Part II Chapters III–IV: The Minister and Recipient of Penance

Chapter III: The Minister

Chapter IV: The Recipient

CHAPTER III THE MINISTER Penance being both a Sacrament and a tribunal of justice, requires for its valid administration the twofold power of order (pot est as ordinis) and jurisdiction (potestas iurisdictionis) . These faculties are logically and really distinct and therefore can exist separately. Intimately connected with them is the right of the ecclesiastical authorities to limit jurisdiction by reserving cases (ius sibi casus reservandi). Thesis I: Only properly ordained bishops and priests can validly administer the Sacrament of Penance. This proposition is de fide. Proof. There are three divinely instituted hierarchical orders in the Church : the episcopacy, the priesthood, and the diaconate. Only the bishops and presbyters, however, are priests (sacerdotes) in the proper sense of the term. Deacons and those in minor orders are merely clerics.1 Our thesis excludes clerics and, a fortiori, laymen. l See the treatise on Holy Orders, Pohle-Preuss, The Sacraments, Vol. IV, Part II. 119 120 PENANCE AS A SACRAMENT The medieval Waldenses, Wiclifites, and Hussites asserted that all pious laymen have the power of giving absolution, and that this power cannot be exercised by unworthy priests. Luther claimed that ” any Christian, even though only a woman or a child,” can administer the Sacrament of Penance.2 Against this heretical teaching the Council of Trent defined: “If anyone saith that . . • not priests alone ire the ministers of absolution, … let him be anathema.” 8 By priests the holy Synod understood bishops and presbyters.4 a) Our Divine Lord conferred the power of the keys exclusively upon His Apostles and their successors. Cf r. Matth. XVI, 18 sq. ; XVIII, 18 ; John XX, 23. To them alone He addressed the words: “As the Father hath sent me, I also send you.” 5 If laymen were empowered to give absolution, there would be superiors but no subjects, which is incompatible with the divine constitution and hierarchy of the Church. The only doubt that might arise in this connection concerns the meaning of sacerdotes. If this term includes the presbyteri, why not also the deacons ? This question can be answered only in the light of ecclesiastical Tradition.6 2 Prop. Lut fieri a Leone X. a. 1520 anathema sit.” (Denzinger-Banndamn., prop. 13: ”… quilibet wart, n. 920). Christianas, etiamsi mulier aut puer 4 Cfr. Sess. XIV, cap. 6: esset.” (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. ”… praeter episcopos et sacerdo753). Us [i. e. presbyteros]” (Denzin8 Sess. XIV, can. 10: “Si quis ger-Bannwart, n. 902). dixerit, … non solos sacerdotes 5 John XX, 21. esse ministros absolutions, … 6 Cfr. Tepe, Insiit. Theol., Vol. IV, pp. 503 sqq.

THE MINISTER 121 b) Since the differentiation of the episcopacy and the presbyterate it has always been held that both orders have the power of absolution. Bishops and presbyters alike were formerly called sacerdotes, though of a different order. The bishops were sacerdotes primi ordinis, the presbyters, sacerdotes secundi ordinis.7 a) The Fathers know no other ministers of the Sacrament of Penance than bishops and priests.8 Not a few of them expressly exclude all who are not priests. Thus St. Ambrose says : ” This right is reserved to the priests alone.” 9 St. Basil, replying to the question whether a penitent may confess his sins to anyone, declares : * Confession of sins must be made to those who have in their keeping the mysteries of God.10 St. Ephraem Syrus writes: “Without the venerable and divine institution of the priesthood men could not obtain forgiveness of their sins.” 11 St. Leo the Great: “The forgiveness of God can be obtained only through the supplications of the priests.” 12 P) Since the power of absolution is reserved to bishops and priests, it cannot be exercised by mere deacons. 7 Cfr. Epiphanius, Haeres., 75. 8 V. supra, pp. 26 sqq. 9De Poenit., I, 2, 7: * Ius hoc solus permissum est sacerdotibus. 10 Reg, Brev. Interr., 288. 11 Or, de Sacerdotio. 