The Ministration of the Sacrament of Penance

335. Minister of Penance. The priest alone is the minister of the sacrament of penance: for Christ said to the apostles alone and to their successors in the priesthood: "Receive the Holy Spirit; whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them."¹ Therefore the Council of Trent condemns with anathema those who say that priests are not the sole ministers of absolution.²

From these things it follows: a. He who has been invalidly ordained a priest cannot absolve from sins. b. The Church cannot grant the power of absolving from sins to one who is not a priest, because the Church cannot change the things which have been instituted by Christ. c. It is false that deacons ever, from a grant of the Church, had the power of absolving from sins.³ d. A sinner in no case whatever is bound to confess his sins to one who is not a priest, because he cannot be absolved by him.

¹ John 20:22, 23.

² Sess. 14, c. 6, can. 10. Cf. on this dogmatic question Pesch, VII, n. 410 ff.

³ On non-sacramental confession made to deacons, cf. Benedict XIV, De synodo l. 7, c. 16, n. 4 ff.; Pesch VII, 415 ff.; Gillmann, Zur Frage der Laienbeicht (Katholik, 1909), p. 435.

336. Power Required in the Minister of Penance. For valid absolution in the minister of penance there are required: the power of order or sacramental power, and the power of jurisdiction or judicial power, whether ordinary or delegated, over the penitent, Cn. 872.

a. The power of order is required because penance is a sacrament which, from the will of Christ, can be administered by priests alone.

b. The power of jurisdiction is required because the remission of sins in this sacrament is produced through a judicial sentence; but jurisdiction is necessary for passing judgment.

The power of order necessary for validly absolving is of divine law; the power of jurisdiction is of natural law. The priest receives the power of order in ordination itself, which power is indeed the true power of remitting and retaining sins, but it cannot yet be exercised by the priest unless jurisdiction is added. The power of jurisdiction is conferred outside the sacrament of order through the external grant of the ecclesiastical superior.

The minister of the sacrament of Penance is the priest alone; this is clear both from the Council of Trent and from canon 871. The Council of Trent declared: "If anyone shall say ... that priests alone are not the ministers of absolution ... let him be anathema."¹

Having set these things down, we shall treat first of the ministration of the sacrament of Penance generally, then of its ministration to some persons specifically.

¹ Session 14, canon 10.

1. All secular and regular priests approved for confessions by the Ordinary of Rome can confess in any hospital whatever of the city.¹

¹ The confession certificate, where it is said: that sacramental confessions of Christ's faithful.... in any hospitals whatsoever of the kindly City, according to the Briefs of Clement XII of holy memory, issued on 28 Apr. 1738, you may be able to hear, etc.

2. As regards Regulars, even those approved only in other dioceses can confess the sick of those hospitals to which they are sent by their superiors, according to the prescription made to these by the Supreme Pontiffs.²

² Edict of His Eminence Cardinal Guadagni, 6 Sept. 1738, renewed by His Eminence Cardinal Patrizi on 22 July 1850.

The faculty as regards absolution from censures, in the forum of conscience only, and from sins, which according to the Council of Trent (sess. 14, ch. 7) Holy Church concedes to any Priest whatever for the faithful placed in the article of death, namely, that there be no reservation. And therefore all Priests can absolve any penitents from any sins and censures whatever; this same most ample faculty is conceded by the Supreme Pontiffs to Confessors approved in the aforesaid manner, for the benefit only of the sick in the hospitals of Rome, although they are not placed in the article of death.³

³ The aforesaid Brief of Clement XII of holy memory, by which he approves that of Pope Paul III: "with all and singular faculties of absolving from all and singular sins, crimes, and offenses, however grave and enormous, even those reserved to the Apostolic See, etc., even if they were such that for them the Apostolic See deservedly ought to be consulted."

Then as regards the two cases reserved to the Vicar of Rome, namely of the buying and selling of the Easter ticket, and of the non-fulfillment of the Easter precept, besides the faculty of absolving them in the internal forum, there is likewise conceded the faculty of absolving in the external forum from the interdict him who may have incurred it because of the non-fulfillment of the said precept, and whose name had been published at the door of the Church, with the obligation on the Confessor, after having made the penitent aware of it, immediately to transmit the notice by means of authentic attestation to the office of the Vicariate, using the following formula.

I, the undersigned, declare that I have absolved the sick person N. N. of the Parish

And as regards censures he adds: "from any sentences, censures, and penalties whatsoever of excommunication, suspension, and interdict, and other ecclesiastical sentences, censures, and penalties, in whatever way incurred, and from other reserved cases.... in the forum of conscience only, we concede and indulge the faculty of absolving...."

N., notoriously denounced and interdicted because of the non-fulfillment of the Easter precept. In witness, etc. From the venerable archhospital N., on the day, etc.⁴

⁴ Decree of His Eminence Cardinal Patrizi, 23 February 1851.

1. Of commuting any vows whatever into other works of piety, excepted, etc. That is, of commuting into other pious works any simple vow whatever, excepted that of chastity, of religion, and of the three pilgrimages to the places of the Holy Land, ad limina SS. Apostolorum, and to St. James in Compostela.

2. Of relaxing any oaths whatever. That is, of dissolving any promissory oath, when there is no harm to a third party.

3. And of ministering ecclesiastical sacraments to those sick persons. By this is understood, besides the administration of the sacrament of Penance, also that of the Eucharist, both in common form and in the form of Viaticum, and the sacrament of Extreme Unction. Concerning this faculty, it is a fitting thing not to make use of it when it could displease the Priest who by his special office is bound to administer the said Sacraments.

4. Of imparting in the article of death a plenary indulgence and remission of all their sins; and this not only to the dying persons of the hospital, but also to those of the family, using the prescribed formula.⁵

⁵ The faculty concerning vows, oaths, the administration of the sacraments, and the blessing in the article of death is established from the aforesaid Brief of Clement XII, declared and confirmed by Pope Pius IX, Rescript of His Eminence Cardinal Vicar Patrizi, from an Audience of the Most Holy One, 5 Jan. 1856. But the faculty of giving the blessing in the article of death also to the dying persons of the family of the hospitals is had from the same Pope Pius IX, Rescript of 11 Feb. 1851.

5. In suffrage of the souls of the deceased in the hospitals, there are privileged the altar of the Most Holy Crucified in the cemetery of S. Spirito, and any other altar existing in the wards and chapels of the hospitals dependent on the Commission.⁶

⁶ Rescript of the Supreme Pontiff Pius IX, 11 March 1851.

In all the archhospitals and hospitals of Rome, namely those which are public and general for every class of persons, such as are at present those noted below; as also in those which may be opened in the future, even if subsidiary and temporary, and in the places annexed to the same.⁷

⁷ Cited Brief of Pope Clement XII.

The hospitals indicated above are precisely those which now depend on the Commission, namely:

1. The archhospital of S. Spirito, and the annexed foundling hospital, or conservatory of exposed children, and the conservatory of females, illegitimate, annexed to the same archhospital, with its infirmary.

2. The archhospital of the Most Holy Savior at S. Giovanni in Laterano.

3. The archhospital of S. Giacomo in Augusta.

4. The archhospital of S. Maria della Consolazione.

5. The archhospital of S. Gallicano.

6. The hospital of S. Maria de' Pazzi.

7. The hospice of S. Rocco.⁸

⁸ Motu Proprio of Pope Pius IX concerning the Commission of the hospitals of Rome, 18 September 1850, title I.

1. Confessors approved for men alone cannot confess sick women in the hospitals.

2. Confessors enrolled in the Pious Union of St. Paul the Apostle can obtain from the primary Regulator of the same other special faculties to use them in the hospitals to which they are assigned by him, and in other places and works of the said Pious Union.

3. Priests who confess the sick in the hospitals are not obliged, as they are under penalty of suspension with regard to the sick in private houses, to leave a written attestation of it. But it will be well done, after hearing the confession of a sick person who confesses there for the first time, to make the one who has care of the hospital aware of it.

4. The Confessors who go to confess the sick in the hospitals can also confess there healthy persons, both of the family, excepting hospital nuns, for whom special approbation is required, and other outside persons. But for healthy persons the Confessors can make use only of ordinary faculties, and of those which they may personally have obtained also for other places.

5. The secular and regular Ecclesiastics who apply themselves to the spiritual good of the sick in the hospitals of Rome, by preaching, catechizing, administering the Most Holy Sacraments to them, etc., gain each time an indulgence of two hundred days, and a plenary one once a year if they apply themselves there at least twelve times.⁹ Cf. Acta S. Sed. Vol. 6, p. 284 ff.

⁹ Rescript of His Eminence Cardinal Patrizi, from an Audience of the Most Holy One, 5 January 1856; it is preserved in the archive of the Pious Union of St. Paul the Apostle together with the other Rescript cited above.

"Const. Quoad communi, 30 March 1742, for the Capuchins, section 2, declares that any one of the Order of Capuchins, whether Priest or Lay Brother, dwelling outside the cloister with due license, if he finds no Confessor of the said Order, can confess his sins to any secular Priest approved by the Ordinary of the place, and also to a Regular, provided that he is approved by his Regular superior for receiving sacramental confessions. Benedict XIV issued this Constitution for the Capuchins, because from the statutes of their general Chapters, superiors, even major ones, cannot deputize Confessors outside the Order. The Most Holy Lord Pius IX enlarged the Indult conceded by Benedict XIV through Apostolic letters in the form of a Brief on 28 September 1852, so that Capuchins can choose for themselves an outside Confessor, as above, even in the case in which there is present only one Capuchin Priest approved for confessions; granting, besides, that from an outside Confessor they can obtain sacramental absolution also as regards cases reserved by the statutes of the Order, and the censures consequently incurred, yet with the obligation furnished of presenting themselves to their regular superior at once as soon as it is permitted, and of again obtaining from him absolution concerning cases and censures of this kind." Bizzarri, Collection, ed. 1885, p. 723.

"A certain religious, from the Augustinian family, using a faculty obtained from the Prior of his Convent, confesses to a priest, and indeed an approved one. It is asked: 1. whether validly? and insofar as affirmatively, 2. whether the Prior can by right concede this faculty to his subjects or not? Resp. In the Order of the Hermits of St. Augustine, affirmatively to both, provided that the Priest has been among those approved by the Ordinary of the place. For other Orders one must stand by the Constitutions and Statutes." S. C. EE. and RR. 3 June 1864.

"To superiors both general and provincial, it concedes the faculty, whether by themselves or through other suitable religious men deputed by them, of indulging to the suppressed regulars of their Order that, while the circumstances of the present times last, they may be able to choose for themselves any confessor whatever, whether regular or secular, yet from those approved by the Ordinary of the place, by whom also, insofar as there is need, they can be absolved from cases and censures reserved in their own Order; and concerning irregularity contracted in whatever way from violation of the same censures, provided that it remains occult, they can receive the grace of dispensation in the forum of conscience only.

It declares besides that it is lawful for any suppressed regulars whatever, whether dwelling in some house, as n. 1, designated by the Superior, into which dispersed Religious have gathered, or dwelling outside religious houses as secularized for a time, to make their sacramental Confessions before confessors of their own Order, legitimately approved by their own Prelate." S. Poenit. 18 Apr. 1867.

"His Holiness ordered it to be rescripted to the proposed doubt, namely that Religious of suppressed Convents, who for this reason do not live in community, can choose for themselves as Confessor any Presbyter whatever, whether from the secular Clergy or from the Regular Clergy, provided that he is from those approved for receiving confessions by the Ordinary of the place. But to those Religious concerning whom there is question, who, although ejected from their Convents, nevertheless live in Community in the better way in which it can be done, His Holiness kindly grants the Indult of choosing for themselves any Confessor whatever, as above, provided that in it there are not had at least four Confessors of their own Order." Bizzarri, loc. cit., p. 155. S. C. EE. and RR. 3 July 1862.

"Regulars, even those secularized for a time, ought to make their confession before confessors approved by the Ordinary of the place, by whom in the act of sacramental confession they will be able to be absolved even from censures and cases reserved in the Order, if they are by no means reserved in the Diocese." S. C. EE. and RR. 27 Aug. 1852.

"The S. C.... judged that the aforesaid Regulars, of St. Francis, approved by the Ordinaries of places for hearing the confessions of secular persons, cannot be prohibited by the same Ordinaries from hearing the confessions of the same persons when sick in their own houses without the license of the parish priests; provided that they leave a note, or notify the Parish Priests themselves, that the sacrament of Penance of this kind has been ministered by them." S. C. EE. and RR. 13 Sept. 1641; 22 Sept. 1645. - Cf. N. 543; Bizzarri, Collection, ed. 1885, p. 753 ff.; and Acta S. Sed. Vol. 1, p. 678 ff.

"Whether Regulars can minister the Eucharist as Viaticum and also Extreme Unction to lay persons dwelling in their convents by reason of hospitality and the like, if they fall sick there? Resp. They cannot, but only to those who are continuous table-companions and of the family of the Convents, from Trent, sess. 26, ch. 11, de Regul., and Constitution Circumspecta of Gregory XIII, 17 Feb. 1649." S. C. C. 1649.

"Whether the weekly servant, cleric, baker, gardener, and stewardess dwelling in the Courtyard of the Monastery.... have, the requirements of the Council being considered - Resp. Negatively." S. C. C. 21 Jan. 1713.

"1. Whether secular male and female servants of nuns, dwelling in the same dwellings, situated in the courts of monasteries surrounded by a wall, and which are contiguous to the monasteries and have a door which is closed in the case, are bound to receive the Eucharist in paschal time from the Parish Priests in whose Parishes the monastery and dwellings are situated in the case? 2. Whether it pertains to the said Parish Priests to minister the Sacraments to the said male and female servants in their final illness in the case? Resp. To the 1st, affirmatively; to the 2nd, affirmatively." S. C. C. 17 Sept. 1822. Cf. Benedict XIV, Notification 55, nn. 7, 8.

"Whether young persons and boarding pupils, living for studies in Colleges of Regulars, and girls dwelling for the sake of education in exempt monasteries of Nuns, are to be held as belonging to the family of the monastery and convent, so that, the Parish Priest not being required, they can receive paschal Communion, Viaticum, and Extreme Unction from the regular Superior? Resp. Deferred, and let the doubts be divided." S. C. EE. and RR. 8 June 1860. Cf. Acta S. Sed. Vol. 3, p. 47 ff.; Lucidi, 3rd ed., Vol. 2, p. 371 ff.

The confessor of nuns is to be changed at least every three years. S. C. EE. RR. 26 Nov. 1602; 15 Feb. 1593; 10 March 1634. - It is declared an abuse that the confessor of Nuns be constituted for life or for several Monasteries. 4 March 1594. - Only one confessor is to be deputed for each Monastery. Benedict XIV, Const. Pastoralis curae. Cf. Bizzarri, Collection, ed. 1885, p. 374.

"But since sometimes from peculiar circumstances of things it can happen that confirmation for another three-year period is not only useful, but necessary, hence the same S. C., the Ordinary having been heard, and the Nuns capitularly by secret votes, in particular cases grants confirmation for a second, and even for a third, three-year period, yet on this condition, that for confirmation for a second three-year period the consent of two out of three parts of the Nuns concur; and for confirmation for a third three-year period the consent of all accede. But the Ordinary must report concerning the probity of life and prudence of the confessor, and make the S. C. more certain concerning the necessity, or at least utility, of the confirmation." Bizzarri, Collection, ed. 1885, p. 13.

