Article II: On the Solicitation of a Penitent to Shameful Things

639. Dispositions of canon law. - According to can. 904: "According to the norm of the apostolic Constitutions and especially of the Constitution of Benedict XIV, Sacramentum Poenitentiae, June 1, 1741, the penitent must denounce to the local Ordinary, or to the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, within a month, a priest guilty of the delict of solicitation in confession; and the confessor must, with his conscience gravely burdened, admonish the penitent concerning this burden."

Concerning penalties against delinquents, can. 2368 adds:

"§ 1. He who has committed the crime of solicitation, concerning which in can. 904, is to be suspended from the celebration of Mass and from hearing sacramental confessions, or even, according to the gravity of the delict, declared unable to hear them; he is to be deprived of all benefices, dignities, active and passive voice, and declared incapable of all these, and in graver cases he is also to be subjected to degradation.

"§ 2. But the faithful person who knowingly has omitted to denounce within a month the one by whom he was solicited, contrary to the prescription of can. 904, incurs an excommunication latae sententiae reserved to no one, and is not to be absolved unless after he has satisfied the obligation or has seriously promised that he will satisfy it."

640. Solicitation to shameful things is a provocation to grave sin of lust made by a priest with some relation to confession, or by a priest as confessor thus abusing sacramental confession, true or simulated.

It is a very grave sin: a) because grave irreverence of sacrilege is inflicted upon the sacrament, and this is against religion; b) because it constitutes scandal against charity, since it brings lethal harm to the penitent, offering him poison in place of medicine; c) because, if the confessor is a pastor, it contains a special injury against justice, since he himself is bound from justice to feed his sheep by word and example.

It is, then, 1. a provocation to sin, i.e., an action either dishonorable per se, or indifferent per se but outwardly manifesting a shameful affection, by which someone, in the case the confessor, tries to induce another, the penitent, to some sin, whether explicitly, studiously, and deliberately, or implicitly, so that the manner of acting or speaking spontaneously allures.

It is scandal given to the penitent, an invitation or incitement in whatever way it is done by priests, by word or deed, or as Benedict XIV speaks, "whether by words, or signs, or nods, or touch (upon one's own body or another's), or through writing to be read either then or afterward, they have attempted, or with him have had illicit and dishonorable conversations or dealings (i.e., counsels, deliberations, agreements)," provided the induction to evil was certain: for in doubt no one is to be deprived of his reputation, and a doubtful law does not oblige; hence a doubtful delict is not judged a delict.

But true solicitation is present:

a) whether it is efficacious, so that the solicited person consents, or inefficacious, by which someone merely attempted to solicit or provoke, even if the other person understood only afterward;

b) whether it is immediate, for obtaining the consent of the penitent, or mediate, either through the penitent, for inducing another person into sin, or through writing to be read afterward, as some writing concerning shameful things (prop. 6 condemned by Alexander VII; Holy Office, February 11, 1661, n. 1);

c) with any person whatever of whatever sex, condition, and age; for it matters little whether it is a man or woman, pubescent or impubescent, whether he is solicited to sin with the confessor or alone, or with a third person, e.g., a young man with a girl (Sacred Penitentiary, September 2, 1904); provided he is capable of solicitation, such as one sleeping is not, or, for solicitation by words alone, a deaf person or one ignorant of the language.

2. It is to shameful things, i.e., inducing to grave acts against chastity, whether they are grave in themselves, or from an adjunct immodest circumstance, or from libidinous affection outwardly manifested; or to any grave sin whatever of lust, even internal, as of desire or complacency.

Hence the crime of solicitation concerning which there is question is not present:

a) if the provocation was made to another sin, e.g., theft or homicide, although by natural law denunciation can sometimes be prescribed (Holy Office, February 11, 1661, ad 11);

b) if it was made to something dishonorable which is not certainly mortal sin, e.g., something merely sensual, a kiss given in passing;

c) if the solicitation is not complete but only preparatory, so that true scandal is not offered, but only inquiry is made whether the person can be tempted with some hope; nevertheless true solicitation begun suffices.

