Appendix II. On Solicitation in Confession

It is indeed to be lamented, and this can never be lamented enough, that at times ravening wolves are found in the fold of Christ; that those appointed as watchmen of the house of Israel themselves cruelly devastate it; that those placed over the salvation of souls cruelly thrust those same souls into destruction. For who, seeing so great an abomination standing in the holy place, will not be seized with horror? Who will restrain himself from grief and not strive according to his strength to remove it from the midst? That they might bring efficacious remedies to so great an evil, the Supreme Pontiffs at various times enacted severe laws against such perverse ministers of God. Hence:

590. Matters to Be Established. - I. By the common law of the Church, Priests ¹ soliciting to sin against the sixth precept of the Decalogue in confession ², or on the occasion, pretext, or simulation of confession ³, immediately before or after confession, or in a place where confessions are heard, or chosen for confession, are to be denounced to ecclesiastical Superiors. This is established from the Bull Universi gregis of Gregory XV, issued in the year 1622, which was confirmed by the Constitution Sacramentum Poenitentiae of Benedict XIV.

¹ A priest who lacks jurisdiction for validly absolving is also comprehended. Thus Benedict XIV expressly in the Constitution Sacramentum Poenitentiae, section 2; and a Decree of the Holy Inquisition, February 4, 1661, no. V, had preceded. For when the question was raised, Whether a Priest lacking jurisdiction, if he solicits a penitent in confession, is to be denounced, the reply was that he is to be denounced and that the negative opinion is not probable.

** Yet an interpreter is not comprehended. St. Alphonsus (book 6, no. 690), after saying that the most common opinion against a few is that there is no obligation of denouncing an interpreter, nevertheless continues that the interpreter is to be denounced on account of an edict of the Holy Office which commands that all who abuse the sacrament of Penance for indecent ends and for soliciting penitents are to be denounced. But what the opinion of the Holy Office is appears from the sixth among the Decrees of February 4, 1661, which were unknown to the holy Doctor. For this decree stands thus: Whether an interpreter, if he solicits a penitent in confession, is to be denounced. They judged that the negative opinion does not lack probability. And indeed, as Giraldi observes (Exposition of Pontifical Law, part 1, book 5, title 7, p. 637), probability is understood here not in any manner and slight, but such that one can and ought safely to govern himself by it in practice. But the Edict reported by St. Alphonsus (book 6, no. 680) says that it commands those things according to the Apostolic Decrees. Moreover, Decrees of this kind, as is evident, exclude an interpreter. Furthermore, if the holy Doctor himself (book 6, no. 288) concedes that by force of the Constitutions against solicitors a layman or cleric who, pretending to be a confessor, solicits is not to be denounced, a fortiori this can be said of an interpreter.

Likewise, by force of the Apostolic Constitutions there is no obligation of denouncing one who orders a confessor to solicit in confession. Thus the Resolution or Decree of the Holy Office under no. VII among those issued February 4, 1661, which stands thus: Whether one ordering a confessor to solicit in confession is to be denounced. They judged that the negative opinion does not lack probability.

As regards a layman or cleric not yet a priest who, while hearing confession, solicits a penitent, St. Alphonsus rightly observes (book 6, no. 688) that, although they are not to be denounced by force of the Constitutions against solicitors, they are nevertheless to be denounced from another Constitution of Gregory XIII, which the Salmanticenses (tract 21, chapter 4, point 3, no. 27) indicate. And against the opinion of some who denied that these are to be denounced if they had not also imparted absolution, the same holy Doctor reports the words of an Edict of the Holy Inquisition by which it is enjoined that they are to be denounced although they had neither solicited the penitent nor proceeded to the act of absolving.

The question is usually added here whether soliciting Bishops are to be denounced. Some indeed deny it, because a Bishop even in the crime of formal heresy is not by law subject to Inquisitors; but solicitors are commanded to be denounced as suspected of heresy, as is evident from the letters of Pius IV. Moreover, in the Council of Trent (sess. 24, chapter 5) it is established that the graver and criminal causes, even of heresy, are known and terminated only by the Roman Pontiff; but the causes of Bishops are judged to be major causes. Others, however, whose opinion St. Alphonsus (book 6, no. 685) calls better, affirm it, saying that the denunciation is to be made to the Roman Pontiff if this can conveniently be done; otherwise it is to be made to the Inquisitors, who, although they cannot punish or form a process as regards Bishops, can nevertheless receive information to be afterward transmitted to the Roman Pontiff, as is gathered from the Extravagant Cum Matthaeus, De haereticis, where it is prescribed that proceedings be conducted thus against Nuncios and Officials immediately subject to the Apostolic See. Yet someone will reply that no firm argument is drawn from chapter Cum Matthaeus: both because those Officials can be denounced by force of the clause of Gregory XV, fortified by whatever privilege and preeminence, which clause must be judged a restriction of their immunity; and because the causes of these Officials are not judged among the major causes which by common law are reserved to the Roman Pontiff, wherefore the parity does not hold; and finally because, when there is question of imposing penalties, arguments from parity by no means avail. On the other hand, in the Constitution of Benedict XIV a denunciation is commanded which is to be made to the competent judge; but Inquisitors, as regards Bishops, are not competent. Indeed, a denunciation is there commanded to be made to the Ordinaries and Inquisitors of priests, namely, of whatever dignity and preeminence they may be. Therefore only those inferior to Bishops are understood, because Bishops are not to be denounced to Ordinaries and Inquisitors. Moreover, solicitors are said to be denounced so that Inquisitors and Ordinaries may proceed against them. But these can do nothing against Bishops. Therefore, since there is question of positive law and nothing in it is said either concerning denouncing Bishops or concerning denunciations to be made to the Roman Pontiff, it does not appear why that obligation should be imposed when no law commands it. Nevertheless, a denunciation made to Inquisitors will be lawful; but it is one thing for something to be done lawfully and another for it to be commanded by Pontifical Constitutions against solicitors.

² In the Apostolic Constitutions there is discussion only of abuse of the Sacrament of Penance. Hence from the common opinion of the Doctors (see St. Alphonsus, book 6, no. 684) it is concluded that there is no obligation of denouncing a priest who, for soliciting, abuses the administration of other sacraments. This is confirmed from the cited Decree of the Holy Inquisition, no. X; for to the question, Whether a Confessor incurs the penalties of the Apostolic Constitution against solicitors if he solicits a woman in other sacraments, namely, baptism and matrimony, and whether he is to be denounced, and if he is to be denounced, whether he can be punished by the Inquisitors, it was replied, as regards each article, that the negative opinion is probable.

