TREATISE V
Penance
This treatise is divided into three chapters : 1. the nature of Penance ; 2. the subject of Penance ; 3. the minister of Penance.
CHAPTER 1. THE NATURE OF PENANCE
The word “ penance ” is used by theologians in three different senses, either 1. for the moral virtue of penance ; or 2. for the Sacrament of Penance ; or 3. for that part of the sacrament of Penance which is known also as satisfaction. We shall consider 1. the virtue of penance ; 2. the sacrament of Penance both in its essence and in its effects.
Art. 1. The Virtue of Penance
640. Definition. The virtue of penance is a supernatural habit infused by God whereby man readily inclines both to sorrow for sins committed inasmuch as they offend God and to a firm purpose of amendment (cf. S. Thomas, S.T. Ill, q. 85, a. 2).
1. Penance is a supernatural habit because although it is true that one may I grieve over the commission of sin with one’s natural powers and for purely natural reasons, such penance is not a perfect virtue nor does it remove the stain of sin.
2. The virtue readily inclines man to prompt sorrow for sin inasmuch as it is an offence against God. Therefore not every form of sorrow for sin (e.g. sorrow because of the natural distressing consequences of sin) is an act of the virtue of penance, but only when sin is hated precisely as an offence against God.
3. This sorrow must be accompanied by a purpose of amendment, since true sorrow must always include such resolution. — It follows from what has been said that there are three elicited acts of the virtue of penance : 1. sorrow for sin committed ; 2. detestation of sin ; 3. resolution not to sin again.
641. The proximate subject of the virtue of penance is the will. Therefore the faithful are not to be worried because they lack any sensible feeling of sorrow for sin. The remote subject of the virtue is any man guilty of sin or at least capable of sin.
642. The material object of the virtue is any personal sin (not original sin) ; the formal object is the offence against God which must be expiated, or the injured rights of God for which reparation must be made through satisfaction.
643. The virtue of penance is a necessary means of salvation for all sinners and is also commanded. The Council of Trent has defined : “ Penance has been necessary at all times for all men who have stained themselves with mortal sin, in order to obtain grace and justification. ” (Sess. 14, c. 1. de paen.) And Christ Himself said : “You will all perish as they did, if you do not repent” (Lk. xiii, 5). Ecclesiastical law also commands the virtue of penance by enjoining confession once a year.
Theologians are not agreed concerning the time when the precept of penance is of obligation, but the following scents to be generally admitted.
The precept binds incidentally when some other obligation must be fulfilled which of its nature presupposes penance — for example, when a priest in the state of mortal sin must administer some sacrament. Of every nature the precept is of obligation at the hour of death or in grave danger of death, but there exists no strict obligation to elicit an act of penance immediately after the commission of sin. Nevertheless a notable delay (viz. more than a year) in eliciting such an act would be a special grave sin.
Art. 2. The Sacrament of Penance : its Nature and its Effects
644. Definition. The Sacrament of Penance is a sacrament of the New Law instituted by Christ in the form of a judgement for the remission through sacramental absolution of sins committed after Baptism, granted to a contrite person confessing those sins.
Christ seems to have instituted this sacrament after His Resurrection when He breathed on His Apostles and said : “ Receive the Holy Spirit ; when you forgive men’s sins they are forgiven, when you hold them bound, they are held bound ” (John xx, 22).
The sacrament has been instituted in the form of a judgement (cf. c. S70) in which the penitent is at once the accused, the witness and the accuser, while the priest is the judge who generally absolves and does not condemn the guilty sinner.
Only sins committed after Baptism are forgiven in this sacrament and these therefore constitute the remote matter of the sacrament.
By he words : granted to a contrite person confessing sin : is indicated the proximate matter, while the form of the sacrament is signified by the words : through sacramental absolution.
Special consideration must be given to : 1. the remote matter of the sacrament ; 2. the proximate matter ; 3. the form ; 4. the effects.
§ 1 . The Remote Matter of the Sacrament
645. The remote matter — or, more correctly, the matter to be removed — are all sins committed after Baptism, and such matter is : 1. either necessary or free ; 2. either certain or doubtful ; 3. either sufficient or insufficient.
Necessary matter for the sacrament of Penance is all mortal sins committed since Baptism and not yet revealed in confession nor directly remitted by sacramental absolution. All such sins must be confessed.
Free matter for the sacrament comprises : a) venial sins committed since Baptism ; b) all mortal and venial sins already remitted since Baptism by sacramental absolution. Therefore these sins may be confessed but there is no obligation to do so.
Certain matter is every genuine and certain sin whether mortal or venial.
Doubtful matter includes all doubtful sins, i.e. sins which probably were not committed.
Sufficient matter is that which suffices for the valid reception of sacramental absolution, i.e. certain matter whether necessary or free.
Insufficient matter is doubtful matter or anything which is not genuinely sinful, such as so-called imperfections.
646. Scholium. Generic Confession. The essence of the sacrament of Penance consists in the fact that it is a judgement, as we have stated already. But a judge is unable to pass judgement unless he has knowledge of the crimes committed by the criminal. Since in the judicial court of Penance God Himself— the searcher of hearts — is the principal judge, and the purpose of this judgement is to reconcile and free the sinner, it is not necessary that the confessor himself be perfectly aware of the sins of the penitent. Therefore in a case of extreme necessity either a generic accusation or no accusation whatsoever is sufficient for receiving absolution. Apart from such cases of extreme need, generic confession is never permissible ; if the matter is necessary both the species and number of sins must be confessed, and if the matter is free it is both necessary and sufficient that the accusation mentions the virtue or commandment violated (cf. the author’s Man. Theol. mor. Ill, 325).
§ 2 . The Proximate Matter of the Sacrament
647. The proximate matter of the sacrament of Penance comprises the three acts of the penitent, viz. contrition, confession, satisfaction.
This is the most common opinion, denied by a few theologians who regard the act of absolution as the proximate matter of the sacrament in so far as it is an external ceremony, whereas the same act considered as a sign is considered to be the form of the sacrament.
Contrition must be present either actually or at least virtually. Sometimes it is sufficient for the validity of the sacrament if only the desire for confession and satisfaction is present, since these are then considered to be included implicitly in the act of contrition. We shall return later to a detailed consideration of each of these three acts of the penitent.
§ 3. The Form of the Sacrament
648. The essential form of the sacrament of Confession is the words : “ Deinde ego te absolvo a peccatis tuis in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti. Amen.” Everyone admits that the priest validly absolves if he uses these words only : “Absolvo te a peccatis tuis.” The following forms are likewise probably valid : “ Absolvo te ” and “ absolvo a peccatis tuis.” But it is not lawful to use such forms, and no reasonable excuse ever exists for permitting the use of forms which are no more than probably valid. In cases of necessity, as in a shipwreck, it would be quite valid and lawful to give absolution to several persons at the same time, using this form : “ Ego vos absolvo a peccatis vestris in nomine Patris . . . etc.”
The rubrical form of absolution is to be found in the Roman Ritual or in any approved Ritual.
649. Obligation of using the prescribed ceremonies, a) The raising of the priest’s hand from the beginning of the prayer “ Indulgentiam ” until the signing with the cross during the act of absolution is not of strict obligation but it is most praiseworthy, b) The prayers : Misereatur, Indulgentiam, Passio : are not to be omitted except for a just cause (c. 883), such as a great number of penitents, c) It would not be grievously sinful to omit the absolution from censures if the confessor were morally certain that the penitent had not incurred any censure. d) External ceremonies, such as the place to be used for hearing the confessions of women, must be carefully observed.
650. Manner of giving absolution.
1. Absolution must be given orally, and therefore written absolution handed to a penitent is invalid (cf. the decrees of Clement VIII, June, 1602 and of Paul V, July 13, 1605).
2. Absolution must be given by the priest while the penitent is morally present. Since absolution must be given orally it cannot be given to any penitent who is unable to hear the words or to whom the priest is unable to speak. In cases of extreme necessity this presence is to be interpreted widely, so that everyone — even those far distant from the priest — can be absolved, provided that in some sense of the word they can be perceived. However it seems probable that absolution is invalid if given over the telephone or by other forms of long-distance communication. In real necessity absolution could be given in this way conditionally.
651. Practical directions. If the penitent leaves the confessional before receiving absolution, the following procedure is to be adopted :
a) if they can be recalled easily, the priest should do so ;
b ) if they cannot be recalled without causing inconvenience or surprise, the priest should pronounce the essential words of absolution before the penitent has departed more than twenty paces from the confessional ; it is not necessary that the confessor be able to hear or see the penitent, provided that the latter is in close proximity to the confessional ;
c) if the penitent has gone some distance and cannot be recalled and will not return to the same confessor, there is nothing to be done except to commend him to the mercy of God ;
d) if the penitent returns later to the same confessor he should be informed of the previous lack of absolution and then absolved.
652. Absolution must be given absolutely, not conditionally nor in the form of a wish. The act of absolution is a judicial sentence which cannot be conditional nor expressed in the form of a wish. Absolution given in the latter way — unless the wish is equivalently an indication of the priest’s judgement — is not only unlawful but also probably invalid. — Conditional absolution in which the condition regards the future, such as : I absolve you if you make restitution : is certainly invalid ; absolution given conditionally on some present event is valid and lawful as often as the sacrament might be invalid if given absolutely, or some notable spiritual harm would ensue to the penitent if absolution were refused.
The chief causes permitting conditional absolution are :
1. doubt whether the penitent is alive or dead ;
2. doubt whether the penitent has sufficient use of reason ;
3. doubt whether absolution was given correctly ;
4. doubt whether the penitent is morally present ;
5. doubt concerning the jurisdiction of the confessor ;
6. doubt whether the penitent has sufficient sorrow and purpose of amendment and there is danger of greater harm resulting from any postponement of absolution.
653. Scholium. Repetition of absolution. If the penitent has already received absolution and then mentions some serious sin which he had forgotten or some grave circumstance affecting his sins or the number of times when grave sin was committed differing substantially from that mentioned previously, the confessor must repeat absolution ; otherwise the penitent would be obliged to confess those sins again in his next confession.
§ 4. The Effects of the Sacrament
654. The sacrament of Penance duly received has the following effects : 1. the remission of all sin and eternal punishment ; 3. the infusion (or increase) of sanctifying grace, the virtues and the gifts of the Holy Ghost ; 3. the revival of all merits previously acquired in the state of grace. — Theologians are not agreed regarding the manner and extent of this revival of merit (cf. the author’s Man. Theol. mor. Ill, 337).
CHAPTER II. THE SUBJECT OF THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE
655. The subject capable of receiving the sacrament of Penance is every baptized person who after Baptism commits personal (and at least venial) sin and is able to elicit these three acts of contrition, confession, and satisfaction. Each of these acts will be considered separately.
Art. 1. Contrition
This article is divided into four paragraphs : 1. the nature, kinds and effects of contrition in general; 2. attrition; 3. qualities of contrition and attrition ; 4. the purpose of amendment.
§ 1. Nature, Kinds, and Effects of Contrition in General
656. Definition. Contrition (understood in its wide meaning) is sorrow and hatred for sin committed, together with the determination not to sin again. This is the definition given by the Council of Trent, Sess. 14, c. 4. Three integral acts are necessary for contrition ; a) sorrow, b) detestation, c) resolution. (Cf. the author’s Man. Theol. mor. Ill, 339).
Kinds. Contrition understood in its wide sense is either perfect contrition if sorrow is elicited from the motive of love of God, or attrition if sorrow arises not from the motive of charity but from some other supernatural motive, such as fear of eternal or temporal punishment due to sin. Natural motives, such as the natural evil of sin or its natural evil effects, are not sufficient for genuine attrition.
