IV. SATISFACTION
33. The Imposition of Penance by the Confessor.
There is no question here of satisfaction in the wider sense which includes the restitution to be made for the infliction of spiritual or temporal loss. The subject which we propose to treat of is satisfaction in its restricted meaning (satisfactio). It consists in the performance of those works of penance which according to the Council of Trent[381] are designed to preserve the new life acquired in the Sacrament, to repair the languor which remains as a relic of past sin, and at the same time to serve as a punishment for sin. As after the recovery from a severe illness the body is weakened, so after a spiritual cure the soul retains a weakness and an inclination to fall back into sin; moreover, as the Church teaches, the remission of guilt and eternal punishment does not always include the remission of all temporal punishment. The penance is imposed with a view of removing the last traces of weakness and of paying the debt of temporal punishment; under its first aspect it is called pœna medicinalis, under the second, pœna vindicativa.
This satisfaction is partly sacramental, partly extra-sacramental. The sacramental portion consists in the works which the confessor imposes in virtue of the power of the keys; the extra-sacramental in the works freely undertaken by the penitent, as well as in the patient submission to the sufferings and crosses of this life. We are dealing at present with sacramental satisfaction, which is an integral part of the Sacrament, as it is immediately connected with the power of the keys, and which is more efficacious as atonement in consequence of the application of the merits of Jesus Christ.[382]
Both confessor and penitent have obligations with respect to this satisfaction. We will first consider the duty of the confessor in the matter.
I. The confessor is bound to impose some penance on every penitent who receives absolution and who is capable of doing penance.
The tradition of the Fathers, the constant practice of the Church, and the express declaration of the Council of Trent agree in maintaining that the penance is an integral part of the Sacrament. The text of the Council[383] runs as follows: “It is therefore the duty of priests to impose, as reason and prudence may suggest, wholesome and appropriate penances with due regard for the nature of the sin and the strength of the penitent, lest, by being indulgent towards sin and treating the penitent too tenderly in giving the very lightest penance for grave sins they become themselves participators in the sins of others. Let them keep in view that the satisfaction which they impose is designed not only to preserve the new life and to heal infirmity but also to punish and destroy past sin; for the power of the keys was given not only to loose but also to bind.” The confessor must impose a penance not only when mortal sins, but also when venial sins, or mortal sins already absolved, are confessed. As often as absolution is given a penance must be imposed—(a) because the penance belongs to the integrity of the Sacrament, (b) that the penitent may not be deprived of the sacramental fruits of satisfaction, (c) that justice and right may be done.
II. This duty of imposing a penance urges per se sub peccato mortali when there is question of mortal sins not yet remitted by the power of the keys; where the matter is only venial sin or materia libera, the obligation is binding only sub levi.
Hence a priest sins mortally by failing to give a penance to a penitent who confesses sins not yet directly forgiven; in the case of a penitent who presents only materia libera, the confessor sins venially (probabiliter) ob parvitatem materiæ.
III. At times there may be no sin in failing to give a penance. This can happen:—
(a) When absolution is given to a penitent in articulo mortis, especially if he be unconscious. St. Alphonsus, however, recommends, and laudably, that even a dying penitent should receive some light and easy penance, if there be time to do it and the penitent can perform it, e.g. to kiss the crucifix, to pronounce the names of Jesus and Mary, or to make at least an internal act of love in order that the Sacrament may have its due complement and the dying person gain some fruit from the sacramental satisfaction. The confessor might himself help the penitent by reciting the prayers for him, holding the crucifix to him; this will also be a means of comforting and consoling the dying man.[384]
(b) If a perplexed or scrupulous penitent returns frequently to confess sins that he had forgotten, and if nearly every time there is reason for giving absolution, the confessor satisfies his obligations by again imposing the previous penance without adding another or by prescribing it as sufficient for all the sins mentioned in confession.[385]
IV. The confessor is bound to give a suitable and wholesome penance, punitive as well as medicinal, proportioned to the number and gravity of the sins and adapted to the individual penitent. This is the express teaching of the Council of Trent.[386]
The choice of the penance is not left to the caprice of the confessor. Special directions are laid down for him by the Church, and these he must follow sub gravi. The Council draws a distinction between pœnæ vindicativæ and medicinales, and the confessor has to inflict these in his capacity of judge and healer of souls. But to avoid misunderstanding it must be borne in mind that the whole power and authority of inflicting penances or of binding the faithful is vested in the confessor as judge.
As physician the great object of the confessor must be to heal the wounds of the soul and to provide against relapses, but here he can only insist on the necessary means, and that simply because he expresses what the penitent is bound to do already by natural and divine law.
The case is quite different when we regard the confessor as judge; in this capacity he has power to punish and bind the penitent. In the choice of the works of penance which he imposes in his quality of judge, he may use his knowledge as physician, and it is a course to be commended if he imposes such penances as will help to salvation, heal the spiritual maladies and safeguard the penitent against relapses.[387] In this way the confessor falls in with the prescriptions of the Council by giving penances which are in part punitive, in part medicinal; they are punitive if in any way they oppose our sensuality or our pride; and they are medicinal when they are of a kind to cut away the causes and roots of sin, to mortify our irregular inclinations, to strengthen the will, to remove occasions of sin, to save us from relapses and to confirm us in virtue. In accordance with the maxim “contraria contrariis curantur” those good works are generally prescribed which are directly contrary to the sins committed, hence the prescription of the Roman ritual to impose as penances almsgiving upon the avaricious, fasting or other bodily mortifications upon the sensual, humiliating works upon the proud, exercises of devotion for the tepid.[388]
All works of satisfaction or penance may be reduced to the three heads of Prayer, Fasting, Almsdeeds. Under prayer, for instance, may be grouped all works of piety and devotion, particularly everything that may be understood as related to the knowledge of God; more frequent prayer, daily examination of conscience, daily Mass, meditation (especially on the sufferings and death of Jesus Christ and the four last things), spiritual reading, more frequent confession, frequent repetition of acts of the theological virtues, thought of the presence of God, devotion to our Blessed Lady—all of which are irksome and contrary to our corrupt nature and partake in consequence of the nature of a penance. Under the head of fasting may be included not only abstention from meat and drink, but every kind of mortification, hence the denial of even lawful pleasures, early rising in the morning, the cutting down of little comforts, kneeling at prayer, etc. And under almsgiving we may comprise all works of corporal and spiritual mercy.
These three classes of good works correspond to the three roots of sin,—the concupiscence of the flesh, the concupiscence of the eyes and the pride of life; for fasting is directed against the concupiscence of the flesh, almsgiving against the concupiscence of the eyes, and prayer against the pride of life.[389]
Even purely interior acts (opera mere interiora) may be imposed: some theologians contradict this statement on the plea that human authority is not empowered to enjoin such acts, but here the question is not about human authority but of divine power given to men.[390]
The confessor may also give as a penance works to be done for the souls in purgatory, for though this satisfaction in se is directed to the benefit of the holy souls it is a good work, and by its union with the Sacrament has power ex opere operato to lessen the temporal debt of the penitent.[391]
Indeed the confessor may impose as penance some good work which has already been started, not precisely as a good work but so far as it expresses under the new circumstances obedience, humility, and the denial of one’s own will. It may be observed, however, what St. Alphonsus remarks, that it is rarely advisable to impose such a penance even with another good work attached.
A work which one is already bound to do may be imposed as a penance since it may be ex natura sua satisfactory and is capable of acquiring a greater satisfactory effect; but such work can be considered as a sacramental penance only when the confessor has expressly declared so, nor is it advisable that such works should be so imposed, unless indeed there exist some urgent reason for it on the part of the penitent,—his weakness, for example. If such work (aliunde debitum) be imposed, its omission is a double sin.[392]
A penance may be given to be performed in case of a relapse, according to the opinion of eminent theologians such as Suarez, Laymann, and St. Alphonsus Liguori; so that if the condition be fulfilled, i.e. if the sinner relapse, the penance must be carried out. A confessor giving only a penance of that kind would be very far from satisfying his obligations.[393]
A public penance, i.e., a penance to be done before others, of such a nature that bystanders could infer that the penitent had incurred grave sin, cannot be imposed by a confessor for secret sins, for such an infliction would be an indirect violation of the seal, and besides it is expressly forbidden by the Roman Ritual. For public sins a public penance may be inflicted, and the Council of Trent insists upon it as a way of repairing scandal. Here there is no breach of the seal, for it is question of notorious sin. The confessor should only insist, however, on a public penance when he is convinced of the necessity of that step for repairing scandal. If the confessor feels called upon to impose such a penance, and the penitent declines to do it, absolution cannot be given. In general, any scandal given may be set right by an evident reform in the life of the penitent, if, for instance, he approach the Sacraments more frequently, visit the Church, hear Mass, join a sodality, etc.[394] Moreover, not everything done in the presence of others, which the penitent could easily undertake of his own free will, need be regarded as a public penance. It need be no matter of anxiety to the confessor if the penitent reveals to others that such or such a practice is a penance imposed by the priest.
Finally the confessor must carefully avoid enjoining any practices which are needlessly repugnant to the penitent and which there is reason to fear he will shirk. For instance, telling the children to beg pardon of their parents, or the penitent to pray in the Church with the arms stretched out in the form of a cross. Lehmkuhl justly remarks that such penances are a clear sign of a confessor’s want of prudence and may give occasion to many sacrileges.[395]
There is left a large choice for the confessor in the matter of penances. He is bound, however, by the prescriptions of the Council of Trent to impose works of penance quantum spiritus et prudentia suggesserit, but also to consider the qualitas criminum and the facultas pœnitentium. Thus he must bear in mind the gravity of the sin and the condition of the penitent; in this way a prudent mean may be kept between too great mildness and excessive strictness. The priest should avoid being too easy, for fear, as the Council says, of participating in the guilt of others and sacrificing God’s cause to an indulgence which may be easily attributed to human respect or other unworthy causes. To avoid this danger the Roman Catechism recommends the study of the old penitential canons where each sin has its own fixed punishment. It is true that the discipline has been altered since then but its spirit remains, and the zeal of the priest for the cause of his Lord should be no less fervent than that of the first ages of the Church. On the other hand, however, undue rigor is to be avoided. The strictness should not be founded on self-love, prejudice, ostentation, nor on a naturally stern temperament, nor on want of common sense, etc., otherwise the penitent may be driven to despair, and souls lost instead of being won. The tribunal of penance should resemble as closely as possible God’s own tribunal, and as God is not only just but merciful, so the priest should never separate these two attributes. It is often a good thing to let the penitent know that he has deserved a severer penance, but that the ever gentle spirit of the Church imposes only a light one, leaving the penitent free to undertake other works of satisfaction if his zeal prompt him thereto. It is matter of experience that penances extended over too long a period do not always succeed in their object, for since they are frequently not performed they may easily prove a snare to the penitent instead of being a help. If the priest is in doubt whether to adopt a strict or a mild line of conduct in any particular case, he may recall the beautiful words of St. John Chrysostom:[396] “Is it not easier to render an account of excessive mercy than of excessive severity? Can the steward be close-handed where the master is so liberal? If, then, God is so good why should His minister be severe? If your object is to pose as a saint, be austere towards yourself and mild towards others.”[397]
V. For mortal sin a pœnitentia simpliciter gravis should be given, for venial sin a pœnitentia levis; and a confessor would sin gravely if without sufficient reason he should impose for mortal sin a pœnitentia in se levis, for he would neither punish the sin nor give his penitent the means of salvation. In the case of sins doubtfully mortal, whether considered subjectively or objectively, he is not obliged to impose a severe penance.[398]
Whatever in the present discipline of the Church is imposed sub gravi is considered as materia gravis for a penance. The following, for instance: five decades of the Rosary, the Litany of the Saints with the accompanying prayers; while as materia levis are reckoned: one psalm (of moderate length), the Litany of Loretto, five Our Fathers and five Hail Mary’s, etc. Any prayer corresponding in length to a little hour of the Breviary counts for materia levis, for though the omission of one of these little hours is a mortal sin, this is not in virtue of the prayer itself, but because the recitation of the Breviary is a public and official act and done in the name of the whole Church.
If the penitent has committed many mortal sins, the penance can hardly be increased in a strict proportion. In this case the imposition of a penance corresponding to one mortal sin is not sufficient unless special reasons exist for not giving a heavier penalty.
VI. There are many reasons for which a confessor may be justified in giving a smaller penance than is due to the number and gravity of the sins, and this diminution may be absolute as well as relative. For instance:—
1. A penitent is prostrated by a severe illness and unable to perform a longer penance. The priest should exhort him to offer up his sufferings as satisfaction for his sins, and if the sins have been very grave the priest ought to be willing to take upon himself part of the penance.[399]
2. When there is extraordinary sorrow. This in se is sufficient reason for diminishing the penance, for the greater such sorrow the greater is the remission of temporal punishment. On the other hand, such a penitent is willing to accept a very severe penance; and if we read of certain holy men imposing only a slight penance, we must remember that they either made up for it in their own person or induced the penitent to practice of his own free will some austerity.
3. A confessor may see that his penitent is very weak spiritually and not willing to carry out a severe penance, although he may have no doubt as to his contrition and resolution of amendment. Such a case may call for the expedient of adding to a small penance some other practices which the penitent must fulfill on other accounts, e.g. to hear Mass on Sunday, etc., and the confessor would do well to choose such practices as the penitent has been in the habit of neglecting.[400]
We will now mention the occasions in which a confessor may impose a penance in accordance, indeed, with the Church’s precepts as to materia gravis, but less than what seems proportioned to the number and gravity of the sins:—
1. When there is great, though not quite extraordinary, contrition.
2. On the occasion of a jubilee or some other plenary indulgence; but to refrain for such a reason from giving any penance at all would be quite wrong and against the distinct declaration of Benedict XIV, Constit. “Inter præteritos.”
3. When there is fear that the penitent, through spiritual weakness, may fail to perform the penance which would correspond to his sins.
4. When there is hope that a smaller penance will induce the penitent to receive the Sacraments oftener and with greater spiritual benefit; indeed, this seems to be the chief reason why the Church has tempered in our days the severity of her penitential discipline.
5. When the confessor intends to do the penance which he believes he dare not lay upon his penitent, as, for instance, when St. Francis Xavier disciplined himself to satisfy for the sins of his penitents. The sufficiency of this vicarious penance rests on the Catholic doctrine of the Communion of Saints. On the other hand, the proposition that a penitent can, of his own authority, appoint another to do the penance for him has been condemned by Alexander VII.
6. When there is hope of inducing the penitent by means of a smaller penance to do other good works on his own account.
7. When the penitent has already done penance and is in the habit of practicing good works.
It is, however, always recommended to tell the penitent that the penance is very much less than he deserves.[401]
VII. For venial sins or materia libera the confessor may impose a heavy or a light penance but not sub gravi; but if he imposes a light penance for mortal sin such penance may bind only sub levi, but the very fact of imposing a heavy penance for mortal sin means that the obligation is sub gravi, unless he expressly declares his intention of not so binding.[402]
In treating the question of the obligation on the penitent of carrying out the penance and the intention of the confessor in the matter, we must keep in mind the parallel instances of the binding force of laws. The legislator cannot bind the conscience sub gravi in a matter which, regarded objectively, is of small moment; while grave matter when prescribed ex gravi causa induces a strict obligation per se, though the legislator may have the power only to enforce it under pain of venial sin. This is the teaching of St. Alphonsus with the sententia communior et valde probabilis as regards the obligation of laws and the lawgiver. When, then, the confessor imposes a penance, he is at the same time passing a law which must be obeyed.
Many theologians deny that the confessor can impose for mortal sin a heavy penance only sub levi because he is simply God’s minister, and in consequence must act in accordance with the institution of the Sacrament without attempting to diminish its rigor.[403] On the other hand, the sententia communior et valde probabilis gives the confessor the right because, though he is the vicar of God, he is appointed by Christ as actual judge and legislator who, in virtue of his powers, looses by forgiving sin and binds by imposing penance; so that the obligation of the penance is not a consequence of the Sacrament but of the precept of the confessor.[404] Still the confessor would not be justified in practically disregarding the first opinion, for, as St. Alphonsus teaches, he must obey the Council of Trent in its decision that ordinarily a grave opus is to be imposed sub gravi even though the penance be slight in comparison to the number and heinousness of the sins. The opinion may, however, be used in this way. The confessor, after giving a severe penance sub gravi, may add a still more severe penance sub levi; if this latter be fulfilled by the penitent, he makes full sacramental satisfaction; if he neglect it, there is at least no great responsibility. St. Alphonsus notices that this is a very good way of dealing with weak penitents, for all good works have a satisfactory power and a weak penitent is thus not exposed to occasion of grave sin; at the same time what Aertnys observes is also to be borne in mind, namely, that in our days, owing to the decay of fervor, such a method is seldom to be recommended.[405]
The confessor may give the penance immediately after the absolution, but it is more correct to give it beforehand, as that is the custom in the Church, and the proper order of justice requires that the penitent should show himself disposed to undertake his penance before absolution is given.[406]
In concluding this article we give a list of penances which may be imposed according to the principles already given:—
Attendance at holy Mass, the Rosary or the Stations of the Cross (these should not be given to people who are not accustomed to the devotions, and in regard to the Stations of the Cross, the embarrassment that many experience in performing public devotions should be taken into account), the Seven Penitential Psalms, the Litany of the Saints, the Litany of Loretto or some other litany, the Prayer to the Five Wounds, to commend one’s self to the Sacred Hearts of Jesus and Mary morning and evening while reciting one Our Father and one Hail Mary, to say every day a certain number (not too many) of short prayers—e.g. to say the Hail Mary three times morning and evening (St. Alphonsus used to give his penitents this penance, adding the invocation “My Mother, preserve me from offending God this day,” and when the penitents were not accustomed to this form of devotion he used at least to recommend it), to examine the conscience daily and to excite acts of contrition, to read some short extracts from a pious book approved by the confessor, such as the Imitation of Christ, to make a meditation, or after reading carefully some subject such as the Four Last Things or the Sufferings of Christ to reflect upon it for a short while, to devote a short time every day to eliciting acts of Faith, Hope, and Charity, to hear sermons, to receive the Sacraments on certain fixed days, to renew the resolutions made at the last confession, not thoughtlessly but with all earnestness, and to hold to them steadfastly now in honor of the Sacred Heart, at another time in honor of the Blessed Virgin, and again in honor of some one among the saints with a petition for their help, to make some fervent ejaculation every time the clock strikes (when the confessor gives this or similar practices as a penance he might remind the penitents to make up the number of times missed if by chance they forget it).
Fasting (though this should be very seldom given and then only with great caution) or an occasional mortification at meal time; to refrain from some particular dish, or from wine or other intoxicating liquor, either for a fixed period or a certain number of times; still more prudence is to be exercised in imposing other bodily mortifications—indeed they should be permitted only with great reserve—praying with arms extended (unseen, of course, by others), to pray on bended knees, to rise at a fixed hour in the morning, to avoid unprofitable conversation, etc., to give alms, to visit the poor and the sick, to help them, and to do lowly offices for them, etc.[407]
Which of these penances should be imposed is a matter depending on the sins and disposition of the penitent. The choice of penance is an affair of considerable moment with regard to the well-being and reformation of the penitent, and it is a neglect of duty to impose on every occasion without distinction the recital of a prayer.
