Chapter III — On absolution from censures

I. QUESTION I. Whether one entangled in a censure is bound under mortal sin to seek and solicit absolution as soon as he can? ANSWER. The affirmative opinion is common. The Salmanticenses, tract 10, chapter 1, point 1, no. 1, say: Any delay is mortal of its own kind, unless it be excused by smallness of matter or from other heads. With both thumbs I subscribe to this doctrine; whence it is inferred how false is the opinion concerning the delay of a sinner's conversion to God. Any delay in procuring absolution from an ecclesiastical censure, which deprives one of the use of certain spiritual goods, is of its own kind a mortal sin; and shall the delay of seeking absolution from a mortal sin, which deprives one of eternal life, be immune from mortal fault? I fear lest in respect of some that axiom be true: These men amplify ecclesiastical right, and cut short the Decalogue. Segregation from God, from the fellowship of the Angels, destination to dwell with devils — because it is remote from the senses — does not urge, does not prick, as does segregation from external and visible communication with the faithful.

II. QUESTION II. Of how many kinds is absolution from a censure? ANSWER. One is absolute, by which the guilty party is absolutely loosed from the bond. Another conditioned, which depends upon a condition either past or present, as if thou hast satisfied the party, if thou shalt satisfy. Another absolution is called for caution, as when someone doubts that he is affected by a censure; which absolution can be imparted by any confessor whatsoever, a promise being made of furnishing satisfaction to the party, or of approaching the superior when the truth is discovered. Others are called with relapse, or with the penalty of falling back into the same censure, unless he who is absolved shall have performed what is imposed. Another is from one determinate effect, the rest being left, as when the Pontiff absolves someone and renders him fit for obtaining a benefice or another privilege. Without one of these absolutions a censure does not cease, neither by the death of the Superior passing it, nor by change of territory, nor by the death of the excommunicate: for the contrary opinion has been condemned by Alexander VII, no. 4: As regards the forum of conscience, the guilty party being corrected and his contumacy ceasing, the censure ceases.

III. In absolution from a censure the formulas prescribed in the Rituals are to be observed. The solemnity to be observed in absolutions of this kind is had in chapter Per tuas on sentences of excommunication. The conditions nevertheless there prescribed are not today observed. Theologians dispute whether absolution be valid, the injured party not being satisfied with a real or pledged satisfaction. Many affirm it; but they say that the one absolving sins mortally and is obnoxious to restitution. When in a bull of Jubilee, or in another privilege, a faculty is granted of absolving from censures with this clause, the party being satisfied, otherwise let the absolution not hold, the absolution is not valid, the condition not being fulfilled, unless the one to be absolved be impotent to satisfy.

IV. It is agreed among all that one entangled in censures can validly be absolved even unwilling and resisting, and not only unknowing or not asking. Authors nevertheless distinguish a twofold resistance: one of not receding from the sin and the contumacy for which the censure was passed; the other of not asking absolution, although the guilty party be amended from the sin. In the former case, if the sin have a successive course, as heresy, theft, and so forth, they say he cannot be absolved unwilling, save by him who has power above the law and the precept. But if the sin be complete, as fornication, blasphemy, and other past sins, then they teach that he can be absolved even unwilling. Similarly they defend that he who is amended from the sin and is unwilling to ask absolution can be absolved. They advert nevertheless that then absolution is to be imparted only when it is foreseen to be more medicinal than the censure.

V. A man can be absolved from one censure and not from another. But he who has the faculty of absolving from all censures can perform it by a single absolution. But if he lack such power, then he must be absolved by another who is endowed with this power. He who, being entangled in several censures, manifests one guilefully, the others being concealed, it is not to be thought that the confessor wills to absolve from all, unless he express it. If nevertheless the guilty party omit some from forgetfulness, and the judge absolve generally, then, unless something else be established, he is to be reckoned to will to absolve from all. Hence in the time of a Jubilee a man is generally absolved from all censures, although he have forgotten some; and from the forgotten sin to which a censure is annexed he can be absolved by any priest whatsoever; unless nevertheless some of the censures have conjoined a work of satisfying and compensating the injured party. For if the one to be absolved should conceal that he had not satisfied the injured party, that he had not receded from heresy, the absolution would be null.

