Those who Must Be Denounced

All and only priests must be denounced who themselves have provoked someone to shameful things, or who have had with someone illicit and dishonest conversations or dealings with rash daring in one of the circumstances soon to be set forth. It is said:

I. All priests, both seculars and regulars, both approved and not approved. It is disputed, however, whether even Bishops must be denounced. It seems that an affirmative answer must be given, because the Constitution Sacramentum Poenitentiae of Benedict XIV declares that "all priests ... of whatever dignity and preeminence" must be denounced (St. Alphonsus, VI, 685).

Objection. The denunciation must be made to the local Ordinary or to the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office (can. 904). But criminal causes of Bishops, according to canon 1557, § 1, 3, and canon 2227, § 1, must be judged by the Supreme Pontiff.

Response. By establishing that all priests of whatever dignity must be denounced, the legislator seems to signify sufficiently that Bishops, as regards this cause, must be denounced to the Holy Office.

II. And only priests, so that laymen and lower clerics who solicit in confession while pretending to be confessors are excluded. Nevertheless, by receiving sacramental confession, according to canon 2322, 1, they contract an excommunication reserved in a special manner to the Apostolic See; moreover, the cleric is to be deposed, the layman is to be deprived of pension or ecclesiastical office, and punished with other penalties according to the gravity of the fault.

III. Who themselves, etc. Therefore neither those commanding or advising solicitation, nor interpreters, are to be denounced, since they act in the name of another.²

IV. Someone; it is the same whether the matter concerns a male or a female, and of whatever age the person may be.³

V. They have provoked to shameful things; wherefore observe:

1. A provocation to venereal matters is required, and therefore to grave sin, "since in venereal matters there is no smallness of matter."⁴ Moreover the provocation, as the Constitution Sacramentum Poenitentiae has it, can be made "whether by words, or by signs, or by nods, or by touch, or by writing." Nor does it stand in the way that the provocation is made by way of advice given.

The Sacred Penitentiary⁵ declared that the crime of solicitation is present in the following case. Tibullus, hearing the confessions of women whose husbands are often accustomed to be absent and who do not easily contain themselves, teaches and persuades these same women that they do not sin in the following cases: 1. if, by desiring their own absent husband, they suffer sensual commotion or pollution; 2. if they desire to experience this same pollution in themselves from burning love of the absent husband; 3. if they excite pollution in themselves by touches performed with themselves, provided that they refer these acts to the absent husband. The Sacred Penitentiary adds that "this Holy Tribunal has already twice responded on this matter, and that acts of this kind are gravely illicit and that a confessor approving them must be denounced."

It is required, however, that the confessor have sinned gravely not only objectively but also subjectively. Still, subjective fault is commonly presumed to correspond to objective malice (St. Alphonsus, VI, 683).

2. It is the same whether the penitent is provoked to sin with the confessor, or with himself or herself, or with a third party. Likewise a confessor must be denounced who solicits the penitent to excite another to a sin of lust, whether to be perpetrated solitarily or with another (St. Alphonsus, VI, 691).

VI. Or they have had illicit and dishonest conversations or dealings with rash daring. Dealings, conversations, or words gravely dishonest are understood; and this even if explicit provocation to venereal matters is lacking, for conversations of this kind of themselves move toward shameful things (St. Alphonsus, VI, 680). Hence authors teach that a confessor must be denounced who would ask a married person, or one accusing himself or herself of a guilty carnal act, whether it would please him or her to be engaged in those things, what conversations the sinning person would have, what acts or motions the person would perform, and the like. If rash daring is lacking, there is no place for denunciation, when the confessor necessarily, usefully, or at least without grave fault asks about a shameful sin. Nevertheless, let him beware lest he inquire into circumstances of carnal sin which there is no obligation of declaring. For the rest, as regards V and VI, observe:

1. It is not required that the sinful act or conversation be consummated, but it suffices that it be begun, provided, however, that the confessor, when beginning these things, has the intention afterward of gravely delinquent conduct even externally and objectively. Thus, if a confessor asks the penitent where he or she lives with the intention of afterwards approaching and soliciting that person; if he hands to the penitent a paper to be read later, in which he solicits the person,⁶ or treats dishonest things (St. Alphonsus, VI, 676).

2. It is not required that the penitent consent to the provocation or shameful conversation; indeed, it is not even required that the penitent perceive the provocation or the shameful meaning of the conversation. Hence the Holy Office⁷ declared that "a girl situated in simplicity and without knowledge of the dishonesty is bound to denounce the soliciting confessor after she has become in possession of herself and has acquired knowledge of the past solicitation."

