The Manner of Denouncing

I. The denunciation must be made to the local Ordinary or to the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office (can. 904). Moreover, the denunciation can be made to the Ordinary of the place, whether of the denouncing person, or of the one denounced, or of the place in which the delict was committed. I said "can," because it is better that the denunciation be made to the Ordinary of the denouncing person, that is, of the solicited penitent. If it is made to an Ordinary who is not the Ordinary of the one denounced, it belongs to that Ordinary to transmit the act to the proper Ordinary of the one denounced, who can instruct the process, or to the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office. If the Ordinary refuses to accept the denunciation, the penitent is freed from further obligation.

II. Considering the norms prescribed of themselves, the person denouncing should appear personally either "before the Bishop or his delegate with the intervention of an ecclesiastical man who holds the part of notary, and with oath and with expression and subscription of his or her name";¹ or before a confessor or another ecclesiastical man deputed by the Bishop without the intervention of a notary.² The deputed person can summon the denouncing person to himself, or he himself can approach that person.

III. Practically, let the procedure be as follows:

1. The person about to denounce, if it can conveniently be done, should approach the Ordinary, set forth the cause to him, and carry out his mandates.

2. If the person cannot conveniently approach the Ordinary, let him or her write letters to him in which the fact of solicitation, the place of the delict, the name and office of the delinquent confessor, and his or her own address are set forth. If the solicited person cannot afterward present himself or herself to the Ordinary, let this be added in the letter so that the Bishop can depute another who may receive the denunciation. If a grave reason stands in the way of someone other than the confessor being deputed, let this also be added so that the Bishop, if it pleases him, may depute the confessor, who, according as the Ordinary prefers, may receive the denunciation outside or in the confessional, but outside the act of confession.

3. If the person about to denounce can neither approach the Ordinary nor write to him, let him or her do this through another person well-disposed toward him or her. The confessor of himself is not bound to this. But if nevertheless he does it, with the names both of the one to be denounced and of the one about to denounce kept back, let him inform the Ordinary of the fact of solicitation and of the inability of the solicited person to appear and to write. Let him add whether the solicited person can conveniently and is willing to present himself or herself to a delegate from the Bishop, at least if a confessor is delegated. I said that the confessor of himself is not bound to this; nevertheless, we do not deny "that in some case, for instance if public damage were threatening somewhere and no other way were open for avoiding it, the confessor could be bound by the law of charity to undertake a burden of this kind; but this will rarely happen" (St. Alphonsus, VI, 699). Indeed St. Alphonsus at the cited place, with others, observes that "in practice 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."

4. If the penitent can neither approach the Ordinary, nor write to him, nor find someone who would do either, he or she will be able to await an occasion.

5. Religious Superiors are strictly prohibited from involving themselves in these causes (can. 501, § 2).

¹ Instruction of the Holy Office, February 20, 1867, n. 6.

² Cited Instruction, n. 8.

"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.

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.

"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."

"16. Whether a confessor who, while hearing confession, gives a gift to a woman, so that by this act he is said to have solicited her, is to be denounced? - They gave the same reply as to the twelfth."

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.

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).

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.

7. Solicited women are not bound to make the denunciation if Inquisitors or Bishops or their Vicars, living in distant regions, cannot be approached without grave inconvenience. But when the impediment ceases, for example, at the visitation of the Bishop, the obligation of denunciation must be urged. Thus the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office declared on January 22, 1727.

595. (A) On the manner in which the confessor must conduct himself. (a) The confessor to whom a case of solicitation is manifested must weigh whether the person denouncing is entirely worthy of faith; for sometimes women, from hatred or envy, or because their solicitations have been repelled, etc., falsely denounce innocent priests. Therefore let him seriously admonish them concerning the atrociousness of the crime of false denunciation and concerning the most grave penalty inflicted on this sin, namely that it is reserved to the Supreme Pontiff.

(b) Let him diligently consider whether, all things being inspected, the obligation of denouncing is certain; if he cannot immediately judge the matter, let him admonish the penitent to return to him on another day.

