appendix — Gury-Ballerini, Compendium of Moral Theology (8th ed., 1884)
Appendix I. On Absolution of One's Own Accomplice in a Shameful Sin
- I. No confessor can absolve his own accomplice in a shameful sin; but one who presumes to absolve incurs ipso facto an excommunication reserved to the Pope. This is established from the Constitution Sacramentum Poenitentiae of Benedict XIV, June 1, 1741, and likewise from another Constitution of the same Pontiff, Apostolici muneris, February 8, 1745.
II. A Confessor lacks all jurisdiction for absolving an accomplice with regard to the sin in which he was a participant. This is inferred from the express words of the Bull, in which it is said: Any authority and jurisdiction for absolving any person whatsoever from a fault of this kind being moreover taken away from him by the law itself.
- Questions. - QUESTION 1. What is comprehended under the name of a shameful sin?
Reply. Every grave sin against the sixth precept of the Decalogue is comprehended, even if it is not consummated by intercourse; indeed, even if it is only a shameful touch. Some also add indecent conversation; but others contradict this, and this opinion, says Amort (On Penance, disp. 10), is more conformable to the words of Benedict XIV, On the Synod, book 7, chapter 14, no. 4, where he describes this crime.
It is required, however, that on each side there be a mortal sin not only internal but also in the character of an external act, and with formal complicity, that is, with mutual consent externally manifested. - St. Ligorius, no. 554, and others.
QUESTION 2. Under the name of accomplice are not only women but also men comprehended?
Reply. Yes. The reason is that the words of the Bull are altogether general; for in it is said: Whoever dares to hear the sacramental confession of a person who is an accomplice in a shameful sin against the sixth precept. Therefore the disposition of the Constitution is not to be restricted to the female sex. - Thus commonly. - Gousset, no. 488.
- QUESTION 3. Can a Priest absolve an accomplice at the moment or in danger of death?
Reply. Yes, validly and lawfully, if another Priest who can discharge the office of Confessor cannot be summoned; but if another Priest is present, even one not approved, who can hear the confession, he will indeed absolve validly but unlawfully, and he will not escape the penalties.
QUESTION 4. Can a Priest absolve an accomplice at death if another cannot be summoned or approach without infamy or scandal?
Reply. Yes, validly and lawfully. Yet the Priest who is the accomplice is bound, if he can, to forestall such dangers of infamy or scandal, for example, by departing under some pretext, etc. Otherwise he will not escape the penalties, although the absolution is valid. This is established from the Constitution of Benedict XIV. - St. Ligorius, no. 553.
QUESTION 5. Can a Priest absolve an accomplice at death if the latter refuses to confess to another?
Reply. It seems that the answer must be affirmative if the penitent is otherwise disposed, lest he perish, or at least lest his eternal salvation be endangered 1.
1 There can be no controversy concerning the validity of the absolution if the penitent is rightly disposed; for Benedict XIV himself affirms that it is valid in the Constitution Apostolici muneris. Therefore the doubt can be only whether lawfully the Priest absolves lawfully. Now Benedict XIV, in the cited Constitution, condemns only one who, with no necessary cause compelling him, presumed to hear the sacramental confession of his accomplice and to bestow absolution from that crime upon him. But when a sick person near death refuses to confess to anyone else, not only does the eternal salvation of the sick person impose upon this Priest the necessity of hearing the confession, but a cause of scandal will also easily be present if he refuses to hear the confession of that sick person.
- QUESTION 6. Can a Priest absolve an accomplice from other sins extraneous to himself after the accomplice has once been rightly absolved by another?
Reply. Yes. The reason is that he lacks jurisdiction over this penitent only with regard to the sin in which he himself was a participant; therefore, once that sin has been blotted out through absolution imparted by another, the prohibition now ceases and jurisdiction is not lacking 2. - St. Ligorius, no. 555, and others commonly.