Hence for judging in practice whether solicitation is present, one must attend whether the words or deeds, if not of themselves, at least from the adjuncts, signify a shameful affection and provoke to a shameful affection. Thus, e.g., if a priest gives a gift in confession, or commits slightly immodest touches, even pressed and rather often repeated, if he expresses his love toward a person, or a wish to marry her if he were secular, or recognition or praise of her beauty and charm, if he asks where she lives, or asks whether she will do what he himself wishes, or requests that she wait for him at home or, on the contrary, that she come alone to the house of the confessor, etc., from the adjuncts and the subsequent effect it will have to be seen what the sense is (Holy Office, February 11, 1661, ad 12 and 16): whether those things are done only from imprudence and levity, or perhaps for a good end, e.g., for admonishing about some danger; or, on the contrary, from a depraved intention, which sense they would easily have if it were clear that the priest, outside confession, nourished shameful love toward that person, or was a man prone to lust.

3. It is from a priest as confessor, whatever he was, whether secular or regular, whether approved or not approved but lacking jurisdiction.

Hence there is not present the special obligation of denouncing from ecclesiastical law:

a) if the one soliciting is not a priest, but an inferior cleric or a layman, who pretend that they are confessors;

b) also, probably, if he is a bishop, because it is uncertain whether he is designated under the word "priest";1 although generally he would have to be denounced by natural law;

c) if an interpreter, even a priest, employed in confession, solicits;

d) if the penitent solicits the confessor to shameful things, even if the latter merely consents, provided the consent does not implicitly contain a new solicitation; on the contrary, if the solicitation is mutual, as if the confessor, first solicited to one species, himself solicits to another, or in the beginning dissents and after some time begins to solicit.

4. It must be with relation to confession or connection with the sacrament of Penance, as will be explained in the following number.

For our case is distinguished:

a) from solicitation made by a priest in the administration of another sacrament without relation to confession; in which case no special denunciation is to be made from ecclesiastical law (Holy Office, February 11, 1661, n. 10), although nevertheless in certain adjuncts such an obligation can be present from natural law;

b) likewise from the sin of complicity, which can be committed without relation to confession, even before someone has been raised to the priesthood.

641. The connection with the sacrament of Penance required is present if solicitation is made by a priest "either in the act of sacramental confession, - or before, or immediately after confession, - or on the occasion, - or under the pretext of confession, - or even, outside the occasion of confession, in the confessional, or in another place destined or chosen for hearing confessions, with the simulation of hearing confession there." Thus Benedict XIV in the aforesaid constitution.

1. In the act of sacramental confession, i.e., between the beginning of confession and the end: namely, from the time at which confession is begun up to the last words of absolution inclusive, or, as is said, between the two crosses of the confessor.

But a confession is judged sacramental, provided it has been begun for sacramental absolution, even if it is interrupted and not brought to the end, so that the sacrament in some way remained incomplete, or the penitent for any cause whatever is not absolved.

2. Or before, or immediately after confession, i.e., if between true confession and solicitation no external action or conversation intervenes which does not refer to solicitation.

Hence the crime of solicitation is present if the confessor immediately before or after confession speaks, from libidinous affection, manifestly obscene words, or dishonorably touches the penitent, - or if the penitent, in the act and state of confession, already sitting at the feet of the confessor, asks to confess and the confessor nods assent and then solicits, even if the penitent then presently does not wish to confess, - or if the confessor solicits a woman who after confession approaches to kiss his hand, - or if he immediately leads her into a room or sacristy so that he may solicit more securely there, - or if he immediately says: wait a little, and after an interval (but not on the following day) solicits, - or if he consents to a penitent who is soliciting, but immediately ceases, and defers the completion to another time (Holy Office, February 11, 1661, n. 2): for thus he holds and confirms the penitent in solicitation.

On the contrary, if another action or another true medium has intervened, the case is not had, as if the solicitation is done on a day other than the confession, or after speech about indifferent things or another business, or if the confessor approaches and solicits the person after she has already gone out from the confessional, or after he has heard another penitent, unless, however, he began in confession by saying, e.g.: wait for me a little, and said this not for another business but for solicitation.

3. Or on the occasion of confession, i.e., if from a confession truly sought or made a motive or opportunity is taken for provoking to shameful things, so that confession is the per accidens cause of soliciting the penitent.

