Article 6: Sacramental Absolution

The priest, sitting as a judge in the tribunal of Penance, is not free to loose or bind at pleasure. He is the servant of Christ and dispenser of the mysteries of God, and as such in duty bound, on the one hand to uphold the dignity of the Sacrament, and, on the other, to safeguard the spirit- ual welfare of his penitents.¹ Hence arises the strict obligation of either giving sacramental absolution or denying or deferring the same according to the dictates of conscience.²

¹ 1 Cor. IV, 1-2. —St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 3a, Suppl., qu. 18, art. 4.

² Rit. Rom., tit. 3, c. 1, n. 22: "Let the priest diligently consider when and to whom absolution is to be granted, denied, or deferred, lest he absolve those who are incapable of such a benefit."

The confessor is bound in strict justice, and under pain of mortal sin, to absolve all properly disposed penitents who confess to him; for every Catholic who is truly sorry for his sins has a right to the Sacrament of which absolution is an essential part.³ The presumption, as we have seen before, is always in favor of the penitent, and unless a confessor has serious reasons for assuming the contrary, he should act on the ethical principle that every man must be presumed to be good until or unless he is proved to be bad (nemo praesumitur mains nisi probetur). All that is necessary is to have moral certainty that there are no valid reasons for doubting the disposition of the penitent.⁴

³ Gury, Comp. Theol. Mor., II, n. 467: "Absolution must in justice and under grave obligation be granted to every penitent who has duly confessed and is legitimately disposed. The reason is that in the very act of confession a certain sacred quasi-contract is entered into, by force of which a penitent who has duly confessed and is legitimately disposed has a right to receive the Sacrament. Otherwise an intolerable burden would be imposed upon the penitent without just cause, namely, that he make a confession to another without being able safely to trust that he will receive absolution from this new confessor. Moreover, the end of the institution of the Sacrament and tribunal of Penance also requires this, for it was instituted by Christ for the purpose of imparting mercy. Therefore, by denying absolution to a disposed penitent the priest would act unjustly, abuse the power of the keys, and render the Sacrament hateful."

⁴ Cat. Rom., P. II, c. 5, qu. 50: "If the confessor, after hearing the confession, judges that the penitent was not entirely lacking either diligence in enumerating sins or sorrow in detesting them, he can be absolved."

The validity of absolution in no way depends on the performance of the satisfaction imposed.⁵

⁵ Prop. Damnat. ab Alex. VIII., Dec. 7, 1690, prop. 16-18 (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 1306 sqq.).

Absolution should be given conditionally: a) When the confessor entertains a serious doubt with regard to one of the following points: α) Whether there is sufficient matter for the administration of the Sacrament; β) Whether he has already absolved the penitent; γ) Whether he possesses the necessary jurisdiction; δ) Whether the penitent has the use of reason; ε) Whether the penitent is dead or alive. b) When the confessor can arrive at no certain conclusion with regard to the penitent's disposition, and absolution cannot be deferred, he should absolve conditionally. ⁶

⁶ Cfr. Linsenmann, Lehrbuch der Moraltheologie, pp. 232 sq.; Gopfert, Moraltheologie, Vol. III, 4th ed., pp. 241 sqq.

—The confessor is obliged in justice and under pain of mortal sin to deny absolution to applicants who are not properly disposed, because such are unworthy of forgiveness.⁷

⁷ Gury, Comp. Theol. Mor., II, n. 469: "Absolution must altogether be denied in every case, even in extreme necessity, to penitents certainly indisposed." —Lacroix, Theol. Mor., l. VI, P. 2, n. 1699: "The office of the confessor is to absolve one who is disposed and not another. He must be morally certain of the penitent’s good disposition; otherwise he will sin mortally by absolving him."

A penitent lacks the right disposition if he: a) is ignorant of the principal dogmas of the Catholic religion; b) shows no real sorrow for his sins or evidently lacks the required purpose of avoiding mortal sin and its voluntary proximate occasions; c) refuses to restore ill-gotten goods to their rightful owner, or to repair public scandal given, or to become reconciled to his enemies.⁸

⁸ Kit. Rom., tit. 3, c. 1, n. 22: "Such persons are incapable who give no signs of sorrow; who are unwilling to put away hatreds and enmities, to restore another’s goods if they can, to abandon a proximate occasion of sin, or otherwise to forsake sins and amend their life for the better; or who have given public scandal unless they make public satisfaction and remove the scandal."

In a word, absolution must be denied to all who are unwilling to comply with some serious obligation.

Before the confessor discharges a penitent unabsolved, however, he should try by all means in his power to dispose him for the worthy reception of the Sacrament.⁹

⁹ Cfr. Leo XII, Constit. "Caritate Christi," Dec. 25, 1825.

