Chapter III. On the Form of the Sacrament of Penance

I say. The form of the sacrament of Penance is distinguished as twofold: one essential, and the other preceptive or rubrical. The first consists in the words: I absolve you from your sins; as is clear from the Council of Trent, sess. 14, chap. 3, where it is said: "The holy Synod teaches that the form of the sacrament of Penance, in which principally its force is placed, is set in those words of the Minister: I absolve you, etc.; to which indeed, according to the custom of the holy Church, certain prayers are laudably joined." But the rubrical form consists in those prayers which precede or follow the essential form, and thus it is contained in the Roman Ritual:

"May almighty God have mercy on you, and, your sins having been forgiven, lead you to eternal life. Amen.

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 Mary Virgin and of all the Saints, whatever good you have done, and whatever evil you have endured, be to you unto remission of sins, increase of grace, and the reward of eternal life. Amen."

Observe, however, 1°. that the hand is to be raised from the word Indulgence up to the words The Passion of the Lord; 2°. that the sign of the cross is to be made over the penitent while it is said: In the name of the Father, etc.; 3°. that the word suspension must be omitted if the penitent is a layman; 4°. that the word then is to be pronounced, for in the recent TYPICAL EDITION of the Roman Ritual it is found written as a part of the text.

Observe 2°. that there is a pious custom, which nevertheless in no way obliges, that before confession, while he blesses the penitent, the confessor says: "May the Lord be in your heart and on your lips, that you may rightly confess all your sins," or some similar prayer.

Question 1. Whether anything can be omitted from the rubrical form, and when? Resp. Although the prayers joined by the Church to the absolving formula are not necessary for obtaining absolution itself, nevertheless, unless for a just cause, let them not be omitted (Can. 885).

But, since according to a probable opinion the Passion raises the good works of the penitent to the merit of sacramental satisfaction, it is fitting that it be omitted very rarely. But the words Our Lord, etc., do not seem able to be omitted without venial fault, unless necessity presses. - Cf. Rit. Rom. § Form of Absolution. - O'Kane, nn. 981 and seq.

Question 2. Whether the raising of the hand and the formation of the sign of the cross are necessary in imparting absolution? Resp. It is certain that it is not required for the validity of the sacrament, because it pertains neither to the matter nor to the form. This is clear from the Councils of Florence and Trent, as well as from the unanimous consent of theologians, at least after the Council of Trent. Nor is it required under mortal sin for liceity according to the common opinion, against a few; because it is only a Rubric, which does not seem grave. Indeed several grave authors assert that this can be omitted without sin; thus Busembaum, reported and implicitly approved by St. Alphonsus. Whatever may be the case, at least the raising of the hand can be omitted without sin while the prayers which precede formal absolution are recited. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 425. - O'Kane, nn. 982 and 983.

Question 3. Whether stole and surplice are required in the administration of the sacrament of Penance? Resp. On this matter the Fathers of Baltimore speak thus: "Approaching the sacred tribunal, let the confessor be vested with surplice and violet stole, according to the prescription of the Roman Ritual." Moreover the prescription of the Roman Ritual has itself thus: "Let [the priest] use a surplice and a stole of violet color, according as the time or the custom of places shall bear." Therefore in practice attention must be paid to custom, to the particular statutes of each diocese, and to the privileges which some families of Regulars enjoy in this matter. - Cf. Conc. Plen. Balt. II, n. 213. - Baruffaldi, de Sacr. Poenit. tit. 18, n. 21. - Acta S. Sedis, vol. 4, p. 62, n. 111.

Question 4. Whether all the words of the essential form: I absolve you from your sins, are essential? Resp. Negatively, for it is probably taught that the word you can be omitted, because it is sufficiently contained in the word your, and more probably still the whole clause from your sins, because those two words I absolve you contain the whole effect of the sacrament. But, practically speaking, it is necessary to utter the whole essential form, both because it is prescribed, and because outside a case of necessity, which could scarcely be imagined in this matter, it is not lawful to use probabilities in those things which pertain to the validity of the sacrament. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 430. - Lugo, disp. 13, n. 26. - O'Kane, n. 984.

Question 5. Whether a priest can validly absolve several persons with one form, saying: I absolve you all from your sins? Resp. Affirmatively, because all things required for validity are found. Indeed, this also can licitly be done in a case of necessity, for example, in a shipwreck, before battle, or in the battle itself, etc.; and such an absolution would be multiple, not indeed formally, but virtually and equivalently, and there would be as many sacraments as there were men who had been disposed through some confession and sufficient sorrow. - Cf. Lacroix, n. 645.¹

¹ Cf. Addenda, p. 1142, n. 108.