The effect of perfect contrition is the remission of all sins, provided that there is present also a desire to receive the sacrament of Penance ; attrition never remits sin (at least, mortal sin) unless it is actually conjoined with the sacrament of Penance. The necessity of contrition in general has been noted when discussing the necessity of penance, n. 643.
§ 2. Attrition
657. The value of attrition. Although attrition of itself is not sufficient for the remission of mortal sin, yet it does suffice for obtaining justification in the sacrament of Penance.
This statement is certain and now admitted by everyone, so that it would be rash to hold the contrary opinion proposed by several theologians prior to the Council of Trent. Attrition based on nothing more than the fear of Hell is a morally good act, since in such attrition there are to be found three elements which are all good in themselves :
a) the motive inducing attrition, viz. fear of Hell ;
b) the means for avoiding Hell, viz. detestation of sin ;
c) the direction of this detestation towards the avoidance of Hell. Luther, the Jansenists, and others falsely maintained that attrition founded solely on fear of Hell was evil and made mail a hypocrite.
Whether this form of attrition based on the fear of Hell is sufficient for the sacrament of Penance without any initial love of God is fiercely disputed, but the controversy seems to be one of words rather than of fact, since every act of attrition elicited from some supernatural motive is in some way referred to God and therefore includes love and subjection.
§ 3 . Qualities of Contrition and Attrition
658. Contrition or attrition necessary for the sacrament of Penance must possess four qualities.
1. It must be true and formal contrition for sins committed, not merely external and fictitious or imagined or implicit.
2. Contrition must be supernatural, a) in its principle, in so far as it must be elicited with the aid of supernatural grace and not merely through man’s natural powers ; b) in its motive, in so far as it results not from natural motives but from motives known through the light of faith.
3 . Contrition must be supreme ; this does not mean that the penitent must experience an intense feeling of sorrow for sin but rather that he must look on sin as a greater evil than any other, so that he would be prepared to endure ail other evils rather than commit sin.
4. Contrition must be universal, inasmuch as contrition or attrition must embrace all mortal sins committed by the penitent.
659. Corollaries. Since contrition is part of the proximate matter of the sacrament of Penance and absolution is its form, the following conclusions can be made :
a) Contrition or attrition must be expressed in some external sign, and therefore merely internal contrition or attrition does not suffice ; however, it is not necessary that it be expressed in words.
b) Contrition must be elicited prior to absolution and exist together with the act of absolution, for the sacrament is constituted by the union of its matter and form ; in practice, however, contrition should be elicited before Confession.
c) Contrition must have some reference to the absolution, for the same reason.
d) However, contrition need not be repeated when the penitent immediately after receiving absolution confesses a mortal sin which he had forgotten and is then absolved again. The previous act of contrition continues virtually.
§ 4. The Purpose of Amendment
660. Definition. The purpose of amendment is a resolution not to sin again. Therefore a mere wish is insufficient, but it is not strictly necessary that the resolution be in the form of a promise or a vow of avoiding all sin.
The purpose of amendment may be explicit and formal when it is a special act distinct from the act of contrition, or implicit and virtual such as is contained in every act of sincere contrition which of its very nature implies not merely detestation of past sin but also determination to avoid future sins.
Necessity. At least an implicit purpose of amendment is required for the validity of the sacrament of Penance, since the implicit resolve to avoid sin which is inseparably united with contrition is just as necessary as contrition itself.
In practice, the penitent should elicit not only an implicit purpose of amendment but also one that is explicit and centred on some special sin, since this wall be more effective for the amendment of his life.
661. The characteristics of the purpose of amendment should be three in number.
1. It must be firm, at least in so far as it affects the present determination of the will, although it may be weak in relation to the future. Thus a firm determination is not the same as a constant determination, and so it is not necessary that the penitent be firmly persuaded that he will not sin again.
2. It must be efficacious to the extent that a) the penitent must use all the means necessary to avoid sin, such as prayer and vigilance ; b) the penitent must avoid voluntary proximate occasions of sin ; c) he must do all in his power to repair any damage caused by his sins.
3. It must be universal, so that the penitent resolves to avoid all mortal sins.
Even if the penitent confesses only venial sins or free matter for absolution, a genuine purpose of amendment is no less essential for the validity of the sacrament than sincere contrition, and it must extend either a) to the avoidance of all venial sins, or b ) to the avoidance of one specific venial sin, or c) to the correction of one type of sin, such as sins of the tongue, or d) to the avoidance of all deliberate venial sins, or at least e) to the less frequent commission of venial sins.
Art. 2. Confession
This article is divided into three paragraphs : 1. the nature and necessity of confession ; 2. the qualities of confession ; 3. the repetition of confession.
§ 1. The Nature and Necessity of Confession
662. Definition. Confession is an accusation of personal sins committed since Baptism, which is made to a competent priest for the purpose of obtaining absolution.
If only one of these elements is lacking from an individual confession, there is no sacramental confession and the seal of confession has no place ; e.g. if sins are confessed for the sake of obtaining advice or seducing the priest.
The necessity of sacramental confession for all sinners arises both from divine and from ecclesiastical precept.
Divine law instituted the sacrament of Penance in the form of a judgement, since Christ gave to His Apostles and their successors the power either to retain or to forgive sin. But no confessor is able to pass judgement unless he is first acquainted with the sins of the penitent, and such knowledge can be gained only through the penitent’s accusation. Therefore confession of sin is required by divine institution in the sacrament of Penance (cf. Council of Trent, sess. 14, c. 5).
Ecclesiastical law requires the following, according to c. 906 : “ Every one of the faithful of either sex on attaining the age of discretion, i.e. the use of reason, is bound to confess sincerely all sins at least once a year. This precept is not satisfied by a sacrilegious or invalid confession (ibid. c. 007) ; but all the faithful may make their confession to any approved confessor even of another Rite (c. 905).
663. The time of the obligation, 1) Of its very nature the divine precept enjoining confession of sin is binding on sinners a) in actual or probable danger of death ; b) several times during life. The same precept is binding for incidental reasons, a) when the sinner wishes to receive Holy Communion ; b) when a state of grace is necessary and the sinner cannot be morally certain of eliciting an act of perfect contrition ; c) when it is impossible to overcome some serious temptation, especially an evil habit, without the aid of confession.
2. The ecclesiastical precept regarding confession is binding only once in the year and probably affects only those who are guilty of mortal sin. Theologians do not agree how the year is to be reckoned. In practice it is sufficient that the year be reckoned from one Easter until the next.
§ 2. Qualities of Confession
664. There are certain necessary qualities which the confession must possess, others which are useful. St. Thomas together with other older theologians used to give sixteen :
“ Sit simplex, humilis confessio, pura, fidelis, Atque frequens, nuda, discreta, libens, verecunda, Integra, secreta, lacrimabilis, accelerata, Fortis et accusans et sit parere parata.”
1. The confession must be simple, unadorned, sincere, humble— that is to say, free from all superfluous words and commentary ; it should be made humbly both in word and deed and therefore the penitent should kneel, unless he is excused by some infirmity or other reason ; it should be sincere, i.e. made with the right intention.
665. 2. The confession should be truthful, i.e. free from all lies. To lie in confession concerning a grave matter which ought to be revealed is a grave sacrilege and renders the confession invalid ; to lie concerning some matter which is not necessary for confession is sinful but does not invalidate the confession, unless the gravity of the matter makes it gravely sinful. Thus, for instance, confession is invalid if the lie affects a circumstance of the sin which changes its species, or if in the course of the confession grave calumny is spoken against one’s neighbour ; if the penitent denies having committed some venial sin or a mortal sin which had been forgiven in a previous confession, his confession is not invalid, although venially sinful. Nevertheless such a sill which, objectively speaking, is venial does introduce a circumstance which greatly aggravates the sin because to commit sin at the same time as one is seeking remission of sin shows want of reverence for the sacrament.
3. The confession should be discreet and modest, i.e. the penitent should not reveal the sins of others, nor should he use obscene words or extremely coarse language to confess sins against the Sixth Commandment.
4. Confession should be oral, i.e. expressed in words and not merely by nodding or by word or in writing, unless there is a just cause, such as an inability to speak.
5. Confession must be secret, i.e. not public, and therefore no one is obliged to make use of the services of an interpreter (c. 903).
The most important quality of confession is its integrity to which we must now devote more careful attention.
The integrity of confession.
666. Definitions. Confession is formally integral when it includes all those mortal sins which, taking everything into consideration, the penitent can and must confess here and now ; confession is materially integral when it includes all mortal sins committed after Baptism and not yet directly remitted.
The need for integrity, 1. Formal integrity is absolutely essential for the validity and lawfulness of confession ; 2. legitimate excuses can be found for the absence of material integrity.
The first part of this statement is evident from the Council of Trent (sess. 14, c. 5. de paemt.) where it is stated that divine law requires the confession of each and every mortal sin (remembered after due and careful consideration), even those which are hidden and contrary to die last two Commandments of the Decalogue, and the circumstances which affect the species of the sin.
The second part of the statement is evident from the fact that sometimes material integrity is impossible, and Christ although commanding that confession be compicte does not bind anyone to the impossible.
667. The extent of integrity. It is certain that the penitent must reveal in confession :
a) the ultimate moral species of mortal sins ;
b) the number of mortal sins, in so far as this is morally possible
c) circumstances which change the species of sin.
It is not so certain that the penitent is bound to confess those circumstances which notably aggravate a sinful act. A strict obligation to confess such circumstances cannot be proved, yet it is better to confess them, and it may be necessary to do so for incidental reasons — a) because of the reservation attached to those circumstances, b) because of an occasion or habit of sinning, c) because of the satisfaction and other things which must be performed after confession (cf. the author’s Man. Theol. mor. Ill, 370 sqq.). d) the external act of sinning. Thus it would not suffice for a person who has committed fornication to say : I intended to commit fornication ; he is bound to admit that he committed the act of fornication ; e ) any external evil effect which was foreseen as following from this sin. This is at least the general rule. Thus, for example, a man who fore-sees pollution resulting from his reading of an obscene book must confess not only the reading of the book but also the pollution which actually followed.
Doubtful sins need not be confessed when the doubt is entirely negative ; if the doubt is well-founded and positive, then according to the probabilists there is no strict obligation to confess such sins, whether the doubt relates to their actual commission or to their gravity or to their remission on a previous occasion ; in their view a doubtful law does not bind. However in practice it is to be highly recommended that such doubtful mortal sins be confessed, unless the penitent is excessively scrupulous (cf. the author’s Man. Theol. mor. Ill, 375).
668. Reasons which excuse from material integrity are physical and moral impossibility.
a) Physical impossibility is considered to exist in the following and similar cases :
b) he specific difference of sins has been discussed already in the treatise on sin.
*A penitent who finds it impossible to remember the exact number of his sins should approximate to it as near as possible a) by using the word “ about ” ; consequently about ten times might mean either eight or twelve times ; b ) by mentioning how long the habit has existed and how many times each day or week the sin was committed.
Note. The confessor should not worry penitents unduly — especially the uneducated — regarding the number of their sins, since it is often impossible to obtain even a roughly accurate estimate. It is sufficient that the confessor be able to determine the state of the penitent’s soul.
1. extreme sickness ;
2. deject of speech, e.g. in those who are dumb or whose language cannot be understood by the confessor ;
3. lack of time because of imminent danger of death, as in shipwreck ;
4. invincible ignorance or forgetfulness.
b) Moral impossibility is considered to exist when material integrity would result in some grave moral inconvenience extrinsic to confession and only accidentally conjoined with the confession which has to be made here and now. Any inconvenience which is intrinsic to confession, such as a feeling of shame or the loss of good repute in the eyes of the confessor, would not be sufficient to excuse from material integrity.
