§ 4. On the Form of the Sacrament of Penance

328. The essential form of the sacrament of penance consists of the words of absolution duly pronounced by the confessor. The Roman Ritual⁶³ gives the essential form in these words: "Then I absolve thee from thy sins in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Amen." According to all, the form, "I absolve thee from thy sins," is certainly valid, because the minister and his action are sufficiently expressed by the word "I absolve," the subject by the word "thee," and the matter by the words "from thy sins." Indeed, it is probable that the formulas "I absolve thee" and "I absolve from thy sins" are valid; nevertheless it is altogether unlawful to employ them, nor can there be a reasonable cause for someone to employ these formulas which are only probably valid.

In a case of necessity, for example, in a shipwreck, absolution can validly and lawfully be given to many at once under this form: "I absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father, and so forth."

The rubrical form, or rather the manner of acting of the confessor in the administration of the sacrament of penance, is this: Before confession the confessor blesses the penitent, saying: "May the Lord be in thy heart and on thy lips that thou mayest worthily confess all thy sins. In the name of the Father, and so forth." This blessing was introduced by a pious custom, but it neither obliges under fault nor is found in the Roman Ritual. When the confession has been completed, let the confessor say to the penitent certain brief exhortations or pious words. Only very rarely is it expedient that the confessor, omitting every exhortation, immediately impose a salutary penance and give absolution. For the confessor fulfilling his office has the special assistance of the Holy Ghost illuminating and moving him. Accordingly, his words are most efficacious and very salutary even for penitents who are well instructed or established in great dignity.

The Ritual has: "When the priest wishes to absolve the penitent, a salutary penance having first been enjoined upon him and accepted by him, he first says [from which words it follows that the salutary penance is to be imposed before absolution and not afterward, as is sometimes done less fittingly]: 'May almighty God have mercy on thee, and, thy sins having been forgiven, may He lead thee to eternal life. Amen.' Then, with his right hand raised toward the penitent, he says: 'May almighty and merciful God grant thee indulgence, absolution, and remission of thy sins. Amen. May our Lord Jesus Christ absolve thee; and I by His authority absolve thee from every bond of excommunication, suspension, and interdict, insofar as I am able and thou hast need. Then: I absolve thee from thy sins, in the name of the Father and of the Son + and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.' If the penitent is a layman, the word 'suspension' is omitted. 'May the Passion of our Lord Jesus Christ, the merits of the Blessed Virgin Mary and of all the saints, whatever good thou shalt do and evil thou shalt endure, be unto thee for the remission of sins, the increase of grace, and the reward of eternal life. Amen.'

"For a just cause, 'May He have mercy, and so forth,' can be omitted, and it will suffice to say: 'May our Lord Jesus Christ, and so forth,' as above, as far as: 'May the Passion of our Lord, and so forth.' But if some grave necessity is urgent in danger of death, the priest can briefly say: 'I absolve thee from all censures and sins, in the name of the Father and of the Son + and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.'" Thus far the Roman Ritual.

⁶³ Title 3, c. 2.

329. Obligation of the ceremonies. a) The elevation of the hand from the word "Indulgence" as far as the formation of the cross in the absolution obliges neither under grave nor under light sin. It is, however, most fittingly employed, since it signifies the imposition of the hand upon the head of the penitent which was in use in ancient times. Hence the palm of the hand also, and not merely the little finger, should be turned toward the penitent.

b) The prayers "May He have mercy" and "Indulgence," when a just cause exists,⁶⁴ can easily and without any fault be omitted in more frequent confessions (that is, if a great concourse of penitents is present) or shorter ones (that is, if the penitent returns more often). The prayer "May the Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ" can also be omitted without fault under the same conditions. But since St. Thomas⁶⁵ and several theologians think that these words elevate the good works of the penitent to the merit of sacramental satisfaction, it is not fitting to omit them.

c) To omit absolution from censures, which is added as a precaution, if the confessor has moral certainty that the penitent is bound by no censure, is not a grave fault. Nevertheless, the formula of the Ritual is to be observed under light sin. The word "suspension" must be omitted if the penitent is a layman. The word "Then" in modern editions of the Ritual is printed in black characters, and accordingly it is to be pronounced as pertaining to the form.

d) The external ceremonies prescribed by particular statutes are to be observed in the administration of the sacrament of penance. Unless a sufficiently grave reason is present, confessions are to be heard in churches or in public or semi-public oratories, but not in houses or private oratories. This is especially valid concerning the confessions of women. Religious sisters, however, can confess in another becoming place, provided that a confessional is present there with a fixed and finely perforated grille interposed;⁶⁶ it is lawful to hear the confessions of men even in private houses.⁶⁷ Let the confessor be clothed in a surplice and a violet stole. But in this matter custom or a particular statute not rarely dispenses from the surplice.⁶⁸

⁶⁴ Code of Canon Law, c. 885.

