§ II. On Absolution from Reserved Cases

574. Principles. - I. By ordinary power, the following can absolve from reserved cases: 1. those who themselves reserve them; 2. their successors in the same power; 3. their Superiors.

II. Bishops or their delegates can absolve even from occult papal cases, excepting, however, those which His Holiness Pius IX declared to be reserved in a special manner to the Apostolic See. This is established from the concession of the Council of Trent, sess. 24, Decree on Reformation, chapter 6, Liceat, and from the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis, October 12, 1869.

Bishops can absolve from papal cases even when notorious or public all the faithful who, because of a legitimate impediment, cannot approach the Apostolic See, lest danger threaten souls from a delay of absolution. This is established from Canon Law.

III. No Confessor, even a Regular, can absolve from properly episcopal cases unless he has received the faculty from the Bishop himself, even if he can absolve from any cases whatsoever reserved to the Pope. Thus Clement X in the Bull Superna, where it is said: Those having the faculty of absolving from all cases reserved to the Apostolic See cannot on that account absolve in cases reserved by the Bishop. Except, according to what was said above, Regulars, who by the same Constitution of Clement X can absolve those coming together from an alien diocese from the cases reserved there, unless, however, they have come in fraud of the reservation and the sins are also reserved in the place of confession.

IV. There is no reservation at the moment of death. Therefore, all Priests can then absolve any penitents from all sins and censures. - Trent, sess. 14, chapter 7.

575. Questions. - QUESTION 1. Can an inferior sometimes absolve one having reserved sins outside danger of death?

Reply 1. He can indeed sometimes absolve, namely, whenever the faculty cannot be sought from the Superior, not even by letter ¹, and otherwise there is danger in delay or a grave inconvenience threatens; and this avails even if the sin should be reserved with excommunication. The reason is that the Church, a pious mother, and every Superior cannot be judged to wish to oblige anyone to something morally impossible or to undergo so great an inconvenience. - Thus commonly. - St. Ligorius, no. 585.

¹ Observe with St. Alphonsus (book 7, no. 89) that the common, more probable, and safe doctrine is that one who has an impediment to appearing before the Pontiff is not bound to seek absolution through an intermediary or by letter, even from the Sacred Penitentiary: 1. because by common law, while that impediment remains, Bishops possess the power of absolving; 2. because no obligation is present except that of appearing personally; if, therefore, anyone cannot perform this, he is bound to nothing else except what the legislator has substituted; 3. because obtaining absolution through the Sacred Penitentiary is a privilege, but according to the common axiom no one is bound to use privileges. Nevertheless, if a privileged confessor is lacking and the impediment is not perpetual, a petition for the faculty by letter will be useful, so that the penitent may be freed from the burden of appearing at some time.

Albitius (On Inconstancy, chapter 25, no. 33) adduces for the opposite opinion the example of a decision issued by the Congregation of the Holy Inquisition. But the example is not to the point. Someone had namely been absolved under the express condition that he present himself at Rome either personally or through a procurator; and when he alleged the inconvenience of the journey, it was granted to him that he might have recourse to the Sacred Penitentiary. Here, therefore, there is a special disposition for a special case, which neither ought nor can be converted into a general principle.

Reply 2. Yet in such a case he cannot absolve except indirectly from the reserved cases, although he absolves directly from the others. The reason is that he does not have jurisdiction over the reserved cases. Nor is the Church judged to supply this jurisdiction; for there is no necessity of supplying it, since indirect absolution from the reserved cases suffices for the present necessity. - St. Ligorius, ibid., and the others cited above.

Hence, 1. the Confessor cannot then absolve except with the burden that, when an opportunity is given, the penitent present himself to the Superior or to another having the faculty of absolving from reserved cases.

These things, however, avail when the penitent can within a short time approach the Superior or another having the faculty over reserved cases. But if the impediment lasts for a long time, which is computed from six months to five years, an inferior can absolve directly, with the burden nevertheless imposed of presenting himself to the Superior or his delegate if the sin is reserved with a censure. It is otherwise if the sin does not have a censure attached. - Suarez, On Penance, disp. 30, sect. 3, no. 7. - Lugo, disp. 20, no. 223. But when the impediment is perpetual ², absolution is given directly without any burden of appearing before the Superior. Chapter Eos qui, 22, De Sent. Excomm., in VI. Those things which are said concerning a reservation of the Pontiff can be extended to episcopal reserved cases ³. Thus the common opinion in St. Alphonsus, no. 585 and book 7, no. 92.

² Those judged to have an impediment of this kind are children before puberty, sons of a family, the aged, servants, the poor, the infirm or sickly, women, Regulars, and much more nuns, those perpetually condemned to prisons or galleys, and finally all who are bound by a duty of supporting or administering a family, or of discharging a public office which cannot be left without public or grave detriment. See St. Alphonsus (book 7, no. 88).

³ By episcopal reserved cases the Author seems to mean sins which a Bishop reserves to himself. Concerning these St. Alphonsus (book 6, no. 585) judges as more true that the rule handed down concerning papal reserved cases does not avail; but afterward (book 7, no. 92) he proposes the doctrine of Roncaglia (tract 4, q. 1, chapter 6, q. 5), who establishes this general principle: Those things which have been said concerning cases reserved to the Supreme Pontiff can, from parity of reason, be extended to episcopal reserved cases, etc.; and Sporer has things corresponding to these (On Penance, no. 750). But that St. Alphonsus opposes to Roncaglia Laymann, Soto, Coninck, and Suarez, by whose authority he had previously been moved to judge the first opinion more true, is in fact of no account. For the first three of these do not touch this question at all; but Suarez (On Penance, disp. 30, sect. 3, nos. 11-12), after adducing reasons for each opinion, merely says that he inclines more to that side, lest in a matter so grave this faculty be attributed without sufficient foundation. Yet others rightly think that sufficient foundation is present in chapter Eos qui, 22, De Sent. Excomm., in VI, which thus determines: Those who are absolved by another from a sentence of a canon or of a man (when, because of the imminent moment of death or another legitimate impediment, they cannot have recourse for the benefit of absolution to him by whom otherwise they were by law to be absolved), etc.; for here there is question of any Superior whatsoever and not only of the Roman Pontiff. The same can also be elicited from chapter Nuper, De Sent. Excomm., in which the question is expressly raised concerning any Prelate whatsoever. Nor indeed is Roncaglia alone with Sporer in that doctrine; for he himself alleges Hurtado and Diana, while Diana (vol. 1, tract 5, resolutions 18 and 19) adds Palaus, Henriquez, Marchant, Caelestinus, Gamachaeus, and Granadus. And he concludes (resolution 18, no. 7): And I judge all these things sufficiently probable and safe; and let them be noted especially by Confessors, because they are not everywhere encountered in Authors, but are of daily occurrence in practice.

Moreover, the same question is raised concerning those who, bound by a pontifical censure and hindered from approaching Rome, ought to seek absolution from the Bishop: whether, if they are also hindered from betaking themselves to the Bishop, they can be absolved by any Confessor. St. Alphonsus replies (book 7, no. 92): Suarez, Lugo, Becanus, etc., more commonly deny it, according to Viva, On Penance, q. 9, art. 2, no. 9, because in law this is conceded only to Bishops, nor in a positive law does an argument from parity avail. But in this he was deceived by Viva, who in that place badly confounds distinct questions; while Suarez was so far of the affirmative opinion that Lugo attempted to attack him for this reason (On Penance, disp. 20, nos. 228-229). Moreover, the laws are manifest not only in the cited chapter Eos qui, but also in chapter Nuper, in which the faculty is also given to others besides the Bishop in these words: But if for some just cause it is difficult for the one to be absolved to approach the excommunicator himself, we grant by indulgence that (after security has been given according to the form of the Church that he will obey the mandate of the excommunicator) he may be absolved by his own Bishop or proper priest. This sentence, as St. Alphonsus says (loc. cit.), the Doctors most commonly interpret not disjunctively, as though it were equally permissible to approach either the Bishop or another confessor, but substitutively, namely, that he can then be absolved by another confessor when the Bishop cannot be approached. But if the Doctors most commonly elicit this from this canon, how do they more commonly deny that one who is impeded can be absolved by someone other than the Bishop? And in fact the same St. Alphonsus (loc. cit.) adduces many more for the second opinion than for the first.

** The VV. expend twenty-four columns (pp. 554-565) in attacking this Note. Therefore, as regards the first part of the Note, in which it is said that no account is to be made of the fact that St. Alphonsus opposes Laymann, Coninck, and Soto to Roncaglia because they do not touch at all upon the question at issue, the VV. (p. 556) establish this thesis: St. Alphonsus rightly alleges the Authors cited for the negative opinion.

