Question — Noldin, Summa of Moral Theology
Question Third. On the form of penance.
234. Pious custom, which nevertheless does not oblige in conscience, has this, that before confession the confessor bless the penitent with these words:
May the Lord be in your heart and on your lips, that you may rightly confess all your sins, in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.
But the form of the sacrament of penance is:
May almighty God have mercy on you and, your sins having been dismissed, bring you through to eternal life. Amen. Then, with the right hand raised 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.
May the passion of our Lord Jesus Christ, the merits of the Blessed Virgin Mary and of all the Saints, whatever good you have done and evil you have borne, be to you unto remission of sins, increase of grace, and reward of eternal life. Amen.1
1 Roman Ritual, tit. 3, c. 3.
235. On the form itself. A twofold form of this sacrament is distinguished: essential, which from the Council of Trent1 is contained in these words: I absolve you from your sins; and rubrical, which is that whole form prescribed in the Ritual. This again is twofold: preceptive, which is constituted by the words: May our Lord... in the name of the Father, etc.; directive, which is constituted by the words which are had before and after the essential form. A valid form of absolution must express three things: a. the person of the minister judging with due authority: I absolve; b. the person of the accused: you; c. the genus of bond from which the accused is absolved by judicial sentence: from sins.
If the words of the form are considered as human words in the obvious and natural sense, they have this sense: I by judicial sentence free you from your sins. But if they are considered as sacramental words, namely insofar as they have been elevated by Christ to signify the sacramental effect, they have this sense: I by judicial sentence confer on you grace of itself remissive of the sin committed by you. For the sacraments were instituted by Christ to signify and produce grace, which in baptism is remissive of original sin, but in penance of personal sin committed after baptism.
236. On the essential form. Not all the words of the essential form are required for the value of the sacrament: for the form is certainly valid: I absolve you from sins; this form is probably valid: I absolve from your sins, because the person who is absolved is sufficiently signified by the word your; likewise this form: I absolve you, because the debt of sin from which the penitent is absolved is sufficiently clear from this, that absolution is granted by a priest who is furnished with the power of remitting sins. Yet since, because of the disagreement of authors, it is not altogether certain that these last two forms suffice for valid absolution, the whole essential form must always be pronounced, with the invocation of the most holy Trinity also added, not indeed from the necessity of the sacrament, but from the use and custom of the Church in this way: I absolve you from (your) sins in the name, etc.
a. The chief argument by which it is shown that these words I absolve you suffice for valid absolution is taken from this, that the Greeks use this form: I have you absolved; but it cannot be affirmed that the Greeks absolve invalidly through the form granted to them by the Council of Florence. And certainly these words: I absolve you, pronounced over the penitent after the confession of his sins has been made, from the circumstances signify absolution from sins.
b. He who absolves with this formula: I absolve from your sins or: I absolve you, sins gravely: for since these forms are only probably valid, the sacrament is exposed to the danger of nullity. Therefore if someone had absolved with this form, the absolution would have to be repeated with the whole essential form used. He who omits I, amen, or the invocation of the most holy Trinity sins only lightly, because he changes the form only accidentally and in a non-notable way.
c. Several can also be validly absolved at once by this form: I absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father, etc.; and this can licitly be done in a case of necessity, e.g., in shipwreck, before battle, etc.1
1 Cf. Lacroix, l. 6, pr. 2, n. 645.
237. On the rubrical form. 1. The prayers which precede absolution, Misereatur and Indulgentiam, the Council of Trent1 says are laudably added; according to the opinion of doctors, this word does not signify a precept. Code cn. 885 admonishes: "Let them not be omitted, unless from a just cause."
A cause of this kind is constituted both by lack of time, whether on the part of the confessor or on the part of the penitent, and by a multitude of penitents.
- From the prescription of the Church, absolution from censures (from every bond of excommunication, suspension, and interdict) is premised as a precaution to absolution from sins, because it is not fitting that he be reconciled with God who has not first been reconciled with the Church.
a. To absolve from sins first, with absolution from censures omitted, a penitent who certainly has incurred a censure (excommunication), is a grave sin against the grave precept of the Church, although the absolution is valid. Nevertheless, by this form: I absolve you from your sins, the confessor can also absolve from censures, provided by these words he intends to absolve both from sins and from censures; nevertheless, in a case of urgent danger it is better to use these words: I absolve you from censures and sins in the name, etc.
b. To omit absolution from censures is no sin where there is no probable suspicion that the penitent has incurred a censure; it is venial where this suspicion is present.2
The word suspension must be omitted if the penitent is a layman; and ordinarily it is licitly omitted if he is a cleric constituted in minor orders: for he cannot be suspended from order, and scarcely any such cleric has a benefice or jurisdiction from which he could be suspended.3
The word then is not to be omitted, but must be pronounced, since it pertains to the text of the rubrical form.
