Absolution from reserved cases

366. Who Can Absolve. 1. The supreme pontiff and the major penitentiary.

2. Cardinals everywhere on earth can absolve from all reserved sins and censures, except censures reserved in a most special manner and those attached to the revelation of the secret of the Holy Office.¹

3. A confessor whom a cardinal or bishop chooses for himself and his household members, even if he lacks jurisdiction, which he obtains by the law itself, can absolve also with respect to reserved censures, except those reserved in a most special manner.²

4. Ordinaries, by themselves or through another, can absolve: a. from all occult cases established by common law, simply, but not those reserved in a special or most special manner; b. from public cases established by common law, but not from cases reserved to the apostolic see or brought to the contentious forum.³

Nevertheless, most bishops, from special indults of the holy see, have broader faculties of absolving even from public reserved cases, so that confessors who need the faculty of absolving from some papal case can almost always receive it from the ordinary.

5. All priests can absolve those constituted in danger of death from absolutely all sins and censures, because in danger of death there is no reservation.

It must be noted that sick persons who recover, under penalty of reincidence into the same censure, must in this twofold case have recourse, either by themselves or through the confessor: a. if they were absolved from a censure ab homine, to him who imposed the censure; b. if they were absolved from a censure reserved in a most special manner, to the Penitentiary, or the bishop, or another having the faculty.⁴

6. In more urgent cases, namely if the censure cannot be externally observed without danger of grave scandal or infamy, or if it is hard for the penitent to remain in the state of sin for the time necessary for the competent superior to provide, any confessor can absolve from all papal cases, with the obligation nevertheless enjoined of having recourse and of standing by the mandates.⁵

a. The confessor ought to judge concerning the more urgent case; but if his judgment errs either from culpable imprudence or from levity, the absolution indeed is valid, but he himself can sin gravely; for his conscience is burdened in this matter, as the pontifical decree has it.

b. In a truly urgent case absolution can be granted from all papal cases reserved with censure, not even excepting those which are said to be reserved in a most special manner. And the absolution, otherwise than happens in episcopal cases, is direct by declaration of the holy see.⁶

c. Recourse must be made, if it can be done without grave inconvenience: a. under penalty of reincidence into the same censure, b. within a month, g. at least by letter or through the confessor, even one different from him who absolved him, d. the name being withheld, to the Penitentiary, or to the bishop, or to another superior furnished with the faculty.

d. It is permitted to the penitent, even after accepted absolution and after recourse has already been made to the superior, to approach another confessor furnished with the faculty, and, after confession at least of the delict with the censure has been repeated, to receive absolution and mandates from him. But if he has obtained these and has stood by the mandates, he is not afterward bound to stand by the mandates of the other superior to whom he had made recourse.

e. If in some extraordinary case recourse is morally impossible, the confessor, except for censure contracted on account of absolution of an accomplice, can absolve without burden, with those things nevertheless enjoined which must be enjoined by law, and with penance and satisfaction imposed for the censure; and if the penitent does not fulfill these within the time set by the confessor, he falls back into the censure. Such an extraordinary case can easily occur in missions or armies, if a foreign confessor must set out, or a response from the superior cannot be awaited, and the penitent on account of his own state, or for some other reason, cannot write and it would be hard for him to approach another confessor.

f. When a confessor, according to the decree of the Holy Office of June 23, 1886, absolves a penitent in a truly urgent case, he can also dispense him from an occult irregularity which follows the censure itself.⁷

Note. If a confessor, ignorant of the reservation, absolves from a censure and sin, the absolution is valid, unless it is a censure reserved to the apostolic see in a most special manner.

¹ Cn. 239, 1.

² Cn. 349, 1, coll. cn. 339, 1.

³ Cn. 2237.

⁴ Cn. 2252.

⁵ Holy Office, June 23, 1886. Cn. 2254.

⁶ Holy Office, August 19, 1891.

⁷ Holy Office, March 28, 1906; September 6, 1909. Cn. 990, 2.

367. For Practice. 1. If a penitent confesses a sin reserved to the supreme pontiff, the confessor, before he investigates further, should immediately inquire whether the penitent has in fact incurred the case. But if the reservation is established, he should propose to the penitent the option either of approaching, if one is present, a privileged confessor, or of returning after some time; but in the meantime the confessor himself should obtain for himself the power of absolving.

2. In an urgent case, in which absolution cannot be delayed without grave inconvenience of the penitent, the confessor should declare that he could concede absolution under these conditions: a. that after some time he return (if there is need, he should warn the penitent of reincidence into the same censure, if he does not return); b. that he be prepared to fulfill the mandates to be enjoined by the holy see. If the penitent promises these things, after confession has been completed and penance enjoined, the confessor should absolve him.

3. If the penitent does not fulfill the mandates enjoined, he sins indeed, but he does not contract the censure anew, because under penalty of reincidence only recourse is prescribed in good faith; but if he does not return to receive the mandates, he contracts the censure again, provided he omitted the return by grave fault, because recourse under penalty of reincidence was prescribed, and this return is not completed when it is made, but only when the mandates are received.

4. Rare will be the case in which the penitent himself can and wishes to have recourse; in that case the confessor should write to the holy Penitentiary or to the bishop, and should teach him to request absolution from censure granted in the urgent case and to seek mandates.¹

5. If a confessor, who in an urgent case absolved a priest having a censure on account of absolution of his own accomplice, has recourse to the holy Penitentiary to receive mandates, the latter is accustomed to impose a grave penance and an express prohibition of hearing further sacramental confessions of the accomplice. But if the priest penitent has a third time (having been twice absolved by the same or by three different confessors) or more often committed the crime of absolution of an accomplice, the obligation of imposing suspension is added, and if this cannot be done, at least within three months, if he is a parish priest, within six months the office of confessor must be given up. But if, by reason of his office, this cannot prudently be done, after the circumstances have been set forth the confessor should have recourse to the holy Penitentiary to obtain dispensation from the obligation enjoined. When this has been done, ordinarily the term for giving up the office is prolonged from year to year, unless perhaps a relapse has occurred in the meantime, or the requested dispensation is granted, so that the priest can retain the office of confessor. Provision can be made for the necessity of having recourse on repeated occasions, because already the first time the reasons can be set forth on account of which giving up the office of confessor is impossible for him. But if the priest penitent who has been absolved in an urgent case still needs only the mandates of the holy Penitentiary, and the confessor who absolved the priest cannot personally meet with him, because he has already withdrawn (e.g., after spiritual exercises have been completed), the confessor should ask the holy Penitentiary to be able to communicate the mandates with the priest penitent outside confession.²

6. Three absolutions of an accomplice are not to be counted from the last confession only, but from the beginning of the priestly life, so that, if, e.g., before this he had already twice been absolved from excommunication because he absolved an accomplice, he now cannot be absolved unless with the burden of giving up the office of confessor, if from the last confession he absolved the accomplice once.³

¹ Formula of writing to the holy Penitentiary: Most Eminent Prince. Titius contracted a censure reserved to the Roman Pontiff in a special (ordinary) manner because of reading prohibited books (because of a duel perpetrated). Since he was not able to approach a privileged confessor, nor to be dismissed without absolution, and otherwise seemed rightly disposed, he received absolution. Now, to obey the Church, by the prescribed letters through me, the undersigned confessor, he has recourse to the holy see to receive mandates, prepared to fulfill the penance which Your Eminence will deign to prescribe as a penalty of the delict. N. on the N. day of the month ... N. N., parish priest. Exterior inscription of the letter: To the Most Eminent Prince Cardinal Major Penitentiary. Palace of the Apostolic Chancery. Rome.

² Formula of petitioning mandates for a priest who, in an urgent case, was directly absolved from the crime of absolution of an accomplice. Most Blessed Father. A certain priest, a parish priest, with Anna, his wife (or a girl), committed these acts ... and in confession ... (as often as) absolved her. Now performing exercises with due contrition he made confession. But since absolution could not be delayed (for he is constituted in the care of souls, etc.), he was directly absolved; therefore for him I request mandates. He himself indeed is prepared for every penalty, but the office of confessor and of parish priest he cannot give up because of these reasons.... Every occasion of sinning again is remote, indeed impossible, since he will hear no confessions of the accomplice. - He can return to me to receive penance in the confessional (or he cannot because of these reasons.... Therefore I humbly ask that it may be permitted to me through letters to communicate with him and to do the other things he asks). Let the response, I ask, be directed to me N. N., confessor in N. N. Exterior inscription to the Sacred Penitentiary: Vatican Rome.

³ Holy Penitentiary, June 5, 1901.

368. Whether One Having Reserved Sins, in Necessity of Celebrating or Communicating, Is Bound to Confess to a Simple Confessor if Another Is Lacking.

a. If he has papal reserved sins, he is bound to confess; for since now the power has been given to all confessors in more urgent cases of directly absolving from all sins and censures reserved in any way whatever to the Roman Pontiff, no cause any longer exists excusing from making an integral confession before Mass or communion to a simple confessor.

b. If there is question of episcopal reserved sins, from which he cannot absolve in an urgent case, a distinction must be made:

a. If he has only reserved sins, he is not bound to confess, because he does not have necessary matter of confession which can be directly remitted.

Therefore he can in urgent necessity celebrate or communicate with contrition alone. If, however, he notices that he has only attrition, he is bound to confess some venial sin, or a mortal sin already remitted, so that he may at least be absolved indirectly from the reserved sins. And he can do this same thing even if he knows that contrition exists, in order that he may procure for himself a more secure state of grace. But if necessity is not urgent, he ought either to abstain from the sacred action or confess a venial sin or a mortal sin already remitted.

b. If he has reserved and mortal non-reserved sins, he is bound to confess, because the precept of premising confession before communion urges, and there exists no legitimate excuse. Yet he is not bound also to confess reserved sins, but it suffices that he declare that he has non-reserved sins; both because there is no obligation per se of confessing sins from which he cannot be directly absolved, and because otherwise he would be bound to confess the same sins twice.

This opinion, which obligates a priest having reserved sins and other non-reserved mortal sins to confession, is certain to all, although the contrary may seem to lack a probable argument.¹

¹ Cf. Lugo, De eucharistia, disp. 14, n. 84 ss.

In general absolution from reserved cases may be obtained from the person who reserved them, from his successor, his superior who has jurisdiction over the same subjects, and from anyone who has been specially delegated by one of these to grant absolution.

Canon 2237, sec. 2, gives Ordinaries power to absolve from cases simply reserved to the Holy See when they are occult either in person or by their delegate.

The Vicar General and the Canon Penitentiary can absolve from cases reserved to the Ordinary (Can. 401).

Vicars forane have power to absolve from cases which the bishop reserves to himself, and they should be able to delegate the same power to other priests of their district (Can. 899, sec. 2).

By the same canon, sec. 3, parish priests are empowered to absolve from cases which Ordinaries reserve to themselves during the time allowed for making one’s Easter duties, and missionaries have the same power during missions.

When the penitent is in danger of death any priest can absolve him from any sins or censures however they may be reserved, but if a penitent in that condition has been absolved from a censure ab homine or one most specially reserved to the Holy See by a priest without special faculties, and he recovers, he is bound under pain of falling again under censure to have recourse to him who inflicted the censure if it was ab homine, or to the Sacred Penitentiary or to the bishop or someone else with special faculties and submitting to their commands (Can. 2252).

Moreover, when it is necessary for a penitent to receive absolution in order to avoid scandal or loss of reputation, or because he must say Mass or make his Easter Communion, or when he feels it a great hardship to remain in the state of sin during the time required for obtaining special faculties to absolve him, a simple confessor may absolve him from all reserved cases (Can. 2254).

If the penitent does not feel it a hardship already the confessor may induce him to feel it, and then absolve him. But in any case the confessor must impose on the penitent whom he has absolved the obligation of having recourse within a month at least by letter and through the confessor, if it can be done without serious inconvenience, without mentioning the penitent’s name, to the Sacred Penitentiary or to the bishop, or to any other superior endowed with faculties for the case, and of obeying his commands. Unless the penitent fulfils this obligation he will again fall under the censure.

The ordinary confessors of exempt religious men of clerical institutes can absolve from cases reserved in the order; as also can confessors approved by the local Ordinary (Can, 518, 519).

If a confessor without special faculties absolves from a reserved case in ignorance of the reservation, the absolution is valid, except in the case of a censure ab homine or one most specially reserved to the Holy See (Can. 2247, sec. 3).

Limitation of jurisdiction.—(a) Reserved Sins or Cases.—For the sake of discipline and the good of souls the absolution of certain more atrocious or pernicious crimes is reserved to higher superiors, namely, to the Pope or the Ordinary. Reservation is not incurred in a case reserved on account of censure, if the penitent’s act was not gravely imputable; nor probably in a case reserved for its own sake (unless the reserving authority willed otherwise), if the penitent was ignorant (though not crassly or supinely) of the reservation (Canon 2229). To fall under reservation, a sin must be mortal, consummated (i.e. not merely attempted) certain and formal (i.e., perpetrated with knowledge of the special malice that caused reservation). Reservation ceases when confession is made by the sick who are unable to leave the house or by those who are about to be married; when the Superior has refused the request for faculties to absolve a reserved case, or the confessor prudently decides that the request for faculties cannot be made without grave detriment to the penitent or danger to the seal; when confession is made outside the territory of the Superior who reserves the sin (Canon 900).

(b) Reserved Persons.—Those who have not special faculties cannot validly hear the confessions of nuns (Canon 876), for the director of consciences of these Religious should be endowed with special virtue, knowledge and prudence. Religious Superiors, novice-masters, and rectors of seminaries or colleges should not act habitually as confessors of their subjects (Canons 518, n. 2, 891), lest the distinction between the internal and the external forum be forgotten. Finally, to prevent abuse of the Sacrament and occasions of relapse, a confessor cannot validly absolve his accomplice in a sin against the Sixth Commandment, consummated or unconsummated, or from the sin of complicity itself, as necessary matter of the Sacrament, if the sin was on both sides external, certain, and both internally and externally grave (Canons 884, 2367).

Absolution from Reserved Cases.—(a) In danger of death, any priest can absolve every reserved sin and censure, but, should the penitent recover, there is a duty in certain specified cases of having recourse to the lawful superior (Canons 882, 2252). The latter Canon specifies two cases in which recourse is necessary after the person recovers, namely, a censure ab homine and one most specially reserved to the Holy See. A third case has been added by the Sacred Penitentiary, namely, when a priest who has attempted marriage and is unable to separate asks for absolution from the censure of Canon 2388, Sec.1, in danger of death.

(b) In urgent cases, namely, if censures latae sententiae cannot be observed externally without grave danger of scandal or infamy, or if it is hard for the penitent to remain in the state of grave sin for such time as may be necessary in order that the competent superior may provide, then any confessor can, in the sacramental forum, absolve from these censures, no matter how they are reserved, imposing, under pain of falling back into the censure, the obligation of having recourse within a month (at least by letter and through the confessor, if it can be done without grave inconvenience), without mentioning the name, to the Sacred Penitentiary or to a Bishop or other superior who has the faculty. The confessor imposes also the obligation of fulfilling his injunctions (Canon 2254, Sec.1). It is to be noted:

1. the circumstances constituting an urgent case are the two specified in the Canon: the difficulty of observing the censure; the hardship of remaining in sin.

2. the object of the absolution is all censures latae sententiae, however reserved, with one exception, namely, the censure incurred under Canon 2388, Sec.1, the case of a priest who, after an attempted marriage, is unable to separate. No absolution as an urgent case under this Canon can be given. The censure latae sententiae for false denunciation can be absolved under this Canon only if the conditions of Canon 2363 have been fulfilled (actual formal retraction and reparation; imposition of a grave and long penance; and the sin itself remains reserved ratione sui to the Holy See).

3. Sufficient extrinsic authority is available to make safe in practice the extension of the grant of power of this Canon to censures ab homine which are ferendae sententiae.

4. Sections 2 and 3 of this Canon indicate the right of the penitent to go afterwards to a privileged confessor without making the recourse to the superior enjoined upon him or observing the mandata from the superior in case he has already made recourse, and the procedure to be followed when recourse is morally impossible.

(c) Outside of necessity, only those can absolve who have ordinary or delegated faculties. The law itself grants to pastors the power to absolve during the whole of paschal time from all sins which the Ordinary has reserved to himself, and missionaries have the same power during the time they are giving a mission (Canon 899, n. 3). This does not apply to censures nor to cases reserved to the Ordinary by the Apostolic See or by law, such as the excommunication latae sententiae which Canon 2350 declares against the procurers of abortion.

The faculty as regards absolution from censures, in the forum of conscience only, and from sins, which according to the Council of Trent (sess. 14, ch. 7) Holy Church concedes to any Priest whatever for the faithful placed in the article of death, namely, that there be no reservation. And therefore all Priests can absolve any penitents from any sins and censures whatever; this same most ample faculty is conceded by the Supreme Pontiffs to Confessors approved in the aforesaid manner, for the benefit only of the sick in the hospitals of Rome, although they are not placed in the article of death.³

³ The aforesaid Brief of Clement XII of holy memory, by which he approves that of Pope Paul III: "with all and singular faculties of absolving from all and singular sins, crimes, and offenses, however grave and enormous, even those reserved to the Apostolic See, etc., even if they were such that for them the Apostolic See deservedly ought to be consulted."

Then as regards the two cases reserved to the Vicar of Rome, namely of the buying and selling of the Easter ticket, and of the non-fulfillment of the Easter precept, besides the faculty of absolving them in the internal forum, there is likewise conceded the faculty of absolving in the external forum from the interdict him who may have incurred it because of the non-fulfillment of the said precept, and whose name had been published at the door of the Church, with the obligation on the Confessor, after having made the penitent aware of it, immediately to transmit the notice by means of authentic attestation to the office of the Vicariate, using the following formula.

I, the undersigned, declare that I have absolved the sick person N. N. of the Parish

And as regards censures he adds: "from any sentences, censures, and penalties whatsoever of excommunication, suspension, and interdict, and other ecclesiastical sentences, censures, and penalties, in whatever way incurred, and from other reserved cases.... in the forum of conscience only, we concede and indulge the faculty of absolving...."

N., notoriously denounced and interdicted because of the non-fulfillment of the Easter precept. In witness, etc. From the venerable archhospital N., on the day, etc.⁴

⁴ Decree of His Eminence Cardinal Patrizi, 23 February 1851.

"Meanwhile, by mandate of His Holiness himself, the same Ordinaries are admonished that throughout their whole Diocese, and especially in those places which are farther removed from the City and the Cathedral See, they constitute and delegate Penitentiaries and other Priests, to whom they concede the faculty of absolving from Cases reserved to themselves, so that to these also it may be lawful to impart the same to other confessors if there is need, even by living voice." S. C. EE. RR. 26 Nov. 1602. - "But the same S. C. declares that the faculty and license of absolving from reserved cases.... can be conceded even by the living voice alone." 26 Nov. 1602.

"In small Communities Superiors altogether ought habitually to deputize one confessor from the Religious of their own Order, who has the faculty of absolving from cases and censures reserved in the Order." S. C. EE. and RR. 16 Aug. 1866, approved and confirmed by Pius IX on the 17th of the same month.

Pius IX, Brief 28 Sept. 1852, indulged to the Capuchins that from an outside confessor "they can obtain sacramental absolution also as regards cases reserved by the Statutes of the Order, and the censures consequently incurred, yet with the obligation furnished of presenting themselves at once, as soon as it is permitted, to their regular Superior, and of obtaining absolution from him." Cf. N. 557.

Cf. N. 556.

"1. Whether the opinion teaching that absolution of cases and censures, even those reserved in a special way to the Pope, devolves upon the Bishop or upon any approved priest, when the penitent is in the impossibility of personally approaching the Holy See, can still safely be held? 2. Insofar as negatively, whether recourse must be had at least by letters to the Most Eminent Prefect of the S. Penitentiary for all cases reserved to the Pope, unless the Bishop has a special indult, except in the article of death, in order to obtain the faculty of absolving? Resp. To the 1st, account being had of the practice of the S. Penitentiary, especially from the publication of the Apostolic Constitution of Pius IX of holy memory, which begins Apostolicae Sedis, negatively. To the 2nd, affirmatively; but in truly more urgent cases, in which absolution cannot be deferred without danger of grave scandal or infamy, concerning which the conscience of confessors is burdened, absolution can be given, the things to be enjoined by law having been enjoined, from censures even reserved in a special way to the Supreme Pontiff, yet under the penalty of falling again into the same censures, unless the one absolved, at least within a month, by letter and through the medium of the confessor, has recourse to the Holy See. The Most Holy One approved and confirmed the resolution of the Most Eminent Fathers." S. I. C. 23 June 1886. Cf. Commentary On Censures, Part I, art. 5.

