§ II. On Absolution of Reserved Cases

I say 1°. They can absolve from reserved cases by ordinary power: 1°. those reserving them themselves; 2°. their successors in the same power; 3°. their superiors. The reason is that for taking away a reservation the same power is required and suffices as for placing it.

I say 2°. § 1. Once reservations have been established which they have judged truly necessary or useful, let Ordinaries of places take care that the same be brought to the knowledge of their subjects, in the manner that seems better to them, and that they not impart the faculty of absolving from reserved cases to anyone at all and indiscriminately.

§ 2. But the faculty of absolving of this sort belongs by the law itself to the canon penitentiary according to the norm of can. 401, § 1, and habitually let it be imparted at least to vicars forane, with the faculty added, especially in places of the diocese more remote from the episcopal see, of subdelegating as often as confessors of their district have recourse to them, if and when they have recourse for some more urgent determined case.

§ 3. By the law itself, from cases which Ordinaries in any way have reserved to themselves, there can absolve both pastors, and others who in law are considered under the name of pastors, during the whole time useful for fulfilling the Paschal precept, and individual missionaries at the time when missions happen to be held for the people (Can. 899).

Therefore care must be taken that they be brought to the knowledge of subjects - for what force do they have if they are hidden? - and that they remain firm as long as they have been necessary. And therefore Ordinaries should not concede to anyone at all and indiscriminately the faculty of absolving, otherwise reservation will disappear. This power made to the canon penitentiary is not delegable to another; it can be exercised also upon pilgrims and wanderers in the diocese, and upon diocesans outside the territory of the diocese. The faculty must be habitually imparted to vicars forane, with the faculty especially in more remote places of subdelegating as often as necessary for some more urgent case.

Indeed benign is the disposition of law made in the last point of the canon, by which very many inconveniences of reservations will be removed: namely, pastors and others who by law are held under this name, and individual missionaries, can absolve from cases which Ordinaries in any way have reserved to themselves; pastors during the time useful for fulfilling the Paschal precept; missionaries during the time of the mission. It is a question of cases which the Bishop reserves to himself.

Question 1. When does any reservation lack every force?

Resp. Any reservation lacks every force:

1°. When a confession is made either by the sick who cannot leave the house, or by spouses for the sake of entering matrimony;

2°. As often as either the legitimate Superior has denied the requested faculty of absolving for some determined case, or, in the prudent judgment of the confessor, the faculty of absolving cannot be sought from the legitimate Superior without grave inconvenience of the penitent or without danger of violation of the sacramental seal;

3°. Outside the territory of the one reserving, even if the penitent has departed from it only to obtain absolution (Can. 900).

In these cases there is no longer any force of reservation; any confessor can absolve them. The sick who cannot leave, spouses confessing for the sake of entering matrimony, can be absolved by any confessor; the sick, it is not said gravely sick, but it is said the sick who cannot leave the house. The second point comprehends three cases, or rather cases of a threefold kind. But it must be noted as to the first kind that it is very general; the faculty of absolving for a determined case has been sought from the legitimate superior, the faculty has been denied, reservation lacks every force; therefore the case does not remain called away to the judgment of the one reserving, but can be absolved by any confessor. The second kind of cases is had when by the prudent judgment of the confessor the faculty cannot be sought from the Superior without grave inconvenience of the penitent. The third kind is had when, also by the prudent judgment of the confessor, the faculty of absolving cannot be sought without danger to the seal.

This point will solve difficulties from a denied faculty which we sought, or from grave difficulty for the penitent or the sacrament arisen or about to arise from the faculty to be sought.

The third point removes the difficulty on the part of the territory of the one reserving; outside this territory any confessor can absolve even a penitent going there for the purpose of obtaining absolution.

Wherefore the principle no longer avails against him who goes, as it used to be said, in fraud of the law.

Question 2. Whether one bound by episcopal reservation, who is impeded from approaching the Bishop, can be absolved by a simple confessor?

Resp. Affirmatively, if he is pressed by an urgent cause, and in the judgment of the confessor the faculty of absolving cannot be sought from the Superior without grave inconvenience of the penitent according to canon 900, 2°; but if a case to which a censure is joined urges, the same is to be said according to can. 2254, with the burden of having recourse imposed. Cf. below, concerning absolution of censures.

Question 3. Whether one bound by reservation, in necessity of communicating or celebrating, is bound to confess to a simple confessor, when another is lacking?

