Solicitation in confession

372. Sources. a. To this matter belongs above all the bull of Gregory XV, Universi gregis (August 30, 1622), which extended to the whole world the particular laws already previously enacted on this matter for the Spains. Afterward (February 11, 1661) there were issued sixteen decrees of the Holy Office,¹ by which the pontifical constitutions are declared. To these decrees are added two propositions (6, 7) condemned by Alexander VII. Benedict XIV confirmed all these things by the constitution Sacramentum poenitentiae. Finally, on February 20, 1867, the Holy Office gave an instruction to all archbishops and bishops concerning the observance of the Benedictine constitution, and on July 20, 1890, an instruction concerning the examination to which the solicited person is to be subjected.

b. The Benedictine constitution has these things: Confessors who, either in the act of sacramental confession, or before or immediately after confession, or on the occasion or pretext of confession, or even outside the occasion of confession in the confessional or in another place destined or chosen for hearing confessions, with the simulation of hearing confession there, have attempted to solicit or provoke any penitent to immodest and shameful things, whether by words or signs or nods or touch or by writing to be read either then or afterward, or with him have had illicit and immodest conversations or dealings with rash daring, must be denounced to the ordinaries of the places.

¹ They can be consulted in Lehmkuhl II, n. 975 (n. 1253).

373. Concerning Solicitation Itself. 1. He is said to solicit to shameful things who attempts to induce another directly to sin against the sixth precept of the decalogue. Therefore he who by some action of whatever kind, whether in itself immodest or in itself indifferent but showing a shameful affection, attempts or intends to excite in another a shameful affection, is said to solicit to shameful things.

a. Therefore, if solicitation is made by words, one must advert whether the words, either in themselves or from the circumstances, signify a shameful affection and provoke to a shameful affection.

a. Therefore, according to the opinion of St. Alphonsus (n. 704), these words contain solicitation: I would marry you, if I were a secular; on the contrary, these words: remember me, because I love you from my heart, can have either a shameful sense or also another indifferent sense, wherefore judgment must be made about them from the circumstances; for if it were established that the confessor outside confession fosters a shameful love toward that person, they would contain solicitation.

b. If the confessor enjoins on the penitent that she await him at home, or asks her where she lives, or invites her to come alone to the house of the confessor, the words in themselves are indifferent; but if afterward from the circumstances they are known to have been said from a depraved intention, they contain an inchoate solicitation. Yet in order that words of this kind be condemned as shameful solicitation, it is required that, besides the immodest cause, no other prudent cause can be supposed on account of which they were spoken by the confessor.

g. If the confessor in confession praises a woman for beauty and charm, the words in themselves are serious and prudent, e.g., to warn the penitent about the danger of sinning, or they can have proceeded from imprudence and levity, or finally from a depraved intention; it is clear that only if they give off a libidinous affection, and this clearly appears, do words of this kind contain solicitation.

d. If a confessor, hearing the confession of a maidservant, praises the beauty of her mistress, recommending that she come tomorrow for confession, from these circumstances he is to be judged in the prior case; yet St. Alphonsus rightly adds (n. 703) that this praise is more easily to be taken in an evil sense, because prudently scarcely any other reason for this thing can be imagined.

b. If the confessor solicits by deed, e.g., because he touches with lightly immodest or obscene touches or kisses during confession, the matter is to be judged according to the same norm; for since acts in themselves are indifferent or only lightly sinful, it ought to be gathered from the circumstances whether there was present a depraved intention of soliciting and of proceeding to further things.

Circumstances of this kind are these: if the priest is known to be prone to lust, if the touches were forced or repeated more often, if afterward sin followed, etc.

c. He also is said to solicit who has immodest conversations or dealings with the penitent; therefore, who mixes shameful colloquies with the penitent, whether the matter to be acted upon is depraved (dealings) or only shameful conversation is had with him (conversations), as if he asks the penitent who is accusing herself of a shameful action whether it pleases her to be engaged in those things, what acts she exercises, etc.¹

2. A priest who has solicited any person in confession must be denounced to the ordinary.

The reason for this precept is that a priest who does not fear to abuse the sacrament of penance for so great a crime is suspected of heresy; but one who is suspected of heresy, from the ancient laws, ought to be denounced to the inquisitors and to clear himself from heresy. Moreover, solicitation is a most grave sin, not only against chastity, but also against religion; and if a pastor solicits his faithful, he also sins against justice.

¹ Cf. Ballerini-Palmieri V, n. 725 s.

374. Conditions Under Which Solicitation Must Be Denounced. In order that the obligation of denouncing exist, four conditions are required:

1. There must be solicitation to a shameful sin, not to any other sin whatever; yet it makes no difference whether the confessor solicited a male or a female, whether pubescent or prepubescent, whether he solicited to a sin to be committed with himself or with another or alone, or whether finally he solicited the penitent immediately or through the penitent mediated another person to a sin to be committed with him.

2. The crime of solicitation must be certain; wherefore not only must the word or deed of the confessor be certainly established to the penitent, but it must moreover be certain that it contained true solicitation; for since a confessor possessed of his certain fame cannot be deprived of it through denunciation unless the solicitation is established with certainty.

3. The crime of solicitation must be gravely culpable; here it must be noted that light or indifferent acts by which the confessor solicits can be gravely sinful either from libidinous affection or from a depraved intention by which he attempts to draw another to grave sin; but if he intended to induce the penitent only to light acts, he does not commit the sin of solicitation that must be denounced.

4. The crime of solicitation must have been committed in confession or with relation to confession; wherefore solicitation is not to be denounced if it has no relation to confession, even if it was committed in the administration of other sacraments.

375. Circumstances of Solicitation. There are four circumstances in which solicitation has that relation to confession such that the confessor must be denounced: a. if it occurs in the act of sacramental confession; b. if it occurs immediately before or immediately after; c. if it occurs on the occasion or pretext of confession, even if confession does not follow; d. if it occurs outside the occasion of confession in the confessional or in a place destined or chosen for hearing confessions, with simulation of confession. The individual circumstances must now be explained.

1. In the act of sacramental confession he solicits who interposes solicitation between the beginning of confession (when the priest blesses the penitent) and absolution. But a priest is considered to solicit in the act of confession when the confession has been begun, even if it was not completed or the penitent, for any cause whatever, was not absolved.

2. Immediately before or immediately after: if between the solicitation and the sacramental confession no interval, or no other act, intervenes which is not referred as a medium to the solicitation. But it can happen that one who is not to be denounced under this head must be denounced under another clause.

a. Therefore he must be denounced who, in the place of confession, solicits a woman asking for confession to be made immediately; or who solicits a woman who, after confession, approaches to kiss the hand of the confessor; or who, immediately after confession, leads a boy into his room and solicits him there. But solicitation made another day after confession, although made after the confessor heard another penitent after the deed, is not considered made immediately after confession, provided the confessor in confession did not manifest his depraved mind, as if, e.g., he said: wait for me a little while, and after a short time came and solicited.

b. If the confessor, after confession has been completed, outside the confessional, before he solicits, treats with the penitent about some business of which no word had yet been made in confession, the circumstances must be considered for judging the matter. If it is established that solicitation was already primarily intended beforehand and the business was chosen only as a means to complete it, solicitation to be denounced is had.

3. On the occasion of confession: if the penitent approached for confession to be made here and now, even though the confession itself, on account of the solicitation made by the confessor, did not in fact follow.

a. Therefore a confessor is probably not to be denounced who, asked by the penitent outside the place of confession to hear her confession the next day or even in the evening (when she asks in the morning), solicits her, whether confession afterward follows or not; for he solicited not on the occasion of confession, but on the occasion of a request for confession.¹ But a confessor must be denounced who solicits a person inviting the confessor to hear her confession immediately; for it is not only he who solicits in the confessional who solicits on the occasion of confession, but also he who solicits outside the confessional when confession is requested to be performed at once, so that confession and the request are morally one.

b. Nor is the confessor who, from confession, recognizing the soul of the penitent as inclined to shameful things, thence takes an occasion for afterward soliciting her, to be considered to have solicited so much on the occasion of confession as because of knowledge taken from confession.² But if from some external sign it is established that the confessor already in the confessional conceived the will of afterward soliciting, as if he asks the man inclined to shameful things where he lives, he must be denounced, not indeed because he solicited on the occasion of confession, but because he began the solicitation immediately after confession and afterward completed it.

Note. In confession, immediately before or after confession, and on the occasion of confession, he also is considered to solicit who, in the aforesaid circumstances, begins an act of solicitation which afterward he completes, as if in those circumstances the confessor gives letters provoking to shameful things to be read afterward; if he asks the penitent where she lives; if he invites her to come to the house of the confessor, etc., and afterward he expressly solicits. Yet it must be established morally that the depraved intention was already present in those circumstances; for it can happen that lust burst forth only afterward, when the sin was committed.

4. Pretext of confession is a false allegation of confession on the part of the confessor, which he abuses for soliciting, even if confession does not follow; as if a priest, visiting a sick woman, says that he wishes to hear her confession, and then, after sending away the others, solicits the sick woman.

5. In the place of confession with simulation of confession, but outside the occasion of confession: solicitation to be denounced is had even then, when the penitent has come for any end whatever, whether good or evil, e.g., to seek counsel or to tempt the confessor himself, provided the solicitation occurs in one of the three indicated places, namely either in the confessional or in a place destined for hearing confessions, or here and now chosen for this, and with simulation of confession.

a. These words, with simulation of confession, are to be referred not only to the last, but to all three members: and in the confessional and in a place destined for confession ordinarily there is simulation of confession by the very fact that the confessor and the penitent are in this place; but as to the third, it does not suffice that the confessor and the penitent are in a place here and now chosen for hearing confession and speak secretly with each other, but outwardly they must conduct themselves in such a way as to be considered to be instituting confession. Hence a confessor is not to be denounced who, sitting in a confessional, solicits a woman before she kneels.

b. A place destined for hearing confessions would be, e.g., a cell in which penitents who are hard of hearing are accustomed to be heard; a place chosen for hearing confessions for a certain time or for certain circumstances, such as a small room, sacristy, choir, where, e.g., during the time of a great crowd, confessions are heard. The room of the sick person or the bed on which the sick person lies is, by universal usage, a place chosen for hearing confessions in these circumstances.

¹ Ballerini-Palmieri V, n. 717.

² D'Annibale III, n. 367 with many others, who nevertheless note that the practice of the Roman congregations is different.

376. Concerning the Priest Soliciting. 1. Who are to be denounced. All priests of whatever dignity, both secular and religious, are to be denounced, provided they have truly and certainly committed the crime of solicitation.¹

From the sources alleged above, however, it is established how far the obligation of denouncing a soliciting priest extends, namely that he must be denounced even:

a. who lacked jurisdiction (e.g., on account of reservation or complicity), provided he solicited in confession;

b. who alone solicited and the penitent only consented in deed and manifested consent externally, the execution of the shameful plan having been delayed to another time;²

c. who solicited already a long time ago; whose crime remained wholly occult; who has set out into a distant land; who has already amended;

d. who solicited a penitent not adverting to the malice of the sin to which she was solicited;

e. even if he immediately repented of the solicitation made, or if, after beginning the solicitation, he immediately desisted.

2. A priest soliciting is indeed punished with grave penalties, which nevertheless are all ferendae sententiae;³ but the crime itself of solicitation is not reserved, unless perhaps somewhere the bishop has reserved it to himself. Therefore the priest soliciting, provided he is disposed, can be absolved by any confessor, but he must be warned not any longer to hear the confessions of the solicited person, even if she herself was not an accomplice, both on account of the great indecency of the matter and on account of the danger of relapse.

¹ Whether also bishops who solicit are to be denounced is not established; but laymen or clerics not yet priests, who pretend that they are confessors and solicit in confession, by force of the words of the law, which speaks only of priests, are not to be denounced.

² Holy Office, February 20, 1867.

³ Cf. cn. 2368, 1.

377. Who Ought to Denounce Confessors Soliciting: The solicited penitents themselves, and this even if someone else has already denounced him, even if the solicitation was mutual or the penitent consented to the solicitation; nor does there exist in this case any danger of defaming oneself, since the solicited are not interrogated about the consent given.

a. The prepubescent, or rather solicited persons who do not yet apprehend the malice of the solicitation, are denounced when they come to knowledge of the crime committed by the priest.

b. Besides the solicited person, no one else is obligated to make denunciation in the new Code. - The confessor soliciting is not bound to denounce himself; but one who accuses himself spontaneously is treated more leniently by the ecclesiastical judge. For priests who confess their crime spontaneously are admitted with congruous abjuration and salutary penances, with the counsel or precept added that they abstain from hearing the sacred confessions of the solicited persons; nor are they customarily affected by the other penalties set forth in the Clementine constitutions, even if later they are denounced.¹

¹ Instruction of the Holy Office, February 20, 1867.

378. Concerning the Solicited Penitent. Unless he incurs it by natural law, certainly by the grave precept of the Church he incurs the obligation, under penalty of excommunication (reserved to no one), within a month from knowledge of the obligation, of denouncing the soliciting priest either to the local ordinary or to the Congregation of the Holy Office.¹

1. If the solicitation is established, the confessor, with the conscience of the solicited penitent being gravely burdened, must warn him about the obligation of denouncing.² The confessor is bound by positive ecclesiastical law to give this warning under grave sin, even if the penitent is in good faith and is foreseen not to be about to satisfy his obligation, except only in the case of death, lest the penitent be cast into danger of damnation. But if here and now, on account of a just impediment, he cannot denounce, he ought to warn him that the obligation urges when the impediment ceases.

a. The confessor is not bound to interrogate his penitents whether they were solicited, unless from prudent suspicion arises from their accusation of solicitation having been made. But confessors who solicit are never bound themselves to warn the solicited person about the obligation of denouncing, even if afterward she returns to the one soliciting for confession.

b. The penitent must be warned about the obligation of denouncing, even if it is foreseen that he will refuse denunciation, or rather even if only a slight hope of success shines forth, because the common good requires it, and a private good ought to yield to the common good. Yet one must not affirm that the common good always and in every case requires it; for whenever the Church dispenses from making denunciation, she does this because it could not be done if the law of nature or the common good were always to require it. Therefore when, from the crime committed, common harm no longer threatens, as if the confessor hears no more confessions and the penitent is foreseen not to be about to obtain them, the warning also can be omitted.³

2. The obligation of denouncing is a personal burden and therefore to be fulfilled by the solicited person himself, and indeed in judicial form; wherefore the penitent does not satisfy the obligation by private letters given to the bishop. Further, this obligation is never extinguished except by the death of the soliciting priest; hence if denunciation cannot be made on account of some impediment, after the impediment has been removed the obligation again urges.

Before judicial denunciation can be made, the solicited person approaches the ordinary, or, if he cannot do this, sends private letters either by himself or through the confessor to him, in which he sets forth all the circumstances of the solicitation and signs his own name with the place of habitation. Then the ordinary either sends the mandate for making the denunciation, if there is need, or gives another instruction.

3. Solicited penitents who are certainly bound to make the denunciation cannot be absolved unless they have first satisfied the obligation of denouncing, or at least have promised that, within a month if they can, they will satisfy their obligation. Wherefore if the penitent shows himself prepared to denounce, and no prudent doubt arises concerning the seriousness of his will, absolution can at once be granted, especially if the necessity of communicating urges; but if it must be feared that the denunciation will be omitted, absolution is to be deferred until the denunciation has actually been made.

4. But he who, within a month from knowledge of the obligation, does not denounce without an excusing reason or culpably, incurs an excommunication reserved to no one, from which therefore any confessor can absolve a disposed penitent.

a. But in order that, after the month has elapsed, he incur the excommunication who has not made the denunciation within the month, it is required: a. that he knew the obligation of making denunciation within a month; b. that he knew an excommunication was attached to the omission.

b. If the solicited person culpably delayed the denunciation beyond a month, but now seriously promises that, as soon as possible, he will make the denunciation, he can be absolved from the censure, because in the cited canon it is said: not to be absolved, unless he seriously promises that he will satisfy. But if afterward, with changed will, he does not denounce, the censure does not revive, because there is nothing in the law concerning reincidence.⁴

5. False and calumnious denunciation of an innocent confessor concerning the crime of solicitation is a sin reserved by reason of itself to the Roman Pontiff, with an excommunication latae sententiae reserved in a special manner.⁵

a. The reserved sin of false denunciation is judicial denunciation, not private. A penitent who confesses this crime must be warned to retract the calumny and repair the harms which the priest suffered from it.

b. The delinquent cannot be absolved from this censure in any case unless he has formally retracted the false denunciation and repaired, according to his powers, the harms that followed from it. Further, a grave and lasting penance must be imposed on him.⁶

6. Since the crime of false denunciation of a priest concerning solicitation is reserved also by reason of itself, i.e., also as a sin alone and not only as a censure, it follows that a penitent who does not incur the censure on account of ignorance nevertheless cannot be absolved from the sin outside danger of death without the special faculty of the Roman Pontiff.

¹ Cn. 2368, 2.

² Cn. 904.

³ Ballerini-Palmieri V, n. 743.

⁴ Cf. De poenis, n. 103.

⁵ Cn. 894; Cn. 2363.

⁶ Cn. 2363.

379. Concerning Causes Excusing from This Obligation. For a just cause the solicited person is excused from making denunciation; for this precept, although most grave, is nevertheless at times a positive precept of the Church, which does not oblige with very grave inconvenience. If, however, the denunciation must also be made by the law of nature, namely where the solicitation brings on public scandal or common harm, no very grave inconvenience excuses from making it.

1. Besides impossibility, probable danger of grave harm in the goods of life, reputation, or fortune excuses.

a. If the solicited person can neither approach the bishop nor write a letter to him on account of ignorance of letters, and present another obstacle to denunciation, he is excused on account of impotence; but the confessor is not bound to make the denunciation for the penitent unless grave public harm threatens.

b. One is not bound to denounce a distinguished benefactor from whom he has received extraordinary and necessary support, which he would lose on account of the denunciation; nor a priest closely joined by intimate friendship or by consanguinity, unless the law of nature demands it on account of the common good.

2. Fear of incurring the indignation of the one soliciting does not excuse, nor the obligation of gratitude toward the one soliciting, nor the shame which the solicited person must undergo in making the denunciation.

380. Manner of Acting with a Solicited Penitent. A confessor to whom a case of solicitation is brought ought to proceed in this way.

1. Since it not rarely happens that women, from ignorance or from hatred, envy, or another depraved motive, calumniate priests who are altogether innocent, the confessor should see whether the person is worthy of faith; and if he has doubt concerning this matter (which he will almost obtain whenever the person is prepared on her own initiative to make the denunciation), he should admonish her about the atrocity of the crime and about the grave penalty which is inflicted upon false accusation. But he should take care not to inquire about the name of the one soliciting.

2. He should diligently examine whether all the conditions are present which render the obligation of denouncing certain. And if he cannot judge this immediately, he should have the penitent return to him on another day. But if the solicitation is truly established, he should warn the penitent about the obligation of denouncing.

3. But if the penitent refuses to denounce, he should inquire whether there is an excusing cause. If an excusing cause is in fact present, denunciation can per se be omitted or at least delayed. Therefore if the penitent promises that he is willing to denounce when the excusing cause ceases, he can meanwhile be absolved.

Frequently penitents refuse to denounce because they fear that the one denounced will come to know the one denouncing. Wherefore the confessor should warn them that the one denounced cannot easily learn the person denouncing, first because it is generally granted that the denunciation be made by the agency of the confessor alone, then because the names of the denouncers are never manifested, and finally because the delinquent is ordinarily called to judgment only after the third denunciation.

4. The denunciation to be made must be made to the ordinary of the place in which the penitent is staying, even if the confessor soliciting belongs to another diocese, or to the Congregation of the Holy Office. The ordinary of the place then transmits the sworn denunciation to the bishop of the priest soliciting. But if it cannot be made to this ordinary, it must be made to the ordinary of the confessor soliciting.

5. Judicial denunciation must be made orally before the ordinary or his delegate with a notary intervening; sometimes, however, it is granted that it be made before a delegated priest with no notary intervening, or even before the confessor delegated in the confessional,¹ to whom the appropriate instruction is customarily transmitted by the ordinary for receiving it.

6. If the penitent, without a just cause, does not wish to make the denunciation, the confessor should try to induce him with suitable motives to make it; but if nevertheless he wholly refuses, he should not absolve the penitent, but should have him return to him at another time. Meanwhile he should have recourse either to the ordinary or to the holy see (the Penitentiary or the Holy Office), and, after all the circumstances have been set forth, with the name of the penitent nevertheless suppressed, he should ask for a suitable remedy. For either he is dispensed altogether from making denunciation, or it is granted that the whole matter be denounced by the agency of the confessor.

Lest the confessor who makes the denunciation for the penitent come to the knowledge of the priest soliciting, he should induce the penitent himself to write the name of the soliciting priest, and to bind his own name in a written schedule in the same envelope with those letters.

¹ The manner to be observed according to the prescription of the Holy Office of July 20, 1890, in receiving the denunciation, is found in the Acta S. Sedis, Appendix to vol. 25, to which, on August 6, 1897, was added an instruction concerning the care to be employed in causes of solicitation.

SANCTISSIMIS institutis abuti hominum malitia valet, nec sacramento Poenitentiae excepto. Ecclesia tamen nihil intentatum reliquit ut abusus hujus sacramenti evitentur vel ut iis si forte occurrant aptum remedium praebeatur. Gregorius XV aliique Romani Pontifices et praesertim Benedictus XIV leges tulerunt contra sollicitationem in sacro tribunali ac absolutionem complicis in peccato turpi. De his in hoc capite agimus ac primo de sollicitatione (Can. (The malice of men is able to abuse the most holy institutions, not excepting the sacrament of Penance. The Church, however, has left nothing untried in order that abuses of this sacrament may be avoided, or that, if they should occur, a fitting remedy may be provided. Gregory XV and other Roman Pontiffs, and especially Benedict XIV, made laws against solicitation in the sacred tribunal and against the absolution of an accomplice in a sin of impurity. Of these we treat in this chapter, and first of solicitation.) 904).

De crimine sollicitationis in sacro tribunali Benedictus XIV Constitutione Sacramentum Poenitentiae tria statuit. Primo committit ac mandat omnibus locorum Ordinariis universi orbis christiani in suis respectivis dioecesibus ut diligenter omnique humano respectu postposito inquirant et procedant contra omnes ac singulos sacerdotes, tam seculares quam regulares quomodolibet exemptos, qui sollicitationis sunt rei, eosque graviter puniant. Rei autem sunt sollicitationis qui aliquem poenitentem, quaecumque persona illa sit, vel in actu sacramentalis confessionis, vel ante, vel immediate post confessionem, vel occasione, aut praetextu confessionis vel etiam extra occasionem confessionis in confessionali, sive in alio loco ad confessiones audiendas destinato aut electo, simulatione audiendi ibidem confessionem, ad inhonesta et turpia sollicitare, vel provocare, sive verbis, sive signis, sive nutibus, sive tactu, sive per scripturam aut tunc aut post legendam, tentaverint, aut cum eis illicitos et inhonestos sermones vel tractatus temerario ausu habuerint. Secundo, omnes et singuli sacerdotes ad confessiones audiendas constituti tenentur suos poenitentes quos noverint fuisse ab aliis sollicitatos sedulo monere de obligatione denunciandi locorum ordinariis personam quae sollicitationem commiserit, etiamsi sacerdos sit qui jurisdictione ad absolutionem valide impertiendam careat, aut sollicitatio inter confessarium et poenitentem mutua fuerit, sive sollicitationi poenitens consenserit, sive consensum minime praestiterit, vel longum tempus post ipsam sollicitationem jam effluxerit, aut sollicitatio a confessario non pro seipso sed pro alia persona peracta fuerit. Tertio, potestas absolvendi eos qui sive per se sive per alios apud ecclesiasticos judices falso innoxios sacerdotes sollicitationis accusant reservatur Summo Pontifici, ut tam detestabile facinus metu magnitudinis poenae coerceatur (Can (Concerning the crime of solicitation in the sacred tribunal Benedict XIV, in the Constitution Sacramentum Poenitentiae, laid down three things. First, he commits and enjoins upon all local Ordinaries of the whole Christian world, in their respective dioceses, that they diligently, and setting aside all human respect, inquire into and proceed against each and every priest, whether secular or regular and however exempt, who are guilty of solicitation, and punish them gravely. Now those are guilty of solicitation who have attempted to solicit or provoke any penitent, whoever that person may be, to what is shameful and base — whether in the act of sacramental confession, or before it, or immediately after it, or on the occasion or under the pretext of confession, or even apart from the occasion of confession in the confessional, or in another place set apart or chosen for hearing confessions, under the pretence of hearing a confession there — whether by words, or by signs, or by nods, or by touch, or by writing to be read then or afterwards; or who with rash daring have held unlawful and indecent conversations or dealings with them. Secondly, each and every priest appointed to hear confessions is bound diligently to warn those of his penitents whom he knows to have been solicited by others of the obligation of denouncing to the local Ordinaries the person who committed the solicitation — even if the priest be one who lacks jurisdiction to give absolution validly, or if the solicitation was mutual between confessor and penitent, or whether the penitent consented to the solicitation or gave no consent at all, or a long time has already passed since the solicitation, or the solicitation was made by the confessor not for himself but for another person. Thirdly, the power of absolving those who, either by themselves or through others, falsely accuse innocent priests of solicitation before ecclesiastical judges is reserved to the Supreme Pontiff, that so detestable a crime may be restrained by fear of the greatness of the penalty.). 894).

Ex dictis igitur, quae fere ad verbum in Constitutione Benedicti XIV inveniuntur, constat Ordinarios teneri sub gravi inquirere in sollicitantes ac hujus criminis reos graviter punire. Praxis Sacri Officii est ut post unam alteramve denunciationem sacerdos denunciatus observetur. Post tertiam vero contra suspectum procedi solet. Ad formale examen vocantur parochi aliique spectatae virtutis viri qui de indole et qualitatibus denunciantis et denunciati sub juramento de veritate dicenda et de secreto servando testimonium proferunt. Poenae jure reis infligendae sunt privatio omnium facultatum ad confessiones excipiendas, suspensio ab exercitio ordinis, privatio beneficiorum, privatio vocis activae et passivae si sit regularis, omnes tamen sunt ferendae sententiae (Can. (From what has been said, therefore, which is found almost word for word in the Constitution of Benedict XIV, it is established that Ordinaries are bound under grave sin to inquire into solicitors and to punish the guilty of this crime gravely. The practice of the Holy Office is that after one or another denunciation the denounced priest be watched; but after a third, proceedings are usually taken against the suspect. To the formal examination are called parish priests and other men of approved virtue, who give testimony on oath, to tell the truth and to keep secrecy, concerning the character and qualities of the denouncer and of the one denounced. The penalties to be inflicted on the guilty by law are deprivation of all faculties for hearing confessions, suspension from the exercise of the order, deprivation of benefices, and deprivation of active and passive voice if he be a regular; all of them, however, are ferendae sententiae.) 2368). Termini adhibiti in crimine definiendo strictae sunt interpretationis.

In actu sacramentalis confessionis: hoc intelligendum est de intervallo quod intercedit inter benedictionem et absolutionem etiam si poenitens non fuerit absolutus ob defectum dispositionum vel ob aliam causam.

Ante vel immediate post: ita ut nulla actio non referibilis ad sollicitationem intercesserit.

Occasione vel praetextu confessionis: occasio est quando confessio sequebatur vel sequi debebat juxta intentionem petentis. Praetextus habetur quando confessarius ficte proponit confessionem ut sollicitet. Quare si mulier et sacerdos fingunt confessionem faciendam ad alios decipiendos et ad tutius peccandum non est locus denunciandi, nec probabilius si poenitens praetexat confessionem ad sacerdotem-vocandum et sollicitandum. Probabilius non est denunciandus sacerdos qui propter cognitam ex confessione fragilitatem mulieris eam domi sollicitat, quia occasione scientiae ex confessione habitae sollicitat, non occasione confessionis (The terms used in defining the crime are of strict interpretation. In the act of sacramental confession: this is to be understood of the interval which falls between the blessing and the absolution, even if the penitent was not absolved for want of dispositions or for some other cause. Before or immediately after: so that no action unconnected with the solicitation has intervened. On the occasion or under the pretext of confession: it is an occasion when confession followed, or was to have followed, according to the intention of the one asking. There is a pretext when the confessor feignedly proposes confession in order to solicit. Wherefore, if a woman and a priest pretend that a confession is to be made in order to deceive others and to sin more safely, there is no room for denunciation; nor, more probably, if the penitent uses confession as a pretext for calling the priest and soliciting him. More probably a priest is not to be denounced who, on account of a woman’s frailty known from confession, solicits her at home, because he solicits on the occasion of knowledge had from confession, not on the occasion of the confession.).

In confessional: sive in alio loco ad confessiones audiendas destinato aut electo simulatione audiendi ibidem confessionem: unde non denunciandus est sacerdos qui sollicitat mulierem stantem ante confessionale, deest enim simulatio audiendi ejus confessionem. (or in another place set apart or chosen for hearing confessions, under the pretence of hearing a confession there: hence a priest is not to be denounced who solicits a woman standing in front of the confessional, for the pretence of hearing her confession is wanting.)

Inhonesta et turpia: haec significat gravia peccata contra sextum decalogi praeceptum. Graviter inhonesti sermones vel tractatus quin ulterius procedatur constituunt sollicitationem si ceterae conditiones habeantur. Qui externe poenitenti sollicitanti videtur esse denunciandus. (this signifies grave sins against the sixth precept of the decalogue. Gravely indecent conversations or dealings, even though nothing further follows, constitute solicitation if the other conditions are present. One who outwardly appears to be soliciting a penitent is to be denounced.) consentit

Omnes confessarii monere suos poenitentes, sive feminas sive masculos tenentur quos ab aliis sacerdotibus fuisse sollicitatos noverint de obligatione denunciandi sacerdotes sollicitantes locorum ordinariis vel Sanctae Sedi per Sacrum Officium vel per Poenitentiariam. Infra mensem ab accepta cognitione denunciationis faciendae obligatio est implenda, aliter poenitens sollicitatus incurrit excommunicationem nemini, reservatam ex Constitutione Pii IX, Apostolicae Sedis, et Can. (All confessors are bound to warn those of their penitents, whether women or men, whom they know to have been solicited by other priests, of the obligation of denouncing the soliciting priests to the local Ordinaries, or to the Holy See through the Holy Office or through the Penitentiary. The obligation of making the denunciation is to be fulfilled within a month from the time the knowledge was received; otherwise the solicited penitent incurs an excommunication reserved to no one, by the Constitution of Pius IX, Apostolicae Sedis.) 2368, sec. 2. Omnes etiam qui certo sciant casum sollicitationis sacerdotem reum denunciare tenentur, non tamen sub censura. Confessarii monere poenitentes de obligatione denunciandi sollicitantes tenentur, etiamsi praevideant eos obligationem non impleturos, nisi sint in articulo mortis, tunc enim dissimulare ob salutem animae licet. Nec capax est absolutionis qui onus implere recusat vel saltem nisi promittat se onus impleturum quum primum poterit. Confessarius audiens poenitentem qui sollicitatus fuisse videtur, circumstantias casus investigare debet ut moralem certitudinem de crimine patrato acquirat antequam obligationem denunciandi sollicitantem imponat. Denunciatio juridice est facienda, ac proinde qui denunciat personaliter adire debet ordinarium loci ubi crimen patrabatur, ac sub juramento testimonium dare. Qui ordinarium adire nequit, ad eum scribat, ut delegatum sibi substituere valeat ad denunciationem accipiendam. Scriptae denunciationes anonymae nullius sunt momenti, nec sufficiunt ad obligationi satisfaciendum.

Qui falso juridice accusat sacerdotem sollicitationis gravissimum committit peccatum et incurrit in excommunicationem cujus absolutio speciali modo Romano Pontifici reservatur a qua nequit ullo in casu absolvi nisi falsam denunciationem formaliter retractaverit, et damna reparaverit. Peccatum etiam ratione sui reservatur Sanctae Sedi (Can. (All also who know for certain of a case of solicitation are bound to denounce the guilty priest, not however under censure. Confessors are bound to warn penitents of the obligation of denouncing solicitors even if they foresee that they will not fulfil the obligation, unless they are at the point of death, for then it is lawful to say nothing for the good of the soul. Nor is he capable of absolution who refuses to fulfil the burden, or at least unless he promises that he will fulfil it as soon as he can. A confessor hearing a penitent who appears to have been solicited ought to investigate the circumstances of the case, so as to acquire moral certainty that the crime was committed, before he imposes the obligation of denouncing the solicitor. The denunciation is to be made juridically, and therefore the one who denounces ought to approach in person the Ordinary of the place where the crime was committed, and to give testimony on oath. One who cannot approach the Ordinary should write to him, so that he may be able to appoint a delegate in his place to receive the denunciation. Written anonymous denunciations are of no weight, nor do they suffice to satisfy the obligation. One who juridically accuses a priest of solicitation falsely commits a most grave sin and incurs an excommunication the absolution of which is reserved to the Roman Pontiff in a special manner, from which he cannot in any case be absolved unless he has formally retracted the false denunciation and repaired the damage. The sin also is by reason of itself reserved to the Holy See.) 2363, 894).

The principal ecclesiastical documents which pertain here are:

I. The Constitution Cum sicut nuper of Pius IV;¹ the Constitution Universi gregis of Gregory XV,² to which the Holy Office added sixteen responses on February 11, 1661; the Constitution Sacramentum Poenitentiae of Benedict XIV,³ and Etsi Pastoralis, § 9, n. 5;⁴ the Instructions of the Holy Office.⁵

II. Canon 904 establishes as follows: "According to the norm of the apostolic constitutions, and especially of the Constitution Sacramentum Poenitentiae of Benedict XIV, June 1, 1741, a penitent must, within a month, denounce to the local Ordinary, or to the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, the priest guilty of the delict of solicitation in confession; and the confessor must, with the penitent's conscience gravely burdened, admonish the penitent concerning this obligation."

III. Canon 2368 declares that these penalties are to be decreed against those soliciting: "Whoever has committed the crime of solicitation of which canon 904 treats is to be suspended from the celebration of Mass and from hearing sacramental confessions, or even, according to the gravity of the delict, is to be declared incapable of receiving them; he is to be deprived of all benefices, dignities, active and passive voice, and is to be declared incapable of all these things; and in graver cases he is also to be subjected to degradation."

The law also affects the Eastern Church,⁶ not indeed by force of the Code (cf. can. 1), but by force of the earlier legislation, which the Code left in its vigor with respect to the Eastern Churches.

With these things premised, we shall speak first of those who must be denounced, then of those who must denounce, then of the manner of denouncing, finally of the obligation of the confessor with respect to the penitent who is bound to denounce; a scholion being added on the manner of receiving a denunciation.

¹ April 16 (17), 1561.

² August 30, 1622.

³ June 1, 1741.

⁴ May 26, 1742.

⁵ February 20, 1867, and July 20, 1890.

⁶ Holy Office, June 13, 1740; April 25, 1838 (Collectanea, n. 1282); Constitution Etsi pastoralis of Benedict XIV; Instruction of the Sacred Congregation of Propaganda Fide, August 26, 1775 (Collectanea, n. 1732).

What about solicitation in Confession? As regards solicitation, three things concerning it are established in the cited Constitution of Benedict XIV, June 1, 1741. The first is that Inquisitors and Ordinaries of places "severely punish by condign penalties," § 1, confessors soliciting in Confession, who are to be denounced to the same Inquisitors or Ordinaries. The second is that confessors "warn their penitents, whom they know to have been solicited by others, concerning the obligation of denouncing," § 2. The third is that "those falsely accusing innocent priests before ecclesiastical judges of solicitation" are deprived of the benefit of absolution, which is reserved to the Supreme Pontiff, § 3. E.M.

Benedict XIV, Constitution Etsi Pastoralis, May 26, 1742, § 9, n. 5, has these things: "Then subjection to all and singular Constitutions of the Roman Pontiffs, especially those issued against persons soliciting in Confession, which extend their force universally into individual Nations, and comprehend Latins as well as Greeks by their breadth."

Who are to be denounced? Indeed "all and singular priests, both secular and regular, exempt in any way... of whatever dignity and preeminence, or fortified by any privilege and indult," §§ 1 and 2, soliciting to shameful things in Confession, are to be denounced. All and singular priests, "even if they are priests who lack jurisdiction for validly imparting absolution," § 2; Holy Office, February 11, 1661. "But interpreters and messengers of solicitation, or those commanding it, or giving counsel, are not comprehended under these Constitutions, even if they are priests. For these are not properly those soliciting or having dishonest treatment in sacred Confession, nor are those actions priestly actions, nor as such do they come under the name of priests... Thus also is comprehended a priest or another who solicits a penitent while he is confessing not to himself, but to another." Pignatelli, Consult. Canon. Noviss., chap. 117, par. Non vero. Nor indeed is the penitent who in Confession solicits the priest to be denounced. L. 689. E.M.

What is the crime of solicitation, on account of which confessors are to be denounced? It is that by which confessors of this sort shall have attempted to solicit or provoke some penitent, whatever person that may be, either in the act of sacramental confession, or before or immediately after confession, or on the occasion or pretext of confession, or even outside the occasion of confession in the confessional, or in another place destined or chosen for hearing confessions, with simulation of hearing confession there, to dishonest and shameful things, whether by words, or signs, or nods, or touch, or through writing to be read either then or afterwards; or shall with rash daring have had illicit and dishonest conversations or dealings with them, § 1. Whatever person that may be, "whether males or females, whoever they may be." Instruction of the Universal Inquisition to all Bishops, February 20, 1867.

In the act of sacramental confession, not of other sacraments. The act of sacramental confession is verified between the beginning of confession and absolution given. Solicitation has place in the act of sacramental confession either when the confessor then simply has illicit and dishonest conversations or dealings, or when he then only applies means by which he afterwards solicits. And this distinction of formal solicitation, or only causal solicitation, or of solicitation in itself or in the means then placed, is to be understood as regards all the other clauses: immediately before, immediately after, etc. L. 676. Nor indeed is it required that absolution be given. Gregory XV, Constitution Universi Dominici gregis, August 30, 1622, § 4, says that one soliciting on the occasion of confession is to be denounced, even when confession itself did not follow.

Or before, or immediately after confession. "That phrase immediately before they more commonly think must be understood strictly, so that no interval intervenes." L. 677. Thus one who solicits a woman kneeling before his feet to confess, even if she has not yet fortified herself with the sign of the cross, is said to solicit immediately before. "That phrase immediately after is commonly understood by the doctors when after confession neither the confessor nor the penitent turns aside to other things, so that the solicitation occurs before any other action has intervened." Nevertheless, if some action intervenes, "it must be judged from the circumstances whether solicitation was principally intended and the business as a means, or whether the business was principal and the solicitation accidental." L. 677.

