The words of 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.

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.

“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.

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.

When the confessor absolves, is it necessary that he remember the sins accused? - Absolution is a sentence. Wherefore it is necessary that, when the confessor gives it, he have at least confused knowledge of those things which the penitent has confessed, and of which he himself already had distinct knowledge. Otherwise he scarcely seems not to pronounce sentence in an unknown cause. - Wherefore if the confessor does not retain individual sins in memory, because the Confession was lengthy and complicated, because he deferred absolution, because up to this point the penitent confessed invalidly, and, after the sin previously kept back has now been accused, or after sorrow has been conceived which he had lacked, he seeks absolution, it suffices that "he remember in confused fashion the state of the penitent, or resume (if he does not remember) knowledge of it in confused fashion, and that the penitent accuse himself in common of all things previously confessed."

L. 502. - But if otherwise the penitent had narrated sins outside Confession to the confessor as to a friend, whether also in this case it suffices to resume confused knowledge of them is disputed. Lugo, d. 16, n. 638, and others affirm; for if that confused knowledge suffices in the preceding cases, it must also suffice in this one. But St. Alphonsus and many more others deny it, because in the preceding cases sacramental confession of all and each sins, which Trent requires, was not lacking; but in this case it is altogether wanting. L. 502.

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.

In what necessity can or must absolution be imparted under condition? - Absolution can and must 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. - Even if necessity of this kind does not urge, absolution can nevertheless 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, though not necessary. For the sacraments indeed exist for men; but they are holy things. Wherefore provision must be made for each: both the utility of men and the sanctity of the sacrament. For this reason they are not to be heard who, against the common opinion of the doctors, hold that absolution, as also the other sacraments, must never be given conditionally, but always absolutely.

Resolutions: A penitent constituted in mortal sin is to be absolved under condition whenever there is prudent doubt about absolution having been imparted, or rightly given, and certainty about this cannot easily be had. Likewise a doubtfully disposed penitent who is in grave danger of death, e.g., a woman in difficult childbirth, a sailor or anyone else about to undertake a long voyage, a soldier before battle, a sick person before a very difficult surgical operation, and all the more one guilty and to be punished with death. Children and the half-witted can be absolved under condition in doubt about the use of reason or sufficient disposition, after serious diligence has been placed for disposing them insofar as can be done, especially in the following cases: if they are in danger of death; if the precept of annual Confession urges; if they have confessed some mortal sin. The reason is that they are exposed to the danger of proximate damnation if death urges, or to the danger of remaining long in mortal sin. Besides, there is no way and hope that, if absolution is delayed, they will soon return disposed and be absolved more safely, as perhaps can be hoped of others. Indeed they will be able to be absolved conditionally several times in the year, even if they bring only light matter, lest they be deprived so long of sacramental grace or remain in mortal sin, if perhaps they are in it.

Probably also doubtfully disposed spouses about to contract marriage immediately can be absolved under condition, because otherwise they are certainly going to profane that sacrament, and, dejected in soul because of absolution denied, they will not return to confess and will waste away in sins. - Likewise pious penitents can probably sometimes be absolved conditionally, in doubt whether they subject sufficient matter to the keys. But it is far better that they offer certain matter from past life, and thus not be deprived of the grace of the sacrament. - A relapsed sinner can be absolved under condition, when there is doubt about his sufficient dispositions, "if it is prudently feared that that sinner will not return again to Confession and will waste away in his sins." L. 432, 442; La-Croix 1797.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

1661. I. The FORM of the Sacrament of Penance is the words of the priest: I absolve you from your sins. - This is clear from Trent (sess. 14, cap. 3), where it says: "The Holy Synod teaches that the form of the Sacrament of Penance, in which its force is chiefly placed, is set in those words of the minister: I absolve you, etc." Therefore it is clear that the form must be indicative, not deprecative, whatever may formerly have been disputed about the validity of a deprecative form.

Let it be noted: 1. The words I absolve you are of the essence; otherwise the presence of the penitent would not be indicated, nor would the very force of absolution be expressed. Some deny that the pronoun you is required for the value of the form, since this is sufficiently expressed in the word your. Although, speculatively speaking, this opinion seems more probable, nevertheless it cannot be held in practice, because the value of the Sacraments must be provided for most safely.¹³

2. The words from your sins, more probably, are not of the essence if it is said: I absolve you; because by the word you the matter is already sufficiently determined through the presence of the penitent who has confessed. But because the opposite opinion is also probable, those words could not be omitted without grave sin; and if they had been omitted, absolution would have to be repeated under condition.

3. The words In the name of the Father, etc., are not of the essence, because Christ did not here, as in Baptism, make mention of the Most Holy Trinity. Hence their omission would not exceed venial fault. Likewise, the pronoun I is not essential, as is clear.¹⁴

4. A form expressed by equivalent words would be valid, for example: I pardon, I remit your sins to you; or even if, for the sake of honor, it were said: I absolve Your Lordship, Your Excellency... But it would be illicit because unusual and contrary to the practice of the Church.

5. Several also would be validly absolved by this one form: I absolve you [plural], etc., because all things required for validity are found in it. But this can also be done licitly in a case of necessity, for example in shipwreck, before battle, or in battle itself.¹⁵

I ABSOLVE YOU FROM YOUR 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 of suspension is omitted.) - 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 whatever evil you have endured, may they be for you unto the remission of sins, the increase of grace, and the reward of eternal life. Amen.

"But in more frequent and shorter confessions, May Almighty God have mercy, etc., can be omitted, and it will suffice to say: Our Lord Jesus Christ, etc., as above up to this: The Passion of our Lord, etc."¹

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

Concerning these things it must be noted: 1. The words May Almighty God have mercy... Indulgence, etc., can be omitted without any sin, according to the common opinion. - 2. The words Our Lord, outside necessity, according to many, cannot be passed over without venial fault; and their reason is that the Ritual seems to prescribe them even in more frequent confessions, as was noted above; yet others, with the common opinion, contradict this. - 3. The words The Passion of the Lord, etc., can always be omitted without fault; nevertheless, since through them, according to the opinion of St. Thomas, the good works of the penitent are raised to the dignity and merit of sacramental satisfaction, it is greatly to be advised that they never, or at least very rarely, be left unspoken.² - 4. The elevation of the hand and the formation of the cross are not necessarily required while absolving, although it is better to observe the custom. - 5. A pious custom has similarly prevailed that the confessor bless the penitent before confession with these words: May the Lord be in your heart and on your lips, that you may rightly confess all your sins; but neither is this formula of blessing prescribed by any law. - 6. The confessor gives absolution sitting, in the manner of a judge pronouncing sentence. - 7. "It is advisable," says St. Alphonsus,³ "that in the presence of other penitents the words of absolution be said quietly, lest, if someone is dismissed without absolution, others perceive it."

1663. Questions. Q. 1. Whether absolution can be sent to an ABSENT person?

Resp. No, since the form of the Sacrament cannot be expressed otherwise than by the voice. And this is certain among all; for in the year 1602 Clement VIII proscribed as false and rash this proposition: "It is licit through letters, or through a messenger, to confess sacramentally to an absent confessor, and to obtain absolution from him while he is absent."⁴ Therefore, since the Pontiff declared absolution of this sort illicit, he also declared it invalid, because in cases of necessity he could not have prohibited it. Now, such is the prohibition that absolution cannot even be sent to a penitent who has made confession while present, as Pope Paul V expressly declared on July 17 in the year 1605.⁵

Q. 2. What PRESENCE of the penitent is required, that he can be absolved?

Resp. Moral presence suffices, namely that within which men, with an ordinary voice, although somewhat raised, can and are accustomed to speak. Many extend this to twenty paces, especially if the penitent has not yet gone out from the sight of the confessor. But in a case of necessity, absolution is to be given whenever the one to be absolved is perceived by some sense. Hence, a penitent can be absolved who has already withdrawn from the confessional and is not much distant, and indeed licitly if he cannot conveniently be called back; likewise one who falls from a roof, who falls into a river, who, affected by plague, cannot be approached, etc. Yet, if the one to be absolved should be more than twenty paces away, absolution would have to be given under condition.