Thus 1. on the occasion of a confession sought: if the penitent (expressly or tacitly) asks to confess at once and, wishing to begin, is impeded from this by the confessor who immediately provokes him, confession being delayed to afterward; or if the confessor, called and asked for this, approaches a sick person as if about to confess him, and on this occasion solicits;

Or 2. on the occasion of a confession heard: if the confessor in confession or immediately before or after confession hands to the penitent a note or letters to be read afterward, in which he solicits to shameful things (prop. 6, condemned by Alexander VII; Holy Office, February 11, 1661, n. 1); or if, knowing the inclinations or temptations of the penitent, he solicits him, provided it is clear that this is done from the hearing of confession, by which even then he was impelled to this intention; concerning which, however, it will rarely be clear.

On the contrary, at least probably, one does not solicit on the occasion of the confession itself:

a) who merely abuses knowledge drawn from confession, e.g., about the frailty of the penitent, for soliciting him: then it is not done on the occasion of the confession itself, but on the occasion of knowledge drawn from confession;

b) who hands to the one confessing a note to be carried to another person, whom the confessor thus solicits, provided the penitent himself is in no way an accomplice: for then the penitent himself is not solicited;

c) who, when asked for confession, solicits her when confession is not to be heard immediately but on another day or hour; indeed, according to some, even now, but while he is not yet sitting after the manner of a confessor nor has the person kneeling before him (Holy Office, February 11, 1661, n. 4): for then it is not done on the occasion of confession, but on the occasion of the request for confession.

4. Or under the pretext of confession, even when confession has not followed, i.e., under the veil or color or appearance, or false allegation, of confession for covering a depraved end, namely if the occasion is taken from a fictitious confession proposed uniquely for this end, that it may serve solicitation. Not indeed the penitent, but the confessor must use this pretext in order to solicit the penitent.

Thus if he fictitiously invites some person to confess, so that more easily he may induce her to shameful things, - or if he approaches the house of a sick person and speaks to her about confession in order to remove those standing by, and when they have gone, solicits her, - or if, under the pretext of confession, he asks her to enter a room as if a confessional, and then solicits; - but probably not:

a) he who, to elude others, agrees with the person that she pretend herself sick: for he does not solicit under the pretext of confession, but merely carries out the sin, so that the pretext of confession is not ordered to soliciting, but to deceiving others;

b) nor he who, under the pretext of confession, asks permission from a superior that he may go to the person whom in reality he intends to solicit: for the pretext is not with respect to the penitent but to the superior, so that solicitation is not made under the pretext of confession, but only permission is granted;

c) nor he who, under the pretext of confession, invites the person to go to the church, and there, outside the confessional, solicits her: for not the solicitation itself, but only the invitation to approach the church, was made under the pretext of confession;

d) nor he who outside the time and place of confession solicits the person and, that she may more easily yield, promises that he will afterward hear her confession: under the pretext of confession the solicitation itself is not made, but only consent is obtained;

e) nor a fortiori he who merely consents to the person calling and soliciting him.

5. Or even outside the occasion of confession, in the confessional, or in another place destined or chosen for hearing confessions, but with simulation of confession. These two things must be present, so that it is done in a place of confession and at the same time confession is simulated (Holy Office, February 11, 1661, n. 15):

a) simulation or figure of confession is had if they act in such a way that in appearance they seem to institute confession (e.g., the priest applying his ears), so that bystanders would rightly judge that confession itself is being heard. For this there is also required

b) a place of confession: that it be done in a confessional or in a special little room destined for hearing confessions, such as a cell or sacristy where those somewhat deaf are customarily heard, or a parlor destined for confessions of priests (Holy Office, April 28, 1700), or a place where the confessions of nuns are heard (Holy Office, November 25, 1874); - or in any other place chosen transiently for confessions according to adjuncts, as is the room of a sick person, or a sacristy or choir or open place in a time of great concourse of the faithful; - but not in a place chosen precisely for this one simulated confession.

Thus if a penitent who comes, with either a good end (as for seeking counsel) or an evil one (as for tempting the confessor), into a place destined for confessions, and there is solicited with simulation of confession; or if a person wishing to communicate something to the priest is led by him into the confessional and there, confession being simulated, is solicited; or if both, mingling shameful conversations, enter the confessional and, confession being simulated, continue in shameful speech (Paul V, July 10, 1614); - but not if the confessor, sitting in the confessional but not simulating confession, solicits a person standing or sitting before the confessional (Holy Office, February 11, 1661, n. 15).