On the occasion or pretext of confession. Occasion and pretext here signify two distinct things. To solicit on the occasion of confession is to take the opportunity or motive of provoking from a true confession. But he solicits under pretext of confession who puts forward confession as a pretext, or fictitiously incites to confession, so that he may provoke more freely. A pretext is a false cause, and to pretext is to bring forward some cause which is not true. Therefore a confessor of this sort is to be denounced, even when confession did not follow. Under pretext, that is, if the priest uses confession as a pretext so that he may solicit the penitent; not if the penitent uses it as a pretext so that he may solicit the confessor; nor if each does so by agreement to deceive others. L. 679. On the occasion of confession someone seems able to solicit in three ways: 1. when from an express or tacit petition for confession he takes the motive of soliciting. L. 677. 2. From confession itself, i.e., when, understanding, for example, in the very confession the penitent's inclination to venery, he obtains an occasion to provoke him then to dishonest things; or by interrupting the penitent lest he begin confession, or lest he continue it, meanwhile soliciting the same, the opportunity of confession having been taken. 3. When he uses knowledge which he had from confession for afterwards soliciting the penitent. But this use of knowledge of confession must be sufficiently established from circumstances in order to impose the obligation of denunciation. L. 678. But there is difficulty concerning the first way, since then the confessor seems to solicit rather on the occasion of the petition for confession than on the occasion of confession, if nevertheless confession at present neither immediately follows nor ought to follow. Pignatelli, Cons. 104, n. 14. The same must be said of the promise of confession. Pignatelli, Cons. 117, par. Ratio autem. Likewise there is difficulty concerning the third way. For he does not seem to solicit on the occasion of confession who, having learned in confession the frailty of the penitent, approaches him at home and urges him, since he takes knowledge from confession and from knowledge the handle of soliciting. Pignatelli, Cons. 117, par. Unde multo et ratio autem.

Or even outside the occasion of confession in the confessional. "Whether a confessor is to be denounced who, sitting in the confessional, solicits a woman standing before the confessional, without simulating confession? The Qualifiers judged that the negative opinion does not lack probability." Holy Office, February 11, 1661, to the fifteenth. This resolution is certainly to be compared with the resolution of the same Sacred Congregation on the same day, to the fourth: "Whether a confessor who solicits a woman saying in the confessional that she wishes to confess tomorrow, and dissuades confession, is to be denounced? If the solicitation is made outside the place of confession, and without pretext of confession, the Qualifiers judged that the negative opinion is probable; otherwise in the confessional or in the place of confession."

Or in another place destined or chosen for hearing confessions, with simulation of hearing confession there. Therefore a threefold place for hearing confessions is distinguished. The first is the ordinary confessional. The second is any other place distinct from the confessional where confessions are heard, e.g., a kneeler which is in the sacristy, where confessions are received.

The third is any place chosen for hearing confessions. That clause, with simulation of hearing confession there, placed in the last place, is referred to all the antecedents, and therefore also to that first member, whether outside the occasion of confession in the confessional, according to the common rule that a clause placed in the last place is referred to all connected antecedents. The whole difference seems to be in this: that as regards the first and second place, it is indeed required that both the confessor and the penitent be in the confessional, or in another place in which confessions are heard, but by this very fact then, regularly speaking, there is simulation of confession, and the obligation of denunciation presses, as is clear from the cited Response of the Holy Office to the fourth. But as regards the third place, it is not sufficient that the confessor and penitent be in the same place or converse together; rather it is necessary that they positively simulate confession. Pignatelli, Cons. Can. Noviss., chap. 117, par. Tertio ff.; E.M.

To dishonest and shameful things, i.e., obscene things, namely touches, looks, etc. Gregory XV adds in the cited Constitution, § 4: "whether to be perpetrated among themselves, or with others in any way." Hence a confessor is to be denounced who solicits a penitent so that he may induce some person to sin with him. L. 691. Likewise from Benedict XIV, denunciation presses even if the solicitation has been performed by the confessor not for himself but for another person, § 2. "Whether a confessor who solicits a penitent to illicit acts outside venereal acts is to be denounced? The Qualifiers judged that the negative opinion is probable." Holy Office, May 11, 1661, to the eleventh; L. 684; Benedict XIV, de Syn., chap. 11, n. 14.

Whether a confessor soliciting to acts only venially dishonest is to be denounced? "The more probable opinion denies." L. 683. This is clear from the whole tenor of the Constitution of Benedict XIV. Venially dishonest, namely outside the venereal matter. Hence the Holy Office, February 11, 1661, to the third: "Whether a confessor, when soliciting because of smallness of matter, is to be denounced. Since in venereal matters there is no smallness of matter, and if there were, it would not be present in the present matter, the Qualifiers judged that he is to be denounced, and that the contrary opinion is not probable." But it must be diligently observed here that it is one thing to solicit to light acts, another to solicit to graver things through light acts; in which case, without any doubt, denunciation must be made, provided the interior intention appears. Castro-Palao, tract. 4, disp. 9, part 3, n. 4.

Shall have attempted to solicit or provoke, etc., or shall with rash daring have had illicit and dishonest conversations or dealings with them. Solicitation generally is a crafty inducement and movement of another's will to doing or suffering something. Solicitation or provocation here is any invitation and incitement to venereal things made by a priest as confessor, or as quasi-confessor, even if he immediately repented of the solicitation, or desisted in the very solicitation. Holy Office, May 11, 1661, to the second; hence it is said: shall have attempted to solicit or provoke; namely priests abusing confession in any way to the aforesaid effect. To have dishonest conversations or dealings. This is an explanation of the previous clause, and it is declared that solicitation or provocation to be denounced is had through any dishonest conversations or dealings whatsoever between confessor and penitent, whether the confessor begins first or the penitent begins, so that each in fact has those dishonest conversations and dealings, and rests in them, without proceeding further; for then mutual solicitation is had. Hence confessors are commanded that "they warn penitents whom they know to have been solicited by others, as above, cf. 1253, concerning the obligation of denouncing the solicitors," § 2. But although the Supreme Pontiff openly adds in the same place the case of mutual solicitation, nevertheless he adds nothing concerning the case of a confessor who bears himself merely passively with respect to solicitation on the part of the penitent, although consenting to it.

"Whether a confessor is to be denounced who gives the penitent a letter in confession, to be read afterwards at home, in which he solicited to venery? The Qualifiers judged that he is to be denounced, and that the negative opinion is not probable." Holy Office, May 11, 1661, to the first. This is also clear from proposition 6 condemned by Alexander VII, confirmed by Benedict XIV, § 1, together with proposition 7 concerning this same matter. The same is had in so many words in the Constitution of Benedict XIV, § 1: "whether through writing to be read either then or afterwards." Cf. 1253.

"Whether a confessor is to be denounced who, while hearing confession, gives a gift to a woman, so that he is said to have solicited her? The Qualifiers answered the same as to the twelfth." Holy Office, February 11, 1661, to the sixteenth. Speaking in itself, to give something is not dishonest, nor does it tend to dishonest things, but to conciliating benevolence, or to satisfying gratitude for some received benefit. Now these things are to the twelfth: "Whether a confessor, if he praises a penitent for beauty and attractiveness, is said to solicit her, and therefore is to be denounced? The Qualifiers judged that, if that praise is serious and gives no odor of depraved intention, the negative is probable. But if otherwise, it is not probable." To praise the beauty of a woman, even in confession, is not of itself by its object a mortal sin, nor is it an act of itself directed to solicitation to shameful things.

Whether a confessor is to be denounced if his solicitation is doubtful? "If it is doubted whether his deed or word was true solicitation, then with the more common and truer opinion it must be said that there is no obligation of denouncing... The reason is both because doubtful things are to be taken in the better part, and in ambiguous words the more benign interpretation must be made; ... and because in doubt no one is to be deprived of the reputation which he possesses; and because the Bulls command solicitors to be denounced, but he cannot be called a solicitor concerning whom it is doubted whether he truly solicited; for a doubtful crime is not a crime." L. 702.

If "the deed or word is true solicitation, and it is only doubted whether that confessor or another did or said it, then it is to be denounced, because while the crime is certain, judges can duly proceed to inquiring into the person concerning whom there is doubt. Nevertheless I judge that this must be said only in the case in which the judges can easily, by their diligence, become certain concerning the soliciting person; because otherwise that priest, since he can be innocent, would remain in some way defamed, and in doubt the reputation of one's neighbor, who possesses it, must be preserved uninjured." L. 702. As regards the various cases of doubtful solicitation, and others in which the doctors more commonly judge that the confessor is to be denounced, cf. L. 704.

Must confessors warn penitents concerning the denunciation to be made? Confessors are altogether obliged "diligently to warn their penitents whom they know to have been solicited by others, as above, according to the circumstances of occurring cases, concerning the obligation of denouncing to Inquisitors or Ordinaries of places the person who has committed solicitation... Let them moreover diligently take care that they not impart sacramental absolution to penitents whom they know already to have been solicited by another, unless first, bringing the aforesaid denunciation to effect, they have indicated the delinquent to the competent Judge, or at least pledge and promise that they will report him as soon as they can." § 2.

Their own solicited penitents: not others, not solicited; these they are not bound by a positive precept to warn, but by force of the natural precept, insofar as this precept obliges in a particular case. Nor does their good faith excuse from warning them. But the confessor is not bound to ask penitents whether they have been solicited and to warn them concerning the obligation of denouncing, unless he prudently judges from the confession heard that they have been solicited.

By others, not by himself. Hence the confessor who solicited is not himself bound to warn the solicited person concerning the obligation of denouncing, in the supposed case that this penitent afterwards confesses to him, because by natural law no one is bound to procure that his own shamefulness be revealed. To warn: but although the confessor ceases to warn the penitent concerning the obligation of denouncing, nevertheless the obligation in the penitent does not yet cease of denouncing him or another soliciting confessor, if from elsewhere he knows that he is obliged to this by pontifical law, just as the burden of restitution does not cease in a penitent because the confessor ceases to warn him of such an obligation, if from elsewhere he knows it and is not invincibly ignorant of it. Proposition 7 condemned by Alexander VII.

If the confessor certainly foresees that the penitent, existing in good faith, will not denounce, must he nevertheless warn him of his obligation and dismiss him if he is unwilling to denounce? In the case of death, namely when the death of the penitent is imminent, negatively. For no one is bound to do a useless and harmful thing. Now according to the hypothesis, that warning is useless for procuring the common good, and harmful to the private good of the penitent, since then it casts him into bad faith and into eternal damnation. Besides, if the clause appended by the same Benedict XIV has any force, namely of warning penitents according to the circumstances of occurring cases, cf. 1265, 1278, there is not always and in every case an absolute obligation of warning. Therefore at least in the stated case, truly extreme. Outside danger of death, affirmatively. The reason first is that it can always rightly and deservedly be hoped that a penitent of this kind, with the confessor insisting and the grace of God helping, will at least later do what today perhaps, frightened by difficulty, he refuses to do. Hence also nothing then prevents the confessor, if the penitent is certainly going to return to him, opportunely deferring absolution, or even granting it in a case of necessity, from awaiting a favorable occasion when he will be more disposed and foreseen to be going to do what today would be demanded from him in vain. But if the penitent is not going to return to the same confessor, it is enough that he be warned of the obligation of speaking about such a matter with his Ordinary or another confessor because of the difficulty of the matter still to be untangled, and meanwhile that he be prepared in soul to fulfill the obligation, if perhaps there is one and it is made manifest to him by the same confessor. Besides, to this case also is extended the aforesaid clause of Benedict XIV concerning penitents to be warned according to the circumstances of occurring cases, which is not to be restricted to the single extreme case of death. Cf. Benedict XIV, encyclical letter Apostolica Constitutio, n. 20. Moreover the difficulty which can frighten the penitent in making denunciation is surely not such that it has no remedy, since the Sacred Congregation itself indicates various ways by which the fulfillment of this most grave obligation can become much easier. Cf. 1270, 1278.

Is not only the solicited person bound to denunciation, but also one who from elsewhere knows the solicitation certainly? R. Affirmatively, "if he knows the crime from persons worthy of faith; otherwise, if he knew it from persons unworthy of faith, or from frivolous women. But this must be said, not now from the Bull of Gregory, but from the Edict of the Holy Inquisition, March 10, 1677, where it is said that one who has known or heard that he solicited is bound to denounce the confessor." L. 695. These things from the Holy Office, May 11, 1661, to the fourteenth: "Whether someone is bound to denounce a soliciting confessor if he heard this not from persons worthy of faith, but only from frivolous persons? The Qualifiers judged that the negative opinion does not lack probability." Nevertheless it must be noted here that the affirmative resolution is inferred rather from the proposed Question than from the Response of the Sacred Congregation.

Is one who knows of solicitation under a natural secret bound to denunciation? R. Affirmatively, "because no one is bound to a secret, even promised by oath, when the secret turns to common harm. But otherwise, if the solicitation has been manifested for seeking counsel; for the disclosure of the secret would then be against human intercourse, and also against the public good, which certainly intervenes in seeking counsels." L. 698. And this last point is founded besides on the Decree of Alexander VII, July 8, 1660, which obliges Regulars from whom counsel is sought concerning the obligation of denouncing only to this, that they warn and oblige to denounce.

Is absolution to be denied to a penitent who refuses to denounce a soliciting priest? R. Affirmatively. "Penitents who have been warned and altogether refuse cannot be absolved; but those who because of a just cause must defer denunciation, and who pledge and seriously promise that it is to be made as quickly as they can, can be absolved... If necessity presses, the solicited person is to conduct himself according to the counsels and warnings of his confessor," namely when there is grave difficulty standing in the way of making denunciation. Cited Instruction, nn. 5 and 7; L. 693.

Do those omitting denunciation incur excommunication? From the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis of Pius IX, October 15, 1869, those incur an excommunication latae sententiae reserved to no one: "Those neglecting or culpably omitting to denounce within a month confessors or priests by whom they have been solicited to shameful things, in any of the cases expressed by Our predecessors Gregory XV, Constitution Universi, August 20, 1622, and Benedict XIV, Constitution Sacramentum Poenitentiae, June 1, 1741." Neglecting or culpably omitting to denounce, and therefore when they could and ought to have done this. Within a month: to be computed from this obligation having become known; therefore after the month has elapsed they fall into excommunication. Moreover, if they have promised that they will denounce, and faith can be had in them, they will be able to be absolved, and not only from sins before the month has elapsed, which is expressly provided in the Constitution of Benedict XIV, cf. 1265, 1270, but also from excommunication after the month has elapsed. For the present excommunication is not reserved. Nor indeed does a penitent of this kind seem to relapse into the same excommunication if afterwards he has deceived the faith placed in him, since absolution here is granted absolutely; and when the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis willed otherwise, it openly expressed it. By whom they have been solicited: therefore only solicited penitents are subject to this excommunication, by no means all whatsoever who learned of the solicitation. Pignatelli, Cons. Can. Noviss., chap. 117, par. Terminus autem.

What causes excuse from making denunciation? If truly and reasonably, from denunciation, grave harm is feared in life, reputation, and temporal goods, the penitent could be excused from denouncing. The reason is that a natural right is given for preventing these harms, against which the positive law of the Church does not prevail; for the Church is not accustomed to oblige further with grave inconvenience for the observance of her laws. It is added that laws imposing denunciation of their nature do not oblige with grave inconvenience, because they do not have that annexed to them of their nature, as, for example, precepts given to a soldier concerning not leaving his station, or to a pastor concerning assisting the sick laboring under plague.

But when a law of its nature does not demand to be fulfilled with grave inconvenience, it ceases to oblige if that grave inconvenience supervenes, as is clear concerning a law imposing fasting, hearing Mass, etc. But denunciation is to be made even with any harm whatsoever as often as from that crime contempt of this sacrament and destruction of souls would arise. But although this could be absent when it was certainly known that someone solicited once, not from contempt of the sacrament but from mere momentary lust, nevertheless it would indeed happen when solicitation arose from making light of the sacrament, or if the solicitor were a powerful man and solicited frequently. Therefore in these cases the reason of the common good and of preventing harm to Religion outweighs any private harm whatsoever, and therefore denunciation should never be omitted. L. 699; Pignatelli, Cons. Can. Noviss., chap. 117, par. Denique ff.; E.M.

Note: Those who cannot denounce because of the aforesaid causes are still bound when these cease. Holy Office, February 21, 1630; Giraldi, p. 640, note qui, p. 641. E.M.

Is a woman bound to denounce a soliciting confessor to whom she herself consented? R. Affirmatively. For Benedict XIV commanded denunciation to be made "whether the penitent consented to the solicitation, or by no means gave consent." The reason is that denunciation can be made without any danger to one's own reputation, since one cannot be questioned about this by the Bishop, and therefore even if someone is questioned he can deny his own consent. L. 700. In the cited Instruction, n. 6, it is said: "Care must also be taken that those denouncing are not asked whether they consented to the solicitation; and it would be most fitting if concerning consent of this kind, however spontaneously manifested, nothing at all were noted in the records. From the Declaration of Urban VIII, Thursday, April 17, 1624."

Must a woman constituted in good faith and simplicity, who did not understand the solicitation, be warned concerning denunciation, and must she denounce? R. Negatively, by reason of scandal. Nevertheless "the Sacred Congregation on May 11, 1707 declared that a girl solicited while constituted in simplicity and without knowledge of dishonesty is bound to denounce the soliciting confessor after she has become capable and has acquired knowledge of the past solicitation." Giraldi, p. 641.

Is the solicited person bound to denounce solicitation had a long time ago, or occult solicitation, or one which cannot be juridically proved? R. To the first, affirmatively, from the open Declaration of Benedict XIV, Constitution Sacramentum Poenitentiae, § 2. L. 697. To the second, it must altogether be affirmed; otherwise this most grave law would be completely useless, since this crime of itself is occult. L. 696. To the third, "it must altogether be affirmed." L. 695. The reason is that juridical proof is not necessary here.

Is a soliciting confessor to be denounced if he has already been amended, or judged and punished, or is dead? R. To the first: affirmatively. And St. Alphonsus judges this absolutely more probable, and it seems practically and regularly to be held. For the primary and principal reason of the law of denunciation is not the amendment of a particular person, but the public security of the sacrament and of souls, by the certain chastisement of so abominable a crime, and by unavoidable fear of penalty, even for one act, or for one repeated only once; indeed also the indemnity of the Church, namely lest plagues of this sort creep into public offices, than which nothing is more harmful to the common good of the Church. Benedict XIV, de Synod., book 6, chap. 11, n. 10.

To the second: it is certain that, if he himself offends again after he has been punished for the first crime, he must again be denounced. And the same must be said if he was not fully convicted of solicitation, because then he would not have been punished. If concerning the same solicitation he has already been sufficiently convicted and punished, it must far more probably be affirmed, L. 637, from the Holy Office, May 11, 1661, to the thirteenth: "Whether a confessor who abjured on account of the solicitation of another is to be denounced? The Qualifiers judged that the negative opinion is not probable, and therefore that he is to be denounced, which was also resolved on July 26, 1628." Abjured, that is, one who on account of another preceding solicitation appeared before the Inquisitor and abjured, namely detested heresy; for since abjuration is detestation of heresy, someone was bound to abjure insofar as he was a heretic or suspected of heresy; and such a solicitor was held to be, who therefore had to abjure at least for caution; and if the suspicion of heresy was slight, he was said to abjure de levi; if vehement, to abjure de vehementi. Nevertheless it must be observed that in the preceding Response there is question of the solicitation of another penitent, on account of which the confessor abjured, not of that same penitent on account of whose solicitation he spontaneously appeared. But in another Decree, July 26, 1628, cited in the aforesaid Response, as that Decree is had in Albitius, de Inconst. in Fid., chap. 35, n. 50, it is established generally that "the solicited person is bound to denounce the solicitor, although he knows that the same appeared in the Holy Office." In the same general sense the same Decree is reported by Giraldi, p. 641.

To the third: negatively, because then the whole end of the law ceases, namely both the punishment and the amendment of the guilty party. Holy Office, March 6, 1839; Sacred Penitentiary, April 24, 1884; L. 692. E.M.

When, to whom, and how is denunciation to be made? Denunciation must be made within a month from the time when its obligation became known. Holy Office, March 10, 1677; L. 693. Cf. 1271.

It is to be made "to Inquisitors or Ordinaries of places," § 2. Of places, i.e., of the place in which the penitent is present, even if the penitent and the soliciting confessor pertain to another diocese. It pertains to the Ordinary or Inquisitor of the place to receive the sworn denunciation and to transmit it to the Bishop of the guilty priest. In the cited Instruction, n. 1, it is said: "they must report the matter to the Holy See or to the Ordinary of the place." He satisfies the obligation who denounces delinquents of this kind to the Supreme Tribunal of the Sacred Roman and Universal Inquisition. Pignatelli, Cons. Can. Noviss., chap. 117, Ex parte vero. Vicars Apostolic can also receive denunciation, but they must remit "to the Holy Office through the medium of the Sacred Congregation de Propaganda Fide in a closed letter the names of the solicitors."

Holy Office, June 20, 1882. As regards Regulars, Regular Superiors cannot receive this denunciation, nor take cognizance of this cause. Decree of Alexander VII Licet alias, July 3, 1660. Cardinals, Bishops, and the Inquisitors themselves, who are truly delegates of the Apostolic See, in the case of solicitation, if it is to be denounced, are to be denounced not to the Inquisitor or Ordinary of the place, but either to the Holy See or to the Sacred Congregation of the Holy and Universal Inquisition. "If they cannot, or do not wish immediately, to denounce them to the Supreme Tribunal, they are bound to denounce them to the Inquisitors or Ordinaries of places, so that the delict may become known to the Holy Office; because the obligation of denouncing requires in the judge only the faculty of receiving juridical denunciations. For this suffices so that the delict may become known to the Sacred Tribunal, so that afterwards according to its laws proceeding may be made against the delinquent." Pignatelli, Cons. Can. Noviss., chap. 117, par. Ideoque.

As regards the manner of making denunciation, the cited Instruction, nn. 6-8, has these things: "6. Anonymous denunciations against those soliciting to shameful things have no force; for denunciations must be made in judgment, namely before the Bishop or his delegate with the intervention of an ecclesiastical man who holds the parts of notary, and with oath, and with expression and subscription of one's own name. Nor is it sufficient if it is made by notes, or by letters without the name and surname of the author. Moreover it is prohibited that, in receiving denunciations, besides the judge and the notary, each an ecclesiastical man, furnished with the special and written deputation of the Bishop, witnesses be present." "7. The burden of denunciation is personal, and to be fulfilled by the solicited person himself. But if he is impeded by most grave difficulties from being able to perform this himself, then either by himself, or by letter, or through another person well disposed to him, let him approach his Ordinary, or the Holy See through the Sacred Penitentiary, or even through this Supreme Inquisition, all the circumstances having been set forth, and then let him conduct himself according to the counsels and warnings of his confessor. But if, detained by no impediment, he altogether refuses denunciation, in this case and in the other mentioned cases the confessor is to be praised who has not denied his labor to the penitent, and has consulted either the Ordinary or the Holy See for opportune provisions, the name of the penitent nevertheless being suppressed. But approved authors hand down the formulas to be used in these cases, among whom are Pignatelli, Cons. Can. Noviss., t. I, chap. 104; Carena, Albitius, etc." "8. It not infrequently occurs that a confessor or another ecclesiastic is deputed by Bishops, whose power this indeed is, to receive denunciations in a matter pertaining to the crime of solicitation, without the intervention of a notary. Men especially suitable are to be destined to this most grave function; they must be instructed concerning the act of denunciation to be assumed in a judicial manner, and warned that immediately after the denunciation has been received they are at once to transmit it cautiously to the Bishop himself by whom they were deputed, and that they are to retain for themselves no copy or any trace of the act drawn up. And in about this manner the function of denouncing is fulfilled without great difficulty. Certainly it must be brought about by Ordinaries of places that it not be necessary to apply to places subject to their jurisdiction what was declared for the missions of Pernambuco in America, on June 22, 1627: namely that solicited women are not bound to denunciation if the ministers of the Inquisition and the Vicars of the Bishop dwelling in distant regions cannot be approached without grave inconvenience."

Therefore, if a woman cannot even be induced to make the denunciation in writing and with oath to a confessor deputed for this, recourse must be had to the Holy See for an opportune remedy, and meanwhile such a penitent is not to be absolved, as being indisposed.

All Ordinaries of places are deputed judges for inquiring and proceeding against solicitors. Therefore they can delegate to others the faculty of admitting juridical denunciations, not only for an act but also habitually. L. 695; E.M.

What about the crime of false denunciation? "Since certain wicked persons are found who, moved either by hatred, or anger, or another unworthy cause, or incited by the impious persuasions, or promises, or flatteries, or threats of others, or in any other way, the dread judgment of God being set aside and the authority of the Church contemned, falsely accuse innocent priests of solicitation before ecclesiastical judges: Therefore, that so wicked an audacity and so detestable a crime may be restrained by fear of the greatness of the penalty, whatever person has stained himself with an execrable crime of this sort, either by himself impiously calumniating innocent confessors, or by wickedly procuring that this be done by others, is forever deprived, by any priest whatsoever, fortified by whatever privilege, authority, and dignity, except by Us and Our successors, unless at the end of life and except in the article of death, of the hope of obtaining absolution, which We reserve to Us and to the aforesaid successors." § 3.

The present case is a papal reserved case, but without censure. The reservation is penal. But that procuring must be efficacious of the unjust denunciation which followed. There is question, however, not of any false denunciation, but of a juridical denunciation, i.e., made before ecclesiastical judges, namely before the Ordinary of the place or the Inquisitor. L. 693.

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

What about the unlawfulness and invalidity of absolution? Benedict XIV has these things in the cited Constitution, §§ 4 and 2: "To all and singular priests, both secular and regular, of whatever order and dignity, although otherwise approved for receiving confessions, and supported by any privilege and indult, even one worthy of special expression and of most special note and mention, by Apostolic authority and the plenitude of Our power, We interdict and prohibit, lest any of them, outside the case of extreme necessity, namely in the very article of death, and then when any other priest who can discharge the office of confessor is lacking, dare to receive the sacramental confession of a person who is an accomplice in a shameful and dishonest sin committed against the sixth precept of the Decalogue, any authority and jurisdiction whatsoever for absolving any person from guilt of this kind being for this reason removed from him by the law itself; indeed so that the absolution, if he shall impart any, is altogether null and void, as imparted by a priest who exists deprived of the jurisdiction and faculty necessary for validly absolving, which We intend to remove from him by these Our present letters.

And nevertheless, if any confessor shall have dared to do otherwise, he incurs also by that very fact the penalty of major excommunication, the power of absolving from which We reserve to Us alone and only to Our Successors. Declaring also and decreeing that not even by force of any Jubilee whatsoever, or even of the Bull which is called of the Holy Crusade, or of any other Indult, can anyone receive the confession of the said accomplice of this kind and bestow sacramental absolution upon him: since for this effect, and in this case, no confessor, as one who in this kind of sin and penitent lacks jurisdiction, as was said above, and exists deprived by Us of the faculty of absolving, is to be held as a legitimate and approved confessor.

Notwithstanding Apostolic Constitutions and Ordinances, especially those which are called of the Holy Crusade, or of Universal and plenary Jubilee, and also any Statutes and Customs whatsoever, Privileges also, Indults, and Apostolic Letters... To all of which... for this time only We specially and expressly derogate, and to other things whatsoever to the contrary."

Is absolution of an accomplice always unlawful, always invalid? Absolution of an accomplice will always be unlawful outside the case of extreme necessity, namely in the very article of death, and then when any other confessor who can discharge the office of confessor is lacking. But it will always be invalid outside the article of death. In the article of death it will always be valid, even short of necessity.

For thus Benedict XIV, in the Constitution Apostolici, declared his mind concerning a case of necessity of this kind. 1. Thus an accomplice is interdicted and prohibited from hearing and absolving an accomplice in the aforesaid article of death "so that if some other priest is not lacking, even if perhaps this other was only a simple priest, or otherwise not approved for hearing confessions, nevertheless that simple priest can receive the Confession and impart absolution." 2. "If the quality of an urgent case and the concurring circumstances, which cannot be avoided, are such that another priest cannot be called or approach to hear the confession of a person constituted in the said article without some grave infamy or scandal likely to arise; then another priest can be held and considered just as if he were really absent and lacking; and therefore in that state of things, the priest who is partner of the crime is not prohibited from imparting absolution to the penitent also from that crime. But let an accomplice priest of this kind know and seriously observe that he will in fact be guilty before God, who cannot be mocked, of grave disobedience against Our aforesaid Constitution and liable to the penalties imposed in it, if he voluntarily invents for himself the aforesaid dangers of infamy or scandal where they do not exist. Indeed let him understand that he is gravely bound to forestall or remove dangers of this kind, insofar as it is in him, suitable means being employed, whence it may happen that a way lies open for any other priest to hear that confession without anyone's infamy or scandal." 3. "But if the same priest either in any way thrusts himself in, compelled by no grave necessity, or, where danger of infamy or scandal is feared if the labor of another priest must be required, he himself has deliberately neglected to employ suitable means to avert that danger, and thus has presumed to receive the sacramental Confession of the person who is an accomplice in the said crime and constituted in that article, as was said above, and to bestow absolution from that crime, no necessary cause compelling as is premised; although absolution of this kind will be valid, provided that on the part of the penitent the dispositions required by Christ the Lord for the validity of the sacrament of penance have not been lacking, for We do not intend in the fearful article of death to take away from the same priest, however unworthy, the necessary jurisdiction, lest by this very occasion someone perish; nevertheless that priest will by no means escape the penalties of the law violated by such rash daring; and therefore he incurs the major excommunication imposed in the said Constitution and reserved to Us and to this Holy See in exactly the same way as is decreed there."

If an accomplice priest, necessity standing, begins to hear the confession of an accomplice in the article of death, and another priest arrives, can he complete the confession begun? R. Affirmatively. "The reason is that when he began to hear, this was lawful through the Pontiff giving him jurisdiction; but this jurisdiction does not expire by the arrival of another, because the confession for which jurisdiction was conferred, since it is only begun, is not yet whole or perfect." Ithur., Case 49, n. 17.

If an accomplice priest begins to hear the confession of an accomplice in the article of death, necessity standing, can he then, after the danger of death has passed, complete the confession and absolve? R. Affirmatively. The reason is the same as in the preceding case. For jurisdiction valid at the time of the confession begun is judged to remain so long as the confession begun has not been completed by absolution. For confession is ordered to this, and has its completion in this. Ithur., Case 49, nn. 21, 22, 23.

After the accomplice has been absolved by the accomplice priest in the article of death, necessity pressing, can the priest then, when that danger has passed, complete his confession by reason of integrity? Either the penitent sufficiently expressed by nods all the sins of complicity, or not. If the former, the accomplice priest can complete the confession by reason of integrity; otherwise he cannot. The reason of the first is that by valid absolution the sins of complicity were directly remitted, and therefore the complicity itself has been directly destroyed, and the accomplice priest, like any other, can absolve from other sins. For those sins are no longer necessary matter of confession, but only free matter, like venial sins or mortal sins already disclosed. The reason of the second is that then the bond of complicity still endures; for the remaining sins were remitted only indirectly, as omitted in confession. Therefore those sins remain necessary matter of confession. Ithur., Case 49, nn. 19, 20.

Can an accomplice absolve an accomplice not only in the article, but also in the danger of death? The article of death is distinguished in this from the danger of death: the article of death denotes certain nearness, the danger denotes probable impending death. R. Affirmatively. The extrinsic reason is that the article of death and danger of death, by canon law, by the most common opinion of theologians, and by the practice of confessors, are altogether equated in order to receiving the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and extreme unction. But the intrinsic reason is that, morally speaking, the necessity of the sick person is nearly the same.

Therefore, lest he perish, the Church confers jurisdiction on all priests for the article of death, even if there is question of an accomplice priest absolving an accomplice, as is openly clear from the Constitution of Benedict XIV Apostolici muneris. Ithur., Case 49, nn. 4-10.

Note: The same must be said even if the danger of death was prudently indeed, but falsely, judged to be present. Ithur., Case 49, nn. 11-15. For since it is sometimes difficult to distinguish a true and real danger from a danger only judged and apparent, jurisdiction is given absolutely to all for the article or danger of death prudently judged to be present, lest someone perish.

What if a dying person is unwilling to confess to anyone other than the priest who is his partner in sin? In that case he can be absolved by the accomplice priest, if he is otherwise disposed, namely lest he perish or be endangered. Gousset, Theol. Mor., vol. 2, n. 489. The same must be said if another priest who has been called is unwilling to come, or, though already present, is unwilling to hear the confession. The reason is that then it is the same as if there were no supply of another confessor.

When is complicity had here? Complicity is had here when there is an externally, reciprocally or mutually declared consent, agreement, or conspiracy of two or more persons into a shameful and dishonest sin, indeed a mortal one, against the sixth precept of the Decalogue, although not consummated by copula. Externally: certainly complicity cannot be had without an external act. Mortal: for the Supreme Pontiff speaks of a sin which must necessarily be destroyed by sacramental absolution. But mortal is understood both by reason of the internal act and by reason of the exterior work. Therefore the aforesaid law does not have place where there is question of sins only grave but doubtful, whether the doubt be of law or of fact; or where there is question of simply venial sins, or of sins venial only as regards the external act, although either one or each has internally sinned gravely. But how great an imprudence and rashness it is, because of the danger of scandal, to approach an accomplice confessor, even if there is question only of venial sins in this matter to be manifested to the same accomplice confessor, there is no one who does not see. Reciprocally or mutually. Therefore "1. if a priest, having taken an occasion from sleep or drunkenness, were to use some woman to satisfy lust, he would not for this reason lose jurisdiction for absolving her, because since both the drunken woman and the sleeping woman are unequal to sinning, neither would be held formally as an accomplice, although each could be called materially a partner of the crime in the sin against the sixth precept perpetrated by the priest... 2. If some priest by the greatest crime were to induce a woman to believe that it was altogether free from sin if she allowed herself to be shamefully touched by him, and she, deceived by him, in good faith suffered herself to be shamefully touched by him, without admitting formal sin in herself, she would not be an accomplice, and could subject herself to the sacramental judgment of the same priest for obtaining absolution not from a venereal sin, from which we posit her to be immune, but from other sins." Ithur., Case 41, nn. 25, 26. Likewise the complicity of which there is question in this law is not present if the woman with whom the priest sins, although she consents interiorly, nevertheless externally resists. But under the name of shameful sin comes every grave external sin against the sixth precept, even if it is only touch or conversation. The reason is that the words of the Bull, "in a shameful and dishonest sin against the sixth precept," without doubt comprehend any shameful sins whatsoever. Holy Office, May 28, 1873; L. 554.

Does the aforesaid complicity comprehend the shameful sin of the confessor with the partner of the crime, committed even before he had been initiated in sacred orders? R. Affirmatively. The reason is that the Supreme Pontiff speaks altogether indefinitely of sin committed with an accomplice, and does not restrict it to sin committed by the confessor himself when already having the faculty of hearing confessions, or already constituted in sacred orders. Sacred Penitentiary, January 22, 1879; Ithur., Case 47, nn. 2-6.

1. "Cornelia, with tears and sighs, confesses in confession to Sulpitius, the parish priest, that under the pretext of confession she committed a shameful deed with Evraldus, a confessor, whom she pursued with a most depraved love. Sulpitius prudently questions her, and learns that Cornelia had feigned herself gravely sick and had called the confessor, entirely ignorant of that depraved affection, under the pretext of confession, and had finally induced him, although at first reluctant, to perpetrate the crime. These things having been heard, Sulpitius hesitates, uncertain, not knowing whether he ought to urge the denunciation of this confessor or not.

It is asked: Whether Cornelia is to be obliged to denounce Evraldus, whom she herself solicited and induced into sin?

R. St. Lig. denies it with others... But the Decision of the Holy Office, Feb. 11, 1661, stands in the way... and the recent Instruction of the same Sacred Congregation, Feb. 20, 1867, by which this is also expressly declared in § 2." Thus P. Gury 653.

But in the cited Decision and Instruction nothing is had which bears on the matter; for there the question is of true solicitation on the part of the confessor in confession. But in the aforesaid Case there is in no way question of confession. There is indeed a pretext of confession; but in order that under pretext of confession a confessor must be denounced, it is necessary that the confessor use confession as a pretext for soliciting the penitent; and it is not enough that the penitent use confession as a pretext, so that she can solicit the confessor and sin with him. In the Case no pretext appears on the part of the confessor. For a pretext is everything which covers an interior intention by some exterior fact, whether true or only apparent. Now in the Case there was no intention of solicitation on the part of the confessor. The confessor did nothing to cover this intention. Nor indeed does it appear from the Case that the confessor set about hearing a true confession, or simulated hearing a confession. But the penitent alone is the one who feigns herself sick and, using confession as a pretext, calls the confessor so that she may solicit him. The confessor, having been called, goes into Cornelia's house; solicited by her, he first resists and then consents. Where, here, is solicitation of the confessor under pretext of confession, that is, a provocation to shameful things made by a priest as by a confessor, using confession as a pretext in the Case, or inviting to confession so that he might provoke to shameful things? Cf. Commentar. in C. Sacramentum Poenitentiae n. 17, ed. 5; I. M. 1255.

2. Titia was accustomed to use Caius, a religious man, for sacramental confession; she was also employed in washing and mending his linen garments. One day, after confession had been completed, in which, as never before, she had accused herself of adultery, Caius asks her to betake herself after communion to the monastery atrium. Titia promises that she will do this; and not long afterward, approaching the atrium, she finds the confessor waiting for her. While they interweave conversation concerning certain garments to be mended, Caius kisses Titia and exercises other shameful touches with her, to which she consents. After these things it happened more than once that, when she was entering the church to hear Mass, Caius, sitting in the confessional, invited her by finger to approach him, and said to her at her ears: "wait for me today at home; I will come to visit you." Finally Caius promises her that he will come to the aid of her necessities if, the remaining lovers having been put aside, she would serve him only; which indeed happened for three years.

It is asked: 1.º What is the crime of solicitation, of which the Constitutions both of Gregory XV, Universi gregis, and of Benedict XIV, Sacramentum poenitentiae, speak? - 2.º What are the clauses under which Constitutions of this sort make provision concerning this crime? - 3.º Whether, in the circumstances of the proposed Case, a true species of solicitation was present, and which clause it regards?

R. To the 1st. Cf. I. M. 1253. To the 2nd. Cf. I. M. 1254 seqq. To the 3rd. Solicitation indeed was absolutely present in the Case on the part of Caius, since he provoked and induced Titia to shameful things. But whether solicitation to be denounced according to the cited Constitutions was present is distinctly declared by parts. The first time, when Caius kisses Titia and touches her shamefully, the aforesaid solicitation cannot be affirmed. For first, that Caius, after the confession of Titia was completed, in which she had first accused herself of adultery, asked the same Titia to betake herself to the monastery atrium, certainly cannot be held as solicitation at least in cause or means. For Caius perhaps could well have asked Titia to go to the monastery atrium on account of some need of linen garments to be washed and mended, and in no way for some evil end. And this is certainly persuaded and confirmed from the fact that afterward Caius and Titia interwove conversation concerning certain garments to be mended. That Caius in the meantime kisses Titia and exercises other shameful touches with her certainly is not to solicit on the occasion of confession, to which clause almost the others can easily be reduced.