12 Ep., 108: * Indulgentia Dei nisi supplicationibus sacerdotum nequit obtineri,* — The assertion that the early martyrs were permitted not only to issue so-called libelli pacts, but to forgive sins outright, is a fable. See K. Adam, Der Kirchenbegriff Tertullians, pp. 66 sqq., Paderborn 1907; G. Rauschen, Eucharist and Penance in the First Six Centuries of the Church, pp. 204 sqq., St. Louis X913. Morinus 18 holds that in the primitive Church deacons gave absolution in cases of necessity. He bases this opinion principally on a passage in St. Cyprian, vis.: ” Si presbyter repertus non fuerit et tirgere exitus coeperit, apud diaconum quoque exomologesim facere delicti sui possint, ut manu eis ad poenitentiam impositd veniant ad Dominum cum pace” 14 But ” exomologesis ” need not mean sacramental confession. The term was often applied to a purely devotional confession, followed by (not the sacramental but) canonical absolution, whereupon the deacon was permitted to give the Holy Eucharist to the dying man, provided he showed perfect contrition. This custom existed up to the thirteenth century, as we know from a passage in the writings of Regino of Priim (+95) 18 and from the decrees of the councils of York (1195), London (1200), and Rouen (1231). But there is no authority for assuming that where deacons in cases of necessity heard confession, this confession was sacramental and followed by the sacramental absolution. On the contrary, Odo de Soliaco, bishop of Paris (+ 1208), in his diocesan statutes expressly forbade deacons to hear confession, ” because they have not the keys and cannot absolve.” 16 When abuses crept in, the authorities promptly took measures to abolish them. Thus the Provincial Council of Poitiers (1280), having 13 Comment. Hist, de Disciplina in Aministr. Sacr. Poenitentiae XIII Primis Saeculis, XIII, 23. 14 St. Cyprian, Ep„ 18, n. 1 (Migne, P. L., IV, 258). iDe Synod. Cans, et Eccles. Discipl., I, c. 295: ” Sicut sacrificium offerre non debent nisi episcopi et presbyteri, quibus cloves regni caelorum traditae sunt, sic nec poenitentium indicia alii usurpare debent. Si autem necessitas evenerit et presbyter non fuerit praesens, diaconus suscipiat poenitentem ad sanetarn communionem.” 16 ” Item prohibetur districte, ne diaconi ullo modo audiant confessiones, nisi in arctissima necessitate; claves enim non habent nec possunt absolvere.” (Migne, P. L., CCXII, 68). THE MINISTER 123 learned that certain deacons claimed the right to give sacramental absolution, decreed that deacons should not presume to hear confessions because they have no power to absolve.17 Such ascetical confessions without absolution should not surprise us, considering that, throughout the Middle Ages, until far into the sixteenth century, it was customary to confess to lay persons in cases of necessity when no priest could be had. Bayard, the famous v “knight without fear and reproach” (+ 1524), having been fatally wounded in battle, confessed his sins to his hostler. This practice was based upon the conviction that in case of extreme necessity the desire to receive the Sacrament of Penance (votum sacramenti) ought to find ex-^ ternal expression in a real confession to show the penitent’s willingness to do everything in his power to obtain reconciliation. The custom was encouraged by the pseudo-Augustinian treatise De Vera et Falsa Poenitentia, which says : ” Although he to whom confession is made, has not the power to give absolution, neverthe- \ less one who confesses his crime to his neighbor becomes worthy of the priestly absolution through his desire.” 18 This view was approved by St. Bonaventure 19 and St. Thomas Aquinas.20 Scotus, on the other hand, rejected the practice as a piece of unnecessary self-humiliation.21 ii”Abusum erroneum, qui in nostra dioecesi ex perniciosa igno* rantia inolevit, eradicate volentes inhibemus, ne diaconi confessiones excipiant et ne in foro poenitentiali absolvant, quum cerium et indubitaturn sit, ipsos absolvere non posse, quum cloves non habeant, quae in solo sacerdotali ordine conferuntur.” (Manti, Coll Cone, XXIV, p. 383). 18 Dt Vm it Falsa Poin., c 20, n. 25: “Etsi ille, cui confitebitur, pot est at em non habet solvendi, fit tomen dignus venid sacerdotis desiderio qui crimen conHtetur socio.” (Migne, P. L„ XL, 1122). 10 Comment, in Sent, IV, dist 17, p. 3, art 1, qu. 1. 20 5. TheoU, Suppl., qu. 8, art 2. 