Part 3 — CHAPTER II LIMITATION OF JURISDICTION OR RESERVED CASES

42. Reserved Cases in General.

The Church has received from Christ the power to remit or to retain all sins without exception. No sin is withheld from the cognizance of its judicial authority or the power of its keys. This unlimited power of chief justice and plenipotentiary resides in the hands of the Supreme Head of the Church; it is in the possession of the Vicegerent of Him who has said of Himself: “To Me is given all power in heaven and on earth.” In the exercise of the judicial power in foro interno, the pastors of the Church are dependent upon and subject to him. This relation between the Pope and the pastors of the Church is expressed in the reservations;⁠[511] that is, by the ecclesiastical discipline in virtue of which the Pope reserves certain sins in order to absolve from them himself, and places a limit upon the jurisdiction of the bishops by withholding from them the power to absolve from certain sins. And as the Pope proceeds with regard to the bishops, so can the bishop, and the Superiors of Orders, and those possessing quasi-episcopal jurisdiction, proceed with regard to their respective subordinates.

This competence to declare certain sins reserved, which existed in the earliest times of the Church as is proved by numberless memorials, is promulgated by the Council of Trent,⁠[512] which also emphasizes the reason of this practice: “It has seemed conducive to the morality of the Christian people that certain particularly horrible and grave sins should not be absolved by every priest, but only by those of the highest authority. It is, therefore, reasonable that the Popes, by virtue of the power invested in them over the whole Church, should reserve certain grave sins for their own tribunal.” Having then assigned this power to the bishops also, the Council declares that this reservation of sins has validity not only in the outward administration of the Church, but also before God.

From this it follows that:—

I. The motives for the reservations, apart from the maintenance of authority, are: (a) the necessity of deterring the faithful from the commission of these great sins by thus making it more difficult to obtain absolution; (b) the necessity of applying a special remedy, so that those who have been guilty of such crimes may be the more efficaciously preserved from relapse. In order that the former object may be the more perfectly attained, it is necessary in an appropriate manner to make known to the people what sins are reserved.

II. We distinguish: (1) Reservation by the Pope, by a bishop, and by the Superior of an Order; (2) reserved sins, when the sin itself is directly reserved, and reserved censures, when the censure attached to a sin is reserved, and the sin itself is reserved only in consequence of the censure. If the reserved censure is only the means by which the sin is reserved, upon removal of the censure the sin is no longer reserved. In the papal reserved cases the censure only is directly reserved; in episcopal and other reserved cases generally the sin only is reserved, not the censure. Two Papal cases, in which the sin without the censure is reserved, form exceptions to this rule, namely: (a) Falsely accusing an innocent confessor of solicitation, either by denouncing the confessor to the ecclesiastical judge one’s self, or by effecting such denunciation through another person;⁠[513] (b) the receiving of considerable presents exceeding the value of ten francs on the part of members of Religious Orders (emitting solemn vows) of both sexes, till restitution has taken place (munera prorsus liberalia are meant; hence presents of medicaments and devotional objects, as also those presents which were given out of gratitude and benevolence or for the purpose of securing the good-will of a person, are excepted).⁠[514] If the presents amount to a higher sum, and if the penitent can make restitution, he is not to be absolved till he has done so. If, however, he cannot make restitution at the time, but promises faithfully to do so as soon as possible, the confessor can absolve him.

III. The power to reserve is possessed by the Pope in the whole Church; by the bishops in their dioceses; by the heads of Orders who possess quasi-episcopal jurisdiction in their Orders—the General of the Order for the whole Order, the Provincial in his province, the local head in his house—but apart from specified sins mentioned by Clement VIII, these religious Superiors may not reserve any others without consent of the general chapter.⁠[515]

IV. There must be valid ground for making the reservation, otherwise its effect would tend to ruin rather than to edification. Hence the undue multiplication of reserved cases is not allowed; for many people, on account of the difficulty of getting absolution, are likely to remain for a long time in a state of mortal sin, and are deterred from receiving the Sacraments. Clement VIII, therefore, exhorted the bishops to reserve only a few sins, and only those of which the reservation would be conducive to the maintenance of Christian morality amongst the faithful.⁠[516]

V. As reservation is a limitation of jurisdiction, it concerns the confessor directly, and the penitent indirectly.

From this it follows that:—

1. In the matter of reservation, strangers are not to be treated according to the reservation of the place where they confess, but according to that in force at their place of residence, exactly in accordance with the principles concerning the jurisdiction of the confessors of strangers which we have stated above. It is, therefore, more correct to say that they are absolved by virtue of the jurisdiction which the bishop of the penitent gives, and it is reasonable to assume that the latter does not wish to limit the jurisdiction of confessors outside his diocese to whom members of his own diocese confess, unless he has reserved a sin in his own diocese. If, therefore, the stranger confesses a sin which is reserved in the diocese in which he confesses,—a diocese which is not his own,—the confessor can absolve him, quia absolvit vi jurisdictionis delegatæ ab Episcopo, qui peccatum illud non reservat.⁠[517]

In practice the rule can be laid down that it is always allowed to absolve a stranger from reserved sins, except when: (1) the sin is reserved in both the dioceses, that of the confessor and that of the stranger, or (2) when the stranger leaves his diocese in order to confess “in fraudem legis,” that is, to evade the judgment of his Superior,⁠[518] which may be assumed to be the case when the sin is of such a nature that it may easily be brought before the forum externum, or may already, in some form, be before it, so that absolution could not be administered even in foro interno without the permission of the bishop.⁠[519]