1. Two general questions can be raised concerning this Decree. The first is what its value, or force of obliging, may be. The other is what its objective extension may be.

2. As regards the First question, several indeed doubt concerning the force of obliging of such a Decree, and by thus doubting they seem in reality to deny it. The reason is that such a Decree seems a certain new law, derogating from the whole law of the Decretals; but this law is neither approved in specific form by the Supreme Pontiff, nor legitimately promulgated. But Decrees of the Sacred Congregation, even of the Supreme and Universal Inquisition, approved by themselves and only in common form, merely published, cannot constitute a new law, although they are of the greatest authority and weight. Cf. Ballerini, note (a), n. 130, Vol. 1, Comp. P. Gury; St. Alphonsus, book 1, n. 106; Pichler, Prolegom., n. 46; Schmalzgrueber, Dissert. Prooemial., nn. 373-377; Reiffenstuel, Prooem. in Ius Canonic., nn. 130-134. Besides, the matter is confirmed from the very practice of the Sacred Penitentiary, on which alone the present Decree rests, drawing all its intrinsic strength from the same practice. For this practice, by no law, is to be held as a true law; nor does it have the conditions, especially in the subject matter, necessarily required for forming at least a custom having force of law. Cf. Ballerini, Vol. 2, Comp. P. Gury, n. 867, note (b), n. 25 ff. of the same note. Finally, the same Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition, interrogated concerning this same matter, responded on the day 18 July in the year 1860: "Let him consult the Decretals of Clement III related in chapter 15, Cum desideres, and chapter 26, Quod de his, De Sent. Excomm., and approved authors, among whom St. Alphonsus de Liguori, book 7, ch. 1, on Censures, nn. 84 to 92." Moreover, in the cited places of the Law and of St. Alphonsus nothing is had concerning the obligation of seeking absolution by letter, when an impediment stands. Indeed St. Alphonsus, l.c., says that the doctrine is common, more probable, and safe, that he who has an impediment of appearing before the Pontiff is not bound to seek absolution by an intermediary or by letter, even from the Sacred Penitentiary. But it seems strange that a contrary practice should have prevailed in so brief a time. Nor indeed can this contrary practice be sufficiently proved absolutely, since perhaps many and by far more were those who, consulting the Decretals and approved authors and especially St. Alphonsus, gave absolution, no faculty having been sought by letter from the Sacred Penitentiary. When a doubt had been proposed by the Most Reverend Peter Bertapelle, in Const. Apost. Sed., Padua 1877, n. 218, "Whether through the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis there was derogated in any part from the power which law and universal custom had conceded to Bishops concerning those impeded from personally setting out to Rome?" the Secretary of the S. Penitentiary, although in an altogether private manner, deigned to rescript: "Nothing has been innovated." Cf. Gury-Dumas, Cas. Consc., Vol. 2, n. 646; Gury-Ballerini, de Poenit., n. 575.

3. These things notwithstanding, several others, and learned Theologians at that, think that such a Decree has a true and proper force of obliging all. For Decrees of Sacred Congregations, and especially doctrinal Decrees, such as the present one is, of the Supreme Universal Inquisition, approved by the Supreme Pontiff in whatever form and manner, have the same authority as if they emanated from the Supreme Pontiff himself, and consequently have the force of law. Hence it is not strange at all if a simple Decree of a Sacred Congregation derogates without another formality from the Pontifical Constitutions themselves which up to now were in force. Nor indeed, that they may oblige, is promulgation necessary, since knowledge alone of the same suffices. For there ought to be one judgment and one profession of Christ's faithful concerning doctrine and morals. Therefore by this very fact that something has been doctrinally defined by the Holy See, immediately or mediately, or has been decided for the sole purpose of protecting the security of doctrine, those knowing it now ought, without another promulgation, to hold and profess it. Cf. Paul Villada, Cas. Consc. his praesertim tempor. accommod., Brussels 1887, Part 3, Case 8; Nouvelle Revue Theologique, Vol. 18, p. 378.

4. But there is another way of considering the aforesaid Decree, which, as more conformable to received principles and reason, is altogether approved by us. This Decree is not some new law, but an interpretation of preexisting law and right. Hence its whole juridical value easily appears. And indeed this Decree pronounces that which had already been established by ancient law, namely that, when an impediment stands, the inferior confessor absolves. But now all circumstances of Society and Commerce, of the difficulty of journeys and of the transmission of letters, having been changed, the Sacred Congregation declares that an impediment of now approaching the Supreme Pontiff, so that an inferior Confessor can absolve from Censures reserved to the Roman Pontiff, is not present unless someone not only cannot personally come to Rome, but also, because of narrowness of time, cannot at least seek absolution by letter. Wherefore the impediment which previously was present was only an impediment of personal access; but the impediment which now is present, the circumstances of times having been changed, is an impediment of personal access and by letter. For someone can treat this matter by letters at present as well and safely as once he could undertake a journey to Rome; indeed, as is plain in itself, someone can now much more easily and safely send a letter than once undertake a journey. But now, if this Decree is nothing except a mere Declaration of Law and Right, that it may have force of obliging there is not required a special approval, or approval in specific form; nor is its solemn promulgation required; but common approval, or approval in common form, altogether suffices, and simple publication, namely that it simply become known. Cf., besides the authors praised in n. 1, Varceno, Comp. Theol. Mor., Turin 1887, Tr. 3, ch. 6, art. 1; Scavini, Theol. Mor., Milan 1874, book 1, n. 173; Joseph D'Annibale, Summ. Theol., 2nd ed., Part 1, n. 182; Ferraris, Biblioth. Canon., v. Declarationes et Decreta, nn. 12-15.

5. Hence the practice of the S. Penitentiary, of which there is speech in the Response to the 1st Question, does not seem to be simply the practice of conceding absolution to those asking. For from this practice nothing can be deduced. Nor does practice of this sort seem to be the removal of the obligation of approaching personally to the Holy See for those very persons who seek absolution from the S. Penitentiary. For those who obtain absolution from the S. Penitentiary, by that very fact are freed from the burden of appearing at some time before the Holy See. But the removal of this burden for these persons cannot be the reason why generally one impeded can no longer be absolved by an inferior confessor as before. Therefore the practice of the S. Penitentiary about which there is question seems to be this: that the S. Penitentiary for all at present, whether they are impeded or not, no longer has as obligatory in practice the prescription of ancient law of personal access, but it is at one's choice either to come in one's own person to the Roman Church, or to approach it by letter. Wherefore, the obligation of exclusively personal access having been removed, the faculty of approaching personally still remains. And thus of one who, while an impediment stands, is absolved, it is not said that he ought afterwards by letter to approach the Holy See, but that at least by letter and through the medium of the confessor he ought afterwards to have recourse to the Holy See. Therefore, in the case of a censure reserved to the Roman Pontiff, whether personal access is possible or not, someone can as before approach the Holy See in his own person or through a procurator in his own name, or have recourse to the same by a letter sent by himself, or finally by a letter sent by the confessor himself. Cf. St. Alphonsus, book 1, n. 186. Hence also removed is the distinction which previously was made between a perpetual and a temporal impediment, for a long and for a short time.

6. The question previously was among Theologians whether, when an impediment of approaching the Supreme Pontiff stands, any confessor in that case could absolve from sin and from reserved censure, or only the Bishop; and only in impossibility of approaching the Bishop would that faculty be made for any confessor. By the present Decree such a controversy is found settled in favor of the opinion which, more congruently with the Law, held that any confessor in that case can impart absolution. Cf. Commentary on Censures, nn. 64, 65.

7. The question likewise was whether, when an impediment stands, absolution is always given directly, or only indirectly. The present Decree also settles this question in favor of the opinion which, again congruently with the Law, asserted that absolution is given directly. For the Sacred Congregation declares that the faculty belongs to confessors of absolving even from censures reserved in a special manner to the Supreme Pontiff. Moreover the same S. C. adds that there is a penalty of reincidence into the same censures unless, within at least a month, the absolved person has recourse by letter to the Holy See. But now, if reincidence is had into censures, the penitent was truly absolved from them and consequently obtained absolution directly as to sins. Cf. Commentary on Censures, n. 51 ff.

8. Finally, a distinction, brought into the midst by someone against the most common opinion of the Doctors, between cases and reserved cases of greater and lesser moment to be absolved when an impediment stands, insofar as the former cannot be absolved by an inferior confessor but absolution must altogether be obtained by letter, but the latter can be absolved by an inferior confessor, is altogether rejected by the present Decree, and indeed reasonably, and altogether suitably to the Law of the Decretals. For the present Decree equates all papal cases among themselves as to absolution to be obtained, when an impediment stands, from an inferior confessor, even if they are censures reserved in a special manner to the Supreme Pontiff. But they are reasonably equated, since there will always be the same impediment, the same danger of grave scandal or infamy from delayed absolution, whether there is question of an altogether enormous matter or of a lighter matter. Those censures are also equated suitably to the Law of the Decretals. For from the Law of the Decretals no distinction is had between censure and censure, between reservation and reservation, between enormous and less grave delict, where there is question of absolution to be given in the case of impediment, precisely by reason of impediment. Nowhere indeed is it pronounced that absolution should be sought by letter if the crime was enormous and an impediment of approaching the Holy See is present. But on the contrary it is openly asserted that they can be absolved, nevertheless with the burden imposed that, the impediment ceasing, they must visit the Roman Church in their own person, approach the Roman Church or its Legate, approach the Roman Pontiff, etc., as is found everywhere in book 5 of the Decretals, Title 39, de Sent. Excomm., and book 3, Title 11, in the Sixth. Nor indeed is this general rule to be confused wrongly with that which is established in some particular case; nor likewise is this general faculty made for an inferior confessor of absolving the impeded, as impeded, to be confused with the special faculty made for a Bishop of absolving from the excommunication of the canon when the striking has not been enormous, but slight or even grave, which special faculty by common law was conceded also to Regular Prelates and has been confirmed by the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis itself. Cf. Commentary on the cited Constitution, n. 49. And indeed the Response of the S. I. C. related in number 3 does not refer to any case whatever, but to an altogether enormous case, to the case, namely, as they say, reserved to the Supreme Pontiff in a most special manner. For there was question of the excommunication "which the Confessor contracted by absolving outside the article of death an accomplice in a shameful sin." But now in the praised Decretals of Clement III, to which the S. C. refers the orator, not even a word is had concerning a letter to be written. In chapter Cum desideres, 15, de Sent. Excomm., it is said that notwithstanding caution given and satisfaction furnished, absolution is to be obtained in the form constituted by the Church. But chapter Quod de his, 26, of the same title, has these things: "Brother, we have judged that you should be responded to thus: that he who asserts that he has fallen into the Canon of a sentence latae sententiae can obtain the benefit of absolution in no other way than through the Apostolic See or its Legate: unless perhaps in the article of death, or by poverty, or infirmity, or old age, he were burdened so greatly that he could not endure the labor of coming to the Roman Church, or were drawn back from this by some other canonical impediment. But from these persons in the form of the Sacrament it has been customary to exact that, strength having been resumed, and opportunity having been granted, they ought to visit the Roman Church in their own person." Cf. chapters Super eo 1, Monachi 2, Mulieres 6, De caetero 11, Ea noscitur 13, Pervenit ad nos

17, Nuper a nobis 29, Cum illorum 32, De monialibus 33, Relatum 37, Canonica constitutione 50, Quamvis incidens 58, De Sent. Excomm., Eos qui 22, of the same title in the Sixth, Quoniam 9, De vita et honest. Cleric.

9. But here it is asked how it still cannot safely be held that, when an impediment stands, any priest or Bishop can absolve from papal cases, if the Decree itself finally teaches this very thing in the Response to the second Question? That is called safe which is without danger. Therefore an opinion which cannot safely be held speculatively, or cannot safely be taught, is an opinion which cannot be taught without danger of error. Likewise an opinion which cannot safely be held practically, or cannot safely be reduced to practice, is an opinion which someone cannot follow in practice without danger of sin. But now, the aforesaid legitimate Declaration of the Sacred Congregation standing, if someone at the present time were generally to say that one personally impeded can be absolved by another inferior, he would expose himself to the danger of erring speculatively and sinning practically. For first, the circumstances of times having been changed, many who previously were truly personally impeded from approaching the Holy See are at present no longer such. Besides, those personally impeded from approaching the Holy See were previously understood to be only those who could not come to Rome in their own person; but now they are understood to be those who neither can come to Rome in their own person, nor because of narrowness of time can seek absolution at least by letter. Wherefore there is no opposition in the Response of the Sacred Congregation to the first and to the other Question, when it affirms, namely, both that it cannot safely be held that a penitent who is in the impossibility of personally approaching the Holy See can be absolved by an inferior confessor, and that a penitent impeded from approaching the Holy See personally and by letter can be absolved by an inferior confessor, when absolution cannot be deferred further by reason of grave scandal or infamy. Cf. St. Alphonsus, book 1, n. 42.

10. The obligation imposed by the Decree of still having recourse by letter, absolution now having been obtained, and indeed direct absolution, in the case of the aforesaid impediment, begets no difficulty. The reason is that this is the natural consequence of the pre-established Declaration. For just as formerly, from the Law of the Decretals, absolution having first been obtained in the case of an impediment of presenting oneself to the Superior, when the impediment ceased, someone had to present himself to the same Superior; so equally now, in the case of an impediment both of presenting oneself to the Superior and of sending a letter, absolution having been obtained, when there is now time enough for writing and every impediment to it ceases, he ought either to present himself personally to the Superior, or at least by letter to have recourse to the Superior. Hence also as to this part, for the legitimate value of this Decree, neither approval in specific form nor promulgation is required, since again it is not in reality a new law, but a mere Declaration of law, such as is accustomed to be called comprehensive. Cf. C. Quamvis, 58, De Sent. Excomm., etc.

11. Therefore the whole difficulty of the present Decree is reduced to reincidence. Indeed it must also be asserted that this difficulty in reality is none if it is said, as several have thought, that reincidence was not removed by the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis. But the difficulty is really present if, on the contrary, it is said that reincidence was removed by that Constitution, as several and indeed most learned Theologians have taught; and this is truly established by the very tenor of the praised Constitution. In this opinion no other explanation of this part of the Decree can be at hand except that it be said to contain, under this head, an extensive Declaration. Cf. Joseph D'Annibale on the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis, 3rd ed., n. 218; Peter Bertapelle on the same Constitution, nn. 218, 224.

12. We now proceed to the other question, namely concerning the objective extension of this Decree. And first indeed, in the present Decree, as is established from its very tenor, there is not question of Episcopal cases. There is not question of papal cases, but occult ones. Nor indeed is there question of danger or the article of death, which is positively excepted in the second question. Therefore nothing new is to be established in these cases, so far as is by force of the present Decree. Cf. Commentary on Censures, n. 36 ff. Nor indeed would this Decree reasonably be extended from case to case, on account of that special reason also that the Sacred Congregation founds its Decree on the practice of the S. Penitentiary; whether this practice is the same for other cases as for those impeded as to papal cases is not positively established from the same present Decree. Therefore only by reasoning can the same disposition of law be affirmed, even as regards Episcopal cases.

13. But whether in the aforesaid Decree there is question of papal cases, for the impeded, reserved either with censure or without censure, does not lack difficulty. It seems to be affirmed, because in the Questions there is question generally of cases and censures, of all cases reserved to the Pope. But it seems to be denied, 1st, because in the questions themselves the doubt seems to be restricted to censures, so that the word censure restricts and narrows the other word case as to signification; for the allusion is evidently made to the cases of the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis, when at the beginning it is said: Whether it can still safely be held, etc. 2nd. In this same sense proceeds the Response to the 1st; for it is said: attention having been paid to the practice of the S. Penitentiary, especially from the published Constitution of Pius IX of holy memory, which begins Apostolicae Sedis, etc. 3rd. The Response to the 2nd Question treats only of cases reserved with censure, and the reincidence into censures there established regards only these cases. Wherefore, again, then only by legitimate reasoning must the same disposition of law be affirmed for other papal cases reserved without censure.

14. Finally it can be asked whether by the aforesaid Decree there is comprehended the censure of the canon, art. 2 of the second series of the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis. It seems that it must be denied; and the reason is that an exception is made by the same Constitution, and it is said: "excepted, as to reservation, cases and persons concerning whom by law or privilege it is permitted that the Bishop or another absolve."

A. M. D. G.

“Our Most Holy Lord, who long ago carefully considered and learned by the fact itself that the reservation of the faculty of absolving religious penitents from certain graver sins, unless Superiors use it very prudently and moderately, can lead certain weak persons, who sometimes fear to disclose the stains of their conscience to the Superior, into danger of eternal damnation and despair of a spiritual remedy—therefore, so that His Holiness might provide opportunely against this evil, he decreed that no Superior of regulars reserve to himself the absolution of sins except those which follow, or some of them, according as they shall prudently judge in the Lord to be expedient for the benefit of their subjects:

“1. Poisonings, incantations, sorceries.

“2. Apostasy from the religious institute, whether the habit is laid aside or retained, when it reaches the point that an exit is made beyond the enclosure of the monastery or convent.

“3. Nocturnal and furtive departure from the monastery or convent, even when done without an intention of apostatizing.

“4. Possession of property contrary to the vow of poverty, when it is a mortal sin.

“5. A false oath in a regular or legitimate judgment.

“6. Procuring, aiding, or counseling the performance of an abortion after the fetus is animated, even when the effect does not follow.

“7. Falsification of the handwriting or seal of officials of the monastery or convent.

“8. Theft from the goods of the monastery or convent in such an amount that it is a mortal sin.

“9. A voluntary carnal lapse consummated in act.

“10. The killing or wounding, or grave striking, of any person.

“11. The malicious obstruction, delay, or opening of letters from Superiors to inferiors and from inferiors to Superiors.

“If, moreover, some other grave sin should appear to require reservation for the preservation of the religious institute or for purity of conscience, this is to be done in no other way than by the mature discussion and consent of the general chapter for the whole Order or of the provincial chapter for the province.

“Superiors of regulars are not permitted to hear the confessions of subjects except when they have committed some reserved sin, or the subjects themselves spontaneously or of their own motion request it from them.

“Superiors are to appoint in each house two, three, or more confessors according to the greater or lesser number of subjects; and these are to be learned, prudent, and endowed with charity, who may absolve them from non-reserved cases and to whom the absolution of reserved cases is also to be committed when a case occurs in which the confessor himself judges in the first place that it ought to be committed.”

“His Holiness subsequently declared, and declares, that if the Superior should refuse to give the faculty of absolving some reserved case to confessors of regulars who request it, the confessors can nevertheless, on that occasion, absolve the regular penitents “even without having obtained the faculty from the Superior.” Ferraris, Regular Prelate, no. 58.

“Since certain regulars doubted whether censures were also comprehended in the Decree of Pope Clement VIII of happy memory, issued on 26 May 1593 concerning the nature of cases to be reserved by the Superiors of those same regulars, so that it would be lawful for the same Superiors, without the consent of the general or provincial chapter, to annex excommunication to certain sins not contained in a decree of this kind and to reserve absolution from it to themselves, the Sacred Congregation of Cardinals charged with the affairs of Regulars, with the Most Illustrious Bardino reporting, judged that censures were comprehended in the aforesaid Decree.” 7 July 1617.

“12. Mendicants can absolve from cases reserved to bishops without obtaining the faculty of the bishops for this.” Proposition condemned by Alexander VII.

“Meanwhile, by command of His Holiness himself, the same Ordinaries are admonished that throughout their whole diocese, and especially in those places which are more distant from the city and cathedral see, they appoint and delegate penitentiaries and other priests to whom they grant the faculty of absolving from cases reserved to themselves, in such a way that it may also be lawful for these, if there is need, to impart the same faculty to other confessors, even orally.” Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, 26 November 1602.

The same Sacred Congregation, 26 November 1602, declares “that the faculty and permission to absolve from reserved cases ... can also be granted by the spoken word alone.”

“In small communities Superiors must altogether appoint habitually one confessor from the religious of their own Order who has the faculty of absolving from cases and censures reserved in the Order.” Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, 16 August 1865, approved and confirmed by Pius IX on the 17th of the same month. See nos. 790, 795.

Faculties and privileges of confessors who render spiritual assistance to the sick in Roman hospitals. Holy Office, 9 March 1870. See Ferraris, Supplement, under Censure, no. 40.

See no. 797.

“1. Can the opinion still safely be held which teaches that absolution from cases and censures, even those reserved in a special manner to the Pope, devolves upon the bishop or any approved priest when the penitent is in the impossibility of personally approaching the Holy See? 2. Insofar as the response is negative, must recourse be had, at least by letter, to the Most Eminent Cardinal Penitentiary for all cases reserved to the Pope, unless the bishop has a special indult—apart from the point of death—in order to obtain the faculty of absolving?

