SATISFACTION
33. The Imposition of Penance by the Confessor.
There is no question here of satisfaction in the wider sense which
includes the restitution to be made for the infliction of spiritual or
temporal loss. The subject which we propose to treat of is satisfaction
in its restricted meaning (_satisfactio_). It consists in the performance
of those works of penance which according to the Council of Trent[381]
are designed to preserve the new life acquired in the Sacrament, to
repair the languor which remains as a relic of past sin, and at the same
time to serve as a punishment for sin. As after the recovery from a
severe illness the body is weakened, so after a spiritual cure the soul
retains a weakness and an inclination to fall back into sin; moreover, as
the Church teaches, the remission of guilt and eternal punishment does
not always include the remission of all temporal punishment. The penance
is imposed with a view of removing the last traces of weakness and of
paying the debt of temporal punishment; under its first aspect it is
called _pœna medicinalis_, under the second, _pœna vindicativa_.
This satisfaction is partly sacramental, partly extra-sacramental. The
sacramental portion consists in the works which the confessor imposes
in virtue of the power of the keys; the extra-sacramental in the works
freely undertaken by the penitent, as well as in the patient submission
to the sufferings and crosses of this life. We are dealing at present
with sacramental satisfaction, which is an integral part of the
Sacrament, as it is immediately connected with the power of the keys, and
which is more efficacious as atonement in consequence of the application
of the merits of Jesus Christ.[382]
Both confessor and penitent have obligations with respect to this
satisfaction. We will first consider the duty of the confessor in the
matter.
I. The confessor is bound to impose some penance on every penitent who
receives absolution and who is capable of doing penance.
The tradition of the Fathers, the constant practice of the Church, and
the express declaration of the Council of Trent agree in maintaining
that the penance is an integral part of the Sacrament. The text of the
Council[383] runs as follows: “It is therefore the duty of priests to
impose, as reason and prudence may suggest, wholesome and appropriate
penances with due regard for the nature of the sin and the strength of
the penitent, lest, by being indulgent towards sin and treating the
penitent too tenderly in giving the very lightest penance for grave sins
they become themselves participators in the sins of others. Let them
keep in view that the satisfaction which they impose is designed not
only to preserve the new life and to heal infirmity but also to punish
and destroy past sin; for the power of the keys was given not only to
loose but also to bind.” The confessor must impose a penance not only
when mortal sins, but also when venial sins, or mortal sins already
absolved, are confessed. As often as absolution is given a penance must
be imposed—(_a_) because the penance belongs to the integrity of the
Sacrament, (_b_) that the penitent may not be deprived of the sacramental
fruits of satisfaction, (_c_) that justice and right may be done.
II. This duty of imposing a penance urges _per se sub peccato mortali_
when there is question of mortal sins not yet remitted by the power of
the keys; where the matter is only venial sin or _materia libera_, the
obligation is binding only _sub levi_.
Hence a priest sins mortally by failing to give a penance to a penitent
who confesses sins not yet directly forgiven; in the case of a penitent
who presents only _materia libera_, the confessor sins venially
(_probabiliter_) _ob parvitatem materiæ_.
III. At times there may be no sin in failing to give a penance. This can
happen:—
(_a_) When absolution is given to a penitent _in articulo mortis_,
especially if he be unconscious. St. Alphonsus, however, recommends,
and laudably, that even a dying penitent should receive some light and
easy penance, if there be time to do it and the penitent can perform it,
_e.g._ to kiss the crucifix, to pronounce the names of Jesus and Mary,
or to make at least an internal act of love in order that the Sacrament
may have its due complement and the dying person gain some fruit from the
sacramental satisfaction. The confessor might himself help the penitent
by reciting the prayers for him, holding the crucifix to him; this will
also be a means of comforting and consoling the dying man.[384]
(_b_) If a perplexed or scrupulous penitent returns frequently to confess
sins that he had forgotten, and if nearly every time there is reason
for giving absolution, the confessor satisfies his obligations by again
imposing the previous penance without adding another or by prescribing it
as sufficient for _all_ the sins mentioned in confession.[385]
IV. The confessor is bound to give a suitable and wholesome penance,
punitive as well as medicinal, proportioned to the number and gravity
of the sins and adapted to the individual penitent. This is the express
teaching of the Council of Trent.[386]
The choice of the penance is not left to the caprice of the confessor.
Special directions are laid down for him by the Church, and these he
must follow _sub gravi_. The Council draws a distinction between _pœnæ
vindicativæ_ and _medicinales_, and the confessor has to inflict these in
his capacity of judge and healer of souls. But to avoid misunderstanding
it must be borne in mind that the whole power and authority of inflicting
penances or of binding the faithful is vested in the confessor as judge.
As physician the great object of the confessor must be to heal the wounds
of the soul and to provide against relapses, but here he can only insist
on the necessary means, and that simply because he expresses what the
penitent is bound to do already by natural and divine law.
The case is quite different when we regard the confessor as judge; in
this capacity he has power to punish and bind the penitent. In the choice
of the works of penance which he imposes in his quality of judge, he may
use his knowledge as physician, and it is a course to be commended if
he imposes such penances as will help to salvation, heal the spiritual
maladies and safeguard the penitent against relapses.[387] In this way
the confessor falls in with the prescriptions of the Council by giving
penances which are in part punitive, in part medicinal; they are punitive
if in any way they oppose our sensuality or our pride; and they are
medicinal when they are of a kind to cut away the causes and roots of
sin, to mortify our irregular inclinations, to strengthen the will, to
remove occasions of sin, to save us from relapses and to confirm us in
virtue. In accordance with the maxim “_contraria contrariis curantur_”
those good works are generally prescribed which are directly contrary
to the sins committed, hence the prescription of the Roman ritual to
impose as penances almsgiving upon the avaricious, fasting or other
bodily mortifications upon the sensual, humiliating works upon the proud,
exercises of devotion for the tepid.[388]
All works of satisfaction or penance may be reduced to the three heads of
Prayer, Fasting, Almsdeeds. Under prayer, for instance, may be grouped
all works of piety and devotion, particularly everything that may be
understood as related to the knowledge of God; more frequent prayer,
daily examination of conscience, daily Mass, meditation (especially on
the sufferings and death of Jesus Christ and the four last things),
spiritual reading, more frequent confession, frequent repetition of acts
of the theological virtues, thought of the presence of God, devotion to
our Blessed Lady—all of which are irksome and contrary to our corrupt
nature and partake in consequence of the nature of a penance. Under
the head of fasting may be included not only abstention from meat and
drink, but every kind of mortification, hence the denial of even lawful
pleasures, early rising in the morning, the cutting down of little
comforts, kneeling at prayer, etc. And under almsgiving we may comprise
all works of corporal and spiritual mercy.
These three classes of good works correspond to the three roots of
sin,—the concupiscence of the flesh, the concupiscence of the eyes and
the pride of life; for fasting is directed against the concupiscence of
the flesh, almsgiving against the concupiscence of the eyes, and prayer
against the pride of life.[389]
Even purely interior acts (_opera mere interiora_) may be imposed: some
theologians contradict this statement on the plea that human authority
is not empowered to enjoin such acts, but here the question is not about
human authority but of divine power given to men.[390]
The confessor may also give as a penance works to be done for the souls
in purgatory, for though this satisfaction _in se_ is directed to the
benefit of the holy souls it is a good work, and by its union with the
Sacrament has power _ex opere operato_ to lessen the temporal debt of the
penitent.[391]
Indeed the confessor may impose as penance some good work which has
already been started, not precisely as a good work but so far as it
expresses under the new circumstances obedience, humility, and the denial
of one’s own will. It may be observed, however, what St. Alphonsus
remarks, that it is rarely advisable to impose such a penance even with
another good work attached.
A work which one is already bound to do may be imposed as a penance
since it may be _ex natura sua_ satisfactory and is capable of acquiring
a greater satisfactory effect; but such work can be considered as a
sacramental penance only when the confessor has expressly declared so,
nor is it advisable that such works should be so imposed, unless indeed
there exist some urgent reason for it on the part of the penitent,—his
weakness, for example. If such work (_aliunde debitum_) be imposed, its
omission is a double sin.[392]
A penance may be given to be performed in case of a relapse, according
to the opinion of eminent theologians such as Suarez, Laymann, and
St. Alphonsus Liguori; so that if the condition be fulfilled, _i.e._
if the sinner relapse, the penance must be carried out. A confessor
giving only a penance of that kind would be very far from satisfying his
obligations.[393]
A public penance, _i.e._, a penance to be done before others, of such
a nature that bystanders could infer that the penitent had incurred
grave sin, cannot be imposed by a confessor for secret sins, for such
an infliction would be an indirect violation of the seal, and besides
it is expressly forbidden by the Roman Ritual. For public sins a public
penance may be inflicted, and the Council of Trent insists upon it as a
way of repairing scandal. Here there is no breach of the seal, for it is
question of notorious sin. The confessor should only insist, however, on
a public penance when he is convinced of the necessity of that step for
repairing scandal. If the confessor feels called upon to impose such a
penance, and the penitent declines to do it, absolution cannot be given.
In general, any scandal given may be set right by an evident reform in
the life of the penitent, if, for instance, he approach the Sacraments
more frequently, visit the Church, hear Mass, join a sodality, etc.[394]
Moreover, not everything done in the presence of others, which the
penitent could easily undertake of his own free will, need be regarded
as a public penance. It need be no matter of anxiety to the confessor if
the penitent reveals to others that such or such a practice is a penance
imposed by the priest.
Finally the confessor must carefully avoid enjoining any practices which
are needlessly repugnant to the penitent and which there is reason to
fear he will shirk. For instance, telling the children to beg pardon
of their parents, or the penitent to pray in the Church with the arms
stretched out in the form of a cross. Lehmkuhl justly remarks that such
penances are a clear sign of a confessor’s want of prudence and may give
occasion to many sacrileges.[395]
There is left a large choice for the confessor in the matter of penances.
He is bound, however, by the prescriptions of the Council of Trent to
impose works of penance _quantum spiritus et prudentia suggesserit_, but
also to consider the _qualitas criminum_ and the _facultas pœnitentium_.
Thus he must bear in mind the gravity of the sin and the condition of
the penitent; in this way a prudent mean may be kept between too great
mildness and excessive strictness. The priest should avoid being too
easy, for fear, as the Council says, of participating in the guilt of
others and sacrificing God’s cause to an indulgence which may be easily
attributed to human respect or other unworthy causes. To avoid this
danger the Roman Catechism recommends the study of the old penitential
canons where each sin has its own fixed punishment. It is true that the
discipline has been altered since then but its spirit remains, and the
zeal of the priest for the cause of his Lord should be no less fervent
than that of the first ages of the Church. On the other hand, however,
undue rigor is to be avoided. The strictness should not be founded on
self-love, prejudice, ostentation, nor on a naturally stern temperament,
nor on want of common sense, etc., otherwise the penitent may be driven
to despair, and souls lost instead of being won. The tribunal of penance
should resemble as closely as possible God’s own tribunal, and as God is
not only just but merciful, so the priest should never separate these two
attributes. It is often a good thing to let the penitent know that he
has deserved a severer penance, but that the ever gentle spirit of the
Church imposes only a light one, leaving the penitent free to undertake
other works of satisfaction if his zeal prompt him thereto. It is matter
of experience that penances extended over too long a period do not always
succeed in their object, for since they are frequently not performed they
may easily prove a snare to the penitent instead of being a help. If the
priest is in doubt whether to adopt a strict or a mild line of conduct
in any particular case, he may recall the beautiful words of St. John
Chrysostom:[396] “Is it not easier to render an account of excessive
mercy than of excessive severity? Can the steward be close-handed where
the master is so liberal? If, then, God is so good why should His
minister be severe? If your object is to pose as a saint, be austere
towards yourself and mild towards others.”[397]
V. For mortal sin a _pœnitentia simpliciter gravis_ should be given, for
venial sin a _pœnitentia levis_; and a confessor would sin gravely if
without sufficient reason he should impose for mortal sin a _pœnitentia
in se levis_, for he would neither punish the sin nor give his penitent
the means of salvation. In the case of sins doubtfully mortal, whether
considered subjectively or objectively, he is not obliged to impose a
severe penance.[398]
Whatever in the present discipline of the Church is imposed _sub gravi_
is considered as _materia gravis_ for a penance. The following, for
instance: five decades of the Rosary, the Litany of the Saints with the
accompanying prayers; while as _materia levis_ are reckoned: one psalm
(of moderate length), the Litany of Loretto, five Our Fathers and five
Hail Mary’s, etc. Any prayer corresponding in length to a little hour
of the Breviary counts for _materia levis_, for though the omission of
one of these little hours is a mortal sin, this is not in virtue of the
prayer itself, but because the recitation of the Breviary is a public and
official act and done in the name of the whole Church.
If the penitent has committed many mortal sins, the penance can hardly
be increased in a strict proportion. In this case the imposition of a
penance corresponding to one mortal sin is not sufficient unless special
reasons exist for not giving a heavier penalty.
