§ I. On the Principle and Nature of Reservation

I say 1°. There is given in the Church the power of reserving certain cases or causes of graver crimes, from which inferior confessors cannot absolve without a special faculty.

§ 1. Those who by ordinary law can concede the power of hearing confessions or impose censures can also, with exception made of the Capitular Vicar and the Vicar General without a special mandate, call away some cases to their own judgment, limiting in inferiors the power of absolving.

§ 2. This calling away is called reservation of cases.

§ 3. As regards the reservation of censures, the prescription of can. 2246, 2247 is to be observed (Can. 893).

I say 2°. Three things are required, at least from the custom of the Church, so that some sin can be reserved, namely, that it be 1°. mortal not only by reason of the object, but also by reason of malice in the act of the will; 2°. external, and indeed grave as external; 3°. consummated by deed, but not merely attempted, unless something else is established from the express declaration of the one reserving. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 582. - Baller. notes (a), (b), and (c) p. 470. Thus, for example, some sin is reserved, suppose against chastity: 1°. but someone sins lightly, the sin is not reserved; 2°. he sins gravely internally, the internal sin, although grave, is not reserved; 3°. he externally places some light sin, suppose some word containing in itself no grave malice against chastity, but he places it from the mind of fornicating: such a one sins gravely and externally, but the external sin is grave solely on account of the gravely depraved internal malice with which it is clothed, of which nevertheless it is not a natural external sign, and therefore it is not reserved; 4°. but now he places some external act gravely depraved, suppose an invitation to fornicate: that external act is a natural external sign of grave internal malice, and of itself, if it is placed voluntarily and knowingly, is sufficient matter of grave sin, and not only by respect to the internal act.

Question 1. What is prerequired for this, that sins can licitly be reserved by Ordinaries of places?

Resp. Ordinaries of places should not reserve sins unless, the matter having been discussed in the diocesan Synod, or outside the Synod after the cathedral Chapter and some of the more prudent and more approved curators of souls of their diocese have been heard, the true necessity or utility of the reservation has been proved (Can. 895).

The reservation of cases of conscience is to be directed toward the destruction of fortifications, according to the saying of the Apostle, 2 Cor. X, 4, namely for removing obstacles which are no common impediment to the salvation of souls. Therefore it must be done in an orderly and clear way, so that no cause may be given for anxieties or doubts. It is an extraordinary remedy; therefore hands are not to be put to it unless the true necessity or utility of reservation is established. And hence the matter must first be discussed in Synod, or outside the Synod the cathedral Chapter and some of the more approved curators of souls must first be heard, before a sin is reserved. In this canon it is a question of the reservation of sins and of the prerequirements so that the Ordinary of the place may licitly reserve them; the prerequirements are: the necessity or utility of reservation proved, discussion of the matter in Synod, or outside Synod the hearing of the cathedral Chapter and of the more prudent pastors of souls.

Question 2. Who among the superiors of an exempt clerical religion and in monasteries sui juris can reserve sins?

Resp. Among Superiors of an exempt clerical religion, only the Superior General, and in monasteries sui juris the Abbot, with each one's own Council, can reserve sins of subjects, as above, with the prescription of can. 518, § 1, 519 remaining firm (Can. 896).

Therefore the superior general and the Abbot with each one's council can reserve sins; but in individual houses confessors are to be deputed with power of absolving even from those reserved cases; moreover a religious for quiet of conscience can approach any confessor approved by the Ordinary of the place, who can absolve him from sins and censures reserved in the religion. - Cf. Can. 518, § 1, 519.

Question 3. How many and what sort of sins are to be reserved, and how long does reservation remain in force?

Resp. The cases to be reserved should be very few, namely three or, at most, four, from only the graver and more atrocious external crimes specifically determined; but the reservation itself should not remain in force longer than is necessary for rooting out some public inveterate vice and perhaps restoring collapsed Christian discipline (Can. 897).¹

Therefore reserved cases should be few; at most four; only the graver crimes; external crimes to be specifically determined; reservation should not continue in force after the end has been obtained. The reasons for all of these are found in the very nature of reservation. Furthermore, reservation is directed toward removing obstacles which are no common impediment to the salvation of souls; therefore it should not exceed the due measure and mode, otherwise it can turn to the destruction rather than the utility of souls; and on account of this danger of souls, merely internal sins and sins deriving from human frailty are not reserved.

¹ Cf. Addenda, p. 1115, n. 64.

Question 4. Whether it is licit for Ordinaries to reserve to themselves sins which are already reserved to the Roman Pontiff, even by reason of censure?

Resp. All should altogether abstain from reserving to themselves those sins which are already reserved to the Apostolic See, even by reason of censure, and regularly also from those upon which a censure has been imposed by law, although reserved to no one (Can. 898).

