False denunciation of solicitation (Can. 2363)

Canon 2363 XI. Si quis per seipsum vel per alios confessarium de sollicitationis crimine apud Superiores falso denunciaverit, ipso facto incurrit in excommunicationem speciali modo Sedi Apostolicae reservatam, a qua nequit ullo in casu absolvi, nisi falsam denuntiationem formaliter retractaverit, et damna, si qua inde secuta sint, pro viribus reparaverit, imposita insuper gravi ac diuturna poenitentia, firmo praescripto Can. (If anyone, by himself or through others, falsely denounces a confessor to Superiors for the crime of solicitation, he incurs ipso facto an excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See in a special manner, from which he cannot in any case be absolved unless he has formally retracted the false denunciation and, as far as he is able, repaired any damage that has followed from it, a grave and long penance being imposed besides.) 894. By Canon 894 the sin, apart from the censure, is reserved to the Holy See.

On this matter, see above, Penance, Chapter XI.

513. 11. "If anyone personally or through others has falsely denounced a confessor to Superiors for the crime of solicitation, by the fact itself he incurs an excommunication reserved in a special manner to the Apostolic See, from which he cannot in any case be absolved unless he has formally retracted the false denunciation and has repaired according to his ability the damages, if any followed from it, with a grave and lasting penance furthermore imposed" (can. 2363).

This excommunication has been newly introduced. A calumnious denunciation of a confessor (which is made juridically before the local Ordinary or before the Holy Office) induces not only a reserved censure, but also a sin reserved by reason of itself.¹⁵⁸ Therefore, although the censure may not be incurred, for example, on account of ignorance, nevertheless the reserved sin remains.

Absolution from this censure cannot be granted except under a twofold condition: 1. the penitent must first formally retract the false denunciation before the superior or his delegate; an implicit retraction therefore does not suffice; 2. the penitent must repair according to his ability the damages, if any followed from his calumny. When these conditions have been fulfilled and the faculty of absolving has first been obtained, the confessor can absolve the penitent, but must impose upon him a grave and lasting penance, for example, five decades of the Rosary to be said daily for six months.

III. Excommunications reserved simply to the Apostolic See.

According to the discipline now in force, there are eleven excommunications of this kind. The following are excommunicated:

¹⁵⁸ Ibid., c. 894.

VII. Penalties against false denouncers. - Innocent confessors are to be protected from those falsely denouncing. Wherefore those falsely denouncing by themselves or through others (for example, through a confessor) incur a grave penalty, and indeed a twofold one:

a) False denunciation before ecclesiastical judges is a sin reserved by reason of itself to the Holy See. Thus from can. 894. To incur this it is necessary:

1. that a priest be denounced as guilty of solicitation properly so called, namely, in connection with confession, as was explained above;

2. that the denunciation be false (materially and formally), so that the confessor is not known to be guilty of this delict, although perhaps he is guilty of other similar delicts;

3. that the denunciation was made before ecclesiastical judges, which several understand in the stricter and formal sense concerning judicial denunciation. And, if it must be understood thus, which nevertheless is not certain, an anonymous denunciation, or a simple signed letter, would not suffice.

Ignorance does not excuse from the aforesaid reservation, because reservation of sin is not a mere penalty, but principally and immediately a calling to the tribunal of the superior and therefore a restriction of the power of the confessor, which only mediately affects the penitent (can. 893, § 1), and because no ignorance excuses from an incapacitating law (can. 16, § 1).

De Smet nevertheless judges the contrary, because according to the Benedictine Constitution that reservation is a medicinal penalty, from which, according to can. 2229 § 3, ignorance excuses if it is not crass. But this no longer has force in the new law, in which it is expressly said (can. 893) that reservation limits the power of the confessor, and in the immediately following canon (894) false denunciation is said to be the only sin reserved by reason of itself to the Holy See. Therefore it is no longer principally a medicinal penalty, but a calling to the tribunal of the superior and a restriction of jurisdiction; as is now generally acknowledged. - Besides, practically ignorance is rarely present, since denouncing persons must be admonished by the judge or delegate concerning the reservation.

b) False denunciation made before superiors incurs excommunication reserved in a special manner to the Supreme Pontiff. Thus from can. 2363. By these altogether general terms there seems to be comprehended not only strictly juridical denunciation before judges formally acting as such, but any denunciation directed to superiors even by letter; not however an anonymous one, since it has no force (Holy Office, 20 February 1867, n. 6). Surely, not only the denunciation which is made in the judicial instruction itself, but also that which seeks this and advises concerning instruction to be made against someone, is now made before superiors as such.³

³ Here also that has force which De Smet notes, o. c., n. 123 (striving to demonstrate that even an extrajudicial denunciation before a judge is a sin reserved by reason of itself), namely that otherwise "often there would be no place for the case of false denunciation in not a few places, in those not rare cases in which the Bishop proceeds in the case of solicitation from informed conscience, since then recourse to juridical denunciation is not required and often in fact recourse is not had; too often that penal law providently introduced would be eluded."

Yet ignorance excuses from the penalty, not indeed of the reservation alone, but of the censure, not however crass nor affected. From the penalty itself no one can be absolved unless:

1. he has formally retracted the false denunciation before the superior, or has already placed a means sufficient for this, or, if here and now it is impossible, has seriously promised this;

2. he has repaired according to his powers all damages following from the calumnious condemnation;

3. he has accepted a grave and long penance. Grave is that which for grave fault in the sacrament must of itself be given; long is that which lasts for about six months or beyond, with the quality of the person and the nature and frequency of the work imposed considered.

From all these things it follows:

1. the reserved censure extends more broadly than the sin reserved by reason of itself;

2. nevertheless the reservation of the sin can be contracted without the reservation of the censure being contracted, for example, on account of ignorance;

3. the reservation of the censure sometimes ceases, without the reservation of the sin ceasing, and conversely the reservation of the sin ceases, for example, in the case of a sick person who cannot leave home, without for that reason the reservation of the censure ceasing;

4. he who can absolve from one cannot always absolve from the other;

5. accomplices also are reached by each reservation, since they denounce through others; namely, those commanding, mandating, giving counsel, asking, promising, threatening, etc., in one word all who concur positively and efficaciously in the false denunciation.