Ordinaries of places, as a general rule, cannot designate Regulars as ordinary confessors of Nuns immediately subject to the Bishop, without leave of the Sacred Congregation. S. C. Nov. 1721 and 5 Sept. 1727. Cf. Bizzarri, ed. 1885, pp. 313, 322, 335, 345, 382, 383; Ferraris, v. Nuns, art. 5, n. 29.

“Concerning the minister of this sacrament, the holy Synod declares that all doctrines which perniciously extend the ministry of the keys to any other men besides bishops and priests are false and wholly foreign to the truth of the Gospel; for they suppose that those words of the Lord: Whatever you shall bind upon earth shall be bound also in heaven; and whatever you shall loose upon earth shall be loosed also in heaven; and: Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained, were spoken indifferently and indiscriminately to all the faithful of Christ, contrary to the institution of this sacrament, in such a manner that anyone should have the power of forgiving sins—public sins, indeed, through correction, if the person corrected acquiesces; but secret sins through a spontaneous confession made to anyone whatsoever. It also teaches that even priests who are held by mortal sin exercise the function of forgiving sins as ministers of Christ, through the virtue of the Holy Spirit conferred in ordination; and that those who contend that this power does not exist in bad priests hold an evil opinion. But although the absolution of the priest is a dispensation of another’s beneficence, nevertheless it is not merely the bare ministry either of announcing the Gospel or of declaring that sins have been forgiven, but is after the manner of a judicial act, by which sentence is pronounced by him as by a judge. And therefore the penitent ought not so to flatter himself concerning his own faith that, even if no contrition is present in him, or the priest lacks the intention of acting seriously and truly absolving, he should nevertheless think himself, by reason of his faith alone, truly absolved before God; for faith without penance would effect no remission of sins. Nor would he be anything other than most negligent of his salvation who knew that a priest was absolving him in jest and did not diligently seek another who would act seriously.

537. Three things are required for the adequate power of the Minister of Penance, namely: 1. the power of Order; 2. the power of jurisdiction; 3. approval.

I. The power of Order is required, that is, that which belongs to the Minister by force of ordination and is intrinsically annexed to the priestly character. The reason is that to Priests alone it was said by Christ: Receive the Holy Spirit; whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them. John 20:22. - It is established elsewhere by manifold definition of the Church.

II. The power of jurisdiction is required, that is, the power by which the Priest as judge can render sentence upon certain persons as his subjects. It is established from the Council of Trent, sess. 14, ch. 7.

III. Approval is required for hearing confessions both licitly and validly, or a public judgment concerning the fitness of the Priest for hearing confessions. - Trent, sess. 23, ch. 15, On Reformation.

We must treat: 1. of approval; 2. of jurisdiction; 3. of the reservation of cases.

68. From the things said above it can already be inferred that the power of the keys belongs not to all Christians, but only to certain ministers of the Church: for since this power touches the very conscience of all the faithful and remits sins even before God, it is evident that it cannot be exercised except by those who are deputed by God to rule the faithful and sanctify them. For exercising it, according to Trent, a twofold power is required, namely the power of order and of jurisdiction.

69. (a) And first, the power of order: - "Concerning the minister of this sacrament, the holy Synod declares that all doctrines are false and wholly foreign to the truth of the Gospel which perniciously extend the ministry of the keys to any other men whatsoever besides Bishops and Priests, thinking that those words of the Lord: 'Whatsoever you shall bind upon earth shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth shall be loosed also in heaven,' and: 'Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained,' were said to all the faithful of Christ indifferently and promiscuously, contrary to the institution of this sacrament, in such a way that anyone has the power of remitting sins, public sins indeed by correction, if the one corrected shall acquiesce, but secret ones by spontaneous confession made to anyone whatsoever. It also teaches that even priests who are held by mortal sin exercise, through the power of the Holy Spirit conferred in ordination, the function of remitting sins as ministers of Christ; and that those think wickedly who contend that this power is not in bad priests."²

² Trent, sess. XIV, ch. 6.

In the same sense the Code speaks, can. 871: "The minister of this sacrament is only a priest."

70. (b) The power of jurisdiction is required besides for the valid use of this power, because it is exercised only in a judicial mode: -

"Since therefore the nature and reason of judgment demands that sentence be pronounced only upon subjects, it has always been persuaded in the Church of God, and this Synod confirms it to be most true, that the absolution which a priest pronounces upon one over whom he does not have ordinary or subdelegated jurisdiction ought to be of no moment."¹

¹ Trent, sess. XIV, ch. 7. Cf. Code, can. 872.

— I. Concerning the place. 1. The proper place of confessions is a church or at least a semi-public oratory (c. 908).

Nevertheless, the confessions of men can also be heard in private houses (c. 910, §2).

It sometimes happens that, even for women, for example nuns, another place, on account of a just cause, has legitimately been designated, for example an open sacristy or a room contiguous to an oratory. The determination of the Ordinary can be adhered to. The case is indirectly foreseen by c. 909, §1 itself.

2. "The confessional seat for hearing the confessions of women is always to be placed in an open and conspicuous place, and generally in a church or public or semi-public oratory destined for women.

"The confessional seat is to be furnished with a fixed grate, finely perforated, between penitent and confessor" (c. 909).

3. "The confessions of women are not to be heard outside the confessional seat unless from cause of infirmity or another true necessity, and with the safeguards which the local Ordinary will have indicated as opportune" (c. 910, §1).

Therefore diocesan ordinances are to be consulted. They judge it grave of itself, necessity excluded, to hear the confessions of women outside the confessional seat or without a grate interposed; to hear them in a place not open does not of itself exceed venial sin.

From the response of November 24, 1920, of the Pontifical Commission of the Code, even the confessions of men, when they are heard in a church or public oratory, are not of themselves to be heard outside such a seat. Yet it is clear that this is a light prohibition. A special seat came into use after the thirteenth century.

— II. Concerning the vestment to be used. The vestment to be used of itself is a surplice and a violet stole.

Nevertheless the Ritual adds: "according as time or the custom of places bears." But on August 20, 1628, the Sacred Congregation of Rites declared "that a bishop can compel secular priests to hear confessions with cotta [surplice] and stole, and regulars with stole only."

Having been asked about tolerating a custom of using nothing except a stole or nothing except a surplice, the Sacred Congregation of Rites, March 23, 1882, ad 3, responded: "Let the Roman Ritual be observed" (Decr. auth., n. 3542). The same response was given to a sufficiently similar question on July 7, 1877, ad IV (Decr. auth., n. 3426). But on August 31, 1867, ad II, it responded: "It is fitting that in church the stole be used, according to the decrees of the Sacred Congregation of Rites" (Decr. auth., n. 3658).

Therefore a rubric of this kind is directive, yet not therefore to be neglected.

— III. Concerning the time. Confessions can be heard on every day and hour; yet care must be taken that they are not heard in darkness.

— The place proper for hearing confessions is a church or at least a semi-public oratory; and, in a church, even for men, a confessional seat. On account of a just cause, another place, open and conspicuous, with the Ordinary approving, can be deputed. Men can also be heard outside sacred buildings.

The confessional seat is to be furnished with a fixed and finely perforated grate. Women (c. 909, §2), outside a cause of necessity, are to be heard only in that seat. Wherefore they judge it grave to hear them without a grate interposed. And diocesan ordinances, in this matter, are to be observed by all.

II. From the directive rubric, in church a surplice and stole, or at least a stole, is to be used.

III. On every day and hour, though not in darkness, confessions can be heard.

In this dissertation we shall treat: 1. of the power of the minister for validly ministering; - 2. of his qualities for ministering licitly and fruitfully; - 3. of his office or obligation during confession itself; - 4. of his obligations after confession has been received.

1744. The minister of the Sacrament of Penance is only a PRIEST having JURISDICTION over the penitent. - Hence a twofold power is required in him:

1. The power of ORDER, or that which is conferred in the very Ordination, and which essentially inheres in the sacerdotal character. But the reason why this power is required is that it was said to priests alone: "Receive the Holy Spirit: whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them" (John 20:22, 23). - You will see more among the Dogmatic authors.

2. The power of JURISDICTION, or that which, superadded to the power of Order and completing it, renders the priest expedient, so that, as judge, he can pronounce a legitimate sentence upon the penitent as a subject. - Moreover, to obtain or freely exercise jurisdiction, according to the present discipline of the Church, approbation is prerequired. But jurisdiction itself, just as it does not belong to all by the same title, so neither does it belong to all in the same fullness, since it can be circumscribed by diverse limitations.

Therefore, so that all things which pertain to the present matter may be treated, we shall discuss: 1. approbation and jurisdiction; 2. the acquisition and loss of jurisdiction; 3. the limitation of jurisdiction as regards persons; and 4. the limitation of jurisdiction as regards sins.

1745. APPROBATION and JURISDICTION are customarily used promiscuously, because Bishops in modern times grant each by one and the same act. Yet approbation is not the conferral of jurisdiction, and one can exist without the other, and in fact sometimes does exist, as will be clear from what is to be said. - Hence, the nature and necessity of each must be taught separately.

1746. I. APPROBATION is the juridical judgment of the Bishop concerning the fitness of some priest for hearing confessions.

It is called 1. a juridical judgment; for it is an act of the intellect, and not only of the will, as is the conferral of jurisdiction. Hence, ordinarily it is not made except after an EXAMEN has previously been instituted. Yet this is not essentially required, because a prudent judgment can be had even without examination, as often as the fitness of the priest is established from another source. 2. Of the Bishop, even if not yet consecrated; or of the Vicar general, or Vicar capitular, or Abbot having episcopal jurisdiction. - 3. Concerning fitness, that is, concerning the complete aptitude of the priest, both as regards necessary knowledge and prudence, and as regards holiness of morals suitable to the vicar of Christ in this ministry.¹ Yet the judgment is accompanied by an act of the will, by which the one approving wills that he who has been judged fit can freely use his jurisdiction, whether already had or to be had.

II. For the liceity of absolution, indeed for its validity, approbation IS REQUIRED. This is established from Trent, saying in sess. 23, de reform., cap. 14: "Although priests in their Ordination receive the power of absolving from sins, nevertheless the holy Synod decrees: that no one, even a Regular, can hear confessions of seculars, even priests, nor be reputed fit for this, unless either he has a parochial benefice, or is judged fit by the Bishops through examination, if this shall seem necessary to them, or otherwise, and obtains approbation, which is to be given gratis." Certain cases are excepted, in which the Church supplies jurisdiction (cf. n. 1753 seqq.).

This approbation is necessary even for hearing confessions of venials, as is established from the decree of Innocent XI, February 12, 1679, on daily Communion, and from the common interpretation and practice of more recent Authors.²

1747. Questions. Q. 1. In what way is approbation given?

Resp. 1. Implicitly, through the conferral of a parochial Benefice. For he to whom care of souls is committed is by that very fact declared fit for receiving the confessions of those committed to him, so long as he retains his office. - But if he resigns it, approbation ceases, unless perhaps (which is customarily done) the Ordinary wished him to be approved even independently of the parochial benefice.

2. Explicitly, through an express judgment. This mode of approbation, pertaining to delegated jurisdiction alone, was introduced by the Council of Trent. For before that time it belonged to pastors to delegate their jurisdiction to other priests not approved by the Bishop, yet entangled in no censure. - But mendicant Regulars did not need the approbation of Bishops, since they freely used jurisdiction directly conferred upon them by the Holy See.³

Q. 2. From WHICH Bishop or ORDINARY must approbation be obtained?

Resp. According to the opinion today altogether to be held, it must be obtained from the Bishop or Ordinary of the place where confessions are to be received; nor does the approbation either of the Bishop of the penitent or of the Bishop of the confessor suffice. This is established from the Bull Cum sicut of Innocent XII (April 19, 1700), and from the Bull Apostolica Indulta of Benedict XIV (August 5, 1744).⁴

Hence: 1. A priest approved in one diocese cannot absolve even his own penitents in another, unless he has previously obtained the approbation also of this Bishop. Yet domicile or quasi-domicile in the diocese is not required for obtaining it.

2. A pastor in his own diocese, but outside his own parish, must, like other priests, be approved for receiving the confessions of those who are not of his parish.⁵ Thus it is gathered from the S. C. of the Council in Leodien., August 1600.⁶

Q. 3. Whether approbation SOUGHT and unjustly denied suffices?

Resp. Negative, for the Council of Trent (loc. cit.) requires that the priest obtain approbation; but unjust denial is not concession. The same is established from the 13th proposition condemned by Alexander VII: "He satisfies the precept of annual confession who confesses to a Regular presented to the Bishop, but unjustly rejected by him." But "although the Bishop internally disapproves, external approbation is valid for conferring jurisdiction."⁷

Q. 4. Whether PRESUMED approbation suffices?

Resp. 1. Presumed approbation concerning the future does not suffice, that is, which is judged would be conceded if it were sought. But approbation actually existing and declared by some sign is necessary. Hence it is not permitted to begin confessions before that consent, sought by letters, has truly been given, although it may seem certain to be obtained. Thus commonly. 2. Presumed approbation concerning the present, or tacit approbation, suffices (cf. n. 239, Req. 2). Hence he validly absolves who hears confessions in the presence, or with the knowledge and non-contradiction, of the Ordinary, to whom it is established that he does not otherwise have approbation; because then the Ordinary is presumed to give it in the present. But such a presumption, since it is founded on evident signs, certainly suffices.⁸

Q. 5. Whether the Bishop can subject priests already approved AGAIN to examination, and LIMIT or REVOKE their approbation?

Resp. 1. The Bishop can, from a just cause, recall to examination all confessors approved by himself or by a predecessor, even pastors and Regulars, provided there is a vehement suspicion of their inexperience. This is established from the decree of the S. C. of the Council, January 15, 1667,⁹ and from the Constitution Romani Pontificis of St. Pius V. - He can similarly, at his will, revoke approbation already given, or restrict it to place, to time, to persons, without being bound to give a reason for such revocation or restriction. This is expressly deduced from the Bull Apostolici ministerii of Innocent XIII, by force of which the whole matter was committed to the Bishop.¹⁰

Resp. 2. If revocation or restriction is made without a just cause, it is indeed illicit, but nevertheless valid. This is established from the 13th proposition condemned by Alexander VII (as above, question 3). - There are indeed Authors who deny that approbation once absolutely conceded can be validly revoked without reasonable cause; "but," says St. Alphonsus,¹¹ "I judge this opinion scarcely probable in practice, because the injustice of the revocation would have to be clearer than light, and every danger of hallucination absent; but this can scarcely occur, since there can be innumerable just causes with the Bishop for revoking approbation, which are unknown to the confessor." But in doubt whether the revocation was made from a just cause, the presumption is for the Superior.

1748. I. JURISDICTION, in general, is the power of ruling subjects (cf. n. 138). - Sacramental jurisdiction, of which we are here treating, is the power of absolving or binding subjects in the Tribunal of penance.

Jurisdiction is one thing ordinary, another delegated. - ORDINARY is that which comes to someone by reason of the office itself, to which it is annexed by ordinary law; DELEGATED, that which is legitimately granted to someone by him in whom the ordinary jurisdiction resides.

