Moral Part — Chapter II: On the Confessor

We shall speak 1° of the power required in the confessor; 2° of his offices.

372. Preliminary notes. By divine law a twofold power is required in the minister not only for licitly, but also for validly administering the sacrament of Penance, namely the power of order and of jurisdiction; by ecclesiastical law, jurisdiction cannot be conferred except on those who have been found suitable (Codex, c. 877).

The twofold power of order and jurisdiction was necessary at all times, as was said above, n. 72-92; and, before Trent, according to the common opinion, it sufficed for the valid administration of the sacrament.¹ But the Tridentine Fathers, fearing that jurisdiction might sometimes be granted to those who are not suitable for hearing confessions, decreed that no one could hear the confessions of seculars unless approved by the Ordinary: "Yet the holy Synod decrees that no one, even a regular, can hear the confessions of seculars, even priests, nor be reputed suitable for this, unless either he has a parochial benefice, or by the Bishops, through an examination, if it shall seem necessary to them, or otherwise, he is judged suitable, and obtains approval, which is to be given gratuitously."² These words indeed are understood by all not only concerning the liceity, but also concerning the validity of absolution; for the Council declares that no one, unless approved, can hear the confessions of seculars, nor be suitable for this.

¹ A few indeed said that, even before Trent, approval was necessary for those who enjoyed only delegated jurisdiction; but they can prove this by no solid argument, as may be seen apud Suarez, disp. XXVIII, sect. 3, n. 2-4.

² Sess. XXIII, ch. 15 on Reformation.

373. Therefore two things (according to can. 872) are desired in the minister for the valid administration of the sacrament: priestly order and jurisdiction, which must be preceded by a judgment of suitability. Concerning the former enough has been said elsewhere; concerning the latter it must be spoken in the following order: -

On the prior judgment of suitability;

On jurisdiction, whether ordinary or delegated;

On the jurisdiction which the Church supplies;

On the jurisdiction of regulars;

On jurisdiction with respect to nuns;

On the limitation of jurisdiction, or the reservation of cases.

We shall explain 1° its notion; 2° its necessity; 3° the manner of passing it.

374. I. Notion. The judgment of suitability is the authentic judgment of the Ordinary concerning the suitability of a priest for receiving confessions.

It is called: (a) a judgment, that is, an act of the intellect, yet manifested by external signs; (b) authentic, or pronounced by a legitimate superior, and indeed in an authoritative manner; but the legitimate superior in this matter is the Ordinary, or he who has episcopal, or quasi-episcopal, jurisdiction, and therefore the vicar general, the vicar capitular (in the United States, the administrator of the diocese), or a regular prelate enjoying quasi-episcopal power in some territory; (c) concerning the suitability of a priest..., namely, concerning the gifts required for usefully receiving confessions; these gifts are chiefly, on the part of the intellect: knowledge, by which the principles and rules of moral theology are known; and also prudence, for applying the same to particular cases; on the part of the will: integrity of morals and piety.

375. What today we call the judgment of suitability until now was called approval;¹ but now the Code does not speak of approval as of a positive act to be put first, but only of the judgment of suitability, which often the bishop pronounces only by the very act by which he grants jurisdiction. Hence we think one should not linger over this notion of approval.

¹ Suarez, disp. XXVIII; Lugo, disp. XXI; Salmantic., cap. 11, n. 86-110; Lacroix, n. 1485-1547; Billuart, diss. VI, a. 5; Elbel-Bierb., Confer. XI, n. 278-287; St. Alphonsus, n. 542-552; Lehmk., n. 379 sq.; Kenrick, n. 121 sq.; Hilar. Sexten, p. 326-334; Baller. P., n. 546-587; Noldin, n. 329-333; Vacant, Dict. de Theol., I, 1700-1707.

Long ago approval, or the judgment of suitability, and jurisdiction were conferred at the same time. From this it happened that these words are taken promiscuously; indeed in some Pontifical Constitutions approval designates not only the judgment concerning suitability, but also the permission or faculty of hearing confessions, and therefore jurisdiction.

376. II. Necessity. 1° According to the Code (can. 877), the judgment of suitability is necessary for all confessors, even regulars, for licitly hearing confessions: "Let both local Ordinaries not grant jurisdiction, and religious Superiors not grant jurisdiction or license for hearing confessions, except to those who have been found suitable through examination, unless there is question of a priest whose theological doctrine they have ascertained from elsewhere." This law has rightly been established, so that unskillful and unworthy ministers might be kept away from the sacred tribunal.

2° It was expressly declared by Pius V that doctors and lectors of Sacred Theology are not exempt from this law.¹ But those who possess a parochial benefice to which care of souls is attached do not need special approval; for by the very fact that they are deputed to this office, they are implicitly recognized as suitable for hearing confessions. Moreover, one who is not endowed with doctrine and prudence must not be assumed as pastor (can. 453), and the Ordinary can compel a pastor, and indeed even a canon, concerning whose suitability doubts arise, to a new test of doctrine.²

¹ Constitution Romani Pontificis, 8 Aug. 1571.

² "If after jurisdiction or license has been granted they prudently doubt whether a priest previously approved by them still remains suitable, let them compel him to a new test of doctrine, even if there is question of a pastor or penitentiary canon" (Can. 878).

3° Exempt regulars today need approval for receiving the confessions of regulars of their own order;³ but in this case let the religious Superiors judge concerning their suitability (can. 877).

³ Exempt regulars are those who pronounce solemn vows, such as Franciscans, Dominicans, Benedictines, and also certain Congregations enjoying this special privilege, such as the Congregation of the Most Holy Redeemer. - Concerning all those things which pertain to the approval of Regulars, Piat Montensis discusses fully, Praelect. Juris Regularis, Tournai, 1898, t. II, p. 170-205; cf. the compendium of the same work, by V. ab Appeltern, 1903, p. 549-560.

377. III. The manner in which it is conferred. 1° Approval must be obtained from the Ordinary of the place in which the confession is received, but not from the Bishop of the penitent or of the confessor. This today is certain from several Pontifical Constitutions¹ and from the Code, c. 874 and 877. This indeed has been wisely established; for approval supposes knowledge not only of the priest to be approved, but also of the faithful for whom he is approved; now the Bishop of the place where confessions are heard is judged to have this knowledge alone. - Hence a priest approved in one diocese cannot validly absolve in another, unless he is approved by the Bishop of this diocese. - From this it likewise follows that a Bishop can approve not only his own subjects, but also foreign priests, for receiving confessions in his diocese.

¹ Thus Constitution of Urban VIII Cum sicut accepimus, 12 Sept. 1628; Clement X Superna, 21 June 1670; Innocent XII, 19 April 1700, Cum sicut non, where these things are read: "Confessors, both secular and regular... can by no means hear confessions without the approval of the Ordinary and diocesan Bishop of the place in which the penitents themselves live and choose confessors... nor can approval once or several times from other local Ordinaries suffice for this..." Cf. Constitution of Benedict XIV, Apostolica Indulta, 5 Aug. 1744.

378. But the Ordinary of the place can do this either by himself or through another specially deputed for this, for example, through archpriests, or vicars forane, or through Superiors of Regulars with respect to their subjects, etc. For the whole matter is committed to the judgment of the Ordinary, from the Code (can. 877).

379. 2° The Bishop can confer approval either after a prior examination,² or without an examination, when he knows from elsewhere the suitability of the confessor; this is clear from Trent, declaring that a priest can be approved by Bishops "through an examination, if it shall seem necessary to them, or if otherwise he is judged suitable," and from the Code cited above, n. 376. Regulars themselves can be compelled to undergo this examination. - Both seculars and regulars can be obliged to a new examination, if the Bishop judges this opportune.¹

² In many places, no other examination is required from those who in seminaries have devoted labor to the study of theology, except that which they already underwent before sacred orders, especially the priesthood. As to others, let these words of Kenrick, n. 126, be noted: "This custom has prevailed among us, that priests coming from elsewhere, and bringing suitable testimonials with them, and regulars, are not subjected to examination; but all are held by the Tridentine law; and it is plainly expedient that day by day stricter discipline in this matter be observed: by which means very many errors would be avoided."

¹ Code, c. 877.

380. 3° The Ordinary should not revoke approval from one who truly remains suitable, since in this matter he acts as judge, who is bound to pass judgment according to truth; therefore he sins if he revokes or suspends it without cause.² Nevertheless one to whom approval has been denied even unjustly cannot validly absolve, since jurisdiction also has been denied to him, without which absolution is invalid.³ - Besides, the Bishop is not bound to confer jurisdiction on every suitable person: for this is left to his judgment.

² Code, c. 880.

³ From the old law it was clear from the condemnation of proposition 13 by Alexander VII, 24 Sept. 1665, apud Denzing., n. 984; cf. Viva, op. cit. on proposition XIII; Vacant, Dict. de Theol., t. I, p. 736-737.

381. 4° Approval can be limited with respect to time, place, or kind of persons whose confessions the approved priest is permitted to receive: for the whole matter is committed to the judgment of the Bishop.

382. Ordinary jurisdiction is that which by the law itself is attached to an office; delegated jurisdiction is that which has been committed to a person (can. 197).

⁴ St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 8, a. 4-5; Suarez, disp. XXV-XXVI; Lugo, disp. XIX; Salmant., cap. 11, n. 4-85; Lacroix, n. 1548-1574; Billuart, diss. VI, a. 2-3; St. Alphonsus, n. 537-569; Marc, n. 1749-1752; Lehmk., n. 372-386; Konings, n. 1393-1394; Ballerini P., n. 588 sq.; Haine, q. 71-72; Genicot, n. 325-329; Noldin, 334-344.

383. Principle: All those obtain ordinary jurisdiction on whom there is conferred an office to which it is attached by the law itself. It is certain.

These are:¹ the Pontiff for the whole Church, the Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, the Ordinary of the place for his territory, the pastor for his parish, and others who are in the place of the pastor; moreover also the penitentiary canon of a collegiate church, and exempt religious Superiors for their subjects.

¹ Code, c. 873.

(A) The Pontiff for the universal Church, and indeed for both forums, as was proved in the Treatise on the Church, n. 198-202; all Cardinals (and not only the major Penitentiary, as formerly), for the internal forum and everywhere in the world.² - Nuncios or Apostolic Delegates now have only delegated jurisdiction, according to the tenor of their mandate.

² Code, c. 873 and can. 239, § 1, n. 1.

384. (B) The Ordinary of the place, and therefore those who are designated by this name: the Bishop for his diocese, in both forums, yet dependently on the Roman Pontiff, who can limit his jurisdiction; vicars general, likewise in both forums, yet dependently on the Bishop, so that, when he dies, their faculties expire by that very fact; when the Bishop has died, the vicar capitular (in the United States, the administrator of the diocese), for both forums.

Moreover, from the Code, c. 401, "the penitentiary canon, both of the cathedral church and of a collegiate church, obtains by law ordinary power, which however he cannot delegate to others, of absolving even from sins and from censures reserved to the Bishop, in the diocese even outsiders, and diocesan subjects even outside the territory of the diocese."

385. (C) The pastor in his parish, in the internal forum only; this power belongs to removable pastors, who in France are called succursalistes; likewise to vicars who are endowed with full parochial power, namely vicars oeconomi, substitutes, and sometimes assistants, but never coadjutors.³

³ Code, can. 451, § 2, 2° and can. 473, 474, 475, 476.

386. (D) Exempt religious Superiors, namely abbots, provosts general, provincials, and local superiors, have from the law,⁴ and according to the norm of the Constitutions, ordinary jurisdiction over their subjects; for by virtue of their office the care of the souls of their subjects is incumbent on them.

⁴ Code, c. 873, § 2.

387. Corollary. In three ways penitents can become subjects of those who are endowed with ordinary jurisdiction:

(A) By reason of domicile or quasi-domicile; namely, all those who have a domicile or quasi-domicile in some diocese or parish are by that very fact subjected to the ordinary jurisdiction of the Bishop of this diocese or of the pastor of this place. Now domicile is acquired by residence in some parish or quasi-parish, or at least in a diocese, apostolic vicariate, or apostolic prefecture; this residence is either joined with the intention of remaining there perpetually, if nothing calls one away from it, or is prolonged to a completed ten years;¹ quasi-domicile, moreover, by residence as above, which is either joined with the intention of remaining there at least for six months, or has in fact been prolonged for the greater part of a year (or for six months).² - He who has two domiciles, or a domicile in one place and a quasi-domicile in another, is subject to the ordinary jurisdiction of the Ordinary or pastor of each.

¹ Code, c. 92, § 1.

² Code, c. 92, § 2.

(B) By reason of privilege of state, or enrollment: (a) those who are of the family of Cardinals are reputed their subjects; hence Cardinals are able to choose as confessor, both for themselves and for their family, any priest, who, if he lacks jurisdiction, obtains it by the law itself;³ (b) likewise novices, domestics, and perpetual table-companions of some monastery or religious house are reputed subjects of the superior of this house.

³ Code, c. 239.

(C) From the Code,⁴ vagi, who have no domicile, and travelers, who have a domicile elsewhere but make a journey through another diocese or parish, and also Catholics of any Oriental rite, can be validly and licitly absolved not only by the pastors of the places where for the time they are staying, but by all priests of either clergy approved in some place for hearing confessions, whether furnished with ordinary or delegated jurisdiction.

⁴ Code, c. 881.

388. (A) Those who are endowed with ordinary jurisdiction can validly absolve their own subjects, wherever they may be, even outside their own territory and outside the diocese, without needing the approval of the Bishop of that place where they hear confessions;⁵ the reason is that ordinary jurisdiction is not only local, but also personal, and therefore follows persons wherever they have gone.

⁵ Code, c. 881, § 2.

(B) Ordinaries of places can delegate their jurisdiction to priests, both secular and religious, even exempt religious.

(C) By law pastors enjoy jurisdiction for their own territory only;¹ but by custom, in certain regions,² they validly hear confessions not only in their own parish, but in the whole diocese, yet by delegated right. They cannot, however, do this licitly without the permission of the pastor or chaplain of that place where they receive confessions.

¹ Code, c. 873.

² Thus Lehmk., n. 376, says: "In Germany now for several centuries that custom has prevailed, by force of which pastors are judged approved for the whole diocese." Baller. P., n. 556: "It seems possible to conclude that, where no other custom prevails and the Bishop does not expressly restrict it, the pastor can hear confessions throughout the whole diocese." Therefore in practice let the diocesan Statutes and Letters by which faculties are granted be carefully read.

But whether today they can delegate other priests to hear confessions in their parish we shall consider below (n. 392).

389. Ordinary jurisdiction begins with the possession of the benefice or office, and ceases with its loss. For, as was said, it is attached to the office itself. Now an office is lost by resignation, privation, removal, transfer, the lapse of a predefined time,³ and, after a condemnatory or declaratory sentence, by excommunication, suspension from office, or interdict.⁴

³ Code, c. 183.

⁴ Code, c. 873, § 3.

390. 1° Its nature. Delegated jurisdiction differs from ordinary jurisdiction especially in two things: (a) he who possesses ordinary jurisdiction exercises it by his own right and name, whereas the delegate acts in the name and by the right of the principal, from whom he received jurisdiction; (b) ordinary jurisdiction is exercised validly over subjects everywhere in the world, without new approval, whereas delegated jurisdiction cannot be exercised outside the territory for which it was granted.

391. 2° On the right of granting delegated jurisdiction. (A) In general the Code (can. 199) establishes these things concerning the power of delegating and subdelegating. "He who has ordinary power of jurisdiction can delegate it to another in whole or in part, unless something else is expressly provided by law. - Even power of jurisdiction delegated by the Apostolic See can be subdelegated either for an act, or even habitually, unless the industry of the person has been chosen or subdelegation prohibited. - Power delegated for the universality of affairs by one who below the Roman Pontiff has ordinary power can be subdelegated in individual cases. - In other cases delegated power of jurisdiction can be subdelegated only by an expressly made concession; but delegated judges can subdelegate some non-jurisdictional article even without an express commission. - No subdelegated power can again be subdelegated, unless this has been expressly granted."

(B) With respect to the penitential forum: (a) the Supreme Pontiff can delegate for the whole Church. Moreover, those who are delegated by the Supreme Pontiff, even in a transitory manner, for example, apostolic delegates who are deputed for carrying out some mission for a time, can subdelegate others either for an act, or even habitually. (b) The Ordinary of the place in which confessions are received (under which name come the vicar general, Administrator, Vicar and Apostolic Prefect, and likewise those who, when the aforesaid are lacking, meanwhile succeed in the governance according to the prescription of law) can delegate priests, both secular and regular, in his territory, as is clear from can. 874: "The Ordinary of the place in which confessions are received confers delegated jurisdiction for receiving the confessions of any persons, whether secular or religious, upon priests, both secular and religious, even exempt..." (c) The penitentiary canon, although his jurisdiction is ordinary, does not enjoy the faculty of delegating (Codex, c. 401).

392. (d) Hence, once the Code had been promulgated, a controversy arose concerning the power of delegating belonging to pastors. 1) Some thought that pastors could, at least in urgent cases, delegate other priests to hear the confessions of their subjects, by force of the general principle that those having ordinary power can delegate it. 2) But the Pontifical Commission for authentically interpreting the Canons of the Code, on 16 Oct. 1919, declared that pastors, vicars of pastors, or other priests delegated for the universality of cases cannot delegate to secular or regular priests jurisdiction for receiving confessions, nor extend beyond the circumscribed limits jurisdiction to those already approved, but need for this a special faculty or mandate of the Ordinary of the place. And deservedly; for the Code designates no one except the Ordinary of the place as the source from which delegation is to be received, and positively denies this faculty of delegating to the penitentiary canon; hence by being silent about the pastor, it denies him the same faculty; - moreover, already for three centuries, the whole jurisprudence tends to this, that the Ordinary of the place be constituted, for seculars, the sole source of delegated jurisdiction.¹

¹ J. Creusen and A. Vermeersch, Summula novi juris, 1918, n. 346; A. Boudinhon, Rev. du cl. fr., 15 Apr. 1919, p. 96, and 1 July 1919, p. 73.

In practice, however, there is scarcely any difficulty; for Bishops are accustomed to grant to pastors living within the limits of the diocese the faculty of calling pastors exercising ministry in contiguous places of their diocese and of conferring jurisdiction on them; moreover recourse to the Bishop is easy today.

393. 3° On the various modes of delegating jurisdiction. Delegated jurisdiction can be acquired in two ways: from man and from law.

(A) From man, or from a Superior having ordinary jurisdiction, or from a delegate who can subdelegate. But this delegation must be received from the Ordinary of the place in which absolution is given, not from the Ordinary of the penitent or of the delegate.²

² Code, c. 874, § 1.

So that jurisdiction may validly be obtained, (a) there is required an express concession, whether in writing or by words, and a presumed one does not suffice; (b) this concession must be free, and not extorted by force or threats;³ (c) nor does it suffice to write to request jurisdiction, but the response of the one delegating must be received, in whatever way transmitted, directly or through another.

³ According to all, it is illicit to extort jurisdiction by grave fear, and most Canonists hold that jurisdiction thus extorted is invalid; thus Reiffenstuel, l. I Decret., tit. 40, n. 62; Schmalzgrueber, ibid., n. 19; De Angelis, ibid., n. 6. - Yet some doubt concerning this, such as Pirhing, n. 33; Lacroix, n. 1554. Cf. c. 103. - There will usually be no difficulty in practice, since the Church supplies jurisdiction in the case of common error and speculative doubt, as will be explained below.

But the Superior can grant jurisdiction in a twofold manner: directly, when he commits the power of absolving to the priest himself; indirectly, when the faculty of choosing any priest as confessor is granted to the penitent.¹

¹ Thus, at the time of a Jubilee, the Supreme Pontiff generally grants to seculars and regulars the faculty of choosing a confessor for themselves.

394. (B) From law, or from the Code: (a) Cardinals and Bishops, whether residential or titular, from the accepted authentic notice of canonical provision having been completed, can choose for themselves and their families a priest for receiving confessions; if he lacks jurisdiction, he obtains it by the law itself, even with respect to reserved sins and censures also, with the sole exception of censures reserved to the Apostolic See in the most special manner and those which are attached to the revelation of the secret of the Holy Office.²

² Code, c. 239 and 349.

(b) Any priests undertaking an overseas journey, provided they have from their own Ordinary, or from the Ordinary of the port, whether initial or intermediate, the faculty of receiving confessions, can during the whole journey validly and licitly absolve both the faithful sailing with them, and the faithful who for any reason come to the ship, and those who, when they themselves call at land in passing, ask to confess to them, and can validly and licitly absolve them even from cases reserved to the Ordinary of the place.³

³ Code, c. 883.

395. (c) "All priests of either clergy approved for hearing confessions in some place, furnished with either ordinary or delegated jurisdiction, can also validly and licitly absolve vagi and travelers from another diocese or parish approaching them, and likewise Catholics of any Oriental rite."⁴

⁴ Code, c. 881.

(d) Chaplains of soldiers can hear the confessions of soldiers even outside the diocese of the approving Bishop, when the soldiers are in camp or on a journey; during war they receive very ample faculties not only with respect to soldiers, but also with respect to the faithful of the regions in which they accompany the army.⁵

⁵ Thus, for example, the Sacred Penitentiary, 18 Dec. 1914 (A. A. S., VI, 712), granted to chaplains of soldiers that, while they accompany the army, they may receive the confessions of any faithful approaching them and use in their favor the faculties granted to them for the forum of conscience.

396. Delegated jurisdiction begins at that instant at which its concession, authentically delegated in writing or by words, becomes known.

397. But it ceases: by revocation by the one delegating directly intimated to the delegate, or by resignation of the delegate directly intimated to the one delegating and accepted by the same;¹ but it cannot be revoked without grave cause;² by completion of the mandate, lapse of the time, or exhaustion of the number of cases for which it was granted;³ nevertheless, for the internal forum, an act placed through inadvertence after the time has elapsed or after the number of cases has been exhausted is valid;⁴ moreover, if some confession has been begun, jurisdiction endures until the penitent is absolved; when the final cause of the delegation ceases;⁵ sometimes by the death of the one delegating or by his cessation from office, namely when the delegation was made for a particular case and the confession has not yet begun; but not when it is granted until revocation (which commonly occurs), or until the good pleasure of the see.

¹ Code, c. 207.

² Code, c. 880.

³ Code, c. 207.

⁴ Code, c. 207.

⁵ Code, c. 207.

398. When jurisdiction is lacking, whether ordinary or delegated, the Church can supply it; indeed it cannot supply that which is not subject to its authority, for example, a defect of matter or form in the sacraments; but since jurisdiction is subject to its power, it can provide it extraordinarily, when it was not regularly conferred. This jurisdiction which the Church supplies differs from ordinary or delegated jurisdiction in this, that it is conferred only in the very act of confession and afterward is extinguished, whereas the other is given before confession and remains after absolution.

⁶ Suarez, disp. XXVI, sect. 4 and 6; Lugo, disp. XVIII, n. 15-40 and disp. XIX, n. 28-35; Salmantic., cap. 11, n. 72-77; Lacroix, 1548, 1559; Billuart, diss. VI, a. 4; St. Alphonsus, n. 560-563 and n. 571-574; Muller, § 137; Lehmk., n. 387-392; Haine, q. 73; Ball. P., n. 591-599 and n. 628-638; Marc, 1753-1756; Genicot, n. 330-332; Noldin, 345-351.

Now there are especially three cases in which the Church in fact supplies jurisdiction: 1° in the article of death; 2° in the case of common error; 3° in the case of probable jurisdiction.

399. Principle: Every priest, even not approved, can validly absolve those who are in the article or danger of death from all censures and sins. It is certain.

1° The principle, insofar as it is certain, is proved by this declaration of Trent:¹ "Very piously, lest anyone perish on this very occasion, it has always been preserved in the same Church of God, that there be no reservation in the article of death; and therefore all priests can absolve any penitents from any sins and censures."

¹ Sess. XIV, ch. 7.

The Council was speaking of the article of death; but the Code speaks more precisely: "In danger of death all priests, although not approved for confessions, validly and licitly absolve any penitents from any sins or censures, however reserved and notorious, even if an approved priest is present."² Now such danger is judged to be present when it is prudently feared that death may shortly occur, for example, in grave sickness, a difficult surgical operation, laborious childbirth, on a long and dangerous voyage, etc.

² Code, c. 882.

(a) It is said "all priests"; by these words, as being most ample, any priest is signified, even one not approved, irregular, suspended, excommunicated even as one to be avoided, schismatic, heretic, apostate, provided he is truly marked with the priestly character.

(b) It is said "from any sins and censures," because in danger of death every reservation ceases, lest anyone perish on this occasion. Yet if someone, bound by a censure reserved in the most special manner to the Supreme Pontiff, afterward recovers, he must recur to the Sacred Penitentiary or to the Bishop or another endowed with the faculty; but if he was absolved from a censure ab homine, he must, under penalty of falling back into it, recur to him who imposed the censure.³

³ Code, c. 2252.

400. 2° Formerly it was controverted whether, in the article of death, a priest not approved validly absolved if an approved priest was present or could be present. But now the matter has been decided from the Code, in the canon cited.

401. "In common error or in a positive and probable doubt, whether of law or of fact, the Church supplies jurisdiction for both the external and internal forum (can. 209)."

By force of this canon, a colored title is no longer required with common error, and therefore all the difficulties previously raised concerning this title vanish.

But a priest who absolves outside the case of necessity, certainly knowing that he lacks a true title of jurisdiction, or jurisdiction legitimately conferred by a competent superior, sins gravely and indeed incurs suspension.¹

¹ Code, c. 2366.

But error is common when the confessor is judged by most of the faithful of some place to have jurisdiction; it is private when he is thought by only a few to possess it.

402. By right and deservedly the Church wishes to provide for the common utility; but when the error is private, it does not supply jurisdiction, because the utility of a few is not a sufficient reason for departing from the general rules; moreover he who has been thus deceived can be instructed by others, and thus correct the defect admitted.

403. Speculatively probable jurisdiction is present when, antecedently to confession, a priest, according to an interpretation of the law which is not certain but truly probable, or with a positive doubt of law, enjoys jurisdiction in the case.

404. Now in this case the confessor acts validly, because the Church certainly supplies jurisdiction, if it is truly lacking, from c. 209 of the Code.

Indeed the priest who absolves with probable jurisdiction acts licitly, at least when a grave reason is present, as St. Alphonsus says (n. 573): for the Church willingly supplies jurisdiction when a just cause is present; but it is not judged to wish confessors to rely on probable jurisdiction without a reasonable cause. - Yet not a few, with Lugo and Ballerini,² think this is licit even without a special reason, since it is certain that in this case jurisdiction is supplied; and this opinion is truly probable.

² Lugo, disp. XIX, n. 30; Ballerini P., n. 631-635; on the contrary, cf. Vindic. Alphons., p. 485-501.

405. 2° But doubtful jurisdiction is that whose uncertainty depends upon a fact, for example, when there is doubt whether jurisdiction was granted by the Superior, whether it still endures or has expired, whether such a censure is reserved or not. Now even in this case the Church supplies jurisdiction, from the same canon 209; but it is not licit to use this without a grave reason.

On this matter we set forth the rules of the Code.

¹ The matter concerns both religious of simple vows and religious of Orders, or regulars. Cf. Code, c. 488, 804.

406. (A) Religious, even exempt, receive jurisdiction for receiving the confessions of seculars or religious from the Ordinary of the place in which the confessions are heard; but they cannot use the same without at least the presumed permission of their own superior. Moreover, Ordinaries are not to grant jurisdiction habitually except to religious presented by their own superior, nor are they to deny it without grave cause to those who are presented by the superior; nevertheless this ought not to be done without a previous examination by which they have been found suitable, except in the case of a priest whose theological doctrine has been ascertained from another source.²

² Code, c. 874, 877.

407. In an exempt clerical religion, for receiving the confessions of the professed, of novices, or of others dwelling day and night in the religious house by reason of service, education, hospitality, or infirm health, delegated jurisdiction is also conferred by their own Superior according to the norm of the constitutions; and it is lawful for him to grant it even to priests from the secular clergy or from another religion.³

³ Code, c. 875, § 1.

408. In an exempt lay religion, the Superior proposes the confessor, who nevertheless must obtain jurisdiction from the Ordinary of the place in which the religious house is found.⁴

⁴ Code, c. 875, § 2.

409. With regard to novitiates and Seminaries this restriction is to be noted: "The master of novices and his associate, the superior of a Seminary or college, are not to hear the sacramental confessions of their pupils living with them in the same house, unless the pupils, from a grave and urgent cause, in particular cases spontaneously ask it."⁵ Likewise religious Superiors can, the things to be observed by law having been observed, hear the confessions of subjects who ask this of them spontaneously and of their own accord; but they are not to do this habitually without grave cause.⁶ Indeed, "all religious superiors are strictly forbidden to induce persons subject to them in any way to make a manifestation of conscience to them. Subjects, however, are not so prohibited that they cannot freely and of their own accord open their soul to superiors."⁷

⁵ Code, c. 891.

⁶ Code, c. 518, § 2.

⁷ Code, c. 530.

410. (B) On the absolution of Regulars themselves. (a) In the several houses of a clerical religion, several confessors legitimately approved should be deputed, with the power of absolving even from cases reserved in the religion.⁸

⁸ Code, c. 518, § 1.

411. (b) A religious, even an exempt one, for the quiet of his conscience, can approach a confessor approved by the Ordinary of the place, even if he is not numbered among those designated; and the confessor can absolve any religious even from sins and censures reserved in the religion.¹

¹ Code, c. 519.

412. (c) Also in lay religions of men an ordinary and an extraordinary confessor should be deputed; and if a religious requests some special confessor, the superior should grant him, in no way inquiring into the reason for the petition, nor showing that he bears it with displeasure.²

² Code, c. 528.

413. Religious women are of two kinds: some emit solemn vows and are called nuns; others emit simple vows and are called sisters.³ A twofold confessor is assigned to both: ordinary and extraordinary.

³ Code, c. 488, n. 7.

414. (A) On the ordinary confessor of religious women. (a) The necessity of special jurisdiction is asserted in this way in the Code:⁴ "Any contrary particular law or privilege being revoked, priests, whether secular or religious, of whatever grade or office, need peculiar jurisdiction in order validly and licitly to receive the confessions of any religious women and novices... This jurisdiction is conferred by the Ordinary of the place where the house of the religious women is situated."

⁴ Code, c. 876.

415. (b) The unity of the confessor is declared in this way: "For each house of religious women only one ordinary confessor is to be given, who is to receive the sacramental confessions of the whole community, unless because of their great number or for another just cause there is need of another or of several."⁵

⁵ Code, c. 520, § 1.

416. Nevertheless certain exceptions are given so that the liberty of approaching other confessors may remain secure in certain circumstances: (a) "if any religious woman, for the quiet of her soul and for greater progress in the way of God, asks for some special confessor or spiritual director, the Ordinary should easily grant him, but should watch lest abuses creep in from this concession; and if they creep in, he should cautiously and prudently eliminate them, the liberty of conscience being preserved."⁶ (b) All religious women, when they are gravely sick, even though danger of death is absent, can call any priest approved for receiving the confessions of women, even if he is not designated for religious women, and during the continuance of the grave illness can confess to him as often as they wish; nor can the Superior forbid them either directly or indirectly.¹ (c) From can. 522, for the tranquility of her conscience, a religious woman can approach any confessor approved for women; and from the decision of the Pontifical Commission (24 Nov. 1920), that confession is licit and valid, provided it is made in a church or even semi-public oratory, or in a place legitimately designated for hearing the confessions of women, and therefore in the chapel itself of the community.

⁶ Code, ibidem, § 2.

¹ Code, c. 523.