VI. There are many reasons for which a confessor may be justified in
giving a smaller penance than is due to the number and gravity of the
sins, and this diminution may be absolute as well as relative. For
instance:—
1. A penitent is prostrated by a severe illness and unable to perform a
longer penance. The priest should exhort him to offer up his sufferings
as satisfaction for his sins, and if the sins have been very grave the
priest ought to be willing to take upon himself part of the penance.[399]
2. When there is extraordinary sorrow. This _in se_ is sufficient reason
for diminishing the penance, for the greater such sorrow the greater is
the remission of temporal punishment. On the other hand, such a penitent
is willing to accept a very severe penance; and if we read of certain
holy men imposing only a slight penance, we must remember that they
either made up for it in their own person or induced the penitent to
practice of his own free will some austerity.
3. A confessor may see that his penitent is very weak spiritually and not
willing to carry out a severe penance, although he may have no doubt as
to his contrition and resolution of amendment. Such a case may call for
the expedient of adding to a small penance some other practices which the
penitent must fulfill on other accounts, _e.g._ to hear Mass on Sunday,
etc., and the confessor would do well to choose such practices as the
penitent has been in the habit of neglecting.[400]
We will now mention the occasions in which a confessor may impose a
penance in accordance, indeed, with the Church’s precepts as to _materia
gravis_, but less than what seems proportioned to the number and gravity
of the sins:—
1. When there is great, though not quite extraordinary, contrition.
2. On the occasion of a jubilee or some other plenary indulgence; but to
refrain for such a reason from giving any penance at all would be quite
wrong and against the distinct declaration of Benedict XIV, Constit.
“_Inter præteritos._”
3. When there is fear that the penitent, through spiritual weakness, may
fail to perform the penance which would correspond to his sins.
4. When there is hope that a smaller penance will induce the penitent
to receive the Sacraments oftener and with greater spiritual benefit;
indeed, this seems to be the chief reason why the Church has tempered in
our days the severity of her penitential discipline.
5. When the confessor intends to do the penance which he believes he
dare not lay upon his penitent, as, for instance, when St. Francis
Xavier disciplined himself to satisfy for the sins of his penitents. The
sufficiency of this vicarious penance rests on the Catholic doctrine
of the Communion of Saints. On the other hand, the proposition that a
penitent can, of his own authority, appoint another to do the penance for
him has been condemned by Alexander VII.
6. When there is hope of inducing the penitent by means of a smaller
penance to do other good works on his own account.
7. When the penitent has already done penance and is in the habit of
practicing good works.
It is, however, always recommended to tell the penitent that the penance
is very much less than he deserves.[401]
VII. For venial sins or _materia libera_ the confessor may impose a heavy
or a light penance but not _sub gravi_; but if he imposes a light penance
for mortal sin such penance may bind only _sub levi_, but the very fact
of imposing a heavy penance for mortal sin means that the obligation
is _sub gravi_, unless he expressly declares his intention of not so
binding.[402]
In treating the question of the obligation on the penitent of carrying
out the penance and the intention of the confessor in the matter, we
must keep in mind the parallel instances of the binding force of laws.
The legislator cannot bind the conscience _sub gravi_ in a matter which,
regarded objectively, is of small moment; while grave matter when
prescribed _ex gravi causa_ induces a strict obligation _per se_, though
the legislator may have the power only to enforce it under pain of venial
sin. This is the teaching of St. Alphonsus with the _sententia communior
et valde probabilis_ as regards the obligation of laws and the lawgiver.
When, then, the confessor imposes a penance, he is at the same time
passing a law which must be obeyed.
Many theologians deny that the confessor can impose for mortal sin a
heavy penance only _sub levi_ because he is simply God’s minister,
and in consequence must act in accordance with the institution of the
Sacrament without attempting to diminish its rigor.[403] On the other
hand, the _sententia communior et valde probabilis_ gives the confessor
the right because, though he is the vicar of God, he is appointed by
Christ as actual judge and legislator who, in virtue of his powers,
looses by forgiving sin and binds by imposing penance; so that the
obligation of the penance is not a consequence of the Sacrament but of
the precept of the confessor.[404] Still the confessor would not be
justified in practically disregarding the first opinion, for, as St.
Alphonsus teaches, he must obey the Council of Trent in its decision
that ordinarily a _grave opus_ is to be imposed _sub gravi_ even though
the penance be slight in comparison to the number and heinousness of the
sins. The opinion may, however, be used in this way. The confessor, after
giving a severe penance _sub gravi_, may add a still more severe penance
_sub levi_; if this latter be fulfilled by the penitent, he makes full
sacramental satisfaction; if he neglect it, there is at least no great
responsibility. St. Alphonsus notices that this is a very good way of
dealing with weak penitents, for all good works have a satisfactory power
and a weak penitent is thus not exposed to occasion of grave sin; at the
same time what Aertnys observes is also to be borne in mind, namely, that
in our days, owing to the decay of fervor, such a method is seldom to be
recommended.[405]
The confessor may give the penance immediately after the absolution,
but it is more correct to give it beforehand, as that is the custom in
the Church, and the proper order of justice requires that the penitent
should show himself disposed to undertake his penance before absolution
is given.[406]
In concluding this article we give a list of penances which may be
imposed according to the principles already given:—
Attendance at holy Mass, the Rosary or the Stations of the Cross (these
should not be given to people who are not accustomed to the devotions,
and in regard to the Stations of the Cross, the embarrassment that many
experience in performing public devotions should be taken into account),
the Seven Penitential Psalms, the Litany of the Saints, the Litany of
Loretto or some other litany, the Prayer to the Five Wounds, to commend
one’s self to the Sacred Hearts of Jesus and Mary morning and evening
while reciting one Our Father and one Hail Mary, to say every day a
certain number (not too many) of short prayers—_e.g._ to say the Hail
Mary three times morning and evening (St. Alphonsus used to give his
penitents this penance, adding the invocation “My Mother, preserve me
from offending God this day,” and when the penitents were not accustomed
to this form of devotion he used at least to recommend it), to examine
the conscience daily and to excite acts of contrition, to read some
short extracts from a pious book approved by the confessor, such as the
Imitation of Christ, to make a meditation, or after reading carefully
some subject such as the Four Last Things or the Sufferings of Christ to
reflect upon it for a short while, to devote a short time every day to
eliciting acts of Faith, Hope, and Charity, to hear sermons, to receive
the Sacraments on certain fixed days, to renew the resolutions made at
the last confession, not thoughtlessly but with all earnestness, and to
hold to them steadfastly now in honor of the Sacred Heart, at another
time in honor of the Blessed Virgin, and again in honor of some one
among the saints with a petition for their help, to make some fervent
ejaculation every time the clock strikes (when the confessor gives this
or similar practices as a penance he might remind the penitents to make
up the number of times missed if by chance they forget it).
Fasting (though this should be very seldom given and then only with great
caution) or an occasional mortification at meal time; to refrain from
some particular dish, or from wine or other intoxicating liquor, either
for a fixed period or a certain number of times; still more prudence
is to be exercised in imposing other bodily mortifications—indeed they
should be permitted only with great reserve—praying with arms extended
(unseen, of course, by others), to pray on bended knees, to rise at a
fixed hour in the morning, to avoid unprofitable conversation, etc., to
give alms, to visit the poor and the sick, to help them, and to do lowly
offices for them, etc.[407]
Which of these penances should be imposed is a matter depending on the
sins and disposition of the penitent. The choice of penance is an affair
of considerable moment with regard to the well-being and reformation of
the penitent, and it is a neglect of duty to impose on every occasion
without distinction the recital of a prayer.
In addition, the confessor should observe the wholesome advice which has
been given by men distinguished alike for sanctity and learning.
St. Antoninus writes:[408] “The priest should give such a penance as he
thinks the penitent will perform. If a man, after accusing himself of
grave sin, declares that he cannot do a severe penance, the confessor
must reason with him, pointing out the gravity of his offenses and the
severe punishments he has deserved, and after that give him some penance
such as he can be persuaded to undertake; and if the priest does not
obtain perfect success, he may rejoice, at least, that he has rescued
a soul from hell if not from purgatory; hence, on no account, should he
send a penitent away in despair or discouragement. It is better to give
him a _Pater Noster_ or some other slight penance and make the good works
which he does or his sufferings supply for the rest. A man who shows real
sorrow and is ready to do all that he ought, but declares that a heavy
penance is beyond him should never, no matter how he may have sinned, be
sent away without absolution lest he fall into despair.”
St. Charles Borromeo recommends the confessor to impose such penance as
he thinks the man will do; hence he may occasionally ask the penitent
if he can perform the penance given; and if the latter expresses his
doubts about fulfilling it, the confessor may change the penance or make
it easier.[409] The saint also appeals to St. Thomas Aquinas, who warns
the confessor not to burden his penitents with heavy penances,[410] for
as a smouldering fire may be put out by heaping too much fuel upon it,
so the feeble contrition which has only just been excited in the heart
of the penitent may be crushed out by a severe penance, and despair may
be the consequence. Hence it is better to point out to the penitent what
a big penance he deserves and to give him a smaller one such as he will
be ready to fulfill, by which he will accustom himself to the bigger one
which the confessor would not have ventured to impose.
Finally St. Alphonsus[411] may be heard on this subject: “How imprudent
is the conduct of those priests who give penances which they foresee
will never be done. Oh, how many ignorant confessors there are who
thoughtlessly absolve penitents living in the proximate occasion of sin
or in bad dispositions; and yet such confessors are persuaded for some
incomprehensible reason that they are ministering to the health of souls
by imposing heavy penances. The result is that the penitents, having
agreed to the penance for fear of being refused absolution, relapse
again, after a short time, because they were never taught to adopt any
safeguards against sin, omit the penance, and, terrified by its severity,
keep away from the Sacrament so as to spend a great portion of their
lives in sin.”
34. The Acceptance and Performance of the Penance by the Penitent.
I. The penitent is obliged to accept willingly the penance imposed and to
perform it exactly; for as the duty devolves on the priest of securing
the integrity of the Sacrament by giving the penance, the penitent is, in
turn, bound to accept it and carry it out.
The duty is of strict obligation _ex genere suo_, so that the penitent
would sin gravely by omitting a grave penance imposed _sub gravi_, or a
considerable portion of it. We have already seen what is to be considered
grave in this matter.[412]
II. The penitent is obliged to perform the penance enjoined by the
confessor, but no limit of time is determined within which it must be
done. An unreasonably long delay, however, might easily become a grave
matter.
To determine how far delay may involve grave sin we must take into
consideration whether time is a substantial element in the penance. For
example: (1) whether the confessor has fixed a day and of set purpose,
for the appointing of a day does not always imply a fixed intention on
the confessor’s part; indeed, generally speaking, it is not a mortal sin
to postpone a fast appointed for Friday to the following Saturday.[413]
(2) If some work has been prescribed to be done within a given time after
the confession, and it is the intention of the confessor that there
should be no interruption, its omission, even for one day if it amount
to a _materia gravis_, may be a mortal sin, unless the confessor has
given leave to substitute one day for another or where his consent to
a change may be fairly presumed. (3) If the postponement of the work
imposed reduced the penance to little or nothing, as, for example, if the
confessor enjoined on the penitent to approach the Sacraments in a week
and the penitent put it off for a month; to delay the weekly communion
for a day or two or the monthly communion to a period not longer than
a week would, apart from other considerations, amount only to a venial
sin.[414]
There is no mortal sin in putting off the penance even for a considerable
time as long as the time fixed for its performance is not a substantial
part of the work imposed. A delay of six months would, according to
St. Alphonsus, certainly constitute a mortal sin; the great factor in
determining the gravity of the offense will be the danger of forgetting
the penance or of being unable to carry it out.[415]
If a penance is enjoined which has to be performed daily for a
considerable period, and which is also a work prescribed by the
commandments of the Church, it may be presumed that the confessor never
intended a double performance of the work unless he expressly declared
such an intention. On the other hand, if it is enjoined once or twice
or even oftener without indicating any special day, the penitent cannot
satisfy the double obligation by the one act; for example, a man who
is told to hear Mass three times cannot satisfy by making one of the
Masses the Sunday Mass of obligation, unless this be expressly granted
by his confessor, nor would he fulfill his duty by hearing three Masses
simultaneously, because such would never be the intention of the
confessor. If, however, a man is enjoined to hear Mass daily, he is not
obliged to hear two Masses on Sundays.[416] If the penitent has certain
prayers to say for his penance, they may be recited during a Mass of
obligation, for the two duties may be fulfilled at the same time unless
the confessor rule it otherwise. It is a useful and excellent practice to
remind the penitent that he may say his penance during the time of Mass,
especially if his circumstances be such that he can hardly command other
available time.[417]
If the penitent fails to perform his penance within the prescribed time,
he is not on that account freed from the obligation of accomplishing it;
for the confessor intends first the penance, then the time-limit, and the
latter is fixed _non ad finiendam sed ad urgendam obligationem_.
Even when the penitent has fallen into mortal sin, he may still perform
his penance and so satisfy his obligation in that matter, but he does
not obtain the fruits of satisfaction. When the penitent does what he
has been told he fulfills substantially his duty; the manner or mode of
fulfilling it (namely, in the state of grace) does not come under the
command. By the fact, however, of not being in the state of grace his
works cannot be _de condigno_ satisfactory, and so cannot merit for him
the release from temporal punishment. It is certain that no new mortal
sin is contracted by a penitent who performs his penance in a state of
mortal sin, though, according to a probable opinion supported by St.
