Chapter III: Abuse of Power by the Minister of the Sacrament

An exalted, indeed a divine, power has God conferred upon priests, in authorizing them, as judges of souls in His stead, to remit or to retain sins. This power has been conferred upon them for the salvation and welfare of souls. It is, therefore, greatly to be regretted that we must here speak of an abuse of this power. The Church has, alas! found herself obliged to adopt severe measures against this abuse, in order to prevent it, but in her severity she shows her zeal for the faithful, and proves herself the faithful dispenser of the Mysteries of Christ. There are three ways in which the priest may abuse his power in the Sacrament of Penance.

45. Inquiring after the Name of the Accomplice in Sin.

In a former paragraph (§ 27) we have laid down that it may be permissible to reveal indirectly the accomplice of the sin (_complex peccati_) in so far as the complete confession of one’s own sin may render this avowal necessary, and that, accordingly, the confessor is also allowed, in order to make the penitent’s confession entire, to ask the circumstances which alter the nature of the sin, or to put questions which are necessary in order to provide the better for the penitent’s spiritual welfare, questions through which the _complex peccati_ might also become known to the confessor. Here we treat of a totally different case, viz. the illicit attempt of detecting the name of the _complex peccati_ without necessity, and of demanding its revelation under threat of refusing absolution.

On this point Benedict XIV issued several constitutions[580] which Pius IX confirmed in his Constitution “_Apostolicæ Sedis_” (see § 43, p. 326). The motives of the legislation are stated thus: many confessors, led astray by false zeal, have introduced a perverse and pernicious practice in hearing the confessions of the faithful ... that when penitents come to them who had an accomplice in their sin, they ask these penitents indiscriminately for the name of the accomplice. Nor do they do this in a kindly manner, by advice; but they force and compel them to reveal the name by threats of refusing absolution; indeed, not content with this, they even go so far as to demand from their penitents that they should mention the dwelling-place of the accomplice. This absolutely intolerable imprudence they justify by the pretext of care for the amendment of the accomplice, and do not hesitate to defend it by certain opinions borrowed from theologians, whereas they only falsely apply true and sound teachings to their own and their penitent’s ruin, and, moreover, are guilty before God, the eternal Judge, of many and great evils which follow from their work, as they should easily have apprehended. Nor could malicious talk and scandal fail to arise from this conduct, nor any other result be expected than that not only the dispensers of the Sacrament, but the sacred Ministry itself, become odious, and the faithful perplexed.

In the second constitution the Pope decrees:—

1. The excommunication _latæ sententiæ_, which is reserved to the Pope, against all who in future presume to teach that this practice is allowed, and against all who orally or in writing dare to defend it, or attack, or presumptuously expound otherwise, or distort, what was said against this practice in the first Brief.

2. The suspension from hearing confessions _ferendæ sententiæ_, and other heavy penalties against those who, after the manner of the above-described and condemned practice, dare to ask penitents the name of the _complex peccati_, or the dwelling-place, or other circumstances imparting a closer or more individual designation of this _complex_, threatening at the same time the refusal of the sacramental absolution to the penitent who refuses to give information on these points.

3. The Sacred Office was advised rigorously to proceed against those who taught that this practice was allowed, defended it, etc. (as above indicated), and against the confessors who applied this pernicious teaching, when their conduct excited suspicion that they adhered to the false doctrine. The Pope, therefore, laid upon all (except the penitents _in propria causa_) who knew that a confessor was guilty of this teaching, or of practices which excited suspicion—an obligation of bringing the matter before the notice of the Sacred Office within a month (under pain of excommunication, which is now, however, removed).[581]

The Constitutions of Benedict XIV, however, as is clear from the foregoing, are leveled against the practice of asking penitents, _passim_, indiscriminately, who have an accomplice in their sin, for the name of the accomplice. The prohibition is, therefore, not an absolute one, for there may be circumstances in which it is allowed to demand from the penitent even under threat of withholding absolution, the naming of the partner in sin. This is the case when the confessor holds at the same time another office, such as that of a Superior, by virtue of which he can oblige the penitent to reveal to him the authors and accomplices of the sin, in order to punish them as pernicious to the general weal. If this is the case, the confessor does not ask for the name of the accomplice as confessor but as Superior, and as Superior he rightfully demands to know who the accomplice is.