Resp. Affirmatively, if the penitent is bound by a censure latae sententiae which cannot be observed without grave danger of scandal or infamy according to can. 2254, § 1; indeed even if there is simple reservation of sin and in the prudent judgment of the confessor the faculty cannot be sought without grave inconvenience of the penitent according to can. 900, 2°; for in these cases any confessor can absolve.

Question 4. Whether one absolved in the article of death from papal cases is bound to present himself to the Roman Pontiff, health having been recovered?

Resp. Negatively, if there is question of censures reserved either simply or in a special way to the Supreme Pontiff; Affirmatively, if of censures reserved in the most special way. - Cf. Can. 882, 2252; concerning necessary recourse see can. 2252.

Question 5. Whether an inferior can absolve a dying person from reserved cases, when the superior or another having the faculty is present?

Resp. Affirmatively, according to can. 882. - Cf. 773, Q. 5.

Question 6. Whether reservation is taken away by a null or sacrilegious confession?

Resp. Affirmatively, to both, according to a probable opinion. The reason is that reservation is ordered principally to this, that sins be brought before the superior. Nevertheless, except 1°. if the penitent culpably keeps silent about the reserved sin itself, because the superior is by no means presumed in a sacrilegious confession of this sort to wish to take away the reservation of a sin deliberately not brought before him; 2°. if the invalid confession is made in a jubilee, because the Pontiff does not give the faculty of absolving from reserved cases except so that the faithful may gain the jubilee, and consequently otherwise he is not considered to wish to concede it. But other theologians, among whom is Card. de Lugo, think otherwise as to this second exception, which St. Alphonsus places, provided the penitent has the intention of gaining the jubilee, namely of afterward confessing validly and placing all the other requisites. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 598. - Lugo, disp. 20, n. 113. - Baller. note (a) p. 533.

Question 7. Whether reservation is taken away if the penitent, confessing before the superior, forgets to confess the reserved case?

Resp. Affirmatively, at least probably, because the superior is rightly presumed to have wished to free the penitent from every bond from which he can absolve him. Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 597.

Since, therefore, in the article of death someone inculpably omitted cases simply reserved to the Bishop or the Supreme Pontiff, it seems probably to be said that, recovering, he can be absolved by any simple confessor. (Gennari, Il Monitore, v. 9, P. 1, p. 66).

Question 8. Whether one who has confessed to an inferior a doubtfully reserved sin is altogether freed from reservation, even if afterward he recognizes it as certain?

Resp. Affirmatively, more probably, because when a doubtfully reserved sin has been accused, it has already been directly absolved, and consequently the reservation has been directly taken away. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 600.

Question 9. Whether a license of absolving from reserved cases is extended to sins committed after the license itself?

Resp. A distinction must be made: for either the power has been given for sins committed or narrated so many times, in which case the privileged one can absolve only from these; or it has been given indefinitely, in which case they commonly affirm, according to St. Alphonsus, that it is extended to others, provided a great distance is not interposed between the concession of the license and the commission of the new faults, namely when it has been conceded for a particular penitent. St. Alphonsus, l. 6, n. 601. "Because it is a benefit of the Prince and harms no one," says D'Annibale, n. 347, "it is not fitting to estimate it from the rigor of the words." Thus if there is not more than a month's delay between the concession and use of the faculty, the privileged one can absolve also from sins committed after the license was given. - De Lugo, De Paen. disp. XX, n. 126.

I say. The absolution of an accomplice in a sin against chastity is invalid, except in danger of death; and even in danger of death, outside a case of necessity, it is illicit on the part of the confessor according to the norm of the apostolic constitutions, and by name of the constitution of Benedict XIV Sacramentum Paenitentiae, 1 June 1741 (Can. 884).

§ 1. One absolving or pretending to absolve an accomplice in a sin against chastity incurs ipso facto excommunication reserved in the most special way to the Apostolic See; and this even in the article of death, if another priest, although not approved for confessions, can receive the confession of the dying person without some grave infamy and scandal about to arise, except the case in which the dying person refuses to confess to another.

§ 2. The one absolving or pretending to absolve an accomplice does not escape the same excommunication when the accomplice indeed does not confess the sin of complicity, from which he has not yet been absolved, but acts thus because he has been induced to this by the accomplice-confessor, whether directly or indirectly (Can. 2367).

Question 1. What in this matter comes under the name of accomplice?