At most it would be to solicit from knowledge of confession, and it is at least a controversial and doubtful matter whether this solicitation is contained in the aforesaid clause; but it must be excluded from it, whether because in reality it is not to solicit from confession, but from knowledge of the fragility of the penitent acquired through confession; or because the penitent could not denounce the confessor without betraying and defaming herself; for she would have to manifest her confession in order to explain that denunciation, as must be done, how it had been carried out on the occasion of confession. Besides, could not Caius, when he was interweaving conversation with Titia present, then for the first time have seen her being tempted and miserably conquered by temptation? That Caius, sitting in the confessional, invited Titia by finger to approach him, and with a lowered voice told her to wait for him at home, likewise does not contain solicitation on any occasion of confession, since no confession followed either before or afterward in the Case; and the woman, as appears from the Case, was altogether outside the confessional and only stood before it in order to hear those words of Caius. Finally, that Caius urges Titia and obtains that she serve only his shameful love likewise brings in no occasion connected with confession; and therefore neither by reason of this solicitation continued for three years does there appear an obligation of making denunciation according to the Constitutions of Gregory XV and Benedict XIV.

But although here there is not present, from positive law, an obligation of making juridical denunciation to the ecclesiastical Judge, nevertheless, the circumstances of the Case having been inspected, there can well be an obligation of making denunciation by natural law to the Prelate of that Caius. For there is question of a religious man, of a religious who through so long a time continues shameful sins with a woman, all modesty being removed, and not incidentally from some sudden temptation, but from a well-considered purpose of soul; whence the aforesaid scandal can easily still threaten in the future both for the same Titia and for another, and not without danger also of public scandal and public defamation for the whole Convent.

"The things which the Supreme Pontiff Benedict XIV, of glorious memory, confirmed and decreed in the Constitution issued on 1 June 1741, whose beginning is Sacramentum Poenitentiae, are reduced principally to these four heads. First, just as had already been enacted previously, especially by Gregory XV in the Constitution dated 30 August 1622, which begins Universi, all Ordinaries of places as well as Inquisitors are appointed judges for investigating, proceeding against, and punishing with condign penalties those who solicit to base acts in confession, although exempt in any manner from ordinary jurisdiction. Likewise, all priests constituted to hear sacred confessions, as had also been prescribed previously, are bound to admonish their penitents to denounce solicitors of this kind to the Inquisitors or Ordinaries of places as soon as they can; and not to absolve those same penitents who refuse to obey in fulfilling this duty. Furthermore, in the third place, except at the point of death, the case of those who falsely accuse innocent priests of solicitation before ecclesiastical judges, or wickedly procure that it be done by others, is reserved to the Apostolic See. Fourth and finally, every faculty and jurisdiction to hear the sacramental confessions of an accomplice in a base sin committed against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue is taken away from every priest, unless an altogether extreme necessity is urgent, namely, if at the very point of death another priest is lacking who can perform the office of confessor, or cannot be called or approach without some grave infamy or scandal that would arise. - Constitution Apostolici muneris of the same Supreme Pontiff Benedict XIV, 8 February 1745. - And the case of those confessors who shall have dared to absolve an accomplice in a base sin is reserved to the Apostolic See.

"There is certainly no doubt that all and each of these prescriptions, prohibitions, and reservations extend their force universally to all nations and are to be steadfastly and inviolably observed everywhere on earth. This is most evident even to one reading the Constitutions of Gregory XV and Benedict XIV; and the same has been confirmed by the authority of subsequent Pontiffs, as occasion offered, up to the present day. - And indeed, when the Apostolic Vicar of Cochinchina asked: 1. Whether the Constitution of Benedict XIV against solicitors also binds Franciscan missionaries who exercise the ministry in Cochinchina? 2. Whether the same Constitution can be restricted and moderated in some case because of the great scarcity of confessors in that same kingdom of Cochinchina? by command of Pius VI, in the year 1775, the reply was made in a suitable instruction: To 1. Affirmative; to 2. Negative. And recently Our Most Holy Lord Pope Pius IX, by a Decree of this Supreme Inquisition on Wednesday, 27 June 1866, declared that, in the faculties which bishops and other Ordinaries of places possess by Apostolic grant for absolving from all cases reserved to the Apostolic See, cases reserved in the Bull of Benedict XIV which begins Sacramentum Poenitentiae must henceforth always be excepted and regarded as excepted. - He moreover commanded this Decree to be notified, without any exception, to all Ordinaries everywhere on earth endowed with the aforesaid faculty of absolving.

"Therefore, all Ordinaries of places must strive most earnestly lest the force of the things salutarily provided in the aforesaid Constitution gradually grow weak anywhere. But the Most Eminent Fathers, Cardinals and Supreme Inquisitors, recently learned that the same Constitution was not everywhere being put into execution as it ought to be, and that in some places certain abuses had crept in, both in fulfilling the burden of denunciation and in instituting judgment against solicitors, which could by no means be tolerated without harm to justice and provident severity. They therefore judged that it would not be unwelcome even to the Ordinaries of places if the Decrees made by this Supreme Congregation against those abuses according to the norms of the sacred canons were collected into one and placed before their eyes. For this purpose they ordered the present Instruction to be issued.

"1. Persons, whether men or women, whoever they may be, solicited to base acts in confession, or on the occasion or under the pretext of confession, as is explicitly prescribed in the aforesaid Constitution, must report the matter to the Holy See or to the Ordinary of the place.

"2. Every priest who solicits in confession must be denounced, even one lacking jurisdiction, and also one who consents to the solicitation of the penitent, although he immediately ceases to speak about the base matter, defers its completion to another time, and does not furnish absolution to the penitent. - From the Decree of 11 February 1661, confirmed in the Constitution Sacramentum.

"3. Denunciations of this kind can be omitted by no one without mortal fault. Penitents must be admonished concerning this matter, and their good faith does not excuse confessors from admonishing and instructing them.

"4. Priests constituted to hear sacred confessions who do not admonish their penitents concerning this obligation must be punished. - From the Declarations under dates of 20 March 1624 and 1 October 1626, in Albitius, On Inconstancy in Faith, chapter 35, no. 17.

"5. Penitents who have been admonished and altogether refuse cannot be absolved; but those who for a just cause must defer the denunciation, and pledge and seriously promise to make it as soon as they can, can be absolved.

"6. Anonymous denunciations against those soliciting to base acts have no force; for denunciations must be made judicially, namely, before the bishop or his delegate, with the intervention of an ecclesiastical man who acts as notary, and with an oath and the expression and subscription of one's own name; nor does it suffice if it is made by certificates or by letters without the name and surname of the author. - Albitius, place cited, no. 21. - Furthermore, it is forbidden that, in receiving denunciations, witnesses be present besides the judge and notary, each of whom must be an ecclesiastical man furnished with the special deputation of the bishop drawn up in writing. Care must also be taken that those denouncing are not asked whether they consented to the solicitation; and it would be most fitting if nothing were noted in the records concerning consent of this kind, however spontaneously manifested. - From the declaration of Urban VIII on Thursday, 17 April 1624.

"7. The burden of denunciation is personal and must be fulfilled by the person solicited herself. But if she is prevented by most grave difficulties from being able to accomplish this herself, then, either in person, or by letter, or through another person acceptable to her, she should approach her own Ordinary, or the Holy See through the Sacred Penitentiary, or even through this Supreme Inquisition, setting forth all the circumstances; and thereafter she should conduct herself according to the instruction which she will receive. But if necessity is urgent, she should conduct herself according to the counsels and admonitions of her confessor. Yet if, detained by no impediment, she altogether refuses denunciation, in this case and the other cases mentioned above the confessor is to be praised who has not denied his assistance to the penitent and has consulted either the Ordinary or the Holy See for suitable provisions, the name of the penitent nevertheless being suppressed. Approved authors hand down the formulas to be employed in these cases, among whom are Pignatelli, title 1, consultation 104; Carena; Albitius; etc.

"8. The case not infrequently occurs that a confessor or another ecclesiastical man is deputed by bishops, to whom this power certainly belongs, to receive denunciations in a matter pertaining to the crime of solicitation without the intervention of a notary. A sheet is appended to this Instruction concerning the manner in which a denunciation must be drawn up in these cases. For the most suitable men who are appointed to this most grave duty must be instructed concerning the act of denunciation to be received in judicial form, and admonished that immediately after receiving the denunciation they cautiously transmit it without delay to the bishop himself by whom they were deputed, and retain no copy or any trace of the completed act for themselves. And in approximately this manner the burden of denunciation is fulfilled without difficulty. Certainly, the Ordinaries of places must bring it about that there be no need to apply to places subject to their jurisdiction that which was declared for the missions of Pernambuco in America on 22 January 1627: namely, that women who have been solicited are not bound to denunciation if the ministers of the Inquisition and the vicars of the bishop dwelling in distant regions cannot be approached without grave inconvenience.

"9. If in the denunciations, as not rarely happens, other persons are indicated who were perhaps likewise solicited, or who can in some manner bear testimony concerning this crime, all these also must be examined separately in the judicial form expressed above; and they must be questioned first in generalities, and then by degrees, as the matter permits, descending to particulars, whether and how they themselves were in fact solicited, or saw or heard that other persons had been solicited.

"10. After a denunciation has been received, proceedings are not undertaken immediately, but the ecclesiastical superior must diligently inquire whether the person denouncing is worthy of faith. The crime of solicitation is for the most part perpetrated secretly; hence there is a privilege that, in cases instituted against this crime, even singular attestations are admitted for making full proof. But in the aforesaid Constitutions of the Supreme Pontiffs it is prescribed that proceedings are not to be undertaken with singular witnesses unless presumptions, indications, and other supporting evidence concur. Therefore, the weight of each denunciation and its qualities and circumstances must be seriously and accurately weighed; and, before proceedings are undertaken against the person denounced, it must be evident and established to the judge that the women or men denouncing are of good name and are not led to accuse by enmity or by another human affection. For witnesses of this kind, though singular, must be free from all private affections so that complete faith can be accorded to them. - From the Instruction given by command of Pius VI in the year 1775 to the Apostolic Vicar of Cochinchina.

"11. It is the custom of this Supreme Inquisition that, after one or two denunciations, a rescript be issued that the person denounced be observed, that is, that he be regarded as suspected concerning the crime reported, so that as soon as the matter has been established by new denunciations, he is to be summoned to judgment. For the most part, proceedings customarily begin only after the third denunciation. For a formal examination, parish priests or men of proven faith and distinguished virtue, especially ecclesiastics, are summoned; under oath to speak the truth and preserve secrecy, they are examined concerning the qualities of the persons denouncing and of the person denounced, and concerning their mutual hatreds and enmities. After these inquiries have been completed, the accused is brought to judgment and, before the judge, with the intervention of an ecclesiastical man who acts as notary, he must answer under oath to speak the truth concerning the individual circumstances of each denunciation and examination. The greatest care is taken that the names of those denouncing not be disclosed to the accused, and that the sacramental seal not be violated in any manner.

"12. When the truth of the crime committed has become evident, the accused having been admitted to his defense as the laws demand, one must proceed to forbidding him in perpetuity to hear confessions, withdrawing each and every faculty for that office granted to him even through any privilege or by the Holy See itself. The bishop himself, and not another delegated by him, shall pronounce a sentence of this kind; and, according to the measure of the fault and with all the circumstances considered, he shall also inflict upon the accused the other penalties which are decreed in the aforesaid Constitutions. Furthermore, if the accused confessed the crime in judgment, he must make a suitable abjuration, so that he may thus purge himself from the suspicion of heresy which he incurred; and he shall be punished with this penalty also in the sentence itself. It is to be noted that all penalties of this kind, and the incapacity itself for celebrating the most holy Sacrifice of the Mass prescribed in the Decree of Benedict XIV in August 1745, are only ferendae sententiae. Nevertheless, there must be abstention from inflicting degradation and handing over to the secular arm. That, indeed, was enacted by Gregory XV; but it must be regarded as imposed for terror rather than in order that it be put into execution. - Albitius, work cited, chapter 15, no. 13, and Benedict XIV in a private letter dated 11 November 1713 to Emmanuel de Azevedo, priest of the Society of Jesus.

"13. Those who, entirely unanticipated by any denunciations concerning this crime, moved by conscience, present themselves to the Ordinary of the place or his delegate, spontaneously confess the crimes of solicitation committed by them, and seek pardon, must be dismissed with a suitable abjuration and salutary penances only; with the counsel or precept added that they abstain from hearing the sacred confessions of the persons solicited. Nor are they to be affected by the other penalties mentioned previously, even if denunciations should subsequently be added. But those who, already anticipated by judicial process but not yet cited, spontaneously present themselves, and likewise those whom the Ordinary of the place shall discover, from denunciations received afterwards, to have confessed in their spontaneous appearance a truth not complete but diminished, do not enjoy the benefit of immunity; nevertheless, at the prudence of the Ordinary himself, let them be punished more mildly.

"14. That which must be most greatly cared for and observed in treating these cases, whether by Apostolic commission or by the proper right of bishops, is that these same cases, as pertaining to the faith, be conducted most secretly and, after they have been decided and already put into execution, be entirely suppressed by perpetual silence. All officials of the ecclesiastical curia, and any others whatsoever who are assumed for treating these cases or as advocates for defending them, must take an oath to preserve secrecy; and the bishops themselves and other Ordinaries of places are bound to preserve secrecy, as provided in law in the chapter Statuta, final, On Heretics, in the Sixth, and in the Clementine Multorum, section Porro, On Heretics. Those, however, who satisfy the burden of denunciation, and those who are subjected to examination in these cases, are bound, even if they are priests, to swear at the beginning to speak the truth and, when the act is completed, to preserve secrecy, touching the most holy Gospels of God. If these things are observed cautiously and sacredly, no danger of odium or infamy or any other danger whatsoever can be feared which would restrain either witnesses from speaking the truth or competent judges from investigating and punishing the crime of solicitation with condign penalties.

"15. It was granted by Pius VI in the Instruction mentioned above, given in the year 1775 to the Apostolic Vicar of Cochinchina, that, since it is most difficult in those regions so distant and dissimilar to observe exactly all the things which are to be observed in these cases, and since, if some of these things are omitted, justice does not permit penalties to be inflicted against accused persons concerning whose crime sufficient proof has not yet been made in judicial form, then it would perhaps be more prudent if, outside the order of judgment, proceedings were undertaken to meet so great an evil by easier and more expeditious means and methods, which the prudence of the Apostolic Vicar joined with zeal for souls will suggest in particular cases. But now everyone sees that this indulgence made for places so distant and dissimilar is neither common to all nor can rightly be introduced everywhere without the authority of the Apostolic See.

"16. Furthermore, if Ordinaries of places become involved in more grave difficulties in drawing up processes, or even, after a process has been drawn up, in pronouncing sentence against those soliciting to base acts in confession, they can, with the acts transmitted, refer the matter to this Supreme Congregation, which will furnish particular instructions adapted to the individual cases, as is often done, and will itself pronounce the definitive sentence if it shall be expedient.

"These are the things which conduce to the cautious and correct execution of the aforesaid Pontifical Constitution and which, as easily observed everywhere, this Sacred Congregation of the Supreme and Universal Inquisition earnestly commends to the pastoral zeal and solicitude of the Ordinaries.

"Given at Rome, 20 February 1867."

"1. Whether any confessor can absolve a priest who solicited in the act or place of sacramental confession.

"2. When a confessor can be considered guilty of a base sin, so that if he absolves an accomplice, he incurs the penalties and censures threatened by the Constitutions of Benedict XIV, Sacramentum Poenitentiae and Apostolici muneris?

"Response. To 1. Since solicitation, provided that it was simple, is reserved to the Holy See by no law, nothing prevents a soliciting priest, otherwise rightly disposed, from being absolved by any confessor.

"To 2. In order to discern when a confessor ought to be regarded as guilty of an external base sin grave in its kind, so that if he attempts to absolve an accomplice he ought to be regarded as bound by the penalties and censures inflicted through the Constitutions of Benedict XIV, let him consult approved authors, and especially Saint Alphonsus de Liguori." Holy Office, 15 September 1859.

"1. Whether a confessor is to be denounced who gives the penitent in confession a paper to be read later at home, in which he solicited her to venereal acts? - The Lord Qualifiers judged that he is to be denounced and that the negative opinion is not probable.

"2. Whether a confessor consenting to solicitation, but immediately ceasing to speak of that base matter, deferring its completion to another time, and not furnishing absolution to the penitent, falls under the penalties contained in the Bull of Gregory and is to be denounced? - They judged that he falls under them and that the confessor is to be denounced, the contrary opinion, which they judged not to be probable, having been rejected.

"3. Whether a confessor, when soliciting, is to be denounced because of the smallness of the matter? - Since in venereal matters there is no smallness of matter, and even if there were, there would be none in the present matter, they judged that he is to be denounced and that the contrary opinion is not probable.

"4. Whether a confessor who solicits a woman saying in confession that she wishes to confess on the following day, and dissuades her from confession, is to be denounced? - If the solicitation takes place outside the place of confession and without the pretext of confession, they judged the negative opinion to be probable; otherwise, if it occurs in the confessional or in the place of confession.

"5. Whether a priest lacking jurisdiction is to be denounced if he solicits a penitent in confession? - They judged that he is to be denounced and that the negative opinion is not probable.

"6. Whether an interpreter is to be denounced if he solicits a penitent in confession? - They judged that the negative opinion is not without its probability.

"7. Whether one commanding a confessor to solicit in confession is to be denounced? - They judged that the negative opinion is not without its probability.

"8. Whether, when the confessor and penitent solicit one another, the confessor is to be denounced? - They replied affirmatively and judged that the negative opinion is not probable.

"9. Whether a confessor who has been solicited is to be denounced if, induced by fear, he consents to the solicitation? - They judged that he is to be denounced and that the negative opinion is not probable.

"10. Whether a confessor falls under the penalties of the Apostolic Constitution against solicitors if he solicits a woman in other sacraments, namely Baptism or Matrimony, and whether he is to be denounced and, after denunciation, can be punished by the Inquisitors? - Concerning each article they judged the negative opinion to be probable.

"11. Whether a confessor who solicits a penitent to illicit acts other than venereal acts is to be denounced? - They judged the negative opinion to be probable.

"12. Whether a confessor, if he praises a penitent for her beauty and loveliness, is said to solicit her and is therefore to be denounced? - They judged that, if that praise is serious and savors of no depraved intention, the negative opinion is probable. But if otherwise, it is not probable.

"13. Whether a confessor who has abjured because of another solicitation is to be denounced (that is, if, otherwise accused of solicitation, he has detested heresy)? - They judged the negative opinion not to be probable and therefore that he is to be denounced; this was also resolved on 26 July 1628.

"14. Whether anyone is bound to denounce a soliciting confessor if he heard this not from persons worthy of faith, but only from frivolous persons? - They judged that the negative opinion is not without its probability.

"15. Whether a confessor sitting in the confessional who solicits a woman standing before the confessional, without pretending that it is a confession, is to be denounced? - They judged that the negative opinion is not without its probability."

It is indeed to be lamented, and this can never be lamented enough, that at times ravening wolves are found in the fold of Christ; that those appointed as watchmen of the house of Israel themselves cruelly devastate it; that those placed over the salvation of souls cruelly thrust those same souls into destruction. For who, seeing so great an abomination standing in the holy place, will not be seized with horror? Who will restrain himself from grief and not strive according to his strength to remove it from the midst? That they might bring efficacious remedies to so great an evil, the Supreme Pontiffs at various times enacted severe laws against such perverse ministers of God. Hence:

590. Matters to Be Established. - I. By the common law of the Church, Priests ¹ soliciting to sin against the sixth precept of the Decalogue in confession ², or on the occasion, pretext, or simulation of confession ³, immediately before or after confession, or in a place where confessions are heard, or chosen for confession, are to be denounced to ecclesiastical Superiors. This is established from the Bull Universi gregis of Gregory XV, issued in the year 1622, which was confirmed by the Constitution Sacramentum Poenitentiae of Benedict XIV.

¹ A priest who lacks jurisdiction for validly absolving is also comprehended. Thus Benedict XIV expressly in the Constitution Sacramentum Poenitentiae, section 2; and a Decree of the Holy Inquisition, February 4, 1661, no. V, had preceded. For when the question was raised, Whether a Priest lacking jurisdiction, if he solicits a penitent in confession, is to be denounced, the reply was that he is to be denounced and that the negative opinion is not probable.

** Yet an interpreter is not comprehended. St. Alphonsus (book 6, no. 690), after saying that the most common opinion against a few is that there is no obligation of denouncing an interpreter, nevertheless continues that the interpreter is to be denounced on account of an edict of the Holy Office which commands that all who abuse the sacrament of Penance for indecent ends and for soliciting penitents are to be denounced. But what the opinion of the Holy Office is appears from the sixth among the Decrees of February 4, 1661, which were unknown to the holy Doctor. For this decree stands thus: Whether an interpreter, if he solicits a penitent in confession, is to be denounced. They judged that the negative opinion does not lack probability. And indeed, as Giraldi observes (Exposition of Pontifical Law, part 1, book 5, title 7, p. 637), probability is understood here not in any manner and slight, but such that one can and ought safely to govern himself by it in practice. But the Edict reported by St. Alphonsus (book 6, no. 680) says that it commands those things according to the Apostolic Decrees. Moreover, Decrees of this kind, as is evident, exclude an interpreter. Furthermore, if the holy Doctor himself (book 6, no. 288) concedes that by force of the Constitutions against solicitors a layman or cleric who, pretending to be a confessor, solicits is not to be denounced, a fortiori this can be said of an interpreter.

Likewise, by force of the Apostolic Constitutions there is no obligation of denouncing one who orders a confessor to solicit in confession. Thus the Resolution or Decree of the Holy Office under no. VII among those issued February 4, 1661, which stands thus: Whether one ordering a confessor to solicit in confession is to be denounced. They judged that the negative opinion does not lack probability.

As regards a layman or cleric not yet a priest who, while hearing confession, solicits a penitent, St. Alphonsus rightly observes (book 6, no. 688) that, although they are not to be denounced by force of the Constitutions against solicitors, they are nevertheless to be denounced from another Constitution of Gregory XIII, which the Salmanticenses (tract 21, chapter 4, point 3, no. 27) indicate. And against the opinion of some who denied that these are to be denounced if they had not also imparted absolution, the same holy Doctor reports the words of an Edict of the Holy Inquisition by which it is enjoined that they are to be denounced although they had neither solicited the penitent nor proceeded to the act of absolving.

The question is usually added here whether soliciting Bishops are to be denounced. Some indeed deny it, because a Bishop even in the crime of formal heresy is not by law subject to Inquisitors; but solicitors are commanded to be denounced as suspected of heresy, as is evident from the letters of Pius IV. Moreover, in the Council of Trent (sess. 24, chapter 5) it is established that the graver and criminal causes, even of heresy, are known and terminated only by the Roman Pontiff; but the causes of Bishops are judged to be major causes. Others, however, whose opinion St. Alphonsus (book 6, no. 685) calls better, affirm it, saying that the denunciation is to be made to the Roman Pontiff if this can conveniently be done; otherwise it is to be made to the Inquisitors, who, although they cannot punish or form a process as regards Bishops, can nevertheless receive information to be afterward transmitted to the Roman Pontiff, as is gathered from the Extravagant Cum Matthaeus, De haereticis, where it is prescribed that proceedings be conducted thus against Nuncios and Officials immediately subject to the Apostolic See. Yet someone will reply that no firm argument is drawn from chapter Cum Matthaeus: both because those Officials can be denounced by force of the clause of Gregory XV, fortified by whatever privilege and preeminence, which clause must be judged a restriction of their immunity; and because the causes of these Officials are not judged among the major causes which by common law are reserved to the Roman Pontiff, wherefore the parity does not hold; and finally because, when there is question of imposing penalties, arguments from parity by no means avail. On the other hand, in the Constitution of Benedict XIV a denunciation is commanded which is to be made to the competent judge; but Inquisitors, as regards Bishops, are not competent. Indeed, a denunciation is there commanded to be made to the Ordinaries and Inquisitors of priests, namely, of whatever dignity and preeminence they may be. Therefore only those inferior to Bishops are understood, because Bishops are not to be denounced to Ordinaries and Inquisitors. Moreover, solicitors are said to be denounced so that Inquisitors and Ordinaries may proceed against them. But these can do nothing against Bishops. Therefore, since there is question of positive law and nothing in it is said either concerning denouncing Bishops or concerning denunciations to be made to the Roman Pontiff, it does not appear why that obligation should be imposed when no law commands it. Nevertheless, a denunciation made to Inquisitors will be lawful; but it is one thing for something to be done lawfully and another for it to be commanded by Pontifical Constitutions against solicitors.

² In the Apostolic Constitutions there is discussion only of abuse of the Sacrament of Penance. Hence from the common opinion of the Doctors (see St. Alphonsus, book 6, no. 684) it is concluded that there is no obligation of denouncing a priest who, for soliciting, abuses the administration of other sacraments. This is confirmed from the cited Decree of the Holy Inquisition, no. X; for to the question, Whether a Confessor incurs the penalties of the Apostolic Constitution against solicitors if he solicits a woman in other sacraments, namely, baptism and matrimony, and whether he is to be denounced, and if he is to be denounced, whether he can be punished by the Inquisitors, it was replied, as regards each article, that the negative opinion is probable.

³ St. Alphonsus (book 6, no. 678) writes thus concerning these clauses: It is said on the occasion of confession when the confessor or penitent invites to a true confession; but under pretext when to a fictitious confession. These two, however, differ from the simulation of confession insofar as occasion and pretext seem to indicate the cause on account of which it happens that the confessor and penitent meet and converse together; but simulation seems to be referred to the external appearance which the manner of conversing or speaking together presents. It is also added in the Constitution Sacramentum, section 1: in the confessional, or in another place destined for hearing confessions, or chosen with the simulation of hearing confession there; for outside places of this kind, among which the chamber of a person truly or fictitiously sick must also be numbered,

** As regards the pretext of confession, St. Alphonsus (book 6, no. 679) rightly says that it must be denied that a confessor is to be denounced who, under the pretext of hearing a confession, obtains permission from the Superior to go to a certain house where he solicits or, according to an arrangement already made, perpetrates the evil. He adduces the reason that the pretext of confession is then not in relation to the penitent but in relation to the Superior. This reason indeed avails as regards the latter part, for in the case the pretext of hearing a confession is the means by which he withdraws himself from the Superior, not that by which he conceals the act of solicitation; but it does not avail thus as regards the first part, for it is not necessary that the pretext of confession be referred to deceiving or entrapping the penitent. Therefore St. Alphonsus himself (book 6, no. 679) says that the Confessor is to be denounced if he should solicit outside confession and the woman should refuse, fearing defamation, and therefore the confessor should persuade her to pretend to be sick and summon him for sinning: because then the confessor is directly soliciting the woman to furnish consent under the pretext of confession.

St. Alphonsus then (loc. cit.), against several, thinks with Roncaglia that more probably a confessor is not to be denounced who agrees with a woman that, to elude the household, she should pretend to be sick and summon him to the house to perpetrate the sin. The reason, he says, is that it is then not verified that the confessor solicits under the pretext of confession, but only that under the pretext of confession he executes the sin. But, first, it does not appear in what this case differs from the preceding one; for if this is arranged to elude the household, the pretext of confession now serves for soliciting. Moreover, even if the priest were not to be denounced by force of this clause, he would nevertheless be to be denounced on account of the simulation of confession which he would abuse to keep away the household and for the present provocation and execution of the sin. For provocation and simulation of confession are not absent merely because each had previously agreed upon this. Otherwise a priest who by agreement held shameful conversations with a penitent in a place destined for confessions would not be to be denounced; for as regards the sick, the place of confession is indeed the chamber of a person truly or fictitiously sick. Hence the Salmanticenses (tract 21, chapter 4, point 4, no. 55), concerning the preceding case, namely, of the priest who under the pretext of hearing a confession obtains permission from the Prelate to go out, etc., thus limit the resolution of St. Alphonsus: But the things said are true provided these things are not done under the appearance of confession to deceive the household, because then simulation of confession suffices for incurring the penalties of the aforesaid Constitution.

St. Alphonsus adds (loc. cit.) that it seems much less to him that the confessor is to be denounced if a woman, with no agreement premised, summons and solicits him under the pretext of confession, although they afterward have intercourse; because according to the Bull the confessor is then to be denounced when he himself solicits under the pretext of confession, but in this case not the confessor but the penitent solicits the confessor under the pretext of confession. But this resolution also seems too difficult. For although the confessor is not to be denounced because he himself uses a pretext of confession devised by himself for ensnaring the penitent, nevertheless, while he believes that he is approaching to hear confession, he abuses the pretext of confession for consenting to the provocation and thus for an indecent transaction, and he performs this by simulating confession. For do we not here have an indecent transaction with simulation of confession in a place chosen for confession, although outside the occasion of confession, as is read in the Apostolic Constitutions?

the simulation of confession can scarcely, or not even scarcely, be had. For Gregory XV says thus: We command all Ordinaries of places diligently to inquire and proceed against all Priests, both secular and regular, who in any manner whatsoever shall have attempted to solicit or provoke persons, whoever they may be, to indecent acts among themselves or with others, in the act of sacramental confession, or immediately before or after it ⁴, or on the occasion or pretext of confession, even when confession did not follow, or outside the occasion of confession, in the confessional or in any place where confessions are heard or chosen for hearing confession, simulating that they hear confessions there; or who shall have held indecent conversations or dealings with them; commanding all Confessors to admonish their penitents whom they know to have been solicited by others as above concerning the obligation of denouncing the solicitors to the Ordinaries of places. - See St. Ligorius, no. 675.

⁴ According to the practice of the tribunal of the Holy Office, a Confessor is not judged to have solicited immediately after confession if the solicitation occurs after a whole day has elapsed, provided he in no way indicated his depraved intention in confession. See Giraldi (loc. cit., p. 637). Yet this does not prevent a confessor of this kind perhaps being denounced by force of another clause.

II. Solicited penitents cannot be absolved before they have satisfied the obligation of denouncing, or at least unless they promise that they will shortly satisfy their obligation. Thus Benedict XIV in the cited Constitution ⁵. But not only those who have been solicited are bound to this denunciation, but also all others who know it certainly, unless they have learned it under the secrecy of counsel; and this avails even if they cannot juridically prove the crime ⁶. - St. Ligorius, nos. 695, 699.

⁵ The words of Benedict XIV are (section 2): Let Confessors furthermore take diligent care not to impart sacramental absolution to penitents whom they know already to have been solicited by others unless, first bringing the aforesaid denunciation into effect, they have indicated the delinquent to the competent judge, or at least pledge and promise that they will denounce him as soon as they can. Therefore certain authors, relying, as they think, upon the authority of Benedict XIV, wrongly contend that a penitent can never be absolved before the denunciation has been made; for the holy Pontiff most prudently uses a disjunctive precept. Hence you may say that the denunciation is indeed to be premised when absolution can conveniently be deferred and an occasion of denouncing will shortly be available; and this must be attended to all the more earnestly, the more difficult the penitent seems to be induced to it. But when the penitent can return to the same confessor either not at all or only after a long time, or a suitable occasion for denouncing is not at hand, for example, if there is question of a girl who is far distant from the Episcopal See and lives under the care of her parents in such a way that she is not free to approach the Bishop, while on the other hand she sincerely promises that she will satisfy her obligation, there is nothing to prevent the confessor from imparting absolution at once.

⁶ This obligation is established not from the Constitutions either of Gregory XV or of Benedict XIV, but from an Edict of the Roman Inquisition which St. Alphonsus reports (book 6, no. 680). It is confirmed by the fourteenth of sixteen decrees of the Holy Inquisition which were issued on February 11, 1661, and were afterward confirmed by Benedict XIV with apostolic authority in the Constitution Sacramentum Poenitentiae, and which can be seen both in Albitius (On Inconstancy in the Faith, chapter 35, no. 66), in Giraldi (Exposition of Pontifical Law, part 1, book 5, title VII), and in Scavini (On Penance, chapter 4, art. 4). For when the question was put, Whether anyone is bound to denounce a soliciting confessor if he heard this not from trustworthy persons, but only from frivolous persons, and the Sacred Congregation replied that the negative opinion does not lack probability; it plainly follows that the obligation is present if anyone has learned it from trustworthy and serious persons.

III. The denunciation must be made within a month. Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, March 10, 1677. - St. Ligorius, no. 693. But a penitent who, without sufficient reason, does not carry out the denunciation within the appointed time incurs a latae sententiae excommunication, reserved at Rome to the Pontiff, but outside the City not reserved after the denunciation has been made. From a Decree of the Sacred Penitentiary, March 22, 1852. - See Analecta Iuris Pontificii, series 2, col. 1606 ⁷. In some places it is prescribed by particular law that any Priest soliciting to shameful acts be denounced, even though he is not a confessor or solicited without any relation to confession. But several Canonists, especially more recent ones, deny that a Bishop can enact a statute of this kind; because, since by Canon law a Priest cannot be condemned by the Bishop unless he has been convicted by legitimate witnesses and proofs, the Bishop can by no means punish an occult offense here, nor proceed against the accused, owing to the lack of every canonical and juridical proof. See Stremler, Treatise on Ecclesiastical Penalties, part I, chapter 4. - Craisson, Manual of Canon Law, nos. 3826, 3828, 3844. - Analecta Iuris Pontificii, vol. 4, p. 1866 ff., and others ⁸.

⁷ The Analecta Iuris Pontificii (loc. cit.) neither contains nor intimates that Response of the Sacred Penitentiary, and perhaps the Author cites it because the following is read there: If she (the person solicited) refuses to fulfill this obligation, she incurs major excommunication, which, for Rome, is reserved to the Sovereign Pontiff. But in other countries, absolution from it can be received from any approved confessor, according to what the same author says; this indeed is also the practice admitted by the Author. Moreover, the author to whom the Analecta appeals is Albitius, whose passage is appended there (from chapter 35, On Inconstancy in the Faith, nos. 18-25). But Albitius in fact has nothing of the kind. For his words which pertain to this matter are as follows (nos. 20, 21): But if they refuse to denounce, they then fall into the excommunication proposed in the aforesaid Edicts, from which, if it is reserved to the Pontiff, or to the Bishop, or to the Inquisitor, they cannot be absolved except by him to whom it was reserved. But if it is not reserved, they can be absolved by any confessor.... This absolution is not usually imparted unless the denunciation has truly and actually been made, etc. Albitius, therefore, does not say that this excommunication is reserved at Rome to the Supreme Pontiff, but elsewhere is not reserved, so that any confessor can absolve from it; rather, he refers the matter to the various Edicts, so that it may be ascertained whether it is reserved or not.

Moreover, the Edicts of the Holy Office of the Inquisition concerning the denunciation of solicitors, as Laurentius Cozza reports them (Selected Doubts concerning Solicitation, final doubt), reserve absolution to the Holy Office even after the denunciation has been made; and the same Cozza rightly observes that the opinion which granted to any confessor the faculty of absolving the guilty person after denunciation (see St. Alphonsus, no. 693) arose originally from an equivocal sense conveyed by the words of a certain Edict as they were reported summarily by Lupus. Nevertheless, Giraldi also indicates that the discipline in this matter was afterward changed (loc. cit. in the preceding note, pp. 627-628), saying: One omitting to denounce a Confessor for solicitation within the said month, even if he afterward denounced him, formerly could not be absolved except by the said Roman Inquisition; today, however, by decrees of the same body from the years 1735 and 1758, he can be absolved by any Confessor. The Response of the Sacred Penitentiary which the Author cites accords with these Decrees of the Holy Inquisition. Nevertheless, the Author combines the enactment of the Sacred Penitentiary less skillfully with the practice which the Analecta intimates. For the decree of the Sacred Penitentiary, just like the decrees of the Holy Inquisition mentioned by Giraldi, neither reserves absolution before denunciation to the Pontiff only at Rome, nor establishes that the cessation of the reservation after the denunciation has been completed avails only outside the City.

** Moreover, the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis of the year 1869 removes every controversy concerning this matter; in it, Those who neglect or culpably omit to denounce within a month confessors or priests by whom they were solicited to shameful acts in any of the cases expressed by Our Predecessors

Gregory XV, Constitution Universi, August 20, 1622, and Benedict XIV, Constitution Sacramentum Poenitentiae, June 1, 1741, are declared to incur a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to no one.

⁸ Elsewhere it had been provided by a Bishop that a woman with whom a priest had sinned could not be absolved unless she denounced the priest himself. The Bishop had prescribed this manner of denunciation: the woman was to hand to the Confessor a sealed paper containing the name of the priest, and the Confessor, transmitting it to the Bishop, was to testify that he had no doubt that faith should be placed in the denunciant. But the Apostolic See judged that this law and practice too should be abolished.

591. Questions. - QUESTION 1. Is a penitent bound to make a denunciation if he himself consented to the solicitation?

Reply. Yes. The reason is that the law is general and does not appear in any way to except this case; for the crime of the solicitor and the danger to souls are not thereby diminished. Nor is it an objection that by natural law the penitent is not bound to accuse himself; for ordinarily he can certainly denounce the solicitor without admitting that he gave consent to the solicitation ⁹. - St. Ligorius, no. 700.

⁹ This is expressly provided in the Constitution Sacramentum Poenitentiae, section 2, where it is established that the confessor is to be denounced even if.... the solicitation between the confessor and the penitent was mutual, or the penitent consented to the solicitation.

Moreover, the Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition, July 23, 1624 (in Giraldi, loc. cit. in the preceding note, p. 641), declared that a woman who consented to the soliciting priest is not bound in the denunciation to disclose the consent given by her; she is nevertheless bound to denounce even if she herself first solicited and drew the confessor to consent. St. Alphonsus reports another decree on the same matter (book 6, no. 700).

Furthermore, an Instruction was issued by the Holy Office of the Inquisition in the year 1756 in which, while it is declared that even a woman who consented is bound to denounce, it is nevertheless added that she is not bound to disclose her consent, nor is she to be questioned about it by the Ordinary or Inquisitor; likewise, a soliciting confessor, if proceedings are brought against him, is not to be questioned about the penitent's consent, and if perhaps he spontaneously says it, it is not to be written down or entered into the acts. It then also admonishes Confessors to instruct penitents concerning these things where necessary, so that every obstacle to making the denunciation may thus be removed (in Giraldi, loc. cit., p. 642).

QUESTION 2. Is a Confessor to be denounced who consented to a soliciting penitent, but did not himself solicit?

Reply. Yes ¹⁰. For this is manifestly evident from the second among the Decrees of the Holy Office of February 11, 1661. For to the question, Whether a Confessor who consents to solicitation, but immediately ceases to speak about that shameful matter, deferring its completion to another time and not furnishing absolution to the penitent, incurs the penalties contained in the Bull of Gregory and is to be denounced, the reply was that he incurs them and that the Confessor is to be denounced, the probable opinion, which they judged not to be probable, being rejected. The same thing is plainly elicited from among those same Decrees, where, to the question, Whether a Confessor, if induced by fear he consents to one soliciting, is to be denounced, the reply was that he is to be denounced and that the negative opinion is not probable. A fortiori, therefore, a Confessor is to be denounced where there is no excuse whatsoever from fear inspired.

