Jurisdiction and Reserved Cases

355. Nature of Reservation. Reservation occurs in both civil and ecclesiastical judgments and signifies the calling up of some cause from an inferior judge to a superior; by this calling up, the power of judging that cause is taken away from the inferior judge. Therefore the reservation of cases properly is the recall by an ecclesiastical superior of some cases to his own judgment. But because from this recall itself there follows a limitation of power in the inferior judge, reservation is customarily defined: the limitation or denial of the power of absolving from certain sins. And a reserved case is a sin called up to the tribunal of a superior judge, from which therefore the inferior judge cannot absolve because of defect of power.¹

From these definitions three things are gathered: a. that no one can reserve sins except those of his own subjects; b. that reservation does not directly affect the penitent but the confessor, whose power it restricts; g. if therefore a simple confessor, whether in good or bad faith, absolves a penitent from a reserved sin, that sin, other things being supposed, is in itself remitted only indirectly.

¹ Cn. 893.

356. Power of Reserving. 1. There is in the Church a power of reserving certain sins, from which inferior confessors without a special faculty cannot absolve outside the article of death. This is clear from the Council of Trent,¹ from the Code of Canon Law,² and from the nature of the sacrament of penance, which is exercised in the manner of a judgment by power conferred by the Church; but the Church, which confers power, can also limit it and confer on others the right of limiting.

2. Although, if only the power of reserving is considered, all sins, mortal and venial, external and internal, can be reserved, nevertheless, if the end of reservation is considered, only external sins, and indeed graver and more atrocious ones, are reserved. For the power of reserving has been given for the usefulness of ecclesiastical discipline, wherefore only those sins are customarily reserved which disturb discipline and are a scandal to the faithful, such as grave and external sins. But it would be altogether useless to reserve venial sins, since they are not necessary matter of confession.

¹ Sess. 14, c. 7 and can. 11: If anyone says that bishops do not have the right of reserving cases to themselves ... anathema sit.

² Cn. 893.

357. End of Reservation. a. The first end, intended of its own nature by the very institution of reservation, is disciplinary, namely the good governance of the Church: for suitable administration of the Church requires that graver sins, which are harmful to the community of the faithful, be reserved to superior judges, since they, because of their experience and prudence, can judge better by what means the evil is to be met.¹ b. The other end of reservation, likewise connected with reservation by its own nature, is medicinal: that the faithful may be deterred from sins whose absolution they see to be so difficult.

There were not lacking those who added a third end of reservation, namely a penal one. In actual fact through reservation there is imposed upon delinquents the burden of appearing before a superior judge; nevertheless it cannot be affirmed that the Church by this very fact intends that delinquents be punished. For in the new Code there appears no trace of a penal reason inhering in reservations; evident indications occur concerning each of the other two ends. For from the definition itself² the disciplinary end appears; but from the fact that it is required that a reservation not remain in force longer than is necessary for rooting out some public vice and restoring fallen Christian discipline, the medicinal end is implied.³ This also appears from the fact that ordinaries must take care that diocesan reservations be brought to the knowledge of their subjects.⁴

¹ "It seemed greatly to our most holy fathers to pertain to the discipline of the Christian people that certain more atrocious and graver crimes be absolved not by anyone whatever, but only by the highest priests." Council of Trent, sess. 14, c. 7.

² Cn. 893, 2.

³ Cn. 897.

⁴ Cn. 899, 1.

358. Mode of Reservation. Sins can be reserved in a twofold manner: either by reason of itself, or the sin itself, whether it has an attached censure or does not have one; or by reason of the censure which is attached to the sin, the censure being reserved. Censures attached to sins are of two kinds: some impede the reception of the sacrament; others do not impede the reception of the sacrament. In the former case the sin is reserved, but on account of the censure; in the latter case the sin is not reserved.

a. In that case in which the sin is reserved only on account of the censure, if someone is excused from incurring the censure, because, for example, he sinned with grave fear or with ignorance of the censure, or has been absolved from the censure, the sin is not reserved. But if a sin reserved by reason of itself has an attached censure, when the censure is not contracted or has been removed, the sin remains reserved.

b. If the censure impedes the reception of the sacraments, the censured person cannot be absolved from sins unless first he has been absolved from the censure. But if the censure does not impede the reception of the sacraments, he can be absolved from sins while the censure remains firm.¹

c. The cases reserved by the Roman Pontiff, with one exception, are reserved censures. The one sin reserved to the holy see by reason of itself is false denunciation of a priest for solicitation before ecclesiastical judges, which sin also has an attached censure. Cases reserved by bishops are generally reserved sins. For most bishops reserve sins without censure; a few reserve one or another sin with censure.

¹ Cn. 2250, 1, 2.

359. Who Can Reserve Sins.¹ The power of reserving sins resides in all who by ordinary right can grant the power of absolving or inflict censures, excepting the capitular vicar and the vicar general, unless the latter has a special mandate. For those who can confer jurisdiction upon others can also limit it, unless they are prohibited by the holy see. Therefore:

1. The supreme pontiff can reserve cases for the whole Church; all other ecclesiastical superiors, both ordinaries and regular prelates, since they receive jurisdiction from the supreme pontiff, depend on him in reserving sins, so that he can prescribe measure and limits for their reservations.

2. Ordinaries of places can reserve cases for their dioceses; therefore bishops can restrict in this way the jurisdiction also of pastors, as being subject to themselves.

a. The norms decreed and prescribed to ordinaries of places by Benedict XV and by the new Code are these:

a. Let them discuss the matter either in the diocesan synod or, if the reservation is made outside a synod, let them hear the cathedral chapter and some of the more approved curators of souls of the diocese concerning the necessity or usefulness of the reservation.

b. Let them reserve only three or at most four of the graver and more atrocious external crimes specifically determined; not merely internal sins, nor grave external sins which are committed from human frailty, not from special malice.

g. Let them abstain entirely from reserving to themselves sins which have already been reserved to the apostolic see, and regularly also from those upon which a censure reserved to no one has been imposed.

d. Let them be very sparing in imposing censures on those sins which they reserve to themselves. Moreover on a delict which, because of a censure, is reserved to the apostolic see, they cannot impose another censure reserved to themselves, Cn. 2247, 1.

e. Let them take care that the faithful be suitably instructed concerning the reservations made. But the reservations themselves should not remain in force beyond what is necessary for rooting out some vice or for restoring Christian discipline.

b. Several authors judge that a reservation by which a bishop reserves to himself a sin which has already been reserved by the pope is illicit but valid; against this Suarez² and Lugo³ with most others say that a reservation of this kind is invalid, and Ballerini⁴ defends their opinion, because it is repugnant to the nature of the thing that a bishop reserve to himself a sin from which not even he himself can absolve unless power has been delegated to him. Cn. 898 seems to confirm this opinion. Therefore confessors who have the power of absolving from papal cases can absolve from these, even if the bishop had reserved them to himself.

3. The superior general of an exempt religion and, in monasteries sui iuris, the Abbot, with each one's own council, with respect to their subjects. Nevertheless there remain firm the disposition of Cn. 518, by force of which the faculty of absolving from reserved cases must be granted to the confessors of the house, and the other disposition, by force of which all confessors approved by the ordinary can absolve a religious even from sins and censures reserved in the religion.

¹ S. Officium, 13 July 1916. This decree in part repeats the things which Benedict XIV already records (De synodo l. 5, c. 5), and in part decrees things entirely new; with it Cn. 893-899 agree.

² Cf. De poenit. disp. 31, sect. 4, n. 26.

³ Cf. De poenit. disp. 20, n. 151.

⁴ Cf. Ballerini-Palmieri V, n. 514 ff.

360. Division into Papal and Episcopal Cases. By reason of the author from whom the reservation proceeds, reserved cases are divided into papal cases, which the supreme pontiff reserves for the universal Church (to himself or to bishops), and into episcopal cases, which the bishop reserves to himself for his own diocese.

1. All papal cases are reserved with censure and on account of censure, one also by reason of itself (n. 358). Therefore papal cases are properly reserved censures, some of which are reserved in the ordinary manner or simply, others in a special manner, others in a most special manner.¹

This division of censures is taken from the scope of the faculty of absolving from cases reserved to the Roman Pontiff. For those which are contained in the general faculty of absolving are called reserved in the ordinary manner or simply; those which are contained in the special faculty of absolving are reserved in a special manner; and those which are contained only in the most special faculty of absolving are reserved in a most special manner.

2. Episcopal cases, which the bishops themselves reserve to themselves and which differ according to the diversity of places, are ordinarily reserved without censure. To these there are added from the Code of Canon Law five cases (excommunications latae sententiae) which are reserved to bishops by common law. These are properly papal cases, unless the bishops themselves reserve them to themselves, something which will scarcely happen, since it is prohibited through the Code.

a. Since cases reserved by law to bishops are properly papal cases, all confessors who have the faculty of absolving from papal cases can absolve from them; those who lack the power of absolving should have recourse either to the bishop or to the holy see for obtaining the faculty, and in an urgent case they should treat the penitent as if he had another papal case, i.e., absolve him directly with the burden of receiving mandates.

b. They dispute whether in properly episcopal cases reserved with censure the sin or the censure is principally reserved. But the opinion is certainly probable which, establishing no distinction in this matter between papal and episcopal censure, teaches that also in episcopal cases the censure is principally and in itself reserved, because no foundation for a distinction is found in the law, unless the bishop has explicitly signified his mind. The practical importance of this opinion is in this: that he who does not incur the censure also does not incur the reservation, as was said above concerning papal cases.²

¹ See the papal cases which have some importance for the practice of confession at the end of the book. From the Code of Canon Law several new censures have been added.

² Cf. D'Annibale, Summula I, n. 340; Ballerini-Palmieri V, n. 476; Genicot II, n. 344.

361. Conditions Required for Reservation. From the custom of the Church five conditions are required, in order that a sin can be considered reserved:

1. That it be formal in that species of malice on account of which it is reserved; for if this species of malice was wholly unknown, the sin under this aspect is merely material.

Suppose that incest in the first and second degree of consanguinity is a reserved sin. Therefore, if someone confesses that he sinned with a blood-relative (in the second degree), but that he did not know the person was related by blood, or that incest differs in species from fornication, he did not commit a reserved sin. In practice, however, this latter ignorance is not easily admitted; for even the uneducated apprehend, at least confusedly, that it is not the same thing to fornicate with a blood-relative and with a stranger; and a confused knowledge suffices for incurring the case.

2. That it be external, even though occult; for merely internal sins are not customarily reserved (n. 356).

3. That it be mortal not only by reason of the object, but also by reason of the act, both internal and external; hence the reservation ceases if the sin, either on account of smallness of matter or on account of imperfection of the act, is rendered venial.

Reservation chiefly falls upon the external act, which accordingly ought to be gravely evil. Therefore, if the external act were slight, the sin would not be reserved, even though the internal act were grave, as if someone, with the intention of striking a cleric gravely, were only to touch him lightly.

4. That it be consummated in deed, by which is signified that the sin ought to be perfect in its own species; not merely attempted, but consummated with the obtaining of the effect, unless the reserving law also wishes the imperfect act to be reserved.

Therefore, if adultery or incest is reserved, the sin is not reserved unless perfect copula has intervened; and if homicide is reserved, to incur the reservation it does not suffice to have inflicted a wound or given poison, but it is required that death itself have followed.

5. That it be certain, not only doubtful; but doubt is understood both as doubt of law: whether the reserving law extends itself also to this case; and as doubt of fact: whether the sin was truly committed, whether it is grave, whether it was committed with the conditions under which it is reserved.

Namely, in doubt the reservation (censure) is contracted or is not contracted according to the truth of the fact. But now a reservation (censure) of this kind, if it is in fact contracted, can by the usage of the Church be taken away by any confessor. Hence if afterward it becomes known that the sin certainly was reserved, it ought not to be accused again, because it was already directly absolved.

Note. The reason for all these things is that reservation is an odious thing, both to confessors, whose jurisdiction it restricts, and to penitents, for whom it renders confession more difficult; and therefore it is of strict interpretation and is not to be extended to doubtful and imperfect acts, Cn. 2246, 2.

362. Concerning Ignorance of Reservation or of Penalty. Whether reservation or penalty is incurred by him who is ignorant of them.

1. Concerning episcopal cases. a. Episcopal cases reserved without censure are incurred even by him who is ignorant of the reservation.

Reservations which have the nature of a penalty are not incurred by those who are ignorant; since episcopal reservations are only disciplinary and medicinal, nothing prevents its being said that even the ignorant incur them.

b. Concerning episcopal cases reserved with censure, the same holds which will soon be said concerning papal cases.

2. Concerning papal cases.¹ a. If the law has words: shall have presumed, shall have dared, knowingly, studiously, rashly, shall have acted deliberately, or similar words, which require full knowledge and deliberation, any diminution of imputability, whether on the part of the intellect or on the part of the will, excuses from incurring the censure.

b. Affected ignorance, whether of the law or only of the penalty, does not excuse from censure, even if the law contains the aforesaid words.

c. Crass or supine ignorance of a law which does not have the aforesaid words, or even ignorance only of the penalty, does not excuse from censure.

d. Simple ignorance, or ignorance that is not crass, excuses from medicinal penalties, but not from vindicative ones.

e. Drunkenness, omission of due diligence, weakness of mind, and impulse of passion do not excuse, unless imputability is so diminished that the action is no longer a grave sin.

f. Grave fear does not excuse from penalties latae sententiae, if the delict tends to contempt of faith or of ecclesiastical authority, or to the public harm of souls.

Article Two.. Concerning Absolution from Reserved Cases.

As regards absolution from papal cases, the decree of the Holy Office of June 23, 1886 established an entirely new law, which in the new Code, cn. 2254, is again established and more accurately declared. But something else must be said concerning episcopal cases, which are not censures; wherefore the two absolutions must be treated separately.

¹ Cn. 2229.

Priests are judges in the tribunal of Penance, and judges must have jurisdiction if their sentence is to take effect. As the Council of Trent teaches: ‘‘Wherefore, since the nature and order of a judgement require this, that sentence be passed only on those subject to that judicature, it has ever been firmly held in the Church of God, and this synod ratifies it as a thing most true, that the absolution which a priest pronounces upon one over whom he has not either an ordinary or a delegated jurisdiction ought to be of no weight whatever.”¹ Jurisdiction in general is the power of ruling subjects. We must distinguish jurisdiction in the internal forum from jurisdiction in the external forum. The latter has reference primarily and directly to the common good, to promote which it makes laws, administers justice, and directs the machinery of government. Jurisdiction in the internal forum refers directly and primarily to the good of the individual soul, whose actions it directs toward God. It is exercised either in the sacrament of Penance, when sins are forgiven, or outside the sacred tribunal, as when a dispensation is granted from ecclesiastical law. Again, jurisdiction is either ordinary or delegated. Ordinary jurisdiction is that which is annexed to an office by law; delegated jurisdiction is committed to a person.

The Pope and Cardinals have ordinary jurisdiction for hearing confessions throughout the whole Church.

Local Ordinaries and parish priests and those who are in the place of parish priests have ordinary jurisdiction for hearing confessions in their respective territories, as also has the Canon Penitentiary. The superiors of exempt religious have ordinary jurisdiction for their own subjects (Can. 873).

One who has ordinary jurisdiction for hearing confessions can absolve his subjects wherever he finds them.

Ordinary jurisdiction ceases by loss of office, and, after a declaratory or condemnatory sentence, by excommunication, suspension from office, and interdict.

The Ordinary of the place in which the confessions are heard grants delegated jurisdiction to hear the confessions of all penitents, whether secular or religious, to all priests, both secular and religious, even though they be exempt; but religious priests may not use the same without at least the presumed leave of their superior (Can. 874).

Local Ordinaries should not habitually grant faculties for hearing confessions to religious who are not presented by their own superior, nor without grave reason deny faculties to those whom he does present.

Local Ordinaries should only grant faculties for hearing confessions to such as have been proved fit for the office by examination, unless there is question of a priest whose theological knowledge they know from other sources (Can. 887).

Delegated jurisdiction can be granted with certain limitations as to time, place, persons, and cases.

Jurisdiction must be granted in writing or expressly by word, and without charge.

Parish priests, vicars of parish priests, and other priests with general delegation cannot delegate jurisdiction for hearing confessions without the faculty or mandate of the Ordinary of the place (Com. on Canon Law, October 16, 1919).

By Canon 881 all priests, whether secular or regular, approved for hearing confessions in any place, whether they have ordinary or delegated jurisdiction, can absolve validly and lawfully homeless persons and strangers who come to them from another diocese or parish, as also Catholics of any Oriental rite.

Without grave cause local Ordinaries may not revoke or suspend jurisdiction for hearing confessions, nor without consulting the Holy See can they lawfully take away faculties at one time from all the confessors belonging to a formed house of religious (Can. 880).

Delegated jurisdiction ceases when the mandate has been executed, when the time has elapsed or the number of cases for which it was given is exhausted, when the final cause of the delegation ceases; by the revocation of him who gave it directly intimated to the delegate, by the renunciation of the delegate directly intimated to him who gave it and accepted by him. It does not cease when he who gave it loses his authority, unless a clause was inserted to that effect, or jurisdiction was given as a favour to special persons to hear a confession and nothing has been done in the matter. If the case has been begun it may be finished (Can. 207).

However, if by inadvertence absolution is given after the lapse of the time for which jurisdiction was granted, or after the number of cases was exhausted, it is valid (Can. 207, sec. 2).

Even when a priest has not jurisdiction habitually, the Church sometimes supplies it for the good of the penitent, so that the absolution given may be valid.

In danger of death all priests, even though not approved for hearing confessions, may validly and lawfully absolve any penitents from any sins or censures, however reserved and notorious they may be, and even though an approved priest be present, but the special law about absolving an accomplice must be observed (Can. 882).

In a case of common mistake when many of the faithful think that a priest has faculties while he has not, the Church supplies jurisdiction, but if a priest knowingly exposes himself to hear confessions without faculties he sins grievously.

The Church supplies jurisdiction in a case of positive doubt and probability as to whether a priest has it (Can. 209).

According to Canon 883 all priests while on a sea voyage, provided that they have received faculties for hearing confessions, either from their own Ordinary or from the Ordinary of the port where they embarked, or from the Ordinary of any intermediate port by which they pass on their journey, can, during the whole voyage, hear the confessions in the ship of any of the faithful on board with them, although the ship on its voyage may pass by or even stay for some time in various places subject to the jurisdiction of different Ordinaries.

Moreover, when the ship stops on the voyage they can hear the confessions both of the faithful who for any reason come on board, and of such as while they chance to be on land ask them to hear their confessions, and validly and lawfully absolve them even from cases which are reserved to the-Ordinary of the place.

The Holy See has made special regulations with regard to the faculties of army chaplains (Can. 451, sec. 3).

¹ Sess. xiv, c. 7.

THE local Ordinary can give jurisdiction to hear the confessions of the members of a clerical order of exempt religious, as we have seen. Their religious superior, in accordance with the Constitutions, can likewise grant jurisdiction for hearing the confessions of the religious, of the novices, and of others who by day and night live in a house of the religious as servants, scholars, guests, or for the sake of their health. The religious superior can grant jurisdiction for hearing the confessions of all these to secular priests also, and to priests of other religious institutes.

In an exempt institute of laymen the superior proposes a confessor to the local Ordinary from whom he ought to obtain jurisdiction (Can. 875).

In an institute of laymen who are not exempt the local Ordinary designates a priest to hear confessions (Can. 529).

In each house of clerical religious it is prescribed that several lawfully approved confessors be appointed according to the number of the inmates, with power to absolve from cases reserved in the order in the case of exempt religious (Can. 518, sec. 1).

In institutes of laymen it is prescribed that an ordinary and an extraordinary confessor be appointed; and if a religious ask for a special confessor the superior should grant the request without in any way inquiring into the reason for the request, or showing displeasure at it (Can. 528).

To hear the confessions of novices in orders of men it is prescribed that one or more ordinary confessors be appointed according to the number of novices. In the case of clerical orders, these ordinary confessors should live in the novitiate; in the case of orders of laymen, they should at least frequently come to the novitiate to hear the confessions of the novices.

Besides the ordinary confessors some other confessors should also be appointed, and free access to them should be allowed the novices.

Moreover, at least four times in the year an extraordinary confessor should be allowed the novices, and all of them should present themselves to him at least to ask for his blessing (Can. 566). y Finally, while the Constitutions which prescribe or advise confession at fixed times to appointed confessors should be observed, if a religious even though exempt, for his peace of conscience, go to a confessor approved by the local Ordinary, even though he is not one of those designated for religious, the confession is lawful and valid, and any privilege to the contrary is revoked; and such confessor can absolve the religious even from sins and censures reserved in the order (Can. 519).

To hear the confessions of religious women in their convents lawfully and validly, both secular and religious priests of any degree or office, except Cardinals, require a special jurisdiction which the Ordinary of the place grants where the convent is situated, and any special law or privilege to the contrary is revoked (Can. 876).

To hear the confessions of such religious women one ordinary confessor only is to be appointed for each convent, unless the great number of the religious or some other cause require more (Can. 520).

The ordinary confessor is appointed for three years, but under certain conditions his office may be prolonged for a second or even for a third period of three years (Can. 526).

An extraordinary confessor for each community of religious women should be granted at least four times in the year, and all the religious and novices should present themselves to him at least to ask for his blessing (Can. 521).

The local Ordinary should appoint some special confessors for every house where a religious community lives to whom any nun may easily have recourse in particular cases, and if any religious asks for such a confessor no superioress in any way may inquire into the reason for the request, refuse it, or show displeasure at it (Can. 521).

Besides these confessors a religious sister, for the quiet of her conscience and for greater progress in the way of God, may ask for some special confessor or spiritual director, and the Ordinary should readily grant the request, while taking care that abuse does not creep in (Can. 520).

A religious sister may also go to any confessor approved for women by the local Ordinary in any church or oratory, even semi-public, or in a place lawfully set apart for hearing the confessions of women, without being obliged to refer to her superioress; indeed, the superioress is not allowed to forbid her going, or to inquire about it even indirectly (Can. 522).

A religious sister who is seriously ill, though not in danger of death, may call any priest approved for hearing the confessions of women though not designated for religious, and confess to him as often as she wishes during her serious illness, nor can the superioress forbid it, directly or indirectly (Can. 523).: Any priest can absolve anyone in danger of death.

The confessors of religious women should be conspicuous for probity and prudence, forty years of age, unless in the judgement of the Ordinary a good reason otherwise require, and they have no power over the religious in the external forum.

THE Council of Trent says:¹ “‘ It hath seemed to our most holy Fathers to be of great importance to the discipline of the Christian people that certain more atrocious and more heinous crimes should be absolved not by all priests, but only by the highest priests.” And so the absolution of certain graver sins and censures, or cases as they are called, is reserved to higher ecclesiastics. Ordinary confessors retain their jurisdiction for other sins, but it is limited, so that they have no authority over reserved cases. The motive for thus reserving sins is the spiritual good of the faithful, so that they may be deterred from committing those sins on account of the difficulty of obtaining absolution for them, and if unfortunately they should fall into them, they may have more skilful guides than ordinary confessors are presumed to be.

¹ Sess. xiv, c. 7.

Reservation is the limitation of jurisdiction, and so in general all those who have ordinary jurisdiction, when they delegate it to others, may reserve some cases for treatment in their own tribunal.

In particular the Pope reserves certain censures and sins of all the faithful throughout the world. In nearly all papal cases both the censure and the sin are reserved, but the sin is reserved on account of the censure, so that if, through any cause, the censure is not incurred, then the sin is not reserved. False accusation of solicitation made against a confessor is an exception, and is reserved to the Holy See on its own account (Can. 894).

The Code of Canon Law divides the censures reserved by the Holy See into four classes. Some are reserved in a most special manner to the Holy See itself, others in a special manner to the Holy See, others are simply reserved to the Holy See, others, again, are reserved by the Holy See to the Ordinary. A fifth class of papal censures are reserved to none, and may be absolved on proper conditions by any priest with ordinary faculties.

Local Ordinaries should not reserve sins except after discussion in Synod or the necessity or usefulness of reservation has been approved out of Synod by the Chapter and some prudent priests who have the cure of souls. Bishops’ cases should be few, only three or four, the more atrocious crimes, and not papal cases. The reservation should be withdrawn when it has obtained its effect (Can. 895-898).

In England the First and Fourth Synod of Westminster reserved to the bishop the case of a priest going to the theatre and thereby incurring suspension. In the United States two cases are reserved by provincial law: (a) The excommunication incurred by those who attempt to marry again after getting a civil divorce; (b) the excommunication incurred by those who marry before any non-Catholic minister.

Besides these cases reserved by law the bishops reserve a few cases to themselves for which the pagella of faculties must be consulted. When the bishops reserve a sin with a censure attached to it, it was a disputed point whether the reservation of the censure is the primary object in view, as in papal cases, or whether the reservation of the sin and of the censure are of equal importance and independent of each other. This question is now settled by Canon 2246, sec. 3, which decides that when a censure has been absolved or is not incurred the reservation of the sin ceases.

The superiors of religious orders may also reserve cases of their subjects. Clement VIII issued a list of eleven cases which they might reserve, and forbade them to reserve others except with the consent of a general or provincial chapter of the order (Can. 896).

Certain conditions are required in order that any particular sin may be reserved. First of all it must be a grave sin such as forms the necessary matter of confession, for a venial sin which the penitent need not confess cannot be effectually reserved. It is not the practice of the Church to reserve merely internal sins; there must be an external act and as such gravely sinful. So that a slightly: indecent word, even if uttered with a seriously bad intention, would not fall under reservation if all sins of indecency were reserved. The sin must be completed and perfect in its kind, not merely attempted, for reservation is to be strictly interpreted. For the same reason it must be certain that the sin is reserved, so that any prudent doubt of law or of fact whether a particular sin is reserved is sufficient to enable the confessor to give absolution without special faculties. ‘4. Those who are under the age of puberty do not incur papal cases unless they are expressly included in the law. The only papal cases in which they are so included is the violation of the enclosure of nuns. The same rule may be applied to bishops’ cases, unless a bishop has made known his intention to bind even those who have not reached the age of puberty. Ignorance of a censure, unless it be crass or supine, excuses from the censure, as is expressly laid down in the Decretals.¹ As in papal cases the reservation of the sin is on account of the censure annexed to it, and ignorance excuses from incurring this, therefore ignorance will excuse one from incurring papal reserved cases to which a censure is attached. The reservation of false accusation of solicitation is very probably penal, as theologians gather from the words by Benedict XIV in the Constitution Sacramentum Poenitentiae, and as ignorance of a penalty excuses one from incurring it, therefore ignorance will excuse one from incurring this reserved case. This opinion, however, which many hold to be still probable, is hardly of practical importance, for the ecclesiastical judge who receives the false accusation will certainly warn the culprit of the penalty incurred by false accusation.

It is a disputed point whether ignorance excuses from incurring bishops’ cases or not. It excuses, indeed, from incurring any censure inflicted by any ecclesiastical superior, but it certainly does not excuse from incurring a reserved sin if the bishop has expressed his intention of reserving it even when committed in ignorance of the reservation. Otherwise it is probable that ignorance excuses in episcopal as well as in papal cases, for reservation is partly penal, and it cannot attain its end of deterring the faithful from committing reserved sins if they are ignorant of the reservation.

According to Canon 900, all reservation ceases: (1) When either the sick who cannot leave the house make their confession, or those about to be married with a view to marriage.

(2) Whenever either the lawful superior on being asked has refused to grant faculties for absolving a particular case, or in the prudent judgement of the confessor faculties for granting absolution cannot be asked for from the lawful superior without serious detriment to the penitent or without danger of violating the seal of confession.

(3) When the penitent is outside the territory of him who reserved the case, even though he left it only to obtain absolution. But, according to the Commission for the Interpretation of Canon Law a stranger (peregrinus) incurs the reserved cases of the place where he is staying (A.A.S. xii, 575)-

¹ C. 2, de const. in 6to; can. 2229, sec. 3, i.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Canon 2237, sec. 2, provides that in occult cases the Ordinary can remit, himself or through another, penalties latae sententiae imposed by common law, except censures very specially or only specially reserved to the Apostolic See. Canon 2327 I. Quaestum facientes ex indulgentiis plectuntur ipso facto excommunicatione Sedi Apostolicae simpliciter reservata. (Those who make gain out of indulgences are punished ipso facto with an excommunication simply reserved to the Apostolic See.)

Canon 2338 III. Sec. i. Absolvere praesumentes sine debita facultate ab excommunicatione latae sententiae specialissimo vel speciali modo Sedi Apostolicae reservata, incurrunt ipso facto in excommunicationem Sedi Apostolicae simpliciter reservatam. (Those who presume to absolve, without the requisite faculty, from an excommunication latae sententiae reserved to the Apostolic See in a most special or in a special manner, incur ipso facto an excommunication simply reserved to the Apostolic See.)

I. Notion of reservation. Reservation is an act by which a Superior who by ordinary right can grant the power of hearing confessions or impose censures calls a case, that is, a sin or censure, to his own judgment, and thereby limits the power of the inferior judge (can. 893).

II. The end of reservation is the protection of ecclesiastical discipline,¹ both by calling some transgressions to a judge who can better guard against them, and, as others add, by making remission more difficult. The former is intended primarily (cf. can. 893, § 1 and can. 897); the latter, or the character of punishment, at most secondarily (St. Alphonsus, VI, 581, doubt 1).

¹ Session 14, chapter 7.

III. Division of reservation. Reservation of sins can be distinguished in three ways, according as it directly regards either the censure alone annexed to the sin, or the sin alone, or the sin and the censure. If it directly regards the censure alone, the sin is said to be reserved by reason of the censure, and once this is taken away, the reservation of the sin ceases. If it directly regards either the sin alone or the sin and the censure, the sin is said to be reserved by reason of itself (St. Alphonsus, VI, 580). We are treating of sins reserved by reason of themselves; concerning censures we shall speak in the treatise on ecclesiastical penalties.

IV. The power of reserving. 1. This is to be acknowledged in the Church, as is deduced from the Council of Trent,¹ from the Constitution Auctorem fidei of Pius VI,² from the usage prevailing from the earlier centuries, and from the fact that the Church, to whom the conferral of jurisdiction has been entrusted, can, just as secular power can, confer it with limitation.

2. It belongs to those who by ordinary right can confer sacramental jurisdiction or establish censures, except the Capitular Vicar and the Vicar General without a special mandate (can. 893, § 1). Among Superiors of an exempt clerical religion, only the Superior general and, in monasteries sui iuris, the Abbot, each with his proper Council, can reserve sins of subjects, as above (can. 896). Understand this of personal Superiors, lest the General Chapter, enjoying supreme authority, be excluded; by force of canon 893, § 1, it also can reserve sins.

3. It regards only subjects, that is, those over whom someone can confer on others the power of absolving or of striking with censure.

Corollary I. Those without a domicile are bound by the reservation of the local Ordinary in whose place they are staying, since they are subjects of that Ordinary (can. 94, § 2).

Corollary II. Travelers are not bound by the reservation of their own territory as long as they are absent from it; and this holds even if they have departed only to obtain absolution (can. 900, § 3). They are, however, bound by the reservation of the place in which they are dwelling. The reason for the former is that jurisdiction over travelers is not received from their own Ordinary (n. 371). The latter was declared by the Pontifical Commission³ and is deduced from the fact that travelers are absolved by force of jurisdiction obtained from the local Ordinary in whose place they confess. But the local Ordinary, with respect to travelers just as with respect to diocesan persons, restricts jurisdiction. If a traveler confesses to his own parish priest, the latter can absolve him both from the reserved cases of his own territory, since he is not bound by that reservation outside his own territory, and from those of the place in which he is staying, because the parish priest does not receive jurisdiction over his own parishioner from the local Ordinary in whose place the traveler is staying.

Corollary III. Exempt religious are bound by the reservation of the local Ordinary when they confess to one approved by him. For he confers jurisdiction over them, and consequently can confer it as limited (can. 874, § 1). Hence one who absolves them by force of jurisdiction received from the local Ordinary should take account of the aforesaid reservation; but he can absolve them from sins and censures reserved in the Religion (can. 519). If they are absolved by force of jurisdiction granted by the regular Superior, no account must be taken of episcopal reservation.

¹ Session 14, chapter 7 and canon 11.

² August 28, 1794.

³ November 24, 1920 (A.A.S. 1920, p. 573).

V. Use of the power of reserving. 1. Local Ordinaries should not reserve sins unless, after the matter has been discussed in diocesan Synod, or outside Synod after the cathedral Chapter and some of the more prudent and more approved curators of souls of their diocese have been heard, the true necessity or utility of the reservation has been established (can. 895).

2. The cases to be reserved should be altogether few, namely three or at most four, only from the graver and more atrocious external crimes specifically determined. The reservation itself should not remain in force longer than is necessary for uprooting some public, deeply rooted vice and perhaps restoring collapsed Christian discipline (can. 897). All should entirely abstain from reserving to themselves those sins which are already reserved to the Apostolic See, even by reason of censure, and regularly from those also to which a censure, even one reserved to no one, has been imposed by law (can. 898).

3. Once reservations have been established which they have judged truly necessary or useful, local Ordinaries should take care that these be brought to the knowledge of subjects in the way that seems better to them, and they should not impart to just anyone and indiscriminately the faculty of absolving from reserved cases (can. 899, § 1).

4. The Supreme Pontiff reserved to himself only one sin, though with a censure (can. 2303), by reason of itself:¹ namely false denunciation by which an innocent priest is accused of the crime of solicitation before ecclesiastical judges (can. 894). This will be discussed later.

¹ A sin is said to be reserved by reason of itself when the reservation immediately affects the sin; by reason of censure, when the reservation immediately affects only the censure, so that the sin can indeed be remitted directly by a simple confessor, but the censure cannot be removed. While the censure remains, however, absolution from the sin is commonly gravely illicit. Finally, there is a sin reserved with censure when the sin is reserved by reason of itself and has an attached censure; in this case the reservation of the sin can be present even if the censure is not contracted or ceases.

VI. Conditions of reservation. It is required that the sin be:

1. Mortal, and indeed objectively, subjectively, and insofar as it is reserved. Objectively, and therefore not only by reason of an erroneous conscience; subjectively, so that, for example, an act posited with half-full advertence is not enough;¹ insofar as it is reserved, for example, if incest is reserved, it is not enough that someone has intercourse with a blood-relative, but it is also required that he know that that person is a blood-relative.

2. External and indeed externally mortal, because the Church has not been accustomed to reserve merely internal sins.² Nevertheless, it is sufficiently externally mortal if it manifests grave internal malice (St. Alphonsus, Homo Apostolicus, tract 16, n. 132).

3. Complete according to the words of the law, in other words, that it be that work which is circumscribed by the words of the law. Hence if the law, for example, declares that homicide is reserved, it is required that death has followed. It is otherwise if it is established that an attempt, machination, and so forth is reserved; in that case it suffices that those actions themselves have been posited (St. Alphonsus, VI, 582).

4. Certain. Hence reservation is judged to be absent: 1. in doubt about the act committed, likewise about the required conditions; 2. in doubt about grave subjective fault; 3. in a doubt of law concerning the law of reservation.

Question 1. Does ignorance excuse from the reservation of sin?

Response. Some affirm this, because they regard reservation as penal. But it seems this must be denied, because the character of punishment is intended at most secondarily. This also holds as regards the one sin reserved to the Holy See by reason of itself, whose reservation most authors judged to be penal, relying on these words of Benedict XIV in the Constitution Sacramentum Poenitentiae: "so that so detestable a crime may be restrained by fear of the greatness of the penalty," and so forth. But, considering the canons cited above, no reservation now seems to be penal, at least primarily (St. Alphonsus, VI, 581, doubt 1).

Question 2. Does grave fear excuse from the reservation of sin?

Response. Some affirm this, because a reserved sin is understood to have been committed as it is commonly accustomed to be committed, and therefore not from grave fear. But it must be denied, because the words of the law, as is supposed, are absolute and therefore also include a sin committed from fear, provided that fear does not take away full deliberation.

¹ Jurisdiction could nevertheless be limited by the Church also with respect to venial and merely internal sins, as is commonly taught against Vasquez (St. Alphonsus, VI, 582, doubts 1 and 2).

² See the preceding note.

VII. Cessation of the reservation of sin. Any reservation by which a sin is reserved by reason of itself ceases:

1. When confession is made either by the sick who cannot leave the house, or by betrothed persons for the purpose of entering marriage (can. 900, 1). Under the name of the sick, considering the mind of the legislator, there also seem to come all who because of a notable bodily injury cannot leave the house, such as the paralyzed, those detained in prison, and the aged. The disposition holds even if the sick person is staying in the same house as the confessor. For betrothed persons the exception holds even if they confess several times in order to their approaching nuptials, for example by making a general confession some time before marriage, afterward making an ordinary confession; or by now confessing in the customary way in order to marriage, afterward confessing again in order to marriage, for example because something was omitted through forgetfulness or a new reserved sin was committed. Moreover, sacramental confession sometimes takes away reservation even if the confession was invalid, so that betrothed persons can be absolved from the reserved sin even after marriage; these things are more fully explained in n. 386.

2. As often as either the legitimate Superior has denied the faculty of absolving requested for some determinate case, or, in the prudent judgment of the confessor, the faculty of absolving cannot be requested from the legitimate Superior without grave inconvenience to the penitent or without danger of violating the sacramental seal (can. 900, 2). It is said:

a) As often as the Superior has denied the faculty of absolving requested for some determinate case. Reservation ceases even if the Superior has denied the faculty for a just cause, provided that the case is determinate; for the law does not distinguish.

b) Or the faculty cannot be requested without grave inconvenience to the penitent, for example if Communion or the celebration of Mass cannot be deferred without danger of scandal or infamy until the faculty has been obtained;¹ if the penitent can return only with difficulty to the confessor who will seek the permission; if it is hard for the penitent to remain in the state of grave sin during the time required for obtaining and using the faculty. For this reason St. Alphonsus observes: "It seems hard to me for one who is in mortal sin to remain without absolution even for a day" (IV, 490). It is sufficiently probable that founded fear lest the penitent, if absolution is delayed, be driven away from the sacraments, suffices.

c) Or the faculty cannot be requested without danger of violating the sacramental seal, that is, without danger that the Superior would recognize or suspect for what person the faculty of absolving is requested.

3. Outside the territory of the one reserving, even if the penitent has departed from it only to obtain absolution (can. 900, 3; n. 382).

Corollary I. Since canon 900 declares that any reservation ceases in the cases set forth, this must also be applied to the one sin reserved to the Holy See by reason of itself, of which canon 894 speaks, that is, false denunciation of a priest concerning the delict of solicitation. This is confirmed by a response of the Pontifical Commission.²

Corollary II. A penitent who has committed a reserved sin and is in circumstances in which reservation ceases is bound, if he wishes to communicate, to confess, and indeed integrally, that is, even sins reserved of themselves, even if only a simple confessor is present, because the latter can absolve him directly. For the same reason, he is not bound to confess to a privileged confessor who is present, but can also make confession to a simple confessor.

Corollary III. A penitent who has committed a reserved sin and is not in circumstances in which reservation ceases seems to be bound, if a privileged confessor is lacking, to defer confession and Communion for a little while. He is bound to defer confession, because he can be absolved from the reserved sin only indirectly, which without a grave cause is gravely illicit. But a grave cause is lacking; for if it were present, reservation would cease and the penitent could be absolved even directly from the reserved sin. He is bound to defer Communion; for one who has sinned gravely cannot communicate without confession, unless a grave cause urges.

But if Corollary III is not admitted, there arises:

Question. Is one who has committed a reserved sin and is not in circumstances in which reservation ceases, if he wishes to communicate, bound, when a privileged confessor is lacking, to confess to a simple confessor?

Response 1. No, if he has only reserved sins, because with respect to this confessor these are not matter for absolution; hence there cannot be an obligation of confessing them. Accidentally he is bound to confess some venial sin or mortal sin already confessed, if he fears that he is not contrite.

Response 2. It is disputed if he also has non-reserved mortal sins. A few deny it, because there is no obligation of instituting a confession which, because of the confessor's lack of jurisdiction over the reserved sins, will necessarily lack integrity. Much more commonly it is affirmed, because the precept of putting confession before Communion prevails over the precept of material integrity. If he confesses, he is not bound to declare the reserved sins, unless he is a relapser into them or is in their proximate occasion, and is questioned about them by the confessor. The reason is that the confessor has the right and obligation of providing for the prudent ministration of the sacrament, and consequently of questioning about the aforesaid things; to this right there corresponds in the penitent an obligation of responding (St. Alphonsus, VI, 265, questions 1 and 2; 585, doubt 2 and 3).

Corollary IV. If the penitent confesses a reserved sin to a simple confessor and is not in circumstances in which reservation ceases, the confessor should either send the penitent to a privileged confessor or seek the faculty of absolving.

¹ It is not necessary, indeed it is not expedient, to seek the faculty by means of telegraph or telephone. "Considering," so the Letter of the Secretary of State, December 10, 1891, "the inconveniences that have actually arisen and easily will arise from the fact that written petitions are received by telegraphic route, the Holy Father prescribed that as an ordinary rule neither the Sacred Congregations nor other Roman Ecclesiastical Offices should henceforth receive petitions of this kind by the aforesaid route. Moreover, because the same reasons hold also for Episcopal Curias themselves, His Holiness willed that the Pastors of Dioceses also conform themselves to this prescription." And the Pontifical Commission answered on November 12, 1922, that the Ordinary must be judged unable to be approached if recourse to him can be had only by telegraph or telephone (A.A.S. 1922, p. 661).

² November 10, 1925 (A.A.S. 1925, p. 582).

VIII. Removal of the reservation of sin. Sometimes, as is commonly admitted, only the reservation of the sin is removed, whether by an inferior privileged confessor, or, as others who judge that this power is lacking to an inferior wish, by the Superior (St. Alphonsus, VI, 598, question 3). Once the reservation has been removed, however, a simple confessor can now absolve from the sin. Moreover, removal of the reservation alone has place in confession made to one having the faculty of absolving from reserved sins, in the following cases:

1. In an invalid confession, whether culpably or inculpably, in which the reserved sin was declared. The reason is that, once the end of reservation has been obtained, the reservation is judged to be removed. But in the case posited, the end of reservation has been obtained; for this is obtained by the fact that the penitent submits the reserved sin to the judgment of a competent confessor, who assigns remedies and imposes penance (St. Alphonsus, VI, 598). Except the time of Jubilee, if the penitent confesses either invalidly, whether culpably or inculpably, or without the intention of fulfilling the works required for the Jubilee, and makes confession to a confessor who has the faculty of absolving from the reserved sin only on the occasion of the Jubilee. This is deduced from these words of the Constitution Inter praeteritos of Benedict XIV:¹ "Since all the faculties which are granted are directed to the obtaining of the Jubilee and are, as it were, preparation for it, it clearly follows from this that there is no place for the use of those faculties except with one who is both prepared to obtain the Jubilee and has a certain purpose of fulfilling the enjoined works"; add § 86 (St. Alphonsus, VI, 598).

2. In a valid confession in which the reserved sin was omitted inculpably; because "it can probably be presumed that the Superior consents that the reservation be removed whenever the penitent validly confesses to one having the faculty" (St. Alphonsus, VI, 597). Yet it stands in the way that the end of reservation has not been obtained. St. Alphonsus does not reprobate this opinion because of authority (2nd catalogue of reformed questions, question 18).

3. According to some, in an inculpably invalid confession in which the reserved sin was omitted; because the Superior probably consents to the removal of reservation whenever the penitent confesses to one having the faculty, provided the confession is not culpably invalid. Indeed, according to some, in a culpably invalid or sacrilegious confession, provided the defect of validity does not proceed precisely from the fact that the reserved sin was culpably omitted. But these opinions do not seem safe enough to most authors (St. Alphonsus, VI, 598).

¹ November 28, 1749, § 62.

