Chapter III: Penitents in Extreme Danger (3)

[283] Cf. Lehmkuhl, l. c.; Mazzotta, l. c. De oris confessione, cp. 4. St. Alphonsus declares very precisely that St. Thomas’ doctrine on this matter is not against us: “He does not speak of a penitent who after diligent examination of conscience comes to the conclusion that his sin is doubtfully mortal and then lays aside his doubt in accordance with the rule that there is no certain obligation where it is question of a doubtful transgression; he is rather considering the case of the penitent who is certain that he has performed a sinful act but cannot decide whether it was gravely sinful or not; such a penitent is, of course, obliged to take pains to remove the doubt, and if he cannot settle he must submit it to the judgment of his confessor, whose office it is to distinguish between sin and sin.” S. Alph. l. c. n. 474 (fin.).

[284] S. Alph. l. c. n. 475.

[285] Habert, t. 3 de consc. Cf. S. Alph. l. c. n. 476.

[286] Cf. S. Alph. l. c. n. 476; Reuter, l. c. P. IV. n. 306 ss.

[287] Cf. Lacroix, l. c. Lib. VI. P. 2, n. 612; S. Alph. l. c. n. 476.

[288] S. Alph. l. c. n. 478. Cf. H. A. De Sacr. Pœnit. cp. 3, n. 34.

[289] Lugo, l. c. Disput. 16, n. 52, n. 87, n. 78.

[290] Cf. Ballerini, Notæ ad Gury, l. c. n. 480, and Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. n. 380 ss.; Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 318; Aertnys, l. c. Lib. VI. Tract. V. P. II. cp. 3, art. 3, n. 193, Q. 4; Müller, l. c. Lib. III. T. II Sect. 121, is wrong in calling the affirmative opinion _communissima et vera_.

[291] Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 319. Cf. Aertnys: _In praxi, præsumptio amovet dubitationem_; Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. n. 379.

[292] Suarez, Bonacina, Lugo, Salmanticenses, Lacroix, etc.

[293] S. Alph. l. c. n. 477. Thus the holy Doctor does not express a general obligation of confessing the sins in this case. In the _Quæst. rec. reform._ n. 16 he appeals from Suarez, Lugo, etc., to Concina, who, along with others, teaches the obligation of confession _cum dubia sit confessio et certa sit confessionis obligatio_ (see _Vindiciæ Alphonsianæ_). Meanwhile, as Ballerini shows, St. Alphonsus in the Roman edition of his Moral Theology of the year 1757, which is dedicated to Benedict XIV, releases the penitent from the obligation of repeating the confession _ut etiam communiter dicunt Suarez, Sanchez, Lugo_, etc., etc. And Lugo writes (De Pœnit. Disp. 16, n. 58): _Communiter docent omnes non teneri_ (_quempiam_) _ad confitendum illud_ (_peccatum_) _quod probabiliter judicat se ... confessum jam fuisse_. Cf. n. 59, where the same subject is treated of: _nihil frequentius apud theologos_, etc. Hence the _sententia communis_ of theologians is that within the given limits there is no obligation, so that Ballerini justly exclaims: “Who would not rather abide by St. Alphonsus when he follows those great theological luminaries than when he clings to Concina!” “And has Concina thereby taught anything new? Indeed, since the whole question rests on a general principle, are we to rate so low the common teaching of such great theologians as to grant the privilege of clearer intuition to the judgment of the rigorist Concina?” Ballerini, Notæ ad Gury, l. c. n. 479. Cf. Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. n. 382 ss.

[294] S. Alph. l. c. n. 478; Sanchez, l. c. Lib. I. c. 10, n. 69; Suarez, l. c., etc. Cf. Aertnys, l. c. n. 193, Q. 4.

[295] Cf. S. Antonin. Summa, P. III. Tit. 14, c. 19, § 14.

[296] Cf. Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 321 ss.; Aertnys, l. c. De Pœnitent. Art. III. Confessio, n. 187, Q. 1, and Acta S. Sedis, Vol. 4, p. 320. Cf. the note of Fr. Haringer, C.SS.R., to St. Alphonsus’ Moral Theology, Lib. VI. Tract. IV. De Pœnit. n. 488; Wilmers, Lehrbuch der Religion, Fourth Edition, 1886, Vol. IV. § 74, p. 674.

[297] Cf. _Appendix ad Concil. plen. Baltim._ II. in _Collect. Lac._ T. III. col. 550.

[298] See § 27.

[299] Cf. Mazzotta, l. c. De Oris Confess. cp. 5; Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 323 s.; Gury-Baller. II. De Pœn. n. 494 s.

[300] Lugo, De Euchar. n. 126; Suarez, Disputat. 66 s. 3; Lacroix, n. 539; Salmanticenses, De Euch. c. 7, p. 3, n. 30, etc.

[301] Sess. XIII. cp. 7.

[302] S. Alph. l. c. Lib. VI. Tract. III. De Euchar. cp. II. Dub. II. n. 257; Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 325; Aertnys, l. c. Lib. VI. Tract. IV. De Euchar. Art. III. n. 98, Q. II.

[303] Gury-Ballerini, l. c. n. 495; Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 326.

[304] Sess. XIII. cp. 5.

[305] Cf. Gury, l. c. n. 497; Aertnys, l. c. n. 104; and Lehmkuhl, l. c. art. III. n. 327.

[306] S. Alph. l. c. L. VI. n. 485.

[307] Reuter, Theol. Moral. Quadripartita, Tom. IV. Tract. V. Q. IX. n. 331, exempl.

[308] Reuter, l. c. n. 331, exempl. 5; Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 329.

[309] Compare § 20, Confessions of the Dumb who are Able to Write.

[310] S. Alph. l. c. Lib. VI. n. 644; Prax. Conf. n. 104; H. Ap. n. 155; Gury-Ballerini, l. c. II. n. 503, Not.; Aertnys, l. c. n. 297, Q. III.

[311] Aertnys, l. c. n. 195, Q. I; Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 330.

[312] Cf. Aertnys, l. c. n. 195, and Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 332.

[313] Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 331; Stotz, l. c. Lib. I. P. III. Q. II. nn. 68 et 69.

[314] S. Alph. l. c. n. 488; Aertnys, l. c.; Elbel, Theol. Moral. Vol. III. P. IX. De Pœnit. n. 150. See § 72, Treatment of the Scrupulous in Confession.

[315] S. Alph. l. c.; Stotz and Aertnys, l. c.

[316] L. c. n. 331. Cf. St. Alph. l. c. n. 487.

[317] Cf. Aertnys, Lib. III. Tract. VIII. De octavo Præcepto Decalogi, n. 534, Q. 2.

[318] Lugo, l. c. n. 398.

[319] In IV. dist. 16, Q. 3, a. 2.

[320] Disp. 34, Sect. 2.

[321] Disp. 16, n. 398 sq.

[322] Q. 91, dub. 3, a. 2.

[323] C. 8, n. 128.

[324] P. IV. n. 321.

[325] L. c. n. 489.

