Those who Must Denounce

I. The persons who are bound to denounce are:

1. The solicited persons themselves (can. 904 and 2368, § 2), even immature persons. One who because of simplicity did not understand the solicitation is bound "after he or she has become in possession of himself or herself and has acquired knowledge of the past solicitation."¹ Moreover the solicited persons themselves, and they alone, are bound under penalty of excommunication according to canon 2368, § 2, as follows: "But the faithful person who knowingly has omitted, within a month, to denounce the one by whom he or she was solicited, contrary to the prescription of canon 904, incurs an excommunication latae sententiae reserved to no one, and is not to be absolved unless after he or she has satisfied the obligation or has seriously promised that he or she will satisfy it." Immature persons, however, are not liable to excommunication (can. 2230). It is said "within a month," that is, within a month from the obligation having become known. Moreover the solicited person is bound, even if he or she cannot prove the crime (St. Alphonsus, VI, 695).

2. It is disputed whether others who know the crime with sufficient certainty are bound to denunciation. Moreover the guilty person certainly is not bound to denounce himself.² Likewise, as regards others, who certainly are not bound under censure, once the law set forth is considered, the negative answer is given with sufficient probability, because canon 904 speaks only of the solicited penitent. The Code indeed refers to the apostolic constitutions; but, apart from the fact that the apostolic constitutions do not speak of others,³ the Code declares only that the penitent is bound according to the norm of the said constitutions. It is clear, however, that others can be obligated by reason of the common good to be protected, and this also by force of canon 1935, § 2.

¹ Holy Office, May 11, 1707.

² Holy Office, November 17, 1626.

³ Others, however, before the Code were bound to denounce (Holy Office, February 11, 1661, response 14; March 10, 1677).

II. Causes excusing from the obligation. From the obligation there excuse, or at least suspend it:

1. Grave extrinsic damage or inconvenience prudently feared. The case could be present if the priest to be denounced were one who supported the solicited person; likewise if a sick person would be so disturbed by this burden that the illness would be aggravated. When the inconvenience ceases, the obligation urges.

2. An entrusted secret, but not a natural or promised secret. "No one," says St. Alphonsus, "is bound to a secret, even promised by oath, when the secret tends toward common damage. But otherwise ... if the solicitation was manifested for the purpose of asking counsel; for disclosure of the secret would then be contrary to human intercourse, and also contrary to the public good, which certainly intervenes in counsels being sought" (VI, 698).

3. In remote regions, impossibility of approaching the competent Authority without grave inconvenience excuses.¹

Intrinsic inconvenience does not excuse, such as the shame of the solicited person, or fear of arousing hatred of the one denounced.² A truly founded fear of one's own infamy, however, would excuse (St. Alphonsus, VI, 681). Nevertheless, here observe that the circumstance that the denouncing person first solicited, or consented to the solicitation, would not excuse. Still, the person cannot be questioned about consent, nor is he or she bound to manifest it; and if it is manifested, it cannot be noted in the acts.³ Moreover, "if a person known to the Ordinary himself fears some infamation from the denunciation to be made before him, the Sacred Penitentiary, having been consulted, will delegate a confessor to receive the denunciation in the name of the Holy See and to transmit it to that Apostolic See."⁴

¹ Holy Office, January 22, 1727 (Collectanea, n. 308); May 20, 1842 (Collectanea, n. 949).

² Note that the name of the denouncer is never to be manifested to the priest.

³ Holy Office, July 25, 1624; February 20, 1867.

⁴ Planchard, De Const. Bened. XIV quae incipit "Sacra Poen.", p. 48, note.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

591. (A) On the obligation itself. By natural law those who certainly know of solicitation are bound under grave obligation, from charity, to denounce the one soliciting, lest he cause the ruin of many souls. Benedict XIV confirmed this natural obligation by a positive precept for solicited penitents (above, n. 583), and the Code, which strikes with a major excommunication latae sententiae reserved to no one the faithful person "who knowingly shall have omitted to denounce within a month him by whom he was solicited" (can. 2368, § 2).

From this it is clear that only solicited penitents incur this excommunication; others who certainly know the fact of solicitation are indeed bound to denounce under grave obligation, as the Holy Office declared,¹ but not under penalty of excommunication.

¹ Instruction of the year 1867, § 3, where it is said: "Denunciations of this kind can be omitted by no one without mortal fault."