417. (c) The conferring of jurisdiction is thus determined: 1) "If the house of religious women is immediately subject to the Apostolic See or to the Ordinary of the place, he chooses the priests for confessions, both ordinary and extraordinary; if it is subject to a regular Superior, he presents the confessors to the Ordinary, to whom it belongs to approve them for hearing the confessions of those nuns, and, if there is need, to supply for the negligence of the superior."²

² Code, c. 525.

418. 2. "The ordinary confessor of religious women is not to exercise his office beyond a three-year period; nevertheless the Ordinary can confirm him for a second, indeed even for a third three-year period, if either, on account of a scarcity of priests suitable for this office, he cannot provide otherwise, or the greater part of the religious women, including those who in other affairs do not have the right of casting a vote, have agreed, by secret votes, to the confirmation of the same confessor; nevertheless for those dissenting, if they wish, provision must be made otherwise."³

³ Code, c. 526.

419. (B) On the extraordinary confessor. According to the Code:⁴ (a) an extraordinary confessor is to be given to each community of religious women, who should come to the religious house at least four times in the year, and to whom all the religious women must present themselves, at least to receive a blessing; (b) besides, Ordinaries should designate several priests for the individual houses, to whom they can easily have recourse for the sacrament of penance in particular cases, without its being necessary to approach the Ordinary himself each time; (c) if any religious woman requests one of these confessors, no Superior may, by herself or through others, directly or indirectly, inquire into the reason for the petition, oppose the petition by words or deeds, or show in any way that she bears it with displeasure. But a Superior who has acted contrary to these prescriptions is to be warned by the Ordinary of the place; if she offends again, she is to be punished by him with privation of office, the Sacred Congregation of Religious nevertheless being immediately informed.⁵

⁴ Code, c. 521.

⁵ Code, c. 2414.

420. (C) On those things which pertain to both confessors. (a) With regard to the required qualities, "for the office of confessor of religious women, both ordinary and extraordinary, priests are to be deputed, whether from the secular clergy or religious with the permission of Superiors, outstanding in integrity of morals and prudence; they are moreover to be forty years of age, unless, in the judgment of the Ordinary, a just cause demands otherwise, and are to have no power in the external forum over the same religious women."¹

¹ Code, c. 524, § 1.

421. (b) With regard to a new deputation: An ordinary confessor cannot be appointed extraordinary, nor, apart from the cases reviewed above, be deputed again as ordinary in the same community, unless after a year from the completed office; but an extraordinary confessor can immediately be appointed as ordinary.²

² Ibid., § 2.

422. (c) With regard to the governance of the community, the confessors of religious women, both ordinary and extraordinary, are in no way to mix themselves into the internal or external governance of the community.³

³ Ibid., § 3.

423. (d) With regard to the removal of confessors, "the Ordinary of the place can, for a grave cause, remove the confessor of religious women, both ordinary and extraordinary, even if the monastery is subject to regulars and the priest himself for confessions is a regular; nor is he bound to indicate the cause of removal to anyone, except to the Apostolic See, if it is required by it; but concerning the removal he must warn the regular Superior, if the nuns are subject to Regulars."⁴

⁴ Code, c. 527.

424. Preliminary notes. 1° Jurisdiction can be limited in various ways by legitimate superiors, but especially by the Roman Pontiff, who has supreme jurisdiction in the whole Church. For ecclesiastical superiors can grant it, or not; therefore a fortiori they can confer it in a more or less limited manner, according as they shall judge this expedient in the Lord. Hence jurisdiction can be limited with respect to men, insofar as the faculty of absolving is restricted to certain men or classes of men, for example, when it is said, women or nuns excepted; with respect to place, for example, within the limits of one parish; with respect to time, so that when a certain time has elapsed it expires; with respect to sins, insofar as the superior can reserve to himself absolution from certain graver sins. Concerning this Trent says (ch. 7): "It has seemed to our most holy Fathers to pertain greatly to the discipline of the Christian people, that certain more atrocious and graver crimes should be absolved not by anyone whatsoever, but only by the highest priests; whence deservedly the Supreme Pontiffs, according to the supreme authority handed down to them in the universal Church, have been able to reserve to their own particular judgment some graver causes of crimes."

⁵ Suarez, disp. XXIX-XXXI; Lugo, disp. XX; Salmantic., ch. 13; Lacroix, n. 1599-1698; Pauwels, de Casibus reservatis, in Migne, Theol. Curs., t. XVIII, p. 935-1604; Stoz, lib. II, Appendix; Elbel-Bierbaum, Conf. 13-14; St. Alphonsus, n. 578-602; Kenrick, n. 153-180; Ball. P., Appendix to t. V, De casuum reservatione; Bucceroni, Commentarii de casibus reservatis, Rome, 1889; Lehmk., n. 402-417; Marc, n. 1766-1779; Muller, § 141-145; Konings., n. 1400-1403; Genicot, n. 342-350; Noldin, n. 361-376; Legoux, Supplementum de Casibus reservatis, at the end of the work whose title is: Decrets du C. de Rouen et Statuts Synodaux, Coutances, 1890, p. 105-126.

425. 2° When jurisdiction is limited with respect to sins, there is present a reserved case, which can be defined as a sin whose absolution is not permitted to any confessor, but remains with the legitimate Superior or his delegate. Therefore reservation consists in this, that the power of absolving from certain graver sins is denied to some priest, while the faculty of absolving from the rest is granted; directly, therefore, it affects the confessor, by restricting his power, and only indirectly the penitent.

426. 3° Sins can be reserved in a twofold manner: with censure and without censure.¹ The former likewise are reserved in a twofold manner: because of the censure, when the censure rather than the sin is reserved, and thence, once the censure has been removed, the sin can be remitted by any confessor; or because of the sin, when the sin itself is reserved because of itself, and, the censure having been removed or not incurred, the sin remains reserved,² and because of sin. This distinction must be kept before the mind especially where absolution from censures is treated.

¹ A censure, which is treated in a special Treatise, is a spiritual and medicinal penalty by which a baptized man, delinquent and contumacious, is deprived by ecclesiastical Superiors of the use of certain spiritual goods. Three kinds are distinguished: excommunication, suspension, and interdict.

² These notions are according to the mind of the Code. Cf. can. 894 and 2363.

427. These things having been set down, we shall speak 1° on the power of reserving; 2° on the conditions required for reserving; 3° on the principal reserved cases; 4° on absolution from reserved cases.

428. 1° The existence of this power. It is of faith, from Trent,¹ that Bishops have the power of reserving cases to themselves, not only with respect to external polity, but also before God: "If anyone shall have said that Bishops do not have the right of reserving cases to themselves except with respect to external polity, and therefore that the reservation of cases does not prohibit a priest from truly absolving from reserved cases: let him be anathema." - This is also clear from the Code, c. 893, cited below, n. 429.

¹ Sess. XIV, ch. 11.

Moreover, the end on account of which cases are reserved is twofold: (a) penal, that graver delicts may be punished more gravely, while delinquents are compelled to appear before a higher judge and to receive from him a more difficult penance; (b) medicinal, both because the difficulty of obtaining absolution from reserved sins more strongly deters, and because ecclesiastical Superiors, as being more learned and prudent, are judged more suitable for curing graver spiritual diseases. Today, however, this latter end is rarely attained, since delinquents are for the most part absolved by ordinary confessors, who obtain from Superiors the faculty of absolving from reserved cases.

429. 2° On those who can reserve sins. The power of reserving belongs to all those who by ordinary right can grant the power of hearing confessions or impose censures. It is certain from the Code: "Those who by ordinary right can grant the power of hearing confessions or impose censures can also, with the exception of the Capitular Vicar and the vicar general without a special mandate, call some cases to their own judgment, limiting the power of absolving in inferiors. This calling is called the reservation of cases."² Hence (A) the Supreme Pontiff can reserve cases for the whole Church; for since he possesses supreme power over the universal Church, he can call greater causes to his own tribunal for both forums, and consequently withdraw them from the judgment of bishops, as was said in the Treatise on the Church, n. 199-202.

² Code, c. 893, § 1.

430. (B) Bishops can reserve cases to themselves for their dioceses, but "they are not to reserve sins unless, after the matter has 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 shall have been established."¹

¹ Code, c. 895. Benedict XIV had already wisely given these rules, De Synodo dioeces., lib. V, ch. 45: (a) It is fitting that Bishops not use the faculty of reserving cases except in Synod, although they can exercise it whenever they wish; for they will act more cautiously if they bring into counsel upright priests taught by long experience. (b) They ought not be too facile in multiplying reservations; but they should reserve to themselves only the more atrocious and graver crimes, ten or twelve at most; otherwise they will render confession odious. (c) Sins which are frequently committed, even if they are carnal, are not to be reserved except with great circumspection, on account of the danger of infamy which is incurred by those who are often compelled to approach extraordinary confessors, or to return several times to ordinary confessors. (d) Merely internal sins, however grave, are never to be reserved. (e) Sins already reserved to the Supreme Pontiff they should not superfluously reserve to themselves.

(C) "Among the superiors of an exempt clerical religion, only the Superior general, and in monasteries of their own right the Abbot with the proper council of each, can reserve the sins of subjects."²

² Code, c. 896.

(D) Pastors, of themselves, could reserve cases for their own parish; but today, since in fact they do not confer jurisdiction, they cannot limit it.

431. 1° In order that some sin may be subject to reservation, it must be clothed with four conditions; it is required that it be:

(A) Mortal, not only by reason of the object, but also by reason of the subject, that is, committed with full advertence and full consent; for venial sins would be reserved in vain, since there is no obligation to confess them. - Besides, the sinner must know the special malice on account of which the sin is reserved; for example, if incest in the second degree is reserved, the reservation is not incurred by one who sins with a blood relative, if he does not know that incest in this degree differs specifically from simple fornication; yet such ignorance is not easily to be supposed.

(B) External as well as internal; for although the Church could reserve internal sins, since here there is question of the internal forum, it has not been accustomed to do this, lest occasion be given to anxieties, which often occur concerning thoughts, namely whether one has consented to them or not. Indeed, according to the common opinion, the external action must be grave according to itself; therefore if it were light, although the internal act were a grave sin, the reservation would not be incurred; for example, if someone, intending gravely to strike a cleric, lightly touched him. - Nevertheless, it is not necessary that the sin be public, or that it have come to the knowledge of anyone; it is enough that it be committed externally, although secretly.

432. (C) Complete, or consummated in the species which is reserved; for reservation, as penal and odious, must be restricted. Hence where homicide is reserved, the mere attempted crime (by inflicting a wound or offering poison) does not suffice, but it is required that death follow. Nevertheless, an exception is made if this attempt itself is reserved; for example, not only those perpetrating a duel, but also those provoking to it, fall into the reserved case.

(D) Certain, that is, certainly reserved, certainly committed, and certainly mortal; hence if there is serious doubt whether the reserving law extends itself to this case, or whether the sin was really committed, or whether it is grave subjectively or objectively, the reservation is not incurred: for odious things must be restricted.

433. 2° Formerly it was disputed whether or not the impubes - that is, males before the fourteenth year, females before the twelfth - incur reservation. Now it appears evidently to be the mind of the Code that the sins of the impubes are not reserved.¹

¹ Can. 897 and 2230.

434. 3° Whether ignorance excuses from reservation.

(A) If the sin is reserved because of a censure, it is commonly held that neither the censure nor the reservation is incurred by those who are ignorant of the censure, provided this ignorance is not crass or supine;² but it is incurred by those who know the censure, although they are ignorant of the reservation of the censure.

² Code, c. 2229, § 3, n. 1.

435. (B) If the sin is reserved because of itself, the difficulty increases. (a) Some affirm that the reservation is not incurred,³ because reservation is a medicinal penalty, established for deterring men from certain graver sins; but he who is ignorant of the reservation is not deterred from these sins; therefore for him the end of the reservation ceases, and consequently the reservation itself. - These, however, admit that the penitent who has committed a reserved sin is regularly to be warned about the reservation, so that in the future he may be deterred from this sin. (b) But the more common opinion holds, with St. Alphonsus (n. 581), that reservation is incurred even by those who are ignorant; for reservation is not directly a penalty regarding penitents, but a restriction of jurisdiction regarding confessors; hence priests can do nothing in reserved sins, because they lack jurisdiction over them. - In practice: if there is question of a papal case, it is probable that the will of the Supreme Pontiff is that those who are ignorant do not incur the reservation; for Benedict XIV, in the Constitution Sacramentum Poenitentiae, reserving the sin of false denunciation, did this "so that such wicked boldness and such detestable crime may be restrained by fear of the magnitude of the penalty"; and indeed these words signify that the reservation is penal and medicinal, and therefore is not incurred by those who are ignorant. - But if there is question of an episcopal case, many Bishops have declared that ignorance does not excuse from reservation, while a few others have signified that it does excuse. Therefore their intention in each diocese should be diligently inquired into.

³ Salmantic., Tr. XVIII, ch. 6, n. 12; Ball. P., n. 727 sq.; Noldin, n. 369.

436. 4° On the conditions to be observed in reservation. 1) "The cases to be reserved should be altogether few, namely three or, at most, four, from only the graver and more atrocious external crimes specifically determined"; 2) "the reservation itself is not to remain in force longer than is necessary for rooting out some public, established vice and for restoring Christian discipline which perhaps has collapsed";¹ 3) "all are to abstain entirely from reserving to themselves those sins which already are reserved to the Apostolic See even by reason of a censure, and regularly also those to which a censure, although reserved to no one, has been attached by law";² 4) "once reservations have been established which they have judged truly necessary or useful, the Ordinaries of places should take care that these same reservations be brought to the knowledge of subjects in whatever way seems better to them, and that they not grant to anyone and indiscriminately the faculty of absolving from reserved cases."³

¹ Code, c. 897.

² Code, c. 898.

³ Code, c. 899.

Reserved cases are distinguished into three kinds: papal, episcopal, and regular, according as they are reserved to the Pope, to the Bishop, or to a regular Superior.

436. 1° Papal cases are of two kinds: some are reserved because of censure, and these are treated in the Treatise on Censures; but one is reserved because of itself,¹ namely the calumnious denunciation of a confessor concerning the crime of solicitation, when, that is, someone falsely accuses an innocent confessor before ecclesiastical judges as guilty of solicitation to shameful things, whether by himself or through another.

¹ Code, c. 894. - Cf. Benedict XIV, Constit. Sacram. Poenitentiae. - In order that the case be reserved, the false denunciation must be canonical, or before ecclesiastical judges; if it is made before others, it is reserved only because of the annexed censure.

This case is so reserved that even those who obtain the power of absolving from cases specially reserved to the Roman Pontiff cannot absolve from it unless they are expressly enumerated in the concession; hence it can be called most specially reserved.

437. 2° Episcopal cases are of two kinds: (A) some are reserved to the Bishop by common law, by reason of censure; and these are six, reviewed in the Code.

(a) Those professed of perpetual simple vows, and likewise all presuming to contract marriage, even only civilly, with some person from the aforesaid persons; (b) those procuring abortion, the effect having followed; (c) for the four others see the Treatise on Censures.

(B) Others are reserved to the Bishop by particular law, whether through plenary or provincial Councils, or through diocesan Statutes; these therefore it is fitting to read attentively, so that each one may know excellently which cases are reserved in his own proper diocese.

In the United States of America two cases are reserved to the Bishop for all dioceses, namely an excommunication latae sententiae (a) against those who, after they have obtained a civil divorce, have dared to attempt marriage; (b) against Catholics who have contracted or attempted marriage before a minister of any non-Catholic sect.¹ Besides, in individual dioceses certain special cases are reserved; concerning these, read the Statutes.²

¹ Thus in the Plenary Council of Baltimore III, n. 124 and 127.

² Thus, for example, in the dioceses of Trenton and Wilmington, priests are suspended ipso facto, by a suspension reserved to the Ordinary, if they shall have retained for three months the title of ecclesiastical goods in their own name; or if without the license of the Bishop they shall have attempted to sell any thing belonging to the legal ecclesiastical Society (Church corporation). (Synod. Trenton., n. 327; Synod. Wilmingt., n. 259).

3° Regular cases are assigned in each religion. But concerning these there is no reason why we should be anxious, since every confessor can absolve religious from them (Code, c. 519).

438. From cases reserved to the Bishop, the following can absolve:

(a) by ordinary power, the one reserving, his successor in office, or his superior, provided he has true jurisdiction over the subjects of the one reserving (for example, the Supreme Pontiff); for all these can reserve, therefore also absolve from reserved cases, since the same power suffices for removing and for establishing a reservation.

439. (b) By delegated power, all those who have obtained this special faculty from a legitimate Superior, namely from him who can delegate. Now these things are established in the Code.³

³ Code, c. 899-900.

440. 1. With regard to reserved sins: "The faculty of absolving from reserved cases belongs by the law itself to the penitentiary canon"; "it should be granted habitually at least to vicars forane, with the added faculty, especially in places of the diocese more remote from the episcopal see, of subdelegating, as often as confessors of their district, if and when they have recourse to them for some more urgent determined case"; "by the law itself, from cases which Ordinaries in any way have reserved to themselves, both pastors, or others who in law are considered in the name of pastors, can absolve during the whole time useful for fulfilling the Easter precept, and also individual missionaries at the time when missions happen to be held for the people"; "any reservation lacks all force: when the confession is being made either by the sick who cannot leave the house, or by spouses for the purpose of entering marriage; - whenever either the legitimate Superior has denied the faculty of absolving sought 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 violating the sacramental seal; - outside the territory of the one reserving, even if the penitent departed from it only to obtain absolution."

441. 2. With regard to reserved censures: "the reservation of a censure in a particular territory does not exercise its force outside the boundaries of that territory, even if the censured person leaves the territory to obtain absolution; but a censure ab homine is reserved everywhere, so that the censured person can be absolved nowhere without the due faculties."¹

¹ Code, c. 2247, § 2.

442. 3. Besides, in the article and danger of death, any priest can absolve from all reserved cases.² Nevertheless there remains the obligation, for the penitent if he recovers, of recurring to the Superior, at least in the case of a censure ab homine.

² Code, c. 882.

443. 4. "In more urgent cases,³ if namely censures latae sententiae cannot be externally observed without danger of grave scandal or infamy, or if it would be hard for the penitent to remain in the state of grave sin for the time necessary for the competent Superior to provide, then any confessor in the sacramental forum can absolve from the same, however reserved, with the burden imposed of recurring, under penalty of reincidence, within a month at least by letter and through the confessor, if this can be done without grave inconvenience, the name having been withheld, to the Sacred Penitentiary⁴ or to the Bishop or another Superior furnished with the faculty, and of standing by his mandates. - Nothing prevents the penitent, even after the absolution has been accepted as above, and even after recourse has been made to the Superior, from approaching another confessor furnished with the faculty, and from him, after the confession at least of the delict with the censure has been repeated, obtaining absolution; when it has been obtained, he receives the mandates from the same, and is not afterward bound to stand by other mandates arriving from the Superior. - But if in some extraordinary case this recourse is morally impossible, then the confessor himself (except in the case in which the censured person was one absolving an accomplice) can grant absolution without the burden mentioned above, nevertheless imposing the things to be imposed by law, and imposing a fitting penance and satisfaction for the censure, so that the penitent, unless within a fitting time to be fixed by the confessor he shall have performed the penance and given satisfaction, falls back into the censure."¹

³ Under the new legislation, a more urgent case for a reserved sin without censure can scarcely, or indeed hardly at all, occur. Cf. Code, c. 899, § 2.

⁴ The confessor can use this or a similar form when he writes to the Major Penitentiary: - Most Eminent Prince, Titius has contracted a censure reserved in a special manner or simply reserved (here the cause of the censure is described, for example, because of the reading of books defending heresy, or because of enrollment in the Masonic sect, etc.). Since he could not approach a confessor furnished with the due faculties, nor be dismissed without absolution, and otherwise seemed rightly disposed, he received absolution from me. But in order to obey the decrees of the Church, by these letters through me, the undersigned confessor, he has recourse to the Holy See, ready to receive mandates and to fulfill the penance which Your Eminence will deign to prescribe as a penalty for the delict.

Reverently kissing the hands of Your Eminence, with the greatest devotion by which it is fitting, I remain,

Your Eminence's most obedient and most humble servant,

N. N.

Let it be clearly indicated to whom and in what place the response is to be directed. The letters are to be furnished with a seal, and thus inscribed externally (in the vernacular language, lest curiosity be excited): To the Most Eminent and Most Reverend Lord Cardinal Major Penitentiary, - Palazzo della Cancelleria Apostolica, Rome.

¹ Code, c. 2254.

444. From these cases the following can absolve: 1) by ordinary power, both the Supreme Pontiff and the Major Penitentiary; 2) by delegated power, Bishops and priests delegated by the Holy See, or by another Superior having the faculty of subdelegating: "From a censure reserved to the Apostolic See, these and others can absolve who have obtained from it the power of absolving, whether general, if the censure is simply reserved, or special, if it is reserved in a special manner, or finally most special, if it is reserved in a most special manner."² Thus delegation is always required also for absolving from a sin reserved to the Apostolic See without censure.

² Code, c. 2253, § 3.

445. 3. Those who, placed in danger of death, have received from a priest lacking a special faculty absolution from some censure reserved in the most special manner to the Apostolic See, are bound, after they have recovered, within a month, by the obligation of recurring, under penalty of reincidence, to the Sacred Penitentiary or to the Bishop or another furnished with the faculty, and of obeying their mandates.¹

¹ Code, c. 2252.

446. 4. In more urgent cases, the rule already set forth above concerning episcopal cases, n. 443, is to be followed.

Besides, the faculty of dispensing from all irregularities arising from an occult delict (except, however, that which touches those who have perpetrated voluntary homicide or procured the abortion of a human fetus, and all cooperating persons, and also that which would have been brought to the judicial forum) belongs to any confessor in more urgent occult cases in which the Ordinary cannot be approached and danger of grave harm or infamy is imminent, but only for this, that the penitent may be able licitly to exercise the orders already received.²

² Code, c. 990.

447. (a) When the penitent accuses a reserved sin (reserved by the Pope or by the bishop), the confessor should immediately weigh whether or not all the conditions necessary for incurring the reservation are present. If it is established that the sin is truly reserved, and at the same time the confessor lacks the due faculties, then, unless there is urgency, he should admonish the penitent either to approach the Superior, or to return after a few days, when, namely, the necessary faculties will have been obtained: penitents will generally choose this latter; in which case they can be permitted to declare the other sins.

448. (b) A confessor, lacking special faculties, who knowingly, outside the case of necessity, absolves from reserved sins, sins gravely; nevertheless the absolution is valid if, together with the reserved sins, another sin has been declared: for once a non-reserved sin has been directly remitted, the others are remitted indirectly.

But if this was done through inadvertence or ignorance, and afterward the confessor notices it, he must admonish the penitent about the error committed, if this can easily be done, so that the error may be repaired; otherwise, he should leave him in good faith. - But if the penitent himself afterward knows (which rarely occurs) that he was absolved from a reserved sin only indirectly, he should accuse this sin to a confessor furnished with the special faculty; but he is not bound to repeat the other sins.

With regard to censures: "if a confessor, ignorant of the reservation, absolves the penitent from the censure and the sin, the absolution of the censure is valid, provided it is not a censure ab homine or reserved in the most special manner."¹

¹ Code, c. 2247.

449. (c) "One seeking absolution must indicate all the cases; otherwise the absolution is valid only for the expressed case; but if the absolution, although a particular petition has been made, has been general, it is valid also for those withheld in good faith, except a censure reserved in the most special manner to the Apostolic See, but not for those withheld in bad faith."²

² Code, c. 2249.

(d) Very probably the reservation is removed through an invalid or sacrilegious confession made before a confessor who enjoys the faculty of absolving from reserved cases, provided the reserved sin itself is not withheld; for since the Superior has already judged concerning the reserved case and proposed fitting remedies, the reason for the reservation has ceased. - Say the same probably if the reserved sin, in a non-sacrilegious confession, was omitted through forgetfulness; for the Superior, through indirect absolution, is judged to have removed the reservation.

Nevertheless, according to St. Alphonsus,³ an invalid confession, whether made culpably or inculpably in a jubilee, is excepted, since the Pontiff does not confer the faculty of absolving from reserved cases except so that the faithful may gain the jubilee. But if the confession was valid, although the reserved sin was omitted through forgetfulness, the reservation is removed.⁴

³ Lib. VI, n. 598.

⁴ Cf. Lugo, disp. XX, n. 99.

450. (e) When the faculty of absolving from reserved cases is granted to some confessor, certain conditions are attached, whether general or special.

1. The general conditions are customarily expressed under this formula: the things to be imposed by law having been imposed. Six are numbered: reparation of harm; reparation of scandal; removal of the occasion of sinning; promise concerning the crime not to be perpetrated again; promise of fulfilling the things which the Superior has prescribed or afterward will judge should be prescribed; acceptance of a special penance.

2. But the special conditions are various according to the various cases, and are found in the little document sent by the Superior, which therefore must be diligently read.

(f) No special form is required for absolution from sins reserved without censure. - If there is question of sins reserved with censure, likewise no special form is required, since the customary one contains these words: "from every bond of excommunication, suspension, and interdict." For it is said in the Code: "The absolution of a censure in the sacramental forum is contained in the customary form of the absolution of sins prescribed in the ritual books; in the non-sacramental forum it can be given in any manner whatsoever, but for the absolution of excommunication it is regularly fitting that the form handed down in the same books be used."¹

¹ Code, c. 2250, § 3.

We shall speak: I on his duties with respect to all penitents in general; II on his duties with respect to the various kinds of penitents; III on certain abuses to be avoided.

Preliminary Notes²

² St. Alphonsus, Praxis Confessarii, ch. I; Lehmk., n. 418; Berardi, Praxis, n. 4701; Gaume, Manuel, ch. I; Stang, Pastoral Theol., Bk. II, ch. 4, § 26-28; Aertnys, Theol. Pastoralis, n. 26 sq.

451. 1° The principal function which the confessor exercises in the sacred tribunal is certainly the office of judge: for this follows openly from the fact that the sacrament of Penance must be administered in the manner of a judgment. But because this sacrament was instituted not only for destroying past sins, but also for guarding against future ones, the confessor must also perform the parts of a physician, by suggesting opportune remedies. And since one of human infirmities is ignorance, which can be cured only by salutary doctrine, it is necessary that he discharge the office of teacher, by instructing the ignorant. But these various offices tend to this, that they generate or nourish the spiritual life; and therefore the confessor is truly the spiritual father of penitents, and cannot fruitfully exercise his duties unless he loves them with a paternal affection, adhering to the footsteps of St. Paul, who said concerning the faithful committed to him:³ "My little children, with whom I am again in travail until Christ be formed in you." - "Though we could have been a burden to you as apostles of Christ, yet we became little ones in your midst, as if a nurse should cherish her children."

³ Galat. IV, 19; I Thess. II, 7.

452. 2° But while the confessor exercises his various offices, he must regard three things: (A) the good of the sacrament; namely insofar as, as a faithful minister, he must procure, as far as can be done: (a) the validity of the sacrament, which depends not only upon the correct use of matter and form, but also upon the dispositions of the subject; (b) its integrity, with regard to the accusation of sins and the imposition of satisfaction; (c) its legitimate administration, by observing all those things which are prescribed by the Church, and by taking care that nothing be done by which the sacrament is rendered odious to penitents.

(B) The good of the penitent; for the sacraments are for men. Hence he will assist the penitent, in the best way possible, (a) so that he may confess his sins sincerely and integrally; (b) so that he may detest the same with supernatural hatred, by proposing opportune motives of contrition; (c) so that he may guard against future sins, by prescribing salutary remedies and the means for persevering.

(C) The public good, that is, not only the good of the penitent himself, but also of the other faithful, by guarding, for example, lest the frequent and protracted confession of certain persons, or the granting or denial of absolution, cause some scandal or other evil in the community.

But in order that we may comprehend all these things in an order at once chronological and logical, we shall speak of the duties of the confessor: 1° before the act of confession; 2° in the very act of confession; 3° after confession.

These duties are two: 1° the obligation of hearing confessions; 2° the obligation of preparing oneself for receiving confessions.

An obligation of this kind arises either from justice or from charity.

¹ Suarez, disp. XXXII, sect. 1; Lugo, disp. XXII, n. 1-13; Billuart, diss. VI, a. 10, § 1; Marc, n. 1802-1803; Hilar. Sexten., § 46, p. 404-405.

453. (A) Principle: From justice, pastors and other priests having the care of souls are bound under grave obligation, either by themselves or through others, to hear the confessions of their subjects, as often as these reasonably ask to be heard.² It is certain.

² Code, c. 892, § 1.

For those who take upon themselves the care of souls bind themselves to this by a tacit contract with their subjects, from whom they receive support under the condition of ministering the sacraments; and with the ecclesiastical Superior, who does not commit the care of souls to anyone except under the condition that the duties of this office be faithfully fulfilled: now one of these duties is to hear the confessions of subjects.¹

¹ Cf. Syn. Theol. Dogmat., De Sacramentis, n. 104.

454. Corollaries. (a) In the case of extreme necessity, when, namely, the danger of damnation is imminent, for example, if someone near death is in mortal sin and has no other remedy besides confession, because, for example, he does not know how to elicit an act of perfect contrition, his own pastor, or another having the care of souls, is bound under grave obligation, even with danger of life, to absolve his subject; for the good shepherd gives his life for his sheep. - Indeed, the same is commonly taught in the case of quasi-extreme necessity, namely when someone is in probable danger of damnation, for example, if there is question of a dying sinner who had lived little as a Christian, and indeed can elicit perfect contrition, but only with great difficulty. For if all priests, even if they do not have care of souls, are bound to expose their life for their neighbor in extreme necessity, the pastor, who is more bound than others, will be bound also in quasi-extreme necessity.² This can be confirmed from a decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Council, 1576, where it is declared that "the pastor is bound to minister to his parishioners suffering from plague only the sacraments necessary for salvation, namely Baptism and Penance."³

² Thus Lugo, disp. XXII, n. 10; and the authors cited there, Valentia, Reginaldus, Bonacina, St. Alphonsus, H. A., Tr. VII, n. 28. - Here, moreover, it is to be noted that by many authors that necessity is called grave which, for the sake of clarity, we have called quasi-extreme; but afterward they distinguish at least implicitly between grave necessity, which carries with it proximate and probable danger of damnation, and that which constitutes only danger of grave, reparable spiritual harm.

³ In St. Alphonsus, l. c.

455. (b) But in the case of grave necessity, namely when without confession they would incur grave spiritual harm, yet reparable harm - for example, if sinners are laboring under a grave sickness, or are bound under grave obligation to confess, or also if the faithful are assaulted by grave temptations which can be overcome only with difficulty without recourse to the sacred tribunal - pastors and others having the care of souls are bound under grave obligation to hear the confessions of their subjects, even with grave inconvenience. - With respect to the sick, let these words of St. Charles Borromeo be considered:⁴ "At whatever hour of the day or night the pastor shall be called for the sacraments to be ministered to the sick, he shall interpose no delay; indeed he shall warn the people beforehand, that when there is need of parochial administration, they may freely summon him, without any regard had of time, or of distance of place, etc." The reason is that otherwise certain sick persons can die without absolution.

⁴ Acta Eccl. Mediolan., part 4; in St. Alphonsus, n. 58.

456. (c) In common necessity, when, namely, penitents ask reasonably, that is, on account of true spiritual utility, pastors and other ministers by office are indeed bound to hear the confessions of subjects, yet in such a way that, on account of a legitimate impediment, they can send penitents away to another short time;¹ for since the necessity is not urgent, the law does not oblige with so great an inconvenience.

¹ A good pastor will send penitents away to another time only rarely and for a grave reason, but rather will put into practice this admonition of the Plenary Council of Baltimore II (n. 280): "Let him show himself always prompt and ready when he has been summoned to undertake this office, especially by the needy and by men of lower condition, and by those whom he has known to be loaded with the burden of sins, or to have been absent from confession for a long time."

