Absolution

234. Pious custom, which nevertheless does not oblige in conscience, has this, that before confession the confessor bless the penitent with these words:

May the Lord be in your heart and on your lips, that you may rightly confess all your sins, in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.

But the form of the sacrament of penance is:

May almighty God have mercy on you and, your sins having been dismissed, bring you through to eternal life. Amen. Then, with the right hand raised toward the penitent, he says:

May the almighty and merciful Lord grant you indulgence, absolution, and remission of your sins. Amen.

May our Lord Jesus Christ absolve you, and I by his authority absolve you from every bond of excommunication, (suspension) and interdict, insofar as I can and you need. Then I absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.

May the passion of our Lord Jesus Christ, the merits of the Blessed Virgin Mary and of all the Saints, whatever good you have done and evil you have borne, be to you unto remission of sins, increase of grace, and reward of eternal life. Amen.¹

¹ Roman Ritual, tit. 3, c. 3.

235. On the form itself. A twofold form of this sacrament is distinguished: essential, which from the Council of Trent¹ is contained in these words: I absolve you from your sins; and rubrical, which is that whole form prescribed in the Ritual. This again is twofold: preceptive, which is constituted by the words: May our Lord... in the name of the Father, etc.; directive, which is constituted by the words which are had before and after the essential form. A valid form of absolution must express three things: a. the person of the minister judging with due authority: I absolve; b. the person of the accused: you; c. the genus of bond from which the accused is absolved by judicial sentence: from sins.

If the words of the form are considered as human words in the obvious and natural sense, they have this sense: I by judicial sentence free you from your sins. But if they are considered as sacramental words, namely insofar as they have been elevated by Christ to signify the sacramental effect, they have this sense: I by judicial sentence confer on you grace of itself remissive of the sin committed by you. For the sacraments were instituted by Christ to signify and produce grace, which in baptism is remissive of original sin, but in penance of personal sin committed after baptism.

¹ Sess. 14, c. 3.

236. On the essential form. Not all the words of the essential form are required for the value of the sacrament: for the form is certainly valid: I absolve you from sins; this form is probably valid: I absolve from your sins, because the person who is absolved is sufficiently signified by the word your; likewise this form: I absolve you, because the debt of sin from which the penitent is absolved is sufficiently clear from this, that absolution is granted by a priest who is furnished with the power of remitting sins. Yet since, because of the disagreement of authors, it is not altogether certain that these last two forms suffice for valid absolution, the whole essential form must always be pronounced, with the invocation of the most holy Trinity also added, not indeed from the necessity of the sacrament, but from the use and custom of the Church in this way: I absolve you from (your) sins in the name, etc.

a. The chief argument by which it is shown that these words I absolve you suffice for valid absolution is taken from this, that the Greeks use this form: I have you absolved; but it cannot be affirmed that the Greeks absolve invalidly through the form granted to them by the Council of Florence. And certainly these words: I absolve you, pronounced over the penitent after the confession of his sins has been made, from the circumstances signify absolution from sins.

b. He who absolves with this formula: I absolve from your sins or: I absolve you, sins gravely: for since these forms are only probably valid, the sacrament is exposed to the danger of nullity. Therefore if someone had absolved with this form, the absolution would have to be repeated with the whole essential form used. He who omits I, amen, or the invocation of the most holy Trinity sins only lightly, because he changes the form only accidentally and in a non-notable way.

c. Several can also be validly absolved at once by this form: I absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father, etc.; and this can licitly be done in a case of necessity, e.g., in shipwreck, before battle, etc.¹

¹ Cf. Lacroix, l. 6, pr. 2, n. 645.

237. On the rubrical form. 1. The prayers which precede absolution, Misereatur and Indulgentiam, the Council of Trent¹ says are laudably added; according to the opinion of doctors, this word does not signify a precept. Code cn. 885 admonishes: "Let them not be omitted, unless from a just cause."

A cause of this kind is constituted both by lack of time, whether on the part of the confessor or on the part of the penitent, and by a multitude of penitents.

2. From the prescription of the Church, absolution from censures (from every bond of excommunication, suspension, and interdict) is premised as a precaution to absolution from sins, because it is not fitting that he be reconciled with God who has not first been reconciled with the Church.

a. To absolve from sins first, with absolution from censures omitted, a penitent who certainly has incurred a censure (excommunication), is a grave sin against the grave precept of the Church, although the absolution is valid. Nevertheless, by this form: I absolve you from your sins, the confessor can also absolve from censures, provided by these words he intends to absolve both from sins and from censures; nevertheless, in a case of urgent danger it is better to use these words: I absolve you from censures and sins in the name, etc.

b. To omit absolution from censures is no sin where there is no probable suspicion that the penitent has incurred a censure; it is venial where this suspicion is present.²

3. The word suspension must be omitted if the penitent is a layman; and ordinarily it is licitly omitted if he is a cleric constituted in minor orders: for he cannot be suspended from order, and scarcely any such cleric has a benefice or jurisdiction from which he could be suspended.³

4. The word then is not to be omitted, but must be pronounced, since it pertains to the text of the rubrical form.

Previously the opinion of many was that this word had to be omitted, because, since it was printed in red in several editions of the Roman Ritual, it pertained to the rubric; but in the typical edition of the Roman Ritual it is printed in black, from which it is clear that it pertains to the form itself. And rightly so, because the confessor says that he absolves first from censures, then from sins.

5. The prayer Passio, which follows absolution, can licitly be omitted in more frequent confessions,⁴ indeed probably in all. Yet because according to the opinion of some this prayer elevates all works of the penitent to the merit of sacramental satisfaction, without necessity it is not entirely to be omitted, but at least, while the penitent withdraws, it is to be added.⁵ Nevertheless several deny that these words have any other efficacy than the other prayers which the priest utters in the name of the Church.⁶

Lest the opinion which attributes greater efficacy to these words appear plainly incredible, it must at least be restricted in this way: namely, that by this prayer the works of the penitent acquire no power except of remitting the punishments due for sins remitted in that confession. For the power of the keys which the confessor uses extends only to sins to be destroyed as to guilt and punishment which here and now are submitted to the keys. For this reason, by those words not all the works of the penitent are indefinitely elevated to the power of sacramental satisfaction, but only those which are required for destroying the whole temporal punishment due for sins remitted in that confession.⁷

6. From the prayer Indulgentiam up to the prayer Passio, the rubric prescribes that the hand is to be raised and that at absolution the sign of the cross is to be formed; and although these can be omitted without sin, nevertheless it is fitting that they always be done.

¹ Cf. sess. 14, c. 3.

² St. Alphonsus, n. 430.

³ Cf. Bucceroni (Casus consc., n. 354), who teaches the same with Reuter, Gobat, and Stoz.

⁴ Cf. Roman Ritual, tit. 3, c. 2.

⁵ Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 430, 507.

⁶ Lugo, disp. 25, n. 56.

⁷ Cf. Stoz, l. 2, n. 115.

238. On the qualities of absolution. Absolution must be vocal, directed to one present, and of itself pronounced absolutely.

1. Vocal. Neither the character of judgment nor the character of sacrament demands that the judicial sentence be pronounced by voice; and certainly in other judgments a sentence is pronounced also in writing (and on one absent), and the character of sacrament demands nothing else except that it be sensible. Therefore that the form of absolution in the sacramental judgment must be pronounced by voice for the value of the sacrament is had from the will and institution of Christ. This is established from the perpetual use of the Church, which has never admitted absolution given in writing or by nod as licit, nor recognized it as valid. Indeed the Council of Florence says that the form of this sacrament is the words of absolution which the priest pronounces when he says: I absolve you, etc.¹ But it is not necessary that the penitent hear the words of absolution.

¹ Cf. Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 699; Council of Trent, sess. 14, c. 3.

239. 2. Toward one present. From the will of Christ instituting this sacrament, absolution which is given to one absent is invalid; for valid absolution it is required that the penitent be morally present.¹ Moral presence is judged to be that within which men, although with a somewhat raised voice, can and are accustomed to speak with each other; and according to the judgment of authors this can still happen within about twenty paces, especially if the penitent is seen. For if the penitent is not distant by more than about twenty paces, the words of absolution are still judged by the common judgment of men to fall upon him. But the rule of those seems to be rejected who judge absolutely that the confessor can absolve even a very distant penitent, whom he still sees or perceives by some sense. For since this sacrament was instituted by way of judgment, that presence is rightly required within which a judge absolves or condemns an accused person present, namely that within which he can speak in a human way with the accused.

a. Therefore absolution is not certainly valid if the confessor and penitent are in different rooms which do not communicate with each other. In like manner it is not certainly valid if they are indeed found in the same place, but are distant from each other by more than twenty paces.

b. But when necessity presses, the penitent can and must be absolved as often as he can be perceived by some sense, even if in reality because of an accidental impediment he is not perceived; under condition, however, if he is distant by more than twenty paces. Hence alpha. he who is seen to fall from a roof, to fall into a river, to be submerged in the sea, is to be absolved; beta. a dying man whom the confessor for any cause whatsoever cannot approach must be absolved from the door; gamma. one wounded in a street can be absolved from the window of the nearest house.

c. An entire army can be absolved, provided the whole multitude of soldiers is present to the one absolving; but they are judged present even if the last are distant far beyond twenty paces. But if the distance of the last is so great that conversation with them is not possible even with a somewhat raised voice, they are no longer judged present in order that they can be validly absolved. Therefore great armies are usually divided into several parts and the individual parts are absolved.

d. If the penitent withdraws from the confessor, not yet absolved, and thinks himself absolved, these things must be observed: alpha. if he can conveniently be reached and recalled, he must be recalled so that he may be absolved, unless he is near the confessional: for in this case he can be absolved without being recalled; beta. if he cannot be recalled, he is to be absolved, provided he is certainly morally present, whether he is seen or not seen, but is known certainly to be present among the nearby crowd; gamma. if he is no longer present and is not going to return afterward, nothing is to be done, but the matter is to be committed to God; delta. if afterward he returns to the same confessor, and indeed for making a confession, he is to be warned to grieve for all his sins and then absolved. But if he were to meet the confessor for another end, of itself he would have to be warned outside confession about the defect of absolution. Yet since an admonition of this kind happens to be troublesome to most penitents and very difficult for confessors because of the danger of scandal and infamy, in these circumstances it can be omitted: for the penitent suffers no spiritual damage, since in the following confession he is absolved indirectly from the same sins.²

e. Absolution by telephone seems to be invalid: for the sacraments were so instituted by Christ the Lord that those things which are required for their value must be present in a human and natural way. Therefore in the sacrament of penance that presence of the one confessing is required by which he can speak with the confessor in a human and natural way; but conversation by telephone is an artificial mode of speaking with one absent; for it is not the human voice of the one speaking, but a sound artificially produced by this voice, that is heard by telephone. Therefore the Sacred Penitentiary (1 July 1884), to the question "whether in a case of extreme necessity absolution can be given by telephone," responded: nothing is to be answered.³

¹ Formerly this question was disputed among theologians, whether Christ instituted this sacrament in such a way that absolution could licitly and validly be given even to one absent. But Clement VIII (20 June 1602) proscribed as false, rash, and scandalous this proposition: It is licit through letters or an intermediary sacramentally to confess sins to an absent confessor and from the same absent confessor to obtain absolution. Because absolution imparted to one absent was declared simply illicit, at the same time it was declared invalid: for if it were not invalid, it could not be prohibited in a case of necessity as illicit. And since Paul V (14 July 1605) reprobated each part of this proposition also taken separately, therefore not only the opinion which says that one absent can be absolved who has confessed to a confessor absent, but also the opinion which says that one absent can be absolved, provided he confessed while present, is invalid. In every case absolution which is given to one absent is invalid, whether he confesses while present and is absolved only while absent, or confesses and is absolved while absent. However, it cannot be demonstrated with certainty that absolution is invalid which is given to one present who confessed while absent, e.g., by letters or by an intermediary, especially if it concerns a dying man deprived of senses, whom others (even absent ones) testify to have previously asked for absolution. But absolution given to a penitent who confessed while absent by letters or messenger and afterward, present, only says in general that he confesses his sins already known to the confessor and asks absolution, must in no way be judged invalid.

² Gobat, Exper. theol., tr. 7, n. 284 f.

³ C. A. Eschbach, La confession par telephone (Tournai: Castermann), Examen 1887; Reponse 1888.

240. 3. Absolutely. Absolution is ordinarily to be given absolutely; yet since absolution under a condition concerning the present or past is certainly valid, it is also licit from a just cause. The rule according to which the confessor ought to direct himself in this matter is this: absolution under condition can and must be given as often as, if it were not given, notable spiritual damage would threaten, and if it were given absolutely, nullity and irreverence of the sacrament would have to be feared. This rule holds the middle way between the too lax practice of those who judge that conditional absolution can be given from any light cause whatsoever, even when there is any kind of doubt concerning the sufficient disposition of the penitent burdened even with mortal sins, and the too rigid doctrine of those who hold that absolution under condition is not to be granted except in extreme necessity, namely in the highest danger of life.

a. In the following cases there are judged to be just and sufficiently grave causes for granting absolution under condition, of which some are on the part of the confessor, others on the part of the penitent. And so:

alpha. If the confessor positively and prudently doubts whether he has duly absolved the penitent.

beta. If the confessor doubts whether he has jurisdiction over this penitent or over these sins, but the penitent, with absolution denied, would have to remain for a long time in sin.

gamma. In doubt concerning the disposition of the penitent, if absolution cannot be deferred without grave inconvenience.

delta. In doubt concerning the sufficiency of the matter, which cannot be solved, as if the penitent is a child or half-witted. These can sometimes be absolved, lest they remain in mortal sin, if perhaps they have committed it.¹

epsilon. In doubt whether the penitent who needs absolution and thinks himself absolved is morally present.

zeta. In doubt whether a dying man deprived of senses is capable of the sacrament.

eta. In doubt whether the sick person is living or dead.

b. Absolution in the same act of confession must be repeated not conditionally but absolutely as often as the penitent, after absolution has already been received, brings necessary matter of confession. Therefore if alpha. he confesses a new mortal sin; beta. if he confesses a new circumstance changing the species; gamma. if he confesses a notably greater number, he has not yet been directly absolved from this matter, which is necessary matter; wherefore the obligation lies on the confessor of absolving the penitent, lest he compel him again to confess a sin already declared in sacramental confession. But if the penitent, after absolution has already been received, accuses a new venial sin, a new absolution can be given, but need not be.² Whether in these cases new sorrow must be elicited will be said below.

¹ Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 432.

² Elbel-Bierbaum, III, pr. 9, nn. 33 and 45.

292. In absolving the dying, of itself the same rules must be observed which are established concerning the absolution of others; wherefore it is not licit to absolve a dying person who with moral certitude is judged indisposed, as if he refuses to fulfill a grave obligation, because it is not licit knowingly to frustrate a sacrament. Yet since in absolving the dying a threefold difficulty especially is usually encountered, on account of defect of entire confession, on account of defect of disposition, and on account of defect of sensible accusation, these matters must be treated in particular.

1. The dying are excused from the precept of integrity on account of either physical or moral impotence: for no one is bound to the impossible.

Hence a. if the dying man, after one or another sin has been said, fails or is deprived of the senses, he is meanwhile to be absolved. b. Likewise, if the sick person cannot institute a longer confession without grave detriment to health or without great difficulty, after the sins which he can accuse without too great difficulty have been heard, he is to be absolved. c. If the sick person on account of weakness of the head cannot institute a more accurate examination of conscience, after those things which he can declare without examination have been heard, he is to be absolved. d. Indeed, if only in general, either by words or by other signs, he can declare that he has sinned, he is to be absolved, and indeed absolutely, unless for another reason a condition must be added; nevertheless, in all these cases the omitted things must afterward be supplied, if this can be done.

293. 2. As regards disposition, this is always supposed in the dying deprived of the senses unless it is certain that it is lacking. Therefore under condition are absolved: a. not only those who lived as Christians, even if before they were deprived of the senses they gave no sign of penance; but b. also those who lived not very Christianly; indeed c. even those who in the very act of sin, e.g., in a duel, in theft, from suicide, etc., were deprived of the senses. For it can happen that they have lucid intervals, in which they know their state and the danger of eternal damnation, and, after an act of sorrow has been elicited, desire to be reconciled with God through absolution. If, therefore, they can morally be sufficiently disposed, in this extreme necessity it is licit to absolve them.

Therefore those cannot be absolved at death in whom an act of penance can be supposed by no reasonable foundation; or, as the Roman Ritual has it, the "impenitent and those who die in manifest mortal sin" are not to be absolved.¹ Of this kind are, first, those who up to that time at which they were deprived of the senses expressly rejected the minister of the Church and its sacraments; then also those who lived so impiously that they knowingly persevered in sin and impenitence up to the extreme moments of life, although they did not reject the sacraments of the Church which had not been offered to them. For with no probability, not even a slight one, can these be presumed disposed, unless God converts them to himself by an extraordinary miracle of grace; but extraordinary miracles of grace are neither to be presumed nor can they be the norm in administering the sacraments.

¹ Roman Ritual, tit. 5, c. 1, n. 8.

294. 3. Finally, as regards sensible accusation, it is licit to absolve not only the dying who manifest before the confessor by words or other signs the desire of confessing, but also dying persons deprived of the senses who signified the desire of confessing through others, for example by asking for a confessor, who testify this to the confessor; indeed also those who manifested the desire of confessing outwardly by no sign: for this is held by the common practice received today in the Church.

a. Absolution is to be given absolutely if the dying person, whether by himself or by another, manifested the desire of confession; and it is to be given conditionally if he gave no sign of confession and sorrow.¹ Moreover, since according to a probable opinion it suffices that the condition be added virtually and implicitly, and anyone who administers the sacraments according to the mind of the Church adds it thus,² it is not necessary that the confessor be very anxious about conditional absolution.

b. The greatest difficulty of this matter is in explaining the validity of absolution which is given to a dying man who shows no external sign of sorrow and confession: for if the acts of the penitent outwardly manifested are said to be either an essential part of the sacrament or a necessary condition of valid absolution, it does not appear by what reason a dying man of this kind can be validly absolved.

For this reason the older authors commonly declare this absolution invalid and illicit.³ Nevertheless, in the course of time the number of authors who called this absolution licit so increased that Lacroix could call their opinion common,⁴ and St. Alphonsus could call the same the more common.⁵

The authors try to explain that such absolution is valid in a twofold way. Some say that it can be piously and not imprudently presumed that the dying man manifests outwardly, by sighs, anxious respirations, and other movements of the body, the desire of confessing inwardly conceived, since he cannot do it otherwise. But others say that a man who lived piously, indeed also one who, even if he did not live piously at all, nevertheless did not depart from the Church, by the very fact that he lived piously, or at least remained in the Church, manifested the desire that he wished at death to be reconciled with God through the sacrament of penance.

But each explanation is pressed by great difficulties. The first, indeed, because it does not appear by what right physical movements, which of themselves signify only distress of the body, can be held as signs of sorrow and confession. But the other, because it cannot be applied at least to those dying persons who are deprived of the senses in the act of sin: for "it would be ridiculous," says de Lugo, "that today someone would wish to accuse himself of a sin to be committed tomorrow, so that tomorrow he may be absolved from it by force of this accusation."⁶ Wherefore some recent authors, with Ballerini leading, think that no external sign of sorrow and confession is required so that a dying person deprived of the senses can be validly and licitly absolved. For the acts of the penitent have only the ratio of necessary disposition; therefore a dying person deprived of the senses can be validly and licitly absolved, who by a certain slight probability can be presumed to have elicited an act of attrition concerning his sins either before or after he was deprived of the senses (n. 233).⁷

Note 1. From physiological experiments it seems to be established that real death, i.e., the very separation of soul and body, does not occur at the same time at which the vital functions of respiration and circulation cease, but that life after the last expiration still continues latently for some time. How long life still endures latently after apparent death depends both on the quality of the disease and on the constitution of the dying person. In sudden death life can be prolonged beyond a day (some think through three days), in ordinary death beyond a half hour (others think through a day). From these things it is gathered that to a man who by common estimation is already judged dead, if he died from a long illness, within a half hour, but if he died from sudden disease or a sudden accident, within two, indeed several, hours, the necessary sacraments ought to be administered under condition; but the non-necessary sacraments can be administered under condition, because he probably is at least still living.⁸ And indeed extreme unction is administered in the briefest way, i.e., with one form and one anointing on the forehead, because there is the greatest danger in delay. Nor is it necessary that in this case, besides the prayers placed in the Ritual, anything afterward be supplied, since there is no further doubt concerning the sacramental validity conferred in this way.

Note 2. As regards the manner of acting with dying persons of this kind, it helps to note these things. Because it is established by experience that the dying apparently deprived of the senses sometimes have the use of reason and hearing, before the sacraments themselves are administered they are to be warned about the sacraments which are administered to them, and acts of contrition and also of the theological virtues are to be recited very briefly at their ear.

¹ Roman Ritual, tit. 3, c. 1, n. 24.

² Cf. Gury, Theol. mor. II, n. 206.

³ Laymann, l. 5, tr. 6, c. 8, n. 4; Suarez, disp. 23, sect. 1, n. 13; Coninck, disp. 7, dub. 10, n. 96; Lugo, disp. 17, sect. 3.

⁴ Lacroix, l. 6, pr. 2, n. 1162.

⁵ St. Alphonsus, n. 482.

⁶ L.c., n. 39.

⁷ Cf. Ballerini-Palmieri V, n. 240 ff.

⁸ Cf. Villada, Casus conscientiae, pr. 3, p. 235 ff.; Ferreres, La morte reale e la morte apparente (Rome: Typograph. Salesiana, 1905); Antonelli, Medicina pastoralis 3 (Rome: Pustet, 1909), II, n. 979 ff.; Ferreres-Geniesse, Der wirkliche Tod und der Scheintod (Coblenz: Central-Auskunftsstelle, 1908).

295. Whether absolution can be granted to heretics in the article of death, whether they are in possession of their senses or deprived of them. Authors have diverse opinions in this question. St. Alphonsus with very many others denies that absolution can be granted to them (n. 483), unless they expressly ask for it, because they manifest no desire of absolution; rather they must be judged to abhor it. Nevertheless there are several authors (such as Gobat, Lacroix, Reuter, Elbel, etc.) who judge that absolution can be granted to them, because in those who are in possession of their senses an implicit desire of absolution can be stirred up by suitable warnings; but in those who are deprived of the senses that implicit desire is supposed with at least slight probability.

a. A dying non-Catholic still in possession of his senses, who on account of peculiar circumstances cannot be warned about conversion to the Catholic Church, after the things to be premised have been premised, can licitly be absolved secretly under condition, provided he is prudently judged to be a material heretic who lives outside the Catholic Church in good faith.

Before absolution, let the confessor take care to elicit with the dying man acts of faith, hope, charity, and perfect contrition; of faith indeed explicit in the absolutely necessary articles, but implicit in the others; that he declare himself a sinner before God and the priest; and finally that he show that he desires to be helped by the priest, as far as this one can, in attaining eternal life, or at least that he wishes to perform all things which by the precept of Christ are necessary for salvation. For the absolution which is given to a heretic of this kind can be invalid either from defect of intention or from defect of sorrowful confession; now, both implicit intention and sorrowful confession made in general are contained in those acts.

b. A dying non-Catholic deprived of the senses, after the acts mentioned above have been premised at his ear, can secretly be absolved under condition if by at least slight probability he can be held disposed. But whether in a heretic, even a material one only, the desire of absolution can or cannot be supposed with slight probability, others judge otherwise. St. Alphonsus indeed denies it.

c. But outside the article of death it is not licit to absolve a heretic (or schismatic), even if only material and existing in good faith, if he intends to persist in heresy, because this could not be done without scandal to others: for heretics would be confirmed in error and Catholics would conceive horror of the matter.¹

d. If in a dying heretic there exists a doubt concerning the validity of baptism, or only a light doubt, he himself, after the necessary acts have first been premised, must secretly be baptized under condition.

¹ Holy Office, 20 July 1898. Cn. 731, 2.

391. Concerning Absolution to Be Granted, Deferred, or Denied: General Rules.¹

1. A sufficiently disposed penitent per se must be absolved under grave sin from justice; for a. a rightly disposed penitent has the right of receiving absolution, since the priest, by this very fact that he hears the confession, binds himself by a tacit contract to grant absolution to him who duly completes confession and appears disposed; b. generally, absolution granted at once profits the penitent more than its delay; for he emerges from the most miserable state of sin, becomes a participant in the graces and goods which are granted to the just and denied to sinners, and finally is helped in amendment of life by the grace of both sacraments, penance and the Eucharist.

a. Even a penitent who has accused only venial sins has the right of receiving absolution, provided he is rightly disposed; if, however, once or twice he is dismissed without absolution with only a blessing, no grave injury is inflicted on him, and therefore this could sometimes be done without sin from a reasonable cause.

b. Those authors also who think that a merely generic confession of venial sins is licit (n. 231) concede that a penitent who accuses himself only in general of venial sins or of mortal sins already remitted, when he could confess in species, and who refuses to confess distinctly when the confessor asks, does not have the right of receiving absolution; for the confessor receiving the penitent does not intend to bind himself to absolve him unless he confesses according to the custom received in the Church.

2. Absolution can be deferred even for a sufficiently disposed penitent, if the confessor has judged this to be truly useful to him; for although he has a right to absolution, nevertheless he does not have the right to receive it immediately when delay seems useful, either for striking horror into him concerning sins committed or for strengthening the will in the purpose of not sinning.

a. It is the most common opinion of theologians that the delay of absolution will sometimes be useful to penitents, especially occasionaries and recidivists, if it is prudently employed. But although the utility of deferred absolution is sometimes great, nevertheless it can never be called a necessary means which must be employed by the confessor to procure the salvation and amendment of a rightly disposed penitent. The delay of absolution can be called necessary only when the confessor doubts concerning the sufficient disposition of the penitent; for in this case it can be the one and necessary means from which the confessor judges concerning disposition. But as regards a rightly disposed penitent, the delay of absolution can never be called prescribed and necessary.

b. Therefore the one reason on account of which absolution can be deferred for a rightly disposed penitent is his spiritual utility. This utility chiefly consists in this: that from the difficulty of obtaining absolution, the penitent better knows the gravity of sin and conceives a greater horror for sins committed, and that his weak will is strengthened in the purpose of amendment. Therefore just as the confessor, foreseeing that delay of absolution will harm the penitent more than profit him, acts unjustly if he nevertheless defers it, so, when the spiritual utility of the penitent exists, he can licitly defer it per se even if the penitent is unwilling.

c. Nevertheless delay of absolution will scarcely ever be useful unless the penitent himself consents to the delay; for if he bears the matter with difficulty, he is offended rather than amended by the delay; wherefore it must be feared that for this reason he will be wholly alienated from receiving the sacraments. Therefore it can be said as a norm: absolution is not to be deferred for a disposed penitent if he himself is unwilling.

d. Absolution is not to be deferred except for a short time: for a few days, for a week, but not for fifteen days, much less for a month; for a longer delay harms the penitent more than it profits, since it is grave to remain for several days in the state of mortal sin both because of the danger of death, which is always threatening, and because of the innumerable goods of which a man who is in sin is deprived.

e. From these things it follows that it cannot be defined by a general rule when absolution should be deferred, but, as St. Leonard of Port Maurice says, "the whole must be left to the prudence of the confessor, who in particular cases ought to follow neither inclination, nor nature, nor compromise, nor the example of others, but only the unction of the Holy Spirit accompanied by good doctrine and the study of prayer."

Note. If, however, the penitent does not consent to the delay, but explicitly asks for absolution, this must be granted to him. For to one who is disposed, delay is not useful if absolution is deferred while he is unwilling. Therefore the new Code, cn. 886, has these things: If the confessor cannot doubt concerning the dispositions of the penitent and the latter asks for absolution, absolution is neither to be denied nor deferred.

3. Absolution must always be denied to a certainly indisposed penitent; for he who absolves an indisposed person commits a grave sacrilege, nor can any necessity of the penitent excuse the confessor from this sin.

Nevertheless those who approach unprepared and indisposed to make confession can, by the work and industry of a zealous confessor with the grace of God, be disposed to receive absolution. And if they give sufficient signs of sorrow and purpose, nothing prevents even those who had approached confession unprepared and indisposed from being absolved at once. Those who think that penitents who approach confession unprepared cannot be rightly disposed by the warning and exhortation of the confessor oppose the doctrine and practice both of the saints and of theologians of great name.²

4. A doubtfully disposed penitent cannot be absolved unless there is a grave cause on account of which absolution can or even must be given under condition: the reason for the first is lest the sacrament be exposed to danger of nullity; the reason for the second is that the sacraments are for men.

a. A doubtfully disposed person can or even must be absolved under condition if he is in the article of death, if otherwise he would incur the mark of infamy because he suggests suspicion of denied absolution, if otherwise he would be alienated from the sacraments, if he would have to lack the grace of the sacrament for a long time, if he would be forced to repeat the confession before another priest, if the precept of annual confession urged, etc.; even doubtfully disposed spouses who are soon to contract marriage can be conditionally absolved lest they certainly contract sacrilegiously.

b. Frequently the matter will be so that absolution can indeed be given because some indications of disposition are present, but also can be deferred because a prudent judgment concerning the disposition cannot be formed. In these circumstances let the confessor consider what, with the character of the penitent taken into account, is more expedient for his salvation. But since in our time it must greatly be feared that those not absolved will not return any more, unless they are animated by firm faith, generally the confessor will profit the salvation of souls more if he is rich in mercy and does not dismiss the penitent to another time, but spends all his care and work so that, with divine grace, he disposes him to receive valid absolution and absolves him when disposed; for if absolution is deferred, after the time has elapsed he will scarcely return more disposed.

Note. Since the general rules established above concerning absolving penitents make a particular difficulty in certain cases, one must treat in particular: a. concerning absolving habitual sinners; b. concerning absolving recidivists; c. concerning absolving occasionaries.

¹ Cf. Bucceroni, Commentarius de absolutione danda, differenda, deneganda (Rome: Armanni, 1889). Pighi, De iudicio sacramentali (Verona: Cinquetti, 1897).

² Those things which Ballerini wisely warns, De poenitente minus disposito iuvando, are worthy to be read. Ballerini-Palmieri V, n. 1858 s.

WE must distinguish the form which is required for the validity of the sacrament from the form which is commonly used according to the Ritual. ‘‘ I absolve thee from thy sins ” is sufficient for the validity of the sacrament, and probably even the mere words “I absolve thee.” The Ritual form consists of the four short prayers beginning with Misereatur, etc., of which the third is the most important, as it contains the absolution from censures and from sin. The absolution from censures is always given before the absolution from sin for the sake of greater security, because if the penitent were under censure, he could not lawfully receive a sacrament. A rubric of the Ritual expressly lays down that the other three prayers may be omitted in shorter and more frequent confessions, but it is better always to add the last prayer, as it probably gives a special satisfactory efficacy to the good works which the penitent subsequently performs.

We saw above that absolution cannot be given validly by a priest to a penitent who is not morally present at the time. This sacrament is a judicial process, and the priest, who is the judge, pronounces sentence on the culprit who is present in court. The absolution must be pronounced by word of mouth, and the penitent must be within hearing distance, not farther distant than the ordinary tone of voice carries.

The priest cannot pass sentence without having a sufficient knowledge of the sins to be absolved and the dispositions of the penitent. It is not necessary, however, nor is it possible to have a distinct knowledge of the subjective malice with which the sins of the penitent were committed. The confessor may presume that the subjective malice of the penitent corresponds with the objective malice of the sin, unless he has special reasons for concluding otherwise. With his habitual knowledge of the malice of different sins the confessor passes a sufficient judgement on them if he quietly listens to the self-accusation of the penitent.

A merely historical account of the sins which a person has committed may suffice for absolution if the penitent resumes them under some brief formula by which he expresses his desire to confess them and receive absolution for them. The priest must in this case, of course, retain at least a general and vague knowledge of the sins which he absolves.

A dying person, who through weakness or other causes is unable to make a full confession, may be absolved absolutely if he mentions what sins he can, or even if he asks for the absolution of his sins, for such a confession is formally integral.

The Ritual prescribes that a dying person who has lost the use of his senses is to be absolved even if he previously only expressed a desire himself or through others to receive absolution. In this case, also, it would seem that the absolution should be absolute.

Dying persons who have lost the use of their senses may be absolved conditionally even if they give no certain signs of a desire to confess or of sorrow for their sins. It may be that in such a state the dying person has the requisite dispositions, and is trying his best to give expression to them, and so the movements of the body or his laboured breathing may be indications of a wish to receive absolution. At any rate, in such a case of necessity we may use even a slenderly probable opinion, and it is now the common practice to absolve conditionally in such cases.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WHEN a censure has been incurred, it does not cease as a rule merely by lapse of time or on the correction and amendment of the delinquent. The delinquent must obtain absolution of the censure from one who is competent to give it. In some cases, however, a censure is imposed as long as certain conditions last, and then on the termination of those conditions the censure lapses without absolution.

Any confessor in the tribunal of Penance may absolve from censures inflicted by law and not reserved to the Holy See or to the bishop. Censures, too, which are imposed ab homine but by a general precept or ordinance are in the same category, and may be absolved by any confessor unless they are reserved (Can. 2253, i).

Absolution for a reserved censure must be sought from him to whom it is reserved, or from his delegate. Similarly, absolution from a censure inflicted ab homine by a particular precept must be obtained from him who inflicted it, or from his superior, or successor in office, or from some one delegated by one of these to grant absolution (Can. 2253, ii).

If a confessor in ignorance of the reservation absolves a penitent from a censure and from sin, the absolution of the censure is valid provided that it is not a censure ab homine or a censure most specially reserved to the Holy See (Can. 2247, sec. 3).

If there is question of a censure which does not prevent the reception of the sacraments if he who is under censure is rightly disposed and has ceased to be contumacious, he can be absolved from his sins, while the censure remains unabsolved.

But if there is question of a censure which prevents the reception of the sacraments he who is under censure cannot be absolved from his sins unless he has previously been absolved from the censure.

The absolution of a censure in the sacramental forum is contained in the usual form of absolution for sins prescribed in the Ritual; in the non-sacramental forum it may be given in any way, but for the absolution of excommunication it is ordinarily advisable to use the form given in the Ritual (Can. 2250).

If absolution for a censure is given in the external forum it avails also for the internal forum; if it is given in the internal forum he who is absolved if there is no scandal can act as absolved also in the external forum; but unless the grant of absolution is proved or at least can be lawfully presumed in the external forum, the censure can be urged by the superiors of the external forum and the guilty party should obey them until absolution is obtained in the same forum (Can. 2251).