In addition, the confessor should observe the wholesome advice which has been given by men distinguished alike for sanctity and learning.
St. Antoninus writes:[408] “The priest should give such a penance as he thinks the penitent will perform. If a man, after accusing himself of grave sin, declares that he cannot do a severe penance, the confessor must reason with him, pointing out the gravity of his offenses and the severe punishments he has deserved, and after that give him some penance such as he can be persuaded to undertake; and if the priest does not obtain perfect success, he may rejoice, at least, that he has rescued a soul from hell if not from purgatory; hence, on no account, should he send a penitent away in despair or discouragement. It is better to give him a Pater Noster or some other slight penance and make the good works which he does or his sufferings supply for the rest. A man who shows real sorrow and is ready to do all that he ought, but declares that a heavy penance is beyond him should never, no matter how he may have sinned, be sent away without absolution lest he fall into despair.”
St. Charles Borromeo recommends the confessor to impose such penance as he thinks the man will do; hence he may occasionally ask the penitent if he can perform the penance given; and if the latter expresses his doubts about fulfilling it, the confessor may change the penance or make it easier.[409] The saint also appeals to St. Thomas Aquinas, who warns the confessor not to burden his penitents with heavy penances,[410] for as a smouldering fire may be put out by heaping too much fuel upon it, so the feeble contrition which has only just been excited in the heart of the penitent may be crushed out by a severe penance, and despair may be the consequence. Hence it is better to point out to the penitent what a big penance he deserves and to give him a smaller one such as he will be ready to fulfill, by which he will accustom himself to the bigger one which the confessor would not have ventured to impose.
Finally St. Alphonsus[411] may be heard on this subject: “How imprudent is the conduct of those priests who give penances which they foresee will never be done. Oh, how many ignorant confessors there are who thoughtlessly absolve penitents living in the proximate occasion of sin or in bad dispositions; and yet such confessors are persuaded for some incomprehensible reason that they are ministering to the health of souls by imposing heavy penances. The result is that the penitents, having agreed to the penance for fear of being refused absolution, relapse again, after a short time, because they were never taught to adopt any safeguards against sin, omit the penance, and, terrified by its severity, keep away from the Sacrament so as to spend a great portion of their lives in sin.”
34. The Acceptance and Performance of the Penance by the Penitent.
I. The penitent is obliged to accept willingly the penance imposed and to perform it exactly; for as the duty devolves on the priest of securing the integrity of the Sacrament by giving the penance, the penitent is, in turn, bound to accept it and carry it out.
The duty is of strict obligation ex genere suo, so that the penitent would sin gravely by omitting a grave penance imposed sub gravi, or a considerable portion of it. We have already seen what is to be considered grave in this matter.[412]
II. The penitent is obliged to perform the penance enjoined by the confessor, but no limit of time is determined within which it must be done. An unreasonably long delay, however, might easily become a grave matter.
To determine how far delay may involve grave sin we must take into consideration whether time is a substantial element in the penance. For example: (1) whether the confessor has fixed a day and of set purpose, for the appointing of a day does not always imply a fixed intention on the confessor’s part; indeed, generally speaking, it is not a mortal sin to postpone a fast appointed for Friday to the following Saturday.[413] (2) If some work has been prescribed to be done within a given time after the confession, and it is the intention of the confessor that there should be no interruption, its omission, even for one day if it amount to a materia gravis, may be a mortal sin, unless the confessor has given leave to substitute one day for another or where his consent to a change may be fairly presumed. (3) If the postponement of the work imposed reduced the penance to little or nothing, as, for example, if the confessor enjoined on the penitent to approach the Sacraments in a week and the penitent put it off for a month; to delay the weekly communion for a day or two or the monthly communion to a period not longer than a week would, apart from other considerations, amount only to a venial sin.[414]
There is no mortal sin in putting off the penance even for a considerable time as long as the time fixed for its performance is not a substantial part of the work imposed. A delay of six months would, according to St. Alphonsus, certainly constitute a mortal sin; the great factor in determining the gravity of the offense will be the danger of forgetting the penance or of being unable to carry it out.[415]
If a penance is enjoined which has to be performed daily for a considerable period, and which is also a work prescribed by the commandments of the Church, it may be presumed that the confessor never intended a double performance of the work unless he expressly declared such an intention. On the other hand, if it is enjoined once or twice or even oftener without indicating any special day, the penitent cannot satisfy the double obligation by the one act; for example, a man who is told to hear Mass three times cannot satisfy by making one of the Masses the Sunday Mass of obligation, unless this be expressly granted by his confessor, nor would he fulfill his duty by hearing three Masses simultaneously, because such would never be the intention of the confessor. If, however, a man is enjoined to hear Mass daily, he is not obliged to hear two Masses on Sundays.[416] If the penitent has certain prayers to say for his penance, they may be recited during a Mass of obligation, for the two duties may be fulfilled at the same time unless the confessor rule it otherwise. It is a useful and excellent practice to remind the penitent that he may say his penance during the time of Mass, especially if his circumstances be such that he can hardly command other available time.[417]
If the penitent fails to perform his penance within the prescribed time, he is not on that account freed from the obligation of accomplishing it; for the confessor intends first the penance, then the time-limit, and the latter is fixed non ad finiendam sed ad urgendam obligationem.
Even when the penitent has fallen into mortal sin, he may still perform his penance and so satisfy his obligation in that matter, but he does not obtain the fruits of satisfaction. When the penitent does what he has been told he fulfills substantially his duty; the manner or mode of fulfilling it (namely, in the state of grace) does not come under the command. By the fact, however, of not being in the state of grace his works cannot be de condigno satisfactory, and so cannot merit for him the release from temporal punishment. It is certain that no new mortal sin is contracted by a penitent who performs his penance in a state of mortal sin, though, according to a probable opinion supported by St. Alphonsus,[418] there is a venial sin in consequence of the hindrance offered to the effects of the Sacrament. Some theologians[419] also teach that when such a penitent regains the state of grace (obice remoto) the penance effects satisfaction and remission of temporal punishment ex opere operato, and this doctrine is valde probabilis.
In addition to the sacramental satisfaction the penitent should undertake some penance on his own initiative, especially where that enjoined by the priest is small with regard to the gravity of the sin. This extra-sacramental satisfaction will be supplemented by the prayer in which the Church, in virtue of the merits of Christ and His saints, confers on extra-sacramental works the power of reducing the debt of temporal punishment.
35. The Commutation of the Penance.
If, for some good reason, the penitent discovers that the penance is too severe, he should mention the circumstance to his confessor that he may change it; and if the penitent has undertaken a penance which later on presents great difficulties in its fulfilment, he should consult some priest equipped with the necessary powers for a commutation.
But there should be a good reason, and not mere weakness, sensuality, or laziness, which usually counsel avoidance of all severity and self-conquest or sacrifice for God and the good of one’s soul. Self-love and self-indulgence easily persuade us that what is difficult is impossible, and we have seen that the very aim of penance is to punish in the strict sense of the word; it ought to be both a chastisement and a means of salvation. If the penitent shrinks from the penance and asks for a mitigation, the confessor should in all kindness consider the motive and act accordingly. If he can find no sufficient reason but only a pretext of self-love and self-indulgence, he must tell the penitent so and endeavor to persuade him to undertake the penance, otherwise absolution cannot be given. When the petition is reasonable the penance may be changed.
A reasonable penance cannot be declined by the penitent without his incurring thereby grave sin, for when once he has submitted his case to the confessor he ought to abide by the latter’s decision, since the law of God requires that the confessor should inflict a suitable penance and that the penitent should accept it.[420] There is, however, a great difference between refusing a penance and asking for its mitigation. Under no circumstances may the penitent himself change the penance, even for a work objectively more perfect, for the sacramental satisfaction must be imposed by the minister of the Sacrament, and the penitent has no right to annul or commute on his own authority the sentence pronounced by the judge.
If, now, the penitent is convinced on sufficient grounds that the penance is exorbitant and he cannot persuade the confessor to make it easier, he is at liberty to go away without absolution and present his case to another priest, repeating, of course, his confession.[421] If, however, his grounds are defective, he may easily incur a venial sin by such procedure.[422] A really well-disposed penitent, therefore, will hardly incur grave sin if, conscious of his weakness, he objects to a penance as too hard and seeks absolution from another confessor, so long, of course, as he does not seek out one who is known for his criminal laxity.
If a man after absolution finds the penance too difficult of performance, he may get it changed either by the same priest or by another.
This commutation can be made only in confession, in virtue of the absolution which has been already given or is to be given, for it is only the absolution by which an effect ex opere operato can be produced in the penitent, and it is the absolution which gives the satisfactory efficacy ex opere operato to the penance which has been or is to be imposed.[423]
Hence the confessor immediately after the absolution can certainly change the penance because, morally speaking, the judicial action is still in progress. Though some theologians extend this power (of changing the penance in virtue of the absolution imparted) over two or three days, the preference is to be given to the opinion of St. Alphonsus,[424] who restricts the period to the time immediately after the absolution, for, as a matter of fact, the judicium sacramentale is then completed. If, however, the penitent and confessor are of the other opinion, which is not devoid of extrinsic probability, they may act upon it, since it is not a question of an essential part of the Sacrament; if there were question of the essence of the Sacrament, an injury would be done both to the Sacrament and its recipient by following a doubtful opinion.[425]
Any other priest can commute the penance only in virtue of a new absolution which he himself gives.
The question now arises whether the penitent ought to repeat his confession with a view to obtain another penance. If he applies to the same confessor, he is certainly not obliged if the latter retain some notion in confuso of the penitent’s conscience; if the penitent goes to another priest, according to an opinion considered as probable by Laymann, Lugo, Sporer, he is exempt from the obligation of repeating his confession, because it is not upon the sins that judgment is to be passed, but upon the reasons for changing the penance, whether, for instance, the penitent is unable to perform it or whether the penance itself is too severe. Moreover, the confessor may follow this method with a safe conscience, though it is more advisable for him to adopt the practice advocated by other theologians, notably Suarez, Lugo, Laymann, Sporer, and Lacroix, of getting the penitent to give at least an outline of the previous confession in order to have an approximate knowledge of the state of his soul.[426]
The view held by many theologians is also probable, that when a confessor sees that a penance has not been performed by a penitent, and that no likelihood exists of its performance, he may commute it for something else, though unasked by the penitent.
When, however, a penance has been inflicted for some reserved sin by a constitutional Superior, no inferior may commute it, for authority in such cases is withdrawn from the inferior tribunal. Exception is made where the penitent would have great difficulty in approaching the Superior and when urgent reasons call for a commutation. This is the teaching of St. Alphonsus and some other theologians against the supporters of the stricter doctrine.[427]
There still remains the question what the penitent is to do when he has forgotten the penance. According to the common, and perhaps also the more probable, opinion, he is not obliged to repeat the confession of even the graver sins, and the duty of performing the penance simply lapses (ad impossibile enim nemo tenetur); nor is there any obligation to confess again sins already directly remitted with a view of securing the integrity of the Sacrament, for that would be a grievous burden. If, however, the penitent thinks that the confessor remembers the penance, and he can reach him without difficulty, he is, as theologians rightly affirm, obliged to ask his confessor to give him his penance, for there is no grave impediment in this case to the performance of the penance.[428]
In this connection we must note that: 1. When a man forgets the penance enjoined, and has a conviction that the penance was a certain work, he is bound to do that work, for whoever is certain about his obligation is obliged to do what is probably of obligation if he cannot fulfill what is certainly of obligation.[429]
2. When a penitent confesses that he has not performed the penance but has said the prayers prescribed out of devotion without thinking of the penance, he has satisfied his obligation, and the confessor cannot insist on the performance of another penance; for a man is supposed to do first that to which he is bound.[430]
Part III
THE MINISTER OF THE SACRAMENT
In the preceding chapters which dealt with the actus pœnitentis, we have already had occasion to consider the office of the minister of the Sacrament. The functions of the confessor consist mainly in absolving according to the intention of Christ. In treating of this important and difficult subject, we shall follow the most approved theologians, distinguished alike for learning and sanctity, so as to avoid on the one hand an extensive mildness and on the other a severity fatal to the salvation of souls.
SECTION I
THE POWERS OF THE CONFESSOR
36. Orders, Jurisdiction, Approbation.
1. The proper minister of the Sacrament of Penance is the priest. Penance being a Sacrament, it is self-evident on Catholic principles that its minister must have the sacerdotal character, the power of Orders (potestas ordinis). This power springs from the priestly character and consists in the capacity of valide performing the sacred rites instituted by Christ, so that they are an efficacious means of grace.[431]
The Sacrament of Penance is, moreover, in its dispensation essentially judicial. The minister of the Sacrament is judge over the soul; hence he must have in addition to Holy Orders the power of spiritual jurisdiction (potestas jurisdictionis).
Thus for a valid absolution there are required both potestas ordinis and potestas jurisdictionis.
Jurisdiction in general is public authority in its completest sense, and thus includes the power of directing subjects. In its more restricted sense it is the power of judging right and wrong and of pronouncing sentence. It answers perfectly to the power exercised in the Sacrament of Penance (in foro interno). Hence jurisdiction in foro sacramentali is the power by which a priest can pronounce sentence on those subject to him by remitting or retaining sins.
What, then, is the relation existing between the potestas ordinis and the potestas jurisdictionis? The priestly character conveys no jurisdiction with it; it may exist without any jurisdiction.[432]
2. It is a peculiarity of this potestas ordinis that the exercise of it without the Church’s commission is not illicit only, but invalid. Hence, while in the other Sacraments jurisdiction is extrinsic to the exercise of power and only regulates it, in the Sacrament of Penance the jurisdiction is an intrinsic condition, because the exercise of the power of this Sacrament is essentially a judicial act and involving jurisdiction.
3. Jurisdiction, though not conveyed by Orders, is derived from God, but through the hands of the Church, i.e. by delegation from those who are invested with that jurisdiction. Hence all priests besides the Pope, who receives it immediately from God, owe their jurisdiction to the Church; thus priests receive their jurisdiction from the bishops, the bishops from the Pope.
4. We may, therefore, say that the potestas ordinis renders its subject capable of jurisdiction in foro interno, and of conferring the Sacrament after jurisdiction has been given, so that the potestas ordinis is the disposition for administering the Sacrament of Penance.[433] Thus it is not so much that the power of remitting sins judicially is given to the priest in his ordination as rather this, that the ordained person, when he is appointed judge by proper authority to take cognizance of sins, is enabled to remit these sins sacramentally; in other words, he receives power to remit sins by a special grace.
From the preceding it follows: (1) that the doctrine which teaches that jurisdiction is conveyed by ordination merely is false; (2) that it is also false to teach that ordination confers ipso facto jurisdiction, but that the Church can restrain its exercise and that in granting jurisdiction she does no more than remove her own prohibition; (3) that it is the same thing to say: the Church confers jurisdiction to a priest, as to say, the Church assigns in foro interno certain subjects to the priest; (4) that one may say, the potestas ordinis which is acquired by the character of the priesthood is the potestas inchoata to absolve, while it is incorrect to say that the potestas ordinis is the potestas jurisdictionis inchoata or habitualis; (5) that jurisdiction differs from the powers of Orders both in its essence and in the mode by which it is acquired; in its essence, since jurisdiction is the power of judging and binding subjects, while ordination only confers the power ex jure divino of acquiring jurisdiction and is the necessary condition that the absolution be sacramental; in its mode, since jurisdiction is imparted by the concession of the Church, while the power of Orders comes from the consecration to the priesthood.[434]
Jurisdiction is either ordinary or delegated (ordinaria vel delegata). Christ appointed judges to preside over visible tribunals in His place and in His name, with authority, vicarious, it is true, but ordinary (auctoritate quidem vicaria at ordinaria), that is, an authority emanating from the office to which they were appointed by Christ. These judges are the Apostles and their successors, the Pope, therefore, and the bishops, and these can appoint others to help them.
Thus whoever in virtue of a public, ecclesiastical office existing of divine right has subjects over whom he rules and is judge, exercises jurisdiction in the Sacrament of Penance potestate ordinaria; others exercise this function potestate delegata vel a proprie dictis Superioribus communicata; hence the latter are dependent on their Superiors in the exercise of their powers quoad liceitatem et quoad valorem.
Although any one with potestas ordinaria can impart it to another, the Supreme Authority of the Church on which depends all valid exercise of jurisdiction has so ordered it that no one may exercise delegated jurisdiction in the tribunal of penance—at least with regard to lay people—without having previously received episcopal approbation; hence the delegation by those who are subject to the bishop and have powers of delegation is as a rule quite useless. Indeed, it is now the custom generally to give approbation and jurisdiction at the same time; nevertheless, cases might occur in which the distinction must be observed.
Approbation in se is nothing more than a formal declaration that a priest is a suitable person (aptus) to exercise sacramental jurisdiction; his fitness or capacity for the work is judged by his science and morals. Approbation cannot be given licitly unless the fitness of the subject is ascertained or reasonably presumed, though its validity is not affected by the want of this fitness; but the Superior ought to withdraw his approbation when the subject is unfit. The Council of Trent interprets the phrase Public Approbation not only as a testimonium auctoritativum that the priest is a fit subject to exercise jurisdiction, but also as the facultas audiendi confessiones which the bishop grants to a priest who is considered fit for the office;[435] for the Council declares that he only can hear confessions who has been given charge of a parish or who has received approbation. Beyond that nothing else is demanded for the exercise of jurisdiction, hence approbation or the appointment to a parish is the only condition required for hearing confessions. Moreover, in papal constitutions the approbation is called licentia or facultas audiendi confessiones, and in common speech an approved priest is one who has jurisdiction.[436] All this is in perfect agreement with the practice of bishops, who usually grant jurisdiction along with approbation.[437]
I. JURISDICTION
37. The Minister of the Sacrament with Ordinary Jurisdiction.
I. The Pope has jurisdictio ordinaria over the whole Church. This requires no proof. The Vatican Council decreed that the jurisdiction of the Pope is a real episcopal jurisdiction, immediate and extending to all the faithful. Theologians discuss at length—and it is a question not to be omitted here—how it is that the Pope can give power to another to absolve himself (the Pope). Lugo discusses at length that there is no contradiction in the Pope delegating to another such jurisdiction over himself, and still less contradiction appears when we reflect that that jurisdiction in foro sacramentali, though exercised and delegated by the pastor of the Church, is always exercised in the name of Christ; nor is there anything absurd in the fact of the Pope as a private individual being subject to his own jurisdiction in his capacity as a public person. Though he cannot bind and punish himself, he may subject himself to another and share in the graces and privileges of the Church, otherwise he could not obtain absolution at all.[438]
II. By divine right, the bishops exercise potestas ordinaria in their own dioceses, even in foro interno, subject, of course, to the authority of the Pope. Although every bishop receives his jurisdiction from the Holy See, the episcopal office is one of divine right and confers a definite jurisdiction, a very important section of which is the jurisdiction in foro sacramentali. As long as a bishop remains in office and in the exercise of it, he cannot be deprived of the power of absolving his subjects, though this power may be limited by reservations imposed by the Pope. A bishop may also, for grave reasons, be deprived of his office, or the exercise of it may be forbidden, or his jurisdiction taken away; and such is the effect of certain ecclesiastical censures.