The reason of the matter is evident: lest laws be multiplied without necessity. Hence the law declares that Ordinaries must altogether abstain as to the first point; but as to the second it says regularly; therefore promiscuous reservation is prohibited, but it can be that on account of frequent scandal or another cause some cases of this sort are reserved. From reserving sins of which in the first point, one must always abstain; from sins of which in the second, regularly.

Question 5. Whether pastors can reserve cases?

Resp. Negatively, from canon 893.

Question 6. Whether all reserved cases have been reserved on account of censure, or independently from it?

Resp. Most episcopal cases are simply reserved without censure; but papal cases almost all have censure and are reserved principally on account of the censure, so that in them the censure is reserved immediately, and the sin itself mediately or accessorily. Hence in papal cases, when the censure is reserved, the sin also remains reserved; but on the contrary, when the censure is removed, for example, because it was unknown, neither is the sin reserved, because, the object of reservation being removed, that is, the censure, the sin now does not remain reserved.

The only sin reserved to the Holy See by reason of itself is false denunciation, by which an innocent priest is accused of the crime of solicitation before ecclesiastical judges (Can. 894).

Question 7. Whether one who is ignorant of it incurs simple reservation of sins?

Resp. It is much controverted. The first opinion affirms, because there is nothing in the law by which the ignorant are excused. The law itself does not except them; therefore we ought not except them. Nor does it avail to say that reservation is a punishment and hence that those at least not grossly ignorant are excused; because the Instruction of the S. C. of the Holy Office, 13 July 1916, n. 5, clearly distinguishes between reservation and punishment. "Let them be altogether cautious and as sparing as possible as regards penal sanctions, especially excommunications, with which perhaps they may wish to fortify their reservations." Indeed, when the end of the law is inspected, the ignorant are urged no less than those who know. And this is altogether the opinion of very many. Nevertheless, there are not lacking those who even now defend the milder opinion, which the aforesaid Instruction, n. 6, seemed to many to favor. "Let them take care (Ordinaries) that the same (reservations) be brought to the certain knowledge of the faithful - for what force do they have if they are hidden?" In other words: what utility is there of reservations which subjects do not know? None. Now then, this truth has equal force after as before the Code, which omitted that clause since it contains the reason of the law. Therefore, since such reservations are rightly held useless to the ignorant, and the Code establishes that only those must be made which (Ordinaries) have judged truly necessary or useful, and this law is of strict interpretation, the milder opinion does not seem to lack its probability, especially since the confessor ought to warn such ignorant persons about the existing law. Add that reservation takes away the liberty of the penitent of choosing a confessor and deprives him of the hope of obtaining absolution from someone other than the supreme diocesan judges; and fear of the privation of this hope naturally deters from committing the crime, as Benedict XIV affirmed concerning the one sin reserved by reason of itself to the Supreme Pontiff, Const. Sacramentum Paenitentiae, n. 3. Notification begets such fear. Then it scarcely seems equitable that those who labor under ignorance at least not gross and supine be deprived of the very great good of approaching any suitable confessor. Cf. Aertnys, n. 389. - Ferreres, n. 672. - Noldin, n. 363. - Arregui, n. 607. - Razon y Fe, v. 52, 53. - La Civilta Cattolica, an. 1918, n. 3, p. 545.

Question 8. Whether in doubt about reservation a sin is to be considered reserved?

Resp. Negatively, whether the doubt is of fact, namely, if the sin was doubtfully committed or doubtfully grave; or whether it is of law, that is, is concerned with the existence of the reserving law and its extension. The reason for each solution is that reservation is something odious, and consequently is of strict interpretation. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 600. - Elbel, n. 343.

Question 9. Whether a subject of another diocese can be absolved if the case is reserved only in the place of confession?

Resp. Negatively, if he confesses to a simple confessor; for this man's jurisdiction is limited, Can. 893, § 1, and in no way comes from the Ordinary of the penitent, Can. 874; a pilgrim is held as an inhabitant and is bound by the reservations of the place in which he is; the same is also clear from the response of the Sacred Penitentiary given 21 Nov. 1873, when the dispute was fervent. Titius, a priest approaching the tribunal of penance, sets forth sins partly simply reserved, partly also with episcopal censure in the diocese of the confessor. The latter grieves at this, and humanely admonishes the brother to present himself to one having the faculty: but he insists on absolution and says that the confessor, since he is not a judge of opinions, can and ought to absolve a penitent who wishes to follow an opinion not only probable, but most common among ancient and living Theologians. The confessor, firm in his opinion, does not acquiesce, and dismisses the penitent unabsolved.

It is asked 1°. Whether the confessor conducted himself well? 2°. Can he always conduct himself thus in the case?

The Sacred Penitentiary, having considered the things set forth, responds: As to the first case, to both affirmatively.

Question 10. Whether a subject of another diocese can be absolved when the sin is reserved in his own diocese, but not in the place of confession?

Resp. Affirmatively, outside the territory of the one reserving, even if the penitent departed from it only to obtain absolution (Can. 900, n. 3), reservation lacks every force.