False Denunciation

I premise the canons which regard false denunciation. Canon 894 establishes: "The sole sin reserved to the Holy See by reason of itself is false denunciation by which an innocent priest is accused of the crime of solicitation before ecclesiastical judges." And canon 2363 decrees: "If anyone, by himself or through others, has falsely denounced a confessor for the crime of solicitation before Superiors, he incurs by the fact itself an excommunication reserved in a special manner to the Apostolic See, from which in no case can he be absolved unless he has formally retracted the false denunciation, and has repaired, according to his powers, the damages if any have followed from it, with a grave and lasting penance having also been imposed, the prescription of canon 894 remaining firm." Therefore two things must be distinguished: namely, the crime of false denunciation is: 1. a sin reserved by reason of itself, and indeed to the Holy See; 2. a sin reserved by reason of the censure, or one which has annexed to it an excommunication reserved in a special manner to the Apostolic See. These things having been noted, let these be the conclusions:

I. Requisites in order that the crime be reserved by reason of itself to the Holy See. There is required a false denunciation by which an innocent priest is accused of the crime of solicitation before ecclesiastical judges. It is said:

1. A false denunciation, made either by oneself or through another, namely "by wickedly procuring that it be done by others";¹ it can be procured by mandate, threats, or efficacious counsel. According to the more common and safe opinion, it is required that the denunciation be made juridically, that is, either personally and with the intervention of an ecclesiastical man who holds the part of notary, and with oath and subscription of one's name, or personally without the intervention of a notary.² Hence letters directed to the Ordinary do not suffice, even if they are subscribed; a fortiori anonymous letters are excluded, which have no force.³

2. For the crime of solicitation, that is, for a crime which, if it had taken place, would carry with it the obligation of denouncing.

3. Before ecclesiastical judges, that is, before the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, or the local Ordinary, or another delegated by them for this affair. It suffices that the denunciation has been made before them, whether they institute a further inquiry or do not institute it. Knowledge of the reservation does not seem to be required (n. 384).

II. Requisites in order that the crime be reserved by reason of the censure, or that it have annexed to it an excommunication reserved in a special manner to the Apostolic See. First the same things are required which were set forth under I,⁴ then knowledge of the censure and puberty. It is said:

1. Knowledge of the censure; ignorance excuses from it unless it was affected (can. 2229, § 1), crass, or supine (can. 2229, § 3, 1). Ignorance only of the reservation does not excuse (cited canon).

2. Puberty; since "the immature are excused from penalties latae sententiae" (can. 2230).

III. Absolution from false denunciation.

1. Absolution from the censure, if it has been contracted, must be put before absolution from the sin; but insofar as one can be absolved from the censure, this is explained in the treatise on ecclesiastical penalties.

2. As regards absolution from the sin, which is also reserved by reason of itself, by whom it can be given, see n. 387; but note that the reservation of the sin ceases in the cases set forth in n. 385.

¹ Constitution Sacramentum Poenitentiae, § 3.

² Cf. Instruction of the Holy Office, February 20, 1867.

³ Cited Instruction, n. 6.

⁴ Canon 2363, which treats of the censure annexed to the crime, indeed speaks of denunciation before Superiors, while canon 894 speaks of denunciation before ecclesiastical judges. Hence some think that, for the censure, it suffices that the denunciation be made before ecclesiastical Superiors. But by "Superiors" there seem to be understood the Superiors competent here, that is, the ecclesiastical judges of whom canon 894 speaks. Major Superiors, even of exempt religious institutes, are prohibited from involving themselves in this affair (can. 501, § 2).

468. Scholion. The Penalty Inflicted upon One Denouncing Calumniously. The Code of Canon Law, c. 2363, establishes that the detestable deed of one who falsely denounces before superiors, either personally or through others, an innocent confessor incurs an excommunication reserved in a special manner to the Apostolic See. Therefore this case is reserved both by reason of the censure and by reason of the sin. For canon 894 establishes: "The only sin reserved by reason of itself to the Holy See is a false denunciation by which an innocent priest is accused of the crime of solicitation before ecclesiastical judges." The following conditions are required in order that this sin be truly reserved:

1. That there be a false denunciation of a confessor as confessor according to the things explained above. Therefore, if someone calumniously denounces a priest without relation to confession, the sin is not reserved.

2. That the denunciation be juridical, that is, made personally before a competent judge. Therefore the sin does not seem to be reserved if the denunciation was made anonymously or even through a signed letter which nevertheless is regarded as a merely private letter.⁴⁶⁹

3. That knowledge of the censure be present; for ignorance indeed excuses from the censure, but not from the reservation of the sin itself, as was already stated above, n. 423.

Accomplices in a false denunciation, for example, those ordering, commanding, giving counsel, asking, promising, threatening, and so forth, commit the same reserved sin under the same clauses.