Question 6. What presence of the penitent is reputed moral in order to absolution? Resp. That alone which effects that the words I absolve you, according to the common estimation of men, are judged to fall upon the penitent: and this indeed is certainly verified when the confessor and penitent are not farther apart from one another than if two men could and usually would converse with an ordinary voice. Many theologians, determining this distance more closely, extend it to 20 paces, especially if the penitent is not outside the sight of the confessor. But when necessity presses, a penitent can and must be absolved as often as he is perceived by some sense. Hence 1°. he is to be absolved who is seen to fall from a roof, to fall into a river, or to be submerged in the sea, at least if he is not far distant from the confessor; 2°. if the confessor, on account of danger of infection or because of another cause, cannot enter the room of the sick person, he must absolve him from the doorway; 3°. if a penitent were to depart from the confessor not yet absolved, thinking himself absolved, he would have to be absolved if, being a little distant, he were seen, or were certainly known to be present within a nearby crowd; nevertheless he would have to be called back, if this could conveniently be done. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 429.

Question 7. What is to be said of absolution given by employing that new instrument which they commonly call telephone? Resp. Outside a case of necessity it is certainly and gravely illicit for a confessor to use such an instrument, because the sacrament certainly would be exposed to danger of nullity, and because a new practice would be introduced in the administration of the sacraments, and one liable to frauds. But whether in a case of extreme necessity the use of such an instrument could be tolerated is difficult to decide, and the question is worthy of being referred to the Apostolic See. - Yet to say what seems to me, it does not appear why a priest should be condemned who through the telephone conditionally absolved some penitent, after he had learned from him that he was seized by sudden and most grave illness, that he grieved greatly for his sins, and that he had applied his ears to the instrument and would wait for absolution. For moral presence and the connection between matter and form are certainly required in every sacrament, but in a different degree and manner according to the diversity of each rite. But since the sacrament of Penance was instituted after the manner of a forensic judgment, for which that presence suffices by force of which the judge and the accused can converse together, in the proposed case absolution does not seem to be certainly invalid, since the penitent and priest can be said in a true sense to be conversing. - Cf. Irish Ecclesiastical Record, Feb., Mar. and Apr. 1883; and Jun. and Jul. 1885.

Question 8. What is to be said of conditional absolution? Resp. It is certain that an absolution imparted under a condition concerning the present or the past is valid in every case, provided that the other things required for the validity of the sacrament are present: for the condition in no way changes the sense of the sacramental form, which it does not affect at all; but it affects only the will of the confessor, who does not intend to absolve unless the condition attached is fulfilled; but when this has been fulfilled, the form becomes absolute; and consequently nothing is found which could hinder its validity. It is likewise certain that conditional absolution is sometimes licit; for if it is valid, it must also be licit when necessity presses.

But the doctrine of some must be rejected as plainly lax, who hold that conditional absolution can be imparted from any light cause whatever, and with no necessity pressing, even if the sufficient disposition of a penitent burdened also with mortal sins is in some way doubted. For there is no one who does not see how many sacrileges a practice of this kind would introduce. For the confessor would then no longer be a prudent dispenser of the sacraments, but would cast pearls before swine; and by this facility of absolving he would bring it about that penitents would waste away in sins. But no more is the doctrine of those to be admitted who, with Collet and certain others, hold that absolution under condition is not to be imparted except in extreme necessity or in extreme danger of life: for a doctrine of this kind is supremely harmful to penitents who can return to the confessor only with difficulty, and, dismissed without absolution, incur danger of eternal damnation.

Hence, with due conditions preserved, when necessity presses, or when there is present a grave and proportionate cause, it is lawful to absolve conditionally in the following cases: 1°. in doubt whether the penitent is living or dead; 2°. in doubt of sufficient matter, for example, when the precept of annual confession presses, etc.; 3°. in doubt of jurisdiction on the part of the confessor; 4°. in doubt whether the penitent was duly absolved; 5°. in doubt of the use of reason in children, the insane, etc.; 6°. in doubt whether the penitent is morally present; 7°. in doubt whether a dying person destitute of the senses is capable of the sacrament; 8°. in doubt concerning the disposition of the penitent, when not only extreme but also simply grave spiritual necessity presses. Cf. St. Alphonsus, nn. 431 and seq. - Billuart, diss. 6, art. 10, §7. - Lacroix, lib. 6, part. 1, n. 78.