When treating of the sacrament of Penance in the chapter on reserved cases we saw that any priest has unrestricted faculties to absolve any penitent in danger of death, and that a simple confessor has very large powers in more urgent cases by Canon 2254.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

¹ Title III, chapter 2.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

¹ Session 14, on Penance, chapter 3.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Absolution Given by One Not Possessed of Jurisdiction.—(a) Effect.—Absolution of mortal sins given without jurisdiction is invalid; and of venial sins, is unlawful and probably invalid. In some cases, however, the Church supplies jurisdiction, as was said above (2752).

(b) Guilt.—There is no sin if the absolution is given in good faith, as when a confessor is inculpably ignorant of a reservation. If absolution is given in bad faith and the confessor knows that the Church does not supply, there is a grave sin on account of the irreverence to the Sacrament and the harm to the penitent. If the confessor knows that he lacks jurisdiction, but that the Church supplies on account of common error, it seems that no sin is committed if there is a good reason for giving absolution (e.g., the absence of other priests); but otherwise there is mortal or venial sin according to circumstances.

(c) Penalty.—He who with presumption hears confessions without jurisdiction or absolves from a reserved case for which he has no faculties, incurs in the former case ipso facto suspension from the power of Orders, and in the latter case ipso facto suspension from hearing confessions (Canon 2366).

What are the sins and vices opposed to faith? - To faith is opposed unbelief, which generally is the lack of faith; and specifically it is the lack of faith in one not baptized; and this is threefold: negative, privative, positive. The first is lack of faith in one who has never heard anything about the true religion. The other is lack of faith in one who neglects to procure for himself knowledge of faith when occasion has been given. The third is lack of faith in one to whom faith itself has been sufficiently proposed, and who positively rejects it. - Although negative unbelief, as is clear, is not a sin, nevertheless it is a punishment of sin; because if he had done what was in him, God would not have hidden faith from him. But privative and positive unbelief is a most grave sin. The reason is that the former indirectly and virtually, the latter directly and formally, contains grave contempt and injury of the authority of God revealing. Faith besides is the beginning, foundation, and root of justification. Trid. s. 6, C. 8. Therefore he who voluntarily deprives himself of faith likewise deprives himself of justification, and accordingly sins very greatly.

Heresy is also opposed to faith, and it is twofold: formal and material. The first is a voluntary and pertinacious error against some truth of faith proposed by the Church, in one who has received faith. But the other is that by which someone adheres to error against faith, but without pertinacity. Moreover to err pertinaciously here is not sharply and tooth-and-nail to defend one's error, but to retain it knowingly and voluntarily, after the contrary has been sufficiently proposed; or when it is known that the contrary is held by the universal Church of Christ on earth, to which someone prefers his own judgment, whether this is done from vainglory, or from the lust of contradicting, or from another cause. Merely material heresy is not a sin, for that error proceeds from invincible ignorance of the truth. But formal heresy is a most grave sin, as unbelief itself, for the same reasons.

Finally apostasy is opposed to faith, which is total defection from the truth of the Catholic faith. Therefore it is not distinguished in species from heresy. For whether more or less of the material object of faith is rejected, the formal object is always rejected in the same mode. It is reduced to positive unbelief if someone, departing absolutely from faith, passes over to unbelief. And if someone passes over to a sect in which false worship of God is had, he also sins against religion. Non-Catholics are as many as are not Catholics. Their genus is threefold: schismatics, heretics, apostates. More broadly non-Catholics are also infidels.

Heretics and those suspect concerning the faith must be denounced to the Bishop or Inquisitor from C. Noveritis of Nicholas II, and from the natural law, since such a crime tends to common harm. L. l. 4, n. 249 seqq.; l. 7, n. 248. But the Bishop has the faculty of proceeding in a cause of heresy even against regulars, although exempt, C. 9, de Haeret. - Those who wish to be converted from heresy to the Catholic Church before absolution must abjure their heresy and make a public profession of faith, according to what is prescribed by C. Si qui voluerint 8, can. 1, q. 7, and the Roman Ritual. - An abjuration made privately before someone delegated by the Bishop, such as a notary, and some persons as witnesses, suffices. S. O. 8 Apr. 1786; 28 Mar. 1900; Struggl, q. 2, nn. 1, 9; Suarez, d. 16, s. 1; Lugo, d. 16, n. 187, 291 seqq.; d. 18, n. 3 seqq.; S. Th. 2. 2. q. 5, 10, 11, 12; L. 17 seqq.; Collectan. S. C. de P. F., ed. 1, nn. 1682, 1683, 1689, and ed. 2, nn. 1341, 1496, 2079; E. M. 346.

351 bis. Note: 1. The books of Sacred Scripture whole with all their parts, as the Holy Synod of Trent, s. 4, reviewed them, are divinely inspired, and are sacred and canonical. 2. The heresies of schismatics and Orientals are reviewed in the Epistle of Pius X, Ex quo, 26 Dec. 1910, Acta Apost. Sed., v. 3, p. 117 seqq. 3. Modernism is the collection of all heresies. - Bishops must be vigilant that it be extirpated, if it has been present, and must take precautions lest it be present.

Bishops should impede the writings of Modernists from being published and read; especially they should not be permitted to adolescents in Seminaries and to hearers in Universities. - They should establish a council of vigilance, to meet with the Bishop every other month and on a stated day. It will belong to it to investigate judgments of modernism in books and in teaching; likewise to keep watch over books and periodicals, lest dangerous questions be treated in them with weak arguments and prejudged questions; finally, over all writings concerning social matters. - By Modernism there are condemned rash and false novelties against the doctrine of Sacred Scripture and constantly handed down by the Fathers and Catholic Doctors; but by no means is there condemned any modern invention which is proved by solid reason. - Those who are prone to the errors of modernism are to be excluded from Sacred Orders. Pius X, Enc. Pascendi, 8 Sept. 1907.

4. Several errors of Americanism are condemned. Its fundamental and chief error consists in this: "It is opportune, for attracting the wills of those who disagree, if certain heads of doctrine, as if of lighter moment, are passed over, or softened so that they do not retain the same sense which the Church has constantly held." Brief to Card. Gibbons, Archbishop of Baltimore, of Leo XIII, 22 Jan. 1899, Testem benevolentiae.

What is the form of the sacrament of penance; what is its force and obligation? - The form of absolution is had thus in the Roman Ritual: "May almighty God have mercy on you, and, your sins having been forgiven, bring you to eternal life. Amen. - May the almighty and merciful Lord grant you indulgence, absolution, and remission of your sins. Amen. - May our Lord Jesus Christ absolve you, and I by his authority absolve you from every bond of excommunication, suspension, and interdict, insofar as I can and you need; then: I absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen. - May the Passion of our Lord Jesus Christ, the merits of the Blessed Virgin Mary and of all the Saints, and whatever good you have done and evil you have borne, be for you unto remission of sins, increase of grace, and the reward of eternal life. Amen."

The hand is raised from the word Indulgentiam up to the word Passio Domini, and the sign of the cross is made over the penitent while saying: In nomine Patris.... The word suspensionis is omitted for laymen. It is a pious custom that the confessor before Confession, while he blesses the penitent, say: "May the Lord be in your heart and on your lips, that you may rightly confess all your sins," or recite a similar prayer. But this does not fall under obligation.

The words Misereatur, Indulgentiam, Dominus noster, Passio, etc., "the doctors commonly say can be omitted without any sin.... And this seems truer, since Trent, sess. 14, C. 3, says that these prayers are only laudably added; for the word laudably certainly seems to import no precept. Nevertheless no one doubts that it is more fitting... to add prayers of this kind, especially those which follow, Passio Domini, etc., since it is probable that through those words all the good works of the penitent are elevated to sacramental satisfaction." L. 430, 507; St. Thomas, Quodl. 3, a. 28. Since it is probable: to others this seems incredible. And they say that those words contain only the deprecation of the Church and have no other force than the other sacramentals. Lugo, d. 25, n. 56. But it is not incredible that the good works of the penitent are elevated to sacramental satisfaction for sins confessed and remitted. The Rubric says: "In more frequent Confessions it will be enough to say: Dominus noster, etc., up to Passio Domini," exclusively. - The word deinde seems not to pertain to the very formula of absolution, but to the order of things to be said. S. R. C., Aug. 27, 1836, Veronen. Indeed in the Ritual it is had: first he says, second he says, then again. But because before it was written in red character and now in black, they say that that deinde pertains to the form. - The elevation of the hand and the formation of the sign of the cross certainly are not required for the validity of the essential form. Florence, Decr. pro Arm.; Trent, l. c.

It is commonly asserted that it can be omitted without grave sin, and several learned authors assert that it can be omitted without any sin. And they say the same about uncovering the head. L. 425.

Absolution from censures precedes absolution from sins: Dominus noster, etc. This absolution is valid if it is said, from every bond of censures, or from censures. Absolution from censures can validly be given by the same form by which one is absolved from sins: I absolve you from your sins, because these words involve absolution from whatever bond arising from sins; and nothing stands in the way of the confessor directing his intention to each absolution, from censures and from sins. Nevertheless this is not excused from venial fault, since it is against the use of the Church. But probably it is altogether excused if there is no probable suspicion that the penitent has incurred some censure. Besides, a priest would sin mortally who, against the prohibition of the Church, wished to absolve the penitent first from sins and then from censures. From censures, namely of excommunication. For suspension and interdict of themselves do not deprive one of the reception of the sacrament of penance. But the penitent would validly be absolved from sins if he were in good faith, absolution from censures not having first been given. The reason is that the prohibition of the Church cannot invalidate a sacrament whose validity depends on divine law, since all essential things required for it concur. - L. 430; La-Croix 1567.

Absolution from sins essentially and certainly consists in words. Given by gesture or writing or other signs it is invalid. Florence, Decr. pro Arm.; Trent, sess. 14, C. 3; prop. condemned by Clement VIII, June 20, 1602; Paul V, July 14, 1605; L. 428; St. Thomas, 3 p., q. 84, a. 3, ad 3. - Wherefore it is essentially required that the penitent to be absolved be morally present. Prop. cited, condemned by Clement VIII and by Paul V. The confessor, while he pronounces the form, seems to speak with the penitent himself. Therefore the aforesaid moral presence is reckoned that within which men can and are accustomed to speak with a common voice, although a higher one. Such presence extends to about twenty paces, especially where the penitent has not yet gone out of the sight of the confessor. But the penitent is to be recalled when he can in every way be recalled. Besides, without scruple a penitent can be absolved who has withdrawn from the confessional, if it is certainly known that he is still within a few paces. But it is not enough for moral presence if the priest sees the penitent, or perceives him by another sense; for presence for absolution requires greater nearness than for hearing a sermon or Mass. Hence, if someone could at some time be absolved only from a distance, for example if he were falling from a roof, then absolution should be given under condition. - L. 429.

Therefore absolution can in no way be given validly by wireless telegraph, nor by wired telegraph, nor by telephone, nor by gramophone.

In the sacramental forum the matter is done between those present, and what is done in it is valid, although the penitent has departed unabsolved, or has performed a sacrilegious Confession. But in the forum of conscience the matter is done even between those absent. For those things which pertain to the spiritual salvation of each person can well be treated even between the absent. Some wish the forum of penance to be the sacramental forum; others the forum of conscience. Sanchez, de Matr., l. 8, d. 34, n. 29; Suarez, de Leg., l. 8, c. 1, nn. 15, 16.

Absolution from sins is contained in the words: Ego te absolvo a peccatis tuis, in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti. Amen. It is altogether certain that the due form is not deprecatory, but indicative: ego te absolvo, etc. Trent, sess. 14, C. 3. Likewise it is certain that the words te absolvo pertain to the essence of the form. - If it is said: absolvo a peccatis tuis, it more probably is valid, because the pronoun te is sufficiently expressed by the pronoun tuis. But very commonly they deny this; and because this opinion is also probable, in practice it must altogether be followed, from prop. 2 condemned by Innocent XI. - But if it is said: ego te absolvo, omitting a peccatis tuis, they very commonly say it is valid from the Roman Catechism, n. 14, and from St. Thomas, 3 p., q. 84, a. 3; yet that it is a grave sin, since it is against the custom of the Church. But others hold that these words pertain to the essence from the words of Christ: "Whose sins you shall forgive." And this opinion is also probable, and therefore in practice one must not depart from it. If finally only absolvo is said, the form will be invalid, because it has no determinate sense and falls upon no determinate subject. - But the common and true opinion denies that the words in nomine, etc., pertain to the essence of the form. For in the institution of this sacrament Christ made no mention of the Trinity, as in baptism. Some think their omission is mortal, others that it is no sin, others, better and almost commonly, say it is venial, since the aforesaid invocation is according to the custom of the Church. - L. 430.

It is not necessary that the penitent hear the words of absolution, much less that he understand them. It suffices that the priest truly pronounce them, and it is advisable that in the presence of others, in order to preserve secrecy, they be said quietly. - Although, insofar as it is a sentence, it can be deferred for a longer time, even after a week, e.g., it can be given; nevertheless, insofar as it is a form, it cannot be deferred for a longer time. Absolution is indeed validly given after an hour from Confession; indeed it can be given on another day if the penitent renews the accusation: again I accuse myself of these things which yesterday, which the day before yesterday, etc., I confessed. - L. 9, 429; E. M.

Confessions are to be heard in church, but not in private homes unless from a reasonable cause. Hence they cannot be heard in private oratories, nor in semi-public oratories, unless by permission of the Bishop. Roman Ritual, Order of administering the sacrament of penance, part 2; Benedict XIV, Encyclical Magno cum, June 2, 1751.

The confessor must be vested in surplice and violet stole, as the time or the custom of places bears. Roman Ritual, l. c., part 4. But regulars by privilege use only the stole; and from S. R. C., Aug. 31, 1867, ad 2, n. 3158, it is fitting that in church the stole be used.

Is conditional absolution valid and lawful? - It is certain that absolution imparted under a condition concerning the present or the past is valid in every case, provided the other things required for the validity of the sacrament are present; for the condition in no way changes the sense of the sacramental form, which it in no way affects, but affects only the will of the confessor, who does not intend to absolve unless the appended condition is fulfilled. But when this has been fulfilled, the form becomes absolute, and therefore nothing is found which could hinder its validity. - Likewise it is certain that conditional absolution is sometimes lawful; for if it is valid, it must also be lawful when necessity urges. When necessity urges: hence the doctrine of some must be rejected as plainly lax, who hold that conditional absolution can be imparted from any light cause whatever, even if sufficient disposition of the penitent, burdened even with mortal sins, is doubted in any way whatever. For the confessor would no longer be a prudent dispenser of the sacraments, but would cast pearls before swine; and by this facility of absolving he would bring it about that penitents would waste away in sins.

But the doctrine of those is no more to be admitted who hold that absolution is not to be imparted under condition except in extreme necessity, or in the extreme danger of life; for doctrine of this kind is exceedingly harmful to penitents who can return to a confessor only with difficulty and, dismissed without absolution, incur the danger of eternal damnation. - L. 431, 432.

What especially as regards the dying? - Any dying person who in some way, by voice or sign, confesses or asks absolution can and must be absolved, and indeed absolutely. The reason is that all things required for the sacrament and for formally integral Confession are present. - Any dying person in whom attrition and confession can be presumed in some way, however slightly probable, can and must be absolved, at least conditionally; because in the case of extreme necessity, even in the administration of the sacraments, it is lawful to use an opinion even slightly founded. - A dying person who altogether refuses the sacrament of penance, or who can in no way be presumed attrite, can in no way be absolved. The reason is most clearly evident. - L. 480, 482; E. M.

Resolutions: All dying persons not yet destitute of the senses and consenting to absolution and obeying the commands of the confessor are to be absolved: absolutely indeed, if they voluntarily seek Confession or if with willing soul they propose to confess; but conditionally, if they are scarcely with difficulty induced to some Confession, or if there is prudent doubt about their sufficient disposition. - All dying persons destitute of the senses who before deprivation of the senses expressly showed a desire for Confession, e.g., by ordering a priest to be called, etc., are to be absolved, at least conditionally. The reason is that they are judged truly to confess through the testimony of those standing by. This is established from the Councils and from the Roman Ritual.

All dying persons altogether destitute of the senses who lived Christianly are to be absolved under condition, even if then they gave no sign either of sorrow or of desire for Confession. The reason is that, since sorrow and desire for absolution can be presumed in these, Confession also can in some way be presumed. - Other dying persons destitute of the senses, who lived little Christianly, are also to be absolved conditionally, because even in them penance and Confession can still be presumed in some way. - A dying person destitute of the senses in the very act of sin, e.g., in a duel, adultery, theft, etc., can probably be absolved under condition. The reason is that even he can be sufficiently disposed. This especially has place for one who perhaps was led to sin by fear, human respect, etc. Not a few live badly, but in no way wish to die badly; and they conceive a will of penance for the moment of death. - L. 481, 485; La-Croix 1162; Elbel 308, 211; Benedict XIV, de Syn., l. 7, c. 15, n. 9 ff.; cf. Commentary on the absolution and assistance of the dying.

754 bis. On the obstinate dying sinner. - Certain modern authors go further and say that absolution can be imparted even to a dying person destitute of the senses who previously refused to receive the sacraments of the Church; indeed, abhorring them, he altogether rejected them with blasphemy. For sacramental absolution can be imparted in so great a crisis of affairs even with slight probability, and it is possible that he conceive penance in his heart. - But in fact this reason does not prove the assertion. A transition is made from slight probability, that is, from the lowest degree of probability, to possibility, and indeed to absolute possibility. It is certainly metaphysically possible that that obstinate sinner, destitute of the senses, conceive penance. But who will ever be able to say that this is morally possible, that this is at least probable in the lowest degree? What, indeed, is the moral motive of that possibility, what rational foundation of this possibility? Moreover, is it lawful to impart absolution, even only under condition, to the indisposed, whom it is established in a human way to be indisposed?

754 ter. On apparent death. - It must be noted, from several more recent authors, that the certain sign of death is nothing except putrefaction, which can happen after whole days; other signs are not infallible. Even cadaveric rigidity is not always a certain sign of death. From the moment which is commonly called death until putrefaction, a man can live a hidden life, and his death then is only apparent. In several cases apparent death can be had, so that this state of apparent death is more frequent and longer in those who are seized by sudden death or a sudden accident. But it is very probable that a similar state has place for a longer or shorter time in all men, even if they die from common diseases, both acute and chronic.

It is difficult to determine this time of apparent death, both in illnesses of sudden death and in those of ordinary death. Regularly the aforesaid time endures until cadaveric rigidity, which does not happen at one and the same time in all corpses. In sudden illnesses it can endure for one hour, two hours, and more. In ordinary illnesses it can endure only for some minutes, five, six, for a quarter of an hour, for a half-hour, longer. Wherefore the aforesaid authors conclude: then sacramental absolution and especially extreme unction, which in the case can have a more certain effect, will be able to be administered under condition. It will be easy to guard against the scandal of the faithful which perhaps could be present.

The aforesaid authors note besides, as regards the dying, that the sense of hearing perseveres for a very long time in the dying; and, even if the sick person seems immobile, incapable of moving his members and speaking, and almost dead, or given over to deep sleep, he can easily hear the voices and all words of those around him. Wherefore the best counsel is that those assisting speak nothing imprudently in a loud voice, and that the priest suggest pious affections, very brief prayers, and especially acts of faith, hope, charity, and contrition in a very brief formula to the dying person.

But the reason of these authors, as regards death from a general rule always being apparent, is by no means convincing. The reason is that the cells of the organism after apparent death still remain whole, and retain, even without circulation of the blood and respiration, the elements necessary for nourishing life, as e.g., oxygen, etc.; and consequently, although new elements do not arrive for life, until those preexisting elements are not exhausted, life does not cease. And therefore in sudden deaths, since the vital elements still persevere whole, real death is prolonged longer. But in ordinary cases of death, since those elements are almost altogether consumed, real death follows not long after apparent death. But from this indeed it is proved that the lowest degree of life still persists; but by no means is it proved, which is altogether necessary, that all those dispositions which are necessary for having a human composite still persist in matter and in the body for human life. And the common opinion of all centuries is against this existence prolonged after death. All say and believe that the man is dead.

Almost the same argument is for the first creation of the soul and union with the body. That the germ lives from the beginning, who ever denied or could deny? Otherwise, how would it afterward begin to live? But now from the fact that it lives, does it follow logically that therefore immediately that fertilized germ is informed by a rational soul, as modern authors especially assert almost indubitably? Certainly not. For it must be demonstrated that that germ, either from the beginning of fertilization, immediately has all the dispositions necessarily required for that most perfect form. And no one up to now has demonstrated this. And surely the same is true in the present case. For it must be demonstrated that a man commonly dead is not dead, but merely apparently, because all those necessary dispositions for retaining and conserving the soul in it still remain in the matter. And no one up to now has proved this. The facts which are adduced concerning true apparent death in fact prove nothing conclusively. For that sometimes a certain apparent death is had, and that sometimes true death can be distinguished from apparent death only with difficulty and in fact is not distinguished, no one has denied this. And the matter up to now was well known to all. Wherefore from this only this could rightly be concluded: that in such and such a case, absolutely speaking, a case of apparent death can be had. But that death, commonly judged to be such, is always apparent does not seem certainly demonstrated from this.

What of those habituated to sin, those in occasions of sin, and recidivists? What of absolution to be given, denied, or deferred to them? - The diseases of the soul are sins, and their causes are contracted habits, occasions, and relapses; whence come those habituated or customary sinners, those in occasions, and recidivists. Those habituated or customary sinners are those who have contracted a habit of sinning or a custom of sin, into which however they have not yet fallen after Confession. But they are said to have contracted a habit or custom if regularly five times in a month, indeed even once, they are accustomed to relapse into the same sins. A recidivist is one who after Confession, although admonished, relapses into the same sins with no or almost no amendment. One in an occasion is one who is found in some external circumstance which, either from its own nature or from the frailty of the man who is found in it, entices or induces to sinning. One occasion is necessary, another voluntary; one is present or in esse, which someone has with himself, e.g., if someone keeps a concubine at home; another is absent or not in esse, which someone does not have, but finds when seeking it, e.g., if the concubine is in a neighboring or distant house; one is absolute with respect to all, another relative with respect to such a person; finally one is proximate, in which men commonly for the most part sin, another remote, in which men commonly for the most part do not sin. Therefore that occasion is certainly to be judged proximate in which there is no true probability of not sinning; on the contrary, that is remote in which there is no true probability of sinning. It is clear that various degrees exist between the two.

Neither habit, nor relapse, nor occasions import necessity of sinning, but they contain only danger of sinning. Hence the question is raised whether they can and should be absolved, and when and how often, before they have amended the habit, prevented relapse, or removed the occasion. The reason for the difficulty is the doubt about the sincerity of sorrow and purpose, which arises from the habit itself, relapse, or occasion. - The rigid wish them not to be absolved before the habit has been amended, relapse avoided, and the occasion removed. The lax wish them to be able to be absolved whenever they say that they are sorry from the heart. The moderate walk a middle way, which is broad. Several of these establish turns almost mathematically, namely once, twice, three times, four times, but not beyond, if they bring only ordinary signs of penance; otherwise, if they bring extraordinary signs. But all agree that absolution can be given the first time, and that those are more easily to be absolved who sin from the very frailty of nature, and who are found in a necessary occasion. But others, and we adhere to these, say that the whole matter is in the prudent estimation of the confessor, and is to be weighed and judged from the various circumstances of sins, persons, places, times, and causes. The following rules can be established. Salm., C. 5, n. 68; L. 452 ff., 459 ff.

The confessor can safely give absolution whenever he prudently judges the penitent to be sufficiently disposed, i.e., that "neither diligence in enumerating sins, nor sorrow in detesting them, was altogether lacking to the penitent." Roman Catechism, p. 2, n. 60. It is the certain doctrine of Catholic schools that any penitent can be absolved if he presents sufficient indications of true penance. A prudent judgment about sufficient disposition does not necessarily have to be a certain judgment, but only a probable one suffices. The reason is that the sacrament of penance scarcely admits a more certain judgment of this kind. St. Thomas, I-II, q. 91, a. 3; II-II, q. 47, a. 9 ad 2; III, q. 68, a. 4 ad 2. But this prudent judgment about the sufficient disposition of the penitent must be formed from the assertion of the penitent himself, from his Confession, from the manner of the Confession, and from the other circumstances of the same Confession; nor indeed can it be taken from elsewhere. - St. Thomas, 4, dist. 17, q. 5, a. 3, q. 6 ad 2; Opusc. 12; Quodl. 1, a. 12; L. 459, 460, 461.

The confessor can safely defer absolution when the penitent, although he is sufficiently disposed, is nevertheless not unwilling, and the delay would be more useful to him than absolution immediately given. The first reason is that on the one hand a sufficiently disposed penitent has a right to absolution; but on the other hand, if he is unwilling, delay, speaking of itself, will either in no way profit him, or certainly will not profit him more than absolution immediately given. For if the penitent has a desire of receiving absolution, he is offended by delay, and it is greatly to be feared that he will not return any more. Likewise, if he has a desire of receiving absolution, since this is a very good will, better hope indeed will be had from such a will aided by sacramental grace than if he is deprived of this. The second reason is that otherwise the penitent would be deprived without any sufficient reason of sacramental grace, which is effective both for remitting and for preventing sins.

But that absolution can absolutely be deferred to a penitent, although sufficiently disposed, and even without his consent, is clear first by reason: namely because, although a sufficiently disposed penitent has a right to absolution, nevertheless he does not have a right to obtain it immediately; especially if delay seems useful for fulfilling some obligation, e.g., of restitution, for conceiving a greater horror concerning committed sins, and for strengthening more and more the constancy of a serious will not to sin any more. For it belongs to the confessor as judge to determine when and how the sentence of absolution is to be pronounced. But the confessor is not only judge, but father, teacher, and physician. And therefore, as father, he can before absolution put forward an admonition and spiritual exhortation, by which he may instruct and arm the penitent against temptations. Likewise, as teacher, before absolution he can teach the penitent whom he sees wrapped in much ignorance, which otherwise could lead him into many sins. Similarly, as physician, he can defer absolution when he rightly fears that the penitent now absolved will easily not fulfill some grave obligation, or will easily relapse immediately into the same crimes, unless by the very difficulty and delay of absolution the penitent better recognizes the gravity of sin and the necessity of amendment, becomes more cautious, and is confirmed in the purpose of not sinning. The experience of many weak penitents supports this, who, by this remedy prudently applied, are usually cured in a short time; and for recidivists and for those in occasions it seems more necessary and useful, because in this way they better conceive the necessity of perseverance in the purpose of not sinning. The authority of theologians is added; for very many and grave theologians teach the utility of sometimes deferring absolution.

The utility required for deferring absolution to a penitent otherwise sufficiently disposed must be notable; and consequently absolution must be deferred only for a short time. The reason is that it is altogether grave to remain in the state of mortal sin even for a few days; and, speaking of itself, absolution immediately given is more profitable than its delay. - For a short time, i.e., for some hours, for a day, for two or three days, for a week, at most for fifteen days. But this remedy of deferring absolution is not only useful, but simply necessary, and the confessor not only can but also must apply it when it is necessary for testing the sincere sorrow and purpose of the penitent, about which there is not sufficient evidence, and about whose sufficient disposition there is doubt. - Salm., c. 5, p. 4, n. 68; L. 461-464; St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 25, a. 1 ad 4.

Whenever the penitent is sufficiently disposed, and no notable utility is present from delay of absolution, the confessor is absolutely bound to give it immediately. Whenever grave harm will follow for the penitent from absolution denied or delayed, absolution is to be given to him conditionally, if he is doubtfully disposed. The first reason is that absolution must be granted from justice, and under grave obligation, to every penitent duly confessed and disposed. Nor indeed is there any reason for delay, which could be no other than the utility of the penitent himself, which in this case is had rather from absolution immediately given. "Suarez, Sanchez, etc., say that to deny absolution in light matter does not exceed venial sin." L., H. A., tr. 16, n. 118. The second reason is the common axiom: Sacraments are for men. When necessity stands, provision is made for the salvation of man in the best way in which it can be done; nor from this would there be any irreverence toward the sacrament or other inconvenience. - L. 431, 432, 462; l. 3, n. 682; St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 18, a. 4.

When the penitent does not wish to fulfill a grave obligation which he has, when he does not have sincere sorrow for committed sins, nor a purpose of not sinning henceforth, the confessor is then bound to deny absolution. To these indeed, and to these alone, absolution is to be denied absolutely. The reason is clear, because these, and these alone, are unworthy of absolution. Sin cannot be remitted to him who wishes to persevere in sin. Leo XII, Encyclical Letter Caritate Christi; Roman Ritual, de Sacram. poenit.

As regards recidivists, there is no other special doctrine, different from the preceding, which is general and comprehends all cases. Therefore, if the confessor from all the circumstances of the Confession prudently judges the penitent to be duly disposed, he can absolve him; nor here and now is it necessary that he judge that he will not relapse any more, otherwise very many could not be absolved, concerning whom certainly the confessor, while he absolves them, cannot form this judgment, that henceforth, namely for the whole time of future life, they will no longer sin gravely. Not future amendment, but present sorrow and purpose, are the necessary dispositions for absolution. If thus far the penitent has broken faith, this is not a reason why at present he cannot be absolved, if he is prudently judged to be duly disposed; it can only be a sufficient reason why the confessor either doubts the legitimate disposition of the penitent, or even is persuaded that he truly lacks the aforesaid disposition. And in this case of recidivists, although they appear disposed, delay of absolution can certainly at times be especially useful, as has already been said; to whom, moreover, frequent approach to the sacraments is also in itself especially useful, if indeed they are duly disposed for them. And thus in the Roman Ritual, de Sacram. poenit., it is said: "For those easily falling back into sins it will be most useful to counsel them to confess often, and, if it is expedient, TO COMMUNICATE." But whenever the penitent exhibits extraordinary signs of sorrow even after relapse, he can safely be absolved. The reason is that then, ordinarily at least speaking, it is more expedient that absolution not be deferred. Likewise he can safely be absolved if absolution cannot easily be deferred, lest he remain long in the state of mortal sin.

But before the confessor absolves such a one, he will take care to dispose him more certainly and fruitfully for receiving absolution. But if he appears only doubtfully disposed, then it will be not only useful, but necessary to defer absolution, unless a grave reason presses, in which case absolution can be given only conditionally. Toletus, l. 5, c. 13; Suarez, d. 32, s. 2; L. 459-464; St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 25, a. 1 ad 4.

The same must consequently be said about those in occasions. The common and universal rule is that he who is only in a remote occasion can be absolved, if indeed he is otherwise duly disposed, but not he who is in a free proximate occasion which he does not wish to leave. The first reason is that otherwise we would all have to leave the world. The second reason is that he who wishes to remain in that moral danger of falling does not seem to have an efficacious purpose of not sinning, unless he has extraordinary sorrow and purpose, or proposes to apply other remedies by which the occasion from proximate becomes remote. Lugo, d. 14, n. 151. - When the occasion is necessary and cannot be left without scandal, grave infamy, or great spiritual or temporal detriment, then he licitly remains in the danger which is necessary, provided that meanwhile he is prepared to use the prescribed means, and can hope for divine help in resisting. The reason is that no one is bound to the impossible, whether physically or morally, and besides an occasion of sin is not of itself sin, nor does it place a man in the necessity of sinning; and, in the case, the will of using the prescribed means makes it remote. So the doctors commonly, L. 455, and St. Alphonsus 456 calls this opinion most probable. Suarez, d. 32, s. 2, n. 4; Lugo, d. 13, n. 160.

If one who was absolved in a voluntary occasion, because he sincerely promised that he would remove it, or in a necessary occasion, because he sincerely promised that he would apply the remedies prescribed by the confessor, afterward falls back into the same sins, practically speaking he is not again to be absolved before he actually exercises an effort both of removing the occasion in the former case and of actually applying in the latter the remedies prescribed by the confessor; not because he absolutely cannot even at present have sincere sorrow and purpose, but because from this the confessor can easily prudently come into suspicion about the sincerity of the sorrow and purpose, L. 505 at the end; and because prudence requires that, although the sorrow is sincere and the purpose sincere, the weak will of the penitent, especially if the occasion is in esse, be aided also by this means of delaying absolution, which in the case can be very useful, and in fact often is. Except, unless the penitent gives extraordinary signs of sorrow, or there is an urgent cause, e.g., the mark of infamy in omitting Communion, if he cannot return to the same confessor, or only after a long time. And in this, if the present disposition appears morally certain, absolution is to be given absolutely; but if doubtful, it can be given only conditionally. - Suarez, d. 32, s. 2; L. 452-458; Elbel, de Actib. human., 193 ff.; E. M.

What is to be said generally about absolution from censures? "Absolution signifies an act of justice in which some case, or judgment, is terminated in favor of the guilty person.... But dispensation is an act of grace or mercy... by which something is relaxed from the common law in favor of someone." Thesaurus, De Poenis, part 1, chap. 20. For releasing a censure, absolution imparted by a legitimate judge or superior is necessary; and if the guilty person has ceased from his contumacy, justice itself requires that he be absolved from the censure.

And a censure cannot be released in another way, although satisfaction has already been made, if it was owed, and amendment has followed, except for censures imposed for a definite time: for when that has ended, they cease; and those which were imposed at the good pleasure of the one imposing them also cease when he has died, or when his right has been dissolved. This is established from C. Qua fronte 25, de Appell.; C. Ex litteris 11, de Const.; C. Cum desideres 15, de Sent. exc.; C. Relatum 37, ibid.; proposition 44 condemned by Alexander VII; L. 122. Absolution of this kind can be given by an ecclesiastical superior, or by his delegate, even if he is not a priest. And although the penalties of censure are especially of the external forum, absolution from them can nevertheless be given in the internal forum of conscience, as long as they have not been brought to the external forum; this is established by common doctrine and practice.

Absolution from censures, as removing an impediment, must be given first under grave obligation before absolution from sins; yet if it is given afterwards, it is valid; and if the penitent receiving this has not sinned gravely, the absolution from sins also is valid. But since it is not established that the penitent is bound by censure, it is prefaced only as a precaution. And from these things it is clear that absolution from censures is entirely distinct from absolution from sins, and one can stand without the other. St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 24, a. 2, ad 2; Laymann, chap. 7, n. 1; Schmalzgrueber, nn. 107, 111; E.M. 952.

