. 349, ed. 3.

After the Decrees of the Holy Office, June 23, 1886; June 17, 1891; Aug. 19, 1891; March 30, 1892; June 16, 1897; and of the S. Penit., Nov. 7, 1888, in papal cases and censures, whether simply reserved or reserved in a special manner, recourse must be had by letters to the S. Penitentiary, while the impossibility of personally approaching the Holy See stands. Nevertheless any simple confessor can directly absolve from them, "in truly more urgent cases in which absolution cannot be deferred without danger of grave scandal or infamy, upon which the conscience of confessors is burdened, with those things imposed which by law are to be imposed, and under penalty of reincidentia into the same censures, unless at least within a month the absolved person has recourse to the Holy See by letter and through the medium of the confessor." And this holds even for the case in which the penitent has been perpetually impeded from going to Rome. But the penitent himself can write to the S. Penitentiary. Therefore when the penitent cannot return to the confessor, it suffices, that he may be absolved, to exact from him a promise of writing to the S. Penitentiary. S. Penit., Nov. 7, 1888. And these things entirely oblige, and a contrary practice is not to be tolerated.

This Decree rests upon the practice of the S. Penitentiary, and does not regard episcopal cases. Since no new Decree has been issued concerning them, the ancient doctrine founded on the ancient Law of the Decretals remains unmoved until something else is defined. Therefore a penitent having reserved cases, if he is legitimately impeded from presenting himself to the superior, can indeed be absolved by another; but, when the impediment ceases, he must present himself to the superior, to receive his mandates and to make satisfaction according to the exigency of the matter. C. Nuper, C. Eos qui, cited, etc.

Moreover, as regards the aforesaid papal cases, "in the case in which there is neither infamy nor scandal in the delay of absolution, but it is very hard for the penitent to remain in grave sin for the time necessary for petitioning and obtaining the faculty of absolving from reserved matters, it is lawful for a simple confessor to absolve directly from censures reserved to the Supreme Pontiff, with those things imposed which by law are to be imposed, yet under penalty of reincidentia into the same censures, unless at least within a month the absolved person has recourse to the Holy See by letter and through the medium of the confessor." S. O., June 16, 1897. - But "when neither the confessor nor the penitent can send a letter to the S. Penitentiary, and it is hard for the penitent to go to another confessor, in this case it is lawful for the confessor to absolve the penitent even from cases reserved to the Holy See without the burden of sending a letter." S. O., Nov. 9, 1898. Nevertheless it must be observed that the Decree of Nov. 9, 1898, "does not comprehend the absolution of an accomplice." S. O., June 7, 1899. For a penitent of this kind will certainly always be able to write to the S. Penitentiary. - "In order that the burden of sending a letter may cease, the impediment of writing need not bind the confessor and penitent at the same time; but it suffices that the penitent, unable to write, cannot present himself to the same confessor by whom he was absolved by force of the Decrees of 1886 and 1897, and that it is hard for him to approach another confessor; although the absolving confessor could send a letter to the Holy See for the penitent." S. O., Sept. 5, 1900.

Besides, in place of immediate recourse to the Holy See "in the case of absolution granted as above, recourse to the Bishop furnished with the faculty of absolving suffices, or to the Vicar General of the Bishop, as to the Ordinary, sharing by law in the episcopal faculties of absolving." S. O., Dec. 19, 1900. Monit. Eccles., vol. 12, p. 481 ff.; E. M.

As regards Regulars, recourse must be had to the Superior. But the faculty of absolving is to be committed to the ordinary confessor when the confessor himself first of all has judged that it ought to be committed. If the faculty has been sought from the Superior and has been denied, the ordinary confessor will be able, for that time and as often as it happens, to absolve from reserved matters. Clement VIII, May 26, 1593. In small Communities Superiors are bound habitually to depute at least one confessor who can absolve from matters reserved in the Order. S. C. EE. et RR., Aug. 16, 1865. And from reserved matters of this kind in the Order all those confessors can also absolve who have the rescript-form of the S. Penitentiary, but it is necessary that the permission of the Superior be present for making confession to such a confessor. But in this matter the Sacramental seal must be carefully attended to. And if there is danger to it, even when only a general petition has been made to the Superior for absolving from reserved matters, authors are not lacking who think that even in such a case the confessor can absolve the penitent. But, this case being foreseen, the confessor ought beforehand to obtain for himself a general faculty of absolving from reserved matters, which no prudent Superior will deny. Finally, religious can be absolved from reserved cases of this kind by Cardinals by force of privilege, v. 1, n. 260 bis 1, and, by force of the Decree of the S. C. de Relig., Aug. 5, 1913, by all Confessors approved by the Ordinaries of places. Cf. n. 790.

