Absolution of Censures

- Principles. - I. Censures are not removed through the repentance alone of the delinquent or through obedience toward the mandates of the Church, nor through the death of the one who imposed the censure; but absolution imparted by a legitimate judge or Superior is necessary. This is manifest from chapter Cum desideres, On the Sentence of Excommunication, and proposition 44 condemned by Alexander VII.

II. From a censure ab homine imposed by a particular sentence, only the following can absolve: 1. the one who imposed the censure; 2. his Superior; 3. his successor; 4. another delegated by any one of these. The reason is that it belongs to him to absolve to whom it belongs to bind ¹. The same must be said of reserved censures a iure.

¹ For this reason it applies even if the guilty party changes domicile. Hence St. Alphonsus well observes (book 7, no. 72) that if someone sinned in another territory in such a manner that he was specially excommunicated by the Bishop of that place, he cannot be absolved by his own Bishop except with the permission of the excommunicating Bishop.

But note that this is said of a censure ab homine imposed by a particular sentence; for censures which are indeed ab homine but imposed by a general sentence are, according to the more probable opinion, equated with those imposed a iure which are not reserved; and therefore whoever has jurisdiction over the guilty party can absolve him. See St. Alphonsus (book 7, no. 73) and Schmalzgrueber (book 5, title 39, no. 94).

** But why the VV. here (page 948, no. 162) propose the doctrine of Father Gury as dissenting from the doctrine of St. Alphonsus can scarcely be understood. For after in Principle II he denies to any priest the right to absolve from censures ab homine, and then in Principle III likewise denies to any priest the faculty of absolving from censures reserved in any manner either to the Supreme Pontiff or to the Bishop, he appears to embrace everything sufficiently. The sole difference consists in this: that Gury hands down in this same place those things which the Holy Doctor Alphonsus has partly in no. 70 and partly in no. 73, as is apparent from this Note.

III. Any Confessor can absolve from censures not specially reserved to the Pope or Bishop. This is established from chapter Nuper, On the Sentence of Excommunication. - St. Alphonsus, no. 70 ².

² St. Alphonsus adds that this absolution is valid also for the external forum; this opinion is admitted as more common and more probable. See Suarez (On Censures, disputation 7, section 5, no. 15), who nevertheless rightly warns in the same place, no. 29, that where the censure is public, although not juridically denounced, in order to prevent scandal it ought to be publicly established that absolution has been given, so that someone may publicly conduct himself as absolved. Nevertheless, scandal is sufficiently prevented if it is publicly established that he confessed to one having the faculty of absolving and that satisfaction, if any was necessary, was rendered.

But regarding privileges granted to religious for absolving from reserved censures, Clement X established (Constitution Superna, section 6): By force of the aforesaid privileges it is by no means licit for religious, even when satisfaction has been made to the party, to absolve penitents from censures with respect to the external and judicial forum; and those absolved by them in the penitential forum are certainly not considered absolved in the exterior and contentious judgment. Indeed, those entangled in and denounced by ecclesiastical censures can be compelled by Bishops to conduct themselves as such even if they were absolved by religious. Urban VIII likewise provided (Constitution In specula militantis) concerning those who by privilege of the Bull of the Crusade choose for themselves a Confessor by whom they may be absolved from cases even reserved to the Pope. But this declaration must not be extended to other indults; rather, the formulas of each must be inspected.

But whether and to what extent absolution from censures given in the forum of conscience can avail for the external forum, and how the absolved person ought to conduct himself both when the censure was occult and when it was notorious, and what caution must be employed where the cause has been brought to the external forum, see Laymann (book 1, tract 5, part 1, chapter 7, no. 7) and Bonacina (On Censures, disputation 1, question 3, point 10, no. 3).

n. 952.

- IV. By a privilege granted by the Council of Trent, chapter Liceat, Bishops can absolve even from occult papal censures, excepting those which are reserved to the Pontiff in a special manner. See the things said above, On the Privileges of Bishops, no. 124. But the Bishops of those regions in which the Council has not yet been received do not enjoy this privilege. See Fagnanus (on chapter Dilectus, On the Time of Ordinations, no. 15), Suarez (On Faith, disputation 44, section 2, no. 6), Sanchez (On the Decalogue, book 2, chapter 11, no. 3), and Lugo (On Faith, disputation 23, no. 54). - Moreover, from censures reserved to the Pope, even non-occult ones, in favor of those who are impeded from going to Rome either for a long time or even perpetually, of which sort the aged, children, women, the infirm, the poor, etc., are considered. Recall the things said concerning the privileges of Bishops in the Treatise on States, no. 124, and in the Treatise on Penance, no. 576. - See St. Alphonsus, no. 84 and following. - Hence this rule is commonly received by the Doctors: A papal case, when an impediment to approaching the Pope supervenes, becomes episcopal. Indeed, Castro Palao with certain others thinks that absolution from censures in this case pertains not only to the Bishop but to any Confessor; and this opinion does not appear improbable. - St. Alphonsus, no. 92; Pichler, book 5, title 39, no. 14. But absolution of this kind cannot be given either by the Bishop or by any other priest unless the burden of presenting himself to the Superior when the impediment has ceased is imposed upon the penitent ³.

³ This burden is not imposed when the impediment can be judged perpetual. See the things said above, no. 575, and the Note there.

n. 952.

V. All Priests, from the Council of Trent, session 14, chapter 7, can absolve from any censure whatever, and therefore not only from excommunications but also from suspensions and interdicts, however reserved, those who are placed at the point of death, but, the Authors say, with the burden of presenting themselves to the Superior or Delegate if they recover. There are nevertheless those who think that the burden of presenting oneself to the Superior has place only when the censure is notorious, or the matter was brought to the contentious forum, or the law itself established such an obligation. - But see the things said in the section on Penance, no. 576.

- Resolutions. - 1. An Archbishop or even a Patriarch, indeed also a Legate a latere, although superior to a Bishop, cannot absolve the subjects of Suffragans except in the sole case of a just appeal or visitation by virtue of office, because in other cases he does not enjoy jurisdiction properly so called.

An ecclesiastical Superior or delegate can absolve from censures even if he is not a Priest. The reason is that the jurisdiction required for absolving from censures can reside in a cleric initiated even by tonsure alone.

One who has a general faculty of absolving from papal censures cannot therefore absolve from cases reserved in a special manner, as formerly in the cases of the Bull Coenae, unless this is explicitly expressed in the concession; for special things are not contained of themselves in a general concession. Likewise, one who can absolve from specially reserved censures cannot therefore absolve from a censure inflicted upon one absolving an accomplice. Declaration of the Holy Office, 17 June 1866.

A faculty granted by a Bishop for reserved sins is not understood for sins reserved with a censure; it is otherwise if the concession was made by the Pope, because all papal cases are reserved with a censure, excepting two, namely: 1. false accusation of solicitation against a priest; 2. acceptance of notable gifts by religious. The moreover, notable gifts are considered those which are equivalent to ten scudi ⁴. - See St. Alphonsus, no. 5. Nevertheless, note that this reservation does not affect the sin of accepting gifts; therefore, if someone, recognizing that he cannot retain the gifts accepted, restores them or wishes to restore them, he can be absolved by any Confessor. The reservation, therefore, consists in this: that he cannot be absolved unless he restores them or obtains remission of the debt from the Pope, since the Pontiff has reserved this to himself.

⁴ What that means which the Author says concerning the sum of ten scudi you will learn more clearly from Innocent XII in the Constitution Romanus Pontifex, 3 September 1692, in which are contained the faculties granted to the Major Penitentiary. Let him not absolve, nor command to be absolved (he says), religious receiving gifts contrary to the Constitution of Clement VIII of happy memory beyond the value of ten scudi in money before restitution has been made; but below the aforesaid value, let him absolve, or command to be absolved, only after an alms has been made at the judgment of the Penitentiary himself or of the Confessor to be chosen by him, which is to be expended for the benefit of the Religion or Convent to which restitution would by law have to be made, if it can be done cautiously. And you have this same thing in the Constitution Pastor bonus of Benedict XIV, 13 April 1744.

Therefore, the words of the Author are not to be understood as though gifts which do not attain the value of ten scudi cannot be notable, or as though gifts below that value can be retained by the recipient in such a way that he does not need that remission of the debt which the Apostolic See reserved to itself; but those words are to be taken merely in this sense: that one receiving gifts exceeding that value cannot be absolved by the Major Penitentiary unless the obligation of restoring is imposed; but if the gifts do not exceed that measure, the recipient can be absolved with the obligation imposed of only some alms, to be determined at the judgment of the same Penitentiary or of the Confessor to be chosen.

Absolution from censures must be given not only to those who certainly or doubtfully incurred them, but also to every penitent before he is absolved from sins, so that any impediment which perhaps exists to receiving the Sacrament may be removed ⁵. - (From the Roman Ritual.) But as to what formula is to be used, recall the things said where Penance was treated, no. 430.

⁵ Since the use of the sacraments is forbidden to the excommunicated, absolution from excommunication must always precede absolution from sins. But where it is not established that the penitent is bound by it, absolution is merely premised as a precaution.

- Questions. - QUESTION 1. Can an absent person be absolved?

Reply. Affirmatively, at least validly. The reason is that, just as a penalty can be established against an absent person, so also it can be removed. This is also evidently deduced from Canon Law ⁶.

⁶ If, nevertheless, there is question of the faculty granted to Bishops by the Council of Trent in chapter Liceat (see above, no. 952), so that they can absolve any of their subjects in their diocese, according to the more probable interpretation, which Lugo also embraces after Suarez (On Censures, disputation 41, section 2, no. 11 and following; On Faith, disputation 23, nos. 73-76), it seems that it must be said that a Bishop absent from the diocese can indeed absolve a penitent existing in the diocese, but not conversely. Lugo himself confirms this interpretation from a certain Declaration of the Sacred Congregation.

Nor ought it to stand in the way of this resolution that St. Alphonsus (book 6, no. 593, and book 7, no. 81), with Barbosa (On the Office and Power of a Bishop, part 2, allegation 59, no. 8) and certain others, thinks that those words of the same Chapter, For the forum of conscience, have the same force as in sacramental Confession.

For, as Lugo well says (loc. cit., no. 64), the contrary opinion is common to almost all; and this is apparent from the lengthy catalogue of Doctors whom even Barbosa (loc. cit.) presents for it. And indeed (Lugo continues) the contrary cannot be sufficiently proved from the words of Trent; and it seems to be deduced from general principles, since it is established that absolution from censures can be separated from absolution from sins. Nor does that limitation, For the forum of conscience, compel this to be done in the sacrament; for those words have another sense, namely, lest this absolution avail for the external forum, in which, although someone has been absolved by the Bishop for the forum of conscience, he will be regarded as not absolved and will be punished with all the penalties of law. He then himself solves the difficulty which perhaps could be drawn from two Declarations of the Sacred Congregation; and that solution fits very well also with what Fagnanus (on chapter Dilectus, On the Time of Ordinations, nos. 35, 36) relates was declared by Gregory XIII; for the controversy was not then whether a Bishop could absolve within the sacrament of Penance or outside it, but whether by force of chapter Liceat he could absolve these or those persons.

Moreover, that anyone who has the power of absolving from a censure in the forum of conscience can perform this even outside confession is the common opinion, with which St. Alphonsus also agrees generally (book 7, no. 126); and it must be attributed only to a lapse of memory that Busembaum (in St. Alphonsus, loc. cit.) presents Suarez and Navarre as opposed, although they plainly agree with the others (see Suarez, On Vows, book 6, chapter 16, no. 4, and Navarre, Counsels, book 5, On Privileges, counsel XI, no. 2).

But what must be especially noted is that this same thing holds even if: 1. a faculty has been given of absolving in the penitential forum. See Bonacina (On Censures, disputation 1, question 3, point 6, no. 8) and Suarez (On Laws, book 8, chapter 6, no. 16); or 2. the faculty is committed to a priest, or to a priest-confessor, or even to a priest hearing confessions. See Suarez (On Laws, book 8, chapter 6, no. 16); indeed, 3. even if the faculty of absolving is given after confession has been heard. See Sanchez (On Matrimony, book 8, disputation 16, no. 11), Emmanuel Rodriguez (Questions of Religious, volume 1, question 61, article 7), Gaspar Hurtado (On Excommunication, disputation 15, difficulty 5, nos. 17, 18), Avila (part 2, chapter 7, disputation 3, doubt 13), Giles Coninck (disputation 14, On Excommunication, doubt 46, no. 252), and, others being omitted, Felix Potestas (Examination of Confessors, no. 3460).

Coninck (loc. cit., no. 251) thus indicates what use there can be of this doctrine, namely, that if the guilty party is not prepared to confess immediately and causes are present on account of which it is expedient that he immediately be absolved (from excommunication, suspension, or interdict); and the same could be said when one who has the power of absolving from reserved censures did not have time to hear an entire confession; for then he could hear only the cases which have excommunication annexed to them, and then absolve from this, and send the penitent to another who, after hearing the confession, would absolve from sins. Thus, with others, Avila, part 2, chapter 7, disputation 3, doubt 13.

QUESTION 2. Can an absent Bishop absolve one existing in the diocese?

Reply. Affirmatively, according to all. The reason is that knowledge of the cause and judicial proceedings are not required for absolution; and therefore nothing prevents a Bishop from exercising such an act of jurisdiction in another's territory. It is otherwise, nevertheless, if judicial proceedings should at times be required. - St. Alphonsus, no. 21.

- QUESTION 3. Can an unwilling person be absolved?

Reply. Affirmatively. The reason is the same as that just adduced; for just as a penalty can be imposed upon one absent and unwilling, so also it can be removed from him. Nevertheless, it is not expedient that this be done without a very grave reason, and care must be taken lest, while he has not ceased from contumacy, the censure be held in contempt. - St. Alphonsus, no. 117.

QUESTION 4. Can one who is bound by several censures be absolved from one while the others remain?

Reply. Affirmatively. The reason is that there is no necessary connection among them. Mortal sins indeed can by no means be absolved one without the others; but it is otherwise with censures, whose absolution does not confer sanctifying grace upon the censured person. They are regarded, therefore, after the manner of chains, some of which can be loosed without the others.

QUESTION 5. Can one be absolved from censures who has not yet publicly repaired the scandal on account of which he was subject to those censures?

Vol. I, Pt. II, Section Third: On Ecclesia…, TRACTATE II: On Censures a…, Ch. I, ARTICLE IV: On Absolution from Censures · Vol. I, Pt. II, Section Third: On Ecclesia…, TRACTATE II: On Censures a…, Ch. I, Art. IV, § 1. HOW CENSURES ARE RELEASED · Vol. I, Pt. II, Section Third: On Ecclesia…, TRACTATE II: On Censures a…, Ch. I, Art. IV, § 2. WHO CAN ABSOLVE FROM CENSURES · Vol. I, Pt. II, Section Third: On Ecclesia…, TRACTATE II: On Censures a…, Ch. I, Art. IV, § 3. WHAT ARE THE CONDITIONS OF ABSOLUTION

Reply. Negatively, at least per se and speaking generally. This is established from the Declaration of the Sacred Penitentiary, 5 July 1857 ⁷.

⁷ Here belongs the question concerning absolution which is conferred without satisfaction having been made to the party. Concerning it, this is certain: that it is illicit, whether it is thus given by the Ordinary or by a Delegate, both on account of the injury done to the party and because one absolving thus violates the order of law, which prescribes that real satisfaction be premised, if it can be done, as Schmalzgrueber says (book 5, title 39, no. 101).

Nevertheless, three cases, as is fitting, are excepted: 1. when the injured party remits the injury; 2. when the injured party rejects just satisfaction, because then it no longer stands through the guilty party that the one offended is not worthily satisfied; 3. when the guilty party is unable to make satisfaction; for then the judge (as St. Alphonsus notes, book 7, no. 128) not only can but ought to absolve him, and can be compelled to this from chapter Qua fronte 25, On Appeals, because when contumacy ceases, the guilty party ought to be absolved. Concerning this matter Suarez excellently adds (On Censures, disputation 7, section 5, no. 41) these things which pertain to practice: I think that, according to the quality of the matter and condition of the person and other circumstances occurring, it must be considered whether the penitent can morally make satisfaction effectively before he is absolved from the censure, and then this must be premised; but if he cannot, nor can absolution be deferred except for a long time or with great detriment, then I think that he can be absolved if he makes satisfaction in the manner in which he can at present, that is, by furnishing security, either by pledge, if he can, or by oath, if he cannot furnish greater, and by displaying such signs of repentance and purpose that the confessor may probably judge that absolution will both profit the penitent himself and not impede him, or become an occasion why he would not later make satisfaction after acquiring the ability.... But the reason for this opinion is that when the Pontiff says, the party having been satisfied, it is to be understood, insofar as the penitent can make satisfaction; because it is not likely that the Pontiff demands an impossible condition.

Nevertheless, what Diana has concerning the securities to be demanded (volume 5, tract 1, resolution 186, no. 2), citing John Valerus and Henriquez, must not be omitted: It must therefore be said probably that that procedure of satisfaction and security by pledge and oath appears to be understood for the exterior forum; for in the penitential forum, when the possibility of the penitent is lacking, his firm purpose alone has as much force as the giving of pledges or sureties in the judicial forum. Therefore in the forum of conscience it will suffice to believe the penitent.

But meanwhile there must be kept before the eyes also the warning which Reiffenstuel hands down (book 5, title 39, no. 270): Although Laymann rightly notes that, for the internal forum, with the quality of the person considered, even the bare promise or pledged faith of the censured person suffices if the censure is occult, nevertheless he also rightly warns (book 1, tract 5, part 1, chapter 7, no. 7) that privileged Regulars ought to beware lest, even for the internal forum alone, they absolve anyone notoriously censured by force of the common law or of a general sentence,

for example, one excommunicated, or one whose excommunication has already been brought to the contentious forum, before he has actually made satisfaction to the injured party; because otherwise, if such a guilty party already exists as absolved at least for the internal forum, he cannot so easily be driven by the Church to make satisfaction to the injured party. Regular Confessors ought well to observe this; although even in notoriously excommunicated persons of this kind circumstances can persuade that absolution for the internal forum may prudently be given upon only a prior security or promise.

But as regards the validity of absolution imparted without satisfaction having been made to the party, two things are established among all, namely: 1. absolution is valid if it is conferred by the Ordinary; 2. but it is invalid if conferred by a Delegate, if satisfaction of the party is enjoined as a condition; for it is manifestly apparent that a faculty delegated with a condition is not conceded, and therefore does not avail, when the condition has not been fulfilled.

The question turns upon whether, when the faculty of absolving is given by the Pontiff with that clause, The party having been satisfied, this is to be taken as a condition without which the faculty is not granted. And St. Alphonsus indeed (book 7, no. 121) holds the affirmative opinion as more probable, although he also concedes that the opposite is probable. But contrariwise, the Salmanticenses (On Censures, chapter 2, no. 25) and Bonacina (On Censures, disputation 1, question 3, part 9, no. 3) judge the negative opinion more probable, and Sanchez calls it most probable (On Matrimony, book 3, disputation 33, no. 6). But other grave Doctors teach it absolutely; among whom it suffices to name Reiffenstuel (Moral Theology, tract 15, distinction 2, question 5, section 1, no. 107), Pirhing (on book 5, title 39, no. 163), Hurtado, and others, some of whom St. Alphonsus also recalls (book 6, no. 537, question VII).

