Case XXXVI: A Penitent’s Recourse to the Sacred Penitentiary

According to the decision of the holy Penitentiary of November 7, 1888 (ad. VII.), a confessor who, as missionary, for instance, has not the opportunity of again meeting a certain penitent who has fallen under one of the censures reserved to the Pope, may exact the penitent’s promise to write to Rome himself. Already prior to this the holy Penitentiary had decreed “a penitent is not required to have recourse through the confessor who absolved him from the censure, but may comply with this obligation through another confessor, or, for important and sufficient reason, may write himself to Rome under a fictitious name” (May 28, 1888).

The decisions are plain. Is therewith every practical difficulty removed? It appears to us that a difficulty of a particular kind still remains. The penitent, after having confessed to a strange confessor, must present himself subsequently again to his regular confessor, or at least to a priest who knows him. Possibly this penitent had been culpably silent about that sin in previous Confessions, until at last an opportunity presented itself to confess it to a strange priest. How happy he is to receive at last absolution! But within a month’s time he has to write to Rome, and to whom may he intrust the answer, since the priest to whom he opened his heart, through whom he obtained forgiveness of his sins, will depart from the place the very next day? The answer of the Sacred Penitentiary will, as customary, bear the subscription: Dilecto in Christo confessario ab oratore electo vel eligendo, etc. There is yet another hitch. If the penitent writes under an assumed name, how will the answer reach him? The penitent in his letter must speak of himself as a third person: “Titius, fallen under the censure of —— has been absolved on condition of writing to Rome within a month.” Another permissible way to apply to Rome under assumed name is, as the Sacred Penitentiary has explained, to let the strange priest make the application, the penitent to make known to him his address. But is it not embarrassing for the penitent to give his address to the confessor and does not the difficulty remain, the solution of which is here attempted, inasmuch as the answer is almost always to be communicated in the actus sacramentalis confessionis?

There is only one means of removing this difficulty, and that is to have the Sacred Penitentiary give the answer in forma gratiosa, and not, as usually, in forma commissaria, i. e., to have it prescribe what is necessary, instead of granting to a confessor the power to prescribe this. Instead of writing: Sacra Poenitentiaria—facultatem concedit dispensandi—absolvendi—prorogandi—it writes: dispensat, absolvit, prorogat. That this is feasible there can be no doubt. Absolution from censures may be given to one absent and in writing, and the enumeration of obligations to be fulfilled (to render satisfaction to the injured party, to burn the books of the sect, to inform the complex of the invalidity of absolutions given, etc.) makes in writing a much deeper impression. There are known to us several cases in which the Sacred Penitentiary has answered in forma gratiosa. Thus once by extending for a certain priest the right to retain the office of confessor. Though the confessor had applied, he submitted certain circumstances which made an answer in forma gratiosa desirable. The answer came to this confessor who, by arrangement with the penitent, forwarded it to him through a third person without knowing his name. In another case a penitent himself obtained a rescript of this kind.

It is better, in general, to let the confessor write to the Sacred Penitentiary. The latter prefers to address its instructions to him. If, however, the confessor either cannot, or will not, write, or if there are other important reasons, the penitent may himself apply to Rome. Just in which cases he may receive an answer in forma gratiosa is a matter for the decision of the Sacred Penitentiary. At any event, he will not receive the answer in this form unless he specially petitions for it and states his reasons.

Augustine Arndt, S.J.