What special circumstances of absolution from censures are to be noted? Various circumstances of absolution from censures to be noted are declared in the following propositions. An absent and unwilling person can be absolved from censures. For absolution from censures is not sacramental, but a mere relaxation of a bond imposed by the Church, which can also be pronounced upon the absent and unwilling. But this is not licit without grave cause. L. 117, 130; St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 24, a. 2. One who is bound by several censures can be absolved from one, the others being left, because there is no necessary connection among them. C. Cum pro causa 27, de Sent. exc.; L. 118, 131; St. Thomas, q. 24, a. 3. Absolution extorted by force or grave fear unjustly inflicted is not valid, from C. single chapter, de His quae vi, etc., in VI; L. 119. The same is to be said if it is given by error concerning the motive cause. C. Offic. 42, de Sent. exc.; Schmalzgrueber, nn. 99, 100, 102; Thesaurus, De Poenis, part 1, chaps. 22-24.

Absolution can be given both absolutely and conditionally. Likewise absolution can be given with reincidentia, i.e., so that the absolved person, unless he performs something, for instance unless he has restored after such a time, falls back into the same censure by that very fact. Reincidentia is either by law or by man. It is by man only when it is added by the express will of the superior; but by law when it is contained in clear law. For we are in odious matters. Moreover the censure into which the absolved person is going to fall back is a new censure in number, although of the same species. Therefore reincidentia cannot be added to absolution except by one who has power of imposing censure, and it is not incurred without new fault and contumacy. L. 86, 87, 123-125; Laymann, chap. 7, n. 8; Lugo, De Poenit., disp. 20, nn. 213-214.

X. Those absolving an accomplice in a shameful sin, even in the article of death, if another priest, although not approved for Confessions, can hear the Confession of the dying person without any grave infamy and scandal about to arise.

Those absolving: here the excommunication already imposed by Benedict XIV is changed and enlarged; he imposed it against those daring, presuming to absolve, absolving by rash daring. Cf. 1280 ff.; E.M.

XVIII. "Those presuming to absolve without due faculty, even under any pretext whatsoever (from excommunications reserved in a special manner to the Roman Pontiff)... provided there is not question of the article of death." Paragraph A quibus. Cf. 1177.

Those presuming to absolve, not simply those absolving. To absolve, not to feign absolution. From excommunications reserved in a special manner to the Roman Pontiff, not from others. Provided there is not question of the article of death, or of a more urgent case, or it is very hard for the penitent to remain longer in the state of mortal sin. Cf. 800; Suarez, disp. 22, sec. 5, fifth excommunication.

What about absolution of an accomplice? In the same Constitution of Benedict XIV Sacramentum Poenitentiae, there is also treatment of absolution of an accomplice, of its unlawfulness and invalidity, and of the excommunication imposed on the absolver.

1. Pamphilus, a confessor, hearing the confessions of clerics in the seminary, does not know whether he ought to add or omit the word suspensionis, since the aforesaid clerics are constituted only in minor orders. For the Ritual says that the aforesaid word is to be omitted if the penitent is a layman.

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

R. The aforesaid word, suspensionis, can be omitted in the Case, since in reality there is no such suspension in force. "If the penitent is a layman," says Reuter, Neo-confess., p. 1, c. 7, n. 22, "or, as Gobat and Stoz hold, only in minor orders, the word suspensionis is omitted." I. M. 748.

2. Nicasius, imparting absolution to a dying man, and fearing about his own intention, in order to drive out that fear, says: I wish to minister to thee the sacrament of absolution. This form having been pronounced, the sick man dies.

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

R. Nicasius indeed acts badly, perverting the form of the Church which is had in the Roman Ritual. But he acts very badly in the most grave Case of a dying man. For the absolution given is not only illicit, but also invalid. The will of doing something is not the same as doing that thing. Hence, I wish to minister, or I wish to absolve, is not the same as, I minister, or, I absolve. St. Thomas, 3 p., q. 84, a. 3, ad 5, explaining the form of the sacrament of penance, explains it thus: "I absolve thee, that is, I bestow upon thee the sacrament of absolution." But again, it is one thing to bestow the sacrament of absolution, another thing to wish to bestow the sacrament of absolution. Hence the Holy Office, June 23, 1840, declared invalid a baptism conferred with this form: I wish to minister to thee the sacrament of baptism of sins in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, Acta S. Sed., vol. 25, p. 246. In this form, besides that word I wish, that other added word of sins disturbs the whole sense of the form.

3. Presence of the penitent. Remigius the confessor, after hearing the confession of Fugatius, while he was piously exhorting him and was asking whether he was prepared not to sin, notices, astonished, that he gives no response. He looks back, but sees no one; for the penitent had gone away, thinking himself absolved. Then looking again, he saw Fugatius in the middle of the crowd, kneeling and praying, and joyfully absolved him at once.

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

R. Remigius acted rightly, because since the penitent was morally present, the absolution was valid. Indeed the absolution would have been valid although the confessor had not seen the penitent in the midst of the crowd of the faithful, because for that reason he would not have ceased to be morally present. Yet he would have acted more rightly if, without scandal, under some pretext, he had been able to call the penitent back to himself, so that he might absolve him more fittingly. But it does not seem, in the Case, that grave inconvenience was really lacking in calling the penitent again to himself from the middle of the crowd.

4. Titius, formerly a fervent Catholic, afterward ensnared by the seductions of a friend, gives his name to a certain perverse sect. The members of this sect mutually bind themselves to reject the sacraments even at the article of death; indeed they promise that they will also give diligent effort that the access of a Catholic priest to sick companions be altogether prevented. After a most wicked life carried on through many years, Titius falls sick unto death. At once some of the sectarians come to him, indeed under the pretext of furnishing assistance, but in reality so that, according to the prescription of the sect, they may prohibit the parish priest, if perhaps he is called, from approaching.

Titius, who had not renounced the Catholic faith in his mind, fearing the divine judgments, would wish to provide for his own salvation and to call a confessor. But he knows very well that this cannot easily be done because of the perversity of the companions who stand by. But it came opportunely into his mind that he could communicate by telephone with a very Catholic friend. Hence, pretending that he wished to rest for a little while, he sends the associates out of his room, and at once manifests his state to his friend, and at the same time earnestly asks him to call the parish priest to hear his confession by telephone. The parish priest who is called is seized by the novelty of the matter; nevertheless he at once hastens there, and, the confession by telephone having been completed, since he doubts whether this manner of confessing is valid, yet so that he may provide for the sick man in some way, he absolves him under condition. A little while afterward Titius dies.

Soon the parish priest, the matter having been considered more maturely, begins to doubt whether he conducted himself rightly; hence he consults a theologian, asking him:

1.º Whether and how the penitent must be present to the confessor absolving? - 2.º Whether the presence of the penitent to the confessor, required for the value of the sacrament, is had in the Case? - 3.º Whether he himself conducted himself rightly?

R. To the 1st. There can be no doubt that the penitent must be present to the confessor absolving. This is established, 1.º from the most common doctrine of theologians. It is established, 2.º from the Council of Trent, sess. 14, c. 2, where, explaining the proper nature of this sacrament from Christ's institution, it says that Christ so instituted this sacrament that he willed penitents to stand before this tribunal as accused persons, and to be freed from sins by the sentence of priests. For an accused person to stand before this tribunal certainly signifies the presence of the accused before the judge, since this tribunal is constituted only by the confessor and at the same time the penitent. This is established, 3.º from the decree of Clement VIII and Paul V, by which it was forbidden to teach that either confession made to an absent priest, or absolution imparted to an absent penitent, is licit. Cf. Enchiridion Morale, 3rd ed., n. 696. This is established, 4.º from the fact that the form of this sacrament consists in words, namely in the words of absolution, which are directed to one present.

But the presence required must be moral presence. Yet, if from the very form of this sacrament it is established that the presence of the penitent before the confessor is altogether required, from the same form it is established that that presence is required by which men are accustomed to converse among themselves with human voice. For the confessor, while he pronounces the form, seems to converse with the penitent himself. Fittingly St. Alphonsus, l. 6, n. 429, explaining this moral presence, says: "This moral presence is reputed to be that within which men can and are accustomed to speak with a common voice, although higher... Elbel with Sporer and others adds that such presence can be extended to about twenty paces, especially where the penitent has not yet gone out from the sight of the confessor... But Tamburini deservedly does not approve Leander, who says that it is enough for moral presence if the priest sees the penitent, or perceives him by another sense; for presence for absolution requires greater nearness than for hearing a sermon or Mass."

To the 2nd. The presence of the penitent to the confessor required for the value of the sacrament is certainly not had in the Case, prescinding from the telephone; since certainly the sick penitent in his own house is neither physically nor morally present to the confessor in the house of his friend. Therefore the question can be raised only about that circumstance of communication by telephone. But communication by telephone does not remove distance, nor consequently render mutually present to themselves those who are distant from one another, but is only an efficacious medium of communication between those distant or not present. But from the mere fact of communication of two persons between themselves, the presence of the persons themselves is not had, as is seen in communication by a messenger, by a letter, or by any other medium whatever; for example, by lights of diverse color lit at night, or by flags also of diverse color displayed upon a pole, or by sound and explosion produced by some instrument, or finally by telegraph. Nor indeed does it avail to object that communication in the Case is had through the very human voice of the one speaking, whence it is that the one hearing is one hearing the speaker. For first, that voice which is transmitted and heard through the telephone is not in reality the human voice of the speaker, but is a certain physical reproduction of this voice, or rather the physical effect of that voice. Wherefore the one hearing in reality does not hear the speaker, namely the voice of the speaker, but hears the sound of a metallic plate by its vibrations imitating and reproducing the sound of the voice, which impresses its vibrations of air upon another metallic plate, whence then the sound of the other plate, which is heard, is determined. Wherefore a human voice is not had, nor consequently are words had, but only a certain perfect imitation of the human voice, by a mechanical sound physically produced by the human voice. Hence from the telephone, which is here brought forward in place of the telegraph, not only is the difficulty from the impediment of distance in the Case not removed, but even that difficulty is not diminished. Perhaps it would be diminished, but certainly it would not be removed, if not the telephone but a voice-duct, commonly called a portavoce, were used; for then the speaker's own voice would in reality be heard. Nevertheless even in this Case moral presence would not be had, and because distance is had, therefore such a medium of communication is used.

To the 3rd. The parish priest does not seem to have conducted himself well in the Case. For indeed, in extreme necessity, it is licit to administer the sacraments conditionally, even with a slight probability concerning their value, as St. Alphonsus teaches, and theologians commonly teach. But that slight probability which the doctors here bring into the matter is not a true slight probability, which is not true probability, as slight, from the slight motive on which it rests, but it is a slight probability which nevertheless is true probability, since it is slight from a slight degree, that is, constituted in the lowest degree of probability. And indeed, even in doubt of baptism, which is most necessary, baptism cannot be repeated unless there is at least a probable doubt of the preceding baptism, as is had in the Roman Ritual, De Bapt. adult., or, what is the same thing, unless there is a probable doubt about the validity of the first baptism, as is had in the Decision of the Holy Office, May 27, 1671, A. S. S., vol. 25, p. 256. Moreover, in the Case there can indeed perhaps be had some slight motive for the validity of that absolution, but a truly prudent, grave, and probable motive, although in the lowest degree, is not had. Wherefore it does not seem that the parish priest conducted himself well, even by absolving only under condition.

But the parish priest ought, after the confession heard by telephone, to have stirred the penitent to an act of perfect contrition, consulting for his eternal salvation by this means, in the best way in which it could be done. Then, if time allowed, he ought at once to go to the house of the sick man, and by some pretext, and even employing some simulation of some very grave business to be treated, penetrate into the room of that sick man, and then, a summary confession having been made by him, he could beyond doubt absolve him absolutely. But what if the sectarians present in every way prevented the aforesaid summary confession? If the parish priest then noticed in Titius some other sign of confession, as the thing would be easy, a sign of this sort would still suffice, and he could absolve Titius absolutely. But if, coming to the house of Titius after his confession heard by telephone, he had found him destitute of senses, then indeed the difficulty would be serious, but as it seems, he could have absolved Titius under condition. For in the Roman Ritual it is said absolutely of a sick man who, destitute of senses, could not confess: if he has shown the desire of confessing either by himself or through others, he is to be absolved. Moreover Titius altogether showed the desire of confessing, and by himself, namely through that confession previously made by him by telephone. The defect of presence in that confession indeed stands in the way; from it, however, the excellent dispositions of Titius can well be gathered, dispositions in which Titius certainly perseveres, and which, as ordinarily happens, he signified by some external effect and act; so that it can well be presumed that Titius both has and perhaps still shows the desire of confessing, although it is not noticed. For indeed we have been so constituted by nature that that interior contrition of soul, when it is true and sincere, regularly speaking, is betrayed outwardly at least by sadness and by lowering of the eyes and countenance. And if Titius could be absolved if his servant, for example, by his mandate had called the parish priest, and then, the sick man being present, had testified to the parish priest the desire of his confession, or even if he had previously testified a desire of this sort to him, and had gone away on account of other business, as several theologians teach, could the same be done in the proposed Case? But it is not necessary to define this speculative question, which we leave at present undecided and altogether doubtful, to be decided by wiser men, because in reality practically no difficulty can seem to be present in giving that conditional absolution. For in reality, as formerly, so also today, this is the practice of all confessors: that finding sick persons destitute of senses, unless their positive and actual unworthiness is established from some other source, they absolve them under condition. Confer the Commentary on the Absolution and Assistance of the Dying.

5. Conditional absolution. 1.º Claudinus, a confessor, absolves those doubtfully disposed under condition in the following Cases: 1.º the sick gravely endangered as to life, especially the dying, although much more probably indisposed; 2.º soldiers about to go into the army or battle, and sailors and others about to undertake a sea voyage; 3.º habitual betrothed persons now about to be joined in marriage; 4.º strangers, men who scarcely or hardly at all will be able to return to his tribunal, and are immediately about to depart; 5.º penitents who certainly or probably are foreseen not to return, although they can return; indeed also young men who threaten that they will not return unless they are absolved; 6.º boys of seven years, and even of ten years, and half-witted persons, who probably sinned gravely, and furnish only doubtful signs of reason and disposition; 7.º from a bridge he absolves sailors and the others contained in a ship who, by an unexpected shipwreck, were being submerged in the waters of a river; 8.º a soldier who, pierced in a duel, was lying dying and destitute of senses; 9.º a heretic in a hospital, dying, destitute of senses, and struggling with death.

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

R. Claudinus acted rightly in the first four Cases, because on the one hand there is no positive evidence of the indisposition of the penitents, and on the other hand, since they are found in danger of salvation and in a case of necessity, he provides for their spiritual good in the best way he can. But he acted badly by absolving the men or young men in the fifth Case from the fact that they threatened that they would not return, although they could easily return. For this seems an undoubted sign of indisposition. But as to those who, threats being excluded, were in reality foreseen not to return if they had been dismissed without absolution, the solution depends on the various circumstances of particular cases. In the sixth Case, he ought first to have disposed them insofar as could be done; but, the doubt persevering, he could absolve the same persons under condition, especially with the precept of annual confession urging. G. 395, 396.

In the seventh Case he could and ought out of charity to absolve those miserable shipwrecked persons under condition. The reason is that those dying persons were morally present, and they could be supposed to wish to confess and to give signs of sorrow, in the Case in which they were seen by the priest. At least among all, one or another could have been truly disposed, and could furnish all the conditions required so that the sacrament of penance, in so great an extremity, could be valid and applied. But the priest ought to have called out to them in a loud voice, and in one word exhorted them to contrition, and suggested it to them. Moreover he ought to have used the form in the plural number: I absolve you from your sins, etc. Elbel 37. But what if the priest immediately after the shipwreck had no longer seen any of those submerged? Nevertheless he could still have imparted conditional absolution to them, provided he prudently judged them still morally present, because in that Case there could still appear hope of validity and of fruit to be received from it. But otherwise it must be said if, because of the force of the river, they had slipped away so far that they could no longer perceive the priest calling out to them. G. 391.

In the eighth Case Claudinus seems praiseworthy, since, insofar as he could, he helped the miserable sinner. For it absolutely could have happened that he was disposed and wished in some way to confess. But he ought first to have called out to him, so that he might exhort him, if perhaps he was heard by him, to contrition disposedly, and also to confessing in whatever way. G. 486. Cf. Commentary on the Absolution and Assistance of the Dying.

In the ninth Case Claudinus also seems praiseworthy. The reason is that, if the contrary is not positively established, it can be presumed that here and now he wishes to die in the Catholic Religion, and consequently to confess and to be absolved. For this can absolutely happen. Certainly at least one such person among a hundred thousand can be found. But in a case of necessity it is licit to use even a slightly probable opinion in favor of a man in danger. It is surely certain that there are merely material heretics, and those who do not have hatred of confession. But it was not established in the Case that the aforesaid dying man was a formal heretic, and some hope could be had, although most slight, of the value of the absolution to be conferred. - La-Croix 1866; Elbel 212, 214; Reuter, Neo-confessar. 203; G. 488-491; Gennari, Consultaz. Mor. Can. Lit., p. 1, Cons. 58; M. E. vol. 6, p. 2, p. 107 seqq.; I. M. 751-754.

6. Titius, a foreign youth from the sect of Protestants, who nevertheless was endowed with good morals and who seemed to err only materially in faith, while he was staying at Rome together with his widowed mother during the winter season, as he was accustomed, was seized by a most grave disease which the physician judged incurable. Caius, a Catholic priest of the same nation, who frequented his house, at once approached him, that he might consult for his eternal salvation. When they were conversing together, Titius declared himself to be a sinner, at the same time asking Caius to pour forth prayers to God, to obtain from Him pardon of his sins. Having obtained this good occasion, Caius desired gently to lead him, after heresy had been abjured, to the Catholic faith and to rebaptize him under condition; he secretly manifested this desire of his to the mother. But the mother, who pertinaciously adhered to the same sect, strongly resisted, adding at the same time both that there was no doubt about the validity of the baptism, and giving permission only that he should have conversation with him about those things alone which are common to heretics with Catholics; and from that time she sat constantly at the side of the sick man.

But when the disease grew worse, Caius, to whom nothing else remained, addressed Titius in this way: Do you believe all things whatsoever that have been revealed by God through Christ? Are you sincerely sorry for your sins? Do you confirm what you have already declared before God and me, namely, that you are a sinner? Does it please you that, through my help, toward attaining eternal life better, insofar as I can, you yourself be helped? When the sick man had nodded assent to each of these things, "Therefore trust in God," Caius says, "and He Himself will pardon your sins." These things having been said, he secretly absolved him under condition. A little while afterward Titius dies, and, by order of the mother, he is led to burial by the rite of the Protestants.

It is asked: 1.º Whether, at the article of death, a material heretic, enjoying the use of reason, can be absolved unless first, having been convinced concerning the Catholic faith, he embraces it and makes confession? - 2.º Whether Caius conducted himself rightly in all things?

R. To the 1st. St. Alphonsus, speaking of a dying man, destitute of senses, in the act of sin, to be absolved, altogether excludes heretics, saying, l. 6, n. 483: "For heretics, even if in that Case they give signs of penance, ought not to be absolved unless they expressly ask absolution, because such persons can never prudently be presumed to furnish those signs in order to confession, from which they exceedingly abhor." This is certainly a presumption, and a general presumption, which ought to yield to truth, and also to a contrary presumption in a particular case. Indeed there would be a contrary presumption if the heretic were altogether material and in good faith, with his mind altogether disposed and prepared for fulfilling all those things which have been ordained by God in His divine Providence for the eternal salvation of men.

Fr. Gury, Cas., vol. 2, n. 488, distinguishes between a formal and material heretic, and concerning a material heretic dying and destitute of senses says that absolution under condition is to be granted to him. And the Most Reverend Gennari, Consultaz., etc., p. 255, extends this even to a formal heretic. Moreover, if absolution can be given at least conditionally to a heretic of this sort dying and destitute of senses, it can also be given to the same if he enjoys the use of reason and the danger of death is imminent.

The question here about absolution to be given to such a heretic can exist only because of its invalidity from defect of intention and of the acts of the penitent. Moreover, such a defect does not seem really to be present. For first, as to intention, if implicit intention suffices in baptism, even in penance implicit intention can suffice, since penance is not of greater necessity, nor does it bring greater obligations, than baptism. Now indeed implicit intention is sufficiently had by the sincere and explicit will of admitting and employing all things necessary for salvation, ordained by God. But as to the acts of the penitent, since confession made only in general suffices for the validity of absolution, this can well be suggested to a dying heretic, so that he duly confess himself a sinner, or that he has sinned, and then ask pardon of his sins from God with hope of pardon; and then neither the necessary confession nor contrition is lacking for the validity of absolution.

As is had in the Instruction of the Sacred Congregation, January 30, 1833, Collectanea S. C. de P. F. n. 650: "Theologians everywhere teach that for the value of the sacrament there is not necessary in the minister that intention which they call express or determinate, but that only a generic intention suffices, namely of doing what the Church does, or of doing what Christ instituted, or what Christians do." And, as is added there immediately, an express and distinct intention of making a sacrament is not required, but a confused, implicit, general intention of doing what is done in the true Church of Christ suffices. But if an implicit and general intention of this sort suffices in the minister, it seems consequently and much more to suffice in the subject: that general will and intention of fulfilling and employing all the means instituted by Christ for one's own sanctification and eternal salvation.

Nor indeed can there be difficulty on the part of defect of Catholic faith. For a material heretic and one in good faith can well have supernatural faith necessary for justification. Nor likewise can there be defect from the fact that the aforesaid acts of the penitent, namely confession and contrition, were not ordered by him to absolution; for at least implicit ordering is not lacking by that general will just mentioned. And this holds insofar as that ordering is affirmed necessary. For if no necessity of such ordering is maintained, then there will be no difficulty from this head.

Besides, theologians almost commonly admit, as to a material heretic and one destitute of senses, that he can be absolved under condition. Come now, why indeed can such a heretic be absolved at least conditionally? Certainly not because such a heretic, who never had any suspicion of the sacrament of penance, now destitute of senses thinks about such a sacrament and elicits an express desire of confession and an act of contrition. This in reality is naturally absurd. Nor also because, during that state, he is supernaturally enlightened by God so as to know the necessity of the sacrament of penance, and, recovering the use of reason at least for some very brief space of time, duly disposes himself for it by his acts. This surely pertains not to probability, but to possibility; not to the natural order of things, but to miracles; and therefore for this reason it cannot be affirmed that the aforesaid heretic can be absolved at least conditionally. Therefore there can be no other reason except that in such a heretic those said acts can prudently be presumed, which, absolutely speaking, could suffice for the validity of the sacrament.

Wherefore to the proposed Question the response seems to be affirmative, namely that the aforesaid heretic can be absolved under condition. Fittingly La-Croix, l. 6, p. 2, n. 1866: "If a Catholic priest understands that a non-Catholic man has been brought to extremities, he acts prudently, unless something else stands in the way, if he approaches him... elicits with him acts of faith, hope, and charity, and of perfect contrition for sins... But if the circumstances allow, he can afterward ask whether, if he knew that he was not in the true faith, he would wish to embrace another, and to do all things necessary for salvation; whether he would wish to confess and to be absolved, if this were necessary for salvation. If he nods assent to these things... he can be absolved under condition."

To the 2nd. From what has been said, Caius seems to have conducted himself rightly, disposing Titius for a holy death insofar as it was in him and the circumstances allowed, and absolving him under condition. As to the fact that, by order of the mother, the body of Titius was led to burial by the rite of the Protestants, it surely did not pertain to Caius, a private priest, to prevent that; and for avoiding greater evils and sins and scandals he conducted himself well by concealing that he had absolved Titius under condition, and by keeping secret the absolution given. Yet there seems to be another thing which Caius ought to have done first. Caius is of the same nation as Titius. Wherefore Caius ought to have known well the manner of conferring baptism among Protestants; and therefore, doubting about its value, he wished to rebaptize Titius under condition, and was prevented only by the obstinate Protestant mother. Hence, while such a doubt stood concerning the validity of the baptism received, as Caius secretly absolved Titius under condition, so also he ought previously to have baptized him secretly under condition, which he could easily have done, for example with a little cloth wetted with water, applied to the forehead and lightly pressed, so that a little water would flow.

7. Albinus, a confessor, for a just cause conditionally absolves Jacob, doubtfully disposed. But the latter, now about to depart, by I know not what fate, asks the confessor whether he has been absolved. Astonished, the confessor, hesitating, answers affirmatively, not daring to declare that he had given only conditional absolution. Can I therefore communicate? the penitent asks again. Behold a new difficulty; and again, hesitating, Albinus answers negatively. Jacob marvels, and indignantly asks the reason for the denial. But the confessor, so that he may extricate himself from such great difficulties, consents that the penitent receive the sacred Synaxis, kindly exhorting the penitent that before Communion he repeat from the heart acts of faith, hope, charity, and contrition.

It is asked: 1.º Whether it is necessary or fitting that penitents absolved under condition be warned? - 2.º Whether the confessor in such a Case ought to prohibit them from Communion, or can permit it positively or negatively? - 3.º What is to be said of Albinus?

R. To the 1st. It is neither necessary nor expedient that the confessor warn the penitent that he was absolved only conditionally, because from this warning no good and many inconveniences can follow. For from it anxiety and disturbance of the penitent arise, and ambiguities for the confessor. Nor indeed is there any harm present for the penitent. For, if afterward he confesses at another time, these sins will be remitted indirectly in that confession itself, if they truly were not remitted. If he does not confess, and the sins in reality were not remitted, and danger is present for the penitent, that is certainly from his negligence and evil will in omitting confession, and by no means from the conditional absolution. On the contrary, if this is not given, if perhaps he is disposed, since the matter is doubtful, the penitent is exposed to danger of salvation.

To the 2nd. The confessor who conditionally absolves the penitent ought neither to impel him to Communion nor to draw him back from it. Let the confessor himself be silent, and let the penitent do whatever pleases him. For if he approaches the Eucharist in good faith, he can even receive first grace by communicating; if in bad faith, namely because he feels himself indisposed, he himself voluntarily casts himself into danger.

To the 3rd. To the first question of the penitent Albinus ought to have answered affirmatively, without any hesitation, since in reality he absolved insofar as the dispositions of the penitent allowed. To the second question he ought to have answered the penitent that the whole matter was left to his own judgment. But since Albinus positively furnished consent for Communion, he indeed did well by exhorting the penitent to acts of charity and contrition, lest perhaps he receive Communion sacrilegiously. G. 392-394.

“Is the word deinde in the form of absolution, printed in red type in certain editions, to be omitted?—Response. Nothing is to be changed.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 11 March 1837, Verona.

“There are certainly many cases in which the denial and delay of absolution is a suitable remedy, and sometimes a necessary one. Let the confessor see to it, says St. Charles Borromeo in the Instructions on Penance, that he absolves no one who either is unwilling to lay aside hatred or enmity, or refuses to restore another’s property according to his ability, or is not prepared to depart from the state of mortal sin or to avoid an occasion of a similar sin. Hence the Apostolic See has always risen up with marvelous zeal against the lax and perverse facility of certain casuists in granting absolution, as is evident to every reader from the propositions rightly and deservedly condemned by Alexander VII, Innocent XI, and other Roman Pontiffs. It would be very lengthy, however, to enumerate cases of this kind; but they can be seen in St. Charles Borromeo’s Instruction for Confessors, and confessors should not allow themselves to be led away from these holy rules, confirmed by the consent of the whole Church, by a false mercy toward penitents. “Nevertheless, apart from the cases set forth above, an indiscriminate and widespread withholding of absolution for every mortal sin, for the sake of conceiving a greater horror of crimes and acquiring a better disposition for obtaining the benefit of absolution, is certainly neither a medicine nor a suitable chastisement ever employed by the Church against unwilling penitents, but was usurped by rigid and imprudent confessors alone, contrary to all right, and proscribed by three Roman Pontiffs. Peter of Osma already attempted to introduce this excessively severe and imprudent practice—to say nothing worse—by this proposition: Penitents are not to be absolved unless the penance enjoined has first been performed, deservedly condemned in the Council of Alcalá and by Sixtus IV in the year 1479, in the Bull which begins Licet ea. It is evident that, after the apostate Marco Antonio de Dominis, book 5, On the Republic of the Church, chapter 7, and Antoine Arnauld, On Frequent Communion, part 2, from chapter 8, this same deadly practice prevailed among the Belgians and certain French followers of rigorism. From their books Alexander VIII, among others, transfixed these two propositions with a just anathema: ‘16. The order of placing satisfaction before absolution was introduced, not by the discipline or institution of the Church, but by the very law and precept of Christ, the nature of the thing itself in a certain manner dictating it’; and ‘17. By that practice of absolving immediately, the order of penance is inverted.’ Quesnel attempted once again to introduce this practice, cruel in substance, by means of these two propositions couched in deceptive and equivocal terms: ‘87. It is a way full of wisdom, light, and charity to give souls time to bear with humility and to feel the state of sin, to seek the spirit of penance and contrition, and to begin at least to satisfy the justice of God before being reconciled. 88. We do not know what sin and true penance are when we wish to be restored immediately to the possession of those goods of which sin stripped us, and refuse to bear the shame of that separation’; these were rightly and deservedly condemned by Clement XI in the Bull Unigenitus. This severe practice certainly brings the greatest ruin upon souls, especially upon those who are imperfectly contrite, or, if you prefer, are beginning to love, according to St. Leo and St. Augustine (Letter 180 to Honoratus), who teach that ‘very many perish for want of the sacrament who, by its aid, would have flown to heaven.’ They therefore remain exposed to the danger of eternal damnation, while our most wise Savior warns us always to keep watch in justice, for ‘at an hour we do not expect, the Son of Man will come.’

“But let us grant to rigid directors that persons imperfectly contrite in this way survive until absolution: when absolution is delayed for them, they remain enemies of God, incapable of any merit or satisfaction; for their works, according to St. Thomas, on Book IV of the Sentences, distinction 15, since they are done without charity, are not satisfactory: ‘For it is impossible,’ he says, ‘for anyone to make satisfaction to God unless he is pleasing to God; and therefore, in order that satisfaction be fitting, it must be informed by sanctifying grace’; and in the Supplement, question 14, article 2: ‘Works done without charity are not satisfactory.’ Whatever indulgence, then, may have been proposed, the sinner deprived of absolution will be able to gain none; suspicions, harm to reputation, and scandals arise from an indiscriminate delay of absolution. The shame of confessing is a strong bridle against sin, as is held in chapter Quem, 88, On Penance, distinction 1. What of the fact that penitents who are repelled often cast aside the thought of salvation in despair?

“Therefore, let missionaries not follow the perverse reformers of the Church. “Rather, let them adhere to the Council of Trent, Session 6, chapter 14, On the Fallen and Their Restoration, where we have absolution preceding satisfaction, and the guilt of sins, together with eternal punishment, remitted by the Sacrament of Penance before satisfaction, by which only the temporal punishment remaining after absolution is remitted. This prudent and benign practice, however, was not instituted by Trent alone; rather, as the Roman Catechism bears witness, it is the most ancient usage of the Church, confirmed by Scripture and the authority of the Fathers. The father in the Gospel commands the first robe to be brought quickly for the returning prodigal son, nor does he send him away to feed swine so that he might conceive a greater horror of sins and be disposed for the fatherly embrace. Among the articles on account of which Chrysostom was wrongly deposed by certain bishops, but restored by Apostolic authority, was this: ‘If you have sinned again, repent again; and as often as you have sinned, come to me, and I will heal you.’ Basil says to his spiritual son: ‘When,’ he says, ‘you perceive yourself to be liable to sins, turn quickly to penance, lest you be confounded.’ The Clementine law Dudum, On Burials, commands the priest to hear confessions, impose penances, and absolve. A decree of Boniface, Bishop of Mainz, established that every priest should take care, after receiving the confession of penitents, to reconcile them immediately by giving the prayer. I would be endless if I wished to adduce the teachings of all the Fathers in favor of such a practice of the Church, but those cited are sufficient.

“This practice, therefore, prudent and benign and fortified by so many testimonies, of immediately absolving sinners who are either imperfectly or perfectly contrite, prevails throughout the whole Church where there is an abundance of confessors and no danger of persecution; how much more, therefore, must it necessarily be observed in Western Tonkin, where there are many continual persecutions against Catholics, and where indeed the harvest is great, but the laborers are very few. Nor let the Innovators deceive you, who nourish cruelty and deadly indolence in their hearts under the appearance of zeal; do not, I say, let them deceive you with texts of Scripture, Ezekiel 13 and Jeremiah 6, which they everywhere abuse; for from these we can gather nothing more than that absolution is not to be imparted to those who lack the necessary disposition, not that it is to be denied to those endowed with that disposition; nor will you find any place in the oracles of the Old Covenant according to which reconciliation with God was delayed for penitents or was to be deferred. David had scarcely confessed his offense, saying, ‘I have sinned against the Lord,’ when Nathan proclaimed in the name of God: ‘The Lord also has taken away your sin; you shall not die.’ Nor again let them seduce you with the testimonies of Cyprian, the Roman Clergy, Innocent I, and other Fathers, which they likewise abuse; for when these testimonies are read, not in mutilated form but in full, it will be apparent to every candid and attentive person that they speak of certain public sins which at that time were to be punished by public penance. Although approved authors think that, in the very imposition of public penance, sinners were ordinarily absolved from the guilt of sin—for this was to receive the imposition of the hand unto penance: to be absolved from the guilt of sin and to receive the manner of public satisfaction. Indeed, Morinus himself, who possesses the highest authority among newer theologians, although he thinks that the absolution of public crimes, even sacramental absolution, was delayed until the fulfillment of canonical penance, agrees with us as regards other sins; for he says: ‘All crimes and sins which in those ages were not expiated by public penance were remitted immediately or a little after confession had been made to a priest, excepting a very few which, because they were public, were sometimes punished by the canons with deprivation of ecclesiastical communion.’ The Roman Catechism teaches the same: “that the custom of absolving immediately after confession existed from the very cradle of the Church, if one excepts certain enormous crimes for which public penance was due; indeed, it demonstrates at greater length toward the end of the work, from the penitential books of the Greeks, that even in the Eastern Church the custom of immediately absolving even from public sins has been preserved for twelve centuries down to the present.

“But since, according to the Council of Trent, the custom of inflicting public penance for public and scandalous sins ought to remain in force, we descend to the particular case reported by the Apostolic Visitor concerning parents who consent to the marriage of their children with disparity of worship. It seems certain that, so long as it is within their power to rescind the marriage and, after being admonished about it, they refuse the rescission, they are neither capable nor disposed to receive the benefit of absolution. But if, for their part, they have done whatever they can and it is no longer within their power to recall their children from the invalid contract, there is no reason for those persons, contrite and having confessed, to be deprived of sacramental absolution for whole years or until the end of life. Yet lest they be an example to others to perpetrate similar marriages, after they have confessed and been absolved they could either be deprived of Eucharistic Communion or be punished with another public penance, according to the judgment of a prudent and discreet bishop.