Alphonsus,[418] there is a venial sin in consequence of the hindrance
offered to the effects of the Sacrament. Some theologians[419] also teach
that when such a penitent regains the state of grace (_obice remoto_) the
penance effects satisfaction and remission of temporal punishment _ex
opere operato_, and this doctrine is _valde probabilis_.
In addition to the sacramental satisfaction the penitent should
undertake some penance on his own initiative, especially where that
enjoined by the priest is small with regard to the gravity of the sin.
This extra-sacramental satisfaction will be supplemented by the prayer
in which the Church, in virtue of the merits of Christ and His saints,
confers on extra-sacramental works the power of reducing the debt of
temporal punishment.
35. The Commutation of the Penance.
If, for some good reason, the penitent discovers that the penance is too
severe, he should mention the circumstance to his confessor that he may
change it; and if the penitent has undertaken a penance which later on
presents great difficulties in its fulfilment, he should consult some
priest equipped with the necessary powers for a commutation.
But there should be a good reason, and not mere weakness, sensuality,
or laziness, which usually counsel avoidance of all severity and
self-conquest or sacrifice for God and the good of one’s soul. Self-love
and self-indulgence easily persuade us that what is difficult is
impossible, and we have seen that the very aim of penance is to punish
in the strict sense of the word; it ought to be both a chastisement and
a means of salvation. If the penitent shrinks from the penance and asks
for a mitigation, the confessor should in all kindness consider the
motive and act accordingly. If he can find no sufficient reason but only
a pretext of self-love and self-indulgence, he must tell the penitent
so and endeavor to persuade him to undertake the penance, otherwise
absolution cannot be given. When the petition is reasonable the penance
may be changed.
A reasonable penance cannot be declined by the penitent without his
incurring thereby grave sin, for when once he has submitted his case to
the confessor he ought to abide by the latter’s decision, since the law
of God requires that the confessor should inflict a suitable penance and
that the penitent should accept it.[420] There is, however, a great
difference between refusing a penance and asking for its mitigation.
Under no circumstances may the penitent himself change the penance, even
for a work objectively more perfect, for the sacramental satisfaction
must be imposed by the minister of the Sacrament, and the penitent has no
right to annul or commute on his own authority the sentence pronounced by
the judge.
If, now, the penitent is convinced on sufficient grounds that the penance
is exorbitant and he cannot persuade the confessor to make it easier,
he is at liberty to go away without absolution and present his case to
another priest, repeating, of course, his confession.[421] If, however,
his grounds are defective, he may easily incur a venial sin by such
procedure.[422] A really well-disposed penitent, therefore, will hardly
incur grave sin if, conscious of his weakness, he objects to a penance as
too hard and seeks absolution from another confessor, so long, of course,
as he does not seek out one who is known for his criminal laxity.
If a man after absolution finds the penance too difficult of performance,
he may get it changed either by the same priest or by another.
This commutation can be made only in confession, in virtue of the
absolution which has been already given or is to be given, for it is only
the absolution by which an effect _ex opere operato_ can be produced
in the penitent, and it is the absolution which gives the satisfactory
efficacy _ex opere operato_ to the penance which has been or is to be
imposed.[423]
Hence the confessor immediately after the absolution can certainly change
the penance because, morally speaking, the judicial action is still in
progress. Though some theologians extend this power (of changing the
penance in virtue of the absolution imparted) over two or three days,
the preference is to be given to the opinion of St. Alphonsus,[424] who
restricts the period to the time immediately after the absolution, for,
as a matter of fact, the _judicium sacramentale_ is then completed. If,
however, the penitent and confessor are of the other opinion, which is
not devoid of extrinsic probability, they may act upon it, since it is
not a question of an essential part of the Sacrament; if there were
question of the essence of the Sacrament, an injury would be done both to
the Sacrament and its recipient by following a doubtful opinion.[425]
Any other priest can commute the penance only in virtue of a new
absolution which he himself gives.
The question now arises whether the penitent ought to repeat his
confession with a view to obtain another penance. If he applies to the
same confessor, he is certainly not obliged if the latter retain some
notion _in confuso_ of the penitent’s conscience; if the penitent goes
to another priest, according to an opinion considered as probable by
Laymann, Lugo, Sporer, he is exempt from the obligation of repeating
his confession, because it is not upon the sins that judgment is to be
passed, but upon the reasons for changing the penance, whether, for
instance, the penitent is unable to perform it or whether the penance
itself is too severe. Moreover, the confessor may follow this method
with a safe conscience, though it is more advisable for him to adopt the
practice advocated by other theologians, notably Suarez, Lugo, Laymann,
Sporer, and Lacroix, of getting the penitent to give at least an outline
of the previous confession in order to have an approximate knowledge of
the state of his soul.[426]
The view held by many theologians is also probable, that when a confessor
sees that a penance has not been performed by a penitent, and that no
likelihood exists of its performance, he may commute it for something
else, though unasked by the penitent.
When, however, a penance has been inflicted for some reserved sin by
a constitutional Superior, no inferior may commute it, for authority
in such cases is withdrawn from the inferior tribunal. Exception is
made where the penitent would have great difficulty in approaching
the Superior and when urgent reasons call for a commutation. This is
the teaching of St. Alphonsus and some other theologians against the
supporters of the stricter doctrine.[427]
There still remains the question what the penitent is to do when he
has forgotten the penance. According to the common, and perhaps also
the more probable, opinion, he is not obliged to repeat the confession
of even the graver sins, and the duty of performing the penance simply
lapses (_ad impossibile enim nemo tenetur_); nor is there any obligation
to confess again sins already directly remitted with a view of securing
the integrity of the Sacrament, for that would be a grievous burden.
If, however, the penitent thinks that the confessor remembers the
penance, and he can reach him without difficulty, he is, as theologians
rightly affirm, obliged to ask his confessor to give him his penance,
for there is no grave impediment in this case to the performance of the
penance.[428]
In this connection we must note that: 1. When a man forgets the penance
enjoined, and has a conviction that the penance was a certain work, he
is bound to do that work, for whoever is certain about his obligation is
obliged to do what is probably of obligation if he cannot fulfill what is
certainly of obligation.[429]
2. When a penitent confesses that he has not performed the penance but
has said the prayers prescribed out of devotion without thinking of the
penance, he has satisfied his obligation, and the confessor cannot insist
on the performance of another penance; for a man is supposed to do first
that to which he is bound.[430]
PART III
_THE MINISTER OF THE SACRAMENT_
In the preceding chapters which dealt with the _actus pœnitentis_, we
have already had occasion to consider the office of the minister of the
Sacrament. The functions of the confessor consist mainly in absolving
according to the intention of Christ. In treating of this important
and difficult subject, we shall follow the most approved theologians,
distinguished alike for learning and sanctity, so as to avoid on the
one hand an extensive mildness and on the other a severity fatal to the
salvation of souls.
SECTION I
THE POWERS OF THE CONFESSOR
36. Orders, Jurisdiction, Approbation.
1. The proper minister of the Sacrament of Penance is the priest. Penance
being a Sacrament, it is self-evident on Catholic principles that
its minister must have the sacerdotal character, the power of Orders
(_potestas ordinis_). This power springs from the priestly character
and consists in the capacity of _valide_ performing the sacred rites
instituted by Christ, so that they are an efficacious means of grace.[431]
The Sacrament of Penance is, moreover, in its dispensation essentially
judicial. The minister of the Sacrament is judge over the soul; hence he
must have in addition to Holy Orders the power of spiritual jurisdiction
(_potestas jurisdictionis_).
Thus for a valid absolution there are required both _potestas ordinis_
and _potestas jurisdictionis_.
Jurisdiction in general is public authority in its completest sense, and
thus includes the power of directing subjects. In its more restricted
sense it is the power of judging right and wrong and of pronouncing
sentence. It answers perfectly to the power exercised in the Sacrament of
Penance (_in foro interno_). Hence jurisdiction _in foro sacramentali_ is
the power by which a priest can pronounce sentence on those subject to
him by remitting or retaining sins.
What, then, is the relation existing between the _potestas ordinis_
and the _potestas jurisdictionis_? The priestly character conveys no
jurisdiction with it; it may exist without any jurisdiction.[432]
2. It is a peculiarity of this _potestas ordinis_ that the exercise of
it without the Church’s commission is not illicit only, but invalid.
Hence, while in the other Sacraments jurisdiction is extrinsic to the
exercise of power and only regulates it, in the Sacrament of Penance
the jurisdiction is an intrinsic condition, because the exercise of the
power of this Sacrament is essentially a judicial act and involving
jurisdiction.
3. Jurisdiction, though not conveyed by Orders, is derived from God, but
through the hands of the Church, _i.e._ by delegation from those who are
invested with that jurisdiction. Hence all priests besides the Pope, who
receives it immediately from God, owe their jurisdiction to the Church;
thus priests receive their jurisdiction from the bishops, the bishops
from the Pope.
4. We may, therefore, say that the _potestas ordinis_ renders its
subject capable of jurisdiction _in foro interno_, and of conferring
the Sacrament after jurisdiction has been given, so that the _potestas
ordinis_ is the disposition for administering the Sacrament of
Penance.[433] Thus it is not so much that the power of remitting sins
judicially is given to the priest in his ordination as rather this, that
the ordained person, when he is appointed judge by proper authority to
take cognizance of sins, is enabled to remit these sins _sacramentally_;
in other words, he receives power to remit sins by a special grace.
From the preceding it follows: (1) that the doctrine which teaches that
jurisdiction is conveyed by ordination merely is false; (2) that it is
also false to teach that ordination confers _ipso facto_ jurisdiction,
but that the Church can restrain its exercise and that in granting
jurisdiction she does no more than remove her own prohibition; (3) that
it is the same thing to say: the Church confers jurisdiction to a priest,
as to say, the Church assigns _in foro interno_ certain subjects to the
priest; (4) that one may say, the _potestas ordinis_ which is acquired by
the character of the priesthood is the _potestas inchoata_ to absolve,
while it is incorrect to say that the _potestas ordinis_ is the _potestas
jurisdictionis inchoata_ or _habitualis_; (5) that jurisdiction differs
from the powers of Orders both in its essence and in the mode by which it
is acquired; in its essence, since jurisdiction is the power of judging
and binding subjects, while ordination only confers the power _ex jure
divino_ of acquiring jurisdiction and is the necessary condition that the
absolution be sacramental; in its mode, since jurisdiction is imparted by
the concession of the Church, while the power of Orders comes from the
consecration to the priesthood.[434]
Jurisdiction is either ordinary or delegated (_ordinaria vel delegata_).
Christ appointed judges to preside over visible tribunals in His place
and in His name, with authority, vicarious, it is true, but ordinary
(_auctoritate quidem vicaria at ordinaria_), that is, an authority
emanating from the office to which they were appointed by Christ. These
judges are the Apostles and their successors, the Pope, therefore, and
the bishops, and these can appoint others to help them.
Thus whoever in virtue of a public, ecclesiastical office existing of
divine right has subjects over whom he rules and is judge, exercises
jurisdiction in the Sacrament of Penance _potestate ordinaria_; others
exercise this function _potestate delegata vel a proprie dictis
Superioribus communicata_; hence the latter are dependent on their
Superiors in the exercise of their powers _quoad liceitatem et quoad
valorem_.
Although any one with _potestas ordinaria_ can impart it to another,
the Supreme Authority of the Church on which depends all valid exercise
of jurisdiction has so ordered it that no one may exercise delegated
jurisdiction in the tribunal of penance—at least with regard to lay
people—without having previously received episcopal approbation; hence
the delegation by those who are subject to the bishop and have powers
of delegation is as a rule quite useless. Indeed, it is now the custom
generally to give approbation and jurisdiction at the same time;
nevertheless, cases might occur in which the distinction must be observed.
Approbation _in se_ is nothing more than a formal declaration that
a priest is a suitable person (_aptus_) to exercise sacramental
jurisdiction; his fitness or capacity for the work is judged by his
science and morals. Approbation cannot be given licitly unless the
fitness of the subject is ascertained or reasonably presumed, though
its validity is not affected by the want of this fitness; but the
Superior ought to withdraw his approbation when the subject is unfit. The
Council of Trent interprets the phrase Public Approbation not only as a
_testimonium auctoritativum_ that the priest is a fit subject to exercise
jurisdiction, but also as the _facultas audiendi confessiones_ which the
bishop grants to a priest who is considered fit for the office;[435] for
the Council declares that he only can hear confessions who has been given
charge of a parish or who has received approbation. Beyond that nothing
else is demanded for the exercise of jurisdiction, hence approbation or
the appointment to a parish is the only condition required for hearing
confessions. Moreover, in papal constitutions the approbation is called
_licentia_ or _facultas audiendi confessiones_, and in common speech an
approved priest is one who has jurisdiction.[436] All this is in perfect
agreement with the practice of bishops, who usually grant jurisdiction
along with approbation.[437]
CHAPTER I
JURISDICTION
37. The Minister of the Sacrament with Ordinary Jurisdiction.
I. The Pope has _jurisdictio ordinaria_ over the whole Church. This
requires no proof. The Vatican Council decreed that the jurisdiction of
the Pope is a real episcopal jurisdiction, immediate and extending to
all the faithful. Theologians discuss at length—and it is a question not
to be omitted here—how it is that the Pope can give power to another to
absolve himself (the Pope). Lugo discusses at length that there is no
contradiction in the Pope delegating to another such jurisdiction over
himself, and still less contradiction appears when we reflect that that
jurisdiction _in foro sacramentali_, though exercised and delegated by
the pastor of the Church, is always exercised in the name of Christ; nor
is there anything absurd in the fact of the Pope as a private individual
being subject to his own jurisdiction in his capacity as a public person.
