ARTICLE IV: ON ABSOLVING THE CENSURES WHICH ARE CONTAINED IN THE CONSTITUTION *APOSTOLICAE SEDIS*

The Constitution Apostolicae Sedis continues:

"Moreover We decree that in any new concessions and privileges whatever which it shall happen that the Apostolic See grants to anyone, in no manner and by no reason must or can there ever be understood to be comprehended the faculty of absolving from any cases and censures whatever reserved to the Roman Pontiff, unless formal, explicit, and individual mention has been made of them: but whatever privileges or faculties, whether by Our Predecessors or also by Us, shall have been granted up to this time at any time whatever to any Assembly, Order, Congregation, Society, and Institute, even regular of any species, although endowed with a peculiar title, and even one worthy of special mention, all those things and all those faculties We will to have been revoked, suppressed, and abolished by this Our Constitution, as in fact We revoke, suppress, and abolish them, privileges of any kind whatever, even special ones, whether comprehended or not in the Body of Law or Apostolic Constitutions, and with any Apostolic confirmation, or even immemorial custom, or strengthened by any other firmness whatever, with any forms and tenors whatever, and with any derogatory and other more efficacious and unusual clauses whatever, not at all opposing or standing in the way; all of which, insofar as there is need, We intend to derogate from, and We derogate from them."

"Nevertheless, We will that the faculty of absolving granted to Bishops by the Tridentine Synod, Sess. XXIV, c. VI, de Reform., in any censures whatever reserved to the Apostolic See by this Our Constitution, remains firm, with only those excepted which We have declared to be reserved to the same Apostolic See in a special mode."

"Decreeing," etc. (the customary clauses follow). "Given at Rome in the year 1869. - IV Id. Octobr."

1753. Questions. - Quaer. 1° What faculties or privileges of absolving have remained in force after the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis was published?

Resp. 1° As regards Bishops, see what was said at n. 1402. II. 1). 2) and what is to be said here at n., quaer. 2°.

Resp. 2° As regards Regulars, concerning the absolution of their own [besides the faculty enumerated at n. 1195. G. c). 2). 1°], if there is question of particular censures of their proper Institute (n. 1700. q. 2°), since these remain in their force as before, and concerning the faculty of absolving nothing about these is disposed in the present Constitution, faculties of this kind must be judged to belong to them as before; for the revocation of legitimate faculties must not be presumed, but shown.

Resp. 3° As regards all, "the Most Holy Father in no way intends to bring even the least detriment to the faculties ... which were granted by the Holy See before the promulgation of the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis; ... and he wills that they remain in their full force, the time prefixed in the said concessions ... enduring." Thus Pius IX declared by Vivae vocis Oraculo to the Assessor of the Holy Office.¹ Hence each one among us should see with what faculties he is furnished by the Ordinary of the place in which he hears Confessions, by force of the privileges which are accustomed to be granted by the Holy See to our Bishops (p. LXXI. nn. 15, 16). Let him attend besides to the general principles of which there is treatment at n. 1402. II. under 2); IV. and 1403. q. 1°, q. 2°, q. 4°, q. 5°.

Quaer. 2° What must be observed as regards absolution from the individual censures of the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis?

Resp. The things that are more practical are reduced almost to the following.

1° As regards the censure against condemned books (n. 1702), attend that not only those reading, but also those retaining, are held by it. Wherefore absolution cannot be given except to those who truly cease to be retainers, e.g., by burning them.

2° As regards the censure against strikers of Clerics (n. 1719), a light, grave or moderate, and enormous striking must be distinguished. Light is that which contains a grave injury indeed, but one less grave than the rest, of which kind is that which is done by fist, palm, hand, foot, stone, or staff,¹ apart from circumstances by which it is rendered grave or even enormous.² - Grave or moderate is that which brings a contusion or deformity, as if you strike out a tooth from the one struck, or he pours forth an abundance of blood.³ - Enormous, if a great wounding intervenes (as if you knocked out an eye, if you broke a limb, etc.), or a great effusion of blood from elsewhere than the nostrils, or a great injury.⁴ But in doubt whether it is grave or light, it is to be held grave, lest an occasion of injuring the ecclesiastical State be furnished,⁵ or because the privilege of the Canon is to be interpreted broadly (n. 1719). - Therefore if the striking was light; or indeed grave or even enormous, but occult, or perpetrated by a woman or an impubes; or grave, but there is question of those living collegially, Bishops can absolve.⁶ But Regular "Prelates can absolve their subjects from excommunication on account of a striking, even grave, and enormous and public, inflicted not only on religious of the same Order, but also of another, and even on secular Clerics." Thus St. Alphonsus on the privileges of Regulars,⁷ concerning which, in this matter, the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis (n. 1719) changed nothing.