(c) If the obligation of denouncing is certainly established, the confessor is regularly bound to admonish the penitent concerning this obligation, although the latter may be in good faith; for the Holy Office says, in the Instruction of the year 1867, n. 3: "Concerning this matter penitents must be admonished, nor does their good faith excuse from admonishing and instructing them." The reason is that the public good, which generally demands this denunciation, must prevail over the private good. Yet if it is certainly foreseen that the admonition will in no way be profitable, but will be harmful, the confessor can defer the admonition, awaiting a more opportune time, so that he may provide at the same time for the private good of the penitent and the good of the Church. If there is no hope ever of obtaining the denunciation, he may have recourse to Superiors for a dispensation.

(d) If the penitent, admonished concerning the obligation of denouncing, is unwilling to make it, let the confessor inquire whether there is an excusing cause; if there is some legitimate cause, let the obligation not be urged until the cause has ceased; but if there is no reasonable cause, in the best manner in which it can be done let him persuade the penitent to denounce, or at least to promise to denounce at an opportune time, by explaining how it can be done without any injury to himself or herself; if he cannot obtain even this, let him have recourse to ecclesiastical Superiors for a dispensation, and let him not absolve before the dispensation has been obtained, unless, however, in the article of death, in which absolution can be given whenever good faith can probably be presumed.

596. (B) On the manner of making the denunciation. (a) The denunciation must be made either to the Inquisitors, where they still exist, or to the Ordinary. By this name here the Bishop is to be understood¹, and, when he has died, the capitular Vicar (in the United States, the Administrator), but not the Vicar General, unless he has a special mandate for this. The Ordinary to whom the denunciation must be made is the Ordinary of the denounced priest, or of the place where the delict was perpetrated; or, according to some, the Ordinary of the solicited penitent, who should transmit the denunciation to the Bishop of the offending priest.

¹ The Bishop is the competent judge in this matter, even as to exempt Regulars. In mission places, the Vicar Apostolic can receive the denunciation, from the decree of the Holy Office, June 20, 1883, ap. Collectanea, n. 949.

(b) Since denunciation is an act truly judicial, regularly the solicited person, or another who certainly knows the crime, must personally present himself before the Ordinary or his delegate, in the presence of an ecclesiastical man who acts the part of notary; and, after an oath has been furnished, by the living voice, not in writing, make the denunciation, expressing the name of the soliciting priest, or, if this is unknown, his office, duty, age, and other special signs by which he can be recognized. Moreover the one denouncing must manifest his own name and subscribe; but if he does not know how to write, let him put the sign of the cross. Finally let him emit an oath concerning religiously preserving secrecy about all things which have been transacted.²

² The norm to be followed in this examination is described in the Instruction of the Holy Office, July 20, 1890, ap. Acta S. Sedis, XXV, p. 451-454.

(c) But since often the judicial order cannot be observed, the Bishop can concede that the denunciation be made before a priest (for example, the parish priest) delegated, without a notary; or even before a confessor specially deputed for this office (which nevertheless is not done without inconvenience).

(d) But before the Bishop proceeds against the one denounced, according to the recent Instruction of the Holy Office, August 6, 1897³, he must explore whether the women or men denouncing are of good name, and are not led to accuse either by enmity or by some other human affection: "Therefore the Ordinary, as often as he shall have received some denunciation concerning the unspeakable crime of solicitation, shall proceed immediately to the diligences⁴. To this end, either by himself or through a priest specially delegated by him, he shall call (separately, of course, and with the circumspection which is due) two witnesses, as far as this can be done, from the ecclesiastical body, but in any case above every exception, who know well both the one denounced and all and each of the denouncers, and them, under the sacredness of an oath concerning the truth to be spoken and concerning the secrecy of the Holy Office to be preserved⁵, he shall judicially interrogate, referring the testimony in writing, according to the following formula; moreover, an authentic copy of each testimony and at the same time of the respective denunciation he shall directly and by a safe way transmit as soon as possible to this Supreme Congregation ... But if only two witnesses cannot be found who know at the same time the one denounced and all and each of the denouncers, more must be called. Namely, in this case as many witnesses as above must be called as will be necessary so that a double testimony may be had concerning the one denounced and each denouncer."