2. Although Regulars do not necessarily receive delegated jurisdiction from the bishop but from the Pope, they cannot absolve penitents from sins reserved in the respective dioceses, without having received special faculties from the bishop; the Popes have distinctly so decreed.⁠[520] The episcopal reservation is binding also for non-exempted nuns; whether it is so for the exempted, is a matter of controversy. St. Alphonsus⁠[521] declares both opinions, affirmative and negative, probable. But should a bishop refuse to the confessor of nuns jurisdiction over reserved cases, the absolution of the latter for such sins would undoubtedly be invalid; for the bishop gives jurisdiction for the exempted nuns also, as is plain from the words of Gregory XV.⁠[522]

Whether the familiares of Regulars may be absolved without faculties from the bishop depends in general upon the fact whether they are absolved by virtue of episcopal or of Regular jurisdiction. When they are absolved by confessors appointed by the Superior of the Order, they are not subject to episcopal reservation; but if they are absolved by other confessors (secular priests), it seems that they are subject to episcopal reservation. If, however, it is a question of sins to which the bishop has attached censure, they do not, as a rule, incur this censure, since they must be treated as strangers.⁠[523]

VI. In order that the objects of the reservation may be attained, and this is only possible by a moderate use of the power of reservation, grave sins only are as a rule reserved. Such is the decision of the Council of Trent.⁠[524] The following conditions are necessary for the valid reservation of a sin:⁠[525] (1) It must be (and that ex natura rei, in order that it be reserved pleno sensu) a mortal sin, both as regards the internal and the external act; (2) it must have been carried out completely, not merely attempted, wished, begun; and (3) it must be reserved in definite terms. These conditions are by common custom deemed necessary. A Superior who reserves is, therefore, supposed to be guided by them unless he has expressly declared himself to the contrary. But Superiors generally attach particular conditions and exceptions to their reservations, which must be gathered from their instructions.

The following remarks may serve for more explicit explanation: (1) As venial sins are not materia necessaria of absolution, they cannot be reserved in the strict and full sense. Even if it be per se possible that the Superior can withdraw from a priest the power to absolve sacramentally with regard to a venial sin, he cannot oblige the penitent to procure sacramental absolution from this venial sin. This applies also (2) to really and positively doubtful sins. Indeed, as St. Alphonsus teaches,⁠[526] a sin which is in any respect doubtful is, according to ecclesiastical custom and the concurrent teaching of the authorities, regarded as not reserved. For, even if any sin which is materia necessaria of confession might from the very nature of the case be reserved, yet this is not so in practice, and as reservation is a lex odiosa, it must be interpreted stricte. A sin is, therefore, regarded as not reserved: (a) when there is doubt as to its subjective gravity, and (b) when there is doubt as to its objective gravity (unless the Superior, for particular motives, has declared as gravis a materia which, ex se, is not positively gravis, in which case it would be necessary to stand by his decision); moreover (c), there is no reservation when doubt exists as to whether a positively reserved sin has been committed, or whether it has been committed with the necessary conditions, nor is there reservation when doubt exists as to whether a sin really committed is a reserved sin. But in this case (in dubio juris) the sin would be reserved if the confessor merely privato errore doubted the reservation, or if he did not know the sin was actually reserved. But in some dioceses the bishops have declared that the confession in such a case is valid, and that they do not regard a sin as reserved if the confessor privato errore or ex ignorantia does not believe a sin to be reserved.⁠[527]

If, therefore, the confessor supposes a sin to be reserved, he must carefully examine if the sin be interne grave, if it has been committed with full advertence, and with full consent of the will in materia gravi, and if it is also grave quoad actum externum; for if the external act were not of a grave nature, it would not be reserved although it might be inwardly a great sin. For instance, should a person in a heretical frame of mind have said something which neither contained heresy in se, nor, on account of the circumstances, showed an heretical tendency, his sin would not be reserved.⁠[528] The Church is, in fact, accustomed to reserve only peccata externa, although it cannot be doubted that she can also reserve peccata mere interna, as this class of grave sins is, by divine law, subject to the absolving power of the Church in foro interno.⁠[529]

3. That a sin should be reserved it must be completum, completed; that is, completed in the manner implied by the reservation. When, therefore, in the words of the (reserving) law, an external, completed action is specified,—murder, for instance,—and the outward completion is wanting (in this case, the death of the victim), there is no reservation. If, on the other hand, attempting crime, or advising it, are per se reserved, it suffices to have done these acts to make the sin reserved, though the project has not been executed or the sinful advice failed to produce any effect. Frequently such incomplete actions are, however, reserved as accessory only to the principal action. If this latter has been certainly completed, then these accessory actions are reserved.