“The way full of wisdom and charity, therefore, is to snatch sinful souls as quickly as possible from the state of sin, according to the practice of the universal Church founded in the Gospel of Christ, so that they may quickly receive the first robe; and not to prolong, but, insofar as can be done, to hasten the prescribed penance, according to the form which the Council of Trent most salutarily prescribes: that they propose it before reconciliation, so that after it, restored to the state of grace more safely and salutarily, they may strive to make satisfaction.” Instruction of the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 3 October 1736.

“You place the second abuse in this: that you suspect that the benefit of sacramental absolution is delayed excessively. No certain judgment can be made in this matter. The confessor, who sits before the tribunal as a judge and as a physician must prepare medicine for the sick, alone can examine how great is the atrocity of the crimes, what is the persistence of the sickness, and what is the disposition of the penitent. He must therefore diligently investigate whether those who approach the Sacrament of Penance detest the crimes they have committed with that sorrow of soul which the Council of Trent, Session 14, chapter 5, On Contrition, requires for the integrity of the sacrament; whether they promise the beginning of a new life and hatred of the past, not merely by voice and lips, but with the innermost affection of the heart; whether, as evidence of this good and firm will, they show that they have now abstained from sins for some time; whether they have entirely dismissed, if it was within their power, those occasions which either of themselves or from their own malice or depravity induce them to sin; whether they have applied the remedies proposed to them on other occasions, by whose protection they may avoid sin in necessary and involuntary occasions; whether they have cast off the habit of sinning; whether, if they obtained the benefit of absolution on other occasions, they again relapsed into the same crimes from their own malice and wallowed in the same mire; whether they are ready and prompt to repair the damage or injury in goods, reputation, and honor in which they have injured their neighbor, if they have the means or opportunity. These and many other things, which missionaries can obtain from the praised instructions of St. Charles, must be carefully weighed by them before they impart the benefit of absolution. But since these very things lie hidden among the secrets of confession, it is certainly difficult to judge whether they abuse the power of a judge and the authority of a physician, as we intimated above, “or conduct themselves more harshly and severely toward penitents who are rightly disposed.

“Nevertheless, let the missionaries take diligent care that, if at any time public penance is to be enjoined and even prolonged for some time, they do not meanwhile allow anyone to be deprived of the benefit of sacramental absolution, provided that he places no obstacle on his part and is regarded as worthy to have the grace of reconciliation with God imparted to him in the forum of conscience. For we think it is not unknown to you that the private absolution of sinners, to be granted to penitents in the sacramental forum, differs greatly from public reconciliation with the Church. The former is to be denied to no one who is rightly disposed and displays the dispositions necessary for obtaining this grace. For holy Mother Church is benign and merciful, and does not permit anyone who from the heart and with a true exertion of soul and mind implores pardon from God for his offenses to remain under the yoke and servitude of the devil, an enemy of God, deprived of all the merits of good works. The latter, namely public reconciliation, is to be reserved to the judgment of the bishop, who will determine according to the circumstances of places and times what needs to be done, and will thus reconcile severity with lenity, so that it brings punishment to the guilty and restraint to the innocent....

“The third suspicion of abuses which disturbs you is that you fear not only that sacramental absolution is delayed for certain criminals, but that they are also repelled, perhaps for a slight cause, from the tribunal of penance. You do not, however, explain sufficiently how this matter proceeds. For it is not right to suspect that those missionaries, whom you yourself acknowledge to devote excellent labor to procuring the salvation of souls and to be highly commended by you for their zeal for piety and charity, have become so forgetful of mercy and lenity that they repel sinners who, aroused by some stimulus of penance, approach them for the confession of their faults. For it is within the power of the priest to deny sacramental absolution to the undeserving, but not to hear the confession of their crimes would be an intolerable wickedness. We have therefore judged that the question proposed by you is to be understood in this way: that inquiry is to be made only concerning those sinners who are entangled in the bonds of crimes to which the penalty of excommunication has been attached by law. And in this matter it seems especially to be considered whether someone has been excommunicated by the sentence of a judge and publicly denounced, or instead has contracted that censure by law, not indeed declared by the sentence of a judge, but, since the crime on account of which he incurred excommunication is so notorious and manifest that it cannot be concealed by any evasion or excused by favor of law, he is therefore everywhere regarded among the rest of the faithful as a public sinner. Both are certainly to be repelled from the Sacrament of Penance, for excommunicated persons cannot be made participants in the sacraments. Nevertheless, there is a distinction between the two: one excommunicated and denounced by the sentence of a judge, since he is separated from the communion of the rest of the faithful, is also to be avoided, and therefore cannot be admitted into a church to assist at the unbloody Sacrifice, pour forth public prayers, or attend the other common offices of religion, with the sole exception of the preaching of the word of God, which an excommunicated person is permitted by law to hear, chapter Respons. 43, On the Sentence of Excommunication. But one upon whom no sentence or judicial declaration of excommunication has been imposed is neither repelled from the assembly of the faithful, nor prohibited entry to the church, nor excluded from public prayers; yet just as he is incapable in himself of participation in the sacraments, so he is rightly to be kept from them by a faithful “steward of the mysteries of God because of the notoriety and pertinacity of his crime; since public scandal has arisen from it, unless it has ceased and been amended by a suitable and appropriate penance, he is to be judged altogether unworthy to become a participant in the mysteries of Christ, lest, contrary to the precept of the Gospel, pearls be cast before swine. The missionaries must determine what and how great the penance to be imposed upon the guilty ought to be and in what manner the scandal can be removed, after weighing the circumstances of places and times; and they should especially take care that, if there is an opportunity of consulting you, nothing be decreed except with you as author and judge. Hence, therefore, the procedure of those who, making no distinction between excommunicated persons who are to be avoided and those who are tolerated, indiscriminately prohibit all, even on feast days, from entering the church and from the sacred assembly of the faithful, is not to be approved. For if they do this because they judge that such is the force of excommunication that one subjected to it is immediately to be kept from all communion with the faithful, this is contrary to the distinction mentioned and they therefore err; but if they, at their own discretion, decree this penalty indiscriminately for all excommunicated persons, they are to be reproved for excessive severity. Concerning whether those who seize girls betrothed by their parents to pagan men against their will and conduct them to the house of the bridegroom incur the penalty of excommunication, the matter is as follows: either the betrothals were entered into by the parents before the girls attained the use of reason, and it is not established that after attaining the use of reason they confirmed and ratified them; since these betrothals are altogether invalid, those who furnish counsel, assistance, or favor for the abduction of these maidens are certainly excommunicated by the law itself, according to chapter 6, Session 24, On the Reformation of Matrimony, of the Council of Trent. It is otherwise, however, if the betrothals were either first entered into with their consent or afterwards confirmed, and consequently are reputed firm and valid; for those who forcibly drag brides to the bridegroom, though unwilling and resisting, are not subject to the penalties of abductors.” Instruction of the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 29 April 1784.

“No one enjoying the communion of the Church is to be repelled from the tribunal of penance.—Let an instruction be given that all are always to be received for confession, but only those disposed are to be absolved.” Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 16 January 1804.

“The Sacred Congregation could not approve the excessive facility said to be found among the confessors of your Vicariate in the administration of the Sacrament of Penance: they are said to absolve everyone indiscriminately, without making any distinction among penitents, even relapsing sinners and those remaining in a habitual custom of the sin of superstition. Indeed, since from the very institution of the Sacrament of Penance it is established that the sins of some are to be remitted and those of others retained, John 20:23, it is manifest that this custom of your confessors, if what is related about them is true, is opposed to the very institution of the Sacrament of Penance; for it cannot be supposed that all penitents of your Vicariate possess the dispositions which, from the institution of the Sacrament of Penance just praised, are known to be necessary for obtaining sacramental absolution. This custom of your confessors is also opposed by the Roman Ritual itself, in which, under the title On the Sacrament of Penance, it is read: ‘Let the priest consider diligently when and to whom absolution is to be granted or denied.’ This would not have been prescribed if absolution were to be imparted indiscriminately to all penitents, even relapsing sinners and those existing in a habitual custom of sinning. Let your confessors therefore be instructed concerning this threefold class of penitents, according to the Roman Ritual just praised, and let them deny absolution to those who show either no signs of penance or only feigned signs; “but let them defer it for those whose penance is rightly regarded as uncertain and suspect. Thus teach the sounder theologians; thus teach the Instructions proposed to confessors by St. Charles Borromeo and by St. Francis de Sales, who adopted in his Synodal Constitutions the rules handed down by St. Charles, as can be seen in their title 9, article 5, no. 3. And the aforesaid confessors of your Vicariate must remember that, from a great facility in absolving, a great facility in sinning must necessarily arise.” Instruction of the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith to the Apostolic Vicar of Cochinchina, August 1827.

"There are certainly many cases in which the denial and delay of absolution is an opportune remedy, and at times necessary. Let the Confessor see, says St. Charles Borromeo in the Instructions of Penance, that he absolve no one who is unwilling either to lay aside hatred or enmity, or refuses to restore another's goods according to his ability, or is not prepared to depart from a state of mortal sin, or to avoid the occasion of a similar sin. Hence the Apostolic See has always risen up with marvelous zeal against the soft and ill-ordered facility of some casuists in granting absolution, as is evident to any reader from the propositions deservedly and justly condemned by Alexander VII, Innocent XI, and other Roman Pontiffs. But it would be very prolix to enumerate cases of this kind, but they can be seen in St. Charles Borromeo in the Instruction of Confessors; and let Confessors not allow themselves to be led away from those holy rules, confirmed by the consent of the whole Church, by false mercy toward penitents.

But, the excepted cases having been premised, the holding back, indiscriminately and everywhere applied, of any mortal sin whatever, for the sake of conceiving a greater horror against crimes and of acquiring a better disposition for obtaining the benefit of absolution, is certainly not a medicine nor a congruous chastisement ever employed by the Church upon unwilling penitents, but one usurped by rigid and imprudent Confessors alone, against every right, and proscribed by three Roman Pontiffs. Peter de Osma already attempted to introduce this excessively severe and imprudent practice, to say nothing worse, by that proposition: Penitents are not to be absolved unless the enjoined penance has first been completed, deservedly condemned in the Council of Complutum and by Sixtus IV in the year 1579, in the Bull which begins Licet ea. It is clear that the same destructive practice, after the apostate Marcus Antonius de Dominis, book 5, On the Republic of the Church, ch. 7, and Antoine Arnauld, book On Frequent Communion, part 2, from ch. 8, prevailed among the Belgians and some French followers of rigorism. From their books Alexander VIII, among the rest, struck these two propositions with just anathema: 16. The order of putting satisfaction before absolution was introduced not by the polity or institution of the Church, but by the very law and prescription of Christ, the nature of the thing itself in some way dictating the same, and 17. Through that practice of immediately absolving, the order of Penance is inverted. Quesnel again attempted to introduce this cruel practice as regards its substance, under deceitful and equivocal terms, by these two propositions: 87. It is a mode full of wisdom, light, and charity to give souls time to bear with humility and to feel the state of sin, to ask for the spirit of penance and contrition, and to begin at least to satisfy the justice of God before he is reconciled. 88. We do not know what sin and true penance are when we wish immediately to be restored to the possession of those goods of which sin despoiled us, and we refuse to bear the confusion of that separation, deservedly and justly condemned in the Bull Unigenitus by Clement XI. Indeed, that severe practice brings very great ruin to souls, especially to those attrite, or, if you prefer, beginning to love, from St. Leo and Augustine, Epistle 180 to Honoratus, teaching: many perish through defect of the Sacrament who by its aid would have flown up to heavenly things. Therefore they remain exposed to the danger of eternal damnation, our most wise Savior admonishing us that we always watch in justice, for at the hour when we do not think, the Son of Man will come.

But let us grant to rigid directors that persons of this kind who are attrite survive until absolution: absolution having been delayed for them, they remain enemies of God, incapable of all merit and satisfaction; for their works, according to St. Thomas, in 4, dist. 15, since they are done without charity, are not satisfactory: For it is impossible, he says, that someone satisfy God unless he please God; and therefore, that there be a suitable satisfaction, it must be informed by sanctifying grace, and in the Supplement, q. 14, art. 2: works done without charity are not satisfactory. Therefore whatever things may have been proposed, the sinner deprived of absolution will be able to obtain no indulgence; suspicions, losses of reputation, scandals, arise from an indiscriminate delay of absolving; shame in confessing is a strong bridle against sin, as is had from chap. Quem, 88, On Penance, dist. I; because penitents who have been repelled often cast aside thought of salvation by despairing.

Therefore let Missionaries not follow the disorderly reformers of the Church. Let them rather adhere to the Council of Trent, sess. 6, ch. 14, On the fallen and their reparation, where we have absolution prior to satisfaction, and the guilt of sins together with eternal punishment remitted by the sacrament of Penance before satisfaction, by which only temporal punishment remaining after absolution is remitted. But this prudent and benign practice was not instituted only by Trent, but is, as the Roman Catechism testifies, the most ancient use of the Church, approved by Scripture and the authority of the Fathers. The evangelical father orders the first robe to be brought quickly to the prodigal son returning, and does not send him back so that by feeding swine he might conceive a greater horror against sins and be disposed for the paternal embrace. Among the articles because of which Chrysostom was wrongly deposed by certain Bishops, but restored by Apostolic authority, this was one: If you have sinned again, repent again, and as often as you have sinned, come to me, and I will heal you. Basil to a spiritual son: When, he says, you have felt yourself liable to sins, turn quickly to penance, lest you be confounded. The Clementine law Dudum, On burials, commands the Priest to hear Confessions, impose penances, and absolve. The Decree of Boniface, Bishop of Mainz, establishes that each Presbyter should take care, after receiving the Confession of penitents, at once, a prayer having been given, to reconcile. I would be endless if I wished to bring forward the documents of all the Fathers for such a practice of the Church, but the things alleged suffice.

Therefore that practice, prudent and benign, fortified by so many testimonies, of at once absolving sinners, as attrite or contrite, flourishes in the whole Church where there is an abundance of Confessors, where there is no danger of persecution. How much more, then, must it necessarily be observed in Western Tongking, where many and continual persecutions against Catholics flourish, and where indeed the harvest is great, but the workers very few. Nor let innovators deceive you, who under the shadow of zeal nourish cruelty and deadly sluggishness in the heart; let them not, I say, deceive you by testimonies of Scripture, Ezekiel 13 and Jeremiah 6, which they everywhere abuse. For from these we can collect nothing more than that absolution is not to be imparted to those lacking the necessary disposition, but not that it is to be denied to those furnished with that disposition; nor will you find any place in the oracles of the ancient covenant according to which reconciliation with God was delayed for penitents, or to be deferred. Scarcely had David confessed his offense, saying, I have sinned against the Lord, when Nathan announced in the name of God: The Lord also has taken away your sin; you shall not die. Nor again let them lead you astray by testimonies of Cyprian, of the Roman Clergy, of Innocent I, and of other Fathers, which they likewise abuse; for when those testimonies are read not cut short but whole, it will appear to anyone sincerely attending that they speak concerning certain public sins which at that time were to be punished by public penance; and although approved authors think that in the very imposition of public penance sinners were regularly absolved from the guilt of fault, for this indeed was to receive the imposition of the hand unto penance, to be absolved from the guilt of fault and to receive the mode of public satisfaction. Indeed Morinus himself, of the highest authority among the new Theologians, although he thinks that the absolution, even Sacramental, of public crimes was delayed until the fulfillment of canonical penance, agrees with us as regards other sins; for thus he says: All crimes and sins which in those centuries were not expiated by public penance were remitted at once or a little after confession was made to the Priest, a few excepted, which, when they were public, were sometimes punished by the Canons with privation of Ecclesiastical communion. He teaches the same thing as the Roman Catechism, that the custom of absolving at once after confession is from the very cradles of the Church, if you except certain enormous crimes for which public penance was owed; indeed, that in the Eastern Church from twelve centuries to this time the custom has been observed of absolving at once even from public sins, which toward the end of the work he proves more fully from Greek penitential books.

But since from the Council of Trent there ought to flourish the use of inflicting public penance for public and scandalous sins, descending to the particular case reported by the Apostolic Visitator concerning parents who give consent to the marriage of their children with disparity of cult, it seems certain that as long as it is in their power to dissolve the marriage, and, having been admonished concerning this, they refuse dissolution, they are not capable nor disposed to receiving the benefit of absolution; but if on their part they have done whatever they can, and it is no longer in their power to remove their children from the invalid union, there is no reason that, being contrite and having confessed, they should be deprived of Sacramental absolution for whole years, or even to the end of life. But lest they be an example to others so that similar Marriages be perpetrated, they could, already confessed and absolved, be punished either by communion of the Eucharist, or by another public penance, at the judgment of a prudent and discreet Bishop.

Therefore the mode full of wisdom and charity is to snatch sinful souls as quickly as possible from the state of sin, according to the practice of the universal Church, founded in the Gospel of Christ, so that they may quickly receive the first robe; and not to prolong, but as much as can be done to hasten, the precept of penance, according to the form which the Council of Trent most wholesomely prescribes: that before reconciliation they propose, so that after it, more safely and salutarily, restored into the state of grace, they may strive to satisfy." Instruction of the S. C. de P. F. for the Tongkingese or Annamite Priests who administer the sacrament of Penance in Western Tongking, 1736.

"You place another abuse in this, that you suspect the benefit of Sacramental absolution is excessively deferred. In this matter a certain judgment can by no means be brought. The Confessor, who sits before the tribunal as judge and ought as physician to prepare medicine for the sick, alone can search out how great is the atrocity of crimes, what the obstinacy of sickness, what the disposition of the penitent. Therefore he must diligently investigate whether those who approach the sacrament of Penance execrate the crimes committed with that sorrow of soul which is required for the integrity of the Sacrament by the Council of Trent, sess. 14, ch. 4, On Contrition; whether they promise the beginning of a new life and hatred of the past, not only by voice and lips, but by the inward affection of the heart; whether, in testimony of this good and firm will, they show that they have already ceased for some time from sins; whether they have plainly dismissed those occasions which, either of themselves or from their own malice or depravity, induce to sin, if it was in their power; whether they have applied remedies proposed to them at other times, by whose aid they may avoid sin in necessary and involuntary occasions; whether they have cast off the habit of sinning; whether, if at other times they obtained the benefit of absolution, having again relapsed into the same crimes from their own malice, they were rolled in the same mire; whether, as to goods, reputation, and honor in which they have injured a neighbor, they are ready and prompt to repair the damage or injury, if means or occasion are at hand. These and many other things, which Missionaries can seek from the praised Instructions of St. Charles, are diligently to be weighed by them before they bestow the benefit of absolution. But since these very things lie hidden among the secrets of Confession, it is certainly difficult to judge whether they abuse that power of judge and authority of physician which we indicated above, or whether they act more harshly and severely with penitents duly disposed.

Nevertheless let Missionaries diligently take care that, if sometimes public penance is to be enjoined, and even prolonged for some time, they meanwhile allow no one to be deprived of the benefit of Sacramental absolution, provided that he place no obstacle on his part, and be held worthy that the grace of reconciliation with God be imparted in the forum of conscience. For we think it does not escape you that private absolution of sins, to be indulged to penitents in the Sacramental forum, and public reconciliation with the Church, differ very greatly between themselves. The former is to be denied to no one who is rightly affected and bears before him the necessary dispositions for obtaining this grace. For Holy Mother Church is benign and merciful, and does not suffer anyone to remain under the yoke and servitude of the devil, an enemy of God, lacking all merits of good works, who from the heart and with true striving of soul and mind begs pardon from God for his offenses. But the other, namely public reconciliation, is to be reserved to the judgment of the Bishop, who according to the circumstances of places and times will establish what needs to be done, and will so reconcile severity with gentleness that it will bring both punishment to the guilty and a bridle to the innocent....

The third suspicion of abuses which moves you is that you fear not only that Sacramental absolution is deferred for certain criminals, but that they are even, perhaps for a light cause, repelled from the tribunal of Penance. Yet you do not sufficiently declare how that matter proceeds. For it is not lawful to suspect that those Missionaries, whom you yourself acknowledge to be doing excellent work in procuring the salvation of souls and to be very much commended before you for zeal of piety and charity, have been so forgetful of mercy and gentleness that they repel sinners, excited by some spur of penance, approaching them for Confession of their faults; for to deny Sacramental absolution to the undeserving is within the power of the Priest, but not to hear the Confession of crimes would be an offense not to be borne. Therefore we judged that the question proposed by you is to be taken thus, that one must ask only concerning those sinners who are entangled in those bonds of crimes to which the penalty of excommunication is joined by law. And in this matter it seems that this chiefly must be considered: whether someone has been excommunicated by sentence of the Judge and publicly denounced, or whether indeed he has contracted that censure by law, not indeed declared by sentence of a Judge; but since the crime, because of which he fell into excommunication, is so notorious and manifest that it can be hidden by no evasion, or excused by no support of law, hence everywhere among the rest of the faithful he is held as a public sinner. Both certainly ought to be repelled from the sacrament of Penance; for the excommunicated cannot be made participants in the Sacraments. Yet a distinction intervenes between the two, because one excommunicated and denounced by sentence of a Judge, since he is separated from the communion of the other faithful, is also to be avoided, and therefore he cannot be admitted into church, to assist at the unbloody Sacrifice, pour forth public prayers, and be present at the other common offices of Religion, excepting only the preaching of the word of God, which it is permitted by law for an excommunicated person to hear, chap. Respons., 43, On sentence of excommunication. But he against whom no sentence of excommunication or judicial declaration has been pronounced is neither repelled from the assembly of the faithful, nor prohibited from the entrance of the church, nor excluded from public prayers; nevertheless from participation in the Sacraments, just as he is incapable in himself, so he is deservedly to be kept away by a faithful dispenser of the mysteries of God, because of the notoriety and pertinacity of his crime; from which, since a public scandal has arisen, unless it shall have ceased and been amended by suitable and fitting penance, he is to be judged altogether unworthy to become a participant in the mysteries of Christ, lest, against the precept of the Gospel, pearls be cast before swine. But what and how great the penance to be inflicted on the guilty should be, by what method scandal can be removed, Missionaries must establish, the circumstances of places and times having been weighed, and especially take care that nothing be decreed except with you as author and judge, if the power of consulting you is given.

And hence for this reason the manner of acting of those is not to be approved who, no distinction being employed between excommunicated persons to be avoided and those to be tolerated, prohibit all indiscriminately, even on feast days, from entrance to the church and from the sacred assembly of the faithful. For if they do this because they judge that excommunication has this force, that he who is subjected to it is at once to be kept away from all communion of the faithful, they are opposed to the remembered distinction, and therefore they err. But if they decree this punishment themselves, according to their own judgment, for all excommunicated persons indiscriminately, they are to be corrected for excessive severity. But whether those who, by force, snatch and convey to the house of the spouse girls betrothed by their parents to a gentile man, unwilling as they are, incur the penalty of excommunication, understand thus: either the betrothals were entered into by the parents before the girls obtained the use of reason, and it is not established that after the use of reason they confirmed and ratified them; since these betrothals are wholly void, certainly those who furnish counsel, aid, or favor to the abduction of these virgins are excommunicated by the law itself according to chap. 6, sess. 24, de R. M., Council of Trent; but otherwise if the betrothals either were first entered into with their consent or were then confirmed, and consequently are reputed firm and valid, for those who drag brides by force to the spouse, although they are unwilling and resisting, are not subjected to the penalties of abductors." 29 Apr. 1784, Instruction of the S. C. de P. F. to the Apostolic Vicar of Szechuan.

"No one enjoying the communion of the Church is to be repelled from the tribunal of Penance. - Let an Instruction be given, that they are always to be received for Confession, but only the disposed are to be absolved." S. C. de P. F. 16 Jan. 1804.

"The S. C. could not approve the excessive facility which is narrated concerning the Confessors of your Vicariate in the administration of the sacrament of Penance, who are said, with no distinction made among penitents, to absolve all indiscriminately, even recidivists and those remaining in a habitual custom of the sin of superstition. Certainly, since from the very institution of the sacrament of Penance it is established that sins are to be remitted to some, but retained to others, John 20:23, it is manifest that this custom of your confessors, if the things narrated about them are true, is opposed to the very institution of the sacrament of Penance; for it cannot be supposed that in all penitents of your Vicariate there are present the dispositions which are known to be necessary, from the just-praised institution of the sacrament of Penance, for obtaining Sacramental absolution. To this custom of your Confessors there is also opposed the Roman Ritual itself, in which, title On the sacrament of Penance, it is read: But let the Priest diligently see when and to whom absolution is to be conferred or denied. This would not have been prescribed if absolution were to be imparted indiscriminately to all penitents, even recidivists and those existing in a habitual custom of sinning. Therefore let your Confessors be taught concerning this threefold species of penitents, according to the Roman Ritual just praised, and let them deny absolution to those who provide either no indications or only feigned indications of penance; but let them defer it for those whose penance is deservedly held uncertain and suspect. Thus teach the more judicious Theologians; thus teach the Instructions proposed to Confessors by St. Charles Borromeo and by St. Francis de Sales, who adopted the rules handed down by St. Charles in his synodal Constitutions, as can be seen in their title 9, art. 5, n. 5; and the Confessors of your Vicariate just mentioned ought to remember that from great facility of absolving a great facility of sinning must necessarily arise." Instruction of the S. C. de P. F. to the Apostolic Vicar of Cochinchina, Aug. 1827.

A twofold form of the Sacrament of Penance can be distinguished: one essential for the validity of the Sacrament, and the other merely preceptive or rubrical.

425. • I. The essential form consists in the words: I absolve thee from thy sins. This is established from the Council of Trent, sess. 14, ch. 3, where it says:

The Holy Synod teaches that the form of the Sacrament of Penance, in which its force principally consists, is placed in those words of the Minister: I ABSOLVE THEE, etc.; to which, according to the custom of holy Church, certain prayers are laudably added.

426. • II. The preceptive or rubrical form consists in those prayers which precede or follow the essential form. Thus it is contained in the Roman Ritual: May almighty God have mercy on thee and, thy sins having been forgiven, bring thee to everlasting life. Amen.

May the almighty and merciful Lord grant thee indulgence, absolution, and remission of thy sins. Amen.

May our Lord Jesus Christ absolve thee; and I, by His authority, absolve thee from every bond of excommunication (suspension) and interdict, insofar as I am able and thou hast need; then ¹: I absolve thee from thy sins, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.

¹ This word, then, is marked in different type even in the Ritual; and this seems to indicate that it pertains not to those things which the priest must pronounce, but merely to designating their order.

And indeed, that this order be observed is required by the most well-known law which prescribes that penitents be absolved first from censures and afterward from sins.

There have nevertheless been some who thought that the contrary must be held by force of a certain Response of the S. Congregation of Rites. For when the doubt had been proposed, Whether in the form of absolution, before the words - I absolve thee from thy sins - the word - THEN - is to be said or omitted; the S. Congregation replied on February 27, 1847: Let the Decree in the Veronese case of March 11, 1837, be given. But this Decree is of the following kind: Nothing is to be changed. In order for anyone to conclude from this response that this word is to be pronounced by the absolving priest, he must certainly presuppose that the words Nothing is to be changed are synonymous with the words is to be said in the petition.

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

The hand is raised from the word Indulgence as far as the words Passion of the Lord; and the sign of the cross is made over the penitent while saying: In the name of the Father.... The word suspension is omitted for laymen. Moreover, it is a pious custom for the Confessor, before the confession, while blessing the penitent, to say: May the Lord be in thy heart and upon thy lips, that thou mayest rightly confess all thy sins, or to recite a similar prayer. - But this does not fall under obligation.

In practice the prayers May He have mercy and Indulgence can easily be omitted, as is established from the Roman Ritual. Indeed, according to the more common opinion, they can always be omitted without sin. They say the same also concerning the prayers which follow absolution; but since, according to a probable opinion, these elevate the good works of the penitent to the merit of sacramental satisfaction, it is fitting that they be omitted as rarely as possible. - But the words May our Lord... do not appear capable of being omitted without venial fault unless necessity presses, since the Roman Ritual says: In more frequent confessions it will suffice to say: May our Lord... as far as Passion of the Lord..., exclusively. - S. Congr. of Rites, February 27, 1847.

427. Questions. - QUESTION 1. Is absolution valid if the Priest says only: I ABSOLVE; or, I ABSOLVE FROM THY SINS; or, I ABSOLVE THEE?

Reply to the first. Negative. The reason is that the word I absolve alone conveys no determinate sense and falls upon no subject; therefore, it cannot be a valid form.

Reply to the second. Affirmative, more probably, as it seems, at least speculatively. The reason is that by these words the subject is sufficiently determined; for the pronoun thee is sufficiently expressed in the word thy. - Thus Lugo, disp. 13, no. 26. - St. Lig., no. 430, as more probable, etc. Not a few deny it, however, and their opinion, as St. Liguori says (ibid.), must be followed as the safer.

Reply to the third. Affirmative, more probably, with the common opinion. The reason is that the whole effect of the Sacrament is expressed in these words, without the addition from thy sins. - Furthermore, this also appears to be established from the Catechism of the Council of Trent, On the Sacrament of Penance, no. 14, where it says only: But the form is: I ABSOLVE THEE. And nothing else is added there. - Roncaglia, Lugo, etc. - Nevertheless, some with Lacroix deny this not improbably, and in practice this opinion must be followed.

QUESTION 2. Is the deprecatory form valid; for example, May God absolve thee?

Reply. Negative, at least more probably, with St. Lig., no. 430; Lacroix, no. 639; and very commonly with others. The reason is that the Sacrament of Penance was instituted after the manner of a judgment; accordingly, Christ willed that the Priest, as judge, should render a sentence and express it. Therefore, sins must be remitted by the Priest himself as the minister of Christ; therefore, it does not suffice that he beseech God to remit them. Therefore, etc. Moreover, from the Council of Florence, the indicative form alone is prescribed as the true form of the Sacrament of Penance.

428. • QUESTION 3. Are the raising of the hand and the formation of the sign of the cross necessary in imparting absolution?

Reply 1. It is certain that they are not required for the validity of the Sacrament, because they pertain neither to the matter nor to the form. This is established from the Councils of Florence and Trent, and also from the unanimous consent of Theologians, at least after the Council of Trent.

Reply 2. Nor are they required under mortal sin for liceity, according to the common opinion against a few, because it is only a Rubric which does not appear grave. Indeed, several grave authors assert that this can be omitted without sin; thus Busembaum, related and implicitly approved by St. Lig., no. 425, and many others. At least the raising of the hand can be omitted without sin while the prayers which precede formal absolution are being recited.

QUESTION 4. Can a Priest validly absolve several persons with one form, saying: I ABSOLVE YOU FROM YOUR SINS?

Reply. Affirmative, because all things required for validity are found. And this can also be done licitly in a case of necessity, for example, in shipwreck, before battle, or in the battle itself, etc.; and such absolution would be multiple, not formally indeed, but virtually and equivalently, and there would be as many Sacraments as there were persons who were disposed through some confession and sufficient sorrow. - Lacroix, no. 645, and all others.

429. • QUESTION 5. What presence of the penitent is regarded as moral with respect to absolution?

Reply. It must be such that the words I absolve thee, according to the moral estimation of men, are judged to fall upon the penitent; but that presence is regarded as sufficiently moral within which men can and are accustomed to speak with an ordinary voice, although a louder one. Many extend it to twenty paces, especially if the penitent is not outside the sight of the Confessor. In necessity the penitent can and must be absolved whenever he is perceived by some sense. - Thus commonly with St. Lig., no. 429.

Hence: 1. one is to be absolved who is seen to fall from a roof, to fall into a river, or to be submerged in the sea, at least if he is not far distant from the Confessor. 2. If the Confessor, because of danger of infection or for another cause, cannot enter the room of a sick person, he must absolve him from the doorway. 3. If a penitent should withdraw from the Confessor without yet having been absolved, thinking himself absolved, he would have to be absolved if he were seen at a short distance or were certainly known to be present within a nearby crowd; nevertheless, he would have to be recalled if this could conveniently be done.

430. • QUESTION 6. By the words, I ABSOLVE THEE FROM THY SINS, can the Confessor validly absolve the penitent both from censures and from sins?

Reply. Affirmative, because these words, I absolve thee from thy sins, involve absolution from every bond arising from sins; and nothing prevents the Confessor from directing his intention toward absolution both from sins and from censures. - Thus commonly. - St. Lig., no. 430. - Lacroix, no. 1567, etc.

QUESTION 7. Is absolution valid if the Confessor absolves from sins before absolving from censures?

Reply. Affirmative, because a censure does not impede the validity of the Sacrament, but only its licit reception or administration. He would sin gravely, however, who absolved from sins before absolving from censures, because he would act against a grave prohibition of the Church. Except if excommunications are not at issue, but only suspensions and interdicts, because these censures do not of themselves deprive one of the reception of the Sacrament of Penance. - St. Lig., no. 430. - Lacroix and others commonly.

QUESTION 8. Is a stole required for the Sacrament of Penance?

Reply. Although the Rubric of the Ritual appears to be directive and not preceptive, nevertheless the Sacred Congregation of Rites commands the use of the stole for hearing confessions in a Church (September 11, 1847), in the Paduan case.

431. • I say I. It is certain that absolution imparted under a condition concerning the present or the past is valid in every case, provided that the other things required for the validity of the Sacrament are present; for the condition in no way changes the sense of the sacramental form, which it does not affect in any respect, but affects only the will of the Confessor, who does not intend to absolve unless the condition placed is fulfilled. But when this is fulfilled, the form becomes absolute; and consequently nothing is found which can prejudice its validity. - Thus St. Lig., no. 431, where he says that all agree concerning this. - Billuart, diss. 6, art. 10, sec. 7, where he asserts that it is the most common opinion. - Collet, De integr. conf., sec. 5. - Antoine, ch. 2, etc. Pontas, under the word Absolution, case 5, is to be numbered among the few adversaries, but he is rightly censured by Collet's annotator, ibid. ².

¹ On the title above. Someone will perhaps wonder and ask why the Author, beyond both his own custom and that of others, treats more laboriously this argument which hitherto appeared to require lighter labor. But an obvious response presents itself: namely, where and when some new error begins to arise and creep forward, it certainly must be met at once, and the monster, before it grows up and increases in strength, must be utterly destroyed in its cradle by a thunderbolt-like stroke, as Horace says.

² The Author here alleges Writers who, according to the testimony of St. Alphonsus, are commonly regarded as more rigorous, namely, to indicate that this doctrine is so certain and manifest that not even the more rigorous thought they should depart from it. Nevertheless, this kind of argument is sometimes fallacious. For it could be shown by many examples that writers regarded as the most rigorous have not rarely declined into laxities which no one among the most benign ever admitted.