³ St. Alphonsus (book 6, no. 678) writes thus concerning these clauses: It is said on the occasion of confession when the confessor or penitent invites to a true confession; but under pretext when to a fictitious confession. These two, however, differ from the simulation of confession insofar as occasion and pretext seem to indicate the cause on account of which it happens that the confessor and penitent meet and converse together; but simulation seems to be referred to the external appearance which the manner of conversing or speaking together presents. It is also added in the Constitution Sacramentum, section 1: in the confessional, or in another place destined for hearing confessions, or chosen with the simulation of hearing confession there; for outside places of this kind, among which the chamber of a person truly or fictitiously sick must also be numbered,

** As regards the pretext of confession, St. Alphonsus (book 6, no. 679) rightly says that it must be denied that a confessor is to be denounced who, under the pretext of hearing a confession, obtains permission from the Superior to go to a certain house where he solicits or, according to an arrangement already made, perpetrates the evil. He adduces the reason that the pretext of confession is then not in relation to the penitent but in relation to the Superior. This reason indeed avails as regards the latter part, for in the case the pretext of hearing a confession is the means by which he withdraws himself from the Superior, not that by which he conceals the act of solicitation; but it does not avail thus as regards the first part, for it is not necessary that the pretext of confession be referred to deceiving or entrapping the penitent. Therefore St. Alphonsus himself (book 6, no. 679) says that the Confessor is to be denounced if he should solicit outside confession and the woman should refuse, fearing defamation, and therefore the confessor should persuade her to pretend to be sick and summon him for sinning: because then the confessor is directly soliciting the woman to furnish consent under the pretext of confession.

St. Alphonsus then (loc. cit.), against several, thinks with Roncaglia that more probably a confessor is not to be denounced who agrees with a woman that, to elude the household, she should pretend to be sick and summon him to the house to perpetrate the sin. The reason, he says, is that it is then not verified that the confessor solicits under the pretext of confession, but only that under the pretext of confession he executes the sin. But, first, it does not appear in what this case differs from the preceding one; for if this is arranged to elude the household, the pretext of confession now serves for soliciting. Moreover, even if the priest were not to be denounced by force of this clause, he would nevertheless be to be denounced on account of the simulation of confession which he would abuse to keep away the household and for the present provocation and execution of the sin. For provocation and simulation of confession are not absent merely because each had previously agreed upon this. Otherwise a priest who by agreement held shameful conversations with a penitent in a place destined for confessions would not be to be denounced; for as regards the sick, the place of confession is indeed the chamber of a person truly or fictitiously sick. Hence the Salmanticenses (tract 21, chapter 4, point 4, no. 55), concerning the preceding case, namely, of the priest who under the pretext of hearing a confession obtains permission from the Prelate to go out, etc., thus limit the resolution of St. Alphonsus: But the things said are true provided these things are not done under the appearance of confession to deceive the household, because then simulation of confession suffices for incurring the penalties of the aforesaid Constitution.

St. Alphonsus adds (loc. cit.) that it seems much less to him that the confessor is to be denounced if a woman, with no agreement premised, summons and solicits him under the pretext of confession, although they afterward have intercourse; because according to the Bull the confessor is then to be denounced when he himself solicits under the pretext of confession, but in this case not the confessor but the penitent solicits the confessor under the pretext of confession. But this resolution also seems too difficult. For although the confessor is not to be denounced because he himself uses a pretext of confession devised by himself for ensnaring the penitent, nevertheless, while he believes that he is approaching to hear confession, he abuses the pretext of confession for consenting to the provocation and thus for an indecent transaction, and he performs this by simulating confession. For do we not here have an indecent transaction with simulation of confession in a place chosen for confession, although outside the occasion of confession, as is read in the Apostolic Constitutions?

the simulation of confession can scarcely, or not even scarcely, be had. For Gregory XV says thus: We command all Ordinaries of places diligently to inquire and proceed against all Priests, both secular and regular, who in any manner whatsoever shall have attempted to solicit or provoke persons, whoever they may be, to indecent acts among themselves or with others, in the act of sacramental confession, or immediately before or after it ⁴, or on the occasion or pretext of confession, even when confession did not follow, or outside the occasion of confession, in the confessional or in any place where confessions are heard or chosen for hearing confession, simulating that they hear confessions there; or who shall have held indecent conversations or dealings with them; commanding all Confessors to admonish their penitents whom they know to have been solicited by others as above concerning the obligation of denouncing the solicitors to the Ordinaries of places. - See St. Ligorius, no. 675.

⁴ According to the practice of the tribunal of the Holy Office, a Confessor is not judged to have solicited immediately after confession if the solicitation occurs after a whole day has elapsed, provided he in no way indicated his depraved intention in confession. See Giraldi (loc. cit., p. 637). Yet this does not prevent a confessor of this kind perhaps being denounced by force of another clause.

II. Solicited penitents cannot be absolved before they have satisfied the obligation of denouncing, or at least unless they promise that they will shortly satisfy their obligation. Thus Benedict XIV in the cited Constitution ⁵. But not only those who have been solicited are bound to this denunciation, but also all others who know it certainly, unless they have learned it under the secrecy of counsel; and this avails even if they cannot juridically prove the crime ⁶. - St. Ligorius, nos. 695, 699.

⁵ The words of Benedict XIV are (section 2): Let Confessors furthermore take diligent care not to impart sacramental absolution to penitents whom they know already to have been solicited by others unless, first bringing the aforesaid denunciation into effect, they have indicated the delinquent to the competent judge, or at least pledge and promise that they will denounce him as soon as they can. Therefore certain authors, relying, as they think, upon the authority of Benedict XIV, wrongly contend that a penitent can never be absolved before the denunciation has been made; for the holy Pontiff most prudently uses a disjunctive precept. Hence you may say that the denunciation is indeed to be premised when absolution can conveniently be deferred and an occasion of denouncing will shortly be available; and this must be attended to all the more earnestly, the more difficult the penitent seems to be induced to it. But when the penitent can return to the same confessor either not at all or only after a long time, or a suitable occasion for denouncing is not at hand, for example, if there is question of a girl who is far distant from the Episcopal See and lives under the care of her parents in such a way that she is not free to approach the Bishop, while on the other hand she sincerely promises that she will satisfy her obligation, there is nothing to prevent the confessor from imparting absolution at once.

⁶ This obligation is established not from the Constitutions either of Gregory XV or of Benedict XIV, but from an Edict of the Roman Inquisition which St. Alphonsus reports (book 6, no. 680). It is confirmed by the fourteenth of sixteen decrees of the Holy Inquisition which were issued on February 11, 1661, and were afterward confirmed by Benedict XIV with apostolic authority in the Constitution Sacramentum Poenitentiae, and which can be seen both in Albitius (On Inconstancy in the Faith, chapter 35, no. 66), in Giraldi (Exposition of Pontifical Law, part 1, book 5, title VII), and in Scavini (On Penance, chapter 4, art. 4). For when the question was put, Whether anyone is bound to denounce a soliciting confessor if he heard this not from trustworthy persons, but only from frivolous persons, and the Sacred Congregation replied that the negative opinion does not lack probability; it plainly follows that the obligation is present if anyone has learned it from trustworthy and serious persons.