VII. The question: “Must the penitent be aware that his sin is a reserved one in order that it should be reserved?” is a subject of animated controversy among the theologians.⁠[530] It is beyond all doubt that bishops can so reserve the sins of their subjects that the reservation holds even when the penitent knows nothing about it. Whether they do reserve in this manner without a formal declaration to that effect, is a debatable question. St. Alphonsus and not a few other theologians teach that a sin is reserved even when the penitent did not know of the reservation, assigning as sole, or at least chief, reason that the reservation restricts the power of the confessor.⁠[531] The fear that Christian and religious discipline might thereby be relaxed is alleged as a second reason.⁠[532] On the other hand, a very great number of theologians⁠[533] teach that a sin is not to be regarded as reserved if the penitent did not know that it was so, when the reservation is pœnalis, that is, when it is of a punitive character; but that it is to be regarded as reserved when the reservation is medicinalis, imposed as a deterrent; that is, when it is not a pœna medicinalis, which, like the censure, is intended to break the stubbornness of the sinner and deter him from sin, but a lex disciplinaris, by which the Superior himself, or through a specially delegated confessor, wishes to provide a remedy for sin committed. When, therefore, Lugo denies that reservation is chiefly of a punitive character, and, therefore, holds good even if the sinner did not know of the reservation when he was sinning, we agree with him and with Lehmkuhl.⁠[534]

If, however, it is a question of reserved censures, the censure is considered not reserved when the penitent did not know of the reservation, as only he incurs a censure who knew of it and yet committed the act to which it is attached. Concerning the Papal reservations, at least, unanimity upon this point prevails among the theologians, as these reservations exist chiefly on account of the censure. With regard to episcopal cases no unanimity exists. Here, as Suarez rightly teaches, we must have regard for the circumstances; that is, for the terms of the reservation, for custom, and for the power of the person who reserves, etc.⁠[535] But if the penitent knew of the censure and did not know of the reservation, the theory of some few theologians that, in this case, also the censure is not reserved, is rightly regarded as lax and altogether improbable.

43. The Papal Reserved Cases.

In the year 1869 Pius IX issued his celebrated Bull “Apostolicæ Sedis moderationi,” the object of which was to reduce the number of censures imposed at different times, to explain them, and to bring their wording to such form that uncertainty and doubt on the part of the faithful and of confessors might cease. By virtue of his apostolical power he therein decreed that of all the censures ever imposed, whether excommunication or suspension or interdict, only those should henceforth legally remain in force which were explicitly introduced into or quoted in his constitution; that they should derive their validity not only from the authority of the ancient canons, but also from this constitution itself, just as though they were there for the first time imposed. This Bull possesses force and validity for the whole Church from the moment when it was promulgated ad valvas Ecclesiæ S. Salvatoris.⁠[536] The Bull deals with censures⁠[537] only, and these are either Excommunications,⁠[538] Suspensions, or Interdicts.⁠[539]

I. Excommunicationes speciali modo Romano Pontifici reservatæ. The excommunication spec. modo reserved to the Pope is incurred by:⁠[540]

1. All who have fallen from the Christian faith (apostates) and all heretics, of whatever name and sect they may be, as well as their adherents, supporters, and all their defenders in general.

As the expression “Omnes a christiana fide apostatas” is of general application, not only are all those Christians who have embraced Judaism or heathenism comprised in it, but also the so-called freethinkers who wholly give themselves up to unbelief, and have openly renounced all religion; also rationalists, spiritualists, materialists, pantheists, deists, atheists, illuminati, those who profess indifferentism in religion or a merely natural religion, and other unbelievers of similar character, who belong to the order of Freemasons or adopt the principles of that order, even when, here and there, some of its members surround themselves with a halo of religion.⁠[541]

In order that the confessor may know who incurs excommunication under the expression Omnes et singulos hæreticos he must form an accurate conception of heresy, which demands: (a) error formalis, a conscious and voluntary denial joined to pertinacia, (b) the denial of an article of faith promulgated by the Church, (c) the external expression of such denial, (d) a knowledge of the penalty incurred.⁠[542] If any one of these marks is absent, there is no excommunication. In connection with this, Renninger remarks:⁠[543] “At a time when, in our social life, the waves of unbelief run so high, prudence, deliberation, and knowledge are in an especial manner necessary to him who has the care of souls, that hasty judgment may be avoided. However mindful he may be of his office as teacher, he must never forget the demands of Christian charity; he should never let himself be drawn into disputes which lead to nothing, still less should he provoke them; he should never be carried away by violence. Positive assent to a dogma he should only demand when his office forces him to do so. He should, especially in the confessional, take for granted that he who believes in the Church, believes also in her dogmas. He should not put tempting questions. He should remember that many howl with the wolves without really knowing what the howling is about, being merely anxious not to lose the nimbus of liberalism. He should make the way of those who are returning as smooth as is possible without violating the laws of the Church. The retractation extra confessionale, which cannot be dispensed with, may often be clothed in a form which is not wounding to self-respect, and is yet valid. Intimations to this effect have been forwarded in a confidential manner to their clergy by different Ordinaries, who were moved by a judicious zeal for the salvation of souls.” To this class belong also the “Credentes,” that is, those who give credence and who—without formally professing heretical doctrine, without pertinacia, or without sufficient knowledge, pose as heretics—openly profess assent to a heretical doctrine by word, sign, or action explicitly or implicitly, in a general way. To these also belong the “Receptores,” those who afford to apostates or heretics, but only as apostates and heretics (quatenus hæretici et non ex. gr. qua fures sunt) shelter and receive or conceal them in order to protect them from punishment for heresy; to these also belong the fautores, those who in any way render assistance (per omissionem or per commissionem) to apostates or heretics. Finally, we may mention the defensores, those who, in any way, by force or by cunning, by word or by writing, protect heretics as such, or their doctrines or their books.