Resp. By complicity here is understood that action by which two or more, reciprocally or mutually, by words or by deed declare consent, agreement, or conspiracy in some sin against chastity known as such. The accomplice must know that the act placed and manifested by the other accomplice is gravely culpable objectively and subjectively; he must fully consent to the sin committed by the other and externally manifest this internal consent; the sin must be common to each accomplice; an exterior manifestation of mutual lust is required, and reciprocal communication in the exterior act itself. Cf. Pauwels, De Casibus Reservatis. Wherefore, if a priest, having found the occasion from sleep or drunkenness, used some woman to satisfy lust, she would not properly be an accomplice, because there would not be a mutual conspiracy formally sinful. For the same reason, that priest would not be an accomplice properly so called, and consequently would not lose jurisdiction, who by the greatest wickedness persuaded some woman that it was not a sin if she permitted herself to be shamefully touched by him. - Cf. Bucceroni, Comment. in Const. Sacramentum Paenitentiae, n. 68.

Question 2. What in this matter comes under the name of sin against chastity?

Resp. Under the name of sin against chastity here comes every grave, external sin against the sixth precept of the Decalogue, even if not consummated by intercourse. First, therefore, the sin must be grave, for Benedict XIV speaks of a sin which must necessarily be destroyed by sacramental absolution. Then it must be external, for otherwise there would not be true complicity in a sinful action; indeed it does not suffice that the sin be in some way externally manifested, but it is required that it be grave insofar as it is external. Nevertheless, it is not required that it be consummated by intercourse, and consequently a kiss, touch, or sight, provided the other conditions are present, comes here under the name of sin against chastity. Indeed, even an impure conversation is comprehended by this law, for although previously there could be doubt from reasons not to be despised, nevertheless today it must altogether be held that no exception is given, as is established from the declaration of the S. Congr. U. I. given on 28 May 1873, where it is said: "By the prohibition of absolving an accomplice in a matter against chastity are comprehended not only touches, but truly all grave sins externally committed against chastity, even those which consist in mere conversations and looks which import complicity." - Cf. Bucceroni, n. 68. Lehmkuhl, n. 935.

The sin must be mortal on both sides, and indeed certainly; and therefore if it is doubtful whether the penitent sinned gravely, although it is certain that the priest sinned, the case is not comprehended by the law. Nor does it suffice that a grave sin be committed only internally by both, although externally it is venial; but it is required that the external action be the indication and manifestation of an internal depraved affection, mortally sinful in the character of an exterior act.

Question 3. Whether the person of the accomplice is to be restricted to the female sex?

Resp. Negatively, altogether, because the words of the Bull are altogether general; for in it it is said: "Who dares to receive the sacramental confession of the accomplice person in a sin against chastity committed against the sixth precept and to impart absolution to him." - Therefore the disposition of the Constitution is not to be restricted to the female sex.

Question 4. Whether a priest must be called an accomplice when the sin against chastity was committed before the reception of sacred Orders, but now for the first time is subjected before him to the keys?

Resp. Affirmatively, as it seems, because the law must be understood as the words sound, and according to the end which the legislator intends. Furthermore, the priest will always be in the true sense an accomplice as long as he lives; and the end of the law is to impede the danger of sinning and to procure the worthy administration of the sacrament. But this end certainly would not be obtained if the priest could absolve his former accomplice still polluted by this sin against chastity. Besides, by the reception of Orders some change was made in the priest only; but in this question, so that jurisdiction can again be given, attention is paid only to a change of the penitent. - Cf. Ituriaga, vol. 5, cas. 47. - Bucceroni, n. 69. - Lehmkuhl, n. 935. The response of the S. Penitentiary, 27 Jan. 1879, agrees: "The confessor cannot absolve an accomplice with whom before priesthood in boyhood he acted shamefully, unless he is morally certain that the same has already been directly and validly absolved from the sin of complicity by another confessor."

Question 5. Whether a priest can absolve an accomplice in the article or danger of death?

Resp. Affirmatively, validly and licitly, if another priest cannot be called who can perform the office of confessor; or if he can indeed be called, but not without scandal. But if another priest is present, even not approved, who can receive the confession, then the accomplice priest will indeed absolve validly, but illicitly, and will not escape the penalties. This is established from the cited Constitutions of Benedict XIV and Can. 884, 2367. - Bucceroni, nn. 62 and seq.

Question 6. Whether outside the case of death the accomplice priest can ever absolve his accomplice, suppose if the woman accomplice has no other priest to whom she may have recourse, and because of the circumstances of the place, as can happen in some missions, there is no hope that she will have one for several years, especially if danger of scandal and infamy is added, because the said woman had previously been accustomed to approach confession and communion frequently?

