Question III: Concerning the Requisites for the Validity and Liceity of the Form of Absolution

I. For the validity of the form the essential words are required: I absolve you, and probably also: from sins.

1. Certainly these are required: I absolve you, because they sufficiently declare the effect of the sacrament, the judicial mode by which it is effected, and the receiving subject.

2. Probably also: from sins, because the words: I absolve you, are not sufficiently determined and can be understood concerning absolution from censures or from punishments, although nevertheless probably the matter is sufficiently indicated from the prior confession of sins itself; but in practice they must be added because in the ministration of the sacraments what is safer must be done: but if they had been omitted, the form would have to be repeated under condition.

3. On the contrary, the following are not essential: I, in the Latin language, and your, because they are sufficiently included in: I absolve you; nevertheless they pertain to the integrity of the form.

4. In no way are the words required: in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, which are neither prescribed by Christ nor found in the ancient formulas.

Hence a) voluntary omission or substantial corruption of an essential word, or of a word which probably is such, is always a mortal sin, because it invalidates the sacrament or exposes it to danger of nullity, and the penitent to deprivation of sacramental grace;

b) absolution under an equivalent form, although gravely illicit, is valid, e.g., if it were said: I remit or pardon you; I absolve you all or your excellency; or let such a one be absolved from sins, etc., because the same sense remains and it is only an accidental change;

c) the omission only of the words: in the name of the Father... is judged a light transgression of ritual law.

II. For liceity, the form must be carefully observed in the Latin Church by the minister, which is prescribed by the Roman Ritual, or by the particular rituals of religious Orders, together with the accompanying ceremonies and the preceding and subsequent prayers.

A. According to the Roman Ritual, on Penance, c. 2:

"1. Therefore when he has wished to absolve the penitent, a salutary penance having first been enjoined and accepted by him, he first says: May almighty God have mercy on you, and, your sins having been forgiven, bring you to everlasting life. Amen.

"2. Then, the right hand having been lifted toward the penitent, he says: May the almighty and merciful Lord grant you indulgence, absolution, and remission of your sins. Amen. May our Lord Jesus Christ absolve you; and I, by His authority, absolve you from every bond of excommunication, suspension, and interdict, insofar as I can and you need. Then: I absolve you from your sins, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, + and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.

"3. If the penitent is a layman, the word suspension is omitted.

"The Passion of our Lord Jesus Christ, the merits of the blessed Virgin Mary and of all the saints, whatever good you shall have done and evil you shall have borne, be to you unto remission of sins, increase of grace, and reward of eternal life. Amen.

"4. For a just cause, May He have mercy, etc., can be omitted, and it will be enough to say: May our Lord Jesus Christ, etc., as above, up to that: The Passion of our Lord, etc.

"5. But when some grave necessity is urgent in danger of death, he will be able to say briefly:

"I absolve you from all censures and sins, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, + and of the Holy Spirit. Amen."

Concerning these things it should be noted: 1) It is a pious custom, not obliging under sin, that the priest before confession say: May the Lord be in your heart and on your lips, that you may worthily confess all your sins, in the name..., etc., or at least bless with the sign of the cross, so that thus "the penitent... may be admonished that he himself with bended knees fortify himself with the sign of the cross" (Rit., c. 1, n. 10).

2. The ceremony of the elevation of the hand, from the word Indulgence up to the formation of the cross in the absolution to be imparted, does not oblige under grave sin, just as neither does the sign of the cross under absolution; indeed according to some, not even under light sin, which can be admitted, though not while the form itself is pronounced.