Though he cannot bind and punish himself, he may subject himself to
another and share in the graces and privileges of the Church, otherwise
he could not obtain absolution at all.[438]
II. By divine right, the bishops exercise _potestas ordinaria_ in
their own dioceses, even _in foro interno_, subject, of course, to the
authority of the Pope. Although every bishop receives his jurisdiction
from the Holy See, the episcopal office is one of divine right and
confers a definite jurisdiction, a very important section of which is
the jurisdiction _in foro sacramentali_. As long as a bishop remains in
office and in the exercise of it, he cannot be deprived of the power of
absolving his subjects, though this power may be limited by reservations
imposed by the Pope. A bishop may also, for grave reasons, be deprived of
his office, or the exercise of it may be forbidden, or his jurisdiction
taken away; and such is the effect of certain ecclesiastical censures.
III. By ecclesiastical law, all vicars-general, and _sede vacante_
vicars-capitular, have the same jurisdiction as the bishop over
his diocese _in foro interno_. The jurisdiction, however, of the
vicar-general is wholly dependent on that of the bishop, hence the
saying: _Episcopi morte moritur Vicarius generalis_; and he has no other
faculties than those which the bishop has attached to his office. If,
for instance, a bishop by a special privilege of the Holy See has more
extended faculties, these do not pass to the vicar-general unless the
bishop transfers them to him with leave from the Holy See. During the
vacancy of the episcopal see, the whole of the bishop’s faculties, with a
few exceptions, are transferred to the vicar-capitular or administrator.
IV. By the law of the Church, parish priests have _jurisdictio ordinaria_
over their parishioners, and their power is measured by what the
Church imparts to them as the constituted assistants of the bishop. In
relation to their own parish they are _pastores proprii_, having only
administrative power _in foro externo_, but _in foro interno plena
jurisdictio subject_, of course, to such limitations as may be imposed
by the Pope or their bishop. By his appointment (_collatione_) to a
parish a priest acquires the right of hearing the confessions of his
subjects. Nevertheless, the bishop has the right of examining his clergy
periodically to make sure of their fitness to hear confessions.[439]
V. The Cathedral Penitentiary has also _ordinaria jurisdictio_ for the
whole diocese in places where the office is established, and he may
absolve all belonging to the diocese, even outside the boundaries of the
diocese;[440] and this power is secured to him, not by any concession
from the bishop, but by a law passed by the Council of Trent.[441]
VI. Others may, also, in virtue of the Church’s law, acquire _jurisdictio
ordinaria_, and as a matter of fact it is enjoyed by _Prelati regulares_
with respect to their subjects, by Legates over their province. That of
Cardinals over their churches is confined to very narrow limits. Those
are regarded as subjects who have domicile or quasi-domicile within the
parish or diocese; hence the jurisdiction of bishops and parish priests
is primarily local and secondarily personal; that is, it extends to those
who have their dwelling in a definite place. On the other hand, the
jurisdiction of Regular Prelates is chiefly personal, and is confined to
definite local limits only secondarily.
Since the Council of Trent excepts from the further approbation of the
bishops only those priests who are in charge of a parish, a difficulty
may occur as to the jurisdiction of priests who have no parish, but who
exercise a definite _cura spiritualis_ over certain subjects. We must
inquire first of all into the faculties which the Holy See has annexed
to such offices, for since the Council emanated from the Holy See the
latter is empowered to make exceptions. The question is of peculiar
interest with regard to military chaplains, as to whether they can hear
the confessions of soldiers in garrison without the approbation of the
bishop of the diocese. No general rule can be laid down for all cases.
Wherever a regularly appointed army-bishop or even a _Capellanus major_
exists, he generally receives the fullest faculties, not only for hearing
the confessions of the soldiers himself, but also for appointing other
priests or chaplains to that duty without consulting the bishop of the
diocese;[442] otherwise no military chaplain may hear the confessions
of soldiers in garrison without special powers from the Pope or the
permission and approbation of the Ordinary.[443] Thus their faculties are
confined to the soldiers when on the march or in camp.
All who have _jurisdictio ordinaria_ can receive the confessions of
their subjects and absolve them wherever they happen to be, for such
jurisdiction belongs to their office and accompanies them everywhere.
Thus a parish priest can always hear the confessions of his parishioners
whether he be within or beyond the bounds of his parish and diocese
or not. A curate, chaplain, or other assistant priest cannot receive
confessions outside the diocese, even if he have faculties for the whole
diocese; to do so he would have to apply to the bishop of the diocese in
which the penitent happens to be.
_De jure_ a parish priest is approved only for the territory of his
benefice “_pro suo tantum oppido ubi sita sit parochialis ecclesia_,”
according to the decrees of the S. C. C.[444] He may not, therefore,
when in another diocese, hear the confessions of strangers (who are not
his own subjects) without leave of the bishop of that diocese. Indeed,
_per se_, he may not hear the confessions of strangers in another parish
even of his own diocese. At the present day, however, it is the practice
sanctioned either by law or by custom that parish priests and their
curates may hear confessions anywhere within the diocese.[445]
In his own parish a parish priest may hear the confessions of any one who
approaches him, even strangers, since he is the approved confessor in his
own parish.
_Jurisdictio ordinaria_ is lost: (_a_) by loss of the office or benefice
to which it is attached; (_b_) by excommunication or suspension if the
censure carries the stigma “_vitandus_.” Other excommunications or
suspensions impede only the licit exercise (_licitus usus_) of the powers.
38. The Minister of the Sacrament with Delegated Jurisdiction or
Approbation.
I. All priests who have not _jurisdictio ordinaria_, but act only _ex
jurisdictione delegata_, require for the licit and valid exercise of
their office the approbation of the bishop of the place where they hear
confessions, unless they enjoy some special privilege from the Holy See.
The Constitution of Innocent XII, 9 Apr., 1700, “Cum Sicut,” is very
explicit in this matter, as is also that of Innocent XIII, 23 Sept.,
1723, “Apostolici muneris,” which was confirmed by Benedict XIV in his
Constitution, 5 Aug., 1744, “Apostolica indulta,” in the following words:
“No priest, whether secular or regular, may hear confessions without the
approbation of the Ordinary of the diocese where the penitent dwells or
sojourns, and it is expressly decreed that all privileges to choose a
confessor from the clergy approved by the bishop are to be understood
only as giving powers to choose any one approved by the bishop of the
place where the confession is made.”[446]
Since the conferring of approbation is not an act of the _Ordo
episcopalis_ but of episcopal jurisdiction, all who have ordinary
episcopal jurisdiction can grant approbation, thus: (1) the bishop elect
and confirmed, though not yet ordained; (2) the vicar-general since he
exercises the jurisdiction of the bishop; (3) the vicar-capitular _sede
vacante_, since he succeeds to the jurisdiction of the bishop; (4)
vicars-apostolic who are appointed by the Pope in place of bishops; and
(5) abbots who are not affiliated to a diocese.
The bishop may insist on an examination before granting approbation,
though he may dispense with it since there are other means of
ascertaining the fitness of a priest for hearing confessions.[447] Any
priest whether secular or regular may be called on again for examination
by the bishop, if the latter has not approved the candidate himself,
although a former bishop may have done so. A confessor even approved by
his own Ordinary may be examined if he has received approbation without
undergoing examination. Those, however, whom the bishop has approved
after an examination may not be reëxamined without a _justa causa_.[448]
A bishop sins by refusing approbation to a competent priest, for all
priests have a claim to approbation in virtue of their sacerdotal
character, so that to deny it to a suitable candidate would be an
infringement of his rights.
The approbation which is necessary for a valid absolution may not be
presumed; it must be actually conferred and made known to the priest; for
since there is question of the _validity_ of an act, only the faculties
which the bishop has really conferred, not those which he will grant,
can be considered. Hence when a priest applies for faculties he cannot
hear confessions till he has received them, even when from his knowledge
of the bishop he feels confident of receiving the faculties and knows
that they are already on the way. The faculties may be acted upon when
conveyed verbally by any trustworthy person.[449]
Approbation is required even before absolving from venial sins already
confessed; after the decree of Innocent XI, 1679, we cannot any longer
assume that the Church here supplies jurisdiction to the priest.[450]
A bishop in traveling may take with him any of his priests to accompany
him as confessor; but if the priest is not a subject of said bishop
(whether by domicile or quasi-domicile), he may not receive the
confession of the bishop unless he be approved, as St. Alphonsus adds,
by the bishop of the priest’s domicile (Fagnani and Lugo) or, as Scavini
remarks, by the bishop of the place; the Congregation S. C. C. decreed so
early as 1609 that a bishop outside his own diocese might confess only to
a priest approved _ab ordinario loci_ (except, of course, when the priest
is a subject of the bishop), so that Scavini’s decision is the norm to be
observed in practice.[451]
Cardinals, papal domestic prelates, and royalty may choose any approved
confessor and be absolved by him anywhere. Even in Rome itself Cardinals
and bishops may choose for themselves and for their household any
suitable priest as confessor and retain him with them for that purpose
also when they leave the city.[452]
A bishop can give faculties for hearing confessions in his own diocese to
a priest belonging to another diocese, for the latter _in ordine ad hoc
opus_ is subject to the bishop of the diocese where the confessions are
heard. This is the universal practice in the Church.
A parish priest cannot of his own authority give faculties to a priest of
another diocese to hear the confessions of his own parishioners because
the _jurisdictio ordinaria_ which goes along with the benefice extends
only to the parish in his own charge. There is a custom, however, in
many places among parish priests in outlying districts of the diocese to
authorize the priest of a neighboring diocese to assist them in hearing
confessions. This custom, which is recognized by the bishops, confers
jurisdiction _ex tacita episcoporum approbatione_.[453] Thus many bishops
have an explicit agreement by which approved priests of neighboring
dioceses may assist one another in the confessional. Those who supply in
another diocese, however, must pay attention to the cases reserved to the
bishop in that diocese, since for the time being they are subject to him
_in ordine ad hoc munus_.
II. Approbation may be granted without any limitations; the bishop may,
if he wish, limit the approbation according to time, place, and persons,
most certainly if the approbation include jurisdiction, for the whole
subject is one of delegation and all delegation is regulated by the
intention of the Superior. Even when approbation in the strict sense only
is conferred the bishop may _ex rationabili causa_ confine it within a
given time, a fixed place, or over a certain class of persons (children,
men). The grounds for such a limitation might be, for instance, defects
of ability, care, or study.
III. The bishop may not only impose limits in his approbation, but he
may also recall it entirely, for all delegated authority exists only at
the pleasure of the Superior; reasonable grounds must exist for such
withdrawal if it is to be licit. It is a debated point among theologians
whether withdrawal without any grounds is valid or not. The view that
such withdrawal is invalid because it is an unjust deprivation of rights
conferred, is certainly probable and maintained, among others, by Suarez,
Lugo, and St. Alphonsus; but since it is not easy to establish the
want of just grounds the view is of but little practical application;
the bishop may be acting upon reasons which are unknown to his clergy,
and while doubts remain, the presumption is always in favor of the
bishop.[454]
IV. When the approbation is granted for a fixed length of time it ceases
after that period; otherwise only by withdrawal; when given without any
limitations it does not cease with the death of the giver, nor even when
the recipient changes his domicile. This may be considered quite certain
with regard to Regulars who have once received unlimited approbation.[455]
Regulars, on account of their privileges and dependence on the Holy See,
are distinguished in many details from the secular priesthood with regard
to jurisdiction.
V. The secular clergy receive jurisdiction and approbation either from
their own bishop or from the bishop in whose diocese they are hearing
confessions. Regulars receive jurisdiction from the Sovereign Pontiff
through their Superiors, who must confer the jurisdiction as from the
Pope, not like the bishops granting it on their own authority, but only
as representatives of the Apostolic See. Besides this jurisdiction they
must also have the approbation of the _Episcopus loci_; then as far as
jurisdiction is considered they may absolve any one.[456]
Though all Regulars have jurisdiction from the Pope they cannot hear
confessions without the approbation of the bishop, which may not be
refused without just and reasonable motives; of these, however, the
Regular is not the judge, and if he be refused approbation, he is
effectually debarred from hearing confessions.[457]
Clement X imposed certain limitations on bishops with regard to
the granting or refusing of approbation to the Regular clergy. He
decreed:[458]—
1. That Religious who were proved capable of hearing confessions, should
be permitted by the bishop to hear confessions anywhere in the diocese
without restriction of time, place, or person; with regard, however, to
those who were not so well prepared the bishop should be left to his own
judgment in the matter of imposing restrictions.