Resp. Negatively, according to the more common opinion of theologians; and the reason is, both because it is unlawful to place diverse exceptions where the legislator explicitly placed only one, namely the case of death, and because that law is not only prohibiting but also invalidating, the nature of which requires that it not cease on account of some particular inconvenience. Besides, the infamy, scandal, and other inconveniences which are supposed are not necessarily nor always verified; nor can the obligation of confessing once in the year, or rather sometime in life, as being of divine law, be urged, since divine law supposes that a suitable confessor is present. - Nevertheless these reasons do not seem altogether convincing; for it is true that Benedict XIV made one exception, but it is also true that he supposed, in enacting that law, that other priests were present or could easily be found, and did not have our case before his eyes. Besides, that law, although invalidating, is nevertheless a human law, and consequently in the extreme necessity of some extraordinary case can admit epikeia. But when it is said that the divine law of confession does not urge because a suitable confessor is not present, a mere begging of the question is made: namely, it is supposed that the accomplice confessor, placed in the aforesaid most grave necessity, has already lost jurisdiction; and this is precisely that about which the question is made. Wherefore the affirmative opinion seems probable. Cf. Baller. note (a) p. 540. - Bucceroni, n. 67. - Lehmkuhl, n. 937.

Question 7. Whether a priest can absolve his accomplice after the latter has already been duly absolved by another confessor?

Resp. A distinction must be made, and it must be denied if the penitent accuses only the sin of complicity, because, since that sin is altogether withdrawn from the jurisdiction of the accomplice-confessor, in no case would there be matter for absolution. Nevertheless others say that he does not lack jurisdiction over this sin already directly remitted, because it is no longer necessary matter of confession, and it seems that judgment must be made about this sin as about reserved sins directly remitted: thus Bucceroni, n. 1296. - D'Annibale, n. 324, note 37. - Genicot, n. 352. But affirmatively one must respond if the penitent confesses other sins extraneous to shameful complicity, because, with that shameful sin destroyed by absolution duly imparted by another confessor, the prohibition now ceases and jurisdiction returns. Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 555. - Baller. note (a) p. 539. The S. Inquisition on 29 May 1867 resolved the case: "It is free for the confessor to absolve the accomplice person who has already been absolved from the sin of dishonest complicity through another confessor: nevertheless counsel must always be given to the confessor of whom there is question, that, unless necessity compels, he abstain from receiving the sacred confessions of the accomplice person, although already absolved from the sin of complicity." But if, after direct absolution from the sin of complicity accepted from a non-accomplice priest, compelled by some necessity he confesses before his accomplice, practically the penitent "should altogether abstain from any mention, even indirect, of sins of complicity, nor is there need that in a general confession he intend to subject them to the keys." But the confessor "who absolves, insofar as he can, should not intend to absolve from those sins, and there will be no remaining difficulty." Thus the S. Penitentiary, on 29 Feb. 1904, responded to the question: "Whether a priest can absolve his accomplice already absolved by another non-accomplice confessor, and returning to him, if he accuses himself after sins committed since the last confession with these words (as pious penitents are accustomed to do), 'I include besides all the sins of my past life, especially against the angelic virtue,' or whether he is always bound to say 'excepting sins of complicity?'" Theolog. Prak. Quart., v. 58, p. 382.

Question 8. Whether a priest incurs excommunication who indeed hears the confession of an accomplice but does not absolve him, either because he does not pronounce the words of absolution, or because he simulates or dissimulates them?

Resp. Affirmatively, by force of canon 2367.

Question 9. What is to be said about the following double case: 1°. if the penitent, forgetful of the sin of complicity, does not accuse it; 2°. if the sin of complicity is indeed accused, but the penitent and confessor do not mutually recognize each other?

Resp. It seems altogether probable that in neither case is excommunication incurred, because presumption and rash daring, of which Benedict XIV speaks, are lacking. But whether the absolution is valid, namely whether the confessor is deprived or not of jurisdiction in each aforesaid case, is controverted among theologians. The more probable opinion teaches that the absolution is invalid; and the reason is that, from the very words of Benedict XIV, the accomplice, as long as the sin of complicity has not been directly remitted by another priest, is altogether withdrawn from the jurisdiction of the accomplice-confessor. But others deservedly reply that this reason supposes the Benedictine law is to be extended to cases of this sort, which indeed is not established. Cf. Nouvelle Revue Theologique, vol. 13, p. 577. - Bucceroni, nn. 70 and 72. - Lehmkuhl, n. 935.

