Article IV. On Absolution from Censures

951. • Principles. - I. Censures are not removed through the repentance alone of the delinquent or through obedience toward the mandates of the Church, nor through the death of the one who imposed the censure; but absolution imparted by a legitimate judge or Superior is necessary. This is manifest from chapter Cum desideres, On the Sentence of Excommunication, and proposition 44 condemned by Alexander VII.

II. From a censure ab homine imposed by a particular sentence, only the following can absolve: 1. the one who imposed the censure; 2. his Superior; 3. his successor; 4. another delegated by any one of these. The reason is that it belongs to him to absolve to whom it belongs to bind ¹. The same must be said of reserved censures a iure.

¹ For this reason it applies even if the guilty party changes domicile. Hence St. Alphonsus well observes (book 7, no. 72) that if someone sinned in another territory in such a manner that he was specially excommunicated by the Bishop of that place, he cannot be absolved by his own Bishop except with the permission of the excommunicating Bishop.

But note that this is said of a censure ab homine imposed by a particular sentence; for censures which are indeed ab homine but imposed by a general sentence are, according to the more probable opinion, equated with those imposed a iure which are not reserved; and therefore whoever has jurisdiction over the guilty party can absolve him. See St. Alphonsus (book 7, no. 73) and Schmalzgrueber (book 5, title 39, no. 94).

** But why the VV. here (page 948, no. 162) propose the doctrine of Father Gury as dissenting from the doctrine of St. Alphonsus can scarcely be understood. For after in Principle II he denies to any priest the right to absolve from censures ab homine, and then in Principle III likewise denies to any priest the faculty of absolving from censures reserved in any manner either to the Supreme Pontiff or to the Bishop, he appears to embrace everything sufficiently. The sole difference consists in this: that Gury hands down in this same place those things which the Holy Doctor Alphonsus has partly in no. 70 and partly in no. 73, as is apparent from this Note.

III. Any Confessor can absolve from censures not specially reserved to the Pope or Bishop. This is established from chapter Nuper, On the Sentence of Excommunication. - St. Alphonsus, no. 70 ².

² St. Alphonsus adds that this absolution is valid also for the external forum; this opinion is admitted as more common and more probable. See Suarez (On Censures, disputation 7, section 5, no. 15), who nevertheless rightly warns in the same place, no. 29, that where the censure is public, although not juridically denounced, in order to prevent scandal it ought to be publicly established that absolution has been given, so that someone may publicly conduct himself as absolved. Nevertheless, scandal is sufficiently prevented if it is publicly established that he confessed to one having the faculty of absolving and that satisfaction, if any was necessary, was rendered.

But regarding privileges granted to religious for absolving from reserved censures, Clement X established (Constitution Superna, section 6): By force of the aforesaid privileges it is by no means licit for religious, even when satisfaction has been made to the party, to absolve penitents from censures with respect to the external and judicial forum; and those absolved by them in the penitential forum are certainly not considered absolved in the exterior and contentious judgment. Indeed, those entangled in and denounced by ecclesiastical censures can be compelled by Bishops to conduct themselves as such even if they were absolved by religious. Urban VIII likewise provided (Constitution In specula militantis) concerning those who by privilege of the Bull of the Crusade choose for themselves a Confessor by whom they may be absolved from cases even reserved to the Pope. But this declaration must not be extended to other indults; rather, the formulas of each must be inspected.

But whether and to what extent absolution from censures given in the forum of conscience can avail for the external forum, and how the absolved person ought to conduct himself both when the censure was occult and when it was notorious, and what caution must be employed where the cause has been brought to the external forum, see Laymann (book 1, tract 5, part 1, chapter 7, no. 7) and Bonacina (On Censures, disputation 1, question 3, point 10, no. 3).

952. • IV. By a privilege granted by the Council of Trent, chapter Liceat, Bishops can absolve even from occult papal censures, excepting those which are reserved to the Pontiff in a special manner. See the things said above, On the Privileges of Bishops, no. 124. But the Bishops of those regions in which the Council has not yet been received do not enjoy this privilege. See Fagnanus (on chapter Dilectus, On the Time of Ordinations, no. 15), Suarez (On Faith, disputation 44, section 2, no. 6), Sanchez (On the Decalogue, book 2, chapter 11, no. 3), and Lugo (On Faith, disputation 23, no. 54). - Moreover, from censures reserved to the Pope, even non-occult ones, in favor of those who are impeded from going to Rome either for a long time or even perpetually, of which sort the aged, children, women, the infirm, the poor, etc., are considered. Recall the things said concerning the privileges of Bishops in the Treatise on States, no. 124, and in the Treatise on Penance, no. 576. - See St. Alphonsus, no. 84 and following. - Hence this rule is commonly received by the Doctors: A papal case, when an impediment to approaching the Pope supervenes, becomes episcopal. Indeed, Castro Palao with certain others thinks that absolution from censures in this case pertains not only to the Bishop but to any Confessor; and this opinion does not appear improbable. - St. Alphonsus, no. 92; Pichler, book 5, title 39, no. 14. But absolution of this kind cannot be given either by the Bishop or by any other priest unless the burden of presenting himself to the Superior when the impediment has ceased is imposed upon the penitent ³.