III. The denunciation must be made within a month. Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, March 10, 1677. - St. Ligorius, no. 693. But a penitent who, without sufficient reason, does not carry out the denunciation within the appointed time incurs a latae sententiae excommunication, reserved at Rome to the Pontiff, but outside the City not reserved after the denunciation has been made. From a Decree of the Sacred Penitentiary, March 22, 1852. - See Analecta Iuris Pontificii, series 2, col. 1606 ⁷. In some places it is prescribed by particular law that any Priest soliciting to shameful acts be denounced, even though he is not a confessor or solicited without any relation to confession. But several Canonists, especially more recent ones, deny that a Bishop can enact a statute of this kind; because, since by Canon law a Priest cannot be condemned by the Bishop unless he has been convicted by legitimate witnesses and proofs, the Bishop can by no means punish an occult offense here, nor proceed against the accused, owing to the lack of every canonical and juridical proof. See Stremler, Treatise on Ecclesiastical Penalties, part I, chapter 4. - Craisson, Manual of Canon Law, nos. 3826, 3828, 3844. - Analecta Iuris Pontificii, vol. 4, p. 1866 ff., and others ⁸.

⁷ The Analecta Iuris Pontificii (loc. cit.) neither contains nor intimates that Response of the Sacred Penitentiary, and perhaps the Author cites it because the following is read there: If she (the person solicited) refuses to fulfill this obligation, she incurs major excommunication, which, for Rome, is reserved to the Sovereign Pontiff. But in other countries, absolution from it can be received from any approved confessor, according to what the same author says; this indeed is also the practice admitted by the Author. Moreover, the author to whom the Analecta appeals is Albitius, whose passage is appended there (from chapter 35, On Inconstancy in the Faith, nos. 18-25). But Albitius in fact has nothing of the kind. For his words which pertain to this matter are as follows (nos. 20, 21): But if they refuse to denounce, they then fall into the excommunication proposed in the aforesaid Edicts, from which, if it is reserved to the Pontiff, or to the Bishop, or to the Inquisitor, they cannot be absolved except by him to whom it was reserved. But if it is not reserved, they can be absolved by any confessor.... This absolution is not usually imparted unless the denunciation has truly and actually been made, etc. Albitius, therefore, does not say that this excommunication is reserved at Rome to the Supreme Pontiff, but elsewhere is not reserved, so that any confessor can absolve from it; rather, he refers the matter to the various Edicts, so that it may be ascertained whether it is reserved or not.

Moreover, the Edicts of the Holy Office of the Inquisition concerning the denunciation of solicitors, as Laurentius Cozza reports them (Selected Doubts concerning Solicitation, final doubt), reserve absolution to the Holy Office even after the denunciation has been made; and the same Cozza rightly observes that the opinion which granted to any confessor the faculty of absolving the guilty person after denunciation (see St. Alphonsus, no. 693) arose originally from an equivocal sense conveyed by the words of a certain Edict as they were reported summarily by Lupus. Nevertheless, Giraldi also indicates that the discipline in this matter was afterward changed (loc. cit. in the preceding note, pp. 627-628), saying: One omitting to denounce a Confessor for solicitation within the said month, even if he afterward denounced him, formerly could not be absolved except by the said Roman Inquisition; today, however, by decrees of the same body from the years 1735 and 1758, he can be absolved by any Confessor. The Response of the Sacred Penitentiary which the Author cites accords with these Decrees of the Holy Inquisition. Nevertheless, the Author combines the enactment of the Sacred Penitentiary less skillfully with the practice which the Analecta intimates. For the decree of the Sacred Penitentiary, just like the decrees of the Holy Inquisition mentioned by Giraldi, neither reserves absolution before denunciation to the Pontiff only at Rome, nor establishes that the cessation of the reservation after the denunciation has been completed avails only outside the City.

** Moreover, the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis of the year 1869 removes every controversy concerning this matter; in it, Those who neglect or culpably omit to denounce within a month confessors or priests by whom they were solicited to shameful acts in any of the cases expressed by Our Predecessors

Gregory XV, Constitution Universi, August 20, 1622, and Benedict XIV, Constitution Sacramentum Poenitentiae, June 1, 1741, are declared to incur a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to no one.

⁸ Elsewhere it had been provided by a Bishop that a woman with whom a priest had sinned could not be absolved unless she denounced the priest himself. The Bishop had prescribed this manner of denunciation: the woman was to hand to the Confessor a sealed paper containing the name of the priest, and the Confessor, transmitting it to the Bishop, was to testify that he had no doubt that faith should be placed in the denunciant. But the Apostolic See judged that this law and practice too should be abolished.

591. Questions. - QUESTION 1. Is a penitent bound to make a denunciation if he himself consented to the solicitation?

Reply. Yes. The reason is that the law is general and does not appear in any way to except this case; for the crime of the solicitor and the danger to souls are not thereby diminished. Nor is it an objection that by natural law the penitent is not bound to accuse himself; for ordinarily he can certainly denounce the solicitor without admitting that he gave consent to the solicitation ⁹. - St. Ligorius, no. 700.

⁹ This is expressly provided in the Constitution Sacramentum Poenitentiae, section 2, where it is established that the confessor is to be denounced even if.... the solicitation between the confessor and the penitent was mutual, or the penitent consented to the solicitation.

Moreover, the Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition, July 23, 1624 (in Giraldi, loc. cit. in the preceding note, p. 641), declared that a woman who consented to the soliciting priest is not bound in the denunciation to disclose the consent given by her; she is nevertheless bound to denounce even if she herself first solicited and drew the confessor to consent. St. Alphonsus reports another decree on the same matter (book 6, no. 700).

Furthermore, an Instruction was issued by the Holy Office of the Inquisition in the year 1756 in which, while it is declared that even a woman who consented is bound to denounce, it is nevertheless added that she is not bound to disclose her consent, nor is she to be questioned about it by the Ordinary or Inquisitor; likewise, a soliciting confessor, if proceedings are brought against him, is not to be questioned about the penitent's consent, and if perhaps he spontaneously says it, it is not to be written down or entered into the acts. It then also admonishes Confessors to instruct penitents concerning these things where necessary, so that every obstacle to making the denunciation may thus be removed (in Giraldi, loc. cit., p. 642).

QUESTION 2. Is a Confessor to be denounced who consented to a soliciting penitent, but did not himself solicit?

Reply. Yes ¹⁰. For this is manifestly evident from the second among the Decrees of the Holy Office of February 11, 1661. For to the question, Whether a Confessor who consents to solicitation, but immediately ceases to speak about that shameful matter, deferring its completion to another time and not furnishing absolution to the penitent, incurs the penalties contained in the Bull of Gregory and is to be denounced, the reply was that he incurs them and that the Confessor is to be denounced, the probable opinion, which they judged not to be probable, being rejected. The same thing is plainly elicited from among those same Decrees, where, to the question, Whether a Confessor, if induced by fear he consents to one soliciting, is to be denounced, the reply was that he is to be denounced and that the negative opinion is not probable. A fortiori, therefore, a Confessor is to be denounced where there is no excuse whatsoever from fear inspired.