When, again, the confessor sees that by the concealment of the partner in guilt there would arise grave evil which the penitent is bound to prevent, the latter must, out of regard for the general welfare, make known the accomplice in his sin to the proper person; but if the confessor is at once convinced that the penitent cannot himself communicate it directly to the Superior, and also that he has no other more suitable person through whom he could do so than the confessor himself, the penitent is bound to accept this sole remaining expedient, and inform the confessor of the accomplice, and the confessor may force him to do so under pain of withholding absolution; for, if the penitent were not willing to obey, he would not be worthy to receive absolution. “However,” Lugo warns us, “the confessor must proceed in this matter with great caution, that scandal may not arise in making use of information obtained in the confessional. It is, therefore, better to request the penitent to speak to him upon the subject outside the confessional.” Indeed, it is necessary to require that the information should not be given him under the seal of the confessional.[582]

46. The Absolution of the Complex in Peccato Turpi.

To preserve the sanctity of the institution of Penance, to protect the Sacraments from contempt, and save souls from ruin, the Church has laid down the following very salutary regulations:[583]

I. No priest, whether secular or regular, possesses jurisdiction over his _complex in peccato turpi_ against the sixth commandment, till another confessor has absolved the _complex_ from this sin.

According to this, jurisdiction is withdrawn from the confessor only in respect to the sin against the sixth commandment which he himself has committed with the penitent.[584] Nevertheless, this withdrawal of jurisdiction has also the effect that he cannot validly absolve from other mortal sins which the penitent (_complex_) confessed at the same time with that sin. For the Pope has declared absolutely invalid and void the absolution administered by a priest who possesses no jurisdiction over such a sin and such a penitent.[585] But after the sin of the _complex_ has been remitted by another priest, the jurisdiction of the unhappy priest over this penitent revives, even with respect to this directly remitted sin. The _Sacerdos complex_ could, therefore, afterwards absolve his _complex_ from sins which the latter had subsequently committed—not with him. Such a proceeding is, however, to be discouraged, for the sense of shame is thereby lost, the reverence due to the Sacrament dies away, and the danger of relapse, or, at least, of great temptation, is imminent. Such unhappy penitents must, therefore, be admonished never more to confess to the _confessarius complex_.[586] But what is the _confessarius complex_ to do if the penitent again confesses that sin in which the confessor has been _complex_, although it has already been remitted by another confessor? If he only confessed this sin, the case would be just as if a penitent confessed a reserved sin only to a priest not empowered for reserved sins; the latter could not absolve, because there would be (for him) no proper _materia sacramenti_.[587] But if the penitent (_complex_) confessed other sins (in addition to that in which the confessor had been his _complex_) absolution could be given,[588] since a priest who is not authorized for reserved sins can administer absolution when reserved and unreserved sins have been confessed. But then the absolution is, both by the nature of the case and the intention of the person absolving, applied to the unreserved sins only. There is, moreover, a great difference between the two cases,—the confession of the sin in which the confessor was an accomplice, and the confession of reserved and unreserved sins,—namely, that to absolve a penitent who has confessed reserved and unreserved sins, a _causa ab integritate confessionis excusans_ must be present, whereas no such reason is here necessary in order to submit again to the power of the keys a sin already remitted.[589]

In some dioceses it was _de jure particulari_ forbidden that a priest should ever hear the confession of a _complex, saltem copula consummata_. This prohibition, however, the S. Congr. Concil. repeatedly rejected, and when the resolutions of a synod containing such a prohibition were submitted to it the Congregation returned the answer: _Tale decretum deleatur_, although the defenders of the decree adduced much in its justification, and emphatically denied the danger of scandal which many maintained would easily arise in little places. Thus, most wisely did the Congregation curb undue zeal.[590]

But here another and much more difficult question forces itself upon us: What is to be done, _si alicubi mulier, quæ misere in ejusmodi peccatum cum sacerdote lapsa fuerit, nullum alium, quocum peccatum illud sacramentaliter confiteatur, sacerdotem ibi habeat_, but the circumstances of the person and of the place, etc., are such that she cannot go elsewhere to confess to another confessor, and there is no hope of her being able to confess to another priest at the place in question (at a mission, for example). Ballerini declares that it was not the intention of Benedict XIV, when he gave his Constitution, that such persons, in the above circumstances, should be deprived of the Sacraments of the Church their whole life, till in the hour of their death they could at last be absolved _a sacerdote peccati complice_. And might not such a person die suddenly without illness preceding? What then is she to do when the time for the yearly confession and Easter communion has come? May we say that she can always receive holy communion with _contritio_ alone, indeed, that she must receive it? And what if scandal arises among the people, and the woman loses her good reputation by its becoming known that she has not received holy communion for several years? If any one objects that, in this extremity, such a penitent might be proceeded with exactly as if she had a reserved sin to confess, and, therefore, omitting that sin (over which the confessor has no jurisdiction), the other sins could be submitted to absolution, by which that sin also would be indirectly remitted, we ask: How and when will this sin be finally submitted to the power of the keys? Great difficulties beset this question, and we dare not make a decision supported only by our own judgment.