“Response. To the first: In view of the practice of the Sacred Penitentiary, especially since the publication of the Apostolic Constitution of the late Pope Pius IX which begins Apostolicae Sedis: Negative. To the second: Affirmative; but in truly more urgent cases in which absolution cannot be deferred without danger of grave scandal or infamy, concerning which the conscience of confessors is burdened, absolution can be given, with the things required by law being enjoined, from censures even specially reserved to the Supreme Pontiff, but under pain of re-incurring the same censures unless, at least within one month, by letter and through the intermediary of the confessor he has recourse to the Holy See. After consultation with His Holiness, His Holiness approved.” Holy Office, 23 June 1886.

“By the Decree of the Sacred Inquisition of 23 June 1886, any confessor can directly absolve from censures, even those reserved in a special manner to the Supreme Pontiff, in truly more urgent cases in which absolution cannot be deferred without danger of grave scandal or infamy, with the things required by law being enjoined, but under pain of reincidence into the same censures unless, at least within one month, the person absolved has recourse by letter and through the intermediary of the confessor to the Holy See.

“A doubt nevertheless arises for a case in which neither scandal nor infamy is present in delaying absolution, but the penitent bound by papal censures must remain for a long time in mortal sin, namely, for the time required to request and obtain the faculty of absolving from reserved cases; especially since theologians, with St. Alphonsus de Liguori, regard it as something exceedingly hard for anyone to remain in mortal guilt for one or two days.

“Hence, after the Decree of 23 June 1886, since the theologians’ solution is lacking on this question, it is asked:

“1. In a case in which there is neither infamy nor scandal in delaying absolution, but it is very hard for the penitent to remain in grave sin for the time necessary to request and obtain the faculty of absolving from reserved cases, can a simple confessor directly absolve from censures reserved to the Supreme Pontiff, with the things required by law being enjoined, but under pain of reincidence into the same censures unless, at least within one month, the person absolved has recourse by letter and through the intermediary of the confessor to the Holy See?—Response. Affirmative, after consultation with His Holiness.” Holy Office, 16 June 1897.

“In more urgent cases ... [by] the Decree of the Holy Office of 23 June 1886, absolution can be given from cases reserved to the Holy See, but under pain of reincidence unless the person absolved has recourse within one month to the Holy See in order to receive its commands.

“Where, however, bishops have the delegated faculty of absolving from the aforesaid reserved cases, such as is customarily granted to them by the quinquennial formula of the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith (Formula X), under no. 10, there is doubt concerning the necessity of immediate recourse to the Holy See.

“It is therefore asked: 1. In the case of an absolution granted as above, is recourse to a bishop furnished with the faculty of absolving sufficient? And insofar as the response is affirmative:—2. In the same case, is recourse also sufficient if made to the bishop’s vicar general, as to an Ordinary who by law shares in the episcopal faculties of absolving?—3. In general, is recourse sufficient if made to any priest habitually subdelegated by the Ordinary to absolve from those papal reserved cases from which the penitent had been incidentally absolved as above, by virtue of the Decree of the Holy Office of 1881?

“Response. To the first and second: Affirmative, after consultation with His Holiness.—To the third: Negative.” Holy Office, 19 December 1900.

1. Benedictus, a confessor, received from his Ordinary the faculty, the first time, of absolving from reserved sins; the second time, of absolving from reserved cases. Could he in each Case absolve from reserved censures?

R. Affirmatively. For with regard to the first formula, from reserved sins, sins regularly cannot be absolved unless the censures first have been absolved, if they are punished with censures. But sins are most truly reserved whether they are reserved by themselves with no censure added, or are reserved by reason of an added reserved censure. Therefore that formula of absolving from reserved sins embraces each case, both cases reserved without censure, and cases reserved with reserved censure.

But the other formula, of reserved cases, of itself also embraces each reservation; for a reserved case most truly exists whether a sin is reserved without any censure, or whether it is reserved by reason of a reserved censure. Besides, from the now customary manner of speaking, by the name of reserved cases today everywhere and by all are understood both cases reserved without censure and cases reserved with reserved censure. D'Annibale, ed. 3, p. 1, n. 347, note 16.

2. "Recadius, a simple confessor, absolved Titius from the grave sin of striking a cleric, reserved to the Pope, because he, on account of the inconveniences of advanced age, labors under a perpetual impediment to going personally to Rome. Afterward, however, he doubts whether he acted rightly, or what must be done.

It is asked: Whether a simple confessor can absolve from papal cases those who cannot go to Rome?

R. Negatively. The reason is that a simple confessor has no faculty of absolving from that censure. For a grave striking of a cleric is a case reserved to the Pope; if it had been a light striking, it would be reserved to the bishop. Nor does it matter that the penitent cannot go to Rome; for although on that account he is exempted from the law of approaching the Apostolic See, nevertheless he is not exempted from the law of presenting himself, in the way in which he can, to the bishop, from whom, the aforesaid impediment standing, he is able to obtain absolution from his censure. Therefore the confessor will be able, if some grave necessity urges and easy access to the bishop is not open, to absolve this penitent with the burden of presenting himself to the bishop at the time and in the manner in which he can. Lugo, d. 20, s. 10. Hence Recadius invalidly absolved the penitent from the grave striking of a cleric, under the pretext that he could not personally go to Rome, because then the case remained reserved to the bishop." Thus Fr. Gury n. 600.

This resolution must be corrected according to the norm of various Decrees of the Holy Office and of the Sacred Penitentiary concerning absolution from sins and censures reserved to the Supreme Pontiff. Cf. I. M. 800. Wherefore 1.º to the proposed Question, as it stands, one must respond: Negatively, and this "holds even for the Case when the penitent has been perpetually impeded from personally setting out for Rome." S. O., June 17, 1891. For recourse must be made by letter to the Holy See. But in more urgent cases, in which absolution cannot be deferred without danger of grave scandal or infamy, or it would be hard for the penitent to remain longer in grave sin, absolution can be given by a simple confessor, with the obligation, however, of having recourse to the Holy See at least within a month by letter. S. O., June 23, 1886; June 16, 1897.

But as regards the proposed Case, it must be noted that from the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis the censure of the canon is simply reserved to the Roman Pontiff; but from this papal reservation, by the same Constitution, are excepted "the cases and persons concerning which by law or privilege it is permitted that a bishop or another absolve." I. M. 1182. Wherefore, the penitent being impeded from approaching the superior, he can be absolved by another, c. Eos qui, 22, de Sent. excomm., in 6.º. Therefore Recadius does not seem to be disturbed. Cf. Comment. de Censur., ed. 5, n. 58 ff.; D'Annibale, p. 1, n. 346, 349, 368.

3. "Samuel, a religious, enjoying the faculty of absolving from cases reserved to the Pope, absolves also from episcopal cases, although he had not been specially delegated for this, especially when a double reservation, namely papal and episcopal, attaches to the same sin; because, he says, he who can do the greater can also do the lesser.

It is asked: What is to be said to the Case?

R. Fr. Samuel erred greatly by absolving from episcopal cases without the delegation of the bishop, from the fact that he was approved for papal cases, and by loosing a double chain, while he was able to loose only one. For he falsely applied the principle: He who can do the greater can do the lesser; he should have added: in the same genus. But here there is no question of the same genus, since papal and episcopal cases draw their origin from a diverse principle." Thus Fr. Gury 598.

Fr. Gury says nothing in the resolution of the Case about a double reservation attaching to the same sin, namely papal and episcopal. In such a Case Fr. Samuel does not seem to err. There is no mixed reservation, that is, pontifical and episcopal at the same time. Nor can there be; for those things which are called to the judgment of a superior are by the law itself withdrawn from the jurisdiction of inferiors; otherwise absolution given by him would be almost useless. And so the Ordinary cannot also reserve to himself those cases which are reserved to the Roman Pontiff; and, if he had reserved some to himself, and the Roman Pontiff afterward reserves them, the episcopal reservation vanishes by the law itself. Suarez, d. 31, s. 4, n. 26; Lugo, d. 20, nn. 149, 151; D'Annibale, p. I, n. 339. Cf. Commentar. de Censur., ed. 5, n. 24.

4. "Liborius, a simple confessor, absolves from reserved matters even outside the case of death: 1.º Germana, who otherwise would have to remain for a week in the state of mortal sin with great anxiety; 2.º Caius, whose long and difficult confession he had received before he knew the reservation; 3.º Geruntius, an old man, who comes to confess on the last day of the Easter time and is very far from the episcopal city, and therefore cannot approach the bishop personally. In absolving these penitents, Liborius earnestly utters and repeats these words of the sacramental form: so far as I can, and thou hast need. But he does not take care to warn them of the obligation to confess these reserved sins afterward, when occasion is given, to the superior or to some delegate.

It is asked: What is to be said to the Case?

R. Liborius could indirectly absolve Germana from reserved sins, because it is a great inconvenience to remain so long in the state of mortal sin for a soul seized with great anxiety. He could absolve Caius, because it would be a great inconvenience to him if he had to repeat a long confession before another. He could absolve Geruntius, by reason of the necessity of communicating in the Easter time. But the reason does not hold that he cannot personally have recourse to the bishop, because he could write by himself or through another. Those bound by a papal censure can indeed approach the bishop, if they cannot seek Rome, as is conceded by the Law; but not on that account can those impeded from approaching the bishop personally be absolved by anyone whatsoever. But Liborius acted badly by omitting to admonish the aforesaid penitents concerning the obligation of declaring the reserved case again to a confessor who was approved for reserved matters. It would have been consonant with charity if, while admonishing them, he had promised that he would ask license for them, and absolve them again, so that thus a new accusation would be avoided for them." Thus Fr. Gury 595.

Concerning the preceding resolution, it must first be noted what is said about indirect absolution. For, the impediment standing, the inferior more probably absolves directly, as is drawn from the Law of the Decretals, and with regard to papal cases this is certainly established from the Responses of the Holy Office, Aug. 19, 1891, and March 30, 1892.

Then it must be noted what is said about recourse to the bishop by letter. For reservation obliges only to presenting oneself to the superior, not to sending a letter or a messenger. Hence, if one cannot perform that, he is not bound to another thing. This is admitted without any controversy by St. Alphonsus, l. 7, n. 89; whence it is also confirmed from the Response of the Holy Office, July 8, 1860: "Whether those impeded from approaching Rome in person are bound to approach at least by letter, or by a procurator, to obtain absolution from cases reserved to the Apostolic See? - R. Let him consult approved authors, among whom St. Alphonsus M. de Liguori." But although from the Response of the Holy Office, June 23, 1886, the impediment to seeking Rome standing, one must at least by letter have recourse to the Holy See, nevertheless from this the same obligation does not follow with regard to recourse also to be made to the bishop. For in the aforesaid Decree there is question of papal cases, and of these alone is there question; and since it is of strict interpretation, it is not of itself extended also to episcopal cases. Besides, the aforesaid Decree is founded on the practice of the Sacred Penitentiary, but by no means on some common disposition of Law, and so again the aforesaid Decree of itself does not comprehend episcopal cases. Wherefore the same disposition for episcopal cases cannot be affirmed except by reasoning; and that it be in fact extended to these, apart from another positive declaration, legitimate and demonstrative, as is fitting, reasoning is needed. Cf. Comment. de Censur., ed. 5, n. 58 ff.; Gennari, Consultaz. Mor. Can. Lit., p. 1, c. 34; I. M. 800.

As regards Germana, if the reserved sins of which there was question were papal cases, it seems that Liborius acted rightly by absolving her. For from the Decrees of the Holy Office, June 23, 1886, and June 16, 1897, penitents must have recourse by letters to the Holy See in the case of an impediment to approaching Rome personally. Meanwhile absolution can be given to them, with reincidence after a month unless they have recourse, in cases however truly more urgent, in which absolution cannot be deferred without danger of grave scandal and infamy, and also if it would be hard for them to remain longer in grave sin. Of this sort, moreover, is the Case of Germana. But if there was question of episcopal cases, he also acted rightly by absolving Germana, but he ought to have imposed on her the burden of presenting herself before the superior, namely unless she was excused because of an impediment, or of receiving absolution again from one having the faculty, which he himself also could have asked for her. I. M. 800; D'Annibale, p. 1, n. 349; Lig. 585.

As regards Caius, it does not seem that he acted rightly, for the inconvenience of repeating confession before another here is intrinsic to the very confession of reserved sins. If Liborius had wished to exempt his penitent from this inconvenience, then he could have deferred absolution for him meanwhile, and sought the due faculty from the superior. I. M. 800.

With regard to Geruntius, he could, with the aforesaid burden of having recourse, be absolved, if the cases were papal; because certainly, the circumstance of the Easter time standing, it would have been hard for him to remain longer in grave sin. But if the cases were episcopal, the perpetual impediment standing, for there is question of an old man, he could be absolved absolutely. I. M. 800.

5. Gregorius, his confession of reserved sins having been begun before the bishop, who had the due faculty in that matter, having left him, approached the Holy See by letter for absolution. But before he received a response, he returned to the bishop, so that he might complete the confession and be absolved.

It is asked: Whether Gregorius could in the Case be absolved by the bishop?

R. Affirmatively. "It can be asked," says D'Annibale, p. 1, n. 77, "whether the jurisdiction of the inferior ceases, if someone, passing him over, approaches the superior. Conradus and De Iustis affirm it, if he, passing over the Ordinary, approaches the Roman Pontiff, namely by a certain quasi-laying-on of hands. The rest, almost all, deny it more truly, because this is provided by no law ... Certainly the Ordinary can absolve from censures him who has appealed to the superior, and a delegate can grant a favor denied by the delegator ... For who would say that one having recourse to the Roman Pontiff for absolution from an excommunication incurred because of abortion cannot return to the bishop and be absolved? For it can scarcely be understood how someone by having recourse to the Father of all the faithful would make his own condition worse."

574. Principles. - I. By ordinary power, the following can absolve from reserved cases: 1. those who themselves reserve them; 2. their successors in the same power; 3. their Superiors.

II. Bishops or their delegates can absolve even from occult papal cases, excepting, however, those which His Holiness Pius IX declared to be reserved in a special manner to the Apostolic See. This is established from the concession of the Council of Trent, sess. 24, Decree on Reformation, chapter 6, Liceat, and from the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis, October 12, 1869.

Bishops can absolve from papal cases even when notorious or public all the faithful who, because of a legitimate impediment, cannot approach the Apostolic See, lest danger threaten souls from a delay of absolution. This is established from Canon Law.

III. No Confessor, even a Regular, can absolve from properly episcopal cases unless he has received the faculty from the Bishop himself, even if he can absolve from any cases whatsoever reserved to the Pope. Thus Clement X in the Bull Superna, where it is said: Those having the faculty of absolving from all cases reserved to the Apostolic See cannot on that account absolve in cases reserved by the Bishop. Except, according to what was said above, Regulars, who by the same Constitution of Clement X can absolve those coming together from an alien diocese from the cases reserved there, unless, however, they have come in fraud of the reservation and the sins are also reserved in the place of confession.

IV. There is no reservation at the moment of death. Therefore, all Priests can then absolve any penitents from all sins and censures. - Trent, sess. 14, chapter 7.

575. Questions. - QUESTION 1. Can an inferior sometimes absolve one having reserved sins outside danger of death?

Reply 1. He can indeed sometimes absolve, namely, whenever the faculty cannot be sought from the Superior, not even by letter ¹, and otherwise there is danger in delay or a grave inconvenience threatens; and this avails even if the sin should be reserved with excommunication. The reason is that the Church, a pious mother, and every Superior cannot be judged to wish to oblige anyone to something morally impossible or to undergo so great an inconvenience. - Thus commonly. - St. Ligorius, no. 585.

¹ Observe with St. Alphonsus (book 7, no. 89) that the common, more probable, and safe doctrine is that one who has an impediment to appearing before the Pontiff is not bound to seek absolution through an intermediary or by letter, even from the Sacred Penitentiary: 1. because by common law, while that impediment remains, Bishops possess the power of absolving; 2. because no obligation is present except that of appearing personally; if, therefore, anyone cannot perform this, he is bound to nothing else except what the legislator has substituted; 3. because obtaining absolution through the Sacred Penitentiary is a privilege, but according to the common axiom no one is bound to use privileges. Nevertheless, if a privileged confessor is lacking and the impediment is not perpetual, a petition for the faculty by letter will be useful, so that the penitent may be freed from the burden of appearing at some time.

Albitius (On Inconstancy, chapter 25, no. 33) adduces for the opposite opinion the example of a decision issued by the Congregation of the Holy Inquisition. But the example is not to the point. Someone had namely been absolved under the express condition that he present himself at Rome either personally or through a procurator; and when he alleged the inconvenience of the journey, it was granted to him that he might have recourse to the Sacred Penitentiary. Here, therefore, there is a special disposition for a special case, which neither ought nor can be converted into a general principle.

Reply 2. Yet in such a case he cannot absolve except indirectly from the reserved cases, although he absolves directly from the others. The reason is that he does not have jurisdiction over the reserved cases. Nor is the Church judged to supply this jurisdiction; for there is no necessity of supplying it, since indirect absolution from the reserved cases suffices for the present necessity. - St. Ligorius, ibid., and the others cited above.

Hence, 1. the Confessor cannot then absolve except with the burden that, when an opportunity is given, the penitent present himself to the Superior or to another having the faculty of absolving from reserved cases.

These things, however, avail when the penitent can within a short time approach the Superior or another having the faculty over reserved cases. But if the impediment lasts for a long time, which is computed from six months to five years, an inferior can absolve directly, with the burden nevertheless imposed of presenting himself to the Superior or his delegate if the sin is reserved with a censure. It is otherwise if the sin does not have a censure attached. - Suarez, On Penance, disp. 30, sect. 3, no. 7. - Lugo, disp. 20, no. 223. But when the impediment is perpetual ², absolution is given directly without any burden of appearing before the Superior. Chapter Eos qui, 22, De Sent. Excomm., in VI. Those things which are said concerning a reservation of the Pontiff can be extended to episcopal reserved cases ³. Thus the common opinion in St. Alphonsus, no. 585 and book 7, no. 92.

² Those judged to have an impediment of this kind are children before puberty, sons of a family, the aged, servants, the poor, the infirm or sickly, women, Regulars, and much more nuns, those perpetually condemned to prisons or galleys, and finally all who are bound by a duty of supporting or administering a family, or of discharging a public office which cannot be left without public or grave detriment. See St. Alphonsus (book 7, no. 88).

³ By episcopal reserved cases the Author seems to mean sins which a Bishop reserves to himself. Concerning these St. Alphonsus (book 6, no. 585) judges as more true that the rule handed down concerning papal reserved cases does not avail; but afterward (book 7, no. 92) he proposes the doctrine of Roncaglia (tract 4, q. 1, chapter 6, q. 5), who establishes this general principle: Those things which have been said concerning cases reserved to the Supreme Pontiff can, from parity of reason, be extended to episcopal reserved cases, etc.; and Sporer has things corresponding to these (On Penance, no. 750). But that St. Alphonsus opposes to Roncaglia Laymann, Soto, Coninck, and Suarez, by whose authority he had previously been moved to judge the first opinion more true, is in fact of no account. For the first three of these do not touch this question at all; but Suarez (On Penance, disp. 30, sect. 3, nos. 11-12), after adducing reasons for each opinion, merely says that he inclines more to that side, lest in a matter so grave this faculty be attributed without sufficient foundation. Yet others rightly think that sufficient foundation is present in chapter Eos qui, 22, De Sent. Excomm., in VI, which thus determines: Those who are absolved by another from a sentence of a canon or of a man (when, because of the imminent moment of death or another legitimate impediment, they cannot have recourse for the benefit of absolution to him by whom otherwise they were by law to be absolved), etc.; for here there is question of any Superior whatsoever and not only of the Roman Pontiff. The same can also be elicited from chapter Nuper, De Sent. Excomm., in which the question is expressly raised concerning any Prelate whatsoever. Nor indeed is Roncaglia alone with Sporer in that doctrine; for he himself alleges Hurtado and Diana, while Diana (vol. 1, tract 5, resolutions 18 and 19) adds Palaus, Henriquez, Marchant, Caelestinus, Gamachaeus, and Granadus. And he concludes (resolution 18, no. 7): And I judge all these things sufficiently probable and safe; and let them be noted especially by Confessors, because they are not everywhere encountered in Authors, but are of daily occurrence in practice.