And indeed this opinion rests upon a principle received among all. The Doctors distinguish (see Sanchez, On Matrimony, book 3, disputation 33, no. 3) whether in a commission or delegation the form of the common law is expressed in the manner in which it is inherent in the law, or whether some limited mode is added to the common form of law. In the prior case, namely, if the common form of law is merely expressed in the delegation, they establish that it is not the intention of the one commissioning to introduce a new form or condition, but that it is a certain admonition that the common form be observed; wherefore, if it is omitted, the act, which otherwise would be valid if that form were not expressed in the commission, is not invalidated. It is otherwise in the latter case; for that addition to the common form of law imports a condition. See Sanchez, who (loc. cit.) both illustrates the matter with examples and confirms it by the authority of the Gloss and the Canonists. Among them Covarruvias (on chapter Alma, part 1, section 9, no. 8) says: It is noted by the common opinion of all that those things which are inherent in law by no means introduce a form or condition, even if they have been expressed by man. He notes this so that he may establish that an excommunication imposed by a delegate without the threefold warning being premised is valid, though unjust, even if the clause the threefold warning having been premised were contained in the mandate.

Navarre, moreover (Manual, chapter 27, no. 37), having recalled the Gloss on the sole Clementine On the Office of a Delegate at the word shall find, which he calls most received and in which the principle under discussion is most expressly contained, after first premising that absolution would be invalid if the delegate did not observe a form other than that of law, adds: I said, Other than that of law; because, as we answered earlier, absolution given by virtue of the Pope's mandate to absolve according to the form of law is valid, although it is not observed, as it would be valid if done without that mandate by the Ordinary through ordinary authority; because it was not the Pope's intention to introduce a new form through those words (The party having been satisfied), but to admonish the commissioner of that which according to law he ought to do; which Innocent said in a similar matter, etc. You may see the same principle inculcated also by Reiffenstuel (Moral Theology, tract 15, distinction 2, no. 107) and Laymann (On Censures, part 2, chapter 6, no. 8).

The sole reason which is usually brought forward for the opposite opinion is that an ablative absolute, of which sort is the form The party having been satisfied, imports a condition, as Benedict XIV notes (Instruction 87, no. 68). It is easily answered that this pertains to that kind of arguments which are usually called arguments from congruity and which generally fail, unless at times they are accidentally true by reason of the matter, or, as Laymann says (loc. cit.), because the required condition pertains to the substance of the act. And of this kind, indeed, in the opinion of Benedict XIV, was that ablative absolute of which he was treating, The party having been informed; since (as he says) that mandate of the Penitentiary rests upon the common law, which demands a new consent from the spouses for duly ratifying a marriage, etc. On the contrary, it fails in the example which you have in Sanchez (loc. cit., no. 6), when the faculty is given of assisting at a marriage after the banns have been premised.

As to what certain ones say, that the delegating party is not considered to give the faculty of absolving without satisfaction having been made to the party because this is illicit, Schmalzgrueber (book 5, title 39, no. 101) solves it thus from the common opinion: Nor does it follow from this that the delegating party sins by granting the faculty of absolving validly without satisfaction having been made to the party; for just as the Church does not sin in granting this power to the Ordinary, so neither will the Ordinary sin if he delegates it in that manner in which he himself possesses it; for sufficient provision is made for the right of a third party, while absolution of this kind is prohibited. But concerning these things, enough has now been said for the measure of a note.

Tanquerey

Adolphe Tanquerey, S.S. — 5 passages

Vol. II, On Ecclesiastical Censures

n. 1146.

1. Concerning absolution from censures.

Censure properly so called, once it has been contracted, is not removed by the death either of the censured person or of the one censuring; nor by the cessation of the law or precept; nor by the amendment of the guilty person, but only by absolution given by a competent superior.²⁵

²⁵ Can. 2248.

A) No one can absolve from censures brought ab homine, except the one who brought the censure, or his successor, or superior (provided he has jurisdiction over the censured person), or their delegate. In danger of death, every reservation ceases.

n. 1147.

B) Censures brought by common law are either reserved to no one, or reserved to the Roman Pontiff or to the Ordinary.

a) From censures reserved to no one, any confessor validly and licitly absolves in the sacramental forum; outside the sacramental forum, anyone who has jurisdiction over the guilty person in the external forum.²⁶

²⁶ Code, c. 2253.

b) From censures reserved to the Roman Pontiff, the following can absolve: the Roman Pontiff himself and the Major Penitentiary; bishops; delegated priests; indeed sometimes any priest, under conditions and with limitations to be explained in the Treatise on Penance.

c) In occult cases, the Ordinary can, by himself or through another, remit penalties latae sententiae established by common law, except censures reserved to the Holy See in a most special or special manner.²⁷

²⁷ Code, c. 2232, § 2.

n. 1148.

d) But from censures reserved to the Ordinary, the Roman Pontiff, the Bishop, the capitular Vicar, the vicar general, the regular Prelate (his own subjects), the Archbishop in the case of visitation or appeal, and their delegate absolve;²⁸ indeed sometimes any priest, as is explained in the Treatise on Penance.

²⁸ He who has delegated power of absolving from censures reserved to the Roman Pontiff is not for this reason able to absolve from censures reserved to the Ordinary. But he who has a special faculty of absolving from censures even reserved to the Roman Pontiff can absolve from censures (of common law) reserved to the Ordinary.

n. 1149.

C) From censures brought by particular law and not reserved, any confessor can absolve validly and licitly in the sacramental forum; outside the sacramental forum, anyone who has jurisdiction over the guilty person in the external forum.²⁹ - But if they are reserved, no one can absolve from them, except the one to whom they are reserved, or his superior, or successor, or delegate; yet in an urgent case, and in danger of death, any priest can absolve, under certain conditions, as is explained in the Treatise on Penance.

²⁹ Code, c. 2253, 1.

n. 1150.

Things to be noted concerning absolution from censures. A) For absolving from censures, jurisdiction over the one to be absolved is required in the one absolving, but not necessarily sacramental jurisdiction; for absolution from censures can be given by a Superior, or his delegate, even one who is not a priest.

B) Absolution from censures can be separated from absolution from sins.

Hence if sacramental confession cannot be had immediately, and on the other hand reasons are present that the guilty person be absolved immediately from censures, he can be absolved from censures, although not from sins: for example, if a priest having power of absolving from reserved censures does not have time to hear an integral confession, or if the guilty person is not prepared to make it, the priest can hear only the cases which have a censure annexed, and absolve from censures, and send the penitent to another who, after hearing the confession, would absolve from sins.³⁰

³⁰ Gury-Ballerini, n. 954.

"But if there is question of a censure which does not impede the reception of the Sacraments, the censured person, rightly disposed and withdrawing from contumacy, can be absolved from sins, with the censure remaining firm" (can. 2250).

If, from a rescript, absolution from censures cannot be given unless sacramental confession has first been heard, care must be taken that the penitent be disposed for the absolution of sins. But the absolution from censures would be valid provided the sacramental accusation of sins had preceded.³¹

³¹ S. Penit., January 4, 1839.

C) No special formula is required for imparting absolution from censures in the sacramental forum, unless otherwise prescribed in the rescript. The confessor absolves by the very formula of absolution. Yet for absolution from excommunication in the non-sacramental forum, it is regularly fitting to use the form handed down in the ritual books.³²

³² Can. 2250.

D) Absolution from censures can be given to one absent, indeed even unwilling. But absolution given to one unwilling does not have its effect as to a censure which is annexed to a sin still enduring, for example, adherence to a Masonic sect.

E) He who is bound by several censures can be absolved from one, without being absolved from the others. Hence "one seeking absolution must indicate all cases; otherwise the absolution is valid only for the expressed case; but if the absolution, although a particular petition was made, was general, it is valid also for things concealed in good faith, excepting a censure reserved to the Apostolic See in a most special manner."³³

³³ Can. 2249.

Marc, Institutiones Morales

Clement Marc, C.SS.R. — 20 passages

Vol. I, Pt. II, Section Third: On Ecclesia…, TRACTATE II: On Censures a…, Ch. I, ARTICLE IV: On Absolution from Censures

Three things are to be weighed: 1. how incurred censures are released; 2. who can absolve; 3. what conditions are required.

Vol. I, Pt. II, Section Third: On Ecclesia…, TRACTATE II: On Censures a…, Ch. I, Art. IV, § 1. HOW CENSURES ARE RELEASED

n. ¶1274.

DEFINITION. The absolution of a censure is the relaxation of the penalty itself, made by the power of the keys, through a fit Superior. Of itself and primarily it is an act of jurisdiction of the external forum, just as the infliction itself of censure is. It differs from dispensation, which takes away the bond of a law or precept (cf. n. 227).

DIVISION. Someone can be absolved from censure in manifold ways: 1. as to all effects, or only as to some; 2. absolutely or conditionally; 3. with falling back; 4. for caution (D'Annibale on the Constitution Apost. Sed.).

Now: 1. Absolution is given ordinarily to take away ALL EFFECTS; sometimes it is given FOR A PARTIAL EFFECT, for example to remove privation of active voice in a canonical election.1

This, however, is improperly called absolution, because it presents the appearance of a dispensation (VII, 125, end).

1 Thus, for example, censures by which the Cardinal electors of a new Pontiff perhaps are punished are suspended for the effect of election, while otherwise remaining in their force (Const. Vacante Sede Apost., n. 29 and 79; Acta Pii X, vol. 3, p. 253 and 282).

Absolution can be given UNDER CONDITION, either concerning the past, for example: "if you have already satisfied, I absolve you"; or concerning the present: "if I can absolve"; or concerning the future: "if you will satisfy hereafter, now for then I absolve you."

This last absolution, however, is illicit, unless it is made honorable by some grave cause, say, if afterward he from whom the censured person can be absolved would be lacking (VII, 123).

Absolution is sometimes given WITH FALLING BACK, which is a species of condition; namely so that the absolved person, unless within a certain time he shall have performed something, for example unless within a month he shall have restored, or gone to the excommunicating one, falls back by the very fact into the same censure.

Moreover, falling back is by man or by Law: a) It is by man, as often as it is adjoined by the will of the absolving Superior himself. b) It is by Law, when it is imposed by force of law: which is done, for example, when someone, either in urgent necessity, or in the article or danger of death, is absolved from censures reserved to the Pope in a special way (VII, 86, 87, 125). See what is to be said n. 1282 and 1284.

Absolution FOR CAUTION is that which is given to remove or to suspend a censure perhaps unknown.

Of this kind is that which is given before absolution of sins, to avoid irreverence; or before conferral of orders, benefices, etc., to remove the impediment of a censure perhaps forgotten, or incurred with crass ignorance. Cf. Sanchez, Decal., l. I, c. 10, n. 55.

Note. It is EXPEDIENT to give absolution for caution as often as there is doubt concerning excommunication incurred: a) because, once it has been given, the censure ceases, even if afterward it appears certain; b) lest perhaps, in doubt of fact, whether someone has really contracted it, whether he has been absolved from it, he remain outside the Church, bereft of her goods; for in such a doubt, our false estimation does not change the truth of the thing. Nor ought the form of absolution from the Roman Ritual to be vain and useless. Otherwise in doubt of law, because a doubtful law certainly does not oblige (Lugo, de Poenit., disp. 20, n. 22, 23).

n. ¶1275.

- PRINCIPLES. I. Censures once incurred are removed through the absolution alone of a legitimate judge. This is clear from the sacred canons (VII, 122).

Hence: 1. Censure is not removed through the amendment of the guilty person; which moreover is clear from proposition 44 condemned by Alexander VII: "As regards the forum of conscience, when the guilty person has been corrected and his contumacy has ceased, the censures cease." 2. It is not removed by the death or removal of the one issuing it, as is clear from c. Pastoralis, de officio judicis ordinarii; and the reason is that a penalty once inflicted passes into a matter adjudged. 3. It is not removed by the death of the censured person, as is clear from c. Sacris, de Sent. excomm. Wherefore a dead person, although he died contrite, is deprived of the suffrages of the Church and ecclesiastical burial.

It was said: 1. Censures, that is, properly so called; for suspensions and interdicts which are inflicted by way of vindicative penalty cease, not through absolution, but through time elapsed, or a condition fulfilled, or through dispensation of the Superior (cf. n. 1305). - 2. Once incurred; because censures not yet incurred are deleted either by abrogation of the law, or by revocation of the precept, or also by the death of the Superior issuing a particular sentence.

n. ¶1276.

II. Absolution from censures can be given both in the external forum and in the internal forum. Indeed, since censure without fault cannot even be understood, in the sacramental forum absolution must be given at the same time from censures and from sins, but first from censures. If absolution from censures is given after absolution from sins, it is gravely illicit, nevertheless valid; and if the penitent, in receiving it, was in good faith and otherwise disposed, absolution from sins also will be valid (VI, 430, end; VII, 70, 126).

n. ¶1277.

- III. The value of absolution from censures is one thing in the external forum, another in the internal forum. Absolution given in the external forum always avails for the internal forum. Given in the internal forum, it does not profit before the judge or the faithful unless it is publicly established, for example if it is known that the censured person has confessed and has offered satisfaction, if any was necessary. But prudence forbids that absolution in the internal forum be granted if the case has already been brought into the contentious forum or is soon to be brought there (Suarez, de Cens., disp. 7).

A great difference intervenes between absolution from SINS and absolution from CENSURES.

The former is given to reconcile us to God; but the latter to restore those things which are proper to the Church militant. 2. The former extends to all sins, but the latter is sometimes restricted to one censure. 3. The former is given only to the contrite and willing; the latter is validly granted even to the contumacious, and to the unwilling themselves; indeed also licitly in some cases, for example when this conduces to the common good. 4. The former, of itself, is absolute; the latter is often given under condition, from day to day, with falling back, for caution, for a particular effect, etc. 5. The former is given only to those present; the latter is rightly given also to the absent by letters or telephone or intermediary, if an urgent cause is present, except if it has been committed to someone to absolve in the form customary to the Church. 6. The former is given by an approved priest alone; the latter can be given by a simple cleric endowed with due faculty. 7. Finally, sins can be absolved not only directly, but also indirectly, that is, by concomitance with those things which are subject to the keys; but censures are absolved only directly; because among them there is not a necessary connection, but they are held like chains, some of which are released without the others (VI, 597, 618; VII, 117, 131).

Vol. I, Pt. II, Section Third: On Ecclesia…, TRACTATE II: On Censures a…, Ch. I, Art. IV, § 2. WHO CAN ABSOLVE FROM CENSURES

1. REGULARLY, outside necessity.

n. ¶1278.

PRINCIPLES. I. From a censure inflicted through a particular sentence upon a determinate person, no one can absolve except he who inflicted it, or his successor, or Superior, or the delegate of these. Such a censure, from its own nature, is most specially reserved, even in a Jubilee; and the reason is that otherwise the order of judgments would be disturbed (VII, 72; H. Ap., XIX, 11).

Wherefore St. Alphonsus notes: "1. That a Bishop, even in another's territory, can absolve his own subjects, in the forum both external and internal, whenever the absolution is without judicial noise. 2. That if someone offends in another's territory, and is specially excommunicated by that Bishop, he cannot be absolved by his own Bishop, except by permission of the Bishop of the place" (cf. n. 204).

n. ¶1279.

II. From censures issued, whether by Law, or by man through a general sentence against indeterminate persons, which censures are equated with censures issued by Law, if they are not reserved, any confessor can validly and licitly absolve, for both forums. Thus commonly, from the concession of Innocent III, c. Nuper, de Sent. excomm., and from the universal practice of the Church.

We have said: 1. From censures, for otherwise, if some penalty, stated under the form of censure, is really vindicative (cf. n. 1300). 2. Any confessor, namely approved, and having jurisdiction over the censured person. But a simple priest, outside the case of danger of death, cannot absolve anyone even from excommunication reserved to no one, whatever some say. 3. For both forums: whence this absolution can be given both outside and within confession, and it avails also for the external forum, in non-contentious cases, according to what was said n. 1276 (VII, 70-73).

n. ¶1280.

- III. From censures reserved by Law no one can absolve, except he to whom they are reserved, or his Superior, or successor, or one duly delegated. This is clear from c. Nuper, de Sent. excomm., and from Trent, Sess. 14, c. 7.

As regards delegated faculty let the following rules stand:

FIRST RULE. If censures are reserved to the Roman Pontiff in a special way, for absolving, outside the case of necessity, a special concession is required, which is not usually granted by the Holy See except for a time, or for the life of the person, or for a certain number of cases.1 This is clear from the practice of the Holy See and from the Constitution of Pius IX, by which censures were limited, and at the same time all real privileges were revoked, as regards absolution from censures, whether specially or simply reserved.

Moreover, the SPECIAL concession is made, for example, through the indult of a Jubilee, through a little document of the Sacred Penitentiary, through quinquennial faculties and other personal faculties of this kind. The Pontiff did not revoke these faculties, as is clear from an oracle of the living voice promulgated by the Holy Office, 1 Feb. 1871.

SECOND RULE. If censures are simply reserved to the Roman Pontiff, Bishops in their own diocese can, by themselves or through another specially to be deputed for this, absolve any of their subjects; but only in occult cases, and in the forum of conscience. Thus from the celebrated chapter Liceat of the Council of Trent, whose disposition Pius IX confirmed in the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis.

Now these are the words of Trent (Sess. 24, c. 6, de Reform.): "It is permitted to Bishops, in all irregularities and suspensions proceeding from an occult delict, except that which arises from voluntary homicide, and except others brought to the contentious forum, to dispense; and in any occult cases whatever, even those reserved to the Apostolic See, to absolve, gratuitously, in the forum of conscience, any delinquent subjects of their own, in their own diocese, by themselves or by a vicar specially to be deputed for this, a salutary penance having been imposed."

Under the words: 1. Bishops, there also come Abbots having territory, capitular Vicars, and others enjoying episcopal jurisdiction (VII, 79); but not Vicars general from their general commission (de Privil., 31); nor regular prelates, as is clear from the Response of the Sacred Penitentiary, 5 Dec. 1873. Cf. Lehmkuhl, II, 1123. 2. Through another specially to be deputed... understand either for one case, or for all cases, provided the delegation is made not to all in common, but to individual persons, this faculty being expressly named, as the authors most commonly interpret (VII, 93; de Privil., 34; cf. Ami du Cl., 1911, p. 223). 3. Their subjects... understand those staying in the diocese, or even outsiders approaching the sacred Tribunal in the diocese: because by this very fact they become subjects as regards absolution, although not yet as regards dispensation from an irregularity or suspension reserved to the Pontiff (VI, 593). 4. In occult cases, which namely are not formally notorious, either by notoriety of law, or by notoriety of fact, according to the sense which we stated n. 1190. 5. In the forum of conscience, that is, in the sacramental forum, as St. Alphonsus judges more probably (de Privil., n. 29); or at least not in the external and contentious forum, as is altogether certain from Trent (cf. n. 138).

