Section — Marc, Institutiones Morales
§ 2. WHO CAN ABSOLVE FROM CENSURES
1. REGULARLY, outside necessity.
- PRINCIPLES. I. From a censure inflicted through a particular sentence upon a determinate person, no one can absolve except he who inflicted it, or his successor, or Superior, or the delegate of these. Such a censure, from its own nature, is most specially reserved, even in a Jubilee; and the reason is that otherwise the order of judgments would be disturbed (VII, 72; H. Ap., XIX, 11).
Wherefore St. Alphonsus notes: "1. That a Bishop, even in another's territory, can absolve his own subjects, in the forum both external and internal, whenever the absolution is without judicial noise. 2. That if someone offends in another's territory, and is specially excommunicated by that Bishop, he cannot be absolved by his own Bishop, except by permission of the Bishop of the place" (cf. n. 204).
- II. From censures issued, whether by Law, or by man through a general sentence against indeterminate persons, which censures are equated with censures issued by Law, if they are not reserved, any confessor can validly and licitly absolve, for both forums. Thus commonly, from the concession of Innocent III, c. Nuper, de Sent. excomm., and from the universal practice of the Church.
We have said: 1. From censures, for otherwise, if some penalty, stated under the form of censure, is really vindicative (cf. n. 1300). 2. Any confessor, namely approved, and having jurisdiction over the censured person. But a simple priest, outside the case of danger of death, cannot absolve anyone even from excommunication reserved to no one, whatever some say. 3. For both forums: whence this absolution can be given both outside and within confession, and it avails also for the external forum, in non-contentious cases, according to what was said n. 1276 (VII, 70-73).
- III. From censures reserved by Law no one can absolve, except he to whom they are reserved, or his Superior, or successor, or one duly delegated. This is clear from c. Nuper, de Sent. excomm., and from Trent, Sess. 14, c. 7.
As regards delegated faculty let the following rules stand:
FIRST RULE. If censures are reserved to the Roman Pontiff in a special way, for absolving, outside the case of necessity, a special concession is required, which is not usually granted by the Holy See except for a time, or for the life of the person, or for a certain number of cases.1 This is clear from the practice of the Holy See and from the Constitution of Pius IX, by which censures were limited, and at the same time all real privileges were revoked, as regards absolution from censures, whether specially or simply reserved.
Moreover, the SPECIAL concession is made, for example, through the indult of a Jubilee, through a little document of the Sacred Penitentiary, through quinquennial faculties and other personal faculties of this kind. The Pontiff did not revoke these faculties, as is clear from an oracle of the living voice promulgated by the Holy Office, 1 Feb. 1871.
SECOND RULE. If censures are simply reserved to the Roman Pontiff, Bishops in their own diocese can, by themselves or through another specially to be deputed for this, absolve any of their subjects; but only in occult cases, and in the forum of conscience. Thus from the celebrated chapter Liceat of the Council of Trent, whose disposition Pius IX confirmed in the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis.
Now these are the words of Trent (Sess. 24, c. 6, de Reform.): "It is permitted to Bishops, in all irregularities and suspensions proceeding from an occult delict, except that which arises from voluntary homicide, and except others brought to the contentious forum, to dispense; and in any occult cases whatever, even those reserved to the Apostolic See, to absolve, gratuitously, in the forum of conscience, any delinquent subjects of their own, in their own diocese, by themselves or by a vicar specially to be deputed for this, a salutary penance having been imposed."
Under the words: 1. Bishops, there also come Abbots having territory, capitular Vicars, and others enjoying episcopal jurisdiction (VII, 79); but not Vicars general from their general commission (de Privil., 31); nor regular prelates, as is clear from the Response of the Sacred Penitentiary, 5 Dec. 1873. Cf. Lehmkuhl, II, 1123. 2. Through another specially to be deputed... understand either for one case, or for all cases, provided the delegation is made not to all in common, but to individual persons, this faculty being expressly named, as the authors most commonly interpret (VII, 93; de Privil., 34; cf. Ami du Cl., 1911, p. 223). 3. Their subjects... understand those staying in the diocese, or even outsiders approaching the sacred Tribunal in the diocese: because by this very fact they become subjects as regards absolution, although not yet as regards dispensation from an irregularity or suspension reserved to the Pontiff (VI, 593). 4. In occult cases, which namely are not formally notorious, either by notoriety of law, or by notoriety of fact, according to the sense which we stated n. 1190. 5. In the forum of conscience, that is, in the sacramental forum, as St. Alphonsus judges more probably (de Privil., n. 29); or at least not in the external and contentious forum, as is altogether certain from Trent (cf. n. 138).