[326] S. Alph. l. c. 490; Gury-Baller. II. 500, Q. II.

[327] De Pœnit. Disp. I. Q. IV. cp. 7, § 1 _ab initio_.

[328] Cf. Lugo, Disp. 16, l. c.; Tamburini, Meth. conf. 1. 2, c. 9, § 2.

[329] Thus Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 334 ss.; cf. Aertnys, l. c. n. 196, Q. 10; Lugo, l. c. Ballerini, however, l. c. n. 499, Q. I, concludes thus in his notes: Ergo, seclusis aliis incommodis, _integra manere videtur obligatio_ circumstantiam illam tacendi quando ex ejusdem confessione alterius infamia consequatur. Cf. Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. (_de Complicis manifestat._) n. 439-450.

[330] Cf. Lugo, Disp. 16, n. 420; Gury-Ballerini, l. c. n. 502; Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 338.

[331] Sess. XIV. cp. 5 et can. 7 (examen diligens).

[332] Lugo, l. c. Disp. 16, nn. 590-594; cf. Laym. Lib. V. Tr. 6, 8.

[333] L. c. n. 366.

[334] Mazzotta, l. c. Disput. I. Q. II. cp. I.

[335] Part II. cp. 5, n. 60.

[336] L. c. n. 311.

[337] Theol. Sacram. Tom. III. De Pœnit. n. 365.

[338] Instructio Pœnit. cp. II.

[339] Mazzotta, l. c.; cf. Suarez, Disp. 22.

[340] Mazzotta l. c.; Aertnys, l. c. De Pœnit. cp. III. § 2, n. 186.

[341] Aertnys, l. c. De Pœnit. cp. III. art. III. § 2, n. 186.

[342] Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 344.

[343] Cf. Stotz, _Tribunal Pœnitentiæ_, Lib. I. P. I. Q. I. art. 9, _Praxis examinis pro Confessione_, and Lib. I. P. III. Q. III. art. 1 ss. _Syllabus peccatorum_.

[344] Mazzotta, l. c. Disp. I. Q. II. cp. I (Lacroix); Reuter, Theol. Mor. P. IV. n. 311; Sporer, l. c. n. 367.

[345] Compare Renninger-Göpfert, Pastoraltheologie, I Bd. I Tl. § 66.

[346] Cf. Gury-Ballerini, II. De Censuris, n. 960, Not. 1-4, also n. 430, Q. 7; S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 430, in fine; Aertnys, l. c. De Censuris, n. 39.

[347] S. Alph. Lib. VI. nn. 498, 499; Lugo, Disp. 16, n. 607; Suarez, Disp. 28, s. 2, n. 12 (_sententia communis_).

[348] Cf. §§ 63, 64, where the _recidivi_ are treated of, and Lehmkuhl, l. c. Sacr. Pœnit. Sect. II. cp. II. Confessio, art. III. § 2, n. 347.

[349] S. Alph. l. c. n. 502; H. A. n. 44; Lacroix, l. c. n. 216; Lugo, Disp. 16, n. 638; Elbel, n. 253, etc.

[350] Cf. S. Alph. l. c. n. 502, dub. 2; also Suarez, Lugo, Vasquez, Laymann, and other theologians.

[351] Suarez, Disp. 22, Sect. 6, and Lugo, Disp. 16, Sect. 15, n. 636.

[352] Lugo, l. c. Disp. 16, nn. 637, 638. Cf. Suarez, De Pœnit. Disp. 22, Sect. 6, n. 5; Coninck, Disp. 4, n. 45; Illsung, De Pœnit. Disp. 6, n. 152, etc.

[353] Aertnys, l. c. art. III. Confessio, § 4, n. 203, Q. 2.

[354] Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 348.

[355] Silva, part 3, cp. 6.

[356] Cf. S. Alph. l. c. cp. 9. If the confessor is morally certain that the former confessions were bad, he must unquestionably insist on their repetition; if he has only doubts, he cannot impose on the penitent an absolute obligation. _In dubio standum est pro valore actus._ Cf. S. Alph. Prax. Conf. n. 20; Segneri, Instr. pœn. cp. 15; Carol. Borom. Act. Med. p. 877; Benger, Pastoraltheologie, Bd. II. § 70, S. 470, 2. Auflage.

[357] S. Alph. Praxis Confess. n. 22; cf. Aertnys, Theol. Pastor. complectens Practicam Institut. Confessarii, P. III. cp. VIII. art. II. n. 245.

[358] S. Franc. Sal. Oper. Ed. Paris 1669. Tom I. p. 914, n. 6.

[359] Benedict XIV. Const. Apostolica, 26 Jun. 1749, nn. 16, 17.

[360] Instruct. pœnit. cp. 16.

[361] Instit. catech. P. II. cp. 5, n. 11.

[362] Cf. Reuter, Neo-confessarim, P. III. cp. 2, n. 191; Müller, Theol. moral. Lib. III. T. II. § 124.

[363] H. A. app. IV. § 1, n. 15.

[364] S. Alph. Prax. Conf. n. 20.

[365] S. Alph. Vera Sponsa, cp. 18, § 2.

[366] Marc, Instit. Morales, II. T. II. P. III. Tract. V. Diss. II. n. 1712.

[367] Anleitung zur Generalbeichte, S. 90-92.

[368] Cf. Aertnys, Pract. Instit. Confess. l. c. art. II. n. 247.

[369] S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 504; cf. Lugo l. c. Disput. 16, nn. 600, 640; Benger, Pastoraltheologie, II. Bd. § 171, S. 479 (2. Aufl.).

[370] Praxis Confess. cp. I. n. 20, 4.

[371] Anleitung zur Generalbeichte, S. 64-70.

[372] S. Alph. l. c. Lib. VI. n. 425, H. A. n. 4; Lugo, l. c. Disp. 16, nn. 46-49; Aertnys, l. c. n. 200, Q. 2.

[373] P. Heilig, _Methodus Confess. generales ... excipiendi_; Gury-Baller. l. c. II. Tract. de Sacr. Pœnit. n. 519; Lehmkuhl, l. c. Sect. II. art. III. nn. 346, 349; Aertnys, Pract. Instit. Confessor. P. III. cp. VIII. art. III.

[374] See § 24.

[375] See § 49.

[376] Anleitung zur Generalbeichte, S. 88-90.

[377] Leonard von Port Maur., Anleitung zur Generalbeichte; Benger, Pastoraltheologie, Bd. III. S. 607-619 (1. Aufl.), Bd. II. S. 475-486 (2. Aufl.); Schüch, Pastoraltheologie, § 320.

[378] Some experienced confessors advise to begin with these commandments, because sins against holy purity are frequently the cause of invalid confessions. Many penitents, however, would be shocked and disgusted at such a proceeding.

[379] The greatest prudence should be employed in putting these questions for fear of teaching evil or giving scandal. In this matter it is better that the completeness of the accusation should suffer. For instance, Ballerini disapproves of asking directly whether the accomplice is bound by vows, since such cases are rare, and when they occur the penitent would be certain to mention the circumstance spontaneously, while to put such a question would frequently cause astonishment and give scandal.

