Article III. On the Limitation of Jurisdiction with Respect to Sins, or on the Reservation of Sins

I. Notion of reservation. Reservation is an act by which a Superior who by ordinary right can grant the power of hearing confessions or impose censures calls a case, that is, a sin or censure, to his own judgment, and thereby limits the power of the inferior judge (can. 893).

II. The end of reservation is the protection of ecclesiastical discipline,¹ both by calling some transgressions to a judge who can better guard against them, and, as others add, by making remission more difficult. The former is intended primarily (cf. can. 893, § 1 and can. 897); the latter, or the character of punishment, at most secondarily (St. Alphonsus, VI, 581, doubt 1).

¹ Session 14, chapter 7.

III. Division of reservation. Reservation of sins can be distinguished in three ways, according as it directly regards either the censure alone annexed to the sin, or the sin alone, or the sin and the censure. If it directly regards the censure alone, the sin is said to be reserved by reason of the censure, and once this is taken away, the reservation of the sin ceases. If it directly regards either the sin alone or the sin and the censure, the sin is said to be reserved by reason of itself (St. Alphonsus, VI, 580). We are treating of sins reserved by reason of themselves; concerning censures we shall speak in the treatise on ecclesiastical penalties.

IV. The power of reserving. 1. This is to be acknowledged in the Church, as is deduced from the Council of Trent,¹ from the Constitution Auctorem fidei of Pius VI,² from the usage prevailing from the earlier centuries, and from the fact that the Church, to whom the conferral of jurisdiction has been entrusted, can, just as secular power can, confer it with limitation.

2. It belongs to those who by ordinary right can confer sacramental jurisdiction or establish censures, except the Capitular Vicar and the Vicar General without a special mandate (can. 893, § 1). Among Superiors of an exempt clerical religion, only the Superior general and, in monasteries sui iuris, the Abbot, each with his proper Council, can reserve sins of subjects, as above (can. 896). Understand this of personal Superiors, lest the General Chapter, enjoying supreme authority, be excluded; by force of canon 893, § 1, it also can reserve sins.

3. It regards only subjects, that is, those over whom someone can confer on others the power of absolving or of striking with censure.

Corollary I. Those without a domicile are bound by the reservation of the local Ordinary in whose place they are staying, since they are subjects of that Ordinary (can. 94, § 2).

Corollary II. Travelers are not bound by the reservation of their own territory as long as they are absent from it; and this holds even if they have departed only to obtain absolution (can. 900, § 3). They are, however, bound by the reservation of the place in which they are dwelling. The reason for the former is that jurisdiction over travelers is not received from their own Ordinary (n. 371). The latter was declared by the Pontifical Commission³ and is deduced from the fact that travelers are absolved by force of jurisdiction obtained from the local Ordinary in whose place they confess. But the local Ordinary, with respect to travelers just as with respect to diocesan persons, restricts jurisdiction. If a traveler confesses to his own parish priest, the latter can absolve him both from the reserved cases of his own territory, since he is not bound by that reservation outside his own territory, and from those of the place in which he is staying, because the parish priest does not receive jurisdiction over his own parishioner from the local Ordinary in whose place the traveler is staying.

Corollary III. Exempt religious are bound by the reservation of the local Ordinary when they confess to one approved by him. For he confers jurisdiction over them, and consequently can confer it as limited (can. 874, § 1). Hence one who absolves them by force of jurisdiction received from the local Ordinary should take account of the aforesaid reservation; but he can absolve them from sins and censures reserved in the Religion (can. 519). If they are absolved by force of jurisdiction granted by the regular Superior, no account must be taken of episcopal reservation.

¹ Session 14, chapter 7 and canon 11.

² August 28, 1794.

³ November 24, 1920 (A.A.S. 1920, p. 573).

V. Use of the power of reserving. 1. Local Ordinaries should not reserve sins unless, after the matter has been discussed in diocesan Synod, or outside Synod after the cathedral Chapter and some of the more prudent and more approved curators of souls of their diocese have been heard, the true necessity or utility of the reservation has been established (can. 895).

2. The cases to be reserved should be altogether few, namely three or at most four, only from the graver and more atrocious external crimes specifically determined. The reservation itself should not remain in force longer than is necessary for uprooting some public, deeply rooted vice and perhaps restoring collapsed Christian discipline (can. 897). All should entirely abstain from reserving to themselves those sins which are already reserved to the Apostolic See, even by reason of censure, and regularly from those also to which a censure, even one reserved to no one, has been imposed by law (can. 898).