432. The adversaries generally distinguish between a condition of fact, for example, if thou art alive, and a condition of law, concerning which the Confessor must judge, for example, if thou art disposed. They permit conditional absolution in the former case because the conditions are not subjected to the judgment of the Confessor, but they reject it altogether in the latter. Hence:

They object 1. The form of the Sacrament of Penance must be judicial; but if the form is conditional, it is not judicial, for a judgment by its nature is absolute, so much so that the sentence of a civil judge who should perhaps say, I adjudge this to thee, if it is thine, is regarded as nothing. Therefore, etc.

Reply 1. I deny the minor. For the form of a judgment is by no means destroyed by adding a condition, even if the condition concerns the dispositions of the penitent. And indeed the Priest judges: 1. concerning the sins disclosed; 2. concerning the penance to be imposed; 3. concerning the probable dispositions of the penitent; 4. concerning the expediency of imparting absolution, although conditionally, on account of the greatest good of the penitent. Therefore, the matter of judgment is not lacking. Reply 2. There is no strict comparison between civil judgment and sacramental judgment; indeed, they differ in many respects, as is evident from what was said above, no. 416. But attend especially to this: the sentence of a civil judge always obtains its effect and is given to execution; whereas in the forum of Penance, whether the sentence is rendered absolutely or conditionally, its effect nevertheless always depends upon hidden conditions known to God alone. Wherefore, the sentence of the Confessor is conditional by its nature, even if it is rendered in the most absolute manner, since it remains entirely unknown to him whether the effect will follow.

433. • They object 2. In controversies concerning the validity of the Sacraments, the safer side must always be followed.

Reply 1. I deny the supposition, namely, that this question is subject to controversy, since the opinion of the adversaries possesses no probability, either intrinsic or extrinsic.

Reply 2. It is false that the safer side must always be followed in favor of the Sacrament; for since the Sacraments are for men, cases are given in which the Sacrament must be exposed to danger of nullity in order to assist men placed in spiritual necessity.

But two hypotheses can be imagined when necessity and a doubtful disposition of the penitent concur at the same time. The first is that absolution is simply to be denied; the second, that absolution is to be conceded in any manner whatsoever. Behold, a dying man of doubtful disposition stands before you. Come now! Declare what you will do. Will you allow this penitent to depart from the living without absolution? Will you thus escape the mark of cruelty? For if perhaps he is sufficiently disposed, although you doubt, do you not condemn one who ought to be saved? But if you absolve this penitent, how, I ask, will you absolve? With an absolute form, you say. Very well; but tell me, if you please, will you thereby render a firmer judgment concerning the dispositions of the penitent? Will you judge certainly disposed one whom you know to be doubtfully disposed? Proceed now, therefore: exclude as much as you wish both an oral and even a mental condition; will your sacramental sentence thereby be more certain? Therefore, whether you will or not, if you then absolve, you necessarily absolve conditionally and not otherwise. Indeed, a sacramental sentence in Penance is of itself and by its nature necessarily conditional, since it supposes in the penitent requisite conditions which can be lacking.

434. • I say II. It is likewise certain that conditional absolution is sometimes licit; for if it is valid, it must also be licit when necessity presses. - Thus very commonly do Theologians teach. - St. Lig., ibid. - Lacroix, bk. 6, part 1, no. 78. - Elbel, Sporer, the Salmanticenses, etc.

But the doctrine of some who hold that conditional absolution can be imparted for any slight cause and with no necessity pressing, even if the sufficient disposition of a penitent burdened also with mortal sins is doubted in any manner whatsoever, is to be rejected as plainly lax. For no one fails to see how many sacrileges a practice of this kind would induce. For the Confessor would no longer be a prudent dispenser of the Sacraments, but would cast pearls before swine; and by this facility of absolving he would cause penitents to waste away in their sins. - St. Lig., no. 432, etc.

But no more admissible is the doctrine of those who, with Collet and certain others, hold that absolution under condition is not to be imparted except in extreme necessity or in the extreme danger of life; for a doctrine of this kind is exceedingly harmful to penitents who can return to the Confessor only with difficulty and, if dismissed without absolution, incur the danger of eternal damnation.

166. Trent teaches³ that "the form of the sacrament of Penance, in which its force chiefly is situated, has been placed in those words of the minister: I absolve you, etc.; to which indeed, according to the custom of Holy Church, certain prayers are laudably added; yet they by no means belong to the essence of the form itself."

² St. Thomas, 3 p., q. 84, a. 3; Suarez, disp. XIX; De Lugo, disp. 13; Salmantic., disp. III; Morinus, l. VIII; Drouin, q. II, ch. 3; Billuart, diss. I, a. 3; de Augustinis, th. 23; Palmieri, th. 12; Billot, th. 3.

³ Trent, sess. XIV, ch. 3.

This indeed is the form used today in the Western Church; but since in antiquity other forms were employed, it will not be beside the matter 1° to describe these briefly, and afterward to weigh 2° what is required in the present form for validity and lawfulness, 3° whether a conditional form is valid and lawful.

167. 1° The facts are set forth. (A) In each Church, through the first ten centuries, the forms of absolution used were deprecatory, namely: "God, pardon him, absolve him, etc."; but not indicative: "I absolve you, I pardon you, etc."

This is clear: (a) from the testimony of the Fathers, who, with St. Leo, say that in the sacrament of penance the indulgence of God is obtained by the supplications of priests;¹ (b) but especially from the Sacramentaries and Penitentials, where only deprecatory formulas are found. Thus, in the Gelasian Sacramentary, for publicly reconciling a penitent, this prayer is pronounced: "Almighty everlasting God, for Thy mercy relax this servant of Thine confessing to Thee, that the guilt of conscience may not harm him more unto punishment than the indulgence of Thy mercy unto pardon."² And afterward various prayers are recited over him. In the same place, for reconciling privately a penitent near death, various prayers are poured forth, which are thus concluded: "Look propitiously upon this servant of Thine, asking for himself the remission of all sins with the whole confession of his heart."³ - The same is clear from the various Penitentials cited above, n. 114. Similar formulas are found in Halitgar (+831),⁴ and in authors of a later age, up to the tenth century. Yet, in the eighth and ninth centuries, imperative formulas are also found joined with deprecatory ones, for example: "May you indeed be absolved by God the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, from all your sins."⁵

¹ St. Leo, ep. 108 to Theodore, P. L., t. LIV, p. 1011.

² In Migne, P. L., t. LXXIV, p. 1097.

³ Ibid., p. 1098.

⁴ P. L., t. CV, pp. 697, 704.

⁵ Thus in the Penitential of Egbert, archbishop of York (around the year 732), in Morinus, op. cit., Appendix, p. 19.

168. (B) From the eleventh century, in the Latin Church, the transition from deprecatory formulas to indicative ones begins, and both are found together in the same documents. Thus, in a certain order of Penance, to the deprecatory formulas this is added:⁶ "We also, according to the authority committed to us unworthy ones by God, absolve you from every bond of your offenses, etc." Likewise, in the order of the Church of Reims, in the twelfth century, the form of absolution is read as deprecatory and indicative at once:⁷ "May almighty God, who gave to blessed Peter His apostle and to His other disciples His license of binding and loosing, Himself absolve you from every bond of offenses; and, insofar as it is permitted to our frailty, may you be absolved before the tribunal of our Lord Jesus Christ, and may you have eternal life..." - Even at the beginning of the thirteenth century the deprecatory form still flourished; for William of Paris writes these things:⁸ "Nor, after the manner of forensic judges, does the confessor pronounce, we absolve you, but rather makes prayer over him, that God may grant absolution and remission and the grace of sanctification." The same is likewise clear from Opuscule 18 of St. Thomas, ch. 5; for when the adversary had said: "scarcely thirty years have passed since all used this deprecatory form alone," the Angelic Doctor does not deny this absolutely, but only corrects it in this way: "How can he bear witness concerning all, who did not see all?" - But a little afterward the indicative form was commonly received in the Latin Church; nevertheless, before it is pronounced, the prayers "May He have mercy," "May the Lord grant indulgence," "May our Lord Jesus Christ absolve you," are recited, which are like a commemoration of the ancient discipline.

⁶ Magna Bibliotheca Patrum, Cologne, 1618, t. VIII, p. 423-424.

⁷ In Morinus, op. cit., p. 48; cf. p. 71.

⁸ De sacram. Paenit., ch. 19, Venice, 1591, p. 472, col. 2.

169. (C) In the Eastern Church, after the thirteenth century, the form remained deprecatory; indeed even today it remains among certain persons. Thus, when Morinus asked a certain Greek priest, who presided over the Greek youths being educated in the Roman College, he answered that the form of absolution customarily used by the Greeks was this: "Lord, remit, dismiss, pardon the sins of this N., because Thine is the power, etc."¹ Today certain Orientals, such as the Syrians and Maronites united to the Roman Church, have borrowed the indicative form from the Latin Church; but others retain the deprecatory form. - The Ruthenians, however, although schismatics, use a form which is at once deprecatory and indicative.

¹ Morinus, l. VIII, ch. 12, n. 7, p. 547. - Thus also Denzinger (Ritus Orient., t. I, p. 101): "The form of absolution among the Orientals (Catholics and non-Catholics), if only the Armenians are excepted, is deprecatory." - Cf. Vacant, Dict. de Theol., t. I, p. 205-214, where the various forms of the Orientals are described.

170. 2° Conclusions to be deduced from the facts. (A) With Hurter (n. 626) we hold without doubt that the deprecatory form was valid wherever it prevailed in a general way; for we do not judge that absolutions given in a great part of the Church, through many centuries, were invalid. Moreover the deprecatory form, with the intention of absolving, and with attention given to the circumstances, shows that the priest is the minister of God and absolves only by His authority, but it does not prevent the priest from being a judge and truly absolving ministerially. Nor can this change in the form be reconciled with difficulty with the opinion set forth in the Treatise on the Sacraments (n. 84), namely that not all the forms of the sacraments were determined by Christ in the lowest species; for, if the Church has the right of determining forms of this kind in species, nothing prevents a deprecatory form, with the intention of passing a judicial sentence, from being valid. But let those who think otherwise see how they can reconcile their theory with the facts.

(B) Whatever may be the case, since already for several centuries the Western Church has prescribed the use of the indicative form, deservedly there would be doubt concerning the value of the deprecatory form in the Latin Church. Besides, we confess that the indicative form is more fitting for the judicial power which belongs to the ministers of the Church. Therefore in practice the formula which is found in the Roman Ritual should be carefully used.

171. (A) For validity. (a) So that the value of the sacrament may certainly be clear, these words are required and suffice: "I absolve you from your sins." For those words are required and suffice for validity which sufficiently declare the effect of the sacrament, the mode by which it is effected, and the subject receiving; but the aforesaid words distinctly declare the effect, that is, the removal of sin, since sins are bonds by which sinners are bound, and the words I absolve you from sins dissolve bonds of this kind; besides, they clearly manifest that sins are remitted in the manner of a judgment, since they are nothing other than an absolving sentence; likewise they indicate the subject, "you, your"; therefore the aforesaid words are required and suffice.¹

² The form of absolution, according to the Roman Ritual, is this: After the penance has been enjoined, the priest says: May He have mercy on you, etc. Then, with the right hand raised toward the penitent, he says: - May almighty and merciful Lord grant you indulgence, absolution, and remission of your sins. Amen.

May our Lord Jesus Christ absolve you, and I, by His authority, absolve you from every bond of excommunication, suspension, and interdict, insofar as I can and you need; then, I absolve you from your sins, in the name of the Father + and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.

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

The prayers May He have mercy and Indulgence "are not to be omitted except for a just cause" (Codex, c. 885). The same must be said of the prayer The Passion of the Lord. It is indeed expedient that it not be omitted, since, according to St. Thomas and not a few others, this prayer raises all the good works of the penitent to the dignity and efficacy of sacramental penance (St. Thomas, Quodlibet 3, quest. 13, a. 28). - The word suspension is omitted if there is question of lay persons, since they cannot be suspended.

¹ St. Thomas, 3, q. 84, a. 2.

(b) It is commonly asserted that the words "I absolve you" alone suffice for validity, since these, after the confession of sins, are understood clearly enough of sins; and in reality many Greeks use this simple formula: "I hold you absolved." Yet, according to Lacroix (n. 633) and a few others, the words "from sins" are required, so that the sense of the form may be more clearly determined; and, since there is question of validity, in practice these are not to be omitted, and, if they have been omitted, the form is to be repeated under condition. - Much more probably the word your is not required, when it has already been said I absolve you; but because, according to some, it is required, in practice it likewise must never be omitted.

172. (c) From this it follows that I is not required for validity, if the priest speaks Latin, because it is already contained in the word absolvo. - Likewise the words "in the name of the Father, etc." do not belong to the essence of the sacrament, because they are neither prescribed by Christ nor found in the ancient formulas.

(d) The essential words can be supplied as to validity, though not as to lawfulness, by other equivalent words; for example, you by you plural, or Your Excellency, etc.; I absolve by I pardon or I remit to you your sins.

173. (B) For lawfulness. The form prescribed by the Roman Ritual must be carefully observed in the Latin Church. But for judging the gravity of the sin of a voluntary omission or change in the form, these two things, taken from the Treatise on the Sacraments, n. 33-34, must be noted:

(a) A voluntary omission or substantial corruption of an essential word, or of a word which is probably held as such, is always a mortal sin, because it makes the sacrament invalid, or at least exposes it to danger of nullity, and besides deprives the penitent of sacramental grace; thus to omit you, I absolve, from sins, etc. would be mortal.

(b) But the voluntary omission or corruption of a non-essential word, without sufficient reason, is a grave or light sin, according as the change itself is judged grave or light by the judgment of prudent persons; for, although it does not invalidate the sacrament, it imports an act of irreverence toward the sacrament. For example, omission of the words "in the name of the Father and of the Son, etc." is judged a light sin, while omission of the prior part of the form concerning absolution from censures can be grave, namely if the confessor certainly knows that the penitent is bound by censures.

(c) But in a case of necessity non-essential words can be omitted. Thus, according to the Roman Ritual, in danger of death it will be possible to say briefly: "I absolve you from all censures and sins. In the name of the Father, etc."

174. Corollary. Here theologians ask what the words I absolve you signify. They do not signify: I declare you absolved from sins;¹ for since, from the things said, the ministers of the Church are endowed with true power of absolving the faithful, their words are not merely declaratory, but effect what they signify. But according to the common opinion, the sense of these words is: I absolve you from the bond of sins, or I remit your offenses to you, conferring grace remissive of sin;² consequently, according to the opinion which we judge more probable, the remission of sin is signified directly, sanctifying grace indirectly, since in the present order a grave offense is not remitted except through the infusion of grace. This is the proper sense of the word I absolve according to human usage, which must also be retained in the sacraments.

¹ Peter Lombard and a few other theologians had taught that this is the genuine sense; but this opinion was commonly rejected. Cf. Vacant, Dict. de Theol., t. I, p. 196.

² According to Suarez, disp. XIX, sect. 11, n. 13-20, I absolve you signifies: "I confer upon you sanctifying grace remissive of sin"; but this does not please Cardinal de Lugo, disp. XIII, n. 69-74, who rightly notes that the words of absolution do not of themselves directly signify the conferral of grace, although they produce it from the institution of Christ. - Cf. Vacant, Dict. de Theol., t. I, p. 194.

175. (A) Uttered by mouth, that is, not by writing or by nods, but by the living voice. - This indeed cannot be proved from the very nature of the thing, since in the civil forum a judgment can validly be pronounced in writing; but the reason is taken from the positive will of Christ, which is clear not indeed from Scripture, but from the use and practice of the Church, and also from the Decree to the Armenians declaring that the form of this sacrament is the words of absolution which the priest pronounces: for this is understood of words uttered by mouth. The matter is not, however, of faith, nor absolutely certain; whence, according to Sporer, in a case of extreme necessity, a mute priest could, if every other priest were lacking, give absolution by a nod or in writing.

It is not necessary that the words be heard, but it suffices that they be audible. Prudence requires that they be pronounced not in a loud, but in a low voice, lest, if someone is dismissed not absolved, those standing about notice it.

176. (B) Directed to one present. (A) For the words of the form "I absolve you" suppose the penitent to be morally present. But moral presence is that within which men speaking with a common, although somewhat raised, voice can speak with and be heard by one another. St. Alphonsus (n. 429), with many others, thinks that such presence can be extended to about 20 paces, especially where the penitent has not yet gone out from the sight of the confessor.¹ But if the penitent and confessor are in different rooms which in no way communicate with each other, absolution will be doubtful, because it is doubted whether they are morally present.

¹ Speaking speculatively, it could be said, with certain persons, that moral presence can extend even farther, for example to 40 or 50 paces, because even within this distance the human voice is usually heard; but in practice, outside a case of necessity, the safer part is to be followed.

177. (B) Hence, in practice, (a) if the penitent leaves the confessional before absolution is given, as sometimes happens, he can safely be absolved if he is certainly known to be within a few paces; otherwise, let him kindly be called back to the sacred tribunal; but if he is already far away and cannot be found, the matter is to be committed to God; but afterward, if he returns to the same confessor, let him be admonished to grieve over all his sins, even past ones, and let him be absolved.

(b) Likewise a dying man can be absolved already from the door of the room. - In battle a multitude of soldiers can be absolved, although some are at a great distance, because they form one moral whole, which is sufficiently present.

(c) Besides, in a case of necessity, all those who are perceived by some sense, even confusedly, can be absolved under condition, for example those falling from a roof, slipping into a river or sea, even if they are only seen from afar, because it is probable that those who are in some sensible way before the confessor are morally present.

178. 3° Corollaries. (A) Invalid and illicit is absolution given to an absent person, who confesses his sins sacramentally either by letters or through a messenger. This is clear from this proposition condemned by Clement VIII, June 20, 1602:¹ "It is lawful to confess sacramentally by letters or through a messenger to an absent confessor and to obtain absolution from the same absent confessor." Moreover Paul V, on July 14, 1605, in a congregation of the Holy Office, declared that this decree is valid also in the divided sense, that is, concerning confession or concerning absolution separately. Consequently absolution is invalid (a) if someone present confesses and is absolved while absent; (b) if someone absent confesses and is absolved while present. - I said that the absolution is not only illicit, but invalid; for Clement VIII prohibited the condemned proposition from ever being brought into practice in any way; but he could not have prohibited this for the article of death, unless such absolution were invalid.

¹ In Denzinger, n. 962. - Here there is question only of absolution from sins, and not of absolution from censures, which can be granted by letters, a messenger, telegraph, telephone, and other means of this kind, as will be explained in the Treatise on Censures; for when there is question of merely ecclesiastical punishments, the Church can absolve from them in every way that seems good to her.

Yet Clement VIII declared by an oracle of the living voice that he did not intend the case of a dying person destitute of the senses, whom those standing by testify to have previously sought absolution; for he is to be absolved, not indeed by force of a confession made in absence, but because, as one destitute of the senses, he is dispensed from explicit confession. - Likewise not invalid, nor illicit, if a just cause exists, is the absolution given to a penitent who confessed by letters and afterward, being present, says in a general way that he confesses the sins already set forth by letter; for in this way the confession is sufficiently repeated.

179. (B) Absolution given by telephone is very doubtful. Among theologians of today, some hold that it is not clear that this absolution is certainly invalid;² for those who speak by the help of a telephone, although they are physically distant, can be said to be morally present, because they truly speak with each other, and the very voice of the one speaking is truly heard by the other, so that it can be recognized as the voice of this or that person. - Others think that it is invalid;¹ for the sacraments were so instituted that they must be administered in a human and natural way; but conversation by telephone is an artificial mode of speaking with one absent, and those speaking thus, in the moral estimation of men, are not considered present, but absent. - The matter was referred to the Sacred Penitentiary, but to the proposed doubt "whether in a case of extreme necessity absolution can be given by telephone?" it replied on July 1, 1884, that "nothing is to be answered"; this indeed can signify that the solution of the doubt does not belong to the Sacred Penitentiary, whose office is only to solve particular cases, but to the Holy Office.

² Ballerini P., n. 1155, Notanda quaedam circa ritum; Genicot, n. 267; Sabetti, n. 728, q. 7°; Berardi, Praxis Confess., n. 1132, who nevertheless changed his opinion, in Nouv. Rev. Theol. XIX, 393 sq. and 655; Ciolli, Directoire, I, p. 180-182.

¹ Eschbach, in N. R. T., XIX, 393; XX, 305; Noldin, n. 236; Haine, III, p. 218-219. Cf. Vacant, Diction. de Theol., I, 242-243.

Whence in practice, outside a case of extreme necessity, to absolve by telephone is altogether illicit, lest the sacrament be exposed to the danger of nullity. But in a case of extreme necessity, a priest is not to be condemned who conditionally absolves by telephone a penitent who, suddenly seized by a most grave illness, should seek absolution from his sins.²

² Sabetti, n. 728. - The matter can be practical in regions where telephones are found in many private houses, especially if there are few priests and they are distant from certain parishioners.

180. 1° On its validity. Gerson (fifteenth century) seems to be the first who explicitly defended the validity of conditional absolution;³ Cajetan sharply attacked his opinion;⁴ yet the more common and morally certain opinion has become that this absolution, the things to be posited having been posited, is valid.

³ De Schismate tollendo, among Opera omnia, Antwerp, 1706, t. II, p. 79; De Unitate Ecclesiae, p. 118.

⁴ Summula de peccatis, Lyons, 1551, p. 3.

The general principle is that that form is invalid which leaves the effect of the sacrament in suspense, but that form is valid which by no means suspends the effect.¹

¹ We proved this in the Treatise on the Sacraments, n. 101.

Now a condition concerning an uncertain future, for example, I absolve you, if within a month you shall make restitution, suspends the effect of the sacrament; for at the time when the sacrament is conferred, the effect is not produced, since the execution of the condition is uncertain, and moreover the intention itself of the Priest remains suspended; but at the time when the condition is verified, the sacrament no longer exists, and consequently cannot obtain its effect.

But a condition concerning the past or the present, for example, I absolve you if you have already made restitution, or if you are living, does not suspend the effect of the sacrament, and consequently does not render absolution invalid; for at the time when the sacrament is effected, the condition is already verified or not. If the former, absolution immediately produces its effect; if the latter, it is immediately invalid.

Nor should it be said that a conditional form stands in the way of the nature of this sacrament, which is administered in the manner of a judgment. For even in human judgments, a conditional sentence is not rarely passed, for example, you will go to prison unless within three days you pay the debt; or I condemn you to prison, but, if you do not fall again into fault, for a time you will be immune from punishment. Moreover civil judgment is committed to execution by men, while the sentence of the confessor God Himself executes: therefore it suffices that God knows whether the condition has been fulfilled or not.

181. Yet a few theologians, such as the Louvain theologians and Collet,² have said that a condition even concerning the present invalidates the sacrament, if it is not a condition of fact (for example, if you are living, if you are capable), but of law (for example, if you are disposed, if you will to make restitution); for through a condition of this kind the nature of judgment is destroyed, since it belongs to the confessor himself to pass judgment concerning these dispositions of the penitent. - But this reason does not hold; for the confessor certainly must judge concerning the dispositions of the penitent, but in a human mode, insofar as can be done; now sometimes he judges that the matter is doubtful, and consequently, if a grave reason is added, absolution is to be granted under condition.

² Collet, in Migne, Theol. Cursus, t. XXII, 732.

Moreover, so that every doubt may be removed, it suffices that the confessor, doubting concerning the dispositions of the penitent, intend to absolve him according to the intention of Christ and of the Church under the tacit condition: if you are capable, which is held by all as valid.

182. 2° On its lawfulness. (A) Conditional absolution is lawful when these two things concur at the same time: (a) a grave reason for judging that the form pronounced absolutely would expose the sacrament to the danger of nullity; (b) a notable utility for the penitent of receiving absolution immediately.

For (a) the very nature of the sacrament requires that it be administered in the manner of a judgment; but, regularly speaking, a judgment ought to be absolute, especially in the sacred tribunal. For either the confessor is morally certain that the penitent is capable and disposed, and then he must absolve absolutely; or he judges certainly that he is incapable or indisposed, and then absolution must be denied; or he doubts, and then regularly absolution must be deferred, unless a special reason is present for receiving the sacrament immediately. (b) Moreover, if conditional absolution were given easily, both penitents and the confessor himself would easily fall into a certain negligence, and would not much care about arousing the necessary dispositions; from which it would also happen that sacrileges would gradually be multiplied.

183. (B) The chief causes on account of which conditional absolution can be given are:

(a) On the part of the confessor: if he positively doubts whether he absolved or not, - whether he omitted an essential word or not; then let him say, or rather intend (for it is better to conceive the condition in the mind alone): if you are not absolved, I absolve you. - But if he doubts whether he has jurisdiction, or whether the jurisdiction given to him has expired, is extended to such a penitent, or to such a case, and at the same time a grave reason is present for absolving the penitent immediately, then (from can. 209) the Church supplies jurisdiction, and therefore absolution can be given without condition.

(b) On the part of the penitent: in a case of necessity, if the dying person presents doubtful matter or doubtful dispositions, or if it is doubted whether he is still living or capable of absolution.

Also, outside a case of necessity, if those doubtfully disposed are about to contract marriage, or to leave the place, or wish, for a grave reason, for example, to avoid infamy, soon to receive holy communion; - or if there is a founded fear that those doubtfully disposed, if they are dismissed without absolution, will not return to the sacred tribunal, or will fall into despair; - or if there is question of the half-witted, of children whose use of reason is doubtful, and who otherwise would be deprived for a long time of the benefit of the sacrament; - or of the pious, who provide only doubtful matter, and from whom certain matter cannot be obtained, on account of their peculiar dispositions; for these can sometimes be absolved conditionally, lest they lack absolution for too long. For in these and similar cases the two conditions stated above are verified: on the one hand, the absolute pronouncing of the form exposes the sacrament to the danger of nullity; and on the other, there is a sufficient reason for absolving the penitent immediately.

184. (C) Corollaries. (a) A penitent absolved under condition must regularly abstain from communion, since otherwise he exposes himself to the danger at least of material sacrilege. Hence the confessor cannot positively tell such a penitent to receive holy communion. But if he is asked by the penitent, let him answer prudently according to the various circumstances; for example, let him say: "follow the dictate of your conscience."

(b) But there is not given a strict obligation of accusing again sins conditionally absolved, as will be better understood from the things to be said where we treat of confession. For it can prudently be judged that they were remitted; moreover, if the penitent is in good faith, as is supposed, they will be remitted in the following confession.

399. Principle: Every priest, even not approved, can validly absolve those who are in the article or danger of death from all censures and sins. It is certain.

1° The principle, insofar as it is certain, is proved by this declaration of Trent:¹ "Very piously, lest anyone perish on this very occasion, it has always been preserved in the same Church of God, that there be no reservation in the article of death; and therefore all priests can absolve any penitents from any sins and censures."

¹ Sess. XIV, ch. 7.

The Council was speaking of the article of death; but the Code speaks more precisely: "In danger of death all priests, although not approved for confessions, validly and licitly absolve any penitents from any sins or censures, however reserved and notorious, even if an approved priest is present."² Now such danger is judged to be present when it is prudently feared that death may shortly occur, for example, in grave sickness, a difficult surgical operation, laborious childbirth, on a long and dangerous voyage, etc.

² Code, c. 882.

(a) It is said "all priests"; by these words, as being most ample, any priest is signified, even one not approved, irregular, suspended, excommunicated even as one to be avoided, schismatic, heretic, apostate, provided he is truly marked with the priestly character.

(b) It is said "from any sins and censures," because in danger of death every reservation ceases, lest anyone perish on this occasion. Yet if someone, bound by a censure reserved in the most special manner to the Supreme Pontiff, afterward recovers, he must recur to the Sacred Penitentiary or to the Bishop or another endowed with the faculty; but if he was absolved from a censure ab homine, he must, under penalty of falling back into it, recur to him who imposed the censure.³

³ Code, c. 2252.

400. 2° Formerly it was controverted whether, in the article of death, a priest not approved validly absolved if an approved priest was present or could be present. But now the matter has been decided from the Code, in the canon cited.

483. Principle: Absolution generally and of itself must be granted under grave obligation, from justice, to a penitent guilty of grave sin who with moral certainty is well disposed. It is certain.

For the confessor, by receiving the confession of the penitent, binds himself by a quasi-contract to pass sentence according to the institution of Christ; but according to the institution of Christ, absolution must of itself be granted to the well disposed, since this sacrament was instituted for remitting sins. Therefore he must of itself absolve the disposed by force of a tacit contract, and therefore from justice; and indeed under grave obligation, if the penitent is in the state of mortal sin, because he is unjustly deprived of the greatest good.

484. (a) Nevertheless it is said generally and of itself, because regularly absolution granted at once is of more profit than if it is deferred; for he who is absolved emerges from the dangerous state of sin, receives sacramental grace, and therefore the right to obtain actual graces at the opportune time; wherefore he is able to resist temptations more efficaciously and to tend toward the practice of virtues. - Nevertheless, sometimes and accidentally, absolution can be deferred even to one sufficiently disposed, when the confessor prudently judges this to be truly useful to the penitent. For on the one hand, the penitent, although he has a right to absolution, does not have a strict right to be absolved immediately; and on the other, the confessor, since he is not only judge but physician, must intend the greater utility of the penitent; but sometimes delay is more useful to the penitent, especially to one in an occasion or to a recidivist, so that from the difficulty of obtaining absolution he may conceive a greater horror of sin and a firmer purpose of avoiding it. But generally this delay will not be of profit unless the penitent consents to it; for if he bears the matter with displeasure, it is to be feared lest he be alienated from confession. In practice, therefore, the confessor must inquire whether the penitent in this case is prepared willingly to return after a few days.

Nor is it ever expedient to defer absolution for a long time, for example, for a month or fifteen days; because it is a grave inconvenience to remain long in mortal sin, both because of the danger of death, and because of merits lost.

(b) It is said to one guilty of grave sin, because if only venial sins, or mortal sins already remitted, are accused, sometimes to defer a penitent, even one rightly disposed, is not a grave sin, because no grave injury is inflicted upon him; indeed, if this is done from a reasonable cause, it will be no sin.

(c) It is said, who with moral certainty is disposed; here there is question of moral certitude broadly taken, which excludes prudent doubt, but not necessarily every doubt; for when there is question of the dispositions of the penitent, absolute certitude cannot be had, but that persuasion suffices which is very probable.

485. Principle: Absolution is to be denied to those who with moral certainty are incapable or unworthy. It is certain.

For in either case absolution is invalid; now knowingly and willingly to minister a sacrament in a certainly invalid manner is grave sacrilege.

Now the incapable are those perpetually insane, - not yet baptized, - those who are already certainly dead, - or who do not know the truths necessary by necessity of means, - or who certainly are not morally present.

486. But the unworthy, or indisposed, can be considered, according to St. Leonard of Port Maurice:

(a) those who knowingly and willingly do not wish to leave a proximate and free occasion of sinning; (b) those who knowingly and willingly do not wish to put away grave enmities or hatred; (c) those who are not prepared to make necessary restitution or reparation of harms, when they are able; (d) those who refuse to leave arts or occupations gravely sinful; (e) those who refuse to labor for correcting a depraved habit; (f) those who do not wish to employ remedies truly necessary for avoiding relapse; (g) those who are not prepared to remove the scandal which they have given or are giving to others.¹ - To these can be added, in a general way, all those who do not wish to fulfill a grave obligation known to themselves; or who refuse to confess their sins integrally, unless by a grave reason, at least a putative one, they are excused from material integrity. For in these or similar cases the essential condition required for the validity and liceity of absolution is lacking, namely contrition.

¹ This the Roman Ritual briefly summarizes thus (Ordo minist. Sacr. Paenitentiae): "Let him not absolve those who are incapable of such a benefit; such are: those who give no signs of sorrow, who do not wish to put away hatreds and enmities, or to restore another's goods if they can, or to leave a proximate occasion of sinning, or in another way to abandon sins and amend life for the better; or who have given public scandal, unless they publicly make satisfaction and remove the scandal."

But before absolution is denied, the confessor must exhort these sinners to contrition, as we said above; for if, first unprepared, then by a fervent exhortation they conceive attrition, they can now be absolved at once. Besides, only with kindly words must the confessor deny absolution, by explaining the reason why it cannot be granted and declaring that he will gladly grant absolution as soon as the penitent is disposed.

487. Principle: Absolution is to be deferred to those who are plainly doubtfully disposed, unless a grave reason urges that they be absolved under condition. It is certain.

For it is not lawful to expose the sacrament to danger of nullity, unless there is a grave reason: for this is prohibited by the reverence due to the sacrament.

488. Now, according to St. Leonard, those are considered doubtfully disposed: (a) who have relapsed in the same or a worse manner, without employing the remedies prescribed by the confessor, and without a serious effort at amendment; (b) who answer only coldly that they are sorry, especially if they have already relapsed rather often; (c) if they show a great affection for sin, or have drawn great utility or great pleasure from sin, or devote their whole effort to satisfying the passions; (d) when they rashly excuse their sins, or enter into contention and altercation with the confessor, or seem to boast about the sin committed; (e) when they approach the sacrament not spontaneously, but only by command of parents or others, or from mere custom, or to please others, or from fear lest they lose reputation; (f) if they refuse a moderate penance proportioned to their strength.

But when the doubtfully disposed can be conditionally absolved has already been set forth, n. 182.

489. Corollary. When there are on both sides reasons seriously and solidly probable, so that the penitent is prudently judged to be disposed, yet there is still prudent doubt concerning his disposition, the confessor prudently defers absolution or grants it under condition, according as, from the various circumstances, delay is foreseen to be useful or harmful to the penitent. Namely, if delay is judged very probably useful to the penitent, because, after some time, he is going to approach the sacred tribunal better disposed, he should be dismissed kindly; but if he probably will not return, because he is not endowed with firm faith or virtue, after fervent exhortation to sorrow and firm purpose, he can be absolved under condition, according to most theologians.¹ For moral certitude is not always required for absolving, but sometimes a prudent judgment suffices, which is had in the case.

¹ Thus Suarez, disp. XXXII, sect. 2, n. 1; Sporer, n. 801; Faure, Dubitat. theologicae, ed. 4, Louvain, 1865, dub. I-II, p. 9-22; Lehmk., n. 428; Genicot, n. 367. - Certain ones, however, from these authors, Faure and Genicot, seem to proceed further and to teach that those who are probably disposed can always and without condition be absolved; but it is commonly held, and deservedly, that this is lawful only for a grave reason, and indeed conditionally. Cf. Vindiciciae Alphons., p. 710-752.