Can Bishops absolve from hidden papal cases and censures? - Resp. In the affirmative, from the faculty granted to them through Trent, sess. 24, C. 6; except however cases and censures reserved in a special manner to the Roman Pontiff, as is clear from the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis of Pius IX. Cf. n. 795. They can likewise absolve from several papal cases and censures by force of quinquennial faculties. Cf. the formulas of these faculties. The same also can be done by approved confessors having the rescript-form of the S. Penitentiary. Cf. this rescript-form. - L. 593, 594, 599.

Is one bound by reservation, in necessity of communicating or celebrating, bound to confess and to confess integrally to a simple confessor, when another is lacking? - Resp. In the affirmative, whether he has only reserved sins, or has besides these non-reserved sins, according to the opinion that a simple confessor in such necessity absolves directly from reserved matters. The reason is that no reason is present for omitting Confession and integral Confession.

According to the other opinion, that a simple confessor in such a case absolves only indirectly, a distinction must be made. For if he has no other mortal sin except a reserved one, the doctors agree that he is not bound to Confession, but that it suffices that he be contrite. The reason is that a confessor not having jurisdiction is just as if he were absent. But if he has mortal sins at the same time reserved and non-reserved, the common opinion holds that this man is altogether bound to Confession. The reason is that the precept of Confession presses; and the confessor, although he does not have jurisdiction in reserved matters, nevertheless has jurisdiction over the penitent bound by reserved matters, and can absolve him at least from non-reserved matters. Yet there are several doctors who deny. - But must someone in such a case also accuse reserved sins? The far more probable opinion denies. The reason is the defect of jurisdiction in the reserved matters. Nevertheless, the case must be excepted in which that knowledge of the reserved sins would be necessary for judging rightly about the present disposition of the penitent and for prescribing suitable remedies to him, so that relapse may be avoided. - According to the Decree of the Holy Office, June 23, 1886, cf. 800, that Confession, and integral Confession even of cases reserved to the Supreme Pontiff, is to be made. - L. 265. Cf. 577.

Is one who has confessed to an inferior a sin doubtfully reserved altogether freed from the reservation, even if afterward he recognizes it as certain? - Resp. In the affirmative. The reason is that, since he confessed a doubtfully reserved sin, he has already been directly absolved, and consequently the reservation remains directly taken away. - L. 600. Cf. 674.

Can one who sinned in confidence of obtaining permission be absolved from reserved matters? - Resp. In the affirmative, since the granted faculty does not exclude this case. - L. 601.

Does a granted faculty of absolving from reserved matters extend also to reserved matters committed after it? - Negatively, if it was granted merely for past cases. Affirmatively, if it was granted indefinitely, for such a penitent, this time, provided a great distance does not intervene between the granting of the faculty and the new reserved matters committed, say not beyond a month; for that faculty is given for the present Confession. - L. 601; Lugo, Resp. Mor., l. 1, d. 22, 23, 24, 25.

Is reservation removed in a Confession made to the superior, invalid, sacrilegious, or in which someone has in no way accused reserved matters? - Resp.

To the first and to the second: in the affirmative, more probably and according to the common opinion; for the sins, although accused to the superior in an invalid and sacrilegious Confession, have undergone the judgment of the superior. - To the third: in the affirmative, at least probably, and according to the opinion which St. Alphonsus calls most common, if someone has omitted reserved sins inculpably; for where the contrary will of the superior is not established, he assuredly absolves as much as he himself can and as the penitent needs. Negatively, if they are omitted from malice, or indeed omitted inculpably in a Confession otherwise sacrilegious. The reason is that in this case the superior does not really wish to absolve; since in truth he does not wish to absolve the sacrilegious person, nor does he wish at least to absolve him from the bond of reservation, since his reserved sin has not undergone his judgment. - L. 558, 597, 598.