Case LXXVII: Concerning Absolution from Censures

Applied correction from Woywod’s opening insert: Case LXXVII.—The number of papal censures now in force must be learned from the New Code, since the Bull "Apostolicae Sedis" and all other papal documents dealing with censures are revoked. Generally speaking the censures of the Bull "Apostolicae Sedis" have been retained. Concerning the absolution from these cases the Code makes hardly any change from the recent laws on that point. The bishop is given faculty to absolve in occult cases from censures simpliciter reserved to the Holy See but he needs special faculties to absolve from those specialissimo and speciali modo reserved. Canon 2237.

The faculty is likewise renewed for all priests to absolve from any papal reserved case in more urgent cases, namely when it is hard for the penitent to wait for absolution until the faculty can be obtained. The obligation, however, remains after the absolution to have recourse to the authorities or to one delegated and this recourse must be made within a month, otherwise the penitent falls again into the censure. If in some extraordinary case the priest should judge that recourse to the authorities is morally speaking impossible, with the exception of the case of solicitation, the confessor may give absolution and impose a special penance which must be done in the time prescribed by him under pain of falling again into the same censure. Canon 2254.

In danger of death the priest can absolve from all censures but in those specialissimo modo reserved to the Holy See, and in the censures inflicted by a personal precept of either Pope or bishop the sick person is bound to have recourse to the respective authorities after recovery from the sickness. This recourse is demanded under pain of falling again into the censure. Canon 2232.

That in regard to the absolutio a censuris many doubts exist is proven by the many inquiries, especially in recent times, that are addressed in this matter to the Congregatio S. Officii: We will therefore quote here a very important decision. It is well known that almost all censures latae sententiae, now in effect, are contained in the Constitutio Apostolicae Sedis issued by Pius IX. October 12, 1869. By reason of this bull there are distinguished for absolution four classes of censures: (1) Those speciali modo reserved to the Pope; (2) those simpliciter reserved to the Pope; (3) those reserved to bishops; (4) those not reserved to anyone, and from which any approved priest may absolve. The Council of Trent, Sessio XXIV. cap. 6. de Ref., granted to bishops the power: in any secret cases, even those reserved to the Apostolic See, to absolve any offenders subject to them within their own diocese, either by themselves or through a vicar specially appointed for this purpose, in the forum of conscience, without charge, after a salutary penance has been imposed. Bishops therefore had the power to absolve from all, even from papal censures, if they were secret; therefore came into consideration merely pro foro interno. This power has, however, been restricted by the bull Apostolicae Sedis. The bull orders: Nevertheless, We will that the faculty of absolving granted to bishops by the Council of Trent, Session XXIV, chapter 6, On Reform, shall remain in force for all censures reserved to the Apostolic See by this Our constitution, excepting only those which We have declared reserved in a special manner to that same Apostolic See. Since then can bishops consequently de jure only absolve from censures simpliciter reserved to the Pope, if they are secret, but not from those reserved speciali modo. There can be no doubt in this matter. What, however, about these latter censures, Superveniente impedimento adeundi Papam? Until the issue of the bull Apost. Sedis the universally accepted principle was: Casus papalis superveniente impedimento adeundi Papam fit episcopalis, and if a person under censure was prevented from presenting himself personally to the Pope, not only by danger of death, but also on account of sickness, decrepitude or poverty, any priest could absolve him. The bull Apost. Sed. put this principle in doubt. For this reason the following dubia were laid before the Congregatio S. Officii: (1) Whether one might safely hold the opinion that the absolution from reserved cases, including those reserved to the Pope speciali modo, would devolve on a bishop or approved priest, if the penitent found it impossible personaliter adeundi S. Sedem? (2) The first question answered in the negative, if it would be necessary to have recourse to the Grand Penitentiary in Rome, at least in writing, to receive the facultas absolvendi, except for absolution in danger of death?

In reply to this came July 30, 1886, the following decision, confirmed by the Holy Father Leo XIII:

To I. In view of the practice of the Sacred Penitentiary, especially since the publication of the Apostolic Constitution of Pius IX of holy memory which begins Apostolicae Sedis: No.

To II. Yes; but in truly more urgent cases in which absolution cannot be deferred without danger of grave scandal or infamy, concerning which the consciences of confessors are burdened, absolution may be given, with those things enjoined which must by law be enjoined, even from censures reserved in a special manner to the Supreme Pontiff, yet under penalty of falling again into the same censures unless, at least within a month, the absolved person has recourse by letter and through the confessor to the Holy See.

From this decision it follows that the above-mentioned view, Casus papalis superveniente impedimento adeundi Papam fit episcopalis, is no longer tenable. At least for speciali modo reserved censures application must be made to the Holy See, pro foro externo as well as pro foro interno.

As concerns simpliciter reserved censures it follows from what has been said, and from this decision, that distinction must be made between public and secret cases. In secret cases bishops can de jure absolve, as before. In public cases, however, if, therefore, absolution is necessary in foro externo, recourse must be had to the Holy See. In casibus vere urgentioribus, i. e., cases in which absolution on account of the danger of death, or for other pressing reasons, cannot be deferred, a confessor may absolve directly from all censures, but must impose upon his penitent the obligation, within thirty days in the instance of those dangerously ill, in case of recovery, of course, to present himself at Rome, or to apply there in writing through the confessor. If the penitent fails to comply with this condition, then, after the expiration of a month, the same censure is again incurred.

Further doubts having arisen amongst theologians of recent times, the following Dubia were laid before the same Congregation: I. Whether the response to I is valid also for the case when the penitent is perpetually prevented from traveling personally to Rome? The answer confirmed by the Holy Father on June 18, 1891, reads: Yes. II. Whether in the response to II the clause ‘yet under penalty of falling again,’ etc., refers only to absolution from censures and cases reserved in a special manner to the Supreme Pontiff, or also to absolution from censures and cases simply reserved to the Pope? To this the answer was: No to the first part; yes to the second part. Some interpreters made exceptions to the obligation to apply subsequently to the Pope, and for this reason the following additional Dubium was presented to the Sacred Congregation: Whether modern authors since the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis—contrary to the common law, chapter Eos, qui, 22, On Sentences of Excommunication, in the Sixth Book, book V, title II, and contrary to the Roman Ritual, On Penance—rightly teach that upon one who at the point of death has been absolved by any confessor from any censures reserved in whatever manner, the obligation to present himself to the Superior upon recovering health must be imposed only if the matter concerns absolution from censures reserved in a special manner to the Pope; or whether recourse of this kind to the Superior is also necessary in absolution from censures simply reserved to the Supreme Pontiff. The answer was: Yes to the first part, no to the second part. According to this decision it is true, therefore, that an exception is made from above rule if one in danger of death has been absolved from a censure simpliciter reserved to the Pope. In case of recovery he need not present himself to the authority. Prof. Joseph Weiss.