Examples of moral impossibility are:
1. imminent danger to life resulting from confession either for the penitent, confessor, or a third person, such as during a time of plague ;
2. the danger of scandal or sin on the part of the penitent or confessor — a case which is quite rare ;
3. risk of violating the sacramental seal — e.g. if a person hard of hearing were to confess while others were close at hand ;
4. danger of loss of repute, especially that of a third party ; for instance, when a sin cannot be confessed without the confessor becoming aware of the accomplice, for the name of the accomplice is to be withheld as often as this can be done without grave inconvenience. The confessor would commit grave sin by asking directly for the name of the accomplice, but he is allowed to enquire about the circumstances of the sinful act which have to be revealed, even though at the same time the name of the accomplice will be made known indirectly.
669. The means to be used for obtaining integrity in confession is a careful examination of conscience. The way in which it should be made and the care to be used are discussed in the author’s Man. Theol. mor. Ill, 383 sqq.
§ 3 . The Repetition of Confession
670. A confession may be invalid or only incomplete through lack of integrity ; it is invalid if formal integrity is lacking, incomplete when material integrity is wanting.
An incomplete confession should be completed by the accusation of the sin inculpably omitted in the previous confession ; an invalid confession must he repeated in its entirety, for sin is not remitted by invalid confession.
671. General confession. A general confession is the repetition of some or all the previous confessions of one’s life.
a) A general confession is necessary when it is morally certain that some of the previous confessions were invalid.
b) A general confession is harmful when it would cause additional anxieties (for scrupulous souls) or other inconveniences, v.g. temptations.
c) A general confession is useful when the penitent would be roused to a more efficacious sorrow and amendment of life.
Art. 3. The Sacramental Penance
§ X. Definition and Necessity of Penance
672. Definition. The sacramental penance is the means whereby the sinner compensates for the temporal punishment due to sin by willingly accepting good acts of a penal character imposed by the confessor.
According to the mind of the Council of Trent, sess. 14, c. 8, this penance has a fourfold purpose :
1. it is an effective means of bringing home to the sinner that sin is a grave evil deserving dire punishment ;
2. it makes the sinner more careful and vigilant not to fall into the same sin again ;
3. it acts as a remedy for the infirmity resulting from sin and destroys evil habits ;
4. it makes the penitent like to Christ inasmuch as He Himself made satisfaction for sin.
673. The necessity of penance. The confessor possesses not only the power but also, in normal circumstances , the obligation under pain of grievous sin of imposing a penance on the penitent.
The confessor has the power of imposing penances since he must act in a similar way to God Himself whose minister he is. But God, although He remits the debt of eternal punishment, continues to require temporal satisfaction.
The confessor has an obligation of imposing a penance in accordance with the precept of the Council of Trent (sess. 14, c. 8 de paenit.) : “ The priests of the Lord should impose salutary and suitable penances, relative to the kind of sins confessed and the condition of the penitent, in so far as the Holy Spirit and prudence suggest as proper, lest they themselves should share in the sins of others by imposing light penances for the most serious sins and thus connive at sin and deal too gently with their penitents” (cf. also c. 887). — In normal circumstances the priest is bound to impose a penance, for there are occasions when the obligation ceases :
a) if the penitent is unable to perform the penance, as at the hour of death;
b) if the penitent has already recei ved absolution and then confesses some necessary matter and again receives absolution. However in this second case it would be much better if the confessor imposes a new penance (even if light), or at least imposes the penance already given for a new reason.
Normally the priest has a grave obligation to impose a suitable penance, and this is admitted by all in those cases where the penitent submits grave matter ; if the penitent confesses only free matter, some authors (Lugo, Noldin) think that the priest’s obligation is only slight ; however the contrary opinion would seem preferable, because by the voluntary omission of the penance the confessor is not fulfilling the duties of his office : he is depriving the sacrament of an integral part and inflicting harm on his penitent.
674. The amount and nature of the penance must be determined by the kind of sins confessed and by the condition of the penitent. Such is the instruction given in the passage previously quoted from the Council of Trent and in the Code of Canon law, c. 887. Therefore a grave penance should be imposed for a grave sin. A penance is considered grave if it is equivalent to some work which the Church would enjoin under grave sin, such as fasting, the hearing of Mass, five decades of the Rosary, one of the canonical hours ; a light penance would be, for instance, the recitation of the “ De Profundis,” five Our Fathers, etc. A confessor who neglects to impose a grave penance for grave sin without just cause certainly commits sin. But there are just causes permitting the imposition of a smaller penance than usual:
1. the penitent’s physical infirmity;
2. his spiritual weakness — when there is good reason to fear that a more severe penance is likely to harm rather than benefit the penitent due to his weakness in faith and religious fervour ;
3. deep and unusual contrition;
4. the occasion of a jubilee or plenary indulgence ;
5. when the confessor himself performs part of the penitent’s penance. The kind of penance to be imposed should conform to the state and correction of the penitent, for it is meant to be not only a punishment but also a cure. Generally speaking, all good works may be given as penances, but especially works of piety, charity, mortification and prayers endowed with indulgences (c. 932).
In themselves there is nothing to prevent the following works being given as penances : a) internal acts, such as meditation, although they should be conjoined in some way to external works ; b) works to be offered for the dead ; c) a work which is already obligatory. A confessor should never impose unsuitable penances (cf. S. Alphonsus, Theol. mor. 6 , 513).
§ 2. Acceptance, Fulfilment, and Commutation of the Penance
675. Acceptance and fulfilment. The penitent is bound not only to accept but also to fulfil any reasonable penance imposed by his confessor. The penitent is so obliged, seeing that the penance is an integral part of the sacrament of Penance. Therefore anyone who wishes to receive the sacrament must complete its integral parts. This obligation is considered to be grave when the penitent confesses mortal sins not previously remitted or a grave penance is imposed.— The penitent is bound to accept and fulfil a reasonable penance, for if the confessor imposes an unreasonable penance the penitent is not bound to accept it or he could seek commutation of the penance from another confessor.
If the penitent has forgotten his penance it becomes impossible to fulfil, unless he can conveniently return to the same confessor ; if the confessor does not recall the penance he imposed nor the sins which were confessed, he is not obliged to ask the penitent to repeat his confession (at least, not in its entirety) ; it is sufficient for him to make a general estimate of the state of the penitent before imposing a new sacramental penance. The penance must be fulfilled by the penitent himself and not by a substitute. Since it was the penitent who committed and confessed his sins, so he himself must fulfil the penance imposed for those sins. Regarding the time and manner of fulfilling the penance, the following points should be borne in mind.
1. If a time limit has been imposed by the confessor it must be observed ; if not, the penance should be fulfilled as soon as morally possible. There is no obligation to fulfil it before receiving Holy Communion, although normally speaking this is most fitting. If the penance is deferred so long that it is not fulfilled until the penitent again relapses into mortal sin, the command of the confessor is probably fulfilled, but it is difficult to understand how such a penitent can then remove the temporal punishment due to his former sins. Accordingly penitents are to be encouraged to fulfil at least part of their penance as soon as possible.
2. The penance should be fulfilled according to the command and intention of the confessor.
676. Commutation. It is easy to commute a penance already imposed prior to giving absolution, since the sacramental judgement is still incomplete ; after absolution has been conferred and the penance accepted, commutation may be requested for a just reason either from the confessor who imposed the penance or from another confessor ; the penitent himself has no power to commute his own penance, neither has any other person who lacks the necessary jurisdiction for hearing confessions. Commutation may always be granted provided there exists a moral continuity with the previous absolution. Therefore it would not be possible to commute a penance long after absolution was granted. 3 Another confessor has no power to commute a penance except by granting a new absolution ; thus, for instance, he could not commute a penance imposed for reserved sins unless he himself has power to absolve from such sins. This is the more probable opinion.
CHAPTER III. THE MINISTER OF THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE
This chapter is divided into four articles : 1. the power of the minister ; 2. the duty and the obligations of the minister ; 3. various classes of penitents ; 4. misuse of the sacrament.
Art. 1. The Power of the Minister
In this article will be considered : 1. the sacred Orders of the minister and his jurisdiction in general ; 2. jurisdiction of religious and for confessions of religious ; 3. restriction of jurisdiction ; 4. absolution from reserved cases.
§ X. The Sacred Orders of the Minister and his Jurisdiction in General
677. In order to administer the sacrament of Penance validly and lawfully there is required in the minister sacred Orders and jurisdiction. Thus the Code directs in c. 872 : “ For valid absolution of sin there is required in the minister not only the power of Orders but also the power of jurisdiction — ordinary or delegated — over the penitent.”
1. The sacred Order of the priesthood is required by divine law for the valid administration of the sacrament of Penance. This is defined by the Council of Trent (sess. 14, c. 10 de paenit.). Therefore no deacon — still less a lay person — has the power of absolving validly from sin.
678. 2. Ecclesiastical jurisdiction in general is the power of ruling, judging and coercing baptized persons in matters affecting their spiritual welfare and supernatural happiness. Sacramental jurisdiction is conferred. Ontheotherhand, some authors — Lugo, Ballerini, Arreuig — maintain that commutation may be granted by the confessor who imposed the penance originally, even a long time after confession and outside the sacrament by a legitimate superior who designates an approved priest to absolve or retain the sins of a determined number of subjects. Approval and jurisdiction are at present granted together by the same superior. Prior to the new Code a different ruling existed.
679. The necessity of jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is demanded by both ecclesiastical and divine law for the valid absolution of sin in the sacrament of Penance. This is laid down by the Council of Trent (sess. 14, c. 7 de paenit.) and follows from Christ’s institution of the sacrament in the form of a judgement. Now no one has power to give authentic judgement except in reference to his own subjects over whom he receives authority through the conferring of jurisdiction. Ecclesiastical law demands that the necessary jurisdiction be expressly granted in writing or orally, and no payment can be demanded for the grant of jurisdiction (c. 879).
Kinds, 1. Jurisdiction may regard either the external regimen of the Church (fori fori) which guides the external social relations of the faithful towards the Church, or the internal regimen (fori poli) by guiding the internal moral relations of the faithful with God. The latter form of jurisdiction is sacramental when exercised only in the sacrament of Penance, or extra-sacramental when it guides and binds the faithful in conscience only, even outside the sacrament.
2. Ordinary jurisdiction is that which is annexed to some ecclesiastical office duly obtained, such as the episcopal office ; delegated jurisdiction is conferred either by law or by an individual without any accompanying ecclesiastical office.
680. Ordinary jurisdiction for hearing confessions.
1. The Pope and the Cardinals possess ordinary jurisdiction over all members of the Church, including all members of religious Orders (c. 239, § 1, n. 1). The Pope has the power of limiting the jurisdiction of everyone else.
2. Local Ordinaries (such as the residential bishop, the Vicar Capitular and the Vicar General) have jurisdiction within the confines of their respective territories over all the faithful who are in those territories ; they also exercise jurisdiction over their own subjects outside their territory.
3. The Canon Penitentiary or cathedral and collegiate churches possesses ordinary jurisdiction over all those in the diocese, and may absolve the members of their diocese outside their territory (ibid. c. 401, § 2 ; 873, § 2).
4. Parish priests and all who occupy their place have ordinary jurisdiction over their parishioners both within and outside their parishes (c. 873 )
5. Exempt religious Superiors have ordinary jurisdiction over their subjects in accord with their religious Constitutions (ibid. § 2). Subjects include not only those who are professed but also novices, postulants and those continually residing in the house, such as servants or students in the college.