¹⁰ This case is manifestly comprehended in those words of Gregory XV: Or shall have held illicit and indecent conversations or dealings with them; these occur likewise in the Constitution Sacramentum Poenitentiae of Benedict XIV. For the nature of a dealing is that two or more persons act or agree among themselves concerning some matter to be carried out; nor does it matter which of them first proposes the matter, provided that each acts at least concerning the accomplishment of the matter, even if perhaps both do not afterward agree upon the conditions. The Doctors therefore rightly conclude that these words comprehend a Confessor who did not solicit the penitent but merely consents to one soliciting; for in the truest sense an illicit and indecent dealing takes place, by which each consents to shamefulness.

** St. Alphonsus, on the question Whether a confessor who consents to a woman soliciting in confession is to be denounced (book 6, no. 681), judges that the opinion which denies it seems more probable; and setting aside the reason adduced by others, namely, that the words of Gregory XV are to be understood of shameful dealings of which the confessor is the author, he regards this reason as the stronger one: because by the same Bull of Gregory Confessors are commanded to admonish concerning the obligation of denunciation, not just any penitents who have held indecent dealings with confessors, but those whom they know to have been solicited by others, as above. Therefore it is inferred that the penitent, if he wished, could lawfully denounce the confessor in the said case according to the first probable opinion; but it seems more probable that the penitent is not bound to do this, because, in order that he himself contract the obligation of denouncing the confessor, it is required that he have been solicited by him. Moreover, as is evident, after the Decrees of the Holy Inquisition cited in the text, this opinion can be held neither speculatively nor practically, especially since decrees of this kind were solemnly confirmed by Benedict XIV in the Constitution Sacramentum Poenitentiae in these words: All and each of the aforesaid decrees (among which those issued February 11, 1661, are also expressly mentioned there) emanating for the interpretation and declaration of those [namely, the Letters of Gregory XV], by Apostolic authority and by the tenor of the present letters We approve and confirm, and to all and each of them We add the strength of inviolable Apostolic firmness. But, as we have already said, these Decrees were altogether unknown to the holy Doctor Alphonsus; for no one had made them public before Ubaldus Giraldi, who published his work (Exposition of Pontifical Law, etc.) at Rome in the year 1769; and the work of Giraldi does not seem ever to have come into the hands of the holy Doctor Alphonsus.

This ignorance of the Decrees, as is manifest, was more than sufficient to remove every reproach from the holy Doctor. Nevertheless, behold the VV., who dedicate fourteen columns to this argument (pp. 579-587) and seek other defenses from elsewhere! Let the impartial reader judge whether they can be approved.

First, therefore, they propose the question (p. 581), Whether, notwithstanding the two cited Decrees of the Holy Inquisition, the negative opinion of St. Alphonsus cannot be sustained. And as regards the first of the cited decrees, they do not hesitate to reply, which is surely a matter for astonishment (p. 582): With deference to a better judgment, we think that this Resolution of the Holy Inquisition does not prevent the negative opinion which the holy Doctor calls more probable from being sustained, namely, that a Confessor who consents to solicitation, but himself in no way solicits, is not to be denounced.

I have said that these things are plainly worthy of astonishment. For what is this? A Decree solemnly confirmed by a Pontifical Constitution enacts that a confessor who merely consents to solicitation is to be denounced, even if he is induced to it by fear, as the other Decree reported in the text has it; and nevertheless shall we dare to affirm that a confessor of this kind is not to be denounced if, not indeed impelled by fear, but of his own free will, he professes that he consents? Is perhaps the one who consents under the compulsion of fear more guilty than one who consents willingly and under no compelling fear?

The VV. reply (pp. 581-582) that in the first Decree there is no question simply of a Confessor consenting to solicitation, but several circumstances are added, namely, that the confessor immediately DISSENTS, not because he repents of having consented, but because he proposes to defer completion to another time lest he incur the appointed penalties.

Reply. 1. In the Decree of the Holy Inquisition, as we have seen, it does not read, "immediately dissents," but "immediately ceases to speak about that shameful matter." Therefore, everything which the VV. build upon this immediate dissent is empty. 2. Whether it is the immediate dissent which the VV. imagine, or the immediate breaking off, as the matter truly stands, of conversation about the shameful thing after consent, and the postponement to another time, these are not circumstances which increase, but rather those which diminish, the guilt of a shameful dealing on the occasion of confession. And in truth it would be most absurdly established that a confessor who, after assenting to the woman's solicitation, immediately ceases to speak about that shameful thing and puts off the completion of the shameful dealing to another time is to be denounced, but that he is not to be denounced if, continuing to speak about that shameful matter, he then completes the shameful dealing by agreeing upon the place, time, etc. 3. The substance of the guilt resides in the indecent dealing, which is completed through the confessor's consent, as is also evident from the cited ninth Decree. But this whole substance remains altogether whether those circumstances are present or are not present. Therefore, the obligation of denunciation is vainly referred not to the substance of the guilt but to those circumstances.

As regards the ninth Decree reported in the text, St. Alphonsus, ignorant of these decrees, as we have said, had written (book 6, no. 687, question 8): Whether a confessor is to be denounced who consents to a soliciting woman on account of fear inspired by her, that she will accuse him unless he consents? And he replied: But it can better be said that this confessor is not to be denounced, because then he would truly be the one solicited, not the one soliciting, according to what was said in no. 681. This resolution, as is evident of itself, is diametrically opposed to the Resolution of the Holy Office confirmed by Benedict XIV with Apostolic authority.

And in this response of the holy Doctor, the reason which he gives must also be noticed, namely, that the confessor is then the one solicited, not the one soliciting. For since he adds, according to what was said in no. 681, it is now evident that this is the same reason why the same holy Doctor had generally denied that a confessor who merely consents to a woman's solicitation is to be denounced. But this general principle is shown to be false by the Decrees of the Holy Inquisition, as we have said.

What here can scarcely be wondered at enough by anyone is that the VV. seem to defend that condemned resolution, adducing, namely, 1. the reason given for it by St. Alphonsus; 2. the support of Scavini, whom they say subscribes to the reason of St. Alphonsus; and, furthermore, 3. they contend that it is in some manner confirmed by the Instruction of the Holy Roman Inquisition of February 20, 1867. Let others judge how these things can seem tolerable to anyone.

As regards the first, St. Alphonsus (book 6, no. 681) gave this reason for his resolution: that it is rightly judged that the Pontiff was unwilling to oblige penitents to denounce confessors whom they themselves had tempted, because of the great difficulty which would deter penitents from denouncing in this case, in which the sin had its cause from them; and also because, if they denounced, their reputation would be placed in very great danger. But no one, I think, will dare to assert or suppose that a reason of this kind was unknown either to the Holy Inquisition or to the Roman Pontiff enacting the Decree. Shall we therefore say that St. Alphonsus judged better than the Apostolic See concerning the weight of this reason? Therefore, lest anyone act contumeliously against the Apostolic judgment, two things must be diligently observed. The first is that it pertains to the prudence of the Confessor to consider carefully and teach the penitent in what manner the denunciation can take place while preserving the reputation of the denunciant. The second is what St. Alphonsus himself (book 6, no. 695) teaches: that not only the solicited penitent, but also anyone else who has learned from another source that the solicitation was carried out, is bound to denounce. The holy Doctor confirms this also from an Edict of the Holy Inquisition which he reports in the preceding no. 680. And hence comes the response of the same Holy Inquisition contained in the fourteenth of the aforesaid Decrees. For to the question, Whether anyone is bound to denounce a soliciting confessor if he heard this not from trustworthy persons, but only from frivolous persons, the reply was that the negative opinion does not lack probability. Therefore, the reason adduced by St. Alphonsus is by no means adequate for establishing generally that a confessor who merely consents to solicitation is not to be denounced.

As regards Scavini, he in no way denies that a confessor of this kind is to be denounced; he merely observes that it can sometimes happen that it is difficult for the denunciation to be completed while preserving the penitent's reputation. Concerning this matter it has already been said that this business pertains to the prudence of the Confessor.

Finally, as regards the Instruction of the Holy Inquisition of the year 1867, the VV. think that it supports the condemned resolution under discussion because no mention is made in this Instruction of the ninth Decree, by which it is defined that a confessor who, impelled by fear, consents to a soliciting woman is to be denounced. - But do the VV. perhaps wish to insinuate by this that that Decree was abrogated? Indeed, if an argument of this kind were valid, then most of those sixteen Decrees would have to be said to have been abrogated, and among them even that first decree by which it is defined that a confessor who gives a penitent in confession a paper to be read afterward at home, in which he solicits her to venereal acts, is to be denounced; these things are plainly absurd. And in fact, in this Instruction scarcely a few things are mentioned concerning the cases in which a Confessor is certainly to be denounced.

The VV. add another Article (pp. 583-585), in which they contend that, apart from the second Decree of the Holy Inquisition, the negative opinion does not appear improbable from the Bulls of Gregory XV and Benedict XIV. Whether this assertion is free of grave injury to the Constitution of Benedict XIV, let it be the judgment of the more prudent. For, as is evident from the words of Benedict XIV cited above, those Decrees of the Holy Inquisition contain the interpretation and declaration of the Letters or Constitution of Gregory XV, and as such the same Benedict approves and confirms them and adds to them the strength of inviolable Apostolic firmness. And since these things are so, who indeed would dare so to represent the Interpretations and Declarations of the Holy Inquisition, confirmed by an oracle of the Pontiff of this kind, as alien to the sense of the Gregorian Constitution, that he should think himself permitted to hold and proclaim as not improbable what those Interpretations and Declarations define not to be probable?

But let us come to the reasons of the VV. The first is (p. 503) that in the Constitution of Gregory those words, "or shall have held illicit and indecent conversations or dealings with them," are to be understood of conversations and dealings which proceeded from the Confessor. - I ask: If not the Confessor but the woman first begins to hold indecent conversations, and the Confessor consequently also indulges in the shameful conversation and prolongs it, will he not be to be denounced because the shameful conversation was begun not by him but by the woman? That interpretation must therefore be called absurd, since it leads to absurdities. Say the same of an indecent dealing. For one who proposes as well as one who admits and accepts the proposed matter is most properly said to have a dealing; indeed, it is not even necessary for this that those who negotiate about the matter finally agree; for it is sufficient that they present themselves ready to agree if the incidental conditions are pleasing. For these are properly said to have had a dealing concerning that matter.

The other reason of the VV. is that in section 7 of the Constitution those penitents whom confessors know to have been solicited by others are said to be admonished concerning the obligation of denunciation. Therefore, the VV. conclude, it is presupposed that the confessor at least indirectly solicited. - Reply. The words of section 7 of the Constitution are these: Let him admonish concerning the obligation of denouncing the solicitors, or, as stated above, THOSE HOLDING DEALINGS. And again: But if they have omitted this office [of the confessor], or have taught the penitents that they are not bound to denounce soliciting confessors, OR THOSE HOLDING DEALINGS, as above, etc. Therefore, those holding dealings, or those having a shameful dealing, are also said to be denounced. Nor indeed should the VV. say that by the Constitution the Confessor is said to admonish only those who were solicited. For, to omit other things now, do not all those who know that shameful dealings took place in confession also have the obligation of denouncing that confessor, as we have seen above? Why, then, should the penitent who was a participant in the dealing be excluded?

In the third place the VV. add (pp. 584-585): If it were sufficient to hold illicit and indecent conversations or dealings, even if the confessor does not solicit by these conversations or dealings, nor has the intention of soliciting, then a confessor would also be to be denounced who, without any necessity or reasonable cause, deliberately and minutely examines a penitent confessing a sin against the sixth commandment about the circumstances, but does so from depraved curiosity and delight in things of this kind without any intention of soliciting... for he truly holds indecent and illicit conversations with the penitent. Reply. I concede the whole. For if, as the VV. concede, this confessor truly holds the indecent and illicit conversations which are expressly treated in the Apostolic Constitutions of Gregory XV and Benedict XIV, why would he not be to be denounced? - The VV. say, he did not have the intention of soliciting. - Reply. Let others see whether this excuse can have any value before the judges. Meanwhile, it is manifest that in the case the nature of the work and the intrinsic end of the work tend toward solicitation, since by the name of solicitation comes whatever provokes to venereal acts. But surely intention is no more necessary here than in giving scandal; for I do not think, according to the opinion of St. Alphonsus and even of the VV., that the guilt of scandal is absent if the work and the intrinsic end of the work of itself produce scandal, even if the intention of the one acting is not directed toward giving scandal. Moreover, whatever pertains to this case could have been passed over, and the consequence which the VV. wished to draw from it for denying the obligation of denouncing a confessor who had a shameful and indecent dealing with a woman in confession could have been denied. For what parity does an indecent manner of questioning have with a shameful dealing between a penitent and a confessor?

And the VV., relying upon three reasons of this kind, judged it must be concluded that the interpretation of the Gregorian Constitution proposed by them IS AT LEAST SUFFICIENTLY PROBABLE. Whether rightly, let those judge to whom the juridical judgment of so grave a matter pertains. But what certain of the VV. add (pp. 584-585), in order to fasten an interpretation of this kind also upon the Constitution of Benedict XIV, needs no reply. It is enough to remember that Benedict XIV in his Constitution holds the Constitution of Gregory XV ratified and confirmed in this manner: Which [he says] We wish to be held here as inserted word for word.

One thing must not be omitted: the VV. did not hesitate to write the following concerning Benedict's confirmation of the preceding Decrees: Insofar, finally, as in the same Constitution the Decrees of the Holy Inquisition from the year 1661 are confirmed, this confirmation proves nothing, because these Decrees are simply mentioned by the Pontiff but are not explained, and therefore, if there is doubt about their sense, they are the more to be interpreted in that sense which accords with the Constitution itself. - Leaving aside other things for now, let this be asked: What do they mean by a sense which accords with Benedict's Constitution itself? For it is manifest that in those Decrees to which Benedict adds the strength of inviolable and Apostolic firmness certain doubts are resolved whose solution you will not find in Benedict's Constitution itself, just as certain things are found more expressly explained in the Constitution of Gregory XV than in the Constitution of Benedict, which otherwise has certain things more explicitly than are perceived in Gregory's Constitution. What indeed will you conclude from this? In the Gregorian Constitution, for example, confessors who held indecent dealings in confession are expressly said to be denounced; but in Benedict's Constitution these are not expressly said to be denounced. Will you rightly conclude from this, as the VV. do concerning the decrees, that Benedict only mentioned the Gregorian Constitution but did not explain it, and therefore in doubt the interpretation must be received in the sense which accords with Benedict's Constitution? In brief: Benedict XIV not only confirms the Gregorian Constitution, but in the same manner confirms the interpretations and declarations of it which are contained in the Decrees of the Holy Inquisition. Moreover, to wish to elicit the sense either of the Gregorian Constitution or of the Decrees interpreting and declaring it from the Constitution of Benedict, even in those matters which it has less expressly, is a method and manner of interpretation not only altogether novel to the schools, but contrary to the common sense of men.

The VV. add (p. 585) an article with the title: Whether it can be imputed as a fault to St. Alphonsus that he did not know the Decrees of the Holy Inquisition from the year 1661. But no one calls this into controversy; and since it is evident that the holy Doctor used the Edicts or fragments of Edicts of the Holy Inquisition which he was able to see as a norm for writing, he would most religiously have accommodated his doctrine also to these Decrees if he had known them, nor, it must be held as certain, would he ever have used those empty reasons touched upon above to defend any opinion of his against those Decrees, which, moreover, he would have known to have been so solemnly confirmed by the strength of inviolable and Apostolic Authority.

Rather, it is opportune to admonish here that from that preconceived opinion concerning the confessor who is not to be denounced if he merely consented to solicitation, the holy Doctor Alphonsus came to another resolution which perhaps can be admitted even much less. For (book 6, no. 682), asking Whether a confessor who, having been solicited by a penitent to intercourse, refuses and turns aside to touches alone is to be denounced, he replies that it can probably be denied. The reason, he says, is that a woman soliciting to intercourse virtually provokes also to touches, which ordinarily are preliminary to intercourse; hence it is verified that the confessor then does not solicit but, having been solicited, consents. - But, as is evident, the two Decrees cited in the text exclude this opinion a fortiori, and that shameful dealing concerning which we have already spoken plainly reveals itself here, especially since the confessor himself actually invites and incites the penitent to evil, even though the penitent is judged to be ready for this. Hence in this case we have, furthermore, that mutual solicitation in which the Holy Inquisition establishes that the denunciation must necessarily be made in the eighth of the Decrees so often cited; in it, to the question, Whether, when the confessor and the penitent solicit one another,

the confessor is to be denounced, the reply was, Yes, and the negative opinion is not probable; indeed, Benedict XIV, section 2 of the Constitution Sacramentum Poenitentiae, expressly speaks of this case in these words: Even if.... the solicitation between the confessor and the penitent was mutual.

We also have another resolution among those sixteen Decrees of the Holy Inquisition, with which the doctrine of the holy Doctor Alphonsus may seem not sufficiently consonant. For he asks (book 6, no. 683), Whether a confessor soliciting only to venially indecent acts is to be denounced. And after reporting the affirmative opinion of others, he adds: But the second and more probable opinion denies.... Nevertheless all agree... that if from the circumstances it were certainly inferred that by that slight act the priest had the intention of proceeding further, then the solicitation is to be judged grave. Moreover, in the third of the aforesaid Decrees, to the question, Whether a confessor, in soliciting, is to be denounced on account of the smallness of the matter, the reply was: Since in venereal matters there is no smallness of matter, and, if there were, it is not present in the matter at hand, they judged that he is to be denounced and that the contrary opinion is not probable. In defense of St. Alphonsus, however, it can perhaps be said that, when the holy Doctor names acts slightly indecent, he wished to designate something which has nothing in common with venereal matters. But that clause of the Decree also seems not to be passed over: And if [smallness of matter] were granted, it is not granted in the matter at hand. For the words, in the matter at hand, do not signify, in venereal matters; therefore they signify, in solicitation to something in any way less than honorable. And if this indeed is the sense of the Decree, then what the holy Doctor (loc. cit.) adds in this manner would not be sufficiently efficacious: On the other hand, an act which in itself is slight against chastity cannot become grave in the sacrament; otherwise any venial sin in the matter of truthfulness, patience, or humility would become grave in the sacrament, which no one asserts. For, as someone could reply, it is one thing for a priest in administering the sacrament to sin slightly against the virtue of chastity; it is another for a confessor in the confession itself to provoke the penitent to something less than honorable; between these two most diverse things a character of irreverence and indecency can rightly seem to intervene. But let the judgment concerning these matters belong to the wiser.

592. • QUESTION 3. Does the obligation of denunciation bind if the guilty party has been reformed, or if the solicitation occurred a long time ago?

Reply to the first. Yes, because the Pontiff does not intend only the reform of the guilty party, but also his punishment, so that the injury to the Church may be repaired and the scandal made good ¹¹.

¹¹ Two decrees of the Holy Inquisition can pertain to this. The one is the thirteenth of the sixteen so often mentioned, in which, to the question, Whether a Confessor who, on account of the solicitation of another, abjured (namely, under compulsion by the Holy Inquisition that he abjure a slight or vehement suspicion of heresy) is to be denounced, the reply was that the negative opinion is not probable, and therefore he is to be denounced; this was also resolved on July 20, 1628. And the other which is cited here is a decree (in Giraldi, loc. cit., p. 641, no. VI) by which it was defined that a solicited woman is bound to denunciation even if she knew that the solicitor had spontaneously appeared. Moreover, since abjuration in the Holy Inquisition itself is the strongest sign of reform, and voluntary self-accusation is the greatest indication of reform and repentance, and nevertheless according to the cited decrees these things do not excuse from denouncing the confessor, a fortiori other signs of reform which are usually enumerated will not excuse, some of which are plainly equivocal and others exceedingly difficult to ascertain.

Reply to the second. Yes likewise, for the same reasons; for if one who committed the crime a long time ago were not to be denounced, the reason would surely be that he was judged already to have been reformed; but this reason does not avail, as was just said. Furthermore, who could determine what is a long or a short time? Nevertheless, that circumstance would have to be disclosed to the Superior ¹². - St. Ligorius, no. 686.

¹² This question stands expressly resolved in the Constitution Sacramentum Poenitentiae, section 2, where it is defined that the confessor is to be denounced even if a long time has already elapsed after the solicitation itself. Refer here also what the Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition declared on May 11, 1707 (in Giraldi, loc. cit., p. 641, no. VIII), namely, that a girl who was solicited while in a state of simplicity and without knowledge of the indecency is bound to denounce the soliciting Confessor after she has become capable and acquired knowledge of the past solicitation.

593. • QUESTION 4. Is the penitent excused from making the denunciation on account of fear that he may incur the indignation and rebuke of the person denounced?

Reply. No. The reason is that this vexation must be regarded as of the least account in a matter of such moment and one pertaining to the common good ¹³. For it cannot be compared with the innumerable and very great evils arising from the corruption of a Priest.

¹³ Nevertheless, it must be conceded that one is excused who would reasonably fear from the denunciation grave harm to his life, reputation, or temporal goods. For each person has a natural right to avert these harms, which prevails over positive law. Furthermore, the Church is not accustomed to urge observance of her laws with so grave an inconvenience. Yet where the solicitation arose from contempt of the sanctity of the sacrament or the destruction of souls would follow, the reason of the common good and submission to Religion would have to be preferred to private harm.

QUESTION 5. Is absolution to be denied to a penitent who refuses to denounce a soliciting Priest?

Reply. Yes, for otherwise the law would generally become useless and ineffectual. Therefore, in the most prudent manner he can, the Confessor must take care that the denunciation be made, namely, by deferring or even denying absolution to a penitent who refuses to obey.

Nevertheless, those things which Cardinal Albitius has as follows in On Inconstancy in the Faith, chapter 35, must be observed: It was resolved on June 28, 1597, February 28, 1598, and April 15, 1612, that when a woman is noble and modest and cannot be induced to give testimony, the Sacred Congregation is to be consulted in the City (Rome). But if outside the City, the Bishop or Inquisitor is to be consulted; if they have difficulty, let them consult the Sacred Congregation; but if not, let them give Confessors the faculty of absolving the penitent who for just causes refuses to denounce; she is nevertheless to be absolved under the condition that, when the causes cease, she is bound to do this, and also that she no longer approach the Confessor by whom she was solicited.

But in places where the observance of the Pontifical Decrees is not enforced, what must be done in these cases is to be learned from the Bishop ¹⁴.

¹⁴ All Constitutions issued against those soliciting in confession extend their force universally to individual nations and comprehend Greeks as well as Latins within their scope. From the Constitution Etsi Pastoralis of Benedict XIV, section IX, no. V.

Nevertheless, those who dwell in the regions of schismatics, heretics, and Mohammedans, although subject to the Constitutions against solicitors, are to be absolved and freed from this burden of denunciation, according to a Decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office of February 21, 1630, in those local circumstances in which there is no hope that the person denounced will be punished, women cannot denounce without danger and infamy, and it is believed that the persons denounced can easily escape punishment by having recourse either to schismatic Bishops or to unbelieving lay judges, the aforesaid reasons being considered; nevertheless, they must be admonished that, when the dangers and impediments related above have ceased, they are bound to denounce (in Giraldi, loc. cit., pp. 640-641).

594. • QUESTION 6. Is a Confessor to be denounced who in confession asked a woman where she lived, if he afterward solicited her at home?

Reply. Yes, because, although the question put in confession seems indifferent, nevertheless it is afterward known from the circumstances that it was put for the purpose of soliciting. - St. Ligorius, no. 676.

QUESTION 7. Is a Priest to be denounced who, when asked by a woman to hear her confession, solicits her?

Reply. Yes, according to the fourth of the aforesaid Decrees, if the solicitation takes place in the confessional or in the place of confession. Not so if the solicitation takes place outside the place of confession and without the pretext of confession ¹⁵.

¹⁵ To Question IV, Whether a Confessor who solicits a woman who says in the confessional that she wishes to confess on the following day and dissuades her from confession is to be denounced, the Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition replied: if the solicitation takes place outside the place of confession and without the pretext of confession, the negative opinion is probable; otherwise, if it takes place in the Confessional or in the place of confession. Hence the opinion of St. Alphonsus is not to be admitted when he writes (book 6, no. 678) that a confessor who, when asked to hear a confession, turns aside and solicits is to be denounced, although he had not yet taken his seat nor had the woman knelt. To this also pertains the Response to Question XV, Whether a Confessor who, sitting in the confessional, solicits a woman standing before the confessional without simulating confession is to be denounced; the reply was that the negative opinion does not lack its probability. Moreover, no simulation of confession can be present in the case, because, since women do not confess while standing before the confessional, every appearance or suspicion of confession is absent.

595. • QUESTION 8. Is one to be denounced who, having learned a woman's frailty in confession, afterward solicits her at home?

Reply. It must be affirmed if he solicits the woman as a person whose disposition or frailty he learned from confession, and indicates this by words or in some other manner ¹⁶.

¹⁶ St. Alphonsus (book 6, no. 678, doubt 2) skillfully refers this case to the clause of solicitation made on the occasion of confession, namely, when the Confessor, using knowledge from confession by which he has learned the penitent's frailty or inclination toward evil, or what she has done or desired to do with others, or the straits in which she is situated, or the necessities by which her constancy is pressed with a hard trial, etc., takes occasion from it to solicit her. The reason is that, since the occasion and impulse for soliciting flow from the confession heard, it is said with sufficient truth, with St. Alphonsus, that the solicitation takes place on the occasion of confession.

Nevertheless, for the penitent to be bound to denounce, it is necessary that it be established by certain indications that the occasion for soliciting was in fact taken from it. These indications are sufficiently present if, while soliciting, the confessor puts forth either certain words or some sign which refers to any of the aforesaid things known to him through confession; in this there can also be a sin against the sacramental seal. But it does not pertain to the substance of this case that these things happen shortly after confession; for even after a long time, the occasion for soliciting taken from it retains the same nature. But what St. Alphonsus reports from Roncaglia, that by force of the same clause a priest who solicits a woman while promising that he will hear her confession is to be denounced, seems plainly beside the point.

QUESTION 9. Is a Confessor to be denounced who praises a woman for her beauty?

Reply. This must be discerned from the manner of speaking or from other circumstances. For if he seems to act from a depraved affection, he is to be denounced; but not so if he speaks from a certain imprudence or mere levity ¹⁷. - St. Ligorius, no. 703, etc.

¹⁷ The twelfth of the sixteen Decrees of the Holy Inquisition so often cited accords with these things. For to the question, Whether a Confessor, if he praises a penitent for beauty and comeliness, is said to solicit her and therefore is to be denounced, the reply was that, if that praise is serious and savors of no depraved intention, the negative opinion is probable; otherwise it is not probable.

The Sacred Congregation judged that the same answer was to be given (decree XVI) to the question, Whether a confessor who, while hearing confession, gives a gift to a woman, so that he is said to have solicited her, is to be denounced. For it refers the matter to the response made to the twelfth question. Certainly, as St. Alphonsus (book 6, no. 703) observes, this of itself is something indifferent, and the malice will have to be taken from the circumstances, namely, from the condition of the penitent, the quality of the gift, its quantity, and the manner in which it is given.

596. • QUESTION 10. Is faith readily to be placed in women accusing a Priest of solicitation?

Reply. No; but the circumstances of things and persons must be diligently weighed both by the Confessor and by the Superiors. For more than once women have been seen who, from envy, hatred, jealousy, or some other perverse end, atrociously calumniated entirely innocent Clerics. Therefore, all the circumstances must be weighed by mature examination, especially when the woman shows herself ready and prompt to obey the precept of denunciation.

Furthermore, take care to observe that, according to the Constitution of Benedict XIV, the crime of false accusation of solicitation is reserved to the Apostolic See, but without censure ¹⁸.

¹⁸ Indeed, Benedict XIV established the same penalty against those commanding, counseling, and all who can be called procurers. Thus in the Constitution Sacramentum, section 3: And since certain wicked persons are found who, moved either by hatred or anger or some other unworthy cause, or incited by the impious persuasions of others, or by promises, or flatteries, or threats, or in any other manner... falsely accuse innocent priests of solicitation before ecclesiastical judges, in order, therefore, that such nefarious audacity and so detestable a crime may be restrained by fear of the greatness of the penalty, let every person who has involved himself in an execrable crime of this kind, or who has wickedly procured that it be done by others, perpetually lack hope of obtaining absolution from any priest... except from Us and Our Successors....

But the Superiors ¹⁹, once the truth of the crime is known with certainty, must proceed very cautiously, so that they may correct the guilty party according to the gravity of the offense, and not indiscriminately punish a fault long since past, or committed accidentally from frailty, just as one that is recent or committed from habit; likewise, so that at the same time they may consult the good of Religion, the Priesthood, and the matter itself, forestalling scandals and rumors insofar as this can be done.

¹⁹ By Superior in this place must be understood either an Inquisitor of the Holy Office or the Ordinary of the place; for a denunciation can be brought at will to either one according to the Pontifical Constitutions.

597. • QUESTION 11. What are the penalties against solicitors?

Reply. The penalties against solicitors from the Bull of Gregory XV are suspension from the exercise of Orders, deprivation of benefices, dignities, and offices of every kind, and perpetual incapacity for them; and, furthermore, as regards Regulars, deprivation of active and passive voice. Nevertheless, they are all ferendae sententiae ²⁰.

²⁰ Add that Benedict XIV, through the organ of the Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition, decreed on August 5, 1745, that henceforth priests... soliciting to shameful acts in the act of sacramental confession, or on its occasion or pretext... besides the penalties inflicted upon them by law and the Apostolic Constitutions... also incur perpetual incapacity for the celebration of the Sacrifice. Concerning this decree St. Alphonsus observes (book 6, no. 705) that, for a penalty of this kind to be incurred, a declaratory sentence of the judge is required, namely, from the general principle concerning privative or disqualifying penalties when the guilty party cannot himself carry out the penalty without his own infamy. Indeed, in the Instruction of the Most Holy Inquisition issued February 20, 1867, the following is read (no. 12): It must be noted that all penalties of this kind, and the very incapacity for celebrating the most holy Sacrifice of the Mass prescribed in the decree of Benedict XIV of August 5, 1745, are only ferendae sententiae.

598. • QUESTION 12. How is a denunciation to be made?

Reply. 1. The denunciation is to be made orally insofar as possible, not merely in writing. Therefore, the solicited woman must present herself before the Ordinary or Inquisitor, wherever a tribunal of the Inquisition exists, and declare the act of solicitation, without, however, in any way disclosing her own consent, if she gave any.

2. The denunciation is to be made to the Inquisitor or Ordinary of the place in which the penitent is staying, even if the soliciting Confessor belongs to another diocese. For it pertains to the local Ordinary or Inquisitor to receive the sworn denunciation and transmit it to the Bishop of the guilty priest.

3. If the denunciation cannot be made orally, it is to be made by a letter signed with one's own name and surname, or at least through an intermediary. For the obligation of denouncing the solicitor is not so much that of approaching the Superior personally as of reporting the delinquent to him, as Benedict XIV speaks in his Bull ²¹. But one who is bound to the end is also bound to the means.

²¹ The Author had before his eyes these words of Benedict XIV (Constitution Sacramentum, section 2): Let Confessors furthermore take diligent care not to impart sacramental absolution to penitents whom they know already to have been solicited by others unless, first bringing the aforesaid denunciation into effect, they have indicated the delinquent to the competent judge, or at least pledge and promise that they will denounce him as soon as they can.

4. The Confessor, however, is not bound to undertake the burden of transmitting the denunciation to the Ordinary; rather, he satisfies his office by admonishing the penitent to denounce the solicitor properly at an opportune time. He can nevertheless offer his assistance if he judges it expedient; but knowledge of the matter must be received outside confession. - St. Ligorius, no. 699.

5. If the person solicited cannot in any manner be induced to carry out the denunciation in such a form, because she is affected, namely, by fear or insuperable shame, let her permit the Bishop to be informed of the matter; he can delegate someone to receive the denunciation. This faculty was granted to Bishops and Inquisitors by an Indult of the Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition with the consent of the Pontiff. But the delegated Priest must take an oath to preserve silence and to fulfill faithfully the office committed to him. - Decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition, September 27, 1624.

6. In every case a denunciation made through anonymous letters is altogether insufficient and wholly invalid, just as if it had not been made, as the Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition declared several times. - See Analecta Iuris Pontificii, September 1855, etc., etc. ²².

²² If letters are sent to the Father Commissary or Assessor of the Supreme Tribunal with the name of the writer, in which a denunciation is contained, they are customarily remitted to the Inquisitors or Bishops, so that, after summoning the writer to themselves, they cause him to acknowledge them under oath, question him specifically concerning the things contained in them, and, after reducing them to the form of a denunciation, place them at the beginning of the Process, and examine witnesses informed about their contents. Albitius, On Inconstancy in the Faith, chapter 35, no. 21.

"Whether Apostolic Vicars without a special faculty can receive denunciations in the matter of solicitation to shameful things, and whether, denunciations of this kind having been received, they are bound to refer them to the Holy Office? Resp. Supplication is to be made to the Most Holy One for extension to all Apostolic Vicars of the Instruction for the Apostolic Vicar of Cochinchina, dated 1 June 1775, with this addition: that they send to the Holy Office through the medium of the S. C. de P. F., in a sealed letter, the names of those soliciting." Holy Office, 20 June 1883. Supreme Pontiff Leo XIII on the same day approved and conceded the extension. Other decisions concerning this matter, please compare, in the Commentary on Const. Sacramentum Poenitentiae.

583. Lest confessors abuse the sacred tribunal with impunity for soliciting penitents to shameful things, Benedict XIV, adhering to the footsteps of Pius IV and Gregory XV, commanded that the crime of solicitation perpetrated by a confessor must be denounced, and indeed under penalty of denied absolution. The Code renewed this law, can. 904, 2363, 2368, striking with excommunication those who neglect to denounce within a month the confessors by whom they have been solicited.

¹ Cf. Pius IV, Letter Cum sicut nuper, April 15, 1561; Gregory XV, Bull Universi, April 30, 1622; Benedict XIV, Bull Sacram. Poenitentiae, June 1, 1741; Instruction of the Holy Office, February 20, 1867, ap. Collectanea, n. 948; Pius IX, Bull Apost. Sedis, October 11, 1869; Giraldi, Expositio Juris Pontificii, Rome, 1830, t. II, p. 630-645; St. Alphonsus, n. 675-705; D'Annibale, op. cit., n. 179-183; Rota, op. cit., n. 164-402; Bucceroni, op. cit.; Berardi, De Sollicitatione; Lehmk., n. 975-978; Haine, q. 93-96; Baller. P., n. 1085-1155; Genicot, n. 394-400; Noldin, n. 381-389; S. Many, ap. Canoniste, Sept., Dec. 1895.

Namely, Benedict XIV commands Ordinaries to proceed "against all and each priests, secular as well as regular ... who shall have attempted to solicit or provoke any penitent, of whatever person that one may be, either in the act of sacramental confession, or before, or immediately after confession, or on the occasion, or under the pretext of confession, or even outside the occasion of confession, in the confessional, or in another place destined or chosen for hearing confessions, with the simulation of hearing confession there, to dishonorable and shameful things, whether by words, or by signs, or by nods, or by touch, or by writing then or afterwards to be read, or who with them by rash daring shall have had illicit and dishonorable conversations or dealings ... Moreover let all and each priests appointed for hearing confessions remember that they are held and bound diligently to admonish their penitents whom they have known to have been solicited by others, as above ... concerning the obligation of denouncing to the Inquisitors, or to the aforesaid Ordinaries of places, the person who has committed the solicitation, even if the priest is one who lacks jurisdiction for validly imparting absolution, or the solicitation between confessor and penitent was mutual, whether the penitent consented to the solicitation, or in no way furnished consent, or a long time after the solicitation itself has already elapsed, or the solicitation was performed by the confessor not for himself, but for another person."

For understanding this, four things are to be explained: 1° the conditions required for constituting the sin of solicitation; 2° the obligation of denouncing those who solicit; 3° the manner of making the denunciation; 4° the penalties against those who solicit.

584. The sin of solicitation, considering the laws and decrees set forth above, can be defined: a provocation to shameful things, made by a priest as confessor, with some relation to confession.¹ Therefore three conditions are required:

¹ It is therefore distinguished from the sin of complicity, which can be committed without any relation to confession, even before someone has been advanced to the priesthood.

(A) That there be a provocation to shameful things, that is, some action, either dishonorable in itself, or indifferent in itself but externally manifesting a shameful affection, by which the confessor attempts to induce the penitent to some sin against chastity; or, in other words, it is scandal given to the penitent in the matter of lust. Moreover this provocation can be made either by deeds, or, according to Benedict XIV's own words, "whether by words, or by signs, or by nods, or by touch, or by writing." Hence, -

585. (a) Solicitation to any other sin whatsoever, even a graver one, for example, homicide, does not fall under the law.

(b) The crime of solicitation must be gravely culpable, or induce to grave acts against chastity, whether they are grave in themselves, or from a libidinous affection externally manifested. For a venial sin cannot be punished by such grave penalties. Moreover certain acts light in themselves, for example, to kiss a woman, must easily be judged mortal if they occur in the act of confession, because of irreverence and scandal. Some have thought that even light acts are comprehended under the law, because of this response of the Holy Office, February 11, 1661: "Whether a confessor, by soliciting because of smallness of matter, must be denounced?" - Resp.: "Since in venereal matters there is no smallness of matter, and, if there were, in the present matter there is none, they judged that he must be denounced and that the contrary opinion is not probable."² But in this response there is question of venereal acts, in which there is no smallness of matter, at least when they are committed in relation with confession, but not of acts lightly dishonorable which are not properly venereal.

² Ap. Giraldi, op. cit., p. 632.

Hence, if a confessor praises a woman for her beauty in confession, or declares that he loves her from his whole heart, judgment must be made from the circumstances: if it is externally established that these things are said from shameful love in order to induce her further into sin, there is certainly solicitation; otherwise, if it is done from levity or imprudence. - The same must be said of gifts or little presents given in the sacred tribunal, or of an invitation to visit the confessor; from the circumstances it must be judged whether a depraved intention is present or not.

(c) It must be certain, all things being diligently inspected; therefore if there is doubt either in law or in fact, denunciation is not to be made, since in doubt odious things are to be restricted.

(d) But it is not required that the solicitation be efficacious, or that the person solicited consent; for in the Bulls it is said that he who has attempted to solicit or provoke must be denounced. Yet the solicitation must be complete as solicitation, i.e., truly furnish scandal; hence those preparatory words do not suffice which are sometimes uttered so that it may be seen whether the person can be tempted with some hope.

(e) It matters little whether the person solicited is a man or a woman, pubescent or prepubescent; whether the solicitation is to sin with the confessor, or alone, or with a third person; whether the confessor immediately solicits the penitent to sin, or, through the mediation of the penitent, induces another person to a sin of lust. In all these cases there is truly solicitation to shameful things.

586. (B) That the solicitation be made by a priest as confessor. Hence, -

(a) If the one soliciting is not a priest, but either a cleric, or a layman, or an interpreter employed in confession, there is not the obligation of denouncing. Yet the Holy Office can proceed against anyone, even a non-priest, who would presume to receive confessions, and would solicit on this occasion. Under the name of priest comes any presbyter whatsoever, secular or regular, whether approved or not. But it is not certainly established that bishops are comprehended under this law, because, since we are in an odious matter, special mention seems necessary for them to fall under the law. Yet if any should be guilty of this crime (which may God avert!), natural law, if not canonical law, demands that they be denounced to Superiors, lest they become the cause of spiritual ruin.