³ Ap. Acta S. Sedis, XXX, p. 249-251; in the same place one may find the formula to be used in the interrogation of witnesses.

⁴ They call diligentiae the judicial investigation concerning the one denounced and the denouncers described below.

⁵ Concerning that secrecy of the Holy Office, Canoniste Contemp., July-August 1898, p. 433-453, discusses very well.

Thence it follows that the Bishop cannot judicially proceed against the one denounced before he has transmitted the aforesaid documents to the Holy Office and has received a response from it.

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.

N. N. in the year of his or her age ... from the Parish N. (Quasi-parish; Mission), before me the undersigned, outside the Sacrament of Penance, complains that N. N. (Pastor, Quasi-Pastor, Missionary, Priest, Religious) in ... (Parish, Quasi-parish, Mission, College, Monastery) ... solicited her (him) in Confession (on the occasion, etc.) by words (deeds) of this kind ... to dishonest and shameful things, and is prepared to confirm this by oath also before the Episcopal delegate, her (his) own or neighboring Pastor N. N.

N. N., Priest, etc.

Given ...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

¹ De Smet nevertheless judges the contrary, because according to the Benedictine Constitution this reservation is a medicinal penalty, from which, according to can. 2229, § 3, ignorance excuses if it is not crass. But this no longer holds in law, in which it is expressly said, can. 893, that reservation limits the power of the confessor, and in the immediately following canon 894, false accusation is called the one sin reserved to the Holy See by reason of itself. Therefore it is no longer principally a medicinal penalty, but a calling-away to the tribunal of the superior and a restriction of jurisdiction; as is now generally acknowledged. - Moreover practically ignorance is rarely present, since those denouncing a confessor must be admonished by the judge or delegate concerning the reservation.

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.

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. 14]

VI. Fr. Dominic Viva, chapter 3, article 3, no. 8, proposes this question: “Whether a sinner who cannot in some year confess for want of a confessor is bound to contrition before the year elapse?” Thus he answers: “Dominic Soto affirms it … because the divine precept of doing penance, which of itself is indeterminate, has already been determined by the Church to individual years … according to that rule, "He who cannot as much as he ought, let him pay as much as he can"; and according to that other, "He who cannot the whole, let him render the part which he can." … I answer indeed with others commonly in the negative. For it is false that the Church determined that indeterminate time of doing penance in general, to which we are obliged by divine precept. For she only determined the indeterminate time of confessing. But since in such a case confession is impossible, the sinner does not seem bound to contrition. And the further reason is, because since to be contrite is something merely internal, it does not fall under the precept of the Church, neither by reason of itself and directly, as is plain, nor by reason of another and indirectly, that is, by reason of the sacrament, and so forth. To the rules adduced — "He who cannot the whole," and so forth — I answer that they hold good when the parts of the whole are homogeneous … but not when they are heterogeneous.”

VI. Francolino, page 114: “But since these reasons flourish now also as they flourished formerly, it follows that absolution ought also to be deferred. … Speaking of penitents who have an inveterate habit of sinning, he thus discourses (Merbesius): Men of this kind are not to be absolved quickly, because they are converted to God as they ought only with great difficulty. For as St. Thomas says, I-II, q. 78, art. 2, reply 3, "he who sins from habit always rejoices in this, that he acts from habit, so long as he uses the habit; but because he can not use the habit, but through reason, which is not totally corrupted, meditate something else, it can happen that, not using the habit, he grieve for that which he has committed through the habit; and so for the most part such men repent of sin, not because sin displeases them of itself, but on account of some inconvenience which they incur from the sin." Thus St. Thomas. Therefore since with those who sin from a vicious habit the sin does not displease of itself, namely inasmuch as it is an offence of God, but on account of some detriment or temporal inconvenience, and what they perceive from it, if they are so affected, as also any others so minded, sacramental absolution is for a time to be denied and deferred, until their conversion be discerned and appear through worthy fruits of penance and a love of God at least inchoately conceived.”

VI. Juvenin: By divine law satisfaction is necessary for those fallen after Baptism. Page 676, column 2.

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.

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.

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.