3° Concerning the censure against condemned societies (n. 1721), absolution cannot be given to those who have not utterly renounced those condemned societies. Therefore every bond with them must be loosed, and every sign of that bond must be destroyed.

Concerning denunciation, see cited n. 1721.

They ask whether those who have given their name to condemned societies must be warned?

Resp. Distinguish. For there is question either of the external forum, or of the internal.

If of the external, subdistinguish between a pastoral admonition and a judicial sentence by which the guilty party of whom there is question is declared to have incurred excommunication.

Whether it is expedient that this declaratory sentence be issued cannot be defined generally, but must be discerned after the circumstances of the fact and of the persons have been carefully weighed.

But as regards pastoral admonition, if probable hope of fruit is lacking, and at the same time there is prudent fear of some graver evil, it can be deferred, provided that scandal does not arise from the Pastor's silence.

If the discussion is of the internal forum, generally they must be warned, because generally good faith is lacking or (I add) later will be lacking.

Thus, as to the substance, the Instruction of the Holy Office, Feria IV, given April 4, 1871. Therefore what Schneider¹ wrote on this matter must be understood with a grain of salt.

Our resolution is confirmed from the Response of the S. C. O., given to the Postulate of the Most Reverend Father Sorin, Superior General of the Congregation of Holy Cross, which, since it concerns the dying, argues a fortiori for our question.

Here is the Postulate and Response.

Most Blessed Father.

"The priest Edward Sorin, Superior General of the Congregation of Holy Cross, for the tranquility of conscience of the Missionaries of his Congregation in the Federated States of North America, humbly asks from the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office responses to the following doubts.

"First doubt. - Whether a Pastor, or Missionary, called to a sick or dying person, especially one not baptized or Protestant, whom he certainly knows to belong to the Freemasons, and to be in good faith in the aforesaid secret society, can, without any admonition concerning leaving the condemned society, baptize or absolve him?

"Second doubt. - Whether a Missionary must ask a dying person, if he only doubts concerning the dying man's affiliation with the Freemasons?

"Third doubt. - In either case, if time or the state of the dying person does not permit discussion, must the Missionary propose any question to the same dying person concerning the secret society of Freemasons?"

"Feria IV, July 8, 1874.

"In the General Congregation of the Holy Roman and Universal Inquisition held before the Most Eminent and Most Illustrious Lords Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, General Inquisitors against heretical depravity, the above-written doubts having been proposed, and the vote of the Lord Consultors having first been had, the same Most Illustrious said: - To the first, speaking generically, Negative, according to the decrees already issued: but since, according to what Albitius has, boys and the dying do not abjure, if there is question of those near death and materially or in good faith enrolled in sects condemned by the Holy See (and unless it is foreseen that a special admonition will be useful), it suffices that in general they be exhorted to subject themselves sincerely to the authority of the Church and to the mandates of the Holy See, and then they can be baptized and absolved. But scandal is to be repaired in that better manner in which it can be done, even after death. - To the second and third, Provision has been made in the preceding.

"For D. J. Pelami, Notary of the Holy Roman and Universal Inquisition.

"Jacobus Vaccagine, Substitute."

4° As regards the censure against Simony (n. 1725), see the faculty of our Bishops, p. LXX. n. 5.

5° Absolution from the censure which collectors of Masses incur, of whom at n. 1727, is not to be given except to those willing to restore according to what was said at n. 1325. q. 8°, or prepared to stand by the mandates of the Holy See, in case recourse is had to it for condonation.

Note. - It will very rarely be necessary to dismiss without absolution a penitent rightly disposed on account of a sin to which some reserved censure is annexed, either because 1) there are very few cases in which confessors do not have a faculty communicated to them by the Ordinary in the letters of jurisdiction, or because 2) those very few cases very rarely occur, or because 3) the penitent, from lack of some condition enumerated at nn. 1400, 1401 and 1662-1664, has not incurred either the censure itself or the reservation, or because 4) on account of the causes alleged at n. 1402. II. 2). IV. and n. 1403 the reservation has either been entirely removed, or at least is indirectly removed, or because 5) today more frequently than formerly the faculties of some jubilee are at hand.