III. By ecclesiastical law, all vicars-general, and sede vacante vicars-capitular, have the same jurisdiction as the bishop over his diocese in foro interno. The jurisdiction, however, of the vicar-general is wholly dependent on that of the bishop, hence the saying: Episcopi morte moritur Vicarius generalis; and he has no other faculties than those which the bishop has attached to his office. If, for instance, a bishop by a special privilege of the Holy See has more extended faculties, these do not pass to the vicar-general unless the bishop transfers them to him with leave from the Holy See. During the vacancy of the episcopal see, the whole of the bishop’s faculties, with a few exceptions, are transferred to the vicar-capitular or administrator.
IV. By the law of the Church, parish priests have jurisdictio ordinaria over their parishioners, and their power is measured by what the Church imparts to them as the constituted assistants of the bishop. In relation to their own parish they are pastores proprii, having only administrative power in foro externo, but in foro interno plena jurisdictio subject, of course, to such limitations as may be imposed by the Pope or their bishop. By his appointment (collatione) to a parish a priest acquires the right of hearing the confessions of his subjects. Nevertheless, the bishop has the right of examining his clergy periodically to make sure of their fitness to hear confessions.[439]
V. The Cathedral Penitentiary has also ordinaria jurisdictio for the whole diocese in places where the office is established, and he may absolve all belonging to the diocese, even outside the boundaries of the diocese;[440] and this power is secured to him, not by any concession from the bishop, but by a law passed by the Council of Trent.[441]
VI. Others may, also, in virtue of the Church’s law, acquire jurisdictio ordinaria, and as a matter of fact it is enjoyed by Prelati regulares with respect to their subjects, by Legates over their province. That of Cardinals over their churches is confined to very narrow limits. Those are regarded as subjects who have domicile or quasi-domicile within the parish or diocese; hence the jurisdiction of bishops and parish priests is primarily local and secondarily personal; that is, it extends to those who have their dwelling in a definite place. On the other hand, the jurisdiction of Regular Prelates is chiefly personal, and is confined to definite local limits only secondarily.
Since the Council of Trent excepts from the further approbation of the bishops only those priests who are in charge of a parish, a difficulty may occur as to the jurisdiction of priests who have no parish, but who exercise a definite cura spiritualis over certain subjects. We must inquire first of all into the faculties which the Holy See has annexed to such offices, for since the Council emanated from the Holy See the latter is empowered to make exceptions. The question is of peculiar interest with regard to military chaplains, as to whether they can hear the confessions of soldiers in garrison without the approbation of the bishop of the diocese. No general rule can be laid down for all cases. Wherever a regularly appointed army-bishop or even a Capellanus major exists, he generally receives the fullest faculties, not only for hearing the confessions of the soldiers himself, but also for appointing other priests or chaplains to that duty without consulting the bishop of the diocese;[442] otherwise no military chaplain may hear the confessions of soldiers in garrison without special powers from the Pope or the permission and approbation of the Ordinary.[443] Thus their faculties are confined to the soldiers when on the march or in camp.
All who have jurisdictio ordinaria can receive the confessions of their subjects and absolve them wherever they happen to be, for such jurisdiction belongs to their office and accompanies them everywhere. Thus a parish priest can always hear the confessions of his parishioners whether he be within or beyond the bounds of his parish and diocese or not. A curate, chaplain, or other assistant priest cannot receive confessions outside the diocese, even if he have faculties for the whole diocese; to do so he would have to apply to the bishop of the diocese in which the penitent happens to be.
De jure a parish priest is approved only for the territory of his benefice “pro suo tantum oppido ubi sita sit parochialis ecclesia,” according to the decrees of the S. C. C.[444] He may not, therefore, when in another diocese, hear the confessions of strangers (who are not his own subjects) without leave of the bishop of that diocese. Indeed, per se, he may not hear the confessions of strangers in another parish even of his own diocese. At the present day, however, it is the practice sanctioned either by law or by custom that parish priests and their curates may hear confessions anywhere within the diocese.[445]
In his own parish a parish priest may hear the confessions of any one who approaches him, even strangers, since he is the approved confessor in his own parish.
Jurisdictio ordinaria is lost: (a) by loss of the office or benefice to which it is attached; (b) by excommunication or suspension if the censure carries the stigma “vitandus.” Other excommunications or suspensions impede only the licit exercise (licitus usus) of the powers.
38. The Minister of the Sacrament with Delegated Jurisdiction or Approbation.
I. All priests who have not jurisdictio ordinaria, but act only ex jurisdictione delegata, require for the licit and valid exercise of their office the approbation of the bishop of the place where they hear confessions, unless they enjoy some special privilege from the Holy See. The Constitution of Innocent XII, 9 Apr., 1700, “Cum Sicut,” is very explicit in this matter, as is also that of Innocent XIII, 23 Sept., 1723, “Apostolici muneris,” which was confirmed by Benedict XIV in his Constitution, 5 Aug., 1744, “Apostolica indulta,” in the following words: “No priest, whether secular or regular, may hear confessions without the approbation of the Ordinary of the diocese where the penitent dwells or sojourns, and it is expressly decreed that all privileges to choose a confessor from the clergy approved by the bishop are to be understood only as giving powers to choose any one approved by the bishop of the place where the confession is made.”[446]
Since the conferring of approbation is not an act of the Ordo episcopalis but of episcopal jurisdiction, all who have ordinary episcopal jurisdiction can grant approbation, thus: (1) the bishop elect and confirmed, though not yet ordained; (2) the vicar-general since he exercises the jurisdiction of the bishop; (3) the vicar-capitular sede vacante, since he succeeds to the jurisdiction of the bishop; (4) vicars-apostolic who are appointed by the Pope in place of bishops; and (5) abbots who are not affiliated to a diocese.
The bishop may insist on an examination before granting approbation, though he may dispense with it since there are other means of ascertaining the fitness of a priest for hearing confessions.[447] Any priest whether secular or regular may be called on again for examination by the bishop, if the latter has not approved the candidate himself, although a former bishop may have done so. A confessor even approved by his own Ordinary may be examined if he has received approbation without undergoing examination. Those, however, whom the bishop has approved after an examination may not be reëxamined without a justa causa.[448] A bishop sins by refusing approbation to a competent priest, for all priests have a claim to approbation in virtue of their sacerdotal character, so that to deny it to a suitable candidate would be an infringement of his rights.
The approbation which is necessary for a valid absolution may not be presumed; it must be actually conferred and made known to the priest; for since there is question of the validity of an act, only the faculties which the bishop has really conferred, not those which he will grant, can be considered. Hence when a priest applies for faculties he cannot hear confessions till he has received them, even when from his knowledge of the bishop he feels confident of receiving the faculties and knows that they are already on the way. The faculties may be acted upon when conveyed verbally by any trustworthy person.[449]
Approbation is required even before absolving from venial sins already confessed; after the decree of Innocent XI, 1679, we cannot any longer assume that the Church here supplies jurisdiction to the priest.[450]
A bishop in traveling may take with him any of his priests to accompany him as confessor; but if the priest is not a subject of said bishop (whether by domicile or quasi-domicile), he may not receive the confession of the bishop unless he be approved, as St. Alphonsus adds, by the bishop of the priest’s domicile (Fagnani and Lugo) or, as Scavini remarks, by the bishop of the place; the Congregation S. C. C. decreed so early as 1609 that a bishop outside his own diocese might confess only to a priest approved ab ordinario loci (except, of course, when the priest is a subject of the bishop), so that Scavini’s decision is the norm to be observed in practice.[451]
Cardinals, papal domestic prelates, and royalty may choose any approved confessor and be absolved by him anywhere. Even in Rome itself Cardinals and bishops may choose for themselves and for their household any suitable priest as confessor and retain him with them for that purpose also when they leave the city.[452]
A bishop can give faculties for hearing confessions in his own diocese to a priest belonging to another diocese, for the latter in ordine ad hoc opus is subject to the bishop of the diocese where the confessions are heard. This is the universal practice in the Church.
A parish priest cannot of his own authority give faculties to a priest of another diocese to hear the confessions of his own parishioners because the jurisdictio ordinaria which goes along with the benefice extends only to the parish in his own charge. There is a custom, however, in many places among parish priests in outlying districts of the diocese to authorize the priest of a neighboring diocese to assist them in hearing confessions. This custom, which is recognized by the bishops, confers jurisdiction ex tacita episcoporum approbatione.[453] Thus many bishops have an explicit agreement by which approved priests of neighboring dioceses may assist one another in the confessional. Those who supply in another diocese, however, must pay attention to the cases reserved to the bishop in that diocese, since for the time being they are subject to him in ordine ad hoc munus.
II. Approbation may be granted without any limitations; the bishop may, if he wish, limit the approbation according to time, place, and persons, most certainly if the approbation include jurisdiction, for the whole subject is one of delegation and all delegation is regulated by the intention of the Superior. Even when approbation in the strict sense only is conferred the bishop may ex rationabili causa confine it within a given time, a fixed place, or over a certain class of persons (children, men). The grounds for such a limitation might be, for instance, defects of ability, care, or study.
III. The bishop may not only impose limits in his approbation, but he may also recall it entirely, for all delegated authority exists only at the pleasure of the Superior; reasonable grounds must exist for such withdrawal if it is to be licit. It is a debated point among theologians whether withdrawal without any grounds is valid or not. The view that such withdrawal is invalid because it is an unjust deprivation of rights conferred, is certainly probable and maintained, among others, by Suarez, Lugo, and St. Alphonsus; but since it is not easy to establish the want of just grounds the view is of but little practical application; the bishop may be acting upon reasons which are unknown to his clergy, and while doubts remain, the presumption is always in favor of the bishop.[454]
IV. When the approbation is granted for a fixed length of time it ceases after that period; otherwise only by withdrawal; when given without any limitations it does not cease with the death of the giver, nor even when the recipient changes his domicile. This may be considered quite certain with regard to Regulars who have once received unlimited approbation.[455]
Regulars, on account of their privileges and dependence on the Holy See, are distinguished in many details from the secular priesthood with regard to jurisdiction.
V. The secular clergy receive jurisdiction and approbation either from their own bishop or from the bishop in whose diocese they are hearing confessions. Regulars receive jurisdiction from the Sovereign Pontiff through their Superiors, who must confer the jurisdiction as from the Pope, not like the bishops granting it on their own authority, but only as representatives of the Apostolic See. Besides this jurisdiction they must also have the approbation of the Episcopus loci; then as far as jurisdiction is considered they may absolve any one.[456]
Though all Regulars have jurisdiction from the Pope they cannot hear confessions without the approbation of the bishop, which may not be refused without just and reasonable motives; of these, however, the Regular is not the judge, and if he be refused approbation, he is effectually debarred from hearing confessions.[457]
Clement X imposed certain limitations on bishops with regard to the granting or refusing of approbation to the Regular clergy. He decreed:[458]—
1. That Religious who were proved capable of hearing confessions, should be permitted by the bishop to hear confessions anywhere in the diocese without restriction of time, place, or person; with regard, however, to those who were not so well prepared the bishop should be left to his own judgment in the matter of imposing restrictions.
2. Those who had once received approbation might hear the confessions of any of the faithful, even of the sick, without leave of the parish priest or even of the bishop, at any time of the year, including even Easter, within the diocese of the bishop who conferred the approbation; in cases where they had heard the confessions of the sick they should inform the parish priest, at least by a letter left with the sick person; the penalty for neglect in this matter being suspension from the right of hearing confessions. (The latter obligation is not enforced in missionary countries, where by general consent any approved priest may hear the confessions of the sick.)
3. Any Regular who has been approved by the bishop after examination and without any restriction cannot be called again for examination by his bishop (this does not hold when the faculties have been obtained from the vicar-general or the predecessor of the bishop), nor can he be suspended from hearing confessions; moreover he cannot even be deprived of his faculties unless for reasons connected with the Sacrament itself; the reasons for such objection need not be judicially proved, nor is the bishop obliged to communicate them himself to the Regular in question, but he must reveal them to the Pope if the latter insists on being informed of them. Hence in the whole process the Regular must act in submission to the bishop, and if he be convinced that he is treated unjustly, he may have recourse to the Holy See; in the meantime, however, his attitude must be one of submission.
4. Though a blameless life and unspotted morals are of the greatest moment in the ministers of this Sacrament ... no bishop can deprive a whole community of faculties on the ground of general unfitness, without consulting the Holy See.
Hence we conclude:—
1. Approbation is justly limited in the case of Religious who have not passed an examination.
2. Approved Regulars may be recalled for examination: (a) when they have received approbation without examination, (b) when after examination they have received only limited approbation; (c) when this approbation has been received from the vicar-general or the bishop’s predecessor, and this though the examination has been passed and unlimited approbation conferred; (d) when any reason is presented connected with the Sacrament itself; and this holds for those who after examination even have received the fullest approbation from the bishop himself.[459]
Except in the case of special legislation to the contrary on the part of the Holy See any Religious may receive both jurisdiction and approbation ab Episcopo loci, and at the present day that is the way in which bishops understand the conferring of approbation. This view solves the question of the validity of absolution given by a Religious without the knowledge or even against the will of his Superior.[460]
Moreover, Religious Superiors may receive from the bishop the power of imparting faculties to their subjects; the extent of the faculties must, of course, be ascertained. When, for example, the bishop gives general faculties, reserved cases are not included even when they are not expressly excepted.[461] When the bishop gives more extended faculties, as, for instance, on the occasion of a mission, and a Religious Superior imparts to his subjects these faculties for the mission, he is supposed to give all the faculties which he has received from the bishop, because he is then acting only as the bishop’s mouthpiece unless, of course, he states the contrary. When, again, the bishop gives faculties for a special object they are not to be used for anything beyond that object; it is another question when some special work is seized upon only as an occasion for asking and giving faculties.[462]
VI. Strangers (peregrini), i.e. those who are not in the diocese of their domicile or quasi-domicile, may be absolved by a Religious without any difficulty as subjects of the Pope (from whom the Religious presumably receives jurisdictio delegata); they may also in virtue of an old and approved custom in the Church be absolved by any other confessor. This is the unanimous verdict of all theologians, though there is diversity of opinion as to the theory which justifies the practice of secular priests in this matter, nor is the manner of solving the question an indifferent matter; if, for instance, a stranger is absolved in virtue of the jurisdiction which his own bishop confers on the priest, the bishop can absolutely forbid him to seek absolution from a strange priest by declaring such absolution invalid; (this, of course, applies to secular priests; with regard to Religious confessors there is no difficulty).[463] Thus on the solution of this question depends the power over cases reserved in another diocese. Some theologians now maintain that the jurisdiction of a priest over a stranger is based on the tacit consent[464] of all the bishops, while others hold that it is a universal custom of the Church having the force of law.[465] But neither the consensus Episcoporum, nor consuetudo, even when the latter has the force of law, can convey jurisdiction if we are to follow the teaching of the Church; we must suppose, then, that the propounders of such a view meant to state it thus: the Church, i.e. the Pope, either makes the Episcopus loci an Episcopus peregrinorum, or he delegates his own jurisdiction to all confessors. Since the first view is hardly possible, they are forced to the conclusion that the Pope, either by express or legal consent to the universal custom, grants to all approved confessors a delegated jurisdiction to absolve strangers. It is beyond all doubt that this view is probable especially when we add the weight of St. Alphonsus’ authority. The case, however, is not quite certain, for the existence of the custom seems to prove no more than that the bishops themselves as a rule give a tacit consent to the arrangement, and it does not prove that the bishops are obliged to agree in every case to this arrangement, or that their power over a subject is withdrawn by the fact of his occasionally leaving the diocese; and it still remains to be proved that the Pope so entirely approves of the practice as to consent to break through the natural order of things by which all authority is communicated through immediate Superiors, not directly from the fountainhead; at the same time it is beyond all question that the Pope can if he so wishes empower any secular priest to hear the confessions of peregrini; and if a bishop were without any pressing reason to forbid his subjects to confess outside their own diocese, the Holy See could always be petitioned to apply a suitable remedy for such a prohibition, since under the present condition of things there must always be many people living outside of their own diocese.[466]
Other theologians teach that peregrini by the very fact of presenting themselves at the tribunal of penance in another diocese become subjects of the Episcopus loci or of the priest who derives his faculties from him, and this ex universali consensu quem P. M. Eugenius IV approbavit.[467] But does the wish to receive the Sacrament make the peregrinus a subject of the bishop or the bishop his superior? Whoever maintains this and grants that the Episcopus loci is not the bishop of the peregrinus, states in other words that one who is not actually a superior may be judge in foro interno. But is such a statement in accordance with divine right? In any case the peregrinus remains the subject of the bishop of the diocese in which he has domicile or quasi-domicile, and no proof can be adduced that the bishop of the place in which the peregrinus makes his confession has, by virtue of his office, power to absolve him; he can do that only when he is superior in right of his office, and he can be superior only when he is the bishop of the peregrinus, since human and divine law recognize no other ecclesiastical superior than Pope, bishop, parish priest, or their substitutes. But no one would maintain that the Episcopus loci is the true bishop of the peregrinus.
Finally, other theologians explain the jurisdiction of the secular priest over peregrini in this manner: that the bishop of the peregrinus grants tacitly the faculties to every approved priest and is generally obliged to do so.[468] The ecumenical synods of Florence, Trent, and the Lateran declare that the absolution granted by any other than one’s own Ordinary is invalid unless leave be obtained from him. Now such a permission is either a direct or indirect imparting of jurisdiction; hence every absolution is invalid which is given without jurisdiction from the bishop of the penitent. It is on this ground that theologians and canonists alike, whether of the older or more recent school, insist upon the necessity of a consent on the part of the Superior or bishop of the penitent in the case of confessions made outside his own diocese. Ballerini (l. c. Dissert. n. 33 ss) concludes his learned investigation of this question in answer to the objections of the Vindiciæ Alphonsianæ with the following propositions, which are not mere speculative conclusions, but are in fact the teaching of the Church, resting as they do on the very essence and nature of the Sacrament as solemnly explained and defined by the Holy See and ecumenical councils: (1) in order to absolve a peregrinus, faculties must be granted by one who has ordinary jurisdiction over the penitent; (2) the existence of the custom of absolving peregrini outside their diocese neither conveys nor can convey the necessary jurisdiction; (3) jurisdiction is given by approbation or consent (express or tacit) or leave (implicit or explicit) of the Ordinary or of the particular pastor of the peregrinus; (4) this approbation or consent includes the imparting of jurisdiction to the confessor chosen by the peregrinus; (5) a sufficient indication of this consent exists in the tolerance of a custom with the knowledge of the bishop and without any remonstrance on his part; (6) the delegation of jurisdiction depends on this consent in such wise that the pastor of souls may, at his own option, retract his consent, thus abolishing the custom and withdrawing entirely the power to absolve his subjects. All these statements are incontrovertible.
Hence since a penitent can be absolved by his own bishop or by the delegate of the latter, since the bishop of the peregrinus remains his superior in spite of the penitent being in another diocese transitorily, the latter can be absolved only in virtue of power granted tacitly by his own bishop.[469]
VII. As Vagi have no fixed domicile, their spiritual superior is the Pope, and by virtue of his express or tacit delegation they may be absolved by any approved confessor wherever they happen to be; but they cannot be absolved by any but those approved for the place where the confession is made.