II. For VALIDLY receiving confessions, the power of Order does not suffice, but the power of JURISDICTION is REQUIRED, whether ordinary or delegated. - This is established from Trent, sess. 14, cap. 7: "Since therefore the nature and character of judgment demands that sentence be pronounced only upon subjects, it was always held as persuaded in the Church of God, and this Synod confirms it to be most true, that the absolution which a priest pronounces upon him over whom he does not have ordinary or subdelegated jurisdiction ought to be of no moment."

Three things must be investigated in this article: 1. to whom ordinary jurisdiction belongs; 2. how delegated jurisdiction is acquired; 3. whether and when the Church supplies the defect of jurisdiction.

1749. I. Ordinary jurisdiction belongs to all those who have an OFFICE to which it is annexed BY ORDINARY LAW. This is established from the very definition of ordinary jurisdiction.

Hence ORDINARY jurisdiction belongs: 1. to the Supreme Pontiff, for the whole earth and in each forum; likewise to the Major Penitentiary, but only in the internal forum. - 2. To Bishops, for their respective dioceses, likewise in each forum; likewise to Archbishops visiting the subjects of Suffragans; to Vicars capitular; to Vicars general, and these, according to the very common and truer opinion, also for each forum; as also to the Canon Penitentiary of the cathedral Church for the internal forum, where the Penitentiary is erected into an Office. - 3. To pastors, likewise to perpetual vicars or vice-rectors, for their subjects, but in the internal forum alone. - 4. To Abbots, for their whole proper Convent or territory. - 5. To general Provosts, Provincials, and local Superiors, for their subjects. - See the Canonists.¹²

Let it be noted: 1. Those who possess ordinary jurisdiction can exercise it, since it is personal, EVERYWHERE, over their subjects. - Hence Bishops and pastors validly absolve the faithful committed to them outside the diocese, even from cases reserved in the place of confession. Thus the S. C. of the Council, December 3, 1707, in Posnanien.¹³

2. They can DELEGATE their jurisdiction, or exercise it through another, even if a Superior of an inferior order, in whom ordinary jurisdiction resides, contradicts. Thus the Pope can appoint confessors against the will of the Bishop, and the Bishop against the will of the pastor. - But if the one delegating does not have the right of approving in the place of confession, he is bound to choose those approved by the Ordinary of the place. Hence the faculty of delegating which pastors enjoy has become almost useless, since Bishops customarily confer jurisdiction together with approbation, as was said in n. 1745.

1750. II. Penitents can BECOME SUBJECTS of one having ordinary jurisdiction by a threefold reason: by reason of DOMICILE, by reason of PRIVILEGE OF STATUS, and by reason of CUSTOM (cf. n. 138, Div. 3).

1. By reason of DOMICILE or QUASI-DOMICILE; namely, if they intend to dwell in the territory of one having ordinary jurisdiction in perpetuity, or for a notable part of the year (cf. n. 203). - Hence merchants, students in academies, courtiers in courts, are subject to the ordinary jurisdiction of the pastors of those places where they are staying.

2. By reason of PRIVILEGE OF STATUS, or enrollment into certain families. Thus Cardinals dwelling at Rome, who otherwise lack jurisdiction, have it, and as it were ordinary, over their own household, for the forum of Penance. Hence "they are able to choose as confessor, both for themselves and for their household, any priest," whom also, if he has been approved in the City, they can take with them outside the City.¹⁴ - Thus also Novices are subject to Superiors of Religion, and all those who are truly of the household of the house, or domestics, and continual table-companions. Thus from the Constitution Superna of Clement X, and from the decision of the S. C. of Bishops and Regulars, July 21, 1848, in a Parmen.¹⁵ (cf. n. 2186).

3. By reason of LEGITIMATE CUSTOM, insofar as this is an indication of consent furnished by the Superior. Hence, from universal custom, the Bishop of the place whence ships set sail has the ordinary faculty of approving and delegating priests who are about to sail, for the whole time of navigation; that is, "until they arrive at a place where another ecclesiastical Superior possessing jurisdiction has been constituted."¹⁶

Likewise, chaplains of armies validly absolve soldiers who are on the road and in camps everywhere, even without jurisdiction obtained from the Bishop of the place. But they cannot absolve soldiers dwelling in garrisons without a special faculty of the Apostolic See, or the license of the Ordinary. This is established from various declarations of the S. C. of the Council.¹⁷

IT IS ASKED. In what way is ordinary jurisdiction LOST?

Resp. It is lost 1. by cessation of the Office, for example by death, resignation, removal, translation. But a pastor translated from one parish to another does not lose jurisdiction over the prior parish unless he has assumed possession of the new parish. Thus from common law.¹⁸ It is lost 2. by public excommunication and one denounced by name; likewise by suspension from jurisdiction, or from every office; otherwise, if the suspension is from Order only (cf. n. 1303).

1751. DELEGATED jurisdiction, as was already said above, comes to priests from the legitimate commission of a Superior having ordinary jurisdiction. - For delegation of this sort there is REQUIRED, on the part of the one delegating, that he not extend it outside the territory or limits of his own jurisdiction; but on the part of the one to be delegated, that he not be an excommunicated vitandus, and moreover, if it is a question of receiving the confessions of seculars, that he have been previously approved (cf. n. 1746).

Jurisdiction is DELEGATED directly or indirectly.¹

I. It is delegated DIRECTLY when power is committed to someone so that he himself by himself may absolve penitents. This happens in a threefold way, namely by man, by law, and by custom.

1. Jurisdiction is said to be delegated BY MAN when someone able to delegate expressly, by word or writing, or at least tacitly, through signs which declare present consent, commits jurisdiction to someone capable (see what was said in n. 1747, q. 4).

2. Jurisdiction is delegated BY LAW when through a law, through a Bull, through a papal Constitution, the faculty of absolving is conceded to certain persons. Thus it has been conceded to Regulars, provided they have been approved by the Bishop of the place, that they validly and licitly absolve all coming to them. Thus from the Constitution Superna of Clement X.

3. Delegated jurisdiction is had BY CUSTOM when the custom of absolving is a certain indication of consent furnished by the Bishop, if namely he knows it and does not protest: as when neighboring pastors of diverse dioceses help one another with mutual assistance in hearing confessions.²

II. Jurisdiction is delegated INDIRECTLY when the faculty is conceded to the penitent of choosing for himself one of the approved priests as confessor. This election having been made, jurisdiction is judged to have been conferred upon the confessor by the Church.³

Moreover, the PRIVILEGE OF CHOOSING a confessor for oneself belongs: 1. by common law,⁴ to confirmed Bishops, although not yet consecrated; likewise to inferior exempt Prelates, Auditors of the Rota, and other Prelates of the Roman Curia, and to Superiors of Regulars, even local ones, with the privileges and statutes of Orders preserved; 2. by custom, to kings and princes enjoying supreme dominion; likewise to domestics of the Roman Pontiff; - 3. by special concession of the S. Pontiff, for example in the time of Jubilee, to all seculars and Regulars, as was said above (n. 1736).⁵

Note. Bishops and Prelates formerly could make their confessions before any priest whatever; but today they are bound to confess either before a subject whom they themselves approve, or before an external priest whom his own Bishop has approved. - But they can take this approved or elected priest with them, and use his ministry even in another diocese. Thus it was declared by the S. C. of the Council, and Gregory XIII confirmed this on December 1, 1582.⁶

1752. Questions. Q. 1. Whether a priest legitimately delegated can receive confessions of the faithful WITHOUT LEAVE of the pastor?

Resp. 1. Negative as regards LICEITY, if he receives them in a church subject to the pastor. For due order requires that license be sought from the rector of the church in which the sacred ministry is to be exercised. But if he receives them in a church of Regulars or of Nuns, the leave of the Superior or Superioress certainly suffices.

Resp. 2. Affirmative as regards VALIDITY; for the pastor can obstruct nothing when the Bishop has generally approved or delegated the confessor. But if in the approbation there were these clauses: With the consent of the pastor..., except at paschal time, or similar ones, they are to be understood of liceity alone. For thus universal custom bears, to which the delegating Superior is deservedly presumed to have conformed himself.⁷

Q. 2. Whether a priest furnished with legitimate jurisdiction in some place is able to receive confessions of TRAVELERS coming there?

Resp. St. Alphonsus affirms it, writing:⁸ "It is certain and common today among the Doctors that travelers, by reason of the connivance of Bishops, or better from universal custom, can confess to any confessor approved for the place where they are found; and such custom runs even if the traveler departs from his country for the end of confessing elsewhere"; provided he does not do this in fraud of reservation, as will be explained in its place (n. 1771, qq. 3 and 4). - Besides, as regards regular confessors Clement X expressly declared this in the Constitution Superna.⁹

Q. 3. In what way does delegated jurisdiction cease?

Resp. It ceases: 1. by revocation of the Superior, and this notified; - 2. by expiration of the prefixed time; - 3. by the death of the one delegating, or by his removal from office, if jurisdiction had been given for some particular person and the confession had not yet been begun; or also if it had been given generally, but with this or a similar clause: "at the decision of our will; until our good pleasure."¹⁰

1753. Three principal cases are enumerated in which the Church SUPPLIES jurisdiction, and imparts it, for individual acts, to a priest who otherwise lacks it. The first is the case of danger of death; the second is the case of common error; the third is the case of probable jurisdiction. Wherefore the following principles must be established.

Principles. I. If DANGER OF DEATH is imminent and an approved confessor is lacking, EVERY PRIEST can absolve a dying person from ANY censures and sins WHATEVER. Thus expressly the Roman Ritual, on the Sacrament of Penance. Trent is consonant, sess. 14, cap. 7, in these words: "Most piously, lest on this occasion itself anyone should perish, it has always been guarded in the same Church of God, that there be no reservation in the article of death: and therefore all priests can absolve any penitents whatever from any sins and censures."

It is said 1. If danger of death is imminent; because the article of death and danger are equated in law. But such danger is judged to be present in battle, in a long voyage, in difficult childbirth, and in every grave and mortal disease. - And the Doctors say this same thing of him who would be in probable danger of falling into madness, or would be a captive among Turks and feared that he would have no priest any more to whom he could afterward confess.¹¹

It is said 2. and an approved confessor is lacking. For the Church does not concede the faculty except by reason of extreme necessity, namely lest someone perish. But this reason ceases, or is judged to cease, when an approved one is present. Thus the very common opinion and one to be held in practice, against another which nevertheless Lugo calls probable.¹² Except with the common opinion: 1. If the approved one would not wish or would not be able to hear the confession, because then it would be the same as if he were lacking. 2. If the dying person so dreaded manifesting his crimes to the approved one, because for example he is his enemy, or blood-relative, or the object of the sin to be manifested, that he would be in danger of confessing sacrilegiously. 3. If the infirm person could not confess to the approved one without great difficulty or inconvenience (thus Sporer, cited by St. Alphonsus and not rejected). 4. If the approved one comes after the confession has already been begun with a simple priest (cf. n. 1780). - Except a fortiori: 1. If the approved one has been excommunicated by name, suspended, interdicted, irregular, degraded, schismatic, notoriously heretical, apostate: because such a one has lost jurisdiction, and a simple priest is to be preferred to him; 2. if he were of another diocese, because in this case he could by no means be called approved with respect to the sick person; 3. if he were the accomplice of the infirm person in a base sin¹³ (cf. n. 1780).

It is said 3. every priest; therefore even a priest who was never approved; even an irregular or suspended one; even an excommunicated or degraded one; indeed even a vitandus, schismatic, heretic, apostate.¹⁴ - Indeed all these validly absolve the one in danger when an approved one is lacking; yet not licitly unless order is preserved: that is, a priest immune from every censure and punishment should absolve rather than an irregular or suspended one; this one rather than an excommunicated one, etc.¹⁵

It is said 4. from any censures and sins whatever; because in the article or danger of death there is no reservation. Yet see what was said in n. 1282 and other things to be said in n. 1777.

1754. II. If COMMON ERROR with a COLORABLE TITLE is present, it is certain that the Church supplies the jurisdiction which is lacking to the confessor. Thus all, and it is proved from the law Barbarius, ff. de Officio Praetorum, and from can. Infamis, Cause 3, q. 7. - The reason is because otherwise many souls would perish, and therefore the Church is reasonably presumed to supply.¹⁶

It was said 1. If common error is present, that is, if all or almost all the faithful of that place think that the confessor is in fact furnished with jurisdiction, whether ordinary or delegated. But otherwise if the error is private, namely of one or a few. The reason is because the Church is not judged to supply except by reason of the common good, after the manner of a provider or general governor, who attends to the common good alone, and leaves the good of private persons to the care of particular providers. Thus very commonly the Theologians, against a few.

It was said 2. with a colorable, or putative, title, namely one which was conceded by a legitimate Superior, and of itself would be apt for conferring jurisdiction, unless it were made void by an occult defect. - Moreover, that defect can occur: 1. in the one conceding, for example if he had not been free in conceding, or if the Bishop had died, and, the death being commonly unknown, his Vicar continued to hear confessions; - 2. in the one receiving, whether some vice preceded, for example occult irregularity or excommunication, or whether he has been despoiled of his title and this is unknown; - 3. in the act, as if occult simony intervened, by reason of which the act would be void. Therefore, in these cases, the confessor, common error standing, validly absolves; although he sins mortally if he is conscious of his defect.¹⁷

"It is more doubtful," says the Holy Doctor,¹⁸ "whether the Church supplies jurisdiction when only common error intervenes, WITHOUT A COLORABLE TITLE.

"Busenbaum, Concina, Roncaglia, Sporer, Holzmann, etc., deny it, while they say that otherwise impious priests would take occasion from this to feign that they are confessors, and to disseminate errors. - But this reason does not convince; because although the Church denied jurisdiction to these, nevertheless it would not impede the damage. - Wherefore Lugo, Lessius, Pontius, Castropalaus, Sanchez, etc., probably affirm it, and Roncaglia, Sporer, and Holzmann themselves, with Cardenas, etc., say that it is probable, since the same reason of the common good which is brought forward for a colorable title runs also for error."¹⁹ - But since this opinion is at least probable, it can sometimes, with a just cause, be licitly brought into practice, as is clear from the following principle.

1755. III. A priest VALIDLY and LICITLY absolves WITH PROBABLE JURISDICTION, with probability of law, if some gravely reasonable cause concurs. The reason is because a universal custom flourishes in the Church, and almost all confessors follow it, of absolving, when a just cause is present, with probable jurisdiction. - But such a custom certainly confers jurisdiction, and therefore the confessor now does not absolve with a probable opinion, but with true certitude, namely with reflex certitude (cf. n. 82, Except 2).

We said 1. with jurisdiction probable with probability of law, namely that which rests upon the opinion of grave Theologians. Therefore not any probability whatever suffices, but, as the Authors commonly hold, that is required which is supported by truly serious reason and authority.

We said 2. if a gravely reasonable cause concurs (at least, so that absolution be given licitly); because although in that case the Church can rightly be judged to supply jurisdiction on account of the good of souls, nevertheless, every just cause being lacking, she is not presumed to wish to connive at the mere liberty of priests.¹

Moreover, a REASONABLE CAUSE would be had: 1. If the penitent especially needed the help or counsel of this confessor. - 2. If the accomplice of the sin is known to the confessor who possesses certain jurisdiction. 3. If the confessor who has probable jurisdiction prudently fears that the penitent will make a sacrilegious confession before him who has certain jurisdiction. - 4. If the penitent himself fears lest he fall into some aversion or damaging suspicion of the approved confessor. 5. If otherwise he would have to abstain from confession for a longer time. 6. If the precept of annual confession is urgent, or an occasion is given of gaining particular Indulgences. 7. If the penitent had already declared some grave sin to the confessor, and this latter doubted whether it is reserved or not (cf. n. 1769).²

1756. IT IS ASKED. Whether it is permitted to absolve with jurisdiction doubtful by DOUBT OF FACT, for example when it is doubted whether jurisdiction was in fact conceded by the Superior, whether it endures, etc.?