1. On this in our little work: De Poenitentiae Ministro, c. 5, q. 2, II, 3.

642. The obligation of denouncing those who solicit. - The grave obligation of denouncing those who solicit is present not only generally from natural law, by which all are bound to this if it is necessary for removing scandal; but also specially from positive ecclesiastical law, by which solicited penitents are obliged within a month, and indeed under penalty of excommunication latae sententiae reserved to no one.

The end of this precept is not only the amendment of a particular person, but rather the public security of the sacrament and of souls, to be obtained from the certain chastisement of the crime and from the unavoidable fear of confessors.

According to this statute of the law:

A. All and only priests are to be denounced, even those not approved or lacking jurisdiction (Holy Office, February 11, 1661, n. 5; and February 20, 1867, n. 2), whether secular or regular, of whatever preeminence or dignity (episcopal dignity nevertheless probably excepted, as we noted above, n. 640, 3), soliciting by themselves; - but not mere interpreters or messengers of solicitation, or those commanding or counseling it, according to the Holy Office, February 11, 1661, n. 6 and 7.

They are to be denounced, even if they at once repented of the solicitation made or if, solicitation having been begun, they at once ceased (ibid., n. 2), or if they were induced by grave fear (ibid., n. 9), or if they solicited a penitent not noticing the malice of the sin (Holy Office, May 11, 1707); - even if the crime was committed a long time ago and remained occult or cannot be juridically proved (prop. 5, condemned by Alexander VII, September 24, 1665), or no admonition or fraternal correction preceded (Alexander VII, April 8, 1660); - or they themselves have departed to a distant land or are now amended, indeed those who have spontaneously denounced themselves (Holy Office, July 26, 1628), or have even been fully convicted and punished by a judge (Holy Office, February 11, 1661, n. 13), especially if there is question of a new crime or of the solicitation of another: provided they are still living; - but not the dead (Holy Office, May 27, 1707, and March 6, 1839; Sacred Penitentiary, April 24, 1884).

For the end of the law is not the amendment of the one soliciting alone, nor his punishment alone, but both at once; wherefore those also are to be denounced who are now amended or already punished, because the total end of the law has not yet ceased; but not the dead, because the end can no longer be obtained, but has totally ceased. Wherefore if some have been judicially fully convicted of the crime to be denounced, and at the same time appear fully and perfectly amended, so that relapse does not seem to be feared, there would no longer be an obligation of denouncing; but this scarcely holds in practice, since, considering the strict secrecy to be kept in cases of this kind, it is scarcely ever clear for what crime the priest was convicted and punished.

B. Solicited penitents are obliged to denounce, even if they did not understand the solicitation and only later recognized it (Holy Office, May 11, 1707), or, on the contrary (Holy Office, July 25 and September 27, 1624), themselves consented, or first solicited so that the solicitation was mutual, since they can keep this silent, indeed even deny it if, may it not happen, they are questioned about it from above (Holy Office, July 25, 1624, and February 20, 1867, n. 6); - even if a long interval of time has intervened (prop. 6 condemned by Alexander VII), the crime has remained occult and there is defect of proof, or if they promised or swore that they would never denounce, because a promise concerning an illicit thing does not hold, and an oath cannot bind to iniquity; - indeed if denunciation has already been made by another: for the law constrains each of the solicited.

Yet they are excused:

1. On account of the death of the soliciting priest, as was said.

2. On account of great extrinsic inconvenience, as long as it lasts (Holy Office, February 21, 1630, and February 20, 1867, n. 5): thus a notable harm or grave danger in the goods of life, reputation, or fortune, also, probably, for very near blood-relatives, unless from omission the common good of religion would be gravely endangered; likewise moral impossibility, which in certain regions can be had rather easily, of making the denunciation either orally or by letters (Holy Office, February 21, 1630, and January 22, 1727); - but not inconvenience intrinsic to the precept, such as fear of incurring a certain indignation before the one soliciting, shame in manifesting the solicitation, danger of a light inconvenience or a light danger of a graver one; nor even danger of one's own infamy or publicity, which is not given on account of the precautions customarily employed.