Q. 3. Whether by the words I ABSOLVE YOU the priest can validly absolve the penitent both from sins and from censures?

Resp. Yes, according to the common opinion of authors. "The reason is that nothing prevents those words, from the intention of the priest, from being directed to absolution both from censures and from sins."⁶ Yet this, unless there were altogether absent any suspicion that the penitent had incurred some censure, is not excused from venial fault, since it is against the use of the Church. Indeed, a Priest who, against the prohibition of the Church, wished to absolve the penitent first from sins and then from censures would sin gravely; but if the penitent were in good faith, he would be validly absolved from sins, although absolution from censures had not been premised; because the prohibition of the Church cannot invalidate a Sacrament whose value depends on divine law, when all essential requisites concur for it (cf. n. 1405).

Q. 4. Whether absolution can validly and licitly be given UNDER CONDITION?

Resp. 1. It is given VALIDLY if it is given under a condition concerning the past or the present; for when the condition is verified, the form of the Sacrament passes before God into an absolute form; but when the condition is not verified, the Sacrament is not confected, nor does the priest intend to confect it. (Recall what was said at n. 1414.)

Resp. 2. It is also given LICITLY "provided a just cause is present; namely if, absolution being denied, notable detriment would threaten the soul of the penitent." Thus St. Alphonsus⁷ with the common body of Doctors, against some.

Moreover: 1. The reason why it is licitly given is this: the Sacraments are for men, and the reverence owed to the Sacrament is preserved intact by the reasonable condition which is added. More probably, a condition retained in the mind suffices; although it is safer to express it in words, for example, "if you are contrite..., if you are disposed..., if you are capable, I absolve you."

2. The reason why it is not licitly given except when notable detriment is feared is that a condition is not rashly to be added to the form, and in a divine rite something is not easily to be changed. Besides, the priest ought to be a prudent dispenser, which he certainly would not be if from a slight cause, or in every doubt, he imparted conditional absolution. Yet extreme necessity, or danger of life, is not required, as Collet contends with certain others. For rigor of this sort would equally be harmful to penitents, especially to those who are to be judged unlikely to return to the confessor, and who, dismissed without absolution, would incur the danger of eternal damnation.

Q. 5. What are JUST CAUSES for giving absolution under condition?

Resp. These just causes can be either on the part of the confessor or on the part of the penitent. - The principal ones are the following:⁸

I. ON THE PART OF THE CONFESSOR: 1. If he positively or prudently doubts whether he absolved or not; for then he is bound to say: "if you are not absolved, I absolve you." - 2. If he doubts whether he has jurisdiction over the penitent, that is, in a doubt of fact, for example when there is doubt whether he received jurisdiction from the Ordinary, or whether he lost it on account of revocation; for then, with sufficient cause, he can absolve conditionally, saying: "if I can, I absolve you," etc. But in this case, says St. Alphonsus,⁹ the penitent must be warned "that he has been absolved only under condition, so that if afterward perhaps it becomes known that the confessor truly lacked jurisdiction, that penitent should confess his mortal sins again, as he ought." But in a positive doubt of law, that is, if because of the authority of Doctors the jurisdiction of the priest is probable, as, for example, in common error, he can give absolution in an absolute manner; because, a grave cause standing, the Church certainly supplies, as will be explained below (n. 1755 and 1756).

II. ON THE PART OF THE PENITENT there is a twofold species of cases, and therefore a twofold rule must be established:

Rule 1. A penitent who, placed in EXTREME necessity of soul, presents doubtful matter or disposition, is to be absolved under condition, lest perhaps he suffer grave detriment. - Hence the following are to be absolved under condition: 1. All the DYING, unless their incapacity or unworthiness is known, or can be positively presumed. - 2. Penitents DOUBTFULLY DISPOSED, if they are in grave danger of death, although not proximate, for example a woman in difficult childbirth, a sailor or another about to undertake a long voyage, a soldier about to fight with the enemy, a sick person before a very difficult surgical operation; or if it is prudently feared that, dismissed without absolution, they will thereafter altogether recoil from the sacred tribunal and languish in their sins, lest they pass over to heretics, lest they be alienated from the Church or from good works, lest they draw others to evil, etc.; or even if the necessity of communicating presses, for avoiding scandal or infamy, as easily happens in the first Communion of children and in general Communions, especially if the number of communicants is small.

Rule 2. A penitent who, placed in ORDINARY necessity, presents only doubtful matter or capacity, is SOMETIMES to be absolved, even under condition, lest he be deprived of a notable spiritual good. Hence the following are to be absolved under condition: 1. CHILDREN or the HALF-WITTED, whose use of reason is doubtful, or whose instruction concerning truths necessary to be known is doubtful, or whose sins are doubtful, especially if they are mortal of themselves. Therefore these are to be absolved both in danger of death, and when the precept of annual confession or of paschal Communion presses, and sometimes during the year, although they declare only venials and doubtful sins, lest perhaps they remain in a lethal state and be forced to live for a long time destitute of the help of sacramental grace. Yet great and accurate diligence must be premised, so that, as far as can be done, they are well instructed and rightly disposed.¹⁰ - 2. PIOUS PENITENTS who bring only imperfections, and can declare nothing certain from their past life; to these absolution under condition can be given once a month.

Let it be noted: 1. Penitents guilty of mortal sin who, on account of doubtful disposition or doubtful jurisdiction, have been absolved under condition, do not thereby have a right to the Holy Eucharist. For the precept of the Apostle stands in the way, saying: "But let a man prove himself..." Nor does doubtful, or merely probable, proof suffice when the sin was certain, but it must be certain morally (cf. n. 1756). - Hence, not only should the confessor not invite them to Holy Communion, but he should, if he can, prudently turn them away from receiving it.

2. Yet if they are already determined of themselves, or if from the denial of Communion a great evil is feared, let them be left in good faith, and let them be warned to excite themselves again to contrition.¹¹

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

St. Thomas, III, q. 84, a. 3; Opusc. 22.

I. Thesis I. The fitting and legitimate form is: I absolve you, or words formally equivalent, e.g.: I remit to you, I pardon..., let Peter be absolved from sins. - Thus the decree of the Council of Florence for the Armenians; and the Council of Trent, sess. 14, c. 3.

It is proved from St. Thomas, III, q. 84, a. 3:

"Since the sacraments of the New Law effect what they signify..., it is necessary that the form of the sacrament signify that which is done in the sacrament proportionately to the matter of the sacrament. Whence the form of Baptism is: I baptize you, and the form of Confirmation: I sign you with the sign of the cross and confirm you with the chrism of salvation, because sacraments of this kind are perfected in the use of the matter; but in the sacrament of the Eucharist, which consists in the very consecration of the matter, the truth of the consecration is expressed when it is said: This is My Body. But this sacrament, namely of Penance, does not consist in the consecration of some matter, nor in the use of some sanctified matter, but rather in the removal of a certain matter, namely sin, insofar as sins are said to be the matter of Penance... Moreover such removal is signified by the priest when it is said: I absolve you; for sins are certain bonds... Whence it is clear that this is the most fitting form of this sacrament: I absolve you." "Therefore it must be said that this form is taken from the very words of Christ by which He said to Peter (Mt. XVI, 19): Whatever you shall loose on earth" (ib. ad 1). "Yet because the priest absolves as minister, something which pertains to the first authority of God is fittingly added, namely, that it be said: I absolve you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (ad 3).

Briefly: the form must express the exercise of the power of the keys, or of the power of remitting sins, conceded to the ministers of the Church, to be exercised in the name of God, of which the sacrament of Penance is the use and effect; which the form furnishes: I absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father, etc.

II. Thesis II. The form must express the exercise of the power of the keys, or the power of remitting sins by the minister himself, the priest. Whence 1) a merely deprecatory form does not suffice; but, 2) if apparently, materially, and as to the mode of speaking it sometimes was or is deprecatory, at least according to the sense it must be formally indicative.

The first is proved: a) The form must indicate the exercise of the power of the keys, or of loosing sins. But to ask is not to loose. Therefore a merely deprecatory form does not suffice, but the form must be indicative at least as to the sense.

b) The pronouncing of the form is a judicial act (Council of Trent, sess. 14, c. 6 and can. 9). But a judicial sentence is not a deprecation: for to judge is the act of one having power; to deprecate is the act of one supplicating. Therefore the same act is not a judgment and a deprecation under the same respect.

The second is proved: A form deprecatory according to grammatical construction must, according to sense, partially be equivalent to an indicative or enunciative form. For sacramental absolution is a judicial sentence. But it would not be a judicial sentence unless in some way there were signified a) judicial power in the one pronouncing, b) the use of this power, and c) the actual effect, namely, the right conceded in order to the remission of sins. Therefore.