IX. Absolution from a reserved sin. The general rule is this: the following can absolve: 1. the one reserving and his successor; 2. the Superior in the sacramental forum of the one reserving or of his successor; 3. those deputed or delegated either by law or by the aforesaid persons (St. Alphonsus, VI, 599). Specifically, note:

1. From the one sin and censure reserved by reason of itself to the Holy See, that is, from false denunciation of a priest concerning the delict of solicitation, the following can absolve: 1. Cardinals from the time of their promotion (can. 239, § 1, 1); 2. the priest whom a Cardinal or Bishop, whether residential or titular, has chosen for confessions for himself and his household, namely if the chosen priest receives the confessions of the aforesaid persons (can. 239, § 1, 2; 349, § 1, 1).

2. From sins and censures which local Ordinaries have in any way reserved to themselves, the following can absolve:

a) Cardinals, as above; likewise the priest chosen by a Bishop for confessions, as above.

b) The penitentiary canon (can. 899, § 2; 401, § 1).¹

c) Parish priests, or others who in law are judged under the name of parish priests, during the whole time useful for fulfilling the Easter precept; then individual missionaries during the time when missions to the people happen to be held (can. 899, § 3). Moreover:

a) The time useful for the Easter precept is that which has been established either by common law, or by particular law, or by a prorogation granted to someone. The faculty can also be used in a confession which is indeed instituted during the Easter season, but not in order to fulfill the Easter precept.

Under the name of missions, spiritual exercises instituted for the whole parish can also be taken, with sufficient probability.

Note. Local Ordinaries should not impart to just anyone and indiscriminately the faculty of absolving from reserved cases (can. 899, § 1), but it should be imparted habitually at least to vicars forane, with the faculty added, especially in places of the diocese more remote from the episcopal see, of subdelegating as often as confessors of their district have recourse to them for some more urgent determinate case (can. 899, § 2).

3. From sins and censures reserved by a regular Prelate, the following can absolve:

a) Cardinals, as above; likewise the priest whom a Bishop has chosen for confessions for himself and his household, namely if the chosen priest receives the confessions of the aforesaid persons, among whom perhaps a religious is found (can. 239, § 1, 1; 349, § 1, 1).

b) Those approved by the local Ordinary (can. 519).

Note. In individual houses of a clerical religion, several must be deputed with the power, if the case concerns an exempt religion, of absolving even from cases reserved in the religion (can. 518, § 1).

¹ This canon enjoys ordinary power, which, however, he cannot delegate (can. 401, § 1).

Power of Jurisdiction.—The power of jurisdiction is so necessary that without it absolution is null.

(a) Jurisdiction in general is treated in Canons 872 sqq. of the Code. Ordinary jurisdiction is had by the Pope for the whole Church, and by Ordinaries, parish-priests, exempt religious superiors, etc., for their own subjects. Delegated jurisdiction comes from the law itself in favor of penitents who are dying (Canon 882), or who are making a sea voyage (Canon 883), a privilege extended recently also to those who are making air journeys, or who are outside their domicile (Canon 881), etc.; while delegated jurisdiction from man is had by those priests who have obtained faculties orally or in writing from the competent superior (Canon 879).

(b) Jurisdiction in special cases is treated in Canons 874, 875, 876, 519 sqq. Religious women living in community should have for each house one ordinary confessor and one extraordinary confessor who comes four times a year. Further, the bishop should appoint supplementary confessors to whom the Religious may freely make their confessions, and special confessors for individual Sisters when spiritual progress is aided by such an arrangement.

When the Church Supplies Jurisdiction.—In certain cases the Church, for the good of souls, supplies jurisdiction for the time being to priests who lack it:

(a) in case of common error, that is, when all or many of the faithful in a place think that a priest has jurisdiction, as when he is seated in the confessional of a public church hearing or waiting to hear those who are going to confession. The common error is not of law, but of fact;

(b) in case of uncertainty of law (e.g., whether a certain sin is reserved) or of fact (e.g., whether the confessor’s jurisdiction has expired) about the confessor’s jurisdiction, if the confessor has a positive or probable reason in favor of his right to absolve. The Church supplies jurisdiction in the absolution of a reserved censure whose reservation was not known to the priest, unless it be ab homine or most specially reserved to the Holy See (Canon 2247, n. 3);

(c) in case of danger of death, when full jurisdiction is granted to every priest (Canon 882).

Limitation of jurisdiction.—(a) Reserved Sins or Cases.—For the sake of discipline and the good of souls the absolution of certain more atrocious or pernicious crimes is reserved to higher superiors, namely, to the Pope or the Ordinary. Reservation is not incurred in a case reserved on account of censure, if the penitent’s act was not gravely imputable; nor probably in a case reserved for its own sake (unless the reserving authority willed otherwise), if the penitent was ignorant (though not crassly or supinely) of the reservation (Canon 2229). To fall under reservation, a sin must be mortal, consummated (i.e. not merely attempted) certain and formal (i.e., perpetrated with knowledge of the special malice that caused reservation). Reservation ceases when confession is made by the sick who are unable to leave the house or by those who are about to be married; when the Superior has refused the request for faculties to absolve a reserved case, or the confessor prudently decides that the request for faculties cannot be made without grave detriment to the penitent or danger to the seal; when confession is made outside the territory of the Superior who reserves the sin (Canon 900).

(b) Reserved Persons.—Those who have not special faculties cannot validly hear the confessions of nuns (Canon 876), for the director of consciences of these Religious should be endowed with special virtue, knowledge and prudence. Religious Superiors, novice-masters, and rectors of seminaries or colleges should not act habitually as confessors of their subjects (Canons 518, n. 2, 891), lest the distinction between the internal and the external forum be forgotten. Finally, to prevent abuse of the Sacrament and occasions of relapse, a confessor cannot validly absolve his accomplice in a sin against the Sixth Commandment, consummated or unconsummated, or from the sin of complicity itself, as necessary matter of the Sacrament, if the sin was on both sides external, certain, and both internally and externally grave (Canons 884, 2367).

Absolution from Reserved Cases.—(a) In danger of death, any priest can absolve every reserved sin and censure, but, should the penitent recover, there is a duty in certain specified cases of having recourse to the lawful superior (Canons 882, 2252). The latter Canon specifies two cases in which recourse is necessary after the person recovers, namely, a censure ab homine and one most specially reserved to the Holy See. A third case has been added by the Sacred Penitentiary, namely, when a priest who has attempted marriage and is unable to separate asks for absolution from the censure of Canon 2388, Sec.1, in danger of death.

(b) In urgent cases, namely, if censures latae sententiae cannot be observed externally without grave danger of scandal or infamy, or if it is hard for the penitent to remain in the state of grave sin for such time as may be necessary in order that the competent superior may provide, then any confessor can, in the sacramental forum, absolve from these censures, no matter how they are reserved, imposing, under pain of falling back into the censure, the obligation of having recourse within a month (at least by letter and through the confessor, if it can be done without grave inconvenience), without mentioning the name, to the Sacred Penitentiary or to a Bishop or other superior who has the faculty. The confessor imposes also the obligation of fulfilling his injunctions (Canon 2254, Sec.1). It is to be noted:

1. the circumstances constituting an urgent case are the two specified in the Canon: the difficulty of observing the censure; the hardship of remaining in sin.

2. the object of the absolution is all censures latae sententiae, however reserved, with one exception, namely, the censure incurred under Canon 2388, Sec.1, the case of a priest who, after an attempted marriage, is unable to separate. No absolution as an urgent case under this Canon can be given. The censure latae sententiae for false denunciation can be absolved under this Canon only if the conditions of Canon 2363 have been fulfilled (actual formal retraction and reparation; imposition of a grave and long penance; and the sin itself remains reserved ratione sui to the Holy See).

3. Sufficient extrinsic authority is available to make safe in practice the extension of the grant of power of this Canon to censures ab homine which are ferendae sententiae.

4. Sections 2 and 3 of this Canon indicate the right of the penitent to go afterwards to a privileged confessor without making the recourse to the superior enjoined upon him or observing the mandata from the superior in case he has already made recourse, and the procedure to be followed when recourse is morally impossible.

(c) Outside of necessity, only those can absolve who have ordinary or delegated faculties. The law itself grants to pastors the power to absolve during the whole of paschal time from all sins which the Ordinary has reserved to himself, and missionaries have the same power during the time they are giving a mission (Canon 899, n. 3). This does not apply to censures nor to cases reserved to the Ordinary by the Apostolic See or by law, such as the excommunication latae sententiae which Canon 2350 declares against the procurers of abortion.

1. Two general questions can be raised concerning this Decree. The first is what its value, or force of obliging, may be. The other is what its objective extension may be.

2. As regards the First question, several indeed doubt concerning the force of obliging of such a Decree, and by thus doubting they seem in reality to deny it. The reason is that such a Decree seems a certain new law, derogating from the whole law of the Decretals; but this law is neither approved in specific form by the Supreme Pontiff, nor legitimately promulgated. But Decrees of the Sacred Congregation, even of the Supreme and Universal Inquisition, approved by themselves and only in common form, merely published, cannot constitute a new law, although they are of the greatest authority and weight. Cf. Ballerini, note (a), n. 130, Vol. 1, Comp. P. Gury; St. Alphonsus, book 1, n. 106; Pichler, Prolegom., n. 46; Schmalzgrueber, Dissert. Prooemial., nn. 373-377; Reiffenstuel, Prooem. in Ius Canonic., nn. 130-134. Besides, the matter is confirmed from the very practice of the Sacred Penitentiary, on which alone the present Decree rests, drawing all its intrinsic strength from the same practice. For this practice, by no law, is to be held as a true law; nor does it have the conditions, especially in the subject matter, necessarily required for forming at least a custom having force of law. Cf. Ballerini, Vol. 2, Comp. P. Gury, n. 867, note (b), n. 25 ff. of the same note. Finally, the same Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition, interrogated concerning this same matter, responded on the day 18 July in the year 1860: "Let him consult the Decretals of Clement III related in chapter 15, Cum desideres, and chapter 26, Quod de his, De Sent. Excomm., and approved authors, among whom St. Alphonsus de Liguori, book 7, ch. 1, on Censures, nn. 84 to 92." Moreover, in the cited places of the Law and of St. Alphonsus nothing is had concerning the obligation of seeking absolution by letter, when an impediment stands. Indeed St. Alphonsus, l.c., says that the doctrine is common, more probable, and safe, that he who has an impediment of appearing before the Pontiff is not bound to seek absolution by an intermediary or by letter, even from the Sacred Penitentiary. But it seems strange that a contrary practice should have prevailed in so brief a time. Nor indeed can this contrary practice be sufficiently proved absolutely, since perhaps many and by far more were those who, consulting the Decretals and approved authors and especially St. Alphonsus, gave absolution, no faculty having been sought by letter from the Sacred Penitentiary. When a doubt had been proposed by the Most Reverend Peter Bertapelle, in Const. Apost. Sed., Padua 1877, n. 218, "Whether through the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis there was derogated in any part from the power which law and universal custom had conceded to Bishops concerning those impeded from personally setting out to Rome?" the Secretary of the S. Penitentiary, although in an altogether private manner, deigned to rescript: "Nothing has been innovated." Cf. Gury-Dumas, Cas. Consc., Vol. 2, n. 646; Gury-Ballerini, de Poenit., n. 575.

3. These things notwithstanding, several others, and learned Theologians at that, think that such a Decree has a true and proper force of obliging all. For Decrees of Sacred Congregations, and especially doctrinal Decrees, such as the present one is, of the Supreme Universal Inquisition, approved by the Supreme Pontiff in whatever form and manner, have the same authority as if they emanated from the Supreme Pontiff himself, and consequently have the force of law. Hence it is not strange at all if a simple Decree of a Sacred Congregation derogates without another formality from the Pontifical Constitutions themselves which up to now were in force. Nor indeed, that they may oblige, is promulgation necessary, since knowledge alone of the same suffices. For there ought to be one judgment and one profession of Christ's faithful concerning doctrine and morals. Therefore by this very fact that something has been doctrinally defined by the Holy See, immediately or mediately, or has been decided for the sole purpose of protecting the security of doctrine, those knowing it now ought, without another promulgation, to hold and profess it. Cf. Paul Villada, Cas. Consc. his praesertim tempor. accommod., Brussels 1887, Part 3, Case 8; Nouvelle Revue Theologique, Vol. 18, p. 378.

4. But there is another way of considering the aforesaid Decree, which, as more conformable to received principles and reason, is altogether approved by us. This Decree is not some new law, but an interpretation of preexisting law and right. Hence its whole juridical value easily appears. And indeed this Decree pronounces that which had already been established by ancient law, namely that, when an impediment stands, the inferior confessor absolves. But now all circumstances of Society and Commerce, of the difficulty of journeys and of the transmission of letters, having been changed, the Sacred Congregation declares that an impediment of now approaching the Supreme Pontiff, so that an inferior Confessor can absolve from Censures reserved to the Roman Pontiff, is not present unless someone not only cannot personally come to Rome, but also, because of narrowness of time, cannot at least seek absolution by letter. Wherefore the impediment which previously was present was only an impediment of personal access; but the impediment which now is present, the circumstances of times having been changed, is an impediment of personal access and by letter. For someone can treat this matter by letters at present as well and safely as once he could undertake a journey to Rome; indeed, as is plain in itself, someone can now much more easily and safely send a letter than once undertake a journey. But now, if this Decree is nothing except a mere Declaration of Law and Right, that it may have force of obliging there is not required a special approval, or approval in specific form; nor is its solemn promulgation required; but common approval, or approval in common form, altogether suffices, and simple publication, namely that it simply become known. Cf., besides the authors praised in n. 1, Varceno, Comp. Theol. Mor., Turin 1887, Tr. 3, ch. 6, art. 1; Scavini, Theol. Mor., Milan 1874, book 1, n. 173; Joseph D'Annibale, Summ. Theol., 2nd ed., Part 1, n. 182; Ferraris, Biblioth. Canon., v. Declarationes et Decreta, nn. 12-15.

5. Hence the practice of the S. Penitentiary, of which there is speech in the Response to the 1st Question, does not seem to be simply the practice of conceding absolution to those asking. For from this practice nothing can be deduced. Nor does practice of this sort seem to be the removal of the obligation of approaching personally to the Holy See for those very persons who seek absolution from the S. Penitentiary. For those who obtain absolution from the S. Penitentiary, by that very fact are freed from the burden of appearing at some time before the Holy See. But the removal of this burden for these persons cannot be the reason why generally one impeded can no longer be absolved by an inferior confessor as before. Therefore the practice of the S. Penitentiary about which there is question seems to be this: that the S. Penitentiary for all at present, whether they are impeded or not, no longer has as obligatory in practice the prescription of ancient law of personal access, but it is at one's choice either to come in one's own person to the Roman Church, or to approach it by letter. Wherefore, the obligation of exclusively personal access having been removed, the faculty of approaching personally still remains. And thus of one who, while an impediment stands, is absolved, it is not said that he ought afterwards by letter to approach the Holy See, but that at least by letter and through the medium of the confessor he ought afterwards to have recourse to the Holy See. Therefore, in the case of a censure reserved to the Roman Pontiff, whether personal access is possible or not, someone can as before approach the Holy See in his own person or through a procurator in his own name, or have recourse to the same by a letter sent by himself, or finally by a letter sent by the confessor himself. Cf. St. Alphonsus, book 1, n. 186. Hence also removed is the distinction which previously was made between a perpetual and a temporal impediment, for a long and for a short time.

6. The question previously was among Theologians whether, when an impediment of approaching the Supreme Pontiff stands, any confessor in that case could absolve from sin and from reserved censure, or only the Bishop; and only in impossibility of approaching the Bishop would that faculty be made for any confessor. By the present Decree such a controversy is found settled in favor of the opinion which, more congruently with the Law, held that any confessor in that case can impart absolution. Cf. Commentary on Censures, nn. 64, 65.

7. The question likewise was whether, when an impediment stands, absolution is always given directly, or only indirectly. The present Decree also settles this question in favor of the opinion which, again congruently with the Law, asserted that absolution is given directly. For the Sacred Congregation declares that the faculty belongs to confessors of absolving even from censures reserved in a special manner to the Supreme Pontiff. Moreover the same S. C. adds that there is a penalty of reincidence into the same censures unless, within at least a month, the absolved person has recourse by letter to the Holy See. But now, if reincidence is had into censures, the penitent was truly absolved from them and consequently obtained absolution directly as to sins. Cf. Commentary on Censures, n. 51 ff.

8. Finally, a distinction, brought into the midst by someone against the most common opinion of the Doctors, between cases and reserved cases of greater and lesser moment to be absolved when an impediment stands, insofar as the former cannot be absolved by an inferior confessor but absolution must altogether be obtained by letter, but the latter can be absolved by an inferior confessor, is altogether rejected by the present Decree, and indeed reasonably, and altogether suitably to the Law of the Decretals. For the present Decree equates all papal cases among themselves as to absolution to be obtained, when an impediment stands, from an inferior confessor, even if they are censures reserved in a special manner to the Supreme Pontiff. But they are reasonably equated, since there will always be the same impediment, the same danger of grave scandal or infamy from delayed absolution, whether there is question of an altogether enormous matter or of a lighter matter. Those censures are also equated suitably to the Law of the Decretals. For from the Law of the Decretals no distinction is had between censure and censure, between reservation and reservation, between enormous and less grave delict, where there is question of absolution to be given in the case of impediment, precisely by reason of impediment. Nowhere indeed is it pronounced that absolution should be sought by letter if the crime was enormous and an impediment of approaching the Holy See is present. But on the contrary it is openly asserted that they can be absolved, nevertheless with the burden imposed that, the impediment ceasing, they must visit the Roman Church in their own person, approach the Roman Church or its Legate, approach the Roman Pontiff, etc., as is found everywhere in book 5 of the Decretals, Title 39, de Sent. Excomm., and book 3, Title 11, in the Sixth. Nor indeed is this general rule to be confused wrongly with that which is established in some particular case; nor likewise is this general faculty made for an inferior confessor of absolving the impeded, as impeded, to be confused with the special faculty made for a Bishop of absolving from the excommunication of the canon when the striking has not been enormous, but slight or even grave, which special faculty by common law was conceded also to Regular Prelates and has been confirmed by the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis itself. Cf. Commentary on the cited Constitution, n. 49. And indeed the Response of the S. I. C. related in number 3 does not refer to any case whatever, but to an altogether enormous case, to the case, namely, as they say, reserved to the Supreme Pontiff in a most special manner. For there was question of the excommunication "which the Confessor contracted by absolving outside the article of death an accomplice in a shameful sin." But now in the praised Decretals of Clement III, to which the S. C. refers the orator, not even a word is had concerning a letter to be written. In chapter Cum desideres, 15, de Sent. Excomm., it is said that notwithstanding caution given and satisfaction furnished, absolution is to be obtained in the form constituted by the Church. But chapter Quod de his, 26, of the same title, has these things: "Brother, we have judged that you should be responded to thus: that he who asserts that he has fallen into the Canon of a sentence latae sententiae can obtain the benefit of absolution in no other way than through the Apostolic See or its Legate: unless perhaps in the article of death, or by poverty, or infirmity, or old age, he were burdened so greatly that he could not endure the labor of coming to the Roman Church, or were drawn back from this by some other canonical impediment. But from these persons in the form of the Sacrament it has been customary to exact that, strength having been resumed, and opportunity having been granted, they ought to visit the Roman Church in their own person." Cf. chapters Super eo 1, Monachi 2, Mulieres 6, De caetero 11, Ea noscitur 13, Pervenit ad nos

17, Nuper a nobis 29, Cum illorum 32, De monialibus 33, Relatum 37, Canonica constitutione 50, Quamvis incidens 58, De Sent. Excomm., Eos qui 22, of the same title in the Sixth, Quoniam 9, De vita et honest. Cleric.

9. But here it is asked how it still cannot safely be held that, when an impediment stands, any priest or Bishop can absolve from papal cases, if the Decree itself finally teaches this very thing in the Response to the second Question? That is called safe which is without danger. Therefore an opinion which cannot safely be held speculatively, or cannot safely be taught, is an opinion which cannot be taught without danger of error. Likewise an opinion which cannot safely be held practically, or cannot safely be reduced to practice, is an opinion which someone cannot follow in practice without danger of sin. But now, the aforesaid legitimate Declaration of the Sacred Congregation standing, if someone at the present time were generally to say that one personally impeded can be absolved by another inferior, he would expose himself to the danger of erring speculatively and sinning practically. For first, the circumstances of times having been changed, many who previously were truly personally impeded from approaching the Holy See are at present no longer such. Besides, those personally impeded from approaching the Holy See were previously understood to be only those who could not come to Rome in their own person; but now they are understood to be those who neither can come to Rome in their own person, nor because of narrowness of time can seek absolution at least by letter. Wherefore there is no opposition in the Response of the Sacred Congregation to the first and to the other Question, when it affirms, namely, both that it cannot safely be held that a penitent who is in the impossibility of personally approaching the Holy See can be absolved by an inferior confessor, and that a penitent impeded from approaching the Holy See personally and by letter can be absolved by an inferior confessor, when absolution cannot be deferred further by reason of grave scandal or infamy. Cf. St. Alphonsus, book 1, n. 42.

10. The obligation imposed by the Decree of still having recourse by letter, absolution now having been obtained, and indeed direct absolution, in the case of the aforesaid impediment, begets no difficulty. The reason is that this is the natural consequence of the pre-established Declaration. For just as formerly, from the Law of the Decretals, absolution having first been obtained in the case of an impediment of presenting oneself to the Superior, when the impediment ceased, someone had to present himself to the same Superior; so equally now, in the case of an impediment both of presenting oneself to the Superior and of sending a letter, absolution having been obtained, when there is now time enough for writing and every impediment to it ceases, he ought either to present himself personally to the Superior, or at least by letter to have recourse to the Superior. Hence also as to this part, for the legitimate value of this Decree, neither approval in specific form nor promulgation is required, since again it is not in reality a new law, but a mere Declaration of law, such as is accustomed to be called comprehensive. Cf. C. Quamvis, 58, De Sent. Excomm., etc.

11. Therefore the whole difficulty of the present Decree is reduced to reincidence. Indeed it must also be asserted that this difficulty in reality is none if it is said, as several have thought, that reincidence was not removed by the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis. But the difficulty is really present if, on the contrary, it is said that reincidence was removed by that Constitution, as several and indeed most learned Theologians have taught; and this is truly established by the very tenor of the praised Constitution. In this opinion no other explanation of this part of the Decree can be at hand except that it be said to contain, under this head, an extensive Declaration. Cf. Joseph D'Annibale on the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis, 3rd ed., n. 218; Peter Bertapelle on the same Constitution, nn. 218, 224.

12. We now proceed to the other question, namely concerning the objective extension of this Decree. And first indeed, in the present Decree, as is established from its very tenor, there is not question of Episcopal cases. There is not question of papal cases, but occult ones. Nor indeed is there question of danger or the article of death, which is positively excepted in the second question. Therefore nothing new is to be established in these cases, so far as is by force of the present Decree. Cf. Commentary on Censures, n. 36 ff. Nor indeed would this Decree reasonably be extended from case to case, on account of that special reason also that the Sacred Congregation founds its Decree on the practice of the S. Penitentiary; whether this practice is the same for other cases as for those impeded as to papal cases is not positively established from the same present Decree. Therefore only by reasoning can the same disposition of law be affirmed, even as regards Episcopal cases.

13. But whether in the aforesaid Decree there is question of papal cases, for the impeded, reserved either with censure or without censure, does not lack difficulty. It seems to be affirmed, because in the Questions there is question generally of cases and censures, of all cases reserved to the Pope. But it seems to be denied, 1st, because in the questions themselves the doubt seems to be restricted to censures, so that the word censure restricts and narrows the other word case as to signification; for the allusion is evidently made to the cases of the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis, when at the beginning it is said: Whether it can still safely be held, etc. 2nd. In this same sense proceeds the Response to the 1st; for it is said: attention having been paid to the practice of the S. Penitentiary, especially from the published Constitution of Pius IX of holy memory, which begins Apostolicae Sedis, etc. 3rd. The Response to the 2nd Question treats only of cases reserved with censure, and the reincidence into censures there established regards only these cases. Wherefore, again, then only by legitimate reasoning must the same disposition of law be affirmed for other papal cases reserved without censure.

14. Finally it can be asked whether by the aforesaid Decree there is comprehended the censure of the canon, art. 2 of the second series of the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis. It seems that it must be denied; and the reason is that an exception is made by the same Constitution, and it is said: "excepted, as to reservation, cases and persons concerning whom by law or privilege it is permitted that the Bishop or another absolve."

A. M. D. G.

“Since, therefore, the nature and character of judgment demand that sentence be passed only upon subjects, it has always been held as certain in the Church of God, and this Synod confirms it as most true, that an absolution pronounced by a priest upon one over whom he has neither ordinary nor subdelegated jurisdiction must be of no effect. But it appeared to our most holy Fathers to pertain greatly to the discipline of the Christian people that certain more atrocious and graver crimes should be absolved not by just any priests, but only by the highest priests. Hence the Supreme Pontiffs, by reason of the supreme power handed down to them in the universal Church, were rightly able to reserve certain graver causes of crimes to their own peculiar judgment. Nor is it to be doubted—since all things that are from God are well ordered—that the same is lawful to all bishops, each in his own diocese, for edification, however, and not for destruction, by the authority handed down to them over their subjects above the other inferior priests, especially as regards those crimes to which the censure of excommunication is annexed. It is consonant with divine authority that this reservation of offenses have force not only in the external polity, but also before God. Nevertheless, lest anyone perish through this very occasion, it has always been most piously observed in the same Church of God that there be no reservation at the point of death; “and therefore all priests can absolve any penitents from any sins and censures. Outside this point, since priests can do nothing in reserved cases, they should strive only to persuade penitents to approach their superiors and legitimate judges for the benefit of absolution.

What is reservation? - Reservation of causes generally is the calling up of the judgment of some cause from an inferior judge to a superior; whence it happens that, while the inferior judge's ordinary power remains, the power of judging certain other graver causes is taken away from him. Therefore reservation of cases in our matter, namely the reservation of sins or censures, in relation to absolution to be given and received, is a restriction or limitation of jurisdiction, i.e., a denial of the power of absolving from certain sins and censures, with the power of absolving from others preserved. Therefore in reserved matters the simple confessor can do nothing; in reserved matters, not in the penitent bound by reserved matters. The penitent can be absolved from other things; from reserved matters he cannot be absolved. Although the penitent confesses these in good faith, and the confessor absolves, they are then remitted only indirectly. - Trent, sess. 14, C. 7, c. 11; Lugo, de Euch., d. 14, n. 87, 96; L. 265, 578, 579, 596; S. Th., Suppl., q. 20, a. 2.

Who can reserve cases; and what cases have in fact been reserved by those who can reserve them? - The Supreme Pontiff, by reason of his jurisdiction over the whole Church, can reserve cases in the whole Church. But the cases in fact reserved to the Supreme Pontiff are some reserved with censure, others without censure. Papal cases reserved with censure are contained in the Constitution of Pius IX Apostolicae Sedis on censures, to which several others were afterward added.

Papal cases reserved without censure are: calumnious accusation of solicitation; and the acceptance of gifts from Regulars, unless the gifts have not been restored, or unless a promise of restitution is made when the penitent cannot now restore. Therefore this acceptance is not properly a reserved case. Cf. 295, 1279. Gury-Ballerini-Palmieri 382, IV.

A faculty is granted to Confessors by the rescript-form of the S. Penitentiary: "VI. Of absolving from the case reserved to the Apostolic See on account of gifts accepted from Regulars of either sex, with a salutary penance imposed, and, when there is question of gifts which do not exceed the value of ten scudi, with some alms imposed according to your judgment, to be assessed and cautiously expended as soon as possible for the benefit of the religion or convent to which restitution would have to be made, provided however that it is not established that they were from the proper goods of the religion; but insofar as the gifts accepted either were above the value of ten scudi or are established to have been from the proper goods of the religion, after restitution has first been made; and if the penitent cannot fulfill this at present, after a serious promise has been issued of restoring within a term to be determined by your judgment; otherwise under reincidentia."

Only by the Supreme Pontiff can they be absolved, the Cardinal Penitentiary himself being excluded, who violate those things which have been established under penalty of excommunication for the election of the Supreme Pontiff, Constitution Vacante Sede, Dec. 25, 1904, and also the secret which is called that of the Holy Office. Ord. serv. in R. C., special Norms, c. 7, a. 2, n. 4.

Moreover only by the S. C. Consist. can priests be absolved from suspension from divine things who, without observing the law of the same Sacred Congregation, have rashly and arrogantly migrated. S. C. Consist., March 25, 1914, Supplementum Primum Enchiridii Moralis, ed. 3, p. 59 ff.

Bishops, by reason of their jurisdiction in their own diocese, can reserve cases in it. Episcopal cases are some reserved by the common law itself, others by the Bishops themselves. The former are contained in the praised Constitution Apostolicae Sedis, to which others were afterward added. But the latter, reserved to themselves by the Bishops themselves, are various according to the various dioceses, and are contained in their own catalogues.

A case reserved to Bishops without censure is that concerning the relief of the miserable condition of the Indians: "... We condemn as guilty of a monstrous crime and declare to be such all who dare or presume to reduce the aforesaid Indians into servitude, to sell, buy, exchange, or give them, to separate them from wives and children, to despoil them of their things and goods, to lead and transfer them to other places, or in any way to deprive them of liberty, to retain them in servitude; and also to furnish counsel, aid, favor, and work under whatever pretext and color sought to those doing the aforesaid things, or to preach or teach that this is lawful, and otherwise to cooperate in any way in the foregoing... Therefore we will the power of absolving penitents from these crimes in the sacramental forum to be reserved to the Ordinaries of places." Pius X, Encyclical Letter Lamentabili statu, June 7, 1912, Acta Ap. Sed., vol. 4, p. 521 ff.

Now Ordinaries cannot reserve to themselves cases which the Supreme Pontiff has reserved to himself. S. C. EE. et RR., Nov. 26, 1602. Cf. Suarez, d. 31, s. 4, n. 25; Lugo, d. 20, n. 149, 151. - Moreover they should not be ready to reserve to themselves especially more frequent sins, for example against chastity; but, on the contrary, they are admonished to be ready in granting, especially to confessors in places situated far from the episcopal city, the faculty of absolving. Hence they are also admonished to establish penitentiaries and other priests in the diocese who can themselves absolve and give to others the faculty of absolving. S. C. EE. et RR., Nov. 26, 1602.

Finally, episcopal reservations made outside a synod, since at least in fact they are not considered as perpetual laws, whether with or without consultation of the chapter, cease when the Ordinaries cease from office or die.

Pastors also, although they are not superior prelates and from this head it would not seem that they themselves can reserve cases, nevertheless absolutely can; because they have ordinary jurisdiction. But in fact there is no reservation by pastors, since it would be almost useless.

Regular prelates can reserve, if they wish, the eleven cases designated by the Decree of Clement VIII, May 26, 1593. They can by no means reserve other sins or censures without mature discussion and the consent of the general chapter in the whole order, or of the provincial chapter in the province. But Nuns are subject to the reservation of the Bishop if they are not exempt; otherwise, if they are exempt. But nuns subject to Regulars are also subject to the reservation of the Bishop in matter clearly pertaining to delegated jurisdiction. L. 580-583, 600, 602; Benedict XIV, de Syn., l. 4, c. 5; Lugo, Resp. Mor., l. 4, d. 28; l. 1, d. 21.

But Clement VIII commends moderation in the aforesaid reservation, considering that "reservation... could bring some weaker persons, who at times fear to disclose the stains of conscience to their superior, into danger of eternal damnation and despair of spiritual remedy." And in fact the eleven Clementine cases are truly graver; for they are the following:

Poisonings, Incantations, Sorceries.

Apostasy from Religion, whether with the habit laid aside or retained, when it has proceeded so far that there is an exit outside the enclosure of the Monastery or Convent.

Nocturnal and furtive departure from the Monastery or Convent, even if made without the intention of apostatizing.

Property against the vow of poverty, which is by mortal sin.

A false oath in a regular or legitimate trial.

Procuring, aid, or counsel for causing an abortion after the fetus is animated, even if the effect has not followed.

Falsification of the handwriting or seal of the Officials of the Monastery or Convent.

Theft from the goods of the Monastery or Convent in that quantity which is mortal sin.

A voluntary lapse of the flesh consummated by the deed.

Killing, or wounding, or grave striking of any person.

Malicious impediment, delay, or opening of letters from Superiors to inferiors, and from inferiors to Superiors.

What in fact are the conditions of reserved sins? - The Church is not accustomed to reserve except graver and external sins. Therefore reservation is not incurred unless the sin was grave, by an act at once internal and external, and one consummated. Likewise it is not incurred either in doubt of law or in doubt of fact concerning the sin itself, although after received absolution the reservation appears certain.

Do age, fear, and ignorance excuse from reservation? - They certainly excuse when the reservation has the character of a penalty, as in the reservation of censures. Hence ignorance excuses from reservation in papal cases, because, two excepted, cf. 795, all the rest are reserved because of censure, from which ignorance excuses. Consequently, once the censure is removed, no reservation remains. For episcopal cases, if the reservation is joined to a censure, theologians disagree; but several and grave theologians hand down the same concerning these as concerning papal cases, since no distinction is found in the Law between papal and episcopal censures. Yet not a few establish a distinction between episcopal and papal cases, so that in the former, when the censure ceases, e.g., because it is unknown, the reservation still remains; since the sin is reserved both by reason of the censure and by reason of itself. But the words of the reservation, custom, and the power of the one reserving must be considered, that the matter may be determined. Suarez, d. 29, s. 2, n. 7. - They also excuse in the reservation of sins when the legislator positively declares that he constitutes the reservation as a punishment of the crime; for then it is certainly penal.

But do they excuse also when the sin is simply reserved? - There are those who affirm, because reservation by its nature is a vindicative penalty, or at least medicinal, or because such at least is reasonably presumed to be the will of the legislator. This opinion is probable to many, and also to several of those who oppose it, who consequently conclude that it is lawful to use it, provided the confessor makes the penitent more certain about the reservation, so that if afterward he falls again into reserved matters, he may be held by the reservation. But the doctors far more commonly and more truly deny. The reason is that reservation by its nature is not a penalty, but merely a restriction of jurisdiction as regards greater causes, which the superior judge calls to himself to be judged by himself and submits exclusively to his own judgment. Nor indeed is the will of the legislator reasonably presumed, since this cannot be taken either from the intrinsic nature of the reservation itself, or from the extrinsic words of the law and other circumstances. And certainly no excuse is to be admitted if the legislator explicitly declares that he wills to comprehend in the reservation both children, and those suffering fear, and the ignorant. - L. 580-583, 596, 600.

Who can absolve from reserved matters, and when? - Besides the Roman Pontiff and the Major Penitentiary, those who reserve, and those who act in their place, can absolve by ordinary right. Therefore Bishops absolve from episcopal cases, and their vicars general. C. Non putamus 2, de Consuet. in 6, each one in his own diocese; not likewise canon penitentiaries. L. 509. From cases reserved by Regulars, their superiors absolve, and at present all Confessors approved by the local Ordinary. Cf. here 790. But at present Regulars cannot absolve from papal cases, from the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis of Pius IX on censures; nor can they absolve from episcopal reserved cases from prop. 12 condemned by Alexander VII. Yet they can absolve from those reserved to Bishops by the common law itself. For this faculty is found nowhere revoked. L. 599; S. O., March 22, 1881. - Likewise all absolve from reserved matters who receive special delegated jurisdiction over reserved matters.

Power of absolving from reserved matters, given simply for papal cases, or given even for papal cases, does not hold as regards cases reserved by Ordinaries. Benedict XIV, Constitution Pias Christi; L. 594. Power given by an Ordinary for absolving from reserved matters does not hold for papal cases. But each power given simply does not hold for specially reserved cases, or those reserved in a special manner. C. Si Episcopus 2, de Poenit. in 6.

Since pilgrims by common custom confess and are absolved as inhabitants of the place in which they stay, they cannot be absolved from reserved matters in the place of Confession by a simple confessor; but they can be absolved from matters reserved in their own country, unless they have come there in fraud of the reservation, and there is question of censures reserved ab homine. Clement X, Constitution Superna, June 21, 1670; S. C. C., Sept. 16, 1649, apud Benedict XIV, de Syn., l. 5, c. 8; S. C. C., Nov. 12, 1612; S. Penit., Nov. 21, 1873. He comes in fraud of the reservation who comes for this principal end, of avoiding the judgment of his own pastor and of obtaining absolution from reserved matters. Therefore, if he comes in order to handle his other business, and then confesses, or even in order to confess better, he uses his own right. Concerning censures reserved ab homine; for as regards these a universal custom cannot be invoked, as for censures, even reserved ones, imposed by law, though others deny this. D'Annibale 346, vol. 1, ed. 3; L. 573, 574, 587, 592, 593; Filliucci, tr. 7, c. 10, n. 284; Gury-Dumas, Gury-Ballerini 582.

Confessors even privileged cannot absolve penitents of another rite from a case reserved by each one's own Ordinary. Leo XIII, Constitution Orientalium dignitas, Nov. 30, 1894. Cf. here n. 766. - At the point of death all can absolve from reserved sins and censures, because then there is no reservation from Trent, sess. 14, C. 7. Therefore for absolving from papal cases no permission of the Bishop is needed, and anyone can absolve from reserved matters, even when the superior or another having power is present. Cf. n. 773 and n. 799.

On the faculty of Cardinals to absolve from reserved matters, cf. vol. 1, n. 266 bis 1.

A superior who has ordinary jurisdiction can remove reservation outside Confession; and the penitent can then be absolved by any confessor. But one who has delegated jurisdiction, since it is given principally for absolving sins, can absolve from reserved matters only in sacramental Confession. Suarez, de Censur., d. 7, s. 5, n. 36; Lugo, d. 20, n. 74. "But can a superior absolve a penitent from reserved matters, and send him back to an inferior for the others? Some affirm universally... Others say that this is lawful only in a case of grave necessity, for example if the superior could not free himself from some very grave business, and on the other hand judged it necessary personally to hear the reserved sin. And Lugo, d. 20, n. 78, Salm., etc., admit this. But in a very rare case, with it added that the penitent would be under necessity of communicating and would not wish to confess the same sins twice. This last does not seem improbable, granted the case with all these conditions." L. 595. "One who has been absolved from reserved matters by a superior can afterward be absolved from the same by anyone; because they are no longer necessary matter of Confession." L. 596. - Lugo, Resp. Mor., l. 1, d. 27; l. 4, d. 28; l. 3, d. 6; E. M.

Note: A superior should not give permission to absolve from reserved matters with difficulty, "lest otherwise that which ought to have been unto edification yield unto destruction." L. 578; S. Th., 4, d. 17, q. 3, a. 3, qc. 5 ad 6; Opusc. contra impugn. Relig., C. 1. Therefore, regularly, he sins gravely if grave detriment to the subject is feared from the denial. L. 586. Regularly, that is, unless grave scandal and grave damage to the community threaten, to which only the superior, after the matter is known, could bring a remedy. - L. 586; Suarez, d. 30, s. 4, n. 8, 9; E. M.

Is one absolved from reserved matters in the article of death by an inferior bound to present himself to the superior if he recovers? - Resp. In the negative, if the discussion is about merely reserved sins. For from Trent, sess. 14, C. 7, in the article of death there is no reservation. Therefore there is also no burden of reservation, unless it is proved from another source. - If the discussion is generally about reserved censures, the first opinion affirms absolutely, from C. Eos qui 22, de Sent. exc. in 6; the second opinion distinguishes as regards papal censures: it affirms concerning papal censures reserved in a special manner, denies concerning the others.

The reason is that in the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis concerning the former it is said that, as regards those absolved, the obligation of standing to the mandates of the Church if they recover remains firm; but concerning the rest nothing is said. The third opinion denies absolutely even concerning the aforesaid censures reserved in a special manner; because the Tridentine decree was not corrected by the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis, and that clause does not necessarily signify, either from the Law of the Decretals or from the authority of theologians, an obligation of presenting oneself to the superior; provided however that, if the penitent recovers, he perform those things which the superior would have exacted from him, the matter had not been notorious, nor brought to the contentious forum. Cf. cited C. Eos qui. For the Tridentine decree removed that obligation, declaring without any ambiguity of words that in the article of death there is no reservation, and then immediately confirming the obligation of approaching the superior outside the article of death, sess. 14, C. 7. And this argument, taken from Trent, is confirmed from the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis itself, since if cases reserved in a special manner are to be excepted, this is because in the same Constitution they are expressly excepted by force of the aforesaid clause, while concerning other cases simply reserved scarcely any question is any longer raised. - Further, it has been declared by the Holy Office that the obligation of standing to the mandates of the Church imports the burden, either personally or through the confessor, of having recourse to the Supreme Pontiff and obeying his mandates, or of seeking a new absolution from one having the faculty of absolving from censures reserved in a special manner to the Supreme Pontiff. And this obligation is under penalty of reincidentia. But the same obligation does not press for other cases simply reserved. S. O., Aug. 19, 1891; Jan. 13, 1892; March 30, 1892. - E. M.

While an impediment to approaching the superior stands, can someone be absolved by a simple confessor from reserved cases? - From the ancient Law of the Decretals: Bishops can in the aforesaid case, by themselves or through others specially delegated by them, absolve in both fora from all cases and censures, in whatever way reserved to the Apostolic See. This is clear 1. from C. 2, 3, 6, 11, 13, 17, 24, 33, 37, 50, de Sent. exc.; 2. from the common opinion of theologians. Hence the saying: A papal case, when an impediment supervenes, becomes episcopal. L. 584, 599.

Although by no express law, nevertheless from common doctrine a threefold impediment is distinguished: for a short time, for a long time, and perpetual. If the impediment is for a short time, i.e., not up to a year or six months, then one bound by a reserved sin or reserved censure cannot be absolved by another unless a grave cause is present. A grave cause is not only the paschal precept, or necessity of communicating or celebrating, but also if otherwise the penitent would have to remain in mortal sin for a long time, i.e., beyond two days. L. 585; l. 7, n. 84, 86, 88. In such a case the common and received opinion holds that one is absolved from a reserved sin only indirectly; and therefore the penitent is bound afterward to be absolved directly by one having the power. L. 585, 596. From a reserved sin; namely whether the sin is reserved without censure or with censure: for from a censure one can be absolved only directly; but while that grave cause stands, the censure does not prohibit sacramental absolution.

But there are several and grave doctors who hold that absolution even in this case is given directly from a reserved sin, whether reserved without censure or with censure. Where there is question of reserved censures, the Law does not distinguish between a long and short time, C. Nuper 29, de Sent. excomm.; C. De cetero 11, e.t.; C. Quamvis 58, ib.; C. Eos qui 22, e.t. in 6, etc. Therefore, if it is valid to argue from a faculty positively made by the Law when the case is reserved with censure, the same must consequently be said again when the case is reserved without censure. And indeed this opinion is favored by the Decree of the Holy Office, June 23, 1886, and of the S. Penit., Nov. 7, 1888.

But even in this opinion the penitent, without doubt, when the impediment ceases, is bound to present himself to the superior. This is provided in the Law itself for cases reserved with censure; but for cases reserved without censure, because by force of the reservation the penitent is bound of himself to undergo the judgment of the superior whenever he can; therefore the past impediment could not of itself absolutely exempt the penitent from this burden, although he could have confessed to the inferior confessor by a certain legitimate interpretation. For if the Law grants that power of absolving when the case is graver, namely reserved with censure, it seems implicitly to grant the same power when the case is less grave and is reserved without censure. But the penitent thus directly absolved in either case must present himself to the superior, not in order to confess again to him and be absolved again by him, since he has already been directly absolved, but "to receive his mandate and to make satisfaction as justice advised." C. Eos qui 22, de Sent. exc. in 6; C. Quamvis 58, e.t., etc.

If the impediment is for a long time, i.e., for a year or six months, and the sin is reserved with censure, absolution is indeed given directly, according to the common opinion, which again is favored by the aforesaid Holy Office Decree of June 23, 1886; but with the burden first imposed of presenting oneself to the superior when the impediment has ceased. But one omitting to present himself falls again into the same excommunication; which reincidentia shows that he was absolved from the censure, otherwise there would be no place for reincidentia. But once he has been absolved from the reserved censure, he is already directly absolved from the sin; since, when the censure ceases, the sin is no longer reserved. C. De cetero 11, de Sent. exc.; C. Quamvis, e.t.; C. Eos qui 22, e.t. in 6.