Moreover, the same question is raised concerning those who, bound by a pontifical censure and hindered from approaching Rome, ought to seek absolution from the Bishop: whether, if they are also hindered from betaking themselves to the Bishop, they can be absolved by any Confessor. St. Alphonsus replies (book 7, no. 92): Suarez, Lugo, Becanus, etc., more commonly deny it, according to Viva, On Penance, q. 9, art. 2, no. 9, because in law this is conceded only to Bishops, nor in a positive law does an argument from parity avail. But in this he was deceived by Viva, who in that place badly confounds distinct questions; while Suarez was so far of the affirmative opinion that Lugo attempted to attack him for this reason (On Penance, disp. 20, nos. 228-229). Moreover, the laws are manifest not only in the cited chapter Eos qui, but also in chapter Nuper, in which the faculty is also given to others besides the Bishop in these words: But if for some just cause it is difficult for the one to be absolved to approach the excommunicator himself, we grant by indulgence that (after security has been given according to the form of the Church that he will obey the mandate of the excommunicator) he may be absolved by his own Bishop or proper priest. This sentence, as St. Alphonsus says (loc. cit.), the Doctors most commonly interpret not disjunctively, as though it were equally permissible to approach either the Bishop or another confessor, but substitutively, namely, that he can then be absolved by another confessor when the Bishop cannot be approached. But if the Doctors most commonly elicit this from this canon, how do they more commonly deny that one who is impeded can be absolved by someone other than the Bishop? And in fact the same St. Alphonsus (loc. cit.) adduces many more for the second opinion than for the first.

** The VV. expend twenty-four columns (pp. 554-565) in attacking this Note. Therefore, as regards the first part of the Note, in which it is said that no account is to be made of the fact that St. Alphonsus opposes Laymann, Coninck, and Soto to Roncaglia because they do not touch at all upon the question at issue, the VV. (p. 556) establish this thesis: St. Alphonsus rightly alleges the Authors cited for the negative opinion.

Reply. This controversy has an easy solution if the state of the question is rightly defined. Therefore, in the present matter there is question of a penitent who is impeded from approaching the Bishop for a long time; concerning this case St. Alphonsus elsewhere (book 7, no. 86) thus determined: If, however, the impediment is FOR A LONG TIME, for example, for a year or six months..., he ought not to be absolved unless an oath has first been given, etc.; that is, he teaches that he is to be absolved, with the burden imposed of presenting himself to the Superior when the impediment ceases, etc.

1. These things being established beforehand, we now come to Laymann. He (book 5, tract 6, chapter 12, nos. 9-10), to the question, What is a Confessor to do if a penitent confesses, among other things, a sin reserved to the Superior?, first replies: Ordinarily he ought not to absolve him, but to send him to the Superior, etc. Here, as is evident, there is no discussion of a penitent having a long-lasting impediment. Therefore these things are not to the point.

The other reply is this: If some necessity urges, for example, if the penitent is far distant from the Bishop, then the confessor can absolve the penitent in such a way that the absolution falls upon the non-reserved sins..., but indirectly upon the reserved sins. And here likewise there is no trace of a long-lasting impediment, indeed not even of a perpetual impediment. Therefore neither do these things touch the present controversy. Therefore it was rightly said in the Note that Laymann does not touch this question and accordingly is alleged in vain.

Indeed, it may be added that if Laymann has anything which can pertain in any way to the present matter, he inclines to the opinion opposite to that which the holy Doctor Alphonsus attributes to him. For (loc. cit., no. 15) he has these words: Finally I observe that, even outside danger of death, if there is a moral impossibility of approaching the Apostolic See for absolution from a sin reserved to the Supreme Pontiff, but neither the Bishop or his Vicar, to whom in such a case the faculty of absolution devolves accidentally, can be approached, nor can any privileged confessor be had, then it is very probable, as Felicianus, Scotus, Sylvester, Suarez, and Filliucius hand down from the argument of chapter Nuper, De Sent. Excomm., that even the Pastor or another inferior legitimate confessor can absolve, for example, a nun in enclosure; with an obligation imposed, or rather with the penitent advised of the obligation that, if it should happen that the impediment to approaching the Pope is removed, he ought to present himself to him, not that he may be absolved again, since he was truly and directly absolved, but, etc. Therefore Laymann teaches that one who cannot approach the Bishop can be absolved directly by an inferior. But why, finally, does Laymann admit this except from the general principle that a remedy ought not to be lacking, according to the Sacred Canons, for danger to souls and the necessity of the penitent? But are not the same danger and the same necessity present whether the case is episcopal or pontifical, for absolution from which the Bishop must be approached? Indeed, St. Alphonsus also (book 7, no. 92) does not reject this, both because, where there is the same reason, there ought to be the same law, as the Gloss says on chapter Dilectus, and because a law expressly granting this is not lacking; for in chapter Nuper, 29, De Sent. Excomm., it is held that one impeded for a just cause from approaching a Superior having the right to absolve from a censure is to be absolved by his own Bishop or proper priest. In that place the holy Doctor treats the general question, Whether those still impeded from approaching the Bishop for these censures, or OTHER RESERVED CASES, can be absolved by any confessor. Therefore, since the same reason avails for each case, if anything can be conjectured concerning Laymann's mind, there is certainly no reason why he should be drawn into the opinion which St. Alphonsus attributes to him; but, on the contrary, he can rightly be alleged for the opposite.

2. Let us pass to Dominic Soto, concerning whom the VV. (p. 559) write: St. Alphonsus alleges Dominic Soto only in book 7, no. 91, and indeed only indirectly from Laymann, where he treats reservations without a censure.

Reply. This is not true; for St. Alphonsus alleges Soto also in no. 92, where he asks whether, if someone is impeded from approaching the Bishop, a simple confessor can absolve him from cases and censures reserved by that same Bishop; and this is our present question. Therefore let the VV. seek another place in the works of Dominic Soto where he denies that an inferior can absolve from episcopal reserved cases when there is a long-lasting impediment, for example, for four years, to approaching the Bishop. Moreover, to exempt this place of the holy Doctor from every reproach, it would perhaps be expedient to employ another interpretation of it, such that he does not oppose those four Authors, namely, Suarez, Laymann, Coninck, and Soto, to Roncaglia, but adduces them for the hypothesis of an impediment that is indeed temporary but not long-lasting. And thus this place is better reconciled with those things which he has previously, and which we adduced above, concerning those impeded from approaching the Bishop for censures and other reserved cases. For, in view of the context, it is not necessary that this question be understood only of pontifical cases.

3. As regards Coninck, the VV. adduce (p. 558) this passage of his (disp. 8, no. 88): Others add that the same thing must be said of a Pastor with respect to cases reserved to the Bishop when the latter cannot be approached, but they do not sufficiently prove it, and necessity can scarcely occur, since a faculty for absolving from them can easily be obtained from the Bishop; unless perhaps in some sudden necessity, concerning which we shall say what must be done in the following doubt. But in the following doubt Coninck has that which all others also have, namely, that the penitent is to be absolved directly from the non-reserved sins, but indirectly from the reserved sins, etc.

Reply. That someone indicates a means by which some necessity can be met does not solve the general question, in which it is supposed that a means of providing for the necessity is not present. Others here add that a simple confessor cannot absolve the penitent in the case if a privileged confessor is at hand who can absolve also from the reserved cases; but even this, as is evident, does not solve the question under the hypothesis in which a privileged confessor is lacking. Therefore let it be sought in Coninck what must be done when, for a long time and from whatever cause may finally be imagined, the means proposed by him is lacking. And since you will seek in vain for the solution of this question in him, he is consequently opposed without reason to Roncaglia, who discusses this hypothesis.

Moreover, the remedy which Coninck suggests here can have place also when someone impeded from approaching the Pontiff ought, according to the canons, to receive absolution from the Bishop, yet cannot approach the Bishop either. For even in this case the Bishop can delegate to another the faculty of absolving.

Why, then, do neither St. Alphonsus nor the VV. object to Coninck in this case, but admit that this penitent can be absolved by an inferior?

4. Nearly the same things which we said concerning Coninck avail with Suarez. His thesis stands thus (disp. 30, sect. 3, no. 12): Absolutely speaking, I judge that inferior priests do not have jurisdiction over these reserved cases outside the moment of death BY FORCE OF COMMON LAW, because the Pontiffs speak only of cases reserved to themselves, in which there is the most special reason which was already touched upon.

Reply. Let those words, By force of common law, be carefully observed. For Suarez continues: And it can furthermore be explained because it pertained to the care of the Pontiffs themselves to commit this jurisdiction in their own cases; but as regards inferior Prelates it was not necessary for this to be established by common law, but just as reservation is made by them through particular statutes either of Dioceses or of Religious Orders, so it is committed to their care and prudence that they make it in a manner accommodated to the salvation of souls; and therefore in statutes of this kind it is ALMOST always customary to declare that, as often as access to the Prelate is difficult, absolution can in some way be obtained from others, lest penance be delayed too long. But, it can again be rejoined, these things do not pertain to the matter. For the question concerns the hypothesis of a penitent who for a long time must lack absolution because he can neither approach the Bishop nor has another at hand who possesses the faculty of absolving. But the hypothesis of Suarez stands otherwise. Therefore, in the hypothesis which is established here by us, the reason from which Suarez wishes to extricate himself retains all its force; and he proposes it thus (loc. cit., no. 11): Although the difficulty of appearing before the Superior occurs more frequently with regard to the Supreme Pontiff than with regard to inferior Prelates, nevertheless it cannot be denied that it can often happen with danger to souls arising from a delay of penance. Therefore, although the Pontiffs established that law on the occasion of cases reserved to themselves, yet, their reason being considered (namely, Lest danger threaten souls from a delay of penance, chapter final, De Poenit. et Remiss.), it can probably be believed that they established a general law to be observed in every reservation of cases.

Indeed, someone could add that it not only can probably be believed, as Suarez has it, but must be held as certain that the Pontiffs established a general law to be observed in every reservation of cases. For are not the words of canon Eos qui (chapter 22, De Sent. Excomm., in VI) most clear? Those (thus Boniface VIII) who are absolved by another from the sentence of a canon OR OF A MAN (when, because of the imminent moment of death or ANOTHER LEGITIMATE IMPEDIMENT, they cannot have recourse for the benefit of absolution to him by whom they otherwise were by law to be absolved): if afterward, when it ceases, etc. But the things contained in this canon pertain to common law; and the canon generally embraces all Superiors from whom absolution is to be sought, and Bishops certainly are comprehended among these. Therefore.

Moreover, the same Suarez (loc. cit., no. 8) had written: In pontifical cases the general rule of law is that, as often as access to the Supreme Pontiff or to his Legate or Delegate is not open except with great difficulty and delay, the sinner can be absolved by an inferior priest, with the burden, etc. Yet he added (loc. cit., no. 10): It is often necessary to have recourse to the Bishop before inferiors, if this can be done, because the laws themselves declare this. But from those things which we brought forward above from Suarez himself, it was necessary, for preventing danger to souls, that the Pontiffs should establish a law of this kind. Therefore, by Suarez's own admission, in order to ward off danger to souls it was necessary that those who could not approach the Bishop without great difficulty and delay should be capable of being absolved by an inferior priest. But, insofar as warding off danger to souls is concerned, what difference does it finally make whether the Bishop must be approached for absolution from a pontifical case or for absolution from an episcopal case?

And hence indeed we may learn, if you please, why Lugo wrote that Suarez inclined to the negative opinion, although his thesis which we adduced announces this in a certain absolute manner. For the whole context indicates that there was indeed in Suarez a strong will to deny, or rather an ineffectual wish, which nevertheless the preceding and following context proved altogether ineffectual. Therefore there was in fact no cause for the VV. (p. 559) to write these things: Father Ballerini clearly shows that he did not examine the opinion of Suarez. The very thing happened to him which he everywhere reproaches St. Alphonsus with, namely, that he blindly copied Authors. For he himself was deceived by Cardinal de Lugo. Reply. There was no deception at all, but a discreet and even benign interpretation of the Suarezian context.

It also does not appear why the VV. (p. 560) write: Therefore, since Suarez calls the opinion that in a case of necessity the penitent can be directly absolved very doubtful and, rigorously speaking, not true, much more does he reject direct absolution where no necessity is present. For to what purpose are these things? Whom perhaps do they attack? Why do the VV. not indicate who perhaps asserted what they there wish to refute? What do they desire to insinuate by that silence?

5. The VV. object (pp. 560-561): Lugo demonstrates that the words of chapter Eos qui do not furnish a sufficient foundation for the affirmative opinion.

Reply. I distinguish: Lugo attempts to extricate himself from this difficulty through a gratuitous and violent interpretation, I concede; he demonstrates it, I deny.

The VV. object (p. 561): In chapter Nuper, De Sent. Excomm., there is openly discussion only of pontifical reservations, because it is said: let him be absolved by his own Bishop or proper priest.

Reply. I deny the whole. The reason is that, as no one is ignorant, someone can legitimately be struck with excommunication even by a Bishop not his own if, for example, in another diocese he acquires a forum by reason of the offense, as if someone refuses afterward to take as wife a violated girl to whom a true promise of matrimony was made; for the Bishop of that diocese can compel him by censures to keep faith. From that excommunication he can afterward, in those circumstances of which chapter Nuper treats, be absolved by his own Bishop.

6. As regards the other part of the Note, where there is discussion of absolving those who cannot approach the Pontiff, the matter can be disposed of in a few words, although the VV. discuss this matter through eight columns.

The VV. (p. 563) freely concede what is said in the Note, that the holy Doctor Alphonsus was deceived by Viva when he wrote (book 7, no. 92), Suarez, etc., more commonly deny it, but in these words: It is only a mere inadvertence or slip of the pen that the holy Doctor alleges Suarez for the negative opinion. Yet perhaps it would have been better to act here more sincerely or simply. For what they say of inadvertence is most true, and they very well allege the place of the holy Doctor where he attributes the opposite opinion to Suarez in these words (book 6, no. 585): In pontifical cases the rule of law is, AS SUAREZ WELL SAYS, that as often as access to the Pontiff is not open, the penitent can be directly absolved by the Bishop; or, when an impediment to approaching the Bishop is also present, by any confessor, etc. But what the VV. add concerning a slip of the pen is not to the point, because it is manifest, and the holy Doctor himself openly says, that he took these things from Viva.

7. To those things which are said in the Note, that Suarez was so far of the affirmative opinion that Lugo attempted to attack him for this reason, the VV. write (p. 564): Rather, Father Ballerini himself was again deceived by Cardinal de Lugo; for Suarez does not hold the affirmative opinion to such an extent that he deserves to be rebuked for it, and the things which Lugo objects against him are unjust.

Reply. It is indeed difficult to divine in what matter the VV. could have said that Father Ballerini was deceived by Cardinal de Lugo. Is it perhaps as though the Note said that Lugo's attack against Suarez was just or efficacious? But in the Note, on the contrary, it is merely said that Lugo attempted to attack him; and since in the Note itself the opinion of Suarez is exhibited as certain and confirmed by manifest laws, who would suspect that anything there is deferred to Lugo's attack? Does the deception perhaps reside in this, that the Note may seem to defer too much to the opinion of Suarez? Does what the VV. say perhaps look to this: that Suarez did not hold the affirmative opinion to such an extent that he deserved on that account to be rebuked by Lugo; namely, as though Suarez were not so firm in that opinion and Lugo therefore unjustly rose against him? But does not St. Alphonsus also (above, preceding number) praise Suarez because he relies upon a rule of law? Where, then, is this deception of Father Ballerini?

2. If the penitent has only reserved sins, he cannot be absolved unless he submits to the keys another sin, at least a venial sin of his past life, to be remitted directly. Otherwise no matter of the Sacrament would be given.

The cases in which an inferior can thus absolve are especially: 1. danger of infamy or scandal, for example, from the omission of the celebration of Mass; 2. the necessity of fulfilling the precept of confession or Communion; 3. fear lest the penitent remain for a long time in the state of mortal sin. - St. Ligorius, ibid.

576. • QUESTION 2. Is one who has been absolved from reserved cases at the moment of death by an inferior bound to present himself to the Superior if he recovers?

Reply 1. No, as regards a simple reservation. The reason is that, according to Trent, there is no reservation at the moment of death. Therefore there is also no burden of reservation unless it is proved from another source.

Reply 2. Authors commonly affirm this as regards censures attached to a reservation, from chapter Eos qui, 22, De Sententia excommunicationis, in VI, where no one is absolved at the moment of death from a reserved censure except under the law that, as soon as he conveniently can, he take care to present himself before the Superior, humbly to receive his mandate. Hence, if he recovers, he must have recourse to the Superior, and indeed under pain of falling again into the censures, unless a legitimate usage exempts him from this obligation. Nevertheless, some limit the obligation of presenting oneself to the Superior to the case of striking a Cleric or to another reservation which the Legislator may perhaps have excepted, of which kind the cases of the Bull In Coena were judged to be ⁴. They elicit this both from the Council of Trent, by which it was declared without any restriction that every reservation ceases in danger of death, and especially from the Roman Ritual, which clearly intimates an obligation of presenting oneself to the Superior not absolutely but conditionally: But if someone confesses while placed in danger of death, he is to be absolved from all sins and censures, however reserved they may be (for every reservation then ceases); but first, if he can, let him make satisfaction to whom he ought; and if he escapes the danger, and for some reason is bound to present himself to the Superior by whom otherwise he was to be absolved, as soon as he can let him present himself before him, to perform whatever he owes. Navarrus, Henriquez, Avila, Filliucius, Sporer, Gobat, Diana, and others call this opinion probable; nor does St. Ligorius seem to contradict it ⁵.

⁴ ** To this must be referred what is thus read in the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis of Pius IX immediately after the list of excommunications which are reserved in a special manner to the Apostolic See: But let those presuming to absolve without the due faculty, even under any pretext whatsoever, know that they are bound by the bond of an excommunication reserved to the Roman Pontiff, provided there is no question of the moment of death; in which, however, the obligation of standing by the mandates of the Church, if they recover, shall remain firm with regard to those absolved.

⁵ St. Alphonsus (book 7, no. 87) adds Corneius and the Salmanticenses to the Doctors alleged by the Author; the latter say (On Censures, chapter 2, no. 66): On account of the authority of such great men, we judge this probable. Thomas Del Bene likewise holds that opinion probable (On the Office of the Holy Inquisition, part 1, doubt 66, no. 19), who adds Gambarupta to the aforesaid; Sporer (On Penance, no. 726) joins Jordanus and Joseph de Januario to these; finally Diana (vol. 6, tract 1, resolution 202, no. 2) writes: Claudius Millardus, in the Summa of Pastors, On Penance, chapter 97, no. 10, observes that it appears most probable that this burden of presenting oneself before the Superior, if someone was absolved at the time of death from reserved excommunications, no longer has place and ceased after Trent.... Caelestinus, in the Compendium of Moral Theology, tract 1, chapter 7, no. 3, thinks that this doctrine can be approved with a safe conscience when the excommunication is not notorious or brought to the external forum. Sporer held the same, establishing (no. 752) that even the obligation of appearing before the Superior because of the striking of a cleric most probably avails only for the external forum, namely, when the matter has already been brought to the contentious forum.

Observe furthermore that, according to the mind of St. Alphonsus (book 7, no. 87), this question has place not only if someone was absolved from reserved censures at the moment of death, but also when, because of a long-lasting impediment to approaching the Superior, he obtained absolution from another and performed those things which the Superior would have exacted from him.

** The VV. write twelve columns against this Note and the text of Gury (pp. 566-571). We shall indicate in a few words those things which are of any or whatever importance.

1. Therefore, the VV. object (p. 567) that in the proposed case the negative opinion is rightly called more common and more probable by St. Alphonsus.

Reply. Let it pass; for this is denied neither in the Note nor in the text. But in the text it is merely said: Nor does St. Ligorius seem to contradict it.

2. But, the VV. say (loc. cit.), St. Alphonsus manifestly contradicts it and proposes the doubt only concerning one amended, who has already satisfied the parties.

Reply. Neither in the text nor in the Note does anything occur which excludes either satisfaction already fulfilled or the will of satisfying; indeed, an express mention of this is seen in the text of the Roman Ritual.

3. The VV. object (p. 568) that it is omitted in the Note that the Salmanticenses do not adhere to that opinion which they judge probable.

Reply. Let it pass. For it was sufficient for the purpose of the Note to indicate that the opinion had been judged probable by the Salmanticenses also.

4. The VV. (p. 569) prefix this title to another article: The arguments brought forward by Fathers Gury and Ballerini for the affirmative opinion are weighed.

Reply. I deny the supposition. For neither Father Gury nor Father Ballerini brings forward any argument, but they merely report both the opinion of others and some reason. Therefore, with fruitless labor the VV. fill two columns with texts of Patritius Sporer, whom they otherwise cannot deny to have judged the opinion which they attack to be most probable.

5. That the VV. may extricate themselves from the words of the Roman Ritual, they object that there is discussion there not only of reserved censures but also of reserved cases without a censure.