[380] Aertnys, l. c. cp. 8, art. 4, nn. 251, 252; Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 351; Gury-Ballerini, l. c. n. 520; Heilig, Methodus Conf. gen. n. 40 ss.

[381] Sess. XIV. De Pœnit. cp. 8.

[382] S. Thom. _Amplius valet ad expiandum peccatum quam si proprio arbitrio homo faceret idem opus._ Quodl. Lib. 3, Q. 14. Summa Theol. Supplem. Q. 12-15; Suarez, De Sacr. Pœnit. Disp. 37 per 10 Sectiones, Disp. 38, Sect. 1 and 2; Lugo, De Sacr. Pœnit. Disp. 24 per 5 Sectiones; Billuart, Compend. Theol. Tom. VI. De Sacr. Pœnit. Diss. VIII. a. I. 6-8; cf. Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. Vol. V. Tract. X. Sect. V. cp. I. n. 478 ss.; Schanz, Die Lehre von den hl. Sakramenten, II. Tl. § 42, Die Genugthuung, S. 538 ss.

[383] Sess. XIV. cp. 8.

[384] S. Alph. Theol. Mor. Lib. VI. nn. 506, 507; H. Ap. n. 47.

[385] Busenbaum, Medulla, Lib. VI. Tract. IV. cp. I. De Satisfact. Art. I; S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 513; Lugo, Disp. 25, n. 50.

[386] Sess. XIV. cp. 8.

[387] Cf. Lehmkuhl, l. c. Sect. II. cp. III. Satisfactio, n. 355.

[388] Rituale Rom. De Sacram. Pœnit.

[389] S. Thom. Suppl. Q. 15, a. 3.

[390] S. Alph. _cum communi sententia_. Lib. VI. l. c.

[391] S. Alph. _ibid._; Scavini, l. c. n. 383; S. Thom. Quodl. 3, a. 28.

[392] This is the teaching of St. Alphonsus _cum innumeris scriptoribus contra paucos_ (n. 513).

[393] S. Alph. l. c. n. 524.

[394] Cf. S. Alph. l. c. n. 512.

[395] Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 356 (8).

[396] Homil. 43 in Matth. c. 23.

[397] Cf. Martin, Moral. S. 591.

[398] S. Alph. l. c. n. 516, H. A. n. 55; Sporer, l. c. n. 588.

[399] Cf. Rit. Roman. tit. III. cp. I. n. 25.

[400] S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 513.

[401] S. Alph. l. c. nn. 509, 510, 526; H. Ap. nn. 49, 50; Lugo, l. c. Disp. 25, n. 60; Reuter, l. c. p. 4, nn. 591, 404; Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. nn. 489, 493.

[402] S. Alph. Lib. VI. nn. 517, 518.

[403] Thus, among others, Lugo.

[404] Thus, among others, Suarez, Fillince, Segneri, St. Alphon. l. c. n. 518.

[405] Aertnys, Theol. Moral. Lib. VI. Tract. V. De Pœnit. cp. III. art. IV n. 206, Q. 4.

[406] S. Alph. l. c. n. 514 (in fine).

[407] Gury-Ballerini, l. c. Appendix, n. 535. Cf. Aertnys, l. c. n. 200; Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 368.

[408] Summa Theol. P. III. tit. 17, s. 20.

[409] Instruct. Confess. cp. 20.

[410] Quodl. 3, a. 28; cf. Opusc. 65, § 4.

[411] Lib. VI. n. 510.

[412] S. Alph. l. c. n. 517.

[413] S. Alph. l. c. n. 521.

[414] S. Alph. l. c. n. 521; H. A. n. 57; Mazzotta, l. c. Tract. VI. Disp. I. Q. V. cp. 2.

[415] Lugo, l. c. Disp. 25, Sect. 5, n. 92; Sanchez in decalog. l. 4, c. 10, n. 21; Elbel, de Pœnit. n. 229.

[416] Mazzotta, l. c.; Gury II. n. 535; S. Alph. H. A. n. 57.

[417] Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 364.

[418] Lib. VI. n. 523.

[419] Suarez, De Pœn. Disp. 38, s. 8, n. 5; Lugo, l. c. Disp. 25, s. 3, n. 39; Laymann, Theol. Mor. Lib. V. Tract. VI. cp. 15, n. 15; Lacroix, Theol. Mor. Lib. VI. P. II. n. 1245, and many others.

[420] Mazzotta, l. c. Q. 5; cf. 2 Suarez, l. c. Disp. 38, s. 7. Lugo, l. c. Disp. 25, n. 68, says that this doctrine is _verum et certum_, and is a direct consequence of the teaching of the Council of Trent (Sess. XIV. cp. 8); cf. Elbel, l. c. n. 227.

[421] S. Alph. l. c. nn. 515, 516; Mazzotta, l. c.

[422] Lugo, l. c. n. 77.

[423] Lugo, De Pœnit. Disp. 25, nn. 107-110. Cf. Disp. 15, n. 107.

[424] L. c. n. 529, dub. III.

[425] Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 366.

[426] S. Alph. l. c. n. 529, dub. I; Aertnys, l. c. n. 213, Q. I; Müller, l. c. § 128.

[427] S. Alph. l. c. n. 529, dub. II; H. A. n. 61.

[428] S. Alph. l. c. n. 520; H. A. n. 59.

[429] H. A. Tr. 6, n. 33, in fine.

[430] S. Alph. H. A. n. 58; Theol. Mor. Lib. III. n. 700, Q. 2.

[431] Lehmkuhl, l. c. Sect. III. cp. I. art. I. n. 369.

[432] Trid. Sess. XIV. cp. 7.

[433] Suarez, Disp. 16, s. 3.

[434] Palmieri, Tract. de Pœnitentia, cp. II. Thes. XVI. p. 172 ss.

[435] Trid. Sess. XXIII. cp. 15, reform.

[436] Ben. XIV. De Syn. Lib. 9, cp. 16, n. 7; Instit. n. 14 ss. et Instit. 86; S. Carol. Borrom. Conc. Provinc. I. part 2 et VI. part 3, etc.

[437] Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. cp. II. n. 546 ss.

[438] Cf. Palmieri, l. c. Thes. XVI; Lehmkuhl, l. c. Sect. III. cp. I. art. II. n. 374.

[439] Benedict XIV, Notificatione 9, n. 16; Scavini, l. c. Tract. X. Disp. I. cp. 4, n. 96, nota 229. Cf. Decr. S. C. Concil. quoted by Scavini. The same author goes on to observe that by a decision of the Rota a _causa sufficiens_ for a new examination may be _libitum et sola quies episcopi_ when there is question of priests who have been examined by his predecessors; as for those whom he has himself examined, he is justified in calling them to account again _quando adest vehemens suspicio de illorum imperitia_, nor is it necessary that judicial proof of this _imperitia_ be forthcoming. Decr. 15 Jan., 1667 et 22 Sept., 1668. Cf. Bened. XIV, De Synod. diœc. l. 13, cp. 9, n. 21.