III. Conclusions. - Hence 1) an expressly and formally indicative form is fitting, which states the actual use of judicial power in order to the remission of sins furnished in the present. For, as St. Thomas says, a. 3:

"This form is taken from the very words of Christ, by which He said to Peter (Mt. XVI, 19): Whatever you shall loose on earth. And the Church uses such a form in sacramental absolution" (ad 1). But "in certain absolutions which are made publicly in the Church, as at Prime and Compline, and on the Lord's Supper, the one absolving does not use indicative prayer, so that he says: I absolve you, but deprecatory prayer, when he says: May almighty God have mercy on you, or: May almighty God grant you absolution and remission" (Objection 1). "But absolutions of this kind made in public are not sacramental, but are certain prayers ordered to the remission of venial sins. Whence in sacramental absolution it does not suffice to say: May almighty God have mercy on you, or: May almighty God grant you absolution and remission, because through these words the priest does not signify absolution to be made, but asks that it be made" (ad 1).

2. Nevertheless, of itself a deprecatory form can be valid, if by reason of the circumstances it sufficiently shows that the minister absolves and remits sins, or if the Church has attached this sense to it.

This is established a) from history: For at the beginning and through the first ten centuries, in both Churches all forms which are known to have been employed were deprecatory, e.g.: God, pardon him, absolve him or release him, etc.

This is established from the Sacramentaries (e.g., the Gelasian) and Penitentials; and from the concordant testimony of the Fathers, e.g., Ambrose, de Spiritu Sancto, III, 18; Jerome, in Ps. 28; c. Lucif., n. 5; Augustine, de Bapt. c. Don., V, 20; serm. 99; Leo the Great, ep. 108 ad Theod., etc.; who always allude to the deprecatory mode of the formula, never to the indicative. - But from the eleventh century, in the Latin Church a transition begins from deprecatory formulas to indicative ones, and both are used together so that an indicative formula is added to the deprecatory. Nevertheless the use of the deprecatory formula endured, so that at the beginning of the thirteenth century it was still in vigor, which we know from the testimony of William of Auxerre, William of Paris, and Hugh the Cardinal, and from the very little work of St. Thomas on the form of absolution, who, while defending the indicative form, nevertheless could not simply deny this (c. 2 and 5). But a little later, the indicative form was commonly received; yet in such a way that the accompanying prayers are a vestige of the ancient discipline. - But in the Eastern Church, after the thirteenth century, the deprecatory form remained, and today remains among non-united Greeks, indeed among united Greeks who are outside Europe, and in the Coptic Church of Alexandria. But many, even among Schismatics, have borrowed the indicative form from the Latin Church, such as the Jacobites, Armenians, Copts, Russians, Romanians; likewise the united Greeks who are in the parts of Europe, and the Maronites: but the schismatic Ruthenians use a form which is at once deprecatory and indicative.

b) by reason: A deprecatory formula, with the intention of absolving, and by reason of adjuncts, namely: the cause having been known, by one who has the power of remitting, and is held by all as a judge who truly remits, although not by his own authority but by God's, sufficiently shows (whether implicitly, or even by explicit words, e.g.: "through my ministry," or by mention of the power of the keys conceded) that the priest is the minister of God and absolves only by His authority; nor does it impede this that the priest is a judge and truly absolves ministerially, especially if the Church so prescribes or tolerates and the use is common. Then the sense will be: "May you be absolved or may you be loosed by me, through my ministry." Thus also the formula: May almighty God bless you, uttered not by a layman but by a priest, from whom a blessing is sought according to the accustomed rite of the Church, signifies: I bless you by the authority of God; likewise absolution from censures is often given in a deprecatory mode, and nevertheless is a judicial act. And the words: Let the servant of Christ be baptized, are equivalent to the form of Baptism: I baptize you.

Nor does it stand in the way that the Church cannot change the matter and form of the sacraments instituted by Christ, because not all forms of the sacraments were always altogether determined by Christ according to material uniformity, but only according to signification; whence if the Church has the right of defining the ultimate determination of the form, nothing prevents a deprecatory form, with the manifested intention of bearing a judicial sentence, from being able to be valid. But those who would think otherwise would have to see how they could reconcile their theory with the facts. Therefore the indicative form is more express and more befits judicial power, which belongs to the ministers of the Church, because it is certain that they not only ask that remission be made but, as instruments of God, effect it authoritatively; but the deprecatory form can also be legitimated, because the minister remits not in his own name but in the name and authority of God; whence he says as if imperatively: May God absolve you, that is, in the name of God I pronounce that God ought to absolve you.

3. Nevertheless, practically in the Latin Church only the indicative form can be employed. For since in the Western Church already for several centuries the use of the indicative formula has been prescribed, one can deservedly doubt concerning the value of the deprecatory formula in the Latin Church.

For the Church can prescribe one form as valid, and can declare another not to be legitimate, and therefore no longer to have an indicative sense; she can establish the conditions of exercising a judicial act and the one authentic form: for she can choose not to concede jurisdiction except for the indicative form. But whether this was the intention of the Church is not certain, but doubtful. Whence, because this is at least uncertain, one must abstain from a deprecatory form as doubtful.¹

¹ There are also imperative forms, but these are reduced to deprecatory ones if, namely, they are directed to God, e.g., May God absolve you, may He forgive, they are valid as: God, pardon him, forgive; others are reduced to indicative or enunciative ones, if they are directed to the penitent, e.g., be absolved by me, be absolved by God, that is, God through my ministry absolves you.

I. The form signifies the use and effect of the power of the keys, that is, the remission of sin itself or of fault made by the minister, so that the sense is: I truly remit the fault to you. - This is indicated by the definition of the Council of Trent, sess. 14, can. 9; whence "the thing and effect of the sacrament, as regards its force and efficacy, is reconciliation with God" (Council of Trent, sess. 14, c. 3).

II. Therefore the sense of the form is not:

1. I show or declare you absolved, namely, in the face of the Church.

Thus against Protestants, who said that sin is remitted by faith alone, not by force of the sacrament, and that absolution "is not a judicial act, but the bare ministry of pronouncing and declaring that sins have been remitted to the one confessing, provided only he believes himself absolved," which was expressly condemned by Trent (can. 9). And against Peter Lombard and other old writers who asserted the same thing, but in a very different sense, since they admitted the assisting virtue of God, operating by itself alone interiorly what is signified by exterior absolution, without attributing true instrumental causality to the minister or to his sentence as regards the remission of sin, but only as regards remission in the face of the Church; yet this does not sufficiently cohere with the doctrine of the Council of Trent.

And indeed a) the sacraments effect what they signify; but the form of Penance signifies the remission of sin; therefore it effects it. Therefore just as the form of Baptism: I baptize you, does not signify: I show you washed, but washes; so the form of Penance not only shows a man absolved, but absolves (III, q. 84, a. 3, ad 5);

b) for otherwise the power of the keys would be weakened: it would have been given fruitlessly to the Apostles if they could do nothing except show, since every learned and prudent man (by discussion of conscience) could do this.

2. Nor is the sense: I absolve you from punishment, as Richard of St. Victor and certain scholastics, and Baius, interpreted.

For a) it is against the obvious sense of the form and John XX, 22: from sins; b) according to the Council of Trent, sess. 6, c. 15, eternal punishment is remitted together with fault; therefore if the form does not remit fault, neither does it remit eternal punishment; c) according to the same Council, sess. 14, c. 1, the priest has power for reconciling the faithful who have fallen after Baptism; but reconciliation is made by the remission of fault and not of punishment alone (cf. condemned propositions 57 and 58 of Baius). And d) then "there would not be required the will of receiving the effect of the keys for the remission of fault, just as the vow of receiving other sacraments is not required which are not ordered to the remission of fault but against punishment" (Quodl., q. 18, a. 1).

3. Nor is the sense: I absolve you from the obligation of again subjecting sins to the keys, as St. Bonaventure has it, IV Sent., dist. 18, p. 1, a. 2, q. 1.

For a) it is against the obvious sense of the form and John XX, 22: to loose from sins; b) absolution from venial sins, or from sins already remitted, would now have no signification and would not be valid.

4. Nor is the sense: I give you grace remissive of sin of itself, as Suarez says, de Poen., disp. 19, sect. 2, n. 13-20.

For the words directly signify remission of sin and only indirectly grace, because in the present order a grave offense is not remitted without the infusion of grace. Namely the words of themselves, that is, from human institution, do not directly signify the conferral of grace, although they produce it from the institution of Christ according to sacramental signification. Therefore the sense rather is: I remit your sins to you through the infusion of grace. - Nor does it stand against this that then remission precedes the infusion of grace. For remission, as the yielding of divine right to aversion, precedes the infusion of grace in reason, and the taking away or expulsion of sin follows this infusion.