Resp. Negative, unless some necessity compels, and then only under condition. But NECESSITY is judged to compel when it is better that someone be doubtfully absolved than not absolved at all, that is: 1. If the precept of annual confession is urgent; 2. if the penitent must celebrate Mass or communicate, and otherwise would incur the mark of infamy; 3. if a priest must celebrate from obligation on that day. Yet one doubtfully absolved cannot communicate unless he elicits an act of perfect contrition, and he is bound to subject the sins again to the keys, unless he learns that the confessor had true jurisdiction.³ (cf. n. 1663, q. 5, and there at the end of the Note.)

1757. To be noted beforehand. Jurisdiction, which is necessarily required for valid absolution, has this proper to itself, that it descends as it were by degrees from Superiors to inferiors. Consequently, the inferior power is rooted solely in the superior power, and depends upon this alone. From this it follows that it belongs to Superiors to limit or restrict the jurisdiction of inferiors, indeed to take it away entirely, according to this rule of law: "Every thing is dissolved by the same causes through which it is born." - And hence it has been done by very good right that limitations or restrictions of this sort have always been customary in the Church, whether as regards PLACE AND TIME, or as regards PERSONS AND SINS. The Roman Pontiff alone, in whom there is the fullness of power, enjoys jurisdiction in every way and unlimited.

Concerning the limitation of jurisdiction as regards place and time we have said enough in treating of ordinary and delegated jurisdiction. It remains that in the present and following article we speak of its limitation as regards persons, and as regards sins.

The limitation of jurisdiction as regards PERSONS, established by the law itself, especially touches Regulars and Nuns. Wherefore we shall treat separately of the concession of jurisdiction, both with respect to Regulars and with respect to Nuns.

1758. Regulars can be considered under a twofold respect: insofar as they are confessors, and insofar as they are penitents. - Hence, so that all things which pertain to them under each respect may be treated, we shall divide the present matter into two parts, so that in order we may discuss: 1. the Regular Confessor; 2. the Confessor of Regulars.

There is a twofold reason why we judge that the question concerning the Regular Confessor is to be treated in this place: the one, so that all things which are proper to Regulars concerning jurisdiction may thus be inspected in one view; the other, so that the doctrine concerning their jurisdiction may become better known. For although the jurisdiction of a regular confessor receives no special limitation from the Law, nevertheless it is so bound by it that unless the Bishop's approbation accedes, it cannot be validly exercised over the Christian faithful. - With these things premised, let the following be:

1759. Principles. I. REGULARS properly so called, who pronounce solemn vows and who enjoy the privilege of exemption (likewise those who have communication of privileges with Mendicant Religious), receive jurisdiction immediately from the HOLY SEE for receiving the confessions both of THEIR OWN and of SECULARS. This is established from the Constitutions of the Supreme Pontiffs in the Body of Law;⁴ likewise from other Constitutions, which, although they were afterwards modified, especially through Trent as regards privileges, nevertheless remained unrepealed as regards jurisdiction. Thus commonly. Hence jurisdiction is conceded to any Regular by that very fact that the Superior grants him delegation, or communication of jurisdiction, in the name of the S. Pontiff.⁵

II. Regulars, for receiving confessions of SECULARS, need the APPROBATION of the Bishops in whose dioceses they are going to receive confessions. This is established from the decree of Innocent XII (in the year 1700), by which it was sanctioned that confessors, whoever they may be, both secular and regular, cannot hear secular penitents without the approbation of the Bishop of the place (cf. n. 1747, q. 2).

1760. From these things it is inferred: 1. The Bishop can concede approbation to Regulars at will, without restriction, or with some restriction as regards time, places, and persons. It is confirmed from various decrees of the Holy See.⁶ See what was said in n. 1749 seqq.

2. If the Bishop has expressly conceded approbation only for some transitory act, for example for some Mission, the conceded faculty is judged to be valid for that act alone, and for every judgment then begun.

3. If the Bishop, or your Superior by his delegation, grants you approbation for a determined class of penitents, the faculty cannot be extended to others, as is clear. But if the request of the faculty is general, and the concession has not been restricted, the obtained faculty is not limited to the work which was the occasion of the petition: thus, for example, if you seek the faculty on the occasion of giving spiritual exercises to Nuns in such a convent, by the same faculty received you can hear confessions also of other faithful. The reason is because "whatever is not excepted is contained in the concession." Yet except reserved cases, which, by the law itself, are never understood as comprehended in the general faculty of hearing confessions.⁷

1761. Questions. Q. 1. Whether the Bishop can, WITHOUT CAUSE, DENY approbation to Regulars?

Resp. Negative. "For," says Pignatelli,⁸ "Regular confessors do not receive jurisdiction from the Bishop, but from the Supreme Pontiff, and approbation is required only as a condition so that jurisdiction can be exercised. Therefore Bishops cannot prohibit Regulars from absolving at some time." Yet if approbation is lacking, even if unjustly denied, free jurisdiction will also be lacking (cf. n. 1747, q. 3).

Q. 2. Whether the Bishop can REVOKE approbation conceded to Regulars?

Resp. 1. He cannot revoke approbation conceded to all Regulars of the same community without consulting the S. C. of Bishops and Regulars. Thus from the Bull Superna. - Except if it is a question of regions very distant from the City, and a most grave cause underlies it; concerning which the S. Congregation wished the consciences of Bishops to be gravely burdened.⁹

Resp. 2. But the Bishop can revoke the approbation of individual Regulars in particular if a just cause is present. Moreover, if the Regular, after previous examination, was approved by the Bishop himself, without any restriction as regards persons or as regards time, the cause is not judged just unless it concerns confession. On the contrary, if he was approved by his Vicar or predecessor, or with limitation, the Bishop can, on account of any just cause whatever, revoke the approbation and subject him to a new examination. Thus from the same Bull Superna.¹⁰ - In practice, the regular confessor must always acquiesce in the judgment of the Bishop.

Q. 3. Whether a Regular once approved in some diocese needs NEW APPROBATION if, his dwelling having been changed, he returns to the same place or passes through it?

Resp. Negative, unless the diocesan Statutes, or the Bishop, decree otherwise. The reason is because one approved indefinitely and without limitation remains approved, at least until implicit revocation; but in the present case no revocation, not even implicit, has intervened. Therefore. Thus Croix,¹¹ Lugo,¹² with the common opinion.

Q. 4. Whether a Religious validly absolves, AGAINST THE WILL OF THE SUPERIOR, but from the express delegation of the Bishop?

Resp. 1. Negative, if the Bishop intended to give approbation only; and from another source the Superior, who has from the Rule the power of constituting confessors, is unwilling in such a way that he is judged to take jurisdiction away from his subject. The reason is clear; for then the Religious has jurisdiction from no one.

Resp. 2. Affirmative, if the Bishop intended also to confer jurisdiction; as in present practice is usually done. The reason is because the Bishop can well confer jurisdiction upon a Religious, no otherwise than upon a secular priest, over his own sheep. For whoever enjoys ordinary jurisdiction can delegate it to any priest.¹³

But that Religious would sin gravely against obedience, because he would transgress the precept of his Superior in a grave matter; nor could he in a case of this sort use the privileges of his own Order, because these are communicated through Superiors alone.

These things are confirmed by the declaration of the S. C. OF BISHOPS AND REGULARS. For when the doubts were proposed: - I. Whether a Religious not approved according to the laws of his own Order by his Superior, or against the will of the same, with only the faculty of the Ordinary, validly receives the confessions of seculars. - II. Whether Regular Superiors, having jurisdiction, can suspend their subjects from hearing the confessions of seculars, even from informed conscience. - And insofar as affirmative, III. Whether a suspension pronounced orally and without writing is valid? - IV. Whether absolution imparted by one who is bound by such suspension is valid? And insofar as negative, V. Whether he who attempts an absolution of this sort incurs irregularity.

The Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, the matter having been discussed, on March 2, 1866, judged that it should respond: To I. Affirmative. - To II. Affirmative; yet in such a way that the suspended Religious receives confessions illicitly, but not invalidly. - To III. Affirmative, since it is made after the manner of a particular precept. - To IV. Affirmative. - To V. Provided for in the preceding.¹⁴

See other things in the Treatise on the Religious State (n. 2187).

1762. Principle. Jurisdiction for receiving the confessions of EXEMPTS cannot be conceded by the Bishop, but by their PRELATE or by the POPE, whether directly or indirectly. But the Prelate can concede it even to one not approved, provided that, so that the delegation may be licit, he is judged fit. This is established from what was said above concerning the origin and nature of the jurisdiction of Regulars (nn. 1757 and 1759).

Hence: 1. Regulars dwelling at home are bound to confess to the Prelate, or to confessors appointed by him, and no Regular validly confesses except before the Superior, or before him who has been appointed by the Superior. Wherefore Clement VIII (Decree of May 26, 1593) COMMANDS: "Superiors, in individual houses, shall appoint two or three confessors, according to the greater or lesser number of subjects." - Except the time of Jubilee, as was said in n. 1736.

2. Servants and other seculars who are of the household and almost continual table-companions CAN be absolved by a confessor approved either by the regular Prelate or by the Bishop. This is established from Trent, sess. 24, cap. 11, de ref., and from the Constitution Superna of Clement X¹⁵ (cf. n. 2186).

1763. Questions. Q. 1. To whom can or must Regulars dwelling OUTSIDE THE CONVENT confess?

Resp. Regulars traveling with the license of their Superiors, or staying outside the Convent, must, if they have the availability of a confessor of their own Order, confess to him; for he is appointed by the law itself. "But if a companion is lacking, or another suitable confessor of his own Order, they can well, from the presumed license of the Prelate, confess to another SUITABLE priest, regular or secular (except the case in which it is a question of reserved sins); and in this all agree."¹

"But it is doubtful whether this priest must be APPROVED for confessions. Wigandt and Antoine affirm it, and Concina with Vasquez, etc. But others very commonly and more truly deny it";² because for confessors of Regulars even implicit deputation of the Superior suffices, according to the constitutions or customs of the Order, nor is approbation of the Ordinary of the place required by any law. It is established moreover from the declarations of Sixtus IV, in the Bull Supplicari,³ issued August 2, 1479, and of Innocent VII in the Bull Provenit,⁴ issued October 17, 1405, which concede to Regulars in that case "that they are able to choose any other suitable and discreet presbyter, Religious or Secular." Nor was this privilege revoked by the Council of Trent, which requires approbation for confessions of seculars, but not of Regulars.⁵

Nor does the declaration of the S. C. of the Council of November 18, 1769, in Hildesimen.⁶ hinder this: namely that illicit and invalid are the confessions of Religious who there were accustomed to choose for themselves a secular presbyter not approved by the Bishop; for they did not lack the availability of a confessor of their own Order, as is clear from the very exposition of the Doubt.

Nor does the Brief of Benedict XIV of March 30, 1742, in which it is required that Capuchins choose an approved one, hinder more; nor the declaration of the S. C. of Bishops and Regulars of June 3, 1861, by which the same condition is appended for the Order of Hermits of St. Augustine. For it is by no means established that the things thus established and decreed for Capuchins and Hermits must be extended to all Regulars. For each Religion has its own constitutions. - For the rest, as regards the Capuchins, "Pius IX, by Brief of September 27, 1852, modified the aforesaid disposition of Benedict XIV, by conceding to Capuchin Friars, whether lay or priests, dwelling in any place whatever because of sermons, Missions, a journey, or on account of any other legitimate cause, when there is no monastery or hospice there, and they have availability only of one priest confrere, the faculty of confessing their sins to a SECULAR priest approved by the Ordinary, or to another REGULAR priest approved by the Superior of the Order to which he belongs: - likewise by these they can be absolved from cases and censures reserved in the Order, with the obligation nevertheless remaining firm of later presenting themselves to their proper Superior, etc., so that they may again be absolved from the said cases and censures."⁷

Q. 2. Whether Regulars can absolve resident students, without the Bishop's approbation, as being of the household?

Resp. Some deny it, because resident students are not of the household, as servants are. Yet others, more commonly, affirm it. Nor does St. Alphonsus dissent; for speaking of that privilege which familiars of religious enjoy, he adds without any mark of reprehension: "Bordonus extends this to pupils of Monasteries."⁸ "In practice," says Gury,⁹ "this latter opinion is safe"; and the reason is because this has been expressly conceded to several Regular Orders, for example to Benedictines, Theatines, Somaschans, Clerics Ministers of the Infirm, etc., in which privilege the other Orders communicate by the fact itself.¹⁰

1764. I. Nuns who pronounce solemn vows and are CLOISTERED cannot confess except before a priest SPECIALLY approved for them. - Nor are those exempt from the jurisdiction of the Bishop and subject to the jurisdiction of their own Order excepted from this law. Yet in this case the appointment of the confessor and his election pertain, by law, to their regular Prelate. Thus from the Bull Inscrutabili of Gregory XV, which Benedict XIII confirmed through the Bull Pastoralis, March 27, 1726. But a confessor approved for one monastery cannot by that very fact receive confessions also in other monasteries, unless he has been universally approved by the Bishop for all Nuns. Thus from the Bull Superna of Clement X, June 21, 1670.¹¹

Several things worthy of note must be added here:

1. From the decree of the S. C. of Bishops and Regulars of September 20, 1642,¹² ordinary confessors of Nuns cannot be approved except for a three-year period: this having elapsed, so that they can be confirmed, an Indult of the S. C. of Bishops and Regulars is required, which it is accustomed to concede, just causes standing, under certain conditions.¹³ - And this same thing is valid for confessors of Conservatories, as is established from another Decree issued on March 18, 1649.¹⁴ Yet there are Authors who think that the Bishop can permit the confessor to continue beyond three years in his office, if other suitable priests are lacking.¹⁵

2. An Apostolic Indult being saved, the confessor of Nuns must be forty years old; nor are the Vicar of the Bishop, a Canon, or another Beneficed cleric obliged to choir, a pastor, or, if it is a question of Nuns subject to the Bishop and of the ordinary Confessor, a Regular priest, to be appointed to this office.¹⁶ Besides, only one confessor must be appointed for any monastery, as Benedict XIV expressly declared.¹⁷

3. The ordinary confessor is bound to go to hear the confessions of Nuns as often as he is called. - But let him beware lest he conduct himself as Superior of the monastery, since no authority of this kind belongs to him in any way. Thus the S. C. of Bishops and Regulars, September 7, 1797.¹⁸

1765. II. To Nuns, and to the novices themselves, an EXTRAORDINARY confessor is to be granted TWO OR THREE TIMES each year. This is established from Trent, sess. 25, cap. 10: "Besides the ordinary confessor, moreover, another extraordinary one, by the Bishop and other Superiors, is to be offered two or three times in a year, who must hear the confessions of all."