[440] Scavini, l. c. n. 98, nota 230; S. Alph. l. c. nn. 555-558; H. A. n. 81.

[441] Sess. XXIV. cp. 8 de reform.

[442] Scavini, l. c. n. 231; Benedict XIV, Quoniam, 28 Maj., 1746.

[443] Acta S. Sed. Vol. I. p. 681, Resp. 6 Mart., 1694, 29 Jan., 1707, in Frising.

[444] Bouix, De Parocho, p. iv. cp. 14.

[445] Gobat, l. c. Tract. 7, n. 45; Gury, Ed. Ratisb. not. ad n. 552.

[446] After the Council of Trent, a lengthy controversy arose among the theologians as to which bishop ought to give the approbation to the confessor; many thought it was the confessor’s bishop, others the penitent’s; with regard to exempted Regulars, it seemed probable that a single approbation, without restrictions from any bishop at all, was sufficient, since they are not the subjects of the bishops; this had been granted by Clement VII and Sixtus V; moreover, Gregory XIII gave Religious, when on a journey, the power of hearing confessions, provided they had the sanction of their Superior and approbation from any bishop; this privilege, however, was not to be made use of in the towns or places where the bishop was actually residing, without the latter’s permission. Innocent XII, however, withdrew all privileges contrary to his bull. S. Alph. l. c. n. 458.

[447] Trid. l. c. and the Constit. “Superna,” Clem. X, etc.

[448] S. Alph. l. c. n. 552; H. A. 75.

[449] S. Alph. l. c. n. 570; H. A. n. 83. Lehmkuhl is of opinion that a priest who is convinced of the bishop’s consent to his demand for approbation, may give absolution validly, but not licitly, when the paper granting the faculties has been signed and sent off, so that it cannot be reclaimed or changed except by a message directed to the priest himself, or when the bishop has given the paper containing the approbation to the priest’s messenger, who has not yet delivered it. Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 380, nota.

[450] S. Alph. l. c. nn. 543, 582; H. A. 76, 132.

[451] Confirmed by Greg. XIII, 1 Dec., 1582.

[452] Cf. S. Alph. and the other authors quoted above. Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. l. c., _Quid sit approbatio et a quo petenda_, n. 546 ss.

[453] Cf. S. Alph. l. c. n. 544; H. A. n. 77.

[454] S. Alph. n. 551; H. A. n. 75.

[455] Whenever both jurisdiction and approbation are granted on account of the office which the priest exercises as a subject of the bishop, they lapse on the office being surrendered. Hence a secular priest who has had faculties to hear confessions in some diocese in virtue of a chaplaincy or other appointment, is deprived of these faculties on being changed to another diocese unless the bishop is distinctly understood to wish to continue them. The same holds true for a Religious who has received faculties from his local Superior; his faculties lapse when he is removed to another diocese and do not revive merely by his return to the scene of his former labors. Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 381, nota 1.

[456] Lehmkuhl, l. c. Sect. I. art. III. n. 379. Gury, II De Sacram. Pœnit. P. III. cp. I. art. II. Append. n. 557. Scavini, Tract. III. Disp. I. cp. 3, art. 3, 519. Aertnys on Approbation says: _in sensu quo Concilium Tridentinum usurpat, approbatio dicenda videtur facultas audiendi confessiones ab Episcopo facta Sacerdoti qui idoneus judicatus est_—and he supposes that Regulars do not, as many maintain, receive jurisdiction from the Pope. He appeals to the S. C. Ep. et Reg. 2 Mar., 1866, also Extrao. comm. cp. 2 de sepult ex clement., cp. 2 de sepult. and Extrao. comm. cap. un. de judic., where the Pope gives jurisdiction to a Regular only when it has been refused by the bishop, whence it would seem that jurisdiction proceeds from the bishop except in the cases where he refuses to give it. Still it remains to be proved that Regulars do not receive jurisdiction from the Pope through their Superiors and approbation from the bishop. Cf. Gury, Edit. Ratisb. V. in Germania, Nota Editoris ad n. 557.

[457] Cf. Thesis 13 ab Alexand. VII. proscript.

[458] Const. Superna.

[459] Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 382; cf. Gury, l. c.; cf. Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. cp. II. n. 583 ss.

[460] The case is solved by Aertnys, who quotes a decree S. C. Ep. et Reg. 2 Mar., 1866 (Acta S. Sedis, vol. I. p. 683): “_An religiosus non approbatus juxta leges proprii Ordinis a suo Superiore vel ipso invito cum sola facultate ordinarii valide excipiat confessiones sæcularium._” R. “_Affirmative._” It is needless to say, of course, that such conduct is illicit.

[461] In accordance with the Rule of Boniface VIII, l. 5, tit. 10, cp. 2 in 6ᵒ.

[462] Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 383.

[463] Cf. Gury, l. c. n. 555, Q. 13, Edit. Roman. Whether a bishop can forbid his diocesans to make their confessions outside his diocese under pain of invalidity.

[464] Gury, cf. l. c. Edit. Ratisb. ad nn. 554, 555, also Nota Edit.

[465] Cf. S. Alph. l. c. n. 569: _spectato consensu Episcoporum et consuetudine_.

[466] Zeitschrift für kathol. Theol., Innsbruck. 1881; Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 385.

[467] See Müller, l. c. § 135, n. 5. Müller also appeals to St. Alphonsus; Lugo, Disp. 20, Sect. 5, nn. 70, 72; Suarez, De Pœnit. Disp. 30, Sect. 1, n. 4; and many others.

[468] Cf. Ballerini, Notæ ad Gury, l. c. ad n. 555, Q. 14; Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. vol. V. l. c. cp. II. nn. 613-627, _Appendix-Dissertatio_: De absolutione peregrinorum, pp. 769-855, and Lehmkuhl, l. c. nn. 379 et 384.

[469] Cf. Ballerini, Op. Theol. Moral. l. c. cp. II. De jurisdict. Conf. nn. 613-627.

[470] Decr. 4 Apr., 1900.

[471] Lessius, De justitia et jure, l. 2, cp. 29, nn. 65 and 68.

[472] A priest, for example, who has obtained a parish by simony, has, according to canon law, an invalid title. But if he was appointed to the parish by a lawful bishop, he has an “apparent title.”

[473] Cap. “infamis,” caus. 3, Q. 7 (c. 1).

[474] S. Alph. l. c. n. 572.

[475] In forming a judgment as to whether _error communis_> or _error paucorum_ is in question, we must not consider if many or few seek administration of the Sacrament of Penance from one possessing no lawful power, but if many or few have been aware of the absence of power.

[476] S. Alph. n. 572.

[477] Instit. 84, n. 22.

[478] S. Alph. l. c.; Gury, Ed. Ratisb. V. ad n. 548, Q. II; Aertnys, l. c. n. 226, Q. III; Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. cp. II. nn. 636-639.

