§ VI. On the Office of Rendering Sentence

One must distinguish between those certainly indisposed, those doubtfully disposed, and those sufficiently certainly disposed.

I. For those certainly indisposed, that is, after paternal admonition, absolution must be denied. Those certainly indisposed are those who manifestly lack contrition or purpose, or do not wish to fulfill a grave obligation. "Let him not absolve those," says the Roman Ritual, "who are incapable of such a benefit: such are those who give no signs of sorrow; who do not wish to put aside hatred and enmities, or to restore another's property 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."¹

¹ Title III, chapter 1, n. 23.

II. For those doubtfully disposed, absolution of itself must be deferred (n. 398); but for a grave reason it can or even must be granted, but only under condition.

1. Those are understood as doubtfully disposed who, after paternal admonition, are not indeed held as certainly indisposed, but nevertheless do not bring those signs of penance which found broad moral certitude about due disposition.

2. A grave reason is had: 1. if someone is in danger of death; 2. if the penitent judges that he is disposed and it is prudently feared that, if absolution is delayed, he will become alienated from the sacraments and waste away in sins, or, for example by communicating or entering marriage, will commit another sacrilege (St. Alphonsus, VI, 432, 4).

III. To those sufficiently certainly disposed, absolution must be granted from justice, and regularly indeed immediately. In some cases, however, it can or even must be deferred, unless a special reason is present for imparting absolution immediately even then. It is said:

1. Absolution must be granted from justice and regularly immediately. For a penitent rightly confessed and disposed has by tacit contract a right to be absolved at once. Hence canon 886: if the confessor cannot doubt about the dispositions of the penitent and the latter asks for absolution, absolution is neither to be denied nor deferred.

2. In some cases, however, it can or even must be deferred,¹ namely if the confessor judges delay to be necessary or more useful for the amendment of the penitent. This doctrine rests first on the almost common authority of theologians. Thus teach, for example, St. Antoninus, St. Francis Xavier, St. Charles Borromeo, St. Leonard of Port Maurice, St. Alphonsus, Venerable Segneri, Fessius, Suarez, Lugo, and others, whose testimonies you will find cited in Ter Haar.² There is added the theological reason: namely, the confessor must perform not only the office of judge, but also that of physician (can. 888, § 1), to each of which offices, as is clear, the penitent must submit himself. But it belongs to a physician to apply means which are judged necessary or more useful. Moreover, delay of absolution is sometimes necessary or at least more useful for the amendment of the penitent (St. Alphonsus, VI, 462-464). It is judged necessary if otherwise there is grave danger that the penitent will break his purpose; more useful, if delay of absolution will more efficaciously guard against relapse. "This is not to be understood as though delay of itself would effect this, that the strength of the penitent against future temptations and relapses would be increased, for that would be plainly absurd, but in the sense that the penitent, often struck with salutary fear on the occasion of the delay, is stirred up so that, aided by the actual grace of God, he may better apply other remedies, for example flight from occasions, prayer, and due vigilance, and thus also in the future avoid sins more efficaciously."³

Corollary. Attending to what has been set forth above, absolution of itself is usefully or necessarily deferred according to the circumstances:

1. For one who is held by a very difficult obligation, such as the obligation of restoring a thing of great value which he can restore; of denouncing a confessor who is guilty of solicitation; of reconciling himself with an enemy; of physically leaving a proximate, continuous, and voluntary occasion to which someone is greatly attached; of applying the prescribed means lest he relapse in a necessary proximate occasion. In these cases absolution is deferred until the obligation has been fulfilled or the prescribed means have been applied. The reason is that otherwise there is danger lest the penitent, after receiving absolution, break a purpose very difficult to fulfill (St. Alphonsus, III, 682; VI, 454, 456).

2. For a habituated relapser from occasion, that is, for one who has contracted a habit of some sin and, after being admonished by the confessor, continued the custom of sinning for the same reason, because of the occasion, but not for a relapser from internal frailty. The reason is that the will of the relapser, unless something stands in the way, must be strengthened by a stronger means, namely by delay of absolution. I said unless something stands in the way, for in a relapser from internal frailty courage must be given and the grace of the sacrament must be conferred (St. Alphonsus, VI, 456, 459, 463, 464).

Objection. Canon 886 declares: "If the confessor cannot doubt about the dispositions of the penitent and the latter asks for absolution, absolution is neither to be denied nor deferred." Therefore absolution, if it is asked by the penitent, can never be deferred for those sufficiently certainly disposed.

Response. The cited canon is not to be interpreted thus. For: 1. a priori it seems very improbable that the canon is opposed to the doctrine commonly admitted, even by the more benign authors. Now such is the doctrine according to which absolution sometimes can, or even must, be deferred for one disposed.