III. The true sense of the form is: I judicially impart to you the sacrament (or sacred practical sign, or title and cause) of absolution (that is, remission), as St. Thomas has it, q. 84, a. 3, ad 5, and in the little work on the form of absolution, c. 3; in other words, I judicially cause that it is owed to you that you be freed from sin. Whence the sense of absolution is verified, even if someone is already in the state of grace, or if, from defect of the subject, grace is not conferred.

I. For the validity of the form the essential words are required: I absolve you, and probably also: from sins.

1. Certainly these are required: I absolve you, because they sufficiently declare the effect of the sacrament, the judicial mode by which it is effected, and the receiving subject.

2. Probably also: from sins, because the words: I absolve you, are not sufficiently determined and can be understood concerning absolution from censures or from punishments, although nevertheless probably the matter is sufficiently indicated from the prior confession of sins itself; but in practice they must be added because in the ministration of the sacraments what is safer must be done: but if they had been omitted, the form would have to be repeated under condition.

3. On the contrary, the following are not essential: I, in the Latin language, and your, because they are sufficiently included in: I absolve you; nevertheless they pertain to the integrity of the form.

4. In no way are the words required: in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, which are neither prescribed by Christ nor found in the ancient formulas.

Hence a) voluntary omission or substantial corruption of an essential word, or of a word which probably is such, is always a mortal sin, because it invalidates the sacrament or exposes it to danger of nullity, and the penitent to deprivation of sacramental grace;

b) absolution under an equivalent form, although gravely illicit, is valid, e.g., if it were said: I remit or pardon you; I absolve you all or your excellency; or let such a one be absolved from sins, etc., because the same sense remains and it is only an accidental change;

c) the omission only of the words: in the name of the Father... is judged a light transgression of ritual law.

II. For liceity, the form must be carefully observed in the Latin Church by the minister, which is prescribed by the Roman Ritual, or by the particular rituals of religious Orders, together with the accompanying ceremonies and the preceding and subsequent prayers.

S. Th. III, q. 84, a. 3; Opusc. 22.

441. Thesis I. The fitting and legitimate form is: I absolve thee..., or words formally equivalent, for example: I remit to thee, I pardon..., let Peter be absolved from sins. - Thus the decree of the Council of Florence for the Armenians; and the Council of Trent, sess. 14, c. 3.

It is proved from St. Thomas, III, q. 84, a. 3:

"Since the sacraments of the New Law effect what they signify..., it is necessary that the form of the sacrament signify that which is done in the sacrament, proportionally to the matter of the sacrament. Whence the form of Baptism is: I baptize thee, and the form of Confirmation: I sign thee with the sign of the cross and confirm thee with the chrism of salvation, because sacraments of this kind are perfected in the use of the matter; but in the sacrament of the Eucharist, which consists in the very consecration of the matter, the truth of the consecration is expressed when it is said: This is my body. But this sacrament, namely of Penance, does not consist in the consecration of some matter, nor in the use of some sanctified matter, but rather in the removal of a certain matter, namely of sin, insofar as sins are said to be the matter of Penance... But such removal is signified by the priest when it is said: I absolve thee; for sins are certain bonds... Whence it is plain that this is the most fitting form of this sacrament: I absolve thee." "Therefore it must be said that that form is taken from the very words of Christ by which He said to Peter (Matt. XVI, 19): Whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth" (ibid., ad 1). "Yet because the priest absolves as minister, something which pertains to the first authority of God is fittingly added, namely, that it be said: I absolve thee in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (ad 3).

Briefly: the form must express the exercise of the power of the keys, or of the power of remitting sins, granted to the ministers of the Church, to be exercised in the name of God, of which the sacrament of Penance is the use and effect; which is furnished by the form: I absolve thee from thy sins in the name of the Father, etc.

442. Thesis II. The form must express the exercise of the power of the keys, or the power of remitting sins by the minister himself, the priest. Whence 1° a merely deprecative form does not suffice; but, 2° if apparently, materially, and as to the mode of speaking it at some time was or is deprecative, at least according to the sense it must be formally indicative.

The first is proved: a) The form must indicate the exercise of the power of the keys, or of loosing sins. But to ask is not to loose. Therefore a merely deprecative form does not suffice, but the form must be indicative at least as to the sense.

b) The pronouncing of the form is a judicial act (Council of Trent, sess. 14, c. 6 and can. 9). But a judicial sentence is not a prayer: for to judge is the act of one having power; to pray is the act of one supplicating. Therefore the same act is not judgment and prayer under the same respect.

The second is proved: A form deprecative according to grammatical construction must, according to the sense, be partially equivalent to an indicative or enunciative form. For sacramental absolution is a judicial sentence. But it would not be a judicial sentence unless there were signified in some way a) judicial power in the one pronouncing, b) the use of this power, and c) the actual effect, namely, the right granted in order to the remission of sins. Therefore.

443. Conclusions. - Hence 1° the expressly and formally indicative form is fitting, which enunciates the actual use of judicial power in order to the remission of sins granted in the present. For, as St. Thomas says, a. 3:

"This form is taken from the very words of Christ, by which He said to Peter (Matt. XVI, 19): Whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth. And the Church uses such a form in sacramental absolution" (ad 1). But "in certain absolutions which are publicly made in the Church, as in Prime and Compline, and on the Lord's Supper, the absolving one does not use an indicative prayer, so as to say: I absolve thee, but a deprecative prayer, when he says: May almighty God have mercy on you, or: May almighty God grant you absolution and remission" (Obj. 1). "But absolutions of this kind, made in public, are not sacramental, but are certain prayers ordered to the remission of venial sins. Whence in sacramental absolution it does not suffice to say: May almighty God have mercy on thee, or: May almighty God grant thee absolution and remission, because through these words the priest does not signify that absolution is done, but asks that it be done" (ad 1).

2° Nevertheless, per se the deprecative form can be valid, if by reason of the circumstances it sufficiently shows that the minister absolves and remits sins, or if the Church has annexed this sense to it.

This is clear a) from history: for at the beginning and through the ten first centuries, in each Church all forms which are known to have been used were deprecative, for example: God, pardon him, absolve or release him, etc.¹

¹ This is clear from the Sacramentaries (for example, the Gelasian) and Penitentials; and from the concordant testimony of the Fathers, for example, Ambrose, On the Holy Spirit, III, 18; Jerome, on Ps. 28; Against Lucifer, n. 5; Augustine, On Baptism against the Donatists, V, 20; serm. 99; Leo the Great, ep. 108 to Theodorus, etc.; who always allude to the deprecative mode of the formula, never to the indicative. - But from the eleventh century, in the Latin Church the transition begins from deprecative formulas to indicative ones, and both are used together in such a way that an indicative formula is added to the deprecative. Yet the use of the deprecative formula endured, so that at the beginning of the thirteenth century it was still in force, which we know from the testimony of William of Auxerre, William of Paris, and Hugh the Cardinal, and from the very little work of St. Thomas On the Form of Absolution, who, while defending the indicative form, nevertheless could not simply deny this (c. 2 and 5). But a little later, the indicative form was commonly received; yet in such a way that the accompanying prayers are a vestige of the ancient discipline. - In the Eastern Church, however, after the thirteenth century the deprecative form remained, and today remains among the non-united Greeks, indeed among the united who live outside Europe, and in the Coptic Church of Alexandria. But many, even among the Schismatics, have borrowed the indicative form from the Latin Church, such as the Jacobites, Armenians, Copts, Russians, Rumanians; likewise the united Greeks who live in the parts of Europe, and the Maronites; but the schismatic Ruthenians use a form which is at once deprecative and indicative.

b) by reason: A deprecative formula, with the intention of absolving, and by reason of the adjuncts, namely: the cause having been known, by him who has the power of remitting, and is held by all as a judge who truly remits, though not by his own authority but by that of God, sufficiently shows (whether implicitly, or also by explicit words, for example: "through my ministry," or by mention of the power of the keys granted) that the priest is the minister of God and absolves only by His authority; nor does it prevent the priest from being a judge and truly absolving ministerially, especially if the Church thus prescribes or tolerates and the usage is common. Then the sense will be: "Mayest thou be absolved, or thou shalt be absolved, through me, through my ministry." Thus also the formula: May almighty God bless you, uttered not by a layman but by a priest, from whom a blessing is sought according to the accustomed rite of the Church, signifies: I bless you by the authority of God; likewise absolution from censures is often given in a deprecative mode, and nevertheless it is a judicial act. And the words: The servant of Christ is baptized, are equivalent to the form of Baptism: I baptize thee.