It will be asked: Who is to give approbation for absolving travelers on the sea? This point has been settled in a very simple manner by a recent decree of the Congregation of the Inquisition. Any priest, approved by his Ordinary, may hear the confession of his fellow-travelers while the voyage is in process, though they pass through or stop off for a time in the territory of another bishop.[470]
39. Jurisdictio Delegata Extraordinaria, or, the Supplying of Deficient Jurisdiction by the Church.
There is another kind of jurisdiction, viz.: when the Church makes good the deficiency of delegation; here jurisdiction is conveyed “supplente Ecclesia.”
Let it be remarked at the outset that it is by no means permissible to perform any act for which jurisdiction is necessary—therefore to give absolution—when the absence of jurisdiction is certain, even if the Church should supply to insure validity of the act. When jurisdiction is doubtful, it may be allowable to perform the act, especially if the Church really does supply. Before discussing the matter itself we must explain what is meant by the axiom: “The Church makes good deficient jurisdiction.” The meaning of it is this: the Church, or the highest judicial authority of the Church, confers, in an exceptional manner, jurisdiction for individual acts, and the Church does this for the general welfare in ipso actu, that is, in the performance of the act itself.[471] There is, accordingly, a great difference between the jurisdiction which a man actually possesses, and that which he exercises “supplente Ecclesia.” In the first case I possess the jurisdiction before I begin the act, before I hear the confession, or perform any other act for which jurisdiction is required; indeed, I possess it in most cases habitualiter. I possess it also when the act is completed. But he who absolves or performs any other function supplente Ecclesia receives the jurisdiction only when the action has already begun—in this case when he is about to pronounce absolution—in order that he may carry to its end the confession which has begun; the action once completed,—in this case the absolution being pronounced,—he has no further jurisdiction. When, therefore, previous to an action, a priest already probabiliter possesses jurisdiction, the Church, if she supplies, must do so only conditionally, upon the presumption that he possessed no jurisdiction; that is, when that jurisdiction which he was believed to have was as a matter of fact not existing.
The Church supplies deficiency of jurisdiction:—
1. When one who exercises a power possesses a titulus coloratus for this power, and when, at the same time, the error is general amongst the faithful, in such sort that the absence of real power is mostly unknown. A titulus coloratus (apparent title) is one that is in itself false, but yet really exists; that is, one which has been conferred by lawful authority and, therefore, bears the appearance and outward form of a true title, even when, for some cause or other, it is void by an essential defect.[472] The supplying action of the Church in this case is based upon the right itself which she has conferred and ratified; this is the teaching of all theologians.[473] The Church, they say, supplies as a good mother in the interest of the welfare of souls.[474]
2. When there is no titulus coloratus but only error communis,[475] many theologians are of opinion that the Church supplies in this case also for the general welfare.
St. Alphonsus adopts this opinion as probable, because the Church supplies for defective jurisdiction more with a view to the common good than out of consideration for the title.[476] It will scarcely, however, be possible to assign to this opinion a real and substantial probability; a number of theologians are indeed in favor of it, but not a few of considerable repute are opposed to it (Lugo, Sanchez, Lessius, and others). It is, therefore, canon law which must decide the question, the more so, as we have not to do directly with what may be allowed or not, but with the positive conferring of, possibly, non-existent jurisdiction. Now what is to be gathered from the canon law on this point seems plainly opposed to the more lenient view given in a decision of the S. C. Conc. of 11 December, 1683, which Benedict XIV[477] cites to settle the question. The matter remains, therefore, doubtful. The harm, however, which can result from the negative opinion is not very great, as a confessor cannot long exercise his office without title, and such harm is made good by subsequent communion or confession. Several theologians, moreover, rightly maintain that the faithful are not bound in this case to repeat those confessions which they have, bona fide, made to a priest, who, ex communi errore, passed for a confessor.
3. But when there is question not of error communis but only of error privatus in a few persons, the Church certainly does not supply the defective jurisdiction, because here the bonum commune is not at stake.[478]
From this it follows:—
1. That it is not allowed knowingly to make use of a power arising only from an “apparent” title, although the Church should positively supply; but he who is not aware of the defect of his title—this title being in reality only an apparent title—has nothing to rectify subsequently, as his actions were valid (supplente Ecclesia).
2. Still less is it allowable for one who knows that he possesses neither power nor title to act on the ground of general error; in the first place, because he assumes a power which he does not possess, and because, moreover, he exposes to danger those who are most interested in the validity of his actions.
Connected with the above is the question: does jurisdictio probabilis or dubia suffice for the valid and lawful administration of absolution. The question turns only on probabilitas juris, a solidly probable, though not necessarily certain, interpretation of the law declaring that jurisdiction is possessed. This may occur with regard to the questions: whether the jurisdiction possessed extends to this or that case, to this or that person? or, whether the jurisdiction once possessed has been revoked?
But a jurisdiction is doubtful when the uncertainty of it rests upon a doubt or a probable fact. Upon this distinction between probable and doubtful jurisdiction we must insist. St. Alphonsus[479] does so, and that chiefly in order to show that, in the case of a dubium facti,—thus, doubtful jurisdiction,—the faculty for the exercise and the validity of the act (here of absolution) always remains doubtful, whereas, in the case of probabilitas juris, the validity of the action after it has been performed is morally certain. When such probable jurisdiction (probabilitas juris) is in question, it is, as St. Alphonsus teaches, morally certain that the Church confers jurisdiction, if it has previously (antecedenter) been wanting. The saint calls this teaching communissima, and demonstrates it by the fact that the Church, in the person of her chief pastor, tacitly tolerates the old custom of absolving with such jurisdiction, and thus sufficiently expresses her consent.
With regard to the jurisdictio dubia, however, the contentions of many authors are not of this nature.[480] If many are of opinion that the Church supplies in this case also, and base their opinion upon the fact that the Church supplies when there is only error communis and not titulus coloratus, we need but refer to what has been previously said upon this head.[481]
According to this it is morally certain that the Church, in the case of previous juris probabilitas, supplies jurisdiction. But if the jurisdiction is doubtful on account of a dubium facti, the Church does not supply if the error exists only with a few; as the error is usually general, it remains doubtful whether the Church supplies. It is not always wrong to use doubtful jurisdiction in administering the Sacrament of Penance, particularly when the reason for it is pressing, when absolution is urgently necessary, and when it would be better to absolve with doubtful validity than not to absolve at all. But in this case it would always be necessary to instruct the penitent as to the value of the absolution administered.
According to the teaching of St. Alphonsus, absolution may be administered with a doubtful jurisdiction in the following cases: (1) When the obligation of yearly confession must be fulfilled exactly at that time; (2) when the penitent must say Mass or communicate, and this cannot be omitted without bringing upon himself disgrace; (3) when the priest must say Mass in fulfilment of his duty. In these cases a priest possessing only doubtful jurisdiction may absolve conditionally when no other confessor is at hand.[482] But the saintly Doctor[483] remarks that, in this case, the confessor would be bound to inform the penitent who had accused himself of mortal sin that he had been only conditionally absolved, so that if afterwards it should become manifest that the confessor really possessed no jurisdiction, the penitent might fulfill his duty of confessing his sins again.[484]
In order to absolve with probable jurisdiction, a legitimate reason is necessary and this exists: (1) When the penitent stands in special need of the help of this particular priest; (2) when the accomplice of the penitent is known to the confessor who possesses certain jurisdiction, but unknown to him who possesses only probable jurisdiction; (3) if the penitent were under an urgent obligation of confessing, if a particular indulgence were to be gained, if the penitent would not be able to confess for a long time, and a priest with certain jurisdiction were not at hand.[485]
A special case in which the Church supplies deficient jurisdiction is in articulo mortis.
The necessary jurisdiction for the absolution of dying persons is conferred by the Church upon any priest, when no approved confessor is at hand, so that any priest may absolve dying persons from all sins.[486]
An approved priest is considered not to be present, not only when he is bodily but also morally out of reach; that is, in the following cases: (1) When the approved priest who is present does not wish to hear the confession of the dying person or cannot hear it, for in such a case he would be practically absent; (2) when he is excommunicated or suspended;[487] (3) if an approved priest should arrive when the confession to the unapproved priest has already begun; (4) if an approved priest were complex of the dying person in peccato turpi;[488] (5) if this priest is so displeasing to the sick person that the latter would be in danger of sacrilegious confession; there would then be danger of the soul of the sick person being lost, a risk which it was the intention of the Council of Trent to obviate.[489]
What has been said above concerning the administration of absolution in articulo mortis stands good also for its administration in quolibet gravi periculo mortis.[490] For the two situations are generally considered as identical; moreover, the Ritual says: “When danger of death threatens;” besides there is a divine precept to confess when there is danger of death also, and thus there arises a case of necessity.
A grave periculum mortis is considered to exist: (1) In a dangerous illness; (2) in times of plague; (3) at a difficult birth; (4) before a very difficult surgical operation; (5) in battle, or shortly before it; (6) before a very dangerous sea voyage, etc.[491]
40. The Administration of the Sacrament of Penance to Members of Religious Orders.
Hitherto we have treated of the powers necessary to the ministers of the Sacrament of Penance—secular and regular priests—in order that they may validly and lawfully hear the confessions of lay people (seculares). It remains now to discuss the regulations laid down by the Church concerning the jurisdiction over men and women belonging to Religious Orders emitting vota solemnia.
I. The Superiors of Religious Orders, or the local Superiors, although they possess full jurisdiction over their subjects in foro interno, are bound to appoint others as confessors, so that the subjects may not be obliged to confess to their own Superiors; it is only in certain definite cases that a subject is bound to go to confession to his Superior. The inmates of a religious house may indeed confess to their Superiors, and the latter must hear their confessions; but this must be left to the option of the subordinates. One or more confessors may, however, be nominated in the individual houses, so that no religious can validly confess to any other but these; unless a confessor has received special powers for this purpose from the Holy See or from the Roman Penitentiary.[492] Only when a Jubilee occurs and usually once may Regulars choose as confessor a priest out of those approved by the Ordinarius, in order to gain the Jubilee indulgence. Several confessors are generally nominated so that the subjects may have a choice from among them.[493]
II. Confessors for Regulars receive their jurisdiction from the Superiors of the latter. Not only priests belonging to Religious Orders, but also secular priests (even those who have not been approved by their bishops), may be empowered by Superiors to act as confessors to their subjects, unless this be forbidden by the constitutions of the Order.[494]
This faculty belongs to Superiors of Religious Orders by common law, since, by virtue of their exemption from episcopal jurisdiction, they possess quasi-episcopalem jurisdictionem over their subordinates. The Council of Trent has altered nothing in this matter, as it speaks only of the jurisdiction or approbation necessary for the confessions of lay people; moreover, Clement VIII has expressly granted this faculty to Superiors of Orders. The confessor of Regulars can absolve those for whom he is appointed confessor, even outside the monastery, as this jurisdiction is not limited to a definite place, and no further approbation of the bishop is necessary.
Regulars who are on a journey or staying outside their monastery must confess to a member of their Order who is near them, even when the latter is not otherwise appointed for confessions; if, however, they have no opportunity of confessing to one of their Order, they may do so to any other regular or secular priest. This priest (according to the sententia communissima, which St. Alphonsus considers the more probable) need not even be approved by the Episcopus loci,[495] as it is presumed that the Order, or its Superior, confers in such a case delegated jurisdiction upon any priest whom the religious has chosen for his confessor.[496]
III. Those who can be validly absolved only by a priest authorized by a Superior of an Order are: not only the religious and their novices, but also lay persons, who, as really belonging to the monastic community, live in the monastery or college; servants, for example, and others who regularly live and take their meals in the monastery.[497]
IV. As regards the question whether priests of an Order, by virtue of the authorization of the Superiors of their Order, may also hear the confessions of the inmates of their monasteries intrusted to them for education, theologians do not agree. Some, amongst whom are Gury (n. 564), Lehmkuhl (n. 394), Marc (n. 1763, Q. 2), and Aertnys (n. 232), admit it, pointing out certain Orders to which this has been expressly permitted, and in this privilege (these authorities maintain) the other Orders participate. St. Alphonsus is also of this opinion (583), appealing to Bordone; also Mazzotta (l. c.), Lugo, Schmalzgrueber, and others. Lehmkuhl calls this opinion probable and says: We may, therefore, act according to the principles discussed above concerning probable jurisdiction. However, this does not seem to be generally admissible. For no law accords to Regular priests a general privilege of this kind. The extension to all other Orders of a privilege granted to some is not allowable here, for this privilege derogates from the rights of a third party, in this instance the bishop and the parish priests; and it is clear from the decisions of the sacred congregations that unlimited jurisdiction over their students does not belong to Regulars.[498]
On the other hand, Regulars possess jurisdiction over their students: (1) When this jurisdiction is explicitly conferred upon an Order or educational establishment; (2) when the religious have acquired it by legitimate custom; (3) when there is question of religious in the sense that, according to the ordinances of the Council of Trent, the students can be designated as belonging to the household. This latter, however, is not the case when the house in which the educational establishment is situated is not actually the monastic building, or when the members of the Order and the students do not form an association of the nature of a family. Nor can those pupils be regarded as belonging to the household who pay for their board, and are yearly received into the educational establishment or seminary. But as the matter is a difficult one and difference of opinion prevails amongst theologians, Bouix suggests as a practical solution the removal of such boys or girls from parochial control.[499]
41. Jurisdiction and Approbation for the Confessions of Nuns.
What we are about to say concerning nuns refers to nuns in the strict sense of the word, namely, to such as have taken solemn vows and are bound by the regulations of the inclosure, but not to the religious congregations which have no inclosure, nor, in general to such nuns as, with permission of their Superiors, are living outside the convent.[500]
The bishop can except from the general approbation any religious female congregation, and if he has done so, the confessors must act conformably. In most dioceses the regulations of the Church concerning confessors of nuns—both ordinary and extraordinary confessors—are extended to the female congregations also which take only simple vows, and are not bound to strict inclosure. This discipline is, in fact, very good, and quite in conformity with the intention of the Holy See.[501]
The following regulations are in force with regard to the confessors of nuns:—
I. Not every priest approved by a bishop can hear the confessions of nuns, but only one who has received special approbation and jurisdiction for the purpose from the Episcopus loci. Indeed, the priest approved for one convent cannot valide hear the confessions of the nuns of another convent, unless he be generally appointed for the confessions of nuns.[502]
II. The confessors of exempted nuns also require the approbation of the bishop, but they are chosen and appointed by the Superiors of the Orders to whom they (the exempted nuns) are subject; and if these Superiors themselves wish to hear the confessions of the nuns who are subject to them, they must likewise obtain the approbation of the bishop. It is only when the nuns obey Superiors with quasi episcopal jurisdiction that their confessor does not require the approbation of the bishop.[503]
III. According to the declaration of Clement XI the confessors of nuns should not only be learned, prudent, and pious, but also of mature years.[504] The bishop must, therefore, take care that a confessor be chosen in whom the nuns may have confidence.
Without Papal authorization vicars-general, canons, and others who are bound to observe choir in virtue of a benefice, also parish priests (when the care of souls would materially suffer thereby), cannot discharge the office of an ordinary confessor. This applies also to priests of a Religious Order with regard to nuns who are immediately subject to the bishop. The former may, however, exercise the office of extraordinary confessors. The ordinary confessor must hear the confessions of nuns as often as it is reasonably demanded of him. Moreover, he must not conduct himself as a Superior of the convent, since, according to the decree of the S. C. Ep. et Reg. 7 Sept., 1797, such authority does not belong to him.[505]
The confessor appointed for nuns shall not discharge his office longer than three years, and cannot, at the expiration of this period, hear confessions in the same convent without permission of the S. C. Ep. et Reg.[506] Several authorities, however (St. Alphonsus, Bouvier, Gury, Scavini), remark that the bishop may allow the confessor to exercise his office longer than three years when other suitable priests are wanting.
At the time of a Jubilee, nuns, like Regulars, may, in order to gain the Jubilee indulgence, once choose for themselves any confessor from amongst priests approved by the Episcopus loci for hearing the confessions of nuns either in general or for a particular convent.[507]
IV. The bishops, or Superiors of Orders, who are authorized to appoint and choose the ordinary confessor, are bound to appoint an extraordinary confessor for the nuns subject to them two or three times a year.
Although the nuns are not bound to confess to this extraordinary confessor, they must, nevertheless, all repair to him, be it either to make a sacramental confession or to receive from him wholesome exhortation.[508]
The following is to be observed regarding the Confessarius extraordinarius:—
1. Although the Tridentine Session here speaks of inclosed nuns only (moniales claustrales), Benedict XIV wishes the appointment of the extraordinary confessor to be extended to all communities of nuns who have only an ordinary confessor appointed by the Superiors.
2. The choice of the extraordinary confessor belongs to the Ordinarius loci for those convents which are under him, and to the Superior of the Order for those for which the latter appoints the ordinary confessor; every extraordinary confessor must have special approbation as such from the bishop. The Superiors of Regulars, however, cannot always appoint a priest of their own Order, but must at least, once a year, choose a secular priest or one of another Order. If the Superior of the Order neglects to choose an extraordinary confessor, the bishop must do so; should the bishop neglect this duty, the Cardinal Grand Penitentiary must act.
3. During the time when the extraordinary confessor is exercising his office in a community, the ordinary confessor may not remain in the community to hear confessions.
4. The extraordinary confessor may not be refused to individual nuns in case of serious illness or invincible reluctance towards the ordinary confessor. The case of a nun in danger of death being refused an extraordinary confessor is provided for in the decree of the Tridentine Session, XIV. cp. 7: in articulo mortis omnes sacerdotes quoslibet pœnitentes ... absolvere posse. But should a nun wish to confess occasionally to a particular confessor, not out of fickleness, or imprudent preference, but truly on account of her spiritual advancement, it is advisable that the Superiors should not oppose such wish.[509]
Extraordinary confessors, nominated by the bishop for a single occasion, can only discharge this office once. They must be approved by the bishop as often as they have to discharge the office of extraordinary confessor,[510] unless they have a general approbation for the confession of nuns.
II. LIMITATION OF JURISDICTION OR RESERVED CASES
42. Reserved Cases in General.
The Church has received from Christ the power to remit or to retain all sins without exception. No sin is withheld from the cognizance of its judicial authority or the power of its keys. This unlimited power of chief justice and plenipotentiary resides in the hands of the Supreme Head of the Church; it is in the possession of the Vicegerent of Him who has said of Himself: “To Me is given all power in heaven and on earth.” In the exercise of the judicial power in foro interno, the pastors of the Church are dependent upon and subject to him. This relation between the Pope and the pastors of the Church is expressed in the reservations;[511] that is, by the ecclesiastical discipline in virtue of which the Pope reserves certain sins in order to absolve from them himself, and places a limit upon the jurisdiction of the bishops by withholding from them the power to absolve from certain sins. And as the Pope proceeds with regard to the bishops, so can the bishop, and the Superiors of Orders, and those possessing quasi-episcopal jurisdiction, proceed with regard to their respective subordinates.
This competence to declare certain sins reserved, which existed in the earliest times of the Church as is proved by numberless memorials, is promulgated by the Council of Trent,[512] which also emphasizes the reason of this practice: “It has seemed conducive to the morality of the Christian people that certain particularly horrible and grave sins should not be absolved by every priest, but only by those of the highest authority. It is, therefore, reasonable that the Popes, by virtue of the power invested in them over the whole Church, should reserve certain grave sins for their own tribunal.” Having then assigned this power to the bishops also, the Council declares that this reservation of sins has validity not only in the outward administration of the Church, but also before God.
