X. Declarations Concerning Soliciting Confessors

1. Whether a confessor is to be denounced who gives a paper to a penitent in Confession, later to be read at home, in which he was soliciting to venery? The Lord Qualifiers judged that he is to be denounced, and that the negative opinion is not probable.

2. Whether a confessor consenting to solicitation, but immediately ceasing to speak of that shameful matter, deferring its completion to another time, and not furnishing absolution to the penitent, incurs the penalties contained in the Bull of Gregory, and is to be denounced? They judged that he incurs them, and that the confessor is to be denounced, the contrary opinion being rejected, which they judged not to be probable.

3. Whether a confessor in soliciting, because of smallness of matter, is to be denounced? Since in venereal matters smallness of matter is not given, and, if it were given, in the present matter it would not be given, they judged that he is to be denounced, and that the contrary opinion is not probable.

4. Whether a confessor who solicits a woman saying in Confession that she wishes to confess on the next day, and dissuades her from Confession, is to be denounced? If the solicitation takes place outside the place of Confession, and without pretext of Confession, they judged the negative opinion to be probable; otherwise, if in the confessional, or in the place of Confession.

5. Whether a priest lacking jurisdiction, if he solicits a penitent in Confession, is to be denounced? They judged that he is to be denounced, and that the negative opinion is not probable.

6. Whether an interpreter, if he solicits a penitent in Confession, is to be denounced? They judged that the negative opinion is not without probability.

7. Whether one commanding a confessor that he solicit in Confession is to be denounced? They judged that the negative opinion is not without its probability.

8. Whether, when the confessor and the penitent mutually solicit one another, the confessor is to be denounced? They answered in the affirmative, and that the negative opinion is not probable.

9. Whether a confessor who has been solicited, if induced by fear he consents to the solicitation, is to be denounced? They judged that he is to be denounced, and that the negative opinion is not probable.

10. Whether a confessor incurs the penalties of the Apostolic Constitution against solicitors if he solicits a woman in the other Sacraments, namely of Baptism, of Matrimony, and is to be denounced, and once denounced can be punished by the Inquisitors? As to each article they judged the negative opinion to be probable.

11. Whether a confessor who solicits a penitent to illicit acts outside venereal acts is to be denounced? They judged the negative opinion to be probable.

12. Whether a confessor, if he praises a penitent for beauty and charm, is said to solicit her, and therefore is to be denounced? They judged that, if that praise is serious and breathes forth nothing of a depraved intention, the negative opinion is probable. But if otherwise, that it is not probable.

13. Whether a confessor is to be denounced who abjured because of the solicitation of another?¹ They judged that the negative opinion is not probable, and therefore that he is to be denounced; which also was resolved on July 26, in the year 1628.

14. Whether someone is bound to denounce a soliciting confessor, if he has heard this not from persons worthy of faith, but only from frivolous persons? They judged that the negative opinion is not without probability.

15. Whether a confessor is to be denounced who, sitting in the confessional, solicits a woman standing before the confessional, not simulating Confession? They judged that the negative opinion is not without its probability.

16. Whether a confessor is to be denounced who, while hearing Confession, gives a gift to a woman, so that by this fact he is said to have solicited her? They answered the same as to the twelfth.

Thus far from Cardinal Albitius (in the work On Inconstancy in Faith, c. XXXVIII, n. 65). But Benedict XIV confirmed all and each of these decrees in the Bull Sacramentum.

"The penitentiary canon of the Church of Andria, Marianus, asks that the three following doubts be solved by the Sacred Penitentiary, namely: '1° .... 2° whether a soliciting confessor incurs by the fact itself privation, or inhabilitation, for the celebration of Mass? 3° whether he who has not denounced the solicitor within the month, once the denunciation has followed, can be absolved by anyone?'"

To 2. "The penalty of perpetual inhabilitation for the celebration of the Sacrifice of the Mass, inflicted by Benedict XIV against priests soliciting to shameful things, is not incurred in the forum of conscience except after juridical denunciation and condemnation."

To 3. "Denunciation having been made, even after the time prescribed by ecclesiastical law, once the reservation has ceased, also the case with the annexed censure can be absolved by any confessor."

"Those things which the Supreme Pontiff of glorious memory Benedict XIV, in the Constitution issued on June 1, 1741, whose beginning is Sacramentum Poenitentiae, confirmed and decreed, are reduced especially to these four heads. In the first place, just as had already been sanctioned before, especially by Gregory XV in the Constitution which, given under date August 30, 1622, begins Universi, all local Ordinaries equally with Inquisitors are deputed judges for inquiring and proceeding, and for taking notice with condign penalties, against those soliciting to shameful things in Confession, although they be in any way exempt from ordinary jurisdiction.