Nor is it an obstacle that the Church cannot change the matter and form of the sacraments instituted by Christ, because not all forms of the sacraments were always wholly determined by Christ according to material uniformity, but only according to signification; whence, if the Church has the right of defining the final determination of the form, nothing prevents a deprecative form, with the manifested intention of bearing a judicial sentence, from being valid. But those who would think otherwise would have to see how they could reconcile their theory with the facts. Therefore the indicative form is more expressive and more fitting to the judicial power which belongs to the ministers of the Church, because it is certain that they do not only ask that remission be made, but as instruments of God work it potestatively; but a deprecative form can also be legitimated, because the minister remits not in his own name but in the name and authority of God; whence he says as if imperatively: May God absolve thee, i.e., in the name of God I pronounce that God ought to absolve thee.

3° Nevertheless, practically in the Latin Church the indicative form alone can be used. For since in the Western Church the use of the indicative formula has now been prescribed for many centuries, with reason one can doubt concerning the value of the deprecative formula in the Latin Church.

For the Church can prescribe one form as valid, and can declare another not to be legitimate, and therefore no longer to have an indicative sense; she can establish the conditions of exercising the judicial act and the one authentic form: for she can refuse to grant jurisdiction except for the indicative form. But whether this was the intention of the Church is not certain, but doubtful. Whence, because this at least is uncertain, one must abstain from the deprecative form as doubtful.²

² There are also imperative forms, but those are reduced to deprecative forms if they are directed to God, for example, may God absolve thee, may He indulge; they mean: God, pardon him, indulge him; others are reduced to indicative or enunciative forms, if they are directed to the penitent, for example, be absolved by me, be absolved by God, i.e., God absolves thee through my ministry.

444. The form signifies the use and effect of the power of the keys, i.e., the remission of sin itself, or of guilt, made by the minister, so that the sense is: I truly remit guilt to thee. - This is indicated by the definition of the Council of Trent, sess. 14, can. 9; whence "the reality and effect of the sacrament, insofar as its force and efficacy are concerned, is reconciliation with God" (Council of Trent, sess. 14, c. 3).

Hence A. the sense of the form is not:

1° I show or declare thee absolved, namely in the face of the Church.

Thus against the Protestants, who said that sin is remitted by faith alone, not by the force of the sacrament, and that absolution "is not a judicial act, but a bare ministry of pronouncing and declaring that sins are remitted to the one confessing, provided only that he believe himself to be absolved," which was expressly condemned by Trent (can. 9). And against Peter Lombard and other ancients who asserted the same, but in a very diverse sense, for they admitted the assisting power of God operating by itself alone interiorly what is signified by exterior absolution, without attributing true instrumental causality to the minister or to his sentence as to the remission of sin, but only as to remission in the face of the Church; which nevertheless does not cohere sufficiently with the doctrine of the Council of Trent.

And indeed a) the sacraments effect what they signify; but the form of Penance signifies the remission of sin; therefore it effects it. Therefore, just as the form of Baptism: I baptize thee, does not signify: I show thee washed, but washes; so the form of Penance does not only show the man absolved, but absolves (III, q. 84, a. 3, ad 5);

b) for otherwise the power of the keys would be weakened: it would have been given to the Apostles in vain if they could do nothing except show, since every learned and prudent man could do that by discussion of conscience.

2° Nor is the sense: I absolve thee from punishment, as Richard of St. Victor and certain scholastics, and Baius, interpreted it.

For a) it is against the obvious sense of the form and John XX, 23: from sins; b) according to the Council of Trent, sess. 6, c. 15, eternal punishment is remitted together with guilt; therefore if the form does not remit guilt, neither does it remit eternal punishment; c) according to the same Council, sess. 14, c. 1, the priest has power for reconciling the faithful fallen after Baptism; but reconciliation is made through the remission of guilt and not of punishment alone (cf. condemned propositions 57 and 58 of Baius). And d) then "the will of receiving the effect of the keys for the remission of guilt would not be required, just as the intention of receiving other sacraments which are not ordered to the remission of guilt but against punishment is not required" (Suppl., q. 18, a. 1).

3° Nor is the sense: I absolve thee from the obligation of again subjecting sins to the keys, as St. Bonaventure has it, IV Sent., dist. 18, p. 1, a. 2, q. 1.

For a) it is against the obvious sense of the form and John XX, 23: to loose from sins; b) absolution from venial sins, or from sins already remitted, would then now have no signification and would not have value.

4° Nor is the sense: I give thee grace remissive of sin of itself, as Suarez says, on Penance, disp. 19, sect. 2, n. 13-20.

For the words directly signify the remission of sin and only indirectly grace, because in the present order a grave offense is not remitted without the infusion of grace. The words, namely, of themselves, that is, from human institution, do not directly signify the conferral of grace, although they produce it from the institution of Christ according to sacramental signification. Therefore the sense rather is: I remit sins to thee through the infusion of grace. - Nor is it an obstacle to this that then remission precedes the infusion of grace. For remission, as cession of the divine right to aversion, precedes the infusion of grace, and the removal or expulsion of sin follows upon this.

B. But the sense of the form is: I judicially bestow upon thee the sacrament (or sacred practical sign, or title and cause) of absolution (i.e., of remission), as St. Thomas has it, q. 84, a. 3, ad 5, and in the little work On the Form of Absolution, c. 3; namely, I judicially bring it about that it is owed to thee to be freed from sin. Whence the sense of absolution is verified, even if someone is already in the state of grace, or if because of a defect of the subject grace is not conferred.

445. For the validity of the form there are required the essential words: I absolve thee, and probably also: from sins.

1° Certainly there are required: I absolve thee, because they sufficiently declare the effect of the sacrament, the judicial mode by which it is effected, and the subject receiving.

2° Probably also: from sins, because the words: I absolve thee, are not sufficiently determined and can be understood of absolution from censures or from punishments, although nevertheless probably from the previous confession itself of sins the matter is sufficiently indicated; but in practice they must be added, because in the ministration of the sacraments that which is safer must be done: but if they should have been omitted, the form would have to be repeated under condition.

3° On the contrary, essential are not: I, in the Latin language, and thy, because they are sufficiently included in: I absolve thee; yet they pertain to the integrity of the form.

4° In no way are the words required: in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, which are neither prescribed by Christ nor found in the ancient formulas.

Hence a) the voluntary omission or substantial corruption of an essential word, or of a word which probably is such, is always a mortal sin, because it invalidates the sacrament or exposes it to danger of nullity, and the penitent to deprivation of sacramental grace;

b) absolution under an equivalent form, although gravely illicit, is valid, for example, if it were said: I remit or pardon thee; I absolve you or your excellency; or let such a one be absolved from sins, etc., because the same sense remains and there is only an accidental change;

c) the omission alone of the words: in the name of the Father... is considered a light transgression of the ritual law.

446. The mode in which the form must be uttered, required for validity, is a) that it be uttered by mouth, b) directed to one present, c) independently of a suspensive condition in the future.

A. Uttered by mouth in words properly so called. Concerning this perhaps someone could doubt, because this sacrament was instituted by way of judgment; therefore what is rigorously required for giving sentence in other judgments could suffice also in this judgment. But in others, writing, a nod, and generally any sign by which the sentence can be manifested, suffices. Therefore also in this sacrament words properly so called could fail to be required; which is confirmed by the example of matrimony, in which a nod can suffice. Nevertheless words properly so called uttered by mouth are required for validity. It is proved:

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.

Question 1. Whether anything can be omitted from the rubrical form, and when? Resp. Although the prayers joined by the Church to the absolving formula are not necessary for obtaining absolution itself, nevertheless, unless for a just cause, let them not be omitted (Can. 885).

But, since according to a probable opinion the Passion raises the good works of the penitent to the merit of sacramental satisfaction, it is fitting that it be omitted very rarely. But the words Our Lord, etc., do not seem able to be omitted without venial fault, unless necessity presses. - Cf. Rit. Rom. § Form of Absolution. - O'Kane, nn. 981 and seq.