Hence they sin gravely if they declare that they do not wish to hear confessions except rarely and on a few determined days, for example, once or twice in any month; or if they often show themselves difficult and morose in receiving confessions; for thus confession is rendered odious, and not a few faithful are deterred from its practice. But if someone once or twice, outside urgent necessity, refuses to hear the confession of someone, even without a legitimate reason, he does not sin gravely, generally speaking, because the harm which is inflicted is easily repaired. - But he does not sin in any way if he dismisses those who wish to confess too frequently and without a special reason; for these do not ask reasonably.

(d) If the pastor has suitable coadjutors, he is not so strictly bound to receive confessions by himself, but can satisfy this office through vicars, unless he is required by name. Nevertheless it is altogether fitting that pastors in this matter furnish a good example to vicars, by hearing confessions when they are not impeded by more serious business.

457. (B) From charity, even priests not having the care of souls are sometimes bound to hear confessions; for charity obliges us to assist our neighbor placed in spiritual necessity, as is proved in the Treatise on the Virtues, where Charity is treated.

(a) In the case of extreme necessity, when the dying person cannot morally elicit an act of contrition, they are bound to absolve him, even with danger to their own life, if his own priest is lacking; for in extreme necessity we are bound to prefer the necessary spiritual good of our neighbor to our own temporal good.

(b) In the case of quasi-extreme necessity, when the dying person can elicit an act of perfect contrition only with difficulty, a simple priest is bound, if his own priest is lacking, to hear the confession, even with grave inconvenience. But it is disputed whether he is bound to this even with danger of life; the more common opinion affirms, after St. Alphonsus,² because if the dying person is left unabsolved, he remains in probable danger of damnation; now the order of charity demands that we expose our temporal life to probable danger in order to rescue the spiritual life of our neighbor from an equal danger. - Yet others with Lugo¹ probably deny this, because while the neighbor can absolutely free himself from danger, we are not bound with so great an inconvenience to succor him who can provide for himself at a lesser cost. Nevertheless, according to the same authors, the case is excepted in which the whole community would be in grave necessity, for example, when a contagious and grave disease is raging: then even a simple priest, if the pastor is lacking, would be bound to hear confessions, even with danger of life; because in grave necessity of a community it can scarcely happen that there is not extreme necessity with respect to some.²

² St. Alphonsus, H. A., Tr. XVI, n. 125.

¹ Lugo, disp. XXII, n. 12.

² Thus Lugo, l. c., n. 13.

Note. But in all these cases, in order that there be a grave obligation of receiving confessions with danger to one's own life, three things are required: that the necessity of the neighbor be morally certain; that likewise the hope of validly absolving the dying person be certain; that from the death of the priest greater evils not follow, for example, the probable damnation of many others, if there is not another priest in this place.

The confessor must prepare himself for receiving confessions by acquiring the qualities which are necessary for rightly fulfilling this office: on the part of the intellect, knowledge and prudence; on the part of the will, goodness of life.

458. Principle: The confessor is bound under grave obligation, outside the case of necessity, to have that knowledge which is called competent, that is, that by which he can solve the cases which commonly occur in the place where he is accustomed to hear confessions, and at least prudently doubt concerning the more difficult ones, so that he may be able to consult books or other more learned persons. - It is said outside the case of necessity; for if necessity presses, not only extreme but also grave, a less learned confessor licitly receives confessions, since for the most part the ignorance of the confessor does not hinder the validity of the sacrament, but only its integrity or fruitful administration; now in a case of necessity it is lawful to administer the sacrament even with the danger that it remain invalid or defective. But a priest who fears that the sacrament may be null can absolve only conditionally.

³ Suarez, disp. XXVIII, sect. 2; Lugo, disp. XXI, n. 70-74; Salmantic., ch. 12, n. 3-13; Billuart, diss. VI, a. 9, § 2; St. Alphonsus, n. 626-628; Lehmk., n. 438-441; Hilar. Sexten, § 44, p. 391-394; Marc, n. 1786-1787; Genicot, n. 355-356; Noldin, n. 391-392; Segneri, Il Confessore istruito, ch. I.

For, this knowledge being lacking, he exposes himself to a proximate and morally certain danger of fulfilling his office badly, with injury to the sacrament and harm to penitents. Indeed, as minister, he must procure the validity and integrity of the sacrament; as teacher, he is bound to instruct the ignorant; as judge, he must render an equitable judgment concerning the gravity and number of sins, define whether restitution is to be made or not, whether certain impediments stand in the way of a marriage to be celebrated or not, how dispensations can be obtained, understood, and put into execution, whether the penitent is to be absolved or not; as physician, he must investigate the cause of spiritual diseases and propose opportune remedies. But all these things certainly require no mediocre knowledge; when this is lacking, the sacrament is exposed to nullity, and penitents suffer detriment in a most grave matter, according to that saying of Scripture:¹ "But if the blind man offers guidance to the blind, both fall into the pit." - Hence St. Alphonsus deservedly says:² "I affirm that that confessor is in the state of damnation who, without sufficient knowledge, exposes himself to receiving confessions."

¹ Matt. XV, 14. Cf. Syn. Theol. Fundam., Prologomena, n. 14-17.

² St. Alphonsus, Praxis, n. 18.

459. Nor let it be said that sound sense or natural judgment plainly suffices for solving cases. - It indeed suffices for knowing the first principles of morals, but not for the ultimate conclusions of these; nor certainly does it help much for detecting positive laws concerning vows, justice, the administration of the sacraments, the scope and limits of jurisdiction, reserved cases, impediments of marriage and dispensations, and other things of this kind. Besides, natural and sound judgment, which for the application of principles and rules is not only useful but necessary, is helped not a little by the study of theology, where there are to be found warnings and counsels which the common sense of wise men has elaborated and digested through many centuries. He would lack sound judgment who would despise the wisdom of other prudent men.

Nor does experience alone suffice: this indeed is of much profit, especially for better scrutinizing the interior dispositions of penitents, and also for applying rules according to the various circumstances of places, times, and persons. But without knowledge, it serves little and sometimes does much harm; for there is no lack of confessors who, after thirty or forty years spent in the exercise of the sacred ministry, solve cases against all the principles of sound doctrine, because they were accustomed to do this from the beginning; and, as Habert rightly warns,¹ "the long experience of a confessor who lacks study and knowledge is an antiquity of error."

¹ Habert, Praxis Sacram. Paenit., Tr. I, ch. 4; cf. Ami du Clerge, t. XIX, 1898, Notes d'un Vieux Moraliste, pp. 1009, 1057 sq.

460. Corollaries. (a) The same knowledge is not required in all confessors, but greater or lesser according to the diversity of places and persons. Thus, generally, greater knowledge is necessary in a city, where penitents of every kind are accustomed to confess, than in a humble and remote village, where only the confessions of rude and simple persons are received.

(b) A priest sins gravely who, while he certainly knows that competent knowledge is lacking to him, accepts the office of confessor; nor does the approbation given by the Bishop excuse him, since this supposes knowledge but does not supply it. In doubt, however, whether it is lacking or not, he can follow the judgment of the Bishop. - A Bishop also sins gravely when he approves as confessor one whom he knows to be ignorant, because thus he cooperates in his sin. Nevertheless he is excused if he approves one less suitable for small and remote places, when he cannot find a more learned one, because it is better for the faithful to have an unlearned confessor than none. Nevertheless the Bishop must warn this man of the obligation of acquiring competent knowledge as soon as possible.

461. (c) Therefore, under grave obligation, alumni of Seminaries who wish to devote themselves to the sacred ministry are bound to study theology for a long time and seriously, not only dogmatic but also moral theology, so that they may be made suitable for exercising the office of confessor. - Besides, no confessor, even one approved, ought to discontinue the study of theology, especially moral theology; for from so many matters so diverse and differing among themselves, especially from those which are prescribed by positive law and occur more rarely, many things very easily fall from the memory unless they are read again and again.² - For this reason the Church wills that not only among secular priests, but also among regulars having the care of souls, collations or pastoral conferences be held frequently; yet in order that these may be truly useful, it is necessary that those who participate in them prepare themselves for them by consulting approved authors; otherwise time is wasted in vain.¹

² Benedict XIV does not hesitate to assert (Instit., XXXII, n. 4) "that some priests, namely, who at the beginning took up the office of confessor most excellently, afterward, after a long time, with all care of studies neglected, lose the former knowledge of moral theology, so that those who had been most skilled in this sort of art, finally, instructed only with a slight and confused knowledge of the art itself and with its first rudiments, are scarcely numbered among beginners." - Cf. Plenary Council of Baltimore III, n. 189.

¹ Hence one of the questions to which Bishops must respond when they prepare the report on the state of their churches is this: "whether conferences of moral theology, or of cases of conscience, are held... and how many times they are held, and who are present at them and what profit is had from them." Cf. Plenary Council of Baltimore III, n. 189-193; Collect. P. F., n. 108.

(d) When difficult cases occur, it is not expedient to solve them immediately, but it must be said to the penitent that he should give time for considering the matter more maturely; meanwhile he can be absolved, provided he is prepared to obey the decision to be given; for thus many errors are guarded against, especially if books or more learned persons are consulted. Indeed, it is very useful for new confessors, even when they had to solve a case immediately, to consult books and more experienced persons about the same case, so that thus they may know whether they acted rightly or not; for thus defects admitted can be repaired and future errors guarded against.

462. (a) Notion. To knowledge there must be added prudence, which in general is the faculty of choosing all the best means for obtaining the end. Now the end which the confessor must intend is the glory of God and the salvation of souls; hence he is a prudent confessor who is furnished with the faculty of applying general principles and precepts to various penitents, according to the variety of circumstances, so that he may safely lead them to Christian perfection and eternal life. But for this it is required that he treat diverse penitents not in the same way, but according to their diverse character and condition, according to that saying of the Apostle:³ "I became all things to all men, that I might make all saved."

² St. Alphonsus, H. A., Tr. XXI, n. 4; Habert, Pratique du Sacr. de Penitence, Paris, 1748, Tr. I, ch. 4, p. 100-131; Hilar. Sexten, p. 394-398; Aertnys, Th. Past., n. 9-12.

³ I Cor., IX, 22.

463. (b) Necessity. This prudence is indeed required: in questions, which must be adapted to the character, age, and condition of each penitent, taking care especially lest he teach unknown sins to simple and innocent persons; - in forming judgment concerning the morality and gravity of actions, attention being given not only to external circumstances, but also to the subjective dispositions of each one; - in exciting contrition, by proposing motives according to the mind, character, and sins of each person; - in suggesting remedies which truly heal the various spiritual diseases by taking away the cause of sins; - in giving counsels, whether for fulfilling the various duties of states, or for progress in the practice of virtues; - in imposing satisfactions, not only according to the quality of the crimes, but also according to the spiritual diseases and strength of penitents; - in giving, deferring, or denying absolution, by rightly judging concerning the dispositions of penitents, especially when there is question of those in occasions and of recidivists; - in receiving the confessions of women, by avoiding whatever could scandalize others or himself, and cause some detriment to the penitents themselves. In one word, in almost every step he must be cautious and circumspect; for "the rule of souls is the art of arts."

464. (c) The means by which prudence is acquired. First of all, prudence should be sought from him who is the author of wisdom; for since it is a supernatural virtue, it can especially be obtained and increased by prayer. - But the conditions which are desired for the increase of this virtue are, besides knowledge, concerning which we have spoken: purity of intention, by which he wishes to please God alone, and not men; to sanctify and save souls, but not to conciliate them to himself: for God is accustomed to illuminate those who seek nothing except the divine glory, while he blinds the vain and proud; - circumspection, by which he considers not only a single aspect of the matter, but the various circumstances of persons and cases, and also the principles which are applicable to these circumstances; hence let him not be hasty in judgment, but spend the due time for considering the matter, and, if some doubt remains, let him not affirm more than he knows; - docility of mind, which is necessary especially for younger men: but this requires that, rightly distrustful of themselves, they frequently seek the counsels of learned and experienced men, so that they may use their knowledge and experience: "No one in those things which fall under prudence suffices for himself as to all things," as St. Thomas rightly says; - long practice joined with knowledge and circumspection; for those who for a long time have attentively scrutinized the hiding places of consciences, and often have ascended from effects to causes, or conversely have descended from causes to effects, know much better how one ought to question, when to warn penitents or to leave them in good faith, by what methods to prepare a way for themselves into their souls, what judgment to make concerning dispositions, etc.; for experience is the best of teachers.

465. Notion and necessity. This goodness does not consist only in the state of grace, which is certainly required for avoiding the sacrilegious administration of this sacrament, but in the combination of those virtues which are desired for fruitfully discharging this office. Indeed, he must handle the wounds of sinners, even the most shameful, in such a way that he himself is not contaminated; besides, he must lead others into the way of sanctity. But unless he is endowed with special goodness, he will with the greatest difficulty avoid stains, while he frequently receives the confessions of those who are accustomed to accuse shameful things; and besides he will with difficulty lead others in the way of perfection, if it is unknown to himself.

¹ Habert, op. cit., Tr. I, ch. 2, p. 9-40; Hilar. Sexten, § 44, p. 387-391; Gaume, Manuel, n. 1-28; 129-166.

466. The principal virtues which are necessary for the confessor in order to discharge his office fruitfully are:

(a) Supernatural zeal of souls, by which he loves penitents with a special charity as spiritual children committed to him by God, so that he may lead them to eternal beatitude, - and as brothers redeemed by the blood of Christ, to whom he must apply the merits and satisfactions of the Lord, by forming or increasing Christian virtues in their hearts. - Therefore he will not prefer the rich and noble to the poor and rude, nor devout or little-devout women to men burdened with grave sins: he will embrace all with paternal affection, but especially those who are more miserable and guilty of graver sins. He will show himself meek and kind to all, putting on the bowels of mercy, not only when he questions and instructs, but also when he corrects: "Since benevolence often does more toward those to be corrected than austerity; exhortation more than threat; charity more than power."¹

¹ Trent, sess. XIII, ch. I de Reformat. - Concerning paternal charity toward penitents St. Alphonsus treats excellently, H. A., Tr. XXI, n. 1-3.

(b) Patience, which is certainly necessary for instructing the ignorant and rude, for disposing those who approach unprepared, especially if they have sinned much and scarcely have a spark of contrition; for kindly receiving those who make lengthy confessions, especially if the confessor has already sat for long hours in the sacred tribunal. - Therefore let him think of the patience of Christ, and keep before his eyes that it often happens that from impatience the confessor is disturbed more and more, and penitents are exposed to the danger of withholding sins.

(c) Fortitude, lest from vain fear and pusillanimity he omit to warn and correct, especially the rich, the noble, and the powerful, and to prescribe salutary remedies to them.

(d) Exceeding purity, lest while he cleans the filth of others, he himself be stained. Hence, in the confession of women, let him generally abstain from every affectionate word; let him be cautious and brief in questioning about the matter of chastity; let him not fix his eyes on the face of penitents, and let him avoid excessive familiarity, whether within or outside confession. Nor let him trust too much in past chastity, or in the sanctity of penitents; for, as St. Augustine testifies, even most holy men have fallen, and the more holy women are, the more they attract.¹

¹ Thus St. Thomas (Opusc. LVII, De modo confitendi, p. 439, t. XXVIII ed. Vives), referring to these words of Augustine: "Speech with women must be brief and rigid. Nor yet because they have been holier are they therefore to be less guarded against. For the holier they have been, the more they attract, and under the pretext of a pleasant conversation there mixes itself the most impious birdlime of lust." In the same place St. Augustine declares that great Prelates have fallen, concerning whose fall he presumed no more than concerning Jerome and Ambrose.

In the very act of confession the confessor must especially provide four things: 1° as judge, he must instruct and know the cause through legitimate questions; 2° as teacher, he must teach and warn the penitent; 3° as physician, he must cure his wounds, by disposing him for absolution and prescribing remedies to him; 4° as minister and judge at the same time, he must give or defer absolution.

Since the confessor is a judge, he cannot pass sentence unless he knows the cause: but for this it is often not enough that he hear the penitent, but it is required that he question him.

² St. Thomas, in 4, dist. XIX, q. 2, a. 3 in Expos. textus; Suarez, disp. XXII, sect. 3; Lugo, disp. XXII, n. 14-22; Salmantic., ch. 12, n. 14-28; St. Alphonsus, n. 629; Marc, n. 1804-1807; Lehmk., n. 418-422; Hilar. Sexten, p. 413-421; Aertnys, Th. Pastor., n. 27-47; Noldin, n. 395-396; Konings, n. 1424-1426; Segneri, op. cit., ch. 2.

467. Principle: The confessor is bound to question the penitent, of itself under grave obligation, as often as he judges probably that he, either culpably or inculpably, is omitting certain things necessary to be known for absolution. It is certain.

It is proved: (a) By the authority of Lateran Council IV, saying:³ "But let the priest be discreet and cautious... diligently inquiring both the circumstances of the sinner and of the sin." Likewise one reads in the Roman Ritual:⁴ "If the penitent has not expressed the number and species and circumstances of sins necessary to be explained, let the priest prudently question him."

³ In Denzing., n. 363.

⁴ Ordo ministrandi Sacr. Paenit.

(b) Theological reason. For the confessor, as judge, must know both the sins which the penitent has committed and his dispositions; but not rarely the penitent, because of ignorance or confusion, is silent about sins, or at least about the number or circumstances of sins; more often he says nothing concerning his own dispositions; therefore the confessor cannot know all these things except by questioning. - Besides, as physician, he must prescribe opportune remedies; now he cannot suggest them unless he questions about occasions and habit and also other causes of sin, since most penitents are altogether silent concerning these things.

468. Corollaries. (a) The confessor is not bound to question penitents who, on the one hand, seem sufficiently instructed, and, on the other, are diligent in confessing, such as those are accustomed to be who frequently receive the sacraments, unless, however, in some case, from their accusation, a probability arises that something necessary to be known is omitted. - On the contrary, those are ordinarily to be questioned who rarely approach the sacred tribunal, especially if they seem little instructed, because deservedly their accusation is presumed not to be integral.

Therefore the practice of those is to be disapproved who never question penitents, indeed do not even allow them to bring the confession to its end, but, after a few sins have been heard, immediately impart absolution: such a manner of acting often disturbs souls, rather than tranquilizing them, and is the cause why even grave sins are kept silent.

(b) The confessor is not bound to greater solicitude in questioning than penitents are in confessing; indeed, strictly speaking, he is bound to less, since the integrity of confession directly obliges the penitent and only indirectly the confessor. Therefore he is bound to employ only ordinary and moderate diligence, which is proportioned to the diverse capacity of penitents. Thus a rude and uncultivated person is not to be examined as accurately as one well instructed, nor a sick person as a healthy and robust one, because they are not bound to so minute an examination.¹

¹ This Lugo excellently declares, disp. XVI, n. 594.

(c) If, from slight negligence, inadvertence, frailty of memory, or distraction, or fatigue, the confessor omits to inquire about something which of itself is necessary for the integrity of confession, there will be no sin or only a light sin; for no one is bound to the impossible: now when many confessions are received, it is morally impossible always to avoid these defects. - Likewise, when moderate diligence has been employed, he does not sin who abstains from further questions, lest he render confession odious, although he foresees that with greater diligence more sins could be detected: for it is better that confession lack material integrity than that it become odious to many.

469. On the qualities of questioning. Questioning must be moderate, discreet, opportune.

(a) Moderate, that is, not about curious or useless matters which are foreign to confession, but only about those things which regard the state of conscience. Hence the confessor should not question about all sins, but only about those which have probably been committed by the penitent, according to each one's condition and dispositions. Likewise let him question each one according to the knowledge with which he is furnished, not according to the knowledge with which the confessor himself is endowed: and therefore if children, the ignorant, half-witted persons, etc., have only a confused knowledge of sins, he will seek something more precise in vain: the more he questions, the less these understand.

Nor should the confessor think that it is necessary to pronounce a certain judgment concerning the gravity or lightness of all the sins which are declared: provided he is endowed with competent knowledge and acquires sufficient knowledge of the dispositions of the penitent, by employing ordinary diligence, he can form a wise judgment and leave the rest to God. Besides, even if in forming judgment concerning the gravity of delicts he should err, the absolution is valid.

For the most part it is not expedient to ask the rude whether they regarded such or such a sin committed by them as mortal: for not rarely they will answer, not according to the truth of the matter, but according to that which occurs to their mind. Nevertheless, in certain cases, especially when there is question of chastity, and it is feared that perhaps by a direct question the penitent may be scandalized, the confessor can ask whether in doing that he was conscious that he was sinning gravely.

470. (b) Discreet, or prudent, both in the things about which he questions and in the manner of questioning, avoiding all those things which could probably scandalize penitents, or teach them those things which it is better to be ignorant of.

This is especially to be attended to in the matter of chastity with regard to younger persons, who perhaps do not yet know sins of this kind.¹ Besides, since it is established by experience that sins against chastity are not accused by some unless a question is asked about them, it is expedient to propose certain questions about this matter, yet prudently. Namely, the confessor should first use general terms, so that the penitent, if he is guilty, may understand; but if innocent, may learn nothing new; for example, have you sinned against modesty, decency, purity? - Afterward he should begin from lighter sins, and, according to the answers received, proceed to graver ones; for example, let him ask about thoughts, - about words heard or spoken, - about looks, - excessive familiarities, - touches with themselves, with others, of the same or of the other sex, etc. - Nevertheless, it must be noted that not a few, rude and ignorant, do not declare thoughts and desires, because they do not know that merely internal sins are to be accused; hence, even when they answer negatively about thoughts, a question can be proposed about immodest actions; afterward, if they answer affirmatively, it can be asked whether they also thought about these things before or after the actions committed, and whether they had a desire of performing them more often.

¹ "But let him take care not to detain anyone with curious or useless questions, especially younger persons of either sex, or others, by imprudently questioning concerning that which they are ignorant of, lest they suffer scandal and thence learn to sin." (Rit. Rom., l. c.)

Those words which could excite dangerous curiosity, such as pollution, fornication, sodomy, bestiality, etc., are to be carefully avoided with younger persons who are presumed innocent.

With regard to married persons, inquiry can be made whether they have fulfilled their duties toward the other spouse, without express mention being made of the conjugal debt, - or whether anything reproaches them with regard to the use of marriage; if they answer negatively, nothing more is to be inquired, unless there is a special reason; if affirmatively, it suffices to propose those questions by which it can be known whether they voluntarily take means for impeding the conception or birth of offspring.

In one word, in this matter this rule handed down by almost all is to be observed: It is better to be deficient in many things with regard to integrity, than to abound in one thing with probable ruin of the penitent.

471. (c) Opportune, that is, made at a suitable time and in a suitable manner.

Before confession, if the penitent is unknown, it should be kindly inquired from what time he has confessed - whether he was absolved - whether he is perfectly at peace concerning his past life? - If he is troubled, he should be led by paternal words to explain the cause of his anxiety, saying, for example, that all solicitude can easily be expelled by a candid confession, and all sins, even the gravest, are forgiven to the contrite in heart. - Questions can indeed be asked at the beginning about state and condition; but they are often better made in the course of confession, when an opportunity is given, lest from the beginning the penitent be overwhelmed with questions.

In the very act of confession, generally let him propose only few and brief questions, for example, about number and circumstances changing the species; but let him not interrupt the penitent too frequently, so that he may be able to confess in order all things which he remembers. Let him hear patiently and kindly the sins which are accused; if useless things are related, let it be said courteously that it is not necessary to say these things; if the greatest sins are declared, let no sign of astonishment or horror be given, but rather let a few things be said about the divine mercy, which remits the gravest delicts; if the penitent hesitates and confesses his sins only with difficulty, let him be led to perfect sincerity by a few more humane words, and helped by some questions. Let every rebuke be abstained from before the confession is finished.

After the confession has been heard, the penitent must be questioned about those things which he probably omitted, by going through those things which he himself declared. If there is question of those who are very timid, it is often profitable, after a paternal exhortation, immediately before absolution, to ask with paternal affection whether something burdens their conscience: for there are those who do not uncover all sins until, by most humane words, the confessor has won their confidence for himself. - If then a previously withheld sin is accused, let the confessor act most mildly, and propose motives of contrition, not only with regard to this sin, but also with regard to the malice of withholding it.

472. Corollary. From this it can be inferred what the confessor ought to do when he doubts concerning the sincerity of the penitent, or is morally certain that a grave sin is being withheld by him.

In the forum of penance there is a received axiom: the penitent is to be believed as much when speaking for himself as against himself. This indeed is wholly valid when there is only doubt concerning the sincerity of the penitent; for he himself is at once the accused and the witness, and his testimony of itself is better than any other, since he knows better than anyone else whether he has sinned or not, and whether the sin committed has already been remitted or not. - But if the matter is morally certain, it is doubted whether the aforesaid axiom can be applied. Hence:

(a) If the confessor only doubts concerning the sincerity of the penitent, he can indeed question him diligently and exhort him to perfect sincerity; but if the penitent affirms that he has accused all things, he is to be absolved, by force of the aforesaid axiom.

(b) If he knows with moral certainty that a grave sin was committed which is being withheld, first he must weigh whether the penitent is in good faith, ignorant of the gravity of this sin, or thinking that he has a motive for withholding it for a time, or whether probably this sin was confessed before another; for if something of this kind can be presumed, the penitent is to be believed.

But if nothing of this kind is probably presumed, a distinction must be made from what source the confessor knew the sin: - if by his own experience he knows that the sin was committed, for example, he saw a homicide perpetrated, he must convince the penitent, and if this man proceeds to deny everything (which will rarely happen), he is to be dismissed without absolution, as being indisposed. - If he knew it from the testimony of others, outside confession, he must question the penitent specially about this sin; but if the penitent denies it, more probably he can be absolved, because the penitent is to be believed rather than others who perhaps were deceived; yet probably St. Alphonsus (n. 631) teaches that in this case absolution is to be denied, if the witnesses are so grave that they render the matter morally certain. - Finally, if he knew it from the confession of another (for example, of a fiancee, wife, etc.), the confessor cannot question specially about this sin, but only generally, as persons of the same condition are accustomed to be questioned, lest perhaps the sacramental seal be violated. Nor is it expedient in this case to ask from the accomplice permission to use this knowledge for convicting the guilty person: for this would render confession odious. But if the penitent, having been generally questioned, is silent about the sin, it is better to give absolution, at least under condition, lest perhaps a suspicion arise that absolution is denied because of the confession of the accomplice. Yet probably St. Alphonsus (l. c.) asserts that absolution is to be denied.

The confessor is bound not only to question penitents, but also to instruct and warn them, if they are ignorant of truths necessary to be known, whether speculative or practical.

¹ Suarez, disp. XXXII, sect. 4; Lugo, disp. XXII, n. 23-37; Salmantic., ch. 12, n. 32-45; Stoz, lib. II, n. 126-131; St. Alphonsus, n. 608-616; Lehmk., n. 442-446; Muller, § 150; Ball. P., n. 811-831; Hilar. Sexten, § 46, p. 407-412; Genicot, 357-359; Noldin, n. 393-394.

473. Principle: The confessor must teach penitents those truths which are necessary for rightly receiving the sacrament, unless absolution can be deferred to another time. It is certain.

For since he is the minister of the sacrament, he must procure its valid and licit administration; since he is a teacher, he is bound to teach those things which are necessary for its valid and licit reception. These things having been set down:

(a) A penitent who, whether culpably or inculpably, is ignorant of truths necessary by necessity of means, must be instructed about these before he can be absolved; for he is incapable of justification, and therefore of absolution.

Now there are two truths which are certainly necessary by necessity of means, namely the existence of God and his Providence, or faith that God exists and is a rewarder; therefore no one can be absolved without explicit faith in these truths.

But besides, it is probable that faith in the mysteries of the Most Holy Trinity and of the Incarnation is necessary by necessity of means; and since in matters of this kind the safer opinion must be followed, no one can be absolved, outside the case of extreme necessity, unless he conceives explicit faith in these mysteries; otherwise the sacrament is exposed to danger of nullity.² But if there is question of a dying person whom it is impossible to instruct about these things, he can and must be absolved conditionally: and if he afterward survives, he is to be instructed and again absolved. - Yet it is not required that there be scientific knowledge of these mysteries; but it suffices that it be believed, with regard to the Trinity, that there are three distinct persons, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, and that these three are one God; with regard to the Incarnation, that the Son of God made man redeemed us by his death. Therefore the confessor can teach these briefly and easily.

² Hence the Holy Office, 25 Jan. 1703, declared "that the missionary is bound to explain to an adult, even a dying one who is not wholly incapable, the mysteries of Faith which are necessary by necessity of means, such as especially the mysteries of the Trinity and Incarnation" (Collect. P. F., n. 549). This was declared concerning an adult with respect to baptism; but the reason is the same with respect to absolution.

474. (b) Likewise he must be instructed, before he is absolved, who is ignorant of the dispositions necessary for fruitfully receiving the sacrament, namely contrition, firm purpose, and the manner of confessing integrally; otherwise he is exposed to the danger of receiving absolution invalidly or illicitly. But if the penitent has already at other times been warned several times in vain, absolution can be deferred, so that he may be more diligent in learning these things.

475. (c) If the penitent does not know the truths which are necessary by necessity of precept - for example, the mysteries of faith contained in the Creed, the precepts of the Decalogue and of the Church, the doctrine concerning the Sacraments which he must receive, and other things necessary for the right formation of Christian life - he cannot be absolved unless he seriously promises to learn all these things morally as soon as possible, according to his capacity; for unless he promises this, by that very fact he is indisposed, since he does not wish to fulfill a grave precept. - A confessor who does not have the care of souls is not bound to instruct the penitent concerning these things, except perhaps from charity; if at the same time he is a pastor, or one having the care of souls, by office and from justice he must provide him the means of acquiring this knowledge, by assigning a place and time for receiving instruction.

(d) If the penitent is ignorant of those things which are necessary for rightly fulfilling his office, he regularly cannot be absolved unless he is prepared either to leave the office, - or to acquire the required knowledge, meanwhile abstaining from exercising those functions by which grave harm would probably be inflicted on his neighbor. For one who does not wish to promise this is indisposed, since he exposes himself to a proximate danger of causing grave harm; thus a judge, physician, pastor, laboring under ignorance, can gravely harm the fortunes of citizens, the health of bodies, and the salvation of souls. - It is said regularly, because if there is no hope that the warning will be of profit, nor is scandal feared, the warning about leaving the office can be omitted, provided the obligation of acquiring the necessary knowledge as soon as possible is urged.

476. Principle: When the ignorance of the penitent concerns the liceity of some matter, a warning is to be given if, all things considered, it will be of profit to him or to the community; otherwise, for the time, it must be omitted. It is certain.

The reason is that the confessor is bound to procure the good of the penitent and the general good of the community committed to him; therefore, if the warning profits both, it certainly must be given; if it profits the community and harms the penitent, it must be seen on which side the greater good lies; now, generally, the common good must be preferred to a particular good. But if it is foreseen that it will be harmful, it must for the time be abstained from.

477. Corollaries. (a) If the penitent, from an erroneous conscience, judges that something is a sin which in reality is not such, or that something is grave which in fact is light, he must be warned about this error, since it is harmful to him: for he formally commits grave sins. This is true even if it is foreseen that perhaps, from this warning, he will more often commit venial sins.