3. Once reservations have been established which they have judged truly necessary or useful, local Ordinaries should take care that these be brought to the knowledge of subjects in the way that seems better to them, and they should not impart to just anyone and indiscriminately the faculty of absolving from reserved cases (can. 899, § 1).

4. The Supreme Pontiff reserved to himself only one sin, though with a censure (can. 2303), by reason of itself:¹ namely false denunciation by which an innocent priest is accused of the crime of solicitation before ecclesiastical judges (can. 894). This will be discussed later.

¹ A sin is said to be reserved by reason of itself when the reservation immediately affects the sin; by reason of censure, when the reservation immediately affects only the censure, so that the sin can indeed be remitted directly by a simple confessor, but the censure cannot be removed. While the censure remains, however, absolution from the sin is commonly gravely illicit. Finally, there is a sin reserved with censure when the sin is reserved by reason of itself and has an attached censure; in this case the reservation of the sin can be present even if the censure is not contracted or ceases.

VI. Conditions of reservation. It is required that the sin be:

1. Mortal, and indeed objectively, subjectively, and insofar as it is reserved. Objectively, and therefore not only by reason of an erroneous conscience; subjectively, so that, for example, an act posited with half-full advertence is not enough;¹ insofar as it is reserved, for example, if incest is reserved, it is not enough that someone has intercourse with a blood-relative, but it is also required that he know that that person is a blood-relative.

2. External and indeed externally mortal, because the Church has not been accustomed to reserve merely internal sins.² Nevertheless, it is sufficiently externally mortal if it manifests grave internal malice (St. Alphonsus, Homo Apostolicus, tract 16, n. 132).

3. Complete according to the words of the law, in other words, that it be that work which is circumscribed by the words of the law. Hence if the law, for example, declares that homicide is reserved, it is required that death has followed. It is otherwise if it is established that an attempt, machination, and so forth is reserved; in that case it suffices that those actions themselves have been posited (St. Alphonsus, VI, 582).

4. Certain. Hence reservation is judged to be absent: 1. in doubt about the act committed, likewise about the required conditions; 2. in doubt about grave subjective fault; 3. in a doubt of law concerning the law of reservation.

Question 1. Does ignorance excuse from the reservation of sin?

Response. Some affirm this, because they regard reservation as penal. But it seems this must be denied, because the character of punishment is intended at most secondarily. This also holds as regards the one sin reserved to the Holy See by reason of itself, whose reservation most authors judged to be penal, relying on these words of Benedict XIV in the Constitution Sacramentum Poenitentiae: "so that so detestable a crime may be restrained by fear of the greatness of the penalty," and so forth. But, considering the canons cited above, no reservation now seems to be penal, at least primarily (St. Alphonsus, VI, 581, doubt 1).

Question 2. Does grave fear excuse from the reservation of sin?

Response. Some affirm this, because a reserved sin is understood to have been committed as it is commonly accustomed to be committed, and therefore not from grave fear. But it must be denied, because the words of the law, as is supposed, are absolute and therefore also include a sin committed from fear, provided that fear does not take away full deliberation.

¹ Jurisdiction could nevertheless be limited by the Church also with respect to venial and merely internal sins, as is commonly taught against Vasquez (St. Alphonsus, VI, 582, doubts 1 and 2).

² See the preceding note.

VII. Cessation of the reservation of sin. Any reservation by which a sin is reserved by reason of itself ceases:

1. When confession is made either by the sick who cannot leave the house, or by betrothed persons for the purpose of entering marriage (can. 900, 1). Under the name of the sick, considering the mind of the legislator, there also seem to come all who because of a notable bodily injury cannot leave the house, such as the paralyzed, those detained in prison, and the aged. The disposition holds even if the sick person is staying in the same house as the confessor. For betrothed persons the exception holds even if they confess several times in order to their approaching nuptials, for example by making a general confession some time before marriage, afterward making an ordinary confession; or by now confessing in the customary way in order to marriage, afterward confessing again in order to marriage, for example because something was omitted through forgetfulness or a new reserved sin was committed. Moreover, sacramental confession sometimes takes away reservation even if the confession was invalid, so that betrothed persons can be absolved from the reserved sin even after marriage; these things are more fully explained in n. 386.

