Chapter III. On the Form, or on Absolution

The form of the sacrament of Penance is: I absolve thee from thy sins in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen. This, however, together with the things to be added, is related thus by the Roman Ritual:¹

"May almighty God have mercy on thee, and having forgiven thy sins, bring thee to eternal life. Amen.

Then, with the right hand raised toward the penitent, he says: May the almighty and merciful Lord grant thee indulgence, absolution, and remission of thy sins. Amen. May our Lord Jesus Christ absolve thee, and I by his authority absolve thee from every bond of excommunication, suspension, and interdict, insofar as I can and thou needest.

Then I absolve thee from thy sins, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.

If the penitent is a layman, the word suspension is omitted. But a bishop in absolving the faithful makes the sign of the cross three times.

May the Passion of our Lord Jesus Christ, the merits of the Blessed Virgin Mary and of all the Saints, whatever good thou hast done and whatever evil thou hast sustained, be unto thee for remission of sins, increase of grace, and reward of eternal life. Amen.

For a just cause the Misereatur, etc., can be omitted, and it is enough to say: May our Lord Jesus Christ, etc., as above, up to that part: May the Passion of our Lord, etc.

But when some grave necessity presses in danger of death, the priest will be able to say briefly: I absolve thee from all censures and sins, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen."

As regards the prayers attached to the formula of absolution, canon 885 says this: "Although the prayers attached by the Church to the formula of absolution are not necessary for obtaining absolution itself, nevertheless, unless for a just cause, let them not be omitted."

¹ Title III, chapter 2.

I. The essentials of the form. 1. Certainly these suffice for validity: I absolve thee from sins. It is disputed whether these suffice: I absolve thee; and: I absolve from thy sins. The words I, in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and Amen oblige, but only under venial sin.

2. The formula by which the form is uttered must be formally, or as regards sense, indicative, and not only formally deprecative; in other words, the priest must manifest that by ministerial power he imparts remission to the penitent, and not only signify that he prays for remission from God for the penitent. The reason is that absolution is a judicial act; a mere prayer is not of this kind.

Question. Whether a formula grammatically, that is, considering the words alone, deprecative can be valid.

Response. Affirmatively; for: 1. A formula of this kind can, from the circumstances - others say, from use approved by the Church - have an indicative sense, or exhibit a judicial sentence; for instance, if there is a use of uttering the said formula with the intention of remitting sins. But from no head is it clear that more is required; in other words, that a formula is required which is also grammatically indicative. 2. A formula grammatically deprecative was used quite commonly in the Eastern Church, and is even now used; and the same use flourished for centuries in the Latin Church.

In the Latin Church the indicative formula has been prescribed; hence a formula grammatically deprecative is illicit. Whether it is also invalid is not clear from what has been said above.

3. The sense of the form or of absolution is presented in different ways by different authors. Some state the sense thus: I remit sins to thee. But the sense must, if the sacrament is received validly, always be verified. But the aforesaid sense is not verified: 1. if the sacrament remains informe; 2. if absolution regards sins already remitted. For it is repugnant that sins already remitted or deleted be remitted or deleted again. This cannot happen except in appearance. Indeed, it is objected that a father can say to his son: "Again I remit everything to thee." But the said words effect nothing, and are merely a new sign of a remission already carried out; and if the matter concerns the form of a sacrament, this does not suffice. Others present the sense of absolution with these words: I confer upon thee grace of itself remissive of sin. But this sense also is not verified in an informe sacrament. Others speak thus: I bestow upon thee the sacramental title of absolution. But this opinion rests on the doctrine of intentional causality, which is less pleasing according to what was said in the treatise on the sacraments in general. Therefore the sense seems to be: I confer upon thee, as much as is on the part of the sacrament, absolution from sin; or: I confer upon thee a sacrament of itself absolving from sin; or, as St. Thomas speaks: I "bestow upon thee the sacrament, understand: of itself, of absolution" (3 p., question 84, article 3, ad 5). This sense is verified even in an informe sacrament; likewise if the matter concerns sin already remitted. For the sacrament can be of itself absolving from sin, even if sin is not actually remitted, as in an informe sacrament, or when it has already been remitted.