Previously the opinion of many was that this word had to be omitted, because, since it was printed in red in several editions of the Roman Ritual, it pertained to the rubric; but in the typical edition of the Roman Ritual it is printed in black, from which it is clear that it pertains to the form itself. And rightly so, because the confessor says that he absolves first from censures, then from sins.
- The prayer Passio, which follows absolution, can licitly be omitted in more frequent confessions,4 indeed probably in all. Yet because according to the opinion of some this prayer elevates all works of the penitent to the merit of sacramental satisfaction, without necessity it is not entirely to be omitted, but at least, while the penitent withdraws, it is to be added.5 Nevertheless several deny that these words have any other efficacy than the other prayers which the priest utters in the name of the Church.6
Lest the opinion which attributes greater efficacy to these words appear plainly incredible, it must at least be restricted in this way: namely, that by this prayer the works of the penitent acquire no power except of remitting the punishments due for sins remitted in that confession. For the power of the keys which the confessor uses extends only to sins to be destroyed as to guilt and punishment which here and now are submitted to the keys. For this reason, by those words not all the works of the penitent are indefinitely elevated to the power of sacramental satisfaction, but only those which are required for destroying the whole temporal punishment due for sins remitted in that confession.7
- From the prayer Indulgentiam up to the prayer Passio, the rubric prescribes that the hand is to be raised and that at absolution the sign of the cross is to be formed; and although these can be omitted without sin, nevertheless it is fitting that they always be done.
2 St. Alphonsus, n. 430.
3 Cf. Bucceroni (Casus consc., n. 354), who teaches the same with Reuter, Gobat, and Stoz.
4 Cf. Roman Ritual, tit. 3, c. 2.
5 Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 430, 507.
6 Lugo, disp. 25, n. 56.
7 Cf. Stoz, l. 2, n. 115.
238. On the qualities of absolution. Absolution must be vocal, directed to one present, and of itself pronounced absolutely.
- Vocal. Neither the character of judgment nor the character of sacrament demands that the judicial sentence be pronounced by voice; and certainly in other judgments a sentence is pronounced also in writing (and on one absent), and the character of sacrament demands nothing else except that it be sensible. Therefore that the form of absolution in the sacramental judgment must be pronounced by voice for the value of the sacrament is had from the will and institution of Christ. This is established from the perpetual use of the Church, which has never admitted absolution given in writing or by nod as licit, nor recognized it as valid. Indeed the Council of Florence says that the form of this sacrament is the words of absolution which the priest pronounces when he says: I absolve you, etc.1 But it is not necessary that the penitent hear the words of absolution.
1 Cf. Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 699; Council of Trent, sess. 14, c. 3.
239. 2. Toward one present. From the will of Christ instituting this sacrament, absolution which is given to one absent is invalid; for valid absolution it is required that the penitent be morally present.1 Moral presence is judged to be that within which men, although with a somewhat raised voice, can and are accustomed to speak with each other; and according to the judgment of authors this can still happen within about twenty paces, especially if the penitent is seen. For if the penitent is not distant by more than about twenty paces, the words of absolution are still judged by the common judgment of men to fall upon him. But the rule of those seems to be rejected who judge absolutely that the confessor can absolve even a very distant penitent, whom he still sees or perceives by some sense. For since this sacrament was instituted by way of judgment, that presence is rightly required within which a judge absolves or condemns an accused person present, namely that within which he can speak in a human way with the accused.
a. Therefore absolution is not certainly valid if the confessor and penitent are in different rooms which do not communicate with each other. In like manner it is not certainly valid if they are indeed found in the same place, but are distant from each other by more than twenty paces.
b. But when necessity presses, the penitent can and must be absolved as often as he can be perceived by some sense, even if in reality because of an accidental impediment he is not perceived; under condition, however, if he is distant by more than twenty paces. Hence alpha. he who is seen to fall from a roof, to fall into a river, to be submerged in the sea, is to be absolved; beta. a dying man whom the confessor for any cause whatsoever cannot approach must be absolved from the door; gamma. one wounded in a street can be absolved from the window of the nearest house.
c. An entire army can be absolved, provided the whole multitude of soldiers is present to the one absolving; but they are judged present even if the last are distant far beyond twenty paces. But if the distance of the last is so great that conversation with them is not possible even with a somewhat raised voice, they are no longer judged present in order that they can be validly absolved. Therefore great armies are usually divided into several parts and the individual parts are absolved.
