APPENDIX I: ON THE ABSOLUTION OF ONE'S OWN ACCOMPLICE IN A SHAMEFUL SIN

1404. - I. No confessor can absolve his own accomplice, i.e. an associate and participant in a shameful sin. This is clear from the Constitution Sacramentum Poenitentiae of Benedict XIV, June 1, 1741. - Likewise from another Constitution of the same Pontiff: Apostolici muneris, February 8, 1745.

II. A Confessor lacks all jurisdiction for absolving an accomplice as regards the sin of which he was a participant. This is inferred from the express words of the Bull, in which it is said: "Moreover there is removed from him by the law itself any authority and jurisdiction whatsoever for absolving any person whatsoever from a fault of this kind."

1405. Questions. - Query 1° What comes under the name of shameful sin?

Resp. Every grave sin against the Sixth Precept of the Decalogue, even if it has not been consummated by copula; indeed even if it is only a shameful touch or look, or speech, as today is certain.

But it is required that on each side there be a certainly mortal sin, not only internal, but also external, insofar as mutual, or externally manifested at the same time on each side.

Query 2° Under the name of accomplice do not only women, but also men, come?

Resp. Affirm. The reason is that the words of the Bull are altogether general; for in it it is said: "Who shall dare to hear the Sacramental Confession of a person who is an accomplice in a shameful sin against the Sixth Precept." Therefore the disposition of the Constitution is not to be restricted to the female sex. - Thus commonly.

Query 3° Can a priest absolve an accomplice in the article or danger of death?

Resp. Affirm., if another priest cannot be called who can perform the function of confessor; but otherwise if another priest is present, even one not approved, who can hear the Confession.

Query 4° Can a priest absolve an accomplice in death, if another cannot be called or approach without infamy or scandal?

Resp. Affirm. Nevertheless the priest-accomplice is held to prevent such dangers of infamy or scandal, if he can, e.g. by departing under some pretext, etc. Otherwise he will not evade the penalties, although the absolution is valid. This is clear from the Constitution of Benedict XIV.

Query 5° Can a priest absolve an accomplice in death, if the latter refuses to confess to another?

Resp. Affirm., if otherwise he is disposed, namely lest he perish, or at least lest his eternal salvation be endangered. Cf. n. 1402. IV.

Query 6° Can a priest absolve an accomplice from other sins foreign to himself, after that one has once been absolved by another from his own sin?

Resp. Affirm. The reason is that he lacks jurisdiction over this penitent only as regards the sin of which he himself was a participant; therefore, when that sin has been blotted out through absolution imparted by another, the prohibition now ceases, nor is jurisdiction lacking. - Except: I. if the penitent was absolved from this sin by another confessor, either 1) only indirectly, e.g. on account of inculpable forgetfulness of the said shameful sin, or 2) invalidly. II. If that priest has been absolved from the censures and penalties which he incurred on account of the attempted absolution of an accomplice by force of the faculty reported at p. LXXI. Note 2, under the burden, namely, of altogether abstaining from hearing the Confessions of the accomplice. - Nevertheless the absolution which the confessor, absolved with this burden, had given would not by the law itself be invalid; for from precisely this, that the law or precept of a Superior prohibits some act from being done, unless it expresses that by that very fact it also wishes it to be done voidly and nullly, the act must not be considered null in conscience. III. According to some, if the penitent again confesses to the accomplice that very sin itself from which complicity arises, as sufficient matter, without adding another matter; for the words, they say, of the Constitution are altogether peremptory. Thus Pruner and Acta. Yet this exception, although it is usefully alleged here, does not pertain to the question. St. Alphonsus does not treat this precise question.

But truly, if any shame remains in a priest who through pitiable frailty has perpetrated a shameful sin with another, if any honor due to the Sacrament, he will never afterward hear the Confession of the accomplice. Moreover, the danger of a new fall, or at least of grave temptation in the direction of such a penitent, can easily be present. Therefore the faithful are to be turned away, as far as can be done, so that afterward, with the case of necessity set aside, they never approach a confessor who is an accomplice of sin. See the same warning given in n. 1365. q. 4°.

1406. - Resolves: 1° A Confessor invalidly absolves a penitent:

a) With whom he agreed about seducing a woman, although afterward he did not seduce her; because it is verified that this penitent is an associate of an iniquitous agreement against chastity.

b) From whom he heard only shameful conversations, if he showed that they pleased him; because by exteriorly taking complacence in them he participated in them, and therefore is an accomplice of shameful sin.

c) With whom he sinned against chastity before he was a priest or cleric; because it is always true that he is an accomplice, and therefore all jurisdiction is removed from him. Sacred Penitentiary apud Haringer.

d) An impubes accomplice; because the prohibition made to a confessor of absolving an accomplice does not have the character of reservation, since the power of absolving is removed from him, not from other confessors; nor is it certain that impuberty exempts from reservation.

2° A Confessor validly absolves:

a) A girl whom he shamefully touches while sleeping or resisting, or by whom he is touched while sleeping or resisting, although he altogether ought not hear her, lest he cast himself into the danger of sinning more gravely or formally; because he does not absolve from a sin of complicity.

b) A woman with whom there intervened a kiss given in passing, or a momentary touch of the hands or respectable parts from play or levity. - The same holds if the confessor takes hold of a girl by the hand, arm, or neck, and he indeed undergoes venereal delight on his own part, even externally declared, if he excites none in the penitent. The same, if a priest were to induce a woman to believe that there is no sin if she allowed herself to be shamefully touched by him; and she, deceived by him, in good faith allowed herself to be shamefully touched, without sinning formally. For in these cases either a certainly mortal sin is not present, or it is not present on each side.

c) Resolve the same if the motion, however carnal, and arising on each side, is personal to each and respectively unknown. The reason is that, in order that there be a sin of an accomplice, unity of time in which each sins does not suffice, but moral unity of action is required, or communication in one action morally.

d) Resolve the same if there is question of a mortal sin internally or externally doubtful, and this whether it is thus doubtful on the part of each or on the part of one of the two.

Note. - Saving a better judgment, we altogether dissent from some who opine that an accomplice is validly absolved if he were absolved inadvertently; for Benedict XIV, requiring presumption (see n. 1401. q. 1°. R. 1°), requires it not so that the absolution be null, but so that excommunication be incurred. - Nor do we agree with those who think that an accomplice forgetting the sin of complicity inculpably, or placed in any necessity whatsoever other than that which arises from danger of death, can be validly, although only indirectly, absolved; for the case of an accomplice is not properly a reserved case, but a case in which all jurisdiction over the accomplice is taken away from the confessor, with only the danger of death excepted; but an exception confirms the rule.

Concerning the excommunication which one absolving an accomplice incurs, see in the Treatise on Censures, n. 1715.