Reply. I concede the Antecedent and deny the consequence. For those words of the Ritual, And if for some reason he is bound to present himself to the Superior, would absurdly be drawn to a distinction between censures and other sins; rather, they openly indicate that there can be a doubt whether those who have been absolved from a censure are also bound to present themselves.

And let these things suffice for those twelve columns of the VV.; for certain other things do not require a reply.

579. • QUESTION 6. Can an inferior absolve a dying person from reserved cases when the Superior or another having the faculty is present?

Reply 1. Yes, if the cases are purely reserved. The reason is that at the moment of death there is no reservation.

Reply 2. Yes, even as regards sins reserved with censures. This is elicited from Trent, sess. 14, chapter 7: It has always been observed in the same Church of God that there is no reservation at the moment of death; and therefore all Priests can absolve any penitents from any sins and censures whatsoever ⁹.

⁹ Yet it would be useful to employ a confessor who possesses power over the reserved cases, because thus the necessity of approaching the Superior after health has perhaps been restored is removed, if indeed there is question of those reserved cases which require this; concerning which see the note above at no. 576. This observation also has place in the following question.

QUESTION 7. Is permission of the Bishop required for absolving a dying person from papal cases if it can easily be sought?

Reply. No. For, as is established from the adduced words of the Council of Trent, at the moment of death there is no reservation. This avails for both notorious and occult cases. Therefore the permission of the Bishop would be altogether superfluous.

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.

424. I. At the point, or even in the danger,³⁴⁷ of death, every reservation ceases, so that any priest whatsoever (even when a confessor having the faculty is present³⁴⁸) can absolve for the internal forum from any sin and from any censure whatsoever.

For thus the Council of Trent³⁴⁹ establishes: "Very piously, lest anyone perish on this very occasion, it has always been observed in the same Church of God that there is no reservation at the point of death, and therefore all priests can absolve any penitents whatsoever from any sins and censures whatsoever."

If, however, such a dying person afterward recovers, then, if he was absolved from a censure either imposed by a man or reserved in the most special manner to the Roman Pontiff, after he has recovered he must (within a month), under pain of falling again into the same censure, either personally or through the confessor have recourse to the Sacred Penitentiary and obey its mandates, or seek absolution anew from one having the faculty of absolving from censures of this kind.³⁵⁰ This last manner of acting is certainly preferable if such a confessor can easily be found. A dying person who was absolved from any other case whatsoever (and notably from a sin reserved to the Supreme Pontiff without a censure) is thereafter bound to no recourse.

Note. It is evident of itself that recourse is always necessary:

a) If there is question of a censure imposed by a man, because then definitive absolution cannot be given except by the one who imposed the censure, or by his superior or successor, or by one specially delegated.

b) If there is question of notorious censures, because then the scandal must be repaired according as the legitimate superior shall have determined.

II. Outside the point of death, diverse provisions have been established according as there is question of the absolution of papal or episcopal cases.

³⁴⁷ The danger of death is judged to be any case in which life is probably feared for, even though it afterward becomes known that there was no true foundation for the fear. Such danger of death exists, for example, in grave illness, in a difficult childbirth, in an imminent battle, and in the state of wartime mobilization. To the question of the bishop of Verdun: "Can any soldier whatsoever placed in the state of wartime mobilization, as they call it, be by that very fact equated with those who are in danger of death, so that he can be absolved by any priest he encounters?" the Sacred Penitentiary answered on March 18, 1912, and May 29, 1915: "Affirmatively, according to the rules handed down by approved authors" (Acta Ap. Sed. VII, 282).

³⁴⁸ Cf. Holy Office, July 29, 1891: "Those are not to be disturbed who hold that absolution granted at the point of death by an unapproved priest is valid, even when an approved priest could easily have been summoned or could have been present." From these words it is not obscurely perceived that an absolution of this kind by a simple priest is not only valid, but also licit when a reasonable cause is present (cf. Code of Canon Law, c. 882).

³⁴⁹ Sess. 14, c. 7, On Penance (Denz., n. 903).

³⁵⁰ Code of Canon Law, cc. 882 and 2252. Once recovery has been attained, recourse seems to have to be made within a month, since it is prescribed that it be made according to the norm for recourse in more urgent cases.

425. 1. Absolution of papal cases.

a) Cardinals, by a privilege granted and attached to the cardinalitial dignity itself after the manner of a prerogative, can everywhere in the world absolve any penitents whatsoever from any sins and censures whatsoever, except only alpha) censures reserved in the most special manner to the Apostolic See, and beta) those which are attached to the revelation of the secret of the Holy Office.³⁵¹

b) Bishops or Ordinaries (for example, Provincials in exempt clerical religious institutes) can, in occult cases, personally or through another delegated by them remit all penalties and censures latae sententiae established by common law, except censures reserved in the most special or special manner to the Apostolic See.³⁵² Recourse afterward to the Holy See is not necessary, as is evident.

How a bishop can absolve from heresy, and so forth, in the external forum will be stated below at n. 507.

c) Any confessor whatsoever, in more urgent cases in which absolution cannot be deferred without grave inconvenience to the penitent, can directly absolve from all cases reserved by law (and not by a man), but under this law: that the person absolved is bound, under pain of falling again, either personally or through the confessor to have recourse within a month (c. 34, § 3) to the Sacred Penitentiary or to a bishop having special faculties, or to seek a new absolution from a confessor having the power of absolving from these cases. If, however, this recourse is morally impossible, the censure is then simply removed without any other obligation of recourse;³⁵³ see, however, below under e).

More urgent cases of this kind exist, for example, when everything has been prepared for a wedding which consequently cannot be deferred, and either one of the betrothed confesses a reserved sin; or if a priest absolved his accomplice and cannot abstain from saying Mass without scandal or defamation. It is also judged a sufficient reason and a more urgent case if it is hard for the penitent to remain in the state of mortal sin during the time necessary for the petition and grant of the faculty of absolving from reserved cases,³⁵⁴ for example, for two days or even one day.

For the absolution of the crime committed through the calumnious denunciation of a confessor, special conditions have been attached, as will be stated below at n. 468.

Local superiors and religious confessors by common law now have no special faculty in the absolution of cases reserved to the Supreme Pontiff with respect to penitents, even those belonging to their own order.³⁵⁵ What their power may be by particular law or by special indult depends upon the privilege obtained. Major superiors, however, for example Provincials, in exempt clerical religious institutes, inasmuch as they are true Ordinaries, can in occult cases absolve their subjects from censures reserved simply to the Holy See.

³⁵¹ Cf. below, n. 494.

³⁵² Code of Canon Law, c. 2237, § 2.

³⁵³ Thus the Holy Office, June 23, 1886; August 19, 1891; November 9, 1898; September 5, 1900; September 6, 1909; Code of Canon Law, c. 2254. Here papal cases are understood to mean: all sins and censures reserved to the Supreme Pontiff, and those irregularities which follow upon the violation of these censures.

³⁵⁴ Holy Office, June 16, 1897.

³⁵⁵ Sacred Penitentiary, December 5, 1873.

426. Things to be noted concerning recourse. a) Recourse to the Sacred Penitentiary or to a bishop having special faculties can be made either by the penitent himself or by some confessor whom the penitent has chosen.

b) If recourse is made to the bishop or his vicar general, care must be taken above all that the sacramental seal not be violated.

c) Recourse to a privileged confessor who has the faculty of absolving from papal cases does not suffice.³⁵⁶ Nevertheless, nothing prevents the penitent from approaching such a confessor, confessing the reserved sin, and receiving absolution from him. Once this has been obtained, the penitent is no longer bound afterward to comply with other mandates subsequently coming from the superior to whom recourse had perhaps already been made.³⁵⁷

d) Recourse essentially comprises two things, namely: submitting the case to the competent superior and complying with his mandates. If the penitent through grave negligence omitted either one, he falls again into the same censure. Hence, for example, if through grave negligence the penitent does not return to the confessor who wrote to the Sacred Penitentiary in his name, he seems to incur the same censure again; cf. below, n. 430.

e) If recourse is morally impossible, which is accustomed to occur in Missions, Retreats, and other cases when a lay penitent cannot return to the same confessor without grave inconvenience, absolution can be given without the obligation of recourse. The confessor, however, must then observe two things: 1. he must enjoin those things which are to be enjoined by law, for example, the reparation of damage or scandal which may have arisen, the avoidance of the proximate occasion of sinning, and so forth; 2. for the censure incurred he must impose a special penance and satisfaction, to be performed within a fitting time determined by the confessor under pain of falling again into the censure.³⁵⁸ Nevertheless, if the penitent without grave fault does not perform this satisfaction and penance within the determined time, for example because of illness, he does not seem to fall again into the censure, since it is not inflicted except on account of grave fault. But a penitent who is a priest and who absolved his accomplice in a shameful sin is not excused from recourse, at least if he can write to Rome and seek a response under a fictitious name without truly grave inconvenience.³⁵⁹

f) Although it is not altogether necessary, it is nevertheless much better to write letters to the Sacred Penitentiary in the Latin language, of this or a similar tenor:

Most Eminent Prince,

Titius incurred a censure reserved in the most special manner to the Apostolic See on account of the attempted absolution of an accomplice, which he did three times. He likewise incurred an irregularity, because he violated the censure by exercising sacred orders. But he has now been absolved from this offense and the attached censure for the first (or now the third) time. For, since absolution could not be deferred because infamy was to be avoided, and Titius was otherwise rightly disposed, he received absolution. Now, however, he presents himself to obey the mandates of the Church. May Your Eminence be pleased to send the rescript to the confessor written below.

Fribourg (Switzerland)        N. N., pastor Rue de Romont 10 March 1, 1928.

The outer inscription of the letter: "To the Most Eminent Cardinal Major Penitentiary. Palace of the Holy Office. Rome." It is better, although it is not necessary, to enclose in the letter the postal expenses which are necessary for the dispatch of the rescript. The rescript itself, however, is always granted gratis by the Sacred Penitentiary, which sometimes sends it to the confessor indeed named below, but with a double envelope. The inner envelope, secured with a seal, is inscribed: "To the discreet man, a confessor from among those approved by the Ordinary of the place." Then the confessor cannot himself open this inner envelope without the explicit or implicit permission of the penitent, to whom he must deliver it and whose part it will be to choose for its execution whichever confessor he prefers from among those approved. In practice, however, the penitent is accustomed to choose the first confessor for this execution.

³⁵⁶ Holy Office, December 19, 1900.

³⁵⁷ Code of Canon Law, c. 2254, § 2.

³⁵⁸ Code of Canon Law, l.c.

³⁵⁹ Holy Office, June 3, 1899; Code of Canon Law, c. 2254, § 3; cf. Cappello, De censuris³, n. 131.

427. 2. Absolution of episcopal cases.

First of all, the cases which are reserved to bishops by law (namely, the nine set forth below at n. 522) must be distinguished from cases which a bishop reserves to himself by his own authority. Among these latter, cases which are reserved with a censure must again be distinguished from those which are reserved as sins.

a) Cases which by law are reserved to a bishop with a censure can be absolved in the same manner as papal cases. This opinion, according to the prescription of the Code of Canon Law, is today certain and safe in practice.

Therefore, in danger of death they can be absolved without any further obligation; but in more urgent cases, under pain of falling again, unless recourse is made to the bishop within a month. The reason for this solution is the response of the Holy Office of June 23, 1886, which entirely changed the old practice concerning the absolution of reserved cases, and which was confirmed in the Code of Canon Law, c. 2254. For there all censures without distinction are indicated as to be absolved.

The more probable opinion, and one safe in practice, teaches that mendicant religious confessors and all those who participate in the privileges of mendicants can absolve from cases reserved to a bishop by law;³⁶⁰ but religious cannot, without a special faculty having been obtained, absolve from cases which the bishop has reserved to himself by his own authority.³⁶¹

b) Cases which the bishop by his proper law reserves to himself by reason of sin,³⁶² can be directly absolved:

by a simple confessor: alpha) whenever the faculty cannot be sought from the legitimate superior without grave inconvenience to the penitent or without danger of violation of the sacramental seal; beta) when such cases are accused by the sick who are unable to leave the house; or gamma) by betrothed persons confessing for the sake of contracting marriage; delta) when the legitimate superior has denied the faculty of absolving requested for some determined case; epsilon) outside the territory of the one reserving, even if the penitent departed from it merely to obtain absolution;³⁶³

by Missionaries during the time when sacred Missions happen to be held among some people. The same seems to hold for the time of spiritual retreats, which are equated with Missions;

by the pastor and others who in law are reckoned as pastors, during the entire time useful for fulfilling the Easter precept;

by the canon penitentiary and vicars forane (commonly rural deans). For the faculty of absolving belongs to the canon penitentiary himself by law; but it must be committed to the vicars forane by the bishop, who should also grant them permission to subdelegate this faculty within their own district for a particular case.³⁶⁴

³⁶⁰ Cf. our Man. iur. can.⁶, q. 245 (c); Noldin, De poenis eccl.¹², n. 95.

³⁶¹ Constitution of Clement X Superna, June 21, 1670.

³⁶² They are sometimes called cases "reserved by Us."

³⁶³ Code of Canon Law, c. 900.

³⁶⁴ Thus the Instruction of the Holy Office cited above, July 13, 1916, n. 7, and Code of Canon Law, c. 899, § 2.

428. Note. 1. If a confessor (even with crass ignorance), ignorant of or not adverting to the reservation, absolves a penitent from the censure and the sin, the absolution from the censure is valid, provided that it is not a censure imposed by a man or a censure reserved in the most special manner to the Holy See.³⁶⁵ Indeed, even the absolution from the sin is valid; for if someone has been absolved from the censure, the reservation of the sin entirely ceases.³⁶⁶ The same is believed (although some contradict it) if an ignorant confessor absolves from a reserved sin without a censure.^366a

2. A penitent who through inculpable forgetfulness omitted a reserved sin in a confession made to a privileged confessor is validly absolved. Nevertheless, he is afterward bound to manifest in confession the omitted sin, which, however, is no longer reserved. The reason is that the privileged confessor is judged to absolve a penitent rightly disposed. But a penitent inculpably forgetting a reserved sin was rightly disposed. Therefore he has been absolved from every sin, even the reserved one. The same seems to have to be said if a confession was made in this manner to a simple confessor, unless, however, there is question of a censure reserved in the most special manner to the Holy See.³⁶⁷ The matter stands otherwise if the penitent confessed sacrilegiously. For if he sacrilegiously concealed the reserved sin, it has not been remitted;³⁶⁸ but if he candidly manifested the reserved sin and committed the sacrilege for another cause, the reservation itself seems to have been removed, since one having the faculty of absolving judged concerning it properly and imposed a fitting satisfaction. Therefore, in the following confession the penitent must repeat the entire accusation and confess the sacrilege committed, but he can now be absolved by a simple confessor. On this matter St. Alphonsus says most excellently:³⁶⁹ "The end of confession is one thing, the end of reservation another. The end of confession is that the sin be remitted; but the principal and direct end of reservation is that those committing reserved sins of this kind be subjected to the judgment of the superior. Therefore, when a subject reports his sin to the superior and accepts the penance imposed by him, even if he confesses sacrilegiously, the end of reservation is already obtained, although the sin is not remitted. But that the sinner derives an advantage from such wickedness occurs accidentally. For although the superior according to his interpretative will would not wish to remove the reservation if he knew the sacrilege, nevertheless according to his actual will he then already wishes to remove it." An exception is made if someone in the time of a jubilee sacrilegiously confessed a reserved sin to a simple confessor; for in the time of a jubilee only those penitents enjoy the privilege of receiving absolution from any confessor whatsoever who wish to fulfill all the things which are prescribed for gaining the jubilee. But, first of all, a good confession is prescribed. Therefore, on account of the sacrilegious confession, the penitent loses all the graces and all the privileges of the jubilee.

3. A confessor who knowingly or with affected ignorance, without necessity, absolves from reserved cases from which he does not have the faculty of absolving sins gravely, both because he violates a grave law of the Church and because he exposes the sacrament of penance to nullity; moreover, he is ipso facto suspended from hearing confessions.³⁷⁰ Indeed, if he should presume unlawfully to absolve from cases reserved in the most special or special manner to the Supreme Pontiff, he would incur an excommunication reserved simply to the Pope, as will be stated below at n. 520 in the tract on censures.

³⁶⁵ Code of Canon Law, c. 2247, § 3.

³⁶⁶ Ibid., c. 2246, § 3.

^366a Cf. Cappello, l.c., n. 593.

³⁶⁷ Code of Canon Law, c. 2249, § 2.

³⁶⁸ Ibid.

³⁶⁹ Theol. mor. l. 6, n. 598.

³⁷⁰ Code of Canon Law, c. 2366.

429. There was a special difficulty concerning the absolution of travelers from reserved cases. Today, however, this alone is the true general rule: Travelers are absolved in altogether the same manner as natives.

Thus especially the Vindiciae Alphonsianae, p. 552, rightly taught against the Ballerinian attacks. If there is question of papal cases, all theologians admit this rule, since then the jurisdiction is delegated by the Supreme Pontiff himself, who is equally the superior of natives and travelers. But if there is question of episcopal cases, there was formerly great disagreement among authors. The more common and true opinion, however, which is also observed in practice, teaches that the jurisdiction is then delegated by law and limited according to the faculties granted by the bishop of the place where the confession is made. Accordingly, confessors are no longer accustomed to ask penitents whether they are natives or travelers, but treat each one as a native. Hence, for example, Peter, a traveler from diocese A, where the sin of sodomy is reserved, confessing this sin in diocese B, where this sin is not reserved, is always validly and licitly absolved by a simple confessor.³⁷¹ On the contrary, if the same sin is not reserved in diocese A but is reserved in diocese B, Peter confessing in this diocese B cannot be absolved by a simple confessor, since his jurisdiction has been limited by the diocesan bishop with regard to the sin of sodomy. The reason is that the penitent is regarded as an accused person. But an accused person appearing in a tribunal is judged not according to the laws of his homeland, but according to the laws of the tribunal where he appears. Therefore, a traveler is bound by the reservations of the place where he confesses,³⁷² unless, however, he confesses to his own pastor or Ordinary traveling in the same place.

³⁷¹ This doctrine has today been defined by the Holy Office, which establishes: "They can be absolved from sins reserved in some diocese in another diocese where they are not reserved, by any confessor, whether secular or regular, even if they went there precisely to obtain absolution." Instruction of July 13, 1916, cited above. Therefore penitents can validly and licitly be absolved from reserved sins, even though, in fraud of the law, they migrated to another diocese for the sake of confessing (Code of Canon Law, c. 900, n. 3).

³⁷² Pontifical Commission, November 24, 1920 (Acta Ap. Sed. XII, 575).

430. Things to be noted in practice. 1. A confessor hearing a case reserved by law to the Holy See or to the Ordinary should first investigate whether all the conditions required for reservation are present, namely: knowledge of the censure, and that the sin is grave, external, consummated, and certain. But if some founded doubt remains, the case is not reserved. If, however, all the required conditions are present, it must then be investigated whether or not it is a more urgent case. If it is not a more urgent case, the penitent cannot be absolved, but must either be sent to another privileged confessor or the faculty of absolving must first be sought. But if it is a more urgent case, the penitent must then be admonished concerning the reservation and the obligation of having recourse within a month to the Sacred Penitentiary or to the bishop. If he promises that he will render obedience, he can be absolved; otherwise not. The penitent can, however, also present himself to another confessor having special faculties and seek absolution. When the penitent does not fulfill those things which were enjoined by the Sacred Penitentiary, he indeed sins, but he does not incur the censure again unless a) there was grave negligence, or b) the Sacred Penitentiary gave its mandates under pain of falling again into the censure. But what is to be said if the penitent, notwithstanding his firm promise, does not return to hear the mandates of the Sacred Penitentiary or of the bishop? If he does this through culpable negligence, he seems to incur the censure again, because he makes little of the gravely prescribed recourse, which is not completed until the penitent has accepted the mandates.³⁷³ If, however, he could not return to the confessor without great inconvenience, the recourse seems to have become morally impossible and consequently no longer to bind, and the censure to have been absolutely removed.

2. A confessor hearing some sin which a bishop has reserved to himself by his proper law can almost always grant absolution to a penitent rightly disposed, since grave inconvenience almost always arises for him from the delay of absolution. Moreover, often there are other causes related above on account of which the episcopal reservation ceases.

³⁷³ Cf. De Smet, De casibus reserv., n. 56, and Holy Office, March 30, 1892, ad 3.

1402. Principles. - I. Those can absolve from reserved cases by ordinary power: 1° those reserving them themselves; 2° their successors in the same power; 3° their Superiors.

II. Bishops, or their delegates, can absolve:

1) Where Trent has been received, from hidden papal cases, except however those which are reserved to the Roman Pontiff in a special manner in the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis. This is clear from the Constitution itself, § Firmam tamen. See p. 361.