Question 10. What must be said about the case of a confessor absolving or pretending to absolve an accomplice who indeed does not confess the sin of complicity, from which he has not yet been absolved, but acts thus because the confessor induced the penitent to this, either directly or indirectly?

Resp. He incurs excommunication, according to canon 2367, § 2.

Question 11. Whether a confessor doubting whether the penitent is his accomplice can absolve him?

Resp. Affirmatively. The confessor, after carefully weighing the matter and still doubting whether this penitent is his accomplice, can absolve him, because the legislator scarcely seems in this case to urge the law because of infamy and scandal. This is admitted by some if he himself remained altogether unknown to the penitent, because, for example, masked or for another reason, he approached her; the reason is that he is not bound to betray himself. But in no way can he absolve him when the penitent knows the priest with whom he committed the crime, but here and now while he confesses does not recognize him. - Ball.-Palm., n. 650. - Genicot, n. 353.

1°. Benedict XIV forbids that anyone dare to receive the sacramental confession of an accomplice person in a sin against chastity committed against the sixth precept of the Decalogue: "Therefore any authority and jurisdiction for absolving any person whatsoever from a fault of this sort having been taken away from him by the law itself." The Sacred Penitentiary responded in the same way (16 May 1877): "The privation of jurisdiction of absolving an accomplice in a sin against chastity, and the attached excommunication, insofar as the confessor has absolved him, is in order to the very sin against chastity, in which the same confessor was an accomplice." But if the penitent acts in good faith, the absolution of other sins is not to be held invalid; for jurisdiction is removed not from these, but from the sin of complicity. - Bucceroni, n. 1291. - Lehmkuhl, n. 1203, affirms "not improbably" that this was said. - Nouvelle Revue Theolog., v. 13, p. 573; v. 31, p. 151. - D'Annibale, n. 324. ... The same would have to be said if the penitent by inculpable forgetfulness does not confess the sin of complicity but other sins, for the same reason.

2°. If a priest inadvertently absolved his accomplice confessing all his sins before him in good faith, the priest himself certainly does not incur the censure; the absolution of other sins must be said to be valid. - Bucceroni, n. 1293. Bulot, n. 574. This must be admitted, if suppose the penitent does not advert that this is his accomplice, and is absolved by the priest himself not adverting. Indeed some in the case of inadvertence of the priest and good faith of the penitent hold that the absolution is simply valid. For Benedict XIV wished to restrict presumptuous and rash daring: the Supreme Pontiff renders null the absolution of one knowing and willing. "The nullity of absolution," as D'Annibale once said, "burdens the penitent; therefore it is also quasi-punishment of him; if the confessor is exempted from punishment, it is equitable that the penitent also be exempted." - Cf. Pennacchi, Comment. in Cons. Apos. Sedis, p. 312. - Ball.-Palm. 650 and others; whether truly, let the wiser judge.

3°. If in the article of death the confessor, any other priest being absent, has begun to hear his accomplice, when another priest arrives he can complete the confession; the power of the judge, duly brought into use at the beginning, does not expire as long as the cause has not been completed. The same must be admitted by equal reason if the confessor in the article of death, necessity urging, began to hear the accomplice and meanwhile the article of death passed.

4°. Two confessors enter into a horrible pact among themselves of absolving their accomplices. Titius absolves Caia, the accomplice of Titus, and Titus absolves Bertha, the accomplice of Titius. Titius and Titus by this pact become accomplices to each other. If the accomplice persons themselves are conscious of this wicked pact, then it seems altogether to be said that the confessor and penitent alike become accomplices: for a mind is added to the penitent, so that he may sin more securely, in the hope of more easily obtaining remission. But if these persons are unaware of this pact, the confessors certainly act sacrilegiously, but they do not absolve their own accomplices; and therefore those confessors absolving each other or the accomplices conscious of the pact incur excommunication, but not if they absolve accomplices unaware of the pact. - Cf. Diction. de Theol. Cath., v. 3, c. 617, Dolhagaray. - Bulot, n. 575.

I say 1°. By the common law of the Church all priests soliciting to sin against the sixth precept of the Decalogue with relation to confession are to be denounced to ecclesiastical superiors. This is established from the Bull of Gregory XV, Universi gregis, given in the year 1622, which was confirmed through the Constitution of Benedict XIV, Sacramentum Paenitentiae. For Gregory XV speaks thus: "We command all Ordinaries of places that they diligently inquire and proceed against all priests, both secular and regular, who, in the act of sacramental confession, whether before, or immediately after, or on the occasion or pretext of confession, even when confession has not followed, or outside the occasion of confession, in the confessional or in any place whatsoever where confessions are heard or chosen for hearing confession, pretending there to hear confessions, have attempted in any way to solicit or provoke persons, whoever they may be, to indecent things among themselves or with others, or have had illicit and indecent conversations or dealings with them; commanding all confessors that they warn their penitents, whom they have known to have been solicited by others as above, concerning the obligation of denouncing those soliciting to the Ordinaries of places."