Note. All who possess ordinary jurisdiction may hear the confession of their subjects anywhere at all and do not require the approval of the local Ordinary. Cardinals, Canons Penitentiary and parish priests cannot delegate their jurisdiction (cf. Commissio Pont. October 16, 1919)-
681. Delegated jurisdiction is derived either from law or from an individual.
1. Jurisdiction is delegated by law :
a) if the penitent is in grave danger of death. In such circumstances any priest may validly and lawfully absolve any penitent (rightly disposed) from all sins and censures, even though another approved priest be present (c. 882). However, if the dying person recovers, he is sometimes obliged to have recourse to certain authorities, as will be explained later. Soldiers who are mobilised or called up for war are considered to be in such a danger of death (S. Penitentiary, March 12, 1912).
b) to priests on a sea voyage, provided they have received the faculty of hearing confessions from their own Ordinary 1 or from the Ordinary of any port of call ; they may hear the confessions of any of the faithful not only on board but also in any port at which the ship calls and absolve them even from sins reserved to the Ordinary (c. 883) ;
c) for the absolution of persons from another diocese or parish or those of no fixed abode or Catholics of any Oriental Bate (c. 881, § 1) ,
d) to those priests whom Cardinals and bishops choose to be their confessors (c. 349).
2. Jurisdiction delegated by an individual must be given expressly and freely in writing or orally (c. 879, § 0)- Nothing may be demanded for the grant of jurisdiction (ibid., § 2). Ordinaries should not grant
1 Even if the confessor is a Pvdigious this Ordinary is the local Ordinary and not the religious Ordinary, as stated by the Pont. Comm., July 30, 1934 (Act. Ap. Scd. XXVI, 494)-
jurisdiction except to those who have been found on examination to be suitable ; in the case of priests known by the Ordinary to possess sufficient theological learning, such an examination would be superfluous and therefore should be omitted. But if after granting jurisdiction the Ordinary has a prudent doubt regarding the continued fitness of a priest of whom he previously approved he should submit him to another examination, even if he is a parish priest or Canon Penitentiary (c. 877).
682. Jurisdiction supplied.
1. The Church supplies jurisdiction in common error— that is, if nearly all or the majority of the faithful in one place think that a priest hearing confessions has die necessary faculties, even though in fact he has not. No longer is there required what was known as a “ titulus coloratus,” for die Code states simply and without restriction (c. 209) : “ In common error … the Church supplies jurisdiction both in the internal and in the external forum. The reason for this law is the common good which would otherwise suffer grave harm. The Church does not supply jurisdiction in individual error, i.e. when one person or a few are in error.
2. The Church supplies jurisdiction in probable and positive doubt whether of fact or of law (ibid.). Thus, for example, a confessor absolves validly if he has positive reason to think that a sin is not reserved or that his temporary faculties have not expired. Thus it is expressly stated in c. 207, § 2 : “ If a priest who has received faculties for the internal forum inadvertently grants absolution even though he has completed the cases for which the faculties were granted or the time of his jurisdiction has finished, his absolution is valid.”
3. The Church supplies jurisdiction when a priest absolves from censures in ignorance of their reservation, except in the case of censures imposed by a precept of a superior or of censures most specially reserved to the Holy See (ibid. c. 2247, § 3).
683. Jurisdiction ceases :
1. when it is revoked by a legitimate superior, although only a grave reason permits the revocation or suspension of jurisdiction (ibid., c. 880, § 1). This is self-evident since such revocation or suspension is extremely distasteful. Without consulting the Holy See a bishop has no power to revoke at one and the same time the faculties of all the confessors of so-called formed religious houses (ibid. § 3) ;
2. when the stated time comes to an end; however, if absolution is inadvertently given after the expiry of the stated time or when the number of cases for which faculties were granted has been completed, the absolution is valid (c. 207, § 2) ; ‘
3- when the delegated person incurs certain censures. This is evident from c. 873 ;
4. when the office ceases to which jurisdiction was annexed (ibid. § 3). Note.— Jurisdiction does not cease by the removal from office of the grantor (as, for instance, when a bishop dies or is transferred to another see), unless the contrary is evident From the accompanying clauses (cc. 183, § 2 ; 207, § 1).
§ 2. Jurisdiction of Religious and for Confessions of Religious Special precepts exist regarding the jurisdiction of confessors belonging to clerical religious Institutes and for the confessions of those who live in the religious state.
684. Confessors belonging to clerical exempt Religious Orders may receive jurisdiction either a) from the local Ordinary in order to hear the confessions of any person, including religious ; but, ordinarily speaking, they should not use this faculty without at least the presumed permission of their superior (c. 874, §1). Local Ordinaries should not grant such habitual faculties except to religious who have been presented by their own superior ; to those presented by their superior they should not deny this faculty without a serious reason (ibid. § 2). Therefore religious no longer receive jurisdiction immediately from the Holy See as many theologians used to think ; or b ) from their proper religious Superior in accordance with the constitutions, but only in order to hear the confessions of the professed , the novices, and others who live day and night in the religious house either as servants or for the purpose of education or as guests or for convalescence (c. 875, §1). This jurisdiction may also be given by the same religious superiors to secular priests and priests of another Order or congregation.
Religious superiors may hear the confessions of those of their subjects who of their own free will ask to be heard, but without a grave reason this should not be done habitually (c. 518, § 2). The same applies to the master of novices and his associate (c. 891), unless there exists a privilege to the contrary.
685. a) Male religious (whether professed or novices) according to existing discipline may be lawfully and validly absolved (even from cases reserved in their own Order) by any confessor approved by the local Ordinary (c. 519). In every religious house of all clerical Religious, several confessors lawfully approved must be appointed in proportion to the number of Religious ; if the Religious are exempt, they must be granted jurisdiction over cases reserved in the Institute (c. 518, § 1). But at present the reservation of cases in Religious Institutes seems almost useless and ineffective, since in a particular case any confessor may absolve from these reserved cases, as has been noted already. — In a lay Religious Institute, such as that of the Alexian brothers, there must be appointed an ordinary and extraordinary confessor, but any Religious must be free to ask for any other confessor (c. 528).
b) Confessions of nuns. Special jurisdiction granted by the local Ordinary is needed for hearing the confessions of a community of female Religious. Cardinals alone have faculties to absolve any person, including religious of either sex, as we have noted already (c. 876).
In ordinary circumstances one ordinary confessor is to be appointed for each house who — unless a dispensation is granted —
i) must be at least forty years of age (c. 524) ;
ii) should not exercise his office for more than three years (and in no circumstances may he be reappointed beyond a third term (c. 526)) ;
iii) has no jurisdiction in the external forum over the sisters (c. 524) ;
iv) should not in any way interfere in the internal or external rule of the community (ibid. § 3).
In addition to the ordinary confessor, an extraordinary confessor is to be assigned to each religious house ; all the sisters must present themselves to him four times each year, at least to receive his blessing, if they are unwilling to make their confession to him (c. 521). Supplementary confessors also are to be appointed by the local Ordinary for each religious community who may be called upon easily to hear the confessions of sisters in particular cases (ibid. § 2).
In addition to these confessors any female Religious may a) ask for a special confessor or director for peace of soul or greater progress in her spiritual life (c. 520, § 2) ; b) approach any other confessor approved for hearing women’s confessions (c. 522). A fuller discussion of this question concerning the hearing of the confessions of Religious is to be found in the author’s Man. iur. eccl. q. 188 sqq.
§ 3. The Restriction of Jurisdiction Introduction. Jurisdiction may be restricted in various ways :
a) as to persons, if certain individuals, such as nuns, are excluded from the confessor’s jurisdiction ;
b) as to place, if jurisdiction is restricted to a specified district ;
c) as to time, e.g. to three years ;
d) as to certain sins, if the confessor has no power to absolve from more grievous sins. This form of restriction is more usually known as the reservation of sin, and this alone is considered here.
686 . Definition. Reservation is the withdrawal of a case ( a sin or a censure ) to a special tribunal so that the only persons who may grant absolution are the individual who mads the reservation, his successor, superior or delegate (cf. c. 893).
There are two forms of reservation : a sin may be reserved as a sin (ratione pcccati), or because the censure annexed to it is reserved (ratione censurae) ; consequently we distinguish between reserved censures and reserved sins. Furthermore these cases are either papal or non-papal reserved cases depending on whether they are reserved to the Pope or to another superior.
The purpose of reservation is to preserve ecclesiastical discipline and to inflict a more effective deterrent on the penitent (cf. cc. 897 and 2246, §1). It is for this reason that more serious and dangerous sins are reserved to judges endowed with greater prudence and experience ; and penitents labouring under these reserved sins receive a beneficial medicinal punishment since they themselves incur the burden of having recourse to higher authority and, normally speaking, of receiving a more severe penance. Nevertheless, although reservation is so praiseworthy in itself, in modern conditions it is to be used most sparingly since penitents are apt to have little regard for it and in consequence the confessor himself incurs a heavy burden. Therefore local Ordinaries should not reserve sins to their own tribunal except after discussing the matter in diocesan synod, or, failing that, unless they have taken the advice of the Cathedral Chapter and of some of the more prudent and approved parish priests of the diocese, so that the real necessity or benefit of reservation may be evident (c. 895). The reservation should not remain in force longer than necessary for the extirpation of some inveterate public vice or for the restoration of weakened Christian discipline (c. 897).
687. The power of reservation of sin.
a) The Pope has reserved many censures to his own tribunal and one sin (cf. c. 894), as will be noted more fully below.
b) The local Ordinary may reserve cases in his own diocese ; however a bishop should reserve only a few cases (namely, three or four) which are not already reserved to the Holy See and on which the law has not already inflicted some censure, even though it is not reserved to anyone. One medicinal penalty is sufficient. The vicar capitular and vicar general have no power to reserve cases to themselves except by special mandate, even when they are local Ordinaries.
c) The Superiors of an exempt Religious Order may reserve sins for their own subjects. Amongst such superiors the Superior General of an exempt clerical Religious Order and Abbots in monasteries with independent jurisdiction can reserve sins of their own subjects, but in both cases after consultation with their Council (c. 896)- At present this power of reservation is almost of no practical value since any confessor approved by the bishop has the power to absolve in particular cases from, such reserved cases in a Religious Order, as previously noted, n. 685.
688. Conditions required for the reservation of cases. No sin can be reserved so far as its absolution is concerned, unless :
a) the sin is mortal (both objectively and subjectively). This is evident, since the reservation of venial sin is useless ;
b) it is external, even if occult. Although the Church has the power to reserve even internal sin, in practice she does not (cf. c. 897) ;
c) it is consummated in point of fact ; that is to say, it is necessary that the words of the reservation be verified in their strict sense ; if even the smallest detail is lacking, the reservation is not incurred ;
d) it is certain and not doubtful (whether the doubt be one of law or of fact or relating to its gravity).
689. Ignorance of the reservation excuses from the reservation in all censures reserved to the Holy See or to a bishop by common law ; (however, cf. n. 74^)* But ignorance does not excuse a ) from the reservation attached to the sin of false accusation of an innocent confessor ; b ) from the reservation of sins reserved to the bishop, unless he states otherwise. This is the probable opinion. Reservation is akin to incapacitating laws which do not admit ignorance as an excuse (c. 16, § 1).
§ 4. Absolution from Reserved Cases
690. 1. At the hour of death or in danger of death reservation of sin ceases to operate, so that any priest (even if another is present with the necessary faculties 2 ) may absolve from any sin and censure . This is the prescription of the Council of Trent., sess. 14, c. 7 de paenit. and of the Code of Canon law, c. 88 a.
If such a person recovers from their illness, recourse must be made to the lawful Superior or his delegate, if absolution was granted :
a) from a censure most specially reserved to the Holy See (c. 3252) ;
b) from public and notorious censures, at least if reparation must be made for scandal given ;
c) from a censure inflicted by an individual (ibid.).
Recourse is not necessary in any other case.
$ A priest validly but illicitly absolves his own accomplice when that person is in danger of death, if another priest is present (c. S84).