2. All those who, without permission of the Holy See, knowingly read, print, keep, or in any way defend the books of the above-mentioned apostates and heretics, if the defense of heresy is the subject-matter of these books; as, also, the readers, printers, possessors, or defenders of those books which, by a Papal document (Encyclical, Brief, or Bull) are, by name (that is, by statement of the title of the book), forbidden.

(a) The Readers. Reading here must be understood as a moral not merely a physical act, when, for example, the reader understands nothing of the language;⁠[544] in this kind of reading must be included causing a book to be read to one (not merely listening, however sinful the latter may be) since, where there is eadem ratio also eadem est juris dispositio.⁠[545] Moreover, in order to incur the censure, it is necessary that a part sufficient to constitute a mortal sin, about a page, be read;⁠[546] that the reading should take place scienter, that is, with knowledge that the book has been written by an apostate or heretic; finally, it is requisite that it should defend heresy and that the reading or keeping should take place without authorization from the Holy See. (b) The readers of books in the proper sense of the word, be they written⁠[547] or printed, not of merely printed matter, as brochures, pamphlets, newspapers, periodical sheets, etc., although the reading of such products of the day may often be, and very often is, more dangerous to faith and morals than the reading of a bad book, and there is no doubt that the reading and keeping of such literature is always a great sin, being an offense against the natural law.⁠[548] (c) The Retinentes, that is, all those who knowingly retain in their possession for some time, either in their own homes or in that of a stranger, in their own name or in that of another, a book forbidden in the manner above specified. (d) The Imprimentes, that is, all those who directly coöperate or assist, as causæ morales or physicæ, in printing: authors, publishers, printers. (e) The Defendentes, that is, those who defend books which are forbidden in the sense specified above.⁠[549] Accordingly he does not incur this excommunication: (1) who only reads or keeps a few separate leaves of such a book or periodicals, etc.; (2) who reads perfunctorily; (3) who reads from necessity, to be able to refute a heretic, and was not able previously to procure the necessary permission; (4) if his reading is only a physical act, without his being able to understand anything; (5) if he keeps a book for a short time only, for example, a day or two, or only till he has obtained the permission requested, or if he has no opportunity of giving the book to the Superior.⁠[550]

3. Schismatics and all who obstinately refuse obedience to the reigning Pope.

4. All those who, whatever their position may be, or the dignity they may hold, appeal from the injunctions or orders of the reigning Popes to a future general Council; moreover the aiders, advisers, and favorers of such.

5. All those who kill, maim, strike, take prisoner, or keep prisoner, or persecute in hostile manner cardinals, patriarchs, archbishops, bishops, Papal legates, or nuncios; those who expel them from their dioceses, or lands belonging to them, or estates in their possession; as those also who order or sanction such acts, or give help, advice, or encouragement in their execution.

6. Those who directly or indirectly hinder the execution of ecclesiastical jurisdiction and who, for this purpose (ad hoc),⁠[551] apply to the secular power, as well as those who cause or publish the commands of such persons, or afford help, advice, or countenance in such proceeding. The ecclesiastical juridical power is the lawful competence of the Church to govern her subjects in respect to everything that belongs to their eternal welfare. This power is exercised in foro externo and interno. The Exercitium ordinis (consecrare, benedicere, etc.) is to be distinguished from the Exercitium jurisdictionis.

7. Those who directly or indirectly compel secular judges to cite ecclesiastical persons before their tribunal contrary to canonical regulations (unless it should be the case that ecclesiastical regulations, either general or particular (Concordats) allow this), as well as those who issue laws or regulations against the freedom or rights of the Church. This canon refers to conditions which, though still extant in certain parts of Europe, have hardly any force in the United States and other missionary countries; it protects the privilegium fori of clerics, and in a general way the freedom and rights of the Church.⁠[552]

8. Those who apply to the secular power to prevent the execution of decrees or of any acts proceeding from the Holy See or its legates or delegates, as also those who directly or indirectly actually prevent the promulgation or execution of such, or who, on account of these decrees or acts, injure or threaten others (agents, mandatories).

9. The forgers of Papal documents, the promulgators or subscribers of such forged Papal documents (litterarum Apostolicarum etiam in forma Brevis ac supplicationum gratiam vel justitiam concernentium).

10. Absolventes complices in peccato turpi, etc.; see § 46.

11. Those who usurp or sequestrate (jurisdictionem) rights of jurisdiction (secular rights appertaining to the Church by virtue of any legal titles, for instance, fiscal rights, etc.), the goods or revenues of ecclesiastics, which belong to them ratione suarum ecclesiarum aut beneficiorum (that is by virtue of their ecclesiastical position).

Mere thieves and even robbers of Church property, accordingly, do not come under the censure here pronounced, as they cannot be classed under the definition either of usurpantes or sequestrantes (cf. S. C. Inq. 9 March, 1870), nor does the purchasing by contract of such goods from usurpers come under it. But the latter is subject to the Tridentine censure, the censure reserved simply to the Pope (cf. S. C. Off. 8 July, 1874). Whether the property of monasteries is included, is a matter of controversy; the property of pious foundations is not included. The estates of monasteries fall under the Tridentine censure.

12. All those who, themselves or through others, attack towns, territories, or villages, belonging to the Roman Church, destroy or occupy them; as also those who arrogate to themselves supreme administrative power in these places, disturb or stop the execution of such power, and those who afford help, advice, and countenance in such work.