II. The accidentals of the form. 1. The words Misereatur, etc., Indulgentiam, etc., and Passio Domini, etc., according to the Roman Ritual cited above and canon 885, can be omitted for a just cause, for instance, as earlier editions of the Ritual have it, if confessions are more frequent and briefer; indeed, from the fact that Trent¹ says that prayers are laudably added, they can quite probably always be omitted without sin (St. Alphonsus, VI, 430, doubt 3). The same can be said of the raising of the hand, to be continued from the word Indulgentiam up to Passio Domini, and of the sign of the cross. Nevertheless, commonly one should not depart from the rubric.

2. Absolution from censures must be premised to absolution from sins; and indeed under grave obligation if the confessor holds at least as probable that the penitent is bound by a censure which prohibits reception of the sacrament. One who by a single formula absolved from censures and from sins would sin only lightly, provided he intended to absolve first, in order, from censures; indeed, quite probably he would not sin if no probable suspicion is present that the penitent has incurred some censure (St. Alphonsus, VI, 430, doubt 4).

3. The word suspension should be omitted if the penitent is a layman. The word then, previously printed in authentic editions sometimes in red, sometimes in black type, in later editions is printed in black type, so that now it cannot be held as a mere rubric, but must be expressed. To omit it is venial, just as to omit the words in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen. The words whatever good thou hast done, etc., may it be unto thee for remission of sins, according to St. Thomas (Quodlibet 3, article 28) and others, while others contradict, elevate all the good works of the penitent to sacramental satisfaction, provided the confessor intends this, at least implicitly, by intending to benefit the penitent as much as he can.

4. Where there is a custom that the penitent before confession asks for a blessing, let the confessor impart it, saying: May the Lord be in thy heart and on thy lips, that thou mayest rightly confess thy sins.

¹ Session 14, on Penance, chapter 3.

III. The manner of uttering the form. It is required:

1. For validity, that the form be uttered: 1. by voice; 2. upon one physically or corporally present.

a) By voice. "The form of this sacrament," says the Synod of Florence, "is the words of absolution which the priest utters when he says..." Universal Tradition is added. Therefore absolution given by letters or by a nod is not valid.

b) Upon one physically present. For from the decrees of Clement VIII and Paul V, of which we spoke in n. 312, it is licit in no case to give absolution to one absent; the sole reason of which absolute prohibition can be that absolution of this kind is invalid. It is added that sacramental judgment is judged to have been instituted as human judgments were and are accustomed to be exercised, and as it is fitting that they be exercised. But human judgments were and are accustomed to be exercised among those physically present, and it is fitting that they be exercised thus.

Moreover, the physical presence which is required must be taken morally, so that that presence suffices within which men can speak with one another in a common voice, even if a louder one. A distance of about twenty paces, considering distance alone, according to St. Alphonsus, is not opposed to validity. For the rest, note: 1. It very probably does not suffice that the penitent be seen by the confessor, because from that he is not constituted present; 2. if the penitent and confessor are in different rooms, absolution will more easily be invalid; 3. in order that absolution not be certainly invalid, such presence suffices that, if there were no impediment, the penitent could be perceived by some sense; 4. if the required presence is present, it is not required that the confessor actually see the penitent or perceive him by some sense (St. Alphonsus, VI, 428, 429); 5. if the discussion concerns absolution of a continuous multitude, presence can be taken in a broader sense; indeed, in the case nothing seems to prevent many from being far off, provided the multitude as such is near.

Corollary I. If a penitent not yet absolved has departed from the confessional, let him be absolved if he is seen nearby or is known not to be far away. Nevertheless, it is better that he be recalled, if it can conveniently be done. If the confessor because of danger of infection or another cause cannot enter the room of the sick person, let him absolve him from the doorway. If someone seems to be falling from a roof or into a river, let him be absolved under condition (St. Alphonsus, VI, 429).

Corollary II. Absolution given by telephone is very probably invalid. For truly and according to common estimation there is speech between those physically absent. This is confirmed by the fact that not even that is present which according to some constitutes sufficient presence; in other words, not even the voice itself, but, as in the phonograph, only a reproduction of the voice is heard. Nevertheless, until the authority of the Church has settled the question,¹ I would not condemn one who in a case of necessity absolves under condition by means of the telephone.