2 They relate that Benedict XIV, once asked by the Bishop of Brugnato whether a priest could absolve an accomplice after the latter had already been absolved by another confessor, replied that the accomplice could not be absolved by the priest who was his accomplice even if he had been absolved a hundred times by others. Nevertheless, this response in no way conflicts with the doctrine of the Author. For the Pontiff took away from the priest the jurisdiction by which he might absolve his accomplice from the crime in which he himself was an accomplice. And since this priest no longer has any jurisdiction over that crime, while that crime can be matter of absolution even after it has been remitted in another confession, it must certainly be said that the priest who was the accomplice cannot absolve the accomplice from that crime even if he has already been absolved by another; for with regard to that crime he perpetually lacks jurisdiction. But the Author is not speaking of absolving the accomplice from that crime, but of absolving him from other sins after that crime has been rightly expiated by confession made to another priest.
What, then, you will ask, is the Confessor to do if the penitent accuses himself of that sin, although remitted? I reply: If he accuses himself of this alone, the matter returns to the same as if someone confessed only a reserved sin to one not having the faculty over reserved sins; concerning which it was said above (section 575, Reply 2, no. 2) that he cannot be absolved, because thus no suitable matter of the sacrament is present. But if he also confesses other sins, it will be the same as if someone brought forward reserved and non-reserved sins together, namely, when matter partly suitable and partly unsuitable is proposed; but then the penitent can certainly be absolved, as was said in the cited section 575; yet the absolution, both from the nature of the matter and from the mind of the one absolving, falls only upon the suitable matter. Moreover, the present case differs from that preceding case in this: that for absolving one who with other sins also brings forward reserved sins, a cause excusing from the integrity of confession is required, as is noted in the same place; but in the present case no cause of this kind is required, because there is no need for that already remitted sin to be submitted again to the keys, and therefore its accusation occurs as something merely extraneous to the confession.
But if any shame remains in a Priest who through pitiable frailty committed a shameful sin with another, if any honor due to the Sacrament remains, he will never afterward hear the confession of his accomplice. Moreover, danger of a new lapse, or at least of grave temptation, can easily be present in the direction of such a penitent. - Gousset, ibid. - Therefore the faithful are to be warned, insofar as this can be done, never afterward to approach as Confessor the accomplice in their sin, except in a case of necessity.
In certain dioceses it had been provided by particular law that a Priest could never hear the confession of an accomplice, at least when intercourse had been consummated. Yet the Sacred Congregation of the Council more than once disapproved this; and when the Decrees of the Synod of Cosenza were proposed, although the defenders of this Decree brought forward many things in its defense and denied that danger of scandal was present, which others warned would easily arise from such a decree especially in small places, the Sacred Congregation of the Council replied on December 2, 1679: Let such a Decree be deleted 3. - Analecta Juris Pontificii, p. 752.
3 Thus the Sacred Congregation most wisely took care that zeal for restraining the faithful from evil, which sometimes spares no devices or efforts, should not exceed the limits of prudence; from which perhaps it may happen that the power given by Christ (2 Cor. 13:10) tends rather to destruction than to edification, while the difficulty of the remedy drives into the abyss of despair one whom it did not restrain from evil.