13. Accordingly, the canons and dignitaries of vacant cathedral churches, and, in the absence of a Chapter, all those who are competent to appoint a vicar-capitular, or to govern the bereaved diocese themselves, incur the excommunication specially reserved to the Pope, as well as suspension of the revenues of their benefices, if they presume to admit a bishop elected by the Chapter, or one presented by the secular power, for the government and administration of the vacant church before these persons have accredited themselves by submitting the Papal documents bearing upon their appointments,—and that for so long as the Apostolic See may think proper to keep this suspension in force; moreover, those chosen or nominated and presented for vacant churches who presume to undertake the government and administration of these churches ex concessione et translatione, de qua supra (that is, before this submitting of credentials), as well as all those who have obeyed, or given help, advice, or countenance to such acts, cujuscumque status, conditionis, præ-eminentiæ et dignitatis fuerint. To this is added: When any one of the above-named persons is invested with the dignity of a bishop, he incurs the penalty of suspension ab exercitio Pontificalium and of the Interdict ab ingressu Ecclesiæ, which overtakes him ipso facto absque ulla declaratione, and is reserved to the Apostolic See.⁠[553]

14. The so-called “civil government pastors,” appointed by the State, qui suffragante populo ad parochi sive vicarii officium electi audeant sive ecclesiæ sive jurium ac bonorum prætensam possessionem arripere atque obire munia ecclesiastici ministerii, incur the same excommunication, in accordance with a solemn decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Council (13 May, 1874).⁠[554]

II. Excommunicationes latæ sententiæ Romano Pontifici simpliciter reservatæ.

There are eighteen of these, to which are added one of the Council of Trent, and another ex declaratione S. C. Inq.:—

1. All who publicly or privately teach or defend tenets which are condemned by the Holy See under pain of excommunicatio latæ sententiæ, as also those who teach and uphold that the practice of asking the penitent the name of the accomplice is allowed.

To the propositions, the teaching and defending of which involves the above censure, do not belong such tenets as are simply condemned by the Pope, as those included in the Syllabus, for example, or which are interdicted under other censures and penalties.

2. Those who, incited by the devil (suadente diabolo), lay violent hands on clerics, or religious, unless the power of absolution is accorded to the bishops or others, either jure or privilegio. The words suadente diabolo imply that there is question of a grave sin. This censure is, accordingly, not incurred if the percussio take place either ob legitimam sui defensionem, vel ob justam subditi Clerici correptionem, vel ex joco aut casu fortuito vel ex subita ira, vel ex ignorantia that the person struck is a cleric. On the other hand, the censure extends also to impuberes and the efficaciter cooperantes.⁠[555]

3. Duellists, even when they only challenge to a duel, or accept the challenge, and all accomplices and abettors. The censures attached to the duel are, therefore, incurred by:—

(1) the duellists themselves, whether the duel takes place with or without witnesses, whether wounding follows or not; (2) the challengers to a duel, even when the challenge is not accepted; (3) he who accepts the challenge, even when no duel takes place, and when the parties to the proposed duel do not meet; (4) the seconds, those who accompany the duellists, and in fact all those who afford countenance and assistance to them, and who, by advice, or in any other way, make themselves accomplices; (5) the spectators who to that end, and of set purpose, repair to the scene of the encounter, as such onlooking is a further incitement to the encounter; (6) the persons in authority who permit this, and, as far as in them lies, do not forbid it.

4. Those who belong to the sect of the Freemasons or Carbonari or to other sects of the kind (Fenians in America and Ireland)⁠[556] who agitate either openly or in secret against the Church or the lawful government, as well as all who in any way countenance these sects, or do not denounce their secret heads and leaders (to the local ecclesiastical superiors) when they clearly realize their duty of denouncing. Political partisans, so long as they employ only the means which modern public law places at their disposal in their endeavors to realize their ideal of the future social state, do not incur this censure.

5. The violators of the rights of the sanctuary.

6 and 7. The violators of the inclosure in monasteries and convents. Only the violation of the so-called Papal inclosure, that is, the inclosure prescribed by general ecclesiastical law to the Orders with solemn vows, brings with it the excommunication here mentioned; not the violation of that inclosure which is observed in the more recent Congregations of men or women either on account of their rules, or of a particular vow, or also in consequence of a regulation of the local bishop. Not only do the violators of the inclosure incur the excommunication, but all, Superiors or others, who, without lawful reasons, permit entrance.

8, 9, and 10 refer to simony: real (8); confidential (9); in the bestowal of benefices, and real on entering a Religious Order (10).

11 and 12 are directed against the abuse of spiritual favors for the purpose of unworthy gain, which may take place by procuring for one’s self: (11) material profit in the dispensing of indulgences and other spiritual graces, or (12) by collecting Mass stipends at a higher price, and having these Masses said in places where a lower fee is customary. While number 11 concerns only the “inferiores Episcopis,” number 12 applies to all collectors (colligentes) who procure profit to themselves by the above-mentioned proceedings.

13. Those who alienate and mortgage lands belonging to the Roman Church.

14. Members of Religious Orders who, without permission of the local parish priest, presume to administer to clerics or laymen the Sacrament of Extreme Unction, or the Eucharist as viaticum; except in case of necessity.