691. 2. Outside the danger of death the following rules are to be observed :
1) Absolution from papal cases may be granted
a) by Cardinals who may absolve any penitent from any sin or censure, with the exception of censures most specially reserved to the Holy See and those incurred by revealing secrets of the Congregation of the Holy Office (c. 239, § 1, n. 1) ;
b) by Ordinaries (namely bishops, etc., major Superiors of a clerical exempt Religious Order) who by virtue of c. 2237 may absolve their own subjects in the internal forum either personally or through their delegate from all occult censures, provided that they are not reserved to the Pope either most specially or specially. In the external forum bishops may grant absolution from the censure incurred because of heresy ; the penitent thus absolved may then seek absolution in the internal forum from any confessor (Holy Office, February 19, 1916 ; c. 2314, § 2). Sometimes bishops enjoy wider powers of dispensation in virtue of special faculties ;
c) by any confessor in urgent cases when absolution cannot be delayed without grave inconvenience to the penitent. Although direct absolution is then granted, nevertheless if it is morally possible the penitent should have recourse either personally or through the confessor within one month to the S. Penitentiary or to a bishop having special faculties, or else he should seek absolution again from another confessor having the power to absolve from papal cases ; if the penitent neglects these duties he falls again into the same censure (c. 2254, § 1).
The case is considered urgent not only when there is danger of grave scandal or infamy arising from delay in granting absolution, but also when it is burdensome for the penitent to remain in the state of grievous sin during the period necessary for the competent Superior to make provision. If the penitent has no earnest desire to be absolved as quickly as possible, the confessor may legitimately urge him to that desire and then absolve him. — In such urgent cases any confessor may absolve even from cases most specially reserved to the Holy See ; thus, for example, he may absolve a priest who presumed to absolve his accomplice in a sin against chastity. But, outside the danger of death, it is never possible to absolve validiy one’s own accomplice.
If it is morally impossible to fulfil the obligation of recourse — such as when the penitent is unable to return to the same confessor and he himself is unable to write to the Sacred Penitentiary, then the confessor can give absolution without imposing any obligation of recourse (except in the case of a priest who has illegitimately absolved his accomplice in sin), but he must :
a) enjoin whatever is required by law, such as the reparation of scandal or damage caused ;
b) impose a fitting penance and satisfaction for the censure incurred, so that the penitent would relapse into the same censure unless he fulfilled the penance and made the satisfaction within the suitable period to be determined by the confessor (c. 2254, § 3). Accordingly, a penitent who incurs excommunication through reading heretical works may be absolved in an urgent case by any confessor who happens to be staying for a short time in a place, but the confessor must say to such a person : you must surrender or burn those heretical books ; moreover you must recite the Rosary twice within a month, otherwise you relapse into the same censure.
692. 2) Absolution from episcopal cases may be granted in the same way as absolution from papal cases, provided that the cases are reserved to the bishop by law (viz. the six or nine excommunications reserved by law to him ; cf. the author’s Man. iur. can. q. 680).
Religious confessors with the privileges of Mendicants probably have the power to absolve from these cases reserved to the bishop by common law.
Cases which the bishop has reserved in his own name to his tribunal (whether a censure has been attached or not) and which should never number more than three or four may be absolved by any confessor outside the territory of the bishop, even if the penitent goes outside the diocese for no other purpose than to receive absolution (c. 900, n. 3). Furthermore they may be absolved within the territory of the bishop reserving the cases :
a) by an ordinary confessor,
i) whenever (in the prudent judgement of the confessor) faculty to absolve cannot be sought from the legitimate Superior without grave inconvenience to the penitent or the danger of the violation of the sacramental seal (c. 900, n. 2) ;
ii) whenever the legitimate Superior refuses to grant faculty to absolve for a specific case (ibid.) ;
iii) in cases of the sick who cannot leave their house and of those who confess with a view to marriage (ibid. n. 1) ;
b) by missioners when they are conducting a mission given to the people (c. 899, § 3). This seems to hold true for spiritual exercises given to clerics and laypeople ;
c) by parish priests (and by those who are in law called parish priests) during the time set apart for the fulfilment of the paschal precept ;
d) by the Canon Penitentiary and vicars forane. The Canon Penitentiary receives his faculty to absolve these reserved sins from common law ; vicars forane receive their faculty from the bishop who should grant them power to subdelegate this faculty in their own district for a specific case (ibid. § 2).
The author discusses in his Man. Theol. mor. Ill 426 sqq. how the confessor must proceed in practice if the penitent confesses a reserved sin and especially how the necessary recourse must be made.
693. Note. i. When a confessor possessing no special faculty absolves from a reserved censure either through inadvertence or ignorance the absolution is valid, provided that the censure was not imposed by an individual or reserved most specially to the Holy See (c. 2247, § 3). Therefore in this case the Church supplies jurisdiction — as previously mentioned — so that the penitent may not suffer any harm; this is even more true when the confessor acts through ignorance.
2. Priests without special faculties who knowingly and without necessity absolve from reserved sins commit grave sin themselves and are ipso facto suspended from hearing confessions (c. 2366) ; those who presume to absolve without due faculty from cases either most specially or specially reserved to the Holy See incur excommunication simply reserved to the Holy See (c. 2338, § 1).
3. Travelers and persons of no fixed abode may be absolved in exactly the same way as inhabitants. Although the contrary opinion was formerly proposed by many authors, it is no longer tenable in view of the clear decision of the Pontifical Commission, November 24, 1920 (Act. Ap. Sed. XII, 575).
Art. 2. Duties and Obligations of the Confessor
694. The confessor enjoys a fourfold office — that of judge, doctor, physician and father. His chief office is that of judge, since the sacrament of Penance was instituted by Christ in the form of a judgement.
We shall consider the duties and obligation of the confessor : 1. before confession ; 2. in the act of confession ; 3 . after confession.
1 . Before Confession
695. The confessor must prepare himself for hearing confessions by acquiring sufficient knowledge, the necessary prudence, and the Christian virtues.
a) Sufficient knowledge exists in a confessor who knows how to solve cases which generally occur and how to exercise prudent doubt in more difficult cases. Such knowledge is acquired by careful study and preserved by constant revision,
b) Prudence is of prime importance to the confessor in asking questions, passing judgement, suggesting remedies, giving advice and imposing suitable penances.
c) The Christian virtues most necessary for the confessor are an ardent zeal for souls, untiring patience, fortitude, outstanding piety.
2 . In the act of Confession
696. During the actual confession,
1. the confessor must judge correctly the sins confessed and whether he is to grant or refuse absolution. Therefore he must strive to obtain by suitable questions sufficient knowledge of the penitent’s state of soul. In the words of the Roman Ritual (tit. 3, c. 1. 11. 15) : “ If the penitent has not expressed as he ought the number, species and circumstances of his sins, the priest must question him prudently.” This interrogation must be :
a) moderate, discreet, prudent. Accordingly the following instruction is given in the Code of Canon law, c. 888, § 2 : “ The confessor must never ask the name of the penitent’s accomplice nor should he ask curious and useless questions, especially in regard to the Sixth Commandment, and especially must he refrain from putting imprudent questions to the young concerning matters of which they are ignorant.” If the confessor were to ask directly the name of the accomplice this would be a grave abuse of the sacrament of Penance. Nevertheless he is not forbidden to ask questions necessary to the integrity of the confession, even though these may reveal incidentally the name of the accomplice.
b) opportune. Generally speaking, it is not advisable to ask questions of the penitent before he has completed his confession, otherwise he is easily disconcerted and forgets the sins which he had to confess. — If the penitent conceals some grave s ; n which the confessor knows from other sources that he has committed, he must be careful to propose his questions in such a way as not to violate any secret, especially a confessional secret. Thus, for example, if the husband has openly confessed many sins committed with his wife and she in her turn fails to mention them, the confessor is not permitted to ask her questions different from those which he would put to any other married woman. If the wife persists in concealing her sins, it is better to absolve conditionally (if nothing else is wanting) rather than to simulate absolution.
2. The confessor must instruct and warn the penitent, if this is advisable or necessary.
The confessor must instruct an ignorant penitent not only in the truths which are necessary for salvation but also in all that necessarily relates to contrition, purpose of amendment, confession, satisfaction, etc. Sometimes the confessor is bound to instruct him in the duties of his state of life, such as the duties of the married state. Furthermore if the penitent erroneously judges something to be sinful which in fact is not, or to be grievously sinful when it is venially sinful, the error must be corrected as harmful to him. But if as the result of an erroneous conscience a penitent is firmly convinced that something is lawful or valid which in fact is either unlawful or invalid, the penitent is to be corrected only if the admonition is likely to be profitable. Should the confessor prudently judge that such instruction would more likely lead to greater evils, the penitent can and should be left in good faith so as to prevent his material sins from becoming formal sins. — If the confessor has grave doubts whether the instruction will be of benefit to the penitent or not, it should be omitted.
The confessor must warn the penitent of the obligations which he must fulfil, such as the duty of making restitution, avoiding the proximate occasion of some sin, etc.
697. 3. The confessor must dispose his penitent to a sincere act of contrition and purpose of amendment.
The Roman Ritual (tit. 3, c. 1, n. 17) contains the following instruction: “ The confessor should use persuasive words to strive to lead the penitent to sorrow and contrition and to persuade him to amend his life and live better for the future ; he should also suggest suitable remedies for his sins.” If the confessor judges that the penitent is well disposed, he has no further obligation than to give absolution, but it is almost always useful for everyone (even for the learned and the pious) to suggest some motive of contrition and good resolution for the future. — If the confessor doubts whether the penitent is sufficiently disposed, he cannot absolve until the individual is rightly disposed.
There are many signs which indicate that the penitent is sufficiently disposed ; v.g. spontaneous confession made willingly in order to fulfil some precept or to acquire the state of grace ; on the other hand, if the penitent comes merely because he was so ordered by his parents or superiors or from force of habit, his dispositions would be regarded insufficient. Other signs of sufficient contrition would be the penitent’s own sincere expression of sorrow, his sincere promise to amend his life, a special reason for approaching the confessional — such as the death of his father, a special sermon, etc.
4. The confessor must grant, deny, or postpone absolution. Absolution must be granted to any penitent rightly disposed and confessing his sins and seeking absolution here and now (c. 886), but absolution must be refused to anyone who is certainly unworthy and incapable of receiving it. Absolution must be deferred if there exists a genuine doubt regarding the penitent’s present dispositions and if there is no urgent reason for granting conditional absolution ; it may be deferred for a short period even if the penitent is rightly disposed, when the confessor considers such postponement beneficial to the correction of the penitent, who must consent to this delay.
If there is no doubt regarding the due dispositions of the penitent and the latter seeks absolution here and now, the confessor can neither refuse nor postpone absolution. This is the express ruling of the canon (c. 886). The reason for this is that the penitent who is rightly disposed and has accused himself of his sins seems to have a strict right to the immediate reception of absolution. This is at least the existing discipline of the Church (cf. the author’s Man. Theol. mor. Ill, 438).
3 . After Confession
698. After confession the confessor has two chief duties— one incidental, the other essential. The essential duty flowing from the nature of the sacrament is to observe most carefully the seal of the sacrament ; the incidental duty consists in correcting any defects which may have occurred in the course of the confession.
The Obligation of Correcting Errors
Errors may occur :
1. concerning the validity of the sacrament, as, for instance, if the confessor omits the absolution or some words essential to it ;
2. concerning the integrity of the sacrament, as when the confessor refrains from asking about the specific character of sins confessed or circumstances which affect their specific character, or if he neglects to impose a penance.
3. concerning the obligations of the penitent, v.g. in the matter of restitution.
1. Errors Affecting the Validity of the Sacrament
699. Any error in respect of the validity of the sacrament must be corrected.
Not only parish priests and other pastors of souls but also all confessors have an obligation in justice to administer validly the sacrament of Penance, although the obligation varies in degree. For once the confessor has heard the penitent’s accusation of sin he is bound to administer the sacrament validly as a result of the quasi-contract between them, and therefore the obligation is based on justice. Consequently if he neglects this obligation he is responsible for unjust damage, which is at least materially unjust if there is no blame attached to his action (which is rarely the case in practice) ; if the sacrament is invalid through the confessor’s fault, lie commits a formal sin of unjust damage. In either case he is bound to restitution for the damage caused.