Two things are, however, clear enough: one is that when Benedict XIV withdrew from the _confessario criminis complici_ the jurisdiction to administer absolution to the _complex ab eodem crimine_, he certainly removed the occasion of very great scandal, but he by no means wished to close to the sinner the way of reconciliation opened by Christ to him and to all the faithful; indeed, it was precisely in order that this reconciliation might be the more certainly and better accomplished by the agency of another priest, that he wished to make the _confessarius criminis complex_ incapable of accomplishing it. He, therefore, presupposed, what generally is the case, that other priests would not be wanting, from whom the penitent, by confession and sacramental absolution, might obtain remission of her sin. It has never been the intention and practice of the Church, by restricting jurisdiction for the remission of certain sins and reserving absolution for them, to set aside the ordinary means of forgiveness, the sacramental confession of sin, and to supply for this by perfect contrition or indirect remission. However ample these extraordinary means for obtaining eternal salvation may be, yet the Church does not allow that the ordinary dispensation set up by Christ for our welfare should be disregarded. The Church, therefore, removed all restrictions upon absolution for the hour of death, so that all priests can absolve every penitent from all sins and censures. We are not, however, to suppose that the Church has made this provision solely for the moment and the danger of death; she makes other exceptions.[591] It is, therefore, very far from the intention and the custom of the Church so to limit the jurisdiction necessary to the administration of the Sacrament of Confession that it remains restricted even when a sinner, during a long time, and still less if during his whole lifetime, is unable to have access to a priest whose power is not limited. And who, out of fear of an abuse, would forbid a priest the dispensing of a Sacrament, or one of the faithful the reception of a Sacrament, when the reception of such Sacrament appears necessary? When, therefore, necessity demands the reception of the Sacrament, it is not to be refused by the priest nor to be neglected by the faithful. If abuse takes place, let the blame fall upon those who would not make good use of the benefit.[592]

_A pari_ Ballerini teaches that the _confessarius complex_ may administer absolution from the _crimen, in quo ipse complex fuit_, to the penitent who has no other confessor, and who, if he were not absolved by the _confessarius complex_, would be obliged to abstain for a long time from holy communion with possible scandal to others, and this teaching is in the Commentaries of the _Acta S. Sedis_ extended to other extraordinary cases, when, _during a long time_, no opportunity presents itself to the _persona complex_ of confessing _without evident danger of sacrilege_, and when, at the same time, evident danger of disgrace or even of suspicion arises from the long abstention from the holy Sacraments.[593]

II. To incur this penalty it is necessary:—

1. That the sin in which the confessor was an accomplice should be a mortal sin, both internally and in the external act. Purely internal mortal sins, and those not completed externally, are, therefore, excluded;

2. That _both_ confessor and penitent should have sinned and have been guilty of the _peccatum turpe_;

3. That the two preceding conditions should be certainly fulfilled; hence the sin must certainly have been mortal internally and externally, and on the part of both the confessor and the penitent, on the principle that _odia restringenda sunt_.[594]

Accordingly, it is indifferent if the _complex_ be a person of the male or female sex. Benedict XIV expressly says: “_Qualemcumque personam_”; moreover, it is not necessary that the sin should be completed, as the Constitution says generally and indefinitely: “a sin against the sixth commandment,” and the object of the law is—_occasiones non tantum copulæ sed omnis turpitudinis a sanctitate tribunali pœnitentiæ removere. Casum complicis ergo constituunt: tactus impudicus, osculum, amplexus, colloquium uti et aspectus, dummodo complicitatem important ac tam interne, tum externe sint graviter mali._[595]

But when one party has either not gravely sinned or only by an internal act, there is no _casus complicis_ in question.

III. The _confessarius_ can absolve his _complex_, when the latter is _in articulo mortis_ and when another priest, who may also be without faculties, cannot be called in without greater danger of defamation or of scandal, or when another priest is, indeed, present, but declines to hear the confession of the dying person. In the latter case this priest is regarded as absent. The _sacerdos complex_ is, however, bound to take all care that no suspicion or scandal arises from the presence of another priest; he may, for example, upon some pretext or another, absent himself, having previously induced the dying person to send for another confessor. If he fail to do this, and so is under the necessity of administering absolution to the dying person, he sins gravely and incurs the penalty decreed; but the absolution administered by him, “_etiam directa hujus peccati_” would be valid, that the dying person might not be lost.[596]

All authors teach that a priest can also absolve his _complex_ who is _in articulo mortis_, when the latter, without fault on the part of the _confessarius complex_, refuses to confess to another priest. This penitent, however, must be _in bona fide_ as regards the commandment of the Church. Here the eternal salvation of the poor penitent is in question, and frequently scandal would result if the priest should refuse to hear the confession of the dying person.[597]

IV. The confessor who, apart from the specified cases of necessity, absolves his _complex in peccato turpi_ from this _peccatum turpe_ incurs, _ipso facto_, the excommunication specially reserved to the Pope.[598] If a priest absolves his _complex ex ignorantia_ or _inadvertentia_, and thus remains free from grave sin, he does not incur the censure. But it is doubtful whether the absolution administered is valid. The _sententia communis_ rejects the absolution as invalid, since the Pope has only excepted the absolution administered in the hour of death; but several later theologians hold the absolution to be valid, because the Pope, as they point out, speaks only of the _sacerdos sacrilegus_, who knowingly and intentionally absolves his _complex_.[599]