Several maintain this reincidentia even after the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis of Pius IX, which limits censures, because, they say, it belongs to the very nature of a censure, which the aforesaid Constitution does not change. Others limit reincidentia only to cases reserved in a special manner in the aforesaid Constitution, since for these alone, they say, reincidentia is established for the article of death; therefore also in the case of impediment reincidentia is likewise to be admitted for the same cases; otherwise reincidentia would be had when reservation ceases of itself, namely in the article of death, but would by no means be had when it ceases by accident, namely in the case of impediment. Others finally judge reincidentia to have been removed by the cited Constitution, because it is not read as renewed in it, from which censures at present are to be taken. And the same Constitution, if at any time in a particular case it wished to maintain a censure, expressed this, as in article 4 of the excommunications simply reserved to the Supreme Pontiff. And therefore reincidentia must be said to have been removed in the case of impediment, because reincidentia is not intrinsic to the very nature of a censure, and thus, unless Boniface VIII had added it, no one, as before, would have incurred reincidentia. At present censures are to be evaluated from the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis "just as if they had first been issued by it." Since therefore it is not contained in it, it is not to be affirmed. This as far as concerns the force of the Constitution itself, since reincidentia is affirmed in the cited Decree of the Holy Office, June 23, 1886. - But if the sin is reserved without censure, according to the common opinion no burden is imposed of presenting oneself to the superior. The reason is that, as this is prescribed for reserved censures, so for merely reserved sins it is not prescribed. But this burden seems to be affirmed for the same reason as in the preceding case, and it is confirmed by the cited Decrees of the Holy Office, June 23, 1886; S. Penit., Nov. 7, 1888.

If the impediment is perpetual, i.e., for ten years or five years, absolution is given directly from a sin reserved either with censure or without censure, and in either case the burden of presenting oneself to the superior is not imposed; for in this case reservation simply ceases, and that burden is incompatible with a perpetual impediment. C. Eos qui 22, de Sent. excomm. in 6. So according to the commonly received opinion. L. 585.

Those are judged perpetually impeded who are children under family authority, Regulars, old people, even sexagenarians, servants, the poor, those condemned perpetually to prisons or galleys, the infirm, namely those laboring under a long and grave illness although not mortal, those bound by the care of feeding or administering a family, or of carrying on a public office which cannot be left without public impediment, all women and not only nuns unless there is an exception, as for nuns violating enclosure, those not yet of puberty, even if they ask absolution after puberty, and anyone who cannot undertake a journey without grave spiritual or temporal harm to himself or his own. C. 2, 11, 26, 32, 37, de Sent. excomm.; L. 594; l. 7, n. 84 ff.

Those impeded from going to Rome in person are not bound to send a letter or procurator, or to write to the S. Penitentiary, or to approach a delegate, although they can. For the Law does not oblige the guilty one except that he personally approach the superior. S. O., July 18, 1860; C. Cum desideres 15; C. Quod de his, de Sent. excomm., cc. from the same Sacred Congregation; L. l. 7, n. 85-93; Schmalzgrueber, n. 262, 246; Sanchez, in Decalog., l. 2, c. 13, n. 30; Roncaglia, tr. 4, cap. 6, q. 4, r. 2. And although others have thought, and do think, otherwise, nevertheless the Decree of the Holy Office, June 23, 1886, favors this opinion, which otherwise now imposes the obligation of having recourse by letter: since the aforesaid Decree rests on changed conditions.

Those still impeded from approaching the Bishop for these cases and censures reserved to the Roman Pontiff can be absolved by any confessor. L. 585. So from C. Nuper 29, de Sent. excomm., "where the faculty of absolving seems to be granted indifferently to the Bishop and to the proper priest, namely to any confessor." Roncaglia, l.c., r. 3. Hence the opinion is also probable, which several and grave theologians hold, that absolution of cases and censures, while an impediment to approaching the Roman Pontiff stands, pertains not to the Bishop alone, but indiscriminately to any confessor. "As regards reserved censures," says Roncaglia..., "I note that this opinion is well founded in law, which asserts that one temporarily impeded from approaching the Pope can be absolved by a simple confessor, and does not need to approach the Bishop for absolution from a case reserved to the Pope." Tr. 19, cap. 3, q. 3 and l.c., r. 3. This is indeed drawn from C. Eos qui 22, de Sent. excomm. in 6; from C. Quamvis 58, de Sent. excomm.; and is clearly found in C. Nuper 29, e.t. Hence the opposite opinion, which has become more common, rests more on the authority of theologians than on some clear text of the Law. But theologians do not have the power of making laws. And this is so true that D'Annibale, who adheres to the opposite opinion, nevertheless admits that this one, p. 1, n. 349, ed. 3, "coheres excellently with the words of the canon." Moreover, the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis of Pius IX on censures favors this opinion; since it would have been very easy for the Legislator, among the other cases reserved to Bishops, to add this one also, which on the contrary was passed over. But what is now chiefly important in this question is that the praised Decree of the Holy Office, June 23, 1886, favors this opinion, by which one must stand at present.

If there is question of episcopal cases and censures, St. Alphonsus 585, l. 7, n. 92, and several others deny that a simple confessor can absolve from reserved matters; but certainly probable, indeed perhaps more probable, is the opinion asserting that those who are impeded from approaching the Bishop can be absolved from them by any confessor; and this is manifestly found in C. Nuper 29, de Sent. excomm.; C. Vos qui 22, e.t. in 6, where there is question of any superior and not only of the Roman Pontiff. D'Annibale, p. 1, n. 349, ed. 3.

After the Decrees of the Holy Office, June 23, 1886; June 17, 1891; Aug. 19, 1891; March 30, 1892; June 16, 1897; and of the S. Penit., Nov. 7, 1888, in papal cases and censures, whether simply reserved or reserved in a special manner, recourse must be had by letters to the S. Penitentiary, while the impossibility of personally approaching the Holy See stands. Nevertheless any simple confessor can directly absolve from them, "in truly more urgent cases in which absolution cannot be deferred without danger of grave scandal or infamy, upon which the conscience of confessors is burdened, with those things imposed which by law are to be imposed, and under penalty of reincidentia into the same censures, unless at least within a month the absolved person has recourse to the Holy See by letter and through the medium of the confessor." And this holds even for the case in which the penitent has been perpetually impeded from going to Rome. But the penitent himself can write to the S. Penitentiary. Therefore when the penitent cannot return to the confessor, it suffices, that he may be absolved, to exact from him a promise of writing to the S. Penitentiary. S. Penit., Nov. 7, 1888. And these things entirely oblige, and a contrary practice is not to be tolerated.

This Decree rests upon the practice of the S. Penitentiary, and does not regard episcopal cases. Since no new Decree has been issued concerning them, the ancient doctrine founded on the ancient Law of the Decretals remains unmoved until something else is defined. Therefore a penitent having reserved cases, if he is legitimately impeded from presenting himself to the superior, can indeed be absolved by another; but, when the impediment ceases, he must present himself to the superior, to receive his mandates and to make satisfaction according to the exigency of the matter. C. Nuper, C. Eos qui, cited, etc.

Moreover, as regards the aforesaid papal cases, "in the case in which there is neither infamy nor scandal in the delay of absolution, but it is very hard for the penitent to remain in grave sin for the time necessary for petitioning and obtaining the faculty of absolving from reserved matters, it is lawful for a simple confessor to absolve directly from censures reserved to the Supreme Pontiff, with those things imposed which by law are to be imposed, yet under penalty of reincidentia into the same censures, unless at least within a month the absolved person has recourse to the Holy See by letter and through the medium of the confessor." S. O., June 16, 1897. - But "when neither the confessor nor the penitent can send a letter to the S. Penitentiary, and it is hard for the penitent to go to another confessor, in this case it is lawful for the confessor to absolve the penitent even from cases reserved to the Holy See without the burden of sending a letter." S. O., Nov. 9, 1898. Nevertheless it must be observed that the Decree of Nov. 9, 1898, "does not comprehend the absolution of an accomplice." S. O., June 7, 1899. For a penitent of this kind will certainly always be able to write to the S. Penitentiary. - "In order that the burden of sending a letter may cease, the impediment of writing need not bind the confessor and penitent at the same time; but it suffices that the penitent, unable to write, cannot present himself to the same confessor by whom he was absolved by force of the Decrees of 1886 and 1897, and that it is hard for him to approach another confessor; although the absolving confessor could send a letter to the Holy See for the penitent." S. O., Sept. 5, 1900.

Besides, in place of immediate recourse to the Holy See "in the case of absolution granted as above, recourse to the Bishop furnished with the faculty of absolving suffices, or to the Vicar General of the Bishop, as to the Ordinary, sharing by law in the episcopal faculties of absolving." S. O., Dec. 19, 1900. Monit. Eccles., vol. 12, p. 481 ff.; E. M.

As regards Regulars, recourse must be had to the Superior. But the faculty of absolving is to be committed to the ordinary confessor when the confessor himself first of all has judged that it ought to be committed. If the faculty has been sought from the Superior and has been denied, the ordinary confessor will be able, for that time and as often as it happens, to absolve from reserved matters. Clement VIII, May 26, 1593. In small Communities Superiors are bound habitually to depute at least one confessor who can absolve from matters reserved in the Order. S. C. EE. et RR., Aug. 16, 1865. And from reserved matters of this kind in the Order all those confessors can also absolve who have the rescript-form of the S. Penitentiary, but it is necessary that the permission of the Superior be present for making confession to such a confessor. But in this matter the Sacramental seal must be carefully attended to. And if there is danger to it, even when only a general petition has been made to the Superior for absolving from reserved matters, authors are not lacking who think that even in such a case the confessor can absolve the penitent. But, this case being foreseen, the confessor ought beforehand to obtain for himself a general faculty of absolving from reserved matters, which no prudent Superior will deny. Finally, religious can be absolved from reserved cases of this kind by Cardinals by force of privilege, v. 1, n. 260 bis 1, and, by force of the Decree of the S. C. de Relig., Aug. 5, 1913, by all Confessors approved by the Ordinaries of places. Cf. n. 790.

Can Bishops absolve from hidden papal cases and censures? - Resp. In the affirmative, from the faculty granted to them through Trent, sess. 24, C. 6; except however cases and censures reserved in a special manner to the Roman Pontiff, as is clear from the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis of Pius IX. Cf. n. 795. They can likewise absolve from several papal cases and censures by force of quinquennial faculties. Cf. the formulas of these faculties. The same also can be done by approved confessors having the rescript-form of the S. Penitentiary. Cf. this rescript-form. - L. 593, 594, 599.

Is one bound by reservation, in necessity of communicating or celebrating, bound to confess and to confess integrally to a simple confessor, when another is lacking? - Resp. In the affirmative, whether he has only reserved sins, or has besides these non-reserved sins, according to the opinion that a simple confessor in such necessity absolves directly from reserved matters. The reason is that no reason is present for omitting Confession and integral Confession.

According to the other opinion, that a simple confessor in such a case absolves only indirectly, a distinction must be made. For if he has no other mortal sin except a reserved one, the doctors agree that he is not bound to Confession, but that it suffices that he be contrite. The reason is that a confessor not having jurisdiction is just as if he were absent. But if he has mortal sins at the same time reserved and non-reserved, the common opinion holds that this man is altogether bound to Confession. The reason is that the precept of Confession presses; and the confessor, although he does not have jurisdiction in reserved matters, nevertheless has jurisdiction over the penitent bound by reserved matters, and can absolve him at least from non-reserved matters. Yet there are several doctors who deny. - But must someone in such a case also accuse reserved sins? The far more probable opinion denies. The reason is the defect of jurisdiction in the reserved matters. Nevertheless, the case must be excepted in which that knowledge of the reserved sins would be necessary for judging rightly about the present disposition of the penitent and for prescribing suitable remedies to him, so that relapse may be avoided. - According to the Decree of the Holy Office, June 23, 1886, cf. 800, that Confession, and integral Confession even of cases reserved to the Supreme Pontiff, is to be made. - L. 265. Cf. 577.

Is one who has confessed to an inferior a sin doubtfully reserved altogether freed from the reservation, even if afterward he recognizes it as certain? - Resp. In the affirmative. The reason is that, since he confessed a doubtfully reserved sin, he has already been directly absolved, and consequently the reservation remains directly taken away. - L. 600. Cf. 674.

Can one who sinned in confidence of obtaining permission be absolved from reserved matters? - Resp. In the affirmative, since the granted faculty does not exclude this case. - L. 601.

Does a granted faculty of absolving from reserved matters extend also to reserved matters committed after it? - Negatively, if it was granted merely for past cases. Affirmatively, if it was granted indefinitely, for such a penitent, this time, provided a great distance does not intervene between the granting of the faculty and the new reserved matters committed, say not beyond a month; for that faculty is given for the present Confession. - L. 601; Lugo, Resp. Mor., l. 1, d. 22, 23, 24, 25.

Is reservation removed in a Confession made to the superior, invalid, sacrilegious, or in which someone has in no way accused reserved matters? - Resp.

To the first and to the second: in the affirmative, more probably and according to the common opinion; for the sins, although accused to the superior in an invalid and sacrilegious Confession, have undergone the judgment of the superior. - To the third: in the affirmative, at least probably, and according to the opinion which St. Alphonsus calls most common, if someone has omitted reserved sins inculpably; for where the contrary will of the superior is not established, he assuredly absolves as much as he himself can and as the penitent needs. Negatively, if they are omitted from malice, or indeed omitted inculpably in a Confession otherwise sacrilegious. The reason is that in this case the superior does not really wish to absolve; since in truth he does not wish to absolve the sacrilegious person, nor does he wish at least to absolve him from the bond of reservation, since his reserved sin has not undergone his judgment. - L. 558, 597, 598.

1. "Olivarius, stained by a reserved sin with an episcopal censure, but ignorant of the reservation, truly contrite and in the best faith, confesses to Sabellus, a priest not approved for reserved matters. But the confessor, whether from ignorance or from inadvertence, absolves him, and does not notice the error until the penitent has already gone far away. Wherefore he hesitates in uncertainty, not knowing what must be done by him.

It is asked: What, the reservation having been known after confession, must be done by the penitent or by the confessor?

R. 1.º With regard to the penitent: if afterward he knows that he could not be absolved by Sabellus, let him approach another confessor enjoying a greater faculty, and open the reserved sin to him; or let him ask an ordinary confessor to seek pardon, by force of which he can absolve him. - 2.º With regard to the confessor: let him admonish the penitent concerning the error committed, if this can be done easily, for example, if he returns to confession, so that that error may be repaired; or better, let him immediately seek from the bishop the faculty of absolving from that reserved sin, and take care that the penitent approach again for the sake of confessing, and, a new declaration of this sin having been prudently obtained, let him absolve him even without admonishing him of the error. But if he can neither easily admonish nor absolve the penitent, let him leave him in good faith." Thus Fr. Gury n. 578.

The reason of this resolution is that, as the same Fr. Gury has in the preceding number 577, although ignorance of the censure excuses from the censure, because a censure, since it is a punishment, directly affects the person of the sinner, nevertheless ignorance of the reservation does not excuse from the reservation, because reservation by its nature looks to this, that reserved things undergo the judgment of a more prudent one, and therefore directly limits the jurisdiction of the inferior; which is the most common opinion of St. Alphonsus 581. I. M. 796.

Now in the Case Olivarius does not appear to have confessed other sins besides the reserved sin; but his confessor Sabellus seems to have been a confessor who was already publicly known as such and was publicly carrying out the office of confessor. Hence although the absolution was invalid by reason of the reservation of the sin and the defect of the confessor's power, nevertheless in fact the absolution was valid by reason of common error. The reason: "From Law 3, de Offic. praetor., it is declared that jurisdiction is supplied on account of the utility of those among whom the thing has been done: and this is valid here also; especially because a title is not usually displayed to the people nor asked for; as, for example, when someone receives the power of receiving confessions, or of absolving from reserved matters. Certainly common error supplies those things which pertain to the state and condition of persons, whenever by law, whether civil or canonical, this is needed so that something can validly be done; nor does it need a colored title: as in the one who is publicly held to be free (L. 3 and L. 2, de Sent. et interl.), a citizen (L. 1 C. de Testam.), a head of a household (L. 3 Ad S. C. Maced.), a wife (L. 24 de Rit. nupt.), a cleric (c. 12 de S. E. in 6.º), a suitable witness (§ 7 de Testam.), an heir (L. 44 de A. H.), patron of a benefice (Perez, de Matrim., 40, 5, 3), a husband (St. Alphonsus III, 232), (Toull. V, 407; Durant. IX, 109; Zach. 670, 27; Less. II, 29, 67)." Thus D'Annibale, p. 2, n. 79, note 74. And thus, as to the solution of the case, Gennari, M. E., vol. 7, part 1, p. 83 ff.

For the most distinguished author, in the place cited, proposes this Case: "Giulio, a penitent, confesses only reserved sins to Giovenale, a simple confessor. Giovenale, not noticing the reservation, simply absolves him ... It is asked: What is to be said in the case of Giovenale? ... When a priest exercises the ministry of confessions and is commonly believed to be a confessor, although he does not have the faculty, or it has expired, and although he does not have that for reserved matters, nevertheless he validly absolves, although he commits a most grave offense ... We are of the opinion, therefore, in our case, that Giovenale validly absolved Giulio, who confessed only reserved sins; because the absolution, although null in itself, is made valid by the Church through common error. For if the Church supplies jurisdiction when approval for confessions is entirely lacking, she ought to supply it also when only the approval for reserved matters is lacking; for this second case the same reason holds which holds for the first. The matter concerns securing eternal salvation for the penitent."

But this solution, if it is taken absolutely as it stands, seems difficult to me. For then I do not see how also, by force of error, an accomplice would not validly be absolved from the sin of complicity, if the penitent confesses only this sin, as in the preceding Case. Nor indeed, where there is speech of common error, is there question only of the eternal salvation of the penitent, but of the common good; otherwise even in a Case of private error the Church would supply jurisdiction. Yet the solution seems to me to be admissible, and the reason just given seems to me urgent also in the Case of reserved matters, if it is added that common error is really had concerning that jurisdiction regarding reserved matters. And thus, for example, in time of jubilee, such common error could well be had with regard to some confessor who is thought to be approved, when he is not approved, and who consequently also is commonly thought able, like the others, to absolve from reserved matters. Cf. D'Annibale, p. 1, n. 348, note 20; I. M. 769.

2. "Nigritius in his diocese committed a sin to which was annexed not only reservation, but also an episcopal excommunication. A little afterward, traveling outside the diocese, he approaches the vicar general of the bishop of the place in which he is staying, sincerely lays open his conscience to him, and is absolved by him without difficulty.

It is asked: 1.º Whether a traveler can be absolved outside the diocese from episcopal censures which he incurred in his own diocese? 2.º What is to be said to the Case?

R. If there is question of censures by law, or even by man through a general sentence, it seems that one must answer affirmatively, the actual and common custom standing, against which Ordinaries do not protest, although the older authors very commonly denied it. It seems also to be drawn from the Council of Trent, by which the privilege of absolving from occult cases is granted to bishops, and where it is said: in any occult cases whatsoever, EVEN those reserved to the Apostolic See. Moreover, from the particle even it is sufficiently shown that the faculty of absolving from cases reserved by other bishops is comprehended.

To the 2nd. Nigritius more probably was validly absolved, the controversy standing which was related in the preceding question. Therefore he is not bound to repeat the confession before his own superior. Consequently the vicar general by whom he was absolved is not to be blamed. Except if there were question of a censure ab homine, about which there is by no means question in our Case." Thus Fr. Gury 585, 586. But, in the first response, the argument taken from the Council of Trent and from the particle even is by no means demonstrative. S. C. C., Jan. 24, 1741; Nov. 29, 1742; Benedict XIV, Const. Pias Christi, Aug. 20, 1752; de Syn., l. 5, c. 5, n. 9; I. M. 797.

3. "Albericus, a parish priest, bound by a reserved sin, is in the necessity of celebrating because of the multitude of people about to hear Mass on a feast day. No other priest is present except Paulinus, his vicar, who is destitute of the faculty of absolving from reserved matters. What will the wretched man do? Confession having been neglected and an act of contrition elicited, he prepares himself for performing the sacred rite. Yet, moved by scruple, he approaches the vicar and confesses only venial sins, leaving aside the reserved mortal sin.

It is asked: Whether Albericus was obliged to confess?

R. More probably negatively, because he is not bound to confession either by reason of the reserved sin, which cannot be remitted directly, or by reason of venial sins, which are not necessary matter of confession. Lig. 265. But Albericus is bound to elicit perfect contrition, and, if he doubts about it, he is obliged to confession." Thus Fr. Gury 590.

Yet, if Albericus was bound by a papal case, it does not seem that he could omit confession. For, since he himself is found in a truly more urgent case, and in that case any confessor can directly absolve from a papal case, it certainly does not appear how he can omit confession. But he is bound at least within a month and through the medium of a confessor to have recourse to the Holy See. I. M. 800, 802. But if Albericus is bound by an episcopal case, the same seems to be said, according to the opinion that a simple confessor can directly absolve from it, the impediment standing. But Albericus, when the impediment has ceased, must present himself to the superior, to receive his mandate. I. M., place cited. Cf. Comment. de Censuris, ed. 5, n. 58 ff.

Reservation of cases is a restriction or limitation of jurisdiction, or the denial of the power of absolving from certain sins while the power of absolving from the others remains. We must treat: 1. of reservation; 2. of absolution from reserved cases.

570. Principles. - I. There exists in the Church a power of reserving certain cases or causes of graver crimes from which inferior Confessors cannot absolve without a special faculty. For, as was said (preceding article), the power of conferring and limiting jurisdiction belongs to the Church; therefore the power of reserving cases also belongs to her. This is established, moreover, from the definition of the Council of Trent, session 14, chapter 7, etc.

II. The power of reserving sins belongs only to Prelates of the Church who have jurisdiction in both the internal and the external forum ¹. The reason is that it belongs to those alone who can confer jurisdiction in the society of the faithful to limit the same.

¹ You would say more accurately that whoever has ordinary jurisdiction, even for the forum of conscience alone, and can delegate it to another with greater or lesser restriction, can reserve sins to himself. For, as Lugo says (On Penance, disp. 20, no. 1), since in this sacrament there is required... jurisdiction, which must be communicated to inferiors by Superiors, it follows that a Superior can limit this jurisdiction more or less, giving it for more or fewer causes as seems good to him: this is to reserve to himself the absolution of those causes which he does not grant to the inferior.

From this the same author concludes (ibid., no. 2): Hence it is established that the Supreme Pontiff, by reason of his supreme and universal power, can reserve certain sins to himself for the whole Church; Bishops likewise, speaking in itself, can do so for their episcopate; and finally a pastor (who otherwise does not have jurisdiction in the external forum) for his parish. He observes nevertheless (ibid.) that this power of a pastor is almost useless, and therefore pastors are not accustomed to use this power. For this difference exists among the Pope, a Bishop, and a Pastor: when the Pontiff reserves, no one can absolve except with the permission of the Pontiff himself; when a Bishop reserves, others can absolve with the permission of the Supreme Pontiff; and finally, if a pastor were to reserve, others could absolve with the permission of the Pope or the Bishop. Therefore, unless the Bishop, while granting jurisdiction, at the same time provides that those sins which the pastor has reserved to himself are not to be absolved, just as the Supreme Pontiff prohibits Regulars to whom he grants jurisdiction from absolving from sins which Bishops reserve to themselves, pastors would reserve sins to themselves in vain. And therefore, says Lugo (ibid.), pastors are not accustomed to reserve, because that reservation would be almost useless, just as the faculty of granting jurisdiction has become almost useless, according to the things said above (no. 546, Principle III). I said almost; for, as the same Lugo observes (disp. 21, no. 4), a Bishop could approve someone to hear confessions and nevertheless confer no jurisdiction upon him, but only render him capable of receiving jurisdiction; wherefore, if he had from elsewhere a general privilege of his Order, or a special privilege of hearing confessions, once the Bishop's approval was in place he could... receive from the pastor jurisdiction to hear the confessions of his subjects. See also the Salmanticenses (On Penance, chapter 13, no. 2).

Hence: 1. the Pope can reserve cases throughout the whole Church; 2. Bishops can reserve them in their own diocese; 3. others having episcopal jurisdiction can reserve them with regard to their own subjects.

III. By the custom of the Church, three things are required for a sin to be considered reserved, namely, that it be: 1. mortal ²; 2. external ³; 3. consummated in act, and not merely attempted, unless something else is established from an express declaration of the one reserving ⁴. - Thus commonly; St. Lig., no. 582.

² Mortal is understood not only by reason of the object, but also by reason of the malice in the act of the will.

³ It is called external insofar as, in addition to the grave malice of the internal will, the external action must also have gravity in itself.

⁴ When a work ought to be considered consummated, and therefore as falling under the reserving law, must be determined from the words of the law itself. Hence it can happen that, with reservation taken into account, a work must be considered consummated which otherwise does not seem consummated in its own genus. Thus, for example, if any external lapse of the flesh is reserved, even acts imperfect in the genus of lust will fall under the reservation, provided that the external action of itself bears the character of grave sin.

IV. Reservation immediately affects the Confessor ⁵, and mediately the penitent, because it immediately touches and restricts the power of the Confessor. - St. Lig., nos. 580, 581, and others commonly, against some.

⁵ The contrary manner of speaking could therefore seem probable, because in fact it sometimes happens, according to the different condition of penitents, that one and the same confessor can at one time absolve from one and the same sin, and at another time cannot. Thus, for example, a Regular who is accustomed to hear the confessions both of domestic Religious and of secular persons will be able to absolve a secular person from the crime of perjury, but not a Religious, since this crime will be reserved for a Religious but not for a secular person. Likewise, a secular confessor will be able, even among secular persons themselves, to absolve Andrew from the same crime of writing a defamatory libel, because, as a perpetual member of the household of Religious, he is not subject to episcopal reservation (see the note above at no. 173), but he will not be able to absolve Andrew's brother Christopher, who is subject to the reservation. In fact, however, these things detract nothing from the general principle that reservation, as a mere limitation of jurisdiction, immediately affects the confessor. For in the foregoing and other similar cases the reason for the difference between penitent and penitent is that one is subject to one Ordinary and the other to another. Therefore, insofar as two different Prelates, the Regular Prelate for his own subjects and likewise the Bishop for his own, confer upon one

Now most episcopal cases are simply reserved without a censure, while almost all papal cases have a censure and are reserved principally because of the censure, so that in them the censure is immediately reserved and the sin itself mediately or accessorily. Hence, in papal cases, when the censure is reserved, the sin also remains reserved; but, on the contrary, when the censure is removed, for example because it was unknown, neither is the sin reserved, because, when the object of the reservation, that is, the censure, has been removed, the sin no longer remains reserved. - St. Lig., no. 580. But there are two cases which the Pope reserves without a censure: the first, namely, that of one who receives gifts from Regulars of either sex ⁶ (from the Constitutions of Clement VIII and Urban VIII); the second, if a woman calumniously accuses or denounces an innocent Confessor of solicitation (from a Constitution of Benedict XIV).

⁶ The reservation of this case consists only in this: that whoever has received gifts from Regulars (understand this in grave matter) cannot be absolved unless the things received are restored to the monastery or Order. Therefore, if someone has already restored them, or at least has the intention of restoring them, the reservation ceases. Where, and to what extent, the Constitutions of Clement VIII and Urban VIII have been received in practice, see Diana (vol. 7, tract 3, resolutions 1, 2, 29, and 33), and the Salmanticenses (On Restitution, chapter 6, no. 10).

Concerning reservation to be made by Bishops, those matters are opportunely to be noted which we have in Benedict XIV, On the Diocesan Synod, book 5, chapter 5.

Although indeed (he says at no. IV) a certain rule to be observed everywhere cannot be prescribed concerning this matter...; nevertheless certain general admonitions and Decrees which have issued from the Sacred Congregations of the City concerning this matter can serve as a rule.

The Sacred Congregation appointed over the affairs of Bishops and Regulars, on January 9, 1601, decreed that the local Ordinaries were to be admonished thus: Lest the local Ordinaries, to whom this right of reserving cases belongs, be burdensome by more reservations than are necessary to their subjects or to Confessors cooperating in procuring the salvation of souls, let all be admonished to reserve few cases, and only those which, according to the state and quality of each diocese, they judge must necessarily be reserved for maintaining Christian discipline and the salvation of the souls entrusted to them. - And it decreed that the same admonition be repeated on November 26, 1602: But lest the local Ordinaries, to whom the reservation of cases belongs, exceed the measure in this matter, the same Sacred Congregation judges that they must again be earnestly admonished to reserve, not indiscriminately, but when it appears expedient for the common good, the absolution only of more atrocious and graver crimes,

and they confer upon the same Confessor jurisdiction more or less circumscribed, he will be able to absolve the subject of the one from the same sin but will not be able to absolve the subject of the other. the reservation of which contributes to maintaining Christian discipline and tends to edification, not destruction, lest otherwise, with the power of the Ministers of the Sacrament of Penance restricted, an effect contrary to the pious intention of holy mother Church should follow. It also prohibits them from superfluously reserving to themselves cases contained in the Bull customarily read on the day of the Lord's Supper, or other cases specially reserved to the Apostolic See.

Encyclical letters from the same Sacred Congregation, given to the Bishops on the same day, November 26, 1602, also read in this manner: The Sacred Congregation judges that these things especially must be admonished: that the Ordinaries themselves see that they do not indiscriminately reserve those cases to which is annexed a major excommunication imposed by law, absolution from which is reserved to no one, unless perhaps because of frequent scandal or another necessary cause some cases of this kind appear to require reservation by name; nor those cases in which absolution is not conferred except with restitution or the execution of those things to which penitents are bound; nor those which, although they induce mortal sin, nevertheless concern matters of small moment and frequently occur among the unlearned, such as damage inflicted and similar things. In reserving carnal sins also, let them employ much circumspection because of the danger of scandals, especially in those persons upon whom some suspicion can fall because of access to extraordinary Confessors or frequent return to the Ordinaries. Finally, let them especially enter upon and follow that course which, after the morals, nature, and inclination of each province and people have been diligently considered, will appear more expedient in the Lord.

The Decisions of the Sacred Congregation of the Council agree with the Decrees of the Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars. For when it was reported to the former that the Bishop of Bellicastro had increased the catalogue of reserved cases beyond measure, on January 29, 1661, it ordered all the others to be removed from the catalogue except ten, or at most twelve, of the graver cases, to be designated at the Bishop's judgment.

Thus far Benedict XIV. To the replies of the Sacred Congregation brought forward by him may opportunely be added the one given to the Bishop of Mirepoix on July 3, 1677. For when he had consulted the Holy See concerning certain Ordinances established by himself, and among them this also was proposed: Because many of the Clergy were more inclined to lust, we reserved this case to ourselves, and that severity greatly benefited the amendment of morals, the Sacred Congregation replied: It is not approved.

573. • QUESTION 4. Can the subject of another diocese be absolved if the case is reserved only in the place of confession?

Reply. More commonly the recent authors deny it. Their reason is that the Confessor has jurisdiction restricted by his own Bishop.

Others, however, affirm it ¹², with the most common opinion of the ancients. The reason of these authors is ¹³ that the Confessor absolves this penitent by jurisdiction indirectly communicated by the latter's Ordinary; and since this Ordinary did not reserve that sin to himself, by that very fact he did not restrict jurisdiction with regard to it. Thus Armilla, Cajetan, Navarrus, Bartholomew Ugolinus (On the Office and Power of a Bishop, chapter 39, section 6), Bartholomew Medina (Instruction for Confessors, translated by the Spagnuolo, book 1, chapter 10, section 3), Dicastillus (On Penance, disp. XI, no. 242), Alphonsus Vega (in Leander, On the Sacraments, vol. 1, tract 5, disp. 12, q. 27), Fagundez (On the Second Precept of the Church, book 8, chapter 8, no. 21), Mendo (On the Bull of the Crusade, disp. 23, chapter 2, no. 23), Matthew Stoz (Tribunal of Penance, book 2, q. 2, no. 64), Pellizarius (in Mazzotta, tract 6, disp. 2, q. 3, chapter 2, q. 4), Peter de Ledesma (On the Sacrament of Penance, chapter 12), Jacobus Graffius (in Leander, loc. cit.), Naldi (On Reserved Cases, sect. 2, chapter 4, q. 2, and Summa, word Reserved Case, no. 8), Quarti (On Reserved Cases, sect. 2, chapter 4), Joseph de Januario (Selected Resolutions, res. 1, no. 8, and res. 8), Paul Mezger (Scholastic Theology, vol. 4, tract 18, disp. 49, art. 2, section 2, no. 15), Baucius (in Quarti, loc. cit.), Louis Engel (Manual for Pastors, part 3, chapter 2, section 2, no. 7), Marcus Struggl (Moral Theology, tract 11, q. 3, art. 4, no. 48), Louis Babenstuber (tract 8, part 6, disp. 6, art. 4, section 2, no. 26), Diana (vol. 1, tract 5, resolution 39, no. 3); Dominic Viva (On Penance, q. 9, art. 3, no. 4), Mazzotta (loc. cit.), Reuter (On Penance, no. 371), and Elbel (On Penance, conference 14, no. 375) also admit that it is probable.

¹² Marcus Struggl, an excellent Theologian of the Order of the Servants of the Blessed Virgin and a contemporary of St. Alphonsus (Moral Theology, tract XI, q. 3, art. 4, no. 48), speaks thus concerning this matter from the common opinion, as he says: A traveling penitent can be absolved by any legitimate Confessor when he brings a case reserved in the diocese of the Confessor but not in the diocese of the penitent. Thus Babenstuber commonly, with Mezger and others. Suarez first introduced the opposite opinion with reasons assuredly weak, and for that reason he did not have even one author whom he could allege for it.

¹³ The reason is sought from the doctrine which is held as an axiom among all, namely, that Jurisdiction must be given by the Superior of the one who is to be absolved, as Dicastillus says (tract 8, disp. 10, no. 245).

But who is this Superior? Fagnanus (on chapter Omnis utriusque, no. 52 and following) explains thus: Observe that sacramental confession must be made only to one's proper priest, and not to an alien one except with the permission of one's proper priest.... Because sacramental confession is a judicial act.... But the nature and reason of judgment require that sentence be pronounced only upon subjects, since no one can be bound or absolved by one who is not his judge.... Hence it was always believed in the Church of God, and the Tridentine Synod confirmed it as most true..., that an absolution which a priest pronounces upon one over whom he does not have ordinary or subdelegated jurisdiction must be of no moment. And that these things are to be held from divine law was indicated above (in the Note at no. 555).

Hence Fagnanus deduces the consequence (ibid., no. 70) that by common law travelers cannot of themselves be absolved: By common law no priest can absolve a penitent not subject to him, even in the diocese in which he is approved. From this Eusebius Amort (Moral Theology, tract 13, section 17, q. 5, 6), to the question, Does a Bishop or another confessor have jurisdiction over the diocesans of another Bishop?, replies without circumlocution (q. 6): He does not have it, nor can he delegate it to others over the subjects of another Bishop without the express or tacit concession of that Bishop.... It is evident from the Acts of the Councils, where Bishops are prohibited... from receiving an alien... diocesan to the Sacrament without the consent... of his proper Bishop. And he had prefaced concerning the same matter: It is proved from the constancy of the observance of the Church which flourished throughout the whole world until the fifteenth century, etc. Therefore visitors can be absolved only by authority which has been delegated in some manner by the Ordinary of the penitent. Hence Pichler (book 5, tit. 38, no. 14): Those who absolve travelers and visitors... hearing their confessions obtain a power tacitly delegated to themselves.

But if a priest absolves travelers by power delegated by the Ordinary of the penitent, he must attend to how much this Ordinary communicated to him, and not to the kind and measure which his own Ordinary granted him for his own subjects. Schmalzgrueber speaks excellently (book 1, tit. 29, no. 31): The power of the delegate must be measured from the authority and power of the one delegating, and from the mandate granted. For the delegate, in the jurisdiction granted to him, takes the place of the one delegating. Therefore the greater or lesser restriction of jurisdiction, namely the mode and measure of reservation, when there is question of absolving a visitor or traveler, must be taken from the laws of the diocese to which the latter belongs, and by no means from the laws of reservation which the Ordinary of the priest established for his own subjects.

John Stoz (Tribunal of Penance, book 2, q. 2, section 5, no. 64) most aptly applies these principles, which plainly accord with the divine economy of this sacrament, to the present case of a sin reserved in the diocese of the Confessor but not in the diocese of the penitent: A Confessor absolves a traveler coming from another diocese through jurisdiction delegated by the Bishop or pastor of the traveler from received custom. But (by hypothesis) this has not been restricted by them in any way. Therefore, although the confessor by virtue of his own ordinary jurisdiction* (which he has from his own Ordinary) cannot absolve his own subject from a case reserved in his own Diocese, he can nevertheless, by virtue of delegated jurisdiction, absolve a traveler from another Diocese in which that case is not reserved. Reuter also gives this reason (On Penance, no. 371), saying: because he absolves by virtue of jurisdiction delegated by the Bishop who does not reserve that sin.

Ugolinus touches in another manner upon the reason why, in the case, a visitor is immune from the reservations of the alien diocese in which he confesses, where he writes (On the Office and Power of a Bishop, chapter 39, section VI, no. 1): First, therefore, one who is not the subject of him who reserved the cases does not fall into those reserved cases. And Marcus Struggl (loc. cit.) gives the same reason for the preceding thesis: The reason (he says) is that the reservation of sins is valid only concerning the subjects of the reserving Bishop.

Nor indeed do these things pertain to singular opinions, but to common principles. And surely Arriaga (On Penance, disp. 40, no. 4), asking Whose sins can be reserved?, replies: The sins of all those over whom the one reserving has jurisdiction. Cardinal de Lugo likewise establishes the same as a general canon (On Penance, disp. 20, no. 9): The sins of those who are subject to the one reserving can be reserved. Therefore Amort most aptly defines reservation thus (On Penance, disp. 9, q. 1): It is a restriction of jurisdiction over SUBJECTS. Indeed, the Tridentine Synod establishes this very thing, saying that Bishops can reserve sins by the authority delivered to them over SUBJECTS.

Engel, moreover, admirably presses the patrons of the opposite opinion thus (Manual for Pastors, part 3, chapter 2, no. 7): I ask: when the case of the penitent is not reserved in his own diocese, should he be sent to his own Bishop or to the Bishop of the place where he confesses? Not to his own, because that Bishop did not reserve the case to himself; nor to the Bishop of the place where he confesses, because he is not subject to him, and reservations of cases are understood only concerning subjects (Trent, session 14, chapter 7); for they are introduced so that each Bishop may keep his own subjects, not those of another, in their duty. Paul Mezger argues in like manner (Scholastic Theology, tract 18, disp. 49, art. 2, section 2, no. 25): A reservation of cases made by a Bishop exists only concerning his own subjects; but by hypothesis the one confessing is not a subject of the Bishop in whose diocese he confesses; therefore the reservation is not valid concerning him. And to whom would such a penitent be sent? To his own Bishop? But with him the case is not reserved. To an alien Bishop? But the latter has no jurisdiction over the alien subject.

These things, although too few for the gravity of the question, suffice for the brevity of an annotation. For the rest, the difficulties by which the recent authors have entangled a matter most simple in itself and among the ancients would assuredly furnish matter worthy of the labor of a longer treatment.

** It is surely remarkable that the VV. wrote only eighteen columns (pp. 525-533) against this Note, although otherwise the question could only have seemed to them of the gravest moment.

They therefore object that it is undeservedly affirmed in the Note, as an axiom held among all, that jurisdiction must be given by the Superior of the one who is to be absolved. - Reply. That assertion is to be held as an axiom because it is certain doctrine of the Church defined in Ecumenical Councils, as was already shown above (in the Note at no. 555, q. 13), and at the same time (ibid., nos. 12, 15) the nullity of the little argument brought forward against it by the VV. was disclosed. A reply to certain words which the VV. (p. 527) added from Coninck was omitted there. Let the VV. have their reply in these other words of the same Coninck (On Penance, disp. 8, no. 31): When a penitent is granted the faculty of choosing a confessor for himself, or of confessing to some certain one..., the penitent himself does not give any jurisdiction to the confessor, but only designates him TO WHOM THE SUPERIOR, by the very fact that he is chosen, GIVES JURISDICTION. For by the very fact that a Superior grants to someone the power of choosing a confessor, HE GIVES JURISDICTION TO THE ONE CHOSEN under this condition, if he is chosen. Does Coninck not clearly say that jurisdiction is bestowed by the Superior of the penitent?

To the remaining things which are read in the Note, the VV. write (p. 528): The general principles which Father Ballerini brings forward here are certain and established and received by all, no one contradicting. Hence there was no need to bring forward the testimonies of individual Authors for them. Reply. Thanks be to God! But if these principles are certain and received by all, then, by their own admission: 1. it is certain that confession must be made to one's proper priest, and not to an alien one except with the permission of one's proper priest. Why, then, did they contend (p. 511) that no inquiry is to be made whether the Bishop of the visitor consents and has not objected? 2. It is therefore certain that the nature of sacramental judgment by divine law requires that sentence be pronounced only upon subjects. Why, then, do the VV. say with Voit (p. 530) that for absolving the visitor a faculty can be sought from the Ordinary of the place, of whom the visitor is not a subject? - 3. It is therefore certain that a Bishop does not have jurisdiction over the subjects of another Bishop, and consequently cannot delegate it to others; and thus that a priest who absolves travelers and visitors hearing their confessions obtains power tacitly from the Ordinary of the visitor. Why, then, do they contend (p. 511) that jurisdiction is from custom and by no means from the will of the Bishops of the visitor, and that their dissent is not to be considered? - 4. It is therefore certain, by their own admission, that the power of a priest delegated to absolve a visitor must be measured from the power of the one delegating, namely the Ordinary of the visitors, and from the mandate granted; and thus that the measure of jurisdiction and reservation must be taken from the laws of the diocese to which the visitor belongs, and not from the laws of reservation which the Ordinary of the place, to whom the visitor is in no way subject, established. Why, then, do the VV. themselves throughout this whole controversy always contend that it is to be inquired whether the priest hearing the visitor's confession has jurisdiction restricted by the Ordinary of the place, who has no jurisdiction over the visitor which he can restrict or not restrict?

Nevertheless, since the aforesaid principles, certain, established, and received by all, are expressed in the Note in the words of Fagnanus, Amort, and Schmalzgrueber, the VV. object from Fagnanus (p. 528) that by the reservation of cases only the person of the Confessor, whose jurisdiction is restricted, is affected, and the penitent only indirectly. Therefore, say the VV., a Confessor from whom jurisdiction concerning certain sins has been removed absolutely and without distinction, that is, was not granted by his Ordinary, cannot absolve any penitent confessing sins of this kind, nor accept or execute any delegation, whether tacit or formal, of an alien Bishop. - Reply. I concede the Antecedent, which is Fagnanus's (on chapter Omnis utriusque, no. 85); and I deny the Consequent and the Consequence, which are not Fagnanus's. Jurisdiction is power OVER SUBJECTS. Therefore a Bishop can restrict the jurisdiction of a Confessor with regard to absolving his own subjects, because he himself grants this; but with regard to aliens or non-subjects, I deny the supposition, namely, that the Bishop has jurisdiction which he either confers, restricts, or relaxes. Do the VV. now contend that this confessor is incapable of receiving jurisdiction delegated by another Bishop? But do they not admit among the certain principles that this also is received by all: that a priest who absolves travelers and visitors hearing their confessions obtains power tacitly delegated to him by the Ordinary of the visitor? Or perhaps can the Bishop of diocese A restrict the jurisdiction which the Bishop of diocese B delegates for absolving his own subject? Can a Bishop restrict the jurisdiction of a secular confessor whom a Regular Prelate has chosen to hear the confessions of his own subjects? Let this be the conclusion: a cause which rests upon no other supports than those which the VV. employ makes its condition sufficiently and more than sufficiently manifest.