3. Finally, it is not required that the provocation or shameful conversation have been begun by the confessor; it suffices that they were begun by the penitent and that the confessor consented, provided however that he did or said something shameful, even if he immediately desists from it.⁸ Nor does it stand in the way that the confessor consented after being induced by fear.⁹

¹ Cf. De Smet, De absolutione complicis et sollicitatione, 2nd ed., n. 40.

² Holy Office, February 11, 1661, responses 6 and 7.

³ Constitution Cum sicut nuper, § 4; Constitution Sacramentum Poenitentiae, § 1; Instruction of the Holy Office, February 20, 1867, response 1.

⁴ Holy Office, February 11, 1661, response 3.

⁵ September 2, 1904.

⁶ Constitution Sacramentum Poenitentiae, § 1; Holy Office, February 11, 1661, response 1; Proposition 6 condemned by Alexander VII (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 1106).

⁷ May 11, 1707.

⁸ Holy Office, February 11, 1661, response 2; February 20, 1867, response 2 (Collectanea, n. 1282).

⁹ Holy Office, February 11, 1661, response 9.

VII. In one of the circumstances soon to be set forth. Namely, it is required that the solicitation or dishonest conversation have a connection with the sacrament of Penance, and indeed that they have place "either in the act of sacramental confession, or before or immediately after confession, or on the occasion or pretext of confession" ("even if confession itself has not followed," adds the Constitution Cum sicut nuper),¹ "or even outside the occasion of confession in the confessional, whether in another place destined or chosen for hearing confessions, with simulation of hearing confession there."² It is said:

1. In the act of sacramental confession, that is, once the accusation of the penitent has been begun, even if after the solicitation or shameful conversation the confession is not completed (St. Alphonsus, VI, 676).

2. Before or immediately after confession. The word "immediately" regards both before and after, so that the sense is "either immediately before or immediately after confession." This is clear both from the grammatical construction in the Constitution of Gregory XV, and from the fact that otherwise the time preceding confession would not be determined. Moreover the aforesaid word must be understood in a rather strict sense, so that no other serious action or grave business intervenes between confession and solicitation (St. Alphonsus, VI, 677).

3. On the occasion of confession; this has place: 1. if the confessor and the penitent are already actually prepared for confession, for example if the confessor is already seated and the penitent is already kneeling or about to kneel; 2. according to St. Alphonsus and others, with others contradicting, if the confessor invites someone to make confession immediately; if the penitent asks the confessor to hear his or her confession immediately; if the confessor, from the confession heard, for instance from the revealed frailty of the penitent, takes occasion afterward to solicit the penitent. The reason for all these is that in the cases enumerated the solicitation is rightly said to be made on the occasion of confession, since in the first two cases confession is proposed as immediately to be made, but in the later case³ confession furnished occasion or impulse for the solicitation (St. Alphonsus, VI, 678). Practically, however, a confessor who from a confession heard took occasion afterward to solicit the penitent will scarcely ever have to be denounced; both because it will not easily be clear that he was led to a gravely dishonest act from the knowledge received, for it could have happened that he sinned, or at least sinned gravely, from a conversation begun or from prolonged association; and because denunciation in the case can scarcely be made without defamation of the penitent himself or herself.

The case, at least practically, should not be judged to be present if the confessor invites, or the penitent asks, that confession be made not immediately but afterward.⁴

4. On the pretext of confession; this case is held, with sufficient probability, only when the confessor himself, with respect to the very person to be solicited, proposes confession with the intention of soliciting. The case is not held: 1. if the confessor, under pretext of hearing confession, obtains from the Superior permission to visit a person whom he then solicits to shameful things, because the pretext was not with respect to the solicited person; 2. if the confessor, lest household members accompany him, puts forward as a pretext that he is going to hear the confession of a sick woman, whom he afterward solicits. The reason again is that the pretext was only with respect to the household members; 3. if a woman under pretext of confession summons the confessor and afterward perpetrates sin with him, because the pretext did not arise from the confessor. But the case seems to be present "if the confessor were to solicit outside confession, and the woman refused, fearing defamation; and therefore the confessor persuaded her that, feigning herself sick, she should summon him for sinning. For then the confessor is rightly said to have solicited the woman under the pretext of confession to furnish consent" (St. Alphonsus, VI, 679).