The penitent, even a priest, who solicits the confessor to shameful things is not to be denounced: for he cannot be regarded as a priest confessor.

(b) If the solicitation is mutual between confessor and penitent, the priest is to be denounced. Moreover it is held to be mutual when the confessor, first solicited by the penitent, himself, having obtained this occasion, afterwards solicits the penitent; or when, solicited by the penitent to one species of shameful thing, he solicits to another.

(c) But if the confessor only consents to the penitent soliciting, without himself soliciting in any way, it is disputed whether he is to be denounced. The more benign opinion, which St. Alphonsus defends (n. 681), is truly probable; and therefore the obligation of denouncing is not to be urged in the case.

(d) If solicitation is made by a priest, not as confessor, but in the administration of another sacrament, there is no place for denouncing.

587. (C) That the solicitation be made with some relation to confession, that is, according to the words related above (n. 583):

(a) Either in the act of sacramental confession, or from the time when confession is begun or the Confiteor is recited until the last words of absolution. Moreover it must be noted that not only he is to be denounced who immediately solicits to shameful things, but also he who solicits mediately, namely by doing or saying something which in itself is indifferent, but afterwards from the circumstances is determined to something shameful. Thus if a priest, in the act of confession, says to a woman: "wait for me at home," and afterwards solicits her at home, these words, indifferent in themselves, are, from the circumstances, as it were the beginning of solicitation and therefore already the solicitation itself. Yet the matter can be doubtful if the priest does not solicit immediately at home, but only after another honest business has been transacted: then all the circumstances must be diligently weighed, so that from them it can be presumed what the prevailing intention of the confessor was;¹ and if doubt remains, the obligation of denouncing is not to be urged.

¹ Concerning this matter S. Many discusses wisely, ap. Canoniste, p. 519-521.

588. (b) Or before, or immediately after confession. These words must be understood strictly, so that no external action or conversation intervenes between the confession and the solicitation. Therefore the confessor is to be denounced who solicits a penitent already kneeling, or asking to confess, and afterwards hears his confession; or immediately after absolution has been given. This holds even if the solicitation is only mediate, for example, if immediately after confession he leads the penitent into the sacristy or into his own house, and there immediately solicits him; or if he gives a paper to be read afterwards, in which he solicits.

But if between the confession and the solicitation some other action intervenes, for example, speech concerning indifferent matters, or some business, or the hearing of another penitent's confession, there is not the obligation of denouncing, at least by force of this clause.

589. (c) Or on the occasion or under the pretext of confession. 1) On the occasion of confession heard, when the confessor, thus knowing the inclinations, temptations, or sins of the penitent, thence solicits him, provided there are had certain external indications that the solicitation arises from the hearing itself of confession;² - furthermore on the occasion of confession asked for, namely when the penitent here and now asks to confess and the confessor immediately solicits, deferring the confession to another time, even if afterwards the confession does not occur; but if someone asks to confess not immediately, but on another day or at another hour, and the confessor solicits him, this clause is not verified.

² When solicitation arises not from the heard confession, but on the occasion of sacramental knowledge insofar as the confessor, from things heard in confession, takes an opportunity of visiting and soliciting the penitent, grave authors think that solicitation properly so called is not verified. Cf. Lehmk., n. 976; D'Annibale, Summula, n. 367, note 11, where nevertheless he concedes that the practice of the Congregations is different.

2. Under pretext of confession, when the confessor, intending to solicit the penitent, uses confession as a veil for covering a depraved end, for example, he invites someone to confess so that he may more easily induce him to shameful things; or he approaches the house of a sick person, and, after certain words concerning confession in order to remove those standing by, solicits the sick person.

590. (d) Or, even outside the occasion of confession, in the confessional, or in another place destined or chosen for hearing confessions, with the simulation of hearing confession there. Now a place destined for hearing confessions is either the sacristy or the place where, according to diocesan Statutes, confessions are customarily heard; a chosen place is any place whatsoever, from the request of the penitent or of the confessor, here and now serving for hearing confession, for example, the room of the sick person. The simulation of confession takes place whenever the confessor and the penitent, by mutual agreement, in one of the three designated places, so conduct themselves externally that those standing by understand confession to be heard. Therefore the confessor is to be denounced who in one of these places solicits the penitent, simulating confession. - But if someone, sitting in the confessional, were to solicit a person standing or sitting before him, he does not fall under the law, because confession is not simulated.¹

¹ Thus from a decree of the Holy Office, 1661, ad 15, ap. Giraldi, op. cit., p. 633.

597. (A) The penalties against those who solicit are ferendae sententiae, and therefore they are incurred only after the sentence of a judge. There are three established by law: (a) perpetual incapacity for celebrating Mass; (b) perpetual suspension from hearing confessions; (c) privation of benefice. (B) But before the judicial sentence is passed, generally three denunciations must precede, according to the practice which the Holy Office follows. One or another denunciation is indeed a sufficient motive that the denounced person be observed, but not that he be called into judgment, unless the reputation of the confessor is bad and the one denouncing is above every exception.

(C) But if the offender has spontaneously appeared before the Bishop, has sincerely confessed the delict, and has asked pardon, he must be dismissed after abjuration has been made (for those who solicit are suspected of heresy), and after a salutary penance has been imposed, with the counsel or precept added that he abstain from receiving the confessions of the solicited person.

(D) Since the sin of solicitation is not reserved, at least by common law, the soliciting priest, otherwise rightly disposed, can be absolved by any confessor whatsoever; but he must be admonished not to receive the confessions of the solicited person, at least where there is a supply of confessors, so that in this way the danger of relapse may be avoided.

598. Corollary: On the penalty against those falsely accusing a confessor of solicitation.

The Code, can. 894, has reserved to the Supreme Pontiff, by reason of itself, the crime of those who judicially denounce an innocent priest as guilty of solicitation. Moreover can. 2363 decrees these things: "If anyone, by himself or through others, shall falsely have denounced a confessor before Superiors concerning the crime of solicitation, by the fact itself he incurs an excommunication reserved in a special manner to the Apostolic See, from which in no case can he be absolved, unless he shall have formally retracted the false denunciation; and shall have repaired, according to his powers, the damages, if any have followed from it; a grave and long-lasting penance moreover having been imposed."

(A) For the reservation to be incurred by those falsely denouncing, three things are required: (a) that they denounce a priest as guilty of solicitation properly so called, according to the things explained above; (b) that this denunciation be false, so that the confessor is free from this delict, although perhaps guilty of other delicts; (c) that the denunciation be juridical, i.e., made before a competent judge, in the manner explained above; hence a denunciation before persons who are not competent judges does not suffice, nor an anonymous denunciation, which is of no weight, nor even, more probably, a simple letter, even signed, which does not have judicial force. - Those who denounce falsely, even if not judicially, sin gravely, and are bound to repair the damage unjustly brought upon the confessor.

(B) Those procuring this to be done, such as those ordering, mandating, giving counsel, asking, promising, threatening, in one word all those who positively and efficaciously concur in the false denunciation, do not incur the reservation of the sin by reason of itself, since can. 894 is silent concerning these, but they incur the reserved censure as if themselves falsely denouncing, from the application of can. 2231.

As to absolution from this sin reserved to the Pope, the principles set forth above concerning papal cases, n. 446-447, must be applied.

— "According to the norm of the apostolic constitutions, and by name of the Constitution of Benedict XIV, Sacramentum paenitentiae, June 1, 1741, the penitent must, within a month, denounce the guilty party of the delict of solicitation in confession to the local Ordinary or to the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office; and the confessor must, with his conscience gravely burdened, warn the penitent about this burden" (c. 904).

Besides the obligation, which can flow from natural law, of denouncing certain guilty persons, there must be recalled in this place the peculiar obligation of positive law, to be interpreted from the monuments of the earlier law, of which we must hand down this brief summary.

Besides the Constitution of Benedict XIV, there must also be consulted the earlier Constitution of Gregory XV, Universi, August 30, 1622, which Benedict XIV almost carried over into his Constitution, but did not suppress. And in the Constitution Etsi Pastoralis, May 26, 1742, §9, n. 5, Benedict XIV declared that Latins and Greeks are equally bound by these laws. To the prior Constitution of Gregory XV there were added various responses of the Holy Office, especially the 16 responses of February 11, 1661, and the instruction to bishops, February 9, 1867. By the decree of Alexander VII, September 24, 1667, two propositions pertaining here, n. 6 and 7, were proscribed; this decree was also confirmed by Benedict XIV.

The guilty person to be denounced is the confessor as such, not the penitent, even if he were a priest, nor a lower cleric or layman, who cannot be confessors except fictitiously; but the confessor, even one deprived of jurisdiction, and of whatever grade or dignity, provided he abuses, in relation to the exercise of the sacrament of Penance, the power of order with which he truly is endowed.

For the Code abstained from the word "priest," which Benedict XIV used in his Constitution; and since, already before the Code, not a few wished bishops to be comprehended, the studied omission of that word "priest" in cc. 904, 2363, and 2368 furnishes us a certain argument of the mind by which the Legislator wishes no soliciting confessor to be excepted from his decrees. Besides, the reason which they brought forward for excepting bishops now has no force. They used to say that a bishop is not subject to inquisitors, to whom, if the bishop was lacking, denunciation had to be made. But now denunciation can easily be made to the Nuncio or Apostolic Delegate and to the Holy Office.

Moreover the very practice of the Supreme Congregation stands against the more benign opinion of several: Noldin, III, 376 note; Arregui, 653; Ferreres, II, 692, etc., who even now judge that an obligation, at least positive, of denouncing a bishop is not established.

Therefore the words of c. 904, "according to the norm of the Apostolic Constitutions," are to be referred not to the person to be denounced, but to the delict which gives place to denunciation.

That guilty person must have solicited; but he is not excused by the mutual solicitation which the penitent made, indeed which the penitent began. Yet mere consent, given by an exterior sign, does not seem to be solicitation, although most respond more severely (cf. St. Alph., VI, 681; Bucceroni, Opusc. in C. Sacramentum Paen., n. 29, which Palm., V, 727 note, does not dare to disapprove). But mutual solicitation is had if both do the things which are forbidden, even if one does them after being invited.

— Solicitation can be made by words, signs, nods, touch (upon one's own or another's body), by writing itself either then or afterward to be read. Words which do not clearly contain solicitation will have to be estimated from the adjuncts or from the subsequent event. Thus words in praise of beauty, or these words said: "I shall come into your house; promise me that you will do what I wish," are already sufficiently suspect in themselves. But these other words: "Wait for me in such a place; I have business to treat with you," will be judged an inchoate solicitation if in that meeting no serious business to be done is shown, and the one inviting has solicited.

Nor does it matter, provided the other requisites are present, to distinguish whether the penitent was solicited immediately or mediately, or another person through the work of the penitent, or whether it is to sin with himself or with another.

Yet it is necessary that moral certitude be had concerning the depraved affection of the confessor.

— Although solicitation need not yet appear in itself a grave external sin, nevertheless, for the case to be had, it must be directed to grave, external sin against the sixth precept of the Decalogue.

That sin can consist in actions, in dealings, in conversations. Here dealings are counsels, deliberations, pacts (delle trattative, des machinations) about a shameful matter to be done then or afterward, whether they are proposed by the confessor alone or by both.

Therefore he is to be denounced who mixes in, concerning the present, in the required adjuncts, even when provoked, shameful conversations, or words gravely illicit and contrary to chastity.

— Required adjuncts. Yet not every solicitation is touched by the positive obligation of denouncing, but only that which is made "in confession" (c. 904). These words, however, have received a broad signification from the confirmed constitutions. Therefore he is to be denounced who made or began the solicitation described above:

1. in the act of sacramental confession, and it does not matter that the sacrament was then interrupted or remained incomplete;

2. before or after confession, but, in either case, immediately. If some other thing truly intervened in the middle, the case is not had. Here, however, confession is supposed.

What if the penitent is solicited while he asks for confession or wishes to confess? If the formal or virtual petition is made while the penitent is in the act and state of confession, for example the confessor is seated, the penitent is not merely among those standing around his confessional, but is already kneeling at his feet, then confession is virtually begun, and the priest is to be denounced. This is much more established if the confessor assents to one thus seeking confession, although, on account of the solicitation itself, the penitent afterward now does not wish to confess. If he is not yet in the state and act of confession, he does not seem to have to be denounced by force of this clause.

3. On the occasion of confession, or when confession is the cause per accidens of soliciting the confessing person. The case is had properly when the confessor hands to a penitent whom he wishes to solicit a note to be read afterward by him, and which contains solicitation.

Yet the clause is extended to the case which we just solved, of a penitent who is solicited in the state of one confessing, while he was at the point of beginning the accusation.

Besides the fact that the matter is of most difficult use and proof, it is not established that a confessor is to be denounced who abuses knowledge drawn from confession, for example the fragility of the penitent, to solicit him. For the occasion is less strictly confession than knowledge had from confession (cf. Palm., note to V, 718).

N.B. But he is not, by positive law, to be denounced who hands to a servant confessing a note to be carried to another person, not a penitent, whom the confessor solicits, if the servant himself is in no way an accomplice. For then the penitent is solicited by no pact.

Is he to be denounced who, asked to hear confession, turns aside to other things and solicits, not yet sitting in the manner of a confessor nor having the person kneeling before him? St. Alphonsus, l. 6, n. 678, reports that this is commonly affirmed. But against that severity stands the fact that the solicitation was made rather on occasion of the petition of confession than on occasion of confession (cf. Ballerini, Op. Th., V, 717, and Palmieri in the note, where the more benign solution is confirmed by the very response and practice of the Holy Office).

4. Under pretext of confession, even when confession has not followed. To pretext confession is to give to solicitation the color of confession, to cover it with the veil of confession. But the confessor must pretext; and he will especially have done this who, led by a depraved intention, enters into shameful conversations in confession itself, as if these were useful or necessary for a complete accusation.

Yet it is not required that the penitent himself be deceived by the pretext. And since not only he who provokes to evil, but also he who actively consents to sin, is understood to solicit, he also solicits under pretext of confession who, while confession is pretexted, sins with another.

If you weigh these things, you will admit with Ballerini, V, 719-720, that solicitation is made under pretext of confession: a) whenever, by that pretext, bystanders are removed and sin is committed, whether the priest or the accomplice alleged the pretext, provided the priest, conscious of the alleged pretext, tacitly admitted the pretext; b) whenever a confessor sins with someone whom he knows to have been sent or to have entered his room under pretext of making confession.

Nevertheless, on account of the authority of St. Alphonsus, l. 6, n. 679, there can be excluded the case of the penitent who himself pretexts confession in order to solicit the confessor and sins with the confessor, because the author of the pretext was the penitent; and the case of both who from a previous agreement pretext confession in order to deceive others, because not the solicitation itself but only the execution of the sin is made under pretext of confession.

Yet in the same place, St. Alphonsus says that the confessor is to be denounced by whose counsel a woman who, fearing defamation, was refusing to sin, pretends that she is sick in order to call the confessor with whom she may sin.

A confessor is said to solicit under pretext of confession who, of his own accord or when asked, goes to the house of a sick person, and there, alleging that confession is to be heard, removes bystanders in order to solicit; or if he arranges that a boy be sent into a room and solicits him after he has entered, even with the end of confession proposed; or if a priest, either fictitiously or truly, invites a penitent to confess in order to solicit him. I say, invites to confess. For if, under pretext of confession, he invites a person to go into a church and there solicits that person outside the confessional seat, and consequently now not pretexting confession, the case of solicitation to be denounced is not had, since the invitation alone, not the solicitation itself, was made under pretext of confession.

You ask how that case differs from the preceding case of a person sent into a room under pretext of confession? We respond that a room is a place much narrower and is not furnished with a confessional properly so called, which would constitute a special place, so that in the preceding case the invitation is judged to have been made immediately for confessing.

More manifestly immune from denounced solicitation is he who alleges confession in order to obtain license to go to another's house in which he is going to sin with an accomplice.

5. With simulation of hearing confession, solicitation made, even outside the occasion of confession and therefore even if both came there for a plainly different end, in a confessional, or in another place destined or chosen for hearing confessions.

A confessional is that little structure of peculiar form placed in a church for the use of the sacrament of Penance. A place destined for confessions is not the whole sacristy, but, for example, there or in a parlor a kneeler with a seat placed for hearing confessions. Such, from the response itself of the Holy Office in Acta Sanctae Sedis, t. 9, p. 530, is the place where the confessions of nuns are heard. A place chosen for confession is any other place, for example the room of a sick person, where at least one of the two sincerely wished either to confess or to hear confession. For if each merely pretended to choose the place for confessing, the place cannot be called chosen for making confession, nor is simulation of confession made in a place truly chosen.

But simulation in the two prior places is had already in reality if penitent and confessor place themselves there in the usual manner, unless from laughter it is perceived that another matter is being done; while in the third place, the external figure of confession must be studiously imitated for confession to be simulated. For simulation is said to be figure without the thing. Witnesses actually present are not necessary. It is enough that they could be present.

— 1. The obligation of denouncing holds: a) the solicited person himself; b) any other person, even an impubes, provided he was possessed of reason, who, either as an immediate witness or from trustworthy persons, has known that solicitation was made. Indeed the words of the Code, as Noldin, III, 377, observes, seem to oblige only the penitent, that is, the solicited person, to denounce; but the preceding interpretation of the law is indirectly confirmed by the very words, "According to the norm of the Constitution of Benedict XIV." Thus we say with most, against Cerato, De delicto sollicitationis, n. 89. Yet you should except him to whom the matter was manifested for asking counsel. And one who merely heard the matter is no longer obliged if the person narrating satisfied his own obligation. Thus Lehmk., II, 126, §5; and rightly indeed if, at the time when he narrated, he morally denounced at the same time. For if he deferred denunciation, it will be useful that, with the denunciation made by the hearer, it be established that the crime had already been narrated at a time not suspect.

Neither a long interval of time, nor defect of proofs, nor denunciation already made of another case, nor the proper fault of the solicited person who consented to the sin, indeed who first solicited, excuses him from making denunciation. But he will not have to manifest his own consent; nor, if he reveals this, is it to be reported in the acts.

Yet excuse of grave damage to be feared in life, reputation, or temporal goods, as long as the danger lasts, excuses from this law as positive. For common damage can increase the obligation from natural law. The obligation is also suspended in regions where, without grave inconvenience, not even by letters, the Ordinary or the Nuncio or Apostolic Delegate or the Holy Office can be approached.

Likewise a person will be excused who can neither personally approach the Ordinary nor write to him, unless the confessor, which of itself is not to be advised, on account of danger of error and detraction, should wish to transact the matter for the person.

Probably a confessor who was led to shameful acts by grave fear alone is not to be denounced, since grave fear is accustomed to excuse guilty persons from ecclesiastical penalties (cf. St. Alph., VI, 687; D'Ann., III, 376 [8]); nor, as some think, a priest concerning whose amendment it is altogether established. But by the death of the guilty person the obligation ceases, since the end of the law has fully ceased.

2. The soliciting confessor himself does not have to denounce himself. But if nevertheless he has done so of his own accord, and has sincerely opened all things, he will be immune from vindicative penalty, though not always from medicinal penalty, even if he is afterward accused.

3. Denunciation must be made within a month from the obligation of denouncing having been known.

4. Denunciation is to be made either to the Holy Office, the Nuncio or Apostolic Delegate, or the Ordinary of the place in which the solicitation was made, even if the confessor was of another diocese or an exempt religious. But religious Superiors are strictly prohibited from involving themselves in this cause (c. 501).

— Denunciation is to be made judicial, and therefore before the Holy Office or the Nuncio or Apostolic Delegate or the local Ordinary or their delegate, with the intervention of an ecclesiastical man who acts as notary.

— The confessor must warn the penitent about his obligation of denouncing, with his conscience gravely burdened (c. 904).

Every confessor, yet not the solicitor himself, for this would be too hard, must give this warning. Yet when death is imminent, the penitent is not to be exposed by this warning to eternal ruin. - If from the warning made, public divulgation of the whole matter is to be feared, there seems to be place for epikeia. - And the warning can be deferred to a more opportune time, if it is foreseen to be useless now but efficacious afterward. But if the penitent is not going to return, let the confessor at least warn him about the obligation of speaking about that matter with another confessor, on account of the difficulty still to be untied, and of obeying the confessor. By the same reason he can conduct himself who judges himself unequal to solving the case. Yet without a just cause it is not lawful for the confessor to transfer the burden to another. - Nor is a person to be warned who, on account of his simplicity, did not understand the solicitation: for his scandal is to be avoided.

— Questions. What if the confessor has already been convicted and punished because of solicitation?

If because of the same solicitation numerically, this also will hold here: not twice for the same thing. But if because of another delict numerically, without doubt he is again to be reported.

What if he appeared of his own accord? He is to be denounced, so that in the trial it may be established that all things were declared by him (Holy Office instruction, 1867).

What in doubt?

a) If the words signify solicitation, and there is doubt only about the intention of the confessor, the end consonant with the words is presumed to have been present.

b) If the delict itself is truly doubtful, the more benign parts can be preferred (St. Alph., VI, 702).

c) If there is doubt about the person who solicited, the matter is to be indicated if there is probable hope that the judge by his diligence will be able to detect the guilty person. But he who hesitates in doubt between two persons ought to indicate neither, lest he harm the reputation of an innocent person (D'Ann., III, 368 [19]).

— Persons who, conscious of this obligation, refuse to make that denunciation cannot be absolved, not even by the solicitor himself. And to urge execution, it will sometimes be better not to absolve them before they have fulfilled the obligation.

Yet one who is pressed by grave difficulty of appearing personally before the ordinary or delegated judge can send letters either to the Nuncio or Apostolic Delegate, or to the local Ordinary, or to the Holy Office, in which, the guilty person or species of the fact not yet being designated, he simply declares that he is held to making denunciation, and asks that he may be able to complete it before the confessor alone. But the letters must be signed: blind or anonymous letters are destitute of all value.

Then the confessor, unless he already has it, will obtain from the episcopal curia the formula of questions to be put. He will note the responses of the person, omitting those things which would manifest this person's complicity or fault. Finally, with his name signed, he will have to confirm that the relation is genuine or faithful.

Yet the confessor is not of himself obliged to receive the denunciation. But if he refuses to do this, the person who with difficulty approaches the Ordinary can wait for the occasion of a confessor who is willing to perform that ministry.

Finally, if he is delayed by excessive repugnance, and the utility of the denunciation does not seem so great, the confessor can, with the name kept silent, propose the difficulty to the Sacred Penitentiary and obtain from it for the penitent a dispensation from undergoing the too grave burden.

— Sanction of the obligation. The solicited faithful person who within a month knowingly has not completed the denunciation prescribed by c. 904 contracts an excommunication latae sententiae reserved to no one, from which nevertheless he cannot be absolved unless after he has satisfied his obligation, or has seriously promised that he will satisfy it. He escapes this penalty who had to denounce but was not himself solicited.

But he who has written to the local Ordinary or to the Holy Office can wait for the response even longer; but if he has opened the difficulty of denunciation, silence seems able to be interpreted legitimately as a dispensation from the obligation (c. 2368, §2).

— Penalties against solicitors who have not betrayed themselves of their own accord or not in due time⁽¹⁾ are established as most grave by c. 2368, §1, but all are ferendae sententiae. Nor is the local Ordinary, where the custom is that he himself act, or the Holy Office accustomed, scarcely after the denunciation has been received, to proceed at once. A first or second denunciation is accustomed to be followed by a warning, whether paternal or judicial;⁽²⁾ after the third, the cause is instructed.

⁽¹⁾ Wherefore to a priest now well disposed to whom denunciation seems to be feared, prudent counsel can sometimes be given that he accuse himself of his own accord.

⁽²⁾ Formerly, but no longer today, after a second denunciation the Holy Office used to command that the bishop observe the priest.

— Innocent confessors must be protected from false denunciations. Wherefore he who by himself or through others, as for instance through a confessor, falsely denounces to Superiors a confessor concerning the crime of solicitation, by the fact itself commits an excommunication reserved in a special manner to the Apostolic See, from which he cannot in any case be absolved unless he has formally retracted the false denunciation, and has repaired according to his powers the damages, if any followed therefrom, with a grave and long-lasting penance imposed besides.

Before the Code the crime of false denunciation was, without censure, reserved most specially to the Holy See. That reservation was judged penal, so that it was not incurred by one ignorant.

Today, of itself, there is contracted a censure reserved only specially to the Holy See. At the same time, however, conditions are imposed on absolution which only the Holy See in the particular case will be able to dispense: that is, formal retraction, namely in judicial form, or before a judge; reparation of damages, if any followed, and in this matter the law of nature is almost confirmed; and besides, a grave and long-lasting penance to be imposed. A grave penance is that which is given in the sacrament for grave fault; long-lasting, according to Cerato, De censuris, n. 61, whom Gen., II, 400, follows, is one which lasts for three years; according to Cappello, De censuris, n. 103, it is one which is to be observed for six months.

The reason of estimations of this kind escapes us. And we judge that this notion must be weighed relatively, with attention paid to the quality of the person, the gravity of the delict, and also the frequency of the imposed action. In a shorter interval an action becomes long-lasting if it must be done often. Thus the following seems to us to be a long-lasting penance: daily recitation of the Rosary for three months; weekly approach to the sacraments for six months; monthly approach for a year; approach four times in the year for three years; annual spiritual exercises for five or six years.

Ignorance, but not crass ignorance, excuses from that censure.

But if because of ignorance the censure was not contracted, the sin then by reason of itself will remain reserved, though not specially or most specially. Retraction at least according to the requisites of the natural law will have to be demanded.

But they judge that the delict is not committed except by a denunciation properly judicial, so that the excommunication does not affect a person who has sent a calumnious letter to the bishop or to the Holy Office.

From the common opinion of the Doctors, in this matter faith is not easily to be given to women, since not rarely they are deceived either by their own imagination, or from hatred, envy, jealousy, they calumniate innocent priests. Therefore, before it is prescribed that a denunciation be made, one must carefully consider whether perhaps the accusing person is unworthy of being believed, whether the malice of the priest is sufficiently established, especially of one who enjoys the best reputation. Yet it can happen that a wolf is disguised in sheep's clothing; nor does it pertain to the confessor to inquire into persons.

— I. On Contrition. 1. For the fruitful reception of the sacrament there suffices and is required at least attrition, which is formal, and is not contained only virtually in an act of charity, for it is the sacrament of Penance; supernatural, that is, one which, with the help of supernatural grace, has been conceived on account of a motive which is referred to God directly or indirectly, for the offense of God must be detested as such.

Motives return to fear of punishments and to the turpitude or deformity of sin, to which ingratitude toward God and contempt itself of divine goodness are reduced; appreciatively supreme, so that sin is estimated as a greater evil than every evil which must be undergone in order to avoid sin, and therefore, in every true or possible hypothesis, excludes the will of sinning. Although the offense of God is not to be preferred to the punishments of hell, that absurd comparison is in no way to be instituted; universal, as to all mortal sins.

2. Although several deny this, the sacrament of Penance seems able to be valid and unformed, not only if attrition is not universal, but also if, though true, it does not reach the supreme degree. Wherefore penitents who have confessed in good faith, provided they have conceived some true sorrow, ought not to be compelled to repeat confessions.

3. It is in no way required that attrition be conceived from intention of the sacrament; nor is it established that it must be directed to the sacrament by the will itself of the penitent; but it is enough that the minister of the sacrament find apt matter. Wherefore the conceived sorrow has persevered sufficiently in the habitual will and is sufficiently expressed in sincere accusation, so that one who has not renewed an act of contrition conceived several hours before and has approached the sacrament coldly ought not to be anxious about his contrition. Nor is a new formal act of contrition required from him who, after absolution has been received, immediately seeks to be absolved from an omitted sin.

4. Provided the disposition of the penitent has habitually persevered, absolution will be able to be distant even for a long time from the acts of the penitent, since the sacrament was instituted after the manner of a judgment.

5. Since sins are opposed unequally even to a universal motive, since a man is rarely moved by the full force of such a motive, and detests more what is more repugnant to that motive, and since our act, subjectively one, becomes virtually multiple on account of the several motives to which it is terminated, sufficient attrition is not retracted as to all sins by a new fault; but partial retraction is well understood. Yet by every new mortal sin attrition perishes, insofar as universality is required.

6. Sorrow which merely follows sacramental confession, provided it is rendered sensible, seems to suffice for fruitful absolution.

7. Sorrow concerning venial sins does not have to be universal even virtually; but he who consciously accuses only venial sins and is sufficiently sorry for no venial sin will be guilty of grave sacrilege. But he who is sorry for one will not sin gravely even if he is not sorry for all which he accused; indeed he will not sin at all who simply accuses all things and does not positively affirm universal sorrow.

8. Putative attrition does not suffice; putative contrition is not required.

9. The things which have been said for cutting off anxieties do not prohibit counsels of formal excitation to perfect contrition, joined with discussion of conscience and accusation, and renewed if a new absolution is sought.

II. Formal acts of faith and hope are not necessary, but those suffice which are necessarily contained in a pious approach to the sacrament. Nor is there lacking the beginning of love which, from the Tridentine Council, prepares the way for perfect justification.

III. On Purpose. 1. An absolute purpose of not sinning any more, or, from the present affection, of never sinning, is required for the remission of every sin, and therefore for fruitful use of the sacrament is necessary at least concerning one accused sin. And because no mortal sin is remitted without the others, the purpose must be universal about all committed mortal sins, indeed about others too, at least insofar as an explicit purpose concerning the committed sins confirms a good will concerning the rest.

2. Attrition above all things contains a virtual purpose; and indeed a universal one, if it was conceived from a universal motive. This virtual purpose suffices, although not a few require a formal one. Indeed several wish that to attrition conceived from a particular motive there be added a positively universal purpose concerning mortal sins.

3. Concerning venial sins a purpose concerning one of the accused suffices, or concerning deliberate ones, or concerning lessening indeliberate ones, or concerning avoiding them as far as there is power. For in these modes there is contained an absolute purpose concerning at least one venial sin.

4. The efficacy of purpose is distinguished as principiative, or immediate, which affects the will at the moment of conversion to God or of use of the sacrament, and connotes the sincerity of purpose; and subsequent, effective, in constant execution, which connotes the virtue of the will.

An efficacious will embraces the means, both negative and positive, necessary for attaining the end. How far it must be extended to flight from occasion, we saw in Fundamental Theology, n. 452-456, where the notions concerning proximate occasion are also handed down.

Relapse into sins, even frequent relapse, demonstrates a changed will, but not necessarily a defect of the preceding will. Nor does founded fear, indeed certain foresight of relapse, argue a defect of present purpose. This defect can sometimes be demonstrated by uniform perseverance of sin in a certain occasion, since apt remedies are not lacking.

IV. On Confession. 1. Confession is required to be at least formally integral. Material integrity is furnished by him who confesses all mortal sins of which, after diligent examination, he has consciousness, with the circumstances which change the species. He satisfies the obligation of material integrity.

Material integrity, taken more strictly, supposes a truly complete accusation of all grave sins which, committed after Baptism, have not yet been remitted by force of the keys.

Formal integrity is furnished by him who makes the accusation by which he is here and now bound; and such an accusation especially is called formal which, on account of a just cause, is not made complete.

2. Material integrity is prescribed of itself. This: a) requires an examination made according to the capacity of the penitent, according to the distance from the last confession, and according to the other adjuncts, with the moderate care which a prudent man applies in serious affairs, or such as the learned and timorous are accustomed to have in this matter, even if someone knows that with greater diligence he would find more. Today we require from no one an examination through several days; but we judge that an examination made for an hour suffices for accusing sins even for those who have not confessed for many years; b) after the examination has been made, the lowest theological and moral species of grave sins must be declared spontaneously, so that the whole substance of the sin is accused. Unknown species are not contracted and therefore are not to be accused. When reasonably questioned by the judge, the penitent will also have to declare aggravating circumstances. Besides, the certain number, if possible, or the probable number, with "more" or "less" added, must be declared. Unless a notably greater number afterward becomes known, the certain number does not have to be supplied by him who indicated the probable one. The greater the difficulty, the less a definite indication is required. Sometimes it will be enough to indicate the time; c) one who has forgotten a grave sin has to accuse it in the next confession, but meanwhile he can communicate. Yet after diligent examination a new formal examination of the same period is not required, and because of the presumption of an integrally made confession, the penitent is dispensed from accusing a sin which merely seems to have been passed over. Nor is a confused confession incomplete. Wherefore, after a confused manifestation has been made which could be made, distinct memory afterward had does not oblige to a new distinct accusation, unless the sin is altogether alien to the things confusedly set forth; d) a confession which, because of mortally culpable negligence or ignorance, was not integral is sacrilegious. Negligence subjectively not grave allows the confession to be valid, but does not dispense from a better examination; e) neither things doubtfully committed, nor doubtfully grave, nor certainly grave but probably accused, must certainly be accused. In practice the penitent will have to be directed from presumptions.

3. Since excessive difficulty excuses from the positive precept of material integrity, formal integrity suffices: for those who labor under physical impotence of confessing integrally, at least by ordinary means; for those who are impeded from material integrity by moral impotence, as when the destruction of many is imminent or also sometimes in a mission among unbelievers; for those who from integral confession have grave damage to be feared, either to themselves, or to the confessor, or to another, per accidens and not of itself joined with such confession. To moral impotence is referred the case of a scrupulous person concerning past life, of a penitent who before confession has been finished is absolved by an impatient confessor, of him who cannot be absolved directly from a certain sin, which today can happen only in absolving an accomplice. Yet that someone may confess incompletely, there is required some necessity or great utility of confession, and lack of a confessor to whom integral confession can be made. And when there is occasion, the confession will have to be completed. And in an incomplete confession, grave sins are to be accused before light ones.

Infamy, whether of an accomplice or of another person, before the confessor does not seem to permit incomplete confession, unless there is a special cause why the revelation of sin made to such a one is hateful. Yet there is a more benign opinion as well as a more severe one.

4. Free matter, such as sins already pardoned or venial sins, is usefully subjected to the keys, both on account of sacramental grace and on account of the remission of punishments.

5. Sufficient matter is to be subjected to the keys; such is not a doubtful sin or positive imperfection, if any exists; but a sin already directly remitted is such. The general formula "the sins of the whole life," added to the present accusation, indeed suffices; but so that attrition may be more certain, it is better that the penitent, especially an uneducated one, indicate some species. Outside necessity, a confession which is simply about the sins of the whole life, without any specification, is not to be admitted.

6. The obligation of vocal confession, which several inferred from the usage of the Church, is pressed in silence in the Code. And certainly it is enough that, after a written confession has been handed over, the penitent, if he can, say: "I accuse these things."

To make confession secret is the right of the penitent, not an obligation.

A true confession is demanded. Grave in confession would be not every lie, but a lie committed in necessary accusation or with deception of the confessor in a notable matter. He cannot be reprehended gravely who, in a general confession, deliberately mixes past and recent things. One who positively declares grave recent matter to pertain to past matter seems to us, as the author of a grave deception, guilty of sacrilege. Some respond more benignly when it does not matter for knowing custom or relapse.

7. A whole confession which was invalid is to be repeated, as one which is made in bad faith to a half-asleep or unaware priest. A confession which, without fault of the penitent, was not wholly heard must be repeated in part, as to mortal faults.

Yet if in a long confession the penitent does not know which things were not heard, it will be enough that he state a few species among which he hesitates in doubt, or if he cannot even do this, that he declare generically that certain things were not perceived. But he who spoke clearly should presume that all things were perceived.

Nothing therefore must be repeated because the confessor judged light what was grave.

8. At the moment of absolution, a confused memory of the accusation, whether preserved or then resumed, suffices for the confessor, so that it is plainly enough if he knows that absolution is to be given, that a connected obligation, if there is any, exists, and that this ought to be the mode of penance. Wherefore, if a confession wholly null or sacrilegious is repeated to the same confessor, it seems to suffice that the confessor ratify the preceding confession, if it was sacramental, after a generic repetition has been made by the penitent.

But confession is not to be repeated unless it is morally established that it was null. Nor for the most part are those to be disturbed who in good faith think that they have confessed rightly.

9. General confession is useful and to be commended: for removing a grave doubt about the value of past confessions; for the more perfect expiation of past faults; for better adapting oneself to grace to be received before acts of greater moment.

Wherefore, in the principal periods of life, confession of the whole life can prudently be advised; this counsel is confirmed by the Code for those entering religion. That greater fruit may be gathered, let it be made as if the last.

Yet confession of the whole life does not seem to have to be repeated more often, nor does approach to a new confessor furnish cause for repeating it. But it is better after stated intervals, for example after individual years, to make a general confession from the last general confession.

A general confession will be harmful if it would be for a penitent prone to anxiety a cause of disturbances or scruples, or if it would nourish the passions of one tempted.

Asked for counsel, let the confessor ask why it is wished to be made, and inquire whether disturbance of soul is to be feared.

10. Concerning the dying person. If he is in possession of himself, let him be treated according to his disposition. A non-Catholic who cannot prudently be warned about the error of his sect should be stirred up to perfect contrition; then let him declare himself a sinner before God and the priest. If then he admits that the priest help him as far as he can, he will be able to be absolved conditionally.

One deprived of the senses, whose express will of absolution others can testify to, has confessed as it were through an interpreter, so that he can be absolved absolutely. From present usage all other Catholics must be absolved conditionally. Even those who rejected the sacraments, or baptized non-Catholics, can be absolved conditionally. Yet non-Catholics will be helped more by Extreme Unction.

V. On Satisfaction. 1. One guilty of grave sin, in approaching the tribunal of Penance, must under mortal obligation be prepared to fulfill the fitting penance which is imposed on him, saving his right of asking commutation from the same or from a different confessor. One guilty of venial sin has the same obligation under light obligation. If two penances have been given by different confessors for the same accusation, it is enough that the penitent fulfill whichever one he has preferred.

2. A grave penance which has been imposed for grave sin must of itself be executed under grave obligation. Satisfaction can be made even in the state of sin; nor is a special intention of satisfying required. It suffices that the work be done in the mode by which it would have to be done if it were a common precept of the Church. Unless the confessor has permitted more, penance must be fulfilled by the penitent himself, within the time expressly or tacitly established by the confessor. If none has been established, then at least in such a way that danger of forgetfulness is met.

3. He who has perfectly forgotten the imposed penance is relieved of every obligation, unless the confessor, who prudently is thought to remember the penance imposed by him, can conveniently be approached again.