Further, a priest does not incur the excommunication who hears the confession of his _complex_, but does not absolve him, seeing that, according to the Constitution of Pius IX, only the _sacerdotes absolventes_ fall under the excommunication. If, however, the confessor pretends to absolve his _complex_ (_fingere absolutionem_) while, in reality, he does not absolve him,—for instance, saying some prayer in place of the usual form of absolution,—he incurs excommunication. So the S. C. Inq. declared on December 10, 1883, with the approbation of Leo XIII.[600]

If the penitent confesses to the _sacerdos complex_ and conceals the sin against the sixth commandment, which the confessor has committed with him, and the confessor absolves him, the latter does not incur the excommunication, according to a declaration of the S. Pœnitent. on May 16, 1887. “For this penalty falls only on the priest who absolves his _complex_ from that _peccatum turpe_ in which the priest has been the _complex_ of the penitent.” Nevertheless, according to the declaration of the Penitentiary, the confessor of the priest who has absolved his _complex_ (even when he has not absolved him from the _peccatum complicitatis_) is bound to remind him with the greatest zeal that he has been guilty of a very grave sin, and an abominable abuse of the Sacrament of Confession, and he may only absolve this priest after exhorting him in the most forcible manner to relinquish his office as confessor, and after imposing on him the obligation of refraining from hearing the confessions of his _complex_ in the future; and that if the _persona complex_ appears in the confessional again, he should exhort this person to accuse himself to another confessor in a valid confession both of the _peccatum complicitatis_ and of the sins invalidly confessed. The concession of the Council of Trent (Sess. XXIV. cap. 6, “Liceat”) does not empower a bishop to absolve a priest who has absolved his _complex_. The Sacred Penitentiary has expressly declared this on July 18, 1860, and it results from the Constitution “_Apostolicæ Sedis_,” in which all the _casus papales_ reserved _speciali modo_ to the Pope are excepted from the powers granted to bishops in the cap. “Liceat.”[601]

But if, “_in casibus urgentioribus_,” absolution cannot be deferred without danger of great scandal and disgrace, a bishop, or another priest, can administer absolution _injunctis de jure injungendis_ on the confessor who has unlawfully absolved his _complex in peccato turpi_, but under penalty of “reincidence” if within the space of a month, the absolved priest has not recourse by letter, and through the confessor, to the Holy See.[602]

If a confessor in such a case is obliged to apply to the Holy See, he must address his petition to the Sacred Penitentiary. In this petition he must adopt a fictitious name, set forth the case concisely and clearly, with all the circumstances appertaining to the matter, as: _quot personas complices et quoties Sacerdos absolvere attentaverit; an unam vel plures irregularitates contraxerit ex violatione censuræ per celebrationem missæ vel exercitium solemne Ordinis Sacri; an alias jam acceperit Rescriptum gratiæ pro absolutione ab hujusmodi crimine_.[603]

47. Sollicitatio Proprii Pœnitentis ad Turpia.

The minister of the Sacrament of Penance is a man, and remains a man; even when he is administering this Sacrament he is subject to the weaknesses of human nature, and hence he bears within him the inclination to evil and is exposed to the temptations of the devil; and it is there where he destroys the work of Satan that he must experience the hostility of the evil one more, perhaps, than elsewhere. In addition to this, the confessor holds such intimate intercourse with the penitent, and must, alas! so often deal with dangerous matter; he must listen to certain sins, investigate them and give them his attention in order to discharge his duty rightly. Thus may be explained the dreadful abuse of the Sacrament of Confession of which we now treat,—an abuse, however, which is very rare,—the _Sollicitatio proprii pœnitentis ad turpia_.[604]

There is question only of an _abusus Sacramenti Pœnitentiæ ad turpia_, but not of an _abusus aliorum Sacramentorum ad turpia_, and also not of an _abusus ejusdem Pœnitentiæ Sacramenti ad alia peccata, quamvis gravissima_.