¹⁰ This case is manifestly comprehended in those words of Gregory XV: Or shall have held illicit and indecent conversations or dealings with them; these occur likewise in the Constitution Sacramentum Poenitentiae of Benedict XIV. For the nature of a dealing is that two or more persons act or agree among themselves concerning some matter to be carried out; nor does it matter which of them first proposes the matter, provided that each acts at least concerning the accomplishment of the matter, even if perhaps both do not afterward agree upon the conditions. The Doctors therefore rightly conclude that these words comprehend a Confessor who did not solicit the penitent but merely consents to one soliciting; for in the truest sense an illicit and indecent dealing takes place, by which each consents to shamefulness.

** St. Alphonsus, on the question Whether a confessor who consents to a woman soliciting in confession is to be denounced (book 6, no. 681), judges that the opinion which denies it seems more probable; and setting aside the reason adduced by others, namely, that the words of Gregory XV are to be understood of shameful dealings of which the confessor is the author, he regards this reason as the stronger one: because by the same Bull of Gregory Confessors are commanded to admonish concerning the obligation of denunciation, not just any penitents who have held indecent dealings with confessors, but those whom they know to have been solicited by others, as above. Therefore it is inferred that the penitent, if he wished, could lawfully denounce the confessor in the said case according to the first probable opinion; but it seems more probable that the penitent is not bound to do this, because, in order that he himself contract the obligation of denouncing the confessor, it is required that he have been solicited by him. Moreover, as is evident, after the Decrees of the Holy Inquisition cited in the text, this opinion can be held neither speculatively nor practically, especially since decrees of this kind were solemnly confirmed by Benedict XIV in the Constitution Sacramentum Poenitentiae in these words: All and each of the aforesaid decrees (among which those issued February 11, 1661, are also expressly mentioned there) emanating for the interpretation and declaration of those [namely, the Letters of Gregory XV], by Apostolic authority and by the tenor of the present letters We approve and confirm, and to all and each of them We add the strength of inviolable Apostolic firmness. But, as we have already said, these Decrees were altogether unknown to the holy Doctor Alphonsus; for no one had made them public before Ubaldus Giraldi, who published his work (Exposition of Pontifical Law, etc.) at Rome in the year 1769; and the work of Giraldi does not seem ever to have come into the hands of the holy Doctor Alphonsus.

This ignorance of the Decrees, as is manifest, was more than sufficient to remove every reproach from the holy Doctor. Nevertheless, behold the VV., who dedicate fourteen columns to this argument (pp. 579-587) and seek other defenses from elsewhere! Let the impartial reader judge whether they can be approved.

First, therefore, they propose the question (p. 581), Whether, notwithstanding the two cited Decrees of the Holy Inquisition, the negative opinion of St. Alphonsus cannot be sustained. And as regards the first of the cited decrees, they do not hesitate to reply, which is surely a matter for astonishment (p. 582): With deference to a better judgment, we think that this Resolution of the Holy Inquisition does not prevent the negative opinion which the holy Doctor calls more probable from being sustained, namely, that a Confessor who consents to solicitation, but himself in no way solicits, is not to be denounced.

I have said that these things are plainly worthy of astonishment. For what is this? A Decree solemnly confirmed by a Pontifical Constitution enacts that a confessor who merely consents to solicitation is to be denounced, even if he is induced to it by fear, as the other Decree reported in the text has it; and nevertheless shall we dare to affirm that a confessor of this kind is not to be denounced if, not indeed impelled by fear, but of his own free will, he professes that he consents? Is perhaps the one who consents under the compulsion of fear more guilty than one who consents willingly and under no compelling fear?

The VV. reply (pp. 581-582) that in the first Decree there is no question simply of a Confessor consenting to solicitation, but several circumstances are added, namely, that the confessor immediately DISSENTS, not because he repents of having consented, but because he proposes to defer completion to another time lest he incur the appointed penalties.

Reply. 1. In the Decree of the Holy Inquisition, as we have seen, it does not read, "immediately dissents," but "immediately ceases to speak about that shameful matter." Therefore, everything which the VV. build upon this immediate dissent is empty. 2. Whether it is the immediate dissent which the VV. imagine, or the immediate breaking off, as the matter truly stands, of conversation about the shameful thing after consent, and the postponement to another time, these are not circumstances which increase, but rather those which diminish, the guilt of a shameful dealing on the occasion of confession. And in truth it would be most absurdly established that a confessor who, after assenting to the woman's solicitation, immediately ceases to speak about that shameful thing and puts off the completion of the shameful dealing to another time is to be denounced, but that he is not to be denounced if, continuing to speak about that shameful matter, he then completes the shameful dealing by agreeing upon the place, time, etc. 3. The substance of the guilt resides in the indecent dealing, which is completed through the confessor's consent, as is also evident from the cited ninth Decree. But this whole substance remains altogether whether those circumstances are present or are not present. Therefore, the obligation of denunciation is vainly referred not to the substance of the guilt but to those circumstances.

As regards the ninth Decree reported in the text, St. Alphonsus, ignorant of these decrees, as we have said, had written (book 6, no. 687, question 8): Whether a confessor is to be denounced who consents to a soliciting woman on account of fear inspired by her, that she will accuse him unless he consents? And he replied: But it can better be said that this confessor is not to be denounced, because then he would truly be the one solicited, not the one soliciting, according to what was said in no. 681. This resolution, as is evident of itself, is diametrically opposed to the Resolution of the Holy Office confirmed by Benedict XIV with Apostolic authority.

And in this response of the holy Doctor, the reason which he gives must also be noticed, namely, that the confessor is then the one solicited, not the one soliciting. For since he adds, according to what was said in no. 681, it is now evident that this is the same reason why the same holy Doctor had generally denied that a confessor who merely consents to a woman's solicitation is to be denounced. But this general principle is shown to be false by the Decrees of the Holy Inquisition, as we have said.

What here can scarcely be wondered at enough by anyone is that the VV. seem to defend that condemned resolution, adducing, namely, 1. the reason given for it by St. Alphonsus; 2. the support of Scavini, whom they say subscribes to the reason of St. Alphonsus; and, furthermore, 3. they contend that it is in some manner confirmed by the Instruction of the Holy Roman Inquisition of February 20, 1867. Let others judge how these things can seem tolerable to anyone.