VI. On the accidental obligation of denouncing. Besides the obligation of natural law, from the Constitution of Benedict XIV, Sacramentum Poenitentiae, which later decrees have interpreted, a positive obligation of denouncing is imposed on the penitent and certain other persons. Therefore:

1. the confessor is to be denounced as such, not if a penitent has solicited another;

2. the guilty person of solicitation to shameful things, even mutual or mediate solicitation to sin with another. The modes of solicitation can be words, signs, nods, touch, writing to be read now or afterward. Solicitation, although it need not itself appear a grave sin, nevertheless must be directed to grave external sin against the sixth precept of the Decalogue, whether it is an action, or a dealing, namely deliberation or pact, or conversation;

3. solicitation is understood in confession, that is: in the act of sacramental confession, which has its beginning from the moment when the penitent has begun to declare his sins, indeed when in the manner of penitents he presents himself to the confessor; immediately before or immediately after confession which truly has taken place or at least has been begun in the way which we stated; on the occasion of confession, or when the confession itself, not knowledge of it, is per accidens the cause of soliciting the penitent. He solicits on the occasion of confession who hands to the penitent a little note to be read afterward by which he himself is solicited. If the note is to be carried to another, the case will be had if the penitent was conscious, but not if he was ignorant of the things contained; under pretext of confession, even when confession has not followed, as if he solicits one whom he invited to confess or, after confession has been alleged, removes bystanders in order to solicit; with simulation of confession, in a confessional or in another place destined or chosen for hearing confessions. A destined place is not the whole room or sacristy, but, for example, a kneeler placed there with a seat for hearing confessions. Simulation there, as also in a confessional, will be had of itself from the fact that both present themselves there in the customary way; in a chosen place, the external manner of confession must be imitated for simulation to be had;

4. the obligation holds the solicited person and anyone possessed of reason who, either as an immediate witness or from trustworthy persons, has known that solicitation was made. Yet one who merely heard the matter is not held if the one narrating morally satisfied his obligation immediately, or if he knew the matter as one consulted.

The obligation is not removed by interval of time, defect of proof, another denunciation already made, consent into sin; but it is excused by danger of grave damage, in life, reputation, or goods;

5. denunciation is to be made within a month from the known obligation, and indeed judicially, either to the Holy Office, or the Nuncio or Apostolic Delegate, or the Ordinary of the place in which the solicitation was made, every mingling-in of a religious Superior being excluded;

6. the confessor must warn the penitent about his obligation. In certain cases, as of a dying person, from epikeia the warning will be able to be omitted or deferred;

7. those who do not wish to denounce cannot be absolved and, if they themselves were solicited, they are struck by excommunication latae sententiae reserved to no one. But it can be asked that, because of grave difficulty, denunciation be made before the confessor alone;

8. he who has made a false judicial denunciation is struck by excommunication specially reserved to the Holy See, and from which he will not be able to be absolved unless formal judicial retraction has been made, damage repaired, and a grave and long-lasting penance accepted which must be imposed on him. If the excommunication was not contracted, the sin remains reserved to the Holy See by reason of itself.

460. Preliminary Note. Benedict XIV in the same Constitution Sacramentum Poenitentiae condemned another abuse of the sacrament of penance, namely, solicitation to shameful things. Pius IV⁴⁴⁴ and Gregory XV⁴⁴⁵ had already previously made laws concerning this matter. The present discipline is explained in the cited Constitution of Benedict XIV, in the Instruction of the Holy Office of February 20, 1867,⁴⁴⁶ and in the Code of Canon Law, cc. 894, 904, 2363, 2368. The manner of conducting an examination against soliciting priests is indicated by the Instruction of the Holy Office of July 20, 1890.⁴⁴⁷ These are the words of Benedict XIV, who commands bishops to proceed "against each and every priest, both secular and regular, ... who should have attempted to solicit or provoke any penitent, whoever that person may be, to dishonorable and shameful things, either in the act of sacramental confession, or before or immediately after confession, or on the occasion or pretext of confession, or even outside the occasion of confession in the confessional, or in another place designated or chosen for hearing confessions, with the simulation of hearing a confession there, whether by words, signs, nods, touch, or writing to be read either then or afterward, or who should have held illicit and dishonorable conversations or dealings with them by rash daring.... Let each and every priest appointed to hear confessions remember, moreover, that they are bound and obliged diligently to admonish their penitents whom they know to have been solicited by others, as above, ... concerning the obligation of denouncing to the inquisitors or the aforesaid local Ordinaries the person who committed the solicitation, even if he is a priest who lacks jurisdiction for validly imparting absolution, or if the solicitation between the confessor and penitent was mutual, whether the penitent consented to the solicitation or by no means gave consent, or a long time has now elapsed after the solicitation itself, or the solicitation was performed by the confessor not for himself but for another person."

The Pontifical Constitutions concerning the absolution of an accomplice and solicitation to shameful things also bind Orientals.⁴⁴⁸

For a clearer understanding of this law, it is useful to explain: 1. the conditions required in order that the crime of solicitation truly be present; 2. the obligation of denouncing; 3. the manner of denouncing; 4. the penalties which are to be inflicted upon a soliciting priest.

⁴⁴⁴ Constitution Cum sicut nuper, April 15, 1561.

⁴⁴⁵ Bull Universi, August 30, 1622.

⁴⁴⁶ Collect. de Prop. Fide, n. 1282.

⁴⁴⁷ Ibid., n. 1732.

⁴⁴⁸ Thus the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, August 6, 1885 (Collect. de Prop. Fide, n. 1640).

461. 1. Conditions Required for the Crime of Solicitation.

Notion. The crime of solicitation is a provocation to a grave sin of lust made by a priest abusing for this end a true or simulated sacramental confession. Therefore it is required:

a) That the provocation be made to a grave sin against chastity.

Solicitation is not judged to be present: alpha) if the provocation was made to another sin, for example, to theft; or beta) if it was made to something dishonorable which nevertheless is not certainly and objectively a mortal sin, for example, if the confessor kissed a woman in passing immediately after confession. For although a kiss is often gravely culpable because of the danger of venereal delectation, scandal, a depraved intention, and so forth, nevertheless, considered objectively, it is not a mortal sin, and consequently that solicitation to shameful things of which we speak here is not judged to be present,⁴⁴⁹ unless, however, it is established that the kiss was given from lustful affection. Sometimes it can be judged with difficulty whether more or less indecent words uttered by the confessor contain solicitation to shameful things or not. See the various expressions judged by St. Alphonsus.⁴⁵⁰ - It is not required, however: alpha) that the solicitation be efficacious, or that the person solicited consent to the sin. Hence, for example, a confessor inviting a spouse to adultery would commit solicitation even if the spouse altogether refused this sin. Likewise it is not required: beta) that the confessor immediately solicit the person with whom the sin of lust is to be committed, or that the confessor solicit the person to sin with the one soliciting.⁴⁵¹ Hence the crime of solicitation would be present if, for example, the confessor sought the assistance of a brother in order to sin with his sister, or if he incited a young man to sin with some girl; but from positive law there would not be an obligation to denounce a confessor who gave a maidservant making her confession sealed letters to be delivered to her mistress and containing a solicitation. For the maidservant is not a formal accomplice in the sin, while the mistress is not here and now a penitent.

⁴⁴⁹ Cf. St. Alphonsus, Theol. mor. l. 6, n. 683. Aemilius Berardi teaches the contrary (De sollicit., n. 47): "In the case of which we treat, kisses and touches (less honorable) ought to be considered as mortal; for in practice things of this kind would be done from no honorable motive, and ordinarily not even from mere jest, but to satisfy lust.... Woe if things of this kind and other similar things could be considered as mere trifles and as by no means subject to denunciation!" - Certainly these things are not mere trifles, but are greatly to be reproved. But from this it by no means follows that they are always mortal sins and that they induce a grave obligation under pain of excommunication to denounce the confessor who did such things. For an odious law, such as the obligation of denouncing is judged to be, is of strict interpretation. Father Cerato treats this matter excellently in De delicto sollicitationis, n. 39.

⁴⁵⁰ Theol. mor. l. 6, n. 704.

⁴⁵¹ This is established from the following response of the Sacred Penitentiary of September 2, 1904: "Tibullus, hearing the confessions of women whose husbands are often accustomed to be absent and who do not easily contain themselves, teaches and persuades the same women that they do not sin in the following cases: 1. If, while desiring their own absent husband, they suffer a sensual commotion or pollution. 2. If they desire to experience this same pollution in themselves from ardent love of the absent husband. 3. If they excite pollution in themselves by touches performed upon themselves, provided that they refer these acts to the absent husband. - The Sacred Penitentiary adds to the beloved one in X ... who wrote: that a response concerning this matter had already twice been given by this sacred Tribunal, that acts of this kind are gravely illicit, and that a confessor approving them is to be denounced."

462. b) That the solicitation be made by a priest as confessor.

Hence that crime is not present if a cleric or layman pretends to be a confessor and then provokes the penitent to shameful things. Some authors teach that even a bishop soliciting to shameful things is not to be denounced, since in odious matters, for example, in penalties enacted against priests, bishops are not included unless this is expressly stated. This opinion is perhaps probable. Therefore perhaps there would not be a strict obligation from ecclesiastical law to denounce a soliciting bishop, but there would plainly exist an obligation from natural law to prevent enormous scandal.^451a - There must be a true, although implicit, provocation to shameful things on the part of the confessor. Hence several authors probably teach that the obligation of denunciation is not present if the penitent himself solicits and the confessor only consents to this solicitation.⁴⁵² To the question, "Whether a confessor who has been solicited, if induced by fear he consents to the solicitation, is to be denounced?" the qualifiers of the Holy Office responded on February 11, 1661: "Affirmative, and the negative opinion is not probable"; but this was omitted both in the Benedictine Bull and in the Instruction of the Holy Office given concerning this matter on February 20, 1866.⁴⁵³ It is not likely that St. Alphonsus was ignorant of the opinion issued by the Holy Office on February 11, 1661, and nevertheless the Holy Doctor holds the opposite opinion as more probable. Hence Bucceroni⁴⁵⁴ and the Vindiciae Alphonsianae teach that there is no obligation to denounce a confessor who from grave fear consented to the solicitation of the penitent but in no way solicited himself. If the confessor freely consents to a soliciting penitent, mutual solicitation is ordinarily present. But denunciation is certainly to be made if the solicitation was mutual between the confessor and the penitent. In this case, however, the penitent is not bound to confess that he himself also solicited.

^451a Cf. Cappello, l.c., n. 689.

⁴⁵² St. Alphonsus, Theol. mor. l. 6, n. 681.

⁴⁵³ Collect. de Prop. Fide, n. 1282.

⁴⁵⁴ Comm. in Bull. Ap. Sedis, n. 29.

463. In four cases a priest is judged to solicit as confessor, namely, if he provokes to shameful things:

a) In the act of sacramental confession, that is, from the time at which the confession is begun up to and including the words of absolution, or, as it is said, between the two crosses of the confessor. But that confession is judged sacramental which was begun in order to sacramental absolution, even if it is not brought to completion nor perfected by absolution.

b) Immediately before or after confession.

That is, if no other external action intervenes between the confession and the solicitation. Therefore the crime of solicitation is present if, for example, the confessor speaks manifestly obscene words from lustful affection immediately before or after confession; if he touches in a dishonorable manner a penitent who immediately after receiving absolution comes to kiss the hand or stole of the confessor; if he gives the penitent letters to be read afterward in which he solicits to shameful things.

c) On the occasion or pretext of confession.

To solicit on the occasion of confession is to take from confession a motive or opportunity for provoking to shameful things. Hence, for example, if the confessor, learning from confession the proclivity of some woman to lust, asks her where she lives or says to her: Come afterward to my house; and if he then afterward commits a sin of lust with her, the crime of solicitation is present, provided, however, that it is clearly established that the confessor already had during confession the intention of sinning with the woman. But if the confessor does not meet with that woman until after several days, or if he meets with her for another end and then, as temptation gradually arises, provokes her to shameful things, it is not certainly established that there was an abuse of confession, and consequently there is no strict obligation to denounce this confessor.

To solicit under the pretext of confession is to provoke to shameful things under the appearance or veil of confession. For example, the confessor invites the penitent to come into the confessional with the intention that there he may provoke the penitent to shameful things. St. Alphonsus⁴⁵⁵ asks: "Whether a confessor is to be denounced who agrees with a woman that, in order to elude the household, she should pretend to be ill and summon him to the house to perpetrate the sin?" Although some answer affirmatively, the Holy Doctor responds more probably in the negative. For in this case "it is not verified that the confessor solicits under the pretext of confession, but only that under the pretext of confession he carries out the sin; so that the pretext of confession is then no longer ordered to the solicitation, but to deceiving the household.... But I judge that it is to be said otherwise if the confessor were to solicit outside confession, and the woman were to refuse, fearing defamation, and therefore the confessor were to persuade her to pretend to be ill and to summon him for sinning. For then the confessor would truly be said to solicit the woman under the pretext of confession in order to furnish consent." But so great a difference between the two cases does not seem to be present, since in both the pretext of confession is employed by the accomplices as a means for deceiving others. Hence some teach that a confessor solicits under the pretext of confession only when he employs a simulated confession as a means for inducing into sin that penitent who previously knew nothing concerning the sin to be committed.

d) Even outside the occasion of confession, in the confessional or in another place designated or chosen for hearing confessions, with the simulation of hearing a confession there. The essential words of this clause seem to be with the simulation of confession.

The difference between the simulation and dissimulation of a sacrament must be recalled. The latter is employed to conceal before others that a sacrament was not administered. The former, however, is a deception of the subject of the sacraments himself. Hence the crime of solicitation does not seem to be present whenever confession is dissimulated in order to deceive others, lest they perceive the sin committed or to be committed with the penitent, provided that this is done outside the place of confession. But that crime is present whenever the confessor before the penitent himself simulates that he wishes to hear his confession in some place and, then being there, provokes him to shameful things.

⁴⁵⁵ L.c., n. 679.

464. 2. The Obligation of Denouncing Those Who Solicit.

Since a confessor by the nefarious crime of solicitation gives the greatest scandal, by natural law itself everyone is bound to strive with all his strength that such scandal be removed. But this can scarcely be done unless the confessor is denounced to his superior. Therefore from natural law itself everyone who certainly knows that solicitation was committed is bound, and indeed under grave sin,⁴⁵⁶ to denounce the soliciting confessor, at least if the enormous harm which confessors of this kind are accustomed to cause to religion cannot otherwise be averted. The soliciting confessor himself, however, is not bound to denounce himself.⁴⁵⁷

By ecclesiastical law those who knowingly omit for a month to denounce confessors or priests by whom they were solicited to shameful things are punished with an excommunication latae sententiae reserved to no one.⁴⁵⁸ Therefore, by the ecclesiastical law now in force, the solicited person alone seems to be bound to denunciation,⁴⁵⁹ since that person alone is named in cc. 904 and 2368, § 2. In the ancient law, all who certainly knew that solicitation had been committed had to denounce it. A solicited penitent who culpably omits this denunciation for an entire month (to be computed from the day on which the obligation became known) incurs excommunication, from which, however, any confessor can absolve after the denunciation has been made, or after a serious promise of denouncing, or after a legitimate dispensation has been obtained. The confessor, his conscience being gravely burdened, must admonish the solicited penitent to denounce the soliciting confessor.⁴⁶⁰

⁴⁵⁶ Cf. Instruction of the Holy Office, 1867, § 3.

⁴⁵⁷ Holy Office, February 20, 1867.

⁴⁵⁸ Code of Canon Law, c. 2368, § 2.

⁴⁵⁹ A sign by no means to be despised of the change made appears from the fact that among the sources of canons 904 and 2368 all the decisions which established the former discipline have been omitted. Thus also teach Noldin, l.c. III, 377; Father Cerato, De delicto sollicitationis, n. 89, while others contradict, for example, Vermeersch, Ferreres, Cappello, and so forth.

⁴⁶⁰ Code of Canon Law, c. 904.

465. Causes Excusing from Denunciation:

a) The death of the soliciting priest.

Thus the Sacred Penitentiary on April 24, 1884. The reason is that the end of denunciation then ceases. - The obligation of denunciation, however, does not seem to cease if the confessor is now amended or punished, or if the solicitation was already committed a long time ago. But some theologians except the case in which the amendment is so manifest and enduring that no fear of relapse can be had, especially if the confessor has now entered a religious order.⁴⁶¹

b) A grave danger to the life, reputation, or fortune of the person denouncing, joined per accidens with the denunciation.

For example, the confessor to be denounced has such friends as are foreseen to persecute the person denouncing most vehemently. The reason is that no positive law obliges with the greatest inconvenience. But an inconvenience which is intrinsically joined with the denunciation does not excuse, such as especially the grave indignation of the confessor denounced.⁴⁶²

c) A dispensation of the Holy Office or the Sacred Penitentiary, which nevertheless is not granted so easily. A bishop cannot dispense in this law.

The Instruction of the Holy Office of February 20, 1867, has the following concerning seeking this dispensation: "If [the person solicited], detained by no impediment, altogether refuses the denunciation, in this case ... the confessor is to be praised who ... has consulted either the Ordinary or the Holy See for suitable provisions." - In the petition the substance of the case must be set forth exactly (especially whether there is question of a confessor of nuns). In addition, the impediments which draw the penitent back from making the denunciation must be declared.⁴⁶³

⁴⁶¹ Cf. Berardi, De sollic., n. 284; Tanquerey, De poenit., n. 592.

⁴⁶² De Smet, Tract. de cas. reserv., n. 165.

⁴⁶³ Cf. Berardi, l.c., n. 359.

466. 3. The Manner of Making a Denunciation. A confessor hearing a case of solicitation must diligently examine: a) whether the person narrating is worthy of belief, for certain women often relate concerning a confessor, from envy, hatred, hysteria, and other sinister causes, things which are altogether false; b) whether all the conditions required for the crime of solicitation are certainly present. For if even the slightest but true doubt remains, the obligation of denunciation does not exist. If the confessor finds that the crime of solicitation was truly committed, he must admonish the penitent concerning the obligation of denouncing, nor does the good faith of the penitent excuse the confessor from admonishing and instructing him. But if the penitent for grave causes refuses to make the denunciation, let the confessor have recourse to the Sacred Penitentiary for obtaining a dispensation from making the denunciation, as has already been said. The penitent, however, can immediately receive sacramental absolution, provided that he seriously promises that he will obey the Sacred Penitentiary.

The denunciation is to be made either to the Holy Office or to the Ordinary of the place (and, when he is dead, to the vicar capitular), but not to the vicar general unless the latter is specially delegated. The competent Ordinary is first of all the bishop of the place where the crime was committed, and then also the proper bishop of the soliciting priest or of the solicited penitent.⁴⁶⁴ The bishop in this affair acts as a delegate of the Holy Office, or, as it is said, as an inquisitor natus; and consequently the denunciation even of an exempt regular priest must be made to the bishop and not to the regular superiors. Therefore let the person solicited write letters (not anonymous ones) to the bishop, in which the person sets forth the fact of solicitation with the circumstances of place, time, and the name of the soliciting priest. The person ought not, however, to confess that he or she consented to the soliciting priest.⁴⁶⁵

When the bishop "has received some denunciation concerning the unspeakable crime of solicitation, he will proceed immediately to the diligentiae (that is, to a judicial investigation concerning the reputation of the person denounced and of the person denouncing). For this end, either by himself or through a priest specially delegated by him, he will summon two witnesses, insofar as it can be done, from the ecclesiastical body, but in any case beyond every exception, who know well both the person denounced and each and every person denouncing; and he will judicially interrogate them under the sanctity of an oath concerning speaking the truth and preserving the secret of the Holy Office,⁴⁶⁶ recording the testimony in writing (according to the following formula...); but he will transmit as soon as possible, directly and by a secure way, to this Supreme Congregation an authentic copy of the testimony of both and at the same time of the respective denunciation." Thus the Instruction of the Holy Office of August 6, 1897, from which it follows that the bishop cannot proceed judicially against the person denounced before he has transmitted the aforesaid documents to the Holy Office and received a response from it. This discipline seems to have been changed today.

Until a second or third denunciation of the same confessor has been made, the bishop can refrain from a judicial process against the accused confessor, whom nevertheless in the meantime he must admonish paternally and watch. Indeed, it is expedient that the bishop impose a salutary penance upon a confessor who even once has certainly committed the crime of solicitation, for example, the making of Spiritual Exercises, or removal from the place in which the confessor so enormously failed in his office.

⁴⁶⁴ Cappello (De censuris², n. 449) confidently asserts, but does not prove, that the denunciation must be made to the Ordinary of the place where the person solicited here and now resides, and not to the proper Ordinary either of the soliciting priest or of the solicited penitent or of that diocese in which the offense was committed.

⁴⁶⁵ A few years ago no denunciations could be made by the clergy or the faithful immediately to the Holy Office, but they had to be made through the bishop. The reason was the danger of losing them in the mail, which indeed could cause very grave inconveniences. Therefore, closed under seal, they had to be delivered to the Ordinary, who, when he had received them thus closed, had to enclose them untouched in another covering (enveloppe, busta) and, having addressed them, send them to the Cardinal Secretary, who himself, with no delay interposed, took care that they were transmitted similarly intact to the Holy Office (Circular of the Secretariat of State, December 1, 1918). This circular was revoked on August 7, 1926.

⁴⁶⁶ The secret of the Holy Office is called that secret which all officials of the Holy Office and others who treat some matter pertaining to the Holy Office must observe under oath.

467. 4. Penalties for Solicitation. The following penalties are to be inflicted upon a confessor who in a judicial process has been convicted of the crime of solicitation (all of which, however, are ferendae sententiae):

a) suspension from celebrating Mass;

b) suspension from hearing confessions;

c) privation of every benefice, of active and passive voice, and of dignity;

d) in graver cases, degradation.⁴⁶⁷

It must be noted that the sin of solicitation itself is not reserved, at least by common law; and consequently, if an unhappy priest rightly disposed confesses this sin, he can be absolved by any confessor.⁴⁶⁸

⁴⁶⁷ Code of Canon Law, c. 2368.

⁴⁶⁸ Holy Office, September 13, 1859 (Collect. de Prop. Fide, n. 1181).

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

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

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

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

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

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

⁴⁶⁹ Cf. Noldin, De sacr., n. 393.

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

1794. First of all it is useful to report the words of BENEDICT XIV, who, confirming the Bull of GREGORY XV, speaks thus in the Constitution Sacramentum: "We command all local Ordinaries... that diligently, and with every human respect set aside, they inquire and proceed against each and every priest, both secular and regular, however exempt... and of whatever dignity... who shall have attempted to solicit or provoke any penitent, whatever person he may be, either in the act of sacramental confession, or before, or immediately after confession, or on the occasion or pretext of confession, or even outside the occasion of confession in the confessional, or in another place destined or chosen for hearing confessions, with the simulation of hearing confession there, to dishonest and base things; whether by words, or signs, or nods, or touch, or through writing, either then or afterward to be read; or with them shall have had illicit and dishonest conversations or dealings with rash daring."¹⁷

"Let each and all priests appointed for hearing confessions remember besides that they are held and obliged sedulously to admonish their penitents, whom they know to have been solicited by others as above, according to the circumstances of the cases occurring, concerning the obligation of denouncing to the aforesaid local Ordinaries the person who has committed solicitation, even if he be a priest who lacks jurisdiction for validly imparting absolution, or the solicitation was mutual between confessor and penitent, whether the penitent consented to the solicitation or by no means furnished consent, or a long time has already flowed by after the solicitation itself, or the solicitation was performed by the confessor not for himself, but for another person."

On these matters three things come to be weighed: 1. when the crime of solicitation is present; 2. what the obligation of denouncing is; 3. how in practice the confessor ought to proceed.

1795. By the word SOLICITATION, in the Sacrament of Penance, is understood an invitation, incitement, or provocation to venereal things, made by a confessor, under certain clauses. It is a MOST GRAVE sin, both because it inflicts grave injury on the Sacrament, and because it brings mortal harm upon the penitent, offering him poison for medicine. If the one soliciting is the pastor himself, solicitation contains a special malice, or a special sin against justice, because from justice he is bound to feed his sheep by word and example (cf. n. 786, note 2).

It is said, 1. Invitation, namely one which is made by words or signs inductive to lustful acts. Hence solicitation must be held as complete (whether the penitent in fact consents to the sin, or resists), whenever an act suitable for alluring to venereal things is placed.¹⁸ - Nor does it matter whether the act is, in itself, evil or indifferent, provided from the circumstances it is afterward known that it was placed for soliciting; for example, if the confessor imposed upon a woman that she wait for him at home, or if he asked where she lived.¹⁹

It is said, 2. to venereal things; for a denunciation is not to be made if the solicitation was to other crimes. Nor does the obligation of denouncing press unless the solicitation was gravely culpable; wherefore it is to be noted that some acts can be held in themselves as venial, which nevertheless, if they are done by a priest engaged in the act of administering the Sacrament of Penance, become gravely culpable.²⁰ - But denunciation is to be made whether he solicited a male or a female, whether he solicited to sin with himself or with another, or finally whether he solicited the penitent immediately or, through the penitent, some other person.²¹

It is said, 3. under certain clauses, by which namely the law defines solicitation to have sufficient connection with the Sacrament, and to be denounced as an abuse of it.

CLAUSE 1. In the act of sacramental confession. For this it is sufficient if confession has been begun, although not perfected. Note here the sixth proposition condemned by Alexander VII, which said: "A confessor who, in sacramental confession, gives the penitent a paper to be read afterward, in which he incites to venery, is not judged to have solicited in confession."²²

CLAUSE 2. Immediately before or after. This word immediately, according to the more common opinion, is to be understood so strictly that no interval or action intervenes between the solicitation and the sacramental confession.²³ - Hence a confessor is to be denounced: 1. if, before the confessional, he dishonestly touches with hands or feet a woman waiting for the sake of confession, not by chance, but by design. 2. If immediately after confession, while she approaches to kiss his hand, he himself basely touches her. Likewise, if he at once leads her into a room and there solicits her; or if immediately he says: Wait a little while, and after some interval (but not on the following day) begins to solicit: for in either case he immediately places the means of solicitation. But otherwise, if, with no such means having been placed, he approaches and solicits her when she has already gone out of the confessional.²⁴ Yet attend to

CLAUSE 3. On the occasion or pretext of confession. It is said on the occasion of confession, when the confessor takes the opportunity of soliciting from a confession truly sought, or truly made; but on the pretext, when he takes the same opportunity from a fictitious confession, that is, from a confession which was proposed solely for this end, that it might serve solicitation.

Hence: 1. From the first head, a confessor is to be denounced who, having been asked for confession, diverts the conversation elsewhere and solicits, even if he has not yet sat down, nor the woman knelt. And this same must be said, although he is asked that he hear the confession only on the following day; provided the solicitation is then made in the confessional, or in the place of confession, or under pretext of confession. Likewise, he is to be denounced if, on account of the fragility of the woman known from her confession, he afterward solicits her at home; provided, from indications, it is sufficiently evident that he was induced to solicitation from that knowledge, and not from other causes.

2. From the second head he is to be denounced if, on account of an evil end, he fictitiously invites a woman to confession, and then solicits; likewise, if, called by a mother to hear the confession of her daughter, he approaches this daughter with an evil end and solicits her; or if, called to absolve a woman deprived of her senses, he comes under such pretext or occasion, and dishonestly touches her. Likewise, if he persuades a woman, already solicited outside confession and refusing on account of fear of defamation, that, pretending herself sick, she summon him for sinning. But otherwise, if he uses such a pretext not to solicit the woman, but only to deceive the Superior, members of the household, etc.; or if the woman herself, with no prior agreement, uses the pretext of confession to call and solicit the confessor; "although afterward they have relations."²⁵

CLAUSE 4. In the confessional, or in another place destined or chosen for hearing confessions, with simulation of hearing confession. Therefore, that the obligation of denouncing may arise from this clause, it is necessary that simulation of confession have intervened. That is, the priest must so conduct himself that he can deservedly be believed actually to be receiving confession, e.g. by applying his ears. Hence, one is not to be denounced who, sitting in the confessional and in no way simulating confession, solicits a woman standing or sitting before the confessional. Thus from the Declaration of the HOLY OFFICE, Feb. 11, 1661, under n. 15. But otherwise, if he solicits her kneeling in the confessional, or in the place of confession. Otherwise also, according to many, if both IN THE CONFESSIONAL treat of dishonest matters, without simulating confession; for, from the Decree of Paul V (July 10, 1614), all those are to be denounced who have abused the Sacrament of Penance by employing confession, or the confessional, for dishonest ends.²⁶ Others, however, not improbably contradict: because the cited Declaration of the Holy Office, which Benedict XIV approved, seems to have derogated from the Decree of Paul V by an authentic interpretation.²⁷

1796. IT IS ASKED. Whether denunciation is to be made if the solicitation was DOUBTFUL?

Resp. Distinguish. 1. If from some fact or saying solicitation is indeed certain, but it is not evident who the one soliciting was, denunciation is to be made, so that the Superior may be able to inquire concerning the person soliciting, in the case where such inquiry is easy, without danger of defaming an innocent person. - 2. If the one suspected of solicitation is certain, and it is doubted whether the fact or saying was true solicitation, denunciation is not to be imposed on the penitent; both because in penalties the more benign interpretation is to be made, and because, in doubt, no one is to be deprived of the reputation which he possesses. Except: 1. If vehement indications of solicitation accede, e.g. on account of the evil life or bad reputation of the confessor, which would found moral certitude. - 2. If the words of themselves carry solicitation before them, and only it is doubted whether the confessor uttered them for an evil end; because, unless something else stands in the way, the presumption of intention is to be taken according to the proper meaning of the words.²⁸

To this point belong two Responses of the HOLY OFFICE taken from the declaration of February 11, 1661:²⁹ To the 12th: "Whether a confessor, if he praises the penitent for beauty and gracefulness, is said to solicit her, and therefore is to be denounced? They judged that if that is serious and smells of no evil intention, the negative opinion is probable. - To the 16th: Whether a confessor is to be denounced who, while hearing confession, gives a gift to a woman, so that by this deed he is said to solicit her? They answered the same as to the twelfth."

1797. We pre-note: 1. "The end of the law of denunciation, as Eusebius Amort skillfully adverts,³⁰ is not the correction of a particular person, but the public security of the Sacrament and of souls from the certain chastisement of so abominable a crime, and from the inevitable fear of all confessors of incurring the gravest punishments, even by a single act, or one repeated only once; indeed also the indemnity of the Church, lest pests of this sort steal into public offices, than which nothing is more harmful to the common good of the Church."³¹

2. But the end of each denunciation is: 1) That, if the person denouncing is otherwise very honest and worthy of faith, and suspected of no malice, revenge, enmity, or subornation, and the denounced person otherwise is a man of little fear, he may make such a denounced person suspect, so that he may be observed by the Ordinary. - 2) That, if greater indications from another source concur on the part of the denounced person, e.g. otherwise suspicious conversation, they may furnish the Ordinary a motive for employing, the first time, a paternal admonition, by which he indeed does not impute the crime, but exhorts to caution, yet in such a way that he does not render the denouncing person suspect to the denounced. For, very often, one is accustomed to proceed to judgment only from the third denunciation (Instruction of the HOLY OFFICE, Feb. 20, 1867, under n. 11).³² - From these things you will understand the response to the following.

1798. Questions. Q. 1. Who OUGHT to be denounced?

Resp. 1. From the Pontifical Bulls and decrees of the Holy Office, one is to be denounced: 1) A priest of whatever dignity, who is certainly guilty of the crime of solicitation, from the rules and clauses explained above. Nor does it matter that he lacked jurisdiction, if he solicited in confession³³ (from the Response of the Holy Office, Feb. 11, 1661, to doubt 5, and Instr. of the year 1867 under n. 2). - 2) A confessor consenting to solicitation; nor is he excepted who, immediately ceasing to speak of base matter, deferred the completion of it to another time, and did not furnish absolution to the penitent; likewise if he consented induced by fear; and a fortiori, if the solicitation was mutual between him and the penitent. From Resp. of the Holy Office 1661 to the 2nd and 9th.³⁴ - 3) He is to be denounced, even if a long time has flowed by from the solicitation, and the crime has remained wholly occult. Nor, more probably, does the law of denunciation cease if the one soliciting has been corrected, or because of another denunciation has already abjured before the Inquisitor, i.e. has purged himself of suspicion of heresy, or has been punished, or even has spontaneously denounced himself. A fortiori if he has offended again, he must again be denounced.³⁵ - 4) Likewise he is to be denounced who solicited a girl who, on account of her simplicity and candor of soul, suspected nothing about the malice of impurity. She, as soon as she has become conscious of the wicked solicitation, is bound to denounce.

Resp. 2. One is not to be denounced: 1) The one soliciting, if already deceased, because the total end of the law ceases, namely both correction and punishment of the guilty. Except if there is question of repairing damage perhaps inflicted on others.³⁶ - 2) A penitent who solicited the confessor, and an interpreter who solicited the penitent; likewise one commanding the confessor to solicit; a layman and a simple cleric who simulated themselves as confessors. Nevertheless these, if they received confession, are to be denounced, from the Constitution Officii nostri partes of Gregory XIII (Aug. 6, 1574) and the Edict of the Holy Office, as suspected of heresy.³⁷ - 3) Finally, a priest is not to be denounced who, amid the administration of other Sacraments, has fallen into the crime of solicitation.³⁸ Except if the circumstances of the matter are such that there is an obligation from natural law. For all, having seen the wolf in the sheepfold, ought to cry out.

Q. 2. Who are HELD to denounce?

Resp. 1. All and each of the solicited penitents are held, even if they consented to the solicitation; nor can they be absolved unless they first denounce, or, if there is a just cause for deferring, e.g. the necessity of communicating, at least promise to denounce.³⁹ - But from the decree of the Holy Office, Sept. 27, 1624:⁴⁰ "If a woman consents to the confessor soliciting, she is not bound to manifest her consent, nor can she be questioned about this by the Bishop."

2. Besides the solicited persons themselves, every witness of this delict is held, whether by sight or by hearing, and any other person (even an impubescent) who has understood the solicitation, immediately or mediately from the sayings of the one soliciting himself, or of the person solicited (provided this person is worthy of faith), outside confession.⁴¹ - Nor does the obligation cease to press even if there is question of denouncing one's own blood-relatives; indeed, even if the crime is known under a natural secret, or with an oath promised. Except if the solicitation was manifested for seeking counsel; because the common good requires that such a secret be kept.⁴²

3. The solicited person is not exempted from the law of denunciation because another has already denounced; for each solicited person is bound to denounce.⁴³ Nor is anyone exempted from this law on account of intrinsic and common difficulties, such as: shame of the solicited person; fear of stirring up against herself the suspicion of the judge; danger of undergoing a slight inconvenience, or of inflicting damage on the Church and souls; indeed, danger of grave, but scarcely probable, damage: for difficulties of this sort are not of such weight that they give place to epikeia.⁴⁴ Nevertheless, a founded fear will be able to be a motive either for deferring the denunciation, or for obtaining a dispensation, as will be said below.

4. No one is bound to denounce himself; hence no confessor is bound to admonish a penitent whom he solicited that he denounce him. Nevertheless, if the solicitor spontaneously appears, he will enjoy the benefit of those spontaneously appearing, that is, he will be punished only with salutary admonitions and penances, unless perhaps he had already been denounced by others; in which case the penalty will only be diminished.⁴⁵

Q. 3. What PENALTIES were established or threatened in the present law?

Resp. 1. The solicited penitent (and this one alone) incurs an excommunication reserved to no one, if he culpably omits for a month to denounce the guilty person, according to what was said at n. 1354. - 2. One falsely denouncing, or commanding, counseling, etc., another to denounce, falls into a case reserved to the Roman Pontiff, as was said at n. 1772. And he is bound, as is plain, to retraction. - 3. The solicitor, from the Decree of Benedict XIV of August 5, 1745, incurs perpetual inability for celebration of Mass. The Bishop, the matter having been well considered, is ordered to interdict him in perpetuity from receiving confessions, depriving him of all faculties, not even excepting those which had been granted to him by the Holy See. - But all these penalties, like the others threatened by Gregory XV, namely privation of benefice, of active and passive voice, etc., are of ferendae sententiae, and suppose that the guilty person had been admitted to defense, as the laws demand (from the Instr. of the Holy Office, year 1867, n. 12).⁴⁶

Note. Besides, inquiry must be made: 1. Whether the case of solicitation, as is customary, is reserved in the diocese. - 2. Whether the solicitor attempted to absolve the accomplice: in which case the penalties are incurred which we have recalled at nn. 1781 and 1782.

1799. 1. The confessor, hearing in confession that a person was solicited, before all things ought to EXAMINE: 1) whether this person is worthy of faith, whether led by hatred or malice or even levity she wishes to calumniate the priest; 2) whether all the circumstances are present which make certain the obligation of denouncing. - But let him beware of inquiring into the name of the one soliciting, and let him admonish the penitent that the case of false denunciation is reserved to the Supreme Pontiff.

2. If the solicitation is plainly evident, he is bound sedulously to admonish the solicited person, although existing in good faith, concerning the obligation which binds her, under penalty of excommunication, to denunciation. And indeed he is bound to this, even if he foresees that it will happen that the person refuses to denounce.⁴⁷ "Those who do not admonish their penitents about this obligation ought to be punished" (from the Instr. of the HOLY OFFICE, Feb. 20, 1867, n. 4).

3. Let him sedulously weigh the excuses which the solicited person usually brings forward. If they seem just, let him examine whether there is a cause for deferring the denunciation, or even for petitioning relaxation of the law. - If the first, e.g. if the Bishop is absent, or if the necessity of communicating presses, the penitent will be able to be absolved, provided he seriously promises that, as soon as possible, he will satisfy his obligation.⁴⁸ If the second, e.g. if there is probably danger of undergoing grave damage in the goods of reputation, fortune, or body, let the penitent, by himself or through another, e.g. through the confessor, have recourse to the Superior, explaining the nature of the impediment by which he is detained from making denunciation, and ask what is to be done by him. If necessity presses, and he pledges that he will stand by the decision of the Superior, he can be absolved.⁴⁹

4. If the excuses are vain, e.g. if the penitent, on account of gifts received or to be received, says that he is impeded from denouncing by gratitude or necessity, etc.: let the confessor oppose the gravity of the sacrilege, the necessity of obeying the laws of the Church, and the penalty of excommunication to be incurred. Let him also show that no danger of infamy is present, because the solicited woman is not bound to manifest her consent; indeed, if she should spontaneously manifest it, or if the accomplice should reveal it, it will not happen that the judge ever alludes to such a fall. If he consents, absolution should not be granted to him at once, but prudently deferred until he has actually denounced.⁵⁰

5. If, detained by no impediment, he wholly refuses denunciation, "the confessor is to be praised who has not denied his effort to the penitent." Therefore in this case, let him not indeed absolve the person, but make him return to himself at another convenient time. Meanwhile, let him consult either the Ordinary or the Holy See through the Sacred Penitentiary or Sacred Inquisition, all the circumstances having been explained, for an opportune remedy, the name of the penitent nevertheless being suppressed.⁵¹

1800. IT IS ASKED. How is denunciation to be made?

Resp. The burden of denunciation is personal, and to be fulfilled by the solicited person himself,⁵² and this in judicial form. - Hence, either let the person himself approach the competent judge, or see that the judge by himself, or through another, meet with him. - Therefore, if impeded from personally approaching the Ordinary, either let him inform him, through an intermediary or through a letter, that he has a denunciation to be made pertaining to the ecclesiastical tribunal, and that he asks that a delegated person be sent to receive it; or let him manifest the delinquent by letters.