Corollary III. Absolution given through an ear-tube is commonly doubtfully valid. In the case the human voice indeed is heard; but it is doubtful whether conjunction through an ear-tube and the human voice renders persons staying in different rooms or places of the house sufficiently present. Hence in a case of necessity absolution should be granted under condition.

¹ The Sacred Penitentiary, to the question "whether in a case of extreme necessity absolution can be given by telephone," on July 1, 1884, responded: "nothing is to be answered."

2. For liceity, it is required that absolution be conferred: 1. only upon those who enjoy the right of receiving it, as will be explained afterward; 2. absolutely or under condition, as follows:

a) Absolution, if it is conferred, must be conferred absolutely when it is at least morally certain that the requisites for the validity of the sacrament are present. Broader moral certainty suffices (n. 398).

b) Absolution can and must be conferred under condition if it is seriously doubted whether it can be conferred validly, but grave damage threatens the penitent if it is denied; if lesser damage threatens, absolution can be given but need not be given (St. Alphonsus, VI, 431).

c) The sacrament should be conferred under the condition if thou art capable rather than under the condition if thou art disposed.¹ The reason alleged is that in this way better provision is made for the validity and reviviscence of the sacrament. For according to many, less is required for capacity of receiving the sacrament than for the required disposition by which it is fruitfully received (n. 299). And so it can happen that the sacrament conferred under the condition if thou art capable is validly ministered, and afterward, when the required disposition arrives, revives; the sacrament, I say, which, conferred under the condition if thou art disposed, would be conferred invalidly and therefore could not revive. Moreover, these things are true if by the condition if thou art disposed is understood: if thou art disposed to receive the sacrament fruitfully. For the rest, it also suffices to confer the sacrament "according to the mind of Christ or of the Church"; nor is it required that the condition be stated in words, but it suffices to have conceived it mentally.

Corollary I. Absolution under condition can and must be conferred:

1. If the confessor doubts whether he absolved a penitent who confessed a grave or doubtfully grave sin. If the penitent confessed only venial sins, the confessor can, but need not, absolve him under condition; in other words, he can prefer either the convenience of the penitent or the reverence of itself belonging to the sacrament. For the rest, in doubt about absolution having been given, it can commonly be presumed that it was granted.

2. In doubt whether the penitent still lives; whether the dying person, deprived of the senses, is Catholic, or at least enrolled in a sect which admits the sacrament of Penance.

3. In doubt about sufficient use of reason in children and in the half-witted, if they have probably sinned gravely. If this is not probable, absolution should at least sometimes be conferred.

4. In doubt about necessary remote matter, for example if the penitent has confessed only a doubtfully grave sin and certain matter cannot easily be obtained. If there is doubt about free remote matter, in other words, if the penitent has confessed only a doubtfully sinful act and certain matter can be had with difficulty, absolution should be granted at least sometimes. But these things are almost merely theoretical, since, at least by means of generic confession, matter sufficiently certain can commonly be obtained.

5. In doubt whether the penitent who confessed mortal sins is disposed, let him be absolved, as will be explained afterward.

6. In doubt about the required presence (St. Alphonsus, VI, 432; Homo Apostolicus, tract XVI, n. 9).

7. In doubt whether the confessor enjoys jurisdiction over the penitent, according to what is to be said afterward.

Question 1. Whether a penitent absolved under condition must be warned about repeating confession.

Response. Affirmatively, if it can be done prudently. But commonly an admonition of this kind will give occasion to anxieties of the penitent and perplexities of the confessor. But sins perhaps not remitted will be remitted in the following valid confession. Sometimes, however, it can be done prudently if the penitent is absolved under condition because of doubtful jurisdiction of the confessor.

Question 2. Whether a penitent absolved under condition can be admitted to Holy Communion.

Response. Strictly speaking, he cannot be admitted to Holy Communion, because he probably remains in a mortal state. Nevertheless, prudence will commonly advise that the confessor be silent (St. Alphonsus, I, 51).

¹ Formerly some taught that absolution conferred under the condition if thou art disposed is always invalid. But this opinion is now commonly rejected (St. Alphonsus, VI, 432).