This can be drawn from these words of the Catechism of the Council of Trent (n. 50): "For if, after confession has been heard, he shall have judged that neither diligence in enumerating sins nor sorrow in detesting them was wholly lacking to the penitent, he can be absolved"; now if it is prudently judged that the penitent is contrite, it is judged that sorrow was not wholly lacking. St. Alphonsus seems to contradict this conclusion when he says (n. 459): "That the confessor may absolve the penitent, he must be morally certain concerning his disposition"; but elsewhere he teaches (n. 432) that a penitent about whom there is doubt whether he is rightly disposed can be absolved under condition if it is prudently feared that he will not return again to confession and will waste away in his sins. Hence it can be said that in the former assertion of the Holy Doctor the general rule is contained, but in the latter the exception.

557. Which Dying Persons Can Be Absolved? - The chief difficulty is not as to confession, since these are excused from material integrity, but as to contrition, which is an entirely essential disposition, and must be manifested in a sensible way, according to most theologians: now this manifestation seems to be lacking in those who are destitute of the senses.

558. Principle: In the article of death, absolution can be granted, at least under condition, as often as it is even slightly probable that it will profit the dying. It is certain.

For by force of the principle "the sacraments are for men," in a case of extreme necessity it is lawful to expose the sacrament to danger of nullity, provided there is some probability that it will be valid and useful for the recipient. Nor is great probability required, but slight probability suffices, since it is better that the sacrament be null or defective than that souls be damned forever. Yet mere possibility does not suffice, since in practical matters probability, not possibility, is considered.

559. Corollaries. (a) If the dying person asked for the sacrament before witnesses before he was deprived of the senses, he certainly ought to be absolved, although here and now he is destitute of the senses; for, by asking for absolution, he manifested that he was contrite, and that act of contrition can persevere virtually. According to the more common opinion, he ought to be absolved without condition in this case, because the Ritual says simply "he is to be absolved"; yet one who adds the condition "if you are capable" is not to be blamed, since some doubt can remain concerning the validity of the sacrament.

(b) Catholics who manifested a probable sign of contrition before they were destitute of the senses can and ought to be absolved conditionally; for absolution will probably profit them.

Such are Catholics who lived in a Christian manner, although they gave no sign of contrition explicitly; for one who lives in a Christian manner is deservedly presumed to wish to die in a Christian manner and therefore to receive absolution. Moreover, although they are destitute of the senses, it is probable that they elicited an act of contrition before they lost the use of the senses; or it is not improbable that they lost the use of the senses, indeed, but not the use of reason, so that internally they can elicit an act of contrition, which sighs, movements of the eyes or lips, or other things of this kind make sufficiently sensible; otherwise, it is probable that contrition suffices, even if it is not manifested exteriorly. Yet it is expedient that the priest, before he imparts absolution, recite an act of contrition in a loud voice; for there are dying persons who are able to hear, although not to speak: in which case they too are helped in this way to elicit an act of contrition.

560. (c) Catholics destitute of the senses can also be absolved conditionally, who, although they did not live in a Christian manner, had kept the faith; for many of them implicitly wish to die in a Christian manner, and therefore to receive absolution in the article of death. Such are those among whom signs of Catholicity are found, for example, medals, a rosary, a scapular, or who can probably be judged Catholics, as living in a region in which there are many Catholics. Thus very probably.

(d) Indeed, probably those can be absolved who lost the use of reason in the very act of sin, for example, in drunkenness, in theft, in a duel, provided it can be inferred from their life that they were probably contrite. This indeed can occur; for in that very instant in which they were about to lose the use of reason, they could have changed their mind and detested their sin, especially since God does not deny His grace to one placed in extreme necessity. - But because many contradict this, the priest in this case is not bound to give absolution.

(e) But if the dying person, immediately before he lost the use of reason, positively repelled the sacraments, he cannot be absolved even conditionally, unless such a manner of acting can be judged revoked by some sign of contrition: for in this case every probability of conversion is lacking.

561. (f) Schismatics who are in good faith, and believe in the efficacy of absolution, can be absolved conditionally in the article of death, scandal being removed; because it is probable that they desire the sacrament. The same can be said of heretics who likewise are in good faith, and at the same time believe in the power of absolution, such as Ritualists and some Lutherans and Anglicans.¹

¹ This can be inferred from the recent decree of the Holy Office, July 20, 1898 (Acta S. Sedis, XXXI, 253-254); for when it had been asked "whether material schismatics, who are in good faith, can sometimes be absolved," the response was: "Since scandal cannot be avoided, in the negative, except in the article of death; and then scandal having been efficaciously removed." In the same sense can be understood c. 731 of the Code, forbidding the sacraments of the Church to be administered to heretics or schismatics, unless they have first been reconciled to the Church.

(g) As to heretics who reject the sacrament of Penance, the matter is much more uncertain. Many, with St. Alphonsus (n. 483), think that they cannot be absolved unless they have expressly asked for absolution, because they are not judged to desire that which they abhor.

Certain theologians, however, with Lacroix (n. 1866), hold that they can be absolved conditionally if they are in good faith, especially if they were inclined toward the Catholic faith, because, for example, they had Catholic relatives or connections or friends, or were instructed or served by Catholic nuns; for since they are in good faith, in a general and implicit way they desire to do or receive all those things which are necessary for salvation.

Indeed, according to Lehmkuhl (n. 515) and others, a dying Protestant, but one still enjoying the senses, can be absolved conditionally, if he cannot prudently be admonished about entering the Catholic Church, provided he declares himself a sinner, and, having conceived sorrow for sins, consents to be helped by the ministry of the priest in attaining eternal beatitude: for this consent is as it were an implicit desire of receiving absolution. But then let the priest take care that, for the sake of greater security, the dying person elicit acts of faith, hope, and charity, and also an act of perfect contrition, insofar as this can be done.

562. Notes. (a) If a probable doubt exists concerning the value of the baptism of non-Catholics, they must secretly be baptized under condition before they are absolved.

(b) Those who are certainly dead cannot indeed be absolved and anointed, even under condition; but from recent experiments it is established that life remains in the body for some time, even when someone has seemed to give forth the last breath, because life withdraws from the body only successively. Hence certain persons who were apparently dead, after three hours, were brought back to life by rhythmic traction of the tongue. Wherefore those who by such a process give certain signs at least of sensitive life can be absolved and anointed, the things to be posited having been posited; indeed, under the condition "if you are living," those who, although they seem to be dead according to ordinary signs, are prudently thought by experts to survive.¹

¹ Cf. Ferrand, Le moment de la mort, ap. Congrès scient. des Cathol., 1891, Sciences mathém. et nat., p. 197; Études Franciscaines, janvier 1900; Ami du Clergé, t. XXIII, 1901, p. 593.

The priest, sitting as a judge in the tribunal of Penance, is not free to loose or bind at pleasure. He is the servant of Christ and dispenser of the mysteries of God, and as such in duty bound, on the one hand to uphold the dignity of the Sacrament, and, on the other, to safeguard the spirit- ual welfare of his penitents.¹ Hence arises the strict obligation of either giving sacramental absolution or denying or deferring the same according to the dictates of conscience.²

¹ 1 Cor. IV, 1-2. —St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 3a, Suppl., qu. 18, art. 4.

² Rit. Rom., tit. 3, c. 1, n. 22: "Let the priest diligently consider when and to whom absolution is to be granted, denied, or deferred, lest he absolve those who are incapable of such a benefit."

The confessor is bound in strict justice, and under pain of mortal sin, to absolve all properly disposed penitents who confess to him; for every Catholic who is truly sorry for his sins has a right to the Sacrament of which absolution is an essential part.³ The presumption, as we have seen before, is always in favor of the penitent, and unless a confessor has serious reasons for assuming the contrary, he should act on the ethical principle that every man must be presumed to be good until or unless he is proved to be bad (nemo praesumitur mains nisi probetur). All that is necessary is to have moral certainty that there are no valid reasons for doubting the disposition of the penitent.⁴

³ Gury, Comp. Theol. Mor., II, n. 467: "Absolution must in justice and under grave obligation be granted to every penitent who has duly confessed and is legitimately disposed. The reason is that in the very act of confession a certain sacred quasi-contract is entered into, by force of which a penitent who has duly confessed and is legitimately disposed has a right to receive the Sacrament. Otherwise an intolerable burden would be imposed upon the penitent without just cause, namely, that he make a confession to another without being able safely to trust that he will receive absolution from this new confessor. Moreover, the end of the institution of the Sacrament and tribunal of Penance also requires this, for it was instituted by Christ for the purpose of imparting mercy. Therefore, by denying absolution to a disposed penitent the priest would act unjustly, abuse the power of the keys, and render the Sacrament hateful."

⁴ Cat. Rom., P. II, c. 5, qu. 50: "If the confessor, after hearing the confession, judges that the penitent was not entirely lacking either diligence in enumerating sins or sorrow in detesting them, he can be absolved."

The validity of absolution in no way depends on the performance of the satisfaction imposed.⁵

⁵ Prop. Damnat. ab Alex. VIII., Dec. 7, 1690, prop. 16-18 (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 1306 sqq.).

Absolution should be given conditionally: a) When the confessor entertains a serious doubt with regard to one of the following points: α) Whether there is sufficient matter for the administration of the Sacrament; β) Whether he has already absolved the penitent; γ) Whether he possesses the necessary jurisdiction; δ) Whether the penitent has the use of reason; ε) Whether the penitent is dead or alive. b) When the confessor can arrive at no certain conclusion with regard to the penitent's disposition, and absolution cannot be deferred, he should absolve conditionally. ⁶

⁶ Cfr. Linsenmann, Lehrbuch der Moraltheologie, pp. 232 sq.; Gopfert, Moraltheologie, Vol. III, 4th ed., pp. 241 sqq.

—The confessor is obliged in justice and under pain of mortal sin to deny absolution to applicants who are not properly disposed, because such are unworthy of forgiveness.⁷

⁷ Gury, Comp. Theol. Mor., II, n. 469: "Absolution must altogether be denied in every case, even in extreme necessity, to penitents certainly indisposed." —Lacroix, Theol. Mor., l. VI, P. 2, n. 1699: "The office of the confessor is to absolve one who is disposed and not another. He must be morally certain of the penitent’s good disposition; otherwise he will sin mortally by absolving him."

A penitent lacks the right disposition if he: a) is ignorant of the principal dogmas of the Catholic religion; b) shows no real sorrow for his sins or evidently lacks the required purpose of avoiding mortal sin and its voluntary proximate occasions; c) refuses to restore ill-gotten goods to their rightful owner, or to repair public scandal given, or to become reconciled to his enemies.⁸

⁸ Kit. Rom., tit. 3, c. 1, n. 22: "Such persons are incapable who give no signs of sorrow; who are unwilling to put away hatreds and enmities, to restore another’s goods if they can, to abandon a proximate occasion of sin, or otherwise to forsake sins and amend their life for the better; or who have given public scandal unless they make public satisfaction and remove the scandal."

In a word, absolution must be denied to all who are unwilling to comply with some serious obligation.

Before the confessor discharges a penitent unabsolved, however, he should try by all means in his power to dispose him for the worthy reception of the Sacrament.⁹

⁹ Cfr. Leo XII, Constit. "Caritate Christi," Dec. 25, 1825.

When a penitent is properly disposed, and capable of receiving absolution, but guilty of some sin that makes his case one reserved to higher authority, he cannot be absolved without special faculties.¹⁰

¹⁰ Rit. Rom., 1. c.: "Nor is the priest to absolve those whose sins are reserved to superiors." —Cfr. Linsenmann, Lehrbuch der Moraltheologie, pp. 222 sqq.; Hilarius a Sexten, Tract, de Censuris Eccles., Mayence 1898, pp. 20 sqq.

—As a rule absolution may be reserved or postponed only when the disposition of the penitent is in doubt and there is no urgent necessity (danger of death, etc.) which would justify the giving of conditional absolution.¹¹ In the case of certain occasional (occasionarii), habitual (consuetudinarii) or relapsed sinners (recidivi), regarding whom it is doubtful whether they have real contrition for their sins or the required purpose of amendment, it is sometimes necessary to reserve absolution.¹² Occasionally, too, it may be well to withhold absolution temporarily in order to promote the spiritual welfare of a welldisposed penitent, either with, or under certain conditions without, his consent.¹³

¹¹ Gury, l. c.: "Absolution is to be denied to penitents of doubtful disposition outside a case of grave necessity; but when such necessity is present, absolution can and indeed must be imparted conditionally."

¹² St. Alphonsus, Theol. Mor., 1. VI, n. 452-464.

¹³ IDEM, ibid., n. 462. —IDEM, Praxis Confess., n. 76. —Gury, Comp. Theol. Mor., II, n. 468: "Absolution can be deferred for a short time, even without his consent, for a penitent who is rightly disposed, namely when the confessor prudently judges this useful for his amendment. The reason is that delay of absolution is not its denial, and although a disposed penitent has a right to absolution, he does not therefore have a right to obtain it immediately without any delay, at least speaking in itself. For the confessor is not only a judge but also a physician, and therefore can, indeed sometimes ought to, defer absolution if he judges such a remedy notably profitable for the penitent’s soul. This is at least speaking in itself, because if absolution cannot be deferred without inconvenience to the penitent, it would have to be granted; for the penitent is then judged to have a strict right to obtain it immediately."

However, absolution should not be deferred as a means of amendment (remedium animae) unless the confessor is certain that the penitent will be benefitted by this measure.¹⁴

¹⁴ St. Alphonsus, Theol. Mor., 1. VI, n. 463: "Magnum dubium. The question at issue is whether this remedy of deferred absolution should rather often be applied, or not, without his consent to a penitent already sufficiently disposed for absolution. It is common among doctors that it is in no way expedient to defer absolution when the delay is judged likely to harm more than to profit. The same must be said when the penitent would suffer a mark of infamy from delay of absolution. Others, however, say that it is rarely expedient for absolution to be deferred for a disposed penitent. It is better said that no certain rule can be established in this matter, but the confessor must guide himself by the circumstances that occur, and after commending himself to God, as he is inspired by God, defer or impart absolution."

The practice of reserving or postponing absolution as a means of amendment seems to have been unknown in former times.¹⁵ Modern writers recommend it even in the case of penitents guilty of venial sins only. "To defer absolution," says one author, "may be useful, nay necessary, even when the penitent is guilty only of venial sin; for instance, if the confessor sees that the venial sins of which the penitent accuses himself, will gradually lead to mortal sin (dangerous company-keeping, undue intimacy with persons of the other sex, etc.), or that the venial sins to which the penitent is addicted, impede his spiritual progress, as in the case of priests and religious, whose state of life obliges them to greater perfection, and in the case of lay persons who are frequent communicants."

¹⁵ Gury-Ballerini-Palmieri, Comp. Theol. Mor., Vol. II, 14th ed., Rome 1902, n. 433. SACRAMENTAL

Note, however, that the Codex (can. 886) says: "If a confessor has no reason to doubt the disposition of the penitent, and the latter begs to be absolved, absolution should neither be denied nor deferred."

READINGS.—St. Alphonsus, Theologia Moralis, I. V I, n. 431, 462. —IDEM, Praxis Confessariorum, n. 19 sqq. —J. P. Gury, Compendium Theologiae Moralis, Vol. II, n. 467-469.—F. Lorinser, Die Lehre von der Verwaltung des hl. Bussakramentes, 2nd ed., pp. 51 sqq.—A. Schick and F. D. Schmitt, Kurze Anleitung zur Verwaltung des hl. Bussakramentes, 3rd ed., Fulda 1905. —Instructio Pastoralis Eystettensis, 5th ed., Freiburg 1902, pp. 256 sqq.—Fr. Ter Haar, C.SS.R., De Occasionariis et Recidivis, Turin 1927.

— 1. By c. 874, §1, religious priests are prohibited from using jurisdiction received from the local Ordinary without the license, at least presumed, of their Superior.

The degree of fault committed by one who hears confessions against the will of the Superior will be greater or less according to the Superior's opposition and the frequency of the transgression. Of itself, unless a precept of obedience is added, or a prohibition under censure, the matter does not seem grave. But a religious can freely use a faculty which the Holy See has given, unless something else is indicated in the indult itself.

2. "The master of novices and his associate, the Superior of a Seminary or college, are not to hear the sacramental confessions of their pupils dwelling with them in the same house, unless the pupils, from a grave and urgent cause, in particular cases, spontaneously ask this" (c. 891).

Therefore by this canon no jurisdiction is either granted or taken away. But its use is of itself prohibited to the master of novices, his associate, the Superior of a seminary or college, toward their pupils dwelling with them in the same house. Therefore the prohibition does not affect the higher Superior, such as the local Ordinary, who does not dwell in the seminary, nor the immediate Superior during vacations, if the pupils are then not members of the same household. And because a college is spoken of with respect to boarders, the prohibition is not with respect to externs, or those who do not spend the night in the college.

Nevertheless the confession of such a novice or pupil, which always remains valid, will licitly be heard if these concur: spontaneous petition; a grave and urgent cause; a particular case. A grave and urgent cause will be present if the penitent wishes to be heard for quiet of conscience and, because of circumstances whether external, for example imminent Communion or an absent confessor, or personal, does not find another to whom he can easily declare his scruple or sin. And he who spontaneously approaches a confessor is judged to have sufficient cause, so that this canon is to be observed at the same time sincerely and without scruple.

— 3. Religious Superiors who have ordinary or delegated power of hearing confessions can indeed hear the confessions of subjects who spontaneously and of their own motion approach them, "but without grave cause let them not do this by way of habit." And let them beware lest by themselves or through another, by force, fear, importunate persuasions, or any other reason, they induce any subject to confess sins before themselves.

— 4. In danger of death a penitent is licitly absolved by any priest, even of another rite, even by an excommunicate to be avoided whom the penitent has sought ¹ (c. 2261, §3). Nor does the presence of an approved priest stand in the way. Only the absolution of an accomplice remains, on the part of the confessor, illicit outside the case of necessity (cf. below on absolution of an accomplice).

¹ Faulty administration of the sacrament, outside necessity, to those who are bound by censure remains illicit (cf. Noldin, III, 340, and c. 2261, §1 itself). Absolution cannot be sought from a heretic or schismatic using the rite of his sect, on account of forbidden cooperation in false worship.

— 5. The use of probable jurisdiction is simply licit. For the only cause of illicitness would be the danger of nullity, which is wholly removed by c. 209.

The use of negatively doubtful jurisdiction is illicit, unless a very grave cause, or notable detriment to the soul of the penitent (d'Ann., III, 311), demands that he be helped in the better way possible. For since the Church does not supply jurisdiction, the sacrament is exposed to danger of nullity and the penitent to grave harm of itself. Besides, you impose upon the penitent the burden of confessing the sins again to one having certain jurisdiction, at least if afterward it is discovered that jurisdiction was truly lacking. Indeed Busembaum, De iurisd., and Ball.-Palm., V, 395, seem always to require a repeated confession, since the absolution is not probably valid. Wherefore he who absolves in necessity with doubtful jurisdiction must make the penitent more certain of the matter, so that he may at least provide for his own salvation by perfect contrition. But he will have to give absolution under an express or tacit condition: if I have jurisdiction. One thus absolved, if he wishes to use the other sacraments, of himself stands in the condition of one who doubts whether he has committed mortal sins or not.

A sufficient cause of using doubtful jurisdiction is judged to be present if the penitent who has not confessed for a long time either must communicate or celebrate, and does not have the supply of another; or if the precept of annual confession presses; or if the doubt occurs after the confession has already begun, unless perhaps the penitent can break off the confession without too much difficulty.

Observe, however, that there is no obligation for the penitent in these cases to confess to a priest who has only doubtful jurisdiction.

— 6. Although the Church supplies jurisdiction in common error, nevertheless she does not intend to permit a priest to procure jurisdiction for himself in this way, and, for example, relying on common error, omit to ask for a new faculty after the time has elapsed. Wherefore it is not only intrinsically illicit for someone to pretend that he is approved, or to provoke common error, but also of itself he cannot hear confessions who is conscious that jurisdiction is lacking to him, although he is commonly held to be approved.

Does he avoid the suspension, not reserved, a divinis, carried by c. 2366 against the priest who, without necessary jurisdiction, presumes to hear confessions or absolve? Cerato, De censuris n. 118, and Genicot-Salsmans, II, 331, deny this, because he truly usurps jurisdiction. Yet for the more benign opinion it can be said that, since the Church supplies, he does not lack the necessary jurisdiction.

Nevertheless in a grave necessity of the penitent, who would be without absolution for a long time, and in cases where they permit the use of doubtful jurisdiction, it seems also lawful that one who is conscious absolve the penitent in common error.

Indeed there are some today who do not seem to require a grave cause, in order that one may use the benefit of common error. Thus Noldin, III, 346, observes nothing concerning the use of common error; and to a priest who, while he is hearing confessions, remembers that the time of jurisdiction has already elapsed, he simply concedes that he may continue to hear the confessions. Others, on the contrary, have required a grave cause (cf. Lehmk., II, 504-506).

Common utility, such as can occur in public missions, when through a certain error jurisdiction has been sought neither by the missionary nor by the inviting pastor, seems plainly to suffice (cf. Jombart, art. cit.), with the obligation saved of obtaining the necessary faculties immediately.

— The obligation of hearing, by themselves or through others, the confessions of the faithful committed to them, as often as these reasonably ask to be heard, presses pastors and others to whom the care of souls has been entrusted by force of office (c. 892, §1).

Since the pastor is named expressly, several, for example Lehmk., II, 50, and deservedly, as it seems, since this pertains to his office, wish him to be bound personally, unless he has been impeded, or the subject is willing to go to another. Yet neither Suarez, De Paen., d. 32, s. I, n. 5, nor Lugo, Paenit., d. 22, n. 3, seem to require this, unless some spiritual necessity of the penitent demands that he be heard by the pastor. The Code does not seem to urge the matter except according to the benign opinion.

But the pastor gravely sins who provides his parishioners occasion for confession only on a few days in the month. For he renders burdensome and difficult the reception of the sacraments, which he ought to render easy (Lehmk., II, 50).

"When necessity is urgent, all confessors are held by the obligation from charity of hearing the confessions of the faithful; and in danger of death, all priests" (c. 892, §2).

Confessors are those who, since they have obtained jurisdiction which they are accustomed to exercise, now receive confessions as if from office. Wherefore I would not think them excused by grave inconvenience, if those asking are in grave spiritual necessity, or if, in paschal time, there is a common scarcity of confessors in the place where they dwell. But if the one asking confession is in danger of death, now any priest is bound, and indeed under grave obligation, if the necessity of the penitent is grave. For in the priesthood received by them, the Church recognizes the title of an obligation which c. 892 declares to be present from charity.

— "If the confessor cannot doubt concerning the dispositions of the penitent, and the latter asks absolution, absolution is neither to be denied nor deferred" (c. 886).

If we compare this canon with c. 870, we shall say that here the Code inculcates the right which one duly disposed has, that in the sacramental judgment he be absolved: for absolution is a just sentence due to the penitent, and therefore not to be deferred. Besides, this rule is commonly proclaimed: that absolution is to be denied to him who is certainly indisposed, but of itself to be conceded to him who is certainly disposed.

Yet no one's right is injured on account of a manner of acting to which the lord of the right is not reasonably unwilling. But there are certain cases where all say that it is expedient, for example for rendering certain the execution of a present obligation, that absolution be deferred even for a disposed penitent. They then affirm that it can be deferred for the utility of the penitent himself. Besides there are also approved writers in the Church who think that delay of absolution must be used as a remedy for correcting relapsing penitents. Their opinion indeed is attacked by others, as we shall see in the moral part.

But here the question is raised whether these opinions have virtually been reprobated by the Code or not. We think this must simply be denied, as being wholly foreign to the mind of the legislator. He wished to eradicate a remnant of the Jansenist plague, that is, that abuse by which, in certain regions, confessors, moved by no peculiar utility of the penitent, were accustomed not to confer absolution except after two or three confessions or approaches to the confessor.

Therefore the controversies which were being carried on freely in the Church about this argument among Catholic theologians are not touched by this canon (cf. Ter Haar, C.SS.R., De conferenda absolutione sacramentali iuxta c. 886 Codicis iur. can.).

— Let the confessor "beware entirely lest he inquire after the name of an accomplice" (c. 888).

By this simple prohibition, c. 888 supplies for the excommunication formerly carried by the constitutions of Benedict XIV, Suprema, July 7, 1745; Ubi primum, June 2, 1746, and confirmed by the constitution of Pius IX, Apostolicae Sedis, October 12, 1869, among excommunications simply reserved to the Roman Pontiff, against those who have taught or defended as licit the practice of inquiring after the name of an accomplice under penalty of denied absolution.

The question concerns a penitent who has had an accomplice of his sin. To inquire after the name of that accomplice is studiously and from curiosity to seek that knowledge, whether, within confession, through interrogation of the penitent, or outside it, which would be much worse.

By the very law of nature we are prohibited from questioning the penitent concerning that name without a just cause. And it would be grave to do this under penalty of denied absolution, or if scandal or grave defamation is added: these things being excluded, it will be a sin of light curiosity.

But the penitent can be questioned concerning that name, insofar as there is need that the species or occasion of the sin be known.

The confessor will also be able, indeed of himself ought, to urge the obligation, if the penitent has any, of revealing or denouncing the accomplice outside confession; yet he cannot require that this revelation be made to himself, unless perhaps he is a Superior to whom alone the revelation can usefully be made. (This, however, St. Alph., n. 492, on account of the prohibition of Benedict XIV, does not dare to concede.)

But it is ill-advised for a confessor on his own initiative to assume the burden of denouncing someone for the penitent, indeed to agree to do this regularly. For the error by which perhaps the penitent is deceived will easily be imputed to him; so also the calumny which perhaps the penitent wishes to commit; and he can even come under suspicion of having violated the seal.

— I. 1. Religious priests do not licitly use their jurisdiction except from the faculty, at least presumed, of their Superior.

2. The master of novices and his associate, the Superior of a seminary or college, do not licitly hear the confessions of novices or of their boarder pupils, unless the pupils, from a grave and urgent cause, in particular cases, ask this.

3. Religious Superiors can hear their subjects who spontaneously approach them, but let them not do this by way of habit without grave cause.

4. In danger of death the sick person is licitly absolved by any priest, even of another rite, even by an excommunicate to be avoided whom he has sought, even when another priest is present. Absolution cannot be sought from a heretic or schismatic enrolled in a sect, outside necessity. The absolution of an accomplice remains illicit, on the part of the confessor, outside the case of necessity.

5. The use of probable jurisdiction is of itself licit. No one licitly uses negatively doubtful jurisdiction, or licitly absolves in common error, unless a cause altogether grave, of avoiding detriment, demands this. Concerning doubtful absolution the penitent must be warned that he may provide for himself.

6. Pastors and however many have care of souls entrusted to them must, from office, hear confessions as often as they are reasonably asked; the other confessors, who are accustomed to exercise jurisdiction, when necessity is urgent; and this from charity; in danger of death, all priests.

7. To a disposed penitent who asks absolution, absolution is neither to be denied nor of itself deferred.

8. But the name of an accomplice cannot be sought out by the confessor without a just cause.

1813. Penitents, after admonitions and exhortations have been heard, can be divided into a threefold class: for some are certainly disposed, others doubtfully disposed, and others finally positively indisposed. - Therefore the confessor, so that he may rightly and fruitfully perform his twofold office toward each, i.e. the office of JUDGE and PHYSICIAN, ought to attend to the following:

Principles. I. Absolution IS TO BE GIVEN to capable and worthy penitents, or the RIGHTLY DISPOSED, unless the good of the penitent counsels delay, as will be said at n. 1816. "The reason is because the penitent, after confession has been made, since he is disposed, has a strict right to absolution; by denying which the confessor would inflict grave injury upon him, both because he would deprive him of the grace of the Sacrament, and because he would oblige him to undergo a great burden, namely to repeat before another his grave sins."³⁶

1814. II. Absolution must altogether BE DENIED to incapable and unworthy persons. The reason is because to administer a Sacrament where essential conditions are lacking is a great sacrilege; and often also a most grave deception of the penitent, namely when, from invalid absolution received, he incurs greater danger of eternal damnation.

We said, 1. to the incapable, namely to those who either have never had the use of reason, or are ignorant of necessary things with necessity of means (cf. n. 1808), or are not morally present, or bring no matter to the Sacrament.

We said, 2. to the unworthy, i.e. to those certainly indisposed (cf. n. 1817, q. 4).

Wherefore St. Alphonsus gravely admonishes, saying:³⁷ 1) Let the confessor be inflexible in deferring or denying absolution as often as it is proper; especially with priests and Ordinands. 2) Let him be full of charity, both by bringing it about according to his strength that the indisposed penitent become disposed, and by dismissing with sweet words the one whom he cannot absolve, so that this one may not be reluctant to return (cf. n. 1793, 3).

1815. III. Absolution IS TO BE DEFERRED for the penitent DOUBTFULLY DISPOSED; unless there is present a GRAVE CAUSE because of which absolution can be imparted under condition. - The reason of the first part is because otherwise the confessor would expose the Sacrament to danger of nullity, and so would commit grave sacrilege. The reason of the second part is because the Sacraments are for men, and therefore in a case in which the salvation of a man is endangered, they are to be administered in every better manner by which it can be done; but irreverence toward the Sacrament is removed by a just cause and condition. See individual cases under n. 1663, q. 4, where concerning the conditioned form. But here:

Let it be noted: 1. Delay of absolution, when it can be used, is a most efficacious REMEDY; for it shakes the drowsy, lest they fall into the sleep of death; as a carbuncle it rouses those deceived by the fallacy of sin, so that they open their eyes and know their dangerous state. - Even if they should not return to the same confessor, a just and prudent delay is not useless; because, like a strong admonition, it will be a seed of reflection and conversion, which will bear fruit in its own time.³⁸ It was said: when it can be used; for among penitents doubtfully disposed there are found some who, dismissed, would not return, and would waste away in their sins, although it is not impossible for them to dispose themselves better. These ought rather to be absolved under condition.³⁹

2. The delay ought to be brief, i.e. for eight or ten days, if the sin proceeds from intrinsic frailty; indeed sometimes for a shorter time, e.g. for a day, or an hour, or even for a quarter of an hour. - But if it proceeds from an extrinsic cause, e.g. from a proximate occasion, the delay can be longer, e.g. of one month, if from the circumstances it is required (cf. n. 1831).

And indeed these principles press the Confessor insofar as he is considered solely as judge. But since the parts of physician also must be performed by him, it must be established:

1816. IV. The confessor, insofar as he performs the office of PHYSICIAN, CAN, indeed OUGHT, sometimes TO DEFER absolution for a penitent, even one RIGHTLY DISPOSED, namely when he prudently judges that such a delay will be profitable for his amendment and salvation. To the point St. Alphonsus says thus:⁴⁰ "It is certain and common among all that the confessor can defer absolution for a penitent even disposed, and even without his consent, whenever he prudently judges that delay is useful for his amendment. The reason is because the penitent, although he has a right to absolution by reason of confession performed, nevertheless does not have a right to be absolved at once: for the confessor, to whom not only the duty of judge but also of physician belongs, can well, indeed in my judgment is bound to, defer absolution when he judges such a remedy to be necessarily useful to the salvation of his penitent." But that the Blessed Doctor in this matter by no means departs from the opinion of the ancient Theologians (of the sixteenth century) is found demonstrated splendidly in the Alphonsian Vindications.⁴¹

We said, 1. when he judges that the delay will be profitable: as, e.g., when there is probable danger lest the penitent, after receiving absolution, break his purpose: as often happens to those who must make restitution, make a denunciation, remove an occasion of sin, reconcile themselves with enemies, learn things necessary to be known, shake off culpable negligence, etc. But the delay, in these cases, will be able to be of the very briefest time, namely until they have fulfilled the obligation. - But the obligation itself of deferring absolution will be grave or light, according as the delay itself will be judged necessary, or only useful.⁴²

We said, 2. when he judges PRUDENTLY; because one must proceed considerately. For absolution is never to be put off for one sufficiently disposed if the delay is foreseen as more harmful than profitable, or if from it a mark or danger of infamy would arise for the penitent. And the same must be said if, all things weighed, the delay would seem useless, or if such a remedy could be used with too little convenience.⁴³

Note. - According to the diversity of places and times it is expedient to defer absolution more frequently or more rarely. Thus, in great cities or in impious regions, where faith has collapsed, it hardly ever seems expedient that absolution be deferred; otherwise elsewhere, where faith is living.

1817. Questions. Q. 1. Whether and what sort of CERTITUDE is required concerning the disposition of the penitent, so that he can be absolved?

Resp. The extreme opinions being passed over, of the Rigorists, who will that no one, outside danger of death, is to be absolved before he has put forth most certain arguments of conversion; and of the Laxists, who think that absolution is to be denied to no one unless evidence holds signs of indisposition, we say with St. Alphonsus:

1. In this Sacrament, since the matter is moral, as the acts of the penitent are, MORAL or respective CERTITUDE suffices... "Hence, as regards our purpose, it is sufficient that the confessor have prudent probability concerning the disposition of the penitent, and that, on the other hand, no prudent suspicion of indisposition stands in the way; otherwise scarcely anyone could be absolved, since whatever signs of penitents furnish nothing except probability of disposition... And this seems to be sufficiently expressed in the Roman Catechism, where it is said: If, the confession having been heard, the priest has judged that neither diligence in enumerating sins, nor sorrow in detesting them, was wholly lacking to the penitent, he will be able to be absolved"⁴⁴ (cf. n. 1424).

2. The dispositions of the penitent ought to become known to the confessor through certain signs, whether ordinary or extraordinary. ORDINARY SIGNS indeed suffice if no indication of indisposition appears to the contrary. But if they are attacked by some positive presumption, or in other words, if there is present a founded suspicion concerning the indisposition of the penitent, e.g. because of his new and continuous falls into sin, they no longer suffice; but SOME EXTRAORDINARY SIGN is required. The reason is because the presumption which ordinary signs introduce concerning the disposition of the penitent is destroyed by the presumption which founded reasons furnish concerning his indisposition. Hence the confessor necessarily becomes hesitating and doubtful (in which case see what was said at n. 1815). But where some extraordinary sign (which either precedes the accusation of sins, or, with the confessor admonishing and exhorting, follows it) supervenes, suspicion concerning indisposition is (for the most part) removed, and the confessor judges that his penitent is now sufficiently disposed.⁴⁵

Q. 2. What are the ORDINARY SIGNS of sufficient disposition?

Resp. According to St. Alphonsus,⁴⁶ they are the confession itself rightly made, and the protestation of the penitent asserting that he is sorry and proposes. For the presumption is in favor of the penitent, and he is to be believed when nothing stands in the way to the contrary.

Q. 3. What are EXTRAORDINARY or special SIGNS?⁴⁷

Resp. St. Alphonsus enumerates nine signs of this sort, which can be recalled to two heads, namely some zeal for amendment, and a special manifestation of sorrow.