3. The prayers May He have mercy and Indulgence can be omitted in more frequent confessions, as if there is a great concourse of penitents, or in shorter confessions, as if the penitent often returns, or after absolution remembers a sin; otherwise it is not fitting to omit them, although it can be done without sin, because they are not of precept but of counsel, since the Council of Trent, sess. 14, c. 3, says that they "are laudably joined." This counsel the Code again inculcates, can. 885: "Although the prayers joined by the Church to the absolving formula are not necessary for obtaining liberation itself, nevertheless, except for a just cause, let them not be omitted." And the same is valid concerning the words: The Passion of the Lord...; nevertheless there are those who think that by this prayer all the works of the penitent in some way participate in the efficacy of sacramental satisfaction, as St. Thomas also reports (Quodl. III, q. 13, a. 28), and on account of this opinion they say that it is less fitting to omit the aforesaid prayer.

4. By precept of the Church, absolution from censures is premised to absolution from sins as a precaution; because it is not fitting that one be reconciled to God through the ministry of the Church who first has not been reconciled with the Church herself. Whence a) a confessor certainly knowing a censure sins gravely if he absolves from sins before from censures, yet the absolution is valid; b) to omit absolution from censures, where the confessor is morally certain that censures are not present, is not a sin, but nevertheless as a precaution of rectitude it is to be premised; c) it is venial if there is a probable suspicion of censure.

5. The word suspension is omitted if it concerns laymen, since they cannot be suspended; but it is prescribed for those who are in sacred Orders, and by counsel is to be used for clerics.

6. Hence voluntary omission or corruption of a non-essential word in the form itself, without sufficient reason, is a grave or light sin according as the change itself is reputed notable or not: for although it does not invalidate the sacrament, nevertheless it imports irreverence toward it against the Church's ordering concerning sacred worship.

Thus the omission of the words: in the name of the Father... is judged light; on the contrary, the change of the word: I absolve, into another equivalent, or the omission of the words: from sins, would be notable, and even omission of absolution from censures can be grave, as was said.

B. These things, however, can vary in other Liturgies, and especially in certain religious Orders. Thus according to the ceremonial of the Order of Friars Preachers:

"1. Form of absolution commonly to be observed in sacramental confession:

"If you are held by some bond of excommunication (suspension) and interdict, from which I can absolve you: I absolve you, and restore you to the holy sacraments of the Church, to the communion and unity of the faithful. In the name of the Father +, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.

"May almighty God have mercy on you, and forgive you all your sins, deliver you from every evil, save and confirm you in every good work, and bring you to everlasting life. Amen.

"May our Lord Jesus Christ, Son of the living God, through His most pious mercy absolve you: and by His authority, which I exercise, I absolve you from all your sins, that you may be absolved here, and before the tribunal of the same our Lord Jesus Christ, and may have eternal life, and live forever and ever. In the name of the Father +, and of the Son +, and of the Holy Spirit +. Amen.

"The Passion of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the merits of blessed Mary ever Virgin, and of blessed Dominic our Father, and of all the Saints, and whatever good you shall have done and intend to do, or evils which you suffer and shall suffer, be to you unto remission of sins, unto increase of grace, and the reward of eternal life. In the name of the Father +, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.

"2. Shorter form to be observed in reconciliation, or in more frequent and shorter confessions:

"May He have mercy can be omitted, and it will suffice to say:

"If you are held by some bond of excommunication (suspension) and interdict, from which I can absolve you: I absolve you. In the name of the Father +, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.

"Likewise I absolve you from all your sins. In the name of the Father +, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.

"3. Very brief form to be observed when necessity is urgent in danger of death:

"I absolve you from all censures and sins. In the name of the Father +, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen."

III. The mode in which the form must be pronounced, required for validity, is a) that it be uttered by mouth, b) directed to one present, c) independent from a suspensive condition in the future.