As regards the first, St. Alphonsus (book 6, no. 681) gave this reason for his resolution: that it is rightly judged that the Pontiff was unwilling to oblige penitents to denounce confessors whom they themselves had tempted, because of the great difficulty which would deter penitents from denouncing in this case, in which the sin had its cause from them; and also because, if they denounced, their reputation would be placed in very great danger. But no one, I think, will dare to assert or suppose that a reason of this kind was unknown either to the Holy Inquisition or to the Roman Pontiff enacting the Decree. Shall we therefore say that St. Alphonsus judged better than the Apostolic See concerning the weight of this reason? Therefore, lest anyone act contumeliously against the Apostolic judgment, two things must be diligently observed. The first is that it pertains to the prudence of the Confessor to consider carefully and teach the penitent in what manner the denunciation can take place while preserving the reputation of the denunciant. The second is what St. Alphonsus himself (book 6, no. 695) teaches: that not only the solicited penitent, but also anyone else who has learned from another source that the solicitation was carried out, is bound to denounce. The holy Doctor confirms this also from an Edict of the Holy Inquisition which he reports in the preceding no. 680. And hence comes the response of the same Holy Inquisition contained in the fourteenth of the aforesaid Decrees. For to the question, Whether anyone is bound to denounce a soliciting confessor if he heard this not from trustworthy persons, but only from frivolous persons, the reply was that the negative opinion does not lack probability. Therefore, the reason adduced by St. Alphonsus is by no means adequate for establishing generally that a confessor who merely consents to solicitation is not to be denounced.

As regards Scavini, he in no way denies that a confessor of this kind is to be denounced; he merely observes that it can sometimes happen that it is difficult for the denunciation to be completed while preserving the penitent's reputation. Concerning this matter it has already been said that this business pertains to the prudence of the Confessor.

Finally, as regards the Instruction of the Holy Inquisition of the year 1867, the VV. think that it supports the condemned resolution under discussion because no mention is made in this Instruction of the ninth Decree, by which it is defined that a confessor who, impelled by fear, consents to a soliciting woman is to be denounced. - But do the VV. perhaps wish to insinuate by this that that Decree was abrogated? Indeed, if an argument of this kind were valid, then most of those sixteen Decrees would have to be said to have been abrogated, and among them even that first decree by which it is defined that a confessor who gives a penitent in confession a paper to be read afterward at home, in which he solicits her to venereal acts, is to be denounced; these things are plainly absurd. And in fact, in this Instruction scarcely a few things are mentioned concerning the cases in which a Confessor is certainly to be denounced.

The VV. add another Article (pp. 583-585), in which they contend that, apart from the second Decree of the Holy Inquisition, the negative opinion does not appear improbable from the Bulls of Gregory XV and Benedict XIV. Whether this assertion is free of grave injury to the Constitution of Benedict XIV, let it be the judgment of the more prudent. For, as is evident from the words of Benedict XIV cited above, those Decrees of the Holy Inquisition contain the interpretation and declaration of the Letters or Constitution of Gregory XV, and as such the same Benedict approves and confirms them and adds to them the strength of inviolable Apostolic firmness. And since these things are so, who indeed would dare so to represent the Interpretations and Declarations of the Holy Inquisition, confirmed by an oracle of the Pontiff of this kind, as alien to the sense of the Gregorian Constitution, that he should think himself permitted to hold and proclaim as not improbable what those Interpretations and Declarations define not to be probable?

But let us come to the reasons of the VV. The first is (p. 503) that in the Constitution of Gregory those words, "or shall have held illicit and indecent conversations or dealings with them," are to be understood of conversations and dealings which proceeded from the Confessor. - I ask: If not the Confessor but the woman first begins to hold indecent conversations, and the Confessor consequently also indulges in the shameful conversation and prolongs it, will he not be to be denounced because the shameful conversation was begun not by him but by the woman? That interpretation must therefore be called absurd, since it leads to absurdities. Say the same of an indecent dealing. For one who proposes as well as one who admits and accepts the proposed matter is most properly said to have a dealing; indeed, it is not even necessary for this that those who negotiate about the matter finally agree; for it is sufficient that they present themselves ready to agree if the incidental conditions are pleasing. For these are properly said to have had a dealing concerning that matter.

The other reason of the VV. is that in section 7 of the Constitution those penitents whom confessors know to have been solicited by others are said to be admonished concerning the obligation of denunciation. Therefore, the VV. conclude, it is presupposed that the confessor at least indirectly solicited. - Reply. The words of section 7 of the Constitution are these: Let him admonish concerning the obligation of denouncing the solicitors, or, as stated above, THOSE HOLDING DEALINGS. And again: But if they have omitted this office [of the confessor], or have taught the penitents that they are not bound to denounce soliciting confessors, OR THOSE HOLDING DEALINGS, as above, etc. Therefore, those holding dealings, or those having a shameful dealing, are also said to be denounced. Nor indeed should the VV. say that by the Constitution the Confessor is said to admonish only those who were solicited. For, to omit other things now, do not all those who know that shameful dealings took place in confession also have the obligation of denouncing that confessor, as we have seen above? Why, then, should the penitent who was a participant in the dealing be excluded?

In the third place the VV. add (pp. 584-585): If it were sufficient to hold illicit and indecent conversations or dealings, even if the confessor does not solicit by these conversations or dealings, nor has the intention of soliciting, then a confessor would also be to be denounced who, without any necessity or reasonable cause, deliberately and minutely examines a penitent confessing a sin against the sixth commandment about the circumstances, but does so from depraved curiosity and delight in things of this kind without any intention of soliciting... for he truly holds indecent and illicit conversations with the penitent. Reply. I concede the whole. For if, as the VV. concede, this confessor truly holds the indecent and illicit conversations which are expressly treated in the Apostolic Constitutions of Gregory XV and Benedict XIV, why would he not be to be denounced? - The VV. say, he did not have the intention of soliciting. - Reply. Let others see whether this excuse can have any value before the judges. Meanwhile, it is manifest that in the case the nature of the work and the intrinsic end of the work tend toward solicitation, since by the name of solicitation comes whatever provokes to venereal acts. But surely intention is no more necessary here than in giving scandal; for I do not think, according to the opinion of St. Alphonsus and even of the VV., that the guilt of scandal is absent if the work and the intrinsic end of the work of itself produce scandal, even if the intention of the one acting is not directed toward giving scandal. Moreover, whatever pertains to this case could have been passed over, and the consequence which the VV. wished to draw from it for denying the obligation of denouncing a confessor who had a shameful and indecent dealing with a woman in confession could have been denied. For what parity does an indecent manner of questioning have with a shameful dealing between a penitent and a confessor?

And the VV., relying upon three reasons of this kind, judged it must be concluded that the interpretation of the Gregorian Constitution proposed by them IS AT LEAST SUFFICIENTLY PROBABLE. Whether rightly, let those judge to whom the juridical judgment of so grave a matter pertains. But what certain of the VV. add (pp. 584-585), in order to fasten an interpretation of this kind also upon the Constitution of Benedict XIV, needs no reply. It is enough to remember that Benedict XIV in his Constitution holds the Constitution of Gregory XV ratified and confirmed in this manner: Which [he says] We wish to be held here as inserted word for word.