VI. QUESTION III. Who can absolve from censures? ANSWER. All those who can pass censures can also absolve their own subjects from them: this a bishop can perform even in another's territory. He who has power of absolving from reserved cases has at the same time the faculty of absolving from censures, since absolution from censures ought to precede absolution from reserved cases to which censures are annexed. A faculty granted in a Jubilee, or in another privilege, of absolving from censures reserved to the Supreme Pontiff extends also to absolving an excommunicate denounced by name, whether by law or by man, if nevertheless he shall first have satisfied.

VII. Parish priests and ordinary confessors who can absolve from mortal sins can absolve from censures passed by law and not reserved, as authors commonly teach, and gather from chapter Nuper 29 on sentences of excommunication, and St. Thomas confirms it in the Suppl., q. 34, art. 1. On the contrary from censures reserved in law he only can absolve who passed them, or a superior, or a successor, or one delegated by the same. Wherefore from censures reserved to the Pontiff the Pontiff alone, from those reserved to the bishop the bishop alone, can absolve. In the article of death, as has been said elsewhere, any priest whatsoever can absolve from all censures; and, as Trent declared, session 24, chapter 7, the same faculty of absolving is granted to any confessor whatsoever, when access to the superior to whom the censures are reserved is impossible or exceedingly difficult, as is had in chapter Nuper a nobis 29 on sentences of excommunication, in these words: But if it be difficult from some just cause that he who is to be absolved from excommunication approach him, we concede by indulgence that (the caution being furnished according to the form of the Church, that he will obey the mandate of excommunication) he be absolved by his own bishop or proper priest. In these cases nevertheless — namely in the article of death, or by reason of an impediment — the confessor ought to exact from him whom he absolves an oath that, when he can, he will present himself to the superior. But if he shall have omitted, opportunity being given, to execute what he promised, he will fall back into the same censure. And although the confessor either from ignorance or from forgetfulness omit to impose this burden of appearing before the superior when the penitent can, nevertheless the penitent is bound to appear, because this burden depends not upon the confessor but upon the law. When nevertheless he is absolved from reserved cases to which censures are not annexed, there is no debt of appearing.

VIII. QUESTION IV. Who can absolve from censures passed by man? ANSWER. He can absolve who passed the censure by a particular sentence against a determinate person, or a superior, or delegates. The same very many hold, if the censure was passed by man by way of a general sentence, precept, or statute for the avoiding of future delicts. But others more probably teach that from these censures not reserved, though passed by man, any confessor whatsoever can absolve, just as from censures passed by law.

IX. QUESTION V. What are the censures and cases reserved to the Supreme Pontiff from which bishops can absolve by ordinary right? ANSWER. Bishops can by ordinary right absolve from censures reserved to the Supreme Pontiff contracted from an occult delict, as Trent, session 24, chapter 6 On Reformation, established. Likewise from censures contracted for public delicts, when a grave necessity urges which renders access to the Supreme Pontiff difficult.

X. They dispute whether this faculty granted to bishops by Trent was revoked by the Bull of the Supper as regards the cases contained in it. Very many denied it, others affirmed it; but Alexander VII seems to have taken away the suit by condemning the following thesis, no. 3: The opinion asserting that the Bull of the Supper forbids absolution from heresy and other crimes only when they are public, and that this does not derogate from the Tridentine faculty, in which the discourse is of occult crimes, was in the year 1629 on the 18th day of July in the consistory of the sacred Congregation of the Most Eminent Cardinals seen and not tolerated.