THIRD RULE. If censures are reserved to Bishops, or Ordinaries, by pontifical Law, Bishops, Abbots, capitular or general Vicars, and all Ordinaries can absolve, in both forums, from cases even notorious.1 In the internal forum, regulars can absolve from cases not brought to the judicial forum nor easily to be brought there (I, App. II, n. 100; ed. G., I, p. 239): for nothing, as regards cases reserved by law to ORDINARIES, has been innovated through the Bull Apostolicae Sedis.

Under the name of Ordinaries regular prelates also come with respect to their own subjects: for these, as exempt, have no other Ordinaries than their own prelates. Therefore these can absolve their own, even novices and familiars, from cases reserved to the Ordinary, but not from cases, whether public or occult, reserved in any way to the Roman Pontiff. S. Poenit., 5 Dec. 1873 (ap. Noldin, de Poenit., n. 381). As regards absolution from cases pertaining to internal governance, nothing indeed has been innovated through the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis (Holy Office, 22 Mar. 1881), but see the new Decree, 5 Aug. 1913 (cf. what is to be said n. 1762).

n. ¶1281.

- FOURTH RULE. If censures have been reserved by other Bishops, any Bishop can, by himself or through another, absolve from them, but only in occult cases. For it is read in c. Liceat: "In any occult cases whatever, EVEN those reserved to the Apostolic See." Whence, the authors say, lest the particle "even" seem to have been placed uselessly, it must be understood that the faculty of absolving from occult censures which other Bishops reserved to themselves is conceded to Bishops. Thus Bonacina (de Cens., disp. 1, q. 3, punct. 2, n. 6), who adds that this seems to be received by custom, which is wont to confer jurisdiction. Cf. St. Alph., de Privil., n. 35.

Nevertheless censures issued through a particular sentence are excepted (cf. n. 1278).

Hence: A simple confessor cannot absolve a traveler from a censure reserved in the traveler's homeland; but a regular validly absolves novices as regards episcopal censures contracted before entrance (VI, 583).

Concerning the faculty of absolving from censures in the time of Jubilee, see the treatise on Penance (cf. n. 1736, B).

2. By way of EXCEPTION, in a case of necessity.

n. ¶1282.

PRINCIPLES. I. Any priest, even not approved, can absolve a censured person constituted in the article or danger of death from all censures issued or reserved in whatever way. This is clear from Trent declaring thus (Sess. 14, c. 7): "Very piously, lest by this occasion itself of reservation anyone perish, it has always been guarded in the same Church of God, that there be no reservation in the article of death, and therefore all priests can absolve any penitents whatever from any sins and censures." See nevertheless what is to be said n. 1753.

n. ¶1283.

Absolution should not be given except those things having been enjoined which must be enjoined by law, as will be explained below (n. 1287). But especially these things are to be noted:

If it is a question of censures reserved to the Roman Pontiff in a special way, the obligation, from the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis, remains firm for those absolved to stand by the commands of the Church if they recover: understand under grave sin and under penalty of falling back, as the S. R. U. Inq. defined, on 19 August 1891; on which day it also decreed that the obligation of standing by the commands of the Church imports the burden, either by oneself or through a confessor, of recurring to the Supreme Pontiff and obeying his commands, or of seeking a new absolution from one having the faculty of absolving from censures reserved to the Supreme Pontiff in a special way (Nouv. Rev. Theol., 24, p. 166).
If it is a question of censures simply reserved to the Roman Pontiff, the obligation of presenting oneself to the Supreme Pontiff does not subsist. Holy Office, 17 Jun. 1891 (Nouv. Rev. Theol., ib., p. 159). The same must be said concerning censures which a Bishop has issued, provided the Bishop has not specially reserved the censure to himself (cf. Lehmkuhl, II, 1125).

n. ¶1284.

II. In an urgent case, any approved confessor can directly absolve from any cases and censures reserved to the Holy See, with the obligation imposed of recurring within a month to the competent authority to hear the commands, under penalty of falling back. This is clear from various documents of the Holy Office and Sacred Penitentiary, especially from the Decree of 23 June 1886 (A. S. S., 24, p. 744); through these a new order is instituted in the absolution of censures and reserved cases. Cf. also A. A. S., I, p. 677.

It is said: 1. In an urgent case; this is verified not only when there is necessity of celebrating, communicating, or danger of infamy, but also if it is hard for the penitent to remain in sin so long until the Roman Responses arrive (Holy Office, 18 Jun. 1897; A. S. S., 30, p. 124). On this point the conscience of the confessor is burdened.

Directly absolve, so that a new sacramental accusation of this sin is not necessary (Holy Office, 19 Aug. 1891). Nevertheless, if someone, absolved in this way, does not seek the commands from competent authority, and approaches an inferior endowed with delegated faculty to receive the commands, he will be able to be absolved only after a new confession of the sin (ib.).
From any cases... reserved, so that it is understood that no exception is given: neither as regards censures even most specially reserved to the Supreme Pontiff, nor as regards suspensions, nor even as regards occult irregularities arising from censure (S. Poenit., 7 Nov. 1888; Holy Office, 19 Aug. 1891; 6 Sept. 1909).
With the obligation imposed of recurring within a month etc. The penitent ought to recur by himself or through a chosen confessor; for it is not necessary that recourse be made through the same confessor who absolved the penitent (S. Poenit., 28 May 1888). Within a month recourse must be made, under penalty of falling back into the same censure.
Of recurring to the competent authority. The competent authority is the Holy See, or also the Bishop or Vicar general, if namely he uses quinquennial faculties for absolving from papal cases.

As we have already said, the competent authority from whom the commands must be received without the burden of confession is not a privileged confessor.

Note. a) Sometimes the penitent can neither personally go to Rome, nor send a letter. Then the obligation of recurring ceases, if the penitent cannot present himself again to the same confessor, and it is hard for him to go to another confessor. It is known to all that this is often verified during missions; because either the missionary imparts absolution outside the place of his domicile, or the penitent makes confession outside his own domicile; whence the response of the competent authority, because of the departure of the confessor, cannot personally be notified to the penitent. Cf. Resp. Holy Office, 9 Nov. 1898; 5 Sept. 1900.

b) This impossibility of recurring, as is evident, is never present for a priest penitent (Holy Office, 3 Jun. 1899). For generally, as often as the penitent can recur to the competent authority, he is bound to recur (Van Rossum, Nederl. Kath. Stemmen, 1902, p. 165-172).

1 There are also two cases which are reserved to the Supreme Pontiff in a stricter way: namely the attempted absolution of an accomplice and, but without censure, the false denunciation of a confessor (cf. n. 1736, 1772).

1 Therefore cases reserved to Ordinaries by pontifical Law should rather be called papal. From this it follows that those to whom the faculty is conceded of absolving from cases reserved even to the Roman Pontiff can absolve also from the aforesaid (VII, n. 39; de Privil., n. 100). Cf. what is to be said n. 1348.

n. ¶1285.

- YOU WILL ASK. Can a SIMPLE CONFESSOR ever absolve from censures reserved to the Bishop?

Resp. He can absolve a censured person constituted in the article of death, as we have just said (n. 1282 and 1283); nor does there remain an obligation, health having been restored, of going to the Bishop, unless the Bishop reserved the censure to himself with that condition.

But whether, besides the article of death, he can absolve one impeded from going to the Bishop is greatly controverted. A sufficiently probable opinion today affirms this, if the impediment is perpetual, that is, to last beyond 5 years, or at least long-lasting, that is, to remain beyond six months, but less than five years.1 In this latter case, however, the absolved person is bound, the impediment having been removed, to present himself to the Superior; otherwise, if the impediment was perpetual. - The reason for these things is that no recent law has abrogated the ancient Law. Cf. St. Alphonsus, VII, 92.

Vol. I, Pt. II, Section Third: On Ecclesia…, TRACTATE II: On Censures a…, Ch. I, Art. IV, § 3. WHAT ARE THE CONDITIONS OF ABSOLUTION

Vol. III, Pt. II, Tr. VI, Ch. II, Article VI. On Absolution From Censures · Vol. III, Pt. II, Tr. VI, Ch. II, Art. VI, § 1. How Censures Are Removed · Vol. III, Pt. II, Tr. VI, Ch. II, Art. VI, § 2. Who Can Absolve From Censures · Vol. III, Pt. II, Tr. VI, Ch. II, Art. VI, § 3. What Conditions Are Required For Absolution · Vol. III, Pt. II, Tr. VI, Ch. II, Art. VI, § 4. With What Rite Absolution Is To Be Given

Several conditions are required by Law, whether on the part of the absolving person, or on the part of the person to be absolved, or finally on the part of the form (H. Ap., XIX, 14).

n. ¶1286.

I. On the part of the ABSOLVING PERSON, besides power, free will is required, and indeed under penalty of nullity; that is, both grave fear unjustly instilled, and deception and error, must be absent. Whence, if the principal cause is false, for example if the guilty person falsely says that he has satisfied the injured party, the absolution is null, unless the Superior himself absolves and is conscious of the falsity (VII, 132).

What, you ask, if the error concerns the POWER of the absolving person? - Resp. 1. If the error is private, for example of the confessor and penitent only, absolution of the censure, although given and accepted in good faith, is invalid. 2. If the error is common, and the absolving person is commonly held as endowed with faculty, the absolution of censure accepted in good faith is valid. The reason is that, in this second case, because of the common good, but not in the first, the Church supplies jurisdiction. See the treatise on Penance, n. 1754.

n. ¶1287.

II. On the part of the PERSON TO BE ABSOLVED it is required first of all that he himself seek absolution;2 then that he fulfill all the conditions, whether general or special, which are usually placed in Rescripts.

But the general conditions which are usually expressed under this formula: "THOSE THINGS HAVING BEEN ENJOINED WHICH MUST BE ENJOINED BY LAW," are the following: 1. That the guilty person first satisfy the injured party, for example the Church whose goods he usurped; or if he cannot then satisfy, that he provide sufficient caution, or, if he cannot even furnish this, that at least he swear that he will satisfy as soon as possible (I, 204; VII, 128). As regards excusing causes, see n. 1016-1031. 2. That scandal, if it has been given publicly, be repaired in the better way he can, according to the prudent judgment of the Ordinary or confessor. Thus the Sacred Penitentiary, 10 Dec. 1860. The reason is that repair of scandal is necessary by divine Law. The same must be said concerning removal of the occasion of sin, if it is required (A. S. S., I, p. 565, n. 27). 3. That the one to be absolved from a censure reserved in a special way emit the promise, and in the external forum the oath, of standing by the commands of the Church, as was said n. 1282. 4. That he furnish an oath concerning not perpetrating the crime again, if the crime is very enormous, as would be, for example, the notorious striking of a Bishop or Cardinal, grave striking of a cleric, scandalous violation of a church, etc. (VII, 129). 5. That a salutary penance be imposed and accepted, besides sacramental satisfaction.

n. ¶1288.

IT IS ASKED. Is absolution of a censure given by a DELEGATE invalid when the clauses placed in Law or in the Rescript have been neglected?

Resp. It is controverted. The more probable and more common opinion teaches that clauses which are expressed by an ablative absolute, for example, the party having been satisfied, import a true condition sine qua non; whence, if these have been neglected, absolution would certainly be gravely illicit, and more probably invalid. - But the opposite opinion is also probable, which says that these clauses are placed only for admonishing, and therefore that absolution is not invalid unless this is expressed in the Rescript. Therefore a delegate for absolving should take care before the fact to observe accurately whatever things are prescribed by law; but after the fact, if he notices that something has been omitted in good faith, the absolution is not on that account to be held invalid: for we are dealing with a doubt of law, while which stands the Church supplies (VII, 121, 127; Porpora, tr. 22, n. 78).

n. ¶1289.

- III. On the part of the FORM, certain words are not required for valid absolution; but it is required and suffices that the will of the Superior be manifested by some sensible sign (VII, 116). - For absolving rightly in the exterior forum, the form described in the Roman Ritual should be used, either for the living or for the dead. But in the interior forum, the confessor having faculty of absolving an excommunicated person should absolve according to the common form prescribed in sacramental absolution. Thus the Ritual.

Note. He who possesses the faculty of absolving from reserved cases should use it prudently and discreetly. 1. He should warn the penitent that the case is reserved to the Bishop or Roman Pontiff, so that in this way the guilty person may perceive the gravity of the delict. He who acts otherwise, how will he instill horror of crimes of this more atrocious kind, such as the faithful, according to the Council of Trent, ought to conceive? (Pedicini, La Cost. Ap. S., c. 10, p. 56). 2. Prudence is especially necessary when it is a question of an enormous and easily notorious crime, or when the case is easily to be brought to the contentious forum (cf. n. 1276). - Other things as regards delegated JURISDICTION, see in the treatise on Penance (n. 1776).

1 That the nature of these impediments may be better understood, it must be noted that in relation to episcopal cases no obligation of writing is given, unless perhaps the Bishop imposes this (VII, 89); indeed the penitent is not bound personally to go to a privileged person (VII, ib.). Cf. Lehmkuhl, II, 536; Genicot, II, 347.

2 Absolutely speaking, even he who is unwilling or unworthy can be absolved from censure, at least by him who enjoys ordinary power. For such absolution is not necessarily done in the sacramental forum, nor is it sacramental (cf. n. 1277). Indeed it seems that St. Alphonsus (VI, 618) approves Suarez, who says that an absent and ignorant person can be absolved from censure through words of absolution, with no one perceiving them (cf. Lehmkuhl, II, 1121). Absolution from censures, given by means of telephone, can be said to be valid.

Prümmer, Manuale Theologiae Moralis

Dominic M. Prümmer, O.P. — 9 passages

Vol. III, Pt. II, Tr. VI, Ch. II, Article VI. On Absolution From Censures

n. ¶66.

Four matters are to be considered in this article: 1. how censures are removed; 2. who can absolve; 3. what conditions are required; 4. with what rite absolution is to be given.

Vol. III, Pt. II, Tr. VI, Ch. II, Art. VI, § 1. How Censures Are Removed

n. 490.

490. Principle. A censure (strictly so called), once incurred, is not removed except through legitimate absolution.⁸⁵

Since some authors taught that, at least in the internal forum, a censure ceases through the amendment of the guilty person, proposition 44 was condemned by Alexander VII: "As regards the forum of conscience, when the guilty person has been corrected and his contumacy has ceased, censures cease."⁸⁶ Hence censures are not removed:

a) by the death of the author imposing them;⁸⁷

b) by the death of the guilty person punished with censure;⁸⁸

c) by the amendment or satisfaction of the guilty person.⁸⁹

But it is said: a censure strictly so called; for sometimes interdict and suspension are imposed for a determinate time; then, however, they are not censures strictly so called, but rather vindicative penalties or penances.

Then it is said that a censure is removed through absolution. For it is not removed through dispensation, since a dispensation is an act of grace, which (speaking absolutely) can: a) be denied even to one duly disposed; b) once granted, be revoked; c) never licitly, and sometimes not even validly, be granted without a sufficient reason.⁹⁰ Absolution, however, is an act of justice, which cannot a) be denied to a guilty person duly disposed and amended; b) once granted, be revoked.

⁸⁵ Cf. c. 15, X 5, 39; Code of Canon Law, c. 2248, § 1.

⁸⁶ Denz. n. 1144.

⁸⁷ c. 11, X 1, 31.

⁸⁸ c. 28, X 5, 39.

⁸⁹ c. 15, X 5, 39. Absolution, however, cannot be denied as soon as the delinquent has receded from contumacy (Code of Canon Law, c. 2248, § 2).

⁹⁰ Cf. above, I, n. 251 ff., on the causes of dispensation.

n. 491.

491. Scholion. On the diverse ways in which absolution from censure is customarily granted. There are five principal ways in which absolution from censure is customarily granted:

For the internal forum only, or for both forums, namely, the internal and external. Absolution given for the external forum is also valid for the internal forum, but not vice versa. Hence, for example, if a heretic returning to the bosom of the Church has been absolved from censure in the external forum (by the bishop or his delegate), he can be absolved from the sin of heresy in the tribunal of penance by any confessor. On the other hand, if someone contracted a mixed marriage before a non-Catholic minister and was absolved in the tribunal of penance by a competent confessor from the censure incurred on account of such a crime, he can nevertheless be treated as excommunicated in the external forum. The judge can, however (if he wishes), accept the absolution given in the internal forum also for the external forum.⁹¹ - Ordinarily it is not lawful to give absolution in the internal forum before absolution has been obtained in the external forum.
Absolutely or conditionally. A conditional absolution does not obtain its effect unless the condition appended has been verified; it is to be employed very rarely in practice.
Ad reincidentiam. According to the discipline in force, such an absolution is customarily given in more urgent cases, when one is absolved from all reserved censures under penalty of falling back into the same censures specifically if the absolved penitent does not have recourse within a month to the legitimate superior.⁹²
Ad cautelam. Absolution is customarily given as a precaution from censures (which a man perhaps incurred), lest the conferral of a benefice, dispensation, and so forth, be invalid. Pius VI condemned the frivolous objections made by the Synod of Pistoia against this manner of absolving.⁹³ In every sacramental absolution, absolution ad cautelam from censures perhaps contracted is first given. It is worthy of note that, from November 3, 1908, all graces and dispensations granted by the Holy See are valid and legitimate even for those bound by censure, unless there is question of those who are excommunicated persons to be avoided, or who after a declaratory or condemnatory sentence are excommunicated, interdicted, or suspended. The Code of Canon Law, c. 36, § 2, confirmed this discipline.⁹⁴
For a certain effect, absolution from censures is sometimes given lest some determinate effect, for example, the conferral of an office and so forth, be impeded.

Note. If there is question of a censure which does not impede the reception of the sacraments, for example, suspension, one under censure who is duly disposed and recedes from contumacy can be absolved from sins while the censure remains intact; but if there is question of other censures, for example, excommunication, one under censure cannot be absolved from sins unless he has first been absolved from the censure.⁹⁵

⁹¹ Cf. Code of Canon Law, c. 2251.

⁹² Cf. below, n. 494.

⁹³ Proposition 48 (Denz. n. 1548).

⁹⁴ Cf. Normae peculiares, c. 3, a. 1, n. 6 (Acta Ap. Sed. I, 64).

⁹⁵ Code of Canon Law, c. 2250.

Vol. III, Pt. II, Tr. VI, Ch. II, Art. VI, § 2. Who Can Absolve From Censures

n. 492.

492. Principle 1. From a non-reserved censure, any confessor can absolve in the sacramental forum; outside the sacramental forum, anyone who has jurisdiction over the guilty person in the external forum can absolve.