One thing must not be omitted: the VV. did not hesitate to write the following concerning Benedict's confirmation of the preceding Decrees: Insofar, finally, as in the same Constitution the Decrees of the Holy Inquisition from the year 1661 are confirmed, this confirmation proves nothing, because these Decrees are simply mentioned by the Pontiff but are not explained, and therefore, if there is doubt about their sense, they are the more to be interpreted in that sense which accords with the Constitution itself. - Leaving aside other things for now, let this be asked: What do they mean by a sense which accords with Benedict's Constitution itself? For it is manifest that in those Decrees to which Benedict adds the strength of inviolable and Apostolic firmness certain doubts are resolved whose solution you will not find in Benedict's Constitution itself, just as certain things are found more expressly explained in the Constitution of Gregory XV than in the Constitution of Benedict, which otherwise has certain things more explicitly than are perceived in Gregory's Constitution. What indeed will you conclude from this? In the Gregorian Constitution, for example, confessors who held indecent dealings in confession are expressly said to be denounced; but in Benedict's Constitution these are not expressly said to be denounced. Will you rightly conclude from this, as the VV. do concerning the decrees, that Benedict only mentioned the Gregorian Constitution but did not explain it, and therefore in doubt the interpretation must be received in the sense which accords with Benedict's Constitution? In brief: Benedict XIV not only confirms the Gregorian Constitution, but in the same manner confirms the interpretations and declarations of it which are contained in the Decrees of the Holy Inquisition. Moreover, to wish to elicit the sense either of the Gregorian Constitution or of the Decrees interpreting and declaring it from the Constitution of Benedict, even in those matters which it has less expressly, is a method and manner of interpretation not only altogether novel to the schools, but contrary to the common sense of men.

The VV. add (p. 585) an article with the title: Whether it can be imputed as a fault to St. Alphonsus that he did not know the Decrees of the Holy Inquisition from the year 1661. But no one calls this into controversy; and since it is evident that the holy Doctor used the Edicts or fragments of Edicts of the Holy Inquisition which he was able to see as a norm for writing, he would most religiously have accommodated his doctrine also to these Decrees if he had known them, nor, it must be held as certain, would he ever have used those empty reasons touched upon above to defend any opinion of his against those Decrees, which, moreover, he would have known to have been so solemnly confirmed by the strength of inviolable and Apostolic Authority.

Rather, it is opportune to admonish here that from that preconceived opinion concerning the confessor who is not to be denounced if he merely consented to solicitation, the holy Doctor Alphonsus came to another resolution which perhaps can be admitted even much less. For (book 6, no. 682), asking Whether a confessor who, having been solicited by a penitent to intercourse, refuses and turns aside to touches alone is to be denounced, he replies that it can probably be denied. The reason, he says, is that a woman soliciting to intercourse virtually provokes also to touches, which ordinarily are preliminary to intercourse; hence it is verified that the confessor then does not solicit but, having been solicited, consents. - But, as is evident, the two Decrees cited in the text exclude this opinion a fortiori, and that shameful dealing concerning which we have already spoken plainly reveals itself here, especially since the confessor himself actually invites and incites the penitent to evil, even though the penitent is judged to be ready for this. Hence in this case we have, furthermore, that mutual solicitation in which the Holy Inquisition establishes that the denunciation must necessarily be made in the eighth of the Decrees so often cited; in it, to the question, Whether, when the confessor and the penitent solicit one another,

the confessor is to be denounced, the reply was, Yes, and the negative opinion is not probable; indeed, Benedict XIV, section 2 of the Constitution Sacramentum Poenitentiae, expressly speaks of this case in these words: Even if.... the solicitation between the confessor and the penitent was mutual.

We also have another resolution among those sixteen Decrees of the Holy Inquisition, with which the doctrine of the holy Doctor Alphonsus may seem not sufficiently consonant. For he asks (book 6, no. 683), Whether a confessor soliciting only to venially indecent acts is to be denounced. And after reporting the affirmative opinion of others, he adds: But the second and more probable opinion denies.... Nevertheless all agree... that if from the circumstances it were certainly inferred that by that slight act the priest had the intention of proceeding further, then the solicitation is to be judged grave. Moreover, in the third of the aforesaid Decrees, to the question, Whether a confessor, in soliciting, is to be denounced on account of the smallness of the matter, the reply was: Since in venereal matters there is no smallness of matter, and, if there were, it is not present in the matter at hand, they judged that he is to be denounced and that the contrary opinion is not probable. In defense of St. Alphonsus, however, it can perhaps be said that, when the holy Doctor names acts slightly indecent, he wished to designate something which has nothing in common with venereal matters. But that clause of the Decree also seems not to be passed over: And if [smallness of matter] were granted, it is not granted in the matter at hand. For the words, in the matter at hand, do not signify, in venereal matters; therefore they signify, in solicitation to something in any way less than honorable. And if this indeed is the sense of the Decree, then what the holy Doctor (loc. cit.) adds in this manner would not be sufficiently efficacious: On the other hand, an act which in itself is slight against chastity cannot become grave in the sacrament; otherwise any venial sin in the matter of truthfulness, patience, or humility would become grave in the sacrament, which no one asserts. For, as someone could reply, it is one thing for a priest in administering the sacrament to sin slightly against the virtue of chastity; it is another for a confessor in the confession itself to provoke the penitent to something less than honorable; between these two most diverse things a character of irreverence and indecency can rightly seem to intervene. But let the judgment concerning these matters belong to the wiser.

592. • QUESTION 3. Does the obligation of denunciation bind if the guilty party has been reformed, or if the solicitation occurred a long time ago?

Reply to the first. Yes, because the Pontiff does not intend only the reform of the guilty party, but also his punishment, so that the injury to the Church may be repaired and the scandal made good ¹¹.

¹¹ Two decrees of the Holy Inquisition can pertain to this. The one is the thirteenth of the sixteen so often mentioned, in which, to the question, Whether a Confessor who, on account of the solicitation of another, abjured (namely, under compulsion by the Holy Inquisition that he abjure a slight or vehement suspicion of heresy) is to be denounced, the reply was that the negative opinion is not probable, and therefore he is to be denounced; this was also resolved on July 20, 1628. And the other which is cited here is a decree (in Giraldi, loc. cit., p. 641, no. VI) by which it was defined that a solicited woman is bound to denunciation even if she knew that the solicitor had spontaneously appeared. Moreover, since abjuration in the Holy Inquisition itself is the strongest sign of reform, and voluntary self-accusation is the greatest indication of reform and repentance, and nevertheless according to the cited decrees these things do not excuse from denouncing the confessor, a fortiori other signs of reform which are usually enumerated will not excuse, some of which are plainly equivocal and others exceedingly difficult to ascertain.