3. On account of dispensation of the Holy Office, which is rarely granted; nevertheless it can be sought if the penitent, even irrationally, altogether refuses that he will make denunciation (Holy Office, February 20, 1867, n. 7): for sometimes, if too great a repugnance of the penitent is present, or not so great a utility of denunciation, dispensation can be granted.

Besides the penitent himself, in the new law it now seems that it cannot be urged that others who certainly know the solicitation are obliged to denounce by force of ecclesiastical law. For canon 904 expressly says: the penitent; although nevertheless excellent authors, such as De Smet and Vermeersch, defend that the old law still stands in force in this matter; but this is not certain. Yet those who knew the matter from professional secrecy never had to denounce; nor did the soliciting confessor himself have to denounce himself (Holy Office, November 17, 1624), although, if he does this, he will be treated more mildly and will be immune from vindictive penalties, not however always from medicinal penalties (Holy Office, February 20, 1867, n. 13).

C. Confessors are bound under grave obligation to admonish penitents concerning the obligation of denouncing, even if the latter in good faith are ignorant of the obligation, and it is foreseen that they will refuse to denounce (Holy Office, February 20, 1867, n. 3): for the common good demands this; - with the sole exception of the article of death, lest penitents be cast into danger of damnation. Moreover confessors must teach the obligation of denouncing, the time within which it is to be fulfilled, the penalty to be incurred, and the manner of making denunciation.

If penitents refuse to denounce without a grave excusing reason, they are not to be absolved, as being indisposed (Holy Office, February 20, 1867, n. 5); but the confessor can have recourse to the Sacred Penitentiary or the Holy Office, to receive instructions or even to obtain a dispensation.

Nor are they freed from the obligation by the fact that they confess before the soliciting confessor himself, who is not bound to admonish them against himself, as is clear from the very words of the pontifical Constitutions; Alexander VII condemned proposition 7: "The way of avoiding the obligation of solicitation is if the one solicited confesses with the one soliciting: this latter can absolve him without the burden of denouncing."

643. Penalties established by law. - A. Penalties against those soliciting are ferendae sententiae, as is clear from can. 2368, § 1 cited above. Three can be inflicted: suspension from the celebration of Mass, - suspension from hearing confessions or inability for them, - privation of benefice, active and passive voice, dignity, and inability for these; indeed, in graver cases, degradation. Since the censures are ferendae sententiae, they are judged to be from man according to can. 2217, § 1, 3; hence they cannot be remitted except by the Ordinary who inflicted them, or by a competent superior (can. 2245, § 2).

Nevertheless they cannot be inflicted at once from the first denunciation, unless perhaps the reputation is bad and the one denouncing is beyond every exception; but the practice is that 1. after one or another denunciation, as suspect of the crime, the denounced confessor is observed; or even 2. that he is paternally admonished or, if the crime is certain, subjected also to salutary penance, such as removal from the place of the crime and spiritual exercises to be performed; finally 3. after the third denunciation he is called into judgment. This supposes that the accused is admitted to defense.

But if the accused has appeared spontaneously and has sincerely confessed the delict, he must be dismissed admonished and punished by penance; unless denunciation has already been made, in which case the penalty will be diminished (Holy Office, February 20, 1867, n. 13).

B. The penalty against solicited penitents neglecting to denounce is excommunication latae sententiae reserved to no one, as can. 2368, § 2 has. For incurring it there is required:

1. the certain obligation of denouncing; 2) culpable omission, which supposes knowledge of the obligation and also of the censure, so that ignorance of the latter excuses, unless it is affected; 3) the lapse of one month, which runs from the moment at which the solicited person knows the obligation and the time of fulfilling it and the annexed censure.

A penitent who incurs the excommunication cannot be absolved unless he has made the denunciation, or at least has seriously promised to make it; once this has been done, he can be absolved by a simple confessor, because the censure is reserved to no one. "But if afterward, with his will changed, he does not denounce, the censure does not revive," says Noldin, Th. M. III, n. 379, "because in law there is nothing concerning reincidence."