³ This burden is not imposed when the impediment can be judged perpetual. See the things said above, no. 575, and the Note there.

V. All Priests, from the Council of Trent, session 14, chapter 7, can absolve from any censure whatever, and therefore not only from excommunications but also from suspensions and interdicts, however reserved, those who are placed at the point of death, but, the Authors say, with the burden of presenting themselves to the Superior or Delegate if they recover. There are nevertheless those who think that the burden of presenting oneself to the Superior has place only when the censure is notorious, or the matter was brought to the contentious forum, or the law itself established such an obligation. - But see the things said in the section on Penance, no. 576.

953. • Resolutions. - 1. An Archbishop or even a Patriarch, indeed also a Legate a latere, although superior to a Bishop, cannot absolve the subjects of Suffragans except in the sole case of a just appeal or visitation by virtue of office, because in other cases he does not enjoy jurisdiction properly so called.

2. An ecclesiastical Superior or delegate can absolve from censures even if he is not a Priest. The reason is that the jurisdiction required for absolving from censures can reside in a cleric initiated even by tonsure alone.

3. One who has a general faculty of absolving from papal censures cannot therefore absolve from cases reserved in a special manner, as formerly in the cases of the Bull Coenae, unless this is explicitly expressed in the concession; for special things are not contained of themselves in a general concession. Likewise, one who can absolve from specially reserved censures cannot therefore absolve from a censure inflicted upon one absolving an accomplice. Declaration of the Holy Office, 17 June 1866.

4. A faculty granted by a Bishop for reserved sins is not understood for sins reserved with a censure; it is otherwise if the concession was made by the Pope, because all papal cases are reserved with a censure, excepting two, namely: 1. false accusation of solicitation against a priest; 2. acceptance of notable gifts by religious. The moreover, notable gifts are considered those which are equivalent to ten scudi ⁴. - See St. Alphonsus, no. 5. Nevertheless, note that this reservation does not affect the sin of accepting gifts; therefore, if someone, recognizing that he cannot retain the gifts accepted, restores them or wishes to restore them, he can be absolved by any Confessor. The reservation, therefore, consists in this: that he cannot be absolved unless he restores them or obtains remission of the debt from the Pope, since the Pontiff has reserved this to himself.

⁴ What that means which the Author says concerning the sum of ten scudi you will learn more clearly from Innocent XII in the Constitution Romanus Pontifex, 3 September 1692, in which are contained the faculties granted to the Major Penitentiary. Let him not absolve, nor command to be absolved (he says), religious receiving gifts contrary to the Constitution of Clement VIII of happy memory beyond the value of ten scudi in money before restitution has been made; but below the aforesaid value, let him absolve, or command to be absolved, only after an alms has been made at the judgment of the Penitentiary himself or of the Confessor to be chosen by him, which is to be expended for the benefit of the Religion or Convent to which restitution would by law have to be made, if it can be done cautiously. And you have this same thing in the Constitution Pastor bonus of Benedict XIV, 13 April 1744.

Therefore, the words of the Author are not to be understood as though gifts which do not attain the value of ten scudi cannot be notable, or as though gifts below that value can be retained by the recipient in such a way that he does not need that remission of the debt which the Apostolic See reserved to itself; but those words are to be taken merely in this sense: that one receiving gifts exceeding that value cannot be absolved by the Major Penitentiary unless the obligation of restoring is imposed; but if the gifts do not exceed that measure, the recipient can be absolved with the obligation imposed of only some alms, to be determined at the judgment of the same Penitentiary or of the Confessor to be chosen.

5. Absolution from censures must be given not only to those who certainly or doubtfully incurred them, but also to every penitent before he is absolved from sins, so that any impediment which perhaps exists to receiving the Sacrament may be removed ⁵. - (From the Roman Ritual.) But as to what formula is to be used, recall the things said where Penance was treated, no. 430.