1. Some ZEAL FOR AMENDMENT, for example: 1) The use of means, e.g. if the penitent diligently avoided the occasion, carried into execution the means prescribed by the confessor, used prayers, alms, etc., for rooting out the vice. - 2) Perseverance for some time, e.g. absolutely speaking, for about three weeks, or relatively to temptations, for one or another week, when previously he was accustomed to fall many times in the week. That continence can happen after confession, which is a better sign, or even before he approaches confession, so that he might dispose himself for it. - 3) A more difficult or rarer fall: more difficult, i.e. after notable resistance; rarer, namely in the same occasions and temptations. - 4) Fulfillment of some difficult obligation, as, e.g., of restitution, repairing the neighbor's reputation, etc.

2. Some SPECIAL MANIFESTATION OF SORROW, e.g. 1) Tears and sighs, at least for the most part, but especially cordial words. - 2) Spontaneous confession made, not from custom, but from an internal impulse of grace, so that divine friendship may be received, especially if there accedes a long journey, loss of notable profit, grave inconvenience, great internal or external conflict. - 3) External impulse of grace, in some extraordinary event, for example because of a sermon heard, because of the death of a friend, because of fear of an imminent scourge. - 4) Confession of sins previously concealed. - 5) Signification of a new knowledge of one's sin, or of the danger of damnation. - 6) Request for means of amendment, and similar things: for example, "if the penitent says that he repented immediately after the sin, if he desires to make satisfaction, if he accepts a great penance with a good mind, if of himself he protests that he would rather die than fall again." From signs of this sort it is rightly gathered that the penitent asserts sorrow and purpose not only with the mouth, but from the soul.⁴⁸

"The following things are to be noted concerning these: 1. Zeal for amendment can sometimes stand with slight amendment, on account of special difficulties of amendment, which can proceed: 1) from a habit very deeply rooted, since it demands great efforts; 2) from assiduous and vehement temptations, because they entangle a man; 3) from a very light and changeable disposition, which is especially proper to adolescents, and by which it happens that with equal facility they pass to good and to evil; 4) from the facility with which some sins are committed, for example sins of heart and of mouth.⁴⁹

"2. Spontaneity of confession is to be presumed especially in those regions in which faith has grown weak; for there human respect does not impel one to receiving the Sacraments, as in others in which religion flourishes, but rather draws one back from them. For the rest, even in regions of this sort, there are not lacking those who approach the sacred Tribunal from custom alone, or from other natural motives.⁵⁰

"3. In the time of a Mission which turns out prosperously, recidivists for the most part are usually rightly disposed, if they diligently attended the sermons, and at this time abstained from sin."⁵¹

Q. 4. What are the signs of INDISPOSITION?

Resp. 1. The ABSOLUTELY indisposed, and therefore incapable of the benefit of absolution, are to be judged, from the Roman Ritual:⁵² "Those who give no signs of sorrow; who DO NOT WANT to lay aside hatreds and enmities, or to restore the goods of others, if they can, or to leave a proximate occasion of sinning, or in another way to leave sins, and amend life for the better; or who have given public scandal, unless they publicly satisfy and remove the scandal"; and generally, whoever refuse to fulfill a known grave obligation.

Resp. 2. The DOUBTFULLY disposed are to be judged: 1) Those who approach the sacred tribunal compelled, or only from human consideration, or without any preparation; - 2) those who confess without any sense of humility, narrating their sins historically and almost jokingly, or without any submission to the confessor, namely excusing their own wicked manner of acting, accusing others, etc.; - 3) those who use crafty words, seeking rather to cover over than to expose sins, or not confessing them unless they have been detected by the industry of the confessor; - 4) those who are very difficult in accepting penances and remedies necessary for sins; - 5) those finally who, remedies being neglected, have fallen back into a wicked habit after they have already been admonished by the confessor.⁵³

But let it be noted FOR PRACTICE: - 1. In the Confessor there is necessary the industry of ardent charity, by which namely, according to his strength, "not without prayers poured out to God from the inmost heart" (as Leo XII says),⁵⁴ he strives to make the unprepared prepared: and this often succeeds with true zeal.

2. "In the penitent there is not necessary an interpretative disposition, namely that if he were found in this or that conflict of circumstances, he would not sin, when he does not at all reflect on this; because otherwise, if confessors wished to presume the interpretative indispositions of penitents, they could absolve few, since they could judge that many of those whose children had been killed certainly would be moved with hatred against the killers; if they were tempted by tyrants with torments, they would fall away from the Faith, etc. - Therefore it suffices to find in the penitent that actual disposition, so that he may be absolved; namely that here and now he resolves no longer to sin in any case in general. Nor does it stand in the way that he would be indisposed by interpretative will, namely if he were admonished."⁵⁵

The formal use of the confessor's power consists in remitting sins or retaining them. He remits sins by pronouncing the sentence of absolution; this, in the sacrament, has itself after the manner of form. For while the penitent places the matter by contrition, confession, and satisfaction, the priest, joining the words of absolution to these, perfects the sacrament.

Hence we shall speak:

1. concerning the essence of the form of absolution,

2. concerning the signification of the form,

3. concerning the requisites for the validity and liceity of the form of absolution.

447. Corollaries. - From this practical corollaries can be deduced:

1° That absolution given to an absent person, whether through letters or through an intermediary, even when he confesses in this way, is illicit and invalid,1 both because it is not done by vocal words, and because it is not done to one present.

Besides, the nature of the sacrament of Penance seems to require that, from the mode in which it is administered, per se at least the priest can be made certain concerning the actual state of the penitent; for which there is required a present confession and absolution of one present; nor does an intermediary bear the place of the penitent as to disposition. On account of this Clement VIII, on June 20, 1602, in the Congregation of the Holy Office, at least as false, rash, and scandalous, condemned this proposition: "that it is lawful through letters or an intermediary to confess sins sacramentally to an absent confessor and from the same absent one to obtain absolution," and commanded that it should never in any case be reduced to practice. From this it follows that the absolution is not only illicit but also invalid, for otherwise sometimes, at least in extreme necessity, it could licitly be reduced to practice.

2° That absolution given to an absent person is also invalid, even if confession was made to a priest present, on account of the same motives.

3° Likewise that absolution given to one present is invalid, but by force of confession made in absence and here and now in no way renewed, not even in general. For then present matter is lacking, namely confession, and therefore the absolution would not be sacramental, as not informing the matter, nor is the priest more certified concerning the actual state of the penitent.

It is also reported that Clement VIII pronounced that he had condemned and prohibited the proposition adduced not only copulatively but divisively, concerning absolution and confession separately; and most certainly Paul V, in the Congregation of the Holy Office on July 14, 1605, declared the decree to have value in the divided sense, so that he ordered the contrary interpretation to be expunged from the writings of Suarez.

4° Whence, as an axiom, they are accustomed to say: absolution is invalid, whether a) an absent person confesses and an absent person is absolved, or b) a present person confesses and an absent person is absolved, or c) an absent person confesses and a present person is absolved.

5° Nevertheless the practice of absolving dying persons destitute of the senses, who manifested a desire of confession, concerning which testimony is had through bystanders, is not disapproved, as Clement VIII declared.

For then there is present confession of a present person made to one present through bystanders, as through interpreters. For as Billuart says, on Penance, diss. 7, art. 3, § II, "the penitent is present, the bystanders present, the confessor present, and through the testimony of the bystanders the confession itself present." Namely, the penitent is present, and his confession is morally continued and expressed by the mouth of the bystanders, so that the priest can be morally certain concerning the actual state of the penitent, since it is in no way likely that he, while the danger of death stands, has changed his good disposition.

6° Finally, absolution by telephone, or through a long phonetic canal, is invalid, or at least very doubtful.

For according to the natural and ordinary mode of conversing, the penitent and confessor are not present to each other, and by the common estimation of men, the conversation is judged to take place between absent persons: simple communication is not yet presence. Indeed neither is the very voice of the one speaking heard on the telephone, but it is only perfectly reproduced; but an artificial transfer of the voice does not suffice that the absolution which reaches the penitent be truly vocal. Whence, at most, in a case of extreme necessity, and only under condition, could the penitent be thus absolved, in default of a more certain mode.

But if the Sacred Penitentiary, on July 1, 1884, to a question proposed about this, wrote back that nothing was to be answered, it seems to have wished to signify: that the question did not pertain to itself, but to the Holy Office.

1. Formerly several admitted this, as Peter Paludanus, Adrianus, Sylvester, whose opinion according to P. Soto can be held. John of St. Thomas moreover adduces for it I. Medina, On Confession, 9; and Navarrus, Summa, c. 21, n. 30. Against it stand Cajetan and Ledesma and generally the more recent authors; and St. Thomas is adduced, III, q. 84, a. 3, ad 3; a. 4, ad 3; and IV Sent., d. 1, q. 1, a. 3, ad 3; d. 14, q. 1, a. 1, qc. 1, ad 2; d. 17, q. 3, a. 4, qc. 3, ad 3; St. Bonaventure and St. Albert the Great in IV Sent.; Alexander of Hales, III, q. 60, m. 1, a. 1; Richard in IV, d. 17, a. 2, q. 5; Ferrariensis, Contra Gentiles, IV, c. 72.

The form of the Sacrament of Penance can be distinguished as twofold: one essential for the validity of the Sacrament, and the other only preceptive or rubrical.

1342. - I. The essential form consists in the words: I absolve thee from thy sins. This is clear from Trent.¹

II. The preceptive or rubrical form consists in those prayers which precede or follow the essential form. But thus it is had in the Roman Ritual: May Almighty God have mercy on thee, and, thy sins having been forgiven, bring thee to eternal life. Amen.

May the almighty and merciful Lord grant thee indulgence, absolution, and remission of thy sins. Amen.

May our Lord Jesus Christ absolve thee, and I, by His authority, absolve thee from every bond of excommunication (suspension), and interdict, insofar as I am able and thou needest; then: I absolve thee from thy sins in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.

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

The right hand is raised toward the penitent from the word Indulgence up to the word Passion of the Lord; and the Sign of the Cross is made over the penitent while saying: In the name of the Father ... The word suspension is omitted for lay persons. But there is a pious custom that the confessor before Confession, while blessing the penitent, say: May the Lord be in thy heart and on thy lips, that thou mayest rightly confess all thy sins, or recite a similar prayer.

In practice the prayers May Almighty God have mercy and May the almighty and merciful Lord grant thee indulgence can easily be omitted, as is clear from the Roman Ritual. Indeed according to the more common opinion they can always be omitted without sin. The same also is said concerning the prayers which follow absolution; but since, according to the probable opinion, these elevate the good works of the penitent unto the merit of sacramental satisfaction, it is fitting that they be omitted as rarely as possible. - But the words May our Lord Jesus Christ ... cannot be omitted without venial fault, unless necessity urges, since the Roman Ritual says: "In more frequent Confessions it will be enough to say: May our Lord ... up to the Passion of the Lord ... exclusively." - S. C. R.¹ and Conf. dir. per le C. 15. n. 2.

1343. Questions. - Query 1° Is absolution valid if the priest says only: I ABSOLVE; or I ABSOLVE FROM THY SINS; or I ABSOLVE THEE?

Resp. to the 1st. Negatively. The reason is that the word I absolve alone does not of itself carry any determinate sense, and it falls upon no subject; therefore it cannot be a valid form.

Resp. to the 2nd. Affirmatively as more probable, as it seems, at least speculatively. The reason is that by these words the subject is sufficiently determined; for the pronoun thee is sufficiently expressed in the word thy. - Thus Lugo.² - St. Alphonsus,³ as more probable, etc. Yet not a few deny it, whose opinion, as St. Alphonsus says,⁴ as safer, is to be followed.

Resp. to the 3rd. Affirmatively as more probable, with the common opinion. The reason is that the whole effect of the Sacrament is expressed in these words, without adding from thy sins. - Besides, it seems to be clear also from the Catechism of the Council of Trent,⁵ where only this is said: "But the form is: I absolve thee." And nothing else is added there. - Roncaglia, Lugo, etc. - Yet not improbably some deny it with Lacroix, and this opinion is to be stood by in practice.

Query 2° Is the deprecative form valid, e.g. May God absolve thee?

Resp. Negatively, at least more probably, with St. Alphonsus,⁶ Lacroix,⁷ and very commonly others. The reason is that the Sacrament of Penance was instituted after the manner of a judgment; hence Christ wished that the priest as judge would pronounce a sentence, and would express this: therefore sins must be remitted by the priest himself as minister of Christ; therefore it does not suffice that he beseech God to remit them. Therefore, etc. Besides, from the Council of Florence the indicative form alone is prescribed as the true form of the Sacrament of Penance.

Query 3° Is the elevation of the hand and the formation of the Sign of the Cross necessary in imparting absolution?

Resp. 1° It is certain that it is not required for the validity of the Sacrament, because it pertains neither to the matter nor to the form. This is clear from the Council of Florence and Trent, and also from the unanimous consent of Theologians, at least after Trent.

Resp. 2° Nor is it required under mortal sin for liceity according to the common opinion, against a few; because it is only a Rubric, which does not seem grave. Indeed several grave authors assert that this can be omitted without sin, as Busembaum, reported and implicitly approved by St. Alphonsus,¹ and many others. At least the elevation of the hand can be omitted without sin while the prayers which precede formal absolution are recited.

Query 4° Can a priest validly absolve several by one form, saying: I ABSOLVE YOU FROM YOUR SINS?

Resp. Affirmatively, because all things required for validity are found. And it can also licitly be done in a case of necessity, e.g. in shipwreck, before battle, or in the battle itself, etc.; and such absolution would be multiple, not indeed formally, but virtually and equivalently, and there would be as many Sacraments as there were men who, through some Confession and sufficient sorrow, were disposed. - Lacroix,² and all others.

Query 5° What presence of the penitent is reckoned moral with respect to absolution?

Resp. It must be such that the words: I absolve thee, according to the moral estimation of men, are judged to fall upon the penitent; but that moral presence is reckoned sufficient within which men can and are wont to speak in a common voice, although a higher one. Many extend it to 20 paces, especially if the penitent is not outside the sight of the confessor. In necessity at least the penitent is to be absolved under condition whenever he is perceived by some sense. - Thus commonly with St. Alphonsus.³

Hence: 1° One who seems about to fall from a roof, to fall into a river, or to be submerged in the sea, is to be absolved, at least if he is not far distant from the confessor. 2° If the confessor, on account of danger of infection or for another cause, cannot enter the room of the sick person, he ought to absolve him from the door. 3° If a penitent were to withdraw from the confessor not yet absolved, thinking himself absolved, he would have to be absolved if he were seen at a small distance, or were certainly known to be present within the nearby crowd; yet he would have to be called back if this could conveniently be done.

Query 6° Through the words: I ABSOLVE THEE FROM THY SINS, can the confessor validly absolve the penitent both from censures and from sins?

Resp. Affirmatively, because these words: I absolve thee from thy sins, involve absolution from every bond arising from sins; and nothing prevents the confessor from being able to direct his intention to absolution both of sins and of censures. - Thus commonly. - St. Alphonsus,¹ Lacroix.²

Query 7° Is absolution valid if the confessor absolves from sins before he absolves from censures?

Resp. Affirmatively, because censure is not an obstacle to the validity of the Sacrament, but only to its licit reception or administration. Yet he would sin gravely who first absolved from sins before censures, because he would act against a grave prohibition of the Church: except if there is question not of excommunications, but only of suspensions and interdicts; because those censures do not of themselves deprive one of the reception of the Sacrament of Penance.³

1344. - Query 8° Whether and when is a conditioned form valid and licit?

Resp. to the 1st. It is certain that absolution under a condition concerning the present or the past is valid in every case, provided the other requisites for the validity of the Sacrament are present; for the condition in no way changes the sense of the sacramental form, which it does not affect at all; but it affects only the will of the confessor, who does not intend to absolve unless the condition added is fulfilled; but once this has been fulfilled, the form becomes absolute; and therefore nothing is found which can stand in the way of its validity. - Thus St. Alphonsus,⁴ who says that all agree concerning this. Cf. what was said n. 1218. q. 5°.

Resp. to the 2nd. It is equally certain that conditioned absolution is sometimes licit; for if it is valid, it must also be licit when necessity urges. - Thus most commonly the Theologians.⁵

Yet the doctrine of some is to be rejected as plainly lax, who hold that conditioned absolution can be imparted for any light cause whatever, and when no necessity urges, even if the sufficient disposition of the penitent, though burdened with mortal sins, is doubted in any way whatever. For no one fails to see how many sacrileges a practice of this kind would induce. Indeed the confessor would no longer be a prudent dispenser of the Sacraments, but would cast pearls before swine; and by this facility of absolving he would effect that penitents waste away in sins.¹

But no more is the doctrine of those to be admitted, who with Collet and certain others hold that absolution under condition is not to be imparted except in extreme necessity, or in extreme danger of life; for doctrine of this kind is supremely harmful to penitents, who can return to the confessor only with difficulty, and, dismissed without absolution, incur danger of eternal damnation.

But concerning the necessity in which absolution under condition can or ought to be imparted, according to the common doctrine and practice, the following rules seem to be established:

Rule I. - Absolution can and ought to be given under condition whenever, if granted absolutely, it would expose the Sacrament to danger of nullity, and, if denied absolutely, it would expose the penitent to danger of grave spiritual harm.

Rule II. - Even if necessity of this kind does not urge, nevertheless absolution can be given under condition whenever, if granted absolutely, it would expose the Sacrament to danger of nullity, and, if denied absolutely, it would deprive the penitent of some notable spiritual good, although not a necessary one.

Hence, with due conditions observed, when necessity urges, or when a just and proportionate cause is present, it is lawful to absolve conditionally in the following cases: 1° in doubt whether the penitent is living or dead; 2° in doubt of sufficient matter, for example if there is question of a pious penitent who "confesses only imperfections, which do not reach sins certainly venial." Yet very rarely,² or once in a month,³ "and when he cannot assign certain matter from his past life, or not without great trouble";¹

3° in doubt of fact concerning jurisdiction in the cases and under the conditions to be handed down n. 1394. q. 4°.² (On doubt of law, n. 60. I.); 4° in positive doubt (n. 1213) whether the penitent has been, or has been duly, absolved; 5° in doubt whether the penitent is morally present; 6° in doubt whether a dying person destitute of the senses is capable of the Sacrament; 7° in doubt concerning the disposition of the penitent, if there is question either of the half-witted, - to whom I equate those who are so stupid or untaught that whatever you say or do, you effect nothing, as sometimes happens with our Negroes; likewise the mute who do not know how to write, unless and insofar as one can deal with them sufficiently through some signs; likewise the deaf and those somewhat deaf in the case treated n. 1369. q. 6°; likewise those having their mind so confused or their tongue so stammering that their disposition cannot be judged, - or of children who are not yet perfectly capable of reason, especially if they bring a doubtful mortal sin, indeed also, not improbably, only venial sins, - or of a relapsed person in mortal sins, and there is fear lest he not return to Confession and waste away in his sins,³ or, I add, despair, or apostatize, or pass over to heretics, - or of a dying person, or, I would add, of a woman in difficult childbirth, of a soldier about to go into battle, of one about to undertake a dangerous voyage, of one about to undergo a dangerous surgical operation, of one condemned to be beheaded, and the like; 8° if in some case the necessity of avoiding scandal or infamy would truly urge, because bystanders would see that he did not approach Communion after Confession had been made; yet the penitent could not communicate unless certainly disposed through contrition, on account of the precept of the Apostle, concerning which n. 1306 has been treated.⁴

But if the penitent is in good faith and no fruit is hoped for from admonition about not receiving Communion, the confessor should conduct himself permissively. - But if the penitent asks the confessor whether he can communicate, a distinction must be made; for he asks either because he is of doubtful faith, and then one must answer according to the things said above; - or solely because from youth he was taught to ask in this way after individual Confessions, and then the confessor, if he does not hope for fruit from admonition, should answer evasively. - This lamentable necessity, of which I have spoken, is sometimes found when there is question of a Communion called general of Societies, especially if the number of male or female associates is small. Likewise if there is question of Communion on the occasion of funerals or the first Communion of children. - Some equate to the aforesaid necessity the necessity of celebrating Matrimony.¹ (16) p. 418.

Query 9° With what sacred vestments ought the confessor to be clothed while he hears Confessions in church, and in what place are they to be heard?

Resp. to the 1st. With surplice and violet stole,² unless custom (e.g. of certain Regulars), or occasion, or place (e.g. for the Confession of a sick person, in necessity, outside the church, where no opportunity is given for assuming surplice and stole) suggests otherwise.³ - Nevertheless, notwithstanding custom, it is fitting that in church a stole be used, as the S. C. R. rescripted.⁴ But for Confession outside the church the confessor laudably keeps a stole at home.⁵

Resp. to the 2nd. "Confessionals are to be erected in churches, for hearing the Confessions of women. ... But by the name church ... the sacristy is not to be understood, unless the place is public and open ... and it will be lawful for no priest to receive the Confessions of women in another place, without the special license of the Ordinary. But this," say the Fathers of the Council, "we trust is never to be granted except to priests advanced in age, or infirm, or on account of penitents who are deaf; or in other cases in which grave inconveniences would arise from observance of this rule. We wish also that this condition always be added, that the Confessions of women never be received in private houses, unless with grates interposed, and in an open place, insofar as the character of the place permits."⁶

1370. - I. Any dying person who in some way, by voice or sign, confesses, or asks for absolution, can and must be absolved, and indeed absolutely. The reason is that all requisites are present for the Sacrament and for Confession formally integral.

II. Any dying person in whom attrition and Confession can be presumed in some way, however slightly probable, can and must be absolved, but conditionally; because in a case of extreme necessity, even in the administration of the Sacraments, it is lawful to use even a slightly founded opinion. - St. Alphonsus and others more commonly against others.

III. A dying person who altogether refuses the Sacrament of Penance, or who can in no way be presumed attrite or to have wished or to wish Confession, can in no way be absolved. The reason is most plainly clear.

1371. Resolves. - 1° All dying persons not yet deprived of the senses and consenting to absolution, and obeying the commands of the confessor, are to be absolved: absolutely indeed, if they spontaneously ask for Confession, or if with a willing mind they propose to confess; but conditionally, if with difficulty they are scarcely induced to some Confession, or if there is prudent doubt concerning their sufficient disposition. - Thus commonly.

2° All dying persons deprived of the senses, who before the deprivation of the senses expressly showed a desire of Confession, e.g. by ordering a priest to be called, etc., are to be absolved, but more safely conditionally. The reason is that in the case Confession becomes known sufficiently sensibly to the confessor through the testimony of another, even of one person or mediately. This is clear from Councils and from the Roman Ritual.

3° All dying persons wholly destitute of the senses, who lived as Christians, are to be absolved under condition, even if at that time they gave no sign either of sorrow or of desire for Confession. The reason is that in these persons sorrow and the desire of absolution can be presumed through sensible signs, e.g. through sighs, motions of the body, anxious breathing, which were manifested although not perceived by the confessor.

4° For the same reason other dying persons destitute of the senses, who lived little as Christians, are also to be absolved conditionally.

5° For the same reason, sufficiently probably, a Catholic dying person, destitute of the senses in the very act of sin, e.g. in a duel, adultery, theft, etc., can and must be absolved under condition.

6° "Those who, although they have never professed the Catholic faith, have shown a will inclined toward it, can in that crisis," i.e. if they are dying and destitute of the senses, "be absolved under condition, ... if they have already been baptized in their sects" (but in doubt concerning the value of this Baptism, after Baptism has been repeated under condition); "for there is some reason for conjecturing that they wish to finish life in the communion of the Church. But if no indication of his will has been given, they are not to be absolved, even if they give signs of sorrow": because such persons can never prudently be presumed to give those signs in order to Confession, from which they greatly abhor.

Note. - Absolution is usefully conferred several times on a sick person still enjoying his senses after a brief Confession; for thus he is rendered more secure concerning the state of grace, he receives an increase of grace, and purgatorial punishments are diminished for him. - But to one destitute of the senses and giving no sign of sorrow and of desire for absolution, "it is not expedient to impart absolution very often within the same day," i.e. more often than every three or four hours, even if only conditionally; for the grave and urgent cause which is required in order that a Sacrament be administered under condition does not exist per se for this kind of absolution "repeated very often within the same day."

I say: per se; for it could be given more frequently to a dying person habituated in evil thoughts, or entangled in some passion of hatred or impure love, or not bearing a very bitter infirmity with a willing mind, or also now on the very point of dying. - "Moreover, it will not be beside the matter to warn the sick man, while he is in possession of mind, that" when "he will not be able to speak," he should "give some determinate sign," or one agreed upon with him, "when he seeks absolution, or when the priest wishes" to confer it "upon him," e.g. to close or open the eyes, lift the hand, incline the head, and the like. Thus St. Alphonsus in Praxis Conf., where he treats the matter more explicitly than in Theol. Mor. or in Hom. Apost.

1427. Principles. - I. Absolution must be granted from justice and under grave obligation to every penitent rightly confessed and disposed. The reason is that in the very act of Confession there is entered into a certain quasi-contract, by force of which the penitent rightly confessed and disposed has the right to receive the Sacrament. But otherwise an intolerable burden would be imposed on the penitent without just cause, namely that he institute Confession before another, without besides being able certainly to trust that he is going to receive absolution from that new confessor. Moreover this is also required by the end of the institution of the Sacrament and of the tribunal of Penance, which was instituted by Christ for the sake of imparting mercy. Therefore the priest, denying absolution to a penitent disposed, would act unjustly, would abuse the power of the keys, and would render the Sacrament odious.

II. Nevertheless absolution can be delayed for a brief time, even for a penitent sufficiently disposed, and even without his consent, when namely the confessor judges that this is useful for his amendment. The reason is that the delay of absolution is not the denial of the same; and, although a disposed penitent has a right to absolution, nevertheless he does not have a right, at least speaking of itself, to obtaining it immediately. For the confessor is not only judge, but also physician; and therefore, if he judges such a remedy to be going to profit the amendment of the penitent, he will be able to use it prudently; indeed he will be held to use it, when he judges that a remedy of this kind is necessarily useful for the salvation of the penitent. - Thus expressly St. Alphonsus, from whom that Theologians, even older ones before the Sixteenth Century, do not dissent, the Vindiciae clearly prove.

I said: at least speaking of itself; because if the delay of absolution 1° is judged more likely to harm than to profit, or 2° cannot be done without a sufficiently notable inconvenience of the penitent, it must be granted immediately: for the penitent is then considered to have a strict right to obtaining it immediately.

III. Absolution is altogether to be denied in every case, even of extreme necessity, to penitents certainly indisposed. But to penitents doubtfully disposed, absolution is to be delayed, or, according to the rules handed down n. 1344. q. 8°. pag. 93. col. 2., can be imparted under condition, or even sometimes must be.

IV. In order that the delay of absolution may be the more profitable, the penitent is gently to be drawn to consent to it.

1428. Questions. - Query 1° Is it often expedient to delay absolution for a sufficiently disposed penitent, without his consent?

Resp. Outside the two cases alleged n. 1427. II., "it is better to say," says St. Alphonsus, "that a certain rule cannot be established in this; but the confessor must direct himself from the occurring circumstances, and, after he has commended himself to God, as he shall have been inspired by God, let him delay or impart absolution." Then he distinguishes a twofold kind of recidivists, and for each brings forward its proper resolution, as will be explained n. 1480.

Query 2° Is certitude concerning the disposition of the penitent required, so that he can be absolved?

Resp. 1° Absolute certitude is not required, nor even strict moral certitude, such as is required in other Sacraments, e.g. concerning wine for the consecration of the Eucharist. The reason is that the Sacrament of Penance scarcely admits a more certain judgment of this kind.

Resp. 2° Prudent probability is required and suffices, to which no prudent suspicion of indisposition is opposed. For evidence is not possible.

Query 3° What are the ordinary signs of sufficient disposition?

Resp. A rightly made Confession with a protestation of penance and purpose.

Query 4° Is the confessor held to excite sorrow in the penitent?

Resp. 1° Affirm., if the penitent does not seem sufficiently disposed; the reason is that one absolving an indisposed person exposes the Sacrament to the danger of frustration; "but if he dismisses him without absolution, he exposes him to the danger of remaining long in the state of mortal sin, or even of not returning any more." - Nor is he excused from this because he must spend much time on it, or because others are waiting, provided nevertheless that there is hope that he is to be disposed here and now.

Resp. 2° Neg., if the penitent seems sufficiently instructed and disposed, as are mature penitents, and those who confess frequently. For then the confessor is held to nothing, neither by reason of charity, since the penitent does not need special help, nor by reason of reverence of the Sacrament, which is exposed to no danger.

Query 5° Can, indeed must, a penitent be absolved who wishes to follow an opinion opposed to the sentence of the confessor?

Resp. Affirm., provided 1° the opinion of the penitent is somewhat probable, at least extrinsically; for the confessor is not a judge of opinions; 2° the penitent is not so unlearned that he is unable to form for himself a right conscience from probability, at least extrinsic, e.g. from the response of another learned and prudent man, with whom, against the opinion of the confessor, he wishes to stand: for he would act against conscience; 3° there is not question of a judgment which directly regards the administration of the Sacrament, e.g. the disposition of the penitent or the jurisdiction of the confessor, because then there is question not only of permitting the penitent his own opinion, but of following it in one's own operation: I add, from the mind of St. Alphonsus, 4° the opinion of the penitent must be not only speculatively but also practically probable, or not joined with a certainly probable danger of formal sin, as was said n. 87. Reg. 1. 2°: for then there is question of judgment concerning the disposition of the penitent.

328. The essential form of the sacrament of penance consists of the words of absolution duly pronounced by the confessor. The Roman Ritual⁶³ gives the essential form in these words: "Then I absolve thee from thy sins in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Amen." According to all, the form, "I absolve thee from thy sins," is certainly valid, because the minister and his action are sufficiently expressed by the word "I absolve," the subject by the word "thee," and the matter by the words "from thy sins." Indeed, it is probable that the formulas "I absolve thee" and "I absolve from thy sins" are valid; nevertheless it is altogether unlawful to employ them, nor can there be a reasonable cause for someone to employ these formulas which are only probably valid.

In a case of necessity, for example, in a shipwreck, absolution can validly and lawfully be given to many at once under this form: "I absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father, and so forth."

The rubrical form, or rather the manner of acting of the confessor in the administration of the sacrament of penance, is this: Before confession the confessor blesses the penitent, saying: "May the Lord be in thy heart and on thy lips that thou mayest worthily confess all thy sins. In the name of the Father, and so forth." This blessing was introduced by a pious custom, but it neither obliges under fault nor is found in the Roman Ritual. When the confession has been completed, let the confessor say to the penitent certain brief exhortations or pious words. Only very rarely is it expedient that the confessor, omitting every exhortation, immediately impose a salutary penance and give absolution. For the confessor fulfilling his office has the special assistance of the Holy Ghost illuminating and moving him. Accordingly, his words are most efficacious and very salutary even for penitents who are well instructed or established in great dignity.

The Ritual has: "When the priest wishes to absolve the penitent, a salutary penance having first been enjoined upon him and accepted by him, he first says [from which words it follows that the salutary penance is to be imposed before absolution and not afterward, as is sometimes done less fittingly]: 'May almighty God have mercy on thee, and, thy sins having been forgiven, may He lead thee to eternal life. Amen.' Then, with his right hand raised toward the penitent, he says: 'May almighty and merciful God grant thee indulgence, absolution, and remission of thy sins. Amen. May our Lord Jesus Christ absolve thee; and I by His authority absolve thee from every bond of excommunication, suspension, and interdict, insofar as I am able and thou hast need. Then: I absolve thee from thy sins, in the name of the Father and of the Son + and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.' If the penitent is a layman, the word 'suspension' is omitted. 'May the Passion of our Lord Jesus Christ, the merits of the Blessed Virgin Mary and of all the saints, whatever good thou shalt do and evil thou shalt endure, be unto thee for the remission of sins, the increase of grace, and the reward of eternal life. Amen.'

"For a just cause, 'May He have mercy, and so forth,' can be omitted, and it will suffice to say: 'May our Lord Jesus Christ, and so forth,' as above, as far as: 'May the Passion of our Lord, and so forth.' But if some grave necessity is urgent in danger of death, the priest can briefly say: 'I absolve thee from all censures and sins, in the name of the Father and of the Son + and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.'" Thus far the Roman Ritual.

⁶³ Title 3, c. 2.

329. Obligation of the ceremonies. a) The elevation of the hand from the word "Indulgence" as far as the formation of the cross in the absolution obliges neither under grave nor under light sin. It is, however, most fittingly employed, since it signifies the imposition of the hand upon the head of the penitent which was in use in ancient times. Hence the palm of the hand also, and not merely the little finger, should be turned toward the penitent.

b) The prayers "May He have mercy" and "Indulgence," when a just cause exists,⁶⁴ can easily and without any fault be omitted in more frequent confessions (that is, if a great concourse of penitents is present) or shorter ones (that is, if the penitent returns more often). The prayer "May the Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ" can also be omitted without fault under the same conditions. But since St. Thomas⁶⁵ and several theologians think that these words elevate the good works of the penitent to the merit of sacramental satisfaction, it is not fitting to omit them.

c) To omit absolution from censures, which is added as a precaution, if the confessor has moral certainty that the penitent is bound by no censure, is not a grave fault. Nevertheless, the formula of the Ritual is to be observed under light sin. The word "suspension" must be omitted if the penitent is a layman. The word "Then" in modern editions of the Ritual is printed in black characters, and accordingly it is to be pronounced as pertaining to the form.

d) The external ceremonies prescribed by particular statutes are to be observed in the administration of the sacrament of penance. Unless a sufficiently grave reason is present, confessions are to be heard in churches or in public or semi-public oratories, but not in houses or private oratories. This is especially valid concerning the confessions of women. Religious sisters, however, can confess in another becoming place, provided that a confessional is present there with a fixed and finely perforated grille interposed;⁶⁶ it is lawful to hear the confessions of men even in private houses.⁶⁷ Let the confessor be clothed in a surplice and a violet stole. But in this matter custom or a particular statute not rarely dispenses from the surplice.⁶⁸

⁶⁴ Code of Canon Law, c. 885.

⁶⁵ Quodl. 3, q. 13, a. 28.

⁶⁶ Code of Canon Law, c. 909.

⁶⁷ Ibid., c. 910.