5. Outside the occasion of confession in the confessional, or in another place destined or chosen for hearing confessions, with simulation of hearing confession there. In order that someone be denounced by force of this clause, it is required: 1. that he solicited or had a shameful conversation in the confessional, or in another place destined or chosen for hearing confessions; and 2. that he did these things while simulating confession. Moreover:

a) A place destined for hearing confessions is a place which, although it lacks the customary form of a confessional, is nevertheless stably destined for hearing confessions, as for example a cell in which there is a seat for the confessor and a kneeler for the penitent; or also, for instance in the sacristy or in the parlor, the very chair for the confessor together with a kneeler for the penitent.

A place chosen for hearing confessions is any other place, for instance the room of a sick person, provided however that at least by one or the other party it has truly been chosen for instituting confession.

b) Besides this, simulation of confession is required. A simulated confession is had if those who are present must judge from the circumstances, or those who would be present would have to judge from the circumstances, that true confession is being instituted. Now some hold that simulation of confession is not required if the solicitation takes place in the confessional. But this is deservedly rejected, since: 1. the rule of law is, "A clause placed in the last place is referred to all the connected preceding things"; 2. the Holy Office agrees.⁵ Here, however, note that simulation of confession is present of itself (that is, unless positive indications to the contrary are had), if the confessor and penitent are either in the confessional or in a place destined for hearing confessions; and is absent of itself (that is, unless positive indications to the contrary are at hand), if they are in a place only chosen for hearing confessions.

¹ Constitution Cum sicut nuper.

² Constitution Sacramentum Poenitentiae, § 1.

³ Santi-Leitner (Praelectiones Iuris Canonici, p. 230) appeal to a rescript of the Sacred Penitentiary inspected by them, in which this case is considered as comprehended by the law. Cf. De Smet, cited work, p. 46.

⁴ Holy Office, February 11, 1661, response 4.

⁵ February 11, 1661, response 15.

Question 1. Whether one who is certainly amended must be denounced.

Response. The affirmative answer must be given, both because the law does not distinguish, nor do authentic declarations found this exception; because the law intends to instill fear into all, and this end is obtained more securely if even one amended must be denounced; and because the more benign opinion gives an occasion for weakening the law. Nevertheless, in the denunciation mention should be made of the amendment (St. Alphonsus, VI, 686). Therefore only a deceased priest is excepted.¹ Some extend this to a priest who, worn out by old age and impeded by chronic illnesses, is now never going to hear confessions. But that seems altogether to be rejected for the reasons just given.

Question 2. Whether someone must be denounced in doubt whether the required solicitation took place.

Response. The answer is negative, because a law does not oblige in doubt about the fact founding the law (vol. I, n. 228). There is added that no one is to be deprived of reputation in doubt. Therefore denunciation can be omitted: 1. in doubt whether the crime here required was present; 2. in doubt whether the crime was committed in the circumstances required by law; 3. in doubt who was the soliciting confessor, unless the judge can become certain about the person soliciting from the indicated circumstances. Sometimes, however, circumstances can be such that the common good demands some denunciation (St. Alphonsus, VI, 702).

Note. The crime of solicitation is not reserved by common law.²

¹ Holy Office, March 6, 1839; Sacred Penitentiary, April 24, 1884.

² Holy Office, September 15, 1859.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

642. The obligation of denouncing those who solicit. - The grave obligation of denouncing those who solicit is present not only generally from natural law, by which all are bound to this if it is necessary for removing scandal; but also specially from positive ecclesiastical law, by which solicited penitents are obliged within a month, and indeed under penalty of excommunication latae sententiae reserved to no one.

The end of this precept is not only the amendment of a particular person, but rather the public security of the sacrament and of souls, to be obtained from the certain chastisement of the crime and from the unavoidable fear of confessors.

According to this statute of the law:

A. All and only priests are to be denounced, even those not approved or lacking jurisdiction (Holy Office, February 11, 1661, n. 5; and February 20, 1867, n. 2), whether secular or regular, of whatever preeminence or dignity (episcopal dignity nevertheless probably excepted, as we noted above, n. 640, 3), soliciting by themselves; - but not mere interpreters or messengers of solicitation, or those commanding or counseling it, according to the Holy Office, February 11, 1661, n. 6 and 7.

They are to be denounced, even if they at once repented of the solicitation made or if, solicitation having been begun, they at once ceased (ibid., n. 2), or if they were induced by grave fear (ibid., n. 9), or if they solicited a penitent not noticing the malice of the sin (Holy Office, May 11, 1707); - even if the crime was committed a long time ago and remained occult or cannot be juridically proved (prop. 5, condemned by Alexander VII, September 24, 1665), or no admonition or fraternal correction preceded (Alexander VII, April 8, 1660); - or they themselves have departed to a distant land or are now amended, indeed those who have spontaneously denounced themselves (Holy Office, July 26, 1628), or have even been fully convicted and punished by a judge (Holy Office, February 11, 1661, n. 13), especially if there is question of a new crime or of the solicitation of another: provided they are still living; - but not the dead (Holy Office, May 27, 1707, and March 6, 1839; Sacred Penitentiary, April 24, 1884).