"The same likewise, as had also been prescribed before, obliges all priests constituted for hearing sacred Confessions to admonish their penitents that they bring such solicitors as soon as they can before the Inquisitors or local Ordinaries; and not to absolve those penitents who refuse to obey in fulfilling this duty. Moreover, in the third place, there is reserved to the Apostolic See, except at the point of death, the case of those who falsely charge innocent priests before ecclesiastical judges with solicitation, or wickedly procure that this be done by others. Fourth finally, every faculty and jurisdiction is taken away from any priest whatsoever for receiving the sacramental confessions of a person who is an accomplice in a shameful sin committed against the sixth precept of the decalogue, unless an altogether extreme necessity urges, namely if in the very point of death another priest is lacking who may discharge the office of confessor, or cannot be called or come without some grave infamy or scandal about to arise (Constitution of the same Benedict XIV, Apostolici muneris, February 8, 1745). And the case of those confessors who have dared to absolve an accomplice in a shameful sin is reserved to the Apostolic See.

"There is surely no doubt that all and each of these prescriptions, prohibitions, reservations extend their force universally to all nations, and are to be observed everywhere on earth firmly and inviolably. This indeed is most evident even to one reading the Constitutions of Gregory XV and Benedict XIV; and this same thing has been confirmed by the approval of succeeding Pontiffs, as occasion has offered itself, down to this day. And in fact, to the Apostolic Vicar of Cochin-China asking: 1° whether the Constitution of Benedict XIV against solicitors obliges also Franciscan missionaries who exercise ministry in Cochin-China? 2° whether the same Constitution can be restricted and moderated in some case because of the great scarcity of confessors in the same Kingdom of Cochin-China? by order of Pius VI, in the year 1775, it was answered by an opportune Instruction: to 1: in the affirmative; to 2: in the negative. And very recently Our Most Holy Lord Pope Pius IX, by a Decree of this Supreme Inquisition, under Thursday, June 17, 1866, declared: In the faculties by which Bishops and other local Ordinaries, by Apostolic concession, have power of absolving from all cases reserved to the Apostolic See, the cases reserved in the Bull of Benedict XIV which begins Sacramentum Poenitentiae are always in the future to be excepted and to be held as excepted. Moreover, he commanded that this Decree be signified, without any exception, to all Ordinaries everywhere on earth who are endowed with the aforesaid faculty of absolving. Wherefore all local Ordinaries must strive with the greatest effort that the vigor of the things which are salutarily provided in the aforesaid Constitution not gradually grow weak anywhere. But the Eminent Father Cardinals, Supreme Inquisitors, recently learned that the same Constitution is not everywhere, as would be fitting, being put into execution, and that in some places certain abuses have crept in, both in fulfilling the burden of denunciation and in instituting judgment against solicitors, which without danger to justice and provident severity could by no means be tolerated. Therefore they judged that it would be neither inopportune nor displeasing to the local Ordinaries if the things which have been decreed against these same abuses by this Supreme Congregation according to the paths of the Sacred Canons, collected into one, be kept before the eyes. For this purpose they ordered the present Instruction to be published.

1. Persons, whether males or females, whoever they may be, solicited to shameful things in confession, or on occasion or pretext of confession, just as is explained in detail in the mentioned Constitution, must bring the matter before the Holy See or before the Ordinary of the place.

2. It is necessary to denounce any priest whatsoever, even one lacking jurisdiction, who solicits in Confession, or even consents to the solicitation of the penitent, although he immediately ceases to speak of the shameful matter, defers its completion to another time, and does not furnish absolution to the penitent (from the Decree of February 11, 1661, confirmed in the Constitution Sacramentum).

3. Denunciations of this kind can be omitted by no one without mortal fault. Concerning this matter penitents must be admonished, nor does their good faith excuse from admonishing and instructing them.

4. Priests constituted for hearing sacred Confessions who do not admonish their penitents concerning this obligation must be punished (from the declaration of March 20, 1624; October 1, 1626, apud Albitius).

5. Penitents who have been admonished and wholly refuse cannot be absolved; but those who, on account of a just cause, must defer the denunciation, and promise seriously that they will make it as soon as they can, can be absolved.