2) From papal cases, even notorious or public, all the faithful who on account of a legitimate impediment cannot approach the Apostolic See, lest from delay of absolution danger threaten souls. This is clear from Canon Law.

But absolution in this case is given directly, i.e. so that reservation ceases perpetually, if an impediment of this kind is perpetual. But the following are considered detained by a perpetual impediment: 1. Women, unless they are expressly noted by censure, as Nuns violating cloister. 2. Sexagenarians. 3. The sick with grave and rather long-lasting illness, such as quartan fever and the like. 4. Religious, even as regards censures incurred before entrance into Religion. For they can be absolved by their prelates or the delegate of these, except for enormous striking (n. 1753. q. 2°. R. 2°) of a Cleric. 5. The impubes, even if they ask absolution after attaining puberty. 6. Sons of a family. 7. Those condemned to perpetual prison. 8. Those bound by the care of feeding a family or administering its goods, or of bearing a public office which cannot be left without public detriment. 9. Those living collegially, such as soldiers, seminarians, etc. 10. The poor, who are not wandering beggars. 11. All others who cannot go to Rome without grave temporal or spiritual harm to themselves or their own. All these are considered perpetually impeded, unless a founded hope is present that within ten years, or according to others five years, they will be able to go easily to Rome; nor are they then held to approach Rome by letters or through a procurator. The same faculty, in the same circumstances, belongs to any confessor if the penitent is perpetually impeded from approaching the Bishop.

If the impediment is not perpetual, but long-lasting, i.e. at least for a half-year, the Bishop can absolve, with the burden on the penitent and with an oath given by him, in the internal forum a promise, of approaching the Pope or one having faculty from him, to receive his mandates, and this under penalty of reincidence (p. 316. col. 1. 3°). But if he cannot approach even the Bishop for a half-year, he will be able to be absolved by any confessor, with the burden as above.

3) The faculties of our Bishops, see p. LXXI. n. 15. 16.

III. Any Confessor, even a Regular, cannot absolve from cases properly episcopal unless he has received the faculty from the Bishop himself, even if he could absolve from any cases whatsoever reserved to the Pope. - Thus Clement X in the Bull Superna.

IV. There is no reservation in either the article or danger of death. Nevertheless it is required that he who is then in possession of himself: a) ask Absolution (but see n. 1672. q. 4°). b) Repair scandal (ib. q. 7°. q. 8°). c) First satisfy the injured party, unless this party could and wished to remit the reparation of injury, or refused a just one, or unless the one to be absolved was perpetually unable to satisfy; or, if he cannot do this then, furnish sufficient caution, or at least, if he cannot even furnish this then, swear that he will satisfy as soon as he can (ib. q. 9°). d) If censure, reserved to the Bishop or in a special manner to the Pope, is annexed to the reserved sin, from which a priest cannot absolve, he swear, in the internal forum promise, that he will present himself to a superior having the faculty, if he recovers; otherwise he falls again into the same censure. e) If there is question of a grave crime, before absolution he swear, in the internal forum promise, not to fall again.

1403. Questions. - Query 1° Can a simple confessor sometimes absolve from reserved things, even outside the danger of death?

Resp. Affirm., if the Bishop or one having the faculty cannot easily be approached, and on the other hand there is present either 1° danger of infamy or scandal from the omission of the celebration of Mass or Communion, or 2° necessity of fulfilling the paschal precept, or 3° fear lest the penitent remain for a long time in mortal sin. Nevertheless, if the impediment is not long-lasting, that absolution can be given only ad effectum, i.e. so that, notwithstanding the reservation either of sin or of censure, which is afterward to be removed by the Superior, he can now be absolved, communicate, or celebrate. If it is long-lasting or perpetual, see n. 1402. II. 2). But if the penitent has no other mortal sins than reserved sins, and, as ordinarily happens, doubts concerning perfect contrition, he is held to accuse either some venial sin, or a mortal sin otherwise confessed, or even the reserved sin itself, if in this he is a recidivist, or in a proximate occasion of relapsing into it.

Query 2° How besides is reservation removed?

Resp. 1° It is removed indirectly, with the burden of supplying, if someone in good faith has made a valid Confession before one not having the faculty, provided he subjects another non-reserved sin to the keys.

Resp. 2° It is removed directly: a) Excepting a jubilee, through a Confession, even one null or even sacrilegious, yet made to one having the faculty, and in which the reserved sin is accused.

b) Through a valid Confession made to one having the faculty, although the penitent forgets the reserved case, yet inculpably. Thus St. Alphonsus as probable, except the case in which it is positively presumed that, if the one having the faculty had heard the sin, he would have deferred absolution.

c) Through the Confession of a doubtfully reserved sin made to one not having the faculty, even if afterward it is known as certainly reserved. Therefore in this case afterward he is not held to approach the Superior or one having the faculty.

Query 3° Is one having reserved and non-reserved sins held in Confession to accuse also the reserved sins?

Resp. Neg., probably, per se. The reason is that otherwise he would be held to confess those sins twice, namely to the inferior and to the Superior. I said: per se, or unless he is a recidivist in the reserved sin, or in a proximate occasion of relapsing into it, as was said above at q. 1°.

Query 4° Can an inferior absolve a dying person from reserved things when the Superior is present?

Resp. 1° Affirm., if the cases are purely reserved. The reason is that in the article of death there is no reservation.

Resp. 2° Neg. as regards things reserved by the Bishop with censure; because since the dying person, if he recovers, is held to approach the Superior as soon as possible, he is to be absolved by this one if he is present. (8) p. 393.

Query 5° Is the leave of the Superior required for absolving a dying person from cases with reserved censure, if it can be sought by letters or through a procurator?

Resp. Neg., according to the more common and more probable opinion, both on account of the danger of manifestation, and because anyone who cannot personally approach the Superior is considered legitimately impeded.

Query 6° Can the Superior absolve the penitent from reserved sins, and send him back to the inferior for absolution from the non-reserved?

Resp. This does not seem improbable in a case, certainly very rare, in which the Superior a) could not free himself from some very grave business, b) judged it necessary to hear the reserved sin personally, and c) the penitent was under a necessity of communicating and did not wish to confess the same sins twice.

Query 7° Can pilgrims be absolved from episcopal censures which they incurred in their own diocese?

Resp. Neg., if there is question of public censures or censures inflicted ab homine by a particular sentence. Otherwise affirm. Cf. however n. 1401. q. 4°. R. 2°. (19) p. 419.

VII. The efficacy of reservation is sufficiently obtained and yet at the same time circumscribed by the admonition of can. 899:

"1) Once reservations have been established which they have judged truly necessary or useful, let Ordinaries of places take care that these be brought to the knowledge of subjects in the way which seems better to them, nor let them impart faculty of absolving from reserved cases to anyone and indiscriminately" (but only to select confessors).

"2) But this faculty of absolving belongs by the law itself to the penitentiary canon according to the norm of can. 401, § 1, and habitually let it be imparted at least to vicars forane (that is, deans), 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 recur to them, if and when for some more urgent determinate case they do so.

"3) By the law itself pastors or others who are regarded in law under the name of pastors⁵ can absolve from cases which Ordinaries in whatever way have reserved to themselves, during the whole time (even legitimately anticipated or extended) useful for fulfilling the Easter precept (even if the confession is not made for fulfilling the precept), - and individual missionaries during the time when missions (and perhaps spiritual exercises given collectively) happen to be held for the people" (not for a particular institute, or association, or group, e.g., of clergy).

⁵ See above, p. 20.

VIII. Practical observations. - 1. The foregoing instructions are general norms according to which bishops ought to act in their legislation, rather than laws which the Roman Pontiff himself directly imposes. And therefore if bishops have not changed diocesan laws, or establish new reserved cases beyond the norms indicated, these nevertheless must be stood by. But the dispensations indicated in can. 899 and 900 can be applied (cf. n. VI and VII).

2. Nevertheless today in Belgium there are no longer sins reserved by bishops; however, by the Council of Malines (in the Acts, n. 205) the case is foreseen that they could be introduced.

3. For pilgrims, vagi, and religious, who by force of jurisdiction received from the Ordinary of the place are absolved, there always and only exists the reservation in force in the place of confession. For they are absolved from the jurisdiction of the Ordinary of the place in which they confess (can. 874, 881); which jurisdiction is affected by the reservation in force there, since reservation directly restricts the power of the confessor (can. 893). - On the contrary, pastors outside the diocese can absolve their own subjects from cases reserved by another bishop; and perhaps from cases reserved to their proper Ordinary, since some do not hesitate to assert this.

4. When a penitent accuses a reserved sin, let the confessor immediately inquire whether or not all 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, let him admonish the penitent either to approach the superior or a special confessor, or to return after a few days, namely when the necessary faculties have been obtained, which penitents generally prefer; - unless, however, it is a more urgent case, because then the reservation ceases according to can. 900.

But if the penitent has been ignorant of the reservation, he is to be taught concerning it, so that he may conceive horror of sin.

5. Absolution from reserved cases can be given directly or indirectly: directly, when the reserved sin is expressly declared before a confessor who has the faculty of absolving from reserved cases; as is also a simple confessor, in the case in which according to can. 900 the reservation ceases;

indirectly, when, without sacrilege, it either is not declared, or is declared before a simple confessor who cannot absolve from reserved cases: then it is remitted indirectly, if at the same time other sins are declared from which the penitent is directly absolved.

Hence a confessor, lacking special faculty, who knowingly, without a case of necessity, absolves from reserved cases, sins gravely by violating the laws of the Church in a grave matter, indeed he incurs suspension according to can. 2366; nevertheless the absolution is valid, if along with reserved sins another sin has been declared: for when a non-reserved sin is directly absolved, the others are indirectly remitted.

But such a simple confessor who acts thus, as also he who absolves from a reserved case by inadvertence, must correct this error according to his powers. Therefore he must admonish the penitent concerning the reservation, if he can easily do so, so that the error may be repaired and the sin again declared to the superior or his delegate in order to obtain its direct remission; otherwise let him leave him in good faith, since in the next confession he can be absolved indirectly from this sin and obtain its remission together with that of the other sins, or indeed he has already obtained it.

6. A penitent, from inculpable forgetfulness, omitting a reserved sin in confession made before a privileged confessor, is validly absolved. Nevertheless he is afterward held to manifest the omitted sin in confession, but this probably is now not reserved. The reason is that a privileged confessor is judged, as far as he can, to absolve a duly disposed penitent. Therefore he is judged to absolve him indirectly from the reservation, because he has this power.

The matter holds somewhat otherwise if the penitent has confessed invalidly or sacrilegiously. It is certain, if he has kept silent about the reserved sin, that it has not been remitted. But if the reserved sin was manifested, and the nullity or sacrilege occurred for another cause, the reservation itself seems to have been removed, since one having the faculty of absolving has judged rightly concerning it and has imposed congruent satisfaction, which in the case is always to be fulfilled. Therefore in the following confession the penitent must repeat the whole accusation and confess the sacrilege committed, but he can now be absolved by a simple confessor.

An exception is made if, at the time of Jubilee, he confessed sacrilegiously a reserved sin to a simple confessor; for in the time of Jubilee only those penitents enjoy the privilege of receiving absolution from any confessor whatever who wish to fulfill all things which are prescribed for gaining the Jubilee. But first of all a good confession is prescribed.

598. Efficacy of reservation. - A. For reserved sins. From the warning of can. 899 the efficacy of reservation can be sufficiently obtained, which nevertheless is at the same time circumscribed there:

"§ 1. Once reservations have been established which they have judged truly necessary or useful, let the Ordinaries of places take care that these be brought to the knowledge of subjects in whatever way seems better to them, and let them not impart the faculty of absolving from reserved cases to anyone and indiscriminately (but only to select confessors).

"§ 2. But the faculty of absolving of this kind belongs by the law itself to the penitentiary canon according to the norm of can. 401, § 1, and let it be habitually imparted at least to vicars forane (i.e., deans), with the faculty added, especially in places of the diocese more remote from the episcopal see, of subdelegating, as often as needed, confessors of their district, if and when, for some more urgent determinate case, they have recourse to them.

"§ 3. By the law itself, from cases which Ordinaries in whatever way have reserved to themselves, absolution can be given both by parish priests or others who are reckoned in law under the name of parish priests (n. 580), during the whole time (even legitimately anticipated or prorogued) useful for fulfilling the paschal precept (even if confession is not made for fulfilling the precept), - and by individual missionaries during the time when missions (and perhaps those spiritual exercises given collectively which are equated with them) happen to be held for the people (not for a particular institute, or association, or group, e.g., of clergy)."

B. For reserved censures. Canon 2253 should be attended to:

"Outside danger of death they can absolve:

"From a censure ab homine, the one to whom the censure is reserved...; moreover he himself can grant absolution, even if the guilty party has transferred his domicile or quasi-domicile elsewhere.

"From a censure reserved a iure, the one who established the censure or to whom it is reserved, and their successors or competent superiors or delegates. Wherefore from a censure reserved to the Bishop or Ordinary, any Ordinary can absolve his subjects, and the Ordinary of the place also pilgrims; - from one reserved to the Apostolic See, this See or others who have obtained from it the power of absolving, whether general, if the censure is reserved simply, or special, if it is reserved in a special manner, or finally most special, if it is reserved in a most special manner."

Nevertheless: 1) "In occult cases... the Ordinary can remit, by himself or through another (namely, a confessor delegated for this), latae sententiae penalties established by common law, except censures reserved to the Apostolic See in a most special or special manner" can. 2237, § 2.

2. Regular confessors who are mendicants, and those who participate in the privileges of mendicants, can absolve from cases reserved to the Ordinary, not indeed by their own authority, but reserved by law, as, for example, from the procuring of abortion.

599. Practical observations. - 1. The instructions of the Code about what is to be observed in establishing reservation are generally general norms according to which Ordinaries must act in their legislation, rather than laws which the Supreme Pontiff himself directly imposes. And therefore if bishops have not changed diocesan laws, or establish new reserved cases beyond the indicated norms, they must nevertheless be obeyed. But the dispensations indicated in can. 899 and 900 can be applied.

In Belgium there are no longer sins reserved by bishops, although by the Council of Mechlin (Acts n. 205) it is foreseen that they can be introduced.

2. For pilgrims, vagi, and religious, who are absolved by force of jurisdiction received from the Ordinary of the place, there always and solely exists the reservation in force in the place of confession. For they are absolved from the jurisdiction of the Ordinary of the place in which they confess (can. 874 and 881); this jurisdiction is affected by the reservation in force there, since reservation directly restricts the power of the confessor (can. 893). - On the contrary, parish priests outside the diocese can absolve their subjects from cases reserved by another bishop; and perhaps from those reserved to their proper Ordinary, since some do not hesitate to assert this.

3. When the penitent accuses a reserved sin, immediately let the confessor inquire whether all the conditions necessary for incurring the reservation are present or not. If it is established that the sin is truly reserved, and at the same time the confessor lacks the due faculties, let him warn the penitent either to approach the superior or a special confessor, or to return after a few days, namely when the necessary faculties will have been obtained, which penitents generally prefer; - unless, however, it is a more urgent case, because then the reservation ceases: respectively, for a sin reserved by reason of itself according to can. 900; for a reserved censure according to the norm of can. 2254.

But if the penitent has been ignorant of the reservation, he must be instructed about it, so that he may conceive horror of the sin.

4. The confessor, in order that he may comply with the end of reservation, should inflict serious correction upon the penitent, impose a suitable satisfaction, and furnish opportune remedies for the sin.

But one absolving from censures, especially reserved ones, must impose those things which are required by law or by mandate, namely: 1) real satisfaction for the damages of the injured person; 2) reparation of scandal; 3) penance, besides the sacramental penance, namely canonical and indeed suitable, which sometimes is required to be long, grave, and lasting (cf. can. 2242, § 3; 2254, § 3; 2312).

5. Absolution from reserved cases can be given directly or indirectly:

directly, when the reserved sin is expressly declared to a confessor who has the faculty of absolving from reserved cases; such also is a simple confessor in a more urgent case in which, according to can. 900 or 2254, the reservation ceases;

indirectly, when, without sacrilege, it either is not declared, or is declared to a simple confessor who cannot absolve from reserved cases: then it is remitted indirectly if at the same time other sins are declared from which the penitent is directly absolved.

Hence a confessor lacking a special faculty who knowingly, outside a case of necessity, absolves from reserved cases, sins gravely by violating the laws of the Church in a grave matter; indeed he incurs suspension according to can. 2366, and if he presumes so to absolve from excommunication reserved in a most special or special manner, he incurs excommunication simply reserved to the Pope (can. 2338, § 1). Nevertheless the absolution is valid, if another sin has been declared together with the reserved sins; for when the non-reserved sin is directly absolved, the others are indirectly remitted. A simple confessor who acts thus, just as also he who absolves from inadvertence from a reserved case (besides the exception established by can. 2247, § 3), must correct this error according to his powers. Therefore he must warn the penitent about the reservation, if he easily can, so that the error may be repaired and the sin again declared to the superior or his delegate in order to obtain its direct remission; otherwise let him leave him in good faith, since in the next confession he can be absolved indirectly from this sin and obtain its remission together with that of the other sins, or perhaps he has already obtained it.

6. A penitent omitting a reserved sin from inculpable forgetfulness in a confession made to a privileged confessor is validly absolved. Yet afterward he is bound in confession to manifest the omitted sin, but this is probably no longer reserved. The reason is that a privileged confessor is considered to absolve, as far as he can, a penitent rightly disposed. Therefore he is considered to absolve him indirectly from the reservation, because he has this power. - The matter stands somewhat otherwise if the penitent has confessed invalidly or sacrilegiously. It is certain, if he has kept back the reserved sin, that it has not been remitted. But if the reserved sin was manifested, and nullity or sacrilege occurred because of another cause, the reservation itself seems to have been removed, since the one having the faculty of absolving judged rightly concerning it and imposed a suitable satisfaction, which in the case must always be fulfilled. Therefore in the following confession the penitent must repeat the whole accusation and confess the sacrilege committed, but now he can be absolved by a simple confessor.

An exception is made if, in the time of a Jubilee, he has sacrilegiously confessed a reserved sin to a simple confessor; for in the time of a Jubilee only those penitents enjoy the privilege of receiving absolution from any confessor who wish to fulfill all things which are prescribed for gaining the Jubilee. But first of all a good confession is prescribed.

1. Nevertheless, from a special disposition, priests who absolved adherents to the "French Action" and were absolved when the reservation ceased, within a month from the day of obtained absolution or recovery, had to recur to the Sacred Penitentiary under penalty of excommunication specially reserved to the Supreme Pontiff. But from July 10, 1939 that disposition was revoked for the future.

1. Concerning the manner of acting with excommunicated persons, see several other things in our little work Questions concerning Various Categories of Penitents, c. 3, q. 8.

I say 1°. They can absolve from reserved cases by ordinary power: 1°. those reserving them themselves; 2°. their successors in the same power; 3°. their superiors. The reason is that for taking away a reservation the same power is required and suffices as for placing it.

I say 2°. § 1. Once reservations have been established which they have judged truly necessary or useful, let Ordinaries of places take care that the same be brought to the knowledge of their subjects, in the manner that seems better to them, and that they not impart the faculty of absolving from reserved cases to anyone at all and indiscriminately.

§ 2. But the faculty of absolving of this sort belongs by the law itself to the canon penitentiary according to the norm of can. 401, § 1, and habitually let it be imparted 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, if and when they have recourse for some more urgent determined case.

§ 3. By the law itself, from cases which Ordinaries in any way have reserved to themselves, there can absolve both pastors, and others who in law are considered under the name of pastors, during the whole time useful for fulfilling the Paschal precept, and individual missionaries at the time when missions happen to be held for the people (Can. 899).

Therefore care must be taken that they be brought to the knowledge of subjects - for what force do they have if they are hidden? - and that they remain firm as long as they have been necessary. And therefore Ordinaries should not concede to anyone at all and indiscriminately the faculty of absolving, otherwise reservation will disappear. This power made to the canon penitentiary is not delegable to another; it can be exercised also upon pilgrims and wanderers in the diocese, and upon diocesans outside the territory of the diocese. The faculty must be habitually imparted to vicars forane, with the faculty especially in more remote places of subdelegating as often as necessary for some more urgent case.

Indeed benign is the disposition of law made in the last point of the canon, by which very many inconveniences of reservations will be removed: namely, pastors and others who by law are held under this name, and individual missionaries, can absolve from cases which Ordinaries in any way have reserved to themselves; pastors during the time useful for fulfilling the Paschal precept; missionaries during the time of the mission. It is a question of cases which the Bishop reserves to himself.

Question 1. When does any reservation lack every force?

