Article IV. On Absolution from Censures

I say 1°. Censures are not loosed by the repentance alone of the delinquent or by obedience toward the mandates of the Church, nor by the death of him who brought the censure; but absolution imparted by a legitimate judge or superior is necessary.

§ 1. Any censure, once contracted, is removed only by legitimate absolution.

§ 2. Absolution cannot be denied as soon as the delinquent has withdrawn from contumacy according to the norm of can. 2242, § 3; but he who absolves from a censure can, if the matter bears it, inflict for the perpetrated delict a congruous vindicative penalty or penance.

§ 3. A censure, removed by absolution, does not revive, except in the case in which the burden imposed under penalty of reincidence has not been fulfilled (Can. 2248).

I say 2°. Neither from censures reserved a iure, nor from censures ab homine brought by a particular sentence, can simple confessors absolve, but only 1°. he who brought censures of this kind; 2°. his superior; 3°. his successor; 4°. another delegated by any one of these. The reason is that it belongs to him to absolve whose it is to bind. - But any confessor can absolve from censures a iure which are not reserved to the Pope or to the Bishop. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, nn. 70 and 72.

I say 3°. Any priest, even one not approved, can absolve from any censure those who are placed in the article of death. - Cf. below, Q. 9.

I say 4°. He is said to absolve in the internal forum or forum of conscience to whom the Superior has conceded the faculty of absolving, with the right of taking cognizance of that delict in the external forum and of imposing a penalty and satisfaction for it remaining safe.

If absolution of censure is given in the external forum, it affects both forums; if in the internal forum, the absolved person, scandal having been removed, can hold himself as such even in acts of the external forum; but unless the concession of absolution is proved or legitimately presumed in the external forum, the censure can be pressed by Superiors of the external forum, whom the guilty person must obey, until absolution shall have been obtained in the same forum (Can. 2251).

Absolution from censure given in the external forum takes it away both before the Church and before God; given in the internal forum, it takes it away before God, but not before the Church, because censure is a bond of the external forum, and although absolution in the internal forum takes it away before God, the Church can regard the person as censured in the external forum. Namely, perhaps it happens that someone has been censured on account of an occult delict; and such a one, for example a priest, must minister the sacraments to the faithful asking who do not know that he is bound by censure; nor is he himself held to defame and betray himself, which nevertheless he would have to do if he were obliged to deny the sacraments. And therefore provision must be made for both: namely, that censures not lose their medicinal force, and that the faithful receive the sacraments by the valid and licit action of the censured person. Accordingly there is this medium of absolution under certain conditions in the internal forum; but the Church can press the force of the censure until absolution is obtained in the external forum.

Question 1. What comes under the name of absolution to reincidence?

Resp. Absolution to reincidence is a certain species of conditional absolution, not insofar as he who has received it is not truly absolved, but insofar as he must fulfill certain conditions placed by law or by man; unless he fulfills these, he again falls into the same censure on account of new contumacy. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, nn. 87 and 125.

Question 2. Whether a general concession of absolving from censures reserved to the Pope suffices, so that someone can absolve even from those which are specially reserved?

Resp. Negatively, because whatever is specially reserved requires a special concession. Indeed confessors who, outside the article of death or the danger of grave scandal or infamy, presume to absolve anyone without due faculty, even under any pretext, from one of the censures which are reserved to the Supreme Pontiff in a special or most special mode, incur by the fact itself an excommunication simply reserved to the Pope. - Cf. Can. 2338, § 1.

Question 3. Is a certain determinate form of words required for absolving validly?

Resp. § 3. Absolution of censure in the sacramental forum is contained in the accustomed form of absolution of sins prescribed in the ritual books; in the non-sacramental forum it can be given in any way, but for absolution from excommunication it is regularly fitting to employ the form handed down in the same books (Can. 2250).

Question 4. Can an absent person be absolved?

Resp. Affirmatively, by force of canon 2239, § 1.

Question 5. Can an absent Bishop absolve one existing in the diocese?

Resp. Affirmatively, and the reason is that cognition of the cause and judicial formality are not required for absolution; and therefore nothing prevents the Bishop from exercising such an act of jurisdiction in another's territory. Nevertheless otherwise, if judicial formality should sometimes be required. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 21.

Question 6. Can an unwilling person be absolved?