15. Those who, without lawful permission, remove from the holy cemeteries and catacombs of the city of Rome and its territories, relics (therefore, only remains of saints, corpora vel partes corporis, etiam in minima particula, quibus indubia martyrii signa adjuncta sunt; cf. S. R. C. 10 Dec., 1863), and those who help and countenance them.

16. Those who are associated in crimine criminoso with a person whom the Pope has, by name, excommunicated, that is, who, by helping or countenancing, take part in the crime on account of which the originator was, by mention of name, excommunicated by the Pope.

17. Clerics who knowingly and without compulsion associate in divinis (that is, in the Church’s offices) with one by name excommunicated by the Pope, and permit such to participate in divine service.

In order, therefore, that this excommunication be incurred, the communicatio must be: (a) with a person by name excommunicated by the Pope; (b) knowingly and (c) voluntarily. According to the general and unanimous explanation the et is not to be taken as disjunctive but conjunctive, so that the “communicantes in divinis,” with a person by name excommunicated, and the “ipsos in officiis recipientes” are to be interpreted as members of a sentence which necessarily belong to each other.⁠[557] “Divina” and “officia” are merely synonymous terms.

18. Those who presume, without proper permission, etiam quovis prætextu, to absolve from the excommunications reserved speciali modo to the Pope—that is, extra casum legitimi impedimenti eundi Romam.

19. Missionaries who quocunque modo sive per se sive per alios engage in commerce in Indiis Orientalibus et America, and those Superiors who have not censured their subordinates offending on this head. Ex authent. Declarat. S. C. Inq. 4 Dec., 1872, a Pio IX approbata.

20. Refers to clerics and laymen quacunque dignitate etiam imperiali aut regali who unlawfully appropriate jurisdictions, interests, rights, also fiefs and hereditary tenures, incomes, usufruct, or revenues from any church or benefice, from the montes pietatis and other pia loca. (This is an extension of the number 11 above, in section I of the Censures.)⁠[558]

III. Excommunicationes Ordinariis Reservatæ.⁠[559]

1. Clerics in major Orders, monks, and nuns, who, after having taken the solemn vow of chastity (not the simple) dare to contract marriage, as also all who attempt to perform the marriage rite over the above-named persons—such marriage being of itself invalid.

2. All who cause abortion.⁠[560]

3. Those who knowingly make use of forged Papal documents, or lend assistance in this crime.

IV. Excommunicationes non Reservatæ.

1. Those who order or insist with force that notorious heretics or those by name excommunicated, or by name interdicted, should be buried with the rites of the Church.

2. All those who injure or threaten the inquisitors, accusers, witnesses, or other servants of the Holy Office in the performance of their duty, or who steal or destroy the official documents of this Office, or who afford help, advice, or countenance in any one of these actions.

3. This excommunication falls upon the vendors (alienantes) or receivers (recipere præsumentes) of Church property who have not obtained permission of the Pope in the prescribed form.

4. Those who omit to denounce a soliciting confessor (§ 45). False denunciation constitutes a Papal reservation without censure.

To these excommunications are added Suspensions and Interdicts:—

The Suspensions latæ sententiæ simply reserved to the Pope, refer to Ordination which takes place by infraction of definite ecclesiastical regulations, and to religious who are expelled from their Orders.

The Interdicts latæ sententiæ affect universities, colleges, and chapters, whatever name they may bear, who appeal to a future general Council from the regulations or orders of the ruling Pope of the time, or who knowingly cause religious service to be held in interdicted places, as also those who admit persons excommunicated by name to religious service, to the holy Sacraments, or to burial with Church service, and that till the ecclesiastical Superior whose orders have been disregarded has received satisfaction.

44. Absolution of Reserved Sins.

I. All those who can reserve sins may, of their ordinary power (ordinaria potestate), also absolve from them; therefore: (1) those who have reserved, (2) their successors in the same office, and (3) their Superiors.

With delegated authority (potestate delegata) those can absolve who have received a special faculty from the person reserving, or his successor or Superior, and that only within the limits comprised in the power conferred.

II. The bishops and their delegates can, according to common law, absolve (1) all penitents from the secret Papal reserves, with the exception of those which are, speciali modo, reserved to the Pope;⁠[561] and (2) according to the general teaching of theologians, which is based upon the ecclesiastical law itself, those penitents who are prevented from going to the Pope, from all Papal reserves, secret or public.⁠[562]

According to the general interpretation of the Council of Trent, and general custom, the bishop can transfer to another, by free choice (vicarius ad id specialiter deputandus), his powers of absolving from the Papal reserves under the specified conditions. Some bishops, especially those in distant parts, not infrequently receive, through the quinquennial or triennial faculties, greater powers over cases which are, speciali modo, reserved to the Pope. But whether they can also transfer these powers and how,—whether generally or only in separate cases,—must be gathered from the document by which these privileges are conferred.