The VV. object (p. 529): Amort with Schmalzgrueber absolutely denies that travelers can be absolved by a simple Confessor from a sin reserved in this diocese, although not in that of the penitent. Reply. In that place (tract 13, section 22, q. 26) Amort gives this reason: because a Bishop can prudently deny jurisdiction to confessors concerning graver crimes, etc. He says these things not of the Bishop of the penitent, for by hypothesis the latter did not reserve that sin, but of the Ordinary of the place where the visitor confesses. Yet Amort (see his words related above in the Note) absolutely denies that a Bishop has or can delegate any jurisdiction over the diocesans of another Bishop, and the VV. agree that this is a certain principle received by all, no one contradicting. Therefore Amort is less than consistent with himself, and his reply rests upon a false supposition; for the traveler is absolved by jurisdiction delegated by his Ordinary, or tacitly conceded. But it belongs to the one who grants jurisdiction to restrict it, not to others who have no jurisdiction over the penitent. Therefore. Amort adds (ibid.): I add that in the first twelve centuries it was lawful for no one, in relation to sacramental absolution, to subject himself to an alien Bishop or pastor without the permission of his own pastor or Bishop. But did he himself not write (see his words in the Note) that this was observed until the fifteenth century? And, what is the chief point, was he ignorant that this is a doctrine not disciplinary but dogmatic, defined by the Ecumenical Councils as of divine law, namely, derived from the essence of the sacrament instituted by Christ? But there is now no need to spend time and labor refuting Amort; he sufficiently refutes himself by his own contradictions.

Let us come to Schmalzgrueber. He gives this reason for his opinion (book 5, tit. 38, no. 58): because reservation affects not so much the penitent as the confessor, from whom it removes jurisdiction over the reserved case. - Yet the VV., as we saw, agree that it is a certain principle that jurisdiction for absolving travelers proceeds not from the Ordinary of the confessor but from the delegation of the Ordinary of the travelers, who by hypothesis does not restrict jurisdiction. Therefore the reason employed by Schmalzgrueber labors under a false supposition. - Schmalzgrueber adds allegations of Suarez and Cajetan. - Reply. Concerning Suarez a little below. But the allegation of Cajetan, taken from Suarez, here labors under a twofold defect: 1. because it is adduced by Suarez for another purpose, namely, where he treats of a sin reserved in the diocese of the traveler; 2. because Cajetan is also wrongly alleged for that purpose. - Schmalzgrueber had better prefaced (loc. cit.) that there were those who judged that even in this case a traveling penitent can be absolved by ordinary confessors, because, since he is not subject to that Bishop, the reservation made by him does not seem to touch a traveler of this kind. And here this excellent man indeed touched the matter to the point. But touching the question very lightly and in passing, he allowed himself, like several others, to be carried away by the authority of Suarez; and in this he was not consistent with himself.

Let the same reply be made as regards Pichler, produced by the VV. (loc. cit.), because he said (book 5, tit. 39, no. 14) that it is more probable in the case that the traveler cannot be absolved. - Reply. Pichler brings forward the reason that reservation regards not so much the penitent as the confessor, from whom it removes jurisdiction. Suarez; Cajetan. Yet it is evident that he transcribed this from Schmalzgrueber and, moreover, unhappily contradicts himself. For he now supposes that jurisdiction flows from the Ordinary of the confessor; yet a little before he had prefaced: Those who absolve travelers and visitors hearing their confessions obtain a power tacitly delegated to themselves..., since from general custom the tacit consent of the proper Bishop (of the visitors) is judged to be present. What indeed do votes and voters of this kind contribute to the cause when they themselves fight with themselves?

The VV. object (p. 529) that the testimony of John Stoz is brought forward truncated in the Note. For (loc. cit.) there follows: But I speak here only of a traveler and not of a sojourner. For the latter, since he has a quasi-domicile in the place of his sojourn, is subject to the ordinary jurisdiction of that place. - Reply. The question was and is about penitents who are not subjects of the Ordinary of the place. Therefore what Stoz has concerning sojourners who contract a quasi-domicile in that place, such as, for example, students who for the sake of studies remain for the greater part of the year in another diocese are commonly considered among the Authors, did not pertain to the matter; therefore we did not bring forward the text of Stoz truncated, but it did not seem equitable to us that pages be filled with useless things.

The VV. object (pp. 529-530): Father Ballerini alleges several texts from Ugolinus, Arriaga, Cardinal de Lugo, and Eusebius Amort to prove the affirmative opinion, which nevertheless have nothing to do with the matter. - Reply. The sense of the texts brought forward in the Note is this, to use the words of Ugolinus: One who is not the subject of him who reserved the cases does not fall into the reserved cases; or, in the words of Cardinal de Lugo: The general rule is that the sins of those who are subject to the one reserving in this sacramental forum can be reserved. And since the question is whether those who are not subjects of the one reserving are subjected to the reservation, why or how do those texts not pertain to the matter? Do they not render a negative reply to the question directly and openly?

The VV. add (p. 530) that Voit (vol. 2, no. 840) replied thus to those things which were brought forward in the Note from Engel and Mezger: A visitor can be sent to any confessor of his own diocese, where he will easily be absolved, since he does not have the case reserved there; or he can be sent in the alien diocese to another confessor who has the faculty of absolving from reserved cases; or at least the Confessor should seek permission from the Ordinary... to absolve from the reserved case. To these things the VV. say: Voit admirably! But another perhaps will say: Not admirably! For is it not, as we saw above and as the VV. admit, a certain principle that a Bishop does not have jurisdiction over the subjects of another Bishop? Therefore does Voit admirably send the confessor to seek the faculty of absolving from that Ordinary who has no jurisdiction over that penitent? Or is the penitent admirably sent to another confessor, one indeed endowed there with a faculty for reserved cases, but a faculty given by that Ordinary who by hypothesis cannot delegate jurisdiction which he himself does not have? Finally, did Voit admirably find no other remedy than that the penitent be sent back to his own diocese, so that, for example, a Roman visitor might be sent back from the city of New York in America to Rome in order that he may be absolved? And does doctrine of this kind perhaps have any appearance of verisimilitude, not to say truth?

To what had been said in the Note, that Suarez first introduced the opposite opinion with reasons assuredly weak, and therefore did not have even one author whom he could allege for it, the VV. reply (p. 531): Whether the negative opinion is supported by reasons assuredly weak we have already seen above. - Reply. But whatever the VV. have brought forward for that opinion has already been set forth here.

QUESTION 5. Can the subject of another diocese be absolved when the sin is reserved in his own diocese but not in the place of confession?

Reply 1. He can be absolved by Regulars by virtue of the privilege granted to them in the Constitution Superna of Clement X ¹⁴.

¹⁴ The Apostolic Constitution (section 7) establishes that a Regular Confessor in the Diocese in which he is approved can absolve those coming together from another Diocese from sins reserved there but not in the Diocese in which the same confessor is approved, unless he knows that the same penitents have migrated to the alien diocese in fraud of the reservation in order to obtain absolution. How these words of the Constitution present no obstacle to the things noted at the preceding Question will become plain below.

Reply 2. As regards secular Confessors, the older Theologians most commonly deny it, from chapter Si Episcopus 2, De Poenit. in VI ¹⁵, which stands thus: If a Bishop has granted to his subject that he can choose a fit confessor for himself, the one whom he chooses has no power at all in cases which are specially reserved to that Bishop: since those things do not come under a general concession which one would not probably grant in particular. Thus Bartholomew Medina (Instruction for Confessors, book 1, chapter 10, section 3), Cajetan (Summa, word Absolution 2, final proposition), Navarrus (on chapter Placuit, De Poenit., dist. 6, nos. 62-63), the Summa Armilla (word Absolution, no. 30), Emmanuel Rodriguez (Explanation of the Bull of the Crusade, section 9, no. 92), Sayrus (Summa of the Sacrament of Penance, chapter 21, no. 6), Jacobus de Graffiis (Golden Decisions, book 1, chapter 13, no. 46), Fagnanus (on chapter Omnis, De Poenit. et Remiss., no. 95), Dominic Soto (In IV Sent., dist. 18, q. 4, art. 2), Marcellus Megala (Institutions for Confessors, part 1, book 4, chapter 7), Finellius (Selected Golden Cases Reserved, chapter 9, no. 8), Fagundez (On the Second Precept of the Church, book 8, chapter 8, no. 20), John Chapeauville (Treatise on Reserved Cases, part 1, chapter 4, difficulty 9), the Summa Pisanella (word Confession III), Alphonsus Vega (in Fagundez, loc. cit., and Barbosa, On the Office and Power of a Bishop, part 3, allegation 53, no. 15), the Short Summa of Raymond (tract 4, chapter 5), Bartholomew Ugolinus (On the Office and Power of a Bishop, chapter 39, section 4, nos. 3-4), John of Freiburg (Summa, book 3, tit. 34, art. 39), Escobar (Moral Theology, book 16, chapter 7, no. 66), the Summa Astensis (book 5, tit. 14), the Summa Angelica (word Confession V, no. 6), the Summa Tabiena (word Confession I, no. 41), St. Antoninus (Summa, part 3, tit. 17, chapter 4), the Summa Rosella (word Confession III, no. 32), Peter Paludanus (In IV Sent., dist. 17, q. 3, art. 3, conclusion 4), the Summa Sylvestrina (word Confession I, section 11), Berarduccius (Summa Corona on the Sacrament of Penance, no. 51, doubt 3, section Fourth, when), Engel (Manual for Pastors, part 3, chapter 2, no. 7), Comitolus (Moral Resolutions, book 1, q. 28), Cosmas Philiarchus (*On the Office of a Priest, part 2, book 2, chapter 26), Cajetanus Verani (book 5, tit. 38, section 8, nos. 12, 13), Amort (Eclectic Theology, vol. 3, On Penance, disp. 9, q. 25), Barbosa (On the Office and Power of a Bishop, part 3, allegation 53, no. 15), etc. The more recent authors, however, made the privilege of Regulars common to secular Confessors; custom against which the Ordinaries do not protest, it must be considered can be validly and even licitly absolved. Except in each case if someone has transferred himself from his own diocese to another in fraud of the reservation ¹⁶.

¹⁵ Although in this Chapter of Boniface VIII there is discussion only of a subject to whom the Bishop granted that he might choose a fit confessor for himself, which is an indirect delegation of jurisdiction, concerning whom it is established that the confessor chosen by that subject has no power at all in cases which are specially reserved to the same Bishop, nevertheless it is not to be doubted that the same avails in a general concession made to a priest, namely, the faculty of hearing confessions, which is a direct delegation of jurisdiction: namely, that the faculty of absolving from reserved cases is never comprehended unless it is expressed. Moreover, with regard to the first case, as Cardinal Cajetan argues well (Summa, word Absolution), if explicit permission, namely, to choose a confessor, does not comprehend reserved cases, much less does implicit permission, namely, that which is tacitly granted to those departing from the diocese, extend to them.

But how it came about that many afterward departed from the most common opinion of all the ancients, receive this brief history. Although all agreed that no one can validly be absolved by an alien priest without the permission of his proper Ordinary, and that this permission does not extend to reserved cases unless this is expressed, they nevertheless excepted a case of necessity, to which they referred also the obligation of the Paschal precept; and they taught that then a traveler could be absolved also from an episcopal case. Thus Paludanus (In IV Sent., dist. 17, q. 3, art. 3, conclusion 4), St. Antoninus (part 3, tit. 17, chapter 4), the Summa Rosella (word Confession III, no. 32), the Summa Tabiena (word Confession I, no. 41), Cajetan (Summa, word Absolution 2), etc.

Most, however, added that the Confessor must enjoin upon the penitent that, when he has access to his own Bishop, he should confess that reserved sin to him again and receive penance for it from him. Thus John of Freiburg, Master General of the Order of Preachers (book 3, tit. 34, q. 59), the Summa Pisanella (word Confession III), the Summa Astensis (book 5, tit. 14), the Summa Angelica (word Confession V, no. 6), the Summa Sylvestrina (word Confessor I, section 17), the Summa Corona (On the Sacrament of Penance, no. 51, doubt 5, section Fourth, when), and Cosmas Philiarchus (On the Office of a Priest, part 2, book 2, chapter 26). And indeed the last three expressly say that the confession of reserved sins is therefore to be repeated so that they may be directly absolved, since they were not absolved by the alien priest.

Finally Cajetan (loc. cit.) thought that the practice of obtaining absolution at Easter even from an episcopal case was confirmed by a certain oral oracle of Eugene IV, which he relates thus: I remember having read elsewhere that Eugene IV granted or declared by an oral oracle that travelers, wherever they found themselves at Easter, were to be considered as having acquired inhabitancy with regard to the Sacraments of Penance and the Eucharist. Yet neither Soto (Dominic, In IV Sent., dist. 18, q. 4, art. 2; Peter, Instruction of Priests, lecture 5, On Confession) nor Navarrus attributed to this declaration, omitting for now grave doubts concerning its authenticity, that force or sense; but they judged that by it this alone was prescribed: that travelers could not confess to others besides the plebans or pastors of the places. Thus far the most common opinion of all the ancients.

But behold, first Henry Henriquez (Summa of Moral Theology, book 6, chapter 14, no. 8), relying upon no other equipment than a heap of fallacious allegations, transfers to a general norm that very thing which the ancients had excepted from the general rule concerning a case of necessity or of the Paschal precept; and he is the first to infer the canon that a traveler can be absolved from a sin reserved in his own diocese if it is not reserved in the diocese of the confessor. Henriquez's disciple Suarez succeeds him and, seizing from his master three fallacious allegations, namely, of Paludanus, St. Antoninus, and Cajetan, which you may then see copied in good faith by a long series of Authors down to St. Alphonsus, not only repeats that canon but in addition is the first to establish the new, and until that time unheard-of, inverted canon concerning a traveler being subjected to the reservations of a diocese of which he is not a subject if he wishes to confess there, according to the things we said in the note at the preceding question. Nevertheless neither of these men yet dared entirely to renounce the principle in which the economy, or rather the essence, of the judgment of this sacrament is contained; and Henriquez expressly supposes that permission of the proper pastor of the penitents is possessed, and that the alien priest absolves from a tacit commission of the proper Bishop which bestows jurisdiction.

But not even these limits were preserved by others. See Lugo, On Penance, disp. 20, no. 70, and St. Alphonsus, book 6, no. 589. In order to extricate themselves from the difficulty which chapter Si Episcopus presented against their new theory establishing that visitors are to be judged according to the laws of the place in which they confess, they established that the power of absolving them is to be derived not from their proper Pastor but from custom. By an incredible anachronism, they said that this custom was approved by Eugene IV when, namely, no man had even dreamed of theories of this kind; and from his oral oracle, if any such existed, others in addition, by a remarkable power of imagination, fabricated an extravagant Decretal. See Villalobos, Summa, vol. 1, tract 9, difference 59, no. 4. This is the genuine history of the vicissitudes of this controversy and of the immense confusion introduced into it.

** The VV. opposed forty columns (pp. 533-544) against this and the immediately following Note. Nevertheless, many words are not needed to satisfy their objections, all the more because there is question here not so much of opinions concerning which the Doctors went in different directions as of a historical matter.

1. First, therefore, the VV. (pp. 535-540) fill eight columns with texts of St. Antoninus, Cajetan, Navarrus, and the Summa Angelica, in order to prove that it is undeservedly asserted in the Note that the negative opinion was most common among the ancients.

To these, Reply 1. Let the Antecedent pass, and I deny the Consequence. The reason is that even if it were true, which is false, that these four dissent from the general opinion of others, these few, in comparison with the immense multitude of others who are seen alleged in the text, nevertheless would not prevent that doctrine from being called most common among the ancients. In this place let the testimony of a man by no means suspect avail, Eusebius Amort, who, when discussing the privilege of absolving penitents of another diocese from their reserved sins, which he asserts for Regulars but denies to every secular confessor, has these most explicit words (Eclectic Theology, vol. 3, On Penance, disp. 9, q. 25): I said that this was declared concerning Regular Confessors. But whether Bishops wish to extend jurisdiction over their own subjects with regard to reserved cases to external non-privileged Confessors, that is, non-Regulars, or whether the Pope wishes even against the will of Bishops to extend that jurisdiction to external non-privileged Confessors, is a question of fact, in which every positive concession of this kind, NEW AND BY NO MEANS CONFORMABLE TO THE MORE ANCIENT OBSERVANCE HANDED DOWN, indeed by no means connatural to the nature of things, is to be denied and regarded as null in practice so long as it is not sufficiently proved by arguments morally certain or at least more probable and placed beyond prudent doubt. Could the unanimous doctrine and practice of the ancients have been expressed more clearly? For the rest, it is truly remarkable that the VV., because of the dissent of these few fashioned by themselves, deny that this opinion of the ancients can be called most common; but a little later (p. 542) they do not hesitate to write that the opposite opinion of St. Alphonsus is with the best right to be considered most common, although it has against it that immense throng of thirty and more Authors who are alleged in Gury's text! Does not that saying rightly recur here (Prov. 20:10): Weight and weight, measure and measure?

2. But Reply 2. I deny the Antecedent also. Therefore something concerning each of those writers objected as dissenting; and first concerning St. Antoninus. It had been said in the Note that, according to St. Antoninus and some others, a traveler can be absolved also from an Episcopal case in a case of necessity, as, for example, when the Paschal precept presses. But the VV. (p. 537) deny that this is restricted by St. Antoninus to this case. Let the words of St. Antoninus (Summa, part 3, tit. 13, chapter 4), which he copied from Paludanus, therefore decide the question; they are as follows: If they departed with the permission of their Bishop or Pastor, by that very fact they have interpretative permission to confess, since they cannot worthily travel without confession. If Easter also comes, they can communicate on account of the same implicit permission and also be absolved from an episcopal case. Hence thus: If a general faculty for reserved cases had existed, St. Antoninus would have placed it in the first member, where he speaks of the general permission to confess. But he placed it not in the first but in the second member, where he speaks exclusively of the occasion of Easter. Therefore. And let the same also avail concerning Paludanus, whose words St. Antoninus took literally.

3. Now concerning Cajetan, with whose texts the VV. fill two columns (pp. 537-538). They press these words of his (Summa, word Absolution 2): I remember having read elsewhere that Eugene IV granted or declared by an oral oracle that travelers, wherever they found themselves at Easter, were to be considered as having acquired inhabitancy with regard to the Sacraments of Penance and the Eucharist; and according to this, at Easter there is no need of interpretative permission of this kind, but they can THEN be absolved by those confessors by whom inhabitants are absolved, even from episcopal cases, according as the Bishop of the place disposes. But, the VV. subsume (p. 538), Suarez writes (On Penance, disp. 25, sect. 2, no. 9): I understand this to be an extension, not a limitation. Therefore, the VV. conclude, the same avails at other times of the year.

Reply. The VV. (p. 534) call the Note which they here attack in those forty columns wearisome, certainly paying less attention to the fact that fastidious is usually said not of one who causes weariness but of one who is affected by weariness. Nevertheless, according to the sense affixed to this word by the VV., another will perhaps with better right regard as wearisome the method of disputing which they themselves employ here. For what? Suarez (loc. cit., no. 8) merely contends that visitors can confess either to the pastor of the place at which they arrive or to other priests having jurisdiction there; and to confirm this he adds (no. 9): Cajetan signifies the same opinion... and relates that Eugene IV declared this even in the annual confession; which I understand to be an extension, not a limitation; an extension, namely, even to the annual Paschal confession. Hence he infers that if even at Easter, when there seems to be the greatest obligation of confessing to one's proper priest, confession can be made to another from the declaration of Eugene, it can also be made at any other time. Therefore the extension of which Suarez speaks here consists merely in this, that even at Easter a visitor can confess to another and not to the pastor. See this sense also in Filliucius, who, in order to prove that a visitor can confess to others besides the pastor, uses the same argument thus (tract 7, chapter 7, no. 195): Cajetan also relates that Eugene IV declared this concerning annual confession and Communion; wherefore much more at other times. Since these things are so, how then do the VV. twist the words of Suarez to signify that the faculty of absolving from an episcopal case was extended by the declaration of Eugene to other times outside Easter? And what can seem even less tolerable, how through this distortion of the Suarezian context do they attempt to insinuate that this is also the opinion of Cajetan? I said that this can seem even less tolerable; for Cajetan immediately and expressly adds these things, by which he rejects that extension: But in all the remaining aforesaid permissions (namely, apart from that which he says was granted by Eugene), whether explicitly or implicitly by Bishops or Pastors, I DO NOT APPROVE that those licensed can be absolved from cases reserved to the Bishop, because this is AGAINST THE DISPOSITION OF LAW in chapter Si Episcopus, where it is said that when a Bishop gives permission to someone to confess, he does not thereby grant the reserved cases. Therefore there is no, or very little, reason why Cajetan should be said to have departed from the most common doctrine of the School, or rather of the Church; and it can rightly seem troublesome and grave, the VV. may say wearisome, that against the manifest truth a doctrine which he expressly reprobates is attributed even to Cajetan, and that, to persuade this, words of Suarez which have nothing to do with the matter are thus distorted.

4. As regards the Summa Angelica, Blessed Angelus de Clavasio first establishes this general principle (word Confession V, no. 6): Whether a Bishop, granting permission to someone to choose a fit Confessor, by that very fact grants to the said chosen Confessor permission to absolve from his cases? I reply that he does not, unless he expresses this, or unless it is evidently established by other signs that he wishes specially to grant this. Chapter Si Episcopus, De Poenit. et Remiss. in VI. Then (ibid., no. 12) he adds concerning the case of travelers: Whether pilgrims and travelers who, with the permission of their proper priest, confess to another who nevertheless has cases reserved to Bishops can be absolved by the one whom they chose as confessor. I reply according to Rodriguez that they can, especially if the time of general confession, as at Easter, is at hand; nevertheless it must be enjoined upon him that when he has access to his Bishop, he should confess that reserved sin to him again and receive penance for it from him. Now according to the VV. (p. 536): 1. Blessed Angelus, where he denies that a penitent can be absolved from reserved cases, speaks of one who remains in the diocese of his Bishop, not of travelers, whom he afterward says can be absolved outside the diocese. 2. He in no way restricts this faculty for travelers, for he mentions Easter there because then all the faithful confess.

Reply to 1. I deny the whole; for it is not lawful gratuitously to fasten this qualification upon Blessed Angelus so that, against the unanimous and absolute opinion and interpretation of all, he thus perverts the sense of chapter Si Episcopus. I said gratuitously, because there is no reason here why anyone should attribute this false interpretation of that Chapter to Blessed Angelus. Nor is it opposed to that Chapter that one who has reserved sins, when a just cause requires, but has no access to the Superior, can according to the laws be absolved by another, whether he remains in the diocese or is distant from it.

Reply to 2. I likewise deny the whole; for those words especially at Easter express a comparison with other less urgent causes on account of which one who has reserved sins can be absolved, as St. Alphonsus also intimates (book 6, no. 285). And indeed, if that penitent could be absolved at any time and occasion, the expression ESPECIALLY at Easter would be absurd, which it is not lawful gratuitously to attribute to Blessed Angelus.

But, 3. I further deny that Blessed Angelus either departed in any way from the most common doctrine or in any respect favors the new theory. And the VV. silently pass over these words of the question proposed by Blessed Angelus: Who (travelers) confess to another who nevertheless has cases reserved to Bishops. Therefore Blessed Angelus supposes a confessor endowed with a faculty over reserved cases; and indeed, since he does not say cases reserved to the Bishop of the place but cases reserved to Bishops, he supposes a privileged Confessor, such as the Mendicant Orders were in the time of Blessed Angelus. See Lezana, vol. 1, chapter 19, no. 17. But he would not have sought a privileged confessor if, departing from the common opinion of that time, he had judged, as the new theory introduced, that the penitent could be absolved by any confessor. Therefore.

Moreover, the VV. did not do well when, in relating the text of Blessed Angelus, they suppressed certain words. Blessed Angelus has: I reply ACCORDING TO RODRIGUEZ that they can; but the VV. truncate the beginning and write: And he replies that they can. Yet that allegation of Rodriguez has much moment, however troublesome it may be to the new theories. For Rodriguez touches this question in two places; and in one he indeed denies that absolution can be given, although the Confessor has a faculty over the reserved cases of that Diocese. Thus he writes (Explanation of the Bull of the Crusade, section 9, no. 92): It is asked whether, if a subject of one Bishopric were to go with reserved cases into another Bishopric where they were not reserved, the approved SECULAR Confessor there who had the cases of his Bishopric, although he did not have the Bull, could absolve him. Navarrus holds that he can, relying upon custom. Medina in his Summa says no. I hold the latter opinion to be truer.

And from these things it can be seen why Blessed Angelus supposes a Confessor not merely having a faculty for the reserved cases of that diocese, but one who generally possesses a faculty over Episcopal cases, as the Mendicants were then endowed. In the other place, however (Summa, chapter 55, no. 5), Rodriguez reserves the absolution of a visitor of this kind to the Bishop of the place and derives it from the consent of the Ordinary of the visitor. A Bishop, he says, can absolve... a traveler who comes from another Episcopate with cases reserved to his proper Bishop, because it seems that such a Bishop will ratify whatever the other has done, especially if he comes from far away, as if someone were to come to Salamanca from the Indies. And perhaps for this reason Blessed Angelus added that when the visitor has access to his Bishop, he should confess that reserved sin to him again and receive penance for it from him. These things have nothing in common with the new theories.

5. Navarrus remains, from whose texts the VV. construct nearly four columns. But to what purpose, someone may ask? For even in those things which they themselves bring forward from Navarrus, there is what suffices for our matter; and even if he had otherwise departed from the general doctrine of the ancients, would this prevent that doctrine from being called most common?

QUESTION 6. Can Regular Prelates or Superiors reserve cases in their Order or Monastery?

Reply. They can reserve only certain cases determined by Clement VIII, which are eleven in number, as may be seen in St. Alphonsus, etc. But they can by no means reserve others without the consent of the General Chapter for the whole Religion and of the Provincial Chapter for the whole Province ¹⁷.

¹⁷ The decree of Clement VIII is as follows: Our Most Holy Lord, who long ago carefully weighed and learned from experience that the reservation of the faculty of absolving Religious penitents from certain graver sins, unless Superiors use it very prudently and moderately, can lead certain infirm persons, who sometimes fear to reveal to the Superior the stains of their conscience, into danger of eternal damnation and despair of a spiritual remedy; therefore, that His Holiness might provide opportunely against this evil, he decreed that none of the Superiors of Regulars reserve to himself the absolution of sins except those which follow, or some of them, according as they shall prudently judge in the Lord to be expedient for the advantage of their subjects.

Poisonings, incantations, divinations.

Apostasy from Religion, whether the habit is laid aside or retained, when it proceeds so far that an exit is made beyond the enclosure of the Monastery or Convent.

A nocturnal and furtive departure from a Monastery or Convent, even when made without the intention of apostatizing.

Ownership contrary to the vow of poverty, when it constitutes a mortal sin. A false oath in a regular or legitimate judgment.

The procuring of, assistance toward, or counsel for causing an abortion after the fetus has been animated, even when the effect does not follow.

The falsification of the handwriting or seal of Officials of the Monastery or Convent.

The theft of property of the Monastery or Convent in a quantity constituting a mortal sin.

A voluntary carnal lapse consummated in act.

The killing or wounding, or grave striking, of any person.

The malicious obstruction, delay, or opening of letters from Superiors to inferiors and from inferiors to Superiors.

If, besides these, it should seem that some other grave sin must be reserved for the preservation of the Religion or for purity of conscience, this is not to be done except by the mature discussion and consent of the General Chapter for the whole Order, or of the Provincial Chapter for the Province.

But other things most worthy of being known are also contained in the same Decree. First, indeed, it is established that subjects are not to be obliged to confess to Superiors: It shall not be lawful for Superiors of Regulars to hear the Confessions of their subjects, except when they have committed some reserved sin, or when the subjects themselves spontaneously and of their own motion have requested this of them.

It is then decreed that several confessors are to be appointed in each house, so that subjects may be free to confess to any of them at their pleasure; and a norm is also added concerning the faculty to be given to those confessors for absolving even from reserved cases. Superiors shall appoint in each house two, three, or more Confessors according as the number of subjects is greater or smaller; and they shall be learned, prudent, and endowed with charity, who shall absolve them from non-reserved cases and to whom absolution from reserved cases also shall be committed whenever a case occurs in which the Confessor himself especially judges that it ought to be committed. As regards the first point, the interpretation must be rejected altogether as though only one Confessor could be given if the number of subjects is not so great; or as though, when several are given for their great number, a certain determined portion could be assigned to each in such a way that individuals would have only one to whom they might confess exclusively. As regards the second point, however, it is manifest that, in determining whether a faculty for absolving from reserved cases is to be granted to the Confessor, the principal part must be deferred to the judgment of the Confessor himself.

To these was added a declaration of the greatest importance, which it is evident was issued by the same Clement VIII from those things which Ferraris relates (word Regular Prelate, no. 58). It is appended to the same Decree of Clement in these words: His Holiness afterward declared and declares that, if the Superior should be unwilling to grant a faculty for some reserved case to the Confessors of such Regulars when they request it, the Confessors may nevertheless, FOR THAT OCCASION, absolve Regular penitents even without having obtained the faculty from the Superior. Clement wished the matter to be deferred to the judgment of the Confessor to such an extent that, even if the Superior denies the faculty to him, he nevertheless can absolve the penitent from the reserved cases. Pellizzarius (On Nuns, chapter 9, no. 29) wisely observes that this declaration avails also for the confessor of Nuns when he requests from their Ordinary a faculty for absolving from reserved cases, whether that Ordinary is a Regular Prelate or the Bishop of the place, according as the monastery is or is not exempt. Moreover, when the Declaration says that the confessor, after the faculty has been requested although not obtained, can absolve FOR THAT OCCASION, this is not to be understood as though the Pontiff conceded it for only one occasion, but as meaning that the Confessor cannot again absolve either the same or another penitent from a reserved case unless he again asks permission from the Superior; and if this is denied, the confessor can again absolve, and so forth. Therefore, the sense will be that, as often as the faculty is requested and denied, so often can the confessor absolve, and so forth. On this matter St. Alphonsus (book 6, no. 586) relates that Collet adduces a decree of Urban VIII; but this is a mere hallucination of Collet, who wrongly interpreted certain words of Diana's Compendium, published at Rome in 1654, to which he himself refers.

But it is altogether to be desired that Superiors leave no occasion for recourse to the use of the faculty conceded by this Declaration. For Suarez most wisely observes (On Penance, disp. 30, sect. 4, no. 9) that, regularly and morally speaking, the Superior ought to be easy rather than difficult in conceding this faculty; and this according to the General Ordinances of the Society of Jesus (chapter 6, no. 1), where these words were read: In no way ought the Superior to be difficult, but rather easy and prompt in conceding it.

And an excellent reason is given in those words of St. Thomas (In IV Sent., dist. 17, q. 3, art. 3, q. 4, ad 6): But a priest would sin if he were not ready to grant permission to confess to another; because many are so infirm that they would rather die without confession than confess to such a priest; whence those who are too solicitous to know the consciences of their subjects through confession cast a snare of damnation upon many and, consequently, upon themselves. And again (Against Those Who Assail Religion, chapter 4): Certain persons, as has been found by experience, would desist from confession unless they could confess to others than their own priests, sometimes because of shame, because they blush to confess their sins to those with whom they converse daily; but sometimes because they suspect the priests to be hostile to them, and for many other reasons. Hence pious Prelates condescend to their infirmity, lest they fall altogether into despair, by providing other confessors for them.

Therefore, after Suarez (loc. cit.) adds that, morally and in itself speaking, there is less danger in conceding this faculty than in denying it, he continues: For it to be conceded, it ought to suffice that no special reason for denying it occurs; but for it to be denied, some special reason which requires this must always intervene.... Indeed, although it may sometimes seem to the Superior that a sufficient reason for denying the faculty intervenes, nevertheless, if it has become evident to him from the report of another or in another way that the subject is in no way willing to approach the Superior, nor can he be induced to do so after other remedies have been attempted, then the Superior ought never to deny the faculty, nor can he lawfully do so, except in a case of harm to others; because, notwithstanding whatever reason occurs and all things being weighed, it is then more expedient, indeed necessary, according to the laws of charity. Likewise, because this is a certain medicine for the subject; therefore, if applied with rigor it turns to his destruction, it must be tempered, and therefore the faculty must be conceded. Hence Navarrus (On chapter Placuit, no. 149) says that the excessive shame alone of the penitent is sometimes a sufficient cause for this faculty to be given.

As for Suarez's exception of the case of harm to others, it must be understood when scandal or any harm would perhaps threaten either the Religion, the house, another person, or the penitent himself, and it could not otherwise be met except by making the matter known to the Superior. But then, if the subject refused, he certainly could not be absolved, not from a defect of jurisdiction in the Confessor, but from a defect of disposition in the penitent himself. For the law of nature requires that the subject remove that scandal or harm; and if the only means available is that the matter be disclosed to the Superior, he is certainly bound to this.

From these things it is now also evident that throughout this whole affair secrecy must be so provided for that the penitent is not discovered by the Superior himself. Thus the Doctors commonly. Hence in the General Ordinances of the Society of Jesus (chapter 6, no. 3): Let the Superior beware, when the faculty is requested from him, lest he inquire curiously or do anything else from which he could conjecture who that person is for whom it is requested, and lest he seek any circumstances other than those which pertain to the matter. Let the Confessor also beware lest anything escape him from which the penitent could be recognized; and if he fears that, from knowledge of some circumstance, the Superior could probably suspect who that person is, let him know that he must omit it altogether and employ every caution in proposing the case, lest the Superior in any way be able probably to recognize the author. If he sees that, by proposing the case specifically, an occasion of suspicion would be given to the Superior, it will suffice if he says in general that someone has fallen into a reserved case which can bring harm neither to the Religion, nor to another, nor to the penitent himself. Finally, let both the Superior and the Confessor be mindful of the obligation of the Seal and so conduct themselves that in all things they take counsel for its purity and integrity.

And as regards the Seal, another most grave point occurs which Clement VIII also had before his eyes in the aforesaid Decree: namely, that no one can in any way use for external government knowledge obtained on the occasion of hearing confession. Thus Clement: Both the Superiors who exist for the time being and Confessors who have been promoted to the rank of Superior shall most diligently beware lest they use for external government that knowledge which they had in Confession concerning the sins of others. Suarez indeed had once judged (On Religion, tract 10, book 8, chapter 5, nos. 12-13) that under the name of external government there did not come that government which might be necessary for avoiding a sin or scandal either of the penitent or of others arising precisely from that sin, and accordingly that the Superior could use knowledge had from confession for that end. But he himself afterward expressly rejected that opinion (On Penance, disp. 33, sect. 7, no. 4).

574. Principles. - I. By ordinary power, the following can absolve from reserved cases: 1. those who themselves reserve them; 2. their successors in the same power; 3. their Superiors.

II. Bishops or their delegates can absolve even from occult papal cases, excepting, however, those which His Holiness Pius IX declared to be reserved in a special manner to the Apostolic See. This is established from the concession of the Council of Trent, sess. 24, Decree on Reformation, chapter 6, Liceat, and from the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis, October 12, 1869.

Bishops can absolve from papal cases even when notorious or public all the faithful who, because of a legitimate impediment, cannot approach the Apostolic See, lest danger threaten souls from a delay of absolution. This is established from Canon Law.

III. No Confessor, even a Regular, can absolve from properly episcopal cases unless he has received the faculty from the Bishop himself, even if he can absolve from any cases whatsoever reserved to the Pope. Thus Clement X in the Bull Superna, where it is said: Those having the faculty of absolving from all cases reserved to the Apostolic See cannot on that account absolve in cases reserved by the Bishop. Except, according to what was said above, Regulars, who by the same Constitution of Clement X can absolve those coming together from an alien diocese from the cases reserved there, unless, however, they have come in fraud of the reservation and the sins are also reserved in the place of confession.

IV. There is no reservation at the moment of death. Therefore, all Priests can then absolve any penitents from all sins and censures. - Trent, sess. 14, chapter 7.

575. Questions. - QUESTION 1. Can an inferior sometimes absolve one having reserved sins outside danger of death?

Reply 1. He can indeed sometimes absolve, namely, whenever the faculty cannot be sought from the Superior, not even by letter ¹, and otherwise there is danger in delay or a grave inconvenience threatens; and this avails even if the sin should be reserved with excommunication. The reason is that the Church, a pious mother, and every Superior cannot be judged to wish to oblige anyone to something morally impossible or to undergo so great an inconvenience. - Thus commonly. - St. Ligorius, no. 585.

¹ Observe with St. Alphonsus (book 7, no. 89) that the common, more probable, and safe doctrine is that one who has an impediment to appearing before the Pontiff is not bound to seek absolution through an intermediary or by letter, even from the Sacred Penitentiary: 1. because by common law, while that impediment remains, Bishops possess the power of absolving; 2. because no obligation is present except that of appearing personally; if, therefore, anyone cannot perform this, he is bound to nothing else except what the legislator has substituted; 3. because obtaining absolution through the Sacred Penitentiary is a privilege, but according to the common axiom no one is bound to use privileges. Nevertheless, if a privileged confessor is lacking and the impediment is not perpetual, a petition for the faculty by letter will be useful, so that the penitent may be freed from the burden of appearing at some time.

Albitius (On Inconstancy, chapter 25, no. 33) adduces for the opposite opinion the example of a decision issued by the Congregation of the Holy Inquisition. But the example is not to the point. Someone had namely been absolved under the express condition that he present himself at Rome either personally or through a procurator; and when he alleged the inconvenience of the journey, it was granted to him that he might have recourse to the Sacred Penitentiary. Here, therefore, there is a special disposition for a special case, which neither ought nor can be converted into a general principle.

Reply 2. Yet in such a case he cannot absolve except indirectly from the reserved cases, although he absolves directly from the others. The reason is that he does not have jurisdiction over the reserved cases. Nor is the Church judged to supply this jurisdiction; for there is no necessity of supplying it, since indirect absolution from the reserved cases suffices for the present necessity. - St. Ligorius, ibid., and the others cited above.

Hence, 1. the Confessor cannot then absolve except with the burden that, when an opportunity is given, the penitent present himself to the Superior or to another having the faculty of absolving from reserved cases.

These things, however, avail when the penitent can within a short time approach the Superior or another having the faculty over reserved cases. But if the impediment lasts for a long time, which is computed from six months to five years, an inferior can absolve directly, with the burden nevertheless imposed of presenting himself to the Superior or his delegate if the sin is reserved with a censure. It is otherwise if the sin does not have a censure attached. - Suarez, On Penance, disp. 30, sect. 3, no. 7. - Lugo, disp. 20, no. 223. But when the impediment is perpetual ², absolution is given directly without any burden of appearing before the Superior. Chapter Eos qui, 22, De Sent. Excomm., in VI. Those things which are said concerning a reservation of the Pontiff can be extended to episcopal reserved cases ³. Thus the common opinion in St. Alphonsus, no. 585 and book 7, no. 92.

² Those judged to have an impediment of this kind are children before puberty, sons of a family, the aged, servants, the poor, the infirm or sickly, women, Regulars, and much more nuns, those perpetually condemned to prisons or galleys, and finally all who are bound by a duty of supporting or administering a family, or of discharging a public office which cannot be left without public or grave detriment. See St. Alphonsus (book 7, no. 88).

³ By episcopal reserved cases the Author seems to mean sins which a Bishop reserves to himself. Concerning these St. Alphonsus (book 6, no. 585) judges as more true that the rule handed down concerning papal reserved cases does not avail; but afterward (book 7, no. 92) he proposes the doctrine of Roncaglia (tract 4, q. 1, chapter 6, q. 5), who establishes this general principle: Those things which have been said concerning cases reserved to the Supreme Pontiff can, from parity of reason, be extended to episcopal reserved cases, etc.; and Sporer has things corresponding to these (On Penance, no. 750). But that St. Alphonsus opposes to Roncaglia Laymann, Soto, Coninck, and Suarez, by whose authority he had previously been moved to judge the first opinion more true, is in fact of no account. For the first three of these do not touch this question at all; but Suarez (On Penance, disp. 30, sect. 3, nos. 11-12), after adducing reasons for each opinion, merely says that he inclines more to that side, lest in a matter so grave this faculty be attributed without sufficient foundation. Yet others rightly think that sufficient foundation is present in chapter Eos qui, 22, De Sent. Excomm., in VI, which thus determines: Those who are absolved by another from a sentence of a canon or of a man (when, because of the imminent moment of death or another legitimate impediment, they cannot have recourse for the benefit of absolution to him by whom otherwise they were by law to be absolved), etc.; for here there is question of any Superior whatsoever and not only of the Roman Pontiff. The same can also be elicited from chapter Nuper, De Sent. Excomm., in which the question is expressly raised concerning any Prelate whatsoever. Nor indeed is Roncaglia alone with Sporer in that doctrine; for he himself alleges Hurtado and Diana, while Diana (vol. 1, tract 5, resolutions 18 and 19) adds Palaus, Henriquez, Marchant, Caelestinus, Gamachaeus, and Granadus. And he concludes (resolution 18, no. 7): And I judge all these things sufficiently probable and safe; and let them be noted especially by Confessors, because they are not everywhere encountered in Authors, but are of daily occurrence in practice.

Moreover, the same question is raised concerning those who, bound by a pontifical censure and hindered from approaching Rome, ought to seek absolution from the Bishop: whether, if they are also hindered from betaking themselves to the Bishop, they can be absolved by any Confessor. St. Alphonsus replies (book 7, no. 92): Suarez, Lugo, Becanus, etc., more commonly deny it, according to Viva, On Penance, q. 9, art. 2, no. 9, because in law this is conceded only to Bishops, nor in a positive law does an argument from parity avail. But in this he was deceived by Viva, who in that place badly confounds distinct questions; while Suarez was so far of the affirmative opinion that Lugo attempted to attack him for this reason (On Penance, disp. 20, nos. 228-229). Moreover, the laws are manifest not only in the cited chapter Eos qui, but also in chapter Nuper, in which the faculty is also given to others besides the Bishop in these words: But if for some just cause it is difficult for the one to be absolved to approach the excommunicator himself, we grant by indulgence that (after security has been given according to the form of the Church that he will obey the mandate of the excommunicator) he may be absolved by his own Bishop or proper priest. This sentence, as St. Alphonsus says (loc. cit.), the Doctors most commonly interpret not disjunctively, as though it were equally permissible to approach either the Bishop or another confessor, but substitutively, namely, that he can then be absolved by another confessor when the Bishop cannot be approached. But if the Doctors most commonly elicit this from this canon, how do they more commonly deny that one who is impeded can be absolved by someone other than the Bishop? And in fact the same St. Alphonsus (loc. cit.) adduces many more for the second opinion than for the first.

** The VV. expend twenty-four columns (pp. 554-565) in attacking this Note. Therefore, as regards the first part of the Note, in which it is said that no account is to be made of the fact that St. Alphonsus opposes Laymann, Coninck, and Soto to Roncaglia because they do not touch at all upon the question at issue, the VV. (p. 556) establish this thesis: St. Alphonsus rightly alleges the Authors cited for the negative opinion.

Reply. This controversy has an easy solution if the state of the question is rightly defined. Therefore, in the present matter there is question of a penitent who is impeded from approaching the Bishop for a long time; concerning this case St. Alphonsus elsewhere (book 7, no. 86) thus determined: If, however, the impediment is FOR A LONG TIME, for example, for a year or six months..., he ought not to be absolved unless an oath has first been given, etc.; that is, he teaches that he is to be absolved, with the burden imposed of presenting himself to the Superior when the impediment ceases, etc.

1. These things being established beforehand, we now come to Laymann. He (book 5, tract 6, chapter 12, nos. 9-10), to the question, What is a Confessor to do if a penitent confesses, among other things, a sin reserved to the Superior?, first replies: Ordinarily he ought not to absolve him, but to send him to the Superior, etc. Here, as is evident, there is no discussion of a penitent having a long-lasting impediment. Therefore these things are not to the point.

The other reply is this: If some necessity urges, for example, if the penitent is far distant from the Bishop, then the confessor can absolve the penitent in such a way that the absolution falls upon the non-reserved sins..., but indirectly upon the reserved sins. And here likewise there is no trace of a long-lasting impediment, indeed not even of a perpetual impediment. Therefore neither do these things touch the present controversy. Therefore it was rightly said in the Note that Laymann does not touch this question and accordingly is alleged in vain.