6. Anonymous denunciations against those soliciting to shameful things have no force; for denunciations must be made in court, namely before the Bishop or his delegate, with the intervention of an ecclesiastical man who holds the office of notary, and with oath and with the expression and subscription of one's name; nor does it suffice if it is done through receipts or through letters without the name and surname of the author (from the declaration of March 20, 1624; October 1, 1626, apud Albitius). Besides, it is prohibited that, in receiving denunciations, witnesses be present besides the judge and the notary, both ecclesiastical men, furnished with a special deputation of the Bishop drawn up in writing. It must also be guarded against that those denouncing be asked whether they consented to the solicitation; and it would be most fitting if nothing be noted in the records concerning such consent, however spontaneously manifested (from Urban VIII, April 17, 1624).

7. The burden of denunciation is personal and must be fulfilled by the solicited person herself or himself. But if that person is impeded by most grave difficulties from being able to accomplish this, then either personally, or by letter, or through another person well-disposed to him or her, let the person approach his or her Ordinary, or the Holy See through the Sacred Penitentiary or also through this Supreme Inquisition, all circumstances having been set forth, and then let the person conduct himself or herself according to the instruction which will be received. But if necessity urges, let the person conduct himself or herself according to the counsels and admonitions of his or her confessor. But if, detained by no impediment, the person wholly refuses denunciation, in this case and the other cases mentioned above the confessor is to be praised who has not denied his assistance to the penitent, and who has consulted either the Ordinary or the Holy See for opportune provisions, the name of the penitent nevertheless being suppressed. Approved authors hand down the formulas to be used in these cases, among whom are Pignatelli, t. 1: consultation 104; Carena, Albitius, etc.

8. The case not infrequently occurs that a confessor or another ecclesiastical man is deputed by Bishops (to whom, indeed, this power belongs) to receive denunciations in a matter pertaining to the crime of solicitation without the intervention of a notary. A sheet is added to this Instruction concerning the manner in which, in these cases, the denunciation ought to be drawn up.² For those men who are especially suitable are destined to this most grave office, and they must be instructed concerning the act of denunciation to be received in judicial manner, and admonished that immediately after the denunciation has been received, they should at once transmit it cautiously to the Bishop himself by whom they were deputed, and should retain for themselves no copy or any trace of the act drawn up. And in nearly this manner the office of denouncing is fulfilled without difficulty. Certainly it must be effected by the local Ordinaries that it not be necessary to apply to places subject to their jurisdiction what was declared for the Missions of Pernambuco in America on January 22, 1627: namely, that solicited women are not bound to denunciation if the ministers of the Inquisition and the Vicars of the Bishop dwelling in distant regions cannot be approached without grave inconvenience.

9. If in denunciations, as not rarely happens, other persons perhaps likewise solicited are indicated, or persons who can in some way bear testimony concerning this crime, all these also are to be examined separately and in the judicial form enunciated above; and first through general questions, then by degrees, so far as the matter allows, proceeding to particulars, they must be interrogated whether and how they themselves were really solicited, or saw or heard that other persons had been solicited.

10. Once a denunciation has been received, procedure is not had immediately, but the ecclesiastical Superior must diligently inquire whether the person denouncing is worthy of faith. The crime of solicitation is for the most part perpetrated secretly; hence it is a privilege that in causes which are instituted against this crime, attestations even singular are admitted for making full proof. But in the mentioned Constitutions of the Supreme Pontiffs it is prescribed that one not proceed with singular witnesses unless presumptions, indications, and other supports concur. Therefore the weight of each denunciation, the qualities and circumstances, must be weighed seriously and accurately; and before proceeding against the denounced person, it must be clear and explored to the judge that the women or men denouncing are of good name and are not being led to accuse by enmity or by another human affection. For it is necessary that singular witnesses of this kind be free from all private affections, so that full faith can be given to them (Instruction by order of Pius VI, 1775).

11. This is the custom of this Supreme Inquisition: that after one or another denunciation it be rescripted that the denounced person be observed, that is, that he be held suspect concerning the reported crime in such a way that, as soon as the matter will have been explored through new denunciations, he is to be called into judgment. For the most part procedure is customarily had only from the third denunciation. Parish priests, or men of proven faith and distinguished virtue, especially ecclesiastics, are called to formal examination, who, with oath concerning the truth to be told and the secret to be kept, are examined concerning the qualities of the denouncing persons and of the denounced person, and concerning their mutual hatreds and enmities. These diligences having been completed, the accused is brought into judgment, and before the judge, with the intervention of an ecclesiastical man who acts as notary, bound by oath to tell the truth, he must answer concerning each circumstance of every denunciation and examination. It is most carefully guarded that the names of the denouncing persons not be manifested to the accused, and that the sacramental seal not in any way be violated.