Reply to the second. Yes likewise, for the same reasons; for if one who committed the crime a long time ago were not to be denounced, the reason would surely be that he was judged already to have been reformed; but this reason does not avail, as was just said. Furthermore, who could determine what is a long or a short time? Nevertheless, that circumstance would have to be disclosed to the Superior ¹². - St. Ligorius, no. 686.

¹² This question stands expressly resolved in the Constitution Sacramentum Poenitentiae, section 2, where it is defined that the confessor is to be denounced even if a long time has already elapsed after the solicitation itself. Refer here also what the Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition declared on May 11, 1707 (in Giraldi, loc. cit., p. 641, no. VIII), namely, that a girl who was solicited while in a state of simplicity and without knowledge of the indecency is bound to denounce the soliciting Confessor after she has become capable and acquired knowledge of the past solicitation.

593. • QUESTION 4. Is the penitent excused from making the denunciation on account of fear that he may incur the indignation and rebuke of the person denounced?

Reply. No. The reason is that this vexation must be regarded as of the least account in a matter of such moment and one pertaining to the common good ¹³. For it cannot be compared with the innumerable and very great evils arising from the corruption of a Priest.

¹³ Nevertheless, it must be conceded that one is excused who would reasonably fear from the denunciation grave harm to his life, reputation, or temporal goods. For each person has a natural right to avert these harms, which prevails over positive law. Furthermore, the Church is not accustomed to urge observance of her laws with so grave an inconvenience. Yet where the solicitation arose from contempt of the sanctity of the sacrament or the destruction of souls would follow, the reason of the common good and submission to Religion would have to be preferred to private harm.

QUESTION 5. Is absolution to be denied to a penitent who refuses to denounce a soliciting Priest?

Reply. Yes, for otherwise the law would generally become useless and ineffectual. Therefore, in the most prudent manner he can, the Confessor must take care that the denunciation be made, namely, by deferring or even denying absolution to a penitent who refuses to obey.

Nevertheless, those things which Cardinal Albitius has as follows in On Inconstancy in the Faith, chapter 35, must be observed: It was resolved on June 28, 1597, February 28, 1598, and April 15, 1612, that when a woman is noble and modest and cannot be induced to give testimony, the Sacred Congregation is to be consulted in the City (Rome). But if outside the City, the Bishop or Inquisitor is to be consulted; if they have difficulty, let them consult the Sacred Congregation; but if not, let them give Confessors the faculty of absolving the penitent who for just causes refuses to denounce; she is nevertheless to be absolved under the condition that, when the causes cease, she is bound to do this, and also that she no longer approach the Confessor by whom she was solicited.

But in places where the observance of the Pontifical Decrees is not enforced, what must be done in these cases is to be learned from the Bishop ¹⁴.

¹⁴ All Constitutions issued against those soliciting in confession extend their force universally to individual nations and comprehend Greeks as well as Latins within their scope. From the Constitution Etsi Pastoralis of Benedict XIV, section IX, no. V.

Nevertheless, those who dwell in the regions of schismatics, heretics, and Mohammedans, although subject to the Constitutions against solicitors, are to be absolved and freed from this burden of denunciation, according to a Decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office of February 21, 1630, in those local circumstances in which there is no hope that the person denounced will be punished, women cannot denounce without danger and infamy, and it is believed that the persons denounced can easily escape punishment by having recourse either to schismatic Bishops or to unbelieving lay judges, the aforesaid reasons being considered; nevertheless, they must be admonished that, when the dangers and impediments related above have ceased, they are bound to denounce (in Giraldi, loc. cit., pp. 640-641).

594. • QUESTION 6. Is a Confessor to be denounced who in confession asked a woman where she lived, if he afterward solicited her at home?

Reply. Yes, because, although the question put in confession seems indifferent, nevertheless it is afterward known from the circumstances that it was put for the purpose of soliciting. - St. Ligorius, no. 676.

QUESTION 7. Is a Priest to be denounced who, when asked by a woman to hear her confession, solicits her?

Reply. Yes, according to the fourth of the aforesaid Decrees, if the solicitation takes place in the confessional or in the place of confession. Not so if the solicitation takes place outside the place of confession and without the pretext of confession ¹⁵.

¹⁵ To Question IV, Whether a Confessor who solicits a woman who says in the confessional that she wishes to confess on the following day and dissuades her from confession is to be denounced, the Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition replied: if the solicitation takes place outside the place of confession and without the pretext of confession, the negative opinion is probable; otherwise, if it takes place in the Confessional or in the place of confession. Hence the opinion of St. Alphonsus is not to be admitted when he writes (book 6, no. 678) that a confessor who, when asked to hear a confession, turns aside and solicits is to be denounced, although he had not yet taken his seat nor had the woman knelt. To this also pertains the Response to Question XV, Whether a Confessor who, sitting in the confessional, solicits a woman standing before the confessional without simulating confession is to be denounced; the reply was that the negative opinion does not lack its probability. Moreover, no simulation of confession can be present in the case, because, since women do not confess while standing before the confessional, every appearance or suspicion of confession is absent.

595. • QUESTION 8. Is one to be denounced who, having learned a woman's frailty in confession, afterward solicits her at home?

Reply. It must be affirmed if he solicits the woman as a person whose disposition or frailty he learned from confession, and indicates this by words or in some other manner ¹⁶.

¹⁶ St. Alphonsus (book 6, no. 678, doubt 2) skillfully refers this case to the clause of solicitation made on the occasion of confession, namely, when the Confessor, using knowledge from confession by which he has learned the penitent's frailty or inclination toward evil, or what she has done or desired to do with others, or the straits in which she is situated, or the necessities by which her constancy is pressed with a hard trial, etc., takes occasion from it to solicit her. The reason is that, since the occasion and impulse for soliciting flow from the confession heard, it is said with sufficient truth, with St. Alphonsus, that the solicitation takes place on the occasion of confession.

Nevertheless, for the penitent to be bound to denounce, it is necessary that it be established by certain indications that the occasion for soliciting was in fact taken from it. These indications are sufficiently present if, while soliciting, the confessor puts forth either certain words or some sign which refers to any of the aforesaid things known to him through confession; in this there can also be a sin against the sacramental seal. But it does not pertain to the substance of this case that these things happen shortly after confession; for even after a long time, the occasion for soliciting taken from it retains the same nature. But what St. Alphonsus reports from Roncaglia, that by force of the same clause a priest who solicits a woman while promising that he will hear her confession is to be denounced, seems plainly beside the point.

QUESTION 9. Is a Confessor to be denounced who praises a woman for her beauty?

Reply. This must be discerned from the manner of speaking or from other circumstances. For if he seems to act from a depraved affection, he is to be denounced; but not so if he speaks from a certain imprudence or mere levity ¹⁷. - St. Ligorius, no. 703, etc.