Thus from c. 29, X 38, and from the Code of Canon Law, c. 2253. A confessor can grant such an absolution both within and outside confession. For the most part, however, it is fitting that absolution not be given by a confessor except in the tribunal of penance.⁹⁶ It is otherwise with those who have jurisdiction in the external forum; for they can give absolution everywhere, even to one absent.

Principle 2. From a censure imposed ab homine by a particular sentence, no one can absolve except the one who imposed it, or his superior, or his successor in office, or one specially delegated by him.⁹⁷

It is said: by a particular sentence; for censures imposed by a general statute are not considered reserved unless this is established in express words; it is otherwise with a censure imposed by a particular precept, which indeed appears to be reserved, for it is a true censure imposed ab homine.⁹⁸

⁹⁶ Cf. Ferraris, Prompta Bibl., s.v. "Excommunicatio," a. 7, n. 11; and Code of Canon Law, c. 2248, § 2.

⁹⁷ Code of Canon Law, c. 2245, § 2.

⁹⁸ Ibid. and c. 2247, § 2.

n. 493.

493. Principle 3. From every reserved censure, no one can absolve except one who has the requisite ordinary or delegated jurisdiction.

Those who have ordinary jurisdiction to absolve from reserved censures are: a) the one who imposed it; b) his successor in office; c) his ecclesiastical superior.
Delegated jurisdiction is granted either by the law itself or by a competent man. In jurisdiction which is delegated ab homine (for example, by a bishop or by the Sacred Penitentiary), all appended limitations and clauses are to be observed.

n. 494.

494. Jurisdiction for absolving from reserved censures is delegated by the law itself in four cases,^98a namely:

a) In danger of death, any priest (even one not approved or suspended) can licitly and validly absolve from all censures without any exception. He can indeed exercise this faculty even if another approved confessor furnished with the necessary faculties is present. Thus it is manifestly inferred from the Council of Trent⁹⁹ and from the Code of Canon Law, c. 882. But if such a dying person afterward recovers, in only two or three¹⁰⁰ cases he must within a month present himself to the legitimate superior, and indeed under penalty of reincidence: first, if he had been put under censure ab homine by a particular sentence, in which case he must present himself to that man; second, if he had been bound by a censure reserved in the most special manner to the Supreme Pontiff. In this case he must, either personally or through the confessor, have recourse within a month to the Supreme Pontiff (that is, to the Sacred Penitentiary), or seek a new absolution from one having the legitimate faculty.¹⁰¹ Third, if someone had been notoriously under censure, because then the scandal must be repaired in the manner which the superior determines.

b) In more urgent cases,¹⁰² any confessor can directly¹⁰³ absolve in the sacramental forum from all reserved censures and sins, under this condition, however, that the person thus absolved is bound under penalty of reincidence to have recourse within a month to the Sacred Penitentiary or to seek a new absolution from one having the faculty.¹⁰⁴ Nothing prevents the penitent, not only immediately but even after receiving absolution in that urgent case, and indeed even after recourse has been made to the legitimate superior, from approaching another confessor furnished with the faculty. Then, however, the penitent is bound to declare to this confessor the delict together with the censure, as is evident of itself, and to accept his mandates. Once absolution has been received, he is no longer bound afterward to obey other mandates subsequently coming from the superior (to whom recourse was made).

But if in some extraordinary case this recourse is morally impossible, then any confessor (except in the case of the absolution of an accomplice) can grant absolution without the burden of recourse or of making confession to a privileged confessor. The confessor must then: a) enjoin those things which must be enjoined by law, for example, the removal of scandal, of the proximate occasion, and so forth; b) impose a suitable penance and satisfaction for the censure, to be performed within a determinate time. If the penitent has not performed this penance and satisfaction within the time determined by the confessor, he falls back into the same censure.¹⁰⁵ In these more urgent cases, any confessor can also dispense from all irregularities arising from an occult delict (except voluntary homicide), but solely for this purpose, that the penitent may licitly exercise orders already received.¹⁰⁶

c) Cardinals can absolve in the internal forum everywhere in the world any penitents whatsoever (even exempt religious) from any sins and censures whatsoever, except only censures reserved in the most special manner to the Apostolic See and those which are annexed to the revelation of the secret of the Holy Office.¹⁰⁷

d) Ordinaries (that is, residential bishops, vicars general, and major religious superiors in exempt religions) can absolve their subjects (and local Ordinaries, also travelers and vagrants), in occult cases, from all censures imposed by the common law, except censures reserved in the most special or special manner to the Apostolic See.¹⁰⁸

^98a Above, n. 424 ff., we treated more extensively the absolution of reserved cases.

⁹⁹ Sess. 14, c. 7, de poenit. (Denz. n. 903).

¹⁰⁰ Cf. above, n. 424.

¹⁰¹ Holy Office, August 19, 1891, ad 2 (Collect. de Prop. Fide, n. 1764); Code of Canon Law, c. 2252.

¹⁰² More urgent cases are those in which absolution cannot be deferred a) without danger of grave scandal or infamy, or b) if it is hard for the penitent to remain in the state of mortal sin until absolution has been obtained from the legitimate superior. Code of Canon Law, c. 2254, § 1.

¹⁰³ Holy Office, August 19, 1891, ad 3 (ibid.).

¹⁰⁴ Holy Office, June 23, 1886 (ibid., n. 1658); Code of Canon Law, c. 2254, § 1.

¹⁰⁵ Code of Canon Law, c. 2254, §§ 2 and 3.

¹⁰⁶ Ibid., c. 990.

¹⁰⁷ Ibid., c. 239, § 1, n. 1.

¹⁰⁸ Ibid., c. 2237.

Vol. III, Pt. II, Tr. VI, Ch. II, Art. VI, § 3. What Conditions Are Required For Absolution

n. 495.

495. 1. On the part of the one absolving, there is required:

a) Legitimate power, concerning which enough has already been said in the preceding paragraph.

b) A free will.

For an absolution extorted by force or by grave fear unjustly inflicted is not valid;¹⁰⁹ indeed, one who thus extorted absolution incurred a (new) excommunication,¹¹⁰ which, however, no longer appears to be in force today.

On the part of the one to be absolved, there is required:

a) That he be a subject.

According to the discipline in force, not only vagrants but also travelers can be absolved from censures imposed by law just as natives can, because the law expressly establishes this.¹¹¹

b) That he seek absolution.

Thus, at least, ordinarily, since otherwise the contumacy of the sinner is not so efficaciously broken.¹¹² One seeking absolution, however, must faithfully confess the delict with the circumstances changing its species, and especially must declare all the cases; otherwise the absolution is valid only for the case expressed. But if the absolution was general - as it is customarily - it is also valid for those omitted in good faith, except a censure reserved in the most special manner to the Holy See; it is not valid, however, for those omitted in bad faith.¹¹³

c) That he make satisfaction to the injured party, if any injury has been done to property, honor, reputation, and so forth.

But if suitable satisfaction is morally impossible, the person to be absolved must seriously promise that he will seek pardon or afterward make satisfaction according to his ability.¹¹⁴

d) That he repair any scandal which may have arisen.

The manner of this reparation is to be determined according to the prudent judgment of the confessor or superior.

e) That he firmly promise that he wishes to carry out the mandates of the Church, which perhaps prescribes special means for satisfaction or amendment.

f) That a salutary penance be imposed and received, and indeed in addition to the sacramental penance.

This penance is sometimes determined by the bishop or by the Holy See; otherwise the confessor can determine it, with regard had to the condition of the penitent and of the delict committed. In general it ought to be a grave penance.

¹⁰⁹ Ibid., c. 2238.

¹¹⁰ c. unic., I 20 in VI^o; St. Alphonsus, Theol. mor. l. 7, n. 119; cf. above, I, n. 71.

¹¹¹ Code of Canon Law, c. 2253, n. 3.

¹¹² Cf. St. Thomas, Suppl. q. 24, a. 2.

¹¹³ Code of Canon Law, c. 2249, § 2. Cf. above, n. 428.

¹¹⁴ Cf. c. 8, X 1, 36; Council of Trent, sess. 24, c. 12, de reform.

n. 496.

496. You ask: What is intended by the clause customarily added in faculties granted: "those things which must be imposed by law having been imposed"? This clause requires nothing other than that the one to be absolved: a) recede from contumacy; b) furnish, or at least seriously promise, the satisfaction due to the injured party; c) repair public scandal, if any was present; d) have recourse by letter to the superior, if at any time the faculty of absolving is given with that burden.

It is indeed not certain that an absolution is valid which has been given without all the clauses inserted into the indult of absolving having been observed; nevertheless, a solidly probable opinion affirms that the absolution is valid, provided that a certainly essential clause has not been neglected.¹¹⁵

¹¹⁵ Cf. St. Alphonsus, loc. cit., n. 121.

Vol. III, Pt. II, Tr. VI, Ch. II, Art. VI, § 4. With What Rite Absolution Is To Be Given

n. 497.

497. A distinction must be made between the external and internal forums.

In the external forum, either the form specially determined by the competent superior or the form contained in the Roman Ritual is to be observed.¹¹⁶

In the internal forum, the common form which is used in every sacramental absolution is to be employed.¹¹⁷ Therefore certain particular Rituals which contain special formulas of absolution for special censures certainly incurred are no longer to be observed.

Note. Absolution from censures in the external forum can be granted even to one absent.

¹¹⁶ Tit. 3, cc. 3 and 5.

¹¹⁷ Code of Canon Law, c. 2250, § 3.

Merkelbach, Pastoral Questions

Benedict H. Merkelbach, O.P. — 46 passages

Ch. III, Question VIII: Concerning the Excommunicated

n. ¶3008.

I. The obligation of the confessor as regards excommunications. - Not rarely penitents occur who have contracted the penalty of excommunication. Hence it seems opportune summarily to set forth those things which concerning this matter are more necessary in practice and therefore specially to be attended to.¹ And indeed the confessor has the obligation both of knowing sufficiently those things which regard excommunications, and of admonishing penitents concerning these things.

¹ Authors who have written after the promulgated Code can be inspected, such as Prummer and Vermeersch. Cf. Revue Eccl. de Liege, Nov. 1928.

n. ¶3009.

A. There is the obligation of knowing with habitual knowledge:

n. ¶3010.

At least the better known or more frequently occurring censures.

n. ¶3011.

Therefore let him know that the following are excommunicated by the very fact from law: apostates, heretics, schismatics; those publishing, defending, reading, or retaining books of these persons defending apostasy, heresy, schism, or other books prohibited by name through apostolic letters; authors or publishers of books of Sacred Scripture or commentaries printed without license; those issuing laws, commands, decrees against the liberty or rights of the Church, or impeding the exercise of ecclesiastical jurisdiction by recurring to lay power; those giving their name to a Masonic sect or similar association plotting against the Church or legitimate civil power; those laying violent hands on clerics or religious persons, especially on bishops and cardinals, most of all on the Supreme Pontiff; whoever communicate in the offense, and clerics in divine things, with an excommunicated person to be avoided; those sacrilegiously casting away the consecrated species or carrying them away or retaining them for an evil end; those procuring abortion when the effect has followed; those dueling and their accomplices; those absolving accomplices in a base sin; those falsely denouncing a confessor concerning solicitation; those solicited by a confessor and not denouncing him; apostates from religion; those presuming to enter marriage while the impediment of a vow of chastity stands, whether solemn, or simple and perpetual emitted in religious profession; those violating religious enclosure; those entering marriage before a non-Catholic minister or with a pact of educating offspring in a non-Catholic religion; likewise those handing over children to be baptized by a non-Catholic minister or to be instituted in a non-Catholic religion; those commanding or compelling non-Catholics or others interdicted to be handed over to ecclesiastical burial; those usurping ecclesiastical goods, and those alienating precious things or things exceeding the value of 30,000 fr.,² etc.

² Several understand this of value in gold.

n. ¶3012.

Also to know which of these are reserved.

n. ¶3013.

For there are altogether few which are reserved to no one and can be absolved by any confessor, namely those which affect persons publishing books concerning Sacred Scripture without license, those handing over the unworthy to ecclesiastical burial, those illegitimately alienating ecclesiastical goods of great value, those compelling one to embrace the clerical or religious state, and those not denouncing the confessor by whom they were solicited. All the others are reserved either to the Ordinary, or to the Supreme Pontiff: either simply, or specially, or even most specially, such as sacrilegious casting away or carrying off or retaining of the consecrated species, laying a violent hand on the Supreme Pontiff himself, and absolution of an accomplice. It should be noted:

n. ¶3014.

a) those absolving from an excommunication latae sententiae reserved in a most special or special manner without due faculty incur by the very fact an excommunication simply reserved to the Apostolic See, can. 2338, § 1; nevertheless in doubt either of law or of fact, reservation does not urge, can. 2245, § 4;

n. ¶3015.

b) besides, all censures ab homine by that very fact are reserved to him who inflicted the censure or pronounced the sentence, can. 2245, § 2.

n. ¶3016.

To know also the conditions required for incurring them.

n. ¶3017.

They are: a) on the part of the subject, that he be baptized; in possession of reason and capable of malice; pubescent, according to the discipline now in force; and subject to the jurisdiction of the one excommunicating;

n. ¶3018.

b) on the part of the object, that the sin be external, grave, consummated, and not only attempted, in the species which is reserved, in this sense that it fulfill all the conditions placed in the pronouncement of the censure, and joined with present contumacy, can. 2242, § 1. Hence in the sinner there is required knowledge both of the law prohibiting and of the special penalty to be inflicted on transgressors;³ and therefore ignorance, even culpable, excuses, not however affected ignorance, which is equated with knowledge, nor always gross ignorance, unless the censure is brought against those who presumed, dared, knowingly, studiously, deliberately, rashly acted, can. 2229.

³ Prummer, Th. M., III, n. 485, observes: "In the external forum presumed contumacy sometimes suffices. For when some ecclesiastical law has been sufficiently promulgated, knowledge of it is presumed in all subjects, who, if they transgress this law, must pay the penalties and censures sanctioned. Hence, for example, a Catholic who contracts marriage before a non-Catholic minister incurs the excommunication brought, although he is ignorant of the existence of this censure, Holy Office, 11 May 1892. Therefore such a Catholic truly ignorant of the excommunication can be absolved in the internal forum by any confessor, but still needs absolution in the external forum."

n. ¶3019.

B. Generally there is the obligation of admonishing delinquents who are ignorant of excommunication, so that, namely, they may know the obligation of ecclesiastical law and conceive greater horror of sin, and thus the law attain its end.

n. ¶3020.

Nor in the case can the principle rather often praised be applied: admonition is not to be made if it is not hoped that it will profit. For this principle can be invoked only when it is a question of ignorance of law and sin, for the good of the penitent and unless graver inconveniences are feared, namely for avoiding formal sin. For if he in good faith is ignorant of law and sin, and it is not foreseen that he will be amended, it is better to abstain from admonition and to permit inculpable transgression and material sin than by admonishing to provoke culpable transgression and formal sin. But that does not hold in the case when it is a question of mere ignorance of the penalty; for formal sin is already present. Hence then there is no reason for omitting admonition, but it must be made with every solicitude so that sin may be avoided in the future. - But if some do not care concerning this, or even deliberately omit it, they act thus so that they may avoid for themselves the inconveniences of future recourse to the Ordinary or to the Sacred Penitentiary. This is to seek one's own convenience, not the good of the penitent or of the Church, concerning which alone the faithful minister must be solicitous.

n. ¶3021.

II. When the confessor can absolve from reserved censures. - One who is excommunicated is not freed from a censure except by legitimate absolution, can. 2248, § 1; but a simple confessor of himself cannot absolve from a reserved censure, but only he who has due jurisdiction for this, ordinary or delegated. Yet when the cause is more urgent, delegated jurisdiction for absolving from reserved censures is granted by the law itself, namely:

n. ¶3022.

In danger of death, any priest, even if an approved priest is present, can licitly and validly absolve in the sacramental forum any penitents whatever from all censures without exception, can. 882. Nevertheless the dying person, after he has recovered, is held to have recourse within a month, by himself or through the confessor, to the legitimate superior or to another furnished with faculty, under penalty of falling again into the censure, and to stand by their commands, but only in two cases: if the censure was brought ab homine through a particular sentence, or if it is reserved to the Supreme Pontiff in a most special manner, can. 2252.

n. ¶3023.

In more urgent cases, any confessor can directly absolve in the sacramental forum from all reserved censures latae sententiae, but by explicitly imposing the burden of having recourse, under penalty of falling again, within a month, at least by letter and through the confessor, if this can be done without grave inconvenience, the name being kept back, to a superior furnished with faculty and of standing by his commands; or of approaching another confessor furnished with faculty, so that from him, confession being repeated at least of the offense with the censure, he may obtain absolution and receive commands from him.

n. ¶3024.

The more urgent cases are determined by law: if namely censures latae sententiae cannot be observed

n. ¶3025.

a) without danger of grave scandal, e.g., if because of the excommunication of a parish priest or magistrate grave anger or disturbance would arise in the people; or

n. ¶3026.

b) without danger of infamy, e.g., if all things are now prepared for nuptials, or a parish priest or vicar cannot omit celebration, or a layman Easter communion, without infamy; or

n. ¶3027.

c) if it would be hard for the penitent to remain in the state of grave sin for the time necessary for the competent superior to provide, Holy Office, 16 June 1897, and can. 2254, § 1 and 2; yet this is not hard for all.

n. ¶3028.

Indeed in an extraordinary case, when this recourse is foreseen as morally impossible, any confessor, except in the case of absolution of an accomplice, can grant absolution without the burden of recourse, or of confession to be made before a privileged confessor, but with a twofold condition: a) the things to be enjoined by law having been enjoined, namely removal of scandal or proximate occasion, and reparation of damage, and b) a fitting penance and satisfaction for the censure having been imposed, besides the sacramental penance. This indeed in such a way that the penitent, unless within a fitting time to be determined beforehand by the confessor he has done penance and given satisfaction, falls again into the censure, can. 2254, § 3.

n. ¶3029.

Recourse can be made orally, or by letter, or through another, e.g., the confessor. In this last case it is morally impossible if neither the confessor, because, for example, he must depart before the response and while absent cannot safely communicate the response without others suspecting, nor the penitent, perhaps inexperienced, can send a letter, and at the same time it is hard for the penitent to approach another confessor, Holy Office, 9 Nov. 1898; 5 Sept. 1900. But if the penitent is a priest, he is never excused from recourse, because he himself can easily write to Rome and seek a response under a fictitious name, Holy Office, 3 June 1899.

n. ¶3030.

III. Absolution of excommunication in the external forum and in the internal forum. - Excommunication latae sententiae of itself holds the delinquent who is conscious of the offense in each forum; yet in such a way that before declaratory sentence he is excused from observing the penalty as often as he cannot observe it without infamy, and in the external forum no one can exact the observance of the penalty from him unless the offense is notorious, can. 2232, § 1. Hence absolution can be given in each forum: by the confessor in the sacramental forum; outside the sacramental forum by him who has ordinary or delegated jurisdiction in the external forum over the guilty person.

n. ¶3031.