A. Uttered by mouth in words properly so called. Concerning this perhaps someone could doubt, because that sacrament was instituted by way of judgment; therefore what is rigorously required for bearing sentence in other judgments could suffice also in this judgment. But in others a writing, nod, and generally whatever sign by which a sentence can be manifested suffices. Therefore also in this sacrament words properly so called could be not required; which is confirmed by the example of matrimony, in which a nod can suffice. Nevertheless words properly so called uttered by mouth are required for validity. This is proved:

a) From the words of Eugene IV, in the Council of Florence, decree for the Armenians, teaching that the sacraments are perfected by three things, one of which is words as form; and if these are lacking, the sacrament does not exist. And although afterward he said, concerning matrimony, that it is regularly perfected by words, thus indicating that sometimes it can be done without words, nevertheless this exception is placed only for matrimony and thus confirms the rule; indeed the form of Penance is said to be words of absolution which the priest pronounces, when he says, which can properly be understood of words alone.

b) Likewise from the Council of Trent saying, sess. 14, c. 3: "the form of the sacrament of Penance... has been placed in those words of the minister: I absolve you, etc."

c) The reason is taken from the institution of Christ, which Tradition and the perpetual custom of the Church have manifested in fact and doctrine.

Moreover the difference from matrimony is: a) that Christ the Lord did not institute it as something new as a sacrament, but elevated matrimony itself to the dignity of a sacrament; b) in matrimony words are required for this, that consent become known to the other party; but in the other sacraments words are not required for this; c) matrimony by its nature is for all, even the mute, therefore words are not required for validity; as to Penance, from its nature it is not unfitting that mute persons cannot absolve.

Hence in practice: 1. the opposite opinion, which once belonged to several, has no foundation;

2. whence no attention is to be given to this, that Sporer says that in a case of extreme necessity a mute priest can, if every other priest is lacking, give absolution by a nod or writing;

3. nevertheless it is not necessary that the words be heard, but it suffices that of themselves they be audible; indeed prudence rather demands that they be pronounced not in a loud voice, but in a subdued voice, lest those standing by be able to notice that someone is dismissed without absolution.

B. Directed to one present. The words: I absolve you, suppose the penitent to be morally present. Moreover moral presence is that within which men, speaking with a louder voice, can and customarily do speak with each other and be heard; which St. Alphonsus with many others thinks can certainly extend to about twenty paces, especially where the penitent has not yet gone out from the sight of the confessor; but if the distance is greater, or if the confessor and penitent are in diverse rooms altogether separated, absolution will be doubtful, and therefore outside a case of extreme necessity one must abstain from it, because in such a doubt that which is safer must be done. Hence in practice:

1. If a penitent goes out from the confessional before absolution has been given, he can safely be absolved if he is certainly known to be within a few paces; which can be extended to about twenty if he is still seen by the confessor; otherwise let him be kindly recalled to the confessional. But if he is now far away and cannot be found, let the matter be committed to God; afterward, however, if he returns to confession, let him be admonished to grieve over all his sins, even past ones, and let him be absolved.

2. A dying person can be absolved already from the door of the room.

3. In battle a multitude of soldiers can be absolved, although some are distant much, because they form one moral thing and by this reason all are sufficiently present.

4. In a case of necessity all those who are perceived in some sense, even confusedly, can be absolved (under condition), e.g., those falling from a roof, slipping into a river or sea, lying in a fire, even if they are only looked at from afar, provided it is in some way probable that they are morally present, because in some sensible way they are present before the confessor.

C. Independent from every suspensive condition in the future. For the sacraments immediately operate the effect which they can, nor is it in the power of the minister to suspend this into the future. For at the time at which the sacrament is conferred, the effect is not produced, since the execution of the condition is uncertain and the intention of the priest, which is required for the validity of the sacrament, remains suspended; but at the time at which the condition is verified, the sacrament now does not exist, and therefore cannot produce the effect. Hence:

1. Absolution under a condition concerning an uncertain future is invalid, e.g., I absolve you if within a month you shall have made restitution.

2. On the contrary, under a condition concerning the present or past it is valid, if the condition is verified, e.g., I absolve you if you are alive, if you are capable, if you have made restitution, if I have not absolved you, etc. For this does not suspend the effect, for when the condition is verified, the absolution is in reality absolute, and consequently it is valid in the same way as this and immediately produces its effect.

IV. Corollaries. - From this practical corollaries can be deduced:

1. Absolution is illicit and invalid if given to an absent person, whether by letter or through an intermediary, even if he is confessing in this way, both because it is not done by vocal words, and because it is not done to one present.