_Jam quæritur_:—

I. _Quid intelligatur per turpia vel inhonesta, ad quæ fit sollicitatio?_

II. _Quo actu sollicitatio perficiatur?_

III. _Qualis nexus inter sollicitationem et Sacramentum Pœnitentiæ intervenire oporteat, ut revera et ex mente legislatoris sollicitatio abusus Sacramenti sit?_

Ad I. _Per peccata turpia, ad quæ fit sollicitatio, intelliguntur omnes actus externi libidinosi seu actus luxuriæ, quo spectant etiam actus vel ex sua natura vel ex particulari dispositione complicis vel ex intentione operantis aliunde satis manifestata_ (_v.g._ _signo_, _verbo_) _inductivi ad vehementem commotionem spirituum genitalium; intelligantur ergo: quilibet tractatus turpis, sermo obscænus vel actio obscæna. Sollicitatio ex mente legislatoris non perpetratur actibus tantum venialiter inhonestis adeoque non veneriis (nam in his non est parvitas materiæ). Excipe, si ex circumstantiis certe conjiceretur, sacerdotem actu de se leviter malo (v.g. verbo blandiori) animum habuisse procedendi ad gravia.[605] Confessarius consentiens tantum mulieri sollicitanti in confessione nullo modo eximitur a peccato sollicitationis_, i.e. _inhonesti tractatus in confessionali, idque licet statim desierit de illa turpi materia loqui, differendo illius complementum ad aliud tempus et non præbendo absolutionem pœnitenti; item licet inductus metu consenserit sollicitationi[606] et a fortiori, quando confessarius et pœnitens invicem se sollicitarunt, puta quando confessarius ad unam turpitudinis speciem sollicitatus ad aliam sollicitavit pœnitentem. Juxta Decreta sollicitaret etiam confessarius, qui diceret pœnitenti: “Si sæcularis essem, te uxorem ducerem”; vel “Expecta me hodie domi tuæ, quia tecum loqui cupio” et postea domi sollicitaret; vel “Hisce peccatis tuis pollutionem passus sum”; item, si feminæ petenti confessionem responderet in confessionali: “Nolo tuam audire confessionem, ne quid mihi contingat; quia amore tui captus sum”; item “Totum me commoveri sentio ex affectu, quo te prosequor”; vel “Domum tuam veniam et promitte mihi, te facturum esse quod voluero.”_[607]

Ad II. _Crimen sollicitationis ad turpia adest, si confessarius, qualiscunque sit, tam sæcularis quant regularis (vel etiam sacerdos carens jurisdictione at hic in confessione)[608] sollicitat pœnitentem sive marem sive feminam ad peccandum sive secum sive cum alio; nec refert, utrum ipsum pœnitentem sollicitet, an mediante pœnitente aliam quampiam personam. Præterea sollicitatio hujusmodi ex parte confessarii fieri potest vel_ immediate _(v.g. verbis obscænis) vel_ mediate, _puta per chartam postmodum a pœnitente legendam;[609] et habenda est_ completa, _sive pœnitens reapse ad peccatum pertrahatur, sive resistat, dummodo ponatur medium aptum alliciendi ad actus inhonestos; nec refert, medium adhibitum in se malum sit an indifferens, dummodo ex circumstantiis postea cognoscatur, id ad sollicitandum adhibitum esse, puta, si confessarius mulieri hoc animo intimet, ut expectet eum domi, vel eam eodem animo interroget, ubi habitet_.

Ad III. _Ut vero sollicitatio ejusmodi sit abusus Sacramenti oportet, ut, modo a lege determinato, relatio aliqua intercedat inter ipsam et confessionem vel inter ipsam et locum ubi confessiones excipiuntur._[610]

(_a_) _Relatio requisita ad confessionem adest, si sollicitatio fit_: (1) _in actu sacramentalis confessionis incæptæ, licet non perfectæ; vel_ (2) _immediate ante confessionem; vel_ (3) _immediate post confessionem_, i.e. _quando inter sollicitationem et confessionem nihil mediat, ita ut nec confessarius nec pœnitens ad aliud negotium serio se divertant_.[611]

(4) _Occasione confessionis_ (_veræ_) _vid. quando fit invitatio ad confessionem hic et nunc excipiendam ex parte pœnitentis, aut quando confessarius invitat pœnitentem ad confessionem hic et nunc faciendam, et hac occasione data, divertit pœnitentem a proposito et ad turpia provocat; aut si in confessione, sive immediate ante sive post, initium sollicitationis fit, quæ postea completur v.g. si dantur litteræ sollicitantes vel si fit interrogatio de habitatione et postea sequitur sollicitatio domi, vel si ob fragilitatem mulieris ex ejus confessione cognitam postea eam domi sollicitaverit, dummodo ex indiciis sufficienter constat, eum ex ilia scientia non aliis ex causis ad id motum fuisse.[612] Ejusmodi indicia aderunt si v.g. confessarius auditis peccatis mulierem interrogaverit, ubi habitet, an sola domi manere soleat vel alia hisce similia interrogaverit, vel, dum ad peccandum accessit, verbis aut factis aliqua commemoravit ex iis, quæ ex confessione accepit._[613]

(5) _Prætextu confessionis_ (_fictæ_), _si confessarius ex pravo fine invitat mulierem ad confessionem et deinde sollicitat, vel feminæ suadet, ut fingens se ægrotam eum, confessarium suum, tanquam ad confessionem faciendam, revera ad peccandum accersat. Secus probabilius dicendum, si prætextus confessionis non est ordinatus ad sollicitationem sed ad peccati jam conventi executionem, puta ad avertendum Superiorem vel familiares domus a scandalo et suspicione mali._[614]

(_b_) _Relatio requisita ad locum, ubi confessiones excipiuntur, aderit, si actus prohibiti exerceantur_:—

(1) _In confessionali proprie dicto_; (2) _in loco quocunque, ubi confessiones excipi solent, licet confessionale ibi non inveniatur_; (3) _in loco quocunque, quem confessarius ad confessiones audiendas pro suo arbitrio elegit_.