Absolution given in the external forum holds also in the internal forum; hence if someone was absolved from a reserved censure, the sin is no longer reserved. Absolution in the internal forum of itself does not hold in the external forum unless it is proved or legitimately presumed, and otherwise the superior can urge observance until absolution in the external forum has been had, can. 2251. Therefore, scandal having been removed, e.g., if the excommunication was not public in the place or if it is sufficiently established concerning absolution received, one absolved in the internal forum can conduct himself as such in acts of the external forum.

n. ¶3032.

Ordinarily, however, for public offenses, absolution is not to be given in the internal forum before absolution in the external forum has been obtained; hence what was said above concerning more urgent cases, namely danger of grave scandal or infamy, holds only if reputation is still intact and the offense is not notorious; and therefore it does not hold concerning penalties ferendae sententiae, which are considered as ab homine, can. 2217, § 3. But if then for someone it would be especially hard to remain in the state of grave sin, he could be absolved, but only from a censure latae sententiae, in the internal forum provisionally under the burden of recurring within a month; but in the external forum he would have to conduct himself as excommunicated and abstain from public reception of the sacraments until, scandal having been sufficiently repaired, he has also been absolved in the external forum.

n. ¶3033.

In the sacramental forum the customary form of absolution is to be employed, in which absolution from censures is contained; in the external forum, unless the superior granting the faculty has prescribed a more solemn form, it can be given in any manner; nevertheless it is fitting to observe the form handed down in the rituals, can. 2250, § 3.

n. ¶3034.

IV. Manner of proceeding in practice. - Therefore the confessor receiving accusation of a sin which incurs excommunication should proceed thus:

n. ¶3035.

First let him carefully examine whether all conditions, on the part of the subject and object, necessary for incurring the censure are present.

n. ¶3036.

Likewise whether the further conditions of the censure as it is reserved are present; but if some founded doubt remains, the case is not reserved, can. 2245, § 4.

n. ¶3037.

But if all required conditions are present, then it must be investigated whether it is a more urgent case or not; but if it is not, the penitent cannot be absolved, but is to be sent to another privileged confessor, or first the faculty of absolving is to be sought.

n. ¶3038.

If it is a more urgent case, the penitent is to be admonished concerning the reserved censure and concerning the obligation of recurring within a month; and if he seriously promises, he can be absolved. And meanwhile the due faculties should be sought from the superior.

n. ¶3039.

If he does not promise to recur, and does this because he foresees that recourse is morally impossible, then both reparation of scandal and damage and a special and fitting penance to be fulfilled within a fixed time are to be imposed on him; and if he promises to fulfill them, he will be able to be absolved.

n. ¶3040.

If without sufficient reason he refuses to promise, he cannot be absolved, but can be sent to the superior or to another confessor having special faculties, from whom he may seek absolution.

n. ¶3041.

If the penitent, notwithstanding the first promise, does not return to hear the commands of the superior, and thus acts from culpable negligence, he falls again into excommunication, because he makes little of the gravely prescribed recourse, which is not completed until the penitent has accepted the commands. But if he could not return without great inconvenience, he does not fall again into excommunication, but the obligation of recurring remains afterward as soon as he can;⁴ but if recourse becomes morally impossible, what was said above under 5 must be done, and due reparation and a fitting penance imposed.

⁴ From the nature of the thing it is established that a determined time was fixed for urging the obligation.

n. ¶3042.

V. Observations. - 1. The reservation of the sin ceases when the reservation of the censure ceases.

n. ¶3043.

When there exists a censure which impedes reception of the sacraments, as excommunication does, the censured person cannot be absolved from sins unless he first has been absolved from the censure, can. 2250, § 2. Nevertheless if absolution were granted by one having power, it would be valid, while the penitent was in good faith.

n. ¶3044.

Ignorance of the censure generally excuses from its reservation, but ignorance of the reservation of the censure, once the censure is known, does not excuse.

n. ¶3045.

"If the confessor, ignorant of the reservation, absolves the penitent from censure and sin, the absolution of the censure holds, provided it is not a censure ab homine or a censure reserved in a most special manner to the Apostolic See," can. 2247, § 3. Indeed also absolution from the sin holds; for if someone has been absolved from a censure, the reservation of the sin altogether ceases.

n. ¶3046.

Not only diverse censures, but even a censure of the same species, can be multiplied in the same subject, can. 2244, § 1. Hence "if he is held by several censures, he can be absolved from one, with the others by no means absolved. One seeking absolution must indicate all the cases; otherwise the absolution holds only for the case expressed. But if the absolution, although a particular petition was made, was general, as it is customarily given in sacramental confession, it holds, provided the one absolving has the competent faculty, also for those kept silent in good faith, excepting a censure reserved in a most special manner to the Apostolic See, but not for those kept silent in bad faith," can. 2249.

n. ¶3047.

The absolution which a competent confessor has given from a reserved censure holds even if the confession was null or sacrilegious, provided the penitent accused the reserved things. If this accusation was omitted in good faith, several judge that even then the censure has been taken away, since the confessor is judged to wish to use his power efficaciously as far as he can.

…and 6 more passages — all of them are listed on the topic page.

Konings, Theologia Moralis

Anthony Konings, C.SS.R. — 17 passages

Vol. II, Treatise on Censures, Ch. I, Article IV: On Absolution from Censures · Vol. II, Treatise on Censures, Appendix III: On Censures …, ARTICLE IV: ON ABSOLVING THE CENSURES WHICH ARE CONTAINED IN THE CONSTITUTION *APOSTOLICAE SEDIS*

Vol. II, Treatise on Censures, Ch. I, Article IV: On Absolution from Censures

Things to Be Noted Beforehand. - Someone can be absolved from censure in a multiple way:

1) As regards all effects, or as regards some effect only; 2) absolutely or conditionally; 3) to reincidentia; 4) for caution.

Now therefore: 1° Absolution is ordinarily given as regards all effects, but sometimes it is given for a partial effect, e.g. for taking away privation of active voice in canonical election; this absolution, however, is improperly so called, and bears the species of a dispensation.³ Another for an effect, see n. 1403. q. 1°.

2° Absolution can be given under a condition either concerning the past: e.g. if you have already satisfied, I absolve you; or concerning the present: if I can absolve; or concerning the future: if you will satisfy hereafter, now for then I absolve you. This last, however, is illicit unless it is made honorable by some grave cause, say if afterward there would be lacking someone who could absolve the censured person.⁴

3° A species of conditional absolution is that which is given to reincidentia; in such a way, namely, that the one absolved, unless within a certain time he furnishes something, e.g. unless within a month he restores, or approaches the excommunicator, relapses by the very fact into the same censure. - Moreover, reincidentia is by man or by law: a) it is by man whenever it is added by the will of the Superior himself absolving; b) it is by law when it is incurred by force of law: this has place in only two cases, namely when someone either, detained by a lasting impediment [n. 1402. II. 2)], or in danger of death, is absolved by him who has no jurisdiction over the censure reserved to the Bishop or specially to the Pope.⁵ He, namely, although truly absolved and amended, when the impediment or sickness ceases, ought, as soon as he conveniently can, by himself or through another, to present himself to the excommunicator (or his delegate), not indeed to be absolved again, but humbly to receive a mandate² from him, as the Canons say; otherwise he relapses by the law itself into the same censure (because of his new contumacy).

n. ¶6.

4° Absolution for caution is that which is given, e.g., before absolution from sins, to take away a censure perhaps unknown.

n. ¶1670.

1670. Principles. - I. Censures which the guilty person has already incurred are not loosed by the delinquent's penitence alone or obedience toward the mandates of the Church, nor, if you except suspensions from informed conscience (see n. 1686. 1° at the end), by the death of him who brought the censure; but absolution imparted by a judge, or legitimate Superior, is necessary. It is manifest from Canon Law,³ and from the 44th proposition condemned by Alexander VII, p. XIV. But if a similar penalty has been brought not as a censure but as a pure penalty, it is taken away by relaxation or dispensation.⁴

II. From a censure brought by man through a particular sentence, only these can absolve: 1° he who brought the censure; 2° his Superior as such. Therefore not the Metropolitan, except in the case of appeal or visitation of the diocese of the suffragan; 3° his successor; 4° another delegated by one of these. The reason is because it belongs to him to absolve to whom it belongs to bind. Therefore this holds even if the guilty person changes domicile. Hence St. Alphonsus⁵ warns that, if someone in another territory has offended in such a way that he was specially excommunicated by the Bishop of that place, he cannot be absolved by his own Bishop, unless with the license of the excommunicating Bishop.

But note that this is said concerning a censure by man brought through a particular sentence; for censures by man indeed, but brought through a general sentence, according to the more probable opinion, are equated to those brought by law which are not reserved; and therefore whoever has jurisdiction over the guilty person can absolve him.⁶

What has been said concerning absolution from a censure brought by man through a particular sentence, the same must be said concerning censures reserved by law. See also n. 1403. q. 7°.

But if a censure is specially reserved to the Pope, for absolution from it to be imparted a general concession of absolving from cases and censures reserved to the Roman Pontiff in no way suffices, but a special one is required. But those presuming to absolve without due faculty, even under whatever pretext, incur by the very fact an excommunication simply reserved to the Pope, provided there is not question of the article of death; in this, however, the obligation of standing to the mandates of the Church remains firm for those absolved, if they recover. - Constitution Apostolicae Sedis, dated October 12, 1869, § A quibus.

III. Any confessor can absolve from censures not reserved to the Pope or Bishop,¹ except however censures brought by law against some place or against a community; for a place and a community are not subject to the penitential forum.²

But absolution of this kind can be given by confessors both outside and within Confession, and also holds for the external forum.³ But if the penalty is notorious, because of scandal it will be necessary that the absolution also be publicly clear; for this, however, it suffices that it be known that the censured person has confessed,⁴ and that satisfaction, if any was necessary, has been exhibited by him. Wherefore absolution would be given imprudently, even only in the internal forum, from a case already brought to the contentious forum, or soon to be brought there.

Note. - 1° In what cases Bishops, or their delegates, can absolve from censures reserved to the Pope, see n. 1402. II.

2° When, and in what manner, someone can absolve from censures reserved either to the Pope or to the Bishop, whether every priest or a simple confessor, see n. 1402. IV and n. 1403. q. 1°. q. 2°. q. 4°. q. 5°. q. 7°.

n. ¶1671.

1671. Resolves. - 1° An ecclesiastical Superior or delegate can absolve from censures, even if he is not a priest. The reason is because jurisdiction, which is required for absolving from censures, can reside in a Cleric even initiated only by tonsure.

2° A faculty granted by the Bishop for reserved sins is not understood for sins reserved with censure; otherwise if the concession has been made by the Pope, because papal cases are all reserved with censure, except those two which are indicated in n. 1400. IV.

3° Absolution for caution does not seem necessary to me in a doubt (even of fact) whether a censure has been contracted. Sanchez has one exception.¹ But absolution from excommunication, at least for caution, is always given (and, if some probable suspicion is present that it has been contracted, it must be given under venial sin) to any penitent, before he is absolved from sins, so that an impediment to receiving the Sacrament, if any perhaps exists, may be removed. Yet absolution from sins is valid although absolution from excommunication was not premised, provided the penitent is in good faith and otherwise rightly disposed.² - From the Roman Ritual.

A determined form of words is not required per se for valid absolving, but the will of the one absolving, manifested by some sign, suffices and is required. Let the one absolving use, for the internal forum, that form which is already contained in sacramental absolution itself; but for the external forum, that which is described in the Roman Ritual. - "The rite," says Kenrick,³ "of lightly striking the shoulder of the man with a rod," which is prescribed in the form for the external forum, "will be able to be committed to execution with difficulty, on account of the customs of the region being opposed ... Busembaum teaches," according to St. Alphonsus,⁴ "that this striking can be omitted for a just cause."

n. ¶1672.

1672. Questions. - Query 1° Whether an absent person can be absolved?

Resp. Affirmatively, at least validly. The reason is because just as a penalty can be established against an absent person, so also it can be taken away. This is also evidently deduced from Canon Law. Except, if the faculty of absolving has been so granted that the absolution must be given in the act of Sacramental Confession.

Query 2° When is a faculty of absolving judged to have been so granted that it must be exercised in the act of Sacramental Confession?

Resp. There is not one sentence of all concerning this matter. St. Alphonsus teaches that it must be exercised in the act of Sacramental Confession if in the faculty it is said: in the forum of conscience. This is clear from those things which he teaches concerning the faculty of Bishops from the chapter Liceat, or from the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis, § Firmam tamen.¹ Cf. n. 1402. II. 1).

Query 3° Whether an absent Bishop can absolve one existing in the diocese?

Resp. Affirmatively, according to all. The reason is because for absolution there is not required knowledge of the cause, nor judicial process; and therefore nothing prevents the Bishop from exercising such an act of jurisdiction in another territory. But it is otherwise if judicial process is sometimes required, or if the faculty given to the Bishop perhaps has been restricted in this.²

Query 4° Whether one unwilling can be absolved?

Resp. Affirmatively, provided he is absolved by the Superior; for just as a penalty can be brought against an absent and unwilling person, so also it can be taken away from him; nevertheless it is not expedient that this be done without a very grave reason, and care must be taken lest, while he does not cease from contumacy, the censure be held in contempt. Hence it is required that the censured person ask absolution, although it is valid even when not asked, provided (if it is given by a delegate) there is question of one amended.³

Query 5° Whether absolution extorted unjustly by force or grave fear is valid?

Resp. Negatively, as is clear of itself, and as the law itself disposes.⁴⁵

Query 6° Whether he who is bound by several censures can be absolved from one, the others remaining?

Resp. Affirmatively. The reason is because among them there is no necessary connection. And mortal sins indeed can in no way be absolved one without the others; but it is otherwise concerning censures, the absolution of which does not confer sanctifying grace on the censured person. Therefore they are had after the manner of chains, of which some can be loosed without others.

Query 7° Whether he can be absolved from censures who has not yet publicly repaired the scandal because of which he was subject to censure?

Resp. Negatively, at least per se, and speaking generally. It is clear from the Declaration of the Sacred Penitentiary on the 5th day of July, 1857.

Query 8° In what way must scandal in the said case be repaired by those to whom such reparation is difficult and exposed to dangers?

Resp. The Sacred Penitentiary, December 10, 1860: "that the reparation of scandal is necessary by divine law, and that it must be made in the better way in which it can be, by the judgment of the Ordinary or confessor."¹

Query 9° In what way is satisfaction to the injured party, if it is necessary for taking away censure, to be exhibited?

Resp. See n. 1402. IV. c). And these things indeed must be observed under penalty of nullity, if absolution from reserved cases is given through a delegate under this condition: but that a condition of this kind is expressed by the clause: the party having been satisfied, is taught by the opinion which seems truer to St. Alphonsus.²

Query 10° Whether and when an oath must be exacted before absolution?

Resp. It must be exacted universally whenever it is prescribed; but specifically: 1° in the case of which in n. 1402. IV. c), if absolution is given by a delegate with this condition, and then more truly³ it is required for validity, unless there is question of a penitent who would be perpetually unable to satisfy;⁴ 2° in the case of which in n. 1402. IV. e);⁵ 3° in the case in which absolution is given by a Bishop because of an impediment of approaching the Holy See, which is not perpetual; before absolution, namely, the censured person in this case ought to swear (or, if there is question of absolution in the internal forum, to promise), that when the impediment ceases he will approach the Holy See.⁶

Note. - From the things said it follows that a great difference intervenes between absolution from sins and absolution from censures. For:

1° The former is given for reconciling us to God; but the latter for restoring those things which are proper to citizens of the Church militant. - 2° The former must be given from all sins; the latter is rightly given even from one censure. - 3° The former can be bestowed only upon the contrite and willing; the latter is validly imparted even to the contumacious and unwilling, at least by the Superior. - 4° The former must be given purely; the latter can be given under condition, from day to day, to reincidentia, for caution, etc. - 5° The former, because it is part of a Sacrament, is given only to those present; the latter is rightly given also to the absent. - 6° The former, extorted by fear, is valid; the latter is not so. - 7° The former can be imparted only by an approved priest; the latter by a simple cleric obtaining external jurisdiction.

Furthermore: 1° Whenever a censure is reserved, the sin also is liable to reservation. But between reservations introduced by the Roman Pontiff and reservations introduced by Ordinaries there is very much distance, as is clear from the things said in n. 1400. IV., 1401. q. 2°. - 2° Sins liable to reservation can be absolved not only directly, but also indirectly, from a just cause (n. 1403. q. 1°. q. 2°); but censures can be absolved only directly.²

Vol. II, Treatise on Censures, Appendix III: On Censures …, ARTICLE IV: ON ABSOLVING THE CENSURES WHICH ARE CONTAINED IN THE CONSTITUTION APOSTOLICAE SEDIS

The Constitution Apostolicae Sedis continues:

"Moreover We decree that in any new concessions and privileges whatever which it shall happen that the Apostolic See grants to anyone, in no manner and by no reason must or can there ever be understood to be comprehended the faculty of absolving from any cases and censures whatever reserved to the Roman Pontiff, unless formal, explicit, and individual mention has been made of them: but whatever privileges or faculties, whether by Our Predecessors or also by Us, shall have been granted up to this time at any time whatever to any Assembly, Order, Congregation, Society, and Institute, even regular of any species, although endowed with a peculiar title, and even one worthy of special mention, all those things and all those faculties We will to have been revoked, suppressed, and abolished by this Our Constitution, as in fact We revoke, suppress, and abolish them, privileges of any kind whatever, even special ones, whether comprehended or not in the Body of Law or Apostolic Constitutions, and with any Apostolic confirmation, or even immemorial custom, or strengthened by any other firmness whatever, with any forms and tenors whatever, and with any derogatory and other more efficacious and unusual clauses whatever, not at all opposing or standing in the way; all of which, insofar as there is need, We intend to derogate from, and We derogate from them."

"Nevertheless, We will that the faculty of absolving granted to Bishops by the Tridentine Synod, Sess. XXIV, c. VI, de Reform., in any censures whatever reserved to the Apostolic See by this Our Constitution, remains firm, with only those excepted which We have declared to be reserved to the same Apostolic See in a special mode."

"Decreeing," etc. (the customary clauses follow). "Given at Rome in the year 1869. - IV Id. Octobr."

n. ¶6.

Explanation.

n. ¶1753.

1753. Questions. - Quaer. 1° What faculties or privileges of absolving have remained in force after the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis was published?

Resp. 1° As regards Bishops, see what was said at n. 1402. II. 1). 2) and what is to be said here at n., quaer. 2°.

Resp. 2° As regards Regulars, concerning the absolution of their own [besides the faculty enumerated at n. 1195. G. c). 2). 1°], if there is question of particular censures of their proper Institute (n. 1700. q. 2°), since these remain in their force as before, and concerning the faculty of absolving nothing about these is disposed in the present Constitution, faculties of this kind must be judged to belong to them as before; for the revocation of legitimate faculties must not be presumed, but shown.