¹⁷ The twelfth of the sixteen Decrees of the Holy Inquisition so often cited accords with these things. For to the question, Whether a Confessor, if he praises a penitent for beauty and comeliness, is said to solicit her and therefore is to be denounced, the reply was that, if that praise is serious and savors of no depraved intention, the negative opinion is probable; otherwise it is not probable.

The Sacred Congregation judged that the same answer was to be given (decree XVI) to the question, Whether a confessor who, while hearing confession, gives a gift to a woman, so that he is said to have solicited her, is to be denounced. For it refers the matter to the response made to the twelfth question. Certainly, as St. Alphonsus (book 6, no. 703) observes, this of itself is something indifferent, and the malice will have to be taken from the circumstances, namely, from the condition of the penitent, the quality of the gift, its quantity, and the manner in which it is given.

596. • QUESTION 10. Is faith readily to be placed in women accusing a Priest of solicitation?

Reply. No; but the circumstances of things and persons must be diligently weighed both by the Confessor and by the Superiors. For more than once women have been seen who, from envy, hatred, jealousy, or some other perverse end, atrociously calumniated entirely innocent Clerics. Therefore, all the circumstances must be weighed by mature examination, especially when the woman shows herself ready and prompt to obey the precept of denunciation.

Furthermore, take care to observe that, according to the Constitution of Benedict XIV, the crime of false accusation of solicitation is reserved to the Apostolic See, but without censure ¹⁸.

¹⁸ Indeed, Benedict XIV established the same penalty against those commanding, counseling, and all who can be called procurers. Thus in the Constitution Sacramentum, section 3: And since certain wicked persons are found who, moved either by hatred or anger or some other unworthy cause, or incited by the impious persuasions of others, or by promises, or flatteries, or threats, or in any other manner... falsely accuse innocent priests of solicitation before ecclesiastical judges, in order, therefore, that such nefarious audacity and so detestable a crime may be restrained by fear of the greatness of the penalty, let every person who has involved himself in an execrable crime of this kind, or who has wickedly procured that it be done by others, perpetually lack hope of obtaining absolution from any priest... except from Us and Our Successors....

But the Superiors ¹⁹, once the truth of the crime is known with certainty, must proceed very cautiously, so that they may correct the guilty party according to the gravity of the offense, and not indiscriminately punish a fault long since past, or committed accidentally from frailty, just as one that is recent or committed from habit; likewise, so that at the same time they may consult the good of Religion, the Priesthood, and the matter itself, forestalling scandals and rumors insofar as this can be done.

¹⁹ By Superior in this place must be understood either an Inquisitor of the Holy Office or the Ordinary of the place; for a denunciation can be brought at will to either one according to the Pontifical Constitutions.

597. • QUESTION 11. What are the penalties against solicitors?

Reply. The penalties against solicitors from the Bull of Gregory XV are suspension from the exercise of Orders, deprivation of benefices, dignities, and offices of every kind, and perpetual incapacity for them; and, furthermore, as regards Regulars, deprivation of active and passive voice. Nevertheless, they are all ferendae sententiae ²⁰.

²⁰ Add that Benedict XIV, through the organ of the Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition, decreed on August 5, 1745, that henceforth priests... soliciting to shameful acts in the act of sacramental confession, or on its occasion or pretext... besides the penalties inflicted upon them by law and the Apostolic Constitutions... also incur perpetual incapacity for the celebration of the Sacrifice. Concerning this decree St. Alphonsus observes (book 6, no. 705) that, for a penalty of this kind to be incurred, a declaratory sentence of the judge is required, namely, from the general principle concerning privative or disqualifying penalties when the guilty party cannot himself carry out the penalty without his own infamy. Indeed, in the Instruction of the Most Holy Inquisition issued February 20, 1867, the following is read (no. 12): It must be noted that all penalties of this kind, and the very incapacity for celebrating the most holy Sacrifice of the Mass prescribed in the decree of Benedict XIV of August 5, 1745, are only ferendae sententiae.

598. • QUESTION 12. How is a denunciation to be made?

Reply. 1. The denunciation is to be made orally insofar as possible, not merely in writing. Therefore, the solicited woman must present herself before the Ordinary or Inquisitor, wherever a tribunal of the Inquisition exists, and declare the act of solicitation, without, however, in any way disclosing her own consent, if she gave any.

2. The denunciation is to be made to the Inquisitor or Ordinary of the place in which the penitent is staying, even if the soliciting Confessor belongs to another diocese. For it pertains to the local Ordinary or Inquisitor to receive the sworn denunciation and transmit it to the Bishop of the guilty priest.

3. If the denunciation cannot be made orally, it is to be made by a letter signed with one's own name and surname, or at least through an intermediary. For the obligation of denouncing the solicitor is not so much that of approaching the Superior personally as of reporting the delinquent to him, as Benedict XIV speaks in his Bull ²¹. But one who is bound to the end is also bound to the means.

²¹ The Author had before his eyes these words of Benedict XIV (Constitution Sacramentum, section 2): Let Confessors furthermore take diligent care not to impart sacramental absolution to penitents whom they know already to have been solicited by others unless, first bringing the aforesaid denunciation into effect, they have indicated the delinquent to the competent judge, or at least pledge and promise that they will denounce him as soon as they can.

4. The Confessor, however, is not bound to undertake the burden of transmitting the denunciation to the Ordinary; rather, he satisfies his office by admonishing the penitent to denounce the solicitor properly at an opportune time. He can nevertheless offer his assistance if he judges it expedient; but knowledge of the matter must be received outside confession. - St. Ligorius, no. 699.

5. If the person solicited cannot in any manner be induced to carry out the denunciation in such a form, because she is affected, namely, by fear or insuperable shame, let her permit the Bishop to be informed of the matter; he can delegate someone to receive the denunciation. This faculty was granted to Bishops and Inquisitors by an Indult of the Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition with the consent of the Pontiff. But the delegated Priest must take an oath to preserve silence and to fulfill faithfully the office committed to him. - Decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition, September 27, 1624.

6. In every case a denunciation made through anonymous letters is altogether insufficient and wholly invalid, just as if it had not been made, as the Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition declared several times. - See Analecta Iuris Pontificii, September 1855, etc., etc. ²².

²² If letters are sent to the Father Commissary or Assessor of the Supreme Tribunal with the name of the writer, in which a denunciation is contained, they are customarily remitted to the Inquisitors or Bishops, so that, after summoning the writer to themselves, they cause him to acknowledge them under oath, question him specifically concerning the things contained in them, and, after reducing them to the form of a denunciation, place them at the beginning of the Process, and examine witnesses informed about their contents. Albitius, On Inconstancy in the Faith, chapter 35, no. 21.

7. Solicited women are not bound to make the denunciation if Inquisitors or Bishops or their Vicars, living in distant regions, cannot be approached without grave inconvenience. But when the impediment ceases, for example, at the visitation of the Bishop, the obligation of denunciation must be urged. Thus the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office declared on January 22, 1727.