C. The penalties against false denouncers are two:

a) From can. 894, a false accusation made by oneself or through another (e.g., through a confessor) before ecclesiastical judges is a sin reserved to the Holy See by reason of itself. To incur this it is necessary:

1. that a priest be denounced as guilty of solicitation properly so called, namely in connection with confession, as was explained in n. 641;

2. that the denunciation be false materially and formally, so that the confessor is not known to be guilty of this delict, although perhaps he is guilty of other similar delicts;

3. that the denunciation was made before ecclesiastical judges, which many understand in the stricter and formal sense of a judicial denunciation.

But if it must be understood thus, which nevertheless is not certain, an anonymous denunciation or a simple signed letter would not suffice.

Ignorance does not excuse from the aforesaid reservation, because reservation of sin is not a mere penalty, but principally and immediately a calling-away to the tribunal of the superior, and therefore a restriction of the power of the confessor, which only mediately affects the penitent, as we said in n. 593 (can. 893, § 1), and because no ignorance excuses from an incapacitating law (can. 16, § 1).1

b) From can. 2363, false denunciation made by oneself or through others before superiors incurs excommunication reserved in a special manner to the Apostolic See. By these altogether general terms there seems to be comprehended not only a strictly juridical denunciation before judges formally acting as such, but any denunciation whatever directed to superiors, even by letter; - not however an anonymous one, since it has no force (Holy Office, February 20, 1867, n. 6). Certainly, not only the denunciation which is made in the judicial instruction itself, but also that which seeks this and warns concerning an instruction to be made, is already made before superiors as such; - otherwise that penalty providently introduced would too often be eluded.

Yet ignorance excuses from the penalty, not indeed ignorance of the reservation alone, but of the censure, not however crass nor affected ignorance. But from this no one can be absolved in any case according to can. 2363, unless:

1. he has formally retracted the false denunciation before the superior, or has already placed a means sufficient for this, or, if this is here and now impossible, has seriously promised it;

2. he has repaired according to his powers all the harms following from the calumnious denunciation;

3. he has accepted a grave and lasting penance. Grave is that which per se must be given for grave fault in the sacrament; lasting is that which endures for about six months or more, with attention to the quality of the person and the nature and frequency of the work imposed.

From all these things it follows:

1. The reserved censure extends more widely than the sin reserved by reason of itself.

2. Nevertheless the reservation of the sin can be contracted without the reservation of the censure being contracted, e.g., on account of ignorance.

3. The reservation of the censure sometimes ceases without the reservation of the sin ceasing, and conversely the reservation of the sin ceases, e.g., in the case of a sick person who cannot leave the house, without the reservation of the censure therefore ceasing.

4. One who can absolve from one cannot always absolve from the other.

5. Accomplices also are touched by both reservations, since they denounce through others; namely, those commanding, mandating, counseling, asking, promising, threatening, etc., in one word, all who positively and efficaciously concurred in the false denunciation.

644. Corollaries concerning doubtful solicitation. - 1. In doubt whether the action performed or the words spoken carry with them and signify solicitation, if there is doubt only about the intention of the confessor, the end is presumed to have been present which is consonant with the action performed or the words spoken.

2. If the external action itself, not only according to itself but also after all the circumstances and indications both on the part of the thing and on the part of the agent have been considered, remains ambiguous, so that the delict is truly doubtful, the more benign side can be preferred and denunciation is not from ecclesiastical precept.

3. If solicitation is certain, but there is doubt about the person, denunciation must be made so that the superior can inquire concerning the person of the one soliciting, so long as inquiry can easily be made without danger of defaming an innocent person; hence: a) it will have to be denounced if there is probable hope that the judge by his diligence can uncover the unknown person; b) on the contrary, one who is hesitating doubtfully between two persons and must indicate each in the denunciation should for the most part abstain from denunciation lest he harm the reputation of an innocent person.

645. The manner of making denunciation. - According to the norm of law:

A. Denunciation must be made to the Holy Office or to the Ordinary of the place (can. 904), i.e., to the bishop, or abbot nullius, administrator, vicar or prefect apostolic, and to him who, in the absence of the aforesaid, succeeds in governance (can. 198, § 1, e.g., a capitular vicar), or to their delegate; - but not to the vicar general without a special mandate (can. 2220, § 2), nor a fortiori to religious superiors (can. 501, § 2), who, although they come under the name of Ordinary, nevertheless do not come under the name of Ordinary of the place (can. 198, § 2).