Several once admitted this, such as Peter Paludanus, Adrianus, Sylvester, whose opinion according to Fr. Soto can be held. John of St. Thomas besides adduces for it I. Medina, de conf. Q; and Navarrus, Summa, c. 21, n. 30. Against it stand Cajetan and Ledesma and generally more recent authors; and St. Thomas is adduced, III, q. 84, a. 3 ad 3; a. 4, ad 3; and IV Sent., d. 1, q. 1, a. 3, ad 3; d. 14, q. 1, a. 1, qc. 1, ad 2; d. 17, q. 3, a. 4, qc. 3, ad 3; St. Bonaventure and St. Albert the Great in IV Sent.; Alexander of Hales, III, q. 60, m. 1, a. 1; Richard in IV, d. 17, a. 2, q. 5; Ferrariensis, c. Gent., IV, c. 72.

Moreover the nature of the sacrament of Penance seems to demand that, from the mode in which it is ministered, of itself at least the priest can become certain of the actual state of the penitent; for this there is required present confession and absolution of one present; nor does an intermediary bear the place of the penitent as regards disposition. On account of this Clement VIII, on 20 June 1602, in the Congregation of the Holy Office, condemned at least as false, rash, and scandalous this proposition: "it is licit through letters or an intermediary sacramentally to confess sins to an absent confessor and to obtain absolution from the same absent one," and commanded that it never in any case be brought into practice. From which it follows that absolution is not only illicit but also invalid, for otherwise sometimes, at least in extreme necessity, it could licitly be brought into practice.

2. Absolution given to an absent person is likewise invalid, even if confession was made to a priest present, on account of the same motives.

3. Likewise absolution given to one present is invalid, but by force of a confession made in absence and here and now in no way renewed, not even in general. For then present matter (namely confession) is lacking, and therefore absolution would not be sacramental, as not informing the matter, nor is the priest more certified concerning the actual state of the penitent.

It is also reported that Clement VIII pronounced that he had condemned and prohibited the adduced proposition not only copulatively but divisively, concerning absolution and confession separately; and most certainly Paul V, in the Congregation of the Holy Office, 14 July 1605, declared that the decree is valid in the divided sense, so that he ordered the contrary interpretation to be expunged from the writings of Suarez.

4. Hence, as an axiom, they are accustomed to say: absolution is invalid whether a) an absent person confesses and is absolved while absent, or b) a present person confesses and is absolved while absent, or c) an absent person confesses and is absolved while present.

5. Nevertheless the practice is not disapproved of absolving the dying who are destitute of the senses, who manifested desire of confession, concerning which testimony is had through those standing by, as Clement VIII declared.

For then there is present confession of one present made to one present through those standing by, as if through interpreters. For as Billuart says, de Poen., diss. 7, art. 3, § II, "the penitent is present, those standing by are present, the confessor is present, and through the testimony of those standing by the confession itself is present." Namely, the penitent is present, and his confession is morally continued and expressed by the mouth of those standing by, so that the priest can be morally certain concerning the actual state of the penitent, since it is in no way likely that he, while danger of death stands, has changed his good disposition.

6. Finally, absolution by telephone, or through a long phonetic tube, is invalid, or at least very doubtful.

For according to the natural and ordinary mode of speaking together, the penitent and confessor are not present to one another, and by the common estimation of men, the conversation is judged to be made among the absent: simple communication is not yet presence. Indeed neither is the very voice of the one speaking heard, but it is only perfectly reproduced; but artificial transmission of the voice does not suffice that absolution which reaches the penitent be truly vocal. Whence, at most, in a case of extreme necessity, and only under condition, could the penitent thus be absolved, from lack of a more certain mode.

But if the Sacred Penitentiary, 1 July 1884, to a question proposed concerning this, rescripted that nothing was to be answered, it seems to have wished to signify: that the question does not pertain to it, but to the Holy Office.