This statute was confirmed by Benedict XIV in the Bull Pastoralis issued August 5, 1748. In this same Bull it is prescribed: "that Nuns, although they are not bound to confess to the extraordinary, are nevertheless bound to present themselves to him, for hearing salutary admonitions. - Likewise, that Bishops observe this same thing, that is, establish the same law, with Conservatories. Likewise, that in the article of death there be granted by the Bishop to any Nun requesting it a particular confessor: and if the monastery is exempt, if the regular Prelate does not grant it, it is to be assigned by the Bishop, or, if the Bishop also refuses, by the Major Penitentiary, if time allows. - Likewise, that if some Nun refuses to confess to the ordinary confessor, another be appointed for her by the Bishop, for certain times; and if the monastery is exempt, by the regular Prelate, and if he refuses, it be granted by the Bishop or Major Penitentiary. - But the Pontiff exhorts Bishops not to be difficult in granting sometimes an extraordinary confessor to particular nuns requesting one. - Finally he establishes that regular Prelates of Nuns are bound two or three times in a year to assign an extraordinary one from those approved by the Bishop for confessions of Nuns, who, at least once in a year, is either a secular or of another Order; otherwise let the Bishop appoint him; and at that time the ordinary confessor is to hear the confessions of no one, neither of the abbess nor of the novices."¹⁹

The extraordinary himself, after completing his office, must not afterward go to the monastery, nor under any pretext continue commerce of any kind, under the penalties imposed on those going to Monasteries of Nuns and conversing with them²⁰ (cf. n. 2164).

IT IS ASKED. Whether Nuns living OUTSIDE THE CLOISTER or COMMUNITY enjoy full liberty concerning the choice of confessor?

Resp. When a Doubt was proposed in these words to the S. Congregation of Bishops and Regulars: "It is sometimes conceded to Nuns, either from a motive of health, or from another cause, that, retaining the habit, they stay outside the monastery for a brief time. Hence it is asked whether, in such circumstances of things, they can confess to confessors approved by the Bishop for each sex, although not approved for Nuns." The response was: "The Most Holy, in the Audience held on August 27, 1852, commanded that the reply be made: Affirmative, during the stay outside the monastery."²¹

For the time of Jubilee, see n. 1736.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Papal, episcopal, and regular cases are distinguished.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IT IS ASKED. Who are EXEMPTED from episcopal reservation?

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

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

We must treat 1° concerning the power of the Minister; 2° concerning his office.

1390. - In order that someone validly absolve, nothing else is required on the part of the one absolving except intention, the power of Order and of jurisdiction; but that he also absolve rightly, licitly, and worthily, probity, knowledge, and prudence are required. Therefore three things are required for the adequate power of the Minister of Penance, namely, 1° the power of Order; 2° the power of jurisdiction; 3° approbation.

I. The power of Order is required, i.e. that which belongs to the Minister by force of ordination, and is intrinsically attached to the priestly character. The reason is that to priests alone was it said by Christ: Receive the Holy Spirit; whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them. - This is established besides by the manifold definition of the Church.

II. The power of jurisdiction is required, i.e. the power by which a priest, as judge, can pass sentence on certain persons, as being his subjects. This is clear from Trent.

III. Approbation is required for hearing Confessions both licitly and validly, or a declaration of the Ordinary judging juridically concerning the suitability of the priest, or concerning the three gifts just indicated, which are necessary in order that someone absolve rightly, licitly, and worthily. - Trent.

Note. - Even a priest who is not a curate is obliged to render himself fit for hearing Confessions if he is in a place where the inhabitants, on account of a scarcity of confessors, labor under grave spiritual necessity, which today, since the number of priests has been so diminished, and especially in this region, is easily found.

Besides, it is altogether to be advised to parish priests whose subjects cannot easily find another occasion of confessing, except among them, that from time to time they call in some unknown confessors and offer their subjects every liberty of confessing to these; indeed, while strangers are exercising their office, let them not themselves hear Confessions. Thus not rarely invalid Confessions and sacrileges will be prevented. Certainly from this head already the utility of missions appears.

We must treat 1° concerning approbation; 2° concerning jurisdiction; 3° concerning the reservation of cases.

Approbation, taken nakedly, can be defined: the juridical judgment of a Prelate concerning the suitability of a priest for hearing Confessions.

Hence, for granting approbation, an examination is not essentially required; for a prudent judgment concerning suitability can be had even without an examination, when this is otherwise established.

1391. - I say I. Approbation is required for hearing Confessions both licitly and validly. Thus by force of Trent.

I say II. Only the Bishop can approve, or one who has quasi-episcopal jurisdiction. The reason is that it pertains only to the Prelates of the Church to judge concerning the suitability of Ministers to be deputed for hearing Confessions. This is also clear from Trent cited above. - But the Bishop can approve either by himself or through another delegated by him, because approbation is an act of jurisdiction; but ordinary jurisdiction can be delegated.

According to the present discipline of the Church, together with approbation jurisdiction also is usually conferred by the Prelate upon priests; and therefore in common usage, under the name of approbation, jurisdiction also is comprehended. But formerly, delegated jurisdiction was commonly granted by parish priests, and approbation only by Bishops; which faculty indeed now scarcely has exercise among parish priests, since scarcely now can a priest be found who, together with approbation, has not also already received jurisdiction from the Bishop.

1392. Questions. - Query 1° From what Bishop must approbation be had?

Resp. From the opinion today altogether to be held, approbation must be given by the Bishop of the diocese in which Confessions are to be heard; hence the approbation either of the Bishop of the penitents or of the Bishop of the priests does not suffice. This is clear from the Bull Cum sicut of Innocent XII, April 19, 1700, apud St. Alphonsus, which Bull Benedict XIV confirmed in the Constitution Apostolica indulta.

Query 2° Can someone absolve his own subject in a foreign diocese without the approbation of the Ordinary?

Resp. 1° Affirm., if he has truly personal or ordinary jurisdiction over him. The reason is that whoever by reason of his office has ordinary jurisdiction is considered approved by the law itself for hearing his own subjects everywhere; nor is ordinary jurisdiction, provided it is exercised without judicial stir, bound to place; but unless it is specially restricted, it can be exercised everywhere. - Thus commonly. Hence a Bishop and a parish priest can absolve their subjects outside the parish and diocese without the approbation of the Bishop of the place.

Resp. 2° Neg., if over the penitent there is had only delegated jurisdiction; because this per se is considered merely territorial, not personal, and therefore does not follow the delegate outside the territory.

Query 3° Does presumed approbation suffice?

Resp. Neg. The reason is that from Trent approbation actually and absolutely existing, and already obtained, is required. But for approbation of this kind actual consent declared by some sign is required. Indeed it is not lawful to begin Confessions before that consent, requested by letters, has been received, even if it seems certain to be obtained. - Thus commonly.

A fortiori, ratihabition of approbation even prudently presumed is not valid, because ratihabition has place only in acts whose value can be suspended into the future; but the value of present absolution cannot be suspended; for the value of Sacraments cannot depend on a future action.

Query 4° Can a Bishop validly and licitly limit approbation with respect to a certain time, place, and persons?

Resp. 1° Affirm. as regards validity, even without cause. The reason is that it is an act altogether dependent on the will of the Bishop, as Superior. Hence just as he can validly refuse approbation, so he can grant it only with restriction. This is also clear from the 13th proposition condemned by Alexander VII: He satisfies the precept of annual Confession who confesses to a regular presented to the Bishop, but unjustly reprobated. Therefore the denial of approbation, even an unjust denial, is valid; therefore a fortiori a restriction. - This is also clear from Trent, where it is said: Unless he obtain approbation. But he who obtains it with restriction simply does not obtain it for the cases excluded.... Therefore.

Resp. 2° As regards liceity, distinguish. - A Bishop can indeed restrict or even altogether deny approbation for a just cause, as is evident; because the necessity of approbation was introduced for this end, that the suitable may be separated from the unsuitable. But otherwise if he does this without a just cause.

Query 5° What are the just causes for limiting approbation to a time, etc.?

Resp. They are for the most part the following: 1° if now there is a necessity of having several confessors, which afterward ceases; 2° if the one to be approved indeed has sufficient knowledge, but greater knowledge is deservedly desired for perpetual approbation; 3° if there is a prudent fear lest, after once having perpetual approbation, he neglect study; 4° for trying how he conducts himself in hearing Confessions, namely whether he applies general principles well in practice, etc.

Query 6° Can a Bishop validly and licitly revoke granted approbation?

Resp. 1° Affirm. by reason of validity, if a just cause is present. Otherwise it is controverted. Practically, however, the opinion denying this is scarcely to be judged probable, since for the Bishop there can be innumerable just causes for revoking approbation which are unknown to the confessor.

Resp. 2° By reason of liceity, distinguish. 1° A Bishop can indeed for just causes revoke approbation even granted without limitation; for this follows from the necessity of approbation, which demands that whoever ceases to be suitable be removed from the office. 2° But he cannot revoke approbation without a just cause. For from what has been said, a Bishop cannot deny approbation without a cause; therefore a fortiori he cannot revoke without cause the one granted; since according to the saying: A guest is more disgracefully cast out than not admitted.

Query 7° Can a Bishop approve a foreign priest?

Resp. A Bishop can approve any suitable one actually existing in his diocese, even if only passing through. This is clear from the universal practice and the common opinion of Theologians against a few, who for this require a quasi-domicile, or at least a domicile of habitation in the diocese of the approving Bishop. The reason is that delegation or a mandate can be committed to anyone, provided he is capable. This is clear moreover from the practice which is universally observed in the Church.

What jurisdiction is, and what its various species are, see n. 149.

1393. Principles. - I. The power of jurisdiction is necessary for hearing Confessions, nor does the power of Order suffice. The reason is that absolution is a judicial sentence, which cannot be passed except on subjects. Therefore subjects must be assigned to the confessor; but this pertains to him who has authority over those subjects. Moreover, this is altogether required for the right governance of the Church. For a very great inconvenience would arise if the faculty of absolving were independent of those to whom it was said by Christ: Whatever you shall bind, ... shall be bound; ... whatever you shall loose, ... shall be loosed. But it is especially clear from Trent.

II. Ordinary jurisdiction belongs: 1° to the Pope for the whole Church in both forums; 2° to the Bishop for his diocese, likewise in both forums, since it has been committed to him precisely that he may rule and direct it; likewise to the Archbishop, while he visits the subjects of his Suffragans; to the Capitular Vicar; to the Vicar General; and, for the internal forum, to the Canon Penitentiary of the Cathedral church; 3° to parish priests for their subjects in the internal forum; 4° to Abbots and Prelates of Regulars for their subjects.

III. Ordinary jurisdiction can be delegated, or exercised through another. The reason is that delegation is a proper act of ordinary power. Cf. n. 150. Nevertheless jurisdiction for hearing Confessions cannot be delegated except to a priest approved by the Bishop, as is clear from what was said above concerning approbation. As regards parish priests, the faculty of delegating has become almost useless; since Bishops, to whom it pertains to approve confessors, are accustomed to confer jurisdiction and approbation together, as was said in n. 1391.

IV. Delegated jurisdiction is granted by the Church to any priest in a case of extreme necessity, or in the article of death, or, as others will have it, the Church then supplies jurisdiction. This is clear from Trent.

V. Delegated jurisdiction for hearing Confessions expires by revocation made by the Superior, or by the lapse of the prefixed time; likewise by the death of the one delegating, or his ceasing from office, if it was given for some particular person and the judgment has not yet been begun; or also if it was given generally, but with the clause: at the will of the one granting; at our good pleasure, or another similar clause. Cf. n. 151.

1394. Questions. - Query 1° What is the jurisdiction of confessors in the Ecclesiastical Provinces of the United States, ordinary or delegated, and to what places does it extend?

Resp. 1° According to those things which we said in n. 1138, the common opinion almost up to this time has been that the jurisdiction of all priests is delegated. Therefore they cannot absolve those committed to them in a foreign diocese. See however T. I. (b), p. 471.

Resp. 2° That ancient custom, that approbation given for the diocese of one of these Provinces would be valid also for the others, which custom had been introduced in the year 1810 by a quasi-pact of the Bishops, has been abrogated.¹

Resp. 3° All priests among us are accustomed to be approved and are considered approved for the whole diocese, "although," as Kenrick rightly observes,² "they ought not to use the faculties committed to them to the burden of others; wherefore, only with the good leave of the Missionary of the place, ought they to hear Confessions outside their Mission."

Query 2° Can delegated jurisdiction be subdelegated?

Resp. Neg., generally speaking, namely, unless a special concession of the one delegating is added; and then it is considered to be subdelegated in the name of the one delegating himself. The reason is that a delegate has only that power which is granted to him; but to him is granted only the power of exercising jurisdiction, not of committing it to another, unless something else is expressed. Therefore, etc. - For exceptions see n. 150.

Query 3° Does the Church supply jurisdiction when penitents invincibly are ignorant of its defect?

Things to be noted beforehand concerning a title of jurisdiction and error concerning it. - A title of jurisdiction in general is an act by which power for performing ecclesiastical functions is conferred.

A title is true or false: it is true when it labors under no vice; but in order that it be true, three things are required: 1° the free power of the one granting; 2° the ability of the one receiving; 3° the due form in the act of concession.

False is that which labors under a vice concerning one of the three things just indicated. It is also called putative relatively to those who, ignorant of its vice, deem it legitimate.

A false title can be either fictitious, or colored, or simply or notoriously null.

Fictitious is that which was not granted by a Superior, or not for the case, or place, or time, or person, concerning which there is question.

Colored is that which was granted by a legitimate Superior, and of itself would be apt for conferring jurisdiction if it were not voided on account of a hidden defect; but that hidden defect can occur: 1° in the one granting. Thus, e.g., if the death of the Bishop were unknown, his Vicar General would have only a colored title; 2° in the one receiving, whether some vice preceded, e.g. hidden irregularity, or excommunication; or whether he was deprived of his title, and this is unknown; 3° in the act, as if hidden simony had intervened, by reason of which the act would be void.

Simply null is that which was granted by a Superior to whom it does not pertain to grant, e.g. by an Archbishop, outside the cases in which the faculty of supplying the negligence of Suffragans is attributed to him; or if it was indeed granted by him to whom it pertains to grant, but labors under a vice manifest to all or almost all.

Error concerning the title can be either common among the faithful, all or almost all of the place where Confessions are heard, or private only of some person.

These things having been noted beforehand:

Resp. 1° The Church certainly supplies if the error is common and at the same time joined with a colored title. The reason is drawn from the common interpretation of Theologians supported by diverse places of the Law. For, as they say, the Church, as a pious mother, is deservedly considered to supply jurisdiction for the good of souls, since she can do this.²

Resp. 2° According to an opinion probable to St. Alphonsus, but whose opposite he says is more common, the Church also supplies if common error is present without a colored title, but with a title only esteemed or fictitious. For the same reason urges as in the preceding case, since also in this hypothesis innumerable souls could perish.³

Resp. 3° The Church is not considered to supply jurisdiction if the error is private, e.g. if it is of one or a few. The reason is that the Church is not considered to supply except by reason of the common good, after the likeness namely of a provider or general governor, who attends only to the general good of society, and leaves the good of private persons to the care of particular providers. - Thus very commonly the Theologians against a few.

Query 4° Is it lawful to absolve with doubtful jurisdiction in a doubt of fact, for example in a case in which it is doubted whether it was truly conferred by the Superior, or whether the time for which it was granted has elapsed?