2. Those who had once received approbation might hear the confessions
of any of the faithful, even of the sick, without leave of the parish
priest or even of the bishop, at any time of the year, including even
Easter, within the diocese of the bishop who conferred the approbation;
in cases where they had heard the confessions of the sick they should
inform the parish priest, at least by a letter left with the sick person;
the penalty for neglect in this matter being suspension from the right of
hearing confessions. (The latter obligation is not enforced in missionary
countries, where by general consent any approved priest may hear the
confessions of the sick.)
3. Any Regular who has been approved by the bishop after examination
and without any restriction cannot be called again for examination by
his bishop (this does not hold when the faculties have been obtained
from the vicar-general or the predecessor of the bishop), nor can he be
suspended from hearing confessions; moreover he cannot even be deprived
of his faculties unless for reasons connected with the Sacrament itself;
the reasons for such objection need not be judicially proved, nor is the
bishop obliged to communicate them himself to the Regular in question,
but he must reveal them to the Pope if the latter insists on being
informed of them. Hence in the whole process the Regular must act in
submission to the bishop, and if he be convinced that he is treated
unjustly, he may have recourse to the Holy See; in the meantime, however,
his attitude must be one of submission.
4. Though a blameless life and unspotted morals are of the greatest
moment in the ministers of this Sacrament ... no bishop can deprive a
whole community of faculties on the ground of general unfitness, without
consulting the Holy See.
Hence we conclude:—
1. Approbation is justly limited in the case of Religious who have not
passed an examination.
2. Approved Regulars may be recalled for examination: (_a_) when
they have received approbation without examination, (_b_) when after
examination they have received only limited approbation; (_c_) when this
approbation has been received from the vicar-general or the bishop’s
predecessor, and this though the examination has been passed and
unlimited approbation conferred; (_d_) when any reason is presented
connected with the Sacrament itself; and this holds for those who after
examination even have received the fullest approbation from the bishop
himself.[459]
Except in the case of special legislation to the contrary on the part of
the Holy See any Religious may receive both jurisdiction and approbation
_ab Episcopo loci_, and at the present day that is the way in which
bishops understand the conferring of approbation. This view solves the
question of the validity of absolution given by a Religious without the
knowledge or even against the will of his Superior.[460]
Moreover, Religious Superiors may receive from the bishop the power
of imparting faculties to their subjects; the extent of the faculties
must, of course, be ascertained. When, for example, the bishop gives
general faculties, reserved cases are not included even when they are not
expressly excepted.[461] When the bishop gives more extended faculties,
as, for instance, on the occasion of a mission, and a Religious Superior
imparts to his subjects these faculties for the mission, he is supposed
to give _all the faculties_ which he has received from the bishop,
because he is then acting only as the bishop’s mouthpiece unless, of
course, he states the contrary. When, again, the bishop gives faculties
for a special object they are not to be used for anything beyond that
object; it is another question when some special work is seized upon only
as an occasion for asking and giving faculties.[462]
VI. Strangers (_peregrini_), _i.e._ those who are not in the diocese
of their domicile or quasi-domicile, may be absolved by a Religious
without any difficulty as subjects of the Pope (from whom the Religious
presumably receives _jurisdictio delegata_); they may also in virtue
of an old and approved custom in the Church be absolved by any other
confessor. This is the unanimous verdict of all theologians, though there
is diversity of opinion as to the theory which justifies the practice
of secular priests in this matter, nor is the manner of solving the
question an indifferent matter; if, for instance, a stranger is absolved
in virtue of the jurisdiction which _his own_ bishop confers on the
priest, the bishop can absolutely forbid him to seek absolution from a
strange priest by declaring such absolution invalid; (this, of course,
applies to secular priests; with regard to Religious confessors there
is no difficulty).[463] Thus on the solution of this question depends
the power over cases reserved in another diocese. Some theologians now
maintain that the jurisdiction of a priest over a stranger is based on
the tacit consent[464] of all the bishops, while others hold that it is a
universal custom of the Church having the force of law.[465] But neither
the _consensus Episcoporum_, nor _consuetudo_, even when the latter
has the force of law, can convey jurisdiction if we are to follow the
teaching of the Church; we must suppose, then, that the propounders of
such a view meant to state it thus: the Church, _i.e._ the Pope, either
makes the _Episcopus loci_ an _Episcopus peregrinorum_, or he delegates
_his own_ jurisdiction to all confessors. Since the first view is hardly
possible, they are forced to the conclusion that the Pope, either by
express or legal consent to the universal custom, grants to all approved
confessors a delegated jurisdiction to absolve strangers. It is beyond
all doubt that this view is probable especially when we add the weight of
St. Alphonsus’ authority. The case, however, is not quite certain, for
the existence of the custom seems to prove no more than that the _bishops
themselves_ as a rule give a tacit consent to the arrangement, and it
does not prove that the bishops are obliged to agree _in every case_ to
this arrangement, or that their power over a subject is withdrawn by the
fact of his occasionally leaving the diocese; and it still remains to be
proved that the Pope so entirely approves of the practice as to consent
to break through the natural order of things by which all authority
is communicated through immediate Superiors, not directly from the
fountainhead; at the same time it is beyond all question that the Pope
can if he so wishes empower any secular priest to hear the confessions of
_peregrini_; and if a bishop were without any pressing reason to forbid
his subjects to confess outside their own diocese, the Holy See could
always be petitioned to apply a suitable remedy for such a prohibition,
since under the present condition of things there must always be many
people living outside of their own diocese.[466]
Other theologians teach that _peregrini_ by the very fact of presenting
themselves at the tribunal of penance in another diocese become subjects
of the _Episcopus loci_ or of the priest who derives his faculties
from him, and this _ex universali consensu quem P. M. Eugenius IV
approbavit_.[467] But does the wish to receive the Sacrament make the
_peregrinus_ a subject of the bishop or the bishop his superior? Whoever
maintains this and grants that the _Episcopus loci_ is not the bishop
of the _peregrinus_, states in other words that one who is not actually
a superior may be judge _in foro interno_. But is such a statement in
accordance with divine right? In any case the _peregrinus_ remains
the subject of the bishop of the diocese in which he has domicile or
quasi-domicile, and no proof can be adduced that the bishop of the place
in which the _peregrinus_ makes his confession has, by virtue of his
office, power to absolve him; he can do that only when he is superior
in right of his office, and he can be superior only when he is the
bishop of the _peregrinus_, since human and divine law recognize no
other ecclesiastical superior than Pope, bishop, parish priest, or their
substitutes. But no one would maintain that the _Episcopus loci_ is the
true bishop of the _peregrinus_.
Finally, other theologians explain the jurisdiction of the secular priest
over _peregrini_ in this manner: that the bishop of the _peregrinus_
grants tacitly the faculties to every approved priest and is generally
obliged to do so.[468] The ecumenical synods of Florence, Trent, and
the Lateran declare that the absolution granted by any other than one’s
own Ordinary is invalid unless leave be obtained from him. Now such a
permission is either a direct or indirect imparting of jurisdiction;
hence every absolution is invalid which is given without jurisdiction
from the bishop of the penitent. It is on this ground that theologians
and canonists alike, whether of the older or more recent school,
insist upon the necessity of a consent on the part of the Superior or
bishop of the penitent in the case of confessions made outside his own
diocese. Ballerini (l. c. Dissert. n. 33 ss) concludes his learned
investigation of this question in answer to the objections of the
_Vindiciæ Alphonsianæ_ with the following propositions, which are not
mere speculative conclusions, but are in fact the teaching of the Church,
resting as they do on the very essence and nature of the Sacrament as
solemnly explained and defined by the Holy See and ecumenical councils:
(1) in order to absolve a _peregrinus_, faculties must be granted by one
who has ordinary jurisdiction over the penitent; (2) the existence of the
custom of absolving _peregrini_ outside their diocese neither conveys
nor can convey the necessary jurisdiction; (3) jurisdiction is given by
approbation or consent (express or tacit) or leave (implicit or explicit)
of the Ordinary or of the particular pastor of the _peregrinus_; (4)
this approbation or consent includes the imparting of jurisdiction to
the confessor chosen by the _peregrinus_; (5) a sufficient indication of
this consent exists in the tolerance of a custom with the knowledge of
the bishop and without any remonstrance on his part; (6) the delegation
of jurisdiction depends on this consent in such wise that the pastor of
souls may, at his own option, retract his consent, thus abolishing the
custom and withdrawing entirely the power to absolve his subjects. All
these statements are incontrovertible.
Hence since a penitent can be absolved by his own bishop or by the
delegate of the latter, since the bishop of the _peregrinus_ remains his
superior in spite of the penitent being in another diocese transitorily,
the latter can be absolved only in virtue of power granted tacitly by his
own bishop.[469]
VII. As _Vagi_ have no fixed domicile, their spiritual superior is the
Pope, and by virtue of his express or tacit delegation they may be
absolved by any approved confessor wherever they happen to be; but they
cannot be absolved by any but those approved for the place where the
confession is made.
It will be asked: Who is to give approbation for absolving travelers on
the sea? This point has been settled in a very simple manner by a recent
decree of the Congregation of the Inquisition. Any priest, approved by
his Ordinary, may hear the confession of his fellow-travelers while the
voyage is in process, though they pass through or stop off for a time in
the territory of another bishop.[470]
39. Jurisdictio Delegata Extraordinaria, or, the Supplying of Deficient
Jurisdiction by the Church.
There is another kind of jurisdiction, viz.: when the Church makes good
the deficiency of delegation; here jurisdiction is conveyed “_supplente
Ecclesia_.”
Let it be remarked at the outset that it is by no means permissible to
perform any act for which jurisdiction is necessary—therefore to give
absolution—when the absence of jurisdiction is certain, even if the
Church should supply to insure validity of the act. When jurisdiction
is doubtful, it may be allowable to perform the act, especially if the
Church really does supply. Before discussing the matter itself we must
explain what is meant by the axiom: “The Church makes good deficient
jurisdiction.” The meaning of it is this: the Church, or the highest
judicial authority of the Church, confers, in an exceptional manner,
jurisdiction for individual acts, and the Church does this for the
general welfare _in ipso actu_, that is, in the performance of the act
itself.[471] There is, accordingly, a great difference between the
jurisdiction which a man actually possesses, and that which he exercises
“_supplente Ecclesia_.” In the first case I possess the jurisdiction
before I begin the act, before I hear the confession, or perform any
other act for which jurisdiction is required; indeed, I possess it in
most cases _habitualiter_. I possess it also when the act is completed.
But he who absolves or performs any other function _supplente Ecclesia_
receives the jurisdiction only when the action has already begun—in this
case when he is about to pronounce absolution—in order that he may carry
to its end the confession which has begun; the action once completed,—in
this case the absolution being pronounced,—he has no further
jurisdiction. When, therefore, previous to an action, a priest already
_probabiliter_ possesses jurisdiction, the Church, if she supplies, must
do so only conditionally, upon the presumption that he possessed no
jurisdiction; that is, when that jurisdiction which he was believed to
have was as a matter of fact not existing.
The Church supplies deficiency of jurisdiction:—
1. When one who exercises a power possesses a _titulus coloratus_ for
this power, and when, at the same time, the error is general amongst the
faithful, in such sort that the absence of real power is mostly unknown.
A _titulus coloratus_ (apparent title) is one that is in itself false,
but yet really exists; that is, one which has been conferred by lawful
authority and, therefore, bears the appearance and outward form of a true
title, even when, for some cause or other, it is void by an essential
defect.[472] The supplying action of the Church in this case is based
upon the right itself which she has conferred and ratified; this is the
teaching of all theologians.[473] The Church, they say, supplies as a
good mother in the interest of the welfare of souls.[474]
2. When there is no _titulus coloratus_ but only _error communis_,[475]
many theologians are of opinion that the Church supplies in this case
also for the general welfare.
St. Alphonsus adopts this opinion as probable, because the Church
supplies for defective jurisdiction more with a view to the common
good than out of consideration for the title.[476] It will scarcely,
however, be possible to assign to this opinion a real and substantial
probability; a number of theologians are indeed in favor of it, but not
a few of considerable repute are opposed to it (Lugo, Sanchez, Lessius,
and others). It is, therefore, canon law which must decide the question,
the more so, as we have not to do directly with what may be allowed
or not, but with the positive conferring of, possibly, non-existent
jurisdiction. Now what is to be gathered from the canon law on this point
seems plainly opposed to the more lenient view given in a decision of
the S. C. Conc. of 11 December, 1683, which Benedict XIV[477] cites to
settle the question. The matter remains, therefore, doubtful. The harm,
however, which can result from the negative opinion is not very great, as
a confessor cannot long exercise his office without title, and such harm
is made good by subsequent communion or confession. Several theologians,
moreover, rightly maintain that the faithful are not bound in this case
to repeat those confessions which they have, _bona fide_, made to a
priest, who, _ex communi errore_, passed for a confessor.