Resp. 3° As regards all, "the Most Holy Father in no way intends to bring even the least detriment to the faculties ... which were granted by the Holy See before the promulgation of the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis; ... and he wills that they remain in their full force, the time prefixed in the said concessions ... enduring." Thus Pius IX declared by Vivae vocis Oraculo to the Assessor of the Holy Office.¹ Hence each one among us should see with what faculties he is furnished by the Ordinary of the place in which he hears Confessions, by force of the privileges which are accustomed to be granted by the Holy See to our Bishops (p. LXXI. nn. 15, 16). Let him attend besides to the general principles of which there is treatment at n. 1402. II. under 2); IV. and 1403. q. 1°, q. 2°, q. 4°, q. 5°.

Quaer. 2° What must be observed as regards absolution from the individual censures of the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis?

Resp. The things that are more practical are reduced almost to the following.

1° As regards the censure against condemned books (n. 1702), attend that not only those reading, but also those retaining, are held by it. Wherefore absolution cannot be given except to those who truly cease to be retainers, e.g., by burning them.

2° As regards the censure against strikers of Clerics (n. 1719), a light, grave or moderate, and enormous striking must be distinguished. Light is that which contains a grave injury indeed, but one less grave than the rest, of which kind is that which is done by fist, palm, hand, foot, stone, or staff,¹ apart from circumstances by which it is rendered grave or even enormous.² - Grave or moderate is that which brings a contusion or deformity, as if you strike out a tooth from the one struck, or he pours forth an abundance of blood.³ - Enormous, if a great wounding intervenes (as if you knocked out an eye, if you broke a limb, etc.), or a great effusion of blood from elsewhere than the nostrils, or a great injury.⁴ But in doubt whether it is grave or light, it is to be held grave, lest an occasion of injuring the ecclesiastical State be furnished,⁵ or because the privilege of the Canon is to be interpreted broadly (n. 1719). - Therefore if the striking was light; or indeed grave or even enormous, but occult, or perpetrated by a woman or an impubes; or grave, but there is question of those living collegially, Bishops can absolve.⁶ But Regular "Prelates can absolve their subjects from excommunication on account of a striking, even grave, and enormous and public, inflicted not only on religious of the same Order, but also of another, and even on secular Clerics." Thus St. Alphonsus on the privileges of Regulars,⁷ concerning which, in this matter, the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis (n. 1719) changed nothing.

3° Concerning the censure against condemned societies (n. 1721), absolution cannot be given to those who have not utterly renounced those condemned societies. Therefore every bond with them must be loosed, and every sign of that bond must be destroyed.

Concerning denunciation, see cited n. 1721.

They ask whether those who have given their name to condemned societies must be warned?

Resp. Distinguish. For there is question either of the external forum, or of the internal.

If of the external, subdistinguish between a pastoral admonition and a judicial sentence by which the guilty party of whom there is question is declared to have incurred excommunication.

Whether it is expedient that this declaratory sentence be issued cannot be defined generally, but must be discerned after the circumstances of the fact and of the persons have been carefully weighed.

But as regards pastoral admonition, if probable hope of fruit is lacking, and at the same time there is prudent fear of some graver evil, it can be deferred, provided that scandal does not arise from the Pastor's silence.

If the discussion is of the internal forum, generally they must be warned, because generally good faith is lacking or (I add) later will be lacking.

Thus, as to the substance, the Instruction of the Holy Office, Feria IV, given April 4, 1871. Therefore what Schneider¹ wrote on this matter must be understood with a grain of salt.

Our resolution is confirmed from the Response of the S. C. O., given to the Postulate of the Most Reverend Father Sorin, Superior General of the Congregation of Holy Cross, which, since it concerns the dying, argues a fortiori for our question.

Here is the Postulate and Response.

Most Blessed Father.

"The priest Edward Sorin, Superior General of the Congregation of Holy Cross, for the tranquility of conscience of the Missionaries of his Congregation in the Federated States of North America, humbly asks from the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office responses to the following doubts.

"First doubt. - Whether a Pastor, or Missionary, called to a sick or dying person, especially one not baptized or Protestant, whom he certainly knows to belong to the Freemasons, and to be in good faith in the aforesaid secret society, can, without any admonition concerning leaving the condemned society, baptize or absolve him?

"Second doubt. - Whether a Missionary must ask a dying person, if he only doubts concerning the dying man's affiliation with the Freemasons?

"Third doubt. - In either case, if time or the state of the dying person does not permit discussion, must the Missionary propose any question to the same dying person concerning the secret society of Freemasons?"

n. ¶7.

Responses.

"Feria IV, July 8, 1874.

"In the General Congregation of the Holy Roman and Universal Inquisition held before the Most Eminent and Most Illustrious Lords Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, General Inquisitors against heretical depravity, the above-written doubts having been proposed, and the vote of the Lord Consultors having first been had, the same Most Illustrious said: - To the first, speaking generically, Negative, according to the decrees already issued: but since, according to what Albitius has, boys and the dying do not abjure, if there is question of those near death and materially or in good faith enrolled in sects condemned by the Holy See (and unless it is foreseen that a special admonition will be useful), it suffices that in general they be exhorted to subject themselves sincerely to the authority of the Church and to the mandates of the Holy See, and then they can be baptized and absolved. But scandal is to be repaired in that better manner in which it can be done, even after death. - To the second and third, Provision has been made in the preceding.

"For D. J. Pelami, Notary of the Holy Roman and Universal Inquisition.

"Jacobus Vaccagine, Substitute."

4° As regards the censure against Simony (n. 1725), see the faculty of our Bishops, p. LXX. n. 5.

5° Absolution from the censure which collectors of Masses incur, of whom at n. 1727, is not to be given except to those willing to restore according to what was said at n. 1325. q. 8°, or prepared to stand by the mandates of the Holy See, in case recourse is had to it for condonation.

Note. - It will very rarely be necessary to dismiss without absolution a penitent rightly disposed on account of a sin to which some reserved censure is annexed, either because 1) there are very few cases in which confessors do not have a faculty communicated to them by the Ordinary in the letters of jurisdiction, or because 2) those very few cases very rarely occur, or because 3) the penitent, from lack of some condition enumerated at nn. 1400, 1401 and 1662-1664, has not incurred either the censure itself or the reservation, or because 4) on account of the causes alleged at n. 1402. II. 2). IV. and n. 1403 the reservation has either been entirely removed, or at least is indirectly removed, or because 5) today more frequently than formerly the faculties of some jubilee are at hand.

Merkelbach, Summa Theologiae Moralis

Benedict Henry Merkelbach, O.P. — 29 passages

Vol. III, Special Moral Theology: On…, Treatise: On Penance, Fifth Part: On the Subject…, Appendix: On the Penitenti…, Indulgences, and Censures, Article III: On Censures

S. Th., Suppl., q. 21-24.

681. A censure is the sentence of a censor deputed for correcting morals; but in canonical speech it is not so much the sentence itself as the penalty inflicted upon sinners. By usage now received it is now said exclusively of a medicinal penalty, in no way of a vindicative one. It can be defined: an ecclesiastical medicinal penalty by which a baptized man, delinquent and contumacious, is deprived of certain spiritual goods or goods annexed to spiritual goods, until, withdrawing from contumacy, he is absolved (can. 2241, § 1). It can be from the law or from man; of a sentence to be pronounced or of an incurred sentence; reserved or not reserved.

A censure 1) is an ecclesiastical penalty, therefore it deprives of goods concerning which the Church can dispose, such as the administration and reception of the sacraments, common suffrages and indulgences, the exercise of Orders, ecclesiastical burial, offices, benefices, and their revenues; but not of goods which immediately proceed from Christ, such as the sacramental character and the power of Order, grace, virtues, nor of goods which come from individual faithful, such as good works and private prayers; - 2) it is a medicinal penalty, namely ordered primarily to the amendment of the sinner, whence it cannot be brought for a merely past delict which does not have a successive fear or which has already been amended, nor for a determined time or in perpetuity, but when the amendment of the delinquent has been obtained, absolution from the censure must be given (can. 2248, § 2); - 3) it is a penalty which supposes contumacy, whence it cannot be brought unless a warning has preceded; otherwise contumacy is judged to be absent: but one warning is legal, which is made by the law itself for censures latae sententiae, another personal or canonical, which is made by man, and can be repeated with an interval or be one peremptory warning, according to the prudent judgment of the superior, for censures ferendae sententiae (can. 2242, § 2; 2233, § 2; 2309); but if the particular precept was already fortified by a censure ferendae sententiae, immediately after the delict has been proved this censure can be inflicted (com. int., July 14, 1922).

A. The power of bringing censures is implicitly included in the universal power of binding, which pertains to the keys according to Mt. 16:19; indeed for excommunication it is suggested in Mt. 18:17; and it is clear from the constant practice of the Church, from the Council of Constance, sess. 8, n. 30, against Wicleff, and sess. 15, n. 19, against Hus. By ordinary power, all who generally have ordinary power of jurisdiction in the external forum can bring censures, because it pertains to the external governance of the Church, namely, the Supreme Pontiff by himself or through the Roman Congregations and Tribunals; an ecumenical Council; a bishop and a vicar capitular, but not a vicar general; a particular Council; a vicar and prefect apostolic; an abbot and prelate nullius; a major superior of an exempt clerical religion according to the statutes, and a general chapter (can. 2220), but not pastors; - by delegated power, however, all clerics to whom it has been committed by those who have ordinary power.

B. The subject of a censure is a baptized man, a wayfarer, and a subject of him who brings the censure (can. 2226), possessed of reason and capable of malice (can. 2200-01), indeed pubescent (having 14 years, even probably if it is a female) according to the discipline now in force for penalties latae sententiae (can. 2230).

Hence the following are incapable of censures: the non-baptized, children and those deprived of the use of reason, the dead, and the Supreme Pontiff, as having no superior on earth and subject to no one.

It should be noted that bishops, outside the diocese, can bring censures upon subjects by way of a particular precept, but not by way of a judicial sentence; in the diocese even upon pilgrims sinning there, but generally only by a particular sentence, because they are not bound by territorial censures, and the pilgrim who sins is usually denounced to his own Superior so that he may be punished by him; - but that a metropolitan in suffragan dioceses can bring censures in the time of canonical visitation according to can. 274, 5. - On the contrary, a penalty cannot be inflicted or declared except by the Supreme Pontiff upon those who hold the supreme rule of peoples and their sons and daughters, and those to whom belongs the right of next succeeding in rule; and unless they are expressly named, Cardinals are not included under a penal law, nor bishops under penalties latae sententiae of suspension and interdict (can. 2227).

Someone can incur several censures, because he can be bound by several bonds and be deprived of the same goods under several titles; censures are multiplied, namely, by reason of diversity, or multiplication of acts or of penalties. Hence can. 2244: "1. Not only diverse censures, but even a censure of the same species can be multiplied in the same subject. - 2. A censure latae sententiae is multiplied: a) if diverse delicts, each of which carries a censure with it, are committed by the same or by distinct action; b) if the same delict, punished by a censure, is repeated several times so that there are several distinct delicts; c) if a delict, punished by diverse censures by distinct superiors, is committed once or several times. - 3. A censure from man is multiplied if several precepts, or several sentences, or several distinct parts of the same precept or sentence each inflict its own censure."

C. The object or matter of a censure is an external, grave delict, consummated in its own kind and not merely attempted, joined with contumacy or with at least virtual contempt of the censure; moreover a censure can be brought even against unknown delinquents (can. 2242, § 1).

From the censure itself the following excuse: nullity of the censure, whether because of defect of jurisdiction, or because of a substantial defect of juridical order, or because of defect of a just cause, namely, not proved or not true; - defect on the part of sin; - physical and moral inability to observe the law; - grave fear, unless the delict tends to contempt of the faith or of ecclesiastical authority or to public harm of souls; - ignorance, never however affected ignorance, nor crass ignorance unless the law requires presumption, perfect knowledge, or temerity (can. 2205 and 2229).

From the effects of censure before the sentence of the judge the following excuse: grave infamy (can. 2232, § 1), grave scandal, and grave harm extrinsic to the observance of the censure and proportioned to it.

D. Absolution from censures is necessary for removing them (can. 2248, § 1); hence the dead are absolved from them if they have died with signs of penance, so that suffrages and ecclesiastical burial may be granted to them.

Now, according to can. 2253, the following can absolve:

From a censure not reserved, in the sacramental forum any confessor; outside the sacramental forum, whoever has jurisdiction over the accused in the external forum.

From a censure from man, he to whom the censure is reserved according to the norm of can. 2245, § 2, namely, he who inflicted it, or pronounced the sentence, or his competent superior or successor or delegate; he himself can grant absolution even if the accused has transferred his domicile or quasi-domicile elsewhere.

It is from man if it is brought by way of a particular precept or by a condemnatory judicial sentence, even if established in law; wherefore a penalty ferendae sententiae, added to a law, before the condemnatory sentence is only from the law, afterward from the law and from man at the same time, but is considered as from man (can. 2217, § 1, 3).

From a censure reserved by law, he who established the censure or to whom it is reserved, and their successors or competent superiors or delegates.

When a confessor can absolve from reserved censures was declared in n. 597, C.

The conditions for absolving are: a) on the part of the one absolving, legitimate power and a free will immune from force and grave fear unjustly extorting it (can. 2238); b) on the part of the one to be absolved: that he be a subject, that he seek absolution at least regularly, and that he firmly promise that he wishes to execute the commands of the Church concerning satisfaction and amendment; c) on the part of the delict, that satisfaction be made as far as possible to the injured person, scandal be repaired, and salutary penance be imposed besides sacramental penance.

It should be noted: a) Absolution can be given in the internal forum and in the external forum. Given in the external forum, it also has force in the internal forum; hence if someone has been absolved from a reserved censure, the sin is no longer reserved. Absolution in the internal forum of itself does not have force in the external forum; but, scandal having been removed, the one absolved can behave as such even in acts of the external forum; but, unless the granting of absolution is proved or legitimately presumed in the external forum, the censure can be urged by superiors of the external forum, whom the accused must obey, until absolution has been had in the same forum (can. 2251).

b) It is possible to be absolved from one censure and not from another (can. 2249, § 1).

c) Sometimes someone is absolved only from some effect of the censure: then the censure remains but the effect is taken away.

d) Absolution from censure can also be given to one absent, or even in writing (can. 2239).

e) Absolution in the sacramental forum is contained in the customary formula of absolution from sins; in the non-sacramental forum it can be given in any way, but for absolution from excommunication it is regularly fitting to use the form handed down in the Ritual (can. 2250, § 3).

E. There are three species of censure: excommunication, suspension, and interdict. For in a well-constituted republic there is the power of excluding from its social body certain persons harmful to it, of suspending others who administer badly from their office, and of forbidding to others certain acts and functions; therefore also in the Church, which was constituted by Christ as a perfect society.

According to can. 2255: a) "excommunication can affect only physical persons, and therefore, if at any time it is brought upon a moral body, it is understood to affect the individuals who have concurred in the delict; interdict and suspension can affect also a community, as a moral person;

b) excommunication and interdict can affect even laymen; suspension, clerics only; interdict, even a place;

c) excommunication is always a censure; interdict and suspension can be either censures or vindicative penalties, but in doubt they are presumed to be censures."

Vol. II, Tr. XIX, Ch. II, Article III. On the Subject of Censures · Vol. II, Tr. XIX, Ch. II, Article IV. On Absolution from Censures

Excommunication is graver, because it deprives of greater and more numerous goods.

Sabetti-Barrett, Compendium of Moral Theology

Aloysius Sabetti, S.J., and Timothy Barrett, S.J. — 14 passages

Vol. II, Tr. XIX, Ch. II, Article III. On the Subject of Censures

n. 950, Q. 6.

Question 6. What is the law concerning censures to be reserved?

Resp. § 1. Let no censure be reserved unless attention has been paid to the peculiar gravity of the delicts and the necessity of more suitably providing for ecclesiastical discipline and of healing the consciences of the faithful.

§ 2. Reservation receives a strict interpretation.

§ 3. The reservation of a censure impeding the reception of the Sacraments imports the reservation of the sin to which the censure is annexed; but if someone is excused from the censure or was absolved from it, the reservation of the sin completely ceases (Can. 2246).

n. 950, Q. 8.

Question 8. What is the law with relation to the reservation of censure in a particular territory?

Resp. § 2. Reservation of censure in a particular territory does not exert its force outside the limits of that territory, even if the censured person goes out of the territory to obtain absolution; but a censure ab homine is reserved everywhere, so that the censured person can nowhere be absolved without the due faculties (Can. 2247).

Vol. II, Tr. XIX, Ch. II, Article IV. On Absolution from Censures

Vol. I, Case VII: Absolution from Censures Reserved by the Bishop · Vol. III, Case LXXVII: Concerning Absolution from Censures

I say 1°. Censures are not loosed by the repentance alone of the delinquent or by obedience toward the mandates of the Church, nor by the death of him who brought the censure; but absolution imparted by a legitimate judge or superior is necessary.

§ 1. Any censure, once contracted, is removed only by legitimate absolution.

§ 2. Absolution cannot be denied as soon as the delinquent has withdrawn from contumacy according to the norm of can. 2242, § 3; but he who absolves from a censure can, if the matter bears it, inflict for the perpetrated delict a congruous vindicative penalty or penance.

§ 3. A censure, removed by absolution, does not revive, except in the case in which the burden imposed under penalty of reincidence has not been fulfilled (Can. 2248).

I say 2°. Neither from censures reserved a iure, nor from censures ab homine brought by a particular sentence, can simple confessors absolve, but only 1°. he who brought censures of this kind; 2°. his superior; 3°. his successor; 4°. another delegated by any one of these. The reason is that it belongs to him to absolve whose it is to bind. - But any confessor can absolve from censures a iure which are not reserved to the Pope or to the Bishop. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, nn. 70 and 72.

I say 3°. Any priest, even one not approved, can absolve from any censure those who are placed in the article of death. - Cf. below, Q. 9.

I say 4°. He is said to absolve in the internal forum or forum of conscience to whom the Superior has conceded the faculty of absolving, with the right of taking cognizance of that delict in the external forum and of imposing a penalty and satisfaction for it remaining safe.

If absolution of censure is given in the external forum, it affects both forums; if in the internal forum, the absolved person, scandal having been removed, can hold himself as such even in acts of the external forum; but unless the concession of absolution is proved or legitimately presumed in the external forum, the censure can be pressed by Superiors of the external forum, whom the guilty person must obey, until absolution shall have been obtained in the same forum (Can. 2251).

Absolution from censure given in the external forum takes it away both before the Church and before God; given in the internal forum, it takes it away before God, but not before the Church, because censure is a bond of the external forum, and although absolution in the internal forum takes it away before God, the Church can regard the person as censured in the external forum. Namely, perhaps it happens that someone has been censured on account of an occult delict; and such a one, for example a priest, must minister the sacraments to the faithful asking who do not know that he is bound by censure; nor is he himself held to defame and betray himself, which nevertheless he would have to do if he were obliged to deny the sacraments. And therefore provision must be made for both: namely, that censures not lose their medicinal force, and that the faithful receive the sacraments by the valid and licit action of the censured person. Accordingly there is this medium of absolution under certain conditions in the internal forum; but the Church can press the force of the censure until absolution is obtained in the external forum.

n. 952.