Indeed, it may be added that if Laymann has anything which can pertain in any way to the present matter, he inclines to the opinion opposite to that which the holy Doctor Alphonsus attributes to him. For (loc. cit., no. 15) he has these words: Finally I observe that, even outside danger of death, if there is a moral impossibility of approaching the Apostolic See for absolution from a sin reserved to the Supreme Pontiff, but neither the Bishop or his Vicar, to whom in such a case the faculty of absolution devolves accidentally, can be approached, nor can any privileged confessor be had, then it is very probable, as Felicianus, Scotus, Sylvester, Suarez, and Filliucius hand down from the argument of chapter Nuper, De Sent. Excomm., that even the Pastor or another inferior legitimate confessor can absolve, for example, a nun in enclosure; with an obligation imposed, or rather with the penitent advised of the obligation that, if it should happen that the impediment to approaching the Pope is removed, he ought to present himself to him, not that he may be absolved again, since he was truly and directly absolved, but, etc. Therefore Laymann teaches that one who cannot approach the Bishop can be absolved directly by an inferior. But why, finally, does Laymann admit this except from the general principle that a remedy ought not to be lacking, according to the Sacred Canons, for danger to souls and the necessity of the penitent? But are not the same danger and the same necessity present whether the case is episcopal or pontifical, for absolution from which the Bishop must be approached? Indeed, St. Alphonsus also (book 7, no. 92) does not reject this, both because, where there is the same reason, there ought to be the same law, as the Gloss says on chapter Dilectus, and because a law expressly granting this is not lacking; for in chapter Nuper, 29, De Sent. Excomm., it is held that one impeded for a just cause from approaching a Superior having the right to absolve from a censure is to be absolved by his own Bishop or proper priest. In that place the holy Doctor treats the general question, Whether those still impeded from approaching the Bishop for these censures, or OTHER RESERVED CASES, can be absolved by any confessor. Therefore, since the same reason avails for each case, if anything can be conjectured concerning Laymann's mind, there is certainly no reason why he should be drawn into the opinion which St. Alphonsus attributes to him; but, on the contrary, he can rightly be alleged for the opposite.

2. Let us pass to Dominic Soto, concerning whom the VV. (p. 559) write: St. Alphonsus alleges Dominic Soto only in book 7, no. 91, and indeed only indirectly from Laymann, where he treats reservations without a censure.

Reply. This is not true; for St. Alphonsus alleges Soto also in no. 92, where he asks whether, if someone is impeded from approaching the Bishop, a simple confessor can absolve him from cases and censures reserved by that same Bishop; and this is our present question. Therefore let the VV. seek another place in the works of Dominic Soto where he denies that an inferior can absolve from episcopal reserved cases when there is a long-lasting impediment, for example, for four years, to approaching the Bishop. Moreover, to exempt this place of the holy Doctor from every reproach, it would perhaps be expedient to employ another interpretation of it, such that he does not oppose those four Authors, namely, Suarez, Laymann, Coninck, and Soto, to Roncaglia, but adduces them for the hypothesis of an impediment that is indeed temporary but not long-lasting. And thus this place is better reconciled with those things which he has previously, and which we adduced above, concerning those impeded from approaching the Bishop for censures and other reserved cases. For, in view of the context, it is not necessary that this question be understood only of pontifical cases.

3. As regards Coninck, the VV. adduce (p. 558) this passage of his (disp. 8, no. 88): Others add that the same thing must be said of a Pastor with respect to cases reserved to the Bishop when the latter cannot be approached, but they do not sufficiently prove it, and necessity can scarcely occur, since a faculty for absolving from them can easily be obtained from the Bishop; unless perhaps in some sudden necessity, concerning which we shall say what must be done in the following doubt. But in the following doubt Coninck has that which all others also have, namely, that the penitent is to be absolved directly from the non-reserved sins, but indirectly from the reserved sins, etc.

Reply. That someone indicates a means by which some necessity can be met does not solve the general question, in which it is supposed that a means of providing for the necessity is not present. Others here add that a simple confessor cannot absolve the penitent in the case if a privileged confessor is at hand who can absolve also from the reserved cases; but even this, as is evident, does not solve the question under the hypothesis in which a privileged confessor is lacking. Therefore let it be sought in Coninck what must be done when, for a long time and from whatever cause may finally be imagined, the means proposed by him is lacking. And since you will seek in vain for the solution of this question in him, he is consequently opposed without reason to Roncaglia, who discusses this hypothesis.

Moreover, the remedy which Coninck suggests here can have place also when someone impeded from approaching the Pontiff ought, according to the canons, to receive absolution from the Bishop, yet cannot approach the Bishop either. For even in this case the Bishop can delegate to another the faculty of absolving.

Why, then, do neither St. Alphonsus nor the VV. object to Coninck in this case, but admit that this penitent can be absolved by an inferior?

4. Nearly the same things which we said concerning Coninck avail with Suarez. His thesis stands thus (disp. 30, sect. 3, no. 12): Absolutely speaking, I judge that inferior priests do not have jurisdiction over these reserved cases outside the moment of death BY FORCE OF COMMON LAW, because the Pontiffs speak only of cases reserved to themselves, in which there is the most special reason which was already touched upon.

Reply. Let those words, By force of common law, be carefully observed. For Suarez continues: And it can furthermore be explained because it pertained to the care of the Pontiffs themselves to commit this jurisdiction in their own cases; but as regards inferior Prelates it was not necessary for this to be established by common law, but just as reservation is made by them through particular statutes either of Dioceses or of Religious Orders, so it is committed to their care and prudence that they make it in a manner accommodated to the salvation of souls; and therefore in statutes of this kind it is ALMOST always customary to declare that, as often as access to the Prelate is difficult, absolution can in some way be obtained from others, lest penance be delayed too long. But, it can again be rejoined, these things do not pertain to the matter. For the question concerns the hypothesis of a penitent who for a long time must lack absolution because he can neither approach the Bishop nor has another at hand who possesses the faculty of absolving. But the hypothesis of Suarez stands otherwise. Therefore, in the hypothesis which is established here by us, the reason from which Suarez wishes to extricate himself retains all its force; and he proposes it thus (loc. cit., no. 11): Although the difficulty of appearing before the Superior occurs more frequently with regard to the Supreme Pontiff than with regard to inferior Prelates, nevertheless it cannot be denied that it can often happen with danger to souls arising from a delay of penance. Therefore, although the Pontiffs established that law on the occasion of cases reserved to themselves, yet, their reason being considered (namely, Lest danger threaten souls from a delay of penance, chapter final, De Poenit. et Remiss.), it can probably be believed that they established a general law to be observed in every reservation of cases.

Indeed, someone could add that it not only can probably be believed, as Suarez has it, but must be held as certain that the Pontiffs established a general law to be observed in every reservation of cases. For are not the words of canon Eos qui (chapter 22, De Sent. Excomm., in VI) most clear? Those (thus Boniface VIII) who are absolved by another from the sentence of a canon OR OF A MAN (when, because of the imminent moment of death or ANOTHER LEGITIMATE IMPEDIMENT, they cannot have recourse for the benefit of absolution to him by whom they otherwise were by law to be absolved): if afterward, when it ceases, etc. But the things contained in this canon pertain to common law; and the canon generally embraces all Superiors from whom absolution is to be sought, and Bishops certainly are comprehended among these. Therefore.

Moreover, the same Suarez (loc. cit., no. 8) had written: In pontifical cases the general rule of law is that, as often as access to the Supreme Pontiff or to his Legate or Delegate is not open except with great difficulty and delay, the sinner can be absolved by an inferior priest, with the burden, etc. Yet he added (loc. cit., no. 10): It is often necessary to have recourse to the Bishop before inferiors, if this can be done, because the laws themselves declare this. But from those things which we brought forward above from Suarez himself, it was necessary, for preventing danger to souls, that the Pontiffs should establish a law of this kind. Therefore, by Suarez's own admission, in order to ward off danger to souls it was necessary that those who could not approach the Bishop without great difficulty and delay should be capable of being absolved by an inferior priest. But, insofar as warding off danger to souls is concerned, what difference does it finally make whether the Bishop must be approached for absolution from a pontifical case or for absolution from an episcopal case?

And hence indeed we may learn, if you please, why Lugo wrote that Suarez inclined to the negative opinion, although his thesis which we adduced announces this in a certain absolute manner. For the whole context indicates that there was indeed in Suarez a strong will to deny, or rather an ineffectual wish, which nevertheless the preceding and following context proved altogether ineffectual. Therefore there was in fact no cause for the VV. (p. 559) to write these things: Father Ballerini clearly shows that he did not examine the opinion of Suarez. The very thing happened to him which he everywhere reproaches St. Alphonsus with, namely, that he blindly copied Authors. For he himself was deceived by Cardinal de Lugo. Reply. There was no deception at all, but a discreet and even benign interpretation of the Suarezian context.

It also does not appear why the VV. (p. 560) write: Therefore, since Suarez calls the opinion that in a case of necessity the penitent can be directly absolved very doubtful and, rigorously speaking, not true, much more does he reject direct absolution where no necessity is present. For to what purpose are these things? Whom perhaps do they attack? Why do the VV. not indicate who perhaps asserted what they there wish to refute? What do they desire to insinuate by that silence?

5. The VV. object (pp. 560-561): Lugo demonstrates that the words of chapter Eos qui do not furnish a sufficient foundation for the affirmative opinion.

Reply. I distinguish: Lugo attempts to extricate himself from this difficulty through a gratuitous and violent interpretation, I concede; he demonstrates it, I deny.

The VV. object (p. 561): In chapter Nuper, De Sent. Excomm., there is openly discussion only of pontifical reservations, because it is said: let him be absolved by his own Bishop or proper priest.

Reply. I deny the whole. The reason is that, as no one is ignorant, someone can legitimately be struck with excommunication even by a Bishop not his own if, for example, in another diocese he acquires a forum by reason of the offense, as if someone refuses afterward to take as wife a violated girl to whom a true promise of matrimony was made; for the Bishop of that diocese can compel him by censures to keep faith. From that excommunication he can afterward, in those circumstances of which chapter Nuper treats, be absolved by his own Bishop.

6. As regards the other part of the Note, where there is discussion of absolving those who cannot approach the Pontiff, the matter can be disposed of in a few words, although the VV. discuss this matter through eight columns.

The VV. (p. 563) freely concede what is said in the Note, that the holy Doctor Alphonsus was deceived by Viva when he wrote (book 7, no. 92), Suarez, etc., more commonly deny it, but in these words: It is only a mere inadvertence or slip of the pen that the holy Doctor alleges Suarez for the negative opinion. Yet perhaps it would have been better to act here more sincerely or simply. For what they say of inadvertence is most true, and they very well allege the place of the holy Doctor where he attributes the opposite opinion to Suarez in these words (book 6, no. 585): In pontifical cases the rule of law is, AS SUAREZ WELL SAYS, that as often as access to the Pontiff is not open, the penitent can be directly absolved by the Bishop; or, when an impediment to approaching the Bishop is also present, by any confessor, etc. But what the VV. add concerning a slip of the pen is not to the point, because it is manifest, and the holy Doctor himself openly says, that he took these things from Viva.

7. To those things which are said in the Note, that Suarez was so far of the affirmative opinion that Lugo attempted to attack him for this reason, the VV. write (p. 564): Rather, Father Ballerini himself was again deceived by Cardinal de Lugo; for Suarez does not hold the affirmative opinion to such an extent that he deserves to be rebuked for it, and the things which Lugo objects against him are unjust.

Reply. It is indeed difficult to divine in what matter the VV. could have said that Father Ballerini was deceived by Cardinal de Lugo. Is it perhaps as though the Note said that Lugo's attack against Suarez was just or efficacious? But in the Note, on the contrary, it is merely said that Lugo attempted to attack him; and since in the Note itself the opinion of Suarez is exhibited as certain and confirmed by manifest laws, who would suspect that anything there is deferred to Lugo's attack? Does the deception perhaps reside in this, that the Note may seem to defer too much to the opinion of Suarez? Does what the VV. say perhaps look to this: that Suarez did not hold the affirmative opinion to such an extent that he deserved on that account to be rebuked by Lugo; namely, as though Suarez were not so firm in that opinion and Lugo therefore unjustly rose against him? But does not St. Alphonsus also (above, preceding number) praise Suarez because he relies upon a rule of law? Where, then, is this deception of Father Ballerini?

8. But the VV. also add another thing here (pp. 564-565), namely, they attack that rule of law and contend that in the alleged texts of Canon Law there is no firm foundation for the opinion which is treated here.

Reply. It is truly remarkable to what heat of contention and contradiction men can be carried away! Indeed, the holy Doctor Alphonsus (book 7, no. 92) wrote: A law expressly granting this is not lacking; for in chapter Nuper, 29, De Sent. Excomm., it is held, AS WE NOTED ABOVE, that one impeded for a just cause from approaching the Superior having the right to absolve from a censure is to be absolved by his own Bishop or proper priest. And in the place which he himself indicates, he has these things (book 7, no. 85): The same is established also in chapter Nuper, where at the end it is said MORE GENERALLY that, AS OFTEN AS anyone can with difficulty for a just cause approach for absolution from an excommunication him by whom he was to be absolved, he is to be absolved by his own Bishop or proper priest. And while the holy Doctor Alphonsus contends that it is established more generally in that canon that AS OFTEN AS, etc., is it not remarkable that the VV., under the assumed pretext of vindicating the holy Doctor, attack him instead?

9. Finally, the VV. take badly those last words of the Note: If the Doctors most commonly elicit this from this canon, how do they more commonly deny that one who is impeded can be absolved by someone other than the Bishop?

Reply. St. Alphonsus adduced three altogether, and among them Suarez, whom the VV. admit to have been alleged through inadvertence; and Becanus also could be joined to Suarez, since he touches this whole matter very lightly and in very few words and does not have this special question. Therefore Lugo alone remains. Thus, in order that they might defend the holy Doctor more suitably, others besides Lugo alone had to be adduced, so that it might be established that this doctrine is more commonly defended by the Doctors.

2. If the penitent has only reserved sins, he cannot be absolved unless he submits to the keys another sin, at least a venial sin of his past life, to be remitted directly. Otherwise no matter of the Sacrament would be given.

The cases in which an inferior can thus absolve are especially: 1. danger of infamy or scandal, for example, from the omission of the celebration of Mass; 2. the necessity of fulfilling the precept of confession or Communion; 3. fear lest the penitent remain for a long time in the state of mortal sin. - St. Ligorius, ibid.

576. • QUESTION 2. Is one who has been absolved from reserved cases at the moment of death by an inferior bound to present himself to the Superior if he recovers?

Reply 1. No, as regards a simple reservation. The reason is that, according to Trent, there is no reservation at the moment of death. Therefore there is also no burden of reservation unless it is proved from another source.

Reply 2. Authors commonly affirm this as regards censures attached to a reservation, from chapter Eos qui, 22, De Sententia excommunicationis, in VI, where no one is absolved at the moment of death from a reserved censure except under the law that, as soon as he conveniently can, he take care to present himself before the Superior, humbly to receive his mandate. Hence, if he recovers, he must have recourse to the Superior, and indeed under pain of falling again into the censures, unless a legitimate usage exempts him from this obligation. Nevertheless, some limit the obligation of presenting oneself to the Superior to the case of striking a Cleric or to another reservation which the Legislator may perhaps have excepted, of which kind the cases of the Bull In Coena were judged to be ⁴. They elicit this both from the Council of Trent, by which it was declared without any restriction that every reservation ceases in danger of death, and especially from the Roman Ritual, which clearly intimates an obligation of presenting oneself to the Superior not absolutely but conditionally: But if someone confesses while placed in danger of death, he is to be absolved from all sins and censures, however reserved they may be (for every reservation then ceases); but first, if he can, let him make satisfaction to whom he ought; and if he escapes the danger, and for some reason is bound to present himself to the Superior by whom otherwise he was to be absolved, as soon as he can let him present himself before him, to perform whatever he owes. Navarrus, Henriquez, Avila, Filliucius, Sporer, Gobat, Diana, and others call this opinion probable; nor does St. Ligorius seem to contradict it ⁵.

⁴ ** To this must be referred what is thus read in the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis of Pius IX immediately after the list of excommunications which are reserved in a special manner to the Apostolic See: But let those presuming to absolve without the due faculty, even under any pretext whatsoever, know that they are bound by the bond of an excommunication reserved to the Roman Pontiff, provided there is no question of the moment of death; in which, however, the obligation of standing by the mandates of the Church, if they recover, shall remain firm with regard to those absolved.

⁵ St. Alphonsus (book 7, no. 87) adds Corneius and the Salmanticenses to the Doctors alleged by the Author; the latter say (On Censures, chapter 2, no. 66): On account of the authority of such great men, we judge this probable. Thomas Del Bene likewise holds that opinion probable (On the Office of the Holy Inquisition, part 1, doubt 66, no. 19), who adds Gambarupta to the aforesaid; Sporer (On Penance, no. 726) joins Jordanus and Joseph de Januario to these; finally Diana (vol. 6, tract 1, resolution 202, no. 2) writes: Claudius Millardus, in the Summa of Pastors, On Penance, chapter 97, no. 10, observes that it appears most probable that this burden of presenting oneself before the Superior, if someone was absolved at the time of death from reserved excommunications, no longer has place and ceased after Trent.... Caelestinus, in the Compendium of Moral Theology, tract 1, chapter 7, no. 3, thinks that this doctrine can be approved with a safe conscience when the excommunication is not notorious or brought to the external forum. Sporer held the same, establishing (no. 752) that even the obligation of appearing before the Superior because of the striking of a cleric most probably avails only for the external forum, namely, when the matter has already been brought to the contentious forum.

Observe furthermore that, according to the mind of St. Alphonsus (book 7, no. 87), this question has place not only if someone was absolved from reserved censures at the moment of death, but also when, because of a long-lasting impediment to approaching the Superior, he obtained absolution from another and performed those things which the Superior would have exacted from him.

** The VV. write twelve columns against this Note and the text of Gury (pp. 566-571). We shall indicate in a few words those things which are of any or whatever importance.

1. Therefore, the VV. object (p. 567) that in the proposed case the negative opinion is rightly called more common and more probable by St. Alphonsus.

Reply. Let it pass; for this is denied neither in the Note nor in the text. But in the text it is merely said: Nor does St. Ligorius seem to contradict it.

2. But, the VV. say (loc. cit.), St. Alphonsus manifestly contradicts it and proposes the doubt only concerning one amended, who has already satisfied the parties.

Reply. Neither in the text nor in the Note does anything occur which excludes either satisfaction already fulfilled or the will of satisfying; indeed, an express mention of this is seen in the text of the Roman Ritual.

3. The VV. object (p. 568) that it is omitted in the Note that the Salmanticenses do not adhere to that opinion which they judge probable.

Reply. Let it pass. For it was sufficient for the purpose of the Note to indicate that the opinion had been judged probable by the Salmanticenses also.

4. The VV. (p. 569) prefix this title to another article: The arguments brought forward by Fathers Gury and Ballerini for the affirmative opinion are weighed.

Reply. I deny the supposition. For neither Father Gury nor Father Ballerini brings forward any argument, but they merely report both the opinion of others and some reason. Therefore, with fruitless labor the VV. fill two columns with texts of Patritius Sporer, whom they otherwise cannot deny to have judged the opinion which they attack to be most probable.

5. That the VV. may extricate themselves from the words of the Roman Ritual, they object that there is discussion there not only of reserved censures but also of reserved cases without a censure.

Reply. I concede the Antecedent and deny the consequence. For those words of the Ritual, And if for some reason he is bound to present himself to the Superior, would absurdly be drawn to a distinction between censures and other sins; rather, they openly indicate that there can be a doubt whether those who have been absolved from a censure are also bound to present themselves.

And let these things suffice for those twelve columns of the VV.; for certain other things do not require a reply.

577. • QUESTION 3. Is one bound by a reservation, when under a necessity of communicating or celebrating, bound to confess to a simple Confessor when another is lacking?

Reply 1. More probably he is not bound to confess if he has no other mortal sin except the reserved one; the reason is that he is bound to confession neither by reason of the reserved sin, which cannot be directly remitted, nor by reason of venial sins or mortal sins already remitted, since these are not necessary matter of confession. - St. Ligorius, no. 265 ⁶. - Lugo. - Elbel, etc.

⁶ If he has no other mortal sin except the reserved one, the Doctors agree that he is not bound to confession, but that it suffices for him to be contrite. St. Alphonsus (book 6, no. 265, q. 1).

424. Preliminary notes. 1° Jurisdiction can be limited in various ways by legitimate superiors, but especially by the Roman Pontiff, who has supreme jurisdiction in the whole Church. For ecclesiastical superiors can grant it, or not; therefore a fortiori they can confer it in a more or less limited manner, according as they shall judge this expedient in the Lord. Hence jurisdiction can be limited with respect to men, insofar as the faculty of absolving is restricted to certain men or classes of men, for example, when it is said, women or nuns excepted; with respect to place, for example, within the limits of one parish; with respect to time, so that when a certain time has elapsed it expires; with respect to sins, insofar as the superior can reserve to himself absolution from certain graver sins. Concerning this Trent says (ch. 7): "It has seemed to our most holy Fathers to pertain greatly to the discipline of the Christian people, that certain more atrocious and graver crimes should be absolved not by anyone whatsoever, but only by the highest priests; whence deservedly the Supreme Pontiffs, according to the supreme authority handed down to them in the universal Church, have been able to reserve to their own particular judgment some graver causes of crimes."

⁵ Suarez, disp. XXIX-XXXI; Lugo, disp. XX; Salmantic., ch. 13; Lacroix, n. 1599-1698; Pauwels, de Casibus reservatis, in Migne, Theol. Curs., t. XVIII, p. 935-1604; Stoz, lib. II, Appendix; Elbel-Bierbaum, Conf. 13-14; St. Alphonsus, n. 578-602; Kenrick, n. 153-180; Ball. P., Appendix to t. V, De casuum reservatione; Bucceroni, Commentarii de casibus reservatis, Rome, 1889; Lehmk., n. 402-417; Marc, n. 1766-1779; Muller, § 141-145; Konings., n. 1400-1403; Genicot, n. 342-350; Noldin, n. 361-376; Legoux, Supplementum de Casibus reservatis, at the end of the work whose title is: Decrets du C. de Rouen et Statuts Synodaux, Coutances, 1890, p. 105-126.

425. 2° When jurisdiction is limited with respect to sins, there is present a reserved case, which can be defined as a sin whose absolution is not permitted to any confessor, but remains with the legitimate Superior or his delegate. Therefore reservation consists in this, that the power of absolving from certain graver sins is denied to some priest, while the faculty of absolving from the rest is granted; directly, therefore, it affects the confessor, by restricting his power, and only indirectly the penitent.

426. 3° Sins can be reserved in a twofold manner: with censure and without censure.¹ The former likewise are reserved in a twofold manner: because of the censure, when the censure rather than the sin is reserved, and thence, once the censure has been removed, the sin can be remitted by any confessor; or because of the sin, when the sin itself is reserved because of itself, and, the censure having been removed or not incurred, the sin remains reserved,² and because of sin. This distinction must be kept before the mind especially where absolution from censures is treated.

¹ A censure, which is treated in a special Treatise, is a spiritual and medicinal penalty by which a baptized man, delinquent and contumacious, is deprived by ecclesiastical Superiors of the use of certain spiritual goods. Three kinds are distinguished: excommunication, suspension, and interdict.

² These notions are according to the mind of the Code. Cf. can. 894 and 2363.

427. These things having been set down, we shall speak 1° on the power of reserving; 2° on the conditions required for reserving; 3° on the principal reserved cases; 4° on absolution from reserved cases.

437. 2° Episcopal cases are of two kinds: (A) some are reserved to the Bishop by common law, by reason of censure; and these are six, reviewed in the Code.

(a) Those professed of perpetual simple vows, and likewise all presuming to contract marriage, even only civilly, with some person from the aforesaid persons; (b) those procuring abortion, the effect having followed; (c) for the four others see the Treatise on Censures.

(B) Others are reserved to the Bishop by particular law, whether through plenary or provincial Councils, or through diocesan Statutes; these therefore it is fitting to read attentively, so that each one may know excellently which cases are reserved in his own proper diocese.

In the United States of America two cases are reserved to the Bishop for all dioceses, namely an excommunication latae sententiae (a) against those who, after they have obtained a civil divorce, have dared to attempt marriage; (b) against Catholics who have contracted or attempted marriage before a minister of any non-Catholic sect.¹ Besides, in individual dioceses certain special cases are reserved; concerning these, read the Statutes.²

¹ Thus in the Plenary Council of Baltimore III, n. 124 and 127.

² Thus, for example, in the dioceses of Trenton and Wilmington, priests are suspended ipso facto, by a suspension reserved to the Ordinary, if they shall have retained for three months the title of ecclesiastical goods in their own name; or if without the license of the Bishop they shall have attempted to sell any thing belonging to the legal ecclesiastical Society (Church corporation). (Synod. Trenton., n. 327; Synod. Wilmingt., n. 259).

3° Regular cases are assigned in each religion. But concerning these there is no reason why we should be anxious, since every confessor can absolve religious from them (Code, c. 519).

438. From cases reserved to the Bishop, the following can absolve:

(a) by ordinary power, the one reserving, his successor in office, or his superior, provided he has true jurisdiction over the subjects of the one reserving (for example, the Supreme Pontiff); for all these can reserve, therefore also absolve from reserved cases, since the same power suffices for removing and for establishing a reservation.

439. (b) By delegated power, all those who have obtained this special faculty from a legitimate Superior, namely from him who can delegate. Now these things are established in the Code.³

³ Code, c. 899-900.

440. 1. With regard to reserved sins: "The faculty of absolving from reserved cases belongs by the law itself to the penitentiary canon"; "it should be granted habitually at least to vicars forane, with the added faculty, especially in places of the diocese more remote from the episcopal see, of subdelegating, as often as confessors of their district, if and when they have recourse to them for some more urgent determined case"; "by the law itself, from cases which Ordinaries in any way have reserved to themselves, both pastors, or others who in law are considered in the name of pastors, can absolve during the whole time useful for fulfilling the Easter precept, and also individual missionaries at the time when missions happen to be held for the people"; "any reservation lacks all force: when the confession is being made either by the sick who cannot leave the house, or by spouses for the purpose of entering marriage; - whenever either the legitimate Superior has denied the faculty of absolving sought for some determined case, or, in the prudent judgment of the confessor, the faculty of absolving cannot be sought from the legitimate Superior without grave inconvenience of the penitent or without danger of violating the sacramental seal; - outside the territory of the one reserving, even if the penitent departed from it only to obtain absolution."

441. 2. With regard to reserved censures: "the reservation of a censure in a particular territory does not exercise its force outside the boundaries of that territory, even if the censured person leaves the territory to obtain absolution; but a censure ab homine is reserved everywhere, so that the censured person can be absolved nowhere without the due faculties."¹

¹ Code, c. 2247, § 2.

442. 3. Besides, in the article and danger of death, any priest can absolve from all reserved cases.² Nevertheless there remains the obligation, for the penitent if he recovers, of recurring to the Superior, at least in the case of a censure ab homine.

² Code, c. 882.

443. 4. "In more urgent cases,³ if namely censures latae sententiae cannot be externally observed without danger of grave scandal or infamy, or if it would be hard for the penitent to remain in the state of grave sin for the time necessary for the competent Superior to provide, then any confessor in the sacramental forum can absolve from the same, however reserved, with the burden imposed of recurring, under penalty of reincidence, within a month at least by letter and through the confessor, if this can be done without grave inconvenience, the name having been withheld, to the Sacred Penitentiary⁴ or to the Bishop or another Superior furnished with the faculty, and of standing by his mandates. - Nothing prevents the penitent, even after the absolution has been accepted as above, and even after recourse has been made to the Superior, from approaching another confessor furnished with the faculty, and from him, after the confession at least of the delict with the censure has been repeated, obtaining absolution; when it has been obtained, he receives the mandates from the same, and is not afterward bound to stand by other mandates arriving from the Superior. - But if in some extraordinary case this recourse is morally impossible, then the confessor himself (except in the case in which the censured person was one absolving an accomplice) can grant absolution without the burden mentioned above, nevertheless imposing the things to be imposed by law, and imposing a fitting penance and satisfaction for the censure, so that the penitent, unless within a fitting time to be fixed by the confessor he shall have performed the penance and given satisfaction, falls back into the censure."¹

³ Under the new legislation, a more urgent case for a reserved sin without censure can scarcely, or indeed hardly at all, occur. Cf. Code, c. 899, § 2.

⁴ The confessor can use this or a similar form when he writes to the Major Penitentiary: - Most Eminent Prince, Titius has contracted a censure reserved in a special manner or simply reserved (here the cause of the censure is described, for example, because of the reading of books defending heresy, or because of enrollment in the Masonic sect, etc.). Since he could not approach a confessor furnished with the due faculties, nor be dismissed without absolution, and otherwise seemed rightly disposed, he received absolution from me. But in order to obey the decrees of the Church, by these letters through me, the undersigned confessor, he has recourse to the Holy See, ready to receive mandates and to fulfill the penance which Your Eminence will deign to prescribe as a penalty for the delict.

Reverently kissing the hands of Your Eminence, with the greatest devotion by which it is fitting, I remain,

Your Eminence's most obedient and most humble servant,

N. N.

Let it be clearly indicated to whom and in what place the response is to be directed. The letters are to be furnished with a seal, and thus inscribed externally (in the vernacular language, lest curiosity be excited): To the Most Eminent and Most Reverend Lord Cardinal Major Penitentiary, - Palazzo della Cancelleria Apostolica, Rome.

¹ Code, c. 2254.

447. (a) When the penitent accuses a reserved sin (reserved by the Pope or by the bishop), the confessor should immediately weigh whether or not all the conditions necessary for incurring the reservation are present. If it is established that the sin is truly reserved, and at the same time the confessor lacks the due faculties, then, unless there is urgency, he should admonish the penitent either to approach the Superior, or to return after a few days, when, namely, the necessary faculties will have been obtained: penitents will generally choose this latter; in which case they can be permitted to declare the other sins.

448. (b) A confessor, lacking special faculties, who knowingly, outside the case of necessity, absolves from reserved sins, sins gravely; nevertheless the absolution is valid if, together with the reserved sins, another sin has been declared: for once a non-reserved sin has been directly remitted, the others are remitted indirectly.

But if this was done through inadvertence or ignorance, and afterward the confessor notices it, he must admonish the penitent about the error committed, if this can easily be done, so that the error may be repaired; otherwise, he should leave him in good faith. - But if the penitent himself afterward knows (which rarely occurs) that he was absolved from a reserved sin only indirectly, he should accuse this sin to a confessor furnished with the special faculty; but he is not bound to repeat the other sins.

With regard to censures: "if a confessor, ignorant of the reservation, absolves the penitent from the censure and the sin, the absolution of the censure is valid, provided it is not a censure ab homine or reserved in the most special manner."¹

¹ Code, c. 2247.

449. (c) "One seeking absolution must indicate all the cases; otherwise the absolution is valid only for the expressed case; but if the absolution, although a particular petition has been made, has been general, it is valid also for those withheld in good faith, except a censure reserved in the most special manner to the Apostolic See, but not for those withheld in bad faith."²

² Code, c. 2249.

(d) Very probably the reservation is removed through an invalid or sacrilegious confession made before a confessor who enjoys the faculty of absolving from reserved cases, provided the reserved sin itself is not withheld; for since the Superior has already judged concerning the reserved case and proposed fitting remedies, the reason for the reservation has ceased. - Say the same probably if the reserved sin, in a non-sacrilegious confession, was omitted through forgetfulness; for the Superior, through indirect absolution, is judged to have removed the reservation.

Nevertheless, according to St. Alphonsus,³ an invalid confession, whether made culpably or inculpably in a jubilee, is excepted, since the Pontiff does not confer the faculty of absolving from reserved cases except so that the faithful may gain the jubilee. But if the confession was valid, although the reserved sin was omitted through forgetfulness, the reservation is removed.⁴

³ Lib. VI, n. 598.

⁴ Cf. Lugo, disp. XX, n. 99.

450. (e) When the faculty of absolving from reserved cases is granted to some confessor, certain conditions are attached, whether general or special.

1. The general conditions are customarily expressed under this formula: the things to be imposed by law having been imposed. Six are numbered: reparation of harm; reparation of scandal; removal of the occasion of sinning; promise concerning the crime not to be perpetrated again; promise of fulfilling the things which the Superior has prescribed or afterward will judge should be prescribed; acceptance of a special penance.

2. But the special conditions are various according to the various cases, and are found in the little document sent by the Superior, which therefore must be diligently read.

(f) No special form is required for absolution from sins reserved without censure. - If there is question of sins reserved with censure, likewise no special form is required, since the customary one contains these words: "from every bond of excommunication, suspension, and interdict." For it is said in the Code: "The absolution of a censure in the sacramental forum is contained in the customary form of the absolution of sins prescribed in the ritual books; in the non-sacramental forum it can be given in any manner whatsoever, but for the absolution of excommunication it is regularly fitting that the form handed down in the same books be used."¹

¹ Code, c. 2250, § 3.

— Reservation of a case is its calling away to the judgment of an ordinary Superior, by which at the same time the power of inferiors is limited (c. 893, §1 and 2).

By this genuine definition, the notion of reservation is restored; it is not, at least principally, a penalty, but directly says a restriction of jurisdiction, so that it directly affects the confessor, not the penitent.

Wherefore, concerning the subject of reservation, the Pontifical Commission on the Code, November 24, 1920, De reservationibus, prudently responded that travelers are bound by the reservations of the place in which they are staying (A.A.S., XII, p. 575). For, from c. 881, §1, they are absolved by the jurisdiction of the diocese of the place where they confess. But the absolving confessor possesses this jurisdiction restricted by reservation. In what way, therefore, could he use jurisdiction toward travelers beyond the limits within which he has it?

The reason which we have just added, however, excepts the case in which a traveler, in a foreign diocese, confesses before his own Ordinary or pastor, whose jurisdiction is not affected by the reservation of the foreign diocese. Nor in that case will the pastor have to attend to the reservations of his own diocese, since reservation does not exceed the limits of its own territory.

— The power of reserving cases belongs to all those who by ordinary right can grant the faculty of hearing confessions or inflict censures. Nevertheless, the power is denied to the capitular vicar; while the vicar general needs a special mandate (c. 893).

Indeed, by canon 896, in exempt clerical religions it is expressly assigned to the Superior General alone. Yet we think this is said with respect to the other Superiors, since the canon begins with these words: "Among Superiors." And so we judge that the power of a chapter or general congregation, in which the supreme jurisdiction of the Order exists, remains untouched.

— On Ignorance of Reservation. It is customary to ask whether ignorance excuses the penitent from reservation or not. With attention to the genuine notion of reservation, which subjects graver causes to a more mature judgment, so that it limits the jurisdiction of the inferior and is not numbered among canonical penalties, it seems that a certainly negative response must be given. This is confirmed not a little by the declaration just alleged concerning travelers. For these generally are ignorant of the reservations proper to a foreign diocese, nor are they bound by its penalties; and nevertheless it has been denied, without any distinction, that the simple confessor of the place where he confesses can of himself absolve them from reserved cases. Yet we do not yet dare to reject the extrinsic probability of the more benign opinion. For this, supplied with its reasons, cf. in the study of R. P. Fuster, S.J., Los reservados episcopales segun el nuevo Codigo, in Razon y Fe, t. 52 (1918), p. 510 sqq.; t. 53 (1919), pp. 103, 216, 510 sqq. Nevertheless, nothing prevents the one reserving from reserving only sins which were committed with knowledge of the reservation. The Ordinary will be able to signify this mind either expressly, by a declaration added to the reservation, or tacitly, for example if an excuse on account of ignorance is taught in his seminary. Therefore we shall never say, "ignorance excuses from reservation"; but rather we shall admit that knowledge of reservation is sometimes to be counted among the conditions of a reserved case.

— Sins and censures can be reserved. Both are called by the common name of reserved cases, so that power given over reserved things or over reserved cases, of itself, embraces both powers over reserved sins and reserved censures. But when a sin is at the same time punished by a censure, reservation can affect either the sin alone or the censure alone or both. But if the censure itself impedes the legitimate use of the sacraments, absolution from the censure must formally be placed before absolution from sins. Wherefore if then the reservation affects the censure alone, the sin is nevertheless called reserved by reason of the censure. But in the chapter on Penance, the Code treats almost only of reserved sins. We think we shall consult the utility of students if we immediately join the connected matter concerning reserved censures, so that first concerning reserved sins, then concerning reserved censures, we may propose the disciplinary rules summarily.

— Those Reserving. 1. The single sin reserved to the Holy See by reason of itself is false accusation, by which an innocent priest is accused of the crime of solicitation before ecclesiastical judges (c. 894).

Nevertheless, c. 2363 punishes a false denunciation of this crime, made to Superiors, with a censure specially reserved to the Holy See. How these things are composed, we shall say below.

— 2. The Ordinary of places is warned not to reserve sins unless, either from discussion made in synod, or after the cathedral chapter and some selected parish priests have been heard, the true necessity or utility of the reservation has been proved (c. 895).

3. Among religious Superiors, only the Superior General of an exempt religion, or the abbot of a monastery sui iuris, each with his own Council, can reserve sins, as above. Yet by this reservation they are forbidden to restrict the power of the ordinary confessors of the religious house; nor can they validly restrict the faculty of a confessor approved by the local Ordinary whom a religious has approached (cf. cc. 896, 518-519).

With his own council, that is, after that Council has been heard; for thus we judge that this clause must be interpreted. This interpretation is confirmed from the immediately preceding parallel place. For the local Ordinary is merely commanded to hear his chapter.

Since c. 896 expressly intends to define which Superiors, with others excluded, can reserve cases, and has declared the competent Superior to be one with his own council, he is to be judged not competent without such council, so that consultation of the Council seems necessary for the very value of the reservation.

— These laws are prescribed for Ordinaries:

1. few cases, three at most or four, from the graver and more atrocious external crimes only, specifically determined, are to be reserved (c. 897);

2. reservation is not to remain in force longer than the extirpation of some inveterate vice or the restoration of collapsed discipline demands (c. 897);

3. Ordinaries are entirely to abstain from reserving to themselves sins "which are already reserved to the Apostolic See, even by reason of censure; and regularly from those also upon which a censure, even one reserved to no one, has been imposed by the law" (c. 898).

The first condition, while it requires specific determination, demands that a genus, for example concubinage, not be reserved for attaining the species, but wishes that the case be circumscribed by those notes or circumstances which demand reservation: for example let adulterous concubinage be reserved, if on account of that circumstance it is to be reserved.

Today, indeed, not in every region can it be hoped that a vice can be extirpated by reservation. But if it impedes the propagation of the vice, we judge that this is already enough for the reservation to have the utility which is required according to the wishes of the Holy See.

Canon 898 prohibits Ordinaries from reserving sins even as such (or independently of censure) to which a censure reserved to the Holy See is annexed, even if the sin is reserved to the Holy See only by reason of the censure. For example, from c. 2351, duel is punished by a censure simply reserved to the Holy See. On account of ignorance not to be blamed, the guilty person could have escaped the censure, so that the sin is now not reserved to the Holy See. The Ordinary is prohibited from reserving the sin to himself even for such a hypothesis. Since, however, no invalidating clause is added, the reservation would be valid.

— Cessation. Any reservation lacks force, from c. 900:

1. when the sick who cannot leave the house confess, or betrothed persons for the sake of entering marriage;

2. whenever either the legitimate Superior has denied the faculty of absolving sought for some determined case, or, in the prudent judgment of the confessor, the faculty cannot be sought from the legitimate Superior without grave inconvenience of the penitent or without danger of violation of the sacramental seal;

3. outside the territory of the one reserving, even if the penitent has departed from it only to obtain absolution.

And matters stand equally whether there the confessor of the place or the pastor of the penitent gives absolution.

These rules, proper to sins which are reserved by reason of themselves, are laid down in such a way that a statute either of a bishop or of a religious Superior contrary to them would be destitute of value.

On account of the word "any," they also fall, as it seems to us, upon the single sin reserved to the Holy See by reason of itself. But in absolution, the conditions required by the very nature of things according to the mind of c. 2363 will have to be observed.

On account of the benign mind of the legislator, we judge that by the sick can be understood all those who by bodily infirmity, for example a broken foot, are detained at home; not, however, any persons whatever who are shut in the house, for example a prison, even for another reason, such as on account of guilt.

And the exception profits also those, for example religious, who are in a house where confessors dwell.

Betrothed persons, however, are whoever confess in order to a proximate marriage; that is, all those about to marry, although they have made no formal espousals.

A grave inconvenience of the penitent is, for example, a grave difficulty of returning to the confessor, the necessity of celebrating, difficulty of abstaining from Communion without some mark or suspicion; indeed, if we are not mistaken, the notable detriment itself of the soul which he would suffer on account of less good will, if it is to be feared that he may depart indisposed.

The danger of violating the seal will be present if, on account of the circumstances, it is to be feared that the Superior may come into suspicion of the person for whom the faculty is sought. But under this name does not come the danger that the penitent himself, by approaching a privileged confessor, may expose himself to that suspicion: for the penitent cannot violate the seal by his own deed. But such danger will have to be numbered among grave inconveniences.

Since, moreover, the faculty denied by the Superior, sought in a determined case, is conceded by the law itself, the force of reservation is reduced finally to this: that a penitent who has committed something reserved is compelled to approach a simple confessor twice; and thus he is advised to seek more mature confessors whom he can deservedly presume to be furnished with faculties. Moreover, promulgation of the reservation opportunely warns subjects concerning the gravity of the guilt, concerning its opposition to the reason of their state. Cf. Nouv. Rev. theol., De l'utilite des reserves dans les Ordres religieux (Besson), 1921, p. 24.

Since the reservation itself ceases, the absolution given is beyond doubt direct.

— The Efficacy of Reservation. 1. Ordinaries of places must take care that they bring their reservations to the knowledge of subjects; nor should they impart to anyone whatever and indiscriminately the faculty of absolving from reserved cases (c. 899, §1).

2. Nevertheless the law itself grants the faculty to the canon penitentiary; and it wishes that it be imparted habitually at least to vicars forane or deans, with the faculty of subdelegating added, especially in places more remote from the episcopal see, as often as confessors of their district recur to them if and when, for some more urgent case, they do so (c. 899, §1).

3. Besides, by the law itself, from cases which Ordinaries have in any way reserved to themselves, pastors, or others who in law come under the name of pastors, can absolve during the whole time useful for the paschal precept; individual missionaries, while missions are being held for the people (c. 899, §3).

By this canon, while it commands the publication of reservations and warns that reserved cases not be communicated to anyone whatever and indiscriminately, the legislator intends to provide for the efficacy of reservation. Yet from this let us not think that it is consonant with his mind that the faculty over reserved cases be delegated to no one or to only a few. He expressly wishes that the cases be few; but nowhere does he say: "Few should be able to absolve from them." Indeed he himself indicates several to whom he wishes an habitual faculty, with the power of subdelegating, habitually to belong. But when he cautions "lest it be given to anyone whatever and indiscriminately," he intends this one thing: that the faculty be committed to selected confessors, both secular and religious, a faculty which, according to the mind of the legislator himself, seems rather to be granted than denied.

From canon 451, under the name of pastors come quasi-pastors who govern quasi-parishes into which a Vicariate or Apostolic Prefecture has been divided (c. 216, 2, 3), and parochial vicars, if they are endowed with full parochial power (cf. n. 455).

Moreover, the time useful for fulfilling the paschal precept is that which is established either by common law or by the statute of Ordinaries using the power made for them; finally also, if we are not mistaken, that which has legitimately been extended for someone. Nor is it required that the confession be made for fulfilling the paschal precept. But the time itself is privileged, in which even those who have already satisfied the paschal precept can obtain from pastors absolution of cases which the Ordinary had reserved to himself.

Because the law is favorable, missions can be understood also as spiritual exercises, provided they are given to some people, that is, under a collective aspect. For the law does not require missions made in a church. And for the same end of conversion and spiritual renewal, both missions and spiritual exercises are given, except that in the latter a more active cooperation of the people or recipients is supposed.

— Various Notions. Censures (for example excommunications) are some reserved, others not reserved.