12. When the truth of the committed crime has become clear, the accused having been admitted to defense as the laws require, one must come to imposing upon him, in perpetuity, the prohibition that he not receive confessions, by withdrawing all and any faculties whatsoever for that office, even those imparted to him by any privilege whatsoever or by the Holy See itself. The Bishop himself, and not another delegated by him, is to pronounce a sentence of this kind; and according to the measure of the fault, and all circumstances being considered, let him also impose upon the accused the other penalties which are decreed in the above-said Pontifical Constitutions. Moreover, if the accused in judgment has confessed the crime, he must make a suitable abjuration, so that he may thus purge himself of that suspicion of heresy which he has incurred; and by this penalty also let him be punished in the sentence itself. It is to be noted that all penalties of this kind, and the very inhabilitation for celebrating the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass prescribed in the Decree of Benedict XIV of August 5, 1745, are only ferendae sententiae. Nevertheless one must abstain from inflicting degradation and delivery to the secular arm; for that, indeed, was established by Gregory XV; besides, it must be held to have been imposed rather for terror than so that it be committed to execution (Albitius and Benedict XIV, private letter of November 11, 1743 to Azevedo).

13. Those who, having in no way been forestalled by denunciations concerning this crime, conquered by conscience, present themselves to the Ordinary of the place or his delegate, spontaneously confess the crimes of solicitation committed by themselves, and ask pardon, must be dismissed with a suitable abjuration and merely salutary penances, with the counsel or precept added that they abstain from receiving the sacred Confessions of the solicited persons; nor are they to be affected by the other penalties previously mentioned, even if denunciations should afterward accede. But those who, having already been forestalled in judicial form, but not yet cited, present themselves of their own accord; and likewise those whom the Ordinary of the place will have detected, from denunciations afterward received, to have confessed in spontaneous appearance a truth not integral but diminished, do not enjoy the benefit of impunity; nevertheless, according to the prudence of the Ordinary himself, let them be punished more mildly.

14. What in these causes, whether treated by Apostolic commission or by the proper right of Bishops, must be cared for and observed in the greatest degree is this: that the same causes, as pertaining to the faith, be conducted most secretly, and after they have been defined and already handed over to execution, be altogether pressed under perpetual silence. All ministers of the ecclesiastical Curia, and any others who are assumed for treating these causes, or advocates for defending them, must take an oath concerning the secret to be kept; and the Bishops themselves and other local Ordinaries are bound to keeping the secret as is provided in law, cap. Statuta fin. de haer., in 6; and in Clementine Multorum, § porro, de haeret. But those who satisfy the burden of denunciation, and those who in these causes are subjected to examination, are bound to take an oath at the beginning concerning the truth to be told, and, the act completed, concerning the secret to be kept, touching the sacrosanct Gospels of God, even if they are priests. If these things are held cautiously and holily, no danger of ill-will, infamy, or any other danger whatsoever can be feared, which may restrain either witnesses from speaking the truth, or competent judges from investigating the crime of solicitation and taking notice of it with condign penalties.

15. It was indulged by Pius VI, in the Instruction of which mention was made before, given in the year 1775 to the Apostolic Vicar of Cochin-China, that since in those so remote and disparate regions it is most difficult to observe exactly all those things which must be observed in these causes; and since, if any of these are omitted, justice does not suffer that penalties be inflicted against the accused, concerning whose crime in judicial manner it has not yet been sufficiently established, then perhaps it would be more advisable if, outside the order of judgment, procedure be had for meeting so great an evil by less solemn and more expeditious modes, which in particular cases the prudence of the Apostolic Vicars joined with zeal for souls will suggest. But now anyone sees that this indulgence, made for places so remote and disparate, is neither common to all nor can by right be introduced anywhere without the authority of the Apostolic See.

16. Besides, if local Ordinaries in drawing up processes, or even after the process has been drawn up, in pronouncing sentence against those soliciting to shameful things in Confession, become involved in graver difficulties, they will be able, the acts having been transmitted, to refer the matter to this Supreme Congregation, which, as often happens, will hand down particular instructions accommodated to individual cases, and, if it has been expedient, will itself pronounce the definitive sentence. ...

Given at Rome, February 20, 1867."