The gravity of the obligation must be determined
a) from the gravity of the harm which ensues to the penitent,
b ) from the gravity of the blame or neglect incurred by the confessor in administering the sacrament invalidly.
This principle will be more evident from examples. 1. A confessor who forgets to absolve a dying person who has confessed grave sin has a grave obligation to correct his error, if this is possible, since it would be a most serious injury to the penitent to die without receiving absolution. Moreover it would hardly be possible for a confessor to omit absolution in such circumstances except through culpable negligence.
2. A confessor who forgets to absolve any other penitent who has duly confessed his sins has a serious obligation to correct his omission, but not if this would cause him grave inconvenience, because in normal circumstances such a penitent would not incur such great harm from not receiving absolution, since he obtains the state of grace — if he does not already possess it — probably in his next Holy Communion, certainly in his next confession. Cf. the author’s Man. Theol. mor. Ill, 440.
2. Errors Affecting the Integrity of the Sacrament
700. There are two errors which the confessor may commit with regard to the integrity of confession ; negatively, he may fail to discover the species and number of grave sins committed or to impose a penance ; positively, he may state expressly that it is unnecessary to confess all mortal sins.
a) A negative error must be corrected in the next confession if this is possible without serious inconvenience ; there is no obligation to correct the error outside confession.
b) A positive error must be corrected even outside confession, but in such circumstances he must first obtain permission from the penitent to speak about confessional matters. The obligation arises from the culpability of the confessor in leading the penitent into dangerous error.
3. Errors Affecting the Duties of the Penitent
701. Again there are two errors which the confessor may commit in this respect — negatively, he may neglect to warn the penitent of some obligation, such as that of making restitution or reparation for scandal ; positively, he may expressly induce error in the penitent by excusing him from necessary restitution or obliging him. to make unnecessary reparation.
a) There is a slight obligation in charity to correct a negative error.
but not if this would cause grave inconvenience since the confessor is not the culpable cause of serious harm. Therefore if the confessor fails to warn his penitent of the obligation of making restitution, he is not himself bound to make restitution to the person to whom such restitution is due, because he has no obligation in justice of seeing that reparation is made for injury caused to a third party (cf. St. Alphonsus, Theol. mor. VI, 621). The case would be different if his omission amounted to positive liberation of his penitent from further obligation, for then the following rule would apply.
b) A positive error affecting a penitent’s obligation must be corrected, if it involves personal injury. Such a confessor is the cause of unjust damage by advising something which is harmful. Therefore when he is seriously to blame for inducing a penitent to make unnecessary restitution or for error in excusing him from such obligation, he has a grave duty to correct this error. If he neglects this correction, the confessor himself is obliged to make restitution either to the penitent whom he falsely persuaded to make restitution or to a third party if the penitent was wrongly excused from making restitution.
The Sacramental Seal
702. Definition. The seal of confession or the sacramental seal is the strict obligation of maintaining silence regarding any matter disclosed by a penitent with a view to sacramental absolution , which such disclosure would render the sacrament burdensome or odious.
This definition will become clearer from a consideration of the subject, object, obligation and violation of the seal.
The subject bound by the sacramental seal is primarily the confessor, secondarily all those who (whether intentionally or unintentionally, lawfully or unlawfully) have knowledge of confessional matter, but the penitent himself is not bound by the seal (cf. c. 889). Consequently the following persons are bound by the seal :
a) the confessor, even when consulted outside the confessional regarding sins of which the penitent accuses himself in the sacrament. The same obligation affects anyone who pretends to be a priest and hears confession (St. Thomas, 4, dist. 21, q. 3, a. 1, sol. 3) ;
b) one who acts as interpreter in confession (c. 889) ;
c) any Superior approached by a confessor or penitent for faculties to absolve from a reserved case ;
d) any theologian consulted by the confessor with the express permission of the penitent ;
e) those who read the written confession of another, at least when it is found in the hands of the confessor or in the confessional, viz. in a place where the confessor sits to hear confessions ;
f) all who intentionally or unintentionally overhear what the penitent says in confession, unless the penitent confesses in a loud voice without due cause and without troubling about the bystanders.
Note. — Although the penitent himself is not bound by the sacramental seal seeing that it was introduced for his protection, nevertheless he is under an obligation to preserve as a natural and committed secret whatever the confessor has said to him, at least when the manifestation of his words would be detrimental to the confessor— as is usually the case.
703. The object of the sacramental seal.
a) All mortal sins confessed either genetically or in detail and all venial sins confessed in detail (not those confessed genetically), unless the confessor obtains knowledge of these sins apart from confession.
b) Everything which is known only from confession and which, if disclosed, would give rise to hatred for the sacrament and would prove distasteful to the penitent.
Therefore : 1. the confessor is bound by the seal of Confession even though he has had to refuse absolution, since the obligation arises not from the act of absolution but from the act of confession.
2. The seal includes also the penance imposed on the penitent — at least when it is grave — since it would be possible for a man to deduce the gravity of sins confessed from the nature of the penance. Similarly the name of the penitent’s accomplice and the refusal of absolution are included under the seal, but not the granting of absolution. However, in practice, a confessor should never declare in word or writing that a penitent has been absolved but only that he has made his confession, provided that the request for such information is legitimate.
3. Natural defects of the penitent, such as his scrupulosity, illegitimate birth, his lack of education, etc., are subject to the seal when the knowledge of such defects is gained solely through confession and the penitent endeavours to conceal them outside confession.
4. A confessor who has heard the confession of a notorious thief is certainly permitted to speak about his universally known thefts of which the priest has gained knowledge from other sources, but he is not entitled to state that this notorious thief has confessed his crimes.
5. It is not directly contrary to the seal for the priest to state that his penitent has lived such an innocent life that he has confessed hardly any venial sins, since every man is liable to commit such sins, but it is better to avoid such statements and the discussion of a penitent’s virtues and gifts since penitents find such disclosures embarrassing. Therefore the Code justly states in reference to the process of canonization (c. 1757, § 3, n. 2) : “ Priests are to be debarred (from giving witness) in all matters which they have learned from sacramental confession, even though they have been freed from the obligation of the seal.”.
6. A confessor is not bound by the seal if the penitent approaches him not for the sake of confessing his sins but for some other reason, e.g. to tempt the priest or to seek his advice. This follows from the fact that only sacramental confession is the foundation of the obligation of the seal.
Note. — Outside the confessional the priest is not allowed to discuss even with the penitent himself any sins already confessed, unless the penitent freely grants permission to do so. In the course of the sacrament the confessor is perfectly free to speak about sins confessed in some previous confession.— If the penitent has availed himself of two confessors they are not allowed to discuss such sins between themselves without the penitent’s explicit permission.
704. The obligation of the seal is most serious so that its violation (at least if direct) does not admit of parvity of matter nor of any exception. The obligation springs from three sources.
1. It has a foundation in Natural law, since the penitent confesses his sins only on condition of secrecy. Therefore a quasi-contract is established between priest and penitent so that its violation is contrary to
Natural law and results in grave harm to the penitent.
2. Divine positive law (implicitly, although not explicitly) demands the sacramental seal, since it was Christ who instituted the sacrament in the form of a judgement in which the faithful would be obliged to confess their sins, and thereby He implicitly established the need for the seal since without such a safeguard the accusation of sin would seem to be morally impossible.
3. Ecclesiastical law has commanded on several occasions the observance of the seal (Deer, of Gratian c. 2, dist. 6 de paenit., Council of the Lateran IV). The Code of Canon law contains the following instruction (c. 889, § 1) ‘. “The sacramental seal must not be violated ; consequently the confessor must exercise the greatest care not to betray the sinner by word or sign or in any other way for any reason whatsoever.”
The obligation of the seal is so strict that :
a) no one has the power to dispense from it ;
b) no one may use epikeia ;
c ) no one may use a probable opinion (whether it concerns a law or fact).
Permission of the penitent excuses from the obligation of preserving the seal, provided that the permission is given freely ; presumed or involuntary permission is insufficient. The confessor should seek this permission only on rare occasions and for a grave reason ; if the penitent refuses his permission the obligation of the seal persists, even though he may be forced to refuse absolution.
705. Although the obligation of the seal does not prevent the use of all knowledge gained in the confessional, nevertheless the use of such sacramental knowledge is normally gravely forbidden. Therefore it is laid down in c. 890 : “ A confessor is absolutely forbidden to make use of knowledge derived from confession in any manner disagreeable to the penitent, even though there be no danger of revelation. Actual superiors and confessors who are made superiors afterwards cannot use in any way the knowledge they have gained from confessions for the purpose of external government.” Moreover in order to safeguard any danger of misusing such knowledge the master of novices and his associate, the Superior of a seminary or college are forbidden by common law to hear the confessions of their pupils living with them in the same house, except in particular cases when the students spontaneously ask them to do so for grave and urgent reasons (c. 891).
706. Therefore it is forbidden to use knowledge derived from hearing
CONFESSIONS I
1. even for the greatest spiritual or temporal good. Thus, for example, a confessor is prevented from confessing his own sin, when its revelation would violate the seal ; he cannot take to flight or omit to say Mass if he knows from confession alone that his life is threatened or the wine is poisoned ; he cannot dismiss a servant whom he knows from confession to be a thief or to be with child ;
2. for the public good. Consequently a priest is not allowed to disclose the name of a penitent whom he knows from confession is about to betray his country or to murder some innocent person ;
3. for the good of religion. Consequently a priest cannot expose a penitent whom he knows from confession will receive Holy Communion unworthily ; he is obliged even to administer Holy Communion to such a person if the latter asks for it.
It is lawful for the confessor to use knowledge derived from the sacrament in order to improve his own spiritual state, to pray for the penitent, to study moral Theology better, to consult learned men. But in the latter instance he must take special care to avoid any danger of violating the seal.
707. The violation of the sacramental seal may be either direct or indirect.
1. The seal is violated directly if anything subject to the seal is revealed as having been confessed by a particular penitent, e.g. when the confessor states : Peter has confessed the sin of adultery to me.
Such direct violations of the seal admit of no slight matter and are always grievously sinful both against justice and against religion. Therefore any confessor who presumes to violate the seal directly incurs the most serious ecclesiastical punishment, i.e. excommunication most specially reserved to the Holy See (c. 2369, § 1).
2. The seal is violated indirectly when there arises a proximate dancer of recognising the penitent’s sin or of rendering the sacrament distasteful through the confessor’s manner of speaking or acting.
Accordingly, to violate the seal indirectly it is not required that the penitent and his sin be revealed ; it is sufficient that there be a probable danger of this happening, and therefore the violation of the seal will be slight if such danger is slight. If a confessor violates the seal indirectly through his own grievous fault he is to be punished no less severely than a priest guilty of solicitation ; that is to say, he is to be suspended from the celebration of Mass and the hearing of confessions, and if the gravity of his guilt demands it, he is to be declared incapable of hearing confessions, he is to be deprived of every benefice, office, dignity, ^active and passive vote, and declared incapable of ever acquiring these. In more serious cases he is to be degraded (ibid.). — Other persons (distinct from the confessor) who rashly violate the sacramental seal are to be punished in proportion to the gravity of their fault by salutary penalties, even, if need be, by excommunication (ibid. § 2).