This memorial can also be drawn up by the confessor, the sacramental seal always being safe, if the person is unable to write, or performs this with difficulty. - But if, on account of too much shame or fear of infamy, the person refuses to depose before another delegate, let the Bishop be admonished about this matter, who will be able to delegate that confessor himself to receive the denunciation in judicial form.⁵³ Generally, indeed, it is not expedient that the confessor take this burden upon himself, because he would be exposed to not a few detractions and dangers. Yet sometimes he can be held by the law of charity to do this.⁵⁴

The substantial things which must altogether be observed in a denunciation to be accepted judicially are these:⁵⁵ 1. Let the day of denunciation be noted. - 2. Let an oath be received from the denouncer about speaking the truth. - 3. Let the place of the crime, its time, qualities and circumstances, and witnesses be expressed. - 4. Let the name both of the one soliciting and also of the one solicited be expressed; but if the name is unknown, it must be expressed in an equivalent way, i.e. from stature, age, features, etc. - 5. Let the denouncer and witnesses emit an oath about keeping silence, and, the acts having been drawn up, let them subscribe.

Note. For more things about the manner of proceeding in these cases, see in the cited Instruction of the HOLY OFFICE edited in the year 1867. In this it is also found noted under n. 15 what is to be done in distant regions, where the ordinary form of trial cannot be observed. See also the Canonists.⁵⁶

1407. - I. When this crime of solicitation exists. - Here there is question of the abuse of the Sacrament of Penance for shameful things, - but not of the abuse of other Sacraments for shameful things, nor of the abuse of the same Sacrament of Penance for other sins, even very grave ones (see Resp. S. C. O. a. 1661 ad Dub. 10. 11. p. LXI.). But the obligation of denouncing solicitors seems to have been imposed on account of this venereal matter alone, because, on account of the frailty of nature, this solicitation can happen more frequently and there can exist a greater danger of consenting to it.¹ Now it is asked: A) What is understood by the dishonest and shameful things to which solicitation is made? B) By what act is solicitation completed? C) What sort of nexus must intervene between solicitation and the Sacrament of Penance, so that truly and according to the mind of the legislator the solicitation is an abuse of the Sacrament?

1408. - Ad A). By dishonest and shameful sins, to which solicitation is made, are understood all external lustful acts or acts of luxury, to which also pertain acts which either from their own nature, or from the particular disposition of the accomplice, or from the intention of the one acting, otherwise sufficiently manifested (e.g. by a sign or word³), are inductive to a vehement commotion of the genital spirits.² One soliciting only to acts venially dishonest, and therefore not venereal (for in these there is not smallness of matter. See n. 484. 485 and Resp. S. C. O. a. 1661 ad Dub. 3. p. LX.), is not to be denounced, because solicitation must be a grave sin. Except if from the circumstances it were certainly conjectured that the priest, by an act evil of itself lightly, had had the mind of proceeding to grave things.⁴

A Confessor consenting only to a woman soliciting him in Confession is in no way exempted from the sin of dishonest dealing in the confessional, and therefore, as guilty of solicitation to shameful things in Confession, etc., must be denounced by the penitent by whom he was solicited, and this although he immediately ceased to speak of that shameful matter, deferring its complement to another time and not giving absolution to the penitent;¹ likewise although, induced by fear, he consented to the solicitation, and a fortiori when the confessor and penitent solicited each other mutually,² for instance when the confessor, solicited to one species of shamefulness, solicited the penitent to another.

Notes near nn. 1407-1408 (printed p. 143; left-column note sequence).

1 L. VI. 684. | 2 Amort. Tr. XIII. § 24. q. 5. | 3 e.g. by a rather flattering word. | 4 L. VI. 554 sub 3. 683.

1409. - Ad B). Solicitation to shameful things is present if a confessor (or even a priest lacking jurisdiction, but here in Confession³) solicits either a male or a female to sin either with himself or with another; nor does it matter whether he solicits the penitent himself, or, through the penitent as mediator, some other person. Moreover, solicitation of this kind on the part of the confessor can be made either immediately, e.g. by obscene words, or mediately, as by a note afterward to be read by the penitent;⁴ and it must be held as completed whether the penitent is in fact drawn into sin or resists, provided a means apt for enticing to dishonest acts is placed;⁵ nor does it matter whether the means applied is evil in itself or indifferent, provided afterward from the circumstances it is known that this was employed for soliciting, for instance if the confessor with this intention commands a woman to wait for him at home, or with this same intention asks her where she lives.⁶

1410. - Ad C). But solicitation of this kind, in order that it be an abuse of the Sacrament, must have, in the manner determined by law, some relation intervening either between itself and Confession, or between itself and the place where Confessions are heard.⁷

a) The relation required to Confession is present if the solicitation is made:

1) In the act of sacramental Confession begun, although not perfected; or

2) Immediately before it, i.e. with nothing intervening between it and the solicitation. To one using the request for Confession as a means of soliciting, apply what is to be said under 4); or

3) Immediately after, namely when after Confession neither the confessor nor the penitent turns aside to other things, so that the solicitation happens before any other action intervenes, - or if the confessor immediately after Confession leads a boy into a room and solicits him, because then he immediately places, if not the solicitation, at least its means; (20) p. 419. or

4) On the occasion of Confession (true). e.g. if the confessor, having been asked or inducing to Confession, turns aside and solicits, although he has not yet sat down, nor the woman knelt, and this although he has been asked only by the woman to hear her Confession on the following day, provided nevertheless that then the solicitation is made in the Confessional or in the place of Confession or under the pretext of Confession (see Resp. S. C. O. a. 1661 ad Dub. 4. p. LX.), - or if, on account of knowledge had in the woman's Confession, he should solicit her afterward at home, provided that from indications it is sufficiently clear that he was moved to this by that knowledge, not by other causes; (21) p. 419. or

5) Under the pretext of Confession (fictitious), if the confessor from an evil end fictitiously invites a woman to Confession and then solicits her, or persuades a woman that, pretending herself sick, she should summon him to sin. (22) p. 419.

b) A relation to the place where Confessions are heard will be present if the prohibited acts are exercised:

1) In the confessional properly so called.

2) In any place whatsoever where Confessions are customarily heard, although a confessional is not found there.

3) In any place whatsoever which the confessor at his own choice has chosen for hearing Confessions; and thus even in a field, etc.

But in order that the obligation of denouncing arise on account of the circumstances narrated under b), it is necessary that simulation of Confession be added, i.e. the confessor and penitent must act in such a way that the former seems to hear the confession (e.g. by applying his ears), the latter to make it. Hence he is not to be denounced who, sitting in the confessional, solicits a woman standing before the confessional, without simulating Confession. See Resp. S. C. O. a. 1661 ad Dub. 15. p. LXI. - Yet this simulation is not required if he solicits in the confessional a person who likewise is found in it; for in order to denounce it suffices that he himself in the confessional treats of shameful matters, without simulating that he hears Confession. (23) p. 419.

Notes near nn. 1408-1410 (printed p. 143; right-column note sequence).

1 S. Off. T. I. p. LX. 2, and p. LXII. 2. | 2 S. Off. p. LX. 8. 9. | 3 Resp. S. C. O. a. 1661 ad Dub. 5. p. LX. Instr. S. C. O. a. 1867 sub. 2. p. LXII. | 4 Prop. 6 condemned by Alex. VII, p. XIII. Cf. Resp. S. C. O. a. 1661 ad Dub. 1. p. LX. | 5 Viva, theol. trutina damn. thes. 6. n. 7. | 6 L. VI. 676. | 7 Ib. 676-680.

1411. - II. The obligation of denouncing does not bind, as is clear of itself, the one soliciting, nor is he held to warn the one solicited by him of that obligation. It must be made to the Holy See or to the Ordinary. But the end of denunciation is:

1) That, if the person denouncing is otherwise a very honorable person and worthy of faith, and not suspect of any malice, revenge, or enmity, or of subornation, and the one denounced is otherwise a man of little fear, a denunciation of this kind may render the denounced one suspect, so that he may be watched by the Ordinary. Cf. Instr. S. C. O. a. 1867 sub. 11. p. LXIV.

2) That, if otherwise greater indications concur on the part of the one denounced, e.g. otherwise suspect conversation, they may furnish the Ordinary with a motive, the first time, for employing a paternal warning, by which indeed he does not impute the crime, but exhorts to caution, yet in such a way that he does not render the person denouncing suspect to the one denounced. For "for the most part" it is the custom "not to proceed" to trial "except from the third denunciation." Instr. S. C. O. a. 1867 sub. 11. p. LXIV.

Hence the adequate end of the law is understood: namely, the Pontiff intends the punishment of the guilty party rather than his amendment, in order, that is, to repair the harm to the Church and the scandal,¹ or, as Amort says, the end is not the amendment of a particular person, but the public security of the Sacrament and of souls, from the certain chastisement of so abominable a crime, and from the unavoidable fear of all confessors of incurring very grave punishments, even by one act or only once repeated; indeed also the indemnity of the Church, namely lest pests of this kind creep into public offices, than which nothing is more harmful to the common good of the Church.²

Wherefore:

a) Each and every person solicited is altogether held to denounce, nor is he exempted from the obligation of denouncing because another has denounced.

b) A Confessor must be denounced again if he offends again, after he has been punished on account of the first crime, or has not been fully convicted concerning solicitation.

c) The penitent is held to denounce the solicitor, even if from fraternal correction he hopes for his amendment; indeed, according to St. Alph., even if he has certainly been amended.

d) Denunciation must be made even if the solicitation cannot be juridically proved, or the crime is occult, or was perpetrated a long time ago. Nor can it be said that so late a denunciation can have no effect; for perhaps it will serve for the complement of other preceding denunciations concerning the same confessor, or with other indications for closing the door to dignities against hypocrites of this kind, or at least for the perpetual terror of the confessor, lest by repeated solicitation he complete the measure of sins, since solicitations "committed even a long time before can sometimes be called before the tribunal." But after the solicitor has departed from life, he is not to be denounced, because then the total end of the law ceases, namely both the amendment and the punishment of the guilty party.

e) There must also denounce, but today no longer under excommunication, every witness of this delict, whether by sight or by hearing, and whoever (apart from the case of advice having been asked) has learned the solicitation immediately or mediately from the sayings of the solicitor himself, or of the person solicited (provided this one is worthy of faith), outside Confession.

f) The person solicited or conscious of the solicitation is not excused from denunciation on account of difficulties intrinsic to the denunciation and almost common, such as the shame of the solicited one; fear of suspicion that will arise against oneself in the judge; danger of inconvenience or harm, which is slight relatively to the person denouncing and to the harms probably to be feared for the Church and for souls, or even danger of grave harm, but which is not probable: for these are not of such a kind that they give place to epikeia.

1412. - Practice of the Confessor. a) If it is doubted whether the deed or saying of the confessor was true "solicitation," the penitent is not to be obliged to denunciation, unless either 1) vehement indications of solicitation are added, or 2) the words of themselves present solicitation, and it is only doubted whether the confessor uttered them for an evil end... See the application of this rule in Resp. S. C. O. a. 1661 ad Dub. 12. 16. p. LXI.

b) Before the Confessor obliges the person solicited to denunciation, which is the condition of absolution, he must seriously weigh whether this person merits belief; because, if there is a grave, just, and very probable suspicion, strengthened by several indications, that she, led by hatred, wishes to calumniate some priest, she would not be obliged to denunciation, but rather would have to be rebuked for her malice. But in every case the person solicited is to be instructed concerning the very great crime reserved to the Supreme Pontiff alone, which she would commit through a false denunciation.

c) Let confessors altogether abstain from inquiring the name of the solicitor, although they are held to question the penitent concerning circumstances that must necessarily be known.

d) But if the confessor certainly knows that the penitent has been solicited, he is held diligently to warn her, although she is existing in good faith (Instr. S. C. O. a. 1867. 3. p. LXII.), concerning the obligation of denouncing, even if he certainly foresees that the solicited one is not going to denounce. - He should also indicate the mode of denunciation more accommodated to the circumstances of the person, place, and time. On this matter Amort gives the following rules: 1) When the Bishop or Vicar General (of the place in which the penitent is staying, says Kenrick) is in the vicinity, so that he can easily be approached by the person solicited herself, she is held to denounce the solicitor in her own person, and to say that N. N., a Priest, Pastor, Religious, solicited her to shameful things in the Sacrament of holy Confession. 2) If the Ordinary cannot conveniently be approached on account of distance or another cause (e.g. the illness of the solicited one, etc.), the person solicited is held to denounce the solicitor by letter, with her own and the solicitor's name written; but letters of this kind are to be transmitted with altogether such caution and security that no prudent fear remains concerning their loss. 3) If the person solicited cannot denounce even by letter, she is held to approach the rural dean, or a confessor, or another prudent man, who in her name may write to the Ordinary, or, through the Sacred Penitentiary or the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, to the Holy See (Instr. S. C. O. a. 1867. 7. p. LXIII.). Yet "regularly it is not expedient that the confessor take upon himself this burden of carrying the denunciation in place of the penitent, or of receiving it... Besides, we do not deny that in some case, for instance, if somewhere public harm were imminent, nor another way were open for avoiding it, the confessor could be obliged from the law of charity to undertake a burden of this kind; but this will rarely happen."

When a denunciation of this kind has been made, the Ordinary will write back to some ecclesiastical man, in whose prudence he trusts, that he may receive the testimony of the solicited one under oath, and may remit it with his own testimony concerning the honesty and fitness of the one denouncing to the Ordinary. And in this way the act of denunciation will be completed.

e) Therefore denunciation is never to be made anonymously, and indeed must always be directed personally to the Bishop or to the Vicar General, not to the office of the Ordinariate.

Let confessors diligently take care that they not impart Sacramental absolution to solicited penitents, unless, first bringing the denunciation to effect, they have indicated the delinquent to the competent judge. For since denunciation is a very arduous thing, the confessor must not show himself too credulous toward the promises of the penitent, and the solicited regularly cannot be absolved unless denunciation has first been made: but if there is an impediment to making the denunciation immediately, they must at least be prepared to denounce as soon as possible; otherwise they sin gravely and incur excommunication. But an impediment will be present if there is a just cause (Instr. S. C. O. a. 1867. 5. p. LXII.) for deferring it, - namely if the Bishop, Vicar General, etc., are far distant, or if there is necessity of communicating in order to avoid scandal or gain a jubilee, - and the person can be believed, that she is going to denounce. But if the penitent is not a faithful and God-fearing person, concerning whom it can be believed that she will satisfy her obligation, - or, even if one could not rightly doubt concerning the person's firm purpose of denouncing immediately, nevertheless there would be no grave inconvenience in deferring absolution, - she will have to be stimulated to making the denunciation as soon as possible by a delay of absolution.

f) If a person certainly solicited has refused denunciation, the confessor must inquire into the cause of the refusal, and, insofar as he can, remove it. In order, e.g., to remove from those denouncing the fear of infamy, he will be able to say: A woman denouncing is not received by the ecclesiastical judge as an accomplice, but as a witness; nor is she held to manifest her own consent; indeed she cannot even be questioned by the judge concerning it; but if from simplicity she declares that she consented, this is not noted in the records (Instr. S. C. O. a. 1867. 6. p. LXIII.). Nor is there danger of infamy for the one denouncing; because, if the confessor denounced, in order to diminish his own delict before the judge, were voluntarily to confess that he had performed dishonest acts with the person denouncing and with her consenting, the judge does not give faith to the confessor, but rather believes that he says this in order to evade judgment or lessen the penalty. On the other hand the woman is not held to manifest her own consent, nor does the judge concern himself with it.

If the penitent, on account of gifts received or to be received, says that she is impeded from denouncing by gratitude or necessity, or adduces other insufficient excuses, the confessor should seriously warn her concerning the gravity of sacrilege, concerning the obligation of obeying ecclesiastical laws enacted for preventing the greatest scandals and harms, - and also concerning the penalty of excommunication, which the person solicited incurs by the fact itself if, without legitimate cause, she does not denounce the solicitor as soon as possible (i.e. within a month), - and he should not easily admit those things which persons of this kind are accustomed to adduce, that they may be freed from the burden of denunciation. But if the solicited one, led by false shame or impious mercy, does not wish to denounce the solicitor, the confessor should not absolve her, but dismiss her as indisposed.

g) But if the confessor discovers that the person solicited is otherwise well disposed for the Sacrament of Penance, but has a just cause for resisting, namely on account of probable danger of grave harm in the goods of reputation, fortune, or body, - or that on account of panic fear or great shame she can in no way be brought to denounce the solicitor by herself or through the confessor, then indeed he should not absolve her, but should make her return to him at another convenient time; meanwhile, however, concealing the penitent's name and adding the causes which suggest her exemption from the obligation of denunciation, he should set forth the whole case to the Bishop: so that he may declare what in the Lord shall have seemed opportune, or, according to the condition of things, may request from the Sacred Penitentiary a dispensation concerning it (Instr. S. C. O. a. 1867. 7. p. LXIII.). For the Holy See sometimes grants the faculty to the confessor of dispensing the penitent for that occasion from the burden of denouncing, especially if the solicitor has already been amended and has done penance. Indeed then, after a serious promise has been made of standing by what is to be resolved, even in a case of necessity she can be absolved immediately.

Note. - Concerning the mode of proceeding in causes of solicitation, see Instr. S. C. O. a. 1867. 8-16. p. LXIII.-LXV.

Even exempt Regulars are to be denounced to the Ordinaries of places, as is clear from the Constitution of Gregory XV. Cf. n. 1202. O). 2°.

But if besides, on the occasion of confession, he had been solicited to sin, the following question would have force.

I. For protecting the sanctity of the sacrament of Penance, ecclesiastical legislation has struck down another abuse by a special discipline and penalties, namely, the crime of solicitation to base things.

Gregory XV, Constitution Universi, 30 August 1622, extended to the whole world the discipline against solicitors already introduced in Spain by Pius IV, 17 April 1561, and in Portugal by Paul V, 16 September 1608, increasing and more accurately determining the penalties to be inflicted, and imposing the burden of denouncing solicitors. The Holy Office began to urge this burden of denunciation under pain of excommunication, 3 January 1623 and 10 March 1677; and declared that it also has force for Orientals, 13 June 1710. But Benedict XIV, in the Constitution Sacramentum Poenitentiae, 1 June 1741, renewed the prescriptions of Gregory XV with the decrees of the Holy Office and proposed them in a more ordered way, and at the same time added a new disposition against false denouncers, whom he willed to be liable to a most special reservation.

Namely, he commands Ordinaries to proceed "against each and every priest, secular as well as regular,... who has attempted to solicit and provoke some penitent, whoever that person may be, either in the act of sacramental confession, or before or immediately after confession, or on the occasion or pretext of confession, or even outside the occasion of confession in the confessional, whether in another place destined or chosen for hearing confessions, with simulation of hearing confession there, to dishonorable and base things, whether by words, or signs, or nods, or touch, or by writing either then or afterwards to be read, or who with them by rash daring has had illicit and dishonorable conversations or dealings. Let each and every priest constituted for hearing confessions moreover remember that they are held and obliged diligently to admonish their penitents, whom they have known to have been solicited by others, as above... concerning the obligation of denouncing to the inquisitors, or to the aforesaid local Ordinaries, the person who committed the solicitation, even if he is a priest who lacks jurisdiction for validly imparting absolution, or the solicitation was mutual between the confessor and the penitent, or whether the penitent consented to the solicitation, or in no way furnished consent, or a long time has now flowed after the solicitation itself, or the solicitation was performed by the confessor not for himself, but for another person."

All these things were confirmed by the Code of Canon Law:

Can. 904: "According to the norm of the apostolic Constitutions and by name of the Constitution of Benedict XIV Sacramentum Poenitentiae, 1 June 1741, a penitent must denounce to the local Ordinary, or to the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, within a month, a priest guilty of the delict of solicitation in confession; and the confessor, his conscience having been gravely burdened, must admonish the penitent concerning this burden."

Can. 2368: "1. He who has committed the crime of solicitation, concerning which in can. 904, is to be suspended from the celebration of Mass and from hearing sacramental confessions, or even according to the gravity of the delict declared incapable of receiving these, deprived of all benefices, dignities, active and passive voice, and declared incapable of all these, and in graver cases also subjected to degradation.

"2. But the faithful person who knowingly has omitted to denounce within a month him by whom he was solicited, contrary to the prescription of can. 904, incurs an excommunication latae sententiae reserved to no one, not to be absolved unless after he has satisfied the obligation or has seriously promised that he will satisfy it."

Can. 2363: "If anyone by himself or through others has falsely denounced a confessor to Superiors concerning the crime of solicitation, by that very fact he incurs an excommunication reserved in a special manner to the Apostolic See, from which in no case can he be absolved unless he has formally retracted the false denunciation and, according to his powers, has repaired the damages, if any have followed therefrom, with a grave and long penance besides imposed, the prescription of can. 894 remaining firm."

Can. 894: "The sin reserved to the Holy See by reason of itself is false denunciation, by which an innocent priest is accused before ecclesiastical judges concerning the crime of solicitation."

For the declaration of these things, it is necessary successively to inquire what are: 1) solicitation and its conditions, 2) the connection with the sacrament of Penance or confession, 3) the obligation of denouncing, 4) the mode of denunciation, 5) the penalties to be inflicted upon solicitors, 6) the penalties to be inflicted upon false denouncers. To these we add 7) corollaries concerning doubtful solicitation, and 8) practical rules for confessors.

II. Solicitation to base things is a provocation to a grave sin of lust made by a priest with a certain relation to confession, or by a priest as confessor thus abusing true or simulated sacramental confession.

It is a very grave sin, a) because grave irreverence of sacrilege is inflicted upon the sacrament, and this is against religion; b) because it constitutes scandal against charity, while it inflicts deadly damage on the penitent, offering poison to him in place of medicine; c) because, if the confessor is a pastor, it contains a special injury against justice, since he himself from justice is bound to feed his sheep by word and example.

It is, moreover, 1. a provocation to sin, that is, an action, whether dishonorable of itself, or of itself indifferent, but outwardly manifesting a base affection, by which someone, in the case the confessor, attempts to induce another, the penitent, to some sin, whether explicitly, deliberately and intentionally, or implicitly, so that the mode of acting or speaking of itself allures. Namely, it is scandal given to the penitent, an invitation or incitement in whatever way it happens, by priests, by word or deed, or, as Benedict XIV speaks, "whether by words, or signs, or nods, or touch (on one's own body or another's), or by writing either then or afterwards to be read, they have attempted, or with him have had illicit and dishonorable conversations or dealings (that is, counsels, deliberations, agreements)," provided that the inducement to evil was certain: for in doubt no one is to be deprived of his reputation, and a doubtful law does not oblige; whence a doubtful delict is not judged a delict.

But true solicitation is present

a) whether it is efficacious, so that the person solicited consents, or inefficacious, by which someone merely attempted to solicit or provoke, even if the other person understood only afterwards;

b) whether it is immediate, for obtaining the consent of the penitent, or mediate, either through the penitent, for inducing another person into sin, or by writing afterwards to be read, as some writing concerning base things (prop. 6 condemned by Alexander VII; Holy Office, 11 February 1661, n. 1);

c) with any person of whatever sex, condition, age.

For it matters little whether it is a man or woman, pubescent or impubescent, whether he is solicited to sin with the confessor, or alone, or with a third person, for example, a young man with a girl (Sacred Penitentiary, 2 September 1904); provided that he is capable of solicitation, which one sleeping is not, or, for solicitation by words alone, one deaf or ignorant of the language.

2. It is to base things, that is, inducing to grave acts against chastity, - whether they are grave in themselves, or from an adjoined immodest circumstance, or from lustful affection outwardly manifested, - or to any grave sin of lust whatever, even internal, as of desire or complacency. Hence the crime of solicitation concerning which it is treated is not present:

a) if the provocation was made to another sin, for example, theft or homicide, although by natural right denunciation can sometimes be prescribed (Holy Office, 11 February 1661, ad 11);

b) if it was made to something dishonorable which is not certainly a mortal sin, for example, something merely sensual, a kiss given in passing;

c) if the solicitation is not complete but only preparatory, so that true scandal is not furnished, but only inquiry is made whether the person can be tempted with some hope; yet true solicitation begun suffices.

Hence for judging in practice whether solicitation is present, one must attend whether the words or deeds, if not from themselves, at least from the adjuncts, signify a base affection and provoke to a base affection. Thus, for example, if a priest gives a gift in confession, or commits lightly immodest touches, even pressed or repeated rather often, if he expresses his love toward the person, or his inclination - if he were secular - of marrying her, or recognition or praise of her beauty and attractiveness, if he asks where she lives, or asks her to do what he himself would wish, or requests that she wait for him at home or, on the contrary, that she come alone into the house of the confessor, etc., from the adjuncts and subsequent effect it will have to be seen what the sense is (Holy Office, 11 February 1661, ad 12 and 16): whether these things are done only from imprudence and levity, or perhaps for a good end (for example, for admonishing concerning some danger); or on the contrary from a depraved intention, which sense they would easily have if it were clear that the priest, outside confession, fostered a base love toward that person, or was a man prone to lust.

3. It is by a priest as confessor, of whatever sort he was, whether secular, or regular, whether approved, or not approved but lacking jurisdiction. Hence there is not a special obligation of denouncing from ecclesiastical law:

a) if the one soliciting is not a priest, but an inferior cleric or layman, who feign that they are confessors;

b) also, probably, if he is a bishop, because it is uncertain whether he is designated under the word: priest;¹ although generally he would have to be denounced from natural law;

¹ We read in Fr. Vermeersch, Th. Mor., III (ed. 1923), n. 603, p. 486: "The Code abstained from the word priest, which Benedict XIV used in his Constitution; and since, already before the Code, not a few wished bishops to be comprehended, the studied omission of that word priest in cc. 904, 2363, and 2368 furnishes us a certain argument of the mind by which the legislator wishes no confessor soliciting to be excepted from his decrees... Besides, the very practice of the supreme Congregation stands against the more benign opinion of several." Nevertheless, in all editions of the Code, as many as we have been able to inspect, canon 904, to which the other two refer, has: priest. Nor in the Acta Apost. Sedis, where errata of the Code indicate things to be corrected (T. IX), is mention made of the aforesaid canon. Therefore the reading: priest, is certain. Besides the canon says that one guilty of the delict of solicitation must be denounced according to the norm of the Apostolic Constitutions, by name of Benedict XIV, and these say: priest. And although Fr. Vermeersch adds: "The words... according to the norm of the Apostolic Constitutions are to be referred not to the person to be brought forward but to the delict which gives place to denunciation"; nevertheless this is not certain. Nor ought we to marvel so much that positive law did not attend to the case in which a bishop would solicit, because surely a most rare case could be neglected. But the practice of the Congregation is not an authentic declaration, and can be explained from the sole obligation of natural right; nor is any example of this practice brought forward.

c) if an interpreter, even a priest, employed in confession, solicits;

d) if the penitent alone solicits the confessor to base things.

Even if he merely consents, provided that the consent does not implicitly contain a new solicitation; on the contrary, if the solicitation is mutual, as if the confessor, first solicited to one species, himself solicits to another, or in the beginning dissents and after some time begins to solicit.²

² "Mutual solicitation is had if both do the things which are forbidden, even if one does it having been invited... for example, he who mixes in, even when provoked, base conversations, or words gravely illicit and contrary to chastity," Vermeersch, Th. M., III, n. 603 and 605.

4. It must be with relation to confession or connection with the sacrament of Penance, as will be explained in the following number.

For our case is distinguished:

a) from solicitation made by a priest in the administration of another sacrament without relation to confession; in which case a special denunciation is not to be made from ecclesiastical law (Holy Office, 11 February 1661, n. 10), although nevertheless in certain adjuncts such an obligation can be present from natural right;

b) likewise from the sin of complicity, which can be committed without relation to confession, even before someone has been elevated to the priesthood.

III. The connection with the sacrament of Penance required is present: if solicitation is done by a priest "either in the act of sacramental confession, - or before, or immediately after confession, - or on the occasion, - or pretext of confession, - or even, outside the occasion of confession, in the confessional, whether in another place destined or chosen for hearing confessions, with simulation of hearing confession there."

1. In the act of sacramental confession, that is, between the beginning of confession and the end: namely from the time when confession is begun up to and including the last words of absolution, or, as it is said, between the two crosses of the confessor.

Moreover confession is judged sacramental, provided that it was begun for sacramental absolution, even if it is interrupted and not brought to an end, so that the sacrament has in some way remained incomplete, or the penitent for any cause whatever is not absolved.

2. Or before, or immediately after confession, that is, if between true confession and solicitation there intervenes no external action or conversation which does not refer to solicitation.

Hence the crime of solicitation is present if the confessor immediately before or after confession speaks, from lustful affection, manifestly obscene words, or dishonorably touches the penitent, - or if the penitent, in the act and state of confession, already sitting at the feet of the confessor, asks to confess and the confessor assents and then solicits, even if the penitent now thereafter does not wish to confess, - or if the confessor solicits a woman who after confession approaches to kiss his hand, - or if at once he leads her into a bedroom or sacristy so that there he may solicit more securely, - or if immediately he says: wait a little while, and after an interval (not however the following day) solicits, - or if he consents to a penitent soliciting, but at once desists, and defers the completion to another time (Holy Office, 11 February 1661, n. 2): for thus he detains and confirms the penitent in solicitation.

On the contrary, if another action or another true intermediate thing has intervened, the case is not had, as if the solicitation is done on another day than confession, or after speech concerning indifferent matters or another business, or if the confessor approaches and solicits a person already gone out of the confessional, or after he has heard another penitent, unless nevertheless he began in confession by saying, for example: wait for me a little while, and said thus not for another business than for soliciting.

639. Dispositions of canon law. - According to can. 904: "According to the norm of the apostolic Constitutions and especially of the Constitution of Benedict XIV, Sacramentum Poenitentiae, June 1, 1741, the penitent must denounce to the local Ordinary, or to the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, within a month, a priest guilty of the delict of solicitation in confession; and the confessor must, with his conscience gravely burdened, admonish the penitent concerning this burden."

Concerning penalties against delinquents, can. 2368 adds:

"§ 1. He who has committed the crime of solicitation, concerning which in can. 904, is to be suspended from the celebration of Mass and from hearing sacramental confessions, or even, according to the gravity of the delict, declared unable to hear them; he is to be deprived of all benefices, dignities, active and passive voice, and declared incapable of all these, and in graver cases he is also to be subjected to degradation.

"§ 2. But the faithful person who knowingly has omitted to denounce within a month the one by whom he was solicited, contrary to the prescription of can. 904, incurs an excommunication latae sententiae reserved to no one, and is not to be absolved unless after he has satisfied the obligation or has seriously promised that he will satisfy it."

640. Solicitation to shameful things is a provocation to grave sin of lust made by a priest with some relation to confession, or by a priest as confessor thus abusing sacramental confession, true or simulated.

It is a very grave sin: a) because grave irreverence of sacrilege is inflicted upon the sacrament, and this is against religion; b) because it constitutes scandal against charity, since it brings lethal harm to the penitent, offering him poison in place of medicine; c) because, if the confessor is a pastor, it contains a special injury against justice, since he himself is bound from justice to feed his sheep by word and example.

It is, then, 1. a provocation to sin, i.e., an action either dishonorable per se, or indifferent per se but outwardly manifesting a shameful affection, by which someone, in the case the confessor, tries to induce another, the penitent, to some sin, whether explicitly, studiously, and deliberately, or implicitly, so that the manner of acting or speaking spontaneously allures.

It is scandal given to the penitent, an invitation or incitement in whatever way it is done by priests, by word or deed, or as Benedict XIV speaks, "whether by words, or signs, or nods, or touch (upon one's own body or another's), or through writing to be read either then or afterward, they have attempted, or with him have had illicit and dishonorable conversations or dealings (i.e., counsels, deliberations, agreements)," provided the induction to evil was certain: for in doubt no one is to be deprived of his reputation, and a doubtful law does not oblige; hence a doubtful delict is not judged a delict.

But true solicitation is present:

a) whether it is efficacious, so that the solicited person consents, or inefficacious, by which someone merely attempted to solicit or provoke, even if the other person understood only afterward;

b) whether it is immediate, for obtaining the consent of the penitent, or mediate, either through the penitent, for inducing another person into sin, or through writing to be read afterward, as some writing concerning shameful things (prop. 6 condemned by Alexander VII; Holy Office, February 11, 1661, n. 1);

c) with any person whatever of whatever sex, condition, and age; for it matters little whether it is a man or woman, pubescent or impubescent, whether he is solicited to sin with the confessor or alone, or with a third person, e.g., a young man with a girl (Sacred Penitentiary, September 2, 1904); provided he is capable of solicitation, such as one sleeping is not, or, for solicitation by words alone, a deaf person or one ignorant of the language.

2. It is to shameful things, i.e., inducing to grave acts against chastity, whether they are grave in themselves, or from an adjunct immodest circumstance, or from libidinous affection outwardly manifested; or to any grave sin whatever of lust, even internal, as of desire or complacency.

Hence the crime of solicitation concerning which there is question is not present:

a) if the provocation was made to another sin, e.g., theft or homicide, although by natural law denunciation can sometimes be prescribed (Holy Office, February 11, 1661, ad 11);

b) if it was made to something dishonorable which is not certainly mortal sin, e.g., something merely sensual, a kiss given in passing;

c) if the solicitation is not complete but only preparatory, so that true scandal is not offered, but only inquiry is made whether the person can be tempted with some hope; nevertheless true solicitation begun suffices.

Hence for judging in practice whether solicitation is present, one must attend whether the words or deeds, if not of themselves, at least from the adjuncts, signify a shameful affection and provoke to a shameful affection. Thus, e.g., if a priest gives a gift in confession, or commits slightly immodest touches, even pressed and rather often repeated, if he expresses his love toward a person, or a wish to marry her if he were secular, or recognition or praise of her beauty and charm, if he asks where she lives, or asks whether she will do what he himself wishes, or requests that she wait for him at home or, on the contrary, that she come alone to the house of the confessor, etc., from the adjuncts and the subsequent effect it will have to be seen what the sense is (Holy Office, February 11, 1661, ad 12 and 16): whether those things are done only from imprudence and levity, or perhaps for a good end, e.g., for admonishing about some danger; or, on the contrary, from a depraved intention, which sense they would easily have if it were clear that the priest, outside confession, nourished shameful love toward that person, or was a man prone to lust.

3. It is from a priest as confessor, whatever he was, whether secular or regular, whether approved or not approved but lacking jurisdiction.

Hence there is not present the special obligation of denouncing from ecclesiastical law:

a) if the one soliciting is not a priest, but an inferior cleric or a layman, who pretend that they are confessors;

b) also, probably, if he is a bishop, because it is uncertain whether he is designated under the word "priest";1 although generally he would have to be denounced by natural law;

c) if an interpreter, even a priest, employed in confession, solicits;

d) if the penitent solicits the confessor to shameful things, even if the latter merely consents, provided the consent does not implicitly contain a new solicitation; on the contrary, if the solicitation is mutual, as if the confessor, first solicited to one species, himself solicits to another, or in the beginning dissents and after some time begins to solicit.

4. It must be with relation to confession or connection with the sacrament of Penance, as will be explained in the following number.

For our case is distinguished:

a) from solicitation made by a priest in the administration of another sacrament without relation to confession; in which case no special denunciation is to be made from ecclesiastical law (Holy Office, February 11, 1661, n. 10), although nevertheless in certain adjuncts such an obligation can be present from natural law;

b) likewise from the sin of complicity, which can be committed without relation to confession, even before someone has been raised to the priesthood.

641. The connection with the sacrament of Penance required is present if solicitation is made by a priest "either in the act of sacramental confession, - or before, or immediately after confession, - or on the occasion, - or under the pretext of confession, - or even, outside the occasion of confession, in the confessional, or in another place destined or chosen for hearing confessions, with the simulation of hearing confession there." Thus Benedict XIV in the aforesaid constitution.

1. In the act of sacramental confession, i.e., between the beginning of confession and the end: namely, from the time at which confession is begun up to the last words of absolution inclusive, or, as is said, between the two crosses of the confessor.

But a confession is judged sacramental, provided it has been begun for sacramental absolution, even if it is interrupted and not brought to the end, so that the sacrament in some way remained incomplete, or the penitent for any cause whatever is not absolved.

2. Or before, or immediately after confession, i.e., if between true confession and solicitation no external action or conversation intervenes which does not refer to solicitation.

Hence the crime of solicitation is present if the confessor immediately before or after confession speaks, from libidinous affection, manifestly obscene words, or dishonorably touches the penitent, - or if the penitent, in the act and state of confession, already sitting at the feet of the confessor, asks to confess and the confessor nods assent and then solicits, even if the penitent then presently does not wish to confess, - or if the confessor solicits a woman who after confession approaches to kiss his hand, - or if he immediately leads her into a room or sacristy so that he may solicit more securely there, - or if he immediately says: wait a little, and after an interval (but not on the following day) solicits, - or if he consents to a penitent who is soliciting, but immediately ceases, and defers the completion to another time (Holy Office, February 11, 1661, n. 2): for thus he holds and confirms the penitent in solicitation.

On the contrary, if another action or another true medium has intervened, the case is not had, as if the solicitation is done on a day other than the confession, or after speech about indifferent things or another business, or if the confessor approaches and solicits the person after she has already gone out from the confessional, or after he has heard another penitent, unless, however, he began in confession by saying, e.g.: wait for me a little, and said this not for another business but for solicitation.

3. Or on the occasion of confession, i.e., if from a confession truly sought or made a motive or opportunity is taken for provoking to shameful things, so that confession is the per accidens cause of soliciting the penitent.

Thus 1. on the occasion of a confession sought: if the penitent (expressly or tacitly) asks to confess at once and, wishing to begin, is impeded from this by the confessor who immediately provokes him, confession being delayed to afterward; or if the confessor, called and asked for this, approaches a sick person as if about to confess him, and on this occasion solicits;

Or 2. on the occasion of a confession heard: if the confessor in confession or immediately before or after confession hands to the penitent a note or letters to be read afterward, in which he solicits to shameful things (prop. 6, condemned by Alexander VII; Holy Office, February 11, 1661, n. 1); or if, knowing the inclinations or temptations of the penitent, he solicits him, provided it is clear that this is done from the hearing of confession, by which even then he was impelled to this intention; concerning which, however, it will rarely be clear.

On the contrary, at least probably, one does not solicit on the occasion of the confession itself:

a) who merely abuses knowledge drawn from confession, e.g., about the frailty of the penitent, for soliciting him: then it is not done on the occasion of the confession itself, but on the occasion of knowledge drawn from confession;

b) who hands to the one confessing a note to be carried to another person, whom the confessor thus solicits, provided the penitent himself is in no way an accomplice: for then the penitent himself is not solicited;

I say 1°. By the common law of the Church all priests soliciting to sin against the sixth precept of the Decalogue with relation to confession are to be denounced to ecclesiastical superiors. This is established from the Bull of Gregory XV, Universi gregis, given in the year 1622, which was confirmed through the Constitution of Benedict XIV, Sacramentum Paenitentiae. For Gregory XV speaks thus: "We command all Ordinaries of places that they diligently inquire and proceed against all priests, both secular and regular, who, in the act of sacramental confession, whether before, or immediately after, or on the occasion or pretext of confession, even when confession has not followed, or outside the occasion of confession, in the confessional or in any place whatsoever where confessions are heard or chosen for hearing confession, pretending there to hear confessions, have attempted in any way to solicit or provoke persons, whoever they may be, to indecent things among themselves or with others, or have had illicit and indecent conversations or dealings with them; commanding all confessors that they warn their penitents, whom they have known to have been solicited by others as above, concerning the obligation of denouncing those soliciting to the Ordinaries of places."