Moreover, for solicited penitents to incur excommunication, it is required (a) that the obligation of denouncing be certain; (b) that the omission of denunciation be culpable, i.e., with knowledge of the obligation and of the censure, and at the same time without legitimate excuse; (c) that the time useful for denunciation have elapsed, i.e., one month from the time at which the solicited person knew his or her obligation and the censure attached to it.

Hence absolution cannot be given to this penitent unless he has made the denunciation or at least has seriously promised to make it. But if someone has incurred this excommunication, and afterwards has denounced the one soliciting, he can be absolved by a simple confessor, since the excommunication is reserved to no one.

592. (B) Who are bound to denounce? By ecclesiastical law, solicited penitents are bound to denunciation; by natural law, all who otherwise, from persons worthy of faith, certainly know that this crime has been committed, even prepubescents;² unless, however, they have known it under an entrusted secret; for the natural right of an entrusted secret is prior, and demands that this secret be faithfully preserved.

² Yet prepubescents probably cannot be compelled to this before they have attained puberty; and if they denounce before that time, their testimony does not furnish juridical proof, but only an indication for inquiring further. Cf. Rota, n. 388-389.

(a) Nor is it required that the crime can be juridically proved, but it suffices that it be morally certain; likewise it must be denounced, even if hidden, or already committed a long time ago.

(b) This is true even if the confessor has already been amended, except probably the case in which the amendment has been so conspicuous and enduring that no fear of relapse can be had, especially if he has already entered a Religious Order.

(c) He must be denounced even if he has already been convicted and punished, if he offends again; indeed if he has not been fully convicted and punished, although he does not offend again; yet probably the obligation ceases if he has been fully convicted and punished and has not offended again, since the end of the law has already been obtained.

(d) But he who is already dead is by no means to be denounced, because the whole end of the law has already ceased, namely both the amendment and the punishment of the guilty person. The same can probably be said if the offender is already broken in strength and about to die, so that he is likely never to hear confessions in the future.

But the soliciting confessor himself is not bound to denunciation, because no one is bound to betray himself; hence neither is he bound to admonish the solicited person concerning the burden of denunciation. - Nor probably are the blood-relatives and relatives by marriage of the soliciting priest bound, at least in the first degrees, because they are considered one moral person with him, and graver evils can follow from such a denunciation.

593. (C) What cause excuses from denunciation? - Principle: Since here there is question of a positive precept of the Church, although a very grave one, a very grave inconvenience, even private, excuses from its execution; unless, however, public scandal or common damage is at the same time introduced: for then by natural law denunciation must be made, unless there is present a very grave inconvenience which is also public.

594. Conclusions. (a) A grave danger of life, reputation, or fortune, about to arise from denunciation, excuses, provided it is prudently estimated and not fictitious; extrinsic to the denunciation, and not intrinsic to it, such as the fear of incurring the indignation of the one soliciting¹, or shame in manifesting the solicitation, or other things of this kind, which do not excuse; nor avoidable in any way: for if it can be avoided, means for removing it must be employed and the denunciation made.

¹ Otherwise denunciation can and must be made in such a way that the one denouncing is not known by the one soliciting; this is often possible; for Superiors cannot proceed against the offender except after two or three accusations, so that the one soliciting often cannot know by whom he was denounced.

Hence he would be excused who could not denounce the one soliciting without betraying himself as guilty. Yet this rarely happens; for the solicited penitent can keep back his own consent, nor is he questioned about it; hence, even if intercourse intervened, or the solicitation was mutual, the penitent is not bound to manifest this, but can say: such a confessor conducted himself badly with me, or spoke badly in the matter of chastity, and I can declare nothing further.

(b) Moral impotence of personally approaching the competent judge likewise excuses, for as long as it lasts; for denunciation, as being judicial, must be made personally and by the living voice, under penalty of nullity, and therefore those who cannot appear before the judge are dispensed from it. But they are bound to employ means which render it possible, namely to manifest the matter to the Bishop, by letter or through a procurator, so that he may be able to provide, for example, by delegating an ecclesiastical man before whom the solicited person can make the denunciation.

(c) A danger of publicity and scandal prudently estimated also excuses; yet this occurs very rarely, since the denunciation must be made and remain most secret.

(d) Sometimes also to a penitent wholly unwilling to denounce there is granted a dispensation from the burden of denunciation, either total (which rarely happens, at least the first time), or partial, namely from certain juridical solemnities.

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

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

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

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

⁴⁵⁷ Holy Office, February 20, 1867.

⁴⁵⁸ Code of Canon Law, c. 2368, § 2.

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

⁴⁶⁰ Code of Canon Law, c. 904.

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."