708. Ways in which the seal may be violated indirectly.
a) A confessor on the basis of his knowledge gained solely from hearing confessions declares that in some college, convent, or small village sins of impurity are committed frequently ; if the community is large (numbering at least 3,000 persons) such a statement would not violate the seal, although it might often be imprudent.
b) A confessor in describing something from confession mentions certain circumstances which might probably lead to the recognition of the penitent.
c) A confessor advises the parents to maintain special watch over their daughter whom he knows from confession is going out at night.
d) A confessor declines to hear a penitent’s confession merely because he knows from previous confessions that he is scrupulous or has contracted some sinful habit.
e) A confessor refuses to sign a form testifying that the penitent has made his confession (where such forms are in use) after refusing to grant him absolution.
Practical warning. The Holy Office, June 9, 1915, issued an Instruction on the inviolable sanctity of the sacramental seal to all local Ordinaries and Moderators of religious Congregations, in which a grave warning is given that confessors “ are not to mention confessional matter under any form or pretext, not even incidentally, neither directly nor indirectly ” in public or private sermons, even though there may be no direct or indirect violation of the seal. Such references sometimes prove a source of scandal to the faithful. Therefore, in one word, confessors should never mention matters declared in confession except in their prayer to God on behalf of their penitents.
Art. 3. Various Classes of Penitents
§ 1. Penitents who are in the Occasions of Sin
709. Definitions. Penitents are said to be in the occasion of sin ( occasionarii ) when they are in a proximate occasion of sin. An occasion of sin is any extrinsic circumstance (person, thing, book, play, etc.) which offers a strong incitement to sin and a suitable opportunity.
Therefore,
a) an occasion of sin differs from the danger of sinning, as any species from its genus, for every occasion of sin is a danger but not visa-versa, seeing that the danger of sinning may be internal, arising from passion or evil habit, etc. ;
b ) an occasion of sin differs from scandal (although sometimes the difference if slight), which entices to sin but does not always provide a suitable opportunity.
710. Kinds of occasions.
A remote occasion of sin is one which offers a slight danger of sin in which a person rarely commits sin. A proximate occasion is a grave external danger of sinning either for all men or only for certain types.
The gravity of the danger depends on a) general experience (such as the reading of an extremely obscene book), b) the frequency of relapse into the same sin (e.g. an inn for an habitual drunkard), c) the character of the penitent (e.g. a girl for an unchaste youth).
The occasion is said to be absolutely proximate if some external circumstance causes a serious danger of sinning for all men (such as the reading of extremely obscene literature) ; it is relatively proximate if it is dangerous for a certain individual (such as an inn for an habitual drunkard).
A proximate occasion is either free or necessary. It is free if it can be avoided easily (e.g. an inn) ; it is necessary if it cannot be avoided (e.g. a minor’s parental home).
A proximate occasion may be continually present (in esse seu praesens) if a person remains in the occasion always and continually (e.g. keeping a mistress in the house) ; it is not continually present (non in esse, non praesens) if a person is in the occasion only at certain times (e.g. an inn for the inebriate).
Absolution of penitents who are in the occasion of sin.
71 1. First Rule, a) A penitent in a remote occasion of sin may be absolved ;
b) penitents in necessary proximate occasions of sin may also be absolved if they are truly contrite and seriously resolve to use all the means necessary for avoiding sin.
Penitents in remote occasions of sin may be absolved, since such occasions are common to everyone and cannot be avoided.
The reason for the second part of the rule is that if the penitent seriously proposes to use the means necessary for avoiding sin, he will conquer his temptations with the help of God, “Who will not allow you to be tempted beyond your powers ” (1 Cor. x, 13). The chief means to be used for converting a proximate occasion of sin into a remote occasion are fervent prayer, frequent confession, avoidance of all familiarity and private conversation with an accomplice. — If a penitent promises to take these means and then neglects them, falling again into similar sins, he must be regarded as a recidivist ; cf. § 3 below.
Second Rule. Absolution must be denied to any penitent refusing to relinquish a free proximate occasion of sin.
Such a penitent is considered to lack a sincere desire of avoiding sin. Thus Innocent XI, March 2, 1679, condemned the following proposition (n. 61) : “ It is sometimes possible to absolve a penitent who is unwilling to abandon a proximate occasion which he could avoid, even though he directly and deliberately seeks this occasion or exposes himself to it ” (cf. props. 62 and 63).
Note. Generally speaking, one should defer the absolution of a penitent in a free proximate occasion of sin which is continually present until the penitent has actually removed this occasion, at least if he is a recidivist. Thus, for example, a man who keeps a mistress in his house should not be absolved in normal circumstances until he has dismissed her, especially if he promises to do this in a previous confession and has failed to keep his promise. But notice — in normal circumstances, because there are exceptions when absolution may be given immediately, provided that the penitent seriously promises to leave the free proximate occasion (cf. the author’s Man. Theol. mor. Ill, 451).
§ 2 . Penitents who have contracted Habits of Sin
712. Definition. A penitent is said to have contracted the habit of some sin when by frequent repetition of acts of that vice he has contracted an inclination to commit it. If the sin has been confessed over and over again and nevertheless the penitent continues to commit it, he has not only contracted a habit of sin but he is also a recidivist, cf. § 3.
It cannot be determined with precision how many acts are required before an evil habit is acquired, since this depends a) on the weakness of the will in failing to resist the sin, b) on the nature and manner of the sin, c) on the interval between the individual sins. According to St. Alphonsus (Prax. con. n. 70) a person must be thought to have contracted a sinful habit if he commits an external sin five times a month. With regard to internal sins (such as evil desires) a far greater number is required — perhaps five times a week. The sinful habit may arise from an external circumstance when the penitent is also in an occasion of sin, or from a diabolical temptation or inordinate passion when the penitent is an habitual sinner in the proper sense of the word, to whom the following rule applies.
713. Absolution. A penitent who has contracted a habit of sin can and must be absolved whenever he is truly contrite and sincerely promises to use all the means necessary for overcoming his evil habit.
An evil habit does not of itself prove that the penitent is not rightly disposed. In accordance with the principle that the penitent is to be believed when he speaks in his own favour just as much as when he speaks against himself, the penitent who firmly avows his sorrow and resolves to use all the necessary means to rid himself of his evil habit is deserving of belief and is capable of receiving absolution. The 60th. proposition condemned by Innocent XI (cf. the author’s Man. Theol. mor. Ill, 452) is not contrary to this teaching.
§ 3 . The Recidivist
714. Definition. In the strict and formal meaning of the term, a recidivist is one who after repeated confession (on three or four occasions) frequently falls into the same sin with the result that there exist just reasons for doubting the good will of the penitent.
In the wide sense of the term everyone must be considered a recidivist, since man falls again into the same sins after his confession. But it is not of such recidivists that we speak here. What we might call the characteristic sign of a formal recidivist seems to be that after repeated confession (on three or four occasions) the penitent commits the same sin in similar circumstances of time and place, so that one may prudently infer the continuance of an evil will in the penitent (cf. c. 2208, § 1).
A formal recidivist differs from a person who has contracted a sinful habit, as noted already ; however, earlier theologians often made no such distinction and therefore their remarks must be read with care. The following rule applies to formal recidivists.
715. Absolution. In normal circumstances the recidivist cannot be absolved unless he shows special signs of sincerity such as to destroy the presumption against hint of lack of suitable dispositions.
I say — in normal circumstances , since in a case of necessity the sacrament may be administered even to one who is doubtfully disposed to receive it. The reason for the above rule is that the penitent’s frequent relapses into the same sin with no sign of amendment create a strong presumption that he lacks sincere attrition and firm purpose of amendment. For it is hardly possible that a man genuinely sorry for his sins and firmly proposing to use the means necessary to avoid falling into sin should then commit the same sins in exactly the same way. Consequently this presumption of lack of suitable dispositions must first be destroyed before absolution may be granted, and a simple avowal to this effect on the part of the penitent is insufficient. The penitent has already asserted his willingness on several occasions to make amends and yet no amendment is evident, so that his present declaration deserves little credence. Therefore his assertion must be strengthened by special signs of contrition and firm purpose of amendment.
716. Special signs of contrition and purpose of amendment are, e.g. the voluntary avoidance of a proximate occasion of sin, the permanence of the penitent’s resolution for at least some time after his confession, spontaneous confession especially at an unusual time, a pious pilgrimage undertaken in order to make his confession, spiritual exercises, etc. The general rule to be followed is that taking all circumstances into consideration the confessor must possess sufficient certainty that the penitent here and now sincerely repents of his sins and firmly resolves not to sin again. It is not the confessor’s chief concern to consider what will happen after confession but only what ate the penitent s present dispositions. — If doubt persists regarding the penitent’s dispositions after a suitable exhortation has been given, absolution should be deferred for a short while but in cases of necessity it may be granted conditionally. It is self-evident that in speaking to these penitents the confessor must use gentleness and avoid all harsh words. Let him bear in mind the old saying: “fortiter in re, suaviter in modo.” Because of the weakness of faith so characteristic to-day of the majority of recidivists, absolution should rarely be deferred, since this delay is often more harmful than useful to the penitent.
Art. 4. Misuse of the Sacrament
There are three ways in which the minister may misuse this sacrament, 1. by inquiring the name of the penitent’s accomplice, 2. by absolving his own accomplice, 3- by solicitation.
§ 1. Inquiring the Name of an Accomplice
717. First Principle. Ordinarily speaking, a confessor commits an objectively grave sin if he directly asks his penitent for the name of the latter’s accomplice.
Such a question usually makes the sacrament extremely distasteful. Accordingly it has been laid down in the Code of Canon law, c. 888, § 2 :
“ The confessor must take care not to enquire the name of the penitent’s accomplice.” The penalties formerly inflicted by the Church on those who taught the legality of asking for the name of the penitent’s accomplice have not been renewed in the Code and therefore are abrogated.
To prevent serious harm to the common good or to a third party a penitent may be required under pain of being denied absolution to denounce an accomplice ; e.g. if a boy in a college confesses that he has committed a sexual act with one of his companions who is seducing other boys, he may be compelled by the confessor to denounce this seducer. But it is far preferable for the denunciation to be made to the competent Superior rather than to the confessor himself (whether inside or outside the confessional).
718. Second Principle. The confessor may lawfully enquire about such circumstances of a sin which have to be confessed and any proximate occasion of sin, etc., even though he may thus learn indirectly the name of the penitent’s accomplice.
The reason is that the confessor is bound to do all in his power to ensure the integrity of the confession. Thus, for example, if a youth known to the confessor reveals that he has committed fornication, the confessor can and must ask whether the youth is living in a free or necessary proximate occasion of sin and whether the occasion is continually present or not, even though such questions will immediately reveal the female accomplice.
§ 2. Absolution of an Accomplice
719. Present discipline, a) “ A priest’s absolution of his own accomplice in a sin of impurity is invalid, except in danger of death ; b) and even in danger of death such absolution is unlawful except in case of necessity, according to the rules of the Apostolic Constitutions, especially the Constitution of Benedict XIV ‘ Sacramentum Paenitentiae,’ June 1, 1741 ” (c. 884). Later we shall return to a discussion of the penalties incurred by a priest absolving his accomplice.
In order to explain this prohibition more fully, it must be carefully noted what is understood by absolution, an accomplice, and a sin of impurity.
730 . I. Absolution. The existing prohibition forbids under pain of excommunication both genuine and pretended absolution. Thus the penalty is not incurred :
a) if the confessor hears the confession of his accomplice but does not absolve the penitent, or probably if he absolves the penitent from the other sins confessed but states expressly that he does not intend to absolve the sin in which the priest himself was an accomplice ;
b) if the accomplice omits to confess the sin without the confessor being responsible in any way for such an omission. If the confessor directly or indirectly induces the penitent to conceal his sin, he incurs excommunication by absolving or pretending to absolve the accomplice (S. Paenit., Feb. 19, 1896). Direct inducement would consist in urging the penitent not to confess that sin here and now ; indirect inducement would be given by persuading the penitent that the act was not grievously sinful or that it need not be confessed, since the priest himself is already aware of the sin. The absolution of any accomplice in a sin of impurity is invalid, since the confessor does not possess jurisdiction in ordinary circumstances for absolving directly such penitents ; according to the opinion of many theologians he is deprived of all jurisdiction over his accomplice until the sin has been directly remitted. However there are certain exceptions :
The absolution of one’s accomplice is valid :
1. in danger of death. However when another priest is present, even though not approved for hearing confessions, to whom the dying penitent can and is willing to confess, the priest may validly absolve his accomplice, but the absolution is gravely unlawful and incurs the penalty of excommunication.