Reply. This controversy has an easy solution if the state of the question is rightly defined. Therefore, in the present matter there is question of a penitent who is impeded from approaching the Bishop for a long time; concerning this case St. Alphonsus elsewhere (book 7, no. 86) thus determined: If, however, the impediment is FOR A LONG TIME, for example, for a year or six months..., he ought not to be absolved unless an oath has first been given, etc.; that is, he teaches that he is to be absolved, with the burden imposed of presenting himself to the Superior when the impediment ceases, etc.

1. These things being established beforehand, we now come to Laymann. He (book 5, tract 6, chapter 12, nos. 9-10), to the question, What is a Confessor to do if a penitent confesses, among other things, a sin reserved to the Superior?, first replies: Ordinarily he ought not to absolve him, but to send him to the Superior, etc. Here, as is evident, there is no discussion of a penitent having a long-lasting impediment. Therefore these things are not to the point.

The other reply is this: If some necessity urges, for example, if the penitent is far distant from the Bishop, then the confessor can absolve the penitent in such a way that the absolution falls upon the non-reserved sins..., but indirectly upon the reserved sins. And here likewise there is no trace of a long-lasting impediment, indeed not even of a perpetual impediment. Therefore neither do these things touch the present controversy. Therefore it was rightly said in the Note that Laymann does not touch this question and accordingly is alleged in vain.

Indeed, it may be added that if Laymann has anything which can pertain in any way to the present matter, he inclines to the opinion opposite to that which the holy Doctor Alphonsus attributes to him. For (loc. cit., no. 15) he has these words: Finally I observe that, even outside danger of death, if there is a moral impossibility of approaching the Apostolic See for absolution from a sin reserved to the Supreme Pontiff, but neither the Bishop or his Vicar, to whom in such a case the faculty of absolution devolves accidentally, can be approached, nor can any privileged confessor be had, then it is very probable, as Felicianus, Scotus, Sylvester, Suarez, and Filliucius hand down from the argument of chapter Nuper, De Sent. Excomm., that even the Pastor or another inferior legitimate confessor can absolve, for example, a nun in enclosure; with an obligation imposed, or rather with the penitent advised of the obligation that, if it should happen that the impediment to approaching the Pope is removed, he ought to present himself to him, not that he may be absolved again, since he was truly and directly absolved, but, etc. Therefore Laymann teaches that one who cannot approach the Bishop can be absolved directly by an inferior. But why, finally, does Laymann admit this except from the general principle that a remedy ought not to be lacking, according to the Sacred Canons, for danger to souls and the necessity of the penitent? But are not the same danger and the same necessity present whether the case is episcopal or pontifical, for absolution from which the Bishop must be approached? Indeed, St. Alphonsus also (book 7, no. 92) does not reject this, both because, where there is the same reason, there ought to be the same law, as the Gloss says on chapter Dilectus, and because a law expressly granting this is not lacking; for in chapter Nuper, 29, De Sent. Excomm., it is held that one impeded for a just cause from approaching a Superior having the right to absolve from a censure is to be absolved by his own Bishop or proper priest. In that place the holy Doctor treats the general question, Whether those still impeded from approaching the Bishop for these censures, or OTHER RESERVED CASES, can be absolved by any confessor. Therefore, since the same reason avails for each case, if anything can be conjectured concerning Laymann's mind, there is certainly no reason why he should be drawn into the opinion which St. Alphonsus attributes to him; but, on the contrary, he can rightly be alleged for the opposite.

2. Let us pass to Dominic Soto, concerning whom the VV. (p. 559) write: St. Alphonsus alleges Dominic Soto only in book 7, no. 91, and indeed only indirectly from Laymann, where he treats reservations without a censure.

Reply. This is not true; for St. Alphonsus alleges Soto also in no. 92, where he asks whether, if someone is impeded from approaching the Bishop, a simple confessor can absolve him from cases and censures reserved by that same Bishop; and this is our present question. Therefore let the VV. seek another place in the works of Dominic Soto where he denies that an inferior can absolve from episcopal reserved cases when there is a long-lasting impediment, for example, for four years, to approaching the Bishop. Moreover, to exempt this place of the holy Doctor from every reproach, it would perhaps be expedient to employ another interpretation of it, such that he does not oppose those four Authors, namely, Suarez, Laymann, Coninck, and Soto, to Roncaglia, but adduces them for the hypothesis of an impediment that is indeed temporary but not long-lasting. And thus this place is better reconciled with those things which he has previously, and which we adduced above, concerning those impeded from approaching the Bishop for censures and other reserved cases. For, in view of the context, it is not necessary that this question be understood only of pontifical cases.

3. As regards Coninck, the VV. adduce (p. 558) this passage of his (disp. 8, no. 88): Others add that the same thing must be said of a Pastor with respect to cases reserved to the Bishop when the latter cannot be approached, but they do not sufficiently prove it, and necessity can scarcely occur, since a faculty for absolving from them can easily be obtained from the Bishop; unless perhaps in some sudden necessity, concerning which we shall say what must be done in the following doubt. But in the following doubt Coninck has that which all others also have, namely, that the penitent is to be absolved directly from the non-reserved sins, but indirectly from the reserved sins, etc.

Reply. That someone indicates a means by which some necessity can be met does not solve the general question, in which it is supposed that a means of providing for the necessity is not present. Others here add that a simple confessor cannot absolve the penitent in the case if a privileged confessor is at hand who can absolve also from the reserved cases; but even this, as is evident, does not solve the question under the hypothesis in which a privileged confessor is lacking. Therefore let it be sought in Coninck what must be done when, for a long time and from whatever cause may finally be imagined, the means proposed by him is lacking. And since you will seek in vain for the solution of this question in him, he is consequently opposed without reason to Roncaglia, who discusses this hypothesis.

Moreover, the remedy which Coninck suggests here can have place also when someone impeded from approaching the Pontiff ought, according to the canons, to receive absolution from the Bishop, yet cannot approach the Bishop either. For even in this case the Bishop can delegate to another the faculty of absolving.

Why, then, do neither St. Alphonsus nor the VV. object to Coninck in this case, but admit that this penitent can be absolved by an inferior?

4. Nearly the same things which we said concerning Coninck avail with Suarez. His thesis stands thus (disp. 30, sect. 3, no. 12): Absolutely speaking, I judge that inferior priests do not have jurisdiction over these reserved cases outside the moment of death BY FORCE OF COMMON LAW, because the Pontiffs speak only of cases reserved to themselves, in which there is the most special reason which was already touched upon.

Reply. Let those words, By force of common law, be carefully observed. For Suarez continues: And it can furthermore be explained because it pertained to the care of the Pontiffs themselves to commit this jurisdiction in their own cases; but as regards inferior Prelates it was not necessary for this to be established by common law, but just as reservation is made by them through particular statutes either of Dioceses or of Religious Orders, so it is committed to their care and prudence that they make it in a manner accommodated to the salvation of souls; and therefore in statutes of this kind it is ALMOST always customary to declare that, as often as access to the Prelate is difficult, absolution can in some way be obtained from others, lest penance be delayed too long. But, it can again be rejoined, these things do not pertain to the matter. For the question concerns the hypothesis of a penitent who for a long time must lack absolution because he can neither approach the Bishop nor has another at hand who possesses the faculty of absolving. But the hypothesis of Suarez stands otherwise. Therefore, in the hypothesis which is established here by us, the reason from which Suarez wishes to extricate himself retains all its force; and he proposes it thus (loc. cit., no. 11): Although the difficulty of appearing before the Superior occurs more frequently with regard to the Supreme Pontiff than with regard to inferior Prelates, nevertheless it cannot be denied that it can often happen with danger to souls arising from a delay of penance. Therefore, although the Pontiffs established that law on the occasion of cases reserved to themselves, yet, their reason being considered (namely, Lest danger threaten souls from a delay of penance, chapter final, De Poenit. et Remiss.), it can probably be believed that they established a general law to be observed in every reservation of cases.

Indeed, someone could add that it not only can probably be believed, as Suarez has it, but must be held as certain that the Pontiffs established a general law to be observed in every reservation of cases. For are not the words of canon Eos qui (chapter 22, De Sent. Excomm., in VI) most clear? Those (thus Boniface VIII) who are absolved by another from the sentence of a canon OR OF A MAN (when, because of the imminent moment of death or ANOTHER LEGITIMATE IMPEDIMENT, they cannot have recourse for the benefit of absolution to him by whom they otherwise were by law to be absolved): if afterward, when it ceases, etc. But the things contained in this canon pertain to common law; and the canon generally embraces all Superiors from whom absolution is to be sought, and Bishops certainly are comprehended among these. Therefore.