(b) If, on the contrary, the penitent regards as licit what is truly prohibited, or as light what in reality is grave, a distinction must be made: if the ignorance is vincible and gravely culpable, he must be seriously warned; for this cannot harm him, since, on account of culpable negligence, he is already guilty of mortal fault; but rather it can profit him, since from this warning he can draw strength for avoiding evil; thus, for example, a father of a family must be warned who doubts whether he is bound under grave obligation to educate his children in a Christian manner. - But if the ignorance is invincible, or inculpable, the penitent must indeed be warned as often as fruit is hoped for, at least for the future, and graver inconveniences are not feared; for even material evil is disorder, and of itself harms both individuals, by preparing a way for formal sin, and society, by disturbing the order instituted by God.¹ But where greater inconveniences prudently threaten either the penitent himself or a third person, he must be left in good faith: otherwise the sin will become formal from material; moreover, from two evils the lesser is to be tolerated so that the greater may be avoided. - In doubt whether the warning will be useful or harmful, it is generally to be omitted, unless the good which is hoped for greatly surpasses the evil which is feared.

¹ This the Vieux Moraliste lucidly sets forth, in Ami du Clerge, XXI, 1899, p. 1169 sq.

478. We declare the matter briefly by examples. (a) If a penitent in good faith has invalidly contracted marriage, he is generally not to be warned before the marriage can be revalidated, lest perhaps meanwhile he sin formally. - If the penitent is going to accept the warning, but at the same time it is foreseen that grave harm will befall others (for example, children, in the case in which putative spouses are separated), the warning is to be omitted.²

² Lugo, disp. XXII, n. 27.

(b) But the penitent is to be warned if otherwise there is danger lest he be strengthened in a depraved habit which afterward he will overcome only with difficulty; for example, if a boy falsely thinks that pollution is not a grave sin; - if ignorance induces or leaves a danger of formal sin, for example, if there is question of a proximate occasion of sin; - if ignorance concerns the first principles of morals or proximate conclusions, because then it is foreseen that it will cease shortly, and therefore the warning is useful for the future; - when the common good requires it, for example, if there is question of avoiding scandal, or of grave temporal or spiritual harm which the whole community will suffer from the fault of administrators; - when, from the circumstances, the silence of the confessor can be understood as positive approval of an evil matter. Hence, if the penitent asks, the confessor can rarely dissemble the truth; nevertheless he is not bound to say more than he is asked; for example, if someone, after a simple vow of chastity, has contracted marriage, and inquires whether the marriage is valid and whether the debt can be rendered, the answer can be given affirmatively, without its being added that to ask the debt is illicit.

The confessor, insofar as he is father and physician, is bound to dispose those who are indisposed for absolution, and to furnish remedies to those spiritually wounded, so that they may guard against future sins.

¹ Lugo, disp. XXII, n. 49; Lacroix, Tract. Theol. de Offic. Confessarii, l. III; St. Alphonsus, n. 608; Praxis, n. 10; Reuter, n. 116; Muller, § 153; Marc, n. 1811-1812; Hilar. Sexten, p. 421-424; Ball. P., n. 313-322 and 832; Lehmk., n. 447-455; Salvatori, Istruzione pratica pei Confessori novelli: rendered in English by W. Hutch, London, 1885, Part II; Gaume, n. 217-218.

479. Principle: The confessor is bound from charity, as far as can be done, to prepare the indisposed for absolution, by proposing motives of contrition. It is certain.

(a) For from charity he is bound to procure the good of the penitent and to turn away grave harms from him; but a sinner who is dismissed without absolution incurs grave harm, since he is exposed to the danger of remaining for a long time in the state of mortal sin, and perhaps of being deterred from confession. Besides, an indisposed person cannot be absolved; therefore, as far as can be done, that is, if there is a founded hope and at the same time time for disposing him to contrition, the confessor from charity must provide this.

(b) The Roman Ritual inculcates this obligation:² "And he will strive to lead him to sorrow and contrition by efficacious words, and he will induce him to amend and better institute his life, and will hand on remedies of sins." Likewise Leo XII¹ earnestly exhorts confessors to fulfill that office and censures those who neglect it: "Many present themselves indeed to ministers of penance entirely unprepared, yet very often such that from unprepared they can be made prepared, if only the priest, having put on the bowels of the mercy of Christ Jesus, who came not to call the just, but sinners, knows how to act with them studiously, patiently, and meekly. But if he omits to provide this, certainly he himself is no more to be called prepared for hearing than the others for approaching to confess." - St. Alphonsus (n. 608) teaches that this obligation is of itself grave.²

² Ordo administrandi Sacr. Paenit.

¹ Encyclical Caritate Christi, 25 Dec. 1825.

² "Wherefore I do not know how those sluggish confessors can be excused from fault who, as soon as they have known the penitent to be not sufficiently disposed, dismiss him, with no or very little diligence first applied to curing him. For I say that the confessor is bound from a rigorous obligation of charity to dispose him as much as he can." And he adds: "Nor ought it be a care to him that other penitents are waiting; for then the confessor is not bound to attend to the good of others, but only to the good of his penitent." This indeed is true if there are other confessors for hearing the other penitents, or if these can wait patiently and without grave inconvenience; for if a long delay would bring grave inconvenience to others, who perhaps are in greater necessity, the confessor must choose the lesser of two evils. Cf. Ball. P., n. 832.

480. Corollaries. (a) If the confessor prudently judges that the penitent is well disposed, he is strictly bound to nothing. Nevertheless it is expedient to exhort to contrition all concerning whom it is probably doubted whether they are sufficiently disposed, or at least to inquire whether they have elicited an act of sorrow and firm purpose; for thus the fruit of the sacrament is received more securely and abundantly.

(b) To excite the indisposed to contrition, the confessor should accommodate himself to the mind of each one, proposing motives which are proportioned to their capacity: the brevity of life, the nearness of death, which imposes an end on all pleasures and honors, the uncertain hour of it, the detriment of the soul and the peril of eternal salvation, saying, for example: "Do you wish to be a reprobate? If you cling to this sin, you are going to hell, and if you die in this state, you will be consigned to eternal torments." Let him also recall the benefits of God bestowed upon us, and his mercy, which is prepared to embrace prodigal sons, and also the blood of Christ poured out for us: "Who ever did for you what Christ did? And do you wish to betray him? That you may please yourself and others, do you not hesitate to crucify him anew in your heart? Ought you not rather to renounce creatures, pleasures, honors, than God and Christ?" With these or similar things, which the confessor will easily find if he reads and prays, he will be able, with grace helping, to move not a few penitents.¹

¹ Motives of contrition clearly set forth for various kinds of sinners you will find in Salvatori, op. cit., part I.

481. The confessor as physician must investigate the cause of spiritual diseases, and prescribe salutary remedies so that future falls may be guarded against.

(a) He must investigate the cause of the diseases: otherwise they cannot be rooted out radically; and unless they are rooted out, they will again produce evil effects, just as an evil tree brings forth evil fruits.

Therefore by prudent questioning let the confessor discreetly inquire concerning the circumstances of places and persons by which the penitent is induced to sin, and also concerning his depraved habits; so that thus he may detect whether the principal cause of sin is an external occasion, and what it is; or an internal cause, namely pride or vain glory, - disordered love of money, - or sensuality and pleasure. Indeed, once the disease has been detected, it will be easier to choose opportune remedies.

482. (b) He must prescribe remedies, whether general or particular.

Among the general remedies, these especially are to be inculcated: 1) frequent prayer, at once humble and trusting; for temptations are salutarily overcome and depraved habits are eradicated only through grace; now grace is obtained especially through prayer.

2. Frequent reception of the Sacraments of Penance and the Eucharist, by which grace is conferred ex opere operato and a right is acquired of receiving supernatural help at the opportune time; confession immediately after a fall should especially be advised, lest the sinner fall into depraved habits: for by this remedy many have been saved. - It is also expedient to assume, as a penalty for relapse, a voluntary penance determined beforehand.

3. Pious consideration of the last things, by which so many sins are guarded against, according to that saying: "In all thy works remember thy last things, and thou shalt not sin forever";² likewise the reading of pious books.

² Eccli., VII, 40.

4. Constant recollection of the divine presence, especially when temptation presses: "God sees me, he beholds my heart; how can I do this evil before God?"

5. Serious examination of conscience, by exploring not only the sins themselves, but their causes, and afterward eliciting acts of sorrow and firm purpose.

6. Flight from evil companions, who are often the cause of sin, and flight from other occasions of sinning; conversation with the pious and good; and also enrollment in some Sodality, where, besides companionship with pious brothers, there are helps for establishing life in a Christian manner.

7. The practice of certain chastisements of the flesh, and the mortification of passions even in licit things, by which illicit things may more easily and efficaciously be rejected: "But those who are Christ's have crucified their flesh with its vices and concupiscences."¹

¹ Galat., V, 24.

8. Acts of charity toward God repeated frequently through the day; special devotion toward the Most Holy Sacrament, the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, the Blessed Virgin Mary, and the guardian Angel; and so that these may be exercised better, a few works are to be determined which are done faithfully and constantly: but many works or prayers should not be prescribed which overwhelm penitents and soon bring weariness to them.

But particular remedies are those which are opposed to each vice; for contraries are cured by contraries, and habit is conquered by habit. It would be too lengthy to report them here; we shall treat of these where we treat of Vices and Virtues.²

² Meanwhile there can be read, besides the authors of Ascetical Theology, Lacroix, n. 1825; Du Jardin, De officio sacerdotis, qua judicis et medici, in Migne, Theol. Curs., XXII, 1288-1350; Reuter, n. 56-98; Lehmk., n. 448-454.

After all the things described above have been carried out, the confessor as judge must pass sentence, and impart, deny, or defer absolution, according as the state of the penitent shall have demanded.

³ Suarez, disp. XXXII, sect. 5; Lugo, disp. XXII, n. 38-48; Salmantic., ch. 12, n. 29-45; Lacroix, Tr. theol. de Offic. confess., l. I, c. 4; St. Alphonsus, n. 462 sq. and 604-606; Billuart, diss. VI, a. 10, § 4; Lehmk., n. 428-431; Muller, § 154; Bucceroni, Comment. de absol. danda, diff., deneganda, Rome, 1889; Noldin, n. 400.

483. Principle: Absolution generally and of itself must be granted under grave obligation, from justice, to a penitent guilty of grave sin who with moral certainty is well disposed. It is certain.

For the confessor, by receiving the confession of the penitent, binds himself by a quasi-contract to pass sentence according to the institution of Christ; but according to the institution of Christ, absolution must of itself be granted to the well disposed, since this sacrament was instituted for remitting sins. Therefore he must of itself absolve the disposed by force of a tacit contract, and therefore from justice; and indeed under grave obligation, if the penitent is in the state of mortal sin, because he is unjustly deprived of the greatest good.

484. (a) Nevertheless it is said generally and of itself, because regularly absolution granted at once is of more profit than if it is deferred; for he who is absolved emerges from the dangerous state of sin, receives sacramental grace, and therefore the right to obtain actual graces at the opportune time; wherefore he is able to resist temptations more efficaciously and to tend toward the practice of virtues. - Nevertheless, sometimes and accidentally, absolution can be deferred even to one sufficiently disposed, when the confessor prudently judges this to be truly useful to the penitent. For on the one hand, the penitent, although he has a right to absolution, does not have a strict right to be absolved immediately; and on the other, the confessor, since he is not only judge but physician, must intend the greater utility of the penitent; but sometimes delay is more useful to the penitent, especially to one in an occasion or to a recidivist, so that from the difficulty of obtaining absolution he may conceive a greater horror of sin and a firmer purpose of avoiding it. But generally this delay will not be of profit unless the penitent consents to it; for if he bears the matter with displeasure, it is to be feared lest he be alienated from confession. In practice, therefore, the confessor must inquire whether the penitent in this case is prepared willingly to return after a few days.

Nor is it ever expedient to defer absolution for a long time, for example, for a month or fifteen days; because it is a grave inconvenience to remain long in mortal sin, both because of the danger of death, and because of merits lost.

(b) It is said to one guilty of grave sin, because if only venial sins, or mortal sins already remitted, are accused, sometimes to defer a penitent, even one rightly disposed, is not a grave sin, because no grave injury is inflicted upon him; indeed, if this is done from a reasonable cause, it will be no sin.

(c) It is said, who with moral certainty is disposed; here there is question of moral certitude broadly taken, which excludes prudent doubt, but not necessarily every doubt; for when there is question of the dispositions of the penitent, absolute certitude cannot be had, but that persuasion suffices which is very probable.

485. Principle: Absolution is to be denied to those who with moral certainty are incapable or unworthy. It is certain.

For in either case absolution is invalid; now knowingly and willingly to minister a sacrament in a certainly invalid manner is grave sacrilege.

Now the incapable are those perpetually insane, - not yet baptized, - those who are already certainly dead, - or who do not know the truths necessary by necessity of means, - or who certainly are not morally present.

486. But the unworthy, or indisposed, can be considered, according to St. Leonard of Port Maurice:

(a) those who knowingly and willingly do not wish to leave a proximate and free occasion of sinning; (b) those who knowingly and willingly do not wish to put away grave enmities or hatred; (c) those who are not prepared to make necessary restitution or reparation of harms, when they are able; (d) those who refuse to leave arts or occupations gravely sinful; (e) those who refuse to labor for correcting a depraved habit; (f) those who do not wish to employ remedies truly necessary for avoiding relapse; (g) those who are not prepared to remove the scandal which they have given or are giving to others.¹ - To these can be added, in a general way, all those who do not wish to fulfill a grave obligation known to themselves; or who refuse to confess their sins integrally, unless by a grave reason, at least a putative one, they are excused from material integrity. For in these or similar cases the essential condition required for the validity and liceity of absolution is lacking, namely contrition.

¹ This the Roman Ritual briefly summarizes thus (Ordo minist. Sacr. Paenitentiae): "Let him not absolve those who are incapable of such a benefit; such are: those who give no signs of sorrow, who do not wish to put away hatreds and enmities, or to restore another's goods if they can, or to leave a proximate occasion of sinning, or in another way to abandon sins and amend life for the better; or who have given public scandal, unless they publicly make satisfaction and remove the scandal."

But before absolution is denied, the confessor must exhort these sinners to contrition, as we said above; for if, first unprepared, then by a fervent exhortation they conceive attrition, they can now be absolved at once. Besides, only with kindly words must the confessor deny absolution, by explaining the reason why it cannot be granted and declaring that he will gladly grant absolution as soon as the penitent is disposed.

487. Principle: Absolution is to be deferred to those who are plainly doubtfully disposed, unless a grave reason urges that they be absolved under condition. It is certain.

For it is not lawful to expose the sacrament to danger of nullity, unless there is a grave reason: for this is prohibited by the reverence due to the sacrament.

488. Now, according to St. Leonard, those are considered doubtfully disposed: (a) who have relapsed in the same or a worse manner, without employing the remedies prescribed by the confessor, and without a serious effort at amendment; (b) who answer only coldly that they are sorry, especially if they have already relapsed rather often; (c) if they show a great affection for sin, or have drawn great utility or great pleasure from sin, or devote their whole effort to satisfying the passions; (d) when they rashly excuse their sins, or enter into contention and altercation with the confessor, or seem to boast about the sin committed; (e) when they approach the sacrament not spontaneously, but only by command of parents or others, or from mere custom, or to please others, or from fear lest they lose reputation; (f) if they refuse a moderate penance proportioned to their strength.

But when the doubtfully disposed can be conditionally absolved has already been set forth, n. 182.

489. Corollary. When there are on both sides reasons seriously and solidly probable, so that the penitent is prudently judged to be disposed, yet there is still prudent doubt concerning his disposition, the confessor prudently defers absolution or grants it under condition, according as, from the various circumstances, delay is foreseen to be useful or harmful to the penitent. Namely, if delay is judged very probably useful to the penitent, because, after some time, he is going to approach the sacred tribunal better disposed, he should be dismissed kindly; but if he probably will not return, because he is not endowed with firm faith or virtue, after fervent exhortation to sorrow and firm purpose, he can be absolved under condition, according to most theologians.¹ For moral certitude is not always required for absolving, but sometimes a prudent judgment suffices, which is had in the case.

¹ Thus Suarez, disp. XXXII, sect. 2, n. 1; Sporer, n. 801; Faure, Dubitat. theologicae, ed. 4, Louvain, 1865, dub. I-II, p. 9-22; Lehmk., n. 428; Genicot, n. 367. - Certain ones, however, from these authors, Faure and Genicot, seem to proceed further and to teach that those who are probably disposed can always and without condition be absolved; but it is commonly held, and deservedly, that this is lawful only for a grave reason, and indeed conditionally. Cf. Vindiciciae Alphons., p. 710-752.

This can be drawn from these words of the Catechism of the Council of Trent (n. 50): "For if, after confession has been heard, he shall have judged that neither diligence in enumerating sins nor sorrow in detesting them was wholly lacking to the penitent, he can be absolved"; now if it is prudently judged that the penitent is contrite, it is judged that sorrow was not wholly lacking. St. Alphonsus seems to contradict this conclusion when he says (n. 459): "That the confessor may absolve the penitent, he must be morally certain concerning his disposition"; but elsewhere he teaches (n. 432) that a penitent about whom there is doubt whether he is rightly disposed can be absolved under condition if it is prudently feared that he will not return again to confession and will waste away in his sins. Hence it can be said that in the former assertion of the Holy Doctor the general rule is contained, but in the latter the exception.

They are two: to correct defects, or errors, if any have occurred; and to observe the seal.

490. A threefold defect can occur: (a) concerning the value of the sacrament, for example, if the confessor has not absolved, or has absolved without jurisdiction, or has absolved one indisposed; (b) concerning the integrity of the sacrament, for example, if the confessor has omitted necessary questions about the species and number of sins, or has imposed no penance; (c) concerning the obligations of the penitent, for example, if he has not warned concerning the removal of an occasion of sin, or has not obliged to due restitution, or, on the contrary, has obliged to undue restitution.

¹ Suarez, disp. XXXII, sect. 6; Lugo, disp. XXII, n. 50-77; Salmantic., ch. 12, n. 46-56; St. Alphonsus, n. 619-622; Billuart, diss. VI, a. 10 § 8; Ball. P., n. 836-861; Lehmk., n. 470-474; Noldin, n. 410-414.

491. Principle: An error invalidating the sacrament, committed from grave fault of the confessor, and with grave harm of the penitent still persevering, must from justice be repaired under grave obligation, even with grave harm of the confessor. It is certain.

For the confessor, from a quasi-contract with the penitent, and therefore from justice, is bound to impart valid absolution to one rightly disposed; therefore, if from grave fault he has absolved invalidly, by that very fact he is an unjust damager, and so he is bound under grave obligation to repair the grave harm unjustly inflicted, even with grave inconvenience.

It is said: (a) from grave fault, because if the error was committed without fault or with only light fault, say from forgetfulness or a certain negligence, there is indeed an obligation of repairing the harm, at least from charity, but not with great inconvenience; - unless, however, the penitent were in grave danger of dying in the state of mortal sin, because he is in the article of death;¹ or in probable danger of no longer confessing, because he is about to undertake a long and dangerous journey.

¹ Nor is the priest excused from this office by the fact that he administered viaticum to the dying person; for it is very probable, but not certain, that by viaticum mortal sins are remitted for him who is in good faith (De Sacramentis, n. 54); now when there is question of eternal salvation, the safer part is to be followed. Cf. Lehmk., n. 471, note 1.

(b) From fault of the confessor; for if the error comes from the part of the penitent, because, for example, he was knowingly indisposed, the confessor is indeed bound to repair the harm as a cooperator, but not so strictly, except in the case of extreme necessity, because the penitent can provide for himself otherwise, by making a new confession.

(c) With grave harm still persevering; for if the harm is light, for example, because the penitent had not accused mortal sins; or if the harm does not persevere, because the penitent approached another confessor by whom he was validly absolved, the obligation no longer urges.

492. Manner of repairing the defect. (a) If defects are detected immediately or shortly after confession, and the penitent is still morally present, he can be absolved again, even without a previous warning, provided it is established that he is rightly disposed; if he is too far away, he should be recalled to the sacred tribunal, if this can be done without inconvenience; otherwise, the confessor himself should approach the penitent and absolve him.

(b) But if the error was not repaired immediately or after a short time, let the confessor induce the penitent to confess again to him; let him exhort him to be sorry not only for those accused in the present confession, but for the past ones, especially for those accused in the last confession; and let him absolve him rightly.

(c) But if this cannot be done, the confessor, after first obtaining from the penitent permission to speak with him about a matter pertaining to confession, should warn him of the invalidity of the absolution, so that the error may be repaired.

493. When the error concerns not the validity but the integrity of the sacrament, a distinction must be made:

(a) If the error was positively committed, so that the penitent was deceived from the words or manner of acting of the confessor concerning some doctrine (for example, understood that such a sin is light which in reality is grave, or that it is not necessary to accuse individual mortal sins), the confessor is bound to correct the error, even outside confession, after first obtaining the permission of the penitent, provided this can be done without grave harm or scandal. For each one is bound to repair the harm which he has positively inflicted and to remove its cause: and this in the case cannot be done except by correcting the error. - But if this cannot be done without grave harm, he is not bound to warn the penitent outside confession: for grave harm excuses from material integrity, and the error can afterward be corrected in confession.

(b) If the error was only negatively admitted, for example, from the fact that the confessor omitted to question about species and number, or to prescribe proper remedies, the confessor must not repair the defect outside confession; because on the one hand such a defect is accidental and easily reparable, and on the other a warning outside confession often brings annoyance to the penitent. But when the penitent has returned to the same confessor, the defect is to be corrected, since this can be done without grave inconvenience.

494. When the error admitted concerned the obligations of the penitent, with temporal harm of a third party or of the penitent himself, which can occur in the matter of restitution, a distinction must be made:

(a) If the confessor positively and culpably (which is to be understood of grave fault) led the penitent into error, for example, by asserting that restitution must be made when no such obligation was urgent at all, or vice versa, he is bound under grave obligation from justice, even with grave inconvenience, to correct the error, whether within or outside confession (permission having first been obtained). For each one is bound to guard against harm following for others from his action; and if he has culpably omitted to do this, or then only warned when the penitent has already become unable to repair the injustice, the confessor is bound to repair the harm itself that followed from this action, since he is truly the efficacious, unjust, and culpable cause of this harm, insofar as he is an unjust cooperator or counselor. - But if the confessor corrected the error at an opportune time, he is bound to nothing, because he is no longer the efficacious cause of the harm.

But one who, without grave fault, positively committed an error of this kind, is indeed bound from justice to warn the penitent, but not with grave inconvenience; but if he culpably did not correct the error when he could conveniently have done this, he is bound to restitution, not indeed by reason of the error, which is inculpable, but by reason of the omitted retraction, which is truly the unjust and efficacious cause of the harm.

495. (b) If the confessor behaved only negatively, even if culpably, by omitting to warn the penitent about restitution to be made, - not from justice, but only from charity is he bound afterward to warn the penitent. For he is not obliged from justice in the sacred tribunal to guard against harm to a third party, but only to procure the good of the penitent; therefore if he is silent about restitution to be made, he is not guilty of injustice; unless, however, the penitent had asked the confessor to warn him about the obligation of restoring; for then silence is equivalent to a positive affirmation. But from charity he is bound to warn the penitent, with greater or lesser inconvenience according to the gravity of the harm and of the fault; for he must guard against the penitent being incited to violate justice from such an omission.

496. The sacramental seal, or seal of confession, is the strictest obligation of keeping under secrecy those things which have been known by sacramental confession. It is called a seal, because letters which are intended to be kept entirely secret are customarily marked with a seal. - We shall speak of the obligation, subject, matter, and violation of the sacramental seal.

¹ St. Thomas, Supplem., q. 11; Suarez, disp. XXXIII; Lugo, disp. XXIII; Salmantic., ch. 14; Morinus, lib. II, c. 19; Stoz, lib. II, n. 183-331; Lacroix, n. 1933-2001; St. Alphonsus, n. 633-661; Billuart, diss. VIII; Elbel-Bierb., Confer. XIX-XX; Lehmk., n. 456-475; Marc, n. 1860-1869; Ball. P., n. 899-1024; Genicot, n. 379-393; Noldin, n. 415-426.

497. Principle: There is the strictest obligation, under grave obligation, of keeping silent outside confession about sins which have been known by auricular sacramental confession, unless the penitent has given permission to speak. It is certain. - This obligation as to substance arises from natural and divine law, but it was more explicitly determined by ecclesiastical law.

(a) From natural law. Between the confessor and the penitent there exists an implicit pact, by force of which the latter confesses his sins only under the condition that they be kept entirely secret: this is an entrusted secret, which all those who by force of their office furnish counsels to others, for example, advocates and physicians, are bound from justice to keep; therefore whoever violates this secret, of itself sins gravely against justice. - Besides, the confessor, by revealing the sins which he knows from confession, unjustly harms the reputation of the penitent, whenever at least this sin of his remains occult.

498. (b) From divine law, at least implicit. For although Christ said nothing explicitly on this matter, He certainly willed the sacrament of Penance to be administered in such a way that the faithful would not be kept away from it. But if occult sins entrusted to the confessor were manifested, many of the faithful would be kept away from the sacred tribunal: for with reason they would fear lest, by such manifestation, they should lose the esteem of others, especially of parents, relatives, and friends; often the peace of families would be disturbed, if the secret delicts of one spouse were manifested to the other, or if the sins of parents became known to the children, etc.; indeed, sometimes the knowledge of certain crimes would come to the ears of judges, with the greatest danger and harm to penitents. All these things would often render confession odious, scandalous, and truly harmful. Therefore Christ, in instituting the sacrament of Penance, implicitly at least willed that occult delicts declared in confession be kept under the most secret seal.

499. (c) From ecclesiastical law. The law of sacramental secrecy is ancient, and coeval with auricular confession, although from the beginning it was not so strictly observed. As long as public confession flourished, there was no obligation of keeping silent about sins publicly accused. But whenever occult sins were privately accused, the law of secrecy was in force.

Thus St. Ambrose, according to the testimony of Paulinus,¹ spoke to no one except the Lord alone about sins which penitents themselves had confessed secretly; likewise St. Augustine says that secret sins must be corrected secretly:² "In secret we ought to correct, in secret to reprove; lest, wishing to reprove publicly, we betray the man"; St. Leo reproves, as contrary to the apostolic rule, the practice of reading publicly the occult delicts accused in confession, "lest many be kept from the remedies of penance, while they either are ashamed or fear that their deeds be disclosed to their enemies, by whom they could be struck according to the constitution of the laws";¹ but Sozomen, describing the qualities with which the penitentiary, whose office was to hear confessions, ought to be adorned, says that he ought to excel in taciturnity and prudence;² but why in taciturnity, unless that he might keep occult delicts under the seal?

¹ Migne, P. L., t. XIV, 40.

² Serm. 82, cap. 8, ap. Migne, P. L., t. XXXVIII, 511.

¹ Ep. 168 ad Episcopos Campaniae, ap. Migne, t. LIV, 1211.

² Sozom., H. E., lib. VII, c. 16, ap. Migne, P. G., t. LXVII, 1458 sq.

But an explicit and universal law concerning keeping secrecy was enacted by the Fourth Lateran Council,³ and renewed in the Code, can. 889; indeed, from can. 2369, a confessor directly violating the seal incurs an excommunication reserved in a most special manner to the Holy See; but one who violates it only indirectly "is to be suspended from the celebration of Mass and from hearing sacramental confessions, or even, according to the gravity of the delict, is to be declared incapable of receiving them"; and he is to be punished by the other penalties ferendae sententiae indicated there.

³ Ap. Denzing., n. 363.

Finally, by the sense of the faithful and of confessors, and by the consent of theologians, the law of secrecy has become most strict, so that today every revelation which would render confession odious is to be carefully avoided.

500. Corollaries. (a) Violation of the seal imports a twofold, and sometimes threefold, malice: against religion, or against the reverence due to the sacrament; - against justice, by revealing an entrusted secret; - often also against justice in another way, by manifesting the occult delict of one's neighbor.

(b) A law of this kind is so strict that in no case can it be relaxed without the free and certain consent of the penitent. The penitent can indeed freely yield his own right, since the secret was instituted in his favor; but consent cannot be presumed; it must be given explicitly or implicitly by signs free of doubt. Moreover, the confessor will use rarely and prudently even consent freely given, lest confession be rendered odious to others who do not know that this consent was given.

501. Hence no end, however good and useful, excuses violation of the seal:

1. Not the good of the confessor himself, whether temporal, since the confessor ought rather to die than to wound the seal, following in the footsteps of St. John Nepomucene, who, on account of sacramental silence invincibly kept, was adorned with the palm of martyrdom;¹ - or spiritual, since he is excused from the material integrity of confession when he cannot declare his sins integrally without wounding the seal; yet this rarely occurs, since more often a confessor can be found to whom the penitent is unknown. The reason is that the public spiritual good of the whole community, for which, according to what has been said, the custody of the sacramental seal is necessary, must be preferred to private good, whether temporal or even spiritual.

¹ Cf. Breviar. Rom., For some places, May 16.

2. Nor the good of the penitent himself; for example, if from his confession it is known to me that he is innocent, I cannot declare it, lest perhaps, when I affirm that one is innocent and keep silent about another, it be understood that this other is guilty. - Nor the good of a third person: for example, if by the confession of Paul the murderer I have known that Peter is not guilty of the homicide, I cannot say this, lest perhaps suspicion arise that I speak thus from violation of the seal, and Paul himself be accused of the crime.

3. Nor the good of the commonwealth itself, for example, in the case of a traitor, because by the inviolable custody of the seal, in a general way, the good of the commonwealth is better provided for than by its violation; moreover, spiritual good is to be preferred to temporal good. Hence a confessor, questioned before a tribunal about those things which he has known by confession, can and ought, even with an oath, to say that he knows nothing concerning this matter: for this is a restriction which all can understand, if they wish, since it is known that it is not lawful for confessors to reveal a secret entrusted to them.²

² In many States the sacramental seal is recognized by civil law as inviolable, and there it is sufficient for confessors to declare that they cannot answer anything, since they are bound by the seal or professional secret: thus in France. But in certain others, for example, in England (cf. Stephen, Comment. on the Laws of England, London, 1895, vol. III, p. 579), this privilege is by no means recognized; and therefore confessors must say that they know nothing. - In the United States of America, the common law is the same as in England, but in certain States, particular law favors the seal.

Nevertheless, in all these cases, the confessor who knows by confession that grave harm threatens himself, or some private person, or the commonwealth, can and ought to warn the penitent that he prevent that harm by himself or through another, for example, by manifesting the matter to a superior; and he can deny absolution to one refusing to do this, as one indisposed; but he himself cannot reveal the secret without the free permission of the penitent.

(c) Likewise the obligation of keeping secrecy is so strict that in this matter it is not lawful to follow merely probable opinions; because here there is question not of the lawful alone, but of spiritual harm to the whole community which must necessarily be avoided. Therefore, whether there is question of probability of law, for example, when it is disputed whether this or that falls under the seal; or of probability of fact, for example, when it is doubted whether something was known from confession or in some other way, the opinion favoring the seal must be followed, even if the other is truly probable.

502. (d) Nevertheless this obligation arises only from a truly sacramental confession, that is, one made in order to obtain absolution, but not from a simulated confession, made to ask for alms or to seduce the confessor, without the intention of receiving the sacrament: for the reasons adduced above have force only concerning sacramental confession. - But even in this case, only for a grave cause ought the confessor to use knowledge acquired in this way, for example, in defense of himself, if he has been unjustly denounced to the Bishop by a person to whom alms were deservedly denied; for scandal of the faithful, who perhaps think that the confession was truly sacramental, must be guarded against insofar as this can be done.

Hence also those things which, outside confession, are manifested to a priest for the sake of spiritual direction do not fall under the sacramental seal, but only under an entrusted secret, though generally a most strict one.

503. Principle: Not only the confessor, but also all those who by chance or by industry, that is, illegitimately, mediately or immediately, have heard something from sacramental confession, are bound to keep the seal. Thus from can. 889.

For all these were sharers in the sacramental secret; therefore they are sharers in the obligation of keeping it.