Resp. Affirmatively, and the reason is the same as that just given: for just as a penalty can be brought against an absent and unwilling person, so also it can be taken away from him; nevertheless it is not expedient that this be done without a very grave reason, and with care lest, while he does not cease from contumacy, the censure be held in contempt. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 117.

Question 7. Can he who is bound by several censures be absolved from one, the others remaining?

Resp. § 1. If someone is detained by several censures, he can be absolved from one, the others in no way absolved.

§ 2. One seeking absolution must indicate all cases; otherwise the absolution is valid only for the expressed case; but if the absolution, although a particular petition had been made, was general, it is valid also for those kept back in good faith, except a censure reserved in a most special mode to the Apostolic See, but not for those kept back in bad faith (Can. 2249).

Question 8. Whether he who has not yet publicly repaired the scandal, on account of which he was subject to censure, can be absolved from censures?

Resp. Negatively, at least of itself and speaking generally, or as long as reparation is possible or does not bring excessive inconveniences. This is clear from the Declaration of the Sacred Penitentiary on the day 5 July 1827. - And altogether the same must be said of him who has not yet repaired the damage or injury on account of which he is subject to censure. For the censured person remains deprived of spiritual goods until, withdrawing from contumacy, he is absolved. Contumacy must be said to have ceased when the guilty person has truly repented of the committed delict and at the same time has given congruous satisfaction for damages and scandal, or at least has seriously promised it; but to judge whether the penance is true, whether the satisfaction is congruous or the promise of the same serious, or not, belongs to him from whom absolution of the censure is sought (Can. 2242, § 3).

Question 9. Are those absolved in the article of death by a confessor lacking special faculty, although they themselves were bound by censures, held to furnish anything?

Resp. Those who, placed in danger of death, have received from a priest lacking special faculty absolution from some censure ab homine or from a censure reserved in a most special mode to the Apostolic See, are held, after they have recovered, by the obligation of recurring, under penalty of reincidence, to him who brought the censure, if there is question of a censure ab homine; to the Sacred Penitentiary or to a Bishop or another endowed with faculty, according to the norm of can. 2254, § 1, if concerning a censure a iure; and of obeying their mandates (Can. 2252).¹

¹ Cf. Addenda, p. 1111, n. 53.

Question 10. Can a censured person ever be absolved from sins without first having been absolved from censure?

Resp. A distinction must be made between censures which do not impede and those which do impede reception of the sacraments.

§ 1. If there is question of a censure which does not impede reception of the Sacraments, the censured person, rightly disposed and withdrawing from contumacy, can be absolved from sins, the censure remaining firm.

§ 2. But if there is question of a censure which impedes reception of the Sacraments, the censured person cannot be absolved from sins, unless he shall first have been absolved from censure (Can. 2250).

Question 11. Who can absolve from censures outside the article of death?

Resp. A. Outside danger of death the following can absolve:

1°. From a non-reserved censure, in the sacramental forum any confessor; outside the sacramental forum, whoever has jurisdiction in the external forum over the guilty person;

2°. From a censure ab homine, he to whom the censure is reserved according to the norm of can. 2245, § 2; but he himself can concede absolution, even if the guilty person has transferred his domicile or quasi-domicile elsewhere;

3°. From a censure reserved a iure, he who established the censure or to whom it is reserved, and their successors or competent Superiors or delegates. Wherefore from a censure reserved to a Bishop or Ordinary, any Ordinary can absolve his subjects, but the Ordinary of the place also sojourners; from one reserved to the Apostolic See, this See, or others who have obtained from it the power of absolving, whether general, if the censure is simply reserved, or special, if reserved in a special mode, or finally most special, if reserved in a most special mode, with the prescription of can. 2254 remaining safe (Can. 2253).

B. § 1. In more urgent cases, namely if censures latae sententiae cannot externally be observed without danger of grave scandal or infamy, or if it is hard for the penitent to remain in the state of grave sin for the time necessary that the competent Superior provide, then any confessor in the sacramental forum can absolve from the same censures, reserved in whatever way, with the burden of recurring enjoined, under penalty of reincidence, within at least a month by letter and through the confessor, if this can be done without grave inconvenience, the name being kept back, to the Sacred Penitentiary or to a Bishop or another Superior endowed with faculty, and of standing by his mandates.