2. The canon can well be understood of the general norm, or the norm to be followed of itself; this does not prevent one from departing from it accidentally or because of special circumstances. And if that is less pleasing, observe: the canon speaks of dispositions, not of the disposition of the penitent, and for that reason perhaps signifies that absolution is then not to be deferred for a penitent asking it when the confessor does not doubt about the dispositions which seem to have to be required here and now by him not only as judge but also as physician, so that absolution can be granted without grave danger of breaking the purpose. Therefore it remains that we say that nothing new is contained in the cited canon. That the canon can be well harmonized with the common doctrine seems to be admitted sufficiently commonly.⁴ We said, however, that in the cases set forth absolution is to be deferred:

¹ As regards the origin of this practice, Ter Haar writes: "In antiquity, especially up to the thirteenth century, confessors generally followed the penitential books as the norm of acting.... But the more moral and pastoral Theology advanced, theologians, especially after the Council of Trent, established several rules of prudence and discretion concerning absolution to be conferred or deferred ... so that the twofold end of this sacrament, which is to remit past sins and to prevent future ones, would be obtained more efficaciously. Hence then they spoke more and more often expressly about the delay of absolution. There is added this reason indicated by Francolini (De Poenitentiae disciplina, book 3, chapter 10, nn. 5, 6), namely that in the Middle Ages sinners were accustomed to confess rarely and scarcely once a year; for these, therefore, if they were truly contrite, it was dangerous to defer absolution. Hence also the theologians of that time scarcely spoke about delay of absolution. But since from the sixteenth century the use of the sacraments had grown greatly, theologians repeatedly treated of this delay, so that the sacraments would be received with greater fruit and would serve more for the amendment of penitents. Finally, it must be noted that canonical and sacramental penances in antiquity were for the most part very grave; and therefore, if they were accepted, they were highly medicinal and very efficacious against relapse into sin. But with the progress of time, when, faith growing cold, medicinal penances were always imposed more mildly, theologians began to commend more expressly delay of absolution, even for those who were judged truly contrite, so that by this remedy, especially relapsers and occasionaries, would be incited to shake off spiritual sloth and to impose on themselves greater force, by which they would avoid occasions and apply other means" (De conferenda absolutione sacramentali iuxta canonem 886, n. 12).

² De conferenda absolutione sacramentali iuxta can. 886, n. 13 sq.

³ Ter Haar, De occasionariis et recidivis, n. 437.

⁴ Cf. Ter Haar, cited work, p. 63 sq.

3. Unless a special reason is present for imparting it immediately even then. Special reason is involved by: 1. danger of death, as is clear; 2. an extraordinary disposition of such a kind that it sufficiently guarantees future amendment. Such an extraordinary disposition, however, should not easily be presumed; 3. danger of alienation from the sacraments; 4. danger of infamy; 5. grave difficulty of returning to the same confessor, provided it is grave for the penitent to repeat the confession before another. The reason for 4 and 5 is that the very necessity of receiving absolution, which is present in the said cases, founds the hope of acquiring more efficacious graces (St. Alphonsus, VI, 454, 456). There is added the fact that in the case delay of absolution will easily be borne with difficulty, and for that reason can carry with it alienation from the sacraments (St. Alphonsus, VI, 454, 456).

Corollary I. For those who are weak in faith or negligent in religious practice, if they are sufficiently certainly disposed, absolution should commonly not be deferred.

Corollary II. On the occasion of a mission or spiritual exercises, some one of the enumerated causes is commonly present, so that then, at least for the most part, absolution can be granted at once to those sufficiently certainly disposed, and almost must be.

Corollary III. If delay of absolution is applied: 1. it should not be made for a long time, more advisedly for only one week or at most another; 2. it should be signified in the most humane words, and in such a way that it is clear that absolution is deferred not from anger or hatred, but only for the good of the penitent (St. Alphonsus, VI, 463); 3. the confessor should take pains that the penitent grasp the usefulness of the delay and consent to it willingly; 4. it should be made together with the indication of means of amendment and with an exhortation that he return without fear.

Question. What sentence should be rendered by a confessor who prudently fears that the penitent is sacrilegiously keeping silent about, or denying, a committed sin? Moreover, in order that he sacrilegiously keep silent about or deny it, it is required that the penitent: 1. have sinned subjectively gravely; 2. not yet have confessed the sin; 3. now remember the sin; 4. judge that there is no cause excusing from integrity. With these things noted:

Response 1. If the confessor doubts, absolution should commonly be granted, and indeed absolutely, according to this principle: the penitent is to be believed whether he speaks for himself or against himself. If, however, all things considered, the doubt persists, one must distinguish. If it persists independently of the confession of another, for example from the report of others, let the penitent be absolved conditionally. If it persists dependently on the confession of another,¹ according to some the penitent is to be absolved, and indeed absolutely, because, they say, it is not licit to use that sacramental knowledge. According to others, he is to be absolved conditionally.

Response 2. If the confessor is certain, which, considering the state of the question, will scarcely have place, one must distinguish. If he is certain independently of the confession of another, absolution should be denied. If he is certain from the confession of another,¹ according to some the penitent must be absolved, and indeed absolutely, because, they say, it is illicit to use that sacramental knowledge. According to others, absolution must be denied; nevertheless, to conceal the denial, some prayer should be recited (St. Alphonsus, VI, 631).

¹ In this case he cannot question the penitent more or otherwise than he would do if he had not known it, unless he has received express permission. Sometimes it is expedient to ask permission to use sacramental knowledge for helping another penitent, for example an accomplice.