Questions

Question 1. What comes under the name of absolution to reincidence?

Resp. Absolution to reincidence is a certain species of conditional absolution, not insofar as he who has received it is not truly absolved, but insofar as he must fulfill certain conditions placed by law or by man; unless he fulfills these, he again falls into the same censure on account of new contumacy. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, nn. 87 and 125.

n. 952, Q. 2.

Question 2. Whether a general concession of absolving from censures reserved to the Pope suffices, so that someone can absolve even from those which are specially reserved?

Resp. Negatively, because whatever is specially reserved requires a special concession. Indeed confessors who, outside the article of death or the danger of grave scandal or infamy, presume to absolve anyone without due faculty, even under any pretext, from one of the censures which are reserved to the Supreme Pontiff in a special or most special mode, incur by the fact itself an excommunication simply reserved to the Pope. - Cf. Can. 2338, § 1.

n. 952, Q. 3.

Question 3. Is a certain determinate form of words required for absolving validly?

Resp. § 3. Absolution of censure in the sacramental forum is contained in the accustomed form of absolution of sins prescribed in the ritual books; in the non-sacramental forum it can be given in any way, but for absolution from excommunication it is regularly fitting to employ the form handed down in the same books (Can. 2250).

n. 952, Q. 4.

Question 4. Can an absent person be absolved?

Resp. Affirmatively, by force of canon 2239, § 1.

n. 952, Q. 5.

Question 5. Can an absent Bishop absolve one existing in the diocese?

Resp. Affirmatively, and the reason is that cognition of the cause and judicial formality are not required for absolution; and therefore nothing prevents the Bishop from exercising such an act of jurisdiction in another's territory. Nevertheless otherwise, if judicial formality should sometimes be required. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 21.

n. 952, Q. 6.

Question 6. Can an unwilling person be absolved?

Resp. Affirmatively, and the reason is the same as that just given: for just as a penalty can be brought against an absent and unwilling person, so also it can be taken away from him; nevertheless it is not expedient that this be done without a very grave reason, and with care lest, while he does not cease from contumacy, the censure be held in contempt. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 117.

n. 952, Q. 7.

Question 7. Can he who is bound by several censures be absolved from one, the others remaining?

Resp. § 1. If someone is detained by several censures, he can be absolved from one, the others in no way absolved.

§ 2. One seeking absolution must indicate all cases; otherwise the absolution is valid only for the expressed case; but if the absolution, although a particular petition had been made, was general, it is valid also for those kept back in good faith, except a censure reserved in a most special mode to the Apostolic See, but not for those kept back in bad faith (Can. 2249).

n. 952, Q. 8.

Question 8. Whether he who has not yet publicly repaired the scandal, on account of which he was subject to censure, can be absolved from censures?

Resp. Negatively, at least of itself and speaking generally, or as long as reparation is possible or does not bring excessive inconveniences. This is clear from the Declaration of the Sacred Penitentiary on the day 5 July 1827. - And altogether the same must be said of him who has not yet repaired the damage or injury on account of which he is subject to censure. For the censured person remains deprived of spiritual goods until, withdrawing from contumacy, he is absolved. Contumacy must be said to have ceased when the guilty person has truly repented of the committed delict and at the same time has given congruous satisfaction for damages and scandal, or at least has seriously promised it; but to judge whether the penance is true, whether the satisfaction is congruous or the promise of the same serious, or not, belongs to him from whom absolution of the censure is sought (Can. 2242, § 3).

n. 952, Q. 9.

Question 9. Are those absolved in the article of death by a confessor lacking special faculty, although they themselves were bound by censures, held to furnish anything?

Resp. Those who, placed in danger of death, have received from a priest lacking special faculty absolution from some censure ab homine or from a censure reserved in a most special mode to the Apostolic See, are held, after they have recovered, by the obligation of recurring, under penalty of reincidence, to him who brought the censure, if there is question of a censure ab homine; to the Sacred Penitentiary or to a Bishop or another endowed with faculty, according to the norm of can. 2254, § 1, if concerning a censure a iure; and of obeying their mandates (Can. 2252).¹

¹ Cf. Addenda, p. 1111, n. 53.

n. 952, Q. 10.

Question 10. Can a censured person ever be absolved from sins without first having been absolved from censure?

Resp. A distinction must be made between censures which do not impede and those which do impede reception of the sacraments.

§ 1. If there is question of a censure which does not impede reception of the Sacraments, the censured person, rightly disposed and withdrawing from contumacy, can be absolved from sins, the censure remaining firm.

§ 2. But if there is question of a censure which impedes reception of the Sacraments, the censured person cannot be absolved from sins, unless he shall first have been absolved from censure (Can. 2250).

n. 952, Q. 11.

Question 11. Who can absolve from censures outside the article of death?

Resp. A. Outside danger of death the following can absolve:

1°. From a non-reserved censure, in the sacramental forum any confessor; outside the sacramental forum, whoever has jurisdiction in the external forum over the guilty person;

2°. From a censure ab homine, he to whom the censure is reserved according to the norm of can. 2245, § 2; but he himself can concede absolution, even if the guilty person has transferred his domicile or quasi-domicile elsewhere;

3°. From a censure reserved a iure, he who established the censure or to whom it is reserved, and their successors or competent Superiors or delegates. Wherefore from a censure reserved to a Bishop or Ordinary, any Ordinary can absolve his subjects, but the Ordinary of the place also sojourners; 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 simply reserved, or special, if reserved in a special mode, or finally most special, if reserved in a most special mode, with the prescription of can. 2254 remaining safe (Can. 2253).

B. § 1. In more urgent cases, namely if censures latae sententiae cannot externally be observed without danger of grave scandal or infamy, or if it is hard for the penitent to remain in the state of grave sin for the time necessary that the competent Superior provide, then any confessor in the sacramental forum can absolve from the same censures, reserved in whatever way, with the burden of recurring enjoined, under penalty of reincidence, within at least a month by letter and through the confessor, if this can be done without grave inconvenience, the name being kept back, to the Sacred Penitentiary or to a Bishop or another Superior endowed with faculty, and of standing by his mandates.

§ 2. Nothing impedes the penitent, even after receiving absolution as above, and after recourse also has been made to the Superior, from approaching another confessor endowed with faculty, and from obtaining absolution from him, confession at least of the delict with the censure having been repeated; having obtained this, he may receive mandates from the same, without being held afterward to stand by other mandates supervening on the part of the Superior.

§ 3. But if in some extraordinary case this recourse is morally impossible, then the confessor himself, except the case in which there is question of absolution of a censure of which in Can. 2367, can concede absolution without the burden of which above, yet with those things enjoined which must be enjoined by law, and with a congruous penance and satisfaction imposed for the censure, so that the penitent, unless within a congruous time to be determined beforehand by the confessor he has done penance and given satisfaction, falls back into the censure (Can. 2254).

This canon (2254) declares itself; the case is more urgent if censures latae sententiae cannot be observed without danger of grave scandal or infamy (S. Off., 23 June 1886), or if it is hard for the penitent to remain in the state of grave sin for the time necessary that the superior provide, namely that the faculty of absolving from reserved censures be sought and conceded (16 June 1897), and that hard is rightly understood subjectively, with consideration of the penitent's disposition, according to which the confessor prudently judges that he sincerely wishes to obtain absolution as soon as possible; but any confessor will excite this disposition according to his powers; in the sacramental forum, therefore in the very administration of the sacrament; any confessor; wherefore henceforth these more urgent cases become like ordinary sins over which all confessors have power according to the canon rightly understood; the cases are censures latae sententiae, reserved in whatever way, whether papal, reserved to the Supreme Pontiff in a most special, special, or simple mode, or reserved by law to bishops, or episcopal censures reserved to themselves by the Ordinaries of places; he can absolve from the same; this absolution is direct, and touches all those cases (S. Penit., 7 Nov. 1888; 23 June 1886); not even the crime of attempted absolution of an accomplice is excepted; under penalty of reincidence into the same censures from which they have been absolved, for example, into simply or specially reserved censures, if they do not fulfill the burden enjoined: with the burden of recurring enjoined ... within at least a month by letter and through the confessor, if this can be done without grave inconvenience; but if a penitent passing by incidentally occurs to a missionary so that the missionary cannot see the penitent again, it suffices to exact from the penitent the promise of writing, with the name kept silent if he wishes, to the Sacred Penitentiary within a month, and of standing by its mandates, without the confessor himself writing (S. Penit., 7 Nov. 1885); this burden must be enjoined, even if the penitent has been perpetually impeded from personally going to Rome; nevertheless there can be cases in which the penitent can be absolved directly by a simple confessor without the burden of writing: 1°. when neither the confessor nor the penitent can send a letter to the Sacred Penitentiary and it is hard for the penitent to approach another confessor (S. Off., 9 Nov. 1898); 2°. when the penitent, unable to write, cannot present himself to the same confessor by whom, by force of the decree of 1886 and 1897, he was absolved, and it is hard to approach another confessor. Therefore the burden of recurring presses, if this can be done without grave inconvenience; the burden of recurring within a month, at least by letters and through the confessor. Cf., however, § 3, the last clause.

Now episcopal censures can be treated in the same way, with the same burden.

Recourse can be made either to the Sacred Penitentiary or to a bishop or another superior endowed with faculty, with the burden of standing by his mandates.

But such a penitent is certainly able to approach another confessor endowed with faculty, and to confess to him that delict to which the censure is added; and to be definitively absolved by him, even if recourse has already been made to the superior; having obtained absolution from that new confessor himself, and having received mandates from the same, he is not held to stand by the mandates of the superior which are about to supervene. There are cases, as we have seen, which the Congregations have admitted as exceptions to the Decree of 2 June 1886. These now are found in the explanation of the first paragraph. S. Off., 9 Nov. 1898; 7 June 1899; 5 Sept. 1900.

But if an extraordinary case happens in which recourse truly cannot be made, morally speaking, excepting the case of attempted absolution of an accomplice, the confessor can absolve without the burden of recurring; with those things enjoined which by law are to be enjoined, namely, besides withdrawal from contumacy, satisfaction to the injured party, reparation of public scandal, must be enjoined; and a congruous penance is to be imposed, so that the penitent falls back into the censure if, within a congruous time to be determined beforehand by the confessor, he has not done penance.

Concina, Compendium

Daniele Concina, O.P. — 16 passages

Diss. IV, Chapter III — On absolution from censures

n. I.

I. QUESTION I. Whether one entangled in a censure is bound under mortal sin to seek and solicit absolution as soon as he can? ANSWER. The affirmative opinion is common. The Salmanticenses, tract 10, chapter 1, point 1, no. 1, say: Any delay is mortal of its own kind, unless it be excused by smallness of matter or from other heads. With both thumbs I subscribe to this doctrine; whence it is inferred how false is the opinion concerning the delay of a sinner's conversion to God. Any delay in procuring absolution from an ecclesiastical censure, which deprives one of the use of certain spiritual goods, is of its own kind a mortal sin; and shall the delay of seeking absolution from a mortal sin, which deprives one of eternal life, be immune from mortal fault? I fear lest in respect of some that axiom be true: These men amplify ecclesiastical right, and cut short the Decalogue. Segregation from God, from the fellowship of the Angels, destination to dwell with devils — because it is remote from the senses — does not urge, does not prick, as does segregation from external and visible communication with the faithful.

n. II.

II. QUESTION II. Of how many kinds is absolution from a censure? ANSWER. One is absolute, by which the guilty party is absolutely loosed from the bond. Another conditioned, which depends upon a condition either past or present, as if thou hast satisfied the party, if thou shalt satisfy. Another absolution is called for caution, as when someone doubts that he is affected by a censure; which absolution can be imparted by any confessor whatsoever, a promise being made of furnishing satisfaction to the party, or of approaching the superior when the truth is discovered. Others are called with relapse, or with the penalty of falling back into the same censure, unless he who is absolved shall have performed what is imposed. Another is from one determinate effect, the rest being left, as when the Pontiff absolves someone and renders him fit for obtaining a benefice or another privilege. Without one of these absolutions a censure does not cease, neither by the death of the Superior passing it, nor by change of territory, nor by the death of the excommunicate: for the contrary opinion has been condemned by Alexander VII, no. 4: As regards the forum of conscience, the guilty party being corrected and his contumacy ceasing, the censure ceases.

n. III.

III. In absolution from a censure the formulas prescribed in the Rituals are to be observed. The solemnity to be observed in absolutions of this kind is had in chapter Per tuas on sentences of excommunication. The conditions nevertheless there prescribed are not today observed. Theologians dispute whether absolution be valid, the injured party not being satisfied with a real or pledged satisfaction. Many affirm it; but they say that the one absolving sins mortally and is obnoxious to restitution. When in a bull of Jubilee, or in another privilege, a faculty is granted of absolving from censures with this clause, the party being satisfied, otherwise let the absolution not hold, the absolution is not valid, the condition not being fulfilled, unless the one to be absolved be impotent to satisfy.

n. IV.

IV. It is agreed among all that one entangled in censures can validly be absolved even unwilling and resisting, and not only unknowing or not asking. Authors nevertheless distinguish a twofold resistance: one of not receding from the sin and the contumacy for which the censure was passed; the other of not asking absolution, although the guilty party be amended from the sin. In the former case, if the sin have a successive course, as heresy, theft, and so forth, they say he cannot be absolved unwilling, save by him who has power above the law and the precept. But if the sin be complete, as fornication, blasphemy, and other past sins, then they teach that he can be absolved even unwilling. Similarly they defend that he who is amended from the sin and is unwilling to ask absolution can be absolved. They advert nevertheless that then absolution is to be imparted only when it is foreseen to be more medicinal than the censure.

n. V.

V. A man can be absolved from one censure and not from another. But he who has the faculty of absolving from all censures can perform it by a single absolution. But if he lack such power, then he must be absolved by another who is endowed with this power. He who, being entangled in several censures, manifests one guilefully, the others being concealed, it is not to be thought that the confessor wills to absolve from all, unless he express it. If nevertheless the guilty party omit some from forgetfulness, and the judge absolve generally, then, unless something else be established, he is to be reckoned to will to absolve from all. Hence in the time of a Jubilee a man is generally absolved from all censures, although he have forgotten some; and from the forgotten sin to which a censure is annexed he can be absolved by any priest whatsoever; unless nevertheless some of the censures have conjoined a work of satisfying and compensating the injured party. For if the one to be absolved should conceal that he had not satisfied the injured party, that he had not receded from heresy, the absolution would be null.

n. VI.

VI. QUESTION III. Who can absolve from censures? ANSWER. All those who can pass censures can also absolve their own subjects from them: this a bishop can perform even in another's territory. He who has power of absolving from reserved cases has at the same time the faculty of absolving from censures, since absolution from censures ought to precede absolution from reserved cases to which censures are annexed. A faculty granted in a Jubilee, or in another privilege, of absolving from censures reserved to the Supreme Pontiff extends also to absolving an excommunicate denounced by name, whether by law or by man, if nevertheless he shall first have satisfied.

n. VII.

VII. Parish priests and ordinary confessors who can absolve from mortal sins can absolve from censures passed by law and not reserved, as authors commonly teach, and gather from chapter Nuper 29 on sentences of excommunication, and St. Thomas confirms it in the Suppl., q. 34, art. 1. On the contrary from censures reserved in law he only can absolve who passed them, or a superior, or a successor, or one delegated by the same. Wherefore from censures reserved to the Pontiff the Pontiff alone, from those reserved to the bishop the bishop alone, can absolve. In the article of death, as has been said elsewhere, any priest whatsoever can absolve from all censures; and, as Trent declared, session 24, chapter 7, the same faculty of absolving is granted to any confessor whatsoever, when access to the superior to whom the censures are reserved is impossible or exceedingly difficult, as is had in chapter Nuper a nobis 29 on sentences of excommunication, in these words: But if it be difficult from some just cause that he who is to be absolved from excommunication approach him, we concede by indulgence that (the caution being furnished according to the form of the Church, that he will obey the mandate of excommunication) he be absolved by his own bishop or proper priest. In these cases nevertheless — namely in the article of death, or by reason of an impediment — the confessor ought to exact from him whom he absolves an oath that, when he can, he will present himself to the superior. But if he shall have omitted, opportunity being given, to execute what he promised, he will fall back into the same censure. And although the confessor either from ignorance or from forgetfulness omit to impose this burden of appearing before the superior when the penitent can, nevertheless the penitent is bound to appear, because this burden depends not upon the confessor but upon the law. When nevertheless he is absolved from reserved cases to which censures are not annexed, there is no debt of appearing.

n. VIII.

VIII. QUESTION IV. Who can absolve from censures passed by man? ANSWER. He can absolve who passed the censure by a particular sentence against a determinate person, or a superior, or delegates. The same very many hold, if the censure was passed by man by way of a general sentence, precept, or statute for the avoiding of future delicts. But others more probably teach that from these censures not reserved, though passed by man, any confessor whatsoever can absolve, just as from censures passed by law.

n. IX.

IX. QUESTION V. What are the censures and cases reserved to the Supreme Pontiff from which bishops can absolve by ordinary right? ANSWER. Bishops can by ordinary right absolve from censures reserved to the Supreme Pontiff contracted from an occult delict, as Trent, session 24, chapter 6 On Reformation, established. Likewise from censures contracted for public delicts, when a grave necessity urges which renders access to the Supreme Pontiff difficult.

n. X.

X. They dispute whether this faculty granted to bishops by Trent was revoked by the Bull of the Supper as regards the cases contained in it. Very many denied it, others affirmed it; but Alexander VII seems to have taken away the suit by condemning the following thesis, no. 3: The opinion asserting that the Bull of the Supper forbids absolution from heresy and other crimes only when they are public, and that this does not derogate from the Tridentine faculty, in which the discourse is of occult crimes, was in the year 1629 on the 18th day of July in the consistory of the sacred Congregation of the Most Eminent Cardinals seen and not tolerated.

n. XI.

XI. There are nevertheless not wanting those who deny that by the recounted thesis the faculty granted to bishops by Trent was taken away, chiefly since in the proscribed thesis no mention is made of bishops, to whom this faculty belongs by law, and Trent only declared that it was not taken from them. But this decision does not depend upon the reasonings of theologians. Wherefore I now leave the controversy to be settled by those whom it concerns.

n. XII.

XII. By the name of an occult delict that is commonly understood which either has not been brought to the contentious forum, or is not known to the greater part of the parish, province, monastery, and so forth. Wherefore although it can be proved by witnesses, if it be not public in the said manner, it is commonly called occult. But they assert that it has then been brought to the contentious forum when it has been reported by one witness and proved. If nevertheless the accused have purged himself in the forum even by false witnesses, and been absolved, they contend that this guilty party can be absolved by a bishop having the faculty over occult delicts. So teach the Salmanticenses, tract 10, chapter 2, point 6, nos. 59 and 60, where they cite several authors. The Salmanticenses add in the same place that a guilty party punished in the contentious forum can be absolved by a bishop, because the judgment is finished: which opinion to me is false, since the delict is then known and notorious with a notoriety of right and of fact.

n. XIII.