Resp. Neg., unless there presses the necessity of annual Confession, of celebrating or communicating in order to avoid infamy, of celebrating from obligation, or of absolution from mortal sin otherwise not to be had for a long time; in these cases however only conditionally, with the burden on the penitent of confessing again if he learns that the confessor truly lacked jurisdiction, and with contrition elicited before Communion (n. 1344. q. 8° under 8°).

Query 5° Is it lawful to absolve with jurisdiction probable by probability of law?

Resp. Affirm., provided the opinion is truly probable, supported by grave reason and authority. For in this case custom itself confers jurisdiction, and by force of this custom the confessor, in absolving, would not absolve with only a probable opinion, but with morally certain certitude, not direct, but reflex. - Nevertheless it is not lawful to use this jurisdiction except when a cause of grave necessity or of great utility is present, as Elbel and Wig. say, or a gravely reasonable cause, as St. Alphonsus explains. The reason is that, although in that case, for the good of souls, the Church can well be considered to supply jurisdiction, nevertheless, with no just cause added, she is not presumed to wish to connive at mere freedom of priests.²

Query 6° Do excommunicated persons to be avoided, the suspended, the interdicted, the irregular, the degraded, schismatics, notorious heretics, apostates, etc., validly absolve in danger of death, when another priest is lacking?

Resp. Affirm. The reason is that all priests can absolve in the article of death, as is clear from Trent.³

Query 7° Can a simple priest absolve not only in the article, but also in the danger of death?

Resp. Affirm. The reason is that there is nearly the same necessity of the penitent in danger and in the article of death. Besides, it is clear from Canon Law that the article and danger of death are taken for the same thing.¹

But danger of this kind is considered present: 1° in a dangerous illness; 2° in time of plague; 3° in a difficult childbirth; 4° in an arduous surgical operation; 5° before a very dangerous navigation; 6° in battle, or in other similar circumstances.²

Query 8° Can a simple priest absolve a dying person, even when an approved confessor is present?

Resp. Doctors disagree among themselves; and St. Alphonsus, after weighing the reasons of each opinion, finally gives his judgment in these words: "Nevertheless, these things notwithstanding," namely the reasons for the affirmative brought by him, "I think one must not depart from the first opinion," namely the negative, which he calls very common, "on account of the authority of the Roman Ritual (On the Sacrament of Penance, near the beginning), where it is said thus: But if danger of death threatens, and an approved (note this) confessor is lacking, any priest can absolve from any censures and sins whatsoever. Therefore simple priests can absolve if an approved confessor is lacking; therefore they cannot if an approved one is present."³

Except: 1° if the approved confessor would not wish or would not be able to hear the Confession, because then it is the same as if he were lacking; 2° if the approved confessor is excommunicated by name, suspended, interdicted, irregular, degraded, a schismatic, notoriously a heretic, an apostate, because then the simple priest is to be preferred; 3° more probably, if the approved confessor were of another diocese, because with respect to the sick person he is by no means called approved; 4° probably, if the dying person so shuddered to manifest his crimes to the approved confessor - because, e.g., he is his enemy, or a blood relative, or the object of sin - that he would be in danger of confessing sacrilegiously; 5° if the sick person could not confess to the approved confessor without great difficulty or inconvenience, thus Mazzotta, alleged by St. Alphonsus and not disapproved; 6° if the approved confessor comes after the Confession with the simple priest has already begun; 7° if the approved confessor is the accomplice of the sick person in a shameful sin.⁴

What the law is, if there is question of reserved sins when one having the faculty is present, see n. 1403. q. 4°.

Query 9° Can a parish priest call in a parish priest of the same or of a different diocese for hearing Confessions in his parish?

Resp. 1° As regards a parish priest of the same diocese, although by force of his office he has special jurisdiction only for his own parish, nevertheless from the almost universal custom he can hear Confessions even in the whole diocese, unless the Bishop decrees otherwise. Nevertheless the proper customs of places must be consulted.

Resp. 2° As regards a parish priest of a different diocese, various opinions are brought, as Benedict XIV says. Those who affirm argue from Trent, because a parochial benefice would serve for universal approbation. Others deny, whose opinion, St. Alphonsus says, receives strength from the Response of the Sacred Congregation of the Council, December 3, 1707. - Benedict XIV admits the first opinion in those places where such a custom exists.

Query 10° Can a priest approved by the Bishop hear the Confessions of the faithful without the leave of the parish priest?

Resp. 1° As regards liceity, neg., if Confessions are heard in a Church subject to the parish priest. The reason is that due order altogether requires that, since the parish priest is the immediate Superior in his Church, leave to exercise sacred ministries there be sought from him. Nevertheless the leave of the parish priest is not required for hearing Confessions in the Chapel of Regulars or of Nuns, but the leave of the Superior or Superiorissa of the place suffices.

Resp. 2° As regards validity, it is certain according to all that the license of the parish priest is not required outside the case of annual Confession. Indeed neither is it required for annual Confession, at least per se, or by common law. This is clear from the common doctrine of Theologians against some, and also from the present custom and universal practice of the Church, as Benedict XIV testifies, and as is clear from the declaration of S. C. de P. F., July 2, 1827. - But if somewhere that custom is not in force, nevertheless the Confessions must be held valid, unless the Bishop expressly contradicts; for if he is silent, he seems to consent to the universal custom of the Church.

Query 11° Does a delegate validly and licitly absolve after the elapsed term of a delegation to be renewed every year, e.g. if a crowd of penitents should flow together to some great solemnity?

Resp. 1° He absolves invalidly per se, i.e. by reason of jurisdiction, because in fact he has none. Nevertheless he will probably absolve validly by reason of common error, on account of which the Church is considered to supply for the good of souls.

Resp. 2° The priest sins gravely per se if he knowingly does this; the reason is that he exercises the function of confessor without legitimate authority; and, although then the Church supplies, he is nevertheless guilty because he unduly compels her to supply.

Query 12° Can a priest approved in some place validly hear the Confessions of pilgrims coming there?

Resp. 1° Affirm. absolutely as regards regular confessors, who have this special privilege from the Holy Apostolic See. - See the Constitution Superna of Clement X.

Resp. 2° Also affirm. as regards secular priests; the reason is that such is the custom having force from the tacit consent of Ordinaries, which is equivalent to ratihabition in the present. - Thus the more common Theologians and Canonists.

Query 13° Can a Bishop, under penalty of invalidity, prohibit diocesan subjects from going to confess outside the diocese?

Resp. Negatively, whether they go to confess outside the diocese to regular confessors, who have the privilege of hearing the Confessions of all the faithful coming from anywhere, or whether they confess in another diocese to secular priests. The reason is that, with the present custom of absolving pilgrims standing, these are no longer to be said to be absolved from the tacit consent of their Ordinaries, but from the will of the Church, which, by approving such a custom, grants to all approved confessors jurisdiction over pilgrims presenting themselves at their tribunal, excepting only those who go elsewhere in fraud of reservation. (18) p. 419.

Query 14° Can a simple priest absolve those sailing on the Ocean, or from whom must approbation be obtained?

Resp. 1° He cannot absolve per se, unless in probable danger of death, as was said above; because a priest of this kind outside that case lacks every jurisdiction.

Resp. 2° The approbation of the Bishop of the place whence the ship sets sail is required and suffices, and the faculty endures until it reaches a place where another ecclesiastical Superior possessing jurisdiction has been established. Thus S. C. O., March 17, 1869.

Query 15° Can military Chaplains absolve them everywhere without the approbation of the Bishop of the place?

Resp. 1° Affirm., if they have been specially delegated by the Supreme Pontiff to the spiritual care of soldiers, or by a major Chaplain approved by the Pope.

Resp. 2° But if they lack this special delegation, they can indeed hear Confessions in the diocese of the approving Bishop, and also outside it on the road and in camps from the tacit consent of the Bishops, as is clear from universal custom; nevertheless they cannot validly absolve in stations nor in garrisons without the license of the Bishop of the place, because they have no jurisdiction. This is clear from various Declarations of the Sacred Congregation, which P. Zacharia reports apud Lacroix. See also St. Alphonsus.

Regulars, by reason of privileges and of immediate dependence on the Supreme Pontiff, differ in several things as regards jurisdiction from secular priests. Hence:

1395. - I say I. Regulars properly so called, or those who emit solemn vows and are endowed with the privilege of exemption, and likewise those who communicate with Mendicants in privileges, receive immediately from the Pope jurisdiction for hearing the Confessions both of their own and of seculars. Hence jurisdiction granted to individual religious priests is understood, with the communication or delegation of their own Superior added. - This is clear from the Constitutions of the Supreme Pontiffs in the Corpus Juris; likewise from other Constitutions, which, although afterward modified, especially by Trent, as regards privileges, nevertheless remained irrevoked as regards the substance of jurisdiction. - Thus commonly with Lugo, Lacroix, and Billuart. - There are however those who contradict, especially today, or after the Resolution given by the Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, March 2, 1866, which we report in n. 1397, q. 8°. This resolution, however, does not seem to others to settle the question, since the proposed doubt regards a Regular having a faculty from the Bishop. Nor indeed, they say, is it thereby excluded that a Regular can draw a faculty also from another source.

I say II. Regulars, for hearing the Confessions of their own, receive approbation together with jurisdiction from the Superiors of their monastery or Order; but for hearing the Confessions of seculars they receive approbation from the Bishop of the place where the Confessions are to be heard. The reason for the first is that Trent required the approbation of the Bishop only for the Confession of seculars, and did not change the ancient discipline as regards the Confessions of Regulars. The reason for the second is clear from the Decree of Innocent XII, in the year 1700, by which it was sanctioned that confessors, whoever they may be, both seculars and regulars, can by no means hear secular penitents without the approbation of the Bishop of the place.

I say III. Regulars cannot confess, at least ordinarily, outside their own Order, without the consent of their Superiors; indeed even in the Monastery, to no one other than the one designated by the Superior himself. But those living outside the Monastery, or making a journey, cannot confess except to a companion, if they have some suitable one; but if they do not have one, they can confess to any suitable priest, whether regular or secular. - These things are clear from privileges which are known to have been granted to all Religions by Innocent IV and by other Supreme Pontiffs.

1396. Resolves. - 1° Although Regulars have jurisdiction from the Pope, nevertheless they have it bound as regards hearing the Confessions of seculars; since for the validity of absolution the approbation of the Bishop, as a condition sine qua non, is required. Thus Trent decreed that "no one, even a regular, can hear the Confessions of seculars, ... unless either he has a parochial benefice, or obtains approbation from the Bishops."

2° If the Bishop expressly granted approbation only for some transitory act, e.g. for performing some Mission, the faculty received is considered to be valid for that act alone, and for every judgment then begun.

3° If the Bishop, or your Superior by his delegation, grants you approbation for a determined class of penitents, the faculty cannot be extended to others, as is evident. But if the request for the faculty from the Bishop or from the Superior is general, and the concession was not restricted, the faculty obtained is not limited to the work which was the occasion of the petition. Thus, e.g., if you seek a faculty on the occasion of giving spiritual exercises to Nuns, in such a convent, from the same faculty received, you can hear also the Confessions of other faithful. The reason is that in a concession is contained whatever is not excepted. Except however reserved cases, which by the law itself are never understood to be comprehended in a general faculty of hearing Confessions.

4° A religious missionary called by the Bishop to perform a Mission in his diocese, by that very fact receives tacit approbation for hearing Confessions during the time of the Mission for which he is called. The same must be said if he was requested by the parish priest or another Superior with the license of the Bishop. Nevertheless he is considered approved only for ordinary cases. Hence in practice recourse must always be had to the Bishop for determining the extension or measure of the approbation.

5° When a religious Superior, by delegation of the Bishop, employs a subject for general works of the Sacred Ministry, with the hypothesis of some special restriction set aside, he is considered to grant him an all-sided faculty for any penitents whatsoever, and for all reserved cases also contained in the episcopal concession; the reason is that he is considered to grant all that which he can and is accustomed to grant, according to the aforesaid rule: In a concession is contained whatever is not excepted.

1397. Questions. - Query 1° Can Regulars outside the house, when a suitable companion is lacking, confess to a priest not approved?

Resp. See n. 1195. G). b).

Query 2° Can a Bishop without cause deny approbation to Regulars?

Resp. Neg. "For," says Pignatelli, "regular confessors do not receive jurisdiction from the Bishop, but from the Supreme Pontiff, and approbation is required only as a condition, that jurisdiction can be exercised. Therefore Bishops cannot prohibit Regulars from absolving at some time."... Nevertheless, if approbation is lacking, even if unjustly denied, jurisdiction also will be lacking. Cf. n. 1392. q. 4°.

Query 3° Can a Bishop approve Regulars with a limitation of time, persons, or places?

Resp. Affirm. This is clear from various Decrees of the Holy See. - See St. Alphonsus. See however n. 1196. 4°.

Query 4° Can a Bishop revoke approbation granted to Regulars?

Resp. 1° He cannot revoke the approbation of all Regulars of the same community without consulting the Sacred Congregation of Bishops. Thus from the Bull Superna. - Except if there is question of regions far distant from the City, and a very grave cause is present; concerning which the Sacred Congregation willed the consciences of Bishops to be gravely burdened.

Resp. 2° But a Bishop can revoke the approbation of individual Regulars in the individual; but if there is question of a Regular approved simply and without any limitation of time, i.e. not for a determined time or at his revocation, will, or good pleasure, and approved after a previous examination, only for a just cause concerning Confession; nevertheless one approved in this way by his Vicar or by predecessor Bishops, and not by himself, he can freely revoke and subject to a new examination for a just cause. Thus from the same Bull Superna.

Query 5° Does a Regular once approved in some diocese need a new approbation if, after changing his habitation, he returns to the same diocese?

Resp. Neg., unless the diocesan statutes or the Bishop establish otherwise. The reason is that one approved indefinitely and without limitation remains approved at least until an implicit revocation of the approbation; but in the present case no revocation has intervened, not even an implicit one. Therefore. - Thus Lacroix, Lugo, with the common opinion.

Query 6° Does a Regular approved in some diocese need a new approbation for validly absolving if, after changing place, he passes through the same diocese?

Resp. Neg., as at q. 5°, because approbation granted indefinitely and without limitation endures until revocation. - Lacroix.

Query 7° Does a Religious validly absolve seculars by delegation of the Bishop, but without the Superior knowing?

Resp. Negatively, if the Bishop intended only to give approbation, and otherwise the Superior is so unaware that he has not given jurisdiction; for then that Religious would have jurisdiction from no one. Affirmatively, however, if the Bishop, as is usually done, intended also to confer jurisdiction. See the following question.

Query 8° Does a Religious validly absolve, with the Superior unwilling, but by delegation of the Bishop?

Resp. 1° Negatively, if the Bishop intended only to give approbation, and otherwise the Superior, who has the power of constituting confessors, is so unwilling that he does not wish to give jurisdiction or removes the jurisdiction given. The reason is clear. For then the Religious has jurisdiction from no one.

Resp. 2° Affirmatively however, if the Bishop intended also to confer jurisdiction, as from present practice is usually done. The reason is that the Bishop can well confer jurisdiction on a Religious, no less than on a secular priest, over his own sheep. For whoever enjoys ordinary jurisdiction can delegate it to any priest. - Billuart, etc.