504. Corollaries. The following are bound to keep the seal: -

(a) A cleric or layman who, pretending that he is a priest, received the confession of one who in good faith confesses to him, at least according to the common opinion, which in practice must be wholly observed, from what was said above (n. 501); for the confession, although invalid, is made in order to obtain absolution, and therefore must be protected by the seal.

(b) A confessor who, even outside the sacred tribunal, is consulted by a penitent about sins to be accused in a confession to be made to him; for such consultation is a confession begun; but more probably not one who is consulted about a confession to be made to another, because this is not a confession begun; nevertheless, in this latter case the law of an entrusted secret is in force.

(c) One who has read the written confession of another, already handed to the confessor, whether while it is in the hand of the confessor, or after absolution left in the confessional, or lost by the confessor; for in all these circumstances it is connected immediately with confession. But if someone has read a paper on which the penitent described his sins by way of an examination of conscience, before he has used it in the act itself of confession, he is not bound by the seal, but only by the law of natural secrecy.

(d) An interpreter employed for carrying out the confession; or one who, being asked, has written the confession of another; bystanders who, whether by chance or by industry, hear sins declared in confession; or all those who have heard from the confessor or from others sins accused in the sacred tribunal. Indeed, all those who attempt to hear persons confessing by that very fact violate the law of the seal.

(e) Superiors from whom, outside confession, the faculty of absolving from reserved sins is sought, insofar as they can say or do nothing from which it would become known which subject has fallen into a reserved sin.

(f) A consulter, or theologian, to whom a case of conscience is referred with the permission of the penitent: for then he becomes a sharer in the secret.

But the penitent himself is not bound by the law of the sacramental seal, which has been established in favor of penitents, not of confessors; but by the law of natural and religious secrecy, he ought to keep silent about what he has heard in confession, if those things cannot be manifested without harm to the confessor. - Hence a prudent confessor will beware lest he say things which he would not wish to become known to others: for often penitents converse among themselves about what they have heard in the sacred tribunal.

505. Principle: All those things fall under the seal which were known in confession, or on the occasion of sacramental confession, and cannot be revealed without confession being rendered odious. It is certain.

It is plain from the very end for which the seal was instituted; since it was instituted for this end, that the faithful not be kept away from confession; but that which renders confession odious either to the penitent himself or to others, by that very fact deters some of the faithful from it; therefore.

506. Corollaries. Some things fall directly, but some indirectly, under the seal.

Directly under the seal fall all those things which are declared as matter of confession, or for a fuller understanding of it; namely, all sins, mortal or venial, past or proposed, that is, those which the penitent intended to commit. Nor are public sins excepted, when they are known from confession, both because the confessor by his testimony confirms them and renders them more public, and because penitents would fear lest the confessor reveal their sins under the pretext that they are public.

Nevertheless, he would not violate the seal who said that some penitent had confessed venial sins, or that he lives so innocently that he commits only a few venial sins; for no one, without a special privilege, can be wholly immune from venial sins. But it is not lawful to reveal some venial sin in species, or even to say that such a penitent accused himself of many venial sins.

507. Indirectly under the seal fall all those things which can lead to knowledge of the sins of the penitent, or bring a burden upon him, such as: -

(a) Circumstances of sins, whether useful or superfluous, which the penitent sets forth in order to declare his sins better, even after absolution has been received, provided they are connected with the confession itself (for example, attendance at theaters, reading of certain books), and have something sinful about them: for all these things morally form one whole with the sins themselves. - Yet those circumstances do not fall under the seal which, although useful for confession, bear nothing sinful or odious in themselves, for example, that such a penitent is married, a magistrate, a soldier, etc.; nor the public sins of another which the penitent mentions in order to explain his own, for example, if he says that he has wished evil to the author of some publicly committed crime.

(b) Defects of the penitent manifested by confession alone, for example, illegitimate birth, lack of manners, ignorance; and therefore sins committed in the confession itself, although not accused, for example, impatience, insults against the confessor himself; for revelation of these defects certainly brings a burden upon the penitent. But natural defects known from elsewhere, for example, deafness, do not fall under the seal.

As to scrupulosity, it is matter of the seal if it is accused as a moral defect, or for declaring other sins, or if it becomes known by the fact that many things are accused as sins which are not sins: because then it is truly a defect known by confession alone. But if it becomes known from the manner of speaking and answering, it is matter of natural secrecy, if it is not otherwise publicly known.

(c) The penance imposed, unless it is very slight, because otherwise occasion would be given for suspecting the penitent to be guilty of mortal sins or of many venial sins.

508. (d) The sins of an accomplice, whether legitimately or imprudently revealed to the confessor, or the sins of others declared so that one's own sins may be better set forth (for example, I hated my father because he had struck my mother); for such manifestation would render confession odious. Hence the confessor cannot use this knowledge to warn or correct the accomplice, except with the express permission of the penitent: indeed, he will use this permission, spontaneously given, very rarely, lest the accomplice suspect that the seal is being violated.

(e) The virtues and gifts of God, and the good works of the penitent, are not matter of the seal, unless they are manifested for better declaring a sin, for example, abuse of grace; for their manifestation does not render confession odious. But all these things are the object of natural secrecy during the life of the penitent; but after he has died, for a grave cause they can be revealed, for example, for the beatification of saints.

(f) Absolution denied is matter of the seal, since manifestation of this matter is certainly odious; hence, if parents, teachers, and others question confessors about absolution given to children, pupils, etc., they are to be referred to the penitents themselves. - Although absolution given does not fall under the seal, the confessor acts imprudently by saying that he absolved such a one, because, when he is silent, suspicion will arise that absolution had been denied. - Access to confession is not matter of the seal, both because it is known outside confession, and because it is not odious; therefore he does not violate the seal who says: Titius confessed to me, or did not confess to me. Yet if someone secretly confesses to another, this is the object of natural secrecy.

509. Principle: The seal is violated as often as things contained under the seal are manifested with probable danger of making known the person who accused them, or as often as someone uses knowledge had from confession with burden to the penitent, or with danger of rendering confession odious. It is certain.

Explanation. The seal is wounded in two ways: directly, when that which is matter of the seal is expressly revealed and at the same time the person who did it is designated; it is not necessary that the person be known to the hearers, provided that he is sufficiently determined; nor is it necessary that the hearers know that the priest is speaking about things heard in confession, but it suffices that in reality he so speak from sacramental knowledge. - It is violated indirectly by saying, or doing, or omitting something from which either the object of the seal can be known, even probably, or confession can be rendered odious.

Direct revelation of the seal is unheard of in our days. Yet it cannot be said that a secret of this kind has never been directly violated; for it is reported sometimes, although very rarely, that the seal also was directly broken;¹ but so few facts of this kind are narrated, even concerning wicked priests, that it can deservedly be said that not without a special providence of God is the sacramental seal so faithfully kept.

¹ One of these facts is related in the Life of St. Thomas of Villanova, ap. Acta Sanctorum, t. XLV, p. 894-896. Namely, a certain murderer confessed his crime to an unknown priest, who in fact was the brother of the one killed; the confessor, after questions about the name of the murderer and the circumstances of the crime, manifested all these things to another lay brother, so that he might make the same things known to the judges. Wherefore the murderer was condemned to death; but when before execution he refused to confess his sins, Thomas of Villanova approached him, and learned from him that he refused to confess because he had been condemned from violation of the seal. After the matter had been investigated more maturely, the confessor confessed his crime and was condemned to perpetual prison, while the murderer was freed, because the judges acknowledged that no guilty person could be proved from the violated sacramental seal.

Direct violation of the seal admits no smallness of matter; for even direct manifestation of venial sins would be very odious to penitents and would keep them from the sacrament. - But indirect violation sometimes admits smallness of matter, namely when the burden arising from it is very slight. But confessors ought to be wholly cautious, since even the indirect manifestation of some defect of a penitent easily brings a great burden or scandal.¹

¹ From the Instruction of the Holy Office, June 9, 1915, when something is narrated positively and concretely as heard in confession, it must always be judged that from this confession is rendered odious in the mind of the hearers. Therefore confessors are strictly forbidden to do this, not even in passing, neither directly nor indirectly in their public or private discourses. Let Ordinaries gravely warn transgressors, strike recidivists with suitable penalties, and denounce them to the Holy Office.

510. On the Various Ways of Violating the Seal Indirectly. The seal is wounded indirectly by words and deeds: -

By words:

(a) If the confessor, in narrating some fact, relates such circumstances that the penitent can probably be known; for example, the first one who confessed to me committed adultery; - or if to a public fact known outside confession there is added some circumstance known by confession alone; - or, if after hearing a few confessions, he says that he heard such a grave sin; for from this each penitent incurs some suspicion.

(b) If it is said that such a penitent was not absolved, or only after some trial: for from this it is inferred that his sins were grave.

(c) If the confessor warns parents or superiors of the penitent to watch especially at such a time or place.

(d) If one penitent is praised before others for purity of conscience, so that suspicion is cast upon the others; but not if he is praised simply, without any comparison, although it is better to say nothing in species about qualities of penitents known by confession alone.

(e) If the penitent is rebuked or questioned in a loud voice, or if the confessor, after hearing a sin, groans and exclaims; from which it can be understood that the penitent has sinned gravely.

511. (f) If two confessors of the same penitent converse together about his sins, without special permission; or, if the confessor speaks about these things with others who know these sins from elsewhere, for example, with parents, or with the other spouse; indeed, if with the penitent himself outside confession he speaks, without his permission, about things heard in confession; but not if the penitent himself begins to speak about his confession, because then he implicitly gives permission to speak.

(g) If a depraved habit, known by confession, is revealed as prevailing in some congregation, or monastery, or parish, unless in this last case the village is very large (containing more than 3000 inhabitants); for the infamy of this sin redounds upon the whole community; thus, for example, if it is said of some monastery: sacrileges are committed there; or of a small town: adultery, sodomy, fornication, etc., prevail here. - Hence a preacher who addresses a small community of nuns or religious ought not to describe some particular sin accused by one or another of the members, lest the penitents think that this is done because of the sin which they declared; yet he can describe in a general way the defects customarily committed in all monasteries.

(h) A pastor who makes known to missionaries or outside priests the principal vices prevailing in the community, so that they may correct them, does not violate the seal, if the place is large and the vices sufficiently common; but, if from knowledge of confession he were to say that incest, or another vice, prevails in a few families, he would wound the seal.

512. The seal is violated by deeds:

(a) If someone, after hearing a confession, changes his manner of acting toward the penitent, by addressing him with harsher words, or by depriving him of his former benevolence; for example, if he no longer entrusts the keys of the chest to a servant whom from confession he has found unfaithful;¹ or even changes his manner of acting with regard to others, for example, by rebuking or expelling the accomplices of the penitent.

¹ It is disputed whether in this case the confessor can in the confession itself command the servant to return the keys spontaneously; Elbel affirms (n. 514), Lugo denies (n. 123), because such a command would bring a burden upon the penitent, and we think this opinion more probable.

(b) "Both superiors existing for the time, and confessors who afterward have been appointed superiors, can in no way use for external governance the knowledge which they have had concerning sins in confession" (Code, can. 890, § 2²), and deservedly, since such a manner of acting of itself tends to deter penitents from perfect sincerity.

² These words are taken from the decree of Clement VIII (May 26, 1593) issued for Regular Superiors. (Among the Constitutions of Urban VIII ap. Bullarium Magnum, t. IV, p. 68). On November 18, 1682, the Holy Inquisition extended this principle to all confessors, by condemning this proposition: "It is lawful to use knowledge acquired from confession, provided it is done without direct or indirect revelation and burden to the penitent, unless some other much greater burden would follow from non-use, in comparison with which the former is deservedly condemned. Then there was added the explanation or limitation that it is to be understood of the use of knowledge acquired from confession with burden to the penitent, with any revelation excluded, and in a case in which a much greater burden of the same penitent would follow from non-use." - It was established that "the said proposition, insofar as it admits the use of knowledge with burden to the penitent, is to be wholly prohibited, even with the said explanation or limitation." (Ap. Denzing., n. 1087.)

Therefore it is not lawful to use this knowledge to remove an unworthy person from office, to deny him a vote, to shut the penitent in a room lest he go out to sin, to dismiss a servant, etc.

Yet the confessor can use the knowledge of confession when no danger of revelation is feared, and no burden for the penitent or for others: for the good of the penitent himself, namely by praying more fervently for him, or by acting more kindly with him, because this cannot be displeasing to the penitent; for the good of others, by using experience acquired for a more prudent administration of the sacrament, whether with regard to questions to be asked, or with regard to counsels to be given; or for preaching in a more practical way, provided, however, that nothing be said which renders confession odious; for his own amendment, by reforming his own morals, by performing his offices more diligently, and by fleeing occasions of sin more watchfully.

513. (c) It is not lawful to refuse to hear the confession of a penitent who, from a previous confession, is known to be indisposed, for example, because he does not wish to leave a proximate and free occasion of sin: for this is the greatest burden to the penitent; yet at the beginning of the confession he can dismiss him, if he finds him to be the same indisposed person, although it is better to dispose him, if this can be done.

(d) A priest who from confession alone knows that ambushes are being prepared for him, or that the wine which he is about to use for Mass has been infected with poison, cannot flee or omit Mass, if from this others could conjecture that the seal is being violated in this way, or if a burden is brought upon the penitent himself; but if neither of these things is verified, he can flee or abstain from Mass. Besides, in every case the confessor, within the sacred tribunal, can ask permission to use this knowledge for preserving his life; but if the penitent refuses permission, the confessor must expose his life rather than violate the seal. Nevertheless, if it were certainly established that the penitent revealed these ambushes in the sacred tribunal for precisely this end, that the confessor could not flee, a confession of this kind is not sacramental, and therefore does not oblige to the seal.

514. Corollaries: (a) on giving or denying a confession certificate. In certain regions the confession certificate is in use, that is, written testimony concerning a confession made on such a day by such a person; it is given especially to those who wish to make the paschal Communion or to celebrate marriage, and it is written thus: "I heard such a one in confession, on the day¹ ..."; but nothing must be said about absolution given or denied.

¹ Statuts Synodaux de Paris, 1902, n. 423.

Now a certificate of this kind can be granted to all those who make a sacramental confession, whether they are absolved or not; hence it cannot be denied to an indisposed penitent who asks it outside confession: for if it were denied, the confessor would use the knowledge of confession with burden to the penitent. Nor likewise can it be denied to an indisposed person asking within the tribunal, when the penitent is in those circumstances in which it is customarily given, because this would be implicitly to say that the penitent was not duly confessed; outside these circumstances, it can be denied or granted, according to the laws of prudence; today it is rarely expedient to deny it, as often as the penitent has seriously accused at least one sin, lest from such denial he be kept away from the sacraments for a long time.

But if the penitent makes only a simulated and mocking confession, or if he asks for a certificate without confessing any sin, generally the certificate must be denied; for on the one hand the seal is not wounded, since it arises only from sacramental confession, and on the other hand, by handing over the certificate the confessor in some way cooperates in the unworthy reception of Matrimony or the Eucharist. - I said generally, because if from denial of the certificate, where this is required for marriage, scandals were prudently feared, a certificate could be given in which it is declared that such a one approached the sacred tribunal on such a day.

515. (b) If the confessor in a difficult case needs counsel, he can have recourse to a theologian to whom the penitent is unknown, or, if this cannot be done, present the case in such a way that danger of revelation is absent, for example, by setting forth the case as fictitious and therefore omitting circumstances from which the penitent could be known. Permission can also be sought from the penitent for taking counsel from another confessor concerning a matter pertaining to confession; but if this is denied, and at the same time there is danger of revelation, the confessor, after imploring divine light, should consult approved authors and solve the difficulty in the best way he can.

Note. (c) That the seal may be better kept, confessors ought to avoid mixing into conversations remarks about things heard in confession; this is enjoined in certain diocesan Statutes; thus in the Synod of Mechlin: "We strictly enjoin confessors that in common conversations they never intermix words about things heard in confession, nor report the scruples, internal vexations, and foolish things of those confessing, even with the penitent's name kept silent, under the pretext that matters of this kind are not sins."²

² The Second Synod of Trenton made this decree its own, n. 110. Cf. Second Plenary Council of Baltimore, n. 290.

516. Preliminary Remarks. Since the penitents who approach the sacred tribunal are diverse, the manner of acting with them also must be diverse, accommodated to the character and temperament of each, and also to age, sex, condition, and needs: for those who are light and those who are constant in mind, the scrupulous and the lax, the young and the old, men and women, magistrates and workers, relapsed sinners and the pious, cannot be treated in the same way. Therefore the confessor must become all things to all, that he may make all safe. Hence he ought to study not only Moral Theology, but practical Psychology, habits, passions, and virtues, and also Pastoral Theology, where the application of general principles to various kinds of penitents is more fully set forth; and moreover the treatise On the Obligations of Various States; and also Ascetical Theology, that he may direct pious persons into the way of perfection.

But here we shall note only a few things about those kinds of penitents in whose confession a special difficulty is more commonly found, referring, for the rest, to approved authors who have written fully on this matter.¹ We shall treat, namely:

¹ St. Alphonsus, Praxis confessarii; M. Fornarius, Institutio confessariorum; Reuter, Neo-Confessarius, parts II-III; Lacroix, lib. VI, n. 1794-1932; Gaume, Manuel des Confesseurs; Ciolli, Direttorio pratico del confessore, translated into French by Mazoyer, Directoire pratique du Jeune Confesseur, Paris, 1899; Aertnys, Theologia Pastoralis, Tournai, 1893; Hilar. a Sexten, Tr. Pastoralis de Sacram., Mainz, 1895, § 47-57; Lehmk., n. 476-522; Berardi, Praxis Confessariorum; Dubois, Pratique du zele ecclesiastique, translated into English: Zeal in the Work of the Ministry.

1° of those who need special instruction: children, the rude, the semi-fatuous, the deaf and mute;

2° of those for whom it is more difficult to conceive contrition: those in occasions of sin, those with habits, and relapsed sinners;

3° of those who need special care: the pious and the dying.

517. (A) We have already said that children who have attained the use of reason are bound by the precept of confession; now generally they attain sufficient discretion around the seventh year; yet this depends not on age alone, but also on keenness of mind and education, and on other circumstances of time and place; for example, they become mature earlier in warmer regions than in colder ones. - They are judged to enjoy the use of reason with relation to confession when they explain their sins distinctly, aptly answer questions proposed by the confessor, and understand that grave delicts are punished with eternal punishments; on the contrary, if they can say nothing except formulas committed to memory, if they answer affirmatively to all questions proposed, without any discrimination, and even though in this way they contradict themselves, they are deservedly judged to lack the use of reason. But in doubt whether they have attained sufficient discretion, outside danger of death, they are not bound to confess.

² On the spiritual care of the rude and of little ones read the golden little works of St. Augustine, De catechizandis Rudibus, ap. Migne, P. L., XL, 310-347; of Gerson, De Parvulis ad Christum trahendis; cf. Reuter, n. 99-118; 192 sq.; Statuts Synodaux de Paris, 1902, n. 407-409.

518. (B) Children must be received with special kindness and paternal affection, so that, far from being deterred from the sacred tribunal, they may rather approach it gladly and confess their sins sincerely. - They should be persuaded first to explain their sins; then they should be helped by opportune questions: whether they have kept silent about any sin out of shame; - whether they have recited morning and evening prayers; - whether on Sundays or feast days they have assisted at the sacrifice of the Mass, whether they talked during it; - whether they have sworn, blasphemed, or used indecent words; - whether they have been disobedient to parents, or lacked due reverence toward them; - whether they have quarreled with others, given way to anger or envy, struck others or called them by an ignominious name, or given bad example; - whether they have heard, said, or done anything shameful, which they would blush to say or do before their parents; - whether they have committed little thefts or brought harm upon others; - whether they have told lies, in jest or to harm others; - whether they have eaten meat on forbidden days; - whether they attend a Catholic school and study catechism, etc.¹ Let the confessor beware lest he be excessive in questioning, lest children conceive a horror of confession. Concerning chastity let him propose only those questions which do not excite the curiosity of the innocent, and yet furnish the guilty an occasion of manifesting their delicts: for certain boys and girls say nothing about this matter unless they are questioned.

¹ You will find an excellent catalogue of sins which are more commonly committed by children in Mother M. Loyola, First Confession, p. 34-36.

519. (C) After the confession has been heard, children are to be instructed concerning the means to be used for avoiding sins, and concerning the foulness of sin, yet without exhibiting as grave a sin which is only light;² but let them be taught to flee even light delicts, so that they may avoid the punishments of Purgatory and please Christ Jesus, who for them suffered such bitter torments and death itself. They are to be exhorted to contrition not by a long exhortation, which perhaps, their mind being distracted, they will not understand, but by questions accommodated to their capacity, for example: "My son, could you endure the fire of hell for a quarter of an hour? - Do you wish to crucify anew Christ, who suffered and died for you? - Do you wish gravely to offend your heavenly Father, who has bestowed so many benefits upon you and bestows them daily? - Are you not sorry for the sins by which you have deserved hell, offended Jesus and God? etc." - If they have accused only venial sins, speak to them in a similar way about Purgatory and the other evils arising from sins of this kind.¹

² Sometimes children sin mortally subjectively in those things which of themselves are light, because from the manner of speaking of parents or others they have understood that these are grave: this erroneous conscience should be prudently corrected.

¹ And indeed, since in children neither affection for sins nor inveterate passions are present, very little suffices so that, by the help of divine grace, which certainly will not be lacking, they may be rightly disposed. Cf. Berardi, De Recidivis, n. 191, where you will also find a method, under the form of dialogue, for disposing children.

A penance fitting their age will be enjoined, lighter than for adults, which they should perform at once, lest it fall into oblivion.

520. (D) As to absolution: (a) it certainly cannot be denied to children who have committed grave sins, if otherwise they seem sufficiently disposed, as St. Alphonsus rightly teaches;² hence the practice of those who dismiss without absolution children who have not yet been admitted to first Communion is wholly to be reproved, as we said above (n. 244). (b) But if it is doubtful whether they have the use of reason, or whether they are sufficiently disposed, they are to be absolved under condition in danger of death, or when the precept of annual confession urges, and several times in the year, lest they remain in the state of sin, if perhaps they have sinned gravely; outside these cases, they should be dismissed kindly for a time with a simple blessing. (c) But if they have accused only venial sins, let him excite them to contrition; and if they are sufficiently disposed, they are to be absolved, lest they lack sacramental grace; if after exhortation they remain doubtfully disposed, several times, but not as often as they confess, they are to be absolved conditionally, that they may recover sanctifying grace, if perhaps by a grave sin, of which they are unmindful, they have lost it.

² Praxis Confess., n. 91.

521. (A) On the rude. Here there is question not of those who, although uncultivated in human matters, are well instructed in matters pertaining to salvation; but of those who are ignorant in the business of salvation. It has already been said (n. 473 sq.) how they are to be instructed before or after absolution. Here only a few things must be said concerning certain difficulties which occur in their confession.

(a) Some have scarcely anything to accuse; this can arise from defect of matter, of examination, or of knowledge. If the first, that is, if in fact they have abstained from graver sins because of continuous labors, and otherwise they are not accustomed to accuse lighter delicts, they should be taught how they can confess venial sins and avoid them in the future, and also how much it profits to declare and detest again the graver sins of their past life. If from defect of examination, they should be kindly helped to search the hidden places of their conscience, as was said above, n. 316. If from defect of knowledge, they should be instructed in the tribunal itself concerning those things which are necessary for receiving absolution validly and lawfully, and afterward concerning the other things which are necessary by precept.

(b) Others can scarcely conceive contrition, because they are hardly able to think about motives; therefore these motives should be proposed to them in simple speech, by way of dialogue, as we said concerning children.

522. (B) On the semi-fatuous. Those perpetually insane cannot receive absolution; but one must speak otherwise of the semi-fatuous.

(a) If they certainly can distinguish between good and evil, although somewhat obscurely, and otherwise seem well disposed, they can be absolved not only once, but several times in the year. But since, on account of slowness of mind and weakness of memory, they are scarcely able to retain in memory even necessary truths, the confessor will take care so to dispose them that they elicit the necessary acts of faith, hope, and contrition; thus, for example, he can proceed: "Do you believe in one God? Do you believe that He punishes the wicked and bestows rewards upon the good? Do you believe that there are three persons in God, distinct and perfectly equal, and that the Son of God for our sake became man and redeemed us by His blood, etc.?" Let him proceed in the same way as to the motives of contrition.

(b) If there is doubt about the sufficient use of reason and whether he can sin gravely or not, the semi-fatuous person must be instructed and disposed in the best way possible, and absolved under condition in danger of death, indeed several times in life, at least once a year, lest he remain in mortal sin, if perhaps he has committed any.

523. (C) On the mute and the deaf. (a) These are not strictly bound to write their confession, above, n. 299; but they should be gently induced to do this, if they are able to write, since in this way the integrity of confession is better procured.

(b) Since today deaf-mutes can be instructed rather easily, the pastor or confessor ought to take care that, insofar as possible, they be sent to those schools where they are able to learn Christian doctrine, so that they may better confess and detest their sins.

(c) But if they have not been instructed by these new methods, the confessor should first inquire from their relatives what sins they more frequently commit; then he should lead them into some hidden place, where by signs they may attempt to declare at least in a confused way certain sins and to express their contrition; by certain signs, for example, by raising eyes and hands to heaven, let him exhort them to contrition, and absolve them absolutely or conditionally, according as he will be certain or doubtful concerning their dispositions.

A special difficulty is found in absolving these, because unless they wish to remove the occasion of sin, eradicate the depraved habit, or avoid relapses, they do not seem to be truly contrite. That this may be better understood, one must speak separately of each.

¹ Since the Older authors only touch this matter in passing, the Moderns and more Recent authors especially are to be consulted: St. Alphonsus, n. 452-464; Praxis Confess., n. 63-80; Lacroix, n. 1819-1832; Billuart, diss. VI, a. 10, § 5-6; Reuter, n. 168-188; Konings, n. 1429-1481; Marc, n. 1819-1831; Aertnys, n. 298-351; Ball. P., n. 167-312; Lehmk., n. 485-494; Hil. Sexten, § 55-56; Muller, § 156-157; Genicot, n. 369-374; Noldin, n. 401-409, but especially Berardi, de Recidivis et Occasionariis, who discusses these at length.

We shall set forth the notion and species of occasions of sinning; and also the manner of acting with those in occasions.

524. Notion and Species of Occasions. (A) Notion. An occasion of sinning is an external person or thing enticing to sin. Hence it is distinguished from those internal principles which incline to sin, such as concupiscence, evil habits, etc. It is also distinguished from danger of sinning, which can be both external and internal: therefore danger extends more broadly than an occasion of sinning, or, in other words, every occasion of sin is a danger, but not every danger is an occasion. - Nevertheless an external occasion is not truly dangerous unless there is at the same time an internal propensity to evil. Hence, in practice, two things concur to constitute an occasion: an external object enticing to sin, and an interior inclination to sin.

525. (B) Species. An occasion of sin is twofold: remote and proximate. (a) The former is that which constitutes only a slight danger of sinning, because it has some, but not great, force for enticing to sin, so that those who are placed in it generally do not sin. Concerning this there is no special difficulty: for it is established that such occasions exist everywhere, so that to avoid them it would be necessary to go out of this world.

(b) The latter, or proximate occasion, is that which constitutes grave danger of sinning, so that those placed in it frequently fall into sin.¹ Here we treat only of an occasion of committing mortal sin. But since danger of this kind can be more or less certain, we note that the rules handed down below must be understood more strictly concerning those who are in certain danger of sinning, but more mildly concerning those who are only in probable danger; for they must be applied not mathematically, but morally.

¹ Certain ones, however, with Ballerini (n. 168) and Genicot (n. 371-372), judge only that occasion to be proximate in which solid probability is lacking that a person can use it without sin, or, in other words, that occasion which induces a morally certain danger of sinning. See this restriction refuted in Berardi, op. cit. De Occasion., n. 9-12; Aertnys, ap. N. R. T., t. XXXII, 1900, p. 500 sq.

Now the gravity of this danger can be discerned in two ways: by experience, namely if someone, placed before in the same circumstances, generally or at least frequently sinned; for example, if someone entering a tavern is rather often made drunk, the occasion is proximate; if very rarely, it is remote; - from what commonly happens, even when experience is lacking. For although a certain person has never sinned, sometimes it can be foreseen that he will very probably sin, if he is exposed to such a dangerous occasion; for example, if some younger girl, light in mind and weak in will, is going to live alone for a long time with a vicious man, it is greatly to be feared lest, given human weakness, she fall into sin; therefore such cohabitation, even before any sin has been committed, is a proximate occasion.

526. (C) On the Species of Proximate Occasion. Proximate occasion is subdivided according to the person, duration, and cause.

(a) On the part of the person, proximate occasion is absolute or relative: absolute, when, human fragility being considered, it constitutes grave danger for all, for example, the reading of a very obscene book, long cohabitation with a concubine; relative, when it induces grave danger not for all, but only for this or that person, because of his special fragility or past falls; thus entrance into a tavern for one who is frequently made drunk there is for him a proximate occasion, but not for all; a prolonged conversation with a girl is a proximate occasion for a young man who pursues her with impure love, but not for all.

(b) On the part of duration, the occasion is continuous, or in esse, when it always, or at least habitually, accompanies the person, for example, unjust retention of another's goods, retention of an obscene book or picture, or a vicious person living in the same house; - or interrupted, or absent, when it occurs or is approached only at intervals; for example, entrance into a tavern where someone incurs danger of drunkenness; access to feasts at which detraction is habitually committed; conversation with a mistress who does not live under the same roof.

(c) On the part of the cause, the occasion is voluntary or necessary: voluntary, when it can be freely dismissed without grave inconvenience, for example, access to theaters, conversation with depraved companions, gambling, etc.; necessary, when it cannot be dismissed without grave inconvenience, whether physical or moral. Now an occasion is physically necessary if it can in no way be dismissed, for example, if someone is detained on a ship or in prison with depraved companions, if one living in concubinage is in the article of death and time is lacking for expelling the concubine; it is called morally necessary if it cannot be dismissed without grave temporal or spiritual harm, for example, without loss of office or function, without scandal, etc., as will be explained more fully below.

527. (D) Principal Occasions of Sin. That the rules concerning those in occasions may be better understood, it is expedient to review the principal occasions, while noting, however, that these are not always and for all proximate, but that judgment concerning their proximity must be made according to the notion handed down above; these matters are treated more fully in the various Treatises of Moral Theology.

(a) Against faith: reading of newspapers, periodicals, or non-Catholic books; - more intimate and more frequent familiarity with non-Catholics; - attendance at schools and colleges in which no religion, or a false religion, is taught; - service among heretics, or irreligious masters; - attendance at non-Catholic sermons; - mixed marriages, etc.

(b) Against chastity: concubinage; - cohabitation of persons of diverse sex who are by no means joined in lawful marriage; - conversations with depraved companions; - certain dances which, because of the persons, the kind of dancing, and the circumstances of place and time, are more dangerous; attendance at theaters, especially those which inflame lust both by the things exhibited and by scenic dances (ballets); - reading of obscene or erotic books; - retention of statues, images, and photographs which today easily corrupt morals among the young; - certain less honorable games among persons of diverse sex; - more frequent and protracted visits of lovers, especially when one alone remains with one alone for long hours, as often happens in certain regions, with great detriment to souls; - domestic dangers, which arise either from members of the family, or from servants, or from masters; - certain arts which are dangerous because of depraved conversations or more intimate relations between persons of diverse sex, etc.

(c) Against temperance: taverns and eating-houses; - frequenting of those who indulge in drunkenness, especially on Saturday or on other days on which workers are accustomed to receive wages; - certain festivities, whether religious or civil; - sometimes wedding feasts, and in certain regions vigils beside the bodies of the dead (wakes); potation by equal draughts (in English, habit of treating), etc.