XIII. QUESTION VI. What faculty have Regulars of absolving from cases and censures reserved to the Supreme Pontiff? ANSWER. Fr. Viva teaches that authors defend that Regulars can absolve from all cases reserved to the Apostolic See, the cases of the Bull of the Supper being excepted, and the six of Clement VIII in Italy outside the City. This is certain, that the power of absolving from pontifical cases does not infer a power of absolving from cases reserved to the bishop, since Alexander VII condemned this thesis, no. 12: Mendicants can absolve from cases reserved to the bishop without obtaining for this the faculty of bishops. He distinguishes nevertheless upon this proposition, no. 7, a threefold kind of cases reserved to a bishop. For some are reserved to the bishop by law or by custom, as the light striking of a cleric, and so forth: from these he says mendicants can absolve. Other cases are reserved to the bishop in a Synod: from these also Regulars can absolve, while they are not noted in the table, teach authors, subjoins the same Fr. Viva. Lastly there are cases reserved and set forth in the table: and of these the condemned thesis speaks. When a faculty is granted of absolving from all censures, it is understood, says Fr. Viva, even from reserved ones, because any priest whatsoever has the faculty of absolving from those not reserved.

n. XIV.

XIV. Lastly, by the concession of absolving from all cases reserved to the Apostolic See there are not understood the cases comprehended in the Bull of the Supper. Neither by the concession of absolving from the cases of the Bull of the Supper is there understood a faculty granted of absolving from heresy. That the opposite nevertheless is probable Fr. Viva concludes.

n. XV.

XV. The things which I have hitherto recounted out of Fr. Viva are in fact found among authors. The Salmanticenses, tract 10, chapter 2, point 6, no. 90, teach that regular Prelates can absolve their own subjects from all censures reserved to the Apostolic See, those excepted which are contained in the Bull of the Supper. They add that regular Prelates have by common law the same power over their own subjects which bishops have over their own diocesans. They allege several privileges granted to Mendicants, and chiefly the constitution of St. Pius V.

n. XVI.

XVI. I myself bring forth no judgment upon the faculty of Regulars of absolving either their own subjects or others. All greatly desire a distinct and perspicuous decision of the cases and reserved censures from which Regulars can absolve. But in vain do they expect this from theologians. For what can theologians decide upon privileges which are cited and are not found; or, if they be found, either have been revoked, or it is disputed whether they have been revoked? The decision of those things which regard the jurisdiction of absolving depends not upon the reasonings of theologians, but upon the will of the Supreme Pontiff. The Moderators of the sacred regular Orders ought to solicit and to urge that they themselves obtain from the Holy Apostolic See a perspicuous declaration of the faculty granted to Regulars. It is the part of those Moderators to settle this most grave controversy in the said manner, that subjects may know what jurisdiction they have in the recounted matter.

The Casuist

Various; ed. S. Woywod, O.F.M., and J. A. McHugh, O.P. — 43 passages

Vol. I, Case VII: Absolution from Censures Reserved by the Bishop

Applied correction from Woywod's opening insert: CASE VII, page 37.—As regards this case there is a new decree of the Holy Office, 13 July, 1916, which has been embodied in the New Code in Canons 899 and 900. According to the new regulations pastors and those held equal to them in law can absolve from the bishop's reserved cases during the entire period set down for the fulfilment of the Easter duty, and missionaries during the time of the mission. Furthermore, when people who cannot leave the house on account of sickness receive the sacraments at home and when those about to marry go to confession any priest can absolve them from the bishop's reserved cases. Also whenever the confessor judges that the faculty to absolve them cannot be asked without great inconvenience to the penitent or not without danger of violating the seal of confession the priest can for that case absolve them from the bishop's reserved cases. Finally, whenever the penitent goes to confession in another diocese where that sin is not reserved, even though he goes there precisely with that intention, the reservation does not prevent his receiving absolution.

^* Dr. Checchi, in Analecta Ecclesiastica.

Titius, in his confession preparatory for his Easter duty, acknowledges to Caius among other things that he once committed incest with a relative in the second degree. From the remarks of the confessor he learns (what he did not know before) that in the diocese this sin is reserved to the bishop with the censure of excommunication; and, therefore, that he must make his confession to the bishop, as Caius had no faculties to absolve him. However, Titius is in poor health and can not go to the bishop, whose residence is a great distance from the place; moreover, he usually goes to Communion with his wife on the next day (Thursday in Holy Week), and if he omits it this time it will cause scandal and loss of reputation, especially since his wife already suspects him of the very crime he has committed. On hearing this, Caius advises him to go to the pastor, who has, he says, the necessary faculties. Titius reluctantly consents, and when he tells his story to the pastor, the latter distresses him still farther by telling him that his faculties, which were only ad tempus, had recently lapsed. The pastor then consoles him by telling him that he can absolve him on other grounds; since, by a happy chance, he had lately received faculties to absolve from Papal censures, a fortiori he could do the same in cases reserved to the bishop; for, as the ancient theological saw has it: "Qui potest plus, potest etiam et minus in eodem genere."

Quaeritur:

Whether and when, outside of danger of death, an ordinary confessor can absolve a penitent from censures reserved to the bishop?

Whether Caius could have absolved Titius from the episcopal censure on the grounds that he was ignorant of its existence?

n. ¶6.

Was the pastor's course of action proper, and was his reasoning correct?

n. ¶7.

Ad. 1. The question is concerning absolution from censures reserved by the Bishop. A special decree of the Holy Office (June 23, 1886) regulates the question of absolving from censures reserved to the Pope. But since this decree does not affect episcopal cases, we must here follow the ancient law of the Decretals.

n. ¶8.

The question is, moreover, concerning absolution extra mortis articulum.

n. ¶9.

The Council of Trent, treating these matters, says: “Nevertheless, with great piety, 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 from any sins and censures whatsoever. Outside that point, since priests have no power in reserved cases, they should endeavor to urge this one thing upon penitents: that they approach their Superiors and lawful judges for the benefit of absolution.”

n. ¶10.

Accordingly any one who falls under a censure reserved by the bishop, and is not in danger of death, is ordinarily bound to go personally to that superior, not being able to receive absolution from an ordinary confessor. However, it can easily happen that on account of some physical or moral impediment the penitent is lawfully hindered from going to the bishop, while at the same time there may be an urgent reason for his getting absolution—v. g., he can not omit receiving Communion or saying Mass without scandal and loss of reputation; or he will have to miss his yearly Confession or his Easter Communion; or he will have to remain a long while in the state of mortal sin. In such cases neither the Church as a tender mother nor any superior can be considered as wishing to bind the penitent to something impossible, or, at least, very onerous. Therefore under such circumstances the faculties to absolve belong to any confessor. But his course of action will depend upon the nature of the case and the length of the time that the penitent will be hindered from going to the bishop.

n. ¶11.

Let us suppose in the first place that the impediment to seeing the bishop is brevis temporis—that is to say, not lasting beyond six months. Given such an impediment and an urgent case, the confessor can absolve the penitent at least indirectly, imposing on him the obligation of appearing, when circumstances would permit, before the bishop or his representative for such cases, to be absolved directly.

n. ¶12.

If the impediment to seeing the bishop is longi temporis (between six months and five years), the penitent can be absolved directly; with the obligation of appearing before the bishop or his delegate if the sin be reserved with a censure, but otherwise not. If finally the impediment is perpetual, or beyond five years, the reservation is considered as simply done away with, and the penitent is absolved directly without obligation upon him to appear before the higher authorities. (Cf. S. Lig. VI. n. 585; VII. n. 85 ss.; Bucceroni, De. Cens. 47 ss.)

n. ¶13.

Ad. 2. Affirmative: that is, Caius could have absolved Titus from the sin of incest reserved by the bishop with the accompanying excommunication.

n. ¶14.

If it were a question of a case reserved with censure by the Roman Pontiff, there would be no difficulty. For it is the common opinion of Doctors that reservation of such sort is not incurred by those who are unaware of the censure; for papal cases are reserved principally and immediately on account of the censure, from which, as a rule, ignorance excuses. Since in these cases the censure is reserved directly, and the sin to which is attached only mediately, therefore as the sin is indivisible from the censure, when the censure is reserved, the sin also is reserved; and on the other hand, since the censure is the reason for the reservation of the sin, when the reason (viz., the censure) does not hold, the sin is no longer reserved. (Cf. S. Lig. vi, n. 580.)

n. ¶15.

So when any case is reserved by the bishop with censure, it is equally certain that the censure is not incurred by one who is unaware of it. But the question arises whether, granted that the person is excused by ignorance from the episcopal censure, the sin itself may not remain reserved.

n. ¶16.

On this point theologians are divided, as may be seen in S. Lig. (VI. n. 581, dubit. 2) Aversa (De poenit. q. 17, Sec. II, Sec. 6); says:

n. ¶17.

“The censure could indeed simply be removed while the reservation of the sin remained. In reality, however, and concomitantly, the matter stands thus: once the censure has been removed, by that very fact the reservation of the sin also ceases... and if from the outset someone is excused from incurring the censure, although not from the fault—as can happen because of ignorance—he is likewise excused from the reservation of the fault itself. For by the Superior’s intention the reservation of the fault is so joined to the censure that it is found only together with it. And the Doctors commonly agree in this teaching.”

n. ¶18.

Among more recent writers, Card. D'Annibale (Summ., Vol. I. n, 340, edit. III.) expresses this opinion:

n. ¶19.

“In cases reserved by the Roman Pontiff either to himself or to Ordinaries, it is agreed that the reservation of the censure is principal and that of the sin accessory; wherefore, if anything excuses from the censure, the reservation ceases entirely. In those which Ordinaries have reserved to themselves, there is not sufficient agreement; the more common opinion holds that both reservations are equally principal, and consequently they think that, even if the censure is absent, the reservation of the sin remains; the less common opinion, which seems to me truer, holds that in these the law is the same as in censures reserved by the Roman Pontiff; and therefore, if the censure is not incurred, the reservation ceases.” And this view is sustained by Ballerini-Palmieri (Vol. V, n. 476, Edit. III).

n. ¶20.

The contrary opinion, however, is held as the better one by St. Alphonsus (loc cit., n. 581). For this view the following reasons are generally offered:

n. ¶21.

a. Papal and episcopal cases differ in this, that in the papal cases the censure is reserved principally and indivisibly; in episcopal cases the sin is reserved principally and per se, and the censure is attached to it.

n. ¶22.

b. This is confirmed by the words in which episcopal reservations are expressed in the table of reservations: "Casus reservati, quibus est adnexa excommunicatio."

n. ¶23.

c. The same is proved from the end of reservation, namely, that sinners should be more strictly bound, and that they should be deterred from sin by the double reservation.

n. ¶24.

But the answer to these reasons is not difficult.

n. ¶25.

As for the first reason advanced, it is certain that Canon Law does not back up the distinction; and moreover, the words in which the reason is expressed do not present an argument for it, but only state the opinion itself in another form.

n. ¶26.

To the second D'Annibale answers (loc. cit. nota 25) that the words used in expressing these reservations on the tables do not afford an argument: “for in law even land bound as a pledge is so called (L. 2, de Curat. furios. dan.), and things bound as pledges are so called (L. 22, de Jure fisci), and surely no one would say that the land or thing is accessory to the pledge.”

n. ¶27.

Finally it is not reasonable that for less serious crimes—and such are those reserved by bishops when compared with those reserved by the Pope—the reservation should be more strict than for graver ones. We conclude therefore that the opinion which holds that censures reserved by the bishop are on the same level in law as those reserved by the Pope, is not wanting in grave probability, both intrinsic and extrinsic. And in this case there were grounds enough and to spare for Caius to act on and absolve Titius.

n. ¶28.

But even if Caius wished to follow the view of St. Alphonsus that in episcopal cases the reservation remains even though the censure for any reason do not hold, he could still have absolved Titius.

n. ¶29.

For, in the first place, it is evident from the case that Titius was ignorant not only of the censure, but of the reservation also. Now although the more common opinion holds with St. Alphonsus (VI. n. 581) that ignorance of the reservation does not excuse, the opposite view is held by a number of theologians (Cf. Gury-Ballerini, De Sacramento Poenitentiae, n. 383).

n. ¶30.

In the second place, even disregarding the point just made, there are other features in the case which are in favor of Titius. He is in poor health, and can not go personally to the bishop, who lives a great distance away; moreover, since he is accustomed to receive Communion on Holy Thursday, he can not omit it without scandal and loss of good name, especially since his wife already suspects him of the incest. There is question, therefore, of a penitent who, though not in danger of death, is legitimately impeded from going to the bishop; and together with this impediment—brevis temporis apparently—there is an urgent reason why he should communicate. Now, as is evident from the answer given above to our first question, in such a matter of urgency Caius could absolve Titius saltem indirecte, with the obligation of going to the bishop or his delegate whenever circumstances would permit. I say saltem indirecte, according to the more common opinion, given by St. Alphonsus (VI, n. 585), and based on the statement of the Council of Trent (Sess. XIV, Cap. VIII) that ordinary priests have no power in reserved cases. But other theologians are of opinion that even in episcopal cases the absolution is always direct, even though the impediment be only brevis temporis. The passage from Trent cited by St. Alphonsus does not affect this, for it clearly supposes that there is ability to reach the superior authorities: “Outside that point, since priests have no power in reserved cases, they should endeavor to persuade penitents of this one thing: that they approach their superiors and lawful judges for the benefit of absolution.”

n. ¶31.

These theologians admit, however, that in such cases there remains upon the penitent the obligation of appearing before the superior, not indeed for Confession, but to receive from him a fitting punishment or salutary warnings; so that the onus put upon the penitent is practically the same.

n. ¶32.

Ad. 3. Just as Caius could have absolved Titus, so, too, the pastor could do it. Therefore his action, considered in itself, was right.

n. ¶33.

But his line of reasoning was wrong. For no confessor, even though he have faculties to absolve from Papal cases, can absolve validly or licitly in cases which the bishop has reserved, unless he has special faculties to do so. Clement X put an end to the controversies which were formerly aroused about this matter, especially with regard to the privileges of regulars, in the Constitution Superna, which declares:

n. ¶34.

“By the faculties granted to regulars of any order, institute, or society, even the Society of Jesus, through the Mare Magnum or other privileges, no power has been given them in cases reserved by the Bishop.... And those having the faculty to absolve from all cases reserved to the Apostolic See cannot on that account absolve from cases reserved to the Bishop.”

n. ¶35.

The pastor, therefore, has made a wrong application of the principle: "Qui potest plus, potest etiam et minus in eodem genere." This principle holds good when the more and the less are in the same proximate genus; for instance, if one have the power of dispensing in certain vows, he has the power of commuting the same. So also if he can absolve from papal cases reserved speciali modo, he can absolve from those reserved simpliciter. But papal and episcopal reserved cases, though coming under the same remote genus of reserved cases, are not in the same proximate genus.

Vol. III, Case LXXVII: Concerning Absolution from Censures

Applied correction from Woywod’s opening insert: Case LXXVII.—The number of papal censures now in force must be learned from the New Code, since the Bull "Apostolicae Sedis" and all other papal documents dealing with censures are revoked. Generally speaking the censures of the Bull "Apostolicae Sedis" have been retained. Concerning the absolution from these cases the Code makes hardly any change from the recent laws on that point. The bishop is given faculty to absolve in occult cases from censures simpliciter reserved to the Holy See but he needs special faculties to absolve from those specialissimo and speciali modo reserved. Canon 2237.

The faculty is likewise renewed for all priests to absolve from any papal reserved case in more urgent cases, namely when it is hard for the penitent to wait for absolution until the faculty can be obtained. The obligation, however, remains after the absolution to have recourse to the authorities or to one delegated and this recourse must be made within a month, otherwise the penitent falls again into the censure. If in some extraordinary case the priest should judge that recourse to the authorities is morally speaking impossible, with the exception of the case of solicitation, the confessor may give absolution and impose a special penance which must be done in the time prescribed by him under pain of falling again into the same censure. Canon 2254.

In danger of death the priest can absolve from all censures but in those specialissimo modo reserved to the Holy See, and in the censures inflicted by a personal precept of either Pope or bishop the sick person is bound to have recourse to the respective authorities after recovery from the sickness. This recourse is demanded under pain of falling again into the censure. Canon 2232.

That in regard to the absolutio a censuris many doubts exist is proven by the many inquiries, especially in recent times, that are addressed in this matter to the Congregatio S. Officii: We will therefore quote here a very important decision. It is well known that almost all censures latae sententiae, now in effect, are contained in the Constitutio Apostolicae Sedis issued by Pius IX. October 12, 1869. By reason of this bull there are distinguished for absolution four classes of censures: (1) Those speciali modo reserved to the Pope; (2) those simpliciter reserved to the Pope; (3) those reserved to bishops; (4) those not reserved to anyone, and from which any approved priest may absolve. The Council of Trent, Sessio XXIV. cap. 6. de Ref., granted to bishops the power: in any secret cases, even those reserved to the Apostolic See, to absolve any offenders subject to them within their own diocese, either by themselves or through a vicar specially appointed for this purpose, in the forum of conscience, without charge, after a salutary penance has been imposed. Bishops therefore had the power to absolve from all, even from papal censures, if they were secret; therefore came into consideration merely pro foro interno. This power has, however, been restricted by the bull Apostolicae Sedis. The bull orders: Nevertheless, We will that the faculty of absolving granted to bishops by the Council of Trent, Session XXIV, chapter 6, On Reform, shall remain in force for all censures reserved to the Apostolic See by this Our constitution, excepting only those which We have declared reserved in a special manner to that same Apostolic See. Since then can bishops consequently de jure only absolve from censures simpliciter reserved to the Pope, if they are secret, but not from those reserved speciali modo. There can be no doubt in this matter. What, however, about these latter censures, Superveniente impedimento adeundi Papam? Until the issue of the bull Apost. Sedis the universally accepted principle was: Casus papalis superveniente impedimento adeundi Papam fit episcopalis, and if a person under censure was prevented from presenting himself personally to the Pope, not only by danger of death, but also on account of sickness, decrepitude or poverty, any priest could absolve him. The bull Apost. Sed. put this principle in doubt. For this reason the following dubia were laid before the Congregatio S. Officii: (1) Whether one might safely hold the opinion that the absolution from reserved cases, including those reserved to the Pope speciali modo, would devolve on a bishop or approved priest, if the penitent found it impossible personaliter adeundi S. Sedem? (2) The first question answered in the negative, if it would be necessary to have recourse to the Grand Penitentiary in Rome, at least in writing, to receive the facultas absolvendi, except for absolution in danger of death?

In reply to this came July 30, 1886, the following decision, confirmed by the Holy Father Leo XIII:

To I. In view of the practice of the Sacred Penitentiary, especially since the publication of the Apostolic Constitution of Pius IX of holy memory which begins Apostolicae Sedis: No.