Resp. Any reservation lacks every force:

1°. When a confession is made either by the sick who cannot leave the house, or by spouses for the sake of entering matrimony;

2°. As often as either the legitimate Superior has denied the requested faculty of absolving 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 violation of the sacramental seal;

3°. Outside the territory of the one reserving, even if the penitent has departed from it only to obtain absolution (Can. 900).

In these cases there is no longer any force of reservation; any confessor can absolve them. The sick who cannot leave, spouses confessing for the sake of entering matrimony, can be absolved by any confessor; the sick, it is not said gravely sick, but it is said the sick who cannot leave the house. The second point comprehends three cases, or rather cases of a threefold kind. But it must be noted as to the first kind that it is very general; the faculty of absolving for a determined case has been sought from the legitimate superior, the faculty has been denied, reservation lacks every force; therefore the case does not remain called away to the judgment of the one reserving, but can be absolved by any confessor. The second kind of cases is had when by the prudent judgment of the confessor the faculty cannot be sought from the Superior without grave inconvenience of the penitent. The third kind is had when, also by the prudent judgment of the confessor, the faculty of absolving cannot be sought without danger to the seal.

This point will solve difficulties from a denied faculty which we sought, or from grave difficulty for the penitent or the sacrament arisen or about to arise from the faculty to be sought.

The third point removes the difficulty on the part of the territory of the one reserving; outside this territory any confessor can absolve even a penitent going there for the purpose of obtaining absolution.

Wherefore the principle no longer avails against him who goes, as it used to be said, in fraud of the law.

Question 2. Whether one bound by episcopal reservation, who is impeded from approaching the Bishop, can be absolved by a simple confessor?

Resp. Affirmatively, if he is pressed by an urgent cause, and in the judgment of the confessor the faculty of absolving cannot be sought from the Superior without grave inconvenience of the penitent according to canon 900, 2°; but if a case to which a censure is joined urges, the same is to be said according to can. 2254, with the burden of having recourse imposed. Cf. below, concerning absolution of censures.

Question 3. Whether one bound by reservation, in necessity of communicating or celebrating, is bound to confess to a simple confessor, when another is lacking?

Resp. Affirmatively, if the penitent is bound by a censure latae sententiae which cannot be observed without grave danger of scandal or infamy according to can. 2254, § 1; indeed even if there is simple reservation of sin and in the prudent judgment of the confessor the faculty cannot be sought without grave inconvenience of the penitent according to can. 900, 2°; for in these cases any confessor can absolve.

Question 4. Whether one absolved in the article of death from papal cases is bound to present himself to the Roman Pontiff, health having been recovered?

Resp. Negatively, if there is question of censures reserved either simply or in a special way to the Supreme Pontiff; Affirmatively, if of censures reserved in the most special way. - Cf. Can. 882, 2252; concerning necessary recourse see can. 2252.

Question 5. Whether an inferior can absolve a dying person from reserved cases, when the superior or another having the faculty is present?

Resp. Affirmatively, according to can. 882. - Cf. 773, Q. 5.

Question 6. Whether reservation is taken away by a null or sacrilegious confession?

Resp. Affirmatively, to both, according to a probable opinion. The reason is that reservation is ordered principally to this, that sins be brought before the superior. Nevertheless, except 1°. if the penitent culpably keeps silent about the reserved sin itself, because the superior is by no means presumed in a sacrilegious confession of this sort to wish to take away the reservation of a sin deliberately not brought before him; 2°. if the invalid confession is made in a jubilee, because the Pontiff does not give the faculty of absolving from reserved cases except so that the faithful may gain the jubilee, and consequently otherwise he is not considered to wish to concede it. But other theologians, among whom is Card. de Lugo, think otherwise as to this second exception, which St. Alphonsus places, provided the penitent has the intention of gaining the jubilee, namely of afterward confessing validly and placing all the other requisites. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 598. - Lugo, disp. 20, n. 113. - Baller. note (a) p. 533.

Question 7. Whether reservation is taken away if the penitent, confessing before the superior, forgets to confess the reserved case?

Resp. Affirmatively, at least probably, because the superior is rightly presumed to have wished to free the penitent from every bond from which he can absolve him. Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 597.

Since, therefore, in the article of death someone inculpably omitted cases simply reserved to the Bishop or the Supreme Pontiff, it seems probably to be said that, recovering, he can be absolved by any simple confessor. (Gennari, Il Monitore, v. 9, P. 1, p. 66).

Question 8. Whether one who has confessed to an inferior a doubtfully reserved sin is altogether freed from reservation, even if afterward he recognizes it as certain?

Resp. Affirmatively, more probably, because when a doubtfully reserved sin has been accused, it has already been directly absolved, and consequently the reservation has been directly taken away. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 600.

Question 9. Whether a license of absolving from reserved cases is extended to sins committed after the license itself?

Resp. A distinction must be made: for either the power has been given for sins committed or narrated so many times, in which case the privileged one can absolve only from these; or it has been given indefinitely, in which case they commonly affirm, according to St. Alphonsus, that it is extended to others, provided a great distance is not interposed between the concession of the license and the commission of the new faults, namely when it has been conceded for a particular penitent. St. Alphonsus, l. 6, n. 601. "Because it is a benefit of the Prince and harms no one," says D'Annibale, n. 347, "it is not fitting to estimate it from the rigor of the words." Thus if there is not more than a month's delay between the concession and use of the faculty, the privileged one can absolve also from sins committed after the license was given. - De Lugo, De Paen. disp. XX, n. 126.

I say. The absolution of an accomplice in a sin against chastity is invalid, except in danger of death; and even in danger of death, outside a case of necessity, it is illicit on the part of the confessor according to the norm of the apostolic constitutions, and by name of the constitution of Benedict XIV Sacramentum Paenitentiae, 1 June 1741 (Can. 884).

§ 1. One absolving or pretending to absolve an accomplice in a sin against chastity incurs ipso facto excommunication reserved in the most special way to the Apostolic See; and this even in the article of death, if another priest, although not approved for confessions, can receive the confession of the dying person without some grave infamy and scandal about to arise, except the case in which the dying person refuses to confess to another.

§ 2. The one absolving or pretending to absolve an accomplice does not escape the same excommunication when the accomplice indeed does not confess the sin of complicity, from which he has not yet been absolved, but acts thus because he has been induced to this by the accomplice-confessor, whether directly or indirectly (Can. 2367).

Question 1. What in this matter comes under the name of accomplice?

Resp. By complicity here is understood that action by which two or more, reciprocally or mutually, by words or by deed declare consent, agreement, or conspiracy in some sin against chastity known as such. The accomplice must know that the act placed and manifested by the other accomplice is gravely culpable objectively and subjectively; he must fully consent to the sin committed by the other and externally manifest this internal consent; the sin must be common to each accomplice; an exterior manifestation of mutual lust is required, and reciprocal communication in the exterior act itself. Cf. Pauwels, De Casibus Reservatis. Wherefore, if a priest, having found the occasion from sleep or drunkenness, used some woman to satisfy lust, she would not properly be an accomplice, because there would not be a mutual conspiracy formally sinful. For the same reason, that priest would not be an accomplice properly so called, and consequently would not lose jurisdiction, who by the greatest wickedness persuaded some woman that it was not a sin if she permitted herself to be shamefully touched by him. - Cf. Bucceroni, Comment. in Const. Sacramentum Paenitentiae, n. 68.

Question 2. What in this matter comes under the name of sin against chastity?

Resp. Under the name of sin against chastity here comes every grave, external sin against the sixth precept of the Decalogue, even if not consummated by intercourse. First, therefore, the sin must be grave, for Benedict XIV speaks of a sin which must necessarily be destroyed by sacramental absolution. Then it must be external, for otherwise there would not be true complicity in a sinful action; indeed it does not suffice that the sin be in some way externally manifested, but it is required that it be grave insofar as it is external. Nevertheless, it is not required that it be consummated by intercourse, and consequently a kiss, touch, or sight, provided the other conditions are present, comes here under the name of sin against chastity. Indeed, even an impure conversation is comprehended by this law, for although previously there could be doubt from reasons not to be despised, nevertheless today it must altogether be held that no exception is given, as is established from the declaration of the S. Congr. U. I. given on 28 May 1873, where it is said: "By the prohibition of absolving an accomplice in a matter against chastity are comprehended not only touches, but truly all grave sins externally committed against chastity, even those which consist in mere conversations and looks which import complicity." - Cf. Bucceroni, n. 68. Lehmkuhl, n. 935.

The sin must be mortal on both sides, and indeed certainly; and therefore if it is doubtful whether the penitent sinned gravely, although it is certain that the priest sinned, the case is not comprehended by the law. Nor does it suffice that a grave sin be committed only internally by both, although externally it is venial; but it is required that the external action be the indication and manifestation of an internal depraved affection, mortally sinful in the character of an exterior act.

Question 3. Whether the person of the accomplice is to be restricted to the female sex?

Resp. Negatively, altogether, because the words of the Bull are altogether general; for in it it is said: "Who dares to receive the sacramental confession of the accomplice person in a sin against chastity committed against the sixth precept and to impart absolution to him." - Therefore the disposition of the Constitution is not to be restricted to the female sex.

Question 4. Whether a priest must be called an accomplice when the sin against chastity was committed before the reception of sacred Orders, but now for the first time is subjected before him to the keys?

Resp. Affirmatively, as it seems, because the law must be understood as the words sound, and according to the end which the legislator intends. Furthermore, the priest will always be in the true sense an accomplice as long as he lives; and the end of the law is to impede the danger of sinning and to procure the worthy administration of the sacrament. But this end certainly would not be obtained if the priest could absolve his former accomplice still polluted by this sin against chastity. Besides, by the reception of Orders some change was made in the priest only; but in this question, so that jurisdiction can again be given, attention is paid only to a change of the penitent. - Cf. Ituriaga, vol. 5, cas. 47. - Bucceroni, n. 69. - Lehmkuhl, n. 935. The response of the S. Penitentiary, 27 Jan. 1879, agrees: "The confessor cannot absolve an accomplice with whom before priesthood in boyhood he acted shamefully, unless he is morally certain that the same has already been directly and validly absolved from the sin of complicity by another confessor."

Question 5. Whether a priest can absolve an accomplice in the article or danger of death?

Resp. Affirmatively, validly and licitly, if another priest cannot be called who can perform the office of confessor; or if he can indeed be called, but not without scandal. But if another priest is present, even not approved, who can receive the confession, then the accomplice priest will indeed absolve validly, but illicitly, and will not escape the penalties. This is established from the cited Constitutions of Benedict XIV and Can. 884, 2367. - Bucceroni, nn. 62 and seq.

Question 6. Whether outside the case of death the accomplice priest can ever absolve his accomplice, suppose if the woman accomplice has no other priest to whom she may have recourse, and because of the circumstances of the place, as can happen in some missions, there is no hope that she will have one for several years, especially if danger of scandal and infamy is added, because the said woman had previously been accustomed to approach confession and communion frequently?

Resp. Negatively, according to the more common opinion of theologians; and the reason is, both because it is unlawful to place diverse exceptions where the legislator explicitly placed only one, namely the case of death, and because that law is not only prohibiting but also invalidating, the nature of which requires that it not cease on account of some particular inconvenience. Besides, the infamy, scandal, and other inconveniences which are supposed are not necessarily nor always verified; nor can the obligation of confessing once in the year, or rather sometime in life, as being of divine law, be urged, since divine law supposes that a suitable confessor is present. - Nevertheless these reasons do not seem altogether convincing; for it is true that Benedict XIV made one exception, but it is also true that he supposed, in enacting that law, that other priests were present or could easily be found, and did not have our case before his eyes. Besides, that law, although invalidating, is nevertheless a human law, and consequently in the extreme necessity of some extraordinary case can admit epikeia. But when it is said that the divine law of confession does not urge because a suitable confessor is not present, a mere begging of the question is made: namely, it is supposed that the accomplice confessor, placed in the aforesaid most grave necessity, has already lost jurisdiction; and this is precisely that about which the question is made. Wherefore the affirmative opinion seems probable. Cf. Baller. note (a) p. 540. - Bucceroni, n. 67. - Lehmkuhl, n. 937.

Question 7. Whether a priest can absolve his accomplice after the latter has already been duly absolved by another confessor?

Resp. A distinction must be made, and it must be denied if the penitent accuses only the sin of complicity, because, since that sin is altogether withdrawn from the jurisdiction of the accomplice-confessor, in no case would there be matter for absolution. Nevertheless others say that he does not lack jurisdiction over this sin already directly remitted, because it is no longer necessary matter of confession, and it seems that judgment must be made about this sin as about reserved sins directly remitted: thus Bucceroni, n. 1296. - D'Annibale, n. 324, note 37. - Genicot, n. 352. But affirmatively one must respond if the penitent confesses other sins extraneous to shameful complicity, because, with that shameful sin destroyed by absolution duly imparted by another confessor, the prohibition now ceases and jurisdiction returns. Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 555. - Baller. note (a) p. 539. The S. Inquisition on 29 May 1867 resolved the case: "It is free for the confessor to absolve the accomplice person who has already been absolved from the sin of dishonest complicity through another confessor: nevertheless counsel must always be given to the confessor of whom there is question, that, unless necessity compels, he abstain from receiving the sacred confessions of the accomplice person, although already absolved from the sin of complicity." But if, after direct absolution from the sin of complicity accepted from a non-accomplice priest, compelled by some necessity he confesses before his accomplice, practically the penitent "should altogether abstain from any mention, even indirect, of sins of complicity, nor is there need that in a general confession he intend to subject them to the keys." But the confessor "who absolves, insofar as he can, should not intend to absolve from those sins, and there will be no remaining difficulty." Thus the S. Penitentiary, on 29 Feb. 1904, responded to the question: "Whether a priest can absolve his accomplice already absolved by another non-accomplice confessor, and returning to him, if he accuses himself after sins committed since the last confession with these words (as pious penitents are accustomed to do), 'I include besides all the sins of my past life, especially against the angelic virtue,' or whether he is always bound to say 'excepting sins of complicity?'" Theolog. Prak. Quart., v. 58, p. 382.

Question 8. Whether a priest incurs excommunication who indeed hears the confession of an accomplice but does not absolve him, either because he does not pronounce the words of absolution, or because he simulates or dissimulates them?

Resp. Affirmatively, by force of canon 2367.

Question 9. What is to be said about the following double case: 1°. if the penitent, forgetful of the sin of complicity, does not accuse it; 2°. if the sin of complicity is indeed accused, but the penitent and confessor do not mutually recognize each other?

Resp. It seems altogether probable that in neither case is excommunication incurred, because presumption and rash daring, of which Benedict XIV speaks, are lacking. But whether the absolution is valid, namely whether the confessor is deprived or not of jurisdiction in each aforesaid case, is controverted among theologians. The more probable opinion teaches that the absolution is invalid; and the reason is that, from the very words of Benedict XIV, the accomplice, as long as the sin of complicity has not been directly remitted by another priest, is altogether withdrawn from the jurisdiction of the accomplice-confessor. But others deservedly reply that this reason supposes the Benedictine law is to be extended to cases of this sort, which indeed is not established. Cf. Nouvelle Revue Theologique, vol. 13, p. 577. - Bucceroni, nn. 70 and 72. - Lehmkuhl, n. 935.

Question 10. What must be said about the case of a confessor absolving or pretending to absolve an accomplice who indeed does not confess the sin of complicity, from which he has not yet been absolved, but acts thus because the confessor induced the penitent to this, either directly or indirectly?

Resp. He incurs excommunication, according to canon 2367, § 2.

Question 11. Whether a confessor doubting whether the penitent is his accomplice can absolve him?

Resp. Affirmatively. The confessor, after carefully weighing the matter and still doubting whether this penitent is his accomplice, can absolve him, because the legislator scarcely seems in this case to urge the law because of infamy and scandal. This is admitted by some if he himself remained altogether unknown to the penitent, because, for example, masked or for another reason, he approached her; the reason is that he is not bound to betray himself. But in no way can he absolve him when the penitent knows the priest with whom he committed the crime, but here and now while he confesses does not recognize him. - Ball.-Palm., n. 650. - Genicot, n. 353.

1°. Benedict XIV forbids that anyone dare to receive the sacramental confession of an accomplice person in a sin against chastity committed against the sixth precept of the Decalogue: "Therefore any authority and jurisdiction for absolving any person whatsoever from a fault of this sort having been taken away from him by the law itself." The Sacred Penitentiary responded in the same way (16 May 1877): "The privation of jurisdiction of absolving an accomplice in a sin against chastity, and the attached excommunication, insofar as the confessor has absolved him, is in order to the very sin against chastity, in which the same confessor was an accomplice." But if the penitent acts in good faith, the absolution of other sins is not to be held invalid; for jurisdiction is removed not from these, but from the sin of complicity. - Bucceroni, n. 1291. - Lehmkuhl, n. 1203, affirms "not improbably" that this was said. - Nouvelle Revue Theolog., v. 13, p. 573; v. 31, p. 151. - D'Annibale, n. 324. ... The same would have to be said if the penitent by inculpable forgetfulness does not confess the sin of complicity but other sins, for the same reason.

2°. If a priest inadvertently absolved his accomplice confessing all his sins before him in good faith, the priest himself certainly does not incur the censure; the absolution of other sins must be said to be valid. - Bucceroni, n. 1293. Bulot, n. 574. This must be admitted, if suppose the penitent does not advert that this is his accomplice, and is absolved by the priest himself not adverting. Indeed some in the case of inadvertence of the priest and good faith of the penitent hold that the absolution is simply valid. For Benedict XIV wished to restrict presumptuous and rash daring: the Supreme Pontiff renders null the absolution of one knowing and willing. "The nullity of absolution," as D'Annibale once said, "burdens the penitent; therefore it is also quasi-punishment of him; if the confessor is exempted from punishment, it is equitable that the penitent also be exempted." - Cf. Pennacchi, Comment. in Cons. Apos. Sedis, p. 312. - Ball.-Palm. 650 and others; whether truly, let the wiser judge.

3°. If in the article of death the confessor, any other priest being absent, has begun to hear his accomplice, when another priest arrives he can complete the confession; the power of the judge, duly brought into use at the beginning, does not expire as long as the cause has not been completed. The same must be admitted by equal reason if the confessor in the article of death, necessity urging, began to hear the accomplice and meanwhile the article of death passed.

4°. Two confessors enter into a horrible pact among themselves of absolving their accomplices. Titius absolves Caia, the accomplice of Titus, and Titus absolves Bertha, the accomplice of Titius. Titius and Titus by this pact become accomplices to each other. If the accomplice persons themselves are conscious of this wicked pact, then it seems altogether to be said that the confessor and penitent alike become accomplices: for a mind is added to the penitent, so that he may sin more securely, in the hope of more easily obtaining remission. But if these persons are unaware of this pact, the confessors certainly act sacrilegiously, but they do not absolve their own accomplices; and therefore those confessors absolving each other or the accomplices conscious of the pact incur excommunication, but not if they absolve accomplices unaware of the pact. - Cf. Diction. de Theol. Cath., v. 3, c. 617, Dolhagaray. - Bulot, n. 575.

I say 1°. By the common law of the Church all priests soliciting to sin against the sixth precept of the Decalogue with relation to confession are to be denounced to ecclesiastical superiors. This is established from the Bull of Gregory XV, Universi gregis, given in the year 1622, which was confirmed through the Constitution of Benedict XIV, Sacramentum Paenitentiae. For Gregory XV speaks thus: "We command all Ordinaries of places that they diligently inquire and proceed against all priests, both secular and regular, who, in the act of sacramental confession, whether before, or immediately after, or on the occasion or pretext of confession, even when confession has not followed, or outside the occasion of confession, in the confessional or in any place whatsoever where confessions are heard or chosen for hearing confession, pretending there to hear confessions, have attempted in any way to solicit or provoke persons, whoever they may be, to indecent things among themselves or with others, or have had illicit and indecent conversations or dealings with them; commanding all confessors that they warn their penitents, whom they have known to have been solicited by others as above, concerning the obligation of denouncing those soliciting to the Ordinaries of places."

According to the norm of the apostolic constitutions, and by name of the constitution of Benedict XIV Sacramentum Paenitentiae, 1 June 1741, the penitent must denounce the priest guilty of the delict of solicitation in confession within a month to the Ordinary of the place, or to the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office;¹ and the confessor must, with his conscience gravely burdened, warn the penitent concerning this burden (Can. 904).

I say 2°. Solicited penitents cannot be absolved before they have satisfied the obligation of denouncing, or at least unless they promise that they will shortly satisfy their obligation. This is established from the Constitution Sacramentum Paenitentiae of Benedict XIV, § 2, where it is said: "Moreover let confessors carefully beware lest they impart sacramental absolution to penitents whom they have known already to have been solicited by others, unless first, bringing the aforesaid denunciation to effect, they have indicated the delinquent to the competent judge, or at least pledge and promise that they, as soon as they can, will bring him forward." It is also established from the Instruction of the S. U. I. in the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore, Appendix, p. 300, nn. 3 and 5.