From this it follows that:—
I. The motives for the reservations, apart from the maintenance of authority, are: (a) the necessity of deterring the faithful from the commission of these great sins by thus making it more difficult to obtain absolution; (b) the necessity of applying a special remedy, so that those who have been guilty of such crimes may be the more efficaciously preserved from relapse. In order that the former object may be the more perfectly attained, it is necessary in an appropriate manner to make known to the people what sins are reserved.
II. We distinguish: (1) Reservation by the Pope, by a bishop, and by the Superior of an Order; (2) reserved sins, when the sin itself is directly reserved, and reserved censures, when the censure attached to a sin is reserved, and the sin itself is reserved only in consequence of the censure. If the reserved censure is only the means by which the sin is reserved, upon removal of the censure the sin is no longer reserved. In the papal reserved cases the censure only is directly reserved; in episcopal and other reserved cases generally the sin only is reserved, not the censure. Two Papal cases, in which the sin without the censure is reserved, form exceptions to this rule, namely: (a) Falsely accusing an innocent confessor of solicitation, either by denouncing the confessor to the ecclesiastical judge one’s self, or by effecting such denunciation through another person;[513] (b) the receiving of considerable presents exceeding the value of ten francs on the part of members of Religious Orders (emitting solemn vows) of both sexes, till restitution has taken place (munera prorsus liberalia are meant; hence presents of medicaments and devotional objects, as also those presents which were given out of gratitude and benevolence or for the purpose of securing the good-will of a person, are excepted).[514] If the presents amount to a higher sum, and if the penitent can make restitution, he is not to be absolved till he has done so. If, however, he cannot make restitution at the time, but promises faithfully to do so as soon as possible, the confessor can absolve him.
III. The power to reserve is possessed by the Pope in the whole Church; by the bishops in their dioceses; by the heads of Orders who possess quasi-episcopal jurisdiction in their Orders—the General of the Order for the whole Order, the Provincial in his province, the local head in his house—but apart from specified sins mentioned by Clement VIII, these religious Superiors may not reserve any others without consent of the general chapter.[515]
IV. There must be valid ground for making the reservation, otherwise its effect would tend to ruin rather than to edification. Hence the undue multiplication of reserved cases is not allowed; for many people, on account of the difficulty of getting absolution, are likely to remain for a long time in a state of mortal sin, and are deterred from receiving the Sacraments. Clement VIII, therefore, exhorted the bishops to reserve only a few sins, and only those of which the reservation would be conducive to the maintenance of Christian morality amongst the faithful.[516]
V. As reservation is a limitation of jurisdiction, it concerns the confessor directly, and the penitent indirectly.
From this it follows that:—
1. In the matter of reservation, strangers are not to be treated according to the reservation of the place where they confess, but according to that in force at their place of residence, exactly in accordance with the principles concerning the jurisdiction of the confessors of strangers which we have stated above. It is, therefore, more correct to say that they are absolved by virtue of the jurisdiction which the bishop of the penitent gives, and it is reasonable to assume that the latter does not wish to limit the jurisdiction of confessors outside his diocese to whom members of his own diocese confess, unless he has reserved a sin in his own diocese. If, therefore, the stranger confesses a sin which is reserved in the diocese in which he confesses,—a diocese which is not his own,—the confessor can absolve him, quia absolvit vi jurisdictionis delegatæ ab Episcopo, qui peccatum illud non reservat.[517]
In practice the rule can be laid down that it is always allowed to absolve a stranger from reserved sins, except when: (1) the sin is reserved in both the dioceses, that of the confessor and that of the stranger, or (2) when the stranger leaves his diocese in order to confess “in fraudem legis,” that is, to evade the judgment of his Superior,[518] which may be assumed to be the case when the sin is of such a nature that it may easily be brought before the forum externum, or may already, in some form, be before it, so that absolution could not be administered even in foro interno without the permission of the bishop.[519]
2. Although Regulars do not necessarily receive delegated jurisdiction from the bishop but from the Pope, they cannot absolve penitents from sins reserved in the respective dioceses, without having received special faculties from the bishop; the Popes have distinctly so decreed.[520] The episcopal reservation is binding also for non-exempted nuns; whether it is so for the exempted, is a matter of controversy. St. Alphonsus[521] declares both opinions, affirmative and negative, probable. But should a bishop refuse to the confessor of nuns jurisdiction over reserved cases, the absolution of the latter for such sins would undoubtedly be invalid; for the bishop gives jurisdiction for the exempted nuns also, as is plain from the words of Gregory XV.[522]
Whether the familiares of Regulars may be absolved without faculties from the bishop depends in general upon the fact whether they are absolved by virtue of episcopal or of Regular jurisdiction. When they are absolved by confessors appointed by the Superior of the Order, they are not subject to episcopal reservation; but if they are absolved by other confessors (secular priests), it seems that they are subject to episcopal reservation. If, however, it is a question of sins to which the bishop has attached censure, they do not, as a rule, incur this censure, since they must be treated as strangers.[523]
VI. In order that the objects of the reservation may be attained, and this is only possible by a moderate use of the power of reservation, grave sins only are as a rule reserved. Such is the decision of the Council of Trent.[524] The following conditions are necessary for the valid reservation of a sin:[525] (1) It must be (and that ex natura rei, in order that it be reserved pleno sensu) a mortal sin, both as regards the internal and the external act; (2) it must have been carried out completely, not merely attempted, wished, begun; and (3) it must be reserved in definite terms. These conditions are by common custom deemed necessary. A Superior who reserves is, therefore, supposed to be guided by them unless he has expressly declared himself to the contrary. But Superiors generally attach particular conditions and exceptions to their reservations, which must be gathered from their instructions.
The following remarks may serve for more explicit explanation: (1) As venial sins are not materia necessaria of absolution, they cannot be reserved in the strict and full sense. Even if it be per se possible that the Superior can withdraw from a priest the power to absolve sacramentally with regard to a venial sin, he cannot oblige the penitent to procure sacramental absolution from this venial sin. This applies also (2) to really and positively doubtful sins. Indeed, as St. Alphonsus teaches,[526] a sin which is in any respect doubtful is, according to ecclesiastical custom and the concurrent teaching of the authorities, regarded as not reserved. For, even if any sin which is materia necessaria of confession might from the very nature of the case be reserved, yet this is not so in practice, and as reservation is a lex odiosa, it must be interpreted stricte. A sin is, therefore, regarded as not reserved: (a) when there is doubt as to its subjective gravity, and (b) when there is doubt as to its objective gravity (unless the Superior, for particular motives, has declared as gravis a materia which, ex se, is not positively gravis, in which case it would be necessary to stand by his decision); moreover (c), there is no reservation when doubt exists as to whether a positively reserved sin has been committed, or whether it has been committed with the necessary conditions, nor is there reservation when doubt exists as to whether a sin really committed is a reserved sin. But in this case (in dubio juris) the sin would be reserved if the confessor merely privato errore doubted the reservation, or if he did not know the sin was actually reserved. But in some dioceses the bishops have declared that the confession in such a case is valid, and that they do not regard a sin as reserved if the confessor privato errore or ex ignorantia does not believe a sin to be reserved.[527]
If, therefore, the confessor supposes a sin to be reserved, he must carefully examine if the sin be interne grave, if it has been committed with full advertence, and with full consent of the will in materia gravi, and if it is also grave quoad actum externum; for if the external act were not of a grave nature, it would not be reserved although it might be inwardly a great sin. For instance, should a person in a heretical frame of mind have said something which neither contained heresy in se, nor, on account of the circumstances, showed an heretical tendency, his sin would not be reserved.[528] The Church is, in fact, accustomed to reserve only peccata externa, although it cannot be doubted that she can also reserve peccata mere interna, as this class of grave sins is, by divine law, subject to the absolving power of the Church in foro interno.[529]
3. That a sin should be reserved it must be completum, completed; that is, completed in the manner implied by the reservation. When, therefore, in the words of the (reserving) law, an external, completed action is specified,—murder, for instance,—and the outward completion is wanting (in this case, the death of the victim), there is no reservation. If, on the other hand, attempting crime, or advising it, are per se reserved, it suffices to have done these acts to make the sin reserved, though the project has not been executed or the sinful advice failed to produce any effect. Frequently such incomplete actions are, however, reserved as accessory only to the principal action. If this latter has been certainly completed, then these accessory actions are reserved.
VII. The question: “Must the penitent be aware that his sin is a reserved one in order that it should be reserved?” is a subject of animated controversy among the theologians.[530] It is beyond all doubt that bishops can so reserve the sins of their subjects that the reservation holds even when the penitent knows nothing about it. Whether they do reserve in this manner without a formal declaration to that effect, is a debatable question. St. Alphonsus and not a few other theologians teach that a sin is reserved even when the penitent did not know of the reservation, assigning as sole, or at least chief, reason that the reservation restricts the power of the confessor.[531] The fear that Christian and religious discipline might thereby be relaxed is alleged as a second reason.[532] On the other hand, a very great number of theologians[533] teach that a sin is not to be regarded as reserved if the penitent did not know that it was so, when the reservation is pœnalis, that is, when it is of a punitive character; but that it is to be regarded as reserved when the reservation is medicinalis, imposed as a deterrent; that is, when it is not a pœna medicinalis, which, like the censure, is intended to break the stubbornness of the sinner and deter him from sin, but a lex disciplinaris, by which the Superior himself, or through a specially delegated confessor, wishes to provide a remedy for sin committed. When, therefore, Lugo denies that reservation is chiefly of a punitive character, and, therefore, holds good even if the sinner did not know of the reservation when he was sinning, we agree with him and with Lehmkuhl.[534]
If, however, it is a question of reserved censures, the censure is considered not reserved when the penitent did not know of the reservation, as only he incurs a censure who knew of it and yet committed the act to which it is attached. Concerning the Papal reservations, at least, unanimity upon this point prevails among the theologians, as these reservations exist chiefly on account of the censure. With regard to episcopal cases no unanimity exists. Here, as Suarez rightly teaches, we must have regard for the circumstances; that is, for the terms of the reservation, for custom, and for the power of the person who reserves, etc.[535] But if the penitent knew of the censure and did not know of the reservation, the theory of some few theologians that, in this case, also the censure is not reserved, is rightly regarded as lax and altogether improbable.
43. The Papal Reserved Cases.
In the year 1869 Pius IX issued his celebrated Bull “Apostolicæ Sedis moderationi,” the object of which was to reduce the number of censures imposed at different times, to explain them, and to bring their wording to such form that uncertainty and doubt on the part of the faithful and of confessors might cease. By virtue of his apostolical power he therein decreed that of all the censures ever imposed, whether excommunication or suspension or interdict, only those should henceforth legally remain in force which were explicitly introduced into or quoted in his constitution; that they should derive their validity not only from the authority of the ancient canons, but also from this constitution itself, just as though they were there for the first time imposed. This Bull possesses force and validity for the whole Church from the moment when it was promulgated ad valvas Ecclesiæ S. Salvatoris.[536] The Bull deals with censures[537] only, and these are either Excommunications,[538] Suspensions, or Interdicts.[539]
I. Excommunicationes speciali modo Romano Pontifici reservatæ. The excommunication spec. modo reserved to the Pope is incurred by:[540]
1. All who have fallen from the Christian faith (apostates) and all heretics, of whatever name and sect they may be, as well as their adherents, supporters, and all their defenders in general.
As the expression “Omnes a christiana fide apostatas” is of general application, not only are all those Christians who have embraced Judaism or heathenism comprised in it, but also the so-called freethinkers who wholly give themselves up to unbelief, and have openly renounced all religion; also rationalists, spiritualists, materialists, pantheists, deists, atheists, illuminati, those who profess indifferentism in religion or a merely natural religion, and other unbelievers of similar character, who belong to the order of Freemasons or adopt the principles of that order, even when, here and there, some of its members surround themselves with a halo of religion.[541]
In order that the confessor may know who incurs excommunication under the expression Omnes et singulos hæreticos he must form an accurate conception of heresy, which demands: (a) error formalis, a conscious and voluntary denial joined to pertinacia, (b) the denial of an article of faith promulgated by the Church, (c) the external expression of such denial, (d) a knowledge of the penalty incurred.[542] If any one of these marks is absent, there is no excommunication. In connection with this, Renninger remarks:[543] “At a time when, in our social life, the waves of unbelief run so high, prudence, deliberation, and knowledge are in an especial manner necessary to him who has the care of souls, that hasty judgment may be avoided. However mindful he may be of his office as teacher, he must never forget the demands of Christian charity; he should never let himself be drawn into disputes which lead to nothing, still less should he provoke them; he should never be carried away by violence. Positive assent to a dogma he should only demand when his office forces him to do so. He should, especially in the confessional, take for granted that he who believes in the Church, believes also in her dogmas. He should not put tempting questions. He should remember that many howl with the wolves without really knowing what the howling is about, being merely anxious not to lose the nimbus of liberalism. He should make the way of those who are returning as smooth as is possible without violating the laws of the Church. The retractation extra confessionale, which cannot be dispensed with, may often be clothed in a form which is not wounding to self-respect, and is yet valid. Intimations to this effect have been forwarded in a confidential manner to their clergy by different Ordinaries, who were moved by a judicious zeal for the salvation of souls.” To this class belong also the “Credentes,” that is, those who give credence and who—without formally professing heretical doctrine, without pertinacia, or without sufficient knowledge, pose as heretics—openly profess assent to a heretical doctrine by word, sign, or action explicitly or implicitly, in a general way. To these also belong the “Receptores,” those who afford to apostates or heretics, but only as apostates and heretics (quatenus hæretici et non ex. gr. qua fures sunt) shelter and receive or conceal them in order to protect them from punishment for heresy; to these also belong the fautores, those who in any way render assistance (per omissionem or per commissionem) to apostates or heretics. Finally, we may mention the defensores, those who, in any way, by force or by cunning, by word or by writing, protect heretics as such, or their doctrines or their books.
2. All those who, without permission of the Holy See, knowingly read, print, keep, or in any way defend the books of the above-mentioned apostates and heretics, if the defense of heresy is the subject-matter of these books; as, also, the readers, printers, possessors, or defenders of those books which, by a Papal document (Encyclical, Brief, or Bull) are, by name (that is, by statement of the title of the book), forbidden.
(a) The Readers. Reading here must be understood as a moral not merely a physical act, when, for example, the reader understands nothing of the language;[544] in this kind of reading must be included causing a book to be read to one (not merely listening, however sinful the latter may be) since, where there is eadem ratio also eadem est juris dispositio.[545] Moreover, in order to incur the censure, it is necessary that a part sufficient to constitute a mortal sin, about a page, be read;[546] that the reading should take place scienter, that is, with knowledge that the book has been written by an apostate or heretic; finally, it is requisite that it should defend heresy and that the reading or keeping should take place without authorization from the Holy See. (b) The readers of books in the proper sense of the word, be they written[547] or printed, not of merely printed matter, as brochures, pamphlets, newspapers, periodical sheets, etc., although the reading of such products of the day may often be, and very often is, more dangerous to faith and morals than the reading of a bad book, and there is no doubt that the reading and keeping of such literature is always a great sin, being an offense against the natural law.[548] (c) The Retinentes, that is, all those who knowingly retain in their possession for some time, either in their own homes or in that of a stranger, in their own name or in that of another, a book forbidden in the manner above specified. (d) The Imprimentes, that is, all those who directly coöperate or assist, as causæ morales or physicæ, in printing: authors, publishers, printers. (e) The Defendentes, that is, those who defend books which are forbidden in the sense specified above.[549] Accordingly he does not incur this excommunication: (1) who only reads or keeps a few separate leaves of such a book or periodicals, etc.; (2) who reads perfunctorily; (3) who reads from necessity, to be able to refute a heretic, and was not able previously to procure the necessary permission; (4) if his reading is only a physical act, without his being able to understand anything; (5) if he keeps a book for a short time only, for example, a day or two, or only till he has obtained the permission requested, or if he has no opportunity of giving the book to the Superior.[550]
3. Schismatics and all who obstinately refuse obedience to the reigning Pope.
4. All those who, whatever their position may be, or the dignity they may hold, appeal from the injunctions or orders of the reigning Popes to a future general Council; moreover the aiders, advisers, and favorers of such.
5. All those who kill, maim, strike, take prisoner, or keep prisoner, or persecute in hostile manner cardinals, patriarchs, archbishops, bishops, Papal legates, or nuncios; those who expel them from their dioceses, or lands belonging to them, or estates in their possession; as those also who order or sanction such acts, or give help, advice, or encouragement in their execution.
6. Those who directly or indirectly hinder the execution of ecclesiastical jurisdiction and who, for this purpose (ad hoc),[551] apply to the secular power, as well as those who cause or publish the commands of such persons, or afford help, advice, or countenance in such proceeding. The ecclesiastical juridical power is the lawful competence of the Church to govern her subjects in respect to everything that belongs to their eternal welfare. This power is exercised in foro externo and interno. The Exercitium ordinis (consecrare, benedicere, etc.) is to be distinguished from the Exercitium jurisdictionis.
7. Those who directly or indirectly compel secular judges to cite ecclesiastical persons before their tribunal contrary to canonical regulations (unless it should be the case that ecclesiastical regulations, either general or particular (Concordats) allow this), as well as those who issue laws or regulations against the freedom or rights of the Church. This canon refers to conditions which, though still extant in certain parts of Europe, have hardly any force in the United States and other missionary countries; it protects the privilegium fori of clerics, and in a general way the freedom and rights of the Church.[552]
8. Those who apply to the secular power to prevent the execution of decrees or of any acts proceeding from the Holy See or its legates or delegates, as also those who directly or indirectly actually prevent the promulgation or execution of such, or who, on account of these decrees or acts, injure or threaten others (agents, mandatories).
9. The forgers of Papal documents, the promulgators or subscribers of such forged Papal documents (litterarum Apostolicarum etiam in forma Brevis ac supplicationum gratiam vel justitiam concernentium).
10. Absolventes complices in peccato turpi, etc.; see § 46.
11. Those who usurp or sequestrate (jurisdictionem) rights of jurisdiction (secular rights appertaining to the Church by virtue of any legal titles, for instance, fiscal rights, etc.), the goods or revenues of ecclesiastics, which belong to them ratione suarum ecclesiarum aut beneficiorum (that is by virtue of their ecclesiastical position).
Mere thieves and even robbers of Church property, accordingly, do not come under the censure here pronounced, as they cannot be classed under the definition either of usurpantes or sequestrantes (cf. S. C. Inq. 9 March, 1870), nor does the purchasing by contract of such goods from usurpers come under it. But the latter is subject to the Tridentine censure, the censure reserved simply to the Pope (cf. S. C. Off. 8 July, 1874). Whether the property of monasteries is included, is a matter of controversy; the property of pious foundations is not included. The estates of monasteries fall under the Tridentine censure.
12. All those who, themselves or through others, attack towns, territories, or villages, belonging to the Roman Church, destroy or occupy them; as also those who arrogate to themselves supreme administrative power in these places, disturb or stop the execution of such power, and those who afford help, advice, and countenance in such work.