V. Observation. - Concerning the validity of absolution under a condition concerning the present, doubt sometimes existed, especially concerning the condition: if you are disposed. Thus once several Louvain authors and certain others, such as Collet, said that this condition, like several others, stands against the special character of the sacrament of Penance, which was instituted by way of judgment.

They distinguished between conditions of fact, e.g., if you are alive, if you are baptized, etc., concerning which the confessor does not have to judge, and conditions of law, e.g., if you are disposed, if you wish to make restitution, etc., concerning which he does have to judge. The former they generally admitted, because they do not invalidate the sacrament; but the condition concerning which the confessor must judge, such as that one: if you are disposed, they rejected as invalidating, because it takes away the nature of judgment, since through it the confessor supposes precisely that concerning which he must judge and bear judgment. Whence just as there would be no sentence of a civil judge concerning a litigated thing if he said: "I adjudge the thing to you, if it is yours," so absolution is invalid if the confessor says: "if you are disposed, I absolve you." This opinion is now obsolete.

For the opinion which, even at the time of the dispute, was most common outside the school of the Louvain authors, and now, after the controversy has ended, altogether common, holds that the sacrament of Penance is valid if a condition is placed beneath. The reason is the general doctrine: conditions concerning the present do not invalidate the sacraments; because when the condition is verified, in the case the disposition of the penitent, the conditioned form is equivalent to an absolute one, and thus all things required for the value of the sacrament are present.

And indeed: 1) Such a condition does not take away every judgment. For it is some judgment to say: if you are disposed, I make for you the right by which it is owed that sin be remitted to you and no longer imputed. Even in human judgments, a conditioned sentence is rather often borne, e.g., "you will go to prison unless within three days you pay the debt," or "I condemn you to prison, but, if you do not fall again into fault, for a time you will be immune from punishment," or "you are condemned or liberated, if in your desk there is this or that document," which immediately is ordered to be inquired into by trustworthy men.¹

¹ Cf. Lehmkuhl, Th. M., II, n. 370, who adds: "Indeed the sentence even of human judgment and in a civil matter not rarely has this condition implicitly in some way, 'if only the testimony of the witnesses was true'; for unless it rests on this estimation and condition, which nevertheless can sometimes fail, the sentence would be unjust and thus null... By parity, a sacramental sentence always rests on this supposition, that the penitent speaks truly and truly grieves..."

2. That condition does not take away the nature of the judgment proper to this sacrament. The confessor must judge concerning the disposition of the penitent; but, according to St. Thomas, q. 17, a. 3, this is only a judgment of discretion, so that the confessor may prudently and licitly absolve, but it is not the judicial sentence itself nor is it necessary for its validity. Here the essence of judgment consists only in the pronouncing of the sentence of absolution upon a contrite and confessed guilty person; - for otherwise he would absolve invalidly who absolves while judging nothing concerning the dispositions of the penitent or judging him positively indisposed while nevertheless he is duly disposed; which no one will admit.

3. To the arguments of the adversaries the response is: there is a disparity with human judgment. a) This does not give a right but declares it and therefore is null if it is made under that condition which precisely must be declared, because it declares nothing if it supposes in the condition what it must declare: thus it supposes what is being asked; on the contrary, the sacrament of Penance gives a right, which can also be done under condition. - b) Human judgment must be committed to execution by men, and therefore it is necessary that it be known and declared that the condition is verified; God Himself executes the sentence of the priest, and therefore it suffices that God knows whether the condition has been fulfilled. - c) As to the example brought forward, parity is denied, because it belongs to the essence of civil judgment that the judge pronounce whose the thing is; it does not belong to the essence of sacramental judgment to pronounce that the penitent is capable, disposed, lives, has made restitution, etc., but to pronounce that a right is conceded to him for liberation from sins.

Although the condition: if you are disposed, leaves the sacrament valid, nevertheless it does not seem opportunely to be used in practice, indeed generally not even licitly, as will be said below, c. IV, q. 2, a. 3, VII.