For the end of the law is not the amendment of the one soliciting alone, nor his punishment alone, but both at once; wherefore those also are to be denounced who are now amended or already punished, because the total end of the law has not yet ceased; but not the dead, because the end can no longer be obtained, but has totally ceased. Wherefore if some have been judicially fully convicted of the crime to be denounced, and at the same time appear fully and perfectly amended, so that relapse does not seem to be feared, there would no longer be an obligation of denouncing; but this scarcely holds in practice, since, considering the strict secrecy to be kept in cases of this kind, it is scarcely ever clear for what crime the priest was convicted and punished.

B. Solicited penitents are obliged to denounce, even if they did not understand the solicitation and only later recognized it (Holy Office, May 11, 1707), or, on the contrary (Holy Office, July 25 and September 27, 1624), themselves consented, or first solicited so that the solicitation was mutual, since they can keep this silent, indeed even deny it if, may it not happen, they are questioned about it from above (Holy Office, July 25, 1624, and February 20, 1867, n. 6); - even if a long interval of time has intervened (prop. 6 condemned by Alexander VII), the crime has remained occult and there is defect of proof, or if they promised or swore that they would never denounce, because a promise concerning an illicit thing does not hold, and an oath cannot bind to iniquity; - indeed if denunciation has already been made by another: for the law constrains each of the solicited.

Yet they are excused:

1. On account of the death of the soliciting priest, as was said.

2. On account of great extrinsic inconvenience, as long as it lasts (Holy Office, February 21, 1630, and February 20, 1867, n. 5): thus a notable harm or grave danger in the goods of life, reputation, or fortune, also, probably, for very near blood-relatives, unless from omission the common good of religion would be gravely endangered; likewise moral impossibility, which in certain regions can be had rather easily, of making the denunciation either orally or by letters (Holy Office, February 21, 1630, and January 22, 1727); - but not inconvenience intrinsic to the precept, such as fear of incurring a certain indignation before the one soliciting, shame in manifesting the solicitation, danger of a light inconvenience or a light danger of a graver one; nor even danger of one's own infamy or publicity, which is not given on account of the precautions customarily employed.

3. On account of dispensation of the Holy Office, which is rarely granted; nevertheless it can be sought if the penitent, even irrationally, altogether refuses that he will make denunciation (Holy Office, February 20, 1867, n. 7): for sometimes, if too great a repugnance of the penitent is present, or not so great a utility of denunciation, dispensation can be granted.

Besides the penitent himself, in the new law it now seems that it cannot be urged that others who certainly know the solicitation are obliged to denounce by force of ecclesiastical law. For canon 904 expressly says: the penitent; although nevertheless excellent authors, such as De Smet and Vermeersch, defend that the old law still stands in force in this matter; but this is not certain. Yet those who knew the matter from professional secrecy never had to denounce; nor did the soliciting confessor himself have to denounce himself (Holy Office, November 17, 1624), although, if he does this, he will be treated more mildly and will be immune from vindictive penalties, not however always from medicinal penalties (Holy Office, February 20, 1867, n. 13).

C. Confessors are bound under grave obligation to admonish penitents concerning the obligation of denouncing, even if the latter in good faith are ignorant of the obligation, and it is foreseen that they will refuse to denounce (Holy Office, February 20, 1867, n. 3): for the common good demands this; - with the sole exception of the article of death, lest penitents be cast into danger of damnation. Moreover confessors must teach the obligation of denouncing, the time within which it is to be fulfilled, the penalty to be incurred, and the manner of making denunciation.

If penitents refuse to denounce without a grave excusing reason, they are not to be absolved, as being indisposed (Holy Office, February 20, 1867, n. 5); but the confessor can have recourse to the Sacred Penitentiary or the Holy Office, to receive instructions or even to obtain a dispensation.

Nor are they freed from the obligation by the fact that they confess before the soliciting confessor himself, who is not bound to admonish them against himself, as is clear from the very words of the pontifical Constitutions; Alexander VII condemned proposition 7: "The way of avoiding the obligation of solicitation is if the one solicited confesses with the one soliciting: this latter can absolve him without the burden of denouncing."