3. But when there is question not of _error communis_ but only of _error
privatus_ in a few persons, the Church certainly does not supply the
defective jurisdiction, because here the _bonum commune_ is not at
stake.[478]
From this it follows:—
1. That it is not allowed knowingly to make use of a power arising only
from an “apparent” title, although the Church should positively supply;
but he who is not aware of the defect of his title—this title being in
reality only an apparent title—has nothing to rectify subsequently, as
his actions were valid (_supplente Ecclesia_).
2. Still less is it allowable for one who knows that he possesses neither
power nor title to act on the ground of general error; in the first
place, because he assumes a power which he does not possess, and because,
moreover, he exposes to danger those who are most interested in the
validity of his actions.
Connected with the above is the question: does _jurisdictio probabilis_
or _dubia_ suffice for the valid and lawful administration of absolution.
The question turns only on _probabilitas juris_, a solidly probable,
though not necessarily certain, interpretation of the law declaring that
jurisdiction is possessed. This may occur with regard to the questions:
whether the jurisdiction possessed extends to this or that case, to this
or that person? or, whether the jurisdiction once possessed has been
revoked?
But a jurisdiction is doubtful when the uncertainty of it rests upon
a doubt or a probable _fact_. Upon this distinction between probable
and doubtful jurisdiction we must insist. St. Alphonsus[479] does
so, and that chiefly in order to show that, in the case of a _dubium
facti_,—thus, doubtful jurisdiction,—the faculty for the exercise and the
validity of the act (here of absolution) _always_ remains _doubtful_,
whereas, in the case of _probabilitas juris_, the validity of the action
after it has been performed is morally certain. When such probable
jurisdiction (_probabilitas juris_) is in question, it is, as St.
Alphonsus teaches, morally certain that the Church confers jurisdiction,
if it has previously (_antecedenter_) been wanting. The saint calls this
teaching _communissima_, and demonstrates it by the fact that the Church,
in the person of her chief pastor, tacitly tolerates the old custom of
absolving with such jurisdiction, and thus sufficiently expresses her
consent.
With regard to the _jurisdictio dubia_, however, the contentions of many
authors are not of this nature.[480] If many are of opinion that the
Church supplies in this case also, and base their opinion upon the fact
that the Church supplies when there is only _error communis_ and not
_titulus coloratus_, we need but refer to what has been previously said
upon this head.[481]
According to this it is morally certain that the Church, in the case
of previous _juris probabilitas_, supplies _jurisdiction_. But if the
jurisdiction is doubtful on account of a _dubium facti_, the Church does
not supply if the error exists only with a few; as the error is usually
general, it remains doubtful whether the Church supplies. It is not
always wrong to use doubtful jurisdiction in administering the Sacrament
of Penance, particularly when the reason for it is pressing, when
absolution is urgently necessary, and when it would be better to absolve
with doubtful validity than not to absolve at all. But in this case it
would always be necessary to instruct the penitent as to the value of the
absolution administered.
According to the teaching of St. Alphonsus, absolution may be
administered with a doubtful jurisdiction in the following cases: (1)
When the obligation of yearly confession must be fulfilled exactly at
that time; (2) when the penitent must say Mass or communicate, and this
cannot be omitted without bringing upon himself disgrace; (3) when the
priest must say Mass in fulfilment of his duty. In these cases a priest
possessing only doubtful jurisdiction may absolve conditionally when no
other confessor is at hand.[482] But the saintly Doctor[483] remarks
that, in this case, the confessor would be bound to inform the penitent
who had accused himself of mortal sin that he had been only conditionally
absolved, so that if afterwards it should become manifest that the
confessor really possessed no jurisdiction, the penitent might fulfill
his duty of confessing his sins again.[484]
In order to absolve with probable jurisdiction, a legitimate reason is
necessary and this exists: (1) When the penitent stands in special need
of the help of this particular priest; (2) when the accomplice of the
penitent is known to the confessor who possesses certain jurisdiction,
but unknown to him who possesses only probable jurisdiction; (3) if the
penitent were under an urgent obligation of confessing, if a particular
indulgence were to be gained, if the penitent would not be able to
confess for a long time, and a priest with certain jurisdiction were not
at hand.[485]
A special case in which the Church supplies deficient jurisdiction is _in
articulo mortis_.
The necessary jurisdiction for the absolution of dying persons is
conferred by the Church upon any priest, when no approved confessor is at
hand, so that any priest may absolve dying persons from all sins.[486]
An approved priest is considered not to be present, not only when he
is bodily but also morally out of reach; that is, in the following
cases: (1) When the approved priest who is present does not wish to
hear the confession of the dying person or cannot hear it, for in such
a case he would be practically absent; (2) when he is excommunicated
or suspended;[487] (3) if an approved priest should arrive when the
confession to the unapproved priest has already begun; (4) if an approved
priest were _complex_ of the dying person _in peccato turpi_;[488] (5) if
this priest is so displeasing to the sick person that the latter would be
in danger of sacrilegious confession; there would then be danger of the
soul of the sick person being lost, a risk which it was the intention of
the Council of Trent to obviate.[489]
What has been said above concerning the administration of absolution _in
articulo mortis_ stands good also for its administration _in quolibet
gravi periculo mortis_.[490] For the two situations are generally
considered as identical; moreover, the Ritual says: “When danger of death
threatens;” besides there is a divine precept to confess when there is
danger of death also, and thus there arises a case of necessity.
A grave _periculum mortis_ is considered to exist: (1) In a dangerous
illness; (2) in times of plague; (3) at a difficult birth; (4) before a
very difficult surgical operation; (5) in battle, or shortly before it;
(6) before a very dangerous sea voyage, etc.[491]
40. The Administration of the Sacrament of Penance to Members of
Religious Orders.
Hitherto we have treated of the powers necessary to the ministers of the
Sacrament of Penance—secular and regular priests—in order that they may
validly and lawfully hear the confessions of lay people (_seculares_). It
remains now to discuss the regulations laid down by the Church concerning
the jurisdiction over men and women belonging to Religious Orders
emitting _vota solemnia_.
I. The Superiors of Religious Orders, or the local Superiors, although
they possess full jurisdiction over their subjects _in foro interno_,
are bound to appoint others as confessors, so that the subjects may not
be obliged to confess to their own Superiors; it is only in certain
definite cases that a subject is bound to go to confession to his
Superior. The inmates of a religious house may indeed confess to their
Superiors, and the latter must hear their confessions; but this must
be left to the option of the subordinates. One or more confessors may,
however, be nominated in the individual houses, so that no religious
can validly confess to any other but these; unless a confessor has
received special powers for this purpose from the Holy See or from the
Roman Penitentiary.[492] Only when a Jubilee occurs and usually once
may Regulars choose as confessor a priest out of those approved by the
_Ordinarius_, in order to gain the Jubilee indulgence. Several confessors
are generally nominated so that the subjects may have a choice from among
them.[493]
II. Confessors for Regulars receive their jurisdiction from the Superiors
of the latter. Not only priests belonging to Religious Orders, but also
secular priests (even those who have not been approved by their bishops),
may be empowered by Superiors to act as confessors to their subjects,
unless this be forbidden by the constitutions of the Order.[494]
This faculty belongs to Superiors of Religious Orders by common law,
since, by virtue of their exemption from episcopal jurisdiction, they
possess _quasi-episcopalem jurisdictionem_ over their subordinates. The
Council of Trent has altered nothing in this matter, as it speaks only
of the jurisdiction or approbation necessary for the confessions of
lay people; moreover, Clement VIII has expressly granted this faculty
to Superiors of Orders. The confessor of Regulars can absolve those
for whom he is appointed confessor, even outside the monastery, as
this jurisdiction is not limited to a definite place, and no further
approbation of the bishop is necessary.
Regulars who are on a journey or staying outside their monastery must
confess to a member of their Order who is near them, even when the latter
is not otherwise appointed for confessions; if, however, they have no
opportunity of confessing to one of their Order, they may do so to any
other regular or secular priest. This priest (according to the _sententia
communissima_, which St. Alphonsus considers the more probable) need not
even be approved by the _Episcopus loci_,[495] as it is presumed that
the Order, or its Superior, confers in such a case delegated jurisdiction
upon any priest whom the religious has chosen for his confessor.[496]
III. Those who can be validly absolved only by a priest authorized by a
Superior of an Order are: not only the religious and their novices, but
also lay persons, who, as really belonging to the monastic community,
live in the monastery or college; servants, for example, and others who
regularly live and take their meals in the monastery.[497]
IV. As regards the question whether priests of an Order, by virtue of
the authorization of the Superiors of their Order, may also hear the
confessions of the inmates of their monasteries intrusted to them for
education, theologians do not agree. Some, amongst whom are Gury (n.
564), Lehmkuhl (n. 394), Marc (n. 1763, Q. 2), and Aertnys (n. 232),
admit it, pointing out certain Orders to which this has been expressly
permitted, and in this privilege (these authorities maintain) the
other Orders participate. St. Alphonsus is also of this opinion (583),
appealing to Bordone; also Mazzotta (l. c.), Lugo, Schmalzgrueber, and
others. Lehmkuhl calls this opinion probable and says: We may, therefore,
act according to the principles discussed above concerning probable
jurisdiction. However, this does not seem to be generally admissible.
For no law accords to Regular priests a general privilege of this kind.
The extension to all other Orders of a privilege granted to some is
not allowable here, for this privilege derogates from the rights of a
third party, in this instance the bishop and the parish priests; and it
is clear from the decisions of the sacred congregations that unlimited
jurisdiction over their students does not belong to Regulars.[498]
On the other hand, Regulars possess jurisdiction over their students:
(1) When this jurisdiction is explicitly conferred upon an Order or
educational establishment; (2) when the religious have acquired it by
legitimate custom; (3) when there is question of religious in the sense
that, according to the ordinances of the Council of Trent, the students
can be designated as belonging to the household. This latter, however,
is not the case when the house in which the educational establishment is
situated is not actually the monastic building, or when the members of
the Order and the students do not form an association of the nature of a
family. Nor can those pupils be regarded as belonging to the household
who pay for their board, and are yearly received into the educational
establishment or seminary. But as the matter is a difficult one and
difference of opinion prevails amongst theologians, Bouix suggests as
a practical solution the removal of such boys or girls from parochial
control.[499]
41. Jurisdiction and Approbation for the Confessions of Nuns.
What we are about to say concerning nuns refers to nuns in the strict
sense of the word, namely, to such as have taken solemn vows and are
bound by the regulations of the inclosure, but not to the religious
congregations which have no inclosure, nor, in general to such nuns as,
with permission of their Superiors, are living outside the convent.[500]
The bishop can except from the general approbation any religious female
congregation, and if he has done so, the confessors must act conformably.
In most dioceses the regulations of the Church concerning confessors
of nuns—both ordinary and extraordinary confessors—are extended to the
female congregations also which take only simple vows, and are not bound
to strict inclosure. This discipline is, in fact, very good, and quite in
conformity with the intention of the Holy See.[501]
The following regulations are in force with regard to the confessors of
nuns:—
I. Not every priest approved by a bishop can hear the confessions of
nuns, but only one who has received special approbation and jurisdiction
for the purpose from the _Episcopus loci_. Indeed, the priest approved
for one convent cannot _valide_ hear the confessions of the nuns of
another convent, unless he be generally appointed for the confessions of
nuns.[502]
II. The confessors of exempted nuns also require the approbation of the
bishop, but they are chosen and appointed by the Superiors of the Orders
to whom they (the exempted nuns) are subject; and if these Superiors
themselves wish to hear the confessions of the nuns who are subject to
them, they must likewise obtain the approbation of the bishop. It is only
when the nuns obey Superiors with _quasi episcopal_ jurisdiction that
their confessor does not require the approbation of the bishop.[503]
III. According to the declaration of Clement XI the confessors of nuns
should not only be learned, prudent, and pious, but also of mature
years.[504] The bishop must, therefore, take care that a confessor be
chosen in whom the nuns may have confidence.
Without Papal authorization vicars-general, canons, and others who are
bound to observe choir in virtue of a benefice, also parish priests (when
the care of souls would materially suffer thereby), cannot discharge
the office of an ordinary confessor. This applies also to priests of a
Religious Order with regard to nuns who are immediately subject to the
bishop. The former may, however, exercise the office of extraordinary
confessors. The ordinary confessor must hear the confessions of nuns as
often as it is reasonably demanded of him. Moreover, he must not conduct
himself as a Superior of the convent, since, according to the decree of
the S. C. Ep. et Reg. 7 Sept., 1797, such authority does not belong to
him.[505]
The confessor appointed for nuns shall not discharge his office longer
than three years, and cannot, at the expiration of this period, hear
confessions in the same convent without permission of the S. C. Ep. et
Reg.[506] Several authorities, however (St. Alphonsus, Bouvier, Gury,
Scavini), remark that the bishop may allow the confessor to exercise his
office longer than three years when other suitable priests are wanting.
At the time of a Jubilee, nuns, like Regulars, may, in order to gain
the Jubilee indulgence, _once_ choose for themselves any confessor
from amongst priests approved by the _Episcopus loci_ for hearing the
confessions of nuns either in general or for a particular convent.[507]
IV. The bishops, or Superiors of Orders, who are authorized to
appoint and choose the ordinary confessor, are bound to appoint an
_extraordinary_ confessor for the nuns subject to them two or three times
a year.