According to the norm of the apostolic constitutions, and by name of the constitution of Benedict XIV Sacramentum Paenitentiae, 1 June 1741, the penitent must denounce the priest guilty of the delict of solicitation in confession within a month to the Ordinary of the place, or to the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office;¹ and the confessor must, with his conscience gravely burdened, warn the penitent concerning this burden (Can. 904).

I say 2°. Solicited penitents cannot be absolved before they have satisfied the obligation of denouncing, or at least unless they promise that they will shortly satisfy their obligation. This is established from the Constitution Sacramentum Paenitentiae of Benedict XIV, § 2, where it is said: "Moreover let confessors carefully beware lest they impart sacramental absolution to penitents whom they have known already to have been solicited by others, unless first, bringing the aforesaid denunciation to effect, they have indicated the delinquent to the competent judge, or at least pledge and promise that they, as soon as they can, will bring him forward." It is also established from the Instruction of the S. U. I. in the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore, Appendix, p. 300, nn. 3 and 5.

I say 3°. Denunciation must be made within a month from the time when its obligation became known. But the penitent who, without sufficient reason, that is, from negligence or fault, does not carry out denunciation at the established time, incurs an excommunication latae sententiae reserved to no one; from which consequently, such negligence or fault having been removed, any confessor can absolve. This is established from Canon 2368, § 2 and the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 693. - Varceno, vol. 2, p. 208.

¹ Cf. Addenda, p. 1092, n. 24.

Question 1. When is solicitation considered to have relation to confession?

Resp. This must be clear from all the circumstances of persons, places, time, from the manner of speaking, etc.; but it certainly has relation if it is done in the following cases:

In the very act of confession: it suffices if the confession has had a beginning. Immediately before or after: "When nothing mediates between solicitation and confession, so that neither the confessor nor the penitent has turned himself to extraneous acts."

Or on the occasion or pretext of confession, even when confession has not followed: occasion is the opportune time of action, and in undertaking and completing an affair it is of the greatest moment; and it is a thing which offers a motive of acting; and in a twofold way confession is called the occasion. Thus it would be on the occasion of confession if the confessor immediately solicited a woman asking to confess at once, and this even if it happened outside the confessional: confession to be made here and now provides the occasion of soliciting.

On the pretext of confession: pretext is that which covers intention by some fact. A confessor invites a woman to confession in order to provoke her to shameful things. According to D'Annibale, v. 3, n. 367, he pretexts who does one thing under the veil of another. The pretext is ordered to soliciting. He abuses the very confession to which he invites her so that he may solicit more freely, although the confession itself does not follow: that is, under the color and appearance of confession he solicits. He pretexts confession in order to deceive and solicit the penitent. D'Annibale and others think that there is not solicitation, of which here there is question, if the penitent himself asks to confess while pretexting, but not wishing, to confess but to solicit, or if each does so from agreement so that others may be deceived.

Outside the occasion of confession: in the confessional, or in another place destined or chosen for confessions, with simulation of hearing confessions there.

Solicitation so severely punished can therefore be outside the occasion of confession; but then simulation of confession is required, or a feigned placing of the act of confessing, or a feigned act of confessing, namely one which, as to external appearance, is so placed as if someone truly confesses. There is a threefold place in which this simulation of confession, if it is placed, is punished by penalties according to the Pontifical Constitutions: the confessional in a church; or a place in the sacristy, suppose, where there is a kneeler with gratings and a seat; or finally any chosen place, for example, a room of the sick. Now therefore, so that the obligation of denunciation may be present in these cases, it is required that both on the part of the penitent and on the part of the priest an external action be placed there, of itself signifying that confession is being made here and now. These three things must be well distinguished: just as the occasion of confession is not the pretext, so neither this nor that is simulation.

In relation to simulation in a place here and now chosen, positive signs are required: suppose, the priest sits, blesses the woman, applies his hand to his face, and other similar things; the penitent signs herself with the sign of the cross, and her external action, her speech, has the appearance of a true accusation. These are necessary at least in the beginning, namely so that simulated confession may be had. Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 678. - Baller. note (b) p. 544. - Varceno, vol. 2, pp. 209 and seq.