XI. There are nevertheless not wanting those who deny that by the recounted thesis the faculty granted to bishops by Trent was taken away, chiefly since in the proscribed thesis no mention is made of bishops, to whom this faculty belongs by law, and Trent only declared that it was not taken from them. But this decision does not depend upon the reasonings of theologians. Wherefore I now leave the controversy to be settled by those whom it concerns.

XII. By the name of an occult delict that is commonly understood which either has not been brought to the contentious forum, or is not known to the greater part of the parish, province, monastery, and so forth. Wherefore although it can be proved by witnesses, if it be not public in the said manner, it is commonly called occult. But they assert that it has then been brought to the contentious forum when it has been reported by one witness and proved. If nevertheless the accused have purged himself in the forum even by false witnesses, and been absolved, they contend that this guilty party can be absolved by a bishop having the faculty over occult delicts. So teach the Salmanticenses, tract 10, chapter 2, point 6, nos. 59 and 60, where they cite several authors. The Salmanticenses add in the same place that a guilty party punished in the contentious forum can be absolved by a bishop, because the judgment is finished: which opinion to me is false, since the delict is then known and notorious with a notoriety of right and of fact.

XIII. QUESTION VI. What faculty have Regulars of absolving from cases and censures reserved to the Supreme Pontiff? ANSWER. Fr. Viva teaches that authors defend that Regulars can absolve from all cases reserved to the Apostolic See, the cases of the Bull of the Supper being excepted, and the six of Clement VIII in Italy outside the City. This is certain, that the power of absolving from pontifical cases does not infer a power of absolving from cases reserved to the bishop, since Alexander VII condemned this thesis, no. 12: Mendicants can absolve from cases reserved to the bishop without obtaining for this the faculty of bishops. He distinguishes nevertheless upon this proposition, no. 7, a threefold kind of cases reserved to a bishop. For some are reserved to the bishop by law or by custom, as the light striking of a cleric, and so forth: from these he says mendicants can absolve. Other cases are reserved to the bishop in a Synod: from these also Regulars can absolve, while they are not noted in the table, teach authors, subjoins the same Fr. Viva. Lastly there are cases reserved and set forth in the table: and of these the condemned thesis speaks. When a faculty is granted of absolving from all censures, it is understood, says Fr. Viva, even from reserved ones, because any priest whatsoever has the faculty of absolving from those not reserved.

XIV. Lastly, by the concession of absolving from all cases reserved to the Apostolic See there are not understood the cases comprehended in the Bull of the Supper. Neither by the concession of absolving from the cases of the Bull of the Supper is there understood a faculty granted of absolving from heresy. That the opposite nevertheless is probable Fr. Viva concludes.

XV. The things which I have hitherto recounted out of Fr. Viva are in fact found among authors. The Salmanticenses, tract 10, chapter 2, point 6, no. 90, teach that regular Prelates can absolve their own subjects from all censures reserved to the Apostolic See, those excepted which are contained in the Bull of the Supper. They add that regular Prelates have by common law the same power over their own subjects which bishops have over their own diocesans. They allege several privileges granted to Mendicants, and chiefly the constitution of St. Pius V.

XVI. I myself bring forth no judgment upon the faculty of Regulars of absolving either their own subjects or others. All greatly desire a distinct and perspicuous decision of the cases and reserved censures from which Regulars can absolve. But in vain do they expect this from theologians. For what can theologians decide upon privileges which are cited and are not found; or, if they be found, either have been revoked, or it is disputed whether they have been revoked? The decision of those things which regard the jurisdiction of absolving depends not upon the reasonings of theologians, but upon the will of the Supreme Pontiff. The Moderators of the sacred regular Orders ought to solicit and to urge that they themselves obtain from the Holy Apostolic See a perspicuous declaration of the faculty granted to Regulars. It is the part of those Moderators to settle this most grave controversy in the said manner, that subjects may know what jurisdiction they have in the recounted matter.