§ 1. On The Obligation Of Hearing Confessions

This obligation can arise from a twofold head, namely from justice, and from charity.

1802. I. Pastors, or those having care of souls, are held, FROM JUSTICE, and indeed UNDER GRAVE obligation, to hear, whether by themselves or through others, the confessions of penitents committed to them, as often as these reasonably ask to be heard. The reason is because they have obliged themselves to this by undertaking the care of souls, from a tacit contract entered with their subjects, from whom they receive support or honor.⁵⁷ "But the following are called pastors: Superiors, with respect to Religious; and with respect to seculars, Bishops and pastors, or those who have subsidiary care with obligation."⁵⁸

Hence, authors teach that "that pastor sins who shows himself morose and difficult in hearing confessions; especially if he has been summoned by the sick, to whom, as St. Charles Borromeo commands, he ought to hasten immediately and at any hour. Yet if the Curate once or twice, outside necessity, should refuse to hear someone's confession, Suarez and others say, probably, that he does not sin gravely, unless some urgent occasion is present, e.g. of a Jubilee, of a solemn feast... But if the pastor has an oeconomus (or coadjutor) approved by the Bishop, he is not held with so much rigor to be free for hearing confessions; but let him advert that it is altogether required that it be evident to him that the oeconomus is suitable, both as to knowledge and as to morals; otherwise he himself will have to render an account to God for all the damages which will come about on account of his ignorance and wicked morals."⁵⁹

1803. II. Priests not having care of souls are not held to hear confessions from justice; but SOMETIMES they are held to this from CHARITY. For charity obliges us to succor a neighbor placed in spiritual necessity, as is, e.g., a sinner in danger of death deprived of his own pastor. Wherefore:

IT IS ASKED. Whether a confessor who is not a Curate is bound, WITH DANGER OF LIFE, to absolve a DYING person existing in mortal sin?

Resp. 1. The first opinion denies; the reason is because, since the dying person can absolutely free himself from danger of damnation by eliciting an act of contrition, he is not constituted in such necessity that another is bound to succor him with danger of life. He is excepted if he labors under so great ignorance that he does not know how to elicit an act of contrition.

Resp. 2. "The truer opinion affirms; because although the dying person can supply by contrition, nevertheless, since this is difficult, it cannot be denied that, if he is left unabsolved, he remains in great danger of his damnation. Hence it happens that, just as in the case in which the neighbor without your absolution will certainly perish, you are held to undergo certain death, so that you may absolve him; so in the case in which he remains in probable danger of damnation, you are held to expose yourself to probable danger of death; for, in equal danger, each one is bound to postpone his own temporal life to the eternal life of his neighbor.⁶⁰ But if the priest does not know that he is in mortal sin, he is not held to absolve with danger of life."⁶¹ - Recall what was said at nn. 1786 and 1787.