⁵ Since the use of the sacraments is forbidden to the excommunicated, absolution from excommunication must always precede absolution from sins. But where it is not established that the penitent is bound by it, absolution is merely premised as a precaution.

954. • Questions. - QUESTION 1. Can an absent person be absolved?

Reply. Affirmatively, at least validly. The reason is that, just as a penalty can be established against an absent person, so also it can be removed. This is also evidently deduced from Canon Law ⁶.

⁶ If, nevertheless, there is question of the faculty granted to Bishops by the Council of Trent in chapter Liceat (see above, no. 952), so that they can absolve any of their subjects in their diocese, according to the more probable interpretation, which Lugo also embraces after Suarez (On Censures, disputation 41, section 2, no. 11 and following; On Faith, disputation 23, nos. 73-76), it seems that it must be said that a Bishop absent from the diocese can indeed absolve a penitent existing in the diocese, but not conversely. Lugo himself confirms this interpretation from a certain Declaration of the Sacred Congregation.

Nor ought it to stand in the way of this resolution that St. Alphonsus (book 6, no. 593, and book 7, no. 81), with Barbosa (On the Office and Power of a Bishop, part 2, allegation 59, no. 8) and certain others, thinks that those words of the same Chapter, For the forum of conscience, have the same force as in sacramental Confession.

For, as Lugo well says (loc. cit., no. 64), the contrary opinion is common to almost all; and this is apparent from the lengthy catalogue of Doctors whom even Barbosa (loc. cit.) presents for it. And indeed (Lugo continues) the contrary cannot be sufficiently proved from the words of Trent; and it seems to be deduced from general principles, since it is established that absolution from censures can be separated from absolution from sins. Nor does that limitation, For the forum of conscience, compel this to be done in the sacrament; for those words have another sense, namely, lest this absolution avail for the external forum, in which, although someone has been absolved by the Bishop for the forum of conscience, he will be regarded as not absolved and will be punished with all the penalties of law. He then himself solves the difficulty which perhaps could be drawn from two Declarations of the Sacred Congregation; and that solution fits very well also with what Fagnanus (on chapter Dilectus, On the Time of Ordinations, nos. 35, 36) relates was declared by Gregory XIII; for the controversy was not then whether a Bishop could absolve within the sacrament of Penance or outside it, but whether by force of chapter Liceat he could absolve these or those persons.

Moreover, that anyone who has the power of absolving from a censure in the forum of conscience can perform this even outside confession is the common opinion, with which St. Alphonsus also agrees generally (book 7, no. 126); and it must be attributed only to a lapse of memory that Busembaum (in St. Alphonsus, loc. cit.) presents Suarez and Navarre as opposed, although they plainly agree with the others (see Suarez, On Vows, book 6, chapter 16, no. 4, and Navarre, Counsels, book 5, On Privileges, counsel XI, no. 2).

But what must be especially noted is that this same thing holds even if: 1. a faculty has been given of absolving in the penitential forum. See Bonacina (On Censures, disputation 1, question 3, point 6, no. 8) and Suarez (On Laws, book 8, chapter 6, no. 16); or 2. the faculty is committed to a priest, or to a priest-confessor, or even to a priest hearing confessions. See Suarez (On Laws, book 8, chapter 6, no. 16); indeed, 3. even if the faculty of absolving is given after confession has been heard. See Sanchez (On Matrimony, book 8, disputation 16, no. 11), Emmanuel Rodriguez (Questions of Religious, volume 1, question 61, article 7), Gaspar Hurtado (On Excommunication, disputation 15, difficulty 5, nos. 17, 18), Avila (part 2, chapter 7, disputation 3, doubt 13), Giles Coninck (disputation 14, On Excommunication, doubt 46, no. 252), and, others being omitted, Felix Potestas (Examination of Confessors, no. 3460).

Coninck (loc. cit., no. 251) thus indicates what use there can be of this doctrine, namely, that if the guilty party is not prepared to confess immediately and causes are present on account of which it is expedient that he immediately be absolved (from excommunication, suspension, or interdict); and the same could be said when one who has the power of absolving from reserved censures did not have time to hear an entire confession; for then he could hear only the cases which have excommunication annexed to them, and then absolve from this, and send the penitent to another who, after hearing the confession, would absolve from sins. Thus, with others, Avila, part 2, chapter 7, disputation 3, doubt 13.

QUESTION 2. Can an absent Bishop absolve one existing in the diocese?

