Chapter I — On the form of sacramental absolution

I. QUESTION I. By what words is the sacramental form made up? ANSWER. That the deprecative form formerly obtained down to the middle of the thirteenth century, and even now obtains among the Greeks, very many theologians teach, and chiefly Morinus, Book 8, chapter 8. Certain men in the time of St. Thomas contended that the indicative form was null. Their error the Angelic overthrew, opusculum 12, chapter 2. The indicative form maintained by St. Thomas Trent approved, session 14, chapter 3.

II. Among all Catholics it is certain that these words, I absolve thee, pertain to the essence of the form. They dispute whether this pronoun I pertains to the essence. They wrangle also upon the pronoun thee. But these arbitrary little questions being dismissed, the form prescribed by the Councils both of Florence and of Trent is to be employed: I absolve thee from thy sins. In the name of the Father, and so forth. Commonly nevertheless theologians teach that these words from thy sins do not enter the essence of the form; and this the Tridentine Catechism seems clearly to teach, part 2, § 14. A confessor nevertheless would sin gravely unless he pronounced the whole form, as if he omitted the following words from thy sins. In the name, and so forth. Confessors would also sin if they said: I forgive thee thy sins; Thy sins are remitted to thee; I condone thee all thy sins. For although forms of this kind be valid, since they are equivalent, nevertheless to neglect the rite of the Church in a most grave matter is not free from deadly crime.

III. The sense of these words, I absolve thee, does not declare that the sins are remitted by God; but the priest himself pronouncing those same words, by the authority received from Christ, remits the sins, as Trent defined against the innovators, session 14, chapter 3. Not only ought confessors to bring forth the aforesaid words, but they are bound also to observe exactly the rite prescribed by the Church. Therefore these prayers ought to be sent before: May our Lord Jesus, and so forth; May he have mercy, and so forth; Indulgence, and so forth; and the others which follow the form, May the Passion of our Lord, and so forth. In more frequent and shorter confessions, by the Roman Ritual, they can be omitted. It will nevertheless be more advisable, necessity excepted, to perform the whole rite.

IV. QUESTION II. Is it lawful to add a condition to the form of absolution? ANSWER. It is agreed among all that a condition affixed concerning the present or the past — for example, If thou art capable, if thou art not yet absolved — does not overthrow the value of the sacrament. That Baptism, necessity urging, can be conferred under a condition has been said above. The case of a dying man, concerning whom it is doubted whether he be alive or dead, is that in which very many graver theologians defend the use of conditional absolution.

V. Very many, as it seems to me, teach too easily that this condition is to be added. Fr. Sporer, part 3, chapter 5, question 1, § 4, no. 612, teaches that absolution is to be imparted under a condition: 1. When the confessor doubts whether the penitent be rightly disposed. 2. When he doubts whether rude boys be endowed with the use of reason. 3. When the penitent brings forward only doubtful sins in mortal matter. 4. When the confessor doubts whether he have jurisdiction over this penitent, or over his sins.

VI. In these four cases conditional absolution, as it seems to me, is both idle and contrary to the reverence due to the sacrament. In the third case he doubts of the matter, namely of the sincere grief. But it is forbidden outside the article of necessity to use doubtful matter. When a confessor doubts whether penitents be rightly disposed, whether boys be endowed with the use of reason, why does he not defer absolution until they be disposed and show the use of reason? Why do they neglect these obvious means of instruction? Why? Because, they say, there is a great affluence of penitents. And if absolution were to be deferred, or penitents to be instructed, or time to be granted for disposition, and so forth, very many would have to be dismissed without confession: murmurings and censures against confessors would be heard. Would that the fear of displeasing men, or of diminishing the affluence of penitents, were not the cause why this use of conditional absolution is sometimes usurped. Relapsing penitents, doubtfully disposed, are absolved with a conditioned absolution. How many sacrileges hence? Penitents ignorant of this rite of conditional absolution reckon themselves in fact absolved. What thence? They resume courage for sinning, they put off the horror of sinning, since they see the easy use of absolution, and believe the Christian life to be set in a perpetual circle of sinning and confessing. In great hazard, as my least opinion bears, are those confessors who outside the article of necessity — namely of death, or of doubtful frenzy — employ conditional absolution. A condition concerning the future is altogether to be disapproved, and in fact is commonly rejected by theologians.

VII. QUESTION III. Is absolution to be imparted to one absent? ANSWER. Some formerly affirmed it; but Clement VIII proscribed their opinion. It was forthwith interpreted that the Clementine decree was to be understood copulatively, not divisively. But this interpretation also the Supreme Pontiff forbade. The decrees both of Clement VIII and of Paul V I have given entire in Vol. IX, Book 2, dissertation 2, chapter 3. I have also adduced there the document which stands in the most celebrated Angelica Library, by which it is clearly proved that an eminent Doctor maintained the opinion proscribed by Clement VIII. Now I add that this adduced document stands also in the Vatican Library, where the author of the Literary History will be able to read it, and to correct what he has written upon this matter.

VIII. QUESTION IV. What presence of the penitent is required that absolution can be granted? ANSWER. Moral, not physical presence. That presence suffices for absolution which is enough for common conversation among men. If a priest from a window should see men shipwrecked, or ending their life, and time be lacking in which he might descend and approach them, and the article of death urge, he can absolve them with a single absolution, provided the distance be not too great, but such as suffices for conversation with raised voice among men. If a confessor has forgotten to absolve a penitent, he ought to recall him, and to warn him of the forgotten absolution, and to absolve him.

IX. Absolution is to be given immediately after the completed confession of sins. When it shall be needful, let him send before admonitions and exhortations. When a penitent after absolution received recalls some mortal sin, or a mortal circumstance, or a greater number of mortal sins, both the contrition and the absolution ought to be repeated. If a priest distracted pronounced the absolution, he ought not to repeat it, because distraction does not hinder its validity. He sins nevertheless if he impart it voluntarily distracted. Before absolution from sins there is to be sent absolution from censures. In the article of death it can be said: I absolve thee from censures and from thy sins.