21 Comment, in Sent., IV, dist. 14, qu. * 124 PENANCE AS A SACRAMENT It was never the teaching of the Church that the power of absolution can be exercised by others than priests, though Siccard of Cremona, Huguccio, and Albertus t Magnus22 erroneously held that absolution given by lay persons in cases of urgent necessity has some sort of sacramental effect.28 Having in the foregoing paragraphs adopted the common teaching of Catholic theologians, we must add that this teaching is involved in historical difficulties. In the opinion of Morinus, Klee, Rauschen, and Poschmann, St. Cyprian really believed that deacons could give the sacramental absolution in case of necessity. According to the ancient view, they claim, the essential part of the Sacrament of Penance was not confession, nor even absolution, but the actual performance of the satisfaction imposed on the penitent. It was only after long reflection that theologians perceived that the priestly absolution is really the most important thing, in fact, that it is the form of the Sacrament, whereas confession and satisfaction belong rather to its matter. This conclusion, formally drawn by St. Thomas, marked the climax of the theoretical development of the doctrine of Penance. But how are we to explain the fact that *well into the Middle Ages deacons, in cases of necessity, adminisv tered the Sacrament of Penance * ? 28 It will not do to say that absolution given by deacons was invalid. We can see but one solution of the difficulty. It is to admit 22 Comment, in Sent., IV, dist. 17, PSnitence, Paris 1890; J. N. Seidl, art. 59: “Licet ergo non tantum Der Diakonat in der kath. Kirche, effectum consequatur, sicut si con’ pp. 141 sqq., Ratisbon 1884. Against titer etur sacerdoti, tamen conseqnir Laurain see Koniger, Die Beichte tur absolutionem in communi.” — nach Casarius von Heisterbach. pp. Cfr. P. Laurain, De V Intervention 66 sqq., Munich 1906. des Lalques, des Diacres et des Ab- 28 Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, Vol, besses dans V Administration de la IV, and cd., p. 1009,

THE MINISTER 125 that our Lord allowed His Church a certain latitude in bestowing the power of absolution. For a while, owing to peculiar conditions, she extended this power to deacons, but withdrew it later. Needless to say this solution is merely tentative. At the present stage of historical research it is impossible to say with certainty whether or not the practice under consideration was general.24 Thesis II: Besides being properly ordained, a priest, to be able to give absolution validly, must have the power of jurisdiction. This proposition may be qualified as “fidei proximo,” Proof. The power of jurisdiction is that which assigns to a priest subjects over whom he can exercise the faculties received in ordination. The power of jurisdiction differs from the power of order in this, that while the latter can be given only in the Sacrament of Holy Orders, the former may be conferred by a mere act of the will. Jurisdiction may be either ordinary or delegated. It is ordinary (iurisdictio ordinaria) when acquired by reason of a benefice or office; delegated {iurisdictio dele gat a) when granted by the direct commission or concession of an ecclesiastical superior. 24 Cfr. Koniger, Die Beichte nach Casarius von Heisterbach, Munich 1906, The Pope, by virtue of his office, has ordinary jurisdiction over the whole Church ; the bishop, over his diocese ; the parish priest, over his parish. All other priests exercise delegated jurisdiction. This they receive, since the Council of Trent,28 by episcopal * approbation,” which means a judgment of the fitness of a priest to hear confessions. The Fourth Council of the Lateran ordained that every Catholic confess his sins at least once a year to his ” own priest ” (proprio sacerdoti) and that other priests may absolve a penitent only with the express permission of his pastor.26 Pope Eugene IV (1439) draws a clear-cut distinction between ” ordinary and delegated authority.” 27 The Council of Trent conditions the validity of absolution on jurisdiction, ordinary or delegated: “Since the nature and order of a judgment require that sentence be passed only on those subject [to that judicature], it has ever been firmly held in the Church of God, and this Synod ratifies it as a thing most true, that the absolution which a priest pronounces upon one over whom he has not either an ordinary or a delegated jurisdiction, ought to be of no weight whatever/’ 28 a) Our thesis asserts that a priest, in order to be able to absolve validly, besides being duly ordained, must have the power of jurisdiction. 