THIRD RULE. If censures are reserved to Bishops, or Ordinaries, by pontifical Law, Bishops, Abbots, capitular or general Vicars, and all Ordinaries can absolve, in both forums, from cases even notorious.1 In the internal forum, regulars can absolve from cases not brought to the judicial forum nor easily to be brought there (I, App. II, n. 100; ed. G., I, p. 239): for nothing, as regards cases reserved by law to ORDINARIES, has been innovated through the Bull Apostolicae Sedis.
Under the name of Ordinaries regular prelates also come with respect to their own subjects: for these, as exempt, have no other Ordinaries than their own prelates. Therefore these can absolve their own, even novices and familiars, from cases reserved to the Ordinary, but not from cases, whether public or occult, reserved in any way to the Roman Pontiff. S. Poenit., 5 Dec. 1873 (ap. Noldin, de Poenit., n. 381). As regards absolution from cases pertaining to internal governance, nothing indeed has been innovated through the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis (Holy Office, 22 Mar. 1881), but see the new Decree, 5 Aug. 1913 (cf. what is to be said n. 1762).
- FOURTH RULE. If censures have been reserved by other Bishops, any Bishop can, by himself or through another, absolve from them, but only in occult cases. For it is read in c. Liceat: "In any occult cases whatever, EVEN those reserved to the Apostolic See." Whence, the authors say, lest the particle "even" seem to have been placed uselessly, it must be understood that the faculty of absolving from occult censures which other Bishops reserved to themselves is conceded to Bishops. Thus Bonacina (de Cens., disp. 1, q. 3, punct. 2, n. 6), who adds that this seems to be received by custom, which is wont to confer jurisdiction. Cf. St. Alph., de Privil., n. 35.
Nevertheless censures issued through a particular sentence are excepted (cf. n. 1278).
Hence: A simple confessor cannot absolve a traveler from a censure reserved in the traveler's homeland; but a regular validly absolves novices as regards episcopal censures contracted before entrance (VI, 583).
Concerning the faculty of absolving from censures in the time of Jubilee, see the treatise on Penance (cf. n. 1736, B).
2. By way of EXCEPTION, in a case of necessity.
- PRINCIPLES. I. Any priest, even not approved, can absolve a censured person constituted in the article or danger of death from all censures issued or reserved in whatever way. This is clear from Trent declaring thus (Sess. 14, c. 7): "Very piously, lest by this occasion itself of reservation anyone perish, it has always been guarded in the same Church of God, that there be no reservation in the article of death, and therefore all priests can absolve any penitents whatever from any sins and censures." See nevertheless what is to be said n. 1753.
- Absolution should not be given except those things having been enjoined which must be enjoined by law, as will be explained below (n. 1287). But especially these things are to be noted:
If it is a question of censures reserved to the Roman Pontiff in a special way, the obligation, from the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis, remains firm for those absolved to stand by the commands of the Church if they recover: understand under grave sin and under penalty of falling back, as the S. R. U. Inq. defined, on 19 August 1891; on which day it also decreed that the obligation of standing by the commands of the Church imports the burden, either by oneself or through a confessor, of recurring to the Supreme Pontiff and obeying his commands, or of seeking a new absolution from one having the faculty of absolving from censures reserved to the Supreme Pontiff in a special way (Nouv. Rev. Theol., 24, p. 166).
If it is a question of censures simply reserved to the Roman Pontiff, the obligation of presenting oneself to the Supreme Pontiff does not subsist. Holy Office, 17 Jun. 1891 (Nouv. Rev. Theol., ib., p. 159). The same must be said concerning censures which a Bishop has issued, provided the Bishop has not specially reserved the censure to himself (cf. Lehmkuhl, II, 1125).