Moreover, the same Suarez (loc. cit., no. 8) had written: In pontifical cases the general rule of law is that, as often as access to the Supreme Pontiff or to his Legate or Delegate is not open except with great difficulty and delay, the sinner can be absolved by an inferior priest, with the burden, etc. Yet he added (loc. cit., no. 10): It is often necessary to have recourse to the Bishop before inferiors, if this can be done, because the laws themselves declare this. But from those things which we brought forward above from Suarez himself, it was necessary, for preventing danger to souls, that the Pontiffs should establish a law of this kind. Therefore, by Suarez's own admission, in order to ward off danger to souls it was necessary that those who could not approach the Bishop without great difficulty and delay should be capable of being absolved by an inferior priest. But, insofar as warding off danger to souls is concerned, what difference does it finally make whether the Bishop must be approached for absolution from a pontifical case or for absolution from an episcopal case?

And hence indeed we may learn, if you please, why Lugo wrote that Suarez inclined to the negative opinion, although his thesis which we adduced announces this in a certain absolute manner. For the whole context indicates that there was indeed in Suarez a strong will to deny, or rather an ineffectual wish, which nevertheless the preceding and following context proved altogether ineffectual. Therefore there was in fact no cause for the VV. (p. 559) to write these things: Father Ballerini clearly shows that he did not examine the opinion of Suarez. The very thing happened to him which he everywhere reproaches St. Alphonsus with, namely, that he blindly copied Authors. For he himself was deceived by Cardinal de Lugo. Reply. There was no deception at all, but a discreet and even benign interpretation of the Suarezian context.

It also does not appear why the VV. (p. 560) write: Therefore, since Suarez calls the opinion that in a case of necessity the penitent can be directly absolved very doubtful and, rigorously speaking, not true, much more does he reject direct absolution where no necessity is present. For to what purpose are these things? Whom perhaps do they attack? Why do the VV. not indicate who perhaps asserted what they there wish to refute? What do they desire to insinuate by that silence?

5. The VV. object (pp. 560-561): Lugo demonstrates that the words of chapter Eos qui do not furnish a sufficient foundation for the affirmative opinion.

Reply. I distinguish: Lugo attempts to extricate himself from this difficulty through a gratuitous and violent interpretation, I concede; he demonstrates it, I deny.

The VV. object (p. 561): In chapter Nuper, De Sent. Excomm., there is openly discussion only of pontifical reservations, because it is said: let him be absolved by his own Bishop or proper priest.

Reply. I deny the whole. The reason is that, as no one is ignorant, someone can legitimately be struck with excommunication even by a Bishop not his own if, for example, in another diocese he acquires a forum by reason of the offense, as if someone refuses afterward to take as wife a violated girl to whom a true promise of matrimony was made; for the Bishop of that diocese can compel him by censures to keep faith. From that excommunication he can afterward, in those circumstances of which chapter Nuper treats, be absolved by his own Bishop.

6. As regards the other part of the Note, where there is discussion of absolving those who cannot approach the Pontiff, the matter can be disposed of in a few words, although the VV. discuss this matter through eight columns.

The VV. (p. 563) freely concede what is said in the Note, that the holy Doctor Alphonsus was deceived by Viva when he wrote (book 7, no. 92), Suarez, etc., more commonly deny it, but in these words: It is only a mere inadvertence or slip of the pen that the holy Doctor alleges Suarez for the negative opinion. Yet perhaps it would have been better to act here more sincerely or simply. For what they say of inadvertence is most true, and they very well allege the place of the holy Doctor where he attributes the opposite opinion to Suarez in these words (book 6, no. 585): In pontifical cases the rule of law is, AS SUAREZ WELL SAYS, that as often as access to the Pontiff is not open, the penitent can be directly absolved by the Bishop; or, when an impediment to approaching the Bishop is also present, by any confessor, etc. But what the VV. add concerning a slip of the pen is not to the point, because it is manifest, and the holy Doctor himself openly says, that he took these things from Viva.

7. To those things which are said in the Note, that Suarez was so far of the affirmative opinion that Lugo attempted to attack him for this reason, the VV. write (p. 564): Rather, Father Ballerini himself was again deceived by Cardinal de Lugo; for Suarez does not hold the affirmative opinion to such an extent that he deserves to be rebuked for it, and the things which Lugo objects against him are unjust.

Reply. It is indeed difficult to divine in what matter the VV. could have said that Father Ballerini was deceived by Cardinal de Lugo. Is it perhaps as though the Note said that Lugo's attack against Suarez was just or efficacious? But in the Note, on the contrary, it is merely said that Lugo attempted to attack him; and since in the Note itself the opinion of Suarez is exhibited as certain and confirmed by manifest laws, who would suspect that anything there is deferred to Lugo's attack? Does the deception perhaps reside in this, that the Note may seem to defer too much to the opinion of Suarez? Does what the VV. say perhaps look to this: that Suarez did not hold the affirmative opinion to such an extent that he deserved on that account to be rebuked by Lugo; namely, as though Suarez were not so firm in that opinion and Lugo therefore unjustly rose against him? But does not St. Alphonsus also (above, preceding number) praise Suarez because he relies upon a rule of law? Where, then, is this deception of Father Ballerini?

8. But the VV. also add another thing here (pp. 564-565), namely, they attack that rule of law and contend that in the alleged texts of Canon Law there is no firm foundation for the opinion which is treated here.

Reply. It is truly remarkable to what heat of contention and contradiction men can be carried away! Indeed, the holy Doctor Alphonsus (book 7, no. 92) wrote: A law expressly granting this is not lacking; for in chapter Nuper, 29, De Sent. Excomm., it is held, AS WE NOTED ABOVE, that one impeded for a just cause from approaching the Superior having the right to absolve from a censure is to be absolved by his own Bishop or proper priest. And in the place which he himself indicates, he has these things (book 7, no. 85): The same is established also in chapter Nuper, where at the end it is said MORE GENERALLY that, AS OFTEN AS anyone can with difficulty for a just cause approach for absolution from an excommunication him by whom he was to be absolved, he is to be absolved by his own Bishop or proper priest. And while the holy Doctor Alphonsus contends that it is established more generally in that canon that AS OFTEN AS, etc., is it not remarkable that the VV., under the assumed pretext of vindicating the holy Doctor, attack him instead?

9. Finally, the VV. take badly those last words of the Note: If the Doctors most commonly elicit this from this canon, how do they more commonly deny that one who is impeded can be absolved by someone other than the Bishop?

Reply. St. Alphonsus adduced three altogether, and among them Suarez, whom the VV. admit to have been alleged through inadvertence; and Becanus also could be joined to Suarez, since he touches this whole matter very lightly and in very few words and does not have this special question. Therefore Lugo alone remains. Thus, in order that they might defend the holy Doctor more suitably, others besides Lugo alone had to be adduced, so that it might be established that this doctrine is more commonly defended by the Doctors.

2. If the penitent has only reserved sins, he cannot be absolved unless he submits to the keys another sin, at least a venial sin of his past life, to be remitted directly. Otherwise no matter of the Sacrament would be given.

The cases in which an inferior can thus absolve are especially: 1. danger of infamy or scandal, for example, from the omission of the celebration of Mass; 2. the necessity of fulfilling the precept of confession or Communion; 3. fear lest the penitent remain for a long time in the state of mortal sin. - St. Ligorius, ibid.

576. • QUESTION 2. Is one who has been absolved from reserved cases at the moment of death by an inferior bound to present himself to the Superior if he recovers?

Reply 1. No, as regards a simple reservation. The reason is that, according to Trent, there is no reservation at the moment of death. Therefore there is also no burden of reservation unless it is proved from another source.

Reply 2. Authors commonly affirm this as regards censures attached to a reservation, from chapter Eos qui, 22, De Sententia excommunicationis, in VI, where no one is absolved at the moment of death from a reserved censure except under the law that, as soon as he conveniently can, he take care to present himself before the Superior, humbly to receive his mandate. Hence, if he recovers, he must have recourse to the Superior, and indeed under pain of falling again into the censures, unless a legitimate usage exempts him from this obligation. Nevertheless, some limit the obligation of presenting oneself to the Superior to the case of striking a Cleric or to another reservation which the Legislator may perhaps have excepted, of which kind the cases of the Bull In Coena were judged to be ⁴. They elicit this both from the Council of Trent, by which it was declared without any restriction that every reservation ceases in danger of death, and especially from the Roman Ritual, which clearly intimates an obligation of presenting oneself to the Superior not absolutely but conditionally: But if someone confesses while placed in danger of death, he is to be absolved from all sins and censures, however reserved they may be (for every reservation then ceases); but first, if he can, let him make satisfaction to whom he ought; and if he escapes the danger, and for some reason is bound to present himself to the Superior by whom otherwise he was to be absolved, as soon as he can let him present himself before him, to perform whatever he owes. Navarrus, Henriquez, Avila, Filliucius, Sporer, Gobat, Diana, and others call this opinion probable; nor does St. Ligorius seem to contradict it ⁵.