_Ut autem crimen sollicitationis ex mente legislatoris adsit ac propterea pœna sollicitantibus confessariis inflicta contrahatur, ob circumstantias sub_ (_b_) _enarratas enascatur simulatio confessionis accedat necesse est_, i.e. _confessarius et pœnitens ita se gerant oportet, ut confessionem ille audire_ (_v.g._ _aures applicando_), _hic peragere videatur. Hæc tamen simulatio non requiritur, si sollicitat in confessionali personam, quæ pariter in eo invenitur; sufficit enim, ut sacerdos in confessionali de rebus turpibus agat, quin simulet confessionem audire._[615]

The _sollicitatio_ described in the foregoing is a very grave mortal sin of impurity, of sacrilege, and of scandal. For it is a dreadful abuse of the Sacrament of Penance, when, as Gregory XV expresses himself, the confessor thus offers the penitent poison instead of a remedy, instead of bread a scorpion, from a spiritual father becoming a wretched betrayer of souls.

IV. All penitents are bound under pain of mortal sin to denounce to the _Ordinarius loci_, or to the Holy See through the Penitentiary or Inquisition, the confessors who have been guilty of solicitation.[616]

The object of this denunciation is the following:—

1. If the person who denounces is known as honorable and truthful, if no evil intention, such as revenge, enmity, or calumny is to be imputed to him, whilst on the other hand, the denounced priest is already known to be not very conscientious, the denunciation effects that the _suspected_ confessor will be _watched_ by the _Ordinarius_.[617] And if stronger grounds of suspicion against the denounced priest accumulate from other quarters (for example, suspicious intercourse), this supplies the _Ordinarius_ with a motive for administering to him, in the first place, a fatherly warning, in doing which, the _Ordinarius_ does not yet impute to him the _crimen sollicitationis_, but rather exhorts him to be conscientious; in this, however, the _Ordinarius_ must so proceed as not to excite the suspicion of the denounced against the denouncer. “_Ut plurimum enim nonnisi a tertia denuntiatione ad judicium procedi debet._”[618] The precise object of the law is to safeguard the Church and to inspire confessors with a just dread of the enormity of the crime which abuses the sacred tribunal of penance; or, as Amort expresses it: _finis non est emendatio personæ particularis sed securitas publica Sacramenti et animarum ex castigatione certa tam abominandi sceleris, et ex metu indeclinabili omnium confessariorum incurrendi gravissima supplicia etiam actu unico aut, semel tantum iterato; imo etiam indemnitas Ecclesiæ ne scil. ejusmodi pestes ad officia publica subrepant, quo nihil est nocentius communi Ecclesiæ bono_.[619] Every solicited person is, therefore, strictly bound to denounce, and is not released from this duty because another has denounced; this duty never ceases to bind, though it is sometimes suspended for a time; in case of repetition a confessor must be again denounced, even if he has been already punished on account of the first transgression, or has not been fully convicted of solicitation;[620] again, the penitent is bound to denounce, even when, in consequence of _correctio fraterna_, he believes that he may confidently hope for amendment, indeed, as St. Alphonsus teaches, even when the fault has been atoned for;[621] denunciation must be made if the fact is certain though it cannot be judicially proved, or when the crime is secret, or was committed a long time before. It must not be supposed that belated information of this kind can be of no use; it may perhaps serve to complete previous information respecting the same confessor, or, in conjunction with other grounds of suspicion to close to a hypocrite the road to ecclesiastical dignities, or at least, to inspire the confessor with lasting fear of filling up the measure of iniquity by repeated solicitation, seeing that even solicitations committed a long time before may be brought into court. If, however, the person who solicited is dead, the denunciation need not take place, because then the full object of the law can no longer be realized.[622]

2. The duty of denouncing is not incumbent upon the person who solicits, nor is he bound to admonish the penitent solicited by him to make the denunciation. All solicited penitents, however, without exception, male and female, seculars and regulars, high and low, to whatever class they may belong, are bound to denounce. Denunciation is also incumbent (but now no longer _sub excommunicatione_)[623] upon all witnesses of this crime, eye-witnesses or ear-witnesses, and whoever has received information of the solicitation outside confession, directly or indirectly, from words of the person soliciting himself, or the solicited person, if the latter be trustworthy.[624] The penitent must denounce in any case whether he has consented to, or rejected, the solicitation, but he need not make known his consent; he must also denounce when the solicitation has been mutual between confessor and penitent, or when the penitent has solicited, and the confessor has consented.[625]

A young girl, who, at the time of being solicited, was ignorant of any evil design, must, according to a decree of the Sacred Inquisition (May 11, 1707) denounce the confessor as soon as she has attained to an understanding of the solicitation which took place.