2. As often as either the legitimate Superior has denied the faculty of absolving requested for some determinate case, or, in the prudent judgment of the confessor, the faculty of absolving cannot be requested from the legitimate Superior without grave inconvenience to the penitent or without danger of violating the sacramental seal (can. 900, 2). It is said:

a) As often as the Superior has denied the faculty of absolving requested for some determinate case. Reservation ceases even if the Superior has denied the faculty for a just cause, provided that the case is determinate; for the law does not distinguish.

b) Or the faculty cannot be requested without grave inconvenience to the penitent, for example if Communion or the celebration of Mass cannot be deferred without danger of scandal or infamy until the faculty has been obtained;¹ if the penitent can return only with difficulty to the confessor who will seek the permission; if it is hard for the penitent to remain in the state of grave sin during the time required for obtaining and using the faculty. For this reason St. Alphonsus observes: "It seems hard to me for one who is in mortal sin to remain without absolution even for a day" (IV, 490). It is sufficiently probable that founded fear lest the penitent, if absolution is delayed, be driven away from the sacraments, suffices.

c) Or the faculty cannot be requested without danger of violating the sacramental seal, that is, without danger that the Superior would recognize or suspect for what person the faculty of absolving is requested.

3. Outside the territory of the one reserving, even if the penitent has departed from it only to obtain absolution (can. 900, 3; n. 382).

Corollary I. Since canon 900 declares that any reservation ceases in the cases set forth, this must also be applied to the one sin reserved to the Holy See by reason of itself, of which canon 894 speaks, that is, false denunciation of a priest concerning the delict of solicitation. This is confirmed by a response of the Pontifical Commission.²

Corollary II. A penitent who has committed a reserved sin and is in circumstances in which reservation ceases is bound, if he wishes to communicate, to confess, and indeed integrally, that is, even sins reserved of themselves, even if only a simple confessor is present, because the latter can absolve him directly. For the same reason, he is not bound to confess to a privileged confessor who is present, but can also make confession to a simple confessor.

Corollary III. A penitent who has committed a reserved sin and is not in circumstances in which reservation ceases seems to be bound, if a privileged confessor is lacking, to defer confession and Communion for a little while. He is bound to defer confession, because he can be absolved from the reserved sin only indirectly, which without a grave cause is gravely illicit. But a grave cause is lacking; for if it were present, reservation would cease and the penitent could be absolved even directly from the reserved sin. He is bound to defer Communion; for one who has sinned gravely cannot communicate without confession, unless a grave cause urges.

But if Corollary III is not admitted, there arises:

Question. Is one who has committed a reserved sin and is not in circumstances in which reservation ceases, if he wishes to communicate, bound, when a privileged confessor is lacking, to confess to a simple confessor?

Response 1. No, if he has only reserved sins, because with respect to this confessor these are not matter for absolution; hence there cannot be an obligation of confessing them. Accidentally he is bound to confess some venial sin or mortal sin already confessed, if he fears that he is not contrite.

Response 2. It is disputed if he also has non-reserved mortal sins. A few deny it, because there is no obligation of instituting a confession which, because of the confessor's lack of jurisdiction over the reserved sins, will necessarily lack integrity. Much more commonly it is affirmed, because the precept of putting confession before Communion prevails over the precept of material integrity. If he confesses, he is not bound to declare the reserved sins, unless he is a relapser into them or is in their proximate occasion, and is questioned about them by the confessor. The reason is that the confessor has the right and obligation of providing for the prudent ministration of the sacrament, and consequently of questioning about the aforesaid things; to this right there corresponds in the penitent an obligation of responding (St. Alphonsus, VI, 265, questions 1 and 2; 585, doubt 2 and 3).

Corollary IV. If the penitent confesses a reserved sin to a simple confessor and is not in circumstances in which reservation ceases, the confessor should either send the penitent to a privileged confessor or seek the faculty of absolving.

¹ It is not necessary, indeed it is not expedient, to seek the faculty by means of telegraph or telephone. "Considering," so the Letter of the Secretary of State, December 10, 1891, "the inconveniences that have actually arisen and easily will arise from the fact that written petitions are received by telegraphic route, the Holy Father prescribed that as an ordinary rule neither the Sacred Congregations nor other Roman Ecclesiastical Offices should henceforth receive petitions of this kind by the aforesaid route. Moreover, because the same reasons hold also for Episcopal Curias themselves, His Holiness willed that the Pastors of Dioceses also conform themselves to this prescription." And the Pontifical Commission answered on November 12, 1922, that the Ordinary must be judged unable to be approached if recourse to him can be had only by telegraph or telephone (A.A.S. 1922, p. 661).

² November 10, 1925 (A.A.S. 1925, p. 582).