But per se denunciation is to be made to the proper Ordinary of the soliciting priest; nevertheless in practice it can also be made before the Ordinary of the place in which the delict was committed, or even the Ordinary of the penitent, who then must transmit the denunciation received to the Holy Office or to the proper Ordinary of the one soliciting.

B. Denunciation must be made personally and by living voice by the solicited person herself,

either 1) before the bishop or his delegate, and another ecclesiastical man serving as notary, and with oath and signing of the name (Holy Office, February 20, 1867, n. 6);

or 2) before the confessor or another ecclesiastical man, to be deputed for this by the bishop, but without the intervention of a notary (ibid., n. 8).

For making this denunciation, in practice an extrajudicial denunciation must ordinarily precede:

a) If the solicited person is able to write, let her write herself to the bishop, with her own hand, and in letters not anonymous but signed with her name and domicile, let her set forth that she is bound to make denunciation and ask that the manner in which it is to be made be indicated, or that a delegated person be sent to receive it; - or even let her manifest the delinquent, reporting the place, time, occasion, occurrences, and individual adjuncts, and also whether it happened in the act of confession, or before or after, and also the name and office of the confessor, or, if this is unknown, an accurate description of his person. And let her say that she is ready promptly to conform herself to the instructions to be given by the bishop; adding, if grave reasons are present, that she cannot approach the episcopal curia, but waits for a delegate to be sent, or even that denunciation may suitably be made only to the confessor.

b) If she does not know how to write, or cannot without grave inconvenience, let her approach the bishop by herself or through a faithful messenger; - and if she cannot do this (or does not wish to), it is expedient that, with the permission of the penitent, the confessor write (ibid., n. 7), not indeed to complete the denunciation in place of the penitent, but to inform the Ordinary, under pseudonyms, concerning the fact of solicitation and to ask, with regard to the impossibility of the penitent, for opportune instructions. Nevertheless the confessor is not strictly bound to this; unless exceptionally grave public harm is imminent. And if the confessor does not wish to do it, the penitent will be able to await the occasion of another confessor who is willing to perform this ministry.

The penitent who has admonished the Ordinary and is prepared to stand by his mandates can be absolved, and per se it suffices that thereafter he await the response of the Ordinary.

C. The Ordinary must diligently inquire whether the person denouncing is worthy of faith, and before proceeding against the denounced, have it ascertained "that the women or men denouncing are of good name and are not led to accuse either by enmity or by another human affection."

Thus the Instruction of the Holy Office, February 20, 1867, n. 10. But the manner in which he must inquire concerning this was defined by the Holy Office in the instruction of August 6, 1897; the manner of receiving denunciations in the instruction of July 20, 1890.¹

¹ De Smet nevertheless judges the contrary, because according to the Benedictine Constitution this reservation is a medicinal penalty, from which, according to can. 2229, § 3, ignorance excuses if it is not crass. But this no longer holds in law, in which it is expressly said, can. 893, that reservation limits the power of the confessor, and in the immediately following canon 894, false accusation is called the one sin reserved to the Holy See by reason of itself. Therefore it is no longer principally a medicinal penalty, but a calling-away to the tribunal of the superior and a restriction of jurisdiction; as is now generally acknowledged. - Moreover practically ignorance is rarely present, since those denouncing a confessor must be admonished by the judge or delegate concerning the reservation.

646. Observation. - A priest guilty of solicitation per se can be absolved by a simple confessor, provided all other requisites are present, because solicitation is not a reserved case (Holy Office, September 13, 1859, ad 3), unless nevertheless there is also at the same time a case of absolution of an accomplice; but the priest must be admonished not to hear the confession of the solicited person, so that he may avoid the danger of relapse. But if he has already been punished and suspended, a simple confessor cannot absolve from the suspension, because, as ferendae sententiae, it is as though from man and therefore reserved.

1. On these things our little work De Poenitentiae Ministro, c. 5, q. 2, V, C and X, can be consulted; where practical rules to be observed by confessors both toward the soliciting priest and toward the solicited penitent are also handed down, ibid. IX.