(d) Against justice: certain public and political offices, which easily furnish a means of becoming rich unjustly; - certain businesses, and stock-exchange speculations, which are not immune from fraud, etc.

528. On the Manner of Acting with Those in Occasions. One must distinguish between a free proximate occasion and a necessary one.

Principle: One who knowingly and willingly refuses to leave a proximate and voluntary occasion lacks true contrition, and therefore cannot be absolved. It is certain.

It is proved: (a) One who knowingly and willingly is placed in a proximate occasion, and at the same time has no grave reason for remaining in it, by that very fact shows that he loves the danger of sinning, and therefore sin itself, since he foresees that in this occasion he will probably sin; for one who wills the end, that is, avoidance of sin, by that very fact wills the means, that is, avoidance of grave danger of sinning. But one who loves sin is not truly contrite; therefore he cannot be absolved. - Hence Scripture¹ deservedly says: "He who loves danger shall perish in it"; that is, one who knowingly and without any necessity exposes himself to danger of sinning is deprived of the abundant grace necessary for resisting, and falls into sin.

¹ Eccli., III, 27.

(b) Wherefore, on March 2, 1679, this proposition 61 was condemned by Innocent XI: "He can sometimes be absolved who is placed in a proximate occasion of sinning, which he can and does not wish to omit, indeed which he directly and deliberately seeks, or into which he thrusts himself."¹

¹ Ap. Denzing., n. 1078; cf. Viva, op. cit., in Proposit. XLI Alex. VII, where this proposition of Innocent is explained.

529. Explanation: it was said knowingly and willingly; for sometimes penitents, because of ignorance or levity of mind, are not conscious that they are placed in a proximate occasion; this can occur especially when there is question of interrupted and relative occasions, for example, of certain readings, visits, spectacles, companions, etc. Now if in such a case the confessor foresees that warning these penitents will be useless, indeed harmful, he can leave them in good faith, according to the principles set forth above (n. 477), and absolve them, provided that otherwise it is established that they sincerely detest their sins: which they can do in the case, since they are persuaded either that the occasion is not proximate, or that there is no grave obligation of leaving it. But afterward, if they again sin in the same occasion, they must gradually be instructed about fleeing this occasion; which indeed they will understand better if by their own experience they know that they frequently sin because of it.²

² Cf. Berardi, op. cit. vol. II, n. 32 sq., where particular cases are presented.

530. Corollaries. (a) One who is placed in a free and continuous proximate occasion (for example, in concubinage) regularly is not to be absolved before the occasion has in fact been removed. Thus commonly with St. Alphonsus (n. 454). For although the penitent can be contrite before he has removed the occasion, it is greatly to be feared lest, if he is absolved immediately, he will not in fact take away the occasion: for removal of such an occasion is a very arduous thing, and it does not happen unless someone inflicts great force upon himself; moreover, if the occasion is not taken away before absolution, the penitent after absolution will easily deceive himself; for an occasion always present often blinds the mind and weakens the will, so that a purpose previously elicited sincerely is rendered ineffective. Hence the confessor, as a physician, ordinarily ought not to absolve the penitent, lest perhaps he expose him to danger of relapse.³

³ A few indeed hold the contrary (Ball. P., n. 176; Genicot, n. 373; Noldin, n. 408), because the confessor does not have the right of prescribing such a remedy, since it is not established that it is necessary; nevertheless they admit that prudence sometimes advises that, even immediately the first time, absolution be deferred until the occasion has actually been dismissed, where such delay is judged likely to profit the penitent.

I said regularly; for there are cases in which absolution can prudently be given before the dismissal of the occasion: when the occasion, although continuous, is not so dangerous, for example, if there is question of restitution, and the penitent sincerely promises to restore as soon as possible and has not previously broken his promise; - when the penitent has already employed means for removing the occasion, for example, if he has told the maidservant with whom he used to sin to leave the house at the end of the week; - when he exhibits special signs of sorrow, from which it can be judged that his purpose is most firm; - or if he is in moral necessity of receiving absolution immediately, for example, if there is question of one dying, of those betrothed about to contract marriage, of those who cannot defer Communion without danger to reputation, of those who cannot approach the same confessor, as travelers, or those who are converted at the end of a mission; - finally, when they are so disposed that, unless they are absolved immediately, they probably will not return.

531. (b) One who is placed in a proximate voluntary and interrupted occasion, for example, by frequenting eating-houses, depraved companions, or dangerous spectacles, can be absolved immediately, provided he sincerely promises that he will avoid this occasion. But if he has broken this promise several times (for example, three times), absolution must be denied until by flight of the occasion he has shown a sincere purpose of amendment.

The reason for the former is that an interrupted occasion is more easily broken off than a continuous one, and does not constitute so grave a danger; hence the purpose of avoiding it can be firm and efficacious even before proof. The reason for the latter is: one who has broken faith cannot easily be believed; moreover he becomes a relapsed sinner, and one must act with him in the manner to be explained below, n. 539 sq.

532. State of the Question. From what has already been said (n. 526), it is easily understood what a physically necessary occasion is. But a morally necessary occasion is called one which cannot be left without grave spiritual or temporal harm, concerning which, in individual cases, the confessor must prudently judge, with all circumstances considered. We shall bring forward only a few examples, from which judgment can be formed in the others.

(a) Grave spiritual harm is judged to be present: 1. when the penitent cannot leave the occasion without casting himself into another similar or worse one: such is the case of a maidservant who, because of her beauty and moral fragility, in all the houses in which she has stayed has found the same or worse dangers. Yet illusions must be guarded against; for example, a master who has often sinned with a younger maidservant easily believes that he will be in equal difficulty with a new servant; yet this is often false, especially if he chooses an older servant, less attractive, grave in character and pious. 2. When the occasion cannot be avoided without injustice or another sin; for example, ordinarily a husband cannot leave his wife, or conversely; nor a son or daughter the paternal home; a soldier the army before the appointed time; a nun the convent; nor a hired physician the care of some person; nor a servant before the established time. 3. When the occasion cannot be avoided without grave scandal or another spiritual evil of others; for example, a mother of a family who cannot be separated from her husband without scandal of neighbors or spiritual harm of the children; or a master who cannot cast out a maidservant immediately after a mission without exciting scandal. But here also illusions must be guarded against; often one living in concubinage will say that the maidservant cannot be cast out without scandal, while on the contrary scandal is removed by her casting-out, provided that it is done prudently, at an opportune time, and under a reasonable pretext.

533. (b) Grave temporal harm is judged to exist when the occasion cannot be dismissed without notable loss of life, reputation, or fortune; for example, if someone would have to abandon his own office or art, by which he sustains himself or his family, as a merchant who in trading finds an occasion of committing fraud; a physician who in exercising his art finds dangers of sinning; a pastor by hearing confessions; a woman by receiving guests. This is especially true when at the same time some spiritual harm is present because of dangers arising from poverty or idleness.

But if the harm is only light, when all things have been carefully inspected, the occasion cannot be called morally necessary. Hence this proposition 41 was deservedly condemned by Alexander VII, March 18, 1666: "A concubinarius is not to be obliged to cast out his concubine, if she were too useful for the delight of the concubinarius, commonly for his pleasure, while, if she were lacking, he would lead life with too much hardship, and other foods would affect the concubinarius with great weariness, and another maidservant would be too difficult to find."¹ And by Innocent XI, on March 2, 1679, proposition 62: "A proximate occasion of sinning is not to be fled when some useful or honorable cause for not fleeing occurs."²

¹ Ap. Denzing., n. 1012; cf. Viva, loc. cit.

² Denzing., n. 1079.

Hence a fortiori a proximate occasion is not to be sought directly, even under the pretext of a spiritual or temporal good; for proposition 63 was condemned by the same Innocent: "It is lawful to seek directly a proximate occasion of sinning, for our own or our neighbor's spiritual or temporal good."³

³ Denzing., n. 1080.

534. Principle: One who is placed in a necessary proximate occasion is not sincerely contrite, nor worthy of absolution, unless he is prepared to make the occasion from proximate morally remote, by employing the means necessary for this. It is certain.

For one who does not wish to use these means by that very fact shows that he loves the danger of sinning in which he is placed, and consequently sin itself; for one who sincerely wills the end, that is, in this case, avoidance of sin, by that very fact wills the means necessary for the end, that is, those things which at least morally remove the occasion. - But on the other hand, those who sincerely wish to use the necessary means by that very fact show that they do not wish to sin; and with God helping, "who will not suffer you to be tempted above that which you are able," they can safely hope, by the help of these means, to overcome the dangers.

It was said necessary means, because absolutely speaking the penitent is not bound to employ all useful means, but only those which are truly necessary; and there is place there for good faith in the manner set forth above (n. 529).

535. Corollaries. (a) The principal means by which a necessary occasion can be made from proximate morally remote are of three kinds:

1. Some tend to lessen the force of the occasion; such are words said seriously and firmly to the accomplice in order vividly to express horror of this or that sin; - the threat that the whole matter will be disclosed to those who can bring a remedy, for example, superiors, parents, masters; - avoidance of every familiarity or solitary conversation with the accomplice; indeed, to flee his sight, neither to speak of him nor think of him, insofar as it can be done; - if some circumstances generate a proximate occasion, for example, an evening conversation with a maidservant, they must carefully be taken away; likewise, if danger arises from the fact that the accomplice enters the room, let the door be closed and locked, etc.

2. Others lessen the force of concupiscence: assiduous labor, so that in this way the evils which idleness is wont to teach may be avoided¹; - modesty of the senses, especially of the eyes: "I made a covenant with my eyes, that I would not even think of a virgin"²; - mortification of curiosity and of other passions: for those who are accustomed sometimes to resist their inclinations in lawful things resist unlawful things much more effectively; - by avoiding, or vigorously putting to flight, depraved, indeed dangerous, thoughts, especially about the beloved person; - by leaving dangerous readings; - by abstaining from excessive drinking; - by restraining concupiscence through moderate bodily exercise, etc.

¹ "For idleness has taught much malice." (Eccli., XXXIII, 29.)

² Job, XXXI, 1.

3. Finally others increase spiritual strength: every morning and evening, and also when temptation urges, to pray fervently: "Watch and pray that you enter not into temptation"³; - daily before the image of the Crucified to renew the purpose of sinning no more; - frequently to have recourse to the Blessed Virgin; - often to think about the last things;¹ - to read pious books; - to recite pious aspirations and to walk in the sight of God; - to receive the sacraments assiduously, and especially after a fall to approach the confessor at once², etc.

³ Matt., XXVI, 41.

¹ If someone does not know how to meditate and is addicted to sins, let him say to himself daily, before sleep: if I continue to live thus, I shall be devoted to eternal punishments.

² St. Philip Neri gave to a certain young man, who was sinning gravely almost daily, scarcely any other penance except that, if he relapsed, he should return at once to confession; the penitent obeyed, and Philip always absolved him, and always imposed upon him the same penance; by this means, in a very short time, the young man was amended and came forth as an angel. Cf. Berardi, n. 82.

Yet these means, as St. Leonard³ rightly notes, are not all to be employed at the same time, but now these, now those, according to the character of the persons, the nature of the occasions, and other circumstances.

³ St. Leonard, Discorso mistico, n. 20.

536. (b) If those placed in a necessary proximate occasion always relapse in the same way, after several paternal instructions, exhortations, and rebukes, they cannot be absolved unless they present extraordinary signs of contrition, or leave the occasion, even with very grave inconvenience. Thus commonly, with St. Alphonsus (n. 457), against a few.⁴

⁴ Baller. P., n. 192 sq.; Genicot, n. 374; Noldin, n. 409. They allege also Lugo, disp. XIV, n. 157 sq.; but Lugo himself admits (n. 160) that these frequent relapses, without amendment, create some presumption against such an occasionary, and therefore the necessity of certain special signs for destroying that presumption. - Cf. Vindic. Alphons., p. 603-620.

Explanation: 1. First indeed the necessary remedies are prescribed to the one in the occasion; if he has neglected them, he must be seriously warned two or three times to employ them; but if again he has neglected them, he must be dismissed without absolution, unless extraordinary signs of contrition are exhibited, as we shall say concerning relapsed sinners, on account of the reason there adduced.

2. If he has employed at least some means, with some amendment, he can be absolved and must be exhorted to greater efforts.

3. But if he has employed the means, and after several trials there is no amendment nor at least probable hope of amendment, he is not to be absolved before he dismisses the occasion or brings special signs of a better purpose. For in this case the danger of sinning is so grave that, all things considered, to remain in this danger is now a sin. Wherefore the words of Christ⁵ pertain here: "If your eye scandalizes you, pluck it out and cast it from you: it is good for you to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into the gehenna of fire"; by these words it is signified that we ought to suffer all harms, even the gravest, rather than incur eternal damnation, and therefore the loss of grace.

⁵ Matt., XVIII, 9.

Ballerini indeed objects that the hypothesis of St. Alphonsus must be denied; for if up to now there has been no amendment, from this it can only be concluded that the means were not sufficient, or were neglected. We admit indeed that it rarely occurs; for one who seriously employs opportune remedies is generally amended. But sometimes there are those who do not use these seriously unless absolution is deferred until they either dismiss the occasion or present extraordinary signs of contrition.

537. (A) Notion. A person with a sinful habit, or habituated in sin, is called one who has contracted an internal facility of committing the same sin from acts often repeated.¹ Therefore a sinful custom or habit is distinguished from an occasion of sinning, in that the latter is extrinsic to the sinner himself, while the former is internal; nevertheless it is often connected with an occasion, insofar as not rarely it arises from this or at least is much increased by it.

¹ Concerning habits in general and their influence on the will, it is spoken in Fundamental Moral Theology; meanwhile see, if you wish, besides the classical authors, Vieux moraliste ap. Ami du Clergé, XXI, 1899, pp. 529, 593, 673 sq.

How many acts suffice for contracting a depraved habit cannot be determined absolutely. For this depends on the character of the one sinning, namely his greater or lesser fragility; on the nature of the sin, since in certain matters, for example, in the matter of chastity, depraved habits are acquired more easily and more promptly; on the manner in which the sin is committed, with greater or lesser adhesion of the will; and also on the longer or shorter time which has intervened between the various acts: thus one who sins several times on the same day, and afterward abstains from the same sins for a long time, does not so easily contract a habit as one who regularly commits the same sins once or twice daily, or each week. - Let the confessor attend especially to this: the more easily some sin is committed, the more acts are required to constitute a habit; thus more acts are required for internal sins, which are more easily completed than external ones, more for those which are perpetrated alone than for those which require an accomplice. Hence, according to St. Alphonsus,² to commit an external sin five times in a month, provided some interval intervenes between the various acts, suffices for contracting a habit; while, if there is question of internal sins, a much greater number is required; but if there is question of external sins which can be perpetrated only with an accomplice, a smaller number is required; for example, one who fornicates once a month for a year can be called habituated.

² Praxis Confess., n. 70.

Again, one must distinguish between a habit contracted deliberately, with perfect choice of the will, and a habit formed from mere fragility: in the former case, as often happens for habits of theft and hatred, those with sinful habits generally sin because of a habitual perversity of the will, and therefore they repent with more difficulty; in the latter case, for example, if there is question of sins of the flesh, intemperance, or anger, they offend because of the vehement impulse of passion, and when this has passed, they more easily abhor their sin.

538. (B) Principle: Those with sinful habits can be absolved as often as they exhibit themselves truly and sincerely disposed to employ those means which are necessary for conquering the habit. It is certain.

For a depraved habit of itself is not a sign of indisposition, but only renders relapse more probable; now, if someone retracts the habit and sincerely wishes to employ the means for conquering the habit, by that very fact he shows that he is well disposed, and therefore he can be absolved; moreover, by employing the prescribed means, he will lessen and gradually extinguish the force of the habit: for custom is conquered by contrary custom.

But the means to be suggested are general, such as prayer, meditation, remembrance of the presence of God, flight from the occasion if the habit arises from an occasion, frequent reception of the sacraments, etc.; or particular, namely those which are opposed to the depraved habit, for example, mortification of the senses for conquering impurity, abstinence from intoxicating drink for overcoming intemperance, as is explained elsewhere in the Treatise on Sins and on Virtues.

539. Corollaries. (a) One with a sinful habit, who for the first time confesses the depraved habit, regularly ought to be absolved, although no amendment has preceded, provided he seriously promises to use the means necessary for eradicating the habit. For since he has not violated promises, and is supposed sincere, he can and ought to be believed. - Yet it is said regularly, because if the habit is very rooted and has been contracted deliberately, sometimes it is expedient to defer absolution for a short time, so that the penitent may conceive a more vivid horror of sin and more strenuously employ the prescribed means.

(b) One with a sinful habit, who had already rather often confessed the depraved habit, but had not been warned about the remedies to be employed, can be absolved if, better instructed, he promises to use them. For if he did not employ the necessary means, this must be attributed to ignorance rather than malice; moreover, since he seriously promises to use them, he shows himself well disposed.

(c) But if he rejects means truly necessary for conquering the habit, generally absolution is to be denied.¹ For one who wills the end wills the means; and one who does not will the means does not will the end, that is, in this case, he does not wish to flee sin. - It is said generally, because if the penitent rejects certain means in good faith, because he does not think them necessary, and is prepared to employ others, although, in the judgment of the confessor, they are less efficacious, he can for a time be left in good faith and absolved.

¹ Deservedly, therefore, this proposition 60 was condemned by Innocent XI, March 2, 1679: "To a penitent having a custom of sinning against the law of God, of nature, or of the Church, even if no hope of amendment appears, absolution is neither to be denied nor deferred: provided he says by mouth that he is sorry and proposes amendment." (Ap. Denzing., n. 1077; cf. Viva, on this proposition.) Now when necessary means are rejected, there is no hope of amendment.

540. (A) Notion. In general, a relapsed sinner is called one who, after he has confessed certain sins, often relapses into the same without amendment. Therefore he differs from one who merely has a sinful habit, who indeed often relapses into the same sin, but has not yet confessed this depraved habit.

With regard to absolution, one must distinguish between those who are formally relapsed sinners and those who are such materially only.

Now, that someone may be formally a relapsed sinner, three conditions are simultaneously required: (a) that, after he has confessed a depraved habit, he was seriously warned by the confessor concerning the gravity of the fault and the means necessary for avoiding it; (b) that he has fallen into the same sins, but not others of a different kind; (c) that, without amendment, he has relapsed in almost the same way, with the same facility, immediately or shortly after confession, without serious effort either to repel temptations or to employ the means of amendment.

One is called materially relapsed who indeed has often relapsed, but (a) either had not been seriously warned by the confessor; (b) or, although warned, did not relapse into the same sins, but into others of a different kind; (c) or, although warned and relapsed into the same sins, exhibits some amendment, because he has not sinned so often, or at least for some time seriously tried to resist temptations, or employed at least some one of the assigned means, although, because of the greater vehemence or frequency of temptations, in fact he has sinned as often as before.

541. As to materially relapsed sinners, there is no special difficulty: if they have not yet been admonished, let the confessor seriously admonish them and propose means to them: if they sincerely promise to employ these, they can be absolved. If they bring some signs of amendment, they are to be exhorted to make greater efforts; if, one vicious habit having been corrected, they have fallen into another, new remedies are to be proposed for destroying this also.

Therefore the whole difficulty concerns formally relapsed sinners. Rigorists, imbued with Jansenist principles, hold that they are not to be absolved unless they have proved amendment by long experience. A few others¹ think they can be absolved as often as they bring ordinary signs of disposition, and sincerely say that they are disposed. St. Alphonsus,² walking a middle way, teaches that generally they are not to be absolved unless they present extraordinary signs of contrition. His doctrine, if rightly understood, seems to us to be followed.

¹ Faure, Dubit. theolog. dub. 3; Baller. P., n. 225-345; Genicot, n. 370.

² Cf. Vindic. Alphons., p. 647-788.

542. (B) Principle: Formally relapsed sinners regularly cannot be absolved, unless by special signs they show that they are truly contrite. Thus commonly.

For frequent relapse into the same sins, without amendment, shortly after absolution, generates a prudent presumption of a weak purpose; for one who firmly purposes to avoid sin and to employ the means necessary for this, regularly does not change his mind so easily, nor so suddenly. But this presumption regularly cannot be destroyed except by special signs of contrition or of firm purpose; for common signs had already been given before and were found ineffective. Therefore more than ordinary signs are desired in this case.

Yet it is said regularly; for sometimes there are found penitents who are so changeable in mind that they can be sincerely contrite, and nevertheless, because of innate changeableness and fragility, fall into the same sins as soon as a vehement temptation arises; these can be absolved, provided it is established, with all things considered, that they are sufficiently disposed.

543. (C) Corollaries. (a) When a relapsed sinner brings certain special signs of contrition, he can be absolved at once. For relapse is not in itself an absolute sign of indisposition, since it can arise from mere fragility, but only generates a presumption of a weak purpose; but this presumption is destroyed by special signs of contrition; therefore, notwithstanding frequent relapse, the penitent in this case can be absolved.

But these signs are called extraordinary, not in the sense that extraordinary contrition is required, since simple attrition suffices with absolution; but in the sense that they must be more proving than those which had been given before by the same penitent. Therefore these signs are not something absolute, but wholly relative; nor can they be truly useful unless at the same time there are considered the character of the penitent, the temptations by which he is attacked, and other circumstances; hence much in this matter must be committed to the prudence and discretion of the confessor.

544. These things being posited, the principal extraordinary signs of contrition are: (a) tears poured forth not on account of some human motive (for example, because a girl was abandoned by her lover), but on account of the offense of God and the ruin of one's own soul; (b) heartfelt words, that is, manifesting a compunct heart and a firm will of avoiding sins; (c) spontaneous confession, made not from mere custom, but from the internal impulse of grace, especially when notable difficulties for confessing have been overcome, for example, after a great internal conflict, after a long journey, or when someone consents to undergo grave harm or grave inconvenience; but a confession is not judged spontaneous if it is made from the persuasion of parents or superiors, from the obligation of the paschal precept where this is commonly fulfilled, or from the custom of confessing on certain feasts; (d) spontaneous flight from the occasion, for example, by seeking reconciliation with an enemy, by restoring what has been taken, by dismissing a concubine; (e) manifestation of a firm and generous will, shown by deeds, for example, by manifesting sins previously concealed, making a general confession, or approaching the sacred tribunal notwithstanding the mockery of friends, etc.; (f) detestation of sin immediately after a fall, because then relapse can be attributed to mere fragility; (g) an unusual fear struck in from some event, for example, the death of a relative or friend, public or private calamity, fear of imminent death; (h) reception of more abundant grace, for example, on the occasion of a mission or spiritual exercises; in one word, all those things from which a sincere purpose of amendment can prudently be inferred.

545. (b) If the relapsed sinner brings none of these signs, he is not immediately to be dismissed without absolution, but is to be disposed to contrition by a fervent exhortation, as was said above (n. 479).

That the confessor may accomplish this more easily and efficaciously, he must attend to these things. 1. If the defect of disposition arises from ignorance alone, or inadvertence, or fragility, it will be rather easy to excite the penitent to contrition, by instructing him and proposing to him motives of sorrow accommodated to his capacity, especially if it is done by way of dialogue, so that the penitent cannot be distracted in mind.

2. If the defect of disposition arises from affection for sin, the difficulty indeed increases, but it is not insuperable. For the penitent, from the fact that he approaches the sacred tribunal, conceives at least some desire of conversion; moreover God is accustomed to grant grace to men of good will; therefore if the confessor, moved by prudent and ardent zeal, with paternal charity warns the relapsed sinner concerning the dangers in which he is placed, and suggests to him the means by which he can overcome temptations, he can make him well disposed; which indeed he will recognize from the very manner of speaking and acting of the penitent, for example, if he says that he has acquired a new knowledge of his own iniquity, or that he is prepared seriously to employ the prescribed means.

Here, however, it is worth noting that those who relapse from intrinsic facility are more easily made contrite than those who relapse from an extrinsic occasion. Thus those who consent to blasphemies, shameful thoughts and desires, or pollution, are made contrite rather easily; hence they can more easily be absolved, especially if they promise that they will return to confession immediately after a fall. But the proud are made contrite with more difficulty, who pursue a determinate person with hatred; the impure, who cling to some person with mad love, or spouses who abuse marriage; the avaricious, who have become richer from the goods of others; the timid, who by fear of men are deterred from fulfilling their duties. Of these indeed one must never despair; but to dispose them for absolution is very difficult.

546. (c) If, after a fervent exhortation, the relapsed sinner remains doubtfully disposed, he can indeed be absolved conditionally, if a special necessity urges, according to the principles set forth above (n. 487). But if there is no necessity of this kind, absolution is regularly to be deferred, especially when the penitent is placed in a proximate occasion, - or, though warned several times, has not yet restored, - or delay is judged opportune for striking salutary fear into the heart of the penitent.

547. (d) If finally it is morally certain that the relapsed sinner remains indisposed, absolution is to be deferred, not indeed for a long time, but for a few days, not with severe words, but with the most humane, by explaining the reason why absolution is deferred, and by assigning the means which must be employed for obtaining contrition shortly.

It was said: not for a long time, lest he come into desperation and sin more often; for relapsed sinners from intrinsic fragility a delay of eight or ten days suffices; for relapsed sinners from an occasion, a delay of fifteen days.

With most humane words, lest penitents bid farewell to confession; which Leo XII¹ explains very well thus: "Wherefore, if there is a just cause why absolution is to be deferred, it is necessary that he persuade those confessing, with words as humane as possible, that this is wholly demanded both by his own charge and office and by their own salvation, and that he very gently entice them to return as soon as possible, so that, those things which shall have been salutarily prescribed having been faithfully performed, they may be refreshed, loosed from the bonds of sins, by the sweetness of heavenly grace."

¹ Encycl. Caritate Christi, Dec. 25, 1825.

By explaining the reason ... so that in this way it may be understood that absolution is deferred not from hatred or anger, but from paternal solicitude.

By assigning means, so that the penitent may know what must be done that he may be better disposed for absolution; for delay of itself will not change his mind unless at the same time remedies are prescribed to him. - In this way absolution, sweetly and firmly delayed, can correct relapsed sinners, if not for the present time, at least for the future.

548. Since there are many penitents who, with God's help, avoid mortal sins and tend to spiritual perfection, confessors ought to devote themselves to the study of Ascetical and Mystical Theology, that they may wisely direct these in the way of God; otherwise, they will either have no care for pious persons, or will lead them into the way of error, illusion, and hallucination. Here we can note only a few things, referring the confessor for the rest to approved authors.²

² Cf. St. Thomas, in the second part of the Sum. theolog.; Alvarez de Paz, De Vita spirituali et ejus perfectione; Philip of the Most Holy Trinity, Summa Theologiae Mysticae; St. François de Sales, Introd. à la Vie Dévote and Traité de l'Amour de Dieu; Schram, Instit. Theologiae Mysticae; Scaramelli, Direttorio ascetico; Direttorio mistico; Msgr. Gay, De la Vie et des Vertus chrétiennes; Ribet, La Mystique divine; L'Ascétique chrétienne; Faber, All for Jesus; Growth in Holiness; Saudreau, Méthode pour diriger les âmes, Paris, Vic et Amat.

549. (A) Preliminary Remarks. (a) Let the confessor not try to lead all pious persons living in the world to the highest degree of perfection: for there are those who are truly devout and rightly perform ordinary good works, without nevertheless being called to a higher perfection.

(b) Not all the devout are to be directed in the same way, but attention must be given to their character and condition, and also to the inspirations which they receive from the Holy Spirit.

As to character, those endowed with a different temperament must be treated differently. The phlegmatic must be stirred up, lest they become asleep, tepid, and lax; the choleric and nervous must be moderated, lest they suddenly wish to attain a higher degree and afterward fall; the melancholic need consolation, lest they be oppressed by sadness and a broken spirit; the sanguine must be persuaded that they do all things deliberately and constantly, lest, moved by sudden ardor, they undertake something above their strength, and afterward, cast down, fall into desperation.¹

¹ These temperaments are treated in the Treatise on Human Acts, n. 120.

With regard to condition of life, married persons and celibates are not to be directed in the same way, nor those who are bound to labor assiduously and those who enjoy much leisure, etc. Nothing must ever be counseled which can obstruct fulfillment of the duties of one's state.

Since the Spirit of God is manifold in His gifts, and inspires various souls variously, let the confessor carefully inquire whether and how each devout person is drawn by grace to this or that virtue; likewise let him ask light from God: for he ought not to go before divine inspirations, but rather to follow them.

550. (B) Method to be Followed. (a) First of all, the devout are to be taught that perfection is not properly situated in spiritual exercises, or in the practice of mortification, or in this or that devotion, but in the love of God for Himself, and in the love of neighbor for God: "Of itself and essentially, the perfection of the Christian life consists in charity, principally indeed according to the love of God, but secondarily according to the love of neighbor." This love indeed is not to be placed in sensible affection, but in the prompt and generous will of doing and suffering all things for God, and therefore of willing all things which God wills, because He wills them, in the way He wills, and as long as He wills. From this it follows that perfection is to be sought not in a few heroic acts, but in individual and ordinary actions performed for God with a prompt and fervent mind.²

² St. Thomas, 2. 2., q. 184, a. 3.

But since, in the present state, we cannot love God and neighbor as we ought unless we deny ourselves, mortification of the external and internal senses, and also of the passions, is a necessary means for attaining perfection: "But those who are Christ's have crucified their flesh with its vices and concupiscences."³ - Moreover, since we have been redeemed and sanctified through Christ, we cannot attain Christian perfection except through Christ, and with Christ, and in Christ: hence, in the present order, no one can be perfect except by intimate union with Christ. Therefore the greatest devotion must be inculcated toward Christ the Redeemer, and the various mysteries of Him, especially the Passion; and toward Christ hidden in the Eucharist, whose hidden life pious persons should strive to contemplate and imitate by devout visits.

³ Galat., V, 24. - Recall to memory what was said concerning the four wounds of human nature in the Treatise on God the Creator, n. 198.

But since Christ came to us through Mary, we can approach Him more promptly and safely through Mary: to Jesus through Mary. Nor indeed must devotion toward the Saints be omitted, who, since they have imitated Christ, can by examples and intercession lead us to the Lord. Yet let the confessor take care that this devotion be regarded only as a means for promoting imitation and love of Christ.

551. (b) Let the confessor keep before his eyes that there are three degrees or states of perfection, according to the diverse degrees of charity, namely the state of beginners, of those progressing, and of the perfect; to which correspond the three spiritual ways: purgative, illuminative, and unitive.

Beginners are those who are not only retarded by concupiscences and passions, but also are in danger of sometimes falling into mortal sin. These are in the purgative way, because they purge themselves from sins by mortifying the passions and at the same time fostering charity. - Those progressing, their passions now calmed, more easily devote themselves to the operation of the virtues, especially the moral virtues, and to the increase of charity; hence they are in the illuminative way, because, since they are more immune from vices and concupiscences, they are more often illuminated by God. - But the perfect, their passions having been subdued, become accustomed to the exercise not only of moral virtues, but also theological virtues, and promptly and delightfully devote themselves to the love of God; hence they walk in the unitive way, because they are united to God more intimately and more frequently. - In practice, however, these degrees are not so clearly distinct; and there is no state or degree which does not in some way participate in another degree; therefore in any state one must unceasingly devote oneself to mortification, to the moral virtues, and to the theological virtues; but in the first degree one must insist more on mortification; in the second, on the moral virtues; and in the third, on the theological virtues.

552. (c) The general means by which the degrees of perfection are climbed step by step are spiritual exercises and frequent reception of the sacraments.