⁶⁵ Quodl. 3, q. 13, a. 28.

⁶⁶ Code of Canon Law, c. 909.

⁶⁷ Ibid., c. 910.

⁶⁸ Cf. Sacred Congregation of Rites, August 31, 1867, ad 2, and July 7, 1877, ad 4 (Decr. auth., nn. 3158 and 3426). The Roman Ritual (title 3, c. 1) admonishes: "Let the priest called to hear confession show himself prompt and readily available; and before he approaches to hear it, if time permits, he will implore by pious prayers divine assistance for performing this ministry rightly and holily." Pius IX, by a Decree of the Sacred Congregation of Indulgences dated March 27, 1854, granted once a day an indulgence of 100 days to confessors reciting the following prayer before hearing confessions: "Give me, O Lord, wisdom that sits beside Thy thrones, that I may know how to judge Thy people in justice and Thy poor in judgment. Make me so to handle the keys of the kingdom of heaven that I may open to no one to whom it ought to be closed, and close to no one to whom it ought to be opened. Let my intention be pure, my zeal sincere, my charity patient, my labor fruitful. Let there be in me gentleness that is not lax, severity that is not harsh; may I not despise the poor man nor flatter the rich. Make me gentle in attracting sinners, prudent in questioning them, and skilled in instructing them. Grant me, I beseech Thee, dexterity in drawing them back from evil, diligence in confirming them in good, and industry in promoting them to better things; maturity in responses, rectitude in counsels, light in obscure matters, sagacity in intricate ones, and victory in arduous ones; may I not be detained by useless conversations nor contaminated by depraved ones; may I save others and not lose myself. Amen."

330. Manner of absolution. Absolution must be a) oral, b) given to a penitent morally present, c) not conditional, d) not deprecatory but indicative.

a) Absolution must be oral or vocal.⁶⁹

Hence absolution given in writing or by a nod is invalid, even in extreme necessity, and accordingly a mute priest can never absolve validly. Thus holds the most common opinion, with a few contradicting it, for example, Sporer, Medina, and Peter Soto. No other reason can be given except the will of Christ instituting the sacrament of penance in this manner; this will can be known from the Councils of Florence and Trent, which define the form of this sacrament to be the words: "I absolve thee." Hence in this matter there is a distinction between the sacrament of penance and the sacrament of matrimony, in which the form, that is, consent, can validly be expressed even by signs.

b) Absolution can be given only to a penitent morally present.

For since absolution must be pronounced vocally, it can be given only to those who can hear the words or to whom the confessor can speak. According to St. Alphonsus,⁷⁰ that is considered moral presence within which men can and customarily do speak in an ordinary voice, although a louder one. In a case of extreme necessity this moral presence is to be interpreted broadly. Hence it is lawful to absolve one who falls from a roof at a distance, or a multitude of soldiers before battle. Outside such cases of extreme necessity, however, theologians commonly teach with St. Alphonsus⁷¹ that it is not lawful to absolve a penitent who is more than twenty paces distant from the confessor. For the sacrament of penance was instituted in the manner of a judgment. Therefore that presence of the penitent is rightly required within which a judge can fittingly speak with the accused; this indeed can occur over a distance of about twenty paces. If the penitent unexpectedly departs from the confessional before receiving absolution, then one is to act in these ways: 1. If he can fittingly be recalled, let him be recalled to the confessional; 2. if he cannot be recalled without surprise or another inconvenience, then let the priest quickly pronounce the essential words of absolution before the penitent has departed more than twenty paces from the confessional; it is not required, however, that the confessor still see or hear the penitent, provided that he is in a nearby crowd or place; 3. but if the penitent has already departed farther, and can neither be recalled nor will return to the same confessor, nothing else remains except to commend him to divine mercy.