1. A censure ab homine is always and everywhere reserved to him who inflicted the censure or issued the sentence, or to his competent Superior or successor or delegate (cc. 2245, 2247).

Among censures a iure, some are reserved to the Ordinary, others to the Holy See simply, in a special manner, or in a most special manner (c. 2245).

2. The reservation of a latae sententiae censure does not bind in a doubt whether of law or of fact (c. 2245), nor outside the territory of the one reserving, "even if the censured person departs from the territory to obtain absolution" (c. 2247).

Since departure in fraud of the law now certainly does not harm, travelers everywhere can be absolved from the censures of their own diocese by any confessor. But they are not subject to the censures of other dioceses, unless they are added to a particular law which consults public order, or to a general law. But a general law will scarcely have to be fortified by a censure by the bishop, since the common law has sufficiently provided for this. (Cf. cc. 2226, 898).

Vagi, however, in a diocese are subject to the censures of the territory where they are actually staying.

3. "Reservation of a censure impeding the reception of the sacraments (that is, of excommunication and personal interdict) imports reservation of the sin to which the censure is annexed; but if anyone is excused from the censure or has been absolved from it, the reservation of the sin entirely ceases."

4. "If a censure is reserved to the Apostolic See, the Ordinary cannot validly impose another censure reserved to himself upon the same delict" (c. 2247, §1).

5. Absolution given by a confessor ignorant of the reservation is valid, unless it was a censure ab homine or reserved to the Holy See in a most special manner (c. 2247, §3).

And because the fault of the confessor cannot harm the penitent, matters stand equally whether the confessor labors under culpable or excusable ignorance.

But what if the penitent, conscious of the contracted censure, deliberately approaches a confessor whom he knows to be ignorant?

If this penitent is otherwise well disposed and has perceived the probity of the ignorant confessor, he will validly be absolved from censures, since the conditions of the canon are perfectly fulfilled.

We require probity, lest the penitent have to fear that absolution has been given out of malice, so that he cannot be secure.

6. If a general absolution is conceded to a penitent bound by several censures, this also has value for those withheld in good faith, but not for a censure reserved to the Holy See in a most special manner; a particular absolution has no value except for the cases expressed (c. 2249).

— Absolution. 1. Any confessor can impart absolution from censures reserved in any way whatever in the sacramental forum:

1° if the penitent is constituted in danger of death;

2° in more urgent cases: namely, if for the time necessary for the competent Superior to provide:

a) latae sententiae censures cannot be observed without danger of grave infamy or scandal; or

b) it is hard for the penitent to remain in the state of sin.

Here, therefore, the question concerns one excommunicated or personally interdicted; otherwise, one rightly disposed can be absolved from sin, the censure, for example of suspension, remaining firm.

2. In a more urgent case, the burden remains for the penitent of recurring within a month "at least by letter and through the confessor," under penalty of reincidence, to the competent Superior and of standing by his mandates, provided that this can be done without grave inconvenience, and the name having been withheld (c. 2254).

In danger of death, the obligation of recourse binds only for censures ab homine or by law reserved to the Holy See in a most special manner (no longer specially, as formerly): it is to be made after the penitent has recovered, that is, within a month after, the danger having been removed, he has sufficiently recovered strength so that he can easily complete the matter himself.

Danger of death can be understood as probable; grave inconvenience will be present if neither the confessor (for example because he must depart before a response is received and while absent the response cannot safely be communicated) nor perhaps the penitent himself, unskilled, can send a letter, and it is hard for the penitent to approach another confessor (cf. response of the Holy Office, November 9, 1898).

And because the burden of repeating confession before another is supposed to be grave, the confessor, after showing the great utility of liberation from the state of sin, can bring it about that it is hard for the penitent to remain in the state of sin even for a day, so that in practice almost always, under the burden of recourse, he can absolve from reserved censures.

3. The competent Superior in censures imposed a iure is the Sacred Penitentiary or a bishop or Superior endowed with due faculty (cc. 2252, 2254, §1, 2).

If recourse to the Holy See is impossible, recourse must be had within a month to the Legate of the Roman Pontiff, to the bishop or Superior (not confessor) endowed with due faculty. For they are expressly named; and so the opinion is excluded which would terminate the obligation of recourse at the reserving Superior alone. Moreover, we are warned with the same clarity that recourse also to the bishop is to be made by letter, nor is the opinion of those now to be admitted who thought that the use of a letter, as an extraordinary means, was to be employed only in recourse to the Holy See.

By delegable power, the Legate of the Roman Pontiff (that is, the Nuncio or Apostolic Delegate) can also in the external forum absolve from all censures a iure reserved either simply or specially to the Roman Pontiff.

But the bishop, by ordinary and delegable power, can absolve from censures in occult cases which are not reserved to the Apostolic See in a most special or special manner.

4. No one is obliged to approach a privileged confessor, but it is always lawful for all, even after recourse before the Superior has been introduced. In this case, the accusation of the delict at least being repeated, one must stand by the mandates of the confessor alone (cc. 2252, 2254, §1, 2).

This repeated confession of the delict is necessary so that the confessor may impose suitable mandates. For we think that the absolution of the sin is direct in every urgent case, since power over the reserved censure is conceded by the law itself.

— "But if in some extraordinary case this recourse is morally impossible, then the confessor himself... can concede absolution, without the burden of which above, nevertheless imposing the things to be imposed by law and imposing a suitable penance and satisfaction for the censure, so that unless the penitent, within a suitable time to be set by the confessor, has done penance and given satisfaction, he falls back into the censure" (c. 2254, §3). The case of absolution of an accomplice is excepted.

Here the question concerns a case in which recourse immediately appears or is prudently foreseen to be impossible. For if after absolution it becomes impossible, during the impediment, but not beyond it, the penitent or confessor will be immune from that burden. Recourse is morally impeded, for example if from it there arises a probable danger of violation of the seal or great detriment to reputation. As we have already said, the recourse of which the canon speaks is to the competent Superior, not to a privileged confessor. From the favor here conceded the priest (penitent) excommunicated on account of absolution of an accomplice is expressly excluded; but one suspended on account of solicitation to shameful things is not excluded. For in the first edition of the Code, c. 2368 is cited by mistake for c. 2367, §1.

— But the absolution which a competent confessor has given from a reserved censure has value even if the confession was null or sacrilegious, provided the penitent accused the reserved matters. If this accusation was omitted in good faith, not a few think that even then the censure was removed, since the confessor is thought to wish to use his power efficaciously as much as he can.

And these things hold also concerning reserved sins.

In a jubilee, however, valid use of jubilee faculties cannot be made in a sacrilegious confession.

— Observe:

1. reincidence into censure, by common law c. 2254, is established only for him who within a month does not recur or does not present himself to the confessor to receive mandates, but not for him who, after he has recurred, does not execute the mandates (unless this penalty is established in the rescript). Although such a person for the most part will be in a bad state;

2. now that the distinctions between those who are impeded for a short or a long time have been suppressed, absolution given in a more urgent case is direct, so that it removes the burden of repeated sacramental accusation. Therefore he who, after worthily received absolution, has omitted the required recourse, will have to accuse only this omission as a sin.

3. If, in some rare case, a simple confessor cannot use can. 900 for absolving a penitent from a sin reserved without censure, Ferreres, II, 679, thinks that it is lawful for him to absolve with the burden of recurring, as if the case were with a reserved censure: there is parity of cause, and in the decree of 1888, whence c. 2253 is taken, absolution even from a reserved case without censure is contained. Yet the matter is little demonstrated by these arguments.

— I. Reservation of a case is its calling away to the judgment of an ordinary Superior, by which at the same time the power of inferiors is limited (cf. c. 893, §1 and 2). Wherefore it principally says not a penalty but a restriction of jurisdiction.

Cases are reserved, of themselves, by all Ordinaries. Yet the capitular Vicar cannot reserve cases, nor, without special mandate, the vicar general. In a clerical religion, among Superiors, only the General or the abbot of a monastery sui iuris, each with his own council, can do this.

Knowledge of reservation can be placed among the conditions of a reserved case; but, standing by principles, ignorance does not excuse from reservation. We would not wish to exclude the extrinsic probability of the more benign opinion.

II. Sins and censures are reserved. Reserved things, or reserved cases, embrace censures and sins. When a sin is punished by a censure, reservation can affect only the sin or only the penalty, or both. Yet if the censure impedes the legitimate use of the sacraments, absolution from the censure must formally be placed before absolution from the sin; wherefore the sin is then called reserved by reason of the censure.

III. Reservation of sins. 1. On those reserving. The single sin reserved to the Holy See by reason of itself is false accusation before ecclesiastical judges of a priest as guilty of solicitation to shameful things in the sacrament of Penance. The local Ordinary is warned not to reserve sins without proved necessity or utility, proved through discussion in synod or after the chapter has been heard together with selected priests.

Alone, among Superiors, the General of an exempt religion or the abbot of a monastery sui iuris, after each has heard his own council, reserves sins. By this reservation they cannot licitly limit the power of the ordinary confessors of the house, nor validly the power of confessors approved by the local Ordinary.

2. On sins to be reserved. Few cases, at most three or four, from the graver external cases, specifically determined, are to be reserved, as long as the extirpation of vice or restoration of discipline demands it.

Ordinaries are entirely to abstain from reserving sins which are already reserved to the Apostolic See, even by reason of censure; and regularly those also upon which a censure, even one reserved to no one, has been imposed by law.

3. Cessation. Any reservation lacks force: a) when the sick who cannot leave the house confess, or betrothed persons, for the sake of entering marriage; b) when the Superior has denied the faculty sought for a definite case; c) when, in the prudent judgment of the confessor, the faculty cannot be sought from the legitimate Superior without grave inconvenience of the penitent, or without danger of the sacramental seal being violated; d) outside the territory of the one reserving.

4. Connected rules. Ordinaries must take care that they bring their reservations to the knowledge of subjects; nor should they impart the habitual faculty to anyone whatever and indiscriminately. Nevertheless it is necessary that it be granted habitually at least to vicars forane, with the power of subdelegating the faculty added as often as a confessor of their district recurs to them for a more urgent case.

Habitual faculty over reserved cases is delegated by law to the canon penitentiary; then, during the whole time useful for the paschal precept, to those who in law come under the name of pastors; and to individual missionaries during missions or spiritual exercises made for the people.

IV. Reservation of censures. 1. Rules concerning reservation. a) A censure ab homine, that is, one which has been brought by a particular precept or by a condemnatory judicial sentence, is always and everywhere reserved to him who inflicted the censure or issued the sentence, or to his competent Superior, or successor or delegate (cc. 2245, 2247). A censure a iure is sometimes reserved to no one; another is reserved to the Ordinary; another to the Holy See, and this simply, in a special manner, or in a most special manner (c. 2245).

b) Reservation of a censure a iure does not bind in a doubt whether of law or of fact, nor outside the territory of the one reserving.

When a sin is reserved by reason of a censure, this censure being excused or absolved, the reservation itself of the sin is removed.

In vain would an Ordinary impose a censure reserved to himself upon a delict which is punished by a censure reserved to the Holy See.

2. Rules concerning absolution. a) Absolution from censure and from sin, given by a confessor ignorant of the reservation, is valid unless it was a censure ab homine, or reserved to the Holy See in a most special manner.

b) Particular absolution has no value except for the cases expressed in it; general absolution has value also for those withheld in good faith; not, however, for those reserved to the Holy See in a most special manner.

c) Any confessor can impart absolution from censures reserved in any manner whatever in the sacramental forum: a) to a penitent in danger of death; b) in more urgent cases, if, during the time necessary for the competent Superior to provide, latae sententiae censures cannot be observed without danger of grave infamy or scandal, or if it is hard for the penitent to remain in the state of sin.

In a more urgent case, there remains for the penitent the burden of recurring within a month "at least by letter and through the confessor," under penalty of reincidence, to the competent Superior, and of standing by his mandates, provided that recourse can be made without grave inconvenience, and the name having been withheld (c. 2254).

If in some extraordinary case that recourse is impossible, the confessor (unless there is question of excommunication on account of absolution of an accomplice) can simply absolve, imposing the things to be imposed by law and imposing a suitable penance and satisfaction for the censure: these will have to be fulfilled within the time to be defined beforehand by the confessor under penalty of reincidence into the censure.

In danger of death, the obligation of recurring binds only for censures ab homine or reserved to the Holy See in a most special manner; and recourse is to be made only after, the danger having been removed, the sick person has sufficiently recovered strength that he can easily complete the matter himself.

d) The competent Superior, to whom recourse must be had at least by letter, for censures imposed a iure, is the Sacred Penitentiary, or a bishop or Superior insofar as he is endowed with faculty. By ordinary and delegable law itself, the bishop can absolve from occult cases which are reserved to the Holy See neither in a most special nor in a special manner.

It is lawful for anyone, even after recourse before the Superior has been introduced, to approach a privileged confessor (the accusation at least of the reserved delict being repeated) and to stand only by his mandates.

Absolution from a reserved censure given by a competent confessor has value even if the confession was null or sacrilegious, provided the penitent accused the reserved matters. (Then the sin indeed will remain, but it will no longer be reserved.) Indeed, if this accusation was omitted in good faith, not a few think that even then the censure has been removed.

Does he fall back into censure who does not execute the mandates of the Superior? On account of the silence of c. 2254 this can be doubted and therefore denied.

Absolution given in a more urgent case is direct.

If there is need, Fr. Ferreres, II, 697, thinks that a sin reserved without censure can be directly absolved with the burden of recurring, as if it had been reserved with censure. This is less approved by us.

421. The power of reserving cases belongs:

a) To the Supreme Pontiff for the whole Church, who has reserved to himself several censures, but only one sin, namely, the calumnious denunciation of a confessor.³³² Cases which are reserved to the Supreme Pontiff are customarily called papal cases.

b) To bishops for their own diocese.³³³ But let these episcopal cases be: 1. only sins which are truly more atrocious and external, and specifically determined, such as homicide, perjury, the grave striking of parents, and so forth; 2. not too numerous, at most four;³³⁴ 3. not cases which are already reserved to the Supreme Pontiff, or to which a censure, even if reserved to no one, is imposed by law. Bishops can, however, reserve these latter cases to themselves, that is, cases to which a censure reserved to no one is attached by law, if this seems altogether necessary.³³⁵ Not without reason do several authors judge that a reservation by which a bishop reserves to himself a case already reserved to the Roman Pontiff is both illicit and invalid, because it seems incongruous that a bishop should reserve to himself a case from which not even he can absolve by his own authority. Hence Noldin-Schmitt³³⁶ infers: "Therefore confessors who have the power of absolving from papal cases can absolve from these, even if the bishop has reserved them to himself."

A capitular vicar cannot reserve cases; nor can a vicar general do this unless he has a special mandate.³³⁷

c) To the superiors general of exempt clerical religious institutes and to an abbot sui iuris.³³⁸

Ordinarily they could reserve to themselves only the eleven cases called Clementine cases:³³⁹ 1. apostasy from the religious institute; 2. nocturnal and furtive departure from the monastery; 3. poisonings; 4. ownership contrary to the vow of poverty which is a mortal sin; 5. mortal theft of the goods of the monastery; 6. a voluntary carnal lapse consummated in act; 7. a false oath in a legitimate judgment; 8. procurement, counsel, or assistance toward the abortion of an animated fetus, even when the effect did not follow; 9. the killing, wounding, or grave striking of any person; 10. falsification of the handwriting or seal of the officials of the monastery; 11. the malicious obstruction, delay, or opening of letters directed from superiors to inferiors or from inferiors to superiors. If there was a grave cause for reserving other cases, the consent of the general council was required. Today, however, religious superiors do not seem able to reserve to themselves more than three, or at most four, cases; indeed, cases reserved by the particular law of religious orders seem to be of little practical utility, since any confessor approved by the local Ordinary can absolve from them, as was stated above at n. 416.

³³² Cf. below, n. 467.

³³³ Thus it is evident from the Council of Trent, sess. 14, can. 11, On Penance: "If anyone says that bishops do not have the right of reserving cases to themselves except with regard to external governance, and therefore that the reservation of cases does not prevent a priest from truly absolving from reserved cases: let him be anathema" (Denz., n. 921).

³³⁴ Thus the Holy Office in the Instruction cited above, n. 2; Code of Canon Law, c. 897.

³³⁵ Thus the Holy Office, l.c., n. 4; Code of Canon Law, c. 898.

³³⁶ De sacr.¹⁷, n. 373.

³³⁷ Code of Canon Law, c. 893.

³³⁸ Ibid., c. 896.

³³⁹ Constitution of Clement VIII Sanctissimus, May 26, 1593.

424. I. At the point, or even in the danger,³⁴⁷ of death, every reservation ceases, so that any priest whatsoever (even when a confessor having the faculty is present³⁴⁸) can absolve for the internal forum from any sin and from any censure whatsoever.

For thus the Council of Trent³⁴⁹ establishes: "Very piously, lest anyone perish on this very occasion, it has always been observed in the same Church of God that there is no reservation at the point of death, and therefore all priests can absolve any penitents whatsoever from any sins and censures whatsoever."

If, however, such a dying person afterward recovers, then, if he was absolved from a censure either imposed by a man or reserved in the most special manner to the Roman Pontiff, after he has recovered he must (within a month), under pain of falling again into the same censure, either personally or through the confessor have recourse to the Sacred Penitentiary and obey its mandates, or seek absolution anew from one having the faculty of absolving from censures of this kind.³⁵⁰ This last manner of acting is certainly preferable if such a confessor can easily be found. A dying person who was absolved from any other case whatsoever (and notably from a sin reserved to the Supreme Pontiff without a censure) is thereafter bound to no recourse.

Note. It is evident of itself that recourse is always necessary:

a) If there is question of a censure imposed by a man, because then definitive absolution cannot be given except by the one who imposed the censure, or by his superior or successor, or by one specially delegated.

b) If there is question of notorious censures, because then the scandal must be repaired according as the legitimate superior shall have determined.

II. Outside the point of death, diverse provisions have been established according as there is question of the absolution of papal or episcopal cases.

³⁴⁷ The danger of death is judged to be any case in which life is probably feared for, even though it afterward becomes known that there was no true foundation for the fear. Such danger of death exists, for example, in grave illness, in a difficult childbirth, in an imminent battle, and in the state of wartime mobilization. To the question of the bishop of Verdun: "Can any soldier whatsoever placed in the state of wartime mobilization, as they call it, be by that very fact equated with those who are in danger of death, so that he can be absolved by any priest he encounters?" the Sacred Penitentiary answered on March 18, 1912, and May 29, 1915: "Affirmatively, according to the rules handed down by approved authors" (Acta Ap. Sed. VII, 282).

³⁴⁸ Cf. Holy Office, July 29, 1891: "Those are not to be disturbed who hold that absolution granted at the point of death by an unapproved priest is valid, even when an approved priest could easily have been summoned or could have been present." From these words it is not obscurely perceived that an absolution of this kind by a simple priest is not only valid, but also licit when a reasonable cause is present (cf. Code of Canon Law, c. 882).

³⁴⁹ Sess. 14, c. 7, On Penance (Denz., n. 903).

³⁵⁰ Code of Canon Law, cc. 882 and 2252. Once recovery has been attained, recourse seems to have to be made within a month, since it is prescribed that it be made according to the norm for recourse in more urgent cases.

425. 1. Absolution of papal cases.

a) Cardinals, by a privilege granted and attached to the cardinalitial dignity itself after the manner of a prerogative, can everywhere in the world absolve any penitents whatsoever from any sins and censures whatsoever, except only alpha) censures reserved in the most special manner to the Apostolic See, and beta) those which are attached to the revelation of the secret of the Holy Office.³⁵¹

b) Bishops or Ordinaries (for example, Provincials in exempt clerical religious institutes) can, in occult cases, personally or through another delegated by them remit all penalties and censures latae sententiae established by common law, except censures reserved in the most special or special manner to the Apostolic See.³⁵² Recourse afterward to the Holy See is not necessary, as is evident.

How a bishop can absolve from heresy, and so forth, in the external forum will be stated below at n. 507.

c) Any confessor whatsoever, in more urgent cases in which absolution cannot be deferred without grave inconvenience to the penitent, can directly absolve from all cases reserved by law (and not by a man), but under this law: that the person absolved is bound, under pain of falling again, either personally or through the confessor to have recourse within a month (c. 34, § 3) to the Sacred Penitentiary or to a bishop having special faculties, or to seek a new absolution from a confessor having the power of absolving from these cases. If, however, this recourse is morally impossible, the censure is then simply removed without any other obligation of recourse;³⁵³ see, however, below under e).

More urgent cases of this kind exist, for example, when everything has been prepared for a wedding which consequently cannot be deferred, and either one of the betrothed confesses a reserved sin; or if a priest absolved his accomplice and cannot abstain from saying Mass without scandal or defamation. It is also judged a sufficient reason and a more urgent case if it is hard for the penitent to remain in the state of mortal sin during the time necessary for the petition and grant of the faculty of absolving from reserved cases,³⁵⁴ for example, for two days or even one day.

For the absolution of the crime committed through the calumnious denunciation of a confessor, special conditions have been attached, as will be stated below at n. 468.

Local superiors and religious confessors by common law now have no special faculty in the absolution of cases reserved to the Supreme Pontiff with respect to penitents, even those belonging to their own order.³⁵⁵ What their power may be by particular law or by special indult depends upon the privilege obtained. Major superiors, however, for example Provincials, in exempt clerical religious institutes, inasmuch as they are true Ordinaries, can in occult cases absolve their subjects from censures reserved simply to the Holy See.

³⁵¹ Cf. below, n. 494.

³⁵² Code of Canon Law, c. 2237, § 2.

³⁵³ Thus the Holy Office, June 23, 1886; August 19, 1891; November 9, 1898; September 5, 1900; September 6, 1909; Code of Canon Law, c. 2254. Here papal cases are understood to mean: all sins and censures reserved to the Supreme Pontiff, and those irregularities which follow upon the violation of these censures.

³⁵⁴ Holy Office, June 16, 1897.

³⁵⁵ Sacred Penitentiary, December 5, 1873.

426. Things to be noted concerning recourse. a) Recourse to the Sacred Penitentiary or to a bishop having special faculties can be made either by the penitent himself or by some confessor whom the penitent has chosen.

b) If recourse is made to the bishop or his vicar general, care must be taken above all that the sacramental seal not be violated.

c) Recourse to a privileged confessor who has the faculty of absolving from papal cases does not suffice.³⁵⁶ Nevertheless, nothing prevents the penitent from approaching such a confessor, confessing the reserved sin, and receiving absolution from him. Once this has been obtained, the penitent is no longer bound afterward to comply with other mandates subsequently coming from the superior to whom recourse had perhaps already been made.³⁵⁷

d) Recourse essentially comprises two things, namely: submitting the case to the competent superior and complying with his mandates. If the penitent through grave negligence omitted either one, he falls again into the same censure. Hence, for example, if through grave negligence the penitent does not return to the confessor who wrote to the Sacred Penitentiary in his name, he seems to incur the same censure again; cf. below, n. 430.

e) If recourse is morally impossible, which is accustomed to occur in Missions, Retreats, and other cases when a lay penitent cannot return to the same confessor without grave inconvenience, absolution can be given without the obligation of recourse. The confessor, however, must then observe two things: 1. he must enjoin those things which are to be enjoined by law, for example, the reparation of damage or scandal which may have arisen, the avoidance of the proximate occasion of sinning, and so forth; 2. for the censure incurred he must impose a special penance and satisfaction, to be performed within a fitting time determined by the confessor under pain of falling again into the censure.³⁵⁸ Nevertheless, if the penitent without grave fault does not perform this satisfaction and penance within the determined time, for example because of illness, he does not seem to fall again into the censure, since it is not inflicted except on account of grave fault. But a penitent who is a priest and who absolved his accomplice in a shameful sin is not excused from recourse, at least if he can write to Rome and seek a response under a fictitious name without truly grave inconvenience.³⁵⁹

f) Although it is not altogether necessary, it is nevertheless much better to write letters to the Sacred Penitentiary in the Latin language, of this or a similar tenor:

Most Eminent Prince,

Titius incurred a censure reserved in the most special manner to the Apostolic See on account of the attempted absolution of an accomplice, which he did three times. He likewise incurred an irregularity, because he violated the censure by exercising sacred orders. But he has now been absolved from this offense and the attached censure for the first (or now the third) time. For, since absolution could not be deferred because infamy was to be avoided, and Titius was otherwise rightly disposed, he received absolution. Now, however, he presents himself to obey the mandates of the Church. May Your Eminence be pleased to send the rescript to the confessor written below.

Fribourg (Switzerland)        N. N., pastor Rue de Romont 10 March 1, 1928.

The outer inscription of the letter: "To the Most Eminent Cardinal Major Penitentiary. Palace of the Holy Office. Rome." It is better, although it is not necessary, to enclose in the letter the postal expenses which are necessary for the dispatch of the rescript. The rescript itself, however, is always granted gratis by the Sacred Penitentiary, which sometimes sends it to the confessor indeed named below, but with a double envelope. The inner envelope, secured with a seal, is inscribed: "To the discreet man, a confessor from among those approved by the Ordinary of the place." Then the confessor cannot himself open this inner envelope without the explicit or implicit permission of the penitent, to whom he must deliver it and whose part it will be to choose for its execution whichever confessor he prefers from among those approved. In practice, however, the penitent is accustomed to choose the first confessor for this execution.

³⁵⁶ Holy Office, December 19, 1900.

³⁵⁷ Code of Canon Law, c. 2254, § 2.

³⁵⁸ Code of Canon Law, l.c.

³⁵⁹ Holy Office, June 3, 1899; Code of Canon Law, c. 2254, § 3; cf. Cappello, De censuris³, n. 131.

427. 2. Absolution of episcopal cases.

First of all, the cases which are reserved to bishops by law (namely, the nine set forth below at n. 522) must be distinguished from cases which a bishop reserves to himself by his own authority. Among these latter, cases which are reserved with a censure must again be distinguished from those which are reserved as sins.

a) Cases which by law are reserved to a bishop with a censure can be absolved in the same manner as papal cases. This opinion, according to the prescription of the Code of Canon Law, is today certain and safe in practice.

Therefore, in danger of death they can be absolved without any further obligation; but in more urgent cases, under pain of falling again, unless recourse is made to the bishop within a month. The reason for this solution is the response of the Holy Office of June 23, 1886, which entirely changed the old practice concerning the absolution of reserved cases, and which was confirmed in the Code of Canon Law, c. 2254. For there all censures without distinction are indicated as to be absolved.

The more probable opinion, and one safe in practice, teaches that mendicant religious confessors and all those who participate in the privileges of mendicants can absolve from cases reserved to a bishop by law;³⁶⁰ but religious cannot, without a special faculty having been obtained, absolve from cases which the bishop has reserved to himself by his own authority.³⁶¹

b) Cases which the bishop by his proper law reserves to himself by reason of sin,³⁶² can be directly absolved:

by a simple confessor: alpha) whenever the faculty cannot be sought from the legitimate superior without grave inconvenience to the penitent or without danger of violation of the sacramental seal; beta) when such cases are accused by the sick who are unable to leave the house; or gamma) by betrothed persons confessing for the sake of contracting marriage; delta) when the legitimate superior has denied the faculty of absolving requested for some determined case; epsilon) outside the territory of the one reserving, even if the penitent departed from it merely to obtain absolution;³⁶³

by Missionaries during the time when sacred Missions happen to be held among some people. The same seems to hold for the time of spiritual retreats, which are equated with Missions;

by the pastor and others who in law are reckoned as pastors, during the entire time useful for fulfilling the Easter precept;

by the canon penitentiary and vicars forane (commonly rural deans). For the faculty of absolving belongs to the canon penitentiary himself by law; but it must be committed to the vicars forane by the bishop, who should also grant them permission to subdelegate this faculty within their own district for a particular case.³⁶⁴

³⁶⁰ Cf. our Man. iur. can.⁶, q. 245 (c); Noldin, De poenis eccl.¹², n. 95.

³⁶¹ Constitution of Clement X Superna, June 21, 1670.

³⁶² They are sometimes called cases "reserved by Us."

³⁶³ Code of Canon Law, c. 900.

³⁶⁴ Thus the Instruction of the Holy Office cited above, July 13, 1916, n. 7, and Code of Canon Law, c. 899, § 2.

428. Note. 1. If a confessor (even with crass ignorance), ignorant of or not adverting to the reservation, absolves a penitent from the censure and the sin, the absolution from the censure is valid, provided that it is not a censure imposed by a man or a censure reserved in the most special manner to the Holy See.³⁶⁵ Indeed, even the absolution from the sin is valid; for if someone has been absolved from the censure, the reservation of the sin entirely ceases.³⁶⁶ The same is believed (although some contradict it) if an ignorant confessor absolves from a reserved sin without a censure.^366a

2. A penitent who through inculpable forgetfulness omitted a reserved sin in a confession made to a privileged confessor is validly absolved. Nevertheless, he is afterward bound to manifest in confession the omitted sin, which, however, is no longer reserved. The reason is that the privileged confessor is judged to absolve a penitent rightly disposed. But a penitent inculpably forgetting a reserved sin was rightly disposed. Therefore he has been absolved from every sin, even the reserved one. The same seems to have to be said if a confession was made in this manner to a simple confessor, unless, however, there is question of a censure reserved in the most special manner to the Holy See.³⁶⁷ The matter stands otherwise if the penitent confessed sacrilegiously. For if he sacrilegiously concealed the reserved sin, it has not been remitted;³⁶⁸ but if he candidly manifested the reserved sin and committed the sacrilege for another cause, the reservation itself seems to have been removed, since one having the faculty of absolving judged concerning it properly and imposed a fitting satisfaction. Therefore, in the following confession the penitent must repeat the entire accusation and confess the sacrilege committed, but he can now be absolved by a simple confessor. On this matter St. Alphonsus says most excellently:³⁶⁹ "The end of confession is one thing, the end of reservation another. The end of confession is that the sin be remitted; but the principal and direct end of reservation is that those committing reserved sins of this kind be subjected to the judgment of the superior. Therefore, when a subject reports his sin to the superior and accepts the penance imposed by him, even if he confesses sacrilegiously, the end of reservation is already obtained, although the sin is not remitted. But that the sinner derives an advantage from such wickedness occurs accidentally. For although the superior according to his interpretative will would not wish to remove the reservation if he knew the sacrilege, nevertheless according to his actual will he then already wishes to remove it." An exception is made if someone in the time of a jubilee sacrilegiously confessed a reserved sin to a simple confessor; for in the time of a jubilee only those penitents enjoy the privilege of receiving absolution from any confessor whatsoever who wish to fulfill all the things which are prescribed for gaining the jubilee. But, first of all, a good confession is prescribed. Therefore, on account of the sacrilegious confession, the penitent loses all the graces and all the privileges of the jubilee.

3. A confessor who knowingly or with affected ignorance, without necessity, absolves from reserved cases from which he does not have the faculty of absolving sins gravely, both because he violates a grave law of the Church and because he exposes the sacrament of penance to nullity; moreover, he is ipso facto suspended from hearing confessions.³⁷⁰ Indeed, if he should presume unlawfully to absolve from cases reserved in the most special or special manner to the Supreme Pontiff, he would incur an excommunication reserved simply to the Pope, as will be stated below at n. 520 in the tract on censures.

³⁶⁵ Code of Canon Law, c. 2247, § 3.

³⁶⁶ Ibid., c. 2246, § 3.

^366a Cf. Cappello, l.c., n. 593.

³⁶⁷ Code of Canon Law, c. 2249, § 2.

³⁶⁸ Ibid.

³⁶⁹ Theol. mor. l. 6, n. 598.

³⁷⁰ Code of Canon Law, c. 2366.

429. There was a special difficulty concerning the absolution of travelers from reserved cases. Today, however, this alone is the true general rule: Travelers are absolved in altogether the same manner as natives.

Thus especially the Vindiciae Alphonsianae, p. 552, rightly taught against the Ballerinian attacks. If there is question of papal cases, all theologians admit this rule, since then the jurisdiction is delegated by the Supreme Pontiff himself, who is equally the superior of natives and travelers. But if there is question of episcopal cases, there was formerly great disagreement among authors. The more common and true opinion, however, which is also observed in practice, teaches that the jurisdiction is then delegated by law and limited according to the faculties granted by the bishop of the place where the confession is made. Accordingly, confessors are no longer accustomed to ask penitents whether they are natives or travelers, but treat each one as a native. Hence, for example, Peter, a traveler from diocese A, where the sin of sodomy is reserved, confessing this sin in diocese B, where this sin is not reserved, is always validly and licitly absolved by a simple confessor.³⁷¹ On the contrary, if the same sin is not reserved in diocese A but is reserved in diocese B, Peter confessing in this diocese B cannot be absolved by a simple confessor, since his jurisdiction has been limited by the diocesan bishop with regard to the sin of sodomy. The reason is that the penitent is regarded as an accused person. But an accused person appearing in a tribunal is judged not according to the laws of his homeland, but according to the laws of the tribunal where he appears. Therefore, a traveler is bound by the reservations of the place where he confesses,³⁷² unless, however, he confesses to his own pastor or Ordinary traveling in the same place.

³⁷¹ This doctrine has today been defined by the Holy Office, which establishes: "They can be absolved from sins reserved in some diocese in another diocese where they are not reserved, by any confessor, whether secular or regular, even if they went there precisely to obtain absolution." Instruction of July 13, 1916, cited above. Therefore penitents can validly and licitly be absolved from reserved sins, even though, in fraud of the law, they migrated to another diocese for the sake of confessing (Code of Canon Law, c. 900, n. 3).

³⁷² Pontifical Commission, November 24, 1920 (Acta Ap. Sed. XII, 575).

430. Things to be noted in practice. 1. A confessor hearing a case reserved by law to the Holy See or to the Ordinary should first investigate whether all the conditions required for reservation are present, namely: knowledge of the censure, and that the sin is grave, external, consummated, and certain. But if some founded doubt remains, the case is not reserved. If, however, all the required conditions are present, it must then be investigated whether or not it is a more urgent case. If it is not a more urgent case, the penitent cannot be absolved, but must either be sent to another privileged confessor or the faculty of absolving must first be sought. But if it is a more urgent case, the penitent must then be admonished concerning the reservation and the obligation of having recourse within a month to the Sacred Penitentiary or to the bishop. If he promises that he will render obedience, he can be absolved; otherwise not. The penitent can, however, also present himself to another confessor having special faculties and seek absolution. When the penitent does not fulfill those things which were enjoined by the Sacred Penitentiary, he indeed sins, but he does not incur the censure again unless a) there was grave negligence, or b) the Sacred Penitentiary gave its mandates under pain of falling again into the censure. But what is to be said if the penitent, notwithstanding his firm promise, does not return to hear the mandates of the Sacred Penitentiary or of the bishop? If he does this through culpable negligence, he seems to incur the censure again, because he makes little of the gravely prescribed recourse, which is not completed until the penitent has accepted the mandates.³⁷³ If, however, he could not return to the confessor without great inconvenience, the recourse seems to have become morally impossible and consequently no longer to bind, and the censure to have been absolutely removed.

2. A confessor hearing some sin which a bishop has reserved to himself by his proper law can almost always grant absolution to a penitent rightly disposed, since grave inconvenience almost always arises for him from the delay of absolution. Moreover, often there are other causes related above on account of which the episcopal reservation ceases.

³⁷³ Cf. De Smet, De casibus reserv., n. 56, and Holy Office, March 30, 1892, ad 3.

1766. Jurisdiction is restricted either generally, so that Superiors alone, with all inferiors excluded, can absolve; or specially, so that the power of absolving is taken away from only one, but not from the other confessors. Sins of the former kind are very many, and are called RESERVED CASES; of the other kind there is only one sin, namely a base sin committed with the very ACCOMPLICE to be absolved. Hence there is a twofold paragraph: 1. On reserved cases. 2. On the forbidden absolution of an accomplice.

RESERVATION OF CASES is the denial of jurisdiction concerning certain sins. Thus St. Alphonsus.²² - From this definition it is clear that a reserved case is one from which the confessor cannot absolve on account of defect of jurisdiction denied to him by the Superior over that case, although power of absolving from other sins has been granted.

The end of reservation is TWOFOLD: 1. that the faithful may be more efficaciously deterred from crimes whose remission they have seen to be more difficult; 2. that those who have fallen into sins of this sort may receive fitting penances, admonitions, and remedies, which it is not fitting to be given by others than by Superiors, who are always considered more prudent and more suitable.²³

These things having been noted beforehand, so that all things necessary to know about this matter may be set forth, one must treat: 1. of the power of reserving sins; - 2. of the conditions of reservation; - 3. of the distinction of reserved cases; - 4. of absolution from reserved cases.

1767. Principles. I. There exists in the Church the POWER OF RESERVING certain sins, from which inferior confessors without a special faculty cannot absolve outside the article of death. - This is established: 1. from Trent, sess. 14, on Penance, can. 11, thus defining: "If anyone shall say that Bishops do not have the right of reserving cases to themselves, except as regards external polity; and therefore that reservation of cases does not prohibit a priest from truly absolving from reserved cases: let him be anathema." - 2. From the perpetual practice of the Church, which innumerable documents attest. - 3. From the very nature of the Sacrament of Penance, having the character of judgment. For in judgments all greater causes are remitted to judges of a higher order.²⁴

1768. II. The power of reservation is in all Superiors who enjoy the power of ORDINARY jurisdiction in the EXTERNAL forum (cf. n. 1749). The reason is because these alone, who can confer jurisdiction, can also limit it. Hence: 1. the Pope can reserve cases in the whole Church; 2. Bishops in their dioceses; 3. Prelates of Religions, and others who possess quasi-episcopal power, within the ambit of their own jurisdiction, yet under certain limits determined by the Roman Pontiff. - But such a faculty has been abrogated for pastors, at least by custom.²⁵

Let it be noted: Superiors indeed sin gravely if they reserve cases without reasonable cause; nevertheless reservation of this sort is valid, according to the more common and truer opinion, because all jurisdiction descends from the Superior; "but in every doubt, one must stand for the power of the Superior who possesses it."²⁶

But the S. C. OF BISHOPS AND REGULARS (November 26, 1602)²⁷ judged that Ordinaries should be admonished not everywhere, but when it will seem expedient for the common good, to reserve to themselves the absolution only of more atrocious and graver crimes, whose reservation contributes to retaining Christian discipline and yields to edification, but not to destruction. - It also prohibits them from superfluously reserving to themselves cases specially reserved to the Apostolic See.

1769. I. From the custom of the Church, a sin is not judged reserved unless it is INTERNALLY and EXTERNALLY grave, CONSUMMATED in its species, and CERTAIN. The reason is, 1. because although any sins whatever are, of themselves, subject to reservation, nevertheless from the Tridentine norm only the more atrocious and graver are reserved; and hence it is why an offense falling under reservation must be internally and externally grave; 2. because reservation, as something odious, is of strict interpretation, and therefore it is required that the offense be consummated in its species, and certain, and certainly reserved (cf. n. 1263).

Therefore, when the confessor suspects a reserved case, let him carefully inquire:

1. Whether the sin is INTERNALLY GRAVE with perfect advertence and full consent in grave matter. - 2. Whether it is also GRAVE AS REGARDS THE EXTERNAL ACT; for if it were externally light, it would not be reserved, although internally grave.

3. Whether it is CONSUMMATED and perfect in its species: for example, in homicide, whether death truly followed; in adultery or incest, whether copulation was consummated in the due vessel, etc. 4. Whether it is so CERTAIN that no prudent doubt remains; whether doubt of fact (for it is required by all that the sin be certainly committed with all required conditions), or doubt of law; because, when it is disputed among the Doctors whether some sin is reserved or not, the confessor is in possession of the faculty of absolving, as is taught most probably and commonly. And in the case in which this opinion were false, the Church certainly would supply¹ (cf. n. 1755). Yet in this matter, diocesan statutes must be consulted.

1770. II. Reservation immediately affects the CONFESSOR, and mediately the penitent. - This is established from the nature of reservation, "which is not a penalty regarding penitents, but a denial or restriction of jurisdiction regarding confessors. And concerning this there seems no room for doubt; for Trent (sess. 14, cap. 7), to show that priests can do nothing in reserved cases, premises these words: that absolution ought to be of no moment which a priest pronounces upon him over whom he does not have ordinary or subdelegated (note this) jurisdiction."²

Hence it is inferred: 1. A simple confessor CANNOT absolve from reserved cases, even if they were committed in a place or time in which reservation did not exist, because here and now he lacks jurisdiction; - 2. he CAN absolve from sins committed at the time and place of reservation, if reservation does not exist at the time and place of absolution.

1771. Questions. Q. 1. In how many ways can a case be reserved?

Resp. In two ways: 1. By reason of itself only, when no censure is attached to it, or is attached only accessorily: and this case is said to be reserved principally because of the sin; hence, although the censure is not incurred, nevertheless the reservation remains. 2. By reason of censure, when namely the sin is reserved principally because of the censure, so that the censure is immediately reserved, and the sin itself mediately; hence, the censure being removed, for example because someone sinned led by grave fear, the sin does not remain reserved.³

Q. 2. Whether IGNORANCE OF RESERVATION excuses from incurring it?

Resp. St. Alphonsus, with the very common opinion, distinguishes thus: 1. If cases are reserved principally ON ACCOUNT OF CENSURE, as almost all papal cases are, ignorance certainly excuses, because in reservation of this sort the character of penalty is principally considered, which is inflicted only on the contumacious. - Therefore in these cases, the censure being reserved, the sin also remains reserved; but the censure being removed, for example because it was unknown, the sin is not reserved, as is clear from the preceding question. - Yet if someone knows the censure, and is ignorant only that it is reserved, he is not excused from incurring it; because he now consents to the penalty of censure, and therefore implicitly to its reservation and to all other effects, although unknown (cf. n. 220).

2. If cases are reserved principally BY REASON OF SIN, such as are the two papal cases (cf. n. 1772), and almost all the cases which not common law reserves to Bishops, but Bishops themselves reserve to themselves, ignorance, according to the truer opinion, does not excuse from reservation. The reason is because reservation deprives the confessor himself of all jurisdiction as regards that sin.⁴ - And the same is valid as regards cases which Bishops reserve to themselves with censure, because while in papal cases the censure is reserved principally and the sin secondarily, on the contrary, in episcopal cases the case itself, or sin, is reserved principally and of itself, even when a censure has been annexed accessorily, for binding more strongly.⁵ Universal practice confirms this; hence the opinion of those who teach the contrary does not seem able to be brought into use (cf. n. 1767). - Except, however, if the contrary were positively established from the words of the Bishop, that is, if he reserved the case principally because of the censure, and expressed this;⁶ or if he openly said that he did not wish to comprehend in the law the case of ignorance.

Q. 3. Whether and how TRAVELERS are subject to reservation?

Things to be noted beforehand. Two things must be kept before the eyes: 1. A confessor whom reservation affects cannot absolve travelers except according to the limits of jurisdiction which he has from his Ordinary. 2. Penitent travelers, that is, those of another diocese, are subject, as regards the sacramental forum, to the laws of the place where they are actually present and confess.⁷ And this indeed from the will of the Church, or from universally introduced legitimate custom (cf. n. 1752, q. 2). Hence:

Resp. 1. A penitent departing into another diocese with a sin reserved in each diocese perseveres in being subject to reservation, and can be absolved in neither diocese except by one having the faculty.

2. He who confesses a sin not indeed reserved in his own country, or in the place where it was committed, but reserved in the diocese where he confesses, is likewise subject to reservation, nor can he be absolved except by one having the faculty.⁸ Yet here he is not bound by the censure which is reserved by the law of that diocese, because he is not a subject of that diocese in the external forum, nor is he contumacious.