Formerly Regulars could, by virtue of a perpetual privilege, absolve from all cases reserved, ordinario modo, to the Pope; this privilege has been withdrawn by the constitution “Apostolicæ Sedis.”⁠[563]

III. If a priest who is not empowered to absolve from reserved cases hears a reserved sin in the confessional, he must, as a rule, refer the penitent to the Superior, or to another priest delegated by him. But if the confession must of necessity be made just at that time, and if there is any obstacle in the way of going to another, the unauthorized confessor can absolve directly from the non-reserved, and, consequently, indirectly from the reserved sins. But the penitent must confess, in addition to reserved sins, others which are not reserved, or confess again a sin already confessed, in order that the materia Sacramenti may not be wanting. It is, however, afterwards the duty of the penitent—if it is possible to him—to confess the reserved sin to the Superior, or to a priest designated by him, or, as the case may be, to the same confessor after the latter has received power to absolve from the sin in question, in order that he may be directly absolved from the reserved sins.⁠[564]

But the confessor can also apply to the Superior and from him obtain powers for this special case to absolve the penitent from the reserved sin; this must, of course, be done with the most careful and strict observance of the secrecy of the confessional. Indeed, it is highly to be recommended in our days that the confessor should not refer the penitent to the Superior or to another priest with the requisite powers, but should rather himself procure from the Superior the necessary powers to absolve the penitent, even when the latter has no long or difficult journey to make in order to reach the Superior. For, if the penitent goes himself, the duty of confessing his sins again is incumbent upon him, and to confess such a sin again requires from most penitents great self-command: and there would be fear of his changing his mind and not going to the Superior at all. Let the confessor, therefore, regard it as a duty of charity,⁠[565] which in most cases he must undertake for his penitent, to obtain from the lawful Superior the necessary power to absolve from the sin or censure confessed to him. But if it is a question of Papal reserves, and if the confessor, in a case of really urgent necessity, has given absolution, he must, in the name of the person absolved, apply by letter to Rome, in order that the matter may be finally set in order. If the Superior refuses “unjustly” to grant the faculties for a reserved sin, such refusal is unlawful; indeed, he sins if, without any valid reason, he makes difficulties about imparting the faculty, and when great detriment to the subject is to be feared from the refusal, he sins against charity and justice. But if the penitent could without difficulty confess to a delegated priest, and if there were lawful ground⁠[566] for obliging the subject to confess to the Superior, the Superior could without doing wrong refuse the faculty. As a general rule it is to be observed: that the confessor who seeks faculties for the absolution of reserved cases, and the Superior who imparts them, should be guided only by consideration for the greater welfare of the soul of the penitent; all vain, unworthy motives should be out of question.⁠[567] In case of refusal of faculties for absolving, another confessor cannot directly absolve from the reserved sin.⁠[568]

In requesting power to absolve from reserved sins, the name of the penitent, his character, position, or parentage must not be mentioned, and everything must be avoided that might betray him. Without naming the person the reserved sin is indicated, or else the number only which the sin in question bears on the official list of reserved cases, followed by the request for faculties to absolve. Instead of this, one can, for the special case, request the power to absolve from all the reserved sins among which the one in question is contained. The instructions given by the Superior upon application are to be accurately followed; the document containing them is to be carefully sealed and afterwards burnt. The priest who dispatches it, of course, gives his name and address, writing on the envelope the superscription “Pro foro interno.” The envelope, with the request thus sealed, is inclosed in a second envelope, which must likewise be sealed, and this one is addressed to the Ordinary or vicar-general.⁠[569]

In order that the object of the reservations may be attained, the Superior and his delegate must admonish the penitent with greater earnestness, impose a more severe penance than ordinary upon him, and prescribe special remedies, in order that he may be preserved from relapse.

To the above we add:—

1. The difference between direct and simply indirect absolution is the following: he who is only indirectly absolved cannot as he pleases receive holy communion or say Mass (at least not when he remains under the censure), but only when, in individual cases, there is urgent necessity for the reception of communion or for saying Mass.

2. The duty of appearing before the Superior is undoubtedly binding under grave sin; and when it is a question of a censure from which one has been absolved with the obligation of presenting himself before the Superior the duty remains in force, under pain of falling again under the same censure.

3. When there is question of the duty of applying to the Pope, the Sacred Penitentiary, or the Cardinal Grand Penitentiary is understood, as this tribunal acts instead of the Pope in matters of conscience, after the manner of a munus perpetuum, the Pope being neither accustomed to, nor able personally to, receive all petitions.

4. “Casus urgentiores, in quibus absolutio differri nequit absque periculo gravis scandali vel infamiæ,” are the following: (a) when the penitent cannot stay away from holy communion or, as the case may be, omit the celebration of holy Mass, without causing scandal, or without giving rise to grave suspicion against himself; (b) when the duty of yearly confession is to be fulfilled, or when the penitent would otherwise remain a long time in grave sin.⁠[570]

5. According to the teaching of St. Alphonsus,⁠[571] the following persons are considered as prevented, or, as the case may be, exempted forever, from going to Rome: (a) those who are not able of their own right to undertake a journey to Rome; (b) those who are too poor to provide the requisites for such a journey; and (c) those who are in weak health, and unequal to the exertions of the journey. It is true traveling conditions are different now, and the obstacles which St. Alphonsus considered valid in his day can no longer be allowed to hold altogether good, but it is easy to gather from what the holy Doctor⁠[572] says upon the point when an obstacle may still be regarded as legitimate. Accordingly, the following are to be considered as laboring under a perpetual impediment of appearing before this Superior for absolution, always with the understanding that their circumstances remain unchanged for a period of five years or more: (a) children who are still under paternal authority; (b) members of Religious Orders (except when they have been guilty of some extraordinarily grave crime); (c) old people of more than sixty years; (d) those who are in the position of servants or in similar situations; (e) poor persons, who are not accustomed to gain their maintenance by begging; (f) prisoners; (g) sick persons and weak persons; (h) those who hold a public office, or provide for a family, and cannot be replaced by a substitute; (i) women, except those who, in a special case, have incurred a reserved censure, as, for instance, the violation of the inclosure, in which case application by letter must always be made to the Pope; (k) those not of age; and, finally, (l) all those who cannot undertake this journey without great moral or bodily harm, either to themselves or to those belonging to them. The questions as to whether one who has committed reserved sins must, in the absence of an authorized confessor, confess to a simple one, in the case of his having to say Mass or communicate, or whether it suffices to elicit contrition,—and whether the penitent who has committed both reserved and unreserved sins must accuse himself in the confessional of the reserved sins as well,—formerly discussed by theologians, are solved by present usage. As the penitent under existing legislation can be directly absolved from censures and sins (though with the duty of applying to the Roman tribunal), the rule now is that the penitent must immediately confess all his sins.⁠[573]