⁴ ** To this must be referred what is thus read in the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis of Pius IX immediately after the list of excommunications which are reserved in a special manner to the Apostolic See: But let those presuming to absolve without the due faculty, even under any pretext whatsoever, know that they are bound by the bond of an excommunication reserved to the Roman Pontiff, provided there is no question of the moment of death; in which, however, the obligation of standing by the mandates of the Church, if they recover, shall remain firm with regard to those absolved.

⁵ St. Alphonsus (book 7, no. 87) adds Corneius and the Salmanticenses to the Doctors alleged by the Author; the latter say (On Censures, chapter 2, no. 66): On account of the authority of such great men, we judge this probable. Thomas Del Bene likewise holds that opinion probable (On the Office of the Holy Inquisition, part 1, doubt 66, no. 19), who adds Gambarupta to the aforesaid; Sporer (On Penance, no. 726) joins Jordanus and Joseph de Januario to these; finally Diana (vol. 6, tract 1, resolution 202, no. 2) writes: Claudius Millardus, in the Summa of Pastors, On Penance, chapter 97, no. 10, observes that it appears most probable that this burden of presenting oneself before the Superior, if someone was absolved at the time of death from reserved excommunications, no longer has place and ceased after Trent.... Caelestinus, in the Compendium of Moral Theology, tract 1, chapter 7, no. 3, thinks that this doctrine can be approved with a safe conscience when the excommunication is not notorious or brought to the external forum. Sporer held the same, establishing (no. 752) that even the obligation of appearing before the Superior because of the striking of a cleric most probably avails only for the external forum, namely, when the matter has already been brought to the contentious forum.

Observe furthermore that, according to the mind of St. Alphonsus (book 7, no. 87), this question has place not only if someone was absolved from reserved censures at the moment of death, but also when, because of a long-lasting impediment to approaching the Superior, he obtained absolution from another and performed those things which the Superior would have exacted from him.

** The VV. write twelve columns against this Note and the text of Gury (pp. 566-571). We shall indicate in a few words those things which are of any or whatever importance.

1. Therefore, the VV. object (p. 567) that in the proposed case the negative opinion is rightly called more common and more probable by St. Alphonsus.

Reply. Let it pass; for this is denied neither in the Note nor in the text. But in the text it is merely said: Nor does St. Ligorius seem to contradict it.

2. But, the VV. say (loc. cit.), St. Alphonsus manifestly contradicts it and proposes the doubt only concerning one amended, who has already satisfied the parties.

Reply. Neither in the text nor in the Note does anything occur which excludes either satisfaction already fulfilled or the will of satisfying; indeed, an express mention of this is seen in the text of the Roman Ritual.

3. The VV. object (p. 568) that it is omitted in the Note that the Salmanticenses do not adhere to that opinion which they judge probable.

Reply. Let it pass. For it was sufficient for the purpose of the Note to indicate that the opinion had been judged probable by the Salmanticenses also.

4. The VV. (p. 569) prefix this title to another article: The arguments brought forward by Fathers Gury and Ballerini for the affirmative opinion are weighed.

Reply. I deny the supposition. For neither Father Gury nor Father Ballerini brings forward any argument, but they merely report both the opinion of others and some reason. Therefore, with fruitless labor the VV. fill two columns with texts of Patritius Sporer, whom they otherwise cannot deny to have judged the opinion which they attack to be most probable.

5. That the VV. may extricate themselves from the words of the Roman Ritual, they object that there is discussion there not only of reserved censures but also of reserved cases without a censure.

Reply. I concede the Antecedent and deny the consequence. For those words of the Ritual, And if for some reason he is bound to present himself to the Superior, would absurdly be drawn to a distinction between censures and other sins; rather, they openly indicate that there can be a doubt whether those who have been absolved from a censure are also bound to present themselves.

And let these things suffice for those twelve columns of the VV.; for certain other things do not require a reply.

577. • QUESTION 3. Is one bound by a reservation, when under a necessity of communicating or celebrating, bound to confess to a simple Confessor when another is lacking?

Reply 1. More probably he is not bound to confess if he has no other mortal sin except the reserved one; the reason is that he is bound to confession neither by reason of the reserved sin, which cannot be directly remitted, nor by reason of venial sins or mortal sins already remitted, since these are not necessary matter of confession. - St. Ligorius, no. 265 ⁶. - Lugo. - Elbel, etc.

⁶ If he has no other mortal sin except the reserved one, the Doctors agree that he is not bound to confession, but that it suffices for him to be contrite. St. Alphonsus (book 6, no. 265, q. 1).

Reply 2. If, however, he observes that he does not have contrition but only attrition, he will be bound to confess at least a venial or mortal sin already remitted on another occasion, so that he may thus be absolved indirectly from the reserved sins and communicate in the state of grace. - Thus commonly. - St. Ligorius, nos. 265, 585.

Reply 3. Furthermore, he is bound to confess if he has both reserved and non-reserved mortal sins. The reason is that the divine precept of premising confession before Communion urges, and no excuse from the precept of confession is given. - Thus most commonly, says St. Ligorius, against some who denied it because, as they said, the Confessor lacks jurisdiction over such a penitent; which is plainly false ⁷.

⁷ It seems opposed to these things that St. Alphonsus (book 6, no. 585, doubt 2) says that this negative opinion is not improbable, and elsewhere (ibid., no. 596, q. 1) calls it sufficiently probable, because, as he says, it is probable with Vasquez, Tournely, Armilla, Gerson, Trullench, etc., that a simple confessor lacks all jurisdiction over one having reserved sins, since he is not his competent judge; therefore he cannot absolve him even from the non-reserved sins. Indeed (ibid., no. 265, q. 1), he adds for the same opinion Alexander of Hales, Sylvester, Richard, and Praepositus, and continues: and Suarez, Palaus, and Filliucius rightly call this probable. The reason is that that confession made to an inferior would be invalid, since it would be made to an incompetent judge who, because of the reserved sins with which the penitent is burdened, lacks all power over him. How, then, does the Author abruptly call false that which St. Alphonsus, after so many grave Doctors, affirms is rightly called probable?

But these things can easily be reconciled if the reason of the thesis is distinguished from the reason of the argument which St. Alphonsus adduces for it. For the thesis was in fact held at least as likely by those Authors whom St. Alphonsus himself alleges; hence it seems to have derived at least some extrinsic probability. But the argument drawn from this, that one cannot be absolved even from non-reserved sins unless the priest can absolve him at the same time from the reserved sins, belongs scarcely to a few, and has no strength from reason.

And indeed Vasquez (In III Part., q. 91, art. 3, doubt 9, no. 24) argues from this, that if someone could in necessity be absolved indirectly from reserved sins, he could also be so absolved outside necessity. But this is manifestly false; for it is certain among all that necessity excuses from the precept of the integrity of confession, but that outside necessity no one is excused from it.

Sylvius, however (In Suppl., q. 20, art. 2, q. 3), whose opinion Pontas (word Reserved Case, no. 21) and Collet (On Penance, part 2, chapter 8, no. 569) also report, argues from this, that according to the Council of Trent priests outside the moment of death can do nothing in reserved cases; but this would be false, in his opinion, if they could absolve at least indirectly from reserved cases. But that whole argument rests upon a perverse notion of indirect absolution, as though reserved sins were remitted in some way by the force of absolution, when among Theologians it is established that they are remitted no otherwise than they are remitted accidentally in the reception of the Eucharist or Extreme Unction, namely, consequently upon the infusion of sanctifying grace (as Dominic Soto says in In IV Sent., dist. 18, q. 2, art. 5, proposition 2), and not by the force of absolution. To this, therefore, the words of the Author look when he says that it is false that a priest cannot be the judge and minister of the sacrament with respect to one who also has reserved sins.

Moreover, if certain others denied that anyone was bound to premise confession before the reception of the Eucharist when, besides other sins, he also has reserved sins, these did not deny that he could be validly absolved directly from the non-reserved and indirectly from the reserved sins; but they merely thought that in the case he was not bound to confess. For they thought that in a confession of this kind the reserved sins also had to be expressed; and since direct absolution from these would afterward have to be sought from one having the power for it, it followed, in their opinion, that the penitent would have to confess the same sins twice. They judged this burden of confessing the same sins twice so grave that for this reason they thought he should be excused from confession unless someone was present who could also absolve from the reserved sins. See Suarez, On the Sacraments, disp. 66, sect. 4.