Concerning absolution from this detestable crime of false denunciation, it is established that the censure cannot be remitted unless the penitent: a) has seriously promised to retract before the bishop and before all others who perhaps heard it the calumnious defamation of the innocent confessor; b) has repaired all the harms from his calumnious denunciation; c) has accepted a grave and prolonged penance. - But if the censure annexed to this crime was not incurred, for example, because of ignorance of it, as is accustomed often to occur, then the harms caused must indeed be repaired according to one's powers, but absolution can be given much more easily. For then those things are valid which are established in the Code of Canon Law, c. 900.⁴⁷⁰ The reservation ceases, for example, if the penitent is ill and cannot leave the house, or if the faculty of absolving from this sin cannot be sought from the Sacred Penitentiary without grave inconvenience to the penitent.

⁴⁶⁹ Cf. Noldin, De sacr., n. 393.

⁴⁷⁰ Pontifical Commission, November 10, 1925 (Acta Ap. Sed. XVII, 583).

III. "One sin reserved by reason of itself to the Holy See is false denunciation (by oneself or through another), by which an innocent priest is accused of the crime of solicitation before ecclesiastical judges." Thus from the new law, can. 894.

Besides, according to can. 2363, a specially reserved censure is incurred if the denunciation is made before any superiors whatsoever (concerning which see below, c. V, q. 2, n. VII). Whence simple denunciation made before a superior is specially reserved to the Holy See by reason of censure; if besides the denunciation is made judicially, namely formally before the bishop as judge, then by reason of itself the sin itself is reserved.

645. The manner of making denunciation. - According to the norm of law:

A. Denunciation must be made to the Holy Office or to the Ordinary of the place (can. 904), i.e., to the bishop, or abbot nullius, administrator, vicar or prefect apostolic, and to him who, in the absence of the aforesaid, succeeds in governance (can. 198, § 1, e.g., a capitular vicar), or to their delegate; - but not to the vicar general without a special mandate (can. 2220, § 2), nor a fortiori to religious superiors (can. 501, § 2), who, although they come under the name of Ordinary, nevertheless do not come under the name of Ordinary of the place (can. 198, § 2).

But per se denunciation is to be made to the proper Ordinary of the soliciting priest; nevertheless in practice it can also be made before the Ordinary of the place in which the delict was committed, or even the Ordinary of the penitent, who then must transmit the denunciation received to the Holy Office or to the proper Ordinary of the one soliciting.

B. Denunciation must be made personally and by living voice by the solicited person herself,

either 1) before the bishop or his delegate, and another ecclesiastical man serving as notary, and with oath and signing of the name (Holy Office, February 20, 1867, n. 6);

or 2) before the confessor or another ecclesiastical man, to be deputed for this by the bishop, but without the intervention of a notary (ibid., n. 8).

For making this denunciation, in practice an extrajudicial denunciation must ordinarily precede:

a) If the solicited person is able to write, let her write herself to the bishop, with her own hand, and in letters not anonymous but signed with her name and domicile, let her set forth that she is bound to make denunciation and ask that the manner in which it is to be made be indicated, or that a delegated person be sent to receive it; - or even let her manifest the delinquent, reporting the place, time, occasion, occurrences, and individual adjuncts, and also whether it happened in the act of confession, or before or after, and also the name and office of the confessor, or, if this is unknown, an accurate description of his person. And let her say that she is ready promptly to conform herself to the instructions to be given by the bishop; adding, if grave reasons are present, that she cannot approach the episcopal curia, but waits for a delegate to be sent, or even that denunciation may suitably be made only to the confessor.

b) If she does not know how to write, or cannot without grave inconvenience, let her approach the bishop by herself or through a faithful messenger; - and if she cannot do this (or does not wish to), it is expedient that, with the permission of the penitent, the confessor write (ibid., n. 7), not indeed to complete the denunciation in place of the penitent, but to inform the Ordinary, under pseudonyms, concerning the fact of solicitation and to ask, with regard to the impossibility of the penitent, for opportune instructions. Nevertheless the confessor is not strictly bound to this; unless exceptionally grave public harm is imminent. And if the confessor does not wish to do it, the penitent will be able to await the occasion of another confessor who is willing to perform this ministry.

The penitent who has admonished the Ordinary and is prepared to stand by his mandates can be absolved, and per se it suffices that thereafter he await the response of the Ordinary.

C. The Ordinary must diligently inquire whether the person denouncing is worthy of faith, and before proceeding against the denounced, have it ascertained "that the women or men denouncing are of good name and are not led to accuse either by enmity or by another human affection."

Thus the Instruction of the Holy Office, February 20, 1867, n. 10. But the manner in which he must inquire concerning this was defined by the Holy Office in the instruction of August 6, 1897; the manner of receiving denunciations in the instruction of July 20, 1890.¹

¹ De Smet nevertheless judges the contrary, because according to the Benedictine Constitution this reservation is a medicinal penalty, from which, according to can. 2229, § 3, ignorance excuses if it is not crass. But this no longer holds in 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 accusation is called the one sin reserved to the Holy See by reason of itself. Therefore it is no longer principally a medicinal penalty, but a calling-away to the tribunal of the superior and a restriction of jurisdiction; as is now generally acknowledged. - Moreover practically ignorance is rarely present, since those denouncing a confessor must be admonished by the judge or delegate concerning the reservation.