⁶⁸ Cf. Sacred Congregation of Rites, August 31, 1867, ad 2, and July 7, 1877, ad 4 (Decr. auth., nn. 3158 and 3426). The Roman Ritual (title 3, c. 1) admonishes: "Let the priest called to hear confession show himself prompt and readily available; and before he approaches to hear it, if time permits, he will implore by pious prayers divine assistance for performing this ministry rightly and holily." Pius IX, by a Decree of the Sacred Congregation of Indulgences dated March 27, 1854, granted once a day an indulgence of 100 days to confessors reciting the following prayer before hearing confessions: "Give me, O Lord, wisdom that sits beside Thy thrones, that I may know how to judge Thy people in justice and Thy poor in judgment. Make me so to handle the keys of the kingdom of heaven that I may open to no one to whom it ought to be closed, and close to no one to whom it ought to be opened. Let my intention be pure, my zeal sincere, my charity patient, my labor fruitful. Let there be in me gentleness that is not lax, severity that is not harsh; may I not despise the poor man nor flatter the rich. Make me gentle in attracting sinners, prudent in questioning them, and skilled in instructing them. Grant me, I beseech Thee, dexterity in drawing them back from evil, diligence in confirming them in good, and industry in promoting them to better things; maturity in responses, rectitude in counsels, light in obscure matters, sagacity in intricate ones, and victory in arduous ones; may I not be detained by useless conversations nor contaminated by depraved ones; may I save others and not lose myself. Amen."

330. Manner of absolution. Absolution must be a) oral, b) given to a penitent morally present, c) not conditional, d) not deprecatory but indicative.

a) Absolution must be oral or vocal.⁶⁹

Hence absolution given in writing or by a nod is invalid, even in extreme necessity, and accordingly a mute priest can never absolve validly. Thus holds the most common opinion, with a few contradicting it, for example, Sporer, Medina, and Peter Soto. No other reason can be given except the will of Christ instituting the sacrament of penance in this manner; this will can be known from the Councils of Florence and Trent, which define the form of this sacrament to be the words: "I absolve thee." Hence in this matter there is a distinction between the sacrament of penance and the sacrament of matrimony, in which the form, that is, consent, can validly be expressed even by signs.

b) Absolution can be given only to a penitent morally present.

For since absolution must be pronounced vocally, it can be given only to those who can hear the words or to whom the confessor can speak. According to St. Alphonsus,⁷⁰ that is considered moral presence within which men can and customarily do speak in an ordinary voice, although a louder one. In a case of extreme necessity this moral presence is to be interpreted broadly. Hence it is lawful to absolve one who falls from a roof at a distance, or a multitude of soldiers before battle. Outside such cases of extreme necessity, however, theologians commonly teach with St. Alphonsus⁷¹ that it is not lawful to absolve a penitent who is more than twenty paces distant from the confessor. For the sacrament of penance was instituted in the manner of a judgment. Therefore that presence of the penitent is rightly required within which a judge can fittingly speak with the accused; this indeed can occur over a distance of about twenty paces. If the penitent unexpectedly departs from the confessional before receiving absolution, then one is to act in these ways: 1. If he can fittingly be recalled, let him be recalled to the confessional; 2. if he cannot be recalled without surprise or another inconvenience, then let the priest quickly pronounce the essential words of absolution before the penitent has departed more than twenty paces from the confessional; it is not required, however, that the confessor still see or hear the penitent, provided that he is in a nearby crowd or place; 3. but if the penitent has already departed farther, and can neither be recalled nor will return to the same confessor, nothing else remains except to commend him to divine mercy.

Clement VIII, on June 20, 1602, condemned the proposition, "It is lawful through letters or a messenger sacramentally to confess sins to an absent confessor and to obtain absolution from the same absent confessor," "at least as false, rash, and scandalous." Moreover, he forbade "that henceforth this proposition be taught in public or private lectures, sermons, and assemblies, or ever be defended as probable in any case, printed, or in any manner reduced to practice."⁷² Therefore it is never lawful to give absolution to one absent, as certain older authors taught, for example, Paludanus,⁷³ John Medina,⁷⁴ Peter Soto,⁷⁵ and so forth. For a sufficient cause, however, it can be permitted that the penitent send his sins written in a letter to an absent confessor, afterward personally approach this confessor, saying: I accuse myself of the sins which you already know from my letter. Then let him ask for and receive absolution for the sins manifested in writing. In this case there would be a manifestation of sins previously made in absence, but afterward a confession equivalently repeated by mouth in personal presence, and finally absolution given in the personal presence of the penitent. For sufficient reasons, for example, because of the excessive length of an oral confession, because of the shame of the penitent, and so forth, the confessor can permit or even counsel this manner of confessing. This manner of acting is in no way contrary either to the Decree of Clement VIII just cited or to the Declaration given by Paul V on July 14, 1605. For neither is there a confession made to one absent nor absolution given to one absent. Suarez did not teach so clearly and rightly in this matter, and accordingly the Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition, on July 31, 1603, and July 14, 1605, reproved his doctrine. Nevertheless, perhaps the dispute was more about the manner of explaining than about the matter itself. Billuart⁷⁶ excellently expounds this formerly celebrated controversy.

⁶⁹ Cf. St. Thomas, S. theol. 3, q. 84, a. 3 ad 3.

⁷⁰ Theol. mor. l. 6, n. 429.

⁷¹ Loc. cit.

⁷² Denz., n. 1088.

⁷³ In IV Sent., dist. 17, q. 2, a. 1.

⁷⁴ Tract. de confessione, q. 15, conclusion 4.

⁷⁵ Tract. de institutione sacerdotum, De confessione, lect. 11.

⁷⁶ De sacr. poenit., diss. 7, a. 3, § 2.

331. Absolution by telephone is certainly unlawful outside a case of extreme necessity, and the same must be said of absolution given through a long acoustic tube.⁷⁷ The reason is that it is very doubtful whether the required moral presence then exists, and accordingly the sacrament would be exposed to the danger of nullity. But it is not certain whether absolutions of this kind are certainly invalid. Nothing certain may be deduced from the response of the Sacred Penitentiary dated July 1, 1884. To the question, "Whether in a case of extreme necessity absolution can be given by telephone?" it replied: "Nothing is to be answered." The Sacred Penitentiary seems to have used this formula of response because it indeed pertains to it to resolve particular cases, but not to determine doubts which pertain to the essence of the sacraments. For this pertains to the Holy Office. The whole question concerning the validity of absolution by telephone or through a long acoustic tube is reduced to this: whether in those cases the penitent is still morally present to the confessor. If easy oral speech between the confessor and the penitent is held as the criterion of this moral presence, sufficient presence certainly exists, especially if speech through an acoustic tube is involved. Nor may anyone say that for moral presence it is additionally required that opaque bodies not totally separate the confessor from the penitent. For otherwise moral presence would not exist even if the confessor hears the confession of a nun who kneels behind a grille covered with a thick veil. The opinion of Father Sabetti, S.J., pleases us: "Since the sacrament of penance was instituted after the likeness of a forensic judgment, for which that presence suffices by force of which the judge and the accused can speak with each other, it does not seem that in the proposed case the absolution is certainly invalid, since the penitent and the priest can be said in a true sense to be conversing." G. A. Eschbach⁷⁸ argues at great length against the validity of a confession of this kind.

⁷⁷ Commonly Sprachrohr, speaking tube, porte-voix.

⁷⁸ La confession par téléphone, Examen 1887, Réponse 1888 (Tournay).

332. c) Absolution should be absolute and not conditional, unless for grave reasons.

It was already stated above, n. 24, in the treatise on the sacraments in general, that it is never lawful to attach a condition concerning the future to the sacraments, except perhaps in the rarest case in a matrimonial contract. Therefore it is never lawful to give absolution under a condition concerning the future, for example, if you shall make restitution, if you shall avoid the proximate occasion. But when a present or past condition is involved, it is sometimes lawful to give conditional absolution.

General rule concerning conditional absolution. Conditional absolution can be given whenever absolution given absolutely would expose the sacrament to the danger of nullity, but absolution absolutely denied would expose the penitent to the danger of grave spiritual harm.

The reason for this rule is that the confessor, according to his powers, must procure both reverence toward the sacrament and the spiritual utility of the penitent. In these cases, however, both are preserved in the best manner possible. Almost all theologians teach that sometimes conditional absolution is truly lawful.⁷⁹ The reason is that the confessor often lacks moral certainty whether the penitent is capable of valid absolution. He is therefore then compelled to leave the certain judgment to divine omniscience, and meanwhile through conditional absolution to provide according to his powers both for the dignity of the sacrament and for the utility of the penitent. Indeed, in a certain true sense every sacramental absolution is conditional, because it is always given under this implicit condition, that the penitent be worthy. It is not indeed required, but it is lawful to premise the condition to the absolution in express words, for example: if you are capable. A condition conceived in the mind suffices.

The principal cases in which it is lawful to give conditional absolution are the following:

1. In doubt whether the penitent is living or dead.

2. In doubt concerning sufficient use of reason in children and persons of impaired reason who have objectively grave sins.

3. In doubt concerning absolution duly given, provided, however, that the penitent has confessed grave matter.

4. In doubt concerning the moral presence of the penitent.⁸⁰

5. In doubt concerning sufficient sorrow and purpose in the penitent, if from the delay of absolution a greater evil is rightly feared. Let the confessor beware, however, lest he employ conditional absolution too frequently because of the doubtful disposition of the penitent, since otherwise he will not escape the mark of grave laxity and will bring to the penitent not utility but spiritual harm. This case is accustomed to occur in the confession of relapsing sinners and those in an occasion of sin, concerning whom a fuller discussion will return below, n. 449 ff.

⁷⁹ Cf. St. Alphonsus, Theol. mor. l. 6, n. 431.

⁸⁰ Cf. above, the preceding number.

333. d) A form of absolution essentially deprecatory is not lawful; indeed, more probably it is invalid.

The reason is that the essence of the sacrament of penance consists in a judicial form, as has already often been proved. Absolution is therefore like a judicial sentence. Now a judicial sentence neither is nor can be essentially deprecatory, because to pronounce sentence is the act of one having and exercising true authority, whereas to entreat is the act of one supplicating. Hence to entreat and authoritatively to judge are incompatible acts.⁸¹ Nothing, however, prevents entreaties also from being employed in absolution, provided that, as to the formal sense, there is in addition a true and proper indicative judgment.⁸² The adversaries indeed object that merely deprecatory formulas were customary in the Latin Church until the twelfth century and in the Greek Church even to our own days, but Billuart⁸³ notes three things: 1. These formulas pertain not to sacramental but to canonical absolution. 2. The ancient rituals contain not only a deprecatory but also an indicative formula; this is notably the case in the Euchologion edited by the illustrious Father Goar, for there on p. 678 it is read concerning the form of absolution: "Moreover, I absolve thee from all thy sins, whatsoever thou hast confessed before God and before my unworthiness." 3. Until the time of St. Thomas, several theologians thought that the remission of sins was properly caused by contrition elicited before confession, but that through absolution a man was reconciled to the Church, freed from punishments, and increased in grace. St. Thomas wrote an entire opusculum (18) on the form of absolution, in which he defends the validity of the positive indicative form alone, which is not deprecatory.

⁸¹ Cf. St. Thomas, Op. 18, De forma absolutionis.

⁸² Cf. P. Galtier, De poenitentia, n. 501 ff.

⁸³ De poenit., diss. 1, a. 3, § 3.

334. Scholion. On absolution to be repeated. When a penitent, after having already received absolution, adds a forgotten sin, or a grave circumstance of some sin accused, or a notably diverse number, the confessor must repeat the absolution. The reason is that otherwise the penitent would have to confess this necessary matter again in the following confession, since he has not received direct absolution concerning it. Contrition must extend also to this matter, and accordingly must be elicited anew, unless, however, that which was previously had still virtually perseveres.⁸⁴

⁸⁴ Cf. below, n. 352.

I say. The form of the sacrament of Penance is distinguished as twofold: one essential, and the other preceptive or rubrical. The first consists in the words: I absolve you from your sins; as is clear from the Council of Trent, sess. 14, chap. 3, where it is said: "The holy Synod teaches that the form of the sacrament of Penance, in which principally its force is placed, is set in those words of the Minister: I absolve you, etc.; to which indeed, according to the custom of the holy Church, certain prayers are laudably joined." But the rubrical form consists in those prayers which precede or follow the essential form, and thus it is contained in the Roman Ritual:

"May almighty God have mercy on you, and, your sins having been forgiven, lead you to eternal life. Amen.

May the almighty and merciful Lord grant you indulgence, absolution, and remission of your sins. Amen.

May our Lord Jesus Christ absolve you, and I by His authority absolve you from every bond of excommunication, suspension, and interdict, insofar as I can and you need. Then I absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.

May the Passion of our Lord Jesus Christ, the merits of the Blessed Mary Virgin and of all the Saints, whatever good you have done, and whatever evil you have endured, be to you unto remission of sins, increase of grace, and the reward of eternal life. Amen."

Observe, however, 1°. that the hand is to be raised from the word Indulgence up to the words The Passion of the Lord; 2°. that the sign of the cross is to be made over the penitent while it is said: In the name of the Father, etc.; 3°. that the word suspension must be omitted if the penitent is a layman; 4°. that the word then is to be pronounced, for in the recent TYPICAL EDITION of the Roman Ritual it is found written as a part of the text.

Observe 2°. that there is a pious custom, which nevertheless in no way obliges, that before confession, while he blesses the penitent, the confessor says: "May the Lord be in your heart and on your lips, that you may rightly confess all your sins," or some similar prayer.

64. A man is capable of absolution, however much he labour under ignorance of the mysteries of faith, and even though through negligence, even culpable, he be ignorant of the mystery of the Most Holy Trinity and of the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.

LXIV. The same in the same place, § 10, no. 635, folio 86: “Generally the rude and ignorant can be admitted to the completing of confession, even if they have sent no examination before.”

I. QUESTION I. What are the causes excusing from the material integrity of confession? ANSWER. The following. 1. Physical impotence, by force of which are excused, first, those who labour under invincible ignorance; second, the dumb; third, those who during confession suffer a fainting; fourth, those ignorant of the confessor's idiom, if other ministers be lacking; fifth, those who, war, fire, or shipwreck being imminent, are destitute of time for confessing wholly; sixth, as often as there is grave danger in delay, suppose in a shipwreck. In this case, if there be several penitents, let the priest say: I absolve you, and so forth.

II. Moral impotence also excuses from material integrity: first, when a priest cannot without breaking the seal lay open some sin; second, a sick man infected with a contagious disease, whose confession cannot be heard even from afar; third, when from a whole confession a sick man would be gravely oppressed; fourth, when from a whole manifestation of sins a most grave detriment would threaten the confessor or the penitent.

III. QUESTION II. What is to be said of the opinion asserting that a great frequency of penitents by reason of a solemnity excuses from material integrity? ANSWER. These things Fr. George Gobat teaches, tract 6, no. 479: “Fr. Coninck, Book 6, no. 98, denies that the opinion is probable of those who think that, when there is present so great a multitude of persons wishing to confess for some celebrated feast that the priest cannot satisfy all by hearing all wholly, he can say to each that they lay open only the graver of their mortal sins and defer the rest to another time. I think, subject to a better judgment, that that opinion can probably be sustained, in the case in which many came from far off for the sake of obtaining some great indulgence which requires confession and communion.”

IV. This opinion Innocent XI condemned in this 59th thesis: It is lawful sacramentally to absolve those who have confessed only by halves, by reason of a great concourse of penitents, such as, for example, can happen on the day of some great solemnity or indulgence.

V. A man hindered from approaching a superior is not excused from material integrity, so that he can be absolved by an inferior priest from the remaining sins with the burden of afterwards approaching the superior. Nor can he manifest to the superior the reserved sins alone and be absolved from them, and confess the remaining sins to an inferior priest. The opposite opinion authors commonly disapprove.

VI. QUESTION III. Ought the person of an accomplice to be manifested in confession? ANSWER. Never without necessity. Wherefore when the circumstance of an accomplice is to be manifested, a penitent ought, while he can, to seek out a confessor to whom the person of the accomplice is unknown. If he cannot find such a confessor, he ought to manifest the accomplice. This has always been the discipline of the Church, as Morinus, Book 2, chapter 11 and following, lays open. For the accomplice by sinning ceded his own right. So St. Thomas teaches, II-II, q. 73, art. 2. Besides, a penitent, either for his own or for his accomplice's benefit, can manifest the accomplice himself to the confessor.

VII. QUESTION IV. Can a dying man destitute of his senses be absolved, when he asked for confession before the priest's arrival? ANSWER. All commonly affirm it. Even if he did not expressly ask, if nevertheless he beat his breast, or give signs of confession, he is to be absolved.

VIII. QUESTION V. Is a dying man suddenly destitute of his senses, who neither asked nor gave signs of confession, to be absolved, if nevertheless he lived piously and in Christian fashion? ANSWER. Very many and grave theologians affirm it; and John Morinus above the rest illustrated this affirmative opinion, Book 10, chapter 10. Very many others on the contrary deny it. The arguments of each opinion I have given in Vol. IX, dissertation 4, chapter 10.

IX. In few words I now touch upon the matter. The opinion denying seems to me the more probable; since Christ instituted this sacrament after the manner of a sensible and human judgment. When God wills the salvation of someone, he wills by the same will also the means which he himself prescribes. Therefore when he wills the salvation of someone, he grants him time in which he may exhibit such signs that he can by right be absolved. The matter of the sacrament is the acts of the penitent. If these be lacking, the matter is lacking. And just as, water being lacking, Baptism cannot be administered, so, the acts of the penitent being taken away, the sacrament of Penance cannot be performed. The testimony of St. Augustine which is produced for the affirmative opinion speaks of a catechumen, or of a penitent who by voice or by works had asked for absolution.

X. QUESTION VI. What is to be said of the opinion of Fr. Gormaz? ANSWER. I judge probable the opinion of those who defend that Christians destitute of their senses, whose excellent life is established, are to be absolved. But Fr. John Baptist Gormaz goes further, who, disputation 5, section 1, § 1, page 775 and following, teaches this: “It follows sixthly that he also is to be absolved concerning whom it is not established whether he foresaw the peril of life, whether he lived well or ill, if he is found destitute of his senses and near to death. … Wherefore even if perchance someone, while ACTUALLY SINNING, be suddenly deprived of his senses, he is REGULARLY not to be dismissed without absolution, since it most rarely happens that a man near to death should not wish to consult his own salvation at least by attrition, which it is not established that he inwardly lacks, although externally he be deprived of sense: for by the condition an injury to the sacrament is avoided, and so forth. So Bonagratia cited above. See Gobat, tract 7, nos. 577 to 625.”

XI. Are wicked and outrageous Christians therefore regularly to be absolved who, ACTUALLY SINNING, are destitute of their senses in a duel, in fornication, in adultery, in blasphemy, and wearied in the way of iniquity? Does a sinner actually fornicating wish to consult his own salvation at least by attrition? But even the laxer casuists teach that the precept of contrition presses in the article of death. Besides, is not attrition a supernatural gift of God? And will God give this gift to a sinner actually committing adultery? If God permitted him to fall into sin, how can it be presumed that in that same moment God wills regularly to impart to him such a gift?

XII. QUESTION VII. What is to be said of the opinion of Fr. Gobat, by which he eludes the decree of his own Society forbidding the absolution of a dying man destitute of his senses? ANSWER. Fr. Gormaz cites Fr. Gobat; Fr. Gobat cites, tract 7, no. 601, the decree of his own illustrious Society in these words: “Sixthly, the superiors of our Society have most recently and deservedly inhibited their own from teaching hereafter this proposition: A dying man, even if he give or have given no sign of contrition, so that the priest neither knows nor can prudently think that some sensible confession preceded, can be absolved.” Two things Fr. Gobat devised, that he might elude this prudent decree. Behold his words in the place cited, no. 604: “Moreover, concerning that ordination of our Order of which we have spoken in the preceding number, two things are to be noted. First, that it speaks of a case in which it cannot prudently be presumed that he gave a sign. … The other, that the ordination EXPRESSLY only forbids that that opinion BE TAUGHT, not expressly that it BE NOT PRACTISED.” Do you wish for prettier things? What? If even the decrees of his own Society are eluded with witty figments, what obedience can extraneous decrees expect? I pass over in deep silence the corollaries which hence proceed of their own accord. Will they say that the text of Fr. Gobat has been less sincerely produced? I beg all to read in the fount Gobat, and Gormaz, and La Croix, and Viva, and all whom I cite in this work.

XIII. QUESTION VIII. Is there given a valid but formless confession? ANSWER. They call that sacrament valid but formless which has all the parts essential to validity, but on account of the indisposition of the subject does not confer the effect of grace. Very many theologians defend that there is given a valid but formless confession; very many deny it. The question is merely speculative.

XIV. QUESTION IX. In what case is confession to be repeated? ANSWER. In very many cases. 1. If sufficient grief was lacking. 2. If a penitent knowingly keep silence about some sin. 3. If through mortally culpable negligence some mortal sin was omitted. 4. If a man confess for a depraved end. 5. If a man gravely lied in confession. 6. If, being conscious of an excommunication, whether greater or lesser, he conceal it. 7. Those who solicitously seek out half-learned or too kindly confessors, that they may obtain absolution from the sins into which they frequently relapse, most certainly make sacrilegious confessions. If a confessor from a frequency of confessions and communions sees no reformation of morals, nor amendment of outrages, but the same crimes perpetrated thereabouts, let him not doubt, but judge the confessions to be sacrilegious.

I. QUESTION I. By what words is the sacramental form made up? ANSWER. That the deprecative form formerly obtained down to the middle of the thirteenth century, and even now obtains among the Greeks, very many theologians teach, and chiefly Morinus, Book 8, chapter 8. Certain men in the time of St. Thomas contended that the indicative form was null. Their error the Angelic overthrew, opusculum 12, chapter 2. The indicative form maintained by St. Thomas Trent approved, session 14, chapter 3.

II. Among all Catholics it is certain that these words, I absolve thee, pertain to the essence of the form. They dispute whether this pronoun I pertains to the essence. They wrangle also upon the pronoun thee. But these arbitrary little questions being dismissed, the form prescribed by the Councils both of Florence and of Trent is to be employed: I absolve thee from thy sins. In the name of the Father, and so forth. Commonly nevertheless theologians teach that these words from thy sins do not enter the essence of the form; and this the Tridentine Catechism seems clearly to teach, part 2, § 14. A confessor nevertheless would sin gravely unless he pronounced the whole form, as if he omitted the following words from thy sins. In the name, and so forth. Confessors would also sin if they said: I forgive thee thy sins; Thy sins are remitted to thee; I condone thee all thy sins. For although forms of this kind be valid, since they are equivalent, nevertheless to neglect the rite of the Church in a most grave matter is not free from deadly crime.

III. The sense of these words, I absolve thee, does not declare that the sins are remitted by God; but the priest himself pronouncing those same words, by the authority received from Christ, remits the sins, as Trent defined against the innovators, session 14, chapter 3. Not only ought confessors to bring forth the aforesaid words, but they are bound also to observe exactly the rite prescribed by the Church. Therefore these prayers ought to be sent before: May our Lord Jesus, and so forth; May he have mercy, and so forth; Indulgence, and so forth; and the others which follow the form, May the Passion of our Lord, and so forth. In more frequent and shorter confessions, by the Roman Ritual, they can be omitted. It will nevertheless be more advisable, necessity excepted, to perform the whole rite.

IV. QUESTION II. Is it lawful to add a condition to the form of absolution? ANSWER. It is agreed among all that a condition affixed concerning the present or the past — for example, If thou art capable, if thou art not yet absolved — does not overthrow the value of the sacrament. That Baptism, necessity urging, can be conferred under a condition has been said above. The case of a dying man, concerning whom it is doubted whether he be alive or dead, is that in which very many graver theologians defend the use of conditional absolution.

V. Very many, as it seems to me, teach too easily that this condition is to be added. Fr. Sporer, part 3, chapter 5, question 1, § 4, no. 612, teaches that absolution is to be imparted under a condition: 1. When the confessor doubts whether the penitent be rightly disposed. 2. When he doubts whether rude boys be endowed with the use of reason. 3. When the penitent brings forward only doubtful sins in mortal matter. 4. When the confessor doubts whether he have jurisdiction over this penitent, or over his sins.

VI. In these four cases conditional absolution, as it seems to me, is both idle and contrary to the reverence due to the sacrament. In the third case he doubts of the matter, namely of the sincere grief. But it is forbidden outside the article of necessity to use doubtful matter. When a confessor doubts whether penitents be rightly disposed, whether boys be endowed with the use of reason, why does he not defer absolution until they be disposed and show the use of reason? Why do they neglect these obvious means of instruction? Why? Because, they say, there is a great affluence of penitents. And if absolution were to be deferred, or penitents to be instructed, or time to be granted for disposition, and so forth, very many would have to be dismissed without confession: murmurings and censures against confessors would be heard. Would that the fear of displeasing men, or of diminishing the affluence of penitents, were not the cause why this use of conditional absolution is sometimes usurped. Relapsing penitents, doubtfully disposed, are absolved with a conditioned absolution. How many sacrileges hence? Penitents ignorant of this rite of conditional absolution reckon themselves in fact absolved. What thence? They resume courage for sinning, they put off the horror of sinning, since they see the easy use of absolution, and believe the Christian life to be set in a perpetual circle of sinning and confessing. In great hazard, as my least opinion bears, are those confessors who outside the article of necessity — namely of death, or of doubtful frenzy — employ conditional absolution. A condition concerning the future is altogether to be disapproved, and in fact is commonly rejected by theologians.

VII. QUESTION III. Is absolution to be imparted to one absent? ANSWER. Some formerly affirmed it; but Clement VIII proscribed their opinion. It was forthwith interpreted that the Clementine decree was to be understood copulatively, not divisively. But this interpretation also the Supreme Pontiff forbade. The decrees both of Clement VIII and of Paul V I have given entire in Vol. IX, Book 2, dissertation 2, chapter 3. I have also adduced there the document which stands in the most celebrated Angelica Library, by which it is clearly proved that an eminent Doctor maintained the opinion proscribed by Clement VIII. Now I add that this adduced document stands also in the Vatican Library, where the author of the Literary History will be able to read it, and to correct what he has written upon this matter.

VIII. QUESTION IV. What presence of the penitent is required that absolution can be granted? ANSWER. Moral, not physical presence. That presence suffices for absolution which is enough for common conversation among men. If a priest from a window should see men shipwrecked, or ending their life, and time be lacking in which he might descend and approach them, and the article of death urge, he can absolve them with a single absolution, provided the distance be not too great, but such as suffices for conversation with raised voice among men. If a confessor has forgotten to absolve a penitent, he ought to recall him, and to warn him of the forgotten absolution, and to absolve him.

IX. Absolution is to be given immediately after the completed confession of sins. When it shall be needful, let him send before admonitions and exhortations. When a penitent after absolution received recalls some mortal sin, or a mortal circumstance, or a greater number of mortal sins, both the contrition and the absolution ought to be repeated. If a priest distracted pronounced the absolution, he ought not to repeat it, because distraction does not hinder its validity. He sins nevertheless if he impart it voluntarily distracted. Before absolution from sins there is to be sent absolution from censures. In the article of death it can be said: I absolve thee from censures and from thy sins.

Caius, a priest, is called to a parishioner who suffers from the disease called typhoid. He finds him dangerously ill, sunk in a most profound sleep, called a coma, and deprived of his senses. Those present deny that he asked for the priest before he came to this condition; nevertheless, Caius absolves him conditionally and administers the other sacraments. Hence it is asked:

1. What is the matter of the sacrament of Penance?

2. Can absolution be given if there is no sign of sorrow or confession?

3. What is to be said of the case?

The first question is answered above, p. 151.

2. May absolution be given if the penitent gives no sign of sorrow or contrition?

Absolution may not be given under these circumstances except when the penitent is in danger of death and can not make any sign of sorrow or of a wish to confess. Even when such a penitent is in danger of death, many distinguished theologians held that absolution could not be given, because there is no matter for the sacrament. St. Alphonsus, however, held that absolution may be given in such a case, according to the more common opinion as he asserted.¹

1 Theol. Moral, lib. vi, 482.

To the difficulty about the matter of the sacrament, St. Alphonsus answers that perhaps the anxious breathing, sighs, and other movements of the dying person are attempts made by him to express sorrow for his sins and a desire to confess, and that the probability that this is so is sufficient to justify the giving of conditional absolution in such a case of necessity.²

2 Manual of Moral Theology, vol. ii, 176.

3. The case. Caius acted rightly in giving the dying person conditional absolution and the last sacraments, even though he could make no certain signs of sorrow or of a desire to confess. This has become the common practice in such cases since the time of St. Alphonsus, and it may be explained by the reasons which the saint gives or perhaps in other ways. Ballerini, for example (Opus Morale, V, 404), suggests another way of explaining the modern practice. According to him it is probable that the sacrament of Penance consists in the absolution of the priest alone. Contrition is required as a disposition, but that may be presumed in the dying. Confession is also of divine law, according to the Council of Trent, but even a divine law does not bind when it is impossible to fulfil it. Necessity has no law. Without deciding whether this theory is probable or not, we may allow it some weight.

The grandfather of a young priest is dying. He was born and brought up a Methodist, and desires to die in the same faith. He has lived a good and conscientious life and has kept the Commandments the best he knew how. He has always manifested considerable affection for his grandson, the young priest, but has never given any sign or indication that he believed in the Catholic Church or desired the ministrations of her priest. He is now close to death, but his sentiments remain the same. He is evidently going to die in the faith of his forebears. His grandson, the young priest, is very much concerned for his grandfather’s salvation. He would like very much to absolve him conditionally and even to anoint him if it were lawful. Would it be right or of any benefit to this dying man, under the circumstances, for his grandson, the priest, to absolve him or to anoint him?

Answer.—The case here submitted for consideration is the case of a baptized non-Catholic man, who is in the full possession of his faculties and who is very near death. If the man were unbaptized (and there are so many unbaptized Protestants in the world to-day) the case would have to be treated in a different way than it is treated here. Also if the man were unconscious, even though validly baptized, the treatment of the case would differ from what is here given. This is the case, therefore, of a validly baptized Protestant, in the full possession of his senses, who is in good faith as regards his religion, and who is very near death. May a priest. absolve him sub conditione, and might he even be anointed?

Theologians do not seem to agree as to whether such a man, under the circumstances, may be absolved and anointed or not. First, as regards the absolution. Fr. Gury says that such a man may be absolved even though, through ignorance, he should entertain a horror for Confession and the Sacrament of Penance, provided only that he would receive the Sacrament of Penance if he knew it to be of divine precept, and that he be sorry for his sins and that he ask God’s pardon. To absolve such a man, Fr. Gury says, was the general practise of priests in Germany and Switzerland in his day (Cas. i, 190).

Fr. Berardi, the Italian theologian, says that whatever might be the case in Germany or Switzerland, such a man ought not to be absolved, if the case happened in Italy. “Whatever may be the case concerning Germany and Switzerland, certainly this discipline does not exist among us, as St. Liguori rightly observes at no. 483; hence we ought not to absolve them” (Praxis conf., p. 639).

Fr. Lehmkuhl thinks that in a case like the one here under consideration the priest should endeavor to get the dying man to make an act of perfect contrition as well as acts of faith and hope; then, if he can be induced to acknowledge himself a sinner before God, and to express sorrow for his sins, he may be absolved conditionally and secretly, provided he desire the priest to help him, in any way he may be able, to save his soul. It is useless, says Fr. Lehmkuhl, to ask the man whether he would be willing to make a confession to a priest, if he knew it were the will of God that he should do so, because it is not a question of what the dying man would do, but of what he does actually desire.

“But if one must deal with a non-Catholic (baptized) who has not lost his senses, and whom, because death is imminent and because of the danger of inducing a grave temptation to which he might perhaps succumb, they cannot prudently admonish openly concerning the true Church: before all else an act of perfect contrition together with the other preliminary acts must be elicited; then, so that conditional absolution may be given secretly, it is preferable to bring him to declare himself a sinner before God and me and, having conceived sorrow for his sins, also to declare that it pleases him that, through my assistance, as far as I am able, he himself should be helped to attain eternal life better. For what is sometimes said—that it should be proposed to him whether, if he knew it to be necessary, he would wish to confess and be absolved—is in itself nothing; for the question is not what he would wish, but what he does wish and actually does” (vol. II, n. 515). Schieler-Heuser takes the same view of this case as Fr. Lehmkuhl, Ballerini, and others. He says: “In such a case it is, of course, more difficult to produce anything out of the past life which can, in any way, be construed as a confession and a desire for absolution, unless we are to be content with the man’s bona fides, “which has been outwardly manifested as probably present or as having been present.” For if to this bona fides sorrow has been added—and it is not certain that it has not been added—it seems that there is implicite, the manifested desire to participate in those remedies which are necessary, and, therefore, in the absolution of the priest. If we have here, with Ballerini, Lehmkuhl, and Aertnys, proceeded to the utmost limits, and if the arguments in favor of this extreme liberality in the administration of absolution are not always cogent, let us not be accused of laxity or of any want of reverence for the holy Sacrament of Penance. Such liberality seems to have been fully intended by Him “who came to seek and to save that which was lost,” and who wishes not the death of the sinner; who opened the gates of paradise even to the thief on the cross, and who has placed the keys of heaven in our hands. We safeguard the sanctity of the holy Sacrament by adding the condition, and the Lord instituted His Sacraments for man; “in extremis autem extrema tentanda sunt.” (“Theory and Practise of the Confessional,” p. 652.)

St. Alphonsus does not justify this practise, as may be seen by consulting his treatise on confession, n. 483, where he says: “For heretics, even if in that case they give signs of repentance, ought not to be absolved unless they expressly ask for absolution, because such persons can never prudently be presumed to offer those signs with a view to confession, from which they shrink exceedingly.” However, when we consider that theologians like Lacroix, Reuter, Noldin, Genicot. D’Annibale, Lehmkuhl, etc., hold and teach that it would be lawful and prudent in the above case for the young priest to absolve his grandfather, we do not see how he can have any scruples about doing so, servatis servandis.

But as regards the administration of Extreme Unction to such a person, it seems to be the general opinion of theologians that it is not lawful, as long as the patient is in the possession of his faculties and conscious, because it is not a necessary means of salvation in that case, and can scarcely be given without serious scandal. To quote again from Lehmkuhl:

“Indeed, for those baptized heretics who may be assumed to be in good faith, the remedy of reconciliation may perhaps be available, to be applied, of course, only if they have lost their senses and if the external circumstances are such that these helps can be employed without danger of a greater evil; although even with regard to this remedy it is quite doubtful whether a sufficient intention is contained in the pious acts of those persons.” (Ext. Unct., n. 568.) If, before dying, the grandfather should remain unconscious for some time, his grandson might, therefore, anoint him, doing so secretly, which he easily could do, being his grandson, in order not to give any scandal. The administration of Extreme Unction to dying non-Catholics will more easily cause scandal than the administration of either Baptism or Penance.