25 Sew. XXIII, De Reform., c. 15. zinger-Bannwart, n. 699). 26 Cone. Lat. IV, cap. ax: “Si 28 Scss. XIV, cap. 7: ” Quoniam quis autetn alieno sacerdoti voluerit igitur natura et ratio iudicii Mud iusta de causa conHteri peccata, lie en- exposcit, ut sententia in subditos tiam prius postulet et obtineat a pro- dumtaxat feratur, persuasum sentprio sacerdote, quum aliter ille ipsum per in Ecclesia Dei fuit, … nulnon possit absolvere vel ligare.” lius momenti absolutionem earn esse (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 437). debere, quant sacerdos in eum pro27 Deer etum pro Armenis: * auc~ fert, in quern ordinariam aut subtoritas absolvendi vel ordinaria vel delegatam non habet iurisdictionem. ex cotnmissione superioris.” (Den- (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 903). THE MINISTER 127 This proposition is based upon the judicial character of the Sacrament.29 As absolution and the imposition of satisfaction are judicial acts, they can be validly performed only by a competent judge having either ordinary or delegated jurisdiction over the penitent. Here again there is a close analogy between the confessor and a secular judge. b) The Scholastics expressed this truth by saying that, in order to be able to give absolution, a priest must have two keys, — the “key of knowledge” (clcwis scientiae) to ascertain the disposition of the penitent, and the “key of power” (clavis potentiae), to forgive or retain the sins confessed.80 The power of order is given to every priest at ordination. Not so the power of jurisdiction. The two are separate and distinct and pertain to different spheres. The bishop in saying, ” Accipe Spiritum sanctum, quorum remiseris” etc., manifestly intends to confer the former only. Durandus, Almain, and Armachanus held that the power of jurisdiction is conferred in Holy Orders, but its exercise without express authorization is prohibited by the Church. This view was rejected by the sententia communis.81 The practice of the Church plainly shows that a priest who absolves without jurisdiction absolves invalidly. The contrary teaching of the Jansenistic Council of Pistoia was condemned by Pius VI.82 29 V. supra, Part I, Ch. II, Sect. ”… tamquam ad validum usum hu3. ius potestatis non sit necessaria or80Cfr. St Thomas, S. TheoL, dinaria vel sub dele gat a iurisdictio — : Suppl., qu. 17, art 3. falsa, temeraria, perniciosa, Triden81 Cfr. Suarez, De Poenit., disp. tino contraria et iniuriosa, erronea.” 16, sect. 3. (Denzinger-Bannwart, p. i537)» 82 Constitute ” Auctorem iidei:”

Whence is the power of jurisdiction derived? The pope has received his jurisdiction over the universal Church directly from Christ.88 The bishops receive their ordinary jurisdiction from the pope, while parish rectors and other priests in turn receive theirs from the bishop. The older Scholastics held that no faculties were required for a priest to absolve a penitent from venial sins, either because no jurisdiction is needed (Scotus), or because the necessary jurisdiction is given iure divino in the Sacrament of Holy Orders (Vasquez) or by virtue of an ancient ecclesiastical custom (Suarez). These views are obsolete, to say the least, since Innocent IX has strictly forbidden the faithful to go for confession to a priest who lacks the necessary ” approbation.” 84 Thesis III: The ecclesiastical superiors (pope and bishops) have the right to limit the power of jurisdiction given to ordinary confessors by reserving certain cases to themselves. This is de fide. Proof. The Tridentine Council declares35 that reservations made by the pope and by bishops have “effect not merely in external polity, but also in the sight of God, but that there shall be no reservation at the point of death, and that therefore all priests may absolve all penitents whatsoever from every kind of sins and censures whatever.” The right of bishops to reserve cases is emphasized in a special canon of the same Coun88 Cone, Vatic, Sess. Ill, cap. 3. 85 Sess. XIV, cap. 7. 84 Decree of Feb. 12, 1679.