VIII. Removal of the reservation of sin. Sometimes, as is commonly admitted, only the reservation of the sin is removed, whether by an inferior privileged confessor, or, as others who judge that this power is lacking to an inferior wish, by the Superior (St. Alphonsus, VI, 598, question 3). Once the reservation has been removed, however, a simple confessor can now absolve from the sin. Moreover, removal of the reservation alone has place in confession made to one having the faculty of absolving from reserved sins, in the following cases:

1. In an invalid confession, whether culpably or inculpably, in which the reserved sin was declared. The reason is that, once the end of reservation has been obtained, the reservation is judged to be removed. But in the case posited, the end of reservation has been obtained; for this is obtained by the fact that the penitent submits the reserved sin to the judgment of a competent confessor, who assigns remedies and imposes penance (St. Alphonsus, VI, 598). Except the time of Jubilee, if the penitent confesses either invalidly, whether culpably or inculpably, or without the intention of fulfilling the works required for the Jubilee, and makes confession to a confessor who has the faculty of absolving from the reserved sin only on the occasion of the Jubilee. This is deduced from these words of the Constitution Inter praeteritos of Benedict XIV:¹ "Since all the faculties which are granted are directed to the obtaining of the Jubilee and are, as it were, preparation for it, it clearly follows from this that there is no place for the use of those faculties except with one who is both prepared to obtain the Jubilee and has a certain purpose of fulfilling the enjoined works"; add § 86 (St. Alphonsus, VI, 598).

2. In a valid confession in which the reserved sin was omitted inculpably; because "it can probably be presumed that the Superior consents that the reservation be removed whenever the penitent validly confesses to one having the faculty" (St. Alphonsus, VI, 597). Yet it stands in the way that the end of reservation has not been obtained. St. Alphonsus does not reprobate this opinion because of authority (2nd catalogue of reformed questions, question 18).

3. According to some, in an inculpably invalid confession in which the reserved sin was omitted; because the Superior probably consents to the removal of reservation whenever the penitent confesses to one having the faculty, provided the confession is not culpably invalid. Indeed, according to some, in a culpably invalid or sacrilegious confession, provided the defect of validity does not proceed precisely from the fact that the reserved sin was culpably omitted. But these opinions do not seem safe enough to most authors (St. Alphonsus, VI, 598).

¹ November 28, 1749, § 62.

IX. Absolution from a reserved sin. The general rule is this: the following can absolve: 1. the one reserving and his successor; 2. the Superior in the sacramental forum of the one reserving or of his successor; 3. those deputed or delegated either by law or by the aforesaid persons (St. Alphonsus, VI, 599). Specifically, note:

1. From the one sin and censure reserved by reason of itself to the Holy See, that is, from false denunciation of a priest concerning the delict of solicitation, the following can absolve: 1. Cardinals from the time of their promotion (can. 239, § 1, 1); 2. the priest whom a Cardinal or Bishop, whether residential or titular, has chosen for confessions for himself and his household, namely if the chosen priest receives the confessions of the aforesaid persons (can. 239, § 1, 2; 349, § 1, 1).

2. From sins and censures which local Ordinaries have in any way reserved to themselves, the following can absolve:

a) Cardinals, as above; likewise the priest chosen by a Bishop for confessions, as above.

b) The penitentiary canon (can. 899, § 2; 401, § 1).¹

c) Parish priests, or others who in law are judged under the name of parish priests, during the whole time useful for fulfilling the Easter precept; then individual missionaries during the time when missions to the people happen to be held (can. 899, § 3). Moreover:

a) The time useful for the Easter precept is that which has been established either by common law, or by particular law, or by a prorogation granted to someone. The faculty can also be used in a confession which is indeed instituted during the Easter season, but not in order to fulfill the Easter precept.

Under the name of missions, spiritual exercises instituted for the whole parish can also be taken, with sufficient probability.

Note. Local Ordinaries should not impart to just anyone and indiscriminately the faculty of absolving from reserved cases (can. 899, § 1), but it should be imparted habitually at least to vicars forane, with the faculty added, especially in places of the diocese more remote from the episcopal see, of subdelegating as often as confessors of their district have recourse to them for some more urgent determinate case (can. 899, § 2).

3. From sins and censures reserved by a regular Prelate, the following can absolve:

a) Cardinals, as above; likewise the priest whom a Bishop has chosen for confessions for himself and his household, namely if the chosen priest receives the confessions of the aforesaid persons, among whom perhaps a religious is found (can. 239, § 1, 1; 349, § 1, 1).

b) Those approved by the local Ordinary (can. 519).

Note. In individual houses of a clerical religion, several must be deputed with the power, if the case concerns an exempt religion, of absolving even from cases reserved in the religion (can. 518, § 1).

¹ This canon enjoys ordinary power, which, however, he cannot delegate (can. 401, § 1).