13. Accordingly, the canons and dignitaries of vacant cathedral churches, and, in the absence of a Chapter, all those who are competent to appoint a vicar-capitular, or to govern the bereaved diocese themselves, incur the excommunication specially reserved to the Pope, as well as suspension of the revenues of their benefices, if they presume to admit a bishop elected by the Chapter, or one presented by the secular power, for the government and administration of the vacant church before these persons have accredited themselves by submitting the Papal documents bearing upon their appointments,—and that for so long as the Apostolic See may think proper to keep this suspension in force; moreover, those chosen or nominated and presented for vacant churches who presume to undertake the government and administration of these churches ex concessione et translatione, de qua supra (that is, before this submitting of credentials), as well as all those who have obeyed, or given help, advice, or countenance to such acts, cujuscumque status, conditionis, præ-eminentiæ et dignitatis fuerint. To this is added: When any one of the above-named persons is invested with the dignity of a bishop, he incurs the penalty of suspension ab exercitio Pontificalium and of the Interdict ab ingressu Ecclesiæ, which overtakes him ipso facto absque ulla declaratione, and is reserved to the Apostolic See.[553]
14. The so-called “civil government pastors,” appointed by the State, qui suffragante populo ad parochi sive vicarii officium electi audeant sive ecclesiæ sive jurium ac bonorum prætensam possessionem arripere atque obire munia ecclesiastici ministerii, incur the same excommunication, in accordance with a solemn decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Council (13 May, 1874).[554]
II. Excommunicationes latæ sententiæ Romano Pontifici simpliciter reservatæ.
There are eighteen of these, to which are added one of the Council of Trent, and another ex declaratione S. C. Inq.:—
1. All who publicly or privately teach or defend tenets which are condemned by the Holy See under pain of excommunicatio latæ sententiæ, as also those who teach and uphold that the practice of asking the penitent the name of the accomplice is allowed.
To the propositions, the teaching and defending of which involves the above censure, do not belong such tenets as are simply condemned by the Pope, as those included in the Syllabus, for example, or which are interdicted under other censures and penalties.
2. Those who, incited by the devil (suadente diabolo), lay violent hands on clerics, or religious, unless the power of absolution is accorded to the bishops or others, either jure or privilegio. The words suadente diabolo imply that there is question of a grave sin. This censure is, accordingly, not incurred if the percussio take place either ob legitimam sui defensionem, vel ob justam subditi Clerici correptionem, vel ex joco aut casu fortuito vel ex subita ira, vel ex ignorantia that the person struck is a cleric. On the other hand, the censure extends also to impuberes and the efficaciter cooperantes.[555]
3. Duellists, even when they only challenge to a duel, or accept the challenge, and all accomplices and abettors. The censures attached to the duel are, therefore, incurred by:—
(1) the duellists themselves, whether the duel takes place with or without witnesses, whether wounding follows or not; (2) the challengers to a duel, even when the challenge is not accepted; (3) he who accepts the challenge, even when no duel takes place, and when the parties to the proposed duel do not meet; (4) the seconds, those who accompany the duellists, and in fact all those who afford countenance and assistance to them, and who, by advice, or in any other way, make themselves accomplices; (5) the spectators who to that end, and of set purpose, repair to the scene of the encounter, as such onlooking is a further incitement to the encounter; (6) the persons in authority who permit this, and, as far as in them lies, do not forbid it.
4. Those who belong to the sect of the Freemasons or Carbonari or to other sects of the kind (Fenians in America and Ireland)[556] who agitate either openly or in secret against the Church or the lawful government, as well as all who in any way countenance these sects, or do not denounce their secret heads and leaders (to the local ecclesiastical superiors) when they clearly realize their duty of denouncing. Political partisans, so long as they employ only the means which modern public law places at their disposal in their endeavors to realize their ideal of the future social state, do not incur this censure.
5. The violators of the rights of the sanctuary.
6 and 7. The violators of the inclosure in monasteries and convents. Only the violation of the so-called Papal inclosure, that is, the inclosure prescribed by general ecclesiastical law to the Orders with solemn vows, brings with it the excommunication here mentioned; not the violation of that inclosure which is observed in the more recent Congregations of men or women either on account of their rules, or of a particular vow, or also in consequence of a regulation of the local bishop. Not only do the violators of the inclosure incur the excommunication, but all, Superiors or others, who, without lawful reasons, permit entrance.
8, 9, and 10 refer to simony: real (8); confidential (9); in the bestowal of benefices, and real on entering a Religious Order (10).
11 and 12 are directed against the abuse of spiritual favors for the purpose of unworthy gain, which may take place by procuring for one’s self: (11) material profit in the dispensing of indulgences and other spiritual graces, or (12) by collecting Mass stipends at a higher price, and having these Masses said in places where a lower fee is customary. While number 11 concerns only the “inferiores Episcopis,” number 12 applies to all collectors (colligentes) who procure profit to themselves by the above-mentioned proceedings.
13. Those who alienate and mortgage lands belonging to the Roman Church.
14. Members of Religious Orders who, without permission of the local parish priest, presume to administer to clerics or laymen the Sacrament of Extreme Unction, or the Eucharist as viaticum; except in case of necessity.
15. Those who, without lawful permission, remove from the holy cemeteries and catacombs of the city of Rome and its territories, relics (therefore, only remains of saints, corpora vel partes corporis, etiam in minima particula, quibus indubia martyrii signa adjuncta sunt; cf. S. R. C. 10 Dec., 1863), and those who help and countenance them.
16. Those who are associated in crimine criminoso with a person whom the Pope has, by name, excommunicated, that is, who, by helping or countenancing, take part in the crime on account of which the originator was, by mention of name, excommunicated by the Pope.
17. Clerics who knowingly and without compulsion associate in divinis (that is, in the Church’s offices) with one by name excommunicated by the Pope, and permit such to participate in divine service.
In order, therefore, that this excommunication be incurred, the communicatio must be: (a) with a person by name excommunicated by the Pope; (b) knowingly and (c) voluntarily. According to the general and unanimous explanation the et is not to be taken as disjunctive but conjunctive, so that the “communicantes in divinis,” with a person by name excommunicated, and the “ipsos in officiis recipientes” are to be interpreted as members of a sentence which necessarily belong to each other.[557] “Divina” and “officia” are merely synonymous terms.
18. Those who presume, without proper permission, etiam quovis prætextu, to absolve from the excommunications reserved speciali modo to the Pope—that is, extra casum legitimi impedimenti eundi Romam.
19. Missionaries who quocunque modo sive per se sive per alios engage in commerce in Indiis Orientalibus et America, and those Superiors who have not censured their subordinates offending on this head. Ex authent. Declarat. S. C. Inq. 4 Dec., 1872, a Pio IX approbata.
20. Refers to clerics and laymen quacunque dignitate etiam imperiali aut regali who unlawfully appropriate jurisdictions, interests, rights, also fiefs and hereditary tenures, incomes, usufruct, or revenues from any church or benefice, from the montes pietatis and other pia loca. (This is an extension of the number 11 above, in section I of the Censures.)[558]
III. Excommunicationes Ordinariis Reservatæ.[559]
1. Clerics in major Orders, monks, and nuns, who, after having taken the solemn vow of chastity (not the simple) dare to contract marriage, as also all who attempt to perform the marriage rite over the above-named persons—such marriage being of itself invalid.
2. All who cause abortion.[560]
3. Those who knowingly make use of forged Papal documents, or lend assistance in this crime.
IV. Excommunicationes non Reservatæ.
1. Those who order or insist with force that notorious heretics or those by name excommunicated, or by name interdicted, should be buried with the rites of the Church.
2. All those who injure or threaten the inquisitors, accusers, witnesses, or other servants of the Holy Office in the performance of their duty, or who steal or destroy the official documents of this Office, or who afford help, advice, or countenance in any one of these actions.
3. This excommunication falls upon the vendors (alienantes) or receivers (recipere præsumentes) of Church property who have not obtained permission of the Pope in the prescribed form.
4. Those who omit to denounce a soliciting confessor (§ 45). False denunciation constitutes a Papal reservation without censure.
To these excommunications are added Suspensions and Interdicts:—
The Suspensions latæ sententiæ simply reserved to the Pope, refer to Ordination which takes place by infraction of definite ecclesiastical regulations, and to religious who are expelled from their Orders.
The Interdicts latæ sententiæ affect universities, colleges, and chapters, whatever name they may bear, who appeal to a future general Council from the regulations or orders of the ruling Pope of the time, or who knowingly cause religious service to be held in interdicted places, as also those who admit persons excommunicated by name to religious service, to the holy Sacraments, or to burial with Church service, and that till the ecclesiastical Superior whose orders have been disregarded has received satisfaction.
44. Absolution of Reserved Sins.
I. All those who can reserve sins may, of their ordinary power (ordinaria potestate), also absolve from them; therefore: (1) those who have reserved, (2) their successors in the same office, and (3) their Superiors.
With delegated authority (potestate delegata) those can absolve who have received a special faculty from the person reserving, or his successor or Superior, and that only within the limits comprised in the power conferred.
II. The bishops and their delegates can, according to common law, absolve (1) all penitents from the secret Papal reserves, with the exception of those which are, speciali modo, reserved to the Pope;[561] and (2) according to the general teaching of theologians, which is based upon the ecclesiastical law itself, those penitents who are prevented from going to the Pope, from all Papal reserves, secret or public.[562]
According to the general interpretation of the Council of Trent, and general custom, the bishop can transfer to another, by free choice (vicarius ad id specialiter deputandus), his powers of absolving from the Papal reserves under the specified conditions. Some bishops, especially those in distant parts, not infrequently receive, through the quinquennial or triennial faculties, greater powers over cases which are, speciali modo, reserved to the Pope. But whether they can also transfer these powers and how,—whether generally or only in separate cases,—must be gathered from the document by which these privileges are conferred.
Formerly Regulars could, by virtue of a perpetual privilege, absolve from all cases reserved, ordinario modo, to the Pope; this privilege has been withdrawn by the constitution “Apostolicæ Sedis.”[563]
III. If a priest who is not empowered to absolve from reserved cases hears a reserved sin in the confessional, he must, as a rule, refer the penitent to the Superior, or to another priest delegated by him. But if the confession must of necessity be made just at that time, and if there is any obstacle in the way of going to another, the unauthorized confessor can absolve directly from the non-reserved, and, consequently, indirectly from the reserved sins. But the penitent must confess, in addition to reserved sins, others which are not reserved, or confess again a sin already confessed, in order that the materia Sacramenti may not be wanting. It is, however, afterwards the duty of the penitent—if it is possible to him—to confess the reserved sin to the Superior, or to a priest designated by him, or, as the case may be, to the same confessor after the latter has received power to absolve from the sin in question, in order that he may be directly absolved from the reserved sins.[564]
But the confessor can also apply to the Superior and from him obtain powers for this special case to absolve the penitent from the reserved sin; this must, of course, be done with the most careful and strict observance of the secrecy of the confessional. Indeed, it is highly to be recommended in our days that the confessor should not refer the penitent to the Superior or to another priest with the requisite powers, but should rather himself procure from the Superior the necessary powers to absolve the penitent, even when the latter has no long or difficult journey to make in order to reach the Superior. For, if the penitent goes himself, the duty of confessing his sins again is incumbent upon him, and to confess such a sin again requires from most penitents great self-command: and there would be fear of his changing his mind and not going to the Superior at all. Let the confessor, therefore, regard it as a duty of charity,[565] which in most cases he must undertake for his penitent, to obtain from the lawful Superior the necessary power to absolve from the sin or censure confessed to him. But if it is a question of Papal reserves, and if the confessor, in a case of really urgent necessity, has given absolution, he must, in the name of the person absolved, apply by letter to Rome, in order that the matter may be finally set in order. If the Superior refuses “unjustly” to grant the faculties for a reserved sin, such refusal is unlawful; indeed, he sins if, without any valid reason, he makes difficulties about imparting the faculty, and when great detriment to the subject is to be feared from the refusal, he sins against charity and justice. But if the penitent could without difficulty confess to a delegated priest, and if there were lawful ground[566] for obliging the subject to confess to the Superior, the Superior could without doing wrong refuse the faculty. As a general rule it is to be observed: that the confessor who seeks faculties for the absolution of reserved cases, and the Superior who imparts them, should be guided only by consideration for the greater welfare of the soul of the penitent; all vain, unworthy motives should be out of question.[567] In case of refusal of faculties for absolving, another confessor cannot directly absolve from the reserved sin.[568]
In requesting power to absolve from reserved sins, the name of the penitent, his character, position, or parentage must not be mentioned, and everything must be avoided that might betray him. Without naming the person the reserved sin is indicated, or else the number only which the sin in question bears on the official list of reserved cases, followed by the request for faculties to absolve. Instead of this, one can, for the special case, request the power to absolve from all the reserved sins among which the one in question is contained. The instructions given by the Superior upon application are to be accurately followed; the document containing them is to be carefully sealed and afterwards burnt. The priest who dispatches it, of course, gives his name and address, writing on the envelope the superscription “Pro foro interno.” The envelope, with the request thus sealed, is inclosed in a second envelope, which must likewise be sealed, and this one is addressed to the Ordinary or vicar-general.[569]
In order that the object of the reservations may be attained, the Superior and his delegate must admonish the penitent with greater earnestness, impose a more severe penance than ordinary upon him, and prescribe special remedies, in order that he may be preserved from relapse.
To the above we add:—
1. The difference between direct and simply indirect absolution is the following: he who is only indirectly absolved cannot as he pleases receive holy communion or say Mass (at least not when he remains under the censure), but only when, in individual cases, there is urgent necessity for the reception of communion or for saying Mass.
2. The duty of appearing before the Superior is undoubtedly binding under grave sin; and when it is a question of a censure from which one has been absolved with the obligation of presenting himself before the Superior the duty remains in force, under pain of falling again under the same censure.
3. When there is question of the duty of applying to the Pope, the Sacred Penitentiary, or the Cardinal Grand Penitentiary is understood, as this tribunal acts instead of the Pope in matters of conscience, after the manner of a munus perpetuum, the Pope being neither accustomed to, nor able personally to, receive all petitions.
4. “Casus urgentiores, in quibus absolutio differri nequit absque periculo gravis scandali vel infamiæ,” are the following: (a) when the penitent cannot stay away from holy communion or, as the case may be, omit the celebration of holy Mass, without causing scandal, or without giving rise to grave suspicion against himself; (b) when the duty of yearly confession is to be fulfilled, or when the penitent would otherwise remain a long time in grave sin.[570]
5. According to the teaching of St. Alphonsus,[571] the following persons are considered as prevented, or, as the case may be, exempted forever, from going to Rome: (a) those who are not able of their own right to undertake a journey to Rome; (b) those who are too poor to provide the requisites for such a journey; and (c) those who are in weak health, and unequal to the exertions of the journey. It is true traveling conditions are different now, and the obstacles which St. Alphonsus considered valid in his day can no longer be allowed to hold altogether good, but it is easy to gather from what the holy Doctor[572] says upon the point when an obstacle may still be regarded as legitimate. Accordingly, the following are to be considered as laboring under a perpetual impediment of appearing before this Superior for absolution, always with the understanding that their circumstances remain unchanged for a period of five years or more: (a) children who are still under paternal authority; (b) members of Religious Orders (except when they have been guilty of some extraordinarily grave crime); (c) old people of more than sixty years; (d) those who are in the position of servants or in similar situations; (e) poor persons, who are not accustomed to gain their maintenance by begging; (f) prisoners; (g) sick persons and weak persons; (h) those who hold a public office, or provide for a family, and cannot be replaced by a substitute; (i) women, except those who, in a special case, have incurred a reserved censure, as, for instance, the violation of the inclosure, in which case application by letter must always be made to the Pope; (k) those not of age; and, finally, (l) all those who cannot undertake this journey without great moral or bodily harm, either to themselves or to those belonging to them. The questions as to whether one who has committed reserved sins must, in the absence of an authorized confessor, confess to a simple one, in the case of his having to say Mass or communicate, or whether it suffices to elicit contrition,—and whether the penitent who has committed both reserved and unreserved sins must accuse himself in the confessional of the reserved sins as well,—formerly discussed by theologians, are solved by present usage. As the penitent under existing legislation can be directly absolved from censures and sins (though with the duty of applying to the Roman tribunal), the rule now is that the penitent must immediately confess all his sins.[573]
IV. In the hour of death every reservation ceases, and any confessor may then administer absolution. And a simple, that is, unauthorized, confessor, can absolve a penitent in articulo mortis from reserved sins even when the Superior is present or is easily accessible, since the Council of Trent has expressly declared that in articulo mortis there is no reservation. Moreover, no obligation must be imposed upon the dying person in case of his restoration to health, unless perhaps he should owe to some other person a debt of satisfaction or restitution. If, however, it is a question of reserved censures, the confessor who possesses no power to absolve from these must impose the duty, in case of recovery, of appearing before the Superior; in this case it would, of course, be advisable to set the matter in order at once with the Superior if he be present or easily accessible.
With regard to the absolution of reserved cases the following questions remain to be discussed:—
1. Is the reservation of sins removed by an invalid absolution which the Superior, or a priest authorized by him, has administered? In answering this question theologians set up the following distinctions: (a) If the absolution was invalid without fault on the part of the penitent, and if the latter confessed all his reserved sins, the reservation is removed according to the usual, and intrinsically well-founded, opinion of theologians: in this case the penitent has fulfilled the object of the reservation if not that of the Sacrament, by submitting the reserved sins to the judgment of the Superior, or, as the case may be, of the authorized priest. (b) And even if the confession were sacrilegious, the reservation is, according to the not improbable teaching of many theologians, removed, and that on the ground just alleged. This teaching, however, cannot be extended to the confessor who absolves from reserved sins virtute jubilæi, as, at the time of a Jubilee indulgence, the confessor does not possess the faculty to absolve all penitents from reserved cases, but only the vere pœnitentes, who wish to gain the Jubilee indulgence; but those who, of their own fault, make the confession invalid, are certainly not of that class.