Question 2. Whether the raising of the hand and the formation of the sign of the cross are necessary in imparting absolution? Resp. 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 Councils of Florence and Trent, as well as from the unanimous consent of theologians, at least after the Council of Trent. 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; thus Busembaum, reported and implicitly approved by St. Alphonsus. Whatever may be the case, at least the raising of the hand can be omitted without sin while the prayers which precede formal absolution are recited. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 425. - O'Kane, nn. 982 and 983.

Question 3. Whether stole and surplice are required in the administration of the sacrament of Penance? Resp. On this matter the Fathers of Baltimore speak thus: "Approaching the sacred tribunal, let the confessor be vested with surplice and violet stole, according to the prescription of the Roman Ritual." Moreover the prescription of the Roman Ritual has itself thus: "Let [the priest] use a surplice and a stole of violet color, according as the time or the custom of places shall bear." Therefore in practice attention must be paid to custom, to the particular statutes of each diocese, and to the privileges which some families of Regulars enjoy in this matter. - Cf. Conc. Plen. Balt. II, n. 213. - Baruffaldi, de Sacr. Poenit. tit. 18, n. 21. - Acta S. Sedis, vol. 4, p. 62, n. 111.

Question 4. Whether all the words of the essential form: I absolve you from your sins, are essential? Resp. Negatively, for it is probably taught that the word you can be omitted, because it is sufficiently contained in the word your, and more probably still the whole clause from your sins, because those two words I absolve you contain the whole effect of the sacrament. But, practically speaking, it is necessary to utter the whole essential form, both because it is prescribed, and because outside a case of necessity, which could scarcely be imagined in this matter, it is not lawful to use probabilities in those things which pertain to the validity of the sacrament. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 430. - Lugo, disp. 13, n. 26. - O'Kane, n. 984.

Question 5. Whether a priest can validly absolve several persons with one form, saying: I absolve you all from your sins? Resp. Affirmatively, because all things required for validity are found. Indeed, this also can licitly be done in a case of necessity, for example, in a shipwreck, before battle, or in the battle itself, etc.; and such an absolution would be multiple, not indeed formally, but virtually and equivalently, and there would be as many sacraments as there were men who had been disposed through some confession and sufficient sorrow. - Cf. Lacroix, n. 645.¹

¹ Cf. Addenda, p. 1142, n. 108.

Question 6. What presence of the penitent is reputed moral in order to absolution? Resp. That alone which effects that the words I absolve you, according to the common estimation of men, are judged to fall upon the penitent: and this indeed is certainly verified when the confessor and penitent are not farther apart from one another than if two men could and usually would converse with an ordinary voice. Many theologians, determining this distance more closely, extend it to 20 paces, especially if the penitent is not outside the sight of the confessor. But when necessity presses, a penitent can and must be absolved as often as he is perceived by some sense. Hence 1°. he 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, on account of danger of infection or because of another cause, cannot enter the room of the sick person, he must absolve him from the doorway; 3°. if a penitent were to depart from the confessor not yet absolved, thinking himself absolved, he would have to be absolved if, being a little distant, he were seen, or were certainly known to be present within a nearby crowd; nevertheless he would have to be called back, if this could conveniently be done. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 429.

Question 7. What is to be said of absolution given by employing that new instrument which they commonly call telephone? Resp. Outside a case of necessity it is certainly and gravely illicit for a confessor to use such an instrument, because the sacrament certainly would be exposed to danger of nullity, and because a new practice would be introduced in the administration of the sacraments, and one liable to frauds. But whether in a case of extreme necessity the use of such an instrument could be tolerated is difficult to decide, and the question is worthy of being referred to the Apostolic See. - Yet to say what seems to me, it does not appear why a priest should be condemned who through the telephone conditionally absolved some penitent, after he had learned from him that he was seized by sudden and most grave illness, that he grieved greatly for his sins, and that he had applied his ears to the instrument and would wait for absolution. For moral presence and the connection between matter and form are certainly required in every sacrament, but in a different degree and manner according to the diversity of each rite. But since the sacrament of Penance was instituted after the manner of a forensic judgment, for which that presence suffices by force of which the judge and the accused can converse together, in the proposed case absolution does not seem to be certainly invalid, since the penitent and priest can be said in a true sense to be conversing. - Cf. Irish Ecclesiastical Record, Feb., Mar. and Apr. 1883; and Jun. and Jul. 1885.

Question 8. What is to be said of conditional absolution? Resp. It is certain that an 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 at all; but it affects only the will of the confessor, who does not intend to absolve unless the condition attached is fulfilled; but when this has been fulfilled, the form becomes absolute; and consequently nothing is found which could hinder its validity. It is likewise certain that conditional absolution is sometimes licit; for if it is valid, it must also be licit when necessity presses.

But the doctrine of some must be rejected as plainly lax, who hold that conditional absolution can be imparted from any light cause whatever, and with no necessity pressing, even if the sufficient disposition of a penitent burdened also with mortal sins is in some way doubted. For there is no one who does not see how many sacrileges a practice of this kind would introduce. For the confessor would then 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 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 a 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.

Hence, with due conditions preserved, when necessity presses, or when there is present a grave and proportionate cause, 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, when the precept of annual confession presses, etc.; 3°. in doubt of jurisdiction on the part of the confessor; 4°. in doubt whether the penitent was duly absolved; 5°. in doubt of the use of reason in children, the insane, etc.; 6°. in doubt whether the penitent is morally present; 7°. in doubt whether a dying person destitute of the senses is capable of the sacrament; 8°. in doubt concerning the disposition of the penitent, when not only extreme but also simply grave spiritual necessity presses. Cf. St. Alphonsus, nn. 431 and seq. - Billuart, diss. 6, art. 10, §7. - Lacroix, lib. 6, part. 1, n. 78.

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

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

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.

Titius, a Catholic priest, with great scandal to the faithful and in contempt of the obligations by which he was bound, attempted marriage with a certain woman, with whom he afterwards lived in a secular manner for several years as a businessman. At length Caius, a priest and former friend, heard that Titius had been placed in danger of death; he immediately went to the sick man’s house and, with the intention of helping Titius, asked to be admitted. The woman harshly refused him entrance, affirming that the physician had most strictly forbidden entrance to everyone. Inflamed with zeal to save the soul, Caius devised every means by which he could communicate with Titius. He heard that Titius had a telephone in his private room by which he communicated with the office in the city. Caius hastened to the office and, having obtained permission under a certain pretext to use the telephone, spoke with Titius, disposed him to penance by his fervent exhortations, and, after Titius had confessed, absolved him by means of the telephone. Afterwards, however, doubting about the absolution given, he consults a theologian. Hence it is asked:

1. What is required to absolve penitents lawfully and validly?

2. Is a confession made by one absent or an absolution given by one absent valid?

3. What is to be said of the case?

1. What is required for validly and lawfully absolving penitents?

Besides what is requisite on the part of the minister of Penance and of the penitent, there are certain conditions required for valid and lawful giving of absolution. For validity the form of words, “ I absolve thee from thy sins,” or at least, “ I absolve thee,” is necessary; and at the time of absolution the confessor and penitent must be morally present to each other. The latter condition is interpreted to mean that the penitent must not be further removed from the confessor when absolution is given than the ordinary tone of voice will carry. For the lawful administration of Penance the rubrics of the Ritual must be observed, and in particular the form of absolution given there must be used, and the priest should have on surplice and stole.¹

1 Manual of Moral Theology, vol. ii, 175.

2. Is confession or absolution valid when made or given by one who is absent?

No. This conclusion follows from the absolute prohibition under all circumstances by Clement VIII, 20 June, 1602, of confession made by letter to an absent priest or of absolution given by a priest to an absent penitent.²

2 Ibid., 164.

3. The case. Most of the theologians who have treated the question consider that absolution given by telephone is invalid. The speakers are not morally present to each other; the instrument is a means of speaking with the absent and distant. But, as we have seen, moral presence of confessor and penitent is necessary for the validity of Penance. On the ground that by using the telephone the voice of the confessor reaches the penitent, some theologians hold that absolution given by telephone is valid. Others would allow a confessor to use the instrument in a case of extreme necessity. There was extreme necessity in the case proposed, so that Caius is not to be blamed for what he did. On being asked whether it is lawful to give absolution by telephone in a case of extreme necessity, the Sacred Penitentiary answered, 1 July 1884; “ Nothing is to be answered.”