I say 3°. Denunciation must be made within a month from the time when its obligation became known. But the penitent who, without sufficient reason, that is, from negligence or fault, does not carry out denunciation at the established time, incurs an excommunication latae sententiae reserved to no one; from which consequently, such negligence or fault having been removed, any confessor can absolve. This is established from Canon 2368, § 2 and the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 693. - Varceno, vol. 2, p. 208.

¹ Cf. Addenda, p. 1092, n. 24.

Question 1. When is solicitation considered to have relation to confession?

Resp. This must be clear from all the circumstances of persons, places, time, from the manner of speaking, etc.; but it certainly has relation if it is done in the following cases:

In the very act of confession: it suffices if the confession has had a beginning. Immediately before or after: "When nothing mediates between solicitation and confession, so that neither the confessor nor the penitent has turned himself to extraneous acts."

Or on the occasion or pretext of confession, even when confession has not followed: occasion is the opportune time of action, and in undertaking and completing an affair it is of the greatest moment; and it is a thing which offers a motive of acting; and in a twofold way confession is called the occasion. Thus it would be on the occasion of confession if the confessor immediately solicited a woman asking to confess at once, and this even if it happened outside the confessional: confession to be made here and now provides the occasion of soliciting.

On the pretext of confession: pretext is that which covers intention by some fact. A confessor invites a woman to confession in order to provoke her to shameful things. According to D'Annibale, v. 3, n. 367, he pretexts who does one thing under the veil of another. The pretext is ordered to soliciting. He abuses the very confession to which he invites her so that he may solicit more freely, although the confession itself does not follow: that is, under the color and appearance of confession he solicits. He pretexts confession in order to deceive and solicit the penitent. D'Annibale and others think that there is not solicitation, of which here there is question, if the penitent himself asks to confess while pretexting, but not wishing, to confess but to solicit, or if each does so from agreement so that others may be deceived.

Outside the occasion of confession: in the confessional, or in another place destined or chosen for confessions, with simulation of hearing confessions there.

Solicitation so severely punished can therefore be outside the occasion of confession; but then simulation of confession is required, or a feigned placing of the act of confessing, or a feigned act of confessing, namely one which, as to external appearance, is so placed as if someone truly confesses. There is a threefold place in which this simulation of confession, if it is placed, is punished by penalties according to the Pontifical Constitutions: the confessional in a church; or a place in the sacristy, suppose, where there is a kneeler with gratings and a seat; or finally any chosen place, for example, a room of the sick. Now therefore, so that the obligation of denunciation may be present in these cases, it is required that both on the part of the penitent and on the part of the priest an external action be placed there, of itself signifying that confession is being made here and now. These three things must be well distinguished: just as the occasion of confession is not the pretext, so neither this nor that is simulation.

In relation to simulation in a place here and now chosen, positive signs are required: suppose, the priest sits, blesses the woman, applies his hand to his face, and other similar things; the penitent signs herself with the sign of the cross, and her external action, her speech, has the appearance of a true accusation. These are necessary at least in the beginning, namely so that simulated confession may be had. Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 678. - Baller. note (b) p. 544. - Varceno, vol. 2, pp. 209 and seq.

Question 2. Whether a confessor is to be denounced who in confession asked a woman where she lives, if afterward he solicited her at home?

Resp. Affirmatively, because, although the question made in confession seems indifferent, nevertheless afterward from the circumstances it is known to have been placed for soliciting, and consequently it is verified that confession gave the occasion, namely opportunity, to the solicitation. And the same solution must be given if the confessor solicits the woman as a person whose character or frailty he knew from confession, and suggests this by words or in another way; for then also solicitation is made on the occasion of confession. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, nn. 676 and 678. - Baller. note (b) p. 556.

Question 3. Whether only the solicited person is bound to denunciation?

Resp. Negatively, but all others also are obliged who certainly know it, unless they have known this under the secret of counsel, and this holds even if the crime cannot be juridically proved. This is established from the Decree of the Roman S. I., in St. Alphonsus, and from the common consent of theologians. Cf. St. Alphonsus, nn. 680 and 695. - Varceno, vol. 2, p. 222. - Baller. note (c) p. 546.

Question 4. Whether the penitent is bound to denunciation if he himself consented to the solicitation?

Resp. Affirmatively, as is established from the Constitution Sacramentum Paenitentiae, § 2, where it is said that the confessor is to be denounced "even if ... the solicitation between the confessor and penitent was mutual, or the penitent consented to the solicitation." - Nor does it stand in the way that the penitent by natural law is not bound to accuse himself; for ordinarily he can denounce the one soliciting without confessing that he gave consent to the solicitation. - Cf. Instr. S. U. I. in the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore, p. 300, n. 6. - Baller. note (b) p. 548.

Question 5. Whether a confessor is to be denounced who consented to a penitent soliciting him, but himself did not solicit?

Resp. Affirmatively, as is openly gathered from II and IX among the sixteen Decrees of the Holy Office which appeared on 11 Feb. 1661, and afterward were confirmed by Benedict XIV by Apostolic authority. Furthermore, to the question: "whether a confessor consenting to solicitation, but immediately ceasing to speak about that shameful matter, deferring its completion to another time, and not providing absolution to the penitent, incurs the penalties contained in the Bull of Gregory, and is to be denounced?" - it was answered, by Decree II, "that he incurs, and that the confessor is to be denounced, with the probable opinion rejected, which they judged not to be probable." The same thing is openly drawn from Decree IX, where it is said: "that a confessor who consented from fear is to be denounced": therefore a fortiori where no excuse whatsoever of inflicted fear is present. - Cf. Baller. note (a) p. 549. - Instr. S. U. I. n. 2.

Question 6. Whether the obligation of denunciation urges if the guilty one has amended, or if the solicitation happened a long time ago?

Resp. Affirmatively, to the first, because the Pontiff does not intend only the amendment of the guilty one, but also his punishment for repairing the damage of the Church and the scandal. Affirmatively also to the second, for the same reasons; for if one who committed the crime a long time ago were not to be denounced, the reason indeed would be that he would be considered already amended; but this reason does not avail, as was just said. Moreover, it would be very difficult to determine what would be a long or brief time. This is also established from the Constitution Sacramentum Paenitentiae, § 2, where it is sanctioned that the confessor is to be denounced, "even if a long time has already flowed by after the solicitation itself." Nevertheless that circumstance would have to be manifested to the superior to whom the denunciation is made. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 686. - Baller. note (a) p. 554; and note (a) p. 555.

Question 7. Whether a penitent is excused from making denunciation because of fear lest he incur the indignation and rebuke of the one denounced?

Resp. Negatively, because this annoyance is to be made very little of in a matter of such moment and pertaining to the common good. For it cannot be compared with the innumerable and very great evils arising from the corruption of a priest. But if great harm in life, reputation, or temporal goods is reasonably feared, the penitent seems to be excused as long as the danger lasts; but then the confessor must have recourse to the Ordinary. - Cf. Baller. note (b) p. 555. - Second Plenary Council of Baltimore, Instr. S. U. I., p. 301, n. 7.

Question 8. Whether a confessor soliciting and sinning lightly because of smallness of matter is to be denounced?

Resp. To this same question it was thus answered from Decree III of the S. Inquisition: "Since in venereal matters smallness of matter is not given, and if it were given, in the present matter it would not be given, they judged that he is to be denounced and that the contrary opinion is not probable." - Nevertheless Scavini notes on this place that this must be understood if the act is fully deliberate, and besides if from the circumstances it is certainly conjectured that by that light act the priest truly has the intention of proceeding further. - Cf. Scavini, lib. 3, tract. 10, n. 580. - Varceno, vol. 2, p. 219.

Question 9. Whether faith is easily to be given to women accusing priests of solicitation?

Resp. Negatively, but the circumstances both of things and of persons are carefully to be weighed both by the confessor and by superiors. Not once have women been seen who from envy, hatred, jealousy, or another perverse end have atrociously calumniated entirely innocent clerics. Therefore all circumstances are to be weighed by mature examination, especially when the woman shows herself ready and prompt for obeying the precept of denunciation. But here two things must be noted:

1°. The crime of false accusation concerning solicitation from canon 894 is reserved by reason of itself to the Apostolic See, and indeed with excommunication reserved to the same in a special way from canon 2363.

2°. Superiors, after the truth of the crime has certainly been known, ought to proceed very cautiously, so that they may correct the guilty one according to the gravity of the delict; nor should they punish indiscriminately a fault already long past, or had by chance from frailty, as they would one recent or committed from custom; likewise so that they may at the same time consult the good of Religion, of the priesthood, and of the guilty one himself, forestalling scandals and rumors insofar as can be done.

Question 10. What are the penalties against those soliciting?

Resp. § 1. He who has committed the crime of solicitation of which in can. 904 is to be suspended from the celebration of Mass and from hearing sacramental confessions, or even, according to the gravity of the delict, to be declared incapable of receiving them; he is to be deprived of all benefices, dignities, active and passive voice, and to be declared incapable of all these things, and in graver cases also to be subjected to degradation (Can. 2368).

Question 11. How practically is denunciation to be made?

Resp. In this matter these things are to be observed:

1°. Denunciation is to be made by voice, insofar as can be done, but not only by writing. Therefore the solicited person must present himself before the Ordinary and declare the act of solicitation, without however in any way revealing his own consent, if he gave any.

2°. Denunciation is to be made to the Ordinary of the place in which the penitent is found, even if the soliciting confessor belongs to another diocese. For it belongs to the Ordinary of the place to receive the sworn denunciation and transmit it to the Bishop of the guilty priest.

3°. If denunciation cannot be made by voice, it is to be made by a letter signed with one's own name and surname, or at least through an intermediary. For the obligation of denouncing the one soliciting is not so much of approaching the superior personally as of bringing the delinquent before him, as Benedict XIV speaks in his Bull. But he who is bound to the end is also bound to the means.

4°. Nevertheless the confessor is not bound to take upon himself the burden of transmitting the denunciation to the Ordinary; but he satisfies his office by warning the penitent that at a suitable time he should duly denounce the one soliciting. Nevertheless he can provide his own labor if he has judged this expedient; but the knowledge of the matter must be received outside confession.

5°. If the solicited person can in no way be induced to make denunciation in such a form, namely because he is affected by fear or insuperable shame, let the Bishop be allowed to be warned about that matter; he will be able to delegate someone to receive the denunciation. But the delegated priest must take an oath concerning silence to be observed and concerning the office committed to him faithfully to be fulfilled.

6°. In every case denunciation made through anonymous letters is altogether insufficient and entirely invalid, just as if it had not been made, as the S. Congregation of the Inquisition declared several times.

Note. Consult altogether the Instruction of the S. U. Inquis. in the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore, Appendix X, p. 298, and there you will find many things concerning the practical manner in which denunciations are to be made or received: how the difficulties of penitents affected by shame are to be overcome, and especially under n. 7, how the confessor must conduct himself when the penitent refuses either immediately or altogether to obey. Consult also the Instruction of the Holy Office, 6 Aug. 1897, and the Decree of the same S. Congregation, 15 May 1901.

Question 12. What are the obligations of Regular Superiors in matters pertaining to the Holy Office?

Resp. In matters pertaining to the Holy Office, it in no way belongs to Regular Superiors "to know the causes of their subjects, and by no title or pretext" can they or ought they "unless by express mandate of the S. Congregation, to inquire about these matters, receive denunciations, interrogate witnesses, examine the accused, institute judgment, render sentence, or in any other way or manner mix themselves in them or lay hands upon them; but those religious men who from their subjects or confreres or even superiors have known the guilty or suspected of crimes of this sort (especially as regards the abuse of Sacramental Confession), are strictly bound, without any communication with any others whatsoever, with no permission sought, and with no fraternal correction or warning first sent ahead, to denounce them without delay to the Holy Office or to the Ordinaries of places." They are bound besides to bring these laws to the certain knowledge of subjects and to urge observance. Holy Office, 15 May 1901.

XVIII. If in the time of a Jubilee absolution be deferred to an indisposed penitent, and after the Jubilee has elapsed he fall into a reserved sin, he cannot be absolved by any confessor whatsoever, but only by him who is endowed with the faculty of absolving from reserved cases. But he can be absolved from reserved sins perpetrated before the Jubilee and invincibly forgotten, if he gave his labour to the gaining of the Jubilee.

XIX. Those who have the faculty of absolving from cases reserved to the Supreme Pontiff can also absolve from censures. He who in the article of death confesses to a priest not approved, or excommunicated, is absolved even from reserved cases, if he be disposed; nor is he bound, if he recover, to approach the superior: because, as has been said, in the article of death there is no reservation, unless it be otherwise disposed by the superior, as happens in sins having a censure annexed, and chiefly those contained in the Bull In Coena. Authors dispute on either side whether a dying man can be absolved by one excommunicated and not tolerated, or by a heretical priest. Many affirm it, and many deny it. Since the resolution of this depends upon the sole authority of the Church, bishops are to be consulted, that a true and safe decision may be had. St. Raymond, Book 3, § 16, dissuades the faithful from such a confession.

According to the decision of the holy Penitentiary of November 7, 1888 (ad. VII.), a confessor who, as missionary, for instance, has not the opportunity of again meeting a certain penitent who has fallen under one of the censures reserved to the Pope, may exact the penitent’s promise to write to Rome himself. Already prior to this the holy Penitentiary had decreed “a penitent is not required to have recourse through the confessor who absolved him from the censure, but may comply with this obligation through another confessor, or, for important and sufficient reason, may write himself to Rome under a fictitious name” (May 28, 1888).

The decisions are plain. Is therewith every practical difficulty removed? It appears to us that a difficulty of a particular kind still remains. The penitent, after having confessed to a strange confessor, must present himself subsequently again to his regular confessor, or at least to a priest who knows him. Possibly this penitent had been culpably silent about that sin in previous Confessions, until at last an opportunity presented itself to confess it to a strange priest. How happy he is to receive at last absolution! But within a month’s time he has to write to Rome, and to whom may he intrust the answer, since the priest to whom he opened his heart, through whom he obtained forgiveness of his sins, will depart from the place the very next day? The answer of the Sacred Penitentiary will, as customary, bear the subscription: Dilecto in Christo confessario ab oratore electo vel eligendo, etc. There is yet another hitch. If the penitent writes under an assumed name, how will the answer reach him? The penitent in his letter must speak of himself as a third person: “Titius, fallen under the censure of —— has been absolved on condition of writing to Rome within a month.” Another permissible way to apply to Rome under assumed name is, as the Sacred Penitentiary has explained, to let the strange priest make the application, the penitent to make known to him his address. But is it not embarrassing for the penitent to give his address to the confessor and does not the difficulty remain, the solution of which is here attempted, inasmuch as the answer is almost always to be communicated in the actus sacramentalis confessionis?

There is only one means of removing this difficulty, and that is to have the Sacred Penitentiary give the answer in forma gratiosa, and not, as usually, in forma commissaria, i. e., to have it prescribe what is necessary, instead of granting to a confessor the power to prescribe this. Instead of writing: Sacra Poenitentiaria—facultatem concedit dispensandi—absolvendi—prorogandi—it writes: dispensat, absolvit, prorogat. That this is feasible there can be no doubt. Absolution from censures may be given to one absent and in writing, and the enumeration of obligations to be fulfilled (to render satisfaction to the injured party, to burn the books of the sect, to inform the complex of the invalidity of absolutions given, etc.) makes in writing a much deeper impression. There are known to us several cases in which the Sacred Penitentiary has answered in forma gratiosa. Thus once by extending for a certain priest the right to retain the office of confessor. Though the confessor had applied, he submitted certain circumstances which made an answer in forma gratiosa desirable. The answer came to this confessor who, by arrangement with the penitent, forwarded it to him through a third person without knowing his name. In another case a penitent himself obtained a rescript of this kind.

It is better, in general, to let the confessor write to the Sacred Penitentiary. The latter prefers to address its instructions to him. If, however, the confessor either cannot, or will not, write, or if there are other important reasons, the penitent may himself apply to Rome. Just in which cases he may receive an answer in forma gratiosa is a matter for the decision of the Sacred Penitentiary. At any event, he will not receive the answer in this form unless he specially petitions for it and states his reasons.

Augustine Arndt, S.J.

Case.—George is preaching a mission in the diocese of X. Whilst hearing confessions he meets with the following cases, which he learns are reserved in the diocese mentioned.

1. Sharah, a converted Jewess, confesses that she, after her conversion in 1911, contracted marriage with Isaac before a Lutheran Minister. She has now four children. Isaac, she says, is willing to have the marriage validated. George absolves her and tells her to consult the Pastor about the marriage. The Pastor refuses to marry her until the case has been referred to the Bishop.

2. Damian, a prominent Holy Name member, confesses that he caused great scandal by recently getting married before a civil magistrate, which is a reserved case in the diocese of X. George, with an admonition to repair the scandal, absolves him, and bids him have his marriage revalidated.

After four weeks of strenuous labor on the mission, George returns to the quiet of parochial life. Whilst hearing confessions in the diocese of Z, where he is assigned, he has the following cases:

3. On the eve of the Ascension, Bertha comes to Confession accusing herself of sending, without reason, her children to the public school, which case is reserved to the Bishop of Z. As Bertha has not been to Confession in two years, George at once absolves her.

4. Leaving the church he is summoned to the parlor to hear the confession of a priest. It is Joseph, a religious, who accuses himself of having violated the vow of poverty, the absolution of which he says his superior reserved to himself.

Questions.—1. What changes of legislation with regard to reserved cases have been affected by the decree of the Holy Office of the 13th of July, 1916? What are the cases mentioned in the decree in which the confessor may absolve from sins reserved to the Bishop?

2. Does the above decree affect those cases reserved to the Ordinary in the Bull Apostolicae Sedis?

3. Does the above decree affect the cases reserved to Bishops by the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore?

4. Does the decree of the Sacred Congregation “De Religiosis,” Aug. 5th, 1913, affect the cases reserved by religious superiors?

5. Did George rightly absolve in the cases proposed to him? If so, on what grounds?

Solution.—Ad 1m. According to the decree of the Holy Office, July 13, 1916, episcopal reservation ceases in the following cases:

(a) Reservation ceases ipso jure with regard to the sick not able to leave the house, wishing to go to Confession; with regard to those confessing, about to contract matrimony; as often as, in the prudent judgment of the confessor, the faculty of absolving cannot be asked without a grave inconvenience to the penitent, or without danger of violation of the sacramental seal.

(b) Reservation also ceases if, in a certain particular case, the faculty of absolving has been asked and was refused. It ceases, however, for that case only.

(c) During the entire time set aside for the fulfillment of the Easter duty parish priests and those in jure considered such, may absolve from all reserved episcopal cases.

(d) Missionaries during the time of the mission have the same powers.

(e) Lastly, penitents incurring a reservation in one diocese, may be absolved by any approved confessor in another diocese where such reservation does not exist, even though they go there precisely for obtaining Absolution.

Ad 2m. The above decree does not affect the cases reserved to the Bishops in the Bull Apostolicae Sedis, as these are of Papal legislation.,

Ad 3m. With regard to the cases reserved by the Plenary Council of Baltimore, there is at present a diversity of opinion whether they are affected by the present decree. There is grave authority for maintaining that they are not affected, as the scope of the late decree seems to be to limit the power of individual Bishops. There is, however, also a very grave authority that the decree extends to all episcopal cases. No official interpretation of this point has as yet been given.

Ad 4m. The power of reservation of religious superiors has been practically taken away by the decree of 1913, according to which any confessor approved by the Ordinary can absolve validly and licitly every religious, even in cases reserved with censure.

Ad 5m. (1) As it is doubtful, dubio speculativo, whether George had the jurisdiction to absolve Sarah in virtue of the above decree, the Church will supply the jurisdiction.

(2) George undoubtedly had jurisdiction to absolve Damian in virtue of the late decree.

(3) If George was formally or equivalently a parish priest and if the confession of Bertha took place during the time for fulfilling the Easter duty, the episcopal reservation ceased.;

(4) George validly and licitly absolved Joseph in virtue of the decree of 1913.

Parish priests can absolve from Bishop's cases during the time allowed for making the Easter duties, and missionaries can do the same whilst a mission is being given by them to the people.

When a penitent confesses a reserved sin the confessor will put certain questions to assure himself whether the reservation was incurred or not. If it was incurred and if it does not come under one of the preceding heads, he will tell the penitent to go to someone who has special faculties for the case, or if the penitent desires it and can wait for absolution, the confessor will tell him to come again, and in the meantime he will obtain special faculties to deal with the case.