But that Religious would sin gravely against obedience, because in a grave matter he would transgress the precept of his Superior; nor in that case could he use the privileges which many Religious enjoy, e.g. for absolving from certain censures, unless privileges of this kind had also been communicated to him by the Bishop; because a Religious receives a privilege of this kind only through the Superior himself, who from the hypothesis grants no faculty to the subject.

These things are confirmed by a Declaration which very recently came forth from the Congregation of Bishops and Regulars. For the following doubts having been proposed:

"I. Whether a Religious not approved according to the laws of his own Order by his Superior, or with that Superior unwilling, validly hears the Confessions of seculars with only the faculty of the Ordinary."

"II. Whether Regular Superiors, having jurisdiction, can suspend their subjects from hearing the Confessions of seculars even from informed conscience."

"And, in the affirmative, III. Whether an orally announced suspension, and one announced without writing, is valid."

"IV. Whether absolution imparted by him who is bound by such a suspension is valid."

"And, in the negative, V. Whether one who attempts an absolution of this kind incurs irregularity."

"The Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, the matter having been discussed, on March 2, 1866, responded":

To I. Affirmatively.

To II. Affirmatively; yet so that the suspended Religious hears Confessions illicitly, but not invalidly.

To III. Affirmatively, since it is brought by way of a particular precept.

To IV. Affirmatively.

To V. It has been provided for in the preceding answers.

Query 9° Can Regulars absolve, without the Bishop's approbation, their servants or other domestics living in the monastery?

Resp. See n. 1194. II.

Query 10° Can Regulars absolve pupils living with them, without the Bishop's approbation, as being of the household?

Resp. A twofold opinion is given. See n. 1194. II.

1398. - I say I. Nuns emitting solemn vows and cloistered cannot confess except to a priest specially approved for them by the Bishop, although they may be exempt from the jurisdiction of that same Bishop and subject to Regulars of their own Order; yet in that case the deputation and election of the confessor belongs to the regular Prelate. Thus from the Bull Inscrutabili of Gregory XV and from the Constitutions of the Supreme Pontiffs.

Indeed a confessor approved for one monastery cannot validly hear the Confessions of Nuns of another monastery, unless he was approved in general for Nuns. Clement X confirmed this in the year 1670, in the Bull Superna.

But from the Decree of the Sacred Congregation of Bishops, September 20, 1642, the ordinary confessor of Nuns cannot be approved except for a triennium; when this has elapsed, he cannot hear Confessions any longer in the same monastery without the license of the Sacred Congregation. - But a restriction of this kind is not observed everywhere, or even, on account of the lack of confessors who are suitable for hearing the Confessions of Nuns, it cannot be observed, and then the approbation is valid until it is revoked by words or by fact. - But with an Apostolic indult saved, or unless, as was just said, it cannot be done otherwise in some region, the confessor of Nuns ought to be forty years of age; nor are the Vicar General, a Canon or another beneficed cleric obliged to choir, a parish priest, if he is much impeded thereby in carrying out his office, or, if there is question of Nuns subject to the Bishop and of the ordinary confessor, a Regular, to be deputed to that office.

Let the confessor beware lest he conduct himself as Superior of the monastery, since such authority in no way belongs to him. - Thus the Sacred Congregation of Bishops, September 7, 1797. - See Analecta Juris Pontificii.

I say II. Bishops and other Superiors of Nuns are held two or three times a year, even for the Novices themselves, to present an extraordinary confessor. Thus Trent established. - These statutes were confirmed by other Supreme Pontiffs, especially Benedict XIV in the Bull Pastoralis, issued August 5, 1748. Moreover, a particular confessor must be granted to Nuns in the article of death, if they ask, indeed also sometimes in life, if some Nun asks this or refuses to confess to the ordinary; but then for only certain extraordinary occasions the confessor must be deputed. These things are clear from the Bull Pastoralis of Benedict XIV just cited. Nor indeed does Trent prohibit several extraordinary confessors from being placed in charge, or from being offered beyond two or three times. Therefore the sense of the Decree is that they must be granted at least two or three times.

1399. Questions. - Query 1° Are all Nuns held to present themselves to the extraordinary confessor and to confess to him?

Resp. 1° All and each are held to present themselves at least to hear salutary warnings. This is clear from the same Bull of Benedict XIV, and also from an express Declaration of the Sacred Congregation of Bishops on October 19, 1621. But the reason for this disposition is that provision be made for the liberty of Nuns, who perhaps need the ministry of an extraordinary confessor; otherwise fear, or the displeasing of the ordinary confessor, or the falling into suspicion among the other Nuns, would easily prohibit them.

Resp. 2° They are not held to confess to the extraordinary confessor, but it suffices that they present themselves before him, for instance, that they ask his blessing, or receive salutary warnings from him. This is clear from the cited Bull of Benedict XIV. - See St. Alphonsus.

Query 2° What must be held concerning Nuns existing among us?

Resp. 1° As regards the approbation of the confessor, since, with those excepted about whom we spoke in n. 1205. V., the others are prohibited from emitting solemn vows, everything depends on the will of the Bishops. Therefore, unless the Bishop has signified the contrary, their Confessions are validly heard even without special deputation, and the clause: except Nuns, attached to jurisdiction, regards only Nuns strictly so called. But the mind of the Holy See is that even toward Nuns not strictly so called those things be observed by Bishops which are established by common law for those strictly so called in this matter. See Gury, Roman Edition 1873, and the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore.

Resp. 2° As regards the extraordinary confessor, there seems to be for the Bishop and other Superiors an obligation of procuring someone for Nuns among us living in cloister not Papal. The reason is that the end of the law is the same, namely, of providing for liberty of conscience. For if they are obliged to strict cloister, it is fair that they also use the privilege of cloistered Nuns.

Query 3° Is the Bishop held to grant an extraordinary confessor even to pious congregations of women, which are not truly Nuns?

Resp. Benedict XIV earnestly exhorts Bishops to extend to any communities of women the laws of Trent concerning extraordinary confessors of Nuns. - Constitution Pastoralis curae, August 5, 1748, with which several Decrees of the Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars and the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore agree; indeed the Bishop is held to this in conscience, if those pious women have only one confessor designated by the Superiors, the faculty of calling another having been taken from them.

Query 4° Can cloistered Nuns be absolved by any confessor while by chance they are outside the monastery?

Resp. Affirm. with Lacroix and others. The reason is that the Constitutions Inscrutabili of Gregory XV and of other Supreme Pontiffs, which prohibit Nuns from confessing to another priest than one specially approved by the Bishop for Nuns, do not seem to be understood except of Nuns living in Monasteries; for they suppose that Nuns are always within the cloister. Therefore any confessors, although not approved for Nuns, can absolve Nuns coming to them by accident. Besides, a very great inconvenience would generally be present if travelling Nuns had to confess only to specially approved confessors; for often they would have to lack the Sacraments of Penance and Eucharist. The Response of the Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, August 27, 1852, agrees.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

II. Bishops, or their delegates, can absolve:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Query 2° How besides is reservation removed?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1404. - I. No confessor can absolve his own accomplice, i.e. an associate and participant in a shameful sin. This is clear from the Constitution Sacramentum Poenitentiae of Benedict XIV, June 1, 1741. - Likewise from another Constitution of the same Pontiff: Apostolici muneris, February 8, 1745.

II. A Confessor lacks all jurisdiction for absolving an accomplice as regards the sin of which he was a participant. This is inferred from the express words of the Bull, in which it is said: "Moreover there is removed from him by the law itself any authority and jurisdiction whatsoever for absolving any person whatsoever from a fault of this kind."

1405. Questions. - Query 1° What comes under the name of shameful sin?

Resp. Every grave sin against the Sixth Precept of the Decalogue, even if it has not been consummated by copula; indeed even if it is only a shameful touch or look, or speech, as today is certain.

But it is required that on each side there be a certainly mortal sin, not only internal, but also external, insofar as mutual, or externally manifested at the same time on each side.

Query 2° Under the name of accomplice do not only women, but also men, come?

Resp. Affirm. The reason is that the words of the Bull are altogether general; for in it it is said: "Who shall dare to hear the Sacramental Confession of a person who is an accomplice in a shameful sin against the Sixth Precept." Therefore the disposition of the Constitution is not to be restricted to the female sex. - Thus commonly.

Query 3° Can a priest absolve an accomplice in the article or danger of death?

Resp. Affirm., if another priest cannot be called who can perform the function of confessor; but otherwise if another priest is present, even one not approved, who can hear the Confession.

Query 4° Can a priest absolve an accomplice in death, if another cannot be called or approach without infamy or scandal?

Resp. Affirm. Nevertheless the priest-accomplice is held to prevent such dangers of infamy or scandal, if he can, e.g. by departing under some pretext, etc. Otherwise he will not evade the penalties, although the absolution is valid. This is clear from the Constitution of Benedict XIV.

Query 5° Can a priest absolve an accomplice in death, if the latter refuses to confess to another?

Resp. Affirm., if otherwise he is disposed, namely lest he perish, or at least lest his eternal salvation be endangered. Cf. n. 1402. IV.

Query 6° Can a priest absolve an accomplice from other sins foreign to himself, after that one has once been absolved by another from his own sin?

Resp. Affirm. The reason is that he lacks jurisdiction over this penitent only as regards the sin of which he himself was a participant; therefore, when that sin has been blotted out through absolution imparted by another, the prohibition now ceases, nor is jurisdiction lacking. - Except: I. if the penitent was absolved from this sin by another confessor, either 1) only indirectly, e.g. on account of inculpable forgetfulness of the said shameful sin, or 2) invalidly. II. If that priest has been absolved from the censures and penalties which he incurred on account of the attempted absolution of an accomplice by force of the faculty reported at p. LXXI. Note 2, under the burden, namely, of altogether abstaining from hearing the Confessions of the accomplice. - Nevertheless the absolution which the confessor, absolved with this burden, had given would not by the law itself be invalid; for from precisely this, that the law or precept of a Superior prohibits some act from being done, unless it expresses that by that very fact it also wishes it to be done voidly and nullly, the act must not be considered null in conscience. III. According to some, if the penitent again confesses to the accomplice that very sin itself from which complicity arises, as sufficient matter, without adding another matter; for the words, they say, of the Constitution are altogether peremptory. Thus Pruner and Acta. Yet this exception, although it is usefully alleged here, does not pertain to the question. St. Alphonsus does not treat this precise question.

But truly, if any shame remains in a priest who through pitiable frailty has perpetrated a shameful sin with another, if any honor due to the Sacrament, he will never afterward hear the Confession of the accomplice. Moreover, the danger of a new fall, or at least of grave temptation in the direction of such a penitent, can easily be present. Therefore the faithful are to be turned away, as far as can be done, so that afterward, with the case of necessity set aside, they never approach a confessor who is an accomplice of sin. See the same warning given in n. 1365. q. 4°.

1406. - Resolves: 1° A Confessor invalidly absolves a penitent:

a) With whom he agreed about seducing a woman, although afterward he did not seduce her; because it is verified that this penitent is an associate of an iniquitous agreement against chastity.

b) From whom he heard only shameful conversations, if he showed that they pleased him; because by exteriorly taking complacence in them he participated in them, and therefore is an accomplice of shameful sin.

c) With whom he sinned against chastity before he was a priest or cleric; because it is always true that he is an accomplice, and therefore all jurisdiction is removed from him. Sacred Penitentiary apud Haringer.

d) An impubes accomplice; because the prohibition made to a confessor of absolving an accomplice does not have the character of reservation, since the power of absolving is removed from him, not from other confessors; nor is it certain that impuberty exempts from reservation.

2° A Confessor validly absolves:

a) A girl whom he shamefully touches while sleeping or resisting, or by whom he is touched while sleeping or resisting, although he altogether ought not hear her, lest he cast himself into the danger of sinning more gravely or formally; because he does not absolve from a sin of complicity.

b) A woman with whom there intervened a kiss given in passing, or a momentary touch of the hands or respectable parts from play or levity. - The same holds if the confessor takes hold of a girl by the hand, arm, or neck, and he indeed undergoes venereal delight on his own part, even externally declared, if he excites none in the penitent. The same, if a priest were to induce a woman to believe that there is no sin if she allowed herself to be shamefully touched by him; and she, deceived by him, in good faith allowed herself to be shamefully touched, without sinning formally. For in these cases either a certainly mortal sin is not present, or it is not present on each side.

c) Resolve the same if the motion, however carnal, and arising on each side, is personal to each and respectively unknown. The reason is that, in order that there be a sin of an accomplice, unity of time in which each sins does not suffice, but moral unity of action is required, or communication in one action morally.

d) Resolve the same if there is question of a mortal sin internally or externally doubtful, and this whether it is thus doubtful on the part of each or on the part of one of the two.

Note. - Saving a better judgment, we altogether dissent from some who opine that an accomplice is validly absolved if he were absolved inadvertently; for Benedict XIV, requiring presumption (see n. 1401. q. 1°. R. 1°), requires it not so that the absolution be null, but so that excommunication be incurred. - Nor do we agree with those who think that an accomplice forgetting the sin of complicity inculpably, or placed in any necessity whatsoever other than that which arises from danger of death, can be validly, although only indirectly, absolved; for the case of an accomplice is not properly a reserved case, but a case in which all jurisdiction over the accomplice is taken away from the confessor, with only the danger of death excepted; but an exception confirms the rule.

Concerning the excommunication which one absolving an accomplice incurs, see in the Treatise on Censures, n. 1715.

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°.

1° In Confession; 2° after Confession.

There must be treated 1° of the duties of the confessor in general; 2° of his manner of acting with the various kinds of penitents.

A fourfold duty or office of the confessor is assigned, namely 1° of Father; 2° of Physician; 3° of Doctor; 4° of Judge.

1413. - The Confessor is a spiritual father, who gives spiritual life to the penitent, or restores and fosters it; for in the tribunal of Penance he acts in the place of the best of all parents, namely Christ Himself, and therefore by penitents he is called by the sweetest name of father. But that which especially stands out in the true name of father is remarkable and inexhaustible charity. For what affection is stronger than the affection of a father? What is truer, purer, more chaste, more constant, fuller of solicitude and more alien from one's own advantage, indeed readier and more prompt for every kind of privation and inconvenience? Therefore such must be the charity of the confessor, so that, clothed with the bowels of mercy of Christ Jesus, Who came not to call the just, but sinners, he may know how to deal zealously, patiently, and meekly with sinners. Thus, as a good father, he will sustain all things for his spiritual children: for charity is patient, ... bears all things, ... endures all things.

The Confessor must be full of charity toward penitents, both at the beginning, and in the course, and at the end of Confession. It is pleasing to hear St. Alphonsus himself speaking on these things.