Mr. N. was dangerously sick; he would not listen to admonitions to make his peace with God, and refused to see the priest. N.'s wife and the priest frequently took counsel together as to how it would be possible to bring about N.'s reconciliation with God, even in spite of his resistance. Finally the pastor resolved upon the following proceeding: He secretly took up his position in an adjoining room, only a few feet, therefore, from the patient's bed—then the wife went to the sick man, purposely leaving the door ajar, so that the priest in the front room could hear and understand everything, whereupon she started an intimate conversation with her husband, apparently with the purpose of entertaining the patient, but in reality to draw from him an open acknowledgment of his sins, and to incite in him sincere contrition. Being a clever woman she began by speaking of one subject or another, then in particular about how good he had been to her in every respect; then about the religious practices in which for a long time he had joined her; of course there had been, too, some dark hours, as for instance, the discord which had been caused some years ago in puncto religionis; his constant neglect of this and that duty; then in order to obtain a "confession of sins," after this "examination of conscience," she asked gently whether he remembered so and so, whereupon naturally the answer was a long-drawn "Yes, that is right," or, "I must admit that," etc. Then she told the sick man how painful all this had been and still was for her, all the more so, as she could not banish the awful thought and harrowing fear, that he, her well-beloved husband, would lose heaven and go to eternal perdition on account of these sins, and that an awful fate would await him after death unless he was heartily sorry for them. By these and similar representations the good wife endeavored to awaken sincere contrition in the sick man, but she never said a word about the reception of the Sacrament of Penance, so as not to counteract the good disposition of her husband by arousing in him anew his antipathy against the religious act. The priest, who had heard and understood everything distinctly, believed that he might under the circumstances be satisfied with this confessio dolorosa, and gave priestly absolution to the sick man unobserved and unknown by the latter. The priest confidently hoped in this manner to have saved the sick man's soul. The question is asked whether this absolution was valid or not? To this we must answer a decided No, for the reason that the penitent did not have the necessary intention to Sacramental absolution, and because the materia proxima Sacramenti was altogether absent.

^* By P. N. Katzemich, D.D.

1. The absolution in question is invalid because the penitent did not have the necessary intention to receive the Sacrament.

God gave to man reason and free will, and willed that no adult, i. e., no one who has attained the use of these faculties, should be saved without personal co-operation. Man, accordingly, must cooperate with grace, he must will to be saved, he must agree to it, and intend it. If sanctifying grace is to be imparted to him, through the administration of any of the Sacraments, he must agree to receive this Sacrament, he must will to receive it, he must have the intentio suscipiendi Sacramentum. This intention, it is true, may be of different kinds, it may be actual, habitual or virtual, and either be had explicite or implicite; but one of these kinds of intention must be present, just which one is immaterial, for the validity of the Sacrament.

Our patient had had none of these kinds of intention; we are even aware that he had declared a positive aversion for, and actual opposition to, the reception of the Sacrament of Penance. The peculiar examination of conscience and the resulting Confession were not calculated to produce a change of mind, and the contrition which his better half endeavored to awaken in him was rather doubtful; in fact, under the circumstances, we can hardly suppose or admit of its presence; otherwise the immediate result would have been the desire for a priest, and for the reception of the Sacrament of Penance. At all events the contrition was not such as to offset the deeply inrooted aversion, and therewith fades away the most important ray of hope for reconciliation with heaven of the sick man. The absolution therefore even if given "sacramentally," was totally inefficient and invalid, on account of the intentio suscipiendi being absent.

2. The absolution was invalid, because the materia proxima Sacramenti was completely lacking. By the materia proxima we mean the materia which was prescribed by the Council of Trent (Sess. XIV, Cap. Ill) in the following manner: The acts of the penitent himself, namely contrition, confession, and satisfaction, are, as it were, the matter of this Sacrament (of Penance). Whether these actus poenitentis are to be understood as materia proxima intrinseca seu ex qua or merely as an extrinseca seu circa quam; in other words, whether they belong to the essence of the Sacrament, or are merely a conditio sine qua non, that we may leave here undecided; it only concerns us that in our case this materia was simply not present.

Apart from the very doubtful integritas materialis, necessary without question, there was really no confessio, properly speaking; for it can not be said that the patient made a sacramental confession of sin, i. e., that he accused himself to a prescribed confessor of all grievous sins committed in order to receive priestly absolution; he had no idea of the priest's secret presence, nothing was further from his thoughts than to confess and be absolved, and he resisted stubbornly the sacramental Confession. No doubt whatever can prevail upon that score that the patient made no confessio; he lacked therefore a most important part of the essential matter, or, at least, the indispensable conditio sine qua non; hence the absolution could not possibly take direct effect and the validity of the same can not be thought of.

Furthermore, there was lacking also the satisfactio sacramentalis; it was certainly not present in re: the confessor could not properly impose such because no confessio had taken place, and had the patient upon himself imposed a penance, it would not have been a sacramental penance. The satisfactio in voto presupposes a real and sufficient contrition and must de jure at least virtually manifest itself to the confessor; otherwise it would not be materia or pars materiae. Even if we could presume true contrition in our patient, the same did not de jure manifest itself to the confessor, and neither consequently a satisfactio in voto, even if present. There was, therefore no confessio nor satisfactio.

The third part of the materia proxima is the true contrition which must also de jure be manifest to the confessor. It is not impossible, although highly improbable, that the sick man, in consequence of his wife's representations, attained a true contrition, and hence sufficiently disposed in regard to sanctifying grace, but undoubtedly he was not possessed of that particular contrition required for the materia proxima Sacramenti. As materia, or pars materiae, the contrition must absolutely manifest itself exteriorly, of course not in se—for that is impossible—but in alio, i. e. in actu et per actum confessionis. As the patient made no confessio, his contrition, even if present as sufficiens dispositio ad justificationem ex opere operato, could not possibly manifest itself to the confessor and for that reason could not serve as materia, or pars materiae. Thus there are wanting in our patient all the actus poenitentis, the contritio, the confessio, and the satisfactio; in short, all of the materia proxima Sacramenti, which according to the interpretation of the Scotists is the indispensable "conditio sine qua non", and according to the interpretation of the far more numerous body of other theologians a "pars essentialis ipsius Sacramenti."

The validity of the absolution in question is, therefore£ to be absolutely denied.

Caius was called to a dying person to administer the last Sacraments. He heard the dying man’s confession, gave him Holy Communion, Extreme Unction and general absolution. Only after returning home did it occur to him that he had forgotten to give sacramental absolution. Again he went to the sick man, made with him an act of contrition and, without saying anything to him about absolution, pronounced the words of sacramental absolution over - him.

Did Caius act correctly? Or rather let us ask: 1. Was Caius bound to return and absolve the dying man?

2. Was the absolution by Caius valid, although more than an hour had elapsed between confession and absolution?

3. Should Caius not have informed the sick man that he was now absolving him, in order to make the absolution valid?

The answer to all these questions is simple and requires only a brief argument.

1. The duty of absolving the dying validly, is based upon two reasons, firstly, to make sure, as far as possible, the eternal salvation of the dying; and, secondly, because according to divine law the sins of baptized, where possible, must be subjected to the power of the keys.

This subjection has its final in the sacramental absolution; the divine law therefore has not found its accomplishment when the penitent has confessed his sins, but then only when the priest has absolved the confessed sins by direct exercise of the power of the keys. The fulfilling of this divine command is particularly urgent in danger of death; for this reason then the duty of the sinner to confess, and the duty of the priest to absolve, become most important.

In our case the penitent had fulfilled his part; the confessor through an oversight had not fulfilled his. Undoubtedly he must repair the defect unless he be excused by an important reason. If only the priest’s duty is considered, the question whether the time it will take to return may be a sufficient reason for an excuse must depend upon the distance, and also upon the fact whether other pressing business would be delayed by returning to the patient. The reason for an excuse in this direction need not be a very weighty one.

Of more weight will have to be the ground for excuse if solicitude for the greater safety of the sick man’s salvation comes into consideration. Should the least doubt arise as to this safety, the defect, although unintentional, must be rectified even at the cost of considerable inconvenience. The question is then, do Holy Communion and Extreme Unction offer sufficient certainty?

With regard to Holy Communion its effect to sanctify those who, without their fault in the state of sin, receive it with previous attrition, is probable but not certain. Caius therefore can not excuse failure to return to the dying man with the fact of having administered the Holy Eucharist. In regard to Extreme Unction its effect is morally certain (Compare the author’s Theol. Mor., II, n. 568). As, however, some authors raise doubt even regarding this Sacrament, then these doubts, even if very feeble, are sufficient reason in Caius’ case to decide upon bestowing the absolution, especially in the case of a dying man, when the maxim should apply: No security is sufficiently great where eternity is endangered.