When a penitent is properly disposed, and capable of receiving absolution, but guilty of some sin that makes his case one reserved to higher authority, he cannot be absolved without special faculties.¹⁰

¹⁰ Rit. Rom., 1. c.: "Nor is the priest to absolve those whose sins are reserved to superiors." —Cfr. Linsenmann, Lehrbuch der Moraltheologie, pp. 222 sqq.; Hilarius a Sexten, Tract, de Censuris Eccles., Mayence 1898, pp. 20 sqq.

—As a rule absolution may be reserved or postponed only when the disposition of the penitent is in doubt and there is no urgent necessity (danger of death, etc.) which would justify the giving of conditional absolution.¹¹ In the case of certain occasional (occasionarii), habitual (consuetudinarii) or relapsed sinners (recidivi), regarding whom it is doubtful whether they have real contrition for their sins or the required purpose of amendment, it is sometimes necessary to reserve absolution.¹² Occasionally, too, it may be well to withhold absolution temporarily in order to promote the spiritual welfare of a welldisposed penitent, either with, or under certain conditions without, his consent.¹³

¹¹ Gury, l. c.: "Absolution is to be denied to penitents of doubtful disposition outside a case of grave necessity; but when such necessity is present, absolution can and indeed must be imparted conditionally."

¹² St. Alphonsus, Theol. Mor., 1. VI, n. 452-464.

¹³ IDEM, ibid., n. 462. —IDEM, Praxis Confess., n. 76. —Gury, Comp. Theol. Mor., II, n. 468: "Absolution can be deferred for a short time, even without his consent, for a penitent who is rightly disposed, namely when the confessor prudently judges this useful for his amendment. The reason is that delay of absolution is not its denial, and although a disposed penitent has a right to absolution, he does not therefore have a right to obtain it immediately without any delay, at least speaking in itself. For the confessor is not only a judge but also a physician, and therefore can, indeed sometimes ought to, defer absolution if he judges such a remedy notably profitable for the penitent’s soul. This is at least speaking in itself, because if absolution cannot be deferred without inconvenience to the penitent, it would have to be granted; for the penitent is then judged to have a strict right to obtain it immediately."

However, absolution should not be deferred as a means of amendment (remedium animae) unless the confessor is certain that the penitent will be benefitted by this measure.¹⁴

¹⁴ St. Alphonsus, Theol. Mor., 1. VI, n. 463: "Magnum dubium. The question at issue is whether this remedy of deferred absolution should rather often be applied, or not, without his consent to a penitent already sufficiently disposed for absolution. It is common among doctors that it is in no way expedient to defer absolution when the delay is judged likely to harm more than to profit. The same must be said when the penitent would suffer a mark of infamy from delay of absolution. Others, however, say that it is rarely expedient for absolution to be deferred for a disposed penitent. It is better said that no certain rule can be established in this matter, but the confessor must guide himself by the circumstances that occur, and after commending himself to God, as he is inspired by God, defer or impart absolution."

The practice of reserving or postponing absolution as a means of amendment seems to have been unknown in former times.¹⁵ Modern writers recommend it even in the case of penitents guilty of venial sins only. "To defer absolution," says one author, "may be useful, nay necessary, even when the penitent is guilty only of venial sin; for instance, if the confessor sees that the venial sins of which the penitent accuses himself, will gradually lead to mortal sin (dangerous company-keeping, undue intimacy with persons of the other sex, etc.), or that the venial sins to which the penitent is addicted, impede his spiritual progress, as in the case of priests and religious, whose state of life obliges them to greater perfection, and in the case of lay persons who are frequent communicants."

¹⁵ Gury-Ballerini-Palmieri, Comp. Theol. Mor., Vol. II, 14th ed., Rome 1902, n. 433. SACRAMENTAL

Note, however, that the Codex (can. 886) says: "If a confessor has no reason to doubt the disposition of the penitent, and the latter begs to be absolved, absolution should neither be denied nor deferred."

READINGS.—St. Alphonsus, Theologia Moralis, I. V I, n. 431, 462. —IDEM, Praxis Confessariorum, n. 19 sqq. —J. P. Gury, Compendium Theologiae Moralis, Vol. II, n. 467-469.—F. Lorinser, Die Lehre von der Verwaltung des hl. Bussakramentes, 2nd ed., pp. 51 sqq.—A. Schick and F. D. Schmitt, Kurze Anleitung zur Verwaltung des hl. Bussakramentes, 3rd ed., Fulda 1905. —Instructio Pastoralis Eystettensis, 5th ed., Freiburg 1902, pp. 256 sqq.—Fr. Ter Haar, C.SS.R., De Occasionariis et Recidivis, Turin 1927.