Question 2. Whether a confessor is to be denounced who in confession asked a woman where she lives, if afterward he solicited her at home?

Resp. Affirmatively, because, although the question made in confession seems indifferent, nevertheless afterward from the circumstances it is known to have been placed for soliciting, and consequently it is verified that confession gave the occasion, namely opportunity, to the solicitation. And the same solution must be given if the confessor solicits the woman as a person whose character or frailty he knew from confession, and suggests this by words or in another way; for then also solicitation is made on the occasion of confession. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, nn. 676 and 678. - Baller. note (b) p. 556.

Question 3. Whether only the solicited person is bound to denunciation?

Resp. Negatively, but all others also are obliged who certainly know it, unless they have known this under the secret of counsel, and this holds even if the crime cannot be juridically proved. This is established from the Decree of the Roman S. I., in St. Alphonsus, and from the common consent of theologians. Cf. St. Alphonsus, nn. 680 and 695. - Varceno, vol. 2, p. 222. - Baller. note (c) p. 546.

Question 4. Whether the penitent is bound to denunciation if he himself consented to the solicitation?

Resp. Affirmatively, as is established from the Constitution Sacramentum Paenitentiae, § 2, where it is said that the confessor is to be denounced "even if ... the solicitation between the confessor and penitent was mutual, or the penitent consented to the solicitation." - Nor does it stand in the way that the penitent by natural law is not bound to accuse himself; for ordinarily he can denounce the one soliciting without confessing that he gave consent to the solicitation. - Cf. Instr. S. U. I. in the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore, p. 300, n. 6. - Baller. note (b) p. 548.

Question 5. Whether a confessor is to be denounced who consented to a penitent soliciting him, but himself did not solicit?

Resp. Affirmatively, as is openly gathered from II and IX among the sixteen Decrees of the Holy Office which appeared on 11 Feb. 1661, and afterward were confirmed by Benedict XIV by Apostolic authority. Furthermore, to the question: "whether a confessor consenting to solicitation, but immediately ceasing to speak about that shameful matter, deferring its completion to another time, and not providing absolution to the penitent, incurs the penalties contained in the Bull of Gregory, and is to be denounced?" - it was answered, by Decree II, "that he incurs, and that the confessor is to be denounced, with the probable opinion rejected, which they judged not to be probable." The same thing is openly drawn from Decree IX, where it is said: "that a confessor who consented from fear is to be denounced": therefore a fortiori where no excuse whatsoever of inflicted fear is present. - Cf. Baller. note (a) p. 549. - Instr. S. U. I. n. 2.

Question 6. Whether the obligation of denunciation urges if the guilty one has amended, or if the solicitation happened a long time ago?

Resp. Affirmatively, to the first, because the Pontiff does not intend only the amendment of the guilty one, but also his punishment for repairing the damage of the Church and the scandal. Affirmatively also to the second, for the same reasons; for if one who committed the crime a long time ago were not to be denounced, the reason indeed would be that he would be considered already amended; but this reason does not avail, as was just said. Moreover, it would be very difficult to determine what would be a long or brief time. This is also established from the Constitution Sacramentum Paenitentiae, § 2, where it is sanctioned that the confessor is to be denounced, "even if a long time has already flowed by after the solicitation itself." Nevertheless that circumstance would have to be manifested to the superior to whom the denunciation is made. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 686. - Baller. note (a) p. 554; and note (a) p. 555.

Question 7. Whether a penitent is excused from making denunciation because of fear lest he incur the indignation and rebuke of the one denounced?

Resp. Negatively, because this annoyance is to be made very little of in a matter of such moment and pertaining to the common good. For it cannot be compared with the innumerable and very great evils arising from the corruption of a priest. But if great harm in life, reputation, or temporal goods is reasonably feared, the penitent seems to be excused as long as the danger lasts; but then the confessor must have recourse to the Ordinary. - Cf. Baller. note (b) p. 555. - Second Plenary Council of Baltimore, Instr. S. U. I., p. 301, n. 7.

Question 8. Whether a confessor soliciting and sinning lightly because of smallness of matter is to be denounced?

Resp. To this same question it was thus answered from Decree III of the S. Inquisition: "Since in venereal matters smallness of matter is not given, and if it were given, in the present matter it would not be given, they judged that he is to be denounced and that the contrary opinion is not probable." - Nevertheless Scavini notes on this place that this must be understood if the act is fully deliberate, and besides if from the circumstances it is certainly conjectured that by that light act the priest truly has the intention of proceeding further. - Cf. Scavini, lib. 3, tract. 10, n. 580. - Varceno, vol. 2, p. 219.