According to the norm of the apostolic constitutions, and by name of the constitution of Benedict XIV Sacramentum Paenitentiae, 1 June 1741, the penitent must denounce the priest guilty of the delict of solicitation in confession within a month to the Ordinary of the place, or to the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office;¹ and the confessor must, with his conscience gravely burdened, warn the penitent concerning this burden (Can. 904).

I say 2°. Solicited penitents cannot be absolved before they have satisfied the obligation of denouncing, or at least unless they promise that they will shortly satisfy their obligation. This is established from the Constitution Sacramentum Paenitentiae of Benedict XIV, § 2, where it is said: "Moreover let confessors carefully beware lest they impart sacramental absolution to penitents whom they have known already to have been solicited by others, unless first, bringing the aforesaid denunciation to effect, they have indicated the delinquent to the competent judge, or at least pledge and promise that they, as soon as they can, will bring him forward." It is also established from the Instruction of the S. U. I. in the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore, Appendix, p. 300, nn. 3 and 5.

I say 3°. Denunciation must be made within a month from the time when its obligation became known. But the penitent who, without sufficient reason, that is, from negligence or fault, does not carry out denunciation at the established time, incurs an excommunication latae sententiae reserved to no one; from which consequently, such negligence or fault having been removed, any confessor can absolve. This is established from Canon 2368, § 2 and the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 693. - Varceno, vol. 2, p. 208.

¹ Cf. Addenda, p. 1092, n. 24.

Question 1. When is solicitation considered to have relation to confession?

Resp. This must be clear from all the circumstances of persons, places, time, from the manner of speaking, etc.; but it certainly has relation if it is done in the following cases:

In the very act of confession: it suffices if the confession has had a beginning. Immediately before or after: "When nothing mediates between solicitation and confession, so that neither the confessor nor the penitent has turned himself to extraneous acts."

Or on the occasion or pretext of confession, even when confession has not followed: occasion is the opportune time of action, and in undertaking and completing an affair it is of the greatest moment; and it is a thing which offers a motive of acting; and in a twofold way confession is called the occasion. Thus it would be on the occasion of confession if the confessor immediately solicited a woman asking to confess at once, and this even if it happened outside the confessional: confession to be made here and now provides the occasion of soliciting.

On the pretext of confession: pretext is that which covers intention by some fact. A confessor invites a woman to confession in order to provoke her to shameful things. According to D'Annibale, v. 3, n. 367, he pretexts who does one thing under the veil of another. The pretext is ordered to soliciting. He abuses the very confession to which he invites her so that he may solicit more freely, although the confession itself does not follow: that is, under the color and appearance of confession he solicits. He pretexts confession in order to deceive and solicit the penitent. D'Annibale and others think that there is not solicitation, of which here there is question, if the penitent himself asks to confess while pretexting, but not wishing, to confess but to solicit, or if each does so from agreement so that others may be deceived.

Outside the occasion of confession: in the confessional, or in another place destined or chosen for confessions, with simulation of hearing confessions there.

Solicitation so severely punished can therefore be outside the occasion of confession; but then simulation of confession is required, or a feigned placing of the act of confessing, or a feigned act of confessing, namely one which, as to external appearance, is so placed as if someone truly confesses. There is a threefold place in which this simulation of confession, if it is placed, is punished by penalties according to the Pontifical Constitutions: the confessional in a church; or a place in the sacristy, suppose, where there is a kneeler with gratings and a seat; or finally any chosen place, for example, a room of the sick. Now therefore, so that the obligation of denunciation may be present in these cases, it is required that both on the part of the penitent and on the part of the priest an external action be placed there, of itself signifying that confession is being made here and now. These three things must be well distinguished: just as the occasion of confession is not the pretext, so neither this nor that is simulation.

In relation to simulation in a place here and now chosen, positive signs are required: suppose, the priest sits, blesses the woman, applies his hand to his face, and other similar things; the penitent signs herself with the sign of the cross, and her external action, her speech, has the appearance of a true accusation. These are necessary at least in the beginning, namely so that simulated confession may be had. Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 678. - Baller. note (b) p. 544. - Varceno, vol. 2, pp. 209 and seq.

Question 2. Whether a confessor is to be denounced who in confession asked a woman where she lives, if afterward he solicited her at home?

Resp. Affirmatively, because, although the question made in confession seems indifferent, nevertheless afterward from the circumstances it is known to have been placed for soliciting, and consequently it is verified that confession gave the occasion, namely opportunity, to the solicitation. And the same solution must be given if the confessor solicits the woman as a person whose character or frailty he knew from confession, and suggests this by words or in another way; for then also solicitation is made on the occasion of confession. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, nn. 676 and 678. - Baller. note (b) p. 556.

Question 3. Whether only the solicited person is bound to denunciation?

Resp. Negatively, but all others also are obliged who certainly know it, unless they have known this under the secret of counsel, and this holds even if the crime cannot be juridically proved. This is established from the Decree of the Roman S. I., in St. Alphonsus, and from the common consent of theologians. Cf. St. Alphonsus, nn. 680 and 695. - Varceno, vol. 2, p. 222. - Baller. note (c) p. 546.

Question 4. Whether the penitent is bound to denunciation if he himself consented to the solicitation?

Resp. Affirmatively, as is established from the Constitution Sacramentum Paenitentiae, § 2, where it is said that the confessor is to be denounced "even if ... the solicitation between the confessor and penitent was mutual, or the penitent consented to the solicitation." - Nor does it stand in the way that the penitent by natural law is not bound to accuse himself; for ordinarily he can denounce the one soliciting without confessing that he gave consent to the solicitation. - Cf. Instr. S. U. I. in the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore, p. 300, n. 6. - Baller. note (b) p. 548.

Question 5. Whether a confessor is to be denounced who consented to a penitent soliciting him, but himself did not solicit?

Resp. Affirmatively, as is openly gathered from II and IX among the sixteen Decrees of the Holy Office which appeared on 11 Feb. 1661, and afterward were confirmed by Benedict XIV by Apostolic authority. Furthermore, to the question: "whether a confessor consenting to solicitation, but immediately ceasing to speak about that shameful matter, deferring its completion to another time, and not providing absolution to the penitent, incurs the penalties contained in the Bull of Gregory, and is to be denounced?" - it was answered, by Decree II, "that he incurs, and that the confessor is to be denounced, with the probable opinion rejected, which they judged not to be probable." The same thing is openly drawn from Decree IX, where it is said: "that a confessor who consented from fear is to be denounced": therefore a fortiori where no excuse whatsoever of inflicted fear is present. - Cf. Baller. note (a) p. 549. - Instr. S. U. I. n. 2.

Question 6. Whether the obligation of denunciation urges if the guilty one has amended, or if the solicitation happened a long time ago?

Resp. Affirmatively, to the first, because the Pontiff does not intend only the amendment of the guilty one, but also his punishment for repairing the damage of the Church and the scandal. Affirmatively also to the second, for the same reasons; for if one who committed the crime a long time ago were not to be denounced, the reason indeed would be that he would be considered already amended; but this reason does not avail, as was just said. Moreover, it would be very difficult to determine what would be a long or brief time. This is also established from the Constitution Sacramentum Paenitentiae, § 2, where it is sanctioned that the confessor is to be denounced, "even if a long time has already flowed by after the solicitation itself." Nevertheless that circumstance would have to be manifested to the superior to whom the denunciation is made. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 686. - Baller. note (a) p. 554; and note (a) p. 555.

Question 7. Whether a penitent is excused from making denunciation because of fear lest he incur the indignation and rebuke of the one denounced?

Resp. Negatively, because this annoyance is to be made very little of in a matter of such moment and pertaining to the common good. For it cannot be compared with the innumerable and very great evils arising from the corruption of a priest. But if great harm in life, reputation, or temporal goods is reasonably feared, the penitent seems to be excused as long as the danger lasts; but then the confessor must have recourse to the Ordinary. - Cf. Baller. note (b) p. 555. - Second Plenary Council of Baltimore, Instr. S. U. I., p. 301, n. 7.

Question 8. Whether a confessor soliciting and sinning lightly because of smallness of matter is to be denounced?

Resp. To this same question it was thus answered from Decree III of the S. Inquisition: "Since in venereal matters smallness of matter is not given, and if it were given, in the present matter it would not be given, they judged that he is to be denounced and that the contrary opinion is not probable." - Nevertheless Scavini notes on this place that this must be understood if the act is fully deliberate, and besides if from the circumstances it is certainly conjectured that by that light act the priest truly has the intention of proceeding further. - Cf. Scavini, lib. 3, tract. 10, n. 580. - Varceno, vol. 2, p. 219.

Question 9. Whether faith is easily to be given to women accusing priests of solicitation?

Resp. Negatively, but the circumstances both of things and of persons are carefully to be weighed both by the confessor and by superiors. Not once have women been seen who from envy, hatred, jealousy, or another perverse end have atrociously calumniated entirely innocent clerics. Therefore all circumstances are to be weighed by mature examination, especially when the woman shows herself ready and prompt for obeying the precept of denunciation. But here two things must be noted:

1°. The crime of false accusation concerning solicitation from canon 894 is reserved by reason of itself to the Apostolic See, and indeed with excommunication reserved to the same in a special way from canon 2363.

2°. Superiors, after the truth of the crime has certainly been known, ought to proceed very cautiously, so that they may correct the guilty one according to the gravity of the delict; nor should they punish indiscriminately a fault already long past, or had by chance from frailty, as they would one recent or committed from custom; likewise so that they may at the same time consult the good of Religion, of the priesthood, and of the guilty one himself, forestalling scandals and rumors insofar as can be done.

Question 10. What are the penalties against those soliciting?

Resp. § 1. He who has committed the crime of solicitation of which in can. 904 is to be suspended from the celebration of Mass and from hearing sacramental confessions, or even, according to the gravity of the delict, to be declared incapable of receiving them; he is to be deprived of all benefices, dignities, active and passive voice, and to be declared incapable of all these things, and in graver cases also to be subjected to degradation (Can. 2368).

Question 11. How practically is denunciation to be made?

Resp. In this matter these things are to be observed:

1°. Denunciation is to be made by voice, insofar as can be done, but not only by writing. Therefore the solicited person must present himself before the Ordinary and declare the act of solicitation, without however in any way revealing his own consent, if he gave any.

2°. Denunciation is to be made to the Ordinary of the place in which the penitent is found, even if the soliciting confessor belongs to another diocese. For it belongs to the Ordinary of the place to receive the sworn denunciation and transmit it to the Bishop of the guilty priest.

3°. If denunciation cannot be made by voice, it is to be made by a letter signed with one's own name and surname, or at least through an intermediary. For the obligation of denouncing the one soliciting is not so much of approaching the superior personally as of bringing the delinquent before him, as Benedict XIV speaks in his Bull. But he who is bound to the end is also bound to the means.

4°. Nevertheless the confessor is not bound to take upon himself the burden of transmitting the denunciation to the Ordinary; but he satisfies his office by warning the penitent that at a suitable time he should duly denounce the one soliciting. Nevertheless he can provide his own labor if he has judged this expedient; but the knowledge of the matter must be received outside confession.

5°. If the solicited person can in no way be induced to make denunciation in such a form, namely because he is affected by fear or insuperable shame, let the Bishop be allowed to be warned about that matter; he will be able to delegate someone to receive the denunciation. But the delegated priest must take an oath concerning silence to be observed and concerning the office committed to him faithfully to be fulfilled.

6°. In every case denunciation made through anonymous letters is altogether insufficient and entirely invalid, just as if it had not been made, as the S. Congregation of the Inquisition declared several times.

Note. Consult altogether the Instruction of the S. U. Inquis. in the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore, Appendix X, p. 298, and there you will find many things concerning the practical manner in which denunciations are to be made or received: how the difficulties of penitents affected by shame are to be overcome, and especially under n. 7, how the confessor must conduct himself when the penitent refuses either immediately or altogether to obey. Consult also the Instruction of the Holy Office, 6 Aug. 1897, and the Decree of the same S. Congregation, 15 May 1901.

Question 12. What are the obligations of Regular Superiors in matters pertaining to the Holy Office?

Resp. In matters pertaining to the Holy Office, it in no way belongs to Regular Superiors "to know the causes of their subjects, and by no title or pretext" can they or ought they "unless by express mandate of the S. Congregation, to inquire about these matters, receive denunciations, interrogate witnesses, examine the accused, institute judgment, render sentence, or in any other way or manner mix themselves in them or lay hands upon them; but those religious men who from their subjects or confreres or even superiors have known the guilty or suspected of crimes of this sort (especially as regards the abuse of Sacramental Confession), are strictly bound, without any communication with any others whatsoever, with no permission sought, and with no fraternal correction or warning first sent ahead, to denounce them without delay to the Holy Office or to the Ordinaries of places." They are bound besides to bring these laws to the certain knowledge of subjects and to urge observance. Holy Office, 15 May 1901.

7. The way of evading the obligation of denouncing a solicitation is that the solicited person confess with the solicitor: the latter can absolve him without the burden of denouncing.

VII. The same Fr. Viva in the same place: “It is true indeed that the divine precept of contrition obliges sinners not to defer penitence long and up to death. To this nevertheless it does not follow that one unable in some year to receive the sacrament of Penance is bound at least to be contrite.”

VII. Francolino, page 124: “I omit that Merbesius here adds of his own that word temporal, which is not in the text of St. Thomas whom he alleges; and that St. Thomas does not there treat of those approaching Confession, to which those who come spontaneously are not wont to grieve for sin in order to avoid some temporal inconvenience, but at least from fear of hell with hope of pardon, and that they may be reconciled to God, and therefore with some love of God. That seems intolerable, that this author demands so many things that these penitents may at last be absolved.”

VII. Francolino, page 127: “And indeed a condign one, so that a light one cannot be enjoined for grave sins, as he afterwards contends to prove. Therefore since the Church cannot dispense in divine and natural precepts, it has ill dispensed in this, as it has assuredly done most often.”

I. Very many diplomas the Roman Pontiffs have published — Paul IV in the year 1561, Pius IV in 1564, Clement VIII in 1592, Paul V in 1608, Gregory XV in 1622 — against confessors soliciting, and they imposed upon penitents the burden of denouncing the same to the tribunal of the sacred Inquisition. Benedict XIV in the year 1741 published the constitution whose beginning is Sacramentum Poenitentiae, in which all things which can be desired are resolved with the highest perspicuity. I exhibit it entire.

“BENEDICT, BISHOP, and so forth. The sacrament of Penance, which the holy Fathers aptly named a plank after shipwreck for grace that has been lost — We, though unworthy, called by the supernal disposition to the care of the universal Lord's flock, are bound to employ all study and pastoral solicitude, lest that which by the divine benignity has been given as a refuge to wretched sinners for the innocence lost after Baptism, through the fraud of demons and the malice of men perversely using the benefits of God, be turned — which is the more mournful the more it destroys salvation — into their ruin, and the healing of souls from God, who is rich in mercy, be turned by the execrable wickedness of certain wicked priests into their destruction, contrary to the very purpose for which it was instituted.

§ 1. Long ago indeed it was wisely provided by Gregory XV, Pope of holy memory, Our Predecessor, through his letters in the form of Briefs, given at Rome at St. Mary Major on the 30th of August 1622, in the second year of his Pontificate, against any priests whatsoever deputed to the hearing of confessions and soliciting the penitents to base and dishonest things. Thereafter in succeeding times, for the interpretation and declaration of those letters, several decrees were issued by the Congregation of Our Venerable Brethren the Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, Inquisitors General against heretical pravity, on the 11th day of the month of February in the year of the Lord 1661; and likewise by Alexander VII, Our Predecessor of happy memory, in the general Congregation of the Holy Roman and Universal Inquisition held before him on the 24th of September 1665, among other propositions foreign to the evangelical truth and the doctrine of the holy Fathers, and dissonant therefrom, the sixth and seventh — namely those to be recalled hither — were condemned and prohibited.

We therefore, maturely weighing of what moment it is to the eternal salvation of souls that these things be everywhere exactly observed, and of what moment it is for the curing of infirm sheep and for the retaining of the beauty of the holy Church of God, that certain priests do not wickedly abuse the sacrament of Penance toward penitents, and hold out for a cure a wound, for bread a stone, for a fish a serpent, for medicine poison; but rather, recollecting themselves to have been constituted by Christ the Lord presidents and judges of souls, administer so venerable a sacrament with that holiness which befits the sublimity and dignity of the office: of Our own motion, and from certain knowledge, and after mature deliberation, We approve and confirm by the tenor of the present the aforesaid letters of this kind, and all and singular the decrees emanated for their interpretation and declaration, by apostolic authority; and to all and singular of these We add the strength of apostolic and inviolable firmness; and moreover, so far as need be, We again commit and command all Inquisitors of heretical pravity and Ordinaries of places of all kingdoms, provinces, cities, dominions, and places of the whole Christian world in their respective dioceses, that diligently, and all human respect being laid aside, they inquire and proceed against all and singular priests, both secular and regular, exempt in whatsoever manner and immediately subject to the Apostolic See, of whatsoever Orders, Institutes, Societies, and Congregations, and of whatsoever dignity and pre-eminence, or fortified with any privilege and indult, who have attempted to solicit or provoke any penitent whatsoever — whosoever that person may be — either in the act of sacramental confession, or before, or immediately after confession, or on occasion or under pretext of confession, or even outside the occasion of confession in the confessional, or in another place destined or chosen for the hearing of confessions, with the simulation of hearing confession there, to dishonest and base things, whether by words, or by signs, or by nods, or by touch, or through writing to be read either then or afterwards; or who with rash daring have had with them unlawful or dishonest conversations or dealings. Those whom they shall find culpable in any of these nefarious excesses, let them severely animadvert upon according to the quality and circumstances of the crimes, by condign penalties according to the aforementioned constitution of Gregory Our Predecessor, which We will to be held here as inserted word for word; giving also, if need be, and again granting, the faculty already otherwise granted in the aforesaid constitution of proceeding with even single witnesses, provided presumptions, indications, and other supports concur — lest a crime so enormous and injurious to the Church of God remain unpunished through a defect of proofs.

§ 2. Let moreover all and singular priests constituted for the hearing of confessions remember that they are held and obliged diligently to admonish their own penitents whom they shall know to have been solicited by others, as above, according to the circumstances of the occurring cases, of the obligation of denouncing to the aforesaid Inquisitors or Ordinaries of places the person who shall have committed the solicitation — even if he be a priest who lacks jurisdiction for imparting valid absolution; or if the solicitation between the confessor and the penitent was mutual; or whether the penitent consented to the solicitation or by no means gave consent; or if a long time has already elapsed after the solicitation itself; or if the solicitation was performed by the confessor not for himself but for another person. Let confessors moreover diligently beware lest they impart sacramental absolution to penitents whom they shall know to have been already solicited by another, unless first, carrying the aforesaid denunciation to its effect, they shall have indicated the delinquent to the competent judge; or at least let them pledge and promise that they will denounce him as soon as they can.

§ 3. And since there are found certain wicked men who, moved either by hatred, or by anger, or by another unworthy cause, or incited by the impious illusions, or promises, or blandishments, or threats of others, or in any other manner whatsoever, the tremendous judgment of God being postponed and the authority of the Church contemned, falsely accuse innocent priests of solicitation before ecclesiastical judges: that therefore so nefarious a daring and so detestable a deed may be restrained by the fear of the magnitude of the penalty, let whatsoever person shall have defiled himself with an outrage of this execrable kind — either by himself impiously calumniating innocent confessors, or by wickedly procuring that it be done by others — be perpetually deprived of the hope of obtaining absolution from any priest whatsoever, fortified with any privilege, authority, or dignity, save from Us and Our successors, unless at the end of life and in the article of death excepted; which absolution We reserve to Ourselves and to Our aforesaid successors.

§ 4. Lastly, greatly desiring to remove far away from the sanctity of the priestly and sacred tribunal of judgment every occasion of baseness, and every contempt of the sacraments and injury to the Church, and utterly to eliminate such destructive evils of this kind, and, so far as in the Lord We can, to meet the perils of souls, which certain sacrilegious men, ministers rather of the demon than of God, in the place of reconciling them by the sacrament to their and Our Creator, load with a greater mass of sins and nefariously plunge into the deep pit of iniquity: the counsel of some of Our Venerable Brethren the Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church and of some Masters in Theology having been employed thereupon, and the repeated supplications of very many bishops also acceding — by this Our sanction to be valid in perpetuity, just as We know it has already been done by very many bishops through their synodal constitutions, to all and singular priests, both secular and regular, of whatsoever order and dignity, even though otherwise approved for the receiving of confessions, and fortified with any privilege and indult, even special and expressed and worthy of most special note and mention, by apostolic authority and the plenitude of Our power, We interdict and prohibit that any of them, outside the case of extreme necessity — namely in the article of death itself, any other priest then being lacking who could perform the office of confessor — dare to receive the sacramental confession of a person who is an accomplice in a base and dishonest sin committed against the sixth precept of the Decalogue; there being taken away from him therefore by that very law whatsoever authority and jurisdiction for absolving any person whatsoever from a fault of this kind, so indeed that the absolution, if he shall have imparted any, be null and altogether void, as imparted by a priest who exists deprived of the jurisdiction and faculty necessary for absolving validly — which by these Our present letters We intend to take away from him; and nevertheless, if any confessor shall have dared to do otherwise, let him by that very deed incur also the penalty of greater excommunication, from which We reserve the power of absolving to Ourselves alone and to Our successors only.

§ 5. Declaring also and decreeing that not even by force of any Jubilee whatsoever, or even of the Bull which is called of the Holy Crusade, or of any other indult whatsoever, can anyone receive the confession of the said accomplice of this kind and bestow upon him sacramental absolution; since for this effect and in this case no confessor is to be held for a lawful and approved confessor, as one who in this kind of sin and penitent lacks jurisdiction, as aforesaid, and exists deprived by Us of the faculty of absolving. Notwithstanding apostolic constitutions and ordinations, chiefly those which are called of the Holy Crusade, or of the universal and plenary Jubilee; and also whatsoever statutes, customs, privileges, indults, and apostolic letters of any Churches, Monasteries, and Orders whatsoever, of which those priests shall have been, strengthened by oath, apostolic confirmation, or any other firmness whatsoever; and also privileges, indults, and apostolic letters under whatsoever tenors and forms, and with whatsoever clauses and decrees, even granted of Our own motion or otherwise in any manner whatsoever, and approved and innovated even at repeated times: to all which, holding their tenors as expressed in the present, We specially and expressly derogate for this time only, and to all other things whatsoever to the contrary.

§ 6. We will lastly and command that all Ordinaries of places, both present and future for the time being, in the approbation of confessors take care that both the aforesaid Constitution of Gregory Our Predecessor and this Our present one be attentively read by all priests to be approved, and be accurately observed; and let them admonish them in the Lord, and exhort them, that they perform the sacred ministry committed to their trust with the highest innocence of soul, purity of morals, and integrity of judgment, and exhibit themselves as ministers of Christ and dispensers of the mysteries of God; being mindful moreover that they hold the place and perform the office of the supreme and eternal Priest, who, holy, innocent, undefiled, through the Holy Ghost offered himself immaculate to God, that he might cleanse our conscience from dead works, to serve the living God. Let them therefore diligently study, and diligently beware, lest to those seeking and knocking heaven be closed by their fault; lest the lost sheep hastening to return to the Lord's fold be handed over by their hands to be torn by the teeth of wild beasts; lest the Prodigal Sons, needy and wounded, returning to the heavenly Father, be by their nefarious wickedness bruised with graver wounds of sins while they are yet in the way.

§ 7. But that the present letters may the more easily come to the notice of all, and that no one may be able to allege ignorance of them, We will that they, or copies of them, be affixed and published at the doors of the Lateran Church, of the Basilica of the Prince of the Apostles, and also of the Apostolic Chancery, and of the General Curia on Monte Citorio, and in the Campo de' Fiori of the City, as the custom is; and that, being thus published and affixed, they affect all and singular whom they concern, just as if they had been personally intimated to each one of them; and that to transcripts or copies of these present letters, even printed, subscribed by the hand of some public notary and fortified with the seal of some person constituted in ecclesiastical dignity, the same faith be everywhere given, as well in judgment as outside it, which would be given to these presents themselves, if they were exhibited or shown.

§ 8. Let it therefore be lawful to no man at all to infringe this page of Our will, sanction, precept, mandate, and derogation, or with rash daring to go against it. But if anyone shall have presumed to attempt this, let him know that he will incur the indignation of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul. Given at Rome at Holy Mary Major in the year of the Lord's Incarnation one thousand seven hundred and forty-one, on the Kalends of June, in the first year of Our Pontificate.”

II. QUESTION I. Are confessors soliciting males to base things to be denounced? ANSWER. Cardinal Cozza reports that Paul V declared in the year 1612 that soliciters of this kind are to be denounced by force of the constitution of Pius IV; since indeed in this constitution it is said, whoever shall have solicited any penitent. And a penitent is both man and woman. And the reason presses for either sex. There are comprehended also those soliciting, whether for themselves or for others, as is had in the transcribed constitution.

III. QUESTION II. Is a confessor to be denounced who hands to a woman confessing a paper provoking to base things, to be read? ANSWER. The two following opinions upon this matter Alexander VII condemned. No. 6: A confessor who in sacramental confession gives to a penitent a paper to be read afterwards, in which he incites to venery, is not reckoned to have solicited in confession, and consequently is not to be denounced. No. 7: The way of evading the obligation of denouncing a solicitation is if the one solicited confess to the soliciter: he can absolve him without the burden of denouncing.

IV. QUESTION III. Ought priests who feign themselves confessors, when they are not, to be denounced, if they solicit to base things? ANSWER. The affirmative opinion is true, and is gathered from §§ 1 and 2 of the transcribed constitution, where all priests without limitation are comprehended. If nevertheless laymen or clerics should feign themselves priests and solicit to base things, they are not to be denounced, as the common opinion teaches. If nevertheless a confessor should solicit through a cleric or a layman under the mask of confession, they would be to be denounced by force of the constitutions adduced.

V. QUESTION IV. What sense do these words bear: in the act of sacramental confession, or before, or immediately after? ANSWER. Those who within the space of the begun confession down to the end inclusively solicit are, according to all, to be denounced. They dispute upon the other two particles, immediately before or after. Cavillings being dismissed, these words are to be taken not physically but morally. Immediately before signifies, if anyone should know a woman prepared for confession, or seeking confession, and about to approach afterwards, and should provoke her and solicit her to base things, he would solicit immediately before confession, although some space should intervene before she confessed. He would solicit immediately after, if, the confession being performed, he should hand to the woman a paper inciting to base things, to be read in the church, or should provoke her with obscene words; if he should approach the woman's house, or as a companion on the journey should solicit her, he would be to be denounced.

VI. QUESTION V. What sense do these words bring forth: or on occasion, or under pretext of confession? ANSWER. Occasion and pretext are two diverse things. He is said to solicit on occasion of confession who in fact from the confession itself snatches a handle for soliciting to base things. But there is a pretext of confession when someone simulates and feigns a confession, that thence he may be able to provoke to venery. In various ways a nefarious confessor can solicit to base things on occasion of confession. 1. By express shamelessness. 2. When he understands a penitent confessing outrages of lust and prone to venery, and stirs her by signs, gestures, sighs, and other indications to lust. These, according to all, are to be denounced. 3. When from knowledge acquired in confession of a propensity to venery, he obtains an occasion of provoking her a little after the confession — provided the person solicited can prudently judge that this solicitation arises from knowledge had in confession. Wherefore the circumstances are to be regarded.

VII. A confessor solicits under pretext of confession who invites a woman to confession, and awaits her at the door of the church, and there, no mention of confession being made, incites her to venery. A woman, an agreement having been made beforehand with a priest concerning a sin of the flesh to be perpetrated, calls him to her house, that she may elude her household on account of the difficulty of execution, and feigns herself sick, and under pretext of confession they are at the same time mingled together. This man is to be denounced.

VIII. A woman approaches a confessor, saying that she wishes to confess on the morrow. He solicits her outside the confessional, without simulating a confession. Is this man to be denounced? The true opinion affirms it. Similarly that confessor would be to be denounced who should dissuade a woman from confession, that he might the more securely stir her to venery. All also who in the confessional, without a true or a simulated confession, solicit, are to be denounced; as also those who solicit by nods or signs women standing by and awaiting to confess. Those who in the chapels or cells of Religious, where confessions are heard, solicit to base things, are to be denounced, even if they neither hear nor simulate a confession. In all other places not deputed to the hearing of confessions, they are then only to be denounced when confessors either in fact hear, or simulate that they hear, confessions, if they solicit to base things.

IX. Those who should solicit not to base things but to other crimes — suppose theft or homicide — would be to be denounced by force of other decrees passed against those suspected of heresy. That soliciters be denounced, it is not required that the act by which they provoke to base things be by its own nature mortal; but it is enough that from the circumstance of place, of time, and of the administration of the sacrament it be such. Similarly confessors are to be denounced who in the said places have base conversations with penitents, as is gathered from the clause of the constitution: Or who have had with them unlawful or dishonest conversations or dealings. Innumerable are the ways by which these ravening wolves are wont to infect and devour the sheep of Christ. Nor is it expedient to number them. Each man from the circumstances can detect them.

X. Doubtful words are to be interpreted in the better part, chiefly when the confessor is of noted probity. Doubtful words can fall even from the most cautious man. Wherefore guard must be kept lest, while care is taken that the depravity of the wicked be restrained, the reputation of innocent and upright men be stained. When a confessor is solicited, if he contend, he is to be denounced.

XI. Although in all other offences fraternal correction is to be sent before, yet when the offences are against the public good, as offences of this kind and heresies are, they ought to be denounced, correction being omitted. Wherefore Alexander VII declared in the year 1660 that soliciters are to be denounced, fraternal correction not being sent before. Not only the persons solicited, but also those who either by chance have heard a confessor soliciting, or have heard it from the person solicited herself, are bound to denounce, unless she be willing to fulfil her own burden. The persons solicited ought themselves to appear at the tribunal; those who denounce by letter ought to write their own name and surname. If girls or noble matrons dare not approach either the Inquisitor or the bishop, they can do it through an intermediary, namely through a confessor. Let either the Inquisitor or the bishop be chosen, as better expedites the end of the denunciation. As regards the penalties against calumniators and false denouncers, read the transcribed constitution of Benedict XIV.

IN his Constitution Sacramentum Poenitentiæ, issued on June 1, 1741, Pope Benedict XIV. decreed as follows:

"And since wicked men are found who, moved by hatred or anger or other unworthy cause, or incited thereto by the wicked persuasion of others, or by their promises, flattery or threats, or by some other means, setting aside the terrible judgment of God and despising the authority of the Church, falsely accuse innocent priests of solicitation before ecclesiastical judges; therefore in order that such wicked audacity and so detestable a crime may be checked by the fear of the greatness of the penalty, whoever shall have disgraced himself by so execrable a crime, impiously calumniating innocent confessors himself or wickedly procuring that it be done by others, let him perpetually be without hope of obtaining absolution from any priest except when in danger of death, and such absolution we reserve to ourselves and to our successors." By this decree the sin of false accusation of solicitation brought against a priest was reserved in a very special manner to the Holy See. Whatever may be said about the nature of reservation of sins in general, theologians commonly taught that this reservation of false accusation of solicitation at any rate was penal, and therefore they concluded that ignorance of the reservation probably excused a culprit from incurring it.*

I propose in this paper tentatively to examine whether the New Code of Canon Law has made any change in this matter.

It is quite clear that some change has been made. Before the new Code came into force there was no ecclesiastical censure attached to the sin of false accusation of solicitation. Canon 2363 of the new Code punishes the sin by excommunication specially reserved to the Holy See.

Canon 2363 " If anyone in person or through others lays a false accusation before superiors of the crime of solicitation against a confessor he incurs ipso facto excommunication reserved in a special manner to the Holy See, from which he cannot in any case be absolved unless he has formally retracted the false accusation and, as far as he can, repaired the damage done, if there was any, and moreover after a heavy and long penance has been given him." Canon 2229 tells us how far ignorance excuses one from incurring this censure. "Affected ignorance whether of a law or of a penalty excuses from no penalties latæ sententiæ. Ignorance of a law or even of a penalty alone excuses from no penalty latæ sententiæ if it were crass or supine; if it were not crass or supine, it excuses from medicinal but not from vindictive penalties latæ sententiæ"

* Lehmkuhl, II., n. 407, ed. 9.

A censure is a medicinal penalty and so ignorance will excuse one who falsely accuses a confessor of solicitation from the excommunication inflicted by Canon 2363 unless the ignorance be affected or crass and supine.

Hitherto when a sin was punished by a censure reserved to the Holy See, and on account of ignorance the censure was not incurred, the sin itself was not reserved and might be absolved by any confessor. However, by Canon 894 the sin of false accusation of a confessor of solicitation is reserved on its own account

Canon 894. " The only sin reserved to the Holy See on its own account is a false accusation by which an innocent priest is accused of the crime of solicitation before an ecclesiastical judge."

The sin of false accusation of solicitation, therefore, is now reserved to the Holy See both on its own account and on account of the censure of excommunication annexed to it. Even when in a particular case the censure is not incurred, still the sin will be reserved to the Holy See unless there is some reason which excuses from this reservation. Will ignorance of the reservation excuse a culprit from incurring the reservation and enable any confessor to grant absolution without obtaining special faculties? This is a practical question which I wish to attempt to solve.

We may, I think, take it for granted that this reservation of the sin of false accusation of solicitation on its own account is an ecclesiastical penalty. Ordinarily, indeed, reservation of sins is not an ecclesiastical penalty. It is not mentioned among the ecclesiastical penalties contained in the new Code. As explained in Canon 893, reservation is the calling of a case before the tribunal of a superior or of his delegate, limiting the power of inferiors to give absolution in the case. The case is supposed to be one of importance, which can only be tried in a higher court. As a case of murder, for example, cannot be tried by magistrates, so a reserved case cannot be absolved by an ordinary confessor. Neither in one case nor in the other is this provision a penalty inflicted on the culprit. It is rather of the nature of a guarantee that the case will be duly tried on its merits and according to law. However, in the case of false accusation of solicitation, there are special reasons for holding that the reservation of this particular sin is an ecclesiastical penalty. One of the references subjoined to Canon 894 in Cardinal Gasparri's edition is to the Constitution Sacramentum Poenitentiæ of Benedict XIV. quoted above. It is clear from the words quoted above that the Pope intended the reservation of this sin to the Holy See to be of the nature of an ecclesiastical penalty. The difficulty of getting absolution for the sin was intended to act as a deterrent. If anyone were guilty of the sin the reservation deprived him of the power and opportunity of obtaining absolution as easily as for other sins. We may, then, still hold that the reservation to the Holy See of the sin of false accusation of solicitation is an ecclesiastical penalty.

But to what class of ecclesiastical penalties does this reservation belong?

Canon 2215 tells us that "an ecclesiastical penalty is the privation of some good for the correction of the delinquent and the punishment of a crime, inflicted by ecclesiastical authority." By Canon 2216 we are told that delinquents are punished in the Church by (1) medicinal penalties, or censures; (2) by vindictive penalties; (3) by penal remedies and by penances. According to Canon 2306 penal remedies are such preventive measures as Admonition, Correction, Precept, and subjection to Vigilance; while penances are imposed in the external forum that a delinquent may either escape a penalty, or may receive absolution or dispensation from a penalty which he has incurred, as we are informed by Canon 2312. It seems clear that a reservation of sin cannot belong to this third class of ecclesiastical penalties. It must be either a medicinal or a vindictive penalty.

According to Canon 2216, medicinal penalties and censures are synonymous terms. There are three kinds of censure—excommunication, suspension, and interdict. "A censure is a penalty," we are told in Canon 2241, "by which a baptized person, guilty of crime and contumacious, is deprived of certain spiritual goods, or of those annexed to spiritual goods, until, receding from his contumacy, he is absolved." The element which distinguishes a censure from other ecclesiastical penalties is the contumacy of the delinquent. He is formally disobedient to ecclesiastical authority and refuses to submit. As soon as he submits, the contumacy ceases, and he should be absolved. Apart from reservation, any confessor may absolve from a censure, and, on the contumacy of the delinquent ceasing, a confessor should grant absolution. Thus a censure or medicinal penalty is quite different from the reservation of a sin. The absolution of a reserved sin does not depend on the relinquishing of contumacy. It depends on the power of the confessor. If one who has. falsely accused a confessor of solicitation wants absolution, it is not sufficient for him to repent and to abandon his contumacy. He must approach the Holy See or its delegate for such a case and obtain absolution from that source. Reservation of such a sin then, although a penalty, is not a medicinal penalty. It is neither an excommunication nor a suspension nor an interdict. It only remains that it must belong to the class of vindictive penalties.

Canon 2286 defines vindictive penalties as "those which directly tend to the expiation of a crime, so that their remission does not depend on the cessation of the delinquent's contumacy."

The Code does not give us an exhaustive list of vindictive penalties. Canon 2291 gives a list of those which chiefly affect the faithful in general They are: Certain special kinds of interdict, penal translation or suppression of the seat of a bishopric or parish, legal infamy, privation of ecclesiastical burial, privation of Sacramentals, privation or suspension for a time of an ecclesiastical pension, removal from the exercise of ecclesiastical legal acts, inability to receive ecclesiastical favours, privation of a favour already obtained, privation of the right of precedence, and a money fine. Canon 2298 gives a list of vindictive penalties which affect clerics only. They are: Prohibition of the exercise of sacred functions except in a certain place, perpetual suspension or suspension for a definite period, penal translation from an office, privation of a right annexed to an office, inability for certain offices, penal privation of office, prohibition of dwelling in a certain place, precept to dwell in a certain place, privation of the ecclesiastical dress for a time, deposition, perpetual privation of the ecclesiastical dress, degradation.

Although reservation is not mentioned, and, indeed, as we have seen, it is not a penalty of its own nature, yet when inflicted on a culprit as a penalty for crime it is similar to several of the vindictive penalties in the above lists. It approaches the nature of privation of Sacramentals in the first list, and privation of a right annexed to an office in the second. It would seem, then, that in the special case in which by the will of the legislator a reservation was inflicted as a penalty for crime, this reservation is a vindictive, not a medicinal penalty. But according to Canon 2229 ignorance does not excuse from vindictive penalties, and therefore the sin of falsely accusing a confessor of solicitation will be reserved to the Holy See even if the offender knew nothing of the reservation. It may be that this was specially intended by the Holy See, and was at least one reason why this sin alone was reserved to the Holy See on its own account.

My solution of the question is tentative, and if anyone has a different opinion on the matter, I hope he will give us his reasons for holding it.

It is sometimes said that as soon as the Church issues a new law, moral theologians set to work to whittle it away. I believe that the saying is a slander on a great and distinguished body of men. Moral theologians know that the laws of the Catholic Church tend to the sanctification and salvation of souls, and they would as soon attempt to whittle them away as they would attempt to whittle away the laws of Our Lord Himself. Any theologian who is worthy of the name tries to get at the mind of the Church, which is expressed in her laws.