Clement VIII, on June 20, 1602, condemned the proposition, "It is lawful through letters or a messenger sacramentally to confess sins to an absent confessor and to obtain absolution from the same absent confessor," "at least as false, rash, and scandalous." Moreover, he forbade "that henceforth this proposition be taught in public or private lectures, sermons, and assemblies, or ever be defended as probable in any case, printed, or in any manner reduced to practice."⁷² Therefore it is never lawful to give absolution to one absent, as certain older authors taught, for example, Paludanus,⁷³ John Medina,⁷⁴ Peter Soto,⁷⁵ and so forth. For a sufficient cause, however, it can be permitted that the penitent send his sins written in a letter to an absent confessor, afterward personally approach this confessor, saying: I accuse myself of the sins which you already know from my letter. Then let him ask for and receive absolution for the sins manifested in writing. In this case there would be a manifestation of sins previously made in absence, but afterward a confession equivalently repeated by mouth in personal presence, and finally absolution given in the personal presence of the penitent. For sufficient reasons, for example, because of the excessive length of an oral confession, because of the shame of the penitent, and so forth, the confessor can permit or even counsel this manner of confessing. This manner of acting is in no way contrary either to the Decree of Clement VIII just cited or to the Declaration given by Paul V on July 14, 1605. For neither is there a confession made to one absent nor absolution given to one absent. Suarez did not teach so clearly and rightly in this matter, and accordingly the Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition, on July 31, 1603, and July 14, 1605, reproved his doctrine. Nevertheless, perhaps the dispute was more about the manner of explaining than about the matter itself. Billuart⁷⁶ excellently expounds this formerly celebrated controversy.

⁶⁹ Cf. St. Thomas, S. theol. 3, q. 84, a. 3 ad 3.

⁷⁰ Theol. mor. l. 6, n. 429.

⁷¹ Loc. cit.

⁷² Denz., n. 1088.

⁷³ In IV Sent., dist. 17, q. 2, a. 1.

⁷⁴ Tract. de confessione, q. 15, conclusion 4.

⁷⁵ Tract. de institutione sacerdotum, De confessione, lect. 11.

⁷⁶ De sacr. poenit., diss. 7, a. 3, § 2.

331. Absolution by telephone is certainly unlawful outside a case of extreme necessity, and the same must be said of absolution given through a long acoustic tube.⁷⁷ The reason is that it is very doubtful whether the required moral presence then exists, and accordingly the sacrament would be exposed to the danger of nullity. But it is not certain whether absolutions of this kind are certainly invalid. Nothing certain may be deduced from the response of the Sacred Penitentiary dated July 1, 1884. To the question, "Whether in a case of extreme necessity absolution can be given by telephone?" it replied: "Nothing is to be answered." The Sacred Penitentiary seems to have used this formula of response because it indeed pertains to it to resolve particular cases, but not to determine doubts which pertain to the essence of the sacraments. For this pertains to the Holy Office. The whole question concerning the validity of absolution by telephone or through a long acoustic tube is reduced to this: whether in those cases the penitent is still morally present to the confessor. If easy oral speech between the confessor and the penitent is held as the criterion of this moral presence, sufficient presence certainly exists, especially if speech through an acoustic tube is involved. Nor may anyone say that for moral presence it is additionally required that opaque bodies not totally separate the confessor from the penitent. For otherwise moral presence would not exist even if the confessor hears the confession of a nun who kneels behind a grille covered with a thick veil. The opinion of Father Sabetti, S.J., pleases us: "Since the sacrament of penance was instituted after the likeness of a forensic judgment, for which that presence suffices by force of which the judge and the accused can speak with each other, it does not seem that in the proposed case the absolution is certainly invalid, since the penitent and the priest can be said in a true sense to be conversing." G. A. Eschbach⁷⁸ argues at great length against the validity of a confession of this kind.

⁷⁷ Commonly Sprachrohr, speaking tube, porte-voix.

⁷⁸ La confession par téléphone, Examen 1887, Réponse 1888 (Tournay).

332. c) Absolution should be absolute and not conditional, unless for grave reasons.

It was already stated above, n. 24, in the treatise on the sacraments in general, that it is never lawful to attach a condition concerning the future to the sacraments, except perhaps in the rarest case in a matrimonial contract. Therefore it is never lawful to give absolution under a condition concerning the future, for example, if you shall make restitution, if you shall avoid the proximate occasion. But when a present or past condition is involved, it is sometimes lawful to give conditional absolution.