2. When the penitent through forgetfulness has omitted to confess a reserved sin, the reservation is removed, according to an opinion which St. Alphonsus, following Lugo, characterized as the most common among theologians and as probable, so that any confessor could, afterwards, directly absolve from these reserved sins, and this is presumed to be the intention of the Superior as regards the properly disposed penitent. On the other hand, not a few theologians, among them Suarez,[574] teach that in the above case the reservation is not removed, and St. Alphonsus designates this opinion as the more probable, and for the very strong reason that (as he says) a reservation is only removed by being submitted to the judgment of the Superior, in order that the object of the reservation may be attained. This latter opinion certainly deserves the preference in view of the argument alleged; but the following cases are excepted: (1) when one may assume from any positive sign that the Superior wished to remove the reservation; (2) when the penitent went to the Superior or to an authorized priest for the purpose of being absolved from all reserved sins, and declared this wish to the confessor; (3) when a privilege was granted in favor of the penitent, such as either expires with an official act, or is limited to a definite period, as, for example, at Jubilee time. To these Suarez adds a fourth exception—when (4) the reservation refers only to the censure, “because in order to absolve from a censure, it is not necessary per se et directe, to know the matter in question accurately in detail, but the general intention of absolving from all sins, reserved included, to the extent of the confessor’s power and the penitent’s necessity is sufficient for the purpose.”[575] But if the penitent has, through his own fault, failed to confess the reserved sin, the reservation is certainly not removed, as one cannot here assume that the Superior annuls it.[576]
3. It is not allowed to absolve a penitent only from the reserved sins and for the rest to send him to another confessor. Nothing can justify such a proceeding.[577]
4. If a penitent has confessed a sin as to the reservation of which a doubt exists, the latter is directly absolved by the absolution administered by a simple confessor. This need not be afterwards confessed if it should prove that the sin was undoubtedly reserved.[578]
5. A confessor has applied for powers to absolve the penitent from reserved sins; in the meantime, however, after these powers have been granted, and before they have been exercised, the penitent has again committed the reserved sin or committed it several times, or committed other reserved sins—do the powers applied for suffice in order to be able to absolve? If the powers are conferred in a general way, say in the following or a similar manner: “Facultatem tibi concedimus pœnitentem hac vice absolvendi a reservatis,” the confessor can, according to a very probable and general opinion, absolve the penitent from all reserved sins committed before and after; only the interval between the powers conferred and the new reserved sins incurred must be no longer than one month, and the powers must not have been conferred on account of a festival which is already past. If, however, the faculties have been conferred for a definite class of reserved sins only without specifying the number, these faculties suffice to absolve the penitent (but only to absolve him once) from all cases of this kind.[579]
III. ABUSE OF POWER BY THE MINISTER OF THE SACRAMENT
An exalted, indeed a divine, power has God conferred upon priests, in authorizing them, as judges of souls in His stead, to remit or to retain sins. This power has been conferred upon them for the salvation and welfare of souls. It is, therefore, greatly to be regretted that we must here speak of an abuse of this power. The Church has, alas! found herself obliged to adopt severe measures against this abuse, in order to prevent it, but in her severity she shows her zeal for the faithful, and proves herself the faithful dispenser of the Mysteries of Christ. There are three ways in which the priest may abuse his power in the Sacrament of Penance.
45. Inquiring after the Name of the Accomplice in Sin.
In a former paragraph (§ 27) we have laid down that it may be permissible to reveal indirectly the accomplice of the sin (complex peccati) in so far as the complete confession of one’s own sin may render this avowal necessary, and that, accordingly, the confessor is also allowed, in order to make the penitent’s confession entire, to ask the circumstances which alter the nature of the sin, or to put questions which are necessary in order to provide the better for the penitent’s spiritual welfare, questions through which the complex peccati might also become known to the confessor. Here we treat of a totally different case, viz. the illicit attempt of detecting the name of the complex peccati without necessity, and of demanding its revelation under threat of refusing absolution.
On this point Benedict XIV issued several constitutions[580] which Pius IX confirmed in his Constitution “Apostolicæ Sedis” (see § 43, p. 326). The motives of the legislation are stated thus: many confessors, led astray by false zeal, have introduced a perverse and pernicious practice in hearing the confessions of the faithful ... that when penitents come to them who had an accomplice in their sin, they ask these penitents indiscriminately for the name of the accomplice. Nor do they do this in a kindly manner, by advice; but they force and compel them to reveal the name by threats of refusing absolution; indeed, not content with this, they even go so far as to demand from their penitents that they should mention the dwelling-place of the accomplice. This absolutely intolerable imprudence they justify by the pretext of care for the amendment of the accomplice, and do not hesitate to defend it by certain opinions borrowed from theologians, whereas they only falsely apply true and sound teachings to their own and their penitent’s ruin, and, moreover, are guilty before God, the eternal Judge, of many and great evils which follow from their work, as they should easily have apprehended. Nor could malicious talk and scandal fail to arise from this conduct, nor any other result be expected than that not only the dispensers of the Sacrament, but the sacred Ministry itself, become odious, and the faithful perplexed.
In the second constitution the Pope decrees:—
1. The excommunication latæ sententiæ, which is reserved to the Pope, against all who in future presume to teach that this practice is allowed, and against all who orally or in writing dare to defend it, or attack, or presumptuously expound otherwise, or distort, what was said against this practice in the first Brief.
2. The suspension from hearing confessions ferendæ sententiæ, and other heavy penalties against those who, after the manner of the above-described and condemned practice, dare to ask penitents the name of the complex peccati, or the dwelling-place, or other circumstances imparting a closer or more individual designation of this complex, threatening at the same time the refusal of the sacramental absolution to the penitent who refuses to give information on these points.
3. The Sacred Office was advised rigorously to proceed against those who taught that this practice was allowed, defended it, etc. (as above indicated), and against the confessors who applied this pernicious teaching, when their conduct excited suspicion that they adhered to the false doctrine. The Pope, therefore, laid upon all (except the penitents in propria causa) who knew that a confessor was guilty of this teaching, or of practices which excited suspicion—an obligation of bringing the matter before the notice of the Sacred Office within a month (under pain of excommunication, which is now, however, removed).[581]
The Constitutions of Benedict XIV, however, as is clear from the foregoing, are leveled against the practice of asking penitents, passim, indiscriminately, who have an accomplice in their sin, for the name of the accomplice. The prohibition is, therefore, not an absolute one, for there may be circumstances in which it is allowed to demand from the penitent even under threat of withholding absolution, the naming of the partner in sin. This is the case when the confessor holds at the same time another office, such as that of a Superior, by virtue of which he can oblige the penitent to reveal to him the authors and accomplices of the sin, in order to punish them as pernicious to the general weal. If this is the case, the confessor does not ask for the name of the accomplice as confessor but as Superior, and as Superior he rightfully demands to know who the accomplice is.
When, again, the confessor sees that by the concealment of the partner in guilt there would arise grave evil which the penitent is bound to prevent, the latter must, out of regard for the general welfare, make known the accomplice in his sin to the proper person; but if the confessor is at once convinced that the penitent cannot himself communicate it directly to the Superior, and also that he has no other more suitable person through whom he could do so than the confessor himself, the penitent is bound to accept this sole remaining expedient, and inform the confessor of the accomplice, and the confessor may force him to do so under pain of withholding absolution; for, if the penitent were not willing to obey, he would not be worthy to receive absolution. “However,” Lugo warns us, “the confessor must proceed in this matter with great caution, that scandal may not arise in making use of information obtained in the confessional. It is, therefore, better to request the penitent to speak to him upon the subject outside the confessional.” Indeed, it is necessary to require that the information should not be given him under the seal of the confessional.[582]
46. The Absolution of the Complex in Peccato Turpi.
To preserve the sanctity of the institution of Penance, to protect the Sacraments from contempt, and save souls from ruin, the Church has laid down the following very salutary regulations:[583]
I. No priest, whether secular or regular, possesses jurisdiction over his complex in peccato turpi against the sixth commandment, till another confessor has absolved the complex from this sin.
According to this, jurisdiction is withdrawn from the confessor only in respect to the sin against the sixth commandment which he himself has committed with the penitent.[584] Nevertheless, this withdrawal of jurisdiction has also the effect that he cannot validly absolve from other mortal sins which the penitent (complex) confessed at the same time with that sin. For the Pope has declared absolutely invalid and void the absolution administered by a priest who possesses no jurisdiction over such a sin and such a penitent.[585] But after the sin of the complex has been remitted by another priest, the jurisdiction of the unhappy priest over this penitent revives, even with respect to this directly remitted sin. The Sacerdos complex could, therefore, afterwards absolve his complex from sins which the latter had subsequently committed—not with him. Such a proceeding is, however, to be discouraged, for the sense of shame is thereby lost, the reverence due to the Sacrament dies away, and the danger of relapse, or, at least, of great temptation, is imminent. Such unhappy penitents must, therefore, be admonished never more to confess to the confessarius complex.[586] But what is the confessarius complex to do if the penitent again confesses that sin in which the confessor has been complex, although it has already been remitted by another confessor? If he only confessed this sin, the case would be just as if a penitent confessed a reserved sin only to a priest not empowered for reserved sins; the latter could not absolve, because there would be (for him) no proper materia sacramenti.[587] But if the penitent (complex) confessed other sins (in addition to that in which the confessor had been his complex) absolution could be given,[588] since a priest who is not authorized for reserved sins can administer absolution when reserved and unreserved sins have been confessed. But then the absolution is, both by the nature of the case and the intention of the person absolving, applied to the unreserved sins only. There is, moreover, a great difference between the two cases,—the confession of the sin in which the confessor was an accomplice, and the confession of reserved and unreserved sins,—namely, that to absolve a penitent who has confessed reserved and unreserved sins, a causa ab integritate confessionis excusans must be present, whereas no such reason is here necessary in order to submit again to the power of the keys a sin already remitted.[589]
In some dioceses it was de jure particulari forbidden that a priest should ever hear the confession of a complex, saltem copula consummata. This prohibition, however, the S. Congr. Concil. repeatedly rejected, and when the resolutions of a synod containing such a prohibition were submitted to it the Congregation returned the answer: Tale decretum deleatur, although the defenders of the decree adduced much in its justification, and emphatically denied the danger of scandal which many maintained would easily arise in little places. Thus, most wisely did the Congregation curb undue zeal.[590]
But here another and much more difficult question forces itself upon us: What is to be done, si alicubi mulier, quæ misere in ejusmodi peccatum cum sacerdote lapsa fuerit, nullum alium, quocum peccatum illud sacramentaliter confiteatur, sacerdotem ibi habeat, but the circumstances of the person and of the place, etc., are such that she cannot go elsewhere to confess to another confessor, and there is no hope of her being able to confess to another priest at the place in question (at a mission, for example). Ballerini declares that it was not the intention of Benedict XIV, when he gave his Constitution, that such persons, in the above circumstances, should be deprived of the Sacraments of the Church their whole life, till in the hour of their death they could at last be absolved a sacerdote peccati complice. And might not such a person die suddenly without illness preceding? What then is she to do when the time for the yearly confession and Easter communion has come? May we say that she can always receive holy communion with contritio alone, indeed, that she must receive it? And what if scandal arises among the people, and the woman loses her good reputation by its becoming known that she has not received holy communion for several years? If any one objects that, in this extremity, such a penitent might be proceeded with exactly as if she had a reserved sin to confess, and, therefore, omitting that sin (over which the confessor has no jurisdiction), the other sins could be submitted to absolution, by which that sin also would be indirectly remitted, we ask: How and when will this sin be finally submitted to the power of the keys? Great difficulties beset this question, and we dare not make a decision supported only by our own judgment.
Two things are, however, clear enough: one is that when Benedict XIV withdrew from the confessario criminis complici the jurisdiction to administer absolution to the complex ab eodem crimine, he certainly removed the occasion of very great scandal, but he by no means wished to close to the sinner the way of reconciliation opened by Christ to him and to all the faithful; indeed, it was precisely in order that this reconciliation might be the more certainly and better accomplished by the agency of another priest, that he wished to make the confessarius criminis complex incapable of accomplishing it. He, therefore, presupposed, what generally is the case, that other priests would not be wanting, from whom the penitent, by confession and sacramental absolution, might obtain remission of her sin. It has never been the intention and practice of the Church, by restricting jurisdiction for the remission of certain sins and reserving absolution for them, to set aside the ordinary means of forgiveness, the sacramental confession of sin, and to supply for this by perfect contrition or indirect remission. However ample these extraordinary means for obtaining eternal salvation may be, yet the Church does not allow that the ordinary dispensation set up by Christ for our welfare should be disregarded. The Church, therefore, removed all restrictions upon absolution for the hour of death, so that all priests can absolve every penitent from all sins and censures. We are not, however, to suppose that the Church has made this provision solely for the moment and the danger of death; she makes other exceptions.[591] It is, therefore, very far from the intention and the custom of the Church so to limit the jurisdiction necessary to the administration of the Sacrament of Confession that it remains restricted even when a sinner, during a long time, and still less if during his whole lifetime, is unable to have access to a priest whose power is not limited. And who, out of fear of an abuse, would forbid a priest the dispensing of a Sacrament, or one of the faithful the reception of a Sacrament, when the reception of such Sacrament appears necessary? When, therefore, necessity demands the reception of the Sacrament, it is not to be refused by the priest nor to be neglected by the faithful. If abuse takes place, let the blame fall upon those who would not make good use of the benefit.[592]
A pari Ballerini teaches that the confessarius complex may administer absolution from the crimen, in quo ipse complex fuit, to the penitent who has no other confessor, and who, if he were not absolved by the confessarius complex, would be obliged to abstain for a long time from holy communion with possible scandal to others, and this teaching is in the Commentaries of the Acta S. Sedis extended to other extraordinary cases, when, during a long time, no opportunity presents itself to the persona complex of confessing without evident danger of sacrilege, and when, at the same time, evident danger of disgrace or even of suspicion arises from the long abstention from the holy Sacraments.[593]
II. To incur this penalty it is necessary:—
1. That the sin in which the confessor was an accomplice should be a mortal sin, both internally and in the external act. Purely internal mortal sins, and those not completed externally, are, therefore, excluded;
2. That both confessor and penitent should have sinned and have been guilty of the peccatum turpe;
3. That the two preceding conditions should be certainly fulfilled; hence the sin must certainly have been mortal internally and externally, and on the part of both the confessor and the penitent, on the principle that odia restringenda sunt.[594]
Accordingly, it is indifferent if the complex be a person of the male or female sex. Benedict XIV expressly says: “Qualemcumque personam”; moreover, it is not necessary that the sin should be completed, as the Constitution says generally and indefinitely: “a sin against the sixth commandment,” and the object of the law is—occasiones non tantum copulæ sed omnis turpitudinis a sanctitate tribunali pœnitentiæ removere. Casum complicis ergo constituunt: tactus impudicus, osculum, amplexus, colloquium uti et aspectus, dummodo complicitatem important ac tam interne, tum externe sint graviter mali.[595]
But when one party has either not gravely sinned or only by an internal act, there is no casus complicis in question.
III. The confessarius can absolve his complex, when the latter is in articulo mortis and when another priest, who may also be without faculties, cannot be called in without greater danger of defamation or of scandal, or when another priest is, indeed, present, but declines to hear the confession of the dying person. In the latter case this priest is regarded as absent. The sacerdos complex is, however, bound to take all care that no suspicion or scandal arises from the presence of another priest; he may, for example, upon some pretext or another, absent himself, having previously induced the dying person to send for another confessor. If he fail to do this, and so is under the necessity of administering absolution to the dying person, he sins gravely and incurs the penalty decreed; but the absolution administered by him, “etiam directa hujus peccati” would be valid, that the dying person might not be lost.[596]
All authors teach that a priest can also absolve his complex who is in articulo mortis, when the latter, without fault on the part of the confessarius complex, refuses to confess to another priest. This penitent, however, must be in bona fide as regards the commandment of the Church. Here the eternal salvation of the poor penitent is in question, and frequently scandal would result if the priest should refuse to hear the confession of the dying person.[597]
IV. The confessor who, apart from the specified cases of necessity, absolves his complex in peccato turpi from this peccatum turpe incurs, ipso facto, the excommunication specially reserved to the Pope.[598] If a priest absolves his complex ex ignorantia or inadvertentia, and thus remains free from grave sin, he does not incur the censure. But it is doubtful whether the absolution administered is valid. The sententia communis rejects the absolution as invalid, since the Pope has only excepted the absolution administered in the hour of death; but several later theologians hold the absolution to be valid, because the Pope, as they point out, speaks only of the sacerdos sacrilegus, who knowingly and intentionally absolves his complex.[599]
Further, a priest does not incur the excommunication who hears the confession of his complex, but does not absolve him, seeing that, according to the Constitution of Pius IX, only the sacerdotes absolventes fall under the excommunication. If, however, the confessor pretends to absolve his complex (fingere absolutionem) while, in reality, he does not absolve him,—for instance, saying some prayer in place of the usual form of absolution,—he incurs excommunication. So the S. C. Inq. declared on December 10, 1883, with the approbation of Leo XIII.[600]
If the penitent confesses to the sacerdos complex and conceals the sin against the sixth commandment, which the confessor has committed with him, and the confessor absolves him, the latter does not incur the excommunication, according to a declaration of the S. Pœnitent. on May 16, 1887. “For this penalty falls only on the priest who absolves his complex from that peccatum turpe in which the priest has been the complex of the penitent.” Nevertheless, according to the declaration of the Penitentiary, the confessor of the priest who has absolved his complex (even when he has not absolved him from the peccatum complicitatis) is bound to remind him with the greatest zeal that he has been guilty of a very grave sin, and an abominable abuse of the Sacrament of Confession, and he may only absolve this priest after exhorting him in the most forcible manner to relinquish his office as confessor, and after imposing on him the obligation of refraining from hearing the confessions of his complex in the future; and that if the persona complex appears in the confessional again, he should exhort this person to accuse himself to another confessor in a valid confession both of the peccatum complicitatis and of the sins invalidly confessed. The concession of the Council of Trent (Sess. XXIV. cap. 6, “Liceat”) does not empower a bishop to absolve a priest who has absolved his complex. The Sacred Penitentiary has expressly declared this on July 18, 1860, and it results from the Constitution “Apostolicæ Sedis,” in which all the casus papales reserved speciali modo to the Pope are excepted from the powers granted to bishops in the cap. “Liceat.”[601]
But if, “in casibus urgentioribus,” absolution cannot be deferred without danger of great scandal and disgrace, a bishop, or another priest, can administer absolution injunctis de jure injungendis on the confessor who has unlawfully absolved his complex in peccato turpi, but under penalty of “reincidence” if within the space of a month, the absolved priest has not recourse by letter, and through the confessor, to the Holy See.[602]
If a confessor in such a case is obliged to apply to the Holy See, he must address his petition to the Sacred Penitentiary. In this petition he must adopt a fictitious name, set forth the case concisely and clearly, with all the circumstances appertaining to the matter, as: quot personas complices et quoties Sacerdos absolvere attentaverit; an unam vel plures irregularitates contraxerit ex violatione censuræ per celebrationem missæ vel exercitium solemne Ordinis Sacri; an alias jam acceperit Rescriptum gratiæ pro absolutione ab hujusmodi crimine.[603]
47. Sollicitatio Proprii Pœnitentis ad Turpia.
The minister of the Sacrament of Penance is a man, and remains a man; even when he is administering this Sacrament he is subject to the weaknesses of human nature, and hence he bears within him the inclination to evil and is exposed to the temptations of the devil; and it is there where he destroys the work of Satan that he must experience the hostility of the evil one more, perhaps, than elsewhere. In addition to this, the confessor holds such intimate intercourse with the penitent, and must, alas! so often deal with dangerous matter; he must listen to certain sins, investigate them and give them his attention in order to discharge his duty rightly. Thus may be explained the dreadful abuse of the Sacrament of Confession of which we now treat,—an abuse, however, which is very rare,—the Sollicitatio proprii pœnitentis ad turpia.[604]
There is question only of an abusus Sacramenti Pœnitentiæ ad turpia, but not of an abusus aliorum Sacramentorum ad turpia, and also not of an abusus ejusdem Pœnitentiæ Sacramenti ad alia peccata, quamvis gravissima.
Jam quæritur:—
I. Quid intelligatur per turpia vel inhonesta, ad quæ fit sollicitatio?
II. Quo actu sollicitatio perficiatur?
III. Qualis nexus inter sollicitationem et Sacramentum Pœnitentiæ intervenire oporteat, ut revera et ex mente legislatoris sollicitatio abusus Sacramenti sit?