[479] Lib. VI. nn. 571, 573.

[480] S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 432; Lacroix, l. c. L. VI. P. I. n. 110 ss.; Lessius, l. c. L. II. cp. 28, nn. 67 et 68; Reuter, Theol. Mor. P. IV. n. 53.

[481] Cf. S. Alph. l. c. n. 572; Gury-Ballerini, l. c. n. 548, Edit. Ratisb. l. c.; Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. cp. II. De Jurisdict. nn. 628-636.

[482] Lehmkuhl adds the following case: when a priest has, _bona fide_, began to hear a confession, and a doubt has arisen in his mind as to whether the period of his approbation has expired, there being no possibility of satisfying himself upon the point, this confession, begun and considerably advanced, may be concluded if great inconvenience would otherwise result to confessor and penitent; the confessor must, however, inform the penitent that the absolution administered was of doubtful validity; but if he could, without great inconvenience to either party, break off the confession, he must do so. Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 390, nota 1.

[483] L. c. n. 432.

[484] Cf. Lehmkuhl, l. c. nn. 390 and 391.

[485] S. Alph. Lib. VI. nn. 573, 600; H. A. n. 91, with Suarez, Gobat, Elbel, Sporer, etc.

[486] Cf. Trid. Sess. XIV. c. 7, where reserved cases are spoken of, and the following is decreed: “That no one may perish, it has always been the usage of the Church that there should be no reservation at the hour of death, and, therefore, that all priests may absolve any penitent from any sins and censures whatever.” These words of the Council are variously interpreted, some believing that all priests, without exception, receive jurisdiction from the Church, others believing that it is necessary to affix a limitation: when no other approved priest is at hand to whom the dying person could easily and without danger confess; these latter, therefore, limit the words “_omnes sacerdotes_” on account of the intention expressed in the preceding words: “_ne quis pereat_,” and the other ones: “_ut nulla sit reservatio_,” maintaining that these words indicate that there is question of priests who otherwise possessed jurisdiction, namely, “when no otherwise approved priest is at hand.” According to the first interpretation, and the opinion based upon it, a _sacerdos simplex_ (therefore _non approbatus_) could _valide_ administer absolution to a dying person in presence of approved priests. A great number of theologians defend this opinion (Ballerini mentions twenty-five in his notes to Gury, l. c. ad n. 551, Q. 8, and in his Opus. Theol. Mor. l. c. cp. II. De jurisdict. Conf. n. 581), and St. Alphonsus does not venture to reject it, though, in spite of the reasons advanced by these authorities, he maintains that a _simplex sacerdos_ can only absolve a dying person when no other approved priest is at hand, and he is supported in this opinion by the authority of the Roman Ritual, which (De Sacram. Pœnit. sub init.) teaches that: when danger of death threatens, and an approved priest is not present, any priest can absolve from all sins and censures. This opinion of St. Alphonsus is the most general, though, according to Ballerini and Lehmkuhl, probability is not to be denied to the other opinion, in view of the authority of so many theologians, and in accordance with the rules of interpretation.

[487] Such a priest may _valide_ absolve a dying person if no other priest be present, for the Tridentine says: _quilibet sacerdos_ may absolve _in articulo mortis_. Cf. S. Alph. l. c. n. 560 circa fin.; Gury-Ballerini, l. c. n. 550. But it is not difficult to see why _deficiente alio sacerdote_ is added here; for the _communicatio in sacris_ with heretics and with excommunicated persons who are to be avoided (_excommunicati vitandi_) is a grave sin, unless when excused by necessity; a penitent, therefore, would himself commit a grave sin if he should solicit absolution from a heretical priest, or one to be avoided (a _vitandus_), unless no other priest should be at hand. To ask the Sacrament of Penance from such an unhappy priest, and to receive it, even when it is allowed, appears, however, to be in any case a dangerous proceeding; evil influence at the most important moment of human life, and also scandal to others, are to be feared.

[488] See § 46.

[489] S. Alph. l. c. nn. 562, 563.

[490] There is _periculum mortis_ when the illness is such as may, according to the judgment of the physicians, and experience, result in death, _sive id absolute, idest generatim pro omnibus verificetur, sive respective propter circumstantias hujus infirmi_. Ballerini, l. c.

[491] S. Alph. l. c. n. 561.

[492] Const. Clem. VIII, Rom. Pontif. 1599.

[493] Decret. Clem. VIII, Sanctissimus.

[494] Cf. Mazzotta, l. c. de Pœnit. Disp. 2, Q. 1, cp. 3, § 2.

[495] S. Alph. l. c. n. 575; Aertnys, l. c. n. 232, II. Q.; Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 395, ad II. 2; Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. n. 640.

[496] This freedom, as Lehmkuhl remarks, exists for the members of the Society of Jesus, so that they are not obliged, when on a journey, to seek a priest of their own Order. Certain theologians, however, are unwilling to concede this to all Orders. Benedict XIV, in the Brief “Quod communi,” 30 March, 1742, allowed the Capuchins to confess to others not of their Order, attaching the conditions, however, that the priest to whom they confessed must be approved; the same condition was laid down for members of the Augustinian Order on June 3, 1863 (Acta S. Sedis, vol. 1, p. 677), and the S. Pœnitent., 18 April, 1867, the S. C. Ep. et Regul., 3 July, 1862 and 27 Aug., 1852 (see Bucceroni, Enchirid. pp. 127 et 128), demand the same condition for the dispersed Regulars. From which it is to be concluded that the _Sacerdotes idonei_, of whom the privileges of Sixt. IV and Innoc. VIII speak, must be approved priests. Cf. Aertnys, l. c. This seems also to hold for the congregations under _vota simplicia_, who possess the privilege of exemption from episcopal jurisdiction, as this regulation is based not upon the solemnity of the vows, but upon the said exemption.

[497] This follows from the Bull Clem. X, Superna, 21 July, 1670, already mentioned, partly printed in Gury, Ed. Ratisb. II. ad n. 559. According to the Council of Trent, all those lay persons are free from episcopal jurisdiction who belong to the household of (real and exempted) Religious Orders. But in order that the servants of a monastery may enjoy this privilege, the following conditions must concur: (1) they must really serve the religious of the monastery; (2) they must live within the inclosure at the expense of the monastery; (3) they must be under obedience to the religious of the Order; this obedience need not be the obedience of the religious; it must, however, be such as servants owe to their masters. Cf. Trid. Sess. XXIV. cp. II. de ref.; Barbosa, de Parocho cum animadvers.; Giraldi, p. 2, cp. 20, n. 12; Gury, l. c. ad 562.

[498] Cf. Bouix, de Regul. T. II. p. 5, Sect. 3, c. 2.

[499] Cf. Bouix, l. c.; Gury, Ed. Ratisb. ad n. 564, nota.