2. According to many authors of repute (Lehmkuhl, Tanquery, Bucceroni, D’ Annibale, Noldin, etc.) the absolution of an accomplice is valid and lawful even outside the danger of death when the circumstances are so extraordinary as to constitute a case of extreme necessity ; that is to say, in places where parishes are widely separated from each other so that it is impossible to find any other priest apart from the accomplice and the penitent is unable to undertake a long journey to find another confessor. In such circumstances the priest by using epikeia may validly and lawfully absolve his accomplice. However in such instances the absolution would be indirect and therefore the penitent would be obliged to confess the same sin again to another confessor as soon as possible. That which justifies the use of epikeia in such cases is the conflict between two laws. The divine law prescribes that on certain occasions (at least once a year) Holy Communion must be received worthily, and at the same time ecclesiastical law forbids a penitent to make his confession to his accomplice. Therefore if it is impossible to find another confessor, the divine law would seem to take precedence.
3. If the confessor absolves his accomplice in good faith, i.e. without adverting to the sin of complicity, it is probable that the absolution is valid and that the sin is remitted indirectly as in the preceding instance quoted ; the priest would not incur excommunication in this instance.
4. Similarly the sin is validly, though indirectly, absolved when the penitent of his own free choice and in good faith omits to confess the sin. Similarly in most urgent cases when the confessor expressly states before granting absolution that he has no intention of absolving from the sin in which he was an accomplice but only from the penitent’s other sin. However in both these instances the confessor would be acting unlawfully (cf. the author’s Man. Theol. mor. Ill, 458).
5. If the sin was not formally sinful. What is required for the formal sin of complicity will be explained immediately.
721. II. An accomplice (or companion in a sin against the Sixth. Commandment) may be any person capable of committing grave sin ; even a person with whom the priest committed sin prior to receiving the priesthood remains his accomplice until that sin has been remitted directly. It does not seem necessary that the complicity be immediate— that is to say, it is not necessary that the priest and his accomplice commit the act of impurity together ; it would be sufficient for both parties to commit the same serious sin against chastity both internally and externally. Thus, for example, a husband becomes a priest’s accomplice by co-operating externally in making it possible for the priest to commit adultery with Inis wife. However many theologians, e.g. Noldin, Arregui, etc., regard a person as an accomplice only when he participates immediately in the sinful act.
Certainly formal complicity is required both at the time when the sin is committed and at the time of absolution. When the sin is committed, such formal complicity will be lacking if the priest commits sin with a woman who does not recognise him as a priest, or if he commits sin with a woman who is unwilling to co-operate, or with one who is completely drunk, mad or asleep. Formal complicity is lacking at the time of absolution if the confessor is not aware that the penitent is his accomplice or seriously doubts this fact. He is certainly not allowed to ask the penitent : did you commit this sin with me ? — If formal complicity is lacking, there is no question of the misuse of confession which the Church is so anxious to avoid.
The object of the act of complicity is a sin of impurity.
722. III. A sin of impurity is any sin against the virtue of chastity, provided that it is a) grave (both objectively and subjectively), b) external, c ) certain, d) not yet directly remitted.
Therefore we must exclude
a) sins contrary to other virtues, such as theft or murder. Accordingly a priest may absolve his accomplice in theft, although it is evident to all how unsuitable his act would be ;
b) sins contrary to chastity which are slight either because of some imperfection in the act or because of an erroneous conscience. Thus a woman who erroneously thinks that it is not grievously sinful to touch a priest immodestly could be absolved by that priest, who would not incur excommunication ;
c) internal sins, such as impure pleasure or desires ;
d) sins already directly remitted on a previous occasion. Thus if a penitent confesses an impure act committed with a priest to another confessor and receives absolution, the same sin may be confessed again as free matter to the priest who was the accomplice, but in ordinary circumstances such a confession is not recommended.
723. Penalties. A priest incurs excommunication most specially reserved in the Holy See “ who absolves or pretends to absolve his accomplice to a sin of impurity. Even in danger of death the priest cannot without incurring excommunication absolve his accomplice so long as another priest can be had (even though not approved for confession) without great danger of defamation or scandal, except in the case when the sick person refuses to confess to another priest. The excommunication is incurred also when the penitent does not mention the sin of complicity from which he has not yet been absolved, if the guilty confessor directly or indirectly induced the penitent not to confess the sin” (c. 2367).
Since all penalties are subject to strict interpretation this excommunication is not incurred;
a) in those cases already noted in n. 720 when absolution has been granted validly and licitly ;
b) if the accomplice without being induced directly or indirectly by the confessor fails to mention this particular sin. But in such circumstances the confessor would commit grave sin in misusing the sacrament.
724. Absolution from this excommunication may be granted in an urgent case by any confessor, but recourse within a month to the Sacred Penitentiary is always of obligation from which severe penances are usually received. If the priest absolves his accomplice on three or more occasions, the Holy See ordinarily demands that the priest lay aside for ever his office as confessor. In the petition to the Sacred Penitentiary it is necessary to state the number of occasions on which the priest has absolved his accomplice (or accomplices).
§ 3 . Solicitation
725. Existing discipline. “ According to the Apostolic Constitutions, especially that of Benedict XIV, Sacramentum Paenitentiae, June 1741, a penitent is bound to denounce to the Ordinary or the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office within one month any priest who is guilty of solicitation in confession ; the confessor has a duty under pain of mortal sin to advise the penitent of this obligation” (c. 904).
726. 1. The conditions required for tills sin of solicitation and the consequent obligation of denunciation are almost capable of being deduced from the very nature of the sin itself. The sin of solicitation consists in this, that a priest abuses genuine or feigned sacramental confession in order to provoke the penitent to commit a grave sin against chastity.
Accordingly the following conditions must be fulfilled :
a) there must exist provocation to a grave sin contrary to chastity.
Therefore that form of solicitation which merits ecclesiastical punishment does not exist if the penitent is encouraged to commit some other sin, such as theft, or some other evil act which is not certainly and objectively a grave sin, such as a casual kiss. However in order to incur the penalties it is not required that the solicitation succeed in its purpose of inducing the penitent to commit actual sin nor that the penitent be induced to sin with the priest himself. Therefore the sin of solicitation seems to be committed if, for example, a confessor urges a youth to commit sin with a girl.
b) the confessor must solicit the penitent in his formal capacity as confessor; in other words, there must exist a genuine misuse of the sacrament.
Thus solicitation does not exist if a cleric or lay person pretends to be a priest and a confessor and then attempts to provoke another to commit some sin against chastity.
There are four occasions when the priest is considered to be acting as confessor, if his attempt to seduce a penitent takes place :
1. in the act of sacramental confession — that is to say, from the beginning of confession until the absolution ; this is immediately evident ;
2. immediately before or after confession, when no other external acts occur between the confession and the act of solicitation ;
3. under pretext of confession, when confession is used by the priest as an opportunity or mask for committing a sin against chastity ;
4. even outside the occasion of hearing confessions in a confessional or other place set apart or chosen for hearing confessions, provided that there is simulation of hearing confession in that place. The essential words in such circumstances are : provided that there is simulation of hearing confessions. It is necessary to recall the distinction already made (n. 544) between simulation and pretence in administering the sacrament. Simulation is used in order to deceive the penitent himself, whereas pretence is used to deceive others and this is not sufficient for the sin of solicitation.
727. 2. The OBLIGATION TO DENOUNCE ANY PRIEST GUILTY OF SOLICITATION arises both from Natural and Ecclesiastical law.
Natural law demands reparation for the grievous scandal given by the confessor guilty of solicitation, and such reparation seems hardly possible except by denunciation to the priest’s legitimate superior.
Ecclesiastical law punishes with instant excommunication not reserved to anyone those who neglect or culpably omit to denounce within a month those confessors or priests guilty of solicitation in confession (c. 2368, § 2). — Any confessor has power to absolve from this excommunication provided that the prescribed denunciation has been carried through or at least seriously promised (ibid.).
Causes which excuse from the duty of denunciation are :
a) the death of the priest guilty of solicitation ;
b) grave danger either to life, reputation or livelihood which is incidentally attached to the act of denunciation ;
c) dispensation granted by the Holy Office or Sacred Penitentiary — a dispensation which can be obtained only with difficulty ;
d) lack of complete certainty regarding the verification of all the conditions required for the sin of solicitation.
728. 3. Method of denunciation.
a) Denunciation must be made personally and not by letter — especially of an anonymous nature — to the bishop or Holy Office. However if it proves impossible for the penitent to approach the bishop or Holy Office in person, he must write asking for further instructions.
b) The competent bishop in such circumstances is primarily the bishop of the priest guilty of solicitation, then the bishop of the territory in which the solicitation occurred, and finally the bishop of the penitent.
c) In these cases the bishop acts as the delegate of the Holy Office and consequently has jurisdiction over exempt religious guilty of this crime.
729. 4. All the penalties for solicitation are ferendae sententiae and normally are not inflicted until the third denunciation,* but in themselves they are extremely grave. “ Priests who commit the crime of solicitation in confession are to be suspended from the celebration of Holy Mass and the hearing of confession, and, if the gravity of the guilt demands it, they shall be declared incapable of nearing confessions ; they are to be deprived of every benefice, office, dignity, active and passive vote and declared incapable of ever acquiring these. In more serious cases they shall be degraded ” (c. 2368, § 1).
Note. 1. The sin of solicitation is not reserved (at least not by common law) and therefore the unfortunate priest guilty of such a sin may be absolved by any confessor, provided that he is rightly disposed.
2. Anyone who falsely accuses a priest of solicitation commits a grave sin reserved of its nature to the Holy See. All those who participate in such false denunciation are similarly guilty of this reserved sin, such as those persons who command or advise the act. However this sin is not reserved if the denunciation is made privately and not in the juridically prescribed form. Furthermore it is stated in the Code of Canon law, c. 2363 : “ If anyone either in person or through others wrongfully denounce a confessor to a superior as guilty of solicitation, he incurs ipso facto excommunication specially reserved to the Holy See, from which he cannot be absolved unless the false denunciation is formally retracted and reparation made as far as is possible for any damage caused ; a severe and prolonged penance must be imposed.” According to present discipline, therefore, a penitent guilty of false denunciation made in juridical form (and not merely by private letter sent to the bishop) :
a) always commits a grave sin reserved to the Holy See and does not seem to be excused by ignorance of the reservation ;
b) and incurs excommunication specially reserved to the Holy See, provided he is not ignorant of the censure.
The penitent cannot be absolved from his sin or from the censure in any circumstances, unless the false denunciation is formally retracted and reparation made for the harm caused. Furthermore the confessor is bound to impose a special penance.
Practical directions. The confessor should proceed cautiously if his penitent mentions genuine or imagined solicitation. In the first place he must decide whether the person is worthy of belief for it frequently happens that hysterical women discuss matters which are either entirely false or very different from the original. Then the priest should enquire diligently whether all the conditions required for solicitation were verified or not. If it is certain that even one condition is lacking or that one of the points remains doubtful, he must not impose the duty of denunciation on his penitent. However if there cannot be any doubt regarding die fact of solicitation, the confessor should endeavour to persuade the penitent to undertake the act of juridical denunciation. If for sufficient reason the penitent refuses to denounce the confessor, the bishop or Sacred Penitentiary should be consulted regarding further action.