But this reason also is destitute of all force; and therefore it was said that scarcely any merely extrinsic probability had belonged to the aforesaid thesis. And this indeed can be shown without any difficulty. For someone would be excused in the case from premising confession insofar as he would necessarily have to undergo that grave burden of confessing the same sins twice. But it is false that so grave a burden must then be undergone; for according to the common opinion it is far more probable (see the following question) that in that confession there is no obligation to express also the reserved sins over which the confessor has no power. Therefore it could at one time have seemed that a shadowy probability inhered in that thesis; but since it lacks a solid foundation, in fact it has no probability.

** The VV. object (p. 940, note 4) that in this Note the reasons of diverse Authors are refuted, but the foundation of this opinion which St. Alphonsus thus expounds is passed over: The reason is that that confession made to an inferior would be invalid, since it would be made to an incompetent judge. And the VV. continue: What wonder if he seems an incompetent judge to whom the right of knowing the whole cause is denied, that is, all the sins committed, especially the graver ones, and the disposition and true state of the penitent? FOR THIS REASON, the holy Doctor, although he embraces the opposite opinion as more probable, nevertheless rightly called this opinion also probable with Suarez and others.

Reply 1. I deny that Suarez called that opinion simply probable; his words are (On the Eucharist, disp. 66, sect. 4, section Fourth): It does not seem improbable. But then I deny what the VV. insinuate by that phrase FOR THIS REASON, as though Suarez either deferred anything to that reason which St. Alphonsus employs or even mentioned it. This is altogether false; for Suarez said that opinion did not seem improbable because otherwise the penitent is obliged to confess the same mortal sin twice, which is a grave burden. It was already said in the Note that this reason is not efficacious, and Suarez admits it, nor do the VV. deny it.

Reply 2. As regards the argument of St. Alphonsus, the VV., as I think, would better have consulted the honor and reverence due to the holy Doctor if they had omitted disputing both the argument and the question itself.

First, indeed, it is most true that this opinion is called probable by St. Alphonsus. For he writes (book 6, no. 265, q. 1): And Suarez rightly calls this probable; which, however, as we have seen, is not altogether true of Suarez. But, passing over this, the holy Doctor himself elsewhere (book 6, no. 585, doubt 2) judges a little differently and merely says thus that it is not improbable: Although the negative opinion is not improbable. But behold, afterward he again judges differently, when he writes (book 6, no. 596, q. 1): Antoine denies it, and speaking in itself his opinion is sufficiently probable. Nevertheless, to omit for now that it is not true that Antoine denies it, because in the place which St. Alphonsus alleges (On Penance, appendix 4, chapter 3, art. 2, q. 5), Antoine, reporting two opinions, finally retains the affirmative at the end; to omit this, I say, St. Alphonsus lastly concludes thus in this place: And since this opinion (namely, the affirmative) is common (but he had called it most common in no. 265, q. 1), as Antoine himself admits, and very probable, indeed CERTAINLY MORE PROBABLE, as we said, it can well be reduced to practice; for it is morally certain that with a probable opinion the Church supplies jurisdiction. Therefore St. Alphonsus finally calls the affirmative certainly more probable. But, as is most well known, when the holy Doctor calls an opinion certainly more probable, he himself testifies that he does not hold the opposite as probable, but only as slightly or doubtfully probable. How, then, did he elsewhere call this same opinion sufficiently probable and say that Suarez rightly called it probable? Moreover, why is discussion of the Church supplying jurisdiction introduced here? For under the hypothesis the priest has jurisdiction over the non-reserved sins; therefore it is not necessary that this be supplied by the Church. But over the reserved sins the Church supplies no jurisdiction, and therefore the penitent must afterward present himself to the Superior to be absolved by him. Therefore the reverence due to the holy Doctor required that the VV. not at all raise a question about these things.

But this is not yet the end. The holy Doctor (book 6, no. 596, q. 1) asks, Whether, if the penitent confesses it (namely, the reserved sin) when necessity urges, a simple confessor validly and licitly ABSOLVES him. And he replies: Antoine denies it (which has already been said not to be true), and speaking in itself his opinion is sufficiently probable; for, as we said in no. 265, q. 1, it is probable with Vasquez, Tournely, Armilla, Gerson, Trullench, etc., that a simple confessor lacks all jurisdiction over one having reserved sins, since he is not his competent judge; therefore he cannot absolve him even from the non-reserved sins. But these things are far from the truth, because of these Vasquez alone taught that anomalous opinion, namely, that a simple confessor lacks all jurisdiction over one having reserved sins, etc., and attempted to defend it more diffusely (q. 91, art. 3, doubt 9, from no. 10), and for it he also brought forward that absurd reason which we indicated in the Note.

The cause of this error in the holy Doctor, which we shall call material, seems to have been that he had indeed alleged these Authors in no. 265, q. 1, to which place he refers, but the question was not proposed thus there. For the question (no. 265, q. 1) is proposed thus: It is asked, 1. whether one who has a reserved sin and does not have access to a confessor having the faculty is bound to confess to an inferior confessor. It is manifest, moreover, that this question differs greatly from the preceding one. Nevertheless, while discussing a penitent who simultaneously has reserved and non-reserved mortal sins, he again replies thus: The first opinion denies that he is bound to confession and says that he can communicate after only contrition has been premised. Thus Vasquez, q. 91, art. 3, doubt 9; Collet, vol. 5, p. 499, word Hence one who; likewise Gerson and Alexander of Hales according to Lugo loc. cit.; Sylvester and Richard according to Diana, part 3, tract 4, resolution 104; likewise Armilla, Praepositus, Trullench, etc., according to Viva, On the Eucharist, q. 4, art. 7, no. 6; and Suarez, disp. 66, sect. 4, section Fourth, Palaus, and Filliucius according to Viva loc. cit., rightly call this probable. But afterward he gives the same reason as above, thus: The reason is that that confession made to an inferior would be invalid, since it would be made to an incompetent judge who, because of the reserved sins with which the penitent is burdened, lacks all power over him; whence, just as absolution cannot be divided to remit one sin without another, so neither can confession. That the holy Doctor thought this reason was commonly adduced by all these Authors is manifestly apparent from his words which we described shortly before from book 6, no. 596. But those Authors by no means hold that anomalous opinion of Vasquez.

For, 1. for example, St. Alphonsus alleges Gerson and Alexander of Hales according to Lugo, loc. cit., that is, On the Eucharist, disp. 14, no. 87, at the end. But in that paragraph Lugo does not even name Gerson and Alexander of Hales. He indeed mentions them in no. 86, but for an altogether opposite doctrine. This last argument persuades me (he says) that that opinion is not improbable which teaches that in the aforesaid case the penitent is not obliged to tell the confessor the reserved sins from which the confessor himself cannot absolve him, but only those from which he can absolve him; for concerning these alone is he judge, and therefore these alone can he legitimately hear in his tribunal. Although some call this opinion improbable..., nevertheless not a few and not contemptible Theologians admit it to be true or probable; GERSON, ALEXANDER OF HALES, and Major say that it is probable. Indeed, and this will seem of greater moment, Vasquez attributes the same opinion to them (q. 91, art. 3, doubt 5, no. 3); so far, namely, were they from thinking the same as Vasquez.

2. He alleges Armilla, Praepositus, Trullench, etc., according to Viva, On the Eucharist, q. 4, art. 7, no. 6. But Viva, who also adds John Sanchez, alleges these by reference from Diana, part 2, tract 14, resolution 65. Now Diana adduces them, except Trullench, whom Viva had added on his own, as affirming that a priest, if scandal is present, can celebrate without previous confession because it seems a grave burden to confess the same sins twice. Therefore these also bring forward another reason and can by no means be invoked for the anomalous opinion of Vasquez. And say the same of Trullench, who, discussing the same priest, indeed concludes (On the Decalogue, book 1, chapter 3, doubt 4, no. 13): If he cannot judge that he has perfect contrition, let him confess and be absolved by the confessor directly from the non-reserved sins. These things are indeed diametrically opposed to the reason which St. Alphonsus borrowed from Vasquez.

3. He alleges Richard and Sylvester according to Diana. But in Diana (vol. 1, tract 5, resolution 132, no. 3), Richard, no otherwise than the Authors cited above, excuses from confession only because it is judged a grave burden to confess the same grave sins twice; while Sylvester (ibid., no. 4) is alleged by Diana as not rejecting the opinion which teaches that one bound by a reserved excommunication in a case of necessity can celebrate or receive the Eucharist after only contrition has been premised; where no trace at all of the opinion of Vasquez is discerned.