Reply. Affirmatively, according to all. The reason is that knowledge of the cause and judicial proceedings are not required for absolution; and therefore nothing prevents a Bishop from exercising such an act of jurisdiction in another's territory. It is otherwise, nevertheless, if judicial proceedings should at times be required. - St. Alphonsus, no. 21.

955. • QUESTION 3. Can an unwilling person be absolved?

Reply. Affirmatively. The reason is the same as that just adduced; for just as a penalty can be imposed upon one absent and unwilling, so also it can be removed from him. Nevertheless, it is not expedient that this be done without a very grave reason, and care must be taken lest, while he has not ceased from contumacy, the censure be held in contempt. - St. Alphonsus, no. 117.

QUESTION 4. Can one who is bound by several censures be absolved from one while the others remain?

Reply. Affirmatively. The reason is that there is no necessary connection among them. Mortal sins indeed can by no means be absolved one without the others; but it is otherwise with censures, whose absolution does not confer sanctifying grace upon the censured person. They are regarded, therefore, after the manner of chains, some of which can be loosed without the others.

QUESTION 5. Can one be absolved from censures who has not yet publicly repaired the scandal on account of which he was subject to those censures?

Reply. Negatively, at least per se and speaking generally. This is established from the Declaration of the Sacred Penitentiary, 5 July 1857 ⁷.

⁷ Here belongs the question concerning absolution which is conferred without satisfaction having been made to the party. Concerning it, this is certain: that it is illicit, whether it is thus given by the Ordinary or by a Delegate, both on account of the injury done to the party and because one absolving thus violates the order of law, which prescribes that real satisfaction be premised, if it can be done, as Schmalzgrueber says (book 5, title 39, no. 101).

Nevertheless, three cases, as is fitting, are excepted: 1. when the injured party remits the injury; 2. when the injured party rejects just satisfaction, because then it no longer stands through the guilty party that the one offended is not worthily satisfied; 3. when the guilty party is unable to make satisfaction; for then the judge (as St. Alphonsus notes, book 7, no. 128) not only can but ought to absolve him, and can be compelled to this from chapter Qua fronte 25, On Appeals, because when contumacy ceases, the guilty party ought to be absolved. Concerning this matter Suarez excellently adds (On Censures, disputation 7, section 5, no. 41) these things which pertain to practice: I think that, according to the quality of the matter and condition of the person and other circumstances occurring, it must be considered whether the penitent can morally make satisfaction effectively before he is absolved from the censure, and then this must be premised; but if he cannot, nor can absolution be deferred except for a long time or with great detriment, then I think that he can be absolved if he makes satisfaction in the manner in which he can at present, that is, by furnishing security, either by pledge, if he can, or by oath, if he cannot furnish greater, and by displaying such signs of repentance and purpose that the confessor may probably judge that absolution will both profit the penitent himself and not impede him, or become an occasion why he would not later make satisfaction after acquiring the ability.... But the reason for this opinion is that when the Pontiff says, the party having been satisfied, it is to be understood, insofar as the penitent can make satisfaction; because it is not likely that the Pontiff demands an impossible condition.

Nevertheless, what Diana has concerning the securities to be demanded (volume 5, tract 1, resolution 186, no. 2), citing John Valerus and Henriquez, must not be omitted: It must therefore be said probably that that procedure of satisfaction and security by pledge and oath appears to be understood for the exterior forum; for in the penitential forum, when the possibility of the penitent is lacking, his firm purpose alone has as much force as the giving of pledges or sureties in the judicial forum. Therefore in the forum of conscience it will suffice to believe the penitent.

But meanwhile there must be kept before the eyes also the warning which Reiffenstuel hands down (book 5, title 39, no. 270): Although Laymann rightly notes that, for the internal forum, with the quality of the person considered, even the bare promise or pledged faith of the censured person suffices if the censure is occult, nevertheless he also rightly warns (book 1, tract 5, part 1, chapter 7, no. 7) that privileged Regulars ought to beware lest, even for the internal forum alone, they absolve anyone notoriously censured by force of the common law or of a general sentence,

for example, one excommunicated, or one whose excommunication has already been brought to the contentious forum, before he has actually made satisfaction to the injured party; because otherwise, if such a guilty party already exists as absolved at least for the internal forum, he cannot so easily be driven by the Church to make satisfaction to the injured party. Regular Confessors ought well to observe this; although even in notoriously excommunicated persons of this kind circumstances can persuade that absolution for the internal forum may prudently be given upon only a prior security or promise.