[500] Although, according to the rules of interpretation, by the word _Moniales_ in the Papal Bulls, only _Moniales_ in the strict sense are to be understood, that is, the members of a Religious Order approved by the Holy See, who observe the Papal inclosure; yet Benedict XIV has expressly declared, in his Bull “Pastoralis curæ,” that the ordinances of the Trid. Sess. XXV. cp. 10 de Regul. et Mon. which contain a part of the present discipline, only apply _claustralibus monialibus_.

[501] This is clear from a note of the S. C. Ep. et Reg. to the constitutions of the Sisters of the Visitation of the Blessed Virgin (23 July, 1860): “As regards the confessors, the Constit. Bened. XIV, Pastoralis curæ is to be observed, in accordance with which the confessors are to be appointed by the respective bishops.” In the constitutions of the Sisters of Nazareth, who have no inclosure, the same congregation decreed on 27 Sept., 1861: “As regards the _Confessor. extraordin._, the ordinances of the Council of Trent are to be observed, as also the Constit. Benedict XIV, Pastoralis curæ.” Cf. Müller, l. c. S. 140.

[502] Cf. Const. Inscrutabili, Gregor. XV; Const. Superna, Clem. X (21 June, 1670); Const. Pastoralis Officii et Pastoralis curæ, Bened. XIV.

[503] Cf. Declarat. S. C. C. ad dub. 7 et 8, post Const. Inscrutabili, in Bullario posita.

[504] Scavini, Tract. X. Disp. I. cp. 4, art. 2, n. 123. Ferraris ad v. Moniales, art. 5, n. 49.

[505] Gury, Ed. Ratisbon. T. II. l. c. ad n. 565.

[506] Cf. Decret. S. C. Ep. et Reg., 20 Sept., 1642.

[507] Const. Bened. XIV, Benedictus Deus, 25 Dec., 1750.

[508] Cf. Trident. Sess. XXV. cp. 10 de Regul. et Mon. and Const. Bened. XIV, Pastoralis curæ, 5 Aug., 1748.

[509] All these precepts are contained in the Trid. Sess. XXV. cp. 10 de Regul. et Mon. and the Constit. Benedict XIV, Pastoralis curæ. Pope Leo XIII, quoted above, has renewed the same _quoad confessarios ordinarios et extraordinarios_ by a Decretum S. Congregat. Ep. et Regul. de conscientiæ ratione Confessariis extraordinariis, etc., d. 17 Dec., 1890, and exhorts _Præsules_ and _Superiores_, “_ne extraordinarium denegent subditis Confessarium quoties ut propriæ conscientiæ consulant ad id subditi adigantur, quin iidem Superiores ullo modo petitionis rationem inquirant aut ægre id ferre demonstrent. Ac ne evanida tam provida dispositio fiat, Ordinarios exhortatur_ (_sc._ _Sanctitas sua_), _ut in locis propriæ Dioeceseos Sacerdotes facultatibus instructos designent, ad quos pro Sacramento Pœnitentiæ recurrere eæ facile queant_.” This decree was occasioned by precepts in the constitutions “_plurium Congregationum, Societatum aut Institutionum sive mulierum, quæ vota simplicia aut solemnia nuncupant, sive virorum professione ac regimine penitus laicorum_.”

[510] Cf. Declar. S. C. C. ad dub. I. poss. Const. Inscrutabili et Constit. Clem. X, Superna.

[511] “Reservatio est: ablatio seu nonconcessio jurisdictionis ad absolvendum ab aliquo peccato, quamvis circa alia concedatur.” Ballerini, Opus Theol. Mor. l. c. cp. II. n. 657.

[512] Sess. XIV. cp. 7, can. II. Cf. Perrone, De Pœn. cp. 5; Zenner, Instruct. pract. P. 1, cp. II. § 44; Palmieri, Tract. De Pœn. Thes. XVII. p. 178 ss.

[513] Const. Bened. XIV, Sacramentum Pœnitentiæ, 1 June, 1741.

[514] Const. Clem. VIII, Religiosæ Congregationes, 19 June, 1594, et Urban VIII, Nuper a Congregat. 16 Oct., 1640. Cf. S. Alph. l. c. nn. 580, 693; H. A. Tr. 13, nn. 8, 9; Ferrar, ad v. Regular, art. I. nn. 67-69.

[515] S. Alph. l. c. n. 583; H. A. n. 130. These specified cases are the following: 1. Apostasy from the Order, even when the habit of the Order is still retained. 2. Secretly absenting one’s self from the monastery at night. 3. Three forms of superstition: _Veneficia_, _incantationes_, _sortilegia_. 4. Possession of property against the vow of poverty, which constitutes a mortal sin. 5. Theft (to the extent of mortal sin) of goods belonging to the monastery. 6. _Lapsus carnis voluntarius opere consummatus._ 7. Perjury before a lawful judge. 8. _Procuratio, consilium vel auxilium ad abortum fœtus animati._ 9. Killing or wounding or severely beating any one. 10. Forging the handwriting or the seal of the officials of the monastery. 11. Maliciously obstructing, delaying, or opening written communications from Superiors to subordinates, or subordinates to Superiors. The confessors of Regulars must know these cases, so that, should one of them occur, they may send the penitent to the Superior or to a confessor possessing the necessary faculties for absolution; or that they may, according to circumstances, procure for themselves the necessary faculties for this case. But if a Regular priest confesses to a secular priest or to a priest of another Order (for example, on a journey—see above), it is disputed whether this confessor possesses the power to absolve from the reserved cases of the monastery. For Capuchins sojourning out of their monastery the power has been given by Benedict XIV (30 March, 1742) and confirmed by Pius IX (1852), with the understanding, however, that the penitent appears before his Superior or the confessor appointed by him as soon as possible and receives absolution anew. S. Alph. Lib. VI. nn. 575-583.

[516] S. Alph. n. 579; Bened. XIV, De Synodo, Lib. V. cp. 5. The Pope says: “Although in this matter no absolute and universal standard can be established, the general exhortations and decrees which the Sacred Congregations at Rome have issued upon the subject may serve as a guide:—

“On January 9, 1601, the Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars issued the following exhortation to the bishops: In order that the bishops who are empowered to reserve may not unduly burden their subjects and confessors with reserved cases, they are all exhorted to reserve only a few cases, and those only which they believe themselves bound to reserve in the interests of Christian morality, and for the welfare of the souls committed to them, according to the condition and character of each diocese. This exhortation was repeated on Nov. 26. On the same day, the same Congregation issued a circular letter to the bishops, in which the following exhortations are addressed to them: The bishops should take care that they do not indiscriminately reserve those cases to which the greater excommunication is by law attached, absolution for which is reserved to no one, except when the special reservation of such cases appears necessary on account of frequent scandal, or some other urgent ground; nor those cases in which absolution is granted only when restitution has been made, or that performed which the penitents are bound to perform; nor should they reserve those cases which, although great sins, are yet matters of lesser importance, and of frequent occurrence amongst uneducated people; such as cases of _damnificatio injusta_, etc. In reserving sins of the flesh they must proceed with great circumspection on account of the danger of scandal, especially when suspicion might fall upon persons either from their going to extraordinary confessors, or frequently recurring to the bishop. Finally the bishops are admonished to adopt and adhere to that course of action, which, after mature consideration of the customs, natural disposition and tendency of the neighborhood and people appears to them to be the best before the Lord. The decrees of the Sacred Congregation of the Council are couched in a similar strain. This Council ordered a bishop who had accumulated too many reserved cases to choose ten or at most twelve of the more considerable offenses, as he thought proper, and to strike out the rest.”