4. He alleges Suarez, Filliucius, and Palaus as judging that same reason probable. But we saw above that what did not seem improbable to Suarez was not the doctrine of Vasquez, but the opinion which excuses one from the burden of confession to be premised before the reception of the Eucharist lest one be compelled to confess the same sins twice. Nor does Filliucius have anything else, who gives the reason (tract 4, chapter 8, no. 213): Lest the penitent be bound to confess the same reserved sin to two persons. Nor does Palaus hold otherwise (tract 21, sole disp., point 12, no. 6), saying: But if you are burdened by other non-reserved mortal sins, although some judge, not improbably, that you are not obliged to confess because you would be obliged to submit the same reserved sins to the keys twice..., nevertheless I judge it more true that you are obliged to premise confession at least of those which are not reserved.

Therefore, of so many Authors alleged we have only Collet who followed the footsteps of Vasquez (On the Eucharist, part 1, chapter 6, art. 3, conclusion 4), who certainly is by no means fit to procure probability for any opinion. And indeed (On Penance, part 2, chapter 8, no. 570) he relies upon that absurd reason which we saw was also adduced by Vasquez in the Note: namely, that otherwise one having reserved sins could, in the same case of necessity, that is, of celebrating or receiving the Eucharist, confess even to one who is in no way approved.

And from these things it is now sufficiently evident that that great apparatus of so many allegations which we see in St. Alphonsus (book 6, no. 265, q. 1) certainly could cause the thesis which he there proposes to be called not improbable; but it is of no benefit at all for adding force to the Vasquezian reason which he employs both here and again in book 6, no. 596, q. 1, in which latter place, moreover, the holy Doctor without cause attributes it to all those Authors.

Moreover, to refute that opinion of Vasquez to which the VV. seem to defer so much weight, namely, that one having simultaneously reserved and non-reserved sins is not only not bound to premise confession before receiving the Eucharist, but that his confession is necessarily altogether invalid if he confesses to a simple confessor, to show, I say, that this opinion is altogether empty, it is enough merely to have examined the arguments by which Vasquez or Collet attempted to confirm it.

One altogether inept argument, which we now saw transcribed by Collet, had already been indicated in the Note. Vasquez takes another argument from chapter Si celebret, De Clericis Excommunicatis, which he himself develops more diffusely where he treats Excommunication (doubt 4, no. 9). But to reveal the absurdity of this argument it ought to suffice that from that argument it would follow that all sacraments received by an excommunicated person, even Confirmation and Sacred Orders, indeed even matrimony, are invalid.

Vasquez draws a third argument from the Council of Trent because it is said (sess. 14, chapter 7) that outside the moment of death priests can do nothing in reserved cases; which argument you may also see transcribed by Collet (loc. cit., no. 571). But, says Lugo (On the Eucharist, disp. 14, no. 97), it is easily replied that they can do nothing directly, but nevertheless can indirectly, just as in the case in which a penitent, forgetful of a reserved sin, confesses the non-reserved sins and is indirectly absolved from the reserved sins according to the opinion of all. Therefore it cannot be understood of a power even to absolve indirectly. On this matter the same Lugo wisely observes that the Council of Trent carefully said they can do nothing in reserved cases, and not they can do nothing with respect to a person having reserved sins. But by an argument drawn from one who either forgets the reserved sin or knowingly omits it in confession for another just cause, Lugo refutes ad hominem the opinion of Vasquez, who who holds that in these cases confession is valid. That these sins, namely, the non-reserved, are simultaneous with reserved sins does not impede the validity of the aforesaid absolution, as is established in one who for a long time invincibly forgot a reserved sin and meanwhile often confessed other non-reserved sins to an ordinary confessor, by whom he is indeed validly absolved directly from those and indirectly from the reserved sin. Vasquez himself admits this, though he attempts in vain to give a reason for the difference between that case and ours, such that in the former absolution from the non-reserved sins is valid, but in ours it is not; Suarez rightly attacks this reason. For Vasquez seems without foundation to remove the power of absolving indirectly from a reserved sin when it is disclosed, although this could be done if it were kept silent. For what difference does its being expressed make, such that it therefore cannot be remitted? Or why can the absolution not be terminated directly at the non-reserved sins alone, just as if the reserved sin had not been stated? Thus Lugo (loc. cit., no. 86).

To add strength to the reason which St. Alphonsus took from Vasquez or Collet, the VV. added these things: And in fact what wonder if he seems an incompetent judge to whom the right of knowing the whole cause is denied, that is, all the sins committed, especially the graver ones, and the disposition and true state of the penitent?

Reply. This rejoinder does not prove what the reason of St. Alphonsus there has, namely, that the confession is invalid because the judge who does not have power also over the reserved sins is incompetent; but at most it could in some way prove that in the case not only the non-reserved but also the reserved sins must be disclosed in confession, if at any time this were altogether necessary for that end. Therefore this rejoinder concludes absolutely nothing for the opinion of Vasquez and the holy Doctor Alphonsus.

578. • QUESTION 4. Is one having reserved and non-reserved sins bound in confession also to accuse himself of the reserved sins?

Reply. No, more probably. The reason is, says St. Alphonsus (book 6, no. 265, Question II), both because otherwise he would be bound here to confess those reserved sins twice, first to the inferior and afterward to the Superior; and because, as was said above (loc. cit., Question I), there appears to be no obligation to confess those sins over which the confessor cannot be judge, since he has no jurisdiction over them. - Recall the things said in the preceding question, Reply 1 ⁸.

⁸ Therefore, what St. Alphonsus writes concerning the same matter (book 7, no. 92), namely: But whether one having reserved sins and censures is bound to disclose them to a confessor not having power over them, in a case where the necessity of communicating or confessing urges and access to the Superior is not open? See the things said On the Eucharist, book 6, no. 265, Question II, where we said that he is bound. See the reason there, must plainly be understood of a case in which the penitent has only reserved sins or censures.

But that certain more recent authors make an exception from this norm if the penitent is a relapser into reserved sins or is in a proximate occasion (see St. Alphonsus, book 6, no. 265, q. II, and no. 585, doubt 3) is less to the point: both because it seems absurd that a Confessor, led by an empty suspicion, should ask penitents whether perhaps they have reserved sins in which those circumstances are present; and because questions ought to be restricted to those matters in which the confessor is judge; and finally because suitable remedies will not be lacking when those reserved sins are disclosed to one having the faculty, to whom it pertains to know that whole cause.

QUESTION 5. Is one validly absolved who in good faith accuses himself of a reserved sin to a simple Confessor, or who without fault forgets it?

Reply. Yes, if he submits another non-reserved sin to the keys; the reason is that the Confessor does not lack power over non-reserved sins, although he cannot absolve directly from the reserved sins. - Thus commonly with St. Ligorius, no. 565.

579. • QUESTION 6. Can an inferior absolve a dying person from reserved cases when the Superior or another having the faculty is present?

Reply 1. Yes, if the cases are purely reserved. The reason is that at the moment of death there is no reservation.

Reply 2. Yes, even as regards sins reserved with censures. This is elicited from Trent, sess. 14, chapter 7: It has always been observed in the same Church of God that there is no reservation at the moment of death; and therefore all Priests can absolve any penitents from any sins and censures whatsoever ⁹.

⁹ Yet it would be useful to employ a confessor who possesses power over the reserved cases, because thus the necessity of approaching the Superior after health has perhaps been restored is removed, if indeed there is question of those reserved cases which require this; concerning which see the note above at no. 576. This observation also has place in the following question.

QUESTION 7. Is permission of the Bishop required for absolving a dying person from papal cases if it can easily be sought?

Reply. No. For, as is established from the adduced words of the Council of Trent, at the moment of death there is no reservation. This avails for both notorious and occult cases. Therefore the permission of the Bishop would be altogether superfluous.

580. • QUESTION 8. Can the Superior absolve a penitent from reserved sins and remit him to an inferior for absolution from the non-reserved sins?

Reply. No. The reason is that, from proposition 59 condemned by Innocent XI, it is not lawful to divide confession because of the multitude of affairs or penitents. - Thus commonly against some. - See St. Ligorius, no. 595 ¹⁰.

¹⁰ Proposition 59 condemned by Innocent XI stands thus: It is lawful to absolve those who have confessed only partially because of a great concourse of penitents, such as can occur, for example, on the day of some great feast or Indulgence. But this, as is evident, is less efficacious for solving the question proposed by the Author, since it is altogether different.

But many and grave Authors say, according to Lugo (On Penance, disp. 20, no. 75), that a Superior can sometimes absolve from the reserved sins alone and remit the penitent to an inferior for completing the confession, because, on account of the occupations of Prelates, he does not have leisure to hear the integral confessions of subjects. Thus Cajetan, St. Antoninus, Paludanus, Henry, Navarrus, and both Sotos, etc. But then he continues (no. 76): The contrary opinion teaches that, speaking in itself, this cannot be done, but that the Superior must either not absolve or hear the integral confession. Adrian, Sylvester, Victoria..., and the other more recent authors commonly hold this. This opinion is more true.