1414. - I. At the beginning of Confession. "First he" (the Confessor) "must employ charity in receiving kindly all, whether they are poor, or rude, or sinners. Some spend time only in hearing the Confessions of certain devout persons or persons of rank, because they have not so much courage as to repel these from themselves. But if some miserable sinner approaches them, he is heard unwillingly and is driven away loaded with reproaches: whence it happens that that wretched one, after he has brought the greatest force upon himself so that he might come to confess his sins, feeling himself so harshly received, conceives hatred for the Sacrament of Penance, and, despairing that he can find someone who may help him and absolve him from sins, rushes headlong with loosened reins into the slippery way of a lost life, and falls into despair of salvation. Good confessors act otherwise. When sinners of this kind flow together to them, they receive them kindly, and, as a victor over captured prey, they exult, considering that the lot has fallen to them to snatch a soul from the hands of the demon. They know that this Sacrament was instituted properly not for the just, but for sinners; for venial faults, in order to be remitted, do not need sacramental absolution, since they can be blotted out in many other ways. They know also that Christ protested in these words: I came not to call the just, but sinners. Therefore the confessor, clothing himself with the bowels of charity, the more he finds souls stained by the multitude and atrocity of sins, the more, that he may gain them for God, should embrace them with greater charity, and give them courage with these or similar words: Come, brother, be of good courage, do not fear; confess your sins fearlessly. Open all things confidently; be ashamed of nothing: it does not matter if you have not looked into all the recesses of your conscience; it suffices if you answer what is asked. Give thanks to God, Who has awaited you until now for penance. Now your life must be changed. Rejoice, because God certainly remits all sins to you, however great, if you have a good will, and therefore He has awaited you, that He might spare you: therefore say all things with a cheerful soul, cover nothing with wrappings."

1415. - II. In the course of Confession. "He must show far greater charity in hearing the Confession. Let him take care not to show himself impatient or affected by weariness; nor let him show himself struck with amazement at the sins which are narrated; provided the penitent is not so hard or insolent in soul that he exposes several and more atrocious sins without any shame, and without any displeasure and sense of soul; because then one must labor with all one's powers that the penitent may perceive how great is their deformity and magnitude; and therefore then a sharper correction is required, so that he may be awakened from lethal lethargy. It is indeed true that... in the act of Confession confessors must abstain from making correction, lest perhaps penitents, frightened, hold back sins; nevertheless this is understood when speaking regularly: besides, many times it is expedient not to proceed to further things, and immediately to correct the penitent, especially when he confesses a very enormous sin, or if he has been habituated in some vice, so that he may comprehend the gravity of the sin. Yet let him advert not to exasperate him, nor to terrify him. Wherefore, after he has corrected him as much as shall have been needed, immediately let him give him courage for confessing the remaining sins, saying: Come, brother, do you wish to recover from this vice? Is it not so? And since you are prepared to do this, be of cheerful soul. Therefore narrate the remaining sins, holding back nothing. Take care, I beg you, lest you commit some sacrilege; for this would be the greatest of all the sins which you have committed until now. Therefore say all things with a strong soul; conquer yourself: confess all things sincerely: for God is prepared to spare you."

1416. - III. At the end of Confession. "At the end of Confession also it is necessary that the confessor apply himself with a more vehement ardor and zeal, so that he may make the penitent perceive the gravity and multitude of his sins, and the miserable state of damnation in which he is found; but let this always be done with the greatest charity. Nevertheless it is more fitting then to use graver words, so that thus he may better be able to return to a good fruit of mind; nevertheless he must effect that the penitent understand that what is said to him proceeds not from an angry soul, but from singular love and commiseration toward his soul, which can be expressed in this way: My son, do you consider the life of a damned one which you have led? Do you perceive the evil which you have worked? What evil has your God ever done to you, Whom you have so recklessly despised? If there had been no one more hostile to you than Jesus Christ, could you have borne yourself worse toward Him? But, I ask you, consider who this Jesus is? He is the one Who, though He was God, needing nothing, was made man for you, wished to die on the cross, that He might redeem you from hell. Ah! son, if meanwhile you had died, if on this night, whither would you have gone? Where would you now be? You would be in the eternal fire of hell. What will become of you, if you go on in the future to live the life you have led until now? Will you be able to be saved thus? Awake and see that, unless you change your morals for the better, you are already damned. What good have you gathered for yourself from so many sins? Do you not consider that you prepare for yourself a double hell, one here of anguish and misery, another there of punishments? Come, son, turn away from evil, cease to sin, and commit yourself wholly into the arms of God, which are extended to receive you: enough, as much as you have sinned against Him. I wish to help you with all my powers and with my whole heart; come to me always and whenever you please, since you will find a father who will receive you kindly. Behold, now firmly resolve that you wish to be made holy. It depends on you. For God is always prepared, and has imparted this time to you for this, that you may turn yourself away from evil and do good. O how good it is to have God as a friend! etc."

To the charity of Father can also be referred the following warning of the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore: "Lest any delay hinder those wishing to confess, we earnestly exhort and beseech pastors of souls that they be present at the confessionals for hearing penitents on each Sabbath, and on the Vigils of Feasts at least in the evening time, and on Sundays and feast days in the morning before the first Mass.... But if the number of the faithful is greater than that all who approach can be heard on one day, let him also choose other times, other days, which he may spend on this necessary work."

The Confessor is a true physician of souls, since he must rescue them from the various diseases of sin, remove them from the depraved affections of the passions, and restore them to divine grace. Therefore the Confessor, as a skilled physician, must 1° know the cause of the evil; 2° heal it; 3° prevent relapse. Let us hear St. Alphonsus again.

1417. - I. The Confessor must know the cause of the disease. "For the Confessor, that he may meet the infirmities of his penitent with opportune remedies, the origin and cause of all his spiritual diseases must be known. Some... beyond the species and number of sins inquire nothing else: if they see the penitent disposed, they immediately absolve him; but if not, without spending one word, they dismiss him at once, saying with a turned eye: Depart from me, because I cannot absolve you. Good confessors proceed otherwise: for these first begin to investigate the origin and gravity of the disease, by questioning concerning the habit of sinning, concerning occasions, concerning the time, concerning the place, concerning the persons with whom, and with what concurrence of things. For thus they will be better able to correct the penitents, dispose them for absolution, and add salutary remedies."

1418. - II. He must heal the disease. "When the origin and gravity of the disease have been known, let the confessor proceed to make the due admonitions. And although he as Father must listen to penitents with charity, nevertheless as physician he is held, as much as is needed, to warn and correct them, especially those who, burdened with many mortal sins, rarely approach the Sacrament of Penance.... Nor then must the confessor attend to other penitents who surround him. For, as St. Francis Xavier used to say, it is better to hear the rightly made Confessions of a few than the disordered and fruitless Confessions of many. Here it is necessary to advert how wrongly those confessors act who, if they find a penitent indisposed, immediately order him to go away from them, lest they spend some time with him.... And it matters little that others wait or depart unconfessed; for the confessor must render an account on the day of judgment concerning this one only, who now confesses to him, not concerning others." - I think an exception from this rule conformable to the mind of the holy Doctor in the case in which, on the one side, there is a crowd of penitents who, unless they are heard now, cannot or are foreseen not to be about to return except after a long time, and on the other side, the penitent who needs a longer time, e.g. on account of a necessary general Confession, can easily return and is hoped with foundation to be about to return.

"After due corrections or warnings, it is better that labor be spent on disposing the penitent to absolution through acts of true sorrow and purpose; wherefore I wish confessors to be warned that those penitents are very few, especially the rude, who come to confess with an act of sorrow premised. Some confessors think that they have done enough for their office if they merely question penitents of this kind in the following way: Come, do you ask pardon from God for all these things (which in truth is not a true act of sorrow)? Are you sorry from the heart for all your sins? and, with no other word interposed, they bestow absolution on them. Altogether different from this is the method of good confessors. For these first of all labor so that penitents (the discourse is about those who are held by mortal sins) may conceive true sorrow and detestation of sins. And first they prepare them through an act of attrition, e.g.: My son, where now ought you to be in eternity? In hell. Ah! in that fire you would always be tortured! Nor would any hope remain to you any longer that you could be rescued thence! There you would be dwelling, abandoned by all, rejected by God for all eternity! Therefore, are you sorry that you have offended God on account of the hell which you have deserved?... Afterward let him take care that an act of contrition be elicited, in this way: My son, what have you done? You have sinned against God, the highest and infinite good; you have had no regard for Him; you have turned your face away from Him: you have cast Him behind your back; you have despised His friendship and grace. Come therefore, because you have offended God, infinite goodness, are you now sorry from your whole heart? Detest and hate, above all evils, all the injuries by which undeservedly you have affected so good a God. Are you not now ready to die a thousand times rather than commit these things in the future?"

1419. - III. He must prevent relapse. The confessor will prevent relapse by assigning to the penitent remedies suited to the disease. But remedies are either general or particular.

1° General remedies are 1) pious prayer and love toward God; 2) frequent invocation of the Blessed Virgin Mary, of the holy Guardian Angel, and of the holy Patron; 3) frequency of the Sacraments and Confession as soon as any mortal sin has been committed; 4) consideration of the eternal truths, especially of death and of the last end, according to that saying: Remember thy last things, and thou shalt not sin forever; 5) recollection of God present when temptation presses, by saying: God sees me; 6) evening examination of conscience with sorrow of soul and purpose; 7) mental prayer and pious readings, especially for priests.

2° Particular remedies will be assigned according to the diversity of vices: e.g. to him who is held by some hatred, let it be suggested that daily he commend to God him whom he hates, reciting for him the Lord's Prayer, etc. And when the memory of the injury disturbs him, let him recall the insults by which he himself has affected God. - To him who has fallen into shameful sins, let it be enjoined that he avoid idleness, flee evil companions and depraved occasions. - To him who has contracted a depraved habit through a long time in this vice, let it be prescribed that he avoid not only proximate occasions, but even certain remote ones, which to one so weak are as if proximate. But especially let the confessor take care that this one communicate frequently; because the Eucharist is called: wine bringing forth virgins. And thus concerning others.

The confessor will assign other remedies according to his prudence, the circumstances of occasions, persons, etc., having been inspected. For prudence is the chief quality which must stand out in a physician. - See St. Alphonsus in Praxis Confessarii; and in H. A. Cf. n. 1389.

S. Th. III, q. 84, a. 3; Suppl., q. 28.

669. The penitential rite formerly existed as public and solemn; according to present-day discipline it usually no longer exists except as private. In the Latin Church the Roman Ritual generally obtains; nevertheless there are some, such as the Preachers, who have a particular rite. According to the Roman Ritual, tit. 3, c. 2:

"1. When the priest wishes to absolve the penitent, after first imposing on him, and after he has accepted, a salutary penance, he first says: May God have mercy on thee... Amen.

2. Then, with the right hand raised toward the penitent, he says: May the almighty and merciful Lord grant thee indulgence... Amen. May our Lord Jesus Christ absolve thee; and I, by his authority, absolve thee from every bond of excommunication, suspension, and interdict, insofar as I am able and thou hast need. Then I absolve thee from thy sins, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, + and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.

3. If the penitent is a layman, the word suspension is omitted.

May the Passion of our Lord Jesus Christ, the merits of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and of all the Saints, whatever good thou hast done and whatever evil thou hast borne, be unto thee for the remission of sins, the increase of grace, and the reward of eternal life. Amen.

4. For a just cause May God have mercy, etc., can be omitted, and it is enough to say: May our Lord Jesus Christ, etc., as above, as far as that: May the Passion of our Lord, etc.

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

Concerning these things it must be noted:

1. It is a pious custom, not obliging under sin, that before confession the priest say: May the Lord be in thy heart and on thy lips, for worthily confessing all thy sins, in the name, etc., or at least bless with the sign of the cross, by which "the penitent... is admonished that... on bended knees he fortify himself with the sign of the cross" (Rit., c. 1, n. 11).

2. The ceremony of raising the hand, from the word Indulgence until the formation of the cross in imparting absolution, does not oblige under grave sin, just as neither does the sign of the cross under the absolution; indeed according to some not even under venial sin, which can be admitted, at least while the form itself is not being pronounced.

3. The prayers May God have mercy and May the almighty and merciful Lord grant thee indulgence can be omitted for a just cause, such as can easily occur in more frequent confessions, as if there is a great concourse of penitents, or in shorter confessions, as if the penitent often returns or after absolution remembers a sin, or because of lack of time; otherwise it is not fitting to omit them, although it can be done without sin, because they are not of precept but of counsel, since the Council of Trent, sess. 14, c. 3, says that they are "laudably added." This counsel the Code again inculcates in can. 885: "Although the prayers joined by the Church to the absolution formula are not necessary for obtaining the liberation itself, nevertheless, unless there is a just cause, let them not be omitted." These things also hold concerning the words: May the Passion of the Lord..., although certain men think that by this prayer all the works of the penitent in some way participate in the efficacy of satisfaction, as we noted in n. 563, 5, and for that reason say that it is less fitting to omit it.

4. By precept of the Church and as a precaution, absolution from censures is prefixed to absolution from sins; because it is not fitting that one be reconciled to God through the ministry of the Church who has not first been reconciled with the Church herself. Hence a) a confessor who certainly knows a censure which impedes reception of the sacrament sins gravely if he absolves from sins before censures; nevertheless the absolution is valid in one having the power; b) to omit absolution from censures where the confessor is morally certain that censures are not present is, of itself, not a sin; nevertheless, as a precaution for rectitude it is to be prefixed because of the custom of the Church; c) it is of itself venial if there is a probable suspicion of a censure.

5. The word suspension is omitted if it is a matter of laymen, since they cannot be suspended; but it is prescribed for those who are in sacred Orders, and by counsel it is to be used for clerics.

6. Hence a voluntary omission or corruption of a non-essential word in the form itself, without sufficient reason, is a grave or light sin according as the change itself is regarded as notable or not: for although it would not invalidate the sacrament, nevertheless it imports irreverence against the ordinance of the Church concerning sacred worship.

Thus the omission of the words in the name... is judged light; on the contrary, the change of the word I absolve into some other equivalent word, or the omission of the words from sins, would be notable, and even the omission of absolution from censures can be grave, as was said.

670. The place of confession and the vesture to be worn. - From the Ritual, tit. 3, c. 1, n. 7 sq.:

a) "The proper place of sacramental confession is a church or public or semi-public oratory" (can. 908).

b) "The confessional seat for hearing the confessions of women is always to be placed in an open and conspicuous place, and generally in a church or public or semi-public oratory destined for women;... let it be furnished with a fixed and finely perforated grating between the penitent and the confessor" (can. 909).

c) "Confessions of women are not to be heard outside the confessional seat, except because of illness or some other true necessity, and with the precautions which the Ordinary of the place has judged opportune. It is permitted to receive the confessions of men even in private houses" (can. 910).

d) The priest "is to use a surplice and a violet stole, according as the time or custom of places may permit."

It is judged grave of itself, necessity excluded, to receive the confessions of women without the cautions indicated above, namely, outside the confessional seat or without an intervening grating, or also in a place not open and conspicuous. The reason is that the Church prescribed these things for consulting modesty, and for forestalling grave dangers, suspicions, and scandals which could arise on the occasion of the ministry of Penance. Yet if it were done once or twice, in circumstances in which danger, suspicion, or scandal is not to be feared, it could seem only venial; not so if on repeated occasions.

The confessions of men in a church or public or semi-public oratory are also not to be heard outside the confessional seat (com. int., Nov. 24, 1920); but this seems to be prescribed only under light sin.

Two things are required for the power of the Minister of Penance, 1°. power of order, 2°. power of jurisdiction. Thus Can. 872: "Besides the power of Order, for valid absolution of sins there is required in the minister power of jurisdiction, whether ordinary or delegated, over the penitent"; and Can. 871: "The minister of this Sacrament is the priest alone."

LXVI. The same in the same place, tract 4, disputation 4, section 2, chapter 1, no. 50, folio 426: “In three cases a simple priest can actually administer the sacrament of penance. First, if the confession be of venial sins. Second, if it be of mortal sins already confessed, and of those forgotten in other confessions. Third, in danger of death, probably even with the parish priest or an approved priest present.”