§ 2. Nothing impedes the penitent, even after receiving absolution as above, and after recourse also has been made to the Superior, from approaching another confessor endowed with faculty, and from obtaining absolution from him, confession at least of the delict with the censure having been repeated; having obtained this, he may receive mandates from the same, without being held afterward to stand by other mandates supervening on the part of the Superior.

§ 3. But if in some extraordinary case this recourse is morally impossible, then the confessor himself, except the case in which there is question of absolution of a censure of which in Can. 2367, can concede absolution without the burden of which above, yet with those things enjoined which must be enjoined by law, and with a congruous penance and satisfaction imposed for the censure, so that the penitent, unless within a congruous time to be determined beforehand by the confessor he has done penance and given satisfaction, falls back into the censure (Can. 2254).

This canon (2254) declares itself; the case is more urgent if censures latae sententiae cannot be observed without danger of grave scandal or infamy (S. Off., 23 June 1886), or if it is hard for the penitent to remain in the state of grave sin for the time necessary that the superior provide, namely that the faculty of absolving from reserved censures be sought and conceded (16 June 1897), and that hard is rightly understood subjectively, with consideration of the penitent's disposition, according to which the confessor prudently judges that he sincerely wishes to obtain absolution as soon as possible; but any confessor will excite this disposition according to his powers; in the sacramental forum, therefore in the very administration of the sacrament; any confessor; wherefore henceforth these more urgent cases become like ordinary sins over which all confessors have power according to the canon rightly understood; the cases are censures latae sententiae, reserved in whatever way, whether papal, reserved to the Supreme Pontiff in a most special, special, or simple mode, or reserved by law to bishops, or episcopal censures reserved to themselves by the Ordinaries of places; he can absolve from the same; this absolution is direct, and touches all those cases (S. Penit., 7 Nov. 1888; 23 June 1886); not even the crime of attempted absolution of an accomplice is excepted; under penalty of reincidence into the same censures from which they have been absolved, for example, into simply or specially reserved censures, if they do not fulfill the burden enjoined: with the burden of recurring enjoined ... within at least a month by letter and through the confessor, if this can be done without grave inconvenience; but if a penitent passing by incidentally occurs to a missionary so that the missionary cannot see the penitent again, it suffices to exact from the penitent the promise of writing, with the name kept silent if he wishes, to the Sacred Penitentiary within a month, and of standing by its mandates, without the confessor himself writing (S. Penit., 7 Nov. 1885); this burden must be enjoined, even if the penitent has been perpetually impeded from personally going to Rome; nevertheless there can be cases in which the penitent can be absolved directly by a simple confessor without the burden of writing: 1°. when neither the confessor nor the penitent can send a letter to the Sacred Penitentiary and it is hard for the penitent to approach another confessor (S. Off., 9 Nov. 1898); 2°. when the penitent, unable to write, cannot present himself to the same confessor by whom, by force of the decree of 1886 and 1897, he was absolved, and it is hard to approach another confessor. Therefore the burden of recurring presses, if this can be done without grave inconvenience; the burden of recurring within a month, at least by letters and through the confessor. Cf., however, § 3, the last clause.

Now episcopal censures can be treated in the same way, with the same burden.

Recourse can be made either to the Sacred Penitentiary or to a bishop or another superior endowed with faculty, with the burden of standing by his mandates.

But such a penitent is certainly able to approach another confessor endowed with faculty, and to confess to him that delict to which the censure is added; and to be definitively absolved by him, even if recourse has already been made to the superior; having obtained absolution from that new confessor himself, and having received mandates from the same, he is not held to stand by the mandates of the superior which are about to supervene. There are cases, as we have seen, which the Congregations have admitted as exceptions to the Decree of 2 June 1886. These now are found in the explanation of the first paragraph. S. Off., 9 Nov. 1898; 7 June 1899; 5 Sept. 1900.

But if an extraordinary case happens in which recourse truly cannot be made, morally speaking, excepting the case of attempted absolution of an accomplice, the confessor can absolve without the burden of recurring; with those things enjoined which by law are to be enjoined, namely, besides withdrawal from contumacy, satisfaction to the injured party, reparation of public scandal, must be enjoined; and a congruous penance is to be imposed, so that the penitent falls back into the censure if, within a congruous time to be determined beforehand by the confessor, he has not done penance.