Why he added the phrase speaking in itself he gives the reason below (ibid., no. 78) thus: Nevertheless, we do not deny that a reasonable cause can be given for doing this sometimes and for absolving sacramentally from the reserved sins alone; for example, if the penitent should say that he needs the absolution of the Superior or his permission to confess to another, and that he would not wish to tell the species of the sin except in sacramental confession, because he does not wish to disclose the same sin to two persons; and, on the other hand, he could wait no longer because of an urgent necessity of communicating or something similar; and finally, the Superior should judge it necessary personally to hear the reserved sin because, on account of some circumstance, it would be very expedient: then a cause could be given for hearing and absolving in a divided confession; yet this case is most rare. He then adds (ibid., no. 79) how it could happen that even a privileged confessor ought for the same cause to absolve in a divided confession. But (he concludes) even this could happen only most rarely.

QUESTION 9. Is reservation removed through an invalid or sacrilegious confession?

Reply 1. It is probably removed through a confession invalid without fault. The reason is that reservation is principally ordained to this, that sins be referred to the Superior. - St. Ligorius, no. 598.

Reply 2. It is probably removed even through a sacrilegious confession, because there is the same reason as for the preceding case. - St. Ligorius, ibid., and others more commonly. Except: 1. if the penitent culpably conceals the reserved sin itself, because it is by no means presumed that the Superior in a sacrilegious confession of this kind wishes to remove the reservation of a sin deliberately not referred to him; 2. St. Alphonsus also excepts the case in which the confession is made invalid in a Jubilee, because the Pontiff does not give the faculty of absolving from reserved sins except that the faithful may gain the Jubilee, and consequently otherwise he is not judged to wish to concede it ¹¹. But others with Lugo hold otherwise, disp. 20, no. 113.

¹¹ This reason, which St. Alphonsus (book 6, no. 537, q. II) took from La Croix (book 6, part 2, no. 1449), proves too much; for the consequence would be that reservation is not removed even in those who, after first confessing validly, afterward do not gain the Jubilee. Benedict XIV himself rejects this opinion of certain authors in his Constitution Inter praeteritos, section 86, in these words: Since absolution from censures in the case of which there is question was and is given, not indeed with reincidence, but absolutely, therefore in the same Constitution LIV we declared that he by no means remains bound by the censures from which he had been loosed, or deprived of the grace of the commutations (namely, of vows) and dispensations obtained.

Moreover, for enjoying the graces conceded in a Jubilee, Benedict XIV requires this one thing: that a sincere will of gaining the Jubilee be present. Thus the cited Constitution, section 86: It was said above that one who has the faculties which are conceded during the year of Jubilee can use them only with those penitents who have a sincere will of obtaining the Jubilee and who, with this intention of fulfilling the works enjoined for obtaining it, approach confession. Nor will you find anything more in section 62, to which St. Alphonsus appeals: If all the faculties which are granted (he says) are directed to the obtaining of the Jubilee and are, as it were, a preparation for it, it clearly follows thence that there is no place for their use except with one who is prepared to obtain the Jubilee and has a certain purpose of fulfilling the works enjoined for acquiring it. For this matter he also adduces these words of Suarez (On Religion, tract 6, chapter 16, no. 6): The grace is not conferred except in order to this end and by way of preparation for the effect of the Jubilee; therefore one who does not have the intention of fulfilling the works and obtaining the Jubilee cannot enjoy the faculty.

** To that which is noted here concerning the holy Doctor Alphonsus, the VV. rejoin (p. 576, note 2): The reply is easy. The holy Doctor does not require that the Jubilee actually be gained after all the conditions have been fulfilled, but only that the confession be a true preparation for gaining the Jubilee. Hence the consequence rather is that reservation is removed in those who first confessed validly, even if afterward they do not gain the Jubilee for another cause.

Reply. An easy reply is also at hand for these things, namely, I deny the whole. First, therefore, let those things which St. Alphonsus has (book 6, no. 598, at the end) be read. For among the cases in which he denies that reservation is removed this also is contained in express words: Likewise an invalid confession made in a Jubilee, whether culpably or inculpably, must be excepted; because there, since the Pontiff does not furnish the faculty of absolving reserved sins except for the end that the faithful gain the Jubilee, HE IS NOT JUDGED TO WISH TO REMOVE THE RESERVATION IF THEY DO NOT GAIN THE JUBILEE. But the reason which is here given why reservation is not removed if the confession is invalid even inculpably manifestly presents the more general principle, namely, that the Pontiff is not judged to wish to remove reservation if the penitents do not in fact gain the Jubilee. Therefore that reason proves too much, because it also comprehends those who, after first confessing validly, afterward do not gain the Jubilee.

The manner of speaking which Croix uses (book 6, part 2, no. 1449) falls upon the same rock. That he may gain the Jubilee, he says, and consequently that he may acquire the right of absolution from reserved sins, etc. These words clearly labor under equivocation. For according to the Pontifical Decrees, one who wishes to gain the Jubilee acquires the right to absolution from reserved sins, not one who in fact finally gains it.

The holy Doctor, say the VV., requires only that the confession be a true preparation for gaining the Jubilee.

Lugo replies here (On Penance, disp. 20, no. 113): It certainly seems probable to me that, whenever the defect is not in the integrity concerning the reserved sins themselves, reservation can be removed by virtue of that absolution if the penitent has the intention of gaining the Jubilee, of afterward confessing validly, and of placing all the other requisites. For just as a Confessor validly absolving by privilege and delegation removes the reservation of the sin, although the confession is invalid because of a defect even known to the penitent, provided it is not concerned with the integrity due in reserved sins, I do not see why by virtue of the Jubilee the confessor cannot also loose the bond of reservation of the sin in like circumstances, although he does not absolve from the sin itself because of the indisposition of the penitent. Lugo observes the same thing (loc. cit.) concerning absolution from reserved censures. I add (thus he), that even if the penitent notices the defect of the confession, he can nevertheless sometimes have the intention of gaining the Jubilee and of placing all the requisites; for example, if he has the intention of afterward confessing validly before the end of the week. And then he seems to be validly absolved from excommunication and reserved censures in that invalid confession, because absolution from censures is given before absolution from sins, and its validity does not depend upon the validity of the absolution.... Since, therefore, he has the intention of gaining the Jubilee, he now seems to be disposed for obtaining absolution from the censures, although he is not disposed for obtaining absolution from the sins.

But these things avail a fortiori when the penitent confesses in good faith and therefore the confession is inculpably invalid. On this matter the same Lugo says (loc. cit., no. 112): As regards censures, it does not appear why the absolution would not then be valid, since by virtue of the Jubilee someone can be absolved from excommunication even outside the sacrament; therefore indisposition for justification does not impede absolution from excommunication. But from this an argument can be made for the removal of reservation; because if he is validly absolved from excommunication, therefore at least the reservation of the sin having a reserved excommunication is removed according to the common opinion of Theologians. Then, if by virtue of the Jubilee the Confessor can validly remove the bond of excommunication from one who confesses invalidly, why will he not by the same virtue be able to loose the bond of reservation of the sin, notwithstanding the invalidity of the confession? And he had premised (loc. cit., no. 111): Just as a Religious who by privilege can absolve from reserved sins removes the reservation, although the absolution from sins is invalid because of the indisposition of the penitent.

And from these things it is indeed gathered that the reasons which St. Alphonsus brings forward to the contrary (book 6, no. 537, q. 2) do not impede. The reason, he says, is both that one's fraud ought not to benefit anyone, and that the faculties are conceded in confession so that through it the faithful may gain the Jubilee. For, first, no fraud in fact intervenes when the penitent has a true will of gaining the Jubilee, although here and now he is not disposed; just as, according to Lugo, if someone for this same reason should outside the sacrament seek and obtain absolution from a reserved excommunication, although here and now he is not disposed and therefore wishes to defer confession until the following month. Otherwise, there is no reason why the confessor should be unwilling to use the faculties, especially because, as St. Alphonsus says (book 6, no. 598, q. 4), the end of reservation is obtained even in a sacrilegious confession. The end of confession is one thing, says the holy Doctor, and the end of reservation another. The end of confession is that sin be remitted; but the principal and direct end of reservation is that those committing reserved sins of this kind be subjected to the judgment of the Superior. Therefore, when a subject refers his sin to the Superior and accepts the penance imposed upon him by the Superior, even if he confesses sacrilegiously, the end of reservation is already obtained, although the sin is not remitted. But that the sinner derives an advantage from such iniquity happens accidentally; for although by his interpretative will the Superior would be unwilling to remove the reservation if he recognized the sacrilege, nevertheless by his actual will he then already wishes to remove it.