Although the nuns are not bound to confess to this extraordinary
confessor, they must, nevertheless, all repair to him, be it either
to make a sacramental confession or to receive from him wholesome
exhortation.[508]
The following is to be observed regarding the _Confessarius
extraordinarius_:—
1. Although the Tridentine Session here speaks of inclosed nuns only
(_moniales claustrales_), Benedict XIV wishes the appointment of the
extraordinary confessor to be extended to all communities of nuns who
have only an ordinary confessor appointed by the Superiors.
2. The choice of the extraordinary confessor belongs to the _Ordinarius
loci_ for those convents which are under him, and to the Superior of the
Order for those for which the latter appoints the ordinary confessor;
every extraordinary confessor must have special approbation as such from
the bishop. The Superiors of Regulars, however, cannot always appoint
a priest of their own Order, but must at least, once a year, choose a
secular priest or one of another Order. If the Superior of the Order
neglects to choose an extraordinary confessor, the bishop must do so;
should the bishop neglect this duty, the Cardinal Grand Penitentiary must
act.
3. During the time when the extraordinary confessor is exercising his
office in a community, the ordinary confessor may not remain in the
community to hear confessions.
4. The extraordinary confessor may not be refused to individual nuns in
case of serious illness or invincible reluctance towards the ordinary
confessor. The case of a nun in danger of death being refused an
extraordinary confessor is provided for in the decree of the Tridentine
Session, XIV. cp. 7: _in articulo mortis omnes sacerdotes quoslibet
pœnitentes ... absolvere posse_. But should a nun wish to confess
occasionally to a particular confessor, not out of fickleness, or
imprudent preference, but truly on account of her spiritual advancement,
it is advisable that the Superiors should not oppose such wish.[509]
Extraordinary confessors, nominated by the bishop for _a single
occasion_, can only discharge this office once. They must be approved by
the bishop as often as they have to discharge the office of extraordinary
confessor,[510] unless they have a general approbation for the confession
of nuns.
CHAPTER II
LIMITATION OF JURISDICTION OR RESERVED CASES
42. Reserved Cases in General.
The Church has received from Christ the power to remit or to retain all
sins without exception. No sin is withheld from the cognizance of its
judicial authority or the power of its keys. This unlimited power of
chief justice and plenipotentiary resides in the hands of the Supreme
Head of the Church; it is in the possession of the Vicegerent of Him
who has said of Himself: “To Me is given all power in heaven and on
earth.” In the exercise of the judicial power _in foro interno_, the
pastors of the Church are dependent upon and subject to him. This
relation between the Pope and the pastors of the Church is expressed
in the reservations;[511] that is, by the ecclesiastical discipline in
virtue of which the Pope reserves certain sins in order to absolve from
them himself, and places a limit upon the jurisdiction of the bishops
by withholding from them the power to absolve from certain sins. And as
the Pope proceeds with regard to the bishops, so can the bishop, and the
Superiors of Orders, and those possessing quasi-episcopal jurisdiction,
proceed with regard to their respective subordinates.
This competence to declare certain sins reserved, which existed in the
earliest times of the Church as is proved by numberless memorials, is
promulgated by the Council of Trent,[512] which also emphasizes the
_reason_ of this practice: “It has seemed conducive to the morality of
the Christian people that certain particularly horrible and grave sins
should not be absolved by every priest, but only by those of the highest
authority. It is, therefore, reasonable that the Popes, by virtue of the
power invested in them over the whole Church, should reserve certain
grave sins for their own tribunal.” Having then assigned this power to
the bishops also, the Council declares that this reservation of sins has
validity not only in the outward administration of the Church, but also
before God.
From this it follows that:—
I. The motives for the reservations, apart from the maintenance of
authority, are: (_a_) the necessity of deterring the faithful from the
commission of these great sins by thus making it more difficult to obtain
absolution; (_b_) the necessity of applying a special remedy, so that
those who have been guilty of such crimes may be the more efficaciously
preserved from relapse. In order that the former object may be the more
perfectly attained, it is necessary in an appropriate manner to make
known to the people what sins are reserved.
II. We distinguish: (1) Reservation by the Pope, by a bishop, and by
the Superior of an Order; (2) reserved sins, when the sin itself is
directly reserved, and reserved censures, when the censure attached to a
sin is reserved, and the sin itself is reserved only in consequence of
the censure. If the reserved censure is only the means by which the sin
is reserved, upon removal of the censure the sin is no longer reserved.
In the papal reserved cases the censure only is directly reserved; in
episcopal and other reserved cases generally the sin only is reserved,
not the censure. Two Papal cases, in which the sin without the censure
is reserved, form exceptions to this rule, namely: (_a_) Falsely
accusing an innocent confessor of solicitation, either by denouncing
the confessor to the ecclesiastical judge one’s self, or by effecting
such denunciation through another person;[513] (_b_) the receiving of
considerable presents exceeding the value of ten francs on the part of
members of Religious Orders (emitting solemn vows) of both sexes, till
restitution has taken place (_munera prorsus liberalia_ are meant; hence
presents of medicaments and devotional objects, as also those presents
which were given out of gratitude and benevolence or for the purpose of
securing the good-will of a person, are excepted).[514] If the presents
amount to a higher sum, and if the penitent can make restitution, he
is not to be absolved till he has done so. If, however, he cannot make
restitution at the time, but promises faithfully to do so as soon as
possible, the confessor can absolve him.
III. The power to reserve is possessed by the Pope in the whole Church;
by the bishops in their dioceses; by the heads of Orders who possess
quasi-episcopal jurisdiction in their Orders—the General of the Order
for the whole Order, the Provincial in his province, the local head in
his house—but apart from specified sins mentioned by Clement VIII, these
religious Superiors may not reserve any others without consent of the
general chapter.[515]
IV. There must be valid ground for making the reservation, otherwise its
effect would tend to ruin rather than to edification. Hence the undue
multiplication of reserved cases is not allowed; for many people, on
account of the difficulty of getting absolution, are likely to remain for
a long time in a state of mortal sin, and are deterred from receiving the
Sacraments. Clement VIII, therefore, exhorted the bishops to reserve only
a few sins, and only those of which the reservation would be conducive to
the maintenance of Christian morality amongst the faithful.[516]
V. As reservation is a limitation of jurisdiction, it concerns the
confessor directly, and the penitent indirectly.
From this it follows that:—
1. In the matter of reservation, strangers are not to be treated
according to the reservation of the place where they confess, but
according to that in force at their place of residence, exactly in
accordance with the principles concerning the jurisdiction of the
confessors of strangers which we have stated above. It is, therefore,
more correct to say that they are absolved by virtue of the jurisdiction
which the bishop of the penitent gives, and it is reasonable to assume
that the latter does not wish to limit the jurisdiction of confessors
outside his diocese to whom members of his own diocese confess, unless
he has reserved a sin in his own diocese. If, therefore, the stranger
confesses a sin which is reserved in the diocese in which he confesses,—a
diocese which is not his own,—the confessor can absolve him, _quia
absolvit vi jurisdictionis delegatæ ab Episcopo, qui peccatum illud non
reservat_.[517]
In practice the rule can be laid down that it is always allowed to
absolve a stranger from reserved sins, except when: (1) the sin is
reserved in both the dioceses, that of the confessor and that of the
stranger, or (2) when the stranger leaves his diocese in order to
confess “_in fraudem legis_,” that is, to evade the judgment of his
Superior,[518] which may be assumed to be the case when the sin is of
such a nature that it may easily be brought before the _forum externum_,
or may already, in some form, be before it, so that absolution could not
be administered even _in foro interno_ without the permission of the
bishop.[519]
2. Although Regulars do not necessarily receive delegated jurisdiction
from the bishop but from the Pope, they cannot absolve penitents from
sins reserved in the respective dioceses, without having received special
faculties from the bishop; the Popes have distinctly so decreed.[520] The
episcopal reservation is binding also for non-exempted nuns; whether it
is so for the exempted, is a matter of controversy. St. Alphonsus[521]
declares both opinions, affirmative and negative, probable. But should a
bishop refuse to the confessor of nuns jurisdiction over reserved cases,
the absolution of the latter for such sins would undoubtedly be invalid;
for the bishop gives jurisdiction for the exempted nuns also, as is plain
from the words of Gregory XV.[522]
Whether the _familiares_ of Regulars may be absolved without faculties
from the bishop depends in general upon the fact whether they are
absolved by virtue of episcopal or of Regular jurisdiction. When they are
absolved by confessors appointed by the Superior of the Order, they are
not subject to episcopal reservation; but if they are absolved by other
confessors (secular priests), it seems that they are subject to episcopal
reservation. If, however, it is a question of sins to which the bishop
has attached censure, they do not, as a rule, incur this censure, since
they must be treated as strangers.[523]
VI. In order that the objects of the reservation may be attained, and
this is only possible by a moderate use of the power of reservation,
grave sins only are as a rule reserved. Such is the decision of the
Council of Trent.[524] The following conditions are necessary for the
valid reservation of a sin:[525] (1) It must be (and that _ex natura
rei_, in order that it be reserved _pleno sensu_) a mortal sin, both as
regards the internal and the external act; (2) it must have been carried
out completely, not merely attempted, wished, begun; and (3) it must be
reserved in definite terms. These conditions are by common custom deemed
necessary. A Superior who reserves is, therefore, supposed to be guided
by them unless he has expressly declared himself to the contrary. But
Superiors generally attach particular conditions and exceptions to their
reservations, which must be gathered from their instructions.
The following remarks may serve for more explicit explanation: (1) As
venial sins are not _materia necessaria_ of absolution, they cannot
be reserved in the strict and full sense. Even if it be _per se_
possible that the Superior can withdraw from a priest the power to
absolve sacramentally with regard to a venial sin, he cannot oblige
the penitent to procure sacramental absolution from this venial sin.
This applies also (2) to really and positively doubtful sins. Indeed,
as St. Alphonsus teaches,[526] a sin which is in any respect doubtful
is, according to ecclesiastical custom and the concurrent teaching of
the authorities, regarded as not reserved. For, even if any sin which
is _materia necessaria_ of confession might from the very nature of the
case be reserved, yet this is not so in practice, and as reservation is
a _lex odiosa_, it must be interpreted _stricte_. A sin is, therefore,
regarded as not reserved: (_a_) when there is doubt as to its subjective
gravity, and (_b_) when there is doubt as to its objective gravity
(unless the Superior, for particular motives, has declared as _gravis a
materia_ which, _ex se_, is not positively _gravis_, in which case it
would be necessary to stand by his decision); moreover (_c_), there is
no reservation when doubt exists as to whether a positively reserved sin
has been committed, or whether it has been committed with the necessary
conditions, nor is there reservation when doubt exists as to whether
a sin really committed is a reserved sin. But in this case (_in dubio
juris_) the sin would be reserved if the confessor merely _privato
errore_ doubted the reservation, or if he did not know the sin was
actually reserved. But in some dioceses the bishops have declared that
the confession in such a case is valid, and that they do not regard a sin
as reserved if the confessor _privato errore_ or _ex ignorantia_ does not
believe a sin to be reserved.[527]
If, therefore, the confessor supposes a sin to be reserved, he must
carefully examine if the sin be _interne grave_, if it has been committed
with full advertence, and with full consent of the will _in materia
gravi_, and if it is also _grave quoad actum externum_; for if the
external act were not of a grave nature, it would not be reserved
although it might be inwardly a great sin. For instance, should a person
in a heretical frame of mind have said something which neither contained
heresy _in se_, nor, on account of the circumstances, showed an heretical
tendency, his sin would not be reserved.[528] The Church is, in fact,
accustomed to reserve only _peccata externa_, although it cannot be
doubted that she can also reserve _peccata mere interna_, as this class
of grave sins is, by divine law, subject to the absolving power of the
Church _in foro interno_.[529]
3. That a sin should be reserved it must be _completum_, completed; that
is, completed in the manner implied by the reservation. When, therefore,
in the words of the (reserving) law, an external, completed action is
specified,—murder, for instance,—and the outward completion is wanting
(in this case, the death of the victim), there is no reservation. If, on
the other hand, attempting crime, or advising it, are _per se_ reserved,
it suffices to have done these acts to make the sin reserved, though the
project has not been executed or the sinful advice failed to produce any
effect. Frequently such incomplete actions are, however, reserved as
accessory only to the principal action. If this latter has been certainly
completed, then these accessory actions are reserved.