3. He who confesses a sin reserved in his own country, but not in the place where he confesses, can be absolved by a simple confessor, provided he has not migrated there in fraud of reservation. Thus from the Constitution Superna of Clement X for Regulars, and from universally introduced custom for secular confessors⁹ (cf. n. 1752, q. 2). - Nor does it hinder if a censure reserved by the law of his country is annexed to the sin; because it has been received that Bishops, and their delegates, absolve even from censures reserved in another diocese, unless they are public or imposed by a particular sentence.¹⁰

Q. 4. What is it TO MIGRATE IN FRAUD OF RESERVATION?

Resp. Different persons interpret the matter differently; but the more common and more probable opinion holds that the penitent then migrates in fraud of reservation "when he seeks another diocese for the principal end of obtaining absolution and avoiding the judgment of his own pastor"; even if he were to do this in good faith, believing that it is not forbidden. "The reason is because fraud is said to intervene where the law is rendered illusory.... But the law of reservation would be eluded if the penitent migrated elsewhere from the principal motive of seeking absolution. Hence he can well be absolved if he has gone away to some diocese for some honest end, for instance of conducting business, or of gaining an Indulgence; or so that he may confess with less inconvenience, or dispatch confession more quickly; or so that he may find an unknown or more prudent confessor who may direct him better, etc." Nor indeed does he migrate in fraud of reservation for obtaining absolution who departs from a diocese to commit a sin which is reserved there; for he does this so as not to incur the reservation itself.¹¹

Papal, episcopal, and regular cases are distinguished.

1772. I. PAPAL cases are of two kinds. For some are reserved by themselves, or by reason of the sin; others because of the reserved censure.

1. The cases reserved to the Pope by themselves, WITHOUT CENSURE, are two: 1) False denunciation of a confessor: namely when someone falsely accuses an innocent priest before ecclesiastical judges of the crime of solicitation, whether by calumniating by himself, or by causing the calumny to be brought by others. From the Bull Sacramentum of Benedict XIV.¹² This case is reserved most specially, namely in such a way that the Major Penitentiary himself, without consulting the S. Pontiff, cannot absolve from it, even in the time of Jubilee. - 2) Retention of gifts received from Religious. Namely, he who has received gravely illicit gifts, even if not of great price, from Religious of either sex bound by solemn vows, cannot be absolved by a simple confessor unless they have first restored them (however much he may have been disposed to restore); or unless, being unable to restore, he has promised that as soon as he is able he will restore.¹³

Before restitution has actually been made, in a case in which it is not impossible, the Major Penitentiary, or a Confessor appointed by him, can indeed absolve a detainer of this sort, provided that the gifts received do not exceed the value of ten Roman scudi, 54 francs, and were not from goods of the Religion, and provided that the obligation of alms is enjoined, to be determined at the judgment of himself or of the delegated confessor, which is to be expended for the benefit of the Religion or Convent to which restitution would have to be made by law, if it can be done cautiously.¹⁴ But if the gifts received exceed the value of ten scudi, or are from goods of the Religion, neither the Major Penitentiary by ordinary faculty nor another can absolve before restitution has been made, but only the Roman Pontiff. - From the Bull Religiosae of Clement VIII; Nuper of Urban VIII; Pastor bonus of Benedict XIV.

2. Cases reserved to the Pope BECAUSE OF CENSURE, from the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis issued by Pius IX, are subdivided into two classes. For some are reserved in a special way, others simply, as we saw in the Treatise on Censures (cf. n. 1313 seqq.).

1773. II. EPISCOPAL cases are also of two kinds: some are said to be reserved BY LAW, others reserved BY MAN.

1. Cases reserved to Bishops or Ordinaries BY COMMON LAW are the following: 1) the three excommunications with which are struck those attempting marriage while bound by solemn vow - those procuring abortion - and those using false Apostolic Letters (cf. nn. 1348-1350). 2) The striking of a cleric in certain circumstances (n. 1310). 3) The suspensions inflicted by Trent (nn. 1368-1374). - It is known besides that papal cases, by law, become episcopal, whether in an occult case, if they are simply reserved, or at least in the case of perpetual impediment, according to what was said in nn. 1280 and 1283.

2. Cases reserved to the Bishop BY MAN are those which any Bishop, whether in Synod or outside Synod, by general sentence, reserves to himself, and ordinarily indeed without censure.

They are various according to the diversity of places, and therefore to be learned from the statutes of each diocese. But here:

IT IS ASKED. Who are EXEMPTED from episcopal reservation?

Resp. 1. EXEMPT Religious, their Novices, familiars, and domestics, provided they are continual table-companions; hence, "if a Novice has fallen into a reserved case before entrance, he indeed will not be able to be absolved by any secular confessor, but by privilege he will be able to be absolved by a confessor of the Religion."¹⁵ But if a Religious were to offend in those things in which he is not exempt but subject to the Bishop, he certainly could incur censure and reservation.¹⁶ 2. EXEMPT Nuns.¹⁷ Yet reserved cases must be excepted in matter pertaining to the Bishop as delegated by the Holy See, for example relating to enclosure, as is established from the decision of the S. C. of Bishops and Regulars (September 1746, in Nicoteren.).¹⁸

Note. Cases reserved to the Most Eminent Cardinal Vicar of the City are only TWO, namely: 1. The sin which they commit who do not satisfy the precept of paschal Communion within the time which runs between Palm Sunday and Low Sunday inclusive. 2. The excommunication to be incurred by the very fact by those who either lend or receive the certificate, commonly called bollettino, of paschal Communion.¹⁹

1774. III. Prelates of Religions CAN, if they wish, reserve cases to themselves, but, as Clement VIII decreed on May 26, 1593, only ELEVEN, and no more without the consent of the general Chapter for the whole Religion, or of the provincial Chapter for the whole province.

The ELEVEN cases are: 1. Apostasy from Religion, even with the habit retained. - 2. Nocturnal and furtive departure from the monastery. - 3. Poisonings, incantations, and divinations. - 4. Ownership against the vow of poverty, which is a mortal sin. - 5. Mortal theft from the things of the monastery. - 6. Voluntary lapse of the flesh consummated by work. - 7. A false oath in a legitimate judgment. - 8. Procuration, counsel, or aid toward abortion of an animated fetus, even with the effect not following. - 9. Killing or wounding, or grave striking of any person whatever. - 10. Falsification of the hand or seal of the Officials of the monastery. - 11. Malicious impediment, delay, or opening of letters from Superiors to inferiors, or the contrary."²⁰

These cases are all reserved in the Religion of the Capuchins.²¹

Let it be noted: 1. Prelates CANNOT impose censures upon other cases; because this would be indirectly to reserve and to elude the prohibition of Clement VIII. Thus the S. Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, July 7, 1617. - 2. A Confessor of Regulars, if the Superior denies him the faculty of absolving, which he himself prudently judges ought to be conceded, can absolve for that time (Thus Clement VIII);²² that is, as often as the Superior unjustly denies the faculty. It is also probable that the same can be done if the time of celebration or Communion is urgent, and the Superior cannot be approached. Except if scandal, or some other grave damage, first had to be repaired.²³

1775. Things to be noted beforehand. 1. Absolution from reserved cases can be given directly or indirectly: directly, when the reserved sin is expressly declared before a confessor possessing due faculty; indirectly, when, from a just cause, it either is not declared, or is declared before a simple confessor, who can absolve only from sins not reserved.

2. Direct absolution is conceded either regularly by the reserving Superior or his delegate, or exceptionally by a simple confessor in certain circumstances. Wherefore the following principles are established.

Principles. - I. The RESERVING Superior, or his SUCCESSOR, or even the SUPERIOR OF THE ONE RESERVING, absolves from reserved cases from his own and ordinary power. The reason is because it belongs to him to absolve to whom it belongs to bind (cf. n. 1278 seqq.).

1776. II. An INFERIOR cannot absolve from reserved cases unless the faculty has been delegated to him either BY MAN, that is, by the Superior, or by LAW, or by CUSTOM, or by PRIVILEGE (cf. n. 1282). - But the general principle is that the delegate represents the one delegating, and enjoys his power for the benefit of the subject. Hence the subject can approach the delegate as often as he is impeded from approaching the Superior: yet he seems to be constrained to this by no law (cf. n. 1284, q. 2).

Moreover: 1. As regards cases reserved by the Pope, BISHOPS have from LAW a threefold power, which they can subdelegate. For: 1. By ordinary power, of which Vicars general also are participants, they absolve from cases reserved by the Pontiff to the Bishop or Ordinary, as we said above (nn. 1280, 3; 1773, 1). 2. Where Trent has been received, they have from chapter Liceat the faculty of absolving their subjects, in the forum of conscience,¹ from all occult cases simply reserved to the Pope (cf. n. 1280, 2). - They also obtain broader faculties by special Indults. See after n. 2333, Appendix I.

2. All INFERIORS need delegation of the one reserving, or of his Superior, so that they can absolve in his territory. - Hence, although a Vicar general has ordinary jurisdiction and can approve and delegate others, as is established from the Constitution Superna of Clement X, nevertheless without special commission he cannot either personally absolve or give to others the faculty of absolving from cases which the Bishop reserved to himself alone. St. Alphonsus says aptly to the point:² 1. The Bishop indeed sins gravely if he unjustly denies the faculty of absolving, with harm to souls, especially if the penitent cannot be induced to approach him; yet the confessor is bound by his denial (cf. n. 1768, 1). 2. But the Superior "can always justly deny the faculty until the penitent brings to him the information necessary for repairing public scandal or damage; for otherwise, as indisposed, he can be absolved by no one."³

3. The faculty which the Bishop grants of absolving from CASES reserved to himself extends, of itself, only to reserved SINS, but not to reserved censures. - Except, however, excommunications annexed to the same sins by the very fact. For excommunication, otherwise than must be said of suspension and interdict, obstructs absolution from sins. Hence, by that very fact that a faculty is conceded of absolving from a sin which has excommunication annexed to itself, the faculty of absolving from that excommunication is also conceded. But when the power of absolving from cases reserved to the Pope has been conceded, the power of absolving from annexed censures is always conceded; because the Pope is not accustomed to reserve cases except by reason of an attached censure⁴ (cf. n. 1772).

4. A privilege or Indult for the absolution of reserved cases can be either of the one absolving himself, as is, for example, that of those who obtain a schedule of the S. Penitentiary, quinquennial faculties, etc.; or of the penitent himself, when namely a privilege is conceded to him by force of which he can be absolved from reserved cases by a simple confessor, as for example from the Bull of Jubilee, Crusade, etc.

NB. Ancient privileges, as regards censures reserved to the Pope, are at present extinguished by abrogation, according as was said in the Treatise on Censures (n. 1280, 1); but new concessions are always limited to time or to persons, and therefore their communication among Regulars cannot be made. And hence it is why the very words by which the faculty of absolving has been granted to him must be carefully weighed by the confessor.

1777. III. There is no reservation in the ARTICLE or danger of DEATH. Therefore a simple confessor, and in his defect a simple priest, can absolve from any censures and sins whatever.⁵ This is established from what was said in n. 1753.

But let it be noted: 1. The dying person, so that he may be duly absolved, must, if he is in possession of himself: 1) seek absolution; 2) repair scandal, if he publicly gave any, in the better way in which he then can; 3) first satisfy the injured party, unless this party validly remits the reparation of the injury, for example the church whose goods he usurped; or if he then cannot furnish this, swear that he will satisfy as soon as he can; 4) if the crime is very enormous, swear that he will perpetrate it no more⁶ (cf. n. 1287).

2. If the sin was reserved by reason of itself, without censure, "there remains no obligation of presenting oneself to the Superior; because then the sin was truly directly absolved," as Suarez and others rightly teach.⁷

3. If a censure reserved to the Bishop or in a special way to the Pope is annexed to the reserved sin, the penitent must promise that, if he recovers, he will present himself to the Superior, not indeed so that he may again be absolved, but so that he may receive due admonition and penance, according to what was said in nn. 1274 and 1282.

4. When the Bishop is present, a simple confessor cannot licitly absolve from cases reserved by that Bishop with censure. The reason is because the confessor, by reason of the censure, would have to enjoin the dying person that, if he recovers, he present himself as soon as possible to the Superior. Since therefore the Superior himself is present, relaxation of the censure must be sought and obtained from him, unless danger of infamy or something else hinders.⁸ It is otherwise with censures reserved to the Pope; because, although the burden of presenting oneself to him is sometimes given, nevertheless in practice the Pope is never personally present.

1778. Questions. Q. 1. In what other way does reservation CEASE?

It ceases: 1. Except in a Jubilee (cf. n. 1739, q. 10), through confession, although invalid, or even sacrilegious, made to the Superior or to one having the faculty, and in which the reserved sin is accused; for thus the end of reservation is sufficiently obtained, since the Superior can now judge concerning the accused sin, and the penitent now receives from him remedies and penance "which he is always bound to fulfill, although afterward he perceives that the confession was invalid." Thus the more common and more probable opinion.⁹ 2. Through a VALID confession made to the Superior or to one having the faculty, although the penitent forgets the reserved case, yet inculpably. And this opinion indeed, which is commonly taught, St. Alphonsus holds as probable;¹⁰ except only the case in which from the circumstances it is positively presumed that the Superior would have delayed absolution if he had heard the sin; for otherwise he is judged to have wished to free the rightly disposed penitent from every bond, namely by using these words: "Insofar as I can, and you need."¹¹ 3. Through confession of a DOUBTFULLY RESERVED sin, whether by doubt of fact or even of law, made to one not having a special faculty, even if the penitent afterward recognizes the case as certainly reserved. Thus the common and most probable opinion; and the reason is because in doubt odious things are to be restricted, nor is the faculty of absolving taken away except by certain reservation, as was said in n. 1769. And besides, "since this opinion is common and most probable, in the case in which perchance it were false, the Church supplies."¹²

Therefore, in these three cases, confession can, at least when a reasonable cause is present, be repeated or completed before a simple confessor (cf. n. 1755).

Q. 2. Whether he can be absolved from reserved cases who sinned IN CONFIDENCE of obtaining license?

Resp. "Some have doubted; but the more common opinion affirms it, because, granted that the one conceding license does not wish sinners to sin more easily because of it, nevertheless he does not exclude that those who have sinned on the occasion of it can be absolved, if they truly propose to avoid sin."¹³ And this is valid also for Jubilee, because the same reason runs, and a faculty generally conceded is not to be limited by decision.¹⁴ (cf. n. 1736, B, I).

Q. 3. Whether license given for reserved cases can be EXTENDED to sins committed after the license has been imparted?

Resp. It is not extended "if the license has been given for sins only specifically named, or determined by number. But otherwise if it has been conceded indefinitely, as is taught very commonly." Yet except "if the penitent to whom license has specially been conceded were to commit another sin after a notable time, for example after a month, or if the license had been conceded in view of some particular festivity."¹⁵

Q. 4. Whether a simple confessor can never, OUTSIDE DANGER OF DEATH, absolve from reserved cases?

St. Alphonsus responded:¹⁶ "When the Superior cannot be approached, the inferior can indirectly absolve from reserved cases, if some cause is urgent: for example, so that scandal or the mark of infamy may be avoided; or so that the paschal precept may be satisfied; or if the penitent otherwise would have to persevere longer in mortal sin, because the Superior is far away. Thus commonly." And the reason is because, necessity standing, confession is formally integral, and the confessor possesses jurisdiction over non-reserved sins; hence he validly and licitly absolves.¹⁷

It was said indirectly, because simple confessors, as Trent declared, sess. 14, cap. 7, outside the article of death, can do nothing in reserved cases. Wherefore, the impediment ceasing, even if by its nature it were perpetual, the penitent is bound to approach the Superior or his delegate, so that he may be directly absolved from the reserved cases.

Q. 5. Whether the penitent is VALIDLY absolved who, in GOOD FAITH, confesses a reserved sin to a simple confessor, or forgets it before the same?

Resp. Affirmative, if at the same time he confesses a non-reserved sin, whether mortal or venial; because in such a case, as is sufficiently established from what has been said, the non-reserved sin is directly absolved, and the reserved sin indirectly.¹⁸ But the confessor sins, and gravely indeed, if knowingly, without just cause, he absolves in this way, and the penitent is always bound to repeat the confession of the sin remitted only indirectly.

Note. As regards TRAVELERS, see n. 1771, q. 3. As regards the necessity of communicating or celebrating in a case in which someone has a reserved sin, cf. n. 1551.

1779. PRACTICAL RULES. The confessor, having heard a reserved sin from which he cannot absolve, must, when the case is not urgent, immediately remit the penitent to the Superior, or to another endowed with the faculty. - Ordinarily speaking, it is not expedient that he offer himself to seek the license, lest namely the end of reservation be destroyed (cf. n. 1766). But if nevertheless charity suggests that he himself seek leave, let him hear the remaining sins, both so that he may prescribe fitting remedies, and so that he may see whether other reserved sins are present. - But when the faculty has been obtained, let him not use it unless he has first shown to the penitent the gravity of the crime committed, and has imposed upon him a salutary satisfaction (cf. n. 1289, Note).

1780. Principles. I. It is forbidden to every priest, outside the case of extreme necessity, to dare to receive the sacramental confession OF A PERSON WHO IS AN ACCOMPLICE in a base sin against the sixth precept. Thus from the Constitutions of Benedict XIV, Sacramentum (June 1, 1741), and Apostolici muneris (February 8, 1745), namely for guarding the sanctity of the sacred Tribunal and removing dangers of souls.¹

It is said 1. outside the case of extreme necessity, that is, outside the article or danger of death; because then it is permitted to absolve an accomplice, provided another priest is lacking, even a simple one, who is able to absolve; or provided that priest cannot receive the confession of the infirm person without grave scandal, or infamy of the approved priest. Yet the priest accomplice is bound to forestall such dangers of scandal or infamy, if he can, for example by departing under some pretext, etc.; otherwise he will not escape the guilt and penalties of a grave offense, although the absolution is valid "lest on this very occasion," says the Pontiff, "someone perish."²

It is said 2. of a person who is an accomplice: by which name, from the common interpretation, come not only women, but also men, nor are even the prepubescent themselves excepted. - Indeed, persons with whom the confessor already sinned before the priesthood was received are not excluded; as is established from the Response of the S. PENITENTIARY of January 22, 1879.³

It is said 3. in a base sin...: in which appellation is comprehended every sin, certain on each side, grave, external and mutual, against the sixth precept, even if it was not consummated by copulation; indeed, although it is only a base touch, or gaze, or indecent conversation, as is more commonly taught, and as is established from the Response of the S. OFFICE, May 28, 1873 (cf. n. 1324).⁴ - But venial faults are not comprehended, whether they are such because of smallness of matter, or because of defect of advertence or consent; nor merely internal sins, or sins not fully manifested externally; nor doubtful sins, by doubt of fact or of law; nor finally when doubt turns on whether the penitent himself also sinned gravely; because the Bull is to be understood of a formal accomplice, in mortal sin against the Sixth.⁵

1781. II. The confessor, outside danger of death, LACKS all JURISDICTION for absolving an accomplice as regards the sin of which he was participant. - This is established from the words of the Bull saying: "Any authority and jurisdiction therefore being taken away from him by the law itself for absolving any person whatever from a fault of this sort." - Therefore, as long as the sin of complicity has not been directly remitted through absolution duly imparted by another priest, the confessor absolves his accomplice neither licitly nor validly. Indeed, it is probable that that sin, even after it has been directly remitted by another, can never and in no way be declared and subjected to the confessor-accomplice as sufficient matter of absolution, since he seems perpetually to lack jurisdiction over it.⁶

1782. III. EXCOMMUNICATION, reserved to the Roman Pontiff in a most special way, IS INCURRED by a priest who, outside extreme necessity, absolves an accomplice in a base sin. - This is established both from the Bull Sacramentum of Benedict XIV, and from the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis issued by Pius IX (cf. n. 1324).

Yet here it must be adverted that the following are not bound by the censure: 1. he who only hears the accomplice in confession, but does not absolve; otherwise, if he simulates absolution, as is established from the Response of the S. Penitentiary given on March 1, 1878, and confirmed from another Response of the Congregation of the Holy Office made to the Bishop of Périgueux on December 10, 1883⁷ (cf. n. 1324); 2. he who indeed absolves, but with ignorance, even crass, of the censure; or without advertence to the complicity of the penitent; for the Constitution of Benedict XIV, from which the censure was taken, requires daring, so that excommunication may be incurred.

1783. Questions. Q. 1. Whether the censure and privation of jurisdiction have place if the sin of complicity is not subjected to the keys?

Resp. Negative. For it was asked: "Whether he incurs the censures imposed on those absolving an accomplice in a base sin, who indeed absolves an accomplice, but an accomplice who did not declare the sin of complicity in confession? The reason for doubting seems to be because such a priest, even if the accomplice sacrilegiously omitted the confession of this sin, and he culpably abstained from questioning, nevertheless does not absolve from the fault of complicity of this sort, as not declared, nor subjected to the keys."

And the S. PENITENTIARY, on May 16, 1877, responded: "The privation of jurisdiction of absolving an accomplice in a base sin, and the annexed excommunication, insofar as the confessor shall have absolved him, are in order to the base sin itself in which the same confessor was the accomplice. Nevertheless the confessor is bound with all zeal to place before the eyes of the priest who in this way absolves the accomplice, yet not from the sin of complicity, the enormity of his offense and the abominable abuse of the Sacrament of Penance; nor otherwise to impart to him the benefit of absolution than after a most grave exhortation has been premised, that he strive to lay down the office of confessor, and also with the obligation imposed that in the future he wholly abstain from hearing confessions of the accomplice; the same person who was the accomplice being admonished, if he appears again, that he accuse himself before another confessor of the sin of complicity and of the others invalidly confessed."⁸

Q. 2. Whether he avoids EXCOMMUNICATION who, when the precept of CONFESSION is urgent, INDIRECTLY only absolves an accomplice unable to confess to another without danger of grave infamy or scandal?

Resp. Some deny it; but the Salmanticenses affirm it; and this opinion (if the penitent knows or is admonished that he must afterward approach another confessor) seems more probable and safe in practice, from the fact that in a case of this sort there is not present the rash daring which the Constitution of Benedict XIV requires.⁹ It also seems more conformable to the Response of the S. Penitentiary just reported.

1784. From what has been said you resolve:¹⁰ 1. The confessor INVALIDLY absolves: 1. A penitent with whom he agreed about seducing a woman, although afterward he did not seduce her; because it is verified that this penitent is a partner of an iniquitous agreement against chastity. - 2. A penitent from whom he only heard base conversations, if he showed that they pleased him; because by being outwardly pleased with them, he participated in them, and therefore is an accomplice of the base sin. 3. A penitent accomplice who makes a general confession, if it is certain or probable that the past confessions were invalid.

2. He VALIDLY absolves: 1. A woman whom, while sleeping or resisting, he immodestly touched, or by whom he himself, sleeping or resisting, was touched; because he does not absolve from the sin of complicity. 2. A woman with whom there intervened a kiss given in passing, or a momentary touch of hands or of honorable parts, from jest or levity. And the same would have to be said if the priest had taken the woman by the hand, although he himself, but he alone, had experienced venereal delight. For in these cases either there is not a certainly mortal sin, or it is not present on each side. 3. Resolve the same if delight, however carnal and arising on both sides, is personal to each, without any external sign and mutually unknown. - 4. Nor is the absolution invalid over other sins directly imparted to an accomplice if he inculpably omitted the sin of complicity in confession; for from the aforesaid Response of the S. Penitentiary of May 16, 1877, it is established that the priest is not deprived of his jurisdiction.

Note. The penitent accomplice himself incurs no censure or other penalty, nor is his sin subject to reservation (unless perhaps episcopal reservation, from diocesan Statutes). - Therefore let a person of this sort be benignly received by a legitimate confessor, so that he may not blush to confess his own misery; and, the confessions invalidly made before the accomplice having been repeated, and the occasion of sinning having been removed, let him be dismissed absolved. But let him be turned away, as much as can be done, from further return to the confessor-accomplice, even if the law concerning fleeing a proximate occasion does not seem absolutely to require it (cf. Response of the S. PENITENTIARY at the end).

But if besides this, on the occasion of confession, he had been solicited to sin, see n. 1795.

The reservation of cases is a restriction or limitation of jurisdiction, or a denial of the power of absolving from certain sins, the power of absolving from the others being saved. We must treat 1° concerning reservation; 2° concerning the absolution of reserved things.

1400. Principles. - I. There is given in the Church the power of reserving certain cases or causes of graver crimes, from which inferior confessors cannot absolve without a special faculty. For to the Church, as was said in n. 1392. q. 4°, belongs the power of conferring and limiting jurisdiction; therefore also of reserving cases. - Besides, this is clear from the definition of Trent.

II. The power of reserving sins belongs only to those who have jurisdiction in the internal forum and, today at least, also in the external. The reason is that it pertains to those alone who can confer jurisdiction over the society of the faithful to limit the same.

Hence: 1° the Pope can reserve cases in the whole Church; 2° Bishops in their own diocese; which reservation, according to the common opinion and the opinion truer to St. Alphonsus, is valid even as regards non-exempt Nuns, since they are not excepted in the law. Whether it is also valid as regards exempt Nuns in exempt matter is disputed probably on both sides; 3° others having episcopal jurisdiction, with respect to their own subjects.

III. Three things are required, from the custom of the Church, in order that a sin be considered reserved, namely, that it be 1° grave internally and externally; 2° consummated in its own species, and hence those favoring a homicide do not incur its reservation, since they have not consummated it, nor those committing imperfect sodomy incur the reservation of sodomy, since they have not consummated it in its own species; 3° so certain that no prudent doubt remains whether it has been perpetrated; whether it is internally and externally grave; whether it is consummated in its own species; whether it is comprehended under the reservation. The reason is that only external crimes are wont to be reserved, and indeed the graver and more atrocious; and hence it must be externally and internally grave - and because reservation, as being odious, is to be interpreted strictly, and hence it must be consummated in its own species and certain.

IV. Reservation affects the confessor immediately, and the penitent mediately; because it immediately touches the power of the confessor and restricts it.

Moreover, most episcopal cases are reserved simply, without censure; but papal cases almost all have censure, and are reserved principally on account of the censure, so that in them the censure is reserved immediately, and the sin itself mediately or accessorily. Hence in papal cases, when the censure is reserved, the sin also remains reserved; but, contrariwise, when the censure is removed, e.g. because it was unknown, neither is the sin reserved, because when the object of reservation is removed, i.e. the censure, the sin now does not remain reserved. - But the cases reserved to the Pope without censure are two: the first, namely concerning him who receives gifts from Regulars strictly so called of either sex (from the Constitutions of Clement VIII and Urban VIII. - See St. Alphonsus, H. A. Tr. XIII. 8. 9); the second, if someone wickedly, by himself or through others, denounces an innocent confessor concerning solicitation (from the Constitution of Benedict XIV).

Concerning reservation to be made by Bishops, those things opportunely occur which we have apud Benedict XIV, and of which this is nearly the sum:

a) Let it be extended only to a few cases, and

b) to only the more atrocious and graver crimes, whose reservation may contribute to retaining Christian discipline, and may yield to edification, not to destruction; lest otherwise, with the power of confessors restricted, an effect contrary to the pious mind of Holy Mother Church follow. Therefore let it not comprehend cases which, although they induce mortal sin, nevertheless turn upon things of small moment and are wont to occur frequently among the unlearned, such as cases of damage given and similar things. Hence also in reserving carnal sins much circumspection must be used, on account of the danger of scandals, especially among those persons on whom, on account of frequent return to the confessor, something of suspicion could fall.

c) Let it not be superfluous, and therefore let it not comprehend those cases which are specially reserved to the Holy See, nor those in which absolution is not conferred unless with restitution or execution of those things to which the penitent is held.

d) Let it not promiscuously, i.e. not except on account of frequent scandal or another necessary cause, be extended to those things to which by Law a major excommunication has been imposed, whose absolution is reserved to no one.

1401. Questions. - Query 1° Does ignorance of reservation or of the censure to be incurred from it excuse?

Resp. 1° Affirmatively as regards censure, because in it the character of penalty is especially considered, which is inflicted only on the contumacious; and this whether the ignorance is of fact, e.g. that such a book was written by an apostate or heretic to defend heresy, or of law, i.e. of the censure or law, whether divine or ecclesiastical, provided however it is not gross; although even this excuses if in the decree of censure there is read: who shall have done this knowingly, or deliberately, or rashly, or who shall have presumed. Concerning this matter more broadly where there will be speech about Censures, n. 1664. q. 2°. q. 3°.

Resp. 2° As regards reservation, it is controverted. The more common opinion denies, to which St. Alphonsus subscribes; the reason is that reservation restricts the power of the confessor, whom it immediately affects, as was said in n. 1400. IV.; therefore whether the penitent had knowledge of the reservation or did not have it, the power of the priest remains restricted.

Query 2° Does ignorance at least excuse from reservation when it is joined with censure?

Resp. 1° Affirm. for papal cases, because papal cases, with the two excepted about which in n. 1400, are reserved on account of the censure, from which ignorance excuses, as was just said. Therefore, when the censure is removed, no reservation remains.

Resp. 2° More truly, Neg. for episcopal cases; because in these reservation is principally and per se considered, to which sometimes a censure is annexed as a circumstance, for this end, that sinners may be more deterred from sin. Nevertheless this must be understood concerning the cases which, not indeed Common Law, but Bishops themselves reserve to themselves.

Query 3° Can the subject of another diocese be absolved if the case is reserved only in the place of Confession?

Resp. Neg. according to the more common opinion and the opinion by far more probable to St. Alphonsus, because reservation immediately regards confessors. Sacred Penitentiary, November 21, 1873. (K) p. 408.

Query 4° Can the subject of another diocese be absolved when the sin is reserved in his own diocese, but not in the place of Confession?

Resp. 1° He can be absolved by Regulars by force of the privilege granted to them in the Constitution Superna of Clement X.

Resp. 2° As regards secular Confessors, the very common and truer opinion affirms. The reason is that the universal custom so has it. - Except in either case, unless someone from his own diocese has gone to another principally and solely in fraud of reservation.

Query 5° Can regular Prelates or Superiors reserve cases in their own Order or Monastery?

Resp. They can reserve only some determined by Clement VIII, which are eleven in number and can be seen apud St. Alphonsus. But they can in no way reserve others without the consent of the general Chapter for the whole Religion, and of the provincial Chapter for the whole Province.

1402. Principles. - I. Those can absolve from reserved cases by ordinary power: 1° those reserving them themselves; 2° their successors in the same power; 3° their Superiors.

II. Bishops, or their delegates, can absolve:

1) Where Trent has been received, from hidden papal cases, except however those which are reserved to the Roman Pontiff in a special manner in the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis. This is clear from the Constitution itself, § Firmam tamen. See p. 361.

2) From papal cases, even notorious or public, all the faithful who on account of a legitimate impediment cannot approach the Apostolic See, lest from delay of absolution danger threaten souls. This is clear from Canon Law.

But absolution in this case is given directly, i.e. so that reservation ceases perpetually, if an impediment of this kind is perpetual. But the following are considered detained by a perpetual impediment: 1. Women, unless they are expressly noted by censure, as Nuns violating cloister. 2. Sexagenarians. 3. The sick with grave and rather long-lasting illness, such as quartan fever and the like. 4. Religious, even as regards censures incurred before entrance into Religion. For they can be absolved by their prelates or the delegate of these, except for enormous striking (n. 1753. q. 2°. R. 2°) of a Cleric. 5. The impubes, even if they ask absolution after attaining puberty. 6. Sons of a family. 7. Those condemned to perpetual prison. 8. Those bound by the care of feeding a family or administering its goods, or of bearing a public office which cannot be left without public detriment. 9. Those living collegially, such as soldiers, seminarians, etc. 10. The poor, who are not wandering beggars. 11. All others who cannot go to Rome without grave temporal or spiritual harm to themselves or their own. All these are considered perpetually impeded, unless a founded hope is present that within ten years, or according to others five years, they will be able to go easily to Rome; nor are they then held to approach Rome by letters or through a procurator. The same faculty, in the same circumstances, belongs to any confessor if the penitent is perpetually impeded from approaching the Bishop.

If the impediment is not perpetual, but long-lasting, i.e. at least for a half-year, the Bishop can absolve, with the burden on the penitent and with an oath given by him, in the internal forum a promise, of approaching the Pope or one having faculty from him, to receive his mandates, and this under penalty of reincidence (p. 316. col. 1. 3°). But if he cannot approach even the Bishop for a half-year, he will be able to be absolved by any confessor, with the burden as above.

3) The faculties of our Bishops, see p. LXXI. n. 15. 16.

III. Any Confessor, even a Regular, cannot absolve from cases properly episcopal unless he has received the faculty from the Bishop himself, even if he could absolve from any cases whatsoever reserved to the Pope. - Thus Clement X in the Bull Superna.

IV. There is no reservation in either the article or danger of death. Nevertheless it is required that he who is then in possession of himself: a) ask Absolution (but see n. 1672. q. 4°). b) Repair scandal (ib. q. 7°. q. 8°). c) First satisfy the injured party, unless this party could and wished to remit the reparation of injury, or refused a just one, or unless the one to be absolved was perpetually unable to satisfy; or, if he cannot do this then, furnish sufficient caution, or at least, if he cannot even furnish this then, swear that he will satisfy as soon as he can (ib. q. 9°). d) If censure, reserved to the Bishop or in a special manner to the Pope, is annexed to the reserved sin, from which a priest cannot absolve, he swear, in the internal forum promise, that he will present himself to a superior having the faculty, if he recovers; otherwise he falls again into the same censure. e) If there is question of a grave crime, before absolution he swear, in the internal forum promise, not to fall again.

1403. Questions. - Query 1° Can a simple confessor sometimes absolve from reserved things, even outside the danger of death?

Resp. Affirm., if the Bishop or one having the faculty cannot easily be approached, and on the other hand there is present either 1° danger of infamy or scandal from the omission of the celebration of Mass or Communion, or 2° necessity of fulfilling the paschal precept, or 3° fear lest the penitent remain for a long time in mortal sin. Nevertheless, if the impediment is not long-lasting, that absolution can be given only ad effectum, i.e. so that, notwithstanding the reservation either of sin or of censure, which is afterward to be removed by the Superior, he can now be absolved, communicate, or celebrate. If it is long-lasting or perpetual, see n. 1402. II. 2). But if the penitent has no other mortal sins than reserved sins, and, as ordinarily happens, doubts concerning perfect contrition, he is held to accuse either some venial sin, or a mortal sin otherwise confessed, or even the reserved sin itself, if in this he is a recidivist, or in a proximate occasion of relapsing into it.

Query 2° How besides is reservation removed?

Resp. 1° It is removed indirectly, with the burden of supplying, if someone in good faith has made a valid Confession before one not having the faculty, provided he subjects another non-reserved sin to the keys.

Resp. 2° It is removed directly: a) Excepting a jubilee, through a Confession, even one null or even sacrilegious, yet made to one having the faculty, and in which the reserved sin is accused.

b) Through a valid Confession made to one having the faculty, although the penitent forgets the reserved case, yet inculpably. Thus St. Alphonsus as probable, except the case in which it is positively presumed that, if the one having the faculty had heard the sin, he would have deferred absolution.

c) Through the Confession of a doubtfully reserved sin made to one not having the faculty, even if afterward it is known as certainly reserved. Therefore in this case afterward he is not held to approach the Superior or one having the faculty.

Query 3° Is one having reserved and non-reserved sins held in Confession to accuse also the reserved sins?

Resp. Neg., probably, per se. The reason is that otherwise he would be held to confess those sins twice, namely to the inferior and to the Superior. I said: per se, or unless he is a recidivist in the reserved sin, or in a proximate occasion of relapsing into it, as was said above at q. 1°.

Query 4° Can an inferior absolve a dying person from reserved things when the Superior is present?

Resp. 1° Affirm., if the cases are purely reserved. The reason is that in the article of death there is no reservation.

Resp. 2° Neg. as regards things reserved by the Bishop with censure; because since the dying person, if he recovers, is held to approach the Superior as soon as possible, he is to be absolved by this one if he is present. (8) p. 393.

Query 5° Is the leave of the Superior required for absolving a dying person from cases with reserved censure, if it can be sought by letters or through a procurator?

Resp. Neg., according to the more common and more probable opinion, both on account of the danger of manifestation, and because anyone who cannot personally approach the Superior is considered legitimately impeded.

Query 6° Can the Superior absolve the penitent from reserved sins, and send him back to the inferior for absolution from the non-reserved?

Resp. This does not seem improbable in a case, certainly very rare, in which the Superior a) could not free himself from some very grave business, b) judged it necessary to hear the reserved sin personally, and c) the penitent was under a necessity of communicating and did not wish to confess the same sins twice.

Query 7° Can pilgrims be absolved from episcopal censures which they incurred in their own diocese?

Resp. Neg., if there is question of public censures or censures inflicted ab homine by a particular sentence. Otherwise affirm. Cf. however n. 1401. q. 4°. R. 2°. (19) p. 419.

St. Thomas, q. 20, a. 2.

I. Reservation of cases is the calling of a case to the judgment of an ordinary superior, by which at the same time the power of inferiors is limited (can. 893), or the revocation of a case to the proper tribunal of the one reserving, so that no one can impart absolution except the one reserving, his successor or superior in office, or his delegate. From this it follows that not every limitation of power in a confessor is a reservation, nor is every sin whose absolution is taken away from a confessor reserved; but for this it is required that it be called to the judgment of a superior, and therefore that the power of absolving it be generally restricted among inferior confessors. Hence those who by ordinary law can concede jurisdiction for hearing confessions, or bring censures, can also reserve cases, unless otherwise established in law; e.g., the Supreme Pontiff for the whole Church, bishops for their dioceses, the superior general of an exempt religion or the abbot of a monastery sui iuris with respect to their own subjects (Council of Trent, sess. 14, c. 7 and can. 11).

Thus can. 893 establishes: "§ 1. Those who by ordinary law can concede the power of hearing confessions or bring censures, can also, excepting the capitular vicar, and the vicar general without a special mandate, call some cases to their own judgment, limiting the power of inferiors to absolve.

"§ 2. This calling is called reservation of cases.

"§ 3. As regards the reservation of censures, let the prescription of can. 2246 and 2247 be observed."

II. Reservation is twofold: one of sins, another of censures. - Reservation is customarily made in two ways: one is made by reason of a censure, insofar as "the reservation of a censure impeding reception of the sacraments imports the reservation of the sin to which the censure is annexed" (can. 2246, § 3), and then if the censure is not incurred or is not reserved or is removed, neither is the sin reserved: this is the reservation of censures; - the other is made by reason of itself or of the sin: this is reservation of cases or sins properly so called.

Moreover the end of reservation is twofold: one primary, disciplinary, namely the public good, for the good discipline of the Church demands that graver sins be reserved to those who, by doctrine, prudence, and experience, can judge better by what reason the evil is to be met; the other secondary, medicinal, namely the private good of the faithful, that thus they may be deterred more from those sins and amended more securely. Therefore the end of reservation is in no way penal; while on the contrary the end of the censure itself is essentially penal. Hence:

a) Reservation of sins, which according to its essence is the calling of a sin to the judgment of a superior so that it may be subjected to him, consequently imports a twofold effect: first, immediately and directly, it affects the confessor whose power as to this sin is limited so that he does not absolve from it validly; secondly, mediately and indirectly, it reaches the penitent, who must approach the tribunal of the superior in order to obtain absolution. - On the contrary, a censure immediately affects the penitent, and, if it is reserved, consequently the confessor, who, while the reservation stands, is deprived of the power of absolving from it.

b) Ignorance of reservation does not excuse from it,¹ which is now altogether certain in the new law, because reservation primarily is not a penalty of the delinquent, but a calling to the judgment of a superior and a restriction of jurisdiction in the confessor; but the ignorance of the delinquent does not give the confessor power which he does not have, nor does it impede the primary end of reservation. - On the contrary, ignorance of the censure excuses from it, and consequently also from the annexed reservation; nevertheless never affected ignorance, nor even gross ignorance if the delict does not require full knowledge or presumption (can. 2229).

¹ Unless accidentally, when a sin is reserved under the condition: if the reservation is known; and thus the one reserving excepts those who are ignorant.

In the present matter we speak only of the reservation of sins; concerning the reservation of censures, it is spoken of in Canon Law.²

² Concerning the manner in which the confessor must conduct himself in practice with the excommunicated, cf. our little work: De variis poenitentium categoriis, p. 177 and following.

S. Th., Suppl., q. 20, a. 2.

592. Reservation of cases is the calling of a case to the judgment of the ordinary superior, by which at the same time the power of inferiors is limited (can. 893), or the recalling of a case to the proper tribunal of the one reserving, so that no one can impart absolution except the one reserving himself, his successor or superior in office, or his delegate. From this it follows that not every limitation of power in a confessor is a reservation, nor is every sin whose absolution is taken away from a confessor reserved; but for this it is required that it be called to the judgment of the superior, and therefore that the power for absolving it be restricted generally among inferior confessors. Hence those who by ordinary law can grant jurisdiction for hearing confessions, or impose censures, can also reserve cases, unless it is otherwise established in law; e.g., the Supreme Pontiff for the whole Church, bishops for their dioceses, the superior general of an exempt religion or the abbot of a monastery of its own right with respect to their subjects (Council of Trent, sess. 14, c. 7 and can. 11).

Thus canon 893 establishes: "§ 1. Those who by ordinary law can grant the power of hearing confessions or impose censures can also, except for the capitular vicar and the vicar general without a special mandate, call some cases to their own judgment, limiting for inferiors the power of absolving.

"§ 2. This calling is called reservation of cases.

"§ 3. As regards the reservation of censures, let the prescription of can. 2246 and 2247 be observed."

593. Reservation is twofold: one of sins, another of censures. - Reservation is customarily made in a twofold way: one is made by reason of a censure, insofar as "the reservation of a censure impeding the reception of the sacraments brings with it the reservation of the sin to which the censure is attached" (can. 2246, § 3), and then if the censure is not incurred or is not reserved or is taken away, neither is the sin reserved: this is reservation of censures; - another is made by reason of itself, or of the sin: this is the reservation of cases or of sins properly so called.

The end of reservation is twofold: the one primary, disciplinary, namely the public good, for the good discipline of the Church demands that graver sins be reserved to those who, by doctrine, prudence, and experience, are better able to judge in what way the evil is to be met; the other secondary, medicinal, namely the private good of the faithful, that thus they may be more deterred from those sins and be amended more securely. Therefore the end of reservation is in no way penal; whereas, on the contrary, the end of the censure itself is essentially penal. Hence:

a) The reservation of sins, which according to its essence is the calling of a sin to the judgment of the superior so that it may be subjected to him, consequently imports a twofold effect: first, immediately and directly it affects the confessor, whose power with respect to this sin is limited so that he does not absolve from it validly; secondly, mediately and indirectly it touches the penitent, who, in order to obtain absolution, must approach the tribunal of the superior. - On the contrary, a censure immediately affects the penitent, and, if it is reserved, consequently the confessor, who, while the reservation stands, is deprived of the power of absolving from it.

b) Ignorance of the reservation does not excuse from it,1 - which is now altogether certain in the new law, because reservation is not primarily a penalty of the delinquent, but a calling to the judgment of the superior and a restriction of jurisdiction in the confessor; but the ignorance of the delinquent does not give the confessor a power which he does not have, nor does it impede the primary end of reservation. - On the contrary, ignorance of a censure excuses from it, and consequently also from the reservation attached to it; yet never affected ignorance, nor even crass ignorance if the delict does not require full knowledge or presumption (can. 2229).

594. On cases reserved to the Supreme Pontiff. - In law:2

A. "The one sin reserved by reason of itself to the Holy See is false denunciation (by oneself or through others induced), by which an innocent priest is accused of the crime of solicitation before ecclesiastical judges" (can. 894).

B. Many censures are reserved to the Apostolic See, of which "some are reserved simply, some in a special manner, some in a most special manner" (can. 2245, § 2 and 3).

Among censures specially reserved there also occurs false denunciation of solicitation before superiors (can. 2363). Therefore the same sin, under diverse conditions, is reserved by reason of itself and by reason of a censure, as will be declared in n. 643, C.

Reservation is the calling away of certain cases to his own judgment, made by a Superior limiting the power of absolving in inferiors.

I say 1°. There is given in the Church the power of reserving certain cases or causes of graver crimes, from which inferior confessors cannot absolve without a special faculty.

§ 1. Those who by ordinary law can concede the power of hearing confessions or impose censures can also, with exception made of the Capitular Vicar and the Vicar General without a special mandate, call away some cases to their own judgment, limiting in inferiors the power of absolving.

§ 2. This calling away is called reservation of cases.

§ 3. As regards the reservation of censures, the prescription of can. 2246, 2247 is to be observed (Can. 893).