[517] Reuter, Theol. Mor. De Pœnitent. n. 371. Cf. Stotz, Trib. Pœnit. Lib. II. Q. 2, § 5, n. 64. Schmalzgrueber, l. c. Lib. I. Tit. 29, n. 31, and many others. This is, in fact, the doctrine which is generally received as valid amongst the older moralists. Many of the later ones, it is true, teach that a stranger cannot be absolved from a sin which is reserved in the diocese in which he confesses, falsely assuming that the priest who hears the confession of a penitent coming from a strange diocese is restrained by his own bishop from absolving. See Ballerini, Notæ ad Gury, II. n. 573, and Opus Theol. Mor. l. c. cp. II. De Reservat. Casuum, n, 709 ss.

[518] If the strange penitent confesses a sin which is reserved in his own diocese but not in that in which he confesses, he can undoubtedly be absolved by a priest of a Religious Order, in virtue of the privilege granted by the Pope to Regulars, Const. “Superna,” Clem. X. As regards secular priests, the older theologians maintain that they could not absolve the stranger in this case (they appeal to the Caput Si Episcop. 2 de Pœnit. in 6ᵒ), while the later theologians unreservedly allow secular priests to participate in the privileges of the priests of Religious Orders; for there exists, they say, a general custom that strangers, in this case also, are absolved by secular priests, and as the bishops approve of this proceeding, the strangers would be _valide et licite_ absolved. Cf. Gury-Ballerini, l. c. n. 573, notæ; Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 403; Aertnys, l. c. n. 239, in both cases decides otherwise Princ. III; and Marc, l. c. n. 1771, Quæsit. III.

[519] Cf. Mazzotta, l. c. Disp. 2, Q. 3, cp. 3, Sect. 2 in fine; Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 404; Ballerini adds, “_si Episcopus expresse invitus sit_.” Notæ ad Gury, II. n. 573, Q. 5, nota II in fine. Cf. S. Alph. n. 589.

[520] Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 403. Aertnys teaches otherwise, l. c. n. 239.

[521] L. c. n. 602.

[522] Gury, Ed. Ratisb. ad n. 570.

[523] S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 583; Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 403; Aertnys, l. c. III. 2, n. 239.

[524] Sess. XIV. cp. 7. Cf. Decr. S. C. Conc. 26 Nov., 1602.

[525] Cf. Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. cp. II. De Reservatione Casuum, n. 661 ss.

[526] L. c. n. 600.

[527] S. Alph. l. c. n. 600; Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 405; Aertnys, l. c. n. 242.

[528] S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 582, with Suarez, Lugo, Tamburini, and others.

[529] Cf. S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 582.

[530] Cf. Gury-Ballerini, Notæ ad n. 571, Q. 1, Opus Theol. Mor. l. c. cp. II. nn. 724-735.

[531] This reason is plainly not a valid one, since all theologians, including the opponents of this view, admit that reservation directly limits jurisdiction; these latter, however, declare that certain circumstances are required to make a sin reserved, and that it is questionable if the knowledge of the reservation is such a circumstance or not.

[532] This is not convincing; for as soon as the penitent confesses a reserved sin, the confessor will tell him of the reservation, and thus a check will be put upon the relaxation of morality for the future; for the sins that have been already committed, neither one opinion nor the other can offer any preventive remedy.

[533] The Theol. of Salamanca, Tr. 18, cp. 6, n. 12; Lugo, De Pœn. Disp. 20, n. 11; Sanchez, De Matrim. l. 9, Disp. 32, nn. 17, 18; Sporer, De Pœnit. n. 735; Mazzotta, Tract. 6, Disp. 2, Q. 3, cp. 2, § 2, and many others; see Gury-Ballerini, l. c.

[534] L. c. n. 407. Cf. Gury-Ballerini, l. c. This may at least constitute a rule for most dioceses. We must, in fact, assume that the bishop has reserved sins in the manner in which they are generally understood by the confessor to be reserved, unless it is shown by positive evidence that the bishop adopts the opinion of those theologians who teach that a reservation is not incurred by one who is not aware of its existence. Till the later controversy, however, it was always the general conviction that reservation was understood to be incurred by one who did not know of it; this is testified by many authors. We must, therefore, assume that the legislator so understood his law. But if, with the knowledge of the bishop and without protest on his part, it be anywhere taught that a sin is not to be regarded as reserved for one who does not know of the reservation, this may be considered a sufficiently valid indication that the bishop does not wish to bind those who are ignorant of the reservation. Lehmkuhl, l. c.; Gury, Ed. Ratisb. ad n. 571.

[535] S. Alph. l. c. nn. 580, 581, dub. 2; Lacroix l. c. n. 1614; Gury, Ed. Ratisb. V. n. 571.

[536] Cf. Archive für Kirchenrecht (1871), XXV. 148. The other sources of the Papal reserved cases are the Council of Trent, of which the censures still remain in force which were directly imposed by this Council and are not touched by the Bull “Apost. Sed.,” and those Papal decrees which have been issued for the imposition of censures since the appearance of the Bull “Apost. Sed.,” that is, after the year 1869.

[537] The two Papal cases spoken of above in which the sin is reserved, are, therefore, not quoted in it, but are in force.

[538] They are (1) those which, in an especial manner (_speciali modo_) are reserved to the Pope, (2) those which are _simply_ reserved to the Pope, (3) those which are reserved to the bishops, and (4) those which are reserved to no one. The two first classes are to be kept apart from each other, for a person possessing the faculty to absolve from the Papal cases does not necessarily possess the faculty to absolve from the cases which are _speciali modo_ reserved, if this addition is not expressly made. By virtue of the _jus commune_ (Conc. Trid. Sess. XXIV. cp. 6) it belongs to the bishop to absolve from the second class if the cases are secret.

[539] Jan. Bucceroni (S.J.), Commentar. de Constitut. Ap. Sed. (Romæ, 1888); Aertnys, Theol. Mor. Lib. VII. Tract. I. II. III.; Lehmkuhl, Theol. Mor. P. II. Lib. II. Tract. I. n. 920 ss.; Avanzini, De Constit. Ap. Sed. Commentarii (Rom., 1872); Heiner, Die Kirchlichen Censuren. Paderb. 1884, S. 52 ff.; Kirchenlexikon (2. Aufl.) Apost. Sed. Vol. I. 1, 1125 ff.