IV. In the hour of death every reservation ceases, and any confessor may then administer absolution. And a simple, that is, unauthorized, confessor, can absolve a penitent in articulo mortis from reserved sins even when the Superior is present or is easily accessible, since the Council of Trent has expressly declared that in articulo mortis there is no reservation. Moreover, no obligation must be imposed upon the dying person in case of his restoration to health, unless perhaps he should owe to some other person a debt of satisfaction or restitution. If, however, it is a question of reserved censures, the confessor who possesses no power to absolve from these must impose the duty, in case of recovery, of appearing before the Superior; in this case it would, of course, be advisable to set the matter in order at once with the Superior if he be present or easily accessible.

With regard to the absolution of reserved cases the following questions remain to be discussed:—

1. Is the reservation of sins removed by an invalid absolution which the Superior, or a priest authorized by him, has administered? In answering this question theologians set up the following distinctions: (a) If the absolution was invalid without fault on the part of the penitent, and if the latter confessed all his reserved sins, the reservation is removed according to the usual, and intrinsically well-founded, opinion of theologians: in this case the penitent has fulfilled the object of the reservation if not that of the Sacrament, by submitting the reserved sins to the judgment of the Superior, or, as the case may be, of the authorized priest. (b) And even if the confession were sacrilegious, the reservation is, according to the not improbable teaching of many theologians, removed, and that on the ground just alleged. This teaching, however, cannot be extended to the confessor who absolves from reserved sins virtute jubilæi, as, at the time of a Jubilee indulgence, the confessor does not possess the faculty to absolve all penitents from reserved cases, but only the vere pœnitentes, who wish to gain the Jubilee indulgence; but those who, of their own fault, make the confession invalid, are certainly not of that class.

2. When the penitent through forgetfulness has omitted to confess a reserved sin, the reservation is removed, according to an opinion which St. Alphonsus, following Lugo, characterized as the most common among theologians and as probable, so that any confessor could, afterwards, directly absolve from these reserved sins, and this is presumed to be the intention of the Superior as regards the properly disposed penitent. On the other hand, not a few theologians, among them Suarez,⁠[574] teach that in the above case the reservation is not removed, and St. Alphonsus designates this opinion as the more probable, and for the very strong reason that (as he says) a reservation is only removed by being submitted to the judgment of the Superior, in order that the object of the reservation may be attained. This latter opinion certainly deserves the preference in view of the argument alleged; but the following cases are excepted: (1) when one may assume from any positive sign that the Superior wished to remove the reservation; (2) when the penitent went to the Superior or to an authorized priest for the purpose of being absolved from all reserved sins, and declared this wish to the confessor; (3) when a privilege was granted in favor of the penitent, such as either expires with an official act, or is limited to a definite period, as, for example, at Jubilee time. To these Suarez adds a fourth exception—when (4) the reservation refers only to the censure, “because in order to absolve from a censure, it is not necessary per se et directe, to know the matter in question accurately in detail, but the general intention of absolving from all sins, reserved included, to the extent of the confessor’s power and the penitent’s necessity is sufficient for the purpose.”⁠[575] But if the penitent has, through his own fault, failed to confess the reserved sin, the reservation is certainly not removed, as one cannot here assume that the Superior annuls it.⁠[576]

3. It is not allowed to absolve a penitent only from the reserved sins and for the rest to send him to another confessor. Nothing can justify such a proceeding.⁠[577]

4. If a penitent has confessed a sin as to the reservation of which a doubt exists, the latter is directly absolved by the absolution administered by a simple confessor. This need not be afterwards confessed if it should prove that the sin was undoubtedly reserved.⁠[578]

5. A confessor has applied for powers to absolve the penitent from reserved sins; in the meantime, however, after these powers have been granted, and before they have been exercised, the penitent has again committed the reserved sin or committed it several times, or committed other reserved sins—do the powers applied for suffice in order to be able to absolve? If the powers are conferred in a general way, say in the following or a similar manner: “Facultatem tibi concedimus pœnitentem hac vice absolvendi a reservatis,” the confessor can, according to a very probable and general opinion, absolve the penitent from all reserved sins committed before and after; only the interval between the powers conferred and the new reserved sins incurred must be no longer than one month, and the powers must not have been conferred on account of a festival which is already past. If, however, the faculties have been conferred for a definite class of reserved sins only without specifying the number, these faculties suffice to absolve the penitent (but only to absolve him once) from all cases of this kind.⁠[579]