§ 2. On The Forbidden Absolution Of An Accomplice

1780. Principles. I. It is forbidden to every priest, outside the case of extreme necessity, to dare to receive the sacramental confession OF A PERSON WHO IS AN ACCOMPLICE in a base sin against the sixth precept. Thus from the Constitutions of Benedict XIV, Sacramentum (June 1, 1741), and Apostolici muneris (February 8, 1745), namely for guarding the sanctity of the sacred Tribunal and removing dangers of souls.¹

It is said 1. outside the case of extreme necessity, that is, outside the article or danger of death; because then it is permitted to absolve an accomplice, provided another priest is lacking, even a simple one, who is able to absolve; or provided that priest cannot receive the confession of the infirm person without grave scandal, or infamy of the approved priest. Yet the priest accomplice is bound to forestall such dangers of scandal or infamy, if he can, for example by departing under some pretext, etc.; otherwise he will not escape the guilt and penalties of a grave offense, although the absolution is valid "lest on this very occasion," says the Pontiff, "someone perish."²

It is said 2. of a person who is an accomplice: by which name, from the common interpretation, come not only women, but also men, nor are even the prepubescent themselves excepted. - Indeed, persons with whom the confessor already sinned before the priesthood was received are not excluded; as is established from the Response of the S. PENITENTIARY of January 22, 1879.³

It is said 3. in a base sin...: in which appellation is comprehended every sin, certain on each side, grave, external and mutual, against the sixth precept, even if it was not consummated by copulation; indeed, although it is only a base touch, or gaze, or indecent conversation, as is more commonly taught, and as is established from the Response of the S. OFFICE, May 28, 1873 (cf. n. 1324).⁴ - But venial faults are not comprehended, whether they are such because of smallness of matter, or because of defect of advertence or consent; nor merely internal sins, or sins not fully manifested externally; nor doubtful sins, by doubt of fact or of law; nor finally when doubt turns on whether the penitent himself also sinned gravely; because the Bull is to be understood of a formal accomplice, in mortal sin against the Sixth.⁵

1781. II. The confessor, outside danger of death, LACKS all JURISDICTION for absolving an accomplice as regards the sin of which he was participant. - This is established from the words of the Bull saying: "Any authority and jurisdiction therefore being taken away from him by the law itself for absolving any person whatever from a fault of this sort." - Therefore, as long as the sin of complicity has not been directly remitted through absolution duly imparted by another priest, the confessor absolves his accomplice neither licitly nor validly. Indeed, it is probable that that sin, even after it has been directly remitted by another, can never and in no way be declared and subjected to the confessor-accomplice as sufficient matter of absolution, since he seems perpetually to lack jurisdiction over it.⁶

1782. III. EXCOMMUNICATION, reserved to the Roman Pontiff in a most special way, IS INCURRED by a priest who, outside extreme necessity, absolves an accomplice in a base sin. - This is established both from the Bull Sacramentum of Benedict XIV, and from the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis issued by Pius IX (cf. n. 1324).

Yet here it must be adverted that the following are not bound by the censure: 1. he who only hears the accomplice in confession, but does not absolve; otherwise, if he simulates absolution, as is established from the Response of the S. Penitentiary given on March 1, 1878, and confirmed from another Response of the Congregation of the Holy Office made to the Bishop of Périgueux on December 10, 1883⁷ (cf. n. 1324); 2. he who indeed absolves, but with ignorance, even crass, of the censure; or without advertence to the complicity of the penitent; for the Constitution of Benedict XIV, from which the censure was taken, requires daring, so that excommunication may be incurred.

1783. Questions. Q. 1. Whether the censure and privation of jurisdiction have place if the sin of complicity is not subjected to the keys?

Resp. Negative. For it was asked: "Whether he incurs the censures imposed on those absolving an accomplice in a base sin, who indeed absolves an accomplice, but an accomplice who did not declare the sin of complicity in confession? The reason for doubting seems to be because such a priest, even if the accomplice sacrilegiously omitted the confession of this sin, and he culpably abstained from questioning, nevertheless does not absolve from the fault of complicity of this sort, as not declared, nor subjected to the keys."

And the S. PENITENTIARY, on May 16, 1877, responded: "The privation of jurisdiction of absolving an accomplice in a base sin, and the annexed excommunication, insofar as the confessor shall have absolved him, are in order to the base sin itself in which the same confessor was the accomplice. Nevertheless the confessor is bound with all zeal to place before the eyes of the priest who in this way absolves the accomplice, yet not from the sin of complicity, the enormity of his offense and the abominable abuse of the Sacrament of Penance; nor otherwise to impart to him the benefit of absolution than after a most grave exhortation has been premised, that he strive to lay down the office of confessor, and also with the obligation imposed that in the future he wholly abstain from hearing confessions of the accomplice; the same person who was the accomplice being admonished, if he appears again, that he accuse himself before another confessor of the sin of complicity and of the others invalidly confessed."⁸

Q. 2. Whether he avoids EXCOMMUNICATION who, when the precept of CONFESSION is urgent, INDIRECTLY only absolves an accomplice unable to confess to another without danger of grave infamy or scandal?

Resp. Some deny it; but the Salmanticenses affirm it; and this opinion (if the penitent knows or is admonished that he must afterward approach another confessor) seems more probable and safe in practice, from the fact that in a case of this sort there is not present the rash daring which the Constitution of Benedict XIV requires.⁹ It also seems more conformable to the Response of the S. Penitentiary just reported.

1784. From what has been said you resolve:¹⁰ 1. The confessor INVALIDLY absolves: 1. A penitent with whom he agreed about seducing a woman, although afterward he did not seduce her; because it is verified that this penitent is a partner of an iniquitous agreement against chastity. - 2. A penitent from whom he only heard base conversations, if he showed that they pleased him; because by being outwardly pleased with them, he participated in them, and therefore is an accomplice of the base sin. 3. A penitent accomplice who makes a general confession, if it is certain or probable that the past confessions were invalid.

2. He VALIDLY absolves: 1. A woman whom, while sleeping or resisting, he immodestly touched, or by whom he himself, sleeping or resisting, was touched; because he does not absolve from the sin of complicity. 2. A woman with whom there intervened a kiss given in passing, or a momentary touch of hands or of honorable parts, from jest or levity. And the same would have to be said if the priest had taken the woman by the hand, although he himself, but he alone, had experienced venereal delight. For in these cases either there is not a certainly mortal sin, or it is not present on each side. 3. Resolve the same if delight, however carnal and arising on both sides, is personal to each, without any external sign and mutually unknown. - 4. Nor is the absolution invalid over other sins directly imparted to an accomplice if he inculpably omitted the sin of complicity in confession; for from the aforesaid Response of the S. Penitentiary of May 16, 1877, it is established that the priest is not deprived of his jurisdiction.

Note. The penitent accomplice himself incurs no censure or other penalty, nor is his sin subject to reservation (unless perhaps episcopal reservation, from diocesan Statutes). - Therefore let a person of this sort be benignly received by a legitimate confessor, so that he may not blush to confess his own misery; and, the confessions invalidly made before the accomplice having been repeated, and the occasion of sinning having been removed, let him be dismissed absolved. But let him be turned away, as much as can be done, from further return to the confessor-accomplice, even if the law concerning fleeing a proximate occasion does not seem absolutely to require it (cf. Response of the S. PENITENTIARY at the end).

But if besides this, on the occasion of confession, he had been solicited to sin, see n. 1795.