General rule concerning conditional absolution. Conditional absolution can be given whenever absolution given absolutely would expose the sacrament to the danger of nullity, but absolution absolutely denied would expose the penitent to the danger of grave spiritual harm.

The reason for this rule is that the confessor, according to his powers, must procure both reverence toward the sacrament and the spiritual utility of the penitent. In these cases, however, both are preserved in the best manner possible. Almost all theologians teach that sometimes conditional absolution is truly lawful.⁷⁹ The reason is that the confessor often lacks moral certainty whether the penitent is capable of valid absolution. He is therefore then compelled to leave the certain judgment to divine omniscience, and meanwhile through conditional absolution to provide according to his powers both for the dignity of the sacrament and for the utility of the penitent. Indeed, in a certain true sense every sacramental absolution is conditional, because it is always given under this implicit condition, that the penitent be worthy. It is not indeed required, but it is lawful to premise the condition to the absolution in express words, for example: if you are capable. A condition conceived in the mind suffices.

The principal cases in which it is lawful to give conditional absolution are the following:

1. In doubt whether the penitent is living or dead.

2. In doubt concerning sufficient use of reason in children and persons of impaired reason who have objectively grave sins.

3. In doubt concerning absolution duly given, provided, however, that the penitent has confessed grave matter.

4. In doubt concerning the moral presence of the penitent.⁸⁰

5. In doubt concerning sufficient sorrow and purpose in the penitent, if from the delay of absolution a greater evil is rightly feared. Let the confessor beware, however, lest he employ conditional absolution too frequently because of the doubtful disposition of the penitent, since otherwise he will not escape the mark of grave laxity and will bring to the penitent not utility but spiritual harm. This case is accustomed to occur in the confession of relapsing sinners and those in an occasion of sin, concerning whom a fuller discussion will return below, n. 449 ff.

⁷⁹ Cf. St. Alphonsus, Theol. mor. l. 6, n. 431.

⁸⁰ Cf. above, the preceding number.

333. d) A form of absolution essentially deprecatory is not lawful; indeed, more probably it is invalid.

The reason is that the essence of the sacrament of penance consists in a judicial form, as has already often been proved. Absolution is therefore like a judicial sentence. Now a judicial sentence neither is nor can be essentially deprecatory, because to pronounce sentence is the act of one having and exercising true authority, whereas to entreat is the act of one supplicating. Hence to entreat and authoritatively to judge are incompatible acts.⁸¹ Nothing, however, prevents entreaties also from being employed in absolution, provided that, as to the formal sense, there is in addition a true and proper indicative judgment.⁸² The adversaries indeed object that merely deprecatory formulas were customary in the Latin Church until the twelfth century and in the Greek Church even to our own days, but Billuart⁸³ notes three things: 1. These formulas pertain not to sacramental but to canonical absolution. 2. The ancient rituals contain not only a deprecatory but also an indicative formula; this is notably the case in the Euchologion edited by the illustrious Father Goar, for there on p. 678 it is read concerning the form of absolution: "Moreover, I absolve thee from all thy sins, whatsoever thou hast confessed before God and before my unworthiness." 3. Until the time of St. Thomas, several theologians thought that the remission of sins was properly caused by contrition elicited before confession, but that through absolution a man was reconciled to the Church, freed from punishments, and increased in grace. St. Thomas wrote an entire opusculum (18) on the form of absolution, in which he defends the validity of the positive indicative form alone, which is not deprecatory.

⁸¹ Cf. St. Thomas, Op. 18, De forma absolutionis.

⁸² Cf. P. Galtier, De poenitentia, n. 501 ff.

⁸³ De poenit., diss. 1, a. 3, § 3.

334. Scholion. On absolution to be repeated. When a penitent, after having already received absolution, adds a forgotten sin, or a grave circumstance of some sin accused, or a notably diverse number, the confessor must repeat the absolution. The reason is that otherwise the penitent would have to confess this necessary matter again in the following confession, since he has not received direct absolution concerning it. Contrition must extend also to this matter, and accordingly must be elicited anew, unless, however, that which was previously had still virtually perseveres.⁸⁴

⁸⁴ Cf. below, n. 352.