d. If the penitent withdraws from the confessor, not yet absolved, and thinks himself absolved, these things must be observed: alpha. if he can conveniently be reached and recalled, he must be recalled so that he may be absolved, unless he is near the confessional: for in this case he can be absolved without being recalled; beta. if he cannot be recalled, he is to be absolved, provided he is certainly morally present, whether he is seen or not seen, but is known certainly to be present among the nearby crowd; gamma. if he is no longer present and is not going to return afterward, nothing is to be done, but the matter is to be committed to God; delta. if afterward he returns to the same confessor, and indeed for making a confession, he is to be warned to grieve for all his sins and then absolved. But if he were to meet the confessor for another end, of itself he would have to be warned outside confession about the defect of absolution. Yet since an admonition of this kind happens to be troublesome to most penitents and very difficult for confessors because of the danger of scandal and infamy, in these circumstances it can be omitted: for the penitent suffers no spiritual damage, since in the following confession he is absolved indirectly from the same sins.2
e. Absolution by telephone seems to be invalid: for the sacraments were so instituted by Christ the Lord that those things which are required for their value must be present in a human and natural way. Therefore in the sacrament of penance that presence of the one confessing is required by which he can speak with the confessor in a human and natural way; but conversation by telephone is an artificial mode of speaking with one absent; for it is not the human voice of the one speaking, but a sound artificially produced by this voice, that is heard by telephone. Therefore the Sacred Penitentiary (1 July 1884), to the question "whether in a case of extreme necessity absolution can be given by telephone," responded: nothing is to be answered.3
1 Formerly this question was disputed among theologians, whether Christ instituted this sacrament in such a way that absolution could licitly and validly be given even to one absent. But Clement VIII (20 June 1602) proscribed as false, rash, and scandalous this proposition: It is licit through letters or an intermediary sacramentally to confess sins to an absent confessor and from the same absent confessor to obtain absolution. Because absolution imparted to one absent was declared simply illicit, at the same time it was declared invalid: for if it were not invalid, it could not be prohibited in a case of necessity as illicit. And since Paul V (14 July 1605) reprobated each part of this proposition also taken separately, therefore not only the opinion which says that one absent can be absolved who has confessed to a confessor absent, but also the opinion which says that one absent can be absolved, provided he confessed while present, is invalid. In every case absolution which is given to one absent is invalid, whether he confesses while present and is absolved only while absent, or confesses and is absolved while absent. However, it cannot be demonstrated with certainty that absolution is invalid which is given to one present who confessed while absent, e.g., by letters or by an intermediary, especially if it concerns a dying man deprived of senses, whom others (even absent ones) testify to have previously asked for absolution. But absolution given to a penitent who confessed while absent by letters or messenger and afterward, present, only says in general that he confesses his sins already known to the confessor and asks absolution, must in no way be judged invalid.
2 Gobat, Exper. theol., tr. 7, n. 284 f.
3 C. A. Eschbach, La confession par telephone (Tournai: Castermann), Examen 1887; Reponse 1888.
240. 3. Absolutely. Absolution is ordinarily to be given absolutely; yet since absolution under a condition concerning the present or past is certainly valid, it is also licit from a just cause. The rule according to which the confessor ought to direct himself in this matter is this: absolution under condition can and must be given as often as, if it were not given, notable spiritual damage would threaten, and if it were given absolutely, nullity and irreverence of the sacrament would have to be feared. This rule holds the middle way between the too lax practice of those who judge that conditional absolution can be given from any light cause whatsoever, even when there is any kind of doubt concerning the sufficient disposition of the penitent burdened even with mortal sins, and the too rigid doctrine of those who hold that absolution under condition is not to be granted except in extreme necessity, namely in the highest danger of life.
a. In the following cases there are judged to be just and sufficiently grave causes for granting absolution under condition, of which some are on the part of the confessor, others on the part of the penitent. And so:
alpha. If the confessor positively and prudently doubts whether he has duly absolved the penitent.
beta. If the confessor doubts whether he has jurisdiction over this penitent or over these sins, but the penitent, with absolution denied, would have to remain for a long time in sin.
gamma. In doubt concerning the disposition of the penitent, if absolution cannot be deferred without grave inconvenience.
delta. In doubt concerning the sufficiency of the matter, which cannot be solved, as if the penitent is a child or half-witted. These can sometimes be absolved, lest they remain in mortal sin, if perhaps they have committed it.1
epsilon. In doubt whether the penitent who needs absolution and thinks himself absolved is morally present.
zeta. In doubt whether a dying man deprived of senses is capable of the sacrament.
eta. In doubt whether the sick person is living or dead.
b. Absolution in the same act of confession must be repeated not conditionally but absolutely as often as the penitent, after absolution has already been received, brings necessary matter of confession. Therefore if alpha. he confesses a new mortal sin; beta. if he confesses a new circumstance changing the species; gamma. if he confesses a notably greater number, he has not yet been directly absolved from this matter, which is necessary matter; wherefore the obligation lies on the confessor of absolving the penitent, lest he compel him again to confess a sin already declared in sacramental confession. But if the penitent, after absolution has already been received, accuses a new venial sin, a new absolution can be given, but need not be.2 Whether in these cases new sorrow must be elicited will be said below.
1 Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 432.
2 Elbel-Bierbaum, III, pr. 9, nn. 33 and 45.