The solicited person, or whoever has certain knowledge of the solicitation, is not released from the obligation to denounce on account of the general difficulties attaching to the denunciation itself, as, for example, shame at having been solicited; fear that the judge might become suspicious of her; the danger of harm or detriment to the denouncing person; any such damage must be considered as trifling compared with the possibility of scandal to the Church and to souls; the use of _Epikeia_ (_i.e._, a benign interpretation of the law) is not justifiable in this case.

3. Every priest who has been guilty of the crime of solicitation, including him who possesses no jurisdiction, is liable to denunciation, be he secular or regular, or in any way exempted, whatever dignity he may hold; whether he has himself solicited, or consented to the solicitation of the penitent, and even when he has already amended.[626]

V. The confessor’s dealing with solicited persons is regulated in accordance with the following ordinances of the Papal Constitutions and Instructions of the Sacred Congregation.

1. All confessors are bound _sub gravi_ to instruct those of their penitents whom they know to have been solicited in the specified manner, that it is their duty to denounce the persons soliciting. This duty of instructing remains imperative even when the solicited penitents are _in bona fide_.

The confessors who do not instruct their solicited penitents must be punished.[627]

They must instruct their penitents concerning: (_a_) the strict duty of denouncing; (_b_) the time within which the denunciation must be made; (_c_) the penalty attached to the neglect of this duty; and (_d_) the manner of making the denunciation.

2. Let the confessor proceed in the following manner:—

(_a_) If he is in doubt as to whether the act or the word of the person in question really constituted a true solicitation, he must not oblige the penitent to denounce, except when strong grounds for suspecting solicitation are superadded, or when the words, _de se_, are soliciting, and doubt exists only as to whether the confessor uttered them with a bad intention.[628]

(_b_) Before the confessor binds the solicited person to denounce (and only on condition that she denounce may absolution be administered) he must seriously consider whether this person be deserving of credit, or if there is weighty, just, and very probable suspicion, supported by other indications, that she is influenced by revenge and wishes to calumniate the priest. In this latter case the confessor must remind her that she commits a very great sin, and one reserved to the Pope, in falsely denouncing a priest for solicitation.

(_c_) The confessor must not seek to know the name of the person soliciting, though he must question the penitent as to the necessary circumstances.

(_d_) And when the confessor knows positively that the penitent has been solicited, he must seriously impress upon her (even when she is in good faith) the duty of denouncing the person who solicited, and the confessor is bound to do so, even when he foresees that the penitent will not denounce.[629] After which he must indicate an appropriate method of making the denunciation. In this the following rules are to be observed:—

(_a_) In order that the object of the denunciation may be obtained, the Ordinary must be informed of the crime and all its circumstances; the name of the confessor who solicited is to be given, that he may be summoned before the Ordinary, and, if found guilty, be punished; if the denouncer does not know the baptismal and family name of the confessor, she must describe him as accurately as she can, so that he may be recognized; finally, the name and dwelling-place of the denouncer must be given, that the Ordinary may make inquiries concerning her trustworthiness, and, if it should be necessary, summon her as a witness.

(_b_) The denunciation may be effected in one of the following ways: If the bishop or the vicar-general (_loci in quo moratur pœnitens_)[630] is near at hand, so that the solicited person can easily have access to him, the latter is bound to make the denunciation in person, and to declare that N. N., priest, parish priest, religious, etc., has solicited her _ad turpia_ in the holy Sacrament of Confession. If, on account of distance, the solicited person cannot easily reach the Ordinary, she must make the denunciation in writing; that is, she informs the Ordinary by this document that she has to make a denunciation to him, which should come before the ecclesiastical tribunal, and she begs the Ordinary, at the same time, to authorize a priest to receive this denunciation.[631] The denunciation itself may be effected by letter, or through any other person—_hoc tantum valet quoad præceptum denuntiationis naturale et quatenus tale præceptum obligat in casu particulari. Nam si sermo sit de præcepto denuntiationis positivo, in ipsa Instr. cit. dicitur, quod onus personale est._[632] The denunciatory document must, however, be dispatched with such precaution that no reasonable fear of its loss need be entertained. And if the solicited person cannot make the denunciation by writing, she should repair to the dean, or to some other prudent and experienced man, who then writes in her name to the Ordinary, or to the Sacred Penitentiary, or to the Holy Office.[633] As a rule it is not advisable that the confessor should take upon himself the burden of making the denunciation for the penitent. But it is not to be denied that there are cases when the confessor is bound by the precept of charity to do this, namely, when the well-being of the community is threatened, and no other way appears of meeting the emergency.[634] The denunciation must never be made anonymously, and is always to be addressed to the bishop or to the vicar-general in person, not to the office of the Ordinary.[635]

3. Confessors cannot absolve penitents who know that they have been solicited till they have denounced the delinquent, or, at least, till they have promised that they will do so as soon as they can. This is laid down in the Constitutions of Benedict XIV and in the Instruction of the S. C. Inquis.