And here indeed a much more difficult question presents itself to us. For what is to be done if in some place a woman who has miserably fallen into a sin of this kind with a priest has no other priest there to whom she might sacramentally confess that sin, and the circumstances of the persons, place, etc., are such that she cannot turn elsewhere to seek a confessor, nor is there any hope, as can happen, for example, in mission territories, that another priest will ever come there? Shall we say that the mind of Pope Benedict XIV, when he promulgated those Constitutions, was that a most wretched woman in these circumstances ought to lack the sacraments of the Church throughout the course of her whole life, until in the final moments of life she can at last be absolved by the priest who was her accomplice in the sin, as the Constitution of Benedict XIV provides? Indeed, since death sometimes comes unexpectedly and with no illness as though announcing its arrival beforehand, shall we say that the same woman is constrained also by this dreadful necessity: that after that sin she must undergo the danger, prolonged perhaps for very many years, of departing from this life without sacramental absolution? But then what is she to do when the precept of annual confession and Communion urges? Will you say that she can, and indeed ought, perpetually to approach the sacred table after merely premising contrition? What if scandal of the people and infamy of the woman follow if it becomes public that she does not approach the sacrament of Penance for several years? Someone may perhaps suggest that in this necessity one can act with a penitent of this kind no otherwise than with one having a reserved sin, and thus, passing over the fault over which the priest has no jurisdiction, the remaining sins can be submitted to absolution; and in this way that fault also can be remitted indirectly. But where and when will that fault finally be submitted to the keys of the Church? It must therefore be admitted that most grave difficulties occur, whichever way one may finally turn; nor, it seems, will anyone easily proceed to define anything in so grave a matter by relying upon his own judgment alone.
Yet there are two things which seem sufficiently clear. One is that Benedict XIV, when he took away from a Confessor who was an accomplice in the crime jurisdiction for absolving his accomplice from the same crime, indeed wished to remove the occasion of a most grave scandal, but by no means to close to the penitent the way of reconciliation instituted by Christ the Lord and imposed upon all the faithful; indeed, for this reason he rendered the Confessor who was an accomplice in the crime incapable of the ministry of this reconciliation, so that it might be obtained more fittingly and certainly through the ministry of another priest. He therefore supposed that which generally occurs, and occurred much more in that age, namely, that other priests were not lacking from whom the penitent might obtain, according to the law established by Christ, remission of his sin through confession and sacramental absolution which he sought. Therefore he perhaps will not have strayed very far from the truth who thinks that in the present hypothesis, as altogether extraordinary, a determination is sought in vain in those Constitutions.
The other is that the mind and practice of the Church have never been such that, whenever she restricts or removes jurisdiction for remitting certain sins and reserves their absolution to certain persons, she wished thereby to commit it that, with the law of Christ concerning seeking and obtaining pardon of sins through the sacrament of Penance set aside, the faithful should obtain the grace of justification only through contrition or even only through indirect remission of crimes. For however these means may seem, and in fact may be, sufficient for the grace of reconciliation with God and therefore for obtaining eternal salvation, nevertheless the Church, insofar as it lies in her, does not permit the economy established by Christ to be neglected. Hence that declaration of the Council of Trent (sess. 14, chapter 7): It has always been observed in the Church of God that there is no reservation at the moment of death; and therefore all priests can absolve any penitents from any sins and censures whatsoever. Nor indeed must it be judged that this was provided by the Church only for the moment or danger of death. For according to the sense of the same Church, which most manifestly reveals itself to us in the sacred Canons and the unanimous opinion of the Catholic schools, whenever it happens that someone, on account of a legitimate impediment, cannot have recourse for the benefit of absolution to him by whom otherwise he was by law to be absolved, he can be absolved by another (chapter Eos qui, 22, De Sent. Excomm., in VI). We find the same established in chapter Ea noscitur, 13, De Sent. Excomm., and chapter Quamvis, 58, same title. Moreover, according to the doctrine of the Catholic schools (see above, no. 575), this obtains when the impediment to approaching one who possesses the faculty of absolving persists for a long time, which is computed from six months. Indeed, what of the fact that the Church does not forbid Catholics dwelling in a region of schismatics, if perhaps they feel themselves burdened with sins and do not judge that sufficient provision is made for the peace of conscience through contrition, to seek sacramental absolution from a schismatic priest when a Catholic priest is lacking? Therefore it is most alien to the mind and custom of the Church so to restrict or bind the jurisdiction necessary for administering the sacrament of Penance that it remains restricted or bound even when, for a long time and much more throughout the whole course of life, no access is open to the sinner to those who do not have it bound or restricted.