Among pious exercises, three are especially profitable, besides frequent assistance at Mass and visitation of the Most Holy Sacrament: meditation, frequent remembrance of the presence of God, and sincere examination of conscience. 1. According to St. Alphonsus,¹ the confessor ought before all else to dispose the devout to make mental prayer, because prayer and sin cannot dwell together; and moreover by meditation divine love is enkindled. Most persons, even the rude, can make some meditation if, after pious reading, they think seriously about the things which they have read and ask these three things of themselves: how can these things be brought into practice by me? - whether and how far I have done this before? - what can I do today concerning this matter? Then let them pray that they put into execution the things they have proposed to themselves.

¹ Praxis, n. 122; cf. n. 217 sq., where the practice of mental prayer is explained; St. François de Sales, Introd. à la Vie dévote, 2nd part, ch. 1-8; Faber, Growth in Holiness, ch. 15.

2. Let them frequently have the presence of God before their eyes, according to that saying:¹ "Walk before me, and be perfect"; and let them offer their acts to God not only in the morning, but several times in the day, and recite pious ejaculatory prayers; for thus they will not only flee sin, but also daily progress in the practice of virtues.

¹ Gen. XVII, 1.

3. In examining their conscience, let them recall not only in a general way their principal delicts, but let them seriously examine themselves concerning one vice or one virtue in species, so that they may see not only whether they have offended, but whether and how far they have progressed: for they will progress more promptly and safely if they apply all their strength to cultivating one virtue or extirpating one vice for some notable time.

As to frequency of Communion, read the rules which are handed down in Syn. Theol. Dogm., De Eucharist., n. 150-152, and the decree of Pius X.

553. (d) Particular means are diverse according to the diverse degrees which pious persons have attained, and their character, condition, and supernatural inclinations. For although the principal virtues ought to be cultivated by all, those especially are to be inculcated which are opposed to the predominant vice, or better correspond to the duties of one's state or to the motions of grace. Certain ones nevertheless seem more necessary: in the first degree, mortification of curiosity, vanity, and sensual love; in the second, the practice of prudence, justice, fortitude, humility, meekness, and sincerity; in the third, the spirit of faith, filial trust in God, and fervent love of God. Concerning these, see the Treatise on Virtues, in which all these things are described more fully.

554. (C) On the Temptations of the Devout. The devout are attacked by special temptations, for overcoming which more efficaciously they need the counsel of a prudent confessor.

(a) Beginners, after they have experienced tender devotion, are gradually deprived of spiritual delights, because God wishes to nourish them with more solid food: from this anxieties and dejection of soul are born. Therefore the confessor will teach them that true virtue and true progress consist in spiritual combat, not in delights; that the business of perfection is completed not in one day, but by a slow step, after the manner of plants which grow in a way scarcely sensible; that God looks upon the heart, and rewards efforts rather than apparent progress; that in the work of salvation invincible constancy profits more than efforts made with interruption², etc.

² "But he who shall persevere unto the end, he shall be saved" (Matt., X, 22).

(b) Those progressing, after some time wearied by spiritual combat, often look back¹, and wish to stop where they are; from this it happens that they gradually decline; namely, spiritual exercises are omitted or performed negligently; esteem of perfection decreases, and love of the world and of pleasures increases; hence venial sins are committed deliberately and frequently, and when grave temptation urges, they easily slip into mortal sin. - These should be taught that those who do not progress in the way of God, by that very fact go back; that tepidity is often more dangerous than mortal sin: "Would that you were cold or hot! But because you are tepid, ... I will begin to vomit you out of my mouth"²; that loss of time and grace are very grave evils and are punished by severe penalties: "For the earth often drinking in the rain coming upon it ... but bringing forth thorns and briars, is reprobate, and very near to a curse; whose end is to be burned"³; that those who are heaped with more abundant graces are bound to greater perfection, and therefore that those are not to be imitated who, helped by lesser graces, lead a common life quietly. Let them be induced, if it can be done, to make the sacred exercises in retreat; then let them resume the neglected exercises of devotion and perform them fervently, especially meditation and examination of conscience; and let them direct all their efforts, for a long time, to cultivating one virtue. By these and other similar means they will return to better things.⁴

¹ "No man putting his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God" (Luc., IX, 62).

² Apoc. III, 15-16.

³ Hebr., VI, 7-8.

⁴ You will find means for avoiding or correcting tepidity in Pratique progressive de la Confession, and in the other works cited above.

(c) Even those more advanced, or the perfect, can fall into the snare of the devil; for sometimes they indulge pride, vain glory, and presumption; from this it happens that they rashly cast themselves into certain occasions of sinning, and are deceived by various illusions: anger is judged zeal, pertinacity is held for constancy, prodigality for liberality, self-love for divine love, sensual and impure love for charity. Hence they can also slip into grave sins. - The consideration of their own fragility, frequent remembrance of sins, and the intimate persuasion that no good is to be attributed to us⁵ will profit these persons. To avoid illusions, let them do nothing extraordinary without consulting the confessor; as to the practice of virtues, let them take his counsel. If they have fallen into mortal sin, let the confessor receive them kindly, without any sign of admiration or indignation; yet let them seize this occasion for humbling themselves under the powerful hand of God, acknowledging their unworthiness, impotence, and perfidy, so that thereafter they may serve God with greater humility and fervor, and compensate the injury by doubled homage.

⁵ "But what do you have that you have not received? And if you have received, why do you glory as if you had not received?" I Cor., IV, 7.

555. (D) On the Desolations of the Devout. Sometimes even the devout are afflicted with various desolations, temptations against faith, confidence, or chastity, by which they are affected with great sorrow and can become despondent.

(a) Let them keep before their mind that there is no safer and shorter way to perfection than patience in tribulations: the greater things we suffer for God, the more perfectly are we detached from creatures and the more intimately united to God; therefore in no desolation let them despond in soul, but let them hand themselves wholly over into the hands of divine mercy, saying with Christ¹: "My Father, if it is possible, let this chalice pass from me; nevertheless not as I will, but as Thou"; for the chalice accepted patiently passes more quickly.

¹ Matth., XXVI, 39.

(b) With the help of divine light, let inquiry be made from what cause this spiritual desolation arises. If from voluntary defect, let sorrow be sincerely had for the fault, pardon be humbly sought, and the former fervor be renewed. If from weariness of body or natural disposition, let strength be restored to the body by honest recreation and bodily exercise, and, if there is need, let a physician be approached who may prescribe proper remedies. If from God, who wishes to render the soul purer, let it be gladly accepted as a means of more intimate union with the Crucified: "With Christ I am fastened to the cross."²

² Galat., II, 19.

(c) In time of desolation let no exercise of devotion be omitted or performed negligently: for then exercises of this kind are more pleasing to God and more meritorious.

(d) Let the state of the soul be candidly opened to the confessor, who can suggest more useful counsels.

556. (F) On the Extraordinary Graces of the Devout. Sometimes also God illumines the devout by a special light or vision, or consoles them with extraordinary consolations. But since in this matter illusions and hallucinations easily occur, let the confessor examine all these things diligently, not indeed with an unbelieving mind, but with a sober one, so that he may discern whether they proceed from the Spirit of God, or from a fervid imagination or the devil.³

³ On discernment of spirits, cf. De Imitatione Christi, lib. III, c. 54; St. Ignatius, Exercitia Spirit., Rules for discerning the movements of the soul; Bona, De Discretione spirituum; Poulain, Des Grâces d'oraison.

(a) The good Spirit does not inspire things which are repugnant to revealed truth or to doctrine received in the Church; therefore novelties must carefully be rejected.

(b) The good Spirit moves to self-denial, obedience, humility, contempt of the world, flight from honors, etc.; things contrary to these virtues proceed from nature or from the evil spirit.

(c) The Spirit of God is discreet; hence generally He moves only to ordinary things and those accommodated to one's own strength; if sometimes He inspires extraordinary things, at the same time He infuses a sense of obedience and humility: therefore those are deceived who pant after extraordinary things, if they make much of themselves and despise others, if they glory in the grace of devotion, or if, when despised, they are cast down in soul.

(d) A divine motion is good from every part, in the beginning, in progress, and in the end; the illusion of the demon, although it may seem to begin rightly, shortly ends in something depraved, either by drawing back from a better good, or by insinuating something evil, or by disturbing the soul.

(e) Nevertheless, a temptation of the devil or a natural movement of the soul, for example, of pride, can afterward be joined to a divine motion. Therefore one must beware lest that which in the beginning was divine afterward become diabolical through some fault.

(f) Since obedience is the best trial of virtue, let the confessor sometimes command something contrary to the proper judgment of the penitent; if he obeys constantly and humbly, it is a good sign; but otherwise, if he is unwilling to obey.

See the rest in the cited authors.

We shall consider two things: when they can be absolved; how they are to be helped to undergo death in a Christian manner.

557. Which Dying Persons Can Be Absolved? - The chief difficulty is not as to confession, since these are excused from material integrity, but as to contrition, which is an entirely essential disposition, and must be manifested in a sensible way, according to most theologians: now this manifestation seems to be lacking in those who are destitute of the senses.

558. Principle: In the article of death, absolution can be granted, at least under condition, as often as it is even slightly probable that it will profit the dying. It is certain.

For by force of the principle "the sacraments are for men," in a case of extreme necessity it is lawful to expose the sacrament to danger of nullity, provided there is some probability that it will be valid and useful for the recipient. Nor is great probability required, but slight probability suffices, since it is better that the sacrament be null or defective than that souls be damned forever. Yet mere possibility does not suffice, since in practical matters probability, not possibility, is considered.

559. Corollaries. (a) If the dying person asked for the sacrament before witnesses before he was deprived of the senses, he certainly ought to be absolved, although here and now he is destitute of the senses; for, by asking for absolution, he manifested that he was contrite, and that act of contrition can persevere virtually. According to the more common opinion, he ought to be absolved without condition in this case, because the Ritual says simply "he is to be absolved"; yet one who adds the condition "if you are capable" is not to be blamed, since some doubt can remain concerning the validity of the sacrament.

(b) Catholics who manifested a probable sign of contrition before they were destitute of the senses can and ought to be absolved conditionally; for absolution will probably profit them.

Such are Catholics who lived in a Christian manner, although they gave no sign of contrition explicitly; for one who lives in a Christian manner is deservedly presumed to wish to die in a Christian manner and therefore to receive absolution. Moreover, although they are destitute of the senses, it is probable that they elicited an act of contrition before they lost the use of the senses; or it is not improbable that they lost the use of the senses, indeed, but not the use of reason, so that internally they can elicit an act of contrition, which sighs, movements of the eyes or lips, or other things of this kind make sufficiently sensible; otherwise, it is probable that contrition suffices, even if it is not manifested exteriorly. Yet it is expedient that the priest, before he imparts absolution, recite an act of contrition in a loud voice; for there are dying persons who are able to hear, although not to speak: in which case they too are helped in this way to elicit an act of contrition.

560. (c) Catholics destitute of the senses can also be absolved conditionally, who, although they did not live in a Christian manner, had kept the faith; for many of them implicitly wish to die in a Christian manner, and therefore to receive absolution in the article of death. Such are those among whom signs of Catholicity are found, for example, medals, a rosary, a scapular, or who can probably be judged Catholics, as living in a region in which there are many Catholics. Thus very probably.

(d) Indeed, probably those can be absolved who lost the use of reason in the very act of sin, for example, in drunkenness, in theft, in a duel, provided it can be inferred from their life that they were probably contrite. This indeed can occur; for in that very instant in which they were about to lose the use of reason, they could have changed their mind and detested their sin, especially since God does not deny His grace to one placed in extreme necessity. - But because many contradict this, the priest in this case is not bound to give absolution.

(e) But if the dying person, immediately before he lost the use of reason, positively repelled the sacraments, he cannot be absolved even conditionally, unless such a manner of acting can be judged revoked by some sign of contrition: for in this case every probability of conversion is lacking.

561. (f) Schismatics who are in good faith, and believe in the efficacy of absolution, can be absolved conditionally in the article of death, scandal being removed; because it is probable that they desire the sacrament. The same can be said of heretics who likewise are in good faith, and at the same time believe in the power of absolution, such as Ritualists and some Lutherans and Anglicans.¹

¹ This can be inferred from the recent decree of the Holy Office, July 20, 1898 (Acta S. Sedis, XXXI, 253-254); for when it had been asked "whether material schismatics, who are in good faith, can sometimes be absolved," the response was: "Since scandal cannot be avoided, in the negative, except in the article of death; and then scandal having been efficaciously removed." In the same sense can be understood c. 731 of the Code, forbidding the sacraments of the Church to be administered to heretics or schismatics, unless they have first been reconciled to the Church.

(g) As to heretics who reject the sacrament of Penance, the matter is much more uncertain. Many, with St. Alphonsus (n. 483), think that they cannot be absolved unless they have expressly asked for absolution, because they are not judged to desire that which they abhor.

Certain theologians, however, with Lacroix (n. 1866), hold that they can be absolved conditionally if they are in good faith, especially if they were inclined toward the Catholic faith, because, for example, they had Catholic relatives or connections or friends, or were instructed or served by Catholic nuns; for since they are in good faith, in a general and implicit way they desire to do or receive all those things which are necessary for salvation.

Indeed, according to Lehmkuhl (n. 515) and others, a dying Protestant, but one still enjoying the senses, can be absolved conditionally, if he cannot prudently be admonished about entering the Catholic Church, provided he declares himself a sinner, and, having conceived sorrow for sins, consents to be helped by the ministry of the priest in attaining eternal beatitude: for this consent is as it were an implicit desire of receiving absolution. But then let the priest take care that, for the sake of greater security, the dying person elicit acts of faith, hope, and charity, and also an act of perfect contrition, insofar as this can be done.

562. Notes. (a) If a probable doubt exists concerning the value of the baptism of non-Catholics, they must secretly be baptized under condition before they are absolved.

(b) Those who are certainly dead cannot indeed be absolved and anointed, even under condition; but from recent experiments it is established that life remains in the body for some time, even when someone has seemed to give forth the last breath, because life withdraws from the body only successively. Hence certain persons who were apparently dead, after three hours, were brought back to life by rhythmic traction of the tongue. Wherefore those who by such a process give certain signs at least of sensitive life can be absolved and anointed, the things to be posited having been posited; indeed, under the condition "if you are living," those who, although they seem to be dead according to ordinary signs, are prudently thought by experts to survive.¹

¹ Cf. Ferrand, Le moment de la mort, ap. Congrès scient. des Cathol., 1891, Sciences mathém. et nat., p. 197; Études Franciscaines, janvier 1900; Ami du Clergé, t. XXIII, 1901, p. 593.

563. Preliminary Remarks. (a) There is no work of charity more acceptable to God than to help the sick and dying to die holily, since the eternal salvation of souls depends on the manner in which these overcome the last difficulties and temptations; hence one of the chief duties of the confessor is to have care of the sick. "Wherefore as soon as he shall have known," says the Ritual, "that any one of the faithful committed to his care is sick, he shall not wait until he is called to him: but of his own accord let him approach him, and this not only once, but more often, insofar as there shall be need; and let him exhort his parishioners to warn him when someone in his parish happens to be sick, especially if the illness shall be more grave."

² Rituale Rom., De visitatione et cura infirmorum, Modus juvandi morientes; Polanco, Methodus juvandi moribundos, Dillingen, 1578; St. Alphonsus, Praxis, n. 227-291; H. A., Appendix II; Reuter, n. 209-227; Lehmk., n. 516-522; Marc, n. 1854; Aertnys, Theol. Pastor., n. 187-203; Gaume, Manuel, n. 371-401; Ciolli, t. I, n. 83-85; Alberti, Theol. Pastoralis, Part. I; Dubois, Pratique du zele, 2nd Part, ch. 12; Card. Gibbons, The Ambassador of Christ, ch. 30; Scavini, t. IV, Append. VII, De Cura infirmorum; Frassinetti, Manuale pratico del Paroco novello (in English: Parish Priest's Practical Manual), p. II, c. 2, Append.

(b) "But let him approach the sick person," the Ritual continues, "so prepared that he may have at hand arguments apt for persuading; and especially examples of the Saints, which have very great force, by which he may console, stir up, and refresh him in the Lord." - But since the confessor of himself is unequal to so great a matter, let him trust in divine help, and pray for the sick whom he visits. Moreover, that he may be better able to help the sick, let him explore their character, morals, and condition, insofar as this can be done. Then let him premeditate the manner of acting with each sick person, revolving in his mind those things which are to be said and done.

(c) If the family of the sick person is not likely easily to admit the priest, by indirect means at least, for example, by the intervention of friends, care must be taken that he be called as a friend; if he has tried this in vain, let the priest himself with all prudence and courtesy ask that, at least for the sake of politeness, he be permitted to visit the sick person; if he knows that his ministry is desired by the sick person, let him urge more insistently, and conduct the cause of the sick person in the best way he can, even personally. - If he is not permitted to approach the sick person without witnesses, and these are unwilling to withdraw, an entire confession is not to be demanded, but only a general accusation or one of a lighter fault; this having been posited, let the sick person be excited to contrition and absolved.

(d) Having entered the room of the sick person, let him show charity and commiseration, by asking about the illness, the pains, and other things of this kind, and by consoling him and exhorting him to patience, especially by the example of the suffering Christ.

564. On the Confession Itself. (a) If danger of death is not pressing, let him not speak immediately about confession, especially when the sick person fears to make it; but let him first strive to conciliate his soul to himself, by setting forth divine mercy and the love of Christ toward sinners. But on the second or third visit, let him propose the usefulness of confession, showing at the same time that it is not difficult nor requires much time; afterward let him exhort the sick person to make it without delay, especially if delirium is foreseen to be about to supervene shortly. If the sick person asks for some delay, so that he may prepare himself, it can be granted, unless danger stands in the way; but one must beware lest it be deferred too long. If he cannot be brought to confess, one must not wholly despair, but as long as he lives, various and efficacious exhortations of priests and other pious persons are to be used, and also both private and public prayers for obtaining divine grace for the salvation of the wretched one lying ill.

(b) Let him exhort the sick person now prepared for confession to perfect sincerity, and kindly ask him whether he has doubts or anxieties concerning past confessions, since this is the best opportunity for correcting all defects.

(c) In questioning, let him beware lest he bring annoyance to the sick person by too many or indiscreet questions: it is better to devote effort to exciting sorrow for sins than to procuring material integrity. Once the confession has been heard, let him excite confidence, by recalling to memory the mercy of Christ toward the greatest sinners, the Samaritan woman, Magdalene, the thief on the cross, etc.; - immediately before absolution, let him ask whether the sick person has anything which disturbs his soul, and let the motives of contrition be briefly proposed.

565. (d) If any restitution or reconciliation must be made, or scandal repaired, efficacious means should immediately be employed for accomplishing this, for example, by writing without delay a note in which it is declared that such a sum of money is owed to such a person, or by leaving through a will to a person above every exception money sufficient for extinguishing the debts. Often scandal is sufficiently repaired by public reception of the sacraments; nevertheless, sometimes retraction is required, as is explained in its place in the various Treatises.

(e) When certain danger of death is present, which the confessor will be able to recognize either by himself or by secretly questioning the physician¹, let him exhort the sick person to dispose of his affairs opportunely: for this is expedient for the peace of the family and the relief of his own conscience. In this, however, let the priest beware to avoid every suspicion of gain.

¹ Let him be questioned secretly, because many physicians are accustomed to deceive the sick, and, unless they are questioned secretly, they do not tell the truth. Read the signs of mortal sickness in Capellmann, Medicina Pastoralis, 11th ed., 1896, p. 174-181; in the same place you will find useful things concerning the care of the sick, p. 215 sq. Cf. Amer. Eccles. Review, April 1900, p. 388; Feb. 1901, p. 145; Oct. 1901, p. 280-292; etc.

566. On the Temptations of the Dying. (a) Since the sick are accustomed to be attacked by various temptations, the confessor must fortify them against these. First, proximate occasions of sinning should be removed, such as dangerous images, or persons who are accomplices in sins; on the contrary, before them let pious images of the Crucified or of the Blessed Virgin Mary be hung, by which they may be helped to think about God and eternity.

(b) If they experience temptations against faith, let them not discourse about them, but let them divert the mind elsewhere and frequently say: "I believe whatever God has revealed, whatever the Church teaches. - I believe, Lord, but help my unbelief." - If against hope, let words or examples of Scripture be recalled to memory, by which it is established that God is prone to forgive, and does not wish the death of the sinner, but that he be converted and live; that Christ said: "I came not to call the just, but sinners"; that the publican was justified as soon as he said: "Be merciful to me a sinner"; that paradise was promised to the thief hanging on the cross, etc. - If against patience, let Christ be placed before their eyes, who, although innocent, for us sinners patiently suffered so many and such great things in mind and body; that that which torments is momentary and light, that which delights is eternal; that pains cannot be avoided: wherefore if they are borne impatiently, they are increased and remain fruitless; if patiently, for God's sake, their bitterness is softened, the punishments of Purgatory are lessened, and new merits are acquired.² - If against charity, insofar as they pursue a determinate person with hatred, let them think that he who does not forgive cannot hope for pardon from God¹; that Christ, hanging on the cross, prayed for those crucifying Him, and died for us at the time when we were enemies. And so concerning the rest.

² For consoling the sick these or similar books will be very profitable: Perreyve, La Journée des Malades; Ozanam, Le Livre des Malades; Caussade, Abandon à la divine Providence.

¹ "Forgive, and you shall be forgiven" (Luke VI, 37). - Hence the priest can address them thus: "Do you not say, daily reciting the Our Father: And forgive us our debts, as we also forgive our debtors? Do you not wish your sins to be forgiven by the heavenly Father?"

567. On the affections to be suggested. In visiting the sick, let the confessor suggest to them, but in few words, and at intervals, acts of faith, hope, charity, contrition, conformity to the will of God, desire for paradise, acceptance of death, etc. Let him offer them an image of the Crucified to be kissed, and exhort them often to invoke, by mouth or at least in heart, the Most Holy Names of Jesus, Mary, and Joseph. Yet let him beware lest by longer prayers and exhortations he bring annoyance to them. - He himself, with those assisting, should recite a few prayers for them; should bless them, and several times impart absolution anew², especially before he departs.

² "According to the prescription and mind of the Roman Ritual, let the pastor of souls be diligent in visiting the sick and those in agony, even after they have received the last sacraments ... and, after there has been elicited from them, if they can, a new act of confession and contrition, let him anew, repeatedly, give absolution." (Conc. Plen. Balt. II, n. 116.)

He will likewise help them to gain indulgences, especially the plenary indulgence in the article of death, according to those things which we shall set forth where we treat of Indulgences. But he will recall to memory that, for gaining these, the interior dispositions of hatred of sin and love of God are more profitable than the recitation of many prayers.

568. On helping those in agony. (a) "As the sickness grows heavier," says the Ritual, "the parish priest shall visit the sick person more frequently, and shall not cease diligently to help him unto salvation; and he shall admonish that, when danger is imminent, he be called at once, so that he may be present to the dying person in time." By these words is inculcated the obligation of helping those in agony by prayers, exhortations, and especially by repeated absolution, lest perhaps they have internally committed some mortal sin and die in it. The gravity of this obligation depends on the condition of the dying; if they have lived in a Christian manner and are surrounded by pious persons, the presence of the confessor is indeed useful, but not necessary; but if they have led a vicious life and remain exposed to grave temptations, or, a fortiori, if up to this time they have not received the last sacraments, the parish priest is bound under grave obligation to attempt all things, while breath remains, for procuring their salvation. But if he is legitimately impeded, let him entrust this office to another priest. Let him also exhort pious persons who live in the neighborhood to visit the dying and to help them to die in a Christian manner.

569. (b) When the time of expiring is at hand, the priest, or, if he is lacking, a pious person, should devoutly recite the commendation of the soul, as it is contained in the Ritual or in prayer books. Short aspirations should be suggested to the one in agony: "Jesus, receive my spirit. - Into Thy hands, O Lord, I commend my spirit. - Holy Mary, my mother, help me in the hour of death. - St. Joseph, succor me, etc."

(c) As soon as death is established, let the Subvenite be recited for the departed, and let other prayers be poured forth. Before he departs, let the priest console the relatives, and admonish them that prayers will profit the departed more than tears, that we all shall die shortly, and that the best preparation for death is a Christian life.

There are especially two: the absolution of an accomplice and solicitation to shameful things.

570. Lest confessors be able to abuse their authority for sinning more freely with penitents, Benedict XIV prohibited, under penalty of excommunication, that they sacramentally hear and absolve an accomplice in a shameful sin licitly and validly, outside the case of extreme necessity:

¹ Benedict XIV, Bull Sacram. Poenitentiae, June 1, 1741; Apostolici muneris, February 8, 1745; Inter praeteritos, December 3, 1749; Pius IX, Bull Apostolicae Sedis, October 11, 1869; St. Alphonsus, n. 553-556; Lehmk., n. 935-938; Marc, n. 1780-1784; Haine, q. 92; Genicot, n. 351-354; Noldin, n. 377-380; D'Annibale, In Constit. Apost. Sedis, Prati, 1894, n. 83-87; Bucceroni, Comment. de Constit. Bened. Sacram. Poenitentiae, Rome, 1890; Berardi, De Sollicitatione et Absolutione complicis, Faenza, 1897; Rota, Enchiridion confessarii et judicis ecclesiastici, Turin, 1884, n. 122-163; S. Many, De Absol. complicis, ap. Canoniste, June, July 1895.

"To individual priests, secular as well as regular ... we interdict and prohibit that any of them, outside the case of extreme necessity, namely in the article of death itself, and then with any other priest lacking who could perform the office of confessor, should dare to receive the sacramental confession of a person who is an accomplice in a shameful and dishonorable sin committed against the sixth precept of the Decalogue, any authority and jurisdiction for absolving any person whatsoever from a fault of this kind therefore being removed from him by the law itself, so indeed that the absolution, if he imparts any, is entirely null and void."

The Code at once confirms and explains this prohibition (c. 884): "The absolution of an accomplice in a shameful sin is invalid, except in danger of death; and even in danger of death, outside the case of necessity, it is illicit on the part of the confessor." Moreover, from can. 2367, "one absolving or pretending to absolve an accomplice in a shameful sin incurs by the fact itself an excommunication reserved in a most special manner to the Apostolic See."

For these documents to be rightly understood, it must be explained 1° what complicity in a shameful sin is; 2° what penalties are incurred by those who absolve an accomplice.

571. That the matter may be better declared, it must be known 1° what here is understood by shameful sin, and 2° by accomplice in this sin.

(A) The shameful sin of which there is question, considering the cited documents and the decrees of the Congregations, is any sin whatsoever against the sixth precept of the Decalogue, which is external, - grave not only as internal, but also insofar as external, - and certainly committed.

572. (a) Therefore any sins whatsoever against other precepts of the Decalogue are excluded, and also internal sins of lust, because the Church punishes only external acts.

(b) But there are included not only consummated sins of lust, but also those which are not consummated, provided they are grave, such as touches, embraces, kisses, looks, conversations; for Benedict XIV speaks in a general manner of a shameful sin against the sixth, without any restriction. Certain authors formerly had thought that shameful speech was not included; but the Holy Office declared, May 28, 1873, that under the name of shameful sin are comprehended also those sins "which consist in mere conversations and looks, which import complicity."¹

¹ Ap. Bucceroni, op. cit., n. 68.

Yet it is required that the sin be grave, because the Church does not punish slight delicts by censure; and indeed grave both internally and externally, as was said concerning a reserved sin (n. 431), because here there is question of a certain reservation or limitation of jurisdiction. Hence an external act lightly shameful does not fall under this law, even if it proceeds from a gravely libidinous affection; the same must be said of an act materially grave, but formally light because of inadvertence or imperfect consent.

It is also required that the sin be certainly grave; hence the penalty is not incurred if there is a doubt either of fact, for example, concerning advertence, consent, or the objective gravity of the sin; or of law, for example, if it is controverted whether such a species of sin falls under this law.

But it is not required that the sin have been committed by the priest after the priesthood had already been received; for the law is wholly general, and includes also those acts which were committed by the confessor while he was still a layman, as is established from the decree of the Sacred Penitentiary, January 22, 1879, where it is declared¹: "that a confessor cannot absolve an accomplice with whom before the priesthood, in boyhood, he acted shamefully, unless he is morally certain that the same person has already been directly and validly absolved by another confessor from the sin of complicity."

¹ Ap. Lehmk., n. 935, note 1. - Ball. P., n. 649 and Genicot, n. 352, indeed contradict; but their authority, however great it may be, cannot destroy the force of this decree.

573. (B) What an accomplice in a shameful sin is must now be declared. Now complicity in this matter imports the consent of two persons in the same shameful, grave, and external sin, whether each cooperates, as in mutual embraces, conversations, etc.; or only one acts, provided the other consents externally and at the same time internally: moreover consent is sufficiently present if this latter in no way resists.

(a) Hence there does not fall under the law an act which is mortal on one side, but only venial on the other; nor an act externally light although internally grave on both sides, because of the libidinous affection of both; nor an act, however grave, to which the other does not consent, indeed to which he has not given external consent, although internally he assents. Hence if someone has sinned with one resisting, or sleeping, or fully drunk, or destitute of the use of reason, there is not complicity.

(b) Complicity must be certain; hence if it is doubted whether either party sinned mortally, the act does not fall under the law. But complicity can be certain, even if that which had been promised is not fulfilled; for example, if two agree concerning copula to be had, although in fact copula is not had; or if a man induces a priest to sin with his own wife, and the priest furnishes assent, although afterwards he does not commit the sin; for in these or similar cases complicity consists in the evil purpose expressed by both in words or signs.

(c) But the accomplice can be either a man or a woman, either pubescent or prepubescent, provided he or she is capable of mortal sin; for Benedict XIV in no way distinguishes.

574. Complicity of this kind is struck by a twofold penalty: 1° absolution given to the accomplice is not only illicit, but also invalid, except in the case of necessity; 2° the priest absolving the accomplice incurs by the fact itself an excommunication reserved in a special manner to the Supreme Pontiff.

According to Benedict XIV (above, n. 570), any priest whatsoever, secular or regular, is strictly prohibited to receive the sacramental confession of a person who is an accomplice, and at the same time is deprived of jurisdiction for absolving him or her validly, outside the case of extreme necessity.

575. (A) General rule, outside the case of necessity. (a) The confessor cannot directly absolve his own accomplice validly from the sin itself of complicity; this is certain from the very text of the law. Therefore in this matter the common error of the faithful is of no profit, nor a fortiori the good faith of the penitent, because here there is not question of a multitude, which the Church may wish to favor, but of two accomplices, whom she deservedly wishes to punish. Hence if the penitent is absolved from the sin of complicity by the accomplice, he is bound to repeat his confession before another priest. - Nor can the priest absolve his own accomplice from the sin of complicity by force of any Jubilee whatsoever or of any privilege whatsoever, whether granted to himself or to the penitent: for this is expressly declared by Benedict XIV.¹

¹ Bull Sacram. Poenit., § 5.

576. (b) According to the more probable opinion, the priest can validly absolve his own accomplice from other sins, that is, from all those which are distinguished from the sin itself of complicity; for, according to the cited Bull (n. 567), the priest is deprived of jurisdiction for absolving from a fault of this kind, but not from others. Yet it is not licit to receive the sacramental confession of an accomplice, even as to other sins, if there is question of sins which are accused in a confession where the sin of complicity is deliberately kept silent. This is confirmed from a response of the Sacred Penitentiary², May 16, 1877: "Whether he incurs censures ... who indeed absolved an accomplice ... who did not declare the sin of complicity in confession?" ... The response was: "The privation of jurisdiction for absolving an accomplice in a shameful sin, and the attached excommunication, insofar as the confessor shall have absolved him, is in order to the shameful sin in which the same confessor was an accomplice."

² Ap. Canoniste, 1895, p. 334-335.