I say 2°. Three things are required, at least from the custom of the Church, so that some sin can be reserved, namely, that it be 1°. mortal not only by reason of the object, but also by reason of malice in the act of the will; 2°. external, and indeed grave as external; 3°. consummated by deed, but not merely attempted, unless something else is established from the express declaration of the one reserving. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 582. - Baller. notes (a), (b), and (c) p. 470. Thus, for example, some sin is reserved, suppose against chastity: 1°. but someone sins lightly, the sin is not reserved; 2°. he sins gravely internally, the internal sin, although grave, is not reserved; 3°. he externally places some light sin, suppose some word containing in itself no grave malice against chastity, but he places it from the mind of fornicating: such a one sins gravely and externally, but the external sin is grave solely on account of the gravely depraved internal malice with which it is clothed, of which nevertheless it is not a natural external sign, and therefore it is not reserved; 4°. but now he places some external act gravely depraved, suppose an invitation to fornicate: that external act is a natural external sign of grave internal malice, and of itself, if it is placed voluntarily and knowingly, is sufficient matter of grave sin, and not only by respect to the internal act.

Question 9. Whether a subject of another diocese can be absolved if the case is reserved only in the place of confession?

Resp. Negatively, if he confesses to a simple confessor; for this man's jurisdiction is limited, Can. 893, § 1, and in no way comes from the Ordinary of the penitent, Can. 874; a pilgrim is held as an inhabitant and is bound by the reservations of the place in which he is; the same is also clear from the response of the Sacred Penitentiary given 21 Nov. 1873, when the dispute was fervent. Titius, a priest approaching the tribunal of penance, sets forth sins partly simply reserved, partly also with episcopal censure in the diocese of the confessor. The latter grieves at this, and humanely admonishes the brother to present himself to one having the faculty: but he insists on absolution and says that the confessor, since he is not a judge of opinions, can and ought to absolve a penitent who wishes to follow an opinion not only probable, but most common among ancient and living Theologians. The confessor, firm in his opinion, does not acquiesce, and dismisses the penitent unabsolved.

It is asked 1°. Whether the confessor conducted himself well? 2°. Can he always conduct himself thus in the case?

The Sacred Penitentiary, having considered the things set forth, responds: As to the first case, to both affirmatively.

LVII. The same Sporer in the same place: “Gobat well observes, deservedly judging that a regular confessor would not be faithful to his prelate if, having found a penitent implicated in a reserved sin but ignorant of the reservation, he should not say expressly: "I absolve you indeed this once (namely from a probable opinion and a kindly interpretation of the superior's mind, lest, proceeding in good faith, you should have to confess the same mortal sin twice); but know seriously that I could not have absolved you without the express will of the superior": and that he himself is wont to counsel this to parish priests and vicars solicitous concerning episcopal reserved cases.”

I. The power of reserving certain more atrocious crimes, as Trent, session 14, chapter 7, declares, is called into hazard by no one. To reserve sins belongs to those to whom it belongs to confer the power of jurisdiction. These are the Supreme Pontiffs in respect of the universal Church, bishops in respect of inferior presbyters, and regular superiors in respect of their subjects. Reservation here renders absolution invalid, and not merely unlawful.

II. Venial sins are not reserved, because such reservation would be useless, since these sins can be blotted out without the sacrament. That internal mortal sins can be reserved the graver theologians teach — Suárez, Soto, Sylvius, Vásquez, and others: because these mortal sins are in fact subjected to the interior forum of the Church, and are remitted by a judicial sentence. Therefore they can be reserved. Such reservation nevertheless is by no means expedient. Nor hitherto have either the Roman Pontiffs or bishops ever reserved such internal sins.

III. The cases reserved to the Roman Pontiff are contained in the Bull In Coena Domini, which for brevity's sake I do not transcribe. Clement VIII also reserved to himself the six following cases: 1. Of the violation of ecclesiastical immunity within the terms of the constitution of Gregory XIV of holy memory, whose beginning is Cum alias nonnulli. 2. Of the violation of the enclosure of nuns for an evil end. 3. Of those provoking to and fighting a duel, according to the decree of the sacred Council of Trent and the constitution of Gregory XIII of holy memory beginning Ad tollendam. 4. Of those laying violent hands upon clerics, according to the canon Si quis suadente, and so forth. 5. Of real simony knowingly contracted. 6. Of beneficial confidence.

IV. Other Pontiffs also have reserved to themselves certain other cases. An excommunication reserved to the Supreme Pontiff is incurred by him who hears the confession of an accomplice in some base and dishonest sin committed against the sixth precept of the Decalogue. Benedict XIV in his constitution Sacramentum Poenitentiae, published in the year 1741, deprives confessors of jurisdiction of absolving from this crime. The same constitution he confirmed by another constitution published in the year 1745, whose beginning is Apostolici muneris partes. He declared nevertheless that in the article of death it is not forbidden to priests to hear a confessing person who is an accomplice, and to absolve her when duly disposed, provided nevertheless there be not present another priest, who, if he can be had without scandal, even though he be a simple priest, ought to receive the whole confession. Nay, the partner of the crime ought to take care that another priest be found who may hear such confession, when this can be done without scandal. Otherwise, if the priest who is a partner of the outrage shall have been negligent in taking care that another confessor be found, and himself hear the confession, the absolution will indeed be valid in respect of the penitent accomplice; but the confessor who is an accomplice incurs the excommunication laid down in the said constitution.

V. He who by apostolic indult absolves from the fault in these cases to which excommunication is annexed absolves also from the censure. The aforesaid cases are reserved even in the time of a Jubilee, unless they be expressly excepted.

VI. Concerning the cases which bishops can reserve to themselves, it is not ours to bring forth judgment. They are wont to reserve to themselves only those more atrocious crimes which greatly disturb the discipline of the Church and bring in a grave scandal.

VII. QUESTION I. Whether ignorance excuses from the reservation of cases? ANSWER. All subjects of the superior reserving are subject to the reservation. To the proposed question someone answers that he who is ignorant either of the reservation or of the censure, or he who while he actually sins does not advert to it, incurs neither. This opinion is to me false. For those who sin from an impotent lust or stirred by anger think nothing of the reservation. Those who are ignorant of a censure do not incur it, because it is laid down against the contumacious. But contumacy cannot be had without knowledge. Reservation on the contrary is a subtraction of the power of absolving from certain sins. Some distinguish a medicinal and a penal reservation. They assert that the former, but not the latter, is incurred by the ignorant. This distinction is vain and arbitrary. For every reservation is both medicinal and penal.

VIII. In few words I refute this opinion. Reservation is a subtraction of jurisdiction from the confessor, as all teach, in respect of reserved crimes. Does the ignorance of the penitent confer jurisdiction upon a confessor not having it? Is a penitent approaching ignorantly and in good faith a confessor not approved by the superior validly absolved? Does a confessor ignorant of a reserved case validly absolve? All deny it. The confessor's ignorance does not hinder the case from being reserved. Therefore neither does the penitent's ignorance take away that the confessor is deprived of the faculty of absolving from reserved cases.

IX. When a case is reserved upon the effect following, as the procuring of abortion or homicide, if the effect do not follow the case is not reserved. If a man administer poison, or mortally wound, and confess before the effect succeed, the case is not reserved, and he is validly absolved, provided the confessor oblige the penitent that, if the effect follow, he present himself at the tribunal of the superior for absolution from the reservation. Otherwise those procuring abortion and administering poison could elude every reservation by confessing the sin immediately after the poison was given. Wherefore it is to me more probable that, the effect following, these should approach confessors who have the faculty of absolving from reserved cases.

X. QUESTION II. Whether sins are understood to be reserved when there is doubt concerning their reservation? ANSWER. Doubt is twofold. One of right, as if a man should doubt whether this or that sin be reserved. For then he would doubt of jurisdiction, and then the confessor could not absolve. Since when it is certainly established that the sin is matter of reservation, and it is doubted whether the superior has reserved it, jurisdiction is doubted. But with doubtful jurisdiction a confessor cannot absolve, as has been shown above. Besides, Clement VIII forbade all confessors dwelling in Italy that any of them under pretext of privileges should absolve from any one of the cases certainly or doubtfully contained in the Bull In Coena, or otherwise in any manner whatsoever reserved or to be reserved to the Apostolic See. From which it is inferred that in all sins reserved to the Apostolic See there are included also doubtful cases. But in a doubt of fact authors commonly teach that a simple confessor can absolve. The sin of drunkenness is reserved: you doubt whether you fell into true drunkenness: this doubt is called of fact.

XI. When a man is absolved from a doubtful sin by an inferior priest, if he afterwards detect it to be certain, he is bound to approach a confessor endowed with the power of absolving from reserved cases, whatever some say to the contrary.

XII. QUESTION III. Who can absolve from reserved cases? ANSWER. All who can reserve can also absolve; besides, all those who have jurisdiction delegated by a superior. In a twofold manner jurisdiction can be delegated. First, directly, when the Ordinary delegates this or that confessor to absolve from reserved cases. Second, indirectly, when the Ordinary grants a faculty to some penitent that he may choose for himself some confessor by whom he may be absolved from reserved cases.

XIII. Pilgrims coming in good faith, and all fraud being removed, from a diocese in which a sin is reserved to a diocese in which that sin is not reserved, can be absolved by a simple confessor. Otherwise if in each diocese it were reserved, or if it were reserved in the diocese in which the confession must be made.

XIV. Bishops can absolve their own subjects in their own diocese from all occult cases, even those reserved to the Apostolic See, either by themselves or by a Vicar specially deputed for this. But from occult heresy only by themselves in the forum of conscience, as Trent, session 24, chapter 6, declares. Under the name of bishop do not come abbots or regular prelates, although very many affirm it.

XV. This faculty nevertheless granted by Trent to bishops of absolving from occult heresy has been revoked by the Bull In Coena, and the contrary opinion is proscribed by Alexander VII, no. 5. It is therefore certain that from occult heresy neither bishops nor regular prelates can absolve their own religious subjects, much less laymen. Clement VIII and Urban VIII expressly forbade regular prelates to absolve from the cases in the Bull In Coena. But they can only do in respect of their subjects what bishops can with their own subjects. Condemned also is the opinion which defended that mendicants could absolve from cases reserved to bishops, the faculty not having been obtained from the bishop.

XVI. A superior, the reserved cases being heard, cannot sacramentally absolve a penitent by remitting him to another confessor for absolution from the non-reserved. Nor can confessors lacking power over reserved cases directly absolve from non-reserved and indirectly from reserved. Absolutions of this kind would be invalid. Nay, neither can he who lacks power over reserved cases absolve from the non-reserved alone. For the confession must be whole.

XVII. He who in the time of a Jubilee makes a void confession is not absolved from reserved cases. Similarly he who confesses with the mind of gaining a Jubilee, afterwards changes his will and refuses to fulfil the works: if in that confession he omit by inculpable forgetfulness some reserved sin, he cannot, when he remembers it, be absolved by any priest whatsoever: because the Pontiff takes away the reservation in respect of those who in fact intend to gain the Jubilee. Therefore if he of his own accord refuses to gain the Jubilee, by that very fact he refuses the privilege of the reservation.

XVIII. If in the time of a Jubilee absolution be deferred to an indisposed penitent, and after the Jubilee has elapsed he fall into a reserved sin, he cannot be absolved by any confessor whatsoever, but only by him who is endowed with the faculty of absolving from reserved cases. But he can be absolved from reserved sins perpetrated before the Jubilee and invincibly forgotten, if he gave his labour to the gaining of the Jubilee.

XIX. Those who have the faculty of absolving from cases reserved to the Supreme Pontiff can also absolve from censures. He who in the article of death confesses to a priest not approved, or excommunicated, is absolved even from reserved cases, if he be disposed; nor is he bound, if he recover, to approach the superior: because, as has been said, in the article of death there is no reservation, unless it be otherwise disposed by the superior, as happens in sins having a censure annexed, and chiefly those contained in the Bull In Coena. Authors dispute on either side whether a dying man can be absolved by one excommunicated and not tolerated, or by a heretical priest. Many affirm it, and many deny it. Since the resolution of this depends upon the sole authority of the Church, bishops are to be consulted, that a true and safe decision may be had. St. Raymond, Book 3, § 16, dissuades the faithful from such a confession.

XX. A priest who, being destitute of the power, inadvertently absolves from reserved cases ought, if he can, to admonish the penitent. If, all diligence being employed, he is ignorant, he is excused before God, says St. Antoninus, part 1, title 17, chapter 4. The penitent also is absolved, if he invincibly is ignorant of the reservation. I said above that a reservation is contracted even by one ignorant of it. For the rest, since reservation is of human law, there can be given an invincible ignorance of it both in the penitent and in the confessor. But in a case of necessity there is no reservation. And what greater necessity than inculpable forgetfulness and invincible ignorance?

XXI. There would have to be treated here of the cases which regular prelates can reserve to themselves. But these cases are known to all Regulars from the decree of Clement VIII and of Urban VIII. And the many disputations which some stir up upon these I pass over as superfluous.

Caius, a regular priest, while giving a mission in a certain town far distant from the episcopal city, hears the confession of Titius, a laborer who lives there. During confession Titius says that he was recently joined in marriage with Bertha, a Protestant, before the civil registrar, having been driven to such a deed because of the difficulty of obtaining from the parish priest a dispensation from mixed marriage. Caius remembers that the case is among those which the Bishop reserves to himself, but does not know how to proceed. For Titius seems perpetually impeded from approaching the Bishop; although he can write, he seems to be bound by no law to write, which also seems capable of being said of Caius himself. On the other hand, Titius gave scandal, which must be repaired. Hence it is asked:

1. What does ecclesiastical law establish concerning one who has a papal case and is impeded from approaching Rome?

2. What is to be said of one who has an episcopal case and is impeded from approaching the Bishop?

3. What is to be done by Caius, and what if Titius is ignorant that the case is reserved by the Bishop?

1. What does the law of the Church prescribe with regard to a penitent who has a papal case and is prevented from going to Rome?

If there is no need for immediate absolution the case must be submitted by letter to the Grand Penitentiary at Rome either by the penitent himself, or by his confessor, in order that special faculties for granting absolution may be obtained. If the penitent is under the necessity of obtaining absolution at once, he may be absolved directly by any confessor, but within a month the case must be submitted to Rome by the penitent or by his confessor under pain of falling again into the same case.¹

1 Manual of Moral Theology, vol. ii, 204.

2. What must be done with a penitent who has incurred a bishop’s case and is prevented from going to the bishop?

The regulation given above for the treatment of papal cases is gradually being applied to bishops’ cases also. Otherwise a priest without special faculties may give absolution from a bishop’s case when the penitent can not go to the bishop. The absolution will be indirect if the penitent can present himself to the bishop within six months, direct if he can not.²

2 Ibid., 207 f.

3. The case. If Titius was married before April 19, 1908, the marriage would be valid in England and in most parts of the United States, and Caius might absolve him to enable him to go to Holy Communion. If the bishop of the diocese requires that reserved cases should be submitted to him by letter, this should be done, either by the penitent or by the confessor. If Titius was ignorant that his case was reserved to the bishop, his ignorance probably excuses him from incurring the reservation, unless the bishop has expressly declared the contrary. If Titius were induced to give the promises usually made before a dispensation is granted for a mixed marriage, and if he promised to lead a good Catholic life himself, it would go far to repair the scandal he caused.

If the marriage took place after the decree Ne temere came into force, the marriage is null and void on account of clandestinity. The case should be referred to the bishop, who will doubtless grant faculties to Caius or to the parish priest to revalidate the marriage and instruct him as to what he is to do. In the meantime Titius should not use marital rights, and it would be well if he kept away from home. In the possible case of Titius thinking in good faith that he was really married, he might be left in his good faith until the dispensation arrived. After the dispensation has been fulminated, the religious marriage should take place before the parish priest or his delegate and two witnesses.

Caius, a priest, prostrate at the feet of Titius, his confessor, confesses that he solicited a certain penitent to a grave shameful sin in the sacred tribunal, and that afterwards, when she confessed that sin to him, he directly absolved her from her other sins and indirectly from the sin of complicity, in regard to which he declares that he knew well that he had no jurisdiction and did not intend to absolve it. Titius absolves Caius, although solicitation in the sacred tribunal is a sin reserved by the Ordinary, because on the following day the penitent is bound by his office to celebrate for the people; nevertheless, he does not know whether the burden of writing to Rome must be imposed upon him as one bound by the censure of excommunication on account of the absolution given to an accomplice. Hence it is asked:

1. What is the reservation of cases, and what is its purpose?

2. Whence are reserved cases known?

3. What ought a confessor hearing a reserved sin to do?

4. What is to be said of the case?

1. What is reservation of cases, and what is its purpose? Reservation of cases is a limitation of jurisdiction which the confessor retains with regard to other sins, although it is denied with regard to reserved sins. The purpose of reservation is the discipline of the Christian people, that namely that they may be deterred from committing reserved sins because of the difficulty of obtaining absolution, and that whoever commits them may have a more expert confessor.¹

1 Manual of Moral Theology, vol. ii, 192

2. From what are reserved cases recognized?

Papal cases are almost all contained in the Constitution of Pius IX Of the Apostolic See, except one concerning false accusation of solicitation, which is contained in the Constitution of Benedict XIV The Sacrament of Penance, and another concerning Mass stipends in the decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Council of 11 May 1904. Episcopal cases are found in the papers which the bishops grant to confessors. Cases of the Regulars are found in their Constitutions and rules.

3. What should a confessor do when hearing a reserved sin?

‘Outside the article of death,’ says the Council of Trent (Sess. XIV, c. 7), ‘priests, when they can do nothing in reserved cases, strive to persuade penitents to go to superiors and legitimate judges for the benefit of absolution.’ Often, however, out of charity the confessor will be bound to obtain special faculties so that he himself may absolve the penitent burdened with the reserved sin.

4. To the case. Caius solicited a penitent to a shameful sin in the sacred tribunal, which sin was reserved to the Bishop. Furthermore, he afterwards absolved his accomplice from other sins, not intending to absolve her from the sin of complicity; then he confessed his own sins to Titius. Titius did rightly by absolving Caius because of the necessity in which he found himself of celebrating for the people on the following day. The absolution of the sin reserved to the Bishop was indirect, and therefore Caius is held to obtain direct absolution either from the Bishop

DISTINCTIO INANIS

—Bishop or from one delegated by him. Caius gave absolution to his accomplice and thus fell into a case reserved to the Supreme Pontiff, for he attempted to absolve his accomplice and could not, by his own mere intention, restrict the absolution to the other sins, because it does not depend upon the priest’s intention to which of the sins confessed the absolution given by him ought to extend. Furthermore, he pretended to absolve the penitent who was his accomplice and for this reason incurred the censure. Hence he will be bound within a month to present himself to the Sacred Penitentiary and obey its commands.

Applied correction from Woywod's opening insert: Case LV.—The conclusion of this case, viz., that simple professed members in Orders that have solemn vows are not held to the reserved sins of the Order while they are in simple vows cannot be upheld any more. Canon 615 says that the members of Orders, including the novices, are exempt from the jurisdiction of the bishop except in some cases specified in the Code. They are therefore subject to the authorities of the Orders in the same manner as the solemn professed for the time they stay under the jurisdiction of the Order.

At a gathering of regular clergy the point was argued: “whether those simply professed incur cases reserved in the Order?” As no generally satisfactory answer was given I will essay to present a few data which may contribute toward elucidation and solution of this question. To set aside all doubt as to who is included in the term simpliciter professi I would preface my remarks with the following quotation: “Pius IX, by the encyclical letter of March 19, 1857, of the Sacred Congregation concerning the state of Regulars, on the profession of simple vows, beginning ‘No one is unaware,’ established and decreed that in religious communities of men in which solemn vows are emitted, after the probation and novitiate prescribed by the holy Council of Trent, the Apostolic Constitutions, etc., novices should emit simple vows after completing sixteen years of age, etc.... After three years, computed from the day on which they emitted simple vows, the professed, if found worthy, are to be admitted to the profession of solemn vows” (Bizzarri, Collectanea in usum Secretariae s. Congr. Episc. et Regul., p. 854).

In these Litterae Encycl. there is only mention, therefore, of simpliciter professi who, in regular orders for men with solemn vows, take after their novitiate the simple vows ad triennium.

The solution of our question appears to depend chiefly upon the fact whether these simpliciter professi vere et proprie are to be regarded as religiosi, and whether they are consequently bound to all obligations and duties of the same, unless special privileges or dispensations in the rules of that order permit of mitigation or exception.

This matter is dealt with by Bizzarri (apud Piatum Montensem; Praelectiones Juris Regularis, tom. I, ed. II, p. 9) as follows: “At the general meeting of June 15, 1856, before the Sacred Congregation concerning the State of Regulars, it was debated whether those who in religious Orders of solemn vows must first make profession of simple vows were to be declared true Religious or only participants in privileges. Some of the Most Eminent Fathers thought that the first part of the proposition should be approved, because the matter concerned simple vows perpetual on the part of the one vowing, inasmuch as they tend toward the subsequent emission of solemn vows, in which they will receive perfection and completion, as occurs in the Society of Jesus. Others, however, thought that only a sharing of privileges should be granted, since it was not expedient to extend the singular privilege of the Society of Jesus to other Orders, lest a new State of Religion be established generally contrary to the prevailing discipline of the Church. Amid this difference of opinions, Our Most Holy Lord Pius IX approved the following article, which is read under number VI in the declarations given by the aforesaid Sacred Congregation: Those professed under the said simple vows shall participate in all the graces and privileges which those professed under solemn vows in the aforesaid Order lawfully use, enjoy, and possess.”

Upon this article of Pius IX Petrus a Monsano, in his Collectio Indulgentiarum, theologice canonice ac historice digesta, p. 580, comments correctly: “Nor have those very members who in religious Orders must first make profession of simple vows for three years been declared true religious, although they have been made participants in all the graces which those professed under solemn vows enjoy.”

This opinion gains weight, and is confirmed, by the declarations of the S. Congr. Super Statu Regul., and by the views of the authors of the law of regulars, from which it is evident that on the one hand (A) there are not conceded to the simpliciter professi certain rights and faculties of the solemniter professi, or that special rules apply for the same in regard to certain functions, as for instance in the Dispositio in temporalibus, etc.; and that, on the other hand, (B) they are exempted from certain duties or penalties of the solemniter professi:.

A. (a) The Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars declared on June 6, 1836, that the goods of a deceased religious who had emitted only simple vows belong to his heirs, whether they succeed by intestacy or by testament.

(b) The solemniter professi vi temporalis vel perpetui indulti saecularizati are usually subjected to various clauses and conditions (Piatus M., tom. I, p. 175), whereas those dismissed while under simple vows are free from every bond and obligation (Bouix I, 516). This is doubtful if it concerns those who in truly religious Orders must remain under simple vows for three years (decl. s. Congr., d. 12 Jun., 1858).

(c) Regular Superiors can grant dimissorial letters to professed persons of this kind, but only for first Tonsure and minor Orders, with the requirements of law being observed (decl. s. Congr., 12 Jun., 1858).

(d) Those simply professed cannot be promoted to sacred Orders under the title of poverty (S. Congr., 12 Jan., 1860).

(e) In the act of reception to profession of solemn vows, those simply professed do not have a vote (decl. s. Congr., die 7 Febr., 1862).

(f) Those simply professed are excluded from casting a vote for admission to the profession of simple vows juxta declarationem s. Congr., de die 1 Sept., 1875.

(g) Those simply professed can be elected neither licitly nor validly as Prelates or Superiors in the same Order (decl. die 16 Jan., 1891).

(h) To the question whether those bound by a simple vow of poverty validly dispose of their own goods without the permission of the Superior, Piatus M. replies: the more common opinion affirms it; they indeed sin gravely against the vow by acting thus; nevertheless they are capable of transferring ownership, for nowhere has the Church established an incapacity of this kind.

(Ita etiam apud eundem auctorem; Suar., Sanch., Lugo, Schmalz, Ferraris.)

B. (a) Those simply professed are bound to attend choir, although they are not bound to the private recitation of the divine office (del. s. Congr. super statu Regul., 6 Aug., 1858).

(b) Among the conditions for apostasy properly so called, it is required that the one withdrawing have emitted substantial vows in a religious institute properly so called and approved by the Apostolic See. Hence one who withdraws during the three years of simple vows is not a true apostate, because he has not yet emitted substantial vows (cited by Piatus M., p. 195, Suar., Sanch., Reiff.). Therefore he incurs neither Excommunication nor the other penalties.

(c) Among the conditions for incurring an excommunication latae sententiae, though reserved to no one, because of laying aside the religious habit, this also is included: that the laying aside of the habit be done by a professed religious, because the cited canons speak of a religious. Furthermore, in the strict sense only truly professed religious come under this name (Ita apud Piatum M., p. 302, Passerini (O. Pr.) Pellizarius, S.J., Rotario Barn).

(d) To the question whether lay brothers incur Excommunication and the other penalties if they introduce women into monasteries of men, Piatus M., p. 360, replies: it must be affirmed if they have now emitted solemn vows, since they are true religious; therefore they would not incur these penalties while under simple vows.

If, and because, the simpliciter professi must not be regarded as veri religiosi, and for this reason are not partakers of various rights, faculties and privileges of the solemniter professi; if further they are not bound to all the duties and obligations of the solemniter professi, not even incurring papal reservations, just because they are only simpliciter, and not solemniter professi, I think I am justified in drawing the conclusion: Those simply professed do not incur cases reserved in the Order; for the matter concerns a penal and burdensome law which is to be strictly interpreted, and therefore applied only to those who are undoubtedly religious,

P. Antonius, O. Fr. M.

According to the decision of the holy Penitentiary of November 7, 1888 (ad. VII.), a confessor who, as missionary, for instance, has not the opportunity of again meeting a certain penitent who has fallen under one of the censures reserved to the Pope, may exact the penitent’s promise to write to Rome himself. Already prior to this the holy Penitentiary had decreed “a penitent is not required to have recourse through the confessor who absolved him from the censure, but may comply with this obligation through another confessor, or, for important and sufficient reason, may write himself to Rome under a fictitious name” (May 28, 1888).

The decisions are plain. Is therewith every practical difficulty removed? It appears to us that a difficulty of a particular kind still remains. The penitent, after having confessed to a strange confessor, must present himself subsequently again to his regular confessor, or at least to a priest who knows him. Possibly this penitent had been culpably silent about that sin in previous Confessions, until at last an opportunity presented itself to confess it to a strange priest. How happy he is to receive at last absolution! But within a month’s time he has to write to Rome, and to whom may he intrust the answer, since the priest to whom he opened his heart, through whom he obtained forgiveness of his sins, will depart from the place the very next day? The answer of the Sacred Penitentiary will, as customary, bear the subscription: Dilecto in Christo confessario ab oratore electo vel eligendo, etc. There is yet another hitch. If the penitent writes under an assumed name, how will the answer reach him? The penitent in his letter must speak of himself as a third person: “Titius, fallen under the censure of —— has been absolved on condition of writing to Rome within a month.” Another permissible way to apply to Rome under assumed name is, as the Sacred Penitentiary has explained, to let the strange priest make the application, the penitent to make known to him his address. But is it not embarrassing for the penitent to give his address to the confessor and does not the difficulty remain, the solution of which is here attempted, inasmuch as the answer is almost always to be communicated in the actus sacramentalis confessionis?

There is only one means of removing this difficulty, and that is to have the Sacred Penitentiary give the answer in forma gratiosa, and not, as usually, in forma commissaria, i. e., to have it prescribe what is necessary, instead of granting to a confessor the power to prescribe this. Instead of writing: Sacra Poenitentiaria—facultatem concedit dispensandi—absolvendi—prorogandi—it writes: dispensat, absolvit, prorogat. That this is feasible there can be no doubt. Absolution from censures may be given to one absent and in writing, and the enumeration of obligations to be fulfilled (to render satisfaction to the injured party, to burn the books of the sect, to inform the complex of the invalidity of absolutions given, etc.) makes in writing a much deeper impression. There are known to us several cases in which the Sacred Penitentiary has answered in forma gratiosa. Thus once by extending for a certain priest the right to retain the office of confessor. Though the confessor had applied, he submitted certain circumstances which made an answer in forma gratiosa desirable. The answer came to this confessor who, by arrangement with the penitent, forwarded it to him through a third person without knowing his name. In another case a penitent himself obtained a rescript of this kind.

It is better, in general, to let the confessor write to the Sacred Penitentiary. The latter prefers to address its instructions to him. If, however, the confessor either cannot, or will not, write, or if there are other important reasons, the penitent may himself apply to Rome. Just in which cases he may receive an answer in forma gratiosa is a matter for the decision of the Sacred Penitentiary. At any event, he will not receive the answer in this form unless he specially petitions for it and states his reasons.

Augustine Arndt, S.J.

The priest Severinus, well acquainted with Prudentius, the bishop of another diocese, visits this diocese and requests jurisdiction to hear Confessions. Prudentius tells him: “Whenever you are in my diocese you have jurisdiction to hear Confessions, together with faculty to absolve from cases reserved to the bishop.” Two years after this Prudentius dies. Severinus now asks his confessor: 1. Does the jurisdiction which Prudentius gave me continue until a new bishop takes office, and just when will it terminate? 2. While Prudentius still lived a change was made in reserved cases; does my faculty continue in their respect? 3. Upon one occasion I received there jurisdiction to hear the Confessions of nuns; was I, in their case, permitted to exercise authority in reserved cases?

The answer is not difficult. Ad. 1 Prudentius had said: “Whenever in my diocese,” etc. It may be claimed that, as Prudentius is dead and the diocese is no longer his, the jurisdiction was given by Prudentius only for the duration of his administration. This interpretation appears artificial and not justified. Prudentius uses the expression my diocese instead of mentioning the name of the diocese, and he would have expressed himself more definitely if he meant to authorize Severinus only for the period of his administration. It is therefore to be held that the bishop did not restrict the jurisdiction to the time of his own life, nor to his episcopal administration. The granting of the general jurisdiction is a gratia facta presbytero, which even re integra, i. e., if the priest during the administration of his friend had not once made use of it, is not affected in its duration by the death of the awarding bishop: arg. c. 36, in VI., 3, 4: a grant of this kind—which, since it contains a special favor, ought to remain in force—does not expire, even while the matter remains untouched, through the death of the grantor.

Severinus may accordingly continue to make use of his jurisdiction, not only during the vacancy, but even later, unless, of course, the new bishop revokes all faculties granted by his predecessor. Propriety requires, however, that Severinus should acquaint the new bishop with the powers granted to him, and request confirmation of the same.

Ad. 2. This question may also be answered in the affirmative, for the faculty to absolve from reserved cases was not granted in a restricted sense, regarding only certain reserved cases, or the reserved cases then prevailing, but in a general sense, and there is no reason for restriction to the reserved cases which were in force in the time of Prudentius: Arg. reg. jur. 15, in VI.: odia restringi et favores convenit ampliari. Whether the reserved cases were lessened or increased by Prudentius, Severinus enjoys in this respect unlimited jurisdiction. If, however, the new bishop has created new reserved cases, there is therein contained a silent revocation of the general jurisdiction formerly granted to confessors for these cases, and Severinus cannot thereafter absolve from these new reserved cases, no more than the priests of the bishop’s own diocese, without explicit new delegation.

Ad. 3. What has just been said about the general validity of the faculty to absolve from reserved cases finds application also in this regard.

Severinus could pro casu absolve also nuns, not only from not reserved, but also from reserved sins.

Dr. Rudolf R. v. SCHERER.

It is known that Pope Benedict XIV., in his constitution Sacramentum Poenitentiae, of 1741, has prohibited all priests under penalty of excommunication, specially reserved to the Pope, and nullity of the absolution given, to hear the Confession of and absolve the complex in peccato turpi (except in case of most urgent necessity). The decree ordains: By Apostolic authority and the fullness of our power, we interdict and prohibit each and every priest, both secular and regular, of whatever order and dignity, even if otherwise approved to hear confessions and fortified by any privilege or indult, even one requiring special mention and the most special designation, from daring—outside a case of extreme necessity, namely at the very point of death and when every other priest who can discharge the office of confessor is then lacking—to hear the sacramental confession of a person who was his accomplice in a shameful and dishonorable sin committed against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue. For that purpose, by the law itself, every jurisdiction for absolving any person from a fault of this kind is withdrawn from him, so that any absolution he may impart is wholly null and void; and nevertheless, if any confessor dares to act otherwise, he incurs by the act itself the penalty of major excommunication, from which we reserve the power of absolving to ourselves alone and solely to our successors.

Plain and circumspect as this papal definition is, it yet leaves room for the question whether it affects a priest who had failed with his penitent before ordination. Reliable and prominent moralists, e. g.

Gury, Casus Consc. (p. 11. 1. 639), Scavini (Theol. Mor. lib. III. n. 485), Pruner (Handbook of Moral Theology, p. 471), and Lehmkuhl (Theol. Mor. vol. II. p. 658) answer this question emphatically in the affirmative. The latter writes: According to the common opinion and the purpose of the law, it does not appear to be required that the sin have been committed after the priesthood was received. And indeed, if the words are taken as they sound, it does not appear that a distinction can be made between sins committed after the priesthood and those committed before the priesthood.

Gury illustrates this view by the following concrete case: The student Liborius had sinned with Flavia contra sextum. After he had become priest, poenitentia serio peracta, she appeared in his confessional and declared that until now she has not confessed this sin owing to her shame, and that she could not make up her mind to confess it to anyone else. After some reflection Liborius consents to hear Flavia’s Confession and absolves her, because he reasons that the sin committed with Flavia before ordination is not subject to the reservation. Did Liborius decide and act correctly? No, says Gury, for through the reception of Holy Orders the bond of complicity is not dissolved and Liborius is after as before the ordination still complex peccati, and as such in respect to the sin committed with Flavia deprived of the power of absolution.

This view the writer was for a long while inclined to take. When recently, however, due to a discussion of this matter, he subjected both the Benedictine Constitution, and the declaration of February 8, 1745, to a closer inspection, he thought to find in its wording and purpose reasons calculated to justify the opposite view. The learned Pope, who carefully weighed his words, spoke of sacrilegious priests, Sacrilegi quidam qui complicem in peccato turpi absolvere audeant, and therefore he manifestly had in view only those who not before but after Holy Orders, as persons consecrated to God, sinned, because those who transgress contra sextum before ordination commit not a qualified sacrilegious sin, though of course a grievous sin against chastity, and therefore they cannot be designated sacrilegi. Though it is no doubt true that through Holy Orders the bond of complicity is not dissolved, and that the Pope in his constitution did not expressly distinguish between peccata post and peccata ante sacer-dotium commissa, and thus appears to have reserved the one as well as the other, still it is also true, because by the use of the word Sacrilegi tacitly (implicite) expressed, that the Pope did not aim at the simple, but at the sacrilegious complicity, at the sin committed sacrilegiously after reception of Holy Orders, and intended to withdraw power of absolution from the sacrilegious priest. This view is supported by the consideration that between a simple and sacrilegious sin of this kind there is considerable difference and the former is in culpability far surpassed by the latter. It would be unfair if, notwithstanding the vast difference, one sin should be punished in the same degree as the other. It may then be assumed, with good reason that the Pope wished to withdraw the sacrilegious rather than a simple complicity peccato turpi from the faculty of the concerned priest.

This milder view receives important support also from the aim of this constitution. The learned Pope issued it, partly to preserve the holy tribunal of Penance from desecration, and partly in order to protect the priest and souls confided to his care against temptation. Earnestly desiring to remove far from the sanctity of priestly judgment and the sacred tribunal every occasion of impurity, contempt of the Sacraments, and injury to the Church; entirely to eliminate such ruinous evils; and, as far as We can in the Lord, to meet the dangers of souls.

IN the Sacrament of Penance a priest forgives sin committed after Baptism by a judicial sentence; “I absolve thee from thy sins,’” he says to the penitent. In other words, the priest is a judge in the internal tribunal of the Sacrament of Penance. But a judge must have jurisdiction or authority not only over the delinquent, but over the particular case which is in question if his sentence is to be effective. The jurisdiction of inferior judges is limited to ordinary and common cases. Magistrates can deal with cases of assault and battery, but if a case of murder is brought before them, they commit it to the assizes. For good reasons the Church has imitated this method of procedure of the civil courts. The jurisdiction of the inferior clergy in the tribunal of penance is limited to ordinary and common cases. More difficult cases which require special knowledge or special treatment are reserved to the higher ecclesiastical tribunals, where, it is presumed, they will be treated with the skill and tact which they require. Such cases are known in moral theology and canon law as Reserved Cases, and the new Code of Canon Law has much to say about them.

Confessors, of course, should be familiar with the Catholic doctrine concerning reserved cases, but it is the wish of the Church that the laity should also be acquainted with it. One of the objects aimed at by the reservation of cases is to deter Catholics from committing them, and this object cannot be attained in any full measure unless they know what they are. I propose, then, to give briefly and clearly the common doctrine about reserved cases in the Catholic Church. In this chapter I propose to treat of the matter in general; in the sections which follow I will treat of particular cases.

The Holy See uses its authority to reserve about thirty cases to itself. Of these some are most specially reserved, others are specially reserved, and others again simply reserved. About ten more cases are reserved to Bishops either by the Holy See or by Provincial law. Besides these, Bishops commonly reserve two or three other cases to themselves by their own authority.

All cases reserved by the Holy See and some cases reserved by Bishops have a censure of excommunication, suspension, or interdict annexed to them. It is the absolution of the censure which is reserved primarily, and when on account of ignorance or for any other reason the censure has not been incurred, or when absolution from it has been obtained, the reservation of the sin ceases, and any confessor may absolve it. An exception to this rule is the sin of false accusation of solicitation brought against a confessor, which remains reserved to the Holy See, although the censure annexed to it may not have been incurred in some particular case, or may have been absolved.

The Church intends her discipline to help towards the sanctification and salvation of souls. On this account she tempers her reservation of cases by a wise leniency when it would be an obstacle rather than a help towards the end which she has in view. Accordingly there is no reservation of sins or censures when the penitent is in danger of death. In such a case any priest has the fullest faculties to grant absolution for all sins and censures, but if the sick person recovers and was absolved by an ordinary priest from a censure inflicted on him personally, or from one most specially reserved to the Holy See, he is bound afterwards to submit his case to him who inflicted the censure, or to the Holy See, or to some confessor who has special faculties for it, and obey the commands imposed on him. If he does not do this he falls again under the same censure.

Moreover, when it is necessary for a penitent to receive absolution in order to avoid scandal, or loss of reputation, or because he has to make his Easter duties, or for similar reasons, or because he finds it hard to remain any longer in a state of sin, he may be absolved at once by any confessor from any reserved case, but subsequently he must submit his case within a month to the proper authorities, or to a confessor who has special faculties for it.

All reservation of sins ceases in several cases mentioned by the new Code. It ceases when the sick who cannot leave the house make their confession, and when confession is made by those who are about to marry with a view to marriage. If special faculties cannot be asked for from the superior without serious inconvenience to the penitent or without danger of violating the seal of confession, a reserved sin may be absolved by an ordinary confessor. If a penitent has incurred a Bishop’s reserved case in one diocese, but knows that in a neighbouring diocese the case is not reserved, nothing prevents him from making his confession to a priest in the latter diocese and obtaining absolution from his reserved sin. Every Catholic has the fullest liberty to go to confession to any priest who has faculties in the place, and such a priest can absolve from all sins to which his jurisdiction extends. Not only the Bishop, but the Vicar-General and the Canon Penitentiary can absolve from all Bishop’s cases. Deans can also do the same, and they should be empowered to grant faculties to other priests for a reserved case on request.

Parish priests can absolve from Bishop's cases during the time allowed for making the Easter duties, and missionaries can do the same whilst a mission is being given by them to the people.

When a penitent confesses a reserved sin the confessor will put certain questions to assure himself whether the reservation was incurred or not. If it was incurred and if it does not come under one of the preceding heads, he will tell the penitent to go to someone who has special faculties for the case, or if the penitent desires it and can wait for absolution, the confessor will tell him to come again, and in the meantime he will obtain special faculties to deal with the case.

There are several cases of censures most specially reserved to the Holy See incurred by those who violate certain regulations made by the Church for the holding of papal elections. My readers are not likely to be called upon to take part in papal elections, and so they are not likely to incur any of these cases. Still, whatever concerns the Head of the Church has an interest for Catholics, and so I have no hesitation in saying something about this subject here.

The Church jealously guards her liberty in the appointment of a new Pontiff to fill the chair of St Peter. At the beginning of the seventeenth century the Catholic governments of Spain, Austria, and France began to claim the right of Veto or Exclusion. By this they claimed the right to exclude any particular Cardinal who might be obnoxious to them from election to the Papacy. There are several instances on record in which Spain, Austria, or France exercised this so-called right during the seventeenth and subsequent centuries. The Church never admitted the right, though she may have deferred to it at times from motives of prudence. Gregory XV, by a Bull issued in 1621, bade the Cardinals perform their duty in the election of a new Pope irrespective of what civil authorities might say or do. Subsequent Pontiffs repeated the injunctions, but what happened in the Conclave of 1903 when Pius X was elected seemed to call for more drastic measures than had been adopted hitherto. It appeared likely that Cardinal Rampolla would be elected to succeed Leo XIII, but at a critical moment an Austrian Cardinal arose in the Conclave and announced to the Cardinals that such an election would be displeasing to the Austrian Emperor. It was suspected that a non-Catholic sovereign was pulling the wires behind the scenes, and this made the incident all the more intolerable.

Before the end of the first year of his Pontificate Pius X issued the Constitution which will make any attempt of any civil power to interfere in papal elections by means of the Veto highly improbable. The two countries concerned in this last attempt to exercise the Veto are now Republics, and are not likely to put forward any claim to exercise it in future. However, the Constitution of Pius X has been inserted in the new Code of Canon Law, and thus is part of the law of the Catholic Church. The operative clause may be translated as follows:

“In virtue of holy obedience, under threat of the divine judgement and under pain of excommunication to be incurred forthwith and most specially reserved to the future Pontiff, we prohibit each and all of the Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, both present and future, the Secretary of the Sacred College, and all others who take part in the Conclave, to receive the Veto or Exclusion under any pretext from any civil power whatever, even if it is to be proposed under the form of a simple desire, or to manifest this Veto in whatever way it is known to them, either to the whole College of Cardinals, gathered together, or to the Cardinals singly, either in writing or by word of mouth, directly in person or indirectly through others. And this prohibition we extend to all the abovementioned interventions, intercessions, and all other ways in which lay powers of whatever degree or order may desire to meddle in papal elections.”

To make the exercise of the Veto still more difficult all Cardinals now promise on oath to comply with the requirements of the Constitution of Pius X. It is not likely, then, that any future Conclave will be disturbed by the exercise of the Veto of any civil power.

About a year after the issue of the Constitution of Pius X which we have been discussing, the same Pontiff published another Constitution, which modernized and codified the Church’s legislation about papal elections. It contains eight other censures of excommunication most specially reserved to the Holy See inflicted on those who may be guilty of violating its provisions. During the Conclave a bell is rung twice a day, morning and evening, to call the Cardinals to the place of voting. If any Cardinal, not prevented by sickness, fail to go to the appointed place at the sound of the bell, he incurs excommunication.

No letters or printed or written documents may be sent either to those who are in the Conclave or from them to people outside, without first being examined by Prelates designated for the purpose. Anyone who violates this law incurs excommunication. An oath of secrecy is taken by all who are in the Conclave, and anyone who violates it is ipso facto excommunicated. The same penalty is inflicted on Cardinals who tell their servants or anybody else secrets concerning the voting or what has been done in their general meetings. The crime of simony in the election is punished by the same penalty. During the lifetime of a Pope it is forbidden without consulting him to treat of the election of a successor, and anyone who does this, even though he be a Cardinal, is ipso facto excommunicated. According to the law of the Church, all pacts, conventions, and agreements by which any Cardinals strive to bind each other to give or not to give their vote to particular persons or groups are null and void, and such attempts are punished by excommunication. As soon as a Cardinal accepts the supreme Pontificate after a valid election he becomes Pope with full jurisdiction by right divine. Anyone who impugns the authority of letters which may be issued by him before he is crowned is punished by excommunication.