2. That an interval of one hour elapsed between confession and absolution does not make the latter invalid. The relation of matter and form is to be determined variously according to the nature of the different Sacraments. Just as in profane courts accusation, trial and sentence do not necessarily take place in one session, neither is this necessary in the tribunal of penance; although a long interval— as lawful in the former—would not always be without danger in the latter case. St. ALPHONSUS, referring to the opinion that absolution is valid even an hour after confession, says (lib. 6, n. 9): “It seems to have been accepted among all.”

3. The words just quoted refer to the absolution administered to the penitent without further advice or act; there was even greater certainty since Caius again awakened contrition with the dying man.

As far as the connection between matter and form of the Sacrament is concerned, all doubt as to its validity is precluded. Doubt of its validity could only arise in the event that perhaps the penitent meanwhile had committed a grievous sin. In that case of course another confession and a new conscious intention must enter for the reception of absolution. But in our case we may regard this supposition as excluded, because the probability is that the sick man would have accused himself of it. Nevertheless Caius would have done well to admonish the patient that he was about to absolve him. (No need to mention his previous forgetfulness.) There is nothing unusual about a repeated absolution of the dying. As, however, it is a matter of the actual reception of the Sacrament, it is always appropriate that the recipient actu be aware of it, when he will receive it with greater devotion, and consequently with greater fruits, unless there are weighty reasons against. Caius hardly committed a fault in not observing this method, yet it would have been better, if feasible, to make the sick man aware that absolution was being given.

Aug. Lehmkuhl, S.J.

The priest Sempronius has administered the last Sacraments to an insane man, dangerously ill, in his lucid moments. The patient subsequently becomes a raving maniac and incessantly and frantically calls for a priest to absolve him. Sempronius is called again and requested by relatives to pretend compliance with the lunatic’s demand, i. e., to put on his stole and act as if giving absolution. May Sempronius consent to this suggestion?

The answer can only be: No. Apart from the fact that positively and under no circumstances a simulatio Sacramenti, in the actual and serious sense, by which something is fictitiously posited that pertains essentially to the Sacrament may take place, for instance, pronouncing the words of absolution without intention to absolve, because such a mendacium sacrilegum is always a grievously sinful abuse of the holy Sacrament of Penance; the simulatio absolutionis, in the sense that the penitent, or bystander, or both, by the apparent performance of the judicial sentence, are deceived, while in reality only a blessing is imparted, is thoroughly unlawful. The confessor must not intend the deception of the penitent or of the bystanders, but only the concealment of the truth; for otherwise he would not escape the guilt of a lie (St. Alphonsus l. c.). Only in rare cases may the confessor conceal the truth by making the sign of the Cross and a prayer of blessing; he may conceal it to the penitent himself in a case where he must withhold absolution, on account of a certain sacrilegious concealment of a sin confessed by the complex of this penitent, in order to avoid material sacrilege and his own co-operation (St. Alphonsus speaks of this case, VI. n. 631); and before others, if the confessor cannot absolve the penitent on account of indisposition and must conceal the refusal to prevent violation of the seal of Confession and defamation of the penitent. (See S. Alphons. VI. n. 59; Lehmkuhl, II. n. 45.)

In our case there is manifestly no reason for a justifiable dissimu-latio denegatae absolutionis, it would be a simulatio intended purely ad deceptionem aegroti, by which the sacred Tribunal would be degraded to a farce or caricature, although for the good purpose of pacifying the patient.

What, then, may be done in our case? It would be advisable, first of all, to inquire if the desire of the insane man is not, indeed, more rational than that of his relatives, namely, if the sick man does not perhaps really need absolution, as it is possible that in lucid moments he realizes that his confession has been invalid, or he has committed another sin, and now, controlled by the impression, desires another Confession and absolution, hence his clamoring. If this suspicion can be verified, Sempronius must certainly again absolve the poor man in all earnestness, and unconditionally. But even if this supposition is not founded, or cannot be proved, Sempronius may also in all earnestness, but of course only conditionally, absolve the patient once more, and this he may even repeat at further visits. It is a matter here of one seriously ill, and as according to the doctrine of St. Alphonsus, it is not only permissible, but even advisable to grant absolution to such a one whether he be conscious or not, and after some time repeat it at least conditionally. In Appendix II. De assistentia erga moribundos, §5 monita circa agonem et mortem, to his work Homo apostolicus, tom. 4, the saintly writer says: While the sick person still possesses his senses, it will help to confer absolution upon him several times after a brief reconciliation, so that he may thereby be made more secure concerning his state of grace if perhaps his previous confessions were invalid, or at least may receive an increase of grace, and also that the punishments of purgatory may be diminished for him. ...

But if the sick person has now lost his senses and shows no sign of sorrow or desire for absolution, it is not expedient to impart absolution to him very frequently within the same day; because then, although it is given conditionally, an urgent and grave cause is required for the Sacrament validly to be administered under a condition. Hence it is necessary that some notable interval of time intervene. Yet in this the priest must guide himself by the sick person’s conscience insofar as he knows it; for if the person has been habituated to wicked thoughts, is dying from some wound, is entangled in some passion of hatred or impure love, if the illness is exceedingly painful, and he does not endure it with a willing mind, then absolution may be given more frequently; otherwise it suffices that an interval of three or four hours intervene—more frequently, however, if he is now about to die.

St. Alphonsus is correctly of the view that God in His infinite mercy incites the unconscious sick, struggling with death, in their lucid intervals, by giving them sufficient grace to make inward supernatural acts for salvation, and aids them, where necessary, as for the holy Sacrament of Penance, to manifest them also outwardly. Upon this presumption he bases the permissibility and advantage of repeating after appropriate intervals at least conditional absolution, it may in any case be repeated every three to four hours, and the nearer death the more frequently. Thus Sempronius should explain the matter to the relatives of the sick man, and tell them that though not able to entertain the suggestion of simulating the act, he will really give the patient the absolution. He will ascertain whether the patient has lucid moments, and use them for awakening acts of virtue, sentiments of contrition, and for the granting of unconditional absolution; or, if such lucid intervals are not perceptible he will, after announcing that he will pronounce absolution, recite aloud the acts mentioned before and give conditional absolution.

Dr. Joseph Eiselt.

Case.—Father Julius while hearing confessions is about to give Edward absolution when he suddenly decides to interrogate this penitent. This consumes some time, as it involves long explanations on the part of Edward. Satisfied at length Father Julius, after a few words of exhortation, pulls the slide, and goes on with hearing the next penitent. After the lapse of a quarter of an hour the priest becomes conscious of the fact that Edward had not been absolved. The next morning while distributing Holy Communion he sees this same man at the communion rail. He is perplexed. What is he to do? He concludes he cannot deprive the man of the Sacrament without causing wonder, even scandal, and so he determines to give him the Sacred Host and let the matter rest there.

Question.—Was Fr. Julius right in giving Communion to Edward?

Solution.—The defect here recited we class as a culpable one, affecting the validity of the Sacrament. The general theological doctrine is that such a defect must be repaired by the confessor, even at great inconvenience to himself or to the penitent, provided the latter is exposed to grave evil arising from the culpable action of the confessor. The reason for this is the obligation in justice, which the priest contracts when he assumes the rôle of confessor. But if no grave spiritual damage is to be feared, then the confessor may leave his penitent in good faith. If the confession involved only venial sins, the confessor need not be disturbed, as these sins can be, and are, removed in many other ways, as for example by the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist. If Edward had accused himself of mortal sin, the priest, if possible, should call him to his presence and explain the situation to him. He should then urge him to a renewed act of contrition and, on the presumption that no new mortal sin had been committed, should absolve him. But, beyond doubt, in nearly every instance such procedure would be very embarrassing to both, penitent and priest. If this be so, or if the penitent cannot be easily recalled, conditional absolution may be given him, provided he is theologically present. The fact that Edward was already at the altar rail, waiting to receive Holy Communion, makes it impossible for the priest to acquaint him with the defect of absolution. He is not justified under the existing conditions in sending him away from the altar, hence he must leave him in good faith and give him Holy Communion. Julius should not be disturbed about the difficulty, as the sins of Edward, even the mortal sins, can be forgiven by his reception of the Holy Eucharist, and by absolution in his next Confession. However, we are of the opinion that Julius should have given conditional absolution to his penitent at the altar rail before the administration of the grace-giving Sacrament of the Body of the Lord. |