577. Corollaries. (a) If the penitent has already been directly and validly absolved from the sin of complicity by another confessor, the priest who is an accomplice can validly absolve him from other sins.³ This was formerly disputed, but the matter was made certain from a decree of the Holy Office, May 29, 1867, where it is declared that "it is free to the confessor to absolve the person who is an accomplice, who has already been absolved from the dishonorable sin of complicity by another confessor; nevertheless counsel must always be given to the confessor in question that, unless necessity compels, he abstain from receiving the sacred confessions of the person, although already absolved from the sin of complicity." - It is said "directly absolved"; for if the sin of complicity has been remitted only indirectly, because, for example, it had been inculpably omitted, the priest who is the accomplice cannot remit it, since as to this same sin he lacks jurisdiction.

³ Apud Bucceroni, Comment. in Bull. Apostol. Sedis, n. 37.

Probably also, according to some, if the sin of complicity, already directly absolved, is again accused with others, the priest who is the accomplice is not prohibited from absolving from it; for the reservation of this sin has been taken away by the previous absolution.

But in both cases, on account of the honor of the sacrament and the security of the confessor and of the penitent, it is altogether expedient that the priest not hear the confession of an accomplice where there are other priests.

(b) If the priest in good faith absolves an accomplice not only from other sins, but also from the sin of complicity not yet directly absolved - for example, because he does not recognize his own accomplice, or because the penitent inculpably omits the sin of complicity - probably the absolution is valid, in this sense, that other sins are directly remitted and the sin of complicity indirectly; the reason is that the Supreme Pontiff prohibits and renders void only the direct absolution of this sin granted by him who has known himself to absolve from the sin of complicity. - Yet a sin thus indirectly remitted must be accused before another confessor, that it may be directly absolved.

But if the penitent in bad faith keeps back the sin of complicity, and accuses other sins, no sin is remitted, because of the defect of formal integrity, and therefore the confession must be repeated in its entirety.

578. (B) Exceptions. (a) In the case of extreme necessity, i.e., in the article of death, the priest always validly absolves the accomplice; and licitly, if any priest whatsoever is lacking who morally can receive the confession of the dying person.

The article of death is understood of grave danger of death, as above, n. 399.

He acts illicitly and incurs excommunication who even then absolves an accomplice when another priest is present, whether approved or not. - Yet except the case if the other priest is unwilling to hear the confession, or if the person who is the accomplice altogether refuses to confess sins to him¹; or if the other priest cannot be called or approach without grave infamy or scandal; for then this other priest cannot morally hear the confession. - Except also, more probably, if the other priest is notoriously suspended, excommunicated, or interdicted, because a priest of this kind could not be called to hear the confession of the dying person without infamy of the priest who is the accomplice, or scandal.²

¹ Thus the Code, c. 2367: "even in the article of death, if another priest, although not approved for confessions, can receive the confession of the dying person without any grave infamy and scandal about to arise, except the case in which the dying person refuses to confess to another."

² Thus Rota, n. 156; Many, ap. Canoniste, p. 340; Lehmk., n. 937.

579. (b) In the case of graver necessity - when, for example, the ecclesiastical and divine precept of confession is urgent, and the accomplice in no way has, nor for a long time can have, the supply of another confessor, as sometimes occurs in mission places - more probably the priest can validly and licitly absolve the accomplice, directly indeed from ordinary sins and indirectly from the sin of complicity, provided there is present on neither side any grave danger of relapse.¹ - For when divine law and ecclesiastical law concur, the former must prevail; but in this case the divine precept of confession is urgent, and it cannot be fulfilled except by approaching the priest who is the accomplice; therefore it must be preferred to the ecclesiastical law prohibiting absolution of an accomplice. - Yet it is said provided there is not present a grave danger of relapse: for if it were present, natural law, which is preferred to a positive divine precept, prohibits that the confession be instituted.

¹ Rota, n. 148; Baller. P., n. 648; Many, l. c., p. 335-337. - Indeed, some say that the priest licitly and validly absolves the accomplice even directly, when there is grave danger that this person during the whole time of his or her life will find no other priest who may absolve him or her directly from the sin of complicity: because this case almost falls back into danger of death. Thus Bucceroni, op. cit., n. 67; D'Annibale, Summula, III, n. 324, note 38; Ball. P., n. 655.

(c) Some also say that the absolution of an accomplice is valid whenever the absolving confessor is excused from excommunication because of one of the causes soon to be explained; for the nullity of absolution is a certain penalty imposed against the penitent; and if the confessor is exempted from penalty, it is equitable that the penitent likewise be exempted.²

² Thus D'Annibale, n. 87; Scavini, n. 485; Pennacchi, Comment. in Bull. Apost. Sedis, t. I, p. 312.

580. Those absolving an accomplice in a shameful sin incur by the fact itself a major excommunication reserved in a most special manner to the Supreme Pontiff, as is established from can. 2367 of the Code.

For incurring this excommunication certain conditions are required: (A) That the confessor directly absolve or pretend to absolve from the sin of complicity. Hence (a) the hearing of the confession does not suffice, but absolution or the simulation of absolution is required. Nor does absolution from ordinary sins suffice, but direct absolution from the sin of complicity is required, as is clear from what has been said above.

(b) Yet the simulation of direct absolution suffices, by which the confessor so acts externally that he seems to grant absolution, for example, if he utters the words of absolution without the intention of absolving, or pronounces the form while omitting an essential word, or recites a prayer over the penitent, so that the latter thinks himself to be absolved. This indeed was formerly denied by many, notwithstanding contrary decisions of the Sacred Penitentiary; but the controversy was ended by an authentic decree of the Holy Office, approved by the Supreme Pontiff, December 10, 1883: "All commentators on the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis teach that that confessor is not subject to excommunication who pretends to absolve an accomplice in a shameful sin, but in reality does not absolve. Yet the Sacred Penitentiary declared the contrary, March 1, 1878. Can the petitioner permit that in his Seminary the aforesaid opinion of the Commentators, opposed to the response of the Sacred Penitentiary, be taught? - Indeed the Eminent Fathers responded: In the negative, communication having been made with the Most Holy."¹ - This is confirmed from can. 2367 of the Code already cited.

¹ Ap. Canoniste, l. c., p. 404.

581. (B) That the confessor have recognized the accomplice and knowingly and willingly absolved; otherwise the absolution of an accomplice will not be formal. Indeed invincible ignorance excuses from this excommunication, or vincible ignorance which is not crass and supine. Hence, - (a) if one in no way recognizes the accomplice, he does not sin by absolving, nor does he incur the censure. (b) Likewise, if the confessor, when he sinned, was in no way known by the accomplice (for example, because he was dressed in secular garb), he is not bound to betray himself to the penitent by declaring that he cannot absolve him; and therefore, more probably, he does not incur excommunication by absolving. But if previously both knew each other mutually as accomplices, it is not necessary that they recognize each other mutually in the sacred tribunal, but it suffices that the confessor notice that the penitent is his accomplice.

(c) Nor does a priest absolving an accomplice incur excommunication, when the accomplice did not declare the sin of complicity in confession, unless directly or indirectly he induced the penitent not to manifest such a sin: directly indeed, by expressly suggesting that such a sin must be kept silent in confession; indirectly, by persuading that such an act is not a sin, or is not so grave that he or she should be troubled about it. For the Sacred Penitentiary declared, February 19, 1896, that "the excommunication ... is not escaped by confessors absolving or pretending to absolve that accomplice who indeed does not confess the sin of complicity, from which he has not yet been absolved, but conducts himself thus for this reason, that the confessor induced the penitent to this, whether directly or indirectly."² The same is established by the Code, c. 2367, § 2.

² Acta S. Sedis, XXVIII, p. 444-445.

(d) But if the confessor doubts whether the penitent is an accomplice or not, he must prudently question him, so that he may be able to uncover the matter; but if the doubt perseveres, he can absolve, without incurring the censure, from what has been said, n. 573. - But if he does nothing to resolve the doubt, he does not escape excommunication, because his ignorance is crass and supine; moreover, this does not excuse from censure in this case, as the Holy Office declared³, January 13, 1892.

³ Acta S. Sedis, XXIV, 625: "Whether those absolving an accomplice in a shameful matter with crass and supine ignorance incur this excommunication or not? - In the case, they incur it."

582. (C) When a priest absolves an accomplice in the article of death, he does not incur excommunication, unless there is present another priest who, without grave infamy and scandal, morally could receive the confession of the dying person, as was said above, n. 578.

Concerning absolution from this censure, reserved in a special, indeed in a most special, manner to the Supreme Pontiff, see what we said above, n. 446-447. - When a priest has absolved his accomplice three times, the Sacred Penitentiary is accustomed to command him to lay aside the office of confessor; but since this is often morally impossible in regions where there are few priests, petition must be made that this clause not be inserted or that dispensation from it be granted.

583. Lest confessors abuse the sacred tribunal with impunity for soliciting penitents to shameful things, Benedict XIV, adhering to the footsteps of Pius IV and Gregory XV, commanded that the crime of solicitation perpetrated by a confessor must be denounced, and indeed under penalty of denied absolution. The Code renewed this law, can. 904, 2363, 2368, striking with excommunication those who neglect to denounce within a month the confessors by whom they have been solicited.

¹ Cf. Pius IV, Letter Cum sicut nuper, April 15, 1561; Gregory XV, Bull Universi, April 30, 1622; Benedict XIV, Bull Sacram. Poenitentiae, June 1, 1741; Instruction of the Holy Office, February 20, 1867, ap. Collectanea, n. 948; Pius IX, Bull Apost. Sedis, October 11, 1869; Giraldi, Expositio Juris Pontificii, Rome, 1830, t. II, p. 630-645; St. Alphonsus, n. 675-705; D'Annibale, op. cit., n. 179-183; Rota, op. cit., n. 164-402; Bucceroni, op. cit.; Berardi, De Sollicitatione; Lehmk., n. 975-978; Haine, q. 93-96; Baller. P., n. 1085-1155; Genicot, n. 394-400; Noldin, n. 381-389; S. Many, ap. Canoniste, Sept., Dec. 1895.

Namely, Benedict XIV commands Ordinaries to proceed "against all and each priests, secular as well as regular ... who shall have attempted to solicit or provoke any penitent, of whatever person that one may be, either in the act of sacramental confession, or before, or immediately after confession, or on the occasion, or under the pretext of confession, or even outside the occasion of confession, in the confessional, or in another place destined or chosen for hearing confessions, with the simulation of hearing confession there, to dishonorable and shameful things, whether by words, or by signs, or by nods, or by touch, or by writing then or afterwards to be read, or who with them by rash daring shall have had illicit and dishonorable conversations or dealings ... Moreover let all and each priests appointed for hearing confessions remember that they are held and bound diligently to admonish their penitents whom they have known to have been solicited by others, as above ... concerning the obligation of denouncing to the Inquisitors, or to the aforesaid Ordinaries of places, the person who has committed the solicitation, even if the priest is one who lacks jurisdiction for validly imparting absolution, or the solicitation between confessor and penitent was mutual, whether the penitent consented to the solicitation, or in no way furnished consent, or a long time after the solicitation itself has already elapsed, or the solicitation was performed by the confessor not for himself, but for another person."

For understanding this, four things are to be explained: 1° the conditions required for constituting the sin of solicitation; 2° the obligation of denouncing those who solicit; 3° the manner of making the denunciation; 4° the penalties against those who solicit.

584. The sin of solicitation, considering the laws and decrees set forth above, can be defined: a provocation to shameful things, made by a priest as confessor, with some relation to confession.¹ Therefore three conditions are required:

¹ It is therefore distinguished from the sin of complicity, which can be committed without any relation to confession, even before someone has been advanced to the priesthood.

(A) That there be a provocation to shameful things, that is, some action, either dishonorable in itself, or indifferent in itself but externally manifesting a shameful affection, by which the confessor attempts to induce the penitent to some sin against chastity; or, in other words, it is scandal given to the penitent in the matter of lust. Moreover this provocation can be made either by deeds, or, according to Benedict XIV's own words, "whether by words, or by signs, or by nods, or by touch, or by writing." Hence, -

585. (a) Solicitation to any other sin whatsoever, even a graver one, for example, homicide, does not fall under the law.

(b) The crime of solicitation must be gravely culpable, or induce to grave acts against chastity, whether they are grave in themselves, or from a libidinous affection externally manifested. For a venial sin cannot be punished by such grave penalties. Moreover certain acts light in themselves, for example, to kiss a woman, must easily be judged mortal if they occur in the act of confession, because of irreverence and scandal. Some have thought that even light acts are comprehended under the law, because of this response of the Holy Office, February 11, 1661: "Whether a confessor, by soliciting because of smallness of matter, must be denounced?" - Resp.: "Since in venereal matters there is no smallness of matter, and, if there were, in the present matter there is none, they judged that he must be denounced and that the contrary opinion is not probable."² But in this response there is question of venereal acts, in which there is no smallness of matter, at least when they are committed in relation with confession, but not of acts lightly dishonorable which are not properly venereal.

² Ap. Giraldi, op. cit., p. 632.

Hence, if a confessor praises a woman for her beauty in confession, or declares that he loves her from his whole heart, judgment must be made from the circumstances: if it is externally established that these things are said from shameful love in order to induce her further into sin, there is certainly solicitation; otherwise, if it is done from levity or imprudence. - The same must be said of gifts or little presents given in the sacred tribunal, or of an invitation to visit the confessor; from the circumstances it must be judged whether a depraved intention is present or not.

(c) It must be certain, all things being diligently inspected; therefore if there is doubt either in law or in fact, denunciation is not to be made, since in doubt odious things are to be restricted.

(d) But it is not required that the solicitation be efficacious, or that the person solicited consent; for in the Bulls it is said that he who has attempted to solicit or provoke must be denounced. Yet the solicitation must be complete as solicitation, i.e., truly furnish scandal; hence those preparatory words do not suffice which are sometimes uttered so that it may be seen whether the person can be tempted with some hope.

(e) It matters little whether the person solicited is a man or a woman, pubescent or prepubescent; whether the solicitation is to sin with the confessor, or alone, or with a third person; whether the confessor immediately solicits the penitent to sin, or, through the mediation of the penitent, induces another person to a sin of lust. In all these cases there is truly solicitation to shameful things.

586. (B) That the solicitation be made by a priest as confessor. Hence, -

(a) If the one soliciting is not a priest, but either a cleric, or a layman, or an interpreter employed in confession, there is not the obligation of denouncing. Yet the Holy Office can proceed against anyone, even a non-priest, who would presume to receive confessions, and would solicit on this occasion. Under the name of priest comes any presbyter whatsoever, secular or regular, whether approved or not. But it is not certainly established that bishops are comprehended under this law, because, since we are in an odious matter, special mention seems necessary for them to fall under the law. Yet if any should be guilty of this crime (which may God avert!), natural law, if not canonical law, demands that they be denounced to Superiors, lest they become the cause of spiritual ruin.

The penitent, even a priest, who solicits the confessor to shameful things is not to be denounced: for he cannot be regarded as a priest confessor.

(b) If the solicitation is mutual between confessor and penitent, the priest is to be denounced. Moreover it is held to be mutual when the confessor, first solicited by the penitent, himself, having obtained this occasion, afterwards solicits the penitent; or when, solicited by the penitent to one species of shameful thing, he solicits to another.

(c) But if the confessor only consents to the penitent soliciting, without himself soliciting in any way, it is disputed whether he is to be denounced. The more benign opinion, which St. Alphonsus defends (n. 681), is truly probable; and therefore the obligation of denouncing is not to be urged in the case.

(d) If solicitation is made by a priest, not as confessor, but in the administration of another sacrament, there is no place for denouncing.

587. (C) That the solicitation be made with some relation to confession, that is, according to the words related above (n. 583):

(a) Either in the act of sacramental confession, or from the time when confession is begun or the Confiteor is recited until the last words of absolution. Moreover it must be noted that not only he is to be denounced who immediately solicits to shameful things, but also he who solicits mediately, namely by doing or saying something which in itself is indifferent, but afterwards from the circumstances is determined to something shameful. Thus if a priest, in the act of confession, says to a woman: "wait for me at home," and afterwards solicits her at home, these words, indifferent in themselves, are, from the circumstances, as it were the beginning of solicitation and therefore already the solicitation itself. Yet the matter can be doubtful if the priest does not solicit immediately at home, but only after another honest business has been transacted: then all the circumstances must be diligently weighed, so that from them it can be presumed what the prevailing intention of the confessor was;¹ and if doubt remains, the obligation of denouncing is not to be urged.

¹ Concerning this matter S. Many discusses wisely, ap. Canoniste, p. 519-521.

588. (b) Or before, or immediately after confession. These words must be understood strictly, so that no external action or conversation intervenes between the confession and the solicitation. Therefore the confessor is to be denounced who solicits a penitent already kneeling, or asking to confess, and afterwards hears his confession; or immediately after absolution has been given. This holds even if the solicitation is only mediate, for example, if immediately after confession he leads the penitent into the sacristy or into his own house, and there immediately solicits him; or if he gives a paper to be read afterwards, in which he solicits.

But if between the confession and the solicitation some other action intervenes, for example, speech concerning indifferent matters, or some business, or the hearing of another penitent's confession, there is not the obligation of denouncing, at least by force of this clause.

589. (c) Or on the occasion or under the pretext of confession. 1) On the occasion of confession heard, when the confessor, thus knowing the inclinations, temptations, or sins of the penitent, thence solicits him, provided there are had certain external indications that the solicitation arises from the hearing itself of confession;² - furthermore on the occasion of confession asked for, namely when the penitent here and now asks to confess and the confessor immediately solicits, deferring the confession to another time, even if afterwards the confession does not occur; but if someone asks to confess not immediately, but on another day or at another hour, and the confessor solicits him, this clause is not verified.

² When solicitation arises not from the heard confession, but on the occasion of sacramental knowledge insofar as the confessor, from things heard in confession, takes an opportunity of visiting and soliciting the penitent, grave authors think that solicitation properly so called is not verified. Cf. Lehmk., n. 976; D'Annibale, Summula, n. 367, note 11, where nevertheless he concedes that the practice of the Congregations is different.

2. Under pretext of confession, when the confessor, intending to solicit the penitent, uses confession as a veil for covering a depraved end, for example, he invites someone to confess so that he may more easily induce him to shameful things; or he approaches the house of a sick person, and, after certain words concerning confession in order to remove those standing by, solicits the sick person.

590. (d) Or, even outside the occasion of confession, in the confessional, or in another place destined or chosen for hearing confessions, with the simulation of hearing confession there. Now a place destined for hearing confessions is either the sacristy or the place where, according to diocesan Statutes, confessions are customarily heard; a chosen place is any place whatsoever, from the request of the penitent or of the confessor, here and now serving for hearing confession, for example, the room of the sick person. The simulation of confession takes place whenever the confessor and the penitent, by mutual agreement, in one of the three designated places, so conduct themselves externally that those standing by understand confession to be heard. Therefore the confessor is to be denounced who in one of these places solicits the penitent, simulating confession. - But if someone, sitting in the confessional, were to solicit a person standing or sitting before him, he does not fall under the law, because confession is not simulated.¹

¹ Thus from a decree of the Holy Office, 1661, ad 15, ap. Giraldi, op. cit., p. 633.

591. (A) On the obligation itself. By natural law those who certainly know of solicitation are bound under grave obligation, from charity, to denounce the one soliciting, lest he cause the ruin of many souls. Benedict XIV confirmed this natural obligation by a positive precept for solicited penitents (above, n. 583), and the Code, which strikes with a major excommunication latae sententiae reserved to no one the faithful person "who knowingly shall have omitted to denounce within a month him by whom he was solicited" (can. 2368, § 2).

From this it is clear that only solicited penitents incur this excommunication; others who certainly know the fact of solicitation are indeed bound to denounce under grave obligation, as the Holy Office declared,¹ but not under penalty of excommunication.

¹ Instruction of the year 1867, § 3, where it is said: "Denunciations of this kind can be omitted by no one without mortal fault."

Moreover, for solicited penitents to incur excommunication, it is required (a) that the obligation of denouncing be certain; (b) that the omission of denunciation be culpable, i.e., with knowledge of the obligation and of the censure, and at the same time without legitimate excuse; (c) that the time useful for denunciation have elapsed, i.e., one month from the time at which the solicited person knew his or her obligation and the censure attached to it.

Hence absolution cannot be given to this penitent unless he has made the denunciation or at least has seriously promised to make it. But if someone has incurred this excommunication, and afterwards has denounced the one soliciting, he can be absolved by a simple confessor, since the excommunication is reserved to no one.

592. (B) Who are bound to denounce? By ecclesiastical law, solicited penitents are bound to denunciation; by natural law, all who otherwise, from persons worthy of faith, certainly know that this crime has been committed, even prepubescents;² unless, however, they have known it under an entrusted secret; for the natural right of an entrusted secret is prior, and demands that this secret be faithfully preserved.

² Yet prepubescents probably cannot be compelled to this before they have attained puberty; and if they denounce before that time, their testimony does not furnish juridical proof, but only an indication for inquiring further. Cf. Rota, n. 388-389.

(a) Nor is it required that the crime can be juridically proved, but it suffices that it be morally certain; likewise it must be denounced, even if hidden, or already committed a long time ago.

(b) This is true even if the confessor has already been amended, except probably the case in which the amendment has been so conspicuous and enduring that no fear of relapse can be had, especially if he has already entered a Religious Order.

(c) He must be denounced even if he has already been convicted and punished, if he offends again; indeed if he has not been fully convicted and punished, although he does not offend again; yet probably the obligation ceases if he has been fully convicted and punished and has not offended again, since the end of the law has already been obtained.

(d) But he who is already dead is by no means to be denounced, because the whole end of the law has already ceased, namely both the amendment and the punishment of the guilty person. The same can probably be said if the offender is already broken in strength and about to die, so that he is likely never to hear confessions in the future.

But the soliciting confessor himself is not bound to denunciation, because no one is bound to betray himself; hence neither is he bound to admonish the solicited person concerning the burden of denunciation. - Nor probably are the blood-relatives and relatives by marriage of the soliciting priest bound, at least in the first degrees, because they are considered one moral person with him, and graver evils can follow from such a denunciation.

593. (C) What cause excuses from denunciation? - Principle: Since here there is question of a positive precept of the Church, although a very grave one, a very grave inconvenience, even private, excuses from its execution; unless, however, public scandal or common damage is at the same time introduced: for then by natural law denunciation must be made, unless there is present a very grave inconvenience which is also public.

594. Conclusions. (a) A grave danger of life, reputation, or fortune, about to arise from denunciation, excuses, provided it is prudently estimated and not fictitious; extrinsic to the denunciation, and not intrinsic to it, such as the fear of incurring the indignation of the one soliciting¹, or shame in manifesting the solicitation, or other things of this kind, which do not excuse; nor avoidable in any way: for if it can be avoided, means for removing it must be employed and the denunciation made.

¹ Otherwise denunciation can and must be made in such a way that the one denouncing is not known by the one soliciting; this is often possible; for Superiors cannot proceed against the offender except after two or three accusations, so that the one soliciting often cannot know by whom he was denounced.

Hence he would be excused who could not denounce the one soliciting without betraying himself as guilty. Yet this rarely happens; for the solicited penitent can keep back his own consent, nor is he questioned about it; hence, even if intercourse intervened, or the solicitation was mutual, the penitent is not bound to manifest this, but can say: such a confessor conducted himself badly with me, or spoke badly in the matter of chastity, and I can declare nothing further.

(b) Moral impotence of personally approaching the competent judge likewise excuses, for as long as it lasts; for denunciation, as being judicial, must be made personally and by the living voice, under penalty of nullity, and therefore those who cannot appear before the judge are dispensed from it. But they are bound to employ means which render it possible, namely to manifest the matter to the Bishop, by letter or through a procurator, so that he may be able to provide, for example, by delegating an ecclesiastical man before whom the solicited person can make the denunciation.

(c) A danger of publicity and scandal prudently estimated also excuses; yet this occurs very rarely, since the denunciation must be made and remain most secret.

(d) Sometimes also to a penitent wholly unwilling to denounce there is granted a dispensation from the burden of denunciation, either total (which rarely happens, at least the first time), or partial, namely from certain juridical solemnities.

595. (A) On the manner in which the confessor must conduct himself. (a) The confessor to whom a case of solicitation is manifested must weigh whether the person denouncing is entirely worthy of faith; for sometimes women, from hatred or envy, or because their solicitations have been repelled, etc., falsely denounce innocent priests. Therefore let him seriously admonish them concerning the atrociousness of the crime of false denunciation and concerning the most grave penalty inflicted on this sin, namely that it is reserved to the Supreme Pontiff.

(b) Let him diligently consider whether, all things being inspected, the obligation of denouncing is certain; if he cannot immediately judge the matter, let him admonish the penitent to return to him on another day.

(c) If the obligation of denouncing is certainly established, the confessor is regularly bound to admonish the penitent concerning this obligation, although the latter may be in good faith; for the Holy Office says, in the Instruction of the year 1867, n. 3: "Concerning this matter penitents must be admonished, nor does their good faith excuse from admonishing and instructing them." The reason is that the public good, which generally demands this denunciation, must prevail over the private good. Yet if it is certainly foreseen that the admonition will in no way be profitable, but will be harmful, the confessor can defer the admonition, awaiting a more opportune time, so that he may provide at the same time for the private good of the penitent and the good of the Church. If there is no hope ever of obtaining the denunciation, he may have recourse to Superiors for a dispensation.

(d) If the penitent, admonished concerning the obligation of denouncing, is unwilling to make it, let the confessor inquire whether there is an excusing cause; if there is some legitimate cause, let the obligation not be urged until the cause has ceased; but if there is no reasonable cause, in the best manner in which it can be done let him persuade the penitent to denounce, or at least to promise to denounce at an opportune time, by explaining how it can be done without any injury to himself or herself; if he cannot obtain even this, let him have recourse to ecclesiastical Superiors for a dispensation, and let him not absolve before the dispensation has been obtained, unless, however, in the article of death, in which absolution can be given whenever good faith can probably be presumed.

596. (B) On the manner of making the denunciation. (a) The denunciation must be made either to the Inquisitors, where they still exist, or to the Ordinary. By this name here the Bishop is to be understood¹, and, when he has died, the capitular Vicar (in the United States, the Administrator), but not the Vicar General, unless he has a special mandate for this. The Ordinary to whom the denunciation must be made is the Ordinary of the denounced priest, or of the place where the delict was perpetrated; or, according to some, the Ordinary of the solicited penitent, who should transmit the denunciation to the Bishop of the offending priest.

¹ The Bishop is the competent judge in this matter, even as to exempt Regulars. In mission places, the Vicar Apostolic can receive the denunciation, from the decree of the Holy Office, June 20, 1883, ap. Collectanea, n. 949.

(b) Since denunciation is an act truly judicial, regularly the solicited person, or another who certainly knows the crime, must personally present himself before the Ordinary or his delegate, in the presence of an ecclesiastical man who acts the part of notary; and, after an oath has been furnished, by the living voice, not in writing, make the denunciation, expressing the name of the soliciting priest, or, if this is unknown, his office, duty, age, and other special signs by which he can be recognized. Moreover the one denouncing must manifest his own name and subscribe; but if he does not know how to write, let him put the sign of the cross. Finally let him emit an oath concerning religiously preserving secrecy about all things which have been transacted.²

² The norm to be followed in this examination is described in the Instruction of the Holy Office, July 20, 1890, ap. Acta S. Sedis, XXV, p. 451-454.

(c) But since often the judicial order cannot be observed, the Bishop can concede that the denunciation be made before a priest (for example, the parish priest) delegated, without a notary; or even before a confessor specially deputed for this office (which nevertheless is not done without inconvenience).

(d) But before the Bishop proceeds against the one denounced, according to the recent Instruction of the Holy Office, August 6, 1897³, he must explore whether the women or men denouncing are of good name, and are not led to accuse either by enmity or by some other human affection: "Therefore the Ordinary, as often as he shall have received some denunciation concerning the unspeakable crime of solicitation, shall proceed immediately to the diligences⁴. To this end, either by himself or through a priest specially delegated by him, he shall call (separately, of course, and with the circumspection which is due) two witnesses, as far as this can be done, from the ecclesiastical body, but in any case above every exception, who know well both the one denounced and all and each of the denouncers, and them, under the sacredness of an oath concerning the truth to be spoken and concerning the secrecy of the Holy Office to be preserved⁵, he shall judicially interrogate, referring the testimony in writing, according to the following formula; moreover, an authentic copy of each testimony and at the same time of the respective denunciation he shall directly and by a safe way transmit as soon as possible to this Supreme Congregation ... But if only two witnesses cannot be found who know at the same time the one denounced and all and each of the denouncers, more must be called. Namely, in this case as many witnesses as above must be called as will be necessary so that a double testimony may be had concerning the one denounced and each denouncer."

³ Ap. Acta S. Sedis, XXX, p. 249-251; in the same place one may find the formula to be used in the interrogation of witnesses.

⁴ They call diligentiae the judicial investigation concerning the one denounced and the denouncers described below.

⁵ Concerning that secrecy of the Holy Office, Canoniste Contemp., July-August 1898, p. 433-453, discusses very well.

Thence it follows that the Bishop cannot judicially proceed against the one denounced before he has transmitted the aforesaid documents to the Holy Office and has received a response from it.

597. (A) The penalties against those who solicit are ferendae sententiae, and therefore they are incurred only after the sentence of a judge. There are three established by law: (a) perpetual incapacity for celebrating Mass; (b) perpetual suspension from hearing confessions; (c) privation of benefice. (B) But before the judicial sentence is passed, generally three denunciations must precede, according to the practice which the Holy Office follows. One or another denunciation is indeed a sufficient motive that the denounced person be observed, but not that he be called into judgment, unless the reputation of the confessor is bad and the one denouncing is above every exception.

(C) But if the offender has spontaneously appeared before the Bishop, has sincerely confessed the delict, and has asked pardon, he must be dismissed after abjuration has been made (for those who solicit are suspected of heresy), and after a salutary penance has been imposed, with the counsel or precept added that he abstain from receiving the confessions of the solicited person.

(D) Since the sin of solicitation is not reserved, at least by common law, the soliciting priest, otherwise rightly disposed, can be absolved by any confessor whatsoever; but he must be admonished not to receive the confessions of the solicited person, at least where there is a supply of confessors, so that in this way the danger of relapse may be avoided.

598. Corollary: On the penalty against those falsely accusing a confessor of solicitation.

The Code, can. 894, has reserved to the Supreme Pontiff, by reason of itself, the crime of those who judicially denounce an innocent priest as guilty of solicitation. Moreover can. 2363 decrees these things: "If anyone, by himself or through others, shall falsely have denounced a confessor before Superiors concerning the crime of solicitation, by the fact itself he incurs an excommunication reserved in a special manner to the Apostolic See, from which in no case can he be absolved, unless he shall have formally retracted the false denunciation; and shall have repaired, according to his powers, the damages, if any have followed from it; a grave and long-lasting penance moreover having been imposed."

(A) For the reservation to be incurred by those falsely denouncing, three things are required: (a) that they denounce a priest as guilty of solicitation properly so called, according to the things explained above; (b) that this denunciation be false, so that the confessor is free from this delict, although perhaps guilty of other delicts; (c) that the denunciation be juridical, i.e., made before a competent judge, in the manner explained above; hence a denunciation before persons who are not competent judges does not suffice, nor an anonymous denunciation, which is of no weight, nor even, more probably, a simple letter, even signed, which does not have judicial force. - Those who denounce falsely, even if not judicially, sin gravely, and are bound to repair the damage unjustly brought upon the confessor.

(B) Those procuring this to be done, such as those ordering, mandating, giving counsel, asking, promising, threatening, in one word all those who positively and efficaciously concur in the false denunciation, do not incur the reservation of the sin by reason of itself, since can. 894 is silent concerning these, but they incur the reserved censure as if themselves falsely denouncing, from the application of can. 2231.

As to absolution from this sin reserved to the Pope, the principles set forth above concerning papal cases, n. 446-447, must be applied.