- II. In an urgent case, any approved confessor can directly absolve from any cases and censures reserved to the Holy See, with the obligation imposed of recurring within a month to the competent authority to hear the commands, under penalty of falling back. This is clear from various documents of the Holy Office and Sacred Penitentiary, especially from the Decree of 23 June 1886 (A. S. S., 24, p. 744); through these a new order is instituted in the absolution of censures and reserved cases. Cf. also A. A. S., I, p. 677.
It is said: 1. In an urgent case; this is verified not only when there is necessity of celebrating, communicating, or danger of infamy, but also if it is hard for the penitent to remain in sin so long until the Roman Responses arrive (Holy Office, 18 Jun. 1897; A. S. S., 30, p. 124). On this point the conscience of the confessor is burdened.
Directly absolve, so that a new sacramental accusation of this sin is not necessary (Holy Office, 19 Aug. 1891). Nevertheless, if someone, absolved in this way, does not seek the commands from competent authority, and approaches an inferior endowed with delegated faculty to receive the commands, he will be able to be absolved only after a new confession of the sin (ib.).
From any cases... reserved, so that it is understood that no exception is given: neither as regards censures even most specially reserved to the Supreme Pontiff, nor as regards suspensions, nor even as regards occult irregularities arising from censure (S. Poenit., 7 Nov. 1888; Holy Office, 19 Aug. 1891; 6 Sept. 1909).
With the obligation imposed of recurring within a month etc. The penitent ought to recur by himself or through a chosen confessor; for it is not necessary that recourse be made through the same confessor who absolved the penitent (S. Poenit., 28 May 1888). Within a month recourse must be made, under penalty of falling back into the same censure.
Of recurring to the competent authority. The competent authority is the Holy See, or also the Bishop or Vicar general, if namely he uses quinquennial faculties for absolving from papal cases.
As we have already said, the competent authority from whom the commands must be received without the burden of confession is not a privileged confessor.
Note. a) Sometimes the penitent can neither personally go to Rome, nor send a letter. Then the obligation of recurring ceases, if the penitent cannot present himself again to the same confessor, and it is hard for him to go to another confessor. It is known to all that this is often verified during missions; because either the missionary imparts absolution outside the place of his domicile, or the penitent makes confession outside his own domicile; whence the response of the competent authority, because of the departure of the confessor, cannot personally be notified to the penitent. Cf. Resp. Holy Office, 9 Nov. 1898; 5 Sept. 1900.
b) This impossibility of recurring, as is evident, is never present for a priest penitent (Holy Office, 3 Jun. 1899). For generally, as often as the penitent can recur to the competent authority, he is bound to recur (Van Rossum, Nederl. Kath. Stemmen, 1902, p. 165-172).
1 There are also two cases which are reserved to the Supreme Pontiff in a stricter way: namely the attempted absolution of an accomplice and, but without censure, the false denunciation of a confessor (cf. n. 1736, 1772).
1 Therefore cases reserved to Ordinaries by pontifical Law should rather be called papal. From this it follows that those to whom the faculty is conceded of absolving from cases reserved even to the Roman Pontiff can absolve also from the aforesaid (VII, n. 39; de Privil., n. 100). Cf. what is to be said n. 1348.
- YOU WILL ASK. Can a SIMPLE CONFESSOR ever absolve from censures reserved to the Bishop?
Resp. He can absolve a censured person constituted in the article of death, as we have just said (n. 1282 and 1283); nor does there remain an obligation, health having been restored, of going to the Bishop, unless the Bishop reserved the censure to himself with that condition.
But whether, besides the article of death, he can absolve one impeded from going to the Bishop is greatly controverted. A sufficiently probable opinion today affirms this, if the impediment is perpetual, that is, to last beyond 5 years, or at least long-lasting, that is, to remain beyond six months, but less than five years.1 In this latter case, however, the absolved person is bound, the impediment having been removed, to present himself to the Superior; otherwise, if the impediment was perpetual. - The reason for these things is that no recent law has abrogated the ancient Law. Cf. St. Alphonsus, VII, 92.