But as regards the validity of absolution imparted without satisfaction having been made to the party, two things are established among all, namely: 1. absolution is valid if it is conferred by the Ordinary; 2. but it is invalid if conferred by a Delegate, if satisfaction of the party is enjoined as a condition; for it is manifestly apparent that a faculty delegated with a condition is not conceded, and therefore does not avail, when the condition has not been fulfilled.

The question turns upon whether, when the faculty of absolving is given by the Pontiff with that clause, The party having been satisfied, this is to be taken as a condition without which the faculty is not granted. And St. Alphonsus indeed (book 7, no. 121) holds the affirmative opinion as more probable, although he also concedes that the opposite is probable. But contrariwise, the Salmanticenses (On Censures, chapter 2, no. 25) and Bonacina (On Censures, disputation 1, question 3, part 9, no. 3) judge the negative opinion more probable, and Sanchez calls it most probable (On Matrimony, book 3, disputation 33, no. 6). But other grave Doctors teach it absolutely; among whom it suffices to name Reiffenstuel (Moral Theology, tract 15, distinction 2, question 5, section 1, no. 107), Pirhing (on book 5, title 39, no. 163), Hurtado, and others, some of whom St. Alphonsus also recalls (book 6, no. 537, question VII).

And indeed this opinion rests upon a principle received among all. The Doctors distinguish (see Sanchez, On Matrimony, book 3, disputation 33, no. 3) whether in a commission or delegation the form of the common law is expressed in the manner in which it is inherent in the law, or whether some limited mode is added to the common form of law. In the prior case, namely, if the common form of law is merely expressed in the delegation, they establish that it is not the intention of the one commissioning to introduce a new form or condition, but that it is a certain admonition that the common form be observed; wherefore, if it is omitted, the act, which otherwise would be valid if that form were not expressed in the commission, is not invalidated. It is otherwise in the latter case; for that addition to the common form of law imports a condition. See Sanchez, who (loc. cit.) both illustrates the matter with examples and confirms it by the authority of the Gloss and the Canonists. Among them Covarruvias (on chapter Alma, part 1, section 9, no. 8) says: It is noted by the common opinion of all that those things which are inherent in law by no means introduce a form or condition, even if they have been expressed by man. He notes this so that he may establish that an excommunication imposed by a delegate without the threefold warning being premised is valid, though unjust, even if the clause the threefold warning having been premised were contained in the mandate.

Navarre, moreover (Manual, chapter 27, no. 37), having recalled the Gloss on the sole Clementine On the Office of a Delegate at the word shall find, which he calls most received and in which the principle under discussion is most expressly contained, after first premising that absolution would be invalid if the delegate did not observe a form other than that of law, adds: I said, Other than that of law; because, as we answered earlier, absolution given by virtue of the Pope's mandate to absolve according to the form of law is valid, although it is not observed, as it would be valid if done without that mandate by the Ordinary through ordinary authority; because it was not the Pope's intention to introduce a new form through those words (The party having been satisfied), but to admonish the commissioner of that which according to law he ought to do; which Innocent said in a similar matter, etc. You may see the same principle inculcated also by Reiffenstuel (Moral Theology, tract 15, distinction 2, no. 107) and Laymann (On Censures, part 2, chapter 6, no. 8).

The sole reason which is usually brought forward for the opposite opinion is that an ablative absolute, of which sort is the form The party having been satisfied, imports a condition, as Benedict XIV notes (Instruction 87, no. 68). It is easily answered that this pertains to that kind of arguments which are usually called arguments from congruity and which generally fail, unless at times they are accidentally true by reason of the matter, or, as Laymann says (loc. cit.), because the required condition pertains to the substance of the act. And of this kind, indeed, in the opinion of Benedict XIV, was that ablative absolute of which he was treating, The party having been informed; since (as he says) that mandate of the Penitentiary rests upon the common law, which demands a new consent from the spouses for duly ratifying a marriage, etc. On the contrary, it fails in the example which you have in Sanchez (loc. cit., no. 6), when the faculty is given of assisting at a marriage after the banns have been premised.

As to what certain ones say, that the delegating party is not considered to give the faculty of absolving without satisfaction having been made to the party because this is illicit, Schmalzgrueber (book 5, title 39, no. 101) solves it thus from the common opinion: Nor does it follow from this that the delegating party sins by granting the faculty of absolving validly without satisfaction having been made to the party; for just as the Church does not sin in granting this power to the Ordinary, so neither will the Ordinary sin if he delegates it in that manner in which he himself possesses it; for sufficient provision is made for the right of a third party, while absolution of this kind is prohibited. But concerning these things, enough has now been said for the measure of a note.