[540] There are twelve of them in the Bull “Ap. Sed.” which were all, with the exception of the tenth, contained in the Bull “Cænas,” but not all _eodem modo_; to these is added the thirteenth ex Constit. Pii IX, Romanus Pontifex, 28 Aug., 1873.

[541] Cf. Pruner, Moraltheol. p. 121; Heiner, a. a. O. § 53, p. 53.

[542] Cf. S. Thom. II. II. Q. 11, art. 1; Suarez, De virt. Theol. Disp. 19, Sects. 1 and 5.

[543] Pastoral Theology, a. a. O. § 57, p. 158.

[544] Cf. Suarez, De Fide, 20, 2, 18.

[545] Regula juris in VI.

[546] The _gravitas materiæ_ is here to be estimated both _ex re quæ tractatur_ and _ex quantitate_; if the exposition or defense of a heretical doctrine is read, the half, or the third, of a page suffices.

[547] Some authors, as d’Annibale and Melata, restrict the censures to printed books.

[548] But if these lesser publications are parts of a book of the same contents, they are (subject to the above-mentioned conditions) in the category of forbidden books, especially if they are bound together in one volume. Periodical publications, therefore, of which every separate number is regarded as a part of the whole yearly issue, fall under the reserved censure; but not newspapers, as with these there is no question of parts belonging to each other, each separate number being regarded as complete in itself. (Act. S. Sed. Vol. VI. fasc. 5, p. 9, Append. 3, p. 133.)

[549] It remains to be remarked that the ten rules of the Index itself are not touched by this ordinance of the Bull, but that the _Excomm. lat. sent._ attached at the end of the regul. X falls away, as it was not directly attached by the Council of Trent itself, but by Pius IV. Consequently the reading and keeping of heretical books, or of such as are condemned by a decree of the Congregation of the Index remains, indeed, still forbidden in the future, but the punishment of the now specially reserved excommunication is incurred only in two cases: (_a_) when the author of the book is an apostate or a heretic, and the book, moreover, not only contains heresy, but _ex professo_ defends it, and (_b_) when the latter, be the author who he may, is, with exact specification of the title, forbidden by a Papal Brief, or a Bull, or an Encyclical Letter. Although the Constitution Officiorum ac Munerum of Leo XIII (25 Jan., 1897) has considerably mitigated the prohibitions of Clement VIII, Alexander VII, and Benedict XIV, in regard to the reading and propagating of noxious literature, nevertheless the warnings against the intellectual and moral dangers of bad books, which the Index Congregation addresses to Catholics, retain their full force. The confessor should of course remember that the censures attached to the reading of forbidden books are applicable only where there is a conscious violation of the prohibition; furthermore, that not only ignorance, but also a general _consuetudo_ lessening the danger to faith or morals, constitute a mitigating circumstance which demands wise discrimination on the part of confessors who apply the laws of the Index. Few Catholics in English-speaking countries know what books are on the Index, and that fact itself is a reason for moderate judgment.

[550] Cf. S. Alph. Lib. VII. nn. 295, 284, 292.

[551] This does not add a new condition for incurring the censure leveled against the _impedientes exercitium jurisdictionis_, but only introduces another class of the same offenders (as Avanzini and Heiner, p. 87, assume).

[552] As to the disputed question whether one is included amongst the _cogentes_ who denounces and prosecutes a cleric before the civil court, so that the judge, in consequence of this denunciation, is officially compelled to summon the accused cleric, and pronounce sentence upon him according to the provisions of existing law, we refer the reader to Heiner, who discusses this point. According to him, the _sententia communior et fere communis_ teaches that such a one falls under the censure, while the negative opinion is not improbable. Moreover, a declaration of the S. C. Inq. 23 Jan., 1886, favors this latter opinion. Cf. Aertnys, l. c. Lib. VII. Tract. 1, n. 82; d’Annibale (Melata) Manuale Theol. Mor. p. 260.

[553] Cf. Heiner, a. a. O. S. 124 ff.; Gury-Ballerini, II. n. 973. Aertnys, l. c. n. 88.

[554] Heiner, a. a. O. S. 127 ff.

[555] Cf. Aertnys, l. c. n. 945. The bishop can _jure_ absolve, if the _percussio_ was _levis, etiam publica_ (thus the vicars-general also can absolve), and when the _percussio_, no matter whether _enormis_, _gravis_, or _levis_, is a _delictum occultum_. The _Prælati regulares_ can, _ex privilegio_, absolve their subordinates from this censure.

[556] By a decree of the S. O. 20 Aug., 1894, the American societies of Odd Fellows, Good Templars, and Knights of Pythias were condemned; v. Bucceroni, Supplementum bibliothecæ; Ferraris, s. v. Sectarii; S. C. Inq. 12 Jan., 1870. Cf. Gen. Index _Ecclesiastical Review_.

[557] Heiner, a. a. O. S. 226; Aertnys, l. c. 103.

[558] Cf. Trid. Sess. XXII. cp. 11 de ref.

[559] By the name “_Ordinarii_” are to be understood not only the bishops and capitular-vicars, but also vicars-general, _Prælati regulares_ and others who possess episcopal jurisdiction. The _confessarii regulares_ also can absolve from this class of excommunication in _foro conscientiæ_. Pius IX has only revoked the privileges to absolve _a casibus R. Pontifci reservatis; ex sententia probabiliori_. Regulars can, _vi complurium privilegiorum a S. Sede concessorum_, absolve from the censures reserved by the _common_ law to the bishops. Cf. S. Alph. l. c. n. 99, and De Privil. n. 100. Those censures are excepted which the Ordinaries have reserved to themselves.

[560] It is _verus abortus_ which is here punished, that is, _fœtus immaturi ejectio adeo ut mors ipsius inde secuta sit_, therefore, not the _partus præmaturus fœtus vitalis_, when procured for just motives. Pius IX abolished the old distinction between _fœtus animatus et inanimatus_. It is the _procuratio abortus_, moreover, that is punished, that is, _per se sive per alias interpositas personas_—_studiose_ or _ex industria_. The censure is, therefore, not incurred by one who employed the means without the effect resulting. Compare Heiner, a. a. O. S. 243 ff.; Aertnys, l. c. n. 109; Theol. Mor. Lib. III. n. 192; Lehmkuhl, Theol. Mor. P. I. Lib. II Tract. II. n. 840 ss.; P. II. Lib. II. Tract. I. n. 970.

[561] Cf. Trid. Sess. XXIV. de ref. cp. 6, “Liceat” and the Constit. Apostolicæ Sedis Pii IX.

[562] Cf. S. Alph. Lib. VII. n. 84. Corpus jur. can. cp. “Eos qui” de sent. excomm. in 60. Whether bishops and others possess still greater powers, is to be gathered from the special faculties which the Apostolic See may have granted them.

[563] Cf. Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. cp. II. De Reservat. cas. n. 772 ss.; Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 411, ad II. Concerning the privilege of the Mendicants as regards the absolution from the _Casus Episcopal._, and from the _Casus qui Episcopis tantum a jure reservatur_, see Ballerini, l. c.