VII. The question: “Must the penitent be aware that his sin is a reserved
one in order that it should be reserved?” is a subject of animated
controversy among the theologians.[530] It is beyond all doubt that
bishops can so reserve the sins of their subjects that the reservation
holds even when the penitent knows nothing about it. Whether they do
reserve in this manner without a formal declaration to that effect, is
a debatable question. St. Alphonsus and not a few other theologians
teach that a sin is reserved even when the penitent did not know of
the reservation, assigning as sole, or at least chief, reason that the
reservation restricts the power of the confessor.[531] The fear that
Christian and religious discipline might thereby be relaxed is alleged
as a second reason.[532] On the other hand, a very great number of
theologians[533] teach that a sin is not to be regarded as reserved
if the penitent did not know that it was so, when the reservation is
_pœnalis_, that is, when it is of a punitive character; but that it _is_
to be regarded as reserved when the reservation is _medicinalis_, imposed
as a deterrent; that is, when it is not a _pœna medicinalis_, which,
like the censure, is intended to break the stubbornness of the sinner
and deter him from sin, but a _lex disciplinaris_, by which the Superior
himself, or through a specially delegated confessor, wishes to provide a
remedy for sin committed. When, therefore, Lugo denies that reservation
is chiefly of a punitive character, and, therefore, holds good even if
the sinner did not know of the reservation when he was sinning, we agree
with him and with Lehmkuhl.[534]
If, however, it is a question of reserved censures, the censure
is considered not reserved when the penitent did not know of the
reservation, as only he incurs a censure who knew of it and yet committed
the act to which it is attached. Concerning the Papal reservations, at
least, unanimity upon this point prevails among the theologians, as these
reservations exist chiefly on account of the censure. With regard to
episcopal cases no unanimity exists. Here, as Suarez rightly teaches, we
must have regard for the circumstances; that is, for the terms of the
reservation, for custom, and for the power of the person who reserves,
etc.[535] But if the penitent knew of the censure and did not know of the
reservation, the theory of some few theologians that, in this case, also
the censure is not reserved, is rightly regarded as lax and altogether
improbable.
43. The Papal Reserved Cases.
In the year 1869 Pius IX issued his celebrated Bull “_Apostolicæ Sedis
moderationi_,” the object of which was _to reduce_ the number of censures
imposed at different times, _to explain_ them, and to bring their wording
to such form that uncertainty and doubt on the part of the faithful and
of confessors might cease. By virtue of his apostolical power he therein
decreed that of all the censures ever imposed, whether excommunication
or suspension or interdict, only those should henceforth legally
remain in force which were explicitly introduced into or quoted in his
constitution; that they should derive their validity not only from the
authority of the ancient canons, but also from this constitution itself,
just as though they were there for the first time imposed. This Bull
possesses force and validity for the whole Church from the moment when it
was promulgated _ad valvas Ecclesiæ S. Salvatoris_.[536] The Bull deals
with censures[537] only, and these are either Excommunications,[538]
Suspensions, or Interdicts.[539]
_I. Excommunicationes speciali modo Romano Pontifici reservatæ._ The
excommunication _spec. modo_ reserved to the Pope is incurred by:[540]
1. All who have fallen from the Christian faith (apostates) and all
heretics, of whatever name and sect they may be, as well as their
adherents, supporters, and all their defenders in general.
As the expression “_Omnes a christiana fide apostatas_” is of general
application, not only are all those Christians who have embraced Judaism
or heathenism comprised in it, but also the so-called freethinkers who
wholly give themselves up to unbelief, and have openly renounced all
religion; also rationalists, spiritualists, materialists, pantheists,
deists, atheists, illuminati, those who profess indifferentism in
religion or a merely natural religion, and other unbelievers of similar
character, who belong to the order of Freemasons or adopt the principles
of that order, even when, here and there, some of its members surround
themselves with a halo of religion.[541]
In order that the confessor may know who incurs excommunication under
the expression _Omnes et singulos hæreticos_ he must form an accurate
conception of heresy, which demands: (_a_) _error formalis_, a conscious
and voluntary denial joined to _pertinacia_, (_b_) the denial of an
article of faith promulgated by the Church, (_c_) the external expression
of such denial, (_d_) a knowledge of the penalty incurred.[542] If any
one of these marks is absent, there is no excommunication. In connection
with this, Renninger remarks:[543] “At a time when, in our social life,
the waves of unbelief run so high, prudence, deliberation, and knowledge
are in an especial manner necessary to him who has the care of souls,
that hasty judgment may be avoided. However mindful he may be of his
office as teacher, he must never forget the demands of Christian charity;
he should never let himself be drawn into disputes which lead to nothing,
still less should he provoke them; he should never be carried away by
violence. Positive assent to a dogma he should only demand when his
office forces him to do so. He should, especially in the confessional,
take for granted that he who believes in the Church, believes also in
her dogmas. He should not put tempting questions. He should remember
that many howl with the wolves without really knowing what the howling
is about, being merely anxious not to lose the nimbus of liberalism. He
should make the way of those who are returning as smooth as is possible
without violating the laws of the Church. The retractation _extra
confessionale_, which cannot be dispensed with, may often be clothed in a
form which is not wounding to self-respect, and is yet valid. Intimations
to this effect have been forwarded in a confidential manner to their
clergy by different Ordinaries, who were moved by a judicious zeal for
the salvation of souls.” To this class belong also the “_Credentes_,”
that is, those who give credence and who—without formally professing
heretical doctrine, without _pertinacia_, or without sufficient
knowledge, pose as heretics—openly profess assent to a heretical doctrine
by word, sign, or action explicitly or implicitly, in a general way. To
these also belong the “_Receptores_,” those who afford to apostates or
heretics, but only as apostates and heretics (_quatenus hæretici et non
ex. gr. qua fures sunt_) shelter and receive or conceal them in order
to protect them from punishment for heresy; to these also belong the
_fautores_, those who in any way render assistance (_per omissionem_ or
_per commissionem_) to apostates or heretics. Finally, we may mention the
_defensores_, those who, in any way, by force or by cunning, by word or
by writing, protect heretics as such, or their doctrines or their books.
2. All those who, without permission of the Holy See, knowingly read,
print, keep, or in any way defend the books of the above-mentioned
apostates and heretics, if the defense of heresy is the subject-matter of
these books; as, also, the readers, printers, possessors, or defenders of
those books which, by a Papal document (Encyclical, Brief, or Bull) are,
by name (that is, by statement of the title of the book), forbidden.
(_a_) The Readers. Reading here must be understood as a moral not merely
a physical act, when, for example, the reader understands nothing of
the language;[544] in this kind of reading must be included causing
a book to be read to one (not merely listening, however sinful the
latter may be) since, where there is _eadem ratio_ also _eadem est
juris dispositio_.[545] Moreover, in order to incur the censure, it
is necessary that a part sufficient to constitute a mortal sin, about
a page, be read;[546] that the reading should take place _scienter_,
that is, with knowledge that the book has been written by an apostate
or heretic; finally, it is requisite that it should defend heresy and
that the reading or keeping should take place without authorization from
the Holy See. (_b_) The readers of _books_ in the proper sense of the
word, be they written[547] or printed, not of merely printed matter,
as brochures, pamphlets, newspapers, periodical sheets, etc., although
the reading of such products of the day may often be, and very often
is, more dangerous to faith and morals than the reading of a bad book,
and there is no doubt that the reading and keeping of such literature
is always a great sin, being an offense against the natural law.[548]
(_c_) The _Retinentes_, that is, all those who knowingly retain in their
possession for some time, either in their own homes or in that of a
stranger, in their own name or in that of another, a book forbidden in
the manner above specified. (_d_) _The Imprimentes_, that is, all those
who directly coöperate or assist, as _causæ morales_ or _physicæ_, in
printing: authors, publishers, printers. (_e_) The _Defendentes_, that
is, those who defend books which are forbidden in the sense specified
above.[549] Accordingly he does not incur this excommunication: (1) who
only reads or keeps a few separate leaves of such a book or periodicals,
etc.; (2) who reads perfunctorily; (3) who reads from necessity, to be
able to refute a heretic, and was not able previously to procure the
necessary permission; (4) if his reading is only a physical act, without
his being able to understand anything; (5) if he keeps a book for a short
time only, for example, a day or two, or only till he has obtained the
permission requested, or if he has no opportunity of giving the book to
the Superior.[550]
3. Schismatics and all who obstinately refuse obedience to the reigning
Pope.
4. All those who, whatever their position may be, or the dignity they may
hold, appeal from the injunctions or orders of the reigning Popes to a
future general Council; moreover the aiders, advisers, and favorers of
such.
5. All those who kill, maim, strike, take prisoner, or keep prisoner, or
persecute in hostile manner cardinals, patriarchs, archbishops, bishops,
Papal legates, or nuncios; those who expel them from their dioceses, or
lands belonging to them, or estates in their possession; as those also
who order or sanction such acts, or give help, advice, or encouragement
in their execution.
6. Those who directly or indirectly hinder the execution of
ecclesiastical jurisdiction and who, for this purpose (_ad hoc_),[551]
apply to the secular power, as well as those who cause or publish
the commands of such persons, or afford help, advice, or countenance
in such proceeding. The ecclesiastical juridical power is the lawful
competence of the Church to govern her subjects in respect to everything
that belongs to their eternal welfare. This power is exercised _in
foro externo_ and _interno_. The _Exercitium ordinis_ (_consecrare_,
_benedicere_, etc.) is to be distinguished from the _Exercitium
jurisdictionis_.
7. Those who directly or indirectly compel secular judges to cite
ecclesiastical persons before their tribunal contrary to canonical
regulations (unless it should be the case that ecclesiastical
regulations, either general or particular (Concordats) allow this), as
well as those who issue laws or regulations against the freedom or rights
of the Church. This canon refers to conditions which, though still extant
in certain parts of Europe, have hardly any force in the United States
and other missionary countries; it protects the _privilegium fori_ of
clerics, and in a general way the freedom and rights of the Church.[552]
8. Those who apply to the secular power to prevent the execution of
decrees or of any acts proceeding from the Holy See or its legates or
delegates, as also those who directly or indirectly actually prevent the
promulgation or execution of such, or who, on account of these decrees or
acts, injure or threaten others (agents, mandatories).
9. The forgers of Papal documents, the promulgators or subscribers of
such forged Papal documents (_litterarum Apostolicarum etiam in forma
Brevis ac supplicationum gratiam vel justitiam concernentium_).
10. _Absolventes complices in peccato turpi_, etc.; see § 46.
11. Those who usurp or sequestrate (_jurisdictionem_) rights of
jurisdiction (secular rights appertaining to the Church by virtue of any
legal titles, for instance, fiscal rights, etc.), the goods or revenues
of ecclesiastics, which belong to them _ratione suarum ecclesiarum aut
beneficiorum_ (that is by virtue of their ecclesiastical position).
Mere thieves and even robbers of Church property, accordingly, do not
come under the censure here pronounced, as they cannot be classed under
the definition either of _usurpantes_ or _sequestrantes_ (cf. S. C. Inq.
9 March, 1870), nor does the purchasing by contract of such goods from
usurpers come under it. But the latter is subject to the Tridentine
censure, the censure reserved simply to the Pope (cf. S. C. Off. 8 July,
1874). Whether the property of monasteries is included, is a matter
of controversy; the property of pious foundations is not included. The
estates of monasteries fall under the Tridentine censure.
12. All those who, themselves or through others, attack towns,
territories, or villages, belonging to the Roman Church, destroy
or occupy them; as also those who arrogate to themselves supreme
administrative power in these places, disturb or stop the execution of
such power, and those who afford help, advice, and countenance in such
work.
13. Accordingly, the canons and dignitaries of vacant cathedral churches,
and, in the absence of a Chapter, all those who are competent to appoint
a vicar-capitular, or to govern the bereaved diocese themselves, incur
the excommunication specially reserved to the Pope, as well as suspension
of the revenues of their benefices, if they presume to admit a bishop
elected by the Chapter, or one presented by the secular power, for the
government and administration of the vacant church before these persons
have accredited themselves by submitting the Papal documents bearing
upon their appointments,—and that for so long as the Apostolic See may
think proper to keep this suspension in force; moreover, those chosen
or nominated and presented for vacant churches who presume to undertake
the government and administration of these churches _ex concessione
et translatione, de qua supra_ (that is, before this submitting of
credentials), as well as all those who have obeyed, or given help,
advice, or countenance to such acts, _cujuscumque status, conditionis,
præ-eminentiæ et dignitatis fuerint_. To this is added: When any one of
the above-named persons is invested with the dignity of a bishop, he
incurs the penalty of suspension _ab exercitio Pontificalium_ and of the
Interdict _ab ingressu Ecclesiæ_, which overtakes him _ipso facto absque
ulla declaratione_, and is reserved to the Apostolic See.[553]
14. The so-called “civil government pastors,” appointed by the State,
_qui suffragante populo ad parochi sive vicarii officium electi
audeant sive ecclesiæ sive jurium ac bonorum prætensam possessionem
arripere atque obire munia ecclesiastici ministerii_, incur the same
excommunication, in accordance with a solemn decree of the Sacred
Congregation of the Council (13 May, 1874).[554]
_II. Excommunicationes latæ sententiæ Romano Pontifici simpliciter
reservatæ._
There are eighteen of these, to which are added one of the Council of
Trent, and another _ex declaratione S. C. Inq._:—
1. All who publicly or privately teach or defend tenets which are
condemned by the Holy See under pain of _excommunicatio latæ sententiæ_,
as also those who teach and uphold that the practice of asking the
penitent the name of the accomplice is allowed.
To the propositions, the teaching and defending of which involves the
above censure, do not belong such tenets as are simply condemned by
the Pope, as those included in the Syllabus, for example, or which are
interdicted under other censures and penalties.