From this it follows that:—

(_a_) The confessor cannot absolve penitents who refuse to denounce. If a solicited person refuses, the confessor must investigate the cause of the refusal, and endeavor to remove it. If he finds the cause to be fear of disgrace, he may, in order to remove it, tell her that she stands before the ecclesiastical judge not as _persona complex_, but as a _testis_, that she is not bound to make known her consent; indeed, that she cannot even be questioned concerning her consent, and that if she has, _ex simplicitate_, declared her consent, it cannot be taken down in the official deeds.[636] Nor is any danger whatever of disgrace to be feared. If the penitent says that in gratitude for benefits received, or to be received, for presents, etc., she is unable to make the denunciation, or alleges other insufficient grounds for the refusal, the confessor must explain to the penitent the sacrilege, and her duty to obey the laws of the Church, which have been made for the purpose of warding off great scandal and detriment, and remind her of the penalty of excommunication which the solicited person _ipso facto_ incurs, by not denouncing the soliciting priest within a month. Moreover, the confessor must not lightly admit what such persons are accustomed to bring forward in order to escape from the burden of denunciation. If the solicited person refuses to perform her duty out of false shame or irreligious pity, absolution is to be refused her as not being properly disposed. The confessor must, however, out of a true zeal for souls, exert himself by all means to induce such an unhappy penitent to make the denunciation; he should prevail upon her to come again at another convenient time, and, meanwhile, inform the Ordinary or the Holy See through the Penitentiary, or the Inquisition, of the matter without mentioning the name of the penitent.

(_b_) If, however, the confessor perceives that a solicited person otherwise well-disposed for the Sacrament of Penance has a lawful ground for refusing the denunciation, as, for example, a probable, well-founded danger of suffering appreciable injury in honor, property, or person,[637] or that, on account of fear or excessive timidity, she can by no means be brought to denounce the soliciting person at that time, either personally or through the confessor, but yet promises faithfully to make the denunciation later on, as soon as she can, he may absolve her, and that at once _stante nempe gravi difficultate denuntiationis faciendæ, si necessitas urgeat_, that is, when the penitent has to receive holy communion, in order to avoid scandal, or to gain a Jubilee indulgence. If there is no _necessitas urgens_, the confessor must defer the absolution, and appoint another time for the penitent to come to him; meanwhile, he must address himself to the bishop, and lay the whole case before him, concealing the name of the penitent, adding also the grounds which make it advisable to dispense the penitent from the duty of denouncing. The bishop then may himself decide what is to be done or apply to the Sacred Penitentiary;[638] for the Holy See occasionally confers upon the confessor authority to dispense the penitent _pro ea vice_ from the duty of denouncing, especially when the soliciting person has amended, and done penance. Solicited persons can also be absolved who “_in partibus schismaticorum, hæreticorum et mahometanorum degunt_,” although these regions are subject to the Constitutions leveled against those who solicit; such a case may occur when the circumstances indicate that no hope of punishing the soliciting person can be entertained and the _mulieres sollicitatæ_ cannot denounce without danger and disgrace, while those denounced can easily escape punishment by having recourse either to schismatic bishops or to unbelieving lay judges.[639]

VI. Solicited penitents who neglect, or, through their own fault, omit, to denounce the _Confessarios, sive Sacerdotes, a quibus sollicitati fuerint_, within a month, incur, _ipso facto_, the excommunication which is not reserved.[640] They incur this penalty, therefore, _infra mensem_, that is, reckoning from the day on which they were warned of their duty. If they give information later on, they can be absolved from the excommunication by any priest.[641]

In conclusion, we enumerate the penalties which are to be imposed upon priests soliciting, according to the nature of the offense, and according to the circumstances:—

(1) Suspension from the exercise of the sacerdotal powers; (2) deprivation of benefices, dignities, and offices, with perpetual disability to acquire such again; (3) deprivation of active and passive vote, when Regulars are in question; and, (4) continual disability to celebrate Mass. But all these penalties are _pœnæferendæ sententiæ_; degradation, and delivering the delinquent to the _brachium sæculare_, are not resorted to nowadays. Gregory XV appointed this punishment, but, as the Instruction says, we must regard it more as imposed _ad terrorem_ than for the purpose of being actually carried out.[642]