Question 9. Whether faith is easily to be given to women accusing priests of solicitation?

Resp. Negatively, but the circumstances both of things and of persons are carefully to be weighed both by the confessor and by superiors. Not once have women been seen who from envy, hatred, jealousy, or another perverse end have atrociously calumniated entirely innocent clerics. Therefore all circumstances are to be weighed by mature examination, especially when the woman shows herself ready and prompt for obeying the precept of denunciation. But here two things must be noted:

1°. The crime of false accusation concerning solicitation from canon 894 is reserved by reason of itself to the Apostolic See, and indeed with excommunication reserved to the same in a special way from canon 2363.

2°. Superiors, after the truth of the crime has certainly been known, ought to proceed very cautiously, so that they may correct the guilty one according to the gravity of the delict; nor should they punish indiscriminately a fault already long past, or had by chance from frailty, as they would one recent or committed from custom; likewise so that they may at the same time consult the good of Religion, of the priesthood, and of the guilty one himself, forestalling scandals and rumors insofar as can be done.

Question 10. What are the penalties against those soliciting?

Resp. § 1. He who has committed the crime of solicitation of 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, to be declared incapable of receiving them; he is to be deprived of all benefices, dignities, active and passive voice, and to be declared incapable of all these things, and in graver cases also to be subjected to degradation (Can. 2368).

Question 11. How practically is denunciation to be made?

Resp. In this matter these things are to be observed:

1°. Denunciation is to be made by voice, insofar as can be done, but not only by writing. Therefore the solicited person must present himself before the Ordinary and declare the act of solicitation, without however in any way revealing his own consent, if he gave any.

2°. Denunciation is to be made to the Ordinary of the place in which the penitent is found, even if the soliciting confessor belongs to another diocese. For it belongs to the Ordinary of the place to receive the sworn denunciation and transmit it to the Bishop of the guilty priest.

3°. If denunciation cannot be made by voice, it is to be made by a letter signed with one's own name and surname, or at least through an intermediary. For the obligation of denouncing the one soliciting is not so much of approaching the superior personally as of bringing the delinquent before him, as Benedict XIV speaks in his Bull. But he who is bound to the end is also bound to the means.

4°. Nevertheless the confessor is not bound to take upon himself the burden of transmitting the denunciation to the Ordinary; but he satisfies his office by warning the penitent that at a suitable time he should duly denounce the one soliciting. Nevertheless he can provide his own labor if he has judged this expedient; but the knowledge of the matter must be received outside confession.

5°. If the solicited person can in no way be induced to make denunciation in such a form, namely because he is affected by fear or insuperable shame, let the Bishop be allowed to be warned about that matter; he will be able to delegate someone to receive the denunciation. But the delegated priest must take an oath concerning silence to be observed and concerning the office committed to him faithfully to be fulfilled.

6°. In every case denunciation made through anonymous letters is altogether insufficient and entirely invalid, just as if it had not been made, as the S. Congregation of the Inquisition declared several times.

Note. Consult altogether the Instruction of the S. U. Inquis. in the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore, Appendix X, p. 298, and there you will find many things concerning the practical manner in which denunciations are to be made or received: how the difficulties of penitents affected by shame are to be overcome, and especially under n. 7, how the confessor must conduct himself when the penitent refuses either immediately or altogether to obey. Consult also the Instruction of the Holy Office, 6 Aug. 1897, and the Decree of the same S. Congregation, 15 May 1901.

Question 12. What are the obligations of Regular Superiors in matters pertaining to the Holy Office?

Resp. In matters pertaining to the Holy Office, it in no way belongs to Regular Superiors "to know the causes of their subjects, and by no title or pretext" can they or ought they "unless by express mandate of the S. Congregation, to inquire about these matters, receive denunciations, interrogate witnesses, examine the accused, institute judgment, render sentence, or in any other way or manner mix themselves in them or lay hands upon them; but those religious men who from their subjects or confreres or even superiors have known the guilty or suspected of crimes of this sort (especially as regards the abuse of Sacramental Confession), are strictly bound, without any communication with any others whatsoever, with no permission sought, and with no fraternal correction or warning first sent ahead, to denounce them without delay to the Holy Office or to the Ordinaries of places." They are bound besides to bring these laws to the certain knowledge of subjects and to urge observance. Holy Office, 15 May 1901.