Nevertheless, it must not be denied that a distinction of no slight moment intervenes between the present question and the general question concerning reserved sins. For although the condition of each case may seem equal when only the lack of another confessor is considered in the necessity of confessing, nevertheless the character of the inconvenience which in the present case can be feared from confession to such a priest is different. To this difficulty perhaps this one thing can be replied: that fear of an inconvenience which can be called voluntary, because it lies in our will freely to admit or remove it, neither can nor ought to bring it about that those things which seem necessary are omitted. Hence Benedict XIV himself did not fear an inconvenience of this kind so far as to think that a Confessor who was an accomplice should be prevented from hearing the confession of his accomplice even when necessity urged. For it belongs to the Church as a pious mother not to fail her children in necessities and therefore not to withdraw the necessary aid of the Sacrament in these circumstances, lest, if anyone perish, his destruction be attributed rather to the negligence or severity of the mother than to the obstinacy of the children.
But it also happens from other causes that sacramental confession inspires in either the priest, because of certain conditions of a penitent, or the penitent, because of conditions of the priest, a fear of some inconvenience which is not empty. Yet who would therefore say that either the priest is to be deterred from furnishing the ministry or the penitent from making confession where reception of the sacrament appears necessary? Namely, when necessity demands the use of the sacrament, the necessary aid must by no means be denied on the one side, nor neglected on the other. If anyone abuses this aid, the fault of the ruin will fall entirely upon the malice of him who was unwilling to use a good well.
- QUESTION 7. Can a Bishop absolve from the excommunication imposed upon a Confessor who absolved his own accomplice, if the case is occult, by the concession of Trent, chapter 6, Liceat, sess. 24?
Reply. St. Ligorius, no. 556, replies thus. On the one hand it seems that the answer must be no; for if the Bishop or another delegated by him could absolve this case when it is occult, the reservation of the Pontiff would become useless and illusory, for this case can occur only occultly....
Nevertheless, it seems that it can probably be said that, even while preserving the faculty imparted to Bishops by the Council for absolving this case when it is occult, the reservation of the Pontiff would not become altogether useless and illusory: both because, although the case is ordinarily occult, nevertheless it can sometimes happen that it is public; and because the law of reservation would have place at least in Rome and in other places where Trent has not been received and where Bishops cannot use the aforesaid faculty....
Thus indeed St. Alphonsus according to the laws then in force. But now, since the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis of Our Most Holy Lord Pope Pius IX, in confirming the faculty attributed to Bishops by the Council of Trent, excepted censures reserved in a special manner to the Apostolic See, and since among these, no. 10, is enumerated the excommunication upon those absolving an accomplice in a shameful sin according to the Constitutions of Benedict XIV, it is evident that this controversy no longer has place.
- QUESTION 8. Does a Priest incur excommunication who indeed hears the confession of an accomplice but does not absolve him?
Reply. It seems that the answer must be no with St. Ligorius, no. 556 4. - Ituriaga, vol. V, case 50. - The reason is that this is sufficiently clear from the Constitution Inter praeteritos of Benedict XIV, where it is thus said: No less was the penalty of excommunication imposed by us in the cited Constitutions upon a Priest who is an accomplice, who either outside the moment of death hears the confession of the penitent and absolves him, or who absolves him at the moment of death when another Priest is not lacking.... Therefore, according to the mind of the Pontiff, confession does not suffice, but absolution is also required.
4 ** Thus the holy Doctor says on this matter (book 6, no. 556): The question is raised whether a priest who does not absolve an accomplice but only hears him in confession incurs this excommunication. Concerning this doubt I consulted the Sacred Penitentiary, which on July 9, 1751, replied absolutely: The aforesaid confessor is not held by excommunication through a fictitious absolution. And I had long adhered to this opinion; but afterward, when I had read through the Constitution Inter praeteritos of the same Pontiff Benedict XIV, cited several times, I found the opposite sufficiently declared in section 59.