Ad I. Per peccata turpia, ad quæ fit sollicitatio, intelliguntur omnes actus externi libidinosi seu actus luxuriæ, quo spectant etiam actus vel ex sua natura vel ex particulari dispositione complicis vel ex intentione operantis aliunde satis manifestata (v.g. signo, verbo) inductivi ad vehementem commotionem spirituum genitalium; intelligantur ergo: quilibet tractatus turpis, sermo obscænus vel actio obscæna. Sollicitatio ex mente legislatoris non perpetratur actibus tantum venialiter inhonestis adeoque non veneriis (nam in his non est parvitas materiæ). Excipe, si ex circumstantiis certe conjiceretur, sacerdotem actu de se leviter malo (v.g. verbo blandiori) animum habuisse procedendi ad gravia.[605] Confessarius consentiens tantum mulieri sollicitanti in confessione nullo modo eximitur a peccato sollicitationis, i.e. inhonesti tractatus in confessionali, idque licet statim desierit de illa turpi materia loqui, differendo illius complementum ad aliud tempus et non præbendo absolutionem pœnitenti; item licet inductus metu consenserit sollicitationi[606] et a fortiori, quando confessarius et pœnitens invicem se sollicitarunt, puta quando confessarius ad unam turpitudinis speciem sollicitatus ad aliam sollicitavit pœnitentem. Juxta Decreta sollicitaret etiam confessarius, qui diceret pœnitenti: “Si sæcularis essem, te uxorem ducerem”; vel “Expecta me hodie domi tuæ, quia tecum loqui cupio” et postea domi sollicitaret; vel “Hisce peccatis tuis pollutionem passus sum”; item, si feminæ petenti confessionem responderet in confessionali: “Nolo tuam audire confessionem, ne quid mihi contingat; quia amore tui captus sum”; item “Totum me commoveri sentio ex affectu, quo te prosequor”; vel “Domum tuam veniam et promitte mihi, te facturum esse quod voluero.”[607]
Ad II. Crimen sollicitationis ad turpia adest, si confessarius, qualiscunque sit, tam sæcularis quant regularis (vel etiam sacerdos carens jurisdictione at hic in confessione)[608] sollicitat pœnitentem sive marem sive feminam ad peccandum sive secum sive cum alio; nec refert, utrum ipsum pœnitentem sollicitet, an mediante pœnitente aliam quampiam personam. Præterea sollicitatio hujusmodi ex parte confessarii fieri potest vel immediate (v.g. verbis obscænis) vel mediate, puta per chartam postmodum a pœnitente legendam;[609] et habenda est completa, sive pœnitens reapse ad peccatum pertrahatur, sive resistat, dummodo ponatur medium aptum alliciendi ad actus inhonestos; nec refert, medium adhibitum in se malum sit an indifferens, dummodo ex circumstantiis postea cognoscatur, id ad sollicitandum adhibitum esse, puta, si confessarius mulieri hoc animo intimet, ut expectet eum domi, vel eam eodem animo interroget, ubi habitet.
Ad III. Ut vero sollicitatio ejusmodi sit abusus Sacramenti oportet, ut, modo a lege determinato, relatio aliqua intercedat inter ipsam et confessionem vel inter ipsam et locum ubi confessiones excipiuntur.[610]
(a) Relatio requisita ad confessionem adest, si sollicitatio fit: (1) in actu sacramentalis confessionis incæptæ, licet non perfectæ; vel (2) immediate ante confessionem; vel (3) immediate post confessionem, i.e. quando inter sollicitationem et confessionem nihil mediat, ita ut nec confessarius nec pœnitens ad aliud negotium serio se divertant.[611]
(4) Occasione confessionis (veræ) vid. quando fit invitatio ad confessionem hic et nunc excipiendam ex parte pœnitentis, aut quando confessarius invitat pœnitentem ad confessionem hic et nunc faciendam, et hac occasione data, divertit pœnitentem a proposito et ad turpia provocat; aut si in confessione, sive immediate ante sive post, initium sollicitationis fit, quæ postea completur v.g. si dantur litteræ sollicitantes vel si fit interrogatio de habitatione et postea sequitur sollicitatio domi, vel si ob fragilitatem mulieris ex ejus confessione cognitam postea eam domi sollicitaverit, dummodo ex indiciis sufficienter constat, eum ex ilia scientia non aliis ex causis ad id motum fuisse.[612] Ejusmodi indicia aderunt si v.g. confessarius auditis peccatis mulierem interrogaverit, ubi habitet, an sola domi manere soleat vel alia hisce similia interrogaverit, vel, dum ad peccandum accessit, verbis aut factis aliqua commemoravit ex iis, quæ ex confessione accepit.[613]
(5) Prætextu confessionis (fictæ), si confessarius ex pravo fine invitat mulierem ad confessionem et deinde sollicitat, vel feminæ suadet, ut fingens se ægrotam eum, confessarium suum, tanquam ad confessionem faciendam, revera ad peccandum accersat. Secus probabilius dicendum, si prætextus confessionis non est ordinatus ad sollicitationem sed ad peccati jam conventi executionem, puta ad avertendum Superiorem vel familiares domus a scandalo et suspicione mali.[614]
(b) Relatio requisita ad locum, ubi confessiones excipiuntur, aderit, si actus prohibiti exerceantur:—
(1) In confessionali proprie dicto; (2) in loco quocunque, ubi confessiones excipi solent, licet confessionale ibi non inveniatur; (3) in loco quocunque, quem confessarius ad confessiones audiendas pro suo arbitrio elegit.
Ut autem crimen sollicitationis ex mente legislatoris adsit ac propterea pœna sollicitantibus confessariis inflicta contrahatur, ob circumstantias sub (b) enarratas enascatur simulatio confessionis accedat necesse est, i.e. confessarius et pœnitens ita se gerant oportet, ut confessionem ille audire (v.g. aures applicando), hic peragere videatur. Hæc tamen simulatio non requiritur, si sollicitat in confessionali personam, quæ pariter in eo invenitur; sufficit enim, ut sacerdos in confessionali de rebus turpibus agat, quin simulet confessionem audire.[615]
The sollicitatio described in the foregoing is a very grave mortal sin of impurity, of sacrilege, and of scandal. For it is a dreadful abuse of the Sacrament of Penance, when, as Gregory XV expresses himself, the confessor thus offers the penitent poison instead of a remedy, instead of bread a scorpion, from a spiritual father becoming a wretched betrayer of souls.
IV. All penitents are bound under pain of mortal sin to denounce to the Ordinarius loci, or to the Holy See through the Penitentiary or Inquisition, the confessors who have been guilty of solicitation.[616]
The object of this denunciation is the following:—
1. If the person who denounces is known as honorable and truthful, if no evil intention, such as revenge, enmity, or calumny is to be imputed to him, whilst on the other hand, the denounced priest is already known to be not very conscientious, the denunciation effects that the suspected confessor will be watched by the Ordinarius.[617] And if stronger grounds of suspicion against the denounced priest accumulate from other quarters (for example, suspicious intercourse), this supplies the Ordinarius with a motive for administering to him, in the first place, a fatherly warning, in doing which, the Ordinarius does not yet impute to him the crimen sollicitationis, but rather exhorts him to be conscientious; in this, however, the Ordinarius must so proceed as not to excite the suspicion of the denounced against the denouncer. “Ut plurimum enim nonnisi a tertia denuntiatione ad judicium procedi debet.”[618] The precise object of the law is to safeguard the Church and to inspire confessors with a just dread of the enormity of the crime which abuses the sacred tribunal of penance; or, as Amort expresses it: finis non est emendatio personæ particularis sed securitas publica Sacramenti et animarum ex castigatione certa tam abominandi sceleris, et ex metu indeclinabili omnium confessariorum incurrendi gravissima supplicia etiam actu unico aut, semel tantum iterato; imo etiam indemnitas Ecclesiæ ne scil. ejusmodi pestes ad officia publica subrepant, quo nihil est nocentius communi Ecclesiæ bono.[619] Every solicited person is, therefore, strictly bound to denounce, and is not released from this duty because another has denounced; this duty never ceases to bind, though it is sometimes suspended for a time; in case of repetition a confessor must be again denounced, even if he has been already punished on account of the first transgression, or has not been fully convicted of solicitation;[620] again, the penitent is bound to denounce, even when, in consequence of correctio fraterna, he believes that he may confidently hope for amendment, indeed, as St. Alphonsus teaches, even when the fault has been atoned for;[621] denunciation must be made if the fact is certain though it cannot be judicially proved, or when the crime is secret, or was committed a long time before. It must not be supposed that belated information of this kind can be of no use; it may perhaps serve to complete previous information respecting the same confessor, or, in conjunction with other grounds of suspicion to close to a hypocrite the road to ecclesiastical dignities, or at least, to inspire the confessor with lasting fear of filling up the measure of iniquity by repeated solicitation, seeing that even solicitations committed a long time before may be brought into court. If, however, the person who solicited is dead, the denunciation need not take place, because then the full object of the law can no longer be realized.[622]
2. The duty of denouncing is not incumbent upon the person who solicits, nor is he bound to admonish the penitent solicited by him to make the denunciation. All solicited penitents, however, without exception, male and female, seculars and regulars, high and low, to whatever class they may belong, are bound to denounce. Denunciation is also incumbent (but now no longer sub excommunicatione)[623] upon all witnesses of this crime, eye-witnesses or ear-witnesses, and whoever has received information of the solicitation outside confession, directly or indirectly, from words of the person soliciting himself, or the solicited person, if the latter be trustworthy.[624] The penitent must denounce in any case whether he has consented to, or rejected, the solicitation, but he need not make known his consent; he must also denounce when the solicitation has been mutual between confessor and penitent, or when the penitent has solicited, and the confessor has consented.[625]
A young girl, who, at the time of being solicited, was ignorant of any evil design, must, according to a decree of the Sacred Inquisition (May 11, 1707) denounce the confessor as soon as she has attained to an understanding of the solicitation which took place.
The solicited person, or whoever has certain knowledge of the solicitation, is not released from the obligation to denounce on account of the general difficulties attaching to the denunciation itself, as, for example, shame at having been solicited; fear that the judge might become suspicious of her; the danger of harm or detriment to the denouncing person; any such damage must be considered as trifling compared with the possibility of scandal to the Church and to souls; the use of Epikeia (i.e., a benign interpretation of the law) is not justifiable in this case.
3. Every priest who has been guilty of the crime of solicitation, including him who possesses no jurisdiction, is liable to denunciation, be he secular or regular, or in any way exempted, whatever dignity he may hold; whether he has himself solicited, or consented to the solicitation of the penitent, and even when he has already amended.[626]
V. The confessor’s dealing with solicited persons is regulated in accordance with the following ordinances of the Papal Constitutions and Instructions of the Sacred Congregation.
1. All confessors are bound sub gravi to instruct those of their penitents whom they know to have been solicited in the specified manner, that it is their duty to denounce the persons soliciting. This duty of instructing remains imperative even when the solicited penitents are in bona fide.
The confessors who do not instruct their solicited penitents must be punished.[627]
They must instruct their penitents concerning: (a) the strict duty of denouncing; (b) the time within which the denunciation must be made; (c) the penalty attached to the neglect of this duty; and (d) the manner of making the denunciation.
2. Let the confessor proceed in the following manner:—
(a) If he is in doubt as to whether the act or the word of the person in question really constituted a true solicitation, he must not oblige the penitent to denounce, except when strong grounds for suspecting solicitation are superadded, or when the words, de se, are soliciting, and doubt exists only as to whether the confessor uttered them with a bad intention.[628]
(b) Before the confessor binds the solicited person to denounce (and only on condition that she denounce may absolution be administered) he must seriously consider whether this person be deserving of credit, or if there is weighty, just, and very probable suspicion, supported by other indications, that she is influenced by revenge and wishes to calumniate the priest. In this latter case the confessor must remind her that she commits a very great sin, and one reserved to the Pope, in falsely denouncing a priest for solicitation.
(c) The confessor must not seek to know the name of the person soliciting, though he must question the penitent as to the necessary circumstances.
(d) And when the confessor knows positively that the penitent has been solicited, he must seriously impress upon her (even when she is in good faith) the duty of denouncing the person who solicited, and the confessor is bound to do so, even when he foresees that the penitent will not denounce.[629] After which he must indicate an appropriate method of making the denunciation. In this the following rules are to be observed:—
(a) In order that the object of the denunciation may be obtained, the Ordinary must be informed of the crime and all its circumstances; the name of the confessor who solicited is to be given, that he may be summoned before the Ordinary, and, if found guilty, be punished; if the denouncer does not know the baptismal and family name of the confessor, she must describe him as accurately as she can, so that he may be recognized; finally, the name and dwelling-place of the denouncer must be given, that the Ordinary may make inquiries concerning her trustworthiness, and, if it should be necessary, summon her as a witness.
(b) The denunciation may be effected in one of the following ways: If the bishop or the vicar-general (loci in quo moratur pœnitens)[630] is near at hand, so that the solicited person can easily have access to him, the latter is bound to make the denunciation in person, and to declare that N. N., priest, parish priest, religious, etc., has solicited her ad turpia in the holy Sacrament of Confession. If, on account of distance, the solicited person cannot easily reach the Ordinary, she must make the denunciation in writing; that is, she informs the Ordinary by this document that she has to make a denunciation to him, which should come before the ecclesiastical tribunal, and she begs the Ordinary, at the same time, to authorize a priest to receive this denunciation.[631] The denunciation itself may be effected by letter, or through any other person—hoc tantum valet quoad præceptum denuntiationis naturale et quatenus tale præceptum obligat in casu particulari. Nam si sermo sit de præcepto denuntiationis positivo, in ipsa Instr. cit. dicitur, quod onus personale est.[632] The denunciatory document must, however, be dispatched with such precaution that no reasonable fear of its loss need be entertained. And if the solicited person cannot make the denunciation by writing, she should repair to the dean, or to some other prudent and experienced man, who then writes in her name to the Ordinary, or to the Sacred Penitentiary, or to the Holy Office.[633] As a rule it is not advisable that the confessor should take upon himself the burden of making the denunciation for the penitent. But it is not to be denied that there are cases when the confessor is bound by the precept of charity to do this, namely, when the well-being of the community is threatened, and no other way appears of meeting the emergency.[634] The denunciation must never be made anonymously, and is always to be addressed to the bishop or to the vicar-general in person, not to the office of the Ordinary.[635]
3. Confessors cannot absolve penitents who know that they have been solicited till they have denounced the delinquent, or, at least, till they have promised that they will do so as soon as they can. This is laid down in the Constitutions of Benedict XIV and in the Instruction of the S. C. Inquis.
From this it follows that:—
(a) The confessor cannot absolve penitents who refuse to denounce. If a solicited person refuses, the confessor must investigate the cause of the refusal, and endeavor to remove it. If he finds the cause to be fear of disgrace, he may, in order to remove it, tell her that she stands before the ecclesiastical judge not as persona complex, but as a testis, that she is not bound to make known her consent; indeed, that she cannot even be questioned concerning her consent, and that if she has, ex simplicitate, declared her consent, it cannot be taken down in the official deeds.[636] Nor is any danger whatever of disgrace to be feared. If the penitent says that in gratitude for benefits received, or to be received, for presents, etc., she is unable to make the denunciation, or alleges other insufficient grounds for the refusal, the confessor must explain to the penitent the sacrilege, and her duty to obey the laws of the Church, which have been made for the purpose of warding off great scandal and detriment, and remind her of the penalty of excommunication which the solicited person ipso facto incurs, by not denouncing the soliciting priest within a month. Moreover, the confessor must not lightly admit what such persons are accustomed to bring forward in order to escape from the burden of denunciation. If the solicited person refuses to perform her duty out of false shame or irreligious pity, absolution is to be refused her as not being properly disposed. The confessor must, however, out of a true zeal for souls, exert himself by all means to induce such an unhappy penitent to make the denunciation; he should prevail upon her to come again at another convenient time, and, meanwhile, inform the Ordinary or the Holy See through the Penitentiary, or the Inquisition, of the matter without mentioning the name of the penitent.
(b) If, however, the confessor perceives that a solicited person otherwise well-disposed for the Sacrament of Penance has a lawful ground for refusing the denunciation, as, for example, a probable, well-founded danger of suffering appreciable injury in honor, property, or person,[637] or that, on account of fear or excessive timidity, she can by no means be brought to denounce the soliciting person at that time, either personally or through the confessor, but yet promises faithfully to make the denunciation later on, as soon as she can, he may absolve her, and that at once stante nempe gravi difficultate denuntiationis faciendæ, si necessitas urgeat, that is, when the penitent has to receive holy communion, in order to avoid scandal, or to gain a Jubilee indulgence. If there is no necessitas urgens, the confessor must defer the absolution, and appoint another time for the penitent to come to him; meanwhile, he must address himself to the bishop, and lay the whole case before him, concealing the name of the penitent, adding also the grounds which make it advisable to dispense the penitent from the duty of denouncing. The bishop then may himself decide what is to be done or apply to the Sacred Penitentiary;[638] for the Holy See occasionally confers upon the confessor authority to dispense the penitent pro ea vice from the duty of denouncing, especially when the soliciting person has amended, and done penance. Solicited persons can also be absolved who “in partibus schismaticorum, hæreticorum et mahometanorum degunt,” although these regions are subject to the Constitutions leveled against those who solicit; such a case may occur when the circumstances indicate that no hope of punishing the soliciting person can be entertained and the mulieres sollicitatæ cannot denounce without danger and disgrace, while those denounced can easily escape punishment by having recourse either to schismatic bishops or to unbelieving lay judges.[639]
VI. Solicited penitents who neglect, or, through their own fault, omit, to denounce the Confessarios, sive Sacerdotes, a quibus sollicitati fuerint, within a month, incur, ipso facto, the excommunication which is not reserved.[640] They incur this penalty, therefore, infra mensem, that is, reckoning from the day on which they were warned of their duty. If they give information later on, they can be absolved from the excommunication by any priest.[641]
In conclusion, we enumerate the penalties which are to be imposed upon priests soliciting, according to the nature of the offense, and according to the circumstances:—
(1) Suspension from the exercise of the sacerdotal powers; (2) deprivation of benefices, dignities, and offices, with perpetual disability to acquire such again; (3) deprivation of active and passive vote, when Regulars are in question; and, (4) continual disability to celebrate Mass. But all these penalties are pœnæferendæ sententiæ; degradation, and delivering the delinquent to the brachium sæculare, are not resorted to nowadays. Gregory XV appointed this punishment, but, as the Instruction says, we must regard it more as imposed ad terrorem than for the purpose of being actually carried out.[642]
SECTION II
THE OFFICE OF THE CONFESSOR
When the priest who is rite authorized to administer the Sacrament of Penance makes use of the power intrusted to him and exercises the office of a confessor, he performs a threefold office: that of Judge, that of Physician of the Soul, and that of Teacher. The most important of these is the first, the office of Judge; this is his essential office by the institution of the Sacrament; while the other two are only of an accessory character, not because they are of inferior significance,—they are, indeed, very important offices, upon the faithful discharge of which much depends,—but because they “dispose to the right exercise of the judicial office” and their faithful and zealous execution is necessary to the better, more fruitful, and more salutary discharge of the former. If, in the administration of this Sacrament, the priest officiated merely as judge, without, at the same time, proving himself to be a physician and teacher also, he would discharge his office unfruitfully, and weaken the efficacy of the Sacrament to which Christ has attached great effects.