THE MINISTER 129 cil: “If any one saith that bishops have not the right of reserving cases to themselves, except as regards external polity, and that therefore the reservation of cases does not hinder a priest from truly absolving from reserved cases, let him be anathema.” 86 The right of the pope and the bishops to reserve cases to themselves is based upoa the judicial character of the Sacrament of Penance. It is of the very nature of the ecclesiastical hierarchy that there be judges of a higher and of a lower order. The highest, i. e. the pope, must have the right to limit the jurisdiction of the lower judges, i. e. the bishops, and these in turn must be empowered to exercise control over the activity of the judges subject to them, i. e. the priests. And since the power of order is not sufficient for valid absolution,87 it follows that the ordinary confessor cannot absolve from reserved cases except with the permission of his superiors. For further information on this point we must refer the reader to Moral Theology and Canon Law. 86 Sess. XIV, can. n: “Si quis anathema sit” (Denzinger-Banndixerit, episcopos non habere ius re- wart, n. 921), Cfr. Prop. 44 and 45 servandi sibi casus nisi quoad exter- of the Council of Pistoia, condemned nam politiam atque ideo casuum re- by Pius VI (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. servationem non prohibere, quominus 1544 «!•)• sacerdos a reservatis vers absolvot, 87 V, supra, ThesU IL

CHAPTER IV THE RECIPIENT To be able to receive the Sacrament of Penance validly, one (i) must be baptized, (2) he must be guilty of personal sin, and (3) he must be ( sorry for his sins, have a firm purpose of amendment, confess to a priest, and be ready to assume the satisfaction imposed. 1. The Recipient Must be Baptized. — The Sacrament of Penance, as we have shown, was instituted for the remission of post-baptismal sins only. It follows that no unbaptized person can be validly absolved. For the remission of sins in the unbaptized, Christ has instituted the Sacrament of Baptism. 2. The Recipient Must be Guilty of Personal Sin. — One who has preserved his baptismal innocence can not confess or receive absolution validly. Except in the case of the Blessed Virgin Mary, however, such innocence is purely hypothetical, since even the greatest saints now and then commit at least a venial sin.1 As venial sins can and should be submitted to the lCfr. Pohle-Preuss. Grace, Actual and Habitual, pp. 114 sqq. 130 THE RECIPIENT power of the keys, it follows that this second requisite is present in all baptized persons without exception. The great majority of men is, moreover, guilty of mortal sins, for which the Sacrament of Penance, either in re or at least in voto, is the only possible means of remission. 3. Contrition, Confession, and Satisfaction as the Third Requisite on the Part of the Recipient. — Although the so-called three acts of the penitent, — contrition, confession, and satisfaction, — are primarily mere dispositions, indicating his worthiness to receive the Sacrament, they are also (both according to the Thomistic and the Scotistic view) conditions of validity, for the reason that in this Sacrament worthiness and validity coincide. These three acts are so important that we shall devote the entire third part of our treatise to them. Readings : — I. Pruner, De lurisdictione Ecclesiae in Foro Inferno ac de Casuutn Reservatione, Eichstatt 1865. — F. Lorinser, Lehre von der Verwaltung des Bussakratnentes, 2nd ed., Breslau 1883.— P. Rota, Enchiridion Confessarii, Turin 1884. — Aertnys, Theologia Practica Complectens Practicatn Institutionem Confessarii, 2nd ed., Paderborn 1893. — P. Laurain, De V Intervention des Laiques, des Diacres et des Abbesses dans V Administration de la Pinitence, Paris 1899. — A. Schick, Kurze Anleitung zur Verwaltung des Bussakratnentes, 4th ed., Fulda 1910.— J. Reuter, Der Beichtvater in der Verwaltung seines Amtes, 6th ed., Ratisbon 1901. — A. Devine, C. P., The Sacraments Explained, 3rd ed., pp. 341 sqq., London 1905. — E. Taunton, The Law of the Church, s. v. “Reserved Cases,” London 1906. See also the current text-books of Pastoral Theology.