Consequently, neither do those things have force which the VV. report from St. Alphonsus (book 6, no. 537, q. 2), namely, that when the Pontiff concedes a faculty of absolving from reserved sins so that the faithful may gain the Jubilee, he is not presumed to concede it for those who cannot gain the Jubilee with that confession. Another will say otherwise: the Pontiff concedes that faculty so that all who have the will to gain the Jubilee may be able to obtain it. But they can gain the Jubilee even if they do not gain it by that confession but by another valid confession afterward, especially since the end of reservation, as St. Alphonsus proves, is already obtained even in the preceding invalid confession. And this can be confirmed from parity and by an argument ad hominem. For let us prescind from the occasion of the Jubilee. What generally is the end for which a Superior concedes the faculty of absolving from reserved sins? Certainly that a member of the faithful having reserved sins may be reconciled to God. Will the VV. therefore conclude that the Superior is not presumed to concede it for those who cannot by that confession, as culpably invalid, obtain reconciliation with God? But St. Alphonsus (book 6, no. 598, q. 4) adheres to the opinion which affirms that reservation is removed by that invalid confession, and excellently refutes the reasons of the opposite opinion.

581. • QUESTION 10. Is reservation removed if the penitent, while confessing to the Superior, forgets the reserved cases?

Reply. Yes, at least probably, because it is rightly presumed that the Superior wished to free the penitent from every bond from which he can absolve him. - Thus Lugo, the Salmanticenses, and others commonly, against others who also probably deny it. - St. Ligorius, no. 597, calls the first opinion most common and the other more probable ¹².

¹² Although St. Alphonsus (loc. cit.) called the opinion which denies that reservation is removed more probable, nevertheless he does not prohibit anyone from following the common, indeed, as he himself calls it, most common doctrine of Lugo, notwithstanding the objections of Suarez; but he merely adds a new exception to that doctrine thus: Nevertheless, I think it must altogether be said that reservation is not removed when a positive presumption is present that, if the Superior had heard the reserved sin, he would have deferred absolution. But it scarcely appears when this hypothesis can have place. For scarcely any other reason for deferring absolution can be present except that the penitent here and now is not disposed. Yet St. Alphonsus himself (ibid., no. 598, q. IV) proceeds so far as to concede that reservation is removed even when the penitent confesses sacrilegiously. Therefore no reason appears why in that case also the general foundation of this doctrine cannot avail, which Lugo (On Penance, disp. 20, no. 91) thus expounds: The whole difficulty ought not to concern possibility, but fact or will: whether in fact the Superior wishes directly to remove reservation for forgotten sins whenever he absolves a subject. And as regards this, we say that according to the common opinion that will is probably presumed in the Superior.

** In this place the VV. (pp. 572-573, in the Note), by instituting a comparison among the various editions, corrected the common text of the holy Doctor Alphonsus. For in all the editions after the sixth, of the year 1767, book 6, no. 597, it was read thus: I judge this second opinion more probable; and Sylvius, vol. 4, Suppl., q. 20, art. 2, near the end, holds this as true with Sylvester, Angelus, Adrian, Navarrus, Covarruvias, Bonacina, Sa, Coninck, and several others, with whom Pontas, case 25, agrees, and to whom the Continuator of Tournely, vol. 6, part 2, p. 131, adheres. Although the first also seems probable, both on account of the authority of the Doctors, who, as Concina himself admits, commonly teach it, and because it can probably be presumed that the Superior consents, etc.

But through the inadvertence of the printer, as the VV. relate, it happened that those nine Authors appeared to be alleged for the opinion denying, when St. Alphonsus, on the contrary, had added them for the affirmative. Therefore this passage ought to be read thus: I judge this second opinion more probable. Although the first also seems probable, both on account of the authority of the Doctors, who, as Concina himself admits, commonly teach it, and Sylvius holds this as true with Sylvester, Angelus, Adrian, Navarrus, Covarruvias, Bonacina, Sa, Coninck, and several others, with whom Pontas agrees and to whom the Continuator of Tournely adheres; and because it can probably be presumed that the Superior consents that the reservation be removed, etc.

Thence also that which the holy Doctor had premised in the same place must be corrected. For he had also alleged Sylvester and Angelus as patrons of the negative opinion, whom in the new addition he admits to stand for the affirmative. Indeed, Rosella and Gabriel must also be deleted there. St. Alphonsus cites them with the two aforesaid thus: Likewise Sylvester, Angelus, Rosella, and Gabriel according to Lugo. But Lugo (disp. 20, no. 85) adduces all of these not for the negative but for the affirmative opinion.

Moreover, in those twelve columns which the VV. (pp. 572-578) oppose to the present Note, they object to two things. The first is (p. 574) that it is asserted less correctly in the Note that scarcely any reason is given for deferring absolution besides the actual indisposition of the penitent. For, they say, the Bishop could defer absolution: 1. so that the scandal might first be repaired; 2. so that the penitent might first fulfill some part of satisfaction.

Reply. Absolution can also be deferred for other causes, for example, until the penitent repairs the damages inflicted, restores reputation, removes the occasion of sinning, etc. But these and other things of this kind in no way prevent the reservation from ceasing. The reason is that the sin omitted through forgetfulness must afterward be submitted to the keys. Yet even when reservation has been removed, the simple confessor to whom the confession is made will, according to his office, enjoin the things that must be enjoined and perform those things which the Superior would have performed, no otherwise than a privileged confessor to whom the penitent had confessed the reserved sins. Therefore the causes on account of which it may be presumed that the Superior does not remove the reservation are imaginary.

The other thing which the VV. reprehend is what is said in the Note, namely, that since St. Alphonsus concedes that reservation is removed even when the penitent confesses sacrilegiously, it must not be judged that reservation is not removed on account of the indisposition alone of the penitent, which could even be inculpable. The VV. rejoin (pp. 576-577): The reason is different, and the distinction between this and the other question is essential. For the penitent who inculpably forgets a reserved sin indeed confesses validly; but the Superior, to whose judgment the offense is not submitted, can neither apply medicine, nor admonish the penitent as is fitting, nor impose upon him a due and at the same time salutary penance.... But none of these requisites is lacking in the confession which the other performs, although invalidly.

Reply. It has already been said that in the case it belongs to the confessor, to whom the penitent afterwards confesses that sin, to take care of applying both the medicine and the admonitions, and also of imposing a due and salutary penance. Wherefore it is not true that the end of the reservation is thus not satisfied; nay rather, this is what generally happens when either the penitent, or the confessor for the penitent, seeks and obtains from the Superior a faculty for reserved cases in general.

QUESTION 11. Is one who confessed a doubtfully reserved sin to an inferior altogether freed from the reservation, even if he afterward recognizes it as certain?

Reply. Yes, more probably. The reason is that, since the doubtfully reserved sin was accused, it was already directly absolved, and consequently the reservation was directly removed ¹³. - St. Ligorius, no. 600.

¹³ Add that unless the reservation of the sin is certain, the sin is not considered to fall under the reservation at all. See what was said above, n. 572.

582. • QUESTION 12. Can a Bishop absolve visitors from episcopal censures ¹⁴ which they incurred in their own diocese?

¹⁴ By episcopal censures the Author understands those which are proper to that diocese and at the same time reserved to the Bishop.

Reply 1. No, if there is question of censures ab homine by a particular sentence, as will be said in the Treatise on Censures.

Reply 2. If there is question of censures a jure, or even ab homine by a general sentence, it seems that the answer must be affirmative, while the present and common custom stands against which Ordinaries do not protest, although the older authors most commonly denied it. - Recall the things said above concerning a visitor to be absolved from cases reserved in his own diocese, no. 573, Question 5.

583. • QUESTION 13. Can visitors be absolved from a reserved sin if they sinned in their own diocese and went elsewhere to confess?

Reply. No, if they go elsewhere precisely in fraud of the reservation, as is established from the Bull Superna of Clement X. But Theologians do not agree how the phrase in fraud is to be understood. According to the more probable opinion, fraud of this kind intervenes when someone goes to an alien diocese for the principal end not only of confessing but also of avoiding the judgment of his proper Pastor. - St. Ligorius, no. 589, and others commonly. - Hence a visitor can be validly absolved if he went into an alien diocese for some honest end, for example, for conducting business, for gaining an indulgence, for confessing with less inconvenience or completing the confession more quickly, for finding an unknown or more prudent Confessor who might direct him better and take counsel for the tranquility of his conscience, or for other similar motives ¹⁵.

¹⁵ Compare what was said above on these matters (n. 573, q. 3).